tfv^l^^ 
 
 if.- 
 
 •<1V 
 
 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 fV:,l, 
 
 
 
 ■.;,.VC>,.f.--v.r,-. • .A:v^ 
 
 
 -.-■■1 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 \-'^.-N^i 
 
 
 > »-■ 
 
 ,>,uy,- -■; 
 
 _1 
 
 *• ■ 
 
 -'<;■': -■;^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 ;-;^> • ■ 
 
 
 .'M 
 
 ■ !'MK ■■■■'•: -' '' 
 
 , J. .• i^J^":.; 'v. -t --»- ,^ 
 
 
 — ' . •* ' 
 
 •^i^*^-,-^. 
 
 '* 
 
 s^^ 
 
 
 t^iv ;••■:'» 
 
 
 kv-v.^..^ 
 
 
 K#: 
 
 •■^?»*S?^f>'«
 
 > : ;j,v^^f V'^T^ ■■':.-"' ' ^ "•
 
 MAGUIRE 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 THE 
 
 CELEBRATED ANSWER 
 
 TO THE REV. C LESLEYS 
 
 CASE STATED, 
 
 BETWREN T:itt 
 
 CHURCH OF ROME AIND THE CHURCH OE EiNOLAlVD.
 
 THE 
 
 CELEBRATED ANSWER 
 
 TO THE REV. C. LESLEY'S 
 
 CASE STATED, 
 
 BETWEEN THE 
 
 CHURCH OF ROME A^'D THE CHURCH OF EiN GLAND: 
 
 PRINTED WORD FOR WORD, 
 AND REFUTED SENTENCE AFTER SENTENCE, 
 
 ):y THE 
 
 REV. R. MANNING. 
 
 On rctiiriiinff MaDnifi{j*B book to thcpublislier, alter perusing it, in 1826, these were the words of the iUas- 
 Iriout Dr Uoyle :— ** Whoever will touch this took to alter any of its arguments, will inflict an injury on 
 the writer and hi* caune. The author wrote it at the foot of the crucifix ; and the Holy Spirit «:-'i'tiis to have 
 fi aciou'ly enabled him, not only to refute \hv art{nnu-iit<i of hiii udveraarr, but to do so in a mauner <!o clear 
 .tnd ■ (impi)-heuflive, ai (o equally convince llie nioiit learued and the uioat unlearued, of bis triumphant refii* 
 i«t ion ol every difTicuIty broU(;lit forward by Lesley." 
 
 Tft these inoniorahle words will not (al least in the oKtimation of Catholics) be unnecessarily appended Iho 
 fcllowing opinion of the Bof>suel of the British Churclies — the distinguished and invincible Kcv. T. Maffuirc: 
 —*• The work of the Ucr. Hobert Manning iti, williouC comparison, tlie best for ukplt to be found m th« 
 4in|>le theological armory of thu Chun'h, and should be possefised by cveiy one of its member? anxious for 
 l'^ honour and for (he triumph of truth!" 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 IlICHAUD COYNE, 4, CAPEL STREET; 
 
 J HI.NTtU AM) HOOKSKIXKR TO TITE KOYAL COLLEGE OF ST rATBlCK, 
 
 .M.VY.NOOTII, 
 AT«D rCDLlSIIi:R TO THE R. C. BISHOPS OP IKELAND. 
 
 LONDON: JONHS, PATERNOSTER-ROW. 
 
 MUCCCXXXIX.
 
 BIS GRACE DANIEL MURRAY, D.D., kc. ' 
 
 IN J'ARTICULAR, jl .; J J <3 C^ 
 
 AND I /y ' ' 
 
 TO THE MOST REV. AND KIGHT REV, 
 
 THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF IRELAND IN GENERAL, 
 
 NOW SlXriNO IN SYNOD AT DUBLIN. 
 
 Mv Lords, 
 
 I hefj: present you "wub, and submit to your 
 judgment, This Work, of a choice awd singular nature ; which 
 seems especially called for at the present period, the Book to 
 which it is a Reply haA-iug- been lately made a Divinity Class- 
 Book of Trinity Colleg'O, Dublin. To you. my Lords, it 
 belongs to judge — you whom God has glAcn as "Pastors 
 and Doctors'' of his Holy Church, "For the perfecting of 
 the fiahits, for the work nf the ministri/, for the edfijing of 
 the bodij of Christ: Until ive all meet into the unitij of faith 
 and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a pel feet man, 
 unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ: That 
 henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried 
 about with everif wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, 
 bif cunning craftiness bif which they lie in wait to deceive" 
 If yoti, my Lords, shall deem that I have done well in rc- 
 j'riuting this Woi-k — if you shall consider that at the present 
 time it is calculated to subserve the interests of the Catholic 
 (Church, I am confident you will recommend it to the perusal 
 <'f your Subjects, 
 
 And I have the honour to remain, 
 Your Lordships' 
 Most obedient and humble Servant, 
 
 BICHARD COYNE. 
 
 DuBMH, A, Caiei. Stakft, 
 Jan. 22, 1839. 

 
 ADPEESS. 
 
 In offering the celebrated Reply of the Rev. 
 Robert Mannino; to the consideration of the Catho- 
 lies and Protestants of England, Ireland, and Scot- 
 land, the publisher feels that he should not be totally 
 silent. 
 
 The Rev. C. Lesley's Work is a dialogue between 
 a Catholic Lord and a Protestant Gentleman ; in 
 which the author personates the Protestant gentle- 
 man, and also answers for the Catholic nobleman, 
 who, under his interested tutelage and absolute 
 dominion, is constrained to give the most imperfect, 
 and in some cases the most absurd, replies to the 
 chosen and captious objections of his wily antagonist 
 — nay, the assumed and fictitious Catholic lord seems 
 to have been brought on the stage for no other pur- 
 pose but to be laughed at, and to set off the imaginary 
 triumph of his uncandid adversary. There is, how- 
 ever, an old proverb — it is an Irish one too — " One 
 story is good till the other is told." In the present 
 book Manning takes the ])lace of Lesley's suppose<l 
 Catholic lord — prints Lesley's Work word for 
 word., and refutes it sentence hy sentence. The 
 publisher, therefore, contemplates obtaining the ap- 
 probation of tlie Protestant as well as the Catholic. 
 The fonuer will here find his religion defended bv 
 a divine not only considered one of the ablest of his
 
 viii Address, 
 
 ilay, but even now esteemed the Hercules of the 
 Protestant family, for his h)ml-trumpeted produc- 
 tion lias recently become a Divinity Class-Book i/i 
 ^fihiity College, Dubl'ui ; while the Catholic Avill 
 recognise in jVIanning a clergyman remarkable not 
 less for his profound learning and acuteness, his 
 admirable wit, and happiness of retort, than for his 
 acknowledged sincerity, and unquestioned purity of 
 purpose. 
 
 Lesley shews himself an exquisite tactitian at 
 puzzling and perplexing. In his positions truth is 
 so dexterously interwoven with error, that in the 
 attempt to abstract the one' you often seem to pluck 
 up the other. Here it is that Manning appears with 
 nnparalleled discrimination and advantage. He 
 nnravels his sophistries — parries the keen thrust of 
 his sarcasm — lifts the veil of his ingenious misrepre- 
 sentations ; so that the reader is delighted as he 
 proceeds, and feels that high mental triumph of 
 eventually conquering abilities which we admire even 
 in their perversion. He reviews with boldness and 
 brilliancy the reveries of Lesley — supplies Catholics 
 Avith unanswerable arguments to the most ensnaring 
 «ibjections, and cautions them against a man who, 
 under an ostentatious splendour, conceals the foulest 
 misrepresentations — who makes even the languageof 
 truth and the sentiments of sincerity hideous, by the 
 accents of artifice and simulation ! 
 
 The publisher Iiaving had for years a copy of
 
 Address. ix 
 
 Manning's book, has been repeatedly urged to pub- 
 lish it J it is probable, however, that he would even 
 yet have hesitated, liad not the University Calender 
 for 1838, announced Lesley's work as the Divinity 
 Class- Book of Trinity College ! The Protestant 
 Student now, no longer can be persuaded or gulled 
 by his lecturer that the answers put by Lesley into 
 the month of tlic fictitious lord are the most con- 
 clusive that can be urged, will have an opportunity 
 of replying to hi\u in the language of a Catholic. 
 He po.sses.ses Lcslr//s enfirc book r/.v it emanated 
 Jiom hitn.self, with Manning's refutation, as it was 
 written one hundred and twenty years ago, witliout 
 alteration. This book may, therefore, be well con- 
 sidered a maji'azine of theoloji'ical erudition — where 
 all sorts of controversial arms, defensive and offensive, 
 arc lodged — and from which the young clergyman 
 can effectuallv furnish himself for '*the 2:ood fiji-ht" 
 of the faith. 
 
 The publisher begs to say that having here sub- 
 mitted a book more innnediately devoted to Reply, 
 he is possessed of another work (which he may here- 
 after be induced to publish) calculated to shew that 
 the Deformation is a mere negation of a majority of 
 the articles proposed by the Catholic Church, which, 
 ever ancient, and never new, is, like the Father of 
 Light, from whom she descended, without the vicissi- 
 tude of change, (ir the shade of alteration. 
 
 The following were the remarks of the illustrious 
 
 a '1
 
 X Add/ess. 
 
 Dv Doyle, on rctuniiiig i\Ianuiii<^\s Work to the 
 publisher, in 1826, iii'ter its perusal: — " AVIioever 
 shall touch this book, to alter any of its arguments, 
 will inflict an injiny on the writer and his cause. 
 The author wrote it at the foot of the crucifix ; and 
 the Holy Sjnrit seems to have graciously enabled 
 him, not only to refute the arguments of his adver- 
 sary, but to do so in a manner so clear and compre- 
 hensive as to equally convince the most learned as 
 well as the most unlearned of his triumphant refuta- 
 tion of every difficulty brought forward by Lesley." 
 
 To these memorable words will not (at least in 
 the estimation of Catholics) be unnecessarily ap- 
 })ended the following opinion of the Bossuet of the 
 British churches — the distinguished and invhicible 
 Rev. T. Maguire :— " The Work of the llev. Mr 
 Manning is, without comparison, the best for reply 
 to be found in the ample theological armory of the 
 Church, and should bo possessed by every one of its 
 members anxious for its honour and the triumph of 
 truth I" 
 
 In order to guard against misconception, Lesley's 
 book is printed — under the head of G. Gentleman 
 — in small letter, and Manning's — under the title 
 o^ tJie Catholic Lord — in larger type. 
 
 RICHAUD COYNE. 
 
 D'JDLis, 4, Capel bxiittr, ■\ 
 Jan'ui.y, 1839. I
 
 PREFACE TO THE READER. 
 
 CONTAINING SOME NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS RELATING 
 TO THE METHOD OBSERVED IN THIS " SECOND CON- 
 VERSATION :" AS LIKEWISE SOME REMARKS UPON THE 
 gentleman's UNFAIR DEALING IN THE FORMER. 
 
 '1'he Case Staled has of late years been a celebrated title. 
 Yw it Las already appeared at the head of four or five 
 editions of the siime book, and several changes have been 
 rung upon it — as Case Restated^ Case truhj Stated, Case 
 farther Stated, ^c. But as men, when they have gone 
 round the whole circle of new fashions, return many times 
 to the old mode, so 1 judged it best to resume the old 
 plain title of Case Stated ; first, because the two churches, 
 and disptitaiits concerned in this second conversation are 
 the very same they were in the former, 'idly. Because 
 not only the subject of their discourse, but the very order 
 and disposition of it is still tiie simie. And "ildly, because 
 the gentleman ha\ing here full liberty to repeat every 
 tljing he said in iUe former conversation, if the case of the 
 Church of J'AKjlund, whose advocate he is, be there fairly 
 stated by him, I am sure that of tlie Chmch of Row 
 (which is most shamefully misrepresented in that conver- 
 sation) is now fairly stated by his lordship in this. And 
 so I hope every thing will fully answer the title I have 
 chosen.
 
 xii Preface. 
 
 Some will perhaps tell me, 1 have taken a great deal 
 of pains to no jturpose, since the gcntlemmCs Case Slated 
 (as I shall always call it, to distinguish it from this) has 
 already been sufficiently answered, particularly by the 
 learned author of the Church of Christ Shewed, ^c, and 
 many will be apt to think we set too great a value upon 
 the gentleman's performance by answering it so often. But 
 for my part I can see no solid reason why a book should 
 be valued the more for having been often confuted ; and 
 all that can be inferred from it is, that there are more 
 ihan one of opinion, that the gentleman's Case Stated is 
 very much overrated by those, who cry it up for an un- 
 answerable piece. I own it is already sufficiently an- 
 swered bv the forementioned author, and even more than 
 sufficiently. For his book may properly be called a ma- 
 gazine of erudition : where plenty of all sorts of contro- 
 versial arms both offensive and defensive are laid up. 
 But to many it is as a treasure locked up, and to these 
 my answer will serve as a key to let them into it. So 
 that I stick not to own here very frankly without fear of 
 being called a plagiary, that I have borrowed many of 
 my choicest materials of him, and it lias been my princi- 
 jial business to put them together in such a manner, as 
 1 judged would be best accommodated to the capacity of 
 lliose, whose instruction 1 have principally in view. 
 
 13ut I had other reasons to induce me to undertake this 
 work:' and that particularly by way of dialogue betwixt 
 the. same persons; 1. To convince the gentleman (if it 
 be possible) that?V//o/, and/>o/«6/i/orc/arenotsynonymous 
 terms, as ho seems to suppose in the whole course of his
 
 Preface. xiii 
 
 dialogue, in whicli his popish lord personates the dunce 
 to the life. Nay, his lordship seems to be brought upon 
 the stage only to be laughed at, and set off the imaginary 
 triumphs of his adversary. 2. Because the way of dia- 
 logue is certainly the most easy and familiar way of con- 
 veying truths to plain capacities, and even the fairest way, 
 provided no partiality be used to the prejudice of either 
 side, and each disputant be allowed to say as much for 
 his cause, as it will fairly bear. All which the reader 
 will find in this conversation, wherein the (joifleman de- 
 livers Ins own sense as he did before, and his lordship is 
 no longer under the tutelage of his protestant master. 
 » This inclines me to think, that though the f/entleman's 
 !)Ook had been answered by more hands than it has, it 
 would be no objection against this answer of mine by 
 reason of the newness as well as usefulness of its method. 
 For it presents the reader with fwo boohs in one. When 
 he reads the gentlcmatis part in this conversation, it will 
 be the same as if he had that author's own book before 
 him : and when he reads his lordships answer to him, as 
 he now speaks the true sense of his church, it may come 
 to put him in mind of an old useful proverb, viz., that 
 our. story is good till the other be told. In a word, the 
 method I have confined myself to, seems to have its pe- 
 culiar advantage in putting me under a necessity not only 
 to lead the reader in an easy and familiar way through 
 all the parts of controversy, but to do it in such a manner, 
 as cannot but have the approbation of both churches. Jie- 
 cause the protestant as well as catholic reader will here 
 find the whole cause of religion fairly pleaded by one ot
 
 xiv I'reface. 
 
 liis own coiumunion. iSo tluit neither of the contending; 
 parties will be accused of partiality, or of wronging his 
 adversary by making him speak things, which he may 
 justly disown. 
 
 But3t////, I was induced to undertake this task, because 
 there is a large difference between answering a book in 
 the lump, and doing it in a manner word for word. The 
 first is indeed the common way, and (provided there be 
 no wilful omission of any thing of moment) suffices 
 nndoubtedly to satisfy those, who are content with a 
 reasonable satisfaction. But it seems our pMestant ad- 
 versaries will not be content with this. All their geese 
 are stvans, and every thing they write, though it be never 
 so trivial in itself, is immediately magnified into an un- 
 answerable piece, if any one thinks it not worth the trouble 
 of an answer. 
 
 I shall give a remarkable instance of this my observa- 
 tion. The gentleman begins his Case Stated with these 
 introductory questions ; Pray, my lord, what is there in the 
 communion of the Church of England should make you 
 think your soul in danger ? IVould there be any hazard 
 of your soul, if there ivere no invocation of saints that are 
 dead in the public offices of the church ? No pictures or 
 images of God to be seen there ? No elevation of the host ? 
 ^c Kow the Restoter (Rev. Mr Dorrel) who began first 
 to write against the gentleman's Case Stated, and intended 
 no more than a brief answer to the most material points, 
 thought those questions too frivolous to deserve his notice; 
 and I am wliolly of his mind. Nay, 1 do not only think 
 them so, but what is more, 1 have proved them to be
 
 Preface. xv 
 
 frivolous in the Introduction, where they are now answered. 
 Not that they deserve it, but because the method, to 
 which 1 have tied myself down, obliged me to it. For 
 otherwise it is probable I should have followed the ex- 
 ample of my predecessor, and passed them over as not 
 worth an answer. 
 
 But the Vindicator, who took up the cudgels for the 
 gentlemen against the llestater, crows most unmercifully 
 over him for this omission, which he confidently takes for 
 a tacit acknowledgment that he could not answer them. 
 The autlior of the Case further Slated (who 1 presume is 
 no stranger to the J 'indicator) does the same. All this 
 (says he), the liestater passed over in a profound silence. 
 He knew tJie question teas not to he answered, and was 
 therefore so wise, as to suppress it all he could, p. 122 ; 
 and again : It tvas an unlucky difficidty started, and since it 
 cannot otherwise he got ewer, it was necessary to throiv it 
 aside, and say nothing of it .- and ive must therefore not be 
 so unreasonahlc as to expect an ansiver, where it is not to 
 he futd. Ibid. I am really sorry this worthy gentleman 
 has thus exposed liiniself in print. Tor what a rout is 
 here about a trifle ! Which must by all means be adopted 
 into the catalogue oi prolestant unanswerables to repair the 
 affront put upon it by a papist, who sligiited it as a thing 
 beneath his notice. 1 low great wits will sometimes over- 
 shoot themselves ! 
 
 But let that be as it will, it is manifest, that though a 
 hook be sufficiently answered, there may still be room left 
 for a farther answer to it : not to supply any real defects 
 of former answers, but to silence the unreasonable cla-
 
 xvi Preface. 
 
 mours of those, who sot a value upon every insignificant 
 objection, and cry it up for Mwa^is/rtraWc, merely because it 
 is not answered. Now the method I have obliged my- 
 self to, permits me not to omit things, which others, who 
 only answer the genllcman in the lump, may legally pass 
 over without any unfair dealing, or deserving the severe 
 reflections made by the Vindicator, or his alter idem, the 
 author of the Case farther Stated. 
 
 1 flatter myself over and above, that my answer will 
 liave its peculiar advantage in this respect, viz., because 
 it not only contains all the usual questions in dispute 
 between us and protcstants, but likewise several odd sub- 
 jects, which being out of the common road are not usually 
 treated by other controvertists; and though the objections 
 relating to these subjects be not material in themselves, 
 they have for the most part as powerful an influence upon 
 weak minds, and vulgar capacities, as arguments of the 
 greatest weight. 
 
 But, though I have obliged myself, as 1 have already 
 acquainted the reader, to follow my adversary step by 
 step whenever it was possible to make him repeat his 
 words with any manner of connexion, yet I was forced 
 sometimes to recede a little from the rigour of this method, 
 which happens only when the gentleman in his Case Stated 
 undertakes to confute either with serious arguments or 
 some fine drollery the nonsense his lordahip has uttered ; 
 that is, when his answer contains nothing, but a confuta- 
 tion of that nonsense. In which case it was impossible 
 to repeat the gentlemans words without repeating the 
 blunder, to which they are a direct answer. And it is
 
 Preface. xvli 
 
 only in such occasions that any thing of the gentleman's 
 part in his Case Stated is omitted in this conversation. 
 And even then it is supplied by an Advertisement, which 
 directs the reader to the page of the getitleman's Case 
 Stated, where it may be found. 
 
 I have likewise been obliged, for the sake of con- 
 Jiexion and clearness, to make the gentleman speak many 
 things in this second conversation, which are not to be 
 found in the former. But to convince the reader how far 
 I am from imitating the example of my adversary, that 
 is, from making him say any thing he may justly disown, 
 or be ashamed of, I can confidently assure him, that the 
 weakest things the gentleman says throughout this whole 
 conversation, are all goods of his oivn iinporting. And 
 therefore lest the one should be mistaken for the other, 
 whatever belong here to the gentlemarCs part, as taken 
 from his own Case Stated, has this mark [•'] set before 
 every line of it, with the page quoted, from whence it is 
 taken : which mark is wholly omitted, when I dictate to 
 Jiim. 
 
 Very little indeed will be found here of his lordship's 
 part in the former conversation : because he was seldom 
 allowed to speak sense. It was this gave me the greatest 
 difficulty, and almost disheartened me from pursuing my 
 resolution of answerini>- it as I now do in the way of 
 (lialogue between tlie same two j)ersons. For, though 
 this way of writing be the easiest imaginable, when the 
 author is at full liberty to dictate to ])oth parties as he 
 pleases, nothing on the contrary was more puzzling to 
 me, who was obliged to repeat whatever tlie gentleman
 
 XV in Preface. 
 
 spoke, yet could scKlom repeat any thing his lordship had 
 said in the former conversation : for if 1 did, 1 adopted 
 tlie bhmders and nonsense, I liave undertaken to porreet ; 
 and without it I saw no possibility of introducing the 
 r/entlenuifi's answers with the order and connexion, which 
 the nature of dialogues indispensably requires: and though 
 I have made a shift to do it much oftener, than I thought 
 I could at my first setting out, I was forced to leave gaps 
 here and there, and fill them up for the sake of connexion 
 with short Advertisement to the reader ; as likewise to 
 apologize in the same manner for the aforesaid few omis- 
 sions of pieces, which could not possibly be brought into 
 this conversation. 
 
 I must further acquaint the reader, that when the gentle- 
 7naninh\s Case Stated is somewlaxt long in his harangues, 
 which often contain a heap of arguments huddled together 
 in a very confused manner, I have made bold to parcel 
 them out into several heads by frequent interruptions. 
 First, to put it out of my power to overlook any thing 
 that is material, and 2d/i/, to place my answers as near 
 as was possil)le to the respective objections they belong 
 to ; and so save the reader from being either lost in a 
 labyrinth, or obliged to look back every moment to re- 
 fresh his memor)'. All which are unquestionable proofs, 
 that I have aimed at nothing more than to set every thing 
 in the clearest light. 
 
 His lordship being supposed to be a layman, it was 
 not natural to make him speak like a schoolman or pro- 
 found divine. For which reason the reader will be 
 troubled as little as is possible with the learned languages
 
 Prefact: xix 
 
 of schools, nor with any more quotations, than are abso- 
 lutely necessary tor his lordsldp to maintain his cause. 
 The truth of the matter is, I presume not to write for 
 scholars, but the generality of laymen, and have therefore 
 made it my study to express myself so intelligibly, that 
 though perhaps I may not be always understood by the 
 most ignorant of all, the middle sort between a scholar 
 and a ploughman^ if blessed with a good natural capacity, 
 will easily understand me. 
 
 The motive that induced me thus to accommodate my- 
 self, as much as was possible, to the capacity of the un- 
 learned, was to provide a proper antidote for those, who are 
 most in danger of being poisoned by the gentleman' s art- 
 ful way of imposing upon his reader by crafty insinualiuns, 
 pleasant railleries, deceitful equivocations, misrepresenta- 
 tions, without number, and falsehoods as boldly asserted, 
 as if they were revealed truths. For though the learned, 
 who search into the bottom of things, and can discern 
 froth and noise from solid arguments, be proof against 
 these little artifices, yet they are apt to have an influence 
 on those, wiio either know nothing of the true state of 
 the question, or are not skilful enough of themselves to 
 distinguish between sojjhistrg and fair reasoning, and are 
 often more aflected with a quaint turn, a bold assertion, 
 or pleasant banter, than the strongest demonstration. 
 
 We cannot doubt but the gentleman has cooked his 
 Case Slated to please these palates ; and I must do him 
 the justice to own he has done it with the most exquisite 
 skill. I shall present the reader with a ^ew samples of 
 it to let him see how great an artist he is at stating Cases.
 
 XX Preface. 
 
 1 . The weak part he allots to his Itoman Catholic lord 
 is a continued cheat upon liis unlearned readers from end 
 to end. For unless lie will choose to plead ignorance 
 (which is a very bad excuse for a divine) he could have 
 jio other end in it than to make his readers believe, that 
 Itoman Catholics have nothing better to say for their re- 
 ligion, than what his lordship says for it in the former 
 conversation : which certainly is a piece of disingenuity 
 wliolly unbecoming a fair adversary. 
 
 2. He shews himself most exquisitely skilful at puzzl- 
 ing and perplexing a cause by mixing truth and falsehood 
 so artfully together, that you can neither grant all with- 
 out prejudice to your cause, nor deny all without wrong- 
 ing the truth. The use of this is to lead ignorant people 
 into a mist, and keep out of sight the true state of the 
 question. 
 
 3. No man is so profuse in scripture texts, as the gentle- 
 man in certain occasions, when he has a thing to set forth, 
 which either is quite foreign to the purpose, or never 
 Avas denied by any Roman Catholic. And what can be 
 the design of this ? There certainly lies a snake in the 
 grass. For ignorant people will never imagine the 
 gentleman would produce so much good scripture but to 
 confute some papistical error. And will they not then 
 take us to be the very worst of christians, since they will 
 suppose us to deny things so plainly proved from scrip- 
 ture, and conclude i\\e protestant gentleman has the whole 
 truth of the question on his side ? 
 
 4. The gentleman is extremely fond of repetitions, 
 which, as he has managed them, tarn to a very good ac-
 
 Preface. xxl 
 
 count. But where is the harm of it ? Can truth be told 
 too often ? No, but falsehood may : and there is a large 
 difference between saying and proving. Now when the 
 gentleman has once said a thing (which afterwards he 
 commonly calls shen-itig or proving) and the noble peer 
 has said nothing to disprove it, he reckons upon it after 
 that as so much ground fairly gained upon the Church of 
 Rome, and repeats it upon all occasions as a thing not to 
 be contested with him any more than a first principle : 
 not doubting but his ;>;-o^e5to?i^ readers will regard him as 
 one in a triumph rather than a dispute : nor has he any 
 reason to fear many of them will be sagacious enough to 
 reflect, that his popish ford is all the while under tutelage, 
 and can go no farther than the length of his leading strings, 
 which the gentleman keeps fast in his own hands, will 
 permit him. 
 
 5. As to equivocations^ the gentleiuan has managed them 
 with the utmost dexterity. There are three choice ones, 
 of which he has made a very good hand in the disputes about 
 infaUihility, invocation of saints, and the honour we pay 
 to their images and relics. Ilis double meaning of the 
 Chlrch of Rome, which he takes sometimes for the 
 tchole church in communion with the see of Home, and very 
 often for the particular diocess of Rome is very useful to 
 him in tiie question of infatlibilitij. For who can refuse 
 to be of the gentleman s opinion, that it is no article of 
 faith that /«/r///<7;?7//y was ever promised to one particular 
 diocess more than another? 
 
 His two otlier favourite equivocations arc groimded on 
 the various acceptations of the words WoRSHir, and
 
 xxii Preface. 
 
 Means of Gtiace ; the amhiguons meaning- whereof he 
 found to be of excellent use for the ridiculing- oUniracles, 
 hlessings, images, relics, hohj water, ^'C, and io\\vo\e papists 
 to be idolaters in spite of common sense. 
 
 I should be jjlad I had no reason to complain of falsi- 
 fications, because the charge is foul and odious. Rut, as 
 I have been obliged to make his lordship expose them, 
 when they fell in his way ; I shall here take notice of 
 one, which indeed is notorious. The reader will find it 
 in the 8th section, 2d part; the title whereof is, St 
 Austin falsified. It contains a passage taken from 
 that father upon the 96th Psalm, which, if fairly rendered 
 bears a sense wholly different from what the gentleman 
 has fixed upon it by the most unfaithful translation, that 
 perhaps ever ventured to appear in print : and, what is 
 very remarkable, he repeats it four or five times after- 
 wards, and lays a singular stress upon it to prove the 
 unlawfulness of our invocation of saints and angels. How- 
 ever I am inclined to think the gentleman is rather the 
 copier, than primary author of the scandalous falsification 
 I speak of; it being very probable he found it in the 
 writings of his protestant predecessors, and took it upon 
 trust cither through want of leisure to examine it himself, 
 or too good an opinion of the authors, from whom he 
 transcribed it. This is the most favourable construction 
 I can put upon this, and other unfaithful quotations, that 
 will be hereafter laid to his charge. 
 
 But I cannot make the same apology for some notori- 
 ous untruths, and calumnies, scattered up and down in the 
 gentleman's Case Stated. Because there was no need of
 
 rr^face. xxiii 
 
 a tedious search into authors to detect the falsehood of 
 these. The dictates of his own conscience and reason 
 sufficed alone to convince him of it : and he is equally- 
 inexcusable, whether he be t\\Q forger or disperser only 
 of such slanders : I shall here mention only two. First, 
 that the scriptures and legends have the same foundation 
 in the Church ofRoine ; th at is, her authority : and that there- 
 fore the common people believe them both alike, and the men 
 of sense believe neither, p. 159 ; and 2dly, that the Pope's 
 supremacy is the only article in our creed to be believed ex- 
 plicitly. As for others, implicit will do for them all, that 
 is, it is no matter, whether w^ believe them or not, p. 197. 
 Is it possible a person of the gentleman's judgment and 
 learning believed a word of this, when he wrote it ? If 
 he did, it is a flagrant instance, to what excessive degree 
 prejudice will blind a man. If not, it shews how little 
 justice Itoman Catholics can expect from a protestant 
 Avriter; and suffices abundantly to give the reader a just 
 idea of what the gentleman himself thought of the cause, 
 he undertook to plead. For he could not be ignorant of 
 this received maxim, that truth stands always firm ripon 
 its own bottom, and needs not the little tricks of sophistry, 
 much less the help of falsehood and slander, to support it. 
 If therefore a person of his capacity durst not hazard the 
 issue of his cause upon a fair trial, but found himself 
 obliged to have recourse to such artifices, as I am sure a 
 good cause stands not in need of, must we not conclude, 
 he had himself an entire mistrust of the goodness of his 
 cause, since he effectually judged it stood in need of these 
 artifices, and employed them accordingly ? I may there-
 
 xxiv Preface. 
 
 fore confidently say, that all the unfair and sinister ways, 
 the gentleman has made use of to asperse and traduce the 
 Church of Home, are so many authentic testimonies of his 
 own producing-, that the truth is against him. 
 
 Tiiere is one thinj^ very remarkable in the gentleman' a 
 Case Staled. For in the iillc-jwge of his book lie promises 
 to shew two things: 1. That the doubt and danger of sal- 
 vation is in the communion of the Church of Rome. And 
 2^%, that the certainty and safety is in the commnnion of 
 the Church of England. Now 1 must own lie has laboured 
 hard to prove the former. Nay he has gone much farther. 
 For he has employed near 30 pages (I hope it will not 
 do him much honour) to prove us as rank idolaters as the 
 heathens ever were. And so instead of doubt and danger 
 of salvation, he ought to have promised to shew, that 
 nothing but hell and damnation can be hoped for in the 
 Church of Home ; since these will surely be the just vQ' 
 ward oi heathen idolatry practised by christians themselves. 
 
 But as to the latter point, viz., his shewing the certainty 
 andsafetyofscdvationinthcChiirchof England, \\iQ gentleman 
 lias been pleased to supersede that part of his task; as judging 
 it much easier to lampoon and traduce the Church ofRome^ 
 than defend his own. For there is not one single argu- 
 ment in the gentleman's whole book to convince the reader, 
 that the communion of the Church of England is prefer- 
 able to that of any other reformed church. And why then 
 is the Church of England alone mentioned in the title-page 
 with this pompous eulogium, that the certainty and safety 
 of salvation is in her comttiunion. Will not every one 
 who reads this title expect to find some positive proofs to
 
 Preface. xxv 
 
 convince him that he ought to prefer her communion be- 
 fore any other ? And will he not be strangely disap- 
 pointed to find nothing -but a mere satire upon the Church 
 of Rome, and not one solid argument to induce him to 
 embrace the gentleman's church rather than that of Litth- 
 erans, Calvinisfs, Independents, Anabaptists, Quakers, 
 ^T., in case he either has his religion yet to choose, or is 
 disposed to leave that, in which he has till then been 
 educated ? 
 
 U tlie f/entleman had declared that his whole design was to 
 make a non-papist of his lordship, I should have owned his 
 book and title were exactly of a piece. For I confess I never 
 read a more artful lampoon upon popery m my whole life. 
 But to make a solemn profession of shewing that the cer~ 
 tainlij and safety of salvation are in the communion of the 
 Church of England, without giving one single reason to 
 prove her communion to be preferable to that of any dis- 
 senting protestant chwch, or oftering at least one dis- 
 tinctive mark to shew her to be that one, holy, catholic 
 and apostolic church professed in the Nicene Creed, is 
 such an omission, as will not easily be excused. 
 
 What ! did he design to laugh his lordship out of all 
 revealed religion ? If so, I cannot but approve of the 
 method he has taken. But if he intended to make him 
 a convert to the Church of England preferably to any 
 other church, why did he not set forth licr peculiar ad- 
 vantages, over other protcstatit communions all differing 
 from one another, to the end that when his lordship 
 flhould be resolved to renounce popery, he might not turn 
 atheist or deist for want of knowing where to find the true
 
 xxvi Preface, 
 
 diurch of Christ ? Why did he not endeavour to con- 
 vince him of tiie antiquily of the reformed Church of 
 Knghind ; her perpetual visibilUy from the first preaching 
 of tiie gospel in Great Britain ; lier uninterrupted succes- 
 sion oi protestant bishops derived from the apostles them- 
 selves ; her catholicity^ that is, her having always been a 
 part of that church, which has universality both of time 
 and /;fecc ; and lastly, the wonderful 7niracleshcT p?-otcs- 
 tanl children have wrought in confirmation of her doctrine, 
 as it is distinguished both from popery, and that of other 
 reformed churches ? For these are the external marks of 
 the true church of Christ, which convinced St Austin of 
 the truth of her doctrine. And if the gentleman had but 
 remembered to shew these marks in the Church of 
 England, his lordship could not have resisted the force of 
 such evidence against him. I leave the reader to consider 
 the reasons why he did not. I believe they are all com- 
 prised in his short sentence, ultra possenon datur esse ; 
 which maybe Englished thus, a man candonomore than 
 he can do. 
 
 But there seems to be another omission in the gentlc- 
 7/1 fin's Case Stated. For though the Pope' s sup7-cmacy be 
 the article singled out by him, against which he has 
 employed the best part of his time and skill ; though he 
 begins and ends with it ; nay though he resumes it several 
 limes, and even drags it in by head and shoulders, yet 
 he has not vouchsafed in the whole conversation to men- 
 tion so much as once the visible head of his own church. 
 This surely was not fair. For suppose he should have 
 lampooned his lordship into a resolution to throw off his
 
 Preface. xxvii 
 
 former head, was it not an act of justice to supply lum 
 with another ? Or was he so ashamed of him that he 
 durst not name him ? For my part I will not resolve 
 the question, but leave it to the reader to do it for me. 
 
 These are the most material things, of w'hich I thought 
 it necessary to inform the reader. I shall only add, that 
 though this new conversation betwixt his lordship and the 
 gentleman was finished a considerable time ago, there 
 occurred reasons not necessary to be mentioned, which 
 retarded the publication of it.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 rage 
 
 Dedication v 
 
 Address vii 
 
 The Preface ......... xi 
 
 The Introduction, containing an answer to the gentleman's pre- 
 liminary questions . . , , 1 
 Section I. Rome the Mother-church .... 5 
 II. St Peter's Supremacy' .... 8 
 
 III. Proved from St Matthew . . . . n 
 
 IV. Proved from St John .... 16 
 V. Objections against St Peter's supremacy answered 23 
 
 VI. The objection from the council of Jerusalem 
 
 answered 30 
 
 VII. Other objections answered .... 34 
 
 VIII. The Church's Unity, and Supremacy of the Pope 38 
 IX. St Gregory's judgment relating to the subject 
 
 under debate 42 
 
 X. St Cyprian's judgment relating to the same subject 46 
 XI. The belief of common Christianity is not a sufficient 
 
 unity of faith ..... 48 
 
 XII. The Supremacy resumed, with a touch upon unity 53 
 
 XIII. Of new Articles of Faith, and the Sacraments 57 
 
 XIV. Of Sects and Divisions .... 02 
 XV. The Greek church broke off from the Church of 
 
 Rome 65 
 
 XVI. The Greek church formerly owned the Pope's 
 
 supremacy ...... 68 
 
 XVII. It is a notorious falsehood, that the church in com- 
 munion with the see of Rome never was one 
 half of the great body of Christians in the 
 
 world ..,,... 71 
 
 XVIII. Mr l)u Pin explained .... 76 
 
 XIX. Mr Talon's speech against Innocent XI. falsely 
 
 quoted by the gentleman ... 79 
 
 XX. Of gr,ncral Councils ..... 82 
 
 XXI. A general Council is the representative of the 
 
 Catholic Church only o ♦ . . 89
 
 XXX 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Section 
 
 XXII. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 XXIX. 
 
 XXX. 
 
 XXXI. 
 
 XXXII. 
 
 XXXIII. 
 XXXIV. 
 
 XXXV. 
 
 XXXVI. 
 
 XXXVII. 
 
 XXXVIII. 
 XXXIX. 
 
 XL. 
 
 XLI. 
 XLII. 
 
 XLIII. 
 
 XLIV. 
 
 XLV, 
 
 XLVI. 
 
 XLVII. 
 
 XLVIII. 
 
 XLIX. 
 
 LI. 
 
 LIL 
 LIIL 
 LtV. 
 
 rage 
 The Infallibility of the Church ... 94 
 
 All God's ])roinises arc not conditional . 98 
 
 The Church always visible and holy , . 104 
 
 Of Miracles IIO 
 
 The Circle examined . . . . . 117 
 The being of a God ina)' be believed upon the 
 
 authority both of the church and scriptures r2'2 
 Of Jews, Pagans, and Mahometans . . 126 
 None saved without faith in Christ . . 1.3;i 
 The subjects of Supremacy and Infallibility resumed 137 
 No general defection foretold by Christ . 140 
 
 The ditt'erence between the Synagogue, and the 
 Church of Christ . . . . . H4 
 
 Of private Judgment 148 
 
 Of the Insj)iration of Scriptures. And whether our 
 belief of it be founded upon evidence excluding 
 authority . . . . . . 153 
 
 Tlie Scriptures not falsified by the Church of Rome 162 
 Whether Infallibility excludes examination . 170 
 Concerning the necessity of a living judge of con- 
 trovers v 17<* 
 
 The Church did not fail at the death of Christ 178 
 The qiiestion concerning the necessity of a living 
 
 judge resumed 188 
 
 Concerning the deposing power . . • 190 
 The same subject continued . . . 193 
 
 The oath of bishops to the Pope is no prejudice to 
 
 their allegiance 204 
 
 The Bulla CtBute misrepresented by the gentleman 207 
 Some touches of the gentleman's politics . 215 
 The Supremacy misrepresented by the gentleman 221 
 
 . . 223 
 228 
 
 Of Excommunications 
 
 Bellarmin and Gratian explained . . 
 
 The si^l^ject of Infallibilitj', and private Judgment 
 resumed ... . . 
 
 An infallible guide is an infallible assurance though 
 we be not infallible ourselves 
 
 The four pretended contradictory schemes of lodg- 
 ing the infallibility examined 
 
 Of taking upjcligipn by education, and how reason 
 is to be consulted in the choice of it 
 
 No salvation out of the Catholic Church 
 
 Pope Pius was not the author of the English schism 2G3 
 
 Frotestants are no part of the Catholic Church 271 
 
 Tlie subject of Supremacy resumed, and most of the 
 gentleman's former objections repeated . 276 
 
 230 
 238 
 243 
 
 249 
 
 255
 
 CONTENTS. XXXI 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Pago 
 
 Section I. Of the virtue aud efficacvof the Sacraments 287 
 
 II. Of Beads ...'.... 291 
 
 III. Of Blessings and Consecrations . . . 292 
 
 IV. Of the sign of the Cross, holy water, and exorcisms 299 
 V. invocation of Saints 301 
 
 VI. St Paul to the Colossians ii. 18, 19, misrepresented 
 
 by the gentleman .... 307 
 
 VII. The difference between a mediator of redemption, 
 
 and a mediator of intercession . . 316 
 
 VIII. St Austin falsified 320 
 
 IX. The scandalous parallel between the heathen wor- 
 ship, and that of Roman Catholics confuted 323 
 X. Of dividing the Commandments . . . 328 
 XI. The confutation of the parallel continued . 331 
 XII. Of supposititious Saints . . . . 341 
 
 XJII. Of devotion to the blessed Virgin . . 345 
 
 XIV. The blessed Virgin not put upon the level with 
 
 Christ ...... 348 
 
 XV. The Index Expurgatorius examined . . 355 
 
 XVI. Of Relics 358 
 
 XVII. Of Images 3G3 
 
 XVIII. The Cliurch of England guilty of incoherency 305 
 
 XIX. The subject of Images resumed . . . 368 
 
 XX. Concerning Images of God . . . 371 
 
 XXI. Of heathen Idols, and the golden Calf . 377 
 
 XXII. Of Transubstantiation .... 385 
 
 XXI 1 1. Transubstantiation proved from the words of the 
 
 Institution ...... 387 
 
 XXIV. Neither reason nor religion ol)Iigcs us to judge 
 always according to the information of our 
 senses ...... 395 
 
 XXV. Christ's body and blood arc both really, and in a 
 
 spiritual manner present in the sacrament 401 
 
 XXVI. OI)jections from the fathers answered . . 408 
 XXVII. The gentleman's unseasonable boasting . 422 
 
 XXVIII. Some animadversions upon Dr Cosin's history of 
 
 Transubstantiation .... 424 
 
 XXIX. The antiquity of the doctrine of Transubstantiation 430 
 XX.X. Transubstantiation not repugnant to the principles 
 
 of philosophy ..... 434 
 
 XXXI. Of implicit Faitli 437 
 
 XXX II. No danger of idolatry from the adoration of Christ 
 
 in the Sacrament ..... 439 
 
 XXX I II. Of school-distinctions 442 
 
 XXXIV. Some touches of the gentleman's skill in drollery 
 
 and slander 149
 
 xxxu 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Section' 
 
 XXXV. 
 
 XXXVI. 
 
 XXXVII. 
 
 XXXVIII. 
 
 XXXIX. 
 
 XL. 
 
 XLI. 
 
 XLII. 
 
 XLIII. 
 
 XLIV. 
 
 XLV. 
 
 XLVI. 
 
 XLV 1 1. 
 
 XLVin. 
 
 XLIX. 
 
 L. 
 
 LL 
 LII. 
 
 The Po?tscri 
 
 Transubstantiation as ancient aa Christianity 
 
 Of the Worship of the Cross, and Images of Clirist 
 
 Some touches of profane burlesque . 
 
 Of Concomitancy, and Communion in one kind 
 
 Lay-communion in one or botli kinds is a point of 
 discipline only, and neither forbid, nor com- 
 manded by Ciirist .... 
 
 The decree of the council of Constance concerning 
 Communion in one kind is not contrary to 
 Christ's institution, nor the faith of the primitive 
 church ...... 
 
 Some sophistical remarks upon the 6th chapter of 
 St John answered ..... 
 
 Of Celibacy, or the single life of priests 
 
 Objections answered ..... 
 
 Other objections answered .... 
 
 Of Purgatory 
 
 Of Tradition ...... 
 
 The subject of Purgatory resumed . • 
 
 Of Merits 
 
 Objections answered 
 
 Praying for the relief of the Dead has been the 
 constant practice of the Catholic Church 
 
 Some remarks upon the gentleman's performance 
 
 Of the Liturgy in Latin .... 
 
 pt, containing some remarks upon the gentleman's 
 conclusion in the former Conversation 
 
 Of Supremacy 
 
 Of Unity 
 
 Of private Judgment 
 
 rage 
 454 
 460 
 466 
 473 
 
 479 
 
 492 
 498 
 501 
 507 
 514 
 519 
 522 
 526 
 532 
 
 540 
 545 
 547 
 
 554 
 556 
 561 
 567
 
 A 
 
 CONVERSATION 
 
 BETWIXT A 
 
 ROMAN CATHOLIC LORD 
 
 AND A 
 
 GENTLEMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Lord It is hard that by your last act of parliameid 
 
 I must lose my estate, or change my religion. 
 
 " Gentleman. — I think your lordship ouglit not to lose 
 ** vour estate, till you have first considered, liow far your 
 " conscience will allow you to conform to what is required 
 " of you." — p. 1. 
 
 L If 1 thought I could save my soul in the Church 
 
 of EtKjlmul, 1 would thiid< myself obliged to preserve my 
 right, and my posterity. 
 
 " G. — Pray, my lord, what is there in the commimion of 
 ' the CfnircJi of T]nfjJ<tn(l should make you think your soul 
 • in danger ? Would there ho any hazard of your soul, if 
 ' there were no invocnl'wn of saints, that are dead, in the 
 ' pidilic oflRces of the church ? No picluics or images of 
 ' God to he seen there? No elevation of the host, wliich was 
 ' but of late years brought into the church ? No prayers 
 ' for souls out oi purgutori/ ? If the public prayers were in 
 ' the viilgaT tongue, and if the sacrament were giv<'n in holh 
 ' kindu / For these are all the differences you will find 
 ' between your pidjlic offices and ours." — p. 2. 
 
 Zy. — Sir, I must l)e very short sighted to find no more. 
 Tor/ir.sf, I ih'mk preaching is a part of the public service 
 
 u
 
 2 The Intro<lHctio7i. 
 
 of the chuicli : Jiiul there is some clitfereiice between 
 your sermons and ours. For 1 never heard our preach- 
 ers either call the Pope antichrist, or Catholics idolaters, 
 or the Church (if Hume the iVhure of Babylun. Neither 
 do we ever hear them tell their cunjjregation, with Dr 
 'Tillotson, that Transubslantialiun is a controversy of 
 downri(jht impudence against the plain meaning of Scrip- 
 ture, and all the senses and reason of mankind. Ser. xxvi. 
 p. 297. Mow, to deal plainly with you, I slionld think 
 my soul in danger of perishing eternally, if I communi- 
 cated with a churchy that disperses libels from the very 
 pulpit, and jireaches calumnies instead of the gospel. 
 
 But, secondly, I think the mass is a very substantial 
 jiart of ouv public office i and I liiul it not mentioned in 
 vour queries. You speak indeed of the elevation of the 
 host : but that is no essejitial part of the mass ; nor is it 
 any thing to the purj)ose, whether it was brought in of 
 lute or of old : though in eftect it is ancientcr than your 
 church by above QUO years. But if the church should 
 think fit to make an alteration either in that, or any other 
 ceremony, as she may do if she pleases, my salvation 
 would be upon the same footing as it is now. In like 
 manner, if by the same authority no pictures or images 
 were seen in our churches, if the public prayers were in 
 the vulgar tongue : and if there were neither any invoca- 
 tion of saints, nor prayers for the dead in the public 
 liturgy; finally, if the sacrament were given in both 
 kinds, my soul would be in no danger in the communion 
 of the Chvrch of Home. Because though her discipline 
 would then be changed, hex faith would be the same as 
 it is now. 
 
 But my salvation would certainly sufier shipwreck, if 
 I should separate myself from her communion (as the 
 Church of England, and other reformed churches did, and 
 continue to do) by obstiiuitcly refusing to pay a respect- 
 ful submission to the discipline establibhed by her. For 
 I think it but reasonable to allow the church as much 
 authority to regulate her own discipline, as the state has 
 to make its own la/ics. And therefore as those would
 
 The Introduction. ^ 
 
 be looked upon as factious and seditions subjects, \\\.o 
 s\ioiild dispute this authority in the state, so they deserve 
 no better character, who impeach the lei/islative power of 
 the church, or by refusing to submit to it, become guilty 
 of schism. 
 
 Pray, Sir, do not you argue thus against the dissenters, 
 when they rail at the book of common prayer, or accuse 
 ) ou of popery for baptizing w\\\\ the sign of the C7-oss, 
 kneeling at the communion, and using many other pipish 
 ceremonies ? And do you not charge them with schism 
 for separating themselves from your church upon these, 
 and other such pretences ? Now, Sir, I should Ije glad 
 to know iiow the dissenters can be guilty of schism in 
 separating themselves from your churcli, if the first 
 English reformers were free from the guilt of it, Mhen 
 they separated themselves from their mother church, the 
 Church of Rome ; in which they had received their bap- 
 tism; wliosQ faith they had possessed for many years, and 
 whose laws they were bound to obey as being subjects 
 and members of that church ? And if they were schismatics, 
 who first went out of their mother church, they who tread 
 in the footsteps of such forefathers, and continue the 
 breach they made, can be no better. This, Sir, is a 
 sufficient reason to tliirdc my soul would be in danger in 
 the communion of the Church <f England, or any other 
 rcforuicd church: and thus your questions, uhich a 
 Jjuthiran, or Calvinist, or fanatic might have asked as 
 well as yourself, are fully answered. 
 
 But let us now stipj)osc, there were no more difference 
 between your jiu1>lic office and ours, than you juive men- 
 tioned, pray, .Sir, is tliere no difference between us in 
 arlirles of faith ? I heartily wish there were not. But 
 I fear there is difference enough to condemn any man, 
 that keeps wilfully, on the wrong side of the question. 
 What do you think of transubstanlialiou, of infdldillity, 
 supremacy, the numlxr (f sacraments, and se\eral others'* 
 These surely are qiu'stions of somewhat greater moment, 
 than those about pictures hanging in the church, or what 
 sort of language we are to say our prayers in. But I
 
 4 The Introdudiov. 
 
 presume tliey were not so well calculated for a Jest, or to 
 lavgh a man out of his reli<>;i()U. 
 
 G. — My lord, the questions, I have put to you, arc 
 six in number. The four first are conrenn'/tr/ things no 
 where enjuincd hy God, and yd you practise them. The 
 two hist are concernint^ things, he has expressly com- 
 manded^ (viz. public prayers in the vuhjar tongue, anil 
 communion in both hinds) and yet you forbear, and forbid 
 them. Our worship is therefore purer, and more orthodox 
 than yours. — Find. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is false, that public prayers in the vulgar 
 tongue, and lay communion in both kinds are commanded 
 by God; as I shall demonstrate, when we come to treat 
 of those subjects by themselves. (Part II. Sect. 39, 53.) 
 But as to the first four questions, which you say are con- 
 cerning things no where enjoined by God, yei practised by 
 7(s ; pray. Sir, has the church no authority to ordain any 
 thing, but what God has expressly enjoined ? Has a 
 child no obligation to obey his parents but in things, for 
 which there is an express command of God ? Is it law- 
 ful for subjects to refuse obedience to superior powers, 
 unless they can prove their commands from some exj)ress 
 text of Scripture ? May soldiers lawfully disobey their 
 officer, when he commands them to march, or halt, or go 
 upon an attack unless he can produce a text of Scripture 
 for it? Or has the church less authority than the state, 
 or an officer, or private jjarent to require obedience in 
 things, that are not expressly commanded by God ? 
 
 Sir, I put these questions to you to place before your 
 eyes the J'rivolousness of yours, and convince you, that 
 we are bound to do many things, which God has not en- 
 Joined us by any express command, and that by conse- 
 quence my soul may be in danger by refusing to obey 
 the authority he lias established. Yet a certain friend 
 of yours has had the weakness not oidy to cry up your 
 questions as vnanswerable, but to triumph in a very 
 indecent manner over his adversary, because he let them 
 pass without an answer. Take this then for your final 
 answer, that, though God has not enjoined the elevation
 
 Boyne the Mother Church. 5 
 
 of the host, the hanging of pictures or iynages in the 
 church, &c., by any express command, it suffices that he 
 lias commanded us to hear and obey the church, and not 
 raise schisms by an obstinate disobedience to lier laws. 
 God has not enjoined you to baptize with the sign of the 
 cross, and yet you practise it: neither has he commanded 
 the common prayer book, and yet you use it. Suppose 
 then some fanatical dissenter shouUl put such questions 
 as these to you.- IVoidd there be any liazard of your souV s 
 salvation, if you should baptize icithout the sign of the 
 cross ? If the common prayer book were not used in the 
 public service ? Or, if you laid aside the many popish 
 ceremonies, tjou still retain ? Pray, Sir, would you think 
 such questions to be unansicerable? Nay would you not 
 ratlier think them impertinent and frivolous? In short, 
 Sir, it is my judgement, that I cannot be saved, unless I 
 keep in the communion of the true church. 
 
 " G — I presume your lordship means the comnnmion of 
 ♦' the Church of Rome."— p. 2. 
 
 L. — Sir, I mean the whole church in communion with 
 the Church of Rome ; whose bishop being the successor 
 of St Peter gives her the authority und jurisdiction of the 
 mother church over all particular churches, which com- 
 pose the great body or society of men called in the 
 Xicene creed the one, holy Catholic and apostolic church. 
 
 SECTION 1. — ROME THE MOTHER CHURCH. 
 
 " G. — My Lord, it is certain that Jerusalem was tlio 
 " motlier church, where Christ first planted tlie gospel, and 
 " commanded that it sliould he thence propagated to iili 
 " other nations, as iiiinself :^aid, beginning at .Jerusalem. Luke 
 " xxiv. 47. And till after the vision of the sheet to St 
 " Peter. Acts ii. 19. They travelled preaching the Word to 
 " none hut unto the Jews only. So tliat the .Icu-ish christian 
 " church was the only churcli for some time, and slie it was 
 '• who converted the Gentile nations, and therefore was the 
 " mother church to tlieiu all. And Jiome was not the first 
 " Gentila church. For the disciples were called christians
 
 i) Rome the Mother Church, 
 
 " first in Aniioch. Acts xi. 2G. And the Greek church was 
 " before the Latin : the A^ew Testament was writ in Greek 
 •' for their use. Tliorefore the Greek church could not he 
 " the c/aM^/(/cr of the Latin church, which was horn after her. 
 '• If your lordship allege that St Peter was head of the 
 " church, and bishop of liomf. I answer. This will not make 
 " her the inothcr church. You may call her snprone, absolute, 
 " universal, or what you please, any thing but the mother 
 " church, to which it is impossible she should have any 
 " title.'' — pp. -2, 3. 
 
 Li, — Sir, it is not only possible but clear fact, \'\'hat 
 you have said proves indeed, that both Jerusalem and 
 Atitioch, and perhaps many other towns received tlic 
 christian faith before the city of Borne. And the only 
 consequence I can draw from it is, that Home is not the 
 o/c/t'5f christian city, nor the most ancient episcopal see in 
 the world. But you are pleased to infer likewise from 
 it, that therefore she cannot be called the mother church, 
 and your reason for it, viz., because the mother cannot he 
 horn after the daughter, is so very witty and pretty, that 
 I fear I shall be thought impertinent in not yielding to 
 the force of such solid reasonino^. 
 
 However be pleased to take notice, that mother church 
 is a metaphor, and a very proper one. But truly. Sir, 
 we shall be forced to lay aside all metaphors, though 
 never so proper and beautiful, if they must all stand the 
 test of your logic. That is, if there must be a resemblance 
 in all respects between what they signify figuratively, 
 and the thing signified literalhi by them. 
 
 As for instance, a crafty man is by a very proper 
 metaphor called a fox. But if some wiseacre should 
 argue thus, let him be as crafty as he tcill, he neither has 
 the smell, nor colour, nor head, nor tail, nor shape of a 
 fox, therefore he is no fox : I believe he would not get 
 the reputation of a profound wit by it. Now, Sir, your 
 argument against my calling the Church of Rome, the 
 mother church is much of the same force. You saj'', she 
 is nut oi age to be the mother of all churches. I answer 
 it is not age, that gives her that denomination. But she
 
 Borne the Mother Chwch, 7 
 
 has the jurisdictioti, t\\e poiver, and authority of a mother 
 over other churches : and that suffices to give her a just 
 claim to that titk^ As the kite Queen Amie was styled 
 the mother of her people, though she was not the oldest 
 woman in the nation. 
 
 King James the first stuck not to own her title in a 
 speech to the -parliament, Ann. 1603. / own (says he) 
 the Church of home to be our mother church. And indeed 
 her claim to that title, particularly in relation to the 
 Church of England, is unquestionable, because the Avhola 
 kingdom of England owes its conversion from paganism 
 to Christianity to the See of Rome. 
 
 « G. — My lord, in the conversion of Gentiles to chris- 
 " tianity one man and one nation must receive faith before 
 «' another. They wore not all converted on a day. And as 
 " when one man converts another, so it is of churches and 
 " nations, it gives the one no superiority over the other, ex- 
 " cept that of gratitude and esteem, but nothing of authority^' 
 -—PP' 3, 4. 
 
 /,. — It is very tru6, Sir, that one nation converting 
 another gives the former no anthoi'ity over the latter. 
 And therefore, though the (Jhurch of Jtome deserves even 
 upon that account the title of being the mother church to 
 the Church of England, because she begot her forefathers 
 in Jesus Christ through the (lospel. 1 Cor. iv. 15, Yet 
 it is not on that title her claim to superiority is gvouuded. 
 For this was the case of the Jewish christian church, 
 which (as you observed before) converted the Gentiles ; 
 and therefore was their motlier indeed, but not superior. 
 Nay Jerusalem, where the christian faith was first planted, 
 is the very last of the patriarchal sees in the East : and 
 in St Jeromr^t time had not even jurisdiction over 
 Palestine, but was subject to Cesarea its metropolis, as 
 appears from his 61. l>pist. to Pammachius. So that, 
 though Jerusalem was the first in the m'der of time, it 
 became afterwards infrrior in the order of government. 
 
 The tith', theroforo, on which tlie Church, of Pome 
 grounds her claim to superiority over oilier churches, is 
 the fnipremaey oi \wr bishop, who in quality o( successor to
 
 8 St Peter's Supremacy. 
 
 St Peter is head of tlie Catholic, that is, Universal Church. 
 And this gives her a spiritual jurisdiction or authority 
 over all other particular churches. 
 
 SECTION II. — ST TETER's SUPREMACY. 
 
 " G. — ^^"Ilatever the privileges of tlic mother church may 
 " be, if it can be translated from the mother to the daughter, 
 " from one cliurch to another, from Jerusalem to Antioch, 
 " and from thence to Rome, as yon must be obliged to say, 
 " then it may be translated from Rome also to some other 
 " cluuili, tuiloss some positive command of Christ can be 
 " produced. y//s/, to fix it at Rome, and then a promise, that 
 " it shall never be removed from thence." — p. 4. 
 
 Zj, — Sir, I perceive you go upon a mistake. For you 
 imagine we suppose, that tou'us as well- as men were 
 nppointcd by Christ for the government of his flock, But 
 ] must disabuse you. For he neither made Jerusalem^ nor 
 Antioch, nor Rome the seat of St Peter, or his successors; 
 but left them to choose the place of their residence, 
 where they should think fit. When St Peter had his 
 seat at Antioch, that was the metropolis or mother church 
 of the christian world. AV'hcn therefore he translated 
 his episcopal see from thence to Rome, did he leave his 
 commission behind him, or divest himself of the authority 
 Christ had given him to govern his flock ? No surely, 
 Rome therefore became at that time the mother churchy 
 us Antioch had been before. 
 
 G. — It might then have also been removed from thence 
 to any other place. 
 
 X. — 1 doubt not but it might. But will that any way 
 endanger the supremacy either of St Peter or his sucessors? 
 I hope, not. For, if it be not also removed from their 
 persons, as I presume it never will as long as Christ's 
 iustitution stands good, every thing is very safe, and I 
 am in no pain about the jjlace where St Peter might have 
 fi.xed his seat. For surely his authority followed him, 
 v.herever he went: and if he had pleased, he might have
 
 St Peter's Supremacy, 9 
 
 fixed it in any other town as well as Home. For Christ 
 neither made him bishop of Rome, nor patriarch of the 
 west, but head of his churchy and by consequence his 
 successors after him. 
 
 Whence it ajipears beyond all dispute, that there is 
 no need of producing any positive command or promise 
 of Christ to fix the papal seat immoveabiy at Borne : but, 
 if you will say any thing to the purpose, you must show, 
 where Christ has positively forbid Rome to be the seat 
 either of St Pdcr or his successors. 
 
 •' G My lord, the Church of Home is not once named in 
 
 " all the New Testament, unless she is meant by the church of 
 '• Babylon, 1. Pet. v. 13; nor is there any promise whatsoever 
 " made to her, or any the least intimation of her being the 
 '• head of the churches, tlie standard and ccutre of unity to 
 *' them all. Strange! if that be \\\q summa rei christiaiicE, 
 '• as Bellar-tniu calls it (in the preface to his book de Romano 
 " Potdifice) the sum and foundation of the Christian Religion." 
 — p. 4. 
 
 L. — Sir, whatever you may think, it is not at all 
 strange in my oj)inion, that the seat of St Peter^ and his 
 successors should he the centre of unity, and yet not named 
 in the New Testament : and the reason, why it does not 
 appear strange to mc is, because though Christ appointed 
 X\ic person that was to govern his flock, he did nota{)point 
 the place of his episcopal see. However if the Church of 
 Rome be not once named in all the New Testament, we 
 are then at least secure, that Christ has not left any 
 positive prohibition against its being made the seat of 
 his vicar upon earth ; for then he must have named it. 
 Yet after all it occurs just now to my mind, that St Paul' 
 wrote a long epistle to the Romans, and in chap. i. 7, 
 lie salutes tliem thus. To cdl, that be at Rome, bcloiud 
 of God. Whicii I tliirdi may be called naming the 
 Church of Rome. But that is a trivial slip amongst 
 friends ; so let it pass. 
 
 " G The scriptures arc wholly silent concerning tlu! 
 
 ** supposed universal supremacy of 8t Peter, or that he was 
 «' at Rome, or bishop of Rome. Some after- writers have 
 
 b2
 
 10 St Peter's Supremacy . 
 
 <« nientioned it. But that is far from such an universal 
 " tradition, as is sufficient for the iniglity superstructure, 
 " which is niised upon it, but let it be granted, it signifies 
 " nothini^." — p. 4. 
 
 //. — It really signifies nothing to raise doubts about 
 things as certainly known and believed as that there has 
 l)een such a man as Julius Ccesar. Grotius, a learned 
 P/'o/<?.s-/f///7 writer, was not afraiil to say, that vo christian 
 ever doubted but St Peter teas cd Rome. In Sinapsi Criti- 
 corum, p. 1540. 
 
 However, whether he was at RomCy or was bishop of it, 
 or not, though the tiling be unquestionable, it is a mistake 
 to say, that any iveighiy superstructure is built upon that 
 historical fact. For all we pretend to maintain as essential 
 to the point in question, is, that St Peter was constituted 
 by Christ head ami ruler of his church, and that when lie 
 died, the church appointed him a successor in that high 
 station, and has ever since done the same upon the demise 
 of every pope ; and finally, that all the successors of St 
 Peter have had their episcopcd seat at Rome. But as to 
 what you say, that the scriptures are silent concerning 
 the supremacy of St Peter, this indeed deserves a more 
 serious consideration. 
 
 *' G. — All is grounded upon some words said to St Peter ; 
 " as such: Thou art Peter, ^cec? my sheep, S)-c. Wliich cannot 
 " be strained to such an lanversal supremacy, as popes have 
 " claimed : nor were so understood in the primitive church" 
 —j>p. A,b. 
 
 L. — We shall examine tliat presently. I^ut you are 
 slinking away from the question, which is not what power 
 some popes may perhaps have claimed, but what our 
 Saviour gave to St Peter and his successors in the two 
 texts, you have minced, as if you were afraid to speak out. 
 
 " G In the learned M. clu Pin, Traite de la Puissance 
 
 " Ecclesiasiirpie et Tcmpordle, printed at Paris, An. 1707, 
 *' PI). 495 — 501, and pp. 754 — 765, your lordship will 
 " find these two texts urgrd for the supremacy of St Peter 
 " and answered in the same manner as is done by Protestant 
 " writers ; and it is showed how very foreign they are from 
 " the purpose intended." — p. 5.
 
 St Peter's Supretnacy. 1 1 
 
 L. — Sir, M. du Fin no where denies the pope's supre- 
 macy in spirituals, but only in temporals ; of which he 
 maintains those texts to be no proof. But let us now 
 proceed to examine the true meaning of them. I shall 
 begin with that of St Matthew xvi. 18. 
 
 SECTION III. — THE TEXT OF ST MATTHEW XVI. 18 
 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 It is as follows : And I say also unto thee, thou art PeieVy 
 and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates 
 ofheU shall not prevail against it. 
 
 I know the common answer to this text is, that by the 
 rock, is meant St Peter's faith, and not his person. But 
 tiiough the former interpretation be true, it is far from 
 being the only one, or excluding St Peter's person. Nay, 
 the application of it to his person is the most obvious and 
 natural ; as is manifest from St Jeromes remark upon the 
 second chapter to the Galalians ; where he observes that 
 l)oth the Greek word petros ; and tiie Hebrew cephas 
 signifies the same as the JLatin word pelra, that is, a rock: 
 and by consequence the true meaning of our Saviour's 
 words to St Peter is this : thou art a rock, and upon this 
 mck I will build my church. Suppose then our Saviour 
 hafl spoken tiins in Enylish to St Peter ; thou art a rock^ 
 and upon this rock I icill build my church .- could there 
 be any doid)t, whether his words were addressed to St 
 Peter's person ? 
 
 G My lord, you interrupted me, when I spoke last; 
 
 for I was just going to tell you, that the 
 
 " Pock, upon wliich Christ said he would build his churchy 
 " was not Peter, but the faith which Peter then confessed. 
 " Yoiu- lordship may soe the cinicnt sense of the fathers, 
 " and consult at your leisure, St Austin de Verba JJornini^ 
 *« Ser. 13. Aoz/a/j. de Veleri Test. St Cyril de Triii. 1. iv. St 
 ♦' Chri/sost. Hum. 65. in Matth. St Ambrose Ccininiont. in 
 •• Kpli. ii. Hilary do I'riii. 1. ii. c. G. suid others." — p. 5. 
 
 L. — Sir, you may quote as mwuy fathers as you please.
 
 12 5^ Peter's Supremacy. 
 
 and they shall say as often as you please, that the rockf 
 upon which Christ promised to huihl his church, was St 
 Peter's faith. But can they not explain the text in one 
 sense without oxchuling the other ? This, Sir, is the real 
 case. For they applied it just as their subject lead them, 
 sometimes to his faith, and sometimes to In?, person ; as 
 will appear from the following quotation, in which it is 
 applied to his person only. 
 
 Ori(jcn in Exod. llom. 5. writes thus: Hear ichat is 
 said, to the <jrcat fonmlation of the church, and to the solid 
 roch, upon which Christ built his church, O man of little 
 faith why hast thou doubted ! 
 
 TeriuUian puts this question. JVas any tiling concealed 
 from Peter, tcho was called the rock of the foundation of 
 the church ? L. de Prsescrip. c. 32. 
 
 St Cyprian epist. 71. Peter, whom our Lord chose the 
 first, and on whom he built his church. He repeats the 
 same expression L. de bono patienticc. And L. de disci- 
 plina et habitu virginuni he writes thus: Peter, to whom 
 our Lord recoinmeiuls the care of his sheep^ and upon 
 WHOM he built and founded his church. 
 
 But St Jeromes words (in Cap. xvi. Matlh. Tom. vi. 
 Edit. Paris. Vet. p. 73.) are very remarkable. 7o Simon 
 (says he) who believed in Christ the rock, he gave the name 
 of Peter, and according to the metaphor of the rock, it is 
 
 I'ROPEIILY SAID TO HIM, ON THEE WILL I ]5U1LD MY 
 CHURCH. 
 
 St Austin likewise, who is the very first of the fatliers 
 you referred me to, speaks as plainly as the former for St 
 Peter's person. Count (says he) the priests even in St 
 Peter's see : observe the succession in that rank of fathers, 
 that is the rock, which the jiroud gates of hell do not over- 
 come. Aug. in Psal. contra partem Donati. And again 
 in Psal.lxix. vSect. 4. he writes thus: Peter, the chief of the 
 apostles, door-keeper of heaven ; Peter who for his con- 
 fession teas named the rock, on whom the church was to 
 be built. 
 
 Methinks, Sir, the current of ardiquity begins to run 
 somewhat favourably for St Peter's verson. But, since
 
 St Peter's Supremacy. 13 
 
 one good turn deserves another, as you sent me to rum- 
 mage amongst old books, I shall return your favour with 
 interest, and desire you likewise to consult at your 
 leisure the Fathers quoted by the author of the church of 
 Christ shou'ed, §-c. Part III. Chap. ii. Sect. 3, where, 
 besides those already quoted, you will find above double 
 the number of those you referred me to, who all apply 
 the text of St JMatt/ieiv to St Peter's person. For the 
 question between you and me is, not whether some of 
 them have applied that text to St Peter's faith, which 
 nobody denies ; but whether they positively exclude his 
 jjtrso7i? And the passages you will be referred to by 
 the forementioued author, will convince you they have 
 not. 
 
 G. — I hope your lordship will not deny, that St Cyril 
 of Alex, positively excludes his person. 
 
 L — Sir, I shall make bold to deny it. 
 
 G. — Does he not say expressly Dial. 4. de Trin. that 
 Christ gave the name of the rock to nothing else hut the 
 constant and unshaken faith of the disciple? 
 
 Li. — He does so. But unless you will make him 
 contradict himself, his meaning can be no other, than 
 thai St Peter merited that title by nothing else but his 
 faith. Pray, Sir, does not St Jerome, Epist. 61. ad 
 Pammachinm. 'I'om. ii. p. 254, say as expressly, that it 
 was not St Peter's body, but his faith, that walked upon 
 the water. Super arpias non corpus Petri ambulasse scd 
 tidcm. And will you conclude from thence, that it was 
 St Jerome's opinion, that St Peter's body or person did 
 not walk upon the waters? 
 
 But nothing can be fairer than to let St Cyril speak 
 for himself: for surely he understood his own meaning 
 best. His words (1. ii. in .loh. Ed. Par. an. 1638. toin. 
 iv. p. 131) arc these. He {Clirist) fori told he should no 
 more be called Simon, but Peter. Signifying by th<U word 
 most properly, that he intended to build his church upon 
 lUM, as upon a most firm and solid rock. Now, Sir, 
 you cannot save him from manifestly contradicting him- 
 self, unless you join with mc in saying that St Peter,
 
 1 4 St Peter's Saprejnacy. 
 
 accordiiii^ to this fiitlier, merited the title (which Christ 
 bestowed upon him) by his fnifh alone, and received it in 
 his person. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, take it now for granted, that the 
 text of St Matthew is meant of St Peters person, wliat 
 advantag;e can you make of it for the proof of Ids svpre- 
 inaey? For you can infer no more from it, than that the 
 church was to be built upon St Peter. And so it was to 
 be built upon the rest of the apostles accordinj^ to St 
 Paul. Eph. V. 20. Ye are built upon the foundation of 
 the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
 chief corner stone. This plainly puts them all upon the 
 level. Vind. 
 
 L How industrious are men to deceive themselves 
 
 when interest and passion inclines them to it ! You 
 argue thus : St Paul says, the church is built vpon all the 
 other apostles jointly with St Peter, therefore they are all 
 upon the level. But I deny your consequence. For, 
 though she be built upon them all, it does not follow that 
 she is built upon them all in the same manner : but she 
 may be built upon one in a more eminent manner than 
 the rest. The frame of the Enylish government is built 
 upon king and parliament. But does that put them upon 
 the level ? or hinder the hing from being the supreme 
 head of all ? 
 
 But let us hear St Paid, Eph. iv. 11, 12. And he gave 
 some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, 
 and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the 
 saints, fur the ivork of the ministry, for the edifying of 
 the body of Christ. Here owWivAvy pastors and teachers 
 are joined with apostles, prophets, and evangelists. And 
 it is equally said of them ail, that Christ gave them for 
 tlie EDIFYING of his mystical body .• that is, the building 
 of his church. And will you infer from thence, that the 
 church is built in tlie same degree upon ordinary /ja*to/'5 
 and teajchers as upon the apostles tiiemselves ? Or that 
 she is not built in a more etninent manner upon bishops, 
 than the infei'ior clergy ? Will you conclude from it, 
 that the apostles had wo jurisdiction over those, whom St
 
 St Peter's Supremacy/. 1 5 
 
 Paul culls pastors and teachers, but that tliey were all 
 upon the level? If not, neither can you conclude that 
 St Peter had no jurisdiction over the rest of the apostles 
 from St PauVs sayin<2:, that the church is built upon the 
 foimdation of the apostles arid prophets. 
 
 G M}'' lord, though I maintain, that the other 
 
 apostles were the foundation stones in the ecclesiastical 
 building jointly with St Peter, I do not demj but he was 
 more remarkably so, than the rest of them. For it may 
 easily be granted, that a peculiar privilege teas designed 
 him in these words, and that by him after our blessed 
 Saviour the foundation of the church should be laid for the 
 other apostles to build upon amongst both .lews cmd Gen- 
 tiles : and if this zvere what our Lord intended, it teas 
 accordingly verified, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 For he converted 3000 Jews by his first sermon. Acts 
 ii. 41. So that here was noiv a church, and this church 
 in an especial manner built upon St Peter according to our 
 Saviour's promise. Bnt then he was to lay the foundation 
 of the Gentile church too as icell as the Jewish. For he 
 admitted Cornelius a lloman centurion into the mimber of 
 christians. Acts x. 19; and preached the gospel at 
 Cesarea. .So that here was a perfect completion of our 
 Saviour's promise to St Peter so far as it contained any 
 prerogative prcnliar to himself And therefore Christ's 
 promise that he icould build his church 7/;>on him, means 
 no more than that St Peter should frst after Christ, 
 build his church ; which implies no superiority over the 
 other apostles. Vind. pp. l!>, 20, 
 
 L. — This, Sir, looks like the last effort of a person 
 resolved to persist in tlie wrong in spite of the strongest 
 conviction. However I am glad to hear you own, that 
 St Pdcr was more remarkably the foundation stone in the 
 buiUliuff of the church than the other apostles, and that it 
 iras Iriilt ii])nn him in a special manner. l>ut I deny that 
 our Saviour's promise to St Peter imjdies no more than 
 that he should lay the first foundtdioii of his church. 
 
 1. Because Christ promised to St Peter Matt. xvi. 
 what he conferred upon him .John xxi. afler his J{i xurrcc-
 
 1 6 St Peter's Supremacy. 
 
 fiov. But the rommissio?t he tlien delivered to him was 
 jiot barely to lay tJie first foundation of the church, but to 
 take care of, and govern his whole Jioch; therefore his 
 Inyimj the foundation of the church amongst both Jews 
 ;uid Gentiles was not a full and adequate accomplishment 
 of Christ's promise. 
 
 2. There appears a manifest difference between these 
 two propositions, thou sludt build my church, and, my 
 church shall be built upon thee, though both may be veri- 
 fied of one and the same person. The former imports 
 no more than a transient aclioii, but the latter a continual 
 dependence. Because every building, nay every part of 
 it has a continual depetidence upon its foundation. 
 AVhence it follows that our Saviour's promise of building 
 his church uj)on St Peter (and that i7i a special manner) 
 imported nothing less, than that every part of his church 
 should have a continual depetulence upon him during his 
 life, and upon his successors after his death : because the 
 church government once established by Christ can never be 
 altered without a special order and commission from him. 
 
 SECTION IV. — ST Peter's supremacy proved from st 
 JOHN XXI. 15, &c. 
 
 I come now to the text of St John. For though the 
 supremacy was promised to St Peter before our Saviour's 
 passion, his commission was not given him till after his 
 death and resurrection. 
 
 G — I presume your lordship means in those words, 
 feed my sheep. 
 
 . L — I do so. But though you have clipped them to 
 make them lose some part of their weight, I shall make 
 bold to quote the whole text as it lies, and make my ob- 
 servations upon it. 
 
 Christ on the very day of his resurrection had con- 
 firmed St Peter and the other apostles in their apostolical 
 charge. John xx. 21. As my father sent me, so I send 
 you, §'c. And it is certain they all received here an
 
 St Peter's Supremacy. 17 
 
 equal apostolical charge or Jurisdiction. But Christ 
 appearing afterwards to St Peter, St John, St James, St 
 T/iomas, and some of the disciples, after he had eaten 
 with them, he addressed himself thus to St Peter: Simon 
 son of Jonas lovest thou me more than these ? He saith 
 unto him, yea Lord, thou hnowest that I love thee. He 
 saith unto him, feed my lambs. He saith unto him again 
 the second time, Simon vf Jonas lovest thou me ? He saith 
 unto him, yea. Lord, thou knoivest that I love thee. He 
 saith unto him, feed my lambs. H^ saith to him the third 
 time, Simo7i son of Jonas lovest thou me ? Peter was 
 grieved because he said unto him the third time, lovest thou 
 me ? And he said, Lord, thou knowest all things, and 
 thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, feed 
 my sheep. John xxi. 15, 16, &e. 
 
 I observe here an unusual ceremony, such as is no 
 where else to be found in the whole New Testament. 
 St Peter is singled out fiom the rest of the company, 
 Christ asks him, lovest thou me more than these ? He 
 asks him a second and third time, lovest thou mc ? And 
 after each answer and assurance of his love, Christ gives 
 iiim an 7^///iw/^e(/ commission to feed his flock. \\'hoever 
 can see nothing here attributed peculiarly to St Peter, 
 must shut his eyes wilfully against the strongest liglit. 
 
 O. — 1 own, my lord, 1 have not eyes to see it. For 
 it ivas the necessary duty of all the apostles during their 
 time, and of their successors in all following generations, to 
 feed our Saviour's lambs and sheep. And if St Peter wa$ 
 required to do the same, this implies no more jurisdiction 
 in him, than in the other apostles; on each of which this 
 duty was no less incumbent than on him. I add, tJiat if 
 the words themselves do not convey any such paramount 
 jurisdiction, the repetition of them can never do it. — Vind. 
 pp. '21, 22. 
 
 L. — It is true, that a repetition of words does notcliangc 
 their literal signification. But no reasonable man will 
 say, it does not enforce their weight; or that it does not 
 mark out a more than ordinary importance of the duty, 
 or injunction contained in words, that are thus repeated;
 
 18 St Petcr^s Supremacy. 
 
 especially when it is done by a person of the greatest 
 authority. And therefore our Saviour's threefold repe- 
 tition both of the question put to St Peter, and the eom- 
 mand laid upon hiui to ftcd his lamba and sheep was 
 doubtless intended to imprint in his mind an idea of some 
 extraordinary injunetion. The question itself, hvesf. 
 thou mc more than these ? manifestly imports that Christ 
 required a greater love of St Peter, than the other Apos- 
 tles. And why so ? 
 
 G. — My lord, perhaps our Saviour oidy put this ques- 
 tion to him to put him in mind of his former profession 
 of a singular love above the otlier apostles.* 
 
 L. — What, Sir ! to put him in mind of it without re- 
 quiring it of him ! The question plainly implies the 
 contrary, and I ask the reason of it. So pray. Sir, guess 
 once more. 
 
 G. — Perhapsitwas only to humble him under the sense 
 of his dreadful fall and thus to quicken his eare, and ex- 
 cite his zeal by the remembrance of his pastmiscarriage.f 
 
 L, — This guess. Sir, is as unlucky as the former. For 
 if Christ only intended to humble him under the sense 
 of his dreadful fall, it would have sufficed to have asked 
 him dost thou love me ? Or dost thou love me as much as 
 these ? By way of insinuation, that they had not denied 
 him, as he had done ; which would have been very 
 hnmbliny. But Christ asked liim, lovest thou me more 
 than these ? So this guess is likewise unsatisfactory. 
 
 G. — However I have St Ambrose for ray voucher, who 
 writes thus. For he, tvho had denied his Lord thrice, 
 confesses him thrice, and obtains grace by loving as often 
 as he contracted the guilt of sin by his fall. Serm. 484 
 
 L. — Sir, St Ambrose makes here only a comparison be- 
 tween St Peter's triple profession of love, and his three- 
 fold denial of Christ : but says not a word of the reason 
 why Christ asked him, if he loved him more than tJiese ? 
 And so his words do not in the least favour your guess. 
 I shall therefore endeavour to give a better reason for it, 
 and it is this. Because the higher a person is raised in 
 • Case farther stated, p. 27. f Ilikl. J Ibid.
 
 Si Peter's Snpre7nacy. 1 9 
 
 the ministry of the gospel^ the greater his love ought to 
 be for Christ to enable him to fulfil his trust. And 
 therefore since Christ demanded a greater love of St 
 Peter than tlie other apostles, even the beloved disciple 
 St John, who was present, it is more than a guess to 
 conclude from it, that the command he then laid upoii 
 him to Jeed his lambs and sheep raised him to a higher 
 station than t\ie otliev apostles. Neither was this intend- 
 ed as a lesson to St Peler alone, but to all his successors, 
 who without an extraordinary love of God, and zeal for 
 his Church, can never be fitly qualified to discharge their 
 important \.r\\%{. oi feeding both the lambs and sheep of 
 Christ; that is, of governing his whole flock : which is 
 the true meaning of that text. 
 
 G. — But pray, rny lord, was it not the necessary duty 
 of all the apostles to fed our Saviour's lambs and sheep ? 
 Vind. p. 21. 
 
 L. — Not in the same unlimited sense as St Peter was 
 charged with it. But least this may appear to be gratis 
 dictum, it is here necessary to observe, that the same 
 words may either have a more restrained, or ample signi- 
 fication according to the circianstavces they are spoken 
 in, or the persons they are applied to : and nothing is 
 more sophistical, than to infer from their signification in 
 reference to one person, that they bear the same sense 
 in reference to another. As for instance, Christ calls 
 himself /Ac light of the world, John viii. 12, and he calls 
 his Apostles the light of the world, Matt. v. 14. Now if 
 any one should argue thus, The apostles are called the 
 light of the world as well as Christ, therefore this implies 
 nothing in Christ above the apostles : would he not de- 
 serve to be pitied rather than answered ? In like manner, 
 all that are empowered to preach i\\e gospel, catechise, or 
 instruct, arc properlv comnnssioned lo feed the flock of 
 Christ, but does it therefore follow, that their jurisdic- 
 tion is e(pial to what Christ gave to St Peter? If not; 
 neither can we conclude, that he hail not a more amide 
 jurisdiction than the other (iposllvs, who certairdy were 
 all commissiuncd /c y^ (^/ the jloch of Christ. In cfToct,
 
 20 St Peters Supremacy. 
 
 the other apostles luul no jurisdiction over one another ; 
 but St Peter's jurisdiction reached them all by virtue of 
 those words. 
 
 G. — My lord, this is the very point, you are to prove : 
 for I shall not believe it upon your bare word. 
 
 L. — Sir, I have already begun to prove it, first from 
 our Sax'iour's demanding a greater degree of love of St 
 Peter than the other apostles : which was a natural pre- 
 amble to his laying a greater charge upon him. I have 
 likewise proved it from the peculiar ceremony and solem- 
 nity with which this action was performed ; which, as it 
 is without example in the New Testament, and as the 
 whole ceremony regarded St Peter's person alone, as 
 distinguished from the other apostles, so it is but con- 
 gruous to common sense to infer from it, that it convey- 
 ed something to him above the rest. 
 
 I prove it 3dly thus ; the fact, we have under debate, 
 happened at our Saviour's t/tird apparition to his disci- 
 ples, John xxi. 14. Now C/irist had installed both St 
 Peter, and the other apostles in the common exercise of 
 their apostleship or mission at his very first apparition to 
 them, John xx. 21, §'c., when he gave thein all their full 
 fjowers and credentials to preach the gospel to all nations. 
 This then was already done : and there needed not a neiu 
 and extraordinary ceremony to install St Peter in an 
 employment already bestowed upon him in common with 
 the other apostles ; or to renew his commission any more 
 than that of all the rest. And why then did our Saviour 
 address himself to St Pe/er alone, and not likewise to the 
 other apostles then present, if it was not to charge him 
 with something, that was not to be common to all, and 
 in which they were to have no share with him ? When 
 you give a direct rational answer to this question, you will 
 say something to the purpose. 
 
 G. — My lord, Christ only commanded St Peter to 
 feed hisfioch. Now according to St Bernard, 1. iv. c. 3. 
 de Consid. io jir each the gospel is to feed.* 
 
 L. — Sir, this does not answer but decline the ques- 
 » Case farther stated, p. 37.
 
 Si Peter's Supremacy. 21 
 
 tion. To preach tlie gospel was the charge of all the 
 apostles ill common, for wliich they had already received 
 their commission. And my question is, what need there 
 was of reneiuing St Peter's commission any more than 
 that of all the rest? My question is, why our Saviour 
 addressed himself to St Peter alofie in the presence of 
 other apostles^ if it was not to charge him with something 
 that was not to be common to all? This question is 
 yet unanswered. 
 
 G. — My lord, St Peter was certainly the apostle of the 
 Jews in a particular manner ; and the Jews are likewise 
 in a peculiar manner styled in scripture God's sheep. 
 And why then might not these be the sheep, he was 
 here commissioned to feed.* 
 
 L. — What, Sir, did our Saviour then intend by those 
 words to restrain St Peter's Jurmer coinmission, and limit 
 it to the Jeivs alone ! Was this the thing meant by that 
 unusual and extraordinary ceremony ! Was it for this 
 Christ asked him, whether he loved him more than the 
 other apostles, and charged him in such a particular man- 
 ner to feed his lambs and sheep ? Truly, Sir, when a 
 man of sense is driven to such an answer as this, it is a 
 sign, he is hard put to it. 
 
 But let us see, whether venerable antiquity ever gave 
 any of these pretty turns to our Saviour's words. St 
 pMcherius, bishoj) of Lyons, who lived in the beginning 
 of the 5th ago, wrote thus upon the eve of St Peter's 
 feast. First, Christ entrusted him with his lambs, next, 
 with his sheep : because he made him not only a shepherd, 
 hut THE siiF.iMii'.iu) or siiKiMiKiins, Peter then feeds 
 the lambs, he also feeds the sheep. He feeds both the young 
 and their mothers. He ulu.es ijotii subjects and 
 
 PRELATES. He is THEREFORE A SHEPHERD OVER ALL. 
 
 For besides hnnhs and sheep there is nothing in the church. 
 This I think is very plain. And we cainiot donl)t but 
 this ancient father delivered the current doctrine of the 
 Church in his time, and so is an authentic witness of it. 
 His words confirm my observation upon the unlimited 
 
 * Case fartlier stated, p. 30.
 
 OO 
 
 St Peter's S)ipremacy. 
 
 commission given to St Peter in the text in question, and 
 answer all your arbitrary explanations of it. 
 
 But let us hear St Chrijsostom next, who, treating of 
 the election of St Mathias, Horn. 3. in Act. writes thus 
 of St Peter. See how he acknowledges the flock entrusted 
 to him. How he is the prince of the choire. He had 
 reason to act here the first of all with AUxiioiUTy, having 
 them all delivered into his hands. 
 
 Here my observation on i^tjohn is again inforeed, and 
 St Peter is expressly declared to have acted the first of all 
 with authority. And why? Because (says St Chrysostom) 
 he had them all delivered into his hands. 
 
 Oriyen upon St Paid's Epist. to the Romans, cap. vi. 
 p. 639, speaks the same language, Petro cum sunmia 
 rerum de pascendis ovibus traderetur^ et super ipsum vehtt 
 super Petram fundaretitr ecclesia, ^-c. That is, ivhe7i the 
 CHIEF POWER of feeding the sheep ivas given to Peter, and 
 the Church was built upon him as upon a Rock ; the 
 profession of no other virtue was required of him than that 
 of love. Here both texts are joined together for proof of 
 St Petefs supremacy. 
 
 It is true a friend of yours, Sir, carps at the translation 
 of this last piece. But if a jury of grammarians were 
 impanuelled, 1 believe they would give their verdict 
 against him. 
 
 G — Pray, my lord, be not tedious in your quotations; 
 for we have no time to lose. 
 
 L. — Well, Sir, then for brevity's sake I refer you for 
 about half a score fathers more to the church of Christ 
 shewed, &fc. Part IH. Chap. ii. Sect. 1. And from them all 
 1 think we may soberly conclude, that Dr Tillotson had 
 a forehead of brass, and a seared conscience, when he told 
 his reader in his preface to Dr Barrow's book of Supre- 
 macy, that the pope's supremacy is not only an indefensible, 
 hut an impudent cause. That tliere is not a tolerable 
 argument for it, but there are a thousand invincible reasons 
 against it. That the past and present state of Christendom, 
 the histories and records of all ages, are a perpetual de- 
 monstration against it. That there is no ground in the
 
 St Peter's Supremacy. 23 
 
 world for it. But that now of a long time it has beeii by 
 the pope's janizaries boldly asserted^ and stiffly contended 
 for without reason. 
 
 If strutting- and swaggering will do the work, the poor 
 pope is lost without remedy. But he has still some 
 good old troops of janizaries to stand by him. The 
 fathers I have quoted, and referred you to, are of the 
 number, and they have two good generals at the head of 
 them, namely St Matthew and St John, So I dare ven- 
 ture them against the doctor ; who indeed had nothing 
 so much at heart as to write good English, or make a 
 flourish: but left truth to shift for itself. 
 
 SKCTION V. THE GENTLEMAN S OBJECTIONS AGAINST 
 
 ST PETEIl's SUPHEMACY ANSWERED. 
 
 <c 
 
 G. — My lord, notliing- that was said of St Peter is so 
 " express for an universal supi-em-Acy, as what St Paul said of 
 " himself, 2 Cor. xi. 28, thai the care of all churches lay upon 
 " lain. Aiid ugaiu, 1 Cor. vii. 17. So I ordain in all churches, 
 " li such a dccreiul could be produced of St Peter s, I doubt 
 " not it would have been made use of towards proving' his 
 *' universal supremacy." — p. 5. 
 
 L. — If nothing be so express for St Peter's supremacy, 
 as the two texts you have quoted are for St Paul's, pray, 
 Sir, how comes it to pass, tliat not one of the ancient 
 fathers has produced those texts in favour of St Paul, and 
 such a cloud of those venerable witnesses have urged the 
 two former texts from St Matthew and St John in favour 
 of St Peter? Let me till you, Sir, this looks a little 
 scurvily; and I fear you will have some difficulty to give 
 a satisfactory answer to it. For it is apt to make a man 
 conclude, there is some better decretal for St Peter's 
 supremacy than for St Pauls. 
 
 Hut let us consider the texts themselves. You say St 
 Pctid%r\y^ of himself, 2 C<»r. xi. 2H, That the care of all 
 chnrchts Imj upon him. liiit let us hear the whole text, 
 and il will explain itself. He writes thus. Jn wcaritiess
 
 24 Ohjeclions against 
 
 and paiiifulnrsa, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, 
 in fiistiugs often^ in cold arid nakedness. Besides those 
 t hi figs that art' vithovf, that U'hich comelh upon me daily, 
 the care of <dl the churches. If ho is weak, and I am not 
 iveak? Here St Paid makes an enumeration of all his 
 troubles and pains both in body and mind; and tells us, 
 that besides the bodily sufferings enumerated by him, he 
 was continually oppressed in mind with care and solicitude 
 for all the churches ; which shows indeed that he was a 
 most excellent apostle, filled with zeal and charity for 
 the whole church of Christ, as doubtless all the apostles 
 were ; and if either St Peter, or any other amongst them 
 had said the same of himself, how it should be strained 
 into a decretal for any superiority over the rest, is beyond 
 my comprehension. 
 
 Your second text, so I ordain in all churches, is still 
 less to the purpose. It is plain, it cannot be literally ex- 
 tended to all particular churches whatsoever. As the 
 churches of Parthia, Ethiopia, India, or Scythia; in 
 which the gospel was preached by St Thomas, St Bar- 
 tholomew and St Andrew; but not by St Paid. Nor did 
 he ever write to any of those churches. 
 
 G What means then his saying, So I ordained in 
 
 all churches? 
 
 L. — Sir, it means, that St Paul was uniform in his 
 orders and instructions. It means, that what he ordained 
 in the church of Corinth, he likewise ordained in all the 
 other churches, that were inider his immediate direction. 
 For though every apostle had a general commission to 
 teach all nations, and a jurisdiction over all the churches, 
 yet their labours were divided, and every apostle did not 
 in person teach every nation, but only that, which fell to 
 his particular lot. So that St PauVs saying, and so I 
 ordained in all churches, cannot be understood of churches 
 which he never instructed either by letter, or by word of 
 moiiiJi, but such as were particularly under his inspection. 
 And is it not then very likelj'^, that if St Peter had said 
 as much of himself, we should have improved it into an 
 argument for his superiority over the other apostles? You
 
 St Peter's Supremacy. 25 
 
 tell me, however, that if we had sucJi a decretal for St 
 Peter's supremacy ice should make good use of it. Then, 
 Sir, it is very lucky for us that we have it not ; for it 
 might have tempted us to trifle as some of our neigh- 
 bours do. 
 
 *G. — But pray, my lord, is this your tcay of answer- 
 ing? The apostle positively declares, So I ordained in all 
 churches. And you make bold to contradict him, and tell 
 him, he had nothing to do to issue forth his orders for any 
 but those iinder his more immediate inspection. As if St 
 Paul did not imderstand his own business, and the extent of 
 his power, till you came to direct him, and settle it for him. 
 
 L. — Really, Sir, though I am far from presuming to 
 contradict St Paid, or question his understanding per- 
 fectly well his o?6"« business, and the extent oi \\\i poiver ; 
 yet I am still of opinion, first, that he never either 
 travelled or sent letters into Parthia, Ethiopia, India, or 
 Scythia. And 2dly, that he could not ordain things in 
 chtirches, he neither ever saw, nor ever writ to. So pray, 
 Sir, be not so uppish till you be sure at least, that you 
 speak sense. 
 
 " G. — My lord, in the Acts of the Apostles it is told, that 
 " St Paid was at Pome preaching the gospel two whole years 
 " together. Acts xxviii. 30. But not a word of St Peter's 
 " being there." — pp. 5, 6. 
 
 Li To the best of my knowledge, Sir, and 1 am sure 
 
 of yours too, the Acts are a history of St Paid's life, and 
 not of St Peter s. And is it such a wonder, that an 
 historian writing the life of one man, should not run 
 astray from his subject to insist upon particulars relating 
 to another. 
 
 " G. — As St Paul planted the gospel at Pome, so he 
 " wrote to the church there as his particular cliarge. For 
 " he says, Pom. xi. 13, / speak to you Gentiles, in as much as 
 " / am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my office." — p. 6. 
 
 L. — CJood, Sir, did St Paul plant the gospel nt Rome 
 before he ever was there ? That is news indeed. The 
 gospel then liad been planted at Rotne some years before 
 
 * Vind. p. ny. 
 c
 
 '26 Objections agahiat 
 
 he wrote his epistle to the llomans; wliich was 15 years 
 after iStFchr had fixed his seat there. And to sliow lie 
 never had been there, he writes thus to them. Now I 
 would not have you he iynorant, brtlhren, that oftentimes I 
 purposed to come unto you, but u-as let hitherto. Rom. i. 
 13. In eiVoet, it was towards the end of his life he came 
 to Rome; and when he was there, he contributed very 
 much towards the increase of Christ's flock by Ids con- 
 tinual preaching for the space of two years amongst them. 
 
 " G My lord, as St Paul was tlic apostle of the Gentiles, 
 
 "so St Peter was the apostle of \\\^i Jews ; they were his 
 " particular charge ; and he himself allowed that the gospel of 
 " the uncircumcision was committed to Paul, as the gospel of 
 " circumcision was to himself. Gal. ii. 7 — 9. And accordingly 
 *' lie directed his epistle to the Jews of the dispersion 
 " throughout Pontus, Galutia, Capadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. 
 " But he wrote not to the Gentiles, particuhuly not to 
 " Rome ; which would seem strange, if he had been bishop 
 " of Rome, and that had heeu his chief and principal charge." 
 — p. 6. 
 
 L. — Pray, Sir, is it so very strange he should not 
 write particularly to those, amongst whom he resided for 
 the most part ? Did St James direct his canonical epistle 
 to the church of Jerusalem, whereof he was bishop? And 
 why then is it so strange, that St Peter should not write 
 to the Romans ? 
 
 But as to what you say, that St Paul was the apostle 
 of the Gentiles, and St Peter of the Jews: 1 answer, that 
 as Christ was a minister of the circumcision, Rom. xv. 8. 
 so his chief vicar took tliat part of the vineyard to culti- 
 vate in a more particular manner to his share. But 
 neither was his jurisdiction confined to the Jews, nor St 
 Paul's to the Gentiles. Did not God choose that the 
 Gentiles by Peter's mouth shoidd hear the icord of God, 
 and believe ? Acts xv. 7 ; by whom even the first Gentiles 
 were baj)tized at Cesarea, Acts x. 48. So we find St Paul 
 preaching in the synagogue. Acts xiii. 2; xviii. 4, W, as a 
 chosen vessel to bear Christ's name before the Gentiles, and 
 kings, and children of Israel. Acts xi. 15. In a word, St
 
 St Peter's Suprcmacij. 27 
 
 Peter am\ St Paul, and the other apostles as well as they, 
 hiidjurisdiction over all christian churches, whether of con- 
 verted Jeics or Gentiles ; though their labours were 
 divided, according as occasion required, or as they were 
 directed by the Divine Spirit. All which is no proof, that 
 8t Peter was not the head of the apostles. 
 
 '« G. — St Pauls bold u'il/isfa>nli?)(/ him to (he face before 
 " the whole church of Atitioch in behalf of the Gentiles, 
 " whom he had misled, feariiirj them ivho were of the circum- 
 " cisiofi, shows the care St Paul took of those, who were 
 '• more particularly his charge ; and seems a behaviour not 
 " very suitable to the supreme head of the church both Jews 
 " and Gentiles, if St Patd bad known any thing of St Peter's 
 '• being so constituted by Christ.' — p. G. 
 
 //. — Sir, his bold withstanding is a mark indeed of his 
 zeal ; but neither of his superioritt/, nor equality to St 
 Peter in the college of the apostles. Is not the council 
 bound to withstand the hing, if he proposes any thing 
 contrary to law, or the natural liberties and properties 
 of the subject? And will you infer from thence, that 
 the king has no superiority or authority over his council? 
 Suppose the bishop of Canterbury ii[un\\(\ preach or write 
 any thing to the prejudice of the Church of England, 
 would a private doctor think it a presumption to with- 
 stand his superior, and write boldly against him? 
 
 But let St Austin answer for me. Si Peter (says he) 
 in whom the primacy of the apostles appeared tvith so 
 surpassing a grace, was rejirehcndcd by a latter apostle. L. 
 'J. de Bap. c. i. And though St Paul's zeal is to be 
 admired, St Peter's humility in this occasion is far more 
 c-xtollod by some of the fathers. St Gregory's words are 
 remarkable. lie became (says St CJreg.) the folloirer of 
 one less than himself, that even here he might go before 
 him : to the end, that he, who was first in the highest 
 dignity (f the aj)ostleship, might also be the first in humi- 
 lity. In Latin thus : Atfjuc in eadnn re fact us est ser/uens 
 -MJNOiiis suj, cliam nt in Iloc prcciret. (^uatenus (/ui 
 PRIMUS erat in apostolatus culmine, esset it primus in hu- 
 militate. Horn. \\i. in E/ek. torn. ii. p. 1180. This puts
 
 28 Objections against 
 
 it beyond dispute, wliat tlieso two fathers tliouglit of St 
 Peter's supremac)/, and makes it jdain that a superior may 
 be reprehended by an inferior without prejudice to his 
 avthorHi/. 
 
 " G. — Methiiiks, my lord, it did not become the other 
 " apostles to seiid their sovereign upon business, as tliey sent 
 " Peter to Samaria. Acts viii. 14." — p. 6. 
 
 //. — Indeed, Sir, your stock of arguments grows verj^ 
 low, when this must serve for one. Is it such an unusual 
 thing for the ivhole body to depute their superior upon 
 business, wherein the common cause is concerned? A 
 bishop may be deputed by his diocess, a chancellor by the 
 University, and even a prince by the senate. As the Jews 
 sent their high priest Isniael with other ambassadors to 
 Nero. Jos. 1. 20. Ant. c. 7. 
 
 " G. — If it be true, as some say, that St Peter was bishop 
 " of the Jewish converts at Pome, and St Paul of the Ge7i- 
 " tiles there, St Paul would have had a much greater flock 
 " than St Peter, and tlie successors of St Paul and not of St 
 " Peter, must have been bishops there ; because the church of 
 " Rome is now, and has long been all of the Gentiles." — p. 7. 
 
 L. — All of the Gentiles, Sir ? How do you know that ? 
 But let that be as it will, though the personal applica- 
 tion, or immediate inspection of the two apostles was 
 perhaps divided, whilst they were together, their juris- 
 diction was not: and it is nothing to the purpose, which 
 of the two had the greater number to instruct : for the 
 whole flock belonged to them both in quality of apostles. 
 But let us suppose St Paul was also bishop of Pome, all 
 that will follow from it, is, that the popes succeeded both 
 St Peter and St Paul in the government of the Roman 
 diocess ; which will not hinder their succeeding St Peter 
 alone in the government of the whole church. However 
 it was a thing unknown to antiquity to call the bishop of 
 Pome, the successor of St Paid. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the surest way to find out the truth is by 
 " fact, and not straining expressions which may liave several 
 '• meanings. The easterii monarchs have used to give them- 
 " selves mighty titles, as son of the sun, and brother of the 
 '• stars, and king of all the kings of the earth, &c. But will
 
 St Peter's Supremacy. 29 
 
 " any believe, tliat any of them was the universal monarch 
 " for all this contrary to plain fact ?" — p. 7. 
 
 L. — No, Sir, what then ? 
 
 " G. — Then let me ask you, do you think one could write 
 " the history of a king, suppose of king Charles the 2d, and 
 " in all the history neither call him King, mention his re- 
 " storation, coronation, or tell one regal act, he ever did, as 
 " calling a Parliament, or presiding in it, sending, or re- 
 " ceiving an ambassador, or granting a commission, &c. And 
 " so of a pope, could his history be wrote without calling 
 " him jjope, or telling of one papal act of his ?" — p. 7. 
 
 Ij. — No, Sir, no more than St Paul's life can be writ 
 witliout calling him Paul. But the life of St Patil may 
 be writ without a recital of the particulars of St Peter's 
 life. 
 
 " G — Pray, my lord, let me apply what I have said. "We 
 " have the history of the Acts of the Apostles in which St 
 " Peter has a great share, though not so much as St Paul.'" 
 
 And there is a Council. — pp. 7, 8. 
 
 L. — Hold, Sir, you shall tell your story out immediate- 
 ly. But I desire you to answer me first. Are the Acts 
 a history of all the apostles ? 
 
 G. — No, my lord. But St Peter has a great share in 
 tliem, as I told you. 
 
 //. — And I shall let you know how great a share lie 
 has. St Luke, the author of the Acts^ was St PauFs 
 disciple ; and the Acts are properly a history of liis liJe 
 from his conversion till his coming to Home, where St 
 JaiIic also takes leave of him. Nav many of tiie apostles, 
 as St Andrew, St Thomas, St Bartliolomeir, &c. are but 
 once named before the descent of the Huly Ghost, and 
 never after. And St Peter's life and actions are no far- 
 ther related than was necessary to give a succinct account 
 of the first planting of the gospel, and the ])rogress it 
 .made in the first year after our Saviour's passion; in 
 which indeed St Peter had the greatest sJiare, and acted 
 on all occasions like the rnaslcr-u'orhman ; particularly in 
 the election of St Mathias, as St Chrgsostom has ob- 
 served, Horn. 0. in Act. So that we have but one year 
 of St Peters life in the Acts. After the rjth chapter St
 
 30 Ohjcctions against 
 
 Luke speaks no more of him l)iit occasionally in tlie 15tl), 
 because the history of his master, St Pavi, required it; 
 whose labours and sutVorings arc the whole sidijcct of the 
 last 16 chapters of the Acts. And so it is no greater 
 wonder that we know no more of St Peter than that wc 
 know nothing at all of the greatest part of the apostles. 
 And the reason of both is, because St Luke^s principal 
 design was to relate the apostolical labours of St Paul, 
 whose life was very instructive, because he had been a 
 violent persecutor of the church. Now, Sir, you may 
 make your application, if you please. But your market 
 is pretty well forestalled. 
 
 SECTION VI. THE OBJECTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL OF 
 
 JERUSALEM ANSWERED. 
 
 <' G. — I was going to tell you, my lord, that there is a 
 " Council mentioned, wherein both St Pttcr and St Paul 
 " were present: and there is not a tittle of any superiority o( 
 *' St Peter over St Paul, or any of the otlier apostles, either 
 " ill that couucil ; or any where else throughout the whole 
 " history ; which is impossible, if St Peter had tiiat si/pre- 
 '■'• macy^ which the popes have claimed as his successors. This 
 " is so demonstrative a proof, tliat the writers on your side 
 *' think it necess^ary for thein to endeavour some solution to 
 " it. But the weakness of their answer is a yet greater con- 
 " firmation on our side." — p. 8. 
 
 Ij. — It seems, however, the writers on our side do not 
 think it insolvable ; and I am of their mind. But, Sir, 
 your memory fails you in telling me, there is not any 
 thing concerning St Petei's svperioritij over the apostles 
 throvrjhout the whole history of the Acts. For I told you 
 just now of the election of St Mathias, which was the first 
 thing done by the apostles after our Saviour's ascension ; 
 and M-herein St Peter acted as head according to St 
 Chrysosto?n's ohsQTvat'iou : and I do not find it mentioned 
 in the Acts that when St J\ml was called to the apostle- 
 ship, St Peter cither abdicated, or was deposed by his 
 fellow apostles.
 
 St Peter's Supremacy. 31 
 
 " G.. — My lord, your divines c;ui find no otlicr way to get 
 <• some supcrior'Ui/ to St Pttcr in tliis council than to suppose 
 " that he opened it, because, as they say, he spoke first ; 
 " which would not infer, the si/prcinaci/ they pretend, if it 
 *' were true. But it is plainly otherwise. For it is said, 
 " Acts XV. 7, a?id tchen there had been much disputmg, Peter 
 " rose up and said, Sfc. Nor did he speak last. For after 
 " he had done, Paul and Barnabas declared the conversion 
 " of the Gentiles by their means without putting them under 
 " the law, which was the point in debate. And after they 
 " had hfeld their peace, St Jaines, who was bishop of Jerusa- 
 " lem, where the council was held, did, as president, resume 
 •' what had been said by St Peter and others, and gave his 
 " definitive sentence upon i\\Qw\\o\Q,icheref ore my sentence is. 
 " And the decree of the council was drawn up in the words 
 " of St James. So that it is plain he closed the council, \\\\o- 
 " ever opened it, or spoke first, which is not so material as 
 " to be told in this account of that council. But dismissing' 
 " the council, and putting an end to it, seems of greater 
 " authority. If what is here said of St James had been said 
 " of St Peter, I question not it would have been made use 
 " of as a full proof of his supremacy, and presiding in the 
 " council." — pp. 8, 9. 
 
 L. — Sir, your not qiieslioninr) and my not questioning are 
 of equal weight : that is none at all. Let us then consider 
 the merits of the cause, whicli is more to the purpose. 
 
 All you have said centres in this one point, viz., that 
 it was not St Peter, but St James, wlio presided in tlie 
 council ; wliicli to the best of my judj^ment cannot be 
 made evident from the Acts. 
 
 You say St Peter neither spoke Jirst nor Inst ; tliat is 
 more than either you or I can tell. For ^t Luhe haslet 
 neitlicr of us into the secret. It is certain St Peter's 
 discourse is first recorded. But you answer, that before 
 St J^eter spoke, there had been much disputing. Acts xv. 
 7. Very ritijht. Hut I ask, who opened that debate? 
 
 G. — St Luke is silent as to that particular. 
 
 L. — Is he so, Sir? And how then have you tlio 
 assurance to toll mo, it is plain from the /Jets, that St 
 Peter (lid not open the council ? In eliVct, St Luke has 
 left us in tlie dark, and St Peter may iiavc opened it as
 
 32 Ohjcdioiis against 
 
 president for ouglit we know. Therefore it is not evident 
 from the Acts, that he was not the man. 
 
 But you have a second string to your bow, viz.^ that 
 tliough St Peter shouhi be allowed to have opened the 
 council, it is plain to you, that St James closed it. But 
 it is not so very plain to me: neither can it be so to you 
 from the history of the Acts. It is true, St James's dis- 
 course is recited last by St Luke: but where does he tell 
 us, that none of the apostles spoke after him ? St Luke 
 relates not a word of what was said before St Peter's 
 speech, and yet it is plain a great deal was spoke before 
 it. Besides, it is certain that St John the evangelist was 
 at the council : ViwA St Chrysostom, Hom. 33. in Act. 
 doubts not but there were other apostles besides; yet not 
 a single word is specified of what they said. And must we 
 then conclude they sat like mutes, when the faith of the 
 church was concerned ? It is not natural to suppose it. 
 
 You say, St James resumed i\s president what St Peter 
 liad said. But why as president ? That is begging the 
 question: for any man may resume what another has said 
 before iiim without acting as president, and others, for 
 ought we know, resumed after St Jantes what he had said. 
 In effect, it was not St Luke's business to gratify the 
 reader's curiosity with what every body said, or who 
 spoke Jirst or last, or who presided; but to come the 
 shortest way to the grand point, that is, the decree re- 
 lating to the matter under debate ; because that was a 
 full justification of his ma.ster St Paid. 
 
 G — But, my lord, St James pronounced t\\Q definitive 
 sentence. For he said, therefore my sentence is. 
 
 L. — Sir, I answerer*/, this is an unfair translation of 
 the Greek, which is the original text. For x^ho in Greek 
 is the same as judico in Latin, and so it is rendered by 
 St Jerome, which imports the same as if St James had 
 said, this is my judgment or opinion. And so I find it 
 likewise in an old French profestant translation of the 
 Bible put forth anno 1540, where it is rendered thus, 
 pour laquelle chose je suis d'avis, ^c, whicli is no more a 
 definitive sentence than what St Peter had pronounced
 
 St Peter's Supremacy. 33 
 
 before him in tliese words : Wherefore why tempt ye God 
 to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which tieither 
 our fathers nor ice icere able to hear ? Acts xv. 1 0, for 
 tljere he plainly delivered his opinion. 
 
 But suppose your translation of the text were exact, 
 as it is not, how can you make St James's saying-, there- 
 fore my sentence is, a proof of his presiding ? For surely 
 you will not question but every bishop in a council has a 
 defnitive vote, and may say, this is my sentence. Hierefore 
 since every apostle or bishop present at the council of 
 Jerusalem had an undoubted right to give a defnitive 
 sentence, it can be no proof of any one^s presiding. 
 
 G. — My lord, StJa7nes also dismissed the council and 
 put an end to it, which is an act of authority. 
 
 Ij. — It is more. Sir, than you can make out from tlie 
 j4cts. For after the end of his speech St Luke writes 
 thus: Then pleased it the apostles a7id elders ivith the 
 whole church to send chosen men of their own company to 
 Antioch icith Paul and Barnabas, &c. Acts xv. 22, 
 \\'hence it rather appears, that when the business, upon 
 which they had met was ended, they parted by mutual 
 consent : and there was not the least hint given, that they 
 were dismissed by St James, or indeed by any single 
 person acting as president of the council. 
 
 G. — However, my lord, it seems very surprising the 
 Acts should be so silent concerning St Peter's supi'einacy, 
 bince it is a point of that importance. 
 
 L. — Why so, Sir? Must the scriptures say every 
 thing in every place ? Or is it so surprising that an 
 historian should omit things foreign to his main design ? 
 St Peter's supremacy is sufficiently established in other 
 parts of scripture, and it needs not be repeated in every 
 cliapter. But |)ray, Sir, in what chaj)ter of the New 
 Testament is the spirilu(d supremacy oi the secular prince 
 mentioned? Let me tell you. Sir, this is an ugly ques- 
 tion, and so I will not press it. 
 
 But if the negative argument, you insist so much upon, 
 be a demonstration (as y»)u call it) against St Peter's 
 supremacy, then, Sir, all the following articles, viz.y the 
 
 c2
 
 ;>4 Ohjcctious against 
 
 validity of infant baptism aj^aiiist anabaptists, the laM'fiil- 
 ncss ot' translatinu,' the sabbath-day to stmday ixf^xHw^t the 
 Jeics, the divine revelation of all the ccmonical books of 
 scripture against the deists, and several other articles of 
 S^reat importance have, accordini^ to your way of arguing, 
 demo7istratiuns against thorn: because i\\c scriptures m'e 
 not only very barren, but wholly silent in the determina- 
 tion of these points. Nay, eating bloud will be as criminal 
 ii% fornication : because both are equally prohibited by 
 St ,7rt;«r.«'.<f definitive sentence in the council oi Jerusalem : 
 and tliere is not a word on record, by which this prohibi- 
 tion was ever revoked. 
 
 The truth of the whole matter is this. The short 
 relation given by St Luke of the council at Jerusalem 
 affords no argument of any weight either for or against 
 the supremacy of St Peter. But you are willing to make 
 the best of a bad market, and play small game rather 
 than stick out. The current of antiquity is against you ; 
 and so are the two texts of St Matthew and St John. 
 This puts you under a necessity of picking up something 
 to counterbalance, as well as you can, the evidence of 
 those two texts. 
 
 SECTION VII. — OTHER OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 <' G. — My lord, nono of those texts are so express as those 
 " I have quoted of St Paul." — ■;;. 6. 
 
 L. — It is very strange then that so many of the ancient 
 fathers should allege those two texts for St Peter's supre- 
 macy, and not one single father should take notice of 
 those you have quoted for St Paid. 
 
 " G. — My lord, if the texts you boast of were meant in 
 *' that extent, for which you have produced them, it is im- 
 '< possible, but that must appear in the facts of St Peter, 
 " especially in the part lie bore in the council at Jerusalem, 
 " and facts are the surest explanation of words." — p. 9. 
 
 L. — Then, Sir, the very first fact of the apostles re- 
 lated by St Liihe, Acts, i. I mean the election of St 
 Mathias, decides the question against you. For it is
 
 St Peter's Supremacy. 35 
 
 manifest to any unbiassed reader, that St Peter acted in 
 that important occasion as head of the whole assembly. 
 Hear the words of St CJirysosfom once more ; they carry 
 weight, and cannot be repeated too often. See (says he) 
 how he acknowledges the fioch entrusted to him. He is the 
 prince of the choire. lie had reason to act here the first 
 of all icith aiUhorilij, having them all delivered into his 
 hands. Here, Sir, is an undeniable fact. AMiereas the 
 fact, you boast so much of, amounts to no more, than that 
 St Luke (who has omitted innumerable other facts) has 
 not declared in express terms, either that St Peter did 
 or did not preside in the council at Jerusalem : which in 
 reality was not a material circumstance in the subject of 
 tliat historical passage. How vnjust are prejudiced men 
 in their balances ! 
 
 But there are some other things very remarkable in 
 the Scriptures. 1. That whenever the apostles are named 
 together St Peter is always named in the first place. 2. 
 That after the descent of the Ilolg Ghost he was the first 
 that signalized himself in a sermon to the Jews ; and 
 when the apostles were reflected upon by the people, he 
 stood up and undertook their defence. Jets ii. 3dlij. He 
 wrought tlie first miracle in confirmation of the gospel. 
 Acts ii. 4fhlg. He was the first, that preached it to the 
 Gentiles. Acts x. And 'ythlg. He was the first to whom 
 their vocation was revealed. Ibid. 
 
 These, Sir, are facts, and very considerable ones in a 
 narrative, which was not intended for a history of St 
 Peter's life, but of St Paul's. And though they be not 
 demonstrative proofs of St Peter's supremacy, yet they 
 contain circumstances, which very much corroborate the 
 positive texts for it, and naturally lead an impartial reader 
 to an idea of it. 
 
 " G. — My lord, wo disroursc now only of nuf/iority. What 
 " author ily one apostle liiul over aiiotlior. ' For that is the 
 " point, wlierein wc are concerned." — p. 9. 
 
 L. — Very right, Sir. 
 
 " G. — We «[tfak not of oflior g'>flf! and graces, or their 
 " labours in propagating the gospel, wherein one might bo
 
 3G Oh/cctions apainst 
 
 '•■ more oininoiit ami succossful than another. But this gave 
 " no authoriti/ ovor tho others." — p. 0, 
 Z/. — All this is very true. 
 
 «' G Hut in this also St Paul had tho ]>rofi'roiioo. For 
 
 ** he ltil>ouii(l more ahitiuiiintli/ t/iati (ill, 1 Cor. xv. 10. And 
 •' all the epiiths almost are iiis to tho several churchos. And 
 " his iiiirnilis and convtrsions of intidels take np a mmh 
 •• greater part in the Acts of' ihc Aposilts than those ot" St 
 .. Peter. "—Yp. 9, 10. 
 
 L. — A most wonderful discovery ! Tiiat tho actions 
 of a person, whose life is expressly writ, should take up 
 the oroatest part in s\ieh a history ! But to convince vou. 
 Sir, from your own principle, that tliis cannot he wrested 
 into any argument for the lessening; of St Piter ; it is 
 YOur opinion that all the (iposf/ts were equal : yet seven 
 of the twelve are hut once named in the Acts ,- and not 
 one particular action of theirs is related by St Luke, 
 though his hook he entitled the Aets (if the Jpoafles. 
 Either therefore your mentioning, that the actions of St 
 Paul take up the greatest jKirt in those nets is a trifling- 
 observation : or, if it has any force against St Peter, we 
 must conclude, that the greatest number of the apostles 
 were mere ei/phers in the opinion of St Luke. 
 
 "C. — My lord, 1 have said so much of this matter, heoanse 
 " the supposed siiprcDhiei/ of St I\tei\ liis hoing at Home, 
 " and bis/iop of Ixonic, is the whole foundation of that aujue- 
 •• tiiavi/ claimed hy the bin/top and church of Jfome. And if 
 " that ho so essential a point, and upon which tho unit// of 
 '• tho church depends, in !>o nuuh that wiiliout it there is no 
 " church at all acoordins; to the scheme drawn hy modern 
 '• 7inmf, it is inconceivahlo the ^^^c/vyj/j/rci- should ho so wholly 
 " silent in it ; nay showinjj tho very contrary in fact, as 1 
 •' Iiave said already concerning St l\'tei:" — p. 10. 
 
 L. — Sir, sai/iiKj and jiroviuij are two very difl^erent 
 thiuijs. You have said it indeed, but you have no reason 
 to boast of it, unless a good assurance be a virtue. I grant 
 then that the itupremaet/ of St l\ter is an essential j)oint, 
 and it is clearly determined by the word of God, if plain 
 words andyJjc"/.* may be depended ujuin. The scriptures 
 therefore are not iileut in it. But it is vonr mistake,
 
 St Peter's Supremacy. 37 
 
 and not our doctrine, that St Peter's being at Rome, and 
 bishop of Rome are any part of tlie essential point of his 
 supremacy. For, thoiigli the facts be as unquestionable, 
 as any liistorical facts can be, yet neither St Peter's 
 supremacy, nor that of his successors has any dependence 
 upon them. Because St Peter would have been head of the 
 church, though ho liad never been at Rome : and liis 
 successors would be the same, and liave the same 
 authority, though he Imd chosen any other city for his 
 episcopal see. 
 
 " G. — My lord, when the diredt question was put to our 
 " blessed Saviour upon the contest anionj,' the apostles, which 
 " of them should he the yrcatest, Luke xxii. 24, I say, if this 
 " was so materiiil a jjoint, as to the very btiiiy of the church, 
 '• it is iiicoiiceivaljlL' he sliould not have detorniined it, but 
 " by his answer rather cliecked tiie error of their thoughts, 
 " and left them all upon the level.'' — p. 10. 
 
 L. — Sir, I have but three things to say to this objection. 
 1. You liave first misrepresented the text. 2. Though I 
 sliould allow it to be fairly represented, it can render you 
 no manner of service, and 0. the context is against you. 
 
 1. The text is thus : And there was also a strife among 
 them, which of them shndd he accounted the greatest. Luke 
 xxii. 24. Here indeed we are j)lainly told, that there 
 was a contest among themselves, but not a n-ord of any 
 direct (jucstion put to our blessed Saviour ; and is it then 
 so very unconceivable that there should he no direct an- 
 swer, when no direct fjnestion was j)ut? 
 
 2. But suppose t\ic direct fpasfio/ihiul been put to our 
 Saviour, is it so very unconceivable, that he should not 
 take that occasion to determine the matter ? For was 
 not Christ fittest to judge, what time was most proper to 
 jdace a sujxrior (jver his apostles, as he did in effect not 
 long before his ascension ? Johu xxi. 15, !(>, &.c. Or was 
 he bound to gratify their ambitious curiosity with a posi- 
 tive determination upon the very spot ? On the contrary 
 they deserved even a severer check, than he gave them. 
 However it was perfectly adapted to the naliue of their 
 iault. For instead of (letermining their contest, he gave
 
 38 The C/iurch's Unifi/, ant! 
 
 ihcm a locuirc of humility to cure tlicm of their pride. 
 Yet at the same time lie insiDuated very plainly, tliat 
 there was to he a superior amongst them : though he did 
 not think fit to nominate the person at that time. Wliich 
 makes good what I said. 
 
 3. Tliat the context is against yon. Our Sai^iotir's 
 words are these : And he said unto them, the kings of the 
 Gentiles exercise lordship over tJicm, and they that exercise 
 authority upon them, are called benefactors. Bnt yc shall 
 not he so. Bnt he, that is gueatest among yon, let him 
 he as the younger, and he that is chief, as he that does 
 serve. Luke xxii. -5, 26. Is not this a clear insinuation 
 that there was to be a chief among them, joined with an 
 instruction, with what humility he was to behave himself? 
 So that the text you have quoted, makes nothing against 
 St Petefs supremacy, and its context makes for it. Un- 
 less you can name me some other appointed by Christ io 
 be the head of his church, and centre of unity ; for there 
 is but one church of Christ upon eartli. 
 
 SECTION VIII. — THE CHURCH S UNITY, AND SUPREMACY 
 
 OF THE POPE. 
 
 " G.—Yoxxv lordship may add, and in heaven too : for all 
 " are one church to Christ, of whicli he alone is the head. 
 <' And one part being militant, the other triumphant, makes 
 " them not two churches, but two states of the same clnirch, 
 " whicli is called one family in heaven and earth. Epli. iii. 15. 
 '« In like manner heaven, earth, and hell are one kingdom to 
 " tlie great creator ; for his kingdom ruleth over all. And of 
 " the earth it is said, the kingdom is the Lord's, arid ke is the 
 " Governor among the nations. Psalm xxii. 28. All the 
 <' nations are one kingdom to him." — p. 11. 
 
 L. — Sir, no man doubts, but the church militant and 
 triumphant are but one church to Christ, who is the sole 
 supreme and independent, but invisible head of the church 
 militant upon earth. But the question between us is, 
 whether he has not deputed a visible head to govern this 
 church under liim ?
 
 Svpremacy of the Pope. 99 
 
 " G. — My lord, lie has appointed no universal mo7iarch as 
 " his deputii of his kingdom of the earth. But each nation 
 " is governed by their respective rukrs, v/ho are independent 
 <' of each other. For so his wisdom has disposed according 
 " to the capacity of his creatures. For what man would he 
 <•' sufficient to govern t!ie whole world? And where must 
 " the seat be of this universal monarch ? Must he not have 
 " as many or more deputies under him, as there are now 
 " kings or nations ? And what ])rndence could prevent 
 "defections and rebellions in far distant provinces ? This 
 •' has overthrown great monarchies, which have fallen with 
 " their own weight. What then could support an universal 
 " monarch)/ ? When nations go to war, otiier neighbouring 
 " kings and states may interpose, or assist the oppressed by 
 " mediators and guarantees of peace. But this could not be 
 " in case of defection from the 7tnivcrsal monarch. For who 
 " assist rebels, are rebels themselves : and such wars could 
 '•' not but end in the utter destruction of the one side or the 
 " other. Therefore God has consulted best for tlie peace 
 " and safety of mankind in distributing the world into several 
 " independent governments, rather than put all under the 
 " dominion of one.'' — pp. 11, 12. 
 
 Ij. — Sir, von have taken a great deal of pains to prove 
 a thing, Mliich no man ever denied, viz., that God lias 
 not established an vniversnl monarchy or monarch upon 
 earth. And therefore tliough the several kingdoms upon 
 earth be one kingdom to God, yet they arc not o;?e among 
 themselves, even when in ])eace, but mncli less when 
 they arc at mar. 
 
 " f7.-^Af y lord, the %inilif of kingdoms is indeed disturbed, 
 " when ihey are at war ; but it is not totally dissolved. For 
 " there are laws of war, wherein all agree. There are still 
 " wiiat we call tiie law of nations, whidi as it mainlaius 
 " commerce in peace, so it regulates the fury of war. And 
 " there is one unit;/, whicli nothing can dissolve ; tliat is, 
 •' God having made of one blood ad nations upon the earth. 
 " So that here is an unity of relation, of humanity, and of 
 " common principles, which all retain." — p. 12. 
 
 /y — However an unity, wliicli docs not hinder people 
 
 from cuttingoncanotlicr'.s throats, is but a very slender one. 
 
 ** G. — It is not as it should be; but it is so as is consistent
 
 40 J'he Church's Unity, and 
 
 " with our fallen slate, and tlie corruptions of mankind. It 
 " is not such an unit)/, as is in God's kingdom in heaven, 
 " which yet was once disturbed by rebellion." — p. 12. 
 
 Zi. — But, Sir, the rebels were banished out of heaven; 
 and so all heretics, who are rebels against the church, are 
 cut off from her cuminunion. For it is as impossible for 
 heretics to be members of Christ's church militant upon 
 earth, as for the devil and liis aj/ostate angels to be mem- 
 bers of the church triumphaid in heaven. But, surely, 
 Sir, you will allow a stricter unity in the church of Christ 
 upon earth, than there is among nations, that are at war 
 with one another? 
 
 " G. — I wish it were so. But, alas, it is not. And the 
 <' frailty of man shows itself in the church as well as in tlie 
 " state. Tlie many heresies and divisions in the church have 
 " rent lier to pieces, and broke her unity as much as wars 
 <' have that of the temporal world.'' — p. 12. 
 
 L. — Is it then possible, that there should be no greater 
 unity in the church of Christ, than there is among king- 
 doms, that arc tearing and devouring one another ! If 
 this be all the U7iity we are capable of in our fallen state, 
 then the church of Christ is a mere Babels and his king- 
 dom a realm of confusion. 
 
 You say, the many heresies, that are in the church have 
 rent her to pieces. If you mean. Sir, that they have torn 
 many limbs off from her, I grant it. But they remain 
 not in the catholic church : they are cast out of her, as 
 Lucifer and his apostate angels were cast out of heaven : 
 and she remains truly one (or else the Nicene creed de- 
 ceives us) that is, one in faith : one in the participation 
 of sacraments ; and one in the union of all her members 
 under one visible head, Christ's vicar upon earth. So tliat 
 they, who by their pride, and obstinacy separated them- 
 selves from this head, to which they were once united, are 
 accountable to God for the divisions you complain of. 
 
 " G. — No, my lord, it is the pretence to xcniversal supre- 
 <' macy in the church of Home has been the great cause of 
 *' these divisions. It has procured peace in the church just as 
 «' setting up an universal monarcJiy would in the world, that 
 " is, filled it with more confusion and bloodshed, than ever
 
 Supremacy of the Pope. 41 
 
 " was in it, or could otherwise possibly be. For which reason 
 " God lias appointed no universal monarch in the church 
 '« more than in the state.^' — p. 13. 
 
 L. — To speak properly, Sir, the pope as such, is no 
 monarch at all, much less the universal one. The reason 
 is, because the word monarch is properly taken for onCy 
 to whom all others placed in authority are but as vicars^ 
 deputies, or vice-regents. In which sense Christ is the 
 only universal moiarch both of the world, and the church. 
 For all bishops are his vicars, and all princes his vice- 
 regents. And this cannot be attributed to the pope. But 
 I am sensible that universal monarch is an odious name, 
 and therefore very proper to supply the want of argument 
 against the pope's supremacy ; which in reality means no 
 more than that he is the supreme visible governor of the 
 whole church of Christ. 
 
 If therefore you pretend to maintain, that the pope's 
 supremacy, or his being chief governor of the catholic or 
 universal church, is as improper an expedient to procure 
 its unity and peace, as a man's setting himself up for 
 imiversal monarch would be to establish peace in the 
 world, I can see nothing but a mere jingle of words to 
 support the comparison, and the difference is obvious to 
 common sense. 
 
 J. Because the strength of the civil government consists 
 in money, arms, and men; which cannot be easily dis- 
 patched to all parts of the world. But church government 
 stands quite upon another bottom. The iveapons of our 
 warfare (says St Paul, 2 Cor. x. 4, (5) are not carnal, 
 but miglUy through Christ. And having in a readiness to 
 revenge all disobedience. These are censures, cxcomnmni- 
 cations, suspensions, depositions, interdicts, Sfc, which 
 neither distance nor opposition rejiders ineffectual, but 
 have tiieir force in the court (f conscience, which it is in 
 vain to oppose. 
 
 2. It is certain God has not established an universal 
 monarchy, in the world : aiul therefore any man's setting 
 himself up lor universal monarch must of necessity cause 
 opposition, and bloodshed. But it is no less certain, that
 
 42 Tht Church's Unilij^ and 
 
 Chrisf lias cs;tal)Hslie(l an ntiircr.wl church. For what 
 does tlie word cafholic else mean? It means undoubtedly, 
 that the Church of Christ is not limited to this or that 
 nation in particular, but is the church of all nations ac- 
 cording; to scripture lanj^uage, go ye and teach all nations. 
 Matt, xxviii. 19. And therefore as there is but one church 
 in ail the nations of the world, where the true faith is 
 received, so Christ was pleased to appoint one head for 
 the government of it. 
 
 SECTION IX. — ST. GREGORY S JUDGMENT RELATING TO 
 THE MATTER UNDER DEBATE. 
 
 « G. — My lord, Gregory the great said to John bishop of 
 " Constantinople (who upon the seat of the empire being 
 " translated thither set up for an uiiiversal snpremacij in the 
 " churcli) if the church should come to depend upon one, it 
 '^ must suddenly fall. And Cyprian ." — p. 13. 
 
 Ij. — Hold, Sir, let me answer this first. You are 
 under a very orrcat, and 1 fear a wilful mistake in saying 
 that John bishop of Constantinople^ set up for the universal 
 supremacy in the church. 
 
 Anastasius Bibliothecariiis will justify what I say. For 
 in the preface to his Latin translation of the 7th general 
 council addressed to pope John the 8th, he writes thus: 
 Being at Constantinople, I often blamed the Greehs for 
 this title [viz. oecumenical, or universal patriarch] as a 
 mark of pride or arrogancy, to which they answered, that 
 they did not ccdl their pcdriarch oecumenical, as if he had 
 the primacy of cdl the world, hut that he was over a jjart, 
 inhabited by christians. Meaning the eastern church. 
 7;^ on fjuod universi orbis ieneat pr(VS2datum, scd quod 
 cuidani parti prccsit orbis, qncB a christianis inhabitatur. 
 Tom. vii. Cone. p. .30. 
 
 It is certain therefore, that the title of oecumenical 
 patriarch, which John of Constantinople assumed, was 
 understood by him and the other Greehs in a very inno- 
 cent sense, and only signified, that he M^as i\\G first pa- 
 triarch of the east: as Monsieur du Pin likewise testifies,
 
 Supremacy of the Pope. 43 
 
 Cen. 6, j3. 67, where he tells us, that John of Capndocia 
 sirnamed the Faster was sharply reprehended by St Gregory 
 for taking vpon him the title of oecumenical patriarch. 
 Because this pope looked upon this title as a mark of ambi- 
 tion, though in the sense of the Greeks it was innocent, and 
 signified nothing less than tchat St Gregory thought. 
 
 However as that saint understood it, the title was 
 unjustifiable on several accounts. First, because it seemed 
 to import n jurisdiction over the whole church, which did 
 not belong to the bishop of Constantinople, nor was indeed 
 challenged by him. And 2d/y, because it seemed to 
 import that he w'as the only bishop, or, at least that all 
 other bishops were his dcpidies ; a dignity belonging to 
 Christ alone. It is manifest at least that St Gregory under- 
 stood ft so; as appears from his own writings, and particu- 
 larly his words to the empress Constantina, to whom he com- 
 plains thus : It is a lamentable thing (says he) to be forced 
 to bear, that my brother and fdloiv -bishop John despising all 
 others, endeavours to be ccdled the only bishop. L. v. Ep. 21. 
 
 Now then, let us consider the words you pretend to 
 quote from him, viz. If the church should come to depend 
 upon one, it rnust snddetdy fall. But, Sir, his true words 
 are these : Universa ergo ecclesia, quod absit, a statu suo 
 corruit, quando is qui vocatur imiversalis cadit ; which I 
 think ouiiht to be Knoflished thus: IVherrforethe universal 
 church (which God forbid) falls from its state, when he, 
 who is called universal fdls. L. v. Ki)ist. 20, last Paris 
 edition. Now though this passage may be said to have 
 some resemblance with tlie worcls you have quoted, the 
 sense of it is very different, and true enough as St Gregory 
 understood the title assumed by John of Constantinople. 
 For if there were but one bishop in the church, and he 
 fell into heresy, the whole episcopal order, ami jnrlatic 
 church wouUl fall with him. Hut what is this to tlie pope ? 
 Vov though the whole church be governed by him, and 
 by conscfpicnce depends on him in that sense, how can it 
 be true, that if he should fall, the whole church would 
 fall with him? We may as well say : that if he dieg, 
 the whole church must die with him.
 
 44 Tlie Churdis Unity, and 
 
 G. — But what do you say to these words of St Gre- 
 ()ory, L. vi. Epist. 30, ad Imperat: I hohUy affirm, that 
 whosoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires to be 
 called so by othos, shews himself by such his haughtiness 
 to be a forerunner of antichrist, in as much as he j)roud/y 
 advances himself above all others. 
 
 L. — 1 answer that the title of universal bishop, as St 
 Gregory understood it, was a title of pride and blasphemy. 
 And if John of Constantiiiople had assumed it in that 
 sense, lie might have been properly called a forerunner 
 of antichrist. For all heretics are called antichrists by 
 St John. 1 John ii. 18. And St Jerome, Epist. 57, gives 
 the same title to all that wilfully separate themselves 
 from St Peter^s chair ; which would have been the case 
 of Jolui of Constantinople. 
 
 The truth of the whole matter is, St Gregory was a 
 very humble man, and the title of universal bishop or 
 patriarch seemed to him too pompous and haughty to be 
 assumed by any man. It was certainly capable of a 
 double meaning, and he took it in the worst, and in that 
 sense opposed it with all his zeal : and, to set others a 
 pattern of humility, he chose to style himself the servant 
 of the servants of God. But did that hinder him from 
 asserting the supremacy either of St Peter, or of his own 
 see, which is the point we have now under examination? 
 He was so far from it, that he maintained both the one 
 and the other with the greatest vigour. 
 
 First, as to the supremacy of St Peter, in the very 
 time of his dispute with John of Constantinople he wrote 
 thus : It is evident to all that know the gospel, that the 
 care of the whole church was by our Lord's voice com- 
 mitted to the apostle St Peter prince of the apostles. For 
 to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou me ? feed my sheep. 
 To him it is said, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
 will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- 
 vail against it. Behold the care and primacy of the whole 
 church is committed to him, ayul yet he is not called the 
 universal apostle. And my holy brother and fellow-bishop 
 John endeavours to be called universal bishop. Lib. v. Epist.
 
 Supremacy of the Pope. 45 
 
 20, p. 748, ult. edit. This I think is a plain decision of 
 what St Gregory thought of St Peter's svpremacy. 
 
 As to the supremacy of his own see, let us also hear this 
 great man speak for himself. First, (Lib. xi. Epist. ,56, 
 Vet. Edit.) he writes thus concerning a bishop, who pre- 
 tended to be exempt from the jurisdiction of his metro- 
 politan : If it be pretended that the bishop has neither a 
 metropolitan, nor patriarch, I ansiver, that then his cause 
 is to be heard and decided by the see apostolic, ivhich is the 
 head of cdl churches. This surely is plain and decisive. 
 
 But 2dly, he writes thus to the bishop of Syracusa : 
 As to u'hat they write of the church of Coyistantinople who 
 doubts bid that it is subject to the see apostolic ? Lib. ix. 
 Epist. 59, p. 976. Now Cons(antinoj)le was neither under 
 the Roman bishop as its jnetropolitan, nor as its patriarch : 
 since therefore St Gregory thought it subject to him, he 
 must necessarily suppose his see had a spiritual supremacy 
 over the wliole church. 
 
 Lastly, if this had not been his judgment, how could 
 he pretend to give to St Austin the iirst bishop of Canter- 
 bury that jurisdiction, which the see of Canterbury still 
 challenges over ail the British bishops? This one action 
 speaks his thoughts more clearly, than any words what- 
 soever. And 1 hope you will not accuse him oi tyranny 
 and usurpation, since Dr liarroxc, your great champion 
 against the supremacy, styles him a prudent, mceh, and 
 humble man, j). 18. And is it not then a most surprising 
 discovery, that such a zealous advocate for the supremacy 
 is at length found out to be an enemy to it? Or rather 
 does it not plainly shew, how destitute you are of friends 
 amongst i\w fathers, when the very person you pretend 
 to bring in as a chief evidence for you has professed him- 
 self, both by words and actions, to be a most zealous de- 
 fender of the cause yon oppose? 
 
 But pray take notice, Sir, that the question now be- 
 tween us is not, what weight St Gregory's authority has 
 with you, or any oihvv protcstant ; but what his opinion 
 was concerning the sujircmacy ; for you pretend he is on 
 the jjrotestant side. It is therefore impertinent to an-
 
 46 The Churc/is Uni/i/, ami 
 
 swer {as a certain friciul of yours docs) that a pope 
 speaks here for himself. For whether St Gregory was 
 pope, or no pope is iiothino- to the purpose : but if it bo 
 pkiiu matter of fact, tiiat he maintained the supremacy 
 both of iSt Peter and his successors, the question is fully 
 decided against you. So you may proceed now if you 
 j)lease to what you were going to say concerning St 
 Cypricm. 
 
 SECTION X. — ST CYPRIAN S JUDGMENT RELATING TO THE 
 SUBJECT UNDER DEBATE. 
 
 " G St Cyprian said that Christ therefore made the col- 
 
 " lege of bishops 7ii(mrroiis, that if one should fall, or turn he- 
 " retical the rest might interpose for the saving of the Jlock." 
 
 L. — Well, what then ? 
 
 «« G. — He also says, there is but one flock, and one epis- 
 '• copat, of uhich every bishop has the ivhole in partnership with 
 " the rest. Episcopatus mius est, cnjus est a sing^idis in so- 
 " liduin pars tenetur. This was the frame of the church in 
 '• his days, and before from the apostles. Ti»is was the very 
 " state of the apostles themselves, who thus shared the apos- 
 " lolat, the whole of which was given to each in partnership 
 " or in common with the rest." — p. 13. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is certain, there is but one episcopacy ; 
 that is, but one episcopal order or character, which is 
 common to all. For one bishop is as truly a bishop as 
 another, though their Jurisdictions be divided, and many 
 times subordinate to one another, and all under one head. 
 
 And this was truly the frame of the church in St Cy- 
 prian's days, and even from the time of the apostles ; 
 who, though they were equal to St Peter in the aposto- 
 late (as all bishops are in their episcopal character to the 
 jjope) yet were not left like independents without a head. 
 And so it is beyond my comprehension, how St Cyprian's 
 words can do you any manner of service. 
 
 G. — St Cyprian said to his bishops present in the 
 council of Carthage. None of us makes himself bishop of 
 bishops, or compels his colleagues by a tyrannical power to
 
 Siipremacrj of the Pope. 47 
 
 a necessity of obeying. Seeing every bishop is at his own 
 disposal upon the account of his liberty and power, and 
 can no more be judged by another^ than he can judge another. 
 
 L. — Surely, Sir, you do not imagine it was St Cy- 
 prian's opinion, that there is no subordination of any one 
 bishop to anotlier, of diocesans, for example, to their 
 metropolitan or primate ? And if that be not his mean- 
 ing, to what purpose have you produced his words ? But 
 let St Austin give the direct answer : I suppose (says he) 
 he meant in questions of this kind, tchich are not fully and 
 thoroughly discussed. For he k?ieiv how perplexed a contro- 
 versy it icas,which the church was then disputing, andcati- 
 vassing on all sides. And he gave free liberty of seek ing, that 
 by the inquiry truth might be discovered. L. iii. de. Bap. C. 3. 
 
 Now tlie question, St Austin speaks of, was concern- 
 ing the rebaptization of those, who had been baptized by 
 heretics, which had been very warmly disputed between 
 pope Stephen and St Cyprian. And since it was a con- 
 troversy, in which the church had not yet interposed her 
 authority, as slie did afterwards, St Cyprian told the 
 bishops assembled at Carthage, that no one could be 
 compelled to recede from his own private ojiinion, but 
 all were free to examine the matter, and deliver their 
 judgment upon it. And what does that make against the 
 pope's supremacy .<* 
 
 G. — St Cyprian (de Unit. Eccl.) positively attests, 
 that what St Peter was, the same also were the apostles, en- 
 dued icith a like partnership (f honour and power. 
 
 L. — But, Sir, why do you suppress both his foregoing 
 words, and those that follow inunediately after ? lean 
 see no other reason for it, but because they spoil your 
 jnarket entirely. St Cyprian's words immediately fore- 
 going are these : Yet Christ to show the unity of the church 
 ordered by his oitm aidhority the origin of that unity be- 
 ginning J'rom one, viz., St Peter, whom he mentioned 
 just befon.'. And his words immediately following are 
 these : But the beginning springs from an unity, that the 
 church may be showed to be one. Now joining all these 
 together with the words you have objected, St Cyprian's
 
 48 Believing in Christ is not 
 
 mean in Of appears plainly to be this, viz., that though all 
 the oposfles were equal in the honottr and pou'er of the 
 apostulate, which we do not deny, yet for the preserva- 
 tion of Jniiti/, C/t>-ist thouufht fit to make one of them the 
 origin or source of u)iifi/ to all the rest. Whicli instead 
 of beings an objection against St Peter's snpremaaj, is a 
 confirmation of it. 
 
 St Cyprian expresses himself in the same manner in 
 his epistle to pope Cornelius. Where taking notice of 
 the boldness of certain schismatics, that fled to Home, he 
 writes thus : Moi'cover they dare to pass the seas, and 
 carry letters from their faction to the chair of St Peter, 
 and the principal church, from which the unity of priest- 
 hood is risen. Epist. 55. 
 
 Here the see of Rome is both called the chair of St 
 Peter, and the principal church, from which the unity of 
 priesthood is risen : whicli in the foregoing passage he 
 calls the origin or source of unity. And pray, Sir, what 
 difference is there between these two expressions, and 
 calling it the centre of unity ? I confess I am not subtle 
 enough to distinguish between them. And it is a plain 
 case, that St Cyprian is as little in the jjrotestant interest 
 as St Gregory, 
 
 SECTION XI. — THE BELIEF OF COMMON CHRISTIANITY 
 IS NOT A SUFFICIENT UNITY OF FAITH. 
 
 But, Sir, it is no wonder you should not see, with St 
 Cyprian, the necessity of a supreme head to unite to- 
 gether all the members of Christ's mystical body, since, 
 according to the large principle you have laid down, 
 there is no greater unity in the church than among na- 
 tions that are at war together. So that as the U7iity of 
 the icorld consists in the wiity of blood, and the common 
 principles, which we call the law of nations, so in like 
 manner, according to your system, the unity of the church 
 consists in the common christia?iify wherein all agree. 
 
 « G. — AVliy, niy lord, is not every one, who believes in
 
 a sufficient Unity of Faith. 49 
 
 <' Christ a christian, as every one, who believes in Mahomet 
 " is a Mahometan? — p. 14. 
 
 L. — Yes, Sir, but every one, who believes in Christ, 
 is not a Catholic christian. For if he were, no christiaji 
 could be an heretic ; and to believe in Christ would be 
 the only article o^ faith requisite to salvation. 
 
 " G. — No, my lord, vre must obey his commajidments too, 
 " which oblige us to live peaceably and quietly as members 
 " of that body or church, whereto we appertain, w\i\\ christian 
 " love and fellowship witli all others, and not to make schisms 
 *' and divisiotis by breaking coinmunion, where nothing sinful 
 " is required as a condition of it. And when such disorderly 
 '* persons are cast out of the church, or cut themselves off by 
 " a causeless separation, though they are no longer of the 
 " church, yet they cease not to be christians, (that is a nos- 
 " tram of the Church of Home) and they must answer for 
 " their schism as for other sins, all which are damnable in 
 ** their own nature without repentance : and yet allowances 
 " are made for invincible ignorance occasioned by the preju- 
 " dices (ii education, S)-c. but not for obstiriacy. No society of 
 " men would bear such perverse 7nembers amongst them." 
 " ~p. 14. 
 
 L. — I fear, Sir, you have here pronounced the con- 
 demnation not only of the Jirst reformers^ who were the 
 ringleaders of tlie schism, or separation from their mother 
 church, but of all men of learning persisting in that 
 schism. For these can never plead invincible ignorance. 
 
 As to wiiat you insinuate, that we take ourselves to be 
 the only christians in the world, is a gross mistake. That 
 is not a nostrum of the Church of Home. For though we 
 take ourselves to be the only Catholics, we are but too 
 fully convinced, that there arc heretical christians, and 
 christian heretics. Wiiat you add, viz., that they tvho 
 are cast out of the church, or cut themselves off by a cause- 
 less separation, are no longer of the church ; is most cer- 
 tainly true : but, Sir, you ramble from the principal 
 question in your answer to nic. For the question wc 
 have now upon the anvil, is not whether love and charity, 
 or hccping the commandments be necessary to salvation ; 
 this no man doubts of: but, what sort o^ faith is necos- 
 
 D
 
 50 Believing in Christ is not 
 
 sary to salvation ? The question is, whether our belief 
 in Christ alone suffices to denominate us members of the 
 true church 9 
 
 " G. — My lord, a church is a society professing siioh or 
 " such a religion, bo it true or false. Thus there is a church 
 •' of the Jews, of heathens, of christians, and Mahometans, 
 «' And J would ask your lordship, which is any of those 
 " churches? For instance, M'hich is the church of the Ma- 
 " hometans." — pp. 14, 15. 
 
 Zj That's a puzzling question indeed. However I 
 
 venture to answer, that the church of the Mahometans 
 (since you will needs call it so) is a compound or aggre- 
 gate of all the several sects that worship Mahomet. 
 
 " G. — Yet there is no chief priest over all these. But every 
 " church as nation is ijidcpendeyit of each other. And thus 
 " among the several nations and churches of the heathens" 
 — p. 15. 
 
 L. — Sir, when you convince me that there is a multi- 
 plicity either of sects (as among Mahometans) or of gods 
 (as among heathens) in the communion of the holy Catholic 
 Church, then it will be time enough to provide several 
 heads to govern a body composed of such opposite and 
 jarring members. But as long as there is but one God 
 worshipped, and but one faith professed, one head under 
 Christ is as proper to govern his church, as one high priest 
 under God was to govern the Jewish synagogue. 
 
 *' G. — The Jews were but one nation and a small one ; 
 " therefore they had as one hing, so one high priest. There 
 " was something like this in tint part of the christian church, 
 " which was within the Roman c?npire — 
 
 L. — Somewhat like it, do you say, Sir? Really you 
 make me smile. But, pray, go on. 
 
 " G. — But to extend the supremacy of the bishop of Roine 
 *' beyond the limits of the e/«/)cror of Rome, even to all chris- 
 " tian churches in the world, is a fancy never came into the 
 " heads of any mortals ; and is not necessary to denominate 
 '* many churches professing the same religion to be one church, 
 " As of the heathens and Mahometans, all which are called the 
 *' heathen, or the Mahometan church or churches, without any 
 " commo7i head over them all."— p. 15.
 
 a sufficient Unity of Faith. -,X 
 
 L — What pity is it, that christians never thought of 
 sending an honourable deputation to the heathen and 
 Mahometan churches to receive from them some better 
 model of church government^ than Christ has established ! 
 This indeed is a fancy, which (God be praised) never 
 came into the heads of any mortcds. But it has been, I 
 will not say i\\Q fancy, but the faith of all ages, that the 
 church of Christ, though never so far extended, even be- 
 yond the limits of the empire, never was but in one com- 
 munion, professing one faith, and united under one head^ 
 according to Christ's own institution. 
 
 " G. — My lord, there is not one word in scripture appoint- 
 " ing sucli an universal head in the christian church, or altering 
 " the common sense of mankind as to the meaning- of the word 
 " church, or taking it in any other sense, than commonly un- 
 " derstood by all the world." — p. 15. 
 
 L. — What, Sir, is there not a word in scripture ap- 
 ])ointing a supreme headoi the universal church of Christ! 
 Then 1 presume the 16th of St Matthew 18 and 21st, of 
 St John 15 — 17, are no part of scripture. For I have 
 clearly shewed a supreme pastor promised in the former, 
 and established in the latter of those texts. It is true in- 
 deed those texts have not altered the texts of manhind as 
 to the meaning of the word church, but on the contrary 
 they have established it : and all orthodox christians, that 
 ever were in the worlil, have been convinced by them, 
 that the church of Clirist cannot be but in one communion, 
 and that Christ appointed one visible head to govern her. 
 
 " G. — My lonl, in onr way of speaking, when we say tlic 
 " fathersofthe church, or tlie primitive church, we mean not any 
 " particidar church, but the whole body or chtirch of christians, 
 "■ tbongii divided into many nalinnf; ov churches.'' — pp. 15, 16. 
 
 /.. — It is true, Sir, we mean not nny ])articular dioccss, 
 or even national church. Neither do we mean a ridiculous 
 compound of all sorts of christians, whether orthodox, 
 heretics, or schismatics. lUit wo mean precisely the u'hole 
 body or church of Catholics: which, though divided into 
 many nations or churches are all in one communion ; that 
 is, profess one faith, and are united to, and governed by 
 'we head who is St Peter's successor, and bishop of Home.
 
 5*2 Believing in Christ is not 
 
 " G — "What I were they united to the bishop of Rome be- 
 " fore there was a Church of Rome? For tliere were christian 
 " churches before, as I have told you." — ^;. IG. 
 
 L. — No, Sir, but tliey were united to St Peter both 
 before and after he was bishop of Rome. And though 
 there were christian churches before the particuhu- church, 
 that is, the diocess of Home, yet I think there was no 
 christin7i church more ancient than St Peter. And as the 
 Catholic Church was in communion witli St Peter both be- 
 fore and after he was bishop of Rome, so has she always 
 been in communion with his successors, who, as I tohl 
 you, actually are, and have always been, bishops of Rome. 
 Nay, St Cyprian made no difference between being in 
 the communion of the bishop oi Rome, and the communion 
 of the Catholic Church, for in liis 52d letter to Antonianus 
 he says, a letter was writ to Pope Cornelius to let him 
 knoiv that you were in his communion, that is, in the 
 communion of the Catholic Church. 
 
 G. — Is not then the whole body of christians truly and 
 properly the church of Christ ? 
 
 L. — Sir, the whole body of orthodox or catholic chris- 
 tians is truly and properly the church of Christ. But 
 heretical and schismatical christians are members cut off, 
 and belong not to ChrisCs mystical body the church. As 
 St Austin teaches in these express terms : Ncc hdcrctici 
 pertineyit ad ecclesiam catholicam, nee schismatici [de fide 
 et symbolo] that is, neither heretics nor schismatics belong 
 to the Catholic Church. And therefore we say not in the 
 creed, / believe the christian, but / believe the Catholic 
 Church. For though all catholics be christians, all chris- 
 tians are not catholics; nor have I ever heard oi catholic 
 heretics in my whole life. 
 
 But what need of many words? Let us bring an un- 
 questionable instance from antiquity. The Novatians and 
 I)onatists were unquestionably christians, and by conse- 
 quence within the T^d\Qoi\\\v<xiyowc'd\\ common Christianity. 
 Yet how were they treated by the Txncieut fathers? Did 
 they ever allow them to be members of the Catholic Cliurch, 
 or capable of salvation ? Nothing less. For they wrote
 
 a svfficient IJjiity of Faith. 53 
 
 whole volumes to convince them of the contrary. I shall 
 only quote two passages from St Austin, to avoid being 
 tedious. 
 
 They (says he) who believe the incarnation, passion, re- 
 surrection, and divinity of Christ, yet if they do not communi- 
 cate with the whole, icheresoever it is spread — it is evide?if, 
 they are not in the Catholic Chitrch. L. de Unit. Eccl. C. 4. 
 
 And in the 3d chap, of the same book he expresses 
 himself more fully thus: All those, who believe in Jesus 
 Christ what faith teaches, but differ about his body the 
 church; so that their cojnmunion if not with the body, but 
 with some separate part, it is manifest they are not in the 
 Catholic Church. — Both of us have baptism ; in that tee 
 are united. We have the same gospel, in this we are also 
 united. They celebrate tvith us the feast of Martyrs, in 
 
 this zee also agree But they are not tvith us i)i all things. 
 
 They are not tvith us in tlicir schism, they are not tvith us 
 in their heresy. And by reason of those few things, in which 
 they are not with us, the many thii^gs, in which they are 
 with us, avail them nothing. 
 
 This was St Austin s language, and indeed the language 
 of all the ancieiit fathers, when they wrote against the 
 heretics or schismatics of their times. They were wholly 
 strangers to your large notion of the church's unity con- 
 sisting in common Christianity. A body without a head, 
 and composed o{ jarring heterogeneous parts appeared so 
 monstrous to them, that they would never allow any heretic 
 or schismatic to be a member of the church of Christ, or 
 capable of salvation, though he believed all the funda- 
 vientcds of Christianity. And how then had you just now 
 the assurance to insinuate, tliat tvc have altered the com- 
 mon sense of mankind as to the meaning of the word church, 
 or take it in a sense different from the tvhole tvorld? 
 
 SECTION XII. — THE SUPREMACY RESUMED, WITH A 
 TOUCH UPON UNITY. 
 
 " O. — My lord, after there was a churckat Rome, the hisliops 
 •' and ya^/ieri of those times knew i\o\\\\i\^ oi \\.% supremacy —
 
 51 The Pope's Sujn'eman/, 
 
 Li. — Stotitly said, Sir. 
 
 '• G Much less infallihiUti/. Nor evor appealed to it in 
 
 " tlioir disputes witli Itcrctks, wliitli had beoii tlie shortest 
 *' and surest way, and impossible to have been forgot, liad 
 " it been known, and received as the current faith, or but 
 '* opinion of the church." — p. 16. 
 
 L. — Sir, thougli the pope's siip7'einaq/ always was, his 
 infallibiUtjj has never been an article of the church' s faith ; 
 and so it is no wonder, it was not appealed to in disputes 
 with heretics. But suppose it had been appealed to, how 
 could this have been the shortest and surest way to end 
 disputes, unless you likewise suppose that heretics were 
 always ready to acknowledge it, and submit to it? 
 Whereas they have always disowned even the church's 
 infallibilil7j, which if they would acknowledge, then indeed 
 appealing- to her aulhorily woidd be the shortest and 
 surest way to terminate all disputes. 
 
 •' G My lord, other churclies liave contended with that 
 
 *' of Rome, and asserted their own liberties, and indcpen- 
 " dency upon her, when her eucroachnients began to arise, 
 " and disturb theji?eace and unity of the church, which I shall 
 " show yon presently. But this only to let yon see, that the 
 '' unit;/ of the church was then understood, not as being united 
 " under any one supreme bishop or church ; but in the con- 
 " cord and good agreement of the several churches among 
 *< themselves, and in the unity of t\\Q common faith." — p. 16. 
 
 L. — I presume. Sir, you mean the common faith, you 
 spoke of before, viz.., the belief of common Christianity. 
 But pray remember the instance I produced just now 
 concerning the Novatians and Do7iatists : and judge by 
 that, whether there be any colour of truth in what yon say. 
 
 You tell me, other churches have contended ivith that of 
 Rome, and asserted their oivn liberties, and independency 
 upon her. And so have also many rebels disputed the 
 crown with their true and lauf'ul sovereign : yet I hope 
 that is no proof of the nullify of his title to it. But if 
 you mean no more, than that particular churches have 
 stood up for their just rights and liberties against real or 
 supposed encroachments of the pope, this is no more than 
 what subjects do when they go to law with the king ;
 
 and Unitij of the Church. 55 
 
 which I presume they may do lawfully, and without im- 
 peachinjy, or disowning his regal authority. And so many 
 particular churches maintain their liberties and rights, 
 provided they keep within the bounds of decency and 
 respect ; which are always due to a superior. 
 
 Thus a .sow may go to law with his father, if he pre- 
 tends to wrong him. But he must still remember that as 
 he is his father, he owes him a subjection by the law of 
 God and nature. And so it is with particular churches. 
 The pope is their common father jure divine ; and all 
 bishops are his spiritual children, and as such subject to 
 him. But they are neither his vicars nor slaves. And 
 therefore, if he should carry his pretensions too high, 
 they may oppose him without any breach of filial duty, 
 or derogating from his jure divino. And this has ge- 
 nerally been the case in disputes between particular 
 churches and the pope. So that, what you have alleged 
 is far from answering your intended purpose : and you 
 must lend me a better pair of eyes to make me see, that 
 the unity of the church was not then understood of her be- 
 ing united under one supreme head. In a word, Sir, all 
 we mean by the pope's supremacy is contained in the two 
 following articles. 
 
 First, that Christ after his resurrection, to preserve the 
 unity of the church, gave to St Peter a superintcjide7icy or 
 jurisdiction over iiis luhole flock. 
 
 'idly. That tiiis office, according to Christ's instittdion, 
 was after St Peter's decease to pass to his successors ap- 
 pointed by the church ; and these have always been 
 bishops of J?o»2e, though they might have been bishops of 
 any other diocess, if St Peter had fixed the pajial scat in 
 any other place. 
 
 St AiMtin joined both these together, when he said, 
 a surrcssiou (f bishops from the sec of St Peter, to whom 
 Christ after his resurrection committed hisjloch to the pre- 
 sent episcopacy holds me in the Catholic Church. L. contra 
 Epist. Fund. C 4. 
 
 And St ./"rrowc writing to pope Damasns : I am joined 
 (says he) in communion with your holiness, that is, with
 
 56 The Pope's Supremacy, 
 
 the chair of St Peter. Upon that rock I hnoiv the church 
 is built. IVhocver cats the latnb out of this house is profane. 
 Jf any one be not in the arh, he will perish in the deluge. 
 — / know not Vitalis, / refuse Meletius, / am a stranger 
 to Paiiliniis. IVhocver gathers not with thee, scatters 
 [quicunque tecum non coUigit, spargit], that is, he who 
 is not Chrisfs, is Antichrist. Epist. 57. 
 
 What two vi\\\\'i papists were ^t Austin, and St Jerome f 
 One would tlnnk Bellarnmi had dictated to them. In 
 effect, Sir, if antiquity, and the sense of the most eminent 
 pillars of the church be of any weight, these two passages 
 alone are a full confutation of every thing you have 
 hitherto said against the papers supremacy, and particu- 
 larly of that bold and groundless assertion, viz., that the 
 ancient bishops and fathers knew nothing of the supremacy 
 of the see of Rome. Truly, Sir, when a man talks at this 
 wild rate, he seems resolved to outface the strongest evi- 
 dence. But we shall have more of this hereafter. 
 
 " G.— St Paul, Eph. iv. 3 — 5, describes the unity of the 
 " church by having all one lord, one faith, one baptism, and one 
 " spirit, from which they arc called one body. The unity of 
 " the spirit is their unity with God, and the bond of peace is 
 ** the unity of the churches with each other as members of the 
 " same body. And this is a much stricter and closer union 
 " than that of the secular ivoi'ld." — pp. 16, 17. 
 
 L. — Sir, St Paul's words, when quoted full at length, 
 are their own best interpreters. They are as folloAVS : / 
 therefore, thejyrisoner of the Lord, beseech you, that ye loalk 
 worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. With (dl 
 lowliness and meekness, icith long suffering, forbearing one 
 another in love : cJideavouring to keep the unity of the spirit 
 in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one spirit^ 
 even as you are called to one hope of your calling ; one 
 lord^ one faith, one baptism. Eph. iv. 1, 2, &c. These 
 are St Paul's words ; and it is manifest from them, that 
 it was his main drift to exhort the Ephesians to mutual 
 love and charity, which he calls the unity of spirit, and 
 bond oi peace. But does the tinity of the spirit, and the 
 bond of the peace exclude our being under one head? On
 
 and Unify of the Church, 57 
 
 the contrary, does not that render the union of the faitli- 
 ful still more perfect, and cement them more closely- 
 together ? You cannot therefore draw any consequence 
 from St Paul's words either against the papers supremacy, 
 or in favour of your large system of the church's unity of 
 faith consisting in the bare belief of common Christianity. 
 Nay his words plainly insinuate the contrary. For first, 
 he tells the Ephcsians that the church of Christ is but 
 one body, which shews that she is in one communion ; and 
 2dly, he tells them, that the chiirch of Christ has but one 
 faith. And how will this agree to a church of your large 
 size, which takes in all societies of christia7is whatsoeyer? 
 For there are Lutheran christiaiis, and Calvittian chris- 
 tians, and Puritan christians, and Anabaptist christians, 
 and Citurch of England christians, and Popish christians 
 too I hope. And pray, Sir, have these all one faith? It 
 is very strange if they have, since they have been dis- 
 puting andfghting about religion for near two hundred 
 years. It is plain then that StPauPs idea of the church's 
 ttnity is not of the same large size with yours : and you 
 have been very unlucky to put me in mind of his words. 
 
 SECTION XIII. — OF NEW ARTICLES OF FAITH, AND THE 
 
 SACUAMENTS. 
 
 <' G. — My lord, all cliurches agree in that summary of faitli 
 " callc'd the A posdes' creed: and the Church of Poniehar self must 
 « think tills sufficient for salvation, because she requires no 
 " other profession of faith in baptism, or for being admitted 
 •« into the cluircli. But the 12 new articles of faiti), whicli 
 " the council of Trent has added to the 12 of the apostles, 
 " which are called Pope Plus's creed, and is required to be 
 •< professed by c07ivcrts, has made manj-- contests and divisions 
 " in tlie church. And I have not yet met with any Roman 
 " catholic so hardy as to say, that the belief of all those is 
 " necessary to salvation, only that we should not deny or oppose 
 " thoni, such an piirgato7>/,t\ni invocation of saints," 6cc. — p. 17. 
 
 L. — Sir, you tell me first, that all churches agree in that 
 summary of faith called the Apostles' creed. But 1 must 
 
 D 2
 
 58 Of New Creeds, or 
 
 L)Go^ your pardon. For none of your churches agree wiili 
 us in that creed. Because a«;reoiiio; with us is aofrceinj>' 
 in the sense of every article of that creed as well as in 
 the words it contains. Now you disagree with us in the 
 sense of the article concerning- the Cathulic Church, which 
 we with all former ages place in one commnniua., but you 
 in mamj. Because the small extent of your church l)eing 
 too narrow to make it pass for ^iniversal, forces you to link 
 it with many other heretical churches, and by this rare 
 invention to enlarge the bounds of it. 
 
 But you seem dissatisfied with our churcli forjudging 
 the Apostles' creec? sufBoient for infcmts, and yet requiring 
 jnore oi converts. Sir, she requires no move Jaith of the 
 one, than of the otlier. But only a more ample declara- 
 tion of it. For she demands an entire faith of infants, 
 and but an entire faith of converts, though under a longer 
 ^>r shorter form of words as she sees occasion. And the 
 reason why she demands it of converts in a longer form 
 of words than of infants, is, because there can be no doubt 
 of the sincerity of infants : but that of new converts can- 
 not be so securely depended upon : whom therefore she 
 obliges to profess explicitly the same truths of faitli, which 
 infants profess implicitly by professing to believe the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 You tell me likewise the Ti'cnt articles, or Pope Piuses 
 creed, has made many contests or divisions in the church. But 
 you may say the same of the articles or creed of the great 
 council of Nice, which defined the consuhstantiaUty of 
 the Son against the Arians. For as that council only ex- 
 plained the ancient faith of the church, so the council of 
 I'rent and Poi)e Pius's creed have done no more. And 
 therefore as the long contests and divisions occasioned by 
 the Nicene creed was wholly owing to the pride and 
 obstinacy of the Arians, who refused to submit to the 
 decision of that council; so yonv first riformers, who had 
 the pride to set up \\\q\x private jud(jmentidi^d\\\%i\\\e doc- 
 trine of the universal church, and continued obstinate in 
 it, are alone accountable for the contests and divisions 
 you speak of.
 
 Articles of Faith. 59 
 
 Lastly, you tell me 7j07i never met with any catholic so 
 hardy as to saj/, that the belief of all Pope Pius's articles is 
 necessary to salvation, only that ive should not deny or 
 oppose them. Then, Sir, I must tell you plainly, it never 
 yet was your good fortune to meet a Roman catholic, tluit 
 understood his religion. But I presume you judge of our 
 church by your own, which proposes her 39 Articles 
 without any obligation to believe them, according to 
 bishop Bramhal in his Schism Guarded, p. 190, where he 
 writes thus : We do not look upon the Articles of the Church 
 of England as essentials of saving faith, or legacies of 
 Christ and his apostles : but in a mean, as pious opinions 
 fitted for the preservation of unity. Neither do ive oblige 
 any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them. 
 But our church is not so complaisant, as to set forth pro- 
 fessions of faith, which nobody is bound to believe : or 
 to be content with such a 2inity, as allows diversity of 
 faiths at pleasure, and makes men turn hypocrites in {)ro- 
 fessing one thing, and believing another. Therefore 
 every Roman catholic, who understands the principles of 
 his religion, will inform you, that though indeed the 
 knowledge of all revealed truths be no more necessary to 
 salvation, than the knowledge of the ivhole Bible, yet every 
 revealed truth, when duly proposed, is to be believed. 
 And it is not sufficient not to deny or oppose any such 
 truth, but a positive inward assent is to be given to it. 
 
 G. — It seems then that the church has a charter to 
 impose as many new creeds as she pleases, 
 
 //. — Sir, if by neiv creeds you mean nothing else but 
 new explanations of the ancient faith, for her defence 
 against new heresies, the church has certainly full power 
 to set forth such creeds, and oblige her children to a belief 
 of the articles they contain. This power was exercised 
 by the two first general councils: that o^ Nice, and that 
 i)i Consfan/innplc, both received by the Church of Enghnid. 
 The council of Nice added to the apostles' creed the follow- 
 ing article : / believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only 
 begoUrn Son of Ciod, born of the Father before (dl worlds ; 
 God of God, Light (f Light, true God of true God ; bC'
 
 GO Of New Creeds, or 
 
 gotten, not made, consithstantial to the Father. And whoever 
 refused to assent to this additional article, was not ac- 
 knowled<red for a member of the Catholic Church. 
 
 The council of Constantinople made likewise an addition 
 to the Niccne creer/ in'this article at^ainst t\\Q Macedonia jis, 
 viz., and in the Hohj Ghost the Lord and giver of life ; 
 who proceeds from the Father and the Son, together is 
 adored and glorified, who spoke by the pro})hets. It also 
 added this article, begotten of the Father before all ivorlds, 
 against Photinus : and this other, whose kingdom shall 
 have no end, against the MUlenarians. All which are 
 actually a part of the Nicetie creed. 
 
 After this appeared the Athanasian creed, containing 
 many articles concerning the trinity, the persons, and the 
 pi'ocessions of them: whereof there is no exj)ress mention 
 either in the Apostles' creed, or that of Nice. And it was 
 received by the whole Catholic Church: and what is very 
 remarkable, it begins and ends with this article : except 
 every one keep that faith ichole and widefiled, without doubt 
 he shall perish eternally. 
 
 The church therefore has always had power to make 
 an addition of such articles, as she judged would be a 
 necessary antidote to hinder the poison of new heresies 
 against the ancient faith from spreading. And you your- 
 self, Sir, cannot deny this without renouncing the 8tk 
 Article of Religion, which is thus : The three creeds, Nice 
 creed, Athaiiasius's creed, arid that, zchich is commonly 
 called the apostles' creed ought thoroughly to be received 
 and believed, for they may be jyroved by most certain war- 
 rant of holy scripture. Here, Sir, your own church re- 
 quires a belief of two new creeds over and above that of 
 the apostles, and acknowledges a full power in the church 
 to make such creeds according to the exigencies of times, 
 and oblige the faithful not only to an explicit profession, 
 but inward belief of the articles they contain. 
 
 G. — Can the church then coin new articles of faith? 
 
 L. — No, Sir; but she may add neiv articles to explain 
 the ancient creed, or faith. 
 
 " G. — Pray, my lord, wliat article in the apostles' creed
 
 Articles of Faith. 61 
 
 " does tra7isiibstautiatio7i explain ? For there is nothing of 
 «' all the sacraments in that creed." — p. 17. 
 
 L. — Very right, Sir ; there is nothing- of the sacraments 
 in that creed. But does not this confute your false notion 
 of that creed's expressing all necessary truths of faith ? 
 For are the sacraments^ as likewise the canonical books 
 of scripture, and the precepts of a christian life, no objects 
 of your faith, because they are not expressed in the creed? 
 I doubt not but they are. It is therefore evident against 
 you, that the apostles' creed neither expresses, nor was in- 
 tended to express all necessary truths of faith, but only the 
 principal ones: as for the rest, they are all contained in gen- 
 eral under the article of the Catholic Church; in as much as 
 believing the church implies believing her whole doctrine. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the sacraments are tlie signs or seals of 
 " our faith, as circumcisioii was called, Rom. iv. 11, but not 
 " the faith itself; and therefore are not put into the summary 
 " of our faith."— />. 17. 
 
 L Sir, you have made a wonderful discovery in tell- 
 ing me, that the sacraments are not the faith itself. But 
 though they be not \.\\e faith itself {\\\\\d\ is a theological 
 virtue, and the act of it an inward assent of the mind) 
 are they not the objects of christian faith as well as tlie 
 sitjns or seals of it ? Is there nothing revealed concerning 
 baptism or the Lord's supper, which we are bound to be- 
 lieve? This would be pleasing doctrine to Qiiakers: but 
 I presume no christian divine will relish it. 
 
 " G Tlicy are generally necessary, as onv catechism words 
 
 '• it : tliat is, to be reverently used, when they may be iiad : 
 " but they arc not absolutely necessary. So that if our 
 " circumstances or places where we live be such, as not to 
 " afford us tlie opportunity of receiving the sacraments wo 
 *♦ should bo damned for want of them. I think none will 
 " say this. They arc means of God's appointment; therefore 
 " to be used when we can have tiiem. We are tied to this. 
 " But God is nut tied to those menus to which he ties us. 
 " He can save us witliout tliem. Even of those five, which 
 " you have m«)ro than we, you cannot say they are so nmcli 
 " us generally necessary to salvation : because none can par- 
 " take of them all. Fur •^'oviv sacrament of orders oxcluJes 
 " all the laity, and that of marriage the clergy." — p. IB.
 
 6 '2 Of Sects and Divisions. 
 
 L. — I jicrccive, Sir, you are disposctl to be upon tlie 
 ramble. For snpposini;- all you have said to be strictly 
 true (whereas it is liable to several exceptions) what con- 
 nexion has ic with the matter under debate? Our dispute 
 was, whether the snrrrrmrnfs be not properly the objects 
 of faif/u thoutrh thev be not mentioned in the crecrf ? 
 But instead of k<'ejnn^- to the point in question, you 
 liave made an harang-ue to j)rove that the use of them is 
 not ahsuliiicly necessaj'ii to salvation. Suppose it be not, 
 what then ? Is there therefore nothing- to be believed of 
 them? The truth of the matter is, you know not well what 
 you are bound to believe, what not. For where there 
 are no principles, or those very principles are a seed of 
 (Jii^ision, there can be no steadiness or uniformity in faitli. 
 And this is the reason, why there are so many sects and 
 divisions ^mong'&t you, all spawned from the reformatiofn. 
 
 SKCTION XIV. OF SECTS AND DIVISIONS. 
 
 "G. — ISIy lord, not so many with us as with you." — /?. 18. 
 
 X — Stoutly said. Sir ; and I promise to be of your 
 opinion, when you can make out these three things : 1st, 
 That scripture interpreted by private judgment is our 
 I'ldc of faith. 2d, That M'e agree with you in your lati- 
 tudinarian notion of the church's unity consisting in 
 the bare belief of common Christianity ; and 3d, that we 
 call Prcshjterians, Puritans, Independents^ Anabaptists, 
 Quakers, ^t., or any separate co?mmmio7i our catholic 
 brethren; as you call most of them your protestant brethren. 
 Nay the very fundamental i)rinciple of the reformation^ as 
 such, obliges you to call even those your brethren, who 
 are immediately gone out from you, and broke oft' from 
 your communion. Because they have all broke off from you 
 upon the very same principles, on which you grounded your 
 separation from the Cliurch of Rome. F'or, as you accused 
 her of superstition, so they repay you in your own coin. 
 And as you appealed from your mother church to scriptures 
 interpreted by your own darling private judgment, so they
 
 0/ Sects and Divisioyis. 63 
 
 attack you with the very same weapon. And therefore 
 you are answerable for all the sects, that ever have divided, 
 or ever will divide themselves from you. 
 
 « G, — If a church be answerable for all that break off 
 " from her, then you have all tlie scct.^, you have named, to 
 " reckon for, and us ton, which is one more. And if you are 
 <« not answerable for those that broke off from you, neither 
 " are we answerable for those that broke off from us." — p. 19. 
 
 fj. — No, Sir ! I shall convince you of your mistake. 
 If either the Church of Encjland^ or any other sect, had 
 broke off from us upon a principle acknowledged hij ns, 
 then we should be responsible for their separation. But 
 since we disown and detest any such principle, the guilt 
 of their schism lies at their own doors, and cannot be 
 charged upon the Church of Rome. But the case is not 
 so with you. For you maintain a principle, which cannot 
 but produce sects and divisions. You make the scriptures 
 interpreted by private judgment the rule of your faith : 
 and private judgment is the fruitful mother of heresies and 
 schisms. And it is the true reason, why no heres?/ ever 
 came into the world without a litter of sects in the belly of 
 it, A rotten dunghill is not so fruitful in breeding vermin, 
 ziS private judgment interpreting scriptures by its own light 
 is in producing sects. Yet by this rule you guided your- 
 selves in your separation from the Church oj' Rome. 
 
 You have therefore set the pattern to Presbyterians, 
 Puritans, Independeiits, Anabaptists, Qiiakers, Free- 
 thinkers, and other sects, that have swarmed from you. 
 They do but follow your example: tliey are your faithful 
 disciples, and ivuc protest ant brethren in that very princi- 
 ple, wliich divided them from yon. So that yon cannot 
 blame their sejiarution from the Church of England \\'\i\\- 
 out condemning your own separation from the Churvhof 
 Rome, and you are fully answerable both for their .vc/(/.s7«, 
 aiul your own : because it is the fruit of a tree of your 
 own ])lanting, and the natural consequence of a principle, 
 you constantly maintain. V)\\\. we have no such princi- 
 ple, or seed of division in our church, which makes us 
 perfectly one among ourselves in all articles of faith.
 
 G4 0/ Sects and Divisions. 
 
 " G. — So is every church or sect. That is, those who 
 *' agree among themselves, do agree. So that this is no 
 *' lucre a mark of unity, than every division of men can plead, 
 " and every seel." — p. 19. 
 
 L. — Sir, nothing is more certain, than that they, zvho 
 agree among themselves, do agree. But you uill liave 
 some dilHculty to convince mc, that there can be the 
 same harmony and agreement in any sect, or body of 
 men, the very foundation of whose religion is a jirinciple, 
 or seed oi division, as there is in a church, which abhors Ma^ 
 principle. Can there be the same agreement among 
 tliose who are guided by their own private judgment, as 
 among those who are bound to submit to the authority 
 of a supreme tribunal, from which there is no appeal? 
 
 Your mistake then lies here, viz., in imagining, that 
 all the members of any sect of this or that denominatioJi 
 agree in the same system of religion, wliich is morally 
 impossible. Because whoever makes private judgment 
 the guide of liis faith, may change it with every change 
 of the moon. Nay, what seems reason to-day, may seem 
 otherwise to-morrow : and so he will be incoherent not 
 only with other members of the same sect, but even with 
 liimself. Nay, upon the same principle, it is not impossi- 
 ble, but a sect of the same external denomination may 
 be divided into as many religions as it has families be- 
 longing to it, because their private judgments may all 
 differ, and they have no principle of unity to cement 
 them • whereas the ride of faith among Roman catholics 
 (which is the ivord if God, as interpreted by the churchy 
 whose decrees all are bound to submit to) unites them all 
 in the same belief; notwithstanding their prodigious 
 numbers, the diversity of their interests, customs, and lan- 
 guages ; and though they be the great body of christians, 
 from which all went forth. 
 
 «' G. — No, my lord, not half, nor ever were. The Greek 
 *' church is an elder church than yours : so that you rather 
 " broke off from lier by setting up your universal sujjremaci/ ; 
 " which she never owned ; nor the many other numerous 
 " cluirches of Asia, nor the great and once famous churches 
 " of Africa, nor tlie empire of Russia of vast extent in Europe,
 
 Of Sects and Divisions. 65 
 
 «' once a part of the Greek church. These never owned the 
 " supremacy of Rome, and by far out-numbered all, that ever 
 " did own it, or were of her communion as such. And con- 
 " sideringhow n\imy nations and kingdoms have broke oflFfroni 
 " her since the reformation, her communion is now reduced 
 " to a small part of the christian church in comparison of 
 " those that differ from her."— p/j, 19, 20. 
 
 Zj — Sir, there are but three material and notorious 
 falsehoods in what you have now said, as I shall endea- 
 vour to convince you. 1st, That the Church of Rome 
 rather broke off from the Greeh church, than the Greek 
 church from the Church of Borne. 2d, That neither the 
 Greek church, nor the other churches mentioned by you, 
 ever acknowledjjed the supremacy of the bishop of Home. 
 And 3d, tiiat the church in communion -with the see of 
 Rome never was one half of the great body of christians, 
 whence all went forth. As to what you add concerning 
 our present numbers, which is a fourth falsehood of less 
 consequence, I shall have occasion to speak of it hereafter. 
 But before I undertake to shew the falsehood of the 
 three facts, you have asserted, I fairly challenge you to 
 mark me out any one separate society of christians upon 
 earth, but what either went out immediately from iis, or 
 spawned from those that did, or, what is equivalent, re- 
 ceived their religion from them ; as the Muscovites did 
 from the Greeks : who, as I shall now prove, M'cnt out 
 immediately from ns. For, if you cannot shew me any 
 such society of christians, then it is an uncontestable 
 truth what I liave said, viz., that the church in communion 
 with the sec of Rome is the great and standing body of 
 christians, whence all went forth. I shall begin with ex- 
 amining your first assertion, and put it to the test of a 
 plain narrative of the fact, whereof lam sure you cannot 
 disapprove the least tittle. 
 
 SECTION XV. — THE GREEK CHURCH UROKE OFF FROM 
 THE CHURCH OF ROME. 
 
 In the year 841 Michael the .'3d, being very young, 
 snccceded his father Thcophilus in the Oriental empire^
 
 GG The Greek Church broke off 
 
 under the g-uardiansliip of his mother Theodora. But 
 Bardas the ompcroi's uncle had a share in the govern- 
 ment. This man was desperately in love with his 
 daiit;hter-in-hnv, with whom he held a secret commerce. 
 St Ignatius, i\\cn patriarch of Constantinople, checked him 
 for it, and finding- his admonitions ineffectual refused to 
 give him the sacrament on the feast of the Epiphamj. 
 
 Bardas, who was of a furious and cruel temper, in- 
 censed at this, persuades the young emperor to send away 
 his mother and sister into a monastery, and commit the 
 execution of it to the patriarch ; who refusing to obey 
 so unjust a command was loaded with calumnies, and 
 banished to the isle of Terebijithus. 
 
 Photius, principal secretary of state, and captain of the 
 guards, was put in his place. He was made a monk the 
 first day, reader the next, and the following days subdea- 
 con, deacon, and priest. So that in six days' time (the 
 true patriarch being yet alive) he invaded t\\e patriarchal 
 throne on Christmas-day, An. 858. The bishop by whom 
 he was ordained was excommunicated upon it by St 
 Ignatius, who also accused him to the Pope. Whereupon 
 the Pope required of Ignatius, that lie should send some 
 person to Pome to give him a full information of that affair, 
 zvhich he did accordingly, sending one Lazarus. And the 
 point being duly examined by Pope Benedict, the next suC" 
 cesser to Leo, Ignatius's sentence was approved by the 
 holy see. [Du Pin. Cent. 9. p. 86.] 
 
 Nicholas L succeeded to Benedict : to whom Photius, 
 that his election might be confirmed at Pome, sent an 
 embassy with a false account of St Ignatius, viz., that by 
 reason of his age he had voluntarily quitted the patri- 
 archal see, had retired into a monastery of a certain island, 
 and was in great esteem both of the prince and people. 
 Soon after he procured his condemnation in a packed 
 fonncil of Oriental bishops; when the injured jiatriarch 
 drew up a petition by way of appeal to the Pope, beg- 
 ging his assistance, in imitation of his predecessors, Fabian, 
 Julius, Innocent, Leo. The Pope undertook the defence 
 of persecuted innocence : and Photius, because he could
 
 from the Church of Rome. 67 
 
 not prevail upon him to be an abetter of his crime, for- 
 sook his communion. 
 
 This is the fact as far as is to our purpose fairly re- 
 Lited : and let any impartial man judge from it, whether 
 the Pope broke off from Photius rather than Phothis from 
 thePo/?e. We have here a wicked courtier, supported by 
 the authority of a prince as bad as himself, invading- the 
 patriarchal throne by the violent deposition of the legal 
 possessor. He applies himself to the Pope to approve his 
 intrusion; but finding his virtue proof against flattery 
 and threats, he disowns that very authority, to which at 
 first he thought it necessary to have recourse; withdraws 
 himself from the Pope's communion, and by degrees en- 
 gages a great part of the Greek church in his quarrel. If 
 this man, and his adherents were not guilty of schism, 
 there never was such a thing in the world. But it is an 
 easy matter to guess, wlnit makes you so zealous for the 
 Greeks. Henry the 8th and bishop Cranmer only copied 
 after the pattern set them by the wicked emperor and 
 patriarch of Constcwti^iople, and they cannot possibly be 
 acfpiitted of the guilt of schism, unless Photius be first 
 cleared, or at least a fact called in question, which never 
 admitted of any dispute. 
 
 G. — But is not tlie Greek church older than the Church 
 of Rome ? And if it be so, does it not follow that the 
 Church of Rome rather broke off from her? 
 
 L. — A stout argument indeed ! But it will do no 
 execution unless you make it appear, that age and Ju?is- 
 lUction always go together. Sir, there are several bishoj)- 
 rics in Great Britain more ancient than Canterbury ; yet 
 the bishoji of that see is their primate. And if they 
 should pretend to witlidraw their subjection, he would 
 not be satisfied with their telling him, that since their 
 churches are elder than his, he rather breaks off from 
 them, than they from him. 
 
 I shall conclude this matler w\\\\ a flilemmn, which is 
 decisive against you. The principal article, which the 
 Greeks objected against the Latins was, their having in- 
 serted into the Nicene creed, that the Holy Ghosi proceeds
 
 CS The Greek Church For merit/ owned 
 
 Jrom the Father and the Son. And this is likewise pro- 
 fessed in your 5th Article of Iteligion. The rest were all 
 trifling things relating to discipline. 
 
 Now then, after the breach between the two churches, 
 cither the Church of Borne adliered to the ancient faith, 
 or not. If not, you must renounce the 5th Article of 
 Iteligion, and the Nicenc creed into the bargain. If she 
 did, then the Church of Home remained where she was 
 before, and by consequence the Greek church broke off 
 from her. 
 
 SECTION XVI. — THE GREEK CHURCH FORMERLY OWNED 
 THE rOPE's SUPREMACY. 
 
 I come now to the 2d notorious falsehood asserted by 
 you, viz.^ that neither the Greek church, nor the churches 
 of Asia, nor Africa, nor Russia, ever acknowledged the 
 Pope's supremacy. I wonder America was not jiut in to 
 make up the number. For when a man's hand is in, he- 
 ought to go thorough-stitch. 
 
 However you have managed the matter craftily enough 
 in setting the churches of Asia, Africa, and Russia upon 
 separate bottoms, as if none of them were a part of the 
 Greek church : whereas by that church is properly meant 
 the whole collection of churches under \h.Q jurisdiction oi 
 the four eastern patriarchats : the first whereof, viz., Con- 
 stantinople is in Europe, and the primate, as well as other 
 bishops oi Russia, are under its jurisdiction. The 2d, 
 namely, that of Alexandria is in Africa ; and the two 
 others of Antioch and Jerusalem are in Asia. So that your 
 saying that neither the Greek church, nor the numerous 
 churches of Asia, nor the famous churches of Africa, nor 
 the great church of Russia ever owned the supremacy of 
 Rome is the same ridiculous gasconade, as if any one 
 should say, that neither the church of Great Britain, nor 
 the numerous churches of England, nor the church of 
 . Scotland, nor i\\c famous churches of Wales own the Pope^s 
 supremacy.
 
 the Foveas Supremacy. 69 
 
 But tins little politic stratagem was needful to set off 
 the number of our enemies, by a shew of bringing all 
 Asia, Africa, and Russia besides the Greek church into 
 the field against us : though in reality a great part of the 
 churches of Africa, when they were christiayi churches, 
 were under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of the icest. 
 And thus the true English of this pompous catalogue of 
 churches is little more than saying, that the Greek church 
 never owned the Pope's supremacy ; the manifest false- 
 liood whereof I shall now demonstrate from several un- 
 questionable historical facts. 
 
 First, ill the famous cause of St Athanasius bishop of 
 Alexandria, the second patriarchal see of the Greek 
 church, concerning which Theodoret gives this account : 
 The Eusebians wrote the calumiiies they had forged against 
 Athanasius to Julius bishop of Home. But he, accoi'ding to 
 the canons, both commanded the Eusebians to come to Rome, 
 and appointed Athanasius a day to have his cause tried. 
 Theod. L. ii. Hist. C. 3. Tom. iii. p. 586. 
 
 The same is attested by the Fopes own letter related 
 by St Athanasius. For (says the Pope) Athanasius did 
 not come of his own accord, bid as cited, and having re- 
 ceived our letters. In Apol. Adv. Ari. Sect. 29, p. 148. 
 
 Relating to the same matter the Greek historians, 
 Socrates and Sozomcn, tell us, that both St Athanasius 
 and other oriental bishops being accused by the Eusebians, 
 and violently deprived of their respective sees, were re- 
 stored by the autJiority of the bishop of Rome. 
 
 Sozomen, speaking of Marccllus, Asclepas, St Lucius 
 bisiiop of Adrianople, and St Faid bishop of Co7istanti- 
 nople, says, the bishop of Rome having taken cognizance of 
 their cause, received them into his commimio7i. And because^ 
 
 BY REASON OF THE DIGNITY OF HIS SEE, THE CARE OF 
 
 AM- nEi.oNC.F.D TO H I :\i, hc rcslorcd thcm to their respective 
 bishoprics. Soz. L. iii. C. 8, p. .507. 
 
 And Socrates writes thus : When Athanasius, Paulus, 
 Asclepas, Marcellus ««c/ Lucius had opened their cause to 
 
 Julius, hc ACCOIIDINO TO THE ntEUOOATIVE OF THE 
 
 ROMAN SEE, scut tkcm back into the cast with the pro-
 
 70 The Greek Church formerly owned 
 
 tection of his letters, and restored to each of them his see. 
 L. ii. C. 15, p. 91. 
 
 Here we see the supreme ecclesiastical authority exer- 
 cised by the bishop of Home: acknowledged by the Arians 
 themselves, submitted to by the two first patriarchs, and 
 other bishops of the east, and finally attested by three 
 Greek historians. And can you then say, the supremacy 
 was never owned by the Greek church ? 
 
 I prove it secondly from three of the four first genercd 
 councils. In that of Constantinople none but oriental 
 bishops were present: yet i\\e fathers of that co?mc«7 in 
 their synodiccil letter to Pope Damasus thank him for 
 calling them to a council as his members: and Damasus 
 in his answer styles them his most honourable children. 
 Apud. Theod. L. v. Hist. C. 9, 10. 
 
 In the general council oiEphcsus Pope Ce&s^me's legate 
 told the council that his master was their head, and the 
 successor of St Peter, whose place and authority the bishop 
 of Rome held. Against which not one in the council made 
 the least objection. Act. 2, T. 3. Cone. p. 6 19. Act. 3.p. G2G. 
 
 Lastly, the general council of Ccdcedon, in its synodicol 
 letter to Pope Leo, after having told him, that they were 
 an assembly of 520 bishops over whom he had presided 
 as Head, they complain of the insolence of Dioscorus 
 patriarch of Alexandria in these terms : Moreover he let 
 loose his jnadness even against him, who was by our Saviour 
 entrusted with the care of the vineyard ; that is, against 
 your apostolical highness. And they conclude with de- 
 siring tlie Pope to honour their judgment with his decree. 
 Cone. Caked, in Epist. ad Leonem. Tom. iv. If this be 
 not owning the Pope's supremacy, no king was ever owned 
 by his subjects. And it is to be observed, that these are 
 three of the four general councils approved and received 
 by the Church of England. 
 
 Add to all this the above-mentioned testimony of St 
 Gregory, declaring it to be a thing which nobody doubted 
 of, viz., that Constantinople was subject to the apostolic 
 see. L. ix. Epist. 59, p. 976. And both St Cyprian and 
 St Austin, two African bishops, whom I have already
 
 the Papers Supremacy/. 71 
 
 quoted for the supremacy both of St Peter and his suc- 
 cessors, are authentic witnesses that the African churches 
 acknowledged both the one and the other. 
 
 SECTION XVII. WHETHER THE CHURCH IN COMJIUNION 
 
 WITH THE SEE OF ROME NEVER WAS ONE HALF OF 
 THE GREAT BODY OF CHRISTIANS IN THE WORLD? 
 
 G. — But your lordship has not yet taken any notice of 
 my saying-, that the Church of Rome neither is, nor ever 
 was, one half of the great body of christians in the world. 
 
 L. — Sir, that is the third falsehood I have accused you 
 of. And I shall observe certain epochas of time in order to 
 make good my charge, and place it in the clearest light. 
 
 Istlj/, then, when St Paw/ wrote his epistle to the jRo- 
 mans, which was 15 years after St Peter had fixed his epis- 
 copal SQdit at Rome, it is undeniable, that the great body of 
 christians all the world over was in communion with that 
 see. For otherwise he could not have told them, that he 
 thanked God, for that their faith icas spoken throughout 
 (he whole tuorld. Kom. i. 8. And though there were 
 several heresies broached in the three first centuries, the 
 great body of christians was always closely nnited to the 
 bishop of Rome as to its head. Witness St Irenaus, who 
 WTote in the 2d century thus: For to this church, by reason 
 of its most powerful jirincipulity, it is necessary that all 
 churches have recourse, that is, the faithful on all sides. 
 L. iii. C. 3. It is therefore false that there never was a time, 
 wherein the church in communion with the see of Rome 
 was one half ai the great body of christians in the world. 
 
 2c////, 'I'he first great general council of ISice was cer- 
 tainly in communion wltli Pope Sylvester. And was that 
 august assembly the reproscntativps of not one halfoi the 
 great body of christians in tlie world ? 
 
 ^dly, 'Ihe Greek schism began only in the 9th century, 
 and since a schism is nothing else but a breach of com- 
 7nunion, it follows, that the whole Greek church was before 
 tliat schism \\\ commuulon whh the Church of Ifoinc. I 
 desire you then to let me know, in what communion tho
 
 72 The Roman Catholic Church 
 
 great hothj of christians was before that fatal rupture, if 
 the church in communion with the see of Home was not 
 one halfoi that body? I assure you, Sir, unless you can 
 answer me this question, you will be in danger of passing 
 for a very unfaithful stater of cases. 
 
 But Athly, and lastly, to come down nearer to the 
 epocha of the reformation, how will your words agree with 
 JSlarfin Luther's primo solus eram, at first I teas alone ? 
 [preface to Lis works] or with Ca/iuVs saying, Epist. 141, 
 that the reformed churches hroko off from the communion 
 of the whole world, a ioto orhe discessionem. faccre coacti 
 sumus? Or finally, with youx Homily-booh, the authority 
 whereof is so great amongst you, that the 35th article 
 orders it to be read in churches, as containing a ^or//i(/ and 
 zvholesome doctrine. 
 
 Now the Homily against the peril of idolatry, 3d Part, 
 London 1687, p. 251, has these remarkable words : Laity 
 and clergy, learned and Jinleamed, all ages, sects and de- 
 grees of men, women and children of whole Christendom 
 have been at once droivned in abominable idolatry — and that 
 for the space o/*800 years and more. If this be godly and 
 wholesome doctrine, viz. that whole Christendom was for 
 800 years drowned in abominable idolatry (whereby/)0/?ery, 
 according to protestant language, is plainly marked out), 
 then your asserting, that the church in communion ivith the 
 see of Rome, never was one half of the great body of chris- 
 tians, which is a flat contradiction to it, is not only false, 
 but ungodly and pei'nicious doctrine. 
 
 Adveiitisement. — It appears jilainl;/ fi-om this andtJie two former 
 Sections, /tow much there was tu be said to the gentloman's last 
 words, C.S.pp. 19, 20, yet the good peaceable lord onhj answered 
 this one line to it. L. — But those other churches do not communi- 
 cate with each other, p. 20, to which the gentleman replies thus : 
 
 " G. — Nor Rome with any of them. So that slie stands 
 " by herself, as other churches do. And the most irrecon- 
 " cilahly of any. Because by her principles she cannot 
 *' communicate with any, who will not own her supremacy^ 
 ♦' which, as it never was done by the greatest part of the 
 " CalhoUc Chicrch, so there is little appearance that it ever 
 *' will be : for it is observable tliat no nation, that broke
 
 is the great Body of Christians^ §c. 73 
 
 " off from Home, did ever return to lier again. It is a hard 
 *' matter for one that has escaped out of a snare, to be 
 " inveigled thither again. So that it is very visible Rome has 
 " been upon the losing hand about these 200 years past. And 
 *' that not only as to those who have quite forsaken her, 
 " but as to the change of principles, and lowering her siipre- 
 " macrj, and infallibility amongst those who still remain in 
 " her communion; which I shall shew your /o?y75//?/? presently; 
 " and that old and new popery are very different things, and 
 " that Rome itself has in some measure been reformed by 
 " our reformation.'' — p. 20. 
 
 L Sir, I shall give a very brief answer to the g-ood- 
 
 natured things you have said : Firsts you tell me, that 
 the Church of Rome stands by herself as other chiwches 
 do. She does so: and it is much better to be alone than 
 in bad company. Nay, the true church must stand by 
 herself, whether she will or no : because she would not 
 be the true church, if heretics were in her eomni union. 
 Thus heaven will stand by itself for all eternity, exclud- 
 ing every thing that is defiled. But I hope this is no 
 exception against it. 
 
 2d, You say, that by her principles she cannot com- 
 municate ivith any, ivho ivill not own her supre?nacy. Very 
 true, Sir. But you add immediately, that tJiis ivas never 
 done by the greatest part of the Catholic Church ; which is 
 false. For heretics and schisynafics (wliom you mean by 
 your greatest part of the Catholic Church) are no part of 
 lier, as I liave fully proved, and shall prove farther here- 
 after 1 p. Sect. 54. However I shall now ask a few 
 questions to lead you to a clear sight of j^our mistake. 
 Pray, Sir, is not schism a breach of communion ? 
 
 G.— Who doubts it? 
 
 L. — And can communion be broke where there never 
 was any ? 
 
 G. — No, my lord. For as a breach of peace supposes 
 that there was a peace, so a breach of communion must 
 necessarily suppose tliat there was a communion. 
 
 L. — Very good, Sir. And did not then the Greek 
 rhnrch, and all other churches now yr/?>r?»rf/ communicate 
 witii the see of Home, before they forsook her communion.
 
 74 2 he llomun Cat/iolic Church 
 
 G. — I cannot deny it. But what do you infer from 
 tlience ? 
 
 L. — Sir, 1 infer Jirsf, that therefore all these churches 
 once owned tlie supre7noci/ of the sec of Home : because 
 according to your own saying, the Church of Home cannot 
 communicate ivith any, who icill not own her supremacy. 
 And I infer 2t//?/, that you contradict yourself in tlie 
 very same breath by adding immediately} that the greatest 
 part of the Catholic Church (as you call it) never owned 
 her supremacy. 
 
 You tell me next, that no nation^ which broke off from 
 Home, did ever I'eturn to her again. Whence you con- 
 clude, that she has been upon the losing hand about these 200 
 years past. To which I answer, that if she has been a 
 loser in Europe, she has been a gainer in other parts of 
 the world. As in China, the Philippine Islands, in Goa ; 
 and the large kingdoms of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil in 
 America. However you are pleased to give a very 
 obliging reason, why no nation which broke off from Home 
 ever returned to her again ; viz. : Because it is a hard 
 matter for one, that has escaped out of a snare, to be in- 
 veigled thither again. But I can furnish you with two 
 much better reasons for it. Pirst, because obstinacy is 
 the darling quality of all true heretics; and the perverse 
 or obstinate are hard to be corrected. Eccles. i. 15. 2t//?/, 
 because the reformed churches have their peculiar charms 
 to keep men fast, which the Church of Home does not 
 pretend to. For liberty and ease arc much prettier things 
 thsiu fastifig, or confessing one's sins, and doing penance 
 for them. So that it is no wonder that they, who have 
 once tasted the sweetness of true protestant liberty, should 
 not be fond of returning to popish restraints. 
 
 But the next thing you tell me is a piece of news I 
 never heard of before : viz., that the Church of Home has 
 changed her principles, and lowered her supremacy and 
 infallibility amo7ig those who still remain in her communio7i. 
 Now indeed the poor Church of Home is undone to all 
 intents and purposes, if you can make good this charge 
 against her. But you think fit to remain in my debt for the
 
 j'.s the great Body of Cliristians^ §-c. 75 
 
 proof of it: and I believe it will prove one of those desperate 
 liebts, which are all to be paid at the Greek Calends. 
 
 Lastly, you tell me. that Borne itself has in some mea- 
 sure been reformed by the reformation. 'I'ruly, Sir, I am 
 of too generous a nature to disown any oblii^ation. And 
 therefore since it is certain, that the opposition oi heretics 
 has always been a spur to learning, and the frequent 
 temptations of the devil make christians more watchful; 
 I cannot without being guilty of ingratitude disown, that 
 the refurmalion has reformed the Church of Home just as 
 the devil reforms christians by obliging them to be upon 
 their guard. Now, Sir, go on. 
 
 <' G. — I know nothing- sliould hinder me from communi- 
 " eating with llie Greek church, if I were there, while nothing . 
 *' sinful were required ui iix; as a condition of cttniiuuiiion, 
 " nor new creeds to be imposed on me : and so of tlie chiu-ches 
 " of St Thomas, the Jarabi/s, and otliers in the tost of Asia, 
 " of whom we Iiave very imperfect and uncertain accounts : 
 " and so of the Abissints, the Coplitts, a«id other churches in 
 " Africa, and the great church of Russia in Europe. But 
 " Rome, while she pretends to universal supremacy, can com- 
 " mnuicate with none hut herself. So that onr connnunion 
 " is more extended, or extendable, than that of Borne. And 
 •' this univtrsid siiprrviary is that, which most of any one 
 " thing in the M'orld iiindcrs the union, or communion of 
 " chrislian churclios." — pp. 20, 21. 
 
 L, — Sir, we covet not the union or communion of 
 heretical christian churches upon any other condition 
 than that of an entire submission to the authority which 
 Christ has established. And so it is very true what you 
 say, viz., that the Church of Home cannot communicate 
 u'ith any hut herself : as light cannot communicate with 
 darkness^ nor Christ with belied. And therefore if by 
 taking in the whole rif-ralf of heretics you render your 
 church more extendable than ours, much- good may it do 
 you. 
 
 Now as to what you tell xtw, that nothing should hinder 
 you from communicating icith the Circck church, or the 
 other churches mentioned by you., ivhile nothing sinful irera 
 required <f you as a condition of communion , rwr new
 
 76 Mr Dtt Pin corph lined. 
 
 creeds imposed vpon you : I hope, Sir, the Church of 
 Rome may have a share in your good graces upon the 
 same terms. But what trifling stuff is this ! For you 
 may as well tell me, that nothing shouhl liinder you from 
 communicating with tlic Turkish Mtifly, or the Jcivish 
 liabbies, or the Indian Brachmans, if nothing sinful were 
 required of you as a condition of communion. But I must 
 acquaint you, Sir, that if you will communicate with the 
 Greek or Russian church, of which you are so fond, you 
 must first abjure your 5th Article oi Religion concerning 
 the procession of the Holy Ghost ; and 2dly, you must 
 subscribe to every article of Pope Pius's profession of 
 faith, the supremacy alone excepted. For in every thing 
 else the Greeks and Muscovites agree with us. 
 
 SECTION XVni. — MR DU PIN EXPLAINED. 
 
 Advertisement. — After the gentleman's la&t ivords in his Case 
 Stated, /lis lordship is made to ansiocr thus : But though one church 
 be supreme, yet the best part of Roman Catholics place not the 
 infallibility there, but in a general, or oecumenical council, wiiero 
 all churches meet. Now by these last ivords, where all churches 
 meet, is meant ( accordimj to the gentleman's intention) not only 
 the representatives of the whole Catholic church, but of all separate 
 communions, that is, of all heretical and schismatical churches ; 
 conformably to the large system of the church's unity established 
 by him. And, according to this ivild notion, he ansivers as follows : 
 
 " G. — My lord, there never was such a council. The 
 " Roman empire had the vanity to call itself the oiciimcne, 
 ** which we translate, all the world. Luke ii. 1. Hence the 
 *' councils called within the empire styled themselves oecume- 
 " 7}ical, but no more truly so, than the Rotnan emjnrc was all 
 *' the world. But the Latin church was not so much as the 
 *' oicwnene of that empire. For Greece, and other parts of 
 " the Greek church in Asia were in it ; especially after the 
 " seat of the empire was translated to Constaiitiiioplc, when 
 *' they contended with Rome for the supremacy : and the 
 " Latin church was not then called by the name of the Church 
 " of Rome. As the learned Du Pi?i says, in Ins Traite de la 
 " Puissance Ecclesiastique, &c. p. 551 : R is true (says he) 
 *' that at 2)rcsent the name of the Church of Rome is given to
 
 Mr Dii Pin explained. 77 
 
 " the Catholic church, and that these two terms pass for synoni- 
 " mous. But in a7itiquity no more was intended hy the name 
 " of the Church of Rome, than the church of the city of Rome. 
 '= The Greek schismatics seem to be the first, who gave the name 
 " of the Church of Rome to all the churches of the tvest. Whence 
 " the Latins made use of this to distinguish the churches, tchich 
 " communicated tcith the Church of Rome, from the Greeks, 
 " tcho were separated from her comtnunion. From this came 
 " the custom to give the name of the Church of Rome to the 
 *' Catholic church. But the other churches did7iotfor this lose 
 " the name, or their authority, i)-c. Then lie goes on to vin- 
 " dicate tlic rights of every 7iational church independent of 
 *' tlie Church of Ro7ne and past her power to control or 
 " alter."—/)/?. 21, 22. 
 
 JL. — Sir, I have already told you (but you are some- 
 what forgetful) that if Popes should pretend to invade 
 the Just rights or privileges of particular churches, they 
 may lawfully maintain them, and the learned Du Pin 
 may be their advocate, if he pleases, without derogating 
 from tlie supremacy of St Peter, or his successors. But, 
 as to the long passage, you have quoted from him, there 
 is not a word in it can do you any service; unless you 
 become guilty of the old equivocation in confounding 
 the diocess or patriarchat oi Rome with the whole church 
 in communion with that see. 
 
 It is true (says Du Pin) that at present the name of the 
 Church of Rome is given to the Catholic church, and these 
 terms pass fur synonimons. I answer, that Du Pin cer- 
 tainly means the n'hole church in communion \\ ith tlie 
 see of Rome. For the learned J)u Pin is not such a blun- 
 derer as to say, that the diocess of Rome ^ and the Catholic 
 church pass for synonimous terms. 
 
 He goes on : But in antiquity no more was intended hy 
 the name of the Church of Rome, than the church of the 
 f'dU "f Pome. And the Popes in their subscriptions, or 
 superscriptions took simply the quality (f bishop of Rome. 
 
 Very right, Sir. IJut cannot custom enlarge the sig- 
 iiilication of words ? Or must Du Pin be our monitor to 
 tell us, that the diocess of Rome was not formerly the 
 whole Catholic Church ? (Jr that the Catholic Church was
 
 78 Mr Du Pin crplained. 
 
 not always callotl by the name of the Church oi Rome? 
 The Latin church was not always caUed by that name, 
 yet I think the Latin chwch was always the LMtin church, 
 as the Greek church n'as always the Greek church, though 
 it had not always that name : and as christians were 
 always christians, tliough they were not called so till 
 there was a church founded at Antioch. What tlierefore 
 Uu Pin says concerning the occasion of the different 
 appellations to distinguish the two churches from one 
 another, is nothing to the purpose. If he had said, that 
 the whole church in communion with the see of Rome ivas 
 not anciently the Catholic Church, this indeed would have 
 been a sweet bit for you. But Du Pin is too good a 
 papist to write in that extravagant manner. 
 
 As to the subscriptions or superscriptions used by Popes, 
 I presume you would not have them fill up whole pages 
 with pompous titles like the grand seignior ; or kings of 
 Persia. Nay, every Pope since St Gregory's time has 
 only styled himself, the servant of the servants of God. 
 But this never hindered them from asserting their supre- 
 macy against any one, that oft'ered to attack it. Thus 
 much then for Du Pin's words. Let us now consider 
 what you have said yourself. 
 
 You tell me, there never ivas a general council. Sir, if 
 you speak the usual language of Christendom, you have 
 it entirely against you. Nay, your own church allows of 
 the four first general councils, and calls them by that 
 name. But if you coin notions, which jio man ever 
 thought of, what you say may be true, but I am sure it 
 is nothing to the purpose. 
 
 You add, that because the Roman empire had the vanity 
 to call itself the oicumene, hence the councils called loithin 
 that empire styled themselves oecumenical, or general. But 
 I should be glad to know, where you learned this piece 
 of profound erudition. For pray. Sir, were there not 
 innumerable nalioncd and provincial councils held within 
 the empire, which yet never styled themselves oecumeni- 
 cal ov general? The true reason therefore why the other 
 councils were so styled, was because the Catholic bishops
 
 Mr Talon's Speech misrepresented. 79 
 
 of all ?iatio7is were invited to them; and there was a 
 sufficient number present at tliem to make them the re- 
 presentatives of the whole Catholic Church. 
 
 Your observation, that the Latin church was not so much 
 as the oicumene of the empire, is just as much to the 
 purpose, as if you should tell me that Greece is not in 
 Italy, or that it was not subject to the patriarchal of 
 Rome; which no man ever dreamt of. For the Popes 
 pretend not to the supremacy either as bishops or patri- 
 archs of Rotne, but as successors of St Peter. And so the 
 question is not, liow far the patriarchal jurisdiction of 
 Rome (which is commonly called the Latin church) is 
 extended ; but whether the bishop of Rome be not the 
 head of the Catholic Church, precisely as he is the succes- 
 sor of St Peter ? 
 
 As to what you add, ^•iz., tJiat after the empire was 
 translated to Constantiiiople, the Greek church contended 
 with Rome for the supremacy, I have already showed 
 the falsehood of it. Sec. 9. So you may now proceed, if 
 you please. 
 
 STXTION XTX. •SIR TALON's SPEECH IN THE PARLIA- 
 MENT OF PARIS AGAINST INNOCENTXI,. MISREPRESENTED. 
 
 " G. — Tiie proceedvrgs of the parliament of Paris ( Appen. 
 "pp. 30, 40.) tt'llsthc Pope, that his bishopric extends only 
 «' to the dioccss of Rome, and his pair iarc/iat to the provinces 
 •' called sulmrbicarial. And that hy taking upon liini to 
 " excommunicate others unjustly, and where his power did 
 " not roach, ho had excommunicated himself. And tlien he 
 " was so far from being head, that he was not so much as a 
 " njwi^^rr of the church. And they mind him, as likewise 
 " Du Pin, in the treatise above-mentioned, /;. 263, of tlie 
 " stont resirttancn made by the bishops oi France to the Pope 
 *' who tliroatonod to cxconiniunicate all of them, that would 
 " not submit to his decision. But they resolutely answered, 
 '' that they would not subinit to his will ; and that if he 
 " came to exconmmnicute them, he slionld go back excom- 
 *' municatcd liimsclf. Si cxcommutiicaturits venirtt, exconi'
 
 80 3//- Taloiis Speech misrcprescjited. 
 
 *' 7miHicalt/s ahlret. Now wliat is that head, can bo excom- 
 " municatod by its members ? What is that supremacy can 
 " be liinitod, and controlled by its subjects ? And of which 
 " they are the jndges, and can say to it as God to the sea : 
 " hWierto sludt thou come and no farther, here shall thy proud 
 " leaves he stayed f'~\}\>. 22, 23. 
 
 Advertisement — N. B. That the piece here quoted by the gentle- 
 man is printed in the appendix of his Case Stated. Beginning p. 
 39, and ending p. 52. And though it be the harangue of an advo- 
 cate-general in defence of the franchises of the Gullicane church, 
 filled u-ith many warm exjjressions, but too usual in the heat of 
 disputes, yet the gentleman is pleased to lay as much stress upon 
 it as if it were a dogmatical piece approved by all catholic divines. 
 But, tvhat is still more surprising, though the gentleman had the 
 piece before him, yet in the small part he has quoted of it, he is 
 guilty of two falsifications : whether voluntary, or involuntary I 
 refer to the reader. 
 
 L. — Sir, we have the proceedings of the parliament of 
 Paris here before us : that is, Mr Talon's warm speech 
 against the bull oi Linocent XI. But you have made him 
 say more, than he really did, or ever thought of. 
 
 For first, you say he tells the Pope, that his bishopric 
 extends only to the diocess of Rome, and his jmtriarchat to 
 the provinces called suburbicarial. Whereas Mr Talon's 
 words are no more than an expostulatory interrogation, 
 and can bear no such meaning, any more than a child can 
 be said to disown the authority of his father, if thinking 
 himself injured he should ask him in an expostulatory 
 way, trhether he meant to renounce that title ? 
 
 %lx TcdoR^s words are these : 7s it that the Pope means 
 to have no more commerce with France ? Is he persuaded 
 that his power reaches no farther than the diocess of Rome, 
 and his patriarchship than the neighbouring provinces styled 
 suburbicarial ? Does he intend to renounce the quality of 
 head of the church and common father of the faithfid ? 
 (Appen. pp. 43, 44.) Now let any man judge whether 
 you have quoted him fairly. Nay his last words imply 
 no less, than an acknowledgment of the Pope's being the 
 head of the church, and common fat Iter of the faitlifid : 
 which in reality is the point in question betwixt us. For 
 what is it to the purpose how far t\ie bishopric or patriarchal
 
 Mr Talon's Speech misrepresented. 81 
 
 of J?o;«eis extended? Our question is precisely concern- 
 ing the Pope's supremacy, to which he has no title but 
 precisely as he is the successor of ^t Peter. And this Mr 
 Talon acknowledges, />. 49. App., and promises that tlie 
 Gallicane church will ah^'ays maintain communion with 
 the see o( Rome- which you know very well is impracti- 
 cable without owning the supremacy. 
 
 2dly, You quote that part of INIr Talon's speech, where 
 he puts the Pope in mind of the stout resistance made by 
 the bishops of France in the reign oi Lewis the clebonnaire 
 against Pope Gregory IV. who threatened to excommu- 
 nicate them, if they did not close with his designs, as it is 
 expressed in the App. p. 42, though you express it, if 
 they would not submit to his decision: I presume, this was 
 to insinuate, that they refused to submit to some decision 
 oi faith, whereas the whole dispute M'as about a mere 
 jjarty-cause. Put they resolutely answered, thcd if he came 
 to excommuniccde them, he should himself return excommu- 
 nicated. 
 
 It is very true, that Mr Talon quotes this bold answer 
 of the French bishops to Gregory IV. lint you are not 
 content with this, but likewise tell mo, that in the pro- 
 ceedings of the parliament of Paris the same language is 
 used to Innocent XI. For your Avords are these. And 
 the proceedings of the parliajnent cf Paris tell the Pope [i. 
 
 c. Innocent AV.] that his bishopric, ^r. And that by 
 
 iahing vpon him to excomnumicate others unjustly, and 
 where his power did not reach, he had excommunicated 
 himself. Yet there is not a word of all this in Mr Talon's 
 speech ; as every one may be satisfied, that will but give 
 himself the trouble to read your Aj)pendix. 
 
 Nay you make the French advoccUe-gcncrcd far outdo 
 the French bishops. For Gregory IV. was by them only 
 threatened, that if he came to excommunicate them he shoidd 
 himself return cxcoutinuniaUed. The harshness of which 
 expression is very much mollified by M. Talon himself 
 Appen. pp. 42, 4.5. Put poor Innocent XI. (if you can 
 make good your (piotation) is by the advocate-general 
 j)0sitivcly declared excommunicated /or having taken upon 
 
 li 2 .
 
 82 3//* Talo7i^s Speech misrepresenleih 
 
 him io excommunicate oilier s laiJuM/i/, and ichere hiftpoiver 
 did not reach. And yoii make this smart refloctioii upon 
 it; t/iof he icas then so far from being head, that he was not 
 so V'lich as a member of the church. But since tlic reflection 
 is grounded upon a fact of your own fruitful invention 
 (wliich I assure you will not make you pass for tlie nicest 
 lover of truth in tiie world) we may piously hope, that 
 Innocjit XI. died not only a member, but the head of^ 
 the Catholic Church. 
 
 But the French bishops telling Pope Gregory, that if 
 he came to excommunicate them, he should himself return 
 cxcommunicaled, puts you ujion these vehement interro- 
 gatories. Noic what is iJiut head can be excommunicated 
 by its members ? What is that supremacy can be limited 
 and controlled by its subjects? Which I shall endeavour 
 to match with some interrogatories of the same kind. viz. 
 JVhat head both of church and state is that man, whose 
 head can be cut off by his subjects ? And what is that 
 .sovereignty, which can be limited and controlled by laivs ? 
 Now whatever answer you will give to these impertinent 
 questions of mine, will probably serve to answer yours. 
 
 But, to return to what we were saying before concern- 
 ing councils, though the supremacy was given to St Peter, 
 and by consequence to his successors in order to per- 
 petuate the form of cliurch government established by 
 Christ, yet it is no article of faith with us, that St Peter's 
 infallibility, which he had in common with the other 
 apostles, was likewise to be transmitted to his successors. 
 And therefore we are only sure, that Christ has promised 
 infallibility to his church, the representative whereof is a 
 fjencral council. 
 
 SECTION XX. — OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 
 
 " G. — Wliicli as I told yon, never was, and is next to 
 " innpossible ever should be. And what you have said gives 
 " np your wliole foundation. For the Popes, and not councils, 
 *< pretend to be the successors of St Peter, and heirs of all the 
 *'■ promises made to iiim." — p. 23.
 
 Of General Councils. 83 
 
 L. — Not of all with your good leave, Sii*. For Christ 
 promised St Peter, that he should be a martyr. John xxi. 
 18. But all Popes pretend not to be martyrs. The 
 Popes are therefore the successors of St Peter, and as 
 such the supreme governors of the church. But general 
 councils are the representatives of this church, and to her 
 Christ promised infallibility. So that you are grievously 
 out in saying, that we give np the whole foundation \n not 
 lodging the infallibility as well as supremacy in the Pope. 
 For this is a question disputed amongst our divines, and 
 the negative as well as affirmative may be held without 
 endangering the foundation of the church. 
 
 As to your repeating, that there never was a general 
 council, I refer you to my former answer, and am sorry 
 you can entertain the same wliim so long together. 
 
 «' G. — My lord, you are not agreed among yourselves 
 " concerning general councils. BeUarmin (de Cone. L. i. C. 
 " 6.) gives a list o^ general councils, whicii are to be rejected. 
 " Concilia generalia reprobata. Some for not being approved 
 " by the Pope; some for heresy, and some (he might have 
 " said all) as not being received by the universal church. But 
 " lie meant only the Church of Rome.'' — p. 23. 
 
 L Under favour, Sir, he meant the whole church in 
 
 communion with the see of Rome ; which is called the 
 Catholic or universal Chvrch not only by BeUarmin, but 
 also by St Austin (contra Fpist. fund. C. 4.) and indeed 
 the whole current of orthodox fathers. And this church 
 has received a great many general cotmcils ; the decrees 
 whereof in doctrinal points are infallible rules of faith. 
 But pray, go on. 
 
 " G.—th. 7. is of general council;^ partly confirmed and 
 " partly reprot>ated. And Cliap. 8. is of general councils 
 <* neither manifestly approved, nor marifestly rejected. This 
 " is goini^ tlirougli all tlio degrees of niicortaiiity. Aiul 
 " Cliiip. .5. and de Horn. Pont. h. iv. C. 11. ho says, that 
 " Bevcral things in those councils allowed to he general were 
 " foisted in hy lic7rlics, he knows not how. This was to got, 
 " rid of soino objections against tliose councils, he could not 
 " answer otherwise " 
 
 L. — Sir, you should have said, against some private
 
 84 Of General Councils. 
 
 opinions of his own. But let us hear out the rest of your 
 story. 
 
 «« G. — And {de Eccl. 3Iiid. C. 16.) he quotes the hist 
 " council K)i Latcran coiideinu'mg the council of Jiasil, which 
 " he says was ut first u true occumenicul council, and infallible, 
 " but afterwards turned into a schismalical C07ivenlicle, and 
 " was of no authority at all." — pp. 23, 24. 
 
 L. — Well, Sir, the suui of all this is, that Bellarmiu 
 rejects some couucils ahsolaiely which falsely styled them- 
 selves (jeneral. As that of Sardica cousisting- of seventy- 
 six Arian bishops, who separated themselves from the 
 true council of Sardica, yet called themselves by that 
 name, and condemned Ut ylihanasius. The other repro- 
 bafe (jenercd councils mentioned by Bellarmin are of the 
 same kidney ; but I hope you do not imagine we place 
 the infallibililij in such councils as these. He likewise 
 says that the authority of some councils called genercd is 
 doubtful, and that some are partly approved, and partly 
 rejected ; which you say is going through all the degrees 
 of uncertainty. But what do you pretend to infer i'rom 
 thence? 
 
 G. — j\Iy lord, 1 infer from it that no infallibility can 
 be placed in general councils. 
 
 L. — Sir, if we had no councils but of a suspected and 
 unccj'tain authority, I should easily subscribe to what you 
 say. But have we not general councils enough unani- 
 mously received and approved by the whole body of the 
 Catholic Church, and in which all doctrinal points of con- 
 troversy are fully and clearly determined ? These then 
 are the councils, the decisions whereof we regard as in~ 
 fallible rules oi faith : because they are the true represent 
 tatives of that church, to which Christ has promised his 
 perpetual assistance, and which in all ages is the pillar 
 and ground of truth no less than she was in the first age 
 of Christianity. So that the spuriousness or uncertainty 
 of some councils styled general, and the illegality of some 
 part of others cainiot be turned into an argument of any 
 weight against the certainly and infallibility of other 
 councils universally received and approved, any more
 
 Of General Councils. 86 
 
 than tlie authority of XegdX parliamejits can be questioned, 
 because there have been some very illegal ones, some 
 partly legal, and partly illegal, and others of a doubtful 
 authority. 
 
 But, to instance in a case exactly parallel, Sir, there 
 were spurious gospels handed about even in the time of 
 the apostles. And Dr Walton an eminent protestant 
 writer assures us positively (for the fact is unquestiona- 
 ble) tliat the Booh of Bevelations, and some other parts of 
 the Neiv Testament ivere doubted of for some ages. In Pro- 
 leg. C. iv. Sec. Q. p. 31. Thus likewise the Books of 
 Ezra are partly canonical, and partly apocryphal in the 
 judgment of your church as well as ours : nay you have 
 likewise split the Prophecy of Daniel, the two last chap- 
 ters whereof are wholly omitted in your Bible. Here 
 then we have certain spurious scrii)tures entirely rejected, 
 some of the canonical ones doid)ted of for several ages, 
 and others jjartly approved and partly rejected : yet I hope 
 no cJiristian will make these parallel facts an objection 
 against the certainty and infallibility of scriptures. And, 
 if these be no objections against scriptures, as most cer- 
 tainly they are not, neither are those you have collected 
 from Bellarmin, of any moment against general couticils. 
 For whatever you answer to these, is a full answer to 
 your own objection, which by proving too much, proves 
 nothing at all. And what else then have you done by 
 starting this objection but furnished the enemies of chris- 
 tia?iity with arms against it? For they cannot be so 
 stupid as not to see, that what you say to weaken the 
 authority of councils, strikes with equal force at the au- 
 thority of scriptures. 
 
 But what must we then rely securely upon both as to 
 scriptures and councils ? Sir, if St Paul has not deceived 
 us in calling the Catholic Church t\iQ pillar and ground of 
 truth, 1 Tim. iii. 13, the weight and authority of her 
 judgment is our only security, and alone sullicient tore- 
 move all reasonable doubts. So that whatever disputes 
 are yet remaining either concerning scriptures or coun- 
 cils, the Catholic Church alone has full power given her
 
 86 0/ General Councils. 
 
 by C/iri.st to (lotonninc tliein : and /ic, that does not hear 
 the church, let him he unto thee as a heathen and a publi- 
 can. Matt, xviii. 17. 
 
 As to what you say conccrniiia; the council of Basil, it 
 was at first a rcs^ular council, assembled by, and united 
 to its head, till the Soth session; when there arose a dis- 
 pute concerning removing the council to a more conve- 
 nient j>lace for a treaty with the Greeks. The greatest 
 part of the bishops stuck to their head. But a small 
 number of bishops, and many of the inferior clerf/t/ re- 
 mained at Basil, and continued to style themselves the 
 general council of that place ; but were no more the true 
 council than if a few members remaining at JVesfmiiister 
 would be the trne parliamoif, if the king by his authority 
 should remove it to another place. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the church o^ France receives the councils 
 " of i?flf527 and 6'o7istonce wliolly and tliroiigliout. JJut the 
 " Church of Rome rejects both in part." — p. 24. 
 
 Li. — Sir, you are under a mistake in saying, that the 
 Church of France receives the council of Basil wholly 
 and throughout. For Charles VII. who was then king 
 of France, as likewise the emperor, and other princes, 
 rejected the decree of that council against Pope Eugeniiis, 
 continuing still to acknowledge him for Pope. Du Pin, 
 Cent. 15. p. 48. And the whole church has received 
 both the council of Basil and Constance as to all their 
 decrees relating to faith. When I say the ivhole church, 
 I mean neither heretics, nor schismatics, who are cut off 
 from the Catholic Church. 
 
 G. — INIy lord, since there are these disputes about councils, 
 it follows that " they, wlio place the infallibility in councils, 
 " will need another infaUiUe judge to determine these dis- 
 " putes concerning councils ; which are irtdi/ general, and 
 •' which not : and which are par/ly so, and wliich throughout: 
 " and what part of tiiose, that are throvghout, have been 
 ** corrupted by heretics ; if that can bo called true throughout, 
 " which is corrupted ma;??/ ;7ar< .• and when one council con- 
 " demns another, which shall we believe r" — p. 24. 
 
 L. — Sir, all these points Mill be fully cleared by only 
 shewing the mistiike of your first proposition, viz., that
 
 Of General Councils. 87 
 
 they^ uho place the infaUihllifji in councils, will need cm- 
 other infallible judge to determine tJicse disputes concerning 
 the councils. Which I Aewy. Because every supreme 
 tribunal, from which there is no appeal, is the only judge 
 in all cases relating to itself. Thus a legal parliament, 
 ■which is the supreme tribunal oi Great Britain is the only 
 judge that can decide all parliamentary disputes. As, 
 whether it was legally convened : what number is requisite 
 to make it a representative of the nation : who th er the I'ump- 
 pariiamcnt was truly a parliame?it : wdiether the long-par- 
 liament, which was called by Charles I., and at length cut 
 off his head, was a true parliament throughout, or only z;i 
 part: and finally, when one /Jff/7eame«^ condemns anotlier 
 (whereof there are instances enough) which of them had 
 reason on its side and wliich not? As therefore it is false 
 to say, that they who place the supreme authority of the 
 nation in a legal parliament, will need another supreme 
 tribunal to determine parliamejitary disputes, so it is no 
 less false to say, that they who place the infidlibiliiy in a 
 general coimcil (w^hich is the representative of the Catholic 
 Church, to which Christ has promised infallibility) will 
 need another infallible judge to determine disputes con- 
 cerning councils. For the case is exactly parallel. 
 
 As to your ))lcasant reflection concerning true general 
 couru:ils thrmighout, yet corrupted in some part ; 1 have 
 already told you, that no general council is corrupted in any 
 thing relating io faith: which is a sulficient answer to it. 
 
 " G. — If we must not believe every council, that calls it- 
 " scM oecumenical, we can believe no other council against it 
 " for tlie same reason." — p. 24. 
 
 L. — No, Sir ! that is very strange. For according to this 
 logic every 5c7a5/;2a^W^/ assembly, that but dubs itself cotin- 
 ci/y is (^f the same authority as the great council of Nice. 
 
 " G Tlie 2d council of Lpliesus is generally condemned 
 
 **,in your church: yet it called itself oecumenical, and was 
 «' as mucli as any of tlio others." — /;. 21. 
 
 L. — (iitiendly, tlo you say, Sir? You .should liavc said 
 universally by all christian, churches in the world, except 
 the Eulyrhiarui. IJut as to your saying, that it was as
 
 88 Of General Councils. 
 
 muck a general council as any other, really, Sir, this is 
 exposing voiirself too much. For the noble council, you 
 are pleased to patronize, was in all antiquity so infamous 
 for the violences and barbarities committed in it, that it 
 never deserved any better character, than that of Latro- 
 finium Ephcsinum : that is, the band of Ephesian rioters 
 and assasins. 
 
 « G. — But what a thing is it to say that ^council is partly 
 " right, and parti// tvroyig ?" — p. 24. 
 
 L Or rather what a thing is it to make a wonder of 
 
 it ? Unless you mean, that a council legally assembled, 
 and truly general^ should in deciding matters oi faith be 
 partly right, and partly ivrong ; wliich indeed is impossi- 
 ble, and was never thought of, much less maintained by 
 any catholic divine. But that an assembly, which was 
 legal at first, should by a separation from its head, and 
 the greatest part of its members become illegal afterwards, 
 yet continue to style itself a general council, I think is 
 110 such strange thing as you make it. Nay it is the very 
 case of tlie council of Basil: which therefore may pro- 
 perly be called a council, that was partly right, and partly 
 ivrong: like the \oiig-parliament, which was right at first, 
 but very ici'ong in the end. 
 
 " G. — But who is judge of the right or wrong of sucli 
 <* councils ? Is there any ce^-tainty in this, far less i?ifalli- 
 " bility ?"— p. 24. 
 
 L. — Sir, the church of Christ is the judge of it ; as I 
 ]iave already told you. And St Austin calls it a point of 
 the most insolent madness not to submit to her judgment. 
 
 " G. — But we must have an iitfallible method too to pre- 
 " serve the acts of the councils, that they be not adulterated, 
 " as Hellarmin says they have been : and they continue so 
 " to this day in the volumes of the councils. Why then are 
 " they not amended, and these suppositions and adidteratcd 
 " parts (these are Bellarmins own words) struck out ? But 
 " the several editions of their own councils are in the hands 
 " of other churches, and therefore they can make no alteration 
 " in them witliout being detected." — pjp. 24, 25. 
 
 L. — I dare swear. Sir, this is not Bellarmin's reason, 
 why they are not amended. But I can give you a good
 
 Of General Councils. 89 
 
 reason for it, viz. : because, tliey, who put forth the coun- 
 cils, were not of Bellarmin's opinion. And therefore 
 judging the acts, which he calls suppositions (though they 
 regard no matters oi faith, as I have told you) to be 
 genuine, thought fit to make no alteration in them, but 
 left them as they found them. 
 
 As to the method of preserving councils from corrup- 
 tions; 1 presume the same method which suffices to pre- 
 serve the Bible, will likewise suffice to preserve the 
 councils from being corrupted. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the scheme of infaUibility, which you place 
 " in councils, stands thus. The Church of Rome makes her- 
 '* self tlie universal or Catholic Church: in so much that all, 
 " who are not of her commu7iion (which are by far the great- 
 " est part of christian chitrclies in the world) are out of the 
 " pale of the Catholic Church. And schismatics and heretics 
 " are no part of a catholic council. Thus a small part of the 
 " Latinchurch (exclusive of the Greek, and all other churches) 
 " are the 'whole Catholic Church. And these little 2Jurtij 
 " councils under the direction of the Pope are universal and 
 " infallible."— i^. 25. 
 
 SECTION XXI. — A GENERAL COUNCIL IS THE REPRESEN- 
 TATIVE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ONLY. 
 
 L. — I must own, Sir, the pleasant scheme you have 
 drawn for me, is a good proof of your admirable skill in 
 romancing, as the following plain account of the naked 
 truth will testify. 
 
 Christ has established a church on earth, which in the 
 creed is called the Catholic or universal Church, though 
 it never was, and perhaps never will be the church oi all 
 ■nations in such a manner, as to have the universal world 
 all at once in her communion. lie constituted St Peter 
 head of this church, when ut the third a})/)arition ni'tcr his 
 resurrection he gave him a commission distinct from what 
 Le had given to the apostles in common at \iis first ap- 
 parition. And, since the form of church govcrJinicnt 
 established liy Christ was not to end with St Peter, his
 
 99 Councils are Itepresentative 
 
 succesftors dioson l)y tlic fliurcli hold the same station as 
 lie tiid, and Jloiiir. is tiieir episcopal sec. Ilcncc it is, that 
 the church in communion with the see of Home, that is, 
 with the 8uccesso)'s of St Pefer, who are called Popes, is 
 the church established by Christ, and, by consequence, 
 the CnthoUc Chnrch professed in the creed. 
 
 This church admits no heretics or schismatics into her 
 communion : and indeed a catholic heretic or schismatic 
 is a chimera uidieard of in antiquity. So that let them 
 be as numerous as they please, they are out of the pale 
 of the Catholic Church, and can have no other place in a 
 catholic council than such as criminals have in a court of 
 judicature. And thus it is, that the church in communion 
 with the see of Home (exclusive of all heretics and schis- 
 matics) is the whole Catholic Church : and such councils, 
 as are true representatives of this church, ixre general, and 
 infallible in all their decisions relating to matters oi faith. 
 
 Let me tell you. Sir, this plain scheme will stand its 
 ground against yours in spite of all the artful misrepre- 
 sentations you have crowded into it, especially that, 
 which is the foundation of your whole sham scheme, viz., 
 that the Church of Rome makes herself the universal or 
 Catholic Church. For you either mean the diocess of 
 Jlo)}ie, and then what you say is false. Because it is 
 manifest the diocess of Rome never pretended to be the 
 whole Catholic Church. Or you mean the whole church 
 in communion with the see of Roine, and then you are 
 guilty of misrepresentation in saying that this church 
 makes herself the Catholic or U7iiversal Church. For she 
 does not 7}iake herself, but Christ, who constituted St 
 JPeter and his successors the head^ of his church, has made 
 her the Catholic Chnrch. 
 
 " G. — Aly lord, I have shewn, that the Church o{ Romehns 
 *' no rigJit to the title of the Lati7i church itself, far less of the 
 " universal. And she has now hut a small part of the Latin 
 *' church left her. The reformed with Russia, and the Greek 
 " church will outnumber her in Europe. And she has no 
 " national church in her communion any where else. And, 
 •* though tliere be some in her communion in most countries, 
 *' there are not so many as of the Jews, who by that are more
 
 of the Catholic Church onh/. 91 
 
 '< universal than your cliiircli, and so more catholic. And none 
 " of the shattered seminaries of Rome in other christian 
 " churches can be said to represent those churches in a general 
 «' council more, than three or four bishops in l^ngland could 
 '= represent the Church of England as it now stands. But 
 '= on the contrary their living in a separate communion in 
 " otl'.er christian churches shows these churches not to be of 
 '= hor communion ; and therefore cannot be represented in any 
 " of their councils : and these calling themselves oecmncnical, 
 " as tiie Roman empire did, shows only, how little criticisms 
 " upon words will avail against plain matter of fact: which I 
 •' have showed to be the case as to those texts urged for the 
 " supremacy of St Pder. And that if words would do it, there 
 " are more, nay VMd facts too for the vniversal supremacy of 
 ♦• St Paul, at least over all the christian churches of the Gen- 
 " tiles, whicii are all now in the world." — pp. 25, 26. 
 
 L Sir, you neither have shewed, nor ever can shew, 
 
 that the texts urged for the supremacy of St Peter are 
 mere criticisms upon words: unless you can prove that 
 tlie SL\\c\Qr\i fathers, I have produced, did only trifle with 
 words; and delivered not in their writings ihe public faith 
 of the church in tlieir times. For all, that had occasion 
 to write upon that subject, urged those texts for the 
 supremacy of St Peter. And I defy you to name me one 
 father, who ever urged either one single text or fact for 
 tiie supremacy of St Paul. And liow then can you 
 imagine, that any man will believe you, when you say, 
 there are more texts •m\{\ facts for St Pa^d, than St Peter? 
 Lot me tell you, Sir, once more, this is an argument you 
 can never answer. 
 
 However I find two things true in the harangue you 
 have made ; which is a kind of miracle, 1. That papists 
 livinr/ ina separate commuiiiun in protestant countries shews 
 those churches not to he of their communion, ^^'hich is 
 just as much to the purpose, as if you had told me, that 
 English papists are not English ])rotestants. And Sdlj'", 
 that jyrotrstaut churches cannot he represented in a general 
 council In/ the Roman catholics, that live amongst them. As 
 the Church of pjigland, as it noiu stands^ cannot he repre- 
 sented hy three or Jour popish hishops. Which is likewise
 
 92 Councils are Jlcprescntatives 
 
 very true, and as little to the purpose as the former. For 
 we are in no manner of concern, whether the Church of 
 Englaml, or the other nformcd churches be represented 
 iu our councils or not : unless it were to be in order to 
 a reconciliation to their mother church. And I must here 
 put you in mind that even that mimic of a general 
 council, the synod of Dort, would not suffer the Arminians 
 to be present at it in any other quality than as criminals 
 to be judged. 
 
 But I presume your main drift is to conclude that our 
 councils are not general, because all christian churches 
 are not represented in those councils. But you are under 
 a great mistake. Because a catholic genercd council is 
 only the representative of the whole diffusive body of 
 the Catholic Church, and not of heretical or schismatical 
 churches, as I have already told you. And you may as 
 well say they are not general councils, because Qiiakers 
 and Anabaptists are not allov/ed to send their representa- 
 tives to them. 
 
 Suppose a national council WQxe called in Great Britain, 
 would you allow Puritans, Independents, Anabaptists, 
 (luahers, Brow7iists, Muggletonians, Freethinkers, and 
 the whole x\i-\'Si^ oi English sects to send representatives 
 of their respective churches to it to judge of matters of 
 faith and discipline as well as your bishops, and the episco- 
 pal clergy ? No surely. And yet it would be a national 
 council, though all these were excluded : because it would 
 represent the national church of Great Britain. In like 
 manner a general council of the Catholic Church is that, 
 to which all catholic bishops are invited. And when you 
 convince me that the separate communions of heretics and 
 schismcdics are a part of the Catholic Church, 1 will then 
 acknowledge, that they have a title to sit in her councils 
 as judges ; and that there can be no general council un- 
 less they be invited to send their deputies and repre- 
 sentatives to it. 
 
 You say, you have shewed that the Church of 'Rome has 
 no right to the title of the Latin church itself. But, Sir, 
 I must tell you once more, there is a difference between
 
 of the Catholic Chirch onJy. 93 
 
 saying and shewing. However if you mean, tliat the 
 diocess of Borne is not the whole Latin churchy no man 
 will disj3ute it with you. But if you mean, that the 
 bishops of Rome as they are patriarchs of the tvest (which 
 title never was denied them) have not jurisdiction over 
 the Latin church, all men of sense will give it against you. 
 
 You add, that the Church of Rome has now but a small 
 part of the Latin church left her. So when a sovereign 
 is stripped of the greatest part of his dominions by re- 
 bellious subjects, he has but a small part of his kingdom 
 left him : but 1 hope this does not divest him of his title 
 to tlie whole. However you are somewhat mistaken in 
 your calculation : for the small part you speak of is all 
 Italy., France, and Spain. Ihe kingdoms of Naples and 
 Sicily. Ten of the 17 provinces of the Netherlands. 
 Eight of the 13 Siciss cantons. The vast kingdom of 
 Poland. All the emperor's hereditary dominions. All the 
 Catholic electorats, besides other parts of the empire, &c. 
 And as to what you say, that she has no national church in 
 her communion out ofEiirope, I must refer you to the maps 
 and the Atlas Geographus for your better information. 
 
 But notwithstanding all this you have nncatholie'd the 
 poor Church of Rome, to all intents and purposes. For, if 
 the Jews themselves be more catholic than the Church of 
 Rome, I am sure she can lay no claim to that honourable title. 
 The [)iece is very curious, and so I shall repeat it word for 
 word. Andthovgh (say you) thcrehesumc i7i her communion 
 in most countries, there are not so many as of the Jcivs, who 
 by that are more universal than your church, and so more 
 catholic. Really, Sir, I know not how far tliis argument 
 may temj)t a man to circuwrision, but I am sure it will 
 never tempt me to be a member of the Church of England: 
 since I am very certain that the Jews are more dispersed 
 about in other countries, than those of your church. And 
 by conscfjufnce (if your argunu-nt be wortli any thing) 
 they are more catholic than tlu; Church (f England. 
 
 ^ But, if Jews be more catholic on tliat score, than 
 either of our churches, what iu)l)le catkttlics must heathens 
 and Mahometans then be, who arc not only far more
 
 94 The InfallibiliUj 
 
 numerous, but possess a greater tract of hind than all tlie 
 christians in the workl ! But who woukl ever iniagiue 
 a divine capable of ari^uing- in such a wretched manner ! 
 In good truth, Sir, 1 am strongly tempted to suspect, 
 you know not what the word catholic means, though you 
 liave repeated it many times in your creed. I shall there- 
 fore explain it at large hereafter to remove all doubts 
 and scruples concerning this piece of profound divinity. 
 But we have digressed from our subject, which was con- 
 cerning the infallibility of general councils : and since 
 you will not allow them to be infallible, let us consider 
 where the infallibility is to be placed. 
 
 SECTION XXII. — THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 « G. — No wliere, my lord. Nor can it be found among 
 " men, who are aW fallible." — p. 26. 
 
 L. — What Sir ! cannot God, if he pleases, preserve 
 men from erring ! Or were not the sacred penmen 
 infallible in their writings ! If not, then we are not 
 sure that the scriptures contain the word of God, which 
 surely is infallible. 
 
 Advertisement. — In answer to what the. Gentleman spohelast, his 
 Lordship in the former conversation, instead of quoting the pro- 
 mises of Christ, only quotes Isuiali, and Mulaclue. But his text 
 from 3\Ialachie {us translated in the protcstant Bible) being 
 nothing to the jmrpose, is here omitted, and by consequence, the 
 Gentleman's answer to it. The ivords o/Isaiah shall be examined 
 after Ids Lordship's answer to the following texts produced Ijtj the 
 Gentleman against the church's iiifallibility. 
 " G. The word of God tells us, they were all goyie out of 
 
 '< the way. They were together become abominable ; there zvas 
 
 " none that did good, no not one — that all the world might be- 
 
 ♦' 007716 guilty before God. Rom. iii. 12, 19. 
 
 " And of the church it is said. The lohole head is sich, and 
 
 " the ivhole heart is faint, there is no sound7iess in it, but xcou7ids 
 
 " and bruises, a7id putrefying sores. Isaiah i. 5, 6. 
 
 " And God says, t7Wie heritage is unto me as a lion in the 
 
 '^forest. It crieth out against me, therefore have I hated it. 
 
 " MtTie heritage is unto me as a speckled bird, ^e. Jer. xii. 8, 9. 
 « And we have now long since seen the church of the Jews,
 
 of the Church. 96 
 
 " to whom the promises were made, quite thrown oif, and the 
 " church of the Gentiles come into its place." — p. 27. 
 
 L. — I know of no promises of perpetual infaUibility 
 ever made to the Jewish church, and the texts, you have 
 produced against that of the church of Christ, are just as 
 much to the purpose, as if you had quoted the first chap- 
 ter of Genesis. 
 
 Tliejirst indeed may prove, that both Jews and Gen- 
 tiles are all under sin. liom. iii. 9 (till they be justified 
 by Christ). But what is that to the church's infaUibility 
 in matters oi faith. 
 
 The secoJid (if we believe the prophet himself, i. 1.) is 
 said o( Judah -iXml Jerusalem. And how then can you un- 
 derstand his words of the Catholic Church ? 
 
 The third describes the synagogue crying out against 
 her Lord, crucify him, crucify him. But let us hear, how 
 St Austin answered the Doiiatists urging the like texts. 
 The scripture (says he) often reprehends the ivickcd that 
 are in the church, as if all were such, and none at all re- 
 mained good wher(fore these men either out of igno- 
 rance or malice gather such texts from the scripture, as are 
 found to be spoke against the tciched, tcho ivill continue 
 mixed with the good to the tvorld's end. Or else of the 
 desolation of the former people, the Jcivs. And these they 
 endeavour by a forced construction to urge against Gods 
 church : that she may stem in a manner to have failed by 
 a general defection. But, if they will answer these writings, 
 let them never produce such texts any moj-e. L. de Unit. 
 Eccl. C. 13. 
 
 Thus, Sir, you see what St Austin thought of these 
 texts, which you have only picked up at second hand after 
 the Donatists, and are full as good to disprove the circu- 
 lation of the blood, as the church's infallibility. 
 
 But God's promise delivered by the mouth of Isaiah, 
 that his spirit shall never depart from his church, suffices 
 alone to confute the strained sense, which the Donatists 
 put uj)()n the foromentioncd texts. His words are these: 
 My s]iirif that is vpon Ihrc, and my words, which I have 
 put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth : nor
 
 96 The Infallibility 
 
 out of the mouth of thy seed; nor out of thr month of thy 
 seed's seed : says the Lord from henceforth and for ever. 
 
 Isaiah 1. 21. 
 
 " G Afy lord, this promise was first made to the Jewish 
 
 " church, and belongs literally to her, and much more uncon- 
 " testably than to the Chnrch of Home, to whom no promise 
 " whatsoever was made. Nor has she any other pretence to 
 " the promises made to the church in yeneral, than her sup- 
 " posed supremacy over all the oi\\(ir christian churches, which 
 " is disputed with lier, and denied by the other churches. 
 *' But there M'as none to dispute it with the Jewish church : 
 " for she was then the oily visible church of God upon earth. 
 " And if the promises made to her can fail, in vain does the 
 *' Church of Rome, or even the whole Gentile church claim 
 " these promises as indefeasible and unalterable to her. For 
 " if the promises made to the whole church of God upon 
 •' earth can fail at one time, they may likewise at another, 
 " and there can be no certainty." — p. 28. 
 
 L Sir, your first proposition, which is the ground- 
 work of all the rest, viz., that the promise of Isaiah was 
 first made to the Jewish churchy and belongs literally to her, 
 is without the least foundation of truth. To make good 
 what I say, I ask whether the churchy which the Messias 
 at his coming was to establish upon earth, was the Jewish 
 or christian church? 
 
 G. — The latter without all dispute. 
 
 L I ask again, whether it be not the christian church, 
 
 the future splendour whereof the prophet describes by the 
 concourse of nations flocking to her, Isaiah Ix. 1, 2, &;c. 
 
 G. — There can be no doubt of it. 
 
 L. — This, Sir, suffices to decide the whole matter. 
 For the promise in question is literally and solely made 
 to this church; being placed between two prophecies, 
 which are both relating to the christian church alone. It 
 is ushered in by that, which foretells the establishment of 
 the church by the coming of the Messias : which can be 
 no other than the christian church. And it is immediately 
 followed by the other, which contains a description of her 
 future increase and splendour. And 1 leave any one to 
 judge, whether it be consistent witli good sense to un-
 
 of the Church. 97 
 
 derstand both tlie predictions literally and solely of the 
 christiaii church, and the promise, which has a manifest 
 connection with them, of the Jewish. 
 
 Thus, Sir, the foundation you have laid, is rotten, and 
 the superstructure, you have built upon it, must fall of 
 course. However to support it, you have again recourse 
 to that wretched equivocation relating to the Church of 
 Home, and therefore can mean nothing else but the diocess 
 of Rome, to which you say vo promise luhatsoever was 
 made. And who says the contrary ? The promises were 
 made to that church, whereof St Peter w'as constituted 
 head, and his successors after him : that is, to the church 
 of Christ, or Catholic Church in general. You add: nor 
 has she any other pretence to the promises made to the 
 church in general hut her supposed supremacy over all other 
 christian churches, which is dispided with her and denied, 
 by the other churches. Sir, the church in communion with 
 the successors of St Peter is the whole Catholic Church, 
 to which the promises were made : and the supreme go- 
 vernment of this church is lodged in its bishop, precisely 
 as he is the successor of St Peter, and Christ's vicar upon 
 earth. And the}' who dispute that title with him, may 
 mucli more legally dispute the title to the crown with 
 their Inirftd sovereir/n, tlic one being of divine, the other 
 of human institution oidy. 
 
 What you add, that there was none to dispute the supre- 
 macy u-ith the Jewish church : if you mean, that the Jewish 
 church kseU w'ds supronc, 1 have not pcjiotration enough 
 to make sense of it. For since, as you say, she was the 
 only visible church of God upon earth, how could she be 
 called suprc7ne, which imj)lies a comparison ? She had 
 indeed a hi yh priest, who governed her as head ; and in 
 whom we may say the supremacy was lodged. But let 
 me tell you, Sir, this was disputed by the schismatical 
 cluirchcs, that were amongst the Jcivs, as those of the 
 Sdwnrildus and Sadi/rres, who disowned the suj>reme 
 authority of the hiyh priest, as much as you do that of 
 the Pope. 
 
 The argument, you conclude with, is wholly built upon
 
 98 All God's Promises 
 
 the supposition, that a promise of perpetual infallibility 
 was made to the Jewish ckurcli, which never has been, 
 nor ever will bo proved. For, if such a jiromise had been 
 made, it wouUl certainly have had its effect; unless you 
 will say, that God's promises can fail. 
 
 *' G. — No that is impossible. But we may mistake his 
 ** promises, and not understand them aright. And we may 
 " not perform the concUtioits required." — p. 28. 
 
 L. — But, Sir, the promises of infallibility made to the 
 church of Christ are positive and unconditional. 
 
 " G. — There is still a condition implied. That is, oi obc- 
 «' diince: which our Saviour has fully exemplified in the par- 
 " able of the husbcmdmen, who did not render the fruits of 
 " the vincj/ard." — p. 28. 
 
 SECTION XXIII. ALL GODS PROMISES AUE NOT CONDI- 
 TIONAL. , 
 
 L. — I desire you, Sir, to quote the gospel, chapter and 
 verse, that we may examine the parable, yon mention. 
 
 G. — The parable is related both by St Mattheiu, xxi. 
 33, &c. ; and by St Luhe, xx. 9, &e. 
 
 L. — Very well, Sir. And you produce this parable as 
 a fill example, that all promises made to the christian 
 church are conditional. 
 
 G. — I do, my lord. 
 
 L. — And truly, Sir, you must have a good assurance 
 to do it. For the christian church is not the least con- 
 cerned in that parable, as tlie very Jewish priests and 
 scribes, to whom it was spoken, will inform vou. Luke 
 XX. 19. 
 
 The whole drift of the parable was to forewarn the 
 Jews of their approaching' rejwobation, and ruin: but 
 particularly the priests and scribes, who came to Christ 
 in the temple to cpiestion him concerning his authority 
 and doctrine, saying to him. By whose authority dost thou 
 these things? Or who is he who gave thee this authority? 
 Matt. xxi. 23. Luke xx. 2. \\'hereupon our Saviour 
 proposed the forementioned parable, which contains a
 
 are not Conditional. 99 
 
 prediction of two things : 1. That the Jews should soon 
 after treat him, as the husbandmen in the parable treated 
 the heir of the vineijard. And ^d. That they should be 
 punished by God, as the husbandmen were punished by 
 ihe lord of the vineyard. And the Jewish priests and 
 scribes were so fully convinced, that they themselves 
 were the persons pointed at in the parable, that (as St 
 Luke tells us, xx. 19) from that very hour they sought to 
 lay hands on Christ, for they perceived that he had spoken 
 that parable against them. And is not this now a wonder- 
 ful example to convince us, that all the promises made to 
 the christian church are conditio7ial ? You may as well 
 quote it for a prediction of i\\Q fall o^ ihe momiment. For 
 it has full as much connexion with it. 
 
 There is indeed a part added to the application of the 
 parable made by Christ himself, which belongs to the 
 christian church. But it implies the very reverse of what 
 you maintain. Christ's words are these: Therefore I. say 
 unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and 
 given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof. Matt. 
 xxi. 43. Which words plainly insinuate this difference 
 between the synagogue. 'awA \\\q churclt of Christ ; that 
 whereas the kingdom of God \\^^ to be taken from the 
 former, tvhich did not bring forth the fruits thereof it 
 should not be taken from tJie latter, which would bring 
 forth the fruits thereuf Whence it follows, that the church 
 if Christ will never imitate the apostacy ami fall of the 
 Jewish synagogue. And, by consequence, the promise 
 of infallibility made to her is absolute and unconditional. 
 B'cause no ccjndition of obedience can be implied, when 
 olxdience itself is a part of the promise ; as it must cer- 
 tainly be to verify our .Saviour's words sayini^-, that the 
 nation or people, to \\-hich the kingdom of God was to be 
 i,nveii, should bring forth the fruit thereof . 
 
 " ^- — ^^y l')rd, as treason forfeits an estate or lioiiours 
 " given liy a |»riii<;<', tliou^rl, i„ „ov(!r so positiv*; terms, and 
 " without any c.»ii.litioii expressed, but that of allegiance to 
 " the prince is always implied; so the ciiurch niav forfeit her 
 ** charter."—/;/). 28, 29.
 
 100 All God's Promises 
 
 L. — I answer first, that if a prince could as infallibly 
 foresee the uncfuuK/eablc allegiance of his subjects, as 
 C/irist foresaw the viialttrahle faith of his church, when 
 he promised, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 it, tiie gifts and favours of such a prince mi^ht be wholly 
 unconditional. 
 
 I answer '2dly, that God's infinite bounty is not to be 
 measured by our short line. And therefore allowing it to 
 be true, that a prince cannot bestow a title or honour, 
 but that a condition is implied, must this be a law to the 
 Almighty, and tie up his hands from bestowing an abso- 
 lute, and unconditional favour ? 
 
 " G. — God said to Eli the high priest of the Jeivish cliurcli, 
 " I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father shoidd 
 " ioalh before me for ever: but now the Lord says, lie it far from 
 *' me. For them, that honour me, I ivill honour ; and (he/n that 
 " despise me, shall be lightly esteemed. 1 Sam. ii. 30. And he 
 •' said, Nujn. xiv. 34, Ye shall know my breach of promise, or, 
 "as our margin reads it, the altering of my purpose. And 
 •' God has told us phiiidy, that we are thus to understand 
 " \\\% promises as well as threatenings. Jer. xviii. 7, &c. At 
 " tchat instant I shall speak concerning a natio7i (or cliurch) to 
 " pluck up, a7id to destroy it. Jf that nation, against whom I 
 " have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil 
 " I thought to do unto them. And at ivhat instant I shall speak 
 " concerning a nation (or church) to build andpla^it it, if it do 
 " evil iri my sight, that it obey not my voice, then icill I repe?it 
 " of the good, loherewilh I said I loould benefit them. 
 
 " This was the language of the prophets to the Jeicish 
 " church, but she understood it not, but leant upon the pro- 
 " mises made to her as unconditional and indefeasible, let her 
 " be as wicked as she would. And this hardened her against 
 " her prophets, whom she persecuted for this I'eason as ene- 
 " mies to the church ; as we find, Jer. xviii. 18. Come, and 
 " let us devise devices against Jeremiah, for the law shall not 
 *^ perish from the priest. Here the Jewish church stuck ; and 
 •< iiere the Church of Rome sticks at this day." — j^P' 2^» '^^• 
 
 L. — Sir, as to the texts, you have quoted, I shall let 
 you know my mind concerning them immediately. But 
 your observations, particularly upon Jeremiah, are some- 
 what extraordinary. For first you remark, that this was
 
 are not Conditional. 101 
 
 the language of the prophets to the Jeivish church. It is 
 true, the ^vo^\\Qt Jeremiah^ spoke to the Jews: but their 
 church is not once mentioned in the whole text : And 
 what he threatened them with on the part of God was 
 the ruin and desolation of their country, but not the fait 
 or apostacy of their church ; which subsisted no less in 
 their captivity, than when they were in the most flourish- 
 ino- condition. So that your joining the word church 
 twice with the text without having Jeremiah's leave for 
 it, is making too bold with him. 
 
 2(%, You observe, that the Jews wulerstood not the pro- 
 phefs language, hut leant upon the promises as unconditional 
 and indefeasible. And you add, that this jnade them per- 
 secute Jeremiah as an enemy to the church. Now I cannot 
 very well conceive how they could persecute Jeremiah 
 for a language, \vhich, as you tell me, they understood 
 not. Though in reality the text quoted by you is so plain, 
 that the meanest capacity may understand it ; and I pre- 
 sume you think you understand if, for otherwise you 
 would not have quoted it. 
 
 But I desire you to answer this dilemma. Either the 
 Jeics understood the \)vo\\\ict Jeremiali s language, or they 
 understood it not. If not, they could not persecute him 
 for it. But if they understood it, as undoubtedly they 
 did, they could not lean upon God's promises as uncon- 
 ditional and indefeasible ; since Jeremiah taught them so 
 plaiidy the contrary. Nay the sad experience of the many 
 calamities, that had hcfullen them both under iXm'ix judges 
 and kings, had sufficiently taught them, that the eifect of 
 the promises, which God had made to prosper and protect 
 them, depended on their obedience to his commands : and 
 that therefore tiiey could not lean on them as unconditional 
 and indefeasible. 
 
 G. — But why then did they persecute J^'t'wm/^, saying, 
 Come let us derisr devices against Jeremiah, for the law 
 shall not prrish from (he jiriesl ? 
 
 L. — They perseciitfd him, because be told them un- 
 grateful truths, reproached them with their crimes, and 
 threatened them with God's judgments, if they did not
 
 102 All God's Promises 
 
 mend their lives. Tliis made tiiera conspire against him, 
 and resolve upon his death. Because (said they) though 
 he should perish, the hiw will not perish from the priest; 
 and they hoped his successor would be less troublesome 
 to them. 
 
 G. — However, I perceive you grant, that God's pro- 
 mises to the Jeivs were conditional. 
 
 L. — Sir, there are uncontes>table instances o{ conditional 
 promises in holy writ. So allowing the texts, you have 
 quoted, I should be glad to know what advantage you 
 can make of them in order to prove, that all God's pro- 
 mises are condilionnl. Is this a good consequence, some 
 men are born blind, therefore ail are born under that 
 misfortune? No surely. Yet your consequence is nothing 
 better, when from a iew instances of conditional promises 
 you conclude that all God's promises are so. What do 
 you think of God's promise to Noah, that the world shall 
 not perish by a second deluge ? Or the great promise of 
 the Messias ? I defy you with all your skill to tack the 
 comlition of obedience to either of them, or many others, 
 which I omit for brevity's sake. 
 
 G. — But are not all God's threats conditional ? 
 
 L. — They certainly are. Because God is m^mieXy just. 
 And punishments cannot be justly inflicted, unless they be 
 first deserved. 
 
 G. — And why then are not all his promises equally 
 conditio7tal ? 
 
 L. — Because he is infinitely bonntiful, and may bestow 
 h\'i favours whether they be deserved, or not. That is, 
 where, and in what manner he pleases. So that, thougli 
 promises may be charged with conditions, their nature or 
 essence requires no such thing. 
 
 " G. — The apostle of tlie Gejitiles says to the Gentile church, 
 " thoii shall also be cut off, if thou cotiliniiest itot in the goodness 
 " of God. And tiiat the Jews, if ihey abide not still in mtbelief, 
 " shall be graffed in. For God is able la graff them in again, 
 " Horn. ix. 22, 23. This shews, that the promises made 
 " either to the Jewish or the Gentde church are conditional, 
 
 viz. if they continue in the goodness of God, Otherwise, 
 
 says St Paul, to the Gentile church, tliou shall also be cut 
 
 C(
 
 are not Conditional. 103 
 
 *' off. And of all tlie Gentile cliurches this was said more 
 " particularly to the Church of Rome. For this is in the 
 <' epistle wrote to her, and to her it was said, thou shah also 
 " be cut of:'—\>. 30. 
 
 X,. — Surely now or never the Church of Rome must be 
 cut off, and destroyed root and branch. However I 
 observe ^/-.s^, that when St Paul wrote his epistle to the 
 Romans, that chureli was a mixed society of converted 
 Jews and Gentiles brought into one fold. So that your 
 calling them so often the Gentile church, as if the con- 
 verted Gentiles at Rome were a difterent church from that 
 of the converted Jeics, is somewhat oddly expressed. 
 
 I observe, 2dhj, (for you have taken care to advertise 
 me of it,) that St Paul's epistle to the Romans was par- 
 ticularly addressed to the Church <f Rome as distinguished 
 from the other Gentile Churches (as you call them) which 
 plainlv marks out the diocess of Rome, (that dearly be- 
 loved equivocation, whereof you are so fond,) and shews, 
 that the diffusive body of the CathoUc Church, whereof 
 the diocess of Rome is but a part, is wholly out of the 
 reach of this cutting objection. 
 
 Suppose then that the church, or diocess of Rome sliould 
 be cut off (for I know of no promises of ivfaUibility made 
 to one diocess more than another) or suppose the whole 
 diocess of 72a;«e should be swallowed up by an earthquake, 
 would this destroy Christ's nnjstical bod//, the church ? Or 
 would she want a head, though there were no such town 
 as Rome ? 
 
 G. — But why were those words, thou shall also he cut 
 off, if thou continnest not in the goodness of God, particu- 
 larly addressed to the Church of Rome? 
 
 L. — Because the whole epistle was writ to the Romans, 
 and the chief motive of St Pants writing to them was, to 
 put a stop to the disjnites, that were between the converted 
 Jnrsiiud Geiitiles, that dwelt at Royne : eacli party arrogat- 
 ing to itself an advantage over the other. So that if those 
 disputes had liappencd amongst christians at Corinth, or 
 any other town, the ajjostle, whose zeal was not confined 
 to any particular place, would in all probability Iiave
 
 104 - The Church always 
 
 writ the same epistle to them. And then your argument 
 would have made a most wretched figure by being stript 
 of the equivocation, which is its main support. 
 
 I answer then directly, that as no promise oiinfallihiUty 
 was ever made to any particular dioccss or nation, but to 
 tlie church in (jcnerdl, so any particular dioccss or nation 
 may be cut off without involving the whole church in 
 that apostacy, or being any proof, that the promises made 
 to her arc conditional. 
 
 SECTION XXIV. — THE CHURCH ALWAYS VISIBLE AND 
 
 HOLY. 
 
 " G. — Of the church in genercd it is said, Zw/.e xviii. 8, 
 " When the SoJiofman comctli, shall he Jind faith upon earth 9 
 " Where will tlien that visibilltij be, which Home boasts of 
 " as an essential mark of the true church." — p. 30. 
 
 Z/. — Just Avhcre it is at present, and where it has been 
 in all ages, viz. in the Catholic Church professed in the 
 creed, which will continue visible to the end of the world. 
 
 G. — What, my lord, does not Christ here positively 
 declare, that ichc7i the So)i of Man cometh, he shall not 
 find faith upon earth ? 
 
 L. — No, Sir, he says no such thing. Nor could St 
 Austin, who was a very clear-sighted person, ever discover 
 this meaning in the words, you have quoted. For he 
 answered that very text of St Luke objected by the 
 7)o.va^iS^s against the church'sinfallibility : first by telling 
 tliem, that those words, when the Son of Man cometh, 
 shall he find faith upon earth ? were to be understood 
 of that perfect faith, which few attain to. L. de Unit. 
 I'xel. C. XV. And St Jerome, in his dialogue against the 
 J Mciferians, gives the very same answer to it. But St 
 Austin adds a second in the place quoted. Ilis words 
 are these : Or else we understand them of that great num- 
 ber of wicked, and scarcity of (jood men, concerning which 
 enough has already been said. And therefore our Lord 
 expresses himself under a doubt (pray. Sir, mind what
 
 Visible a7id Holy. 105 
 
 follows), yor he says 7iot, ivhen the Son of Man Cometh^ he 
 icill not find faith upon earth, hut, do you think he will 
 find faith upon earth ? To which he adds, that our 
 Saviour said not this to express any doubt of his own, 
 but because the many scandals, ivhich will arise towards 
 the end of the world, will occasion Mtman weakness to speak 
 in that manner. 
 
 Here then, it is plain, that St Austin did not under- 
 stand, as you do, our Saviour's doid)tful interrogatio7i to 
 be equivalent to ihh positive affirmation, viz., that at his 
 second coming he shall not find faith upon earth, so in his 
 epistle to the Donatist, VinceiUius, he tells him those words 
 of Christ were spoken propter ahundantiam iniquitatis, to 
 express the abundance of iniquity. And his following 
 words are remarkable. It is a truth (says he) not to be 
 questioned, that they, ichose faith Christ will find ttpon 
 earth, tvill grow toith the tares all the field over. Epist. 93, 
 olim 48, ad Vincentium. Besides, the church of Christ 
 is comjiared to a city set upon a hill, and I presume a city 
 on a hill is a visible thing. 
 
 " G. — She is likewise compared to a ttwnan persecuted into 
 " a wilderness, Rev. xii. 16." — p. 31. 
 
 L. — I answer first, it is more than either you or I can 
 tell, whether the church be meant by that woma7i : or 
 what is meant by her being persecuted i7do a tcilderness. 
 All explications upon it are but guesses: and guesses 
 are but a weak foundation to build an argument u})on. 
 
 I answer second, that the Israelites were persecuted 
 into the wilderness by Pha7-aoh, yet I never read they 
 were therefore become invisible. Nor do 1 think a church 
 becomes invisible by being persecuted. 
 
 " G. — Slie is also compared to a lodge i?i a garden of 
 " cucumbers, and to a besieged cltij. Isa. i. 8." — p. 31. 
 
 L. — Sir, if you will give yourself the trouble to read 
 the text, you will find it is not the christia7i church, but 
 the desolation of Juda,h and Jcrusalc7n, which is spoken 
 of by Isaiah. 
 
 " G. — Lastly, at the coming of Christ she will bo so little 
 " visible, tliat faith will hardly be found upon earlli. 'J'liis 
 
 r 2
 
 100 The C/nirc/i always 
 
 " is not to 1)0 recoiu'ileil but of different states of tlic diurcli, 
 ** and at dillVreiit tiint's." — p. 31. 
 
 L. — What you now say, Sir, is but a repetition of 
 your former mistake, which St Austin lias already answer- 
 ed for me. But in whatever state the church is, or ever 
 will be in the world, that is whether in persecution or 
 peace, she can never lose her visibility, but will always 
 iiave her marks to distinguish her from all heretical and 
 schismalicdl communions. Nay she will not only be 
 always visible, but always holy, as we profess in the creed. 
 That is, free from errors. And this is also taught by 
 St Paul saying, that Christ loved his church, and gave 
 himself for it, that it should be holy, and iviihout blemish. 
 E})he.s. V. '27. 
 
 " G. — So God called the church of the Jews, the dear be- 
 " loved of his soul. Jer. xii. 7. Yet says he liad forsaken 
 '• her for her wickedness, and hated her. And Jsaiah re^rv- 
 " sents her as most filt/iy and corrupted, i. 4 — 6." — p. 31. 
 
 Z/ Really, Sir, one would be apt to conclude from 
 
 your discourse, that the church of Christ has no ailvantage 
 over the synagogue. Did God ever promise the Jewish 
 synagogue, as Christ has promised his church, tliat he 
 would be with her to the end of the world? And if God 
 never made her any such promise, but foresaw that she 
 would apostatize, is it a wonder he forsook her for her 
 wickedness, and hated her, who before had been his dear 
 beloved? Or can you conclude from thence, that the 
 same will liappen to the church of Ch-ist, to which he 
 has promised his perpetual assistance ? Pray, Sir, what 
 means this article of the creed, I believe the holy Catholic 
 Church? I presume it means that Christ has a church 
 upon earth, which is c«('/io/«c and holy. If, then, Christ's 
 church should ever cease to be holy, that article of the 
 Creed would be false. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the church is called holy and beloved 
 " because of God's covenant with her to bo hoty and beloved. 
 " Which will be hereafter in tliose that are perfuted : when 
 " the tares and tiie ivlieat sliail be separated : but tiiey must 
 " grow together till then, when Christ shall gather out (f his 
 *' kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.
 
 Visible (md Holy.- 107 
 
 " Afattl). xiii. 4:1. Bi:t he has not y«t so perfected it. That 
 " time is not come. She is still in her cleansing state, bnt 
 " not yet thoroughly cleansed. And the Scriptures speaks 
 " of both these states of the Church. But when we distin- 
 " guish not, and would apply to the most cormpt stale, what 
 " is said of the most glorious, we must needs fall into many 
 " errors and mistakes." — pp. 31, 32, 
 
 L. — That is certain. And therefore to prevent my 
 falling into any such error or mistake, I will distinguish 
 between the two states of the church. That is, the church 
 militcmt and triumphant, and attribute to each, what pro- 
 perly belongs to it. 
 
 It is therefore an undoubted truth, that the words of 
 St Paid to the Ephesiaris cannot be understood ahsobitely, 
 and in their full extent, but of the church triumpJutnt, 
 according to St Austins doctrine. And the reason is clear, 
 because no one entire societij but that of tlie blessed above 
 can pretend to a holiness excluding all spot or icrinhle, or 
 any such thing. 
 
 But must we therefore conclude, that St Pauls words, 
 may not likewise be understood of the church militant in 
 a more limited sense ? If so, we must make the creed 
 speak absurdly in calling her the holy Ccdholic Church : 
 which is undoubtedly to be understood of Christ's church 
 upon earth. First, then she is called holy, or vilhout 
 spot or wrinkle in \iQr faith ; which admits of no sorts of 
 errors against the revealed word of God. 2d. She is 
 holy in her sacraments and morcds. 3d. She is /<o///, and 
 withotd spot or vrinlde in all her children, whilst they 
 preserve their bnjilismal grace entire and nndefiled. And 
 4th, she is holy in the same sense, as she is called the 
 communion of saints. Which is not understood so, as if 
 all in lier communion were saints, but because many ;\ro, 
 and all may be saints in lior cninmiinion, and there can 
 he none out of ir. 
 
 " 6*. — .My lord, the difficulty, under wliirli llie CInirch of 
 " Rome n«)w Jahours is this. She first makes iierself the 
 
 Catholic ('hurch " 
 
 L. — That is to say, Sir, Christ has made her so, as I 
 have already shewed.
 
 103 The Church always 
 
 ** G. — And then applying to herself in this her corrupt 
 «' state, whatever is said of the church even in lier ptrfect, 
 "■ glorious, and trluniphujit state, creates her infinite trouble, 
 " and »>ndless distinctions to reconcile these ; which is as ini- 
 '' possible to be done, as to make the church in heaven and 
 ** upon earth to he the same." — j). 32. 
 
 //. — Sir, the creed speaks of the church upon earth, 
 and tolls us slie is Jiohf. And I hope we do not err in 
 beliovinii; X\\c creed. But you bhuncd us just now for not 
 distinguishing-, and now again you tax us with endless 
 distinctions. So whether we blow hot or cold, I find we 
 jnust be in the Avroiig. But I have interrupted you, so 
 pray go on. 
 
 " G. — My lord, wliilst the corniptions of the church of 
 " Rome are confessed and lamented by the most learned, 
 " and the most pious in her communion, she may as well 
 " maintain her wipeccabiliti/ as infallihilit;/. For sin is the 
 " greatest error. And therefore I think nothing can be 
 " infallible, but what is likewise impeccable." — p. 32. 
 
 L. — Sir, you tell me with a very serious countenance, 
 that the corruptions of the Church of Home are confessed 
 and lamented by the most learned and most pious in her 
 communion. But pray, Sir, name me one catholic divine, 
 \\lio ever owned any corruptions in the doctrine of the 
 Church of Borne. And if you mean corruptions of par- 
 ticular persons in practice, what you say is nothing to 
 the purpose. He who is free from sin let him throw the 
 first stotie : for 1 am sure no body will be in danger of 
 being hurt by it. 
 
 But nothing forsooth can be infallible, hut what is like- 
 wise impeccable. That is very strange. For cannot God 
 })reserve a man from errors in faith, thougli at the same 
 time lie permits him to fall into sm ? Now Christ has 
 ])romisod the former, but not the latter to his church, and 
 therefore the one may be maintained without the other. 
 
 You say that sin is tlte greatest error. But I presume 
 every sin is not an error against faith : and if it be not, 
 the cliurch's irfalUbilitij cannot be hurt by it. I am 
 therefore surprized at what you add, viz., thatnothinej can
 
 Visible and Ilohj. 109 
 
 he infallihle^ but what is likewise impeccable. Pray, Sir, 
 were not the apostles ivfallible ? 
 
 «' G. — No more infallible than impeccable. St Peter erred, 
 " and walked not uprighdij according to the truth of the gospel, 
 " and many were carried awa>j icUh his dissimulation, Gal. ii. 
 " 13, 14."— p. 32. 
 
 £,. — What, Sir ! were not the apostles and evangelists 
 infallible in their doctrine, and writings! If not, then we 
 are not sure, that the Neiu Testament contains nothing 
 but the revealed word of God. And what becomes then 
 of Christianity ? As to St Peter, though he was repre- 
 hensible (as St Paid says) in his practice, no christian will 
 surely say, he erred in faith. 
 
 " G. — St Paid owned, that in some cases he had no com- 
 " mandnient of the Lord, only gave his judgment as a private 
 '' person, and spoke by jiermission, and not of commandment. 
 " But in other cases lie said, 1 command, yet not I, but the 
 
 " Lord And, it is so after my judgment, and I think also, 
 
 '■ that J have the Spirit of the Lord. 1 Cor. vii. G. And no 
 " doubt great deference was paid to his judgment, as being 
 " an inspired man, but not infallible in every thing, as himself 
 " said. The apostles were enabled to v/ork many and great 
 " miracles, which gave them full credence as to what they 
 " delivered for christian doctrine. But this was no personal, 
 " nor universal infallibility." — pp. 32, 33. 
 
 L. — Sir, I have hitherto believed, that all scripture is 
 given by divine inspiration. 2 Tim. iii. IG. And by conse- 
 quence that the sacred penmen, whether they delivered 
 precepts, or counsels, were equally insjiircd: that is, to de- 
 liver precepts for precepts, and counsels for counsels. But 
 I perceive it is your judgment, that when St Paul to the 
 Corinthians gave liis advice concerning celibacy, he wrote 
 not by insj/iration, nor was ivfallihlc in bis doctrine; M'hich 
 in elTect is the contradictory to what he tells us, that all 
 scripture is given by divine inspiration. 2 Tim. iii. 10. 
 
 I shall therefore j)ut tiiis dilemma to yo\x,viz. : When 
 St J^aul wrote to the Coriidhians the words you have 
 quoted, either he was insjiired to write so, or not. If he 
 was, your qufjtations from liim do no ways prove, that he 
 was not infallible in all his doctrine. If not, that part of
 
 no Of Miracles. 
 
 his epistlo was not inspired. And by consequence it is 
 talse that all scripture is (jiven by the inspiration of Gud. 
 As to what you say, that the apostles were enabled to 
 work nianj/ and great miracles. This, to tiio best of my 
 juflgnient is some proof of the infallihility of their doc- 
 trine. For our dispute is not concerning- their infallibilHij 
 in thing's, that have no rehition to the christian doctrine, 
 as philosophy, mathematics, or other humane sciences. 
 Neither docs the church pretend to infaUibility but in 
 defining articles ol faith, and christian morality. And 
 she can shew lier ci-edenticds for it, viz., the testimony of 
 miracles, as the apostles did. For miracles are God's own 
 seal, by whicli he makes himself a witness to the truth of 
 his doctrine. 
 
 SECTION XXV. OF MIRACLES. 
 
 " G — AVhat ! Both true and false ! Can both be from 
 " God ? Or can you deny the wmny false miracles, which have 
 " been notoriously detected in the Church of Rome?" — p. 33. 
 
 Li. — I assure you, Sir, that whoever will be so kind as 
 to detect any false miracle in the Church of Rome, will 
 be heartily thanked for his pains ; and the author of the 
 cheat be punished according to his deserts. 
 
 " G. — If hut one sliam-miracle had been found in the apos- 
 " ties, I am afraid it had discredited all the others, and called 
 '* their mission in question, whetlit'r it was from God, or not." 
 —p. 33. 
 
 L. — I am of your mind, Sir: and yet there were sham- 
 miracles told of the apostles themselves : but being not 
 countenanced by them, they did not in the least discredit 
 their real miracles. And if you can find one sham-miracle 
 countenanced by the authority of the CJiurch of Rome, 
 you may discredit her as much as you please. 
 
 " G. — The devil has power (when permitted) to shew 
 " great siy/is and wonders, Matt. xxiv. ; 2 Thess. ii. 3 ; and 
 " the reason is given, ii. 12, viz., as a just punishment ofun- 
 " righteousness." — p. 33. 
 
 L — But I hope the devil's power to shew signs and
 
 Of Miracles. Ill 
 
 wonders is no proof, that God has no power to work 
 miracles by his saints. And pray, remember who they 
 were, that attributed Christ's miracles to Beelzebub the 
 prince of the devils. Which was so black a crime, that 
 our Saviour calls it blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 
 which would neither be forgiven them in this world, nor in 
 the ivorld to come. ]\iatt. xii. 32. 
 
 «< G. — My lord, one false, or pretended miracle is suflSicient 
 " to disprove all that come from the same hand. Therefore 
 " your book of miracles the legends must either be all be- 
 " lieved, or all rejected, all coming from the same authority: 
 " and the greatest part of them are so very gross and sim- 
 " pie, tiiat no man of sense among you will say, that he can 
 " believe half of them. And yoiu- learned call them pice 
 "fraudes, holy cheats to stir up the devotion of the vulgar, 
 '« who swallow all implicitbj. And your lordship will have 
 '• difficulty enougii to believe all the nuracles ailedged of 
 " their relics. And, as f said, you must take all or none: 
 " unless you think, that God can work true miracles, and the 
 " devil false ones by the same means, and at the same time." — 
 pp. 33, 34. 
 
 L. — Before I answer this wretched stuff word for word, 
 I shall lay down some principles, whereof you seem to 
 be wholly ignorant. For really. Sir, you oblige me some- 
 times to deal with you, as if I were instructing a young- 
 scholar. 
 
 \stly, Then, the Church of Rome does not oblige ns to 
 believe any miracles but those, that are related in Scrip- 
 ture. The rest, though never so well attested, may be 
 believed or rejected, and the belief of them was never 
 made a condition of communion. So that, whether many 
 of these be true or not, it is but mere trifling to draw any 
 consequence from it in a dispute about matters oi' faith. 
 
 2dly, 1 grant, that a person convicted of a forged 
 miracle, or one wrought by the power of art-magic, can 
 never be reputed a worker of true miracle.'f. 
 
 '.\dly, l'(dse miracles may be reported of a person, that 
 works true ones, as it happened to the aj>ostl<:s t\ieinso.\vcs. 
 Whence it follows, that a^i fabulous relations, ur romances 
 do not take off from the credit of authc/Uic histories, so
 
 112 Of Miracles. 
 
 the kgnidnrv viirarhs related hy some authors do not 
 sink the credit of all ecclesiastical Jiistory. 
 
 Athhj. The very hcst historian may be mistaken in some 
 facts. Yet this is no arf^iiment or proof tliat he is to be 
 believed in nothins^. Sir liiehard Baker lias told many 
 untruths : yet I shoidd be a madman to thiidt, he has 
 writ nothini^ hnt fables. 
 
 These princij)les being supposed, I shall answer you 
 M'ord for word : First you say, that one false or pretended 
 miracle is svfficieid to disprove all, that come from the same 
 hand. This is true in the sense of the second principle, 
 I have laid down, viz., that a person convicted of a forged 
 miracle, or one ivrouyht by the power of art-magic, can 
 never be reputed a. tcurher of true miracles. But if you 
 mean that an historian, who by mistake, or an over-cre- 
 dulity relates one false- miracle, cannot relate any true 
 ones, it is not only false, but ridiculous. So is what follows 
 next, viz. Therefore our books of miracles the legends must 
 f.ither be all believed, or all rejected, all coming from the 
 same authority. As if it were impossible, a man should 
 ever speak truth, because he is sometimes mistaken. 
 
 G. — But how then must we distinguish true miracles 
 from false or suspected ones ? 
 
 L. — By the very same method as we distinguish true 
 facts from mistakes in other histories. 
 
 You go on thus. And the greatest part of them are so 
 very gross and simple, that no 7)ian of sense among us will 
 say, that ive can believe half of them. Sir, I have only 
 your word for it, that the greatest part of them are gross 
 and simple, and your word is no proof. However 
 I am obliged to you for allowing, that there are some 
 men of sense amongst us; and, if that will please you, I 
 freely own, there are iiho fools in our church as well as 
 yours. But, in the business of salvation, I M'ould hazard 
 myself on the fool's side rather than the knave's. For to 
 be mistaken in a frivolous matter is no sin; but to seduce 
 others by crafty and malicious insinuations is a very 
 grievous one: and this you are guilty of in the following 
 words, viz. That our learned men call false miracles, piai
 
 Of Miracles. 113 
 
 fraudes, holy cheats to stir vp the devotion of the vulgar, 
 who swallow all implicitly. For this imports no less, than 
 tbat our learned men wilfidly impose such cheats upon 
 the people : which is both false and malicious. 
 
 You tell me next, that I shall have difficulty enough to 
 believe all the miracles alleged of the relics of saints. And 
 I tell you, Sir, that I am neithcryoo/ enough to believe 
 all, nor impudent enough to deny all. And therefore what 
 you add, that I must take all or none, is the same as to 
 tell me, 1 must either be a. fool, or have a face of brass. 
 When I read or hear of a miracle not well attested, I sus- 
 pend my judgment. But when ^t Austin or a man of his 
 character tells me that he saw with his own eyes miracles 
 wrought by the relics of such or such a saint, or relates 
 them from unquestionable authority, I confess I want 
 some grains of true protestant assurance to give him the lie. 
 
 What you conclude with is to me a perfect riddle, viz. : 
 That I must take all or none. Unless Ithiiik that God can 
 v:ork true miracles, and the devil false ones by the same 
 means, and at the same time. For in the name of non- 
 sense cannot I believe some miracles, and deny others 
 without yoking God and the devil together to work both 
 true and false miracles by the same means, and at the 
 same time ! Tiiis is such a piece of undigested raving, 
 that I really suspect you are talking in your sleep. But 
 let us liear out the rest of your dream. 
 
 " G. — Can you boliove the quantities, that have been 
 " shewn of the clryins mdk at several times and places ? 
 " And so of the icood of the cross, that is shewed in many 
 " places." — p. 3-t. 
 
 L. — Really, Sir, one would be apt to conclude from 
 your way of expressing yourself, that whole pails of our 
 lady's milk, and whole cart-loads of the wood of the cross 
 are to be seen in our churches. I confess, I have seen 
 several particles of the holy cross well attested. But as 
 to the holy vlryin's inilh, till I fiud at least some droj)S of 
 it either in Pojie I'ius's profssion of faith, or in some of 
 tlje creeds, I shall not be much concerned aitout the matter. 
 
 ♦• C'. — Is it the same head, or lody, of the same saint, that
 
 114 Of Miracles. 
 
 " is shewn at diflFerent churches, each of which contend that 
 " tliey liave the true one? And each have miracles to vonch 
 " the truth of their 7t7/c." — p. 34. 
 
 L No, Sir, it is not the same lioad, nor the body of 
 
 the same saint, that is shewn at (lilTercnt churches. But 
 they may be the lieads and bodies of two different saints 
 bearing the same name. And if God has wrought miracles 
 by them both, pray wlierc is the ridicule of it? Miracles 
 are only testimonies that they are truly the relics o( some 
 saint: but they never were pretended to be a proof, that 
 they are the relics of this or that particular saint. And if 
 the owners of tlicm maintain, what they think probal)ly 
 true, will their mistake derogate from the truth of the 
 miracles, wiiich God works by them ? Have you any 
 more to say ? 
 
 " G You m;\y see a large collection of your miracles, and 
 
 " the monstrousness of the lej^ends, out of which they are 
 " taken, in a book entitled, the Devotions of the Roman Church, 
 " which will prevent my giving inst.inces in all the points 
 " before mentioned." — p. 34. 
 
 Z/. — And, Sir, to prevent my giving instances of the 
 falsehoods and misrepresentations contained in that in- 
 famous lihel^ you may see it answered in the appendix of 
 the. True Church of Christ Shelved^ §'C. pp. 476, 477, &c. 
 
 " G. — Upon the whole, i\\\?, jnctence of miracles, the legetids, 
 " and shops of relics, which are bought and sold, instead of a 
 " proof, are the greatest prejudice to men of sense against 
 •' your church. And it is the sorest blotv, that christianiti/ 
 " has received : while the common people put tiiese legends 
 " upon the level with the holy scriptures, as having both the 
 " same foundation, that is, the atdhorily of the church. Whence 
 " atheists and deists take a handle to render both alike fa- 
 " bulous."_/>;?. 34, 35. 
 
 L. — Sir, if atheism and deism were the fruits oi popery, 
 they would have had the space of nine hundred years 
 before the information to grow, and ripen in this nation. 
 But England was a stranger both to professed atheists and 
 deists before the change of religion : and those unclean 
 beasts had never entered into the land, if i\\e fences of the 
 church had been kept up. But when those were broke
 
 Of Miracles. 115 
 
 down by the blessed reformation ; Avhen tlie cluircb's 
 authority was rendered precarious, and the scriptures 
 subjected to the caprice of every private judgment, it was 
 then that deists and atheists began to appear bare-faced, 
 and Christianity received the sore blow, you speak of. 
 
 But with what face can you call the unanimous testi- 
 mony of the ancient fathers a pretence of miracles? Have 
 you the confidence to tax St Athanasins, St Easily St 
 Gregory Nazianzeue, St Jerome, St Ambrose, St Austin, 
 and other such eminent persons, either with forgery in 
 relating, or iceahness in believing the miracles attested 
 in their writings ? What do you think of St Gregory 
 surnamed Tluiumnturgus, or worker of miracles, of whom 
 St Basil ( L. de Spiritu Sancto, C. '29. J gives this account, 
 that he nuide the dtvils tremble — rii:ers change their course, 
 and by his prayers dried up a pool, tvhich teas an occasion 
 of quarrels between tico avaricious brothers? So that the 
 very enemies of religion called him a second Moses. 
 
 What do you thiidc of St Austin, who ( L. xxii. de 
 Civ. Dei, C. 8, and in his sermons) relates above seventy 
 miracles wrought in his diocess, when he was bishop of 
 it, at the relics of St Stephen in less than two years time? 
 And assures us, that there happened more at the relics oi 
 the same saint in other parts of Africa. Of this kind he 
 mentions /w/c/'/A/.?, a bisliop neav Hippo cured miraculously 
 of a fistula. And of a blind woman, wlio recovered her 
 sight, by putting flowers, which had touched the relics, 
 to her eyes. Of those done in his own diocess he relates 
 three persons raised to life. 
 
 The same saint, and St Ambrose inform us of many 
 other miracles wrought at the relics of the holy martyrs 
 Gcrvasius and Prolasius at Milan, An. 386. As of a 
 blind man called Severus, who aj)j)roaching to the relics 
 was before all the pcoi)le presently restored to sight : 
 saint Ambrose also being present. And/. Epist. 54, in 
 Edit. Jkned. Epist. '22. 
 
 Miracli's done at the tnnd), and by the intercession of 
 St Eelij; prii'st of Sola arc attested by St Faulinus, 
 Carm, xvi. 21, 2 J, and by St Austin, Epist. 137, and L.
 
 110 Of Miracles. 
 
 (h extra pro moriuis, C. IG. As others at tlie relics of St 
 Andrew, St Iju/u; and 8t Timothy arc also attested by 
 St Jerome, Libro contra Viyilayitium, and by St Gregory 
 of 'Nazianzene, Orat. 3, </Me gs/ prima contra Juliannyn. 
 
 It is true, these and the like miracles arc only objects 
 of human faith. Yn\t are they therefore false ? The 
 authority of St Ambrose, St Austin, St Jerotnc, &c., is not 
 equal to that of the four evangelists .- but are they there- 
 fore impostors ? Or did those saints encourage deism 
 and atheism, by relating and believing- the aforesaid 
 miracles? 
 
 As to what you say concerning our shops of relics, 
 which you tell me are bought and sold, if calumny be a 
 deadly sin, you arc guilty of one. For our church de- 
 tests such infamous jnactices, and simony is a crime 
 severely punished by her. 
 
 But what you add is a calumny yet of a blacker die, 
 viz., that the connnon people put the legends upon the level 
 tvith the holy scriptures, as having both the same foundation, 
 that is, the authority of the church. Pray, Sir, how should 
 the common people come to take up such a sacrilegious 
 notion ! Does our church teach them any such thing ? 
 Can you find this abominable doctrine either in our 
 catechisms, sermons, or spiritual boohs, which are in the 
 hands of every body, and are the only means, by which 
 our doctrine is conveyed to persons of all degrees ? Or 
 can you produce one single divine of our church, that ever 
 taught it? If this then be a task you dare not undertake, 
 if you be conscious to yourself, that you cannot produce 
 any solid proof of what you charge us with, then, Sir, 
 give me leave to tell you, you are in a damnable state, 
 till you retract the calumny, you have uttered against us. 
 And believe me. Sir, there is nothing can give men of sense 
 a greater prejudice against your church, than when they 
 find, that even her ablest divines are forced to support 
 themselves by barefaced calumnies to stand their ground 
 against us. 
 
 To conclude this whole matter, I tell you once more 
 that the authority of our church is not at all concerned in
 
 The Circle examined. 117 
 
 the legends, or lives of saints. For t!iey have no other 
 authority, than that of the persons, who attest or relate 
 them: nor any other foundation, than what other histories 
 have. Cut we believe the scriptures to be the pure re- 
 vealed word of God: and our belief of it is truly grounded 
 upon the authority of the church. 
 
 SECTION XXVI. — THE CIRCLE EXAMINED. 
 
 " G. — This is the old circle, out of wliicli you can never 
 " conjure yourselves." — j). 35. 
 
 L. — Or rather, Sir, this is the old thread-bare argu- 
 ment, which has been answered a thousand times, and is 
 still repeated with the same triumphant air, as if no 
 answer liad ever been given to it. 
 
 " G, — You believe the scriptures, because the church bids 
 " you 
 
 L. — And so did St Austin, when he said, he would not 
 believe the gospels themselves, unless the authority of the 
 church induced him to it. Con. Epist. Fund. C. 4. 
 
 " G. — And yon believe the church, because the scriptures 
 " bid you." — p. 35. 
 
 L. — Well ! and when the scriptures hid St Austin be- 
 lieve the church, do you think lie refused to do it? 
 
 ♦• G. — This is running round, and proving a thing by 
 " itself."—;;. 35, 
 
 Li. — It seems then j)oor St Attstin was neither logician 
 nor divine ; but danced round in a vicious circle. How- 
 ever lam resolved to keep the good old l)ishop company, 
 l)eing wholly of his opinion, that the authority of the 
 church is a solid foundation to around our belief of the 
 canon and inspiration of scrij/turrs upon ; and likewise 
 fully convinced, that in all matters of faith we must take 
 the church for our guide, since our own reasoii is too 
 deceitfid a thing to trust to. 
 
 " O. — And liow do y(tu l:no\v that? What bave you but 
 " your own rcas(»n to ti-li you so? And if you cannot trust 
 •' your reason, you cannot believe the church. So tliat all
 
 118 The Circle examined. 
 
 " bottoms upon your own reason still, from which yon strive 
 " in vain to escape." — p. 35. 
 
 L. — To answer this pretty piece of sophistry, suppose, 
 Sir, you iuul a Imcsuit to commence, what woukl your 
 reason jironipt you to do? 
 
 G. — My reason would prompt me to choose some able 
 lawyer, and depend upon liini. 
 
 L But why would you not rather manage your 
 
 cause yourself? 
 
 G. — Because my own reason is too weak to trust to 
 in the manao^ement of a laivsuit, and an able lawyer alone 
 is duly qualified for it. 
 
 L And how do yon know that ? JVhat have you hit 
 
 your own reason to tell you so ? And if you cannot trust 
 your reason, you cannot trust your lawyer. 
 
 Is not this fine stuff? Is it not arguing like a profound 
 divine? I answer therefore, that as your own reason 
 may be trusted, when it directs you to an able lawyer^ 
 and as the same reason tells you, that when you have 
 chosen one, you must be governed by him, so I can 
 safely trust my own reason, when it directs me to the 
 church to be my guide to salvation. Because nothing is 
 more consonant to reason, than to depend upon a guide 
 appointed by God himself. 
 
 Thus far therefore reason is to be followed. But when 
 we have once found the true church of Christ, which the 
 strongest inotives of credibility mark out to our reason 
 assisted by God's grace, then we have nothing else to do 
 but to submit to her, and be governed by her in every 
 thing she teaches. So that if this be your meaning, 
 when you conclude, that all bottoms v])on reason, I sub- 
 scribe to it without hesitation. Nor shall I ever strive 
 to escape from my reason, when it demands so just and 
 reasonable a thing oi" me, as an entire submission and 
 obedience to the judgment and authority of the church, 
 Nay the scriptuics themselves command me to hear the 
 church. He uho u'ill not hear the church, let him be re~ 
 jmted as a heathen and a jndAican. Matt, xviii. 17. 
 
 " G. — This is running into the circle again to believe the
 
 Jlie Circle examined. 1 19 
 
 " church for the scriptures^ and the sci-iplures for the church" 
 — pp. 35, 36. 
 
 L. — What, Sir ! would you neither have me believe 
 the church upon the testimony of scriptures nor the scrip- 
 tures upon tlie testimony of the church ? I should not 
 wonder, if a c?e<5/ preached this doctrine to me. However 
 I must observe to you, that if the word believe be strictly 
 taken, that is, for an act of divine faith grounded upon 
 its proper motive, I neither believe the scriptures, because 
 the church bids me, nor the church because the scriptures 
 bid me. And so my faith is in no danger of running 
 round in a circle. 
 
 G. — Upon what motives then do you believe the re- 
 velation of scriptures, or the infi/libilitij of the church ? 
 
 L. — Precisely, because God has revealed those truths. 
 And this is the whole and sole essential motive, into which 
 q\\ faith strictly taken is resolved. 
 
 G. — But how do you know that God has revealed 
 those truths ? 
 
 L. — Because the church of Christ, which is a society 
 of the greatest wisdom and authority upon earth, tolls me 
 80. And, if St Austin may be credited, it is nothing 
 less than the most insolent madness, not to believe her. 
 
 G. — But wliat inducement have you to convince you 
 that the churcli, whereof vou area member, is the church 
 of Christ rather than any other separate society? 
 
 L. — I am convinced of it \yy the same outward visible 
 marks, or 7no/ives of crcdibiiif//, which held St Austin within 
 tlie pales of the church, wlicreof he was a meml)er, and 
 which she would have had, although the scri})tnres had 
 never been written. As, the cojitinual succession of her 
 bishops, and ]>astors from the apostles. Her haviny had 
 inmnnrrahlf martyrs and miracles in her cnmmiivion. The 
 agreement (f jicople and iia/ions, &c., reckoned up by St 
 Austin, cnnt. Kj)ist. fund. C. 4. 
 
 G. — But do you not prove the canon and revelation of 
 scripfnrcs from the anlton-ily (d" the church ? And then 
 again the iifallihtr authority of t\\c church from scriptures? 
 
 L,. — VVc do so.
 
 120 TItc Circle examined. 
 
 O. — And is not this runninf^ round in a circle? 
 
 L. — It is so, but not in a vici(>?(s one, as logicians call 
 it. On tiie contrary, these circular \n-ooh are allowed of 
 by all logicians and divines. Nay they are absolutely 
 necessary, both when causes and effects prove one another 
 recijirocally, and w^licn two jiersons of unquestionable 
 veracity give testimony for each other. I shall oidy give 
 an instance of the latter. 
 
 St John the Baptist is proved to have been a prophet 
 from the testimony of Christ ; and Christ is proved to be 
 the Messiah from the testimony of St John. No christian 
 can reject those j)roofs as illegal. And why then may 
 not the scriptures be proved from the testimony of the 
 church, and the church reciprocally from the testimony 
 of scriptures ? l)oth proofs indeed are circular : and 
 therefore as the former must be unquestionably admitted, 
 the latter cannot be reasonably excepted against. 
 
 G. — Such, my lord, as knew Christ before they knew 
 St Joh?i, might upon Christ's u'ord hcliave St John. And 
 such as first knew St John to be a prophet before they 
 knew Christ, might upon St John's word believe Christ. 
 
 L. — I thank you, Sir, for this good hint. It is the 
 best thing you have said this long time: but it opens the 
 vld circle for me, and puts me out of all danger of being 
 hemmed in. First then I know the church of Christ by 
 her outivard visible marks, or motives of credibility, which 
 are so strong and convincing, that according to St Austin^ 
 I must be a madman not to believe her. This church 
 tells me, for example, that the icholc Neiv Testament is 
 divinely inspired. I therefore believe upon her testimony, 
 that the New Testament contains nothing but revealed 
 truths. Now amongst other truths contained in it I find 
 Christ's positive promise, that the gates of hell shall not 
 prevail against his church. Matt. xvi. 18. Another pro- 
 mise, that he will be with her even unto the end of the 
 tcorld. Matt, xxviii. 19. I likewise find in St Paul, that 
 the church is the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Tim. iii. 
 15. Upon these and such like testimonies oi\\o\y scrip- 
 tures I believe it to be a revealed tndh^ that the church is
 
 The Circle examined, 121 
 
 infallible. And thus the church first gives testimony for 
 scriptures, and then the sa'iptures give testimony for the 
 church. And shew me now a difference, if you can, 
 between this circle, and that of proving St John to be a 
 prophet from the testimony of Christ, and proving reci- 
 procally Christ to be the Messias from the testimony of 
 St John. 
 
 G. — But what then is a vicious circle. 
 
 L — A vicious circle is, when two propositions are made 
 use of to infer one another without having any other proof 
 to support tiiem. But if they be proved from other strong 
 and convincing reasons, tliis ope7is the circle, and hinders 
 it from being what we call a vicious one. Now this is 
 the very case in reference to the church's infallibility, and 
 the authority of scriptures. The church of Christ as such 
 is first proved from all the general motives of credibility, 
 which clearly mark this church out to us, as the most 
 illustrious, and therefore the most credible society upon 
 earth in matters of religion. Her authority thus esta- 
 blished is a legal and sufficient evidence even for those 
 truths, which reason cannot fathom. If then amongst 
 other points she propounds to her children these two 
 articles, viz., the divine authority of scriptures, and her 
 own infallibility in matters of religion, these two like 
 Christ and St Johi bear witness to each other. Yet 
 having cacli a sufficient evidence from the motives of ci-e- 
 dibility, by which tlie church proves her charter for the 
 delivery of revealed truths, the door is open, and there is 
 no danger of miming round in a vicious circle. 
 
 But, Sir, there is another thing, which delivers me 
 from this danger. For a circle cannot be called vicious 
 with reference to an adversary, who by his own j)rinci|)les 
 is bound to admit of cither of the propositions, wliich 
 prove each other reciprocally. And therefore when 1 
 dispute against a member of the Church ofjlnijhind, who 
 by his own iiriiiciples is bound to believe the divine 
 authority o{ scrljdurcs, I may legally maintain the church's 
 infallibility against him from those sacred writings. 
 Neither am I any ways bound to prove that they are the 
 
 G
 
 122 The Being of a God 
 
 UH)rd of God, because it is n principle agreed upon be- 
 twixt us, anil no man is bound to prove a principle of his 
 adversary's own concession. Nay, though I myself be- 
 lieved not a word of the New Testwnent, I might legally 
 take the advantage of it against a^j;-ote67aw^, who believes 
 it. For this is what we properly call argumeidum ad 
 hominem: a certain cut-throat way of confuting a man 
 from his own principles. And therefore, Sir, you cannot 
 accuse us of running round in a vicious circle by proving 
 the church's infallibility against protestants from scripture. 
 
 G. — But suppose I should deny the Neio Testament 
 to be the word of God, would not your lordship then be 
 left in the lurch ? 
 
 Zy. — No, Sir, but you would have the credit of denying- 
 your own principles, and I the trouble of providing other 
 arms to fight against you as against a Jew, or Deist. That 
 is to say, I should be obliged first to prove the church's 
 authority in matters of religion from such arguments or 
 motives, as the ancient fathers made use of for the con- 
 version of Jeivs ; and then to prove the inspiration of 
 scriptures from that authority. 
 
 SECTION XXVIII. — THE BEING OF A GOD MAY BE BE- 
 LIEVED UPON THE AUraORITY OF SCRIPTURES, OR 
 THE CHURCH. 
 
 " G. — I perceive, my lord, you are fond of your circle, 
 *' but I will brhig you out of it." — p. 36. 
 
 Zi. — Well then, Sir, let us have a touch of your skill. 
 
 " G. Pray tell me, why do you believe a God? It would 
 
 " be blasphemy to say you believe it upon any authority. For 
 *' that would be to place such an authority above God. And 
 " it would be nonsense to say you believe it either from the 
 " church or the scriptures, because you can believe neither 
 " without first believing that tliere is a God. What is it 
 '• then ? We believe a God purely upon our own reason. 
 *' And we cannot be more sure tiiat there is a God, than we 
 «' are persuaded of the truth of those reasons, upon which we 
 «' do believe it. And if God has given us no other guide but
 
 May be Believed ttpon, S^c. 123 
 
 <' our own reason with the assistance of his holyj^raceto be- 
 " lieve in himself; if this be all we have or can have for the 
 " first and main article of our creed, what further do we re- 
 " quire for those of less consequence ? And that we cannot 
 " have more than this we may perceive by this experiment, 
 " viz., whether we believe most firmly, and m ith greater 
 " assurance, what Ave have only from our own reason, or what 
 '• we receive from the authority of the church? For example, 
 " are you not more undoubtedly assured of the beiyig of a 
 •' God, which you believe purely upon your own reason, than 
 " of transiihstaiitiation, purgatori/, or Avhatever you believe 
 " upon the authority of the church ?" — jj. 36. 
 
 L, — Sir, if you have no other way hut tliis to conjure 
 me out of the circle, I may go round in it til) doomsday. 
 Here is your argument in other words, Avhich shews its 
 Aveakness. Beason can perceive the manifest things cf 
 God, as his being, therefore it can perceive the hidden 
 things too, as the mysteries of revealed religion. Is this a 
 solid Avay of arguing, or becoming a divine? Reason can 
 discover the perfections of a deity Avhich shine out in the 
 creation, tlicrefore it can likewise discover its divine 
 emanations, which no AA'ay appear ; but are as secret as 
 they are wonderful? Or does it folloAV, that it can find 
 out the Son, whom no man ever hnew but the Father ; or 
 the Father, tvkoin no man ever hnew but the Son, or they 
 to trhojn the Son teas pleased to reveal him? Matt. xi. 27. 
 I'inally, docs it folloAV that our reason can discover the 
 incarnation of tlie Son of God, AAJiich St Paul calls the 
 wisdom of God hidden in a mystery ? 1 Cor. ii. 7. Sup- 
 j)0sc I believe a God purely uj)on my own reason, is it a 
 consequence, that the same natural light of reason Avithout 
 consulting authority can discover to me the divine rei'ela- 
 tion, which directed the sacred penmen in their Avritingfs, 
 or enable me to judge Avhat books are canonical, Avhat 
 not? It is cvitlent that these discoveries are absolutely 
 impossible to natural reason not directed by authority. 
 And so my believing a Crod purely njjon my own reason 
 does not render authority less necessary for those other 
 rcA'caled trjiths, nor can it do you any manner of service 
 against the circle.
 
 124 The Beiug of a God 
 
 Rut are you in good earnest when you tell me, that it 
 is blasphony to believe a God ttpon the aulhoril]) either of 
 the church or scrijJtures? If so, then it follows /rVs/, that 
 all young persons are bound to be atheists, till thoy can 
 understand the natural demonstration of a God. For if 
 they believ^e a God upon any anthority, they become 
 guilty of blasphemy. So that nurses, parents, and masters 
 must be very careful not to tell children that there is a 
 God, for fear they should believe it upon their authority, 
 and so become accessory to their blasphemy. And yet it 
 is the first thing children are taught : because it is the 
 groundwork on which all religion is built. But whether 
 they believe it upon evidence, or the authority of their 
 teachers (as children and ignorant people, who under- 
 stand not philosophical demonstrations usually do) the 
 effect is the same. And when they once believe it, let 
 the motive of their belief be what it will, I think they 
 may afterwards very safely believe it as a revealed truth 
 upon the authority of the church and scriptures. 
 
 But if there be any force in that argument of yours, 
 by which you will needs prove it to be blasphemy to be- 
 lieve a God upon any authority, viz., because that would 
 place such an authority above God, if I say there be any 
 force in this argument, it will follow Idly, that it is like- 
 wise blasphemy to believe a God purely upon our own 
 reason, because that would place our reason above God, 
 if your argument be worth a rush. 
 
 Since therefore according to this argument it is equally 
 blasphemous to believe a God either upon reason or 
 authority, and since all men are bound not to be guilty 
 of blasphemy, it will follow odly, either that men must 
 believe the being of a God without having any reason or 
 motive for it, or they must all live and die atheists for fear 
 of being blasphemers, both which are most eminently 
 absurd. Thus, Sir, instead of conjuring me out of an 
 innocent and harmless circle, you have used your best 
 skill to conjure me out of all religion. 
 
 Now let us examine the rest. You tell me, we cannot 
 be more sure that there is a God, than tve are persuaded of
 
 May he Believed upon, &,'c. 125 
 
 the truth of those reasons, upon which we believe it. If you 
 mean, that reason must concur to faith, and that we can- 
 not believe, unless we be first convinced of the reasons, 
 upon which we believe, what you say is true, but it makes 
 nothing against us, who are persuaded as much as you, that 
 our assent to all mysteries of faith is not to be a rash but 
 a rational assent grounded upon the strongest motives. 
 
 You go on thus: And if God has given us no other 
 guide but our oivn reason with the assistance of his grace 
 to believe in himself; if this be all we have or can have for 
 the first or main article of our creed; ichat farther do we 
 require for those of less consequence'^ But, Sir, it is not all 
 we have for the first and main article of the creed. For 
 we have over and above the creed itself proposed by the 
 church as divinely revealed: and divine revelation is some- 
 thing more than human reason ; which though it may suf- 
 fice to discover to us the manifest things o( God, is unable 
 to discover the hidden mysteries, that are above its reach. 
 
 As to what you say concerning articles of less conse- 
 quence, I hope the belief of the Trinity and incarnation 
 are necessary to salvation as well as that of the being of a 
 God. And can you pretend to demonstrate either of 
 tliese mysteries by the force of human reason? If not, 
 then something farther is required for our belief of them. 
 
 Lastly, as to what you add by way of experiment, viz. 
 whether we believe most firmly, what ive have only from 
 our reason, or rvhat we receive vpon the authority of the 
 church? Sir, I should guess by this, that you have found 
 by experience, that you do not believe the mysteries of 
 tlie Trinity and incarnation as firmly as the being of a God, 
 since you have this from reason, and the others from 
 authority. But if this be your experiment, I thank God 
 it is not ours. For we have a greater certainty of what 
 wo believe upon the motive of divine revelation declared 
 to us by the church, than what we believe barely upon 
 our reason. And therefore if we had no motive to believe 
 the being (fa Gvd but barely our own reason, we should 
 believe transidjstaidiation, and purgatory with a much 
 greater assurance than the being of a God. I>ut since we
 
 126 Of Jews ^ Pagans, 
 
 believe this also upon ilivine revelation, we have an equal 
 certainty of all three, though no evidence but of the latter. 
 
 Advertisement. — His lordship haviiKj tuld the gentleman in Ids 
 Case Stated, that God is obliged to give every man an outward 
 infallible guide (w/iic/i ceriaiuh; is a tjreat abstirdity) the gentle- 
 man discourses in the folhwiiitj manner. 
 
 SECTION XXVIII. — OF JEWS, PAGANS, AND MAHOxMETANS. 
 
 " G. My lord, to say that God is obliged to give every 
 
 " man an outicanl iiiJalUble guide is making too bold with 
 " providence, and measuring his infinite wisdom and goodness 
 " by our short line : God has made creatures as it has 
 " pleased him: some incapable of happiness or misery, as the 
 " inanimates, some capable only of pleasure or pain ; as the 
 " animals. And he has endowed others with reason VL^man; 
 «« and left him in the hajids of his own counsels ; set good and 
 " evil, life and death before him. Dent. xi. 26. &-c., and a free 
 <« will to choose, which he liketh. Again, of rational creatures 
 " some, he has fixed in happiness, as the blessed in heaven. 
 " Others are vessels of wrath as the angels that fell. But 
 " man is betwixt these two to work out his salvation by his 
 " obedience to the will of God, who will render to every 
 " man according to his deeds. For as many as have sinned 
 " without the laiv shall be judged without the laio ; and they 
 " that have sinned in the law, shall be Judged by the laiv. For 
 ^' there is no respect of jJ^rsons with God. Rom. ii. 11, 12. 
 " But according to you there is great respect of persons with 
 •' God, and his goodness has failed the greatest part of man- 
 <« kind since the beginning of the world. Pray, my lord, 
 " what outward guide is there to Jetvs, heathens, and Maho- 
 " metaiis? And to the many subdivisions among all these? 
 " They have all giiides of their own, and the blind lead the 
 " blind with most of them. It is fact that the generality 
 " of mankind do not clioose for themselves, but take their 
 " religion upon trust as they are educated. And we must 
 " leave all this to God, who will require from none more 
 " than he has given. For God is good to all, and his tender 
 ♦* 7nercies are over all his ivorls. Psalm cxlix. 9." — pp. 36 — 38. 
 L. — Sir, you have said very fine things, but very little
 
 and Mahometans. 127 
 
 to tlie purpose, as will appear, when I have rectified the 
 mistakes you run upon. First, j^ou charge me with say- 
 ing, that God is obliged to give every man an outward in- 
 fallible guide. I believe indeed I said so in our former 
 conversation, when I was under tutelage, and spoke as 
 my master bid me. But as I am now at liberty to speak 
 my own thoughts, I utterly disown that doctrine. For 
 in reality the question between us and protestants is not, 
 whether God be obliged to give us such an infallible guide^ 
 but whether he has been so good^w^ merciful as to do it? 
 and this is precisely the point I maintain. However, 
 
 This first mistake has misled you into a second still 
 more injurious to me. For it represents me as guilty 
 of downright blasphemy in asserting it to be my doctrine, 
 1st, that there is a respect of persons icith God contrary 
 to the express words of 8t Paid ; and 2dly, that his 
 goodness has failed the greatest part of mankind. But 
 you must be very ignorant of St Paid's true meaning; 
 as well as mine to charge me with such impious doctrine. 
 For the respect of persons, which St Paul speaks of as 
 being far from God, is a rewarding or punishing by 
 favour rather than hy justice, and without having that due 
 regard to deeds, which is necessary for the just distribut- 
 ing of punishments or rewards. It supposes works on 
 the one hand, and a consideration due to them on the 
 other: the omission whereof is a defect of justice, which 
 God is wholly nncapable of. But there is no injustice 
 in bestowing ;«erc«6.s more liberally on some than others: 
 because all acts of mercy are gratuitous, and no man can 
 challenge them as his due. Now the giving us an 
 infallible guide is a piire mercy of God ; -which therefore 
 he may give to one, and not to atu)ther : as every body 
 is free to bestow his favours iii)()n whom he please>i 
 without any danger of respect of persons in the sense of 
 St Paul. 
 
 Neither docs it follow lience, that God's goodness has 
 
 failed the greatest part of manhind. For a person can 
 
 oidy properly be said to fad one, when lie cither does 
 
 not make good his word, or is wanting to the performance
 
 128 0/Jews, Pagans, 
 
 of any thing, tliat is strictly due upon some just title. 
 But it is nothing less than blasphemy to accuse God of 
 either, in relation to any one single creature in the world. 
 This answers your question concerning Jeivs, heathens, 
 and Mahometans. For suppose God has not given them 
 any onlicard ivfallihle guide, what then ? Will it follow, 
 that ho has not given one to christians ? Or will you 
 infer from it, that there is a respect of persons with God? 
 If he were bound to give one to all mankind, you would 
 have reason on your side. But since I know of no 
 obligation on the part of God to give one to any, his 
 having given one to christians is a pure mercy, and being 
 a pure mercy is due to none, and he may give or refuse 
 it to whom he pleases according to these words : / ivill 
 have mercy on whom I trill have mercy, and I will have 
 compassion on ivhom Iirill have compassion. Rom. ix. 15. 
 
 You say, God is good to all, and his mercies are over all 
 his works. Psalm cxlv. 9. Very right. Sir, but God is 
 infinitely just as well as merciful, and it is a gross pre- 
 sumption to prescribe bounds to hXs justice under pretence 
 of magnifying his mercy ; so that it is not allowed us to 
 measure the one any more than the other by our short 
 line, but we are bound to believe what the scripture has 
 revealed to us of both ; which is, that he will shew his 
 infinite mercy on those, who are in his church perseverantly 
 by a living faith, and his infinite justice on all, who for 
 their sins are justly permitted to be out.of it, whether they 
 be Jews, heathens, Mahometans, heretics or schisinatics. 
 
 As to what you say, that the qenerality of mankind take 
 their religion upon trust, as they are educated: I should be 
 glad to know, Sir, whether education be a proof of 
 the truth: or whether this plea will be admitted at the 
 great tribunal? If so, then no man needs to examine the 
 grounds of his religion. It is true, the prejudices of 
 education are a powerful bias upon any man's judgment. 
 But if when a person is come to riper years, and has the 
 means of informing himself better, he be so careless, 
 slothful, and indifferent as not to give himself the trouble 
 to consider whether those prejudices be well grounded,
 
 and Mahometans. 1129 
 
 nor inquires into tlie marks of the true church, wliieli are 
 clear, and easy to be discovered, when the heart is sincere; 
 the prejudices he has imbibed from education will not 
 excuse him before God. Pray, Sir, was any body saved 
 from the deluge, that was not in the ark of Noah ? 
 
 G. — No, my lord. 
 
 L. — x\nd it was the constant language of the ancient 
 fathers, that it is as impossible to escape damnation out 
 of the church of Christ as it was to escape perishing out 
 of the ark. For surely no man can be saved but through 
 Christ. 
 
 " G. — No. But many may be saved by him, who never 
 " heard of him."—;;. 38. 
 
 L Can faith then be had without hearing? Or 
 
 salvation without faith in Christ? This is joyful news 
 for Jews, Pagans, and MahometaJis. However, to the best 
 of my judgment, it is the general doctrine of protestatits 
 as well as Catholics, that none of these are in the way 
 of salvation. 
 
 Does not Christ compare himself to a vine, and in the 
 application of the similitude tell us, that if we abide not 
 in him, ice shall he cast forth as branches withered, and 
 cast into the fire? John xv. 6. And can those who have 
 not the faith of Christ, be said to abide in him? And 
 if they abide not in him, will they not be doomed to 
 everlasting flames ? Has he not likewise told us that if 
 the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch ? Did 
 not St Peter filled with the Holy Ghost declare to the 
 rulers of the Jews, and elders of Israel, that Jesus Christ 
 is the stone which is become the head of the corner ; neither 
 is there salvation in any other. For there is ?io other name 
 under heaven, whereby we miist be saved. Acts iv. 8. 
 And does not St Paul teach, that without faith it is im- 
 possible to please God? Heb. ii. 6. 
 
 " G — My lord, Christ died to make satisfuctlon to the 
 " iiiHnito justice for tlio sins of tlie whole world : and took 
 ♦• our nature upon liini to atone for our fidleti nature, to bo 
 " applied to such as perform the conditions required." — p. 38. 
 
 L. — Very right, Sir, Christ died and has satisfied for 
 
 o 2
 
 130 Of Jews, Par/ans^ 
 
 iili. But (as you observe very justly) his rjeneral satiS' 
 faction ciui only profit those, to whom it is applied by their 
 performance of the conditions required. Now 1 have 
 always been told, that there are two conditions essentially 
 necessary, viz. baptism and faith in Christ. 
 
 " G. — My lord, God Mill judge the Gentiles by the law of 
 " mornlity, which is planted in their hearts, and we call 
 *' natural reliyion. Ijiit from christians ho requires faith in 
 " Christ '}o'n\G(\. with sincere repentance," — p. 38. 
 
 L. — Sir, as God is justice itself, so it is certain the 
 Gentiles will neither be judged, nor condemned but by 
 a law that is infinitely just. And I fear the law morality 
 will not prove very favourable to such as arc destitute 
 both of the light o\ faith, and the fountains of grace the 
 holy sacraments. However according to you, heathens 
 are in a safer and better condition than christians, since 
 you make them capable of salvation not only without 
 faitli, but without practising those duties, which our 
 faith obliges us to. 
 
 " G. — But is it no advantage then to have the glorij of 
 " God revealed to us in the face of Jesus Christ ? as the apos- 
 " tie speaks, 2 Cor. iii. 6. And the eflFects of it upon us 
 " described, iii. 18, that Ave all with open face, beholding as 
 " in a glass the glory of God, are changed into tlie same 
 " image from glory to glory, even as by the spirit of the 
 " Lord. The sight of the wonderful economy of our redemp- 
 " tion must needs fill our souls with rapture and joy, when 
 •' we behold the glory of God in all his attributes each exalt- 
 •' ing the other to the uttermost, as it is said, James ii. 13, 
 " The mercy of God exalts his justice. For justice requires 
 *• full sati.fuclio7i, it cannot remit a firthing. To remit is 
 " mercy and not justice. And God is justice in the abstract, 
 ''justice itself. Here then infinite wisdom finds out ay)/// 
 *' satisfaction to infinite justice : and infinite goodness affords 
 " that satisfaction by the incarnation, perfect obedience, 
 " meritorious passion, and glorious resurrection of the only 
 •* begotten Son of God. This inflames our devotion, invi- 
 " gorates our obedience, and gives compunction to our re- 
 *' pentance when we have sinned, and come short of the glory 
 " of God. Rom. iii. 23. God has vouchsafed to make a 
 *' covenant with us in Christ, by virtue of which we raay
 
 and Mahometans. 131 
 
 '* appeal to liis justice and veracity. It is a pardon signed 
 " and sealed by the king, wliicli we may plead in court. The 
 " heathens have not this, but they are still under mercy. 
 " They may say, God is merciful to forgive us. But we may 
 " say with St Ju/in, that God is faithful and Just to forgive ?is 
 " our sins, arid to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 
 " i. 9. This is a great a very great advantage over the Gen- 
 *' tiles. But may not we enjoy the advantage we have over 
 *' the heathens with thankfulness, and not damn them all to 
 " the pit of hell ? Because God has made a covenant with 
 " Hs, may we not leave them to imcovenanted mercy? Is our 
 " eye evil because he has been good to us ? Or would we 
 " limit his mercies to his creatures, with whom we have 
 " nothing to do ? For ichat have tee to do with tliem, that are 
 "without? them that are without God judgeth." — 1 Cor. v. 
 12. pp. 38—40. 
 
 L. — I find, Sir, you are the advocate-general not only 
 of heretics and schismatics, wlioni you have already 
 i)rouglit off by their belief of common Christianity, but 
 likewise of Jeivs^ heathens, and Mahometans, (for they aro 
 all upon the same footing') whose cause you have now 
 pleaded with wonderful eloquence. I shall take your 
 discourse in pieces, and say something to every part of it. 
 
 You begin with enlarging upon the advantages we 
 christians have over the heathens. Sir, we should be very 
 ungrateful to almighty God, if we were not sensible of 
 it. All therefore I pretended to advance wlien I spoke 
 last was, that if heathens can be saved without faith, their 
 condition is safer and in a very weighty and material 
 point than that of chi'istians, who cannot hope for that 
 happiness without both humbling their understandings 
 under the obscurity of the mysteries of faith, and sub- 
 jecting their wills to the severity of its precepts : and so 
 it is manifest you make heathens have the better of us in 
 allowing them a possibility of salvation, without being 
 subject to any of those difficult and painful duties, by 
 which we are bound to purchase our eternal hajtpiness. 
 
 This therefore I only inferred as an absurdity from 
 your doctrine. J' or the truth of the matter is, we have the 
 advantage over them in every respect, since nothing is
 
 132 Of Jews, Pagans, 
 
 more groundless, or more contrary to the word of God 
 than the xincovcnantcd mrrcy yow have so bountifully pro- 
 vided for thcni. You tell me the /icat/icns may say, God 
 is merciful to forgive vs .• and so may any impenitent sin- 
 ner say it with as much truth as they ; because a heathen 
 continuing* a heathen is as incapable of mercy, as a sinner 
 continuing a sinner, according to this sentence of our 
 Saviour against christians not hearing the church; let him 
 be to thee as a Heathen; that is, as a reprobate, or one 
 in a damnable state. For it plainly follows hence, that 
 to be a heathen, and to be in a dainnahle state is one and 
 the same thing with our Saviour, who expresses the one 
 by the other. 
 
 You conclude your harangue with several questions, the 
 first whereof is, whether we may not enjoy the advantage 
 ice have over the heathens without damning them cdl to the 
 pit of hell? No, Sir, we cannot have a due thankfulness 
 for the great benefit of owx faith, if we deny its necessity, 
 and believe as you do, that we might have been saved, 
 though we had been heathens left in darkness as they are. 
 For this is annihilating the benefit, and consequently the 
 gratitude due for it under a specious pretence of mercy 
 to heathens. But it is a false mercy, which can do them 
 no good, and may hurt the rash abettors of it. 
 
 But, to turn your fine rhetorical question upon your- 
 self, cannot you enjoy the advantages you have over im- 
 penitent sinners, and the devils M'ithout damning them all 
 to the pit of \\q\\ for ever? For let me tell you. Sir, your 
 uncovenanted mercy is of so very large a size, that it may be 
 extended to these as well as the heathens. And all your 
 other questions may be retorted upon you in the same 
 manner. 
 
 But your last question expressed in the words of St 
 Paul, viz. (what have ice to do with them that are without? 
 them that are without Godjudgeth) shews you to be an 
 utter stranger to the apostle's true meaning. For his words 
 bear no other sense than that the church has no right to 
 exercise her power of correcting upon the heathens, as be- 
 ing none of her subjects: and therefore must leave them to
 
 and Mahometans. 1 33 
 
 God's justice, as belonging to liis tribunal, not hers. But 
 Le could never intend to entitle tlieni to your tincovenafUed 
 meraj without contradicting our Saviour saying, He that 
 believeth not is condemned already^ because he hath not be- 
 lieved in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 
 iii. 18, nor without giving the lie to himself: since he 
 tells us in express terms, that without faith it is impossi- 
 ble to please God. Heb. xi. 6. I hope therefore it is no 
 crime to form a judgment of the unhappy state either of 
 Jews, heathens, or Mahometans by the lights the tvord of 
 God itself has given us to judge by, and that we may 
 without having an evil eye, or limiting God's mercies to 
 his creatures, pronounce those condemned, on whom Christ 
 himself and his apostle have pronounced sentence of con- 
 demnation. Now, Sir, you may proceed, if you have 
 any thing more to say upon this subject. 
 
 SECTION XXIX. — NONE SAVED WITHOUT FAITH IN CHRIST. 
 
 " G. — God did judge one, who was without, tliat is, out of 
 " the pale of the church, to be the most beloved of God, and 
 " that there teas none like him in the earth. Job. i. 8. And he 
 " is put upon the level with the greatest iti the church, as 
 " Noah and Daniel. Ezek. xiv. 14'. And proposed as an 
 " example of patience by St James, v. 11. And of another 
 " Gentile it was said hyChriat, I have not found so great faith, 
 •' 710 not in Israel. Luke vii. 9. And he, who said often to 
 " his disciples, O ye of little faith: and upbraided the apostles 
 " witli their unbelief, Mark xvi. 14 ; yet said to a woman 
 " of Canaan (wlio could not bo discourajjed with the ohjec- 
 " lions he put against her not being within the pale of the 
 «' church, but without among the dogs) O tvoman great is thy 
 *' faith. Matt. xv. 28. And of the ten healed tliere was but 
 " one thankful, and he was a Sanutritan. Luke xviii. IG, 
 " that is a schismatic, a stranger, as Christ here calls him, 18, 
 " and said to him, thy faith hath made thee whole." — j». 40. 
 
 /j. — Sir, you certainly take mc for an errant block- 
 head to produce these four examples, viz. of Job, the 
 centurion, the icoman of Canaan, and the leprous Sama- 
 ritan for proofs that persons may bo saved \\'\\\\owt faith
 
 124 None saved without 
 
 in Christ. Did no^. Job believe in Christ, that is, the 
 Messias to come? And how then can you say, he was 
 out of the pnle of the true church ? 
 
 G. — But was not Job a Gentile ? 
 
 L. — Sir, if by the word Gentile you mean an idolater, 
 an infidel, or nnbelicver, Job was no Gentile any more 
 than Adam, or Noah. And were these out of the pale 
 of the true church ? Or had God no churcli upon earth 
 before the Jewish syjiagogue, and ceremo7iial law were 
 established ? 
 
 But nothing surprises me more than your mentioning 
 the centurion, the u'oman of Canaan., and the leprous Sa- 
 maritan. To the first of which Christ said, / have not 
 found so great faith, no not in Israel. To the second, O 
 woman great is thy faith : And to the third, thy faith hath 
 made thee whole. Yet by a strange oversig-ht, these are 
 the three other rare examples you have produced to prove, 
 that men may be saved ivithout faith in Christ, I ask then, 
 whether the centurion, the ivonian of Canaan, and the 
 Samaritan belic^'ed in Christ, or not ? If you say they 
 did not, then Christ spoke an untruth in commending 
 i\\e\x faith, which is blasphemy. If you say they did, then 
 they were saved by their ya?7/i in Christ: and these three 
 examples are as wide from the purpose as that of Job. 
 
 " G. — The pattern of charity is placed in the person of a 
 " Samaritan in opposition both to a priest and Levile. Luke 
 " X. 30. Which makes good what StPefcrsaid of Cornelius 
 " a Gentile. Acts x. 30. A^oto I trnhi see that God is no 
 " respecter of persons: hut in every nation, he that feareth him, 
 " and worketh righteousness, is accepted loilh him." pp. 40, 4 1 . 
 
 L- — That is, God makes no difference between Jeics 
 and Gentiles, who seek him with a sincere heart. But 
 did not God even work a miracle to bring this Cornelius 
 to the faith of Christ? And is not this a rare proof that 
 it is not necessary to salvation ! But let us hear out the 
 rest of your story. 
 
 "G. — This is the doctrine, which Christ taught, Lule iv. 
 *' 25. "When he minded the .Teivs that a widow of Sarepta 
 " a city in Sidon, and Naaman the Syrian were preferred to 
 " all the tvidoivs and lepers in Israel. Which so enraged the
 
 Faith in Christ. 135 
 
 " Jews tenacious of the privilege of their church, that they 
 <' thrust him out of their city, and led him unto the brow of their 
 « hill, tohereon tlieir city icas built, that they might cast him 
 " down headlong. And it is said that they xcere filled ivith 
 «' wrath" — p. 41. 
 
 X Here are three examples more, full as good as the 
 
 four former, and the scriptures equally trifled with. For 
 is not this a strange sort of argument? A Samaritan had 
 more compassion than a priest or a Levite, and took care 
 of a wounded man : a prophet went to the icidoiv of Sa)'- 
 epta, and Xaaman the St/rian was cured of a leprosy : 
 therefore heathens may be saved without faith in Christ. 
 Really, Sir, I am weary of hearing the scriptures thus 
 abused, and shall shortly want some grains of Job's 
 patience to hear you out. However, proceed. 
 
 « G. — The like fury they shewed, when St Paid told 
 " theui, that the gospel was to be extended beyond the pale 
 " of their church, and that God had sent him to the Gentiles. 
 " And they gave him audience unto that word, and then lift %tp 
 " their voices, and said, Aicay tvilh such a fellow from the earth. 
 " And they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust 
 " into the air. Acts xxii. 22. And the like rage is seen among 
 <* the zealots of your church, when tliey boar of the gospel 
 «* being extended out of the pale of their communion, though 
 " with christians, who hold tlie three ancient aecds, and have 
 " every thing essential to a church, except what Rome has 
 " made so, vi:., the universal and unlimited sovereignty of her 
 " bishop. " — 2'- '^^' 
 
 Zj Sir, your comparison between the Jews and us 
 
 will not recommend either your judgment or charity; the 
 Jews bore a mortal hatred to tlie Gentiles: and tliercfore 
 had not the patience to liear any one say, they could be 
 rendered capable of salvation by having the «70.<;prZ preach- 
 ed to them, or any other way than by becoming Jev:s. 
 This was the true occasion of their excessive rage against 
 St Paul, who told them he was sent by God to preach 
 the gosjni to them. But was there ever any Roman 
 Catholic in the world guilty of such black malice, as to be 
 enragi'd to see tlie gospel extended to infidels ? Do wc 
 not diuly pray for it? Nay have wc not seminaries ex-
 
 136 None saved without 
 
 pressly founded tor the education of persons, whose whole 
 business it is to sacrifice themselves for that holy end ? 
 And where then is the sense or justice of your comparison? 
 
 Ay, but the Jewish rage is seen among the zealots of our 
 churchy when they hear of the gospel being extended out oj 
 the pale of their communion, though tcith christians, ivho 
 hold the three creeds, and have every thing essential to a 
 church. Really, Sir, I pity your mistake. For I take it 
 to be a fundamental truth, that the church of Christ, and 
 by consequence the creeds and gospel rightly understood, 
 can only be in one communion, which we heartily wish 
 jnay be extended to all nations in the world. And we 
 are so far from being enraged against those that have 
 cut themselves off from that communion by apostacy or 
 heresy, that we heartily compassionate their condition, 
 and pray and labour continually for their conversion. But 
 \\Q can never be persuaded that any heretical communion 
 has all the essentials of the true church of Christ, whereof 
 unity of faith (without which there is no salvation accord- 
 ing to St Paul) is one. As to the unlimited sovereignty 
 (as you call it) of the bishop of Rome it is neither an 
 article of our faith, nor any term of communion. So you 
 need not be afraid of it. The spiritual supremacy of St 
 Peter's successor is indeed an article of faith; but it is one 
 of Christ's own making, as has been fully proved. 
 
 " G. — This is the great bone of contention, wherein Rome 
 " stands single, thrusting all christian churches from her, like 
 ♦' a man in a boat, who thinks he thrusts the shore fi"om him, 
 " whereas he only thrusts himself from the shore : as Fir' 
 " milian said to Stephen bishop of Rome, excidisti leipsum, noli 
 " tefulkre. Do not deceive yourself, you have cut yourself 
 «' off from the church. For he is truly a schismatic who has 
 <' made himself an apostate from the communion of the 
 " ecclesiastical unity. For while you think you can excom- 
 " municate all other churches from you, you have only ex- 
 " communicated yourself from them. Dimi efiitn pulas omnes 
 '* abs te ahstinere posse, te ipswn abstinuisti." — Cyp. Epist. 75. 
 pp. 41, 42. 
 
 L. — Sir, the Pope's supremacy is the great bone of con- 
 tention with heretics and schismatics, just as the rightful
 
 Taith in Christ. 137 
 
 prerogative of the crown is the great bone of contention 
 with rebeUious subjects. And the Church of Borne has 
 the same reason to thrust heretics from her, as a lawful 
 sovereign to attaint rebels. 
 
 As to FirmiUan, and St Cyprian, they were certainly 
 engaged in a wrong cause, as you yourself must own. 
 And if you had produced their words to prove that they 
 denied the Pope's infallibility^ you would have spoken to 
 the purpose. But infallibility and supremacy are two 
 things. For though it be very probable that they denied 
 the former, they never questioned the latter ; but only 
 blamed Pope Stephen for making an ill use (at least as 
 they thought) of his authority against them. And there- 
 fore told the Pope, that if he should excommunicate the 
 eastern bishops unjustly, he would only hurt himself by 
 it : which is the true meaning of their words. But you 
 will have some difficulty to shew, that the Church of Rome 
 excommunicates heretics unjustly. 
 
 SECTION XXX. — THE SUBJECT OF SUPREMACY AND IN- 
 TALLIBILITY RESUMED. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the cliurcli of the Jeics had a much stronger 
 ♦' plea for her universal supremacy and infallihilily, because 
 " all proselytes of whatever nations must come to her. For 
 " there was no other visible church of God upon eartli, and 
 " the sacrifices were limited to the temple at Jerusalem, 
 " Accordingly we find, Ads viii. 27, that the eunuch came 
 " out of Ethiopia to Jerusalem for to worship." — ji. 42. 
 
 Li. — Sir the Jewish church had perhaps as strong a 
 plea for the supremacy of her hif/h priest over all the 
 Jews, as the church of Christ has for the supremacy of 
 St Vetrfs successor over all christians. And where is 
 the incoiiveniency of it ? ^^'e shall consider her infalli- 
 bility hereafter, which is a very different thing. 
 
 But what you add, viz., that all proselytes, of whatever 
 nations, were bound to come to the Jewish church, is the 
 same as if you told me, that all who turned Jews, were 
 bound to come to the Jewish church ; which is very true
 
 138 Of Supremacy 
 
 indeed, but nothing to tlic purpose. Because none of 
 those, who were true believers among the Gentiles, were 
 bound to turn Jews ; that is, embrace the law of circum- 
 cision ; neither were those obliged to come to Jerusalem 
 to offer their sacrifices, but were at liberty to offer them 
 to the true God, wherever they pleased. It is true, 
 many of the Gentiles themselves, especially the true 
 believers among them, had a great veneration for the 
 temple of Jerusalem, where God was truly worshipped : 
 and, if the eunuch you speak of, was a Gentile, this was 
 doubtless the occasion of his coming thither to worship. 
 I ask you then, whether this eunuch was a Jew or Gentile? 
 If a Jew, your argument is frivolous. For there is no 
 doubt but Jeivs could sacrifice no where but at Jerusalem. 
 If he was a Gentile, then all Gentiles were not infidels. 
 For he, who came to adore the true God, could not surely 
 be an infidel. 
 
 But, Sir, I am still in expectation of the inferences 
 you will draw from what you said last. 
 
 G. — My lord, the last thing' I said was, that the sacrifices 
 were limited to the temple at Jerusalem. " Now if the christian 
 " sacrifice of the bodi/ and blood of Christ (the most solemn 
 " icorship of God) were confined to St Peter s church at Rome, 
 " and could be had nowliere else ; as the most solemn worship 
 " of God (the leffal sacrifices, which were the ti/pes of the 
 " christiaJi) were confined to the temple at Jerusalem : and 
 *' if the Church of Rome like that of the Jeivs, were the only 
 " church in the world, yet after all would the Church of Rome 
 " have no more pretence to infallibility, and perpetuity, than 
 " that of the Jews had." — p. 42. 
 
 L. — Sir, with your good leave, the Church of Home, 
 that is, the church in commtinion tvith the see of Rome is 
 the only true church of Christ upon earth : and the christian 
 sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ (which we call 
 the mass ; and you, to my most agreeable surprise, call 
 the most soleinn worship of God) is so confined to the 
 church in communion ivith the see of Rome, that it cannot 
 be legally offered in any other communion. 
 
 But all this is foreign to the purpose. For that which 
 gives this church her title to a perpetual infallibility, and
 
 and Infallibilitif. 139 
 
 which the Jewish church never had, are precisely the 
 promises of Christ. If you can prove that these are of 
 no weight, then you will say something to the purpose. 
 
 " G. — My lord, as the church of the Jeios has been cut off' 
 " for her disobedience to the law of God, so (as before 
 " mentioned) has it been said to the Church of Borne parti- 
 " cularly, thou shah also he cut off, that is, upon the same 
 " condition, if thou continuest not in the goodness of God. Rom. 
 " xi. 22."— p. 43. 
 
 L. — Sir, this wretched objection has already been 
 answered (sect. 23.), so pray go on. 
 
 " G. — And we cannot imagine there should be a Church 
 " of Rome visible as now with a Pope at the head of it, and 
 " a number of bishops, cardinals, iyc. under him holding the 
 " true christian faith, when that time comes, which our 
 " Saviour foretold, when the So7i ofmaji cometh shall he find 
 ^^ faith upon earth ? For then it would be found, and very 
 " visibly at Rome." — p. 43. 
 
 L. — Sir, I hope it will be visibly found at Rome as 
 well as in many other places. And since the Pope, and 
 his bishops have in all former persecutions been the 
 strongest bulwark of the church of Christ, so I have no 
 reason to doubt, but thcv will be so in the davs of anti- 
 christ, though their residence should be in caves and 
 deserts. 
 
 But suppose Christ at his second coming should not 
 find faith at Home, what is the consequence ? Is the city 
 of Rome essential to the preservation, or visibility of the 
 church of Christ ? If Rome were buried under ground 
 by an earthquake, would Christ lose his church? Or 
 woidd the church be disabled from choosing a successor 
 to St Peter? However you do well to give me this 
 plain hint that by the Church of Rome you mean precisely 
 the city or diocess of Rome. And this is already your 
 filth or sixth relapse into the same wretched equivocation. 
 As to your text from St Lnhe^ it was fidly aiisv/ereil 
 before (sect. 24.), and so you may once more go on, if 
 you please.
 
 140 No general Defection 
 
 SECTION XXXI. — NO GENEKAL DEFECTION FORETOLD BY 
 
 CHRIST. 
 
 <« G. — My lord, that state of the church {^viz. at the second 
 *' coming of Christ) is better represented by the seven tliou- 
 '* sand, who had not bowed to Uual, but of whom Eliah knew 
 '* none, was a state of segregation. There were particular 
 " persons, who kept \.\\c fuilh, but invisible to the world, or 
 " to one another: without any public worship, or so much as 
 " private meetings. For Eliah, would surely have known of 
 " these, and been the principal amongst them. Far less could 
 " they have had an orgaiiized church with pastors and rulers 
 " over them without being known to Eliah^ and to many 
 " more, even to their persecutors, who found out the most 
 " private recesses of the primitive christians, and their meet- 
 " ings, though in the most secret manner for divine worship; 
 " and their bishops too, whom they liuuled to prisons, and 
 *• to martyrdom : for they could not lie hid. And the faith 
 " was then visible, though under persecution. Therefore it 
 " must be a much more universal depravity and corruption 
 " of the church, of which our Saviour spoke, v,\\Gn faith should 
 *' not be found, at least visibly, upon earth." — pp. 43, 4i. 
 
 L. — Sir, our Saviour never said nor meant any such 
 tiling, if we may believe St Austin, and St Jerome above 
 mentioned [sect. 24.]. The Donatlsts indeed, whose com- 
 pany you have no reason to be proud of, maintained your 
 doctrine, and quoted the same passage of St Luke, which 
 you now repeat the third time, as if not answered. But 
 the whole Catholic Church opposed them, and St Austin 
 and St Jerome were her principal champions. Both of them 
 refuted the corrupt interpretation of the Donatists, and 
 both explained our Saviour's words in a sense opposite 
 to yours. So that your saying, that the state of the church 
 at the second coming of Christ is represented by the seven 
 thousand, who had not bowed to Baal, is begging the 
 question. For you confidently suppose that your inter- 
 pretation of our Saviour's words, though contradictory to 
 the sense of the ancient fathers, stands good: which will 
 never be granted. And so your flourish upon Eliah's 
 not knowing the small number of true believers, and his
 
 foretold hj Christ. 141 
 
 imagining himself to he alone, might have been spared. 
 In effect, all you can prove from it is, tliat as the church 
 of God was in the days of Eliah almost utterly ruined in 
 Israel, so it may at other times fail in any other particular 
 nation : which no man ever doubted of, since there are 
 but too many deplorable examples of it. But this is no 
 argument to prove, that the true faith will ever be so hid, 
 and suppressed throughout the whole world, that they, 
 who have a desire to embrace it will not know where to 
 find it. Neither was this the condition of the church in 
 the days of Eliah. For though it was oppressed to a very 
 great degree, and almost utterly extirpated in Israel ; it 
 flourished at that very time as much as ever in the king- 
 dom oi'Juda under the pious Josophaf, who was contem- 
 porary with Eliah. But this you did not think fit to 
 mention because you knew it would spoil your fine 
 flourish to all intents and purposes. If you have any thing 
 more to say, pray let us have it. 
 
 " G. — The state of the church before the second coming of 
 " Christ will be like to that before the flood represented by 
 ♦' the ark. Wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved. 
 ** And as the corruption of the old world was great, we may 
 •' suppose the corri»i)tion to be greater before tlie second com- 
 <' iug of Christ, as tlie destruction hyflre is more terrible 
 " than that hy wattr. However sucli a general corruption is 
 " here foretold, as will in no ways consist with the least sort 
 " of that visihiliti/, wliicli the Church of Rome requires as a 
 " mark of the true church, and to continue with her for 
 " ever." — p. 44;. 
 
 L. — Sir, you arc still begging the question, and build- 
 ing upon your former modest supposition, that your in- 
 terpretation of St Ijvhe is preferable to that of the ancient 
 fathers: which I make bold to deny, and shall always do, 
 till you cither convince me that the Donatists, who have 
 taught you your lesson, were no heretics ; or that the in- 
 terpretation of heretics is to be preferred before that of 
 the orthodox fit furs of the church. 
 
 It is true indeed the world will be very corrupt before 
 the second coming of Christ ; and it is of this great almn- 
 dance of wicked and scarcity of good men our Saviour's
 
 1 4*2 No ffeneral Defection 
 
 words of St Luke may be understood according to St 
 Austin. But the wheat and tares, that is, tlic /700<f and 
 icickcd arc to o-row to»"etlier in the same field \_the churcJiy 
 and this field will be very visible even until the harvest : 
 when both the good and wicked w'lW be consumed hyjire.- 
 which spoils in some measure your witty reflection upon 
 the dirterence between the two elements oi fire and xvater. 
 But pray, Sir, does not Christ tell us that the last ter- 
 rible persecution of antichrist will be shortened for the 
 sake of the elect? Now I presume the elect will not dis- 
 semble their faitJi, but profess it openly, and if they 
 jirofess it opeidy, will not the church be visible in their 
 persons? Will wot Enoch and Eliali appear visibly upon 
 earth to maintain the true faitli against the wicked anti- 
 christ? Finally, does not the word of God expressly tell 
 ns, that i\\e Jeics will be converted, and brought into the 
 fold of Chiist's church before the end of the world ? And 
 how then can it be true, that faitli will not be found upoii 
 earth at his second coming? For surely the Jews will not 
 be converted by invisible pastors, but by men openly pro- 
 fessing and preaching i\\c faith of Christ. All which are 
 sufficient proofs to convince any man, that the churcli of 
 Christ will be visible to the end of the world, and that faith 
 will be found upon earth at our Saviour's second coming. 
 
 " G — But, my lord, allowinf^ now that there will be a 
 " visible churcli in those days, then that church, at least the 
 " generality, which is the visibilitij, will f;ill from the faitli, 
 " else it will be visihlg to be found upon earth. And then 
 " men will be misled l)y the church, and those marks of visi- 
 " hiliti/, which the Church of Rome gives her ; in like niannor 
 " as they were misled by the church before, wlieu she com- 
 " manded them to rtijcct the Messias. He ccane tmto Ids oivn, 
 '< the church of the Jews, the only visible church then upon 
 " earth, but she received him not. John i. II. For she was 
 " corrupt and blinded under the mark of pharisaical sanctity, 
 " and strict obedience of the law, even the tithing of mint, 
 " anice, and cummin : she was zealous in the outward obser- 
 " vances, but neglected the weightier matters of the law, 
 '■^judgment, mercy, and faitli. Matt, xxiii. 23. And so it may 
 " be at the second coming of Christ, as it was at i\\e first: for
 
 foretold by Christ. 143 
 
 " there is no more promise of infallibility to the one state of 
 " the church than to the other." — pp. 44, 45. 
 
 L. — What, Sir ! j\Iay it be so at the second coming of 
 Christ in spite of his positive promise made to the chris- 
 tian church, that he ivillbe with her to the end of the ivorld! 
 Matt xxviii. 20. This alone, Sir, is an unanswerable 
 proof that the visible church at that time will not fall from 
 the faith, but thixt faith will then be visibly found upon 
 earth : and that by consequence men will not then be 
 misled by the church's visibility. 
 
 However I must here beg the favour of you to explain 
 to me the dark riddle you iiave just now proposed, viz., 
 that aUoicing a visible church in those days, yet that church 
 will then fall from the faith. Sir, if you mean that church, 
 which will be modelled by antichrist, who in all proba- 
 bility will be the last reformer in the world, there is no 
 doubt but his church will be both visible, and wholly void 
 of faith. But I think you and I have been hitherto dis- 
 puting concerning- the true church of Christ : and the 
 question between us is precisely this, viz., whether this 
 true church of Christ will be visible in those days ? Now 
 allowing (as you do) this church to be visible in those 
 days, I should be glad to know how it can at the same 
 time be the true church of Christ, and a church fallen froin 
 the faith, nay and misleading people by its visibility ? 
 This I confess apjicars to me to be a contradiction not 
 easy to be reconciled. 
 
 But the words you conclude with, are very surprising; 
 viz., that there is no more promise of i? fallibility to the one 
 state (f the church than to the other. 'I'hat is, to the church 
 of Christ, than to the Jewish synagogue. For surely, 
 Sir, you can never flatter yourself, that any man in his 
 senses will believe this, unless you first convince him that 
 (iod made a promise to the synagogue, that tlie gates of 
 hell should ntver prevail against it. Matt. xvi. 18; and 
 tliat he would be with it all days even wdo the end of the 
 world. Matt, xxviii. 20. Nay, on the contrary, the full 
 of the Jezcish church is clearly foretold in the Old Tes- 
 tament.
 
 114 The Difference between the 
 
 " G. — And in the Xew Tesloment, tliiit Christ at liis second 
 *' coming should not find faith nj)on earth." — ;;;. 45. 
 
 L, — Sir, i\\c Donatists w\{\i their protcstarit brethren 
 may fiml tliis in the Nezv Testament, but the ancient 
 fathers could find no such tiling; whereas they all clearly 
 saw the prophesies foretelling the apostact/ of the Jetvs. 
 
 SECTION XXXII. — THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 
 SYNAGOGUE, AND THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 « G. — IVIy lord, the Jews did not understand the prophesies 
 " against themselves. They said, that the church was the 
 " only i)itcipreter of scriptnros, and she must take the law 
 '< from the mouth of her priests. And the church did in- 
 " terpret these scriptures other\yise than Christ did." — p. 45. 
 
 Advertisement. — To these last wordsofthe gentleman /y?s lordship 
 in the former conversation is so weak as to answer, that Christ 
 being come he was then the church, and the gentleman refutes 
 him in a very serious manner. Which trifling stuff is here 
 omitted. 
 
 L. — Sir, as to what you tell me, viz. that the Jeius 
 did not iniderstand the prophesies against tJiemselves, I 
 must make bold to put you in mind of what you said in 
 your Christianity Demonstrated where after having men- 
 tioned the prophesies concerning the rejection, sufferings, 
 and death of the Messiah you make no difficulty to say, 
 p. 99, that before the coming of Christ the Jews understood, 
 those texts as we do to be certainly meant of the Messiah 
 and no other. But since that time they have forced them^ 
 selves to put the most strained and contradictory meanirgs 
 upon them. 
 
 There then you attributed the infidelity of the Jews 
 to the perverseness of their disposition, and to the most 
 affected and culpable ignorance that can be: such as came 
 from their forcing themselves to put the most strained and 
 contradictory meanings upon the texts rightly understood 
 by their own forefathers. But here you impute it not to 
 their malice as before, but to the great deference they had
 
 Synagogue and Church of Christ. 145 
 
 for tlieir cliurcli. And pray, Sir, what gave you this 
 new light, but the good inclination you have to catch at 
 any colourable pretence to run down the church's anthorit?/, 
 and condemn our submission to her judgment as a source 
 of seduction ? Whereas Christ has established her authority 
 in the plainest and strongest terms. First, by a positive 
 promise, that he xvill he tvith her to the end of the trorld. 
 Matt, xxvili. 20; Idly, by this unalterable maxim, viz., he 
 that hears you hears me, and he that despises you despises 
 me, Luke x. 16 ; and Zdly, by declaring that he who toill 
 not hear the church shall be reputed as a heathen and a 
 publican, Matt, xviii. 17. 
 
 G. — But were not the Jewish people also obliged to 
 receive the law from the mouth of the priest ? And did not 
 Christ himself command them to do as they were bid by 
 the Scribes and Pharisees, because they sat in the chair 
 of Moses? Yet their blind obedience to them was the 
 occasion of their ruin. And this is the case of the Church 
 of Home. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is certain the Jews were bound to obey 
 the authority of their church in every thing, wherein 
 there was not uncontestable evidence against it. But no 
 authority upon earth can oblige any man to a thing, that 
 is evidently unlawful. Now this was the case in relation 
 to Christ and the Jewish church. There appeared in 
 liis sacred person all the marks oi the true Messiah fore- 
 told by the ancient prophets even as understood by their 
 own forefathers. Particularly those relating to the tinier 
 place, and manner of his birth ; the holiness of his life ; tlie 
 purity of ids heavenly doctrine ; the deatli, he was to suffer 
 through tlie malice of his own people, and al)0ve all the 
 Stupcndious miracles wrought by him : the evidence 
 whereof was so strong, that it could not be contested but 
 by the blackest malice. Here then there was an uncon- 
 testable evidence of the trutJt of his doctrine, and by con- 
 sequence of the unlawfulness of obeying that autiu)rity, 
 which coiulemncd it. And till you can produce an evi- 
 dence as uncontestable as this against the Church of Homey 
 a parallel between iicr and the Jewish church (which is 
 
 H
 
 146 The Differ e7KC between the 
 
 the thing you drive at) is all froth and nonsense. But 
 whenever you produce an evidence against her equal to 
 this, I promise to become your proselyte. 
 
 As for instance, when you can shew me a reformer of 
 the faith professed by the Church of Rome, that has 
 been plainly foretold by the ancient prophets or apostles 
 under the character of a person sent by God : that has 
 given sight to the blind, speech to the dumb, hearing to 
 the deaf health to the sick, and life to the dead in testi- 
 mony of the truth of his doctrine, and by consequence of 
 the falsehood of the doctrine taught by the Church of 
 Home, I assure you, Sir, I will renounce that church to 
 embrace the reformation. Because no authority upon 
 earth can oblige me to believe any thing, that has such 
 uncontestable evidence against it. But since the very 
 reverse of all this is manifestly true, I tell you once 
 more that your comparing the danger of our submission 
 to the Church of Rome with that of the Jewish people to 
 the synagogue is as nonsensical, as it is malicious. 
 
 In a word, the diflferencc between the synagogue and 
 the church established by Christ, that is, the church in 
 communion with the successor of St Peter, is manifest to 
 any one, that will but open his eyes to see it. For 
 whereas Ch'ist has promised that the spirit of truth shall 
 abide for ever with his church, John xiv. 16. And that 
 he will be with it even unto the end of the world, Matt, 
 xxviii. 20. No such promise was ever made to the Jewish 
 church; on the contrary her apostasy at the coming of 
 the Messiah, was manifestly foretold, 
 
 *' C — My lord, it is perfectly begging the question of 
 *' the Jeivs to suppose that Christ was the Messiah. For 
 " that they deny, and bid us prove it. That is the whole 
 ♦' question between them and us." — pp. 45, 46. 
 
 Li. — Under favour, Sir, proving is not begging the 
 question, and we prove it with the utmost evidence from 
 their own prophets as explained by their own interpreterSj 
 and all verified in the person of Jesus Christ. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the Jews answer all this by the authority of 
 *• the church ; Avhich said, Have any of the rulers or Pharisees
 
 Synagogue and Church of Christ. 147 
 
 " believed in him 9 But this pecyple, xoho hnoicelh not the law 
 " is cursed, Joliii vii. 34. And they siiid that Christ worked 
 <' his miracles by Beelzebub, Miitt. xii. 24'. And who was to 
 " be the judge in this case, tlie jKople or the church ? Upon 
 *' the foot of the authority of the church it was impossible at 
 " that time for any man to be a christian. And therefore 
 " of all men christians have the least reason to insist npon 
 «« this."—;?. 46. 
 
 L — What, Sir, Imve christians of all men in the world 
 tlie least reason to insist upon the authority of the 
 rhurch established by Christ liimself! Tliis would soujid 
 well in the mouth of an independant ; but if this be the 
 doctrine of your church, I pray God to preserve me from 
 ever being a member of it. I am sure St Paul preached 
 no such doctrine. On the contrary in his epistle to the 
 Hebrews he takes care to instruct them in the important 
 lesson of submission to their spiritual guides. Obey them 
 that have the rule over you., and submit yourselves., Pleb. 
 xiii. 17. Aiul surely when Christ said, He that will not 
 hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a 
 publican, he did not intend her authority should either 
 stand for a cypher, or be a source of seduction to those 
 who should pay a submission to it. 
 
 You say the Scribes and Pharisees insisted upon the 
 authority of their church. I answer, they might have 
 lawfully done it, if there had not been uncontestable 
 evidence against it: and therefore JRoman Catholics have 
 a full right to insist upon the authority of their church, 
 till the like manifestmn\ tmcoidestable evidence be produced 
 against it by protcstarUs : which is the very thing we 
 have always most earnestly demanded ever since the 
 pretended rrforvuUion, but never could obtain. 
 
 You add, that the rulers or Pharisees attributed Christ's 
 miracles to Beelzebub, aiul ask, ivho was to bethcjudgein 
 this case, the people or the rhurch ? I answer neither the 
 one nor the other. For ('hrist was then the only infallible 
 judge, and his works gave testimony that his commission 
 was from God, and couhl not be questioned but by such 
 as were rotten at heart, poisoned with malice, and re-
 
 148 Of private Juilf/mcnt. 
 
 solved not to yield to the trutli. I heartily wish it may 
 not be the case of many at this time. 
 
 As to their attributing Christ's miracles to Beelzebub, 
 I answer, this was the most flagrant instance of the 
 corruption of their hearts, and of the most consummate 
 malice reduced to its very last shift. Nay C/irist himself 
 calls it blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. That is, 
 denying the manifest truth, and shutting their eyes 
 against the clearest light. In effect this proceeding was 
 as exorbitantly irrational, as if they had attributed all the 
 wonderful works of God to the operations of Satan. 
 
 Lastly you tell me, it was impossible at that time for 
 any to become a christian njjon the foot of the authority of 
 the church. To which I answer briefly as before, viz., 
 that the authority of the Jewish church was not to be re- 
 garded, or obeyed, when it commanded the rejection of 
 our Saviour ; because there was uncontestable evidence 
 against the lawfulness of it : as a child is not bound to 
 obey his father, if he commands him to commit murder : 
 nay he is bound not to obey him. 
 
 But I presume, that all you have now said is only to 
 prepare me to relish your darling doctrine of private 
 judgment in opposition to church authority. 
 
 SECTION XXXIII. — OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 
 
 " G. — My lord, private judgment is all we have for the 
 " belief of a God, and of Christ, and by your own concession 
 " for the choice of a church. And then we may well trust 
 "to it in smaller matters. In short, ice must trust to it in 
 " every thing toithout exception. For it is as impossible to 
 " believe any thing without our understanding-, as to see 
 " without eyes." — p. 46. 
 
 L. — Sir, if you mean nothing more when you say, 
 that we must trust to private judgment in every thing 
 without exception, than that we must never believe any 
 thing unreasonably, that is, without a sufficient motive 
 to believe it, 1 know not M'here you will find an adversary
 
 Of private Judgment. 149 
 
 to figlit against, and you only trifle with words instead 
 of disputing. For in this sense I believe all the dark 
 mysteries of Christianity by my own private judgment. 
 Because my own judgment tells me, that nothing is 
 more consonant to reason than to submit in things, that 
 are above my understanding, to the decisions of the 
 church, which is the greatest authority upon earth, and 
 established by God himself to direct me in the way to 
 salvation. 
 
 Nay I likewise agree to what you say, that private 
 judgmettt is all ice have for the choice of a church: because 
 the marks of the true church are of such a nature, as not 
 to be above the reach of a man's understanding to make 
 a judgment of them : whence it follows, that my own 
 private reason, after a diligent and impartial examination 
 of those marks, suffices to direct me to the church I ought 
 to choose for my guide. 
 
 But when this choice is once made, and when I have 
 now found the true church of Christ by the marks that 
 lead me to it, then the same reason tells me, that it is 
 most reasonable to depend upon her authority with an 
 entire confidence, and trust to her in every thing she pro- 
 poses as a revealed truth ; without pretending to examine 
 or canvass the myst( rits proposed by her, or to dive into 
 them by the mere light of human reason. And therefore 
 if your meaning be that we must employ our private rea- 
 son in examining and scanning those very mysteries, which 
 are above our reason, and that we ought not to believe 
 anything, but what our reason can comprehend, nothing 
 is more false or pernicious than your saying, that ice must 
 /rust to it in every thing without exception. For if we must 
 thus trust to its examination in every thing without ex- 
 ception, I cainiot see, how it is naturally possible but 
 that we nuHt be misled into a thousand errors, and that 
 there must be as great a variety of religions, as there is 
 oi private judgments. Pray tell me, Sir, is your private 
 judgment capable of discovering, examining, or under- 
 htauding the sublime mysteries of the holy trinity, incar- 
 nation, ^c.
 
 1 50 Of private Juihjincnl. 
 
 '• G. — My lord, my reason tells ino, tiiat tiiere must be 
 " many things in the nature of God, which I cannot under- 
 " stand or explain : becanso lie is iiijiiiite, and incontprehensi- 
 " ble. And these I take purely upon 7Cvcliition, tlhat is given 
 " of them in holy scnpfmcs. For my own reason could never 
 " have found tliem out, nor can perfectly understand them. 
 " Tiiey are dark to me like a country I never saw. I cannot 
 " have a right idea of it till I come thither : as I cannot of 
 *' heaven or llie state of separate so?cfs. Yet I cannot help 
 *' framing some conception to myself of what I know never 
 " entered into the heart of man to conceive: that is, aright, and 
 " according as these things are. Therefore I take not upon 
 " me to explain them. For tliat would be to involve myself, 
 <' and I know that I must greatly err." — p. 47. 
 
 L. — That is very right, Sir, and you do very prudently 
 in not taking- upon you to explain such dark mysteries. 
 But did not your reason tell you just now, that private 
 judgment is to be trusted to in every thing without excep- 
 tion ? And does the same reason now tell you again, 
 that there are many things, which must he taken upon pure 
 revelation ? Or do you call this trusting to your private 
 judgment'^ You may as well say, that a blind man trusts 
 to his own eyes, when he follows his guide. On the 
 contrary I call it subjecting our private judgment to the 
 revelation of God. 1 call it, as St Paul does, captivating 
 our reason and understanding unto the obedience of faith. 
 In a word, I call it submitting in all matters of faith to 
 the decisions of the church. Because whatever I take 
 purely upon revelation, I take upon the authority of the 
 church declaring such and sucli mysteries to be truths 
 divinely revealed. For the church is then properly my 
 guide, and the revelation of God is the motive, upon which 
 my faith is built: and my reason acts no other part than 
 that of an entire subinissicm. So that the true and only 
 use we are here to make of our reason is in this one act 
 of judging, that it is most reasonable, that men should 
 submit to that autiiority, which Christ himself has esta- 
 blished. And upon this head faith is always rational, 
 though rejison can never discover, nor understand, nor 
 explain the mysteries proposed.
 
 Of private Judgment. 151 
 
 <« G My lord, it would be as much against reason to 
 
 <' deny these, as to deny there is any country in the world, 
 " or star in the firmament, which I had not seen." — p. 47. 
 
 L. -Very right, Sir ; pray go on. For with a little 
 practice you will learn to speak truth. 
 
 " G. — And it would be much more unreasonable to think 
 " there is nothing in the nature of the infinite, which I did 
 " not comprehend ; or because that cannot be expressed but 
 " in words adapted to our understanding, therefore to mea- 
 " sure his nature by ours. And because Peter, James, and 
 " John are three men, therefore to think, Father, Son, and 
 " Holi/ Ghost must be three Gods." — p. 47. 
 
 L. — This, Sir, would be denving the first article of our 
 creed, and making reason dictate blasphemy to us. There- 
 fore we must take care not to trust to it in every thing 
 jcithout exception. 
 
 " G. — But when I say three persons with relation to the 
 " divine Trinity, there comes not such a thought in my head 
 *' as three persons of inen. But because personal actions are 
 " attributed to each of the divine Three, therefore we call them 
 " persons. Wiiich words the scripture applies to God. Heb, 
 " i. 3. Bat it is only or/ captum, as the schools speak. That 
 " is, condescending to our capacity, as when God is said to 
 " repent, to grieve, S)-c., it is not that we should think it really 
 " so ; for that would be contradictory to the nature of God. 
 *' But it conveys a notion to us that we should act as if it 
 " really were so, that God were nngry and grieved at our sins, 
 " and would repent of the blessings he has given or promised 
 " to us, if we take not lieed to walk in the ways, he has set 
 " before m."—p. 48. 
 
 L. — Sir, though you have expressed 3'ourself some- 
 what oddly, I am willing to put the best construction upon 
 your words, not doubting but you believe the incompre- 
 licnsil)le mystery of the blessed trinity as we do : wliicli 
 di'ists and SocAnians deny: because, say they, it is a con- 
 tradiction to the first principle of reason ; and they will 
 have nothing to do with revelation, but think themselves 
 easier without it. 
 
 « G. — Tlioy will not find it so. when tliey consider, that 
 ** they are in no less dillicnlties upon following tlieir own 
 " reason only. For example. Thoy allow n. first cause and
 
 ]j2 Of private Juihjmcnt. 
 
 " creator of all things, because iiotliing can make itself. And 
 " that first cause nuist have a ftecessari/ being, and conse- 
 " quently from all cteruily : and that eternity is a duration 
 ♦' without succession or time, or having any begintiiuf/ ; wliere- 
 " in all is present without either past, or to come. This the 
 " deist is forced to confess upon the conviction of his reason. 
 ♦« But he will not protend to have so much as any idea or 
 " conception of what this eterniti/ is, or can be : nor can he 
 ** imagine a duration without beginning, in which there is 
 " nothing past, nor any thing to come. Nor can he express 
 ♦* this any otherwise than in words of time, which we must 
 " own are not at all proper, nor applicable to it. The word 
 " beginning is inconsistent with eternity, and to say before 
 " the beginning is a contradiction. Here then the deist is 
 " lost, and must have recourse to the same excuse, which he 
 '« ridicules in revelation, viz., that we cannot speak properly 
 «' of God, nor in other words than belong to men: and that 
 " therefore these words are not to be taken strictly, nor 
 '*' argued upon, nor consequences drawn from them. For that 
 *' would involve us in numberless conti-adictions. And there 
 " is not an objection, which the deist ox Socinian makes against 
 " the doctrine of the holy Trinity, the incarnation, iyc, but are 
 " of this sort* by arguing from the nature of man to the na- 
 " ture of God, froin the persons of the one to the persons of 
 '• the other, &c., Avhich those men of reason think highly un- 
 " reasonable in their own case, as to argue from time to eter- 
 " nity." — p. 49 
 
 L. — This, Sir, makes it plain to a demonstration that 
 they, who will needs trust to their own private judgment 
 in every thing without exception, must unavoidably involve 
 themselves in a labryinth of errors and absurdities, from 
 which they can never extricate themselves. And it follows 
 I'rom it, that, in all points of revealed religion, the safest, 
 nay the only rational course we can take, is to submit our 
 private judgment to that authority, which Christ himself 
 lias established upon earth ; viz., his holy church, which 
 St Paul calls the pillar and grou?id (f truth. 
 
 As for instiince, how can you convince any man of the 
 inspiration of scriptures but from the authority of the 
 
 •Which is, according to logicians, the sophism "Transitus a 
 genere ad genus."
 
 Scriptures believed upon Authority. 153 
 
 cJiurch ? For if you will not build your belief of it upon 
 tliat authority^ 1 see not what other authority you can 
 allege for it. 
 
 " G. — Nor I neither. For I put it upon no authority. It 
 " is evidence, and not authority, upon which my belief of 
 " scriptures is founded." — p. 30. 
 
 SECTION XXXIV. — OF THE INSPI RATION OF SCRIPTURES. 
 AND WHETHER OUR BELIEF OF IT BE FOUNDED UPON 
 EVIDENCE EXCLUDING AUTHORITY. 
 
 Advertisement. — His lordship's answer in the gentleman's Case 
 Stated to what he said last, is so reinai-hahle a piece of nonsense, 
 that the gentleman himself (jivts him a civil reprimand for it ; 
 and goes on thus : 
 
 " G. — Authority and evidence are two things. If I believe 
 *' a thing for your telling me so without any other reasoji, 
 " tlien I believe it purely upon your arithority. But if a 
 '• man I never saw before makes a thing very evident to me, 
 " and convinces my reason ; I believe not then upon his 
 " authority; for he has none with me, but upon the evidence 
 '• he gives me. And what that evidence is upon which we 
 •' believe the holy scriptures is set forth in a little book, I 
 
 • had tlie honour to present your /o/v/A'/tJ/;, entitled the Truth 
 •• (f Christianity /)e?nonstraled, ^c, whirli was wrote to convince 
 " diists, who believe no church, nor church authority. And 
 
 • if you have no other evidence but the authority of your 
 " church to prove tlio truth of scrljdurvs, I see not how you 
 " will convince a deist, w lio denies botii. 
 
 " But if I tell him that I believe the scriptures, and the 
 '■^ facts therein related upon the same and nmch stronger 
 '• evid(!nce than 1 have lor believing that there was snch a 
 " man as Alexundcr or Cusar, that there is such a town as 
 " Rome or Constantinople, thongli I was never there, yet 1 
 " believe it not ii|)ori tlu; axUhoriti/, far less the infallibility 
 " of any man or iiiiniljer of men, that tell me so, but from the 
 " nature of the evidence, which makes it impossible for maii- 
 *' kind to concert such a lie, or to carry it on without being 
 " dete<:ted : and if the truth of chrii,ttanity, that is, of the 
 " scriptures, can be demonstrated, as plainly, as these other 
 
 II 2
 
 154 Scriptures believed 
 
 '• facts (wliich I think is done in the book I mentioned) 
 " then a deist iinist eilher be convinced or confounded. 
 
 " Now if you will let yonr church come in as a part of the 
 " evidence of c/iriatifnilfi/, she will not ho. refused so far as 
 «' her share goes. JJut upon her authority, and upon hers 
 " alone, the truth of scrij)tures and chrislianity, w'lW bo a jest to 
 " the deists, since lier authority can be proved no otherwis-e 
 " than by scriptures, and then back again the scripttires by 
 «' her aui/iorifi/." — pp. 50, 51. 
 
 j[;,._Sir this is repeating the old thread-bare objection 
 conccrniiig the circle, whereof enough has already been 
 said. But as to what you say concerning your Christianity 
 Demonstrated, 1 have read il with attention, and own yon 
 have proved clearly enough against the Jews and deists, 
 that the sacred person, whom \\q call Christ, is the Messias 
 foretold by the ancient prophets. But as to any proof, 
 that cither the Old or ISew Testament were writ by divine 
 inspiration (which renders them precisely the word of 
 God, and a rule of faith) I do not remember one single 
 argument in your book relating to that subject. Tiiere 
 is certainly a large difference between proving that the 
 fads contained in a book are triie, and that the person, 
 who wrote it, was divinch/ inspired. For several persons 
 have writ the history both of the Old and ISlew Testament, 
 and yet their books are neither canonical scriptures, nor 
 received by the church as divineli/ inspired, though the 
 facts contained in them be certainly true. 
 
 Now, Sir, the point, we have before us (and it is a 
 point of very great importance) is, how the revelation of 
 scriptures has been conveyed to us. I maintain that our 
 belief of it is wholly grounded upon authority, and so 
 did St Austin, when he declared, that he would not believe 
 the gospels themselves, itnless the authority of the church 
 induced him to it. Contra Epist. Fund. C. 4. You on 
 the contrary pretend, tliat it is cvide77ce and 7wt authority, 
 on ichich your belief of the revelation of scriptures is 
 founded. Your evidence, therefore must be such, as is 
 wholly independent of any authority. But for my part 
 1 know but two sorts of evidence, which are not
 
 upon Authorilif. 153 
 
 founded upon any authority^ viz., the evidence of our 
 senses, and the evidence of our reason, which is pro- 
 perly the result of a philosophical or mathematical demon" 
 stration. Now I presume, Sir, your eyes were never 
 sharp enough to see the revelation of scriptures. And if 
 you ever gratify the world with a philosophical or mathe- 
 matical demonstration of it, you will deserve to have 
 your statue set up in all the universities of Christendom. 
 
 I liave therefore reason to suspect, that the whole 
 evidence you boast of (though you assert positively that 
 it is evidence and 7io authority) is in reality no other than 
 the evidence of authority. That is, an authority so strong 
 and uncontestable, that all men of sense ought to yield to 
 it. Nay 1 do not only suspect you guilty of this trifliuf^' 
 equivocation in asserting one thing, and meaning another, 
 hut I will prove it plainly upon you from your own words. 
 
 For first you tell mo, that the evidence upon which 
 you believe the revelation of scriptures is of the same 
 Jiature as that, upon which you believe that there was 
 such a man as Alexander ov Cccsar, and that there is such 
 a town as Home and Constantinople. Now nothing is 
 more certain than that these, and other such like historical 
 facts are believed purely upon the testimony of me7i, and 
 the testimony of incn is what we call authority. And if 
 you in your Christianity Demonstrated have effectually 
 })rovcd that the canonicalncss, or revelation of all the parts 
 oi scripture has been as universally acknowledged by the 
 testimony of all mankind throughout all ages from the 
 time of the apostles, as that there was such a man as 
 Julius Ctcsar, which no man in his senses ever doubted 
 of: if I say, you have proved this effectually, I am 
 heartily glad of it. N;iy yon deserve immortal honour 
 for so Jioblc a performance; though I fear it is as yet to 
 be begun. However I desire you to give things their 
 proper names; and tell me no more that it is evidence^ 
 and not authority, upoij which your belief of scriptures 
 IS founded ; since, according to your own concession, it 
 has the same foundation as your belief of any unquestion- 
 able historical fad : and that is no other than the
 
 1 06 Scriptures believed. 
 
 universal testimony/ of mankind: wliicli, if you please, you 
 may call the evidence of auf/iorifi/, ;\ud then our dispute 
 isatan end: but you must never call it evidence excludiufj 
 ail authorifi/ ; since authority is the only ground and 
 foundation of it. 
 
 Which I prove Idhi, from your telling me that you 
 believe the scriptures from the nature of the evidence, which 
 makes it impossible for mankind to concert such a lie, or 
 carry it on icithout being detected. For is not this plainly 
 owning that all the evidence you pretend to is grounded 
 upon the testimony of mankind incapable of concei'ting such 
 a lie? Andean you call this believing upon evidence and 
 no authority without designing to convince the world that 
 you are only playing with words? 
 
 Thirdly, yon tell me that if our church ivill come in as 
 a part of the evidence of Christianity, she will not be re- 
 fused as far as her share goes. This is very obliging 
 indeed. However it seems then, that the testimony of 
 our church (which to the best of my judgment is the 
 testimony of men) may be a part of the evidence you speak 
 of. And is this any other than i\\Q evidence of authority? 
 It is therefore manifest from your own words that (though 
 out of an over eager desire to run down all church 
 authority, you will needs pretend that our belief of the 
 revelation of scriptures is founded upon evidence, and no 
 authority) you mean no more than a wretched equivoca- 
 tion in taking the word evidence, not as it is understood 
 by philosophers and divines, for a demonstrative knowledge, 
 but as it is used in our courts of judicature iox testimony , 
 or icitness. ^^'hich in reality is granting the thing, and 
 trifling with words. 
 
 G. — My lord, I have already told you, that if I 
 believe a thing for your telling me without any other 
 iiEASoN, then I believe it purely upon authority. And 
 can this be called the evidence of authority ? 
 
 L. — No, Sir. And therefore the authority, you have 
 described, is such, as none but fools and children would 
 depend upon. For who but fools and children will 
 believe a thing merely because they are told it, and without
 
 upon Authority. 157 
 
 any other reason ? Wise men proceed otherwise. Tliey 
 examine the capacity and veracity of the author, before 
 tliey give credit to his rekition. And this is something 
 more than hardy being told so. And according to your 
 notion, an authority well established ceases to he authority, 
 and you will needs have it called evidence : though at the 
 same time you mean no more than the evidence of axdhorily : 
 of which I am ready to allow you as much as you can 
 possibly make out for the canoniccdness and revelation of 
 scriptures, or any other article of faith. Nay the more 
 the better : provided you tell me no more, that it is evi- 
 dence and no author Uy upon which your belief of the 
 scripture is founded. l]ut pray, Sir, upon what grounds 
 do you reject those books of the Old Testament, which 
 you call apocryphal, and receive those you call canonical? 
 
 " G. — As to the apocryphal books, we received the canon 
 " of the Old Testament from the Jews, Avho never admitted 
 " them into the canon of their scriptures. And how should 
 " we know their canon better than themselves ?" — p. 52. 
 
 L. — A pretty sort of question for a christian to ask 1 
 For this is the ivuc English of it: How should the church 
 (f Christ be wiser, or know scriptures belter than thejetvish 
 synagogue ? Or thus. Is not the authority of the Jewish 
 synagogue ]> refer able to th<d of the church of Christ in the 
 decision of an article of christian faith? For my part, as 
 I profess myself to be a christian, and no Jew, 1 think 
 the judgment and authority of the church of Christ pre- 
 ferable to that of the Jeiuish synagogue ; especially in so 
 weighty a point as is the true canon of scriptures whether 
 of the Old or New Testament. For they are equally sa- 
 cred. And if I dare not trust the judgment of the Catholic 
 Church'm the one, I may as well question it in the other. 
 
 You tell me however, that wc received the caiu>n (f the 
 Old 'Testament from the church of tlie Jews-, and hero you 
 fairly own at least, that you believe the canon of the OA^ 
 'Testament n|ion the authority of the Jewish church. But 
 is not this a contradiction to what you told me just now, 
 viz., that you. t(dir the srriplu?-cs upon no cuiihordy? And 
 that it is evidence and ?iu authority, upon ivhich your belief
 
 158 Script teres believed 
 
 of the script urea is founded? Or is the Old Testntncnt no 
 part of scripture ? If tliorofore you receive tliat part of 
 scripture upon tiie authority of tlie Jeivish chvrc/i, how 
 cixn you after that refuse to receive the New Testnmeiit 
 upon the autlioriti/ of the Catholic Church without a mani- 
 fest )>reference of the Jewish syjiagogue to the church of 
 Christ? 
 
 " G, — My lord, as to the apocri/phal boohs of the Old 
 " Testament >ve were speaking of, we are sin-e they were not 
 " ill the cliristian canoii in the days of St Jerome, if he knew 
 " wliiit was received hy the churcli as the cayion of scripture. 
 '* For in his Prologiis Galeatns, printed before your own vid- 
 " gar Latin lie rejects them as apocryphal, and says they 
 *' were not in the canon of holy scriptures." — p. .52. 
 
 L. — It is true, Sir, lie does so. Yet in St Jeromes time 
 Innocent I., the third council of Carthage, and St Austin 
 held them for canonical. To these the Catholic Church 
 at last inclined, and weighed down the balance. 
 
 " G. — My lord, to say nothing of the books of Toby, Judithy 
 " and Wisdom rejected by us, I shall only make a sliort re- 
 " flection upon the books of Maccabees. For let any one but 
 " read the conclusion in excuse for the weakness of tiie per- 
 " formance, and then tliink it possible, if he can, tliat the 
 *' Holy Ghost should make such a speech as tliis. Jf 1 have 
 *' done wed, it is what I desired. JBut if I have not done my 
 " u'ork as it ought to be, I ask pardon for it. 
 
 « But as to a full examination of apocryphal books, and 
 " their authority, I refer your lordship to Dr Cosin's scholas- 
 " tical history of theca^o;* of lioly scriptures, not yet answered 
 " that I can hear of." — pp. 52, 33. 
 
 Z/. — Sir, how far Dr Cosin's sincerity and fairiiess in 
 writing may be depended upon shall in some measure be 
 examined hereafter. But as to your notable query, whether 
 any man can think it possible ihcd the Holy Ghost should 
 make such a speech ? 1 shall set the following queries 
 against it. Was it the Holy Ghost or St Paul, that left 
 his cloak at Troas., desired Timothy to bring it with him, 
 and gave his service to Priscci ixndArjuil/a ? 2 Tim. iv. 1 3, 
 1 9. Was it the Holy Ghost or St Patcl, that begged i)ar- 
 don of the Corinthians? 2 Cor. xii. 13. That desired
 
 upon Aulhority. J 59 
 
 their prayers? 2 Cor. i. 1 1. That was an idiot in speech? 
 2 Cor. xi. 6. That says, he sj^eaks foolishly ? 2 Cor. xi. 
 21. Could the Holy Ghost say all this? But might not 
 St Paul have the humility^ and be inspired by the Holy 
 Ghost to say it ? It is what 1 answer to your query. 
 
 But since you have already told me, that the canon of 
 the Old Testament was received from the Jeivs, though I 
 should rather think we are obliged more immediately to 
 the apostles for it, I hope at least you will allow, that the 
 canon of the Neiv Testament was established by the autlio- 
 rity of the church of Christ. 
 
 " G. — No, my lord, not at all by her authority." — p. 53. 
 
 L. — For shame, Sir ! But go on. 
 
 " G. — I say it was not at all established by her authority, 
 '• but plainly by evidertce. They proceeded wholly upon evi- 
 " dcnce,i'<r., whether such an epistle was senttosuch aclmrclj; 
 " as to the church of Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Sfc, who 
 " carefully kept the oriyincds, and sent copies to other cburch- 
 " es, as was commanded, Col. iv. 16. And by this commu- 
 " nication of the churches one with another the true scriptures 
 " were known ; and it is commonly set down at the end of 
 «' his epistles by ^liat hand they were sent. And by this 
 " method the spurious epistles and gospels forged by heretics 
 " were at first detected : as you will find in the last chapter 
 " of the Mth hook oi Eiisobius's Ec(;lesiaslical History: where 
 " it is told, that the heretics were brought to lliis test, and 
 " could not produce the originals, whence they took their 
 " copies : and that tlicir copies did vary from one another ; 
 " every one adding wliat opinion came into his own head : 
 " and that tliey could not tell from whom they learned such 
 •' doctrines. Thus the canon of the Nciv Testament was settled 
 " in those ages, when tbes(! evidences were fresh and notorious ; 
 *• and has been received since that time by all the christian 
 " churches in tlic world so unanimously, that there is no dis- 
 " pnte betwixt any churches conceriiiiig the canon of the New 
 *• Testament. A nd this is an evidence too strong for tiic caprice 
 •' of some particular men, who would shew their wit in making 
 «' objections against this or tliat j)art. IJiit they cannot liurt 
 ** tlie faith, because tin! u-holc. J'nilh is over and over again 
 " fully expressed and i-onlained in l!ios(! gospels and epistles, 
 " which are acknowledged by all." — pp. 53, 54.
 
 IGO Scriptures believed 
 
 L. — Really, ISir, such a wrctclu'd defence of scriptures, 
 as you have here niado, is worse than a satire or lampoon 
 upon them, and exposes them more than any thinsf to the 
 contempt of (it/icisfs and deists. For, to say nothing of 
 tlie hold falsehood, you have asserted, viz., that since the 
 Jirst ages there has been no dispute betivixt any churches 
 concerning the canon of the Nciv Testament^ I shall only 
 shew, you are still in your trifling mood, and calling that 
 (vidence, which in reality is nothing but authordt/. But, 
 to convince you how ill grounded your evidential system 
 is, I will not exemj)lify in the Revelations, or the epistle 
 to the Hebrews, or those other epistles, which, notwith- 
 standing your plain evidence, were doubted of for some 
 ages (as Dr JVcdton confesses, Prol. C. iv. sect. G, p. 31). 
 Nor will I instance in those parts of the Neio Testament, 
 which were not directed to any pa)-ticular church, and in 
 reference to which your whole system of pretended evi- 
 dence is altogether useless ; but I shall pitch upon the 
 very frst epistle of St Paul, which never was doubted of, 
 was directed to the Church of Rome, and brought thither 
 by the hands of a faithful servant called Phebc. 
 
 Now I allow of all the particulars of your evidential 
 system in relation to this epistle. As, that it was writ by 
 St Paul; that it was sent to the Church of Rome, by a 
 faithful hand ; that the Romans kept the original (which 
 Iiowever is now lost, and of no use to us) and sent copies 
 of it to other churches, to the end that if heretics should 
 attempt to corrupt the text, or hand about any sptcrious 
 epistle of St Paul to the Romans, their forgery might be 
 detected by this communication of the churches with one 
 another, and by comparing the copies with the true original. 
 
 This, Sir, is the evidence, you speak of, ))laced in as 
 advantageous a light as it will bear. But all the strength 
 it has is built upon authority. Forfrst, the churches, to 
 whiuh the copies of this epistle were sent, could have no 
 other evidence of its containing the pure ivord of God, 
 than what the Romans themselves had, from whom they 
 received those copies. And 2dly, the Romans could have 
 :io othe/ evidence, that the original contained the pure
 
 upon Authority. 161 
 
 word of God, tliaii what Phehe had, who brought it to 
 them from St Paul. If therefore Phehe herself had no 
 other evidence of its containing ihepure wordofGod than 
 the evidence of authority, your whole system of pretended 
 evidence without authority is a mere chimera. 
 
 Now it is manifest, that Phehe could have no other evi- 
 dence, than what 1 speak of. For let us suppose, if you 
 please, that Phehe not only received the epistle to the 
 Romans from St Paul's own hands, and heard him declare 
 that it contained the revealed trord of God, but even that 
 she stood by, and saw him write it. It is true indeed, 
 that in the supposition, I have made, it was evident to 
 Phehe' s sight, that the epistle was written by St Paul ; 
 and evident to her hearing, that St 7^fl«/ declared it to be 
 tlie xcord of God. But that it was really the word of God, 
 (and pray remark that our question is chiefly concerning 
 the revelation of scriptures,) this was neither evident to 
 her senses (for she coukl not see the revelation), nor to her 
 understanding convinced by any necessary conclusion 
 drawn from first and known principles. The ground 
 therefore of her belief of it was not evidence properly so 
 called ; but she believed it upon the credit, and unques- 
 lionahle authority of a person, whose veracity she could 
 not suspect. So that her belief of that epistle's containing 
 the word of Gad was resolved into the revelation of God 
 declared by St Paul, whose miracles gave weight and 
 authority to all he said or wrote. Her reason told her 
 indeed, that St Paul was a man to be believed ; as my 
 reason tells me, that the church of Christ is to be be- 
 lieved : and therefore St Paul having told her (as we 
 will suppose) that the epistle she carried, contained the 
 word of God, she concluded that she ought to l)elieve 
 him. But who sees not that this is both reasoning and 
 timcluding barely from authority ; and tliat the cvidtuce 
 she had was not an evidence excluding authority, but 
 Avholly built ujjon it.
 
 IC'2 Scriptures not fahificd 
 
 SECTION XXXV. — THE SCUIPTURES NOT FALSIFIED BY 
 THE CHURCH OF ROME. 
 
 Adveutiskment. — Pp. 54, 55, Case Stated, the gentleman an- 
 swers (in ohjcction of the deists against scri|)turcs. But his 
 answer containing nothing, but uhat a Roman Catholic 7nai/ 
 subscribe to, is here omitted. Then the discourse falls upon 
 various translations rj/scriptures, ohc/ the gentleman objects against 
 our Latin translation thus : 
 
 « G. — Wliiit signifies the Latin, which is not the vulgar 
 " language of any nation in the world? I say, what does 
 " this signify to the people, who understand it not ?" — p. 55. 
 
 /,. — S'n, to say nothing of thousands amongst the laitf/ 
 In all catholic countries, who understand Latin as well 
 as the clergy, pray what signifies the lazv of Great Britain 
 to the common people, who miderstand it not? Yet 
 they cannot fail to have the benefit of it as long as there 
 are judges and laivyers who understand it. And so will 
 the people have the benefit of scriptures, as long as there 
 are bishops and pastors to interpret it to them. But the 
 Bible is now translated into all languages. 
 
 " G. — This instead of an answer to the objection is own- 
 '« ing it to have hacnjust and necessary. And thus much the 
 '= people have gained by the reformation." — p. 55. 
 
 2y. — It was indeed very just and necessary, that when 
 corrupt translations were put into the hands of ignorant 
 people to poison them, true translations should be published 
 to hinder the poison from spreading. It is likewise 
 certaui, that the reformation has obliged us to answer 
 many childish objections never thought of before. Now 
 our translating the Bible into all languages is an eflfectual 
 answer to the frivolous objection of protestants telling 
 the people, that tue loch vp the scripf7ires from them. 
 
 «' G Alas, what has the people gained ? Tiiere is some- 
 
 " tiling worse than even a total locking up of the scriptures 
 " in these translations: that is, a corrttpti?ig the text to deceive 
 " the people, different from even your own vulgar I^atin 
 " translation, which you have authorized. This is made 
 " apparent in a collection printed here at London of the 
 " manv texts thus evidently abused both by adding to them,
 
 hy the Church of Rome. 163 
 
 '•' and taking from tliem, and misrepresenting tliem in the 
 " French New Testament printed in France for the new 
 " converts there. And tliis has occasioned the suppression 
 " of tliat Neio Testament, in so much tliat few of them are 
 <•' to be found. At least they are not publicly to be sold at 
 " Paris" — pp. 55, 56. 
 
 L. — This is one of the most extraordinary objections, 
 that ever was heard of. A corrupt translation of the 
 New Testament is printed at Paris. The book is sup- 
 pressed by public authority, and scarce a copy of it is 
 to be found. Ergo, we seduce the people by corrupting 
 the text. Ought you not rather to infer, that therefore 
 we are the sincerest people in the world in not suffering 
 corrupt translations to appear abroad, or suppressing 
 them as soon as is possible? 
 
 " G. — But tliere is a Louvain translation printed and sold 
 " at Paris Avitli approbations before it, and in this there are 
 " many mistranslations. I will show your lordship one : 
 " it is said, Acts xiii. 2. As they ministered to the Lord. The 
 " viihjar jAitin lias it mi7i>strantibns illis Donnno ; which is 
 " the same word for word. But this French translation has 
 '■ it thus : As they were offering to the Lord the sacrifice of the 
 <' mass." — p. 56. 
 
 L. — Well, Sir. but suppose that be the true meaning 
 of those wortls. 
 
 " G. — Your lordshi]} may suppose it if you please. But 
 '■'• what the import of the words is, or Avhat consequences 
 <• may be drawn from them is what we call cxjwsition, or 
 <' c^jmmenting- upon the text. But to alter the words of 
 " the text is of another nature, it is a false translation, and 
 " not an interpretation, and comes under that terrible curse 
 "pronounced, /("er. xxii. 18, 19, ajrainst those \\]\o add to, 
 '• and ditract from, or pervert the holy words of scripture. 
 " And to show that this was not done by cliance, and what 
 " use they intruded to make of this t(>xt thus translated 
 " they put upon tli(« margin, the holy mass : that the peojde 
 " might here find a plain text of scripture for the mass, and 
 " the sacrijicr. of it. And in the index (which is done by the 
 " same authority) upon the word inass this text is named 
 " ns a proof, that lUa apnstlrg did celebrate//?(/.w." — jip. 5(5, .'■>7. 
 
 Jj — Sir, if every addition (»f a word or two to clear
 
 1G4 Scriptures not falsified 
 
 the text be the same n^fthifying, or perverting the sense 
 of it, then tlic English protcstant translation is as guilty 
 as any. For nothing is more common in the protcstant 
 Bible than to find words inserted in a different character 
 to make out or cxphiin the text. Now I think it very 
 probable, that it was merely a mistake of the printer, 
 that these words of the mass, were not set in a different 
 character. And if this be the case (as I am sure you 
 caiuiot prove the contrary) then the translator is blameless, 
 and your objection frivolous. 
 
 But let us suppose it to be otherwise, if he has delivered 
 the true import, or meaning of the text, all he can be 
 charged with is, that instead of a verbal translation of 
 the text he has gone beyond his task, and given a faithful 
 exposition of it. But it can never be strained into what 
 you call a corrupting of the text to impose upon the 
 people. For a text is then properly said to be corrupted 
 for that end, when by adding, detracting (vom, or changing 
 aJiy word it is perverted from the sense, in which it is 
 usually understood. Now, Sir, the LouvaniaJi translator 
 lias done no such thing. For Erasmus himself translates 
 the text in question, as they were saciuficino to the 
 Lord: and it is now near 1300 Years, since the christian 
 sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ (which you 
 yourself [Cffse Stated, p. 42] have owned to be the most 
 solemn worship of God) was called the mass. For the 
 apostolical use whereof this text is a good proof, translate 
 it as you please. And therefore the Louvaniam translator 
 cannot be called a comtpter of the text: since he has only 
 «ielivered that sense, in which catholic divines usually 
 understand it. 
 
 " G. — My lord, I shall now give you an instance of sub- 
 " Iracting from the text. It is said, Heb. xi. 21, that Jacob 
 •' worshipped I-jti upon, or leanivg vpon the top of his staff. But 
 " this French translation leaves out the word sV/ upon, and 
 " renders it, that he worshipped the top of his staff". And in 
 " the index at the word adoration this text is quoted for the 
 <' adoratio7i of wood. Belike they thouglit there was some 
 ♦' image carved or painted on the top of Jacob's staff, which
 
 hy the Church of Rome. 165 
 
 " he worshipped. And so this is made a text for jcorsJtipping 
 " their ivooden images and jiictures. Especially the solemn 
 <' worship of the cross upon Good Friday . And who knows 
 '•' but the head of Jacob's staff was not round, but criitchwcq/s 
 '< set across (as is usual with old men) and then the stuff 
 ** was a perfect cross." — p. 57. 
 
 L. — A most ingenious reflection, and worthy of a 
 learned divine ! I presume, Sir, it is the antiquity of our 
 church (for she is full 1500 years older than yours) has 
 made you so charitable as to provide for her this /^ro- 
 tcstant crutch to support her. For to be sure no Roman 
 Catholic ever had so good a fancy as to think of it. But, 
 Sir, by the staff (which you are so very witty upon) is not 
 meant Jacob's staff, but Joseph's rod or sceptre, as I shall 
 shew immediately. And this utterly spoils your merrv 
 conceit upon old Jacob's crutch. However, since you 
 are in so pleasant a mood, it is a pity to interrupt you. 
 So let us have your whole tale out. 
 
 " G. — My lord, in the former text concerning the )nass 
 " this French translation adds to the words of your own 
 " vulgar Latin as well as the original. But in this last the 
 « vulgar Latin as well as llie French sul)tract from tlui" 
 " original, and both render this text the same way. But to 
 " do justice to all, the jwrt royal Bible delivers tliis text from 
 " the gross interpretation put upon it hy means of a false 
 " translation to favour the worship of wood.'' — p. 58. 
 
 L. — Sir, I have already answered your objection 
 relating to the former text. So now let us consider the 
 latter; and see whether the Louvaiiian, or the English 
 protcstaat translator be in greater danger of St Jolin's 
 curse. 
 
 You granted just now that the Louvanian translation of 
 the text before us agrees exactly with the vulgar Latin; 
 which (though disliked hy protestants, because it will not 
 do their business) has had tlie aj)probation of the unircrsal 
 church for many huiulred years before the reformation. 
 
 liut, Sir, I must tell you moreover, that the L^ouvaniati. 
 translation agrees not only with the vulgar Lntifi, but with 
 St Jerome also, who rfiulcrs this text word for word the 
 same way, vi/., adoravif fistlgima virga: tj'us [ Tom. i.
 
 16G Scriptures not falsified 
 
 ult. Edit Par. p. 1665]. So tliat you have both the vuU 
 fjar IaiHii, aiul St Ji[rt>;//t' against you. Aiul lie must be a 
 boUi man, who has the confiilence to accuse this great 
 ycwit and doctor of cormptiiiy the scriptures. And it he 
 lias not corrupted the text in question, the vulgar Latin, 
 which renders it as he does, cannot be taxed with it, and 
 the Louvanian translator, who follows both, must likewise 
 be acquitted. 
 
 As to the preposition l-l upon, which you complain is 
 left out; the objection is so very childish, that 1 am 
 almost ashamed to answer it seriously. However, to pre- 
 vent its being put into the catalogue of unansiverablcs^ I 
 answer, that the same sense is very often expressed either 
 with or without a preposition even in the same language. 
 As in Latin: oravitdoniinum, or oravit ad dominum. And 
 the same in Engliah. lie prayed God, or he prayed to God: 
 but in dift'erent languages nothing is more common. So 
 that provided the sense be faithfully rendered, whether 
 it be done by the same turn of phrase, or otherwise, 
 there can be no corruption, ox falsification in the matter. 
 
 The only question then is, whether the Louvanian or 
 English translation be the more faithful of the two in 
 delivering the genuine sense of the text, we dispute about? 
 1 have already told you that the Louvanian translation 
 has a person of no less credit and reputation than St 
 Jerome himself to vouch for it. But 1 shall now present 
 you with an old French protestant translation printed 
 An. 1540, which perhaps will please you better than St 
 Jerome's. Now this translation renders the text thus : I 
 shall repeat the whole verse. Par lafoy Jacob mourant 
 hencist tin chacun des fils de Joseph, et adura veus le 
 soMMET DE LA VERGE d'icei.uy. Hcb. xi. 21. The 
 English whereof is thus: By faith Jacob blessed each of the 
 sons of Joseph, and icor shipped (or bowed down) towards 
 tlie top of his rod. Meaning the rod oi Joseph, which vas 
 his badge, or mark of authority. For Joseph was the 
 second man in the kingdom, and governor of all Egypt. 
 
 Now I presume you will easily grant that a protestant 
 translator will not corrupt the text in favour of popery.
 
 by the Church of Rome. 167 
 
 Let us then see whether \\\\i French protestant XxTxuiA-diKm 
 comes nearer to the Louvanian or English translation. 
 The Louvanian translation is thus: By faith Jacob dying 
 blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshipped the top 
 of his staff. And the French protestant translation thns : 
 And lie worshipped towards the top of his rod or sceptre^ 
 which is very different from the English version, leaning 
 upon the top of his staff, but afj-rees with the Louvanian 
 translation. For to icorship tJie top of his staff' menus in 
 that place the very same as to make a bow to, or towards 
 the top of his staff, and is no more an argument in favour 
 of idolatry, than bowing- to the chair of state to honour 
 the king. But it is a very good proof for the lawfulness 
 of our worshipping Christ by bowing to his images or pic^ 
 tures. For Joseph's sceptre, to which Jacob bowed, was 
 a type of Christ's spiritual power and kingdom : and his 
 bowing to it was a prophetic action, as the most learned 
 connnentators observe. Nay St Paid says that it was 
 done by faith. 
 
 I observe 2dly, from this French protestant translation, 
 that the preposition l-i, for whicli you are so zealous, 
 does not only signify 7(pon, but also to or towards : and 
 therefore was not omitted with design to change the sense 
 of the text: since it may be kept without any alteration 
 made in the true import of it. 
 
 I observe again, that the French word iceluy points 
 plainly at Joseph ; as does the Greek word uuroZ, which 
 signifies ejus. Whereas if Jacob's staff, and not Joseph's 
 rod or sceptre had been spoken of, the Greek would liave 
 been u.jt(jZ, and the Latin succ. 
 
 1 observe lastly, that your saying, that this is made a 
 text for worshipping our wooden images and pictures is a 
 false and malicious insinuation. Because it is false to say 
 that we worship images and pictin-cs in the sense that 
 the word worship is generally understood by your church. 
 That is, for an act of divine honour. Though it be true 
 that this text is made use of to prove that it is lawful to 
 worship Christ by paying a relative honour to his images 
 and pictures: as it was lawfid for Jacob to worship Christ
 
 IGS Scriptures not fahijied 
 
 in spirit by bowitii^ to ,h)sr/)h\<; rod or sceptre, wliicli was 
 a tj/pc of him. Now, Sir, you may proceed, if you please. 
 
 " G. — fii (lie other French Iranslatlnn I mentioned before 
 *' made fitr the use of new converts, this expression, 1 Cor, 
 " iii. 15, of some that shall he saved with great difficulty, a* 
 " if passing throucjh thcftrc, is boldly rendered the fire ofpnr- 
 " gatorj/, as the words of the text without any different 
 '< character, as is used with us, when a word is put in to 
 " make English of an Hebrew or Greek idiom. But in this 
 " Louvanian translation the text is let stand, so as hy fire. 
 " Only ])urgatory is put in the margin in this edition made 
 *' since the objections against the other translation ; in which 
 " the addition of purgatory to this text is particularly taken 
 '•' notice of." — p. 58. 
 
 L. — Sir, 1 find then that tlie Louvanian translation is 
 wholly blameless as to this text, since it only exi)lains it 
 in the margin ; and that in the very same sense as St 
 Austin, aiul many more of the ancient fathers have done 
 in their writings. But, as to the other translation made 
 for the neiv converts, I refer you to my former answer, 
 viz., its being entirely suppressed. Which suffices abun- 
 dantly to convince any man of tlie frivolousness and in- 
 justice of your reproaching us with it. And let me tell 
 you, Sir, if the rulers of your church were as honest and 
 sincere, as those of ours, your English Bible would have 
 undergone the same fate a hundred and fifty years ago. 
 
 <« G. — Mv lord, I could give you more of the corruptions 
 " of texts in the French translations. I have now only named 
 *' three. One of the sacrifice of the mass ; another for tlie 
 " adoration of the cross and images, and one for purgatory." 
 —p. 58. 
 
 L. — I doubt not, Sir, but you have picked out the most 
 notorious ones ; and, it is a sign you are but ill provided, 
 since those arc the choicest of your whole stock. For I 
 cannot think you are disposed to favour me. But pray 
 take notice. Sir, that in the odious subject, we are now 
 upon, you have been the agressor. You cannot therefore 
 take it ill, if I make reprisals, when occasion shall serve. 
 It seems your conscience is very squeamish as to some 
 unauthentic translations of ours. You cry out, Alas!
 
 hy the Church of Borne. 169 
 
 What has the people gained? The least ^;m^ chokes you. 
 But, as to your own protestant translation put forth, ap- 
 proved, and maintained by the whole authority of your 
 church, you can swallow camels without the least alas, 
 or pious groan to lament the danger the people is in of 
 being poisoned by it ; as I shall show hereafter, when we 
 come to the subject of communion in one hind, and the 
 single life of priests. In the mean time I refer you for 
 full satisfaction to the Church of Christ Shelved, ^c. Part I. 
 C. vi. sect. 7. Where you will find reason enough to 
 employ your zeal more usefully in taking care that your 
 own people be not here seduced by false transhitions, 
 than in shewing so much concern for your jJrotestant 
 brethren or new converts abroad. 
 
 " G. — But the people are seduced by tliem. The people 
 " believe as they are taught. There is small security to them 
 " in the abstruse questions concerning- infaliihility ; how far 
 " it extends, and in the disputes between popes and councils 
 " about it. These are questions, of which J suppose your 
 •' lordship will easily grant the common people are no judges. 
 " They know nothing of the matter. How should tliey, 
 " when the learned are divided among themselves concerning 
 " them?" — p. 59. 
 
 L. — Sir, the people understand nothing of the abstruse 
 questions concerning the blessed Trinity, yet I hope they 
 can believe it, when tliey are told they must, without 
 understanding it. And so tliey can believe the church's 
 infallibility without understanding the questions about it. 
 
 " G. — However this infallibilily, if it could be found and 
 " fixed, would be of little use to the generality of the people, 
 " unless their curates, and thc'w fat/iers and mothers, who in- 
 " struct them were likewise all of them in fallible. For, as 1 
 " said, they believe as they are taught, and examine no far- 
 " i\\cv."—p. .59. u 
 
 Ij — Sir, if tliey be taught by, and follow an infdlibk 
 guide, I am sure they will not err. And as long as men, 
 \\\o\v^\\ fallible themselves, can, and do but faithfully de- 
 liver the doctrino of an infallible church, I am likewise 
 very sure, that even the most ignorant people, who suHcr 
 themselves to be instructed by them, are in no danger of 
 
 I
 
 J70 lufallihiUtu hinders not 
 
 being seduced. So that I am surprised at what you say, 
 viz., that this iitfallibilili/^ thuiujh it could be found and 
 fixed (as 1 sluiU shew liereai'ter it can), lootddbe of little 
 tise to the generalitii of the people, ntdess their curates, and 
 fathers and mothers, who instruct them, were likewise in- 
 fallible. This, I say, surprises me, because it follows from 
 it, that the scriptures themselves, though infallible in what 
 they teach, are of little or no use to us, because they, who 
 read them are not infallible. 
 
 SECTION XXXVI. — WHETHER INFALLIBILITY EXCLUDES 
 
 j;XAMINATH)N. 
 
 ** G. — My lord, we suffer our people to examine. But 
 *' yours are forbid to exaniino. For that implies a doubt: 
 *' and they are not to doubt of the relig'ion they are taught, 
 " but to receive without any doubt what has been told thera 
 •' by the curate, their fathers, mothers, and nurses, and what 
 *' is current in the country where they live. This is all the 
 *' itifallibiliti/, of which they are capable. And this is the way 
 " of all the earth. It is thus that the generality of mankind, 
 " whether heat/tens, Jews, Mahometans, or christians receive 
 *' their religion. And without examining into what we have 
 " been taught no man would change his religion. None could 
 *' ever have become a christian, especially a Jew, who had the 
 •' authority of his church against Christ, to which church he 
 " alleges promises oi' perpetuity, aiidi?ifallibilitt/." — pp.39, 60. 
 
 L. — Sir, we shall never make an end, if 1 am bound 
 to repeat my answers as often as you repeat your objec- 
 tions. And therefore, as to what you say concerning the 
 generality of mankind choosing their religion by education, 
 1 refer you to what I have already said to it (sect. 28). 
 And, as to what you add concerning the Jeivs alleging 
 their promises of perpetuity and infallibity against the 
 authority of Christ, I have fully answered it (sect. 32). 
 All then I have now to do is to consider,j'?rs^, what truth 
 there is in your saying, that we forbid the people to ex- 
 amine the grounds of their religion? And 2dly, whether 
 all such examination implies a doubt ?
 
 Exaiuinatlon. 171 
 
 As to i\iQjirst, I assure you, Sir, there is nothing- we 
 desire more, than that every one, who is come to matu- 
 rity of judg-ment, should examine seriously the grounds 
 of his religion : because we are sure there is nothing will 
 contribute more to strengthen them in the faith they pro- 
 fess. What was it that kept ^t Austin steady in his faith 
 against all the crafty reasonings, and allurements of the 
 Manichees ? Let us hear his own words. 
 
 Not to speak of that wisdom (says he) which you do 
 not believe is in the Catholic Church, there are many other 
 things, which most justhi keep me in her communion. Ist. The 
 agreement of people and nations liolds me. 2d. Authority 
 begun icith miracles, nourished with hope, increased by 
 charity, confirmed by antiquity holds jne. 3d. A succession 
 of bishops descending from the see of St Peter, to whom 
 Christ after his resurrection comtnitted his flock to the pre- 
 sent episcopacy holds me. Lastly, the very name of catholic 
 holds me: of which this church alone has, not without 
 reason, so kept the possession, that, though all heretics 
 desire to be called catholics, yet if a stranger asks them, 
 where catholics meet, none of the heretics dares point out his 
 own house, or his own church, Sfc. Contra Epist. fund. C. 4. 
 
 These were the motives, that kept St Austin stedfast 
 and immoveable in the faith he bad eml)raced. And 
 these motives are so plain and intelligible, that every 
 man's private reason is capable of making a true judgment 
 of tiiem. TJierefore the more they are examined, pro- 
 vided it be done without prejudice or passion, the more 
 firmly they will hx those, who consider them, in the 
 security they have in that religion, which is founded 
 upon them. And has not every Roman Catholic the 
 very same motives, that St Austin had to keep him sted- 
 fast in his faiih ? Truly, Sir, it is no small comfort to 
 us, that when we are questioned about our religion, wc 
 can answer for ourselves word for word what St Austin 
 said to the Manichees, which no member of any reformed 
 church can do without talking nonsense. 
 
 Pray tell me, Sir, ir> what nation under licavcn beyond 
 the British dominions has the religion of the Church (f
 
 172 Infallibility hinders not 
 
 England as distinguished from popery and the other 
 reformed churches, ever been received ? That nation is 
 not yet discovered. You cannot therefore pretend to 
 what St Austin calls the agreement of people and nations: 
 much less to the antiquity, St Austin speaks of. Since 
 your church or religion is not yet 200 years old. 
 
 2. What evidence of miracles can you shew, that may 
 be a rational inducement to any man to believe that the 
 reformation is of God, and has his seal to it ? On the 
 contrary you ridicule all miracles, because you are con- 
 scious to yourself, that you have none to lay claim to. 
 Whereas our religion was never planted in any idolatrous 
 nation, but had undoubted miracles to vouch for the 
 truth of it. 
 
 3. How can the name of catholic belong to you, since 
 you have no universality either of time or place, as I 
 have observed already, and shall shew more fully here- 
 after, (sect. 54.) 
 
 4. How can your bishops and parsons derive their 
 succession from the apostles ? Can you satisfy me in 
 this one thing? viz., by whom yonv first protestant bishops 
 were sent, or who gave them their commission to preach, 
 and administer the sacraments ? Was it the secular power ? 
 That is nonsense. For no man can give that power to 
 another, which he has not himself. Were they the 
 catholic bishops their immediate predecessors ? That is 
 wholly incredible. For what king was ever so mad as 
 to grant commissions to levy forces against himself? 
 And it would have been the same extravagant madness 
 in catholic bishops to have commissioned their immediate 
 successors to preach protestant doctrine, and cut the 
 throat of their own church. Add to this, that in the 
 reign of queen Fdizabeth the ancient catholic bishops 
 disowned your pretended bishops and parsons as a spurious 
 race ; and were violently deprived, and condemned to 
 prison or banishment for refusing to comply. 
 
 Nothing therefore can be more ridiculous than to pre- 
 tend to have a mission from our church : and hence it 
 follows plainly, that your fivfit pretended bishops and their
 
 - Examination. 173 
 
 inferior clergy had no mission from any authority originally 
 derived from the apostles, and that, by consequence, they 
 entered not by the door, into the sheepfold^ but as thieves 
 and robbers. John x. 1. 
 
 You have not tlierefore so much as any one of those 
 marks of the true church, or motives of credibility, (as 
 divines call them) which not only drew St Austin from 
 heresy, but fixed him immoveably in the Catholic Church. 
 Whereas I defy you to shew that any one of these marks 
 is wanting to ours. 
 
 We have therefore no reason to debar our people 
 from examining the grounds of their religion. For it will 
 stand the test of the strictest examination; and we only 
 wish protestants would examine impartially the grounds 
 both of their own religion, and ours. For if the con- 
 siderations of interest, and prejudices of education were 
 laid aside, they would find antiquity, catholicity, miracles, 
 succession, and mission derived from the apostles on our 
 side, and not one of these marks on theirs. Nay they 
 would find the reformation, whether considered as to the 
 motive of its beginning (which was to satisfy the luxury 
 of a wicked and arbitrary prince) or the means used for 
 its progress, viz. violence, sacrilege, and plunder ; they 
 would find it, I say, branded with such marks of infamy 
 confessed by their own writers, as would convince them, 
 that the Holy Ghost had no part in such counsels. I 
 will only add, that there is not a protestant in the world, 
 but if he traces the reformation of the church, whereof 
 he is a member, to its source, he will find, that either 
 avarice, ambition, revenge, or some other criminal passion 
 gave a beginning to it. 
 
 It is therefore plain, wo are not afraid to have the 
 grounds of our religion looked into cither by catholics or 
 protestants. Now let us consider whether all examination 
 implies a floubt. For my part, I have often examined 
 my religion ; yet I do not remember I ever doubted of 
 it in my whole life. I5ut give me leave to ask you. Sir, 
 whether you doubt of the scriptures? 
 
 G. — Not at all, Jiiy lord.
 
 174 InfaUibililij hinders not 
 
 L. — Yet you examine and search the scriptures. And, 
 by consequence all examination does not imply a doubt. 
 I ask again, whether the scriptures be not infallible in 
 what they teach ? 
 
 G. — 1 cannot deny it. 
 
 L, — As therefore in fallible scriptures do not hinder us 
 from examining our education^ and how we came by our 
 religion, so neither does an infallible church bar any 
 such examination. St Paid exhorted the Thessalonians 
 to prove all things. 1 Thes. v. 21. But I hope ho did 
 not exhort them to doubt of all things : that is, of all the 
 mysteries of christian religion. 
 
 G. — My lord, when we discoursed oi private judgment 
 (sect. 33.) you required nothing less than an entire sub- 
 mission to the church. Now I cannot comprehend how 
 submitting and examining can be reconciled together. 
 This looks something like a contradiction. 
 
 L, — It will do so, if you remember but one part of 
 what I said, and forget the other. For I distinguished 
 tliea between the motives of credibility^ which lead us to 
 the true church of Christ, and the mysteries oi faith, 
 which that church declares to be revealed truths. The 
 motives of credibility, or marks of the true church of 
 Christ are the proper subject of our examination. Nay 
 we cannot examine them too seriously. For they are pro- 
 portioned to our understanding, and it is by this examina- 
 tion we prove all things, because all depends upon it. 
 But when by this examination we have once found the 
 true church of Christ, we are then bound to submit to 
 her in every thing : and nothing is more reasonable than 
 this submission. Because nothing is more consonant to 
 reason than to submit in things, we do not understand, 
 to that authority, which God himself has established. 
 
 It is thus a wise man acts in all temporal concerns. If 
 he has a journey to go, and wants a guide, he seeks out 
 the best that is to be found, and then is wholly guided 
 by him. If he be sick, he inquires after the ablest 
 physician. But when he has made his choice, he suffers 
 himself to be governed by his prescriptions. If he be
 
 Examination. 1 75 
 
 engaged in a hiwsuit, his whole inquiry is to find out 
 the best lawyer to manage it. But when he has found 
 him, he is directed by him in every thing. 
 
 And it IS thus we must proceed in the great concern 
 of our eternal salvation. God has revealed many truths, 
 and we are bound to believe them. But these truths 
 being dark mysteries, and above our comprehension, how 
 must we know that God has revealed them ? We must 
 hear the church of Christ, which being the pillar and 
 ground of truth, 1 Tim. iii. 15, all revealed trutlis are 
 depo'iited with hor. But how must we know the church 
 of Christ from otlicr heretical communions, which pretend 
 to be that church ? We must know her by the ninrh.% 
 I have already mentioned; which are so strong and clear, 
 that they render it morally evident, that the church, 
 they belong to, is tliat, with whicli God has deposited 
 all truth accortliug to the promises of Christ. Now 
 whoever has a moral evidence that God has deposited all 
 truth with this church, lies under an indispensable obliga- 
 tion to believe whatever she declares to be a revealed 
 trtUh. Because, as a moral evidence that God has com- 
 manded any thing, obliges us to do it, so a moral evidence, 
 that God has revealed any thing, obliges us to believe it. 
 Nay a man would act most unreasonably, if he did other- 
 wise. Because reason tells a man, that he ought to 
 believe every thing, of the truth whereof he has a moral 
 evidence or certainty ; which of its own nature excludes 
 all rational doubt or fear of falseiiood. And thus it is, 
 that faith is aluays rational, though the mysteries we 
 believe be above our reason ; and therefore cannot be 
 scanned or searched into by human reason. Whence it 
 also follows, that we always stand in need of a living 
 jud'jp, or visible guide to direct us in the way to salvation ; 
 and Christ hirnst-If w;is this living judge, whilst he was* 
 upon earth.
 
 176 The Necessity of 
 
 SECTION XXXVII. — THE NECESSITY OF A LIVING JUDGE. 
 
 '• G. — This is gratis dictum, and begging tlie question of 
 " the Jews, as I have already said : who upon the authority 
 *' of their church deny Christ to be tlie Messias. I will not 
 " repeat ; only ask these few questions " 
 
 L. — Hold, Sir, you say you will not repeat; and yet 
 you do repeat. And it is now the third time you tell me 
 that I beg the question of the Jews in saying that Christ 
 was the Messias, and by consccjuence the living judge. 
 But under favour, Sir, 1 have fully proved it. So let us 
 hear your questions. 
 
 " G. — I ask \\\Q\\ first, who was the living judge before the 
 '^ fiood? For you say there must be always one, and so does 
 " the bishop of Bleaux. 2d. Was Abraham who was known 
 " only to a few neighbours, and wrought no miracles to con- 
 *' vince others, was he, I say, given as such a guide or judge 
 " to the whole earth ? And Christ was not so great a tra- 
 " veller as Abraham" — p. GO. 
 
 L. — It seems then it is your opinion, i\v^t zs Abraham 
 ^vas not sufficiently known to be the living judge to the 
 whole earth, so Christ, who was not so great a traveller 
 as Abraham, was still less qualified for it. Really, Sir, 
 I think you are too free with the sacred person o( Christ; 
 and your observation of his not being so great a traveller 
 as Abraham is both frivolous and disrespectful. Christ 
 came to preach the gospel to the Jews alone, and I pre- 
 sume he made himself sufficiently known to the Jewish 
 church to be their judge oi faith. The conversion of the 
 Gentiles was reserved for the apostles, who founded that 
 church, which was to continue to the end of the world, 
 and be governed (according to God's own appointment) 
 by their successors the bishops united like them under 
 one head: now these compose that body, which to the 
 world's end is to be that living judge of faith, concerning 
 which the dispute precisely is between protestants and us. 
 So that your questions concerning the living judge before 
 the flood, and in Abrahatn's time, are wholly out of the 
 way. This however we are sure of, viz. that God always 
 had a true church upon earth, that is, a church visibly pro-
 
 a living Judge. 177 
 
 fessing tlie true faith : which was lianded down thrquohout 
 all generations from Adam and his children to Noah .- 
 from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Moses ; 
 who was the founder of the Jewish church, which in her 
 priests and prophets was the living judge of faith, and in- 
 terpreter of the Liw till the coming of Christ. Kow since 
 christians have likewise a icritten law, which they regard 
 as a rule of their faith, and this law contains many sublime 
 mysteries, about which there have been, and will be fre- 
 quent disputes to the end of the world, how can these 
 ever be determined, if there be not a living interpreter 
 vested with full authority to pronounce a definitive sen- 
 tence ? It is manifest, that since the dead letter cannot 
 speak for itself, the christian law without a living inter- 
 preter can be no rule of christian faith. 
 
 Suppose there were a nation, that should give full 
 liberty to every one to interpret the laiv by his own pri^ 
 vate judgment; would it be possible in that case either to 
 condemn any criminal, or put an end to any law-suit? 
 Nay would not anarchy and confusion be the unavoidable 
 consequence of it ? The matter is beyond all dispute. 
 And therefore there is not a civilized nation in the world, 
 but has a supreme tribunal established, from which there 
 is no appeal. I oidy desire you to apply this to the church 
 of Christ, and you will soon find the necessity of a living 
 judge of controversy. If you have any questions to ask 
 concerning this church, I am ready for you. 
 
 « G. — Pray, my lord, whore was the living judge wlien 
 " Christ \vas dead ? And, if tliere was none for three days, 
 <• it might be so for tliree or four liuiidred years, and for 
 " good ami all. IJccausc the argiiint'iit fails for the necessity 
 " of a judge always in being. You will not say tlie church 
 " of Christ can fail for three days. The 7>ro?«2se6- of God can 
 " never fail ; no not for a inon\ent." — i>p. GO, 61. 
 
 L. — That is very right, Sir ; 1 am glad to hear you 
 speak truth sometimes. God's promises to his church can 
 never fail ; no not for a moment. Nay this is the very 
 foundation of her perpetual infalUbililg, against which 
 th.c gates if hill icill never prevail. J Jut what do you infer 
 
 1 2
 
 178 The Church did not fail 
 
 from thence? Yoti ask mo, icho was the livivr/ judge ^ 
 'ivhcn Christ was drad? I answer, tliere was none for 
 those three days. For Christ was dead, and the apostles 
 had not yet received their commission. 
 
 G. — 'rhen, my lord, it is false what you say, that there 
 must always be a living judge. And as 1 told you, if there 
 was none for three days, it might be so for three or four 
 hundred years, and so for good and all. 
 
 L. — Most stoutly argued ! But let us see, whether 
 bishops, pastors, and the whole hierarchy be not rendered 
 useless, and a mere unnecessary lumber by the force of 
 this killing argument. God preserved his church for 
 three days without bishops or pastors to govern her. 
 Therefore neither bishops, nor pastors, nor hierarchy, 
 nor govei'nment, are necessary for the church's preserva- 
 tion. Whatever answer you give to this trifling argument, 
 will fully answer yours. For either the church fell at the 
 death of Christ, and that will shew the necessity of a 
 living judge: since it could not subsist without one even 
 for the short space of three days. Or it did not fall, and 
 then it is no more an argument against the necessity of 
 a living judge, than against the necessity of bishops and 
 pastors for its government. But I hope you will upon 
 second thoughts find some difference between three days, 
 and three hundred years or more. However since yon 
 insist with that rigour upon the word always, I must 
 crave leave to understand \t morally ; which suffices to 
 verify any assertions of this nature, unless men are dis- 
 posed to be childishly scrupulous about the matter. 
 
 SECTION XXXVIir. THE CHUKCH DID NOT FAIL AT THE 
 
 DEATH OF CHUIST. 
 
 G. — But will yon then own, that the church and pro- 
 mises of God failed in those three days ? 
 
 Z/. — No, Sir, our Saviour's promise of infallibility to 
 his church neither did, nor could possibly fail at his death, 
 as not being then yet in force ; for a promise cannot be
 
 at the Death of Christ. 1 79 
 
 broken before it is in force ; and the promise we speak 
 of, was not to begin to be in force till after the coming 
 of the Holy Ghoftt, the author of its infallibility; as is ex- 
 pressed in the very words of the promise. Her infallibility 
 is therefore dated from that time forward : so, thoug^h it 
 were true that she failed at our J^uviour's death, this failure 
 would be no aro;ument against her infallibility after the 
 coming of the Hohj Ghost^ but only against her infalli- 
 bility before it. But I absolutely deny, she failed even 
 at that time : prove it, if you can. 
 
 «' G. — Of the apostles, one betrayed Christ : another for- 
 *• swore him ; and tiiat was St Peter: all forsook him." — p. (Jl. 
 
 L. — This is a signal mark of your great respect for 
 the apostles in treating them all alike as apostates. But 
 with your leave, Sir, I shall make a great difference be- 
 tween Judas and the rest, though you make none. For 
 as to that traitor, I yield him up at discretion. But as 
 to St Peter, (whom I suppose you specify by name for 
 honour sake) and the other apostles, I shall not part with 
 them upon such easy terms. For their running away was 
 the effect only of a sudden fear, and not of any formed 
 design to forsake their master ; as is manifest both in St 
 Peter and St John, who after their flight gave undeniable 
 proofs of their continuing to adhere to him by returning 
 immediately to him, and following him again. It is true, 
 St Peter denied him ; but it was but for a moment, and 
 barely in words; which he retracted the moment after 
 with tears of the sincerest repentance: and this shows it 
 was not for want of faith but courage to profess it, that 
 he denied his master. But St John followed him not only 
 to his trial but execution, stood by liis cross, and took 
 our blessed lady to his mother at his recommendation : 
 which was not only owning our Saviour, but a being 
 owned by him as a trusty disciple at the time, that you 
 are pleased to treat liim as an apostate. The rest of the 
 apostles likewise retained still tiie same esteem and love 
 for thf'ir master, nor docs the scrij)tnre accuse tlicm of 
 that error in faith. 
 
 «« G Vrs, my lord, the greatest tlint could be. For as
 
 180 The Church did not fail 
 
 " yet they knew not the scriptures, that he must rise again from 
 « the dead. Jolin xx. 9. And if Christ be not raised, your 
 '^ faith is vain. 1 Cor. xv. 17. And the reason given for 
 " choosing Mathias in the room of Judas was that he might 
 " bea witness with the other apostles of the resurrection of Christ, 
 " Acts i. xxii." — p. Gl. 
 
 Ij. — As to youi- first text, pray, Sir, is there no dif- 
 ference betwixt an inculpable ignorance of dark and unin- 
 telligible scriptures, and the sin of incredulity after re- 
 vealed truths have been sufficiently proposed? This you 
 charge the apostles Avith, whereas the other was evidently 
 their case. For though the scriptures had foretold the 
 resurrection of our Saviour, yet these prophecies were so 
 obscure, that they could not be understood especially by 
 ignorant men, much less oblige them to a distinct faith, 
 till the event had explained their meaning. The truth 
 then of the matter is, that the apostles before they had 
 been eye-witnesses of our Saviour's resurrection neither 
 believed nor disbelieved it. But it was to them as a thing 
 unthought of, and of which they had no manner of idea; 
 the divine wisdom having thought fit to conceal these, 
 mysteries, till their accomplishment should make a clear 
 discovery of them. 
 
 Your text from St Paul to the Corinthians is nothing 
 to the purpose. For the apostle's design in that place is 
 to establish the future resurrection, which he proves from 
 the resurrection of our Saviour ; and this he proves from 
 the absurd consequences which would follow, if Christ 
 were not raised : for then their faith of it would befcdse 
 andvain; and then they would be still in their sins which 
 cannot be remitted without true faith. But suppose he 
 Jiad told the Corinthians that their believing in our 
 Saviour woukl be vai7i, unless they believed his resurrec- 
 tion, this was true at the time of his writing that epistle, 
 when our Saviour's resurrection was become a necessary 
 and principal article of faith ; but it was not so at the 
 death of Christ, there being no obligation to believe him 
 risen before he was. And thus you see, Sir, how wretchedly 
 you have misapplied this text.
 
 at the Death of Christ. 1 8 1 
 
 Your tliird text from the Acts is trifled with in tlie 
 same maimer by your applying that to the time before 
 our Saviour's resurrection, which rehites only to the time 
 after it, when it was to be preached to the whole world. 
 
 " G. — Pray, my lord, what faith could they have in him, 
 " whom they had quite given over, and never expected to 
 *' see more? They trusted that it had been he who should have 
 " redeemed Israel ? Luke xxiv. 21. But when he was dead, 
 " all their hope was gone. They expected no redemption 
 " from him. This was far from a christian faith: and could 
 " there be a christian church without this faith?" — p. 61. 
 
 L. — This, Sir, is imputing the personal defect of one 
 or two to the whole society; which is not only false 
 reasoning, but great injustice also. For the text you 
 have quoted, and on wliich you lay so great a stress, 
 speaks only of the two disciples of Einaus, who were 
 neither the wliole church, nor the principal members of 
 it : and so it might have subsisted, though they had quite 
 fallen off from our Saviour ; which yet is not true. For 
 they continued to love him, as is plain from their dis- 
 coursing of him, and being sad for what had happened 
 to him ; as also from his appearing to them to comfort 
 them. It is true, they knew not that Christ was to 
 effect the redemption if Israel by that very means, which 
 seemed to hinder the effecting of it, to wit, his death. 
 For they imagined he would have cfl'ccted it during his 
 life; antl being disappointed of that hope, they were at 
 a loss what to think of it. lint there is a great deal of 
 difference betwixt a formed judgment against a thing, 
 and a doubt or uncertainty about it by reason of its 
 obscurity ; as there is likewise betwixt their absolutely 
 •lespairing, and their being between hope and desj)air in 
 the trouble of their mind for the death of our Saviour 
 and disapj)ointnient of their present hope. Which is the 
 utmost import of the forcmentioned words. 
 
 " G. — However, my lord, to avoid the f(irce of this objec- 
 " tion and secure the promise of indefectibility to tho churdi 
 " some of your aiilhorH of greatest iiam(^ have said that tho 
 *' church was then jMc^^crved in tho Virgin Mar;/: and thence 
 " infer that the Catholic Church jnay be preserved iu onv 
 
 >
 
 18-2 The Church did not fail 
 
 '« tvotnati as it was then. And so it may be again in the time 
 " of antichrist and the great defection foretold before the 
 " second coming of Christ, when/iv/VA shall not he found upon 
 " earlU ; that is, very hardly : when it may be confined to 
 " one laick^ or woman, or a baptized infant. As J3annez 
 " (Com. in ii. 2. Q. in Art. x. dub. 1.) and others of your 
 " doctors allow. Tliey are no less men than Alensis the 
 " author of the Gloss upon the Decretals. Lyra, Occham, 
 " Aliaco, Panormilan, Turrecreniata, Peter de 3Ionle, St 
 " Antoninus, Cusanus, Clemangis, Jacohatius, J. Fr. Picus, 
 " &,-c. and to save repetition, your lordship will find their 
 " books and words quoted in a small treatise entitled, the 
 " hicurahle Scepticism of the Church of Rome, printed here 
 " Ann. 1688, p. 25, &c. I name this little tract, because it 
 *' is short, and will give your lordship no great trouble : and 
 '•' proceeds upon the same argument I have undertaken with 
 •' your lordship instead of the particular points in dispute 
 " betwixt the Church of Pome and us : as Invocation of Saints, 
 " Purf/atori/, ^c, to go at once to the bottom of the cause, 
 " and examine the ground and foundation of faith as taught by 
 " the Church of Rome : which is shewed, I think, to ademon- 
 " stration to be wholly precarious, and uncertain ; and that 
 " there is no greater diiference and confusion among any sort 
 " of men upon any subject whatsoever, than there is among the 
 " divines of the Church of Rome concerning her rule of faith, 
 " and infallible judge of controversy. And every one of the 
 " different opinions about it is in flat contradiction to all the 
 " others. So that if any one of them be true, all the rest 
 " must be false. Yet they all pretend to believe with divine 
 '■'■faith, and think 'it necessary in this case, because it is the 
 " foundation of their faith.' 
 
 " Now if according to these learned doctors the whole 
 '< church failed upon our Saviour's death, then the gates 
 '■'^ of hell did prevail for a time. And if the Virgin Mary 
 " were exempted, that would not do much as to the standing 
 " of the church. But have they any revelation to ground 
 " divine faith upon ? Or upon what grounds do they believe 
 " that the Virgin Mary knew the scriptures, or the resurrec- 
 " tion of Christ more than the apostles, and was not under the 
 " same despondency as they were ? This seems to be that 
 " sword, which Simeon told her, should pierce through her 
 '< own soul also, Luke ii. i35." — pp. 62, 63.
 
 at the Death of Christ 183 
 
 Yj Sir, you have here impanncUed a jiivy of twelve 
 
 Catholic divines against me, who (as you tell me) main- 
 tain, that at the death of Christ the church was preserved 
 in the Virgin Mar?/, and may for ought they knew, be 
 reduced to a siiigle ivoman, or laick, or baptized infant 
 before the second coming of Christ. But I doubt very 
 much, whether those divines ever maintained either of 
 these opinions; and a very good reason of my doubt is, 
 the little credit, that is to be given to your voucher, the 
 author of the Incurable Scepticism, which you magnify 
 into a demonstrative piece against us ; whereas it proves 
 but one thing to a demonstration, to wit, that the author 
 of it is a notorious misrepresenter and falsifier of our 
 divines. For the truth whereof I refer you to the Appendix 
 of the true Church of Christ shelved, &;c. from pp. 455 — 
 476, where you will find enough to convince you iiow 
 little your unanswerable author is to be depended upon 
 in his quotations. 
 
 But suppose those divines had really taught what is 
 imputed to them by that author relating to the points in 
 question, I have no obligation to follow them in particular 
 opinions, which appear contrary both to reason and clear 
 facts. You tell me, that to avoid the force of your olijectiou 
 they said the church was at the death of Christ preserved 
 in the Virgin Mary. Theyallowthcn thatit was preserved, 
 contrary to your opinion. But I see no manner of 
 necessity of their being reduced to that answer: because 
 there were others enough besides the blessed Virgin to 
 uphold the church. I'or, to say nothing of the many 
 Samaritans, who !)elie\ied in Christ, John iv. 39, or of 
 many of the multitude, who also believed in him, John vii. 
 31, what do you find in scripture 'dii;'d'uist Lazarus, the 
 blind manoi the t('m|ik', .Toseph of Arimathca, Nicodemvs^ 
 Zurrheus, St Mary Magdaloie, and other pious women.'' 
 Ih it credible that Lazarus could so soon doubt of that 
 power which but a few days before had raised him out 
 of the <rruvo. ; or that he was less devoted to Christ attcr 
 that stu|tendous miracle wrought in favour of liim tiian 
 before ? \Vliat reason can you invent to suspect the
 
 184 Tlie Church did not fail 
 
 blind man, who stood uj) so boldly in defence of him 
 against the whole Jewish council, at a time when they 
 were resolved to make an example of any that should 
 declare for him? For if he stood up so courageously for 
 our Saviour before he did him the special favour to 
 reveal his diviniti/ to him, how much more firm must he 
 liave been to him after that? Nay so far was our 
 Saviour from being forsaken by all at his death, that 
 there were some, who stuck to him then more opeidy 
 than ever. Joseph of Arimathea, who before was but 
 liis disciple in private for fear of the Jews, was now bare- 
 faced for him, and went boldly to beg his body, which 
 he and Nicodemus embalmed, wrapt up in clean linen, 
 and laid in a virgin tomb, venturing every thing to give 
 liim an honourable burial. St Mary Magdalene and 
 other holy women were remarkable for their devotion to 
 him not only before but after his death : witness their 
 standing by him, whilst he hung on the cross; their 
 mourning at his sepulchre; their preparing their perfumes 
 the evening of the sabbath ; their going early the next 
 morning to embalm his body, and their other pious 
 offices, which were the effects of iXiQix faith in him. All 
 these, I think are proofs enough that the church was far 
 either from failing, or being reduced to a single person at 
 the death of Christ. And that she will not fail before his 
 second coming I have fully proved already. First, from this 
 plain promise of Christ, that he will be icith her even unto 
 Ihe end of world, Math, xxviii. 20; and Christ cannot be 
 with a church, that has no being. So that when the 
 world ends, then indeed the church Mill end, and not 
 before. 2%, Because the church will be persecuted by 
 antichrist; and she cannot be persecuted, unless she has 
 ' a visible being. Sdly, Because the elect will not be 
 seduced by him ; and surely the elect will not dissemble 
 their faith, but profess it openly. 4thl!/, Because Enoch 
 and Eliah will appear visibly upon earth, and maintain 
 the true faith against the wicked antichrist ; and bthly, 
 Because the Jews will be converted, and brought into 
 the fold of Christ not long before the end of the world;
 
 at the Death of Christ. 1 85 
 
 and these will not be converted by invisible pastors, but 
 by men openly professing and preaching the true Jaith 
 of Christ. And is all this consistent with your saying 
 and repeating it so often as you do, that there ivill be no 
 faith vpo7i earth at Christ's second coining ? 
 
 But, to return to the chief point under debate, you 
 are not content to treat the church as a desertress of Christ 
 at his death, and his apostles as apostates, but have the 
 boldness even to attack the mother of God. For you 
 not only question her faith, but even argue seriously 
 against it. You ask me what revelation ice have, that 
 she was not guilty of unbelief and despondency ? But it 
 is you, who are to be asked what revelation you have to 
 prove that she was guilty of that fault ? It being not 
 only against decency but common justice to impeach her 
 faith upon the bare want of a positive revelation for it. 
 You may as well accuse the apostles of having been 
 high-way men, because there is no positive text which 
 says the contrary. Nay it is a crying injustice to 
 accuse the meanest person upon earth of any crime 
 without a positive proof of it: but it is not barely injustice, 
 but downright impiety to charge the sacred mother of 
 God with the crime of upostacy from her faith in Christ 
 upon a bare negative argument, which would be of no 
 weight against the vilest of creatures. 
 
 But, .Sir, to give you full satisfaction, there is even 
 revelation enough to acquit her. For has it not been 
 revealed to us, that she was assured even by an archangel, 
 that the blessed fruit she was to bear, should be the son 
 of the Most High, the Saviour of his people, and the 
 possessor of a kingdom that should never end? Has it 
 not been revealed to us, that she not only received this 
 lieavenly message, hwi bclievcd'ii, and was declared happy 
 for believing it? And would you tlicji have us think, 
 that she who believed this mystery upon the word of the 
 angel before it was wrought in her, could ever doubt of 
 it after her miraculous conception, and undoubted cxjjcri- 
 ence of its truth? Has it not likewise been revealed to 
 US, that she had the same divine assurance jigain from
 
 186 The Church did not fail 
 
 St ElizabctKs saluting; hor as the 7nothcr of the Lord and 
 admirinuf not only lit'r goodness in honouring her with a 
 visit, but also her faith ? Luke i. 4'2 — 45. And could 
 such a mother doubt of such a son, who had been pro- 
 mised her by an anrjel from heaven; whom she knew 
 she liad conceived oi the Holy Ghost; whom the shepherds 
 sent by angels, and the kings conducted by a star had 
 adored in her presence, and whom Simeon and Anna\\7\{\ 
 by divine instinct proclaimed the Saviour of Israel m her 
 hearing? Have we not here scriptures and revelation 
 enough to convince any christian of the moral impossibility 
 of her entertaining the least doubt of the divinity of her 
 son, even amidst the most shocking circumstances of his 
 sufferings and death ? the deep sense whereof pierced 
 indeed her soul with the most sensible grief, and was 
 truly that stuord foretold hy Simeon ; whose prediction 
 you have turned to her dishonour by a no less scandalous 
 than senseless interpretation of it: as I leave any one 
 to judge, who pretends to know any thing of scriptures. 
 
 Thus, Sir, you have undertaken three noble exploits, 
 which cannot but redound very mucli to the honour of 
 your cause ; viz. to make the apostles false to their master, 
 the another of God false to her son, and Christ himself 
 false to his woi'd by your declaring tJicit the gates of hell 
 prevailed for a ^///^e against his church; which is declaring 
 peremptorily, that the contradictory to his word was true 
 at that time. 
 
 G. — My lord, you are too sharp upon me. For I 
 pretend not to dispute against Christ, or his church i but 
 only against your pretended popish infallibility. 
 
 />. — Pardon me. Sir. For our pretended popish in- 
 fallibility, as you call it, is wholly unconcerned in what 
 happened at the death of Christ. Because the Holy 
 Ghost was not then come down upon the apostles. And 
 the question concerning the churcKs infallibility (as I 
 have already told you) is not whether she was infallible 
 before she had the promised assistance of the divine spirit 
 to lead her into all truth, but whether she has been a fallible 
 or infallible church since her establishment upon the
 
 at the Death of Christ. 187 
 
 foot of the promises ? So that whatever happened before, 
 is wholly foreign to the main question : and it follows 
 from it, that all you have attacked, though, God be praised, 
 with vain efforts, is the infant church of Christ, the 
 mother of Christ, and the veracity of his sacred promises. 
 
 As to what you have said concerning the pretended 
 difference and coy fusion m our church about our rule of 
 faith, and judge of controversy, when you give yourself 
 the trouble to prove it, which I presume you will endea- 
 vour to do hereafter, I shall be ready to give you the 
 host satisfaction I can. But as at present you barely 
 affirm it without any proof, so I deny it without any farther 
 answer. If you have any thing more to say relating to 
 our present subject, you shall have a fair hearing. 
 
 G. — My lord, I shall propose a short dilemma to you. 
 
 L. — I own, that is a cut-throat sort of argument; how- 
 ever let us have it. 
 
 " G. — If the christian church was not formed, as some 
 " think, till after the resurrection, because our redemption 
 " was not till then completed : or as others think till the 
 " Ascension, when Christ commissioned his apostles to go and 
 " teacii all nations : or till the descent of the Holi/ Ghost, 
 '• when they w era endued tcith power on high, Luke xxiv. 49. 
 " Yet any of these ways it will follow, that there was no 
 " cliristian church before the death of Christ, and then that 
 " the Jewish church was the only true church, whilst Christ 
 " lived in the world. For the Jewish church was to last, 
 " till the christian w.is formed ; else there was no church at 
 *' all after Christ came till his resurrection. And then it will 
 " follow, tl>at the oiilv true churcli in the world did reiect 
 " Christ. And then there will l>o no choice left ns hut 
 " either to acknowloflire the fnUihility of the church, or to 
 " ri'jnct Chriht from heing tlie Messias. But if the christian 
 •' clivrrh w!»^ formed uj>ot> tli(» first nppfarancn of Christ in 
 " the worlrl, or iiprm his onhiiniiig llu' \'2 :ipo>tles, and send- 
 •• in^ thfiui out to proiicli, or npon any other act done in his 
 " lifn, tht-ii (ai^ I ^aid ht-fore) the wluilc church failed upon 
 " hirt deaili. ' — pp. 04, o."). 
 
 /,. — Sir, your dilemma is a very harmless one; and I 
 answer yott diroctiv, that the christian church wtis formed
 
 166 The Church is always 
 
 long before our Saviour's passion. Tliat is, as soon as 
 there was a visible society of men believing in Christ. 
 But I deny your consequence, viz. that then the whole 
 church failed at his death : as indeed you said before ; 
 but 1 have already both said and proved tlie contrary so 
 fully, that there needs no farther answer to it. Now then 
 you may go on. 
 
 SECTION XXXIX. — THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE 
 NECESSITY OF A LIVING JUDGE RESUMED. 
 
 " G. — If the churcli cannot fail, no not for a moment, 
 " because of the necessity of a livitig infallible judge, always 
 " in being, the succession oi tha monarchy of the church ought 
 " to be hereditary^ where the king never dies. For this 
 *' scheme will not admit of an interregnum for months and 
 " years, that may be spent in the election of a Pope, all 
 " which time the church has no head or monarch. Much 
 " less when there are Popes and antipopes, which has occa- 
 *' sioned 26 schisms in the Church of Rome, some of them of 
 " a long continuance. And who is judge in sucli a case ? 
 " Is every man left to \\\s, private judgment? And is it all 
 " one which of the contending Popes he adheres to ? 
 " Whether to the right or wrong? Or can the church have 
 " two or three opposite heads at the same time ?" — p. 63. 
 
 L. — No, Sir. But she may be without a ministerial 
 head for some time ; as when the Pope dies. Nor does 
 she then cease to be tlic living infallible judge of faitli : 
 because her infallibility is derived from Christ himself, 
 who never dies, nor ever leaves her for a moment, but 
 will according to his promise be with her even unto the 
 end of the world. And therefore whilst her visible head 
 is either dead, or the legality of his title disputed, she 
 continues vested with full power to take such measures 
 as are necessary either to terminate disputes, that may 
 occur about doctrinal j)oints, or remove all uncertainties 
 relating to the due; election of her supreme pastor. And 
 fo, Sir, with your good leave there will be no occasion 
 of leaving every man to his own private judgment^ nor
 
 the living Judge of Faith. 189 
 
 will there be any clanger of inconveniences from the 
 short vacancies, or interregnums, as you call them, betwixt 
 the Pope's death, and a new election. 
 
 As to the several schisms you have numbered up, I 
 know but one, wherein the true Pope could be questioned 
 with any colour of reason; I mean the great western 
 schism, which I presume you chiefly speak of. But I 
 cannot imagine what argument you can draw from it 
 ao^ainst the necessity of a living Judge always in being. 
 For, though the Pope was doubtful during those troubles, 
 the church of Christ was, not doubtful; but shewed herself 
 to be a living judge to all intents and purposes, by assem- 
 bling a general council, and taking the most vigorous 
 measures to terminate the schism. 
 
 " G. — I told your lordship before, there never was a 
 " council truly ^e/j<'ro/; and that there are disputes in your 
 " church concerning' general councils, some receiving- those, 
 " or part of them, wliicli others reject. And who shall be 
 " the judge in tliis case?" — p. 65. 
 
 L. — Sir, as all this has been said before, so has it also 
 been answered before. 
 
 " G. — But suppose you were agreed among yourselves con- 
 " cerning councils, and that they were infuUible, yet they are 
 *' not a living judge ahoays in being. You have not had one 
 ♦' since that of Trent, which began Ann. 1545, and was con- 
 " eluded Ann. 15G3, now 150 years ago. And there may 
 " not be another in twice that time, if ever. Where then is 
 " the living judge uUvai/s in being, which the hishop of 
 " Meaux and others think necessary ?" — pp. 65, 60. 
 
 L. — I dare swear, Sir, neither the bishop of Meaux, 
 nor any man in his senses ever meant, that a general 
 council must be always in being. It is an extraordinary 
 tribunal assembled upon extraordinary occasions: l)ut the 
 other tribunals suffice for ordinary ones ; especially that 
 of the principal and supreme Church of Home, by whose 
 authority numberless heresies have been suppressed 
 without any general council. For whenever the Pope 
 prononnccH juridically, or ex cathedra (as divines call it) 
 upon any doctrinal point, his sentence l>eing received by 
 the diffusive body of the church is an unerring rule ofj'aith.
 
 190 The ihposiiKj Power. 
 
 It was thus tlie Pdixjian heresy was condemned, first by 
 tlie bishops of Africa, and upon their request by Junocent 
 the first : and by Zozijtius in his circular letter to all 
 bishops, who receiveil his judj^ment. Upon wliich iSt 
 Austin said, Jarn JiJiita causa est ; the controversy is now 
 ended. 'I'liis, Sir, is that standing trilmnal, or living 
 judge^ for which you seem to be so much in pain. But 
 methinks, Sir, even past general councils may not impro- 
 perly be called living, tiiat is, ahvays in being, because 
 their canons are so, and determine all controversies at 
 least between catholics and protestants. And if necessity 
 requires it, new councils may be called. 
 
 " G And apfes may pass before that can be done. And 
 
 " the church may be corrupted in the mean time for want of 
 " such a living judge" — p. 6G. 
 
 L. — Sir, you need not be solicitous about that matter. 
 For the diffusive body of the church is always in being, 
 and will take effectual care to keep out any heresy though 
 her supreme pastor should not think fit to call a general 
 couficil. 
 
 '• G. — As Europe is now situated, it would be pretty diffi- 
 " cult to have a general council. And it may be long enough 
 " before any Pope may be of opinion to call one, and hazard 
 " his supremacy upon it." — p. 66. 
 
 L. — Sir, I never read of a gaieral council, that ever 
 offered to prejudice, or call in question the Pope's supre- 
 macy. 
 
 SECTION XL. — THE DEPOSING POWER. 
 
 " G.— But, my lord, the canons of past councils are not 
 " livii}g, nor can speak for themselves. There are volumes 
 " printed of the learned in your own communion giving con- 
 " trary expositions of the caiions. I will instance in one, the 
 " 3d canon of the 4th, commonly called, the great Lateran 
 " cou7icil, acknowledged to be a true general cou7icil by all 
 '* of the Church of Rome, established in most express and 
 *' positive terms, the Pope's power of deposing princes, and 
 *• absolving their subjects from their allegiance, not only if 
 " be please to call them heretics themselves; but if they do
 
 The deposing Power. 191 
 
 ** not extirpate all heretics oat of their dominions. This i« 
 « maintained in the literal sense hy BtUarinin, and the 
 <« Italian doctors. On the other hand the Gallican church, 
 " who have condemned the deposing doctrine, and yet own 
 « this council of Lateran, are put to hard shifts, and many 
 " distinctions to solve this. But it is impossible. For either 
 «' that doctrine must he true, or this council has greatly 
 " erred." — pp. 66, 67. 
 
 L. — Sir, under favour, neither the one nor the other. 
 For you mistake the sense of the canon you speak of; 
 and therefore whether the deposing doctrine relating- to 
 the Pope be true or false, the council did not err. 
 
 G. — That is very strange, my lord. But I should be 
 glad to know, what sense that canon will bear, if it does 
 not give the Pope full power to depose heretical princes, 
 and absolve their subjects from their allegiance. 
 
 L Sir, the third canon of the Lateran council con- 
 tains no doctrinal point oi faith, but the whole subject of it 
 is a mere regulation of discipline relating to the methods 
 that were to be observed during the holy war against the 
 Turks. And the chief import or design of it was to pro- 
 vide an effectual expedient for the suppressing of the 
 Albigenses, who were become open rebels both against the 
 church and state : and to hinder them and others from 
 taking an advantage of the absence of their neighbouring 
 catholic princes, and invading their dominions, whilst 
 both their persons and troops were employed in that holy 
 cause. However nothing was done without the consent 
 of all the crowned heads, that were concerned in the 
 matter. For they all had their ambassadors at the coun- 
 cil, and not one of them opposed the canon, or made 
 any objection against it. Which is an unanswerai)le 
 proof, that they did not look upon it as any ways preju- 
 dicial to the just rights and prerogatives of their respective 
 sovereigns. 
 
 C. — But Jkllarmin, and your Italian divines are of a 
 contrary r)pinion, and build their deposing doctrine upon 
 the authority of that canon. 
 
 L. — They do so. But for one catholic divine, that is 
 of their opinion, t/icre arc forty against it : and for one
 
 192 The deposing Power. 
 
 catholic tJint believes it, there are a thousand that believe 
 nothing of it \_Cose Jlevieired, p. 57. 1 Edit.]. Nay if any 
 subject of a catholic sovereign prince on this side of the 
 Aljjs shoukl venture to maintain it, he would pass his 
 time but very un comfortably. 
 
 G. — This, my lord, is at least an undeniable instance, 
 that the canons of past councils are not living, nor can 
 speak for themselves. And (as I told you just now) 
 there are volumes printed of the learned in your com- 
 munion giving- contrary expositions of the canons. 
 
 L. — Sir, I grant there are some few canons, the sense 
 whereof is disputed among divines; and these cannot 
 speak for themselves, nor are they any rules oi faith. So 
 that till the sense of them be determined either by another 
 general council, or the unanimous agreement of the dif- 
 fusive body of the church, every body is free to take what 
 side he pleases without danger of heresy, or breach of 
 communion with the see of Rome. However the greatest 
 part of the canons speak so very plainly, that they inter- 
 pret themselves to any man of common sense. Nay 1 
 believe you think that they speak but too plainly. For 
 they are all on the />o/>25/i side. But let that be as it will, 
 the third canon of the Lateran coimcil, about which you 
 inake such a heavy splutter, contains no matter oi faith. 
 
 " G. — But is it not matter of salvation, for whicli we shall 
 «' be judged at the last day ? St Paul says, Rom. xiii. 2. 
 " They that resist (lawful) powers, shall receive to themselves 
 " damnatio?i. — IVherefoie (says he, v. 5.) ye mitst needs be 
 " subject not only for tcrath (or four of temporal punishment 
 <* from these powers) but also for conscience sake ; that is, 
 " towards God. And wiiat are these guides of conscience 
 " who lead us wrong in this ? In the description of the 
 " last judgment given by Christ, Matt. xxv. 31, Sec, men 
 " shall be judged chiefly for their practice. There is nothing 
 " mentioned there but what men have done. And have we 
 " no guides as to practice, while we raise such contentions 
 " about a gidde \nfuidi? Or is not the church a guide in prac- 
 " tice too ? And is not a general council the church ? Then 
 « the church has led us into a damnable practice, unless the 
 <' Pope has power to depose princes at his pleasure, and that
 
 The deposing Power. 193 
 
 « there is no sin in rebellion, and all the blood and desolafioti 
 " that follows it, if his holiness so commands." — pp. 67, 68. 
 
 L. — Believe me, Sir, rebellion is a most grievous and 
 damnable sin, and the authors of it are accountable for 
 all the blood and desolation that follows it, let him com- 
 mand it that will. But, Sir, if all deposing be rebelling, 
 I know what I know. However let it suffice for the 
 present, that you may be a very good Roman catholic 
 witliout subscribing to the deposing doctrine. 
 
 " G — And may not I be as good a Eoman catholic, if I 
 " do believe it, and defend it, and practise it too ?" — p. 68. 
 
 L. — And may not I be a very good protesfanf, if I be- 
 lieve the people's deposiiuj power, and defend it, and prac- 
 tise it too ? 
 
 " G. — Have I not all the encouragement the Church of 
 *' Fome can give me ? The frequent practice of Popes tiieni- 
 " selves, and liere the canon of a general councillor it ? And 
 " Lave any of the Popes ever renounced it." — j). 68. 
 
 L — And have not I all the encouragement, the whole 
 body of reformed churches in the world can give me, and 
 the authority of all the reforming apostles into the bar- 
 gain, who not only taught, but practised the deposing 
 doctrine, and some died martgrs in the cause, only shift- 
 ing the question from \.\\ii Pope to the people? Either 
 therefore deposing aiul rebelling are not the same ; or, if 
 they be, all your railing at the Pojjc, ami Church (f Rome 
 npon that account is but lampooning the reformation, and 
 making satyrs upon your own church. As to the canon, 
 you speak of, I have already told you, it admits of various 
 interpretations. 
 
 " ('• — Then your lordship sees that canons are but a dead 
 " Idler, and tliat there may be disputes about them. And 
 " where then is the living infallible judge always in being ?" 
 —p. 68. 
 
 Jj. — I told you, Sir. just jiow. But great wits have 
 bad memories. 
 
 " G. — You see tlie canons of past councils cannot be this 
 *^ judge, tiiero must he another judge to determine their true 
 " sense." — ji. 68. 
 
 K
 
 194 The depoawg Power. 
 
 L. — The very same, Sir, as iletenniiics the true sense 
 of scriptures. 
 
 <» G. — Aiul who slumld tliat jii<lf?e he but tho Popr, the 
 ♦* head of the church ? I am sure, if I were a Jioman 
 ♦' cfithulic, I slioukl ho oil that side." — p. 08. 
 
 //. — The Pope, Sir, is very much obliged to you for 
 your good incliuations towards him. However I ))rcsume 
 he will not be less infallihlc., if the diffusive body of the 
 <huich, or a general couticil (when he thinks lit to call 
 one) be joined with him. 
 
 " G. — 1 could show your lordship several otlier cations 
 " of coHiicds, that are iu dispute anu)ng your doctors. But 
 •' what wonder is it, wlien 1 have already showed, that they 
 " are in dispute about councils themselves. It fohows how- 
 " ever that there is ?io cerkdnti/, what the judgment of your 
 " clnu"ch is. Or rather it is certain, tliat it is most errone- 
 *' ous ; and in matters that concern eternal salvation, as well 
 " as the peace of the world, tliat is, rebellion amongst other 
 •' things, whicli is as witchcraft and idolatry." — pp. 68, 69. 
 
 L What, Sir ! Is her judgment certainly erroneous ; 
 
 though there be no certainty of what her judgment is ! 
 'I'hat is very hard indeed. But you need not be in pain 
 about the judgment of the Roman Catholic Church con- 
 cerning the deposing doclri?ie. For it is certainly her 
 judgment, that it is no article of faith, and may therefore 
 be either iield or rejected without danger of heresy. Nay 
 it is generally rejected, as I have already told you. So 
 that you may bestow your U'itchcraft and idolatry upon 
 what church you please. For the Church of Home has 
 nothing to do with them. 
 
 " G. — My lord, I have instanced in this sin, because I know 
 *' your lordship is tenacious of your loyjdty." — ji. 69. 
 
 L. — Sir, I am obliged to you for your good opinion of 
 me, and I hope I shall always deserve it. 
 
 " G. — And now, my lord, since the saving of our souls is 
 " the end for our being in any church, I leave your lordship 
 *' to judge whether the people are safest in the communion 
 " of Home, or in the Church of Engkmd as to this point." — 
 p. 69. 
 
 L. — Sir, to prevent all equivocation in my answer,
 
 llie deposing Power. 195 
 
 the deposing doctrine may be consitlered either relatively 
 to the Pope alone, or as it regards all sorts of persons in- 
 differently : that is, precisely as it is justifiable or unjus- 
 tifiable in the court of conscience. If you consider it with 
 relation to the Pope alone, then the dispute is not whether 
 deposing princes be lawful or unlawful, but whether the 
 power of doing it ought to be acknowledged in the Pope : 
 which reduces it to a mere political controversy, and the 
 holding or not holding it makes no more difference as to 
 the safety of salvation than maintaining contrary opinions 
 about a point of law. So that, although a protestant 
 government (which denies the Pope's deposing poicer as 
 all protestants do) may indeed have a political advantage 
 over that of a catholic kingdom, which allows it ; yet the 
 church on either side is wholly unconcerned in the ques- 
 tion thus stated. 
 
 But I presume, Sir, our dispute is not about what is 
 safest in politics, but what is safe in conscience : since 
 you have positively declared the deposing doctrine to be 
 inconsistent with salvation, and contrary to the express 
 doctrine of St Paid. Nay you have e(pialled it with the 
 Climes of rebellion, icltchcraft, and iduUUnj. Least tiiere- 
 fore I should mistake your meaning, give me leave to 
 propose some questions to you. Is the deposing doctrine 
 inconsistent with salvation, only as it regards the J\)pe? 
 Again, when St Paul says, that they who resist powers 
 sh'dl receive damnation to themselves (which is the very 
 text you have quoted) does he only speak of Popes ^/ 
 linally, when you told me that dijiosing is the sin of 
 rebellion, which is as witchcraft and idolatry, did yuu 
 mean, that it is a sin of this heinous nature, only when it 
 is commanded or authorized by the I'opc / i'ray, Sir, 
 answer me these questions. 
 
 G. — My lord, it is plain my meaning is, that deposing 
 a lawful j)rincc is a most grievous sin, let hini command 
 or practise it that will. 
 
 Li. — 1 confess, Sir, I took this to be your meaning; 
 because I could not c.isily comprelicnd how a man of 
 your wisdom should maintain that de])osing is inconsistent
 
 196 The deposing Power. 
 
 with solvation, and contrary to the word of God, nay 
 stigmatize it with the odious names oi rebellion, witchcraft, 
 and idolatry, unless you regarded it as a most grievous sin 
 in its own nature, that is, indej)endently of the character 
 or religion of the persons concerned in it. So that, 
 whether it be practised by protestants or papists, by the 
 Pope, or by protestant bishops, the sin is the same. For 
 though (as 1 have already observed) there may be very 
 good politic reasons for disallowing a deposing power in a 
 foreign prince, which perhaps will not hold with equal 
 force in relation to the natural subjects of any sovereign, 
 yet reasons of coiiscience, such as its being inconsistent 
 with salvation, and contrary to the word of God regard 
 all equally : nor is rebellion^ witchcraft, and idolatry any 
 more lawful in one person than another. 
 
 G. — My lord, I see not what all this drives at, or that 
 it is any answer to what I said last. 
 
 L. — Sir, it leads me directly to it. You told me, that 
 since the saving of our soids is the end for our being in 
 any church, you left me to judge whether the people are 
 safest in the communion of Rome, or in the Church of 
 England as to the deposing doctrine. My judgment then 
 is, that whether deposing be lawful or nnlauful (for all 
 are not of your mind) you can claim no advantage over 
 us. For if it be lawful, there can be no danger of salva- 
 tion in a church that holds it : and we are thus far upon 
 equal terms as to the point in question. But if it be 
 unlawful (which is your opinion) believe me. Sir, your 
 church is in a very ill way, and has no reason to challenge 
 any advantage over the Church of Home, ^^'itness first 
 the revolution, in which your church had the greatest 
 hand ; though she was afterwards bubbled out of the 
 best part of the fruits of it. Witness ^dly, the following 
 act passed by botii houses of parlia7nent some time after 
 the revolution. If the king ajid queen shall be reconciled 
 to the Church of Rotne, or profess the popish religio7i, or 
 marry a papist, then such persons shall be excluded to 
 inherit the crown, or have regal power in the realm, and 
 the people shall be absolved of their allegiance. This act
 
 The deposing Power. 197 
 
 was assented to not only by the representatives of the 
 people, but likewise by ibe representatives of the Church 
 of England, 1 mean the bishops. Now I believe yon 
 will be puzzled to find any thing so clear, so strong, and 
 decisive for the Pope's deposing poiver in any canon of 
 the Church of Borne, as this act of parliament is for the 
 deposing power of the people of England. And therefore 
 I tiiink I shew myself very moderate in advising you to 
 come to a fair composition as to the point in question ; 
 and not to boast or swagger, as if you had some signal 
 advantage over us. 
 
 But lot all this be as it will; if after all you will needs 
 maintain, that deposing is the same as rebelling, and 
 stignuitize it with the odious names of witchcraft and 
 idolatry, you nuiy do as yon think fitting. But for my 
 part I am not fond of a lodging in Newgate, and therefore 
 will give it no such names ; which may perhaps offend 
 the government. This I maintain positively, that the 
 Pope's deposing poicer is disowned by far the greatest 
 number of Roman catholics. So that there is no danger 
 on that score in the communion of the Church of Rome. 
 Nay in France, where they are sound catholics, no divine 
 dares teach it. 
 
 " G. — My lord, my dispute is witli tlie Church of Rome. 
 •' And if the churvlt uf Prance dilfi;rs from the Church of 
 •' Rome in mutters, whereon salvutioii depends, they cannot 
 " bo said to be uiic church, or to have the same guides to 
 " heaven." — p. GD. 
 
 L. — I take you. Sir, to be extremely out in your 
 casuistry in pretending that French and Italian divines 
 cannot be of the same church, because they differ in their 
 opinions concerning a moral duty ; which only obliges 
 n man to follow in practice, what in his conscience he 
 judges to be most reasonable. Is there any thing more 
 common cither among protestant or catholic divines than 
 to be of different opinions in deciding cases relating to 
 moral duties.'' And yet there is not a moral duty, but 
 salvation is more or less concerned in it. Yet this 
 difference makes no breach of communion. And why
 
 198 The deposing Power. 
 
 then will you not voiu-lisafe to snj^ that lialian and 
 French divines, tluni^li they diflfer in a moral question, 
 may yet be truly in one church, ami have the same <^ui(U"< 
 to heaven ? 
 
 SECTION XLI. — THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 
 
 " G. — Out, my lord, tlie Pope's deposing power extended 
 " itself even to prance .- of which you will 6nd frequent 
 " instances in history. And even so late as the ho/i/ Uague 
 *' against Henry III. All the Popes in that time joined with 
 " the league against the king, and supported the rebellion by 
 " their authority. And the generality of the bishops and 
 •' clergy of France, and their universities took part with the 
 " league, and justified it by principle and in print. The 
 *' book of the just abdication of Henry III., hi7ig of France 
 " was then writ upon the foot of the deposing powers not 
 " only of the Pope, but also of the people." — pp. G9, 70. 
 
 L. — Ay marry, Sir, the depusing power of the people. 
 is something : lor without it, that of the Pope will do 
 but little execution. But what need of running back as 
 far as the French league for an instance, I mean not of 
 the Pope^s, but of the people's deposing power? Have 
 we not one of a much fresher date at home ? To wir, 
 the English league, which produced the revolution. And 
 did not the generality of the bishops and clergy oi England, 
 and the two universities take part in this league ? Was 
 it not justified by principle, and innumerable books writ 
 in defence of it upon the foot of the deposing power 
 lodged in the people ? Now, Sir, you may go on. 
 
 " C — D'Aiila, in his history of the civil wars in France, 
 " tells us a great and solemn procession was made by order 
 " from the cardinal legale to implore God's assistance (for 
 «' the success of the league againist the king) in which the 
 " 2)7-ela(es, priests, and 7nonhs of the several religious oi'ders 
 " walked all in their accustomed habits. But besides them 
 " armed openly with corslets, gims, swords, and all kind of 
 " arms offensive and defensive : making at once a double 
 •* show both of devotion, and constancy of heart to defend 
 " themselves. Which ceremony, though it seemed undecent
 
 The deposing Power. lOD 
 
 " and ridiculous (says d'Avila) yet was of great use to au*- 
 " luent and confirm tiie courage of tlie common people. And 
 " the cardinal legate says in the declaration he published 
 " to the leaguers ; that to acknowledge an hei-etic for their 
 " king is the dream of a madnian, which proceeds from nothing 
 " else but heretical contagion." — pp. 70, 71. 
 
 L. — Sir, the ceremony described by d'Avila was 
 certainly indecent and ridiculous. But, as to the cardie 
 naCs declaration, does it not express the present senti- 
 ments of the Church of England in relation to a popish 
 successor ? And where then is the difference as to the 
 safety of salvation ? 
 
 *' G. — My lord, the leaguers showed, wherein they placed 
 <• their confidence, and said, they are the most hoi// fathers 
 " (the Popes) and the most holg see, that have sent us relief. 
 " And though many have been called to that holy dignity 
 " since the last troubles, yet has there not been one of them, 
 " who has changed his affection towards us. A most cer- 
 " tain testimony that our cause is just." — \_D'Avila p. 598. J 
 -p. 71. 
 
 L. — Sir, the Fre?ich leaguers were certainly very 
 much influenced by the authority of some Popes, who 
 sided with the league. But were not the people of 
 Great Britain at a certain time influenced in the same 
 manner bv their spiritual guides? I mean, the bishops 
 and clergy? llomembcr but the history of the seven 
 golden candlesticks, and tlie prince of Orange's printed 
 declaration, that he was called in by the lords spiritual 
 and temporal, and there will be no room left to doubt of 
 it. I am sorry. Sir, you oblige me to the odious task of 
 recriminatini^-. But since you are so very tart upon the 
 Church of Rome, because some of that communion teach, 
 and some have practised the deposing doctrine, and you 
 even claim a mighty advantage over her upon that head, 
 you lay a nece.s«tity upon me to put you in mind of these 
 ungrateful truths, that you may not be so warm in con- 
 demning your enemies abroad, for what you practise 
 yourselvrs at homf* without any scruple. 
 
 " G. — To return to the Prcitch league, there were six Popes 
 " during that time, viz. Gregory X]ll.,SixtusV., UrbanVll.,
 
 200 The (h posing Power. 
 
 " Gregory XIV., Innocent IX., and Clement VIII. And 
 " they supported that rehelliou not only with their bless- 
 •• ing it and the authors of it, aud cursing the king and all 
 " liis loyal subjects, who adhered to him ; but they sent more 
 " substantial relief, r'iz. 300,000 crowns for the service of the 
 " cardinal of Bourbon, whom they had chosen by the name 
 " of dairies the tenth against the next in blood, only because 
 " he W.1S a. protestant : and 15,000 crowns a month to carry 
 " on that rebellion with an army of GOOO foot, and 1200 
 " horse to assist these hulg leaguers." — p. 7 J. 
 
 L. — Just so, Sir, did queen Elizabeth the head and 
 
 foundress of your church assist the Dutch leaguers with 
 
 men and money against king Philip. And your royal 
 
 inarlyr king Charles I., assisted the rebels of llochelle 
 
 against Lewis XIII., their undoubted sovereign. 
 
 " G. — 'V\w Pope went heart and hand into the work, which 
 " he accounted excellently good (says d'Avila) and of won- 
 " derful glory aud advantage to the apostolic sec. And after- 
 " wards when the success of the king's arms had induced 
 *• several of the clergy, and others to come over to him, the 
 " Pope sent Ids monitory letters to the prelates and catholics 
 " commanding them under pain of excommunicatioji, and of 
 " being deprived of their dignities and benefices, and of being 
 <* used us sectaries aiid heretics, that they should ivithdraw them- 
 " selves from those places, that yielded obedience to Henry of 
 " Bourbon (so lie styled the king) and from the imion and 
 '■'fellowship of his faction. D'Avila L. 13, p. 613. And the 
 " authority of the Pope prevailed so far at last, that those 
 " catholics, who had joined with the king, formed a conspi- 
 " racy against him upon his delay of changing Ids religion ; 
 " wherein tlie princes of the blood were most violent, and told 
 " him plainly to his face, that if he did not perform his pro- 
 " mise (to turn liotnan catholic) they would desert him, and 
 "join with the league. Jbid. pp. 611, 612." — pp. 71, 72. 
 
 L. — Sir, I must beg leave to interrupt you for a mo- 
 ment. You have named six Popes, tliat sided with the 
 French league. First, it is nothing to the purpose wliether 
 they did or no. For if the deposing doctrine be false, the 
 Popes that joined with the league were to be blamed ; 
 and it is a convincing proof, that they are not impeccable. 
 But, whether that doctrine be true or false (for it is not
 
 The deposing Power. 201 
 
 my business to decide the question) they did no more tlian 
 the English bishops and clergy did at the revolution^ and 
 have done ever since upon revolution principles. So that, 
 whether right or ivrong, they and the Popes have nothing 
 to reproach one another. However you are somewhat 
 mistaken in your number of those Popes that sided with 
 tlie league. For Maimhourg, whom no man can accuse 
 of being too favourable to the court of Rome, tells us in 
 Iiis history of the French league translated by INIr Dryden 
 p. 67, that Pope Gregory XIII, constantly persisted in 
 refusing to approve the league: and Urban VII. enjoyed 
 the pontificat for so short a time that he could have no part 
 in their counsels. Now, Sir, you may tell your whole 
 story out if you please. 
 
 " G. — After the conversion oi Henry IV. and his being 
 " by that established on the throne, they feared his power, 
 " and therefore tlie Pope (as now) made less noise with the 
 " deposing doctrine, which yet ho would not disown, but kept 
 " it in petto till a fitter opportunity. But yet it was notcar- 
 " ried so covertly, but that even in their sermons wise and 
 " willing men might know their meaning. Pavaillac, upon bis 
 " examination, alleged the Lent sermons before his assassina- 
 " tion of Henry IV., as the ground and encouragement to 
 '• that execrable fact. But after that magnanimous prince 
 " had thus fallen a sacrifice to their restless furious zeal, and 
 " his son succeeded young and fenctdess to the government, 
 " then they set u[) again the deposing doctrine on high ; be- 
 " cause then they durst do it. With which our king .James 
 " does justly upbraid tlieui, particularly iiis opponent, the 
 " cardinal of Perron, in his preface to his book entitled a 
 " Defence of die Right of Kings; for it was but five years after 
 «' the murder oi Henry I V^ vi:. Ann. 1G15, that cardinal Z-*e?'- 
 '■• ton, in the assetnbly of the three estates of France, and in 
 ' the name oi\.\\{i first estate, that is, of the cleryy, did reassert 
 <' the power of tlie Pope to depose kings, witii this reason, 
 " that otherwise there hud not been any church for many ages 
 *'^ past, and that indeed the church (lie meant the ('httrch of 
 " /fame) would he the very synagogue of antichrist. 
 
 " But, to come to a fre.-ili instance now on loot, Pere Jou- 
 *' vcnry, a French Jesuit, has latcdy print(!d a book at Home, in 
 '« defence of the Pope's power to depose princes : and the 
 
 K 2
 
 202 Tlie deposing Power, 
 
 " ninviUln Jewess and shifts of tli(* Jesuits at Paris to disown 
 " him ill this, and to disclaim that doctrine fairly and above 
 " board shews, that it is not yet quite extinguished in Pratice, 
 " but kept up in the embers as in the reigu of Henri/ IV. 
 " For all, who understand that order of thv Jesuits, know full 
 " well that none of them dare print, especially upon such a 
 " subject, without the approbation of tlioir superiors, and 
 " that Prance is not entirely free from the infection. And, 
 " though tlie vigour of this king has depressed it very much, 
 " we cannot say it is totally extinguished, or that there is no 
 " danger of a relapse, whilst the authority of the Pope is 
 " revered as head of the Catholic Church, and the council of 
 " lateran is still owned as truly general and iiifallible, and 
 " the bishops of Prance still take an oath oi fidelity and ohe- 
 " dicnce to the Pope." — pp. I'l — 74. 
 
 Z/. — Well, Sir, I presume you have now fiuishecl your 
 satyr upon the deposing doctrine. But what is it you 
 chiefly drive at ? 
 
 G. — My lord, I have told you that already. It is to 
 convince your lordship, that the people are safer in the 
 Church of England, than in the Church of Rome. 
 
 L. — Truly, Sir, if deposing be a godly woi'h, I own the 
 people to be very safe (as to that article) in the Church 
 of England. But if it be true what you say, viz. that 
 deposing is the same as rebelling ; then all you have said, 
 nay though you could say ten times more against the 
 Church of Rome upon that head, is fully answered by 
 these two verses in St Mattheiv, c. vii. : JVhy heholdcst thou 
 the mote, that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the 
 beam, that is in thy own eye ? Thou hypocrite, first cast 
 out the beam out of thy own eye, and then shall thou see 
 clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Matt, 
 vii. 3, 5. 
 
 However I desire you not to expect that I shall join 
 issue with you in your notion of it, or call the practise of 
 it rebellion, witchcraft, idolatry, and what not ! For I am 
 not so void of sense as not to reflect that I live under the 
 protection of a government, which will not perhaps relish 
 such harsh expressions. I likewise remember that not 
 many years ago a certain protestant divine was upon the
 
 The deposing Poicer. '203 
 
 very brink of utter ruin for presuming to preach up the 
 aoctrine o( passive obedience, and non-i'esistance ; and arx 
 eminent member of parliament, who was one of the man- 
 agers against him, stuck not to say, that if the doctrine 
 of passive obedience and iwn-resistance were maintainable, 
 queen Anne had no more tide to the ci-oivn of Great Britain 
 than my lord mayor's horse. Nor have I forgot that the 
 bold author of Hereditary Right, Sfc. was condemned to 
 eat the bread of sorrow, and drink the waters of tribula- 
 tion for two whole years together in the 3Iarshalsea, even 
 whilst the high church had the reins of government in 
 their hands. Now, to deal plainly with you, I have no 
 ambition to be a boarder in that place, and therefore will 
 not meddle with politics. But, whoever will but give 
 himself time to reflect upon the part your church has had 
 in the transactions of above thirty years past, must be 
 surprised to find you so very sharp upon the deposing 
 doctrine, and practice of a (ow papists, when it was your 
 business to consider first, whether all were well guarded 
 at home. For let me tell you, Sir, this caution is very 
 necessary in disputes: since without it you only put stones 
 into the hands of an adversary to throw at you : nor are 
 any privileged to throio the first stone, but they, who are 
 free from sin. 
 
 Now, Sir, I liave shewed from undeniable facts, that a 
 man may be a \cvy good protestant, nay a good Church of 
 Kngland-man, though he hohls the deposing power of the 
 people, and believes it, and practises it too. Whether 
 tiierefore that doctrine be true or false, ritjht or wron<r» 
 it is certain you cannot condemn those amongst /w/^/s^v, 
 that hold that power lodged in the Pope without con- 
 demning your own church in the highest degree. For it 
 is beyond my comprehension, that deposing should be rC' 
 hellion, witchcraft, and idolatry, when it is commanded 
 by the Pope against ix protcslant prince, and have nothing 
 of this foul asj)ect, when it b executed by proteslanis 
 agairjst a popish prince. 
 
 Nay, Sir, you quarrel witli us merely for the specula- 
 five doctrine of the Pojte's deposing power (for there is no
 
 '204 The Oath of Bishops 
 
 ij;reat dani^er of its takini^ effect) when at the same time 
 the practice of the peoples deposing power runs violently 
 on the prolestant side; as may be clearly proved from the 
 liistorios of all the ]>rotestant countries in Europe. Alas, 
 Sir, the dcposituj poicer of the J\)pe is but a fleabite to 
 tliat of the people: and give me leave to tell you, that one 
 act of a British parliametd does more execution in the 
 l>usiness of deposing than twenty papal bulls. For the 
 Pope can never dei)ose without the people, but the people 
 have deposed many a prince without the Pope. So pray. 
 Sir, let the good old gentleman live quietly at Home, and 
 meddle no more with him, till he meddles with you. 
 
 SECTION XLII. — THE OATH OF THE BISHOPS TO THE 
 POPE is NO rUEJUDICE TO THEIR ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 G. — My lord, I must beg your pardon; I have not 
 yet done with him. Nor have you said any thing to 
 what I objected concerning the oath oi Jidelity, which 
 the bishops of France, as well as others, take to the Pope. 
 
 L. — Why should they not? that oath is not inconsistent 
 with their fidelity to the king. 
 
 " G. — Pray, my lord, let me ask you, is not an oath to be 
 " taken in the hnoion and declared sense of the imposer, for 
 " whose security it is taken .''" — p. 74. 
 
 X.— Well, what then ? 
 
 " G. — Then tlie question will be, what the Pope means 
 " by the regalia of St Peter, and all the rights, prerogatives, 
 " ^c. of the apostolic chair, as he calls his own ; to wliicli the 
 " bishops are sworn contra omneia hominem, against all men 
 " in the world ? For it is the Pope who imposes this oath, 
 " and it is taken for liis security." — p. lA. 
 
 L. — Very right, Sir. l^ut, if the Pope's sense of it 
 be knoivn and declared, as you told me just now, liow 
 can there be any question about the meaning of it? I 
 think it very plain, that neither the imposer nor taker of 
 the oath can mean any thing more, than the just rights 
 and prerogatives of the apostolic see. 
 
 ♦' G. — But, ray lord, has he not sufficiently declared what
 
 to the Pope, ^r. 205 
 
 *» he meaiis by the oath ? Take it in tl)e words of the pro- 
 " ceediTigs of the parliament of Paris in the Appendix, p. 42, 
 " where they say that by this decree (of the bulla ccbhcb) the 
 " Popes declare i\\Qmiii\\ii% sovereign monarchs of the world." 
 —pp. 74, 75. 
 
 L. — Surely, Sir, you are seized with a more than 
 ordinary dissipation of mind, to talk thus wildly from 
 the purpose. Our dispute is concerning the oath, which 
 bis/tops tiike to the Pope, and you refer me to Mr Talons 
 speech in parliament interpreting the bulla coence accord- 
 ing to his own notion. Is Mr Talon an authentic inter- 
 preter of the bull ^ What is it then to the purpose, if 
 in the violence of his heat he tells us, that tlie Popes by 
 that decree make themselves sovereign monarchs of the 
 world ? For my part I find no such thing in the bull ; 
 nor do I think it can be drawn as a legal consequence 
 from it. 
 
 I add, that riyhts and prerogatives in an edict signify 
 t/iose, that are certain and uncontested. For in the eye of 
 the law a disputed right is not one absolutely, but at most 
 a probable and reasonable j>retcnsioii to it. [The Case Re- 
 viewed in the preface.] Whence it follows, that the oath 
 taken by the bishops at their consecration to maintain 
 the regalia of St Peter can only be understooil of the 
 uncontested rights and prerogatives of the apostolic see ; 
 for they swear to no more than what the words of the oath 
 expressly imj)ort; and the Pope himself knows very well, 
 that no bisiioj) in the world intends to bind himself by 
 that oath to maintain him in any pretensions, that are 
 prejudicial either to his lawful sovereign, or the ancient 
 liberties of his own particular church. 
 
 *' G. — My lord, tliis (viz. the Pope's absolute sovereign ti/ 
 " over flings and bishops) is no moro than is <jfiveii at their 
 " coronation: as yon have it in \.\\ii lionuin ponlifeal ; wlicre 
 •• tlie triple crown is pnt upon the Pope's head with these 
 " word■^, receive this diadem adorned with three crowns and 
 " know yourself to be the father uf pi inces and kings, the 
 •' governor of the tvorld, and vicar upon earth of our Saviour 
 *' Jesus Christ." — p. Tfj. 
 
 L. — Sir, the words of the pontifical arc not improper,
 
 200 T/ie Oath of Bishops 
 
 and express no more, than the VoYtc's spiritual supremacy 
 over the ivhulc church, which in scripture lunjj^uage is 
 called the church of all nations, or tJie whole world ; as I 
 have said before. He is vicar of Christ upon earth, as 
 he is the successor of St Peter, to whom Christ committed 
 the care of his whole flock. He is likewise the spiritual 
 father of j)rinces and kings, and the governor of the 
 world in spirituals: because he has a spiritual jurisdiction 
 over the whole church of Christ. Yet all this comes not 
 up to the ridiculous title of sovereign monarch of the 
 world. Because a sovereign monarch is properly one, 
 under whom all others in employment are no more than 
 substitutes, or vicars, placeable and displaceable at plea- 
 sure : whereas each bishop governs his respective diocess 
 in his own right ; and, as to all manner of episcojml func- 
 tions, has an independent jurisdiction in it, nor can he be 
 deprived without a canoniccd fault. 
 
 '< G. — But must not this governor of the world have power 
 " to dethrone all petty kings and princes, that are under 
 " him ? Else how can he govern the world ?" — p. 75. 
 
 Z/. — Just as a bishop can govern his diocess without 
 having the power to absolve children from their duty to 
 their parents, or take their estates away from them, or 
 turn them out of doors. 
 
 " G. — The Popes think, that this their power of deposing 
 " princes is fully recognized to them in the foresaid canon 
 ** of the Lateran council : and no Pope has ever yet been 
 " brought to disown this power." — p. 75. 
 
 Ij. — And princes think, that this power is not recog- 
 nized in that canon. And they have the great body of 
 catholic bishops and divines on their side. And these 
 have never yet been brought to disown their opinion, 
 and yet they are united in communion with the bishop 
 of Rome. Which shews, that the faith of the church is 
 not at all concerned in it. 
 
 " G. — Nay the Pope\% so far from disowning this power, 
 *• that he, who most of any asserted this bulla cccnce, and set 
 " it up high, causing it to be affixed and published not only 
 •• at t!ie doors of the churches in Rome, but in the field of 
 " Flora, that all might take notice, as you find at the end of
 
 to the Pope, §r. 207 
 
 '* the bull p. 37. Append, and who practised the deposing 
 " power the last in England upon queen Elizabeth, absolving 
 " their subjects from their allegiance, and commanding all 
 " the cutJiolics in England to pay no more obedience, nor 
 " taxes, &c. I say, this same Pope has been picked out to 
 " be canonized for a saint this very last summer, Ann. 1712, 
 " by the present Pope with all the solemnity and requisites 
 *' in the Church of Rome for making a saint." — pp. 75, 76. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is God alone makes saints, and the church 
 only declares them to be so. But she never declares 
 any to be so without a moral ccrtainfj/ of the holiness of 
 their lives past, which without a positive revelation is 
 all we can have of the the greatest saints. It is true 
 Pius V. was the last Pope, that exercised the deponing 
 power. But he exercised it upon a person, whose 
 illegitimacy he was convinced of: and he thought it his 
 duty to do justice to an injured princess, the queen of 
 the Scots, whom the crown was judged to belong to by 
 many more besides himself. So that I see no reason 
 why that action should unsaint him. 
 
 SECTION XLIII. — THE BULLA COEN^. 
 
 « G. — My lord, to return to the bulla ccena, this present 
 " Pope, as well as his predecessors, do every year tininder 
 *' out the cxconimutiicalions of this bull by btll, book, and 
 «• caiulle, which like dracansor cnts dowufricnds aiidyoe*. For 
 " there never was a Jioman catholic king in England, or ia 
 '< any other kingdom eitiier before the reformation or since, 
 " but is oxcornniunicated by the bull; and by the 24rth article 
 <' past the power even of the Pojye to absolve him, unless 
 «' he first abrogates and annuls ail the laws of his country, 
 " which are contrary to the tenor of tiiis hull. And this never 
 " yet was done, and I daresay never will be done in ixwy ]>opish 
 " country in Europe. And there is not, nor ever was any 
 " po/ii.sh cou/ilrt/ in any other part of the world, unless you 
 " will except the late Spanish plantations in /JwJcnVa." — p.7G. 
 
 L. — Sir, according to my small knowledge in f/eo- 
 grnphy, neither Asia nor Africa are in Europe; and yet 
 they were in communion with the bishop of Home, and
 
 208 The Bulla Ca-na. 
 
 acknowledged his sfijnrmacj/ for many hundred years 
 togetlier, as I have shewed before. But this being 
 wholly foreig;n to our j)rescnt purpose, let us consider 
 what you have said concerninj;- our terrible dracansor^ 
 which indeed is both curious and new. For it seems he 
 makes clear work once a year, and cuts down friends 
 wndifoes without distinction :' and I i)resume \y\\G\\ friends 
 themselves are cut down, neuters must expect no quarter. 
 So that, as you have ordered the matter, the Pope sends 
 his whole flock to the devil regularly once a year in 
 holy week to prepare them for their Easter devotions. 
 Miserable condition of papists ! I hope however matters 
 are not quite so bad as you make them. There are some 
 news-writers, who destroy whole armies in their papers, 
 whilst they are perfectly sound and safe in their quarters : 
 and I am apt to think you have done more execution in 
 two lines, than all the Pope's bulls have ever done since 
 the time of the apostles. 
 
 But to give some serious answer to this ridiculous 
 gasco7iade 1 shall recite the words of an ingenious author 
 upon this subject. We believe (says he) the Pope is head 
 of the church jure divino. Bid how far this prerogative 
 reaches is not agreed upon. The council of Florence seems 
 to limit it to the canons of general councils. Quemadmodum 
 et in sacris canonibus continetur. And although many 
 divines stretch it so far as to make all his decrees laws for 
 the ivhole church, yet this is opinion only, not faith. Nor 
 can we find this doctrine defined in any council, or pro- 
 posed in any profession of faith, or in any book jmt out by 
 the authority of the church for the instruction ofthefaitlv- 
 ful. Nay the rides of discipline prescribed by the very 
 council of Trent are not received in many places and pro- 
 vinces, though we believe a general council to be the highest 
 tribunal ecclesiastical upon earth. 
 
 Now the bulla coenae regarding discipline and not faith, 
 and containing some things derogatory to the authority of 
 princes {as they think) several states have not received it: 
 and this the Pope knows ; yet he never put out another bull 
 to exact obedience, or censured those who refused submission.
 
 The Bulla C<xna:. 20^ 
 
 Wliich is a mark, that though he went not beyond his power 
 in publishing it, he left to all states the liberty to receive or 
 reject it, except his own subjects. And besides he commu- 
 nicates as freely with those states that do not receive it as 
 with those that do. Is not this an evident sign, that he re- 
 gards them not as aliens, but as domestics, and true sons of 
 
 the church ? But where it is received, it has the force 
 
 of a law, and the transgressors are as liable to the peiialty 
 of this bull, as to that of other laivs. [The Case Reviewed, 
 Preface, first Edit.] 
 
 The same author (as I mentioned before) observes 
 very judiciously, that liberties and rights in an edict sig- 
 nify those, that are certain, and uncontested. For in the 
 eye of the laic a doubtful privilege, or a right disputable 
 on both sides is not a right absolutely, but a probable or 
 reasonable pretension to it. 
 
 Whence it ioWows, first, that the cxcommunicatio7is of 
 the bulla coenoi fall only on the transgressors in those 
 kingdoms or states, where it has been received : as the 
 canons of the council of Trent relating to discipline oblige 
 only those countries, that have received it without limi- 
 tation. 
 
 It follows, 2(Z///, that it only reaches such princes, as 
 invade the known liberties of the church, or the uncon- 
 tested prerogatives of the njiostolic see. And so you will 
 be hard put to it to find a king in danger of dying without 
 absolution, though he never thiidvs of abrogating and 
 annulling the laws of his own country ; which, as you 
 observe very well, never teas, nor ever will be done in any 
 popish country: because I presume there never was, and 
 perhaps there never will be any occasion for it. And so 
 the ninnberloss excommunicated kings and princes, you 
 have thrown into your black list, will prove to be like 
 l)r Gates army of 30,000 Spanish pilgrims, 
 
 Which lay hid on the shore. 
 
 And never were heard uf since or before. 
 
 But you have said one thing, \\liich is very remarka- 
 ble, vi/., That lhi:rc never was a Roman catholic king in 
 England or in any other kingdom cither before the refor-
 
 210 The Bulla Can^. 
 
 ination or since, but is cxcammunicated by the bulla coence. 
 Tliat is very straiitje iiuleed. For several kin{>\s of Enr/'- 
 h7iil,ixm\ other countries liave been canonized hy the Pope. 
 And docs he then canonize them I'lrnt, and excommuni- 
 cate tliem afterwards ! But I long to hear some more 
 news of this terrible dracansor. 
 
 " G Not oidy the kings themselves, but all t\\Q\r parlia' 
 
 " vients, councillors, judges, officers, even to printers AnA pub- 
 " Ushers, or any whosoever, that either directly or indirecthjy 
 " tacidy or expressly violate, depress, or restrain the ecclesiastical 
 " liberties or rights of the apostolic see, and holy Church of Rome 
 " howsoever and whensoever obtained, or to be obtained, are all 
 " here together excommunicjited : as likewise archbishops, 
 " bishops, and clergy, who shall do the same ; and all who 
 " shall presume to attempt any opjiosition or contravetition to 
 *' any thing contained in the Imll, are left under the displea- 
 " sure of almighty God, and his blessed apostles, Peter and 
 *•' Paul; which is the concluding sanction of the bull. And 
 " here saints must be joined with God, least his displeasure 
 " should not be sufficient. By all this it appears, that there 
 " is hardly any Rojnan catholic in the world, above the con- 
 " dition (ii 'A ploughman, who is not excommunicated by this 
 « bull."— pp. 7C, 77. 
 
 L. — Sir, I think I am something above the condition 
 of &, ploughman, yet I thank God, I do not know I ever 
 was excommunicated by the bulla ccence. But I shall put 
 this short dilemma to you. Either the persons mentioned 
 in the bull invade the knoivn liberties of the church, and 
 uncontested prerogatives of the apostolic see, or not. If 
 not, the bull cannot hurt them. If they do, why should 
 they not be punished for their injustice ? Has not the 
 church, and her supreme pastor as just a title to the im- 
 munities and I'ights, that have been granted them by the 
 canons of councils, and the liberality of christian princes 
 and emperors, as the people has to liberty and property, 
 or any secular prince to the prerogatives of his crown ? 
 Or is the church and clergy so despicable a part of the 
 universe, that they must be treated like bandits, and any 
 man shall be permitted to invade their rights imjnine ? 
 Kings are armed with secular poiver to do themselves
 
 The Bulla Ccencr. 211 
 
 justice; if they be wronged by any other king. But when 
 the church, or her common father is wronged by any 
 prince, they have nothing, but spiritual arms to defend 
 themselves. And therefore the Pope does but act witliiu 
 his proper sphere, when he uses the spiritual stvord, I 
 mean, the power of excommtmicating, which God has un- 
 doubtedly put into his hands, to punish the invaders of his 
 own or the cliurch's rights, together with their accomplices 
 and abettors, let them be as numerous as they please. 
 
 However where are those vast numbers of excommuni- 
 cated offenders? Who are the kings, archbishops, and 
 bishops, that violate, depress, or restrain the ecclesiastical 
 liberties, or tindoubttd rights of the apostolical chair ? I 
 know not where to find them in Eui'ope. Nor have we 
 any news of them from the Spanish plantations in Ame- 
 rica. I hope then by the grace of God, there may be a 
 good reasonable number above the condition of a plough- 
 man, who as they never transgressed against the bull, 
 never incurred the penalty of it. So that you will be 
 obliired to make some amendments and deductions in 
 your bill ; before I shall give my assent to it. 
 
 " G. — At least, my lord, you plainly see the Pope assum- 
 " iiig a temporal or civil power ovtn- all emperors, ki7igs, and 
 " princes ; limiting tliem by the 5tli article as to the raising 
 " taxeji upon tlicir own siilijects willioiit his express license, 
 " arid exeinpling all ecclesiastics from being taxed by them, 
 " Art. 18, or being under their power either in civil or cri- 
 " niinal causes, as by Art. 10, though it were treason., viw- 
 " dcr, ^c. For wiiich noble princii)le Thomas Becket, arcli- 
 " bishop of (JanterbuTij was canonized for maintaining the 
 " liberties of the holi/ church." — p. 77. 
 
 L. — Sir, had Thomas Cranmer had the honesty and 
 courage to maintain the liberties of the holg church, as 
 his predecessor Thomas Bcchet did, the English clergy 
 would not bo so overawed by the secular po7crr, as they 
 now are. Hut Thomas Cranmer had something nearer 
 to his heart, than his hohj s]>onse the church, whom he 
 basely betrayed to tin; cnn.'hy and avarice of an arbitrary 
 prince. And the memory of the one will always be Jis
 
 212 The Bulla Ccvncc. 
 
 contemptible and oilious, as that of the other is venerable 
 in God's church. 
 
 However 1 never read, that Thomas Decket (as you 
 call him) was ever guilty of murder or treason. lor lie 
 neither stirred up tlie j)eople against his sovereign, nor 
 levied troops against him, nor called in forces from abroad, 
 nor met him armed in the field. But tears and prayers 
 were all the arms, he used against his violent persecutor, 
 because he was the Lords anointed. Pie truly practised 
 the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance ; not 
 indeed by a base and wicked compliance, but by a patient 
 suffering of persecution, banishment, and death {or justice' 
 sake. For this, and the holiness of liis life, attested by 
 undeniable miracles, he was canonized by the church, and 
 Christ himself has canonized all such. Matt. v. 10. 
 
 G I perceive, my lord, I have warmed your zeal. But 
 
 what do you say to the three articles of impeachment 
 against the bidla cccncc ? 
 
 Li. — Sir, the first is a mistake, and the two latter are 
 frivolous. It is a mistake, nay a thing unheard of, that 
 sovereign princes are limited by that hull as to their rais- 
 ing taxes upon their lay-subjects. Neither has the papal 
 .•sentence, you refer to, any relation to sovereigns, but only 
 to inferior princes, who without leave from their respec- 
 tive masters oppressed their subjects with unjust taxes. 
 So that the Pope's pretended tyranny, you complain of 
 in this point, is a real vindication of the people's liberties, 
 and the rights of sovereigns. 
 
 But, as to the exemption of the clergy from taxes, and 
 secular tribunals, these two privileges of the church are 
 as ancient as the first christian emperors. So that 
 when St Thomas of Canterbury (if I may call him so 
 without offence) stood up for the privileges of the church 
 against the encroachments of Henry II., he only main- 
 tained what he had found established before him. And 
 let me tell you, Sir, it is no dishonour to the memory of 
 a good shepherd to leave his Jloch in as good a condition 
 as he found it. 
 
 " G. — But, my lord, 1 leave it now to yourself, whetlier.
 
 The Bulla CocncP. 213 
 
 " if you were a king, you would desire all \\\^hi!iliops of your 
 " kingdom to be under an oath of Jidelity to another, who 
 " pretended an absolute and civil poiccr over you with autho- 
 " rity to depose you, as he has done to several of your pre- 
 " decessors, and would by no means be brought to disclaim 
 " such a power, hut on the contrary made a fresh claim of it 
 " every year, and of his being the sovereign monarch of the 
 " world ?" — p. 11 . 
 
 L. — You say/yow have, it to mp, whether^ if I were a 
 king, I would desire all the bishops of my kingdom to be 
 wider an oath of fidelity to another, ^•c. To deal plainly 
 with you, Sir, if I found by experience, that bishops 
 under that oath were generally more loyal and faithful 
 to their lawful sovereigns than some other bishops, who 
 take no such oatli, I should have no reason to be against 
 it. Now I have already shewed that the oathoffdelity, 
 or canonical obedience, which bishops take to the Pope, 
 can never prejudice the just rights of any sovereign. For 
 surely men can render to Cccsar what belongs to Coisar at 
 the same time that they render to God what belongs to 
 God. And, as to the bulla ccena;, it neither calls the 
 Pope sovereign monarch of the -world, nor gives him an 
 absolute and civil power over catholic croivned heads, 
 whom all the world knows to be in temj>orals as absolute 
 in their dominions, as any jnotestant prince in Kurojie. 
 Nay far more absolute than the kings of Great Britain, 
 who cannot raise one farthing of money, nor impose any 
 taxes without the consent of the people. For this is the 
 great bulwark of the liberties and properties of English 
 subjects. And why then is it a disparagement to catholic 
 princes not to liave the power of levying taxes on the 
 clergy witli(tut their own, or the Pope's consent, which 
 never was refused by either in any reasonable exigency 
 of the state ? 
 
 Nor does the exemption of the clergy from sccubir 
 tribunals even in capital causes any ways obstruct the 
 course «)f ju>ifice. For when a clergyman is first tried 
 before the ccclt siastical trd>un(d, it is not done to shelter 
 him from justice, but to shew a respect to the character
 
 214 The Bulla Cctna;. 
 
 be has dislionourcd. For, if he be found p^uilty, he is 
 first degradeil, and stiii)j)cd of the marks of liis dignity : 
 and heint^ thus secularized, as I may call it, and thrown 
 into the rank oi lai/nicn, he is delivered np to the .secular 
 power to he punished as he deserves. iSo that there is 
 no danger of the Pope's putting in his caveat against it, 
 or intercepting the course of justice in any kingdom 
 ■whatsoever, though you will needs make him the sovereign 
 ino7iarch of the world. 
 
 " G. — Nay, my lord, he puts in his claim for more, if 
 «■ more can be thought of, as it is worded in the Imlla civncB 
 " Art. 24. All tlie ricjhts of the apostolic see, and holy Church 
 " of Home, howsoever and whensoever obtained, or to be obtained, 
 " ^c. Howsoever obtained : that is, you are not to enquire 
 " whether right or tvrotiff : and whensoever ; that is you are 
 " not to go back to antiquity, or the institution, or look 
 " farther than the present possession, which with him gives 
 " right, when it is for liim. And, to be obtained, secures any 
 " new acquisitions lie can make, and all future jnetcnsions. 
 " This is like swearing to etceteras. And now, I think the 
 " plenitude of his power is sufficiently guarded. And all 
 " this is included in the regalia of St Peter, and the rights of 
 " the Roman church, to which tlie bishops of France, as well 
 '' as of other popish countries are sworn, if they take that 
 " oath sincerely, that is, according to the known and declared 
 " sense of the imposer." — p. 78. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is the first time in my whole life I have 
 been informed, either that the word [^rights'] signifies 
 prerogatives or possessions got right or wrong : or that 
 the Pope has ever declared, that when his interest is 
 concerned, right and wvo;;^ signify the same thing. And, 
 if he never has made such a declaration, a person must 
 1)6 void of shame and conscience to tell me, that this is 
 the known and declared sense of the imposer of the oath 
 in question. 
 
 G. — Why, my lord, what do these words then mean, 
 howsoever, when,soever obtained, or to he obtaitied ? 
 
 L. — What do they mean, Sir! why, every man of 
 common sense and honesty will tell you, that hoivsoever 
 obtained signifies, whether got by donation, or bargain.
 
 21ie Gentleman's Politics. 215 
 
 or 7xx\Y just way whatsoever, whereby a lawful possession 
 is acquired. And tchensoever obtained, imports, whether 
 the title be of a fresh or ancient date. Because a title 
 is equally just and valid, whether it was obtained yester- 
 day, or a thousand years ago. Finally, a right not yet 
 obtained may be obtained hereafter; and when it is 
 obtained, it is as just as those, whereof we are already 
 in possession : and they who wrong- the possessor in it 
 are as much guilty of injustice, as if they invaded the 
 rights of a thousand years' standing. 
 
 This, Sir, is the true, natural, and obvious sense of 
 the 24th article of the bull. And therefore you are 
 bound to retract your injurious comment upon it; unless 
 you will die guilty of slander in representing the Pope 
 as a profligate villau for imposing a wicked oath, and all 
 tlie catholic bishops in the world as perjured wretches for 
 taking it. 
 
 SECTION XLIV. — SOME TOUCHES OF THE GENTLEMAN's 
 
 POLITICS. 
 
 G. — My lord, I suspect the bishops of Prance take that 
 oath but with a very ill will. For it M'ould certainly have 
 been taken away, if that model oi government, which was 
 once proposed by the parliament of Paris had gone on. 
 " And it hn<\ gone on, hut for tlie success of that confederacy 
 " forniod by Innocent XI., against the king of Prance to re- 
 " cstablisli his suprvniacij there." — pjy. 78, 79. 
 
 L Do you say, Sir, to re-establish his supremacy 
 
 there? Pray, when was it lost? Has not the Po/^c always 
 communicated with the kings and church of Prance ? 
 And did you not tell me a while ago, that the Church of 
 Rome by her jirinciples cannot comnumicate irith any, who 
 will not own her supremacy? Pray, save this from a con- 
 tradiction, if you can. 
 
 " Cr Yon intorrnptod nie, my lord ; for I was going to 
 
 " tell yon, that in ordor to this confederacy tlie Pope sent a 
 " nuncin to onrlato kiiig.A/;«ra to invite him to l)e the head oi 
 " it. Jint he, wlio had learned no oilier than Prcnchjyopcry^
 
 216 21ie GentlcmaiCs Poliiics. 
 
 *' al)Soliitc]y refused, and opposed the cncroacliments of the 
 " Pope's suprcmaci/, as appears plainly hy his concurrence 
 « with Mr Barillon the French amiiassador, then residing 
 " with him, to cause \\\(^ proceedings of the j)arlia7ncnt of Paris 
 " apfainst the Pope's svprcinarij hereunto annexed to be tran- 
 " slated into TT/i/y/Av//, and printed at London, Ann. 1688, which 
 " was the last of his reigning here." — p. 79, 
 
 X. — Surely, Sir, you study to make mistakes. Else 
 how can you tell me, that the proceedings of the parlia- 
 ment of Paris deny the Pope's svprcmacy ? When every 
 body, that has hut eyes to read, can disprove you. They 
 oppose indeed the Pope's infallihiUty, and power over 
 the temporality of princes, but in plain and express terms 
 acknowledge his supremacy in spirituals, as I have already 
 shewed, sect. 19. And if you will but do this, and profess 
 the same French popery, as king James did, I assure you, 
 Sir, there will be an end of all disputes betwixt us. 
 
 " G. — However, my lord, the Pope was not content with 
 " it, and had this for his excuse, that he could not have 
 " otherwise carried on his confederacy tlian hy concerting 
 ^' the deposition of king James: who would not have agreed 
 " to the first of the articles sworn at the Hague by the prin- 
 " ces, allies, and confederates in February, 1691, and printed 
 <' here at the same time, viz: that 710 peace he made with Lewis 
 " XIV, till he has made rejmration to the holy see fur whatsO' 
 " ever he has acted against it; and till he aivud ajid make void 
 '^^ all those iifamous 2>roceedinys against the holy father InnO' 
 " cent XL These are the proceedings of the jmrliament of Paris 
 " here annexed. And in the treaty of king William with 
 " Spain he.-iring date, Dec. 31. Ann. 1690, it is stipulated 
 " Art. 4. That all things in the ecclesiastics (in France) should 
 " be restored as in their fojmer state. Now, if king James 
 " would not conio into these things, was there not sufficient 
 " reason for the Pope to exercise his deposing jjowcr against 
 *' him in the best manner he could? And, if he had such 
 «« power from God, then king James had no injury to com- 
 <' plain of as done to liim ; being deposed by his lawful su- 
 <' perior. King James's fate was certainly very hard. He 
 *' was abdicated in England because he was a. papist: and the 
 *' Pope wrought his deposition, because lie was too much a 
 ^' proteslant." — pp. 79, tjO.
 
 Tht GentlemanH s Politics. 217 
 
 L. — I perceive, Sir, you are most deeply read in po- 
 litics, and will needs have it, that Pope Innocent XT. 
 wrought the deposition of king James : for which you 
 quote two articles agreed to, as you tell me, by the con- 
 federates at the Hague, and printed in London. Now 
 every thing is not an infallible truth that is printed in 
 London ; and the abovesaid articles appear very extraor- 
 dinary, because it follows from them, that king Williani 
 was a more zealous papist oven than king James himself; 
 which I have some difficulty to believe. But let that 
 pass, and take it now for granted, that the articles Avere 
 genuiiic, where do you find that the Pope had a part in 
 the consultations at the Hague ? Had not the courts of 
 Vienna and Madrid both hatred enough for France, and 
 ^eal enough for the Pope to concert those articles in fa- 
 vour of him without his being personally concerned in 
 the matter ? And if so, it can be no proof, that the Pope 
 was accessory to the deposition of king James. Nay let 
 us suppose he even was concerned in that treaty, which 
 (as you say) was set on foot in Feb., 1G91. ^^'hat con- 
 nexion could it have with Vmg James's deposition, whicii 
 was fully completed Ann. 1G88. Besides I cannot but 
 think the French arc sound papists: and therefore king 
 James being a French papist, as you call him, could be 
 no provocation to the Pope to desire his deposition. 
 
 " 6'. — My lord, siicli protcstants are the French at Rome, 
 
 " that they are reckoned there to be tolerated heretics." 
 
 p. 80, 
 
 L. — Under favour, Sir, that smells as rank of Grub 
 Street as king fl'illiam's being a papist, and designing to 
 establish Italian popery in France, 
 
 " (^r- — Nor would llioy be tolerated, if the Pope could 
 " li(;l|) it. Tliat is, if lio durst imitate the example of liis 
 " prcdccfSHor tlu; new saiut Pope J'ius V. to depose the so- 
 " rcr<;i-,'n, absolve the subjects from their allegiance, and 
 " interdict tho ltinf,r(!om, IJiit that cxpcrinu-nt proved so fatal 
 " to tho Pope in Fnijland, that it is not likely it will ever bo 
 " tried af,'ain either in France, or any wlujre else. The thun- 
 " dcr of tho Vatican is spent, and become a brutum falmcn." 
 —pp. 80, 8 J. 
 
 L
 
 1218 The Gentleman's PoUlics. 
 
 L. — That is p^ood news indeed. But why then will 
 you not cease railiiiji^ at the Pope, since he is never like 
 to give you any fartlior niolestalion ? 
 
 " G. — The cntpcior keeps Commacltio still, notwitlistand- 
 •• ing it is particularly named by the Latin name Comuduin 
 " in the butla came." — p. 81. 
 
 L So much the worse for him, unless he can justify 
 
 it before God. And it is more than you or I can tell, 
 whether he can or no. 
 
 " G. — The 2d .irticle damns all, who appeal from the Pojje 
 " to Si future council. Yet have we not seen it done in form 
 " by the king of France, and the parlia)ne}ii of Paris, and 
 " that very bidl named, and thrown otf without any regard? 
 
 L. — Sir, it was never throivn off, because it was never 
 received in France. 
 
 " G. — Tlie whole Galilean church are under excoinmiini- 
 " cation in almost all the articles of it by the four memorable 
 " propositions hero annexed : which were established in the 
 " general assembly of their bishops and clertji/, Ann. 1G82. 
 <' Upon which the Pope refused his bulls to tbe bishops there, 
 " as is complained of in the j^TOceedings of the parliament of 
 " Paris, and was tlie ground of their quarrel with Pope /w- 
 <' nocent XI. And the learned da Pin wrote his treatise JJe la 
 *' Puissance Ecclesiastique in defence of these propositions 
 " against all the objections of the Pope, and Church of 
 " liome:'—\^. 81. 
 
 L. — He did so. And is it any wonder, that in disputes 
 ahout privileges both sides should write in defence of 
 tlieir own cause ? However that be, the four propo- 
 sitions you speak of, were never condemned as herelical 
 by the Fope : but bein<r displeased with the proceedings 
 of the bishojjs, which he looked upon as disrespectful, he 
 refused to send hulls for the filling up of the bishoprics 
 that were vacant. Nor do I see how those propositions 
 could put the Gnllican church under the excommunica- 
 tions of the bulla cccnrv: because the whole subject of that 
 bull being matters of discipline, it does not oblige but 
 where it is received : since even rules of discipline made 
 by tlie supreme tribunal of the church oblige not ;ill na- 
 tions equally, as 1 have already remarked. And where
 
 The Gentleman's Politics. 219 
 
 iliey do not oblige, a non-compliance cannot be- punish- 
 able by exconunnnicatio}!. And so the foiu- propositions, 
 though never so contrary to the bu/la avtuc, could not 
 involve the Gallican church in that punishment. 
 
 Now then, as to what you have assorted with a posi- 
 tiveness as if you had a reveiatioJi of ir, x'iz., that Inno- 
 cent XL wrought the deposition of king James, I shall 
 beg leave not to believe one word of your story till you 
 produce some uncontested facts to prove it. Did Inno- 
 cent absolve king James's subjects from the allegiance, 
 they had sworn to him ? Did his holiness give a dispen- 
 sation to the lords spiritual and temporal to invite the 
 Prince of Orange over? Was it by his orders that the 
 English fleet let him pass, and that the army went over 
 to him ? Finally, did he send his hull to authorize the 
 eonvejition to place the crown upon king JVilliani's head/ 
 For, if he wrought king James's deposition, as you pre- 
 tend he did, it must certainly be upon record, tiiat he 
 employed some of the means, I have mentioned, in order 
 to it. For 1 am sure he neither sent me7i nor money to 
 assist the Prince of Orange. 
 
 But is it not ridiculous to run upon a fools errand as 
 i'nr as Home in cpiest of the true instruments of tUe Revo- 
 lution, when they may be found without the trouble even 
 ol' crossing the seas? Why will vou needs rol) your own 
 church of the glory of it, after she has .signalized lierself 
 so eminently in that important service? Wiiy must the 
 Pope go away with the honour of an exploit, the main- 
 taining whereof has cost England so much true protestant 
 blood and treasure? hJiu'ely king fVilliani, who under- 
 stood the bottom of that business the best of any, ne\er 
 thouglit himself indebted to his holiness for the success 
 of his o.xpcdiiiuu. For if he ha<l, he would never have 
 requited his hmefartor by suffering jiim to be burnt in 
 *ffi'jy several times a year as long as he lived. But sup- 
 pose it were so, what is it to our purjjose? Do you make 
 no difference between the church, and the court of Rome? 
 
 *' G. — I ini<l«Tstan<l not the distinction. If you moan 
 ** nothing l»y the Church of Rome hut a general council, tlicn
 
 220 The Gcntkmmis Politics. 
 
 " there is no Church of Rome now in the world. But if thero 
 " be a Church of Home, where shall we look for it but at 
 " Rome? And what is it there, but the Pope and his cardi' 
 *' uals? And is not tliat it whicii you call the court of Rome? 
 ♦' Where then is the difference?" — pp. 81, 82. 
 
 L. — Really, Sir, I cannot but admire your affocted 
 ignorance, as if you knew no better than yon pretend to 
 do. Yon tell me you do not nnderstand the difference 
 between the Church cmd court of Rome. How can that 
 be ? Is not the Pope a temporal prince, and a very con- 
 siderable one as well as head of the church ? As he is a 
 temporal jjrince, he has his coiirt and politics like other 
 princes. But as he is bishop of the diocessoi Rome, and 
 head of the church, lie is considered purely in a spiritual 
 capacity, and as such he has no court, as that word is 
 usually taken. For St Peter (whose successor he is in 
 spirituals) was both head of the church, and bishop of 
 Rome, yet had no court. And when St Paul wrote his 
 epistle to the Romans, he wrote to the Church, but not 
 the court of Rome. They are therefore separable, and 
 by consequence distinct. 
 
 You toil me next, if I mean nothing by the Church of 
 Ilo7ne but a general council, then there is no Church of 
 Rome noiv in the world. But who was ever so ridiculous, 
 as to have such a meaninof? For a neneral council is 
 neither the episcopal see of Rome, nor the diffusive body 
 of the Roman Catholic Church, but the representative of 
 that body. And therefore as there is a British nation in 
 being, when there is no British parliajnent sitting, so I 
 hope that neither the episcopal see of Rome, nor the Ro- 
 man Catholic Church lose their being, when there is no 
 general council assembled. 
 
 You ask, if there be a Church of Rome, where is it to 
 he looked for but at Rome? I answer, that it is a probable 
 opinion amongst the learned, that neither the city, nor 
 diocess of Rome is the whole Roman Catholic Church, 
 which however we commonly call the Church of Rome. 
 
 You ask again, rvhat is there at Rome but the Pope and 
 his cardinals? Go io Rome, Sir, and you will find some-
 
 The Supremacy Misrepresented. 221 
 
 tliino- else besides the Pope and his cardinals. I hope 
 however they are not the whole Roman Catholic Church. 
 But I am weary of politics. For that is not our business, 
 but religion ; especially since neither you nor I are ever 
 like to be ministers of state. I am a member of the Churchy 
 but not of the court of Rome; and will always pay a due 
 submission and obedience to the Pope, as he is the chief 
 bishop, and supreme pastor of the church. 
 
 SECTION XLV. — THE SUPREMACY MISREPRESENTED EY 
 
 THE GENTLEMAN. 
 
 «' G. — The precedence of bishops is not a matter of that 
 " consequenie, as to hreak tlie peace of the tliurch for it: 
 '• or which of them sliould preside iu a council. If that were all 
 '' the difference, the bishop v{ Home should have it with all my 
 " heart, or any other bishop they should agree upon. And 
 " if this were all that is meant by the suprentacij of the Pope, 
 " we should not trouble the world much about it. But he 
 " will not be content with any such thing-. The supremaci/ 
 '•■ he claims is no less than au absolute sovereignity over all 
 *' the churches, and kingdoms of the earth, their bishops, and 
 " their kings. And this not by any ecclesiastical constitution, 
 «' or giant of teinpor(d princes, which might be conditional, 
 " limital, and rcvocabii; and wouhl infer their superiority to 
 " him ; but by a divine and indefeasible right, as successor of 
 " 8t Pctir, and heir of all the promises to him, nnalteruble, 
 " unlimitable, and unaccountable to any jiower upon earth." 
 — /;. 82. 
 
 L. — What a hideous monster have you liere made of 
 the Pope ! You tell me the supremacy he claims is no 
 less than an absolute sorcrrif/nti/ over all the kingdoms 
 and churches (if the. earth, their bishops and their hings^ 
 unalterable, unlimitable, and vnaccouidablc to any power 
 ujxni earth. But where is the j)roof of this exorbitant 
 notion of the sujarmary? Not a word of that. Nay 1 
 only de.«,ire you to name the Popes, who pretended tliat 
 all bishojjs were their 7:icars placea!>le and displaceablo 
 at pleasure; and all kings their dcjndies and vicercgeids?
 
 22:2 The Supremacy Misrepresented. 
 
 For tliat is the immediate consequence, if they pretend, 
 as vou say they do, to be absolute suvercifjns, unlimilabk, 
 and uiHicconntnble to any power nj>on earth. 
 
 This therefore is all exat^a^eration ; nay tlie council of 
 Florence in its doHiiition of the Pope'.'i supremacy tells us 
 expressly, that in the person of St Peter he has receired 
 from our Lord Jesus Christ full power to feed, rule, 
 and (jovcrn the whole church in such a manner as is ex^ 
 pressed in the acts of oecumenical councils, and the holy 
 canojis. 
 
 G. — But does not Bellarmin, and other Italian divines 
 give him a great deal more ? 
 
 L. — Bellarmin allows him an indirect poiver over the 
 temporality of princes, and an infallibility in defining 
 doctrinal points juridically. But he is far from being- 
 guilty of raising the supremacy to the fantastical height, 
 in which you have placed it. For he tells us expressly 
 (L. 2. de Pont. C. 29.), that as it is lawful to resist the 
 Pope, if he attempts upon our lives, so is it also, if lie 
 invades our souls, or raises sedition in the commonwealth ; 
 atul much more if he endeavours to destroy the church. 
 So that the spiritual supremacy is here declared limitahle 
 and accountable by Bellarmin himself, whom protestants 
 usually stile the Pope's champion. 
 
 " G. — But when the Pope moans one thing by his supre- 
 " macy, and you mean aiiother, and he has sufficiently 
 •' declared what he means by it, and requires your owning 
 " it, and swearing to it for his security, who deals more 
 " sincerely with him, we, who not believing any sucii supre- 
 *' inacy in him, will neither own it, nor swear to it ; or you, 
 " who not believing it more than we in the sense you know 
 " be means, yet own it in general terms, but in a quite cou- 
 " trary sense to what you know he means, and trusts to as 
 "his security? We disown it, and fight against it; you 
 " fight against it as much as we, yet seem to own it." — j). 83. 
 
 L. — Pray, Sir, answer me this plain question if you 
 can. fVhere, when, and upon what occasion has the Pope 
 sufficiently declared, that by the supremacy he means an 
 absolute sovereignty over all bishops and kings unlimitahle, 
 and unaccountable to any power upon earth ? For if you
 
 Of Excommunications. 2'2 3 
 
 cannot produce any such declaration, as I am sure you 
 cannot, your reflection upon the Po/?e'5 pretended mean- 
 ing-, and the oath which bishops take to him, is highly 
 injurious and defamatory. I shall add an observation, 
 which I take to be a positive proof against you. 
 
 There never was a book more solemnly and universally 
 approved than the bishop of Meaux's Exposition de la 
 Foy. This book in the article of the Pope's supremacy 
 jS^ives him no more, than what the whole church of France 
 owns to belong to him jure divino. Yet Innocent XI. 
 who was the very Pope, that acted so vigorously against 
 the bishops of France, was so far from censuring it for 
 lowering iiis supronac//, that he approved it by a special 
 brief writ to the bishop himself, Jan. 4. Jin. 1()79. 
 Winch we may reasonal^ly suppose he would not have 
 done, had he meant any thing more by the supremacy, 
 than what he found in the bishop's exposition of it. So 
 tliat it is literally true indeed, that the Pope has sufficiently 
 declared xuhat he means by it, but in a sense very different 
 from the extravagant notion, you pretend to have of it. ; 
 
 Advertisement. — After the gentleman's last words in his Case 
 Slated, his lordsliip is so comjilaisant as to give all for granted. 
 He only says, that, notwithstanding the supposed extravagant 
 pretensions of the Pope, we still keep communion with liim. 
 ^V'hich I presume he was made to say only to usher in thefollow- 
 ing (juestwns. 
 
 SFXTION XIAI. — OF EXCOMMUNICATIONS. 
 
 ** G. — My lord is not excommunication putting a man out 
 " of his connnunion ?" — j^. 84. 
 
 Z/.— Well, what then ? 
 
 " G. — Can then a man be said to ho in the communion 
 " of a biHhop, who has oxcornmtniicated liini ?" — j>. 83. 
 
 L — No, Sir, if he be eficctiially excommunicated. 
 
 " G. — 'I'licn nono can be truly said to bo in communion 
 " with the I'ope, who are cxoominunicatud by him every 
 '• year in tiie bidla came." — p. 81. 
 
 L. — It is certain, Sir, tliat they, who arc efl^cctiuilly
 
 -'24 Of Excommunications. 
 
 oxcommunicatcd by that or any other hiill^ are not in 
 the Pope's communion. 
 
 *' G. — And that is all France, and you, my lord ; and all, 
 «• who are on your side of the question concerning tlie 
 " supremac;/ of the Pope. For that is the main, almost the 
 " wliole suhject of the bull." — p. 84. 
 
 L. — Surely, Sir, you speak by rote, and never gave 
 yourself the trouble to read it. For I do not find any 
 one article concerning the Vo}^^'^ supremacy \\\ the whole 
 hull ; nor any one excommunicated by it for denying the 
 Pope to be the absolute sovereign over all the churches and 
 kingdoms of the earthy their bishops, atid their hings, Sfc. 
 
 13ut what better proof can there be that France is not 
 effectually excommunicated by the bulla cccme, than that 
 all Popes not only communicate with the Gallican church, 
 and have their nuncios residing at the French court, but 
 moreover acknowledge the hing of France to be the most 
 christian king, the eldest son of the church, and protector 
 of tlie holy see? For, if excommunication according to 
 your own notion be putting a man out of his communiony 
 does it not follow that communicating with him is owning 
 in fact, that he does not look upon him as effectually 
 excommunicated by him? 
 
 Advertiskmext. — Instead of the answer now given to tlie gentle- 
 man's last words in his Case Stated, his lordship to shetv his learn- 
 ing tells him, that all casuists agree, that an excommunication does 
 not bind, which is made clave errunte, i. e. by a judge that errs. 
 To nhicli the gcntlciiiaii answers us follows : — 
 
 " G- — But who is the Judge, whether the sentence be pro- 
 " nounced clave erraiUe, or noi ? And how far the Pope's 
 " authority extends ?" — p. 84. 
 
 L — Sir, it is in the business of excommitnications, as 
 in all other /;c?i«/^/cs inflicted by a judge in the exercise 
 of his jurisdiction. For the case is cither clear on one 
 side, and then it decides itself. Or it is doubtful, and 
 then the presumption is generally on the superior's side. 
 However, as long as it remains undetermined, both par- 
 ties are justifiable before God, provided all passion be 
 laid aside ; and a sincere conscience be made their rule 
 and guide. Now, Sir, proceed if you please.
 
 Of Exco7nmunications, 225 
 
 " G. — My lord, the Pope has excommunicated you. All 
 <= of you, as if each one ivere particularly natned. For so it is 
 " expressed in the ball. On the other liand you despise this 
 " hull, and say with the parliament of Paris, pp. 44, 45, that 
 " he is thereby excommunicated himself. And so you have 
 *' a head of the church, who is excommunicated. And so of 
 " every Pope, who gives his sanction to this bull. That is, 
 " all the Popes in our time and long before. And from whose 
 " communion is the Pope of Pome excommunicated ? Is 
 " there any other ccnnmnnion but that of Rome ? Is a per- 
 " son excommunicated any longer a member of the cliurch? 
 " And can he then be the head of it? These are matters of 
 " no small importance; no less than whether we are members 
 '•' of the church, or cut off from it. You are cut oft', says the 
 *' Pope and the Church of Rome. No, says France to them, 
 " you yourselves are cut oft\ And yet these churches are 
 " the same. And is there no judge in this case? Is every 
 " man left to h\i private judgment ?" — pp. 84, 85. 
 
 L. — Sir, I must bejj leave to put a familiar question 
 to you, though perhaps somewhat unmannerly. Pray, 
 Sir, docs your pulse beat regularly ? For I really fear 
 you stand more in need oi physic than an answer. I have 
 already endeavoured to convince you modestly that nei- 
 ther France nor I myself are excommunicated by the 
 bulla cccna: : yet you will needs have us all excommuni- 
 cated by it, even in spite of the Poj)e's actually commu- 
 nicating with us. Then (to complete the farce) wc forsooth 
 excommunicate the Pope in our turn, and for proof of it 
 you produce the proceedings of the parliament of Paris : 
 wliereas to the credit, Sir, of your admirable skill in 
 quoting there is not a word of it in the })iece, you refer 
 nic to, as I have fully shewed, sect. 19. And have I not 
 tiien reason to fear all is not well with you? For how 
 sliould you otherwise talk such wild stufl" as this: You arc 
 cut ()ffl sags the Fope and Church of Rome. No, sags 
 France (o them, you yourselves are cut off. \\licreas every 
 body knows that France and Pome communicate together. 
 
 l^ut supj)osc the French advocate had been so mad as 
 to declare the Po])e excommunicated, would any man in 
 his senses take it for granted, that he was therefore rc(dly 
 
 L 2
 
 22G 0/ ExcommimicaUons. 
 
 excommunicated ? Nay and run descant upon it, as if it 
 were an undoubted fact, and break forth into these vehe- 
 ment inti'irogatories, and fruin irhose comnmnion is the 
 Pope of Rumc excommvnicatcd? Is a person cxcommnni' 
 cuted any longer a member of the chiarh ? And can he 
 then be the head of it? After which you conclude with 
 a serious air, th(d these are matlers of no S7n all importance, 
 and demand very gravely, lulio is the judge in this case ? 
 Why, Sir, the parties on both sides connnunicating witli 
 each other determine tlie question; nay every man in his 
 right senses will be surprised at your asking it. 
 
 " G My lord, how have we been teazcd with that ques- 
 
 *' tion, ivho shall be judge? This answers all objections witli 
 " you. For begin at what point oi popery you will, and bring 
 " argmnents never so convincing, wo are always stopped 
 " with this question, who shall be judge 9 And so you refer 
 " all to the authority of the church. But when you answer 
 " this as to your own case, you will have answered it as to 
 " us too." — p. 85. 
 
 L. — Sir, I must beg your pardon. For I have already 
 answered it as to my own case: and you are as far as ever 
 from answering it with relation to any of your pretended 
 reformers. However I do not remember 1 have yet 
 troubled you with the question, xcho shall be judge^ in 
 answer to your objections : but have made a pretty good 
 shift to stop your career with other answers. 
 
 But let that be as it will, the true meaning of tlie 
 question you speak of is this ; viz., ivho has a better tide 
 to be the judge of controversies in religion? The church of 
 Christ, or a private man appealing from her authority to 
 his own private judgment? And let me tell )'ou, Sir, the 
 question thus understood suffices to confound any jjrc- 
 tended reformer of the church's faith. But the case is 
 quite otherwise as to the question in reference to excom- 
 munications, or disputes about privileges ; as is obvious to 
 the reflection of any man, who can distinguish between 
 articles of revealed religion, au(\. facts, that have no rela- 
 tion to it. 
 
 " G. — My lord, if the Pope be supreme head of the univer- 
 " sal c/iurc/i; he must have power of excommunicating over
 
 0/ Excommunications. 2'27 
 
 " all in liis own communion. That is, according to his scheme 
 " over all christians in the world. And to dispute the vali- 
 •• dity of his excomnuinication is a total denial of his siipre- 
 " macy, and setting up another supreme above him. And who 
 " is tliat ? Who is J ndffc, whether his excommunication is 
 '•' valid or not ? And hy what authority does he judge ? It 
 " mnst be by some authority superior to that of the Pope^ 
 '' and so he is supreme over the supreme." — p. 85. 
 
 L. — Sir, that the Pope has the power of excommunica- 
 ting for a just cause is as certain, as that kings have 
 power to punish rebellious subjects. But pray, Sir, is it 
 impossible for me to ju(l<)^e that my saperioi' is mistaken 
 in the exercise of his auf/iorif// over me without disowning 
 the lawful extent of it? Or do I become superior to bim 
 byjud<^ina^ myself wronged by him? What wretciied 
 stuff is this ! I have heard of subjects that have gone to 
 law with their surercign, and sentence has been pro- 
 nounced in favour of them : yet I never heard the sove- 
 reign has lost ills prerogative or svpcriority by it. But, 
 .Sir, in the question we have before us, viz., ivhether 
 France he excommunicated by the bulla cccncc, we need no 
 t>ther judge than the Pope himself who has sufficiently 
 • lecided the matter. For be knows the Inill has never 
 been received by, nor has any force in France : and 
 therefore communicates (as I told you before) with 
 the GaUiran church, as with other ehiirehes: lie has his 
 nuncio residing at the French court. He acknowledges 
 their king to be the oldest son of the church, and protec- 
 tor of the holy see. What do you require more ? Js not 
 this declaring in fact, that the Gallican cJntrch is not 
 under excomnuinication ? Is it not declaring, that he 
 judges thi-'ir profession of faith relating to the supnniacy 
 to be orthodox ; without which it is certain he would not 
 communicate with them? 
 
 '■ G. — My lord, if tho Pope's excommunication stands 
 " (without which his sujnrmury falls) we may say, wlio can 
 " DO saved? All christian kings nud princes that are, or ever 
 " were in tlio world, even lli(»s(' of liis own communion, par- 
 " licularly in England as well before the nfurniadon as since, 
 " arc all together cursed and anulkunatizcd to the pit of hell
 
 228 Bdlarmm and G rattan explained. 
 
 •• by tlie bulla acncc. And with tliom all their bishops, divines, 
 •' pariumiDits, judges, lawyers, clerks, pri/ifers, and publishers, 
 " or any others, who have any manner of way been uidiiuj, 
 *» assistiiKj, or co7iscHtin(f, though tacitly, to the contravention 
 " of their princes to any part of this bull: that is, as I said 
 •' before, almost every one above the condition of a plongh- 
 " man, are here all damned by all the aidhoritij xSxaPopc has. 
 " Therefore have a care of giving him too much. For he 
 " will take all any body will give him." — pp. 85, 86. 
 
 L. — Sir, all this has been answered already. I thank 
 you however for the prudent caution you give me not to 
 be too liberal to the Pope. Though you have set me but 
 a very bad example. For I assure you, Sir, you have 
 given him more than the lioman Catholic Church ever 
 dreamt of. 
 
 SECTION XLVII. — BELLAUMIN AND GRATIAN EXPLAINED. 
 
 " G. — He accepted this from Bellarmin, that if the Pope 
 •' should command the practice of vice, and forbid virtue, the 
 ♦' church were obliged to believe vice to be good, and virtue to be 
 " wicked. De Rom. Pont. L. 4, C. 5." 
 
 L. — But pray, Sir, was not Bellarmin put into hed- 
 lam, when he taught this mad doctrine ? 
 
 G. — Not that I ever heard of. 
 
 Ij. — Then by the grace of God we may hope he never 
 taught it. So let us hear out the rest of your story. 
 
 " G. — Nay his own canon law says, that if the Pope iccre 
 " so icicked as to carry with him innumerable people by troops 
 " as slaves to hell to be with him fur ever tormented, yet no inor- 
 " tal man whatsoever must presume here to repi-ovc his faults, 
 " because he is judge of all, and himself to be judged by none. 
 *' Decret. Part. I. Dist. 40. Can. Si Papa. So then they 
 " must keep their reproofs, and not endeavour to stop the 
 «' career till they are with him in hell ; and then I presume 
 " his supremacy ceases. LJehold the machine of human inven- 
 " tion, which God never thought of, nor ever once mention- 
 " od, of climbing to heaven by a sort of mechanism upon a 
 " ladder of Popes, cardinals, councils, S)C. And though we 
 "• see them leading us by troops to hell, we must give no ob-
 
 Bellaimhi and Gratian explained. 229 
 
 " struction because it would break their machine of being our 
 " infallible guides to heaven" — pp. 86, 87. 
 
 L. — I must beg leave to advise you, Sir, that wliou 
 you intend to be very witty, you forget not to speak 
 sense, as you liave unluckily done this time. For I desire 
 to know what is nonsense, if this be not ? viz., tliat the 
 pretended machine of Popes being i) fallible guides to hca- 
 cen u-Quld be broke, if they were not permitted to carry 
 as tnany as thcg please to the devil withoiit reproof or mo- 
 lestation. 
 
 But let us see, what justice yon have done either to 
 Bellarmin, or Gratiaiis canon latr, which you miscall the 
 Pope's. As to Bellarmin, the plain meaning of his pro- 
 position is this. That if an infuUible person (as he main- 
 tains the Pope to be) should teach the most impious 
 errors, we should be bound to follow him : which mad 
 supposition, together with its consequence as ridiculous 
 as itself, does no manner of harm, unless you can show, 
 that Bellarmin was so mad as to hold it possible that an 
 infallible person can teach the most gross and impious 
 errors. AH therefore that Bellarmin teaches is, that au 
 absurd consequence would follow from an absurd suppo- 
 sition : which is certiiinly true : as it is true to say, that 
 if a man were a horse, he u'oidd not have a rational said. 
 And if I should maintain this conditional proposition, 
 would it be fair to charge me with holding, that a man 
 has not a rational soul ? 
 
 As to Grafian's canon laic, besides that he is an autlior 
 of little or tio credit amongst us, you have very much 
 misrepresented his words; if coining one jjartand clij)ping 
 another may proj)crly be called misrepresenting. For you 
 make it begin thus: If the Pope rrere so cricked as to 
 carry with him, S^-c. Whereas the true translation of it is 
 as follows: if the Pope being neglectful if his otcn salva- 
 tion and that ff his brethren, be found nn])rofitahlr, and 
 7'cmiss in his duty ; nay and moreover is silent when he ought 
 to speak : which is a greater mischiif both to himself and 
 his tvhole flock : nevcrthdi ss draws irith him. Sec. 
 
 Now, .Sir, there is a diflercncc bctwcn this and your
 
 230 0/ Church Authority, 
 
 saying', if the. Pope were so tric/ad an In carry vifh him, 
 ^'c. For this imports no K-ss than a deliberate design to 
 damn whole multitiules: in wliich chimericcd case no man 
 surt'ly is so mad as to say 1k> might not justly be resisted. 
 Whereas the true words of the pretended canon im|iort 
 no such tliip'2;', hut only a neylect of his own and neigh- 
 hour's salvation ; a remissness in his duty, and a criminal 
 silence, which may occasion the loss of many souls; in 
 which case it says, he cannot be proceeded against j'Mr/j- 
 eialhj. For the word reddrtjnerc can bear no other 
 meaning, as is plain from the reason immediately added 
 to it, viz., because he is judge of all, and himself to be 
 judged by none, Flowever you thought fit to omit the 
 exception immediately following, viz. unless lie be found 
 siverving from the J'aith. Which is clipping a material 
 part of the text: and the reason why you stifled it is 
 plain, because it utterly overthrows what you chiefly 
 charge us with , viz., that the Pope is free to damn as 
 many as he pleases. Nay Bcllarmin, the most zealous 
 of all catholic writers for the Pope, teaches expressly, that 
 he ought to be opposed by force of arms if he endeavours to 
 destroy the church. De Cone. Auth. C. 19. L. 2. 
 
 Advertisement // is plain from the gentleman's last words that 
 
 he supposes the Pope's infallibility io Ije a part of ottr faith. And 
 his lordship saying nothing in contradiction to it in the gcntle- 
 aian's Case Stated; he goes on asj'olloivs under the same mistake. 
 
 SECTION XLVm. THE SUBJECT OF CHURCH AUTHORITY, 
 
 AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT RESUMED. 
 
 " G. — IMy lord, I must have some reason to believe the 
 " Pope such :>n iupdlible fpiide. And I cannot be more 
 " sure of it, than of the truth of that reason, upon which I 
 *' believe it. So that all recurs upon my own reason still. 
 " And if my reason misleads me in this, it is the most fatal 
 " delusion, because it stops all methods of recovery, when 
 " I have once given to another the dominioii of my faith.'' 
 —p. 87. 
 
 L. — Sir, you run upon a false supposition. For you
 
 and private Judgment. 231 
 
 take it for granted, that the Pope's infalUhility is an 
 article of our faith, which I never have allowed of: and 
 therefore your arguiuG^ against it, is but beating the 
 air. However since your argument strikes equally at 
 the infallibility of the cJmrch, or indeed at any article of 
 revealed religion, I shall give myself the trouble to 
 answer it. 
 
 You say, we cannot he more sure of any thing, than we 
 are of the truth of that reason, upon which ive believe if. 
 Whence you conclude, tJiat all recurs upon our own 
 reason still. I answer as before, that since all faith is 
 rational, I believe nothing witiiout a solid reason to build 
 my fuith upon. But the word reason is equivocal. Be- 
 cause it may be taken for any motive or inducement, for 
 which I assent to the truth of any thing, whether that 
 motive or inducement be huma7i or divijie. Thus if any 
 one asks me ichy, ox for what reason I believe the blessed 
 Trinity ? I may answer him, because God has revealed if. 
 If he asks me again, tvhy, or for ivhat reason I believe, 
 that God has revealed it ? I may answer him, because 
 the church, which all the motives of credibility convince 
 me to be the pillar and ground of truth, has declared it 
 to be a retreated truth. And if you will needs call this 
 recurring to my own reason in matters oi faith, you may 
 do as you please ; fur I cannot hindor you from trifling 
 with words: though I should rather call li submitting my 
 reason, when it acts no other part than to oblige me to 
 believe a thing, which I neither do, nor can comprehend. 
 
 However it follows hence that every man's own reason 
 suffices to convince him, that he cannot rationally doubt 
 of any mystery of faith .- because it is not rational to 
 doubt of a thing, when we have a moral evidence or 
 certainty of the revelation of it. For surely our reason 
 cannot mislead us in this: nor need we fi>ar l\ie fatal 
 delusion, you speak of, in trusting the dominion over our 
 faith with that church, which the strongest motives of 
 credibility mark out to us to be the true churcJi (f Christ., 
 with wliich all truth is deposited; and wiiicli lie has 
 promised to lead into all truth unto the end of the world.
 
 232 Of Church Authority, 
 
 '« G. — ISIylortl, i\\o apostles iXhcXiumoAlhxsdom'mion. For 
 " when tlicy exiioited the churches, tliey said, not that we 
 " have dominion over your faith, but are heljjers of your joy : 
 ^\f'or by faith ye stand, that is, Ity your own faith. 2 Cor. i. 23. 
 " And if we, or an ancjelfrom heaven preach any other gospel 
 " unto you ; ht him be accursed. Gal. i. 8. Did not this 
 >' make thtiiujudyes, whether any 7iew gospd or doctrine were 
 ♦' preached to tlieiu ? And our Saviour bid them stick to 
 " their own judjjment, and said unto them,?/m and why even 
 " of yourselves judge ye not ichat is right ? Luke xii. 57. And 
 " if I do not the worhs of my father believe me not, John x. 37. 
 " Was not this appealing to their judgment, whether lie did 
 •• the icorhs of \\'\^ father or not ? And as many as followed 
 " their owujudgtnent, they believed in him. liut they who 
 *' were tied up implicitly to tlie authority of the church, re- 
 " jected liim. Tliey said, have any of the rulers, or the 
 " Pharisees believed in him 7 But this people, ivho hnoweth 
 " not the law are cursed. John vii. 49." — pp. 87, 88. 
 
 L. — I have already told you, and I repeat it again, 
 tliat no authority upon earth is to be obeyed, when it 
 lias uncontestable evidence against it ; such as the miracles 
 of Christ were against the authority of the Jetvish syna- 
 gogue. So that the people who followed Christ, judged 
 indeed by the light of their own natural reason assisted by 
 grace, that the miracles, they had seen with their own eyes 
 were an iincontestable proof oii\\Q truth of his doctrine, and 
 that therefore no authority upon earth could oblige them 
 to reject him. But when they had once formed that judg- 
 ment, then they believed every thing he taught with an 
 implicit faith according to the direction insinuated to 
 them in the words you have quoted from John x. viz., 
 that, if he did the worhs of his father (as was manifest 
 both to their reason and senses) then they were bound 
 to believe him. Which was not appealing from his own 
 ^fallibility to their private judgmeid, as you have the 
 boldness to affirm, but teaching them their duty of an 
 entire submission to his doctrine. 
 
 As to your first quotation from St Paul 2 Cor. i. 23. 
 Surely, Sir, you will not renounce your reason so far as 
 to suppose St Paul meant, that he had no power, or
 
 and private Judgment, 233 
 
 authority from God to oblige the Corinthians to believe 
 the doctrine he had taught them, or that he submitted it 
 to their private judgment ; and gave them full liberty to 
 examine, change, or reform it as they pleased. And if 
 this be not your meaning, to what purpose do you quote 
 his words? All therefore that St Pa?// disclaimed was 
 a tyrannical ov arbitrary dominion over \.\\e\v faith : that is, 
 he would not have the Corinthians imagine, that because 
 he had been the chief instrument of their conversion to 
 the faith, he had a power to impose any doctrines upon 
 them, or make them believe any thing he pleased. 
 
 Your next quotation from JSt Paid to the Galatiayis i. 
 8, is as flat against you as a text can be. But you have 
 omitted a part of it, for his words are these:' Though 
 we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto 
 
 you, THAN THAT, WHICH WK HAVE PKKACHED UNTO 
 
 YOU, kt him he accursed. Pray, Sir, did St Paid in 
 these words exercise no dominion over the faith of the 
 Galatians ? Did he submit the mysteries he had taught 
 them to the examination of their private judgment, when 
 he would not allow it even to an angel from heaven, and 
 pronounced those accursed, whoever they were, that 
 should pretend to reform the doctrine he had preached 
 unto them? And is not this a rare text for private 
 judgment in opjiosition to authority? 
 
 G. — IJut did not that text of the apostle make the 
 Galatians judges, whether any 7iew gospel or doctrine had 
 been taught them ? 
 
 L. — Sir, it certainly made them judges, tliat netv 
 doctrines were not the same as old ones. But it did not 
 make them judges of the truth of the doctrines themselves, 
 which St Paul had taught them. Nay it tied them down 
 to the belief of every thing lie had taught them, and 
 obliged them not to receive any other doctrine even from 
 the mouth of an angel. 
 
 (^'- — But what does your lordship say to the text from 
 St Jjuhe xii. 57. 
 
 L. — I say. Sir, that it is jii«;t as much to the ptiri)ose 
 as the first verse of Genesis. Oyir Saviour in the two or
 
 23-i OfChvrch Authorily, 
 
 three verses immediately before the text you have quoted 
 rejirehends tiie Jeirs lor boinj^- very watchful in observinsf 
 the seasons, and thawing consequences from them for 
 their temporal advantage, but neglectful in discerning 
 the times of f/racc and mercy : and then he asks them, 
 why they do not cihojiidyc of themselves ivheit is just? And 
 is not tiiis again a most admirable text for private judy- 
 ment ag-dii\si church authority ? Is this bidding the people 
 stick to their own judgment in opposition to their pastors 
 and teachers ? 
 
 Thus, Sir, you have trifled away no less than Jive 
 texts of holy scinptures at once to support a cause, which, 
 besides its being false, is really no credit to your religion. 
 For in showing yourself thus zealous for private judgment 
 in opposition to church authority, and even wresting the 
 scriptures from their plain and obvious sense to maintain 
 it, do you not plainly give us to understand that your 
 religion is entirely built upon the sandy foundation of 
 private judgment, and has the whole weight of church 
 authority against it ? For why else should you be so 
 fond of the one, and such a declared enemy upon all 
 occasions to the other ? 
 
 But can you be so prejudiced as not to see, that by it 
 vou undermine the very foundations of all revealed, reli- 
 gion ? Do you not see, that it opens the widest gate 
 imaginable for all sorts of sects to break in upon the 
 church? That it is the source of endless disputes, and 
 tears Christ's seamless garment into a thousand pieces '.■' 
 1 am sure, when you wrote your Christianity Demon- 
 strated you were very sensible of all these inconveniences, 
 and described the fatal consequences oi private judgment in 
 the most pathetic manner. Ami is it then possible, that 
 such an evil should be cither authorized by Christ, or 
 have the word of God to vouch for it ? If you now mean 
 by private judgment something diflFerent from what you 
 meant before, you only play with words. But if you 
 moan the same (as I am sure every body will sujtpose 
 you do) you ])lead for a cause, which you cannot main- 
 tain either with truth or honour.
 
 und private Judgment. 235 
 
 Advehtisemen't — After the gcntloman's last words in his Case 
 Stated, his lorJsliip suitaJiIij to the wise pnrt allotted to him, an- 
 swers, that it seems strange, that God did not order it so, as that 
 the church should have first known their Messias, when he came, 
 and have declared him to the people, and then all would have be- 
 lieved in him. Whence the gentleman takes occasion tojiourish 
 in the following manner, and trijlc away a great many excellent 
 texts ofhohf scripture. 
 
 " G. — The apostle says, that the foolishness of Got is iviser 
 " than men. 1 Cor. i. 25. And he gives the reason, in tlie 
 " following manner: ^y\\y God chose the foolish things of the 
 " world to ccmfound the toise, that no flesli should glory in 
 " his presence, but he thrtt glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 
 '■' And he applies this to the case «e are upon, to the Revcla- 
 " tioji of Jtstis Christ, when he came. For, if he had been 
 " received upon the declaration and authority of the church, 
 " we had gloried in the church, whose authority would have 
 " been prior and superior to Christ himself, as being the 
 " ground, upon which we believed liiui. But as the Su7i 
 " cannot be seen but by its own light, so God and Christ 
 " cannot otherwise be known. No adventitious, or borrowed 
 " light can show the original light, whence all lesser lights 
 " are derived, wliirh like the tnoo}i and stars disappear at 
 '• the presence of the sun. So the church disappeared at 
 " the presence of Christ, who was known by liis own light 
 " only. IVe beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of 
 " tlie Father, full of grace and truth. John i. 14. Here was 
 " going to the church to know which was he ; or if you had, 
 " she would have misled you. It would have been like going 
 " to the moon to ask where the sun is? The church is the 
 " moon, and the stars are the parti«;ul:ir bishops and doctors, 
 " and other eminent men. But Christ is the Sun oi righteous- 
 " ness, and will not give his glory to another." — pp. 88, 89. 
 
 L. — IlfTo is II (lisli oi jargon cooked uj) with the most 
 c.xfpiisito skill. 'I'riily, Sir, as great wits arc said to border 
 iipon madness, so the profound piece of reasoning, you 
 liavo here presented me with, api)cars to my dull capacity 
 to border as near upon what wc usually call nonsense, as 
 any thing I ever heard or read. But you have larded it 
 so finely with scripture, texts, to make it go down ; and 
 80t it off so heantifully with the glittering ornaments of 
 RHV, moon, and stnrf. that I fear, I shall he thought iin- 
 pfrtinent to liiiid any blemish in it.
 
 236 Of Church Authority, 
 
 However I shall make bold to criticise a little upon it. 
 lirst you tell nie (and it is the grouiuhvork of all the 
 r^st), that if Christ had been received V})un the authority of 
 the church, wc should hare yloricd in the church., tuhose 
 authority uoufd have been prior and superior to Christ 
 himself as hciny the ground upon irhich we believed him. 
 It seems then the Jewish church did well in not receiving 
 Christ, nor declaring him to the people, least by so doing 
 she might have become guilty of the greatest impiety in 
 making herself jjrior, and superior to Christ himself. 
 However several of the Jews believed in Christ upon the 
 Testimony of 8t John Baptist: yet I never heard any of 
 them blamed for making St John Baptist's authority 
 prior and superior to Christ himself. In like manner 
 after the ascension of Christ, the Gentiles, and many of 
 tlie Jews before them, believed in Christ upon the testi- 
 mony of the apostles ; for none of them had beheld his 
 tjlory upon mount Thahor (of which St John speaks in 
 the text most impertinently quoted by you) yet I hope 
 that did not make the autliority of the apostles superior to 
 Christ himself 
 
 But, Sir, I ask you, whether we may not believe in 
 (jod and Christ upon the testimony or authority of holy 
 scriptures? If you say no : then scriptures are no rule of 
 faith. If you say we may, then according to your argu- 
 ment we make scriptures prior and superior to God and 
 Christ. Nay, Sir, you told me a while ago [^Casc Stated, 
 ]). 52] that you received the Old Testament from the 
 church of the Je?^;5. And do you then ylory in the Jewish 
 church, and make her authority superior to the word of 
 God? You likewise told me \_Case Stated, p. 4G] that 
 private judymcnt is all we have for the belief of God and 
 Christ. And is every man's private judgment then 5?<- 
 perior to God and Christ? Truly, Sir, 1 begin to fear 
 that neither sun, nor moo7i, with all ihastarsiw the firma- 
 ment, will suffice to give any light to the dark mystery 
 you have advanced. 
 
 But you tell me, Idly, that God and Christ, like the sun, 
 cannot be hnoivn but by their own light, because no adven-
 
 and private Judgment. 237 
 
 titioiis or hmroived light can shoiv the original light, ichenct 
 all lesser lights are derived. But how then is private 
 judgment all ice have for the belief of them, as you told me 
 a while ago ? ^"^■ hy do you allow that to private judg- 
 ment, which you deny to the judgment of tlie whole church 
 with her bishops and doctors ? Your reason is, because 
 the church being the moon, and her bishops a7id doctors the 
 stars, they cannot show us the light of the sun. A verv 
 pretty reason indeed ! But, if neither moon nor stars can. 
 shew us the sun, will the candle or glow-worm of private 
 judgment have light enough to do it? 
 
 \ ou tell me, Sdlg, that as the moon and stars disappear 
 at the presence of the sun, so the church disappeared at the 
 presence of Christ? What, Sir, did the clmrch cease to 
 be, when Christ appeared ? On the contrary, it is an 
 unquestionable truth, that tlie Mosaic late subsisted in its 
 full force till tlie death of Christ. For it was precisely 
 then and not before, that the synagogue died, as divines 
 speak. And so it may be much more properly said, tliat 
 the Jewish church disappeared upon the absence, than the 
 p)-ese?}ce of Christ, and your j)retty similitude dwindles 
 away into a mere jingle of empty words. 
 
 You tell me lastly, that there icas no going to the church 
 to knoic ivho was Christ .- and if I had, she U'ould have 
 misled we. To which I answer, that wlion Christ betraa 
 to appear jjublichj, there was no need of going to the 
 Jewish church to ask, who was he ? For he ^^•as suf- 
 ficiently distinguished by his heavenly doctrine, and the 
 lustre of liis mirarles. Christ himself referred the Jews 
 to these; and by them they might have known him to be 
 the true Messias ; especially if they had consulted tiio 
 ancient proj/hels, and their own rahbics, who had inter- 
 preted their proj)hecies of the Messias. But instead of 
 that they studied nothing but to satisfy their private 
 malice and rtveugc. And this alone was the true reason, 
 why Christ became to the Jews a sturnbltug block^ as St 
 Paul expresses it. I Cor. i. 23. 
 
 {( 
 
 r;. — The stnmllliir/ hhrk to the .Tews was tlio authority 
 *' of {\\(i\v clmrch against him, as I have shewed. Ami the
 
 238 Jn infallible Guide 
 
 <* Gentiles could not till after tlio resurreclion have any notion 
 " of the ccouoiny of our jctleinption by liini, nor was he 
 '• preached unto them till after the vision of the shed to fcjt 
 " Peter. Acts x. For the c^ospel was to he preached to 
 '• the ./( «-5 first: but when they, rejected it leaning upon the 
 " iufallibdifi/ of their church, then it was sent to the Cie/itiles, 
 " Acts xiii. 16, wiio being free from the stumbliiig block of 
 " the church, received it readily, and now make up the whole 
 " body of the Catholic Church thoughout the world." — 
 py. 89, 00. 
 
 L. — This, Sir, is the 3d or 4th repetition of the same 
 story; and the whole force of it amounts to this, viz.^ 
 That as the Jews were seduced by the pretended infalli- 
 ble authority of the synagogue {\\'\i\d\ however had un- 
 contestable evidence against it) so Roman catholics are 
 seduced by the real infallibility of their church ; against 
 which no such evidence can be produced. And wiio is 
 able to withstand the strength of such an argument ? 
 
 SIXTION XHX. — AN INl'Al.I^IBLE GUIDE IS AN INFALLI- 
 BLE ASSURANCE, THOUGH WE BE NOT INFALLIBLE 
 OURSELVES. 
 
 " G. — But suppose God gave us an infallible Guide, this 
 <' would not be an infallible assurance to us, unless we were 
 " infallible too. For besides our not knowing him, or mis- 
 " taking another for him (for there have heeu false Chrisfs), 
 " we might misunderstand his doctrine, and turn it to 
 " quite contrary purposes from what he intended. This 
 " was the case in our Saviour's time. He was a Guide truly 
 " infallible, and yet how few followed him notwithstanding 
 " all his miracles, and heavenly doctrine ? Therefore while 
 " we are fallible ourselves, liable to errors, and mistakes, 
 " in vain do we grope after an infallible assurance otherwise 
 '< than the evidence of things makes them plain to that reason, 
 " which God has given us." — p. 00. 
 
 L — Do you say so, Sir ! Then we are not infallibly 
 sure, that tliere is owe God in three persons, since tiierc 
 is no evidence in tlie thing itself wliich can make this 
 plain to human reason : nay the reason, which God has
 
 is 071 infallible Assurance. §c. 239 
 
 given us, is seemingly against it. So tiiat I doubt not. 
 Sir, but the wliole body of deists in Great Britain will 
 vote you a worthy member of their society for this good 
 and commodious doctrine, which in effect delivers us 
 from the oblioation of believing any thing we cannot 
 understand. 
 
 But what a strange paradox have you advanced in 
 saying, that an infallible (jidde can be no infallible assur- 
 ance to ns, nnless we be infallible too ? Pray, Sir, have 
 not you and I an infcdlible assurance, that the luordofGod 
 cannot deceive us? And does not this make us infallibli/ 
 sure, that, for example, all the historical facts contained 
 in scripture are true ? Yet I am far from thinking that 
 either you or I are infallible. 
 
 You say, ice may mistake our infallible guide, or mis- 
 understand him. If we will wilfully shut our eyes to 
 follow the dictates of interest or passion, we may mistake 
 him. But if we will follow the lights which God has given 
 us; the visible murhsy that point him out to us, are so 
 clear, that it is morallv impos>')ble we should mistake 
 liira. Neither can we misunderstand his doctrine so, as 
 not to know what he teaches ; unless you suppose us to 
 be so iirnorant as not to know our catechisms. Am not 
 1, for example, infallibli/ sure, that my guide teaches me, 
 that there is but unc God in three persons ? It is true, I 
 cannot comprehend this nnjstery : but 1 know with an in- 
 fdlible assurance, that I am taught to believe it. And 
 the same may be said of all other articles of faith. 
 
 You pretend it was the case in our Saviour s time, irho 
 though he was a guide truly ii fallible was followed by fciu. 
 But can you fnid no other reason, why i^w of the Jews 
 followed him, than because they wore not infallible like 
 himself ? Ft»r if this was the reason of it, then Christ 
 condemned {\\c Jeics unjustly, when he told them, if I 
 had not ronic find spoken uido them, they had not had sin, 
 but now thni have vu cloak fn' their sin. John xv. '22. 
 For truly. Mr, you have provitled them a very good cloak 
 for their sin ; because their \w\\\[r fallible men was not 
 their fault. 'I'he true reason thcrctorc, wliv tew of the
 
 240 yln infallible Guide 
 
 Jews followed Christ, was, because most of them were 
 rotirn at heart : winch is also the true reason, why many 
 now a (lavs shut their eyes ai^ainst the clearest VkjIiL: and 
 to these indeed the most infallible guide is rendered 
 wholly useless. 
 
 «' G. — My lord, the avgcls of lieaven fell, Adam foil from 
 *' his innocenco, atul the seven bisliops, wlio were tlie seven 
 " stars in the right hand of Christ, llov. i. 20, and the seven 
 " golden condlesticsh, tlie seven churches, in the midst of which 
 <' he walked ; these are all fallen. And what are wc, that 
 " expect iifuUibdily ?" — pp. 90, 91, 
 
 L. — If you had asked me, what are wo, that expect 
 impeccability? Your question would have been to the 
 purpose, and I should have had my answer ready for it. 
 
 *' G. — What bishop, wXwlI church now is so infallibly seated 
 " as these beloved seven were?" — p. 91. 
 
 Z/.— I will tell you, Sir, what church is so infallibly seat- 
 ed. It is the church of Christ ; the Catholic Chiirch ; in 
 a word, the church, we profess in the creed. This clmrch, 
 I say, was then, is now, and will be so iifallihly seated to 
 tlie end of the world. And the reason, why notwith- 
 standing- all this any particular church may fall, is, be- 
 cause the promises of infdlibility were not made to any 
 particular diocess, but to the churcli of Christ in general; 
 as it is certain by virtue of God's promise to Noah, that 
 tlie ichole ivorld sliall never perish by a second deluge, 
 though several parts of it have already been overwhelmed 
 by the sea. 
 
 " G. — Pray, my lord, what church has a promise of being' 
 " exempted from the general defection, which is foretold will 
 " be before the second coming of Christ, when he shall not 
 "find faith upon eurth'C — p. 91. 
 
 L. — This, Sir, is the same old story again ; twenty 
 times repeated, and as often answered. But if you will 
 needs have a direct answer ; the Catliolic Churcli has this 
 promise made to her. Matt, xxviii. 120. 
 
 " G — May we not rather think, that the plea oi infallihility 
 " in the Church of Home (so many ways detected) whicli 
 <♦ hides repentance from her eyes, and hinders her return 
 ** from any of her errors, which by this means continually
 
 is an infaUible Assura7ice, §r. 241 
 
 <•' flow without any ebbing' on any side; I say, may we not 
 " think this always increasing' corruption the chief cause to 
 " bring on t\\?it universal dtfection in the latter times ?" — p. 9 J. 
 
 L. — Alas, poor church ! How is she to be lamented, 
 since the very iiifalUbility, which Christ lias promised 
 her, is the source of all her errors ! How happy would 
 she have been, had he never promised her, that the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against her, nor ever engaged his 
 word, that he icill he icith lier to the end of the icoi'ld? 
 Matt, xxviii. 20. For then there would have been no 
 danger of the universal defection in the latter days. But 
 I fear I interrupted you. 
 
 " G — Does it not seem to hasten apace, to be even at 
 " the doors, ^hcn we see no absurdity so great, no text of 
 " Scripture so full and express, to be too hard for this ivfuUi- 
 " biliti/?—^. 91. 
 
 L. — Sir, just so Arius si)oke, when his blasphemies 
 were condemned by the church. For no man ever had a 
 more plausible pretence botii of reason, and scripture on 
 his side, than that vile heretic. But what seemed a gross 
 absurdity to him, and contrary to the express %cord of 
 God, was declared a revealed truth by the infaUible church 
 of Christ. 
 
 " G'. — Nothing, I say, is too hard for this iiifallibUity ; 
 " not even the denying all our outward senses, at once, and 
 " owning that we neither see, hear, feel, taste, nor smell!" 
 —p. 91. 
 
 //. — Sir, your saying, that we own this, betrays eitlicr 
 a gross igyiorance or insincerity. For we own no such 
 thing. Ou the contrary, it is a ridiculous absurdity, yon 
 constantly charge us with, and we as constantly disown; 
 as shall he fully proved in its proj)cr place. But since 
 you are in so good a way, it is a pity to stop you. So 
 [)niy go on. 
 
 " 6-'. — Not the express institution of the Lord's suj>per in 
 " both hinds, to which the council of ConsUinre claps a iio]l 
 " ohsbtntc, and takes away the cnp fnuu the laity ! Not the 
 " authority an<l strong reasoning of the apostle, 1 Cor. xiv., 
 "against pul)!ic prayer in an nnhnoirn tongue! All these 
 " are overruh;d hy nifdliliilily, and many more wo have to 
 *' instance in the particular doctrines in dispute with the 
 
 M
 
 24*2 Jn infallible Guide, &;c. 
 
 *' Church of Rome. In ull wliicli by virtue of her unUmiU'd 
 " and infallible power of iiiti'r[)roliiig, slio leaves no texts of 
 " Scripture of any other ineauiiig, than she tiiinks fit to put 
 " upon ihoin, let the words be never so express. And 
 ♦' this indeed is no other than taking the Scriptures wholly 
 " from us, while we must not tread them with our under- 
 " standiny. And the result of this is, that the whole foun- 
 *' dation of our faith is in the Church oi Rome without Scrip- 
 •' titrc, or any thing' else : because the Scripture and every 
 " thing else is put absolutely and implicitly in her power." 
 —pp. 91, 92. 
 
 L. — A terrible g-rievance indeed? That the /lock sliould 
 he fed and "[uided by then paslors / That ignorant laics 
 sliould not be permitted to interpret scriptures according 
 to their own caprice, but be bound to submit to the in- 
 terpretation of their superiors, and of those, who are not 
 only wiser and more learned than themselves, but ex- 
 pressly appointed by God to teach and govern them. 
 Acts XX. 28. Sir, though I had no other reason to con- 
 vince me of the necessity of submitting to the churcli's 
 interpretation of scriptures, the forced and absurd turns 
 vou gave just now [sect. 48.] to about half a score scrip- 
 tural texts would alone suffice to convince me of it. But 
 as to your flirts at our doctrine of transubstantiation, com- 
 mmiion in one kind, and our Latin liturgy, it will be time 
 enough to expose the weakness and injustice of your re- 
 flections, when we come to discuss those points in parti- 
 cular. Vov I assure you, Sir, you shall have full satisfac- 
 tion given you in every point. 
 
 " G. — My lord, no man alive knows, what this Church of 
 " Rome is, or where to be found. I mean, the Church of 
 " Rome, to which the iuJhllibiUly is annexed. For if you 
 " travel to Rome, you will see nothing there, but what by a 
 *' modern distinction you call the court of Rome, where tli^ti 
 '• is this iufciltible Church of Rome? — p. 92. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is the church of all christians the whole 
 world over, united in faith and communion with tite 
 bishop of Rome, who is the head of this church. So that 
 uU liomaii catholics, whether living in or out oi Rome, are 
 of the church, but all are not of the court of Rome, I 
 think this answer is precise and clear.
 
 Of Lodging the InfalUbility. 243 
 
 SECTION L. — THE FOUR PRETENDED CONTRADICTO It V 
 SCHEMES OF LODGING THE INFALLIBILITy EXAMINED. 
 
 " G. — Some, my lord, place the iufaUibilUy in the Pupc 
 " alone, as the ouly heir of St Peter, and living judge of con- 
 •' troversy ; and therefore above counsels, and the whole bodg 
 " of the church put together." — p. 92. 
 
 L. — Sir, you are always very lavisli in bestowing- 
 titles on the Pope. You iiave already made him the 
 universal monarch of ki7igs and bishops ; and now you 
 make him heir of St Peter, whose title nev^er was 
 hp.redilary, but elective. Let us therefore style him St 
 Peter's successor, which title he has by the election of 
 the chinch, as he has his power annexed to it immediately 
 from God. 
 
 However that be, it is true what you say, that many 
 catholic divines place the i/ifallihilitg in the Pope. But 
 no catholic divine in the world ever placed it in the Pope 
 ALONE. Because the word alone excludes both general 
 councils, and the diffusive bodg of the church, to which 
 no catholic divine ever denied infallibililg in matters of 
 faith. IJut this was a necessary stratagem to make your 
 first scheme appear to be a contradiction to the rest. So 
 1 desire you to keep the word alone to yourself, and then 
 
 go on. 
 
 G. — Others like not this. And because some Popes 
 " have approved heretical, and have been censured ■A\u\deposcd 
 " for it ; and otliers of tlioni have prov<'(l most wicked and 
 " tlagitiuus men, wlio besides the vicionsnoss of tiieir own 
 
 lives have filled tiie world with blood, rebellion, and nsurj<a- 
 •• lions ill pursuance of the deposing power, they have assinned 
 " over princes, f(u- these and other reasons tliey would not 
 " have the infdlibditg trusted with tlie Pope, but lodge it in 
 " a general coutuil as superior to the Pope with power to re- 
 '• form, and even to drpose liim." — j'P- ^-> •^«^- 
 
 />. — -Sir, there is one thini^ strictly true in this your 
 Kccond scheme, vi/., that many catholic divines deny the 
 Popes infdhbililg : and all these agree unanimously iji 
 |il.icing it both in the diff'u.sive bodg of the church, and 
 gcntral councils received as such. Hut as to what you
 
 244 Of Lodging the InfaUibility. 
 
 say concerning their opinion, tJuit a general council is 
 superior to the Pope, this is wholly foreign to the question 
 we are upon. For whether that be true or false, I defy- 
 yon to make good the contradictions you pretend to 
 charge us with in lodging the infaUibilitg. 
 
 " G. — A third party approve of neither of these ways. 
 " For as they tiiiiik a Fope alone without a council not to 
 " be infallible, so neitiicr a council without a Pope, who is 
 " head of it, and without whom there cannot be a lawful 
 " council as no jmrliament without a king. These are for 
 " kimj and parliament, and place the i/ifallibilitg in neither 
 *' Pope nor council apart, but only when both together, and 
 " agreeing. But because this will defeat several of those 
 " councils, called general, and split others ; as when the Pope 
 " or his legates witiidrew fioni tjie council (like a king leaving 
 *' his parliament) then such was no longer a lawful council, 
 " but a schismatical conventicle ; as was said of the council of 
 '• Basil and Cotista?ice, S)C. And because there have been Popes 
 " against Popes, and councils against councils, and that the 
 " requisites necessary to constitute a lawful council, and 
 *' consequently infallible, are some of them disputed, as the 
 " authority of summoning and convening the council, and 
 " presiding in it, and other requisites allowed by all to be 
 " necessary are impossible to be known with any certainty: 
 *' as, that all the fathers thei-e met should use all diligence 
 " to examine Jind canvass to the bottom every point, that 
 " conies before them : and that they should be under no 
 " terror or fear of any, nor biassed by party, hopes of prefer- 
 " ment, or gain, or any other corrupt passion, but doing all 
 " things out of true zeal to the glory of God, and good of 
 " tlie church ; otherwise that there is no infdlibilily follows 
 " that council : and this being impossible for any to know 
 " but God alone, consequently tlie infallibility of all councils 
 " is rendered precarious, and no certainty at all in them : 
 " or rather it is certain by the history of all councils called 
 " general, that these human passions not consistent with in- 
 ^^ fallibility, had an influence in all, or most of them. So that 
 " we cannot be certain of the infallibility of any council, un- 
 " less we are infallibly sure, that none of these human pas^sions 
 " liad a mixture in it. 
 
 " This makes a fourth party in the Church of Rome : that 
 " is, of those, who place the injalUbility neither in Pope, nor
 
 Of Lodging the Infallibility. 245 
 
 " council jointly or severally, but in tlie church militant, as 
 '• they speak. Tliat is, the church diffusive, or all churches up 
 " and down the world. Wo must then travel and learn. 
 " Here is a wild mark, and we are plainly left at last to 
 " private Judgment to collect and compare, to approve or re- 
 " ject what we find scattered in all the distant churches upon 
 " the earth. And no man's life or capacity will be sufficient 
 " to make the inquiry in any tolerable measure. 
 
 " And now, my lord, which of these foiir sorts of mfalli- 
 " bility will you take ? There are three to one against you, 
 " choose which you will. And all these are of the Church 
 " of Rome. And what difference is there betwixt having no 
 " guide, or one you cannot find ?" — pp. 93 — 95. 
 
 L. — Sir, he that cannot find him, must be wilfully 
 l^lind. But since you are so generous as to give me my 
 clioicc, I need not deliberate long upon the matter. For 
 the whole body of catholic diviiies has already made it 
 for me, and it is with them I place the infallibility both 
 in the diffusive body of the churchy and its representative 
 u general council truly so called ; that is, approved, and 
 received as such. 
 
 And now, Sir, I challenge you to make good what 
 you tell me, viz. that there are three to one against me, 
 choose which I will. Nay I only dcinand of you to pro- 
 duce one single party of catholic divines against me. 
 They, who place the infallibility in the Pope, will not 
 surely be against me: for no man in his senses will allow 
 the Pope to be infallible by himself, and deny him to be 
 so, wlien he delivers his judgment at the head of a general 
 council, or \\\i\\ the whole diffusive body of the church. 
 I am also secure of having those on my side, who 
 (according to your second scheme) place the hfallibility 
 in ^council without the Po/>f. Unless you suppose thein 
 to be so void of reason as to maintJiin, that a council, 
 which is infallible without the Pope, becomes fallible 
 when he agrees with it, and aj)proves its decrees. 
 
 Where then is the party of catholic divines, which 
 you pretend to draw up against me, to be sought for? 
 'iruly. Sir, y<»u must be at the trouble of travelling to 
 terra incognita, or the world in the moon, to find such a
 
 246 Of Luihjiny ike InfallibiUhj. 
 
 party, lor I am sure it is not to be found in any part 
 of tiic known \A'orl(l. And have you not then a great 
 deal of reason to triumph over me as you do, as if I were 
 entirely at a loss to know where to find my hifnllibli 
 (/Hide ? Nay are you not bound to retract what you 
 told me a while ago [C«se Stated, p. 03] viz., that there 
 is no greater difference and con/i/sion avwng amj .tort e>f 
 men upon any suhjcet irhatsocvcr, titan there is among the 
 divines of the Church of Rome concerning her rule of 
 faith, and ii fallible judge of controversy. And every one 
 of the different opinions about it is in flat contradiction to 
 all the others ; so that if any one of them be true, all the 
 rest must be false ? Pray, a^ood Sir, how can that be ? 
 Suppose I lodge the infallibility in the Pope, does that 
 take it away from the church ? Or suppose I lotige it 
 in a council, does tliat take it away from the Pojie ? 
 Again, is it impossible for the church collective to be 
 infallible, because the church diffusive is so? But this, 
 you say, is a trild mark, and ice vmst travel and learn. 
 You may learn if you })lease, Sir ; but you need not 
 travel very far to inform yourself of any doctrinal point 
 taught by this infallible guide. As for instance; is tiiere 
 any need of your going to Paris, Rome, or Toledo, to 
 know for certain whether the doctrine of t/'ansiibsfantiatimi 
 be tauirlit in those cliurches ? You may as well tell me 
 I must travel to Constantinople to know whether Mahotnct 
 be worshipped by the Turks. Now let us examine your 
 objections against the infallibility o( general councils. 
 
 First, you say, that in some councils called general thr 
 Pope and council have disagreed. Popes have been against 
 Popes, and cowicils against councils. This is true in 
 relation to the councils of P<5aand Constance : both which 
 were opposed by Benedict XIII. and Gregory XII. two 
 doubtful Popes before, and deposed in the council of 
 Pisa. Tiiese Popes had also their conventions against 
 one another, which they called councils. But did they 
 disagree either among themselves, or with the councils 
 of Pisa and Constance about matters of faith ? Nf, 
 Sir. The whole difference was about a matter oi fact.
 
 Of Lodging the TnfallihiUhj. 247 
 
 viz., the validUy of tiieir election. And what is that to 
 the purpose? 
 
 2div, you say, that in some councils called general, the 
 Pope, or his legates icithdrew from the council : and for 
 this you quote the councils of Constance and Basil, and 
 conclude from it that then they were no longer lawful 
 councils. As to the Pope's withdrawing from the council 
 of Constance, the fact is unquestionable. For John 
 XXIII. withdrew privately from Constance, intending 
 thereby to frustrate the principal design of that council, 
 which was to extinguish the schism by obliging him to 
 resign the pontificate, as ho had promised to do at his 
 election, in case it should be demanded of him for the 
 good of the church. His election therefore was only con- 
 ditional ; and his escape to elude this end being a breach 
 of the condition, uj)on which lie had been chosen, he 
 justly forfeited his title: but the council lost nothing of" 
 its authority any more than if the Pope had died. In 
 effect, being soon after taken, and imprisoned by the 
 emperor Sigismond, he was solemnly deposed. 
 
 But the case of the council of Basil is verj' different. 
 For there the Pope did not abandon the council, but by 
 his authority removed it to another place, and was 
 followed by the greatest part of the bishops and clergy. 
 But a few bi^hop^, and many of the inferior clergv 
 separated themselves from the Pope and council, con- 
 tinued to meet at Basil, and styled themselves the general 
 council of that place : but was never regarded as the true 
 council of Basil. 
 
 Sdlg, you tell me, that the requisites necessary to con- 
 stitute a lairful council, and consequently iufallible, are 
 impossible to be known with any certainty. 1\) which I 
 answer, that the re(jui»ites to constitute a lanful council 
 are as c;isy to be known by learned canonists, as the 
 requisites to constitute a lawful parliament avc known by 
 able laicyers, 
 
 \o\\ liave ushered in your last objection with a long 
 flourish upon the several j/assions and defects of huinaii 
 nature, whereby men are aj)t to be biassed in their judg-
 
 243 Of Loihjing the Infallibility. 
 
 ment, and you conclude from it, that tee cannot he certain 
 of the infaUibHHij (f anij council, unless ivc arc infallibly 
 i:i(rc, that none of these jiassiuns had a mixture in it. 
 
 I answer, tluit if this will defeat the infallibility of 
 councils, it will likewise defeat the infallibility of scrip- 
 tures : because they were certainly writ by men subject 
 to tlie common passions and defects of human nature. For, 
 accordini^ to your way of arguintr, how can we be 
 infallibly sure, that St Ltihe, for example, who wrote 
 the life of St Paid, was not swayed by affection, and 
 that he is wholly impartial in his relation ? How can 
 we tell that the authors of the canonical epistles used all 
 the care and diligence possible in their search after truth ? 
 This is your argument; and if it be good against the 
 infallibility of councils, you have furnished the deists witii 
 full as good a one against scriptures. 
 
 Ikit, Sir, you do not reflect, that as a hlmd man 
 following a sure guide can lu) more miss his way, than 
 the guide himself, ^o fallible men directed by an unerring 
 hand walk as securely in the paths of truth, as if they 
 were infallible themselves. Now when Christ chose 
 bishops and pastors to be the rulers of his church, he 
 knew them to be fallible men, and suljject to passions .• 
 and for that very reason he promised them an infallible 
 guide, who should govern and direct them, overrule all 
 the infirmities of human nature, or even make them 
 become subservient to his own designs. Our dependence 
 therefore is not on the personal merits of any assembly 
 whatsoever; but we depend entirely upon God's pro- 
 mises ; which can no more be defeated or obstructed by 
 human passions, than the eternal designs of his infinite 
 wisdom by the constant vices and follies of mankind. 
 
 Advertisement. — The gentleman, in Ms Case Stated, having liar- 
 ancjued from p. 89, to p. 95, ivit/iout any interruption from his 
 peaceable antatjonist; his lordship at lewjth breaks silence only to 
 proclaim the victory of his adversary, and oivnsfranhli/, thut he 
 knows not where to iimi liis guide. Which having done, he la- 
 ments the condition of mankind in being destitute of an infallible 
 guide to conduct him to heaven. Whereupon the gentleman cx« 
 postulates with him in the folloiving manner . —
 
 Of Taking up Beligion by Education. 249 
 
 SECTION LI OF TAKING UP UELIGION BY EDUCATION, 
 
 AND HOW REASON IS TO BE CONSULTED IN THE CHOICE 
 
 ,OF IT. 
 
 " G — You may as well find fault with the creation. Shall 
 " the clay say to the potter, why hast thou made me thus ? Who 
 " was the guide to the angels that fell ? Who was gidde to 
 " Adam ? Who was, or who is guide to all the earth ? To 
 '• the heathens, to Mahometans, to Jeics ? These last stick to 
 " their church as an infallible guide, and therefore are most 
 " obstinate, and the most inveterate enemies to Christianity.'' 
 —p. 95. 
 
 L. — Sir, they that stick to a chirch as an infalUhle 
 guide, '.vlieii that church has nncontestable evidence against 
 it, are only fit to be sent to the hospital of incurables. 
 And this has been the case of the Jeics ever since their 
 reprobation, as I have already proved. I^ut with your 
 good leave, Sir, it is not the case of the Church of Rome y 
 as you are pleased to insinuate. 
 
 " G. — Who is guide to infants and idiots? And shall we 
 <' interrogate the Almighty what will he do with these, or 
 " why he created tlieni ? And perhaps the greatest part of 
 " nuiiikirid die before tlioy come to the years of discretion. 
 " And wiien they are of age, how few are capable to judge, 
 " or have opportunity or capacity to examine the different 
 " pleas betwixt church and church, religion and religion ? 
 " And do we not see the generality of the world take up 
 " their church and religion just according to their education ? 
 " My lord, if you and I liad been born and bred in Turkey, 
 " we might liave been Maho>nefans." — pp. 95, 9G. 
 
 L — Perhaps we might, Sir, ami we might also have 
 been damned for it, if being- come to years of discretion 
 we should have neglected the necessary means of coming 
 to the true faith. For let me tell you, Sir, I never read 
 that education was ever reckoned l)y the ancient fathers 
 amongst the marks of the true church : or amongst the 
 motives of credibility by any divi7ie in the world. Though 
 by your way of speaking one would be apt to tliiuk, that 
 education is as good a guide as any under heaven. 
 
 As to the questions, yon have j)roposed concerning 
 tlie guide of the apostate angels, Adam, heathens, Maho- 
 
 M 2
 
 2J0 Of Takwg up 
 
 incOniSy Jews, iiifanls, idiots^ S^c. I sliould 1)C j^'lad to 
 know, what rofciuMice those questions have to the subject 
 of our dispute. For the question we had just now before 
 us was, tr/ict/icr I could /hid rinj vifdUiblr r/vidc ? And I 
 think I have marked him out A'ery clearly to you. In 
 effect, nothing is of moment in reference to this question 
 but oidy to know, who is the guide to christians f And 
 this is easily determined. For there can be no other than 
 the i/m church of Christ: and the pretence of having 
 been educated in this or that religion will be no excuse 
 to those, mIio, when they are come to the perfect use of 
 reason, are capable of examining, whether they be as 
 truly members of the church established by Christ, and 
 his apostles, as of the church established by law. For I 
 presume religion is not to be taken up merely l)y chance 
 according to the place where we are born, or where we 
 receive our education, 
 
 " G. — No, my lord, truth is truth, though all the world 
 •« should depart from it. And there have been converts of 
 '* all nations and religions, hut none, where men cannot be 
 " persuaded to overcome the prejudice of education, and ex- 
 " amine impartially for themselves." — p. 96. 
 
 L All this is very right. 1 wisb it may hold. So 
 
 pray go on. 
 
 «' Q. — But infallibilit!/ barrs all exainination. For that 
 " implies a doiibt, and brings us to private judyment, and 
 " where then shall we wander?" — p. 16. 
 
 jr. — Sir, I suspected you would not kec]) long in the 
 good way you were in. But, what is worse, you rehipse 
 into a mistake 1 have already confuted at large [sect. 30.] 
 for I told you then that the churcKs infallibility hinders 
 no more our examining the grounds of our religion, than 
 the infoUihility of scriptures, of which I hope you never 
 
 doubted. 
 
 «' (7. — Examination brings xis to private judgment, as I 
 " told your lords^hip ; and you must apply to every man's 
 *^ private jiidfpnent, when you mean to make him a convert 
 " to vour church. Why else do you argue or reason with 
 " him." — p. 96. 
 
 Ij, .Sir, examination brings ns to the right use, but
 
 Religion by Education. 251 
 
 not the abuse of private judgment. For it brincrs us to a 
 clear kno\vledg-e of the guide we are to follow, and a full 
 conviction, that it is the most reasonable thing in tiie 
 world to submit our private judgment in things we do 
 not understand, to the direction of this guide. And when 
 we will make a convert of aiij'' person, we argue and 
 reason with him to bring him to this conviction. 
 
 " G. — Must he not then examine all the arguments and mo- 
 '• tives, you give hiui fur the infaUihilitij of your church, and 
 ''judge for himself, wliother they are well grounded, aiul 
 •' will boar the test of reason ?" — p. 9G. 
 
 L. — He certainly must. And therefore we propose the 
 motives o{ credihilitg, or marh^ of the true church to him, 
 that he may examine them thoroughly. For they are 
 jiroportioned to the capacity of every man of a sound and 
 unbiassed judgment. 
 
 «« G But must everv body then have reason, and examine 
 
 " but yourselves? Believe it, then you are in the most 
 " dangerous condition of any, and you are the men, who re- 
 " ceive your religion by chance just according to your I£dit' 
 •• cation." — p. 96. 
 
 L. — That is very strange, that we sliould reason others 
 into a belief of the grounds of «)ur religion, and be our- 
 selves void of reason. For will not the same motives, 
 with which we convince others, suffice to convince lis 
 too? And can we i^e convinced by them without ex- 
 amination ? You therefore talk at raiulom in saying we 
 receive our religi(m by chance 
 
 " G. — SuppuHO any one sIiouM rclinn your own answer 
 " to von, and nay, I will not exaniiiu>, 1 am infallibly sure, 
 •' and 1 will hear no more, ^^''hat would you think of such 
 " a man ? Kvery cnthtmasl will tell you tlm same. [le will 
 " lake liis oath that he is infallible, and will lu-ar no more 
 " than the deif ailder the charms of reason. But he will bid 
 " V*'U silenre your reason ; for that is it which blinds y<ta, 
 " lliongli Snfomon calls it the farnp of Goif, which he has 
 " pl.mti'd in our hearts. J'ror. w. '17 , It is the imagi: «»f 
 " Gotl in which he has created us, and will be our witness 
 " and judge in the last day, as it is given us for oiu* guide 
 " here. ' — p. 9G. 
 
 L It is so, Sir. But you make a very ill use of it
 
 25-2 Of Taking up 
 
 nt present in tulkino- ratlicr like a man in a raving fit, 
 than one that is i>;ni{leil by his reason. 
 
 *' G. — My lord, instead of triinm'mg this lamp to make it 
 " burn clearly, we iioar tlio general pry on your side, jmt it 
 •' out, put it out. Wc cannot deal with you till tiiat lamp be 
 ♦'extinguished: it thwart;* us at every turn, and starts a 
 " liundred objections, that we cannot believe peacoably for 
 " it. But when it is quite taken away (if tliat were possible 
 " to be done) then you ofl'er to shew us a 7netcor of infalli' 
 " biliti/ (about which yourselves are not agreed, nor know 
 *' where to find it) wliicii will keep us from ever doubting any 
 " more. As when a man's eyes are put out, he cannot see 
 " a dirty step, or a precipice before him ; and then he is in 
 " that state of security you propose." — pp. 96, 97. 
 
 L. — No, Sir, wo propose no sncli state. We desire no 
 man to put out his cijes, but we would not have him trust 
 tliem farther, than they can see. We therefore advise 
 liim to take a guide, and be directed by him in a road he 
 knows nothing of, and where he will certainly miss his 
 way, if he has nothing but his own eyes to trust to. For 
 this is our very case in the Inisiness of revealed religion. 
 Reason is the eye or hmip of man's soul, as you have 
 justly observed, and faith is the way we must walk in 
 during our pilgrimage upon earth. But the mysteries of 
 faith being above reason, it is a way our reason knows 
 nothing of, and it will certainly lose its way, if it trusts 
 wiiolly to itself. It therefore stands in need of a guide 
 to conduct it. But who is this guide ? For many false 
 ones offer themselves upon the road ; and all depends 
 upon our choosing the true one, which can be no other 
 than the church of Christ. But how, and where is this 
 church to be found ? Here is the difficulty, and danger 
 of choosing wrong. For Lutherans say they are the true 
 church. Calvinists say the same, ylnabaptists, Quakers, 
 and many more put likewise in their claim. And yet 
 there is but one true church of Christ ; as there is but one 
 God, 07ie baptism, and one faith; and there can l)e no more. 
 
 Here then (jiray mark me well) we say not to men, 
 you must not examine. We say not to them, shut your 
 eyes, renounce your reason, put out your lamp (as you
 
 Heligion by Education. 253 
 
 most unjustly reproach us) but on the contrary we exhort 
 them to examine with all the diligence possible the gi'ounds 
 and motives of their religion. Because these bein<>^ the 
 principal inducements of their embracing; one church pre- 
 ferably to another, if a false step be made in this, it can- 
 not but be attended with a train of the most fatal conse- 
 (juences, and mislead men into the grossest errors. 
 
 Here therefore we bid them open their eyes, and make 
 use of all the reason, God has given them to find this 
 rhiirch, which is to be their guide. Nay we warn them 
 moreover, that in this examination they must lay aside 
 all the prejudices of education, and give a deaf ear to ail 
 the alluriricr motives of intei'est and ease. That therefore 
 they must not consider, whether the church they are of, 
 be the prevailing clinrch of the country, where they are 
 born : whether it be most favourable to their liberty and 
 ease; or finally, whether it be the church, in which they 
 are most like to make i\\Q\x fortune ; but whether it has 
 all the true and essential marks of the church of Christ ? 
 As, whether it has always had a visible being since the 
 time of the apostles ? Whether the doctrine it teaches 
 has been confirmed by undoubted miracles? Whether the 
 faith it holds, has been preached to all natio7is? Whether 
 it lias had a succession of bishops and pastors, and a mission 
 derived from the a/>ostles themselves, ike. For these, Sir, 
 are the true marks of the church (f Christ ; these point 
 out to us the guide we are to follow : and these we ex- 
 liort all men to examine, and iiupiire into by the clearest 
 ligiit of that reason, which God has given them: and would 
 to God all men would examine them with the seriousness 
 and impartiality, which the importance of the inatter 
 requires. 
 
 it is therefore false what you say, that we forbid jieo- 
 ple to examine the grounds of their rdigion. It is false 
 that the general cry on our side is to bid them put out the 
 lauij) ff their rea.s(>n, as if we were afraid of its light. On 
 the contrary, as wo defy any man's reason to iind the 
 marks of the true chunk on your side, so every man, that 
 follows the light of an unbiassed reason, will find them
 
 254 Of Takina up 
 
 all clearly on ours, and tlioy will stand the test of the 
 strictest examination, as 1 have liilly siiowed. Sect. 36. 
 
 (i. — But, my lord, thongh you allow people to examine 
 before they come to you, do you not oblige them to sfiuf. 
 their cycs^ when you have once can<rht them in your nets.'' 
 
 L. — Sir, if the meaning of your question be, whether 
 we oblige them to discard their reason ? 1 answer we do 
 not. For we oblige them to nothing, but what reason 
 itself obliges them to. But the same reason, which bids 
 us examine the (/rovnds of our religion, and inquire dili- 
 gently into the marks of the true church of Christ, the 
 same reason, I say, tells us that we must obey this church, 
 when we have found it, and pay an entire submission to 
 its decisions. So that we follow reason in the one as well 
 as the other. Nay we reason ourselves into an entire 
 submission of our private reason. 
 
 Pray, Sir, when a man has chosen a guide for a jour- 
 ney, does not his reason tell him ; that he must be direct- 
 ed by him? When a sick man has chosen an able physician, 
 must he not follow his prescriptions? Or when an igno- 
 rant client has chosen an emineyit lawyer to manage his 
 cause, would you have him dispute points of law with his 
 lawyer? Or will he not act more prudently in submitting 
 to his directions? Now this is the very case between a 
 man's private judgment, and the church of Christ. Reason 
 first leads him to this church, with which God has depo- 
 sited all truth : and then the same reason tells him, that 
 the revealed mysteries, whereof she is the depositary, 
 being above his understanding, he is bound to submit to 
 her in every thing she teaches. And if this be not acting 
 rationally I know not what is. But how do you deal with 
 those, who are out of your church, in order to make con- 
 verts of them ? 
 
 " G. — We have no other method with them, than to reason 
 " on still with them, and shew them, tliat reason is on our 
 " side. "—p. 97. 
 
 L. — The method is very good, if you can shew it 
 effectually. 
 
 " G. — Vast multitudes of them have been converted ; even
 
 Religion by Education. 255 
 
 '* all christian churches now in the world, for all of them are 
 " of the Gentiles"— pp. 97, 93. 
 
 L. — Sir, all the christian churches, you speak of, were 
 converted hy papists: Great Britain amongst the rest. 
 And I should be glad to know, what heathen nation has 
 ever been converted hy protestant missionaries. 
 
 " G. — As for those, who yet remain unconverted, or have 
 " not had the Gosjpel sufficiently proposed to them, we must 
 " leave them to God, wlio made them, and will require from 
 " no man more than he has given them, hut will judge all 
 " people rigliteously. Of this 1 have spoken before." — p. 98. 
 
 L. — Yes, Sir, I remcml)er your new invented machine 
 of uncovenanted mercy, and have delivered my opinion 
 upon it. 
 
 SECTION LII. — NO SALVAMON OUT OF THE CATHOLIC 
 
 CHURCH. 
 
 " G. — But I ohserve, that since this notion of I/ifallibilit// 
 " came into the church, it has rooted out all charity, and her 
 " religion ha«5 been chiefly employed in cursing and damning 
 " all the world hut herself. Her councils are tagged with 
 
 '< anathemas upon every occasion, and you hear little in them 
 " who shall he saved, hut every page is full of who must be 
 " damned. Aiul the hulla cancc pins the basket, and leaves 
 " very few to escape even of the Roman catholic commimion 
 " itMjlf."— ;>. 98. 
 
 L. — Sir, we have had enougli of the hulla cctnoi already; 
 s-o I shall only make some remarks upon your observa- 
 tion ; which indeed is very curious. For it inffdlihility.. 
 and cur.^ing with anathemas came into the church toge- 
 ther, then I am sure infallihility is full as ancient as 
 St l*(nd ; who cursed both men and angels, and himself 
 also, if he or they should prc"^inne to teach any other 
 doctrine, than what he liarl preaciud. G(d. i. 8. besides, 
 Sir, the canons oi the four /irst general councils nvo tagged, 
 wilh anathemas as well as the Lateran council, and that 
 of Trent. And since your church allows of tlic four first 
 general cnunciN, and that, by coiisofpience, the church 
 was then in her purity, your observation isan unanswerable
 
 256 No Salvation out of 
 
 proof against yourself, that hifdUihililij was then the 
 doctrine of the cluirch. No\v, JSir, ^o on. 
 
 " G. — It is a common argument, with wliich your priests 
 " frighten loomen and childrcji, viz. : You 2>rotestanL<i say, that 
 " it is possible fur a papist to he suvtd : but we papists say, it 
 " is impossible fur a protesta/U to be saved .- tlurcj'ure it is 
 " safer being on our side, I3iit tliis has turned to tlieir con- 
 *' fusion. For, as tliere is nothing in it but a confident aver- 
 " ring, it sliews tiiut tliey h;ive no charity, which is greater 
 " even i\\a\\ faith itself. 1 Cor. xiii. 13. And therefore that 
 " they can be no christian church. Their want of charity 
 " being by this muclj phiiner tlian our want oi faith." — p. 98. 
 
 L. — It seems then, that St Paid^ and the ancient 
 fathers, who pronounced all heretics damned, were wholly 
 void of charily, and according to your consequence were 
 no members of the christian church. 
 
 How void of charity was St Cyprian, who wrote in 
 the following manner ? Whosoever, says he, leaving the 
 church cleaves to an adulteress, is cut off from the promises 
 of the church. And again, if it were possible for any to 
 escape, that teas not in the arh of Noah, it shall likewise 
 he possible for him to escape, ivho is not in the church, 
 Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. St Austin was as uncharitable as 
 St Cyprian, for he wrote thus: Being out of the pale of 
 the church separated from its unity and bond of charity, 
 thou wouldst not escape damnation, though thou shouldst 
 he burnt alive for confessing the name of Christ. Epist. 204. 
 ad Don. And St ISulgentius was no less uncharitable than 
 the other two; witness the following words : For neither 
 baptism, nor liber cd alms, nor death itself for the pirofcssion 
 of Christ, can avail a man any thing in order to salvation, 
 if he does not hold the unity of the Catholic Church. S. 
 Fulg.ad Petrum Diaconnm. C. 39. l^di?>\\y i\iQ Athanasian 
 creed is most highly guilty of the want of charity, you 
 accuse us of. For it damns all, who believe not every 
 article it contains. And yet this creed is highly approved 
 by your church. 
 
 Now as to the argument you speak so contemptibly oi\ 
 I assure you, Sir, it has frightened persons of better 
 sense than those you call women and children. Nor has
 
 the Catholic Church. 257 
 
 it ever turned to our confusion, as you are pleased to 
 tell me. Nay common sense alone suffices to convince 
 any man that salvation is more secure in that society, in 
 which it is allowed even by its enemies, than in that, in 
 which it is only allowed by those, who are themselves 
 members of it. 
 
 " G — Take CltilUiigworth's answer to it, c. 7. of his works, 
 "p. 306. You (says he to Knot the Jesuit) vain/t/ pretend that 
 " all JRomafi calhoUcs, fiat one excepted, profess their proteslancy 
 " unrepented destroys salvation. From ichich generality we 
 " must except two at least to my own knowledge ; and these are 
 " yourself, and Fraiiciscus de Sancta Clara ; who assures us that 
 " ignorance a?id repentance may excuse a protestant from damnO' 
 " tion, though dying in his error. And this is all the charity, 
 " which (by your own confession also) the most favourable pro- 
 •♦ testants allow to papists." — pp. 98, 99. 
 
 L. — I am surprised, Sir, you should give me this 
 answer of Chillingwurth, ancl ajiprove of it. For, if 
 catholics allow salvation to protesfants in the case of 
 ignorance and repentance only, and if this be all the 
 charity, which the most favourable protestants allow to 
 papists, I cannot imagine, how this will agree M'ith what 
 you told me this very moment, vi/., that ice have no 
 charity and therefore can be no christian church. What, 
 Sir ! can you unchurch us for want of charity, and remain 
 yourselves a christian church, when you profess to have 
 jio more charity for us, than we have for you? 
 
 As for Mr Knot the Jesuit, and Franciscus de Sancta 
 Clara, I cannot see they say any thing more than what 
 catholic divines commonly say; viz., that invincible ignor- 
 ance excuses from the sin of heresy as it does from other 
 sins. Because whoever is invincibly ignorant, is so dis- 
 posed at heart in the sight of God, that if he knew him- 
 self to be in an error, he would renounce it, cost what it 
 would. And such a one is virtually within the pale of 
 t!ic church, |)rovi(lcd he uses all endeavours possible to 
 come to the knowledge of the truth. 
 
 " G Mililicre was persuaded that king Charles I. was 
 
 " happy in heaven, because lii; piofcrred tho catholic faith 
 " before his crown, liis liberty, and life. Now it is known
 
 258 No Sa/vofi(»i oitf of 
 
 *• to all tlio world tliat kiiij^ Charhs lived and died in tlie 
 •' coinnuinion of the (.'liurcli o'i Kiiplnnr!, wliicli lie dcclarod 
 " M ith his last hioalli npun the scaftuld. 13nt archbishop 
 " Jhamlial gave hin> this answer : That v)hich you have con- 
 ** Jessed here conccrniiif/ king Charles uill spoil your foiincr 
 *' ilivioustiation, ///a/ protestants Aorc neither church nor faith, 
 " £uf yon confess no 7tiore here than I have heard some of your 
 '^ famous lioinan doctors at Paris acknowledge to he trice ingenc- 
 •• rat. And no more than that which the bishop of Calcedon 
 " (a man, that cannot be snspected of partiality) has affirmed 
 " and published in two of his books to the world in print, 
 " that persons living in the communion of the protostant church, 
 " if tiny endeavour to learn the faith ^ and are notable to attain 
 " unto it, but hold it implicitly in the preparation of their mind, 
 " and are ready to receive it, tcJtcn God shall he pleased to reveal 
 " it (which all good jyroteslants, and all g-ood christians are) 
 " they neither tcant church, 'nor faith, nor salvation." — pp. 
 99, 100. 
 
 L. — Sir I do not see, what advantage you can draw 
 from the bishop of Calcedoii's words. P'or he plainly 
 supposes all prutesiants as such to be v:\i\\o\\i faith : .since 
 it cannot be said of a per.'^on, wlio ah-eady lias faitli, that 
 lie endeavours to learn it, and is not able to attain to it. 
 His meaning then can only be, that proteslants, who 
 endeavour, but are not able to come to the knowledge of 
 the truth, may be saved, if tliey be so disposed in their 
 hearts, that they are ready to embrace and profess it, 
 whenever God shall be mercifully pleased to bring them 
 to the knowledge of it. Because whoever is so disposed 
 (which I fear is not so common a thing as you seem to 
 imagine) whoever I say, is so disposed, is virtually within 
 the pale of the Catholic Church, as 1 have already said, 
 though he be outwardly in the protestant communion. 
 And in this catholics generally agree with the bishop of 
 Calcedo7i, because invincible ignorance excuses from sin. 
 
 As to Militierc, it is the first time I ever heard him 
 named. Rut I do not comprehend, how any demon- 
 stration should conic to be spoiled by his saying, that 
 Charles I. (whom he supposed to have died a catholic) 
 was happy in heaven. 1 am indeed but too much inclined
 
 the CuUiolic Church. ^aD 
 
 to be of your mind, tluit Mililierc was mistaken in his 
 supposition. But alknvino- that king Charles died in the 
 bosom of the Catholic Church, wiiicli according to his 
 principle implies, that he was inciilpahhf ignorant of the 
 true faith, he had all the reason in the world to thinhhhn 
 happy in heaven. Nor could archbishop Dramhal con- 
 clude any thing from it against his former demonstration, 
 liecause he supposed the king- died united to the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 " G. — Then im protesiayif, at least no profestant hifigr, need 
 '• despair."— /^ 100. 
 
 L. — JSir, neither protcsfant hincj nor ])rotestant subject 
 needs to despair, if you can prove them to be reunited 
 to tlie Catholic Church. 
 
 " 6'. — But to the divines I have mentioned, let us add 
 " some royal testimonies. King James I., in his Prononitiou 
 " to Christian Monarchs, tells us, that his mother (qiicen Mary') 
 " as she was ready to lay Iier head upon the block, sent him 
 •' this tnessap;e ; that although she was of another religio7i, tlian 
 " tluit, wherein he was hrovyht i/jy, yet she would not press him 
 '• to change, except his coiiscience forced him to it : not doubting 
 " but if he led a good life, and locre careful to do justice, and 
 " govern wtll, lie would he in a good cas" in his own religion. 
 
 " This was perfectly agreeable to the sentiments of his 
 '• grandson the late king Junics 1 1., who often sjjoke to those 
 '• divines, who had the instruction of both his daughters, to 
 " be diligent in making them religious and good christians 
 " in the way of the Church of Enghttid without so nnjcli as 
 " liiritingat any change of tlicir principles towards the Church 
 •' of Home : as I have heard myself fioni two of them, Dr 
 " Turner late bishop of Ely, and Dr Ken late bishop of Bath 
 " anrl yVclls, And neither before, nor after his coming to the 
 " crown would he suffer any attempt to be made upon them 
 «' as to religion ; of which there is an eminent witness now 
 " alive, who knows if ] speak truth. And when a certain 
 " zealot pressed him to endeavour their reconciliati<»n to the 
 *■ ('hurch of Rome, and offered ins service for that purpose, 
 " the king answered, A'o, let them alone, they are so good: they 
 " will be saved in any church." — j>p. 100, 101. 
 
 />. — Alas, that poor prince did not then foresee, that 
 those two (j(H)d jirotcstanl dauylifirs would soon alter send
 
 260 No Sah-atiuJi out of 
 
 tlieir j)opiith father ami mother a beo^gini^. However 
 that be, as to the first of your royal testimonies from kint^ 
 James I., 1 will not presume to <;ive him the lie. But 
 I dare boldly give it to the person, whoever he was, that 
 brought the message. For it seems it was not sent by 
 letter, but delivered by word of mouth. And how easy 
 was it for the messenger to go beyond his commission, 
 and forge the latter part of his message ; both to flatter 
 the king, and make catholics appear to contradict one 
 another ; and so cast an aspersion upon their religion ; 
 which was a popular thing, and the M'ay to please at 
 tliat time. 
 
 That queen Mari/ should tell her son, that she ivould 
 not press him to a change of religion, unless his conscience 
 forced him to it, may very well be. But that she should 
 add, that he tcoidd he in a good case in his oivn religion, 
 provided he lead a good life and governed tcell, is wholly 
 improbable, and inconsistent with common sense. For 
 either she was convinced in conscience, that her son 
 might be saved in the protestant religion, or not. If not, 
 then she acted against her conscience in sending such a 
 message to him; and that, in the very moment, she was 
 going to lay her head upon the block : which cannot be 
 susj)ected of such a pious princess, as she certainly was. 
 But if she was convinced in conscience, that her son was 
 safe in the protestcmt religion, then she must have judged, 
 that it was equally safe for herself: unless she could think, 
 that the same religion could save one, and damn another. 
 Now her actions and sufferings are a demonstrative proof, 
 that she never thought herself safe in ihe protestant reli- 
 gion, since she chose to lose her crown, liberty, and life, 
 rather than conform to it. 
 
 Add to this, that Sanderson, a protestant historian, who 
 relates every minute circumstance of her death, and par- 
 ticularly a message she delivered upon the scaffold to her 
 servant, Melville, mentions not a word of the message you 
 speak of. 
 
 I find the very same improbability and incoherency in 
 the latter part of your story concerning king James 11.,
 
 the Catholic Chinch. 261 
 
 whatever vouchers you may pretend to have for it. For 
 all the world knows, that king James suffered as much 
 for his religion as any prince, \\q sIkiH read of in history. 
 Nav all his sufferings were attended with the most mor- 
 tifying circumstances, tliat could give an aggravation to 
 them. This renders it unquestionable, that he had a full 
 conviction of conscience, that he could not be saved in 
 the protestaiU cJivrch. x\nd is it consistent with common 
 sense to believe, that a person under this conviction should 
 say, his children tcould be saved in aivj church ivhatsoever? 
 
 You say, he forbade the divines^ that had the instructiou 
 of his children even to hint at any change in their principles 
 towards the Church of Rome. But nothing can be more 
 unlikely than this story. For no man forbids a thing, but 
 wlien there is some danger or probability of its coming 
 to pass: and king J«;;?es knew very well, that the divines^ 
 who were about his children, had such a mortal hatred to 
 j)opery, that though he had commanded them to tamper 
 with them, they would not have obeyed him. There was 
 therefore no manner of occasion to forbid them to do it. 
 Kay he might as well have forbid them to \>vevLc\\ Judaism 
 to them as popery. 1 believe indeed he never molested 
 his children about their religion. For as he gave free 
 liberty of conscience to all his subjects, it was not reason- 
 able that his own children should be the only persons 
 excluded from the benefit of it. But he could never be 
 capable of such a gross solecism in i)ractice, as to declare 
 liis children safe in that religion, which he had renounced 
 liimself upon a conviction of conscience, that he could 
 not save his soul in it. 
 
 " G — Yes, my lord, lie niiglit think his own religion best 
 «' for hinisfdf without thirddng those in any hazard, wlio were 
 •« sincerely of thu Cliurch of England, and lived up to the 
 «' rules of it." — p. 101. 
 
 L. — Sir, when you convince me that king James was 
 a latitiidinnrirm in religion, then I shall be of your mind, 
 that he might thiid< one church best for himself, and 
 another better for his children. T am sure he could not 
 think his own religion best fur himself as to this world; 
 and if he only thought il best as to his future happiness,
 
 •J()2 Xo Sah'atiun uul of the Catholic Church. 
 
 he could not but have the same opinion of it witli relation 
 to his children. 
 
 " G. — However king James did not think it unlawful to b>j 
 " present at our commoii prayers, because he heard them at 
 •• \\\i coronation^ — p. 101. 
 
 L But did any man in the whole nation look upon his 
 
 beint^- present at your cuiidhoh prayers on that occasion 
 as a distinctive mark, whereby he professed himself to be 
 of the protcstant comnmnion, or that he therefore approved 
 of your lituryy? No surely. Nor can you conclude from 
 what he did at his coronation, that therefore he thought 
 it lawful to be present at your common prayers in other 
 occasions. For if he had, he might have kept the crown 
 upon his head. 
 
 G. — My lord, what is lawful once, is lawful always. 
 
 L. — I l)eg your pardon, Sir. For the same external 
 action may be lawful or uidawful Jis circumstances vary. 
 As for instance: a case of necessity may oblige a virtuous 
 person to go into very scandalous comj)any, where it 
 would be uidawful for him to appear at other times. And 
 the same action may give great scandal at one time, and 
 none at all at another. If I should go upon Sundays to 
 liear prayers at my own parish church, where most of the 
 congregation know me, every body would conclude I 
 came with a design to conform : because going to church 
 in that manner is regarded as a distinctive mark. But if 
 I went oidy out of curiosity to hear the parson exercise 
 liis talent in a place, where I am not known, I should 
 give no handle to any one to interpret it as a rcnounciny 
 of my own religion. It is plain then that the same thing- 
 may be lawful in one circumstance, and tinlawful in 
 another. Now the circumstances of king James being 
 })resent at your common prayers were sucii, as rendereil 
 it impossible for any man to interpret it either a dislike 
 t)f his own, or an approbation of your liturgy or commun- 
 ion. Nor can you, by consequence conclude from it, 
 that he did not think it unlawful to he present at your com- 
 mon prayers in ordinary occasions; as I am sure no Roman 
 Catholic thinks it lawful.
 
 Pope Pius y. was not the Author, ^'c. 263 
 
 SECTION l.lll. — rOPE PIUS V. AVAS NOT THE AUTHOR OF 
 THE ENGLISH SCHISM. 
 
 " G. — My lord, formerly they thought it lawful, for after 
 " the reformation the Romoa catholics of England came to 
 " our churches, and to our common prayer tcithout any scruple. 
 «• And this continued till about the tenth year of the reigii 
 " of (^ueen Elizabeth, when Pope Pius forbade it by his Bull. 
 " So tiiat he made the separation. And if ho had not suf- 
 " fiuicat power to do it, or tiiat there was not sufficient 
 '• cause for it, then he made the schism too, and it lies 
 ♦• wholly at his door. Now it is the undoubted right of 
 " every imtional church to reform, alter, and model their own 
 *' liturr/y, as shall be most convenient ; provided there be 
 " nothing put into it, that is contrary to the/aith .- which is 
 •' not so much as alleged against our public offices. They 
 •' have a Breviary at Milan, and otlier places different from 
 '* that at Borne. And in England before the reformation there 
 " were diverse in several dioceses. As what was used in 
 " the church of Salisbury, of Hereford, of Bangor, of Yorh, 
 '• of Lincoln, ^-c, as is mentioned in the preface of our Com- 
 " mon Prayer- book concerning the service of the church. 
 •* But these differences did not break cominanion ; nor did 
 " the alteration made at the reformation, till the Pope hy 
 " the plentitude of his supremacy, and to be revenged upon 
 " queen Elizabeth, took upon him to break the communi(»n. 
 *• For which, as there was no sufficient cause, our liturny being 
 " all orthodox, even our enemies being judges ; so on the other 
 " hand the Pope's supremacy did not extend to break in 
 " upon the rights and liberties of any national church, as has 
 " been, and is still maintained by the whole Gallicnn churih, 
 " and ollicrs the most learned in tlie Church of Rome. And, 
 " my lord, I know some Jioman catholics of figure, and good 
 " sense in l-juglunil, who merely upon this account iiave come 
 " over to our church, and thought themselves obliged to re- 
 " turn to the communion of their national church, and to heal 
 " the breach made; by that excess of the; Pope's supremacy, 
 " which no sol)er man on this side of tiic Aljis will own. It 
 " is strange to own it in fact, and deny it in words. W'ho- 
 •* ever owns this Inill of Pins V. for breaking communion in 
 ** Engltnd, must also own the full extent of the bulla ctrtuc^ 
 <' which lias iii:i authority in u particular manner, a> well ns
 
 264 Pope Plus J', tvas not the 
 
 " of all the Popes siiico. Aiul it damns almost all j^opisls 
 *• aa well as all who are not papists." — pp. 101 — 103. 
 
 L. — \\ hilt, Sir ! Will you never leave oft* baiting tliat 
 poor bull ? But we have now a question of greater mo- 
 ment before us, to wit, whether Pius V. was the author 
 of the Publish schis)n, which you boldly affirm, and en- 
 deavour to prove from a fact, which upon examination 
 will appear to be a gross mistake. You say, i/iat after 
 the irjbnnation the catholics of England came to your 
 churches and cownion prayer ivithout scruple till the tenth 
 year of queen Elizabeth. This, I say, is a gross mistake, 
 because your meaning (to be any thing to the purpose) 
 must be, that eitlier the tvliole body of Roman cathuiics ; 
 or at least the most eminent part i?i E?igland came to your 
 churches and common prayer; and that they did it upon 
 a full persuasion of the lawfulness of it. For whoever 
 does a thing ivithout scruple, unless he be an atheist, is 
 convinced in conscience, that he may lawfully do it. 
 Now it is neither true, that the whole body of lioman ca- 
 tholics or the most eminent part did conform : nor that 
 they M'ho conformed, did it without scruple. 
 
 1 prove the first from Dr Heylyii, who writes thus {p. 
 286, 3d Edit. Lo7idon) : It was upon the 8th day of May, 
 that the ]}arliame7it ended (viz. 1. of Eliz.) and on the 
 24th of June that the public liturgy was to be officiated in 
 all the chirches of the hingdom. In the performanceof ichich 
 service the bishops giving no encouragement, and many of 
 the clergy being backward, it ivas thought fit to put them 
 to the final test, and either to bring them to conformity, or 
 to bestow their places and preferments vpon more tradable 
 persons. 
 
 In the same page he tells us, that many of tlie bisliop- 
 rics being vacant when queen Elizabeth came to the 
 crown, there were no more than fifteen living of that 
 sacred order. And of those fifteen only one conformed, 
 \'vi. Kitchin of Landaf; who (as Dr Ileylyn remarks) 
 having formerly submitted to every change resolved to show 
 himself no changeling in not conforming to the pleasure of 
 higher poivers. Ho that no less than fourteen bishops of
 
 Author of the English Schism. 265 
 
 fifteen refused to conform, and wore accordingly deprived 
 of their bishoprics. 
 
 In the next page he tells us, that besides the fourteen 
 bishops, six abbots, priors, and governors of religious 
 houses (that is, all that were at that time in England re- 
 stored by queen Mary) twehe deans, and as many arch- 
 deacons : fifteen presidents, or masters of colleges : fifty 
 prebendaries of cathedral churches, and above eighty /W- 
 sons or vicars wave: deprived of their preferments. 
 
 But Mr liishlon, who lived in those uidiappy times, 
 and could not but know what happened, relates that, 
 great numbers of the laity, and many eminent persons of 
 both universities quitted the kingdom, and chose to un- 
 dergo a voluntary banishment rather than comply witii 
 the times. Many also of the Inns of Court were turned 
 out of their places for non-compliance. And it is noto- 
 riously known, that the icw religious houses, which 
 queen Mary had re-established, as the Kuns ofZion, the 
 Carthusians of Richmond, and the Friars of Greenwich 
 entirely refused to bow their knees to Baal; left the 
 kingdom, and sought a refuge in foreign countries rather 
 than conform contrary to the dictates of their conscience. 
 
 Now, Sir, give me leave to propose a question. Sup- 
 pose all the bishops but one of great Britain, and manv 
 of the best cluiracter amongst the inferior clergy, and 
 laity should refuse to take tlie oath of abjuration, I ask, 
 whether in that case it would be true to say, that the pro- 
 testants of the Church of England take the oath of abjura- 
 tion tvithout scruple? Surely no. IJecause when we say 
 absolutely, and without restriction, that the protcstants or 
 catholics of Englaiul do such or such a thing without 
 scruple, the natiual and obvious meaning of it is, /7r.<f^, 
 that either the whole body, or at least the most eminent 
 part do it. And 2dly, that they do it by principle. And 
 how can it be said, that either the whole body, or at least 
 the most eminent part of a church does a thing, when all 
 the principal heads and rulers of that church refuse to do 
 it? Or how can the cofiforming jjarty, thoui^h it be 
 the greater in number, be said to do it by principle, when 
 
 N
 
 266 Pope Pius V. was not the 
 
 those, who are their spirituol governors by divine appoint- 
 ment, their guides of conscience, and judges in matters of 
 religion, declare against it both by word and deed ? Since 
 therefore all the catholic bishops but one, all the abbots 
 and religious that were then in England, and many of 
 the most eminent amongst the inferior clergy refused to 
 conform, it is false to say absolutely, that^br the ten first 
 years the Roman catholics came to your churches and com- 
 mon prayer unthout any scruple. 
 
 G. — Your lordsliip must own at least, that the great- 
 est part of tiie catholic prebendaries and rural clergy con- 
 formed. 
 
 L. — Whatever they did, I deny they did it by prin- 
 ciple, and witliout scruple: and unless they did it hy prin- 
 ciple and without scruple, your argument from their out- 
 Avard conformity for the lawfulness of your liturgy is not 
 Avorth a rush. For it will only prove, that the greatest 
 number in conforming acted contrary to their conscience. 
 But let us once more hear I)r IJeylyn. The bishops (says 
 lie p. 287) being thus put to it, the oath is tendered next to 
 the deans and dignitaries, and by degrees also to the rural 
 clergy : refused by some, and took by others, as it seemed 
 most agreeable to their conscietices, or particular ends. 
 
 The doctor is so modest as to leave it undecided, whe- 
 tlier they, who conformed, did it for conscience sake, or 
 particular ends. But a few lines after he explains him- 
 self pretty well. But then (says he) v^e are to know 
 withal, that many, who were cordially affected to the in- 
 terest of the Church of Home dispensed ivith themselves in 
 these outward conformities .- which some of them are said 
 to have done upon a hojje of seeing the like revolution by the 
 death of the queen, as had before happened by the death of 
 king Edward : and otherwise that they might be able to re- 
 lieve their brethren, who could not so readily frame them- 
 selves to a present compliance. I think we may modestly 
 conclude from these words of the doctor, that the preben- 
 daries and rural clergy he speaks of, did not conform with- 
 out some qualms of conscience: unless they forgot the old 
 maxim, that evil is not to be done, that good may come of it.
 
 Author of the English Schism. 267 
 
 But I must here observe to you, that the oath men- 
 tioned by Dr Heylyn was the oath of supremacy, whereby 
 the Popes spiritual poicer was utterly disclaimed. And 
 this oath was tendered to all persons without exception, 
 that enjoyed any ecclesiastical btnejice, whereof they were 
 deprived immediately upon their refusing to take it. 
 Those therefore that continued in their deaneries, pre- 
 bends, or parsofiages. and conformetl to the new liturc/y 
 to save their bacon, had all swallowed the oath ; and by 
 that very act renounced the communion of the Church of 
 Home. They were not tlierefore Roman catholics, when 
 they conformed, but apostates from their religion. And 
 all you can infer from their conforming is, that they, who 
 turned protesta?its without scruple, came to your church 
 and common prayer without scruple, which no man will 
 ever dispute with you. 
 
 As to the laity, they, who luid not strength enough to 
 weather the storm, were forced into a compliance by the 
 severity of pencd laws. And let me tell you. Sir, that 
 when a person conforms merely upon force, and goes to 
 church like a bear to the stake, it is no mark of his doing 
 it without scruple. IloAvever n)any among these to silence 
 as well as they could the murmurs of an uneasy con- 
 science, pretended that there could be no great harm in 
 a mere outrcard co}funnity, as long as tliey remained 
 sound catholics in their hearts. But tliey were vigorously 
 opposed by others, mIio abhorred this scandalous trimming 
 and dissimulation in matters of religion : and so the case 
 was sent up to Rome, and the Pope decided it in favour 
 of the latter; declaring such an outirard compliance to be 
 unlawful; as being a distinctive mark uH n jjrotcstant t'vom 
 a catholic, and a denial of the catholic rtlif/iun in fact. 
 
 G.— But was not then Pope Fius the author of tlie 
 Sfparation, and by consecpu'uce of the schism'/ 
 
 L — Sir, he sej)aratc(l, if you jdease, the corn from 
 the chfijf, and true catholics from false ones: as St Paul 
 did, wlien he commanded I'itus to avoid the company of 
 an herctirfd man after the first and second admonition. 
 Tit. iii. 10. And as In- forbade the Cori/ifliiaiis to keep
 
 2G3 Pope. Piua J', n-as not the 
 
 comjxmy witli scaiulalous sinners. 1 Cor. v. 11. But as 
 to the srparafion, or schism between the Church of Eng^ 
 land and the Church of Itomr, how could Pope Pats be 
 the author of a separation, which had been made ten 
 years before lie sent his /;//// ? I'\>r when queen Elizabeth 
 came to the crown, she found the Church of Ewjland 
 perfectly reconciled and united to the Church of Rome ; 
 and in the first year of her reign she dissolved that happy 
 union, undid every thino^ her predecessor had done, 
 divested tiie Pope of his sjriritual supremacy and broke 
 all communication with the Church of Rome. All this, 
 I say, siie did in tlie very first year of her reign. And 
 if this was not making the separation of the Church of 
 England from the Church of Rome, both words and actions 
 must lose their natural meaning. 
 
 Pray hear what Dr Ilcghjn says upon this subject : 
 "*Vhcn the act of supremacy came to be debated, it seemed 
 to be a thing abhorrent evcji in nature and polity, that a 
 U'oman should be declared to be the supreme head on earth 
 of the Church of England. But those of the reformed, 
 party meant notJung less than to contend about words and 
 phrases, so they might gain the point they aimed at, which 
 was the stripping the Pope of all his autliority in these 
 dominions, p. 280. 
 
 This then was the point they aimed at, viz. : The 
 renouncing and abjuring the Pope's spiritual power in 
 England. And this point was effectually carried, though 
 but by tlie majority of two or three votes, in that very 
 parliament which was the first of queen Elizabeth. And 
 therefore as the parliament in queen Marys reign reunited 
 the Church of England to the Church of Rome by owning 
 the Pope's supremacy, so this very parliament of queen 
 Elizabeth separated the Church of England from the 
 Church of Rome by renouncing the same supremacy. 
 
 But pray, Sir, lot me ask you, whether after this act 
 of parliament, wherein tlie Pope was thrown off, the 
 Chjirch of England was in communioyi with the bishop 
 and Church of Rome? This, Sir, is a puzzling question. 
 Because you cannot be so void of reason as to say she was ;
 
 Author oftlie English Schism. 269 
 
 and if she was not, as it is certain she was not, then 
 her communion with the Church of Borne was broke by 
 the queen and parliament. And is it not then ridiculous 
 to say, that Fope Pius made the separation and schism 
 by a bull sent full ten years after the breach liad been so 
 effectually made ? Really, Sir, 1 cannot but wonder 
 that a man of your sense and learning should undertake 
 such a defenceless cause. 
 
 As to what you say, that your liturgy is all orthodox 
 even your enemies being judges, I should be glad to know 
 what Roman catholic divine ever gave his approbation of 
 it. I am sure I never heard of any. Kay, if it were 
 wortii my pains, I could mark you out several parts of 
 it, which would never be acquitted by ii popish jury, nor 
 found orthodox, your enemies being judges. 
 
 What you have alleged concerning the diversity of 
 Breviaries or Missals, tliat were in England before the 
 ])retended reformation, or are still in use in our churches, 
 makes nothing against us. For besides that they are 
 approved by pul)iic authority, they all agree in every 
 essential point of worship. Nor do they contain the 
 least word contrary to faith, or omissio7i in favour of 
 heresy. And therefore it is no wonder, that this diversity 
 should cause no breacli of connnunion. Whereas your 
 liturgy is guilty of both, if we Iw judges. 
 
 But suppose your iUurgy were all orthodox that would 
 not justify our being present at it, unless your Thirty- 
 ninc Articles were likewise orthodox. Because we do not 
 think it lawful to communicate in jmhlic prayers and 
 sacraments with any but those, with whom we also com- 
 municate in faith. Whence it follows, that Pope Pitts 
 liad sufficient cause to forbid our coming to your 
 churches. And as to his poiver or authority to do it, 
 you will have a hard task to make good your plea against 
 him, utde.ss you can prove either from the 7Cord oj God, 
 or the ])r(icticc of anti<juity, that queen Elizabeth had a 
 better title to the sjtiritual sitjtremacy over Christ's 
 mystical body in England, than the successors of St 
 Peter, who had held it for the space of 900 years by a
 
 270 l\>itc Pitts J', teas not the 
 
 title never contesteii till the 23d of //cwr*/ VIII. ; and 
 thru only in order to bring about the most unjust, and 
 !«canilalons (((."sii^n. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, lias not every national church an 
 undoubtetl right to reform^ alter, and model their littirgy, 
 as they please i Ami is not this maintained by the whole 
 Galltcan church ? Or has the Pope a right to break in 
 upon the riijhts and liberties of any national church? 
 
 L. — No, Sir, he has not, provided those rights and 
 liberties be not only well grotuided, but also maintained 
 within their Just bounds, as we must suppose the Galli' 
 can church does ; since we hear of no breach of com- 
 munion l)etween her and the Church of Rome. But if 
 the Gallican church should ])retend to reform her liturgy, 
 as the Church of England did in the reign of queen 
 Elizabeth, to the prejudice of the public faith and disci- 
 pline of the church, you might then freely reckon them 
 amongst your protestant brethren. For I am sure the 
 Church of Rome would not own them for her children, 
 nor her king for the eldest son of the church, as she now 
 does. 1 therefore answer your first question directly, 
 that no national church has a right to reform, alter, or 
 model her lilurgij to the prejudice oi t\\Q public faith, for 
 the encouragement of heresy, or in opposition to canons 
 universally received. 
 
 As to what you say, that you knoiv some Roman catho- 
 lics of figure, and good sense, tcho thougid themselves 
 boraid to return to the communion of their national church: 
 the persons, you sj)eak of, may be men of figure, but I 
 ^■ery much question their good sense, unless you mean 
 the sense of flesh and blood, which is generally most 
 prevalent in men of figure : because they have the most 
 to lose by our religion, and are most like to gain by 
 conformitig to yours. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, do any of those, that have once 
 left your communion, ever return to it? And if they do 
 not, does not that shew, they are fully satisfied? 
 
 L. — 'Ihey, Sir, who change for interest, liberty, and 
 ease, cannot but be fully satisfied to find all these
 
 Autlior of the English Schism. 27 L 
 
 charming advantaoes in your communion, and will not 
 easily come back for the sake of persecutions, restraints^ 
 and penance. However many have come back, particu- 
 larly upon the approach of death, when men are serious 
 if ever, and all worldly motives give place to that of 
 securing their souls. And it is a remarkable observation, 
 which 1 desire you to take notice of, tliat whereas thou- 
 sands, who have been brought up protestants from their 
 infancy^ have desired to die Roman catholics, I defy you 
 to name me one single person, who having been brought 
 up a Roman catholic, from a child, ever turned protesfant 
 upon his death-bed. 
 
 G. — And what does your lordship conclude from 
 thence? 
 
 L, — I conclude from it, that popery is the safest reli- 
 gion to die in, even our enemies being judges. And if it 
 be the safest religion to die in, one needs not the wit 
 of an Aristotle to conclude it is also the safest to live in. 
 
 Advertisemlnt. — After the gentleman's last words in his Case 
 Stateil, p. 103, there is a little scuffle betwixt him and his\oT(hh\\^ 
 about the word papist and Roman catholic. His lordship liltes 
 neither the one, itor iJic other, and will only be called catholic 
 absolulthj. The gentleman lays claim to the same title for his 
 church, and discourses as follows : 
 
 SECTION 1-lV. — IMtOTKSTANTS AUf, NO TAUT OF THK 
 CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 " G. — AV(! call ourselves catholics too, and in the same 
 " sense, and j)rav ov«'ry day for the cathnfir chinch in our 
 " liturcpj. 1 liprt'fore we call not yon catholics, because it 
 " woidd not dislinpuish you from us: but Roman catholics 
 " is rallinf^ a part of the wlude." — pp. 103, 104. 
 
 Tj. — Vou need not lie afraid, Sir, that calling us 
 catholics will not distinguish us from you, or any protes- 
 fant church in Europe. For go to what country yon 
 please, wiierc there is a mixture of Roman catholics and 
 protcstaids. and we arc pcrfcclly well known by the name 
 of catholics ; I know this to be true in Holland by iny
 
 272 Prostcstonts arc no part 
 
 own experionce, where if a stranger asks the first pro- 
 tcstant he meets with, wliore the Catholic church is, he 
 will never direct him to his own church, but to some 
 pojiish chajtel. 
 
 The like observation was made near 1300 years ago 
 by St Austin writing thus in bis book ]Je vera Rel. C. 
 7. IVc must hold (s;ivs he) the christian religion, and the 
 communion of that church, vhich is catholic, and is not 
 only called so h;/ her own children, hut by all her enemies. 
 For heretics and schismatics, ichether they will or no, 
 7rhcn they sj)cak not to their own people, but to strangers, 
 tall catholics catholics only. For they caniwt be under- 
 stood, if they give them not that name, ivhich all the ivorld 
 gives them. 
 
 Now I am sure St Austin was no other than a Roman 
 catholic, as appears from his following words, contra 
 Fpist. fund. C 4. Thirdly, says he, a successio7i of 
 bishops descending from theses of St Peter to tvhom Christ 
 (fter his resurrection committed his floch, holds me in the 
 church. Tlion he jiroceeds to the same observation upon 
 the word adholic as before. FastJy (says he) the very 
 name of catholic holds me .- ofichich this church alone has 
 not without reason so kept the possession, that though all 
 heretics desire to he called catholics [pray. Sir, mind this] 
 yet if a stranger asks them, wlicre catholics meet, none of 
 the heretics dare point out his oicn house or church. 
 
 Thus, Sir, it has been the vain ambition of heretics in 
 all ages to be styled catholics, in order to cover the 
 infamy of their new-broached doctrines, and upstart church 
 with that lionourable title. But truth and good sense 
 liave always prevailed : their efforts have proved vain ; 
 and they never were able to gain it to themselves, or 
 dispossess the legal owners of it. 
 
 However let us examine the thing seriously, and go 
 fairly and ])lainly to the bottom of the cause. Pray, Sir, 
 what does the word catliolic mean ? 
 
 G. — Why, my lord, it is a Greek word, and signifies 
 ■universal. 
 
 L. — Very right, Sir. And you know there is a two-
 
 of the Catholic Church. 273 
 
 fold universality belonging to the church of Christ, viz, 
 universality of time, and universality of jilace. And 
 therefore it is ridiculous for any church to assume to 
 herself the title of catholic, unless she can shew, that 
 the faith she professes is universal both as to time and 
 place. Now then let us consider, whether the faith of 
 tlie Church of England (as it differs from popery) can be 
 called universal eitlier as to time or place. 
 
 The church's universality in respect of place must 
 certainly be understood in a limited sense; or it will follow, 
 that Christ never had a Catholic Church upon earth : be- 
 cause there never yet was a time, wlierein her communion 
 was so universally received by the whole world, but that 
 great numbers of heretics, and several heathen nations 
 were out of it. Yet in scripture language both of the 
 Old and New Testament she is styled the church of all 
 nations. First, because she is the great body of christians, 
 from whence all went forth, as I have fully proved before. 
 And 2dly, because she either has been, or will be in 
 every nation of the world. That so all nations may he 
 hlessed in the seed of Abraham according to the promise 
 made to him, Gen. xxii. 17, 18, and the proj)hecy of 
 Isaiah xlix. 6, and liv. 1 — 3. 
 
 This, Sir, is tiie true meaning of the church's univer- 
 sality in res[)cct of place. IJut her universality in resjiect 
 oi time is without limitation. That is, it sufKces not, that 
 she be the church of miuiy ages, as the Arians and 
 Nestorians have been ever since the 4th century, but it 
 import's, that she has been the church of all ayes since 
 the time of the apostles. Whence it follows that catho- 
 lies truly so called are the standing l)o<ly of christians 
 throughout all ages, from which all christian societies of 
 heretics and srhismatirs have been cut oft', as so many 
 branches from the body of a tree, which continues stand- 
 ing and growing, whatever branches are lojit oft' from it. 
 
 Now, Sir, let us see, whether the Church of England 
 can make good her claim to universality either of time 
 i)V place : is she the groat body of christians, from which 
 all heretics and schismatics w(!nt forth ever since the time 
 
 N 2
 
 ♦^74 Protestants arc no part 
 
 of tlie apostles ? Alas, she came f'orlh into the world 
 nenr ITjOO years too late for that. Can she l)e styled the 
 church of a/l nations'^ she, I say, wiio but a little more 
 than 160 years a^o was iu)t the church of any one 
 nation in tlie world ? Have the Thirty-nine Articles, 
 whieh contain a profession of her faith, been ever preached 
 iu France, Ilalif, Spain, or any nation under the sun, 
 but what belonjfs to the crown of Great Britain ? No 
 man is so mad as to say they have. 
 
 It is theii a plain case, that she has no universality of 
 place even in the limited sense, in which it is always 
 uiuierstood. And as to universalily oi time (which from 
 the very first preaching of the gospel is without limitation) 
 she may as well pretend to date her faith and religion 
 from the time of Noah, as from the time of the apostles. 
 For how is it j)ossible she should? Since popery was in 
 possession of the whole kingdom of England for 900 
 years before the reformation : nay ami the book of Homi- 
 lies declares that lohole Christendom was drowned in 
 abominahlc idolatry {mcamno; popery) during that whole 
 space of time. And where then was the protestant 
 Church of England ?i\{ \\vc\i \\rc\G'i Where was her doc- 
 trine of the Thirty-nine Articles in those nine centuries? 
 Where was her succession of protestant bishops, whilst 
 the protestant religion had no being? Was she a christian 
 church, and yet in no part of Chrisfejidom ? For in 
 Christendom I am sure she could not be, because whole 
 Christendom icas droumed in popery even our enemies 
 being judges. The j)lain truth then of the matter is, she 
 liad no being at all till about the middle of the 16th 
 century, and she wants about 1500 years of universality 
 of time. So that you may as well style yourselves 
 antediluvians, as catholics. Nay you cannot say you 
 believe the Catholic Church, or pray for her, as you say 
 you do in your liturgy, without bantering Almighty God. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, how can your church be the Catho- 
 lic Church properly speaking, since you are not called 
 catholics absolutely, but only lioman catholics, which is 
 but a part of the whole ?
 
 of the Catftoiic Church. 275 
 
 L Sir, if by Boman catholics you only mean those 
 
 who belong- to the diocess of Rome, they are but a part 
 of the whole. But this is not our meaning, but your 
 darling equivocation. On the contrary, we mean the 
 whole diffusive body of christians, which is in communion 
 with the successor of ISt Peter (who actually is, and lias 
 always been bishop of Rome) and is therefore called the 
 Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 <• G. — If this he the frame of the Catholic Church it must 
 " have been so always." — p. 104. 
 
 Zj Sir, the essential frame of the Catholic Church has 
 
 always been the same: and no particular church has ever 
 been a part of the Catholic Church., if it was not in com- 
 munion either with St Peter, or his successors, who have 
 always been bishops (f Rome. 
 
 " G — Pray then, my lord, tell me what partieidar cliurch 
 " was so called in tliis sense, before there Mas a christian iu 
 " Rome ? And how that cliurch came to lose it ? And how 
 <' was it translated to Rome?' — j). 104. 
 
 L. — To these wise questions I answer, that neither 
 any particular church, nor catholics in general were called 
 Roman catholics before there were christians at Rome : 
 nor had they that denomination generally given them 
 till after some ages: and it is impertinent to ask how a 
 name was lost or translated before it was given. But are 
 we disputing about names or thiufjs? ii St Peter had 
 fixed his see immovcably at yi/zi/or./t, and not translated it 
 to Rome: and M Avtiorh had always been the episcopal 
 seat of his successors, it. might have happened, that in 
 process of time the diffusive body of christiajis in com- 
 munion with the successors of St Peter would have been 
 called the Antinrhran instead of Roman CrUholic Church. 
 liut would a dilTerence of name have made any dillVrence 
 in the essential frame, or constitution of the church .■* 
 lieally, Sir, you arc put to hard shifts, when you are 
 forced to lay a stress upon, and give an air of importance 
 to such a wretched argument as this, viz.: 'I'he Catholic 
 Church vds not aluutys rnlh d Rimiau, ergo, the Roman 
 Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church absolutely.
 
 276 The Suhjcct of the 
 
 «« C. — My lord, every cliurcli, and every nieniber of it 
 " may be called catholic, as beiiifj^ included in the general 
 »' notion of the catholic church. But in the sense you have 
 " mentioned as head and principle of utiUij to all churches^ 
 " no hiihop or church ever had it till taken up in latter times 
 " by the bishop of Rome. " — p. 104. 
 
 L. — Sir, whenever it may reasonably be questioned, 
 whether Julius C(Cf!ar and AikjusIus were once emperors 
 of liunic, it will not be then unreasonable to question, 
 whether the bishop and Church of Borne were owned by 
 all anti({uity to be the head and principle of unity to the 
 Avhole Catholic Church. I have fully proved it in the be- 
 i2,innin(»- of our conversation, and therefore will not trou- 
 ble you with tedious repetitions. But as to what you say ; 
 that every church, and every member of it may be called 
 catholic, as being included, in the general notion of the Ca^ 
 tholic Church, if you speak of such particular churches or 
 jiersons, as are in the communion of the true Catholic 
 Church, the thing is true, but nothing to the purpose, 
 unless you prove the Church of England to be in the 
 communion of that church. But it is utterly false, if you 
 speak of heretical or schismatical churches, as all new 
 raised communions are, and as I have fully proved your 
 church to be. 
 
 Advertisement. — Here the gentleman in his Case Stated intending 
 to make an haramjue of about Jicc inujes without interruption, 
 hud no loai) to introduce it but by making his lordship ask this 
 notable question. L. But how came the bishop of Rome to that 
 jrrcat sway, he has long obtained in the church ? 2'o which the 
 gentleman answers as follows. 
 
 SECTION LV. THE SUBJECT OF THE SUPREMACY RE- 
 SUMED, AND THE gentleman's FOR3IEU OBJECTIONS 
 AGAINST IT REPEATED. 
 
 " G. — It is very obvious : because Rome was the metropolis 
 " of the empire, and consequently her bishop must be more 
 " consi»icuous, than any other, have more respect paid him, 
 " and more applications made to liini, especially after the 
 *' emperors were made christians." — pp. 104, 105.
 
 Suprcmacii resumed. 277 
 
 L If that were tlie only reason, why more respect 
 
 lias been paid, and more applications made to the bishops 
 of Rome, it would follow, that more respect should be 
 paid, and more applications made to the bishop of London, 
 which is the metropolis of England, than to the arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury ; who I believe will not relish this 
 sort of logic. Not but that the greatness and dignity of 
 cities has been an occasion of bestowing greater advan- 
 tages and prerogatives both secular and ecclesiastic upon 
 their bishops, than upon cities of a lower rank. But 
 neither the donation of pritwes, nor decrees of councils 
 can increase or lessen tlie divine right of bishops. So 
 that if St Peter and his successors had fixed their seat in 
 a village they would have been the same supreme gover- 
 nors of the church, and their see the centre of unit//, and 
 the ecclesiastical metropolis as much as now. 
 
 " G. — It was for the reason I have given, that when the 
 " seat of the empire was translated to Constantinople, the 
 " bishop of that church took upon him, and aspired farther 
 " to the universal supremacy, but was opposed by Gregory 
 " the great bishop of Rome." — p. 105. 
 
 L. — Sir, the seat of the empire was translated to Con- 
 stantinople by the very first christian emperor; and it 
 was not till two hundred and fifty years after, that its 
 patriarch, whom St Gregory opposed, aflected to style 
 iiimsclf oecumenical patriarch in relation to the eastern 
 churches, but he never had the vanity to aspire to the 
 universal supremacy, as 1 have fully proved. Sect. 9. 
 
 '* G. — My lord, there was no other consideratioti in former 
 " times for the superiority of one bishop, or church but the 
 " secular dignity of the place. For whicli reason the Putri- 
 " arch of Jerusalem (which was uncontestably the mother- 
 " church of all) was postponed, and made the lowest of all 
 " tlie Patriarchs." — p. lOj. 
 
 L. — Sir, the secular dignity of places was certainly a 
 consideration of weight to the cliurch to erect them cither 
 into patriarchal, mclrojiolitan, archicpiscopal, or episco- 
 pal sees, and allow a larger extent of jurisdiction to one 
 see, than another. And thus it was that Jerusalem, 
 though the mother church in age, became inferior to other
 
 278 The Subject of the 
 
 churclios less ancient tlian herself. For all this depends 
 upon human instifufiioi, and is liable to clian^'c. But 
 divine ri<jht is unalterable, nor is it apj>ropriated io places 
 but persons. And therefore St Peter's authority, and tiiat 
 of his successors is not o\vinj>- to the inajesty of the city, 
 wliere they reside, but to the instHntion of Christ, which 
 is not subject to chancre. 
 
 «' G. — My lord, for divine rir/fif, and Christ having named 
 '= one bishop or church as hcrid., and superior to all others, 
 '• there is not a word, and it could not he Rome, before Rome 
 " was christian. And Christ never named her upon any 
 *' occasion whatsoever, or gave the least hint towards her. 
 " Strange and unaccountable, if he meant to build the whole 
 " christian faith upon her, and to make her the Catholic Church, 
 '• as including all other churches of christians, and in all ages 
 " throughout the whole world." — p. 105. 
 
 L Sir, it is much more strange and unaccountable, 
 
 that a man of your learning- can argue thus with a serious 
 countenance. For (as I have already told you several 
 times) Christ did not vest to^vns but 2)ersons with autho- 
 rity ; and St J^eter was the man he named ; and 1 cannot 
 think it either strange or unaccountable that St 2'eter 
 should choose Rome for his episcopal see. So that it is 
 neither here nor there whether Christ ever named Rome 
 or not, so he nominated Ht Peter, and did not forbid liim 
 to make Rome his ej)iscopal see. Christ therefore made 
 St letter the head of his church; but did not appoint him 
 Rome, or any other place for his residence. This was 
 left to his own choice, and he chose Rome, as the whole 
 current of antiquity testifies : and to doubt of it is the 
 same absurdity as to doubt, wiiether that city ever was 
 the metropolis of the empire. But I should be glad to 
 know who ever was so ridiculous as to say, that the city 
 of Rome includes oil other clmrchcs of christians. 
 
 " G. — IJut, my lord, fact, as I have said before, is the 
 " surest way to give us a true light of things. And the frame 
 " or government of the church is a fact, which must be ex- 
 " aminod by histories and records, and not criticising upon 
 " words, which afford no certainty. Let us look therefore 
 " into the frame of the church from the beginning. I hope
 
 Supremacy resumed. 279 
 
 " I have made it plain from the history of the Acts of the 
 '* Apostles, that there was none of them appointed as sovereign 
 " over the others, whatever words may be strained in favour 
 *• of St Peter."— pp. 105, 106. 
 
 L. — That is to say, thougli the words of Christ be 
 never so plain, and the judgment of antiquity be uneon- 
 testably in favour of St Peter, you are resolved he shall 
 be degraded, because St Luke does not tell us in express 
 term?, that he presided in the council of Jerusalem. 
 However you are forced to give a ridiculous name to 
 truth, to make falsehood go down. If therefore instead 
 of sovereign you would be pleased to say head or gover- 
 nor over the others, the hope you speak of will appear 
 vain and groundless to any one, who knows what I 
 answered, Sect. 6, to your objection from the history of 
 the Acts of tlie Apostles. 
 
 <• G. — Mv lord, if St Peter was called a rock, or foundation, 
 " so were all the others. They are called the twelve fouii- 
 " dations of the church. Per. xxi. 14. Which is said to be 
 " buili upon the fovndatloJi of the apostles and projihets, Jesus 
 " Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Eph. ii. 20. 
 *< And not any partictdar apostle or prophet. And if the keys 
 " of heaven were promised to Peter. Matt. xvi. 19. This 
 " was fulfilled in givinj^ them to liim jointly with all the 
 " others, without any mark of superiority in him. As in 
 " the commission to teach all nalioiis, it was equal to them 
 •* all. And we find in fact, that it was exercised by them 
 " all with equal aiitlinrity." — p- 106. 
 
 Z/. — Sir, all this lias been fully answered in our first 
 dispute concerning the supremacg, where I told you that 
 the afwstlf'S considered precisely as doctors or teachers 
 were all equal, and independent of one another. For as 
 thev all had their iiis/iiration imincdiatclv from God, and 
 were no less infalUhlc than St Piter, they could not de- 
 pend on him as their doctor teaching them the mysteries 
 of christian faith. And so their commission to teach idl 
 nations wa>< likewise equal to them all, because all this 
 belonged to them as teachers. But the sujarine govern- 
 ment of the church was promised to Hi Peter alone, when 
 Christ toUl liim ahtu\ Matt. xvi. 19, that he would build
 
 280 The Subject of the 
 
 his church upon him.- as all the ancient fathers understood 
 that text. If therefore Christ kept his word, the whole 
 church is Imilt ujion St Peter in a particular manner. 
 And since the apusths were surely a part of the church, 
 they were likewise built upon ^t Peter. But they were 
 not built upon him as their doctor, therefore as their su- 
 preme (jovcrnor. Now, iSir, you may go on if you j)lease. 
 
 «' G. — AH the rogiinen of tlie church, wliich the apostles 
 ** appouitcd was that of bishops in their several districts, 
 " witliout any Jiead or sovereign bishop over them all as su- 
 " prenie jiidgo of controversy." — p. 106. 
 
 Ij. — sir, there was no necessity for the apostles to ap- 
 point a head, since Christ himself had done it for them, 
 ijiit I presume the apostles did not pretend to undo, 
 Avhat Christ had done, or oblifre St Peter to abdicate in 
 order to make way for a church of independents without 
 a head. 
 
 " G. — There is not the least title of this [_licad'] to be found 
 " in any of the histories, or writings of those ages after the 
 " apostles : thougli there were many controversies even in 
 " faith amongst them, which an appeal to this judge had 
 " speedily ended. Uut no such thing appears, which could 
 •' not have been missed, had it been known." — pp. 106, 107. 
 
 X. — Those, Sir, who have eyes to read, will find in 
 the histories and writings of antiquity, that the church 
 never was without a head ; provided they have but 
 some grains of sincerity to own what they read, and un- 
 derstand. But, though the fact be uncontestable, there 
 is one very good reason, why controversies even in faith 
 were not always ended in the primitive ages any more 
 tlian in aftertimes. And the reason is, because there have 
 been true h( relics in all ages. And these, like our modern 
 protestants never were of an humour to submit to lawful 
 authority. Have you any thing more to say? 
 
 " G. — Yes, my lord, I have soniethiiig to say concerning 
 •' the ancient constitution of the church. Metropolitans were 
 " early, that is, the bishop of the metropolis, or chief city of 
 ♦' a province, who presided in the synods of that province, and 
 " had other ecclesiastical privileges granted him by the com- 
 ♦• mon consent of the bishops of the place for order sake, and
 
 Supremacy resumed. 281 
 
 " greater harmony of discipline. Cut a patriarch with jur- 
 •' isdiction over several metropolitans or provinces was never 
 '« beard of in the church till the council of Calcedon, An. 450. 
 «' And many provinces were not put under these patriarchs, 
 " but had exempt jurisdictions of their own as before : of 
 •' which Britain was one. For the patriarchal of Rome ex- 
 " tended only to Ituli/, and the isles adjacent." — p. 107. 
 
 L. — Sir, the Pope claims not his jurisdiction over the 
 whole church either as bishop of the diocess of Rome, or 
 as patriarch of the west^ but precisely as successor of St 
 Peter, and by consequence, the vicar of Christ upon 
 earth. Tliis he has by divine institution. This is his 
 unalterable and unalienable right. So that I cannot 
 imagine, what it is to our purpose to know, when patri- 
 archs or mtlropolitans were first instituted any more, 
 than when towns were first divided into parishes. For 
 whether this was done soon or late ; or whether their 
 jurisdiction was of a large or narrow extent: or whether 
 some towns or provinces hail a jurisdiction independent 
 of their patriarchs or metropolitans after they were 
 instituted; all this lias no manner of connexion with the 
 supremacy either of St Peter, or his successors : and you 
 mav as well make the Institutinj)^ of lords-lieutenants of 
 counties, or yovernors ot cities an objection against tlie 
 sovereiynty of the crown of Great Britain. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the first pretence to toiiversal supremacy 
 " was set up by John bishop of Constantinople, after the seat 
 " of the empire was translated thither. Against whom 
 " Gregory tiie Great wrote, and said, that though the see of 
 " Rome had always the precedence of Constantinople, yet that 
 " none of his predecessors the bisliops of Rome had ever 
 " assumed such an arrogant title, which he calls a Luciferiau 
 " pride, and declares him, who should take it, to bo the fore- 
 " runner of Antichrist." — p. 107. 
 
 L. — Sir, I have fully answered tiiis fVivoious ol)jcction. 
 Sect. 9. And jjray remember what I then both said and 
 proved; viz., that no Pope ever maintained the spiritual 
 supremacy more vigorously both in words nud farts than 
 Gregory the Great: though he had the humility to style 
 LJmaeif the scrnuit of the servants of God.
 
 282 The Subject of the 
 
 " G. — Yet. my lord, liis next siiccossor but one, that is, 
 *'■ Boniface 111. took it, beiiiuf u^iveii him by Phocas tliat 
 " traitor unci usurper, who inurdored his master Mauritivs 
 «' the OMipcnu-, and siezed his tlironc ; whom Boniface owned 
 *' and abetted, ;ind was made universal bisliop for his reward 
 " in the bcj^innini!; of the seventh century. Thus the sit- 
 " premaci/ now claimed by Rome was introduced, and has 
 " been niaintained jjro virlbus ever since. And under this 
 " Britain has been subdued, which never was under l\\cpatri- 
 " archat of Rome. So much has the government and unity of 
 " the church boeu altered from what it was in the time of 
 " the apostles, or in the first ages of the church. And thus 
 " has liotne usurped the name of the Catholic Church, and 
 *' placed all its IJnily in submission to her bishop. Here 
 " we see the decrees, by which this encroachment crept on. 
 *' The patriarchats began in the fifth, and the wiiversal su- 
 " premacy in the seventh century. And Britain, which held it 
 " out against the patriarcJiat of Rome, was at last conquered 
 *'• by the more apparent usurpation of her universal supremacy, 
 " so obtained as I told you." — pp. 107, lOS. 
 
 L. — As you have told nie indeed, but with the same 
 l^round of truth, as a man tells a fable or romance. I 
 must own yon have here given me a most ample proof 
 of your skill in misrepresenting and disfiguring his- 
 toric<al facts. For who would not conclude from the 
 account you gave of Boniface III. that he was an 
 accomplice in the murder of Mauritius, and a promoter 
 of Phocas' s usurpation ? Whereas that tyrant murdered 
 his master, and invaded the imperial throne during the 
 pontificate of Gregory the Great, and Boniface was not 
 made Pope till the fourth year of Phocas's reign. It is 
 therefore both false and malicious to say, that he tens 
 made universal bishop in reward for owning and abetting 
 that u'icked murder. It is true he owned Phocas for 
 emperor, and so did his two predecessors Sabiatius and 
 Gregory the Great, who even sent a nuncio to reside at 
 Constantinople. For it was not the Pope's business to 
 dispute the lawfulness of an elective title with the 
 possessor of it, tiiough he had obtained it by the most 
 wicked means. 
 
 2dly, it is a noted falsehood, that the Pope's supremacy
 
 Supremacy resumed. 283 
 
 was introduced by Boniface. Vox if he had introduced it, 
 HO Pope before him could have claimed it ; which is con- 
 trary to iimumerable historical facts and the whole current 
 of antiquity; as I have fully proved, Sect. 3, 9, 10, 16, 
 &c. The only difterence therefore between Pope Boniface, 
 and his predecessors is this, viz., that he prevailed with 
 riiocas to deprive Cyriacus bishop of Constantinople of 
 the vain and pompous title of oecumenical patriai'ch, and 
 accepted it himself. But he accepted it not in the sense 
 in which St Gregory had understood and opposed it in 
 John of Co7istantinopk, but only in the same sense, as it 
 had before been offered to St Leo by the council of Cal- 
 cedon, \_Conc. Caked. Act 3.] which council is allowed otf 
 by your own church. But was not Pope Leo a hundred 
 and fifty years before Boniface III. And all men of 
 learning know how vigorously he asserted the supremacy 
 of his see. It is tlierefore a notorious falsehood that 
 it was first introduced by Boniface. 
 
 Sdly, It is false that any part of the es.<>ential frame or 
 government of the church has been changed since the 
 time of the apostles. And 
 
 4thly, It is both false and a blunder to say, that Rome 
 lias usurped the name of the Catholic Church. Home is 
 indeed the head church, but it must be a head withoitt 
 brains to call itself the tcholc body. As it must likewise 
 be a liead without authorit)' (which is the same chimera 
 as a head iXi\A no head) if a rational obedience and sub- 
 mission bo not due to it. 
 
 Thus, Sir, we see what credit is to be given to jiersons 
 prijudiccd a.s you are. Yet the deluded people depend 
 upon you, and take every thing you say upon trust, 
 cspcciailv when it is delivered with a positivcnoss and 
 contidcnce, which takes away all suspicion of insincere 
 dealing, 
 
 " G'. — My lord, I have heard some Britons say, tlmt thougli 
 " they thoiij^Iit the Church of Rome tlie most corrupt part of 
 " the christian cintrcli t)Olh as to doctriiM- and worship, and 
 " to be a ( af^e full df iiiidcaii l)ii(]s, yd that tlicy nin>t ho of 
 " her, and enter into that cage, beaiuse she was the Catholic
 
 '284 The Subject of the 
 
 " Church. This is like that dospfirate maxim in the canon hiio 
 *' I (juotod befctre out oi \.\\ii decretals : that thougli the Pope 
 '• sliouKl draw infmito miinbeis of people with him into hell, 
 " yet we must not find fault with him, nor reprove him." 
 —p. 108. 
 
 L. — ISir, after what I liave said, Sect. 47. to shew how 
 you have niaiiglod and misrepresented the sense of that 
 canon, you must have a good stock of assurance to repeat 
 it. 13ut as to what you say concerning some Britons, I 
 ])rcsume those noble Britons had their lodging in Moor- 
 jicUls : and it is to that learned academy I refer you for 
 an explanation of their meaning. 
 
 " G. — But, my lord, I must also observe here, that though 
 " France has thrown off the Popes infullibiiit//, and his de- 
 " posing poiccr over princes, and has limited his supremac}/, 
 " that is indeed, taken it wholly away ; for no supremacy, 
 " properly so called, can be limited, for then it ceases to be 
 " supreme : yet France remains still in the dregs of the cor- 
 '• ruptions of Rome both as to doctrine and worship. The 
 '' religion of the people there, is the adoration of the host, and 
 " of the cross, invocation of saints, worship ofimayes, praying 
 " souls out of puryatory, telling their heads, and going to 
 '' cojifession." — p. 109. 
 
 L AMiich I advise you as a friend to do: and if you 
 
 will be so kind to yourself as to follow my advice, pray, 
 .Sir, forget not to examine yourself well upon the articles 
 of misrepresentation, falsehoods, and slander. For they 
 are most damnable sins, and oblige to retractation, and 
 reparation of honour. 
 
 But you have here broachod so much fresh matter, 
 that 1 must crave your leave to reserve the examination 
 of it to another meeting. For I am pretty well tired 
 with this day's work, the chief burden whereof has laid 
 upon me. You have asserted a great deal, and proved 
 little or nothing : whereas the drudgery both of proving 
 and disproving has been continually my task. I shall 
 only add a word or two relating to your observation 
 concerning France, and so take my leave of you for this 
 time. 
 
 I desire you therefore to observe, tliat the Pope's iiu
 
 Supremacy resumed, 285 
 
 fallihility and deposing power arc no articles of our faitii, 
 as I liaA'c often told vou : and so it is nothins: to the 
 purpose, whether France has thrown them off or not. 
 But I cannot imagine wliat you mean in saying, tJtat a 
 power ceases to he supreme, tvhen it is limited. Pray, 
 Sir, can there be no sovereign pri7ice, which is even 
 more than supreme, unless he be arbifrary and despotic 
 in his dominions? Is not every prince bound to govern 
 his sul)jects according to law? And are not those laws 
 made to limit the exercise of his power? It is there- 
 fore absurd to say, tliat a power ceases to be supi'eme, 
 when it is limited. 1 think the kings of Great Britain 
 are supreme, nay sovereigns in their dominions : and yet 
 their power is limited by the Magna Charta. And so it 
 is with the Pope. For though he be the supj'eme 
 governor of the ciiurch, he is bound to govern according 
 to the canons oi general councils; as the council oi Florence 
 expresses itself. And this is all tlie limitation of the 
 Pope's supremacy you will find in France. So that if 
 France remains still iji the dregs of the co?Tuptions of 
 Rome (as you are pleased to call them) both as to 
 doctrine and worship, it follows evidently, that France 
 has not tlirown off the Pope's spiritual supremacy, which 
 you know very well is an article of faith in the Church 
 of Rome : and the belief of it is rcfjuircd us a necessary 
 condition of communion. 
 
 THE END OF THE FIRST PART.
 
 CONVERSATION. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 SECTION I. — Of THE VIRTUE OR EFFICACY OF THE 
 
 SACRAMENTS. 
 
 L. — Sir, as we were last time upon tlie point of part- 
 ing, you were pleased to tell me, that France remains 
 still in the dregs of the corruptions of Rome; and amongst 
 those dregs you reckoned confession for one. Well, Sir, 
 if confessing our sins be among the dregs of corruptioii^ 
 I must own the reformation has effectually purged j'^our 
 church of it: and the drudgery of satisfaction, which 
 according to protestant doctrine is derogating from the 
 infinite satisfaction of Christ, is jjurged away with it. 
 
 Blessed reformation/ Which has delivered her children 
 from the popish yoke of coifessing their sins, and doing 
 penance for them ! It is true, this was the old tray of 
 going to heaven after the loss of hajdismal grace. For 
 which end the solemn fast of Lent^ besides double the 
 number of other fasting days were commanded by the 
 church, and innumerable religious houses were set up to 
 serve as sanctuaries for repotting sinners. But who would 
 have cared one farthing for tiie reformation, if this old 
 nay had been kept n[)? It was therefore wisely done to 
 remove these obstacles to that godly work by persuading 
 the people, that confessing and punishing their sins, as 
 papists do, are uut unnecessary cercmoiues, and that the 
 way to heaven is both easier and safer without them. 
 However I have heard you say sometimes, that confession 
 is a good thing if rightly used. 
 
 «' Ci. — And I siiy so still, but not in that sense it is R'on- 
 " eridly usod with you, and is (;xpressed in your Calcckisin ad 
 " Paroclws de Pienitcntiic Sacramento. Sect. 4G, 47. That
 
 ilSS The J'ifluc, or E^kacij 
 
 " such a repentance, as God will not accept nor pardon for 
 " it, is made siilliciont Ity tlio sacrament of penance, and all 
 *' our sins rcniitti'd by it : and i\\\\i paiici:<sinii, very few can 
 " be saved without it ; they might liave said, none. For they 
 " here require in repentance acceptable to God a sense and 
 «' sorrow for sin, tli:it shall be /////// equal to the demerit, vt 
 " cum scclerum maf/nitudine ccquari conferriguc possit ; M-hich 
 ♦* is impossible for mortal man : and therefore all must be 
 " damned without the sacramatt of pe7ianee." — p. 109, 
 
 £,, — I fear, Sir, there are hut few saved without it: 
 nay most certainly notic of tliose, who are wi/fa//// out 
 of the pale of the Catholic Church ; because the repent- 
 ance of sucli can never be sincere. However to come to 
 the words of the catechism, thoug-h jou luive quoted them 
 fairly, you have translated them very unfairly. For the 
 word conferri (which you have omitted in your translation) 
 moUiJies and explains the word ccquari ; and shows it to 
 import not ix full eqitaliti/, as you have rendered it ia 
 English, but an equality of proportion. So that the 
 meaning- of the catechism is no other, than that our sorrow 
 must be such, that it may be compared 7cith, and hear a 
 proportion to the grievousness of our sins; which is not 
 impossible by the help of God's grace. 
 
 It is likewise true what the catechism says, that there 
 is a twofold contrition^ or repentance : one so perfect, that 
 it suffices to obtain the full pardon of our sins M'ithout 
 the sacrament of penance ; though it always implies a 
 sincere desire of it : but whether there hcfciu or many, 
 that have this perfect contrition is all a guess, and known 
 to God alone. But there is another contrition, or rejient- 
 ance of a more imperfect nature, yet it is hearty and sin- 
 cere not only as to its detestation oi ]>ast sins, but likewise 
 as to its jmrpose of amendment for the time to come. 
 This the catechism says is insufficient to blot out sins 
 without the sacrament; yet is a sufficient /;;'(7)r/;-cf^/o« to 
 it. Nor do I see any thing you can reasonably object 
 against it. 
 
 " G. — .My lord, the catechism says it was necessary that 
 *' God should institute this sacrament as an easier way for 
 " men to get to heaven."
 
 of the Sacraments, 289 
 
 L. — Pray, Sir, can any christian doubt, bat that Christ 
 has instituted the sacraments as means io facilitate our 
 way to heaven ? 
 
 " G. — My lord, you interrupted me : the words of the 
 " catechism are these : Quare ?iecesse fiot, 7it cletnetifissimus 
 '•' Dominiis faciliori rutione communi hominum saluti consideref. 
 •' An easy way indeed ! Confess io a priest, and get absolution, 
 " and this makes up the defects of your repentance, and yoii 
 " are saved ex opere operato, by the work wrought, tlie hare 
 '•' performance of this sacrament. And the council of Trent 
 " anathematizes all those, who say, that the very sacraments 
 " of the gospel do not confer grace in the same manner by 
 " the bare performance. *S7 quis dixerit per ipsa novcB legis 
 
 '' sacrmenla ex opere operato non conferri grutiam Anathema 
 
 ♦• sit. Sess. 7. Can. 8. It is true, that God did institute his 
 " sacraments as means of grace (for which we bless his name 
 " daily in our general thanksgiving) hut this turns them into 
 " charms, when the rerysacrawe«f.s themselves, ipsa sacramenta, 
 " confer the grace ex opere operato, by the bare performance 
 " of the work."— p. 110. 
 
 L. — Sir, I lieartiiy subscribe to the definitioyi of the 
 council of Trent, and join with it in pronouncing anathe- 
 ma against all that deny it. But, Sir, you are not quite 
 so much out of the way as you will needs appear to be. 
 For you grant the thim/, ami only quarrel with the ex- 
 pression, to liave tlie malignant pleasure of lampooning 
 popery. 
 
 You say it is true, that God did institute his sacra- 
 ments as means of grace ; wo say the same. Because 
 almighty God, who can make us become partakers of his 
 holy grace by what means he pleases, has thought fit to 
 institute certain outward and risible signs, which we call 
 sacranunts, to serve as means to convey it to us. Aiui 
 because they do this independently of the holiness, the 
 merits, or faith of the minister, they are said to confer 
 grace ex opere opirato, that is, l)y that virtue or efficacy, 
 which Christ jT'dv a them in their institution. And if you 
 will needs call this a charm, you are free to please your- 
 self with the profane fancy. But if you will stuiul to 
 it in good earnest, 1 shall make you sensible, that you 
 
 o
 
 290 The Virtue, or FJiaici/ 
 
 bespatter yourself with the dirt you throw at us. Pray, 
 Sir, is not baptism a sacrament ? 
 
 G,_Who doubts it? 
 
 Ij. — Well, Sir, let us suppose the minister, who bap- 
 tizes a child to be an heretic or a wicked man, will not the 
 baptism be valid, and the child receive the ftdl grace of 
 the sacrament ? 
 
 O. — I cannot deny but he will. 
 
 X. — I know you cannot deny it, unless you will re- 
 nounce your •26th article of religion. But here, Sir, you 
 are trepanned into the opus operatum of the council of 
 Trod, which you nickname a charm. For the minister 
 being supposed to be an heretic, or a wicked man, and 
 the child being void of reason, the baptismal grace he re- 
 ceives must be attributed wholly and solely to the virtue 
 and efficacy of the sacrament. So that the sacrament itself 
 <onfers grace by the bare performance of the work accord- 
 ing to Christ's institution : that is, independently either of 
 the holiness of the minister, or co-operation of the child : 
 and if you call this turning it into a charm, it is a charm 
 of divine institution, and 1 hope both priests and parsons 
 may make use of it without danger of becoming conjurers 
 or magicians by it. 
 
 G. — Then 1 presume, my lord, you require no more 
 preparation for the sacrament of penance, than a child is 
 capable of for the sacrament of baptism : that is to say, 
 none at all. 
 
 Ij. — Sir, you cannot be such a stranger to our doctrine 
 as to think so. We require a diligent examination of 
 conscience, a sincere repetUance, and an humble confession. 
 And therefore your comment upon the catechism; viz., 
 that we need but confess, and get absolution, and we are 
 .saved by the bare performance of the sacrament, is a rank 
 calumny, und you know it to be one; because you cannot 
 but know that all our printed catechisms, and books of 
 instruction to prepare people for the sacrament of penance, 
 tell them positively, that to receive a profitable and valid 
 absolution, they must have a true sorrow for their sins, 
 and a sincere purpose not only to abstain for the future
 
 of the Sacraments. 291 
 
 from sin, but the very occasions of it. And is this barely 
 confessing, and getting absolution, as you have both falsely 
 and maliciously represented the matter. 
 
 G. — But, if the preparation you speak of be really re- 
 quired, pray, my lord, v/hat becomes then of the doctrine 
 of opus operatum ? 
 
 L. — Sir, the doctrine of opus operatum is in no danger 
 uf being prejudiced by it; because as original siii is re- 
 mitted by the very virtue and efficacy of the sacrament of 
 baptism, so are actual sins remitted by the very virtue 
 and efficacy oi the sacrament of pena7ice : but with this 
 difference, that a child can put no obstacle to the grace of 
 baptism; whereas the efficacy of the sacrament of penance 
 is certaiidy obstructed by impenitence : and therefore u 
 sincere repentance, andpurpose of ainendment are conditions 
 indispensably requisite to qualify a sinner for the benejit 
 of absolution, which is the peculiar grace of that sacrament. 
 But it does not produce this grace but in souls worthily 
 disjjosed, that is, in souls, which bring no positive obstacle 
 to it; and in these it infallibly produces it, whether it be 
 administered by a saint, or a reprobate : which is the true, 
 and a clear explication of the doctrine of opus operatum. 
 But they are popish words : and therefore though their 
 true meaning cannot be disputed, they must be con- 
 demned and ridiculed by a true Son of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 •' G. — My lord, let us exemplify this matter by the use 
 " uiude of tiie inslilutions of God under the law. Tiio Jetcs 
 " had got a iiutiuu of the ojjus operatum, that the bare per- 
 " forma/ice of the leller of the law in their aacrijicts, feasts, 
 "fasts, and other observances, was all that was required of 
 '• them."— p. 110. 
 
 /v. — Had they so, Sir! Then they had got a very 
 wrong notion. 
 
 ** (/'. — U'lK'Mce tlie voices of all the prophets were against 
 " these itislilutioris. Thoy call tliem iniqui/y, abomination, 
 " and hatrfuLlo God."— pp. 110, 111. 
 
 Ij. — V\ hat, Sir, was the voice of the prophets against 
 the institutions themselves ! I presume you mean the 
 abusrs of them. Tray, Sir, explain yourself.
 
 292 Of Beads. 
 
 *<■ G. — Nay, God denies that lie did require tliein, or ever 
 " institute them ; that is, as a dead carcass without a soul, 
 " and workiiijj liUe c/uirws by the bare opus operalum. God 
 '• did never institute such, nor require tliein at our hands." 
 —p. HI. 
 
 L. — Very riij^lit, Sir, God never ordained his holy riles 
 or sacrifices with an intention, that they should be pro- 
 faned, or made use of as 7nagical charms ; but that liim- 
 self should be honoured and worshipped by them. What 
 then ? 
 
 " G And may we not say, no more under the Gospel 
 
 " tluin the laiv ? For the Gospel introduced a more pure 
 '• and spiritual ivorsliip. But the council of Trent, by naming 
 " onlij tiie sacraments of tlie 7ieiu laic, applies the opits operalum 
 '■ to tiieni also, if not chiefly." — p. 111. 
 
 L — You should say to the sacraments only. For they 
 alone confer grace ex opere operato. But I perceive those 
 terrible words have frightened you both out of good sense, 
 and (jood manners. For otherwise you would not make 
 this ridiculous parallel between the Jews and us, viz., 
 that as the Jeivs placed their hopes of salvation in the 
 bare performance of the ceremonial law, though their lives 
 were most wicked, so Roman catholics do the same with 
 relation to the sacra?nenfs of the neiv law. This, Sir, is 
 the charitable drift of your discourse : though there be 
 not a catechism, or book of instruction for receiving the 
 sacraments, but detects the foulness of the aspersion by 
 declaring positively, that the abuse of the sacraments is a 
 most grievous sin, and that the umvorthy receiver gets 
 nothing but damnation to himself by it. But let me tell 
 you, Sir, that lampooning the sacraments, and rejecting 
 the greatest part of them is a sin of as black a die, as to 
 receive them unworthily. 
 
 SECTION 11. — OF BEADS. 
 
 " ^- — ^ly lord, it IS plain, that your doctrine of opus 
 " operalum runs through all your devotions. What else 
 " 18 the moaning of tying men up to the repetition of such a 
 " precise number of aves, paters, and creeds, at such particular
 
 Of Blessings, and Consecrations. 293 
 
 " times, whether the mind go along with them or not? For 
 " you will see people in the markets buying and selling, or 
 " discoursing of common business, and dropping their Beads 
 " all the while, to keep count, if they have rightly performed 
 '• their task of the opus operation." — p. 111. 
 
 L. — This opus operatum sticks strangely on your 
 stomach ; yet you know not what to do without it in the 
 sacrament of baptism, as 1 have plainly showed. 
 
 As to what you tell me, that ice tic meii up to the repe- 
 tition of such a precise number of aves and paters, and 
 a-eeds at such particular times; I know of no such obliga- 
 tion laid upon any by the church : for the beads are a 
 devotioji principally designed for those, who cannot read, 
 and every one is free to use or not use it just as he 
 pleases. However I can see no harm in repeating the 
 same prayer often over provided the mind go along with it. 
 But this, you say, is not required. Pray, Sir, be pleased 
 to read our books of instruction concerning the duty of 
 prayer, and ihey will inform you better. But at the same 
 time look over the table of sins, and you will find the sin 
 of slander amongst them. 
 
 What you add, viz., that ice may see people in the mar- 
 kets buying and selling, or discoursing of common business, 
 and dropping their beads all the tchile, will not clear you 
 from the guilt of slander. First, because the people do 
 not always as they arc taught. And 2dhj, because peo- 
 ple that attend the markets, have many broken intervals 
 of time, which they may employ very piously in repeat- 
 ing some short prayers. I hope at least you will own 
 that even in the greatest hurry of business dropping of 
 beads is better than dropping of oalhs and curses ; which 
 is but too much practised both in shops and markets on 
 this side of the seas. But if I should insinuate, tiiat this 
 is done by principle and the doctrine of your church, 
 would you not post nie up for a liar ? 
 
 SECTION III. — OI Itl.KSSlNGS, AND CONSECU ATIONS. 
 •' G, — Hut, my lord, if prayers and sacraments whith arc
 
 294- Of Blessings, 
 
 " weniis o? f/race of God's own institution may be abused, and 
 " rouderi'd hateful to God, what shall we say of those means 
 " oi' f/race which are o( mans mere inventioti?" — p. 111. 
 
 //. — Sir, if you si)eak of means of grace strictly taken, 
 such as the saoramotits, I am wholly ignorant of any, that 
 are of man's mere invention. 
 
 <« G. — None can appoint the means but he, who has the 
 " hestowiiig of the end to be obtained by those means. As, 
 " if I have a thousand pounds to bestow, I may put what 
 " conditions I think fit, and appoint the means for ob- 
 <' taining it. Now grace is the gift of the Holy Ghost, and 
 " none can appoint the means of obtaining it, but who lias 
 " the bestowing of the Holy Ghost, which it is tlie highest 
 " blasphemy for any creature to assume to himself. Hence 
 " Christ's sending the Holy Ghost is a sure proof of his di- 
 " vinity:'—^]). Ill, 112. 
 
 L Sir, all this is very true, if you mean that Christ 
 
 alo7ie has the power of instituting sacraments. For this is 
 the exj)ress doctrine of our church. But what do you 
 infer from it ? 
 
 " G. — My lord, the Chxirch of Rome takes upon her to 
 " appoint meaiis of grace many and various. The pontifical 
 " is made up oi X\\e forms o? consecration of every thing almost 
 *' one can think of into means of grace, as bells, books, candles, 
 " water, salt, oil, ashes, palms, swoi'ds, banners, and vestments 
 " of diverse sorts, even of childreiis clouts ; besides crosses, 
 " pictures, images, Agnus Deis, S)-c., by the use of which in the 
 manner prescribed several graces both ghostly and bodily 
 " are said to be ol)t:iined, as besides the favour of God, and 
 " the remission of sins, the saving from fire, from diseases, 
 " from storms at sea, thunder, lightning, and tempests at land ; 
 " at which time they ring the consecrated bells to allay the 
 " ivituls, and chase away the <lemons of the oir, who seeing 
 " the sign of the cross upon such bells, and hearing their somid, 
 '• shall he frighted and^y away, as it is expressed in the form 
 " of consecrati07i of btlls in the pontifical. Nay there is no- 
 " thing in tlie world so insignificant, a rose or -a feather, which 
 " the Pope may not consecrate into a means of grace, and is 
 " in use every day, and at Rome they are counted atheists 
 " wiio have wot faith in tlu^se things, so much they place their 
 " religion in them." — pp. 112, 113. 
 
 L. — Before I give a direct answer to this piece, I 
 
 C(
 
 and Consecrations. '295 
 
 make bold to ask, whether the dissenters will not object 
 many practices of the same nature against your church? 
 
 " G. — But without ground. For we consecrate no crca- 
 " lures " 
 
 X. — Sir, you forget yourself : but I shall refresh your 
 memory immediatel3\ 
 
 " G Nor do we attribute any virtue, ghostly or bodily, 
 
 " to the use of them. They are used purely for decency and 
 " order, and we may change them, or take them quite away, 
 " as our governors think fit." — p. 113. 
 
 Ij. — So may the governors of our church, if they think 
 fit, change or take away the practices, you are pleased ta 
 find fault with. But for all that I fancy you would think 
 that man somewhat atheistically inclined, who should 
 venture to lampoon, and very impertinent, if he should 
 pretend to reform the rites and ceremonies of your church; 
 which perhaps appear as ridiculous to dissenters, as some 
 of ours do to you. 
 
 " G. — But can they shew any outward actiofi or t/ting ap- 
 " pointed in our c/mrch, by the use of whicli evil spirits may 
 " be chased atony, women helped in labour, or storms at sea 
 " quelled'^ " 
 
 L. — 1 really believe they cannot. The evil spirit may 
 possess as many good protestants as he pleases, without 
 being molested or disfpiieted hy any person for it. They 
 are all so just, as to give the devil his due. 
 
 «' G — But all tliese, and many more virUirs are attributed 
 " in your church to the use of wliat they call holy tvater, and 
 •' many other such like institutions of mechanical means of 
 •' yrace." — p. 1 lO. 
 
 L. — Sir, as for n^enns of grace strictly tahcn. I know 
 no such means but the sacrameids themselves instituted by 
 Christ : because these alone by virtue of their institution 
 confer grace ex opere operato, when no ?rilful obstacle is 
 put to it. Hut there are many more means of grace, if 
 we tike the word in a larger sense. 'V\\\\h jn'aying. fast- 
 ing, and giving alms are means of grace, because they 
 move God to bestow IiIh grace upon ua. Thus likewise, 
 hearing sermons, reading }>l()us boohs, seeing good example^ 
 or a moving jdcfure of our Saviotu'H sutVt'riiigs, may in a
 
 29G 0/ Blessings, 
 
 large sense be called means of grace, because tliey incite 
 us to the practice of virtues, by which we obtain an in- 
 (rease of grace- and if some dcbauclie should ridicule 
 these, and call thcni mechanical means of grace, I believe 
 you would have no great opinion of his morals for it. 
 
 But, Sir, you own yourself i\\\xi jn-aycr \^-d means of grace. 
 The sacraments therefore are not the only means of grace 
 in the large sense I speak of: for praijer is no sacrament. 
 
 Q, — But, my lord, I told you at the same time, that 
 prager is a means of grace of God's own institution. 
 
 L. — You did so, and it is very true, if you speak of 
 prayer m general. But I know of no particular /onw of 
 prayer but one, viz., the Lord's prayer, expressly com- 
 manded by Christ. The rest are left to the prudence and 
 devotion of the church, which cither orders them to be 
 composed, or approves them, when composed by private 
 persons. Now, Sir, all blessings, hallowings, consecrations, 
 or call them what you please, are but so many different 
 forms of prarjer ordained by the church to implore God's 
 blessino: for such or such an end in the lawful use of his 
 creatures; and if this be an cdloicable, nay, a religious 
 practice in some things, as I shall presently shew you 
 must grant it is from the practice of your own church, I 
 see no reason why it should be ridiculed in others. 
 
 But first let us sec, what encouragement i\\c practice 
 of the Roman Catholic Church in blessing inanimate things 
 has from the word of God itself. And here occurs to me 
 first the solemn dedication, or consecration of the temple of 
 Solomon. And atheists may call this making a church a 
 mechaniad means of grace. But this custom of blessing, 
 and consecrating churches (which I think are inanimate 
 things as well as bells, books, candles, i^'c.) was the constant 
 practice of the Catholic Church even in her purest times, 
 as all men of learning know. 
 
 But what do you thiidi of the waters oi jealousy, by 
 the due use whereof clandestine adultery was discovered? 
 Num. v. 'Jhc shew-brcad, which is called hallowed, or 
 holy bread ? 1 Sam. xxi. 4, G. The salt used by Elisha 
 for sweetening the infected waters of Jericho. 2 Kings ii.
 
 and Consecrations. 297 
 
 The liver of \\\Qjish taken by the aiirjel Baphacl for ex- 
 poiliiig the devd'^ Lib. Tob. The c/«^ and waters of 
 Siloam used by r//r<s< to open the eyes of the blind man ? 
 John ix. 6, 7. And lastly, the oil used by the apostles to 
 cure the sick ? Matt. vi. 13. 
 
 Here are charms, or mechanical means of grace ^ as you 
 call them, in abundance, authorised by the word of God 
 itself. And St Paul has laid down a principle of so large 
 an extent, that the frequent blessings or co7isecrations 
 used in the Church of Borne are fully justified by it. For 
 lie tells us expressly, that every creature is sanctijled by 
 the ivord of God and prayer. 1 Tim. iv. 5. Now 1 pre- 
 sume bells, books, candles, water, salt, oil, S^'c, are in the 
 number of creatures.- they nuiy tliercfore be sanctified (ac- 
 cording to St Paid) by the ivurdif God and praijer. And 
 this answers every thing you have said, or can say against 
 the blessings or consecrations contained in tlie Roman 
 pontifical, though they were twice as many in number. 
 
 But is not tlie daily practice of your own church in 
 blessing the meat upon the table as liable to bujfbonery^ 
 as any of the blessings in the Rornan pontifical? For 
 when the parson says grace over a ])ig or pudding in these 
 words. Bless us, O Lurd, and these Uiy gifts, ^r.. ; or, Lord^ 
 sanctify these thy gifts; I ask, whether the pig, or pudding 
 be consecrated into a mechanical means of grace, or not? 
 If you say it is, you run into the (d)surdify you reproach 
 us with. If not, what you object against us is frivolous. 
 I likewi.se find the following prayer in your adminis- 
 tration oi piddic baptism : Almighty and ever living God, 
 
 whose most dearly beloved Son regard, ire beseech thecy 
 
 the supplications (f thy congrrgatio7i. Sanctify this 
 WATi'.ii to the mystical wasktug away of sin, Sfc. And 
 the liturgy \n Scotland has it thus: sanctify Tins foun- 
 tain and bajtiism, thou, which art the sanctificr of all 
 tilings. If this be not a consecration, there is no such 
 thing in the Roman pontifival. 
 
 iJut the ceremony of the king's coronation is the most 
 remarkable |)iccc of this kind of popery. The history 
 of the coronation of king Jntues II. tells us. p. 5)1, in the 
 
 o 2
 
 *298 ()/ Blessings, and Consecration a. 
 
 miirgiii, that the oil, ^ith wliich he was anointed, was 
 SOLEMNLY coNsiiCRAinD OH the nioniing- of the corona- 
 tion bj' the dean of JVcstminster, JLssisted by the preben- 
 daries. But Baker specifies the very ^fbrni of blessiuf/ 
 the royal orn(nu(nl$ thus; O God, the Kivrj of kimjs, 
 (md Lord 0/ lords, hif ?rlioin hintjs do rciijn, vouchsafe, irr 
 heseech Ihee, in thy favour to bless this kingly orna- 
 ment. J'onchsafe to blicss and sanctity this sword, 
 ivhich is hallowed for the defence of thy holy church. God, 
 the crown of the faithful, bless and sanctifv tjiis 
 CROWN, so this thy servant that weareth it, way he filled 
 with tJnj manifold graces . Bless, O Lord^ and sanctify 
 this ring. Baker, printed London 169(), )ip. 74"2, 743. 
 
 Here then we have meat, water, oil, clothes, sword, 
 ring, and croum blessed, halUnved, sanctified, and conse- 
 crated ncconVmg to the practice of tlie Church of England. 
 And what a number of ridiculous questions might liore 
 be asked, if a man were but atheistically enough disposed 
 to do it ! But jesting with religious matters is the very 
 worst sort of buffoonery ; and all I have to say to the 
 blessings used in your church, is, that you ought not to 
 ridicule in us, what you practise yourselves. The true 
 ground both of your practice and ours is this ; that what- 
 ever is good in itself, may be lawfully prayed for in due 
 circumstances : and as God's creatures may be abused, so 
 they may he Jdessed to the end, that men may use them 
 as they ought. Thus, images, meats, swords, banners, 
 vestments, and many other things are blessed : and none 
 ought to find fault with this, but they, who either think 
 that God cannot bless the inost indifferent things, or that 
 prayer is not a proper means to obtain his blessing. 
 
 However, you are under a mistake, if you imagine 
 that we j)lace any inherent saiictity in inanimate things 
 by their being blessed. We only trust, that whatever 
 creatures arc blessed by the church in the name of Jesus 
 Christ, Almighty God will for his sake render them 
 beneficial to tliose, who use them with devotion in order 
 to the end, for which they are ordained.
 
 Of the Sign of the Cross, Sfc. 299 
 
 SECTION IV. — THE SIGN OF THE CROSS, HOLY WATER, 
 
 AND EXORCISMS. 
 
 What you say concerning tlie sign of the cross upon 
 our bells is no more a matter of jest, than the s?//?? of 
 tlie cross in baptism ; for the one is of mere human 
 institution as well as the other. But what an age do we 
 live in, when the sign of the sacred inslrnment of man^s 
 redemption is made a subject of laughter •Amow2,^t christians ! 
 'I'his was one of the earliest fruits of the blessed refonnU'^ 
 tion. For then it was that a crucifix began to be treated 
 in this island with the same marks of ignominy and con- 
 tempt, as if it ^^■ere the image of some iyfamons traitor, 
 or enem)"^ of the state. And even now a man becomes 
 as ridiculous in pj-otcstant company by blessing himself 
 with the sign of the cross, as if he were dressed up in a 
 fool's coat. 
 
 But was it so in the primitive ages ? Hear what 
 2'ertidlian writes upon that subject: At every step and 
 every turn ; at every coming in and going out ; if ire put 
 on our clothes, or change our shoes ; if tee icash^ if tve 
 fake a repast ; if a candle be brought iido the rooin ,- if zve 
 lie, if ire sit, whatever we do, ire are still mahing the sign 
 of the cross npo?t our foreheads. Lib. de Corona jNJilitis. 
 C. 3. And St Cyril of Jerusalem writes thus : To thift 
 day it [the sign of the cross'] cures diseases, chases away 
 devils, and dissolves rharins of trUrhrraft and art magic. 
 Cat. 1.'3. ji. 138. Here you see the sign of the cross imt 
 only chased away demons, but was a remedy against 
 diseases, and magical spells. And wliy then may it not 
 have some part of this ciVect by the benedi( tioyi and 
 prayer of the church, when it is impressed upon bells, as 
 well as any other way? 
 
 But to omit numberless other testimonies of tlic 
 ancient fathers relating to this sid)ject, how can you read 
 the two jiassages, I have (juoted, witiiout being convinced 
 that in dfriding our present practice you condemn that 
 of the pun St agr/t of the r.hnreh ? You tell me, the 
 dissenters can shew no outward action, or thing appointed
 
 000 Of the Si'jn of ihe Cross, §r. 
 
 in your church, by the use of which rvil spirits may he 
 chased away, women h 'j>ed in labuvr, of storms at sea 
 fjucUcd. A most vvoiulerful coimnendatiori ! and you add 
 inimeiliately, by way of reproach to us, that all these, and 
 many more virtues arc attributed in our church to the use 
 of what we call lioly water, and many other such like 
 institutions of mechanical means off/race. 
 
 Well, Sir, let us see, whether tliis mechayiism was not 
 in use amongst the ancients, and what effects it wrought. 
 It is above eleven hundred years since holy water began 
 to be used in Enyland. This appears from St Gregory's 
 epistle to St Melitus, to whom he wrote thus : Let the 
 idols be destroyed: let holy water be made ; let it be 
 sprinkled in the said temples; let altars be made, and 
 relics placed in them. Lib. ii. Epist. 76. This is an 
 unanswerable proof, that the English received the use of 
 holy wcder, as likewise of relics, together with their 
 Christianity, from Home. But it is still far more ancient. 
 For in the reign of Constantinc, the first christian emperor, 
 when the Jews by magical enchantments hindered the 
 building of a church, we have in St Epiphanius this 
 blessing of tvater used effectually against them by the 
 lioly count Joseph ; who after he had made the sign of 
 the c;o6-5 upon it prayed thus: Li the tiame of Jesus of 
 
 Nazareth 7nay this water have power against the 
 
 magical charms and enchaiUments, they [the Jevrs] have 
 nsed ; and may it restore to the fre its natural force, that 
 the house cf God may be fnished. Which effect it had 
 accordingly, and forced the Jews then present to confess 
 the power of Christ. Epiph. Hser. 30. Sect. 12. p. 136, 
 137. 
 
 1 omit several other relations of the like miraculous 
 effects wrought by the use of holy water recorded in the 
 writings of the ancient fathers. And I shall only add 
 that the power over devils did not expire with the apostles; 
 nay that it was an ordinary j)ower of the Catholic Church 
 in the third age (though it never wa«, nor ever will be 
 in the reformed churches) is evident from what St Cyprian 
 wrote Epist. 76. 'Jo this very day, says he, the devil is
 
 Jnvocathn oJ'Saijits. 301 
 
 scourged, and bumf, and tormented by the exorcists uiik 
 human voice, and a divine poiccr. Now, Sir, you may 
 laugh, or proceed to something else if you please. 
 
 SECTION V INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 " G. — My lord, that which makes up tlie bulk of tiie 
 '• Eotnish devotions is the tvorship and itivocation of saints and 
 " angels, the adoration of their images, and the relics of 
 " saints departed, piccos of their bodies, or of their vestments, 
 •• ^c, to M'hich great miracles are attributed : and therefore 
 '' they are made strict!// and properly means of grace." — p. 113. 
 
 L. — What, Sir, arc all things, to which viiracks are 
 attributed, made strictly and properly means of grace ? 
 Then they are by consequence made sacraments; for 
 these alone are means of grace strictly and properly so 
 called. So then the liandher chiefs and aprons, which 
 touched St Paul, and by which diseases were cured, and 
 fvil spirits chased cnvay, Acts xix. 12, were (at least 
 whilst he lived) so many more sacraments, than ever 
 were instituted by Christ. Nay it is writ. Acts v. 15, 
 that they brought forth the sick, and laid them on beds and 
 caliches, that at least the shadow of St Peter passing by 
 might overshadow some of them, and they might be delivered 
 from their distimpers. So that St Peter's shadow, for 
 ought we know, had as good a title to be of the number 
 of sacraments, as any of Christ's institution. How 
 dangerous a thing is it to be carried away nilh a violent 
 prtjudice ! For a man's own principles aie generallyyo/- 
 got, and even connnon sense is lost in the liurry. 
 
 You tell )ne, that the hnlk of the IhnnisJt devotions is 
 made up of the worshij) and invocation <f saints, and 
 angels, the adoration of their images, i^r. And 1 tell you, 
 Sir, that the bulh of jnolestaid objections is made uj) of 
 jnisr(presenfa(i<i7i and slander; for the bulh of our devo- 
 tions, and indeed tlie ou\y essenlitd devotion of L'xery Wue 
 christian consists in the worship, invocation, and (ulora- 
 tion oi God through Jesus Christ: and we Indd it to be
 
 ;3t)2 Invocation of Saints. 
 
 a damii;il)le impiety to o;ive God's ivorship to any creature 
 wliatsoevcr. 
 
 As to our invocation of saints (which is the article 
 we iiave now chiofly before us) I sliall set down the 
 doctrine of our c/iiin/t, as it stands recorded in the Council 
 of Trent; wliose definitions in this as well as other 
 doctrinal points must surely be allowed to be the true 
 standard of our faith. What therefore the council teaches 
 is this, viz., tlud it is (jood and profitable for christians 
 Juimhly to invocalc the saints, and to have recourse to their 
 prai/ers, aid, and assistance, iv hereby to obtain benefits of 
 God through his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our 
 only Redeemer and Saviour. Sess. 25. 
 
 These are the words of the council, wherein our 
 doctrine concerning the invocation of saints is fully and 
 faithfully delivered : and the sum of it is, that it is good 
 and profitable, and by consequence lawful, to desire the 
 saints in heaven to pray for us. Whence I infer, that 
 the question between us, if truly stated, is this, viz. : 
 Whether it be not as lauful for christians to desire the 
 saints in heaven to pray for them, as it was for St Paul 
 to desire the christians upon the earth to pray for him. 
 Uom. XV, .30. I confess I have not penetration enough 
 to see the laufulness of the one, and unlawfulness of the 
 other. 
 
 " G. — My lord, tlie reason of the laufulness of the one, 
 " and unlaivfulness of tiie other is, because the one is com- 
 " mandid, the other not; nay forbidde?i, as I will shew you." 
 —p. 114. 
 
 L. — Sir, I remember a good old woman once made 
 me this answer, and I thouglit it was well enough for 
 her capacity. But this I can assure you, that if you 
 ever can bring me any tolerable proof that we obey God 
 in the one, and disobey him in the other, or that the 
 lawfulness of the one does not manifestly infer the law- 
 fulness of the oUier, I shall freely own there is no such 
 thing as a coidradiction possible in the M'orld. 
 
 Advertisement. — Lnmcdialelj after the gentleman's last words in 
 Ms Case Stated his lordship is made to say, that it seems to be
 
 Invocation of Saints. 303 
 
 givin"' fftealer glory to God, and more luimiliiy in us not to ap- 
 proadi his jircscnce directly, and immediately ourselves. Which 
 is false doctrine, if he means, that we ought not to pray direrthj 
 and immediatelu in God through the mediation of Jesus Christ. 
 Then his lordship draws a comparison from the difficult access 
 to earthhj kings to illustrnte the nonsense he has uttered. The 
 case indeed is often such ivith kings upon earth, who cannot be 
 approached hi/ every body, but never ivith the King of heaven, to 
 whom{through our Lord Jesus Chnst) we have free access, asoften 
 as we please. But why then do ice desire the saints in heaven 
 to pray fur us ? J answer for the very same reason, which moved 
 SI Paul to desire the faithful upon earth to pray for him, viz. : 
 That God may have the honour, and \vc tiie profit of more prayers 
 than our own. Now let vs hear the gentleman's answer to his 
 \oTdsh\p' s fore-jyientioned words, and uise simile. 
 
 «■ G. — Your simile will haste on all four. For God is nearer 
 '•' to us than any saint or anfjel. In God ive live and move, 
 " and have our hting. But the angels and s(nnts departed iwa 
 " at a distance from us, and we know not where to find them, 
 " or that they hear our prayers; for they are not every where ; 
 " that is an attribute of God alone."—/). 1 14. 
 
 L. Sir, God is also nearer to vs, than we are to one 
 
 another; yet this hinders us not from desiring one 
 another's prayers : and St Paul desired the prayers of 
 those, that were at a j^reat distance from him, thougli he 
 knew not whether his petition would ever find them or 
 not. However we know for certain that the saints 
 departed are in heaven, where they see GoA face to face; 
 and it is no idle coujectiirc to say that by thus seeing 
 Jiim tiiey know a great deal more of us, than we know 
 of them. 
 
 We likewise know for certain (and it is a truth 
 acknowledged by ynnr church, as I sliall shew hereafter) 
 that the saints and angels, who are the chnrch triumphant, 
 pray for the chvrrh milifant, which is upon earth. ^VlH'ncc 
 it follows first, that our desiring a part in their prayers 
 cannot be unprofitable, as long as we arc sure it is known 
 to God, though tiie saints and angels siiould know nothing 
 of it. 'i'hc reason \^, because as it is an article of our 
 belief, that all hlrssings flow originally from God alone 
 through Jesus Christ, so in the (lesires and langunge of 
 the heart it is only to God through Jesus Christ, tliat all
 
 304 The Saints above know 
 
 our prayers arc cliiefly dirocted, without which they 
 wouKl not bo alrirl/i/ j>ra!/crs. Wlicnci' it follows, Qd/i/, 
 that it is the same in efleet, whether wo say holy Peter, 
 pray for us, or whether we pray thus, O Goil, (/rant us a 
 share in the prayers of St Peter. As it was the very 
 same in David to say, praise the Lord all ye nations, 
 Fsalni cxvi. 1, as if he had said, O Lord, may all nations 
 praise thee. And by consequence, though it were true, 
 that the saints and angels know nothing of our invoking 
 them, it is enough, that it bo known to God, when we 
 desire them to pray for us, that is, to have a part in the 
 fruit of their prayers. 
 
 But, Sir, I only say this to let you see the weakness 
 of your argument: for I am of another judgment, and 
 think we liave no reason to doubt but the saints are 
 acquainted with our prayers. 
 
 Origen says expressly, that all the angels and blessed 
 souls befriend those, that serve God, ajid that they knoiv 
 who are in his favour. L. 8. contra Celsum. Edit. Huet. 
 p. 949. 
 
 This was also St Gregory's opinion, who writes thus : 
 Because all the saints see God, what is it they do not know 
 there, where they know him who knows all things ? L. 4. 
 Dial C. 33. 
 
 This was likewise the judgment of St Paulinus bishop 
 of Nolo, when he made his countryman address himself 
 thus to St Felix for his lost cattle. Tu scis ubi stmt, qui 
 luniine Christi cu,ncfa et operta vides, longeque absentia 
 cernis. That is, Thou knowest where they are, who by the 
 light of Christ seest all things even that are hidden, and far 
 distant from thee. 
 
 St Austin was of the same opinion, when he made this 
 apostrophe to St Paul: You reign ivith Christ together 
 with him, whom you stoned [St Stepheii] you both now see 
 us, you both hear this my discourse. I desire you both to 
 pray for us. Serm. 316, ult. Edit. Sect. 5. 
 
 And St Aster ills bishop of Amasea in the fourth age 
 prayed thus to the martyrs : You yourselves have formerly 
 prayed to the martyrs before you were martyrs. They
 
 our Necessities and Prayers. 305 
 
 heard you, when you entreated them. Now that you can 
 hear us, grant us our request. Serm. 10. 
 
 Lastly, St i?a5i7 discourses thus upon the forty martyrs : 
 He who is oppressed with any trouble has recourse to these; 
 so has he, that is in joy .- the one for a delivei'ance, the 
 other for a continuation of his state. Here a mother is 
 heard praying for her children, or the safe return or health 
 
 of her husband And there is not one of them, who docs 
 
 not see all things. Orat. 20. in 40 Martyres. Tom. 1. 
 Edit. Par. ami. 1G37, p. 459. D. 
 
 What pity is it, that the lieformation did not come 
 above a thousand years sooner to reform tliese popish 
 fathers! ^\'ho made no scruple to invoke the saints, and 
 exhort others to do tiie same : nor had they any difficulty 
 to believe, that as the prophets could foresee/w^?^re events, 
 and see things done at a distance bj' the mere light of 
 grace, so the saints in heaven may do the same by the 
 light of glory. And it is this the schoolmen call the spe- 
 culum or looking-glass of the saints, wherein they see the 
 prayers and necessities of those, who implore their aid in 
 this world. 
 
 " G. — Do they see every thing- in this looking-glass ? then 
 " they know as mucli as God. But if not, then liow do we 
 " know they sec onv prayers there? And how will this sort 
 '* with your simile of an earthly king, that tlio courtier must 
 " go to the kiii{( to know what I desired the courtier to ask 
 " of him?"—/^. 114. 
 
 I,. — Sir, as to your simile, I yield up to yon the whole 
 property of it, and you may do with it what you please. 
 But as to wliat you say, that if the saints see every thing, 
 they hnoiv as much as God, your consequence is stark 
 nought. For though they should know all facts past, 
 present, and to come (more than which cannot be meant 
 by the words every thing, when we sj)cak of creatures) 
 their knowledge would still bo limited us those things are: 
 and, by corisetjuence come infinitely short of the infinite 
 hnowhdge of God, who not only knows all things past, 
 prcsfut, and to come, but every thing, that is possible. JJut 
 supj)obc they do not know every tiling, then you ask
 
 306 The Saiiits above hnotL\ S^'c. 
 
 how we know, thai they see our prayers ? And I ask you, 
 how you know, that they do not see them ? For it is 
 ridiculous, nay bhispliemous to say, tliut God cannot com- 
 municate to liis saints the knowledj^e of our petitions 
 cither immediately by iiimself, or by the ministry of our 
 anyels-yuardians, who certainly know both our necessities 
 and prayers. 
 
 " G Abraham is the father of us all. Rom. iv. 16, and 
 
 " he was called the friend of God. James ii. 23. Therefore 
 " it is likely, that he saw as far into the looking-glass as 
 " another. Yet it is said, Isaiah Ixiii. 16. That Abraham 
 «« is ignorant of us. And are not we as ignorant of their state, 
 " ami what knowledge they have of us below? We are told, 
 " that they have no knowledge of it. Ilis sons come to honour, 
 " and he knoweth it not, and they are brought low, but he pcr- 
 " cciveth it not of them. Job xiv. 21." — p. 115. 
 
 L. — I am sorry, Sir, I must accuse you of a blunder. 
 For not only your good friends the schoolmen, but your 
 own Caicchisni will tell you, that in the days of Isaiah 
 aud,/o6 there were no saints in heaven, because mankind 
 was not then redeemed; and so yowv )Q?,t oi Abraham's 
 seeing as far as another into the looking-glass of the saints 
 is quite spoiled. However the true meaning' of /saia/i 
 according to "Hi Jerome is this, viz.: Neither Abraham nor 
 Jacob icill acknowledge those to be his children, lohom they 
 know to be ivicked. Hier. in Cap. G3. Isaiah, in which sense 
 our Saviour speaks. Matt. xxv. 12, Verily, I say unto yon, 
 I know you not. 
 
 As to the texts quoted from holy Job, St Gregory tells 
 us, that he does not speak there of saints, but of sensual 
 and carnal m<ix\, that loved this world, and especially their 
 children more than God. And these (according to St 
 Gregorrj) are said by holy Job to be ignorant in the other 
 world of what they loved inordinately in this: Hocbeatus 
 Job ncscirc eos postmodum asserit quod hie vehementius 
 amaverunt. But, Sir, why should the saints be kept in 
 ignorance of what passes in this world any more than the 
 angels, of whom it is said, that they rejoice over a sinner thai 
 repenteth ? For both are upon the same foot, as proles- 
 tants themselves own.
 
 St raurs Text shamefully misinterpreted. 307 
 
 « G. — That is, when it pleaseth God to It-t them know it, 
 <' or that the sinner conies thither. But that tliey know of 
 " every penitent u])on earth is no where said, nor do I kno^v 
 " it asserted hy any." — ;;. 1 15. 
 
 L What wretched shifts are you here put to, to 
 
 answer this j^lain text ! First, the angels know it, when 
 it pleases God to let them know it. Very right, Sir ; for 
 to be sure, they would not know it, unless it pleased 
 God to let them know it. But being conscious to your- 
 self that this will not do your business, you answer, 2dly, 
 that perhaps the angels only know it, when the sinner 
 comes to heaven. But here the text is plainly against 
 you, which speaks of their rejoicing over a sinner repent- 
 ing, or doing penance ; which has a manifest reference to 
 this life. However if this will not do, then you come 
 upon me with your corps de reserve, and answer me, '6dly, 
 that it is no where said, that the angels know of every 
 penitent upon earth. But dues Christ make any exception ? 
 And if he does not, why will you presume to do it for him? 
 
 SECTION VI. ST PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS li. 18, 19, 
 
 GIIOSSLY MISlNTF.RrRF.TEl) BY THE GENTLEMAN. 
 
 <« G.— Mylord, instead of the sclioohnon's loo/iiiig-ghu<;s, nnd 
 «' their vain pliilusophy, if ue would look into llie plain di- 
 " roctions oincriplincs, we should settle ourselves upon a much 
 " surer foundation. See tlu;n what the apostle says upon tiie 
 " very case in hand. L<:1 no mail beguile you of your retvurd 
 " in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels, intruding 
 " into those things, uhich In: has not seen, vainly puffed iip by 
 " his fleshly mind, and not holding the head, from which all the 
 '< buily by joints and bands having iwurishment miidstcrcd, in- 
 " crcaseth with the increase of God. Col. ii. 18, 19. And 
 " after Havs. ii. --J) which things have indeed a shno of icisdom in 
 
 " ivdl-worship and himnlUy. Here is a fidl answer to all 
 
 " your pretensions for this will-uorship of stunts and angels, 
 " For both go upon Uie same foot. It is called intruding into 
 " things wc have not seen, of whi<;h we an- alt(i/;elher uncertain, 
 " and llierefore sinful in the practice hy the jipoctlij'N inle, 
 " liom. xiv. 20, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. TIds
 
 008 St Pa id's Text 
 
 «' was spoke in rcspoct of mcdfs, but is much more so as to 
 •' our icorsliip, and solemn derations of God. 
 
 " Your comparison of access to an earthly king is licre called 
 " a fleshly ov carnal thought, measuring God after the manner 
 
 "of men " 
 
 /..—Hold, Sir, 1 told you just now, that the compaii- 
 soii you speak of, is a pig of your own sow. So let it be 
 asjleshly and carnal as you please. 
 
 • ' G.-I-And the result of this is no less than losing our re- 
 " ward, tliat is, lieaven. For it is forsaking the head, which 
 " is Christ, whose members we are, and receive nourishment 
 " from him : not so from saints and angels." — pp. 115, 116. 
 £,. — That is very true, Sir ; all our spiritual nourish- 
 ment comes from Christ our head^ and not from saints or 
 anyels. But I never could suspect, that the prayers of 
 saints and angds (for pray remember they both go upon 
 the same foot) should hinder christians from receiving 
 nourishment from Jesus Christ their head, any more than 
 the joint prayers of their fclluw members upon earth. 
 Unless either praying in heaven be a crime, which ob- 
 structs the flo wings of God's grace upon the members of 
 liis church militant, or desiring a share in those prayers 
 destroys the fruit and efficacy they would otherwise have. 
 But, before I give a direct answer to St PauVs words, 
 I must do you the justice to own, you are in no danger 
 of wronging your cause for want of a good assurance. 
 For when you talk of settling ourselves upon a sure foun- 
 dation, and conclude the text of St Paid with these big 
 words, that it is a full answer to all our pretensions for 
 our will-worship (as you call it) of saints and angels who 
 would imagine any thing less, than that the invocation of 
 saints and angels, that is, desiring a part in their prayers, 
 is so clearly condemned by Sc Paul, that his words are 
 utterly incapable of any other meaning, than as you pre- 
 tend to understand them. 
 
 Now, Sir, to let you see, how notoriously you impose 
 upon the credulity of ignorant people, I shall endeavour 
 to prove, that your interpretation of the forementioned 
 words of St Paul is both absurd and impious. I prove it 
 to be absurd from a principle, which I think cannot be
 
 shamefully misinterpreted. 309 
 
 contested, viz., that the saints and angels in heaven pray 
 to God for us. But since experience has taught me, that 
 you make no scruple to question tlie very clearest truths, 
 I shall give myself the trouble to prove it. 
 
 First, from Zcchariah i. 12, where an a7}gel prays thus 
 for Jerusalem, and the cities oiJudah : Then the angel of 
 the Lord ansivered and said, O Lord of hosts, hoiv long 
 will thou not have mcrey on Jerusalem, and on the cities of 
 Ju'/ah against ichich thou hast had indignation these three- 
 score and ten years. 
 
 2dly, from this maxim of St Paul, viz., that charity 
 never ceaseth, 1 Cor. xiii. 8. That is, t\\ong\i faith, and 
 many other virtues cease in heaven, as being inconsistent 
 with the state of bliss, yet charity, by which we love God 
 above all things, and our neighbour as ourselves, not only 
 remains, but is undoubtedly increased in heaven. And 
 therefore if charity even in this world obliges us to be 
 solicitous, and pray fur one another's salvation, surely the 
 angels and saints in heaven, whose charity surpasses ours 
 by many degrees, cannot fail of performing their part in 
 sending up their prayers to the throne of grace for those, 
 who are yet cuuihaling in the u'arfare of this mortal life, 
 and uncertain of their future state. 
 
 This argument is admirably well handled by Mr 
 Tftorndihe, an cm\\\Qi\i protcstant writer, in his J^r/.s^ Weights 
 and Measures, C 10, p. 107, where he discourses thus: 
 /III members, says he, of the church triumphaid in heaven, 
 according to their degree of favour ivith God, aborind also 
 with love to his church militant on earth. Therefore it is 
 certain, both that thkv oi ri:ii con'iinual puavkks to 
 G(^vfur its necessities, and that their prayers must be (f 
 great force and effect with God for the assistance of the 
 church militant in this tea? fare. Which, if it be true, the 
 communion of saints will necessarily require, first, that all, 
 §T ~d/y, 'i'nAT THE MviNc; nice; of God a i'aut 
 
 AND INTKUKST IN THOSE PRAYEItS, WHICH THEY, WHO 
 ARE SO NEAR TO GoD IN HIS KINGDOM TENDER TO HIM 
 WITHOUr CEASINO, FOK THE CHUUCH UTON EARTH. 
 
 3d/y. from Psalm xci. 11, 12. lie shall give his angels
 
 810 St I'aid's Text 
 
 charije over i/ia in nil thy uvtys. T/uii shall hear thee up 
 ill their hands, lest thou (hish Ihi/ fuut lujainst a stone. 
 Now surely tliose divine spirits, whom God Ims appoint- 
 ed to take care ot' u.s, and ivho ultcai/s see the face of the 
 Fattier^ which is in heaven (Matt, xviii. 10) cannot be so 
 nnconcerned tor the persons nnder tlieir charge, as not 
 to offer up their prayers for them. Nay it is expressly 
 writ, that the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the 
 saijits ascended up before Gud out of the unejeVs hands. 
 Kev. viii. 4. 
 
 Athly. It is beyond dispute, that this was the belief of 
 the ancient church in lier purest times. Who doubts, saya 
 Origen, that all the saints both help us by their prayers, 
 and encourage us by their example ? Ajid again. We all 
 dare confidently say, that millions of holy angels join them- 
 selves with men of good icill when they pray and iidercede 
 for us, ajid are {as it were) fellow-labourers with us in 
 our spiritual warfare. L. 8. contra Celsuni. Edit. Pluet. 
 p. 949. 
 
 The cefdurists acknowledge this to be the doctrine of 
 St Cyprian, of whom they write thus : Verily, Cyprian 
 does not obscurely think, that martyrs and saints departed 
 do pray for the living. Cent. 3. Coll. 84. 
 
 St Hilary writes thus : There are, according to St John, 
 angels deputed for the churches of Asia And in the doc- 
 trine of our Saviour, the angels of little ones do always see 
 the face of God. There are [according to Raphael speak- 
 ing to Tobias) angels attending before the divine majesty, 
 and offering up to God the prayers of such as call upon 
 them. Comment, in Psalm 121). 
 
 Tell me then {says »St Chrysostoni) dare you say the 
 Lord is dead, whose servants though deceased are patrons 
 and defenders of those, loho command the whole earth ? 
 Horn. 2G. in Epist. 2. ad Cor. 
 
 When Vigilantius, An. 404, denied the intercession 
 
 of saints, St Jerome replied ; if the apostles and martyrs 
 
 prayed for others in this world {when they were in concern 
 
 for themselves) how much more after their crowns, victories, 
 
 and triumphs ? Moses obtained pardon for 600,000 mew ;
 
 shamefully misinierprettd. 311 
 
 Stephen begged pardon for his persecutors ; and since they 
 are with Christ, will they have less power ? Libro contra 
 Vigilantium. 
 
 To omit many more for brevity's salve, St Leo's words 
 are very remarkable : We are bomid (says he) to thank 
 our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, ivho gave such 
 great power to him, ichom he constituted Head of the ivhole 
 church, that if any thing be well done even by us, it must 
 be imputed to him to whom he said. And when thou art 
 converted, confirm thy brethren, and to whom our Lord 
 after his resurrection said thrice, Feed my sheep. Which 
 7101V also ivithout doubt this godly pastor performs, confirm- 
 ing us with his exhortations^ and not ceasing to pray 
 FOR us, that we be not overcome by any temptation. Leo 
 Serm. 3 in Anniver. Assumpt. ad Pontificatum. 
 
 In a word, Sir, I fairly defy you to produce the 
 authority of one single orthodox father denying that the 
 saints and angels pray for us. I will therefore proceed 
 to my 
 
 5th and hist proof of it from the testimony o( protestant 
 writers. I have already quoted Mr Thorndike ; and the 
 bishop of Oxford, in his edition of St Cyprian, p. 271, 
 agrees exactly with him, and delivers it as the general 
 doctrine of his church. We do not doubt (says he) but 
 the souls in heaven pray earnestly to God, that he may 
 shew his mercy to those, that live here. 
 
 Bisiiop Mmdague comes a step nearer to us, and 
 writes thus: / see no absurdity in nature, nor incongruity 
 unto the amdogy of faith ; no repugnance at all to sacred 
 scripture, much less impiety for any man to say, holy 
 ANGEL GUARDIAN TRAY TOR US. Treatise of Invocation 
 of Saints, p. 97. 
 
 Tiie Lutherans, in their defence of the Confession of 
 Jlugsburg, infer from the foremeniioned text of Zechariah 
 that angds pray for us. Apol. Confess. August, de Invoc. 
 Sanct. Fol. 179. 
 
 (Ecolamj)adius (ad Orat. Chrysosf. de Juventio et 
 Maximo Martyribns) writes thus : Neither will I ajjlnn 
 it to be idolatry to desire the patronage of saints. Lor
 
 312 * St Paul's Text 
 
 the saints in heaven being injlumed with charity do not 
 cease to pray for ns. 
 
 Faber (de Statu Dofunctorum, C. 7.) writes plainly 
 thus : / ih not doubt but the souls of the dead remember 
 their parents, brothers^ sisters, and hindrcd, whom they 
 left behind; and pray to God that he tcillalso deliver them 
 out of this vale of tears. 
 
 Brcutins ad Cap. IG. Lucse, proposes this question, 
 Do the dead then pray for the living ? Which he answers 
 thus : Surely it cannot be denied, that they, ivho live with 
 Christ, tcish well to the church and her members. For, if 
 the angels pray for us, as Zacharias witnesseth, and if 
 Christ himself prays for us to his Father, hoiv should the 
 saints not be affected with charity towards us in Christ, 
 and through Christ ? 
 
 Lastly, the Church of England has this collect upon 
 tiie day of St Michael and all angels in the common prayer 
 book : O evei'lasting God, luho hast ordained and consti- 
 tuted the services of angels and men in a wonderful order, 
 mercifidly grant, that as thy holy angels always do thee 
 service in heaven, so by thy appointment they may succour 
 and defend us on earth, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 Amen. Here, Sir, your church hopes for succoiir and 
 defence from the angels ; and I desire you to remember 
 your own maxim, that saints and angels are upon the 
 same foot. 
 
 G. — But pray, my lord, what do you infer from this 
 great heap of authorities ? For here seems to be much 
 cry, but no wool. 
 
 L. — Sir, I infer first from this unanimous agreement 
 of scriptures, fathers, and protestant irriters, that it is an 
 undoubted truth, that the saints and angels in heaven pray 
 for us. And from i\\\s principle (which alone decides the 
 xvhoie question concerning the invocation of saints) I 
 infer, ^dly, that your interpretation of St Paul to the 
 Colossians is absurd: because it is inconsistent with 
 common sense to maintfun, that we lose our reivard, and 
 forsake the head, which is Christ, by desiring a part and 
 interest in tiiose prayers, which by God's own appoint'
 
 shamefully misinterpreted. 313 
 
 ment the saints and angels offer to him without ceasing 
 for the church upon earth. What, Sir! can you believe 
 that your angel guardian prays for you, and yet think it 
 unlawful to desire it of him ? Can you hope for succour 
 and defence from angels, and at the same time believe 
 you forsake Jesus Christ, and lose your reward, if you 
 beg of them that succour and defence for which Almigiity 
 God has appointed them to be our guardians ! If this 
 be not shocking common sense, I confess I know not 
 what is. 
 
 I shall now proceed to prove likewise the second part 
 of my charge, viz., that your interpretation of St Paul to 
 the Colossians is impious. I have already produced the 
 testimony of several holy fathers botii of the fourth and 
 fifth age, teaching and practising the invocation of saints 
 and angels. Nay, that it was the public practice of those 
 two ages is a thing so notorious, that a man must out- 
 face evidence to deny it. However, to leave no room 
 to doubt of the matter, let protestants themselves be 
 witnesses of it. 
 
 Bishop Forbes speaks in general terms thus : It has 
 heen a practice, says he, for many ages in the icholc church, 
 in the east as much as in the west, and er:e7i in the north hy 
 the Moscovites [your great church of Ilussia"] to sing this 
 litany for example : st peteh, tray ior us. P. 311. 
 
 Dr />///< (in his rejoinder to Bristow, p. 5) says, / 
 confess that Ambrose, Austin, and Jerome Iield invocation 
 of saints to be lauful. And again (against Rhem. Test. 
 p. 443) that many of the ancient fathers held tJdsojnnion, 
 that saiids departed pray for us, we do not deny. 
 
 Chcnmitius, a learned and zealous Lutheran, maintains 
 that the invocation oi saints was begun in public assemblies 
 about the year 370, by St Busily St Gregory Nyssen, 
 and St Gregory Nazianzen. In Exam. Cone. Trid. part. 
 3, p. '200. 
 
 Bezd (Prujf. Novi Test.) speaking of the times of 
 Cyprian, Austin, nm\ Chrysostom, acknowledges thattlioii 
 prevailed the invocation of the dead. 
 
 The CcfUurists (Cent. 5. C. (i. Col. G75) charge St
 
 314 St Paul's Text 
 
 Chrysosfom's liturgy with invocation of our blessed lady 
 by name. And again (Cent. 4. Col. 295) they allege 
 several examples of prayers to saints in Athanasius^ 
 Basil, Xazianzen, Ambrose, P rudcntius, Epiphanius^ 
 and Eplirem. 
 
 Lastly, Mr 7'/!or«^///tt' writes thus: It is confessed, sixy she, 
 that (he lights both of the Greeh and Latin church, St Basil, 
 St Grecjory Nazianzrn, St Gregory Nyssen, St Ambrose, 
 StJerom, St Austin, St Chrysostom, Si Cyril of Jerusalem, 
 St Cyril of Alexandria, Thcodorct, St Fulgentius, St 
 Gregory the Great, St Leo, more or rather all after that 
 time have spoken to the saints, and desired their assistance. 
 In Epil. par. 3. p. 358. 
 
 This, I think, is abundantly sufficient to prove that 
 the invocation of saints was both taught and practised 
 by the greatest lights of the church in those very ages, 
 when she was most eminent both for holiness and learning ; 
 since the fact is so clear, that her very enemies are forced 
 to acknowledge it. 
 
 Now, Sir, this shews the impiety of your interpretation 
 of St Paul to the Colossians. For it follows from it by 
 a manifest, and undeniable consequence, that all those 
 great lights -AXiiS. pillars of the church; those aninent saints, 
 whom the whole c/im//«« world has ever held in venera- 
 tion both for their holiness ^xi(\. learning, it follows, I say, 
 that they all forsook Christ, and lost their reward: that 
 is to say in plain Eiiglisli, that they are all damned. I 
 really have the charity to think you never reflected upon 
 this consequence. But I am very confident, that whoever 
 reflects upon it, unless he be a professed atheist, will 
 detest your saying, that the invocatioji of saints (whicJi, 
 even our enemies being judges, was taught and practised 
 by those great men) is forsaking Christ, and losing our 
 reward. 
 
 Your interpretation therefore of St Paid being incon- 
 sistent both with piety and common sense, I hope you 
 will allow me to give one, that agrees with both. Now 
 it is manifest, that the principal subject of the chapter 
 you have quoted from St Paul to the Colossians is to
 
 shamefully misinterpreted. 315 
 
 establish tlie divinity of Christ, Lis superiority over tlie 
 angels, and mediatorship between God and man. In 
 him (says he) are hid all the treasures of wisdom atid 
 hiowledge, Col. ii. 3. For in him dwelleth the fulness of the 
 Godhead corporally; and ye are complete in him, tvho is the 
 head of all principality and power, §"c. ii. 9, 10. Whence 
 in the words you have objected, the apostle takes 
 occasion to warn the Colossians against the pernicious 
 doctrine of those, who taught, that it was not Christ but 
 angels, who were our mediators, and reconcilers with 
 God ; whom therefore he justly accuses of 7Wt holding Che 
 head, which is Christ. 
 
 This, Sir, is St Chrysostom's comment upon the very 
 words, you have strained into an objection against us. 
 They (says he, speaking of those, against whose seduction 
 St Paul precautions the Colossians) affirm, thcd we ought 
 to be reconciled to God not hy Christ hut angels (in Epist. 
 ad Col. 2. G8.) Dicunt non oportere per Christum additci 
 nos ad Deum, sed per angclos. Which blasphemous 
 doctrine the apostle calls a fleshly and earned thought, 
 and an intruding iido things tve have not seen. He like- 
 wise calls it iiwill-u'urship,A\\<\a false or affected humility 
 in submitting themselves to those as their mediators, and 
 reconcilers to God, who are utterly incapable of tliat high 
 office, which certainly belongs to Christ aU)iic. When 
 therefore you can j)rove, that our desiring tlie prayers of 
 saints and angels is the sacrilegious worship here de- 
 scribed : that is, when you can prove us guilty of taking 
 away the medicdorship from Christ, and attributing it to 
 angels, it will then be time enough to swagger, and tell 
 ine, that St Paul's words arc a full answer to all our pre- 
 tensions for our invoctdion of saints and angels. 
 
 G. — My lord, ichalever is not of faith is sin according 
 to tlie (/j/ostle's rule, Hoin. xiv. 23. But it is not of 
 faith that the sairUs hear us, therefore it is sinful in 
 practice to invoke them. 
 
 L. — A notable argument indeed ! And to shew you 
 the full strength of it, I retort it thus : Uliatever is nut 
 if faith is sin. Dut it is not of /f^VA, that an absent
 
 316 21ie Difference between 
 
 frieiul will receive my letter, whereby I desire \m jwaycrs, 
 therefore it is sinful to desire by letter the prayers of an 
 absent friend. I think a man needs not be a conjnrer 
 to answer either. But, to leave off triflin<^, !St Faid's 
 true meaning is, that whatever is done malajide, that is, 
 against conscience^ is sinful in practice. And if you can 
 prove, that we act against conscience in desiring the 
 prayers of saints, then St Paul's rule will be against us. 
 
 / 
 
 SECTION Vir. — THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MEDIATOR 
 OF REDEMPTION, AND A MEDIATOR OF INTERCESSION. 
 
 " G. — My lord, God has given Christ to us as the one 
 " mediator between God and inan, 1 Tim. ii. 5. But you have 
 " made to yourselves many mediators to assist and help liim, 
 " as if his mediation, and intercession were not sufficient." 
 —p. 116. 
 
 L. — Sir, if St Paid thought the mediation and inter- 
 cession of Christ insufficient, and made maiiy mediators to 
 himself when he desired the prayers of the Romans, 
 Ilom. XV. 30 ; then we arc guilty of the same crime in 
 desiring a part in the prayers of the saints. But every 
 one, that is but well instructed in his Catechism will tell 
 you, that, though there be but one mediator of redemption 
 (of which St Paul speaks) yet all, that pray for us, may 
 improperly be called mediators o^ prayer or intercession. I 
 say improperly, because there is only one (to wit, Jesus 
 Christ) \\'\\o can have immediate access to God for us: and 
 all others, that pray for us, must use his mediation as well 
 as we ourselves, when we direct our prayers to God. 
 
 In this sense therefore there are many mediators, and 
 whoever prays for another, mediates (as it were) between 
 him and Almighty God. In this sense St Paid teaches us, 
 Gal. iii. 19, that the law teas ordained by angels in the 
 hand of a mediator, which Theodoret says was Moses. 
 Tom. 3. p. 27f}. And Moses said thus of Idmself, I stood 
 between the Lord and you at that time, Deut. v. 5. In this 
 sense the Lutheran profession of Wittemberg says, Tit. de 
 Ordine : Jfwe mean a mediator of prayer, every good man
 
 a Mediator of, ^-c. 317 
 
 is anotJier's mediator through Jesus Christ : because it is 
 every man^s duty to recommend the salvation of others by 
 prayers to God. This is our doctrine clearly and fully- 
 explained. 
 
 Bishop Montague speaks the same language in anti- 
 dote, jy. 10. 1 do not deny (says he) but the saints are 
 7nediators (as they are called) of prayer and intercession 
 
 They interpose tvith God by their supplications, and 
 
 mediate by their prayers. And again in his treatise of 
 Jnvoc. p. 1 18, he says of us: I grant Christ is not icronged 
 in his mediation. It is no impiety to say as they do, holy 
 Mary pray for us, holy Peter pray for me. This worthy 
 protestant will, I hope, teach you some inoderation, and 
 make you blush at what you just now told me, viz., that 
 we make to ourselves many mediators to assist and help 
 CiiuisT, a5 if his mediation and intercession icere not 
 sufficient; which is wrongiiig Christ in the highest 
 degree. 
 
 " G. — My lord, you make more applications to saints, than 
 " to Christ, or to God himself. You have ten ave Marias 
 " for one paler noster." — p. 116. 
 
 L. — Sir, every prayer, by which I invoke the saints 
 lias its principal tendency to (iod, since I only desire 
 them to pray to Jiim for me : and it is from him alone I 
 expect the blessings, for which I desire the assistance of 
 their prayers. So that ten ave Mary^s are in effect ten 
 petitions to God for such or such a favour through the 
 intercession of his blessed mother. And is not this a 
 most grievous scandal ! 
 
 " G. — My lord, you have multiplied your saints without 
 " number liUe heathen deities, and new canonizations arc going 
 " on every day." — p. 116. 
 
 L. — But, Sir, are saints the worse for being many in 
 number ? Or are you afraid the old ones will be forced 
 to quit their place in hcaveii to make room for new 
 comers? I assure you, Sir, no protestant saint will be a 
 sufferer l)y it. Your jtrotty comparison shall be considered 
 immediately. 
 
 " G. — Kvi^ry coinitn/, city, parish, and ;dniost person have 
 " a particular saiiif for their /*a/ro;i." — pp. 11(5, 117.
 
 3 1 8 The Difference bettveen 
 
 L. — So much the better, Sir, 1 am glad to hear it. 
 Every man has his angel-guardian to succour and defend 
 him: and if he has besides a saint to ^^ray tor him, is there 
 any harm in it ? 
 
 ♦« G. — You have minis, as the heathens had gods for the 
 " sea, for the air, fire, &c., for peace, for war, for learning, 
 " for all sorts o( trades and occujyations." — p. 117. 
 
 L. — But with this difference at least, that the heathens 
 not only made gods of most wicked and flagitious men, 
 as drunkards, robbers, whore-mongers, &e., but offered 
 sacrifice to them, which is due to God alone : and we 
 only implore the pj-agers of persons, whose holiness, and 
 happg state nothing but the blackest malice can question. 
 
 '« G. — St Christoplier, and St Cleme7it are for the sea, es- 
 " pecially the virgin Mary, to whom the seamen sing avc 
 " maris Stella." — p. 117. 
 
 L. — Well, Sir ! and is not that much better than 
 cursing and swearing in the midst of a storm ? 
 
 " G. — St Agatha is for tlie _///<?, and they make letters on 
 " her day to quench ^/e with 1" — ji. 117. 
 
 L. — Sir, 1 suspect this story comes out of some pro- 
 testant mint; and 1 should be glad to know the country 
 or toicn where this is practised, and allowed of. 
 
 " G. — St Nicholas and St Gregory are for scholars, St Luke 
 " for painters, &c. And you have saints for all diseases. St 
 " Cornelius cures the fallifig sickness, St Apollonia the tooth- 
 " ach, St Roche i[\Q pox, &c." — p. 117. 
 
 L. — The pox do you say ? For shame, Sir ! The 
 plague you should have said. But it is no sin to belie the 
 Church of Rome. Go on. 
 
 " G. — Your people have particular saints for all beasts 
 «< and cattle. St Eloy presides over the horses, and St Antony 
 " over the swine, &c., and they bring' their cattle to be blessed 
 " by these saints on their particular days. And they pray 
 " to these 5«z«^5 jointly with God. A schol.ar says, God and 
 " St Nicholas be my speed. And when one sneezes, God help 
 " you and St John. And to a horse if he stumbles, God and 
 " St Eloy save thee. And upon every surprise they cry, Jesus 
 " Maria."— ^. 117. 
 
 L. — Surely, Sir, it shews a much more pious disposi- 
 tion to cry Jesus Maria, than God damn me upon every
 
 a Mediator of, cSr. 319 
 
 surprise, iiut as to the other fine sayings mentioned by 
 you, I cannot imagine where you have picked them up. 
 For I have conversed with many scholars in my life 
 time : I have also heard many a man sneeze, and seen 
 many horses stumble; yet I cannot remember I ever 
 Jieard any of the prayers you mention. But let it be so ; 
 where is the harm in calling upon God, and St Nicholas 
 or any other saint at the same time ? The saints are 
 united to God'm eternal bliss; and if I join them together 
 in my thour/Uts, or name them together in ray prayer ; that 
 is, if I pray God, and invoke his saints at the same time, I 
 liope it is better at least tlian lampooning God in his saints. 
 
 G. — My lord, to pray to the sai?its jointly with God is 
 somewhat too familiar, and looks like putting them upon 
 the level. 
 
 L. — Ay, Sir, it would do so^ if we prayed to the saints 
 as we do to God. But if we only invoke the saints as 
 intercessors at the same time that we call upon God as 
 the giver of all good gifts, there is no danger of putting 
 them upon the level. Prayer is the desire or affection of 
 the heart, and if the heart moves at the same time 
 towards God and his saints, or towards Christ and his 
 blessed mother, its when I say, Jesus Maria, does it make 
 no difference between the Creator and the creature ? If 
 so, then it will be blasphemy to praise God iti his saitds: 
 because in that act I must of necessity joi?i God and his 
 sairtts together. Nay I ciuuot praise God in his saints, 
 but in tiie same act whether 1 will or not, I praise and 
 hotun/r the saints with an iiferior or relative honour. 
 
 What you tell me concerning St Eloy's presiding 
 (as you term it) over fiarscs, and St Antony over tlie 
 .<iU'inp, is a very curious piece of erudition, to which I 
 was an utter stranger till now. 
 
 But, to give a short answer to this whole piece oi buf- 
 foonery, we honour all God's saints, because they were 
 his faitliful servants oti earth, and are iioJiourcd by him 
 as his friaids in hciven. And if the peojile address 
 themselves to this or that particular saint rather than 
 others, it is not because there is a division of offces
 
 320 St Austin falsified. 
 
 :unoiif( the saints^ or tliat tlicy may not all equally in- 
 tprcode for any favour witliout cntrouching upon each 
 other's prerogative, but because (accordin*^ to JSt Austiiis 
 remark, Epist. 78. olim 137. Sect. 3.) as the saints have 
 their several (jifts bestowed upon them in this life, sa 
 Almighty God thinks fit to honour them differently in 
 heaven. And the people that invoke them, have found 
 by experience, that God is pleased to grant such or such 
 particular favours through their intercession. But your 
 comi>aring on this score God's saints with the heathen 
 deities is a most unchristian reflection, because we do not 
 ])onour them as yods but as the frie?2ds, and servants of 
 God, of whom alone we hope to obtain the blessings, for 
 which we desire their prayers. 
 
 SECTION VIII. — ST AUSTIN FALSIFIED. 
 
 (( 
 
 G. — The word gods is frequently given in scripture to 
 " angels, and to men as ministers of God. 
 
 L. — It is so sometimes. What then? 
 
 " G. — Thus the heathens understood it, and supposed their 
 " gods to be such ministers, as .'Eolus to govern the winds, 
 " Neptune the sea, &c. Therefore they called them Dii 
 " Medioxumi, inferior gods, as standing in the middle betwixt 
 " tlie supreme God and us, to succour and punish us according 
 " to his OY<\ers."—pp. 117, 118. 
 
 Ij. — It seems then according to you, that the heathens 
 in calling those <jods whom they had deified, understood 
 that word in a very innocent sense, and as it is sometimes 
 taken in scriptures for the ministers of the true supreme 
 God. Really, Sir, with a few touches more of your 
 exquisite skill it is to be hoped the heathens will shortly 
 be transformed into true worshippers. But they have 
 unluckily sj)oiled all, and explained their own meaning 
 in fact by oftering sacrifices to their inferior gods no less 
 than to their supreme god Jupiter, which is a convincing 
 proof, that they regarded them all as tndy gods, and were 
 blind enough to believe, that there were higher and lower 
 degrees amongst the gods as well as amongst creatures :
 
 St Austin falsijied. 321 
 
 though in reality both their higher and lower gods were 
 but devils, or evil spirits. 
 
 " G. — St Austin, who knew them well, tells us what they 
 " argued for themselves. They said, tee do not worship evil 
 " demons or spirits, hut we icorship those, tvhom you [christians3 
 " call angels, the powers of the great, the ministtvs of the great 
 " God. August, in Ps. 9G. But St ^ms//« answered them, 
 " that they must be evil spirits, whom they uorshipped, because 
 " they required worship from men as the devil did from our 
 " Saviour ; which the good angels always refused. And he 
 •' quotes Rev. xix. 10, and xxii. 9, where the angel {ovh^(\.ii John 
 " to worship him. And the same did the saints upon earth ; 
 " as Pe/er refused it from Cornelius, Acts x. 26. And Paul 
 " and Barnabas from the men o( Lystra, Acts xiv. 14, 15." 
 —p. 118. 
 
 L Sir, it is no wonder the heathens would not own 
 
 their gods to be evil spirits. But St Austin upon the 96 
 Psalm quoted by you confutes them very solidly, and I 
 am sorry I must here accuse you of a notorious _/rt/5/^CG- 
 tion of i\\?it father' s answer to the heathens. You say his 
 answer is thus, viz.: that they must be evil spirits ivhoni 
 they icorshipped ; because they required wow^uivfrom men. 
 Now the word wousiiip is equivocal, and may cither 
 signify divine worship, or that inferior or relative honour, 
 which we pay to saints and angels. Therefore to render 
 it at least doubtful, which of the two tcorships St Austin 
 condemned in iiis answer to the heathens, you have very 
 dexterously altered his words; which, if truly quoted, are 
 clear, and incapable of a double meanimj. His true words 
 are these : Die inihi, davionia colis, an spiritus bonos, 
 qu(des sunt angcli? Sunt enini angeli sancti, et sunt spiri- 
 tus maligni. Jlgo dico in tonjjlis tuis non colunlur nisi 
 spiritus maligni. (lui sibi exigunt superhc sacuificium, 
 et voluntse coli tanoitajm deos, maligni sunt, supcrbi sunt. 
 Tliat is to say, Tell me doyou worship devils or holy spirits, 
 such as angils are ? For there arc holy angels, and there 
 are evil .tpirifs: I .fay that in your tcmjdi s only evil spirits 
 arc worshipped, i'or they, who proudly require sachifick 
 to be offered to than, and will be worshij'ped as cods are 
 evil and jiroud sj)irits. 
 
 V 2
 
 3*22 St Austin falsified. 
 
 These, Sir, are St Austin's words upon tlie 96 Psalm, 
 and your translatiug them as you liave done, is such a 
 piece of (lisiiii;;emiity, as all men oflionourand conscience 
 will detest. For it is manifest, and you cannot but be 
 conscious of it to yourself, that bis words express and 
 specifn that worship, which is offering sacrifice, and 
 can therefore render you no manner of service against 
 our invocation oi saints and angds, unless you can prove, 
 tliat we offer sacrifice to them, and n-orship them as gods, 
 whicii the blackest malice cannot accuse us of. 
 
 You say St Austin quotes Rev. xix. 10, and xxii. 9, 
 where the angel forbade St John to ivorship him. To 
 which St Austin himself answers for me : that the angel 
 appeared in such a manner, that he might have been adored 
 as God, and therefore St John's mistake was to be corrected. 
 Aug. Quaest. 61, in Gen. 
 
 After which you quote St Peter refusing worship from 
 Cornelius. To which I answer, that though the worship 
 intended by Cornelius was no more than a respect due to 
 St Peter's character he refused it out of JmmilUy. For if 
 what Cornelius did, was in itself unlawful, then kneeling 
 to a parent, or the king is likewise unlawful. 
 
 Lastly, you produce the example of Paul and Barnabas 
 refusing worship from the men of Lystra. Acts xiv. 11, 
 §'c. But do not the Acts themselves tell us lohat sort of 
 worship these men intended ? The gods, said they, are 
 come down to ics in the likeness of men. And they called 
 Baniabas Jupiter, and Paul Mercury, because he was the 
 chief speaker. Then the priest o/'Jupiter brought oxen and 
 garlands, and would have done sacrifice to Barnabas and 
 Paul, §c. And had they not then reason to refuse this 
 worship from them? But if the men of Lystra had only 
 desired their prayers, as we do those of the saints and 
 angels, would Paul and Barnabas have scrupled to grant 
 their request.
 
 Catholics no Idolaters. 323 
 
 SECTION IX. — THE SCANDALOUS PARALLEL BETWEEN" 
 THE HEATHEN WORSHIP, AND THAT OF ROMAN 
 CATHOLICS CONFUTED. 
 
 Advertisement.— 4/''er tJte gentleman's last words in his Case 
 
 Stated,/?. 1 IS, his lordship is so very itjnorantas to answer, that the 
 
 heathens worshipped every one of their gods as supreme. Which 
 
 • blunder was necessary to introduce the scandalous parallel between 
 
 the heathens and Roman Catholics. 
 
 I call it scandalous, 1 . because idolatiy is a crime of the blachest 
 nature ; and nothing can be a more scandalous cahannij, than to 
 fix it upon so considerable a body of christians, as Roman Ca- 
 tholics are, v>dess the charge be made out with such strong- and 
 undeniable evidence, that no man of sense cati oppose or deny it. 
 
 I call it scandalous, 2. because it unchurches tlie whole church of 
 
 Christ^br many ages before the pretended Reformation ; in which 
 
 ages the invocation of saints ivas taught and practised by the 
 
 •wiiole christian church upon earth, as I have already proved even 
 
 from the testimony q/'protestant writers. 
 
 •Lastly, I call it a scandalous parallel, because it not only damns 
 the whole church (that was) of Great Britain^yr 900 years before 
 the Reformation, but turns all the most eminent saints a«rf doctors 
 of the primitive ages (who all taught and practised the invocation 
 of saints, as I have proved) into as rank monsters, or ministers of 
 Satan, as idolatry can make them. 
 
 Now let us have this noble parallel. But the reader, to understand 
 the coJUicxion, must retuember his lordship's luise saying in the 
 former conversation, that the heathens worshijipcd every one of 
 their gods as supreme, and independent ; to which the gentleman 
 answers thus : — 
 
 " G. — Some men make mojisters of others to hide tlieir 
 *' own deformity." — p. 113. 
 
 L. — 8ir, your observation is very just, if it be but 
 duly applied. For prolestants make monsters of papists 
 to hide tlie dtjormify of their own nformed churches. 
 
 "G . — Your guides have set up this notion Qviz., that the 
 " heathens tvorshij>pcd every one of their gods as supreme'] to 
 " hinder iha 2)aratlel betwixt tlie heathen worship of their in- 
 ** ferioT gods, and yours of saints and angels." — p. 118. 
 
 Z» — Sir, 1 know nothin<r of the notion you speak of; 
 nor shall I stand in any need of it to confute your 
 scandalous parallel ; which you can never make out, 
 unless you either prove that our saints and angels are 
 evil spirits, as the inferior gods of the heathens were ; or
 
 3*24 Catholics no Idolaters. 
 
 tliat we offer sacrifice to them, as the heathens did to 
 their inferior deities; or that we do not worship the true 
 God. 
 
 " G. — My lord, there is nothinpf more evident, than that 
 '• the hcuthtns did acknowlwdi^e one supreme and true God, 
 '* though in much ignorance and superstition." — p. 119. 
 
 L. — Sir, if you mean, that the heathens worshipped 
 the true God, there is iu»thing more evident, than that 
 tlie wo7'd of God is flatly against you in innumerable 
 places. I shall only quote two or three to satisfy you : 
 Because all thi: gods of the nations are devils, hut 
 the Lord has made the heavens. Psalm xcv. 5. They 
 sacrificed their sons and daughters unto devils, Psalm cv. 
 37. / say, that the things, lohich the Gentiles sacrifice, 
 they sacrifice to devils, and not to god. 1 Cor. x. 
 20. And have you after this the confidence to say, 
 that nothing is more evident than that the heathens acknow' 
 h'dged, that is, worshipped the true supreme God ? 
 
 " G — My Lord, St Paul says, Rom, i. 19, 20. &c., That 
 •' they knew God, that lie ivas matiifest unto tliem, even his 
 »■ eternal power and Godhead. So that they were without 
 " excuse in their foolish imagination to change the glory of the 
 " 7incorruptihle God into an image made like to the corruptible 
 ••' mauy ijc. And he told " 
 
 L. — Hold, Sir, you shall have full liberty to proceed 
 as soon as I have answered this text. St Paul speaks 
 here not of heathens in general, but of some of the ivisest 
 amongst them, who knew God by the light of nature, 
 but yet their u-orship (\\(\ not answer their hnotvledge ; 
 on tlie contrary, in compliance with the people, they 
 practised the rankest idolatry. And therefore I do not 
 like your cj'c, because it stifles that ))art of the text, which 
 utterly spoils your paralkl. The text unmangled is 
 thus : Because that which may be knoivn of God is mani^ 
 fest in them ; for God has shewed it unto them. Horn. J. 
 19. For the invisible things of him from the creation of 
 the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things 
 that are made, even his eternal poiver and Godhead, so 
 that they are withoid excuse, 20. Because that ivhen they
 
 Catholics no Idolaters. 325 
 
 knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither ivere they 
 thanhful, hut became vain in their imayincdions, and their 
 foolish heart teas darkened, 21. Professing themselves 
 wise, they became fools, 22. And changed the glory of the 
 uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible 
 man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping 
 things, 23. And again, 25 lie tells us, that they changed 
 the truth of God into a lie, and ivorshipped and served the 
 creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. 
 
 This is the text ; and we have here an exact description 
 of a set of men, who, though they knew God by the ligiit 
 of nature from the wotiderful creation of the world, yet 
 contrary to that light they fell into all the foulest practices 
 of idolatry, as offering sacrifice to the statues of Jupiter, 
 J\nus, Mercury, kc (which the apostle calls, changing 
 the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like 
 to corruptible man), nay even to the statues of birds, and 
 four-footed beasts, and creeping things .- whence the 
 apostle concludes, that they changed the truth of God into 
 a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than 
 the Creator. Both which parts of the text you have 
 very prudently clapped under an et coetera, because they 
 lay open the shame of your parallel, and make it look as 
 nonsensical as it is scandalous ; unless you either prove, 
 that we worship the images of false gods; or that the 
 images of bi)ds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things 
 are worshipped by us; or linally, that we pay divine 
 Jionours to tlie images oi Christ or his saints. Now, Sir, 
 you may go on, where you left, oil. 
 
 '• Cr. — St Paul spoke thus to tlie Athenians : Whom there- 
 *'■ foie you iyuurantly xcorship, hiiu dcclaie I unto i/oti. Acts 
 " xvii. '23. Now he did not preiicli a falne god unto thuni : 
 " but tln'y liad blended the worship of Gud with these inferior 
 '• gods or demons, which was their superstition. For so the 
 •' word signifies oj/'T/oa/a&v/V/., tiie fear of these demons. And 
 ♦' it is thus rendered every wli(!re in the New Testament, which 
 *' we translate .superstition. And so the vulgar Latin. Acts 
 " xvii. 22, XXV. 1*J. And tln' fjitin word superstition means 
 •' tlie same thing, and is derived, as ^ervius has it, from 
 *' euperslare, as being a fear of those heavenly powers, who
 
 326 Catholics no Idolaters. 
 
 " siiperstant, stand over us : and so superstition is sitperstan- 
 " tium rcrum iimor. Others derive it from superstites, that 
 *' these Jivi ex hominibns factiy men deijitd after their death 
 " are still superstites, and the fear of them as sucli is supersti- 
 " tioii, or, f/ui superstitem memorimn defunctortvn colunt, who 
 " worship the memory of these dead Dieii." — p. 119. 
 
 L What a deal of learned pedantry have we here 
 
 about the derivation of a word ! But to come directly 
 to the point, the main drift of what you have now said 
 is to shew Jirst, that the heathens worshipped the true 
 God. For unless you can prove this, your parallel 
 betwixt heathens and papists, is most eminently ridiculous, 
 and 2dli/, that their blending or mixing the worship of 
 their inferior gods or demojis with that of the true God is 
 just what papists do in honouring God's saints and angels, 
 and joining it with their worship of the true God. And 
 so you compare our honouring tiie saints in heaven with 
 the heathen worship of their men deijied by them after 
 their death. 
 
 But, Sir, you forget yourself to be a member of the 
 Church of England, which keeps particular holy days for 
 the apostles, St John Baptist, St Stephen, Sec, and has 
 one holy day for all the saints in general, and another 
 for St Michael, and all the angels. \_Case Stated, p. 135.] 
 Now I call this paying a religious honour or worship 
 (give it what name you please) as we do to God's saints 
 and angels. And if this be heathenish superstition in us, 
 I should be glad to know what name it is to be called 
 by, when it is practised by protestants. But 1 believe 
 you will be forced to come to this answer, that in the 
 religious honour you pay to sai7its and angels by keeping 
 their holy days, you do not regard them as gods, but as 
 the faithful servants and ministers of God : nor do you 
 offer sacrifice to them, as the heathens did to their 
 inferior gods, and that therefore you cannot be accused 
 of heathenish superstition in keeping holy days in honour 
 of them. But if this answer will leave no room for a 
 parallel between the heatiiens and you, I hope it will 
 convince you of the scandalous nonsense of the parallel
 
 Catholics no Idolaters. 327 
 
 you make between i\\e heathen worship, and ours: and it 
 follows hence, that thouo;h it were true, as it is most 
 false, that the heathens worshipped the true God, your 
 parallel would be defective in an essential point. 
 
 G. — Ay, but, my lord, you do not reflect that we do 
 not pray to the saitifs and angels, as you do : and this is 
 a material difference. 
 
 L. — Sir, it serves only to convince tlie world how 
 incoherent you are with yourselves. It shews your 
 religion is not built upon steady principles, but put to- 
 gether by humour and caprice. For is it not a contra- 
 diction in practice to scruple at desiring the prayers of 
 saints and angels, when at the same time you make no 
 scruple to keep holf/ days in honour of them? Neither 
 you nor we make any difficulty to desire the prayers of 
 our fellow mortals upon earth, who are yet subject to 
 many failings : 5'et no church in the world was ever so 
 extravagant as to institute holy days in honour of mortal 
 men. Which is a convincing proof, that instituting holy 
 days in honour of creatures is a religions honour or 
 tcorship of a far higher degree than desiring their prayers; 
 which is all that is meant by praying to saints. And 
 therefore if there be no superstition, or breach of a com- 
 mandment in the one, there can be none in the other. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, what do you say to the text, I 
 liave quoted from the Acts to prove that the heathens 
 worshipped the true God ? 
 
 L. — I answer it will clear itself, if it be but set in its 
 own true light, it is thus : As J passed (says St Paul) 
 and beheld your devotions, I found an altar loith this 
 inscription, to the unknown god. Whom therefore 
 you i g nor antly worship (that is, without knowing him) him 
 I declare tnito you. Then he proceeds to explain to 
 tiiem the nature and attributes of God, and tells them 
 amongst other things, that he dwells not in tonples made 
 ?ri/h hands, nor is like unto gold, or silver, or stone gravai 
 hy art, or ynaii's device.. \Mience 1 infer that tlie Athenians 
 were wholly ignorant of the spiritual and infinitely perfect 
 nature of God ; since St Paul was forced to instruct them
 
 G28 Of Dividing 
 
 in the very first nuUinents we usually tcacli children. I 
 infer again that they worshipped merely at random some- 
 thing they knew not what : and therefore dedicated their 
 altar to the wihnown God. In all jn-obability they had 
 lieard the God of the Jews or christians spoken of; and 
 as they were fond of any new deity (provided their old 
 ones were not prejudiced by it) they immediately erected 
 an altar to him. And is not this an admirable text to 
 support your parallel ! Now let us hear what you have 
 farther to say. 
 
 «« G. — My lord, the heatlien worship of their lesser gods is 
 " what is forbidden in the first commandiuent, which respects 
 " the object of worship, that no religions worship is to be 
 " given to any but to tlie supreme God alone. The second 
 " connnunduieiit relates to the manner of worship, that is, by 
 *' images. But this yoiu- church has hidden from the people, 
 " and divided the tenth into two to keep up the number, 
 " that the people might tliiidv they still have tlie ten coni- 
 •« mandments. And it is thus in your very Catechism ad 
 " Parochos. But of this hereafter." — p. 120. 
 
 SECTION X. — OF DIVIDING THE COMMANDMENTS. 
 
 Ij. — Sir, I must take your words in pieces to separate 
 truth from falsehood. It is true that the first command- 
 ment respects the object of worship, and forbids the heathen 
 worship of their lesser gods, nay of their great god Jupiter 
 also. It is likewise true, that it forbids religious worship 
 to he given to any hut the supreme God alone; if by religious 
 worship, you mean supreme divine adoration, or offering 
 sacrifice. But if you mean, an inferior relative honour, it 
 is false what you say ; and you must grant it to be so, 
 unless you will own the Church of England guilty of a 
 breach of the first connnandment, whenever she keeps holy 
 days for saints and angels, which I am sure is a religious 
 honour, or worship ; call it by what name you please. 
 
 But when you tell me, that the first commandment 
 forbids religious worship to be given to any but the s^^■ 
 2ireme God alone, 1 should be glad to know, whom you
 
 the Commandments. 329 
 
 mean by tlie supreme God. Do you mean the supreme god 
 of the heathens, or the God of christiaiis ? For it is cer- 
 tain \.\\Q heathens hail a god, whom they regarded assuprejne. 
 
 G. — My lord, I have already told you, that heathens 
 worshipped one supreme and true God, and brought good 
 proofs for it, and I will prove it more fully hereafter. 
 What need then of your question, since there can be but 
 one supreme true God. 
 
 Ij. — Well then. Sir, 1 infer that Jwjw/fer, who certainly 
 was the supreme god both of the Greeks and Romans, was 
 according to you the very same true God, whom chris- 
 tians now adore; and since you now tell me, that the 
 worship of the lesser heathen gods is the thing precisely 
 forbid in the Jirst commandment, I conclude that accord- 
 ing to your doctrine it is no breach of that commandment 
 to worship Jupiter. What pity is it that you have not 
 printed a true protestant explanation of the ten com- 
 mandments ! 
 
 But you tell me our church has hid the second com- 
 mandment from the people, and divided the tenth into tuo 
 to keep up the number, and that it is thus divided in our 
 Catechism ad Parochos. Sir, it is thus divided not only 
 in that Catechism, but in St Austin himself, Qicast. 71. 
 in Exod., wiio maintains expressly, that what you call the 
 second commandment is but a part, or fuller explanation 
 i)i \\\e Jirst : and he divides the commandments as we do. 
 Yet 1 never heard St Austin taxed with hiding the com- 
 mandments from the people, or designing to j>ut a trick 
 upon them by making them think tliey had the ten com- 
 mandments, when they had but nine. I must therefore 
 suppose the learned fathers, who were contemporary with 
 St ylustin, or lived in the following ages, either wanted 
 your Jcif. to detect, or your zeal to reprove so notorious a 
 (heat. But since you intend to speak of this hereafter, 1 
 shall wait for your leisure to give a full answer to it. In 
 the mean time I desire you to remember, that the deadly 
 sin of calumny is forbid by one of the ten commandments, 
 and you may take my word for it, that 1 will prove you 
 guilty of this deadly sin, whenever you attempt to make
 
 330 Of Dividing the Commaiulmcnts. 
 
 good this charge, vi/., ihat ire hide auy of the conwiand- 
 vuntsfrom the people. However all endeavours are used 
 by the ministers of your church to possess tiie j>eoj)le with 
 this notion of us : and it were ha])py for you and many 
 more that this commandment, thou shalt not bear false 
 zvitness ar/ainst thy nci(jJihonr, had never appeared in the 
 tabhs of the decalogue. 
 
 I shall here only ask one question, viz., Why Tjour 
 dividing the first commandment into two, may not with 
 equal justice be said to have been done to keep tip the 
 number, that the people might think they still have the ten 
 commandments, as our dividing the tenth? For the scrip- 
 ture has not determined the matter. It only tells us, that 
 there are ten commandmeids ; but how many belong to 
 t\\Q first table, and how many to the second, or whether 
 i\\e first or the tenth is to be divided into two, is nowhere 
 specified. 
 
 What you say, viz., that the second comniandmefit (as 
 you call it) relates only to the manner of worship by images, 
 is false. On the contrary, it forbids the tvorship of God 
 to be given to images. And this is the natural import of 
 these words, thou shalt not adore nor worship them. 
 Exod. XX. 5, which regards the object ofivorship as well 
 as these words, thou shalt not have strange gods before me; 
 and surely differs very much from the false interpretation 
 you put upon them, viz., that they forbid the worship of 
 God by images. For how can that be true, since God 
 himself commanded the ai-k, and the cherubims to be 
 made with respect to his icorship ? Or did God command 
 and forbid the selfsame thing.'' But it is somewhat re- 
 markable, that -you should content yourself with ba?ely 
 asserting a thing of that moment, and without so much as 
 offering, at the least, proof of it. The only reason I can 
 give for it is, tliat saying is much easier than proving. 
 
 Advertisement. — T/ie gcnihrnan's folhivi/iff words appear to have 
 no manner of comiexion u-ith ivhat he said last. But since they 
 immediaithj follow one another in his Case Stated, the reader must 
 take them as they are.
 
 Catholics no Idolaters. 331 
 
 SECTION XI. THE PARALLEL CONTINUED. 
 
 « G. — The heaViens had their good and evil demons, as 
 " their good and evil genii. But according to St Austin's 
 " rule, they must be ei'il demons, who accepted the xcorship 
 " of men, which were all the heathen demons " 
 
 L. — Sir, I must make bold to refresh your memory ; 
 for you have already forgot your falsijication of those 
 words of St Austin, to which you refer me. So go on. 
 
 '• G. — Therelbre the word demon is taken in the worst 
 " sense, and translated devil throughout the Neio Testament : 
 " and what we translate the doctrine of devils, 1 Tim iv. 1, 
 " is the doctrine of the da:mones, or, the worship of demons ; 
 " and a various lection has, rcho worship the dead. The dcC' 
 " mones of the heatlmis were their dead heroes whom they 
 " made divi by their apotheosis, as the Pope does saints by a 
 " canonization.'' — p, 120. 
 
 L. — Now, Sir, I must own, your parallel is most 
 admirable. For, as the heathens made gods of their dead 
 heroes.^ who were most inched icretches, and offered sacri- 
 fice to them ; just so the Pope or Church of Pome declares 
 men eminent for the holiness of their lives to be saints, 
 and desires a part in then prapej-s ; wliich is just as good 
 a parallel, as is contained in the two following verses : — 
 £ven as iti a banquet there be viamj dishes, 
 Even so your doublet be too short for your breeches. 
 Pray, Sir, leave off this profane trifling, and begin to 
 speak sense. 
 
 « G But it is too gross to put it upon the lieathcns that 
 
 ** they thought every one of those gods, whom they made, 
 " was the supreme God, who made themselves." — p. 120. 
 
 L. — Well, Sir ! And who ever told you they did ? 
 However, though thcv did not tiiink them all to be su- 
 preme gods, yet they offered sacrifice to them as much as 
 to their sitj/remc Jupiter. 
 
 " G. — They owned these to be lesser gods, and only tlie 
 "virtues and powers of the great God: and they thought, 
 «' that they honoured the supreme God the more by doing 
 " honour to his substitutes, and all their worship was ulti- 
 " mately referred to him, so that he only was worshipped in 
 *' all their gods and godesscs. For they made him Mug of all
 
 302 Catholics no Idolaters. 
 
 " thiir gods and godesses. Aug. de Civ. Dei, I. 4. c. 9. c. 1 1. 
 '■ And tliu common appollatioii given to Jupiter in Homer is 
 " the father and hiny of gods as tcell as men. And he re- 
 '• presents liini as commanding all the othei* gods, sending 
 '* them on his errands, calling tliem to an acconnt, and some- 
 " times chiistising tliem. ITe was called 3Iagiiits JJeus, 
 *' the great god. And Lucian in his dialogues hrings in 
 " Neptune making suit to Mercury, that he might speak witli 
 " Jj/piVo-."— pp.'l:20, 121. 
 
 L. — Sir, not only Horner^ but all tlio^ heathen poets 
 call Jupiter the father and hing of gods as tcell as men, 
 and tlie Romans styled him Optimus Maximufi, the best 
 and greatest god. Which makes it plain, that ./I'/yj/^er was 
 the supreme god both of the Greeks and Romans. And 
 since, according to what you now labour to prove, the 
 heathens worshipped the one supreme and true God (be- 
 cause this is necessary to make good your parallel) the 
 consequence is manifest, that the Jupiter of the heathens 
 is according to your doctrine the same as the true God 
 of the christians. This bishop Stillingflcet (of whom you 
 have borrowed your noble parallel) taught first to the 
 shame and scandal of Christianity. But after l)r Good- 
 win's solid confutation of that scandalous piece, I never 
 thought he would have had a follower. Is it then possible 
 that persons, who pretend to be ministers of the gospel, 
 should maintain that the infamous Jupiter adored by the 
 pagans was the true God! For if he was the true God 
 then, he is so still ; and by consequence it is no blasphemy 
 to say, / believe in Jupiter the Almighty Creator of heaven 
 and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only son. And if any 
 one asks me tchat Jupiter I mean? I may safely answer, 
 Homer's Jupiter : that very Jupiter, tvhom the pagafis 
 adored. This shows how shocking and offensive to chris- 
 tian ears the consequences arc, Avhich follow from your 
 maintaining that the Jupiter of the heathens was the true 
 supreme God. 
 
 I am sure at least the primitive christians were not of 
 your mind. For thousands of them lost their lives, 
 because they refused to worship the Jupiter of the 
 heai/ienSf and they never refused to worship the true God.
 
 Catholics no Idolaters. 333 
 
 Nay Origen tells us in plain terms, that he was not the 
 true God, but a devil. We are ready, says he, to undergo 
 any torments rather than covfess Jupiter to be God. For 
 we do not believe Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, 
 neither indeed to be any god at all, bid a devil, who is 
 delighted with the name o/' Jupiter; an enemy to men and 
 God. L. 5. contra Celsum. p. 487. This, Sir, breaks 
 the very neck of your fine pa7'allcl, and so you may go 
 on, if you please. 
 
 " G. — We have sufficient testimony in scripture of the 
 *' heathens acknowledging the one supreme and true God, 
 " Nebuchadnezzar calls him God of gods and Lord of hings. 
 " Dan. ii. 47."— p. 121. 
 
 L But in the very same verse he calls him Daniels 
 
 God, which is a sufficient innuendo, that even then he 
 neither achnoivledged nor worshipped him as his own 
 God. I add, that this profession of the true God was 
 only the effect of a sudden transport of admiration in 
 regard of Daniels wonderful discovery and interpretation 
 of NebiicJiadnczzar' s dream : but it made no real change 
 either in his belief or practice. For the very next 
 chapter contains a relation of the famous golden statue 
 or idol set up by him with a positive command, that all 
 should adore it. Nay, to shew plainly that he did not 
 believe the true God, when Daniel's three companions 
 were brought before him, and accused of refusing to 
 adore his statue, he spoke thus insultingly to them, and 
 who is that God, thai shall deliver you oiU of my haiuls ? 
 Dan. ill. 1.^3. 
 
 « G. — But he calls him afterwards Me most high God, 2G." 
 
 L. — He does so. But it was like his former profession, 
 that is, a sudden transport, when he saw Daniel's three 
 companions delivered by him in a most wonderful manner 
 out of the fiery furnace. 
 
 G. — II(! says, / blessed the most high, and I praised ami 
 *' honoured him, t/iat licetli for ever and ever, trhose dominion 
 " is an everlasting dominion, and his hitigdom from generation 
 *' to generation. And all the inhahitdiits of the earth are re- 
 '< puled as jiodting : and he docs according to his vill in the 
 *• army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and
 
 334 Catholics no LMaUrs. 
 
 " no man can sla>/ liis hand, or smj unto him, what doest thou 7 
 " Dan. iv. 34, 35."—jjj). 1:21, 1^2. 
 
 L. — This indeed looks like a sincere profession of t/te 
 true God. But when was it, that Nebuchadnezzar made 
 this profession ? It was after God had humbled him in 
 a strani^c manner, and then restored him to his kingdom, 
 according to DanicVs prediction. However it is still a 
 question disputed, whether this made such a lasting 
 impression upon him as to reclaim him entirely from 
 idolatry. The scrijiture no where assures us of it. Nor 
 do we find in him the necessary marks of a sincere con- 
 version : since he neither released the people of God 
 from their unjust captivity, nor restored the sacred 
 vessels, he had carried away in the pillage of the temple 
 of Jerusalem : as he must have done, if he had been 
 truly converted to God. 
 
 " G. — Cyrus also calls him the Lord God of heaven. Ezra 
 " i. 2. And Darius the same in as high expressions, as any 
 " christian could use, the living God, and steadfast for ever : 
 " and his hingdom that, which shall not he destroyed, and his do- 
 " minion shall be eveii unto the end, S^c. Dan. vi. 2G." — p. 122. 
 
 L. — Sir, the heathens, who held the plurality of Gods, 
 could by fits and starts give those titles to the true one, 
 without forsaking their false gods, or changing their 
 worship. Therefore as to Cyrus, though he calls him 
 the Lord God of heaven in the second verse, he plainly 
 distinguishes him in the thi7-d from the god he worshipped 
 himself. Jl7io is there, says he, among you of all his 
 people? His God be tvith him and let him go up to 
 Jerusalem, ichich is in Judah, atid build the house of the 
 Lord God of Israel. He is the God which is in 
 Jerusalem. Cyrus therefore did not regard him as the 
 God of Babylon. 
 
 But as to your quotation from the 6th chapter of 
 Daniel, it is the very chapter I should choose in thje 
 whole Bible to prove that the heathens did not acknowledge 
 or worship the true God. DanieVs miraculous preserva- 
 tion from the lions is the principal subject of it; and 
 Almighty God, who delivered his servant in so wonderful
 
 Catholics no Idolaters. 335 
 
 a manner, is called throughout the whole chapter the 
 God of Daniel, to distinguish him from the (jod of the 
 Babylonians, First, 5, Then said these men, ice shall not 
 find any occasion against this Daniel, except ice find it 
 against him concerning the law of ms God. 
 
 2dly, 11, Then these men assembled, and found Daniel 
 praying, and making supplications before his God. 
 
 3dly, It tells us, that when Daniel was cast into the den 
 of lions, the king spake and said unto Daniel, thy God, 
 whom thou servest continually, will deliver thee, 16, and 
 
 Athly, That the king coming early next morning to the 
 den cried icith a lamentable voice, O Daniel, servant of 
 the living God, is thy Gog, tchom thou servest continually, 
 able to deliver thee from the lions'/ 20, Then said Daniel 
 unto the king, O king, live fur ever, my God has sent his 
 angel, §r., 21, 22. 
 
 Who sees not here, that Daniel's God is designedly- 
 marked out as distinguished from the god of Darius and 
 the Babylonians ? Nay in the very edict, wherein the 
 high expressions you speak of are found, Darius calls 
 him the God of Daniel. So that those high expressions 
 were indeed the fruits of a sudden transport of joy for 
 DanicVs deliverance, but had no effect as to any change 
 (f worship. And it is very remarkable, that by that 
 edict Darius does not command his subjects to icorship, 
 but only to tremble and fear hfore the God of Daniel, 
 2G. So that whilst that prince honoured the true God 
 in his edict, botii he and the people continued their 
 worship of idols in tlieir temples. 
 
 " G. — My lord, they did not think it inconsistent to ac- 
 " knowledge o/ie God iibove all, and yet to suppose that every 
 " nation liad its own god or fjods in subordination to the 
 " sHjircme God, and as deputies under liim. This was tiieir 
 " notion. And they supposed i\\-AiJudea had its own tutelar 
 " God, as well as other countries. Therefore the king of 
 *' Assyria having contpiered it, sent to teach his people, who 
 " went tliillier, the maimer of the God of the land, to ajipease 
 " his wrath, who had plagued them with lions. 2 Kings xvii. 
 " 2G, 27, 33. IJut yet they forsook not their own gods, for 
 '* it is said, they feared the Lord, and strecd their oicn gods.
 
 336 Catholics no Idolaters. 
 
 '< And they alloweil the ssime Hhorty to the Jews, wlio were 
 *' not required in any of their captivities to renounce their 
 " own God ; bnt only to worship the ffods of the nations 
 «' where they lived. And of these tutdar gods, they supposed 
 <' one mi-jlit be stronp^er or more powerful than another, and 
 " therefore they would hoast of their gods one country against 
 «' another. Tlius said Sennacherib, who are they among all 
 " the gods of the countries, that has delivered their country out 
 *' ofin>/ hand, that the Lord (the tutelar God of Judea) should 
 « deliver Jerusalem out of my hand ? Where are the gods of 
 " Hamath, and of Arpad, d^x. 2 Kings xviii. 34, 35. 
 " AVhen 3Ioses anil Aaron told Pharaoh that the God of the 
 " Hebrews had met with them, he was not offended that they 
 *• had another God besides those which were worshipped in 
 " Egypt; he took it as a thing granted, that every people had 
 " their own tutelar god. 
 
 " This then was the difference hctwceii the Jetvs and Gen- 
 " tiles ; the Gentiles thought it lawful to worship the tutelar 
 " god of any country, but still in subordination to the most 
 " high God, as has been shewed : on the other hand the Jews 
 *' were obliged to worship the Lord God, the supreme God, 
 «< and him only, and they were forbid to worship any of the 
 *' gods of the nations. 
 
 " But this sin they often fell into, and worshipped these gods, 
 " but still in conjunction with the Lord their God ; and it is 
 " said, they did worship, and swear by the Lord and swear by 
 " Malcham. Zeph, i. 5. But Samuel told them, if ye return 
 <' unto the Lord, with all your hearts, then put away the strange 
 
 *' gods and Ashtaroth from amongst you a?id serve him only 
 
 « then they did put away Baalim and Ashtaroth, and served 
 
 " the Lord only. 1 Sam. vii. 3, A."— pp. 122, 123. 
 
 L. — Sir, What you said first concerning the king of 
 Assyria sending to teach liis people in Samaria the 
 manner of the God of (he land, is a good proof that the 
 Assyrians^ before they had taken Samaria, were utter 
 strangers to the worship of the true God, and in all 
 probability would have continued so, had it not been for 
 fear of the lions. But, to be delivered from that plague, 
 they sent for a Jewish priest to teach them the manner of 
 the God of the land : and if Beelzebub had been the god 
 of the land, they would have done the same. It is true,
 
 Catholics no Idolaters. 337 
 
 after that they modelled their religion into a mixture of 
 Judaism and idolatry, and worshipped God jointly with 
 their idols, as the Israelites following the wicked example 
 of Jeroboam had done before them. But what is all 
 this to the purpose ? Does it not follow hence, that the 
 heathens worshipped their false gods with subordination 
 to the supreme true God,as you have most falsely asserted? 
 Or does it follow, that Jupiter, the supreme god of the 
 Greeks and llo7na)is ; or Baal, the supreme god of the 
 Persians, or Osiris, the supreme god of the Egyptians, 
 was the same true God whom christians adore, which is 
 the scandalous point you chiefly drive at? Sir, the 
 heathen idolatry consisted precisely, not in their joining 
 the worship oi false gods with that of the true one, but 
 in their worshi])ping many false gods, one of which they 
 called supreme : yet though tlie others were'calied inferior 
 or lesser gods, they regarded them absolutely as gods, 
 and in many things wlioWy i7idependent ; because they 
 thought they could do either good or mischief by their 
 own potver ; and therefore they endeavoured to render 
 them favourable by sacrifices; for they sacrificed as 
 absolutely to their lesser gods, as to their mighty Jove. 
 The idolatry of the Jews indeed, when they fell into it, 
 was their joining the worship oi false gods with that of 
 the true one, and therefore they are truly said to have 
 forsaken the Lord ; because there is but one true God ; 
 and he who serves not him alone, does not serve him cd all. 
 
 " G. — It is called forsaking the Lord, when we will not 
 " obey his commandments, but worship him otherwise than 
 " he lias roquircd, and join others with him, which he has 
 " forbidden." — p. 124. 
 
 L. — Yes, Sir, when we join other gods or idols with 
 him. Rut I hope he has not forbid us to ]>raise him in 
 his saints, or to honour those upon earth, whom he him- 
 self honours in heaven. 
 
 " G. — Ho said, the house of Israel is estranged from me, 
 «' separated from me hy their idols: yet come and inquire of a 
 " projihrf. conrcrni?iy 77ie. Ezok. xiv. .5, 7. And n'^-.uu, ir/icii 
 " they had slain their children to their idols, the7i (licy came 
 
 ()
 
 .'338 Catholics no Idolaters. 
 
 " the sunie day into my sanctuary, xxiii. 89. And he 
 " says to them, unit you hum incense unto Baal, and ivalk 
 ♦' after other yods, and come and stand before me in this house, 
 " which is called by my name ? Jer. vii. 4. It is said, they 
 "fcand the Lord, and screed their own gods after the tnanner 
 ♦' of the nations. But it immediately follows, they fear ?iot 
 " tlie Lord, because they do not after his statutes, wherein he 
 *' commanded them not to fear other gods. And again, they 
 *^ feared the Lord, and served their graven images. 2 Kings 
 " xvii. 03, 34, 41. Yet this was departing from the 
 " fear of the Lord, but not a downright denial of the supreme 
 •* God, or throwing him off from being any more their God, 
 " and taking any otlier god in his room as the supreme God. 
 " No, but it was taking other gods with him, of which he 
 '• says, O do not this abominable thing, lohich 1 hate. Jer. 
 " xliv. 4."— p. 124. 
 
 L,. — Sir, I observe you are always very prodigal of 
 your scripture texts, when you have a tiling to prove, 
 which is plain and undeniable. For who was ever so 
 ignorant as to deny that the Jews joined the worship of 
 ■idols with that of the true God? But what do you infer 
 from it ? 
 
 " G. — This was the first sin, against which God took care 
 " to guard in the Jii'sl commandment, thou shalt have none 
 " other gods before me, or ivifh me. Exod. xx. 3, 23. And for 
 " the distinction that the worship of inferior gods, or ministers 
 " of God is not here forbidden, we say, where the lata does 
 *' not distinguish, ive must not. For there is no law, but may 
 " be distinguislied aicay. And this is exactly the same notion 
 " the heathens had of their damones. And the worshipping 
 •* of these or fearing them, is literally what we call superstition. 
 *' It UvLineansof grace, which G'oahas not appointed." — ]>. 125. 
 
 L. — What, Sir ! is the worship of demons or evil spirits 
 barely superstition, and not idolatry ! Or do we make 
 the worship of demons a means of grace ! This is bidding 
 defiance to all shame. But it is not the only impudent 
 calumny insinuated in this piece. You tell me first, ^/^a^ 
 joining the worship of other gods (meaning the lesser gods 
 of the heathens) with that of the true God is the sin, against 
 which God took care to guard us in the first commandment. 
 And do we deny it? On the contrary I assure you,
 
 Catholics no Idolaters. 339 
 
 Sir, (though I know you will be sorry to hear it) our 
 divines teach, that it forbids the icorship of all false gods 
 whatsoever, that is, not only of those, whom the heathens 
 called inferior gods, but also of your darling great god 
 Jupiter, for whom you are so religiously concerned, as 
 not to suffer him to come within the prohibition of the 
 frst commandment. This indeed is a scandalous distinction, 
 which was wholly unknown to the primitive christians, 
 who rather chose to lose their lives than worship Jupiter, 
 as 1 have already shewed. 
 
 But as to the distinction you tacitly father upon us, 
 viz., that the icorship of inferior gods is not forbidden in 
 the first commandment, pray, Sir, in what catholic author 
 do you find this distiiiction ? Our divines teach indeed 
 \\\X\i all the ancient futhers that a relative honour is due to 
 God's saints and angels ; and that this is no more forbid 
 by the^/'5^ commandment, than honouring- Gorf's servants 
 upon earth. But is this the same as teaching that the 
 worship of demotis, or inferior gods is not forbid by that 
 (ommandment ? The commandment says, thou shall have 
 none other gods before me, or with me. But it does not say, 
 thou shalt not honour the friends and servants of God. 
 
 You have indeed been very craftily cautious, ^rs^ to 
 use the word icorship ; because it is an ambiguous word, 
 and is promiscuously used to signify cither divine, or only 
 an inferior or relative honour. And 2f////, by another 
 cunning sleight you make inferior gods, and ministers of 
 God to l>e synonimous terms. Now I think the saints and 
 angels are truly ministers of God, but not in the number 
 <jf the lesser gods ai the heathens, iXiat ixxg forbid \i\ the 
 first commandment. For if they be, your own church, 
 which keeps one day for all the saints in general, and 
 another for St Michael and all angels, is regularly twice 
 a-year guilty of a breach of that commandmeid : unless 
 you have the confidence to say, that keeping solemn days 
 in memory of the saints and angels is not honouring them 
 in any manner. 
 
 But I presume. Sir, you have now done with your 
 noble parallel, which 1 think is one ot the most notorioug
 
 340 Catholics no Idolaters. 
 
 pieces of wilful and pr€7ncditatcd slander, that ever was 
 niaintaiiiod seriously. 1 shall add a few remarks to what 
 I have already said, to justify this censure. It has been 
 your business to make us appear as rank idolaters as the 
 heathens ever were. And who would have expected any 
 thing less for proof of this enormous accusation, than a 
 full and convincing evidence at least of one of these three 
 points? viz., either that papists do not acknowledge and 
 u'orskip the true God, or that they Join with it the wor- 
 ship oi false gods, as the Jews did; or that they offer sacri- 
 fice, and pay divine honours to the saints and angels. For, 
 whoever is justly accused of idolatry, must be proved 
 guilty of one of these three things. 
 
 Now, if you had but attempted to prove any one of 
 these three articles in plain and express terms, all the 
 world would have cried out shame upon you, because the 
 calununj wo\\\A have been too gross and barefaced. And 
 this you were sensible of. Therefore, to give some plausi- 
 ble colour to your parallel, you have made use of all the 
 little sinister tricks, that a good stock of ivit, but a much 
 greater of malice and insincerity could suggest to you. 
 
 First, It being notoriously known, that papists worship 
 the true God, you could not j)ossibly attack them on that 
 side. Therefore, to lay the foundation of your parallel, 
 and make them appear no better than heathens even iu 
 that essential point, you have laboured with all your 
 strength to prove, that the heathens themselves worship- 
 ped the same true God, as christians now do. Though it 
 be a flat contradiction not only to the general notion of 
 mankind, l)ut to innumerable texts of holy scripture. 
 
 '2dlg, Because it is an undeniable truth, ilmt papists do 
 not regard the saints as gods, but only as the servants of 
 the trite God, you had no other way to bring them upon 
 the level \\\\\\ heatheiis, than by maintaining that all their 
 lesser gods, were no more in their opinion than \\\g powers 
 or ministers of the true supreme God ; though it be cer- 
 tain, they regarded them all as independent in many things 
 as to i\\fi'\T poiver of doing either /700c? or mischief ; and it is 
 notoriously known, that they sacrificed to then lesser gods
 
 CatJiolics no Idolaters. 341 
 
 as well as to, Tupifer; and sacrifice is only Differed to such 
 as are properly called and esteemed gods. 
 
 Bait least our not sacrificing^ to sai?ifs and angels sliould 
 spoil the beauty of your parallel^ you took timely care to 
 call St Auslin to your assistance by a very dexterous and 
 seasonable falsijiccdion of his words. For instead of his 
 saying, tlud they, xcho proudly require sacrifice to be 
 offtred to them, and icill be worshipped as gods are evil 
 arid proud spirits, you only make him say, that they must 
 be evil spirits, because they required woRSHipy/om men : 
 and the reason, which induced you to this trick of leger- 
 demain is very plain ; because the word sacrifice spoils 
 all, in determining the manner of ivorship, which St 
 Austin says is a sure mark of their being evil spirits, who 
 require it; whereas the word icorship being equivocal^ 
 St Austin's meaning is left doubtful ; and the advantage 
 you make of it is to insinuate, that even the inferior 
 honour we pay to saints and angels, which may be called 
 worship, was condemned by i\\ixl father. 
 
 This, Sir, plainly shews, how dear it sometimes costs 
 men to carry on an unjust cause. Truth, honour, con- 
 science, reason, common sense, all must be sacrificed to 
 support it. And truly, Sir, I wish you may not have 
 been at the expense of all these to ytrovc papists idolaters. 
 This I am sure of, that unless you can either prove, that 
 saints and angels are evil spirits, or that desiring their 
 prayers is giving them divine worship, you may as easily 
 prove tihite to be black, as discover the least shadow of 
 idolatry in our doctrine of the invocation of saints. 
 
 8F.CTION' Xn. — OF SUPPOSITITIOUS SAINTS. 
 
 " G. — My lord, in your calalofyue o( sai/il\ tliero are many 
 " supposititious ones to be found. Wliat think you of tlie 
 «« sovpn sleepers who slept '3G2 years, and thouglit it but one 
 •« night?"— /A l'J5. 
 
 Jj. — Sir, the seven sleepers arc the seven martyrs of 
 l\,j)hcsusy who when they were put to deatii sl(j>t in the
 
 342 Of supposititious Saints. 
 
 Lord like St Stephen^ Acts vii. GO. That is, died happily; 
 and this is all 1 believe of their slrepiruj. The rest has 
 been added by the fabulous Gree/cs, whose relations we 
 give as little credit to as you yourselves. 
 
 " G. — What tliiiik you of tlie eleven thousand English 
 " virfjins, all martyred together at Cologne, and the fine le- 
 " gend told of them?" — p. 125. 
 
 L. — Sir, I find nothing of eleven thousand virgins in 
 our missals; but that St Ursula with her compaiiions 
 sutFered martyrdom is no fable. This I believe, and no 
 more. 
 
 " G. — What do you think of St Georges killing the dra- 
 '* gon, and rescuing the king's daughter ? As true as our 
 " ballad of the dragon of Wantleij ?"— p. 125. 
 
 L. — Sir, I join issue with you, and the two dragons 
 may go together, if you please. But is this a good argu- 
 ment, St George neither killed the dragon^ nor rescued the 
 king's daughter^ therefore there is no such saint ? Nay if 
 fabulous legends must deprive saiids of their real being, 
 we shall be in danger of losing the apostles as well as 
 some other saints, who cannot be responsible for fables 
 told of them any more than the apostles, of whom many 
 fabulous stories were handed about even in the first age. 
 One of the authors of those stories, apriest, was degraded 
 by St John the evangelist. 
 
 " G.-—My lord, as ridiculous as these stories are, yet there 
 " are da>/s kept for all these, and offices made for them with 
 " prayers to them, and to God, that we may be saved by these 
 « their merits" — p. 125. 
 
 L. — What, Sir ! By St George's merits for killing the 
 dragon ! There is indeed an office of him ; but I do not 
 remember there is any commemoration in it either of the 
 dragon, or of the king's daughter being rescued by him. 
 
 " G — There are multitudes of the like, which you will 
 " find even to a surfeit in the devotiojis of the Roman church 
 " with their breviaries, missals, legends, and autliors quoted 
 " at large." — pp. 125, 126. 
 
 L. — To a surfeit indeed in that shameful libel; but the 
 author's quotations are many times full as honest and fair, 
 as yours from St Austin upon the 96th Psalm.
 
 Of supposititious Saints. 343 
 
 « G. — And can these prayers be in faith to persons that 
 '* never were in being ? And for the merit of actions that 
 *' never were done ? This is a means of grace of your own 
 " invention indeed I"' — p. 126. 
 
 L. — Sir, a man must be very incredulous to pretend 
 there never were such persons in being as the seven mar- 
 tyrs of Ephesus, St Ursula with her companions, and St 
 George the ancient patron of England^ who are the saints 
 you have particuhirly culled out to pass your jests upon: 
 but since they were once iJi being, I hope they are so 
 still, and we may beg in faith, that is, with a safe con- 
 science, the blessings of God through their intercession, 
 to which the merits and holiness of their past lives give 
 doubtless a value. But as to the merit of actions, that 
 never were done, I have not yet seen a prayer, for exam- 
 ple, to beg any favour of God in consideration of St 
 George^ s hilling the dragon, or rescuing the fair lady out 
 of its jaws. And therefore your saying, this is a means 
 of grace of our own invention, is such a piece of insipid 
 nonsense, that I blush to repeat it. 
 
 " G. — Besides what I have already said, many have been 
 ** canonized for notorious crimes, as your St Thomas Bechet 
 " of Canterbury, whose merit was, that lie would exempt 
 " all ecclesiastics from the secidur power, though even in civil 
 " or crimirtal causes, which Avas called asserting the liberties 
 " of the holy church, and it is fully asserted in the bulla ca;n(jE. 
 " But notwithstanding all these authorities it is a wicked 
 " principle, and dissolves all civil government : it exempts 
 " from the hinges obedience i\\e first of tiie three estates of the 
 " realm, which has or ought to have the greatest influenco 
 " upon the people, and transfers their allegiatice to another 
 " sovereign, which is the highest treason by the laws of all 
 " well governed nations as well as by the laws of God. Yet 
 " for asserting \hh Bcchcl was canonized ; and for not giving 
 " way to it, the hing was whipped by the Monhs of Canterbury, 
 <' to which ho was forced to submit in those times of itapul 
 " aupreinacy. 
 
 " Such another was the last year's saint Pope Pius V., 
 " the great assertor, and last practiser of the power of the 
 •* Pope to depose princes, and wlio broke the communion of 
 " the church of England." — p. liiG.
 
 344 Of supposititious Saints. 
 
 L. — Sir, I have already answered your olyectioii con- 
 cerning Pope Pius V. (Part I. Sect. 53.) ai^ainst whom 
 I perceive you liave a jiarticular spleen, because he ex- 
 communicated your virgin Queen, the /bund ress and first 
 she-Pope of your church. But your saying, that many 
 have been canonized for notorious crimes is a most notorious 
 calumnt/, and more becoming the devil, who is the pro- 
 fessed enemy of God's saints, than a christian divine. 
 
 You instance in St Thomas of Canterbury, of whom I 
 Lave already spoken (Part I. Sect, 43.) and justified his 
 standing up for the ancient liberties of the church, ibid. 
 You say his merit was, that he icoidd exempt all ecclesiastics 
 from the secular power. Sir, his merit was his constant 
 holiness of life, his pastoral zeal, and invincible patience 
 h\ suffering the persecutions of his enemies. His merit 
 was, that he would not betray his consciejice, to comply 
 with his prince ; that he would not leave the church, 
 wherewith God had entrusted him, in a ivorse condition 
 than he had found it ; nor yield up its liberties to the 
 secular power, as an unworthy successor of his, your first 
 protestant archbishop Cranmer, did afterwards. This I 
 say, was his merit, which you call a notorious crime ; and 
 being assassinated (though without the king's orders) he 
 had both God, and the hing witnesses of his vinocence. 
 
 What you add, viz., that the hing was whipped by the 
 monhs of Canterbury, to ivhich he was forced to submit in 
 those times of jmpal supremacy, is false as to his being 
 forced to it. He submitted indeed like another Theodosins 
 to the penance enjoined him by the Pope's legate ; but 
 his whipping was no part of it. This he underwent 
 voluntarily three years after, when he made a pilgrimage 
 to St Thomas's tomb to beg his prayers against the 
 Trench, the Scots, and his own rebellious son. And God 
 was pleased to manifest in a singular manner how 
 acceptable this humiliation was to him. For upon the 
 very day that he lay prostrate at St Thomas's tomb, the 
 king of Scots was taken prisoner. Soon after he raised 
 the siege of Roiien, which his son and the French king 
 attacked, and in a short time found himself quiet possessor
 
 Cf Devuiion to the B. Virgin. 345 
 
 of his kingdom. All these particulars you will find in 
 the learned Z)?/ Pin. Cent. 12. p. 132, of whose veracity 
 I know you have a great opinion. 
 
 SECTION Xlll. — OF DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN. 
 
 «< G. — There is one saint truly so, of whom I have reserved 
 " to speak in this place, because of the excesses in your cliurch 
 " in their devotions to her bordering even upon blasphemy 
 " to any common ear." — p. 127. 
 
 L. — Now indeed you startle me. I hope however 
 we do not make a (joddess of her, nor ofter sacrijice to 
 her: though we endeavour to pay her all the honour due 
 to her as mother of God. 
 
 «' G. — No less than a canonized person, St Bonaventure has 
 '• published what he calls tlie P.s(dt(r of the Blessed Viryin 
 •' Mary, wherein every one of the 150 Psalms, as likewise 
 " the Te Deum, and other most solemn adorations of God are 
 " all turned to the Virgiyi Mary." — p. 127. 
 
 L. — Sir, I answer ftrst, that the Psallcr attributed to 
 St Bonaventure is not his. For neither Trithemiiis nor 
 Gesnerus place it amongst his works. Nor is it probable 
 a man of St Bonaventure s judgment and learning should 
 be the author of such an indiscreet piece. I answer "2dly^ 
 that it is in the catalogue of forbidden books, and is 
 therefore far from being a part of the devotions of the 
 Chitrch of Pome. So pray go on. 
 
 <' G. — Posaries, and books of devotions to her arc many 
 
 L. — That is very true, Sir. 
 
 «« G. — Here is one translated into Enylish for the use of 
 " the Poniun catholics here, entitled, The Devotion of Bondage, 
 " or t/ic Practice of perj'cclly consccraliiiy ourselves to the service 
 " of die Blessed I'i rgin, per/iiissustiperioruni IG32. Itislicensed 
 " and highly recommended both to clergy and people by the 
 " Jiishop if St Omers, witli several indidgences granted to 
 " thohO who shall devonlly make use ol it. Wherein we 
 " ofter up ourselves both souls and bodies as bondslaves to 
 " the Blessed ]'ir(/in. Aiiioiig ihe high prerogatives of (he 
 " Blessed Virgin you will find this the sixth, p. 32, the soveriiyn 
 *' dominion thai ivas given her 7iot only over the world, but over 
 
 V 2
 
 34G 0/ Devotion 
 
 " t/ie Creator of (he xcorld. Tliis indeed might well ground 
 '' this petition made to hor, jure inatris itiipcra Jiiio, th;it is, 
 " bi/ the right of a mother command your son. And her being 
 " called the mother of the whole Trinity in the missal. Polon. 
 " fol. 237."— p. 127. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is the first time I ever heard of missal. 
 Polon. But this I am sure of, that whoever styles the 
 Virgin M(iryt\\e mother of the whole Trinity, and means 
 what he says, is a rank heretic ; and if he should teach 
 this doctrine at Rome, he would cither have a mad-house, 
 or the prison of the inquisition assigned him for his 
 lodging. 
 
 As to the book entitled the Devotion of Bondage, 8fc. 
 Whatever approbation it had at its first coming forth, 
 it has been condemned many years ago. And so it is 
 impertinent to reproach us with it. I heartily wish your 
 c'aurcli took the same care to condemn and suppress all 
 the scandalous, profane, and atheistical books that are 
 publicly printed in London, and suffered to be in the 
 hands of every body. 
 
 But as to those words, hy the right of a mother com- 
 mand your son, though I allow the expression to be too 
 hyperbolical, they are capable of a fair and orthodox 
 construction, if they meet with an unprejudiced reader. 
 For there are even in scripture some expressions, which 
 carry with them the same vehemence, and in appearance 
 the same hyperbolical excess. As, when it is said, that 
 Joshua spoke to our Lord and the sun stood still, God 
 OBEYING the voice of a man, Joshua x. 12, 14, and when 
 our Saviour says of himself, that in heaven he will make 
 his servants sit down at meat and will serve them. Luke 
 xii. 37. For, as the former of these expressions does not 
 signify a real obedience in God to the voice of a man, 
 but his readiness to hear the prayers of those that fear 
 him, nor the latter that Christ will really serve the elect 
 at table, but only expresses his tenderness for them, and 
 the care he will take to complete their joy and hapj)iness; 
 80 these words, by the right of a mother command your 
 son, do not signify that she should really commatid him,
 
 to the B. Virgin. 347 
 
 as she did when he was subject to her upon earth, but 
 that she will use that interest with him in our behalf, 
 which as a mother she has with him above all other saints. 
 
 " G. — My lord, in iXxa Primer, or office of the Blessed Virgin 
 " printed in Enylish 1699, (and in the exposition before it 
 *' is said to be of great antiquity, and composed by the ehurcli 
 " directed by the holy Ghost) you will find many prayers to 
 " her not only of intercession or prag in g fur us, but to grant 
 " grace, pardon of si/is, and eternal life in as full and positive 
 " terms, as could be asked of God himself. See the hymn, 
 " Memento rerum co7iditor, p. 34, and Ate maris stella, p. 53. 
 
 " And the prayer to her, p. 59, tinder thy aid Sub tuion 
 
 " prcesidium, which is taken out of the Ronan pontificcd in 
 " the office for the consecrating an image of the B. Virgin, 
 " where yon pray for aid directly without mentioning any 
 " Intercession." — pp. 127, 128. 
 
 L. — Sir, the Primer is certainly a prayer book of 
 great authority amongst us, and 1 stand to every thing 
 you can find in it. First, you dislike the hymn. Memento 
 rerum conditor. I presume chiefly because it styles the 
 B. Virgin the mother of grace. And is not she the 
 mother of grace, who brought forth Christ the fountain 
 of all grace ; Idly, yon carp at tlie Ave maris stella, and 
 the anthem, Sub tuitm pra:sidiiun. But Sir, one verse 
 of the Ave maris stella is this : bona cuncta posce, ash all 
 good things for us, which fully explains the meaning of 
 all the rest. And the anthem, Sub tuum presidium is 
 generally concluded with this versicle, Ora pro nobis. 
 Pray for us. IJiit suppose the word pray or intercede be 
 not always expressed, may not the church be allowed to 
 use her own way of speaking as well as other societies 
 of men, especially when her meaning is as well known 
 as the alphabet ? 
 
 G. — Fray, my lord, whence must the people take the 
 sense of their prayers, but from the signification of the 
 
 words ? 
 
 L. — But must the signification of those words be 
 always interpreted i»y the T\x\(t^ oi grammar ? I think 
 our councils and Catechisms are better interpreters of the 
 sense of our j»iibiic prayers, than William Lilly, or
 
 348 The blessed Virgin not 
 
 Littleton's Dictionanj. Wl»en the scripture speaks thus : 
 / say ye arc (jods, I'salni Ixxxi,, or tells us, that God 
 obeyed the voice of a man,'d gramuiarian will perhaps cry 
 out blasphemy ! But a divine will give him a civil 
 reprimand, and tell him he must consult divines and not 
 pedants for the ixwixnQ-Aw'iug oi scriptural phrases. And 
 so it is with the language of the church in her prayers. 
 She is the sole interpreter of their true sense, and she 
 has sufficiently declared, that in what form soever her 
 prayers to saints are expressed, she means no more than 
 to implore their intercession to i\\Q Giver of all good gifts. 
 So that when we desire the blessed Virgin to help^ com- 
 fort, or deliver ns from sin, or bring us to eternal life, the 
 true meaning is (and she knows it to be so) that we only 
 desire her to obtain for us those blessings of God through 
 the mediation of Jesus Christ. 
 
 SECTION XIV. — THE BLESSED VIRGIN NOT PUT UPON 
 THE LEVEL WITH CHRIST. 
 
 " G. — My lord, your church blesses in the name of the Virgin 
 " Mary, whicli was never done to any creature. Thepriest- 
 " hood was ordained by God to hhss in his natne. No apostle 
 ** or angel ever blessed the people in his oion name. Deut. x, 
 " 8. But in this Primer, p. IG, you will see i\\e priest give 
 " the blessing in tljcse words : The Virgin Mary with her 
 " pious son bless us ; to which the people answer, Amen. Here 
 " tlie principal part is given to tlie Virgin. Her son only 
 *' blesses icith her, and she is first named. But if she be not 
 " preferred, yet she is here put upon the level at least with 
 *' her son, and blesses the ^;eo/>/c jointly with him." — p. 128, ( 
 
 L. — Sir, 1 should not be surj)rised to hear a gram- 
 vicirian argue as you do. But 1 take it to be beneath a 
 divine to lay a stress upon a mere grammatical construc- 
 tion in a theological dispute. When a child, for example, 
 says, bless me Father ; here not only the principal part 
 of blessing is literally and grammatically given to the 
 Father, but God is not so much as mentioned, and the 
 Father alone is named. And will you be so weak, as 
 to conclude from thence, that the child's father \s preferred
 
 put upon the Level, Sfc. 349 
 
 to, or put upon the level with God ? If you be, chiUlren 
 themselves will tell you, that when they saj^ Father 
 bless we, they mean no more than to desire their father 
 to pray to God to bless iliem; and so when we desire the 
 Virgin Mary to bless 2is with her son, we only beg of 
 her to obtain for us a blessing oi Go(/ through the media' 
 tion of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Advertisement. — The gentleman, after his last words, labours hard 
 to prove, that the angel whom Jacob prayed to bless his sons, u-as 
 not an angel, but Christ : wlio {as he tells us) often appeared before 
 he took flesh. I fancy indeed he will find but few of his ojnnion. 
 But it beiiiy a point of no consequence is omitted, and the geutie- 
 man goes on thus : — 
 
 " G. Epiphanius, Hier. 78, 79, reckons the worship of tlie 
 
 " Virgin Mary (not then so rank) among the Heresies under 
 " the name of the Collyridiuns, who offered cakes to the moon 
 " as the queen of heaven, which is the same name you now give 
 *• to tlie Virgin, and she is painted standing upon the ;«oc«, 
 " Iter representative."" — p. 129. 
 
 L, — What will not prejudice prompt a man to say ! 
 The Collyridians offered cahcs and Jlour in sacrifice to 
 tlie queen of heaven, that is, worshipped her as a goddess ; 
 and yet their worship was not so rank as ours. And why 
 so? Because we style the Jlrgin Mary queen of heaven^ 
 and she is painted staitding upon the moon. \\\io will 
 not be convinced by such strong reasons':' 
 
 tj Q, Epiphanius observes, that our blessed Lord, foresee- 
 
 " ing the superstition tliat would come into the world on 
 " account of his mother, treated her ahvays at a distance, 
 " never once called lier mother, no not upon the cross, or by 
 '« any other appellation, tliati that of woman, and checking her 
 '^ fonvardncss, said unto her, jFoman what have I to do with 
 '* thte'? John ii. 4. She is as little named as possible in the 
 »' gospels, where Christ pronounces a greater blessing to those 
 '* that hear his word, than to th(! wjiiib that bare him, Lidie 
 «' xi. 28. And she is not rot koned among ihosc, who saw 
 •' liim after his resurrection. She is but once luuned in the 
 «' Acts of the Ajifisdcs, anil that upon no other account, than 
 " that sIk! with other women continued in the conununiou ot 
 «' the Apostles aft(;r tlie ascension of our Lord, Acts i. 14. 
 " lint none of her acts or miracles are recorded, though
 
 350 IVie blessed Virgin not 
 
 " abnmlaiuo in the legends. And slic is not once named npon 
 " any account wliatsoevor in any of the Epistles. Strange I 
 '* tliat this should be so forgot, which makes now so great a 
 *« part in the devotions of the Church of Rome." — pp. 129, 130. 
 
 L Strange ! do you say, Sir ? And is it not much 
 
 more strange, that a christian divine should employ the 
 very best of liis rhetoric to lessen, and depreciate the 
 blessed mother of Christ ! For were I an utter stranger 
 to the principles of christian religion, and should hear a 
 christian set forth the blessed Virgin as you have done, 
 I should form no other idea of her, than that she was 
 some despicable creature, whom Christ was ashamed to 
 own for his mother ; \x\\o%g forwardness, as you call it, he 
 was forced to check : whom he utterly neglected at his 
 death, and for whom neither the apostles nor evangelists 
 had the least regard. This, Sir, is the idea, which your 
 discourse would form in any man not guarded beforehand 
 by the principles oi christian religion. 
 
 It is true, the evangelists mention no tender exprcssimis 
 of our Saviour to his blessed mother : neither do they 
 mention any tender expressions of hers to her son, nor even 
 that she felt any griefat his death. But I hope we must 
 not conclude from thence, either that she had a heart of 
 sto7ie, or that these omissions were intended by the Holy 
 Ghost to prevent our being too tenderly affected tovv'ards 
 our Saviour^ s passion : which suffices to shew the weak- 
 ness of your chief remark. 
 
 However, Sir, the scripture is not so very sile7it con- 
 cerning the blessed Virgiii, as you represent it; unless the 
 very first chapter of St Luke be no i)art of scripture. For 
 in that chapter you will find the whole foundation, on 
 which our devotion to the blessed Virgin is built. What 
 do you think of the angel's salutation. Hail, full of grace, 
 our Lord is with thee ? Luke i. 28, which contains the 
 sublimest panvgcric, that ever was made of a pure crea- 
 ture. What do you think of the words of Elizabeth? who 
 was filled u-ith the Holy Ghost, and she spoke with a loud 
 voice, and said, Blesscdart thou amongst women, and blessed 
 i& the fruit of thy womb, Luke i. 41, 42 : she spoke with
 
 put itpo7i the Level, §r. 351 
 
 a loud voice, and was not afraid to be censured for namino- 
 the mother before the soji, which is one of your weig-hty 
 objections against the Church of Rome. Lastly, what do 
 you think of the blessed VirghCs own prophetic words ? 
 For behold from Imiceforth all generations shall call me 
 blessed, Luke i. 48; which may be called a plain pre- 
 diction of the honour and respect, which the church has 
 paid her throughout all ages. Strange! That our blessed 
 Lord should forsee the superstition (as you call it) ivhich 
 icould come into the luorld on account of his mother, and 
 yet inspire his evangelists to write things of her, which 
 give us the highest idea of her dignity and merits, and 
 are the whole ground of that devotion, which you pretend 
 Christ intended to prevent. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, you take no notice, that the obser- 
 vations I have made relating to the Virgin Mary, and 
 which you have reflected upon with so much tartness, are 
 not my own, but taken from Snint Epiphcmius. Haer. 79. 
 
 L. — Sir, you wrong St Epiphanius, not only in mis- 
 representing the drift of his discourse, but also by adding 
 to his words, and mixing your own nndece7it reflections 
 with his in such a manner, as to make them appear to 
 be his. For pray, Sir, tell me where will you find any 
 of these reflections relating to the blessed Virgin in Saint 
 Epiphanius? viz., that Christ called her ivoman to check 
 iii:r roRWAUDNEss ? Ihat she is as little named as is 
 possible in the gospels ? That our Saviour always treated 
 her at a distance. That they, who hear the word of God 
 have greater blessings pronounced to them than the mother 
 of Christ ?■ That she is not reckoned amongst those, rvho saiv 
 him after his resurrection, and that she is but once named 
 in the Acts of the AjMstles, and not once in the Epistles ? 
 
 These, Sir, arc all your own observations, and thoy 
 shew the profound respect you have for the mother of 
 Christ; but not one of them is to be found in St Epi- 
 phanius, whose words faithfully rendered arc these : 
 JVherefore we are also precautloned by the holy gospel, 
 wherein Christ speahs thus : Woman, what is it to me and 
 to thee."' My hour is not yet come, John ii. 4: where, Jor
 
 352 The blessed Viryin not 
 
 this reason, lie eal/cd her woman, least any one should believe 
 the blessed I'injin to be of sonic more excellent nature [viz. 
 than the rest of womankind]. Givin</ her, as it werCy 
 prophcticalli/ that name to refute the heresies, and schisms, 
 ■which he hnerv would in aftertimes happen in the world: 
 and least any one through an excessive opinion of the most 
 holy J 'irejin should be addicted to the dotage and fooleries 
 vfthat heresy. L. 3. T. 4. Hser. 79. 
 
 Now, Sir, the heresy St Epiphanius treats of in the 
 place quoted, is that of certain bigoted women of Thi-ace 
 called Collyridians, ^\'ho not only assumed to themselves 
 the priestly office, but made a goddess of the blessed Fir- 
 gin, and ivorshipped her with sacrifice: which madness or 
 dotage he refutes at large, and then observes, that to pre- 
 vent our falling into this dotage, viz., of believing the blessed 
 J'irgin to be more than a woman, and worshippijig her as 
 a GODDESS Christ took care to call her woman, saying at 
 the ivedding in Cana of Galilee, Quid mihi et tibi mulier? 
 nondum venit hora mea; Woman, what is it to me and to 
 thee ? My hour is not yet come. And is this the same as 
 your unhandsome reflection, viz., that Christ foreseeing 
 the superstition, which would come into the world [by which 
 you mean what St Epiphanius never thought of] always 
 treated her \T a distance, a?if/, checking her forward- 
 ness, seiid unto her, IVoman, tvhat have J to do ivith thee? 
 
 But, Sir, our blessed Saviour did not always treat his 
 mother at a distance, as you pretend. For St Luke tells 
 us expressly, that he icent dotvn ivith his father and 
 mother to Nazareth, and was subject unto them, Luke ii. 51. 
 That is to say, obeyed them, as dutiful children do their 
 parents; which with your leave, Sir, is not treating them 
 at ei distance. Nay, at that very time, when instead of 
 giving to the blesseel Virgin the tender name of mother he 
 called her ivoinan, he had a regard to her request, and 
 upon her intercession manifested himself by i\\e first mira- 
 cle, he ever wrought. AVhich I think was encouraging 
 \\\s future church to have a confidence \\\ \\qx prayers. 
 
 " G. — But there is an honour of an extraordinary nature 
 •' paid to her at the head of all the saints in the office of the
 
 put upon the Level, §t. 353 
 
 *' moss ; where, before the consecration, the elements are 
 " offered up to God in memory of the passioji, resurrection, 
 «' and ascension of Jesus Christ, and for the honour of the 
 " blessed Virgin JIuri/, &c., in honorem beatce Motkb semper 
 " Virginis. Did Christ then suffer, rise, and ascend for her 
 " honour? It was for the honour and glory of God indeed, 
 " but to thrust her in, or any of the saints to share in this, 
 " looks a little too familiar, and putting them, .it least her^ 
 " near upon the level with the Almighiij, since more could 
 " not be said to him." — i^p. 130, 131. 
 
 L No, Sir ! That is very strange. For I can say to 
 
 God, thou art my Creator, my Bcdeemer, my Sancfijier, 
 my sovereign Good and last End. I can say to God, Tliou 
 art injinitehj powerful, infinitehj good, and injinitchj wisCy 
 &c.; finally, I can say to God, I offer to thee this holy sacri- 
 ffce, and I cannot say any one of these things to the blessed 
 Virgin without blasphemy. I therefore hope she is not put 
 so near, as you will needs liave it, upon the level with the 
 Almighty. 
 
 Now, as to your argument, which is contained in tliis 
 smart question, did Christ then suffer, rise, and ascend for 
 her honour ? You will as easily make a rope of sand, as 
 shew any connexion between the consequence implied 
 in your question, and the premises. What admirable logic 
 is this ! The elements are offered in memory of lite passion, 
 resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and in honour of the 
 blessed Virgin Mary : therefore Christ suffered, and ascended 
 for her honour. 
 
 G. — But what do you then mean by your in honorem 
 beaUB Maridc semper I'irginis, Sec, in honour of the Vir- 
 gin Mary ? 
 
 JL. — That, Sir, is a fair question. For as we best 
 know, so it is ijiit just we should be allowed to explain 
 our own meaning, which is precisely this : we offer up 
 tlie sacrifice to God in remembrance of the death, resur- 
 rection and ascension of Christ, and in thanksgiving for 
 tlie great gifts and graces he has bestowed uj)on his 
 blessed motlur, and other saints. 
 
 G But liow can this he called offering the sacrifice 
 
 in homur of the blessed Virgin ? &c.
 
 354 The blessed Virgin not 
 
 Ij. — Very properly, Sir; because the saints are 
 hojiourcd by our celebratin;^ their memories in the solemn 
 sacrifice of the mass ami offering up our public thanks- 
 giving to God for the victories they have obtained through 
 his grace. And this is just what St Austin teaches 
 (Encli. C. 110.) : When the sacrifice (says he) is offered 
 in the church for the faithful departed, it is to such as 
 were good, but not perfectly good, a sacrifice of propitiation. 
 But to the perfectly good, of thanksgiving. Now, Sir, you 
 may proceed, if you please. 
 
 G. — My lord, you interrupted me. I told you just 
 now, that offering the sacrifice in honour of the Virgin 
 Mary and other saints, was putting them near upon the 
 level ivith the Almighty. 
 
 L. — You did so. 
 
 " G. — And here wc may see a good reason, why God 
 " would not have any reliyious worship paid to these, or any 
 " ministers of his kingdom, nor would be worshipped with 
 *' them. For he saw there would be eyicroacliing, and coming 
 " nearer to him, than was fit for the condition of creatures. 
 " They would have a share with him. Nay, that they might 
 " come at last to advance these above God himself, and 
 '• prefer the saints even to Christ." — p, 131. 
 
 L. — Sir, this whole piece comes a begging ; for it 
 confidently supposes the two very points, you ought to 
 prove. First, That God has forbid all religious worship, 
 that is, all honour to be paid to his ministers ; nay it is a 
 contradiction to your own practice in keeping one holy 
 day for all saints, and another for St Michael and all 
 the angels. '2dly, It supposes that we put crea^wres near 
 upon the level with the Almighty, which I have disproved 
 at large : but you are not disposed to take notice of 
 any thing I say to you. 
 
 G. — IVIy lord you are too quick for me. But I shall now 
 prove, that yon advance the saints above God himself, and 
 prefer them even to Christ. <' As it has been said, that 
 " Christ did nothing which St Francis did not do : yea, that he 
 *• did more than Christ himself Lib. Conform, fob 1149." 
 
 L. — Sir, I must own you have a peculiar talent at 
 raking kennels for dirt and filth to throw at us. It is a
 
 put upon a Level J Sj-c. 355 
 
 providence however, that the words, you have picked up, 
 are not to be found either in any Council, or Catechism, 
 or papal constitution, or Pope Pius's Pro/essioti of Faith, 
 where you ought to seek for our doctrine ; but only in 
 Lib. Conform, a book I never heard of before. But 
 whoever is the author of it, I presume he does not mean 
 that St Francis (though a most holi/ and eminent saint) 
 either a'eated the world, or redeemed mankind, or ever 
 wrought any miracle by his own power. So that we 
 may (I hope) acquit him of blasphemy, though not of 
 indiscretion. And all you can conclude from it is, that 
 there are some indiscreet writers in all churches whatso- 
 ever. But is a church accountable for all the indiscreet 
 expressions of particular writers ? I think not. 
 
 SECTION XV. — THE INDEX EXPL'RGATORIUS EXAMINED. 
 
 " G. — Now, my lord, we see the reason, why your Index 
 " Expurgatorius would not Imve it seen in the fathers that 
 " God alo7ie is to he worshipped. For tliey have expunged 
 " this out of the indices of tlieir works, tliat it might not be 
 •' found by the peopli-, who might take offence to see their 
 " worship divided betwixt God and creatures. [_adorari solius 
 " Dti est : deleatur tx Ind. Operum Athanasii. Indice Lib. 
 " prohib. ct Expnrg. p. 52. Madrit. Ann. 1627. item ex 
 " Ind. Op. S. Aug. ibid. p. 56.] 
 
 '* A\'as there ever so sliameless a tiling done by any church 
 •' as to take upon them to correct and alter the fathers ? It 
 " is plaiidy to «tifle the evidence against themselves, and 
 " render every tiling at least suspected, that they quote out 
 " of thorn. And tiu; scriptures bad been jnirrjed too, but 
 " that tliey are so coniuion in the hands of protcslants, that 
 " it could not be done without manifest detectioji, but how 
 " far they havo gone towards it by uiislraiislatiotis, addiiig 
 " or leaving out nonm ivords, I have sliewed ahoady. But to 
 " pursue tlio sul)ject we are now upon " — j'P- 1^1, 1'3'2. 
 
 L. — Hold, Sir, let me answer this piece first ; and I 
 will do it with all the temper and moderation possible; 
 though the foulness of the misrepresentation, it contains
 
 356 The Index Expurgatorius. 
 
 niitjlit justify the warmest lan<^ua<i;e. You flatly charge 
 us with corrcctiiuj ami altcrhig i\\Q fathers in order tostijle, 
 as you say, thtir evidc7tce against us ; yet in the same 
 breath you contradict yourself by confessing', that the 
 alteration you speak of, was made only in the indiees of 
 their works. For can any man be so stupid as to 
 make no difference between the works themselves of the 
 fathers, and the indiees, that have been since made to 
 them by other hands ? 
 
 You add, that the scriptures had been purged too, but 
 that they are so common in the hands of protestants, that 
 it could not be done witho7it manifest detection. Which 
 reflection is as void oi common sense us Justice. For are 
 not the fathers as common in the liands of all learned 
 protestants as scriptures ? And how then could we corrupt 
 \.\\c fathers with greater security than the scriptures ? 
 
 But, Sir, you forget the many hundred years before 
 the Rfformation, wherein pnpery was in possession of 
 whole Christe7idom, as your book of Homilies testifies, and 
 all protesta?its are forced to own. And had we not then 
 all the opportunity imaginable to alter both scriptures 
 und fathers, if we had been wicked enough to do it? For 
 M'here were then the protestants to control us, or convict 
 us oi forgery? Pray, Sir, let me advise you to think 
 of some better reason, than our fear of being detected by 
 protestants, that hindered us from altering the scriptures? 
 For though this may pass current with idiots, yet men 
 of understanding will not be imposed upon in so gross a 
 manner. 
 
 You say our correcting and altering the fathers renders 
 exery thing ice quote oid of them, suspected. But, good 
 Sir, are our quotations from the fathers taken out of their 
 indices? Are they not transcribed from their own 
 writings ? How is it possible a man of sense should 
 commit such a blunder ! Truly nothing but an over-eager 
 desire of aspersing us could render you capable of it. 
 
 Now let us examine the bloody fact, which you set oiF 
 with this pathetic exclamation : Was there ever so shameless 
 a thing done by any church as to take upon them to correct
 
 The Index Expur gator ins. 357 
 
 and alter the fathers ! Without dispute," Sir, ya/.f/ZT/w^ the 
 fathers is a most shameful thing: for otherwise I have been 
 too hard upon you in censuring you so sharply for it. But 
 I do not think it at all shameful to correct an index, vi'hicli 
 misrepresents the true sense of the father's words, it refers to : 
 and this is truly the fact you inveigh so bitterly against. 
 
 One JVolfangus Musculus, a German protestant, puts 
 forth an edition of some works of the fathers, and makes 
 an index to them : and to insinuate to the reader that it 
 is their doctrine, that no honour is to be paid to saints, 
 he puts down in the index this equivocal expression, 
 adorari soUus Dei est; God alojie is to be adored, or 
 worshipped. Which in the sense of the fathers, it refers 
 to, is certainly true; but false in the intended meaning 
 of the publisher. This therefore the Index Expurgatorius 
 orders to be blotted out; because it insinuates a sense, 
 which never was taught by any of the fathers ; who 
 certainly mean nothing else, than that God alone is to 
 be worshipped with divine honour. 
 
 I shall instance in a parallel case to set the matter in 
 a clear light. Suppose a Socinian should put forth an 
 edition of the Neiu Testament, and in his index to it 
 should put these words, the son is not equal to the father, 
 referring the reader to these words of Christ, my Father 
 is greater than I, John xiv. 28; I ask, whether your 
 church would not think it very just to correct and alter 
 that index ? 'riioiigh the Socinians should clamour 
 against it, and cry out, icas there ever so shameless a thing 
 done by any church, as to take upon them to correct, ainl 
 alter the scrijHures ! But I really believe you would in 
 that case be clear sighted enough to discern a dinVrence 
 between altering tlie scripture itself, and correcting a 
 scandalous index made to it. And if you are not blinded 
 with passion, you will also be clear sighted enough to 
 see, that this is a full answer to your unjust chunours 
 against the Index Expurgatorius, and tlu; calumny your 
 conscience is charged witli in representing us \xs falsifiers 
 of the fathers. \Wt you were going to say something 
 else, which you may now do, if you please.
 
 358 Of Relics. 
 
 SECTION XVI. — OF RELICS. 
 
 " G IVIy lord, not only the sonls of the saints in Leaven, 
 
 " but their dead bodies, or bits of them ; a Jinger, a toe, or a 
 " tooth, or a scrap of tlieir clothes, a girdle, or a 600A, or any 
 " thing else, that they used, are worshipped, and made tneans 
 " of grace, and great miracles are said to be done by them." 
 —p. 132. 
 
 L. — Are said, Sir, do you say ? And dare you deny 
 it? If you do, the devils themselves, who Imve confessed 
 it, will blush for you. Vigilantius, condemned by all 
 antiquity for an heresiarch^ was the devil's great champion 
 against the veneration of relics, which was the church's 
 universal practice even in her purest times. But let us 
 Iiear how St Jerome complimented him upon it. Vigi- 
 lantius, says he, fights with an unclean spirit against the 
 spirit of Christ, by asserting that the tombs of martyrs are 
 not to be reverenced. Lib. contra Vigil. And again, ibid. 
 The devils, with ivhich Vigilantius is possessed, roar at 
 the relics, and confess they cannot bear the presence of the 
 martyrs. Nay in the same book he tells him, that all 
 the bishops in the loorld are against him. Ergo totius 
 orbis errant episcopi ? §r. And in his fifty-third epistle 
 he writes thus : You tell me, that Vigilantius vomits once 
 more his poison against the relics of martyrs, calling us 
 
 DUST-WOIISHIPPERS, AND IDOLATERS FOR REVERENC- 
 ING DEAD men's bones. Oh, Unhappy man, who can 
 never be sufficiently lamerded ! 
 
 Here, Sir, you see yourself described in the person of 
 Vigilantius by an eminent saint and doctor of God's 
 church : which should, me thinks, suffice to open your 
 eyes, and make you see the badness of the cause in 
 which you are engaged. If you had lived in the fourth 
 century, and professed yourself a disciple of Vigilatdius, 
 as you now do, St Jerome would have treated you, as he 
 did that infamous heretic. He would have told you, that 
 you fought with an unclean spirit against the spirit of 
 Christ. Thatj 7jou loere possessed by that evil spirit.
 
 Of Relics. 359 
 
 That all the bishops in the world were against you. That 
 finally you were in a most unhappy and lamentable state. 
 
 But you tliink it a mighty jest, that we reverence 
 (or, as you call it, tvorship) not only the bodies of saints, 
 but a finger, a toe, or a tooth, or a scrap of their clothes. 
 But pray, Sir, where lies the jest? May not \\\e finger, 
 the toe, or tooth of a saint, or a scrap of his clothes work 
 miracles as well as the shadow of St Peter ? Acts v. 15. 
 Or the aprons and handkerchiefs that but touched St 
 Paul's body, yet cwrec? diseases, and chased away evil 
 spirits? Acts xix. 12. Or must it needs be an entire 
 body to make it a proper itistriiraerit for God to work 
 miracles with ? If this be the ground of your jest, 
 Theodorct, who wrote in the fourth age, will disabuse you. 
 Cities, and villages, says he, dividing among themselves 
 the bodies of the martyrs esteem them their guardians, and 
 the protectors and physicians both of their soids and bodies 
 
 For though the body be divided, the blessing is not ; 
 
 but is bountifidly distributed according to the faith, icith 
 which it is approached. L. 8. cont. Grsecos. T. 4. pp. 
 593, 594. 
 
 Nay the very ashes of the martyrs were held in the 
 same veneration as their bodies; as appears from Vigilan- 
 tins calling the Catholics dust wo ksiu iters, and is 
 witnessed by St Isidore of Pelusium writing thus to 
 Pagan : Jf this offend you, that we honour tlte ashes of 
 martyrs, because they loved God, and served him constantly, 
 ask them, icho have been healed by them, and inquire into 
 tlie number of distempers, from ivJdch they have been freed? 
 Jf you do this, you will be so far from laughing at what 
 we do, that you will be willing to join with us in so good 
 a practice. L. 1. Ep. 55. Pray, Sir, follow the advice 
 of this good saint, and leave off joining with heretics and 
 pagans m ridiculing practices, which venerable antiquity 
 has so solemnly recommended to us. 
 
 I shall only add St Ambrose' s-worAs after his discovery 
 of the relics of St Grrvasius and Protasius, which alone 
 suffice to confute any thing you can say upon this sub- 
 ject. You have knoxcn (says he), nay you have seen many
 
 860 Of Relics. • 
 
 dispossessed, many aired, as soon as (hey touched the shroud 
 of the holy bodies, from lluir infirmities. The ancient mira- 
 cles (f Christ are renewed. Yon see many cured by the 
 shadow, as it were, of their bodies. How many hand- 
 kerchiefs are they touched with ? How many veils by 
 touching the sacred relics, become instruments of the great- 
 est cures ? Every one is glad to touch the most distant 
 hem, and if he does it, he willbeheakd. Ep. 22. Now, Sir, 
 you may laugh on if you please. But even youv protesfant 
 translators of Mr Du Pin, Cent. 8, p. 120, confess, that 
 it pleased God for the testimony of his doctrine and truth 
 to ivork great miracles by Vie dead bodies of his saints, in 
 tfitness that they had been his messengers, and iristruments 
 of his will, 
 
 «* G. — My lord, God may work miracles by what mea7is he 
 *' pleases."— /J. 132. 
 
 L Now, Sir, you are very good indeed. For you 
 
 grant me all I desire. 
 
 «' G. — But does this consecrate the dead body of every 
 *' saint to be a means of grace, and a worker of miracles ?" — 
 p. 132. 
 
 Z/. — Sir, that is your ridiculous consequence, and not 
 mine. All I say is, that when God works miracles by the 
 body of any saint, he certainly does work miracles by it. 
 
 " G. — Many miracles were wrought by the rod oi Moses, 
 *' is every rod therefore a means of grace either ghostly or 
 «' bodily? Or may we consecrate aiiy rod to be such a means?" 
 —p. 132. 
 
 L. — No, Sir. But if God pleases, he may work mira- 
 cles by any rod. And so he may work miracles by the 
 body of any saint ; and if he does work miracles by it, we 
 may surely believe, that he does work mii'acles by it. 
 
 *' G. — Nothing is such a means to us, but what God has 
 " commanded and appointed to be done, as baptism, and the 
 *' Lord's SJipper." — p. 132. 
 
 L What, Sir ! Did Gud command and appoint 
 
 aprons and handher chiefs, which wrought miracles. Acts 
 xix. 12, to be such means of grace as baptism, and the 
 Lord's supper ? 
 
 " G. — It is the institution and not the example, that makes
 
 Of ndics. 361 
 
 « any thing a mecms of cjrace to us. Eke we nnglit go and 
 " imitate all the miraculous actions of Moses, or of Christ, 
 " and call them meaus of r/race to us, because so used by 
 " ihem."— pp. 132, 133. 
 
 L Sir, it is the institution, and nothing but the 
 
 institution of Christ that makes svch means of grace as 
 baptism, and the Lord's supper. If therefore you speak 
 oi means oi grace stricth/ taken, the sacraments alone are 
 such means, as I have already frequently inculcated. But 
 you are either very thick of hearing-, or have a short 
 memory. For you take no notice of any thing I say, but 
 go on repeating the same gross mistakes twenty times 
 over as confidently, as if they were first princijiles, or 
 truths allowed of by me. 
 
 I tell you therefore once for all that the sacraments 
 alone are means of grace strictly taken ; ^vhich never fail 
 of producing their effect, but when some wilful obstacle 
 is put to it. But in a large sense any thing may be called 
 a means of grace, which God is pleased to make use of at 
 any time as an instrument to convey his blessings to us, 
 though it be not ordained by any express institution in 
 order to that end. 
 
 Now if you speak of means of grace strictly taken, what 
 you say, viz., that nothing is surJi a means to t(s, hut what 
 God has commanded and aj)puinfefl to be done, is true in- 
 deed, but nothing to the purpose. But if you speak of 
 mea7is cf grace in the largest sense, it is absolutely false, 
 nay incoherent with what you said just now, viz., that 
 God may ivorh miracles by what means he pleases. For, 
 if he can work miracles, as most certainly he can, by ivhat 
 means he pleases, he can work them by instruments, which 
 are not strictly means of grace, as tJie sacraments are: 
 unless you will maintain, that whatever i^istrument God 
 makes use of to work miracles by, becomes immediately 
 a sacrament, that is, a means of grace strictly taken ; and 
 then Saint Peter's shadow, and all the aprons and hand- 
 kerchi<fs,\\\\\<:\\ touclwul .St/^«»/'>s body, and wrought great 
 miracles, were sacraments, or means of grace strictly taken. 
 
 Either therefore every thing, by which God works 
 
 K
 
 3G2 Of Relics. 
 
 7niracles, is strictly a means of grace, ox not: if it be, tlion 
 the aprons and handkcrc/iiefs, that touched St Paul's 
 body, wore strictli/ meayis of grace; which is absurd. If 
 not, thou the re/ics of saints may also work miracles 
 without bcinyf strictly means of grace. WJience it plainly 
 appears, that whatever you have said, or can say con- 
 cerninu' our multiplying means o/* «7?'ace is wholly built 
 upon the equivocal meaning of those \vords; which you 
 take a pleasure to repeat even to a surfeit for no other 
 reason, but because they are equivocal; and therefore 
 proper to cast a mist before ignorant people's eyes. 
 
 " G. — JMy lord, as to tlie relics in your church, many of 
 " them have been notoriously detected; and it has been found 
 " out, that the dead bodies of malefactors liave been taken for 
 " the relics of saints, and great miracles said to be done by 
 " them."—/?. 133. 
 
 L. — I hope, Sir, you do not mean, that great miracles 
 liave been said to be done by bodies, after they have been 
 found out to be the bodies of malefactors. Nor do I be- 
 lieve upon your bare word that miracles have been attri- 
 buted to the bodies of real malefactors, even before your 
 pretended notorious detection of them. Perhaps you only 
 mean such a notorious malefactor els St Thomas of Can- 
 terbury : who was found guilty of high treason, and liad 
 all his goods confiscated above three hundred years after 
 his death, I may safely say by one of the most ridicidons 
 farces, that ever was acted upon the theatre of this world. 
 
 " G. — The same relic as the head or finger of such or 
 '■ such a saint is shewn in several places, and each contend 
 " that theirs is the right, and eacii have miracles avouched for 
 " them."—;?. 133. 
 
 L. — Sir, this was fidly answered at our last meeting 
 upon the subject of miracles, [Part I. Sect. 25.] to which 
 I refer you. 
 
 " G. — Many instances of this with vouchers undeniable 
 " you will find in the devotions cf the Roman church. How 
 " then can you worship such relics iw faith, Avithout whicli it 
 " is Him?"— p. 133. 
 
 L. — Sir, I have already told you the true meaning of 
 StRanrs saying, ivhatever is not of faith is sin, viz., that
 
 Of linages. 363 
 
 wliatever is done against conscience, or with a bad inten- 
 tion, is sin : which may as well be applied to a man mis- 
 taking stochfish for ling, as to the subject under debate. 
 For, suppose we should mistake /tt/.ve relics for true 07ies, 
 the saint, whose relics we suppose them to be, is still 
 honoured by us; and the mistake is as innocent, as M'heji 
 we give an abns for God's sake to a c/ieat ; which is no 
 uncommon case. 
 
 But I observe once more, that whenever you speak of 
 the respect we pay to relics, you take care to call it wor- 
 ship ; because the word is ambiguous and may signify 
 divine icorship, as well as an inferior or relative honour^ 
 and you piously hope that it will be taken in tiie ivrong 
 sense. I therefore desire you to take notice, that we wor- 
 ship relics, or the images of Christ and his saints no other- 
 wise than you worship the altar, or the Bible, when you 
 hoiv to it. If you deny that you ivnrship them in paying 
 that respect to them, we do the same. If you grant you 
 worship them, then creatures may be worshipped with a 
 relative hcmour, and you cannot blame us for it. 
 
 In effect no one word is more equivoccd than the word 
 worship, and it is maiiirost, that all reasoning from such 
 ambiguous words is nothing at the bottom hut fallacg and 
 amusement, and a mere design to confound and perplex 
 people in order to hide from them the true state of the 
 (piestion. Prav, Sir, remember this, Mhcn you speak of 
 images, wliich 1 j)resume will come )iext upon the board. 
 
 SUCTION XVII. — or IMAGES. 
 
 " G. — Yes, my lord. For not oidy the saints, and their 
 «' relics, but their aiiaijcs uro with you made a distinct means 
 " of grace ; for in liio co/mciulion of the iiiingc of a saint it is 
 " buid, tliat wlioevur bhail worship such a saint, coram hoc 
 " imagine, htforc this image, may obtain so and so, for M'hich 
 '• end tho image is blessed an<i sanctifiid. So that it is not 
 • enough to worsliip the saint ; but if I do it before such a 
 " consecrated image, I shall olitaiu more grace than otli'Twise. 
 " This maUc3 the image itself a means of grace, for llit're is
 
 064 Of Images. 
 
 *' virtue there. 'Why else would it not do as well to pray, 
 *' and not before such an image ? Why else indeed are such 
 '= images so formally cnnsccriticd, if there be no virlue in the 
 " consecration ? And why do men go i)ilgiimages, or send 
 " vows to Lorclto, or any other distant place, if they think 
 " there is no virlue in the image there more than in forty of 
 " the same sort, which they may have at home ? And the 
 '• saint represented by the image is as near them in the one 
 ** place as in the other. There must then be some virtue 
 " communicated to one image more than to another." — •/)/>. 
 133, 104. 
 
 Z/. — Sir, there were many pools in Judea besides tlie 
 pool called Bctliesda. John v. 2. Yet God would only 
 cure the sick in this. There were also many rods besides 
 the rod of Moses, and many aprons besides those, that 
 touched the bod// of Saint Paul; yet God wrought mira- 
 cles only by those. And why then may he not bestow a 
 blessiy^g on one j^lace or image more than another ? And 
 if he can do it, why should we not ask it of him ? This, 
 Sir, answers all your fine queries. 
 
 But I shall instance in a scriptural fact resembling very 
 much the blessiiig or conseci'ation, with which you are 
 pleased to make so much mirth. It is written, 1 Kings 
 viii. that So/owow dedicated ov consecrated the temple^ he had 
 built in Jerusalem : and the whole subject of the pratjer, 
 or form of consecration, is to beg of God, that whoever 
 shall pray in or towards that house, may obtain so and so, 
 as is specified in \\vq form o{ coiisecration. 
 
 Now, Sir, let us suppose some atheistical Jew s\\o\i\({ 
 liave reasoned thus in your language. The temple is here 
 made a distinct means of grace •,for in the consecration 
 of the temple it is said, that whoever shall icorship God in 
 
 OR TOAVAIIDS THAT HOUSE, MAY OBTAIN SO AND HO \ for 
 
 which end the temple is blessed and sanctified. So that it is 
 not enough to worship God, but if J do it in on towards 
 SUCH A HOUSE, I shall obtain moi^e grace than othenvise. 
 'This makes the house itself a means of grace; for 
 THERE IS virtue THERE. JMitj elsB should it not do as 
 well toprarj, and not in or towards that house ? Why 
 else indeed is that house so formally consecrated, if there be
 
 0/ Images. 365 
 
 no virtue in the consecration ? And why do men go pil- 
 oniMAGES, and send their vows to the temple in 
 Jerusalem^ if they think there is no virtue in that house 
 more than in any other place ? And God, ivho is wor- 
 shipped in that house, is as near us in one place as 
 ANOTHER. There must he then some virtue communicated 
 to one house more than to another. 
 
 Sir, whenever you answer this profane discourse of tlie 
 supposed Jeic, you will not be at a loss for an answer to 
 vour own. 
 
 Advertisement. — The good-natured lord in the former conversa- 
 tion acquiesces to (.very thimj his adversary has said, and unit/ 
 tells him caltnly, tlien you are against an}- pictures or images, or 
 ])aying any honour to tlic holy men departed : which gives occasion 
 to the gentleman to answer thus : 
 
 «« G. — No, ray lord, we are not so stingy: we scruple not 
 " pictures for ornament, but for worship or for worsIiippJMjj 
 '• before tfiein, as you call it." — p. 134, 
 
 X. — That is very strange indeed. Suppose you had 
 a picture or image of Christ crucified before you, would 
 you scruple to say your prayers, or adore God with your 
 face turned toicards it ? But why do you not likewise 
 scruple to pray with your face turned towards the cdtar, 
 or communion table ? for then you worship before it, as 
 we do before pictures : and we worship pictures no other- 
 wise than you worship the altar or communion table by 
 bowing to it, or hnccling before it. 
 
 SECTION XVIII. — THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND GUILTY OV 
 
 INCOHERENCY. 
 
 <■<■ G. — We also honour the saints departed as far as wo 
 '• tliink it latrfiil, atid as we are verily persuaded, as far as 
 '• tlioy desire." — p. l^^. 
 
 Jj. — That is very well done, Sir, and wc are vcrihj 
 persuaded, we do no more. 
 
 " G. — IJut accordiuf,' to St Ans/in's rule before vicntioned, 
 *' if they accepted our adoration, it would prove thetu to be 
 " evil spirits: and then you arc ti» consider, that instead of
 
 366 The Church of England 
 
 " intercessors, as you Iiopo for by your xcorship of tlieni tliey 
 ♦' will vindicate (Iiemselves and become your accusers.''-^' 
 p. 134. 
 
 L, — Sir, you should have said, according to St Austins 
 rule before FALSiriKn. Pray learn to speak proporl5\ 
 For St Austin neither calls it adoration^ as you render 
 it noiv, nor luorship, as you rendered it before, but 
 sacrifice; and in plain terms, to be icorshippcd as gods. 
 So that there is no dang-er of their becoming our accusers, 
 as long as Ave only desire apart in those prai/ers, whicli 
 they continually offer to God for the church militant. 
 And this is all we desire of them. 
 
 *' G. — But in the honour we pay them, we first take care 
 " not to spec ft/ any particular person as a saint, but mIio is 
 " so recorded in ho/// scripture. For we understand not 
 " canonizations by men, wlio know not the heart." — p. 134. 
 
 L. — But when Almighty God, who kno^vs the hearts 
 of men, has manifested their holiness by evident miracles, 
 are we allowed to doubt of it ? the ancie?it fathers were 
 not so scrupulous ; for they invoked not only scripturcd 
 saints, but likewise those, whom the living voice of the 
 church had canonized. Saint Austin prayed to St Cyprian^ 
 L. 7. de Bapt. C. 1. ; St Jerome to St Paula, Epist, 27. ; 
 St Gregory Nyssen to St Theodore, Tom. 3. p. 585. C. ; 
 and St Gregory Nazianzen to St Basil, Orat. 20. T. 1. 
 p. 373, B. And they invoked them by name, and called 
 them saints, though not recorded in holy scripture, which 
 it seems your terider conscience will not allow of. 
 
 However, good Sir, your church is not so scrupulous 
 as you would make her. Pray read the calendar of your 
 common praye7--booh. For there you will find several 
 saints specified by name, and not recorded in holy scrip- 
 tures; which I hope will help to cure you of the squeamish 
 fit, you are fallen into. 
 
 " G. — In the next place, my lord, we limit the honour we 
 " pay to saints by the rule of God's commandments, which we 
 " suppose most pleasing to them." — j^' 134. 
 
 L. — Do you only suppose it. Sir ? Nay we are sure 
 of it. For how should any thing, that is displeasing to 
 God, be pleasing to the saints ?
 
 guilty of liicoherency. 367 
 
 " G. — We keep particular holi/ days for the apostles, St 
 •' John Bcqitist, St Stephen, &c,, we bless God for them, 
 '' commemorate their virtues, and pi*ay that we may follow 
 " their example." — p. 135. 
 
 L. — So far then we agree. And, if keeping holy days 
 be any part of christian devotion^ as I presume it is, this 
 is just what we mean by what we call religious ho?iour. 
 
 '•' G. — We have one day for all the saints i7i general, and 
 " another for St Michael, and all the angds. Thus we honour 
 '■ them." — p. 135. 
 
 Z,. — Sir, I am glad to hear it: for all this is very good 
 popery. 
 
 '' G. — For this, my lord, we bear the rcjvoach of our 
 " fonr dissenters, as if we were too much inclining; io pojiery. 
 " You think we give too litde honour to the saints, and they 
 " think we give too much, but 1 hope we keep the mca?i.'' 
 — p. 135. 
 
 L. — Sir, notwithstanding your jyretejided mean, your 
 church cannot avoid splitting upon one of these I'ochs. 
 For, if it be forind to pay any sort of religious wor- 
 ship or honour to the saints, your keeping holy days in 
 ho}iour of them is unjustifiable. But if there be an 
 honour due to them, and if it be lawful to pay them that 
 honour by keeping solemn days in memory of them; to 
 refuse after that to pay a relative honour to the j)icfu7'es 
 tliat represent them, or the I'elics that were a part of 
 them, is perfectly inconsistent with common sense; and 
 the 7nean you boast of, is no better than a practical con- 
 tradiction to the principle you allow of. Because reason 
 itself, and the practice of all mankind tell us, that when 
 a person has a just title to be hoiioured by us, we may 
 lawfully pay a respect to things, that have a near relation 
 to him ; and when this title is M'lioUy grounded upon a 
 motive of religion ; as when we honour a person M'hether 
 dead OT alive merely ior super7iatwal gifts hcstowcd upon 
 him by God, thou the honour we pay liini is not civil, but 
 religious. And such is, by consequence, the honour yon 
 pay to saints and angels, when you keep holy days in 
 memory of them.
 
 3()3 Of JuKujcs. 
 
 For this reason the four disaenters (as you call them) 
 laugh at you as more Jtolchcrs in the nformriuj trade. 
 For whoever will set up tor a nfonncr oi the \)w\i\\c faith 
 or disci/dine of \\\& mother church, must go thorough-stitch 
 with the work. Otherwise he does enough to be con- 
 demned by the chui'ch, from which he separates himself, 
 ynd too little to avoid the reproach of falling into inco- 
 herencies. Because what he loaves unreformed rises for 
 the most part in judgment against him, and kicks down 
 some article of his pretended reformation. 
 
 SECTION XIX. — THE SUBJECT OF IMAGES RESUMED. 
 
 " G. — We abstain from tlie jrictui-cs or images of the saints 
 " in our ehurchcx^ because tliey have been abused to supersti- 
 " tion, and to avoid offence. But in places not dedicated to 
 " worship, as in our private bouses, wo think them not 
 " unlawful more than the picture of any good man." — p. 135. 
 
 L. — Truly, Sir, the saints are very much obliged to 
 you for allowing them a place in your private houses 
 amongst those of good men. However I think the 
 apostles at least have some reason to take it ill, that 
 Moses and Aaron, whose pictures are admitted into many 
 of your churches, should be preferred before them. 
 
 " G. — Epiphanius was very zealous against having them 
 " brought into chuiclus: and tells John bishop oi Jerusalem 
 " in a letter translated by St Jerome, that finding a linen cloth 
 " hang up in a church-door (it is likely to keep out the wind) 
 " whereon was a picture of Christ, or of some saint, be tore 
 *' it, and ordered a dead corpse to be buried in it. And bo 
 " lamented the superstition be saw coming by these pictures 
 " and mt/^e^ tbenbegiiming tocreepinto the church." — jj. 135. 
 
 L Sir, all we can gather from this story of St 
 
 Epiphanius is, that he judged, that the ancient pagan 
 idolatry was not yet then so utterly abolished (as it 
 certainly was not at that time in many places) but that 
 the use of images or pictures in churches might be -an 
 occasion to revive it. He therefore did his duty in 
 opposing the use of them : and it is what any bishop or
 
 Of Images. 369 
 
 pastor would do at present, if he had the same rational 
 motive to induce him to it. For it is certain the church 
 jiever obliged the faithlul to the actucd use or veneration 
 ot" images or pictures as a thing essential to chrislianiti/. 
 On the contrary it is a point of discipline only, whicli 
 was not nniversaUy practised till idolatry was utterly ex- 
 tinguished in Christendom. But since that time the 
 church had reason to declare, that the images of Christ 
 and his saints are to be retained, and that a due honour 
 and veneration is to be given them. Cone. Trid. Ses. 25. 
 
 " G. — My lord, tlie abuse of tilings tliongh otherwise 
 " lawful, which are not instituted by God for standing means 
 '■ of grace, as baptism and the Lord's supper may justly take 
 '• away the use of them." — p. 136. 
 
 L. — That is very true, Sir ; but it is not lit for a 
 private man to make \\\\waQ\i judge to determine whether 
 they are abused or not. 
 
 " G The btazeu serpent was appointed by God as a 
 
 " means of grace for niiraculous cures in the wilderness, and 
 " was jireserved luitil the days of llezeldali, 2 Kings xviii. 4. 
 " But when they buinod incense to it, it bocunie an idul, was 
 " broke to pieces, and called by a contemptible name 
 " Nebushlan : that is, a bit of brass. How much more reasdu 
 " is there to remove \.\m j)iclurcs and images of saints (whicli 
 " God never appointed) oiit of our churches, when we see 
 *•' incense burnt to ihem, and they norshippcd in your chnrches 
 '• as means of grace? And yet there is no evil in the pictans 
 " themselves." — j^- ^'^^• 
 
 L. — Sir, the pictures and images of saints, arc neither 
 worshijipcd in, nor old of our churches as means of grace; 
 nor do we believe any intrinsic virtue in them. But 
 this j)retty conceit of our pretended means of grace tickles 
 your fancy so powerfully, that you cannot hold thrusting 
 it in every where by head and shoulders, whether there 
 be occasion for it or not. 
 
 As to what you say, that wc burn incense to them, 
 Sir, wc burn incense to one another in the same manner 
 as we do to jnclurcs : and yet I hope we are not so mad 
 as to make idols of, or pay divine honour to one another. 
 There are several Mays of jshewing respect both to Cod
 
 370 Of Images. 
 
 and man. Wc how to God, and wc bow to wif?i. We 
 also hmcl to Gor/, and so wo do to ???(«. But, though 
 the oulward action be the same, I j)resunie the respect 
 M'e shoNV by it is not so. For it is strictly adoration, or 
 divine tcorship when m'c /iwec/ to God, and only an 
 inferior respect, when wc /.';/cc/ to men. 
 
 Now, yir, one way of shewing our respect is that of 
 burning incense, which is an action as indij/ercnt in itself, 
 as that of bowing or kneeling. So that as bowing or 
 kneeling are not appropriated to God alone, nor always 
 used as an indication of divine excellency in the thing-, or 
 person we honour by those actions, so neither is the use 
 of incense amongst christians. When we offer it to God, 
 we signify by it the sovereign honour, we owe him : but 
 when to creatures, it is no more than a ceremony to 
 express the respect we have for them on account of the 
 relation they have to God. 
 
 Bcllarmin, L. 2. de Missa, C. 15, shews the antiguifg 
 of this ceremony ; and the significations of it are many, 
 and all tending to excite piety and devotion in the faith- 
 ful: as, to put us in mind of the inaccessible glory of God, 
 who appeared in a cloud, and the sweet odour of our 
 prayers, if sent up from a heart inflamed with divine love. 
 
 G. — But my lord, the scripture tells us, that Ilezcldah 
 broke the brazen serpent, because the children of Israel 
 burnt incense to it: wiach shews that their burning incense 
 to it made it become an idol. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is very certain, that the Israelites m pro- 
 cess of time made an idol of the brazen serpent : and 
 therefore Hezekiah made no difference between it, and 
 the statues set up in the high places, m hich were certainly 
 idols, and worshipped as such by the Jews. So that 
 although they had but bowed or kneeled to them, it would 
 have been an act of idolatry : because any respect 
 ^vliatsoevcr shewn to an idol is an idolatrous ivorship. 
 But their burning incense to the brazen serpent was a 
 .special act of idolatry in a Jew, because the burning of 
 incense by way of a religions respect was appropriated to 
 God by a ceremonial part of the Mosiac law, Exod. xxix.
 
 Of Images of God. 371 
 
 13; Lev. vii. 5, &c., and there was an altar deputed 
 particularly for it, Luke i. 11. But there is not any 
 precept in the gospel either commanding, or forbidding 
 the use of incense to christians, or appropriating it to 
 God: and tuliere no lata is, there is no transgression. 
 Rom. iv. 15. And by consequence the use of incense 
 amongst christians even by way of a religious honour is 
 a thing as indifferent as the actions of boicing or kneeling, 
 which I presume do not make idols of the persons or 
 things, towards which they are used. 
 
 SECTION XX. — CONCERNING IMAGES OF GOD. 
 
 " G. — But, my lord, I think there is one picture has evil 
 " in it, and is unlawful any where : And yet it is seen iii 
 " your churches, and commonly over the altar. That is, the 
 ^^ picture or image of God the leather, like an old man, &c. 
 " We are forhid to make it, and then we cannot ivorship it. 
 '•' See how positively God forbids it, Deid. iv. 15, &c., take 
 " good heed icnto yourselves (for you saio no maimer of simili- 
 " iude, that is, of God, in the day that the Lord spake xinio 
 
 " yo}i) least you corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven. 
 
 " image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or 
 ''female, &c. And again. They changed the glory of the 
 " incorruptible God into an image like to corruptible man, &c. 
 " Rom. i. 23."— p. 13G. 
 
 //. — Sir, this latter text of St Paul condemns the pagan 
 worship of idols, as I have shewed before : and the con- 
 sequence you draw from it is, that therefore it is unlaufuL 
 to make any picture or image of God. And is not this 
 arguing with most exquisite skill ! 
 
 But I presume tlie text of Deuteronomy is to supply all 
 defects: for it is introduced with sound of trumpet, and 1 
 am summoned by you to sec how positively it forbids the 
 waking any jncturc, or image of God. Truly, Sir, when 
 I first hoard myself thus solemnlv called njion, see hoic 
 pofitively God forbids it, I apprehended notiiing less, than 
 to find in some of the four evangelists this commandment 
 in express terms, Thou shall 7ujt make a picture or image 
 of God the Father like an old man, l>ut the text, you have
 
 372 Of hnatjes of God. 
 
 quoted, has verynmcli relieved mc; finding' cs|iecially, tliat 
 it is not in any of the (joapeh^ hut only in 'Deuteronomy^ 
 Avliioh contains iiulood the Jewish ceremonial hirr. hut 
 incddles not w ith the discipline of the chridian church. 
 However since you desire it so earnestly of me, I will do 
 what I can to see the positive prohibition you spoak of. 
 But as yet I can oidy see two things, and those I see 
 very j^iainly. Jur.'^f. tliat there is no such positive prohi- 
 hilion in the text you have quoted : and 'if//?/, that were 
 there such a prohibition in that text, it would make 
 nothing: aijainst us. 
 
 As to the frsf, to convince you that lam not mistaken, 
 let us have the text entire which is thus: Take ye therefore 
 (jood heed unto yourselves (for ye saw no manner of similitude 
 on the day that the Lord spake tmto you in Uoreh out of 
 the midst of the f re) 15. Least ye corrupt yourselves, and 
 make you a yravcn image; the similitude <f (my figure, the 
 likeness of male or female, 16. The likeness of any beast, 
 that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl, that 
 flieth ill the air, 17. The likeness of any thing that creep- 
 eth on the ground, the likeness of any fish, that is in the 
 waters beneath the earth, 18. And least thou lift vp tJtine 
 eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon, 
 and the stars, even all the host of heaven, thou shouldst be 
 driven to icorship thetn, and serve them, tchich the Lord 
 thy God has divided unto all nations under the heaven, 1 9. 
 
 This, Sir, is the whole text ; and 1 ohservcfrst, that 
 these words ffor ye saw no manner of similitude on the 
 day, that the. Lord spake unto you in Iloreb) are no jiart 
 of the law, or commandment have delivered by Moses. For 
 they are placed w ithin a parenthesis, which separates and 
 distinguishes them from the words of the law. Neither 
 do they command or forbid any thing, but nakedly relate 
 a matter oifaet. Nay they are thus placed within a par- 
 enthesis in your own liible. 
 
 Wiience I observe 2dly, that the laiu itself is entirely 
 contained in these words: 7'ake ye therefore good heed 
 unto yourselves least you corrnpd yourselves, and make you 
 a graven image, the similituele of any figure, the likeness of
 
 Of linages of God. 373 
 
 male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earthy 
 the likeness of amj winged fo/rl thatflielh m the air, the. 
 likeness of any thing that creepeth on the earth, the likeness 
 of any fish, that is in the waters beneath the earth, §c. 
 
 Now, Sir, though I liave at present both my eyes open, 
 I want your spectacles to see in what words God here 
 positively forbids any image, likeness, or similitude to be 
 made of himself. It is true, 1 phiinly see these three 
 words, image, likeness, and similitude : but I likewise see 
 the things, they are referred to, expressly specified, viz., 
 the likeness of a male ox female, of beasts, o(fsh, o(foicl, 
 and creeping things : and these the Jcivs were positively 
 forbid to make by the text you have quoted : but I am 
 yet too blind to see the force of tliis consequence, ergo, 
 that tej:t positively forbids any image to be made of God. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, though these words, /or you saw no 
 manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke unto 
 you in Horeb, be no part of the law, yet they are at least 
 the reason of the law, and that suffices to make good the 
 consequence I draw from them. 
 
 L. — No, Sir, they arc not even the reason of the law. 
 For though God should have appeared to the people in 
 some visible likeness, as he did afterwards to Daniel, yet 
 the reason of the law would have been the same ; viz., to 
 keep the people out of tlic occasion of idolatry, to which 
 they were excessively inclined. 
 
 G. — But was it iiien lawful for the Jews to make 
 images of God ? 
 
 L. — I do-jiot say it was; nor is it any thing to the 
 purpose, whether it was or not. All I jnctcnd to main- 
 tain is, that it was not forbid by the text you have quoted; 
 on which nevertheless you lay as much stress, as if it 
 were nothing inferior to a demonstration, 
 
 G. — But, my lord, to what end was it then, that Moses 
 put the p('oj)k' in mind, that they saic no similitude of 
 God in Horeb, if it was not to insinuate, that God for- 
 bade them to make any image of himself? 
 
 L. — Sir, this is only a guess or iiferenee of your own, 
 but no part of the bnv ifsdj, as 1 have clearly shewed :
 
 374 Of Images oj God. 
 
 and therefore comes very short of your former triumphant 
 expression, see how positively (ioD iohhids it ! 
 However, since you will needs oblio^e me to give a 
 reason, why Moses put the people in mind, thai they saw 
 no similitude of God in Jloreb, I conceive tiiat Moses put 
 them in mind of it for the very same reason for which 
 Alniit;]ity God did not shew himself to the people in any 
 visible li/icncss. And if I may be allowed to guess why he 
 dill not then shew himself in such a manner, it appears 
 to me most probable, that it Avas to prevent their enter- 
 taining an erroneous idea of God, and imagining him to 
 be a corporeal being; as that gross and carnal people 
 would have been apt enough to do. But to pretend that 
 barely mentioning a. fact implies a positive prohibitio7i any 
 more than t\ie fact itself h not I think agreeable to com- 
 mon sense. And I never heard any man say, that God's 
 not appearing to the people in a visible likeness was any 
 more a positive prohibition to make an image of him, than 
 his appearing in a visible likeness to Da7iiel wras a positive 
 command to make one. 
 
 But let us now suppose the Jews were posilivelg forbid 
 by this lata of Deuteronomy to make any image of God, 
 did not the same law as positively forbid them to make 
 images of men or ivomen ; of fish, or fotvl, or beasts, or 
 creeping things ? And are christians concerned in that 
 laiu ? If so, then all the statues in the Iloyal Exchange, 
 and thousands more must be pulled down ; the lion and 
 unicorn must be removed out of your churches, and all 
 statuaries banished out of Christendom. It is therefore 
 manifest, that the whole text, you have quoted, contains 
 only a ceremonial law, and is by consequence as little to 
 the purpose (allowing even that it positively forbids the 
 making any image of God) as if you had quoted the law 
 of circumcision to prove the point in question. 
 
 It is indeed a thhig unlawful in christians as well as 
 Jews to have pickires or images of God so as to think 
 them to be representations of the divine natui'e; and there 
 needs no more to forbid this than the very first principles 
 of revealed religion.
 
 Of Images of God. 3 75 
 
 <• G. — Pray, my lord, did you ever know a painlcr or 
 " statuary, who attempted to draw a picture^ or make an 
 " image of a thought, or of a soul? And is not the great 
 " God more invisible, and the divine nature much more 
 " incompreheyisibk even to our thoughts or imaginations 9 
 " How then can it be represented to our eges ? I dare say 
 " there never Avas a man since Adain, who would own any 
 " such thing, or ever had so foolish a thouglit. No, out 
 " wlien they drew any picture or similitude of God, it was 
 " only meant to express some of his attributes or perfcctio?is. 
 " As by fre his purity : by a giant with many hands his 
 " 'power, witli many eyes liis providence, &c. And so you own, 
 " that by an old man you only mean to express his antiqidty. 
 " And will not this excuse the heathen as well as you ? See 
 " the same excuse made by Maximus Tyrius. Diss. 38. 
 " Whether statues xcere to be made for the gods ? But here 
 " you would put an impossible meaning upon the j^^'ohibition 
 " of God to make it of no effect ; and which will excuse the 
 " heathens as well as yourselves." — pp. 137, 138. 
 
 L. — Sir, if making images or pictures of the true God^ 
 that is, representing' him in that visible lihcncss, in which 
 lie has really shewed himself to men ; if this I say be the 
 same as making images of false gods, then I will allow 
 tliat the heathens may in this respect be excused as well 
 as we. liut I forgot, alas, tliat the heathen Jupiter was 
 the true God., as you have laboured hard to prove him. 
 Thougk Origcn, and the j)rimitive christians believed 
 Lim to be a devil: and as I am altogether of their mind, I 
 think that drawiug pictures and similitudes to honour the 
 devd is not quite so excusable as doing it to honour God. 
 
 Now let us see what may be said to your first ingenious 
 question, viz., whether 1 ever knew a paiulrr or statuary., 
 who attempted to draiv a picture or make an image of a 
 thought'^ 'I'o which I answer directly, that at what time 
 soever a thouglit shall ajipear in a visible shape or like- 
 ness, I will then bring you acquainted with u paifdcr or 
 statuary, who shall attempt to draw a picture or make an 
 image of it. I answer '2dly, that no picture can be made 
 of a thought, or any s|)iritual thing so as to be a true re- 
 presentation of its proper nature.
 
 37 G Of Images of God. 
 
 But here you make a second assault upon me, and ask 
 again, and is not the (jreat God more invisible, and the 
 divine nature more incomprehensible even to our thoughts 
 and imaginations ? How then can it be represented to our 
 eyes ? ISir, the divine nature is infinite, invisible, and in- 
 comprehensible, and therefore can no more be ropresentcd 
 as it is in itself than a thought. But the likeness, in 
 which God has appeared, may be represented: for 1 pre- 
 sume there are painters, that can draw the pictures, and 
 statuaries that can make the images of an old man, and a 
 dove: and you cannot be so ignorant of scripture liistory, 
 as not to know, that God the Father appeared to Daniel 
 in the likeness of an old man, and God the Holg Ghost 
 appeared at our Saviour's baptism in the likeness of a 
 dove. These corporeal Jigures therefore may hiwfully be 
 painted; nay that of tlie Holy Ghoat in the likeness of a 
 dove is to be seen in all your common prayer books, that 
 are printed with cuts ; which by the by is a full confuta- 
 tion of the paradox you maintain, viz., that it is unlauful 
 to make the picture of God the Father like an old man. 
 For the Holy Ghost is as tridy God as the Father ; and 
 if it be lawful to paint the Holy Ghost like a dove, as 
 your church makes no scruple to do, how it should be 
 unlawful to paint the Father like an old man is a mystery 
 wholly incomprehensible to my weak understanding. 
 
 All then that is unlawful or forbid in these and other 
 such like pictures is to imagine, that any corj)oreal figure 
 can be a true representation of the divinity itself. But 
 this you say is putting an impossible meaning vpon the 
 prohibition of God : and you dare aver there never teas a 
 nam since Adam, tcho icou/d 0W7i any such thing, or ever 
 had so foolish a thought. U hat, Sir ! has there never 
 been a man since Adam capable of sucii a foolish thought! 
 If I mistake not, I can name yon a great many. For 
 surely the heretics called Audiani lived since tlie time of 
 Adam ; and they held that God the Father had a human 
 shape with arms, hands, legs, &c., that Adam's likeness 
 to God was in his body ; and that Christ sits literally at 
 the right hand of God the Father.
 
 Of Images of God. ' 377 
 
 '2dly, TertuUian a wit of the first rank tliought tlie 
 soul a corporeal substance. Nothing (says lie) is incor- 
 poreal, but that which is nothing. L. de curne Christi. C. 
 11. And again. God is a spirit. But ivho ivill deJiy that 
 he is a body? A spirit is one sort of body, and has its oivn 
 shape. L. contra Prax. C. 7. 
 
 Lastly, St Paul thouglit it proper to admonish even 
 the wise Athenians, that there can be no true likeness 
 made of God. We ougid not to think (says he) that the 
 Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone 
 GRAVEN BV ART, AND man's DEVICE. And the time of 
 THIS IGNORANCE God winkcd at, bid now commands ail 
 men every where to repent. Acts xvii. 29, 30. It is there- 
 fore evident that some men since Adam were so ignorant 
 as to think the Godhead like to the statues of gold or silver 
 graven by art and mans device. And 1 hope you will not 
 take it ill, if I rather think you grossly out in maintain- 
 ing the contrary, than that St Paw/ was mistaken, or spoke 
 impertinently to the Athenians. 
 
 It is certain the heathens worshipped their idols as gods. 
 Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods. 
 Lev. xix. 4. And the Israelites said of the golden calf, 
 these are the gods, that brought tkce out of Egypt. And 
 again. They changed their glory iido tlie similitude of a 
 calf that eatelh grass. Psalm cvi. *20. 
 
 section XXI. — of heathen IDOLS, AND THE GOLDEN 
 
 CALX". 
 
 " G. — My lord, it is absurd to say, that the heathens tliought 
 " their images to be the things, of which they were the images. 
 " That was impossible ; for then they would not bo the 
 ♦> imagesy but tlie ihinys thi; nisei vt-s. Who ever said, that a 
 ^* inM\\ picture was liiniself? Tliough they are called tlu; 
 " persons ; as when \\elook upon pictures we say, this is such 
 " or such (I num. iUit if any should jjut it upon us, that we 
 " mean i]ni pcrso7is tlicnist-lvos, wc niii»t tliinU tboiii idiots or 
 " school-nun, that love dibtiiiclions and wrangling. ]\Iiixiinvs 
 " Ti/rins in the disscrtrjdan bffoio (jiioted tc^lis ik, that they 
 '♦ had many tnwfjcs of the same god, as of Venus, Diana,
 
 378 Of Heaihca Idols 
 
 " &c., and yet they iliJ not tliiuk there was more than one 
 " Venus, or one JJianu. lluvo you not muUitndcs of the 
 ''pictures and images of the ViryinDIary? And yet yon 
 •' say not that there is more than one such liTffin. Now the 
 ** heathens worsliipped their images ; and if you believe your 
 " own Catechism, you must tliink, that they took every one 
 '• for God. For, hac onmia, they worshipped all these as 
 " God. 
 
 " And it is as absurd to think, that they took that serpent 
 *' or beast, whose image they made, to be God. Or if they 
 *' meant not any particular serpent or ox (for example) by 
 *' the image, they must tliink every ox or serpent to be God ! 
 " But they were not so ridiculous; as 3Iaximus Ti/rius, and 
 '• all as many of them as have wrote will satisfy you. But 
 " they made use of their images only as symbols, which being 
 " dedicated to such a god. They thought that this god would 
 " afford his presence with his symbol, and by it secure to 
 " them his favour, and protection. How near your consecra- 
 '•■ tion comes to their dedication of images, I leave you to 
 "judge. But you put such monstrous things upon the 
 " heathens, as they disown, detest, and abhor. And yet you 
 " must do it, that your case and theirs may not appear so 
 " very like."— jt;p. 138, 139. 
 
 L. — Sir, this reflection, together with your comparing- 
 our blessing of images with the heathen consecration of 
 idols, is equally scurrilous and unjust. 
 
 You say, we charge the heathens with absurdities only 
 to acquit ourselves ; but it is very apparent, you acquit 
 the heathens only to load us with infamy. And indeed 
 the tender concern you shew upon all occasions for the 
 reputation of the heathens would make one think you 
 have adopted them into the number of your protestant 
 brethren. But why should this surprise me ? Since 
 you own that you and they are united in the worship of 
 one and the same God. Their Jupiter, (as you have 
 endeavoured to prove) was the true God, ami by conse- 
 quence is so still. Their inferior gods were but symbols 
 of his divine ])er/cctions : their statues were not wor- 
 shipped as God, and the sacrifices they offered to thera, 
 were but a relative honour, which wholly terminated in 
 the true God. And who would not now be ambitious to
 
 a7id the golden Calf. 3T9 
 
 communicate with such true ivorshippers of God! Really, 
 Sir, I am almost groM'n fond of their company, ruid 
 beo-in to think you have done the papists a great deal of 
 honour in putting them upon the same foot with the 
 heathens. 
 
 Q. — Bantering, my lord, is easier than answering. 
 But I should be glad to hear you say something to the 
 reasons I have given to prove that the heathens could 
 not be guilty of the absurdities^ you lay to their charge. 
 
 Zj. — Sir, you have eflfectually proved them to be gross 
 absurdities^ and I readily grant them to be so. But is 
 that a good proof, that the heathens were not guilty of 
 them ? , Or was their religion so very rational, that no 
 absurdity could be a part of it? How happy would 
 mankind be, if proving a thing to be absurd were a 
 demonstration, that no man ever was, or could be guilty 
 of it ! I assure you, Sir, this argument would relieve 
 you in many occasions, and be of good service to many 
 more besides yourself. One very important consequence 
 at least would follow from it, viz., that there is no such 
 thing as Mahometanism in the world : for it is a religion 
 filled with the grossest absurdities a.ccov6.\ng io the notion 
 all christians have of it. We must therefore conclude 
 it is impossible that such wise men, as many of the 
 Turks are, should be serious professors of it. And it 
 will follow from your way of arguing, that we make 
 monsters of them only to hide our own deformity. 
 
 I have heard of a book lately printed, which pretends 
 to prove, that if men had. /«////, they would be immortal; 
 and that it is a man's own fault if he dies ; which is so 
 excessively absurd, that, according to your ingenious way 
 of arguing, 1 must say the book was never wx'xt. And 
 yet it is jilaia fact, that it was writ and jnintcd, and is 
 to be sold by the booksellers of London and JVest minster. 
 And so it is plain fact, that the heathens worshipped their 
 idols as gods in spite of all your arguments to prove the 
 absurdity of it. Tor tlic question between you and me 
 is not, whether their so doing was absurd, but whether 
 it be true lufact that they did so.
 
 380 Of Heathen Idols 
 
 G. — But, my lord, Maximus Ti/riiis a heathen writer, 
 who surely know liis own religion denies positively, 
 that they believed their images to be gods. 
 
 L, — Sii-^ Maxinius Tyrius is not the only writer, who, 
 overcome by the strength iind multitude of reasons 
 ao-ainst him, has been compelled to recede from his own 
 principles. But be that as it will, 1 ask whethrr 
 Maximus Tyrius or the ivord of God is to be believed 
 by christians ? Supposing then that Maximus Tyrius 
 is for you, I am sure the word of God is flatly against 
 you. For besides the plain words 1 have already quoted 
 from Leviticus, and numberless places of scripture, which 
 I omit for brevity's sake, the following text of Isaiah is 
 decisive: The residue thereof he maketh a god, even his 
 graven image. Ilefalleth down unto it, and worshippeth 
 it, and prayelh unto it, and saith, deliver me, for thou 
 
 AUT MY GOD. Isttitth xHv. 17. 
 
 Nay, Jeremias charges the house of Israel with tlie 
 same extravagance : As the thirf is ashamed, ivhen he is 
 found, so is the house of Israel ashamed, they, their kings, 
 their princes, and their priests, and their prophets, saying 
 TO A STOCK, thou art my father, and to a stone, thou 
 hast brought me forth. Jer. ii. 26, 27. And are we after 
 this to consult Maximus Tyrius to know, whether the 
 heathens believed their idols to be gods? 1 have hitherto 
 thought the icord of God to be infallible ; but it seems 
 Maximus Tyrius is to be believed before it. 
 
 However I think you cannot deny, but that Minusius 
 Felix, and Arnobius the philosopher are two as creditable 
 witnesses as Maximus Tyrius. Now the former of these 
 (in Octavio) speaks thus to the heathens : Behold an idol 
 is cast, it is ivorked, it is hewed, it is not yet a god ; it 
 is leaded, it is fixed, it is set up, it is not yet a god; it is 
 adorned, it is consecrated, it is prayed to, then it is a god. 
 And the philosopher Arnobius, after his conversion to 
 Christianity, laments his past folly in these pathetic words: 
 / lately reverenced, blindness ! statutes taken from the 
 
 furnace, gods hammered upon the anvil asifilhad 
 
 a secret virtue I faltered it, I spoke to it, I made requests
 
 and the golden Calf . 381 
 
 to an INSENSIBLE STOCK. L. 1. contra Gentes. Tliis, 
 Sir, I think is answer enough to your Maxinms Tiirins. 
 But what do you think of the golden calf? For either 
 Moses relates a falsehood, or the Israelites worshipped 
 it as a god. 
 
 " G. — I perceive, my lord, you must draw iu the Jeics 
 *' too, else all will stand you in no stead. And you have 
 •' no mercy upon them. You suppose them full as ignorant 
 " as you have made the heathen. They nnist believe that 
 " the golden calf on the same day they made it, to be the 
 " great God, who made themselves and all the world, and 
 " to have brought them out of Egypt long before itself was 
 ♦' made. But the Jews will not let this go with you more 
 " than the heathen : they were not <piite so foolisli." — 
 pp. 139, 140. 
 
 L. — What, Sir! have you got another Maximus Tgriits 
 to baffle the word of God once more ? 
 
 •' G. — My lord, the Jeivs had seen Osiris v/orshipped in 
 " Egypt under the figure of an ox, from which they took 
 '■' their figure of the a///.' And it yv'A% to secure God's presence 
 " amongst them upon tlie supposed loss of Bloses, by wliom 
 •' they Imd received their law from God, ;ind directions from 
 " him upon all occasion. But Moses iiad been absent from 
 " them forty days, and took neither meat nor drink with 
 " him ; so that they thonght he had been quite gone or dead, 
 " and that they should see him no more. And then how 
 " should they do to secure the presence of God amongst 
 " them?"—/). 140. 
 
 //. — To be sure, the making a golden calf was a most 
 infallible expedient. 
 
 " G. — Tliey took to this way of an image or symbol of 
 " God, not that they forsook God, but to tuke care that he 
 " might not forsake them. And tlicy meant his worshij) in 
 " that of the golden calf. Therefore they proclaimed tiu; 
 •' dedication of it a. feast unto the Lord, Exod. xxxii. 5. And 
 •' that it was wholly for want of Moses they did it (by Avhom 
 ** tliey liad found by long experience the presence of God 
 " secured among them) they themselves gave the reason. 
 *' l/p, said tliey, ynake us gods, which shall go btfore us. I'or 
 " as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out (f the land 
 " of Egypt, 7ve xvot not what is become of him." — pp. 140, 141.
 
 362 Of Heathen Moh. 
 
 J,._Well, Sir, you almost make me admire botli the 
 religious zeal and ingenious fancg of the Jews. Their 
 religions zeal iu taking* siicli efFectual care to secure to 
 thcmseh'cs the presence of God^ and their ingenious fancy 
 in doing it by the image of a calf. For I own a calf is 
 something; like an ox; and I find I must not question, 
 but the Egyptian ox called Osiris \\-as but a symbol of 
 the true God. And so, allowing- only for the difference 
 in age between the Jticish calf, ancl the Egyptian ox, 
 you have proved to a demonstration, that the true God 
 was worshipped by the Jews under the symbol of the 
 golden calf. Thus with the force of your eloquence you 
 have cleared the world both of heathen and Jewish idola- 
 try to make room for popish idolatry alone. 
 
 But, Sir, give me leave to ask you one question. Do 
 you believe the scriptures ? 
 
 G. — jNIy lord, I think I do. 
 
 L. — Well then, Sir, you must drop all your fine 
 reasons, and helieve Moses' saying : He (i. e. Israel) 
 FORSOOK God which made him, and went back from the 
 
 God of his salvation T/iou hast torsaken the God 
 
 ■which made thee, and /la.s/ forgotten the God thy Creator. 
 Deut. xxxii. 15, 18. You must likewise believe the 
 Psalmist saying- : They made a calf in Hm'cb, and 
 worshipped the molten image. Thus they changed their 
 glory into the similitude of an ox, that eateth grass. They 
 rouGOT God, who had saved them, who had done so great 
 things in Egypt, 8fc. Psalm cv. 19. Lastly, you must 
 believe St Stephen speaking thus to the Jews .- Our 
 fathers would not obey, but thurst him (i. e. the true 
 God) from them, and in their hearts tuimed back into 
 Egypt, Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us. 
 A?id they made a ccdf in those days, and offered sacrifice 
 to their idol, and rejoiced in the work of their own hands. 
 Acts vii. 39, 40. 
 
 Now, Sir, if you believe these sacred texts, as you pro- 
 fess to do, you are bound to retract what you said just 
 now, viz,, that the Israelites did not forsake God, but 
 oily took care that he should not forsake them. For it is
 
 Of the golden Calf. 383 
 
 a flat contradiction to all the three texts. Moses say?, 
 and repeats it twice, that they forsook God: you say- 
 expressly, they did not forsake him. Either therefore 
 Moses or you are in the wrong. Again the psalmist says, 
 that they forgot God who had saved them ; and St Ste- 
 phen tells them, that they thrust GOD/}-07;i them, and in 
 their hearts turned hack into Egypt. You on the contrary 
 aver tltat they only took care, that God should not forsake 
 tJiem : which you express in stronger terms thus, that it 
 was to secure God's presence among them. Here then 
 again either you, or both David and St Stephen are mis- 
 taken. For it" it be true, that the Israelites only took care 
 to secure God's jiresence to them, it must be false that they 
 FORGOT HIM, and THRUST HIM Av: KY from them. But 
 if it be true, that they forgot him, and thrust him 
 AWAY from them (as I hope it is) then it must be false, 
 that they only took care to secure his presence among than. 
 Because a man, who is only solicitous to secure God's 
 presence to him, cannot be said either to forget him, or 
 thrust him aicay from him. 
 
 I must therefore advise you as a friend to be hereafter 
 more wary what you say. For though by contradicting 
 the general sense of mankind you only render yourself 
 guilty of singularity or nonsense (which your zeal against 
 popery will atone for amongst your ;);o/<?.9^a?^M)rethren) 
 yet contradicting the plain icord of God is barefaced //?2- 
 piety, which the very warmest zeal agahist popery Mill 
 not excuse. 
 
 But suppose there were no texts directly against you, 
 the very circumstances of the fact, as related by Moses, 
 demonstrate the falsehood of your assertion. For, if the 
 Israelites did not forsake God, but only took care to secure 
 Gods presence among them, how could their crime be of 
 80 heinous a nature, us Almighty God himself represents 
 it to Moses, Exod. xxxii. 7 — 9, &c. Or why should 
 Moses express his extreme abhorrence of it by such an 
 extraordinary transport of zeal, as was that of his breaking 
 in pieces the tables written with Ciud's own hands.'' 19. 
 Why did he reproach Aaron so bitterly for his compliance
 
 384 Of the (jolden Calf. 
 
 with the people's request, and call it peccnfiim maximum^ 
 a most "lievous sin? '21. Finally, why did he command 
 the Lcrites to destroy to the mimher of'J3,0()0 of those, 
 who in all likeliliood had been the most forward in tlie 
 matter ? 27, 28. Pray, Sir, answer me these questions; 
 and show how these facts can be reconciled with your 
 saying, that (he Jews did not forsake God, but only took 
 care, that he viif/ht not forsake them. 
 
 " G. — My lord (to coucludo this subject of images) let me 
 " ask you, suppose it were made treason to draw \\\q picture 
 " of the king, or to bow to it; would you venture your life 
 " upon all the disiinctions and excuses, which are made for 
 '•' iUe pictures of God? Yet you venture your souls upon it, 
 " if it be a sin : though you think it may be beneficial to 
 *' you, as putting you in mind of him, or paying respect 
 <' unto him. 
 
 " Now learn by this how dangerous a thing it is to make 
 '= means of grace of your own invention, and to think that by 
 *•' your consecrations and dedications without warrant of God's 
 " word you can secure his presence with you, and procure 
 " the graci of health, or any benefit either to body or soul. 
 " This is turning religion into superstition." — p. 141. 
 
 L. — Sir, I have already answered your lampoon upon 
 consecrations and dedications (Part II. Sect. 3. and Sect. 
 17.) and you have so surfeited me with your nauseous 
 repetitions about our making' means of grace, that I am 
 perfectly sick of it. 
 
 As to your noble question, viz., whether siipposing it 
 were made treason to draiv the picture of the king, or to bow 
 to it, I would venture my life upon all the distinctions and 
 excuses, which are made for the pictures of God? I answer 
 Jirst, that your question runs upon the supposition, that 
 christians arc forbid to make pictures of God ; which I 
 have already proved to be false : nay I have proved it 
 from the practice of your own church, which makes p?c- 
 tures of God the Holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove, as 
 we of God the Father in the likeness of an old man. And 
 let me tell you, Sir, you will stand in need of all our 
 popish dislinctio)is, and one more into the bargain to 
 bring yourself off, viz., that protcslants may lawfully do 
 it, but not papists.
 
 Of Transubstantiuiion. 385 
 
 I answer ^dly, that if any king should make it treason 
 to draw a picture of him, or boiv to it, I should conclude 
 him to be distracted: and in that case Isiiould be as mad 
 as himself, if 1 ventured my life in his hands by doinjj 
 any thing, that should put me under the necessity of a 
 distinction to save it. 
 
 But you say, ive venture our souls upon a distinction 
 when we make pictures of God, if it be a sin. And do 
 not you venture your soids upon the same distinction, 
 when you make pictures of the Hohj Ghost, or even of 
 Christ, if it be a sin ? 
 
 But pray, Sir, give me leave to ask you whether you 
 ever eat blood-puddings ? 
 
 G. — Surely, my lord, you are disposed to be merry. 
 
 L. — No really, Sir, 1 am very serious. For whenever 
 you eat blood-puddings, you venture j'our so^il uj)on two 
 distinctions, if it be a sin ? Because eating blood is posi- 
 tively forbid by the law of God. I J ere then you must 
 distinguish, that it was forbid to the Jews, but not to 
 christians. But, Sir, it is likewise positively forbid to 
 christians. Acts xv. 29. And this prohibidon was never 
 repealed by any contrary decree. Here then you must 
 venture your soul upon a second distinction: viz., that 
 eating blood was forbid only fn- a time whilst it was an 
 occasion oi scandal to the converted ,hu's. Thus, Sir, some 
 men have their consciences like purses, that may be either 
 shut or opened as occasion serves. When popery is not 
 the question you can venture your 50?// upon a distinction 
 as boldly as any man living; but when papists are to be 
 traduced, your jnotestant conscience becomes so very nicr 
 and sfjueamish,i\\[xi'ji distinction will not go down witli you. 
 
 But 1 think we have now had enough of images. So let 
 us i)roceed to something else. It shall be transubstantia- 
 tion, if you please. 
 
 SECTION XXII. — OF TRANSUBSTANTI ATION. 
 
 •* C?.— My lord, transubstuutiaiion is u lueic school nicety, 
 
 s
 
 386 Of TronsuhstantkUion. 
 
 «• wliicli no man alive understands ; and yet it is transformed 
 " into an article ot'fail/i by tlie Council of Trent." — p. 141. 
 
 L. — Sir, franstihsf(infifi/i(>n is <i school inccfy like con- 
 suhsdnUiality : yet this (accordim;- to your way of speak- 
 ing) was transformed into an article oi faith by tlie first 
 Council of Nice. And I believe transnhatantiation is full as 
 intellii:;lble as consnhst(mtiality. But if the incomprehen- 
 sib/cncss of a mystery be an objection against it, I know 
 not what will become of the three creeds. 
 
 " G. — Christ said, this is my body ; but as to the manner 
 " or means liow it was so, he said not a word. Whether only 
 *' sacramentdUy^fignratively, ov symbolically ; or on the other 
 " hand, substantially, consubstantially, or transiibstantially ; 
 " these are inventions of our own, from our poor philosophy. 
 " And yet about these is our whole dispute, which has 
 '' tormented the christian church in our latter age more than 
 " all the other mysteries of religion. IJad we kept to the 
 " words of the institution, as Christ left them, and gone 
 <' no further, there might have been various opinions In the 
 " schools concerning the manner of tlie presence of Christ in 
 " the sacrament; and they, who had nothing else to do, 
 " might have spent their idle hours, and vain distinctions 
 " about it. But it had never broke the communioii of tlie 
 '* church, if it had not been adopted into an article o( faith, 
 " and made a condition of comnmnion. And now we must 
 " dispute about it." — iip. 141, 142. 
 
 L. — Wliat pity is it, that the church has made it her 
 constant practice to define articles o^ faith, as often as 
 new heresies were broached ! For, if she liad but let 
 everyone follow his own fancy peaceably and quietly; if 
 truths opposite to new coined heresies had never been 
 adopted into articles oi faith, the communion of the church 
 had never been broke ; but now they are made conditions 
 of communion, we must dispute about them. This, Sir, 
 has been the language of heretics in all ages, and the 
 Arians declaimed as bitterly against the great Council of 
 Nice for i\doi)t\ug co7isubsfnntialify into an article o( faith, 
 and making it a condition of communion, as protestants 
 declaim against the Councils of Lateran and Trent for 
 adopting transubslantiatiofi into an article oi' faith.
 
 Of Transuhslaniiation. 387 
 
 But is it not very pleasant in you to complain how 
 much the christian church has been tormented in this latter 
 ao-e with disputes about this matter? For pray, Sir, who 
 were the first hroachers of these dispidcs ? Who were 
 the aggressors ? Was not the Catholic Church, when you 
 separated yourselves from her, in as quiet and indisputa- 
 ble a ])ossession of the doctrine of transuhstanticdion, as of 
 any other article of religion? Was there in the beginning- 
 of the 16th century a town or village in the whole christian 
 world, where it was not publicly taught and professed ? 
 Was it not defined against Berengarius (who likewise 
 subscribed to it before his death) in eleven natiomd or 
 provincial councils near upon 500 years before the Refor- 
 viafion i Nay was not tlie very word adopted by the 
 iMteran Council whox a three hundred years before LAdher 
 and Calvin set up for reformers ? If then the church has 
 been tormadcd with disputes about it in this latter age, 
 the blame lies at their doors, who began these disputes. 
 They were tlie Botcfeus, that broke the peace, and not 
 the papists, who only adhered to the ancient doctri7ie, 
 tlrey were in possession of. 
 
 However since I perceive you lay your greatest stress 
 upon the words of CItrisCs institution. This is my hod// ; 
 and pretend that they do not determine, whether his bodT/ 
 be in the sacrament substantially :m(\ iransubstantially, or 
 only figuratively, or symbolically : before I say any thing 
 concerning the perpetual tradition of the church relating 
 to the point in question I shall first prove it from the 
 very words of the institution, ])rovided you will but allow, 
 that Christ spoke trtdh, and did not express himself 
 absurdly. M'hich 1 think arc two modest requests. 
 
 SECTION XXI II. TnANSUBSTANriATION TJIOVED FROM 
 
 Tin: WORDS OF Christ's institution, this is my 
 r.ony, &C. 
 
 L. — To proceed gnuhially, I shall first prove, that 
 they import a substa/dicd presence of Christ's body ; and 
 after that there will be no great need of philosophyy but
 
 388 Of Transubstantialion. 
 
 only of £^00(1 common seiise to infer the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation. 
 
 That tliey import a substantial presence of Christ's body 
 I prove 7?rs^ Because all propositions like these, this is 
 bread, this is a man, this is the tower, &c. (unless you 
 point to their pictures) are in all common discourse as 
 currently understood for the reality and substance of the 
 things specified, as if the words really and substantially 
 were added. Nay a man would be laughed at for a for- 
 mal cautious coxcomb, if pointing to a loaf of bread he 
 should say, this is bread really and substantially .- or com- 
 ing from court for example, he should tell me he had seen 
 the ki?iy that day really and substantially. Because there 
 is no difference between a thing, and its reality and sub- 
 stance. In like manner therefore when our Saviour said, 
 this is my body, he declared as effectually, that it was his 
 body substantially, or in substance, as if he had expressed 
 it in the most formal terms. This is the common lan- 
 guage of mankind. All wise men speak so, and all wise 
 men understand it so; and if any man should pretend to 
 mean otherwise, he would deservedly pass for a notorious 
 equivocator, that says one thing, and means another. 
 
 I prove it ^dly, if Christ gave not his real body, but a 
 morsel of bread to his apostles, when he said, take and 
 eat, this is my body, then it follows, that he called a mor- 
 sel of bread his body; which cainiot be maintained without 
 making Christ guilty of a downright absurdity. For 
 nothing can be more absurd, than to hold n morsel of bread 
 in a man's hands, and point to it and say, this is the living 
 body of a man .- it being contrary to the common practice 
 of mankind, and the common laws of speech to call one 
 thing by the name of another, with which it has no man- 
 ner of resemblance or connexion : and that too without 
 giving the persons, to whom it is spoken, the least inti- 
 mation to serve as a key to let them into the true mean- 
 ing of such an extraordinary and unheard of manner of 
 speech. In effect, it is much the same, as if I should 
 \ft\ie to you in cyphers without ever giving you a key to 
 understand me by.
 
 Of Transiihstantiation. 389 
 
 I prove it 3(//^, a sober man would be ashamed in any 
 serious occasion to use u deceitful way of speaking-, so as 
 to call a thing by a name it was never known by before. 
 As for example, to take up a piece of brick, and say this 
 is a diamond. It is therefore incredible that Christy 
 who could say nothing unbecoming himself, should use 
 this deceitful way of speaking in the most solemn cir- 
 iumstance, and action of his life : that is, when he was 
 fulfilling the ttipcs unA figures of the ancient law, declaring 
 his last tcdl and testament, and instituting the most vener- 
 able sacrament of the new law. 
 
 I j)rove it Athli/ from the doctrine of >/our oini church : 
 1 mean not the writings of some particular English pro- 
 iestants, who teach the rccd and suhstaidial presence of 
 Christ in the sacrament as we do, but your own church 
 Catechism, which is printed in all your books of common 
 prayer, luis the authority of your whole church to recom- 
 mend it, and delivers the summari/ of her doctrine 
 dogmalicalhj. Now in this Catechism to the question, 
 IVhat is the imcard part or thing signified ? it is 
 answered: The body and blood of Christ, ivhich are 
 VERILY and INDEED taken and received by the faithful in 
 the Lord's supper. 
 
 This, Sir, is the doctrine of your own church, of which 
 I will not bate you a single ace in this dispute : for it 
 expresses the real and substantial presence of Christ in 
 the cucharist as fully as any of our Catechisms. Nay if 
 VERILY and INDEED be not the same as really and truly, 
 and of full force to exclude a mere figurative sense, I 
 confess I am yet wholly ignorant of the signification even 
 of the most ordinary words, and it will be impossible to 
 know what men mean, even when they deliver tliemselves 
 in the ])lainest terms. .So that you must either own, 
 tiiat according to the doctrine of yojtr church the words 
 of Chri.sCf! institution import arcoliunX substantial presence. 
 of his body and bltjud in the sacrament; or you must 
 suppose her gnilty of a most scandalous equivocation in 
 so serious a matter, and confess she only makes use of 
 the words verjiy and indeed to put a cheat upon tlio
 
 390 Of Transuhslantiation. 
 
 peojile, and mukc jjlain bread and wine go dou'n the 
 better. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, what is all this to I rnnsnhstantiation ? 
 For, allowinjif the words of the inslitntion to imi)ort a 
 real and siibsLdntial jtrescnce of ChrisCs bod// and blood in 
 the sncramoif, this neither determines them to transub- 
 stantiation nor consiibstantiation, which therefore are 
 mere inventions oi philosop/ii/, and no articles oi faith. 
 
 L. — Sir, if reasoning from uncontested princijiles of 
 faith be what you call mere inventions of philosophy, I 
 ■will readily allow transubstaniiation to be an invention of 
 that sort : for it follows by a necessary consequence from 
 the supposition, that the words of Christ's institution are 
 to be understood literally : that is, if they import a real 
 and substantial presence of his body and blood, as 1 have 
 fully proved they do. 
 
 G. — But why does iransidjstantiation follow any more 
 than consiibstantiation ? 
 
 L, — Sir, if Christ taking the bread into his hands had 
 said, HERE is my body, then LutJier, setting aside tradi- 
 tion, would have had reason on his side in saying that 
 the bread and body of Christ are joined together in the 
 sacrament. But Christ did not say, iieue is my body, 
 but THIS is my body, which nothing but a substantial 
 change can make really and literally true : for if what 
 Christ gave to his apostles, continued bread aflet', as it 
 was before the words of consecration, the proposition was 
 absolutely false ; because the sense of it then was, that 
 the bread he gave to the apostles teas his body ; which 
 implies a contradiction, and is as impossible, as that any 
 two substances remaining different should be the same. 
 
 It is not then phdosophy, as you pretend, but the plain 
 text of scripture, which obliges us to believe transub- 
 staiUiation ; that is, an entire change of the substances 
 of bread and wine, into the body and blood of Christ : as 
 jiothing but a substantial change could have made the 
 words of Moses true, if when he threw down his rod, he 
 said, litis is a serpent ; or of Christ, if he liad said at Cuna 
 in Galilee, when the servants brought in water, this is
 
 Of Transuhstantiation. 391 
 
 wine. For, if the ^uater which the servants broiig-ht, had 
 remained in its oivn nature, and Christ had said to the 
 governor of the feast, this is icine, would he not have 
 spoken a manifest falsehood ? In like manner therefore 
 the words of consecration, This is my body, this is my 
 blood, could not be liferaUy true, when Christ pronounced 
 them, if the bread and wine had remained in their i^t'oper 
 substance. 
 
 Now, Sir, you may put what objections you please. 
 But pray take notice, that there is not an article of the 
 creed, whicli a man, if he pleases may not darken and 
 perplex with sophistical reasons against it. 
 
 " G. — The first thing' I have to say is, that it is very 
 '* strange there should be any dispute about it. For our 
 " Saviour was then fulfilling a ttjpe of himself, which was 
 " the passover, and he kept to the same phrase or form of 
 " icords, wliich was customary with the Jews in their cclebra- 
 <' tion of it, only putting himself in the room of his iuj^e. 
 " As, instead of, this is the paschal lamb, which was slain 
 *^ for us in Egypt, he said, this is my body, tchich is given for 
 " yoti. 
 
 •' And when Moses sprinkled the blood, it was with this 
 " form of words, This is the blood of the Testament, tchich God 
 " has enjoined unto ymi, Heb. ix. 20. Instead of wliicU 
 " old Testuinont Christ said, This is viy blood of the New 
 " Testament, .Malt. xxvi. 28. In whicli words there is no 
 *' difficulty at all. For no mortal ever understood these 
 " words oi Moses in a transubstautial sense ; and \\\\\ sliould 
 " they the same words, when Christ spoke them following 
 *' the very form of the words of Moses ? 
 
 *' This made it familiar and easy to the apostles, wlio 
 '< called many things hard sayitigs, which were not so diflicult 
 " as this ; and yet expressed no wonder or astonislnnent at 
 " these M'ords of Christ; Mhich had been impossible for 
 " them not to have done, if tliey iiad taken them in tlie sense 
 •' oi Iran substantiation : for it was a new thing never heard 
 " or thought of in the world to deny all their senses at once 
 pp. 143, J 44. 
 
 L Sir, I find myself here assaulted with three argu- 
 ments tiicked together, and I shall answer them in the 
 same order as they are proposed. First, you tell me it
 
 392 Ohjections against 
 
 was customary witli tlio Jews \n tlio celebration of the 
 jKissovcr to say, this is the paschal hnnJ), which was slain 
 for us in F'<jij})t. I'nit, Sir, ii fact of this nature ougiit 
 not to come u hegijintj. Where is your proof, that there 
 was such a custom amongst the Jews ? IJut this it seems 
 is wholly superseded, it being- much easier to suppose, 
 than prove it. 
 
 However let us suppose it was a custom amongst the 
 Jeivs to say at their passover, this is the paschal lamb, 
 which was slain for tis in Eggpt ; this was as easy and 
 familiar a metaphor, as it would be in visiting- a neig-h- 
 bour's garden to say, this jlower grows in my garden ; 
 meaning flowers of the same kind. But to make Christ 
 call 7cine his blood, or a morsel of bread his body, and 
 tliat in the very institution of a sacrament, is such a 
 violent, improper, and unnatural figure, as never was 
 uttered by any one in his right senses. Christ could 
 indeed as he was the Son of God, change ivine into liis 
 Uood, with the same ease as ivater into wine ; but he 
 could not speak absurdly, nor be guilty of an equivocation, 
 which any sober man would be ashamed of. And there- 
 fore when he said, This is my blood, he could mean 
 nothing else, than that it was his blood verily and 
 iXDEED, as your Catechism expresses it. 
 
 Your second argument is a very strange one. I shall 
 put it into some form of syllogism thus : \_Moscs took 
 HEAL BLOOD, ajid Said this is the blood of the Testament, 
 §r., and Christ took wine, cmd said, this is my blood. 
 But no mortal ever iwderstood the words of Moses in a 
 transid)stantial sense, therefore the words of Christ are not 
 to be understood in a transubstaiitial sense.'] Was there 
 ever such wretched stufl" pro})osed in a serious dispute ! 
 For the plain llnglish of it is this: Blood is called blood 
 without any change; and ivhy then should not wine be 
 called BLOOD without any change? A man in the deepest 
 fit of the spleen would scarce forbear laughing at this 
 (|uestion. Yet it is the ground of 
 
 Your third argument, wherein you tell me, that the 
 words of Moses rendered those of Christ easy and familiar
 
 J'/ansubsta/Uiation answered. 393 
 
 to the apostles. This suppose?, tliat the apostles reflected 
 at that time upon the words of Moses. But I take it to 
 be much more rational to think the apostles before the 
 coming of the Holy Ghost were too dull to make the 
 nice reflections and discoveries you suppose they did. 
 However had they done it, it would make aj^ainst your 
 argument rather than for it. For what could be inferred 
 from their interpreting the words of our Saviour by those 
 of Moses, but that as when Moses said, this is blood, they 
 understood blood in the literal sense, so they understood 
 Christ in the very same manner, when he said no less posi- 
 tively, this is mij blood ? For as they could not doubt but 
 that Moses s^oke the truth, and meant what he said, so it 
 was the farthest from their thoughts to judge their Master 
 guilty of a shanufid c(/t(i location in so solemn an occasion : 
 and therefore nothing can be more absurd than to argue 
 as you do, viz., that the apostles imagined, that Christ 
 called wine, blood, because Moses called blood, blood. 
 
 And why then siiould the apostles ask any questions 
 about the matter? the apostles, Sir, believed every thing 
 Christ said with an implicit faith, whether they compre- 
 hended it or not. The miracles, they had seen him work, 
 convinced them, that he could not only change one sub- 
 stance into another, but likewise that the same injinitc 
 power, which could make that change, could hinder it 
 from being perceived by their senses. And therefore 
 when Christ told them in the jdainest terms, that what 
 he gave them to driidv was \\\%blood, they had no business 
 to consult their senses for information whether he spoke 
 truth or not; but took him at his word, and believed they 
 received his blood verjly and indeed, as you are bound 
 to do, if you believe your own Catechism. 
 
 As to what you say, that the apostles called many things 
 hard sayings, which ur.re not so dijjicnlt as this : pray, 
 Sir, where do you find this? Have you a j)atent granted 
 you to forge and coin script ared facts as you please, 
 because the badness of your cause stands in need of it? 
 Sir, 1 desire you to let mo know in wliat place of scriji- 
 ture besides John vi. 01. Christ\s wonh are called a hard 
 
 s 2
 
 394 Ohjedions at/aiiist 
 
 sai/in(ji ? But were they the apostles that called them so? 
 No, Sir, l)ut only some of the disciples, who thereupon 
 separated themselves from our Saviour : who turniiii;- to 
 the twelve said, Will ye also go away ? C7, and Peter 
 answered in the name of all the rest, Thoti hast the word 
 of eternal life, we believe, and are sure, that thou art Christ 
 the Son of the living God. 08, (J9. VVliich was far from 
 calling his words a hard saying : though Christ at that 
 very time promised to leave them his Jlesh to eat, and 
 hlood to drink, x\nd so it is no wonder, that they made 
 no replies, nor expressed any astonishment, when he 
 performed that promise at his last shipper. 
 
 Advertisement. — It is vcr}' plain that tlie three iovQgo'm^ sections 
 contain several objections proposed by the (jentlcman, which ought 
 not to be passed over without an answer. Yet, as llic fjentleman 
 has managed tlie former conversation betwixt his lordsliip and 
 himself, his peaceable antagonist lets him run on there lor five 
 whole pages without answering one single word in defence of his 
 cause. I presume the nentleman imagined his protestant readers 
 would interjjret his lordship's silence for a tacit acknowledgment 
 that papists have nothing to answer to any of the various ob- 
 jections contained in those five pages. But I hope 1 have now 
 disabused them in the three foregoing sections ; wherein those five 
 uninterrupted pages are now parcelled out into several heads with 
 their proper answers to them. 
 
 However his lordship being at length allowed to break silence 
 blunders out the following piece of nonscjise in answer to the 
 rjentlemarCs two last lines concerning tiie denying our senses. 
 L. I wonder you shoidd stand so much upon this. You object 
 your senses and your reason : and yet you give them both up in. 
 the mystery of the Trinity, Incarnation, ^c. Tliis, I say, is rank 
 nonsense. First, because our senses have nothing to do par- 
 ticularly with the mystery of tlie blessed trinity, and therefore it 
 is talking like a ninny to say they must be given up in tiiat mystery. 
 And '■Idhj, as to the giving iip our reason, it is false to say we 
 give it up in any mystery whatsoever. For if we did, faith and 
 religion would be against reason ; which I take to be little better 
 than blaspiiemy. It is true we submit our reason in mysteries 
 that are aliove it : but submitting in this case is not giving up our 
 reason, but acting according to it : because nothing is more 
 reasonable, than tliat we should submit ourselves to divine revela- 
 tion in mysteries surpassing all human reason, as has been fully 
 explained. [Part I. $51.] 
 
 All this the gentleman know very well, as appears from his answer 
 to the above said piece of nonsense [Case Slated, p. 143] which
 
 Transiibstantiation ansivered. 395 
 
 bein^ the same in substance as wliat I have now crivcn to it, needs 
 not be repeated here. But the words he concludes with relating 
 to the senses, together with his lordship's two repartees, in which 
 he even outdoes liimself in nonsense, deserve to be set down. 
 
 G. But for the other point, viz., that of contradicting my outicard 
 senses, I think is an unanswerable objection. 
 
 L. Why ? 7imst tjou not give them up as to the Trinity and In- 
 carnation ? 
 
 G. Not at all, my lord. They contradict none of my senses. 
 Pray tell me, which of them do they contradict ? Is it the sense 
 o/" hearing, seeing-, or smeUing? 
 
 L, They are not the object of sense. 
 
 G. Therefore they contradict thetn not. 
 
 This is really overstraining the character of a dunce in the person 
 of our noble peer, and exposing liim too unmercifully. For to 
 make him first tell the gentleman that he must give up his senses 
 as to the Trinity and Incarnation, and then own in the same breath 
 that those two mysteries are not the object of sense, is something 
 so eminently absurd, that nothing but a driveler can be capable 
 of it. 
 
 But let us now hear what the gentleman has to say concerning the 
 contradiction of our senses in transubslantiation. 
 
 SECTION XXIV. — NEITHER REASON NOR RELIGION 
 OBLIGES US TO JUDGE ALWAYS ACCORDING TO THE 
 INFORMATION OF OUR SENSES. 
 
 (I 
 
 G. — My lord, all our senses are contradicted in iran- 
 '* substantiation. And I stand upon it, that since the creation 
 " of the world, God never did nor said any thing, which 
 " contradicted the sense of any man. It would be destroying 
 " the certainty of every thing. Miracles are appeals to our 
 " senses, and williout believing our sc7iscs we can trust to no 
 " miracles, and by consequence to no revelation." — p. 144. 
 
 Z/. — You toll nio, you stand vpnn it, that since the 
 crention af the tcorld Ciod ntver did, nor said ani/ thing, 
 uhick contradicted the sense of any man. It is \ery 
 stoutly said indeed. But let us see whether you can 
 stand your {ground. 
 
 Prriy, Sir, how lon^ was it before the crcn/ion of the 
 world tiiat an angct appeared to Joshua in the shape of 
 a man? Jos. v. 13, 14. That God the Father appeared 
 to Daniel in the likeness of an old man ? Dan. vii. 9.
 
 39G Objections ayainst 
 
 That the Ilohi G/iosl appeared over our Saviota''s head 
 ill the likeness of a dove,? Matt. iii. IG. And, to omit 
 many other instiinces, that two uikjcIs appeared to the 
 women at the sepulchre in tlie likeness ot" two men ? 
 Luke xxiv. 4. For I stand positively upon it that in 
 all these scriptural facts the senses were contradicted in 
 the same manner as they are in transubstantiation. 
 Could Joshua discern by the ministry of any of his senses^ 
 that it was not a 7nan, but an angel whom he satv with 
 a sword draicn in his hand, and whose voice he heard 
 commanding him to put off his shoes, because the ground 
 whereon he stood was holy ? And so proportionably of 
 the rest. 
 
 But, Sir, are not your senses also contradicted as often 
 as you receive the body of Christ verily and indeed? 
 Do vour eyes see it ? Your hands feel it ? Or your 
 palate taste it ? No, surely. And yet you receive it 
 YERii.Y and INDEED, that is, truly and really, if you 
 believe your church Catechism. And is it not then 
 talking mere unintelligible riddles to say, God never did 
 any thiny ivhich contradicted the sense of any ma7i? Nay 
 and to stand upon it with a positiveness, which must 
 surprise all men of common sense ? Had you not much 
 better own transubstantiation honestly and fairly, than 
 to jilay and ti'ijle in this maimer with words even in 
 sacred matters ? 
 
 But you tell me, it woidd be destroying the certainty of 
 every thing. That is to say, if things ever appear other- 
 wise to om- eyes than they are in themselves, we must 
 never trust them any more. Pray, Sir, take care then 
 never to look at the su7i, or moon, or stars. For they all 
 appear to your eyes much lesser than they are in them- 
 selves. But reason corrects the misinformation of our 
 senses ; and so it does, when revelation tells us, that the 
 thing, which appears to be bread, is the body of Christ 
 VEKiLV and indeed. 
 
 Lastly, you tell me, that 7niracles are appeals to our 
 senses, and tcithout believing our senses we can trust to no 
 miracles, and consequently to no revelation. The true
 
 Transubstantiation answered. 397 
 
 meaning" hereof is, that niiless in all occasions whatsoever 
 wejxuhje accord in o; to the information of our senses, wo 
 man can rationally believe he ever saw a miracle. Now 
 let us examine the truth of this assertion from the cir- 
 cumstances of a fact, which every body is acquainted with. 
 
 St Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem ; and the very 
 night before he was to be delivered up to the people, an 
 a?igel came to him as he laid asleep bound with two chains, 
 and smiting him on the side raised him up, and bade him 
 follow him. Whereupon his chains fell offhoxw his hands, 
 and when they came to the iron gate, which led to the 
 city, it opened of its own accord. But as soon as they 
 came together to the end of the first street, the angel 
 disappeared : and then it was that St Peter ^\\e\v for cer- 
 tain that God had sent an angel to deliver him. Acts xii. 
 
 Here then is a fact, wherein ^t Peter both believed, and 
 disbelieved the information of his senses. For it is certain, 
 tliat no sensation either of seeing, hearing, or feeling 
 could inform him that it was an angel, whom God had 
 sent for his deliverance. On the contrary, had he judged 
 according to the informatio7i of any of his senses, he must 
 have fallen into an error, \\\ believing that he felt, heard, 
 and saw a man. Yet at the same time he believed his 
 iges, and had nothing but his eyes to trust to in believing 
 that he saw two miracles wrought in favour of him, viz., 
 the falling oj^' of his chains, and the iron gates opening of 
 its own accord. Now we do not find St Peter argued, as 
 you do, viz., that 7vithout believing his sc7ises in all things, 
 he could believe no miracles. Neither do we find him 
 arguing thus. My senses misinformed me, when I seemed 
 to myself to see, hear, and feel a man ; therefore I must 
 not believe any of the innumerable miracles I have seen 
 Christ work with my own eyes, 7wr by cousc(jue7ici' believe 
 any revelation. It is therefore false, Jiay blasphemous 
 what you say, viz., that irilhoid believing our senses (in 
 every thing) ire can trust to no miracles, nor by conse- 
 (juence to any revelation; especially when revelation itself 
 obliges us not to judge according to the ii)forniaiion of 
 our senses.
 
 398 Ohjeclions against 
 
 « G. — It is a needless supposition, for there is no sucli 
 *' revelation." — j). 14 1. 
 
 L. — No, Sir ! You must have a j^ood stock of assurance 
 to say so after the many scriptural instances 1 liavc pro- 
 duced to the contrary. Had not 8t Peter a rcvclatioUy 
 that it was an ant^l, who api)cared to him, when all his 
 senses informed him that it was a ma7i ? 
 
 «< G. — But if there were a revelation ; if an anr/el should 
 " appear to nu-, and bid me believe that I saw hiui, but not 
 " to believe any thing else that I saw of a hundred things 
 «' round about him, I should without more ado either believe 
 " that I saw the other things I did see ; or if I must not 
 " believe I saw tlicin, I should not believe I saw Imn." — p. Hi. 
 
 2v. — Sir, if I should hear an a)iffel talk the nonseyise 
 you suppose him to talk to you, I would not believe him. 
 For one absurd supposition does many times infer another. 
 As, if I suppose you to be a horse, I may legally infer, 
 you are no protcstant divine. But if God should reveal 
 to me by an anrjel, that what to my eyes and ears appears 
 to be a man^ is not a man, 1 should certainly believe the 
 revelation of God in flat contradiction to the information 
 of my senses. Nor should this hinder me from believing 
 my c?/€S as to all other visible objects about me. 
 
 «< G. — My lord, I take it for a certain ride, tliat we must 
 " either believe ouv senses in every tJdng, or in nothing." — p. 144. 
 
 L. — Now, Sir, you speak out boldly, and like a true 
 protestant hero. But if this be true, it io\\ow?> Jii'st, that 
 they, who at our Saviour's baptism saw the likeness of a 
 dove over his head, were boimd to believe it was a real 
 dove, and not the Holy Ghost : and so the Evangelists are 
 made the authors of a falsehood. It follows, ^dly, that 
 the icomen at the sepulchre acted absurdly in believing 
 that they saw two angels. Yet they believed it firmly, 
 and told the disciples they had seen a vision of angels. 
 Luke xxiv. 23. It follows, 3c////, from your rule that St 
 Peter was grossly mistaken, when he said, now I know 
 for certain, that God has sent his angel, and hath delivered 
 v)e out of the hands cf Herod. Acts xii. 11. Lastly, it 
 follows from your certain rule, that though God should 
 at any time tell me, that my eyes misinform me, I am
 
 Transubstanticdioii answered. 8i)9 
 
 bound either not to believe him, or renounce the use of 
 my senses for ever: which if it be not blasphemy or mad- 
 7iesSy I desire to know what is. 
 
 '• G. — Had not tlie apostles at the Lord's supper as much 
 " reason to doubt, whether it was Christ they saw, or that 
 " lie spoke to them, as that it was bread, which they saw and 
 «« eat ?"— p. 1 44. 
 
 L No, Sir, they Lad not; and the reason is plain. 
 
 Because Christ did not tell them, that they scna him not, 
 or licard him not. But he told them positively, that it 
 was his body, which he gave them to eat. The apostles 
 tlierefore had no reason to doubt of the reality of his body; 
 nor could they believe it was bread, because a morsel of 
 bread is no more a living body, than your head is a bar- 
 bet's pole. Nay you yourself, if you will stand to the 
 doctrine of your own church, are bound to believe, that 
 he gave them his body vkiuly and indeed. And, if he 
 gave tliem his body verily and indeed, how could it be 
 nothing but bread, which they saiv and eat? Or was it 
 verily and indeed both bread and his body ? 
 
 ** G. — My lord, if you come once to dccejytio vistts, it will 
 " go quite througli, and you cannot he sure of one thing 
 " more than another : because the fault is in the eye, not in 
 " the object. So that if transnbstantiatioii be true, there is 
 " notliing else in the world true but it." — pp. 144, 145. 
 
 L iSir, the truth of transidjstantiation hinders no more 
 
 tlic truth of other things perceptible by our senses, than the 
 truth of any mystery, that is (tbove our reason, hinders the 
 truth of things, that arc icithin the I'cach of it. Neither 
 is there any fault cither in the eye, or in the object, but 
 the fault is in the heart and understanding, if it presumes 
 to question the divine veracity, and contrary to the infalli- 
 ble revelation of God believes that to be bread, which he 
 declares to i)c his body. 
 
 " G. — ^ly]or(\,fra)}sub.sla7ttial/on\snos}nn]\ prejudice to this 
 " miracle of miracles, and a contradiction to itself, and to all 
 " other niirnrlca, and to every tiling (slse in the world ; tliat 
 " it shoidd hi' put npon ii!^ just for iiotiiing but to stagger 
 *' our faitli, and make us doubt of every thing I" — p. 145. 
 
 L. — Sir, transubstuntiation is u mystery, which like the
 
 400 Ohjcctions ar/ainst 
 
 huarnation exercises my faith . but stagger.'i it not, nor 
 makes ino doubt of any one trulh 1 know of. Nay, on 
 the contrary, they, who deny it, may with the same 
 obstinacy deny the incarnation^ with which of all mysteries 
 it has the <^rcatest rescmbhince ; and which is both lam- 
 pooned, and as strongly disputed against by Jews and 
 Sociniatis, as transubstantiation is by you. 
 
 But it is above my understanding to comprehend your 
 saying, that it is a contradiction to itself and to all other 
 miracles, and to every thing else in the world; unless your 
 jneaning be, that 1 must utterly renounce the use of all 
 my senses, if either reason or revelation as^nx en me, that in 
 some cases things are not what they appear to be. The 
 absurdity whereof I have already sufficiently exposed. 
 
 However I am glad to hear you call the sacrament of 
 the Lord's supper the miracle of miracles. And indeed 
 it is but speaking consonantly to the doctrine of your 
 own church teaching that the body and blood of Christ are 
 received verily and indeed in the Lord's supper : for 
 this is truly the miracle of miracles. But if in taking it 
 we receive nothing but plain bread and wine, it is not 
 only rank nonsense to call it so, but a notorious cheat put 
 upon the people, who will imagine great miracles and 
 wonders are wrought, when every thing remains in its 
 proper and ncdural being. 
 
 " G. — My lord, if all the benefits of the death of Christ 
 " be conveyed to us, in the sacrament by a figurative and 
 ♦• symbolical representation of his body and blood, and that it 
 " be so institnted for this end, it is to all intents and pur- 
 " poses as beneficial to us, as if wo had eat the flesh of Christ 
 " off his bones, or drunk the very blood that came out of his 
 " side, M'hich is abhorrent to think ; and to avoid which you 
 " call this an tcnbloody sacrifice. Hut how is it unbloody, if 
 "it be real blood, even the self same blood, that was shed 
 '* upon the cross}" — p. 145. 
 
 L — And would you not have the people believe it to 
 be real blood, when you tell them that the body and blood 
 if Christ are received vkkii-v and indeed in the Lords 
 supper ? And if it be Christ's blood, verily a?jc? indeed, 
 can it be any other blood as to its subsfatice, than what
 
 Transubstantiatioii answered. 401 
 
 he shed upon the cross? Yet I presume your communi- 
 cants do not take it in a bloody manner. But why then is 
 it called an unbloody sacrifice ? Because Christ the vic- 
 tim is not killed upon the altar, as he was upon the cross. 
 As to what you say, that all the benefits of the death of 
 Christ may be conveyed to us by a figurative and symbolical 
 jrresence, 1 answer, the question is not, ivhat Christ might 
 have done, but what he has effectually done for us. He 
 might have redeemed us without dying on the cross, but 
 must we infer from thence, that he has not died for us on 
 the cross? In like manner, therefore, though all the 
 benefits of his death and passion might have been con- 
 veyed to us by our receiving a morsel of common bread, 
 or any other way, or without any sacraments at all, if he 
 Jiad been pleased to ordain it so, does it therefore follow 
 that he has effectually ordained it so ? On the contrary 
 his infinite goodness has thought fit to communicate his 
 own sacred body and blood really and truly to us; that is, 
 not figuratively or symbolically only, but verily and 
 indeed; for 1 cannot express it in stronger terms. 
 
 SECTION XXV. — CHIITST's BODY AND BLOOD ARE BOTH 
 REALLY AND SPIRITUALLY PRESENT IN THE SACRAMENT. 
 
 " G My lord, you yourselves allow, that liis words must 
 
 " be taken in a spiritual, not a carnal sense, because Christ 
 " liiniself said speaking of this sacra/iient (as you own) and 
 " to solve that hard saying, at wliicli many were offended, 
 " of giving them hh fiesh to cat, he made it easy to them by 
 *' this explication: It is the spirit that quickeneOi, the ficsh 
 " pufUeth nothing. The ivurds that 1 speak unto you, they 
 " are sjiirit, atid they are life, John vi. 65. May we not 
 '* then take his words in a spiritual sense?" — p. 145. 
 
 J J. — Yes, Sir, we may; provided the reality oi Christ's 
 presence in the sacrament be not excluded by it. That 
 is to say, provided it be consistent with our receiving liis 
 body mid blood vr.inLV and indekd. Now the words, 
 you have quotc<l from 8t John, insinuate such a s/tirifual 
 sense, as is neither inconsistent with the literal meaning
 
 402 Christ is both leaUij 
 
 of the institution, nor the rcalitii oi C\\x\%i^s presence in. 
 the sacromeut: but is only opj^osod to the carnal sense of 
 those incredulous disciples, who accordinuf to their gross 
 ima<^ination knew of no other eatintj or drinking tii;ui for 
 the nourishment of their bodies; and (to speak in St 
 Austin's own words) thovght our Saviour intended to cut 
 off pieces of his oicn Jlesh from his body for them to eat, 
 and therefore said, this is a hard sailing. Aug-, in Psalm 98. 
 
 Now, to correct this gross mistake, Christ said, it is 
 the Spirit that quickencth, the flesh profiteth nothing. As 
 who should say, it is not dead corruptible flesh, and 
 changeable into the substance of your bodies, that profits 
 in order to salvation : but the fesh, 1 intend to give you for 
 the nourishment of your souls, has all its saving qualities 
 from the spirit or divinily, by which it is quickened. 
 
 This is exactly conformable to St Austin^s comment 
 upon those words : JVhat then (says he) is the meaning of 
 this, the flesh profits nothing ? As they understood it, as 
 it is torn in pieces in a dead body, and sold in the sham~ 
 lies, it profits nothing : but it profits as animated by the 
 
 Spirit for if the flesh profited nothing , the icord would 
 
 not have been made Jlesh, that it might dwell in us. 
 
 Thus St Austin. And who would not now be surprised 
 to find most jirotestant dailhov^ as well as yourself lay such 
 a stress uj)on this text, as even to make it the principal 
 support of their error ? But ignorant people must be 
 imposed upon by some scriptural text; and this being 
 obscure in itself was fittest for that purpose ; though, if 
 rightly understood, it cannot furnish you with the least 
 shadow of an argument against the real prese7ice of 
 Christ's body and blood in the sacrament. Christ says, it 
 is the Spirit that quicheneth, the flesh pyrofifeth notldng. 
 That is (according to St Austin) dead flesh, as cut and 
 sold in the shambles, pre fits nothing, bid it profits as ani- 
 mated by the Spirit : and is it not playing at cross pur- 
 poses to infer from thence, that therefore Christ's living 
 body is not received really and truly m the sacrame^it? 
 
 O. — J\Iy lord, the body of Christ is take?i and received 
 in the same manner as it is present in the sacrament : and
 
 and spiritualli/ present, ^r. 403 
 
 you yourselves allow, that it is there pi-esent in a spiritual 
 not carnal manner, 
 
 L. — Sir, it is certainly true, that the body of Christ is 
 received in the same manner as it is present in the sacra- 
 ment: and therefore as it is recen'ecf verily «7Ji/ indeed; 
 that is, really and tridy, and iviihout equivocation ,- so it is 
 VERILY and INDEED, that is really and truly, and without 
 equivocation present in the blessed sacrament. But leal 
 and earned are not the same. And tiierefore, though the 
 body of C/trist be really and truly present in the sacrament, 
 the manner of its presence is spiritual ; not as spiritual is 
 opposite to real, but as it is opposite to carnal. That is, 
 as it is opposite to that gross idea or notion, which the 
 unbelieving disciples had of the meaning of our Saviour's 
 words. For they imagined he M'as to be cut in pieces, 
 and that they were to eat Jus flesh, as that of common 
 animals, for the nourishment of their bodies. 
 
 Christ's body therefore is not present in this earned 
 manner; yet it is rca//// and ^/•2^/y present in the sacra- 
 ment as to its substance, though the manner of its presence 
 be sjiiritual. 
 
 First, As to its condition, or cndoicmcnts : I mean, its 
 being ylorious, impassible, incorruptible, immortal. There 
 is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. It is sown a 
 natural body, and it is raised a spiritual body. 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 'idly. As to the maimer of its being inj)lace; which is 
 not according to the usual laws of bodies commcnsurated 
 to, or circumscribed by jdacc, but more resembling the 
 idea we have of spirits. '1 hus, when Christ came to his 
 discijjles, the doors bciny shut, his entrance was spiritual, 
 though real. 
 
 iidly, It is sjiirilual as to the e7id, for which it is received, 
 viz., the nourishment of our souls. 
 
 Athly, As to the persons, by whom it is received. For 
 the umcorthy communicant receives it with Ids mouth only, 
 and therefore the flesh jnofUs him nothiny ; but it is sjtirit 
 and lift to the irvrthy cuuimunirant ; because he receives 
 it s])iriluuUy, as well as truly and really. 
 
 bthly, and lastly, Its maimer is spiritual as to our sen-
 
 404 Christ is both really 
 
 sation, because we have not from our scjises any informa- 
 tiou of its presence, hut only from onrjfiith. 
 
 Thus then the manner of its presence is spiritual : but 
 it is a spiriiualitii no ways opjiosite to its reality. And 
 therefore your argument is of no force to prove against us, 
 that we aUow of a more Jiynratire, or symbolical presence. 
 
 " Cr. — My lord, tlii're is not ouo inuu in your communion, 
 " but nmst own tliat the words of institution are figurative. 
 •' For example, this cup is the ?ieiv tcstaineitt in my bloody 
 " which is shed for you, Luke xxii. 20. Here is first the 
 '• cop for the ivine by a metonymy called continens pro contento. 
 *' Tiieu the cup being the 7iew testa7nent, I suppose you will 
 " allow is another ^//«/-e. And it is another, it is shed for 
 " which shall be shed ; for liis blood was not then shed. This 
 " last fiyure you have boldly avoided in your mass, wliore 
 *' it is put tffundetur, shall be shed instead of effunditur, or 
 •' effusum according to the Greek s-/.yjju6//,i'Jov. However the 
 " two other^<7«re^ stand unalterable." — p. 146. 
 
 L. — Pray, Sir, what Jiyure is there in these words of 
 St Matthew, this is my body : this is the blood of the new 
 testament, xuhich shall be shed for many for the remission 
 of sins? xxvi. 26, 28. I presume you will not deny tliese 
 to be the words of the institution. And if St Luke lias 
 made choice oi figures to express the same thing; must 
 figures expound jjlain ivords, or plain ivords the figures ? 
 
 However that be, I cannot but pity the hard shifts you 
 are put to, in being forced to make this an argument of 
 importance, viz. : Amongst the words of the institution as 
 delivered by St I.uke, there are some figures; therefore the 
 ichole institution is to be understood in a figurative, or 
 symbolical sense. Suppose a master should speak thus 
 to his servant : this bottle is not good, bring me a better 
 bottle of the same wine ; here is the very metonymy you 
 speak of: yet I believe the servant would not be such a 
 blockhead as to think his master demanded a bottle of 
 figurative or symbolical wine. In like manner therefore, 
 when St Luke uses the aforesaid metonymy in thus 
 delivering tlie words of the institution, this cup is the 
 new testament in my blood, though cup and testament be 
 figures, a man must be either very weak or very perverse
 
 and spiritually present, ^t. 40,> 
 
 to conclude, the Evangelist uxqoxm Jigttrative or symbolical 
 blood ; and if he does not, what matter is it, whether 
 cup and testament hejigures or not ? 
 
 If Christ had said, this cup is the neiv testament in wine, 
 would the metonymy have hindered you from taking the 
 word icine in its literal sense? And why then should it 
 hinder you from taking the word blood in its literal sense, 
 when he says, this cup is the neiu testament in my blood ? 
 You may as well say, that if there be some metaphors in 
 any sentence, as thus : the furnace of tribulation, and the 
 rod of reproof make men wise, every word in that sentence 
 must be understood metaphorically ; which would turn 
 all such ways of speaking into rank nonsense ; though 
 they be used even in the most familiar discourses. And 
 the reason is, because all figures of this nature are so 
 easy and familiar, that no man of common sense can 
 misunderstand them, and the foremcntioned words of 
 St Ltike are as plain to all but professed triflers, as these 
 \\ords of St Matlheic ; This is the blood of the neiv testa- 
 ment, which shall be shed for many for the remission of 
 sins. But to call bread a living body, or wine blood, that 
 is, to give things names they were never known by in 
 the world ; and that in the very institution of a sacrament, 
 and without any previous or concomitant intimation of 
 their meaning, is such an absurd, tinnatural, and equivo- 
 ciding way of speaking, that we cannot without impiety 
 judge Christ capable of it. 
 
 As to the third pretended figure, which you say xcc have 
 b'tldly avoided in the mass. Sir, I cither have a pair of 
 very bad spectiicles, or the Latin version has effundetur 
 in St Matthew x.wi. 28, -MnXfundelur, that is, shall be sited 
 in St Luke xxii. 20. Antl so the mass being in Latin, 
 and many hundred years older, than the English proteS' 
 tant Bible, has boldly followed the Latin version, wliich 
 had the approbation of the Catholic Church many ages 
 before reformiug came into fashion. 
 
 " G. — My lord, to convince you, tliat the words of CInist 
 " nrc ff/urative, and that tli« elements do not lose their nature 
 " by the con seer ation, thoy are called by their own names
 
 406 Christ is both really 
 
 '• after the consecration, as wine is called the fruit of tJie vine 
 " after the consecration, Matt. xxvi. 29 ; JNIaik xiv. 25. 
 " And it is called hrecul, which they eat in the sacrament, 
 " and we are called bread, because we partake of that bread, 
 " 1 Cor. X. 17 ; xi. iIG — 28. We are bread by the iMwaJigure, 
 " that bread Ujlcsh : and wo arc no more sure, that we arc 
 " not bread, than that the sacrament is not bread." — p. HG. 
 L. — Pray, Sir, forget not your Catechism, but vouch- 
 safe to remember, tliut the body of Christ is received 
 verily and indeed in the Lords supper. This therefore 
 we are sure of. But I hope we are not equally sure^ that 
 either you or I came out of a meal tub, or were baked 
 in an oven verily and indeed. I shall answer your texts 
 immediately. 
 
 '< G. — But see now the arbitrariness of your interpretation. 
 " When it is said of bread, this isjiesh, that is so very plain, 
 " it must be taken literally ; but when it is said of bread in 
 " tlie sacrament, this is bread, the expression is so obscure, 
 <• that it must be iakon figuratively. Is not this destroying 
 " the meaning of all expressions to take words figuratively 
 <' or literally just as yon think fit, and contrary to the common 
 " usage, as understood in all other things?" — p. 147. 
 
 L. — Sir, to take words figuratively or literally just as 
 a man thinks fit is certainly destroying the meaning of all 
 expressions, and if you will but stand to this one principle, 
 there is an end of the dispute between you and me con- 
 cerning transubslantiation. For then you will find your- 
 self obliged to understand the words of the institution 
 literally ; since they cannot possibly be otherwise under- 
 stood but by the most strained and arbitrary interpreta- 
 tion ; as I have clearly proved. Nay your own church 
 understands them so by declaring, that the body and blood 
 of Christ are verily and indeed tahen ajid received by 
 the faithfid in the Lord' s supper ; to which words you can 
 give wo figurative sense without the most arbitrary inter- 
 pretation in the world : and if Christ's body and blood 
 arc received verily ami indeed in the sacrament, there 
 must be either a substa/Uial change of the bread and wine 
 into the body iiud blood of Christ; or they must be joined 
 together ; as Luther holds.
 
 and spiritually present^ ^x. 407 
 
 But, as an arbitrary way of taking: words Jigiiratively 
 destroys the meaning of all expressions, so^t is no less 
 destructive to the common laws of speech to conclude 
 from thence, that therefore Jigures which are easy and 
 natural^ and taken for such by the generality of mankind, 
 are likewise arbitrary. Because it is morally impossible 
 either to write or speak without the use oisuchjigia'es; 
 and they are so far from obscuri7ig, that they give the 
 greatest beauty, strength, and lustre to any sort of discourse. 
 Now then let us consider, whether calling the elements 
 by their own names after the consecration be not Jigures 
 of this sort, or whether there be any arbitrariness in the 
 use of them. 
 
 I prove there is no arbitrariness in it, because it is the 
 common custom of mankind to give a thing the name of 
 that, out of which it is made. Thus it was said to Adam 
 Gen. iii. 19, dust thou art ; because though then a living 
 man he had been made of dust, 'ihus the person's name 
 is given to his corpse ; as Joseph desires leave to bury his 
 FATHER, Gen. 1. 5. And, bcliold there was a dead man 
 carried out, the only son of his mother, Luke vii. 12. 
 The serpent was made by a substiintial change from 
 Aaron's rod, which even lost its former aj)pearance, yet 
 is still called a rod, because made from it. They cast 
 doicn every man his rod, and they became serpents ; but 
 Aaron's rod sicallowed vp their rods, Exod. vii. 12. 
 
 Thus it is plain wc are not guilty of arbitrariness cither 
 in taking the tcords of the institution literally, or the 
 words bread i\v\(\. wine after the consecration in njiguralive 
 sense. Nay nothing but one obstinately resolved to be 
 in the wrong can understand either of them in any other 
 sense. 
 
 G. — My \or<], ice arc called bread, 1 Cor. x. 17. And 
 wc are called bread by the same figure, that bread is 
 jlcsh. 
 
 L. — Sir, both these propositions, ice arc bread, and 
 
 bread is jlcsh arc literally false. And if Christ had said, 
 
 this bread is my body, the expression would have been 
 
 figurative. Because it is etjualJy nonsense to say that
 
 408 Objections from the Fatliers. 
 
 bread is a living hodif lilernUij, as it is to say, that, ire are 
 bread litcrnUi/. IJiit Christ did not say, this bread is my 
 budtj, hut only, this is mi/ bodij : which, according to the 
 common way of speaking, signified no more, than that 
 the thing present, which he gave to his apostles, was his 
 real body. 
 
 SECTION XXVI. — OBJECTIONS FROM THE FATHERS 
 
 ANSWERED. 
 
 G. — My lord, every one abounds in his own sense, 
 but 1 appeal to that of the ancient fathers, 
 L With all my heart. Sir. 
 
 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 <« G. — Terddlian says, that Christ made the bread his body, 
 ♦' by saying, this is my body, that is, the ftgure of my body. 
 <* Contra Marcion. lib. 4. c. 40." — p. 147. 
 
 L. — Sir, Tertidlian's true meaning is, that Christ made 
 tiie bread (which before was but a ^^z</"e of his body) 
 become his real body by saying, this is my body. The 
 institution therefore did not make it ^figure, but changed 
 it into the reality, whereof it was a figure before. Now 
 that this is the true meaning of his words I prove from the 
 very subject of his dispute with Marcion, who held that 
 our Saviour came to destroy the law : but Tertnllian 
 proves, he came to perfect it by fulfilling the prophecies 
 znd fgures; and brings this instance, that Christ changed 
 bread (which in the old lata was a figure of his body) 
 into his body. Which is a plain proof, that these latter 
 words of the passage quoted [^that is, the figure of nip 
 body~\ are transplaced, and cannot be referred to any 
 thing but the bread. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, the transposition you speak of, is 
 but an odd sort oi figure ; and by the help of it you may 
 <lo wonderful feats, and make the fatliers say what you 
 please. 
 
 L. — Sir, I do not pretend to commend Tertullian*s
 
 Objections from the Fathers. 409 
 
 style, or propose his writings as the standard of good 
 Latin. But fact is fact, and it is an undeniable one, 
 that Tertullian frequently made use of that figure out of 
 respect to the icordof God^ which he would not interrupt 
 by interposing his own words. This made him say, Lib. 
 contra Prax. C. 29, Cliristus mortuus est, id est, lautits ; 
 Christ is dead, that is aiwinted ; instead of saying, Christ, 
 that is the anointed, is dead. And in tlie very book against 
 Marcion, C. 2, he writes thus: Aperiara in parabolam 
 aurem meam, id est simiUtudineni. I will open to a parable 
 wy ear, that is, a similitude. \A'liere his meaning is 
 imdonbtedly this : / will open to a parable, that is, to a 
 similitude, my ear. So that let the transposition bo as 
 odd a figure as you please, it is manifest Tertullian has 
 frequently made use of it ; nor can you explain him 
 otherwise witiiont making him talk wide from the purpose. 
 
 ORIGEN. 
 
 <= G. — Origen says of tlie sacrament, that it g^oes into thi; 
 " belly like other nieiit, and so into the draught. But says, 
 " he speaks concerning the typical and symbolical body of 
 " Christ in tlie sacrament, in Matth. c. ].). 
 
 «' It was said of the body of Christ, Psalm xvi. 10, that 
 *' it flioidd not see corrvption. liut we know the sucramerit 
 " will corrupt; therefore it is not the same." — y>. 147, 
 
 L. — Sir, when 1 was a young scholar, I remember I 
 answered this argument by distinguishing, tliat the out- 
 tvard part of the sacrament, viz., the accidents of bread 
 and wine tvill corrujd, but not the inward part, which is 
 verily and indeed the body and blood of Christ. And, 
 though I know yon to be an enemy to ])Opish di.'jtinctions, 
 J must desire you to acccj»t of this for your answer. 
 
 Asto Origen, you have clipped his words, and concealed 
 that part, which fully exj)lains his meaning. I presume 
 vour reason for so (htiiig is, because the words, you have 
 omitted, inij>ly the very distinction I have now given. 
 i'or his genuine words are these : {This food consecrated 
 hy the word of (lod and prayer, as to iiir. mateimai. 
 PART or n; gms into the brlly and so info the draiajht.) 
 This shews that Origen speaks not of the sacrament 
 
 T
 
 410 Ohjcclions from the Fathers. 
 
 absolutely, but with this limitation, as to the material 
 part oi it; meaiiin<>; the accidents of bread and wine: 
 wiiich he calls the lypical and symbolical body ; because 
 the accidents of bread ixwA wi/te are a sif/n, type, or symbol 
 of Christ's body nourishing our souls. 
 
 THEODORET. 
 
 «« G. — Theodoret likewise calls the sacrament the symbols 
 " of the body and blood of Christ : and says that upon tlieir 
 " consecration they are changed indeed, and made other 
 " things, but still remain in their own proper nature and 
 " substance, and shape and form .- and are visible and tangible 
 " as they were before. Dial. 2." — pp. 147, 148. 
 
 L. — Sir, as to the first part of your quotation, Theodoret 
 never calls the sacrament mere symbols of the body and 
 blood of Christ: and if he does not call it so, he says 
 nothing- to serve your turn. Do not we also call it the 
 sacrament of the body and blood of Christ? And what is 
 a sacrament but a sign or symbol ? But I hope you will 
 not conclude from thence, that therefore we believe it to 
 be a mere empty sign ox figure of Christ's &oc/>/ and blood. 
 
 The latter broken piece, as you have quoted it, is 
 wholly unintelligible. I shall therefore cite the whole 
 passage, which is taken out of Theodoret" s second dialogue; 
 where under the name of OrlJiodoxus he maintains the 
 catholic cause against an Eutychian, whom he calls Eran- 
 istes. His words faithfully translated are as follows: 
 
 Eranistes. What do you call the gift, which is offered^ 
 before consecration'? Orthodoxus. Eood made of certain 
 grains. Euan. And how do you call the other symbol'? 
 Orthod. IVe give it a common name, which signifies a 
 drink. Eran. How do you call them after the consecra- 
 tion? Orthod. The body and blood of Christ. Eran. 
 And do you believe, that you receive the body and blood of 
 ('hrist? OuTiioD. J do believe it. Eran. As therefore 
 the symbols of ChrisCs body and bluod are one tiling before 
 consecration, but are changed, and made other things after 
 consecration, so Christ's body after his ascension was 
 changed into the divine substance. Orthod. You are taken 
 in your own nets. For the mystical signs depart not from
 
 Objections from the Fathers. 4] I 
 
 their otcn nature hy consecration. For they remain in their 
 former substance, and form and shape, and are visible and 
 tangible as before. But they are understood to be the things, 
 jchich they are made, and so they are believed, and they arc 
 adored, as being the things, tvhich they are believed. 
 
 These are Theodoret's words. But if any man can con- 
 clude from them that he denies cither \\\q real presence ov 
 transubstantiation without making him contradict himself, 
 I will own he has a talent at reconciling contradictions, 
 which I am yet a stranger to. 
 
 The reason hereof is clear, because he grants frsf, that 
 tlie gift, which was bread and wine before consecration is 
 after the consecration called the body and blood of Christ. 
 Idly, that he believes it to be the body and blood of Christ. 
 And Zdly. that they are adored, as being the things, which 
 they are believed. Now if this be not professing the real 
 presence and transubstantiation, no papist has ever made 
 a profession of that article of his faith. Nay Eranistes 
 lays it down as a principle agreed on by both sides, that 
 the mystical symbols of bread and luinc are changed, and 
 made the body and blood of Christ by consecration, and 
 concludes from it, that in the same manner Christ's body 
 vas after his ascen<;ion changed into the divine substance : 
 which argumentation wouhl be wholly impertinent if both 
 Orthodoxus and Eranistes did not believe the change of 
 the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 
 
 " G. — My lord, Thcodorct writes, as you have observed, 
 •' acfaiiist the L^iiti/chiajis, wlio said, that tlie linmun nature 
 ♦' of Christ was absurpty or swtdlowcd tip in tlie divinity. So 
 *' that there remained now none but the divine nature in bin), 
 " and that he was no more a wi«n; and used this comparison, 
 " that it was in like mauuor as in the sacrament, where the 
 " bread wan changed into tlie body of Christ. Yes, said 
 " Tlieodont, it is in llw same manner, that is, in no 7)unmer 
 " at all. For tliat the bread, though changed in i(s tise and 
 " sigjiijicancy, yet lost not its nature, hut remained truly and 
 ^^ properly bread as before, lint liad he believed //-(///.^Mi- 
 " stantiation, tliis had been a full and absolute confirmation 
 «' of the Euti/diian heresy in^^lead of a confutation. For 
 •* then there had remained no more of the human nature ia
 
 412 Ohjectiona from the Fathers. 
 
 " Christ, than yoti believe the substance of the bread to reniatn 
 " in the sucra/)ieiit. Tliis explains the incaning of Theodoret 
 " even beyond his voids." — j>. 148. 
 
 L. — Beyond his word.s, indeed. For surely never were 
 a man's words more foully misrepresented. /Yrs/, instead 
 of Theodoret's sayin<(, ijou are iahcn ?« i/onr own nets ; 
 von make liim sjieak thus: Yes it is in tlie same jnanncr : 
 that is, in no manner at all: which (besides the falsification 
 of his words) is a manifest contradiction to his professin*^ 
 immediately before, that ho believed the gift, which was 
 ttread and wine before consecration, to be tlie hodij and 
 blood of Christ after the consecration. 2^%, your fixiji;;- 
 upon Theodoret this meaning-, viz., that the bread is 
 changed only in its use and si(jnificancy, but remains tridif 
 and properly bread, is no less a contradiction to his words 
 immediately following, wherein he declares that the 
 symbols after the consecration are understood to be tin 
 things tuhich they are made; that they ore believed to be so, 
 and are adored as being the thifigs they are believed. Fur 
 I appeal to common sense whether all this can be spokesi 
 of a change barely in nse and significancy. 
 
 I add, that if Theodoret meant no more than a change 
 in use and signijicancy, it will follow contrary to all pro- 
 bability, that he has made Iiis Eutychian adversary argue 
 the most childishly imaginable. For his argument would 
 run thus : as the bread and icine are changed only in use 
 and significancy, so the humanity of Christ is really 
 changed iido the divinity. Which being most eminently 
 absurd cannot be attributed to Theodoret with any colour 
 of reason And it is an unanswerable proof that Ortho- 
 doxus and Eranistes, that is. Theodoret and the Eutychian 
 iiis adversary agreed in this common principle of their 
 faith, viz., that the bread and wine are by consecration 
 really changed into the body and blood of Christ; because 
 he makes it the ground and foundation of the Eutychian's 
 argument or similitude to set forth the change made in 
 the humanity of Christ after his ascension into heaven. 
 Which is the particular branch of Evtychianism attacked 
 by Theodoret in the passage quoted, as appears from 
 Eranistes's words.
 
 Objections j'/vin the Fathers. 413 
 
 t?. — But, my lord, how is tliis consistent with Theo- 
 iloret's telling the Kutychian, that he is taken in his own 
 nets ? For if they both supposed a real and substantial 
 change in the sacrament, the similitude came home to 
 tlie point, and could not be retorted upon Eranisles. 
 
 L. — This, Sir, is the knot of the difficulty, to which 1 
 answer directly ; that the mystery of the holy Eucharist 
 according to catholic doctrine contains two things. First, 
 that the bread and wine are substantially changed into 
 ilie body and blood of Christ. And 'Idly, that the accidents, 
 or natural proprieties of bread and icinc, [xs figure, taste, 
 colour, §'c., remain the same they were before. This latter 
 truth Theodoret expresses by tolling Eranisles, that the 
 mystical siyns depart not from t/uir former nature by con- 
 secration, but arc visible and tanyiblc as bvfvrc ; which 
 being a principle agreed to by his adversary, Theodoret 
 liad just reason to tell him, that he ivas taken in his oiva 
 nets, in drawing a similitude from a mystery to establish 
 his error, which very mystery contained a confutation of 
 it. For immediately after the passage quoted, he con- 
 cludes, that as the symbols after consecration retain all 
 their former natural proprieties, so the body of Christ 
 even after his resurrection and ascension was circum- 
 scribed, visible, and tangible, and had all the qualities of 
 a hunmn body glorified. 
 
 It is true, Eranistcs lays the whole stress of his argu- 
 ment upon llie substantial change wrought in the saera- 
 inent ; as every inai), that argues rationally, is supposed 
 to set the best foot toremost : but Orthodoxus takes the 
 advantage against him from the other part of the mystery; 
 viz., the natural j>ropriili<s of bread and wine remaining 
 after the consecration, and infers from it, that theretorc 
 tlie natural proprii I i(s of Christ's body always remained; 
 which he tells Eranistcs is taking him in his own nets. 
 IJecause though all agreed that the natural j)ropriclies of 
 bread and wine remain without their substance in the 
 sacrament, no man ever said that the natural proprieties 
 of Christ's body ever were without his real body ; and so 
 it followed by a clear consequence from the very simili-
 
 414 Ohjcctions jrom the Fathers. 
 
 tude insisted upon by Ermiistcs, that the humanity of 
 Christ was not absor|it in the (Uv'niiti/, and that tliero 
 wore always tiro real natures in C'liri.st; the disbelief 
 vvliereof was the capital error of the J'li/fi/chians. 
 
 All this siiews plainly, liow little reason you have to 
 say, that y/'Thcodoret had 6p//ercf/ trunsubstantiation, if, 
 had been a full and absolute conjirmation of the Eutychian 
 heresy instead of a confutation. For, to speak properly, 
 the doctrine of traiisubslnntiatioyi is neither a confirmation 
 nor confutation of the Eidychian heresy ; nor has it any 
 more connexion with it than the change of Moses's rod 
 into a serpent ; or the change of M'ater into wine at Cava 
 in Galilee. But since the Eutychians drew a similitude 
 from one part of the mystery of transiihstantiation to 
 colour their error, Tlieodoret had reason to answer them 
 in their own way, and a just title to take the advantage 
 of the other part of that mystery against them. So that 
 nothing is more frivolous than what you add ; viz.,, that 
 (if Theodoret believed transicbstantiatimi) then there had 
 remained ?io more of the human nature in Christ, than we 
 believe the substance of bread to remain in the sacrament. 
 For you may with just as much good sense infer the 
 same consequence, if Theodoret believed that Moses's rod 
 was changed into a serpent, or that Christ changed water 
 into wine : both whicli miracles I presume Theodoret be- 
 lieved without prejudice to the catholic cause. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, Theodo?-et says positively, th:itfhe mys- 
 tical signs d<'part not from their own nature by consecration. 
 
 L. — No more they do in Theodoret' s sense : because 
 the mystical signs, that is, the accidents remain the same 
 after, as they were before consecration. Now accidents 
 have their proper nature and essence as well as substance; 
 and the ncdural proprieties of things are often called their 
 nature: as we say, it is the nature of ice to be cold, of 
 water to moisten, and oifire to burn. So St Hilary, Lib. 
 10. de Trin. says, that fire in the Babylonian furnace lost 
 its nature. And in the very same sense Theodoret speaks, 
 when he says, that Oic mystical signs depart not from their 
 own 7iature, that is, their natu7'al proprietieshy consecTAtwiu
 
 Objections from the Fathers. 415 
 
 G. — Ay, but Theodoret says more. For he adds, that 
 they rewain in their former substance, and form and shape ^ 
 and are visible, and tangible as before. 
 
 L. — He does so. But pray. Sir, take the very next 
 words with them. Bid tlicy are understood to be the thirigs, 
 which they are made ; and so they are believed, and they 
 are adored, as being the things, ichich they are believed. 
 That is, the true body and blood of Christ y as he professed 
 to believe a few lines before. Tins, Sir, expkiins Jlieo- 
 dorcCs meaning;, and shews, that he talces the word sub- 
 stance, not as it is opposite to accidents, but for a collec- 
 tion of them, as form, shape, visibility, tangibility, §-c. 
 For otlierwise liis meaning will be, that, though the bread 
 and wine be cJiangcd into the body and blood of Christ ; 
 and, though the things, into which they are changed, are 
 to be adored, yet they are notliing but jAain bread and 
 wine after, as they were before consecration ; which is 
 both a contradiction and blasphemy. It is a cojitradiction 
 to say, that bread and wine retaining in all 7-espects their 
 former nature are changed and made the body and blood 
 of Christ: and it is blasphemy to say, that bread remain- 
 ing plain bread is to be adored: and nothing can clear 
 Thtodoret either from tlie one or the other, but taking tiie 
 word substance for a collection of natural proprieties. 
 
 G. — But where does your lordship find the word sub" 
 stance ever taken in that sense? 
 
 L. — Sir, the English word substance does not bear so 
 large a sense, as substantia in Latin, or (j-jola in Greek ; 
 which is the word Theodoret makes use of in the text 
 quoted. And therefore, though it be imjiropcr in English 
 to give to accidents the denomination of substance, it is 
 nut so in the otlier two languages. Aristotle, who as a 
 philosopher is supposed to follow the strictest laws of 
 speech, writes thus, Lib. 5. JShtaph. C. 8. : 'Ihe word 
 substance [cjc/a] may be taken in two dijjtrcnl senses. 
 J'irst, for the last subject [and this we properly call sub- 
 stance in English]. '2dly, loK any accidknt, Tiiot'oii 
 HKVAiiAmA. FuoM THE Till NO. And thus the Latin word 
 substantia is taken by St Peter Ckrysologus saying, a
 
 41G Olyection^ from the lathers. 
 
 4/!oiious hixhi is ihaiigcd in suhsUnwe, but not in peraon. 
 Alutassc snbsUintiatn, sod iion inutusse jufso/iam. Serni. 
 82, uiul by ISt Austin saying, Man bji sin fell from the 
 substance in which he was made. Per iniquitatem lioino 
 lapsus est a substantia, in qua factus est. Psalm Ixix. In 
 liotli whicU placo.s the word substance is taken for ncci- 
 dcntal (jualilics. ^^'ilicll suffices abundantly to justify 
 jny answer. However if you can find me any other 
 J'^nglish word to answer the full extent of the Greek 
 i/joiv., or tiie Latin substantia, I shall be obliged to you 
 for it, and use it for the future in translating- the text, 
 you have objected from Thcodoret. 
 
 «' G. — My lord, Thcodoret says in the same place, that our 
 " blessed Saviour, who called himself the living bread ami the 
 •• vine, has also honoured the visible signs ivith the tide and 
 '' appellation of his body and blood, not changing their nature, 
 '• but adding to nature grace." — p. 148. 
 
 L, — Sir, tliis passage is not in the same place with 
 the former, but is taken from Thcodorefs first dialogue. 
 However the principal dilficulty it contains is already 
 answered. For since the visible signs lose nothing of 
 tlieir natural qualities by consecration, they may properly 
 he said not to be changed in their nature: and the grace, 
 wliich Theodoret says is added to ncUure, is Christ himself; 
 of whom St Paul says, the grace of God, thai bringctk 
 salvation, has appeared to all men. Tit. xi. 11. 
 
 As to TheodoreVs saying, that Christ, icho called hini- 
 xlf the living bread and the vine, has also honoured the 
 risible signs with the title and appellation of his body and 
 blood : his true meaning is, that the elements, which of 
 tlieir own nature are nothing but bread and tvine, arc 
 honoured irith the title and appellation of Christ's body 
 and blood, by being made liis true body and blood by 
 the words of consecration : as a man of a mean extraction 
 is said to be honoured with the title of lord or duke, when 
 he is really jnade one. And that this is Theodoret' s 
 meaning is manifest from his own words immediately 
 j)rece(iing the piece you have quoted. Ekanistes. / 
 should be glad to know why the names are changed.
 
 Objections from the Fathers. 417 
 
 OuTHODOxus. The reason is evident to those that under- 
 stand the niystcnj. For Christ would not have us regard 
 tilt nature of icliat we see. But as the names of the ele- 
 ments are changed, so to apprehend by faith the change, 
 which is made in them by grace. 
 
 I shall conclude with ii passage from Thcodoret, wlierc 
 treating professedly of the sacrament, I presume he will 
 speak his mind plainly. Christ (says he) at his last 
 supper shewed the tuli: okioinal, of which the paschal 
 land) was a type ; opened the gates of the holy sacrament, 
 and gave his precious body and ulood not only to the 
 
 eleven apostles, but also to the traitor Judas Those 
 
 Words [he shall be "uilty of the body and blood of our 
 Lord] 7ncan this .- that as Judas betrayed him, and the 
 Jews insulted him, so thty offer him a very great affront, 
 who take his most holy body with unclean hands, ami 
 put it into a defied mouth, in 1 Cor. xi. 
 
 Here he declares //r^^, that the body -dud blood oi' Christ 
 are truly contained in the sacrament: and 2dly, that they 
 are given to all communicants both good and bad. And 
 let any man now judge, whether this be not papistical 
 doctrine. Xav, the four protestant Centuriators acknow- 
 Ifdire Thcodoret to be an abettor of transubstantiation. 
 Thcodoret (say they) affirms dangerously, that the symbols 
 of the body and blood ()/' Christ after the invocation of tlie 
 priest are changed and become nnother thing. Cent. 5. C. 
 10. Let us now consider, whether any other amongst 
 the fatiiers will be more favourable to you. 
 
 GELASIUiS, ANu 1-ACUNDUS HERMIANEXSIS. 
 
 « (J. Pope Gclasius s.iys, that the sucramint of the hodi/ 
 
 " and blood of Christ, which we tulce, is a divine thing, by which 
 " we are made partakers of the divine nature : and yet it ceases 
 '• vot to be the substance and nature of brtad and uu?ie. And 
 " certainly (says hoj the. image and sinulitudc of (he body and 
 " blood of Christ is eelibrated in the mysteries. 
 
 " And Facnmhis sayj^ iho same. Not (says lie) that the 
 " bread is properly his body, or ihe cup his h/uod, but that thcij 
 '■ contain the mystery of his body and blood." — p. 149, 
 
 L. — Sir, what has been already said to Th<odont,\\\\\ 
 
 ■V '2
 
 418 Objections fro7n l/ie Fathers. 
 
 fully answer Gelasiuii ; who makes the same comparison 
 as Tkcodorct did, and almost in the same terms. His 
 design too is the same, r/c, to shew, that, as the natural 
 proprieties of bread and ivine^ though changed into the 
 body and blood of Christ, remain after consecration ; so 
 after the incarnation there remain all the natural pro- 
 prieties of human nature, and by consequence the human 
 nature itself in Christ. 
 
 But pray, Sir, who has privileged you not only to 
 suppress a material part of his words, but even to alter 
 in your translation the broken piece you have quoted, 
 by substituting and instead of or ? For Gelasius says 
 not substance and nature, but substance on nature. It 
 ceases not (says he) to be the substatice or nature of bread 
 and ivine : and he seems to have designedly used the 
 particle or, to mollify the harshness of tiie preceding word 
 substance, and make way for his own following explana- 
 tion, viz. : that the sacraments by the divine operation of 
 the Holy Ghost pass into the divine substance; yet 
 remain in the proprietv of their nature: which you 
 have wholly omitted; because it is rank popery, and makes 
 Gelasius a witness for transubstantiation. 
 
 As to his saying, that the image and similitude of the 
 body and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of the 
 mysteries; it imports no more than what children arc 
 taught in their Catechism, viz., that the eucharist is 
 the sacrament of our Saviour's body and blood: because 
 €very sacrament is a siyn or image of the thing it con- 
 tains. And the words of Facundus Ilermianensis saying, 
 that they contaiii the mystery of Christ's body and blood, 
 will bear the same meaning. For the eucharist, or sacra- 
 ment of Christ's body and blood is certainly a great 
 7nystery ; and every Roman catholic in the world will 
 subscribe to his saying, that the bread is not properly his 
 body, nor the wine his blood : but that they arc changed 
 into his body and blood. Have you any more fathers to 
 quote ? 
 
 G. — Yes, my lord, St Austin, and St Chrysostom. 
 
 L. — St Austin and St Chrysostom, do you say ? Then
 
 Ohjections from the Fathers. 419 
 
 I fear you are in a bad way. But let us have St Austin 
 first. 
 
 St AUGUSTIN. 
 
 « G. — St Austin says, if sacraments did 7)ot bear some 
 <« similitude to the thijigs, of ichich they are the sacraments, they 
 " tt'oidd not he sacraments at all. But from this similitude 
 " they often take the name of the things themselves. As, says 
 " he, the sacrament of faith, xvhich is baptism, is called faith." 
 _p. 149. 
 
 L. — Sir, I have more difficulty to find an objection in 
 these words of St Austin, than to give an answer to it. 
 For I do not see what other sense St Austin's words will 
 bear, than that as every sacrament is a visible sign of 
 invisible grace, Christ has instituted such visible sig7is for 
 sacraments, as bear some similitude to the peculiar grace 
 they produce. As b7-cad and u'i7ie, which are nourishing 
 things, and the matter of the holy cucharist, signify the 
 spiritual nourish7ne7it of our souls, which is the peculiar 
 grace of that sacrament ; and it is therefore called the 
 7iourishm€7it of our souls. And so of all the other 
 sacraments. 
 
 But let us now hear St Austi7i deliver tlirec truths 
 diametrically opj)Osite to the general protcsta/it doctrine. 
 First, That Christ's immortal body is really present 
 upon the altar under the sacra7ne7Ual sig7is. 
 
 Idly, That we receive it not only with our hearts, but 
 also with our 7nouths. And 
 
 3d/y, That it is actually received even by the u7ucorthy 
 communicant. 
 
 The first of tliesc we have in his Co7ifessions, wlierc 
 he writes thus of his mother: She desired to be rc7nc7nb('7-cd 
 at thy altar, whereat she had been co}is(a7dly prcseiU unthout 
 missing any one day: and from whknce she knew 
 WAS DISPENSED THE HOLY viCTi."\r, by tvhich the hand- 
 icriting that was against 7ts, was blotted out, and by which 
 the cnrwy tras conquered, that numbered our sins. lAh. I). 
 Conf. C. 13. 
 
 Tiic 2d. We receive 7vith a faithful heart and mouth 
 Jesus Christ giving us his flesh to eat, and his blood to
 
 4 "20 Objections J) uin the Patliers, 
 
 drink : thoiKjh it be more shocking to eat man's Jlesh, than 
 to kill it, and to drink man's blood, than to shed it. L. 2. 
 Contra adversarium Lajis ct Prophetarum. 
 
 And the 3(1 in these words: They, who, as the apostle 
 sai/s, eat and drink damnation to themselves, yet v.w -rm: 
 
 VKllY FMiSlI OF ClllUSr, AM) DUrNK HIS VKIIY liLOOD. 
 
 •Serin. 11. De verbis Domini. C. 11. 
 
 All these are necessary consequences of transubstanlta- 
 tion, and shew plainly that a mevc Jiyurative or symbolical 
 presence are contrary to St Austin's doctrine. 
 
 He adds (in Psalm xcviii. 5) tltat no man eats ike 
 llesh of Christ but he adores it Jirst. As likewise (in 
 Psalm xxxiii.) that Christ upon the altar is offered in 
 sacri/icc. There was, as you know (says he), formerly a 
 sacrifiee of the Jews according to the order of Aaron in 
 victims of cattle, and this is a mystery. There was not 
 then the sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord, which 
 the faithful, and those that have read the gospel know: 
 which sacrifice is now spread over all the world. 
 
 And is not then iSt Austin a very proper judge for a 
 protestant to appeal to? Now let us hear St Chrysostom, 
 
 Sr CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 " G. — St Chrysostom speaking; of the vessels, in which the 
 " sacrament was j)ut, in which (says he) there is not the true 
 '' body of Christ, but the mystery of his body is contained in 
 " them. Opere iinpcrf. in Matt., and Epist. ad desariu/n, 
 " in Biljliotli. p. Col. 1618. 
 
 L Sir, the author of the bogk you have quoted is 
 
 not St Chrysostom, but a rank heretic. And you yourself 
 must own him to be one, unless you will maintain it to 
 be orthodox doctrine, 1. I'hat marriage is of itself a sin. 
 2. That a second marriage is only an honest fornication ; 
 and 3. That the catholic doctrine of the divinity of Christ 
 is the Ilomousian heresy: all which, and many other 
 errors are scattered up and down in the writings of that 
 author. 
 
 The cj)istle to Ciesarius is likewise suspected to be 
 spurious by the learned. But this all men of sense 
 must grant, that if it contradicts St Chrysostom's constant
 
 Objections fi'om the Fathers . 421 
 
 iloctrine In bis midoubtcd works, it ought to be rejected. 
 Let us then hear himself i>\)Qvk, and lie will teach ns these 
 three considerable truths. 
 
 First, That the body and blood of Christ arc in the 
 sacred vessels. 
 
 '2dly, That the body of Christ is at the same time in 
 heaven and upon earth. 
 
 And 'Sdly, that we must not trust our setiscs m this 
 )/iystery: thouiJjh you told me but a while ago. and were 
 positive in it, that God never said, nor did any thing to 
 contradict man's senses. 
 
 'Hie ^/irst truth is delivered in the following words: 
 The apostle (says St Chrysostom) tells us, that irhat is in 
 the CIIM.1CE is the same as that icliich floiced from his 
 side. And the wise men adored that body even lying in 
 the manger ; but you do not see it in a manger, but upon 
 the ALTAR. Ilom. 24. in 1 Cor. x. 16. 
 
 The second truth is delivered by the same father in 
 the two following passages : O miracle! O divine bounty ! 
 He, icho sits above at the right hand of the father, is at the 
 very same instant in all mens hands. L. 3. De Sacerdotio. 
 C. 4. 
 
 And again ; this mystery here changes for the earth 
 
 into heaven For I will shew thee here placed upon earth 
 
 even that, which is most precious and adorable in heaven. 
 
 The body f/ [Christ] the King is the most magnificent 
 
 Ouuif in htnven; but you may noiv sec it ttpon earth. Horn, 
 de Sane to Fhilogoniu. 
 
 The 3rf truth is thus set forth at large by St Chrysostom. 
 JjCt us always believe God, and not contradict him, Tiioiciii 
 
 THAT, WHICH JIK SAYS, SKLMS TO CONTKAniCT ItOTH OUR 
 
 tiu)i'(;hts, and olu slnses. — For his words cannot de- 
 ceive us, but OUR SENSES MAY «E EASILY DECEIVED. Jic 
 
 /lever errs, but lUEsr. are often mistaken. Since there- 
 fore he says. This is my body, let ns be fully persuaded of 
 
 it. /low many say now, () thai I could see hi?n in hts 
 
 own shajn ! Or his dot/us, or any thing about him ! Fxlave 
 me Yor see him, you touch him, you eat him. You 
 would be content to see his clothes, and he lets you not only
 
 422 The Genlkman's 
 
 see him, hut also touch him, tnul cat him, and receive him 
 tvithin you. Horn. 83. in .St Mutt. 
 
 And in the same Homi/i/ lie tells us, tlie priest's office 
 is only ministerial, but that the elements are sanctijied and 
 CHANGED Inj Christ. 
 
 Here we have both transuhstantiation clearly taught, 
 and the grand protesfant objection from its contradiction 
 to our senses fully answered. And had I not reason to 
 tell yon, it would go badly with you, if either St Austin, 
 or St Chrysostom were to give verdict. Believe me, Sir, 
 whenever you appeal to the fathers, whether Greek or 
 Latin, you put yourself into the hands of enemies, and 
 must expect to succeed accordingly. 
 
 SECTION XXVII. — THE GENTLEMAN's UNSEASONABLE 
 
 BOASTING. 
 
 « G. — My lord, not to trouble you with more quotations, 
 " I refer you to Bishop Cosiiis history of transuhstantiation : 
 " where beginning at the institution, he sets down in every 
 " century tlie words of the. fathers upon this point. A little 
 " book long since printed both in English and Latin, not 
 " yet answered (that I hear) and I believe unanswerable. 
 " Wherein yon will see a cloud of witnesses, through the 
 " first ages of the cliurcli, and so downwards in perfect 
 " contradiction to this new article of your faith. 
 
 " And as the scriptures, primitive church, and fathers are 
 " all against yon, so have you nothing but an unintelligible 
 '^'^ jargon of metaphysics, upon which the schoolmen ring 
 " changes, till the noise of their bells liave deafened common 
 " sense and reason. Such arc their subtilties upon suhstance, 
 " accidents, subsistence, modusscs, and modalities, and many 
 " more such rjuiddities ; and their distinctions of materialiter 
 ** and formaliter, per se, and ^jc/' accidens, and a thousand 
 " more to solve all difficultiis, and reconcile contradictions. 
 " No absurdity can be named out of the reach of a distinction. 
 " And when wennderstand it not, it operates most effectually, 
 " because then we may suppose there is something in it." 
 p. 150. 
 
 L. — Truly, Sir, to hear you swagger at this wild rate,
 
 unseasonable Boasting. 423 
 
 one would think you had an adversary at your feet 
 beg-ging for quarter. But if you be in this gasconading 
 humour, when you ought to be sensible, that you just 
 come from being' driven out of all your entrenchments, 
 how would you proc-luim your victory with beat of drum, 
 and sound of trumpet, had the advantage of any one argu- 
 ment been visibly on your side ? 
 
 You began the attack with arguments from scripture: 
 but finding your own artillery turned against you, you 
 made haste to call the senses to your assistance, and these 
 you bragged of as an invincible host. But they were 
 unable to stand their ground against plain scriptural facts, 
 common experience and reason. Lastly, you hailed into 
 the field some fathers ; the greatest part of them most 
 wretchedly disguised or mangled ; and you would needs 
 force them to maintain a cause, against which they all 
 solemnly protest, when they are allowed to speak their 
 own minds. Yet you have the confidence to tell me with 
 a serious air, that scriptures, primitive church and fathers 
 we all agaijist me, and that I have nothing in the world on 
 my side Imt an unintelligible jargon of metaphysics, with a 
 deal more of such rodomontado stuff. 
 
 However 1 must own you have managed the fathers 
 with most exquisite skill, sometimes i)y the most strained 
 and contradictory interpretations, and other times by sup- 
 pressing some material part of the text, which might 
 serve as a key to open the true sense and meaning of the 
 author. By the lielp of these ingenious artifices the 
 fathers may be made mere punchincllos, or speaking trum- 
 pets, and in spite oi \.\\q.\t great agehc taught the modern 
 protcstant language, whicli they M'erc utter strangers to 
 1'200 years ago. 
 
 But you refer me to Dr Cosines unanswerable history 
 of transubstantiation, and i)articidarly to his fpiotations 
 from tho fathers ; out of which you thought fit to choose 
 to the number of stmt. And I presume 1 may be allowed 
 to have that good ()])iui()n both of your judgment, and 
 zeal for the cause, as not to doul)t, but that out of the 
 numerous (piotations, with which l)r Cosin has crammed
 
 424 UtumrliS upon 
 
 liis book, you have picked the very choicest. For it is 
 not reasonable to suppose, that a juilieious colloctor, who 
 had so much choice before him, wouKl leave the best, and 
 lake the worst. Whence it is obvious to i^uess, what sort 
 ot" hnnber you have left behind, wiien the wretched ones 
 you have made clioice of, are the very best of the bunch. 
 Due of your (piotations, is taken from an heretic instead 
 of an orthodox father. Your mentioning St Chrysostom^ 
 and St Austin have served for no other purpose than to 
 oive me a fair occasion to shew how flatly those two 
 lathers are against you : three other fathers -die downriglit 
 falsified. For Origen's words are clipped to conceal tlieir 
 true meaning ; and in your quotiitions from Theodorel 
 and Gelasius you have ])ractised the art both of clipping 
 and coining. Thus, after all your boasting, your quota- 
 tions turn only to your confusion : and if these be the 
 most select ones of your unanswerable Doctor, it will be no 
 rashness to judge, that the rest of his quotations are 
 either nothing to the purpose, or that lie has taken care 
 to cook a)id dress them with the same exquisite skill, as 
 some of those yon have already entertained me with. 
 
 SECTION XXVlll. — SOME ANIMADVERSIONS UPON DR 
 
 cosin's history or transubstantiation. 
 
 But, to come to a closer examination of tliat author, 1 
 perceive it is his example has encouraged you to that 
 ■wild and defenceless assertion, viz., that the whole primi- 
 tive church, and cdl the fathers are against us. For I find 
 Jiim under the same sort of delirium, p. 159, where he 
 tells us, that transubstantiation is a mere novelty, invented 
 about the middle of the ticelflh century, and confirmed by 
 no ecclesiastical or papal decree before the year 1215. This 
 1 own is laying the axe to the root, if the Doctor can 
 make good what he says. For, if he can prove, that the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation is a novelty invented about tlic 
 middle of the twelfth century, he certainly gains liis cause : 
 Jjut, i)istead of that, lie has deprived himself of the very
 
 Dr Cositis History^ §-c. 425 
 
 possibility of proving it by what he writes, p. 137, which 
 is a flat contradiction to it. His words are these : At last 
 (I new form of retractation was imposed mi Berengarius, 
 whereby he was henceforth to coyfess under jjain of the 
 Pope's high displeasure, that the mystic bread is sub' 
 stantially turned into the true and proper flesh of Christ. 
 
 Here, Sir, if you can bring off your unanswerable 
 author, you will do him a signal piece of service. Beren- 
 fjarius began to broach his new doctrine concerning 
 the Eucharist about three years before the middle ot 
 the eleventh century, and one article of his lieresy was, 
 that the bread and wine are 7Wt changed by consecration 
 into the body and blood of Christ .- as appears plainly from 
 the very form of retractation, which he was obliged to 
 make in these remarkable words : / Berengarius ivith my 
 heart believe, and with my tongue confess, that the bread 
 and icmc, ichich are placed upon the altar, are by the mys- 
 tery of holy prayer, and the words of our lledeemer sub- 
 stantially changed into the true and proper and life-giving 
 Jlesh and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. This, Sir, is tlie 
 retractation Dr Cosin si)caks of; and was made in the 
 Roman council under Pope Gregory Wl. the T9th year 
 «tf the eleventh century. 
 
 Now, if it be true (as it most certainly is) what the 
 Doctor tells us, p. 137, that Berengarius was obliged to 
 make a public profession of the doctrine of tranf^ubstanda- 
 iioH in the eleventh century (in which he lived and died) 
 I desire to know how it can likewise be true, what ho 
 tells us, p. 1.39, that transubstantiation is a novelty in- 
 vented about the middle of the twelfth ! unless a doctrine 
 can be ])rofessc(l about four score years before it is in- 
 vented : this I tliinlc is a sutlicicnt warning to any man 
 not to believe the Doctor upon his bare woril. 
 
 But, setting aside the grossness of this palpable con- 
 tradiction, which is no small blemish in an unanswerable 
 /licce, the falsehood of his historical account may be de- 
 jnonstratcd from unques'tionable facts. Transubstantiation 
 (says the Doctor) was invented about the middle of the 
 twelfth century; yet all the lear)jed know, that Bereu-
 
 42G Itemarhs upo7i 
 
 fjarhia hconn to write ai>-ainst it about the year 1047, that 
 is, about a liuiulred years belorc the Dudur's cpocha. 
 
 Nay his new scheme of a more fifjurative or symbolical 
 prcaence no sooner appeared in jiublic, but was opposed 
 by the most learned writers of that au'e, and condemned 
 the fn-st time in a council hehl at Home under Leo IX. 
 anno 1050, and the same year in two councils more, one 
 hekl at Vercelles, the other at Paris. Five years after it 
 was again condemned in two councils, one held at Florence, 
 the oilier at Tours. And four years after that in a council 
 at Howe mulev Nicholas II. in which couucW Berenr/arius 
 threw his own writintrs into the fire ; though (as bishop 
 Laiifranc feared) with a bended bod)'-, but not an hum- 
 bled heart, inclinato corpore, sed non humiliato corde. After 
 that it was again condemned in a council at Rouen, anno 
 1063; in another at 7^oz7/er.<f, anno 1075; and in two others 
 at Rome under Gregory VII., anno 1078 and anno 1097. 
 
 Thus was Berengaritis's doctrine against transid)stantia- 
 tion condemned by 10 provincial councils during his life ; 
 and seven years after his death (which happened anno 
 1088) it was again condemned in a numerous council at 
 Plaisance, in which the decree is thus expressed, that the 
 hread and wine, when they arc consecrated upon the altar, 
 are truly and essenticdly changed into the body and blood of 
 our Lord, and not injigure only. Tom. 10. Cone. Lab. 
 p. 502. 
 
 Now, Sir, these undoubted facts are jfirst an unanswer- 
 able proof, that the doctrine of transuhstantiatioji was be- 
 lieved by the church in the middle of the eleventh century; 
 and it could not be then believed, if it was Jirst invented 
 about the middle of the twelflli ; that is, about a hundred 
 years after ; as the Doctor tells us. 
 
 They are likewise an unanswerable proof of the false- 
 hood of what he adds, viz., that it teas not confirmed by 
 any ecclesiastical or papal decree before the year 1215. 
 For I take it to be an undoubted truth, that the eleventh 
 century was before the thirteenth. And I think the decrees 
 of eleven provincial councils, at some of which the Pope 
 himself presided in person, may properly be called
 
 Dr Cosin's History, S^r. 427 
 
 ecclesiastical and jxtpal decrees. So that the Doctor is 
 most grievously out in both the parts of his story. 
 
 G. — ^ly lord, the word transiibsfantiation never was 
 heard of till the fourth Lateran Council w\\\c\\ was held An. 
 1215, So far therefore Dr Cosiii has truth on his side. 
 
 L. — But other words equivalejit to it were frequently 
 lieard of even amongst the ancient fathers, as 1 have 
 already instanced in some, and shall instance in more im- 
 mediately. But, Sir, are we disputing about the word 
 transribstantiation, or the f/oc/;-?«e signified by that U'ord? 
 Has Dr Cosin writ his elaborate history only to prove 
 that transuhstantiotion is a new word? Or was there any 
 need of forty quotations from the fathers to decide this 
 weighty point? Truly, Sir, though I have but a very in- 
 different o})inion of the Doctor's perforjnance, I cannot 
 think him such an errant trifler, as tiiis would make him. 
 
 You know as well as I that the thing signified by the 
 v.'ord ti'ansubstantiation is a change of one substance into 
 another. And in relation to the encharist it signifies a 
 change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of 
 our Saviour Christ made by the words of consecration. 
 And the question is not, whether the word ti'ansubstantia- 
 tion be old or neiv, or when it was first made use of to 
 signify that mystery ; but whether the mystery signified 
 by it be the ancient faith of the Church. Nay I have so 
 good an opinion of the 7>?oc^o;'.s judgment as to presume 
 he means the doctrine itself and not the uvrd, when he 
 tells us, that transnb.stantiation is a novelty invented about 
 the middle of the twelfth century, and, that it icas not 
 confirmed by any ecclesiastical or papal decree before the 
 year 1215. 
 
 liut, if he slinks away from the true question, and 
 means no more than to trille aijout the word, 1 know 
 not where he will find an adversary, and I am very ready 
 to grant, that as the word consubslantial was first made 
 use of in the great council oi Nice to e.\j)ress the divinity 
 of (,'hrist against the Arians, and that as this \\as not 
 coining a new article of faith, but only a iiar uurd to 
 express the ancient faith more clearly ; so in like manner
 
 428 He marks iifon 
 
 ilio word transuhslantiatioii was lirst used in the Lateran 
 (ouncil hold anno 1215, to o.xpress the ancient faith 
 oi the Church in relation to the mystery of the Jioly 
 ntcharist. 
 
 But what is all this to tlic Doctor's purpose ? Is this 
 a consequence hoconiing; a man of sense and learning, 
 ///(■ word transubstantiation teas not tjcncrally made use 
 of before the year 1215, therefore the doctrine signified l)y 
 it is a novelty, and was not confirmed by any ecclesiastical 
 or papal decree before that time! If you have nothing 
 better to say in defence of your unanswerable author, it 
 will go hard with him in the judgment of all unbiassed 
 men. For, as to the doctrinal part in question, I have 
 already demonstrated from undeniable facts, that the 
 doctrine of iransuhstantiation was believed by the Church 
 in the eleventh century, and that by consequence it \s-as 
 not a novelty invented about the middle of the twelfth. 
 From the same unquestionaI)le facts I have demonstrated, 
 that, if the eleventh century was by good computation 
 before the thirteenth, the same doctrine was confirmed by 
 eleven provincial councils ; or ecclesiastical decrees before 
 the year \'l\b. And this is a full and plain confutation of 
 the chief article of the Doctor\<i history ; which was to 
 fix tlie cpocha of the general belief of transubstantiation 
 no higher than the thirteenth century. 
 
 But to give you still a more ample demonstration of 
 the Doctor's fruitful invention, and skill in romancing, 
 lie tells us, p. 131, that almost all the French, Italians^ 
 and English of those times etwco/Berengarius's opinion. 
 And p. 132, that it teas maintained by many famous 
 nations. A man must surely liave a very large stock of 
 confidence to assert two facts so notoriously false. For, 
 jirst, if almost all the French, Italians, and English lieid 
 Bcrengarius's doctrine, and if it was maintained by 
 many famous nations, how came it to pass, that in the 
 very age he lived in, i\\c\e Viere eleven provincial councils 
 called to condemn it, and not one to approve or defend it 
 either in Italy, France, or England, or any other nation 
 of tlie known world ! Were all the famous nations, the
 
 Dr Coshis Hintory, ^-c. 429 
 
 Doctor speaks of, intoxicated with wine, or laid fast 
 asleep with opium, that they coukl not stand up for the 
 common cause of religio?}, nor oj)pose councils against 
 councils to support the sinking credit of their champion, 
 and save him from being run down by numbers ! Or 
 must we suppose it to be tlie common practice oi bis/iops 
 to define a doctrine contrary to their own conscience and 
 belief ! Such pretty suppositions as these may indeed 
 relieve the Doctor in some measure : but without their 
 help it is impossible for any man in liis right senses to 
 believe, that man>j famous nations, nay even one single 
 famous nation ^vas for Ikrenr/arius, when there are no 
 noted facts to render it credible, and innumerable ones 
 to disprove it. 
 
 ~(l/l/, If Berenijarius asserted the ancient doctrine, and 
 had so many famous nations for him, I ask, whether the 
 Greeks were of the number of \.\\QiC famous nations? For 
 I am sure the western nations were all against him. And 
 if the Greeks were for him, why did they not engage 
 openly in his fjuairel ? Tiiey were at that time so 
 exasperated against the Latins, that they even reproached 
 them with the most trivial things, -ds shavinf/ their beards, 
 eat ing hogs -flcsli ,mM\ consecrating in unleavened bread; but 
 never accused them of aiiv error rclatinj; to tiic .-Nubiect 
 in <|uestion : which is a demonstrative proof, that the 
 Greeks agreed with the Latins, and were against Bcren- 
 garius in this mgsterg. 
 
 '.')dhj. 'I'he most learned writers of the eleventh age 
 knew nothing of the main/ famous tuitions, the Doctor 
 speaks of; and I may modestly presume, they could not 
 be ignorant of the nligion professed in any noted nation 
 of Christendom. 
 
 Hugh biiiiop of Langrcs in France writing to liercn- 
 garius, told him, tliat he scandalized the whole church : 
 nniversalem reelesiam scandalizas. 
 
 jyurandus ;ibl)ot of Trourn in Normandy told him he 
 impunged tlic doctrine of the whole Catholic Churcii. 
 (luod eatholira per orbem universum ]>rccdirat ecclesla. 
 
 lAinfrnnc primate of England, and a mari of extra-
 
 430 TransuhstaMiation 
 
 ordinary parts, in the begiiinhi^ of liis book against 
 Bercmjarias tolls him he hoUls an opinion contrary to 
 the whole M-orld. Contra orhem srnlirc cccpislL And 
 Guitinoml abbot of Averse told him, he was the author 
 of his sect. It is (says he) notoriously known at this 
 time, that this mad doctrine never was tauyhl before 
 Berengarius &e/7«« to run mad. L. 3. Notissimi/m est hoc 
 tempore, priiisijuam Berengarius itisanisset, hujnsmodi 
 insanias nunqaam fuisse. And in the same book he 
 reproaches him, that not even any poor town or villof/e 
 had received his doctrine : ncque enim eis vel una civita- 
 tula vel villa concessit. And pray. Sir, in what part of 
 the terrestrial globe were tlicn the many famous nations 
 discovered since by your unanswerable Doctor ? 
 
 SECTION XXIX. — THE ANTIf^UITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 But, to return to that piece of Doctor Cosin's history, 
 where he tells us, that transubstaniiation was first invented 
 about the middle of the twelfth century, I shall now pro- 
 duce some testimonies of fathers, that lived in the fourth : 
 and if these teach the doctrine of transubstantiatio7i as 
 plainly as BcUarmin himself, then the Doctor must stand 
 condemned. I have already fairly proved St Austin and 
 St Chrysostom to be found papists in relation to the 
 article in question. To these I shall for brevity's sake 
 only add four more, two Greek, and two Latin fathers 
 (for I omit a whole cloud more of venerable witnesses) 
 viz., St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Gregory Nyssen, St 
 Ambrose, and St Jerome. Whoever cannot find the 
 doctrine of transuhstantiation in these fathers, must have 
 very bad eyes. I say the doctrine ; for I am not disposed 
 to trifle about the tvord. 
 
 St Cyril (Catech. Mystag. 4.) writes thus: Jesus Christ 
 (says he) m Cana of Galilee changed ivater into wine, 
 which has some affinity with blood, by his will only. And 
 can ive not believe him^ that he changed the wine
 
 iauffht bij the Fathers. 431 
 
 INTO HIS OWN BLOOD? Let i/our soul rejoice in the 
 
 Lord being persuaded of it as a thing most certain^ that 
 the breads which appears to our eijes, is not bread, though 
 our taste do Judge it to be so, but that it is the body o/" Jesus 
 Christ. And that the icine, which appears to our eyes is 
 not wine, though our sense of taste takes it for wine, but 
 that it is the blood of Jesus Christ. Kothiiig- cau be 
 plainer than this. 
 
 St Gregory Xyssen in the same century having said, 
 that the immortal body c/* Christ {as a powerful preserva- 
 tive) is received into our boicels, and tlien inquired, hoio 
 this same body, tvhich is distributed to so many thousands 
 of the faithful over all the earth, should be entire iji 
 each of these, and in each part, ivhich they receive, and 
 yet not cease to remain entire in itself? He answers, 
 because tiie visible substance of bread and wine are 
 changed into it. The body of Christ, says he, is deijied 
 by his person. And therefore I have reason to believe, 
 that to this day the bread being sanctified by the icord of 
 
 God IS CHANGED INTO THEBODYOF GoD TIIE SoK. — For 
 
 there the divine person sanctified the body, tchich had bread 
 for its nourishment, anel so ivas as it were bread. And 
 here in like manner, bread, to use the words of the apostle, 
 is sanctified by the u-ord eif God a7id jirayer. Not so, 
 that it is to be changed into tiic body of Christ by nourish- 
 
 ing it; BUT THAT IT IS SUDDENLY CHANGED INTO IT BY 
 
 THESE WORDS, this is my body ; the nature of those 
 
 THINGS THAT APPEAR, BEING TRANSELEMENTED INTO 
 
 IT BV THE POWER OF CONSECRATION. In Orat. Catcch. 
 Cap. 37. T. 3. Kdit. Par. 
 
 This I think is tcachinp^ the doctrine of transubstantia- 
 tion, though tiic word itself be not made use of. 
 
 St Ambrose likewise toaclics it so very plainly, (liat 
 the protcstant Centurisfs made bold to give him a repri- 
 mand for it, saying, Ambrose did not write well of tran- 
 substantiation. Cent. 4. C. 4. Col. '295. It seems then 
 he wrote of it : and since he lived above 700 years 
 before tlie michllc of the txrelftk century, I know not 
 wliat will become of Doctor Cosin's cpocha.
 
 432 Tranmbstantiation 
 
 Let us then see liow lie handles this subject in his 
 book Dc Liidatis : Perhaps, says he, yon may tell me I 
 
 sec another thimj. / muat therefore prove, that what 
 
 you receive, is not that which nature framed, hut that, 
 which the benediction has created ; and that the benedic- 
 tion has a greater force than nature. Moses held a rod 
 in his hand, he threw it doivn, and it was made a serpent. 
 Again he took hold of the serpent, and it returned into the 
 
 Jiature of a rod The rivers of Egypt ran with streams 
 
 of pure water, when presently blood gushed forth out of 
 thefoimtain. There was no laaier in the rivers, and again 
 at the prayer of Moses the blood ceased, and the nature of 
 waters returned . 
 
 To those he adds other miracles : viz., that when Moses 
 held up his rod, the sea opened a passage for the Israelites. 
 That Jordan ran back. That ]\Iosrs brought water out 
 of a rock by striking it ; and tliat JAisha made iron swim 
 upon the water contrary to its nature. Then he goes 
 on thus : U'c see therefore that grace is stronger than 
 nature. Xoir, if a 7nan's blessing could change the course 
 of nature, ichat do tee think of the divine consecration itself, 
 in which the very icords cf our Saviour operate ? Tor 
 the sacrament, which you receive, is made by the words of 
 Christ. And if Elisha's u'ords were able to draw fire 
 from heaven, will not Christ's words be able to chance 
 THE SPECIES OF THE ELEMENTS? Jl'e vcad of all creatuves 
 in the icorld, he said and thev were made, he commanded, 
 and they were created : Is not then the U'ord of Christ, 
 luhich could give a being to that ivhich had none, able to 
 
 CHANGE THOSE THINGS WHICH ATA., INTO MHAT THEV 
 WEKE NOT BEFOUE? Tor it is Hol less TO GIVE NEW 
 NATURES TO THINGS, THAN TO CHANGE THEIK NATUUES. 
 
 Lastly, St Jerome Epist. ad Ihliod. writes thus : God 
 forbid I should speak delraclingly of those men [Bishops] 
 who succeeding the apostles in their functions do make 
 THE BODY OF CiuusT icith their sacred moiUh. 
 
 These certainly are authentic witnesses of the public 
 faith of the church in their times, both in regard of their 
 holiness and karning ; and because they never were
 
 taught by the Fathers. 433 
 
 accused by the cMirch of any error against faith ; which 
 censure they could not have escaped, had they been 
 guilty of broaching any doctrine contrary to the knoum 
 faith of the universal church. Whence it is plain, that 
 they taught no other doctrine, than what they had re- 
 ceived by a constant traditioji from the apostles.- for 
 otherwise they would undoubtedly have been publicly 
 censured for introducing novelties into the church. 
 
 Even many protestants convinced by these, and other 
 numberless testimonies of the ancient fathers have owned 
 the antiqicity of tra7isiibstantiation. For besides the Ccn- 
 turists, who blame several fathers by name for teaching 
 it, Adamus Francisci (marg. Theol. p. 256) confesses 
 that transnhstantiation entered early into the chwch. And 
 Antoniiis de Adatno another protestant writer (Anat. jNIiss. 
 p. 36) fairly owns, that he has nothitherto been able to know, 
 when this opinion of the reed and bodily being of Christ in 
 the sacrament did begin. "Which according to St Austin's 
 maxim against the Donatists, is owning in effect, that it 
 had its beginning from Christ, and his apostles. 
 
 Hence I may fairly conclude, that Doctor Cosi7is 
 calling transiibstantiation a novelty invented about the 
 middle of the twelfth century, and your telling me that the 
 primitive church and fathers are all against it, are two 
 assertions wholly void of truth. 
 
 St Ignatius bishop of Antioch, in the very first age a 
 disciple oi the apostles, and an illustrious martrjr, is alone 
 sufficient to disprove both the Doctor, and yourself; and 
 give us certain information of what the primitive church 
 believed and taught concerning the cucharist. For in 
 his genuine epistle to the church oi Smyrna he lias these 
 remarkable words (quoted also by Theodorct) of the 
 heretics of his time : They do not admit eucharists and 
 oblations, because they do not confess, 'i hat tuk Euchar- 
 ist IS THE FLESH OF OUR SaVIOUR JeSUS ChRIST, 
 
 which suffered for our sins, ano which the 
 Father raised again by his uounty. 
 
 u
 
 434 Transuhstantiaiion 
 
 SECTION XXX. — TRANSUBSTANTIATION NOT REPUGNANT 
 TO THE CURRENT I'RINCIPLES OF rillLOSOPIiy. 
 
 G. — My lord, you have repeated many times that tlic 
 substance of bread and wt'jie arc changed into tlie hodi/aud 
 blood of Christ ; but that the accidents of both remuiu. 
 
 L. — Well, Sir, what then ? 
 
 " G. — Then I ask, whether you know the difference betwixt 
 " stihsta7ice and accident ?" — p. 150. 
 
 L. — Sir, when I was a boy, I was taught to answer, 
 that substance is a being which subsists by itself, and that 
 the essence of an accident is not actual inhesion^ but a 
 natural exigency to inhere. So that, though by a super- 
 natural power it may exist without any sidjjecty it still 
 retains its essence, because it naturally requires a subject, 
 even when it exists without one. 
 
 G. — My lord, this seems to be a philosophical scheme 
 cooked up expressly to make the hard morsel of transuh- 
 stantiaiion go down the better. 
 
 L. — Sir, I believe the cookery does not please your 
 palate. However it is good sound Aristotelian philosophy. 
 And Ai'islotle (who lived long enough before ti'ansub- 
 stantiation was known in the world) could not easily be 
 bribed by papists to come in to their notions. Now he 
 taught expressly, that accidents are really distinguished, 
 and may consequently by a supernatural power be separ- 
 ated from their substance; as we say they are in the sacra- 
 ment of the holy Eucharist. And so we cannot be said to 
 have made a precarious philosophical scheme in favour of 
 transubstantiatio7i : since we only maintain, that it is not 
 repugnant to current principles held for many hundred 
 years before Christianity was established. 
 
 G. — My lord, when tlie substance of bread is gone, how 
 can the Jiyure, and colour^ and taste of it remain ? " For 
 " then tliere will be accide?tis of nothing. There will be 
 ** roundness, and nothing round ; ivhileness, and nothing while ; 
 " Sitastc and and nothing tasted ; which is ridiculous." — p. 151. 
 
 L. — It is so, Sir, if quantity be nothing. But quantity 
 according to Aristotle's philosophy is a physical accident
 
 not repugnant, ^c. 435 
 
 distinct, and by consequence separable from substance ; 
 and it is the immediate subject of the other accidents 
 mentioned by you: which in reality are but so many 
 diflferent modifications of quantity : and therefore cannot 
 be destitute of their proper subject, whether quantity be 
 joined to, or separated from its substance ; as it is in the 
 sojcrament of the lioly eucharist. 
 
 " G. — My lord, if quantity., and other accidents subsist by 
 " themselves, why are they not substances? For that is 
 " the definition you give of substance." — pp. 151, 152. 
 
 Zi. — Sir, the reason is, because they do not subsist 
 naturally by themselves, as substance does, but only by a 
 supernatural power. 
 
 *• G. — But if it be by miracle, that they stand by them- 
 " selves, then by miracle they are substances, and there is an 
 " end of the Jaryon." — p. 152. 
 
 L. — Sir, I hope there is. For I have already told 
 you, that their essence, according to Aristotle s philosophy 
 (which I think you have not yet confuted), is not an 
 actual inhesion, but a natural exigency of it, whicli re- 
 mains when they are miraculously separated from their 
 substance. And therefore, good Sir, the miracle, by whicli 
 they are thus separated, does not convert them into sub' 
 stances, 
 
 " G. — If your lordship bo in earnest about this logic of 
 " substance and accidents, will vou lay a good wager upuii 
 .. it Y'—p. 153. 
 
 L. — JIudibras says, fools for ctrguments lay wagers. 
 
 " G. — Yet you liave laid all your honour and estate upon 
 " it. But are you so sure of it, that you would take your 
 " oath upon it." — 7;. 153. 
 
 L. — Whatever you may fancy, Sir, I do not know that, 
 1 hazard the value of a farthing upon the logical question 
 of substance and accidents. 
 
 G. — That is very strange, my lord. Is it not a point 
 oi faith with you, that the accidents of bread wmI wine 
 remain after the consecration ? 
 
 L. — It is, Sir; if by accidents you mean the signs or 
 (ippcaranccH of bread and wine. But whether those signs 
 or appearances be true physical accidtnts, or only modi-
 
 436 Transubslantiation, §r. 
 
 Jications of the object, or sucli impressions made upon 
 our outward senses by the body and blood of Christ, as 
 bread and iviiie, if they had been present, wouhl have 
 made ; are mere school questions, u|)on wliich I shall 
 never be disposed to hazard either my honour or estate, 
 much less paicn my sotd upon the truth or certainty of 
 them; the failh of the church being not the least con- 
 cerned in them. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, did you not just now defend tran- 
 substa7itiatio7i by the philosophical distinction between 
 substance and accidcJits ? 
 
 L. — But, Sir, do you make no difference between 
 h\x\\^\ng faith upon jjhilosophi/, and siiewing that the one 
 is not repugnant to the other ? I believe all mysteries of 
 faith purely upon divine revelation, and not upon their 
 non-repugnance to human reason, which only shews them 
 to be possible. But if a man be such a trifler as to muster 
 up boyish arguments from philosoj)hy against them, am I 
 not a debtor to the ivise, and to the unwise, and bound to 
 shew that Christianity and philosophy are not irreconcila- 
 ble ? And for this reason I have insisted upon the 
 Aristotelian distinction of accidents and substance : not 
 that the mystery of tratisubstantiation is built upon that 
 philosophical distinction, or depends upon it, but only to 
 convince you, that it is not repugnant to the current 
 principles of philosophy. 
 
 " G My lord, this is that philosophy, and vain deceit or 
 
 "fallacy, wliich the apostle says will spoil or liurt onv faith. 
 
 *' Doting upon rpiestions and strifes of ivords perverse 
 
 " disputiiigs and oppositions of science falsely so called, 
 
 " which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Col. 
 « 11. 8; 1 Tim, vi. 4, 5, 21, 22."— p. 153. 
 
 L. — Sir, the apostle censures those, who draw argu- 
 ments from philosophy to overthrow, or ridicule the 
 sacred mysteries of chistian religio7i. So that you have 
 only provided a scourge for your own back ; and, if you 
 will but consider yourself attentively in the looking-glass 
 St Paul has set before you, it will discover to you the 
 weak condition of your cause. I have proved transub- 
 stantiation from scriptures, and the unquestionable trci-
 
 Of implicit Faith. 437 
 
 dition of the church. And what do you oppose against 
 these solid proofs but arguments from hicman reason^ the 
 testimony of our senses, and poor trifles of philosophy, 
 which the apostle justly calls, doting iipon questions and 
 strifes of words, perverse disputings, and opposition of 
 science falsely so called? These are the arguments, with 
 which you attack us; and when we have the condescen- 
 sion to take notice of them, and oppose philosophy against 
 philosophy (which indeed is more than you can in rigour 
 oblige us to in controversies of faith), you cry out, that 
 we have nothing hut an unintelligible Jargo7i of metaphysics 
 on our side. As U philosophy were intended only to run 
 down christian religion, and it were an abuse to employ 
 any part of it in its service. 
 
 Advertisement. — N. B. that the gentleman's whole reply to tlie 
 notorious nonseuse, he has made his catholic lord speak in his 
 Case Stated, p. 1.31, can only be ushered in by the nonsense 
 itself which it confutes. This is the reason, wliy a great part 
 of pp. lol — 153, is here omitted. For though his lordship hzs 
 now answered every thing, that looks like an objection in those 
 pages ; it was impossible to repeat word for word all ihcgentletnan^s 
 fine drollery contained in them without making his lordship personate 
 the dunce as efl'cclualiy as he does in the former conversation. For he 
 is there made to answer, y;. 151, that achialinheroicc, or instichiug 
 (to render the farce more ridiculous) is the essence of accidents. 
 And the gentleman taking the advantage of his blunder draws 
 conscfjucnces from it, and jilays most unmercifully upon him. 
 
 If any one has so much idle lime to throw away, he may read the 
 forcmcnlioned pages in the gentleman's Case Stated. Where he 
 will see how poorly his lordship comes off at last : when weary 
 of being j)clied with hard words, and unable to resist the gcntlc- 
 ynan's powerful logic, he asks quarter, and bogs leave to believe 
 as the church believes. To which his triumphant adversary answers 
 in the following manner. 
 
 SECTION XXXI. — OF IMPLICIT FAITH. 
 
 " G. — Can you believe what the church believes witliout 
 •' knowing what she believes? This is believing nothing. 
 " It is iiiiplicit indeed ! At this rate you need but one article 
 " of your crcalf to believe the holy catholic church. Ami all 
 " the rest may go ofl' implicitly ^ though you should know
 
 438 0/ mplicit Failli. 
 
 ♦,* nothirip^ of any other of tlie articles. And what a man 
 *< knows notiiintif of, lie can give no reason for- Dut St Peter 
 <* bids us be ready alu'Oi/s to give an answer to every man that 
 " askelh ti^ a reason oj't/ic hnpe (or faith) that is in us. Wliicli 
 " snpposes our undcrstandinij it ourselves, and not an implicit 
 " fiutli in others of we know not what. So that if you make 
 " transubstaiitiation an article of your faith, you are obliged 
 *' to understand it aright." — ;?. 154. 
 
 L. — Sir, I think 1 do understand it aright; for I know 
 that the transubsiantiation, which the church believes, is 
 a change of the bread and ivine into the body and blood of 
 Christ made by the words of consecration. And this is as 
 much as I need to h7ioiv o\' understand iov my belief o( It: 
 and neither you, nor the wisest man upon earth knows 
 any more in proportion of the dark mysteries of the 
 blessed trinity, the incarnation, the propar/atio>i of origi- 
 ncU sin, and such other articles of /rti'M, which we both 
 equally believe and profess. Yet I bless God I shall 
 always be ready to give an answer to every man, that ash- 
 elh me, a reason of my faith, or belief oi these mysteries : 
 and the answer I am ready to give is, because God has 
 revealed them ; and the church, which is the ground and 
 pillar of tridh, teaches them. And whoever is not satisfied 
 with this answer, must bid adieu to Christianity. 
 
 You say, this is believing with implicit faith. And I 
 say, there is not a christian in the world, let him be as 
 wise and learned as lie will, but is bound to believe 
 innumerable things with implicit faith. I presume. Sir, 
 you have not the vanity to pretend to know, much less 
 to understand the whole Bible. Yet I have the charity to 
 think you believe both all the facts and doctrinal truths 
 whether intelligible or unintelligible contained in it. 
 Nay you must either do it, or renounce all revealed re- 
 ligion. And what is this but believing with implicit faith'? 
 But suppose any one should have the vanity to think he 
 knows and understands the whole Bible, yet it is certain 
 there are thousands amongst christians, who do not; and 
 are not these bound to believe what they neither know, 
 nor understand of it with an implicit faith? When St 
 Feter said to our Saviour, John vi. G8. Thou hast the
 
 No Danger, ^r. 439 
 
 words of eternal life : Lad he not an implicit faith of all 
 the mysteries of christian religion ? And is this a thint^ 
 to be ridiculed ? 
 
 You say, at this rate we need but one article of our 
 creed, viz., to believe the holy Catholic Church. But I deny 
 your consequence. Because there are several articles, all 
 are bound to believe with an explicit faith. As, the bci7ig 
 of a God, the divinity of Christ, §c, and therefore early 
 care is taken to teach children their creed, and explain to 
 them all the articles it contains. But let us hear, what 
 you have still more to say against transiibstantiation. 
 
 SECTION XXXII, — NO DANGER OF IDOLATRY FROM THE 
 ADORATION OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 " G. — But there is something yet more terrible behind. 
 *•' For, if there be no traiisubslantiation, then you worsbip 
 " bread and loine with latria, by which you mean the supreme 
 '• worship due to God alone." — -y;. 155. 
 
 L. — How scrupulous are men sometimes even against 
 their conscience ! But pray. Sir, would you be so very 
 much frightened, if an Arian should argue thus against 
 the divinity of Christ ^ But there is something yet more 
 terrible behind : for if Christ be not God, you arc all ido- 
 laters. Sir, we have no difl'erent classes of revealed truths 
 as to their certainty ; all being equally grounded upon 
 God's veracity: and we are as certain of the revelation of 
 Christ's real presciKC in the eucharist, as of the divinity 
 of his person. 
 
 *' G. — But, my lord, though iransubstdntialion were granted, 
 '« and fully understood, yet it is impossible for any man to 
 " know wlietlier be worships plain bread and tvine, or the 
 " boJi/ and b/ood of Christ; because in ihc rtdjric oi the 7nasSy 
 " de dffcclibus circa missam, there arc several cases put. 
 *' wherein tlio coiisecratiuii is void, and there is no sacrament 
 " madf.and then there is nothing there hut plain bread nndu'i?ie. 
 " One of these cases is, if there be a greater mixture of any 
 " other grain than of trheal in the u-ajhr. Anotiier is, if the 
 " vfine b(! niadi; of sour grapes or grapes not ripe ; si vinum 
 ** til ex uvi.H acerbis vet tion muturis ; which is pretty hard
 
 440 No Danger 
 
 «' to know for tlie people, who never taste it, or the wor- 
 •' shippers wlio SCO or taste neither but only a. pixis, or a cup 
 " they look not into : and in both these cases besides others 
 " it is said, 7ion conficilxir sacramcntum , there is no sacrament 
 " made. And so it is said, if the intention of the priest be 
 »' wanting, which is impossible to know. Upon wliich head 
 " they put a pleasant case ; as suppose a priest intends to 
 " consecrate ten tcafers (for example), and after conse- 
 " cration there may be found eleven or more ; then none 
 " of them are consecrated, because the intention going' 
 " only to ten, it cannot be known, which these teti are. 
 *' But if there be nine or fewer, they are all consecrated, 
 " because the intention going to ten, it includes all M'ithin 
 *' that number. Besides you take it wholly upon trust, 
 " whether there be any consecration at all ; because your 
 " priests do not consecrate before the people, when they 
 *' administer the sacrament, but at set times they consecrate 
 " numbers of zi^i^/ers together, which they reserve for occasions, 
 '* and for daily tvorship. Again it is said in some cases, diihiwn 
 " est an conjiciatur sacramentum : that it is doubtful whether 
 " the sacrament be made or not. And what shall we do in 
 " this case ? Is it a doubt whether we worship God or a 
 " creature ? Or is it indifferent to which we give latria f 
 pp. 155, 156. 
 
 L. — Sir, many of your observations are wholly frivo- 
 lous ; but the sum of all is this, viz., that an unconsecrated 
 host may possibly be mistaken for a consecrated one; 
 which is easily granted. And you conclude from it, that 
 they, who adore Chi'ist supposing him by mistake present 
 under that host, are guilty of idolatry, wliich I deny. 
 For how is it possible a person intending nothing else 
 but to adore Christ, should commit idolatry whether he 
 will or no ? Idolatry is a most grievous sin, and every 
 sin is an act of the will freely consenting to it. Because, 
 though a man may sometimes commit a sin even against 
 his inclination out of compliance, or for lucre, it is a 
 mere chimera to sin against one's will. And how then 
 can he commit the sin of idolatry, when his heart and 
 will are wholly intent upon adoring Christ, whom he 
 supposes to be really present. 
 
 We read John xii. 21, that several Gentiles came with
 
 Of Idolatry, &;c. 441 
 
 a desire to see Christ. Now let us suppose, that for want 
 of a guide to direct them, they had prostrated themselves 
 at the feet of some other, would any reasonable man 
 have condemned them as guilty of idolatry ? Or suppose 
 St Mary Magdalene, as she took Christ to be the gar- 
 dener, John ii. 15, had with as much innocence after- 
 wards taken the gardener for Christ, would this have 
 made her an idolater ? 1 presume your excessive zeal 
 would have passed sentence of condemnation upon her. 
 But I can never imagine, that a true and ardent love of 
 Jesus Christ can be the sin of idolatry. 
 
 But let us hear, how an eminent protestant writer 
 answers fliis frivolous objection, I mean Dr Taylor: 
 who in his lAherty of Prophesying, Sect. ii. Numb. 26, 
 writes thus: Idolatry (says he) is forsaking the true God, 
 and giving divine worship to a creature, or to an idol, 
 that is, to an imaginary god. Noiv it is evident, that the 
 object of their [i. e. the papists'] adoration in the blessed 
 sacrament, is the only true and eternal God, hypostatically 
 joined with his humanity ; jchich humanity they believe 
 actuallg present wider the veil of the sacramental signs. 
 And if they thought him not present, they are so far from 
 worshipping the bread in this case, that themselves profess 
 it idolatry to do so. Ji'hich is a demonstkation, that 
 their soul has nothing in it but what is a great enemy to 
 idolatry : and nothing burns in hell, but proper icill. Thus 
 Doctor Taylor ; who writes like a fair adversary, and a 
 man of sense. 
 
 As to the two smart questions, wherewith you conclude, 
 viz. : Is it a doubt vhctlicr ire worship God or a creature? 
 Or is it indifferent, to which we give latria ? I answer 
 it is not. Because our adoration is directed wliolly and 
 solely to Jesus Christ ; who I presume is ncitiicr a pure 
 creature, nor an idol. 
 
 G. — But do you not adore llie Ju)st? And if it be 
 an unconsccratrd one, do you not then adore a creature ? 
 
 L. — Sir, the host implies two things. Tirst, the 
 sacramrnt(d signs, and ^2dly, the true body and blood of 
 Christ. And tliereforc, when we arc said to adore the 
 
 L 2
 
 442 Of School distinctions. 
 
 hosty the meaning is, that we adoic Jesus Christ under 
 the veil of the sacramental signs. But our adoration is 
 not directed to the accidents themselves any more than 
 the adoration of Christ clothed upon earth was directed 
 to his clothes. And so there is no danger of idolatry, 
 though the host, which the people present suppose con- 
 secrated, should by mistake or malice be an unconsecrated 
 one. Because their act of worship being directed to 
 Christ alone supposed to be corporally present and not 
 to bread, their mistake regards the place alone, and not 
 the object. 
 
 Advertisement. — His lordship in the gentleman's Case Stated 
 having some difficulty to get rid of the foregoing objection, answers 
 (according to liis usual method of mistaiving things) that in the 
 supposition of an unconsecrated host, thej' who adore it are guiltj- 
 only of material, but not of formal idolatry. To which the 
 ftentleman replies in the following manner. 
 
 SECTION XXXIIl OF SCHOOL DISTINCTIONS. 
 
 " G. — These school distinctions are mere cobwebs, and will 
 " bear no weight. For material idolatry is idolatry, else it 
 " were not material idolatry. And if our intention will solve 
 *' it, it will solve it also as to the heathens, who directed their 
 *' worship, and referred it ultimately to the true God, as has 
 " been shewn. 
 
 " But I hope you will not make Solomon so stupid, as you 
 *' have made the heathen, and to think tliat lie believed 
 " Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milchom the 
 *' abomination of the Ammonites, and the other gods of the 
 '•' nations whom he worsliipped, to be every one of them the 
 " one only supreme God. Yet he is charged with idolatry, 
 " whether material ov formal is not the question; nor is tiiere 
 *= a word of it in the scriptures ; for idolatry is idolatry, let 
 " it be of what sort it will ; and these distinctions are only 
 " to excuse it, and let it loose among us. 
 
 '• The Arians were charged with idolatry for Avorshipping 
 ' Christ supposing him but a creature : and they were so far 
 *' from disowning the true God, that it was his honour they 
 " pretended in denying the divinity of Christ. So of the 

 
 Of School distinctions. 443 
 
 " Socinians, and our Unitaria7is among us, who give them- 
 " selves that name for supporting the tinity of the Godhead. 
 *' Yet they are charged with idolatry for Morshipping Christ 
 *' as an inferior God. And they have the same distinction 
 " as you of latria and dulia, a higher and lower degree of 
 " worship. But all religioiis worship is forhidden to any but 
 " to God alone. These degrees of it are of human invention 
 •' to excuse your breach of the commands of God. But we 
 " are to keep far from the forbidden thing, not try how near 
 <' we can come to it by distinctions of our own coining. AVe 
 " ought to make a hedge about the law, as the phrase of the 
 " JetL's was to guard against any approaches towards the 
 " breach of it. Ov in the apostle's words, to abstain from alt 
 " appearance of evil. And remember, that you venture your 
 '« soul upon these distinctions. AVhich then are in the safest 
 " way, we who follow the direct rule of God's com^nandments, 
 " as they are plainly laid down to us in holy scripture without 
 *• turning to the right hand or to the left, without either adding 
 " to them, or diminishing from them as we are commanded, 
 " Deut iv. 32 ; or you who distinguish the plainest precepts, 
 '• and make them speak metapht/sics ? 
 
 *« By which the worship of tiie devil may be justified: for 
 *' it is plain, that when lie offered to our Saviour all the 
 '• kingdoms of the world, he meant not that he was the supreme 
 '• God and sovereign disposer. For he said, that is delivered 
 " unto me, and to u-homsover I will J give it. Luke iv. G, 8. 
 " And it is as plain by the answer our Saviour gave him, 
 '= Thou shalt wors/iij) the Lord tliy God, and him alone thou 
 " $halt serve, that all sort of religious worship was forbidden to be 
 " given to any but to God alone. And St Austin makes all 
 " to be devils who require and accept it. Latria and dulio 
 *' signify both the same thing, tliat is, service ; and here all 
 " religious service is reserved to God alone. The distinction 
 " of the schools is vain, and meant only to ehule the commands 
 '■ of God, and introduce all superstition." — pp. 13G — ]58. 
 
 JL. — Sir, since you are so very sharp upon school dis- 
 tinctions, I shall consider presently, whether you be not 
 many times oliiijjed to liavc recourse to them as well as 
 we. But in the case wc have now belorc us, to wit, of 
 an unconscc rated host, the distinction bet\veen,/c»/7;w/ and 
 Tnatrrinl idolatry is wliolly iwniccessary. For 1 deny 
 positively, that in that case a person adoring Christ
 
 444 Of School distinctiofis. 
 
 (whom he supposes really present under the sacramental 
 veils) commits even material idolatry. Because the 
 direct object of his adoration is not bread or the accidents 
 of it, but Jesus Christ alone : who being neither a pure 
 creature, nor a false god, his adoration of him is no 
 idolatry at all, neither material or formal, but an act of 
 divine worship. Pray remember what Dr Taylor has 
 already told us upon this subject. 
 
 However, though the distinction oi formal M\A material 
 be unnecessary, as I have now fully shewed, in the case 
 under debate, what wretched stuff do you entertain me 
 with, when you tell me, that material idolatry is idolatry^ 
 else it tvere not material idolatry. Which is just as wisely 
 said, as if a young logician should argue thus : a dead 
 man is a man, else he were not a dead man. And you 
 add, if our inte7ition will solve it (that is, excuse it from 
 being idolatry) it will also solve it as to the heathens, who 
 directed their ivorship, and referred it idtimately to the 
 true God. Which is flatly false, though you confidently 
 add, as you have shewed : whereas you should only say, 
 as you have endeavoured and laboured hard to shew to 
 your immortal honour. For you may as easily prove the 
 devil to be a beauty, as that the heathens directed their 
 worship, and referred it ultimately to the true God. 
 
 Your instance concerning Solomon is the widest 
 imaginable from the purpose. For though he neither 
 believed Ashteroih, nor Milchom, nor the other heathen 
 idols, whom he worshipped, to be true gods, yet he was 
 certainly guilty not of material, but true and formal 
 idolatry ; because his direct intention (though out of 
 compliance to his mistresses) was to offer divine honour 
 to their idols; and his crime was precisely this, that 
 knowing them to be the statues of devils or evil spirits 
 lie paid them the supreme worship, which is due to God 
 alone. 
 
 As to the Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians mQn\Xor\^A 
 by you, they may likewise be justly charged with idola- 
 try, if believing Christ to be no more than a pure creature, 
 they worship him as God, which I never heard they
 
 Of School distinctions. 445 
 
 (lid ; but you say, theij come off with the distinction of 
 latria and dulia : tlien I am sure they do not worship 
 him as God ; as I shall prove immediately, by explaining 
 the meaning of that distinction. 
 
 But let us now see, whether you can stand your 
 ground against Socinians, Anahapists, and Jews, without 
 the help of school distinctions, which you declaim so 
 bitterly against. Suppose a Sociniaji should prove Ids 
 blasphemy against the divinity of Christ from these words 
 of St John XV. 18, My Father is greater than I ; how 
 would you answer him? 
 
 G. — Very easily, my lord, for I would tell him those 
 words are to be understood not with relation to the divine, 
 but humayi nature of Christ. 
 
 L. — Very right. Sir. But it seems then that school 
 distinctions are not always mere cobivebs, or vain things 
 that will bear no weight, but they are sometimes 
 both useful and necessary to support religion. And 
 pray remember (as you just now exhorted mc) that you 
 venture the very foundation of christiaii religion, and 
 your own soul into the bargain upon your distinction of 
 the foremcntioned plain words of Christ. For if the 
 distinction be vain, you are guilty of real idolatry in 
 worshipping Christ as God. But if distinctions be good 
 and legal in a protcstanC s mouth against Socinians, 1 
 may modestly say they are equally good and legal in a 
 papist's mouth against prutestants. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, do we distinguish the command- 
 ments ? 
 
 L. — Sir, to answer this, I have a second question 
 ready for you. Is not this j)receptj thou shall not hill, 
 one of the ten commandments'^ 
 
 G ^Vilat then ? 
 
 Z/. — Why then, Sir, all those are guilty of a breach of 
 this commandiiKnt, who hill their enemies in war. For 
 the co7nniandiii(nt is guicral and absolute ; and there is 
 no distinction, or limitation tacked to it. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, ail the world understands it of 
 hilling by private authority.
 
 44|6 Of School distinctions. 
 
 L. — Then all the world must condemn the malicious 
 nonsense you have talked, and own, that the plainest 
 commandment may be disliiKjuishcd, and made to speak 
 metaphysics, as you call it. 
 
 But I have a third question to ask, is not Saturday, 
 or the seventh day of the week meant by the Sabbath 
 day in holy writ ? 
 
 G. — Yes, my lord. For God himself says Deut. v. 
 13, 14 : Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work, 
 hut the seventlt day is the Sabbath of the hord thy God. 
 Anil therefore Saturday is called in Latin, dies Sabati, 
 as it is still the day of ivorship amongst the Jews. 
 
 L. — Well, and is not this precept, thou shalt keep holy 
 the Sabbath day, among the commandments of the Deca- 
 logue ? Is it not clear and precise as to the very day of 
 the week ? 
 
 G Who doubts it? 
 
 L. — And why then do you keep the Sunday instead 
 of Saturday holy ? 
 
 G. — My lord, the particular day, which we call Satiir- 
 day, was only commanded with relation to the Jews, but 
 not to christians, who have therefore changed the Satur- 
 day into the Sunday. 
 
 L. — What ! still another distinction even of the very 
 plainest precept, and that without the least foundation in 
 the word of God 1 Did you not just now tell me, that 
 such distinctions are mere human inventions to excuse our 
 breach of the commands of God ? That we are to keep 
 far from the forbidden thing, not try how near we can 
 come to it by distinctions ? That finally ive ought to make 
 a Jiedge about the law, or in the apostle's words to abstain 
 from all appearance of evil ? Thus you preached to me 
 just now with a great deal of zeal. But pray, Sir, vi'hat 
 becomes now of all this fine cant ? For either the com- 
 mandments may be distinguished, or not. If not, how 
 can you defend yourself either against y^wa^ap^esfe deny- 
 ing the lawfulness of shedding blood according to the 
 fifth commandment, or against the Jeics insisting upon 
 the express commandment of keeping the Sabbath, that is,
 
 Of School distinctions, 447 
 
 the Saturday, holy ? But if they may, is not all you 
 have said against our distinguishing the comma7idme7its 
 mere pedantic cavilling and nonsense ? 
 
 Suppose a Jeiu should retort upon you, what you just 
 now said to me, viz. : Which then are in the safest xoay^ 
 we who follow the direct rule of God's commandments 
 as they arc plainly laid down to ns in holy scripture 
 without turning to the right hand or to the left, or you who 
 distinguish the plainest precepts, and make them speak 
 metaphysics ? Suppose, I say, a Jew should retort this 
 canting stuff upon you, you must either turn Jew, or 
 make him an answer, which will be a cap to lit your own 
 block, unless you have this pretty salvo to come off 
 with, viz., that a popish distinction of the commandments 
 is meant oidy to elude them, and introduce all superstition^ 
 but that protestants may distinguish them without any 
 such felonious intention : and then we shall have a 
 supernumerary metaphysical distinction, which the school' 
 men yet never thought of. 
 
 However I perceive the popish distinction of latria 
 and dulia will by no means go down with you. But 
 pray. Sir, what do you call the honour you pay to sai7its 
 and angels, when you keep holy days in memory of them? 
 For I am apt to think this distinction, as popish as it is, 
 will be here full as serviceable to you against the dissenters, 
 as it is to us against the Church of England. For, give 
 it what name you please, if keeping holy days be any part 
 of christian devotion, all the world besides yourselves will 
 call it a religious honour ; because when we honour j)ersons 
 merely iov supernatural gifts bestowed uj)on them by God, 
 then the honour we pay them is in the common language 
 i)f maidiind called religioics. Am\,'\i the Fjuglishword, wor- 
 ship, be extendable, as it certainly is, to all sorts of rcli' 
 gious honour, then it follows, that besides the su]>reme 
 religious worship called latria, which is due to God 
 (done, there is likewise an inferior religious worship cA\qA 
 didia, j)aid to Clod's saints and angels even by your church. 
 \Nhieli plaiidy shews, how wretchedly you are out in say- 
 ing that latria and dulia signfy bulk the same tiling .•
 
 448 0/ School distinct lojis, 
 
 and the consequence of all is, that you arc no less out in 
 your main assertion, viz., that all sort of reWjious worship 
 is forbid to be (jivcn to any but to God alone; unless you 
 will acknowledge, that your own church is as guilty of 
 acting contrary to that pretended prohibition, as papists 
 themselves. Nay, it is impossible for you to answer the 
 dissenters but with the help of that very jjopish distinction, 
 or something equivalent to it, which you have taken so 
 much pains to ridicule. 
 
 As to your saying, that St Austin makes all to be 
 devils, who require or accept of any religious honour, I am 
 only sorry you put me again in mind of your sins past : 
 I mean your controversial sin oi falsifying ; which in a 
 dispute about religion may be counted amongst the deadly 
 ones ; and ought therefore to be repented of and retract- 
 ed, rather than aggravated by an insulting repetition. 
 
 But the finest stroke i^ yet to come, viz.^ your saying, 
 that by the distinction of supreme and inferior worship, 
 which we call latria and clulia, the worship of the devil 
 viay be justified. What, Sir ! are you in good earnest, 
 when you talk such extravagant stuff? May the devil 
 be worshipped with an inferior or relative honour as well 
 as the friends and servants of God! This I presume is 
 a piece of divinity, in which you have not yet many 
 followers. However, as you have already one holiday for 
 all the saints in general, and another for St Michael and 
 all the angels ; who knows, but that by your interest and 
 zeal the reformation of the Church of England may be so 
 well improved in time, that a day may likewise be set 
 apart for Lucifer and his angels ? For since the one may 
 he justified by the other, why should not the devil \\aye 
 his due? I am sure the religious honour you pay to saints 
 and angels in keeping their holidays is justified by the 
 practice of both churches ; and if that will justify our 
 giving the same religious honour to the devil, I see no 
 reason why, according to this new system of protestant 
 divinity, he should not have a holiday allowed him. 
 
 The papists indeed will be highly scandalized and cry 
 out fehame against it; because they make a large differ-
 
 Some Touches o/, §-c. 449 
 
 ence between the faithful friends and servants of God 
 and his incorrigible mortal enemy the devil. They discover 
 in the former the beautiful supernatural gifts of grace and 
 glory^ which entitle them to an inferior religious honour 
 for the sake of him who has bestowed those gifts upon 
 them, and to whom that honour is idtimately referred : 
 but they see nothing in the devil, which can justify their 
 honouring him in the same manner. 
 
 It is true, the devil was so true to himself (as you have 
 carefully remarked to do li'im Justice) as not to pretend 
 to be the supreme God and sovereign disposer of all things. 
 But does it follow from thence, that he may be put 
 upon the level with God's most faithful servants, and be 
 honoured by us as they are ? For shame, Sir, see your 
 error, and be sensible to what extravagances the prejudice 
 of education will hurry a man, that gives himself blindly 
 up to it. 
 
 SECTION XXXIV. — SOME TOUCHES OF THE GENTLEMAN S 
 SKILL IN DUOLLEIIY AND SLANDER. 
 
 «' G- — My lord, besides the cases ab-eady mentioned by 
 " me, there are some unworthy ones put in the rubrick of the 
 
 " mass ; as if a dog or a mouse should eat the sacrament 
 
 " if a priest should vomit it up again, in which case he is to 
 " lick it up rcLcrcnlli/, unless it be nauseous (that was well 
 " put in,) and tlion it is to he disposed of so and so. And 
 " again, if ay/y sliould drop into the cup, how they??/ is to be 
 
 " dealt witli. And one reason given for taking the cup 
 
 " from tlie laiiy was, that the I'lity (at that time I suppose) 
 " wore long beards, and least the blood of Christ %\\q\i\A drop 
 " upon tliem or stick to their tchiskers. All tliese are tlie 
 " genuine effects of superstition, occasioned by the notion of 
 «' transubstanlialiony — p. 139. 
 
 L. — Sir, all religion is superstition to those, who have 
 little of it besides the empty name and show. However 
 this pleasant drolk-ry is at least a testimony, that we are 
 convinced in our hearts of what we profess with our 
 tongues: since it appears from it how extremely solicitous 
 we are both to prevent indecencies in the administration
 
 45U . So})ie Touches of 
 
 of the sacrament, and remcdji them the best way possible, 
 when tlicy chance to happen. 
 
 13ut let that be as it will, I shall put a case somewhat 
 like one of the unworthy ones you have mentioned. 
 Your church Catechism teaclies, that in the Lord's supper 
 the faithful receive verily and indeed the body and blood of 
 Christ, Now suppose a sudden fit of vomiting should 
 take a faithful p)'otestant in the very moment he receives 
 tl»e sacromait, I ask whether he may not in that <xise 
 vomit up verily and indeed, what he has just then received 
 verily and indeed ? And if this should happen, 1 desire 
 to know what is to be done ? If you can propose any 
 thing more decent than what is prescribed in the i'id)rick 
 of the mass, I am very confident your advice will not be 
 neglected, unless 3^ou be for the licking part, of which 
 tliere is not a word in the rtibrick yon refer me to. But 
 this dirty fiction was necessary to furnish some matter 
 for a Jest. 
 
 However I must here desire you to take notice, that 
 for one scurrilous jest o. protcstant can make upon tran- 
 suhstajitiation, a deist or atheist, disposed to shew his wit 
 that way, shall make a thousand upon the incarnation and 
 death of the Son of God : and, if lampooning be good 
 arguing, we may soon be laughed out of the very funda- 
 mentals oi Christianity. 
 
 " G — But here, my lord, I must beg leave to observe, 
 " that the natural effect of supersliiion is atheism and deism ; 
 " as one extreme runs into another like east to west. For 
 " men of sense must find out the deceit that is in superstition ; 
 " and then placing all religion on the same foot (as in your 
 * communion upon the authority of your churcli) they must 
 *= think the whole to be a deceit, or in the modish word priest- 
 <•' craft, and the contrivance of those wlio gain by it. Whence 
 " it is that the holy scriptures and the legends have the same 
 " foundation in the Church of Rome, that is, her authority : 
 *' therefore the common people believe them both alike, and 
 ** the men of sense believe neither. And this does so lead 
 <* towards the general defection foretold, that in a great 
 " measure it is it. For it destroys the foundation of religion, 
 " and turns it all to superstition. And when the infidelity,
 
 Burlesque and Slander. 451 
 
 «' wliich that begets, shall come to be publicly owned, then 
 f where shall faiih be found upon earth ? It is now acted in 
 f the opus operalum : and instead of the two sacrametils which 
 V Christ has appointed as means of grace, the whole face of 
 " your religion is covered witii ten thousand of your own 
 " invention. The unliuuted power taken in your church of 
 ♦' consecrating every thing into a means of grace, your worship 
 '•' of saints (many of them hgcndarij) their relics and images, 
 " of crosses and of the host, make up the bulk of your religion 
 ** and devotions." — pp. 159, 160. 
 
 L And, Sir, the brdh of tliis discourse of yours is 
 
 made up of slander, and the old thread-bare nonsense of 
 optis operation, means of grace, sacraments of our vivn in- 
 vention, Sfc. already repeated twenty times, and as often 
 confuted. [Vide Sect. 1, 3, 4, Part II.] Fine stuff indeed 
 for a man of sense ! 
 
 You say,y«?Y/i is now acted in the opus operatnm. And 
 is not this a j^retty handle for atheists to lay hold of to 
 ridicule the sacrament ? Will they not say that in the 
 administration oi baptism (which I defy you or any man 
 to explain without the doctrine of opus operatum) faith 
 is only acted by priests and parsons as so many moioite- 
 hanks upon a stage? 1 know you are not much concerned 
 for the /?re sacraments, we acknowledge more than you, 
 and M'liich by a true protcstcmt figure, called slander, you 
 have multiplied into ten thousand. liut ii' faith be only 
 acted in the use of these sacraments and the customary 
 benedictions of the church — (of which you also have your 
 share, as I have shewed, sect. III.)— if//?//*, I say, be only 
 acted in these, will not atheists and deists have a fair 
 handle to reproach us, that we are likewise no better 
 than stage-plaijers m the administration of the two sacra- 
 ments acknowledged by you, and other jmblic devotions 
 of the church. ? Will they not have reason to regard all 
 religion as priestcraft, which you say is now the modish 
 wordf But ])ray, .Sir, who brought that scandalous 
 expression chielly into vogue? It was a member of the 
 Church of r.ngland, who had so moan an opinion ot the 
 religion he was then of, and particularly of the ministers 
 of it, that he scarce ever represented them in his writings
 
 452 Some Touches of 
 
 but under the most vile and contemptible characters. But 
 when lie became a lloman Catholic^ for which he lost his 
 pension of poet laureate in king- H'illiiun's reign, he used 
 jio such profane language. Nay he em{)loyecl his pen in 
 defence of the religion he had embraced, and particularly 
 of the mystenj you imj)ugn with so much bitterness. 
 Which skews, that though he were acknowledged by all 
 to be a man of excellent sense, he could see nothing of 
 the superstitio7i you lay to our charge ; nor find out the 
 deceit or priestcraft you speak of, but in the religion lie 
 had abandoned : and he was so far from becoming an 
 atheist or deist by the change, that it purged him effec- 
 tually of the cdheistical principles he had imbibed, and 
 used to maintain and glory in, whilst he was a member 
 of your church. 
 
 This leads me to a direct answer to the first part of 
 what you spoke last; where you observe, that the natural 
 effect of superstition is atheism and deism : and out of the 
 abundance of your charity for us, you confidently suppose 
 us to be deeply concerned in that superstition, whereof 
 atheism and deism is, as you tell us, the natural effect. 
 
 Here then to make your observation fully answer the 
 charitable end you drive at, you ought to shew, that pro- 
 fessed atheists and deists were far more numerous in this 
 nation before, than they have been since the reformation. 
 For, if what you commoidy call popish superstition 
 (which is precisely the pretended superstition you speak 
 of) has a natural tendency to atheism and deism, the 
 undeniable consequence must be, that during the many 
 hundred years, wherein that superstition was universally 
 professed and practised in this nation, when it had the 
 law on its side, and the authority of all the tribunals 
 both civil and ecclesiastic to support it, the consequence 
 1 say must be, that in those days of popery, atheists and 
 deists must, like Eyijptian locusts, have overspread the 
 whole land; whereas it is a noted fact, that those wild beasts 
 never appeared in herds, or bare-faced to destroy the vine- 
 yard, till the fences of the church were laid open, and her 
 authority made precarious by the blessed reformation.
 
 Burlesque and Slander. 453 
 
 Pray, Sir, if the natural effect of what you call popish 
 superstition be atheism or deism, will it not follow, that 
 this effect must appear very remarkably in those of our 
 commimion ? Shew me then the professed atheists or deists 
 amongst Roman Catholics. Shew me from some history, 
 that there was a sect of deists or free-thinkers in Great 
 Britain before its religion was reformed; and then your 
 observation will be allowed to have at least some sense 
 in it. But if you can shew no such thing; if, on the 
 contrary, it be as well known as any piece of public news, 
 that all the noted atheists, deists, or free-thinkers m 
 Great Britain were cither brought up in the protestant 
 communion, or turned protcstants to be at full liberty to 
 turn afterwards what they pleased; if it be a certain truth, 
 that the tivo sects of deists uudfree-thinhersnrc of a much 
 later date than the Reformation, and had i\iQ\v grand lesson 
 of private judgment in opposition to church authority 
 taught them in protestant schools ; then give me leave to 
 tell you, Sir, that the 7nen of sense, you aj>peal to, will be 
 so far from judging the religion you traduce to be the 
 source oi atheism or deism, that they will certainly judge 
 your observation to be as void of justice, as it is of com- 
 mon sense. 
 
 And what then will they think of the scandalous piece 
 that follows, viz : That the holy scriptures and the legends 
 have the same fotindat ion in the Church of Rome, that iSy 
 her authority ; and that therefore the common people believe 
 them both alike, and our men of sense believe neither? This 
 certainly is a calumny of so black a nature, i\\iii proteS' 
 tants themselves cannot but be highly scandalized at it. 
 For as to our common people, there is not a child 
 amongst us that knows his Catechism, hut is a living wit- 
 ness against you, and will tell you he has been taught, 
 that the scriptures were writ by divine inspiration, and 
 liave divine authority for tlie truth of every thing they 
 contain : but that their belief of the legends, like that of 
 any pr(fane history, is grouiuled merely upon human 
 authority: and they are free to believe or disbelieve them 
 according as their own private judgment shall direct them.
 
 454 Transuhstantiation as 
 
 But as to what you add, that our 7nen of sense neither 
 believe scriptures 7ior hf/c/uls, 1 am very confident there 
 is not a man of sense or probity in your own church, 
 but will blush for you, and disclaim any part in this gross 
 calumny. So I leave you to account for it at the great 
 tribunal. 1 shall say nothing to the consequence you 
 draw from it relatiiig to the pretended general defection. 
 For consequences grounded upon barefaced calumny are 
 sufficiently answered by exposing the calumny itself. 
 
 SECTION XXXV. — TRANSUBSTANTIATION AS ANCIENT AS, 
 
 CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Now, Sir, to conclude the subject we have been so long 
 upon, I shall propose an argument, Avhich appears to me 
 to be a moral demonstration, that the doctrine of transuh- 
 sta7itiation is as ancient as Christianity, and never had a 
 beginning but from the apostles themselves. I shall 
 explain myself in the clearest manner I am able ; and 
 the first thing I remark to you is, that if the doctrine of 
 transuhstantiation be a novelty, it is one of the most 
 extraordinary nature that ever was broached : both ber 
 cause it is not a mere speculative doctrine, but the ground 
 of the most solemn practical devotions of the church ; and 
 because it is in itself the most seemingly repugnant to all 
 the senses and reason of mankind. 
 
 G — And what does your lordship infer from thence? 
 
 L. — Sir, I infer from it, ^rsf, that a novelty, of this 
 nature, could not be brought into the church without 
 noise, disputes, and trord)les ; and in a word, without the 
 greatest difficxdty and opposition imaginable : because 
 people are not wont to part ta?}i€ly and quietly whh their 
 ancient faith ; especially when a doctrine the most repug- 
 nant in appearance to sense and reason is substituted in 
 place of it. I infer, ^dly, that the exact tiinCi manner, 
 and other circumstances of a novelty of that importance 
 being brought in, and made an article of faith must of 
 necessity be known by all the learned part of the worlds 
 Whence I infer, Sdly, that the histories of the time, in
 
 ancient as Christianity. 455 
 
 which this happened, must all be filled with particular 
 relations of the most memorable events occasioned by this 
 wonderful change in the public faith of the church. 
 
 Now 1 have already proved, with the utmost evidence 
 against Dr Cosin, that the doctrine of transubstantiation 
 was held both by the Greek and Latin church in the 
 eleventh century, when it was first openly writ against 
 by Berengarius, who was immediately opposed by the 
 ablest pens of that time, and condemned by eleven prO' 
 vincial councils in that very age; the last whereof defined, 
 in express terms, that the bread and wine, when they are 
 consecrated upon the altar, are truly and essentially changed 
 into the body and blood of our Saviour, and not in figure 
 only. Tom. 10. Cone. Lab. p. 502. 
 
 If then the doctrine of trayisubslantiation be not as 
 aiwient as the apostles themselves, but a novelty invented 
 since their time, it must have been introduced into the 
 church in some age between the death of the apostles, 
 and the eleventh century. And unless protestanls can 
 prove this fact from the uncontestable evidence of as 
 authentic histories and records, us there are (for example) 
 to prove that England was converted in some age between 
 the death of the apostles and the eleventh century, they 
 labour in vain to persuade any man of sense that the 
 doctrine of truicsubstunliation is a novelty invented since 
 the time of the apostles. 
 
 The reason hereof is manifest, because all changes in 
 religion are constantly attended with such a train of 
 remarkable circumstances and cvads, as cannot possibly 
 escape the notice of historians ; and 1 can as easily believe 
 the greatest contradiction in nature, as that such changes 
 can really happen without being mentioned in the general 
 histories both of the times, winch gave birth to them, 
 and of the kingdoms, which were the principal theatres, 
 on which they were transacted. 
 
 Thus we have the history of the Arian, Nestor ian, 
 Eulychian, and otiior less considerable /(iertf67"<?.s transmitted 
 to UH by iiinuincralde hands, which inform us not only 
 of the namcsj but of the very personal qualities of the
 
 456 Transubstantiation as 
 
 cliief autliors of tliein : of the very 7/ear and place, wherein 
 they were first broached : of the progress they made, the 
 opposition thevmct with, the disturbances they occasioned, 
 the books that were writ, /ar and arjainst them, the councils 
 that were called to condemn them, and other snch parti- 
 culars, from whence we cannot but form a fixed judgment, 
 first, that the main facts contained in these histories are 
 no fictions ; and 2dly, that the doctrines so particularized 
 in every circumstance relating to them have all the marks 
 of being novelties brought into the church since the time 
 of the apostles. 
 
 Now if this be so in relation to all heresies or new 
 doctrines, that ever were broached in the church: if none 
 of them could ever escape either being detected by the 
 vigilancy of her pastors, or recorded in the writings of 
 those, whose business it is to instruct posterity in the 
 transactions of past ages : if this, I say, be so, then let 
 any one judge, whether it be possible, that such, a 
 change in the public faith of the chttrch as the introducing- 
 of transubstantiation must have made (if it were not 
 apostolical doctrine) could be compassed without the 
 same violent struggles, disturbances, and opposition! And 
 then I ask, whether it be possible, that such considerable 
 events could be passed over in silence by the histories of 
 the times, in which they happened ? I take this to be 
 as morally impossible, as that the changes of religicm in 
 the reign of queen Elizabeth, or the Revolution under 
 king James II. should be wholly omitted by an historian 
 writing the lives of those two persons. 
 
 This then is the substance of my argument in short. 
 Transubstantiation was the public faith and doctrine of 
 the church in the eleventh century : therefore, if it was 
 not taught by the apostles themselves, it was introduced 
 in some age between the death of the apostles, and that 
 century. But a novelty of that extraordinary nature, and 
 so repugnant in appearance to all the senses and reason 
 of mankind could not be introduced without noise, dis- 
 putes, and troubles, and throwing the whole church into 
 disorder and confusion ; and such remarkable events
 
 ancient as Christianity. 457 
 
 cannot but be recorded in the histories of the times, in 
 wliick they happened; therefore if nothing of this appears 
 in ancient or authentic history, it is a moral demonstra- 
 tion, that they never happened at all: and that by con- 
 sequence the doctrine of transuhstantiation is as ancient as 
 Christianity, and derived from the apostles themselves. 
 
 Let us suppose the whole christian world agreed 
 now in the belief that the bread and witie remain un- 
 changed in the sacrament^ and that this belief had been 
 handed down to us from tiie very time of the apostles 
 till now. I ask, Jirst, whether it would be possible for 
 any man in this case to introduce the doctrine of tran- 
 suhstantiation without being opposed even by some whole 
 national churches, many universities, and by numberless 
 persons both of the jn-clatic order and inferior clergy ? 
 I ask, 2f%, whether this opposition would not cause great 
 disturbances and troubles, and throw the whole church 
 into the most violent ferment ? And I ask, 2dhj, whether 
 such a revolution in the public faith of the church, in 
 case it should succeed, could be passed over in silence bv 
 all the writers of the ago, wherein it happened? I 
 cannot think there is a rational man upon earth, but his 
 reason and conscience will tell him, they are all three 
 morally impossible in the case supposed. And indeed 
 there is no example of it since the very first establishment 
 of christian reliuion. 
 
 I add, that if transuhstantiation be not apostolical 
 doctrine, it is a most gross and pernicious liercsy : and 
 since it is an uncontestable truth, that it was believed, 
 professed, and maintained by the universal church against 
 Jierevgarius in the eleventh century, if it be an heresy^ 
 it must have been invented in some prcceclinfj aye, by 
 some particular hcrcsiarch, in some particular toirn or 
 country : and it must have had a name to distinguish it 
 both from other heresies, and the orthodox faith opposite 
 to it. 
 
 Here then to giv(> a solid answer to this argument, 
 you are bound to shew from some authentic ancient 
 history all the following particulars, viz., in %chat age
 
 458 Transitbstantiation as 
 
 between the death of the apostles and the elevetith century 
 the doctrine of transubstantiatio7i was lirst invented. Wiio 
 was the Jirst author of it. In what town or country it 
 was Jirst professed. (For all neio doctrines must liave 
 their beginning oi place as well as time.) By lohat name 
 the professors of it were distinguished from other heretics^ 
 and tvhat councils were called to condemn it. 13ecause 
 there never was a noted heresy in the world, but was 
 distinguished by some name, and condemned in some 
 council^ or by the church diffusive. Finally, you must 
 inform me by what methods it made such a prodigious 
 progress, as to be at length acknowledged, professed, and 
 maintained by the universal church, as 1 have fully 
 proved it was in the eleventh century. 
 
 These are the most important particulars, wherein I 
 demand to be satisfied. For nothing less can suffice to 
 convince any man of sense, that the doctrine of traiisub- 
 stantiation is a novelty invented since the time of the 
 apostles. Neither must you pretend to slur me off with 
 precarious guesses, bare possibilities, ox imaginary supposi^ 
 tions of your own fruitful invention ; but you must produce 
 authentic history to attest the facts 1 insist upon, as all 
 men of learning can do to witness every fact of moment 
 relating to any noted heresy, that ever was in the world. 
 
 But, if neither you, nor any body else can undertake 
 this task without exposing himself to the laughter of 
 mankind : if there be no ancient history extant, in whicli 
 there appears a fair account both of the beginning, the 
 author, time, place, and progress of the doctrine in ques- 
 tion, with the most remarkable events, that attended it 
 till its full establishment in the eleventh century, M'hen it 
 was the public faith both of the Greeh and Latin church: 
 if, I say, nothing of all this can be found in any ancient 
 history or records, then I repeat once more, what I said 
 before, that such a universal silence relating to a thing of 
 that moment is a moral demonstration, that the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation never had any other beginning than 
 from the apostles themselves according to St Austin's rule, 
 which is grounded upon constant experience and common
 
 ancient as CJmstianity . 459 
 
 sense, viz., that iditn any doctrine is found generally re- 
 ceived in the visible church in any age ichatsoever, whereof 
 there is no certain author or beginning to be founds then it 
 is sure, that such a doctrine came doivn from Christ and 
 his ajiostles, L. 4. de Bapt. C. 6. 24., as also Lib. de 
 Unit. Eccl. C. 19. 
 
 Give me leave, Sir, to illustrate all this from an 
 example which will set the whole matter in the clearest 
 light. I maintain, that the doctrine opposite to transuh- 
 stantiation is an heresy. If you ask me how I prove it 
 to be one ? I answer that I prove it from a full collection 
 of all such historical facts as I demand of you to prove 
 that transubstantiation is a novelty or heresy. For I will 
 shew the doctrine opposite to it to be a noveltyhro\\g\\t into 
 tlie churcii many ages after the time of the apostles. I 
 will name the chief author of it, the time when, and the 
 place where he first broached it; the name it was distin- 
 guished by, and finally the opposition it met with in the 
 universal church. 
 
 It was first publicly maintained about the middle of 
 the eleventh century at Lyons in France. The chief 
 author of it was one Berengariiis a canon of that place, 
 and his doctrine was called the Berengarian heresy. He 
 had few followers in those days, and himself retracted it 
 before he died. Yet it alarmed the whole church, and 
 caused very great disturbances. The ablest pens were 
 t.mployed against it, and it was condemned by eleven 
 provincial or natiotial councils before the end of that 
 very century. And all these particulars with many more 
 are transmitted to us by all the ecclesiastical histories ot 
 that age. 
 
 This I think suffices to convince any man of sense, 
 that the doctrine opposite to transidjslantiation was re- 
 garded as an heresy by the Catholic Church in tlie 
 eleventh century, and it follows manifestly from it, that 
 if tr unsubstantial iun itself had ever been regarded as an 
 heresy by the Catholic Church in any of the preceding 
 ages, it must have undergone the same fate, found the 
 same opposition, if not greater by reason of its seeming
 
 460 Of the n'orship of the 
 
 extravagance, caused the same disturbances, excited the 
 zealofj)articuhir persons to write against it, and occasioned 
 the callinsr of councils to coudenni it. But since no 
 ancient ecclesiastical historian, or other writer l»as ever 
 mentioned any such thing: since neither the person by 
 whom, nor the 2^i(^ice where, nor the time when it was 
 first broached in any of those ages, nor finally any 
 opposition made to it by the church in any age between 
 the apostles and the eleventh century was ever recorded 
 in any history, that ever appeared in the world ; I say 
 once more that this is a moral demonstration, that the 
 Catholic Church has never reirarded transuhstantiation as 
 a novelty or heresy, but as a doctrine derived from Christ, 
 and his apostles. For it is wholly inconceivable, that 
 the doctrine opposite to transuhstantiation should have 
 been so vigorously opposed by the church, if it were 
 not a novelty; and that transuhstantiation itself, if it were 
 a novelty^ should never meet with any opposition at all. 
 Now if you please. Sir, you may proceed to some other 
 subject. 
 
 SECTION" XXXVI. — CONCERNING THE WORSHIT OF THE 
 CROSS, AND IMAGES OF CHRIST. 
 
 " G. — My lord, not only the host, or body of Christ sup- 
 ** posed to be corporally in the sacrament., but the cross of 
 *' Christ, or any effgies of tliat cross, and the images of Christ 
 «' are worshipped in your clinrch with tlie sn2)re7ne divine 
 " adoration of latria." — p. IGO. 
 
 L. — Sir, that is false, and being extremely injurious, 
 it is rank calumny : for I defy you to prove from any 
 Catholic divine, that we ^\'orship the cross or images of 
 Christ with supreme divine adoration. 
 
 " G. — My lord, it is taught by a great saint of your church, 
 *' whom you call the Angelical Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas, 
 «' who says [3 Par. Qu. 2, Art4.] that cna- Christi est ador- 
 " anda adorutione latricc. And again: crucis effigies in aliqua 
 
 *' alia materia lalriaador anda est. And in tlie Romanponti- 
 
 '■^ fical it is ordered that in the procession of the emperor and 
 " u legate of the Tope, the legate's cross shall be carried on
 
 Cross, and Images (f Christ. 461 
 
 " the right hand of the emperor's sword, because lulria is 
 " due to the cross." — pp. 161, 162. 
 
 L. — Sir, I still insist upon it, that you wrong us ; be- 
 cause the words you have quoted, unless they be strained 
 from the known sense of the author, do not amount to 
 what you charge us with, viz., that ice worship the cross 
 or images of Christ with supue.me divine adoration, 
 as I shall fully prove, when you make an end of what 
 you have to say upon that subject. 
 
 " G. — My lord, in the adoration of the cross upon Good 
 '■• Friday (which is the principal part for the office of that 
 " day) the cross being veiled is discovered to the people by 
 *' degrees ; first one arm of the cross, then anothei-, and at 
 " last the whole cross is unveiled. And at each time the 
 " priest says, Ecce lignum crucisy Behold the wood of the 
 '• cross: and the people answer, Adorcmus, Let us worship." 
 —p. 161. 
 
 L But they do not say, let us worship it with s\:~ 
 
 TREME DIVINE ADORATION, noF do they intend it; so 
 go on. 
 
 " G. — And then the priest first, and afterwards the people 
 " come upon their knees, and pay thu'ir adoration to the cross. 
 " And remember that it is the adoration of lairia, which. 
 '• they gave to it." — p. 161. 
 
 L. — 1 remember it, Sir, in St Thomas's sense, which 
 I shall explain presently. 
 
 '* G. — Now for images, the same Aquinas before mentioned 
 " tells us the worship we pay them is rdiyionis cidtus, a 
 " religious icorsldp • and that it is not a different lairia which 
 " is given to Christ, and to his images. Quod vnaginibus 
 " Christi exhibetur cullus, non diversijicatur ratio lutricc, ncc 
 " virtus nligionis, 2da. i2dic. Quest. 81. Art. 3. Resp. ad 3. 
 " If then there be but one lad ia, and the same that is paid to 
 " Christ and his images, it will justify what James JVaclantus 
 " bij^hop of Clugium writes in his exposition of the Epistle 
 " to the Itomaiis, CIi. i., that the faithful ought not oidy to wor- 
 " ship hffurc the image (as some perhaps out of caution speak) 
 " but to worshijt tlie image itself \\\l\\o\iX. any scruple at all; 
 " and with the same sort of worship as \\\(i prololgpc, or wliom 
 " it represents. And if that is to be worshipped with lairia, 
 "so its image with latiia : if willi dulia, or hyperdulia, 
 •' 80 the image is to be worghipped with the same worship.
 
 462 Of the JVorship of the 
 
 X. — Sir, wliat explains St Thomas, will suffice to 
 explain all the rest, who have only followed his way of 
 speaking. But a man must have a very strong implicit 
 faith, who can believe that so great a man (as all the 
 learned world allows St Thomas Aquinas to have been) 
 was capable of teaching that supreme divine adoration is 
 to be paid to a piece of wood or stone. 
 
 G. — My lord, he certainly teaches, that the worship 
 of latria is to be paid to the cross : but the worship of 
 /atria is divine tvorship, therefore he teaches that divine 
 worship is to be paid to the cross. I think this argument 
 is conclusive. 
 
 L. — Sir, the worship, which St Thomas calls latria, 
 must according to his true meaning be considered under 
 a double regard : one to God himself, the other to his 
 image. As it regards God himself, it is supreme divine 
 adoration. But as it regards his image, it is no more 
 than an inferior relative hotiour, which however termina- 
 ting ultimately in God is for that reason, as he teaches, 
 a religious act of the same hind or species as the act of 
 worship which has God for its immediate object; and 
 therefore he gives it the same name. 
 
 I shall explain myself by an easy example. There is 
 but one theological virtue of charity, which is the love of 
 God above all things. Yet by the same virtue we love 
 our neighbour for God's sake. So that the act, or virtue, 
 by which we thus love our neighbour, has a double ten- 
 dency or respect: one to our neighbour, who is the image 
 of God ; the other to God himself, for tvhose sake we 
 love him. It may therefore be said in St Thomas's way 
 of speaking, that when we love the image of God in our 
 neighbour, the nature or species of the virtue of chariiy is 
 not different from that, by which tee love God above all 
 things. 
 
 But would not a man be grossly mistaken, who should 
 argue thus from it, that since there is but one virtue of 
 charity, which is the love of God above all things ; there- 
 fore, when by that virtue we love our neighbour, it follows, 
 that we love him above all thingSy and by consequence
 
 Cross, and Images of Christ. 463 
 
 pay tbat supreme love to the image of God^ which is due 
 to God alone ? For woukl you not readily answer by 
 telling him, that though the virtue of charity^ whereby 
 we love our neighbour for God's sake, be of the same kind 
 or species with tliat, by which we love God above all things, 
 yet since its act or habit has a double tendency, it is an 
 inferior love, as it regards the image of God, and only 
 the supreme divine love of charity, as it regards the /??-o- 
 totype ? Now Sir, apply but this to St Thomas's notion 
 of latria, and you will be sensible how much you have 
 wronged both him, and the whole body of IiU7)ian Ca- 
 tholics by concluding from it, that if there be but one 
 latria, supreme divine adoration is given to the ci'oss, and 
 images of Christ. For you may as well argue thus, that if 
 there be but one theological virtue of charity, the proper 
 object whereof is loved above all things, it follows, that 
 we love our neighbour above all things, that is, above God 
 himself. 
 
 Hence it follows, that the whole present question is in 
 reality reduced to this trivial point, viz., whether St 
 21iomas and his followers express themselves properly ? 
 Some think they do ; others not. But all (excepting our 
 protestant friends, who are glad to catch at any thing to 
 pick a quarrel) agree, that St Thomas means the same 
 as they, who express themselves otherwise : and what 
 assures them of this are his own words in other parts of 
 ids writings. Properly (says he) we do not adore the 
 cross, but only Christ, who is crucified. Hieb. ii. Lect. 5. 
 And again : It is idolatry (says he) when the honour due 
 to God is given to images, ad Coll. 3, Lect. 1. \Mien 
 therefore he says that latria is due to the cross, he must 
 of necessity speak of a relative latria, and not of that 
 supreme divine worship, which is due to God aloiie. 
 
 G. — iTut what does your lordship say concerning 
 your adoration of the vross \\\nm Good. Friday ? 
 
 L. — 1 say, Sir, that if the word adoration be taken, as 
 it is generally by your church, for supreme divine worship, 
 we adore the cross no more than you adore the altar 
 when you bow to it. But if it be taken, as we really
 
 4(]4 Of the Worship of the 
 
 understand it, for an inferior relative honour, nothing but 
 wilful malice can carp at it. 
 
 I desire you then to observe (as Mr Thorndike does 
 very well, Epil. p. 3, p. 353) that tliese words, viz., 
 adoration, worship, honour, respect, or however you trans- 
 late the Itutin icord, cultus, are or may he equivocal in 
 apite (four hearts. That is, sometimes they may si<^nit'y 
 one hind of honour, and sometimes another. Sometimes 
 that which belongs to God, and sometimes that which 
 belongs to creatures. And the cause of this equivocation 
 (says he) is the icant of icords : vidgar use not havinr/ 
 provided words j^ropcrly to signify conceptioiis, tchich came 
 not from common senses. And from this equivocation in 
 the words, adoration, tcorship, t^'c, tlie greatest part of 
 protestant objections against the veneration we pay to 
 saints and images arises ; and the whole stress of what 
 you say concerning our worship or adoration of the cross 
 upon Good Friday, is grounded upon it. 
 
 You know, Sir, our liturgy is in Latin; and the Latin 
 word ADouo, though commonly used to signify divine 
 7vorship, yet both in the Latin scripture, and Latin fathers 
 it frequently signifies no more than an inferior honour. 
 Thus St Jerome says, adokavj jirccsepe et incunabula Sal- 
 vatoris, Apol. 2. contra Rufum, / haix worshipped the 
 manger and crib of our Saviour. And TertuUian uses 
 the same word, when he says, adouo Scripture pltnitu- 
 dinem, Lib. cent. Herm. C. 2*2, / reverence the fulness 
 (f Scriptures. "I'hus it is likewise said in scripture, sur- 
 rexit Abraham, ct ah on ay it popu I um terra. Gen. xxiii. 
 7. Which you translate, Abraham stood, np, and boived 
 himself to the people of the land. And agn'u),Jilii pivphe- 
 tarum venientes in occursum Llisai ADoiiAvruuNT eum. 
 4 Reg. ii. 15, is traiislateil thus in your Bible: The sons 
 of the prophets came to meet Elislia, and bowed themselves 
 to the ground before him. And (to omit innumerable 
 other passages of the same sort) that of Psalm xcviii. 5, 
 ADO RATE scabellum pedum ejus, is likewise thus translated 
 by you,fcdl down before the footstool of God. 
 
 Now these are sufficient instances to shew, that the Latin
 
 Cross, and linages of Christ. 465 
 
 word ADono frequently signifies no more than an inferior 
 honour ; since it is manifest, that in the passages 1 have 
 quoted both from scriptures and fathers it can have no 
 other signilication. And in effect it signifies no more in 
 our office on Good Friday ; and so your objection against 
 it is mere froth, unless you can prove more effectually 
 than you have done hitherto, that even an inferior relative 
 honour is too much to be given to the cross or images of 
 Christ: though the very Jeics were commanded to give 
 it to the footstool of God, that is, the ark. 
 
 Pray, Sir, when you make a boic, and your women a 
 low curtesij to the venerable name of Jesus, as is appointed 
 by your church, what is the meaning of it? I presume 
 you do not pay that respect either to the sound, or to the 
 syllables or letters of that word ; but the ground of the 
 respect and honour you ])ay to it is the relation it has to 
 the divine Person, who bears that name. And then I 
 should be glad to know what difference there is between 
 your boicing to his name, and our hneeling to the cross, 
 whereon he died ! Nay suppose it were a custom both 
 for men and women to hncet doicn as often as they heard 
 the name of Jcsus pronounced, it would be no more than 
 what St FatU encourages us to do when he tells us, that 
 God has given him a name, ivhich is above every name, that 
 at the name cf Jisus every Inicc shall boic, Phil. ii. 9, 10. 
 
 1 know that \)v Sti/lingfltct (of whom you have borrow- 
 ed all your line arguments to prove us idolaters) to get 
 rid of this troublesome parallel between the protcslant 
 bows or curtesies to the neane (f Jesus, and our kneeling 
 to the cross answers, that we might as well instance in 
 going to church ed the loll of a bell, as in boxvivg id the 
 name cf Jcsus : for, as the one only tells us the time when, 
 so the other only puts us m 7niud (f the person whom we 
 are to tcorship. So that according to tin's learned prO' 
 lestutU Doctor no more reverence is paid to the most holy 
 name of Jesus, when we hear it pronounced, than to a 
 bell, wJjen wc licar it loll. !Most shameful doctrine ! 
 And how different from the text, 1 have just now quoted 
 from St I'end ! I Jieartily wish the doctor may not iiave 
 
 X 2 ^
 
 4G6 Some Touches of 
 
 liis portion with the heatlu n Jupilcr, for whose honour 
 he was so zealous in this life. 
 
 But let that be as it will, unless you can shew a sub- 
 stantial diffcrcncehctwccn bowing orniakinj^ low curtesies 
 to the name of Jesus, and kneeling to the cross, you will 
 never avoid being guilty of a manifest incoherency in 
 practising the one, and condemning the other. For kneel- 
 ing is an action as indiffereiii in itself as boicing. Both 
 are in proper circumstances made use of to testify our 
 respect either to God or his creatures ; and the nature or 
 quality of the respect, we shew by those actions, are 
 chiefly diversified by the intention of the tvill. So that if 
 hawing to the tiame of Jesus, be no more than an inferior 
 relative honour, which terminates wholly in Christ him- 
 self, kneeling to and kissing the cross are likewise no 
 more. And if this be properly called worshipping the 
 cross, the other is as properly called worslupping the 
 name oi Jesus: or call it by what name you please, pro- 
 vided you give the same name to both. 
 
 SECTION XXXVII. — SOME TOUCHES OF PROFANE 
 
 BURLESOUE. 
 
 " G. — My lord, there is another strange latria paid to 
 •' the prccputiutn of Christ, or the foi-e- skin, that was cut off 
 " at his circumcision. Your Doctors are at great pains to 
 " know what is become of it. They might as well ask what 
 " is become of the parings of his nails. Whither will super- 
 " stition run ? They had it at Antwerp ; but the heretics 
 " took it away. From thence it travelled by many miracles 
 '• to the church of St John Luteran at Home. And how it 
 »« was thence translated to the church oi Cornelius diad Cyprian 
 *' at Calcata about twenty miles from Rome, I have read at 
 " large the account in a book in folio intitled de JBasilica et 
 " Putriarchio Lateranensi ad Alex. VII., Pont. Max. Authore 
 " Ccesare Raspono ejusdem BasiliccB Canonico. Roma? 1G56. 
 *' p. 364, &c. And of the miraculous difference it shewed, 
 " when it was touched by virgitis and by married ivomen, 
 *' see the Devotions of the Roman church, p. 31. Where you 
 " will find other authors quoted, as Bolandus, Act. Sunct. ad 
 "Jan, 1 de prceputio Chrisli. And Rivet: Apologia pro
 
 profane Burlesque. 467 
 
 <« Sancta Maria Virgini. Lib. 1. C. xvii. Cardonel Tolet : in 
 ♦' Caput 2. Luccc, Annot. 31. And Salmeron in Evang. 
 " Tom. 3. Tract. 36. And that thougli it is still at Calcata, 
 '« yet it is carried about at Podium with great veneration 
 " upon the feast of the ascension. Salmeron in the place 
 •' above quoted tells us out of the Legend oi Jacobus de Vora- 
 " gine, that the blessed Virgin gave this prceputium first to 
 " Mary Magdalene, and that it was brought afterwards by 
 *' an augel to Charles the Great at Aken, and how after it 
 *' came to be laid up in the Latcran ; whence these verses 
 
 " Circumcisa caro Christi, sa7idalia sacra, 
 " Atque umbilici viget hie prcecisio chara. 
 
 " Put thus into English : 
 
 " Christ's fore skin, and blessed sandals arc kept here, 
 *' And tchat icas cut from off his navel dear. 
 
 " I suppose they meant the cutting of his ?iavil-slri}ig. And 
 " his sandals (though it is not said that he wore any ; for he 
 " is always painted bare-foot) will come in here too for latrioy 
 ♦< for the same reason, which Thomas Aquinas gives for latria 
 " as due to the cross, propter membrorum Christi co?itactum, 
 *' because it touched the bodg of Christ. Then all his clothes 
 " must come in for the same reason, and the nails and spear 
 " that pierced him. And why not the spittle that was thrown 
 " in his face? Fur the cross was as much his enemy (as far 
 " as xcood could be) as any of the other, or the spittle itself. 
 " And I know not why the crucijiers should not be admitted 
 " too, though they touched him with an hostile mind: as 
 " some have sainted Judas, because he was an instrument in 
 " our redemption. For there is no stop in superstitio?i more 
 " than in other arts." — pp. 162 — 164. 
 
 Z/ Sir, buffoonery ought at least to have- its hounds, 
 
 and keep at a respectful distance from every thing belong- 
 ing to the sacred person of Christ. So far ought we to 
 be from making any thing relating to lilm the sui)ject of 
 hurlesqne. What a numl)er of questions as vndecent as 
 profane, might not an atheist or deist start concerning 
 our Saviour's circumcision and jtassiori. And would you 
 think tiicm worth a serious answer ? Now, Sir, the 
 legendary stuff you have rehearsed concerning our 
 Saviour's foresihin is as impertinent as those questions 
 would be, and it is a subject not fit to be jested witli.
 
 4G3 Some Touches of 
 
 And therefore when any of our autliors write of it, lot 
 their relations be as fabulous as you please (for that is 
 beneath my concern) tiiey observe at least a decorum, 
 and speak not of it Wke jack-puddings m Bar tholemy fair, 
 or in the ribahlnj sfi/lc of Merry Andrews to make sport 
 for libertines and atheists. 
 
 But as to that iindccent piece, for which you quote the 
 Devotions of the Itoman Church, I am not surprised at any 
 sort oi filth cominj]; from that sink of forgeries and scandals. 
 It is a mere common seicer, into which the author has 
 conveyed all the dirt, he has with infinite labour raked 
 together to throw at us. 
 
 However one short answer to all the fine stories that 
 author has told, and those you have now entertained me 
 with, is, that when you find any of them either in the 
 decrees of our councils, or Catechisms, or professions of 
 faith or when we insist upon x\\q\\\ as, terms (f communion, 
 tlien we are responsible for them, and not otherwise. So 
 that telling old wives stories, or the indiscreet disputes 
 or fabulous xelaixou^oi particular persons to ridicule any 
 church, is benecdh a grave divine, and betrays not only a 
 deartli of solid arguments, but a mistrust of his cause : 
 since he is forced to have recourse to such vile means to 
 support it. 
 
 As to the latria, which you run so much descant upon, 
 I have already sufficiently explained St Thomas's mean- 
 ing of that word, and how it may be apjilied to the things 
 you make yourself merry with. Ijiit this I assure you, 
 that had 1 a handkerchief, which had wi])ed off the spittle 
 from our Saviouj-'s face, or the nails that j)ierced his 
 sacred hands awdfeet, I should keep them with a. singular 
 veneration, and as a most precious relic in remembrance 
 of him : and so I would the least scrap of his clothes: 
 nor should any profane buffoon ever make me alter my 
 mind. How common a custom is it to keep a lock of u 
 person's hair, whose memory is dear to us, or even a 
 toy that but belonged to him ? And, if this practice be 
 grounded upon an inbred impression of nature, and is not 
 thought absurd in conunon life, why should it be a
 
 •profane Burlesque. 469 
 
 superstition in religion to liave a veneration for thin£>;s, 
 that have any ways belonged to our divine Redeemer ? 
 
 The tcomnn, that was troubled with the bloody Jinx, 
 had a firm faith, that if she could but touch the hem of 
 his garment, she should certainly be cured. Now, if the 
 apostles had been protestantsm their principles, they would 
 have upbraided her with superstition. And how much 
 more would St Peter have condemned those, that crowded 
 to come within the reach of his shadotv, and St Paul 
 those zealous devotees, that brought their aprons and 
 handkerchiefs to touch his bodij? But in those early days 
 of Christianity men had a religious respect for things, that 
 but touched the body of a faithful servant of Christ, 
 Believe me, Sir, tiioy were not in those days a subject 
 of mirth and laughter : that sort of wit is a fruit of a later 
 growth, and was brought into credit by the blessed 
 reformation. Before which time I find that men were 
 also so stupidly superstitious, as to make a difference 
 between the dead instrumejits of our Savioiirs passioUf 
 all which they held in veneration, and his cruciJierSf 
 whose cruelty and malice they detested: though your 
 more elevated genius cannot stoop low enough to make 
 these vulgar distinctions between tJurigs and things, or 
 between things and persons. 
 
 All the world knows what honours antiquity paid to 
 the cross of Christ on account of its being the instrument 
 of our redemption : and with what solemnity St Helena 
 the ancient glory (jf liritain placed it again upon mount 
 Calvary, after it had distinguished itself from the two 
 crosses found with it underground by the miraculous cure 
 «)f a woman alUicted with a grievous distemper: and how 
 being afterwards carried away by Chosroas king of Persia, 
 was fourteen years after again recovered l)y the emperor 
 Jlcraclius, \\\\o refused to make peace with the Persians, 
 but upon condition, that they should restore the cross, 
 which himself carried on his shoulders with great jiom]) to 
 the pkico, \\li(T(! Christ had suffered uj)on it; and the like 
 iionour was in those days paid to the nai/s, which lastened 
 Ijim to it. But 1 never heard of any honours jiaid l)y the 
 ancient church to iiis crudjicrs. Wliich shews, tiiey plainly
 
 470 Some Touches of 
 
 saw a difference, where you pretend to sec none, viz., 
 between the dead vistnwients of our Saviouf s passion, and 
 the criminal actors in it. But some ornamental strokes of 
 hnffooncry are ubsohitely necessary to \\rS\.\.c falsehood ^ot 
 down, and supply the deficiencies of solid reason. 
 
 " G. — But, my lord, I must not forget my friends the 
 '* sclwohnen upon the occasion I have spoken of. They dispute, 
 *' that tlie fore-shin heingof the cfitireness of the bod?/, it must 
 •' have been reunited to the bod// of Christ upon his resurrection^ 
 «' else that the entire body did not arise. Sueraz therefore 
 *' concludes, that the body of Christ at the resurrection had a 
 ^'foreskin, which is shewed in tiie church here below. He 
 " says, that the forcski7i belongs to the entireness of the body 
 " 7ionformalitersedinatcrialiter, notformaUy hut only materially 
 " and so the business is made up. But he adds, that 
 " Innocent III., did call in question th\s fo7'eshin upon earth. 
 " It is a question then. And do the people still pay latria 
 " to it ? How comes this to be suffered in the church ? In 
 " the church that is infallible!" — pp. 164, 163. 
 
 L. — And I ask you, Sir, whether the church's infalli- 
 bility obliges her to interpose her authority in all the 
 trivial questions, which divines dispute pro and con against 
 one another? You are sometimes very angry at her for 
 pronouncing decisively in matters, where she is sure she 
 has authority to do it ; and now you quarrel with her for 
 not doing it in matters, wherein she judges her authority 
 not to be concerned. So that whether full or fasting, 
 you are equally displeased. 
 
 All then that the church suffers is, that they who are 
 convinced in their hearts, that there is such or such a 
 relic of our Saviour upon eartii, may give it the respect 
 that is due to it; call it by what 'na7ne you please: which 
 surely cannot be an argument against her infallibility ; 
 unless you make this a good consequence, the church acts 
 prudently therefore she is not infallible. 
 
 " G. — But, my lord, several parcels of the blood of Christ 
 " shed upon the cross are likewise shewed ; and Cressy quotes 
 " Blath. Paris for a signal testimony of it. To this, says 
 " Aqidnas, whatever belongs to the nature of a human body was 
 *' wholly in the body of Christ wlien he rose, as his flesfi and 
 " bo7ies a7id his blood, otuI that entirely withoid any diminution ;
 
 profane Burlesque. 471 
 
 « othericise (says he) it had not been a perfect resurrection. 
 *' And afterwards, tliat all the blood, which flowed from the 
 " body of Christ, rose again in his body. But as for that blood 
 ♦• (says he) which is preservedinsome churches for relics, itdid?iot 
 ^'Jtoicfrom Christ's side, but is said to havejiowed miracidousli/ 
 ^^ from a certain image of Christ, that ivas pierced. Yet the 
 " people pay latria to it grounded wholly upon a legend: and 
 " Aquinas givQ?: no further assurance of it, than {\\?ilitwas said. 
 " Is this worsliipping m faith? What blood was that Avhich 
 " came out of an image? Was it Christ's blood? And how 
 " was it made so ? Was it transubstatitiated, or was it blood 
 " materially though not formally ? Or had it only the colour 
 " oi blood, the accidents remaining \\'\\\\oui substance ? Vasqiiez 
 " comes pretty near this when he says, that no portion of the 
 " blood of Christ did remain on earth under the form of blood, 
 " but only under its colour, amissa forma sanguinis, having 
 " lost the form of blood.'" — pp. IGa, 166. 
 
 L. — Sir, I am wholly of St Thomas Aquinas's mind, 
 that Christ at his resurrection resumed every thing requi- 
 site to the integrity of a human hotly, as by God's infinite 
 power every man will do at the general resurrection. And 
 I am likewise so far of Vasquez's mind, viz., that there is 
 no bluod of Christ upon earth but that, which we receive 
 in the sacrament of the lioly cucharist. So that, if the 
 fact be true (for neither you nor I are bound to believe 
 it) that God, to confound the sacrilegious impiety of those, 
 who pierced an image of Christ in derision or hatred of 
 him, manifested his displeasure in the miraculous manner 
 as is commonly related; what appears to me most proba- 
 ble is, that it was real blood indued, but not the blood, of 
 Christ that issued from it : which utterly spoils the jest 
 of all your fine questions. For 1 find no more necessity 
 either for the distinctio7i of material and formal, for or 
 transubstantiulion, or accidents remaining- without their 
 substance in the above mentioned miracle, than in the 
 miraculous flowing of tvater from the roch, when Moses 
 struck it with his rod: because the same power, that 
 produced water out of a roch, can surely produce blood 
 out of an image of vooil. And in such a case the same 
 sort of respect is due to the blood produced in that mira- 
 ciilous manner, as to the crucifix from which it //ow» ;
 
 472 Some Touches of, ^c. 
 
 because as the one is an imai>e of Christ dying ^ so is tlie 
 other of liis shedding his blood on the cross. 
 
 ADVEiiTisEMrsT. — Tlic gciitlemaii in his Case Stated having a great 
 itching to malie a wittgjcst upon \x\i<ioi\(i's principle of \n\waUon ; 
 in vnlcr to xtshcr it in decently ami with connexion, vmkcs his 
 lordsliip ask this wise question. Wliut is this matter and form, 
 Willi wliicli they keep sucli a stir? To ivhich the gentleman 
 answers as follows : — 
 
 «« G. — Tliey make three covstituling jninciples in every 
 " thinf^. Those they call materia, forma, mid privatio. That 
 " is, the /nailer, of uliich any thing is made. The form, 
 " wliich is M-holly unknown to us. And the tva7it of that 
 ^^ form. For you must know, that we must tcant a thing 
 " before we have it." — ^i. 166. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is no small oversight in a pretender to logic 
 to tell me, that ;;r/ra^/on is one of yf/-«5tof/e's constituent 
 principles: which suffices to answer this \<\\q jargon. 
 
 " G. — Yet your article of transuhstantiation is nothing 
 " else, as I hope I have made it plain. And I will sliew 
 " you another instance, wherein you follow the schoolmen 
 " too, and are grossly misled by them : that is, the distinction 
 " oi concomitaiicy." — p. 166. 
 
 L. — Sir, you have made it just as p/ai«, that transuh- 
 stantiation is a mere jargon, as you have made it plain, 
 tliat the heathen Jupiter is the true supreme God adored 
 by Christians : and as you have made it plain, that our 
 meii of sense believe neither scriptures nor legends. Tridy 
 Sir, if asserting /a/se/ioof/s boldly be making things plain, 
 you have done great feats in this conversation. ]3ut I 
 must tell you plainly, you are in a bad way at present, 
 iniless you succeed better than you have done hitherto, 
 in mailing it plain that the distinction of concomitancy is 
 a mere jargon. Let us then hear what you have to say 
 for yourself. 
 
 " G. — I have before told yuu of several injuries done to 
 " our Lord Christ in adding to his roinmandmenls, and making 
 " to yourselves means of grace, which he has not instituted." 
 — p. 166. 
 
 L. — And I have before made it plain to a demonstra- 
 tion [Part II. Sections 3. & 33.] that you have even 
 contradicted the practice of your own church, upon both 
 those heads.
 
 Of Communion in one Kind. 473 
 
 SECTION XXXVIII. — OF COKCOMITANCY, AND COMMUNION 
 UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 " G. — What I am to speak of is now an error on the other 
 " hand, that is, of substracCmg from liis institutions, and the 
 " means of (/race, whicli lie has appointed. I mean in taking 
 " awav the cup from tlie Iciif^ in the holy sacrament. Chriat 
 '• instituted the sacrament of his body and blood as an effectual 
 " means of grace, calling it the conimunio7i of his bodi/ and 
 ♦' blood. Particularly of the cup it is said, The cup of blessing, 
 " which ice bless, is it not the comiaunion of the blood of Christ, 
 " 1 Cor. X. IG. And that we all partake of the cup according 
 " to several manuscripts of your own vulgar Latin: Omnes de 
 " lino pane, ct de uno calici participamus. But that the laitg 
 " might not think themselves deprived of this so beneficial 
 " a means of the greatest grace, the schools have invented a 
 " distinction they call concomitancg, which is, that in all flesit 
 " there is some blood goes along, or is concomitant with it. 
 " So that Avhoever eat the flesh, partake also of the bloods* 
 —p. 167. 
 
 L — Really Sir, I wish you had studied our (llviiiity 
 a little better. What ! do we say, that in all flesh there 
 is some blood goes along with it ? And is this the mean- 
 ing of our doctrine of concomitancij ? I cannot but pity 
 your real or afiectcd i^'uorancc. 13ut that you may be 
 better instructed for the future, what our divines teacli is 
 this, to wit, that neitiier a living bodg can ])e without 
 bloody nor the blood of a living incorruptible bodg without 
 the bodg itself. And therefore when the laitg receive 
 the living bodg of Christ, under the fhrnt of bread, they 
 must by consequence also receive his sacred blood, which 
 is inseparable from it: and so it is truly called the com- 
 munion (f his bodg and blood : nor are they by conse- 
 quence deprived of any part of the sacrament, or of the 
 grace it contains, 'i'his Sir, is our mcaninjr of the dis- 
 tinction of conconiitancg, wjiich is so far from bcinj^ a Jar- 
 gon, that it is plain rununon seyisc. 
 
 You say, of the cuj) it is jtarticularly said by St Paid, 
 the cup ff blessing which uu: bless, is it ?iot the communion 
 of the blood of Christ? 1 Cor. x. 16. Wiio doubts it? 
 And in the same verse it is as particularly said, ajid the
 
 474 Of Communion 
 
 bread w/iich tee hrcnh, is it not the conmmnion of the body 
 of onr Lord ? Now I presume ISt Paid does not speak 
 of a dead but a living bod>j, which is necessarily composed 
 oi flesh and blood. Nor can any man have such a gross 
 imag-ination as to think the blood is really separated from 
 the body in the cup, or the body from the blood in the host. 
 We may likewise modestly presume that St Paul was 
 no equivocator, but called things by their own names. 
 And therefore when he said, that the bread and cup being 
 blessed are the communion of the body and blood of Christy 
 he could not mean that they continued to be plain bread 
 and ivine after the consecration. And so his words are a 
 full confutation of this impious error. 
 
 Advertisement Instead of the answer now given, his lordship in 
 
 the former conversation takes all for current coin, and only asks 
 this modest question ; and is not tluit true ? J'o which the gentle- 
 man's reply is so exorbitantly weak, that the reader will he sur- 
 prised at it. However he initst take it fur better or far 2vorse. 
 His lordship therefore put this question, And is not that true ? 
 The gentleman answers as follows : — 
 
 «' G. — Really, my lord, I know not. But I am sure it is 
 " a nicety. For flesh may be so dried, that no blood shall 
 *' appear in it; and in a ^cafer there can be none without 
 " having recourse to a miracle^ — p. 167. 
 
 L. — But I hope, dear Sir, there may at least be some 
 in the living body of Christ, which the faithful receive 
 verily and indeed in the Lord's supper. Unless you will 
 say, that they receive a dead body under i\iefo7'm oi bread, 
 and dead or inanimate blood under the foj-m of wine : 
 which is both impious and absurd. 
 
 « G. — I tliink, my lord, it is making- too bold to throw 
 " off the institution of Christ upon such imaginations of our 
 '• own, which imply that there was no need of the institution 
 *' of the C7ip. For if it be not necessary now, it was not so 
 " then." — p. 167. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is not only making too bold (for that is too 
 soft a term) but 7uichcd and sacrilegious to throw oft' the 
 institution of Christ upon any imagination whatsoever. 
 But do we throw off the institution of Christ, because we 
 teach that a living body cannot be without blood, nor the 
 blood of a living person be separated from his body? And
 
 in one Ki?id. 475 
 
 that by consequence we receive tc/iole Christ, whether 
 we receive him under one or both kinds ? 
 
 G, — But does not this make the institution of the cup 
 unnecessary ? 
 
 L. No Sir, it does not. Because the eucharist is not 
 
 only a sacrament, that is, a sign of invisible grace institu- 
 ted'for the nourishment of our souls; but also a sacrijice, 
 which is one of the most essential parts of religion. And 
 for this reason C/<m^ instituted the blessed eucharist under 
 both hinds, that by the vujstical separation of his body and 
 hhod upon the altar their real separation on the cross 
 might be more perfectly represented, and so be both a 
 standing lively memorial of the death he once suftered, 
 and a perpetual oblation of infinite value for us. But 
 many of tlie Brformation have effectually robbed the 
 people of this iihole sacrijice and all its fruit by denying 
 the real presence of Christ as a victim under the sacra- 
 mental signs, and had no otlier way to cover the impiety 
 of this fact than by raising a clamour about the cup, as if 
 without it the people received a mangled and imperfect 
 sacrament: whereas nothing is more false; because by 
 receiving the liviiig body of Christ they are made as much 
 partakers of his sacred blood, as if they received it under 
 both kinds. 
 
 *' G. — But, my lord, this sacrament was ordained not only 
 " to express the death of Christ, but also the manner of it : 
 " that is, by the shedding of hh blood aocording to the bhodg 
 " t7/pcs of him under the law, as it is said, tcithout shedding of 
 " blood there is no remission, lleh. ix. 22. It teas therefore 
 " necessary, says the apostle. But whatever blood may he 
 <« conco7»ita)it in i]ni flesh, yet there is no sheddiyig of it ex- 
 " pressed in a toaftr." — p. 1G8. 
 
 L Sir, not in a wafer remaining true bread after, as 
 
 it was before the consecration. But if the bread and wine 
 be by the words of Christ converted into his sacred body 
 and blood (as tliey mo.->t certainly are, unless you can prove 
 Christ to i)e an etpiivocator or liar) the separate consecra- 
 tion of tliem, which belongs to priests alone, is the most 
 lively expression i)oth of his death and the manner ot it : 
 that is, by the mystical shedding of his blood. But it
 
 476 Of Communion 
 
 neither the bread be by consecration converted into his 
 1)odij, nor the wine into liis blood, I should be glad to 
 know, how this shedding of his blood according to the 
 blood 11 ti/pcs of him under (he law can be expressed by it. 
 And I leave every man to judge, whether he who talks 
 of nothing but i\ic flesh and blood of Christ in the sacra- 
 7nent, and believes nothing conformably to the natural 
 and obvious mcani7ig of his words, be not guilty of dam- 
 nable hypocrisy and dissimulation ? 
 
 " G. — But, my lord, when the host is carried in procession, 
 '• as upon Corpus Ctiristi day, or frequently to tlie sick, there 
 " is no cup, nor does the priest liiuiself communicate. But 
 " however if the people are to partake of the sacrifice as it 
 " was under the law, here they are defrauded of oue half of 
 " it."—;;. 1G8. 
 
 L- — But Sir, when the host is carried in procession or 
 to the sick, it either is Christ's body or not. U not, then 
 neither is the cup his blood. And so according to this 
 protcstant system your people are downright bubbled; 
 imagining they receive both Christ's body and blood, when 
 in eiiect they receive neither. But if the host be Christ's 
 real body, I am sure it is not a dead one ; nor are they 
 by consequence, who receive it, defrauded of one half 
 either of the sacrament or sacrifice. Pray would the peo- 
 ple under the old law have been defrauded of half the 
 sacrifice, in case the whole victim had been given to all, 
 and to every particular person ? Now though this be an 
 impossible suj)position in reference to the sacrifices of 
 the Mosaic law, it is literally true in reference to the 
 Christian sacrifice. For the tvhole victim, I mean, the 
 entire body and blood of Christ is given to every christiaji 
 communicant, in whatever manner he receives it, that is, 
 whether by the action of eating, or drinhing. For Christ 
 in his impassible and immortal state cannot be divided, 
 and we either receive icJiole Christ, or nothing of him. 
 .So that whoever receives his sacred body receives his 
 blood: and whoever receives his sacred blood, receives In's 
 body: for he neither receives dead flesh, nor dead or in- 
 animate blood. And this is what we call concomitancy. 
 A)id by consequence it is not only calumny, but rank
 
 in one Kind. 477 
 
 nonsense to say the people are defrauded of one halfoi 
 the sacrament. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the people are as much commanded to 
 *' partake of the ciqy as of the bread. And the church may 
 " as well take away the bread, and leave only the cup, and 
 " say, that the fiesh is contained in the blood, as well as the 
 *' blood in the Jiesh. Strange power of the church ! ^>'hat 
 *' institution of God can stand at this rate ? Suppose the 
 *= Jeics had neglected to pour out or sprinkle the blood of 
 " the sacrijices as commanded, and said it was sufficient that 
 '= it was by concomitancy in the flesh, would this distinctiun 
 " have served in that case? And why not as well as in 
 « this?"— 7V>. 168, 169. 
 
 L. — Sir, if the Jews had neglected to pour out or 
 sprinkle tlie hlood as commanded, they woukl have been 
 guilty of a grievous sin in disobeying the express com- 
 mand of God : nor could the pretence of concomitancy 
 have in any manner palliated their disobedience : nay it 
 would have been ridiculous in tlie highest degree; be- 
 cause it is impossible that the blood of a victim rcalhf 
 shed (as it was by the priests of the old law) should at 
 tlie same time remain in the victim : but it is absolutely 
 necessary that the blood of Christ, which is only shed 
 mystically by the priests of the new law, shouUl remain 
 really united to his Itody. The consccpience whereof is, 
 that the people receiving his living body receive his sacred 
 blood co)ic<jmitan1ly : which shews your parity to be en- 
 tirely void of sense. I'or it implies two parts equally 
 absurd, rirst, that as the blood was not by concomitancy 
 in the dead victims of the law, so neither is it by con- 
 cmnitancyxn the living body oi Chrht. And, 2dly, thatasthe 
 .J^ri.s/i priests were bound to j)our out or sprinkle the blood 
 of the sacrifices, so the priests of the new law arc bound 
 to give the atp to the people. And is not this fine stulV.'' 
 There arc indeed two parities that may be fairly made; 
 for they contain two solid truths. The Jirst is, that as 
 the priests of the old law would have been guilty of a 
 griev(»us disobedience, if they had neglected to shed the 
 blood of the victim rtally under pretence of concomitancy 
 in the flesh, so the priests of the new laiv would incur the 
 like guilt, if in celebrating the mysteries they should by not
 
 478 Of Commu)iio7i 
 
 consecratino^ the wine separately neglect to shed the blood 
 of Christ vit/stical/i/ under pretence of its concoinitancif in 
 the host. The Id is, that as the obligation of shedding 
 the victim's blood really regarded the Jewish priests only, 
 and not the people in the old law, so the obligation of 
 shedding the blood of Christ vnjsticalhf regards priests 
 alone, and not the people in the new law. These two 
 parities, I say, are just and fair, but they can render you 
 no manner of service. 
 
 You say, the church maij as well take aivay the bread 
 and leave only the cup, and say that the flesh is contained 
 in the blood as icell as the blood in thejlesh. Most cer- 
 tainly, Sir, the church not only may but does say, that 
 the all-glorious and incorruptible body of Christ is as in- 
 separable from his blood, as his blood is from his body: 
 and she says this because she is convinced, that neither 
 the bi'ead is consecrated into deadjlesh, nor the wine into 
 dead or inanimate blood. And therefore, if the church 
 had the same rational motives to give only the cup to the 
 laity as she has to give them only the consecrated bread, 
 she might lawfully do it. And if she did, the people 
 would receive the same body and blood of Christ wJvole 
 and C7itlre as they now do : nor would there be the least 
 difference in the thing received, but only in the manner 
 of receiving. 
 
 But here you cry out, Straiige power of the church I 
 What instittdion of God can stand at this rate ! Sir, as 
 long as there are true bishops and priests in the world 
 who derive their ordinatio7i from the apostles, the institu- 
 tion of Christ is in no danger of failing. So that your 
 vehement exclamation had been very much to the purpose 
 had it been worded thus : Strange insolence and impiety 
 of a few wretched reformers, who by denying the real pre- 
 sence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist have done 
 what in them lies to abolish that august and venerable 
 sacrifice, which Christ himself instituted and left by his 
 last will as the most precious legacy he could bestoiv upon 
 his holy church ! For if such wickedness can be justified, 
 we may with reason ask, U'hat institution of God can stajid 
 at this rate !
 
 in one Kind. 479 
 
 G. — But, my lord, are not the people as much com- 
 manded to partake of the citp. as of the b7'ead ? 
 
 L. — Sir, if by parlaking of the cup as tvell as of the 
 bread you mean, 7-eceiving the blood of Christ as tvell as 
 his body, I answer they are commanded to receive the 
 one as well as the other, and so they do by receiving the 
 sacrament in one kind only. Because the body and blood 
 of Christ are inseparable ; nor is it possible to receive 
 the one without receiving the other, both body and blood 
 being contained under either kind. 
 
 G. — But if tlie church can take away one kind from 
 the people, may she not exert her power a step farther 
 and take away both ? 
 
 L. — No, Sir, she cannot. Because the people are 
 commanded to receive the body and blood of Christ. And 
 this they could not do, if both the one kind and the other 
 were refused them. But as long as they receive the 
 sacrament in either kind, they fully obey the command 
 of Christ in receiving both his body and bloody which is 
 all that is commanded. Nay I defy you to shew any 
 positive precept obliging the /a /7// to receive it mbothkinds. 
 
 SECTION XXXIX. LAY COMMUNION IN ONE OR BOTH 
 
 KINDS IS A POINT OF DISCIPLINE ONLY ; AND NEITHER 
 FORBID, NOR COMMANDED BY CHRIST. 
 
 " G. — ^fy lord, it is observable that Christ, as foreseeing 
 " this takiii{j away of the cup from many, added the word 
 " all to the drinking of the cup. Drink ye all (fit, Matt. 
 " xxvi. 27. And it is said, t/icy drank alt of it, Mark xiv. 
 " 23, it is not said so of the bread." — p. 109. 
 
 L. — Sir, since you are in your observing mood, give 
 me leave to make my observation too, viz., that Christ, 
 as foreseeing that you and otlier protestants wouhl start 
 this frivolous objection against tl»c discipline of his holy 
 rhurch, took care tiiat i)oth St Mark and St Luke should 
 furnish iier with a solid answer to it. For who ^^ ere the 
 all St Matthew s[)eaks of? Were they not tiie same all, 
 as are spoken of by St Mark, saying, and they <dl drank 
 (fit, \\z., tiie apostles, ^\ho were tlie only persons with
 
 430 0/ Communion 
 
 our Saviour at lils last supper. For surely if the apostles 
 alouc were the a/l that drank, they wore likewise the 
 same all, that were bid to drink. A strange argument to 
 prove, that the laity are all bound to drink of the cup! 
 
 G. — l)nt is it not remarkahlc, that C/ir/s< should in dis- 
 tributing the bread say no more than take and eat ; yet 
 in giving the cup should say expressly, drink ye all of it'f 
 
 L. Sir, St Lxdic has insinuated a reason for it, which 
 
 utterly spoils the force of your observation. For he 
 obser\'es, that Christ himself divided the bread, and gave 
 to eacli a])0stle the morsel he was to oaf, Luke xxii. lU. 
 tjo that all were not to eat of the same p/ece of consecrated 
 bread: but all were to drink of the same consecrated cup; 
 vhich therefore (according to St Luke's relation) he gave 
 themj and bid i\iQn\divide it among themselves, \&r. 17. And 
 this explains those words of St Matthew, drink ye all of 
 it; which was only said to caution them, that they were all 
 to have their share of the cup he gave them : whereas 
 this caution was unnecessary as to the consecrated bread, 
 which he distributed with his own hands. 
 
 <' G But if these two texts, take and eat, and drink ye 
 
 " all of it, regard the apostles alone, you may say of the bread 
 *'• as of the cup, and take that too from the laity by the same 
 " rule. And you take the cvp from the priests, who do not 
 " officiate."—/;. 169. 
 
 L. Sir, it is plain that the word cdl in this text dri7di 
 
 ye all of if, regarded the apostles alone; because they alone 
 were the persons, whom Christ commanded to drink of 
 that consecrated cup, which he handed to them, and bid 
 them divide it amony themselves. But the institidion itself 
 of the eucharist regarded the whok church; that is, all 
 the faithful : though not cdl in the same manner. For, 
 as it is a sacrifce, tiie institution regarded the apostles 
 immediately, and in them all bishops and priests deriviug 
 their ordination from them. But as it is a sacrament^ 
 the institution regarded the people also, who therefore are 
 bound to receive it for the spiritual 7wurishmcnt of their 
 souls ; but their maymer of receiving it, that is, whether 
 f)y the action of eating or drinking or both^ is not deter- 
 mined bv the institution itself.
 
 171 one Kind. 481 
 
 " G. — But, my lord, Christ said to the people, to the laUj/, 
 " except ye eat t/iejlesh of the Son of yuan, and drink his blood, 
 ^^ you shall have no life in you, John vi. 53. And this is 
 " understood by all you of the Church of Rome as spoken 
 " of the sacrament." — p. 1G9. 
 
 L. — Sir, tliey who understand this text of the sacra- 
 meid, do likewise understand all that has a relation to 
 the same subject in the chapter from whence it is quoted : 
 which being- supposed, your ol)servation, that Christ 
 spoke those M'ords to the people, will do you no service : 
 because the rest of that chapter was spoke to the people 
 as well as those words. 
 
 Now, as Christ said to the people, except you eat the 
 Jlesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall have 
 no life in you, ver. 53. And as it is saiil, ichoso eateth my 
 flesh and drinheth my blood hath eternal life, ver. 58. So at 
 the same time he said to the people, If any man eat this 
 BREAD he shall live for ever ; and the nr.EAD that I will 
 give is my flesh, rchich I will give for the life of the world, 
 ver. 52. And again, He that eateth me shall live by me, 
 ver. 58. And thirdly, He that eateth this buead shall 
 live for ever, ver. 59. In which three texts not a word is 
 said of the cup, or of the action of drinking, but only of 
 ceding the bread. 
 
 Now to reconcile these with the other two texts, where 
 the cup and drinking are mentioned, it must necessarilv 
 be said, that by eating and driidiing is only meant the 
 action of ueceiving the body and blood of Christ, and 
 not precisely the manner of receiving it : and so the pre- 
 cept with respect to the laity regards not the way or 
 manner of receiving, but ordy the timig received. Nay 
 notliing can be more rational than this interpretation of 
 the forementioncd texts : because the only drift of our 
 .Saviour's discourse was to convince the disbelieving 
 Cdpharnaits, that nidess thoir souls were nourished with 
 the real flesh and blood of the Son of Man, they should 
 not have life everlasting ; and that they, who were made 
 partakers of his bodij and blood, should have life everlast- 
 ing. So that [trovided the re(d body and blood of Christ 
 be but received, whether it be by the action of eating, 
 
 Y
 
 482 (y Com m un ion 
 
 or of fh'inJiing onfi/, or by ?>otfi tog'ether, it is manifest, 
 tliat all worthy coinmimicaiits, as they receive tvhole 
 C/irisf, who is the fountain of grace and eternal life, so 
 tlicy fully satisfy the end of Christ's institution, and per- 
 form all that is obligatory in the precept of commimion. 
 
 Advertisement. — Instead of this answer, iv/iich delivers the true 
 sense of our Saviour^ s ivords in St John, his lordsliip in the 
 Gentleman's Case Stated contents himself loith one ofBcllarmin's 
 snpcrmimerary answers ; lohich thowjh defensible, is useless and 
 superfluous. But the gentleman had a mind to be merry ; and 
 his lordship was to give him a handle for it ; which he docs very 
 opportunely in telling him, that BcUarmin says, that in this text, 
 except you eat, Sfc, and drink, §-c., the word and is to be taken 
 for or: tvherewith the gentleman diverts himself in the following 
 manner : — 
 
 «< G That is to Siiy, I may understand all the ands in 
 
 « the creed to be ors ; and instead of, I believe this and 
 " this, I may say, I believe this or this. So that, if I believe 
 <' any one article it is sufficient, thoH<^h I believe never another. 
 *' If you send your servant to market, and bid him bring beef 
 " and mutton and pork, and he buys only beef, and says, he 
 " understood all your ands for ors. And so if you bid him 
 " bring so much 7neat and so much drijih, .and he brings only 
 " meat for the same reason. Thus we may easily get over 
 " all the commands of God, and give the reverse to St James, 
 " that he who offends in one poi?it is ffuilty of all. No, but 
 " he ivho keeps otic point, keeps the tvhole law. This is bantering 
 " instead of arguing. And it shews a cause to be very 
 •« destitute, when so great a man as Bellarmin could content 
 " himself with giving such an answer." — pp. 169, 170. 
 
 Jj, — Sir, I may truly say, this is bantering instead of 
 arguing. Nay 1 perceive you are seized with such a 
 violent fit of drollery, that you choose to forfeit your 
 judgment rather than lose your jest. 1 or, though I am 
 not disposed to espouse Bellarmin' s answer for the best 
 that can be given, 1 cannot think he deserves the sharp 
 reflections you have made upon him. What, Sir ! if the 
 word and may be taken in a di.y'unctive sense, and under- 
 stood for or in one text of scripture, does it therefore 
 follow, that it may be so understood in all texts whatsoever, 
 and the whole creed ? Can a man of sense be capable 
 of arguing in this wild manner ? Ought you not at
 
 in one Kind. 483^ 
 
 least to have first proved, that Bellarmin's interpretatioji 
 of the aforesaid text is wholly groundless and precarious, 
 before you venture to crow over him at that unmer- 
 ciful rate ? 
 
 But Sir, I shall instance in a text, wherein the word 
 and must be taken disjicnctivcly, and understood for or. 
 The text I mean are these words of St Peter, Gold and 
 silver I have none. Acts iii. G. 1 omit others of the same 
 kind for brevity's sake. But it is plain, that in this 
 text the word and cannot but signify the same as or to 
 make St Petefs\vox(\s bear this sense, I have neither gold 
 nor silver, which doubtless is the true one. And does 
 it therefore follow, tiiat all the ands in scnpture must 
 signify the same as or ? Or is there any ground for 
 your merry banter of sending a servant to the market- 
 for heef, and mutton, and pork ? 
 
 G. — But, my lord, what reason had Bcllarinin to say, 
 that and signifies the same as or, in the text we have 
 Tuider debate ? 
 
 L. — Sir, you ought to have examined that before you 
 made yourself so merry with a man of his learning. 
 However to satisfy you he grounded himself upon our 
 Saviour's own words in the very chapter, whence the 
 text in question is; taken, and where Christ promises 
 eternal life no less than thrice to those, that shall eat the' 
 head, which himself exj)hiins to be Ida Jlesh, ver. 15,' 
 \vithout 60 much as mentioning the cup, or the external 
 action of drinking. Whence Ikllarmin justly concludes,' 
 that if this precept, except ye eat the jlesh and drink the 
 hlood, Sfc., regards the external Jorms oi eating aud drinking, 
 they must be vniderstood di.yunctivclij to reconcile them 
 ^vith the other three texts. 
 
 This, Sir, suffices to shew, that BcllarnwCs answer is 
 not so al)surd, as Vfui have represented it in your merry 
 mood. And 1 siiould make no dilliculty to prefer this 
 answer, were I not convinced, that by eating and drinking, 
 is meant no more than ueckiving both the body and bluod 
 of Christ info our slotnachs. For, as this fully answers 
 the end of Christ's institution, so is it an entire fulfilling. 
 of the precrpt of communion ; wjjich regards not the
 
 48 4 Of Communion 
 
 manner 0^ receiving, but the t/n)iffs received : because they 
 arc the thinp^s received that give eternal life., and not the 
 formality or outward actions, witli which we receive them. 
 This common sense alone suffices to convince us of, and 
 the doctrine of concomitancy is u sequel of it. 
 
 « G. — INTy lord, the doctrine of eoncomitmicy will not do 
 *' here. For, if I cat a piece oi flesh, suppose some hlood 
 <« may be said to be concomitant tiiere, yet I cannot be said 
 <' to drink, where there is not a drojy." — p. 170. 
 
 L. — What Sir ! is there not a drop of hlood in the 
 real, living, and incorrtiptible body of Christ ? Or do we 
 eat pieces cut from it, as we do butchers' meat ? Strange 
 Avilful iijnorance I 
 
 " G. — My lord, the threatening' is, except ye dri7ih, there 
 *< is no life in you." — p. 170. 
 
 L. — Yet Christ tells us, at the same time, that he that 
 eateth this bread shall live for ever. "Which is a demon- 
 stration, that by eating and drinking is effectually meant 
 KECEiviNG both his body and blood: though his blood be 
 r.ot conveyed into the stomach by that matcricd action, 
 which in receiving ordinary liquids is called drinking. 
 
 " G. — If it he but a man's testament (says St Paul) yet if 
 " it he confirmed, no man disan7inUetli, or addeth thereto, Gal. 
 *' iii. 15. This holy sacrament was the last testament, which 
 " Christ left to his church, instituted the evening before he 
 *' entered upon his sacred passion. Therefore Pope Gelasius 
 " (apud Gralianum) had good reason to call it sacrilege in any, 
 *' who should mutilate this sacramtnt, and commanded that 
 *' they, who would not drink the cup, should be denied tlie 
 " bread too."— pp. 170, 171. 
 
 L. — Sir, not only Pope Gelasius, but all the Popes 
 that ever were in the world have judged it .sacrilege to 
 mutilate the sacrament. But will you know the true 
 reason, why Pope Gelasius commanded certain persons 
 to receive both the consecrated bread and wiiie ? 
 
 " G. — I never heard a tolerable reason for taking the c?//) 
 *' from the laity, except because they Avere the laity. But 
 " the dispute is not about the reasons for it, but the thing 
 " itself. To take aAvay the cup is to mutilate the sacrament : 
 " And this is sacrilege by Gelasius s determination." — p. 171. 
 
 Zj, — Sir, I tell you once more, that to mutilate the
 
 in one Kind. 485 
 
 sacrament is sacrilege in the judgment not of Pope 
 Gclasius only, but of all catholics in the world. But 
 ■where will you find it determined by Pope Gelasius, that 
 la>/ communion in one kind is mutilating the sacrament? 
 This trivial circumstance you have wholly overlooked ? 
 
 G. My lord, I have referred you to his decree ^ii 
 
 Gratian. 
 
 L. — Who is of no authority amongst us. But if you 
 will needs refer me to that decree, you must be conteJit 
 to take the gloss along with it, which will set the matter 
 in its true light. There icere certain priests (says the gloss) 
 who dulg consecrated the body and blood of Christ, and 
 received the host, bid abstained from the cup : u-hich 
 Gelasius being surprised at said, he could not imagine 
 through what superstition they did so : and commanded 
 than, that they should either receive both as they consecrated 
 both, or abstain both from consecrating aiid receiving. 
 Because it is sacrilege in a priest offering sacrifice to 
 receive one icithout the other. And pray what reference 
 has this to lay communion, or the point in question ? 
 
 SECTION XL. — THE DECREES OF THE COUNCILS OF CON- 
 STANCE AND TRENT CONCEUNING COMMUNION IN ONE 
 KIND ARE NOT CONTRARY TO CIIRISt's INSTITUTION, 
 NOR THE FAITJI OV THE rUIMITIVE CHURCH. 
 
 '< G. — TIic Testament of our Lord, wliicli was confirmed 
 " by llie jiradicc of the church for fourteen liiindrcd years, 
 " was mulilaled by tlie Council oi Constance, and tlio cup taken 
 " from the laity \\\\\\ a nna-ohstnnte as well to the institution 
 " of Christ, as \]w practice of the primitive church. It was 
 '« declared no sacrilege, and tlm priest was exconnuunicated, 
 '« who sliould coininiMiieate the laity under both hinds. 
 
 " Tlie Council of Trent likewise puts in itscareat to (lu> in- 
 " stitutioH ill both hinds, and {thai nutwilhslandivy) \\\v. laity 
 " niu>t be o.\ebide<l from the cup: and tiiey make it a heresy 
 " to say that whole Christ ia not under each species. Tlieri 
 " tlio /Ush is as iiimh in tlie blood, as tlie blood in the //tA'/;, 
 " and it is all one, wliieli sjtccics we take. Out since the 
 <' body and blood of Cltrist were separated at his death, and
 
 466 Of Communion 
 
 '■'■ he ordained tliom to b« so separated in the sacrament of it, 
 " I see not \\o\v \\v can take away either j)art upon tiin 
 " account of their being not separated." — pp. 171, 172. 
 
 L. — Sir, 1 shall consider your last words first ; which 
 have something in them very extraordinary. For though 
 vou have said many unwarrantable things, nothing can 
 be more surprising than what you tell now, vi/., that 
 since the bodij and blood of Christ were separated at his 
 death, and he ordained them to he so separated in the sacra^ 
 ment of it, you see not hoiv ive can take away either part 
 upon the account of their beiny not separated. 
 
 What Sir 1 Has Christ ordained his body and blood 
 to be so separated in the sacrament, as they were at his 
 death ! If so, then as they were really separated at his 
 death, so are they really and truly (not mystically only, 
 as we say) separated in the sacrament. And since a real 
 separation of blood from the body destroys the life of it, 
 it follows that Christ, though impassible and immortal, 
 1ms ordained himself to be destroyed as really in the 
 sacrament, as he suffered death upon the cross. So that 
 according to this doctrine we receive a dead corps in the 
 consecrated host, and dead or inanimate blood in the con- 
 secrated luine. 
 
 This, Sir, is the monstrous assertion you are driven to, 
 at least in appearance, by denying our doctrine of con- 
 comitancy. 1 say in appearance; because I cannot think 
 you so mad as to mean it in earnest ; though you express 
 it plainly in words. For reflecting with myself that in 
 our present dispute I must not understand your words 
 according to their usual signification, I easily perceive 
 you have a loopkole to creep out at; viz., that when you 
 mention the body of Christ in the sacrament you mean 
 nothing but a morsel of bread : and when you mention 
 the blood of Christ, and repeat it over and over again, 
 and seem highly concerned at our laity's being deprived 
 of it, you mean no more than a sup of Wine : and to be 
 sure there is no absurdity in maintaining, that the bread 
 aiul zcine are as really separated in the sacrament, as 
 Christ's body and blood were at his death. 
 
 This I presume is your scdvo to come off with. But
 
 in one Kind, 487 
 
 the remedy is as bad as the disease. For can any thing 
 betray a greater insincerity, than to speak of the sacra- 
 ment as papists do, and call it the bodi/ and blood of Christ 
 twenty times ov(?r, and yet mean nothing either of what 
 they mean, or what the words import of themselves? 
 Does it not shew, that in a point of the greatest conse- 
 quence you dare not speak out, or call things by their 
 proper names ? And what can be the reason of this 
 dissimulation, but a just fear least the people who are 
 not only taught in their Catechisms, that the body and 
 blood of Christ are verily and imleed taken and received in 
 the Lord's supper, but are accustomed to hear his body 
 and blood continually spoken of in their commn7iions, 
 should become sensible of the cheat that is put upon 
 them, if you should tell them in plain words that there 
 is notiiing but bread ix\\i\ ivine in the sacrament? For, 
 unless this be your belief and real meaning ; that is, un- 
 less you mean bread, when you say body ; and ivine, 
 when you say blood; you cannot avoid being guilty of 
 the gross absurdity I have charged you with when you 
 say, that Christ ordained his body and blood to be so 
 separated in the sacrament, as they were at his death. 
 
 For this reason the Council of "J'rent dofincil it to be 
 heresy (they might have called it blasphemy) to say that 
 vhole Christ is not received under each hind : ^vhich you 
 object as an absurdity ; as you likewise do what follows 
 from it; vi/., that then the body of Christ is as much joined 
 with his blood, as the blood icith his body. But if these 
 be absurdities, then it follows, that they who believe that 
 the body and blood (f Christ arc verily aiid indeed taken 
 and received iJi the Lord's siipper, must believe that they 
 receive one half i)i Christ under one kind, and the other 
 half under the other kind. 
 
 Whence I conclude, that you cannot avoid one of 
 these three things : either you must own, that you do 
 not believe the body and blood of Christ to be verily and 
 indeed taken and received in the Lord's supper ; and then 
 you both contradict your ciiurch which teaches that doc- 
 trine, and your own plain words so often rcjx'ated in this 
 dispute, calling it the body and blood of Christ in the
 
 4 88 Of Comm union 
 
 sacrament, and arguing from it against our taking the 
 cup from the laity : or you must maintain, that one half 
 of Christ is received under one hind, and the other half 
 under the other kind or species, which is most impiously 
 and superhitively absurd: or you must be content to take 
 up witli the jarcjon of concomita^icy as you call it, and 
 confess fairly tliat the body and blood of Christ being in- 
 separable in this his glorious and immortal state, the one 
 cannot be without the other. The first makes you botli 
 a rank Ccdvinist and professed eqaivocator, the second a 
 madman, and the third apa/'/.s'^.- choose which you please. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, what do you say to the councils of 
 Constance and Trent taking away the cup with a non- 
 obstante both to the institution of Christ, and the practice 
 of the primitive church ? This I think was a bold attempt, 
 and wholly unjustifiable. 
 
 L. — Sir, they who can see no diflforence between in- , 
 stituting both kinds, and commanding both kinds to be 
 received by all, must be wilfully blind. Christ instituted 
 and administered the sacrament at supper ; but we are 
 not commanded to take the sacrament at supper, though 
 it be expressly called the Lord's supper. The whole 
 question then is reduced to this point, viz., whether all 
 be commanded to receiN'e the sacrament in both hinds ? 
 And whether the councils of Constance and Trent took 
 away the cup with a non-obstante to the command of 
 Christ? Which we flatly deny as a thing unjustifiable 
 and impious in itself: though protcstants do what they 
 can to persuade the ])eople that this is the true meaning 
 of the coiincirs non-obstante : which in efl'ect is represent- 
 ing that cou7icil to have been no better than an assembly 
 either of atheists or madmen. For who but atheists or 
 madmen are capable of making a decree like this ? viz., 
 notwithstanding that Christ has commanded all men to 
 receive the sacrament in both kinds, it shall be given in one 
 hind only to the people. Surely a man must renounce his 
 reason to judge, that an assembly of christian bishops 
 and pastors in their senses should combine together to 
 make such a mad and impious decree in the face of the 
 whole world.
 
 in one Kind. 489 
 
 The true meaning tlierefore of the council is, that 
 though Christ instituted or consecrated both kinds, that 
 both might be oiTered in sacri/ice, yet there being no 
 command that obliges all, to receive both kinds, the 
 council ordered for just reasons that the sao'ament should 
 be administered to the laiti/ in o?ie kind only : as the 
 same council ordered, that though Christ had instituted 
 and administered tlie sacrament at supper, all should be 
 obliged to receive it fasting (persons dangerously sick 
 alone excepted) and your church dispenses with that cir- 
 cumstance of the institution no less than ours. 
 
 Now, Sir, as to the practice of the primitive church 
 (which by an hijpcrbole of a very large size you have 
 extended to fourteen hundred years) no man doubts, but 
 that public comnnniioiis in both kinds were practised by 
 the primitive church : though the common practice of 
 them was forborne long before the council of Constance^ 
 which only made that discipline obligatory, which it found 
 established before in most places by custom. As appears 
 from the preface to its decree, Sess. 14., whereby it was 
 rendered every where uniform. 
 
 But let that be as it will, if our disj)ute is to be decided 
 by the practice of the primitive church, you certaiidy lose 
 your cause. I go upon tuo principles, Mhicli uo protcs- 
 tant will deny : \st, that the commands of Christ cannot 
 be reversed or violated upon any pretence whatever. 
 And 2r/, that administering ludf a sacrament is a sacri- 
 lege, which no necessity can excuse. From those two 
 principles 1 infer, that it was the undoubted judgment of 
 the primitive church, that administering the sacrament in 
 one or both kinds is a matter of discijdine only ; whence 
 it follows, that the council of Constance couhl legally for- 
 bid lay communion in both hinds, though the contrary was 
 practised in tl»e primitive church. 
 
 G. — Hut, my lord, how can we know the Judgment of 
 the church but from her practice ^ If therefore lay- 
 rommuninn in both kinds was generally practised, as you 
 own it was, in i\\c primitive church, must wc not conclude 
 fche judged the practice of it necessary? 
 
 7>. — Sir, von may conclude she judged it burful, which 
 
 y 2
 
 490 Of Com m un ion 
 
 nobody denies. But the question is, whether she did 
 not judge communiun in one kind as lawful as in both ? 
 The question is, whether it was iier judgment, that there 
 is a positive command of C/irisf, whit-li obliges all to re- 
 ceive tlie sacrament in both kinds, and that it is mutilated 
 wlien it is received in ojie hind, only? Finally the ques- 
 tion is, whether it was not the judgment of the primitive 
 church, that to receive in one or both kinds is a tiling in^ 
 different in itseHy If so, then she could not judge both 
 kinds necessary. 
 
 Now here you have her judgment positively against 
 you, if that may be certainly known by her practice. For 
 it appears from undoubted facts, that in the primitive 
 ages the sacrament was received sometimes in both kindsj 
 sometimes in one. I need not prove the fonnci', and the 
 latter is manifest from three undeniable instances : for I 
 omit several others for brevity's sake. 
 
 1. In the communion of infants, who were allowed to 
 drink of the cup without receiving the consecrated host. 
 Cyp. L. de Lapsis, 2. In domestic communions: the faith- 
 ful being permitted by reason of the persecutions to 
 carry consecrated hosts, but not the consecrated loine to 
 their own house for private communions. Tertul. L. 2. ad 
 Uxorem. Cap. 5, and Cyp. lAb. de Lapsis, 3, in the man- 
 ner frequently used of administering the sacrament to 
 the sick. Eus. L. 6. Hist. C. 44, p. 246. St Ambrose 
 liimself received it in that manner when he was upon the 
 point of death, as is recorded in the history of his life. 
 
 From these undeniable instances of communions in one 
 kind practised in the primitive chnrcli I infer it was her 
 judgment, \st. That communion in one kind is not forbid 
 by Christ, whose laws cannot be violated upon any pre- 
 tence whatsoever; 2d, That \\\e sacrament is not mutilated 
 by it; for then it would be sacrilege to receive it in one 
 hi7id, which the primitive church would not have suffered; 
 3d, That neither the testament of Christ is violated, nor 
 the faithful deprived of any part of our Saviour's legacy; 
 both which are impieties, which the primitive church 
 would have abhorred. AMience I conclude again, that 
 receiving in o?ie or both kinds was regarded by the primi-
 
 in one Kind. 491 
 
 tive chinch as a point of discipline only ; which therefore 
 the church has full authority to change at any time for 
 just reasons. 
 
 . Now, if you desire to know the reasons, that induced 
 the church to forbid the cup to the laity, you may j6nd 
 them iu the Catechism ad Parochos de Euch. Sacram, 
 Sect. 70. But the chief was to prevent even casual and 
 involuntary profanations by spilling any drops of the 
 consecrated wine : which was almost unavoidable in a 
 great crowd of communicants. 
 
 " G. — My lord, 1 leave it to yourself, whether the reasons 
 " in that Catechism be not childish ; or are of weight to ?najw 
 " the institution of Christ." — p. 172. 
 
 JL. — Sir, your groundless clamour about our maiming 
 tlie institution of Christ deserves that compliment much 
 better, as 1 have sufficiently shewed. But the reasons given 
 l)y the Catechism can only appear chihlish to those, who 
 cither believe not a Avord of the body and blood of Christ 
 being received verily and indeed in the sacrament; or 
 though they do believe it, have consciences of so large a 
 size, as not to be much concerned abont profanations. 
 
 One of the reasons given by the Catechism for taking 
 away the cup is, because !>ome constitutions can neither 
 endure the smell nor taste of wine. This I presume you 
 take to be a very childish one. But the French protes- 
 (ants did not think it so. lor in their Synod at Poitiers, 
 An. 15G0, they decreed [Ch. L'3, Art. 7. of the Lord's 
 supjx:r~\ that the t)rtad of our Lord's supper ought to be 
 administered to those, who cannot drink wino. This I 
 think is a good prolestant testimony^ that receiving the 
 communion in one hind is neither sacrilege, nor mangling 
 the sacrajnent, nor a violation of any divine preccjit. For 
 if it were, no necessity could excuse it; and they who 
 could not receive both kinds, would be obliged to receive 
 ijcitlicr the one. nor the other. 
 
 " (j. — It is certain, my lord, llu^rc nuist he no *(>ni[)arison 
 " made betwixt the l^ody and blood oi Clirist as to j)rt'l'eronce, 
 " or uliicli is most valuahlo. Jiut our raUtiiplioii is oftener 
 " attrihnted in holy scripture; to his blood tlian to liis Ixxty. 
 
 " M'c arc saved by tlm btoot/ jnopilludoii itnoinjh his blood 
 
 *' by (he sprinkling of Ids blood ».y-." — pp. 17U, 17 J.
 
 492 Of Communion 
 
 X,. — Here again, Sir, wlio will not imagine you believe 
 as firmly as any papist in the world, that the bodi/ and 
 blood of Christ are really and truly i)rcsent in the sacra- 
 ment ? For we must either suppose this to be your be- 
 lief, or that you are the greatest dissembler imaginable 
 of your faith. Either therefore you believe the bod// and 
 blood of Christ to be present in the sacrament, or you do 
 not. If not, all you say now is rank dissimulation and 
 hypocrisy ; since you both speak of it and argue from it 
 as if you did. But if you do believe it, you must re- 
 nounce common sense to say we can receive the living 
 hodij of Christ without receiving his blood: and if his 
 living body cannot be received without his blood (as 
 surely it cannot) what can be more impertinently quoted 
 than the abovesaid three texts, even though they had a 
 reference to the eucharist? Whereas they are manifestly 
 ^poken of the blood of Christ as shed upon the cross for 
 our redemption. But his attributing life everlasting^ that 
 is, the whole fruit of the sacrament to eating alone, John 
 vi. 58, comes, I think, somewhat closer up to the purpose. 
 
 SECTION XLI. — SOME SOI'IIISTICAL REMARKS UPON THE 
 6th of ST JOHN ANSWERED. 
 
 «« G My lord, we take not this as spoke of the sacrament, 
 
 " but of faith in Christ here expressed by eating; that is 
 " spiritually, as himself explains it, ver. 63, it is the spirit that 
 " (juickeneth, the fesh projiteth nothing. The ivords that I 
 " speak imto you, they are spirit, and they are life." — p.^ 173. 
 
 £,, — Sir, 1 have fully explained the true meaning of 
 this text in our dispute concerning transiihslardiation 
 (Sect. 25.) so if you have any thing more to say, I am 
 ready to give you full satisfaction. 
 
 " G. — But let us now suppose, those words, if any man 
 " eat this bread he shcdl lice for ever. And, the bread I will 
 " give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 
 "■ Let us, I say, suppose them to be understood of tlie sacra- 
 '< ment as you do, you will find the blood joined with the 
 "fesh in the next words, ver. 54, except you eat the flesh of 
 
 " the Son of mail, and drink his blood as before quoted. 
 
 " And again, ver. 55, Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my
 
 m one Kind. 493 
 
 " blood and vcr. 56. For „uj Jiesh is meat indeed, and iny 
 
 " blood is drink indeed, and ver. 52, he that eateth my jlesh and 
 •' drinheth my blood. Is not the blood here named with the 
 *^ Jlesh? But if it were not, there are a liundred places, as 
 " I now observed, where the blood of Christ is named as 
 " cleansiny, as redeeming us, kc, without any mention of liis 
 ^'^ Jlesh or body. Are tliey therefore excluded? Tliis is such a 
 '= sort of reasoning, as if I invite you to eat with me you must 
 " have no drink to your dinner, because it is not named." — 
 fp. 173, 174. 
 
 L Pray, Sir, what catholic divine in tlic world ever 
 
 said, that when the Jlcsh or body of Christ is mentiojied 
 alone in holy scripture, his blood is excluded ? Or that it 
 is not necessary to receive liis blood as well as body? On 
 the contrary we maintain expressly, that Christ's body 
 and blood arc wholly inseparable ; whence we conclude, 
 that his body cannot possibly be received without his 
 blood, nor his blood without his body ; and that, by con- 
 sequence, n'hole Christ is always received whether by a 
 communion in one or both kinds .• so far are we from ex- 
 cluding the necessity or obligation of receiving his blood. 
 So pray. Sir, leave oft' beating the air, and fighting 
 against your own shadow. 
 
 As to your pleasant parity of inviting me to cat icith 
 you, and yiving me no drink to my dinner, ij yon do not 
 expressly name it; I assure you, Sir, 1 shall take it very 
 ill to 1)0 so used : unless yon can contrive matters so, 
 that eating alone shall be ccpiivaleiit both to eating and 
 drinking ; which is the case in the /.wv/'.s snjtpcr ; wliere 
 our spiritual meat and drink, that is, the body and blood 
 of Clirist are insej)arable, as I have fully proved. So 
 that whoever eats his body, by the same action receives 
 liis sacred blood into his stomach. And so I hope that 
 when I come to eat with you, you \\ill not refuse me 
 drink by way of argumentation. 
 
 " G. — IJut, my lord, if by eating we connnoidy mean the 
 " whole meal, and drinking is likewise included, tin; criticism 
 " upon the Lord's Supper will appear what it is, and not ho 
 " tluMighl sulFicient to exclude llie cup in the sacrament, and 
 '• you have no other foundation in scrijdurc." — p. 174. 
 
 Jj. — Sir, I grant that by eating is commonly meant
 
 4i)4 Of Communio7i 
 
 the whole meal, and that drinking is likewise included if 
 we speak of ordinary meals, because in these the action 
 oi. eating or drinhimj alone cannot convey both meat and 
 drink into our stomachs. 13ut the case is quite otherwise 
 in the Lord's supper ; where, as I told you just now, our 
 spiritual meat and drink, that is, the body and blood of 
 Christ beini^ inseparable are conveyed into our stomachs 
 either by the action of eating or drinking alone. And 
 this is no criticism, but a solid truth ; unless you will 
 maintain this impious absurdity, that we receive one half 
 of Christ by eating and the other half by drinking. 
 
 This therefore suffices to justify conimimio7i in one kind. 
 Because whoever receives the ivhole body and blood of 
 Christ cannot surely be said to be defrauded of any part 
 of the spiritual meal, he has ordained for us. 
 
 But since you tell me, we have no other foundation 
 in scripture, but what I have insisted upon from the 6th 
 chapter of St John (though that might suffice), I think 
 St Paul has laid a very solid foundation both of our 
 doctrine and discipline in the two following texts : First, 
 that Christ being raised from tlie dead dieth no more, Rom. 
 vi. 9 ; and ^dly, that whosoever shall eat this bread, on 
 dri7ik this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and 
 blood of our Lord, 1 Cor. xi. 27. Whence (besides a 
 clear innuendo, that the primitive christians did sometimes 
 either only eat the bread, or only dritik the cup) it 
 follows plainly, that as either eating on drinking un- 
 worthily suffices to render us guilty both of the body and 
 blood of our Lord, so either eating or drinking worthily 
 suffices to render us partakers both of his body and blood. 
 
 I know your translators have boldly falsified this text 
 of St Paul by changing or into and, to avoid the force 
 of this argument : and there is not a learned man amongst 
 you but knows it. Yet it stands to this day uncorrected 
 in your Bibles. So tender is your church of the purity 
 of God's words. 
 
 " G — But, my lord, if I once call it eating the Lord's 
 " Supper, and several times call it both eating and drinking, 
 " will not the hitter explain the former? Or will eating 
 *' exclude drinking, though drinking be expressly named ?
 
 i?i one Kind. 495 
 
 " To eat the Lord's supper is the only phrase we use, I never 
 " heard any body call it drinking the Lord's supper. And 
 « you may thence prove that we have not the cup in our 
 " saa-ament as well as that the apostles had it not ; because 
 *' it is said, they eat bread, and broke bread. But I have 
 " overlaboured this point, because you lay so much stress 
 « upon it."— p. 174. 
 
 L. — You have indeed overlaboured it, and shewed 
 yourself a most skilful puzzle-cause in darkening and 
 perplexing the clearest truth. You ask, if it be once 
 called eatinf/ the LoriFs supper, and several times both 
 eating and drinking, v:hether the latter does not explain 
 the former ? I answer the latter does so far explain the 
 former as to render it manifest, that no man eats the 
 LorcFs supper, unless he receives both his bodgsLnd blood 
 into his stomach. But since I have demonstrated that 
 this is done either by eating or drinking only, a man 
 must renounce common sense to pretend, that the external 
 form both of eating and drinking is necessary. 
 
 You ask again, ichether eating does exclude drinking, 
 though driidting be expressly named ? I answer it does 
 not ; if by drinking be meant, receiving the blood of Christ. 
 Because his body and blood being inseparable, we cannot 
 cat his body without receiving his blood. But if you 
 mean no more than the external form of drinking, it is 
 neither excluded by the texts which mention eating alone, 
 nor commanded by the texts which mention them both. 
 But our Saviour'sattributing the whole virtue and efficacy 
 of the sacrament sometimes to eating alone, other times 
 to eating and drinking joined together, shews very plainly 
 that it is not the external form, or manner of receiving 
 under one or both hinds, but the thing received, whicli 
 bestows grace and life everlasting on the worthy receiver. 
 
 Finally, you tell mc, you never call it otherwise than 
 eating Uic Lords supper, and that I may prove thence that 
 yon have 7iot the cup in the sacrament as aril as that the 
 apostles had it not, bi cause it is said, they eat bread, and 
 l/rolw, bread. But pray Sir, when did 1 prove from those 
 uvrdji, that the apostles had n»)t the cup? I never sai«i 
 any such thing, and so you ought not to charge me with
 
 496 Of Com m un ion 
 
 it, 1 liave indeed drawn an argument from tlie 6th 
 chapter of St John, where our Saviour attributes tlie 
 whole virtue of the sacrament to eating aiuJie, as well as 
 to eating and drinking. But ean I therefore pretend to 
 prove, that you have not the cup in the sacrament, be- 
 cause you call it eating the Lord's supper ? No, Sir, I 
 am not disposed to trifle thus with words; because I 
 know your meaning- both from your principles and con- 
 stant practice : whereas I find the very reverse of those 
 principles in the word of God. 1 find St Paid telling 
 the Romans, that Christ being raised from the dead dieth 
 no more, Rom. vi. 9; the consequence whereof is, that 
 his body and blood arc now inseparable ; and this is the 
 very foundation of the doctrine oi concomitajicy. Whence 
 it follows, iXvdit communion in one kind CQwnot hea.7nangled 
 sacrament, as you pretend. I find the same apostle telling 
 the Cori?ithia7is, that whosoever shall eat the bread, ok 
 drink the cup nmcorthilg, shall be guilty of the body and 
 blood of our Lord, 1 Cor. xi. 27. Now, if either eating or 
 drinking unworthily suffices to render us guilty both of 
 the body and blood of our Lord, it is manifest that either 
 eating or drinking worthily suffices to render us partakers 
 both of his body and blood. From these two principles 
 clearly delivered in holy writ, we may legally infer, that 
 our Saviour's often attributing the whole virtue and 
 efficacy of the sacrament to eating cdone is a solid proof, 
 that when he mentions both eating and drinking it is not 
 meant as a precept to oblige all to receive the sacrament 
 in both kinds, but only to receive his body and blood, 
 which is done by a communion in ojie kind as well as 
 both ; as I have fully demonstrated to any man, who 
 believes the body and blood of Christ to be really and 
 truly present in the sacrament. 
 
 But who are the persons appointed by Christ to be 
 the interpreters of his sacred word? He that heareth you 
 (says Christ) heareth me, and lie that despiseth you, des- 
 piseth me, Luke x. 16. Again, who are the persons 
 commissioned by him to feed and govern his flock, and 
 jirescribe the proper methods of administering the sacra- 
 mmts? St Faul resolves the question in these few
 
 in one Kind. 497 
 
 words : Let a man so account of us as 0/ the ministers of 
 Christ, and the steicards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 
 iv. 1. From which two texts it is plain, that the bishops 
 and pastors of the church, who are the successors of tlie 
 apostles, and to whom Christ has promised his perpetual 
 assistance, are the only persons authorized by him to 
 interpret the word of God, and regulate the manner of 
 dispensing the sacred mysteries to the people. And was 
 it not then a most insolent madness {(ov St Austin speaking 
 of a parallel case gives it no softer name) in a few private 
 persons to pretend to understand Scriptures better than 
 all the bishops ami pastors of God's church had done for 
 fifteen ages together, and prescribe laws for the adminis- 
 tration of sacraments in o[)i)osition to all ecclesiastical 
 
 V 
 
 authority upon eartl 
 
 If there were any positive commayid obliging all to 
 receive both hinds, is it probable the universal church 
 could have been so blind as not to see it? And if they 
 saw it, what motive could her bishops and pastors have 
 to combine together in a resolution to commit a damnable 
 sin hy forbidding what CAris^had commanded, when there 
 was neitlier hojiour, interest, nov pleasure, nor any visible 
 liunian motive to induce them to it? It is certain there- 
 fore that when they took the cup from the laity, that is, 
 when they made that a law, which had been the general 
 practice long before, they were convinced in their hearts 
 of two things: First, 'Ihat the people were not injured 
 by it, aiul -dly, that there was no command, that obliged 
 them to receive it. And if neither they, nor the great 
 lights of the primitive church could ever discover any 
 such command, it looks like a chimera rather than a 
 probability, that a set of obscure factious ])orsons without; 
 mission or authority from any laufxd superior should be 
 more intelligent and clear-sighted in divine matters than 
 tliey, and see things wholly unseen before. Truly, Sir, 
 if bedlam should set uj) for a school <f learning, children 
 lor masters to their teachers, and the bli7id for guides to 
 their leaders, the thing would be as little surprising in 
 itself as the presumption and arrogance of any set of men 
 pretcjxling to be iciscr than the universal (bun h. 'Jhis
 
 498 Of the Single 
 
 alouo suffices to stop the mouth of any pretended reformer^ 
 who is not h)st to all sense of vwdesty, as I.uthcr certainly 
 was, when he made this declaration, that if a council 
 should either appoiiit or permit cmnnninion in both hinds 
 he woidd in spite of that council cither receive it in one hind 
 or in neither. Hist, de Variat. C 2. Sect. 10. This was 
 speaking- like a tnie reformer. But enough of this: so I 
 desire vou to proceed to some other matter. 
 
 SECTION XLII. — OF CELIBACY, OR THE SINGLE LIFE OF 
 
 PKIESTS. 
 
 <' G I shall now shew you another restriction, your 
 
 <' church has made uuon the institutions of God. As she has 
 " taken the ciq) from the laitij, so she has taken another of 
 *' your sacraments, that is, marriage from the clergy" — p. 174. 
 
 L. — I perceive, Sir, you are now going to fight pro 
 arts et focis. And methinks I see a formidable army, 
 of all the bishops' and parsons' wives and children in Great 
 Sritaiti drawn up in battle against me. But I comfort 
 myself, that I have St Paul of my side, who wexev begot 
 children (for ought I ever heard of) hut in Jesus Christ 
 through the gospel, 1 Cor. iv. 15. Nay I have the practice 
 of the ichole college of apostles for me. I mean not the 
 apostles of the Reformation, but the apostles oi Jesus Christ, 
 if St Jerome may be believed, who tell us, Epist. 50, that 
 they were either unmarried, or had no commerce ivith their 
 wives : meaning, after they were called to the ministry 
 of the gospel. 
 
 But least I should be guilty of giving any disquiet to 
 that part of the fair sex, who think themselves married 
 to true bishops and priests, 1 assure them they may coa 
 tinue with a safe conscience to live with their husbands, 
 at least they need to have no scruple about it, till their 
 husbands can prove the validity of their ordination as 
 fully as we can prove that persons validly ordained cannot 
 marry according to the ancient laws of the church. 
 
 G. — I perceive then your lordship does us the favour 
 to think, our married bishops and parsons live not in a 
 state of adultery.
 
 Life of Priests. 499 
 
 L. — Sir, I should wrong them very much, if I thought 
 they did. For I see no manner of reason why protestant 
 bishops and parsons may not marry as well as the protes- 
 tant laity. So that whatever I say concerning the celibacy 
 or single life of bishops and priests is no reflection upon 
 7/our church as now established, but only a vindication of 
 my own. And I think I may modestly say I plead the 
 more honourable cause of the two. For virginity/ is com- 
 mendable even in laymen. The ancient fathers have writ 
 whole volumes in commendation of it, and St Paul re- 
 commends it preferably to marriage, 1 Cor. vii. 32, 33, 
 33. Nay he advises even married persons to abstain 
 from the conjugal duty for a time, that they may give 
 themselves (says he) to prayer, I Cor. vii. 5. Upon 
 which words St J"tyowze writes thus against Jovinian, Lib. 
 1. C. 19. Jf a layman (says he) cannot pray without 
 abstai7iing sometimes from the conjugal duty, a p7'iest u'ho 
 must always offer sacrifice, must always pray .• and if he 
 must always pray, he must always be unmarried. 
 
 This Jovinian (whom St Jtrome styles the christian 
 epicure) ^\•as the Maitin Ltither of his time in openly 
 opposing the lawfulness of religious vows, and the celibacy 
 of priests : and, if the worhl had tlien been ripe for a 
 godly reformation, he would have saved Luther some part 
 of his troulde. But the church was then too popishly 
 affected to suffer him to prevail. For he no sooner 
 appeared upon the stage but was excommunicated, and 
 his heresy condemned first hy a council at Home under 
 Pope Siricius, St Ambr. Kj)ist. G. ; and afterwards by a 
 council at Milan, Epist. 7. ; and by the writings of St 
 Ambrose, St Jciome, and St Austin, who exhorted as many 
 as they could, both men and women, to consecrate them- 
 selves to God by religious vow's, though Jovinian urged 
 the same texts of AC///;/?/rc against it as are now common- 
 ly made use of by prvtcstants. But because lie seduced 
 some ignorant virgins by saying, arc you better than 
 Abraham, Sarah, ^c, St Austin bid them answer, lam not 
 better than Abraham, but the chastity of n single life is 
 better than thr chastity <f marriage. Lib. de bono C'on- 
 jug. C. 28. How diU'erent was the spirit of tiiose eminent 
 lights of the ihurch from tliat of our late reformers!
 
 500 Of the Single Life rf Priests. 
 
 Now St Pauls recommending a single life as the per- 
 ftcter state even to laymen, was doubtless the jirincipal 
 motive that induced the chnreh to prohibit the marriage 
 of priests. For, as their priestly charaeter obliges them to 
 a greater perfeetion thati that of laymen^ it is but reason- 
 able they should embrace tiie perfccter state. And since 
 the duties of the married state are looked upon by tlie 
 same apostle as a hindrance to prayer, they whose office 
 it is to assist at the altar, and pray not only for themselves 
 but the people also, seem to be called and destined by 
 God to no other marriage than that of the Lamh. Nothing 
 certainly appears more congruous in itself than that a 
 person, \\'\\Q?,e functions are wholly spiritual, and whose 
 time ought to be divided between the duties of study and 
 prayer and the care of soids, should be free from tlie con- 
 cern of icifc and children, and not embarked in all the 
 solicitudes of this life like worldly persons. 
 
 This then is the^;-5^ ride, on which I ground my jus- 
 tification of the church's discipline relating to the celibacy 
 of priests : viz., because a single life is of itself a more perfect 
 state, and more becoming the clergy than the conjugal slate. 
 
 The second rule is, that though many married persons 
 were in the jjrimitive ages admitted or rather compelled 
 to holy orders in consideration of their extraordinary 
 merits, yet none were allowed to marry after their ordi- 
 nation. The council of Nice affords us a proof of this 
 truth. For that council intending to make a decree to 
 separate even such bishops, priests, and deacons from their 
 wives as had been married before their ordination, was 
 indeed dissuaded from it by St Paphnucius: yet it 
 decreed that such as came unmarried into the clergy, should 
 always remain single according to the ancient tradition of 
 the church, Socrates Lib. 1. Hist. 8, illud satis esse, ut 
 qui in clerum ante adscripti crant quani duxissent uxores, 
 hi secundum veterem ecclesice traditionem deiticeps a nuptiis 
 abstinerent. 
 
 It is plain then that according to the ancient discipline 
 of the church none were allowed to marry after their 
 admission to holy orders even in the Eastern church, and 
 as to the discipline of the Western church St Jerome writes
 
 Objections ansicercd. 501 
 
 tlius: bishops, priests, and deacons arc either chosen virgins 
 or icidowers ; or at least abstain after priesthood from the 
 use of marriage as long as they live. Epist. 50. 
 
 This then is the second rule I go by, viz., that accord- 
 ifig to the ancient discipline of the church, none ivere per- 
 mitted to marry after they tcere once engaged in holy orders. 
 
 The third rule is, that all vows freely made to God are 
 binding. This none but atheists can deny, because God 
 himself has declared it. IVhcn thou shall voiv a vow unto 
 
 the Lord thy God, thou shall not slack to pay it that 
 
 which is gone out of thy lips thou shall keep and p)erform, 
 Deut. xxiii. 21, 23. And St Paul says of widows con- 
 secrated to God, that ivhen they have begun to wax wan- 
 ton against Christ, they will marry, having damnation be- 
 cause they have cast off their first faith, 1 Tim. v. 1 1, 12. 
 
 The fou7-th and last rule is, that the single life of bishops 
 and priests is a matter of ecclesiastical govcrnmeiit or dis- 
 cipline only. Whence I infer fust, that the church had 
 always /a// authority to make it a law ; especially in re- 
 gard of those who freely offer themselves to holy orders. 
 For, if they be not disposed to perform the conditio7is 
 upon which they are received, they ought not to engage 
 themselves. I infer 2dly, that though ihc primitive church 
 had made no such law, the church might lawfully have 
 done it in after ages, at least in reference to such, as were 
 not already engaged. Because the church of Christ has 
 always the same authority ; nor is there any reason why 
 she should lose any part of it by time or age. Now Sir, 
 you may put what objections you please. 
 
 SECTION XMII OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 ** G. — My lord, I pass by the politic views and advantages 
 «' the court of Rome has in this, as cjiviiig the pope the more 
 •' absolute comniaiul, and making him in ett'ect lieir of all the 
 *' great posbci.ssions ol tlie clt-rgy. 1' or the canon law obliti^cs 
 *' the rcyuUir bis'iops not to dispose of tiieir estates, and the 
 *' other clergy not to bij too liberal of their alms in their 
 " sickness. And what they leave llie pope disposes of as 
 *' grand treasurer of the chiirth." — pp. 17U, 174.
 
 502 Ohjectioiis answered. 
 
 L. — Sir, 1 never heard the Pope was heir to the Iiere- 
 ilitary estates either of bishoj)s or priests. And as to 
 tlieir benetiees or ecclesiastieal revenues, they pass of 
 course to the next ineumbents : and they may dispose of 
 their ready cash as they judj^'e fitting during- their lives, 
 witliout being accountable tor it to any but God alone. 
 ;So that it is beyond my comprehension how the celibacy 
 of bishops and priests should make the pope in effect heir 
 of all the great possessions of the clergy, as you are 
 jdeased to tell me. 
 
 " G. — My lord, I am content to waive this argument, and 
 " will only insist upon what relates to conscience." — p. 175. 
 
 X. — Very well, Sir. 
 
 " G. — You reckon it a defilement in your church for a 
 '• clergij)iian to marry. No great compliment to the married 
 *' state, which yet was instituted by God in Paradise, whilst 
 " man was in his innocence." — p. 175. 
 
 L. — Sir, we reckon it a defilement in a priest to be 
 false to a solemn engagement made to God ; and so does 
 St Paul reckon it one even in the laity, 1 Tim. v. 1 1, 
 12. And I hope all true christians are of the same mind. 
 Nor do I think a man is bound by any institution, though 
 made in the state of iiniocence, to commit a sacrilege out 
 of a compliment to the married state. 
 
 " G. — The apostle says, marriage is honourable in all, and 
 " the bed undejiled, Heb. xiii. 4." — p. 175. 
 
 L. — But sacrilege is not honourable in any ; nor is a 
 sacrilegious bed undejiled, though coloured over with the 
 name of marriage. The incestuous marriage of the 
 Corinthian whom St Paul delivered up to Satan, 1 Cor. 
 V. 5, was not very honourable. Nor the marriage of 
 7vidows who began to ivax wanton against Christ. And 
 Ltither^s marriage M^ith a nun was just as honourable as 
 any of these. Lastly, though tnarriage be honourcd)le 
 according to St Paid, the state of celibacy is still more 
 honourable according to the same apostle; and the more 
 honourable state is surely best becoming the honourable 
 character of bishops and priests; otherwise St Paid 
 would not have made choice of it for himself. 
 
 " G — Tint forbidding to marry is reckoned one of the doctrines 
 " of the devil, 1 Tim. iv. 2."^p. 175.
 
 objections answered. 503 
 
 Zi. — Forbidding to marry as a thing unlawful in itself 
 (as the Majiichees and Marcionites did) is the doctrine of 
 devils. But forbidding particular persons (who have 
 voluntarily consecrated themselves to God) to marry, is 
 not the doctrine of devils but the doctrine of St Paul, in 
 the very next chapter where he tells ividoivs consecrated 
 to God, that if they marry they gain damnation to them- 
 selves. Besides 1 never heard the devil was the author 
 of forbidding marriages within the jjrohibitcd degrees ; in 
 which your church is as much concerned as ours. 
 
 " G. — My lord, directions are given by St Paul how a 
 " bishop should govern his loife and children ; for if a man 
 " knows not how to rule his oicn house, hotv shall he take care 
 " of the house of God? 1 Tim. iii. 6. Yet your interpreters 
 " would have thistti/e and this/zoMseto be the church." — p. 175. 
 
 L. — Sir, Ht Pants words are clear enough to be their 
 own interpreters. For they can mean nothing else than 
 that a person, who suffers or countenances disorders in his 
 own private family, is not fit to govern the church of Christ. 
 
 However, though in the chapter you have quoted I 
 find directions both how a bishop is to govern his children 
 and deacons their wives, yet 1 do not find the directions 
 you speak of, viz., how a bishop should govern his tvife : 
 whicli seems to be an insinuation liiat the bishops then 
 chosen, though they were actually married, lived separa- 
 ted from their wives. 
 
 It is true St I^aul tells us in the I2d verse of the same 
 cliapter, ilwxi a bishop must be the liusband of one wife ; 
 the meaning whereof cannot surely be that St Paid 
 obliged bishops to be married ; for then he was bound to 
 follow his own rule ; but that no man was fit to be a 
 bishoj) who had been married oftenor than once. And the 
 reason which induced the apostle to ))rescril)e that rule 
 in the choice of deacons as well as bisho])s was, because 
 though in hi.s lime virginity was so rare both amongst./i^Jt's 
 and Gentiles, that if neither married men nor widowers 
 had been promoted to holy orders, the church would have 
 been destitute of necessary pastors, yet even tiien he 
 would not have tllO'^e tak(Mi to the altar who had been 
 married twice ; because they appeared to have stronger
 
 504 Objections answered. 
 
 ties to tlic earth, than were suitable to so holy an em- 
 ployment. 
 
 <' G. — My lord, St Peter was a married man and forsook 
 " not his wife after he was an apostle, but led lior about with 
 " him as other apostles did, 1 Cor. ix. 5." — p. 175. 
 
 /,. — Sir, this description of the apostles trailing about 
 their wives and conversing- with them as such, appears 
 to me so dishonourable to their sacred character and 
 unsuitable to their apostolic functions, that I wonder how 
 any sober thinking man can give in to it. Did not St 
 Peter say to Christ, behold we have forsaken all and 
 followed thee? Matt. xix. 27. And were not their wives 
 a part of the all they had forsaken ? 
 
 G. — But does not St Paid say expressly, have we not 
 power to lead about a sister a wife as zvell as the other 
 apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas, 
 1 Cor. ix. 5. 
 
 L. — Sir, the English protestant Bible says so, but not 
 St Paul, who declaring himself to be tmmarried chapter 
 vii. 8, could not pretend to lead about a wife^ chapter the 
 9th. Neither did St Peter nor the other apostles lead 
 their wives about, since St Jerome, Epist. 50, declares 
 positively, that the apostles who were married lived 
 separated from their wives. And writing against Jovinian 
 who quoted that very text of St Paul, tells him it ought 
 to be translated, have ive not poicer to lead about a sister 
 a woman ? §'c., meaning some ancient matron or diacon- 
 issa as attended St Peter and other apostles in their 
 travels, and provided necessaries for them cither out of 
 their own subsistence or the alms of the faithful. Nay I 
 perceive your own church begins to have some diffidence 
 of their translation. For in the late edition of the Bible 
 in two large yy//os at Oxford; though wife be kept in the 
 text, icoman is put in the margin. Which is at least one 
 step towards an acknowledgment of the truth ; and I 
 pray God to improve it. 
 
 " G. — My lord, tiiat in the primitive church the clergy did 
 " marry is plain from Socrates, Hist. Eccles. L. 1. C. 11., and 
 «■ L. 5. C. 22."—;?. 175. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is plain not only from Socrates but all
 
 Objections answered. 505 
 
 ecclesiastical historians, tliatmanyof the primitive bishop?; 
 and priests were married men. But it is no less plain 
 from Socrates, as I have shewed before, that the Council 
 of Nice made a decree to prohibit any bishop or priest to 
 marry after his ordination. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the vows of single life were not imposed 
 " upon the clergy till pope Ilildebrand. See Matt. IVestm. 
 " ad An. 1074, Viuccnt. Spec. Hist. L. 24. C. 45. Anto/iimis 
 " L. 16. C. 1. § 21. And it teas ivilhoiit precedent (says 
 " Sif/ibert, Clno7i. ad An. 1074), and, as mani/ thought, out of 
 " an indiscreet zeal, contrary to the opinion of the holy fathers. 
 " But Hildtbrand was not obeyed in this in England for 
 " above a hundred years after. For our ancient records say 
 " (^Hist. Petrubnryh. An. 1127, apud Spelinan) all these decrees 
 " availed Jiotliitiy. For the priests by the king's consent had 
 '• still their wives as formerly." — p. 176. 
 
 L. — Sir, it is not at all material, whether pope Hiide- 
 brand was or was not the Hrst that imposed voics of u 
 single life upon the clergy. For such a vow could only 
 inforce the obligation they were already under by the 
 ancient canons of the church, which had never been 
 repealed ; and so il obliged them to nothing, but what 
 they were obliged to before. .Tust as if a vow to keep 
 \.\iQfa.sloi Jjmt were now imposed upon Roman catholics, 
 no man could legally infer from it, that it was therefore 
 a new thing, or a duty they were not strictly obliged to 
 comj)ly with iiidcporulently of such a vow. All therefore 
 ■we can gather from that fact and the other related by 
 Spclman (if it be literally true, which may be questioned), 
 all, I say, we can gather from it is, that in the 1 1th and 
 12th century great irrogui.jrities were practised by many 
 of the inferior clergy, who kept their concubines, and 
 called them irivrs, but were no more so, than A7//f Jlorcn 
 was the lawful wife of Martin Luther. And to shew 
 they were regarded by the church no otherwise than as 
 oncnbinrs, besides many other synodal decrees against 
 them in other places, there was a gem ral synod held at 
 London by the pope's legate in the very year mentioned 
 by Spchnan, in which srrrral canons were ?nadc for the 
 reformation and celibacy of the clergy, says Mr Ecliard 
 
 z
 
 500 Ohjeclions answered. 
 
 ill his Uistory of E/if/latid, L. 2. C. 1. p. 171. But tlie 
 same author a(Uls, ihal (lu;/ irerc nut. much regarded (us 
 the very hiws of God are hut little rci^^arded hy liherlincs) 
 //// some few years after, anno 1 129, the king, desirous to 
 settle the celibacy of the clergy in a synod called on purpose^ 
 through the weakness of the archbishop {as Matthew Paris 
 expresses it) obtained power to have the sole execution of 
 this law himself; but instead of restraining the pretended 
 abuse, he punished them in their purses, and receiving sums 
 from a great many of them he permitted them to enjoy 
 their icives as formerly. 
 
 Now this relation of Mr JLchard gives a very different 
 turn to the whole matter from that of ^pelman. For 
 what he calls the king' s consent, is here fairly represented 
 as a bare connivance, into which the king was bribed by 
 large sums of money : and the severe laws made by the 
 two synods, Mr Echard speaks of, against those of the 
 clergy who ke^tcoiwubincs though they called them wives, 
 is a i)roof, that the bishops assembled in those synods 
 regarded it as a sinful abuse, which stood highly in need 
 of a reformation: and in effect they who practised it were 
 always branded with the infamous imme oi concubinarians, 
 which is but a softer Avord for what we call in plain 
 English, whoremasters. 
 
 " G. — My lord, Gregory the Great said, that it ivas lawful 
 '^ for such of the clergy, as could not contain, to marry. (Resp. 
 " ad Interrog. 2m. Aug. Cant.) and Pius 11. said the same, 
 " that they may he allowed to marry. Platiua." — -p. 176. 
 
 L. — Sir, I must here accuse you of very foul dealing 
 in both these quotations. As to pope Gregory, you 
 liave falsified him by stifling that part of his words, which 
 fully explain his meaning. They are these : If there be 
 any of the chrrjy, who aui: not in holy orders, and. 
 cannot contain, they ought to marry. Now there are 
 great numbers in our clergy, who are neither priests, 
 deacons, nor subdeacons, but only in lesser orders ; who 
 therefore are free to return to the world and marry. And 
 so St Gregory's words instead of allowing the marriage 
 either of priests, deacons, nor subdeacons, who are all 
 in holy orders, imply a prohibition of it according to this
 
 Ol/JecCions answered. 507 
 
 maxim, exceptio confirmat legem : because it would be 
 mere trifling to limit a law that is not in force. 
 
 As to the words of Pius II. (for which you quote 
 Platina in Ids life) they seem to import no less, than 
 that pope Pius being consulted as liead of the churchy 
 whether pnesis that could not contain might marry, had 
 answered ex cathedra, that they might : whereas I can 
 find no such thing. It is true, Platina at the end of that 
 pope's life entertains his reader with many pleasant 
 sayings used by him in common conversation, amongst 
 which this is one : That there was great reason for the 
 prohibiting of priests to marry, hut greater for allotving it 
 again, p. 401, printed London, aiuio 1688. Now if the 
 same pope in a pleasant mood had said, that there was 
 great reason for prohibiting the plurality of tvives, but 
 greater for alloicing it again, it would have been full as 
 good an argument for polygatny, as his other saying is 
 lor the marriage of priests. 
 
 SECTION XLIV. — OTHER OUJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 " G. — My lord, your great canonist, Paiionn'Uan, says, 
 «' there is a yreut reason to allow priests to marry noxo as ever 
 " there triis to restrain it. Let St Bernard boar witness in 
 " his time what reason there was for allowing it, he says^ 
 " there are many loho cannot he hid fur their niullilude, nor do 
 " seek to be concecded for their impudence, u>ho being restrained 
 " from the nuptial remedies, run into all Jilt hiness. Bern, de 
 " conv. ad Cler. C. ii9. And another says, that fciv in those 
 "■ days were free from forniculion : GK»s. ad CJratiau. Dist. 82. 
 •' C. 5. And MtUlhcu) I'aris iAU, that the pope thouglit it 
 " almost a miracle tliat a candidate for a bisho[)ric was said 
 " to be a pure virgin. Whence tlie gloss ad Gratiun, in the 
 *' pbice jiist before quoted, call^ fornication but a vcirial sin ; 
 " and it 18 toluraleil, if not allowed, ibid. Dist. 34, ('. 7. 
 " FI(»wevcr it was rcikoned a less sin in ;\ priest than murridyc. 
 " For this reason deadly sin is added to fornication in our 
 " litany."— /V- J7G, 177. 
 
 L. — Sir, as to Matthew Faris's tale of what a certain 
 pope thoiKjhf, ;md Gratian's saying, that fw were free 
 from fornication ; I wonder yoti can lay a stress u|)on such
 
 503 Ohjedions answered. 
 
 trifling stuff. But suppose tlie Ihovght of tlic one, and 
 the sayiiuj of the other deserved a serious rejifard, all 
 that can be gathered from them, as likewise from the 
 words of Panormitan and St Bernard is, that in the 
 time they speak of, there was a great looseness and cor- 
 ruption amongst tlie clergii. But does it suffice to make 
 a law unreasonable, because there are many transgressors 
 against it? If so, I fear the decalor/iie will be thought 
 unreasonable too, since millions transgress daily against 
 its sacred laws. I own however there are inconveniences 
 either in allowing or prohibiting the marriage of priests. 
 But of two evils the lesser is to be chosen. And when 
 our church is convinced, that it is a lesser evil to allow 
 them to marry, I doubt not but she will change her 
 discipline in this as she has sometimes done in other 
 things. 
 
 But your representing it to be the doctrine of our 
 church, that fornication is but a venial sin, nay that it is 
 tolerated, if not allowed by v$, is rank calumny. For 
 though there were such a ridiculous gloss upon Grcdian, 
 a writer of no authority amongst us (which however I 
 cannot find, though I have reail over both the distinctions 
 you refer me to), it will not excuse your slanderous 
 suc-gestion, that it is the doctrine of our church. Nay I 
 am sure you know this to be a calumny as well as myself. 
 Or if you pretend ignorance, pray examine our Catechisms, 
 or books of instruction upon the sixth commandment, 
 and shew me one if you can, that cvi\\<, fornication a venial 
 sin, or says, it is tolerated, if not allotved. 
 
 As to what you add, that fornication is reckoned by our 
 church a less sin in a priest than marriage, you utterly 
 mistake the question in supposing, that our priests may 
 be truly and validly married, which we deny. For it is 
 our doctrine, that when a priest pretends to marry, he 
 only makes marriage a cloak to cover habitual sacrilege 
 and adultery ; which doubtless is more grievous, than a 
 sin casually committed witli a single person. 
 
 This is the express doctrine of St Chrysostom, who 
 writes thus to one Theodore, a fallen monk, that had 
 married : Marriage (says he) is a just cmd lawftd thing,
 
 0hjecti07is answered. 509 
 
 I grant it hut now it is not a thing in your power. 
 
 For being once joined to your heavenly spouse, to leave 
 him and fall into the cinhraces of a wife, is adultery. Give 
 it a thousand times if you please the name of marriage, I 
 say it is as much icorscthan adultery, as God is better and 
 greater than womankind, ad Theod. lapsum. 
 
 " G. — But why was cc/Ziory enjoined to priests? And 
 " wliy is marriage a greater sin i\\iin forjiication ? Because 
 " tlie first is a breach of the command of the church, and the 
 " latter of the command of God. And the difference of the 
 " piiuisliment of these in your churcli shews that she thinks 
 •' so. For a priest *:omn\\li\n^ for nicalion comes oft" for small 
 " penance, whereas if he marries, he is degraded. May we 
 " not then say to the Church of Rome, as Christ to the churcli 
 " of the Jews in a parallel case, full icell ye reject the com- 
 " mandmejit of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 
 " Mark vii. 9."— p. 177. 
 
 L. — Sir, you may say to the Church of Rome whatever 
 you please. For who can debar either you or any body- 
 else the privilege ol' talking impertinently ? But when 
 you speak of the small penance imposed for the sin of 
 fornication, you cither mean private or \nih\\c furnication. 
 It" private only, I .should be glad to know, how you come 
 to be informed of what passes in the sacred tribuncd be- 
 twixt our penitents and their confessors. For I never 
 heard of any confessions in our church cried about the 
 streets, as they are on every execution day in London. 
 IJut it you speak oi fornication j)nblicly known, 1 assure 
 you Sir, the party concerned passes some part of his 
 days very uncomfortably : and the small penance you 
 speak of is usually a good long contincmcnt, where he is 
 sometimes regaled with bread and water : which 1 believe 
 would not please a protestant stomach. 
 
 But you ask, wJiy marricujc is a greater sin than fornica- 
 tion y Sir, true marriage is no sin at all, nor by conse- 
 ijuence a breach of CJods command. ]iut in a priest it \% 
 no more true marriage, than it wouhl be in a layman to 
 jnarry a second wife^ his former being yet alive. Your 
 re;t5<»n then why marriage in a priest is a greater sin than 
 fornication is not only false but malicious, lor ir> a 
 priest they arc both against the diunh, and bolh against
 
 5 1 Ohjections answered. 
 
 God. Rut witli tl/is (liiTercnce, tliiit the one may be the 
 effect of a passiui^ weakness; and the other cannot but 
 be the ellect of an olvstinate and ])renie(litatetl lust; which 
 douI)tIess is more heinous in the sight of God. 
 
 « G. — But, my \ovd, if nianiiige he such a dotilemeut, as is 
 <' unworthy of a priest, how riune you to make a sacrament 
 "of it? I suppose you cannot mean less hy a sucranient 
 " than a meaiis of grace. You liavo made many less tliings 
 " so, as I sliewed before. And would you deprive the clergy 
 " of any means of grace ? Or is it your modesty to put 
 " them upon the level with the laity for depriving them of 
 " theciip'mthesacramcnt of CUnsVaowninstilution?" — 2^- ^^^' 
 
 L. — Sir, I shall answer you very briefly to every 
 point. Tii'fit, yon ask, if marriage be such a defilement 
 as is unworthy of a priest, hoiu tve came to make it a 
 sacrament? Sir, Christ made it a sacrament wot vfc. Nor 
 is true marriage a defilement; but the sin<jle life is 
 perfecter, and more becoming- a priest. 2. \ou say, 
 you suppose tve cannot mean less by a sacrament than a 
 means of grace. That is very true : but you add, we have 
 wade many less tilings so, as you hare shewed; both wliicli 
 are false, as I have shewed. 8. You ask, tvhcther we 
 would deprive the clergy of any means of grace ? 1 atiswer, 
 the unmarried clergy stand no more in need of the grace 
 annexed to the sacrament of marriage, than the married 
 laity stand in need of the grace annexed to the sacrament 
 of ordination. Lastly you ask, ivJielher it be our modesty 
 to put the clergy upon the level ivith the laity for depriving 
 them of the cup in the sacrament ofChrisVs oivn i7istitution ? 
 I answer, the laity are deprived of no part of the grace 
 or efficacy of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood : 
 and so your question is impertinent. 
 
 '• G. — Marriage is honourahle. and undpfiled in all, says the 
 '' apostle. No, say you, it is ncidier in 9. priest." — p. 178. 
 
 L And you say the very same of all such, as are 
 
 witiiin the prohibited degrees. Answer it if you can 
 without limiting the meaning of St Paul's words. 
 
 " G He says, if men carniot cnnkdn let them marry, for 
 
 " it is belter to marry titan burn, 1 Cor. vii. 9. No, say you, 
 " it is better to burn than to marry. And this you must 
 " say, unless you suppose that all the many thousands of
 
 Ohjcctions ansivcred. 511 
 
 " your clergy, and many of them young men, are every one 
 *' of them endowed with the gift of continency, which wouhl 
 *' be a miracle, if experience did not contradict it." — ^/j. 178. 
 
 L. — Sir, I do not pretend that in such numbers all 
 are endowed with the gift of continency : yet I am sure 
 all may be, and doubt not but the greatest part are with 
 the help of God's grace. However I hope you are not 
 of Martin Luther s mind, whose admirable doctrine it is, 
 that it is impossible cither for a man to live without a 
 woman, or for a tcoman to live without a man (Serm. de 
 Matrim. Tom. 5. Fol. 11.), which methinks is but a coarse 
 compliment to bachelors, maids, and ividoics ; of which 
 there are many thousands even in Great Britain. Do 
 all these then, or most of them live in a sinful state ? I 
 have the charity to think they do not : and if they do 
 not, I hope the many thousands of priests and religious 
 in our church may be at least as good as they. 
 
 G. — But St Paid says, that // men cannot contain let 
 them marry, 1 Cor. vii. 9. 
 
 L. — Pardon me Sir, St Paul says no such thing. His 
 text is falsified in your Bible, and ought to be rendered 
 thus : If they do not contain, let them marry .- which still 
 is to be understood of those, who may legally embrace 
 the state of wedlock : for I do not fiiul St Paul allowed 
 it to u'idows consecrated to God. However there is a 
 large dififercnce between Jiot containing, and not being 
 able to contain. A thief does not contain from stealinof: 
 but I hope he can contain from it if he pleases, though 
 his finjrcrs itch never so much to be at it. So an adul- 
 terer does not contain from coveting his neighbour's wife; 
 but St Paid will not tell him that he ca7inot contn'm. For 
 if he cannot contain, he cannot be blamed if he docs not 
 contain : because necessity has vo laiv. 
 
 G. — I am sure at least St I'aul yays, it is better to 
 VKirry than burn. 
 
 L. — Very right, Sir, and St Paid teaches nothing but 
 truth. But he docs not say it is better to commit adul- 
 tery or sacrilege than burn. Suppose a man shouhl burn 
 for his ni'ighljour's wife, or a married man for anotiier 
 woman (the case is not uncommon), docs St Paul tcli
 
 512 Ohjcctions answered. 
 
 him, he had bettor marry lier, tlian burn for her ? No 
 surely. The reason is, because marriage is not tiie 
 only remedy against the hnrn'ntgs of concupiscence : but 
 prayer and mortitication joined with an ardent love of 
 God will have the same effect, and that in a much nobler 
 way. Nay St Paul himself had recourse to this excellent 
 remedy instead of marriage against the most violent 
 hujlfets of Satan ; and ho found it most effectual, as he 
 owns in his epistles. And this is the very remedy our 
 riergij and religious arc bound to have recourse to in the 
 like case. So that though it he heller to marry than hurn^ 
 when a man can do it lawfully, it is still much better to 
 overcome the burnings of concupiscence by prayer and 
 mortification, when he has engaged himself in a state, 
 TJiat is inconsistent with the lawfulness of marriage. 
 
 " G — My lord, all sober christians, and even heatherts 
 '' look upon marriage as a preserver, and not as a breacii of 
 " chastity. St Peter calls it a chaste conversaiio?i, 1 Pet. iii. 2. 
 " If it were not so, we may presume that Christ would not 
 " have honoured it with his presence and with his first miracle, 
 " nor make it so frecpieiitly, as he does, the type and re- 
 " presentation of heaeen, and of his union with the church ; 
 '■ calling himself the bridegroom, and her Ids spouse.'' — p. 178. 
 
 Zj, — Sir, all this is undeniable of true and lawful 
 marriage. But though it be a preserver of chastity, it 
 is neither the only one, nor an infallible one, nor the 
 best preserver of it. This at least 1 am sure of, that 
 chastity is not preserved by hroheu vows, and sacrilegious 
 embraces. 
 
 " G. — The apostle says, to avoid fornication let every inati 
 " have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. 1 
 " Cor. vii. 2. No, say you, we except all the ckrgy, the 
 '■'■ friars, and the nuns, whom we have put under vows to the 
 " contrary. And we will find other means for them to obtain 
 " tlie grace of continency . Yes, and the world is fidl of the 
 *' effects of those means, and knows whether they are better 
 «» than those of God's appointment. It is strange that yon, 
 " who have so many means of grace of your own, should not 
 " make those very i'fisv, Avhich Christ lias made, stand as he 
 *♦ left them."— p."l79. 
 
 L. — Sir, this Grub-Street stuff about our means of grace.
 
 Ohjections ansicered. 513 
 
 and making void the institutions of Christ, has already 
 been repeated and answered so often, that I am perfectly 
 nauseated with it. What, Sir ! does not the institution 
 of marriage stand as Christ left it, though St Paid ex- 
 cluded widows who had consecrated themselves to God 
 from the privilege of it; and though your church as well 
 as ours forbids it within the prohibited degrees? And if the 
 institution of marriage stands as Christ left it notwith- 
 standing these limitations, can a man of common sense 
 pretend that our excluding the clerr/i/ from the privilege 
 of it lias altered the institution of God? 
 
 It is true, the apostle says, to avoid fornication, let every 
 man have his oivn wife, and every woman her oivn husband. 
 Hut does the apostle by those words oblige all to marry? 
 Or does he mean that marriage is the only means to 
 avoid forfiicatio7i ? If so, why did he not follow his own 
 rule and marry ? Or if this be his meaning, what oj)inion 
 must we have of all the ividows and widowers, bachelors 
 and maids of Great Britain ? 
 
 You say, we except the clergy, friars, and nuns. This 
 is a terrible grievance indeed. But St Paul himself has 
 set us the j)attern by excepting widows, that had conse- 
 crated themselves to God. Luther indeed took another 
 course, and by the plenitude of his power first absolved 
 liimself, then as being bound to love his neighbour as 
 himself, and do i)y others as he would be done by, absolved 
 both priests, friars, and nuns, of all their vows ; who 
 thus became fruitful fathers and mothers of chihlren to 
 propagate his church. 
 
 Ay, but we put them render vows not to marry, and will 
 find other means for I hem to obtain the grace (f contincnry. 
 Sir, it is false tliat ice put them under voivs. For there 
 is no force used, but their own free choice determines 
 them to it. And the means we prescribe them to obtain 
 the grace nf coulincney, \i/., retirement, prayer, mortifica- 
 tion, and a serious ajtplication to the duties of their 
 respective state, are means prescribed by i\\ii gospel itself; 
 which in spite of your uniiandsome reflection are never 
 frustrat«-'d of their effect, when they arc rightly used. 
 
 I shall conclude this subject with the words of an 
 
 ■/ '>
 
 514 Of Purgatory. 
 
 eminent protostant. A simjle life (says Mr Thorndike) 
 is a safer iray to perfection ihtin marriage. So is the 
 profession (fthe clergy, and <ill the means of former retire.^ 
 
 ment from the world And the grace, which our Lord^ 
 
 and St Paul after him, owns in them that do this, is not a 
 peculiar temper of the body obliging him that has it to live 
 single, and him that has it not to marry, but a singular 
 zeal to waive that, which God jnakes lawful for us, that 
 we may the better come to his hingdom ; tchich wheji it 
 proceeds from a single eye proposing to itself nothing in 
 this luorld but the means of attaining the world to come., 
 well may we be assured of God's help to perform it by 
 virtue of that promise^ which the common Christianity 
 challenges, inte7iding nothing but the effect of it. Just weights 
 and measures. C. \\. pp. 74, 75. 
 
 This, Sir, may help to convince you, that the cause 
 you have so stiffly maintained is not the most honourable, 
 even our enemies being judges. 
 
 SECTION XI.V. — OF PURGATORY. 
 
 • •' G. — But, my lord, you extend your means of grace 
 *' farther than Christ did liis. For he appoiiiti'd none to be 
 " used for those in tl»e other world. But you have offices to 
 '• deliver souls out oi purgatory.'' — p. 179. 
 
 L Sir, Christ himself has instituted the holy sacri- 
 fice of his body and blood, tiie use o? prayers, alms, fast- 
 ing, §T., and 1 find no prohibition in holy writ, that for- 
 bids the application of them to the souls depai'ted. So 
 that our oiFering them up for the delivery of souls out of 
 purgatory cannot but be a very charitable office. 
 
 " G. — But it is a very dark one. We have not a word 
 " in scripture of any such state of the dead, where sonls are 
 " put under pains e<[ual to those of hell, except for their 
 " duration."— p. 179. 
 
 L. — Nor have we it in any profession of faith; for all 
 we are bound to believe concerning' purgatory is what 
 the Council of Trent has defined : viz., that there is a pur- 
 gatory (or middle state of souls) and that the soids detained 
 in it are helped by the prayers of the faithful ^ especially by
 
 Of Purgatory. 515 
 
 the acceptable sacrifice of the altar. But in wliat manner 
 they are tormented, Avhat sort of place it is, liow great 
 their torments are, or how long- they are to last ; these 
 are points, in which the faith of the church is not the 
 least concerned, and you only beat the air, if you dis- 
 pute against these. 
 
 You say, there is not a icord in scripture of any such 
 state. If you mean that the word purgatory is not in 
 scripture, 1 easily grant it. But the doctrine oi purgatory 
 (as I have stated it) is deduced by a clear and necessary 
 consequence from several scriptural texts. 
 
 First, It is said Matt. xii. 32, that whosoever speaheth 
 against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither 
 in this world, nor in the icorldto come. Upon which text 
 yt Austin discourses thus : It would not be truly said of 
 some sins that they shall neither be forgiven in this world .^ 
 nor in the ivorld to come, unless there were others, which 
 though not forgiven in this life, may yet be forgiven in the 
 next. L. 21, de Civ. Dei. C. 24. 
 
 ^dly. It is said, Horn. xi. 6, that God will render to 
 every man according to his deeds. Whence it follows, 
 that if a man dies either without having done tco7'thy 
 fruits of penance for sins, of which he has sincerely re- 
 pented ; or with sins which are not deadly, of wliich he 
 has not repented ; since God is infinitely just, and a cer- 
 tain measure of punishment is due to every sin, it follows 
 I say, that he must bo punisiietl after his death. 
 
 .'Jr//y, It is said, Rev. xxi. 27, that no unclean thing 
 shall enter into heaven. The undeniable consequence 
 wiiereof is, that a person guilty of the very smallest sin 
 cannot enter into heaven, because he is rendered nncleau 
 by it in some degree. Neither can he be danuied for it, 
 because nothing but deadly sin is punished with eternal 
 Hames. There must therefore be a middle state between 
 hearcn and lull, where some sins arc both j)unished and 
 expiated; and this we nwW purgatory, because in heaven 
 there is neither punishment nor sins capable of it, and in 
 hell there is no rcdcmjdion. Job. 
 
 " f^- — Hut is Mill Um! hlond if Christ sufficient to cleanse 
 *' us from all ntuightcousncss ?" — j). 179.
 
 5K« Of ranjalorij. 
 
 L. — Yos^ Sir ; but if that jno\ cs any thing-, it will 
 prove a «^rcat deal too niiieh ; and At// will Ijccome use- 
 less as well \\i jmrtjatory. 
 
 G. — Hold, iny lord : thouoli Christ has shed his blood 
 for all, yet he recjuircs a sineerc repentance on our part 
 as an indispensable duty to have it applied to us. 
 
 L, — Very right, Sir. And therefore as it does not 
 cleanse us of mortal sin without repentance on our part, 
 so )icither of venial sin but upon the same condition. 
 ]3esides there may remain a temporal jiunishment due to 
 sins, even after we have sincerely repented of them: and 
 if this debt be not fully discharged iu this life, it remains 
 To be paid hereafter. 
 
 " G — Then the guilt Is not fully forgiven."^/;. 179. 
 
 L' — Pardon me. Sir, there may be a temporal punish' 
 ment due for sins, whereof the guilt is fully forgiven. 
 God said to David, I have put aivay thy sin, but the child 
 shall die." 2 Sam. xii. 
 
 " G. — And the reason is given in the next words, because 
 •' by this deed tltou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the 
 " Lord to blaspheme; as if God did countenance such wicked- 
 " ness. Therefore David was punished so, as liis enemies 
 " might perceive it. God punishes here either to vindicate 
 " his own honour before men, or for a trial of our faith, as in 
 '•' the case of Job, and to set forth sucli as examples to others: 
 " or for a proof and confirmation of our religion ; as in the 
 " case o{ the projdiefs, apostles, confessors, and martyrs: or to 
 " correct and recall obstinate sinners. INIany have been re- 
 " formed by this means. But all these reasons respect this 
 " life only. For you say not that souls are made better in 
 " purgatory. For you suppose tJiem to die in the love of 
 " God, and to be in \\\'i favour before they go thither. And 
 *' why then are they punished, since they are not purified by 
 " it?"— /V^ 171), IbO. 
 
 L. — Sir, 1 have hitherto had this notion o^ purgatory, 
 that it is a place, where souls arc purged or purified, and 
 by consequence made better, and fitted for heaven. But, 
 jjray, what Human ccdholic ever told you the contrary ? 
 A person may in this world love God above all things, 
 and be in \m favour. Yet I hope this will not hinder 
 him from being made better am] jmrer than he is already:
 
 Of Purgatory. 517 
 
 autl so he may be made helttr and purer \\\ purgatory, by- 
 being cleansed from the stains his soul has contracted by 
 venial offences. For surely a soul cleansed from all de- 
 li lements of sin is jmrcr and better, than whilst she con- 
 tinues tainted with them. 
 
 As to the several reasons you give, why God visits us 
 with afflictions in this life, they are undeniable, but not 
 the only ones. Do sins deserve no punishment ? Must 
 not the vindicative justice of God be satisfied? 
 
 " G. — That is satisfied before they are forgiven, and the 
 " sinners i-eceived into the favour of God. Unless you mean 
 " by vindicative such a spite and revenye, as is seen amongst tlio 
 " inost ignoble part of mankind to say, / will forgive^ but I 
 " will at the same time he revenged for what is past. Which 
 " indeed is not Jbrgiveness, but a plain unwillingness to for- 
 " give."— /A 180. 
 
 Ij. — Sir, this is such a blasphemous imagination, as, 
 God be praised, 1 never heard of before. Was not 
 Adam's sin, and the eternal punishment due to it for- 
 given him before he died? I never heard doubted of by 
 any body. Yet heaven was shut against him in punish- 
 ment of it till mankind was redeemed : and God de- 
 manded an iitjinite satisfaction for it : which was paid to 
 the full by his only Son Ijccoming man, and dying for us. 
 And is this to be called such a spite and revenge, as is 
 seen amongst the most ignoble part of mankind? For 
 shame. Sir ! 
 
 '« G. — My loi'd, a generous forgiveness upon a sincere! 
 " repentanre, loves and endiraces, and rejoices to comfort, 
 " and heap favours like the father of the returning prodigal." 
 _p. 180. 
 
 Ij. — And does not (>od love and comfort repenting siii- 
 ))crs? And heap spiritual favours uj)on them, tliouj^li he 
 chastises them temporally for their past sins? It is true, 
 tlierc is no mention of punishment in the parable, you 
 have quoted : because the whole drift of it is to set forth 
 the divine mercies to sinners that repent sincerely; and 
 it is not necessary that all truths shouhl be mentioned in 
 all parts of scripture. 
 
 " G. — (fiid says, he will not rcmcmhir our sins, that they 
 " shall not be iiantiuncd to I's in the day when we turn from
 
 518 Of Pimjatorij. * 
 
 '^ our tiuckvdficss, ha. iv. 25 ; Jet: xxxi. 34 ; Kze/t. xviii, 22. 
 " Atul liow is that cuiisisteiit willi eiuliuiiig' the puiiis of hell 
 " tor H huiulri'tl, perhaps a thuusand years for ought we 
 " knon- ?"—p. 180. 
 
 L. — ISir, all we know of the pains oi j^ur gator y is, that 
 they are a temporal punishment justly indicted ; and a 
 tempoi'al punislunent of sin is as consistent \\\i\\ forgive- 
 ness, as God's justice is with his mercy. I'hus Adatris 
 sin, as soon as he repented of it, was not remembered in 
 the sense meant by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. That 
 is, God entirely forgave him both the ^?«7; and eternal 
 j>unishment due to it. Yet the gates of heaven were shut 
 for near 4000 years after in punishment of it; and Adam 
 himself j)erformed the penance of eating his bread in the 
 sweat of his brow enjoined him by God for above 900 
 years. In like manner God forgave Z)rti7C^ as soon as he 
 confessed his sin to Nathan. But the temporal punish- 
 ment of it lasted for many years after. 
 
 G — Yes, my lord, by reason of the scandal, as I told 
 you. 
 
 L. — The scandal, Sir, was a part of his sin, and a very 
 considerable part of it, because it made the enemies of the 
 Lord to blaspheme. Y'et though the whole sin was for- 
 given (for God forgives not by halves) that part of it, as 
 you own yourself, was punished for many years after ; 
 which demonstrates the falsehood of what you said just 
 now, viz., that the justice of God is satisfied before the sins 
 are forgiven, and the parties concerned received into favour. 
 
 " G. — But, my lord, how do we know what souls go to 
 " purgatory? How long tliey remain tliere ? And which 
 " of th(Mn are released ? Can prayers then for tlie release 
 " of such and such be made in faith ? Otherwise they are 
 " sin by the apostles detfM'niination." — j^' ■'81. 
 
 L. — I am surprised. Sir, how you can propose your 
 last question with a serious countenance. However 
 since you have set me the example, I shall ask one very 
 like it if you will promise not to laugh at me for it, viz.. 
 How you can prai/ in faith for the safety of an absent 
 friend, who you know not whether he be alive or dead ? 
 Will not this also be a sin by St Paul's determination ? 
 Y'es surely full as heinous a one as our praying for souls,
 
 Of Tradition. 519 
 
 whose state we know nothing of. But I shoukl rather 
 think that though such prayers have not always their 
 eftect as to the parties we pray for, they who offer them 
 up will not be deprived of the reward of their pious and 
 charitable intention. 
 
 " G — Yes, my lord, all superstition is very pious, and that 
 " is it which deceives. But God has required that our zeal 
 " to him be according to hnoivledge, and that we intrude not 
 " into things we have not seen. We liave not seen any 
 " revelation iov purgatorij or the state of souls there." — p. 181. 
 
 L. — Sir, they M^ho will not see, will not see ; and are 
 blind not for want of eyes, but for want of ivill to use 
 them. I have already quoted texts of scripture enough, 
 M'hereiu the revelation of pnrgatonj is as clearly to be 
 seen as a consequence in its principle. And so it is 
 neither superstition nor zeal contrary to knowledge to pray 
 for the relief of souls supposed to be in that state of suf- 
 fering. But besides its foundation in scriptures it has as 
 uninterrupted a tradition on its side as any article of faith ; 
 as I shall shew before we have done with this subject. 
 
 SECTION XLVI. — OF TRADITION. 
 
 " G. — i^ly lord, there are /^oof/and had traditions, and tliey 
 *' are much oftener taken in the bad sense tlirougliout the New 
 " Testament. Ye have made tlie comynatidfiicjit of God of no 
 " effect hi/ your tradition, Matt. xvii. 6. Holding the tradition 
 " of the elders, Mark vii. 3. Laying aside the commandment 
 " of God., that yc may hecp your own traditioyi, 9. Vain deceit 
 " after the tradition of men, Col. ii. 8. Your vain conversation. 
 " receivcdhy tradition from your fullers, S)C,, Pet. i. 18." — p. 18 1. 
 
 L. — Sir, all these texts j)rove very solidly what you 
 said first, viz., that there are both good and bad traditions. 
 But are apostolical traditions in the number of bad ones? 
 Hi Paul thought not. 'J'hcrrfure (says he) brethren stand 
 fast, and hold the traditions, irhich you have been taught, 
 whether by vord or our epistle, 2 Thess. ii. 1.5. This, 
 Sir, was St Pauts doctrine to the Thessalonians. And 
 I presume it rcgiirdod not tliom alone, but the whole 
 church of Christ both then and in after affcs. 1 am suro
 
 L20 Of Tradllivn. 
 
 the Iioly fathers uiulerstood it so. Hoar what St JrencBUs 
 says: Suppose (says he) the (ipos/lcs had left ns no scrip- 
 tures, ought we 7iot to have followed the rule of tradition, 
 which they ddivcrcd to them to ichosc care they committed 
 the churches ? L. 0, C. 3. 
 
 G. — It seems then that tradition has the same authority 
 Avitli you as the scripture itself. 
 
 I L. — Sir, if you speak oi tradition derived from Christ 
 and his apostles, it has so : and St Paul is my voucher 
 for it. Nay whosoever will give himself leisure to think 
 jnust be of the same mind. Ik'cause whatever Christ and 
 ]iis apostles taught by word of mouth was without all dis- 
 pute as truly the icord of God, as what the apostles have 
 delivered to us in their writings. So that though scrip- 
 tures rightly understood be a ride of faith to the church, 
 yet since Christ laid the foundation of it by preaching 
 unly, and the apostles preached several years before they 
 Avrote any of the canonical boohs, it follows that the un- 
 'icritten word was the first rule of christian belief, whicli 
 could not lose its authority by the after-writing of the 
 apostles. 
 
 G. — My lord, all that the apostles taught by ivord of 
 mouth was afterwards set down in the canonical books. 
 
 L Pray what authority either of scripture or fathers 
 
 ^lave you for this? St Chrysosioni is positive for the con- 
 trary. It is clear, says he, that the apostles did not deliver 
 all things in writing, but many things ivithoiit it: and these 
 too deserve to be believed. IjcI us then give credit to the 
 tradition of the church. It is tradition, seek no further. L. 
 de Spirit. Sancto, C. 29. 
 
 St Epiphanius says the same. Tradition too (says he) 
 is necessary. For all things cannot he had from the scrip- 
 ture. Thei-efore the blessed apostles left some things in 
 writing, and others by tradition. Thus St Epiphanius. 
 Ilaer. 6 1. Nay St Paid himself directed the Thessalonians 
 to the unwritten word, as has been shewed : and in the 
 only epistle he wrote to the Galatians he refers them to 
 what he had taught them by word of mouth. Though we, 
 says he, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel 
 unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let 
 him be accursed. Gal. i. 8.
 
 Of Tradilion. 521 
 
 " G. — My lord, there is a tradition, which for the evidence 
 " of it we are willinfj to admit. That is, according to the 
 " rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, that tvhich was always received, 
 '• everywhere, and hj all. Aud we are willing' to join issue 
 " with you upon this tradition as io jjurgatory, tliat is, nni- 
 " versal tradition. And you would not desire we shoTild be 
 •' convinced by any particular tradilion of this or that church 
 '• or place. For you know there are many deceits in such."' 
 —pp. 181, 182. 
 
 //. — Sir, if I do not mistake your meaning-, the unl- 
 rcmal tradition upon which you are willing to join issue 
 with us is of so large a size, that not one single article 
 of the creed can come up to it. For every article of it, 
 particularly that of the divinity of Christ, has been denied 
 hy many. It has not therefore been received hy all. And 
 sijice those many had a being in some time, and in some 
 place, it has not been received always, and every ivhere. 
 You may therefore safely join issue with me even as to 
 purgatory upon this pretty notion of nniversal tradition 
 without apjiroaching one step nearer to it. For Arias 
 an ancient reformer in the 4th century denied it, and was 
 writ against by the fathers of that and the following age; 
 and you yourselfj who deny it now, are somebody, and 
 existent in some time and ])lace ; which Isuj)poso suffices 
 to prove that it has iiot been received alicays, every 
 ichere, ami by all. 
 
 liut to be more serious upon the matter, those truths 
 are said to have an u/tivcrsfd tradition, even according to 
 the true meaning of J 'inccndus Lirinensis^ \v\iif\i though 
 they liave been or are still o])posed by heretics, are de- 
 rived from the apostles themselves, and have been always 
 acknowledged as such by the Catholic Church and all true 
 jncmbers of it throughout the whole world: which Jin' 
 t entius lArinensis calls beiny received alivays, irerywhcrCf 
 and by all. And i\m universal tradition w'C have iov pur- 
 gatory, though not the chimerical one upon which I pre- 
 sume yon arc willing to join issue with us. 
 
 " (>. — My lord, \'cron in liis ride of faiUi (a book inucli 
 " a|>[)iauded in France, and put into JCnylish for the use of 
 '* Roman catholics hen;) s(!ts out in the ho^inning with a 
 " definition of the rule of faith, of which lie makes tlu; first
 
 5-2*2 Of Purgatory 
 
 '• roqtiisitc to l)o for an artirlo of faitli. ihnt il he ckarli/ re- 
 ♦' vc<ih(l in scripture (and l»y no pretended rcvclatio7i to any 
 *' «liatsoover) in express words, or thence to be deduced by 
 •' necessary consoqiipiico. ^yhi<•ll when made appear as to 
 " pin-p(i(ori/ or any olhcr doctrines in dispnt((, wo shall 
 " readily allow it ; and till then we cannot be arraigned of 
 " hcresj/ for not professinc^ to believe it. 
 
 " This i)itru(H)ig into things ve have not seen proceeds, as 
 " the apostle observes, Col. ii. 18, from a fieshhj mind 
 " measuring' spiritual things by car7ial. We see it takes 
 " time to purge the flesh of diseases and defilements it lias 
 " contracted. And it takes a great deal of filing and scrub- 
 *' bing to cleanse iron, that has been long rusted. Hence 
 " you conjecture the same as to souls departed, that they 
 " must ho purged by fire. But the work of God upon the 
 '< sold, when he grants true repentance, operates far otherwise. 
 *' It effects the cure all at once, as with those who looked 
 *' upon the brazen serpent. Our Saviour himself makes the 
 " comparison, John iii. 14, 15. And he gave us an example 
 <' of it in the thief upon the cross, who was translated to 
 *' paradise the same day he died : and yet be had been a 
 *' grievous sinnei", and suffered justly for bis offences. His 
 " repentance was late, and he bad made no restitution : yet 
 *' he did no penance m jnirgatortj. — pp. 182, 183. 
 
 SECTION XLVII. — THE SUBJECT OF PURGATORY IlESUMED. 
 
 L. — Sir, accord! n(^ to your laudable custom you liave 
 made some commodious alterations in Veroris words. 
 For his true words are these [Englished by E. S. Esq. 
 Paris. Anno 1G60, p. 1] the total and only rule of the 
 Catholic faith is divine revelation delivered to the prophets 
 and apostles, proposed 13y the Catholic Chuijch in 
 her general councils^ or by her universal practice to be 
 believed as an article of catholic faith. And pray, Sir, is 
 it the same thing to be revealed to the apostles, and to be 
 clearly ivritten by them ? Did they write every thing 
 that was revealed to them ? The contrary is most certain, 
 as lias been fully shewed. So that if Veron had set out 
 with the definition of his rule of faith, as you have cooked
 
 Of Purgatory. 523 
 
 it for him, instead of being applauded as he now is, he 
 would have been condemned for an heretic. 
 
 However suppose you had made no change in his 
 words, you would be bound to believe the doctrine of 
 jmrgatory according to the latter part of his rule, as 
 quoted by you. Because the doctrine of purgatory is 
 deduced by a necessary consequence from several texts of 
 scripture, as I have fully proved. 
 
 You say, souls are not gradually cured like bodies but 
 all at once, when God grants true grace and repentance. 
 Sir, if you mean that tlie guilt of mortal or venial sin is 
 not pardoned by halves but all at once : or, that when 
 a soul is tainted with many mortcd sins, one cannot be 
 pardoned without the other : or finally, that God conveys 
 a soul in an instant from the state of sin to that oisajictify- 
 ing grace, what you say is very true, but nothing to your 
 purpose. Because, when the whole guilt of sin is 
 pardoned, the temporal punishment is not always remitted 
 with it, as has been proved to a demonstration. And if 
 the Divine justice be not fully satisfied in this life, there 
 must be a state in the life to come wherein full satisfaction 
 may be made, and the debt that has been contracted 
 ])aid to the last far tiling. 
 
 Besides a soul cleansed from the guilt of mortal sin 
 may still be stained with many lesser offences or even 
 affections to them, which are all blemishes and must be 
 wa>>hed off before she can be admitted into heaven, where 
 nothing that is unclean can enter. And where then will 
 you find in scripture or indeed any where but in your 
 own imagination, that all souls are perfectly cured in a 
 trice, and staiul in no need of having their cure perfected 
 hercaker? This indeed is properly iidruding into things 
 we have not seen. 
 
 You mention the brazen serpent, at the sight whereof 
 iiodies were cured; and you add, tliat Christ himself made 
 the cmnparison. JSo he did ; but the comparison he made 
 is this, viz. : That as Moses lifted np the serpent in the 
 rrildcrness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that 
 whosoever belitreth in him may not perish, but have life 
 everlasting, ./(dm iii. 11, ir>. Whence von conclude,
 
 524 Of Purgatory. 
 
 therefore all souls arc pcrjectli/ cured at once. Is not 
 this triflinu; with tlic words of Christ instead of treating 
 thoin with a serious regard to their true meaning? 
 
 But the thief on the cross, though he had been a grievous 
 sinner, and repented late, and made no restitution, yet (say 
 you) he did no penance in purgatory. I hope, Sir, you 
 do not mean this as an innuendo, that the way to go 
 strait to heaven is to sin grievously, repent late, and make 
 no restitution. But let that pass : wliosoever suffers as 
 much, and with the same humility, patience, resignation, 
 faith, and zecd as the good thief did on the cross, needs 
 not be afraid of -purgatory. ]3ut I fear there are but 
 iiiw death-bed penitents in the worhl like him. 
 
 " G. — My lord, it is more thiin wo know wlietlier lie might 
 " not have been converted before. But however it shews 
 " there is no necessity of purgatory even for very great 
 " offenders."—;;. 183. 
 
 L, \'ery true, Sir, not for any oft'endcrs that become 
 
 such penitents as the good thief was. 
 
 Advertisement. — To these last words of the gentleman in hia 
 Case Stated his lordship yives this childish answer: No doubt 
 but God may excuse whom he pleases. 2'o ichich the gentleman 
 replies thus : — 
 
 " G. — How then do we know whom he excuses and whom 
 " not ? And how can we pray in faith, that is, without sin to 
 " deliver such a particular person from ^ncj'gatory ?" — p. 183. 
 
 L,. — In the same manner, Sir, as yon pray in faith 
 and without sin for the safety of a friend in the army or 
 at sea, who you know not whether he be alive or dead. 
 
 As to your question, hoiv ive hnoiv whom God excuses 
 and ichom not '^ Sir, God might have forgiv'cn if he had 
 pleased all our sins without subjecting us to any temporal 
 punishment for them. But this is not the order his in- 
 iinitc wisdom has established. And therefore, as he 
 excuses no sinner from repentance, so he excuses none 
 that we know from doing icorthy fruits of penance : and 
 punishing our sins is one of those worthy fruits. Which 
 if we have not fully performed in this life, the deficiency 
 must be made good in the next. 
 
 " G. — But if there was no necessity of purgatory, as you 
 <' have granted, in the case of the ihif, how is it to be ima-
 
 Of Purgatory. 525 
 
 " gined that God should keep so many thousand souls for 
 *' many years and ages in tlie most extreme torments, when 
 " there is no necessity for it ?" — j^- 183. 
 
 L Sir, neither you nor I can kno\r, liow long souls 
 
 are detained in puriratorv. But there is always a necessitv 
 that God's will be accomplished, and we are very sure 
 that none are punished longer than they deserve. And 
 the reason why the good thief liad no jmrgatory was, 
 because the Divine justice was satisfied before he died : 
 and if all died as lie did, the necessity of purgatory would 
 cease. 
 
 " G — My lord, if the pope lias power to release out of 
 *' purgatory, he must be a very cruel father, who keeps ouo 
 ♦•' soul there an hour longer." — p. 183. 
 
 L. — You may as well call him a very cruel father for 
 not h'uider'w^ plagues, tears, famines, hurricanes, earth- 
 quakes, and other such punishments of sin. Sir, there 
 are about twenty reasons more or less, why the pope does 
 not release all souls out of purgatory. And the first of 
 tiiese reasons is, because he cannot. For if he could, he 
 certainly would doit. I omit the rest for brevity's sake. 
 
 But has it not been the discipline of the church in all 
 ages to impose penances for sins by the power of the 
 keys ? And arc then all lier bisiiops and pastors cruel 
 fathers for not remitting the ]:enalty together with the 
 guilt? Arc they not the ministers of God's jVs//a' as 
 well as mercy ? Or do they not act by commission from 
 him ? 
 
 " (i. — My lord, the cliiucli knows not the heart, and must 
 "judge by outward signs, wiiich yet sectu'e not from hy- 
 " pocrisy. But this is all foreign to God, who searches the 
 " iieart, and knows ail that is in man." — p. 184. 
 
 I J. — liut as tlie church can absolve from .s//.'.s without 
 an infallible knowledge of the disposition of men's hearts, 
 why might she not also without that infallible knowledge 
 aI)solve them from all pcnallii whatsoever, were she not 
 certain that in so doing she would act contrary to the 
 order estal)li>hed by God? !So that it i?> manifest it 
 always was the church's faith, that there is a temporal 
 punishtnent due to sin even after the guilt together with 
 the e^en/r// piiui'^hment is remitted.
 
 5*26 Of Merits. 
 
 " G. — My lord, tlioup;li oiir physic of diseipliue works by 
 " degrees, and tho issue is iiiicerLain, yet God never cures 
 " imperfectly. Clirist never haij'-healcd any man. And so 
 ** it is wiien lie pardnns sinners. Thy sins arc jorf/iven thee, 
 " it is not said slidll be forgiven, or when thou hast performed 
 *' such or such a penance ; but the forgiveness of his sins 
 " was .IS immediately wrought as the cure of his body. And 
 '' God gives us all the assurances that can be in the strongest 
 *' expressions of our sins being absolutely and totally forgiven. 
 •'As being all hloited out, and cast into the depths of the sea. 
 " Never to be remembered or mentioned unto us any more, as 
 " before quoted. / xodl heal their bacJisliding, 1 will love thee 
 ^^ freely. He is ready to forgive, he waiteth to have mercy, he 
 " earnestly remembcreth, his bowels are ti-oubled for sinners, that 
 " they may repent ; and in the day they turn from their loicked- 
 " 7iess heforgiveth. For he duth not afflict willingly, nor grieve 
 " the children of man. It is for their repentance and reforma- 
 ■' tion. But this consideration is not in purgatory.'" — . 
 pp. 184, 185. 
 
 L. — What a strange profusion of texts have we here 
 again to no n^anner of purpose ! Any one of them 
 suffices to prove that the guilt of sin with the eternal 
 punishment due to it is never pardoned imperfectly or by 
 halves, and a thousand of them can prove no more. Why 
 then are they thus multiplied but for a shew to impose 
 upon the ignorant. Hear what St Austi7i says concerning 
 the temporal punishment of sin after the guilt is pardoned : 
 The punishment of sin, says he, corUinues after the guilt 
 is pardoned least the guilt should he thought Utile, if the 
 punishment ended with it. Trac. 124, in Joanem. Hence 
 it is even conducing to our salvation, that God does not 
 always remit at once both the temporal and eternal 
 punishment : that we may feel sensibly the effects both 
 of his mercy and justice, and not abuse by repeated crimes 
 the facility of his pardon : as St Austin also observes upon 
 the 8th verse of the 5()th Psalm. 
 
 SECTION XLVIII. — OF MERITS. 
 
 " G But my lord, how will the poor souls in purgatory 
 
 (if any be there) be deluded, if the stock of supererogation
 
 Of Merits. 527 
 
 " should fail them ; that is, the jnerils of saints for their good 
 " works which they have done over and above their duty, and 
 " what they were obliged to for their salvation ; and therefore 
 " are applied to others, who have come short of their duty 
 " to supply their deficiencies, which is iXiefimd provided for 
 " the discharge of prisoners out of jmryutory ? and this is 
 " dispended by the pope to whom he thinks fit, as being the 
 •' grand treasurer of tiie chnrcli, and consequently of those 
 " superabundant merits of tlie saints. But we want a text, 
 •' wliere St Feter was constituted such a treasurer, or that 
 " there is or can be such a treasury." — •^;. 185. 
 
 L Sir, I am as much a straiio;er to any such text as 
 
 yourself. And as I am not bound in a dispute about 
 religion to maintain mere school- opinions, in which the 
 church's faith is not concerned, so neither am 1 bound to 
 produce any scripture texts for them. However thus far 
 is certain, that the saints pray for all their fellow-members 
 who stand in need of it; ancl their prayers are acceptable 
 to God, and available in behalf of those they pray for in 
 proportion to the degree of holiness, they attained to in 
 this life. And in this sense their past merits and suffer- 
 ings may be said to be applicable to others : viz., in as 
 much as they give an efficacy to their prayers to move 
 God to have compassion on those they pray for. As 
 the prayer of Muses ajipoased Ciod's wrath against the 
 Israelites ; and as JuUs pra)ii)g lor his three friends had 
 the same elfect. And finally, as the prayers and ex- 
 traordinary mortifications of God's special servants upon 
 earth often move him to bestow the grace of a sincere 
 conversion on sinners, who deserve nothing but to be 
 abandoned by him. 
 
 But since the merits and jjfaycrs of God's saints either 
 in heaven or on earth ha\e no other value, than what 
 ihey derive from the merits (f Christ, 1 must here bring 
 you ac(piinted with a fund for the discharge of tiie jyri- 
 soners \u purgatory, which I ])rcsumc you will not venture 
 to burlesque for your diversion. 1 mean, tlie infinite price 
 of the sacred hloud (f Christ, and the inexhanstihle trtasurc 
 of his merits: wiiich funil 1 hope is secure, and in no 
 danger of failing. So that your mighty concern least
 
 528 Of Merits. 
 
 tlic poorsouls in pnrr}aforii^\\o\\\A find themselves left in the 
 lurcli, if their stock of supererogation should fail them, is 
 wholly owiiii^ either to your real, or affected misunder- 
 standini^ of the most essential part of our doctrine. For 
 it cannot he donhted, hut that the iufnite merits and 
 satisfaetion of Christ will always be a sufficient fioid to 
 release the prisoners. 
 
 But I know not, whether I must ascribe it to a want 
 of charity, or judgment, or both; when you express our 
 doctrine of 7)ierit and super erotjutioii in these improj)cr 
 and equivocal terms, viz., tJiat the saints are ubliyedfor 
 their salvatioii to the merits of their own goodivorhs, which 
 they have done over and above their duty. Every word 
 whereof carries a double meaning: but the bad one is 
 uppermost, and offers itself at first sight. 
 
 Wherefore to prevent all mistakes, I desire you to 
 observe, that it is our doctrine that all, who are saved, 
 owe tlieir salvation (if we will speak properly) purely 
 to the mercy and grace of God through the infinite merits 
 and mediation of Jesus Christ. First, Because no man 
 can merit the f\vst justifying grace: as is expressly taught 
 by the Council of JVent in the following: words : It is 
 therefore said, that ice are justified gratis, because none of 
 the acts ichich precede justification, whether they be faith, 
 or good works, can merit this grace, Sess. vi. c. G. As 
 therefore we owe that which is the ground-work and 
 foundation of our eternal happiness to the pure liberality 
 of God, so are we by consequence indebted to him for that 
 happiness, which cannot be attained without it. 
 
 ^dly, Though the virtues which we practise, and the 
 good works which we perform in the state of grace be 
 most certainly conducing to salvation, and even merit an 
 increase of grace, yet since those very virtues and good 
 works are not only the gifts <f God, but derive all the 
 merit they have from his sanctfying grace and the merits 
 of Christ, it follows, that we have the same obligation to 
 God for our eternal hapj)iness, as if he bestowed it upon 
 VIS without any concurrence or co-operation on our part. 
 Nay our obligation is rather the greater, because that very 
 concurrence or co-operation on our part is an additional
 
 Of Merits. 529 
 
 favour we receive of liim, and so entirely the fruit of his 
 holy grace, that we cannot (independently of it) without 
 presumption ascribe it to ourselves according to these 
 words of St Paul, What hast ihou that thou didst not re- 
 ceive? and if thou didst receive it, ivhy dost thou glory, as 
 if thou hadst not received it ? 1 Cor. iv. 7 ; and again, 
 for it is Gud, who ivorhcth in 7is both to will and to do of 
 Ids good pleasure. Phil. ii. 13. 
 
 Yet all this notwithstanding it is undoubtedly true, 
 that our salvation depends ujion the practice of virtue 
 and good M'orks: because the word of God declares posi- 
 tively, that we cannot be saved without it. Jfthou wilt 
 enter into life, heep the commandments says Christ, Matt. 
 xix. 1 7 ; and St James tells us, that faith if it hath not 
 works is dead, James ii. 17. If then Me cannot be saved 
 without keeping the commandments, and the practice of 
 good works, our salvation is owing to it in the same 
 sense as it depends upon it. Nor does this derogate in 
 the least from the glory due to God : because owing our 
 salvation to the virtues and good ivorhs we practise is in 
 oifect owing it to the gifts of God : because we can nei- 
 ther practise any virtue, nor perform any good work 
 ■without the assistance of his grace, 2cho worhcth in ns 
 both to tcill and to do, (f his good pleasure, Phil. ii. 13. 
 
 G. — 13ut, my lord, how does all this consist with your 
 doctrine of merits ? 
 
 Ij. — Not at all, Sir, as profrsfants will needs under- 
 stand it for us : i;ut as we understand it nothing is more 
 easy. I shall therefore explain it briefly to you. The 
 Council of 7're7it speaks thus of it : To those, who place 
 their confidence in God, and continue in the practise of 
 good v'urhs, eternal life, ought to he proposed both as a 
 grace mercifully jnomiscd to the children of God through 
 Jesus Christ, and as a reward faithfully to he rendered by 
 virtue of th<U promise to their good works and merits. 
 Sess. 0, C. 10. 
 
 Here is all that is of faith relating to the article of 
 merit; concerning which protcstanfs have taken the 
 utmost pains to poison the j)coplc with false notions of 
 our doctrine. Ami 1 do not wonder at it. Because mis-
 
 530 0/ Merits. 
 
 tating; a doctrine is tlie most expedite way to confute it« 
 For it costs no labour of the brain ; but with a little 
 pliabltMicss of conscience makes truth and falsehood shift 
 sides in a trice. 1 shall put a question or two to clear 
 the matter. Pray, Sir, lias not God promised eternal life 
 to such as perform the conditions required of them ? 
 
 G.— Who doubts it? 
 
 L. — And is not this a covenant, or a kind of contract 
 or bargain betwixt God and man ? 
 
 G. — I cannot deny it. 
 
 L. — Well, and arc not all contracts or bargains bind- 
 ing on both sides, so that if the conditions stipulated be 
 performed by the one, the other is bound to make good 
 bis part? I am sensible this question presses somewhat 
 hard upon you. For it follows from it, that if we perform 
 our part of the covenant God has made with us, we de- 
 serve the promised reward, and have a.Ji(st title to it by 
 virtue of his promise. And this is that frightful bugbear, 
 which we call merits. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, are our works then in this life 
 equal to the reward ? 
 
 L. — No, Sir, they are not equal to it. Kay though we 
 did ten thousand times more, they would bear no pro- 
 portion to it : because God has been so bountiful as to 
 promise a reward infinitely surpassing our works. But 
 still they are a reward, and a reward promised upon such 
 and such conditions, as he thought fit to impose. And if 
 God's sacred promise be sufficient to ground a sure and 
 just title, they who perform the conditions upon which 
 heaven is promised, have the surest and justest title to ir, 
 that a man can have to any thing. 
 
 G. — But does not Christ say, that icheyi we have done 
 nil we are commanded, ice are unprofitable servants ? 
 Luke xvii. 10, and how then can we pretend to any 
 merits, or works of supererogation ? 
 
 L. — Sir, when we have done all we are commanded, 
 we are wholly unprofitable to God : for he cannot receive 
 any profit by us. Neither does he stand in need of his 
 servants, but his servants stand in need of him. Yet 
 since we are liis servants, when we have done what we
 
 Of Merits. 531 
 
 are commanded, we have a title to the icages he has pro- 
 mised us. For a covenajit, contract, or har<jain liolds 
 Ijetween God and man, as well as between man and man. 
 And God who is just will certainly pay us our icagcs 
 accordino: to the work we have done. 
 
 But we are over and above niiprofifahle servants in 
 another sense even when we have done all we are com- 
 manded. Because ice are insufficient of ourselves even to 
 think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of 
 God, 2 Cor. iii. 5. So that we can do nothing of w'hat 
 we are commanded in order to salvation, unless v.'e be 
 enabled by God's grace to do it. And can any thing 
 ])e more unprofitalde than a servant, that can do nothing 
 without the help of his master? 
 
 Hence St Austin has left us these excellent words, 
 which contain a full defence of the doctrine of merits, 
 and shew what the church's faith was in his time : Eternal 
 life (says he) is called by the apostle the gift of God. Not 
 
 THAT IT IS NOT GIVEN TO MKUITS, 15UT BECAUSE THE 
 MEIllTS THEMSELVES, TO WHICH IT IS GIVEN, are liliCWise 
 
 ?tis gifts. And again, when God crowns our merits, what 
 else docs he croiin but his own gifts ? L. do Gratia et lib. 
 Arb., and so we are always unprofitable servants. 
 
 Neither is this inconsistent with what we call worhs 
 of supererogation, if you will but vouchsafe to understand 
 tlie word as we do. A (juestion or two will lead us to 
 the true meaning of it. 1 ask then, whether there be 
 not counsels as well as precepts? 
 
 G Who doubts it.-* 
 
 L. — Well, Sir, and are we bound in conscience to 
 practise the evangelical counsels/ Are we bound, for 
 example, to sell all ire have and give it to the jtoor ? 
 
 G. — No surely. 
 
 L. — lie then that i)ractises this or any other evangelical 
 counsel, does a work of svpcrcrog(ilio)i. That is, he does 
 a thing he is not l)Ound to do. And this is j)rccisely our 
 meaning of tiiat word. But if you fix another meaning 
 upon it, and tell the people, that ire pretend to do all wc 
 are mnn/inndcd and more, i. c, to be icholly free from sin, 
 I must accuse you cither of ignorance, or wiltid slander.
 
 53-2 Of Merits. 
 
 For we utterly deny it, as heiiirr contrary to God's word, 
 wliich tells us, that in many things 2ve all offend^ James 
 iii. 2. And, tliat if tec sa>/ ve have no sin, we deceive 
 ourselves, and the truth is not in us, 1 John i. 8. Now 
 Sir, yon may put what ohjections you please. 
 
 SECTION XLIX. — OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 «' G. My lord, can a creature merit at the hands of God 
 
 " for ever so great endowments bestowed upon him ? Is it 
 " a merit to receive great gifts?" — p. 185. 
 
 L. — Sir, God can reward nothin"^ but his oivn gifts. 
 But since ho has promised to reward them, they certainl)-- 
 deserve their reward in virtue of that promise, and must 
 by consequence be a me)-it in his sight. Which made 
 St Austin say, that God has made himself a debtor to us 
 not hy receiving, hut by j^romising. Psalm Ixxxiii. You 
 ask-, if it be a merit to receive great gifts ? I answer it is 
 no merit, if we abuse them. But to employ as we 
 ought the gifts we receive, is certainly a merit through 
 God's goodness, who has promised to reward them. 
 
 «' G. — But if we employ them to the best advantage, is it 
 " more than is our duty to do ?" — p. 185. 
 
 L. — No, Sir, but God rewards his servants for doing 
 their duty, and Ave merit heaven by it. 
 
 «« G. — And we are still improfilahlc servants, as Christ 
 " himself has told us." — p. 185. 
 
 L. — We are so. But still we are servants, and work 
 for ivages. And the wages promised us is eternal life. 
 
 <' G But was there ever a man (^Christ alone excepted) 
 
 " who did all his duty ? Are not all sinners ? And if their 
 " repentance entitles them to pardon, this is far from tncrit: 
 " my doing my duty to day makes no amends for my having 
 <' neglected it yesterday." — pp. 185, 18G. 
 
 L Sir, you seem to make no difference between 
 
 venial offences and deadly sin. This deprives us of 
 sanctifying grace, which constitutes us the ado])tive sons 
 of God, his heirs and coheirs of Christ; and is the interior 
 foundation of 7nerit in the soul, to which God has pro- 
 mised eternal life, and an increase of glory in proportion
 
 Of Merits. 533 
 
 to the meritorious works, whereof it is the source and 
 principle through the tnerits of Jesus Christ. But venial 
 offences destroy not this foundation ; though they suffice 
 to denominate all men sinners, even the greatest saints^ 
 who all offend in many things, Ja7ncs\\\.2. And so your 
 questions are fully answered. And it is manifest, that 
 though all be sinners, in the sense meant by St James^ 
 yet this hinders not, but that there are many, who being 
 free from ckadly sin are properly called j'^it or righteous 
 according to scripture language : and these are in a state 
 of meriting the pardon of their daily failings, and atoning 
 or making amends for them by the practice of good works 
 joined witii repentance. 
 
 " C. — AVe find tlie greatest saints applying to the mercy 
 '• of God, and not pleading their own merits. Jacob said, / 
 " aid not icorthy of llie hast of all thy inercics. And Job, «ho 
 " had none like him in the earth, a perfect and ttpright mu7t, 
 •' ^c, said / abhor mysef, ojid repent in dust and ashes. And 
 *' Dayiicl the man greatly beloved, confessed his own sins as 
 " well as the sins of tlie people. And St Paid called himself 
 ''the chief of sinners, not worthy to be an apostle." — p. 186. 
 
 L. — What wonder is it, that the saints on earth (who 
 liad the deepest sense of their own natural corruption, 
 and the offences they had committed against God) both 
 tliought and spoke thus humbly of themselves? For tliey 
 wouKl not have been saints without it ; and their humility 
 was their brightest merit, and a most special gift of God. 
 Nay they M'ould have acted very presumptuously, had 
 they pleaded their oicn merits, and not aj)jdiod themselves 
 to the mercy of (iod. \stly. Because no man knows what 
 merits he has, or whetlier he be worthy of God's love or 
 hatred. And Idly, Ijccause all merits are the mcrciesSiwA 
 gifts of God through Jesus Christ. 
 
 " G. — liut if lliu saints own no nurit in llioniselvcs, then 
 " surely they will disown all those, who apply to their merits: 
 " and as I said before concerning tliu u-orshijf aiul invocation 
 " of them, by wliicli you Ijopo to gain them to bo intercessors 
 " for y«»n, tlicy must become your accusers by the denial of 
 " their accoptance of such worship from you, which if they 
 " sIiotiM accept, it would inak«' them evil sjnrils, as 1 liave 
 " (]uoted out bl Auilin." — j>. IbG.
 
 534 Of Mails. 
 
 L. — Sir, the saints on earth sec notliinj^ of their own 
 merits. Tiieir hiiinilitv is industrious to hide every 
 thini^ from them hut \\w'w fiodls. J;ut in heaven, wliero 
 there is no danger of vanity., tliey are happy in the ex- 
 perimental knouledii^e of their past virtues and merits by 
 tlie deoTce of filorij^ whereof they are securely in posses- 
 sion : and therefore we need not fear their displeasure by 
 our honouring those merits, which have raised them to 
 timt glory : especially since they are not ignorant, that 
 honouring their merit is but honouring the gifts of God. 
 
 But, 8ir, as to your quotation from St Austin against 
 our honouring and invoking tiie saints, I am sorry you 
 give me so often occasion to reproach you with your 
 shameful falsification of that father. For it obliges me 
 to an ungrateful task ; and I blush for you as often as 
 I am forced to do it. 
 
 " G — But, my lord, what creature dares plead purity 
 " before God ? J3choId he cliargetk his angtls loitJi fulli/, and 
 " he pulteth no trust in his saints. Yea the heavens are not 
 " cleaji in his sight. Hoio mtich more abominable and filthy 
 " is man, who dri/dcc/h iniquity like icater ? And what is man., 
 " that he should be clean ? And he that is born of a woman, 
 " that he should be righteous? Job iv. 18. And if all our 
 " righteousness are as filthy rags, Isa. xliv. C ; if thei-e be 
 " iniquity in our holy things, in the holy sanctuary and altar, 
 " what then is clean ?"—;;/>. 18G, 187. 
 
 L. — iSir, your first question is, what creature dares 
 plead purity hefoi-e God ? And all the texts you have 
 produced are to prove, that no man can without pre- 
 sumption make this plea: w^hich I readily grant. Be- 
 cause ive all offend in many tilings. But amongst those 
 who offend in many tilings, it is to be hoped there are 
 many who do not offend God mortally. And these are 
 in a state of meriting the reward, which God promised 
 to those, who live and die in his holy grace. Nay you 
 owned just now that Job was a perfect and upright man. 
 So that all that can be concluded from the texts you 
 have quoted is that man of himself, and without the 
 grace ot Jesus Christ is nothing but weakness, corruption, 
 and sin. 
 
 " G. — My lord, if the righteous themselves shall scarcely be
 
 Of Merits. 535 
 
 <' saved, as St Peter tells us, iv. 18, what merits have they 
 " to spare for others, especially when they are not saved 
 ♦' even by their own works ? For by grace ye are saved, not 
 " by ivorhs, least any man slwidd boast, Eph. ii. 8, 9. Can 
 " any man then boast of his works as not only sufficient for 
 " his own salvation, but over and above as meritorious to be 
 " applied to others, and to deliver souls out of Purgatory ? 
 ♦' No, my lord, the saints make no such boasts, and will dis- 
 " own all those, who make them in their name. For they 
 " know that all have sin)ied, and come short of the glory of God 
 " being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that 
 
 " is in Jesus Christ ivhere is boasting then ? It is excluded. 
 
 " By what law? Of worhs? Nay, but by the laiv of faith. 
 " Rom. iii. 23, 24, 27."— jj. 187. 
 
 L. — Really, Sir, one would think you had read the 
 scripture for jiothing else, but to misaj)ply and abuse it. 
 Your first text from St Peter speaks of the difficulty of 
 being saved, and the severity of God's judgment ; which 
 no man surely doubts of. Yet for all that, it is certain 
 tlie saiids are saved; and it is no less certain, tiiat the 
 virtues and f/ood ivorhs, wliich througli God's grace they 
 have practised in this life, were a means to bring them 
 to tliat happy state. Unless you will say, that good vorks 
 are not necessary nor conducing to salvation : whicli I 
 j)resume is not tiie doctrine of your church. 
 
 The subject of the whole chapter to the Ephesians, 
 whence you have taken your second text, is to render 
 them sensible, that their being converted from idolatry 
 to tlie faith of Christ was not in the least owing to any 
 preceding merit of good works, but wholly to the good- 
 ness of God, and the grace and merits of Jesus Christ. 
 And is not this wonderfully to the purpose ? Your 
 argument runs thus: Idolaters tcalloiving in all sorts of 
 xins, do not merit the grace of their conversion ; therefore 
 christians that live tcell, do not deserve to go to heaven. 
 Fine stuff indeed ! 
 
 Your third text from St Paul to the Ilomans is im- 
 mediately followed by these words : Therefore we con- 
 rlude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of 
 the lav, iii. 28; which shews that the apostle's main scope 
 in that cliajUer was to convince the converted Jews at
 
 53C Of Merits. 
 
 Home, tliat tlicy were to be saved not by the works of 
 the law, but by their faith in Jesus Christ. And that 
 therefore tliey had no reason to hoast, as they did, of the 
 irorhs of the law. l)ut docs faith in Christ exclude tiie 
 necessity of (/cod worhs ? 
 
 G But can a man then boast of his good tuorks ? 1 
 
 believe the saints make no such boast, nor desire others 
 to make it for them. 
 
 L. — Sir, no man can boast of his good ivorhs or merits^ 
 let them be never so great : but he that glorieth, let him 
 glory in the Lord, says St Paul, 2 Cor. x. 7, because all 
 merits are the gifts of God : and zcheti God crowns our 
 merits, he only rewards his own gifts : as St Austin has 
 already told us. So that I am wliolly of your mind, that 
 the saints make no such boasts. Nor do I know any M-ho 
 make them in their name : though we all praise God in 
 /lis saints ; as we are directed by the j)sal7nist, Psalm 
 cl. 1. And desire tliem to intercede both for ourselves 
 and the souls departed ; not doubting but their past 
 merits render their prayers accej)table to God, and avail- 
 able for the relief of others. But that the saints have any 
 merits to sjmre, or that their merits are applicable to 
 others any other way than that of intercession or vnpe- 
 tration, as I have explained it, is a doctrine I am utterly 
 a stranger to. 
 
 " G. — Every man, my lord, is saved by his own faith, 
 " not by the faitli of others. And God will reward every 
 " ?««« according to his works, not the works of others, Matt. 
 " xvi. 27."— 1>. 187. 
 
 L. — That is very certain. God will reward none for 
 other men's works; but lie will reward every man accord- 
 ing to his own works. Pray remember that ; for those 
 very words decide the question against you. Because if 
 salvation be the reward of good tcorks, as it most certainly 
 is, nay a reward stipulated between God and man by 
 virtue of his promise, it follows, that when the works to 
 which heaven is promised as a reward, are performed, we 
 deserve or merit the reward. 
 
 " G. — But then, my lord, how miserable is the condition 
 *' of tiie souls supposed to be in purgatory, if they must not
 
 Of Merits. 637 
 
 " be delivered thence but by tlie tcorJis of supererogation, 
 " when no man can be saved by liis own works I" — p. 187. 
 
 L. — What, Sir ! Are not a man's own works conducino^ 
 to salvation? Did you not just now tell me, that God 
 will reward every one according to his icorks ? Or are 
 not the saints, who are already in heaven, reivarded ac- 
 cording to their icorhs ? And is not salvation the reward 
 they have received ? If then salvation be a reward, and 
 this reward is given them for their zcorhs, we may in a 
 true sense say their works have saved them. But if you 
 only mean, that no man can be saved by his own works 
 considered nahtdhj in. themselves, and independently of the 
 merits of Christ, I know not any Christian that will 
 oppose you. 
 
 But pray. Sir, who ever told you, that the soids in 
 jnirgatory are not to he delivered thence hut hy the works 
 (f supererogation pj-actiscd hy the sai7its ? They pray 
 indeed incessantly for their suflering; bretliren. But their 
 prayers are all offered up through the tncdiation of Jesus 
 Christ, whose treasure of infinite merits can never be 
 exhausted; and is a fund the souls in purgatory can 
 seciu-cly rely upon for their deliverance from tiicir j)ains. 
 So that as long as this subsists, they can never be destf- 
 tute of the heljis their condition is capable of. 1 repeat 
 what I said before, viz., that though the saints have re- 
 ceived the full rccompence of all their merits, this hinders 
 not but that the greater their merits are, the more ac- 
 ccj)table to G(k1 are their prayers on the one hand, and 
 the more available on the other for tlie relief of those, 
 who stand in need of them. 
 
 " G. — My lord, the apostle tells us, tue arc saved not uc- 
 '- cording lo our works, but according to tkc grace of Cod in 
 " Christ Jcius, 2 Tim. i. 9. And again, not hy the works (f 
 " righteousness, which ice have done, hut according to his mercy 
 
 " he has saved us through Jesus Christ our Saviour, Tir. 
 
 " iii. 5, G:'—pp. 187, 188. 
 
 //. — Sir, you liavc mangled Iiolh the texts, and omitted 
 that part MJiich helps to i.xphiin them. St 7'r/«/'.s words 
 to Timothy are thus : IVhohas delivered us, and calhd us 
 icilh an holy calling, not according to ounvorhs, hut according 
 
 2 A 2
 
 536 Of Merits. 
 
 to his holy purpose and grace, which was given its in 
 Christ Jesus before the worhi began. ^Vl»ere it is plain he 
 speaks of the g^race oi predestination, which no man can 
 merit. His wuiils to Titus are as foHow : But cftcr 
 that the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man 
 appeared, not bi/the works of righteousness, which we had 
 dove, but according to his mercy he saved ns by the ivashiny 
 of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, u'hich he 
 sited on us ahundanlly through Jesus Christ our Saviour. 
 Whence it appears, that St Paul speaks liere of the first 
 grace of justificatiun by baptism, which likewise no man 
 can merit. 
 
 " G. — My lord, we have but one Saviour, nor can we 
 " be saved by the merits of any other. None other can merit 
 " from God. The greatest 5ai?«Mhat ever was is only saved 
 " by mercy, and the forgiveness of his sins. Let us therefore 
 " not trust to the supereroyated works of those, who were not 
 " able to save themselves, Tliat every mouth may he stopped, 
 " and all the world may become guilty hi fore God, Rom. iii. 
 '■ 9. For in his siytit shall no man living he justified, there 
 " is none righteous, no not one. Psalm cxiv. 2." — p. 188. 
 
 L Sir, all men in the world are sinners, M'hich snffi- 
 
 ces to verify the texts yon have qnoted. However it is 
 certain there are many in the world free from mortal sin, 
 and these are in a state of meriting throngh the grace and 
 merits of Jesus CAr/s^ notwithstanding their daily failings. 
 
 You say, we hare but one Saviour, nor can we be saved 
 by the merits of any other. Very right Sir, because our 
 own good works have no merit or value, but what they 
 derive from the merits of Christ, which must be applied 
 to ns to render our works conducible to salvation. But 
 God has been pleased to csta!)lish things upon this foot- 
 ing, viz.^ that though he has redeemed, us without us, he 
 "o ill not save us without our co-opercdion ; and heaven 
 must be the reward of our perseverance in good ivorks. 
 
 You add, that none but Christ can merit of God. Sir, 
 none but Christ can merit independently and of himself: 
 but dependently of him and with the assistance of his holy 
 grace all men can tnerit: and all that pretend to salvation, 
 must merit it by good ivorks : because God will reward 
 every man according to his ivorks.
 
 Of Merits. 539 
 
 Lastly you say, the greatest saint that ever was is saved 
 only by mercy and the forgiveness of sitis. Sir, the grace 
 of repentance, by ^vhich we obtain the forgiveness of our 
 sins is a pure mercy, and all merit is a gift of God. 
 Whence it follows, that though they who are saved are 
 reicardcd according to their merits, yet they are saved by 
 mercy. And this is entirely conformable to the doctrine 
 of the council of Trent teaching, that eternal life ought to 
 he proposed both as a grace mercifully proposed to the 
 children of God, and as a reward faithfully to be rendered 
 to their good works and merits. Sess. 6, C 16. In effect. 
 Sir, this whole dispute is about a mere word ; on which 
 vou will needs fasten a bad sense in spite of our protest- 
 ing continually against it, and explaining it in such an 
 orthodox meaning, as in your hearts you cannot but 
 
 allow of. 
 
 *' G. — But, my lord, besides all I have said, there are 
 " degrees of glory in heaven. So that if any could sujierero' 
 " gp.te, yet has he nothing to spare for others, because he has 
 " received the full of his reward liimself." — p. 188. 
 
 L. — Sir, I am glad to hear you speak some sense at 
 last. For if there be degrees of glory in heaven, and 
 every saint has received his full reward, it follows that 
 every saint has received for reward a degree of glory 
 proportioned to his icorks or deserts in this life. And 
 does not that demonstrate the doctrine oi merits? 
 
 « G. — But, my lord, this shuts up jmrgatory for ever by 
 " exhaustiiif^ every penny of that treasury reserved for their 
 " redemption from thence." — p. 188. 
 
 l^^ — 1 liope, Sir, that as long as the infinite treasure 
 of the merits and .satisfaction of Christ is not exhausted, 
 there will always be a sufficient fund for the redemption 
 of souls out oi purgatory : and so there will be no danger 
 of its being shut up. 
 
 G. — But I liave another ari,nnu(;ut against your doctrine 
 both ofveiiUd sins and jmryalorjj, viz. : " That tlie expectation 
 " of having tliose many sins called venial with you remitted 
 " after deatli, do«"< naturally make nu-n more careless in tlieir 
 " life. An<l trusting to the merits of others will abate their 
 <' diligence in being nicety righteous themselves." — p. 188. 
 
 L. — llealiy, Sir, you make me smile. For if believing
 
 540 Of Purgatory. 
 
 w purgutonj hiiulcrs men from ciuloavouiing to be 7iicd>/ 
 righteous, then 1 am bound in good manners to suppose, 
 that they, who believe no jturgaturg (and you arc one 
 of tliose) study to be most nicdg righteous. Well, Sir, 
 1 liope at least that trustin|^ in the merits of Christ will 
 not abate our dlliii^encc in beinr^ nicelg righteous. 
 
 You speak of venial sin, as if you believed no sueli 
 thing. What mean then these words of St James, in 
 ■mang things tee all offend ? For I presume he does not 
 jnean, that himself and tlie other apostles were guilty of 
 many mortal sins. 
 
 But you think their being remitted after death makes 
 men more careless in this life. Yes, Sir, if they were 
 remitted without punishment we might grow careless of 
 them. But, as you have already described purgatory for 
 us, viz., tJuit it is a place of fire, where souls are put under 
 pains equal to those of hell except their duration, I think 
 the temptation to slight them is not like to be very 
 great, till men grow fonder of being burnt, than we yet 
 tind they are. 
 
 ADVEiiTistMENT. — IHs lordsliip hdviiig been silent for five whole 
 pages together in //reformer conversation, opens his mouth at last, 
 and out comes this ivisc saying : We find some instances among 
 the fathers of prayers for the dead. I'o which the gentleman 
 answers in the following manner : — 
 
 " G. — Some/6«> among the fathers you may, but none in 
 
 " scripture."— p. 188. 
 
 SECTION L. PRAYING FOR THE RELIEF OF THE DEAD 
 
 HAS BEEN THE CONSTANT PRACTICE OF THE CATHOLIC 
 CllUUCIi. 
 
 L. — But is there any thing in scripture against it? 
 Xo, you cannot so much as strain a text to make a 
 flourish with; though you are as good at it as any man 
 living. And if there be no scripture against it, its not 
 being mentioned in scripture can no more prove it to be 
 no article of faith, than it proves the validity of liifant 
 haptism to be no article of faith ; for there is not tlie 
 least instance or mention of it in scripture.
 
 Of Purgatory. 541 
 
 However we read in die book of JMachabecs, that 
 Judas Machabeus sent to Jerusalem to have sacrifice 
 offered for his dead soldiers. I know your church does 
 not allow that book to be canonical. But St Cyprian 
 called them divine scripture. Epist, 55. ad Corn. Papam. 
 So did St Ambrose^ L. 2. de Jacob, ^-c, C. 10, 11 ; and 
 St Isidore of Seville, who writes thus : Though the Jews 
 reject the boohs of Machabees, yet the church honours them 
 as divine books, L. 6. Originum. St Austin was of the 
 same opinion. The church, says he, reckons them among 
 the canonical boohs, though the Jews do not, L. 18. de Civit. 
 Dei. C. 36. But his words L. de cura pio mortuis. C. 
 1 . are remarkable : We read, says he, in the book of 
 jMachabees, that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But 
 though this icere not to be found in the ancient scriptures, 
 the authority of the universal church, which is emincjUfor 
 this practice, is of no small iccight. Here, Sir, you see 
 St Austin insists upon the public practice of the universal 
 church in offering up prayers for the dead. So that you 
 must have a good assurance to tell me, that some few 
 fathers speak of it, as if the thing were doubtful. 
 
 '• G. — But, my lord, wliat were these prayers ? They were 
 " for peace and rest to those, wlio were supposed to be in 
 " peace, yet might receive an increase of happiness even before 
 " the resurrection ; as some suppose heaven itself to consist 
 " in an eternal increase of bliss. But witliout this Me may 
 *' pray for the contiimation of peace to those wlio arc in peace, 
 '• though wii know it will surely be, as when we pray, thy 
 *• kingdom come, thy uill he done : we know it must be, but 
 " this sJiews our assent and wishes for it. And in this sense 
 " we also pray for the dead, that it would please God .shortly 
 " to uccoinplish the number of't/te elect, (uid to hasten his kiuydom, 
 " Uiat we with all those who are departed in the true faith of 
 " his holy iiuiiic uuiy hace the poftct consumi/ialion diid bliss 
 " both in body and soul in his eternal and tVLrlasting ylory. 
 '• And we bless him for all his servants departed this life 
 '• in hisftith and fear, beseeching him to give lis grace so to 
 '* follow t/air good example, that with them tee may be partakers 
 " of his heavenly kingdom. So that we pray for them as 
 •' well as ourselves, that we may witii them be partakers, 
 ♦' &c. But TK'ither these prayers of ours, nor those of the
 
 542 Of Purgatory. 
 
 " ancients have any relation io pitrf/afort/, or delivering souls 
 " from tlieiice as a place of torments." — p, 189. 
 
 L. — Sir, 1 cannot bntsay, the j)ruyer you have recited 
 is cunningly enou<rh contrived ; for it may serve cither 
 for the living or the (/ead. However there is one thing 
 very sinouhir in it; viz., that (for exani[)le) a so7i, wlio 
 goes to his fathcfs burial thanks God for liaving taken 
 iiim out of this life. Which 1 think is not very instructive 
 or edifying. But let that be as it will, since you own, 
 that you pray for the dead as well as we, I doubt you 
 will lind it a liard task to piece up this rag of popcrg by 
 saying that your prayers have no relation to purgatory. 
 For according to my dull notion, to pray for others is to 
 beg something they either icant^ or may lose; and to 
 pray that those, ^yhoare secure of eternal rest, may continue 
 to have it, is as great a solecism as to pray that a man 
 may continue to be a mail, and a woman a woman : or 
 that the saints in heaven may never be damned. 
 
 As to the two petitions, you quote from the Lord's 
 prayer, by the first we ask to become partakers of God's 
 kingdom, and by the second that we may always accomplish 
 his holy will, which I think are of the number of things, 
 we are not sure of. 
 
 Cut if the subject of our prayers for the souls departed 
 be, that they who are in heaven may receive a continual 
 increase of bliss, then I presume the blessed virgin Mary 
 is principally remembered in your good protestant prayers. 
 For no saint in heaven deserves a continual increase of 
 bliss more than she. And I hope the apostles and martyrs 
 will not be forgot; though St Austin was of opinion 
 that to pray for a martyr was to put an affront upon him. 
 And indeed I cannot but thiidv that recommending our- 
 selves to the prayers of the saints is far more congruous 
 to good sense than jiraying for them. 
 
 However you have my free consent to order your own 
 prayers as incongruously as you please. But 1 canuot 
 brook your drawing the ancient fathers into the same 
 absurdity by asserting that their prayers for the souls 
 departed were only offered up for peace a7id 7'esi to those, 
 who were supposed to be in peace. This is a bold contra-
 
 Of Purgatory. 543 
 
 diction to plain fact, and obliges me to prove you guilty 
 either of ignorance or i7isincerity in advancing so notorious 
 a falsehood. A iew chosen passages of the fathers will 
 fully make good this charge against you. 
 
 Tertullian says of a faithful widow : she both prays for 
 the soul of her husband, and begs a refreshment for 
 
 him in the mean time and keeps his anniversaries. For 
 
 unless she does these things, she has repudiated her Imsband 
 as far as in her lies. L. de Monogam. C. 10. 
 
 One of ylrius's heresies in the fourth century, according 
 to St Epiphanius, was, that the prayers and alms of the 
 living did the dead no good. User. 75. Sect. 3. T. 1 . p. 
 908. Against whom he writes, that the church has this 
 tradition from Christ, that prayers are profitable, though 
 they do not extinguish all sins. Sect. 8, p. 912, and that 
 we mention the saints and others in a quite dift'erent 
 manner. The saijits, that ice may give Christ a singidar 
 honour ; and others, tliat ice may obtain mercy ^or thejn. 
 
 St Chrysosiom writes thus : The apostle (says he) did 
 not in vain command these things, that in the venerable 
 and dreadful mysteries (that is, the holy sacrifice of the 
 mass) the dead should be remembered. Tor they knew they 
 would derive a considerable advantage from it. Horn. 3. 
 in Epist. ad Phil. 
 
 And again : Horn. 41. in Epist. 1. ad Cor. he writes 
 thus : The dead may be helped by prayers, and alms, and 
 offerings ; because they icere not instittited in vain. And 
 concludes, let us therefore help them. Tor ive have before 
 
 lis the expiatory sacrifice of the ivorld it may happen 
 
 that we may obtain a total pardon ybr^/^em by prayer s, 
 hy oblations, by the saints, icho are named ivith them. 
 
 St Cyril of Jerusalem writes thus: Lastly, tve pray for 
 all that die amongst us : thinking it to be the greatest help 
 that can be to their souls to have the holy and dreadful 
 sacrifice (f the altar offered in supplication for them. Cat. 
 ^lystag. 5, p. 241. 
 
 Wc also find St Austin writing in the same manner: 
 By the prayers of the holy church (says lie), and the tchole- 
 some sacrifice aiid alms, it is not to be doubted but the dead 
 are assisted ; so that God deals moke mercifully ivilh
 
 544 0/ Purgatory. 
 
 them than their sins have deserved. AVhicli he proves thus: 
 Jiccmise it is the praetice of the whole ehureh to offer 
 ."idcrijice for them. \mt ho luhls, these are not beneficial 
 to all the deeid, but oidy to those, that lived so before their 
 death, that they might be a help to them after it. And 
 therefore %ce do not say the dead have any new merits, but 
 that they reap this fruit from their good actions before. 
 Serm. 172, {olini 3*2. de verbis Apost.) Sect. 2. 
 
 Here, Sir, we have fathers of the third, fourtli, and 
 fifth century positively maintaiiiinij^ a state of souls in 
 the other worhl, wherein they are refreshed, helped^ 
 favoured icith the pardon of some sins, receiving consider- 
 able advantage, and more mercifully dealt with than their 
 sitis deserved in consideration of the prayers, alms, and 
 holy sacrifice of the altar amoved up for them by the faith- 
 ful upon earth : and this is represented by them as a 
 practice commanded by the apostles themselves. So that 
 1 leave any one to judj^e, whether any credit is to be 
 <;iven to what you say, even when you assert things with 
 the most positive assurance ; as that there are some few 
 instances among the fathers of prayers for the dead ; and 
 that they we7'e only offered up for peace and rest to those, 
 who were supposed to be in peace. Unhappy ignorant 
 people, who are imposed upon and misled by such faith- 
 less and deceitful guides ! 
 
 " G. — My lord, some of the ancients liad an imagination 
 " Q^ purging fire, through whicli shiners were to pass. But 
 " they jueant tlie general conflagralion at the last day, whicli 
 " conies not at all to yom-notiori o\' purgatory." — pp. 189, 190. 
 
 L. — Nor is it any thing to the j)urpose. But did the 
 fathers I have quoted, when they exhorted the people 
 to offer up prayers, alms, and the lioly sacrifice of the 
 altar for the relief of their friends alreaily deceased, did 
 they, I say, speak of the general conflagrcdion ? Nay, 
 does it not demonstrate, that they believed there was 
 then ei state, in which the souls departed were capable of 
 receiving help, refreshment, the pardon ef some sins, and 
 (as St Chrysostom expresses it) a considerable advantage 
 from tliem ?
 
 Sotne Bemarks vpon (he &;c. 545 
 
 SECTION LI. SOME REMARKS UPON THE GENTLEMAN'S 
 
 PERFORMANCE. 
 
 " G. — My lord, I will not trouble you with many ex- 
 " cursions, or debating every branch of these disputes. 1 have 
 '• only given you a sianinurij view of the heart of the cause to 
 " let you see where the matter pinches. And indeed my 
 " endeavour with your lordship is rather to state the case, 
 " than to argue vpon it. For truth needs no more than to 
 " be fairly shewed, it convinces of itself, and best when It is 
 " naked, without thefucus oi philosophi/ and distinctions, which 
 " are endless. These will put a colour upon ir/iplicit fiith 
 " itself, and make you believe you understand what you know 
 " nothing of. My lord, give me leave to say, your wholo 
 " religion is implicit, not only as to the particular points wo 
 " liave discoursed ; but your whole public worship is such, 
 " while your prayers are in a language not understood by 
 •' the people. How then can they pray with the tcnderstandinff, 
 " as the apostle requires? 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 10. And how 
 " can they say Amen ? Seeing they understood not what is 
 " said."— jj. 190. 
 
 L. — I perceive, Sir, we are at length got out oi' purga- 
 iori/i and this fine speech is only meant as a prologue to 
 sometliini": else. Ilowever I shall beu: leave to make a 
 i'ew remarks upon it, because it contains some sly in- 
 sinuations, which may easily be misunderstood. You tell 
 me, you have onhj given me a sununary of the heart of the 
 cause to let me see ichere the matter pinches : and you have 
 rather stated the case than argued vpon it. Very true 
 JSir. For though you have said much, you have argued 
 but little, and proved much less. Which is perhaps the 
 reason, why 1 do not see ichere the matter innclies. How- 
 ever, I presume tliis is to let me understand how favoura- 
 bly 1 have been used, and what a world of line tilings 
 more you could have said upon the several subjects we 
 have handled, I assure you Sir, I will not be ungrateful, 
 but freely own the favour you have done me. For I 
 (jucstion not, but you might have said a thousand things 
 more, full as p( rti/icnl and true as those you have haid. 
 
 As, for instJince, instead of half a dozen texts of scrips 
 ture at a time, you might as easily have produced a dozen
 
 o-kij Some Remarks upon the 
 
 more, full as much to the jnirposo : and instead of playing 
 tricks of Icg-ordemaiii M'ith noma falhers only, you might 
 have cut out for nie much more work by <]uotinir all the 
 rest with the same sincerity. And your not iiavinjr jcrivcu 
 me this trouble is doubtless a favour I am bound to ac- 
 knowledge. 
 
 You say, truth needs no more than to he fairly shcion ; 
 it convinces of itself and best when it is naked. This 
 maxim is very good if meant of natural truths or the 
 first principles of reason, which convince of themselves, 
 and are best seen by their own light. But I do not see 
 how revccded truths can come within the application of 
 this rule. For I never heard of a man convinced of the 
 mysteries of the trinity and incarnation by the evidence 
 of these truths ; or by any reasons that could serve as a 
 light to see them by. These therefore, and indeed all 
 other mysteries, that are above the reach of our under- 
 standing, can be believed no otherwise than by captivating 
 ourselves unto the obedience of faith. 
 
 But waiving this argument, if truth needs but to be fairly 
 shewed to convince, and convinces best when it is naked, I 
 must conclude that naked truth is either no protestant 
 ware, or you take no delight to deal in it. For I assure 
 you faithfully, there is but one thing you have convinced 
 me of since we conversed together, to wit, that you are 
 no papist : for you have not established the positive 
 principles of any one particular religion in the world; 
 nor have you offered an argument of any note but what 
 would have the same force in the mouth of an Anabaptist ov 
 Qjtaker as it has in yours. So that supposing I were now 
 disposed to -dh^m-e pojiery, you have not furnished me with 
 one single motive to become a member of the Church of 
 JLncjland rather than any other protestant communion. 
 And is it not then pleasant to hear you talk of nothing 
 but naked truths, of the heart of the cause, of shelving 
 where the matter pinches, and such other gasconading 
 stuff ! As if every thing you have said carried conviction, 
 evidence, and demonstration with it. Whereas I have 
 scarce had any other business upon my hands than to 
 rectify mistakes or wilful misrepresentations of our
 
 Gentleman's Performance. 547 
 
 doctrine : to be upon my guard against the most studied 
 and imposing sophistry, to confute bold calumnies and 
 falsehoods, and deliver both fathers and scriptures from 
 the torture. This, Sir, is a faithful summary of the naked 
 truths I have had to deal with : this is your method of 
 shewing the heart of the cause, and where tlie mutter 
 pi7iches. 
 
 I need not say any thing to the passing flirt, you had 
 just now at implicit faith ; of which I have said enough 
 in our dispute concerning transubstantiation [Part 11. 
 ISect. 3 1 .], where I shewed our faith to be no more implicit 
 than St Peter's was, when he said to Christ, thou hast the 
 words of eternal life, and ice believe, ^t., John vi. 68; or 
 than your faith is when you believe the xchole Bible, a con- 
 siderable part whereof you neither know nor understand. 
 
 SECTION LII. — OF THE LITURGY IN LATIN. 
 
 Let us therefore now come to the trivial question about 
 our liturgy, the mention whereof has made you just now 
 say, that our ichole religion is implicit. But I see no 
 great occasion for implicit faith to approve of tiie church's 
 discipline in saying mass in Latin. 
 
 \st. There is no need of implicit faith to believe, that 
 the common people {^oi England, for example) understand 
 English, into which the muss is translated, as it is into 
 other languages. 
 
 2d, There is no need of implicit faith to believe the 
 common people have eyes and can see. Now the mass 
 being a sacrifice is more an action than prayer: and 
 actions are known by seeing as words are by hearing. In 
 elTect, the peoi)lL' know that our Saviour's sacred bodij 
 and blood are olfered up in the mass; and if they can but 
 bring their hearts filled with faith, hope, love, repentance, 
 thanksgiving, and other such acts of devotion, they cannot 
 fail of receiving the benefit of this holy sacrifice. 
 
 It was Ciod's command. Lev. xvi. 17, that the people 
 shouUI not be in the tabernacle, when the priest went in 
 to make ati atonement for cdl the congregation of Israel,
 
 548 Of the Liturgy 
 
 And ill the gospel wc find the whole multitude of the peo- 
 ple pro i/intj without in the time of the i/iccnse, Luke i. 10. 
 Yet this was a jiublic prayer and litur/jij of Go<rs own 
 appointment. Whence 1 conchide, that there is no need 
 of implicit taith to believe, that tiie people muy Join in. 
 prayer with the priest, though their prayer be not tlie 
 same as liis. 
 
 3(1, There is no need of iinpAicit faith to believe, that 
 the Catholic Church professed in the creed was, by God's 
 lielp and the experience of about 900 years, wise enough 
 to know wluit language mass was to be said in. 
 
 Ath^ There is no need of implicit faith to believe, that 
 Jiothing could be more absurd in thc^r.s^ reformers^ than 
 to make that a pretence of breaking communion with 
 their mother church. And, 
 
 5th, TJierc is no need of implicit faith to believe, that 
 the desire of the iieart is the principal prayer: whence it 
 follows that he, who in his heart begs of God whatever 
 is contained in the prayer he recites, tliough he does not 
 understand it, prays as truly as another that understands it. 
 
 These, Sir, are the preliminaries I insist upon in this 
 weighty dispute, and of which I will not bate you an ace: 
 because they are naked truths without the fucus of phi- 
 losophy or distinctions, and convince of themselves. Now 
 then you may put what objections you please. 
 
 " G. — JMy lord, tlie people's saying their own private 
 " prayers is noX, joining with the priest." — p. 190. 
 
 L. — ;No, Sir ? Then the people's praying witlioid in 
 the time of the i?icc?ise, Luke i. 10, was much less joining 
 M-ith the priest. For they could not even see him in the 
 tabernacle : whereas ours see him at the altar offering the 
 sacrifice. What then should hinder them from offering it 
 up jointly with him ? 
 
 " G. — Tlicy cannot say A)ne?i to his prayers. What then 
 " have they to do in the church ? For this is not commmdon." 
 _p. 191. 
 
 L. — Is it not so? I think joining prayers together is 
 communion : and that is precisely the business they have 
 to do in tiie church. But I cannot forbear smiling at 
 your excessive scrupulosity. You say the people cannot
 
 in Latin. 549 
 
 sai/ amen to the prayers of the priest. Pray, wliat should 
 hinder them? Do they fear he is cursing them, or con- 
 juring up some evil spirit ? Do they not know he is 
 praying for them ? And why then should they scruple 
 to say ameyi to his prayers ? 
 
 " G. — All he does is purely implicit, and nothing else but 
 " opus operatum." — p. 191. 
 
 L. — Really, Sir, this implicit, and opus operatum ruit 
 away so entirely with your reason and judgment, that 
 they make you forget to speak common sense. 
 
 '• G. — My lord, a liturgij in a tongue unknown to the 
 *' people is an invention without precedent. For it never 
 " entered into the head of man or church since the creation, 
 " except only in the Church of Rome: and of which the 
 " apostle gives this character, tvdl they not say yc are mad? 
 " 1 Cor. xiv. IG, n:'—p. 191. 
 
 L — Sir, turn the question homewards, and I will not 
 scruple to resolve it in the affirmative. For nothing but 
 one labouring under a more than ordinary delirium can 
 be capable of asserting as you do, that a liturgy in a 
 tongue not hnoicn to the people is an invention xcithout pre- 
 cedent, and never entered into the head of man or church 
 since the creation, except only the Church of Rome. This 
 I presume Sir, is one of your nahcd tndhs^ ichich convince 
 of themselves. 
 
 But the learned Dr Walton in the Prologomena upon 
 his Polyglot will inform you better, and let you know, 
 first, tliat wliole churches in the east have this custom. 
 So that (sajs he) the conwion people do not understand the 
 liturgies of Basil a7id Chrysosfom, ichich are read publicly 
 in the churches, C. 5, Sect. 1, IG ; and Idly, tliat not only 
 Christians, but Jeics and Mahouictans have the same cus- 
 tom in the cast. Officia divina Unguis von vulgarihus 
 hodie ceh'hranlur ajnid Judicos, Christiattos, ct Mahu- 
 inedanos, C. 5, Sect. 3; see also Cap. 13, Sect. 18. 
 
 Mr Jhrrffrood, another protestant author, in Ids Fn- 
 quiries, Chap. ii. j). 12, agrees exactly with Dr Jl'alfo/i. 
 For speaking of the Grech church, the dijj'crence (says he) 
 is become so great hctween the present and the ancient 
 Grcch, that their liturgy, yet read in the ancient Greek
 
 550 Ojthe Liturgy. 
 
 tongue, 7iamchjf that of Basil on the Sabbaths and solemn 
 days^ and that u/Chrysostom on common days, is not wider- 
 stood, or but little of it by the vulgar people. 
 
 Mons. Tavernier tolls us of the Nestorians, p. 69, that 
 they jierform the divine office in the Chaldaic: to whieli 
 the learned author of the Guide in Controversies adds, p. 
 *J89, that divine service is celebrated in the corrupt Chal- 
 daic or Syriac amongst the Maronites, Cophtes, Nes- 
 torians, Assyrians or Jacobites : and in the Greek amongst 
 the Melchites and Geo7'gians: the vulgar to all these being 
 tlie Arabic; or, to some more easterly, the Persian tongue. 
 
 But to come nearer home, Dr Heylin tells us in his 
 liistory of the Jlefor7nalion, p. 128 : That in queen 
 ElizaheUCs time the Irish parliament passed an act fur 
 uniformity in common prayer with permission of say ing the 
 same in Ijatin, icherc the minister had not the knoioledge 
 of the English tongue. But for translating it into Irish 
 there was 7io care taken. The people were required by 
 that statute under several penalties to frequent their churches, 
 and to be present at the reading of the English liturgy, which 
 they understood no more than they do the mass. 
 
 Now, Sir, if you bad lived in queen Elizabetlis days, 
 I doubt whether your zeal would have carried you so far, 
 as to have addressed her thus in St Paul's words : will 
 they not say you are mad for passing such an act, and fur- 
 nishing the papists with stojies to throw back at us? 
 
 But since you assert, it never entered into the head of 
 man, S^'c. Martin LiUher, Sir, as great a man as he was 
 (for he was certainly a ma))) did not tliink it absurd to 
 liave the liturgy in Latin. For in the first part of his 
 l>ook writ against Carlostadius and the fanatics, Ann. 
 1525. {apud Hospin.) he grants ^/'s^, that the name of 
 mass may still be kept: and '2dly, that it is an indifferent 
 thing, whether it be said in [x foreign or the vulgar tongue. 
 And pray Sir, what will all men of knowledge and sin- 
 cerity now think of your uoble assertion, that a liturgy 
 in a tongue unknown to the people is an invention without 
 precedent ! and that it never entered into the head of man 
 or church since the creation, except only in the Church of 
 Home! Sir, to return your own compliment in Si Pauls 
 words, will they not say you are mad ?
 
 iVj Latin. 551 
 
 I add, that in tlie primitive ages tlie I'durgrj was per- 
 formed in the same language it is now both in the East- 
 ern and Western churches; and if our liturgy be not as 
 commonly understood now as it was formerly, it is not 
 because the church has made any alteration in its former 
 language, or desires that her piihlic service should not be 
 understood by the common people ; but because all vul- 
 gar tongues are subject to perpetual changes; as is mani- 
 fest from the difference there is between our modern 
 English, and what Mas spoken in the daj's of Chaucer. 
 So that if every nation had laid aside the Latin, and per- 
 formed the liturgy in its own language, the public service 
 of every national church must have undergone as many- 
 changes as there have been in those laniiuajres. Besides 
 that such priests and bishops, as are obliged to travel 
 abroad, would have been rendered utterly incapable by 
 it of performing their functions in foreign countries ; 
 which is a very considerable inconvenience, and was 
 doubtless a consideration of weight to induce the JVes- 
 tern church to adhere to the ancient Latin, and the Greek 
 church to their ancient Greek in their public service, 
 rather than suffer any innovation to be made in it. 
 
 But I cannot imagine, what reason you should have 
 to quote the 14th chapter of tit Paul to the Corinthians 
 uidess it be because it is nothing to the purpose. For 
 our dispute is about the liturgy, that is, the public ojjice 
 established by the church : and tSt Paul speaks not a word 
 in the whole chapter of any thing like a liturgy, ov public 
 office, or sctfurvi of prayers, but only of sudden extem- 
 porary exhortations and prayers, which even lay-persons 
 bya miraculous gift of unknown tongues uttered to the j)eo- 
 ple in public assemblies, but many times without any inter- 
 pretation of what they said. And this St 7-'aw/disa])j)roves 
 of, and censures in that chapter particularly vcr. 11, Ki, 17. 
 
 G. — But, my lord, his arguments are of ecpial force 
 against your j)iactice. For his reasons against it nmjirst, 
 because the unk'urned cannot say r/wc// to prayers they do 
 imt understand, ver. IG; and 2dlg, l)ccause they cannot be 
 edijicd l)y cxiiortations and prayers in a foreign tongue, 
 ver. 17. 
 
 L. — Very right, Sir, if there be not an interpreter to
 
 552 
 
 Of the Litiirgy 
 
 explain tlicm : which is the very supposition, upon which 
 the apostle's urg-uments are grounded. But is that our 
 case ? You must shut both your eyes to see no differ- 
 ence. For Jhst, the connnon people can sec as well as 
 sciiohirs ; anti wlicn they arc once taught what cverv 
 part of the mass means, they can never want interpreters 
 as long as they can see. But 2c^///, the transLation of the 
 mass, as likewise of vespers, litanies, Itymns and prayers 
 into the vulgar languages of every country is 1 think a 
 very good interpretation of them, and takes away all the 
 Aveighty scruples of saying amen. I add, that in relation 
 to the public office, or any set form of prayers ordained 
 by the church, no man surely in his right senses can 
 hesitate to say amen to it, though he understands not a 
 word of it, for the reasons already given. 
 
 Now since St Paid speaks not of any piihlic office, or 
 set form of prayers ordaijied by the church, but only of 
 extemporary prayers or exhortations pronounced by pri- 
 vate persons in a tongue unlmoivn, and without any inter- 
 preter to explain them nothing can be wider from the 
 purpose, than to object his words against our liturgy in 
 Latin. But a weak cause can have nothing but weak 
 arguments to support it. 
 
 " G. — I must own, my lord, your doctrine suits well with 
 " what Suai-ez says, (de Orat. L. 3. C. 11.) that it is 
 " 7iot 7iece.ssari/ to prayer, that the person praying should think 
 *' of what he speahs. This is opus operatum with a witness ; 
 ** and a parrot may be taught thus to pray. And how do 
 " tliey pray witli tlic priest, who are talking of business, or 
 " chatting of news, whilst lie is offering up their prayers to 
 *' God in a langnage, of wliich they do not iniderstand one 
 *' word, and therefore cannot give attention to it? And 
 *•' these arc the greatest jumiher, viz., of tlie connnon people, 
 *' w)io cannot read, and so cannot carry private books of 
 ■" devotion with them. Though if they did, it would not be 
 *' joining with the priest, nor could these be called commmt 
 " prayer, which are offered up with one accord, pursuant to 
 *' saint Chrysostonis prayer, with Avhicli our daily public 
 ■*' prayers do conclude." — j^- ^'^^^ 
 
 L. — Sir, though a man were both (/t'fi[/'and blind, and 
 could say nothing but the Lord's prayer, yet the constant 
 repeating of that prayer in union with the prayers of the
 
 in Latin. 553 
 
 conoregation Is truly praying' tcilh one accord in the 
 judi^meiit of any man, that has not abjured common sense; 
 for it is the prayer of the heart, that God regards, and 
 the heart of such a one is as much united in devotion 
 with the whole assembly, as if he repeated the same 
 prayers literally with them. This, Sir, answers your 
 curious observation concerning those in our communion 
 who cannot read : whom by an Inipcrhole of a more than 
 ordinary size you have rendered at least fifty to one more 
 numerous than they really are. 
 
 As to what yon have quoted from Suarrz, I may rea- 
 sonably presume his meaning is either ; that involuntartj 
 dissipations of the mind (during which no man thinks of 
 what he speaks) do not hinder the effect or fruit of prayer; 
 and this is the doctrine of all spiritual writers; or that 
 the mind may he raised to God, and by consequence per- 
 form the essential duty of prayer, without an actual 
 attention to the words that are pronounced. And does 
 this deserve to be ridiculed with your senseless common 
 topic of opus opcratum ? Is this praying like a ])arrof, 
 or like those, who arc talking of business, or chatting of 
 neics, who only deserve to be driven out of the church ? 
 However I suppose you intended this for a charitable 
 insinuation to all good protrstants, tiiat this is the com- 
 mon way of praying amongst papists: for which I return 
 you my most hearty thanks ; and so take my leave of 
 you, since we have now gone through all the points dis- 
 puted between the two cliurches. 
 
 G. — I hope, my lord, we shall one day meet together 
 in the iinitij of faith. 
 
 L. — I heartily wish the same. But then it must be in 
 the faith of that 07ie, holy, catholic, and apostolic church; 
 which St Paul calls the pillar fmd ground of truth, 1 Tim. 
 iii. 15; to wliich Christ has promised \\\% pcrpetxud assis- 
 tance ; Matt, xxviii. 20, and against which the gates of hell 
 will never prevail, Matt. xvi. 10. For this is the church 
 established by Chri>«t to be our guide to heaven; and he, 
 wiio will not follow this guide, runs into everlasting j>er- 
 (lition, and will have his portion with heathens i\ud pub- 
 licansy Matt. .wiii. 17. 
 
 2 li
 
 THE POSTSCllirT, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 SOME REMARKS UPON THE GENTLEMAN'S CONCLUSION 
 IN THE FORMER CONVERSATION. 
 
 Having followed the gentleman step by step for a hun- 
 dred and ninety one pages, I did not thiidc myself bound 
 to continue the conversation any longer. For the dispute 
 in the Genlleman's Case Stated ends p. 191, and the twenty 
 last pages contain little more than a recapitulation of 
 •what he has said against the pope's supremacy, the churcJis 
 lenity, and in defence of private judgmeni against the 
 authority of the church. To speak properly, the main 
 subject of those twenty pages is a triumphant recital of 
 the great feats the gentleman has done, lie appears big 
 with the success of his performance, and gives himself 
 the airs of a conqueror returning loaden with the spoils 
 of a vanquished foe : whilst his lordship is remarkable for 
 nothing but his stupid silence, and might, for ought I 
 know, have been condemned to be pressed to death for a 
 mute, were it not for about half a dozen lines of nonsense 
 uttered by him in the whole twenty pages. 1 may indeed 
 justly compare him to a criminal conscious of his guilt, 
 standing at the bar with eyes cast down to the ground, 
 whilst the judge is summing up the evidence against him, 
 and giving directions to the jury to bring in their verdict. 
 Nay ^\'e have nothing less than ti»e gentleman' s own word 
 to assure us (and the word of a gentleman will surely not 
 be questioned) that he has all the fathers o\\ his side 
 against the pope's supremacy, and all the reason in the 
 world on his side against submitting to the authority of 
 the church. He reminds his hrdsliip of his having proved 
 this and that, and the Lord knows what. He has ptd such 
 a thing out of all dispute ; and made other things plain to 
 a demonstration. And what then had his lordship else to
 
 The Postscript. 555 
 
 do but to submit to his hard fate with a respectful silence! 
 I shall however venture to make some remarks upon this 
 piece, which the gentleman introduces in the following 
 manner : And now, my lord, vpon the ichole, if the adirin- 
 taf/e does Jiot seem to your lordship to lie on our side in all 
 the particulars before mentioned, yet can you have any doubt 
 of the safety of your soul in our icay ? Since all our dan- 
 ger is in omitting some things that might he profitable, but 
 cannot be called necessary. JVhereas if the error lies oj 
 your side, you are involved in manifold superstitions, and 
 of adding to, and substracting from the word of God, pp. 
 191, 192. 
 
 Here the gentleman cither speaks oi particulars relating- 
 to faith, or discipline only (for he is a great dealer in 
 double meanings) ; if he speaks of the former, his question 
 how his lordship can have any doubt of the safely of his 
 soul in the protestant way, answers itself. Because his 
 lordship has already informed him, that the belief of all 
 articles of faith is necessary to salvation, when they are 
 duly proposed by the church. And he is sure that many 
 of the articles denied by the gentleman are of this nature. 
 
 But it' he speaks of matters of discipline only, though 
 they be not in themselves necessary to salvation, yet 
 obedience to the commands of the church even in thinirs 
 that are of themselves indifl'erent is necessary to salvation, 
 as Ids lordship has fully shewed in his answer to the gen- 
 tleman s preliminary questions in the introduction. 
 
 Let ns suppose n puritari shoidd argue thus against tlie 
 gentleman in his own language : Baptizing tcith the sign 
 of the cross, using the cununon prayer book, and hceping 
 holy days for saints and angels, ^-c, may be profitable, but 
 cannot be called necessary ; whereas if the error lies on 
 your side, you are involved in manifold superstitions, by 
 adding to the tcord (f God. Siij»pose, I say, a puritan 
 should argui? tlius iigainst the gentleman, he would cither 
 he put to a non-plus, or forced to give him this popish 
 answer; that the church is wise enough to regulate her own 
 discipline. 'J hat her children are bound in conscience to 
 conform to if. That schism is a most grievous sin, and to 
 break communion under pretence of understanding scriptures
 
 555 Tlic Pustscript. 
 
 hetUr than the church is but adding presumption to disohe- 
 diencc. Tliis I think would be a solid ans\ver to the 
 puritan, and the fjcnflnnan is desired to accept of this 
 answer as abundantly sulfieient for all objections he can 
 make atj^ainst communion in one hind, the liturgy in Latin, 
 the single life of the clergy, the use of images in our 
 cliurches, of the sign of the cross, of holy water, benedic- 
 tions, S^-c. All these bein<r purely matters of discipline. 
 
 But suppose an Jrian should take the advantage of the 
 gentleman's argument, and retort it thus upon him. All our 
 danger is in omittirig consubstantiality, the belief whereof is 
 not necessary. Whereas if the error lies on your side, you are 
 involved in manifest blasphemy and idolatry. I leave the 
 gentleman to consider, what answer he would give ; and 
 whether his answer would not be a cap to fit his own block. 
 
 OF SUPREMACV. 
 
 The two next pages after the gentleman's last words 
 quoted by me contain nothing but a repetition of objec- 
 tions against the pope's supremacy already answered ia 
 our dispute upon that subject : after which he continues 
 thus : No kingdom of the earth will content him. He will be 
 universal monarch of the whole icorld. And why so ? p. 1 94. 
 
 In good truth I cannot tell. For I cannot give a good 
 reason for a chimera. And I dare swear the pope him- 
 self knows nothing of the matter. But the gentleman 
 knows better things, and answers the question thus for 
 the pope. Because Christ is the head of all chuixhes, and 
 therefore must have an universal vicar. This the gentle- 
 man will needs have to be the reason, why the pope, as 
 he tells us, pretends to be universal monarch of the whole 
 world. And I cannot but say, the reason is as nonsensical 
 as the chimera, that is built upon it. But as the same 
 art magic, which conjures up spirits, can conjure them 
 down again; so the gentleman shews he can as easily con- 
 fute chimeras, as invent them : which he has done with 
 great skill by saying, that from the same parity of reason 
 it tcould follow, that because God is the king of all the earthy
 
 The Postscript, o57 
 
 therefore he.tuust have an universal vicar in temporals. I 
 allow the parity to be good, and the aforesaid wise reason 
 fully confuted by it. 
 
 But I shall give him another reason for the pope's 
 supremacy (by whatever ridiculous name he is pleased to 
 call it) which I hope will not be so easily confuted. It 
 is grounded upon three plain facts: Is^, That Christ gave 
 to St Fcter by a special commission the government of 
 liis whole flock, ^d, That this power of governing his 
 whole flock was not to die with St Peter, but like epis- 
 copacij and priesthood continue in his church for ever by 
 passing to his successors. And i^d, That the successors 
 of St Peter have always been bishops of Rome, whom we 
 call popes in our language. The two first are of divine 
 institution, and all three are as incontestable, as that the 
 see of Canterbury is the ecclesiastical metropolis of Eng- 
 hmd. At least 1 flatter myself they will ajijiear so to any 
 unbiassed reader, who will but give himself the trouble 
 to peruse, what his lordship) has said in defence of the 
 snpjremacy. Part I. Sect. 2 — 10, and 55, of the same part. 
 
 Nor can 1 see how the gentleman and his })rotcstant 
 brethren will escape being convicted of heresy and schism 
 l>y his own confession, since he tells us pp. 194, 195. 
 That they trill own themselves heretics and schismatics, and 
 pay their obedience to the pope, if it can be shelved that 
 Christ has appointed an universal vicar in his church; 
 unless by universal vicar ho means a great deal more 
 ihan we do, and then he fights against his own shadow. 
 J'^or we mean no more than that St Peter was, and his 
 successor is next under Christ the supreme head or governor 
 of his church in spirituals. And he who cannot find this 
 in the text of St Mattheta xvi. 18, and St .John xxi. 15, 
 where all anti(pjity clearly found it, is wilfully blind. 
 
 I therefore caniu^t doubt but the reader will be ex- 
 tremely sur[>riscd lit the gentlcmaus exorbitant rhodomon- 
 tado, ]). 195, where he sjicaks thus: We are verily per- 
 suaded, that there is not the least ground for this universal 
 .<!Upremacy either in holy scriptures, or in anfifjuifi', or in 
 the reason of the thing, or in fact since the first foumhUiou 
 of Christianity to this df/y, or that it ever 7vas achnoW'
 
 55S The Postscript. 
 
 lahjed, or is iwir hij the majorifji of christian churches. 
 Was there ever such ji complication of falsehoods uttered 
 Avith such a confichMit air ! \Vhat ! Not the least ground 
 for the suprciuaey cither in scriptures, or autiqnilit, or 
 reason, ov fact, from the first foundation of cln-istianity to 
 this day ! And is the genltcman verily persuaded of this ! 
 Then he nujst be vorily persuaded, that tiic whole island 
 of Great Britain (for its share alone) was mad for nine 
 hundred years together : since it acknowledged (as he 
 owns himself, Case Slated, p. 108) the pope's spiritual 
 supremacy for so many ages : which none but a people 
 void of sense would have done u]ion a principle of con- 
 science, if there were not the least ground Jor it either in 
 scriptures, or antiquity, or reason, or fact from the first 
 foundation of Christianity, as the gentleman has the assur- 
 ance to tell us. But when he wrote this he was sole 
 master of the field. His lordship was under tutelage, and 
 could not contradict his tutor without his allowance, who 
 took effectual care to tie up his tongue, and doubted not 
 but any Tale of a. Tub would pass for current tr»ith witii 
 the bubbles he chiefly wrote for. And this he calls stating 
 the case. But I hope the case of supremacy is somewhat 
 more fairly stated by his lordship in the several sections, 
 to which 1 have just now referred the reader. And as to 
 what the gentleman says, that the supremacy never was 
 acknowledged by the majority of christian churches, the 
 reader is desired to turn back to Sect. 16, 17, of the First 
 Part, where he will be fully convinced of the notorious 
 falsehood of this assertion. 
 
 Pp. 195, 196, the gentleman entertains us with a fine 
 flourish upon the inconvenience oi appeals to Rome, where, 
 he says, causes last from age to age. This (says he) made 
 the Pefornmtion even necessary for the preservation of the 
 people as icell laity as clergy, wlio groaned under the bur~ 
 den, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. 
 However I must take the liberty to tell the gentleman, 
 that England was as flourishing a kingdom, and the peo- 
 ple, both laity and clergy, lived as comfortably under the 
 pope's spiritual supremacy, as they have done since it was 
 thrown off. But let that be as it will, are there no ways
 
 Tlie Postscript. 559 
 
 and means to put a stop to abuses without affronting-, or 
 pulling clown the authority, that commits them ? Are 
 there not lawsuits in Great Britain entailed upon families 
 from generation to generation ? And must we then con- 
 clude, that the court of Chancery and other courts o/Judi- 
 cature ought to be suppressed, because frequent abuses 
 are committed in them? Nay I fear the supreme tribmial 
 itself, which is the bulwark of the English liberties, will 
 not be secure against the destructive force of tiiis logic. 
 
 But the gentleman's argument strikes yet much deeper : 
 for the question between us is precisely, M'hether the 
 pope's supremacy be of divine institution "/ We maintain 
 it is; and it is his business to disprove it. Now I appeal 
 to any man, whether real or supposed abuses of any 
 authority be an argument of any force to prove it not to 
 be of divine institution ? If not, all arguing against it 
 from such abuses is wholly frivolous. But if it be a solid 
 argument, and if it be true that such abuses (as the gen- 
 tleman tells us) make a reformationwVxcXx annuls that in- 
 stitution 7iecessary, then the blessed sacrament which is 
 abused by thousands to their own damnation, is the first 
 thing that ought to be reformed away, and discarded as 
 well as the pope's supremacy. 
 
 But besides all this, what a frightfid list of enormous 
 abuses committed by secular magistrates and parc7its in 
 relation to their subjects and children might a man pro- 
 duce, if it were worth his pains ? And would this be a 
 good argument to prove that their power and authority 
 is not of God, or that a reformation is necessary to abo- 
 lish all power upon earth? Thus the gentleman'' s arguing 
 from real or sujiposed abuses of the pope's supremacy to 
 justify an absolute denial or abolishing of it, would make 
 one suspect him to be neither dirinr, nor n good rhristiaUy 
 nor grxjd subject. For it j)Iainly tends to subvert the 
 institutions of God, and cuts down all pou'er root aiul 
 branch : since all these are liable to be abused. 
 
 I come now to a piece of slander, which for its bold- 
 ness is hard to be matched. It is worded thus, ]tp. 197, 
 198. The jiopes su/ircmacy, (upon which the discourse 
 runs) is the oidy article in your creed (speaking to his
 
 5G0 The Po tscript. 
 
 lonhhip) to be believed explicitli/. ylsfor others, implicit 
 will do for them all. That <V, it is no matttr, tchcther you 
 htiicvc than or not : so the sovereignty of the universal 
 liishop be viaintaincd inviolably. 1 cannot imagine what 
 the gentleman j)roi)o.sccl to Jiiuisclf, when he wrote this 
 oxtraoRlinary j)icce. Was he asleej) or awake ? Or was 
 Jiis head seized with a fit of the j^out, whicii liindered 
 Jiini from thiidvinj^ ? Couhl he imajrine that any man of 
 sense in the worhl wouhl believe him ? Or did he think 
 Jiis reputation so well established, that if he should tell 
 people, that light is darkness, they would take it for a 
 truth upon his bare word ? 
 
 Surely the gentleman s overshooting- himself in so ex- 
 orbitant a manner must be attributed to some such cause. 
 He says the pope's supremacy is the only article we are 
 bound to believe explicitly ; as to others, it is no matter, 
 whether ice believe them or not. What, is it no matter with 
 us, whether we do or do not believe in God. the Father, 
 or in Jesus Christ his only Son ? Is it no matter with us 
 whether we do or do not believe the blessed trinity, or 
 the incarnation, death, and resurrection of our Saviour 
 Christ? Why then do we teach children the Apostles^ 
 creed as soon as they can speak, and tell them they must 
 believe every article of it under pain of eternal damna- 
 tion, if it be no matter whether they believe it or not? 
 But the calumny is too i^ross to deserve a serious answer. 
 
 P. 198, the gentleman tells us, there never teas a church 
 called catholic in the sense of Rome ; that is, which teas 
 owned by all other churches as their head. If lie means^ 
 ■which was owned by heretics and schismatics ; I grant 
 there never was such a (Jalholic Church. But where will 
 lie find this to be the sense of Rome? When did the 
 Church of Rome pretend to be a ridiculous compound of 
 all sects ? Or declare, either that the Catholic Church 
 was ever owned by heretical or schismatical churches, or 
 that she ever owned them as a part of her communion ? 
 The gentleman forgot here what he said before, viz., that 
 the Church ef Rome by her principles catmot communicate 
 with any, who will not own her supremacy. Which utterly 
 spoils his pretty comparison of tlie Church of Rome to the
 
 The Postscript, 561 
 
 bed oi Frocrui,tes, to wbich some were made fit by beina: 
 stretched out, and others by beings cut shorter. For I 
 do not see by what contrivance either of cutting off, or 
 stretching out he will ever make heretics, schismatics, or 
 persons reatlg ixcommiinicatcd become members of the 
 Church cf Rome : and if he does not, his comparison is 
 void of sense. 
 
 OF UNITV. 
 
 P. 199, the gentknian begins to speak of unify, and 
 accuses n^^ first of not having nnitij of faith. But how 
 does he prove it? lie tells us frst: we know not ichcre 
 to place the iifaUibililij. It is very true his lordship m 
 the former conversation knew no more than the gentlemaii 
 would let him: but he has now fully satisfied him in that 
 point, and marked out very plainly to him, where it is to 
 be placed [Part I. iSect. 51.] But '2dlij, he says, we do 
 not agree, tvhich articles of our creed ore to be believed eX" 
 plicitly. Yet he told us just now, that the pope's supremacy 
 is the only article in our creed to be believed explicitly. How 
 necessary is it for some persons to have good memories? 
 
 However to satisfy him as far as is necessary; we teach 
 unanimously, that all are bound to do what they can to 
 learn the Apostle s creed, and have it explained to tlicm ; 
 and then they are bound to believe every article explicitly. 
 Xor do 1 know any writer, that excuses any one come 
 to the use of reason from the necessity of believing ex- 
 plicitly, that there is one God in three persons : that the 
 second person became man and died for us : and that Ciod 
 is the re-tcanlcr ef virtue, and jninisher (f sin. But over 
 and above, we oblige them to believe in general all truths 
 revealed to the Catholic Church .- which I think suffices 
 to a perfect unity in faith. For olht-rwise, w liocver has 
 jiot an explicit knou ledge of all truths whatsoever con- 
 tained in the luhole Bible, cainiot be said to have an entire 
 faith, which is absurd. And the bsurdity of it shews, 
 that the (jeiilleman himself as great an enemy as he is to 
 i)elicving imjdidtly, must sit down content \\ ith an implicit 
 faith of Jiumbcriess revealed truths. 
 
 2 u 2
 
 562 The Postscript. 
 
 But 2r////, he taxes u«, p. 200, with want of wiifji iti 
 loi^c aiul ckdiity : aiul proves it l)oc'ause there are f/?,s/;M^^5 
 among religious orders^ and between national and notional 
 churches. Whence he concludes, that unit}/ in outward 
 communion trill avail us ?iotlting, nay it irill not so much 
 as denominate us christians, fur less to he the only christians 
 in the ivorld, or the Catholic Clmrch. 
 
 What a number of mistakes are here to be rectified ? 
 First, he supposes that disjMites about private opinions 
 must of necessity cause a breach of love and charity ; 
 which is a gross mistake. For the apostles themselves 
 were not free from disputes, yet I hope tiiey were in 
 charity with one another. Idly, He supposes that our 
 unity consists merely in an outward communion ; which is 
 a grosser mistake than the former. Because inward faith 
 is somewhat more than a mere outward comnumion : and 
 we admit none into the church but sucli as declare they 
 believe truly and sincerely the ivhole faith revealed by 
 God. Qdly, He supposes a church to be unchristianed 
 (if I may be allowed to speak so) by some of her members 
 being void of love and charity to one another. Which if 
 it be true, there will not be such a thing as a christian 
 church in the world. But 4thly, he supposes we think 
 ourselves the only christians in the world ; which is a 
 downright blunder. But to stave off from himself the 
 imputation of it, and be at full liberty to confute it, he 
 fathers it upon his lordship in the tivo lines of nonsense 
 attributed to him, p. 198, where the noble peer after a 
 long silence comes out with this wise saying. J^ut we 
 admit none others to he christian churches, who do not own 
 it (meaning the supremacy), which is both false and 
 absurd. For, though it be true that we esteem ourselves 
 the 07dy catholics in the world, because the Catholic 
 Church is essentially one, that is, in one communion (or the 
 Nicene Creed is false) yet we arc far from esteeming our- 
 selves to be the only christians in the world : and so we 
 own that heretics and schismatics baptized and believing 
 the Divinity of Christ are christians ; yet we deny them 
 to be catholics. As I own the gentleman to be a christian, 
 but I will never own him to be a catholic unless he 
 renounces his errors.
 
 The Postscript. 563 
 
 Here then let us see, what account the gentleman 
 gives of the church's unity. He distinguishes between 
 a perfect 7i?iitt/, and such a one as we are capable of in 
 this our imperfect state. Perfect wuty (says he, p. 199) 
 15 not only in outward communion, that is, in being ivithin 
 the same walls together, or in subscribing to a formula of 
 articles of faith, half of ichich must be believed implicitly ; 
 but an unity likewise in saving and daynning pri7icipleSy 
 and practices of love and charity, for ivhich chiefly we 
 shall be judged at the last day. Jf these be wanting the 
 unity icill be very imperfect, and stand us in little stead. 
 
 If by these last words the gentlcmaii means no more, 
 than that an outicard communion, and profession of the 
 same faith suffices not to save the members of that 
 communion, nnlcss they be likewise united in love and 
 charily, I am wholly of his mind : because ya?V/t alone or 
 being a member of the true church suffices not to salva- 
 tion without the observance of the conwiayidinents : and 
 the principal commandment is that of c/ta?-%; without 
 which we may be members of the true church, but not 
 true disciphs of Christ : that is, we may he found in faith ^ 
 but very bad christians. 
 
 But there lies a snake in the grass. For the gentleman 
 lias dressed up for us this fine system oiunity for no other 
 end, than to explode the belief of one holy Catholic 
 Church upon earth, and run down idl pretensions to it 
 amongst men. Because it is certain a church cannot be 
 one without unity : and the unity he has described is such, 
 as can only be found in licaven, where there are no 
 disputes, and where all the meml)ers of that happy society 
 are united in pcrfcctlovc and charity. Whereas there is 
 no church upon earth without disputes about particular 
 opinions; and it is morally impossible, that in so vast a 
 body as the Catholic Church is npon cartii, all her 
 members should be united in perfect love and charity. 
 Nay the contrary is manifest from daily experience. 
 
 Now that this was the gentleman's main drift in his 
 dc8cri|)ti()n of the rhurclCs unify is |)lain from his words, 
 p. 20 -J, where he tells us, l.s7, 'I'hat the article of o«rAf>/// 
 Catholic Church was put but late into the creed. Whiji
 
 •'>64 The Postscript. 
 
 he could not say for any otlicr end than to vilify and 
 discredit the authority of that article. 2ml, That the next 
 article (as he calls it, thou»rh he owns it may be called a 
 l)artof the former), viz., The Commimion of Saints, must 
 be referred to heaven, where only is the communion of 
 saints. And the reason he gives for this is, because in 
 lieaven alone there is no mixture o{ reprobates, who (as he 
 tells us) are but in appearance members of the church. 
 
 From these two principles he draws the following con- 
 clusion. Therefore the truly Catholic Church in heaven is 
 chiefly and principally meant by the holy Catholic Church, 
 and the communion of saints in the creed. TiiEni: (says 
 Jie) is the great body of the church. There are but few at 
 a time upon earth; and of them we hnoiv not, which belong 
 to that truly Catholic Church or not, p]). 202, 203. But 
 who then are i\\efew, that are allowed by him to belong 
 to the Catholic Church ? He tells us, p. 202, they are only 
 the KLECT, ivho are not visible upon earth. 
 
 This is the gentleman's explanation of that article of 
 the creed, which is concerning the Catholic Church. But 
 to detect as briefly as is possible the falsehood and venom 
 of it, I shall content myself with setting down two con- 
 sequences, which follow manifestly from it. The^V*^^ is, 
 That the true church of Christ upon earth has always been 
 invisible to us : since the elect, of whom alone he says it 
 is composed, are nut visible upon earth, according to his 
 own words. 
 
 Whence it follows, 'Idly, That it has always been im- 
 possible for any man to aj)ply himself to the true church 
 either for instruction, or ordination, or any of the sacra- 
 ments ; which evacuates all ejnscopal and pastoral 
 authority. Because no man can know, whether the 
 bishops or pastors, to whom he would apjjly himself, be 
 of the number of the elect : nor by consequence, whether 
 they be members of the true church. And is not this most 
 curious doctrine ! 
 
 But the ancient fathers never taught it. For they 
 
 always understood the parcdjle proposed by Christ of the 
 
 field, wherein the wheat and tares grew, and were to grow 
 
 together till the harvest, Matt. xiii. '30. I say they always
 
 The Postscript. 565 
 
 understood this parable as a faithful representation of the 
 present state of the church, wherein the good and the 
 wicked, saints, and sinners, elect and reprobate live mixed 
 together, and will do so till the day of judgment. And 
 therefore when the Catholic Church on earth is called the 
 communion of saints, the meaning of it is not, that all the 
 members of it are saints, but that she is the only com- 
 munion upon earth, in which liiere are saints. 
 
 But the gentleman asks, xchat unity lias that church, 
 wherein the elect and reprobate arc mixed together ? I 
 answer, she has the unity of faith, the unity of sacraments, 
 and the communion of all her members united ujider one 
 head. And this is absolutely necessary to constitute 07ie 
 church. Though this alone suffices not to salvation, but 
 the leading a good life, being united in charity, and keep- 
 ing the commandments is likewise required. 
 
 However since the gentleman has already given us a 
 description of such a perfect unity, as the church on earth 
 can never be capable of; let us now see, what sort of 
 /unity he will allow her. It is all reduced to this one 
 single point, viz. That as all the nations in the icorld, 
 though at war together, are one kingdom to God, so all 
 christian churches upon earth, though not one (f them should 
 communicate with the other, are one church to Chriaf, pp. 
 •200, '201. This is the substance of his discourse in the 
 two pages (pioted : and this is all the unity he allows as 
 essential to tiie Catholic Church in her present imperfect 
 istate. The true meaning whereof is this, viz., that as 
 ('hristians, Jews, Pagans, Mahometans, make one world, 
 so Catholics, heretics, and schismatics (provided they be 
 christians, for he makes no dilference between christians 
 and catholics) make one church. Or thus: yls all mdions 
 in the world, though at war together, arc one hingduni to 
 God ; so tdl churches in the icorld, though they he heretics 
 or schismatics, though they disagree in all things hut the 
 hclirf (if common Christianity, and crcommirniratf and bite 
 and devour one another, are that one Catholic Church upon 
 earth, uhieh we pr(ftss in the creed. If this be lutt mon- 
 strous doctrine, 1 know not what is. 
 
 Uut what was it, that made the gentleman give into
 
 566 The Postscript. 
 
 tills extravagant notion of the ttnitjf of the Catholic Church 
 upon earth ? He had two reasons for it to the best of 
 my conjecture. First, Because he couUl not sufliciently 
 tMilari;c the haumls of his own churoli, l)ut hyiiicorporatinii^ 
 itwitli the whole riftrdfi oUicrctiad chrislifOis upon earth 
 in such a manner, as to make them all appear to be but 
 one church, or mystical body of Christ. And 2r////, Be- 
 cause he could not make his own communion be a part 
 of the Catholic Church by any other strataij^em, than by 
 making the belief of common Christianity sufficient to ren- 
 der any upstart heretical or schismatical communion a 
 branch of that church. 
 
 But the gentleman objects,/?. 203, that if the aforesaid 
 article relating to the Catholic Church had been meant in 
 our sense, it must have been worded, the Roman Catholic 
 Church. And since it is only called the Catholic Church, 
 he concludes, it extends to all christian churches, ivhich 
 mahe up the Catholic Church upon earth in S7(ch an unity, 
 as our fallen state will bear. Here then all heretics and 
 schismcdics whatsoever are, by the gentleman's compre- 
 hensive charity, once more adopted members of the Ca- 
 tholic Church, as being nnitcd together as \ccll as our 
 fallen state will bear. That is to say (according to the 
 gentlemanHs true system of church iinity^ like nations that 
 are at war, and cutting one another's throats as fast as 
 they can. 
 
 But the grand difficulty is yet unanswered ; viz., why 
 the church is not called the Roman Catholic Church in 
 the creed? I hope the reader will not take it ill, if I 
 answer this frivolous objection seriously. For if I did 
 not, it might, for ought 1 know, be adopted into the num- 
 ber of protestant imansivei'ablcs ; and it deserves it as well 
 as many more that have been cried up for such. 
 
 The reason therefore why the word Roman is not in- 
 serted into the article concerning the church is, because 
 nothing but the essential attributes of the church are men- 
 tioned in the ci'eed. Now, though Catholic and Roman ^ 
 Catholic be synonymous de facto, it is not essential to the 
 Catholic Church, that her supreme head and governor 
 should have his episcopal see fixed at Rome. For, if St
 
 The Postscript. 567 
 
 Peter had fixed his episcopal see immoveably at Antioch^ 
 then instead of Roman, she might have been called the 
 Antiochean Catholic Church. JSo that the word Roman 
 expresses no essential attribute of the church : but only- 
 marks out the place, where her visible head, with whom 
 all are bound to communicate, has his episcopal seat. 
 
 OF PniVATE JUDGMENT. 
 
 Pp. 204 — 207, contain a summary of every thing the 
 gentleman has said against submitting our private reason 
 to church authoritij. -The reader will iind it fully answereil 
 [Part I. Sect, 26, 33, 37, 51.] where he will see the rea- 
 sons, why a person thoroughly convinced that he has 
 found the true church of Christ, cannot act rationally but 
 in submitting his private reason to her decisions in things, 
 which are above the reach of his understanding. This the 
 gentleman has taken a world of pains to ridicule. He calls 
 it putting out our eyes, extinguishing the lamp of reason, 
 and what not? As if a man acted contrary to reason in 
 not thinking liimself wiser than the whole Catholic Church, 
 and paying a submission when reason itself obliges him 
 to it. 
 
 'Ihus has ho set up the standard of perpetual schism. 
 and rebellion against the church of God, by authorizing 
 each man's private reason to control her decisions and 
 ordinances, wiienever he shall be vain enough to think 
 her in the wrong and himself in the right. Nay he says 
 positively, p. 205, that to do otherwise tvill condemn ns 
 at the last dag. And does not this subject the church of 
 God to the caprice of every private person? Docs it not 
 pervert tlie whole order of ecclesiastical government, and 
 render both faith and disci jdine precarious? Can such 
 iioctrine have any other tendency than to establish deism 
 'jim\ free-t /linking uj)on the ruins of all revealed religion f 
 'JVuIy \ij)i>/>rri/ci\uu(}th(i attached butwith such pernicious 
 principles as tliese, an unprejudiced reader must conclude 
 wlii'thcr he will or not, that it has truth on its side. 
 
 13ut can any doctrine have truth on its side, tiiut has
 
 SG8 The Po$tsal])t, 
 
 u 
 
 reason aguiitst U? Xo, it cannot. IJut It may liavo truth 
 on its side, tliou^Ii it. be ahove reason : and he, who sees 
 no difference hctwixt a things beint]^ atjainst and above 
 reason, is ij^^norant of the very al|)iial)et of revealed reli- 
 gion. As for exanij)le, I hojie tlie (jaitlanan will not 
 ijucstion, but that the mystery of the blessed irinUt/ lias 
 fnU/i on its side. Yet it is inhiiitely above the compre- 
 hension of all human reason. But has it then reason 
 (Kjainsl il ? No surely. For reawn can never be against 
 truth. And hence it follows, that thout^h this mystery be 
 above reason, a man must be void of sense and reason not 
 to submit his private Judgment to a firm belief of it. And 
 this alone is a full confutation of every thing the gentle- 
 man has said to lampoon and ridicule our submitting to 
 the decisions of the Catholic Church in things that arc 
 above our reason. Nay I challenge any man, that either 
 believes the blessed trinity, or the incar?ialion and death 
 (if Christ, or the propagation of original sin, or any other 
 such incomprehensible mystery, to give a solid answer to it. 
 
 What the gentleman says, p. 205, is remarkable. To 
 refuse (says he) the assistance of a church, because she is 
 not infallible, is depriving ourselves of a means, which God 
 has appointed; and is the same po'verseuess, as if we should 
 refuse to consult a lawyer or physician, because it isjjossible 
 he may err in his judgment. 
 
 How extremely tender and wary is this exj)rcssion, to 
 refuse the assistance of a church ? Surely the gentleman 
 Jiad some check of conscience npon him, when he wrote 
 this piece. For why woidd he not speak out boldly ? 
 A^'hy would he thus mince the matter instead of saying, 
 to refuse to hear thi: chuuch ? I presume the reason 
 was, because it would have put the reader in mind of our 
 Saviour's saying, If he does not hear the church, let 
 him be vnto thee as a heatheyi and a pid)Ucan, Matt, xviii. 
 17. Which imports nothing less, than that we are bound 
 under pain of eternal damnation to hearken to the voice 
 of the church, and learn the truth of her : and this would 
 have spoiled his darling maxim; ti)at we must trust to pri-' 
 vale judgment in every thing without exception. 
 
 But let that be as it will : 1 ask the geiUkman^ which
 
 The Postscript. 569 
 
 of all the fallible cJiurches it is, to whose assistance we 
 must have recourse as a means which God has appointed? 
 The reason of my question is, because his principles of 
 private J udr/ment and common Christianity make one church 
 as good as another as to the business of salvation, pro- 
 vided it be but a christian church. However since I can- 
 not question, but he gives tlie preference to the Church 
 of England, ixs being not only a member, but minister of 
 it; suppose now I should make choice of this church to 
 have recourse to for assistance, I ask how far I must 
 trust her? To be sure, if his princijjle of private Judg- 
 ment be worth a rush, I must trust her no farther than 
 my eyes can see, or my reason can understand; which is 
 but a coarse compliment to his church : for 1 will trust a 
 porter or cartman as far as that comes to. And if wo 
 trust her any farther, if we believe upon her authority 
 things, we caimot understand or comprehend (which the 
 gentleman calls implicit faith) then he tells us, p. 20a, 
 That this is abandoning both sense and reason icJiich God 
 gave us as a guide, and therefore will require it of us. 
 And this onlg is that, tchich ivill render us self-condemned^ 
 and bear witness against us at the last dag. Tlie true 
 English whereof is, that whoever does not follow his own 
 private reason preferably to the judgment of the church, 
 will be damned for it. Most excellent doctrine ! 
 
 However, to justify this dreadful sentence, having told 
 us before that to refuse the assistance of a church because 
 ihe is not infulUhlt is the same as nfusing to considt a 
 lawyer or physician because it is possible he may err, lie 
 continues thus: But though I ulloiv their skill to be better 
 than mine in their several professions, yet tee still keep to 
 ourselves so much use (four reason, that if it tcere poison 
 the physician were going to give mr, J would not take it : 
 and there are things so jdain, that no lawyer shall persuade 
 me. Much more ought we to be cartful in our eternal con- 
 cerns, and not to give ourselves up implicit/y to any ichal- 
 soever. That if tiny should direct us against the u press 
 commands in scriptures, or the dictates of reason and com- 
 man morality, or bid us deny all our senses, ice must 
 acquiesce without examining, p. 205.
 
 570 The Postscript. 
 
 It is not to be doubtetl, but this piece is to be undor- 
 stoocl with rchitioii to any church upon earth: so that the 
 true church of Christ (in whatever coininunion it be) is 
 compreheiulcd in tlie caution it contains; and we are jjcre 
 most pathetically exhorted to beware of placiiii^ too ^reat 
 a confidence in the wisdom even of that church, wliich 
 'Christ has established to be our rjuide to heaven, to which 
 he has promised his perpetual assistance, and which iSt 
 Paul calls the pillar and ground, of truth. 
 
 It is true indeed the gentleman is so modest as to sup- 
 pose her to be o. fallible church, to give some colour both 
 to the mistrust we oug'ht to have of her, and to this sly 
 insinuation, viz., that she is capable of directing us 
 against the most express commands in scriptures, of teach- 
 ing a doctrine contrary to the dictates of reason and com- 
 mon moralitg and bidding ns to deny all our senses ; by 
 ^vhich he means, obliging us not to use them according to 
 the established order of providence. And the result of all 
 is, that whensoever our pnwa^e reasofi (which to be sure 
 is more clear sighted than the church of Christ) has the 
 presumption to tell us, that she is guilty of any of these 
 impious absurdities, we are then bound under pain' of 
 eternal damnation not to give ourselves up to her, but to 
 follow our private judgment in opposition to her. 
 
 And will the gentleman after this pretend to bring 
 either a Je^v or deist over to the Catholic Church ? If he 
 does, they need but read to him his own Case Stated, 
 ■wherever he stands up in defence of private judgment 
 against church authority, and they will maintain their 
 ground in spite of him, and run liiin down w\i\\ liis own 
 princii)les. For they will both tell him, that according 
 to his own rule they cannot in conscience embrace the 
 catholic faith : because their own reason, which he says 
 they are bound to follow under pain of eternal damnation, 
 convinces them that his church and the Neiv Testament^ 
 the authority of both which they equally despise, teaches 
 a doctrine contrary to all the dictates of common sense and 
 reason ; As, that the immortal God became a mortal man, 
 and died an ignominious death: and that three are one. 
 
 Nay the Jeic will moreover tell him, that his church
 
 The Postscript. hi I 
 
 directs her children against the express commands of God 
 in holy scriptures, by obliging tlieni to keep the Sunday 
 holy instead of Saturdajj, which is the day peremptorily 
 commanded in scripture to be kept holy : and I defy the 
 gentleman to give a satisfactory answer to the Jeufs 
 objection against this point of discipline, unless he first 
 retracts all he has said to vilify the church's authority, 
 and pulls down t\ie proud idol oi private judgment, he has 
 set up against her. Whence it appears, that a member 
 of the Church of England cdux neither argue against po;;^'?-^ 
 without furnishing Jews and deists with arms ayfainst 
 Christianity, nor argue solidly for Christianity against Jexvs 
 and deists but from the very principles he ridicules, when 
 popery is the question. 
 
 I cannot quit this subject without taking notice of the 
 pretty colouring the gentleman gives to the presumption 
 of one opposing his private reason against the solemn 
 decisions of the Catholic Church. He compares it with 
 the rational conduct of a man, that refuses to take the 
 poison his physician is going to give him. Which is both 
 a charitable insinuation, that the Church of Home is this 
 unskilful or wicked ])hysician, and a general caution to 
 all men not to trust the church too far ; because she may 
 give them poison instead of ivJiolcsomefood. A most noble 
 character of the chvrcli of God ! 
 
 But, to retort his own comparison upon him, suppose 
 a patient siiould have a strong fancy, that the potion his 
 physician is going to give him in poison, and a thousand 
 iskilful experienced and conscientious physicians should 
 assure him, that it is not poison but a most excellent re- 
 medy, which will certainly cure him ; would not such an 
 obstinate and conceited coxcomb be a self-murderer, if 
 he should die for want of taking it? 
 
 Now this is a faithful representation of the case 
 between the Catholic Church, and a single person opposing 
 his private Judgment against her solemn decisions. And 
 this was the very case in the beginning of the pretended 
 reformation between the Church of Jlomr. on the one 
 liand, and the //V.s/ rrfurmrr on the other. Only with this 
 difterencc, that instead of a thousand, he had millions
 
 572 The Postscript. 
 
 ng-ainst liiin. For all the world knows, that the faith lie 
 4»p|)oso(l was thou, and had been professed by M'holc 
 Christendom for niaiiya*^cs: that it had been attested by 
 undoubted niiracles in all the converted nations under 
 the sun, and watered with the blood of innumerable mar- 
 tyrs. So that the whole question between the Church of 
 Rome ami the reformed churches may be reduced to this 
 one sinji^le point : viz., whether it be more probable, that 
 ichole Christendom had been under a continual dotage for 
 many a<>es together, or that ilic first reformer was in the 
 wrong ? 1 think the decision of this question is obvious 
 to common sense : and the consequence of it is, that the 
 reformed churches have no better security for their eternal 
 salvation, than a man has, who has ihe odds of millions 
 ?o one against him. Because their religion can be no 
 better now than it was at first: and it had millions to one 
 against it at first; as both LiUhcr and Ccdvin owned, 
 when they first set up for refor?ners. Let the gentlemait 
 judge by this how good a cause he is embarked in, and 
 how safe the bottom is, upon which he ventures his souTs 
 salvation. 
 
 He tells us, p. 207, that truth is never afraid: for the 
 more it is canvassed, the brigJUer it appears. But 1 doubt 
 whether this will hold even in all natural truths. For 1 
 think it is pretty clear, that there is such a thing as 
 motion. Yet Zeno canvassed the nature of it so long till 
 it turned his head, and he denied the very possibility of 
 it: which plainly shews the narrow compass of man's 
 understanding. 
 
 Now if this be so even in some natural truths, it is 
 impossible it should be otherwise in mysteries, Mhich are 
 most certainly above the reach of our understanding. 
 Have not Toland and Wldston canvassed the Trinity, till 
 they have canvassed themselves out of all belief of it? 
 And have not the Arians and Socinians also canvassed 
 the divinity of Christ, till they have canvassed themselves 
 into downright hlasphemy against it? Yet I presume 
 these are very certain truths : but they are truths of such 
 a nature, as are not to be attained to by the canvassing 
 of human reason, but by an humble submission.
 
 The Postscript. 573 
 
 Tlie gentleman aiUls, it is strange to see those, who pre- 
 tend to such an assuraiice as is infallihle, and yet seek to 
 avoid the light of reason, as if afraid of being detected. 
 He might as well say, it is strange that they, who have 
 a bright sunshine to see by, sliould not trust to the deceit- 
 ful light of an ignis fatuus, as if afraid of being detected : 
 which insinuation is both groundless and malicious. For 
 though the Catholic Church be iyfallible under the direc- 
 tions of the divine spirit, she knows that a man, who 
 follows his own private Judgment in matters of religion, 
 has a fool for his guide, ^^hich makes her afraid not of 
 the light, but of the iceakncss of human reason: as men 
 are afraid to look at the sun, not out of mistrust of its 
 brightness, but for fear of'hurting their own eyes by 
 gazing at it. Though, to speak properly, submitting our 
 private Judgment to an authority, which God himself has 
 appointed to be our guide, is not avoiding, but following 
 the light of reason in the manner we are directed to do. 
 And therefore ya«7/t is always rational. Because nothing 
 can be more rational, than to follow a guide of God's own 
 appointment ; and to submit our private reason, when he 
 requires it of us. [Vide Part I. Sect. 51.] 
 
 However the gentleman will needs have it, that we are 
 afraid of being detected. And why so? Because the canon 
 law forbids laics to dispute about religion. Ibid. But what 
 is it we should fear to be detected in ? ^^'hat secrets 
 would such disputes discover, which cannot be made 
 known otherwise? Has the gentleman in his Case Stated, 
 where lie was master of the held, discovered any secrets 
 we knew not before? Surely he affects to be mysterious, 
 ami drop ambiguous words in hopes the ignorant will 
 mistake them for profound sense. For who will susj)cct 
 he should not have penetration enough to see, that a just 
 diffidence of the incapacity of the hiilii to manage con- 
 troversial disputes is a much better reason for the prohi- 
 bition he speaks of, than a chimerical fear of 1 know not 
 what ; and 1 dare say lie knows not what he means him- 
 self? Unless he means that the common laity may bo 
 more easilv imposed nj)on by 7ni.srfprrs(?it(ifiij7is, J'urgrrg, 
 und slander than our learned clergy. He was certainly
 
 574 The Postscript. 
 
 at a very groat phuKjc, when lie was forced to pick up 
 such stulV as this. 
 
 But let us see, if what follows be any thing better. If 
 reason could be heard, it tvoiUd make it very obviotts to you 
 (speaking to his lordship) that in all the points before vien- 
 tioned the certainty is on our side, and the doubt at least on 
 yours, p. '207. Most stoutly said ! Just so spoke Martin 
 Luther, when he stood alone against millions. It is certain 
 (said he) / have my doctrine from heaven. Tom. 2, Fol. 
 333. And he had the same foundation to build his cer- 
 tainty upon, as the gentleman has : viz., his own private 
 reason. For all the visible authority upon earth was 
 against him. 
 
 But what is it, that makes the gentleman so very 
 uppish, as to think it obvious to any, that the certainty 
 ot salvation is on his side ? For example (says he) none 
 make a doubt, but that we may laicfally pray to God, and 
 not before an image of him, or without the tvorship or in- 
 vocation of any saint joined with him : and so of all the 
 rest. But on your part, if ichat I have said makes them 
 not appear unlawful to your lordship, yet they must remain 
 at least doubtful, till some stronger evidence be produced for 
 them, than has hitherto been given.' 
 
 This, with the gentleman^ s good leave, is begging the 
 question : for I can faithfully assure him, that all he has 
 said against any article either of o\xx faith or discipline is 
 of so little weight, that his lordship's certainty of having 
 the truth on his side is not in the least diminished by it. 
 
 But (sa)'s he) they must remain at least douhful, till 
 some stronger evidence be jjroduced for them, than has 
 hitherto been given. If he means some stronger evidence, 
 than has been given in the Case Stated of his own cook- 
 ing ; 1 grant he has all the reason in the world to com- 
 plain, that the evidence his lordship has there produced 
 for the doctrine and discipline of his church, is Jiot at all 
 satisfactory. But 1 hope he has given him some better 
 satisfaction in the present conversation. And if the gen- 
 tleman will not shut his eyes, nor despise his adversary, 
 because he had him once in leading-strings, he may now 
 find ihdiistronqer evidence, for which he seems to be in quest.
 
 The Postscript. 575 
 
 Now as to tlie example he produces to prove the cer- 
 tainty of salvation to be on liis side, viz., that none can 
 make a doubt, hid that ice may lawfully pray to God, and 
 not before an i^age of Jam, or tvitkout the worship or in- 
 vocation of any saint joined icith him, and so of the rest, — ' 
 I answer, this is the third repetition of the same argu- 
 ment. Though (as fond as the gentleman appears to be 
 of it) it serves only to cut the throat of his own church ; 
 as I have fully shewed in my former answers to it. But 
 since he is resolved to give an air of importance to it by 
 the mere dint of repetition (for who will suspect a doctor 
 in Israel should be capable of repeating insignificant 
 trifles) I must beg tiie reader's leave to trouble him also 
 with a repetition of my answer to it. 
 
 Let us then see, whether the gentleman has not by this 
 argument furnished the dissenters \vii\is,to\\Qs to throw at 
 him. For suppose vl preshyterian ov fanatic should argue 
 thus : None can make a doubt hut that we may lawfully 
 baptize tcithout the sign of the cross, or receive the com- 
 munion sitting : or that it is lawful for us neither to use the 
 common prayer book, nor surplices, nor organs, nor con- 
 secrate churches, nor keep holy days for saints and angels, 
 and so of the rest, — 6uj)pose, I say, a dissenter should 
 argue in this manner, must not the gentleman (unless he 
 will renounce his argument against us) allow him to con- 
 clude from it, t\\iit presbyterians and Jatiatics, who abhor 
 all the aforesaid popish ceremonies, and think they have 
 unanswerable reasons against them, have the certainty of 
 salvation on their side y However I appeal to his own 
 judgment, whether he would not have a very ill opinion 
 of the religion of any of his bishops or parsons, who 
 should baptize without the sign of the cross, or lay aside 
 the common prayer book, or abolish the aforesaid holy 
 days, and so of the rest? And wiiy so? Let him give a 
 reason for it if he can, that will not likewise cojuicmn 
 the first English reformers, and utterly spoil the certainty 
 lie pretends to on account, that his church neither uses 
 images, nor jtruys before them, nor invokes the saints, and 
 so of the rest. 
 
 Wherefore my direct answer to the example produced
 
 {Jf6 The Postscript. 
 
 by the gentleman is tliis, i-iz., that though it be laufiil to 
 pray to God and not before an image of him, or rcithout 
 the u'orship or invocation of any saints joined icith him, 
 yet it is always iinhiwful to set up the staudard of re- 
 bellion ati^aiiist the church. It is unlawful to disoI)ey 
 superior potvcrs, when they command nothing that is 
 contrary to the law of God, For they tvho resist poivers 
 resist God, and acquire damnation to themselves, if St 
 Paul is to be believed. Finally, it is unlawful to raise 
 schisins for things that are indifferent in themselves; anil 
 to omit any public duty in contempt of the authority that 
 commands it, is always a criminal omission. And these are 
 the crimes, with which the Jirsf reformers stand charged 
 before God : as-likewise they, wlio walk in the footsteps 
 of such rebellious forefathers, and continue the schism 
 ■which they began upon the same frivolous and unjust 
 pretexts. Yet it is upon this rotten foundation the cer- 
 tainty, the gentleman boasts of, is built. ISIuch good may 
 it do him. 
 
 I find nothing in the four last pages of his Case Stated. 
 but a repetition of re])etitions relating to the supremacy 
 and private judgjnent. It seems he had it not in his power 
 to take leave of his lordship without giving the pope a 
 parting blow, and complimenting once more his own dear 
 private reason. I hope however I have said some things, 
 that may help to cure him of his fondness of it. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Piiiitcd by U. Coyr.e, i, Capel Stri-et, Dublin.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIKRARV 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is 1)1' L on ihe last <late stamped below. 
 
 Form L9-Series 4939
 
 ■■:v'i'* 
 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Mil 
 
 A 
 
 II i 
 A 
 
 II 
 
 
 111 li 
 
 II IJII 
 53? 
 
 il 
 7 
 
 1, ' 
 
 III 
 8 
 
 i! 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 l:i 
 
 ? 
 
 li 
 
 
 \r^-m