THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 AN INTERESTING 
 
 CONTROVERSY 
 
 MR. RITSCHEL, VICAR OF HEXHAM, 
 
 THOMAS WARD, 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 
 THE CANTOS AND THE ERRATA OF THE PROTESTANT 
 
 BIBLE, 
 
 FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. 
 
 Why shall we hesitate to throw ourselves upon the authority of the catholic 
 church, which lias always maintained herself by the succession of bishops, 
 by the faith of the people, by the decision of councils, and by the authority 
 of miracles ? Not to acknowledge her doctrine, is a proof either of great 
 impiety- or extreme arrogance. St. Augustine. 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED 15V J. ROBINSON, 44, DEANSGATE, 
 
 SOLD ALSO BV 
 
 LONGMAN AND CO.; SHERWOOD AND CO. PATERNOSTER-ROW ; KEATING, BROWN 
 AND KEATING, DUKE-STREET, GROSVENOR-SQUARE ; BOOKER, NEW BOND- 
 STREET, AND ANDREWS, DRAKE-STREET, RED LION-SQUARE, LON- 
 DON : BOLLAND, YORK ; WHITTLE AND SHARROCK, PRESTON; 
 HEATON, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE; GILLOW AND LYNCH, 
 LIVERPOOL, AND ALL OTHER BOOKSEJ^ERS. 
 
 l(3l.
 
 /NAJ- 
 
 ACC 
 
 UfZK
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter 1 
 Chapter 2 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Whether the protest- 
 ant church of England is the 
 catholic church ? 
 
 11 
 
 26 
 
 30 
 
 62 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Chapter 1. Whether the protes- 
 tant church of England is a part 
 or true member of the catholic 
 church ? 
 Chapter 2. Whether the protes- 
 tants of the church of England 
 are as true catholics as ever lived 
 upon the face of the earth ? 43 
 
 Chapter 3.-jAn examination of 
 some texts of scripture alledged 
 to prove the church of God to 
 have been corrupted in faith be- 
 fore the coming of Christ. - 50 
 Chapter 4 Your ridiculous dis- 
 tinction, Mr. Ritschel, between 
 a true church and a sound church 
 considered ; as also, your.fansiliar 
 examples of an infected man 
 and drossy gold. 
 Chapter 5. Mr. Rogers' proposi- 
 tion that " the visible church 
 may and has erred in doctrine" 
 by you owned, and by you con- 
 tradicted. - _ 
 Chapter 6. That the protestants 
 have made articles of faith, 
 clearly demonstrated. 
 Chapter 7. Thcprotestant church 
 of England denounces her ana- 
 themas or excommunications 
 against all such as deny this her 
 new creed. 
 Chaptf.r8. The protestant church 
 of England holds communion 
 in faith with no other church in 
 the whole world. - - 102 
 Chapter 9. Where was the true 
 church of God, at the time when 
 you began your pretended refor- 
 mation ? and what public pro- 
 fessor- had she holding and teach- 
 ing the true faith? - . \\[) 
 Chapter 10 Evident from Mr. 
 Ritschel'swritings that the church 
 of Rome i-, the true church of 
 God the catholic church l.'M 
 HARr III. 
 Chapter 1 Some remarks upon 
 certain particular passages in 
 
 - 78 
 
 - 98 
 
 \aJ2\1jl 
 
 your letters which have little or 
 no relation to the point of your 
 being part of the catholic church. 
 And first, upon what you write 
 about the conversion of our Eng- 
 lish nation to Christianity : se- 
 condly, upon your calumnies 
 against St. Augustine ; and 
 thirdly, upon that epistle falsely 
 pretended to have been sent from 
 pope Eleutherius to king Lucius. 130 
 Crapter 2 An account of Jewel's 
 challenge, and himself detected 
 for a corruption of the primitive 
 fathers' writings. - - 161 
 
 Chapter 3 The fable of a fe- 
 male pope, or the history of pope 
 Joan detected for a ridiculous 
 fiction. - _ - 172 
 
 Chapter 4. Your examination of 
 the tree of life is an evident de- 
 monstration of Mr. Ritschel's 
 infidelity . . lgg 
 
 Chapter 5 The account you 
 give of your faith examined, to- 
 gether with your reason for re- 
 jecting pope Pius' profession of 
 faith. - . - 188 
 
 Chapter C Whether the marks 
 of God's church, by which she 
 is noted in the apostles' and Ni- 
 cene creeds, can properly be ap- 
 plied to, or agree with the pro- 
 testant church of England! - 198 
 Chapter 7. The Roman catholic 
 church is the one, holy, catholic 
 and apostolic church. - 014, 
 
 POSTCR1PT. 
 Tub pope's supremacy and spiritual 
 jurisdiction over the whole catho- 
 lic or visible church on earth 
 proved from sacred scripture and 
 the primitive fathers. - 227 
 
 The real presence of Christ's body 
 and blood in the blessed sacra- 
 ment of the eucharist, proved 
 from holy scripture, and the tes- 
 timonies of the primitive fathers. 238 
 Limbo, purgatory and prayers for 
 the dead, proved from holy scrip- 
 ture and the primitive fathers. 2">j 
 Invocation of saints and angels, 
 and that they pray to God tor us 
 proved from holy scripture and 
 the testimony of the primitive 
 fathers. - . og- 
 
 .%...* \ >'' J
 
 a
 
 fffir ?itfr 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. THOMAS WARD, 
 
 AUTHOR OF THF 
 
 Following Controversy. 
 
 T, 
 
 HOMAS WARD was the son of a respectable farmer, and was 
 born at Danby Castle, in the Moors of Yorkshire, on the 13th of 
 April, 1652. The early part of his life passed away undistinguished 
 from that of ordinary children, and nothing remarkable of him is 
 known until his fourteenth year, when he was at Pickering School, 
 giving the first indications of his genius, and excelling his brothers 
 in his taste and knowledge of the classics. Here he was initiated in 
 the first principles of arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, in 
 which sciences lie became a great proficient. So much was his fa- 
 ther pleased with his eldest son's early propensity to learning, and 
 the abilities which he discovered, that he determined to rescue 
 him from the obscurity of a country life, and destined him for one 
 of the learned professions. Young Ward was accordingly offered 
 his choice to become a clergyman, a physician, or a lawyer; but, 
 with a mind already matured by study and thinking, he hesitated 
 and at length declined his father's offers. In the practice of the law 
 he observed there were too many temptations to dishonesty, and he 
 doubted his firmness to resist them. The profession of physic 
 was repugnant to the delicacy of his feelings; and, as a clergyman, 
 he feared that lit- might contribute more to the destruction than the 
 salvation of his fellow-men. Thus, perhaps, a too fastidious nicety 
 in his conscience and ideas, left him without a calling, and he enter- 
 ed into the world with very little prospects of a permanent subsis- 
 tence. 
 
 About this time his talents and acquirements first began to intro- 
 duce him into notice, and he accepted an invitation from a gentleman
 
 111. 
 
 of fortune to live with him as a companion, and tutor to his children. 
 In this retreat he had an opportunity "f following the particular bias 
 of his mind, and accordingly he bent himself with incredible appli- 
 cation to the study of controversy, then the rage of the day. Church 
 history, the ancient fathers, the scriptures, and the more modern 
 catholic controversies, always occupied his literary hours; but he 
 still found occasional recreation and delight in poetry and the clas- 
 sics. He read incessantly, but not with the frivolity of one who 
 skims the surface, and seeks only to arm himself with subtilty and 
 sophism for impertinent disputation; he read to enrich his mind, to 
 correct his understanding, and improve his heart. To this serious 
 disposition and habit of reflection must be attributed the change in 
 his religious sentiments, which immediately took place. His father 
 and all his family were protestants, and he himself was educated in 
 hostility to catholic opinions. His liberal and penetrating mind/ 
 however, disdained to wear the trammels of prejudice, and he even 
 shook off" the authority of a parent, rather than remain a slave, con- 
 trary to conscience and conviction, to the false principles lie had at 
 first imbibed. He accordingly embraced the catholic faith, which, 
 together with his marrying a young lady of the same persuasion, so 
 highly incensed his father, that at his death, which happened soo" 
 after, he bequeathed all he possessed to his protestant wife and chil- 
 dren. This disappointment and blasting of his hopes, with his con- 
 sequent destitute situation, it might be expected would have pro 
 duced envy and irritation on his part; but his was no ordinary mind, 
 and, raising himself above every little consideration of self, in the 
 enthusiasm of charity, he directed his whole endeavours to the con- 
 version of his mother and family. Providence blessed his exertions, 
 and he had the happiness of seeing himself united to them in faith 
 as well as in affection. His own good life did not a little contribute 
 to this; for his change of religion had an influence on his manners 
 in general; and his irreproachable conduct, and sweetness of temper, 
 gave him the character of being beloved by God and man. To a 
 youth of uncertainty, disquietude, and seperation from his family, 
 succeeded the calm of domestic peace, and the security of compe- 
 tence. For some years he remained buried and contented in this 
 domestic retirement; but \m genius opening with age, and expand-
 
 IX. 
 
 ing with increase of knowledge, began to be restless, and thirsted 
 for universal information. Sated with books, he wished to know 
 mankind; and, with this intention, having, with much entreaty, 
 obtained his mother's and wife's consent, he left his own country, 
 and passed over to France. In France he continued for some time, 
 learning the manners and language of the people; thence he went 
 into Italy, and settled himself at Rome. In this famous city, the 
 wreck and monument of ancient greatness, he had a wide range to 
 gratify his taste to contemplate the fallen and mutilated glories of 
 the ancient arts: he was continually in the churches, the public 
 buildings, and public libraries, and spent a great portion of his time 
 particularly in the Vatican. Here he had an opportunity of seeing 
 some of the best documents respecting the history of England, from 
 which he did not neglect to make numerous and useful quotations. 
 Controversy again became his favourite study, which was soon 
 interrupted by his accepting a commission in the Pope's guards, in 
 which he remained five or six years, during which time he served in 
 the maritime war against the Turks. His military career ended 
 with the war, and he returned to England, at the pressing solicita- 
 tions of his wife and relations, in the 34th year of his age. On his 
 arrival, he was patronized and received on terms ot friendship by 
 Lords Derwentwater and Lumney, Col. Thomas Radcliff, Mr. Thorn- 
 ton, and others, to whom he was recommended by his learning, hit 
 wit, and a suavity of manners peculiarly his own. About this period 
 he set about writing his Errata to the Protestant Bible, which was 
 publishedinth e year 1688. His Monomachia, or Duel with Dr. 
 Tillotson, appeared next, but anonymously; which made Dr. Tillot- 
 son observe, that it must have been written by some able Jesuit, 
 not imagining so much force of argument and ecclesiastical research 
 could be possessed by a layman. His Tree of Life, an ingenious 
 device, presenting at one view an epitome of church history, accord- 
 ing to the most exact chronology; his Controversy of ordinations 
 truly stated; his Controversy with Mr. Ritchel, Minister of Hexham; 
 his Notes on the 39 Articles and the Booh of Homilies, all fol- 
 lowed one another in rapid succession. Soon after appeared 
 his burlesque poem on England's Reformation, commonly called his 
 Cantos, in which he imitate* Butler with cousiderable success. Th
 
 X. 
 
 notes to this poem collected from the most approved historians, as 
 Stow, Camden, Speed, Baker, Burnet, Heylin, Clarendon, &c. 
 form a complete History of ecclesiastical affairs in England, from 
 Henry the Eight's time to the end of Oates's plot. This was 
 the last publication that came from the pen of Mr. Ward, though 
 he afterwards compiled and wrote the History of England.* It is 
 much to be regretted, that a coincidence of untoward circumstances, 
 and particularly, his being obliged to fly the country and go over 
 to France, prevented this work from being ever given to the world : 
 the documents for it were collected by him with great diligence, 
 and he himself esteemed it his best production. He died in the 
 56th year of his age, anno 1 708, and was buried at St. Germain's 
 in France, where his obsequies were performed with a solemnity 
 becoming so pious and learned a man ; leaving one son and three 
 daughters; whereof two of the latter were married, and the third 
 died a nun at Brussels. 
 
 * It is stated that Mr. Ward had it in agitation to continue his poem 
 down to the period of the revolution ; and, previous to his death, had com- 
 menced another Canto. His intentions, likewise, were to review and pub- 
 lish what he had written, to add some things, and blot out others. Of the 
 latter description, was the dialogue between Henry VIII. and queen Eliza- 
 beth. The author also, out of too much modesty and deference to a gen- 
 tleman well skilled in the serious part of poetry, suffered him to erase and 
 insert what words he thought proper: who, by foisting grave words 
 and expressions in the place of ludicrous ones, considerably diminished 
 the gaiety of the design. For instance, he had such a dread of the 
 word sprite, that he always put spirit in its place, though it made a 
 material alteration in the measure of the rhyme.
 
 THE 
 
 Jjublttfirfd tyettott. 
 
 < 
 
 T, 
 
 HE hand of oppression has been so long raised to 
 banish catholicity from the British soil, and the pulpit 
 and the press have, with the same view, been the vehicles 
 of so many gross abuses of its sacred tenets, that the 
 memories, not only of those who have suffered persecution 
 and death in its defence, but of such, too, as have ad- 
 vocated its cause by their writings, must be held in eter- 
 nal veneration by every sincere and pious catholic. In 
 the long list of champions, who, since the pretented 
 reformation in this kingdom, have entered the field of 
 controversy to shield the religion of our forefathers from 
 the attacks of protestantism, the author of the following 
 pages holds too distinguished a place for a doubt to be 
 entertained as to the reception they will meet with from 
 the catholic public. As long as history shall record 
 that the impetuous passion of the last of our Henrys 
 made him withdraw this country from its spiritual subjec- 
 tion to the see of Rome, and that Elizabeth, the offspring 
 of his adultery, caused her parliament to sanction the 
 articles of a new creed, and to style herself Head of the 
 Church ; as long as it shall be known that penal laws sub- 
 jected a catholic of the British empire to the severest 
 penalties and made a priest liable to be hanged, drawn 
 and quartered; so long will it be recorded that Mr. 
 Ward, a layman, anda convert from the new religion, stood 
 forth as one of the ablest and most celebrated controver-
 
 IV. 
 
 tists, who have advocated the cause of catholicity and 
 exposed the fallacy of protestantism. 
 
 The work, which is here offered to the public, was 
 occasioned by a personal interview, between the author 
 and Mr. Ritschel, vicar of Hexham, on the subject of re- 
 ligion. The particulars of this interview Mr. Ward laid 
 before the world in a book entitled A conference with Mr 
 Ritschel, vicar of Hexham. Mr. Ritschel replied : answers 
 were exchanged on either side ; and the following pages 
 are what Mr. W. wrote in reply to the second letter of the 
 vicar of Hexham. 
 
 The point at issue between the contending parties was, 
 whether the established church of England, or that of 
 Rome, be the true church of Christ the catholic church. 
 The present production is in the form of an epistle and 
 consists of three parts. In the first, Mr. Ward under- 
 takes to prove that the method proposed by his opponent 
 of finding out the true church is fallacious. The object 
 of the second is to shew that the protestant is not so much 
 as a part of the catholic church. The last commences 
 with some remarks upon certain passages in the letters of 
 Mr. R. which have no immediate connexion with the main 
 point in question, together with a refutation of some ca- 
 lumnies thrown by pro test ants upon the catholic church, 
 and concludes with a comparative view of the repectivc 
 claims of the two churches to the four marks of unity, 
 sanctity, catholicity and apostolicity. To the letter is sub- 
 joined a postcript, in which the reader will find the impor- 
 tant questions of the pope's snprrmacy, the real presence, 
 purgatory and the invocation of saints, proved in the most 
 ample and satisfactory manner from the written word of 
 (iod and the concurring testimonies of the holy fathers. 
 But, although what are mentioned constitute the promi- 
 nent features of this work, it may, on the whole, be re- 
 garded as a compleat body of controversy, there being
 
 V. 
 
 scarcely a single point, wherein the two churches of Eng- 
 land and Rome are at variance, on which the author does 
 not treat. 
 
 The productions of some more recent controvertists 
 may perhaps display a neatness and correctness of style 
 which those of Mr. Ward do not possess, but in force of 
 argument and perspicuity of expression he cannot be 
 surpassed. His reasoning must carry with it convic- 
 tion to the mind of every impartial and dispationate 
 reader, and upon obstinacy itself it must impose 
 silence. 
 
 Should it be objected to the following pages, that in 
 many parts the language is calculated to give offence 
 rather than to conciliate and that it is interspersed with 
 sarcasms which can only wound the feelings without con- 
 vincing the understanding; let it be remembered by whom 
 such language was provoked. Let the expressions of 
 Mr. Ward be compared with the insults, and (what is 
 worse) the repeated calumnies of the adversaries of the 
 catholic church, and ample apology will be discovered 
 for all that he has written either harsh or sarcastic. 
 Can it be expected that the catholic, who feels within 
 himself the most intimate conviction of the high su- 
 periority which his religion possesses over all the inven- 
 tions of men, who knows that his is the religion of the 
 great bulk of mankind, whilst that of his enemies and 
 persecutors is professed but by a few individuals of a 
 small island can it be expected that he should submit 
 in silence to their abuse, and, if he can do no more, 
 not at least, (like the lion in the fable, whose indignation 
 was roused by the kicks which the ass gave him with 
 impunity,) shew himself indignant at the insolence of 
 his insignificant oppressors ? 
 
 Religious discussion, it cannot be questioned, had 
 much better be conducted with temper and forbearance
 
 VI. 
 
 than with harshness and severity. But, when those, 
 who provoked the contest in this kingdom, were the 
 first to set example to the contrary, they cannot with 
 justice complain if for insult they receive insult, and 
 if, in return for calumny and misrepresentation, since 
 the catholic scorns these, he indulge at least a little 
 in sarcasm and ridicule. 
 
 44, Deansgate, 
 
 Manchester.
 
 AN INTERESTING CONTROVERSY, &C. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Yours dated May 2d. 1698, came to me on 
 July 21st. It consists of two epistles. In the 
 first, you very civilly take leave, at the foot of 
 eleven pages, making your exit in a notable 
 extemporary prayer, which you kindly conclude 
 thus; "Sir, your real friend to serve you for 
 your souls health", to which you add an "tyc," and 
 then your name. I could not divine what myste- 
 rious matter that "^fc." could have wrapped up in 
 it; but I concluded, that it must contain some- 
 thing sovereignly good, because it seemed to add 
 to the soul's health. However, finding you pre- 
 tending yourself a soul-physician, in the first 
 epistle, I assured myself of meeting with abun- 
 dance of spiritual receipts and sovereign soul- 
 medicines in the second. But, opening it, I stood 
 amazed to see it stuffed brim-full of baneful 
 compositions, all fitted for death and damnation, 
 not only of particular souls, but of the universal 
 church ; and the professed soul-doctor himself 
 offering them for every one to swallow, with a 
 declared design of first wounding, bruising, ul- 
 cerating, corrupting, and totally destroying the 
 whole church, on purpose that he might thereby 
 raise it again to life and a sounder state of health 
 than ever it had enjoyed for one thousand two 
 hundred years before. In this, Sir, you act like 
 that Spanish chymist who cut bis master in 
 pieces and put him into his sublimatory glass,
 
 [CHAP I. 2 PART I.] 
 
 with a design of raising him again by chymical 
 operation to a more durable and better state of 
 life than he had before when he was of Gods 
 making. 
 
 In these two epistles I expected you would 
 have supplied the defect of your first letter 
 dated March 4th. 1697; m which you should 
 have proved what you asserted in our confer- 
 ence in Hexhamshire, viz. that " the church of 
 England is the catholic church". But they are so 
 far from affording us what was wanting in that, 
 that on the contrary, in the latter of them, (which, 
 for the sake of distinction, I shall hereafter call 
 your book) you tell us, page 5th. that "to bid you 
 prove yourselves the catholic church, is so wild 
 and extravagant a fancy, that you shall not 
 trouble yourself to give it an answer". Yet, for 
 all this, you put us in hopes of great matters. In 
 the former of these epistles (I mean in that dated 
 May 2nd, 1698 ; for this which I call your book, 
 has neither name nor date) you shew, first, the 
 necessity of finding out the catholic church ; then 
 you propose divers ways and means of ascertain- 
 ing Avhether the catholic church of Rome, or the 
 church of England, is it ; which shews that you 
 allow the claim to one of the two. Then you 
 promise to make it appear, " that the church of 
 Rome is not the catholic church" ; and in the next 
 paragraph you oblige yourself, on the other 
 hand, to make it appear, " that the faith and re- 
 ligion of the church of England is that truly 
 ancient catholic and apostolic faith, which was but 
 once delivered to the saints ; and that you hold 
 communion with the true church of God in all 
 ages. "If all this appear, then it will follow", 
 you say, "that the church of England is the 
 true church of God, which is to say that the 
 church of England is the catholic church." 
 
 Before you propose the means of effecting all 
 this, you wisely declare the necessity of doing it
 
 PART I.J 3 [CHAP P 
 
 in these words. "As to find out the truth is a 
 noble design, so it is no less needful in the 
 present case to find out the catholic church. 
 This is a matter of great importance : for, accor- 
 ding to your own principle, till we find it, we 
 can neither tell what is holy scripture, nor under- 
 stand it; and then God knows in what a sad 
 case we are !" 
 
 This is, indeed, an undeniable, truth, and you 
 do well in making it the frontispiece of your 
 letter. It is also your church of England's doc- 
 trine, as well as yours and mine, and by the 
 hand of Mr. Rogers, upon the twentieth of her 
 39 Articles, she delivers it thus : " The church 
 hath authority to judge and determine in con- 
 troversies of faith. All of us (protestants) do 
 grant that the church as a faithful witness 
 may, yea of necessity must, testify to the world 
 what hath been the doctrine of God's people 
 from time to time ; and as a trusty recorder is 
 to keep and make known what the word of God 
 is which it hath received. The church hath 
 power to interpret and expound the word of 
 God. To interpret the word of God is a peculiar 
 blessing given by God only to the church." 
 These are your own church of England's propo- 
 sitions, and are all true. 
 
 This principle, thus owned by yourself and 
 established by your church of England, and as- 
 serted by the church of Rome, must remain 
 always firm, viz. that till we find the catholic 
 church, we can neither tell what is holy scrip- 
 ture, nor understand it. We come noM' to the 
 means you propose to find it. 
 
 The first means. 
 
 " In old times," you say, " the holy scriptures 
 were accounted the only means of finding out 
 the true church of God." 
 
 I cannot believe that ever man so much forgot
 
 CHAP 1.] 4 [PART I. 
 
 himself as you have done here. First to declare, 
 that "till we find out the catholic church, we 
 can neither tell what is holy scripture, nor under- 
 stand it" : and then, in the very next words, to 
 make the scripture the means, yea the only 
 means, of finding out the catholic church. The 
 truth of the first renders the second impossible. 
 Besides, what you say of ancient times is fable : 
 for, in ancient times, between the days of Adam 
 and Moses, for above two thousand years, we do 
 not find that there was any scripture written ; 
 and yet there existed, during all that time, a 
 true church, and the world knew how and where 
 to find it. In the beginning of Christianity, the 
 New Testament was not written till several 
 years after the christian church was established; 
 yet, all this time, infinite numbers found the 
 church of Christ and entered into its communion. 
 Can you imagine that all those heathens that 
 flocked into it found it out only by the written 
 word? Certainly not! The world might have 
 studied the bible till doomsday before they had 
 all jumped into one and the same faith and ca- 
 tholic church, if they had not received the verbal 
 instructions of the catholic church itself. St. 
 Paul did not appoint the written word for their 
 rule when he tells them, Faith comes by hear- 
 ing, and hearing by the word of (Hod; that is 
 by the word preached and taught by those 
 preachers whose sound went into all the earth, 
 and their words unto the end of the world ; Rom. 
 10. Our blessed Saviour did not command his 
 apostles to write all that was necessary to be 
 believed, and to send bibles throughout the world, 
 but he bad them Go (themselves) and teach all 
 nations ; St. Matt. 28. He commanded them to 
 go into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
 every creature. St. IN! ark, 1 (J. So that, in those 
 ancient times of Christianity, Ave do not see that 
 the scripture was either designed, appointed, or
 
 PART I.] O [CHAP I. 
 
 made use of for the means, much less for the only 
 means, of finding out the true church of Christ. 
 But St. Augustine, you say, " proposed this way, 
 and would not allow of any other". Indeed that 
 was a hard ease : would St. Augustine admit of no 
 other ? For what end did he (and others) write 
 so many great volumes, teaching, preaching, and 
 working so many miracles, if he would not allow 
 them to be means of bringing infidels and here- 
 tics to the knowledge of the church of God ? 
 Surely, if by any of these means they might 
 come to understand which it was, he would never 
 tell them that such means were not allowable, 
 nor to be admitted, but that they must fall to 
 their bibles, and there convince themselves of 
 every point of faith and of its being the true 
 church of God, before they could be admitted 
 into it. If you had acted ingenuously you would 
 have told us where this passage is to be found in 
 St. Augustine ; but we may guess the reason 
 why you did not cite the place. 
 
 I know that in the holy scriptures are denot- 
 ed the marks and characters of God's church, 
 as unity, sanctity, universality, apostolical succes- 
 sion, perpetual visibility, divine miracles, S;c. 
 The scriptures may be said to be the means, so 
 far as, by those notes and characters, it points 
 out to us the church of God. But, in your sense 
 of a means, that is, by taking the scripture for 
 your adequate rule of faith, measure, standard, and 
 platform, (as you call it page 131.) whereby to 
 square out, form, reform, model and make up the 
 faith of the church, that is, such a faith as you 
 imagine and pretend to be right, as by you 
 framed out of scripture ; and then, by this your 
 scripture-learned faith, to find out a church 
 that agrees with it (which can be no other, but 
 only the congregation which makes it, or such 
 a church as you yourselves make to agree with 
 it) : I savt 1 be a means in this sense, none but
 
 CHAP. I.] [PART I. 
 
 heretics will ever own or pretend it. This is 
 not the finding out of the church which Christ 
 and his apostles instituted and established ; but 
 is the making a pretended church of your own 
 'conformable (as you say page 131) to your 
 rule and standard", as you form and fashion that 
 rule and standard by your own sense of it. St. 
 Augustine never taught you either to make up, 
 or seek out a church in this manner, or by this 
 means. "The universal consent and agreement 
 of people and nations, miracles, antiquity, apos- 
 tolical succession, the name catholic, &c. were 
 St. Augustine's notes and means of knowing the 
 church ; and not a seeking first for articles of 
 faith out of scripture, and then squaring his 
 church to such devised faith. You might have 
 remembered what I wrote to you out of an an- 
 cient father in the close of my answer to your 
 letter of March 4th. 1697. That his words may 
 make a stronger impression hereafter I shall 
 once more present you with them, as they are to 
 be found in Eps. contra Epist. Fundam : " There 
 are many things" says he, " that keep me in the 
 bosom of the catholic church. The consent of 
 people begot by the authority of miracles, nou- 
 rished by hope, increased by charity, established 
 by antiquity, keeps me in it ; the succession of 
 priests from St. Peter detains me in it; and 
 lastly, the name catholic, which, among so many 
 heresies, the church alone has obtained, holds me 
 in it : seeing, that though all heretics would 
 gladly be accounted catholics, yet, if any stran- 
 ger ask where he may find a catholic church, 
 no heretic dare be so bold as to shew him his 
 own (1) 
 
 (1) In the original M S a leaf is here lost. In the latter part of it, as may 
 be collected from the words of the succeeding page, the author is arguing 
 against protestants from their own practice. He shews them that, contrary to 
 the principle laid down by Mr. llitschel in his first means of finding out the 
 true church, they themselves, in order to refute the doctrines of the dissenters, 
 are obliged to have recourse to some authority, to interpret the holy scripture. 
 Prom this he justly concludes that they, to be consistent, must admit the inter- 
 pretation of the catholic church.
 
 PART I.] 7 TCHAP. I. 
 
 it becomes, a mirror of wonder, shewing every 
 particular sect its own face, beautiful only to 
 itself, but deformed as hell to all the rest. 
 
 To this you have a kind of answer in your 
 book, where you say, " We do not allow every 
 man to follow his own private sense and interpre- 
 tation of scripture, contrary to the analogy of 
 faith and sense of the primitive church". But 
 this answer coming from your mouths is to 
 them like a worm-eaten nut ; tor they will tell 
 you, that they do interpret it agreeably and ac- 
 cording to the sense of the primitive church 
 and the analogy of faith : and that it is you who 
 do the contrary. What answer will you give to 
 this ? They will further demand, by what au- 
 thority you pretend to disallow their sense and 
 interpretation of it : and what will you say to 
 this ? Truly, Sir, you must stand mute : for they 
 will certainly pretend witli as much reason and 
 as good authority, to interpret scripture in their 
 own sense against you, as you could ever pre- 
 tend to, in your sense, against the church of 
 Rome or against them ; and this, as sure as you 
 live, will put you to silence. 
 
 As I told you in my answer to your letter of 
 March the 4th, so I tell you again, viz. that sad 
 experience teaches, that the holy scripture, with- 
 out the catholic interpretation of it, (which can- 
 uot be had till the catholic church is first found) 
 is so far from reducing the erring part of man- 
 kind into one faith and one church, that, on the 
 contrary, every man being his own expositor, it 
 becomes the very ground-work and seed of all 
 their discord and division, producing almost as 
 many different sects as men. 
 
 Recant, then, this your false assertion, that 
 the scripture is the only means or rule of faith ; 
 and fall back to your first true principle, " That 
 till wc find the catholic church, we can neither 
 tell what is holy Scripture, nor understand it, or
 
 CHAP. I.J 8 [PART I. 
 
 else, (as you say) God knows in what a bad case 
 we are." 
 
 The second means. 
 
 The next means which you propose for finding 
 out the catholic church, is "agreement in doc- 
 trine with the primitive church" and you take a 
 special way to introduce it, viz. under the author- 
 ity of Cardinal Bellarmin, as if he had proposed 
 this means alone of itself without any need at 
 all of his other preceding characters ; whereas 
 the Cardinal lays down five other notes of the 
 church which are all to go before this ; so that 
 when you have found a church marked with the 
 notes, unity, sanctity, universality, fyc. then its 
 agreement in doctrine with the primitive church, 
 is a further mark of its being the true church ; 
 not but that the first were sufficient, without ex- 
 amining primitive writings, to denote the true 
 church of God. The three hundred and eighteen 
 Fathers in the Nicene Council noted the church 
 of God under these four heads only, one, holy, 
 catholic, and apostolical ; the twelve apostles 
 under these two only, holy, and catholic, as marks 
 sufficient to denote her. 
 
 That church, therefore, which is holy and 
 catholic, is undoubtedly the true church of God, 
 and consequently has all the other marks, cha- 
 racters, and properties of the church of God, as 
 unity, apostolical succession, perpetual visibility, 
 miracles, agreement in doctrine with all preceding 
 ages, and all the rest of the Cardinal's fifteen 
 notes. 
 
 Now of Bellarmin's sixth note you protestants 
 can make no use, as to the proving of your 
 own protestant doctrines, till you have first 
 proved your protestant church stamped with 
 the two last named characters, at least with that 
 of catholic, which must be supposed to include 
 the others of sanctity, unity, c. ; because, till 
 this be done, you can have no just pretence to
 
 PART I.] 9 TCHAP. I. 
 
 interpret the doctrines and writings of the primi- 
 tive fathers in your own sense ; for, by what au- 
 thority or reasonable pretence can a church 
 which is not catholic, nor so much as part 
 of the catholic church, as we must suppose 
 yours till you have proved that it is, pretend to 
 give us the catholic church's sense and true 
 meaning of either the sacred scriptures or primi- 
 tive writings, or to require our assent to the 
 interpretation it gives of them, when its sense 
 contradicts that in which we take them ? 
 
 In page 5, you propose examining all the doc- 
 trines contained in the church of Rome, and in 
 the church of England, and comparing them 
 with the doctrine of the primitive church, and 
 let her be the judge between them which is the 
 catholic church. But there you will still want a 
 judge to determine whether of them interprets 
 the primitive fathers in the right sense in which 
 they ought to be taken, and this judge must 
 be the present catholic church, as your own 
 doctrine cited above out of Rogers grants and 
 teaches. The catholic church, therefore, of the 
 present age must be first found, so that you are 
 still but where you were. 
 
 In the same page, you make a very brisk and 
 formal challenge, telling us, that you have at 
 present a great many learned divines of the 
 church of England who are ready to enter upon 
 this service, viz. of comparing doctrines with 
 the primitive church, to see whether that of 
 Rome or England is the catholic church, if our 
 church of Rome will appoint a certain number of 
 men of learning and note to contest it with them. 
 Thus you challenge. 
 
 And to what end, Sir, are so many learned 
 divines and men of note called into the field ? 
 I thought that you and I had entered the lists 
 already. Have you then a mind to turn back and 
 
 B
 
 CHAP. 1. J 10 [PART I 
 
 decline the combat ? Yes indeed, that you have : 
 for page 5, but a few lines before, you begin to 
 faint and so far to lose courage that you tell me 
 very plainly " That for your part you shall not 
 enter into so large a field and undertake so 
 tedious a work." Thus you slip your own neck 
 out of the noose, and resolve to sleep in a 
 whole skin till the meeting of those imagi- 
 nary armies of learned divines and men of note, 
 which, I dare say, will scarce happen before the 
 Greek calends. T cannot believe, Sir, that you 
 have so many learned divines at your beck ready 
 for service as you pretend. Perhaps if it came 
 to the push Dr. Jones and Dr. Bawick your own 
 chaplains, will be all that you can bring into 
 the field : two heroes who, to my knowledge, 
 are better acquainted with Guy o' Warwick and 
 Mother Skipton's prophecies than with the fa- 
 thers of the primitive church. T have a reason 
 for my conjecture, that your army of learned 
 divines is yet to raise, and my reason is this. 
 
 In our conference in Hexhamshire at John 
 Wades, you urged me to prove such points as 
 are in debate between us, to have been doctrines 
 held in the primitive church of the first four 
 centuries, on condition that, if I would undertake 
 this, you would also engage on your side to 
 prove your church of England the catholic 
 church. 
 
 This I undertook, and accordingly sent you a 
 letter at Easter 1688, in which is sufficiently 
 proved the point I designed to handle, viz. that 
 of the pope's supremacy and spiritual jurisdic- 
 tion over the whole church on earth ; and that 
 from undeniable testimonies out of the fathers of 
 the four first ages, as also from the four first 
 general councils. The expectation of your an- 
 swer to this made me defer sending you the 
 like testimonies for other points, as for the real
 
 [PARTI. 11 CHAP I.] 
 
 presence, purgatory, invocation of saints, &c. : 
 being unwilling (as I signified in that letter) to 
 burthen you with too much at a time. Now that 
 letter, though but concerning one point, has been 
 in your hands above these two years, and not 
 one word of answer has been returned to it. 
 This biennial silence gives me reason to believe 
 that you have not yet listed your many divines 
 into service ; but, if I mistake, then set them to 
 work ; and see if they are able to give me out 
 of those four first centuries, as strong and as 
 convincing testimonies against the pope's being 
 head of the church, as I have sent you for it : if 
 not, then freely acknowledge the truth as to this 
 point, and I shall proceed to prove the rest. 
 
 But let me remind you and your divines of 
 one thing, which is, that you deliver the words 
 of the fathers candidly and sincerely, without 
 corrupting them, or mutilating their sentences 
 by taking what may seem for your use and leaving 
 out the rest, not making them contradict them- 
 selves, but what you bring out of them against 
 the supremacy you must reconcile with what I 
 have brought for it : and this I request with 
 regard to your other answers. And, lastly, I 
 charge both you and those whom you employ, to 
 bring sufficient evidence that you take the primi- 
 tive writings in the very same true and undoubt- 
 ed sense, in which the holy Fathers meant, and 
 designed them to be taken when they wrote 
 them. But this you can never do, till you first 
 prove your church of England to be the catholic 
 church. For it is the catholic church alone, and 
 no other pretender, that can ascertain to us the 
 undoubted sense of the scripture and of the Fa- 
 thers. And this is evident from the grant of 
 your own church, "That the church as a faith- 
 ful witness may, yea of necessity must testify, to 
 the world, what hath been the doctrine of GotTs.
 
 CHAP I.j 12 [PART I. 
 
 people from time to time ; and as a trusty re- 
 corder is to keep and make known, what the 
 word of God is, which it hath received." Rogers. 
 
 In page 4th. you argue thus, " The only way, 
 next to the holy scriptures, to find out the true 
 church of God is by the true faith, for the 
 christian faith is before the christian church. 
 And that must be first known and supposed be- 
 fore we can know any such thing as a church. 
 For it is the faith that makes the church, and 
 not the church the faith : and the true church is 
 known by the true doctrine which it teacheth, 
 and not the true doctrine by the church." 
 
 The substance of all this is, that the faith 
 and doctrine of the catholic church, must be 
 first known, before we can know the catholic 
 church ; and the reasons you give for it are 
 that the faith is before the church and makes 
 the church. 
 
 It is very likely that you have not considered 
 the difference between faith and the objects of 
 faith, when you framed this argument, and to 
 have mistaken one for the other. If by faith's 
 being before the church, you mean the objects 
 of faith, viz. those divine truths which Christ 
 revealed to the first believers, I grant it ; but 
 if you mean of formal faith, as it is in man, a 
 belief of those divine objects, I deny it to have 
 been before the church : because this faith or 
 belief could have no being amongst men before 
 they believed, but as soon as they believed they 
 became faithful men, that is, they became the 
 church. The church (according to your 19th. 
 article) is a congregation of faithful men : con- 
 sequently the first christian faith and the first 
 christian church began to be, or had its beginning 
 at the same time, and not the one before the 
 other ; and being inseparable must be found 
 together : and the church being visible and faith
 
 PART I.J 13 [CHAP I. 
 
 invisible, this is to be found out and known by 
 that. Your assertion then, that the christian 
 faith is before the christian churcli is false. Let 
 us consider the next ; viz. ' It is faith that 
 makes the church." You should have said, it 
 is God that makes the church ; for so the pro- 
 phet Daniel understood it when he said, chap. 2. 
 " The God of Heaven shall net up a kingdom 
 ivhich shall never be destroyed." And in St. Mat- 
 thew, chap. 16: Christ the son of God lets you 
 know that himself is the maker and builder of his 
 church" 
 
 Now the way that God made the first christian 
 church, was by revealing the objects of faith 
 to men, and men by believing those divinely 
 revealed truths became the church. And the 
 belief of those truths is faith ; and the first be- 
 lief of them was the first christian faith ; and 
 the first believers, the first christian church, or 
 rather the first of the christian church. When 
 you consider it thus, as you really ought, you 
 will easily discern that the objects of faith, not 
 formal faith, existed before the church ; and that 
 (as has been said) formal faith, faithful men, and 
 the church had their being or beginning together, 
 and not one before the other. Consequently 
 one could not make the other ; because, whatever 
 is to make a thing must itself exist before the 
 thing it is to make ; otherwise it could not be 
 there to make it. 
 
 Now all divine christian truths, or objects of 
 faith, which Christ immediately revealed to his 
 church of the first age, are proposed and taught 
 as truths so revealed ; and as such to be believed 
 by people of the second age. Those of the se- 
 cond age, receiving and believing what the 
 church of the first age thus proposed and be- 
 lieved, became by their so believing of the same 
 faith and churcli with that of the first age. The
 
 [CHAP I. 14 PART I.J 
 
 objects of faith or divinely revealed truths, which 
 the church of the second age received from that 
 of the first, it delivered and taught to those of 
 the third age ; who, believing what was thus de- 
 livered, became of the same faith and church 
 with those of the two first ages. What the 
 church of the third age thus received from that 
 of the second, it delivered to those of the fourth ; 
 which, receiving and believing what was so de- 
 livered, became of the same faith and church 
 with those of the three former ages. What the 
 church of the fourth age received it delivered to 
 the fifth ; what the fifth thus received it delivered 
 to the sixth ; this to the seventh, the seventh 
 to the eighth, the eighth to the ninth ; and so 
 down to our present age. 
 
 Thus all christian truths (the objects of faith) 
 which were first revealed by Christ have been 
 by every foregoing age proposed, taught, and 
 delivered (as such to be believed) to every im- 
 mediate succeeding age down to this time. 
 
 As those of the second age could not have 
 come to the knowledge of what Christ revealed 
 to the first, but by the teaching of the first age, 
 so neither could those of any following age know 
 what was so revealed but by their being taught it 
 by their immediate forefathers the church of the 
 immediate foregoing age, which had received it 
 by tradition through every preceding age, even 
 from the first, which received it from Christ. 
 
 All this considered and rightly understood, it 
 cannot be conceived what you mean when you 
 say " It is the faith that makes the church" 
 more than this, that the faith delivered and 
 taught by their immediate forefathers to their 
 immediate spiritual children makes those receiv- 
 ing and believing it the church : or, to speak 
 thus, makes them of the same church with their 
 forefathers and teachers. If this be your mean-?
 
 part r] 15 [chap. ! 
 
 ing it is good, only the expression of faith 
 making the church, is something more odd and 
 less intelligible to the reader, than to say, as the 
 thing really is, that the Son of God by revealing 
 such divine truths as were necessary to be be- 
 lieved made the church, and the church, by 
 teaching and delivering from hand to hand what 
 was at first revealed, still propagates, nourish- 
 es, and preserves itself in existence from time 
 to time, through all ages to the end of the 
 world. This is in effect what your church of 
 England teaches in Mr. Rogers, when she says, 
 " The church of necessity must testify to the 
 world what hath been the doctrine of God's 
 people from time to time, and, as a trusty re- 
 corder, is to keep and make known what is 
 the doctrine of God which it hath received* 
 
 Seeing then that the church, as your article 
 owns, is the faithful witness, true recorder, 
 and keeper of the faith, doctrine, and word 
 of God which it first received, and that it 
 must of necessity teach, deliver, testify, and 
 make known to the world what is the faith 
 which it thus received and preserves ; it of neces- 
 sity follows, that the church must be first known 
 and found out before we can be taught the faith, 
 which it is obliged to teach and make known to 
 us. 
 
 Your propositions therefore, that " faith must 
 be first known before we can know any such 
 thing as a church," and " that the way to find 
 out the true church of God is by the true faith ; 
 and "that the true church is to be known by 
 the true doctrine which it teaches, and not the 
 true do< trine by the church", are false, absurd, 
 and contradictory not only to reason and com- 
 mon sense, but even to what your own church 
 of England itself teaches. Nay the last of 
 theso propositions contradicts even itself and all
 
 CHAP. I.J 16 [PART 1. 
 
 the former. Consider this, Sir, yourself, and I 
 will endeavour to assist you in it. 
 
 "The true church is to be known by the true 
 doctrine which it teaches, and not the true 
 doctrine by the church." The first part of this 
 proposition implies and owns, that the true 
 church teaches true doctrine. If it teach it, as 
 you own, it must teach it to learners who knew 
 it not before ; for such as know it have no need 
 of being taught, nor can they properly be said 
 to be taught what they knew before. These learn- 
 ers, then, must necessarily know the true church 
 that teaches, before they can know the true 
 doctrine which it teaches them : for who can be 
 taught a thing by a teacher without knowing the 
 teacher who instructs and teaches him ? Thus, 
 Sir, you have by this contradicted all your former 
 propositions; and even the latter part of this 
 proposition contradicts itself. For to say, as the 
 latter part does, that, " the true doctrine cannot 
 be known by the church," and to say as the 
 former part does, that, " the true church tea< hes 
 true doctrine", that is, that it makes known the 
 true doctrine, (for to teach is to make known by 
 the teacher the thing that is taught) is to say, 
 that the true doctrine cannot be known, or 
 taught by the true church; and yet the true 
 church can, and does make known and teach 
 the true doctrine ; which is a complete contradic- 
 tion. 
 
 I wonder, Sir, where you found those nonsen- 
 sical sentences, or what foolish sophist put them 
 into your head. But, what encreases my won- 
 der is, that the learned Vicaress dowager, that 
 critical and sagacious lady your mother, should 
 never discover the absurdity, when she revised 
 and examined your writings, as she assured 
 me she did, and affirmed she thought them very 
 clear, substantial and to the purpose ! .
 
 PART I.] 17 [CHAP. I. 
 
 Be this as it may, you draw this conclusion 
 from them, that "if the church of Rome have 
 not the true faith it cannot be the true church of 
 God." To which I reply, that, if the church of 
 Rome be the true church of God, she must ne- 
 cessarily have the true faith. And that she is 
 the true church of God you protestants must be 
 forced to grant, otherwise you must deny that 
 any true church existed upon the earth when 
 Luther and you began your pretended reforma- 
 tion. For you neither did then, nor ever since, 
 nor dare at present pitch upon any other 
 church or pretended church under heaven, for 
 the true church in existence when you left the 
 communion of the church of Rome. Nay, even 
 you, Mr. Ritschel, when, in page 139 of your 
 book, you pretend to tell us where the true church 
 of God was at the time when you left the church 
 of Rome, do not, nor cannot name so much as 
 one church in the world for the true church of 
 God, not even the Greek church itself, which is 
 the only one you there mention; but, on the 
 contrary, you are forced to acknowledge, though 
 against your will, that they were all so infected 
 with errors and corruptions, as to stand in need 
 of a reformation. So that T say you protestants 
 must necessarily confess the church of Rome to 
 have been the true church of God at that time ; 
 or else, you must allow, that God had no true 
 church in existence in the whole world. 
 
 Moreover, that she is the true church of God 
 is sufficiently proved in the Tree of Life, which 
 I sent you, as also in your protestant chronolo- 
 gical tables printed at Cambridge in the year 
 lb'85. In short, it is evidently demonstrated 
 from your own words, Mr. Ritschel, as you will 
 find hereafter. Therefore the church of Rome 
 must of necessity have the true faith. On the 
 other hand, if the church of England is not the
 
 CHAP. I.] 18 [PART l r 
 
 the true church of God, she cannot have the 
 true faith. This is evident in itself. But, that 
 the church of England is not the true church of 
 God, is undeniably proved hereafter, and is also 
 evident from her separating herself from, and 
 forsaking the communion of that church which, 
 as I have proved, is the true church of God, viz. 
 the church of Rome. Therefore the church of 
 England cannot have the true faith. 
 
 But, to return to your means of trying doc- 
 trines, you bring it at last to " a necessity of 
 examining all the doctrines of all the churches 
 that are now in the world, and comparing them 
 with the doctrines of the primitive church before 
 the catholic church can be found." This is in 
 plain terms to impose an impossibility on the 
 greatest part of the world; for you can never 
 imagine that there can be so mueh as one man in 
 ten hundred thousand, rightly qualified as to 
 learning, books, time, capacity, and all other ne- 
 cessary circumstances for the undertaking of this 
 work. No, no, Sir, you must resolve upon some 
 easier way for the finding out the catholic 
 church, or else you must remain without it for 
 eternity. 
 
 Turn back to Cardinal Bellarmin's first note 
 and go gradually on. Find a church that is 
 one, holy, catholic, and apostolical, which you 
 may do by applying his notes of unity, sanctity, 
 universality, and apostolical succession. But 
 you must not apply them to all pretended 
 churches, and congregations in the world, for 
 this is needless ; but to the church of Home only ; 
 for no other in the world either can or does 
 pretend to them. By these means you may 
 easily find the church of Rome to be the true 
 church of God. You need not be; at much pains ; 
 only look in the Tree of Life and you Lave all 
 this done to your hand. There you will find all
 
 PART I.J 19 [CHAP I. 
 
 the said notes exactly agreeing with that great 
 body and universal society of christians who 
 hold communion with the present bishop of 
 Rome, pope Innocent the twelfth. 
 
 Nay, the very name catholic is a note, way, 
 and means sufficient of itself to find out the true 
 church of God. This name is proper only to 
 that society of christians now so named. No 
 other sect in the whole world has this title, or 
 dare so much as once lay claim to it. By this 
 name it is easy even for the most ignorant and un- 
 learned to find out the church of God. It daily 
 sounds in every one's ear ; and, as an unerring 
 index, points out Gods holy church to all both 
 learned and unlearned throughout the world. 
 That church, to which this title and great name 
 catholic properly belongs, cannot possibly want 
 either unity, sanctity, apostolical succession, 
 divine miracles, true doctrine or any other mark 
 proper to the true church of God. 
 
 You tell me in your book, page 109, that " my 
 pretence to the name catholic, when I say we 
 can derive it from the apostles themselves &c. 
 is a vain-glorious assertion without the least offer 
 of proof." Yet you put down my very words 
 there in which I cite no less evidence than the 
 apostles' creed itself, in which God's holy church 
 had the name catholic given to it by the twelve 
 apostles themselves. But, it seems, the creed 
 is of no authority with you : I thought it might 
 have stood for a proof sufficient, at least to you 
 who in your first letter pretended to believe it ; 
 But, I see, when it clashes with your sentiments 
 it must be neglected for a lame evidence. 
 
 Do you think it possible, Sir, for you ever to 
 lose the name of George Ritschel among your 
 parishioners ? Much more impossible it is for 
 the church of God ever to loose the name catho- 
 lic. If your name, which readies not much far-
 
 CHAP. I.J 20 - [part I. 
 
 ther than the bounds of your parish, can never be 
 lost or taken from you as long as you live, much 
 more unlikely is it that the church of God, which 
 is spread over the whole earth, should ever be be- 
 reaved of its name catholic ; especially since it is 
 confirmed to it by the holy Ghost himself, who 
 gave it by the mouths of the twelve apostles as a 
 title whereby the whole world was ever to know 
 it, as is evident in our creed. 
 
 But you argue farther thus. "We know very 
 well that the worst of men, in all ages, have call- 
 ed themselves and have procured others to call 
 them by good names. And, on the other hand, the 
 best of men and things have had very bad nick- 
 names given them. Yet they were never accounted 
 as matter of proof, either to condemn one or 
 justify the other. We know what names were 
 given to our blessed Saviour by the enemies of 
 trutli : how the Arians called themselves catholics 
 and the orthodox Athanasians, yet that could not 
 secure them from being condemned for heretics." 
 
 And what of all this ? Did their miscalling our 
 blessed Saviour either fix their blasphemous 
 names upon him, or deprive him of his own name ? 
 Certainly not. Did the Arians by their improper 
 and nick-names deprive the orthodox of their 
 name catholic, or ever get this title to themselves ? 
 No indeed: as all the devices of men and devils, 
 yea, of the great Anti-christ himself, when he 
 comes, can never deprive our blessed Saviour of 
 his most glorious and divine name Jesus Christ 
 the Son of God: so neither is it possible for any 
 or all the heretics that ever were, are, or ever 
 will be, to deprive Christ's church of the name of 
 catholic, or to get this most excellent title to 
 themselves. And you own as much as all this, 
 Sir, when you speak of the Arians arrogating to 
 themselves the name catholic, and giving nick- 
 names to the church and at the same time that
 
 PART I.] 21 [CHAP I. 
 
 " all this could not secure them from being con- 
 demned for heretics," which sentence also strikes 
 home to yourselves as strongly as it does to the 
 Arians ; for, notwithstanding your miscalling the 
 catholic church by worse names than ever the 
 
 Arians did, as anti-christ, w of Babylon 
 
 ike : (such appellations you yourself would glad- 
 ly give her in several places of your letter, if you 
 durst but speak out) yet all this could never secure 
 your first beginners, Luther, Cranmer, &c, and 
 you their followers from being condemned for 
 heretics, as the Arians were, yea and by the very 
 same authority too. 
 
 Pray solve me this question, Sir : If you protes- 
 tants be God's church and people, how came you 
 to loose the name catholic? Why is not your 
 church at this day called the catholic church, and 
 its professors catholics ? On the other hand, if the 
 church of Rome is not the catholic church, but the 
 church of Anti-christ, how came she to get the 
 name catholic ? Why do you protestants, her ene- 
 mies, call her the catholic church, both in your 
 writings and common discourse? Is it not a mad- 
 ness in you to call us by the most honourable 
 name catholics, and yourselves by that infamous 
 term of novelty protestants ? 
 
 You are very angry with me for telling you that 
 the apostles gave us the name catholic when they 
 delivered us the twelve articles of our creed, 
 calling us there by the name of the holy catholic 
 church. 
 
 The name catholic was then given by them to 
 God's holy church, as a certain secure note, by 
 which it was to be known through all ages to 
 those who dissented from it ; as is undeniably evi- 
 dent from their obliging every one, without any 
 limitation of time, to the belief of Christ's church 
 under the name catholic church. If the apostles
 
 CHAP I.] 22 [part I. 
 
 knew or foresaw that a time would come, in which 
 this name would no longer denote Christ's holy- 
 church, but that it would either devolve upon, be 
 
 usurped or assumed by the w of Babylon : or 
 
 that Christ's church would be changed into the syna- 
 gogue of Anti-christ, they would certainly have li- 
 mited and appointed how long the world was to 
 believe God's church under this name ; and then 
 would have told us by what other names, after the 
 time had elapsed, we were to know and believe 
 it. As for example, they would have ordered us 
 to believe it under the name of the holy catholic 
 church till the times of Martin Luther, Calvin, 
 and Cranmer : and then to believe her no more 
 under that name, but by the name of the holy pro- 
 testant church. This you must not deny unless 
 you will say the apostles left a creed which in fu- 
 ture times should oblige the world to believe, not 
 the church of Christ, but that of Anti-christ, 
 which is blasphemy, not only against the twelve 
 apostles, but the Holy Ghost himself, who then 
 spoke by their mouths. But they limited it to no 
 such time, but, delivering the articles of faith ex- 
 pressly, they were as binding to all future ages as 
 to their own present times. It cannot therefore 
 without blasphemy be supposed that the name ca- 
 tholic should ever cease to denote and signify the 
 church of Christ, or that the name should ever be 
 separated from the thing at first signified by it. 
 
 Seeing then that the church of Christ and the 
 name catholic are inseparable, it follows that, 
 where the name is, there is the church ; that is, 
 that church which at this day has the name catholic 
 is the true church of God and all the world are 
 obliged by the apostles creed to believe her to be 
 so, and to believe what she teaches. Now that 
 great and ample society of christians in commu- 
 nion with the church and bishop of Rome, St. 
 Peter's successor, in whatever part of the world
 
 PART l] 23 [CHAP. U 
 
 they are dispersed, or of whatever people or nation 
 they be, have the name catholic, which no other 
 conjrrejration out of this communion has. There- 
 fore the church of Rome, that universal society, is 
 the true church of God, and consequently all are 
 obliged to believe her by that article of our creed 
 which commands us to believe the holy catholic 
 church. 
 
 The great St. Augustine, one of the four most 
 eminent doctors of this church, assures us (ep. 
 contr. Fundam.) that " the name catholic kept him 
 in the bosom of the church ;" and again (lib. de 
 vera relig :) he tells us, " we must hold the com- 
 munion of that church which is named the catholic 
 not only by those of her own faith but also by her 
 enemies ; " for," says he, "the heretics and schis- 
 matics themselves, when they speak not with their 
 own followers, but with strangers, are forced, 
 whether they will or no, to call the catholic church 
 nothing else but the catholic church : for they 
 could not be understood unless they discerned it 
 by this name, by which she is called throughout 
 the whole world." Thus, Sir, I have shewn you 
 an easy and infallible means of finding out the 
 true church of God. By this means the most 
 ignorant and simple can as readily and with as little 
 difficulty come to the knowledge of it as the most 
 learned and wise. All that they have to do is to 
 enquire what church it is that has the mime catholic. 
 
 There is one thing to be demanded concerning 
 your way of examining and trying doctrines by 
 primitive writings. One sort of protcstants, as the 
 Lutherans, hold the real presence of Christ's body 
 and blood in the sacrament together witli the sub- 
 stance of bread and wine : those of the church of 
 England hold that Christ's body and blood are not 
 really present, but the bread and wine alone : ca- 
 tholics agree with neither, but believe that the sub- 
 stance of bread is, by the powerful words of con-
 
 CHAP i. "I 24 [part e. 
 
 secration, changed into the very body and blood of 
 Christ. 
 
 We will then suppose, according to your way, 
 that all those three differing parties bring testimo- 
 nies out of the primitive fathers, each one for his 
 own tenet. We must again suppose that but 
 one of the three takes the primitive writings in the 
 true and right sense : for we must not think that 
 the holy fathers either held all the three different 
 doctrines or contradicted themselves. Now, 1 here 
 demand, how you know (unless by the judgement 
 and determination of the catholic church of this 
 present time) which of those three parties inter- 
 prets the writings of the fathers right, and takes 
 them in their true sense ? Answer me this, Sir. 
 As I have instanced in this one point of the real 
 presence, so I demand of all other differences in 
 points of faith between the church of England and 
 all other sorts of protestants : and also between 
 you and catholics. 
 
 The judge in this case, as I said above, must be 
 the present catholic church : and your own doc- 
 trine teaches the same when it says " The church 
 has authority to judge and determine in controver- 
 sies of faith." It follows therefore that the catho- 
 lic church must be first known before this way of 
 comparing doctrines can ever satisfy such protes- 
 tants as adhere to their own private judgments. 
 Besides, we may safely rely upon the judgment and 
 determination of the present catholic church : for, 
 if she cannot be safely relied upon, who can ? 
 
 The catholic church of this present age being 
 then the most certain and secure interpreter of the 
 scriptures and primitive writings, and she alone 
 having authority and right to expound the same, 
 it follows that she alone can bring the writings of 
 all preceding ages up to the first writings of the 
 apostles themselves in her own defence, and accord- 
 ing to her faith and doctrine against all such as
 
 PART I*] 25 [CHAP. I. 
 
 oppose her. Yet not that heretics can either 
 oblige or justly require from her this condescension 
 of proving her doctrine by primitive writings, 
 because she is " the ground and pillar of truth" 
 and a u true recorder and faithful witness of 
 what is the word of God which she has received.' 1 
 This is enough and all that in reason they can re- 
 quire, that she declares unto them her present 
 faith, and that it is the same she received from 
 her immediate forefathers. 
 
 Notwithstanding this, as the church is desirous 
 not to refuse or omit any thing that may help or 
 further their reconciliation, she is ready and will- 
 ing at any time to compare her present doctrines 
 with those of the primitive church, and with the 
 sacred scriptures. Yet she never allows here- 
 tics to follow their own private sense or interpre- 
 tation either of scripture or primitive writings; 
 this being a privilege belonging only to the 
 church, as you protestants also own when you 
 say, " the church hath authority to judge and 
 determine in controversies of faith," and " to in- 
 terpret the word of God is a peculiar blessing 
 given by God only to the church." Rogers. 
 
 To conclude, this your way of comparing and 
 trying doctrines with either scripture or primi- 
 tive writings could not possibly be a means for 
 Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, Parker, Jewel, &c. to 
 find out the catholic church, while they adhered 
 to their own private sense of them, contrary to 
 the sense of the then existing church. And, as it 
 could not be a means for them, so neither can it 
 be for their followers, for the very same reason.
 
 chap, n.] 26 [part i. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 WHETHER THE PROTESTANT CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
 IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 X HE next point to be considered is, whether the 
 protestant church of England is, the catholic 
 church. Now, Sir, after we have examined your 
 means, let us see whether, by all the ways and 
 means you have, you be able to perform your 
 promise of proving your church of bngland to be 
 the catholic church. 
 
 I perceived in your letter of March 4th. that 
 you began to grow weary of the undertaking: 
 for, in the very first paragraph, you artfully chang- 
 ed the state of the question from that of the 
 church of England being the catholic church, to 
 this, that " protestants are true catholics." This 
 last question you endeavour, by a great deal of 
 legerdemain, to palm upon me through all that 
 first letter : thinking, if I should forget your first 
 promise, you might decoy me unawares from the 
 first question to the other, and all would be well. 
 
 In my answer to that letter I resolved not to 
 take much notice of the shuffle ; because, the pro- 
 mise being but verbal, I perceived that, if I pressed 
 you to it, you would deny it. But, since I see in 
 your second epistle (May 2d) that you are again 
 returned to the first state of the question with so 
 much resolution as not only to engage under your 
 hand writing to prove it, but also to propose ways 
 how to do it, you must expect I shall keep you to 
 it till you either effect it, or give it quite up as im- 
 possible. 
 
 I no sooner cast my eyes upon your great book 
 than I met with this sentence in the second para- 
 graph, " I cannot but take notice of the prepos-
 
 PART I.J 27 [CHAP II. 
 
 terous method you propose to me to prove our- 
 selves the catholic church, before you can believe 
 that we hold the catholic faith whole and unde- 
 filed." This sentence of yours I had observed 
 before in yours of May 2d. p. 4. But, perceiving 
 that it stood for no other purpose but as a step 
 back or necessary recoil, by which you might re- 
 bound again with greater violence, as you seem to 
 do in page 5, of the same letter, I supposed it 
 might be here again for the same purpose ; but, 
 seeing that you introduce it twice, it is very pro- 
 per that I should take a little notice of it, at least 
 with regard to the method itself. 
 
 Now, if this be so false, weak and preposterous 
 a method, as you s t ay, why have you so solemnly 
 both in word and writing engaged in it ? Is it more 
 preposterous in me to bid you prove your church 
 to be the catholic church, than it is in you to assert 
 that it is so, to promise to make it appear so, and 
 to propose ways and means of doing it ? Pray, 
 Sir, would you have me, and your honest parishion- 
 ers in Hexhamshire so easy, as to bel eve, that 
 you hold the catholic faith entire and inviolate, 
 before you prove to us that your church is the ca- 
 tholic church ? What reason can you give for this ? 
 For my part, T ean never believe that any church 
 holds entirely the catholic faith, which cannot de- 
 monstrate herself to be catholic ; and as for them, 
 I must tell you that I take them to be of a sounder 
 judgment than to agree with you in this point. 
 
 I am sure we are by the apostles creed, obliged 
 to believe the holt/ catholic church : it is the church 
 that our blessed saviour commands us to hear : it 
 is the church that St. Paul calls the ground of 
 truth : yet you, Sir, would have us believe what 
 you propose to us for catholic faith before ever you 
 demonstrate your congregation to be the catholic 
 church : J can neither find scripture; nor reason to 
 induce us to do this. I must therefore turn your
 
 TCHAP. II. 28 PART I.] 
 
 words upon yourself and affirm it to be a most 
 preposterous method to bid us believe that your 
 church holds the catholic faith whole and undefiled, 
 before you first testify her to be the catholic church. 
 An Arian, Socinian or Quaker may propose this 
 with as much reason as you can; and what answer 
 would you give them if they said so to you ? 
 
 I suppose your design in inventing this prepos- 
 terous topic, and in repeating it a second time, has 
 been rather for a slight shuffle, to further and 
 soften by degrees the main design of freeing your- 
 self from the grand undertaking, rather than for 
 any reason you could see in it ; for in page 4 you 
 quite leave it in these words. " Pray what do you 
 mean by the catholic church 9 If you mean no more 
 than a part or true member of it, I say that the 
 church of England is a sound and true member of 
 Chrisfs holy catholic church." 
 
 Alas, poor parson ! was your church the catholic 
 church when you were at John Wade's in Hexham- 
 shire? was it the catholic church, and the true 
 church of God so often in your letter of May the 
 2nd ? and is it now come to be only a bare member 
 of it? Pray tell me, Dear Sir, what is become of 
 all the rest of the body ? Oh miserable ! that this 
 unhappy member should loose the rest of its body, 
 and now not know in all the wide world where to 
 find it. Are you sure, Sir, that it is only a mem- 
 ber of it ? perhaps you may be mistaken : look 
 at it once more : put on that pair of ecclesiastical 
 spectacles, which you made use of at John Wade's, 
 and when you wrote your letter of May 2nd : 
 very likely those more magnifying glasses may 
 make it appear, not a member, but the whole body, 
 as it did before. But it is in vain to give council, 
 I see, for now you are utterly swallowed up in 
 despair: all hopes of ever having your petty con- 
 gregration proved the catholic church, are ingulphed 
 in this desperate sentence, page 4. " When you
 
 PART I.] 29 [CHAP II. 
 
 bid me prove ourselves the catholic church, if you 
 meau thereby the one holy catholic church exclusive 
 of all others, this is so wild and extravagant a 
 fancy, that, as it needs not, so I shall not trouble 
 myself to give it an answer." 
 
 Thus, Mr. Ritschel, you have put an end to the 
 controversy, by granting me at last, though much 
 against your will, the contested point. 
 
 As to the wildness of the fancy, I must ask 
 whether it lies in me or in you ? If it be so wild 
 and extravagant in me for bidding you to do it, it 
 is certainly much more wild and extravagant in 
 you to promise it, and to use so many fruitless 
 endeavours for finding out ways to perform it. 
 What occasion was there for your proposing 
 scripture and primitive writings, for the proving 
 it the catholic church, and the true church of God, 
 when at the bottom you knew it to be no such 
 thing ? There is no more to be said on this point 
 than to put it on record that, the protcstant church 
 of England is not the catholic church : witness the 
 writings of George Ritschel, Hear of Hexham*
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 WHETHER THE PROTESTANT CHURCH OF ENGLAND IS A 
 PART OR TRUE MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 HAVING rejected that wild fancy of your 
 church's being the catholic church, you fall upon 
 a conceit of her being a part or member of it ; 
 a whim no less extravagant than the former. 
 You introduce it by asking, whether, by the ca- 
 tholic church 1 mean no more than a part or true 
 member of it ? A question as ridiculous as to 
 demand of one who tells you the sun shines, whe- 
 ther he means a part of the sun. You have 
 heard me all along speaking of the whole, and 
 have in several places answered me as speaking 
 of the whole, and now you demand whether I 
 speak of a part. Could you find no better way 
 than this absurd query of introducing the follow- 
 ing sentence ? "I say that the church of Eng- 
 land is a sound and true member of it, because 
 we hold communion with the holy catholic church 
 in faith, worship, and government, those three 
 bonds of catholic union ; and consequently the 
 members of the church of England are true ca- 
 tholics." Thus you say; and in this argument 
 there are three assertions to be proved : 
 
 First, that you hold communion with the ca- 
 tholic church in faith : 
 
 Secondly, that you hold communion with it in 
 worship : 
 
 Thirdly, that you hold communion with it in 
 government. 
 
 My business is, at present, to trace you through 
 your whole book in quest of evidence for the first
 
 FART II.] 31 [CHAP. 1. 
 
 of these ; for if it cannot be proved that you hold 
 communion with the catholic church in faith, 
 there will be no need of examining your worship 
 and government. 
 
 In page 6. you begin thus, "Now the spiri- 
 tual union between the members of Christ's 
 mystical body being invisible, you cannot possibly 
 know it but by examining our faith ; for, it is an 
 orthodox faith that makes sound members, and 
 true catholics : so that, if it appears that we be- 
 lieve and embrace the apostolic faith, we hold 
 communion with them in doctrine." Do you think 
 that, by examining your protestant faith, I shall 
 find it the same with that of the catholic church ? 
 the same with that of the apostles ? and the very 
 same it must be, if you hold communion with 
 the catholic church. But is not this a strange 
 way of arguing, to bid me examine your faith ? 
 it is your own business to declare your faith, and 
 then demonstrate it to be the same in all points 
 with that of the catholic church ; and the catholic 
 church's faith to be the same in all points with 
 yours ; and neither more nor less in one than in 
 the other : but it seems the task is too herculean 
 a labour for you to achieve, and so you would be 
 glad to shuttle it off at any rate. 
 
 The reason which you give, why I must examine 
 your faith, is, because the spiritual union is invisi- 
 ble : but, is not your faith invisible too ? how then 
 shall I see this faith of yours unless you first un- 
 case it ? how shall I know likewise whether you 
 believe and embrace the apostolic faith unless you 
 make it appear ? All that is said to it here is : " If 
 it appear:" to which I answer; what, if it never 
 appear ? then you can never appear members of 
 the catholic church, and this is all that is likely to 
 appear, for 1 see no more. 
 
 In page 7 you very seriously declare that " there 
 is but one faith or true religion," and that " God
 
 CHAP I. | 32 [part II. 
 
 has had a true church in all ages." " This," you 
 assure me, " the church of England denies no 
 more than she denies the existence of one true and 
 living God." 
 
 You have here uttered a wholesome sentence ; 
 but, whether your church will thank you for it, let 
 those judge who understand your Homilies. If 
 what you say here be true, then it follows, that the 
 church of England certainly denies the existence 
 of one true and living God ; for it is evident that 
 she positively denies any true faith or true religion 
 to have existed at all for above eight hundred 
 years together before the pretended reformation, 
 as may be seen in her Homily against the Peril of 
 Idolatry, which homily is authorised and imposed 
 upon her members for a point of faith in the 35th 
 of her 39 articles. Its words are these : " the 
 preaching of God's word, most sincere in the be- 
 ginning, by process of time became less and less 
 pure, and afterwards corrupt, and last of all alto- 
 gether laid down and left off &c : not only the un- 
 learned and simple, but the learned and wise ; not 
 the people only, but the bishops ; not the sheep, 
 but also the shepherds themselves, being blinded 
 by the bewitching of images, as blind guides of the 
 blind, fell both into the pit of damnable idolatry ; 
 in which all the world, as it were drowned, conti- 
 nued unto our age for the space of eight hundred 
 years ; unspoken against in a manner, so that laity 
 and clergy, learned and unlearned, of all ages and 
 sexes, and degrees of men and women and children 
 of whole Christendom (an horrible thing to think) 
 have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, 
 of all other vices most detested by God, and 
 damnable to men, and that for the space of eight 
 hundred years together. And to this end is come 
 that beginning of setting up of images in churches, 
 then judged harmless, in experience proved not 
 only harmful, but exitious and pestilential, and to
 
 PART II.] 33 [CHAP. I. 
 
 the destruction of all good religion universally" 
 Thus far the Homily. 
 
 Consider this well, Sir, and tell me how you 
 could have the confidence to affirm, that your 
 church of England never denied the existence of 
 one faith or true religion and God's having a true 
 church in all ages, any more than she denies the 
 being of one true and living God ; when it is by 
 the same church made an article of protestant 
 faith, to believe this said Homily, which in express 
 terms teaches, that the preaching of God's word 
 became corrupt and altogether forgotten, and that 
 all Christendom, yea, all the world, were for above 
 eight hundred years drowned hi abominable and 
 damnable idolatry to the destruction of all good re- 
 ligion universally ? 
 
 The doctrine of this Homily is asserted in the 
 writings of the most learned protestants of Eng- 
 land. Mr. Perkins, in his exposition of the Creed, 
 and in his book printed in lob'5, and in his reformed 
 catholic, affirms, that "before the days of Luther 
 for the space of many hundred years an universal 
 apostacy over-spread the face of the earth, and 
 that it continued for nine hundred years together. 
 Bale, in his sixth and seventh centuries, affirms 
 that " from the year 607 purity of heavenly doc- 
 trine vanished in the church, and after Gregory the 
 first it perished." Dr. Fulk, in his answer to a 
 counterfeit catholic, tells you, that " the true 
 church decayed immediately after the times of the 
 apostles." Your little numen, John Jewel, in his 
 apology in defence of it, assures you, that " the 
 truth was unknown at that time and unheard of 
 when Martin Luther and Huldrick Zuinglius first 
 came to the knowledge and preaching of the gos- 
 pel." This Jewel was the chief man in making 
 your homily : see Burnet on .'59 Articles. Your great 
 grand sire, John Calvin, in his tract of theology, 
 is of the same opinion with these. And yourself,
 
 CHAP. I.] 34 [part II. 
 
 Mr. Ritsehel, own, in effect, as much as all these 
 writers and the homily do, when you leap over 
 above one thousand years before you begin to seek 
 for yourprotestant religion, and there to pretend to 
 grope for it, where, as sure as you live, you will 
 never be able to find it. If God has had a true 
 church and true religion in all ages, why could not 
 the sixteenth age have served you with it without 
 running to the fourth age ? Is not this as much as 
 to say, that you contradict yourself ; and that there 
 never has been either true church or true religion 
 since the fourth age ? There is most wholesome 
 protestant doctrine. An universal apostacy for 
 nine hundred years together! heavenly doctrine 
 perished ! the true church decayed ! the temple of 
 God and light of the gospel obscured by Anti- 
 christ ! whole Christendom drowned in damnable 
 idolatry and all good religion destroyed universally ; 
 and that for eight hundred, nine hundred, yea, for 
 one thousand two hundred and sixty years toge- 
 ther! 
 
 Pray, Sir, what church was it that your church 
 was a true member of, during all those eight hun- 
 dred or twelve hundred damnable years ? If it was 
 a member of no church, then it was not a part or 
 member of the catholic church. If it was a mem- 
 ber of any one church in all Christendom, then it 
 was utterly drowned in abominable and damnable 
 idolatry. And then where was that communion 
 and common salvation with the true church of God 
 in all ages, of which you so often boast ? I hope 
 you will not say that you could have salvation 
 while you were drowned in damnable idolary ; for 
 this would render not only your pretended refor- 
 mation, but even Christianity itself, unnecessary. 
 I would have you extricate yourself out of this 
 labyrinth. 
 
 Besides this dilemma, you are involved in ano- 
 ther. You must either recall your assertion that
 
 PART II.] 35 [CHAP I. 
 
 " God had a true church in all ages, always pro- 
 fessing one true faith or true religion," (and this 
 would be a pity, for it is really true) or else, you 
 must deny the thirty-ninth article of your church 
 of England's faith, which obliges you to believe 
 the homiiy. By denying your assertion, and agree- 
 ing with the homily you murder, as much as lies 
 in you, the church of God for eight hundred years 
 together, and contradict Christ himself, who 
 promised that the gates of hell should never prevail 
 against his church. "And then," as you say, " God 
 knows what a sad case you are in." By renoun- 
 cing your article and your homily, you incur your 
 church's excommunication. Of the two choose 
 the latter : you had better be anathematized by the 
 pretended church of England than by Christ him- 
 self and his holy church : by the one your Hexham 
 vicarage is only lost, by the other your soul for all 
 eternity. 
 
 But, supposing that your church of England 
 never denied that God had a true church and true 
 religion in ail ages, what is this to the purpose ? 
 It will not follow from it that she is either a part 
 or true member of it, or that she holds one faith 
 and true religion. Your business is to prove she 
 does ; but, instead of this, you trifle on in things 
 foreign to the subject, telling us, " it is true, indeed, 
 that there is one faith or true religion, and God's 
 having a true church in all ages will profit us 
 nothing unless we ourselves be found true mem- 
 bers of it." " And this," you say, "I did prove." 
 What occasion was there of your proving this ? 
 who ever denied that God's having a true church 
 will profit us nothing unless we be members of it ? 
 One would have thought you might have spent your 
 time better in proving you are true members ot 
 it, than in pretending to prove what no one denies. 
 But proceed and tell me how you did prove it : 
 for, although it is nothing to the purpose, yet, \
 
 CHAP. I.J 36 [part II. 
 
 am desirous of knowing how, or in what manner 
 you did it. " This I proved by asserting" (a very 
 pretty new way indeed of proving! How came you 
 to have so much confidence in your naked asser- 
 tions as to think them able to pass for armed 
 evidence ? But what did you assert ?) " that we 
 hold communion with the true church of God be- 
 fore the coming of Christ." What relation, I pray, 
 has this assertion-proof to the thing you pretended 
 to prove by it ! Is this assertion (provided it were 
 true, as indeed it is not) any thing like a proof, 
 that " God's having a true church will profit you 
 nothing unless you be found members of it ?" Put 
 assertion and assertion-proof together, and it is the 
 same as if you had told us that, your having 
 preached a sermon last Sunday could profit the 
 people nothing unless they heard it, and had proved 
 this by asserting that you wear a canonical gown as 
 other parsons do. There is just as little proved 
 by this, as there was by the other: nor is there the 
 least more sense in it. But, what reason do you 
 give for proving it in this manner? " I did it to 
 shew, you say," what just grounds we protestants 
 have to plead antiquity, and to prevent your repeat- 
 ed charge of novelty." This completes the come- 
 dy. You have shewn your church's antiquity, 
 as the man did his gentility who asserted, that 
 " on his shoul he could deduce his pedegree from 
 before Adam." 
 
 Let us now have the second assertion proved. 
 " This I proved from hence, that they and we 
 have the same common salvation." Prove this, 
 Sir. " For they were saved by the merits of Je- 
 sus Christ alone, as we." We ! who ? We pro- 
 testants ? you must not expect, Mr. Uitschel, to 
 have it granted that you protestants are saved by 
 the merits and blood of Christ. This is what you 
 have yet to prove. To say that you have the 
 same common salvation with the church of God;
 
 PART II.] 3? [CHAP I. 
 
 or that you are saved by the blood of Christ, is 
 vain, if you are not members of the church of 
 Christ ; which none ought to believe you to be till 
 you prove it. For the merits of Christ, the head, 
 cannot be applied but to those alone who are 
 members of his mystical body the catholic church. 
 They who are not members of this body (as 
 heretics) are destitute both of the grace and 
 means of having them applied to their souls. 
 
 Your way of arguing is singular. First, you 
 assert a thing ; to prove which you bring another 
 of your own bare assertions ; to prove this a 
 third ; for this a fourth ; and, when all this is done, 
 the last of your assertions, which should support 
 all the former, wants a prop for itself. Thus, 
 after an abundance of pains in building up your 
 bulwark of argument, at last the whole airy cas- 
 tle tumbles down into its first nothing for want of 
 foundation. You then bring a text of scripture 
 from Acts, chap. 4. verse 12, to prove that there 
 is no salvation in any other but Christ ; this no 
 one denies. What you ought to have proved is 
 that you protcstants are members of the body of 
 Christ's church ; and consequently capable of this 
 salvation in him and through his name. Go on. 
 "Now the fathers under the old testament did 
 enjoy the same spiritual benefits that the church 
 of England doth now under the gospel." And 
 this you prove by another text, as if I were going 
 to deny it, taking it in St. Paul's sense. But the 
 tiling you should here have proved, I tell you 
 again, is that you are part of the church of 
 Christ : for, till this be done, you can have no 
 pretence at all to the spiritual benefits which 
 either the fathers under the old testament, or 
 Christ's church under the gospel, enjoy. You go 
 on again thus, "They did eat the same spiritual 
 meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, the 
 same not only with themselves, but also with us
 
 CHAP I. I 38 [part II. 
 
 christians, though not the same outward signs 
 and symbols. They had also the same means of 
 justification by faith in Christ." This being 
 also in your first letter you now tell me I passed 
 over it without taking notice of it ; and indeed 
 so I did, for I saw nothing in it that could benefit 
 your cause, or prejudice mine. However, for 
 your satisfaction I shall take good notice of it 
 now. , 
 
 That the fathers of the old testament did Cat 
 the same spiritual food, and drink the same spi- 
 ritual drink with true christians, that is with the 
 church of Christ, that is with us christians, of the 
 holy catholic church, I grant. But that they did 
 eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same 
 spiritual drink with false christians, that is, with 
 heretics, that is with you protestants, I deny. 
 Nor can you pretend to eat or drink of that 
 spiritual rock Christ (T tell you again) till you 
 have made it evident that you are members of 
 the church of Christ. 
 
 I cannot but smile at your pretty little cunning 
 way of begging the thing you are to prove. 
 " They did eat," you say " the same spiritual 
 food, and drink the same spiritual drink with us 
 christians," &c. : that is to say, with us protestant 
 christians. Indeed, Sir, you might as well have 
 said with us protestant heretics : for (I repeat it 
 again) till you have proved yourselves to be 
 members of the church of Christ, we cannot take 
 you for any thing better than heretics. And it 
 is certain, that nothing is more false or absurd, 
 or more contrary to christian doctrine, than to 
 say, the fathers of the old testament did eat the 
 same spiritual meat &c. with heretics, or here- 
 tics with them; nay, it is madness to say that 
 heretics eat any spiritual meat, or drink any 
 spiritual drink at all, except that with which they 
 are fed at the devil's table. This is all, Sir, that
 
 PART II."] 39 [CHAP. I. 
 
 your doughty argument has made out, though 
 you conceited it to be so awful a thing that 1 durst 
 not take notice of it, 
 
 I observe that your drift all along is, to try if 
 by any means, you can get yourselves shuffled 
 into the society of catholics, or true christians, 
 by your two little syllables, us, and we, which 
 you craftily thrust now and then into your sen- 
 tences, expecting to obtrude them upon us 
 without our ever noticing the juggle. But this 
 protestant policy will never stand. It is not your 
 asserting that, " they (of the old testament) did 
 eat and drink with us protestants" ; or that " we 
 protestants have the same common salvation 
 with them"; or that "we protestants have the same 
 justification by faith in Christ," or "by the merits 
 of the blood of Christ with them" ; or that, " we 
 protestants hold communion with the true church 
 of God in faith" &c. it is not, I say, your assert- 
 ing all these things, that can prove you to be 
 members of the church of Christ, or possibly 
 get yourselves hemmed into its communion, ei- 
 ther before Christ's coming or since. 
 
 To the question which I asked in my answer io 
 your first letter, viz. what all this signified to 
 prove you the catholic church, or as true catho- 
 lics as ever lived upon the face of the earth, you 
 answer thus : " Yes, Sir, I think it is very plain 
 that, if we hold communion in faith with the true 
 church of God in all ages, this being the principal 
 bond of catholic union, we justly deserve the 
 name of catholics." To this I reply, that if you 
 do thus hold communion &c. it is very plain, 
 that you are catholics ; but if you do not, then it 
 is very plain to the contrary. But you have 
 never yet proved that you do hold this commu- 
 nion ; and if you do not hold it, what then ? 
 Then it will be very plain that you do not de- 
 serve the name of catholics.
 
 CHAP I.] 40 [PART II. 
 
 This word if, has broken the neck of most of 
 the choicest sentences in your letters ; it has haunt- 
 ed you ever since the beginning, and you cannot 
 yet, it seems, get quit of it. For example. " If 
 the church of Rome have not the true faith" &c. 
 " If it be so" &c. " If it appear." " If it appear 
 as I asserted." " If all this appear." " If it 
 appear that we believe.'' "If we do not break" 
 &c. " If we hold communion" &c. One would 
 have thought that so many ifs and appears might 
 have raised up some auspicious apparition before 
 this time. Well we are not far from it now, for in 
 the same 10th. page you affirm without either if', 
 or and, that "you have proved that the church 
 of England doth hold communion in faith with 
 the true church of God before the coming of 
 Christ. Now, supposing this to be true, as it is 
 not, it would only bring you under the notion of 
 Jews, and this would be all; for, if you would be 
 accounted christians, you must also hold commu- 
 nion in faith with that true church of God which 
 existed as well after the coming of Christ as be- 
 fore. I wonder, Sir, why you make so many pre- 
 tences to a communion with the church before the 
 coming of Christ, and so few with the christian 
 church since his coining. The question between 
 us is, not about you being members of the Jewish 
 synagogue, but whether you are a part of the 
 christian church, that is the catholic church. 
 You think it easier, it seems, to thrust your- 
 selves into the Jewish synagogue than into the 
 catholic church, ; but, for all that it appears you 
 can get entrance into neither. For, the mischief 
 of it is, that your affirmation, that you have 
 proved yourselves to hold communion with the 
 church before the coming of Christ, is not true. 
 And your misfortune is you can neither tell when, 
 nor where, nor how, nor by what evidence you have 
 ever yet proved any such thing. All that you
 
 PART II. 41 CHAP. I. 
 
 have done, except your fore-mentioned assertions 
 is onl)'. barely to assert that " your protestant faith 
 is the same (in substance) with that of the ancient 
 fathers before the coming- of Christ. And this I 
 utterly deny ; and you have it yet to prove. For 
 what you argue from Eusebius and the eminent 
 Cardinal Bellarmin will not stand for evidence in 
 your behalf, as you shall see when it is examined. 
 In your letter of March 4. page 5, you argue 
 thus, " Now, as your famous Bellarmin tells us, 
 Christianity changed not the church's substance, but 
 the condition only which it had in the Jewish syna- 
 gogue, and, as Eusebius proves that the christian 
 religion was then neither strange nor new, even so 
 the truly reformed protestant religion of the church 
 of England is not a new faith or religion but that 
 truly ancient catholic and apostolic faith which was 
 but once delivered unto the saints. And, in your 
 book, page 16, you repeat the same over again thus : 
 " The truth of what 1 asserted in my letter doth 
 still remain plain and evident, that, as Eusebius 
 tells us the christian religion was neither strange nor 
 new, so the religion of the church of England is as 
 old as Christianity itself, that we hold communion in 
 faith with the true church of God and the ancient 
 fathers before the coming of Christ, and so have 
 just grounds to plead antiquity and to call ourselves, 
 as we really are, as true catholics as ever lived 
 upon the face of the earth." You have grounded 
 your argument upon a false supposition, viz. that 
 the christian religion, of which Eusebius and Bel- 
 larmin speak, is your protestant religion ; and from 
 this you as falsely infer, that your protestant faith is 
 the same in substance with that of the ancient fa- 
 thers who lived before our Saviour's coming. But, 
 alas poor men ! your protestant religion was not 
 in being till many hundred years alter Eusebius's 
 time ; it is very unlikely therefore that Eusebius 
 should mean it when he speaks of the christian 
 p
 
 CHAP. I.] 42 [PART II 
 
 religion. And, as for Cardinal Bellarmin, he was so 
 far from supposing- protestants to be any part of the 
 church of Christ, that, on the contrary, he writes 
 against them and proves them to be heretics ; and 
 their protestancy, heresy. Your thus begging the 
 question only puts off the time to no purpose. 
 Prove therefore that your protestant religion is the 
 same with that christian religion of which Eusebius 
 speaks j and that your church is a member of that 
 church of which Bellarmin speaks; and then you 
 will have no further occasion of arguing that it is 
 the same in substance with theirs who lived before 
 the coming of Christ ; because we shall then grant 
 it to be the same with that of the catholic church 
 since his coming ; and this will end the dispute. 
 
 1 have now followed your footsteps through your 
 first section, but, without finding any stronger proof 
 for your church's being a part or member of the 
 catholic church, than you had for its being the whole 
 catholic church itself. You force me to pursue you 
 still, for, sec. 5, pagel27, you very kindly " pray me 
 have patience a while, and let you examine the mat- 
 ter over again ; for you are still, you say, in good 
 hopes of finding this proof. And you fancy I may 
 have overlooked it as I did those gross corruptions 
 in the church of God before the coming of Christ." 
 
 Well, Sir, such a civil and reasonable request 
 must not be denied : I am resolved therefore, with 
 as much patience as a repetition of such arguments 
 will admit, to wait till you have thoroughly examin- 
 ed all your evidences over again, whether relating to 
 your church's being a member of the catholic church, 
 or to the true church of God being ever corrupted 
 with gross corruptions in faith. Open then your 
 packet and begin.
 
 PART II.] 43 [CHAP. II. 
 
 CHAP II. 
 
 WHETHER PROTESTANTS OP THE CHURCH Op 
 ENGLAND ARE AS TRUE CATHOLICS AS EVER 
 LIVED UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH ? 
 
 JLHE argument I used to prove this great 
 point was this ; there is but one mystical body of 
 Christ, and that we hold communion with the true 
 church of God in all ages as well before as since the 
 coming of Christ." You have this to prove. " This 
 I proved from hence, that, as there is but one body 
 of Christ, so there is but one faith, or true religion, 
 and that we of the church of England have the same 
 faith and true religion with that of our first parents, 
 and the ancient fathers before and after the flood ; 
 even that truly ancient catholic and apostolic faith 
 which was but once delivered unto the saints, which is 
 that grand body." I answer, this assertion proves 
 nothing for you. That there is but one body of 
 Christ, and but one faith, and that this one faith is 
 the bond of catholic union, is thus far very true. 
 But it does no more towards proving you to be ca- 
 tholics than it does to your being Mahometans, 
 For those who are not members of this one mystical 
 body the catholic church (as schismatics and heretics 
 are not) can neither be accounted catholics, nor ca- 
 pable of salvation with it. I have told you till I am 
 weary, that you are not to be taken for members of 
 it till you have proved that you are such. Go on 
 then. " Now that we protestants have this grand 
 bond of catholic union and the same common salva- 
 tion with the church of God in all ages I proved (you 
 say) from hence. That, though our religion was of 
 late reformed, yet our glorious reformers did not 
 change or make it anew, but only purged it from
 
 CHAP. II.] 44 [part II. 
 
 that dross and corruption which it contracted from 
 the church of Rome, whereby it became as pure as 
 it was at first, even like gold purified in the fire ; 
 which reformation they sealed with their blood." 
 Thus you say. But tins begs what it should prove. 
 In the first place, I could wish to know what you mean 
 by the words "our religion" that is, whether you 
 mean that your protestant religion was lately reform- 
 ed, or that the one faith or, true religion was lately 
 reformed. If you speak of your protestant religion, 
 I agree with you that it was lately reformed, for it 
 has been reformed, and reformed since its first refor- 
 mation. It received its first form in the reign of king 
 Edward the sixth, king Henry the eight having by 
 schism prepared the way and administered matter to 
 this its form. It did not continue long under this first 
 shape, before its unstable formers thought proper to 
 reform it ; for, in this king Edward's reign, were 
 formed two different forms of common prayer, and a 
 new confession of faith consisting of forty-two arti- 
 cles, and new forms of ordination devised for the 
 making such a sort of pretended priests and bishops as 
 they then had a mind to set up. Queen Mary succeed- 
 ing, the greatest part and most learned of those new 
 reformers and reformed fled into Germany, where in 
 Frankfort, Embden,Strasburg and Zurich, but espe- 
 cially in Frankfort, they fell into such mortal jars, that 
 to this day they have never been reconciled. Queen 
 Elizabeth coming to the crown, another reformation 
 was made, the common prayer altered, confession of 
 faith changed by putting some articles out, inserting 
 new ones, changing others &c. King James the 
 first, moved by that bustle at Hampton court, made a 
 new explanation of the liturgy, contrary to the sense 
 in which they had taken it before ; he again altered 
 the confession of faith, leaving it as it now stands in 
 the thirty nine articles ; he rejected king Edward's 
 and queen Elizabeth's translations of scripture and or- 
 dered a new one to be made. During the reign of king
 
 FART II.] 45 [CHAP. II. 
 
 Charles the first, the unfortunate archbishop Laud 
 would needs be reforming' over again. He devised 
 a new common prayer book much like that made in 
 the reign of king Edward the second. This new 
 liturgy he sent into Scotland, thinking, that if he 
 could get it first settled there, it would more easily 
 be introduced into England. But the KnoXian 
 presbytery and their favourers were so offended 
 with it that they resolved vi et armis to oppose it ; 
 and they did so, till, at last, it cost both the busy 
 prelate and the king himself, as well as many thou- 
 sand others, their lives ; and here indeed your glorious 
 reformers did actually seal it with their blood, as you 
 say. 
 
 After this the presbytery comes to the government, 
 and makes a thorough reformation, purging it from so 
 much dross and corruption that they left no gold at 
 all behind, or at least so little that when the Inde- 
 pendent began to refine he could not preceive it, but 
 rather thought that it had never had so much as one 
 single grain of good metal in it since its first forming. 
 And therefore without further reforming he resolved 
 to hammer out of the rude chaos as many new reli- 
 gions as men ; till at last he brought it into the most 
 miserable and Babvlonical confusion that the world 
 ever saw. 
 
 When king Charles the second was restored the 
 pretended bishops made another reformation of the 
 liturgy. They devised new forms of ordination and 
 consecration, to make bishops, which it seems they 
 thought Edward the sixth's forms were incapable of 
 doing. Thus, Sir, your protestant religion has, since 
 its first birth, assumed more shapes and different forms 
 than ever Proteus himself was seen under. And very 
 likely it needs reforming yet ; otherwise an appoint- 
 ment of several bishops and doctors for the work 
 soon after king William's coming to the crown would 
 not have been necessary : nor need Mr. Hickingill 
 have presented his ceremony- monger to the parlia-
 
 CHAP. II.] 46 [PART II. 
 
 ment in the year 1699. But all these reformations 
 are no sign that the protestants have the grand bond 
 of catholic anion y faith ; but the contrary, for a faith 
 that always needs mending, and a reformation that is 
 always a chopping and changing,as yours has hitherto 
 been, may very reasonably be supposed to have 
 never yet been true, or, if true, to have been spoiled 
 by the mending. 
 
 If by the word " our religion" you do not mean 
 the reformation of this your protestant religion, then 
 you must be speaking of reforming that one faith or 
 true religion which you own to have been in existence 
 in all ages ; and of reforming that church of God 
 with which you held communion in all ages, as you 
 say. Now, to say that your glorious (as you vainly 
 style those infamous apostates) reformers did reform 
 the true church of God, and its one faith, or true re- 
 ligion, is a complete contradiction. For a faith that 
 is but one and true must needs be entire, and cannot 
 therefore be made either more or less without ceasing 
 to be what it was before the addition or diminution, 
 that is, it is not one and the same as it was before when 
 true, therefore not true. And a church or religion, 
 that is already true, cannot be supposed capable of 
 being reformed or mended, because it already is as it 
 ought to be. This wild notion of reforming a thing 
 which is already true is contradictory to your own 
 definition of reformation, which is this : " reforma- 
 tion is the restoring of a thing that is deformed to its 
 due form and constitution. The object of reforma- 
 tion is a thing deformed ; because, when it is as it 
 ought to be, it is right, and needs not mending. And 
 what cannot be deformed is no object of reforma- 
 tion." From this definition of yours I bring this ar- 
 gument ; that that religion, which is true, is as it 
 ought to be. This is self evident. Bnt that the 
 religion which Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, &c. pretend- 
 ed to reform was then true, is evident from your own 
 words, as we shall hereafter see. Therefore the re-
 
 PART II ] 47 [CHAP. II. 
 
 ligion, which Luther, Calvin, Cranmer &c. preten- 
 ded to reform, was then as it ought to be, that is, it 
 was then right and needed not reforming, and so 
 could be no object of reformation (as you truly say 
 in your definition). Again, a church or religion, 
 which is true, is not deformed nor corrupted with 
 errors ; for otherwise it could not be true, because 
 errors are contrary and destructive to truth. But 
 the religion and church, which they pretended to re- 
 form, was at that time the true religion and true 
 church of God. Therefore the church and religion, 
 which your first pretended refomers undertook to re- 
 form, was then neither deformed nor corrupted with 
 errors ; and thus no object of reformation. Thus, 
 Sir, instead of supporting your former assertions by 
 this your definition, by it you have contradicted them 
 all and ruined your pretended reformation. 
 
 I have yet to remind you that, in saying " your 
 reformers did not change or make it anew, but only 
 purge it from that dross and corruption, which it 
 had contracted, you beg three things you have still 
 to prove, for you are an eternal beggar^ Mr. Ritschel. 
 
 1st. That the one faith or true religion can possi- 
 bly be true, and erroneous and deformed, at one andthe 
 same time. 2ndly. That the one true faith, which the 
 church held at the time of your pretended reformation 
 was then actually corrupt and erroneous. 3rdly. That 
 your pretended reformers did really reform, and not 
 rather deform that one faith or true religion, which 
 you so often own the church to have held and believ- 
 ed at that time, when they undertook their pre- 
 tended reformation. These three points I say you have 
 still to prove, which will happen when you have 
 learned to reconcile contradictions. 
 
 After this your so deligent search for evidence you 
 have a mind to present us with the rule and manner of 
 this pretended reformation. And indeed, Sir, you 
 act very kindly in giving us a little recreation after 
 so tiresome an examination of vour invisible evidence
 
 PART II.] 48 [CHAP. II. 
 
 The scene opening, the rule appears under the 
 many hard names of, our idea, or platform, or 
 adequate rule, or grand exemplar, or standard, or 
 measure, or magna charta, or unalterable idea, a 
 company of uncouth and hideous names given by 
 3011 to the holy scripture. Now, according to this 
 idea or magna charta or what you will, must your 
 church be reformed. " Exactly agreeable where- 
 unto," say you, " is the truly reformed protestant 
 religion of the church of England." This I deny, 
 but you pretend to prove it thus. " For our 
 glorious reformers did not enquire after uncertain 
 traditions, but had recourse to the grand exemplar 
 that christian magna charta and made it alone the 
 rule and measure* of their reformation." This is 
 an argument indeed ! They did not enquire after 
 uncertain traditions, but made the grand examplar 
 alone the rule of their reformation. Therefore their 
 reformation is exactly agreeable to the grand 
 examplar or christian magna charta. A schoolboy 
 beginning to learn to write his ABC. has recourse 
 to the grand examplar his masters copy, and 
 makes it alone the rule and measure of his writ- 
 ings. Therefore what the schoolboy scribbled is 
 exactly agreeable to his masters copy. Thus like a 
 schoolboy you argue, Mr. Ritschel. 
 
 To your reformers not enquiring after uncer- 
 tain traditions I answer, they did very well. But 
 they would have done still better had they enquired 
 after certain trudilions. But they, cautious men, 
 were so afraid of uncertain traditions that they 
 resolved (to make sure work) not to make any . 
 enquiry at all, even after such as were really cer- 
 tain. As to their making that magna charta their 
 rule it does not prove that either that rule was 
 proper for squaring out such a model, or that the 
 work was performed exactly, and in all points 
 according to that rule. These two points then you 
 have to prove. For the evidencing this last you will
 
 PART II.] 49 [CHAP II. 
 
 be obliged, first, to give us an entire catalogue of 
 all fundamental points of faith that are contained 
 in your rule. Secondly, you must likewise produce 
 another catalogue of all and every fundamental 
 point of faith that your pretended reformers 
 thought of necessity fit to own and propose to the 
 protestant church of England to be believed ; 
 which two lists must exactly agree in every point, 
 otherwise you will not be able to make it appear 
 that your truly reformed protestant church of 
 England is exactly agreeable to your idea or grand 
 exemplar. Thus far, Sir, I have accompanied you 
 in the examination of evidence, and all I or you 
 can find proved by them is quite contrary to the 
 end for which you produced them, as is shown 
 also above. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this you are still resolved 
 to have the true church of God corrupted. And 
 therefore what cannot be done by dint of argu- 
 ment you expect to perform by authority of sa- 
 cred scripture : for you will needs have the scrip- 
 ture to make and mar God's holy church. I should 
 have said mar and make, for by the scripture you 
 first mar her, by making her corrupt, erroneous and 
 deformed, and this on purpose that by scripture 
 you may again make or reform her.
 
 CHAP III.] 50 [part II. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 AN EXAMINATION OP SOME TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE 
 ALLEDGED TO PROVE THE CHURCH OP GOD TO HAVE 
 BEEN CORRUPTED IN FAITH BEFORE THE COMING 
 OF CHRIST. 
 
 XN my answer to your letter of March 4th I 
 told you, if the church you reformed was at that 
 time the true church of God, then their was no 
 need of reforming it. To which you thus reply. 
 " I deny your consequence, for that the true church 
 of God may at some times have many errors and 
 corruptions both in faith and manners, which ought 
 to be reformed. Such was the state of the church 
 of God under Ahab king of Israel : there was 
 such a general apostacy, it was so deformed with 
 corruptions." 1 kings. 19 chap. Here you suppose 
 those apostatizing idolaters of the Iraelites to be 
 the church of God while in their idolatry. But 
 this is a false supposition ; for, as soon as they 
 became idolaters, they ceased to be the church of 
 God, or so much as members of it. Secondly, you 
 say it is a general or universal apostacy of the 
 whole church of God. But this is so notoriously 
 false that you even contradict it yourself in the 
 very same paragraph, page 134, producing out of 
 the 18th. verse of the same chapter no fewer than 
 seven thousand that had not bowed their knees to 
 Baal. And you might have added to these the 
 whole kingdom of Juda over which the good kings 
 Asa and Josaphat then reigned, which was not in- 
 volved in that apostacy nor guilty of idolatry to 
 Baal or any other false God. So that it was far 
 from an apostacy of the whole church of God. 
 
 " Like unto this," say you, " was the state of 
 the church of God under Manasses king of Juda,
 
 PART II.] 51 | CHAP. III. 
 
 2 kings, chapter 21." If you had minded that 
 chapter well, Mr. Ritschel, you might have seen 
 in the tenth and fourteenth verses that the whole 
 church of God did not then totally fall. For there 
 are the holy prophets, and a remnant of God's in- 
 heritance mentioned ; nor do you know that the 
 other ten tribes were at that time in idolatry. So 
 that there was not a general apostacy, as you false- 
 ly insinuated. After this you bring the first chap- 
 ter of Isaiah to prove a total corruption in faith 
 from the foot to the head of God's church : where- 
 as, in all that whole chapter, there is not one word 
 of their idolatry, schism, heresy, or corruption 
 in faith. What the prophet so severely reprehends 
 is, their wicked manners and bad lives, not any 
 errors in faith, as you may see by reading the 
 chapter, where their several vices are by name 
 exclaimed against, in so much that they are for 
 them look upon as a harlot. Yet, as to faith, she 
 is still called the faithful city. And it is evident 
 they still kept their faith from their then offering 
 sacrifices and oblations to the true God, a sign 
 evident enough that they were not idolaters. And, 
 though those their sacrifices were not acceptable, 
 yet it was not for their errors or corruptions in 
 faith, but for their blood, murders, rebellions, 
 oppressions, &c. as you yourself also signify, p. 
 87- But. admit this wickedness of theirs had been 
 against faith, yet by your favour, Sir, you ought 
 not, from that hyperbolical expression of the pro- 
 phet, to have thus unskilfully, as well as uncharita- 
 bly, concluded that all were fallen from the faith, 
 and not so much as one left in the true belief. If 
 you had not been stupified with the impious desire 
 of having God's holy church utterly lost and in- 
 guiphed in apostacy, you would certainly have 
 observed the ninth verse of the same chapter, 
 when 1 then; is mention made of a small remnant 
 secured by the Lord of Hosts from the wickedness
 
 CHAP III. | 52 [part II, 
 
 of the rest ; which small number is, in the foregoing 
 verse, called the daughter of Sion, that is, the 
 church ; but the wicked are resembled to Sodom 
 and Gomorrah. 
 
 This puts me in mind of your corrupt and false 
 gloss "put upon the text when you say, " God com- 
 plains of the daughter of of Sion" ; whereas the 
 daughter of Sion is rather compassionated as a 
 cottage left in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden 
 of cucumbers, and as a besieged city, verse 8, and 
 the complaint is against the wicked, to whom the 
 prophet says, hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers 
 of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye 
 people of Gomorrah, v. 10. I say therefore if their 
 fall had been in faith (as it then was not) yet you 
 cannot make it a total or universal apostacy while 
 the holy prophet Isaiah himself and that remnant, 
 the daughter of Sion, were safe and untainted with 
 the corruption. Thus, Sir, you deal with the 
 sacred scripture : I wonder your own conscience 
 checks you not when you put such false and forced 
 expositions upon the word of God. 
 
 You alledge no more scripture authorities in this 
 section, yet, since you so often make use of it in 
 other places, I shall, for method sake, examine 
 them all under this head, whether they relate to 
 the pretended corruptions of the universal, or to 
 the erring of a particular church. 
 
 You tell me " you perceive I have no mind to 
 acknowledge any corruptions (in faith) in the 
 church of God either before or since the coming 
 of Christ," which is a very true and right percep- 
 tion. And " you suppose my reason is, to take 
 away all pretence of a reformation." But this 
 your supposition, Mr. Ritschel, is as false as the 
 former is true : for, if you had never pretended a 
 reformation, I should have still had the same mind 
 never to acknowledge corruptions in faith in the 
 church of God, because I know her to be the pil-
 
 PART II. | 53 [CHAP. III. 
 
 lar and ground of truth, and secured by the Holy 
 Ghost from all error. " Otherwise," say you, 
 " you might have found corruptions, yea very 
 many corruptions, in the church of God before the 
 coming of Christ, and those both in doctrine and 
 manners. Pray what do you think of the state of 
 the church of God before that good king Josias's 
 reformation ? 2 Kings, 23. 1 suppose you will not 
 call them schismatics for it, and say they did break 
 the bond of catholic union. 
 
 Besides what I have already replied to this, 
 I must further teH you, that there is a great deal 
 of protestant legerdemain in this question. First, 
 you demand in the singular number, " what I 
 think of the church of God" ? Then, in the plural 
 you suppose I will not call " them" schismatics. 
 This you do to confound the church and the fallen 
 idolaters together : hereby to infer that the whole 
 church of God fell, and that the whole church was 
 again reformed. Or else (for either will be for 
 your turn) that those who fell into idolatry remain- 
 ed still, notwithstanding their idolatry, part and 
 members of the church of God. And it is certain 
 you aim at this from your supposing " I will not 
 call them schismatics." But, to the question, 
 " what do I think of the church of God," I answer, 
 the church of God was then in as good state as 
 ever, as to its faith, keeping it sound, whole, and 
 undefded, and neither needed reformation in faith, 
 nor did Josias pretend to reform it. But as to your 
 supposing [will not call "them" schismatics, I 
 answer, I call them not only schismatics, but I call 
 them idolatrous apostates, as you yourself do : and 
 say, while they were under this apostacy they 
 were no part of the church of God. For the be- 
 lief of false Gods and worship of idols are incon- 
 sistent with, and destructive to the faith and wor- 
 ship of the true God, consequently break the bonds 
 of catholic union by which they were united to the
 
 CHAP. III.] 54 [part II. 
 
 church of God. Yet you, charitable man, though 
 you make faith and worship two bonds of catholic 
 union, yet will still have those joined to the church 
 who have broken them both ; and therefore can- 
 not endure to have them called schismatics. You 
 are content to run into this absurdity rather than 
 not have the church of God corrupt, and so you 
 want a pretence of reforming her. Whatever 
 charity you have for those idolaters, I am sure you 
 shew none to the true church of God. Now it was 
 these Israelites, who were thus fallen from the 
 church into idolatry, whom the good king Josias 
 brought back again into the church by reducing 
 them to their former faith and worship of God. 
 Bat you go on, "did not the Saducees in the time 
 of Christ, deny the resurrection of the dead and 
 the existence of angels and spirits, and did not the 
 Scribes and Pharisees greatly err" ? I answer, 
 yes they did. The Saducees were heretics for 
 denying the resurrection and the being of angels 
 and spirits. They Scribes and Pharisees, and all 
 others of the then misbelieving Jews who would 
 not believe our Saviour, then come in the flesh, 
 to be the Messias, became infidels, and ceased to 
 be any longer members of the church of God. The 
 church of God was so far from being extinguished 
 or corrupted by their disbelief, that, on the con- 
 trary, it was never more beautiful, nor more safe 
 and secure, nor more happy, than at that very time 
 when the son of God its redeemer was then visibly 
 present with it in human flesh, and, though its 
 visible members were not so many at that time as 
 at others, yet, considering the excellence, dignity, 
 and supereminent sanctity of its then public pro- 
 fessors, as our blessed Lady the Mother of God, 
 St. Joseph, St. Joachim, St. Anne, St. Zachary, St. 
 Elizabeth, St. John Baptist, the holy shepherds who 
 visited Christ at his birth in Bethlcm, the three 
 sages who adored him in the manger, and many
 
 PART II. j 55 [CHAP III. 
 
 others, as his holy apostles and disciples and 
 others who, when he more puplicly revealed 
 himself by the many great and stupendous miracles 
 which he wrought, believed in him; I say, consider- 
 ing all this, you will find no ground for your blas- 
 phemous text that " the church of God was then 
 corrupted" though you diabolically cite scripture 
 (in a false sense) to prove it. You further demand, 
 " doth not God complain of the daughter of 
 Sion, Isaiah 1. ?" This I have answered already 
 where I have shewn you how falsely you interpret 
 that text. 
 
 Then you conclude your search after scripture 
 authority thus, " but your love (speaking to me) 
 is so great that it hides all her deformities : and 
 you still fancy her to be admirably fair and beau- 
 tiful without spot or blemish, and do not think 
 there was any need of reformation." It is very 
 true, my love to the catholic church is as great and 
 far greater than you can imagine ; and, if it were 
 millions ot times greater than it is, yet it would 
 come far short of what she deserves. But it is an 
 absurd thought of yours to imagine my love hides 
 any deformities in her that neither has, nor ever 
 had, nor ever can have at all. As to my thoughts 
 of her being so admirably fair and beautiful they 
 are confirmed by St. Paul himself. 
 
 I am sure, Mr. Ritschel, tor your part, you dis- 
 cover as little love and affection to this mystical 
 body and most beautiful spouse of Christ, as the 
 reprobated Jews did to Christ himself. The Jews 
 bruised, wounded and mangled his most innocent 
 and sacred body with cruel stripes, and crowned 
 his tender head with sharp and piercing thorns, 
 leaving not any sound part in him from head to 
 foot, and even deprived him of life by nailing his 
 sacred hands and feet to the cross. You, Sir, 
 imitating them, bend all your endeavours to 
 wound, bruise, ulcerate, (to use your own words)
 
 CHAP. III.] 56 L PART " 
 
 corrupt, deform, mangle, rend in pieces, and utter- 
 ly destroy, if you could, his mystical body the holy 
 catholic church. You shew far more love and cor- 
 dial affection to schismatics, heretics, unbclieveing 
 Jews, idolaters, and infamous apostates, than to 
 the church of God, when you plead thus earnestly 
 for their being yet members and parts of her. 
 
 You speak much of "faith's being the grand 
 bond of catholic union /' and so the catholic faith 
 is to catholics : for it unites them all together into 
 the holy catholic church. But, that this faith should 
 join to the church such as have no faith at all in 
 them, as Saducees, Jews, schismatics, heretics, 
 idolaters, and apostates, is the most amazing pa- 
 radox that ever had being in the mind of man. 
 
 That bond of catholic union then, of which you 
 speak, can never be the catholic faith, for the catho- 
 lic faith never united any to the church of God but 
 such as believed and held it entire and inviolate, 
 as you may learn by the Athanasian creed. The 
 bond you speak of must therefore certainly be 
 your protectant faith (such as it is). Now I will 
 not say but by this protectant bond you may work 
 wonders, and knit (to use our own words) together 
 vast shoals of people, of all sects, so indeed to 
 make up a thing you call a church, of a large ex- 
 tent and great antiquity : and so you do. For you 
 stretch it out to that incredible and boundless cir- 
 cumference as to circle within it idolatry, worship- 
 pers of false Gods, (as in page 104, 134) schisma- 
 tics and heretics, (as in page 3, 105, 136, 139, 140) 
 Saducees, Pharisees, Scribes, who were misbelie- 
 vers, (as in page 105) and apostates (page 134 &c.) 
 By which reason you also include all of those sorts 
 and sects that have ever been upon the face of the 
 earth from the beginning to this day. Consider 
 it well, Sir. By making the idolaters that fell 
 under Ahab and Manasses part of the church, 
 you take in all other idolaters by the same reason
 
 PART II*] 57 [CHAP III. 
 
 that have ever been. By bringing in the misbe- 
 lieving Jews in Christ's time for part, you make 
 way for all the rest of the Jews that have been 
 since to this day, though such grand enemies to 
 Christ and Christianity. By embracing the Sa- 
 ducees, Balaamites, and the Nicholaitan heretics, 
 and by also making members of the Waldensian 
 heretics, and of the schismatical and heretical 
 Greek churches, you open the gates to all the 
 schismatics and heretics that have ever divided 
 themselves from, or rebelled against the church of 
 God. In short, Mr. Ritschel, you have compassed 
 within this your prodigious bond of protestant 
 union, all Jews, Turks, infidels, schismatics and 
 heretics that have ever been from the days of 
 your first parent Cain, to your own time. A brave 
 bundle you have bound up and buckled together 
 by this your protestant bond of union I This is your 
 vast large protestant catholic church, with which 
 you hold, and have held, communion in all ages. 
 This is that holy congregation, with which you 
 have the same common salvation you talk of. No 
 wonder you so often and so loudly proclaim against 
 her as leprous, wounded, bruised, ulcerated, cor- 
 rupted, and horridly deformed from head to foot 
 (i. e. from Cain to G. It.) as you do in the places 
 be^re cited. Seeing this is your church, I shall 
 readily own " you have (as you say page 16) just 
 ground to plead antiquity and to call yourselves as 
 true catholics (of the sort) as ever lived upon the 
 face of the earth." You need neither except Cain, 
 Nimrod, Judas Tseariot, Simon Magus, Arius, 
 Berengarius, Luther, or any of them all, for 1 
 own you protestants of the church of England 
 are as true to the cause as the best of them. But 
 I pray, Sir, keep this church of yours to yourselves, 
 and yourselves to it, if you please : for, Gn\ for- 
 bid that any who tender God's honor, or their own 
 eternal good, should ever come within the limits of 
 
 H
 
 CHAP III.] 58 I PART II. 
 
 your large bond of union ; for my part, I am resol- 
 ved to put it into my Litany : from communion with 
 your protestant kirk Good Lord deliver us. 
 
 Here are yet two texts of scripture to be exa- 
 mined, which, though they strike not so directly 
 against the universal church as the former, were 
 designed to do, (they being partly spoken against 
 particular churches) yet, as to what you pretend 
 to prove by them, they are no less wretchedly 
 handled than the other. 
 
 In the first page of your book you tell me " you 
 cannot but take notice of the preposterous me- 
 thod 1 propose to you, to prove yourselves the 
 catholic church before I can believe you hold the 
 catholic faith whole and undented." By this 
 same rule," say you, "the church of Pergamos 
 might have justified herself and pleaded her 
 great pat ience, constancy and love of Christ, who 
 gives this testimony of her, (Rev. : 2. 13.) Thou 
 holdest fast my name and hast not denied my 
 faith" "But," continue you, "doth this prove 
 her to be pure and un defiled, and acquit her from 
 ail suspicion and imputation of false doctrine, of 
 which lie doth accuse her in the following verse ; 
 but I have a few things against thee because thou 
 hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, 
 fyc. Thou hast also there them that hold the doc- 
 trines of the JVicolaites, which thing I hate ; and 
 for which he doth severely threaten her in the 
 following verse, unless she did repent, that is" say 
 you " reform herself," Sic : " hereby", you tell me, 
 " I may see that my way of arguing is very 
 fallacious." You mistake, Sir, for this proves it 
 not so. But it evidences yourself a most fallacious 
 expositor of scripture, as I shall presently shew 
 you. From this text concerning the church of 
 Pergamos you would infer, that the catholic church 
 may he corrupted in faith ; which cannot be ga- 
 thered from the fall of a particular church, much
 
 PART II.] 59 [CHAP. III. 
 
 less from this of Pergamos, which was not then 
 erroneous, as you falsely insinuate both here and 
 in page 136, by bringing in this church of Per- 
 gamos as impure and defiled, and confidently af- 
 firming that our blessed Saviour accuses her of false 
 doctrine : and yet, in the very foregoing words, 
 you cite the text itself, which proves quite the con- 
 trary, viz. " that Christ gives testimony of her, 
 thou holdest fast my name and hast not denied my 
 faith" Those, whom Christ accuses of false doc- 
 trine, are only such as held the doctrines of Ba- 
 laam and the Nicholaites, and not the church 
 itself. What he blames the church for is, those 
 impious heretics there, that is, for not expelling 
 them and casting them out by excommunication. 
 The text is clear, " / have a few things against 
 thee, because thou hast there them that hold the 
 doctrine of Balaam ," &c. : so hast thou also there 
 them that hold the doctrine of the JVicolaites which 
 thing I hate. Those who read this chapter of the 
 revelations may see, however weak their judgment 
 may be, that the accusation is only against the he- 
 retics, and that all the blame laid to the church is, 
 I say, only for having them there without expelling 
 them ; and this is still more evident from the follow- 
 ing verse, where Christ says to the church, repent, 
 or else I will come unto thee quickly and will fight 
 against themwith the sword of my mouth. Observe 
 here, he bids the church repent, that is, of her hav- 
 ing them there : for, of what else should she be 
 bidden to repent, but of that for which she is 
 blamed ? He does not bid her repent or reform 
 herself of any false doctrine or errors in faith, as 
 you would insinuate by putting your own false 
 gloss upon the text when you say, " he bids her re- 
 form herself;" nor does he so seven !y threaten her, 
 as you stil j further maliciously insinuate, to make 
 it seem as if she was threatened for holding false 
 doctrine and corruptions in faith. But the seve-
 
 CHAP III. J 60 [part II 
 
 rity of the threatening is against the heretics; 
 I will fight against them with the sword of my 
 mouth. Now these last words of the text you 
 very craftily, corruptly and disingepuously omit, in 
 order to get the threatening bent only at the church, 
 not at the heretics, or, at least, as much against 
 the church as against them, as if the church had 
 been equally guilty of the heresy with them. 
 
 In another place you cite also the church of 
 Ephesus, from the same chapter of Revelations, 
 as if she also had erred in faith. Yet, the text is 
 so far from signifying any such thing, that, on the 
 contrary, it frees her from this imputation, when 
 it says of her ; thou triedst them who say they are 
 apostles and are not $ and hast thou found them 
 liars. Nor does he accuse her of any errors in 
 faith or doctrine, but, in leaving her first love, that 
 is, in growing cold and slack in charity. / have 
 some things against thee because thou hast lost thy 
 first love. 
 
 Thus far, Sir, I have examined your texts of 
 scripture brought, as by you expounded, against 
 the church of God. And there is not one of these 
 chapters, by you cited for the church's being cor- 
 rupted, but what evidently proves her, atthose very 
 times when idolatry and heresy raged the most, 
 still remaining constant, uncorrupted, and firm in 
 in faith. Whether to accuse you of malice or 
 ignorance I know not ; but it seems as if both had 
 share in your corrupt expositions. Be it as it 
 will, this is certain, that you have misapplied and 
 falsely interpreted every text you have meddled 
 with. 
 
 I remember in your book, page 47, you tell me 
 that "the church of England has the best inter- 
 preter and expositor of scripture that is to be 
 found in the whole christian world." : which if 
 true, then it is certain you yourself have never 
 been instructed by that expositor. And, indeed.
 
 PART II. | 61 ["CHAP. III. 
 
 If your church of England apply and interpret 
 scripture at this day, as she did not long ago by 
 ^lr. Rogers in his book of the 39 articles, and as 
 you, who would seem one of her learned expositors, 
 have done in the above said texts, 1 dare boldly 
 affirm, that she is the very tcorst expositor that was 
 ever known in the whole republic of heretics, nay, 
 I question whether she may not take the right 
 hand of him who brought scripture against the 
 ton of God himself. 
 
 You tell me " the primitive church and first four 
 general councils is your church of England's expo- 
 sitor of scripture, (page 47.) You might as well 
 have said, and with as much truth too, that the 
 ages yet to come are your expositors. The pri- 
 mitive fathers and first four councils would have 
 hissed at such expositors as you and your church 
 of England. I would have you shew me, which of 
 those primitive expositors ever brought the said 
 texts of scripture, as you have done, to prove that 
 the church of God fell into a general apostacy, 
 and was totally corrupted and deformed with 
 errors in faith from head to foot ? If you cannot 
 do this, it will be but just to charge you with un- 
 pardonable wrong done to the primitive fathers, 
 when you bring scripture in such a sense as none 
 of them ever dreamed of, or would without hor- 
 ror have thought on. Besides, your parishioners 
 have just reason to exclaim against you for a 
 grand, impostor, in thus obtruding and imposing 
 Upon them those your own false and heretical in- 
 terpretations under the name and authority of the 
 primitive church and four first councils, when, in 
 Very deed, those ancient fathers would, I say again, 
 have abhorred any such anti-christian exposition. 
 Well, I win now justly conclude, that by endeavour- 
 ing to make GotCsholy church appear corrupt, you 
 have shewn yourself a corrupt expositor of the 
 tcerdof God.
 
 chap, rr.] 62 [part ii. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 your ridiculous distinction, mr. ritschel, be- 
 tween a true church and a sound church 
 considered; as also, your familiar exam- 
 ples of an infected man and drossy gold. I 
 
 xOU introduce your distinction with a text of 
 scripture taken from Isaiah, 1. 6. which, though 
 answered above, yet I must not omit putting it 
 down as by you delivered, page 140. " And doth 
 not God complain of the daughter of Si on in the 
 first chapter of Isaiah, that the whole head was 
 sick and the whole heart faint, from the sole of 
 the foot even to the head there was no soundness 
 in it, but wounds, bruises and putrifying sores. 
 And, therefore, we distinguishbetween a true church 
 and a sound church. As a man may be infected 
 with the plague or leprosy, and be full of wounds 
 and bruises and putrifying sores, and yet be a 
 true man, because he still retains the essential 
 parts of a man, which are an immortal soul and 
 human body, and these two united together, which 
 is the form and constitutive part of man." I 
 hope you will not say, that the essential part of 
 man, the soul, is infected and unsound by the 
 body s infection. If not, then your example is 
 impertinent and improperly applied against faith, 
 that essential part of the church. For, faith is to 
 the church as the soul of man is to the body, and 
 can no more be destroyed, hurt, or corrupted in 
 the whole church, than the soul of man can be 
 wounded, bruised, putrified, or annihilated by the 
 sickness of the body. 
 
 It is ridiculous to see that, after you have 
 brought this familiar example, as you call it, you 
 are put to your wits end what use to make
 
 PART II.] 63 [CHAP IV. 
 
 of it, or how to apply it. For, your fine, nice dis- 
 tinction, which the example is to illustrate, as you 
 say, you hegin, at the first, to level against the 
 universal church, thinking thereby to shew that 
 the whole catholic church can be infected and 
 unsound from head to foot, and corrupted in every 
 part with errors in faith, and yet, at the same time 
 still remain the true church of God. But, having 
 fortunately so much brains in your solid head as 
 to discern it is a contradiction, you in the next 
 paragraph wisely change the conceit from the 
 possibility that the universal church can err, to 
 this, that a particular church may be corrupt in 
 faith, and yet remain true in faith. By the same 
 sagacity of judgment, which assisted you in dis- 
 covering the former, you also perceive this to be 
 as notorious a contradiction as that, and so you 
 notably turn it off to this, that, "some members 
 of a particular church may err and become cor- 
 rupted in their faith, and yet the particular church 
 still keep its foundation (faith) sure." And this, 
 Sir, is very true ; but, you cannot leave a thing 
 when it is well ; for, you further argue from the cor- 
 ruption of the said some particular members of the 
 particular church, that the whole particular church 
 itself is sickly and unsound ; which is a most noto- 
 rious piece of nonsense. Reflect seriously upon that 
 paragraph of yours, which immediately follows the 
 example of the unsound and infected man. It is 
 this. " So we say a particular church may not 
 be free from all corruptions, nor hold the holy 
 catholic faith, in all points thereof, ichole and 
 undefiled. Yet, if the whole foundation thereof 
 remain sure, though a few may build upon that 
 foundation both hay, and straw, and stubble, such 
 a particular church may not be immediately cut 
 off from being any longer a member of Christ's 
 mystical body, though it may be a very sickly and 
 unsound member, as appears from the case of the 
 churches of Ephesus and Pergamos."
 
 CHAP. IV.] 64 [part II. 
 
 Consider, I say, all this, and you will find in it 
 as much as I have yet discovered, and perhaps 
 more. For, besides the change of the state of 
 the question from the catholic to a particular 
 church, from a particular church to some mem* 
 bers of it, there is also a false supposition, viz. 
 that the catholic faith, though not kept whole and 
 undefiled, yet the foundation thereof may remain, 
 sure, which is a plain contradiction. For, any 
 one error in faith, destroys faitji the foundation ; 
 because all the articles of faith being received 
 upon one and the same motive, (viz.) the verity of 
 the revealer, the formal denial of any one must 
 necessarily be a virtual denial of all, and conse- 
 quently the destruction of faith, without which 
 no one can be saved. And this is evident from 
 St. Paul's condemning Hymeneus and Philetus 
 for one only error in faith. Shun, says he, pro- 
 fane and vain speeches : for they grow much to- 
 wards impiety : and their speech spread eth like a 
 cancer : of whom are Hymeneus and Philetus, who 
 have erred from the truth, saying that the resurrec- 
 tion is past already, and have subverted the faith 
 of some. 2 TYm. 2. : 16, 17, 18. By this ex- 
 ample we see that one error overthrows faith. 
 That member which holds not the catholic faith 
 whole and undefiled shall perish eternally, says 
 St. Athanasius in the creed. 
 
 You likewise misapply and falsely interpret 
 St. Paul, when you thus apply to faith what he 
 speaks of works. You would make the holy 
 apostle say, the foundation, faith, may remain 
 sure at the very time and in the very persons, 
 that it is mixed with the wood, hay, and stubble 
 of errors and corruptions, which, you may see by 
 the examples of Hymeneus and Philetus, was a 
 thing never likely to enter into the mind of St. 
 Paul. Which of the primitive fathers or councils 
 taught you to expound St. Paul in this manner ?
 
 PART II*] 65 [CHAP IV. 
 
 Read my letter in defence of purgatory, and you 
 will there find in what sense the primitive church 
 understood St Paul's words concerning the build- 
 ing wood, hay, stubble, (that is, imperfect works) 
 upon the foundation, Christ. 
 
 To give you a right understanding of the 
 matter, for I see you talk at random, you must 
 know, that, when one particular member errs and 
 becomes corrupted in faith, though but in one 
 single point, his whole faith is thereby destroyed, 
 and he is an unfaithful man, and so hindered 
 from being a member : (you must mind that I 
 speak always of such as pertinaciously and 
 obstinately adhere to their error when the con- 
 trary is proposed or is condemned by the church) 
 so, in like manner, as many others as thus en% 
 so many are cut off from the body of that 
 particular church of which they were members ; 
 consequently, from the body of the catholic or 
 universal church, of which that particular church 
 is a part. In like manner, if a particular church 
 become thus erroneous and corrupt, it is hereby 
 separated, and by excommunication to be cut off 
 from the catholic church, as its former corrupt 
 members were from it. You must understand 
 further that the erring of one, or some few mem- 
 bers of a particular church, does not render the 
 particular church itself (I mean the rest-of it that 
 remains free from error) sickly and unsound, as 
 you, forming a blind mistake, thus boldly assert. 
 Nor does the erring of a particular church at all 
 hurt, corrupt, or render unsound the universal 
 church, as your argument would gladly make it 
 seem to do. It were very unreasonable to 
 charge the whole catholic church with corrup- 
 tions, sickness, and unsoundness in faith because 
 some particular church itself has lost its faith. 
 If some one simple cottage at the skirts of a 
 city were infected with the plague, would you 
 i
 
 CHAP IV.} 66 I PART II* 
 
 therefore go and shut up all the rest of the houses 
 in the town and proclaim them all unsound and 
 infected? Or, if some one town or city were 
 totally thus infected, would you therefore con- 
 clude the whole world languished under the same 
 mortal disease at the same time ? Yet your 
 arguing that a particular church is weak, sick, 
 and unsound, because some members of it are 
 corrupted, is grounded upon no better reason. 
 The Balamites and Nicholaitan heretics only lost 
 their own faith, they hurt not the faith of the 
 church of Pergamos ; for, as our Saviour testi- 
 fies, that church still kept the faith, as is already 
 shewn. So neither did the fall of Hymeneus and 
 Philetus hurt or wound the faith of those who 
 stood untainted with their error : for in such, as 
 St. Paul says, the foundation of God stood firm y 
 having the seal, Tn short, by erring, I say, in any 
 one point of faith, the whole faith of those who 
 so err is lost and destroyed, and its foundation 
 remains no longer sure, or at all in them. It is 
 those who err not at all, but hold the catholic 
 faith whole and inviolate in all points thereof, 
 that keep the foundation sure and firm* 
 
 The promise of our Saviour, that his church 
 should never fail or be prevailed against by the 
 gates of hell, on the one hand, and your pretence 
 to reformation on the other, focee you to con- 
 found yourself between two contrary principles. 
 
 First, you are forced to own (as indeed you do 
 in many places) that God has had a true church in 
 all agesr or else you would split yourself upon 
 the dangerous rock of contradicting our blessed 
 Saviour himself. Secondly, you are, on the other 
 hand, forced to affirm and hold that the church 
 of God was eorrupt and deformed with errors in 
 faith, at that time when your impious reformers 
 pretended to reform her, or else she eould not be 
 nretended an object of reformation, and this
 
 PART II.] 67 [CHAP. IV. 
 
 would break down and demolish the whole fabric 
 of protestancy. Now you, not being able to 
 hammer out of your tenacious brain any shew 
 of argument likely to reconcile this contradic- 
 tion, resolve upon this odd topic, of distinguishing 
 between a true church and a sound church, the 
 most ridiculous conceited whim that ever entered 
 into a parson's head, and this you illustrate, as 
 you say, by the aforesaid familiar example of a 
 man infected with a plague. But, that your 
 plaguy man should be so luminous as to illustrate 
 the ehurch of God to be unsound, at the same 
 that it is true, is more than ever you can discern 
 or make appear. But the contrary is yet further 
 evident, for the church of God, when you began 
 to reform, was then true ; or else it could not be, 
 as you say, true in all ages. If the church was 
 then true, its faith wa.v then true, because faith is 
 essential to the ehurch, as is evident from your 
 19th. article, and cannot be denied, unless you can 
 tell how to make a church without faith. If its 
 faith was then true, it must needs be saving faith, 
 that is, such a faith as joined with hope and 
 charity (which is always to be supposed) is suf- 
 ficient to salvation. For he that says the true 
 faith is not sufficient to salvation, will find no 
 faith at all that will save. The faith of the 
 church being therefore saving faith, it must needs 
 be whole, entire, and undefiled : for otherwise it 
 could not save those that held it, as is evident 
 from the Athanasian creed, which obliges us to 
 believe, that " whosoever will be saved it is neces- 
 sary that he hold the catholic faith, which faith 
 unless every one do keep whole and undefiled 
 without doubt he shall perish eternally." The 
 faith of the church being then whole, entire and 
 undefiled, it must of necessity be free from 
 errors and corruptions and all deformity; be- 
 cause errors and corruptions in faith break its
 
 CHAP IV.J 68 [part II. 
 
 integrity and defile faith : for, if they did not, 
 then faith would not be at all damnified, hurt, 
 prejudiced or deformed by them : and conse- 
 quently could still be no object of reformation ; 
 for, as you say " what is not deformed is still as 
 it ought to be, that is, it is right and needs no 
 mending." Seeing then that the church's faith, 
 when you began your pretended reformation, 
 was then free from all deformity, errors, and 
 corruptions, it must of necessity be sound ; for 
 what could make it unsound, when there was 
 neither deformity, error, nor corruption in it ? 
 
 In short, seeing that God has had a true church 
 in all ages, as you have so often granted, it 
 undeniably follows, that he has had a sound church 
 in all ages : consequently, a true and sound church 
 at that time when your inglorious reformers be- 
 gan their pretended reformation. And will you 
 now say they could reform the church that was 
 already both sound and true ? 
 
 Where now, Mr. Ritschel, is your pretended 
 object of reformation ? What is become of your 
 nice distinction between a true church and a 
 sound church ? What has your plaguy, leprous, 
 and infected man illustrated more than that his 
 master's judgment is unsound, and his faith pla- 
 guy and infected with errors and corruptions? 
 Well, Sir, to give yon all the play you can expect, 
 admitting this your infected man were as perti- 
 nent and pat an example to illustrate your dis- 
 tinction as you would pretend ; yet neither exam- 
 ple nor distinction can stand for proof, argument 
 or evidence that the true church of God was 
 actually erroneous and corrupt in faith at that 
 very time when you began your pretended refor- 
 mation. You therefore do but still beg the 
 point in question. Let us yet suppose another 
 impossibility : admit your aforesaid texts of 
 scripture were as good evidence for an universal
 
 PART II. | 69 [ CHAP. IV. 
 
 apostacy of the church, before the coming of 
 Christ, as you can wish, yet there is no evidence 
 at all that the catholic church was actually in 
 error and corrupted, or in the least deformed in 
 faith, at that very time when you began your 
 pretended reformation. So that here is nothing 
 but beggary still. 
 
 Your other example of drossy gold purified in 
 the fire, makes no more out for your point than 
 the former. For, though such drossy gold may 
 be purified, and your sick man cured, yet, it is 
 nonsense to say that a sound man can be cured 
 that has nothing to be cured in him ; or that the 
 most simple and fine gold, which has neither 
 dross, corruption, nor impurity in it, can be pu- 
 rified. Now the holy catholic church, that un- 
 blemished and immaculate spouse of Christ, is 
 justly compared to the purest and finest gold in 
 nature, and therefore cannot be supposed capable 
 of being made more pure than she is. In a 
 word, put all your beggarly assertions, pretended 
 proofs, eonceited distinctions, and illustrious ex- 
 amples together, and you cannot possibly raise 
 from them the thinnest shadow of evidence or 
 proof, that the catholic church may or can be 
 corrupted in faith : much less that she was ac- 
 tually erroneous, corrupt, and deformed in faith, 
 when your ignominious reformers began their 
 pretended reformation.
 
 CHAP. V.] 70 [PART II. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 MR. ROGERS' PROPOSITION THAT " THE VISIBLE 
 CHURCH MAY AND HAS ERRED IN DOCTRINE" BY 
 YOU OWNED AND BY YOU CONTRADICTED. 
 
 N page 91, you begin thus : "As to the propo- 
 sition of Mr. Rogers, that the visible church may, 
 and from time to time hath erred, both in doctrine 
 and conversation, this appears from experience, or 
 matter of fact, as the church of Jerusalem, 
 Alexandria, Antioch, &c. : and we confess that 
 the church of England did err before our 
 reformation, by following the errors of the 
 church of Rome." You are resolved to strike 
 home now, Sir, by daring to pretend to 
 evince the thing by " experience and matter of 
 fact." The churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, 
 and Antioch have erred ; this is the " matter of 
 fact". But what does it prove, Sir ? Only that 
 those three particular churches erred, and this 
 is all. But this is tar too weak to strike the 
 whole visible or catholic church. You are the 
 master of argument, Mr. Ritschel, and may re- 
 form the science of logic, as well as religion, if 
 you can make this pass for good. A part hath 
 erred, therefore the whole hath erred. Bravely 
 argued, Mr. Ritschel ! Three particular churches 
 in the eastern part of the world, two of them in 
 Asia, the third in Africa, have erred, therefore 
 all other churches in the whole christian world, 
 yea, the whole catholic church, hath erred, and 
 that at the same time those three particulars 
 erred. Solidly argued, Sir ! Twenty eggs arc 
 brought up to your table : you eat three of them ; 
 (this is a matter of fact) therefore you have at the 
 same time eaten the whole score. Is this, also 
 matter of fact, Mr. Ritschel ? But there is an
 
 PART II.] 71 [CHAP V. 
 
 " 3*<\" placed after the word Antioch. Pray, Sir, 
 why did you place that "fyc." there? Would 
 you by it bring into the number of the erroneous 
 all the rest of the particular churches in the 
 universe ? Yet this you must do before you can 
 make it appear matter of fact, that the visible 
 church erred. By this, " tyc" you resemble those 
 large-souled evidences in Oates' Plot who swore 
 to &c.'s. You will gain no credit by imitating 
 them. And thus much for your matter of fact. 
 
 Now for your experience. " We (protestants) 
 confess that the church of England did err before 
 our reformation by following the errors of the 
 church of Rome" : therefore, it appears from expe- 
 rience the visible church may and has erred. 
 Here is an argument just like the former, both 
 worthy your learned quill, Mr. Ritschel. We 
 protestants confess the church of England did err: 
 therefore, the whole church of England did err. 
 Well, Sir, you confess this : but, suppose this con- 
 fession of yours is a false confession, and the 
 church of England did not err in faith before your 
 pretended reformation : how finely we shall be 
 imposed upon t I must therefore, by your favour, 
 Sir, require you to prove, first, that the church 
 of Rome had any errors in faith for the church of 
 England to follow : and, secondly, that the church 
 of England was actually involved in those errors 
 when you began to reform. What evidence do 
 you bring for the church of Rome being in error 
 when Luther pretended to reform it ? or, that the 
 church of England was erroneous when Cranmer 
 set on foot his pretended reformation ? Just none 
 at all, besides themselves. Luther is his own 
 evidence; Cranmer is witness for himself; both in 
 their own cause. And shall we believe one Luther, 
 or one Cranmer, against the whole catholic church? 
 Is a single Cranmer of more credit than the whole 
 visible church of Christ ? If vou are rational, Mr.
 
 CHAP. V.] 72 [PART II. 
 
 Ritschel, consult your reason upon this. Suppose 
 Mr. Jones, your chaplain, should set up for re-* 
 former of your protestant churen, and should deny 
 twenty or thirty of your thirty-nine articles, and 
 assert a contrary position of his own, would you 
 not think it more reasonable to believe your whole 
 church against Jones, than Jones alone against it ? 
 I doubt not but you would. And, by the same 
 parity of reasoning, you are to believe the church 
 of Rome against one single Luther, rather than 
 Luther against it. If you side with Luther you 
 must likewise, in this supposed case, join in judg- 
 ment with Jones. If you agree with Luther or 
 Cranmer against the church in being when they 
 began, you must also, by the same reason, become 
 an Arian with Arius, a Manichee with Manes, a 
 Pelagian with Pelagius, a Mahometan with Ma- 
 homet ; in short, you must never speak nor think 
 of any arch-heretic or apostate that has ever op- 
 posed the church since the days of Simon Magus, 
 but you must immediately be of his judgment. 
 This is true, if you act according to that pre- 
 tended reason by which you follow Luther, Cran- 
 mer, or Parker, against the church in being when 
 they began. If you are a christian, and believe 
 Christ to be the Son of God, you must of neces- 
 sity (if your malice be a grain less than that of 
 devils) give credit to his divine word and sacred 
 promises, rather than to Luther, Cranmer, or 
 your church of England contradicting him. The 
 son of God bids us hear the church ; Luther, on 
 the contrary, says, hear me not the church ; for 
 the church has erred : Cranmer and your other 
 pretended reformers say the same. Thus, in 
 effect, say all pretended reformers whatsoever. 
 The Son of God promises that the gates of hell 
 shall not prevail against his church. Your church 
 of England, on the contrary, proposes it in 
 Rogers as a point of her faith that " the church
 
 PART II.] 73 [CHAP V. 
 
 of Christ may, and from time to time has erred 
 in faith and doctrine" : which is to say, that the 
 gates of hell both may and have prevailed against 
 her. The Son of God promises to be with his 
 church to the end of the world: he promises also 
 to send her the Holy Ghost, the spirit of truth, to 
 guide her into all truth ; St. Paid, from the dic- 
 tates of the Holy Ghost, calls the church the 
 spouse of Christ, without spot or wrinkle, but holy and 
 without blemish. On the contrary, you protestants 
 teach, that she may and has been stained, and de- 
 filed with corruptions in faith. The same holy apos- 
 tle calls her the church of God, the house of the living 
 God, the pillar and ground of truth : on the 
 contrary, you protestants will needs have her the 
 house of Antichrist, superstitious, idolatrous, and 
 the ground of error (as is shewn from your homi- 
 lies and other authors). Read the prophecies of 
 Isaiah concerning Christ's church, chap 54, 59, 
 60, 62. See also, Ezech. chap. 37, and Daniel, 
 the 2, 4, 7 In these you will see the beauty, 
 glory, extent, perpetual duration, immaculate 
 purity, sanctity, and incorruptibility of Christ's 
 church foretold by the Holy Ghost speaking of 
 them. The prophet Daniel speaking of Christ and 
 his holy church, chap. 7* says, There ivas given 
 him dominion, and glory, and kingdom that all 
 people, nations and languages should serve him. 
 His dominion is ane verlasting dominion which shall 
 not be taken away : and his kingdom shall not be 
 corrupted. I tell you, Sir, you must either re- 
 nounce this damnable doctrine of the visible church 
 of Christ, the catholic church's being corrupted 
 with errors in faith : and, on the contrary, hold 
 her always pure, holy, unspotted, and unblemished 
 with errors or deformity in doctrine, yea incor- 
 ruptible and infallible, or else you set up yourself 
 in open rebellion, and diametrical opposition 
 against the holy prophets, against the apostles, 
 
 K
 
 CHAP V.] *J4. [PARTlI. 
 
 against the whole church and kingdom of Christ, 
 and against Christ himself. Cease then your he- 
 retical and diabolical boldness, and never stand 
 longer in open contradiction to God himself. I 
 have some reason to hope you will follow this ad- 
 vice, Sir ; for, notwithstanding your holding that 
 " the visible church may and has erred," yet, in 
 the next page, you are forced (though with great 
 reluctance) to own the contrary. You there say, 
 " the proposition, that the visible church may and 
 has erred, does not give the lie to the Son of God ; 
 for that promise of Christ to his church ; Matt. 16. 
 that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it 9 
 is made to his church in general ; that all the 
 powers of the kingdom of darkness shall never 
 be able totally to extirpate the true faith of Christ, 
 and destroy its professors from the face of the 
 earth." 
 
 In this paragraph of yours is to be observed, 
 first, that you are unwilling to part with your 
 propositions. Secondly, that you are both, in 
 plain words, to contradict the Son of God : and 
 then to go about to reconcile the contradiction* 
 But, in so doing, you have utterly ruined your 
 proposition ; nor, indeed, could it possibly be 
 otherwise, for contradictions can never be made 
 to agree, one side necessarily destroying the 
 other, and it is but just that truth should have 
 the mastery. Your saying, that " Christ's pro- 
 mise is made to his church in general," that is, to 
 the catholic church or visible church : (for this 
 you must mean by the word " general," if you 
 durst but speak out) that its faith, the true faith 
 of Christ, shall never be extirpated," utterly 
 destroys your beloved proposition, "that the 
 visible church may and has erred in faith ;" for if 
 the church in general (to give it your own word) 
 be by Christ's promise secured from error in 
 faith, as it must be if the true faith of Christ
 
 PART II.] 75 [CHAP. V. 
 
 and its professors can never be extirpated nor 
 destroyed, as you truly own ; then the church in 
 general or visible church, neither can, may, nor 
 ever has erred in faith. You afterwards confirm 
 this great truth by owning the catholic church to 
 be the pillar and ground of truth, although this 
 concession necessarily breaks the neck of your 
 church's impious propositions. You deliver your 
 words thus. " Nor does the doctrine, that the 
 visible church may and has erred, contradict that 
 of St. Paul, 1 Tim. 3, that the church is the gi'ound 
 and pillar of truth, since by the church, in that 
 place, we cannot absolutely understand any par- 
 ticular church, but the catholic church." Thus 
 you ; and is not this enough, Sir, that the catholic 
 church is the pillar and ground of truth, and that 
 Christ has secured the catholic church from er- 
 ror ? This is all I dispute for, and this now, at 
 last, you have granted. 
 
 After all this, be pleased to tell me, Sir, how 
 you can defend Mr. Rogers' proposition from 
 contradicting our Saviour and St. Paul? You 
 own, that Christ has promised that the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against his church, and that 
 the faith of Christ shall never totally be extir- 
 pated, nor all its professors destroyed from off 
 the face of the earth, and that the catholic 
 church is the pillar and ground of truth, as St. Paul 
 says ; and yet you have the confidence, all this 
 while, to tell us that the visible church the ca- 
 tholic church, may and hath erred, and to affirm, 
 that this proposition does not give the lie to the 
 Son of God, nor contradict St. Paul ! If to say, 
 that the catholic church can never err, and the 
 catholic church may and has erred, be not a 
 contradiction, nothing is. 
 
 But let me give you your due, Sir. You knew 
 this to be a contradiction when you wrote, and 
 therefore, for reconciling it, you endeavour.
 
 CHAP V.] 76 [PART II. 
 
 either to change the state of the question from 
 the error of the catholic church or visible church, 
 to that of a particular church ; or, at least, so far 
 to insinuate into your heedless readers, that, when 
 Mr. Rogers says, the visible church may and has 
 erred in faith, he meant no more but only that 
 a particular church may and has erred ; for you 
 say that " that promise of Christ was made to 
 the church in general, &c. and that it gave no 
 warrant or security to any particular church or 
 member of it, that it shall not fall from the true 
 faith into error and heresy. And, when St. Paul 
 calls the church the ground and pillar of truth, 
 we cannot understand any particular church, but 
 the catholic church ; nor doth it follow from that 
 passage, but that any particular church, or mem- 
 ber of it, may embrace error and heresy." Thus 
 you go on, as if the question between us was 
 about the error of a particular church ; since 
 you know, as well as you know your right hand 
 from your left, that I never contended with you 
 about the erring or not erring of particular 
 churches ; for I know, as well as you do, that 
 particular churches may err, and that particular 
 churches have fallen into heresy. We have too 
 sad an example of it in these wretched national 
 churches of England and Scotland, which, by 
 their pretended reformations, erred from the ca- 
 tholic faith, from the visible church of Christ, 
 into the abominable errors of protestancy and 
 presbyterianism. I brought the said texts of 
 scripture against you and Rogers' propositions, 
 to prove that the catholic church, the visible 
 church, or (as you have a conceit to call it) the 
 church in general, can never become erroneous, 
 nor corrupt in faith, but is inerrible and infallible. 
 It was for this reason I cited the said texts of 
 scripture, and so powerful are thosesacred words, 
 that you dare not, nor cannot resist their force ;
 
 PART II. | 77 [CHAP. V. 
 
 but, in despite of heretical obstinacy and infer- 
 nal malice, you are forced to own, in plain words, 
 that the promise of Christ to his church, *' that 
 the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, is 
 made to the church in general, that all the powers 
 of the kingdom of darkness shall never be able 
 totally to extirpate the true faith of Christ, and 
 all Its professors from off the face of the earth. 
 By the church, when St. Paul calls it the pillar 
 and ground of truth, is to be understood the 
 catholic church." These are your own words, 
 Sir, and as much as I desire from you : for they 
 own plainly the catholic church to be the pillar 
 and ground of truth, secured by our Saviour from 
 ever loosing the true faith, or wanting professors 
 of it ; which, in very deed, is to say, that the ca- 
 tholic church never has erred, nor never can err 
 in faith, but is infallible. This, I say, is all I con- 
 tended for, and you thus plainly granting it, what 
 further occasion was there for your confounding 
 and blundering the thing with impertinencies, and 
 a deal of nonsense about particular churches 
 erring or not erring, when no one ever denied 
 but they both may and have erred ! The bottom 
 of all this protestant policy is, to reconcile the 
 doctrine of the church of England, " that the 
 visible church may, and from time to time has 
 erred" with the doctrine of Christ and his 
 apostles " that the catholic church cannot possibly 
 err, or be corrupted by all the powers of hell, but 
 is always the ground of truth." But all will not 
 do, Mr. Ritschel. Christ and Mr. Rogers can 
 never be reconciled : St. Paul and Mr. Rogers 
 can never agree. The infallibility of the church 
 of Christ being thus granted and owned by you, 
 never trouble yourself about Rogers' doctrine : 
 let him and the church of England that approve*! 
 and licenced his propositions, defend it as well a 
 they can. It is your business to stick to the
 
 CHAP. VI.] 78 [PART II. 
 
 truth you have owned, to wit, that the catholic 
 church is the ground of truth, secured by Christ's 
 promise from ever loosing the true faith of Christ, 
 that is (if you can but digest the expression) the 
 catholic church is infallible. 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 THAT THE PROTESTANTS HAVE MADE ARTICLES OP 
 FAITH, CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED. 
 
 XN your's of March 4th. you told me that " your 
 reformers did not make a new creed, or articles 
 of faith." In my answer to that letter, I instanc- 
 ed several articles among your thirty-nine that 
 were new, and such as the catholic church 
 never held ; as the sixth, ninth, eleventh, 
 thirteenth and nineteenth. These you now under- 
 take to defend in the third section of your book ; 
 but, in such a manner, that, instead of proving their 
 antiquity, you demonstrate their novelty by own- 
 ing (as you ought) for the ancient catholic faith 
 doctrines quite contrary to them* 
 
 What you say concerning the sixth article I shall 
 not take notice of in this place, but defer it till I 
 come to examine your section relating to scripture, 
 which shall be in a treatise apart when time serves 
 for it. 
 
 In my examination of these four following arti- 
 cles I shall, first, set down your own particular 
 doctrine, Mr. Ritschel, as delivered in your own 
 words, and then give you my opinion of it. After 
 this you shall have the doctrine of the article. I 
 will begin with 
 
 The ninth article. 
 
 In your discourse upon this you declare your
 
 PART II.] 79 [CHAP VI. 
 
 own particular doctrine in these words. "We 
 say, that there is in and by baptism a full pardon 
 of all sins, both original aud actual, through the 
 merits and satisfaction of the sufferings of Christ." 
 Thus you : and indeed you say very well ; and if 
 you believe what you say it is still better. If this 
 had been the doctrine of the article, I should 
 never have called it newj, for what you say here 
 is catholic doctrine, and as old as Christianity 
 itself. 
 
 But the article teaches quite the contrary, when 
 it expressly says that " original sin remains, yea, 
 in them that are regenerated ; yea, in God's dear 
 children," (says Rogers) and concupiscence, even 
 in the regenerated, is sin." And your church, by 
 Mr. Rogers, puts them down for adversaries to 
 truth, and their doctrine for error, who hold that 
 " baptism once received, there is in the baptised 
 no sin at all." Therefore, the church of England, 
 in this her ninth article, and in her explanation of 
 it, teaches for faith, a doctrine new, false and 
 heretical. 
 
 Of the eleventh article. 
 
 Your own particular doctrine you deliver thus. 
 " When we say, faith alone justifieth, we do not 
 understand such a faith as is alone, without good 
 works, without repentance, hope and charity." 
 You understand right then, Mr. Ritschel, for this 
 is the catholic doctrine, and as old as Christianity : 
 and, indeed, if the article had delivered such an 
 understanding of itself, I should never have called 
 it new. But it teaches quite the contrary when 
 it says, " we are justified by faith alone" ; and, in 
 your church's explanation of it by Mr. Rogers, 
 places them under the title of adversaries to 
 truth, and pronounces their doctrine erroneous 
 who teach, " that man is justified by faith and 
 works." Therefore this eleventh article, as ex- 
 plained by your clmrch, teaches for faith, a doc- 
 trine new, false and heretical.
 
 CHAP. VI,] 80 [part II. 
 
 Of the thirteenth article. 
 
 You declare your own particular doctrine thus : 
 " some actions are simply, and in their own 
 nature good, and commanded by God, as acts of 
 justice and mercy, temperance and sobriety; and 
 these are those works about which we dispute, 
 &c. : now we do not say that those noble and 
 glorious actions of the ancient heroes and hea- 
 then philosophers, as their singular courage and 
 constancy, justice, patience and temperance* &c, 
 whereby they have justly eternized their memo- 
 ries, we do not say, that these noble actions of 
 unregenerated men are simply and in their own 
 nature evil, but, on the other hand, we say, that 
 they are both honest and laudible, and that God 
 hath commanded them to be done." This is well 
 said, Sir, and what I do not accuse as new or false 
 doctrine : for it is catholic. But your article 
 teaches the contrary, affirming positively, that 
 " works, done before justification |and the grace 
 of God, have the nature of sin." And your 
 church, by Rogers, gives her further explanation 
 of it thus. " Whatsoever men do, not yet jus- 
 tified before God, is sin. For of such persons, 
 the best works which they do, even their fasting, 
 praying, alms-deeds, sacrificing to God, prophe- 
 cies, and working of miracles even in the name 
 of Christ : yea, all their actions whatsoever, are 
 abominable before God." 
 
 Therefore the doctrine of this thirteenth article, 
 as explained by your church, is new, false and 
 heretical. 
 
 You Sir, like not at all this doctrine of your 
 church, and, therefore, by your way of distin- 
 guishing it, would very gladly impose upon her, 
 whether she will or no, a better sense of the 
 article than ever she meant or designed it should 
 have, putting your own explanation of it for hers 
 in these words: "though these things (the works
 
 PART II.] 81 [CHAP VI. 
 
 of unregenerated men) be good in themselves, 
 yet not being rightly done, and being attended 
 with such evil circumstances, as hypocrisy, in- 
 terest, vain glory, vain applause, &c. : as by you 
 above, which change the nature of moral actions, 
 and make them evil, we say they have the nature 
 of sin." "And this," you say, " I take to be the 
 sense of the church of England in this point." I 
 answer, it is not your taking it so, that can make 
 it So ; for you wilfully mistake the sense of your 
 church. You may see her sense put down in the 
 former page. It is nothing like this of yours. 
 She mentions not, nor takes the least notice at all 
 of any such circumstance, whereby the case may 
 be changed, but is positive that, " all works 
 whatsoever, yea, even the best works she can 
 think on, have the nature of sin, and are abomi- 
 nable before God." She tells you further, to 
 make sure work of what she means, that, " the 
 council of Trent hath erred, in pronouncing them 
 accursed who hold that all works of men whatso- 
 ever, done before justification, are sin." This, 
 Sir, is the sense of your church : and all the texts 
 of scripture applied by Rogers are falsely applied 
 and misinterpreted by him to signify this sense, 
 by his saying from them, ** whatsoever men do is 
 sin. 
 
 I would have you and your church of England 
 tell me, whether the fasting of the Ninevites, their 
 prayers, and clothing themselves with sackcloth ; 
 the prayers and fastings of Cornelius (being yet 
 unbaptised) ; the Ethiopian eunuch's' reading the 
 prophecy of Isaiah ; the publican's going up to the 
 temple to pray, and smiting his breast with that 
 humble prayer of, God be merciful to me a sin- 
 ner, &c. ; tell me, I say, whether these works, 
 for they were all done before justification, were 
 sins. To say they were, I suppose you dare not : 
 and, to say they were not, is to contradict your 
 
 L
 
 CHAP VI. J 82 [part II. 
 
 church's doctrine, that, " all works whatsoever 
 are sins, if done before justification." 
 
 Now, Sir, what you have argued for, all this 
 while, in defence of the article, is only to bring 
 works done to a bad end, or with an ill intention, 
 under the nature of sin : and this no one denies, 
 for it is the catholic doctrine and what the church 
 ever held. But, what you should also have shewn 
 us is, that the article and explication teaches, that 
 works done by unjustified men, without any indi- 
 rect or ill intention, but rather for a good end and 
 with a good intention, (as were those above 
 named) have not the nature of sin, and are not 
 sins. But this you have not done ; for it is im- 
 possible : because, as it is said, your church af- 
 firming without exception, that " the best, yea, 
 all works whatsoever, so done, have the nature of 
 sin and are sin," includes as well works done 
 without any ill design, or for a good end, as 
 others done with a bad intention, or an ill end. 
 This doctrine, I tell you therefore, is both new, 
 false and heretical ; yea, and of pernicious con- 
 sequence, as being destructive and a hinderance 
 to the doing of all moral good works by such as 
 know themselves in the state of mortal sin : for 
 they may well think it is better to do nothing at 
 all, than to do that which, by a point of faith, 
 they are obliged to hold and believe to be a sin. 
 Of the nineteenth article. 
 
 Your own doctrine upon this article is, that " all 
 the powers of the kingdom of darkness shall 
 never be able totally to extirpate the true faith 
 of Jesus Christ, &c. The catholic church is the 
 pillar and ground of truth, &c. God has had a 
 true church, teaching the true faith or true re- 
 ligion in all ages." If your article had been like 
 this, I should, instead of calling it new, have de- 
 clared it catholic doctrine, and as old as the 
 church itself. But, as your church Avords it, and
 
 PART II.] 83 [CHAP. VI. 
 
 after explains it by Mr. Rogers, it teaches the 
 contrary doctrine, saying, "the churches of 
 Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, have erred ; (this 
 is not all) the church of Rome hath erred in 
 faith: (more yet) the visible church may, and 
 hath erred in doctrine : and (so far as by the 
 homily on the thirty-fifth article) the whole 
 world, or whole Christendom, has been drowned 
 in damnable idolatry for above eight hundred 
 years, to the extirpation of all good religion 
 universally." It is evident, therefore, that this 
 doctrine of your church and article is new, false 
 and heretical. Besides, the first part of this 
 nineteenth article contradicts, in plain terms, 
 your church's doctrine in its second part, as well 
 as Mr. Rogers' explanation of the second part of 
 it, viz. that the visible church may, and hath 
 erred in faith and doctrine. For the first part of 
 the article teaches, that " the visible church of 
 Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the 
 which the pure word of God is preached, and 
 the sacraments duly administered, according to 
 Christ's ordinance in all those things that are of 
 necessity requisite for the same" : and this is 
 true* catholic doctrine. But the following part of 
 the article, and Mr. Rogers' proposition in it, 
 teaching, that " the visible church may, and hath 
 erred in faith and doctrine," must needs be new, 
 false and heretical, if the first be true, as it cer- 
 tainly is : and stands in direct contradiction to it. 
 For, how can it be truly said the church errs in 
 faith and doctrine, when, at the same time, it 
 teaches the pure word of God, and duly admi- 
 nisters the sacraments according to Christ's ordi- 
 nance? Rogers tells you, that "the visible 
 church is not many congregations, but one com- 
 pany of faithful for time and continuance in all 
 ages, even from our first parents : and it may 
 rightly be called a catholic church." This I note
 
 CHAP vi.J 84 [part II. 
 
 to you out of Rogers, that you may see him own 
 a visible catholic church in all ages, preaching 
 the pure word of God and duly administering 
 the sacraments, which could not possibly be, if 
 the church erred in any age or was *' drowned in 
 damnable idolatry for above eight hundred years 
 together, and the pure preaching of the word of 
 God totally laid aside (as the homily says) and 
 left off soon after the apostles' times to the extir- 
 pation of all good religion universally." This is 
 enough, Sir, to evidence to you the novelty and 
 heresy of the four said articles. 
 
 I have no time (nor matters it) to take notice 
 how the force of miseducation, the bias of preju- 
 dice, and heretical wrangling, have striven, and 
 wrestled against your reason, before they could 
 be got to suffer truth to extort the said sound 
 doctrines, in contradiction to the articles, from 
 your pen. Only give me leave to exhort you, 
 hereafter to arm yourself with a true christian 
 courage, boldly and freely to own and embrace 
 the truth whenever it presents itself. Confess 
 Christ before men, that he may own you before his 
 Father, 
 
 Of the twenty-second, twenty-fifth, and thirty-first 
 
 articles. 
 
 We come now to examine how you defend these 
 from novelty. In the twenty-second, your church 
 of England (as you call it) obliges her members 
 to hold for points of faith, first, that there is no 
 purgatory : secondly, that pardons are vain : 
 thirdly, that sacred images are not to be honoured 
 with absolute honour : fourthly, that the relics 
 of saints are not to be honoured : fifthly, that 
 the saints of heaven are not to be invocated, or 
 desired to pray for us. The twenty-fifth article 
 imposes upon you five other new points of faith : 
 first, that confirmation is no sacrament : second- 
 ly, that penance is no sacrament: thirdly, that
 
 PART II. | 85 [ CHAP. VI, 
 
 order is no sacrament : fourthly, that extreme 
 unction is no sacrament : fifthly, that marriage 
 (in the church of God) is no sacrament. 
 
 The thirty-first article defines for a point of your 
 protestant faith, that " the sacrifice of the mass is 
 a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit." In 
 these three articles are no less than eleven new 
 points of faith. 
 
 These, as well as the former articles, I objected 
 against you in my answer to your first letter, to 
 which in your book, page 102, you ridiculously 
 reply thus ; " I answer that these are points in 
 controversy between us, and no point of the 
 doctrine of the church of England, except in a 
 negative sense, in that she denies them to be any 
 part of the catholic faith." Thus you argue, and 
 it seems you have got part of this absurd notion 
 out of Stillingfleet, who took it from Bramhall. 
 
 First, you say they are points in controversy 
 between us: and what then? what, I pray, would 
 you infer from this ? would you not have them 
 accounted for points of faith, because they are 
 points of controversy ? This, it seems, is what 
 you would be at, if you durst speak clearly and 
 intelligibly out, as may be gathered from your 
 following with their being, " no points of your 
 church's doctrine, except in a negative sense ;" as 
 if a negative could not be a point of faith. I be- 
 lieve there is a purgatory : if you do not, is not 
 this a point of your faith ? You would gladly 
 deny them, I find, to be points of your faith, be- 
 cause you cannot defend them from novelty and 
 falsehood. On the other hand, having, at your 
 ordination, declared your belief of them, subscrib- 
 ed to them, and sv/ore upon a book to defend 
 them, you dare not, for your life, positively deny 
 them to be points of your faith, but plainly hold 
 them for points of your church's doctrine, still 
 only it must be forsooth in a negative sense..
 
 CHAP. VI.] 86 [part II. 
 
 Know you not, that doctrines or points of faith, 
 that are new and heretical, are not less heretical 
 for being negative than for being affirmative ? 
 The Arian heresy, in denying the Son of God to 
 be of the same substance with the Father, was a 
 negative article : yet it was as false as that of the 
 Manichees, which affirmed there were two Gods. 
 You must understand, Sir, that he who positively 
 denies, always adds the contrary to what he takes 
 away : and that he who makes it an article of faith 
 that there is no purgatory, no mass, no praying to 
 saints, no sacraments &c. has as many articles as 
 he who holds the contrary. 
 
 But, by your favour, Sir, in your twenty second, 
 twenty fifth, and thirty first articles, there are not 
 only negative doctrines, but affirmative also. The 
 twenty second, besides denying five points above 
 named, further affirms them to be "fond things 
 vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant 
 of scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of 
 God." The twenty-fifth, besides its denying the 
 said five to be sacraments, does also further affirm 
 them to have " grown up of the corrupt following 
 the Apostles" &c. The thirty-first not only denies 
 the mass, but it also affirms it to be " a blasphe- 
 mous fable and dangerous deceit ;" so that your 
 denying them to be affirmative doctrines of your 
 church does but only discover your ignorance of 
 what they do affirm. 
 
 If you had as much confidence to contradict 
 your church as your masters Stillingfleet and 
 Bramhall had, your sentence would not have 
 been so nonsensically confused, nor your meaning 
 so ambigious and unintelligible. 
 
 Stillingfleet, in his defence of Archbishop Laud 
 page 54, tells us, that " the church of England 
 makes no articles of faith, but such as have the 
 testimony of the whole christian world in all ages 
 acknowledged to be such by Rome itself : and in
 
 PART II. J 87 [CHAP VI. 
 
 other things she requires subscription to them, not 
 as articles of faith, but inferior truths, which she 
 expects a submission to, in order to her peace and 
 tranquility." After this, page 82 and 104, he dis- 
 tinguishes between the " internal assent of the 
 will," and "the external act." "The church," 
 says he, " doth not require the first, but the lat- 
 ter." To conclude what he says, he quotes Arch- 
 bishop Bramhall thus : " neither doth the church 
 of England defend any of these questions as neces- 
 sary to be believed either necessitate medii, or ne- 
 cessitate prcecepti, which is much less, but only 
 bindeth her sons, for the sake of peace, not to op- 
 pose them. Again, we do not suffer any man to 
 reject the thirty nine articles of the church of Eng- 
 land at his pleasure ; neither do we look upon them 
 as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ 
 and his apostles, but as a means, as pious opinions 
 fitted for the preservation of unity. Neither do 
 we oblige any man to believe them, but only not 
 to contradict them." Thus Bram hall's doctrine is 
 delivered by Stillingfleet, In another place, as 
 cited by Schism dispatched page 543, " we (says 
 Bramhall) neither hold it an article of faith, that 
 there is a purgatory, nor, that there is none." 
 You, poor pedant, not quarter fledged with cou- 
 rage, stand boggling whether for a penny you 
 should hold them for points of faith or no : and then 
 come off with "they are not in points of our 
 church's doctrine in an affirmative sense, but in a 
 negative sense they are." But Bramhall and Stil- 
 lingfleet, those sons of Priam, never hesitate to 
 strike oft* all the monstrous heads of their mother 
 church's faith at one stroke, by ever saying 
 by your leave, madam : or so much as ever 
 taking notice that she entitles them all " the catho- 
 lic doctrine believed and professed in the church of 
 England" and gives all to the devil by excommuni- 
 cation who deny them.
 
 CHAP. VI.] 88 [part II, 
 
 Stillingfleet will have none of all the thirty nine 
 to be articles of faith, but only such as are acknow- 
 ledged to be so even " by Rome itself," and this 
 annihilates twenty-six, or twenty-eight, if not 
 thirty of the number. Nay, he goes further tel- 
 ling you ; the church does not require the inter- 
 nal assent of the mind (to any of them) the exter- 
 nal act (of subscription) is all she requires." 
 And this leaves every man at liberty whether he 
 will believe any one of them all for an article of 
 faith or no. The church of England, says Bram- 
 hall, only binds her sons, not to oppose them. 
 " Neither do we oblige any man to believe them, 
 but only not to oppose them." What a brave con- 
 fession of faith they have dwindled it to now ; 
 that every one may, if he please, disbelieve every 
 article of it : a precious method to preserve unity! 
 According to this the Cerinthians, Arians, Pela- 
 gians, Socinians, anabaptists, quakers, Jews, 
 Turks, yea, atheists themselves, may subscribe the 
 thirty nine articles, and be naturalized sons of the 
 church of England, if they can but keep their 
 tongues from contradicting them, though they do 
 not believe one single article of them all : here is 
 no tie or restraint of conscience or inward assent 
 of the mind at all put upon them. 
 
 How grossly your godly reformed brethren, 
 the protestant churches beyond seas, are imposed 
 upon and deceived, when, taking those thirty- 
 nine articles for the church of England's confession 
 of faith, and supposing her members obliged to 
 believe them all to be true, perhaps neither she 
 herself, nor any protestant in England believes 
 any one of them. "The church of England re- 
 quires not subscriptions to them as articles of faith, 
 she requires not the internal assent of the mind 
 She defines not any of those questions as neces- 
 sary to be believed. See does not look upon them 
 as essential to saving faith. Neither does she
 
 PART II.] 89 [CHAP VI. 
 
 oblige any man to believe them." Here is an 
 indulgent mother ! You, her sons, may believe or 
 disbelieve any of her doctrines just as you please, 
 if you only refrain from speaking what you think ! 
 But whither are we run, Mr. Ititschel ? The 
 charges I laid against the said articles was novelty 
 and heresy. And what do you say to this ? What 
 do I say? indeed these are points of controversy 
 between us, therefore These are no points of the 
 doctrine of the church of England except in a ne- 
 gative sense, therefore Bravely argued, Sir, be- 
 cause they arepointsof controversy, they are neither 
 new nor heretical : because they are negatives 
 they are neither new nor heretical. Here is all 
 that can be inferred from what you say in that 
 paragraph. But what do you advance further ? 
 " You must first prove the church of Rome to be 
 the true church of God ; and that these, and the 
 other doctrines retained in your church, are agree- 
 able to the word of God, the analogy of faith, 
 and the doctrines of the primitive church, before 
 you can condemn us for rejecting them." This is 
 all impertinent and not to the question, whether 
 they be new and heretical. But, as to what you 
 require, I answer, when Luther first denied those 
 points of our faith he had against him the testi- 
 monies of millions of witnesses both bishops, 
 priests, doctors, and laity, all unanimously believ- 
 ing the church of Rome to be the true church of 
 God, the holy catholic chureh ; and attesting the 
 said points of faith, contradicted by you, to be the 
 received doctrines of the catholic church, delivered 
 to them then living by their immediate forefathers, 
 whose immediate forefathers also attested the same 
 to have been so delivered to them from theirs: 
 and so from hand to hand even from the apostles 
 themselves who received it from Christ. 
 
 Thus we catholics were in full possession of the 
 said doctrines, as part of our heritage or catholic 
 
 M
 
 CHAP VI.] 90 [PART II. 
 
 faith, received from our ancestors from time im- 
 memorial, when you protestants began first to 
 oppose them. If you protestants, then, dare be 
 so impudently bold as to pretend to dispossess us 
 of them, you must make a better title than this 
 against our universal and perpetual tradition. 
 Who denied the said catholic doctrines in the year 
 1517? Only one single man, Martin Luther. 
 Who held them for points of faith at that time ? 
 All that vast and innumerable multitude of chris- 
 tians dispersed through the whole christian world, 
 who then held communion with St. Peter's suc- 
 cessor, the pope of Rome, that is, the whole ca- 
 tholic church. Now, let any man in his right 
 wits judge, whether it is more reasonable to 
 believe the universal church, consisting of millions 
 of millions of living witnesses affirming, or to 
 believe one single Luther denying ? yea, and 
 this Luther the most profligate wretch then living, 
 notoriously scandalous for his disobedience, for 
 his sacrilegiously breaking his vows, for his pride, 
 lust, familiarity with the devils, (as he himself 
 confesses) and for all manner of wickedness ; yea, 
 even marked by divine justice for a reprobate by 
 his fearful and sudden death, being, after a feast- 
 ing and drunken supper, found dead in his bed 
 at two o'clock in the morning, supposed by protes- 
 tants themselves to be killed by the devil, as shall 
 be shown more at large hereafter. In short, the 
 catholic church, holding them for points of faith 
 when Luther opposed them, is sufficient evidence, 
 yea, the very best and most undeniable evidence 
 in- the world, that they are matters or points of 
 faith, or, to use your own words, " agreeable to 
 the word of God, the analogy of faith and 
 the doctrines of theprimitive church." And that the 
 catholic church then held them for points of ca- 
 tholic faith, is evident from Luther's denying them 
 to be such, as also from the church condemning
 
 PART II.] 91 [CHAP. VI. 
 
 him and his followers for denying them. Nor can 
 you shew so much as any one man in the world 
 that did not own them for points of catholic faith 
 at that very time, immediately before Luther 
 began to oppose them. (The supremacy only 
 excepted, which the eastern schismatics deny.) 
 
 Well, as to the twenty-second and thirty-first, 
 and the denial of the five sacraments, mentioned 
 in the twenty-fifth article, you have not said one 
 word more in behalf of their antiquity or ortho- 
 doxy. I therefore conclude, that all those ten 
 negative points of protestant faith are new, false 
 and heretical. And it seems you are content to 
 let them all pass for such ; only the sacrament of 
 marriage you are resolved shall never be ac- 
 counted a sacrament. You argue against it from 
 your definition of a sacrament. A sacrament you 
 define to be *' an outward and visible sign of an 
 inward and spiritual grace, ordained by Christ 
 himself," &c. : but marriage, you say, was not or- 
 dained by Christ, but by God himself in paradise : 
 therefore, in your logic, marriage must not be a 
 sacrament. This is argued like a protestant 
 divine. It was not ordained by Christ but by 
 God; therefore, it is no sacrament. It seems, 
 then, by this your logic, that Christ can ordain a 
 sacrament, but God cannot. Away with such 
 blasphemous nonsense ! 
 
 Then you demand" what outward elements are 
 there ordained by God for the conveyance of his 
 grace ?" But, must it not be a sacrament, good 
 Mr. Ritschel, because there is no outward ele- 
 ment ? In your definition of a sacrament you 
 mention no outward element. If outward ele- 
 ments be absolutely necessary, then your defini- 
 nition is lame and imperfect, Pray, what out- 
 ward element is there in the sacrament of ordi- 
 nation ? yet, your famous bishop Bramhall owns 
 ordination to be a sacrament ? " We deny not
 
 CHAP VI. J 92 [part II. 
 
 ordination to be a sacrament," says he in his 
 defence of the church of England's ordination. 
 What outward element is there in the sacrament 
 of penance? Yet your first schoolmasters, the 
 Germans, whom you so often style your godly 
 reformed bretheren, in their confession of faith, 
 presented to the emperor Charles the 5th. at Augs- 
 burg, in the name of all the protestants, anno 
 1530, reckon penance a sacrament, as well as 
 baptism and the eucharist. Do you think God 
 cannot convey his grace into the hearts of the 
 married couple without the help of an outward 
 element ? This is solid divinity and sound logic 
 of yours : because there is no outward element, 
 therefore there is no grace conveyed. In the 
 sacrament of extreme unction there is appointed 
 the outward element of oil, and grace promised. 
 Why, then, do you not account this for a sacra- 
 ment ? Can you require any more in a sacrament 
 than is appointed in this ? yet your new article will 
 not have this a sacrament. You are neither 
 content when you have outward elements, nor 
 when you want them. Protestant, all is over ! 
 
 Examine the Latin Bible (if you please) and you 
 will find St. Paul, in his fifth chapter to the Ephe- 
 sians verse 32, affirming marriage to be a great 
 sacrament : this is a great sacrament, says he, but 
 1 speak in Christ and the church. Seeing that 
 holy apostle held marriage a sacrament in the 
 church, I see no reason why we should not believe 
 him that it is so, rather than Mr. Ritschel denying 
 it. "The good of marriage among the people of 
 God is in the holiness of a sacrament," says the 
 great St. Augustine lib de bono conjugali c. 24. 
 And in his book de Fide et opcribus c. 7> the same 
 holy father says : " In the church not only the 
 bond of marriage but also the sacrament is so com- 
 mended that it is not lawful for the husband to de- 
 liver his wife to another." He calls it a sacrament
 
 PART II. | 93 [chap. ti 
 
 in many other places of his works. The great 
 council of Florence denned it a sacrament ; so 
 also the council of Trent, yet Mr. Ritschel would 
 have us believe it is none, against two general 
 councils, against the great St. Augustine, against 
 the holy apostle St. Paul, against God himself 
 whom you own to have instituded it. In short, 
 the catholic church holding it a sacrament, when 
 Luther and your other carnal and impure apos- 
 tates first denied it, is evidence undeniable that it 
 is a sacrament. 
 
 I wonder, Sir, why you struck only against 
 marriage being a sacrament, and let pass the other 
 four denied in your article, seeing you lie under 
 the same obligation of proving them no sacra- 
 ments as you do for this ? You either have nothing 
 to say against the other four, or else you cast out 
 those insignificant arguments only against this on 
 purpose to move me to prove it a sacrament, that 
 you may dare hereafter to venture upon a wife 
 without danger of sullying your sanctity. Holy 
 man! Well, Sir, seeing I have done you the 
 kindness to prove it a sacrament, never scruple 
 hereafter, but marry in the fear of the Lord. But, 
 to return to your thirty-nine articles, I charge 
 several others of them for new and heretical. 
 The twenty-eight article. 
 
 By this you are obliged to believe, that, in the 
 the holy sacrament of the eucharist, the substance 
 of bread and wine is not changed or transubstan- 
 tiated into the body and blood of Christ. 
 The thirty-fifth article. 
 
 This obliges you to believe all that is contained 
 in the two books of homilies (though I am confi- 
 dent many young parsons, when they swear to this 
 article, have never seen them) for godly and whole- 
 some doctrine. That homily against peril of ido- 
 latry (as is noted above) teaches, first, that the 
 preaching of God's word (soon after the time of
 
 CHAP. VI.] 94 [part II. 
 
 the apostles) became corrupt, and, lastly, altogether 
 omitted : secondly, that laity and clergy, learned 
 and unlearned of all ages, sexes and degrees of 
 men, women and children of whole Christendom, 
 have been at once drowned in abominable idola- 
 try, and that for the space of more than eight 
 hundred years : thirdly, that all good religion was 
 universally destroyed. 
 
 Here are three points of doctrine which you 
 are obliged by the thirty-fifth article to believe 
 for godly and wholesome. For my part, I 
 take them for the most impious and pestilential 
 that any heretic ever broached. And I affirm 
 them to be new and heretical, yea, diabolical. De- 
 fend them as well as you can, parson. 
 
 If I pleased to examine the rest of your whole- 
 some homilies, I doubt not but there might be 
 found a great many other new and heretical points 
 of protestant faith ; but, be there as many as 
 there will, your church by this article has bound 
 you, under excommunication, to believe them all. 
 And you, easy soul, were content to swear to them 
 all when you took orders. A godly and whole- 
 some oath! An excellent preparative of a par- 
 son's concience, to fit it to swallow whatever comes 
 to hand as long as he lives, without the least check 
 of a squeamish stomach ! 
 
 Tlie thirty-sixth article 
 
 This imposes two forms of ordaining priests 
 and consecrating bishops, devised by the child king 
 Edward the sixth, obliging you to believe they con- 
 tain all things necessary for the consecrating and 
 ordaining bishops and priests, though there is 
 neither priest nor bishop named in them, nor any 
 one word equivalent thereto. Nay, though they 
 were both rejected and left off in the year 1662 
 by your protestant pretended bishops and clergy 
 themselves, and other new forms substituted in 
 their place, yet it remains still a point of your
 
 PART II.] 95 [CHAP VI. 
 
 protestant faith in this thirty-sixth article to be- 
 lieve they contained all things necessary ; which 
 if they had done there had been no need of devis- 
 ing new ones in which both the name bishop and 
 priest, and their offices, are expressly set down. 
 
 Thus, Sir, I have counted in the said article 
 above twenty points of protestant faith all new 
 and heretical. Yet you have the confidence re- 
 peatedly to assert that your glorious reformers did 
 not make any new articles of faith. 
 
 Note, Sir, that when I call your protestant doc* 
 trines nev, I know your pretended reformers did 
 not invent them all themselves, but have gathered 
 many of them out of the pestiferous ashes of 
 formerly condemned heretics. For example, 
 
 Aerius, the heretic, was the first that denied 
 prayers and sacrifices to be profitable to the souls 
 \ \ purgatory. But his heresy was opposed by 
 f . Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory, Theo* 
 \ lylact &c. and condemned by the fourth council 
 of Carthage. This heresy was also opposed by 
 the Volensian, Toletan and Florentine councils. 
 This heretic held also that all bishops and priests 
 were equal. His error was condemned by St. 
 Augustine in his book de Heresib. This AeriuS 
 also maintained that we are not obliged to any 
 certain abstinences. 
 
 Jovinian held that fasting is of no moment, but 
 that it is lawful to eat flesh in Lent or on Good 
 Friday, or any other day whatsoever. 
 
 The Armenians and some Greek heretics deny 
 the doctrine of purgatory, in opposition to the ca* 
 tholic tradition. The council of Florence 1 , under 
 pope Eugenius the fourth, is said to have confirm*- 
 ed this doctrine against them. 
 
 Eustachius broached the heresy that it is not 
 lawful to honour or pray to the saints in heaven. 
 This was condemned as heretical in the council of
 
 CHAP. VI.] 96 [part II. 
 
 Gangres, afterwards in the council of Orleans, 
 and others. 
 
 Eunomius, the heretic, taught that the relics of 
 saints were not to be kept or reverenced. After 
 him Vigilantius held the same. St. Jerora wrote 
 against this heresy and against Vigilantius for 
 holding it. The council of Lateran under pope 
 Innocent the 3rd. condemned this heresy. 
 
 The Iconoclasts broke down sacred images in 
 churches, and for impugning them were con- 
 demned by three-hundred and fifty bishops, in the 
 second council of Nice. 
 
 The Waldensian, and Albigensian heretics de- 
 nied the power of indulgences, pardon or remis- 
 sion of temporal punishments. From these sprung 
 your twenty-second article. 
 
 John de Welesia held th at the council might err. 
 He was condemned at Mentz, in the time of the 
 emperor Frederic the third. 
 
 Arius, that arch-heretio, taught that general 
 councils approved by the pope might err. Nes- 
 torius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Huss and Wickliff 
 held the same. These heretics were condemned 
 in general councils. This heresy has been op- 
 posed by the learned writings of Occam, Chilto- 
 verius, Eccius and others. 
 
 Berengarius first publicly denied the real pre- 
 sence of Christ's body and blood in the holy 
 sacrament of the eucharist ; bis damnable heresy 
 was condemned in the councils at Verseilles, Ty- 
 rone, Rome, Florence and Trent. St. Langfranc, 
 archbishop of Canterbury, and many others wrote 
 against him. No one article of the christian 
 faith, now in debate between protestants and the 
 catholic church, is more strongly testified and de- 
 fended in tbe writings of the holy fathers, than 
 this of the real presence, as you may see in their 
 testimonies set down by Jodocus Coccius in his
 
 PART II.] 97 [CHAP VI. 
 
 Thesau : Cath : and in Gaulterus Tabul : Chron : 
 See also Heskit in his parliament of Greek and 
 Latin fathers for the real presence. From him 
 yoqr twenty-eighth article. 
 
 John Wickliff, the English heretic, taught that 
 the sacrifice of the mass was not instituted by 
 Christ. This blasphemous heretic was condemned 
 jn the general council of Constanue. That Christ 
 himself instituted this great christian sacrifice is 
 expressly asserted by the ancient fathers, St. 
 Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Chry- 
 sostom, pope Alexander the first, Eusebius, Isidore 
 and many others, as you may see in the above 
 mentioned authors Coccius and Gaulterus, if you 
 have not the works of the holy fathers by you. 
 It is also defined in many councils, as in the sixth 
 general council, the Toletan and Lateran, &c. See 
 32 deeret. From him your thirty-first article. 
 
 Eunomius, the heretic, broached that faith alone 
 was sufficient to salvation without good works. 
 
 Aerius held also that no sin is imputed to a be- 
 liever. I should rather have called him the author 
 of the heresy of faith alone, for Eunomius was his 
 scholar. From this you draw your eleventh 
 article. 
 
 Bead the works of St. Augustine, St. Ireneus, 
 St. Epiphanius against heretics, and you will un- 
 derstand more at large whence your protestants 
 pretended reformers derive them* impious, blasphe- 
 mous, and heretical doctrines. And it may like- 
 wise be seen in the works of your own protestant 
 writer Alexander Ross, in his view of all religions, 
 out of what dunghill of condemned heresies you 
 have picked up your new creed. 
 
 And, in conclusion, I must tell you, that take your 
 thirty-nine articles, or new creed, altogether as it 
 stands, and neither Christians, Jews, Turks, infi- 
 dels, schismatics or heretics of any one sort ever 
 had the like since; the world began.
 
 CHAP VII. J 98 [part II. 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 THE PR'JTESTANT CHURCH OF ENGLAND DENOUNCES 
 HER ANATHEMAS OR EXCOMMUNICATIONS AGAINST 
 ALL SUCH AS DENY THIS HER NEW CREED. 
 
 X remember I told you something to this purpose 
 in my answer to your first letter ; at which you 
 were so much offended that you charged me with 
 misrepresenting you. "This is plain (you say) that 
 you have misrepresented us, in saying we denounce 
 anathemas to all those who refuse to conform and 
 subscribe to them (the thirty-nine articles :) if it 
 be so, it is matter of fart and matter of record" 
 
 To this I answer, if it is not matter of fact and 
 matter of record, then I have misrepresented you, 
 and I detest misrepresentation. But, if it is mat- 
 ter of fact and matter of record, then I shall have 
 no need to beg your pardon. Examine then your 
 ecclesiastical canons made in the year 1604. There 
 you will find this matter of fact (as you call it) 
 standing upon record. But perhaps you may fall 
 again to distinguishing, and reply, that those ex- 
 communications are not anathemas. To prevent 
 this nicety, I tell you before hand, out of Rogers 
 himself, that " he, who is excommunicated, is deli- 
 vered over to satan." And pray, Sir, what greater 
 curse or anathema can you give a man than to 
 give him to the devil. But to the devil you actually 
 give all whosoever deny conformity to your said 
 new creed, the thirty-nine articles : which matters 
 of fact, in compliance with your ignorance, I shall 
 here again record. 
 
 Canon the Third. 
 
 "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the 
 church of England, by law established under the 
 majesty of the king, is not a true and an apostolic 
 church, teaching and maintaining the doctrine of
 
 PART II.] 99 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 the apostles, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, 
 and not restored but by the archbishop after his 
 repentance and public revocation of his wicked 
 error." 
 
 Canon the fifth, 
 
 " Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that any of 
 the thirty-nine articles, agreed upon by the arch- 
 bishops and bishops of both provinces and the 
 whole clergy in the convocation held at London 
 for the year of our Lord lou'2 for the avoiding of 
 diversity of opinions, and for the establishing of 
 consent touching true religion, are, in any part, 
 superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not 
 with good conscience subscribe unto, let him be 
 excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored but 
 only by the archbishop after his repentance and 
 public revocation of such his error," 
 Canon the ninth, 
 
 " Whosoever shall separate themselves from the 
 communion of the saints, as it is approved by the 
 apostles' rules in the church of England, and com- 
 bine themselves in a new brotherhood, accounting 
 the Christians, who are conformable to the doc- 
 trine, government, rites and ceremonies of the 
 church of England, to be profane and unmeet for 
 them to join with in christian profession, let them 
 be excommunicated ipso facto, and not be restored 
 but by the archbishop" &c. as above. 
 
 Besides these excommunications against such as 
 approve not your confession of faith, the thirty- 
 nine articles, your canons likewise offer up for 
 sacrifice unto satan's hands all such as will not 
 conform to your worship, ceremonies and church 
 government. 
 
 Canon the fourth. 
 
 " Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the 
 form of God's worship in the church of England 
 established by law and contained in the booh of 
 Common Prayer and administration of sacraments,
 
 CHAP VI. J 100 [pArTII. 
 
 is a corrupt, superstitious or unlawful worship of 
 God, or containeth any thing in it that is repug- 
 nant to the scriptures ; let hitti be eXcominunicated 
 ipso facto, and not restored but by the bishop of 
 the place, or archbishop after his repentance and 
 public revocation of such his wicked errors." 
 Cunoh the sixth. 
 "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the 
 rites and ceremonies of the church of England, 
 by law established, are wicked, antichristian, or 
 superstitious ; or, such as being commanded by 
 lawful authority, men, who are zealously and 
 godly affected, may not with a good conscience 
 approve them, let him be excommunicated ipso 
 Jacto, and not restored till he repent and publicly 
 revoke such his wicked errors." 
 
 Canon the seventh. 
 " Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the 
 government of the church of England, under his 
 majesty, by archbishops, bishops, deans, arch- 
 deans, and the rest that are in the same, is anti- 
 christian, or repugnant to the word of God, let 
 him be excommunicated ipso facto, and so continue 
 till he repent and publicly revoke such his wicked 
 errors." 
 
 Now, Sir, I hope you are satisfied that I have 
 not misrepresented you or your church. Here is 
 matter of fact, and matter of record, enough to 
 clear my innocency, and shew your ignorance. 
 See how little reason you have to blame the 
 church of Rome, as you do, for anathematizing 
 those who wilfully and obstinately refuse her 
 communion. What less, I pray, does your pro- 
 testant church of England, when she thus fulmi- 
 nates her excommunications against all such as 
 deny or do not conform to any of her thirty-nine 
 articles, common prayer, rites, ceremonies, or 
 iay-magistratical government under your pre- 
 tended archbishops and bishops. And, how ex-
 
 PART II. | 101 [ CHAP. VII. 
 
 communicated persons are to be looked upon and 
 avoided your thirty-third article will inform you, 
 in these words ; " that person, who, by open de- 
 nunciation of the church, is rightly cut off from 
 the unitv of the church and excommunicated, 
 ought to be taken off the whole multitude of the 
 faithful as a heathen and a publican, until he be 
 openly reconciled by penance, and received into 
 the church by a judge that hath authority 
 thereto." Thus the article ; and Mr. Rogers 
 upon it farther teaches, that " such an excommu- 
 nicated person is delivered unto satan, and is not 
 to be eaten with, nor accompanied, nor received 
 into any body s house." 
 
 Consider, now, how unlikely your protestant 
 church of England is to be a part or member of 
 any other church. First, she lias, by her pretend- 
 ed reformation incurred the guilt of schism and 
 heresy, as is evident from her forsaking the 
 visible church of Christ, and making to herself a 
 >?f rr creed, which also divides her from the faith 
 of the catholic church. And secondly, on the 
 other hand, she has so barricadoed herself on all 
 sides with those excommunications, that not any 
 one of her " godly brethren, the churches of 
 God, God's people, the churches reformed, the 
 churches christianly reformed, the godly reform- 
 ed, &c. (as your church, by Rogers, styles foreign 
 protestants, and presbyterian congregations) can 
 possibly get entrance through her so strongly 
 bolted gates, without, first, renouncing so much 
 of their own faith, worship, ceremonies, and go- 
 vernment as is disagreeable to hers, and owning 
 all that she imposes. Thus, instead of knitting, 
 as you express it, your church to other churches, 
 you have unknit and rejected them alias heathens 
 and publicans, and delivered all those; your godly 
 brethren over to satan, as unfit for you either to 
 speak, eat, drink, or sleep with. Are you willing,
 
 CHAP. VIII.] 102 [part II. 
 
 Sir, to be accounted members of those who are 
 thus, by your own canons, under the devil's infer- 
 nal dominion ? Surely you are not ! 
 
 Well, for your further security, I shall be so 
 kind to you, as to make it yet more evident that 
 you neither are part, nor members of any one of 
 them all ; so that, send them to the devil as fast as 
 vou can, you shall never have cause to fear their 
 dragging you after them as part of their body : 
 ind this my promise you ought to receive as a 
 icindness. The way I shall do it is, by shewing 
 yon from the tenets you and other churches hold 
 in contradiction to each other. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 THE PROTESTANT CHURCH OF ENGLAND HOLDS COM- 
 MUNION IN FAITH WITH NO OTHER CHURCH IN 
 THE WHOLE WORLD. 
 
 W HEN first you began this pretence of being 
 united to other churches by the bond of faith, you 
 seemed desirous that I should take the trouble to 
 examine whether it was so or not, telling me that 
 "the spiritual union being invisible, I could not 
 possibly know it but by examining your faith." 
 To this, I think, I answered, that your faith was 
 also invisible, and that you ought to let me know 
 it, before I could examine it. But 1 need not now 
 give you this trouble, for I have since reflected, 
 that it was made visible in the reign of king 
 Edward the 6th. under forty-two heads. In 
 Queen Elizabeth's reign, anno 1562, it became 
 more visible under the thirty-nine articles ; but, 
 not yet clear enough it was in the year 15/1
 
 PART II.] 103 [CHAP VIII. 
 
 polished over again, and subscribed to by 
 Matthew Parker, and half a score like himself, 
 and called thirty-eight articles ; the manuscript 
 of which is to be found in Corpus Christi College. 
 In King James the First's reign, anno 1604, it was 
 again exposed with thirty-nine heads, under the 
 form which it now bears, and entitled, the thirty- 
 nine articles. 
 
 Since that time, namely, in the year 1607, it 
 was exalted to its meridian of visibility by one 
 Thomas Rogers, poor chaplain, as he styles him- 
 self, to the archbishop of Canterbury, to whom he 
 dedicated his book, and who, in behalf of the 
 church of England, it is likely, employed the said 
 chaplain Rogers to explain the said articles. 
 This book of the poor chaplain being finished, the 
 archbishop accepted it, and the whole church of 
 England approved and authorized it for orthodox, 
 in these words, " Perused, and by the lawful 
 authority of the church of England allowed to be 
 public." This book was reprinted in the year 
 1629, and again in 1681, and is published under 
 the title of " The faith, doctrine and religion 
 professed and protected in the realm of England, 
 and dominions of the same: explained in thirty- 
 nine articles, unanimously agreed upon by the 
 reverend bishops and clergy of this kingdom at 
 two (he might have said four) several of their 
 meetings and convocations in the years of our Lord 
 1562, and 1604." Now, this faith of yours I shall 
 compare with that of other churches : if any agree 
 with it, you shall be joined in communion with 
 them, not otherwise. To begin with the Greek, 
 and those provinces which agree with her in faith, 
 as Macedon, Epirus, Bulgaria, Circassia, Thrace, 
 Servia, Russia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Bosnia, 
 Vodalia, Mingrelia, Natoliaand the Egean Islands, 
 to which may be added, the Russian and Mus- 
 covian churches, as also the Patriarchates of
 
 CHAP. VIII.] 104 [part II* 
 
 Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, all which 
 hold several points of faith agreeable to the 
 Roman catholic church, as the real presence, the 
 holy sacrifice of the mass, adoration of the 
 sacred eucharist, prayer to saints, prayers for the 
 dead &e. : all which points are contradicted by 
 your new creed, in its twenty-secpnd, twenty- 
 eighth, and thirty-first articles. Besides this, they 
 deny a point of faith held by the Roman church, 
 and yours of England, which is the procession of 
 Hie Holy Ghost, holding that the Holy Ghost 
 proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the 
 Son ; and, for this reason, Rogers, upon your 
 articles, places the Greeks under his title of 
 errors, and adversaries to truth. They are also 
 condemned for this error by the Roman catholic 
 church, and are also contrary to your first, second, 
 and fifth articles. See Alex. Ross and Rogers 
 upon the first and second articles. 
 
 The Armenians hold a coalition of Christ's two 
 natures into one compounded nature, contrary 
 to your eighth article, which authorises the 
 Athanasian creed. They deny, also, the proces- 
 sion of the Holy Ghost, as the Greeks do, con- 
 trary to your said first, second, and eigth articles. 
 See more in Ross and Rogers. 
 
 The Nestorians in Asia hold, that Christ be- 
 came God by merit, but that he was not God by 
 nature. They denied the tA\o natures of Christ 
 to be otherwise united, than, as one friend is 
 joined to another, in good will and affection, 
 contrary to the second and eighth articles, for 
 both which they are condemned in your church 
 by Rogers. 
 
 The Eutychians and Dioscorians, of whose 
 opinion are the Egyptians and Abvssinians in Afri- 
 ca, and many others in Asia, affirmed the divinity 
 and humanity of Christ to be of one and the same 
 nature, contrary to your second article, in which
 
 PART II.] 105 [CHAP VIII. 
 
 they are also condemned by your church in 
 Rogers. 
 
 The Melchites and Georgians in Asia are of the 
 same religion with the Greeks, though not under 
 their jurisdiction, so that you can pretend to no 
 communion with them for the reasons above. 
 
 The Jacobites, in other parts of Asia, hold with 
 theDioscorians and are also Monothelites, holding 
 but one will in Christ, contrary to your second 
 article : they hold also that angels are made of 
 fire and light, and that the souls of the just re- 
 main in the earth, till the resurrection. See 
 Ross. 
 
 The Indians, called the Christians of St. Tho- 
 mas, fell into the Nestor ian heresy, but are now 
 reunited to the catholic church, and are in commu- 
 nion with its chief bishop the pope of Rome, Peter's 
 successor. 
 
 So likewise many others, through all parts of 
 Asia and the aforesaid Greek provinces, have re- 
 nounced the Arian, Nestorian, Eutychian, Jacobin 
 and Armenian heresies, and reunited themselves 
 to the holy catholic church, and its chief pastor 
 and universal head on earth, the bishop of 
 Rome. Nay, even those, who yet remain of them 
 in the above said heresies, do nevertheless retain 
 agreat many points of catholic faith, as the real pre- 
 sence, sacrifice of the mass, images and prayers to 
 saints, with other points contrary to your twenty- 
 second, twenty-eighth and thirty-first articles. In 
 testimony of what has hitherto been said of them, 
 see Baronius, Proteolus, Gaulterus, Alex. Ross, 
 and Mr. Rogers. 
 
 Neither is your protestant church of England 
 of the same faith and communion with any other 
 protestant church or congregation in the whole 
 bounds of the protestant reformation. 
 
 Martin Luther and his followers taught, that the 
 epistle to the Hebrews, that of St. James, the se-
 
 CHAP VIII.] 106 [PART II. 
 
 cond of St. Peter, the two last of St. John and 
 the Apocalypse or Revelations were not canonical 
 scripture, contrary both to the catholic church and 
 to your own sixth article : and Rogers cannot pro- 
 duce so much as one Lutheran church in the world 
 that holds all the new testament for canonical. 
 This disagreement between foreign protestants and 
 the church of England so baffled and confounded 
 Rogers, that he was forced to write of the book 
 of the new testament thus. " Although some of the 
 ancient fathers and doctors accepted not all the 
 books contained within the volume of the new 
 testament, for canonical, yet, in the end, they were 
 wholly taken and received by the common consent 
 of the church of Christ in this world for the word 
 of God." And for this he cites in his margin only 
 the council of Trent, (concil: Trident: Sess. 4, deer : 
 de can : scrip :) where one would have thought 
 that he, by saying " they were received by the 
 common consent of the church of Christ" &c. had 
 designed to have cited all the protestant churches 
 in Germany. But, glory be to God, he was here, 
 in despite of malice itself, forced to put down in 
 this place only the Roman catholic church (as 
 represented in the council (of Trent) or else, he 
 had found no church of Christ at all ; for not one 
 protestant church in the world could he get to stand 
 for the church of Christ in this place. However, to 
 colour the matter before his ignorant readers, so 
 as to make them suppose that some of the new 
 gospellers or protestant professors held the same, 
 and so might be supposed the church of Christ 
 that held the same, he, after his way of cunning, 
 goes on thus'; " as they are at this day in almost 
 all places where the gospel (meaning protestancy) 
 is preached or professed." But for evidencing 
 this his, " almost in all places" he brings not so 
 mueh as one protestant church, preacher or pro- 
 fessor in the whole world.
 
 PART il.] 107 L CHAP ' VIII 
 
 I have a remark or two more upon this sentence 
 in Rogers. First, he owning that " some of the 
 ancient fathers accepted not all the books now in 
 the new testament," and the sixth article itself 
 professing to admit no more into the number Of 
 canonical books of the new testament, but only 
 such as have never been doubted of in the church, 
 it follows, that, by the article, you are obliged to re- 
 ject out of the canon such books of the new testa- 
 ment as have been doubted of : and, on the other 
 hand, he owning, and truly too, that at last such 
 as had by the fathers been doubted of were receiv- 
 ed in the church of Christ, obliges you to take 
 them into your canon, as indeed you do, as canoni- 
 cal books. Thus by your church in the article you 
 are bound by a point of faith to reject them ; and, 
 on the contrary, by your church's explanation of 
 it in Rogers you are bound to receive them ; that 
 is, you are obliged to believe them canonical, and 
 to believe them not canonical. Who but protes- 
 tants can believe a plain contradiction ? Consider 
 this, Sir, and observe the dilemma you are entan- 
 gled in. You must either renounce your church's 
 sixth article, in this point, for pretending to re- 
 ceive none but such as have never been doubted 
 of, or else, you must with the Lutherans cast out 
 of your present volume the books of the Hebrews, 
 James, the second epistle of St. Peter, the two 
 last epistles of St. John, and the Revelations : for 
 these have all been formerly doubted of in the 
 church by some or other of the ancient fathers, as 
 well as by the Lutherans. 
 
 The second remark. When your English pre- 
 tended reformers made the articles, they were 
 either ignorant of what books of the new testament 
 had formerly been doubted of: or else, they were 
 mad, making their canon of scripture contain such 
 books, as they, at that very same time, made it an 
 article of faith to deny for canonical, or else, in
 
 CHAP VIII.J 108 [part II. 
 
 short, they were maliciously bent to damn their 
 followers, by putting them under the necessity of de- 
 nying either this article of their faith, or of denying 
 such books of canonical scripture as the church of 
 Christ received, or, to speak it otherwise, of believ- 
 ing and disbelieving the same thing at the same 
 time. This shews you, also, how little certainty 
 you have of the truth of your article, or of your 
 canon, as relying for it only upon your reformers' 
 authority. 
 
 The last thing I remark is, that the church of 
 England, by Rogers citing only the council of 
 Trent for a proof that the church of Christ receives 
 all the said book for canonical, owns thereby ; 
 first, that the council of Trent is the representa- 
 tive of the church of Christ ; secondly, that the 
 church of Rome of whose bishops and doctors 
 the council of Trent was composed, is the church 
 of Christ : and thirdly, that what books of the 
 new testament the said council decree*! to have 
 been canonical, ought to be, and are, by the church 
 of England upon that council's authority, recorded 
 for canonical; consequently, the church of England 
 is, by the same reason, obliged to receive all such 
 books of the old testament for canonical (by her 
 now rejected for apocryphal) as the church of 
 Christ in the said council of Trent receives and 
 delivers for canonical. But, owning those of the 
 new testament and not those of the old testament, 
 she brings herself under this dilemma, either of 
 holding too few in the old testament, or too many 
 in the new, either of which renders her present 
 canon of scripture not right. Afore might be 
 said here, but 1 shall defer it till 1 have time to ex- 
 amine your section of scripture and so, leaving the 
 digression, I return. 
 
 All the Lutheran churches hold the doctrine of 
 consubstantiation, as your church in Rogers owns 
 in the errors upon the twenty-ninth article, saying
 
 PART II. | 109 | CHAP. VIII, 
 
 that " the Lutheran ubiquitarians say, that the true 
 and real body of Christ is in, with, under the bread 
 and wine, and may be eaten, chewed, and digested 
 even by Turks who never were of the church, 
 And, upon the twenty-sixth article, Rogers tells 
 us over again the Lutheran faith in these words, 
 " The ubiquitarians think the body of Christ is so 
 present in the supper, as his said body with bread 
 and wine, by one and the same mouth at one and the 
 same time of all and every communicant, is eaten 
 corporally andreceived into the belly." Thus Rogers 
 speaks of the Lutherans; and the Lutheran churches 
 in Germany declared the same to be their doctrine 
 in their Confession of Faith, printed four several 
 times at Augsburg in Germany. But this faith 
 of theirs is contrary to yours of the church of 
 England in your twenty-eight and twenty-ninth 
 articles. And your church in Rogers condemns it 
 for erroneous, and the Lutherans as adversaries 
 to truth. 
 
 On the other hand, the Lutherans are resolved 
 to be even with you. For, under the name of 
 sacramentarians, they condemn you and all such 
 as deny their tenet of consubstantiation, as you 
 may see in their writings. Luther himself, 
 in Thes. 27 contr. Artie, Lovan. says, " the Zuing- 
 lians and all other sacramentarians are heretics, 
 and alienated from the church of God, who deny 
 the body and blood of Christ to be received with 
 our corporal mouths in the blessed sacrament." 
 John Schutz says, " the doctrine of the sacra- 
 mentarians is a certain sink into which many 
 heresies flow : it is the very wrath of satan which 
 he, exagitated by furies, exercises against Christ 
 and his church." See Brerely, and The safeguard 
 from shipwreck. Thus, Sir, the Lutherans deal 
 with you, so that, you must not expect any com- 
 munity with them, or they with you. And of those 
 are the Augsburgian, Saxonian, llrandcnburgiau,
 
 chap, vm.] 110 [part II. 
 
 Swedish, Danish, and other Lutheran churches in 
 Germany. 
 
 With John Calvin and his mighty spawn of 
 Genevians, Helvetians, Huguenots, puritans and 
 presbyterians you agree not, but differ in faith. 
 Calvin taught that the Son of God received not 
 his essence from the Father, nor is he God of 
 God, contrary to your second and eighth articles. 
 In his Institutions lib : 3, and ad cap. 9, ep : Rom : 
 he says, that " the wicked have purposely been 
 created that they may be damned." Zuinglius, 
 Beza, and Bucer held the same, and all of them 
 make God the author of sin. See their lives in 
 Brerely ; see also Coceius and Alex. Ross, where 
 you will find more of their blasphemies, as these of 
 Calvin, that "Christ was in the state of the damned 
 when he suffered for us ;" and that " he descended 
 not into hell, but suffered the pains of hell upon the 
 cross, and suffered in soul the horrible torments of 
 a damned and wicked man : he was in great horror 
 with the feelings of eternal damnation, and strove 
 with the horrors of eternal damnation." See also his 
 harmony in Mat. 26* and 27 .* and Institute lib 2. 
 You may find also in Rogers the several presbytc- 
 rian catechisms and other books cited, which teach 
 the horrible blasphemies. Rogers, upon your ar- 
 ticle of Christ's descent into hell, places such puri- 
 tan calvinistic doetrines under his title of errors. 
 
 Rogers also condemns the disciplinarian puri- 
 tans for holding that " baptism administered by 
 unpreaching ministers is not lawful." Prop : if, 
 on the twenty-seventh article. 
 
 The puritans or presbyterians teach, that "ex- 
 cept God work miracuously, the bare reading of 
 scripture, without preaching, cannot deliver so 
 much as one poor soul from destruction." They 
 teach that " either God hatli no church in England 
 or that puritans are the church." " The bishops," 
 say they, " declare war against Christ and his
 
 PART II.] Ill [CHAP VIII. 
 
 church, and we must bid defiance to them till they 
 yield." Thus Rogers sets down their doctrines 
 and condemns them for it in his propositions upon 
 the nineteenth article and in other places. What 
 likelihood then is there of union, Mr. Ritschel ? 
 
 But here follows greater difference yet. " The 
 bishops," say they, " of your church have not an 
 ordinary calling from God :. they are not ministers 
 of Jesus Christ, by whom he will advance his gospel. 
 Inferior ministers are not, according to Gods 
 word, either proved, elected, called, or ordained." 
 "Hence the church of England,"say they,"wanteth 
 her pastors and teachers." "Hence they urge,"says 
 Rogers, " divers before ordained to seek at their 
 classes a new approbation, which they term the 
 Lord's ordinance, and to take new callings from 
 classical ministers, renouncing their calling from 
 bishops." Thus writes Rogers, for which he 
 condemns them upon the thirty-sixth article. 
 
 Thus the Calvinistic crew, and indeed all other 
 protestant churches in the whole pack of reforma- 
 tion, deny episcopacy to be of divine right, nor 
 can the church of England in Rogers bring so 
 much as one protestant in defence of her thirty- 
 sixth article. 
 
 On the other side, when it happens that any of 
 the ministers of any other reformed protestant 
 church come over into yours of England, you will 
 not admit them till they be first ordained anew by 
 your bishops : whence it is evident, you look upon 
 all other protestant churches to have had neither 
 lawful preaching, nor true sacraments (for want 
 of priesthood) since they left the church of Rome 
 by their pretended reformations. Of this dealing 
 of yours, in reordaining of them, they lamentably 
 complain in a letter of theirs directed to your pre- 
 tended bishops of the church of England in these 
 following words. " If episcopacy, "say the French 
 Huguenots, "is of divine right, it follows, thatnei-
 
 dfiAP. vm.] 112 [part ij. 
 
 ther the protestant churches in France, nor those of 
 of Holland, nor those of Germany, nor those of 
 Switzerland, nor Geneva &c. have truly had either 
 ministers or sacraments since the reformation. 
 And would you, my Lords, shut up the ministry 
 of the gospel, and the sacraments of Jesus Christ, 
 in the church of England Only ; and so look upon 
 the other reformed churches without ministers 
 and sacraments? If you renounce this opinion, 
 that episcopacy is of divine right, you must at 
 the same time revoke the custom of re-ordination, 
 which is but a dependency on it. You cannot 
 imagine how many good souls find themselves 
 scandalized at this custom. That has been chiefly 
 a very great trouble to French ministers, who are 
 dispersed every where, to be obliged to receive a 
 second ordination from your hands, before they 
 are able to execute their office in the church of 
 England &c. My Lords, we have so earnest a de- 
 sire for peace and union in your church, that it 
 makes us pass beyond the limits that we should 
 inviolably observe on any other occasion but this." 
 Thus these French protestants. You may find 
 their letter in a book entitled ; Several letters 
 written by some French protestants concerning the 
 unity of the church. They were published soon 
 after King William's coming to the crown. It is 
 the fifth letter in that book. 
 
 Consider all these things well, Sir, and then tell 
 me, what pretence you can have to union in faith 
 or government with other protestant churches, or 
 they with yours? Mind well, Sir, that the prin- 
 ciple of episcopacy's being of divine right, and your 
 practice of ordaining their ministers anew, un- 
 churches all those pretended churches. Their con- 
 trary principle, and their practice of reordaining 
 your ministers likewise unchurches your pretended 
 church of England, contrary to your first, second, 
 fifth and eight articles.
 
 PART II.] 113 L CHAPVIII# 
 
 The anabaptists assert that Christ is not true 
 God, that he took not flesh of the Virgin Mary, 
 contrary to your second article. They deny in- 
 fant baptism, and rebaptize, contrary to your 
 twenty-seventh article. They believe we are to 
 enjoy an earthly paradise after the day of judg- 
 ment. \ 
 
 The millenarians are of this opinion : only they 
 hold it to last but one thousand years. 
 
 The Adamites are also a sort of anabaptists: 
 they pray naked, and call that posture the state of 
 innocency. 
 
 The Sabbatarians are another branch of them, 
 who keep the Jewish sabbath. 
 
 The antisabbatarians are for keeping no sabbath 
 at all. These are also another sort of imps out of 
 the same stock. You may see more of them in 
 Alex. Ross, if you please there to read the lives 
 of Nicholas Stork, Montzerus, John of Leyden, 
 Knipperdolling, John Matthias, Herman the cob- 
 ler, Theodore the butcher, David George and 
 others, their first beginners, and then tell me if 
 yours and their doctrines agree. 
 
 The antinomians are another sort of protestants 
 that reject the ten commandments, and will not 
 have God's law to be preached, nor the consciences 
 of sinners to be terrified and troubled with the 
 judgments of God. Rogers condemns this in Ib- 
 bius, but will not name Luther, though he knew 
 very well this apostate was the first broacher of 
 the antinomian heresy. It is a dependency of the 
 doctrine that faith alone justifies. " The greatest 
 art and christian wisdom," says this impious Lu- 
 ther, " is not to know the law, to be ignorant of good 
 works and all active justice." Se argum : in ep : 
 ad Galat : edit : prim : " There are so many tes- 
 timonies of scripture which prove the command- 
 ments of God impossible to be kept, as there is 
 nothing more manifest. Thou dost most wickedly
 
 CHAP VIII. J 114 [PART H. 
 
 in saying that our Saviour has not commanded 
 impossihlitics, yea, thou dost more than most 
 wickedly in daring to call it an untruth, to say, we 
 cannot fulfil the commandments in this life." 
 
 Though your seventh article is contradictory to 
 ti^is antinqniian tenet, yet your article, that faith 
 alone justifies, includes it. Your Practice of Piety 
 also asserts, that "we are justified before God by 
 faith only without good works ;" and teaches fur- 
 ther, ^hat "no man in this life, since the tall of 
 Adam, can perfectly fulfil the commandments of 
 God." See the impression of it printed in 1643 
 page 5.13, 5i5, Though your church side with 
 them in the eleventh article, yet the seventh dis- 
 agreeing with them, hinders you from piecing. 
 And if it so happened, that you and they could 
 agree in this ; (as I will not say but you may) yet 
 differing in other points, (expressed above under 
 Luther and Calvin) you would be but still where 
 you are, far from uniting. 
 
 The independants, with which sort New Eng- 
 land, and most of our other English plantations 
 in the West Indies agree, hold, that their own 
 revelations are of equal authority with the 
 scriptures; and this would ruin your adequate 
 rule. They tell you further, that no man ought 
 to be troubled in conscience for sin ; this doctrine 
 I think, you may digest, b* cause it is a conse- 
 quence of your eleventh article. But they go 
 farther, and must have you believe, that, " the 
 soul dieth with the body, that Christ's humanity 
 is not in heaven." This last you cannot do 
 without contradicting your fourth article. See 
 Ross. 
 
 The quakers, which are the very excrements of 
 the anabaptists, and one of the most antichristian 
 sects amongst protestants, hold whatsoever their 
 enthusiastic devil their private spirit, suggests. 
 Some deny the unity : others hold that Christ has
 
 PART II.] 11$ [CHAP. Vltl. 
 
 no other body but his church, and that his coming 
 in the flesh is but a figure ; others that there is no 
 resurrection, but only a rising from sin. Some 
 affirm themselves to be God ; others say they are: 
 Christ : all of them cry up a light within them 
 sufficient to direct them ; and every one of them 
 follows the illumination of that hellish light, 
 though it has often led them into the strongest 
 madnesses that have ever been heard of : for 
 example, preaching naked in public market- 
 places, heating their ovens and closing them up 
 without putting any thing in them, upon a foolish 
 conceit, that, by their fakh they, should find them 
 presently full of baked bread, pies and puddings i 
 sometimes thrusting their hands into the hot fire, 
 believing that it would not have power tcr burn 
 them. Sometimes they will fall a trembling and 
 quaking, and foaming at the mouth, casting 
 themselves upon the ground, and so agitated, a* 
 if actually possessed by the devil ; and it is Very* 
 likely they are ; yet all this they will have to be 
 the effects of their spirits and light within them. 
 By this spirit they frequently pretend to prophecy, 
 but never speaking any other but lies and non- 
 sense. In a word, whatsoever else they hold, 
 they ull unanimously deny baptism ivith water, 
 accounting it antichristian. Your first, second, 
 and twenty-seventh articles are contrary to seve- 
 ral of their doctrines. 
 
 Now, Sir, according to your motion, I have 
 examined your faith, and compared your new 
 creed, the thirty-nine articles, with the doctrine of 
 all those churches or congregations of which you 
 would so gladly have been accounted members. 
 And, you see, not one of them all agrees with yon 
 in faith : neither do you hold the same faith will) 
 any of them. If you have the confidence to 
 pretend, hereafter, your church a part or member 
 of any other church or churches, be sure you fail 
 not to let me know, of what church or churches
 
 HAP VIII. J 116 [PART II. 
 
 you are a part, and which, . of all those I named 
 above, you will take into this pretended catholic 
 communion, of which you speak. When you have 
 pitched upon which, and how many, then reconcile 
 their faiths and religions together, and all of them 
 with your own. If you cannot do this, let them 
 all alone, and never pretend hereafter to be a 
 part or member of any of them. 
 
 But, methinks I see you grieve heavily, to be 
 thus separated from all those protestant churches 
 which Mr. Rogers 50 often styles "your godly 
 brethren, the people of God, the churches of God, 
 the saints, the churches reformed after the word of 
 God, the churches militant and reformed, the 
 churches godly reformed, the protestant churches" 
 &c. : But grieve not, dear Sir ; stop those tor- 
 rents of tears ; you have not so great a cause for 
 mourning as you imagine : perhaps, if you had 
 set yourself to work for a good turn, there could 
 not a better have been done you, than this sepa- 
 rating you from so many monsters. If I had let 
 you run on in your heedless career and perilous 
 pretence of being part of them, as sure as death, 
 they would eat you up alive, and devour that 
 small morsel of Christianity your pretended re- 
 formation has left you, if it is any at all. For 
 this is most certain, that, while you own your 
 thirty-nine articles for a true confession of faith, 
 you must, of necessity, hold every one of the said 
 churches, whether protestant or other, for here- 
 tics : because, not one of them all but hold points 
 of faith contrary to some or other of your thirty- 
 nine articles, as I have shewn you. And can you 
 think it such a happiness to be a part or member 
 of heretical congregations? 
 
 But, here is another affliction to you, and 
 horribly disturbs your peace of mind. It is the 
 apprehension of being left alone, without the 
 possibility of being a part or member of any
 
 PART II. | 117 [CHAP. VIIU 
 
 other church : which is, in short, to make you no 
 church at all : for the whole catholic church you 
 have already declared you are not; a part or 
 member of the church of Rome you have also 
 often enough disowned your church to be ; and a 
 part or member of any other church or congre- 
 gation you cannot be, for the reasons above. So 
 that, being neither the whole, nor a part or mem- 
 ber of the whole, or of any other in the universe, 
 what shall we take you for, but a cipher or no 
 church ? 
 
 Believe me, Sir, I foresaw that it would come 
 to this, when I found you denying your church to 
 be the catholic church, and only contenting your- 
 self to take up with the unlucky pretence of being 
 only a member or part of it. T then lamented 
 your case, and you see now it was not without 
 reason. 
 
 Though to pretend yours the catholic church is 
 nonsense in the highest degree, yet, in one respect, 
 you had better have stuck closely to it. For, by 
 so doing, you might still have had a pretence 
 of requiring your pretended godly brethren, saints, 
 godly reformed &c. to have sought to you for ad- 
 mission into your catholic church; whereas, by 
 thus declaring yourselves only a part or bare mem- 
 ber, you oblige yourselves to go cringing on all 
 fours to them, to be taken in as such; and, the 
 worst mischief is, you know not to which of them 
 all to apply yourselves, they being so divided from 
 one another, and in such mortal hatred with one 
 another, that, if any of them should receive you 
 for a part, all the rest would reject both it and 
 you. Moreover, your pretended church has so 
 shackled the hands and feet of her followers with 
 articles and excommunications, that, if any of them 
 were willing to embrace and entertain you, you 
 cannot possibly move either finger or toe towards 
 them, unless you first resolve to break all the
 
 CHAP. Till.] 118 [PART II. 
 
 ligaments in the whole body of the church of 
 England. 
 
 After all this you and your church may still be- 
 come happy if you please, and may justly be ac- 
 counted a part of the holy catholic church ; but you 
 must take the right way for it, which is only this. 
 In the first place, you must leave all manner of 
 pretence to partnership with all the above said 
 heretical and schismatical congregations ; secondly, 
 you must renounce all your above said new articles 
 with whatever else you hold contrary to the faith, 
 worship, and government of the catholic church, 
 the church of Rome ; and lastly, yon must with 
 humble submission embrace the faith, worship 
 and government of the church of Rome, and the 
 successor of St. Peter, its head. By this means 
 you may again be reunited and made a part of the 
 one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, as you 
 were before the pretended reformation. If you 
 will not do this, you must remain as you are, a 
 schismatical and heretical congregation, cut off and 
 divided from the holy catholic church. 
 
 I have yet to consider your reply to a certain 
 demand made by me in my answer to your first 
 letter. And then I hope we shall come to a con- 
 clusion of this tiresome point of your being part 
 or member of any other body. The question is 
 this.
 
 PART II.] lid [CHAP IX. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 WHERE WAS THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD, AT THE 
 TIME WHEN YOU BEGAN YOUR PRETENDED RE- 
 FORMATION? AND WHAT PUBLIC PROFESSORS 
 HAD SHE HOLDING AND TEACHING THE TRUE 
 FAITH ? 
 
 To this, in your book, page 139, you reply thus : 
 " And what, if I should also demand the like of 
 you, concerning the church of God, under king 
 Ahab, when the prophet Elijah made this sad 
 complaint, I, even I only, am left,'" &c. : It was 
 not necessary, in this place, to have demanded 
 what was already asked, and as kindly by your- 
 self answered at the same time, as I have 
 shewn you above, so that I need say nothing 
 more to it here. Only, I must put you in mind of 
 a little mean protestant slight in bringing in the 
 prophet complaining I, even I, am left alone, and 
 then cutting off with an " &c." no fewer than 
 seven thousand men that stood as firm as himself. 
 This is done on purpose, that your protestant 
 readers might think the prophet only, and no 
 more of the whole church of God was left stand- 
 ing at that time. 
 
 " But, God be thanked," say you, " the ease 
 was not so ill with the church of God before the 
 reformation, the gospel was preached in every 
 nation under heaven." You have spoken a great 
 truth in this sentence, and I pray God you may 
 rightly consider it. 
 
 At the time immediately preceding the reforma- 
 tion, the gospel was preached in every nation 
 under heaven. This great truth you fairly grant, 
 and positively assert. Tell me, then, what need 
 hail you to reform ? Could you not be content to
 
 OHAP. IX.] 120 [part II. 
 
 follow the gospel that was preached in every 
 nation under heaven ? And, was it not enough 
 for you to keep yourself in union with those who 
 then preached and professed it ? Was not this 
 sufficient for Luther, but he must separate him- 
 self from all the preachers and professors of the 
 gospel then preached in every nation, and preach 
 up and propose to the world such a gospel of his 
 own, as not one nation under heaven, at that time, 
 knew any thing of ? 
 
 The gospel was preached in every nation under 
 heaven ; this you affirm, and it is true, I say. 
 Tell me then, Mr. Ritschel, is it the gospel of 
 Christ you mean, or the gospel of antichrist ? If 
 the gospel of antichrist, then where was the true 
 church of God, and what benefit could it receive 
 by such preaching ? If the gospel of Christ was 
 then preached in every nation under heaven, it 
 therefore follows (as I suppose it is Christ's gos- 
 pel you speak of, because you thank God for it) 
 that the pretence of Luther, Calvin and Cranmer 
 to reform was nonsense and vain, yea, a bold and 
 most presumptuous impiety ; for, who is he that 
 can mend what Christ has made ? and who he 
 that dare pretend to reform what Christ the son of 
 God has formed 9 
 
 Seeing the gospel of Christ was then preached 
 in every nation under heaven, it therefore follows, 
 that it was preached in Germany, France, Spain, 
 Italy, England, Scotland, Ireland &c.; but, at that 
 time, there was no other gospel preached in the 
 said nations but the same that was then preached 
 in the Roman catholic church, and by Roman ca- 
 tholic preachers. It therefore follows, that the 
 gospel, then preached in the church of Rome, and 
 by Roman catholic preachers, was the gospel of 
 Christ : and, that the said nations of France, 
 Spain, England, &c. had then the gospel of 
 Christ preached in them. If you deny this gospel
 
 PART II.] 121 [CHAP IX. 
 
 of Christ to have been then preached in these na- 
 tions by Roman catholics, tell me, then, what 
 other sort of preachers they were that taught it, 
 and of what church, and why your pretended re- 
 formers did not follow their preaching, and join 
 in communion with them ? 
 
 It is most certain that this sentence of yours, if 
 rightly understood and applied to the preachers of 
 the catholic church, and the gospel by them taught, 
 is as true a saying as ever came from your lips : 
 for, it is undeniable that, when your new gospel- 
 lers, Luther, Calvin, &c. began, the Roman ca- 
 tholic faith was not only spread over all the above 
 named nations, but also by Roman catholic mis- 
 sionaries preached and taught among the Greek 
 churches and other schismatical and heretical 
 churches, through all Asia, using incessant endea- 
 vours to reclaim them from their errors, nay, even 
 among heathens and infidels both in America, 
 Africa, and the East Indies, and no other but only 
 this faith of the Roman catholic church was ever 
 so universally preached either at that time, or 
 ever before or since. So that, your grant and 
 affirmation of the gospel of Christ being then 
 preached in every nation under heaven cannot be 
 true, unless understood and meant of the Roman ca- 
 tholic faith, and the gospel preached by the preach- 
 ers and missionaries of the Roman catholic 
 church only, and by no others : so that, your sen- 
 tence is an excellent proof of the church of Rome's 
 being the true church of God, and its faith the 
 gospel of Christ. 
 
 I believe that, when you wrote this, you design- 
 ed thereby to insinuate into the heads of your 
 protestant readers, that there were protestants 
 before Luther, and At the time when he began, 
 who preached the protestant gospel in every na- 
 tion under heaven. If this is what you would be 
 at, tell me then what protestant gospellers preach-
 
 CHAP IX. ] 122 [ PART II. 
 
 ed it in France, who in Spain, who in Italy, who in 
 England, who in Scotland &c. in the year 1516 
 which was the very year before Luther began ? 
 If you cannot do this, never think that your pro- 
 testant readers will be so imprudent as to swallow 
 the gudgeon. The world knows that there nei- 
 ther was protestant gospel, nor protestant preach- 
 ers before Luther. 
 
 " The church of God was in so good a state, when 
 Luther began, that the gospel of Christ was 
 preached in every nation under heaven :" this you 
 own. " But," says your homily, " the whole 
 Christendom, yea, the whole world was, for above 
 eight hundred years together, before Luther, 
 drowned in damnable idolatry, to the destruction 
 of all good religion universally." Pray, Mr. Rits- 
 chel, let these two be reconciled. Go on now 
 with the rest of your sentence. " And there were 
 then many either churches besides the church of 
 Rome, though not free from many errors and cor- 
 ruptions and which stood in need of a reformation." 
 And is this all you come oifwith. It is not erro- 
 neous and corrupt churches, or gospellers that I 
 enquire after. What I here demand is, who they 
 were that preached Christ's gospel in every nation 
 under heaven, when Luther began ? A gospel 
 that is erroneous and corrupt is not the gospel of 
 Christ ; for his is always true and incorrupt, and 
 must of necessity be so, because he is God, and 
 has promised it. His gospel, therefore, needs no 
 mending or reformation. It is such a church and 
 such a gospel as this you must produce, if you 
 will shew us the true church and gospel of Christ. 
 Go on then. "I wonder that you forgot the Greek 
 church and all those under her jurisdiction, who 
 would never submit to the bishop of Rome." 
 
 Why name you the Greek church, when you but 
 just now told us of the many other churches (in 
 which the Greek must needs be included,) which
 
 PART il.] 123 [CHAP IX. 
 
 were erroneous and corrupt ? The Greek church 
 being one of those erroneous and corrupt church- 
 es, what should she do here, where a true and 
 incorrupt church preaching the gospel of Christ 
 under heaven is sought after ? And the great 
 question is, where the true church and its public 
 professors were, before Luther began to reform ? 
 
 Besides, whether that church submitted, or did 
 not submit to the bishop of Rome, is no part of 
 our enquiry or business in this place. Nor has 
 it any relation to the question in hand, unless you 
 will pretend her nonsubmission, to be an argument 
 of her being the true church of God ; which if 
 you do, you may, by the same argument, make 
 the Jew's Synagogue, the Mahometans, and Wil- 
 liam Penn's unchristened kirk in Pensylvania, the 
 true church of God, and preachers of Christ's gos- 
 pel, in every nation under heaven. It is but saying, 
 they would never submit to the bishop of Rome, 
 and the conclusion will as naturally follow for 
 them as for the Greeks. 
 
 But you mistake yourself, Mr. Ritschel, when 
 you say that the Greek church would never sub- 
 mit to the bishop of Rome. If you had been a 
 little better skilled in ecclesiastical history and 
 councils of the church, you would have known the 
 contrary to this ; you would have found no less 
 than seven or eight general councils all held in 
 Greece, four of them at Constantinople itself, the 
 last of these in the year 860, all owning the bishop 
 of Romes supremacy, not one of them either de- 
 nying it, nor so much as once questioning it. Nor 
 did they fall off from their submission to the pope, 
 till the time that the schismatic Photius usurped 
 the patriarchal see of Constantinople, which was 
 not till near nine nurtured years after Christ. So 
 that you impose upon us in saying the Greek 
 church would never submit to the bishop of Rome. 
 But I will judge as favourable as I can, and impute
 
 CHAP IX.j 124 [PART If, 
 
 this to your want of skill in history, for you are 
 no Baronius, Mr. Ritschel. 
 
 But if your assertion were true, as you see it is 
 not, yet, considering the Greek church holds all or 
 most of those points of faith which you condemn 
 in the Roman church for idolatry, superstitious, 
 and antichristian, you can no more take her for the 
 true church of God, (standing to your thirty-nine 
 articles) than you can the church of Rome. Be- 
 sides, the Greek church detracting from the dig- 
 nity of the Son and denying the procession of the 
 Holy Ghost, how can either you or we take her 
 for a church that preaches the gospel of Christ ? 
 Nor did the Greek church preach this their gospel 
 against the procession of the Holy Ghost in every 
 nation under heaven, at the time Luther began. 
 If I should call upon you for a Greek gospeller 
 preaching the Grecian faith, either in France, 
 Spain, Germany, Italy, England, or the East or 
 West Indies, when your pretended reformation 
 began, you could not find his name either in your 
 vast, capacious memory or in all the books of your 
 library. So that the Greek church must not be 
 set up for the true church of God preaching the 
 gospel of Christ in every nation under heaven. 
 
 But tell me, Sir, if the Greek church was then the 
 true church of God, why did not Luther, Calvin, 
 Cranmer, Parker and the rest of your pretended 
 reformers unite themselves in faith, worship and 
 government with her ? Perhaps you may answer 
 me (and with truth) that the German protestants 
 did move the Greeks for being taken into their 
 communion. And this I grant. And I really be- 
 lieve, if they had effected it, the English pro- 
 testants would have followed their example. But 
 the mischief of it was, the sage Greeks would not 
 admit any of you into communion. They foresaw 
 you would no sooner be entered the gates of the 
 eastern church, but you would be turning all
 
 PART II. | 125 [ CHAP. IX. 
 
 things upside down by your reforming. The Eng- 
 lish sort of protestants they knew well would be 
 for obliging them to swear the temporal prince 
 head of their church, and the Greek patriarch and 
 his bishops can never endure your telling them 
 thev must take the oath of supremacy to the Grand 
 Turk. 
 
 If you will permit me to offer you a word of 
 advice, return again into the church of Rome, 
 the catholic church, and never set up the Greek 
 church for the true church of God ; nor beg of 
 those sullen people for admittance into commu- 
 nion, or, for taking you in for part or members of 
 them : for, as sure as you live, they will reject 
 you as they did the German protestants your 
 godly reformed brethren, and that disdainfully 
 enough too, though they begged with all the 
 cringing and insinuating expressions imaginable, 
 directing their letters thus " To the most holy 
 and canonical Patriarch, the lord Jeremy, arch- 
 bishop of Constantinople, a pious lord" : and, in 
 another of their epistles they put down, instead of 
 pious lord, " our most reverend lord," using 
 abundance of the like coaxing expressions in their 
 letters as, " vouchsafing its pardon, and receiving 
 us favourably into thy fatherly care," concluding 
 with, " farewell, most holy lord." The patriarch, 
 tired with their importunities, sent them at last 
 this positive answer. 
 
 " We were determined to be' altogether silent 
 to those your demands, neither to give you 
 any answer, who so plainly alter at your pleasure 
 both the scriptures and interpretations of holy 
 doctors, seeing, we are exhorted by St. Paul, to 
 reject an heretical mar/, after two or three admo- 
 nitions. We are fully assured, by your writings, 
 that you can never agree with us, or rather, with 
 the truth ; and, therefore, we desire you hereafter 
 not to be troublesome to us, &c. : lor the
 
 PART II.] 126 [CHAP IX. 
 
 divines, who were the light of the church, you 
 treat in different manners ; in words you honour 
 them, but in deeds you reject them, &c. In so 
 much, therefore, as concerns you, you have freed 
 us from cares." 
 
 All their articles (except that of the pope's 
 supremacy wherein they opposed the faith of the 
 Roman church) he rejected for novelties and 
 errors in faith, and contrary to the universal and 
 apostolical traditions. Thus disgracefully your 
 feliow-protestants were repulsed by the Greek 
 patriarch. The letters that passed between them 
 are to be seen in Acta Theologorum Wittembergen- 
 siiim, Jerimice, Patriarchce Constantinopolitani de 
 Augustana Confessione, printed at Wittemberg, 
 anno 1584. Nor did it happen much better to 
 Dr. Cousins, late bishop of Durham, who, in his 
 banishment with king Charles the Second, being 
 at Paris had the good fortune fo meet a Grecian 
 bishop, named Cyril, archbishop of Trapezond. 
 The doctor, glad of this opportunity, resolved to 
 try, if happily he might prevail with the Greek 
 church, by means of this archbishop, to take the 
 poor, silly, banished church of England into her 
 motherly lap. And, to this intent, he translated 
 into Greek, the common prayer, and thirty-nine 
 articles of the church of England, which he pre- 
 sented in a very humble manner to the Grecian 
 archbishop, but without success. For, as soon 
 the Greek and his learned companion, a monk of 
 St. Basil's order, had perused and well considered 
 the same, they disdainfully rejected both common 
 prayer and confession of faith, the thirty-nine 
 articles, as things strange to them, new, and 
 heretical, and contrary to the faith and worship 
 of the Greek church. See Fiat Lua\ 
 
 The Greek church, moreover, holds the real 
 presence, sacrifice of the mass, adoration of the 
 blessed sacrament, prayer for the dead, prayer to
 
 CHAP. IX.] 127 [PART II. 
 
 the saints, images, &c. all which you condemn. 
 And they also condemn you for denying them ; so 
 that, here is cold entertainment for you among 
 the Greeks. 
 
 Though you were so exceedingly astonished 
 that I had forgot the Greek church, when I asked 
 you for protestant professors, yet, you see, when 
 I have remembered it, it turns nothing to your 
 advantage, more than to shew you of what you 
 were ignorant before, namely, that it condemns 
 both German and English protestants for he- 
 retics. 
 
 Yon need not to have put me to all this trouble, 
 Sir, if you had considered that the question be- 
 tween us is not about what schismatical and /tere- 
 tical churches were in the east, when you began 
 to form protestancy. For the query is, were the 
 true church of God teas, and what public profes- 
 sors it had at that time ? What do you say to this, 
 Sir ? " There wanted not before that time, even 
 within that usurped jurisdiction of the bishop of 
 Rome, those who made complaint, and did pro- 
 test against your errors and corruptions, as Peter 
 Waldo of Lyons, about the year 1160/' I tell 
 you, Sir, that our question is what professors 
 were living at the time when you began, and not 
 about your half protestants (as you call them) 
 that lived four hundred years before. But, how- 
 ever, seeing you have brought this broken 
 merchant, Peter Waldo, upon the stage, we will 
 see what kind of a figure he makes before he goes 
 off. What do you say of him, in the first place ? 
 " He, being persuaded to reform his life, upon- a 
 due sense of mortality, translated some books of 
 the bible, and instructed* such as resorted to him 
 in tin; way of godliness, teaching withal, that 
 purgatory, masses, worshiping of saints, and 
 prayers for the dead, were the invention of the 
 devil, and snares of avarice; reproving severely
 
 CHAP. IX.] 128 [part II. 
 
 the vicious lives of your clergy," &c. And, here 
 you cut off, and craftily conceal all the rest of his 
 detestable doctrines with an " &c," on purpose 
 to hide them from the knowledge of those un- 
 learned readers to whom you sent copies of your 
 letter. Thus you palm Waldo upon them for an 
 admirable professor of half-protestancy. But, 
 seeing you cannot deal candidly yourself, pray 
 give your brother of the gown, Alexander Ross, 
 of whom you ought to learn sincerity, liberty to 
 tell us the rest of the horrid tenets this heretic 
 held. 
 
 In the first place, he takes him for a heretic, 
 ranking him among the heretics of the twelfth 
 century; then, he adds to what you have said 
 already, that " the Waldenses (Peter and his 
 crew) held, that laymen might preach, and con- 
 secrate the bread." (This would take the office 
 over your head, parson!) "They rejected all 
 prayers except the Lord's prayer" : (what would 
 have become of your common prayer book, 
 among them?) they held that the eucharist, con- 
 secrated on Friday, had more efficacy than on any 
 other day : they rejected the distinction of bishop 
 and priest" : (this would vex your pretended 
 bishops to the heart, but, would please several of 
 your parsons, as Mr. Rudderford, your neighbour, 
 whom I have heard affirm, that " bishops are not 
 necessary for the ordaining of priests, but, that 
 a priest may ordain in absence of the bishop.") 
 "They held that priests falling into sin lost their 
 power in consecrating"; (how many powerful 
 parsons would you have at this rate !) " They 
 held that magistrates and governors, if they fall 
 into sin, lose their authority" ; (brave plea for 
 rebels!) "They taught that no man ought to 
 suffer death by the sentence of any judge" ; 
 (brave encouragement for thieves, murderers, 
 traitors and other malefactors !) " They rejected
 
 part ir.] 129 [chap ix. 
 
 the apostles' creed :" (excellent half-protestants !) 
 " they held it unlawful for clergy to possess 
 temporalities" : (this would go mightily against the 
 grain with your brother parsons and their wives) 
 but, to make amends in another kind to both, 
 they permit promiscuous copulation." These, 
 Sir, were the Waldensians' doctrines, and vast 
 numbers of libertines, malefactors, traitors, re- 
 Ms, and wicked rabble followed, and flocked in 
 from all sides ; so that Waldo began to wax great 
 suddenly, insomuch that the adjoining princes 
 thought it time to look about them. 
 
 With this beastly offspring of Waldo joined 
 the Albigenses, another sect of heretics of that 
 age, yet had their origin from that Waldo, as 
 Dr. Henry More signifies in his exposition of the 
 seven epistles to the seven churches, saying, " the 
 Albigenses and Waldenses are both one sect, and 
 from one author, Waldo of Lyons," page 57. 
 Alex. Ross says, " these Albigenses held two 
 Gods, that our bodies were made by satan, that 
 the scriptures were erroneous, all oaths unlawful, 
 baptism unnecessary, rejected the old testament, 
 prayer in the church, and denied marriage, held 
 there were two Christs, a good born in an un- 
 known land, a bad in Judea ; thev taught God had 
 two wives, of whom he begot sons and daugh- 
 ters," with other abominable blasphemies, as 
 you may see in Alex. Ross. 
 
 Now, Sir, if you had ingenuously given us an 
 account of all this, as you ought to have done, we 
 should have seen no great reason for your so hug- 
 ging yourself as you do, (p. 140.) in contemplation 
 of the vast numbers and great figure (as you say) 
 Waldo's followers made, y\\o were able to raise 
 such mighty armies, as to force pope Innocent the 
 third to translate the war from the holy land 
 against them. On the contrary, it would have 
 appeared what just cause there was for his so 
 
 B
 
 CHAP IX. J 130 [ PART II. 
 
 turning war upon them : and happy it was for the 
 neighbouring princes he did so, for, as Du Hail- 
 Ian, the French historian reports, " there were 
 above a hundred thousand men of them gathered 
 into arms under their leader count Ramund, earl 
 of Tolouse," and Dr. More, out of Peter Perionius 
 on the Albigensian war, says, that one million of 
 them were slain in several battles. See his book 
 above cited. In a word they were overthrown by 
 Simon earl of Montferrat. See Alex. Ross. 
 
 Go on. " Now these half-reformed protestants 
 (though they had not that name) and the purer 
 part of the church of God under the usurpation of 
 the bishop of Rome :" thus you say p. 147. 
 
 Libera nos Domine ! if they were but half-pro- 
 testants, heaven shield us from your whole-pro- 
 testants. You are like to make God a beautiful 
 building of a church, when the purer part of the 
 fabric is framed of such polished stones as these ! 
 In my opinion, you had better never have opened 
 Waldo's Pandorean urn, than to be thus forced to 
 rake among his filthy ashes for such a pack of 
 half-protestant-professors as these. Yet, you have 
 a great mind to wash those blackamoors white, 
 and to this intent you tell us, " the cruel inquisitor 
 Reynerius gives a brave character of them, and 
 for this you cite Fuller's church history, a testi- 
 mony no better than that of your own, when you 
 say Cochleus and Bolsecus (whom you ignorantly 
 call Dolsecus) aspersed Luther and Calvin, 
 whereas, if you had read Luther and Calvin's 
 lives, written by Brerely from protestant authori- 
 ties, and their own writings, you might have seen 
 them in blacker colours than either of those 
 writers drew them in. As for Fuller's history 
 and its testimony out of Reynerius, they cannot 
 defend those impious hypocrites against the au- 
 thentic, credible, and impartial histories of Ba- 
 ronius, Genebrand, Prateolus, Gaulterus, and
 
 PART II.] 131 [CHAP IX. 
 
 others, who testify at large all I have said of 
 them, and much more. So, Tsay, does your own 
 protestant author, Alexander Ross. What Rey- 
 nerius speaks of them is only from their demean- 
 our before him, as an inquisitor, where, for fear 
 of punishment, they hypocritically concealed their 
 blasphemous and abominable tenets, and of devils, 
 put on the vizards of angels of light, on purpose to 
 escape the rigorous punishments of the inquisi- 
 tion ; it being also one of their tenets to deny 
 and dissemble their religion, when called before 
 authority. 
 
 You have also the confidence to tell us, " these 
 Waldensians continued till the time of Luther and 
 Calvin" ; which if true, why did you not name 
 some of them in existence at that time ? But, 
 this you did not dare to do, for the thing is false. 
 There was not one of them upon the earth at 
 that time ! 1 challenge you to name so much as 
 one of the Waldenses on this side hell at that 
 time when Luther and Calvin began their new 
 religions. 
 
 But, admitting Waldo to have been, not only 
 a half, but a whole protestant, and that some 
 of his litter have lasted till Luther ; yet, seeing 
 he was the first broacher of that impious religion, 
 it stands upon the same tenure as to novelty with 
 that of Luther, Calvin, or Cranmer. Your own 
 words also discover Waldo to have been a heretic, 
 and his doctrines new and heretical, when you 
 bring him in denying and contradicting points of 
 faith then held in the church when he began. 
 You had acted the eontrovertist much more to the 
 purpose, if you had told us of whom Waldo 
 learned his doctrines, ancj, who taught them to 
 Waldo's instructors, &c., till you had deduced 
 them from the apostles. But, this is an impossi- 
 bility in heretical points. Waldo had no other 
 teacher but the Father of lies, nor mission] but
 
 CHAP IX.J 132 [part II. 
 
 from, that infernal master of his. Priesthood he 
 had none, being only a poor broken merchant of 
 Lyons. And so we will leave him, to see what 
 follows. 
 
 " Nor was it Waldo alone," say you, " but St. 
 Bernard, and many others, who complained and 
 protested against the corruptions of the church of 
 Rome." You are, certainly, the most shameless 
 writer that ever handled a pen, to have the 
 impudence to bring in St. Bernard, that great and 
 holy catholic doctor, for a protestant, or half- 
 protestant professor. 
 
 St. Bernard was so far from protesting against, 
 or finding the least fault with, the faith of the 
 church of Rome, that, on the contrary, he always 
 professed it, and lived and died in it, and, after 
 his death, was, by the church and pope of Rome, 
 canonized for a saint, which would never have 
 been done, if he had either denied the pope's 
 supremacy, or protested against any one point of 
 the Roman catholic faith, as you thus maliciously 
 and deceitfully insinuate. Tell me in your next, 
 what points of faith they were he protested 
 against ? and what points of protestant new 
 faith he asserted against the church of Rome ? 
 If you cannot do this, you must not think I do 
 you any wrong, if I charge you with gross un- 
 truth, and accuse you of calumniating the holy 
 St. Bernard, and rank you in the number of 
 impostors, for thus deceiving your ignorant read- 
 ers, by obtruding upon them such notorious 
 untruths. 
 
 What St. Bernard reproved was the bad man- 
 ners and evil lives of men, not sparing the clergy, 
 bishops, or pope himself, so far as, and where, he 
 saw just occasion, and this is a thing not only 
 laudable, but the duty of every good pastor, priest, 
 bishop and doctor of the church. Nay, do you 
 exclaim against vice and immorality as much a
 
 CHAP. IX.] 133 [part II, 
 
 you please, neither priest, bishop, nor pope will 
 ever find fault with you for this, provided you 
 charge no man unjustly, but keep within the limits 
 of truth. Now, what St. Bernard wrote against 
 immorality and bad manners, you, abounding 
 with heretical malice, would have your readers 
 believe was written against corruptions in faith ; 
 (for it is about faith, not manners, we dispute now) 
 whereas it is evident from your bishop Jewel him- 
 self, that St. Bernard never opposed the faith of 
 the church of Rome; " St. Bernard," says Jewel 
 in his apology, " was no Lutheran, Bernard was 
 no heretic, he had not forsaken the catholic 
 church." 
 
 St. Bernard being most intimate with pope 
 Eugenius, (the pope having formerly been his 
 scholar) wrote freely to him, reproving whatever 
 he saw amiss in manners, either in him or the in- 
 ferior clergy. But he is so far from speaking 
 against his supremacy, that, on the contrary, in 
 the same epistle he styles him " The great priest, 
 the highest bishop, chief of all bishops, heir of 
 the apostles, for primacy Abel, for government 
 Noah, for patriarchship Abraham, for holy orders 
 Melchizedech, for dignity Aaron, for authoricy 
 Moses, for judgment Samuel, for power Peter, 
 for anointing Christ. " Thou art he," says lie, "to 
 whom the keys were delivered, to whom the sheep 
 were committed. There are also other porters of 
 heaven, and pastors of flocks, but thou so much sur- 
 passing all others, as thou hast inherited both names 
 in more different manners : they have their flocks 
 assigned unto them, each man one : all are com- 
 mitted to thee, the one whole flock to one : neither 
 art thou only the pastor of ait the sheep, but also 
 the only pastor of tiie pastors. Again, the authority 
 of others is restrained to certain prescribed bounds, 
 thine is extended even upon those who have 
 received power over others. Thy privilege re-
 
 CHAP. IX.] 134 [part II. 
 
 mains to thee unshaken, as well in the keys which 
 were given thee, as in the sheep that were com- 
 mended to thee. Again, whereas every other 
 man hath his, to thee is committed the greatest 
 ship of all, made up out of all other ships, to wit, 
 the universal church dispersed through the whole 
 world." Thus wrote that great saint to pope 
 Eugenius, see lib. 2. de consideratione ; read his 
 epistle at large, and you will see him prove all 
 that is here said out of holy scripture and unde- 
 niable arguments. Never bring in St. Bernard 
 hereafter for a protestant, or one that either taxes 
 the church for corruptions in faith, or opposes the 
 pope's supremacy. 
 
 As you deal with us about St. Bernard, so you 
 do about the princes of Germany, falsely, as to 
 insinuating that the said princes laid before the 
 pope a hundred grievances against faith ; " and 
 pope Adrian the sixth," say you, " like an honest 
 man, did ingenuously acknowledge those corrup- 
 tions, and promised the Germans that they should 
 have a reformation." Thus, Sir, you would make 
 your ignorant reader believe that pope Adrian ac- 
 knowledged corruptions in matters of faith, and 
 the things he promised a reformation in concerned 
 faith. And, to this intent, you improperly and 
 falsely render the word gravamina, corruptions, 
 which, if rightly englished, as you do above, sig- 
 nifies grievances, not corruptions ; for a thing may 
 be a grievance when it is not a corruption. Then, 
 you make use of the word reformation where the 
 word redress should have stood, and thus by cor- 
 ruption and change of words you would make it 
 appear as if pope Adrian acknowledged corrup- 
 tions in faith and promised a reformation in faith. 
 
 That manifesto was written and published by 
 the instigation and device of the Lutheran here- 
 tical party ; so that, whatever Mas in it touching 
 any thing of faith must be imputed to the Luther-*
 
 PART II. | 135 [ CHAP. IX* 
 
 an spirit, and not to the catholic princes of Ger- 
 many, who had no hand in it, the whole contri- 
 vance being of John Frederick, Duke of Saxony, 
 and his schismatical and heretical adherents; 
 so that, you stand in no need of an answer to the 
 matter in debate, namely, what protestant pro- 
 fessors you find before Luther. Nor does pope 
 Adrian's promise to redress such temporal 
 grievances and diiferences, as might then be 
 between the Germans and the court of Rome, (not 
 relating to faith) make any thing at all for you, 
 this being a thing always done by popes, when 
 princes have just cause of complaint. In short, 
 your cause must needs be desperately bad, when 
 it stands in need of such shifts to defend it. 
 
 " And these," you say, " were the reasons which 
 made Luther, and Calvin, and our reformers, 
 forsake the communion of the church of Rome" 
 And, were the " centum gravamina," the reasons 
 then? How bravely you impose upon us, who 
 will have the not redressing the hundred grie- 
 vances to be the cause of Luther and Calvin for- 
 saking the church of Rome, when the world 
 knows, those two apostles had left the church long 
 before ever the said grievances were written or 
 mentioned. Luther fell from the church in the 
 time of pope Leo the tenth, who was the prede- 
 cessor of pope Adrian the sixth, to whom, you 
 say, those hundred grievances were presented; 
 and, yet, you will have the pope's not redressing 
 them, to be the cause why Luther left the church. 
 How finely they will be fit, who rely upon your 
 skill in chronology, Mr. ltitschel ! 
 
 I have now thoroughly examined all you have 
 said concerning a protestant church, and profes- 
 sors of protestantism, before the pretended 
 reformation. But, not so much as either a church 
 or a single man can be found. Even those 
 churches you pretend to, you dare not be so bold
 
 PART II. J 136 [CHAP X. 
 
 as to take either for protestant, or true churches 
 of God ; but, on the contrary, brand them with 
 the notes, cmoneous, and corrupt, and such as 
 needed a reformation. And, as for your protes- 
 tant professors, they come off with a monstrous 
 chimera of half protestants hatched from an egg, 
 laid by Peter Waldo, the beggar of Lyons, in the 
 lap of the beastly rabble. 
 
 But, what will you say, Sir, if, after all this, t 
 make it evident from your own sentences in your 
 letters, that, at the time of the pretended refor- 
 mation, the church of Rome was, and conse- 
 quently, at this day is, the true church of God 
 the holy catholic church ? 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 EVIDENT FROM MR. RITSCHEl's WRITINGS THAT THE 
 CHURCH OF ROME IS THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD 
 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 iHJS universally acknowledged truth (except 
 by schismatics and heretics) has been frequently 
 testified and defended by the holy fathers, in all 
 ages, as may be seen in Baronius, and other 
 cclesiastical histories ; as also in Jodocus Coccius, 
 Gaulterus, and others, who have collected testimo- 
 nies for the same, as, likewise, for its faith and 
 doctrine, in every age, even from the time of the 
 apostles to our days ; fer which I refer you to 
 their works ; my business, in this place, being to 
 evidence this great truth out of your own writings* 
 Mr. Ritschel. I shall, first, therefore, collect 
 yoursentences out of the several places of your 
 letters, and then shew you their nccessury, and 
 undeniable consequences.
 
 PART II.] 187 [CHAP X. 
 
 In your letter of March 4th, 1787> page 2, you 
 have these words : " there is but one faith or true 
 religion" In page 6 " there is but one faith or 
 true religion , and that both before and since the 
 coining of Christ." The same you repeat again in 
 your book, page 128. In the same book, page 7 
 and 9, you affirm, that " you hold communion in 
 faith with the true church of God in all ages." 
 And in page 128 and 129 you tell us again, that 
 " you hold communion with the true church of God 
 in all ages." And in page 139. that " you have 
 the same common salvation with the true church of 
 God in all ages." And in page 132 you again 
 affirm that " God has had a true church in all ages." 
 In page 7 you, in a very solemn manner, affirm 
 that '* there is but one faith or true religion, and 
 that God has had a true church in all ages : and 
 this the church of England never denied any more 
 than she denies the being of one true and living 
 God." Thus you write, and from these so often 
 repeated grants, that " God has had a true church 
 holding and believing the one faith or true religion 
 in all ages," it undeniably follows : first, that the 
 true church of God was actually in being and 
 actually holding and believing the one true faith 
 or religion, in that very age, and at that very time, 
 immediately before, and when Luther, Calvin, 
 Cranmer, &c. began their pretended reformation ; 
 or else she could not have been in all ages. 
 Secondly, that the church of England held com- 
 munion With this true church of God in that her 
 one true faith and true religion, in that age and 
 time immediately before her pretended reforma- 
 tion, for otherwise she could not have held com- 
 munion with it in all ages. 
 
 But it needs no evidence to prove, that the 
 church, with which the church of England held 
 communion in faith and religion immediately be- 
 fore and at the pretended reformation, was the 
 s
 
 CHAP X.J 138 [part II. 
 
 church of Rome, it being evident in all protestant 
 as well as Catholic historians, who have written 
 concerning the reformation, as also in several of 
 your acts of parliament; yea, it is granted by your 
 own self page 142, when you say, that " Luther, 
 Calvin and your reformers forsook the communion 
 of the church of Rome" Therefore the church of 
 Rome, at that very time when you forsook her 
 communion by your pretended reformation, was 
 the very true church of God, the catholic church, 
 and then held and believed the one true faith and 
 true religion, the catholic faith. 
 
 Consider here the irresistible and wonderful 
 force of truth. It often discovers itself when he 
 that speaks has the least thoughts of uttering it ; 
 yea, when he even designs the contrary. So, out 
 of your own mouth, when least intended, have 
 elapsed so many sentences as bring along with 
 them this great truth that the church of Rome is 
 the true church of God. Out of which truth spring 
 also these others, all as undeniable and certain as 
 itself. First, that, in forsaking the church of 
 Rome, protestants have forsaken the true church 
 of God, the holy catholic church, and therefore 
 protestants are schismatics. 
 
 Secondly, in leaving the faith and religion of the 
 church of Rome, protestants have left the true 
 faith and religion of the church of God, the holy 
 catholic faith, and therefore protestants are he- 
 tics. 
 
 Thirdly, from these necessarily follows this final 
 conclusion, that the protestant church of England 
 is no part nor member of the catholic church. 
 Witness the writings of George Ritschel, vicar 
 of Hexham.
 
 PART III.] 139 [CHAP \. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 SOME REMARKS UPON CERTAIN PARTICULAR PAS- 
 SAGES IN YOUR LETTERS WHICH HAVE LITTLE OR 
 NO RELATION TO THE POINT OF YOUR BEING PART 
 OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. AND FIRST, UPON 
 WHAT YOU WRITE ABOUT THE CONVERSION OF 
 OUR ENGLISH NATION TO CHRISTIANITY : SECONDLY, 
 UPON YOUR CALUMNIES AGAINST ST. AUGUSTINE : 
 AND THIRDLY, UPON THAT EPISTLE FALSELY PRE- 
 TENDED TO HAVE BEEN SENT FROM POPE ELEUTHE- 
 RIUS TO KING LUCIUS. 
 
 IN my answer to your letter of March the fourth, 
 I told you the church of England held communion 
 with the church and pope of Rome, from the very 
 first conversion of our English nation from hea- 
 thenism to Christianity till the beginning of your 
 pretended reformation : and that, from king Ethel- 
 bert, who was the first Saxon or English king 
 (that was christian) till king Henry the eighth, 
 there was not one christian king who did not hold 
 communion with the church and pope of Rome. 
 And that from St. Augustine, who converted this 
 nation and was the first archbishop of Canterbury, 
 till the days of Thomas Cranmer, who Avas arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury in the time of king Henry 
 the eighth and king Edward the sixth, there was 
 not one of those archbishops who held that see from 
 the said St. Augustine to the said Thomas Cran- 
 mer who did not hold communion with the church 
 and pope of Home ; for all which 1 gave you 
 sufficient authorities, as may be seen in the said 
 answer.
 
 CHAP. I.] 140 [ PART III 
 
 But you, Mr. Ritschel, would be taken for too 
 well read in English chronology and church histo- 
 ry, to own this for truth. " Perhaps it may pass," 
 you say, " with the ignorant, but you cannot ex- 
 pect to impose so far upon any who have read our 
 English chronicles, or know when the gospel was 
 planted in this Island." 
 
 You had better have read my words twice over 
 than thus misunderstand them, for I speak, not of 
 the gospel's first planting in this Island among 
 the Britons, but, what I say is of our English na- 
 tion, the Saxons. You proceed thus. 
 
 " And, from the state of the church of Christ 
 here among us since that time we may easily 
 discover the falseness of your argument, and 
 where the fallacy lies. In short, you understand 
 the conversion of this nation, at different times, 
 and by different persons, as one and the same 
 conversion, when there was above five hundred 
 years between them." You mistake yourself, 
 Sir, and, would have me to follow your error. I 
 tell you again, I speak of this our English nation, 
 not of the British nation. Now, the conversion of 
 the English nation, which was the Saxon nation 
 that came out of Germany ; the conversion, I 
 say, of this nation, neither you, nor I, ought to 
 understand at different times, nor by different 
 persons, but at one time, to wit, in the year 59(5 ; 
 for, in this year, Christianity was first preached 
 among them by St. Augustine and his com- 
 panions, and daily increased till their thorough 
 conversion, as may be seen in St. Bene. 
 
 Now, your mistake lies in the ignorantly con- 
 founding two nations of Britons and Saxons 
 together, and so taking them, not for two distinct 
 people, but for one and the same nation ; whereas, 
 they ever have been, and are, even at this day, 
 two different and distinct nations, now vulgarly 
 called Welch and English. Now speak on, Sir.
 
 PART III. | 141 [ CHAP. I. 
 
 " You tell us how the church of England held 
 communion with the church and pope of Rome, 
 from the very first conversion of this our English 
 nation from heathenism to Christianity, till the 
 reformation." 
 
 Yes, Sir, I do tell you this, and I tell you again 
 it is a truth, which none but such a weak historian 
 as Mr. Ritschel will presume to deny. I told you 
 further, that St. Augustine, the monk, was the 
 first that converted this nation to Christianity; 
 and to this you answer in these words. " When 
 you would tell us by whom this nation was first 
 converted, you discover the fallacy ; for, Augus- 
 tine, the monk, the pope's legate, came over here, 
 and began to convert the Saxons in the year 596', 
 which was above five hundred years after its first 
 conversion in the apostles' days, which latter 
 conversion of these Saxons, whom the Britons 
 called in," &c. : The fallacy lies in you, Sir, who 
 will needs make two conversions of the Saxons. 
 The first you will have to have been in the apos- 
 tles' days : and that begun by St. Augustine in 
 596 you will have to be a second or latter con- 
 version of those Saxons whom the Britons called 
 in. Your error lies in mistaking the conversion 
 of the Britons, in the apostles' days, for a conver- 
 sion of Saxons, which it neither was, nor could 
 be, because the Saxons entered not on the 
 British shore till above four hundred years after 
 the apostles' days ; and, when tbey came, were 
 all heathens, and continued in their infidelity till 
 the year 59G, when St. Augustine, as is said, came 
 and preached to them the christian faith, and this 
 plantation of the gospel among them, by him, 
 was the very first conversion of thin English nation, 
 the Savons, (o Christianity, as I told you before, 
 out of St. Bede, F. Alford, and IVessy's church 
 histories. 
 
 St. Peter, and St. Joseph of Arimathea, and
 
 CHAP. I.] 142 [part III. 
 
 others, who brought the faith of Christ into this 
 island in the apostles' days, taught it to the 
 Britons, who were the first inhabitants. It was 
 afterwards greatly propagated by St. Fugatius, 
 and St. Domianus, missionaries sent from pope 
 Eleutherius to king Lucius, but still among 
 the Britons, there being, I say, no Saxon, or 
 English then in this island. 
 
 Admit, now, there had been, as you falsely 
 affirm, two several conversions of the Saxons, the 
 one in the apostles' time, the other in 596, yet, 
 this speaks nothing to the contrary of what I 
 affirm concerning the archbishop of Canterbury 
 and church of England's holding communion with 
 the church and pope of Rome, from St. Augus- 
 tine's time to Thomas Cranmer's, which was 
 about one thousand years. But, instead of 
 speaking to this, you begin to give us a taste of 
 your skill in chronology and church history, much 
 to your credit, indeed ! 
 
 I will thank you to inform me, whether your 
 protestant bishops and clergy of the church of 
 England derive their priesthood from the apos- 
 tles, by the line of English bishops in the see of 
 Canterbury succeeding St. Augustine, who was 
 sent by St. Gregory, successor to St. Peter, in the 
 church of Rome ; or, you deduce it from those 
 who first converted the Britons, by some line or 
 other of British bishops independent of the see 
 of Rome ? If you derive it not by the British 
 line, what advantage to you is that British con- 
 version in the apostles' daj^s ? No more, sure, 
 than the conversion of the Indians by the apostle 
 St. Thomas. 
 
 As far as I can perceive by your discourse, 
 you had rather have no priesthood, nor Christianity 
 at all, than think of deriving it from St. Augus- 
 tine in communion with the church of Rome. 
 You are strangely degenerated from your grand-
 
 PART III. J 143 [CHAP [. 
 
 sire protestants, who lived in king Charles, the 
 First's time, and bishop Laud's. They, in Dr. 
 Poeklinton's altare christianum, page 34, cry out 
 thus : " Miserable were we, if he, who now sitteth 
 archbishop of Canterbury, could not derive his 
 succession from St. Augustine, St. Augustine 
 from St. Gregory, and St. Gregory from St. Pe- 
 ter." After all this, you, big with rage, fall foul 
 upon the holy St. Augustine, that great apostle 
 of our English nation, who ventured his life 
 among the pagan Saxons, to snatch them out of 
 the jaws of infidelity. It is a wonder to me, that 
 protestant spite should swell to such a degree, as 
 to spit its venom against that holy saint, to whom 
 we are all beholden, under God, for our Christi- 
 anity ! Certainly, Mr. Ritschel, if you had been 
 of English blood, as you are from the veins of an 
 unknown alien, you would have had more respect 
 and reverence for St. Augustine, than thus un- 
 justly to accuse, and wrongfully calumniate him, 
 as you do in your book, page 151, when you say, 
 "Augustine complained to Ethelbert king of Kent, 
 that the Britons would not obey him, and persuad- 
 ed him to make war against them, who sent to 
 Elfrede, king of Northumbria, to come and help 
 him to distress the Britons, who, being afraid of 
 so great power, sent men in their shirts and 
 barefoot to beg pardon and mercy, but found 
 none. For which reason, we think your Augus- 
 tine does not deserve the name of saint, for, 
 that, he was so notoriously guilty of those two 
 abominable vices of pride and cruelty : first, 
 pride, because, he so disdainfully despised his 
 brethren the British bishops, &c. : secondly, he 
 was guilty of the most barbarous Cruelty, in pro- 
 curing the death of so many christians, but, 
 esepecially, the poor unarmed monks about Ban- 
 gor, because they would not submit to his juris- 
 diction." Thus you rail, and for authority cite
 
 CHAP I.J 144 [part III, 
 
 Stillingfleet and Jewel, two proper authors for 
 such incredible stuff. If you had read the venera- 
 ble St. Bede, the best and most ancient historian 
 now extant of the English conversion, and of St. 
 Augustine's life, sanctity, and miracles, you might 
 have found the holy Saint under quite different 
 characters from this you are pleased to give him. 
 
 Among many other things there written by St. 
 Bede to St Augustine's great honour, he tells you 
 that" the king (Ethelbert) being much delighted 
 with the purity of the life of St. Augustine and 
 his companions and the example of their godly 
 conversation^^ also with their promises, which they 
 proved to be true by the working of miracles, did 
 believe and was baptized." You may find much 
 more in his praise in William of Malmsbury, in 
 Huntingdon, Matthew of Westminster and Cap- 
 gave, all authors of eminent credit ; as also in 
 several of your protestant writers that testify the 
 admirable sanctity, holy life and great miracles of 
 St. Augustine, not one of them charging him with 
 either pride or cruelty. I shall give you some of 
 their words. 
 
 Raphael Hollingshead, that famous protestant 
 chronologer, in his description of Britain, writes of 
 him thus. " King Ethelbert was persuaded by the 
 rood example of St. Augustine and his company, 
 and their many miracles, to be baptized. Augus- 
 tine and his company exercised the lite of apostles 
 in fasting, watching and prayers, preaching the 
 word of God to as many as they could, despising 
 all worldly pleasures, as not appertaining to them, 
 receiving only of them whom they taught things 
 scemingwecessrtr^tothe sustenance of their life, and 
 living in all points according to the doctrine they 
 set forth." And, speaking of the difference be- 
 tween him and the Britons about keeping caster, he 
 says, " Augustine, to prove his opinion good, 
 wrought a miracle by restoring to sight one of the
 
 PART m.] 145 [CHAP I. 
 
 Saxon nation that was blind." Thus writes Hol- 
 liugshead. Your protestant bishop Cooper calls 
 St. Augustine and his companions "godly and 
 learned men." See anno 530. Your bishop 
 Goodwin says, " he was a monk of great virtue :" 
 and calls him " saint Augustine" : relating also 
 the said miracle, hi vita S. dug. John Stow 
 in his chronicle says, " St. Augustine and his fel- 
 lows lived in the fear of God." John Fox in his 
 acts and monuments says of them : " at length, 
 when the king had well considered their honest 
 conversation, and moved with the miracles 
 wrought through God's hands by them, he heard 
 them more gladly ; and lastly, by their wholesome 
 exhortations and example of godly life, he was 
 by them converted and baptized in the year 596." 
 Tell me now, Sir, if St. Augustine, whose admi- 
 rable sanctity of life, and miracles, are thus ap- 
 parent, that even protestants themselves are 
 forced to own and record them, is likely to be " a 
 man of such intolerable pride and barbarous 
 cruelty as you calumniate him with ? 
 
 As to what you maliciously say of his pride, if 
 you had considered his dignity, on the one hand, 
 and the inferiority and impiety of the British 
 bishops, on the other, reason might have told you 
 that they were; not deserving any honour from 
 him. His not rising up to them, his inferiours, 
 when they appeared before him, their superiour, 
 in council, was no more sign of pride in him than 
 it is in a king not to rise; up from his throne to 
 those to whom he gives audience; or, than it is in 
 a judge not to rise from the bench to salute those 
 who come to the bar : for St. Augustine, then and 
 then; in council, represented the pope himself, 
 whose legate (as you own) he was, and therefore 
 ought not to shew an equality to the British 
 bishops, they being his inferiours, not his equals. 
 But the pride was in them, in expecting from him 
 
 T
 
 chap i.J 146 [part nr. 
 
 an honour which was not their due, nor proper by 
 him, at that time, to be given them. Besides 
 their contumacy, and schismatical disobedience, 
 in refusing communion with him, and submission 
 to his lawful jurisdiction, for so pitiful a reason as 
 his not rising up to them ; as also, their being 
 resolved rather to forsake the doctrine which 
 themselves had seen before confirmed bv miracle, 
 and owned to be true (as St. Bede says) than 
 yield to him, were evident demonstrations of an 
 heretical and schismatical pride in them. 
 
 Besides, St. Augustine's humility and respect 
 towards them is sufficiently testified by St. Bede, 
 (lib. 2.) where he says " He and his companions 
 honoured the Britons with great reverence while 
 he thought they were catholics. He had no rea- 
 son to give them any honour after he found them 
 heretics, as he had done before this, and so un- 
 charitable, as that they would not have any hand 
 in preaching the faith of Christ to the heathen 
 Saxons." Neither did their manners deserve any 
 respect, they being, as St. Bede says, " unfaithful, 
 naughty, and detestable people." And Gildas, 
 their own countryman, writes, " they were wolves, 
 enemies of truth and friends to lies, enemies of 
 God and not priests, merchants of mischief and 
 not bishops, impugners of Christ, and not his 
 ministers, more worthy to be drawn to prison, or 
 to the cage, than to the priesthood." Thus the 
 famous Gildas, with whom the protesto.nt Fox in 
 his Acts and monuments agrees, saying of them, 
 that " all things, whether pleasing or displeasing 
 to God, they regard alike ; and not only secular 
 men did this, but the bishops and teachers without 
 distinction." 
 
 Judge, now, whether these men deserved ho- 
 nour from St. Augustine's hands. But God's 
 heavy judgments upon them afterwards, and St. 
 Augustine's prophecy that such would befall them
 
 PART III.] 147 [CHAP I. 
 
 for their obstinacy and disobedience (as in St. 
 Bede) sufficiently testify his innocency, and their 
 guilt. 
 
 Your other calumny against the holy bishop is 
 " barbarous cruelty, in procuring the slaughter of 
 the Britons," as you falsely and impudently 
 charged him with. But he is sufficiently defended 
 against this, as well as the former, both by catho- 
 lic and protestant writers. Your protestant 
 bishop Bale was the first that broached this slan- 
 derous falsehood. After him John Jewel ; then 
 Abbots, then Sutcliff, then Stillingfleet, now you, 
 not one of you having the least testimonies 
 from antiquity. Bale, the broacher, cites nobody, 
 but tells us " some report," meaning, it is likely, 
 himself and such as he had told it to ; for none 
 before himself can be named to have reported it ; 
 you cite Stillingfleet and Jewel, two of the most 
 infamous inventers and maintainers of lies that 
 ever wrote. You ought not to have taken things 
 upon credit from such men, but rather to have 
 gone to the fountain of English history, the vene- 
 rable St. Bede. You would have found none of 
 those scandalous calumnies in him ; on the con- 
 trary, you may learn there, that St. Augustine 
 never knew any thing of the said slaughter of the 
 Britons, but only what was revealed to him by 
 God in the gift of prophecy. lie foretold to 
 themselves several years before it happened: "and 
 it came to pass" (says St. Bede) tk by the secret 
 workings of God's judgments upon that unfaithful 
 and wicked people." Hows, one of your best 
 protestant historians, speaks thus of the Britons. 
 k ' St. Augustine proposed to them to celebrate 
 caster in due time, to accomplish Hie ministry of 
 baptism according to the Roman and apostolic 
 church; and last, to preach with him to the Eng- 
 glisli nation the word of our Lord; but they would 
 do none of these, neither would they account him
 
 CHAP. I.] 148 [part III. 
 
 for their bishop, &c. to whom Augustine threat- 
 fully prophesied, that if they would not lake peace 
 and live in concord with their brethren, they 
 should receive war from their enemies ; and, if they 
 would not preach to the Englishmen the way of 
 life, they should suffer at their hands and by their 
 power the vengeance of death : which thing came to 
 pass afterwards." Thus writes Hows in his 
 chronicle. Besides this destruction happened not 
 till many years after the death of St. Augustine ; 
 it is not likely, therefore, that he should have a 
 hand in procuring it. Your bishop Bale reports 
 that the slaughter was committed in the year 615, 
 whereas St. Augustine (if you will credit your 
 own writers, John Stow and Hows) died in the 
 year 604. Baronius also gathers the same out of 
 St. Bede. 
 
 As to your relation of the story, you discover a 
 great deal of ignorance, besides your several un- 
 truths. First, you tell us " that Elfrid, king of 
 Northumberland, came to help king Ethelbert to 
 distress the Britons :" whereas, of all the kings 
 of Northumberland, not one is called by that 
 name. Had you been as perfect in the English 
 history as you pretend, you would have spoken it 
 of Ethelfrid, not of an unbeing Elfrid ; for it was the 
 heathen king Ethelfrid that slew the Britons and 
 monks of Bangor. Secondly, you tell us he came 
 to help king Ethelbert. But this is also false ; for 
 Ethelbert had no wars with the Britons at that 
 time, so that he could not come to help him that 
 had nothing to do for him. Thirdly, you tell us 
 that " the Britons being afraid of so great a pow- 
 er (as both kings joined together you mean) sent 
 men in their shirts and barefoot to bog pardon." 
 This is false. I would gladly know for what they 
 begged pardon ? was it for having opposed St. 
 Augustine ? Yet this is all the quarrel you pre- 
 tend the two kings to have against them. You have
 
 PART III. | 149 [CHAP. I. 
 
 no authority for their so great humility as either 
 to submit or beg pardon for their fault. Further, 
 who told you that Augustine complained to Ethel- 
 bert, king of Kent ? and who heard him persuade 
 Ethelbert to make war against them ? and who 
 let you understand that he sent to Elfrid king of 
 Northumberland ? All this is mystery revealed by 
 Stillingfleet and Jewel to Mr. Ritschel, and those, 
 with Bale, knew it only by some fanatic revelation 
 a thousand years after it was pretended to have 
 been done. A credible story indeed ! no fewer 
 than five or six lesser untruths supporting the 
 two great one's of pride and cruelty ! seven in one 
 paragraph ! Fox in his Acts and monuments might 
 have taught you honesty ; for he very ingenuously 
 declares, " that it seems rather supposititious 
 than true, that Ethelbert, being a christian king, 
 could cither so much prevail with a pagan idolater; 
 or would attempt so far as to commit so cruel a 
 deed." Upon this rational consideration he rightly 
 ascribes the British slaughter, not to St. Augus- 
 tine or king Ethelbert, but to " the fierce fury of 
 Ethelfrid, the heathen :" and tells you farther, 
 that " St. Augustine foretold the destruction, and, 
 by the report of others, was dead before it hap- 
 pened." Thus that bitter protestant, Fox, is so 
 far from charging St. Augustine with the cruelty, 
 that, on the contrary, he acquits him of it, by 
 owning his death before it happened, and acknow- 
 ledges him a prophet in foretelling the judgment 
 of (iod to fall upon them. 
 
 Now, Sir, concerning the pope's jurisdiction in 
 this island before the coming of St. Augustine, or 
 the Saxon conversion, and the epistle pretended to 
 have been sent from pope Elutherius~to king Lu- 
 cius, you tell us, that " the latter conversion of 
 those Saxons, whom the Britons calked in, con- 
 cludes nothing against the church of England, it 
 beiui; six hundred years alter Christ when the
 
 CHAP. I.] 150 [part III. 
 
 bishop of Rome began his usurpation. If you could 
 prove that our Lucius who was the first christian 
 king in all the world, did acknowledge the pope's 
 jurisdiction and supremacy ; it would fall within 
 the compass of time we allow the church of 
 Rome to have continued a pure virgin ami unde- 
 nted." 
 
 Here isto be observed that you seem to allow the 
 church of Rome to have continued a pure virgin 
 and undented for complete six hundred years. 
 What we have therefore to do is, to see what juris- 
 diction the said church of Rome exercised in this 
 island among the Britons and Saxons during her 
 said virgin purity ; for what she did then, for the 
 said six hundred years, must of necessity be right 
 because it hurt not her purity. In prosecution of 
 this it is requisite that we begin from the planting 
 of the christian faith among the Britons 
 
 The great and glorious apostle, St. Peter, to 
 whom our Lord gave the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven and pastoral authority over his whole fiock, 
 is by Simeon Metaphrastes affirmed to have 
 preached the gospel, founded churches, and ordain- 
 ed priests, and deacons in this island of Britain. 
 And Eysengrenius writes also, that " the first 
 christian churches of Britain were founded by St. 
 Peter in the time of Nero." St. Paul, the apostle, 
 is also by Theodore, Fortunatus, and other au- 
 thors reported to have preached the faith in Bri- 
 tain. St. Aristobolous, one of the disciples whom 
 St. Paul salutes in his epistle to the Romans, 
 was also sent into Britain by the apostle St. Peter, 
 as Mermannus in Theatrum conversions Gentium, 
 Doroth : and Baronius out of the G reek marty- 
 rology write. St. Joseph of Aramathea is, by 
 Capgrave, Polidore, Virgil, Camden, Harpsfield 
 and others, reported tojiave come into Britain, and 
 with his companions to have seated himself in 
 Avalona, now called Glastenbury, in which they
 
 PART III. J 151 [CHAP I. 
 
 built a church and dedicated it to the honour of 
 the blessed Virgin Mary. See Antiq. Glaslenb. 
 apud Capg : 
 
 Thus was the christian faith first planted in this 
 island among the Britons; the two great apostles, 
 St. Peter and St. Paul, who were the first founders 
 of the church of Rome, being the chief agents in 
 settling the same faith here ; especially St. Pe^er 
 himself who, as your protestant archbishop Whit- 
 grift assures us, appointed bishops here. The 
 apostle Peter," said he, "did in every provinee 
 appoints one archbishop whom all other bishops of 
 the same province should obey." See Whitgrift's 
 answer to the admonition page 05, and his defence 
 of it, page 318. 
 
 Now the faith the first bishop or pope of Rome, 
 St. Peter, planted here we find to have been fre- 
 quently watered by his successors. Mermannus 
 affirms that " St. Anacosius being delegated hither 
 by St Clement (pope) did instruct and inform the 
 Britons and all the west of the ocean sea in the 
 faith of Christ." Harrison in his Theatre lib I, 
 agrees with him in the same. St. Anacletus, pope 
 and successor to St. Clement, divided this island 
 into bishoprics ; naming those who ruled in great 
 cities, where the arch-flamins formerly sat, pri- 
 mates, and those of other cities he called metropoli- 
 tans or archbishops. And this St. Anacletus calls, not 
 his own decree only, but, the decree of St. Clement 
 his predecessor, and of St. Peter also : and ap- 
 points, what cities in particular were to have pri- 
 mates, both according to his own, St. Clement's 
 and the apostle's order. Whence your protestant 
 archbishop Matt. Parker himself in his., hit iq. Brit. 
 calls this division of the Britons in that respect, 
 the division of this island according to the decree 
 of pope Anacletus. 
 
 Here you see, Mr. Ritschcl, a pastoral jurisdic- 
 tion exercised by the popes of Rome in this island
 
 CHAP I.J 152 [part III. 
 
 even from St. Peter himself to his successor St. 
 Anacletus, and that, not in small matters, but even 
 in the constituting primates, and archbishops, and 
 determining the very places where they were to re- 
 side ; and this, not by advice only, but by positive 
 and solemn decree. And this, I hope, is within 
 the time you allow the church of Rome her 
 virginal purity, as you express it. All this you 
 seem to be ignorant of, at least, unwilling to take 
 notice of it, and therefore you come to king Lu- 
 cius, whom you call "our" king Lucius, as if he 
 were a Saxon of our nation, or we Britons of his. 
 But let this pass. " If king Lucius," you say, " had 
 believed any such practice, or the bishop of Rome 
 had then claimed any power and jurisdiction over 
 these islands, you might have expected to have 
 made some advantage of it. But, since the pope 
 did then disown all such power and authority, 
 and acknowledge king Lucius Christ's vicar in his 
 own kingdom, and to have full power and authori- 
 ty to settle affairs of religion in his own domi- 
 nions : this is a plain evidence against you, and 
 an undeniable argument to justify our reforma- 
 tion. And this appears from the advice of pope 
 Elutherius to king Lucius, which we find in 
 these words. You have received in the kingdom 
 of Britain by God's mercy, both the faith and law 
 of Christ. You have both the old and new testa- 
 ments ; out of them, through God's grace, by the 
 advice of your realm make a law ; and, by the 
 same, by God's permission, rule your kingdom of 
 Britain : for, in that kingdom you are God's vicar. 
 Now here we find," say you, " both a christian 
 church and a christian king, and rule of faith, 
 viz. the old and new testament, and a pope of 
 Rome who disowned all power and authority over 
 this island, even in ecclesiastical affairs, lo.-ig before 
 your St. Augustine was born, &c." 
 
 You have found a prodigious treasure here,
 
 PART III.] 153 [CHAP I. 
 
 Mr. Ritschel, let us put it to the test and try of 
 what value it is. 
 
 You are, in the first place, to understand, that 
 the famous king Lucius, having a good opinion of 
 the christian religion gained from the observance 
 of good example and pious conversation of those 
 few christians which then remained in this island 
 from the first receiving the faith, as also from the 
 good report he had heard of it from ambassadors 
 to the holy pope Elutherius, desired him to send 
 missionaries to instruct and baptize him and his 
 people. Of which your protestant bishop Usher 
 writes thus out of an ancient book belonging to 
 the monastery of Abbington, namely, that " king 
 Lucius, having heard the fame of the sanctity of 
 preachers at that time in Rome, sent his messen- 
 gers with public letters, with great expedition, 
 beseeching the venerable pope Elutherius that by 
 his order and will he might be made a christian." 
 Thus writes Bede also. "The king's ambassadors 
 were Elvanus and Medwinus, the first of whom 
 was by the pope consecrated bishop, the other he 
 made doctor. They were sent back by the pope 
 with other two bishops named Fugatius and I>a- 
 mianus, the apostolic missionaries. Their com- 
 mission was to instruct and baptize the kins: and 
 
 A ?J 
 
 such others as were willing to embrace the chris- 
 tian faith ; and to erect two bishoprics, ordain 
 and dispense orders, and consecrate churches." 
 This you may find recorded in Matthew of West- 
 minster, Stow, Goodwin, Bale, and the Jlntiquit. 
 Glustonb. And your protestant archbishop, Mat- 
 thew Parker, says of Fugatius and Daniianus : 
 " These two religious men were assigned by pope 
 Elutherius as chief workmen in governing so great 
 a work, and establishing the discipline of the chris- 
 tian religion." And .John Bale, your protestant bi- 
 shop of Ossory, writes thus. "Pope Elutherius, as a 
 u
 
 CHAP I.J 154 [partih. 
 
 good master and governor of his family, did confirm 
 and consolidate the Britons and the whole kingdom 
 in the faith received by the apostles." Here, Sir, 
 you may find one of your bishops acknowledge 
 pope Elutherius for " master and governor of the 
 family of Britain" : here you may find your chief 
 archbishop owning that the pope of Rome assign- 
 ed governors and establishers of the same work 
 of christian religion and discipline in this island. 
 Let us now examine the things you found in 
 that pretended letter, sent (as you suppose) by the 
 pope to the king. And, first, '* here we find," 
 say you, " both a christian church and a christian 
 king." This is very well, Sir, but it would have 
 been better if you had added, made such by order 
 and appointment of the pope of Rome. What find 
 you next ? "A rule of faith, the old and new 
 testament." Here you are mistaken, Sir; you 
 find no mention of a rule of faith in all that epis- 
 tle. Nor is the old and new testament appointed 
 by that epistle for a rule for the Britons to frame 
 their faith and religion by, as you would falsely 
 insinuate when you cry you have "found a rule 
 of faith" : because they had already received the 
 faith and law of Christ, as that epistle tells you. 
 It is nonsense to think that king Lucius, after he 
 and his people bad been instructed, taught and 
 baptized in the faith and law of Christ, should 
 still send to the pope to have the same done over 
 again ; or that the pope who knew them already 
 to be taught and baptized in the true faith, should, 
 notwithstanding, appoint them a bible for a rule 
 whereby to make and form the faith and religion 
 they had received. If you had considered that 
 epistle as well as you ought, seeing you lay so 
 much stress upon it, you might have easily dis- 
 covered that all the use it appoints to make of the 
 old and new testaments is only the making or 
 composing out of them such a civil law as they
 
 PART III.] 155 [CHAP I. 
 
 should think most proper and fit, whereby to rule 
 the kingdom now become christian ; their old 
 pagan laws being now no longer proper nor con- 
 venient for the civil government of a christian 
 kingdom. This you might have found still more 
 evident if you had read the rest of that epistle, 
 which I find you are ignorant of, for you carelesly 
 content yourself with that small scrap of it you 
 found in Jewel, who corruptly left out the chief 
 parts of it, quoting only so much of it as he 
 thought would be useful for his purpose, but conceal- 
 ing what he knew would stand against him, which 
 is this. "You require of us the Roman laws 
 and those of the emperors to be sent over unto 
 you to practise and make use of within your 
 realm. The Roman and emperor's laws we may 
 ever reprove, but the laws of God we may not." 
 Thus much Jewel and you leave out of it, as if it 
 had never been any part of that epistle ; which if 
 you had put down, as honesty and plain dealing 
 should have advised you, all that ever had read it 
 might have seen, in clear and plain expressions, 
 that king Lucius sent for the Roman or imperial 
 laws, and not for the christian law or faith of 
 Christ, which, as is said, he had received before : 
 and consequently that law, which the pretended 
 epistle bids him make out of the old and new tes- 
 tament, must be meant only of such civil or tem- 
 poral laws as the king and his realm should think 
 fit to draw up for the government of the kingdom 
 in temporal concerns. What else find you there ? 
 " A pope of Rome, who disowned all power 
 and authority over this island even in ecclesias- 
 tical affairs." You have, Sir, a wonderful faculty 
 in discovering, that can find out siMjh a hidden 
 treasure as that, where it neither is nor ever was. 
 In all that pretended epistle you fin;l not so much 
 as the mention of ecclesiastical affairs, ecclesiasti- 
 cal authority, or power, or any spiritual jurisdiction
 
 CHAP. I.] 156 [part III. 
 
 at all, nor of the pope's disowning any thing 
 relating to church government, more than you 
 find in Tom Thumb or Erra Pater. If you had 
 dealt ingenuously in putting down the title of 
 that epistle, you would have found in it a thing 
 quite contrary to what you pretend to find. Its 
 title is this. " Anno Domini 109 a passione 
 Christi scripsit D. Eluthcrius papa Lucio regi 
 BrittannicB ad correctionem regis et procerum reg- 
 m," that is " in the year of our Lord 169, from 
 the passion of Christ, St. Elutherius pope wrote 
 to Lucius king of Britain, to the correction of the 
 king and nobles of the kingdom." Now this you 
 and your master Jewel conceal from the sight of 
 your readers, because it tells us the epistle was 
 written to correct the king and nobles of the 
 land : and for the pope to correct the king and 
 nobility you could not endure, because it argues 
 a superiority and jurisdiction in the corrector 
 over those he cowects. And you would have 
 been loath to have said from this title ; here we 
 find a pope of Rome owning a power and authori- 
 ty over this island even to the correcting of the 
 king and nobility themselves. Is this fair dealing, 
 Mr. Ritschel, to quote only half a sentence or small 
 parcel of the epistle, such as you suppose may fit 
 your purpose, and, at the same time, to leave out 
 what plainly shews the contrary? But, to deal kindly 
 to you, I shall impute it, as is said, to your know- 
 ing no more of it, rather than to wilful malice : for I 
 really believe you never saw more of this pretend- 
 ed letter, except what you found in Jewel, for you 
 begin it with him, and in his very words, (which 
 are not altogether the same as in Fox) and then 
 again you break it off with him as you come to the 
 word vicar with an " &c." 
 
 But you will say, the pope calls the king God's 
 vicar, and this is disowning all power and authori- 
 ty in ecclesiastical affairs, for it is upon this word.
 
 PART III. | 157 [CHAP. I. 
 
 I suppose, that you chiefly rely for ground to what 
 you say. And to this I answer, that the pope's 
 calling him vicar in temporal affairs does not 
 make him vicar in spirituals, nor does the king's 
 being God's vicar in temporals hinder the pope 
 from being Christ's vicar in spirituals. It was in 
 temporal or civil government only that he is here 
 styled God's vicar or vicegerent, (as Hollingshead 
 translates it) and cannot be understood of ecclesias- 
 tical or spiritual government, because, as is shewn 
 already, the letter is speaking only of making, 
 and ruling his kingdom by temporal laws. The pope, 
 therefore, has neither disowned in himself, nor 
 acknowledged in the king, any power or authority 
 in ecclesiastical or spiritual affairs (as you would 
 falsely insinuate) in this pretended epistle. Now 
 that the king was God's vicar, substitute or vice- 
 gerent in his own dominions, in temporal matters, 
 and as such had power and authority, as a sove- 
 reign prince independent of any other foreign 
 power, to make temporal laws, and thereby to 
 rule his kingdom, no catholic will deny either in 
 him or any other lawful prince. 
 
 But what will you say, Sir, if, after all this, that 
 epistle, pretended to be sent by pope Elutherius to 
 king Lucius, be a fictitious and forged letter ; and 
 I promise you that there are several causes of 
 suspicion, yea, evident tokens that is so. In the 
 first place, its title speaks it to have been written 
 by pope Elutherius in the year 169 after the pas- 
 sion or suffering of Christ : now if to this one hun- 
 dred and sixty-nine years we add thirty-three 
 which Christ lived before his passion, they make 
 two hundred and two years from the birth of 
 Christ, which will be eighteen years after pope 
 Elutherius's death, for he died in the year of Christ 
 184, all authors agree. And surely you will 
 not say the pope wrote it eighteen years after 
 his own death. Secondly, it is to be observed
 
 CHAP. I.] 158 [part III. 
 
 that this pretended letter was never mentioned by 
 any that we know of before John Fox, your 
 Martyrologer, and he gives us no other authority 
 for it than just putting down in his margin " ex 
 vetusto codiceregumantiquarum" ; from an old book 
 of ancient kings ; without telling us either by 
 whom or when this old book was written, or where 
 to find it. This gives great presumption that he 
 himself was the first author or forger of this letter. 
 Thirdly, Hollingshead, Hooker and Harrison, 
 who, after Fox, make mention of it, put it down so 
 different, both in words, sentences, and authori- 
 ties, and texts of scripture, from that which Fox 
 hath, as shews that none of them had any certain 
 or ancient copy of it. Besides they leave out the 
 title of it, though Fox puts it down as above ; from 
 which may reasonably be inferred, that those three 
 looked upon it as of no great or good authority, 
 as well as not truly delivered by Fox, their master, 
 else they would not have presumed to mend it. 
 It is very likely they thought themselves to have 
 as good authority to mend it, as Fox had to invent 
 it. Fourthly, it quotes texts out of the Latin ver- 
 sion of the vulgate Bible according to St. Jerome's 
 translation, when that translation was not made 
 till one hundred years after it is pretended to be 
 written. Fifthly, it speaks of the Britons having 
 at that time the old and now testament; when, till 
 above one hundred and sixty years after, it was not 
 defined, what books of them were to be held for 
 canonical. Nor can it be supposed that the Brit- 
 ons could then make any great use of them, being 
 then only in the Hebrew, Greek and Caldaic 
 tongues. And lastly, there is false doctrine in that 
 epistle, such as you yourself, and your church of 
 England, dare not but own for false, and it is this, 
 that " a king is no longer a king, only while he 
 rules weir' which is aWickliffian and Waldensian 
 heresy. The words of the epistle are these : k ' a
 
 PART HI. J 159 [CHAP I. 
 
 king hath his name of ruling, and not of having a 
 realm : you shall be a king while you rule well, 
 but, if you do otherwise, the name of king shall 
 not remain with you, but you shall utterly loose 
 and forgo it, which God forbid." Is this like the 
 doctrine of the holy pope Elutherius, who lived so 
 soon after the apostles' time, and when you allow 
 the church of Home to have been in her virgin 
 purity. Now these words of the letters must 
 either be held for false doctrine, or else you must 
 so understand them, as if the pope by saying, " you 
 shall be a king while you rule well, if other- 
 wise you shall not have the name of king, but 
 you shall loose it" &c. meant, that he should be 
 no longer suffered by the see aposolic to be, or en- 
 joy the name of a king, than he should rule well, 
 which would be for the pope to hold a power in 
 himself of deposing the king from his government 
 and kingly name, if he ruled not well, or was 
 guilty of maladminstration in government. But 
 such a power as this, I suppose, you will not say 
 that St. Elutherius held in himself, or in any other 
 pope ; whathever you may think of the protestant 
 church of England's having it, from her practice 
 of it upon three kings, even in our times, one 
 after another. For my part, it is no article of 
 mine, nor of the catholic faith, that the pope has 
 any power to depose a lawful king : much less 
 that the protestant church of England has it. 
 
 In a word, if you will, after all this, have that 
 pretended letter authentic, you must also allow its 
 title, and this said doctrine to be authentic and 
 good, which if you do, you must, according to the 
 title, allow the pope (as is said) a power of cor- 
 recting the king and nobility; ancrthus destroy 
 your arguments against his supremacy. And you 
 must also, according to the said doctrine, either 
 say, that the pope held an erroneous tenet ; or 
 cls*\ that he held to be in himself a power to de-
 
 CHAP I.] 160 [part III. 
 
 pose the king upon his not ruling well. To say 
 he held false doctrine or heresy, will be to disallow 
 the church to have been at that time pure, (unless 
 you can make out that the pope and the church 
 differed in doctrine) contrary to what you have 
 allowed before. To say, he owned the power of 
 deposing, will contradict and ruin your argument 
 against the supermacy. In short, you had better 
 agree with your protestant bishop Bramhall, that 
 the said epistle is counterfeit, for he, in his vindi- 
 cation, could not but question it for counterfeit. 
 And for & forged piece you must be forced to let it 
 pass, considering all the said objections against it, 
 though by this you are disappointed of all the rich 
 treasure you dreamed you had found in it. 
 
 Trust no more to John Jewel, he does but fill 
 your head with empty shadows. To do you a 
 favour, I will shew you what kind of man he was.
 
 PART III.] 161 [CHAP II. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 AN ACCOUNT OF JBWELS CHALLENGE, AND HIMSELF 
 DETECTED FOR A CORRUPTER OF THE PRIMITIVE 
 FATHERS' WRITINGS. 
 
 AN your letter of May 2nd, page 6 and^, you 
 tell me your renowned bishop Jewel long ago 
 made a famous challenge, viz : " If any learned 
 men of our adversaries, or of all the learned men 
 that be alive, be able to bring one sufficient sen- 
 tence out of any old general council, or out of the 
 holy scriptures of God, or any one example of the 
 primitive church, whereby it may clearly and 
 plainly be proved, that there was any private 
 mass in the whole world at that time for the space 
 of six hundred years after Christ &c : the con- 
 clusion is this, as I said before so I say now, I am 
 content to yield, and subscribe. And he renews 
 his challenge (say you) and applies it to each of 
 the twenty-six following articles. If it be (say 
 you) that you cannot produce sufficient evidence 
 from the primitive church in favour of these doc- 
 trines that are now retained in the church of Rome 
 &c. then it will follow, that she is not the catholic 
 church." Thus vou write concerning Jewel's dial- 
 lcnge. 
 
 I observe here that you would insinuate into the 
 heads of your unlearned readers, that this chal- 
 lenge was never yet answered by catholic writers, 
 and that they never could produce evidence in de- 
 fence of these doctrines. This you do, either out 
 of ignorance, as not knowing they have been 
 answered, or out of malice, designing to make 
 your readers think the challenge unanswerable, 
 and the opposed doctrines not capable of being 
 defended. To hinder, therefore, their being thus 
 deceived, I shall give them a further understanding
 
 CHAP II. J 162 [part III. 
 
 of the matter, and tell them by whom that chal- 
 lenge of Jewels' was sufficiently answered. 
 
 About the year of our Lord 1560, this same 
 Jewel made certain challenges, partly in his sum- 
 mons at Paul's cross and at the court, and partly 
 in his letters to Dr. Cole, wherein he challenged 
 all men, without exception of the Roman catholic 
 religion, upon above twenty articles. To this the 
 learned Dr. Harding (then beyond the seas) made 
 answer in writing. Tn the mean while Jewel pub- 
 lished a book called The apology of the church of 
 England ; though without his name affixed to it ; 
 yet he afterwards owned it to be his. To this 
 Dr. Harding answered, calling his answer, A con- 
 futation of the apology of the church of England. 
 In the year 1566, Jewel put forth another great 
 book in folio, terming it, A reply to Dr. Harding's 
 answer to his challenge and article. Upon this, 
 the catholic Doctors, then beyond seas in banish- 
 ment, divided their labours some writing against 
 one part of it, some against other parts, and clear- 
 ly confuting the whole work. 
 
 Dr. Harding wrote two Rejoinders against four 
 articles of it. Dr. Sanders wrote several books 
 against other articles of it ; viz. The rock of the 
 church, against the fourth ; another On the real 
 presence, against the fifth ; a third On images, 
 against the fourteenth. Dr. Stapleton wrote his 
 Return of untruths, against the four first articles. 
 Dr. Hesk'ms published a large book in folio, 
 entitled, The parliament of ancient father's for the 
 real presence. Dr. Points wrote another also on 
 the real presence. Dr. Allen wrote one book On 
 purgatory, another on The authority of priests. 
 Mr. Rastal published several books against Jewel, 
 one entitled, Beware of Mr. Jewel ; a second cal- 
 led The confutation of Mr. Jewel's sermon at 
 Pauls cross ; the third, A reply against a false nam- 
 ed defence of the truth ; a fourth, A brief shew
 
 PART III.] 163 [CHAP II. 
 
 of the false wares patched together in the named 
 Apology of the church of England, Mr. Martial 
 at that time wrote a book On the cross, and honour 
 due to it, and, afterwards, a defence of the same 
 against Mr. Calfhill. 
 
 In the year 1567, Mr. Jewel put forth his defence 
 of the apology, fyc. against which Dr. Harding, in 
 the following year, published his answer called, The 
 detection of foul errors, lies, corruptions, and 
 other false dealings of Mr. Jewel in his defence of 
 the apology ; which detection contained five several 
 books, and put Jewel to silence ; so that, he never 
 after had the confidence to appear in print, or to 
 write one syllable in his own vindication, but 
 contented himself to sit down, with great shame 
 and confusion, under the opprobrious brand of a 
 lying impostor, which will blast him among all 
 honest men, that know his writings, till he make 
 his public appearance, under it, to all the world at 
 the day of judgment. 
 
 Dr. Harding, in his epistle before his first Re- 
 joinder, tells you, that himself and Dr. Sanders 
 discovered, in examining only the first five of his 
 twenty-six articles, above a thousand untruths. 
 " Imagine then," says he, "what number is like to 
 arise out of the whole work ; whereas neither 
 fear nor shame c uld withhold him from uttering 
 such a huge number." 
 
 Mr. Walsingham, in his book entitled A search 
 into matters of religion, dedicated to king James 
 the first, takes notice of a great number of un- 
 truths and corruptions of the fathers wilfully 
 committed by Mr. Jewel, Calvin, Luther, Morton, 
 Willet, Dove, Rogers, Sutcliffe, and other protes- 
 tant writers, and declares, that their lies, corrup- 
 tions, and deceitful dealings were the cause of his 
 leaving the protectant opinions, and embracing 
 the catholic faith, though he was a deacon. Mr. 
 William Reynolds testifies, also, that the discovery
 
 CHAP. II."| 164 [part III. 
 
 of Jewel's falsehood was the cause of his own 
 conversion to the catholic religion. Take here 
 a few examples of Jewel's false dealings, and then 
 judge what kind of master you have chosen to 
 instruct you in your art of writing controversy 
 and quoting the fathers. 
 
 First, this precious Jewel, in his sermon preach- 
 ed at St. Peters in Oxford, in the lent time, endea- 
 vouring to defend the marriages of priests, and of 
 such votaries as had before made solemn vows of 
 perpetual chastity, (which marriages, notwith- 
 standing the vow he would have to be lawful and 
 no sin,) in proof of his doctrine cites St. Augus- 
 tine lib. de bono vid., thus, " Wherefore, I cannot 
 Say of women, who are fallen from a better pur- 
 pose, (of chaste life) if they marry, that their 
 marriage is adultery, and no marriage." And 
 here Jewel breaks off in the half-sentence 
 without giving the rest of St. Augustine's words, 
 which are these, " but, I do not doubt to affirm, 
 that the ruins and falling away from more holy 
 chastity, which is vowed to God, are worse than 
 adulteries." Thus writes St. Augustine; yet 
 your Jewel, by corruptly cutting off half the 
 sentence, would make him speak quite the con- 
 trary. Secondly, in his defence of the apology, 
 defending the marriage of priests and bishops, 
 he corruptly cites the histories of Cassiodorus, 
 Zozomen and Nicephorus. These authors, wri- 
 ting in the praise of Euptychius, a senator's son 
 of Ca&sarea in Cappadocia, highly commend him 
 for fortitude, in leaving his new-married wife 
 and all things else that were dear to him in the 
 world, and courageously suffering martyrdom for 
 the faith and love of Christ. Now Jewel calls the 
 said young nobleman bishop of Cajsarea, citing 
 the said authors for his testimonies that the bi- 
 shop of Caesarea was married ; whereas, not one 
 of them makes the least mention of his being
 
 PART III. | 165 [CHAP. II. 
 
 bishop or priest, but they rather shew that he was 
 a layman, by giving him the title of Patricius. 
 But Jewel deceitfully suppresses the word Patri- 
 cius, aud adds of his own, contrary to the history, 
 that he was a bishop. Thus, by changing 
 Patricius, into Episcopus, he would prove it law- 
 ful for bishops and priests to marry. 
 
 Thirdly, he corrupts tbe words and meaning 
 of the third council of Carthage, where St. Au- 
 gustine was present, quoting it thus. " The old 
 council of Carthage commands nothing to be read 
 in Christ's congregation but the canonical scrip- 
 tures." And he stops, without going on with the 
 following words, which are, " under the name of 
 divine scriptures." He also leaves out the other 
 explication which follows in the same council, 
 namely, " It is lawful, also, to read in the church 
 the passion of the martyrs, when their yearly 
 festival days are celebrated." Thus he makes 
 the council speak what it never designed. 
 
 Fourthly, he corruptly falsifies the words of 
 pope Leo, telling us in his apology, that Leo pope 
 holdeth, that upon one day it is lawful to have 
 but one mass in one church. And for this he 
 cites Ep. 8 ad Dioscor ; episcop. Alex. c. 2. But 
 those who please to read the place will find that 
 the pope ordained unto the said Dioscorus, bishop 
 of Alexandria, that " several masses be said in 
 one church upon one day," so that the pope held 
 and appointed it quite contrary to what Jewel 
 affirms him to hold. 
 
 Fifthly, against the real presence of Christ's 
 body and blood, in the holy sacrament this 
 Jewel corrupts the council of Nice, saying in his 
 apology, " the council of Nice, as is alledged by 
 some, in Greek plainly forbids us to be basely 
 aft'ected or bent towards the bread and wine 
 which are set before us." And here he breaks oil'. 
 But the words of the council, when rightly de-
 
 GHAP. II.] 166 [PART III. 
 
 livered, are these; " let us not, at the divine table, 
 basely behold the bread and chalice set before us ; 
 but, lifting up our minds, let us by faith under- 
 stand, that on the holy table is laid the lamb of 
 God that taketh away the sins of the world, 
 sacrificed unbloodily by the priests : and, receiving 
 his precious body and blood verily, let us believe 
 these to be the pledges of our resurrection." 
 Thus the council speaks clearly for the real pre- 
 sence and unbloody sacrifice. Yet the Jewel had 
 the confidence to cite only a part of the sentence 
 for the contrary. 
 
 Sixthly, also against the real presence, in 
 his apology, he deceitfully quotes part of St. 
 Chrysostom's words from Horn. 24, and leaves 
 out the rest that explains them. " As Chrysos- 
 tom very aptly writes" says he, " we say that the 
 body of Christ is the dead carcase, and we our- 
 selves must be the eagles ; meaning thereby, that 
 we must fly high if we come to the body of 
 Christ. For the table, as Chrysostom saith, is a 
 table of eagles, not of jays." Thus JeM f el would 
 have us lo take St Chrysostom to mean, that we 
 cannot come to the body of Christ, unless we fly 
 into heaven, that is, we cannot have Christ's body 
 here in the sacrament. Whereas, if he had pro- 
 ceeded farther in the said homily, he would have 
 given us to understand that St. Chrysostom, 
 by the eagles' flight, means no more but that we 
 must raise our thoughts and affections from all 
 earthly things, when we come to the body of 
 Christ. The words of St. Chrysostom, when he 
 explains the former, are these, " I name eagles 
 to shew, that he must get him upon high that 
 cometh to the body of Christ ; and that he must 
 have nothing to do with the earth, neither be 
 drawn down by base things and creep, but always 
 fly upwards, and behold the son of righteousness 
 &c. Wipe away all filth from thy soul, prepare
 
 PART in. J 167 [chap ir. 
 
 thy mind to receive these mysteries. If the kings 
 child, arrayed in purple and a diadem, were de- 
 livered unto thee to bear, wouldst thou not cast 
 down on the ground all that thou heldest in thine 
 hands, and receive him ? But now, when thou 
 dost receive, not the king's child, but the only be- 
 gotten son of God, tell me, I pray thee, art thou 
 not afraid ? and dost thou not cast away all love 
 of worldly things, and adorn thyself with him 
 alone ? dost thou yet look down on the earth ? art 
 thou yet in love with money ? &c. If so, what 
 excuse or forgiveness shalt thou find ?" This is 
 that spiritual flight St. Crhysostom required; not 
 meanining, I say, that the body and blood of 
 Christ is not here in the eucharist ; for, in the very 
 same homily, he further declares the body Christ 
 to be present here on earth, meaning in this holy 
 sacrament, yea, " that very body which," says he, 
 " was nailed and beaten, which was not overcome 
 by death, which the sun seeing crucified turned 
 away his beams, for which the veil of temple was 
 rent asunder, the rocks and the earth quaked, the 
 body that was made all bloody, and being pierced 
 with a spear poured forth blood and water to the 
 health of all the world." If Mr. Jewel had gone 
 on with these words of St. Chrysostom, he had 
 shewn us that Christ's precious body is in the sa- 
 crament in this earth, as well as at the right hand 
 of his father in heaven. Yea, the same St. Chry- 
 sostom tells us, in the same homily, that, while 
 we are in this life, this mystery is the cause that 
 the earth, to us, becomes heaven. "Ascend there- 
 fore," says he, " to the gates of heaven, not of 
 heaven, but the heaven of heavens ; there observe 
 diligently, and thou shalt see what we^say ; for truly 
 I shall shew thee upon earth that which is worthy 
 of the highest honour. I shew thee not angels 
 nor archangels, not heaven, nor the heaven of 
 heavens, but the kings body, which is in heaven,
 
 CHAP II. J 168 [part III. 
 
 now is set before thee on earth to be seen. The 
 Lord of all these do I shew thee ; observest thou 
 not, that thou not only beholdest on earth that 
 which is the greatest of all things, but even 
 touchest it : nor dost thou only touch it, but thou 
 eat est it, and having received it, returnest to 
 thine own house." Ail this Jewel deceitfully left 
 out and omitted in the same homily. 
 
 In your forty-fifth page, you charge the canon- 
 ists with telling you, that the pope may dispense 
 with the law of God, with the law of nature, 
 with the new testament ; nay, that he may 
 abolish the law of God in part, &c. : and for all 
 this you cite bishop Jewel. The bringing of 
 Jewel for your author is enough to speak it is all 
 false ; in very deed it is. If you have the Corpus 
 juris canonici by you, examine the citation of Jew- 
 el for all those blasphemous scandals, and then tell 
 me how many of them you find true. 
 
 However, seeing that you told me, in our con- 
 ference in Hexhamshire, that our canon law 
 teaches, that fornication is no sin ; and with so 
 much confidence you afnmed it, that it was ap- 
 parent you as certainly believed it as you do any 
 one article of your creed ; seeing, I say, you affirm 
 this with so much assurance and for so great a 
 truth, I shall take the pains to shew you, how 
 wretchedly you are imposed upon by this great 
 oracle, Jewel, out of which you, poor credulous 
 gentleman, have taken it without examining into 
 the truth of it. 
 
 Seventhly, your dusky Jewel, then, in his 
 apology, writes it thus. " Let him (the pope) re- 
 member, that they are his own canonists who 
 have taught the people, that fornication between 
 single; persons is no sin." And for this canonist, 
 his author, he cites in his margin Joannes de Ala- 
 gistris de temper ant ia; whereas, in the first place, 
 there is no such man as Joannes de Magistris,
 
 PART III.] 169 [CHAP If. 
 
 de temperantia ; whereas, in the first place, there 
 is no such man as Joannes de Magistris, author 
 of the book de temperantia but the name of 
 that author is Martinus ; neither is he a canonist, 
 as Jewel calls him, but a school divine. Now, 
 this Martinus, in his said book de temperantia, 
 proposes the question, " whether simple fornica- 
 tion be a mortal sin, or not?" And then, disputing 
 the matter for and against, after the manner of 
 the schools, concludes finally that " fornication is 
 a mortal sin." He then proves it to be a mortal 
 sin by six several conclusions, and solves the ob- 
 jections on the other side, proving also out of St. 
 Paul, that fornication excludes out of the kingdom 
 of heaven. Thus, Sir, your father of lies, John 
 Jewel, not only falsifies the name of the author of 
 the book de temperantia, and his degree and 
 office, citing for a canonist, when he was only a 
 scholastic, and this on purpose to hide the deceit 
 from the knowledge of his ignorant readers ; but 
 he also makes the author of the book speak and 
 teach an impious doctrine, where he affirms and 
 proves quite the contrary. 
 
 As Jewel has imposed upon you in this, so has 
 he done in those above detected calumnies, for 
 which you cite him against St. Augustine, the 
 monk. For, in his reply, page 185, he rails against 
 that holy missionary in this manner. " He was," 
 says he, " a man, so it was judged by those that 
 saw and knew him, neither of an apostolic spirit, 
 nor any way worthy to be called a saint, but a 
 hypocrite, and a superstitious man, cruel, bloody, 
 and proud out of measure." 
 
 Thus writes he, and you take it for an un- 
 questionable truth, when it is certain he could not 
 but know, when he wrote it, that nothing is more 
 false. Consider of it yourself, Sir. He assures 
 you, that St. Augustine was judged such a man 
 by those who saw and knew liim. But there is no 
 
 Y
 
 CHAP II. J 170 [PART III. 
 
 writing, at this day extant, of any man that either 
 saw or knew him, save only of pope Gregory the 
 great, who sent him and exceedingly commends 
 him ; and, as for St. Bede, who lived not long 
 after him, yet not so near his time as to see and 
 know him, he writes highly in his commendation, 
 and not one word against him. His epitaph, 
 indeed, was remaining upon his tomb, till the 
 effects of your pretended reformation may have 
 erased it, but it is altogether in his praise, being 
 this in English. " Here resteth the body of St. 
 Augustine, first bishop of Canterbury, that was 
 sent into this land by St. Gregory, bishop of the 
 city of Rome ; approved of God by the working 
 of miracles ; who brought Ethelbert, and all his 
 people from the worshiping of Idols unto the faith 
 of Christ." 
 
 This ancient monument is too strong a shield 
 for Jewels strokes to touch him. But whom, 
 think vou, Jewel cites for the man that saw and 
 knew St. Augustine ? No one but Jeffrey of Mon- 
 mouth, whose name he puts down in his margin. 
 Now, this Jeffrey was not born till about five hun- 
 4red years after St. Augustine was dead. So 
 that,- if Jeffrey saw him, it was five hundred years 
 before he had eyes in his head. Neither does this 
 Jeofrey of xMonmouth make any such report from 
 others against St. Augustine, nor is there so much 
 as one single word, either from himself or from 
 the Britons or from any other author whatsoever, 
 of his being either a hypocrite, superstitious, 
 cruel or bloody. As for pride, falsely charged 
 against him by the British bishops, for not rising 
 up to them, he is cleared from it, as well as from 
 your other calumnies, above. At this rate deals 
 Mr. Jewel with his authors. I could fill a volume 
 with his lies, falsifications and corruptions, but, 
 for brevity's sake, I shall refer you to some few 
 places more in his works, where you may examine 
 him yourself if you think it worth your while.
 
 PART III.] 171 [CHAP II. 
 
 In his Defence of the apology, he corrupts St. 
 Jerom, St. John Chrysostom, and the holy gospel 
 itself, against the pope's supremacy. In page 109, 
 he again corrupts St. Jerom, against the supe- 
 riority of bishops. In page 134, he falsifies St. 
 Cyprian, against the traditions of ancestors. In 
 page 164, of the same book, he abuses the testi- 
 monies of Origen, St. Ambrose, and Ignatius, in 
 behalf of the marriages of priests and votaries. 
 In Ins apology, he gives the lie to St. Augustine in 
 four several places, against purgatory; and all 
 this in less than five lines. In his reply, he cor- 
 rupts the words of the emperor Justinian, against 
 the supremacy of the pope, in which he is guilty of 
 four notorious deceits in one paragraph. In his 
 said defence, he corruptly falsifies the words of our 
 blessed Saviour himself, saying " by succession 
 Christ saith, that desolation shall sit in the holy 
 place, and antichrist shall press into the room of 
 Christ, citing for it Mat. 24. but in all that chapter 
 the word succession is not once named, nor anti- 
 christ pressing into the room of Christ. But thus 
 he makes the scripture speak, on purpose to make 
 the succession of the popes to be antichrist. In 
 fine, when you have examined these places, and 
 perused the above mentioned books written 
 against him, then tell me, if this false and coun- 
 terfeit Jewel be of sufficient value for you to write 
 your salvation upon ?
 
 CHAP. III.] 172 [PART III. 
 
 chap. in. 
 
 THE FABLE OF A FEMALE POPE, OR THE HISTORY 
 OF POPE JOAN DETECTED FOR A RIDICULOUS 
 FICTION. 
 
 AN your book, page 159, you ridiculously fall 
 upon a female pope, a pope Joan, forsooth! 
 " Suppose," say you, " the pope should be a 
 woman, as in the case of pope Joan, what a 
 strange catholic and apostolic church would this 
 be, without a priesthood ! That there was such a 
 woman," you say, page 167, " that she fell sick 
 and was delivered of a child, &c. : this is matter 
 of fact which may easily be proved." A brave 
 story ! all matter of fact ! may easily be proved ! 
 yet not one word of proof, nor the least sign of 
 evidence. I told you long ago, that things would 
 never pass with me upon your own bare word. 
 Could any one have imagined that you, learned 
 Sir, who lay so much stress upon the truth of 
 this female pope, as by her to pretend to break 
 asunder the chain of apostolical succession, and 
 annihilate the priesthood of the catholic church, 
 should thus send her abroad into the world with- 
 out the least testimony that it is she. You and 
 she may stand long knocking at the gates of the 
 church of St. Peter, before you will get her there 
 registered among the popes, unless you have let- 
 ters of credence, and good evidence, that she has 
 formerly had a title to the apostolic chair. 
 
 But come, my dear Mr. Ritschel, tell me, why 
 you have not proved it ? If you want evidence, 
 deal but ingenuously, and let me know, and, upon 
 my word, I will do all that possibly can be done to 
 help you out ; for, believe it, I know the best 
 evidence the protestant republic has among all her
 
 PART III. | 173 [CHAP. III. 
 
 records. Speak then, I say, why did you not 
 prove it? Well, I will be so kind as to guess the 
 reason, seeing you are too bashful to tell it. It is 
 this then; you had it from the grave vicaress 
 dowager your mother, for she was maid of ho- 
 nour to the popess herself, was present at all her 
 travels and transactions, and, for want of an- 
 other, was forced to midwife her child into the 
 world, and herself out of it at the same time. 
 My reasons for this conjecture are, first, this pru- 
 dent lady, your mother, declares it a principle of 
 her religion, to believe nothing but what she sees, 
 feels and understands, by either all, or at least 
 some, of her bodily senses. Now, this otherwise 
 incredible story of a pope Joan she frequently 
 relates ; and, upon all occasions, in discourse both 
 with catholics and protestants, when she goes to 
 proselyte the one or confirm the other, she makes 
 it the principal and almost the only argument. 
 She affirms it for as great a truth as any one 
 article amongst the whole thirty-nine, not only 
 believing it herself, but always wondering how 
 any body can deny it ! Now, she, I say, believ- 
 ing nothing but what she hears, sees, tastes and 
 touches, &c, and believing this of pope Joan, as 
 she does, it follows, therefore, for undeniable, 
 that she was present, and heard, saw, felt and 
 understood, by her external and corporal senses, 
 all the transactions, carriages, and miscarriages 
 of the said pope Joan. 
 
 Have I guessed right, Sir ? If not, I will 
 guess again. You had it from the apology of 
 your great master, John Jewel, and, the mis- 
 fortune of it is, he gives you there no authority 
 at all for it himself. Now, to have cited him to 
 evidence, you verily foresaw (seeing he names 
 none to evidence it to him) could be to no pur- 
 pose, but, would rather pester you with this 
 query, Jewel tells it you, but who told it Jewel ?
 
 CftAP. III.] 174 [PART III. 
 
 You are, therefore, not to be blamed ; for, why 
 should you be reproved for not speaking the thing 
 you knew not. Only, I think you had better 
 have omitted these words, " it may easily be prov- 
 ed/' Well, Sir, I love not to have you remain in 
 your ignorance. Be attentive, then, and I will 
 relate all that need be said either for, or against 
 it. 
 
 The first, then, that ever sent this fiction from 
 his pen was one Martinus Polanus. He begins it 
 thus : Joannes, Anglicus natione ; Maguntius 
 fyc" that is " John, an Englishman, by nation, of 
 Mentz, sat two years one month and four days, 
 alias, five months and three days." This begins 
 not like a truth. He says she was an Englishman, 
 then she was a Maguntian ; that is to say, an 
 Englishman born at Mentz in Germany : for all 
 know, that the city Mentz, or Maguntia is situate 
 in Germany. Now, how this woman could be 
 an Englishman, and born a Dutchman, is what I 
 cannot unriddle ; I leave it therefore for you. 
 
 "This" says Martin, "was a woman, as it is 
 said, and, in the young age of a girl, she was 
 brought to Athens &e, and there profited so much 
 in divers sciences, that no one was found that 
 could be compared to her." This Englishman is 
 now a woman, "as it is said"; for he brings no 
 other authority for it but only a bare hearsay. 
 " She went to study at Athens," says this fabulous 
 hearsay, a thing not to be supposed possible by 
 those who know, that, at that time when she is 
 reported to have lived, the city of Athens was all 
 in rubbish, and no learning professed or taught 
 there ; it being destroyed long before and the 
 whole country of Attica become barbarous and 
 utterly void of learning, as may be seen in Zona- 
 ras and Cedrenus. So that, if she got her learn- 
 ing there, she must have been taught it by stones 
 and rubbish, not by men of learning.
 
 PART III. J 175 [CHAP III. 
 
 " From Athens," he tells you, " she came to 
 Rome, and there professed learning openly, and 
 had great doctors for her scholars." But this is 
 not credible to those who consider, that the 
 learning she had was picked up out of the ruins of 
 a demolished city, Athens. Nor is it very likely, 
 that the Roman doctors should turn horn-book- 
 boys, to come to school to her; nor can it be 
 supposed, that Rome, where learning has always 
 flourished, should be at so low an ebb for learn- 
 ing, as to stand in need of such a school-mistress 
 to teach their best doctors. 
 
 " By the common consent of all," says Martin 
 Hearsay, she was chosen pope." But, this is as 
 far from the truth as the other. For it is certain, 
 that, from the first century, none was made pope 
 (lawfully) till the days of pope Formosus (who 
 was the eighth after this pretended pope Joan is 
 said to have been) but such as had, from their 
 youth, been known to have been brought up in the 
 church of Rome, and in it to have taken their 
 ecclesiastical degrees of orders to their being 
 made priests. It is not likely, therefore, that an 
 unknown woman,, of uncertain stock and country, 
 without any testimony of her former life, and 
 without any evidence of having passed through 
 ecclesiastical orders to the degree ot priesthood, 
 should, by the unanimous consent of all, or indeed 
 of any, be cbosen pope. 
 
 In short, " she became pregnant by her servant," 
 says Martin, " and, not knowing the time of her 
 delivery, as she went from St. Peter's to the Late- 
 ral!, she brought forth and died, and, as they say, 
 was there buried." Thus ends his story, without 
 any more or better testimony of her^ehild-bearing 
 and death, than what he had of her birth ; only 
 " as they say" is his author for all he says. 
 
 This lias no more appearance of truth in it than 
 the former: it is very unlikely, that she and a
 
 CHAP III. J 176 [part III. 
 
 former lover of hers, who, he says, went with her 
 to Athens, should cohabit together all the time of 
 her youth, and not have the luck to conceive with 
 child by him, and yet, in her old withered age, to 
 assume the vigour of youth and bring forth to a 
 servant. Nor is it very probable she should be 
 then going from St. Peter's to the Lateran ; for, at 
 that time, and till many hundred years after, viz, 
 till the days of pope Boniface the ninth, none of 
 the popes ever lived at the Vatican, where St. Pe- 
 ter's stands. It is not likely, therefore, that she 
 should be going from thence where her abode was 
 not. But, you will say, she might first come 
 thither from the Lateran ; but Martin does not 
 tell she did. Besides, it is too great a journey for a 
 woman on the point of delivery to take off and on, 
 it being two full miles from the one place to the 
 other. 
 
 But you will say with Martin, she knew not the 
 time of her delivery. This then would be a sign 
 that she was not of such great learning and sound 
 judgment, as is reported. Can it be imagined, 
 that she should either not know she was with child 
 at all, or not know how long she had already ad- 
 vanced in her pregnancy, or not know how long 
 other women in that condition went, or not per- 
 ceive that she was not in a fit state for taking a 
 walk of four miles ? Can it, I say, be supposed, 
 that a woman, ignorant in things thus belonging 
 her own sex, should be, in other matters, of so 
 great learning, wit, judgment and vast understand- 
 ing, as to be capable of teaching the learned Ro- 
 man doctors in public schools, or capable of being 
 made pope ? On the other hand, if she were so 
 qualified in all things as to be thought fit to be 
 pope, can it be imagined, that she should not 
 know the time of her delivery, if not to an hour, 
 or perhaps to a day, yet, at least, to be so near 
 as to think herself unable to perform a journey
 
 FART III.] 177 [CHAP III. 
 
 from the Vatican to the Later an church, in one 
 day ? Or, can she be thought so imprudent, as 
 to hazard herself, and so far endanger the expos- 
 ing her situation, which, it seems, she had kept 
 so long hid from the eyes of any body ? Besides, 
 how incredible it is, that she could so conceal her 
 pregnancy, and so far dissemble her sex as neither 
 by voice, countenance, gestures, features, want of 
 beard, person, or other circumstances, be discover- 
 ed, nor once suspected, to have been what she 
 was, at least, by so wise a people as the Romans. 
 
 From Martin Polanus, who, as it is said, first 
 related the fable, Platina took it, yet did not give 
 much credit to it himself, saying " he had it from 
 uncertain and obscure authors." And if you 
 please to read the annotation of Onuphrius upon 
 Platina, printed at Venice, you will see the whole 
 story detected for a gross untruth. 
 
 From Polanus and Platina you protestants take 
 up the fable, for it is sweeter to you than a real 
 truth would be, if less scandalous. But the dif- 
 ferent manners of relating it shew the falsehood 
 of it. As to her name, some call her Agnes, 
 some Isabella, some Jutte, others Dorothy. 
 And, as to her place among the popes, some assign 
 it between Leo the fourth and Benedict the third, 
 whereas between these; the see was only vacant 
 fourteen days, as is evident from Anastasius Bib- 
 liothecarius, who lived at that time, and wrote 
 the lives of the popes up to Nicholas the first, 
 who suceeded Benedict the third, and, as he him- 
 self says, was at the creation of Sergius the third, 
 Leo the fourth, Benedict the third, Nicholas the 
 first, Adrian the second, and John the eighth. 
 This author's book is extant. You" may also find 
 his words set down in Onuphrius : so that she 
 could not find a two years vacancy in the place 
 Polanus puts her. Others there are, who, observ- 
 ing this, thrust her in after Leo the fifth ; others
 
 CHAP III. J 178 [PART III 
 
 after Martin the first ; others after Nicholas the 
 first ; some will have her to be John the seventh, 
 others John the eighth. But John the seventh 
 was a Grecian born, and lived nineteen years be- 
 fore Polanus's pretended Joan. And John the 
 eighth was a Roman, and was twenty years after 
 Polanus's pope Joan : so neither of these could be 
 Englishmen, or Germans. Onuphrius learnedly 
 proves by the account of years and times (which 
 is a certain way) that none such, nor any other, 
 besides those true popes he mentions, could have 
 been two years in the see, without taking away 
 the known time that others possessed it. So that, 
 you see there is no time nor place to be found for 
 her among the popes. Martin Polanus wrote in 
 the year lo20, and this pope Joan he pretends to 
 have been in the year 870, which was four hundred 
 and fifty years before. Author for it (as is said) he 
 brings none, nor was it possible he should, for of 
 all those who wrote before him not one mentions 
 any such thing, as the said Anastasius, Ademanus 
 and Annonius of Paris, Regio, Herman Shafna- 
 burgensis, Otho Frisingensis, Abbas Urspargensis, 
 Leo bishop of Hostia, Joannes of Cremora and 
 Godfrid Viturbiensis, of whom some wrote three 
 hundred, some four hundred years ago. And in 
 Bibliotheca Platina at Rome six or seven tables of 
 the pope's names are written in several books, 
 yet not any thing of this imaginary pope Joan in 
 any one of all these authors. Neither is any 
 thing found in the five books of Damasus, and of 
 Pandulphus of Pisa, which treat of the pope's 
 lives ; only in the margin of Pandulphus this fic- 
 tion is put down in another hand, written in dif- 
 ferent characters from those of that ancient book, 
 added by some of later times, which still renders 
 it the more suspected for fabulous. In the most 
 ancient and true copies of Sigebertus the same is 
 not to be found, yet in some later editions it is
 
 PART III.] 179 [CHAP III. 
 
 added, which still shews it fictitious : and even in 
 these there is no other authority for it, but only, 
 " jama est," (" it is said") which shews it to be 
 added to those later editions out of Polanus. 
 Jewel says, in his margin of the apology, that, 
 " the image of a woman pope lying in travel is 
 yet to be seen in Rome," which is a notorious un- 
 truth, as doctor Harding, in his confutation of 
 Jewel's apology, has clearly made appear. 
 
 Though enough has been said to detect and dis- 
 prove this foolish and ill-contrived fiction, yet I 
 will close the matter with the judgment of four 
 learned French protestants, who have ingenuously 
 declared it a lying report. 
 
 Mr. Blondel wrote a book designedly against it, 
 in which he has strongly confuted it for a fabulous 
 and vain story. This book of his was printed at 
 Amsterdam in Holland, in the year 1647. Mr. 
 Seravius, in a letter of his to Salmasius, mentions 
 Blondefs book with great applause, and adds 
 these words. " Do not imagine, that Blondel was 
 either the first, or only man, of our persuasion 
 (protestant) that has been of this opinion, (that 
 it is an untruth) although, perhaps, no man has 
 handled this matter with more forcible arguments : 
 for, there have been famous divines of the re- 
 formed religion of the same opinion. And there 
 are yet living in t^his city men famous for policy 
 and piety, who heard this history, though vul- 
 garly credited, accounted fabulous from the mouth 
 of Chemerius himself. I myself, says he, lately 
 saw letters of your and my very good friend Peter 
 Dumoulin, in which he affirmed, that he always 
 believed the same as Chemerius did, to wit, that 
 it is fabulous. And 1 have by ira> also one of 
 Boeharb's, wherein he declares that, w hatsccver 
 has been hitherto published in favour of this affair 
 (of a pone Joan) to the world, is merely vain and 
 fictitious." All this Monsieur Seravius wrote in
 
 CHAP. III.~| 180 [part III. 
 
 his letter to Salmasius, which his son, after his 
 death, caused to be printed and published. 
 
 Thus, at last, you have four of the most learned 
 and eminent protestants in France exploding this 
 old wife's tale of a pope Joan for a malicious lie. 
 And for such I leave it you for pulpit-stuff. 
 
 After all this, admitting even that this romantic 
 fable had been as true as you can wish, what worse 
 would the church of Rome be ? and what better 
 would your protestant kirk be ? Yes ! yes ! you 
 say ; " what a strange catholic and apostolic 
 church would this be without a priesthood, that 
 sex not being capable of holy orders." Say you 
 so, Sir ! If this be true, that then the church 
 would want priesthood, she would be in as wretch- 
 ed a case as are all the protestant congregations 
 in foreign parts, who, as I have shewn you above, 
 from their own letters, do as certainly want priest- 
 hood as it is certain that episcopacy is of divine 
 right ; and this is held certain, and a point of 
 faith, by your protestant church of England, and 
 our catholic church of Rome. 
 
 Seeing the female sex is incapable of holy 
 orders, as you truly speak, it follows, that your 
 said Joan could neither be priest nor pope; and, 
 therefore, if such a thing as this Joan could pos- 
 sibly have got herself called pope for two years, 
 five months and three days ; yet this none-pope 
 could no more interrupt the line of succession, nor 
 destroy or hurt the priesthood of the church, than 
 the vacancy between the death of one true pope 
 and the election of another can prejudice it ; for, 
 it would have been so long a time of vacancy. 
 Did a queen Jane, or an Oliver Cromwell, inter- 
 rupt the royal line of the house of England ? 
 You dare not say they did, lest you contradict 
 that maxim in law, that the king never dies. I 
 think any christian, but a Ritschel, will believe, 
 that the priesthood of the church is more firmly
 
 PART III.] 181 [CHAP. III. 
 
 and securely established, for perpetual duration, 
 than any kingship in the world, seeing the Holy 
 Ghost says of it, thou art a priest for ever, ac- 
 cording to the order of Melchisedech. 
 
 Though I comply with you in speaking thus 
 much, yet, truly, I am ashamed to spend time in 
 answering such nonsense. Notwithstanding, a 
 little more may yet be said. If the priesthood 
 of the church of Rome was destroyed by a pope 
 Joan, pray tell me, how your pretended church 
 of England could come by her priesthood, if she 
 has any ? I dare say you will not deny but all the 
 priesthood your church has was originally received 
 from the hands of the Roman catholic bishops. 
 But, if they had none to give, you could get none; 
 and then, as you say, God knows, in what a sad 
 case you are. I may well compare you to that en- 
 vious wretch, that wished he might loose both his 
 eyes, on condition his neighbour might loose one 
 of his. 
 
 Again, if the priesthood of the church of Rome 
 was lost by this female pretended pope, your pro- 
 testant church must, by the same reason, loose its 
 priesthood by that female protestant pope, Eliza- 
 beth. Deny this Elizabeth to have been a woman 
 I suppose you will not ; and deny her to have been 
 head of the church you cannot, unless you dare 
 take upon you to contradict the statutes of the 
 realm, in the acts of your protestant parliaments. 
 
 I ask you therefore, again, what good can pos- 
 sibly accrue to your protestant church of England 
 by either a pope Joan or a pope Bess ? By a pope 
 Bess, say I ? Let me recall this word ; for, now 
 that I reflect on it, if you had not had that pope 
 Elizabeth to have headed your kirk, and wall it 
 about with penal laws you had had no protestant 
 kirk in England at this day, either with or with- 
 out the priesthood.
 
 chap, iv.] 182 [part in. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 YOUR EXAMINATION OF THE TREE OF LIFE IS AN 
 EVIDENT DEMONSTRATION OF MR. RITSCHEL's 
 INFIDELITY. 
 
 X have searched and examined," you say page 
 161, " your tree of life over and over again, from 
 the top to the bottom, but cannot find in it the 
 holy, catholic and apostolic church ; nor do I expect 
 to find the catholic church in your tree, any more 
 than to find it in some tree in the world, in the 
 moon &c. Nor can I find, in your tree of life, any 
 of the primitive apostolic churches, as the church 
 of Jerusalem, Alexandria, or Antioch &c. nor so 
 much as one other christian church, since the 
 apostles' days, and, therefore, I conclude that 
 your notion of the eatholic church (viz, that your 
 tree of life is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic 
 church,) is false and absurd &c. Your tree, indeed, 
 at first sight, makes a show, but, when I come to 
 examine the fruit thereof, I find it as bitter as gall 
 and wormwood, and fitly to be compared to those 
 apples, which are said to grow by the lake of So- 
 dom, which seem very beautiful to the eye and 
 pleasant to outward appearance, but mightily de- 
 ceive a man's expectation when he comes to touch 
 them, they being full of dirty ashes." This is the 
 account you give of your search and examination 
 of the tree of life. 
 
 Him who will not hear the church, we are com- 
 manded to look upon as a heathen : and can we, 
 then, take him for less than an infidel, who will 
 neither hear nor see the church, but, with blas- 
 phemous lips, compares her pastors and professors 
 to gall, wormwood and apples of Sodom full of 
 dirty ashes. If I had not seen it thus under your 
 hand, Mr. Ritschel, I could never have believed
 
 PART III. J 183 [CHAP IV. 
 
 you would have put such a censure upon the tree 
 of life. You examined and searched it over and 
 over again, you say, from the top to the bottom. 
 Tell me, if in this strict examination and diligent 
 search you found notthe representation of our bless- 
 ed Saviour's death upon the cross, from whose life, 
 doctrine, miracles, bitter passion and precious 
 blood, the holy tatholic church has sprung, and by 
 whom it has been conserved ? Did you not also 
 find the great apostle St. Peter and his successors 
 the popes, bishops of Rome, succeeding to one 
 another even to this our present pope ? Could you 
 not see the other apostles and evangelists, nor the 
 holy fathers, doctors, and eminent writers, in 
 every age ? Saw you not a great many provincial, 
 national, and general councils, composed of bi- 
 s hops and fathers out of all parts of the church ? 
 Did you not also meet with numbers of saints, 
 martyrs, and eminent public professors, in every 
 age ? And found you not also the names of na- 
 tions converted to Christianity, in all parts of the 
 world; by which particular names are not only 
 denoted particular churches, but by all together is 
 represented the christian church, and its spreading 
 over the whole earth ? Coidd you, I say, examine 
 the tree of life, and not meet with all this ? No, it 
 is impossible ! 
 
 In the columns of the nations converted, you 
 might have found Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, 
 Britain, with the christian conversions both in 
 Africa, Asia, and Europe, and all this in the first 
 and second ages. In the following ages, you 
 might have found the christian faith planted in 
 Scotland, Ireland, England, France, Spain, Ger- 
 many, Greece, and other places through the Ro- 
 man world, and no doubt but when you so strictly 
 examined the tree of life you found all those and 
 the church of Rome itself, with the nineteen 
 general councils &c. And could not all these,
 
 CHAP IV.] 184 [part III. 
 
 with whatever else is to be found in the tree 
 of life, represent to you the catholic church, nor 
 so much as one particular church ? " No" say 
 you, " I cannot find from the top to the bottom of 
 your tree either the catholic church, nor any of 
 the primitive churches, since the apostles' days. 
 
 With you, Mr. Ritschel, all those holy fathers, 
 St. Ignatius, St. Justin, St. Dionysius, St. Poly- 
 carp, St. Irenoeus, St. Basil, St. Athanasius, St. 
 Jerom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, 
 St. Chrysostom, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ber- 
 nard, and all the holy fathers and doctors, even 
 down to our age from the apostles' times, with 
 the other holy saints, most illustrious and eminent 
 for sanctity and divine miracles that suffered in 
 the dreadful and bloody persecutions ; all those, 
 1 say, must pass with you for apples of Sodom, 
 bitter as gall and wormwood ! 
 
 The church of Rome, and all those christian 
 churches, nations and people, that are and have 
 been of her communion since St. Peter's time to 
 this our present pope, Innocent the twelfth, 
 must, in your judgment, neither be, nor represent 
 the catholic church, nor so much as one christian 
 church, though never so small, since the apostles' 
 days, but be all apples of Sodom, bitter as gall 
 and wormwood. And what does all this mean, 
 but that you do not take them for christians ? 
 Pray tell me, Mr. Ritschel, what people, and what 
 churches, excepting those named in the tree of 
 life, you account for christians and christian 
 churches, between the time of the apostles' days 
 and your pretended reformation ? Give me some 
 notion or representation of the catholic church 
 for one thousand five hundred years before your 
 pretended reformation, excepting, I say, the re- 
 presentation I have given it in the tree of life. 
 
 You have granted often enough, in your letters, 
 that God has had a true church in all ages, and
 
 FART III.] 185 [CHAP IV. 
 
 as often you have affirmed that you protestants 
 have held communion with it in all ages, not only 
 before, but since the coming of Christ. Now seeing 
 you deny the church represented in the tree of life 
 to be so much as a christian church, much more 
 that true church of God you speak of as having 
 been in all ages since the coming of Christ, you 
 are hereby obliged to shew us some other church 
 for catholic and christian, which you take for that 
 true church of God, with which you have held 
 communion in all ages, from the coming of Christ 
 to this day : but, to do this is as impossible as to 
 shew us another God. Be your own judge then, 
 Mr Ritschel, whether your denial of the visible 
 church specified in the tree of life to be either the 
 catholic church, or so much as a christian church, 
 be not an evident demonstration of your infi- 
 delity. 
 
 But, you must pretend a reason for what you 
 do ; and the wise one you give, why you cannot 
 find the catholic church in the tree of life, is this ; 
 " for I Civ* no more understand your notion of it, 
 viz. how the true notion of catholic, as it denotes 
 the whole church, should agree to one single per- 
 son, and the pope to be the catholic church, than 
 I can comprehend your doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation, which contradicts both my reason and 
 senses." This, Sir, is as pleasant a piece as ever 
 you wrote, and discovers your force of reason and 
 strength of senses, no less than if you had told us 
 you are void of both. Where were your senses, 
 when, searching and examining the tree of life 
 from top to bottom, as you say, you found but 
 one single person, a pope, in it ? Could not your 
 senses, at least that of seeing, inform you of more 
 than one pope in the whole line of succession 
 there put down ? and could not you, by your sense 
 ot seeing, or if that failed you, by your sense of 
 hearing your mother read it, discover more than 
 a a
 
 CHAP IV. J 186 [part III 
 
 one only single person among all the general, na- 
 tional, and provincial councils, fathers, doctors, 
 saints, martyrs, and christian nations that are 
 written down in the tree of life ? No ; only one 
 single person, a pope, is all I, George Ritschel, 
 could, by all the senses I had, discover in it. 
 Well, Sir, you must not take it ill, then, if I never 
 style you a man of sense, but rather, a man of 
 nonsense. 
 
 Let us now examine your stock of reason. How 
 one single person, a pope, can be the whole catho- 
 lic church you cannot understand, you say : and 
 I also say, neither can I understand it. Nor do 
 I think that ever any man in the world was ever 
 so void of reason, as either to assert, or once 
 to imagine, such a nonsensical paradox : so that 
 your not understanding your vain whim is no ar- 
 gument of your defect of reason : but, that you 
 should thus foolishly fancy that the tree of life pre- 
 tends one single person, a pope, to be the whole 
 catholic church, is too evident a sign that your 
 reason, if transfused into the brains of yVar horse, 
 would not make it one jot the better. If we 
 examine your reason and senses any further, we 
 shall find them destroy your faith too : " and then, 
 God knows what a sad case you are in !" 
 
 The doctrine of transubstantiation you cannot 
 comprehend by your reason and senses, and there- 
 fore you cannot believe it. By this reasoning you 
 must disbelieve all the articles of the christian 
 faith. Can you by your reason and senses com- 
 prehend how God is one'm three and three in one ? 
 How the Father is God, the Son is God, and the 
 Holy Ghost God, and yet not three Gods, but one 
 God ? Can your reason inform you how all those 
 three distinct persons can be but one and the same 
 substance? Can your reason comprehend how 
 the Father could beget the Son, and yet the Fa- 
 ther not be before the Son, nor the Son be young-
 
 PART III.] 187 [CHAP IV. 
 
 er than the Father, but both without beginning ? 
 Can your senses and reason comprehend eternity, 
 without beginning and without end, or immensity, 
 without limits or bounds ? Can you, by your senses 
 and reason, conceive how God could become man ? 
 How a virgin should bring forth a child ? How 
 our bodies shall rise again at the last day, after 
 they have been thousands of years turned to dust, 
 or eaten up by wild beasts, fishes or worms, or 
 burnt to ashes ? &c. Can your reason and senses 
 inform you how man, who is made in time, 
 should live for eternity ? These and the other 
 mysteries of faith are as much above the reach of 
 your senses and human reason as the doctrine of 
 transubstantiation ; and if you will not believe this, 
 because it is a mystery, which your reason and 
 senses cannot comprehend, so neither can you be- 
 lieve those by the same reason. Where then is 
 your faith? No where at all. Your senses and 
 reason have eaten it up, and brought you to atheism 
 and infidelity.
 
 CHAP, v.] 188 [part III. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE ACCOUNT YOU GIVE OF YOUR FAITH EXAMINED, 
 TOGETHER WITH YOUR REASON FOR REJECTING 
 POPE PIUS'S PROFESSION OF FAITH. 
 
 J_ HOUGH what you have here said gives just 
 cause to accuse you of infidelity, yet, to do all the 
 fair play that I can, I will further examine, what 
 account j^ou give of your faith in several other 
 places of your writings : as much as can be made 
 appear, so much will I own you to have : for, be- 
 lieve me, my design is not in the least to lessen 
 your faith, nor is it pleasant to me to find you 
 thus destroying it yourself. My endeavour is, that 
 your faith may become perfect, entire, and invio- 
 late, that is, the same in all points with the holy 
 catholic chucrh : for, if it is not such, it is, in 
 effect, no faith all. Let us then see what account 
 you give of it. 
 
 " If you desire an account of our faith," say you, 
 " we believe all the articles in the apostles' creed, 
 and those explanations of it given by the first 
 council of Nice and St. Athanasius, because they 
 are contained in scripture: for which reason, we 
 reject that new creed made by pope Pius the fourth, 
 in the council of Trent, because the several arti- 
 cles of it, as the doctrine of purgatory, invocation 
 of saints, indulgences, &c. are not contained in 
 the scripture, nor were ever known or received by 
 the primitive church." 
 
 The reason that you give for believing the creeds 
 is this, because you find, you say, every article 
 of them contained in scripture, that is to say, you 
 believe upon the authority of the scripture, as by 
 you expounded, not upon the authority of the ca- 
 tholic church, expounding the scripture, and de- 
 claring her faith in the creeds. Now, this belief
 
 FART III. ] 189 [CHAP. V. 
 
 of yours, thus grounded upon your own private 
 sense of scripture, amounts to no more than mere 
 private opinion, at most human faith, and cannot he 
 held for divine faith, hecause not grounded upon 
 divine authority ; no private sense or interpreta- 
 tion of scripture contrary to that of the catholic 
 church being of divine authority. Nor can you as- 
 certain to us your private sense of scripture (when 
 contrary to the sense of the church) to be the 
 divine meaning and sense of the Holy Ghost, in 
 which the scripture ought of necessity to be taken. 
 Your pretended belief of the three creeds is there- 
 fore no faith at all. 
 
 As to the several articles extracted out of the 
 council of Trent by pope Pius the fourth, as the 
 pope's supremacy, the real presence, purgatory, 
 invocation of saints, &o. you reject them, and for 
 no other reason, it seems, but because you find 
 them not contained in scripture ; that is, as you 
 interpret the scripture in your own private sense. 
 But this is no argument, either that they are not 
 to be believed, or that they are not contained in 
 scripture, in the sense of the catholic church, and 
 as by her expounded ; for in scripture, according 
 to the interpretation of the catholic church, they 
 are all to be found. By your argument, if the 
 the scripture had never been written, the church 
 had not been obliged to the belief of any one arti- 
 cle of faith, contained either in the apostles' or 
 any other creed of the church. As to the several 
 creeds of the church, you must know, that the 
 apostles' creed is but a short summary of the chris- 
 tian faith, not containing every article thereof in 
 express terms, but, in that one .article thereof, 
 which teaches us to believe the holy catholic church, 
 it includes and comprehends all other articles and 
 points of Christianity whatsoever, that God has, at 
 any time, revealed to his church, bo that, what- 
 soever the holy catholic church proposes to us to
 
 CHAP, v.] 190 [part hi. 
 
 be believed as of faith, we are obliged, by the said 
 article of the apostles' creed, to believe and em- 
 brace it for an article of faith divinely revealed to 
 the church, or else, by disbelieving it we disbelieve 
 the holy catholic church that proposes it. 
 
 Now, when heretics rise up against points of 
 faith, not found in the apostles' creed, nor any of 
 the other creeds of the church, it was on such 
 occasions that the church sh ,uld declare her faith 
 concerning such points as the heretics called in 
 question and opposed. This she frequently did, 
 by enlarging her professions of faith, and declaring 
 in her councils, what her faith was concerning the 
 points in question, thus signifying her aversion 
 and detestation of the contrary heresy. For in- 
 stance, when Arius, the heretic, broached his 
 errors against the Son of God and the procession 
 of the Holy Ghost, the catholic church made the 
 Nicene creed, approved the creed of St. Athana- 
 sius, for her professions of faith and larger sym- 
 bols of her belief concerning the points then op- 
 posed by the Arian heretics, pressed the words 
 trinity and consubstantiality , to distinguish the 
 catholic believers from heretics. I do not mean 
 that the church made any articles of faith in that 
 council, nor by those words perhaps formerly not 
 used, but she only in more express terms declared 
 her former faith concerning the points opposed. 
 
 In like manner, when Berengarius began his 
 heresy against the real presence, the church de- 
 clared her faith concerning the change of the sub- 
 stance of the bread and wine into the substance of 
 the body and blood of Christ : and this she did by 
 the word transubstantiation. As before she had 
 done the mystery of the three divine persons and 
 three being of one substance, by the words trinity 
 and consubstantiality, so likewise when Luther, 
 Calvin, and other heretics of that age, impugned 
 so many points of catholic faith, as the pope's
 
 PART III. J I9J [CHAP V. 
 
 supremacy, the real presence, prayer to saints, 
 purgatory, sacraments, &c. it was necessary that 
 the church, in the council of Trent, as she had 
 done in the council of Nice, should enlarge her 
 former professions of faith, not by making new 
 articles of faith, any more than she did in the 
 Nicene and Athanasian creeds, but declaring in this 
 larger symbol (pope Pius's profession of faith) her 
 ancient faith received by tradition from the apostles, 
 and contained in that article of the apostles' creed, 
 / believe in the holy catholic church. To say, there- 
 fore, that pope Pius the fourth made a new creed, 
 or new articles of faith, is as gross a calumny, 
 and as false, as to say, that St. Athanasius and 
 the council of Nice made new creeds, or new ar- 
 ticles of faith. So if, in after ages, other strange 
 heretics should arise, never before heard of, it 
 would be necessary that the church, by a further 
 explanation or yet larger profession, should assert 
 and declare her faith in contradiction to new 
 broached heresies. By this means, truth is known 
 from error and falsehood, catholics secured and 
 established in their faith, and heresies cast out and 
 condemned. 
 
 You would gladly have your unlearned readers 
 believe that those articles you reject in pope Pius's 
 creed are new, and were never held in the church 
 before the council of Trent. But in this you con- 
 tradict yourself, Mr. R, and what you have 
 written in other places of your book : for, in page 
 147, you signify that the pope's supremacy, which 
 you call the usurpation of the bishop of Rome, 
 was held in the year ltJOO : and, that purgatory, 
 mass, worship of saints, praying for the dead &c. 
 you say, page 140, were opposed by Peter Waldo 
 in the year 1 KiO. Now tell me, Sir, how those 
 doctrines could have been opposed so many hun- 
 dred years before the Waldenses, yea, by those 
 old heretics who lived before the time of St. An-
 
 CHAP V.] 192 I PART III. 
 
 gustine ; (as I have shewn before that several of 
 them were) how I say could heretics have oppugn- 
 ed them twelve hundred years before the council 
 of Trent, if they had been so new as to have been 
 instituted by that council or by pope Pius, as you 
 would maliciously and foolishly insinuate. Some 
 sort of men stand in need of good memories, and 
 I take you for one of those Mr. R. St. Augustine, 
 St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerom, and other 
 holy fathers, in the primitive church, would never 
 have condemned Arius, Jovinian, ifitius, Vigilan- 
 tius &c. for denying purgatory, prayer and sacri- 
 fices for the dead, invocation and honour of saints, 
 relics of the saints, the fasts of the church &c. if 
 these had not been the doctrines of the church in 
 their times. In short, there is not one point of 
 faith in pope Pius's profession, nor proposed by the 
 council of Trent, but what has been held by the 
 holy fathers in the church ever since the apostles' 
 days, as you may see in their writings collected by 
 Jodoeus Coccius, in his llieausurus Catholicus, 
 and in Gaulterus's Tabu Its Chronologicre, as also, 
 in your protestant Magdeburgian Centurists them- 
 selves, who blaspemously accuse St. Augustine, St. 
 Cyprian, St. Jerom, and other primitive fathers of 
 errors for holding them. Yet you, bold scribbler, 
 have the confidence to tell us, they were never 
 known, nor received by the primitive church. 
 
 The apostles' creed, the Nicene and Athanasian 
 creeds you could not believe, it seems, unless you 
 find every point of faith in them contained in the 
 scripture. I pray you, learned scripturist, shew 
 me texts out of scripture for every point of faith 
 contained in the Athanasian creed. Have you 
 clearer scripture for the trinity and consubstantia- 
 lity, than you have for the eucharist being the true 
 body and blood of Christ ? If you have, pray pro- 
 duce them. I say the same of other articles of 
 faith contained in pope Pius's creed. Let me see
 
 FART III.] 193 L CHAP v 
 
 what clearer texts of scripture you can bring 
 against an Arian, in proof of the trinity, and con- 
 substatiulity, than arc to be found against you in 
 defence of St. Peter's and his successors' supre- 
 macy, the real presence, purgatory, prayer for 
 the dead, prayer for saints, seven sacraments &c. ? 
 Where are your scripture proofs, against an ana- 
 baptist, in defence of infant baptism ? Against a 
 Sabbatarian, in defence of keeping the first day 
 of the week holy ? Against such as hold it unlaw- 
 ful to eat things strangled and blood, in defence 
 of the contrary tenet and practice. 
 
 It is the cath lie church, Mr. Ritschel, that 
 only can ascertain to us what is of divine revela- 
 tion. We, her members, therefore undoubtedly 
 believe whatever she proposes to us for matter of 
 faith, whether she delivers it in her creeds, in her 
 councils, by oral traditions, and her universal prac- 
 tice, or in the sacred scriptures as expounded by 
 her. Thus, keeping close to the church's tradi- 
 tions, our faith is catholic, and we hold it entire 
 and inviolable. 
 
 You heretics, on the contrary, relying only on 
 your own private interpretation, can have no cer- 
 tainty for your faith ; more than any particular 
 man of you can affirm that he is unerring or infal- 
 lible. Your pretence, therefore, as is said, to the 
 creeds as taking them only upon your own private 
 exposition of scripture, and believing them no 
 further than you can, in your private sense, prove 
 them out of scripture, can be no evidence of your 
 faith being any more than mere human opinion, 
 not divine, or catholic faith. And this you wisely 
 foresaw Mould be all you could come to by your 
 pretence of admitting and rejecting the church's 
 creeds, upon the ground of their doctrines being 
 contained or not contained in scripture, interpre- 
 ted by you not by the church : and, therefore, 
 you proceed further in the account of vour faith, 
 
 a b
 
 CHAP V.J 194 [part III 
 
 pretending to lay hold of the catholic church's au- 
 thority for it, well knowing that, if you could 
 secure this, you would be secure enough. And 
 thus you go on. 
 
 " We also believe that there is but one, holy, 
 catholic and apostolical church, because Christ has 
 but one body : and we also hold the faith of this 
 one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and that, 
 in every point thereof, whole and inviolate : and 
 we are also members of this one, holy, catholic 
 and apostolic church, as I have sufficiently proved 
 already." This, Sir, were something if it were 
 true. But, the mischief is, you cannot make 
 good what you so boldly assert. Nor is it true 
 that you have ever yet proved, or ever can prove, 
 any such thing, as is shewn you above. 
 
 That there is but one holy, catholic and aposto- 
 lic church, I am glad you grant. How she can be 
 one, holy, catholic and apostolic, and yet cor- 
 rupted in faith, and ulcerated with errors from 
 head to foot, as you so often affirm and so labour 
 to prove, though in vain, I cannot imagine. Nor 
 is it possible that corruptions and errors in faith 
 can consist with unity, sanctity &c. so that, by this 
 happy grant, you have ruined and utterly de- 
 stroyed all your arguments and blasphemous non- 
 sense of the catholic church being corrupt in 
 faith. 
 
 But tell me, Sir, where is this one, holy, catho- 
 lic and apostolic church, that you are members of, 
 and whose faith you hold entire and inviolable in 
 every point ? The church of Rome you deny to be 
 it, your own church of England you deny to be 
 it, the Greek church you dare not pretend to be 
 it, nor the Armenians, nor the Nestorians, nor 
 Russians, nor any one protestant church in all the 
 whole protestant reformation, because your church 
 of England agrees in faith with none of these. 
 Where, then, is this one, holy, catholic and apos-
 
 PART III.] 195 [CHAP V. 
 
 tolic church, whose faith you hold entire and invio- 
 late ? It is too difficult a point for you, denying 
 the church of Rome to be it, and papists (as you 
 call us) members of it, to determine which it is, 
 or where it is ; and, if you cannot do this, it is 
 impossible you can prove that your church of 
 England agrees with it, and holds every point of 
 its faith whole and undented. What greater ab- 
 surdity and deeper nonsense could you have been 
 guilty of, than thus ridiculously to affirm, that 
 you hold the faith of the holy catholic church 
 whole and inviolate in every point thereof, when 
 you deny your own church of England to be it, 
 and cannot so much as find one church or any 
 church in the whole world, that you either can 
 take for it, or with whom you can agree in faith ? 
 
 All this mighty pretence, you see, leaves you as 
 void of catholic faith, and as far from being a 
 member of the one, holy, and apostolic church, 
 as if you had only pretended to have held the faith 
 of the quakers, and have been a member of that 
 heathenish body. 
 
 Suppose, Sir, you could possibly meet with a 
 church with which your church of England agreed 
 in every point of faith ; yet, seeing you hold her 
 fallible an 1 that she may err in matters of faith, 
 you can still have no grounds to believe, that 
 either she or your own church holds the catholic 
 faith whole and inviolate, and, therefore, will find 
 it as difficult to prove that her or your faith is true 
 and entire, as you do at present. 
 
 That tenet of the church's infallibility was an 
 unlucky shelf, whereon your first pretended re- 
 fonners were obliged to split. Bui, then, it was 
 inevitable ; for, if they had not held the church 
 fallible, they could have had no pretence for re- 
 forming her. This brought them and all their fol- 
 lowers under a necessity of holding their own 
 church of England fallible ; for they could not
 
 CHAP. V. ) 196 [part III. 
 
 attribute to her, a particular, what they denied to 
 the universal church. The church of England, 
 then, being, by her own confession, fallible, she 
 cannot, upon her own authority, evidence any 
 one article of faith for an infallible truth ; because 
 she cannot evidence the veracity of her authority. 
 He therefore, who assents to any one point of 
 faith, by her, (upon her authority) proposed, must 
 needs act contrary to a rational soul, in believing 
 or truth what may be actually false, for any 
 thing she, the proposer, knows to the contrary. 
 
 Neither can she, without the greatest impru- 
 dence imaginable, pretend to oblige rational men 
 to assent, upon her authority, either to any one 
 article of faith, or to the sense she gives to the 
 scripture by her interpreted, since, if she knows 
 that she is fallible and may be in the wrong, she 
 can have no evidence that she is in the right, or 
 that she is not actually deceived in what she pro- 
 poses. Hence it follows, that not only the Roman 
 catholics, but also presbyterians, anababtists, 
 quakers, Socinians, &e. may justly, nay, ought 
 in reason, to refuse their assent to what she pro- 
 poses to them, contrary to what they hold. Nay, 
 seeing she is fallible, she may possibly be in dam- 
 nable error, and for any thing she knows, or can 
 evidence to the contrary, actually is in damnable 
 error. Who, therefore, is the man, that can 
 either in reason, or upon serious consideration, 
 venture his eternal salvation upon this self-owned 
 fallible church ? 
 
 This brings to my memory that so often repeat- 
 ed sentence of yours, viz. "that you protestants 
 of the church of England are as true catholics as 
 ever lived upon the face of the earth." Consider- 
 ing your owning the church to have continued in 
 her virgin purity for the first four hundred or six 
 hundred years, and considering your tenet of your 
 church's fallibility, this is the boldest expression I
 
 PART III. | 1 97 [ CHAP. Vj 
 
 ever met with. If you would not except those 
 holy fathers who lived in the time you allow the 
 church to have eontinued a pure virgin and unde- 
 fined (as you express it) yet you might, in good 
 manners, have excepted the twelve apostles, whom 
 you own to have been infallible. But you (though 
 fallible) have the presumption to affirm without 
 exception of either primitive fathers, apostles, or 
 evangelists, "that you are as true catholics as 
 ever lived upon the face of the earth !" Never let 
 this shameless piece appear hereafter in your wri- 
 tings, at least, while you own your church to be 
 fallible. For certainly, nothing can be more ri- 
 diculously impudent than for you to pretend to be 
 " as true catholics as ever lived upon the face of 
 the earth," when by your doctrine of fallibility, 
 you disable yourselves from evidencing your being 
 catholics at all; yea, from having any certainty 
 of the truth of any one point of faith you hold, 
 upon your fallible church's authority.
 
 CHAP. VI.] 198 [part III. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 WHETHER THE MARKS OF GOD's CHURCH, BY WHICH 
 SHE IS NOTED IN THE APOSTLES' AND N1CENE 
 CREEDS, CAN PROPERLY BE APPLIED TO, OR AGREE 
 WITH THE PROTESTANT CHURCH OF ENGLAND ? 
 
 J. HE holy apostles, and the fathers in the Nicene 
 council have given us certain marks and notes of 
 God's church, whereby she may be known and 
 distinguished from all schismatical congregations 
 whatever. The apostles' creed gives her the cha- 
 racters of holy and catholic, the Nicene creed, one, 
 holy, satholic and apostolic. My consideration, 
 therefore, shall be, whether these four notes of 
 unity, sanctity, universality, and apostolical suc- 
 cession belong to the church of England, or, to 
 all other protestant congregations together, if you 
 please ; for what I shall say of her may in gene- 
 ral be applied to the whole body of protestants, or 
 to any one particular sect of them. 
 
 Unity. 
 To seek for this character of unity among pro- 
 testants in general, is to loose our labour ; for the 
 world knows that the Lutherans in Germany re- 
 fuse communion with the Zuinglians and Calvinists 
 of Switzerland and Geneva, and they with them ; 
 and both with the church of England, and she with 
 them ; every one of them damning one another for 
 heretics. So, in England, neither is there any 
 communion or unity among presbyterians, ana- 
 babtists, quakers, Socinians, and episcopal pro- 
 testants, &c. one party in England worrying the 
 other by penal laws; another sort in Scotland 
 kicking out the rest for limbs of antichrist ; every 
 sort gathering themselves together into separate 
 herds. See more of this above. And, as to your 
 church of England alone, she is so far from agree 1 -
 
 PART II I.J 199 [CHAP VI. 
 
 ing with herself, as cuts off all pretence to unity. 
 How often she has changed and altered her liturgy 
 and articles may be seen above. How she has 
 held and denied the real presence her writers one 
 against another can witness. You will find what 
 work was made about altars, priests, sacrifice, 
 and the real presence in the days of king Charles 
 the first, if you please to read Dr. Pocklington's 
 Altare Christianum, The coal from the altar, The 
 quench coal. The vicar of Grantham, The dead vicar s 
 plea, Laddensium autacachrysis, and the common 
 prayer book sent by the king and the archbishop 
 Laud into Scotland. See also Prin, Bastwick, 
 Kneivstubbs, Survey of the holy discipline, Perse- 
 cutio, A discourse of liturgies, The holy table, JVame 
 and thing, Gangrena, &c. If you were to begin 
 at the first common prayer book, and come down 
 from it to the second ; then to the forty-two arti- 
 cles, then to the history of the troubles of Frank- 
 fort, &c. and so on down to the writings against 
 one another, since the reformation to the schism 
 between Sancroft and Tillotson, and their parties, 
 to the Scotch presbyterian eloquence, and its an- 
 swer to their writings one against another, for and 
 against the trinity ; to Hichringil's Ceremony-mon- 
 ger, and the bishop of Sarum's exposition of the 
 thirty-nine articles ; if, I say, you were to examine 
 your church's writers and their doctrines, from its 
 beginning to this day, you would certainly believe 
 that greater Babylonical confusion plagued this 
 pretended church of yours, than ever fell upon any 
 one sort of heretics, since the days of Simon 
 Magus. 
 
 As to your present confession of faith, the 
 thirty-nine articles, not any two persons, since 
 they were made, ever yet agreed in what sense to 
 take them. For instance of their differences, 
 even in that one article of Christ's descent into 
 hell, thev have been of so manv minds, that, at
 
 CHAP VI.] 200 I PART III. 
 
 last, your whole church is forced to own, in Mr. 
 Rogers, that she is ignorant what it means. " She 
 knows not the native and undoubted sense of it." 
 And Dr. Burnet puts three different senses on it, 
 and gives liberty to every man to take it in which 
 of them he pleases. He does the same in the 
 article of predestination, yet himself holds none of 
 the three. Compare Burnet and Rogers together, 
 and see the difference. Concerning the eleventh 
 article, that faith alone justifies, compare Rogers, 
 The practice of piety, and Dr. Shelibrd's, Three 
 sermons on faith, hope and charity together, and 
 see how they agree. Consider your church's doc- 
 trine of confession and absolution, in the common 
 prayer book, and see if you find many in your 
 whole congregation that believe it. If you, par- 
 son, should preach to the people that they ought 
 to come and confess their sins to you, and that you 
 have power and authority to forgive them their 
 sins, and to absolve them from all their iniquities, 
 though you should produce both the common 
 prayer book, and forms of your ordination in proof 
 of it, yet there would not be one in a thousand 
 but would rather laugh at you than believe you. 
 If you think it is not true, pray make trial of it 
 in two or three of your next sermons. Dr. Poek- 
 lington having largely defended the doctrine of ab- 
 solution and penance, concludes thus. " I know 
 this whole discourse touching penance is not 
 pleasing :" and you will find his words true, if ever 
 you dare publicly assert the doctrine. 
 
 Neither do the protestants agree about the 
 number, necessity and efficacy of the sacraments. 
 In the Lutheran confession of Augsburgh presen- 
 ted to the Emperor Charles the fifth, anno 1530, 
 th^y hold three sacraments, baptism, the cucharist, 
 and penance. Melancthon added the sacrament 
 of orders to those three, and so held four. In 
 Lipsia they have three, in Wittenburg four, at
 
 PART in.] 201 [chap VI. 
 
 Magdeburg Illyricus and his companions owned 
 but two: the Zwenkfieldians were for none at all. 
 Cranmer held penance a sacrament, your bishop 
 Bramhall grants orders to be a sacrament ; Mr. 
 Rogers denies both these to be sacraments, and 
 teaches that baptism is not necessary to salvation, 
 and that original sin remains after baptism. 
 
 Nor is there an union in their government, some 
 holding as mtiny heads of their church as there 
 are presbyters, some as many heads as bishops ; 
 some a subordination of presbyters under their 
 diocesan bishops, and of diocesan bishops under 
 the archbishops, and of archbishops under the 
 primate. Here some have a mind to stop, but 
 others are for having the temporal prince, or lay- 
 magistrate, whether man, woman, or child, to be 
 at the head of the church. This is the doctrine of 
 the loyal part of the church of England, but dis- 
 owned by all other sorts of protcstants. Many 
 other irreconcileable differences I could shew you, 
 but these, with what already has been said in 
 several places above, are sufficient to shew that 
 protestants want the mark of Christ's church, 
 unity. 
 
 Sanctity. 
 
 This mark of Christ's church is as visible among 
 protestants as their religion was for fifteen hun- 
 dred years together, before Luther. A holy 
 priesthood they cannot be imagined to have, be- 
 cause they Avant, not only apostolical succession 
 and lawful mission, but even ordination itself, as 
 you know all the protestants beyond seas, and 
 those in Scotland and England, which are not of 
 your episcopal communion, want in very deed. 
 Witness your pretended bishops reordaining them, 
 as is above said. Consequently they have neither 
 true sacraments, nor lawful preaching among 
 them, as you may see in their complaint quoted 
 above. 
 
 < e
 
 CHAP VI. J 202 [PART III 
 
 The same may be said of your protestant church 
 of England's priesthood : for it cannot be that 
 you, who, as is clearly proved by the author of 
 Erastus Senior , have had no valid form of ordina- 
 tion from the time of your abolishing the catholic 
 ordinal in king Edward the sixth's time, till the 
 year 1662, can have either priest or bishop in your 
 pretended church. Besides the nuljity and inva- 
 lidity of that vain and insignificant form of ordi- 
 nation, devised, as its title says, by king Edward 
 the sixth, your first pretended bishop, Matthew 
 Parker, could never get any catholic bishop to 
 consecrate him ; so that all the consecration, poor 
 man, he could get was given him in the Nag's- 
 head tavern in Cheapside by John Scory, a priest 
 only, and no bishop, as Dr. Champney and the 
 author of the Nullity of the English clergy have 
 made appear in their writings ; nay, admitting 
 your pretended Lambeth Register to be true (as, 
 on the contrary, it is a forged thing, as is apparent 
 in the said two authors) yet Barlow, who is by 
 that register said to have consecrated Parker, was 
 neverb ishop himself, as I have told you above, and 
 could not, therefore, make Parker a bishop ; and 
 Parker being no bishop, neither can any in your 
 church have that character, because they all 
 depend upon him. But, if your ordination and 
 consecration were good and valid, yet you want 
 lawful mission, and therefore are not shepherds of 
 the flock, but only such as Jeremias the prophet 
 says run unsent, such as St. John, chap. 10 tells 
 us, enter not by the door but climb up some other 
 way, and are theives and robbers. And what 
 sanctity, I pray, can be expected in such a pre- 
 tended priesthood, as has neither character, nor 
 mission ? What sign of sanctity can there be in 
 those congregations, that have neither bishops, 
 priests, mission, sacraments, nor lawful preach- 
 ing ? Your abolishing the christian sacrifice, ae-
 
 PART III.] 203 [chap VI. 
 
 counting it a blasphemous fable, your doctrine of 
 concupiscence being sin, of every, even the least, 
 sin being mortal, of the impossibility of keeping 
 the commandments, of faith alone justifying, your 
 castiug away five of the seven sacraments, your 
 banishing Christ's presence from the eucharist, 
 and taking away the absolute necessity of bap- 
 tism, all which is done by your protestant church 
 in Rogers, these, I say, are so far from being 
 signs of sanctity, that they denote quite the con- 
 trary. 
 
 Consider, besides all this, the abominably 
 wicked and most infamous lives of your first pro- 
 testant pretended reformers, and tell me what 
 sign of sanctity you find find in them. By their 
 fruits you shall know them 8?c. Matt. chap. 7* 
 
 Martin Luther, who was the first protestant 
 gospeller, as he himself in E pis tola ad Argenti- 
 nes es, 9 boasts ; and Avbo (as the Tigurine protes- 
 tants in confessione Germanica edit : Tiguri anno 
 1544 say) brags of himself, " to be the prophet 
 and apostle of the Germans, who learned of no 
 man, and of whom all others have learned &c." ; 
 this first father and grandsire of protestancy, 
 owns that he had the devil for his instructor, 
 who, in, a sensible conference with him, taught 
 him arguments against the mass. " It chanced," 
 says he, " that, upon a certain time." I suddenly 
 awoke about midnight : then satan began his dis- 
 putation with me saying; " hearken right learned 
 doctor Luther, thou hast celebrated mass during 
 these fifteen years" &c. And so the devil going 
 on with arguments, which he himself there at 
 large sets down, dissuaded him from saying mass 
 any longer. See Luther's own works, Tom. 7 
 Wittcmb: fol : 228. Anno 1588. Lib. de missa 
 privaia fol. 4413. et To : h : derm : Jetiensi fol : 
 28. in lib. de missa angtilari. And Manlius, his 
 scholar, in loc : eom : testifies of him this, and
 
 CAHP. VI.] 204 [part III. 
 
 many other his familiarities with the devil. So 
 does Brerely in Apol : and life of Luther. 
 
 Many of his damnable heresies you have seen 
 above. He also taught, as he owns in his book 
 De concilus, page 2, that " the divinity of Christ 
 suffered." And he says in Confess, majore de 
 ccena domini ; " if only the human nature suffered 
 for us, Christ is a saviour of vile and small ac- 
 count, and stands in need himself, also, of a sa- 
 viour." In Tom 3, # ittemb. in Psal. 20 fol. 2/9, 
 he taught that " Christ descended into hell, there 
 also to suiter torments in soul after his death." 
 He taught that " the divinity is threefold even as 
 the three persons." He blotted out of his lita- 
 nies this verse, Holy trinity, one God, have mercy 
 on us, affirming that " the word trinity is but a 
 human invention, and sounds coldly" ; and that 
 " his soul hates the word homousion." He left 
 out of his Dutch bibles that text of scripture 
 where St. John, 1st. epistle, chap. 5, says, " there 
 are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, 
 the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three 
 are one." See Enchirid. printed anno 1543, Pos- 
 tel, Brerely, Cnoglerus in Symb. tria, Ulembay in 
 Gratia et Just. Con. edit. 1589. Dr. Burnet also 
 discredits this text. Luther makes God the 
 author of sin, saying, " how can man prepare 
 himself to good, seeing it is not in his power to 
 make his ways evil, for God worketh the wicked 
 work in tin; wicked." See Brerely, tract 2, and 
 the first editions of Luther's own works printed 
 at Wittemberg, and in edit. Basil 1521. His de- 
 testable pride in contemning the ancient fathers, 
 and even the apostles themselves, is intolerable. 
 " The gospel," says he, " is so copiously preached 
 by sis, that, truly, in the apostles' time it was not 
 so clear." " I certainly know that neither Au- 
 gustine nor Ambrose are equal to me. The fa- 
 thers of so many ages have been plainly blind
 
 PART III. | 205 [ CHAP. VI. 
 
 and most ignorant in the scriptures, and have 
 erred all their life-time, and, unless they were 
 amended at their deaths, they were neither saints, 
 nor pertaining to the church." See Knot's Pro- 
 testancy condemned, and Brerely. " In the writings 
 of Jerora there is not a word of true faith, Christ, 
 and sound religion. Tertullian is very supersti- 
 tious ; I have holden Origen long since accursed. 
 Of Chrysostom I make no account. Basil is of 
 no worth ; he is wholly a monk ; I weigh him 
 not a hair. Cyprian is a weak divine," &c. " Be 
 it so that the church, Augustine, and other doc- 
 tors, also Peter, Apollo, yea, an angel from hea- 
 ven teach otherwise, yet, my doctrine is such, that 
 it sets forth God's glory," &c. " Peter, the chief 
 of the apostles, did live and teach, besides the 
 word of God, (extra verbum Dciy " I value 
 not, if a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cy- 
 prians," &c. " stand against me. If Cyprian, 
 Ambrose, Augustine, Peter, Paul, yea, an angel 
 from heaven teach otherwise, notwithstanding, I 
 certainly know that what I teach is not human 
 but divine." You may see all these sayings of 
 his extracted out of his own works by Brere- 
 ly, and the author of Protestancy condemned. Or, 
 if you have a mind to examine his works, see 
 lib. ad. Ducem Georgium Colloq. lot. Ad Gallatas 
 c. 1, torn. 2, torn. 5, torn. /J, edit ffittemb. Lib. 
 dc servo, arbitrio. Col. mensal. lib. contra Regent 
 Angli, &c. His filthy and unclean doctrines may 
 be found dispersed over all his works. " No- 
 thing," says he, " is more sweet or loving upon 
 earth, than the love of a woman, if a man can 
 obtain it." In Prov. 31. marg. " I am burnt," 
 says he, " with the great flame of my untamed 
 flesh." Tom 1, ep. tat. fol. 334. He owns him- 
 self to have been almost mad through the rage 
 of lust. Col. mensal. l\r was so hasty in his 
 sacrilegious marriage with Catharine Boren, an
 
 chap, vi.] 206 L PA ^ T W* 
 
 apostate nun, that he could not stay till the next 
 day, but married in the night. Melancthon ep 
 ad Joac. Camer : In con. evang. He affirms, that 
 polygamy is no more abrogated than the rest of 
 Moses' law, and that it is free, as being neither 
 commanded nor forbidden. Tom. 5, Wittemb, 
 fol. 122, and in Explic. Geneseos edit, 1525, and 
 Brerely. " If the wife will not, or cannot come, 
 gays he, let the maid come." Brerely. The Ma- 
 gistrates' duty is to bridle the wife, yea, to put 
 her to death ; which, if the magistrates omit, the 
 husband is to imagine his wife to be stolen away 
 by thieves, and dead, and consider how to marry 
 another." Sermon de Matrimonio, Tom 5, Wit. 
 He was an excessive drinker, in so much that in 
 Germany to this day, they have this proverb, 
 Bibamus Lutheranice, that is, let us drink Luther 
 like. His doctrine of faith alone justifying, gave 
 him liberty for all sorts of vice. " It sufficeth," 
 says he, " that we know the riches of the glory 
 of God, the lamb which takes away the sins of the 
 world ; from him sin cannot draw us, though we 
 commit fornication or murder a thousand times in 
 one day ;" ep. ad. Phil. fol. >34 and 835. He calls 
 it impiety to affirm, that faith justifies not without 
 charity, in Galatas, c. 2 ; and says farther, " un- 
 less faith be without even the least good works it 
 does not justify, nay, it is not faith;" torn. 1, 
 prop. 3. '* A christian, or one baptised, is so rich 
 that, though he would, he could not lose his sal- 
 vation by any sin though never so great, unless he 
 will not believe ;" torn. 2, IVittemb. de captiv. Bab. 
 And in the same place, class 5. Pastel Gcr. part 2, 
 anno 1537, he says, " no sin is so great as can 
 condemn a man, for only infidelity condemns all 
 even who are damned ; and, on the contrary, only 
 faith makes all men blessed." This is your pro- 
 testant apostle, Mr. Ritschel, the most glorious 
 of your reformers ; this is he whom your master,
 
 PAltT III. J 207 [CHAP YI. 
 
 John Jewel, styles " a man sent from God to en- 
 lighten the world," and whom yonr martyrologer 
 styles " the Elias, conductor and chariot of Israel, 
 to be reverenced next after Christ and Paul : Act* 
 and monuments', and Gabriel Powel canonizes 
 him by the name of " holy saint Luther." If such 
 be your saints, God bless us from your sinners. 
 
 John Calvin was another of your infamous re- 
 formers. His doctrines may be seen above. His 
 delicacy in diet, his pride, his writing letters in 
 his own praise under the name of Galasius and 
 others, and sending them to Peter Viscsius, min- 
 nister of Lausanna, to be by him dispersed abroad, 
 his incontinency and abominable lusts, his seditious 
 doctrines and reproachful words against princes, 
 his bargin with one Bruel and his wife, that this 
 Bruel should feign himself dead, and Calvin, in 
 Confirmation of his doctrine and sanctity, should 
 by miracle raise him to life in the presence of 
 many witnesses, which when he attempted, Bruel 
 was by the just judgement of God found dead in- 
 deed : upon which his wife exclaimed publicly 
 against Calvin, and discovered the whole impos- 
 ture, and what money Calvin conditioned to give 
 her husband ; these and much more, you may find 
 in Bolsec, who wrote his life, as also in Brerely 
 and Protc.stancy condemned. As also his adultery 
 with a gentlewoman of Mongis, whom he tempted 
 to steal away from her husband at Lausanna, and 
 make her abode with him at Geneva. He also 
 endeavoured to tempt to the like wickedness the 
 lady Jollande of Bredrode, wife to James Bur- 
 gongue, lord of Falaisc ; so that, through his 
 beastly importunities, she was forced to persuade 
 her husband to leave Geneva and go with her to 
 live at Lausanna, where she revealed the whole 
 matter. It was testified against him by the whole 
 city of Moyen, that he was by the magistrates of 
 that city branded in the shoulder with a hot iron
 
 CHAP VI."] 208 [ FART III. 
 
 for sodomy. This was notified against him by the 
 said city to Monsieur Bertlier, secretary of Ge- 
 neva, under the hand of a public notary. A brave 
 protestant saint ! 
 
 Zuinglius, another holy reformer, for his im- 
 pious doctrines, as that baptism is not necessary, 
 but a thing indifferent ; that God is the author of 
 sin; that heathens may be saved &c. comes 
 equally up with the two former : nor is he much 
 short of them in his unchaste and filthy desires of 
 the flesh, as may be seen in what he wrote to the 
 Helvetian republic. " The lustful desires- of the 
 flesh," says he, "to burn in us we cannot deny, 
 seeing that by means thereof we are rendered in- 
 famous before the congregation. We know by 
 experience that the weakness of our flesh has often 
 been the cause of our falling. This and much 
 more he and his followers wrote for reasons to the 
 Helvetians, to grant them licence, being priests, to 
 marry. And in another epistle to the bishop of 
 eonstance, anno 1522, he Fabritius, Leo, Jude, 
 and eight or nine others, whose names were all 
 subscribed, cry out for wives, saying " we have 
 burned so hotly that we have committed many 
 unhandsome and unseemly things." Thus were 
 they perpetually possessed by the unclean spirit of 
 fornication. See Brer el y. 
 
 John Knox began his reformation in Scotland 
 with the confessed murder of the cardinal of St. 
 Andrews, in his bed chamber, as also with actual 
 rebellion against Queen Mary of Scotland, who, 
 through his and his reformers means, was at last 
 banished out of her kingdom into England, where 
 queen Elizabeth most inhumanly imprisoned her 
 fifteen years together, and then barbarously cut 
 off her head, not allowing her to have her con- 
 fessor by her at her death. He published treason- 
 able and seditious writings, affirming, that "prin- 
 ces may be deposed, if they become tyrants, and act
 
 PART III.] 209 [chap VI.' 
 
 against God and his truth," (meaning his pretend- 
 ed true religion) saying also that " it were very 
 good that rewards were publicly appointed by the 
 people for such as kill tyrants, (as he calls catho- 
 lic princes) as well as for those who kill other 
 beasts of prey." These and such like were the 
 impious and detestable doctrines of John Knox 
 and other pretended reformers, who persisted in 
 them. He and other authors of the pretended re- 
 formation led wicked lives and died miserable 
 deaths. King Harry the eighth, as Sanders writes 
 in his book De Schismate Jlnglicano, sent out his 
 last breath in these desperate words : it Perdidi- 
 mus omnia" " wchave lost all" 
 
 Anna Boleyn, the cause of King Harry's de- 
 parture from his own queen and schism from the 
 church, was by the said king, her unlawful hus- 
 band, beheaded for incest with her own brother, 
 the Lord Itochford, and adultery with other three. 
 
 Thomas Cromwell, king Harry's great agent 
 in pulling down religious houses, abbeys, monas- 
 teries and nunneries, died by the hand of the ex- 
 ecutioner for treason, in the height of his great- 
 ness, condemned by king Harry, his master. 
 
 The Lord Seymour, duke of Somerset, the 
 chief actor in king Edward the sixths days in 
 bringing in protestancy, was by order of his ne- 
 phew, the young king, beheaded for a traitor. 
 So was also Sir Thomas Seymour, his brother. 
 All this and much more of others may be seen in 
 the protestant historians of this nation. 
 
 The earl of Murray, Knox's chief aider in set- 
 tling protestancy in Scotland, died in the height of 
 his triumphs for his sister's blood by a pistol bullet 
 shot at him by one of the Hammiltons, in revenge 
 of a mischief formerly done him by the said Mur- 
 ray. Of John Knox king .lames the first said, 
 " God in his justice set a visible mark at his going 
 out the world." He, being in his sickness, called 
 d d
 
 CHAP VI. J 210 [PART HI. 
 
 for drink, which the maid that then waited with 
 him going down to fetch, she found him at her 
 return pulled out of bed by the devil, and laid dead 
 on the floor, with a most horrid, frightful, and 
 ghastly countenance, the candle and fire totally 
 extinct, and a most ugly, thick, and stinking dark- 
 ness in the room. This you may find in Knott's 
 Protestuncy condemned. 
 
 Let any rational man consider whether those 
 <f glorious reformers," as you call them, were like 
 missioners sent from God, or apostolical men au- 
 thorised and sent by Christ, or the Holy Ghost's 
 inspiration, to plant the faith of Christ or reform 
 his holy catholic church. Consider, further, that 
 those first protestants, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer 
 &c. were in their faiths different from one another, 
 the Lutherans condemning the Zuinglians and Cal- 
 vinists for heretics, these as deeply cursing 
 them. As to the lives and manners of their fol- 
 lowers, especially the pretended bishops and 
 clergy of the church of England, they have ever 
 since the pretended reformation been too notorious, 
 and, at this day, are too well known to be taken 
 for saints, or their lives for signs of sanctity. But 
 this I press not for an argument of their church's 
 want of sanctity, so much as I do that of their 
 first beginners. For, if God almighty had any way 
 testified the sanctity and truth of their religion 
 at its beginning, it is not the immoralities, vices 
 or bad examples of wicked men, though in the 
 highest ecclesiastical dignity or office in it, could 
 have rendered the religion itself, if otherwise true 
 and holy, false or impious. 
 
 But, I say, for the very first broachers and be- 
 ginners of a new religion, as Luther was of his, 
 Cranmer of his, Calvin of his, to be men of the 
 most abominable, wicked, and most scandalously 
 infamous lives; yea, and so hated by God, as to be 
 Struck to death like Julian, the apostate, or He-
 
 PART III.] 211 [CHAP VI. 
 
 rod by the revenging hand of divine justice ; for 
 such beginners of religion, I say, to be such men, 
 is an evident sign and sufficient argument, that 
 neither themselves are called and sent by God, nor 
 inspired by his holy spirit, and consequently, that 
 the new faith or religion they pretend to introduce 
 and establish, is neither true, holy, or what God 
 has appointed for the world to follow and believe. 
 
 God never sent either prophet or apostle with 
 any extraordinary commission, but he testified 
 their mission and doctrine to be from him by the 
 grace of holy lives, and the divine gift of super- 
 natural works and miracles, as is evident in Moses 
 and the prophets, in the apostles, and all those 
 apostolical men, that in several ages have convert- 
 ed the nations of the earth to Christianity. Yea, 
 even those whom God appointed to begin religious 
 orders and yet more extraordinary ways of pious 
 living in his church, he always endued with extra- 
 ordinary virtues, sanctity and gift of divine mira- 
 cles, as his seal and testificate, whereby the world 
 might know their commission, and what they es- 
 tablished was from him. But, as from the several 
 sorts of protestants, neither in their beginning 
 were they by God attested for true prophets, 
 neither by sanctity or the gift of miracles, nor has 
 there ever been any one saint, that they can name, 
 of any of their religions to this day. All which 
 considered, there need be no more said in evi- 
 dence, that protestants want this note of Christ's 
 church, sanctity. 
 
 Universality. 
 
 There needs not much to be said to this, for, I 
 think, neither all the protestants together, much 
 less any one sect of them, will, upon serious con- 
 sideration, pretend to it. Before the year lol7 
 there was not any one sort of them in being in 
 any age, or in any one place in the whole world, 
 as it is evident from their never being able to
 
 CHAP. VI."] 212 [part III, 
 
 name one before Martin Luther. As to the 
 church of England and that sort in communion 
 with it, they can pretend to deduce their pedigree 
 no higher than Craumer, I should rather say 
 Parker ; and they know very well, that, in the 
 beginning of king Harry the eighth's reign, the 
 whole nation was catholics, and protestants were 
 unheard of in it, or in any other part of the 
 world: nor does this pretended church, at this 
 day, extend any further than the dominions of 
 the king of England, nor scarce are half of them 
 of its communion. It is, then, impossible that it 
 should be universal. Neither is there any commu- 
 nion, either in faith, worship, ceremonies, or 
 government, between it and any other church, 
 whether protestant, catholic, or schismatic, in 
 the whole world, that they know or can name, as 
 is shewn above. Besides, there is neither any of 
 your English protestant communion, nor any 
 other sort of protestants whatever, who have 
 ever converted any nation in the world to Christi- 
 anity. If there be, name it, and by whom it was 
 made christian. But this you cannot do. So 
 that we may say of you, as Tertullian (lib. de 
 prrescrip) said of the heretics of his time, " your 
 work is not to convert strangers to Jesus Christ, 
 but to pervert his domestics." But you, Sir, have 
 said enough to your universality already, when 
 you call it a wild and extravagant thing to bid 
 you prove your church the one, holy catholic 
 church, so that, both from your own grant and 
 from what is here said, you have not this mark of 
 Christ's church, universality. 
 
 Apostolical succession. 
 First, as for all those sorts of protestants, who 
 are not of your church of England's communion, 
 your practice of reordaining their ministers, as is 
 said, is an undeniable argument of their wanting 
 apostolical succession, even in your own opinions.
 
 PART III. I 213 | CHAP. "VI. 
 
 As for your pretended church, if she presumes to 
 pretend herself apostolical, let her shew herself 
 to be so by producing a list or catalogue of her 
 protestant bishops succeeding one another in an 
 uninterrupted line of succession from some of the 
 apostles to this day. But, this has so often been 
 demanded by catholic writers, that if, there had 
 been any probability of doing it, we should cer- 
 tainly have heard of it, and seen it too, long 
 before this ; and without this it is in vain to pre- 
 tend yourselves apostolic. In short, seeing yo u 
 had neither bishop, priest, nor professors of your 
 protestant religion before the year 151/, it is im- 
 possible your pretended church should be aposto- 
 lic. Indeed, Sir, you had reason to call it a wild 
 and extravagant fancy to bid you prove your 
 church the one, holy, catholic and apostolic 
 church, and to declare you should not trouble 
 yourself to give it an answer; seeing it is thus 
 undeniably evident, that your church has neither 
 unitj^, sanctity, universality, nor apostolical suc- 
 cession. 
 
 Consider then, Mr. Ritschel, upon what grounds 
 you venture your eternal salvation, while you 
 continue a member -of this protestant congrega- 
 tion, or pretended church, that has not so much 
 as one single note, or mark, or character belong- 
 ing to the church of Christ.
 
 CHAP. VII.] 214 [part III. 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONE, HOLY, 
 CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 OBSERVE, in the first place, that the whole 
 and only rule of the catholic faith, to which all 
 are subject under pain of heresy and excommu- 
 nication, is divine revelation delivered to the pro- 
 phets and apostles, proposed by the catholic church 
 in her general councils, or by her universal practice, 
 to be believed as an article of catholic faith, the 
 same of which is contained in the apostles' creed, 
 either expressly there set down, or under this 
 article, I believe in the holy catholic church, by 
 which article all christians are obliged to believe 
 whatsoever the holy catholic church delivers and 
 proposes to be believed as matter of faith divine- 
 ly revealed. Consequently, all are obliged to 
 believe the other creeds of the church, as the 
 Athanasian, Nicene,andTridentine creeds, in which 
 the several articles of the catholic faith are more 
 expressly declared than in that of the apostles, 
 especially in the Tridentine creed, extracted by 
 pope Pius the fourth out of the council of Trent. 
 All, I say, are obliged to believe the said creeds 
 or professions of faith, because, according to our 
 rule of faith, they are proposed by the catholic 
 church in her general councils and universal 
 practice as articles of faith divinely revealed to 
 be believed. 
 
 Whatever is not of this nature and authority, 
 as the opinions of schools, canonists, private 
 doctors, doctrines grounded upon scripture va- 
 riously interpreted by private men and other dis- 
 putable matters or private opinions, pot being 
 ascertained to us, nor proposed by the church,
 
 PART III. J 215 [CHAP VII. 
 
 though they may be true in themselves, yet are 
 not of obligation to be believed as matters of 
 faith This I give you to understand, that you 
 may know how to distinguish between matters or 
 articles of faith, and private opinions that are but 
 of human authority. Now let us proceed to 
 apply the marks of Christ's church to the church 
 of Rome. 
 
 Unity. 
 
 This character the church of Rome justly claims. 
 First, as to her faith, all her members throughout 
 the whole world have and believe one and the 
 same faith, even the vulgar and most ignorant, 
 that have not capacities of knowing explicitly, 
 distinctly, and in particular all the several articles 
 of it, do nevertheless assent to and believe in gen- 
 eral whatever the church believes. By believing 
 in this manner and disbelieving nothing, the sim- 
 ple, unlearned, and most ignorant have and be- 
 lieve the whole faith as entirely as the most learn- 
 ed that know explicitly and in particular every 
 article thereof. Thus every one believes all, every 
 one believes the same, no one disbelieves what 
 the rest believe, no one believes what the rest 
 deny. What greater unity than this can there be, 
 either in things to be believed, or in the persons 
 believing ? The church does not teach one faith in 
 one nation and another faith in another, but the one 
 and the same faith in every part of the world. Nor 
 does she teach, in this age, what was not the faith of 
 the prcceeding one, but, what she received from 
 the apostles, that she faithfully preserves, and 
 delivers down through every age to posterity. 
 See this proved in Coccius and Gaulterius. 
 
 The union of the church of Rome is also as 
 entire in its worship and government as in its faith. 
 As to its worship, it is one and the same through 
 the whole church. One God in Trinity and Tri- 
 nity in Unity is every where worshipped and ador-
 
 CHAP VII.] 216 [part III. 
 
 ed. One and the same sacrifice, the precious body 
 and blood of Christ, is daily offered to God the 
 Father in the great christian sacrifice, the mass, 
 through the whole church. The same sacraments, 
 both in number, virtue, and efficacy are in all pla- 
 ces duly administered. The church triumphant in 
 heaven is every where honoured by this church on 
 earth : the saints and angels there are invocated 
 and desired to pray to God for us here. They, 
 in like manner, continually offer up their prayers 
 to God for us, the church militant on earth. That 
 part of the church now suffering in purga- 
 tory is also daily prayed for to God by the mem- 
 bers of this church. Thus, there is a communion 
 among all the members of Christ's church, whe- 
 ther militant on earth, suffering in purgatory, or 
 triumphant in heaven. This is the communion of 
 saints, the .unity of that mystical body of which 
 Christ is the head. 
 
 As to the government of the church of Rome, 
 all its members throughout the world are united 
 together in communion under one and the same 
 priesthood and episcopal government, terminating 
 in one high priest, the chief bishop ; all, both 
 laity, priests, and bishops being united in one 
 subordination of government under the same one, 
 universal, chief bishop, the pope of Rome, the 
 visible head over all the members. Thus, the 
 church of Rome, wherever i,t is diffused through 
 the whole world, is one visible flock under one 
 visible pastor. 
 
 This blessed union the prophet Ezechiel, chap. 
 37, foretold when, speaking of the unity of 
 Christ's kingdom, his church, he says, J will make 
 them one nation in the land upon the mountains of 
 Israel, and one king shall be king over them all, 
 and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall 
 tliey be divided into two kingdoms any more at all. 
 And David, my servant, shall be king over them.
 
 FART III.] 217 [CHAP VII. 
 
 and they shall have one sheplterd. This prophecy 
 is verified chiefly in Christ himself, who is the 
 one king and shepherd over the whole church 
 militant and triumphant. And, as to the visible 
 church on earth, it alludes also to St. Peter and 
 his sucoessor, who were by Christ himself made 
 chief pastors and feeders of his whole flock in 
 these words, feed my lambs, feed my sheep. For 
 this pastor our Saviour prayed that his faith should 
 not fail. Luke, 22. 
 
 For this flock he also prayed that it might be 
 one, in these words ; Holy Father, keep, through 
 thy own name, those whom thou hast given me, that 
 they may be one as we are one : neither do I pray 
 for these alone, but for them also who shall believe 
 in me through all the icorlcl, that they may be all 
 one as thou Father in me, and 1 in thee, that they 
 may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou 
 hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me 
 I have given them that they may be one even as we 
 are one ; I in them and thou in me, that they mail 
 be made perfect in one, and that the ivorld may 
 knoiv that thou hast sent me, <tnd hast loved them 
 as thou hast loved me. 
 
 And thus much is sufficient to shew that St. 
 Peter's flock, the church of Rome, has this mark 
 of Christ's church, unity. 
 
 Sanctity. 
 
 This character of Christ's church justly be- 
 longs to the church of Home, in which is a holy 
 priesthood instituted by Christ himself, the author 
 of ail sanctity, from whom it has lawfully descend- 
 ed down to us, conferred by a sacrament in which 
 the grace of the Holy Ghost is given. In this 
 church is a holy sacrifice, the Lamb of God, who 
 takes away the sins of the world, the same that 
 was once offered upon the cross still continued and 
 daily offered upon her altars. In her are holy 
 sacraments instituted by Christ, forgiving sin and 
 e e
 
 CHAP VII. J 218 [part III. 
 
 confering grace. Original sin is cleansed by bap- 
 tism, actual sin by the sacrament of penance. 
 The sacrament of confirmation confers into the 
 souls of her members all the gifts and fruits of 
 the Holy Ghost in a most plentiful manner. Mar- 
 ried people are sanctified by the sacrament of 
 marriage. The sick are cleansed, sanctified and 
 prepared for their last end by the sacrament of 
 extreme unction. And by receiving the holy and 
 blessed body and blood of Christ, in the holy eu- 
 charist, all the members become one, holy, and 
 sanctified body united to Christ its head. 
 
 Tn this church is a holy faith, testified for such 
 by God himself with divine miracles, taught by 
 the Son of God, and delivered to her by his holy 
 apostles, and by her preserved and taught to all 
 her members. 
 
 The sanctity of the church of Rome is yet far- 
 ther evident from the holy lives of infinite num- 
 bers of religious of both sexes, in all parts of the 
 world, who have dedicated themselves to Christ, 
 their spouse, by the three vows of poverty, chas- 
 tity and obedience. The austere and mortified 
 lives of the religious, their fastings, their watch- 
 ings, their prayers, their self denials &c. give tes- 
 timony to their sanctity. And even those who 
 live in the world, in the midst of secular affairs, 
 and under the daily combat against their three 
 enemies, the world, the flesh and the devil, give 
 great testimony of their sanctity by their just, 
 pious and virtuous lives, by their daily resisting 
 temptations of all sorts, by denying themselves 
 and their own corrupt inclinations, their willingly 
 suffering the loss of their goods, estates, imprison- 
 ments, and even loss of life for their holy faith 
 and the love of God. Their extraordinary works 
 of charity, their alms-deeds, hospitality, feeding 
 the hungry, clothing the naked, redeeming cap- 
 tives, visiting and assisting the sick, relieving the
 
 PART III.] 219 [CHAP VII. 
 
 fatherless, widows, and oppressed, helping and 
 assisting one another in their necessities, and all 
 this purely for the love of God, give testimony to 
 the sanctity of this church. 
 
 And, lastly, the sanctity of this church is further 
 testified by God himself, in the infinite number of 
 great saints and blessed martyrs, who have, in all 
 ages, beautified her by their pure and holy lives, 
 and whose sanctity God has attested by" the 
 many great and stupendous miracles which they 
 wrought. 
 
 Of what church in the world, if not of this, did 
 Go I speak by the prophet Ezechiel, when he said- 
 chapter 8/ * i I will set my sanctuary in the midst of 
 them for evermore and the heathen sanctuary shall 
 know that I, the Lord, do sanctify Israel, when my 
 sanctuary shall he in the midst of them for ever. 
 For the sanctity of this his flock our Saviour pray- 
 ed, John, chap. 1J> saying, sanctify them through 
 thy truth ; thy word is truth. As thou hast sent 
 me into the world, even so 1 have also sent them 
 into the world, and for their sakes 1 sanctify my- 
 self that they also might he sanctified through thy 
 truth. St. Peter the holy pastor of the church, 
 Ephes. 1 chap. 1, thus exhorts his flock. As he 
 who has called you is holy, so be ye holy in all 
 manner of conversation, because it is written : be 
 you holy as I am holy. And chap. 2. But you are 
 a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy na- 
 tion. St. Paul in his 1st. chap, to the Romans 
 tells them : they arc called to be saints, and Ephes. 
 5th. Christ loved the church, says he, and gave 
 himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it 
 with washing of water by the word, that he might 
 present it to himself a glorious church not having 
 spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it .should 
 be holy and without blemish. From what has been 
 said of the sanctity of the church of Rome and of 
 the protectant church wanting it, it is undeniably
 
 CHAP. VII.~| 220 [part iil. 
 
 evident, that to her, and not to them, all those 
 texts of scripture are justly to be applied ; con- 
 sequently that the church of Rome has this mark 
 of the church of Christ, sanctity. 
 Universality, 
 
 This note of Christ's church none will deny to 
 the church of Rome, who knows her extent and 
 the conversions of the nations of the earth unto 
 her 'faith. Read Mermanus's Theatrum tonver- 
 sionis Gentium, totius orbis, and you will find that 
 all nations in the world, which have ever been 
 converted from idolatry to Christianity, have em- 
 braced the faith of St. Peter and his successors, 
 the bishops of Rome, and entered into the commu- 
 nion of the Roman church, so that her extent has 
 always reached as far as Christianity itself. Those 
 who, at any time, fell off from her faith and com- 
 munion were, by all the rest of the catholic church, 
 taken for schismatical heretics, as the Arians, 
 Eutychians, Nestorians, Armenians, and those 
 oriental and African churches that fell off to these 
 heresies. Yet neither was her faith extirpated 
 or totally extinct, even in those parts where the 
 said heresies raged the most. For it appears 
 from the testimonies of Basilius, archbishop of 
 Thessaloniea, and Demetrius, archbishop of Bul- 
 garia, extant in the codex juris orientalis that the 
 oriental bishops and churches never all forsook 
 the communion of the see of Rome. Nor were 
 all the christians in Syria, Mesapotamia, Babylo- 
 nica &c. infected with the above mentioned here- 
 sies, or divided from the communion of the church 
 of Rome, as appears in JMirus's JVotitia episco- 
 patuum Vitruvius, Leonardus Abell and other 
 authors. 
 
 In our later ages, since protestancy began to 
 cloud some of these northern parts of Europe, the 
 Roman church has dilated to admiration in other 
 regions of the earth, as not only into several parts
 
 PART III. J 221 fCHAP VII. 
 
 in the heart of Asia and Africa, but even into the 
 remotest parts of the east, as into the East Indies, 
 China, Japan, Tartary and the islands of the In- 
 dian, Chinese, and Japonian seas : into the West 
 Indies and most parts of America and the West 
 Indian islands. See the history of those parts, 
 the Jesuit's letters, and the life of St. Francis 
 Xavier. 
 
 Besides, the many great and general councils, 
 consisting of Bishops and doctors gathered toge- 
 ther from all parts of the christian w; rid, all own- 
 ing and embracing the faith and communion of the 
 church of Rome, and excommunicating for schis- 
 matics and heretics whoever denied it, sufficiently 
 evidences the universality of the Roman church : so 
 that in her is truly verified what God spoke in the 
 book of Genesis, chap. 28 ; Thy seed shall be as 
 the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad 
 to the east and to the west, to the north and to the 
 south, and in thee and in thy seed shall all the fa- 
 milies of the earth be blessed. In psalm the second 
 it is written, .Jsk of me and I will give thee the 
 heathen for thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts 
 of the earth for thy possession. And psalm 85, 
 All nations whatsoever thou hast made shall come 
 and worship before thee. Isaiah, ch. 6*0, it is said, 
 The Gentiles shall come to light and kings to the 
 brightness of thy rising. The abundance of the 
 sea shall be converted unto thee. The sons of 
 strangers shall build upon thy walls and their kings 
 shall minister unto thee. Thy gates shall be con- 
 tinually open, they shall not be shut day nor night, 
 that men may bring unto thee the forces of the 
 Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought unto 
 thee. For the nation and kingdom that will not 
 serve thee shall utterly perish ; yea those nations 
 shall be utterly wasted. How truly are those 
 words verified in the eastern schismatics, who no 
 sooner left and divided themselves from the Ro-
 
 CHAP VII.] 222 [ PART III. 
 
 man church, but they were wasted, overrun and 
 made slaves by the Mahometans and Turks, under 
 whom the Greeks, Nestorians, Eutychians and 
 others of those oriental schismatics and heretics 
 miserably languish to this day, and, which is 
 worse than forsaking the Roman church, their 
 faith perished, and is utterly wasted by heresy and 
 infidelity. But Christ's church, built upon St. Pe- 
 ter, the rock, can never perish, as God promised 
 by the prophet Daniel, chap. 2, in these words : 
 The God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which 
 shall never be destroyed and the kingdom shall not 
 be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces, 
 and consume all those kingdoms and it shall stand 
 for ever. And chap. 4- His kingdom is an ever- 
 lasting kingdom and his dominion from generation 
 to generation. Chap. 7. There was given him 
 dominion and glory and a kingdom, that ail people, 
 nations and languages should serve him. His domi- 
 nion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass 
 awai), and his kingdom that which shall not be des- 
 troyed. But the saints of the most high shall take 
 the kingdom and possess it for ever, even for ever and 
 ever. The kingdom and dominion and the greatness 
 of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given 
 to the saints of the most high, whose kingdom is an 
 everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve 
 and obey him. 
 
 Our blessed Lady, the mother of God, was told 
 by the angel, Luke, chap. 1 ver. 31, that she shall 
 conceive and bring forth a son and shall call his 
 name Jesus, he shall be great and shall be called 
 the son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give 
 unto him the throne of his father David and he shall 
 reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his 
 kingdom there shall be no end. 
 
 Our blessed Saviour, the Son of God, thus sent 
 by his omnipotent Father to found and establish 
 this his kingdom, his glorious and universal church,
 
 PART III. | 223 [ CHAP. VII. 
 
 prepares for it a most solid, firm and ever dura- 
 ble foundation, and builds it upon him whom he 
 made to be the rock, upon which it should always 
 stand, saying to him, blessed art thou, Simon Bar- 
 jona tyc. I say unto thee that thou art Peter and up- 
 on this rock will I build my church and the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against it. St. Matt. 16. 
 
 His holy church being thus securely founded 
 upon this rock, he also gave to this great apostle, 
 St. Peter, power and pastoral authority to feed 
 and govern it, giving him the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven and bidding him to feed his sheep. He 
 sends his apostles (and in them bishops and priests 
 of his church under St. Peter and his successors, 
 their head) to gather all the nations of the earth 
 into it, St. Matthew 28 and St. Mark 16, giving 
 them their commission in these words " Go ye, 
 therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father and of the Son, and 
 of the holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all 
 things whatsoever I have commanded you, and be- 
 hold I am with you all days even to the end of the 
 world. And, for their security in teaching only 
 true and sound doctrine, he promises them. John, 
 14 and 16, to pray to the Father to send the holy 
 Ghost, the spirit of truth, the comforter, who shall 
 abide with them for ever and shall teach them all 
 things and guide them into all truth. According to 
 this commission, his apostles, and the other bi- 
 shops and priests of his church, have converted 
 and gathered together all the nations of the 
 christian world unto this one fold, over which 
 St. Peter and his successors are the chief pastors, 
 the church of Rome. This church therefore is 
 universal. 
 
 Apostolical succession. 
 
 This mark of Christ's church the protcstant 
 historians themselves own to belong to the church 
 of Rome, as appears by theirs, as well as by the
 
 chap, til] 224 [fart in. 
 
 catholic chronicles, in which are recorded the 
 names of her chief bishops, in a continued line of 
 succession from St. Peter, the apostle, down to 
 our times. St. Peter, that rock, upon which Christ 
 built his church, that apostle to whom Christ gave 
 the keys, that pastor to whom Christ gave power 
 and authority to feed and govern his whole flock, 
 that confirmer of his brethren, for whom Christ 
 prayed that his faith should never fail, has never 
 wanted a successor in his apostolic chair, from his 
 time even to our present pope Innocent the twelfth, 
 who now sits in the see apostolic, the head of 
 the church. 
 
 Besides, the church of Rome has, at all times 
 since the apostles, continued visible to the world, 
 bishops, priests and people visibly communicating 
 with her from all parts of the christian world ; 
 ecclesiastical writers, fathers, doctors publicly de- 
 fending her faith in all ages ; saints, martyrs and 
 public professors of her faith in all ages ; eighteen 
 general councils, besides almost innumerable others, 
 ail defending her faith, owning and embracing her 
 faith; in which the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled 
 chap. vi. ver. 6, J have set watchmen upon thy 
 walls, Jerusalem, which shall never hold their 
 peace day or night. And in her continued succes- 
 sion of chief pastors is verified what was foretold 
 by Jeremias the prophet, chap. 33, Thus saith the 
 Jjnrd of hosts. Again in this place which is de- 
 solate 4*c. shall be an habitation of shepherds, 
 causing their flocks to lie down in the cities of the 
 mountains fyc. And in the city of Judsa shall 
 the flocks pass again under the hands of him who 
 counteth them, neither shall the priests of the 
 Levites want a man before me to offer Imrnt of- 
 ferings, to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacri- 
 fice continually. Thus saith the Lord, if you can 
 break my covenant of the day and my covenant 
 of the nights, and that there should not be a day
 
 TART III.] 225 [chap VII. 
 
 and night in their season : then may also my cove- 
 nant be broken with David, my servant, that he 
 should not have a son to reign upon his throne 
 and with the Levifes, the priests, my ministers. 
 So that day, and night shall sooner leave off suc- 
 ceeding one another, than the succession of pas- 
 tors fail or be interrupted in God's Church. 
 Christ, says St. Paul to the Ephesians chap. 4 ver. 
 1 2, gave some apostles, and some prophets and 
 some evangelists and some pastors, to the consum- 
 mation of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, 
 unto the edifying the body of Christ, until ive all 
 meet in the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son 
 of God. 
 
 The Roman church is not only apostolical in her 
 chief pastors', bishops', priests', and people's per- 
 petual visibility and entire succession, but also, 
 in her faith, doctrine, sacrifice and sacraments, 
 which she has always held entire and inviolate, 
 from the times of the apostles to this day, as evi- 
 dently appears from the holy scriptures rightly 
 expounded, and from the general councils, and in 
 the writings of the holy fathers and doctors of 
 every age since the apostles, whose testimonies in 
 defence of every point of faith, now in debate be- 
 tween her and her adversaries, you may find col- 
 lected out of their works, as I have said above, 
 by Jodocus Coceiusin his Thesaurus Catholicus and 
 in Gaulteruss Tabulce chronologies?, which neither 
 protestants nor any other pretended church in the 
 world can evidence of theirs. In the Roman 
 church only, therefore, is verified what was 
 spoken by the prophets. Isaias the prophet chap. 
 2, says: in the last day, it shall come to pass that the 
 mountain of the house of the Lord shall he estab- 
 lished on the lops of mountains, and it shall he ex- 
 alted above the hills, and people flow unto it. And 
 many nations shall come and say, let us go up to 
 the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the 
 v f
 
 CHAP VII. J 226 [part III. 
 
 God of Jacob, and he shall teach us his ways and 
 ice tcill walk in his paths : for the laic shall go 
 forth from Sion, the word of the Lord from Jerusa- 
 lem. The prophet Malachy, chap. 1, ver. 11, 
 says. From the rising of the sun to the going down 
 my name is great among the gentiles, and in every 
 place there is sacrificing and there is offered to my 
 name a clean oblation. Isaiah 12. " In that day 
 there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst of 
 the land of Egypt. And the Egyptians shall 
 know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice 
 and oblation, as the translation has it, but the 
 vulgate bible has it, shall worship in hosts. Isaiah 
 56. " Also the sons of strangers, who join them- 
 selves to the Lord to serve himfyc, even them will 
 I bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful 
 in my house of prayer, their burnt offerings and 
 sacrifices shall be accepted upon my altar, for my 
 house shall be called a house of prayer to all people. 
 And chap. 59, my spirit that is in thee, and my 
 words, which I have put into thy mouth, shall not 
 depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of 
 thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, 
 saith the Lord of hosts, from henceforth and for 
 ever. And chap. 60, J will make thee an eternal 
 excellency of joy to many generations 8?c, Thy 
 sun shall no more go down, neither shall thy moon 
 withdraw itself, for the Lord shall be thy everlast- 
 ing light. Thy people, also, shall be all righteous, 
 they shall inherit the land for ever ; the branch of 
 my planting, the work of my hands, that 1 may be 
 glorified." 
 
 Thus was foretold by the prophets the glory of 
 Christ's church, the perpetuity and excellency of 
 its sacrifice, and the infallibility of its holy faith. 
 This is the church built upon St. Peter, against 
 which the gates of hell shall never prevail. 
 
 To conclude, it being thus undeniably evident 
 that the church of Rome has all the said notes
 
 PART HI.] 227 [CHAP VII. 
 
 and marks of Christ's church, it follows of course, 
 that the Boman church only is the true church. 
 
 That God, in his infinite goodness and mercy,may 
 make you, Mr. Ritschel, and all those who are of 
 your communion, true and lively members of this 
 her one, holy, catholic and apostolical church, is 
 and shall be the daily prayer of 
 
 Your truly well-wisher and humble servant, 
 
 THOS. WARD. 
 
 P. S. I have annexed to this some proofs from 
 the sacred scripture, and the testimonies of the 
 primitive fathers in support, of four of the most 
 remarkable points of catholic faith denied by you 
 protestants, viz. the popes supremacy, the real 
 presence, purgatory and the invocation of the 
 angels and saints. This I have done in compli- 
 ance with your request at our conference. That 
 of the pope's supremacy is, in substance, what I 
 sent you before, in a former letter, which you 
 having concealed, I thought it good to put it 
 down here again* for the reader's satisfaction. 
 
 .@* 
 
 THE popes supremacy and spiritual jurisdiction 
 over the whole catholic or visible church on earth 
 proved from sacred scripture and the primitive 
 fathers. 
 
 To begin at the first foundation or root of this 
 primacy, or spiritual government, over the visible 
 church, when our Saviour first beheld Simon the 
 son of Jonas he made him this prophetic promise 
 of giving him a naw nam:, in these words ; thon 
 art Simon, the sun of Jonas : thou shall he called 
 Cephas, irhichis l>y interpretation a stone, that is to 
 sav, a rock or Peter. For, as St. Jerome witness-
 
 PART III. | 228 [part III. 
 
 es, that which the Hebrews and Syrians call 
 Cephas is by the Greeks and Latins called petra, 
 so that, the words cephus, Peter, and rack are and 
 signify the same thing. Here, you see, the pro- 
 mise is made that Simon should afterwards be 
 called Peter or rock, signifying that he should be 
 as firm and solid a foundation in supporting the 
 building and superstructure of Christ's church 
 militant, as a stone or rock is in supporting the 
 house which is founded and built upon it. 
 
 When our Lord and Saviour made choice of his 
 twelve apostles, then it was that he gave unto 
 Simon this before promised name, as the evangelist 
 tells us in these words. " He ordained twelve 
 who should be with him and that he might send 
 them forth to preach and to have power to heal 
 sicknesses and to cast out devils. And Simon he 
 surnamed Peter. Which is to say, he ordained 
 twelve, but made Simon the rock or foundation 
 of them all. 
 
 The Godhead of Christ being revealed to Simon 
 Peter from heaven, and he confessing it in these 
 words : thou art the son of the living- God, then it 
 was that our Saviour shewed him the reason of 
 his new name, answering him thus : and J say 
 unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock 
 I will build my church and the gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against it, and I will give thee the keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou 
 shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and 
 whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be 
 loosed also in heaven. 
 
 Here it is to be observed, that the name Peter 
 is no sooner confirmed to him, than a new promise 
 is made, viz. upon this rock I will build my 
 church 8fc. 
 
 Upon St. Peter testifying his love to our Saviour 
 above and more than all the other apostles, he 
 performs what before he had promised him, viz,
 
 PART III. J 229 [part III. 
 
 builds his church upon him, gives him the keys 
 and makes him chief pastor over his whole flock, 
 in these words of the gospel : feed my lambs, 
 feed my lambs, feed my sheep. By the word, 
 lambs twice spoken, are signified the Jews and 
 gentiles ; by the word sheep is meant the rest of the 
 apostles, which together comprehend and include 
 the whole church, both laity, bishops, priests and 
 clergy. And for St. Peter to be made the pastor 
 of this flock, is to have the church built on him and 
 to have the key of providing and dispensing to 
 them all things necessary for their spiritual susten- 
 tafion, as also of ruling and governing them, which 
 the giving of the keys also signifies ; as when, for 
 example, a prince gives the keys of a city to him, 
 whom he designs shall have the care of them, he 
 thereby invests him with a power and authority, 
 not only to open and shut the gates, but also to 
 rule and govern the whole city under him. So, I 
 say, St. Peter has the visible church committed to 
 his pastoral charge and gOA T ernment in this life. 
 And this spiritual supremacy of St. Peter over the 
 rest of his brethren, the apostles, is yet further 
 evident from these words of our Saviour to him : I 
 have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou 
 being < onverfed confirm, thy brethren : for he that 
 confirms and strengthens others must needs be 
 greater and exercise a superiority or jurisdiction 
 over them, and they, on the other hand, less than 
 he who confirms them, for of equals, one has not 
 what the other wants, nor wants what the other 
 lias. 
 
 [ might further observe St Peter's being always 
 named first in scripture, and in every council and 
 consultation of the apostles always speaking first, 
 which, though they are no small argument of pri- 
 macy in him over the rest, yet I need not insist 
 upon them, what is said being sufficient from 
 sacred scripture.
 
 PART III.] 230 I PART III. 
 
 I shall, therefore, proceed to give you the tes- 
 timony of the holy fathers and doctors of the 
 church in the first four or five ages, where you 
 will see the spiritual supremacy of St. Peter and 
 his successors, the popes of Rome, vindicated, and 
 also the sense in which those primitive fathers un- 
 derstood the aforesaid texts of scripture. 
 
 St. Clement, who was a disciple of St. Peter and 
 afterwards pope, writes thus : " Simon Peter, for 
 the reward of this true faith and preaching of 
 sound doctrine, is defined to be the foundation of 
 the church, for which reason he is also, by the di- 
 vine mouth of the Lord, surnamed Peter, who 
 was, by our Lord's first election, chief of the apos- 
 tles, to whom, as chief, God the Father revealed 
 his son." Again, " the apostles were not all equals, 
 but one presided over all." And in his second 
 epistle he calls St. Peter " the blessed apostle, 
 the father of all the apostles, who received the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven." He also styles 
 him " blessed Peter, prince of the apostles." 
 
 St. Anacletus, who was the next pope after St. 
 Clement, writes thus : " Both Christ commanded 
 and the apostles decreed, that great and more diffi- 
 cult questions should be referred to the see apos- 
 tolic, upon which Christ built his universal 
 church." He says further, " this most holy Ro- 
 man and apostolic church obtained from our bless- 
 ed Lord himself the primacy and eminency of 
 power over all churches and the whole flock of 
 christian people, even as he said to St. Peter, the 
 apostle, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will 
 build my church." 
 
 St. Evaristus, St. Alexander and others, his 
 successors, held the same, as is seen in their 
 epistles. 
 
 St. Polycarp, who was disciple to St. John 
 the evangelist, went from Smyrna in Asia lo 
 Rome for the decision of certain questions con- 
 cerning the keeping of Easter.
 
 PART III. | 231 [ PART III. 
 
 St. Irenaeus, whose words are more at large 
 cited in the the tree of life, says, " It is necessary, 
 that every church should have recourse to this, 
 by reason of its more powerful principality." 
 
 St. Pius the first says of Christ, " he hath also 
 ordained his holy apostolic see to be the head 
 of all churches, in saying to the prince of the 
 apostles : thou art Peter and upon this rock 
 vitl I build my church 'C. and I will give thee 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 St. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, speaks of 
 the Jewish synagogue and the church of Christ 
 thus " the synagogue is mother-in-law to St. 
 Peter, but the church is his daughter, whose go- 
 vernment Peter has received or obtained." 
 
 Tertullian, in several places of his works, 
 styles the pope, " the greatest bishop, bishop 
 of bishops and blessed and apostolical pope*" 
 
 All these fathers lived in the first and second 
 centuries after Christ : and in the third wrote those 
 that follows. 
 
 Origen says : " behold that great foundation of 
 the church and that most solid rock, on which 
 Christ had founded his church." In another place : 
 " Peter, upon which the church of Christ is built, 
 against which the gates of hell shall not prevail." 
 And on St. Paul's epistle to the Romans he further 
 says : " When the chief charge of feeding Christ's 
 sheep was given to St. Peter and the church found- 
 ed upon him, there was required of him the con- 
 fession of no virtue, but charity." On St. Matt, 
 chap. 10, he calls him, " the foundation of the 
 church." 
 
 St. Hypolitus calls him ; " Peter, the prince, 
 the rock of faith, whom Christ our God has judged 
 blessed : he, the doctor of the church, the chief 
 of the disciples, he who has the keys of the king- 
 dom." 
 
 St. Cyprian says : " CJod is one : one Christ,
 
 part in.] 232 [part nr. 
 
 one church and one chair, founded upon Peter by 
 the word of Christ. Christ gave this power, first, 
 to Peter, upon whom he built his church, and from 
 whence he instituted and declared the beginning 
 of unity. We hold Peter the head and root of 
 the church." 
 
 Arnobius expresses himself excellently upon 
 this point. "One of the apostles," says he, " has 
 received the name of Peter. For our Lord Jesus 
 Christ alone said, I am the good pastor, and 
 my sheep follow me. But, after the resurrection, 
 he granted this holy power and the name thereof 
 to Peter repenting. And, though thrice denied, 
 yet he gave unto him, who denied him, this pow- 
 er which he himself only had." Thus Arnobius ; 
 from whose words you may learn that, while our 
 Saviour was visibly with his apostles upon earth, 
 he made none of them pastor, because he 
 himself was their pastor visible among them. 
 But, after his resurrection, when he was to deprive 
 them of his visible presence, then he made and con- 
 stituted another visible pastor in his place, viz. St. 
 Peter, to whom he gave the charge of his sheep or 
 visible flock upon earth. We will now enter upon 
 the fourth century. 
 
 St. Athanasius, writing to pope Liberius, says : 
 "the universal church is commended to you by 
 Christ, that you may labour for all and not be 
 negligent in assisting every one." And in his 
 Epis : ad Felicem he says of St. Peter : '* thou 
 art Peter and upon thy foundation the pillars 
 of the church, that is, the bishops, are established." 
 The same St. Athanasius, though patriarch of 
 Alexandria, yet, when persecuted by the Arians, 
 both he and seven Grecian bishops made their 
 appeal to pope Julius, as to the highest court of 
 ecclesiastical judicature on earth. Sozomen in his 
 history relates it thus. " Athanasius, leaving 
 Alexandria, went to Rome. He happened, at the
 
 PART H.J 233 [chap VII. 
 
 same time, to meet there Paul, archbishop of Con- 
 stantinople, Mareellus of Ancyra and Asclepas of 
 (iaza, which Asclepas, being an enemy to the 
 Arians, was injured by them and condemned under 
 pretence of having overthrown an altar, in whose 
 place the church of Gaza is committed to one 
 Quintianus. Also Lucianus, bishop of Adrianople, 
 being for another accusation deprived of his see, 
 was then at Rome. The bishop of Rome, taking 
 cognizance of all the crimes of every one of them, 
 and finding them all agree to the Nicene council, 
 received them into the communion, as one who had 
 the charge of all by the dignity of his own see, and 
 restored them all again to their own churches, writ- 
 ing to the eastern bishops, and blaming them for 
 the ill treatment of men not deserving it, as in ex- 
 pelling them from their churches. He likewise re- 
 proved them for their not observing the constitu- 
 tions of the Nicene council, and commanded some of 
 the Arian bishops to appear before him on a certain 
 day, that he might shew them that he had given 
 a just decree or sentence against them and threat- 
 ened that, unless they would cease from these 
 troubles and novelties, he would no longer suffer 
 it. Thus he wrote and Athanansius and Paulas 
 sent letters to the eastern bishops and they were all 
 received again to their own sees". How clear an 
 evidence is this of the pope's supremacy over all 
 the rest, when so great a patriarch as that of 
 Alexandria, so great an archbishop as he of new 
 Rome or Constantinople, and other bishops made 
 their appeals to him for redress in their injuries 
 from the Arians ; and that for no other reason 
 but for the dignity of his own proper see, and his 
 having charge over all ; by virtue of which autho- 
 rity he could justly examine, judge, and determine 
 their cause, pass sentence upon their enemies, and 
 command them not only to appear before him, 
 but also, by his letters, force them to receive the 
 o g
 
 CHAP. VII. J 234 [part III. 
 
 p 
 
 said injured bishops again into their sees. This is 
 matter of fact. 
 
 There were, likewise, frequent appeals from 
 other parts of the world, before this, to the bi- 
 shops of Rome. For instance, Marcian appealed 
 to pope Pius the first. Fortunatus and Felix, in 
 Africa, made their appeal to pope Cornelius. Ba- 
 silides, in Spain, appealed to pope Stephen &c. 
 Thus you see that all owned the see apostolic for 
 the supreme and highest tribunal upon earth. 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, calls him, " Peter, the 
 prince, and most excellent of all the Apostles." 
 St. Basil the great, says. " Peter, because he 
 excelled in faith, received in himself the edification 
 of the church." " Peter is a rock through Christ 
 the rock." St. Epiphanius says thus of St. Peter ; 
 " Our blessed Lord himself constituted him chief 
 of the apostles, a firm rock, on which the church 
 of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not 
 prevail against it : for the gates of hell are here- 
 sies and the broaehers of heresies. For it must 
 needs be, that the faith is established in him who 
 has received the keys of heaven." 
 
 St. Optatus Milevetanus, writing to Permenian, 
 the heretic, tells him thus. "Thou canst not deny, 
 but thou knowest that the episcopal chair was 
 first erected at Rome by St. Peter, in which Peter 
 did sit, the head of all the apostles, for which rea- 
 son he was also called Cephas, to the end that in 
 this one chair, unity might be preserved amongst 
 all ; and that the other apostles might not every 
 one maintain other seats for themselves in opposi- 
 tion to this. So that he would be a schismatic and 
 sinner whosoever should set up another chair to 
 contend with this one. The chair therefore is only 
 one, which is one of its endowments. In this 
 Peter sat first, Linus succeeded him." So he rec- 
 kons up the popes by name till he comes to pope 
 Siricius, " who is," says he, " contemporary at
 
 PART m.] 235 [chap. Vlf. 
 
 this day, with whom we and the whole world hold 
 communion by circular epistles, and agree as one 
 body." "Now," says he to the Donatists, "do 
 you declare to us the foundation of your church, 
 who pretend to be the holy church." 
 
 St. John Chrysostom says, " Christ has shed his 
 blood to gain to himself those sheep, the charge 
 or care of which he committed to Peter, and Pe- 
 ter's successors." 
 
 St. Jerom, writing to pope Damasus concerning 
 the Trinity, and demanding his counsel in some 
 things against the Arians, in several parts of his 
 epistle says thus : "I thought it best to ask coun- 
 sel of the chair of Peter, and faith praised by the 
 mouth of the apostles. I speak to the successor 
 of the fisherman, and to the disciples of the cross. 
 I follow no chief but Christ. I join myself in 
 communion to your holiness, that is, to the chair 
 of Peter. Upon the rock I know the church is 
 built. Whosoever eats the lamb out of this 
 house is profane. Whosoever is not in the ark of 
 Noah shall perish in the flood. I know not Vita- 
 lis, I despise Miletius, I have no acquaintance with 
 Paulinus, Whosoever gathers not with thee 
 scatters abroad ; that is, he that is not of Christ 
 is of antichrist.' Again, "The health of the 
 church depends upon the dignity of the chief 
 bishop, to whom if there were not given a certain 
 excellent and eminent power over all, there would 
 be as many schisms in the church as there are 
 priests. St. Ambrose says: "Though Andrew 
 followed our Saviour before Peter, yet Andrew 
 received not the primacy, but Peter. Christ 
 being to ascend into heaven left us St. Peter, the 
 vicar of his love." 
 
 St. Augustine writes thus to Pettillian : " What 
 fault has the chair of the Roman church done to 
 thee, in which St. Peter sat, and in which, at this
 
 CHAP. VII.] 236 | PART III. 
 
 day, Anastasius sitteth ?" The whole christian 
 world, in the transmarine and most remote parts 
 of the earth, is subject to him, who sits in the 
 chair of the Roman church. The succession of 
 priests from the very seat of St. Peter, the apos- 
 tle, to whom our Lord after his resurrection 
 commended the feeding of his sheep, the succes- 
 sion, I say, of priests, from St. Peter to this pre- 
 sent bishop, retains and keeps me in the church." 
 " Beckon up," says he, "the priests even in the 
 chair of Peter, and in that list of fathers see the 
 order of succession : that is the rock against which 
 the proud gates of hell shall never prevail. If 
 we are to consider the order of bishops succeeding 
 one another, how much more certainly and truly 
 to the purpose do we reckon from St. Peter him- 
 self, to whom Christ, being the representative of 
 the whole church, said, upon this rock I tbitl 
 build my church, and the gates of hetl shall not 
 prevail against it. For Linus succeeded Peter, 
 Clement succeeded Linus, Anacfefns succeeded 
 Clement." And thus he names every pope till he 
 comes to pope Anastasius, who at that tfhte sat 
 in the chair of St. Peter. "And in all this list 
 of succession" says he to the Donatists, "there 
 is not one Donatist bishop to be found." Thus 
 St. Augustine. 
 
 The first council of Nice was gathered in the 
 year of our Lord 325. In it were three hundred 
 and eighteen bishops. The beginning of the sixth 
 canon of this council, as you will find it cited by 
 Paschasius, the pope's legate, in the sixteenth act 
 of the council of Chalcedon, is this " Ecclesia 
 Romana semper habuit primatum" : that is, " the 
 Roman church has always had the primacy," 
 Upon the citing of which words in the said canon, 
 the judges in the council of Chalcedon nnani- 
 unanimously answered : " Perpcndimus orhnetn
 
 FART III. | 23J [CHAP VII. 
 
 primatum et honorem prtcciptium secundum canones 
 antique Roma Deo amantissimo archiepiscopo con- 
 servari :" that is, " we judge all primacy and 
 special honour to be given by God to the most 
 beloved archbishop of old Rome." Read the act 
 of the council of Chalcedon and you will find this. 
 
 The second general council, gathered in the year 
 381 at Constantinople, writing to pope Damasus 
 calls itself, " his proper members" and desires him 
 " to confirm their council." The council of Ephe- 
 sus, which was the third general council, was cele- 
 brated anno 431 ; in it were two hundred fathers, 
 who sent a solemn embassy to pope Celestine with 
 all their decrees, that they might be confirmed by 
 him, telling him in their letters, that " necessity 
 required that whatsoever they had acted in the 
 council should be referred to his examination, and 
 that they are all of his judgement, that what his 
 holiness decreed ought to remain solid and firm." 
 
 The council of Chalcedon was gathered anno 
 451. In it were six hundred and thirty fathers. 
 In the first act of the council, pope Leo is called 
 " most blessed and apostolical man, pope of Rome, 
 who is the head of the church." 
 
 In the second session of this council, when the 
 pope's epistle was read, the whole council in ac- 
 clamation said that " St. Peter speaks by the 
 mouth of pope Leo." 
 
 In the third session the council styles him, " uni- 
 versal archbishop, universal patriarch, bishop of 
 the universal church, catholic or universal pope, 
 the head over all the members." It farther ob- 
 serves, that "the custody of our Lord's vineyard, 
 that is, of the whole; church, is committed to popo 
 Leo by our Saviour himself." 
 
 If there be; a man whose assent to so evident 
 and undeniable a truth cannot be extorted by these 
 testimonies, let it be imputed to a wilful obstinacy;
 
 CHAP. VII.] 288 [ PART III. 
 
 for the remedy of which let him humbly beg for 
 grace, which I pray God in his mercy to grant 
 him. 
 
 -* 
 
 THE real presence of Christ's body and blood 
 in the blessed sacrament of the encharist, proved 
 from holy scripture, and the testimonies of the 
 primitive fathers. 
 
 What the Son of God has affirmed let us not 
 deny nor disbelieve ; what he has promised let no 
 one doubt but that he both can and will perform ; 
 for he, being God, is omnipotent ; and, being 
 truth itself, what he has spoken must of necessity 
 be true. In the sixth chapter of St. John, he 
 promised to give us his flesh to eat, and, in the 
 26th chapter of St. Matthew, he actually per- 
 formed this promise, giving it to his disciples, and 
 affirming what he there gave them to be his body 
 and blood. Who will then deny it to be his body 
 and blood, and who will presume to contradict the 
 Son of God and say, it is not thy body, Lord, it 
 is only bread ? Let him consider these words of 
 St. Augustine, Serm. 2 de verb. Ap. chap. 4. 
 " Christ, commending the sacrament of the faith- 
 ful to us, said, except you eat the flesh of the son 
 of man and drink his blood you shall not have 
 life in you. So life itself speaketh of life, and to 
 him that thinketh life to be a liar, this meat shall 
 be death and not life." Who will dare again to 
 ask that Jewish question, how can it be the body 
 and blood of Christ, when he considers that Christ, 
 to whom nothing is impossible, has said, it is ?
 
 FART III. J 239 [ CHAP. VII. 
 
 Let him be corrected by these words of St. Cyril, 
 who, speaking of the Jews making that demand, 
 says : " How came they not to recollect that 
 nothing is impossible to God, who weakly said, 
 how can this man give us his flesh ? But we may 
 greatly profit ourselves by their sin, believing the 
 mysteries, and learning never to say or once think 
 how, for it is a Jewish word and deserves all 
 punishment." Let those, who doubt of this divine 
 truth, and deny the body and blood of Christ to 
 be really present in the blessed sacrament, read our 
 Saviour's words in the gospels, and, if they believe 
 him that speaks to be God, let them no longer doubt 
 or question the truth of what he says. In St. 
 John's gospel, he says; 1 am the living bread 
 which came down from heaven, if any man eat of 
 this bread he shall live for ever, and the bread, 
 which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the 
 world, Ver. 53. Unless you eat the flesh of the 
 son of man and drink his blood you shall not have 
 life in you : he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
 blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up 
 at the last day, for my flesh is meat indeed, and 
 my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh 
 and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. 
 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the 
 Father, so he that eateth me, even he also shall live 
 by me. St. Matt. chap. 26, ver. 26. Jesus took 
 bread, and blessed it and broke it, and gave it to 
 his disciples, saying ; take and eat, this is my body ; 
 and taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to 
 them, saying : drink you all of this, for this is my 
 blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for 
 many unto the remission of sins." St. Mark tes- 
 tifies the same, chap. 14. So St. Luke chap. 22. 
 St. Paul, Corinthians 11, taught by our Lord him- 
 self after his ascension, says, / received of our 
 Lord that which I delivered unto yon. That our 
 Lord, on the night that he ivus betrayed, took bread,
 
 cuap. vii.] 240 Jjaut m. 
 
 and giving thanks, he broke it mid said ; Take and 
 eat, this is my body which shall be delivered for you, 
 Do this hi commemoration of me. In like manner 
 he took the chalice after lie had supped, saying ; 
 This chalice is Die new testament in my blood. This 
 do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the comme- 
 moration of me. For, as often as you shall 
 eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall 
 shew the death of our Lord until he come. 
 Therefore, ichosoever shall eat this bread or drink 
 the chalice of our Lord unworthily, he shall be 
 guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. But 
 let a man prove himself and so let him eat of that 
 bread and drink of the chalice ; for, he that eat eth 
 and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judg- 
 ment to himself not discerning the body of our 
 Lord. 
 
 If any one here should object, that St. Paul 
 calls it bread, and therefore it is no more than 
 common bread : such are to understand, that he 
 calls it so, in the same sense as our Saviour himself 
 called it bread, St. John chap. 6, viz. the bread 
 of life, the bread which is his flesh ; for, other- 
 wise, the word of the apostle would be contradic- 
 tory to those of our Saviour, which cannot be 
 imagined. And were it meant by the apostle to 
 be no more than mere bread, how could he reprove 
 any one for not discerning it to be our Lord's body? 
 And how could a man be guilty of unworthily re - 
 ceiving the body and blood ot our Lord if he re- 
 ceive not our Lords body and blood, but only 
 common bread ? St. Augustine says : " It is he 
 whom the apostle says shall be damned who by 
 singular veneration or adoration does not make a 
 difference between this meat and all other." And 
 in Psalm 98. " No man eateth it before he first 
 adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries." St. 
 Chrysostom, Horn. 24 in 1st. Cor. says: " we adore 
 him on the altar, as the sages did in the manger."
 
 PART III.] 241 [CHAP VII. 
 
 St. Gregory Nazianzen in Epitaph : Gorgonice says, 
 "My sister called on him who is worshipped 
 on the altar." Now those holy fathers, and 
 the church of God in their times, would not have 
 worshipped and adored the holy sacrament, if 
 they had not helieved it to have been the body and 
 blood of Christ ; because to have worshipped com- 
 mon bread had been idolatry. And I think no 
 protestant (at least of the church of England) 
 will condemn them as idolaters, especially if they 
 consider, that they hold the church to have been 
 pure and uncorrupted in the times of these holy 
 fathers. 
 
 Nothing is more evident than that the holy 
 fathers of the first four or five hundred years after 
 Christ, as well as those of every age since, taught 
 and believed the real presence of Christ's body 
 and blood in the Eucharist, as their writings suf- 
 ficiently testify. 
 
 St. Ignatius, the martyr, in Epis : ad Romanos 
 anno 98, says, " I would not eat the food of cor- 
 ruption, neither do I desire the pleasures of this 
 world. The bread of God is that which I would 
 have, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which 
 is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living 
 God, who, in the fulness of time, was born of the 
 seed of David and Abraham ; and the drink which 
 I desire is his blood, which is an uncorruptible 
 delight, and eternal life." And epis : ad Smyr : he 
 confesses the Eucharist to be "the flesh of Christ, 
 which suffered for us." 
 
 St. Justin, the martyr, in Jlpitl : 2. ad Antoni- 
 nam Imp: says ; " we do not take those as com- 
 mon bread and common wine, but as Jesus Clirist, 
 our Saviour, was incarnate by the word of God, 
 and had flesh and blood for our salvation, so we 
 are taught that the food (by which our flesh and 
 blood are bv transmutation nourished) when con- 
 u'h
 
 CHAP. VII. J 242 [part III. 
 
 secrated by the prayers of his word is made the 
 flesh and blood of the same Jesus incarnate." 
 
 St. Irenaeus, lib : 4. adver : Hceres : cap : 34, 
 writing against certain heretics who denied Christ 
 to be the Son of God, says : " how should they 
 believe that bread (for which thanks are given) 
 to be the body of our Lord, and the chalice to be 
 his blood, if they deny him to be the Son of the 
 Maker of the world ? Again, how, say they, the 
 flesh shall come into corruption, and not receive 
 life, which is nourished with the body and blood 
 of our Lord ?" And in chap. 57 : " our Lord 
 taking bread declared it to be his body, and the 
 mixture in the chalice he affirmed to be his 
 blood." 
 
 Tertullian, lib. de Resurrectione, says : " The 
 flesh is washed that the soul may be purged; 
 the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be conse- 
 crated ; the flesh is signed that the soul may be 
 defended; the flesh is overshadowed with the 
 imposition of hands, that the soul may be illumi- 
 nated by the Holy Ghost ; the flesh is fed with the 
 body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be 
 fed by God." And lib. 4, con Marcion : " our 
 Lord taking bread and giving it to his disciples, 
 made it his body by saying, This is my body" 
 
 Origen, in Homilia tn diver sos, says : " when 
 thou receivest that holy meat, and incorruptible 
 banquet, when thou enjoy est the bread and cup of 
 life, thou eatest and drinkest the body and blood 
 of our Lord ; then our Lord enters under thy 
 roof. Do thou, therefore, humbling thyself, imi- 
 tate the centurion, and say, Lord I am not worthy 
 that thou shouldst enter under my roof. For, 
 where he enters under the roof of an unworthy 
 receiver, there he enters to judgment." And in 
 Horn. 38 m St. Lucam, he says, " If we eat not the 
 bread of life, if we are not fed with the flesh of 
 Christ, and inebriated with his blood, if we con-
 
 PART III.] 243 [chap. VII. 
 
 temn the sumptuous banquet of our Lord and 
 Saviour, we ought to know that God has both 
 benignity and severity." 
 
 Eusebius, Horn. 5, writes thus : " Away with 
 all doubt of infidelity ; for he, who is the author 
 of the gifts, is also witness of the truth ; for the 
 invisible priest by his secret power, with his word, 
 converts the visible creatures (bread and wine) 
 into the substance of his body and blood, saying : 
 take and eat, this is my body, and, the sanctification 
 repeated, take and drink, this is my blood. Before 
 they are consecrated by the invocation of the most 
 high name, they are in substance bread and wine, 
 but, after the words of Christ, they are the body 
 and blood of Christ. And why should we wonder, 
 that he, who could create them by his word, can 
 now, after their creation, change them by his 
 word ? Indeed, it is a lesser miracle to change a 
 thing into a better, than to make it out of no- 
 thing." 
 
 St. Gregory of Nyssa, in Serm. Catech. de di- 
 vinis saeramentis, says : " We do rightly believe 
 that the bread, sanctified by the word of God, is 
 changed into the body of the Son of God." 
 
 St. Hilarius of Poitiers, lib. 8, de Trinitate, 
 says : " If Christ, the Son, were truly made flesh, 
 and we truly receive the word in our Lord's meat, 
 the word made flesh, how can it be otherwise 
 thought, but that he naturally remains in us, who, 
 being born man, has assumed to himself the in- 
 separable nature of our flesh, and hath mixed or 
 united with it the nature of his flesh to the nature 
 of eternity, under the sacrament of his flesh com- 
 municated to us : for thus all are one, the Father 
 in Christ, and Christ in us ? What we say of the 
 natural verity of Christ in us, would be foolish 
 and impious, if we did not speak it from him : 
 but he says, my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood 
 is drink indeed ; he who eateth my flesh, and
 
 CHAP. VII.] 244 [ PART III. 
 
 drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. 
 Of the truth, therefore, of his flesh and blood 
 there is left no room for doubt, for, by the pro- 
 fession of our Lord himself, and by our faith, it 
 is truly flesh and blood. And these things, name- 
 ly, his flesh and blood, taken and received, bring 
 it to pass, that both we are in Christ, and Christ 
 in us. Is not this truth ? Let it not happen true 
 to those who deny Christ Jesus to be the Son of 
 God. Therefore, he is in us by his flesh, and we 
 are in him. As the Son liveth by the Father, 
 even so do we live bv his flesh." 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech: mistag. 4. says : 
 "Though to thy senses it appears bread, yet it is 
 his body, according to his words. Let faith con- 
 firm thee ; judge not by sense. After the words 
 of our Lord let no doubt arise in thy mind. The 
 bread that is seen by us, is not bread, but the 
 body of Christ ; and the wine that we behold, 
 though it seem wine to the taste, yet it is not 
 wine, but the blood of Christ. Christ changed 
 water into wine by his only will, and shall he not 
 be worthy of our belief, that he has changed wine 
 into his blood ?" 
 
 St. Ambrose lib de eis, qui mysteriis initiantur ; 
 cap. 9 says : " the light is better than the shadow, 
 truth than the figure, the body of the author than 
 manna from heaven. Perhaps thou wilt say, I 
 see another thing, and how then do you tell me I 
 receive the body of Christ ? We shall make use 
 of many great examples, to prove this not to be 
 that which nature made, but that which the bene- 
 diction has consecrated, and the power of benedic- 
 tion to be greater than that of nature, because by 
 benediction even nature itself is changed. Moses 
 had the rod in his hand ; he cast it from him and it 
 became a serpent ; again he took hold of the tail 
 of the serpent, and it turned ai^ain into the nature 
 of a rod. Thou seest, therefore, by prophetic
 
 PART III. | 245 [chap VII. 
 
 grace nature was twice changed : first, to that of a 
 serpent, then, to that of a rod. The rivers of 
 Egypt ran in a channel of pure water ; yet by and 
 by their fountains were changed into blood : again, 
 by the prayers of the prophet the rivers ceased to 
 be blood, and assumed the former nature of water. 
 The Hebrew people were every way surrounded, 
 on the one side by the Egyptian army; on the 
 other by the red sea ; Moses lifted up his rod, 
 and the water divided itself, and stood congealed 
 like walls, leaving a road between the water. 
 The river Jordan, contrary to nature, stopped its 
 course and turned its stream back towards its 
 fountain. Must it not be granted, that nature 
 was changed both in the waves of the sea and the 
 course of the river ? Understand, therefore, that 
 grace has greater power than nature, and here we 
 shew you the grace of prophetic benediction. But, 
 human benediction was of such force as to change 
 nature, what shall we say of divine consecration 
 itself, where the word of our Saviour himself 
 operates ? For that sacrament, which thou re- 
 ceivest, was made by the words of Christ. If 
 Elias by his word had power to cause fire to come 
 down from heaven, shall not the words of Christ 
 have power to change the species of the elements ? 
 Thou hast read of the works of the whole world ; 
 he spoke the word and they were made, he command- 
 ed and they were created. Is not the word of 
 Christ (which could make out of nothing, that 
 which was not before) therefore able to change 
 those things that are, into that which they were 
 not ? For it is easier to change the nature of things 
 than to make them anew. But why do we 
 argue thus ? Let us look for examples re- 
 lating to himself and confirm the truth of this 
 mvsterv by the example of his incarnation. Na- 
 tare had no hand in it when Jesus was born of the 
 virgin Mary. If we look for the order of nature,
 
 CHAP. VII. | 246 [ PART III. 
 
 a woman cannot conceive but by the man : it fol- 
 lows, therefore, that it is above the order of nature 
 for the blessed virgin to bring forth ; and this body 
 which we consecrate is the same which was born 
 of the virgin. Why then dost thou seek here 
 the order of nature in the body of Christ, when 
 the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, being 
 from a virgin, is above nature ? So likewise the 
 sacrament of this flesh is indeed the very true 
 flesh of Christ, which was crucified and laid in a 
 sepulchre, the same Lord Jesus saying, this is my 
 body." 
 
 St. Jerom, Cor. 2. says ; " our Saviour delivered 
 us this sacrament, that by it we should always 
 commemorate his death for us. Therefore, when 
 we receive it, we are by the priests put in mind, 
 that it is the body and blood of Christ, and that 
 we should not be ungrateful for the benefits re- 
 ceived." And ad Hed: ib, cap, 2, " the bread, 
 which our Lord broke and gave to his disciples, is 
 the body of our Lord and Saviour, seeing he said 
 unto them : take and eat, this is my body, and the 
 chaliee is that of which he again said, drink ye all 
 of this, this is my blood, fyc." 
 
 St. Chrysostom, Horn. 83 in St. Matt. 26, says ; 
 " let us believe that God is in every place, and, 
 though what he says seems unlikely to our senses 
 and apprehension, yet let us not resist him. Let 
 his words, I pray, overpower both our senses and 
 reason, yea, in every thing, but especially in these 
 mysteries, not only looking on the things that are 
 before us, but also observing his words; for by his 
 words we cannot be deceived; our senses may 
 easily deceive us, but his words cannot be false. 
 Our senses may often deceive us. Seeing then that 
 he has said, this is my body, let no doubt possess us, 
 but let us believe and behold it with the eyes of 
 our understanding. O ! say some, I would see his 
 form, his shape, his garments. Behold thou seest
 
 PART UUJ 247 [ CHAP. VII. 
 
 himself, thou touchest himself, thou eatest him- 
 self; thou desirest to see his garments, but he has 
 delivered himself to thee, not only that thou 
 mayst behold him, but also that thou mayst touch 
 him and have him within thee." In the same ho- 
 mily he says ; " these works are not of human 
 power: he, who performed them in that his last 
 supper, is now also the operator, it is he that ef- 
 fects it, we are his ministers : truly, he, who sancti- 
 fies and changes these things, is himself." And in 
 Homil. 45, in Joannem, " Christ, to shew us his 
 love, by his body has mixed himself with us, and 
 has reduced it unto one with us, that the body 
 may be united with the head." And Horn. 24, 
 " that which is in the chalice is the same which 
 flowed out of the side of Christ, and we are par- 
 takers thereof." 
 
 St. Augustine, swm, adJVeophit, says: "Receive, 
 this is the bread that hanged on the cross ; take, 
 this is the chalice that sprung out of the side of 
 Christ : it shall be death not life to him that thinks 
 Christ a liar." In another place he says : " He 
 was carried in his own hands ; but, brethren, who 
 can understand how this can be done in man ? 
 What man is carried in his own hands ? He may 
 be carried in the hands of others, but in his own he 
 cannot be carried. How this must be understood 
 of David himself according to the letter we cannot 
 find out, but we find that it may be undrestood 
 of Christ ; for Christ was carried in his own hands 
 when, giving the same body, he said, this is my 
 body ; for that body he bore in his own hands. 
 And he was carried in his own hands ; how was 
 he carried in his own hands ? In so much that, 
 when he gave the same his body and his blood, 
 he took into his own hands that which the faithful 
 know, and he carried himself after a certain 
 manner, when he said, this is my body. Come 
 unto him and be illuminated ; for what he has said,
 
 CHAP. VII.] 248 [PART III. 
 
 that he has proved," &c. Let us go to him and 
 be illuminated, not as the Jews approached him 
 and were darkened ; for, they went to him that 
 they might crucify him. But we have access 
 unto him, that we may receive his body and blood. 
 The Jews by crucifying him were covered with 
 darkness ; we, by eating and drinking him cru- 
 cified, are illuminated." And in Epis.3, ad Julian : 
 he says : " Christ vouchsafed to give us himself 
 to be eaten, who said, J am the bread of life 
 which came down from heaven, he who eats my 
 flesh and drinks my blood hath eternal life in 
 him. But, let every one examine himself before 
 he receive the body and blood of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and so, as the apostle commanded, let him 
 eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For, 
 he who unworthily eats the body and blood of 
 our Lord, eats and drinks judgment to himself, 
 not discerning the body of our Lord. When, 
 therefore, we intend to receive, before all things, 
 we ought to have recourse to confession and pe- 
 nance, and diligently examine all our deeds and 
 actions, and if we find any hurtful sins in our- 
 selves, let us readily wash them away by con- 
 fession and true penance." 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria, lib. 4, Evang. Joan, 
 cap. 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, largely proves the 
 sacrament of the holy eucharist to be the body 
 and blood of our Lord, and that we receiving 
 it are thereby made one with him, and have 
 eternal life. " Though," says he, " by the nature 
 of our flesh, we are corruptible, yet, by parti- 
 cipation of life, we are reformed to the property 
 of life. For, not only our souls were to be lifted 
 up by the Holy Ghost to eternal life, but also 
 this rude, gross, earthly body of ours is to be 
 reduced to immortality by touching, tasting and 
 eating this agreeable food of Christ's body ; and 
 when Christ says, J will raise him up, he
 
 part uu] 249 [chap VII. 
 
 means, that his body which he eats shall raise him 
 up. The holy body of Christ is the true food 
 nourishing to life eternal : and his blood is the 
 true drink that entirely drives away death: for 
 they are not the body and blood of a mere man, 
 but that of him that being joined to life, is made 
 life itself, and therefore we are the body and 
 members of Christ, because, by this benediction 
 of the mysteries we receive the Son of God him- 
 self." 
 
 St. Gaudentins tract 2, de Exod. says: "The 
 maker and Lord of nature, who produces bread 
 from the earth, does again of bread make his 
 own body, because he can and has promised to do 
 it ; and he, who of water made wine, makes of 
 wine his own blood." 
 
 St. Euthymius in St. Matthew, chap. 26, says : 
 " As the old testament had sacrifices and blood, 
 so also has the new testament, namely, the body 
 and blood of our Lord. Christ did not say, these 
 are signs of my body and blood, but, these are my 
 body and blood. We must not, therefore, look 
 upon the nature of the things set before us, but 
 their virtue, for as he supernaturally deified (if 
 we may use the expression) the flesh which he 
 assumed, even so, in an ineffable manner, he 
 changes these things, namely, the bread and 
 wine, into the same his vivifying body, and into 
 the same his precious blood. Seeing we all par- 
 take of one body and one blood, we are, by the 
 participation of these mysteries, all one, all in 
 Christ and Christ in us all. He who cats my flesh 
 and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him. 
 For truly the Son of man by taking flesh is united 
 to the flesh, the flesh is again by participation 
 united to us. And in the Gth. chapter of St. 
 John : " Whosoever eatcth my flesh and drinketh 
 my blood abideth in me and I in him. lie remains 
 in me, he is united to me by the transumption and 
 i i
 
 CHAP. VII. J 250 [part in. 
 
 communication of my flesh and blood, and be is 
 made my own body and partakes of the life which 
 is in me." 
 
 St. Remigius, 1 Cor. chap. 10 says, " the flesh, 
 which the Son of God the Father, took in the 
 Virgin's womb, in the unity of his person, and 
 the breads, which is consecrated in the church, are 
 one body of Christ ; for, as that flesh is the body 
 of Christ, so this bread' is. changed into, the body 
 of Christ ; and yet they are not two bodies but 
 one. body." 
 
 St. Gregory the. gr<eak (Paul the deacon in his 
 life) says: "Our creator,, well knowing our in- 
 firinity, by. that power, with which he made all 
 things, of nothing, and by the sanctification of his 
 spirit, converts the bread mixed with, water (their 
 proper species stills remaining) into his. flesh and 
 blood . And; in. the fourth book of his dialogues, he 
 writes: "There in deed his. body is received* his 
 flesh isj distributed to the salvation of the people, 
 bis blood; is now. received, not into the hands of 
 infidels, but into .the mouths of the faithfuh Wha 
 of the faithful can doubt, but that, in the time of 
 immolation, the. heavens are opened to the voice 
 of the priest* and that the choirs of angels, are 
 present at this mystery of Jqsus Christ!'. 
 
 St. John Damascen lib: 4 de Fide cap, 14, 
 says; ^ The bread j wine and>water are, by the 
 invocation of the Holy Ghost, changed supernatu- 
 rally into the body and blood of Jesus Christ* 
 
 I might add to these the testimonies of > the 
 fathers and writers of every age, even to. this- 
 present day : but this being too tedious and unne- 
 cessary, I shall refer you to their. works, where 
 you may read their faith and doctrine concerning' 
 this point at your leisure. 
 
 And, at this present day, it is not only the faith 
 of the western church, but also of all the Greek 
 and eastern churches throughout all Christendom
 
 PART III.] 251 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 as is made undeniably etident by Mr. Arnaud in 
 his book of the Perpetuity, where are recorded 
 the authentic attestations of all those oriental 
 churches, us to the doctrine of the real presence, 
 transubstaritiation, adoration of the blessed sa- 
 crament, and its being a propitiatory sacrifice of 
 the living and the dead. 
 
 In the end of the third tome of the Perpetuity 
 you will find fdr all this the attestations of it : 
 first* fdr the Greek church of the patriarchate of 
 Constantinople : secondly, for the Greek church 
 of the patriarchate of Alexandria : thirdly, for 
 the Greek church of the patriarchate of Jerusalem: 
 fourthly* for the Greek church of the patriarchate 
 of Antioeh : fithly* for the Muscovian, Russian, 
 Armenian** Syrian, and Nestorian churches : sixth- 
 ly, for the Maronist, Mingrelian^ Georgian, Cy-r 
 prian, Anaxean* Gephalonian, Zacinthian, and 
 Colchiah churches : seventhly, for the churches of 
 the Isles of Ithaica, Micone, Milo and Cheos : 
 eighthly, for those in Gis, Grand Cairo, Eamea-^ 
 zim, Ispahan, Damascus, Diahekea* &c. and for 
 the patriarch of the Coftics. 
 
 Since the blasphemous doctrine of Calvin against 
 the real presence, and other heretical opinions of 
 fnrotestants began to be held among those eastern 
 christians, they for remedy against them composed 
 a large confession of their faith under the title of 
 Bouclier de la foi orthodoxc ou apologie S?c. that is, 
 The shield of flic orthodox faith, or an apology 
 against Cahiinistic heretics, who accuse the eastern 
 ehurch of agreeing with them in their doctrine re- 
 specting Gdd and divine things ; composed hy the 
 synod of Jerusalem under the patriarch Dorithcus, 
 " It must then be understood," say they towards 
 the end of the prologue to this apology, '* that 
 these heretics, being ignorant of the opinions ot 
 the oriental church respecting God and divine 
 things, nevertheless accuse it of agreeing with
 
 CHAP. VII.] 252 | PART III. 
 
 them in doctrine in order thereby to deceive the 
 ignorant." " The eastern church," continue they, 
 " admits of no other doctrine than the word of 
 God explained by the holy fathers, and by the tra- 
 ditions which the apostles have left and the fathers 
 have preserved down to us. Whereas these here- 
 tics, adhering as usual to their own opinions, are 
 deaf to the truth and will not return to the right 
 way. We will, for the sake of brevity omit the 
 passages of scripture and the holy fathers on 
 this point, and will simply state what has lately 
 occurred respecting it. Fifty years after the death 
 of Luther, Martin Crusius and other learned Ger- 
 man Lutherans sent the articles of their heresy to 
 the patriarch, who then governed the church of 
 Constantinople, to discover, as they said, whether 
 their doctrine agreed with that of the oriental 
 church. The celebrated prelate thriee wrote to 
 them, having composed discourses, or rather dog- 
 matical treatises, against them, wherein he re- 
 futed all their heresies in an orthodox and theolo- 
 gical manner, and explained to them all the 
 opinions that have been held from the beginning 
 in the eastern church. But to all they paid no 
 regard, as they had forsaken the paths of piety." 
 The book was printed in Greek and Latin at 
 Wittemberg, in the year 1584. In it we find the 
 following question concerning the blessed eucha- 
 rist. 
 
 "Question 10G, What is the third sacrament ? 
 It is the holy eucharist, that is, the body and 
 blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under ap- 
 pearances of bread and wine ; Jesus Christ him- 
 self being truly, properly, and really present. 
 
 In the first place, in the following question, the 
 priest should call to mind that he must have such 
 an intention that the true substance itself of 
 bread and the substance of wine is changed into 
 the very body and blood of Christ, by the opera-
 
 PART III. | 253 [chap VII. 
 
 tion of the Holy Ghost, which he invocates at 
 that moment of time that he may perfect this 
 mystery by prayer and saying ; send thy holy 
 Spirit into us, and into these gifts set before us, 
 and make this bread the precious body of thy Christ, 
 and that which is in the chalice the precious blood 
 of thy Christ, changing them by the Holy Ghost. At 
 the same time, by these words, transubstantiation 
 (lunmums) is effected, and the bread is changed 
 into the true body of Christ, the species alone 
 remaining visible ; and this is done according to 
 divine appointment, for two reasons : first, that 
 we may not see the body of Christ with our eyes, 
 but that we may believe that it is present from 
 these words of Christ our Lord, this is my body, 
 this is my blood, rather than perceive it by our 
 senses ; seeing that for this our faith he promised 
 us beatitude, saying: Blessed are they who see not 
 and yet believe. Secondly, because human nature 
 has a horror to eat raw flesh, and yet seeing that 
 we ought to be united to Christ our Lord by the 
 communication of the flesh of our Lord Jesus, 
 and of the blood of Christ, that we might not 
 have any horror or aversion for it, our Lord has 
 so constituted it as to give us his flesh to eat, and 
 his blood to drink, under the species or forms of 
 bread and wine. Concerning which St. John 
 Damascen, and St. Gregory of Nyssa have spo- 
 ken largely." 
 
 " Concerning the honour which ought to be 
 rendered to these mysteries, it ought to be the 
 same as that which is given to Christ himself, so 
 that, as St. Peter, speaking for the rest of the 
 apostles, said : Thou art Christ the So?i of the 
 living God, so we also worshipping him with 
 sovereign worship (latria) ought to say, 1 believe, 
 Lord, and confess that thou art the Son of the 
 living God. And this mystery is also a sacrifice 
 offered for the living and for the dead, who are
 
 CHAP. VII. ] 254 [fart III. 
 
 departed in hope of the resurrection, which sa- 
 crifice will not cease till the last judgment." 
 And a little after : u this mystery is propitiatory 
 for the living and the dead." 
 
 This I have shewn you that the faith of the 
 four great patriarchs of the east, and the church- 
 es under their jurisdiction, agrees in this great 
 article of the real presence with the church of 
 Rome. And, that the same faith has been held 
 and believed in the church of God in all ages 
 since our blessed Saviour instituted this adorable 
 mystery, is also evident from the Writings of 
 the holy fathers above mentioned and in every 
 age since. 
 
 I will shew, moreover, that the primitive fathers 
 considered it as a propitiatory sacrifice for the 
 living and for the dead in what follows concerning 
 prayer for the dead. 
 
 The Son of God having spoken it, the church 
 of God in all ages having taught and believed 
 it, and it being also at this present day the 
 universal faith of all Christendom, let him who 
 denies or disbelieves it, remember that without 
 faith it is impossible to please God ; let him re- 
 member that Christ says ; he who will not hear the 
 church is to be accounted as a heathen and a publi- 
 can. Let him further remember that our Saviour 
 says (St. Mark) he that believeth not shall be 
 damned. In a word, let him remember what is 
 said in the Athanasian creed ; " Whosoever holds 
 not the catholic faith whole and undented he shall 
 perish eternally." 
 
 May God, in his mercy, endue with true faith 
 all those who want it.
 
 PART III.] 255 f AF. VII. 
 
 LIMRQ% purgaJkory m& pvayws far the dead, 
 proved from, holy, sculpture and the primitive fa- 
 
 tlttm* 
 
 Limbo is that place where the patriarchs, pro- 
 phets, and holy saints of the old testament re- 
 mained till the coming of Christ. 
 
 None ever entered into heaven before our bles- 
 sed Redeemer had, by his death upon the cross> 
 Satisfied for the sins of Adam, and all his poste- 
 rity. Nor did any one ascend thither unto the glo- 
 rious vision of God till the Son of God, by his 
 triumphant ascension, had first opened the eternar 
 gates of heaven, which Adam, by his sin, had 
 shut against mankind. This is evident from St. 
 Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 9, where, 
 he telis us, " the way of the holiest was not made 
 manifest, tchile the former tabernacle was stand- 
 ing. But, Christ being come, the high priest of 
 good things, by his own blood once entered' into 
 the holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- 
 tion for us. He is the mediator of the new 
 testament, that, by means of his death (for the 
 redemption of the prevarications which were un- 
 der the first testament) they that are called may 
 receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For, 
 where a testament is, there must be the death 
 of the testator: for a testament is of force 
 after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength 
 at all, while the testator is living. Without shed- 
 ding of blood there is no remission. Christ is 
 not entered into the holy places made by hands > 
 which are figures of the true, but into heaven 
 itself, now to appear before the face of God for 
 us. From which words of the Holy Ghost speak- 
 ing by the apostle you see it is evident, that, 
 though the promise of eternal inheritance was 
 made to those of the old testament, yet it was
 
 CHAP. VII.] 256 | PART III. 
 
 not fulfilled nor of any force till the death of 
 Christ, the testator. For, during the old testa- 
 ment, the way of the holiest, that is, the way to 
 heaven, teas not manifested, nor made open. 
 Nor did any ever appear before the face of God, 
 till Christ, the mediator of the new testament, 
 having by his blood purchased eternal redemption 
 for us, entered into the holy of holies, into hea- 
 ven itself, there first of all to appear before the 
 face of God for us; when, having reconciled 
 mankind to his Father, those of the old testament 
 then received the eternal inheritance, which had 
 been promised them Thus he was, the first 
 fruits of them that sleep : the first born of the 
 dead. None before him was found worthy to 
 open the seals and read the book. It was to him 
 the eternal gates were first opened, according to 
 the prophet : Lift up your gates ye princes, and 
 be ye lifted up, eternal gates, and the king of 
 glory shall enter in. 
 
 Those holy souls of the old testament, to whom 
 the gates of heaven till that time were shut, 
 Christ led triumphantly with him into heaven, as 
 St. Paul testifies, saying, He ascended on high, 
 and led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. 
 JVow that he ascended, what vms it but that he 
 descended into the lower parts of the earth ? that 
 is, he descended into those lower parts of the 
 earth, where those holy captives were detained in 
 expectation of his coming ; and from thence he 
 released them out of their long captivity, and this 
 the holy Ghost foretold by the prophet, saying : 
 In the blood of thy testament thou hast led forth 
 thy prisoners out of the lake, in ivhich there is no 
 water ; and proclaimed liberty to the captives, 
 opening the prison to them that were bound or shut 
 up. The place of the fathers of the old testa- 
 ment, which St. Paul calls the lower part of *he 
 earth, and these prophets, a lake or prison, is by
 
 part in."] 257 [chap vri. 
 
 our Saviour called also the heart of the earth, St. 
 Matt. 12 : and in another place Abrahams bosom ; 
 and, when he was to descend into it himself, he 
 then styled it hy the name of paradise, saying to 
 the thief on the cross : This day thou shalt be with 
 me in paradise. And well, indeed, might he give 
 it this delightful title when all in it were to be 
 made happy by the presence of the Son of God, 
 whom they had so long expected ; for, by his di- 
 vine presence, what was before their hell is now 
 their paradise. And, indeed, in many places in 
 scripture it is called also by the word hell, as in 
 Genesis chap. J34, where Jacob says : I will go 
 down into hell unto my son in mourning : and 
 Psalm, 16. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell : 
 and Psalm, 80. Thou, Lord, hast brought my soul 
 out of hell : Acts chap. 2. God hath raised him 
 up, loosing the sorrows of hell: and in our creed 
 w r e believe, " he descended into hell." 
 
 By the word hell in several other places must 
 not be thought, that the hell of the damned is 
 meant : nor can any such expressions be spoken 
 of that terrible place of torments, because from 
 that hell of the damned the prisoners are never 
 freed, the captives never let out,their sorrows never 
 loosed. But, from the other lake or hell, spoken 
 of in the said places, the prisoners w T ere freed and 
 delivered, the captives, released and our Saviour 
 has loosed the sorrows of this hell. In contem- 
 plation of which deliverance St. Paul cried out, 
 death where is thy sting ? hell where is thy 
 victory? It is, therefore, clear from holy scrip- 
 ture, that our Saviour descended into that place 
 below, from thence to deliver the souls of those 
 of the old testament therein detained; and in 
 this sense the primitive fathers always understood 
 the said texts of Christ's descent into hell, as I 
 will now prove. 
 
 St. Irena;us lib: 5, advers Hares, speaks of it 
 
 Kk
 
 CHAP. VII. J 258 [part in. 
 
 thus : " During the three days he conversed where 
 the dead were. As the prophecies say of him, he 
 remembered his holy ones who were dead, those 
 who before slept in the land of promise ; he de- 
 scended unto them to fetch them thence and to 
 save them." 
 
 Tertullian lib 4, advers : Marcion : chap, 34, 
 has the same Sense, saying, " I know that the 
 bosom of Abraham was not a heavenly place, 
 but only the higher hell or the upper part of hell." 
 
 St. Chrysostom concerning that place of Isaiah, 
 J will break down the brazen gates and I will bruise 
 the iron bars in pieces, says : " so the prophet 
 calls hell, for, though it was hell, nevertheless it 
 contained the holy souls and precious vessels, 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He descended into 
 hell that the souls which were there might be re- 
 leased."- See Homilia quod Christus sit Deus. 
 
 St. Augustine upon these words of Psalm 85 ; 
 Thou hast delivered my soul from the lower hell, 
 says, that " the lower hell is where the damned 
 are tormented ; the higher hell is where the souls 
 of the just remained." This is sufficient for the 
 defence of that catholic doctrine concerning Lim- 
 bo, or that place from which our Saviour released 
 the fathers of the old testament. 
 
 There is also a place of temporal punishment 
 after death for such souls as depart this life in a 
 less degree of perfection than is requisite for their 
 immediate entrance into the glory of God. In 
 this place they are purged, cleansed and purified 
 from all impurity of their venial sins and imper- 
 fections, with which they are stained at their de- 
 parture hence; for, as the holy text says, nothing 
 unclean can see the face of God. The purgation 
 or purifying of the soul is by the catholic church 
 called purgatory. 
 
 To this those words of our Saviour, St. Matt. 
 chapter 12, have relation : Whosoever speaketh
 
 PART III.] 259 [chap. vh. 
 
 against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, 
 neither in this world, nor in the world to come ; 
 and St. Augustine explains them in this manner ; 
 " some there are," says he, " who, at the clay of 
 the resurrection, shall find mercy after they have 
 suffered such pains as the souls of the departed 
 suffer, that they be not cast into eternal fire, 
 otherwise it could not in any true sense be 
 said, that some sins are neither forgiven in this 
 world, nor in the world to come, if there were not 
 some who, not having obtained pardon in this life 
 might nevertheless obtain remission in the next." 
 
 Besides our Saviour's descent into limbo, where 
 the patriarchs, the prophets, and other perfect 
 souls were, lie also went and preached to those 
 spirits who had been incredulous in the days of 
 Noah. St. Peter tells us, 1 Epis. chap. 8, verses 
 18, and 19 : Being put to death in the fesh, hut 
 quickened in the spirit, in which (spirit) he also 
 icent and preached to the spirits in prison, tcho had 
 been incredulous some time in the days of JVoah, 
 when the ark teas building, amongst which few, 
 that is, eight souls were saved by ivater. By this 
 text it is evident that there was a prison, or place, 
 in which those souls were detained from the time 
 of the flood to that of our Saviours descent. To 
 this prison as well as to limbo, St. Peter seems to 
 allude, Acts, chap. 2, when he says of Christ, he 
 loosed the pains of hell. These words, were saved 
 by water, spoken of the persons in the ark, seem 
 to signify that the other disobedient, who would 
 not believe Noah that the flood would come, were 
 saved by fire ; for, as St. Peter here uses the ex- 
 pression of being saved by water, so does St. Paul 
 also, Ep. 1. Cor. chap. 3, make use of this other 
 expression of being saved by fire, in relation to 
 those who are to be tried by fire in the next life. 
 
 And, indeed, St. Paul's words are so clear and 
 express concerning a fiery trial, or purgatory, in
 
 CHAP. VII. | 260 I PART III. 
 
 the next life, for those who die in an imperfect 
 state, that it is neither easy nor natural to put 
 any other interpretation to them. They are these : 
 1 Corinth, chap. 3. If any build upon this founda- 
 tion gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or 
 stubble, every man's work shall be made manifest, 
 for the day shall declare it because it shall be re- 
 vealed by fire. And the fire shall try every mans 
 work,' of what sort it is. If any mans work abide, 
 which he built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 
 If any mans ivork shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss, 
 but he himself shall be saved yet so as by fire. The 
 ancients have understood St. Paul to speak here of 
 purgatory, or the fiery purification of souls after 
 their departure out of this life. 
 
 Origen, who lived at the end of the second cen- 
 tury and the beginning of the third, in his twelfth 
 homily upon the text, writes thus ; " What ex- 
 pectest thou after thy death, if upon thy founda- 
 tion, which is Jesus Christ, thou buildest not only 
 gold, silver, and precious stones, but also, wood, 
 hay, and stubble ? wilt thou, with thy wood, hay, 
 and stubble, enter into the holy places and defile 
 the kingdom of God ? Or wilt thou, on account of 
 thy wood and stubble, stay without, and so lose 
 the reward of thy gold, silver and precious 
 stones ? There is no reason for either. What fol- 
 lows, then, but to have fire put to thy wood to con- 
 sume or burn out thy wood, hay and stuble, that 
 afterwards thou mayst receive the reward of thy 
 better works." 
 
 St. Jerom in comment : Isaice ult. cap. and in 
 Ezechiel chap. 1. "Let us," says he, "as be- 
 comes our frailty, cry out ; Lord, chastise me not 
 in thy fury nor correct rne in thy wrath ; for, as we 
 believe in the eternal damnation and torments of 
 the devil, with the forsaken and wicked sort, who 
 said in their hearts, there is no God, so we hold 
 that a more moderate sentence mixed with mercy
 
 FART III. | 261 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 shall be pronounced upon sinners and bad men, 
 being .christians, whose words are purged by fire." 
 St. Ambrose in 1 ep. Cor. chap. 3, says ; " the 
 apostles declared, that such a one shall be saved 
 hereafter, but yet he must suffer the pains of fire, 
 that, being purged by that fire, he may be saved, 
 and not, as the unfaithful, be eternally tormented in 
 hell." This great doctor and holy saint in precat. 
 prcepara. admissam, prays thus ; " if thou, O Lord, 
 reserve any thing in me to be revenged in the next 
 life, I humbly beg of thee, not to leave me to the 
 power of wicked spirits whilst thou cleanest away 
 my sins by the pains of purgatory." 
 
 St. Augustine serm. 3 in 103 Psalm, writes thus ; 
 " If any man build upon this foundation wood, 
 hay and stubble, that is to say, if he erect worldly 
 affections upon the ground work of his faith, yet, 
 if Christ be in the foundation and possess the 
 chiefest place in his heart, so that nothing be pre- 
 fered before, such an one may burn withal ; for 
 the fiery furnance shall come and burn up the hay, 
 wood, and stubble, but yet he, says the apostle, 
 shall be saved yet so has by fire. And in lib de 
 falsa et vera pamitentia. "He, who deferred the 
 fruits of his repentance till the next life, must be 
 purged or cleansed in the fire of purgatory, and 
 this fire, though not eternal, yet it surpasses in 
 its pains all the torments of this life. Never was 
 any torment in this life found so painful, &c. Let 
 every man so correct his own faults in this life, 
 that after death there may be no need of his suf- 
 fering such bitter torments." 'In lib. 21 de civitatc 
 Dei. cap. 13 : " Some," says he, " suffer temporary 
 pains in this life only, others after death, and others 
 both now and after their death ; but yet they suffer 
 them before that severe and last judgment, for all 
 those, who after death sustain temporal pains, 
 come not unto those eternal pains, which fol- 
 lows these after the last judgment ; for what
 
 CHAP. VII. | 262 [PART III. 
 
 is not forgiven to some, in this life, is remitt- 
 ed in the next, that they may not be punished 
 With the eternal pains of the life to come." Again 
 in lib. 21 de civitate Dei cap. 24. " Those," says 
 he, " who are regenerated in Christ, yet have not 
 lived so ill in the body as to be accounted unworthy 
 of mercy, nor so well as to be found not to stand 
 in need of such mercy, it is certain that such men, 
 being purified by temporal pains, which their souls 
 suffer before the day of judgment, shall not, after 
 they have received their bodies, be again committ- 
 ed to the torments of eternal fire." And a<*ain 
 lib. 22, chap. 9, " the souls of the faithful departed 
 are not severed or divided from the church, which 
 is already the kingdom of Christ, for, if they 
 were, there should be no memorial kept for them 
 at the altar in the communion of the body of 
 Christ." Thus writes that admirable doctor and 
 father of the church, the holy St. Augustiue. 
 
 Eusebius Emisenus, Horn. 3, de epiphania, says ; 
 " those who, deserving temporal pains and to 
 whom that saying of our Lord's, they shall not 
 come out till they have paid the last farthing, is 
 especially directed, must pass the fiery flood 
 through horrible fords of scalding waves, where- 
 of the prophet speaks when he says ; a fiery 
 stream ran before his face. The time of passage 
 must be measured according to the heinousness 
 of the sin : the just discipline of that flame shall 
 take vengeance according to the growth of our sins 
 and as far as our folly extended in wickedness, so 
 far this punishment wisely extends. For, as the 
 divine word compares man's soul to a brazen pot, 
 saying, set the pot empty over the coals till the brass 
 thereof become hot ; so there you shall see per- 
 jury, anger, malice, and vain desires, which infect 
 the purity of man's noble nature, sweat out. 
 There the pewter and lead of divers passions, 
 which defiled the fine gold of the image of God,
 
 TART III, J 263 |" CHAP. VII. 
 
 shall be consumed; all which in our lives might 
 have easily been wiped away by alms, prayer and 
 tears. Such a strict account will he keep with 
 man, who for mans sake gave himself to death, 
 and being transfixed with nails has also fixed the 
 dominions of death," 
 
 So much for the testimony of the primitive fa- 
 thers, and catholic church in their times, believing 
 and teaching this doctrine of purgatory. I shall 
 further shew you that it was the custom and prac- 
 tice of the church, in those first ages, to pray for 
 the dead, and to offer for their souls the most holy 
 sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ in the 
 mass, which they believed \o be a propitiatory sa- 
 crifice for the dead as well as for the living. 
 
 Tertullian in Corona v(iilitis says of the church 
 in his time, which was in the second century; 
 " They offered sacrifices for the dead on their 
 anniversary days." And in Exhor. Castitatis he 
 says, " Call to thy remembrance for whose soul 
 thou prayest, and in whose behalf thou makest 
 thy annual oblations." Again lib. de monogamia, 
 cap. 10, speaking of widows praying for their 
 deceased husbands he says: "she prays for the 
 soul of her husband, and in the mean time obtains 
 ease for him, and offers prayers for him on the an- 
 niversary day of his departure." 
 
 St. Cyprian, lib. 1, cp. 9, has this remarkable 
 passage concerning their refusal to pray for the 
 soul of one Victor, because he had, contrary to a de- 
 cree made in a former council, constituted a priest 
 his executor. " The bishops our predecessors, 
 piously considering and handsomely providing, de- 
 creed that no brother departing this life should 
 appoint any one of the clergy to be his executor. 
 And, if any did so, neither should any oblation 
 be made for him nor any sacrifice be celebrated 
 for his death, because be deserves not to be named 
 in the prayers of the priest at the altar of (iod,
 
 CHAP. VII.] 264 [part III. 
 
 who would call away the priests and ministers 
 from the altar to look after worldly things. And, 
 therefore, since Victor, contrary to the order of 
 the late decree made by the priests in the council, 
 has had the boldness to constitute Geminius Faus- 
 tinus, the priest, his executor, there ought not 
 among you to be any oblation made for his death 
 or any prayer used in the church in his name, that 
 the decree of the priests piously and necessarily 
 made may be observed by us." 
 
 St. Ambrose, super obit. Theodosii imperatoris, 
 prays thus for the soul of the emperor; "Give 
 rest, O Lord, to thy good servant Theodosius, 
 even that rest which thou hast prepared for thy 
 holy saints. Let his soul ascend from whence it 
 came. I loved him ; therefore I will follow him in- 
 to the land of the living. I will never forsake him 
 till with tears and prayers I bring that man unto 
 the holy mount of our Lord whither his merits 
 Call him." 
 
 The same holy father lib. 2, ep. 8, writing to 
 Faustinus, who too much lamented the death of 
 his sister, says : " I suppose thy sister's case ought 
 not to be so much lamented as delivered by thy 
 prayers. Thou must not contristate her soul by 
 tears, but by oblations commend her to our 
 Lord." 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Catech. 5, mystagog, 
 writes thus : " We pray for all those who among 
 us are departed this life, believing that great help 
 comes to those souls for whom the oblation of that 
 holy and dreadful sacrifice is offered." 
 
 St. Athanasius, Quest. 34, says, "As when the 
 vine in the field flourishes and becomes green, the 
 old wine sately kept in barrels also works new, 
 and as it were ferments again ; even so do we 
 suppose that the souls of sinners become joyful 
 and glad, through the benefit of the unbloody host 
 and sacrifice of thanksgiving offered for them ; as
 
 PART in.] 26o [chap VII. 
 
 as only our God knows and lias ordained, who 
 exercises his power over the living and the dead." 
 
 St. Chrysostom Horn 3 in ep. ad Philip : and in 
 Horn. 09 ad populum dntioch: says : " It is not in 
 vain that the apostles have decreed that, in the cele- 
 bration of the adorable mysteries, memory should 
 be made of those who are departed this life ; for 
 they knew that great profit would arise to them. 
 For the whole congregation lifting up their hands 
 to heaven together with the company and choirs 
 of priests and the dreadful sacrifice set before all 
 men, how is it possible but that we should appease 
 God's displeasure by praying for them." 
 
 St. Augustine lib. de euro, pro mortuis cap 18 : 
 " Let us never think," says he, " that any other 
 thing we can do, properly pertains to the relief of 
 the faithful departed for whom we take this care, 
 saving for them what we solemnly celebrate, viz. 
 the sacrifice of the altar, alms-deeds and prayers." 
 Again in Enchirid: " neither is it to bo denied," 
 says he, " but that the souls of the dead are re- 
 lieved by the piety of their living friends, when 
 the sacrifice of our mediator is offered for them, 
 or alms-deeds done in the church." 
 
 This holy doctor in his i)th book of confessions 
 says of his mother St. Monica, " that she, at her 
 death, begged of them to make remembrance of 
 her at the altar of our Lord wheresoever they 
 were." Again chap 13 he says : " she desired us 
 to remember her at thy altar, thy altar, O God, 
 at which she constantly attended without one day's 
 intermission, from which she knew was dispensed 
 the holy victim by which was cancelled the hand 
 writing which was against us" &c. 
 
 And thus, in the same chapter, he prays for her 
 after her departure : " And now, O God of my 
 heart, I become a petitioner to thee for the sins of 
 my mother : hear me, I beseech thee by that cure 
 of our wounds which hung upon the cross, and
 
 CHAP. VII. J 266 [part III. 
 
 now sitting at thy right hand intercedes for us. 
 I know she dealt mercifully, and from her heart 
 forgave to her debtors their trespasses, do thou 
 likewise remit her her debts, if she also contract- 
 ed any in those many years she lived after her 
 baptism. Forgive them, O Lord, forgive them, I 
 beseech you, and enter not into judgement, but let 
 mercy rejoice against judgment, because thy 
 words are true and thou hast promised mercy 
 to the merciful. Inspire, O Lord, thy servants, my 
 brethren, thy children, my masters, whom I serve 
 both with my heart and voice and with my pen, 
 that as many of them as shall read these things 
 may remember at thy altar Monica, thy hand- 
 maid, and Patricius her husband, from whose 
 bodies thou broughtest me into the world. Let 
 them remember with a charitable devotion these 
 my parents, that what my mother made her last 
 request to me may be more plentifully performed 
 to her by the prayers of many, procured by these 
 my confessions and prayers." 
 
 This holy father in Serm, 32 de verbis Apostoli 
 says, " It is not to be doubted that the dead, being 
 more mercifully dealt with than their sins deserved, 
 are helped by the prayers of the holy, by the holy 
 sacrifice and by alms given for their souls. This 
 the universal church observes as the tradition of 
 the fathers, that prayers should be offered up for 
 those who are departed in the communion of the 
 body and blood of Christ, when at that sacrifice 
 they are commemorated in their place, and that it 
 may be remembered that this sacrifice is also 
 offered for them." Again in lib, de curu pro mor- 
 tuis, chap. 1, "we read," says he, " in the book of 
 the Machabees of sacrifice offered for the dead. 
 But suppose it had never been in the old scripture, 
 yet the authority of the universal church, which 
 is clear in this custom, is of great weight where, in 
 the prayers of the priest poured out to God at his
 
 PART HI.J 207 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 holy altar, commemoration of the dead has also 
 its place." 
 
 I could bring yet farther testimonies from coun- 
 cils and fathers, in every century, even to the pre- 
 sent age ; but it is not necessary ; for those, who 
 read and seriously consider what has been said, 
 cannot without the greatest obstinacy deny that 
 the doctrines of Limbo, purgatory, prayer and 
 sacrifice for the dead, were the doctrines of the 
 holy fathers and catholic church in the first ages 
 of Christianity. 
 
 He who, after having seen such undeniable 
 evidence and so many testimonies of undoubted 
 authority both from the holy scriptures and from 
 the holy fathers, yet disbelieves or denies these 
 catholic doctrines, let him consider whether he is 
 not guilty of obstinately impugning a known truth 
 in matters of faith. If he is guilty of this, let 
 him not think himself free from sin against the 
 Holy Ghost, which sin our Saviour says, " shall 
 neither be forgiven in this world, nor in the world 
 to come." 
 
 >@$e 
 
 IJVVOCATIOJV of saints and angels, and that 
 they pray to God for as proved from holt/ scripture 
 and the testimony of the primitive fathers. 
 
 Christ, the Son of God, is the sovereign head of 
 the whole church militant and triumphant, and the 
 church is his body. We being many, says St. Paul 
 to the Romans chap. 12, arc one body in Christ 
 und every one members one of another. Hence we 
 learn that the mystical body of Christ is composed 
 of many members not separated not divided from 
 one another, so as to have no communication with
 
 chap. vii. J 268 [ part in. 
 
 each other, but all so compact and joined one with 
 another as to make up this one entire and compact 
 body, of which Christ is the head. The same 
 apostle in his 1st. epistle to the Cor. chap. 12, tells 
 us that, God so tempered this body as that there 
 may he no schism in it, but the members might be 
 mutually careful one for another. If any one mem- 
 ber suffer, all the other members suffer with it. Our 
 Saviour assures us, Luke chap. 15, that there is 
 more joy in heaven over one sinner doing penance 
 than over ninety-nine just. 
 
 From all which is clearly gathered, that that 
 part of this mystical body which is now in heaven, 
 is not so divided from this part on earth, as either 
 to be ignorant of it, or not be helpful to it : but, 
 on the contrary, those in heaven, being still a part 
 and members with us in the same body, do take 
 care of us as we do of one another, and rejoice at 
 our repentance and the good that happens to us. 
 Consequently, as we in this life assist and pray 
 for one another, so they likewise in heaven are 
 helpful to us on earth by their prayers and inter- 
 cession to God for us, and this is evident from their 
 rejoicing at our repentance ; for, what they rejoice 
 at when it happens, they certainly desire to come 
 to pass before it happens, otherwise, there would 
 be no rejoicing at it when it comes to pass ; and, 
 li they desire it, they pray for it ; for the very de- 
 sire itself that it may come to pass is actually 
 praying or supplicating that it may so happen. 
 Seeing, then, that the saints or angels in heaven 
 pray for us, as we, also, on earth do for one another, 
 we may, for the same reason, desire them lo pray 
 for us as we desire and beg others here to pray 
 for us. It is evident in St. Paul's epistle, that, 
 when on earth, lie prayed for his fellow members 
 and desired them also to pray for him ; why, 
 then, should we not believe that he prays? for us 
 now when he is in heaven ? We cannot imagine,
 
 PART III. ) 269 I CHAP. VII. 
 
 that his charity and good will towards us is 
 lessened by his now being in glory, but rather 
 that it is much more increased. Again, if it was 
 lawful to beg St. Paul's prayers when on earth, 
 why not the same also now that he is in heaven, 
 especially seeing he is not only still a fellow-mem- 
 ber with us in the same body, but in a much "more 
 exalted and excellent state than before, and, con- 
 sequently, neither less willing to pray for us nor 
 his prayers less effectual, but rather a great deal 
 more, as he is now confirmed in grace and in the 
 clear vision and glory of God, and, therefore, 
 doubtless, when he considers and experiences his 
 own felicity, he must still be more desirous that 
 we, his brethren and fellow-members, should 
 enjoy the same. 
 
 We see in many places of the old testament, 
 how solicitous, viligant and careful the angels of 
 God were for the good of the faithful; and St. 
 Paul in the new testament says : " They arc all 
 ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them 
 who shall be heirs of salvation. Our Saviour, St. 
 Matt. chap. 18 ver. 13 calls them our angels, sig- 
 nifying that they take care of us and represent 
 our afflictions before his Father : take heed you dis- 
 pise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you. 
 that their angels see the face of my Father who is in 
 heaven. 
 
 St. Jerom upon this place says, " it is a great 
 dignity and wonderful benefit, that every one has 
 from his birth an angel for his keeper or guardian 
 against the wicked before the face of God. St. 
 Augustine dc civitate lib. 11, cap 13, says: "the 
 angels will continue for eternity, so they will also 
 rest with facility, for they help us without difficul- 
 ty." St. JSasil lib. 3, contra Eunom : proves from 
 many places of holy scripture that every one has 
 an aifl^el as a guardian and pastor directing his 
 life. St. Cvril of Alexandria lib, 4, contra Ju-
 
 PART III. | 270 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 lian : shewing how God useth the ministry of holy 
 angels for man's salvation, saith ; " these angels 
 drive away hurtful wild beasts from us and rescue 
 those, whom they seize, from their fury and cruelty, 
 and teach whatsoever is laudible to make our pas- 
 sage free and undisturbed, when with us they glo- 
 rify our sovereign God." 
 
 We read in the Acts of the apostles how St. 
 Peter was delivered from his chains and impri- 
 sonment by an angel, and when it seemed incredi- 
 ble to those in Mary's house, that he should be 
 freed, they said, it is his angel ; which they could 
 not have done had they not held and believed 
 that he had his particular or proper angel. If 
 proper angels," says St. Chrysostom " be deputed 
 to such only who have charge of their own lives, 
 as one of the just (meaning Jacob) said, the 
 angel who delivered me from my youth, much more 
 are supernatural spirits at hand to help them, unto 
 whom the charge and burden of the world is 
 committed." 
 
 Seeing, then, that God has deputed them for our 
 helpers and guardians, and sent them to minister 
 to us for our eternal good, why may we not sea- 
 sonably and lawfully beg their assistance, as minis- 
 tering spirits under God, and desire them to pray 
 to God for us. 
 
 The patriarch Jacob, Genesis 48, when he bless- 
 ed the two sons of Joseph, did not hesitate to 
 desire his own angel guardian to bless them, say- 
 ing, The angel , who delivers me from all evils, bless 
 these children. Here Ave see that Jacob both owns 
 himself to have been delivered by an angel, and also 
 invocates the same angel to bless his grandsons. 
 So also, when he wrestled with an angel, he de- 
 sired the angel to bless him. Concerning which 
 the prophet Osee says, He had power over the an- 
 gel and prevailed: he wept and made suppucation 
 to him (or as another expression has it) he wept
 
 PART III. J 271 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 and prayed to him. If it is lawful for us to sup- 
 plicate or pray to the angels, so also to invocate 
 the saints ; for our Saviour tells us the saints are 
 as angels in heaven; and it is certain, that it has 
 been the practice and custom of christians in all 
 ages to desire the saints and angels in heaven to 
 pray to God for us. The primitive fathers are 
 clear and undeniable as to this doctrine, as shall be 
 more fully shewn hereafter. And it is the doctrine 
 of catholic church of this day, as it is recorded in 
 the council of Trent, Sess : 25, which teaches that 
 " it is good and profitable for christians humbly to 
 invocate the saints and to have recourse to their 
 prayers and assistance, whereby to obtain benefits 
 of God by his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is 
 our Redeemer and Saviour." 
 
 But here perhaps it may be objected, that our 
 making the saints and angels intercessors for us 
 is derogatory to the mediation of Christ our ad- 
 vocate. 
 
 Those, who make this objection, are to under- 
 stand, that we do not make the saints and angels, 
 or men on earth, our L advocates in the sense in 
 which Christ is our advocate. To Christ, our ad- 
 vocate, it only belongs and agrees to procure 
 mercy for us before the face of God by the gene- 
 ral ransom, price, and payment of his blood for 
 our redemption ; he being, as St. John says, The 
 propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only 
 but the whole world. In which manner he is our 
 only advocate because our only Redeemer. Hence 
 he alone immediately by and through himself, in 
 his own name, right and merits, confidently acts 
 in our cause before God, our judge, and in this 
 manner procures our pardon, and this is the 
 highest degree of advocation and mediation that 
 can be. 
 
 Jiut the saints and angels are not to be thought 
 our advocates and mediators in the sense that
 
 CHAP. VII.] 272 [PART III. 
 
 Christ, our head, is, who demands all things im- 
 mediately by his own merits. But they are as 
 secondary intercessors, and as being members of 
 the same mystical body with us under him, our 
 head, who always pray for us in and through him, 
 our Lord, our advocate and our Redeemer. Nei- 
 ther do we desire them to pray for us but always 
 in and through Jesus Christ, our Lord. 
 
 St. Augustine, Tract, in 1 ep. Joan, answered 
 the objection a long time since, in these words ^ 
 " But some will say ; do not the saints then pray 
 for us ? Do not the bishops, then, or prelates 
 and pastors pray for the people ? Yes : mark the 
 scriptures, and you will find that the apostles 
 prayed for the people, and again desired the people 
 to pray for them. And so the head prays for all, 
 and the members for one another." And, that it 
 may not be said there is a difference between the 
 members on earth and those in heaven, he further 
 says, " our Lord Jesus Christ doth yet make inter- 
 cession for us ; all the martyrs, who are with 
 him, pray for us ; neither will their intercession 
 cease till we cease our groaning." St. Irenaeus 
 lib 3, cap. 38, and lib. 5, says : " The obedient 
 virgin Mary is made the advocate for the disobe- 
 dient virgin Eve." 
 
 The ancient heretic, Vigilantius, was the first 
 remarkable opposer of the faith of the church in 
 this point of the saints' praying for us, and our 
 desiring their intercession. He taught that the 
 souls of the martyrs and other saints were includ- 
 ed or shut up in some certain place, so that they 
 could not hear our prayer, nor be present at their 
 tombs and monuments, where the faithful then 
 resorted to celebrate and beg their intercession. 
 But that learned doctor and holy father, St. Jerom, 
 in his book against this heretic strongly refuted 
 his doctrine and proved that the saints and mar- 
 tyrs pray much more for us, now they are in
 
 PART III.] 273 [CHAP VII. 
 
 heaven, than they did when here on earth, and are 
 much sooner heard by God than when they were 
 in the world, and that they can he present when 
 and where they phase. " Do you," says he to 
 that heretic, prescribe laws to God ? " Do you 
 fetter the apostles, that they may be kept in prison 
 till the day of judgment and be seperated from 
 their Lord, of whom it is written, they follow the 
 Lamb wherever he goes ? If the Lamb be in 
 every place, then they, that are with him, must be 
 in every place. If the devil and wicked spirits, 
 ranging abroad in the world with great celerity, 
 are present every where, shall the holy martyrs 
 after shedding their blood be kept close under an 
 altar that they cannot stir from thence ? " 
 . St. Augustine de civitate Dei cap. 22, says, "to 
 the good angels appertain the knowledge of cor- 
 poral and temporal things. It is certain, that 
 they know these temporal and mutual things, be- 
 cause they see the principal causes of them in the 
 word of God, by which the world was made. In 
 another place he says ; " when the angels hear, God 
 hears in them as in his true temples, not made with 
 hands ; so also in all his saints, his commands, which 
 are done temporally, are seen in his eternal laws. 
 And now we see in enigma ; but then, when in 
 heaven, we shall see him face to face, as the angels 
 see, who also are our angels &c." 
 
 We read in the prophet Daniel how the angel 
 endeavoured to obtain the deliverance of the Jews 
 from their captivity, and that, when the angel of 
 Daniel could not prevail, Michael, the archangel, 
 called one of the chief princes to come to his aid. 
 Which is to be understood that Michael the chief 
 angel, assisted with his prayers or joined bis prayers 
 to that of the angel who prayed and offered up 
 Daniel's prayers to God for the deliverance of the 
 Jews. Fear not Daniel, said the angel, for front the 
 first day, on which thou didst set thy mind to undcr- 
 m rn
 
 CHAP. VII. J 274 [PART HI. 
 
 stand and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words 
 were heard, and I am come for thy words : which 
 signifies that he was come to offer up Daniel's 
 prayers to God. And so also the angel said to 
 Tobias chap. 12, ver. 12 " when thou didst pray 
 with tears, I offered thy prayers to God. So also 
 in Revel, chap. 5. " Tfiefour beasts and four and 
 twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having 
 every one of them harps and golden vials full of 
 odors, which are the prayers of the saints. And 
 chap. 8. Another angel came and stood before the 
 altar having a golden censor, and there was given 
 unto him much incense that he should offer of the 
 prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which 
 is before the throne of God. And the smoke of 
 the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up 
 before God from the hand of the angel. From 
 which text it is clear that the four evangelists sig- 
 nified by the four beasts, and also the holy angels 
 offer up to God the prayers of the church mili- 
 tant or faithful on the earth, called here and in 
 other places of scripture, the saints. We read 
 also in the prophet Zachary how the angel prayed 
 for Jerusalem and the cities of Juda in these 
 words : Lord of hosts, hoiv long wilt thou not 
 have mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Juda, 
 against which thou hast had indignation these three- 
 score and ten years. And the Lord anstcered the 
 angel with good ivords, saying, I am returned to 
 Jerusalem with mercy and my house shall be built 
 in it. Where we see that both the angel prayed 
 for them, and God heard his prayers and granted 
 what he prayed for. 
 
 That invocation or prayer to saints was the 
 doctrine and practice of the primitive church, is 
 clearly evident from almost innumerable testi- 
 monies of the holy fathers of the first ages. 
 
 St. Basil, in his homily upon the forty martyrs, 
 tells his auditors that " in the church of the forty
 
 PART III.] 275 I CHAP. VII. 
 
 martyrs they have the forty to pray for them.'* 
 " He, who is any Mays," says he, " with grief, 
 addresses himself to those martyrs : again, he 
 who is at ease prays to them ; the one that he may 
 be freed from evils, the other that his prosperity 
 may continue. Here a pious mother, praying for 
 the children, is accepted or heard ; as also asking a 
 safe return for her husband when he is on a 
 journey, or health for him in sickness. Let us, 
 therefore, pour forth our prayers with these holy 
 martyrs." 
 
 St. Gregory Nazianzen in Orat. in Cyprianum> 
 prays thus to St. Cyprian : " look down upon us 
 from on high and direct our words and life." And 
 in the same oration he records it as an act of 
 devotion in St: Justina, that, to free herself from 
 the snares of satan, she called upon the blessed 
 virgin Mary to help and succour her." 
 
 St. Athanasius, in serin : de sancta Deipara t 
 prays thus to the blessed virgin : " give ear to our 
 prayers and forget not thy people. O Lady, O 
 queen, and mother of God, intercede for us. To 
 thee we cry ; be mindful of us, sacred virgin." 
 
 St. Gregory of Nyssa in in orat : sancti Theodori, 
 circa jinem, thus suplicates St. Theodore for 
 delivery from the invasion of the Scythians. " In- 
 tercede, and pray to our Lord for our country. As 
 a soldier, fight for us, and use that liberty of 
 speaking for us, thy fellow servants, as becomes a 
 martyr. But, if there be yet greater intercession 
 requisite and more forcible prayer, do thou oblige 
 the whole choir of thy brother martyrs, and pray 
 altogether for us." 
 
 St. Jerom in epitaph : Paula; cries out thus to 
 saint Paula after her death ; " Help me, O Paula, 
 in my old age with thy prayers." 
 
 Rufinus Hist, ecclcs. lib. 2. cap. 33, writes of the 
 emperor Theodosius that he went to visit the se- 
 pulchres of the martyrs, accompanied by all the
 
 CHAP. VII.] 276 [PART III. 
 
 clergy and people, and prostrate before their ashes 
 implored aid by their intercession. 
 
 St. Chrysostom horn. 26, in 2 ep. Cor. says, he 
 besought the saints to be his patrons and advo- 
 cates with God. 
 
 St. Ambrose, lib. de Viduis says of the angels* 
 that "they are to be supplicated for us, who are 
 given us for our protectors " 
 
 St. Augustine, lib. de cur a pro. mortuis, cap. 4 
 and 5, says, that " the christians of his time not 
 only recommended the souls of their deceased 
 friends to God, but also to the martyrs, as their 
 patrons, to be helped by them." And this he 
 gives for the reason why they desired to have 
 their bodies buried near the shrines or sepulchres 
 of the martyrs, viz. "that the memory of the 
 place where they were buried might excite their 
 friends to recommend them to those very saints by 
 their prayers." In lib. contra Faust : " the chris- 
 tians," says he, " celebrated the memories of the 
 martyrs with religious solemnity, not only to excite 
 their friends to the imitation of their virtues, but 
 also, to be partakers of their merits and to obtain 
 help by their prayers." Again in lib. 7- Bapt. con. 
 Donat cap 1, he himself prays to St. Cyprian, 
 " Let holy Cyprian help us by his prayers." Read 
 his 22 book and 6th chapter, de civitate Dei, where 
 he treats of the many miracles done in his time at 
 the tombs and the reliques of the martyrs, parti- 
 cularly of St. Stephen, St. Gervase and St. 
 Protase. 
 
 Eusebius, lib. 13 Preepara Evangel. " These 
 things," says he, " we daily do, that honouring the 
 friends of God, who are the soldiers of true piety, 
 we go also to their monuments and make our 
 prayers to them, as to the holy men, by whose 
 intercession to God we know ourselves to be 
 greatly assisted." 
 
 Theodorct, lib. de curat. Grcecor, says; "the
 
 PART ni.J 277 [chap. VH. 
 
 temples of the martyrs are conspicious and illus- 
 trious, both for their greatness and beauty : nor 
 do we frequent them only once, or twice, or five 
 times a year ; but we celebrate frequent assemblies 
 in them and often sing praises every day to the 
 Lord of these martyrs. Those who are in good 
 health beg of the martyrs the continuance of it, 
 and such as are afflicted with any disease beg to be 
 healed ; those who are barren pray that they may 
 have children, and those who have children beg 
 that they may be preserved to them. In like man- 
 ner, those who travel desire the martyrs to be their 
 companions, or rather the guides of their journey, 
 and those who return safe, return also to give 
 thanks for the benefits they received, not that they 
 imagine they go to god's, but they beseech and pray 
 to the martyrs of God, as heavenly men, to be in- 
 tercessors for them to him, knowing that such as 
 piously and faithfully pray to them obtain their de- 
 sires. The donaries, when they pay their vows, are 
 witnesses of the evident testimonies of their reco- 
 vered health: for some hang up the resemblances of 
 eyes, others of hands, others of feet, made of 
 gold or silver, which their Lord, how small or 
 vile the gifts may be, disdains not most graciously 
 to accept measuring the gift by the ability of the 
 giver. These donaries or gifts, therefore, being 
 exposed to the sight of all men and brought by those 
 who have obtained their health, are most certain 
 signs of the cure of diseases. These, F say, shew 
 the virtues of the martyrs who lie buried there ; 
 and the virtues of the martyrs declare the God 
 whom they worshipped to be the true God." 
 
 This much is sufficient to shew those who deny 
 this doctrine, that it was the practise and custom 
 of the catholic church, in these first ages, as well 
 as now, to invocate and pray to the saints, to 
 make intercession for them to God, that it was 
 the faith and constant belief of those primitive
 
 JTART III. ( 278 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 christians and holy fathers, that the saints and 
 angels in heaven did intercede and pray to God 
 for them. And this is owned to have been held 
 and taught by the primitive fathers and the church 
 in their times even by the most learned protestants 
 themselves. For example, Calvin in his Institu- 
 tions book 3, chap* 20, acknowledges that it was 
 the custom at that time to say : " Holy Mary, 
 and holy Peter, pray for us." 
 
 Dr. Forbes, first bishop of Edinburgh, in Con- 
 sul, modest, eh. 3, page 311, speaking of the above 
 eited words of St. Basil, says : " If St. Basil had 
 not approved of this practise of the people, he 
 would never have proposed an example to be imi- 
 tated." 
 
 Dr. Burnet, now bishop of Sarum, as he styles 
 himself in his Exposition of the thirty-nine articles 
 of the church of England, page 245, article 22, 
 says, " that " St. Augustine doubted not but that 
 men were much the better for the prayers of the 
 martyrs." And page 244, " St. Basil and the 
 other fathers, who so often mention the going to 
 their memories, do plainly insinuate that the mar- 
 tyrs are present and hear themselves called upon. 
 This made their invocation look like another man's 
 desiring the assistance of another good man's 
 prayers." This is enough, for we pray to the 
 saints in heaven in no other manner and in no 
 other sense than when we pray to our fellow mem- 
 bers on earth, that is, we desire both to pray to 
 Crod for us. 
 
 Mr. Thorndike, that learned and ingenious pro- 
 testant writer, epil. part 3, page 358, says, " it 
 is plain, that the lights, both of the Greek and the 
 Latin church, Basil, Gregory, Nazianzen, Gre- 
 gory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, 
 Chrysostom, both Cyrils, Theodoret, Fulgentius, 
 St. Gregory the great, Leo, more, or rather all, 
 after that time have spoken of the saints and de- 
 sired their assistance."
 
 PART III. J 279 I CHAP VII.. 
 
 Seeing, then, that this doctrine of invocation 
 and prayer to saints is so firmly attested by the 
 ancient fathers, those great lights of the church, 
 that even those learned protestants themselves are 
 thus forced to acknowledge it to have been so an- 
 ciently practised, and that by the very chiefest 
 fathers of the primitive church, which they cannot 
 but own for the very lights thereof, why should 
 this ancient and apostolical tradition be at this day 
 denied or left off? 
 
 If, after the reading and consideration of what 
 has been said, there be any one that still disbe- 
 lieves or denies the truth of this doctrine and con- 
 demns the invocation of saints for erroneous, let 
 such an one examine his creed whether he believes 
 the communion of saints. If he separate himself 
 from them while he is in this, let him never ex- 
 pect admittance into their communion in the world 
 to come. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 ROBINSON, PRINTER, 
 MANCHESTER.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Form L9-Series 4939
 
 A A 000 092 078 5