ligion of our travelling mass-prieft) did the great, the glorious English reformers call mankind. They laboured to establish them in every thing tending to a pure faith, and good life. In this, there is not, there cannot be any enthusiasm.

And as to their being affifted by those who were animated by a spirit of irreligion, and by a greedy defire of seizing the poffeffions of the monks, it does not appear to be the truth of the cafe. Suppofing there were fuch irreligious men, the affiftance the reformers had from any great men in Henry the eighth's time, when the abbeys were deftroyed, was so very little, that malice only could mention it as an objection to the reformation. Popery, in that monarch's reign, was ftill the established religion of England, and both fides blame this king's perfecutions. If papists were put to death for denying the Supremacy of Harry, proteftants were no less fufferers, for oppofing the adoration of the hoft, and other religious impieties. And after the fhort reign of his fon, Edward the fixth, what affiftance had the reformers under bloody Mary? Did fhe not do all that infernal popery could fuggeft, to deftroy Cranmer, his brethren, and their reformation? And did not they, without any other affiftance than what they received from the spirit of God, continue to vindicate the truth as it is in

Jefus,

Jefus, and teach the pure doctrines of the gofpel, in oppofition to the frauds and vile inventions of papal Rome. Without minding the indignities, the torments, and the cruel death prepared for them, the brave boneft men went on with their heavenly work, and till, the flames made them filent, endeavoured to deftroy the Romish artifices and immoralities, and to spread the pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father. They were zealous, with the truth of religion on their fide, and laboured to convert, out of a pure and friendly regard to the eternal welfare of mankind. They did the work, by the bleffing of God, and therefore the malicious Le Blanc, the mass-prieft, reviles and black

ens them.

What he fays of ufurpation, in respect of church lands, does not deferve any notice. The reforming clergy were not the actors in that scene. It was the king and his council. And as the Pope had fhewed them the way, by granting bulls for the diffolution of the leffer monafteries, they thought, fince the Pope's power was taken away by a general confent of the nation, the king, the church, and the people concurring, they might, with as little facrilege, diffolve the reft. The king and parliament (fays Bishop Burnet) could not difcern the difference between greater and leffer as to the point of facrilege. And al

though

though fome uses might ceafe by the doctrines of the reformation, as maffes for fouls departed, and monks to pray the dead out of purgatory; yet there were others to employ the church lands about, as fome of them were in founding new bishopricks. And if in this cafe, the reformers had been guilty of fome wilful errors, that could be no crime of the reformation. The culpable muft anfwer it. For the fatisfaction of confcience about the reformation, there can be but three queftions fairly propofed. Was there fufficient caufe for it? Was there fufficient authority? And whether the proceedings of our reformation were juftifiable by the rule of fcripture, and the ancient church? Upon these points we ought to join iffue, and I am fure the conclufion must be in the affirmative.

As to Le Blanc's fecond observation in relation to the marriage of priests, which our reformation he fays produced, it may be anfwered, that the doctrine of a priest's marriage being unlawful, was borrowed by the church of Rome from the antient heretics; efpecially from the Manichees, who allowed marriage to their hearers, as the church of Rome doth to laymen; but forbad it to their elect, as that church doth to her priests. St. Auguftin charges the Manichees wth this error. Hic non dubito vos effe clamaturos invidiam

que

que factures, caftitatem perfectam vos vehementer commendare atque laudare, non tameh nuptias prohibere; quandoquidem auditores veftri quorum apud vos fecundus eft gradus ducere atque habere non prohibentur uxores. De moribus manichæorum, Lib. 2. c. 18.

The first pope we read of that condemned the marriage of priests, was Syricius, the Roman, A. D. 384-398. And upon this account, I wonder Baronius had not a regard to his memory: but it has been the misfortune of his holiness fince his death to fall under the difpleasure of the Cardinal to that degree, that he has ftruck him out of his catalogue of his Romifh faints. He does not tell us for what reafon. Perhaps it was because this pope rather diffuaded priefts from marriage than peremptorily forbad it, as appears by his letters. (Syr. epift. 1. & (Syr. epift. 1. & 4. apud Binium.)

The next pope, who diftinguished himself againft the marriage of priests, was the fon of Bald-head, count of Burgundy, (whofe granddaughter was confort to Lewis the 6th, king of France); I mean the celebrated Guy, archbishop of Vienne, who fucceeded Gelafius, A. D. 1119, and had for fucceffor in the year 1124, Lambert of Bononia, commonly called Honorius the fecond. Calixtus the fecond, pope and prince of Burgundy, was the first

who

who abfolutely forbad priests marriage, and in cafe they were married, commanded them to be feparated. (Grat. dift. 27. c. 8.). This was in the beginning of the twelfth century. And towards the end of it, A. D. 1198, the renowned fon of Count Trafimund, I mean Innocent the third, the ever memorable Cardinal Lotharius, pronounced all the marriages of priests null. And afterwards came on the council of Trent, A. D. 1545—1563, which anathematizes thofe who fay fuch marriages are valid. (Seff. 24. can. 9.)

But one would think, that God fufficiently declared his approbation of fuch marriages, in that the whole world hath by his appointment been twice peopled by two married priests; firft by Adam, fecondly by Noah. And we are fure, the holy fcripture tells us, That marriage is honourable in all; (Heb. xiii. 4) and places it among the qualifications of a bishop, That he be the husband of one wife, having faithful children. (Tit. i. 6.) This, faith St. Chryfoftom, the apostle prescribed to this end, that he might stop the mouths of hereticks, who reproached marriage; declaring thereby that marriage is no unclean thing, but fo honourable, that a married man may be exalted to the facred throne of a bishop. (Chryfoft. hom. 2. in c. 1. ad tit.) What do you fay to this, Le Blanc? I fancy you never read this homily

of