rated from him, and joined together in purity and fimplicity, to please the Lord Jehovah. There was no enthufiafm in the cafe, (as Le Blanc, the mass-priest, has the front to fay) but, when the light of the gospel was obfcured, and darkness had overfpread the earth; when ignorance and fuperftition univerfally prevailed, and the immoralities of the Church of Rome were made to pafs for chriftianity in the world; then did thefe reformers call the people out of Rome, and preach to them the effential truths of the faith. They called them from an idolatrous religion, and all its train of direful effects; from that fin of the first rank, which ftrikes at the being of a God, and ravishes from him the greatest honour that is due to him from his creature, man; they called them from the horrible fervice of the mafs, from their addreffes to angels and faints, and their worship of images; to the inward knowledge of one true God, and the worship due to him only; to the fanctification and honour, which is due to him above all things, and above every name; to the living hope in God through Chrift; to regeneration, and inward renovation by faith, hope, and charity; to a holy converfation, and a faithful performance of all the commandments; to true repentance, perfeverance to the end, and life eternal. To thefe truths, (not to be found in the re

ligion of our travelling mass-priest) 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 feizing 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 papifts 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 the not do all that infernal popery could fuggeft, to destroy Cranmer, his brethren, and their reformation? And did not they, without any other affiftance than what they received from the fpirit 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 bonest men went on with their heavenly work, and till, the flames made them filent, endeavoured to deftroy the Romish artifices and immoralities, and to fpread 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 mafs-priest, reviles and black

ens them.

What he fays of ufurpation, in refpect 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 lesser monafleries, 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 although

though fome ufes might cease 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 must anfwer it. For the fatisfaction of confcience about the reformation, there can be but three queftions fairly propofed. Was there sufficient cause 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 obfervation in relation to the marriage of priefis, 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. Auguflin charges the Manichees wth this error. Hic non dubito vos effe clamaturos invidiam

que

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

uxores.

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 displeasure 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 reason. Perhaps it was because pope rather diffuaded priests from marriage than peremptorily forbad it, as appears by his letters. (Syr. epift. 1. & 4. apud Binium.)

this

The next pope, who diftinguished himself against the marriage of priests, was the son of Bald-bead, 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