Of the Interpretation of Scripture.

You add, that there is a Controver­sie about the Interpretation of Scrip­ture. The Pope and the Roman Church boast themselves to be the infallible In­terpreters, and Sovereign Judges of the Sense of it. Yet the Roman Church never made any Interpretation of Scripture which was generally approved. We have onely Comments of Doctors, who disagree among themselves. Truly the Church of Rome intends not to make Scripture plainly understood, since she hides it from the People, and will not have it to be read, and hath forbidden the Translation of it into the vulgar Tongues. What Interpretati­on can we expect from the Pope, who boasteth that he can change the Com­mandments of God, and saith that Scrip­ture is subject unto him?

Be pleased my Lord, especially to con­sider, whether it be just and reasonable that the Pope should be Judge in his own Cause, and whether the Roman Church can be the Sovereign Judge of her own Duty; and whether in this [Page 21]Question, whether the Roman Church be a Sovereign Judge in points of Faith, the Roman Church her Self can be the Judge.

To give you some Instances of this, Jesus Christ saith to St. Peter, Mat. 16.18.19. and to all his Apostles, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven &c. Upon which Text the Roman Pre­late groundeth his Primacy. In Consci­ence is it just, that he should be acknow­ledged the Sovereign and infallible Judge and Interpreter of those Texts upon which he groundeth his Empire? For who can doubt but that he will give Judgment on his own side; as indeed by his Interpretations he hath laid up for himself greater Riches than that of the greatest Kings, and hath built to himself an earthly Empire. See then how he interprets that Text. Because Christ hath said, Whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth; the Pope pre­tends he may also loose those under the Earth, drawing Souls out of Purgato­ry. And whereas Jesus Christ in that Text speaks only of loosing Sinners, that are bound with Ecclesiastical Cen­sures, the Pope from that Text as­sumes [Page 22]unto himself the Power of loo­sing Subjects from the Obedience sworn unto their Princes, of dispensing with Oaths, of freeing Children from the Obedience due to their Fathers, and of dissolving Marriages lawfully con­tracted. And whereas Christ gave to all his Disciples that loosing Power, the Pope hath reserved unto himself many Cases, in which none but him­self can give Absolution. Besides, he so interpreteth that Text, as if all that is said unto St. Peter was said unto the Pope, of which yet the Scripture saith nothing, and giveth to St. Peter no Successor in his Primacy or in his Apostleship.

Your self, My Lord, may judge whether the Pope, who hath forbid­den Marriage unto Bishops, can be a good Interpreter of the words of the Apostle,1 Tim. 3.2, 3., A Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife, having his children subject in all gravity. Whether the Pope ha­ving taken away the Cup of the Lords Supper from the Laity, can be a good Interpreter of these words of Christ, Drink ye all of it. Whether the Pope and the Roman Church, which by Ca­nons [Page 23]of Councels command the Ado­ration of Images, can be good Inter­preters of the Second Commandement which forbids it. Whether the Pope, who makes Ordinances for publick Brothel-houses at Rome, can be a good Interpreter of Gods Commandement, Thou shalt not commit Adultery. Whe­ther the Pope, who forbids Flesh and other Meats, can be a good Interpre­ter of the Apostles Precept, Whatsoe­ver is set before you, eat, asking no que­stion for Conscience sake. Whether the Roman Church, which in the Councel of Trent defineth, that Coveting is no sin, be a good Interpreter of the Com­mandement, Thou shalt not covet. Whe­ther the Pope, who brings into the publick Service a Language not un­derstood by the People, can be a good Interpreter of the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where it is so many times forbidden to pray and speak in the Church in an unknown Tongue. Whether Pope John XXIII, who denied the Immor­tality of the Soul, and for that Crime and many more was condemned by the Councel of Constance, could have [Page 24]been a good Interpreter of those Texts of Scripture which speak of E­ternal Life.

For your part, My Lord, you take another course. For, without speak­ing of the Authority of the Roman Church, which acknowledgeth no Judge but the Pope, you say that you have found in the Fathers of the five first Centuries, the Religion which you seem resolved to embrace. Where­in you resist openly the Roman Church, which admitteth not the Fathers for her Judges, and condemn them ve­ry often of Errour, Ignorance, and He­resie.

Then you contradict the very Fa­thers, who in a thousand places refuse to be believed or received for Judges, and send the Reader continually to the Holy Scripture. Hardly shall you find many Texts of Scripture wherein the Fathers agree about the Interpretation. You may be pleased therefore to con­sider, that you undertake a Journey in a way where you see no Light. They are Greek and Latin Fathers which you never read, and where you can get no Information for your [Page 25]Judgment. A man that hath nothing else to do, needs to spend ten years in study before he can get some medio­crity of knowledge in them; and the words which they use are taken now in a quite different sense. How can you know whether the Passages brought to you be faithfully alledged? How can you know whether the Books whence they are taken be not supposi­titious? Of which the Multitude is incredible. But after all, If the Ver­dict of the Fathers be received, the Roman Church must be cast, and it will appear that their Religion is but New. Since the Roman Church and the Pope boast that they can alter the Commandements of God, and make new Articles of Faith, even in that they have a new Religion.

Now you may ask, Who then shall be the Interpreter? Who can give us the true Sense of Scripture? I answer, that since the Question here is of an Interpreter that cannot err, and who shall always infallibly find out the true Sense? there is no such in being. God hath not in any place of his Word bestowed that Gift of [Page 26]Infallible Interpretation upon the Roman Church, no more than upon the Greek or the Syrian. There is no need of such an Interpreter; for things necessary to Salvation are so clearly set down in Scripture, that they need no Interpretation. Must we have an Interpreter to know that God hath created the World, that we must love God with all our heart, that the Son of God is dead for us? Now, I say, that all the Points necessary to Salvation are to be found in Scrip­ture, in terms as clear as these.

The Interpretations used by the Pa­stors of our Churches, are taken from the Scripture it self, so they are not the Interpreters; it is God that ex­pounds himself. For Example; When they expound these words, This is my Body; they take the Interpretation from Jesus Christ himself, who saith, that it is a Commemoration of him, and from three Evangelists, who say with one accord, that Jesus Christ hath given Bread to his Disciples; and from the words of Christ, that he drunk the Fruit of the Vine, we expound his other words, this is my Bloud. We [Page 27]expound also these words of Christ, This is my Body, from St. Pauls words, who (1 Cor. 11.) saith four times, that we eat Bread in the Lords Supper, and that we break Bread. Certainly, that Apostle giveth a clear Exposition of Christ's words, This is my Body, and this is my Blood, saying, (1 Cor. 10.16.) The Cup of Blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ?

We alledge also those Texts that say, that Jesus Christ is no more in this World; that the Heaven doth con­tain him; that Christ is like unto us in all things, sin onely excepted; and that by consequent he hath not a Bo­dy dispersed in a Million of several places at once, and inclosed whole in every Crum of the Host, and in every Drop of the Chalice.

Likewise, when Jesus saith, Do this in remembrance of me; We expound not these words as the Councel of Trent doth, which puts this Sense up­on them, I do constitute you to be Priests, to sacrifice my Body really [Page 28]under the species of Bread and Wine but we bring the Interpretation which St. Paul addeth (1 Cor. 11.26.) For as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do shew the Lords Death.

Consider also, that there is great Difference between a Judgment of Au­thority, and a Judgment of Discretion. With this last we judge of Meats by the Taste, without giving Laws to any. And it is so, that not only Pa­stours but also every one of the Peo­ple, may and doth judge of the true Doctrine. And it is so that St. Paul will have the Corinthians to judge of his Doctrine (1 Cor. 10.15.) I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say.

Of that matter and of the Interpre­tation of Scripture, I have written a Book purposely, which I have dedica­ted to your Grace, and which was pre­sented to you by Monsieur de Cabrilles from me. I asked your Grace at Liege, whether you had received it. Your An­swer was, that you knew not what was in it: for you have laboured to strength­en your self with Reasons against us, but would not take Notice how we answer them; and have conversed [Page 29]much with our Adversaries, but hid your self from your Servants, who might have cleared your Mind about their Objections, and armed you with Answers.

Of the Condemnation of Hereticks.

Your Grace saith farther, that you have desired to see whether the anci­ent Hereticks were condemned by Per­sons of our Religion, and whether one man be found in all Antiquity that had the same Religion as we, in all Points, These Condemnations of He­reticks were made by men sound in the Faith, that were of the same Reli­gion as we in all points, who have con­demned many Errours now received in the Roman Church.

The Councel of Laodicea approved by many Universal Councels which were held since, rejecteth the Books of Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, and other Apochryphal Books.

The Eliberin Councel held about the year of the Lord 305 hath made this Canon, It is decreed, that there shall be no Picture in the Church, that the things that [Page 30]are adored (or served) be not painted up­on Walls. The Councels that have commanded the Adoration of Images are later by 4 or 5 hundred years.

In the first Nicen Councel, the Mar­riage of the Pastors of the Church was approved, upon the Remonstrance of Paphnutius. Such is the fourth Canon of the Councel of Gangra, If any makes a Difference of a married Priest, as if he ought not to participate of the Oblation when he doth administer, let him be Ana­thema.

This is the XXXV Canon of the Councel of Laodicea, Christians must not forsake the Church of God, and go to serve Angels, and gather Congregations. If any them be found applying himself to that secret Idolatry, let him be Anathema, because he hath forsaken the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

About the year of the Lord 399, a Councel was held at Carthage, of which this is the 23 Canon, When Service is made at the Altar, the Prayer must al­ways be address't to the Father. The present Roman Church contradicts that Canon, for in their Service they have Prayers addrest unto Saints.

This is the 25 Canon of the same Councel, In the Divine Service, let no­thing be offered, but the Body and Blood of the Lord, that is, Bread and Wine mingled with Water.

The 16 Canon of the IV Councel of Carthage, absolutely forbids swearing by the Creatures. To this the Catechism of the Councel of Trent is contrary, which approveth swearing by Re­licks.

The 10 Canon of that Councel of Carthage saith. Mulier baptizare non pre­sumat, Let not a Woman presume to baptize. The Practise of the Roman Church is contrary to that.

The Milenitan Councel where St. Austin was present, and of which he hath made the Canons, forbids Appeals from Africk to Rome, in these Words, It is declared, That if the Priests or other Clerks in such Causes, as they shall have, shall complain of the Judgment of their Bishops, the Bishops shall hear them: But he that will appeal beyond the Seas, let him not be admitted to the Communion by any living in Africk.

In the VI Councel of Carthage, there is a long Epstle of the Councel, to [Page 32] Celestin Bishop of Rome, who, by a new Usurpation, would draw to him­self the Appeals of the Bishops of A­frick; whereby the Fathers of the Councel beseech him to receive no more Appeals from their Countrey, forbidding him to send any more of his Legats, or to use any more forged Canons to raise his Dignity, and bring Worldly Pride into the Church of Christ. Therefore Baronius, and Bel­larmin, and Cotton, Jesuits, condemn that Councel.

In the Councel of Chalcedon, held in the Year of the Lord 451, the Le­gats of the Bishop of Rome pretending to the Primacy, and bringing forth a forged Canon of Nicea, laboured to hinder the Bishop of Constantinople from being equal with the Bishop of Rome, against which, the Councel made this Canon. The Fathers, with good reason, have given Prerogatives to the See of An­tient Rome, because she was the Imperial City. And the hundred and fifty Bishops of the first Councel of Constantinople, moved with the like consideration, have attributed to the most holy See of New Rome, which is Constantinople, equal [Page 33]Priviledges; judging with good reason, that the City honoured with the Empire and the Senate, and which hath the same Prerogatives as the Antient Rome Impe­rial, ought to be magnified as much as [Rome] it self in Ecclesiastical things.

The Popes of our time and their Advocates condemn that Council, not only because it equalleth the Bishop of Constantinople with that of Rome, but chiefly because it groundeth the pre­eminence of the Bishop of Rome upon the Dignity of the City, because Rome is the Capital City of the Empire, and not upon the Succession in the Apostle­ship of St. Peter. For the Fathers of that Council do not acknowledge him in that Quality.

The Council of Aurange condemn­eth the Merits in the 12th Canon, say­ing, God loveth us, according as we shall be by his Grace, and not such as we shall be through our Merits.

In the Year of Our Lord 549, Repa­ratus Bishop of Cathage called a Sy­nod, in which Vigilius Bishop of Rome was anathematized as an Heretick Eu­tychian: And Honorius Bishop of Rome was condemned by the VI and [Page 34]the VII Universal Councils, as an He­retick Monothelite. In the VI Council of Constantinople, assembled again in the Palace of Trulle, in the 17 and the 77 Canon, the Church of Rome is ex­presly, and by name condemned, and is commanded to hinder no more the cohabitation of Priests with their Wives, and to Fast no more on the Lords Day, upon pain of Deposition, or Excommunication. Whence it ap­peareth by the way, that the Greek and Eastern Church, in which that Council was celebrated, in which that Council was celebrated, was not sub­ject to the Roman Church, since she prescribed Laws to her.

In the Year 754, a Council com­posed of 338 Bishops, was held at Con­stantinople, in which it was decreed, that Images should be removed out of Churches, and the worship of them was forbidden. There also the Bread of the Eucharist is called the Image, and the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ.

But in the Year 787 the Em­press Irene assembled another Council against that Council at Nicea, in which Images were set up again, and [Page 35]the Worship of them was commanded upon Pain of Anathema. But in the year 794, the Emperour Charles the Great, caused that Council of Nicea to be condemned by another Council assembled at Frankford, although he knew, that Pope Adrian was of a con­trary Opinion, and had defended that Council of Nicea by an express Book.

This is, My Lord, the Condemnati­on of Errours about our Controversies, which I find in the ancient Councils. Neither could I find any ancient Coun­cil, which (in matters of Faith) con­demns the Doctrine that we profess. For the Chronicle of Gaultier, (which was shewed to your Grace,) represent­eth things falsly, and doth not agree with other Authors of his Religion, who justifie us against most of his Ca­lumnies.

I am ready to undergo any Punish­ment, if in the 500 years, which your Grace mentions, one only man be found, that had a Religion any whit like the present Religion of the Roman Church. In the ancient Church the publick Service was celebrated in the [Page 36]vulgar Tongue understood by the People. The Laity received the Com­munion in the two kinds. The read­ing of Scripture was not prohibited to the People. The Church did not be­lieve Purgatory. Before the year 370 of the Lord, no Tract is found of In­vocation of Saints. There was no Mention of Roman Indulgences, nor of the Treasure of the Church, in which the Pope hath laid up the Overplus of the penal Works, and Satisfactions of Saints and Monks, which he distributes among the People by his Indulgences. In those days they made no Images of God. They worshipped not the Ima­ges of Saints. They adored not the con­secrated Host with Worship of Latria. They spake not of Accidents without a Subject. They believed not, that Mice could gnaw the Body of Christ, or that it could be blown away be the Wind, or stole or devoured by Beasts, as we are taught in the Beginning of the Missal.

In those days, the Bishops of Asia, Africa, Aegypt, Graece, &c. took no Oath of Allegiance to the Roman Bish­op in their Ordination, and took no [Page 37]Letters of Investiture from him. In those Days they believed not that Jesus Christ had eaten his own Body in the Communion. They believed not, that it was in the Priests Power to create his Creator. The Pope did not style himself God and the Divine Majesty. He boasted not, that he could not err, and that he was the Sovereign Judge of Controversies. He drew no Souls out of Purgatory. He took not upon him the Power of adding to the Creed. He canonized no Saints. He gave no Pardons of two or three hundred years. He dispensed not with Vows and Oaths. He dispensed no with Vows and Oaths. He neither gave nor took away King­doms. He put no Kingdom in Inter­dict.

In those days, the Blessed Virgin Mary was not called the Queen of Hea­ven, and the Lady of the World. The Bishop of Rome did not bestow several Offices upon Saints, charging one to look over such a Country, another to such a Disease, another to such a Trade. They spake not in those days of Franciscan Fryars, nor of Dominicans, nor of Capucins, nor of Jesuits, nor of Beads, Rosaries, Agnus Dei, and the [Page 38]like Commodities. In a Word, the Roman Religion is a Religion spick and span new, and an horrible defa­cing of the ancient Religion taught by Christ and his Apostles.

If Your Grace hath such a great De­sire to be instructed about Antiquity, you may desire one of those that take upon them to instruct you, to give you but one Example upon any of the forementioned Points. I am sure that they will never undertake it, it being utterly impossible.

I could shew to Your Grace, that all these Inventions were devised to serve the Gain and Ambition of the Pope and his Clergy. But I will pass to that which Your Grace addeth.

Of the Pope's Primacy.

From thence you pass to the Pope's Primacy, and speak thus; I sought to be informed, whether all the Western Churches had not always acknow­ledged the Bishop of Rome to be the Primate and the Head of the visible Church, established by our Lord for the Conduct of the same; and seeing [Page 39]the Protestants were so far from reje­cting the first five Centuries, that they often both in their Sermons and Books, quote and produce the Fathers that writ in those Ages. I thought the shortest way for my Information would be to see what were the Sentiments of those Fathers in the controverted Points.

Truly my Lord, that short way which you say you have taken, is of an infinite Length, and indeed there is no end of it. It would have been a far shorter way to have asked of the ablest men of the Roman Church, whe­ther it may be found in Gods Word, that God hath established the Pope Successor of St. Peter in his Apostle­ship, and in his Primacy over the Universal Church. They would have freely confest unto you, that the Ho­ly Scripture saith nothing of it, and that it is a Tradition about which we have no Commandment of God.

I observe also, that you speak only of the Western Churches, whence I ga­ther, that he who suggested these things to your Grace, knows that the Eastern and the African Church never [Page 40]acknowledged the Bishop of Rome in that Quality and Character. Now those Churches were then greater than the Western, as also they are ancient­er. Now by the Councils approved both by the Western and the Eastern Churches, which I have already al­ledged to your Grace, the Pride of the Bishop of Rome, who began then to lift up himself is censured.

And though you had proved that the Western have always acknowledg­ed the Pope as Head of the Church, it availeth nothing, unless it be pro­ved also, that his Primacy then consist­ed in doing those things which he doth now. Did he then boast that he could not err? Did he vaunt him­self as Sovereign Judge of the Sense and Interpretation of Scripture? Did he give Indulgences? Did he draw Souls out of Purgatory? Did he give and take away Kingdom? Did he call himself God? Did he boast that he hath Power to add unto the Creed? For in vain do we dispute about Titles, when the things are dif­ferent.

I would also beseech you Grace to see whether you be not abused; for indeed many Passages in the Fathers are found, which say that the Bishop of Rome is Successor to St. Peter: But they speak of the Succession in the Charge of Bishop of the City of Rome, not in the Apostleship, or in the Pri­macy over the Universal Church. And it is very remarkable, that all the Examples of the Popes Authority brought out of Antiquity, are within the Limits of the Roman Empire. And that it cannot be found for above a thousand years after our Saviours time, that the Bishops of Rome did in­termeddle with the Affairs of Church­es without the Roman Empire, as of the Persian, Armenian, and Indian Churches. In all that time he never gave them any Laws, he never recei­ved any Appeal from them.

And that you may see what was the Face of the ancient Church in that Point, I will lay down before your Grace some Examples according to the Order of the Ages.

For the first Age we find that St. Peter writ his last Epistle being near [Page 42]his Death, as he saith himself in the first Chapter; and then, or never it was time for him to say, now my Death is at Hand, but I leave you for my Successor the Bishop of Rome, to whom I will have the Universal Church be subject; but of that he saith no­thing, nor takes any of those Titles up­on him which the Pope now attributes unto himself. St. Peter being dead, if there had been any Question about choosing a Head for the Universal Church in his Room, no Doubt but that some Apostle as St. James or St. John must have succeeded him; for St. John outlived St. Peter about thir­ty years, but no such thing was done. In the same. Age lived Dionysius Areo­pagite, to whom are ascribed by them of the Roman Church, the Books of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Reason re­quired that he should speak of the So­vereign Hierarch, who now is called the Pope. Yet he speaks never a word of him, he describeth all the Ecclesia­stical Offices and Degrees, making no Mention of the Head of the Church, for he did not acknowledge any.

We find by the Ecclesiastical Histo­ry, that in that Age and long after, the Bishop of Rome, was elected by the Suffrages of the Clegy of that Di­ocesan Church, with the Consent of their People; An evident Proof that they believed not in those days, that the Bishop of Rome was Head of the Universal Church. For had he been so, the Universal Church must have contributed to his Election; the People of Rome having no right to give a Head to the Church of all the World.

That Age did swarm with Heresies, which the Bishop of Rome did not condemn, nor had any Cognisance of them. None that we read of were condemned by any Council for not obeying the Bishop of Rome, and re­fusing to be judged by him. Our Ad­versaries themselves do not alledge any thing from the Roman Church of that Age, but only some false decre­tal Epistles of the Popes, which Baro­nius and Bellarmine, and Binnius and many others, acknowledge to be for­ged.

In the second Century our Adver­saries find nothing for the Popes Pri­macy. Only towards the end of that Age, upon the Question about the Day of the Celebration of Easter, Vi­ctor Bishop of Rome, separated himself from the Communion of diverse of the Oriental Churches, because they pre­cisely observed the 14th day of the Moon of March for the day of Easter. For which Action, Victor was sharply taken up by other Bishops, and parti­cularly by Irenaeus, as Eusebius witnes­seth in the V Book, and 25 Chapter of his History.

The third Age affords us many Ex­amples to the contrary. In the year of our Lord 217 Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage assembled a Council in Africa, in which it was resolved and defined, that the Baptism of Hereticks was no Baptism. This was against the Do­ctrine of the Church of Rome, and whether of the two was in the Right it is not material; It is enough that thereby it appeareth, that the Church of Africa was not then subject to that of Rome.

In the year of our Lord 256 Cypri­an Successor of Agrippinus began to de­fend his Predecessors Doctrine. There being then a Discord between Corneli­us Bishop of Rome and one Novatianus, whereby the Church of Rome was in Trouble, Cyprian sent two Legats to Rome, to compose the Difference, thereby taking as much Authority over the Church of Rome, as the Church of Rome use to exercise in the like Cases. In all his Epistles to Cor­nelius, he giveth him no other Title but that of Brother, and acknowledg­eth him not for his Superiour.

The Contention about rebaptizing of Hereticks grew hot between him, and Stephen Bishop of Rome, even to down-right ill Words. In the Epistle to Pompeius, which is the 74, Cyprian calls Stephen the Champion of Here­ticks. proud, ignorant, imprudent, an Enemy to Christians, preferring Fals­hood before Truth, and Anti-Christ before Christ.

Moreover, he assembled a Council of 87 African Bishops, who condemn­ed Stephen Bishop of Rome and his Do­ctrine, and that in Terms worse than [Page 46] Cyprian had given him. About the same time St. Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, a man of great Authority also, bitterly reviled Ste­phen. From these things it sufficiently appears, that these Bishops were far from thinking themselves subject to the Bishop of Rome.

In that Age our Adversaries find nothing for the Pope's Primacy; no Appeals to him from Churches, either far or near; no Laws given to the Universal Church; onely some forged Decretal Epistles of the Bishops of Rome, of those times are produced, whose falshood is acknowledged by the most Learned of the Roman Wri­ters. In those Epistles the Pope is made to speak as a Master, having power over all the Emperours and Bishops of the World; Whereas the Bishops of Rome then confined the exercise of their Power to their own Diocess; not presuming to give Laws to any other Churches, much less to their Temporal Governours.

Of those three first Ages, Pope Pius the Second in his Epistle to Martin Mayer, which is the 188. speaks thus, [Page 47] Every one then lived for himself, and little Reverence was deferred to the Roman Church.

In the year of our Lord 312. the Emperour Constantine being convert­ed to the Christian Religion, appoint­ed Judges in the Donatists Case, Mel­chiades Bishop of Rome being one of them. But the Donatists having com­plained of his Judgment, the Empe­rour commanded that their Cause should be judged again by the Synod of Arles, who had power to confirm or disannul the Judgment of Melchia­des, and his Fellow-Judges.

Under that Emperour, the Christi­an Church being delivered from Per­secutions, a new Order and Consti­tution was made over all the Roman Empire, to which Sylvester Bishop of Rome was not called. His Legend saith untruly, that he baptized Con­stantine, and healed him of a Lepro­sie; but upon that groundless Fable was built the Donation of Constantine, by which the Emperour is pretended to have given unto the Pope one half of his Empire.

The same Emperour, in the year 325. assembled a General Council out of the whole Empire, in which Sylvester did not preside, but Hozius Bishop of Corduba in Spain, of whom our Adversaries falsly say, that he pre­sided in that Council as the Pope's Legate: A thing repugnant to the Testimony of Eusebius, Theodoret, and Sozomen, and to the Acts of the Ni­cene Council, in which Hozius sign­ed the first without styling himself the Pope's Legat; and after him Vitus and Vincentius Deputies of the Bishop of Rome.

To the Emperour Constantine suc­ceeded his Son Constantius, who fa­vouring the Arrians, banished Liberius Bishop of Rome, and gave him five hundred Crowns to maintain him in his Exile. But Liberius, to be resto­red to his Bishoprick, joyned with the Arrians, and subscribed their Confes­sion, in their Assembly at Sirmium.

In the year 381. the Emperour Theodosius called a General Council at Constantinople, to which Damasus Bi­shop of Rome came not, nor sent any Legate to it; that Council being as­sembled [Page 49]without his consent. In that Council Heresies were con­demned, and the Order of the Patri­archs was altered, without asking the Advice of Damasus. Yet that Coun­cil is one of the first four Oecume­nical Councils.

About the same time, Ambrose Bi­shop of Milan refused to administer the Communion to the Emperour Theodosius, for a Murther committed by his Guards at Thessalonica. Am­brose did this without taking the Ad­vice of Damasus Bishop of Rome, his Neighbour. Such an action in our dayes would be High Treason against the Pope. For it is one of the Fun­damental Laws of the Roman Church, that Kings cannot be bound by Cen­sures, or excommunicated but by the Pope's Order.

That I may not gather here a great­er number of Examples, I have al­ledged before many Councils that have condemned Popes of Heresie, and have forbidden them to send Le­gates, and receive Appeals from Fo­reign Churches.

The first Bishop of Rome (that I read of) who took upon him to govern the Church as Successor of St. Peter, was Leo the First, about the year of our Lord 450. For before him the Preeminence which was claimed by the Roman Bishops, was grounded on­ly upon some mistaken or falsified Ca­nons of Councils; and those in Con­sideration of the dignity of the City, which was the chief City of the Em­pire: For out of the Roman Empire the Bishops of Rome claimed no Supe­riority.

Some Passages are found, true or false, in which the Bishops of Rome are styled the first Bishops of the whole World, and Presidents over the Uni­versal Church: But the Reason of it was, that the Ancients called the Ro­man Emperours, Governours and Ma­sters of the World, and it is frequent in their Writings to call the Empire Orbis Romanus, the Roman World. The Truth of this is evident, because the same Titles are many times given to the other Patriarchs, or chief Bi­shops of the Roman Empire, viz. To the Bishop of Constantinople, to him [Page 51]of Antioch, and to him of Alexandria, who are also called the Heads and So­vereigns of all; and are said to have the Care of all the Churches. Thus Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration up­on Athanasius saith, That the Charge of the People of Alexandria was committed unto him, which is as much as if one said the Government of all the World. And in the same place he saith, that Atha­nasius gave Laws unto all the World.

Basil saith, that Meletius Bishop of Antioch, Basil. Ep: 50. did preside over the whole Body of the Church. Theodoret in his Book of Heresies, in the Chapter where he speaks of Nestorius Bishop of Constan­tinople, calls him also the Bishop [...] of the whole habitable World. Wherefore also the Patriarch of Con­stantinople is called the Oecumenical or Universal Bishop in the Councils of that Age.

For this Rule was constituted a­mong the Patriarchs of the Roman Em­pire, that each of them was to take Care of all the Churches of the whole Roman Empire: but that Power was never extended beyond the Limits of the Roman Empire. Yea, some Passa­ges [Page 52]are found in which that general Dignity is attributed unto all Bishops that were eminent in Holiness; as Ba­sil saith to Ambrose, Idem ep. 55. that God had rais­ed him to the Dignity of the Apostles. And Sidonius calls Lupus Bishop of Troyes, Sidon. lib. 6. ep. 1. the Bishop of Bishops, and the first Prelate of all the World. In those times all Bishops were called Popes.

For the Popes Primacy Your Grace alledgeth St. Hierom, who writing to Damasus, and acknowledging no other Preeminence than that of Jesus Christ, said, I am in Communion with thy Beatitude, that is, with St. Peter's Chair.

I see nothing there that favoureth the Popes Primacy over the Univer­sal Church. For (as I mentioned be­fore) the Bishops of Rome were held St. Peter's Successors in his Govern­ment over the Roman Church; which Government they held to have been founded by St. Peter, and I would not dispute about that. But they were not held Successors of St. Peter's Apostleship, nor of his Primacy. Say­ing to a man, I am of thy Communion, is not acknowledging him Head of [Page 53]the Universal Church. So much many be said to any Bishop that is sound in the Faith; yea, to any true Believer we may say, that we must be of his Communion, and that he that gather­eth not with him, is a Scatterer. There were then held to be three Chairs of St. Peter, one at Rome, another in Alexandria, another in Antioch. The Bishops of these Cities styled them­selves Successors of St. Peter in the Government of those Churches, not in the Apostleship. And there were always Piques and Quarrels between those three Sees. Gregory the First, Bishop of Rome, in the 37 Epistle of his VI Book, saith that those three Chairs are but one See, upon which three Bishops are sitting, and he ac­knowledgeth them his Equals, and that it belongs not to him to command them.

But they that shewed to Your Grace that Authority of St. Hierom, had more Wit than to shew you other Passages of his, in which he debaseth very much the Bishop of Rome, and giveth no good Character of the Ro­man Church of his Age. In his Epi­stle [Page 54]to Euagrius he saith; In what part soever a man is a Bishop, whether it be at Rome, or at Agobio, whether at Constantinople or Regio, they have the same Dignity and Authority; Power and Wealth, or Meanness and Poverty, do not make one greater or lower than ano­ther. By their Place they are all Succes­sors of the Apostles. And because some alledged the Example of the Roman Church for preferring the Deacon before the Priest, he answereth, Why doest thou alledge to me the Custom of one City? shewing that that was not to be a Rule to the Universal Church.

His Custom is to call Rome Babylon, and the Harlot, and to exhort devout Persons to come out of her. And in his Preface upon the Book of Didymus of the Holy Ghost, he speaks thus, When I was in Babylon, and was an In­habitant of the Harlot clad in Purple, and lived after the Laws of the Roman Citizens, I would prate somewhat about the Holy Ghost, and dedicate my Work to the Bishop of the City. But behold that Pot which is seen in Jeremiah after the Staff on the North-side, begins to boyl, and the Senate of the Pharisees be­gins [Page 55]to cry out, meaning by the Senate of the Pharisees, the Ecclesiastical Ro­man Senate.

And in the Epistle to Marcella un­der the name of Paula and Eustochium, exhorting Marcella to come out of Rome, and to retire to Bethlehem, I esteem (saith he) that this place of Beth­lehem is holier than the Tarpeian Rock, (meaning the Roman Capitol) which having so often been struck with Lightning from Heaven, sheweth that it is displea­sing unto God. Read St. Johns Reve­lation, and see what is foretold of the Hatlot clad with Purple, and of the Blasphemy written on her forehead, and of the seven Mountains, and of the ma­ny Waters; fly from her my People, and be not Partaker of her Sins, least you re­ceive of her Plagues: It is fallen, it is fallen, &c. But being gone from Rome into Syria, and living there in perpe­tual Quarrels with the Clergy of that Country, he was constrained to have Recourse unto his old Master Dama­sus (for he had been his Secretary) and to write to him those kind Letters which you alledge.

After Hierom you bring St. Austin in these words, Shall we doubt whether we must rest in the Churches Lap, which by Succession hath always had Sovereign Authority in the Apostolick Chair? That Passage is found in the Book de utili­tate credendi, in the 17 Chapter, but otherwise set down than Your Grace alledgeth. Disputing against the Ma­nicheans, with whom Scripture had no Authority, he useth humane and pro­bable Proofs to exhort men to em­brace the Christian Religion. He saith then, We seeing such a great Assistance of God, and so great Proficiency & Improve­ment advance, shall we doubt to enter in­to the Lap of that Church, [not the Ro­man, but Catholick Church] which (even to the Confession of Mankind) from the Apostolick See, by the Successions of Bi­shops, while the Hereticks in vain barked about her, &c. hath arrived at the height of Authority [that is, to be the establisht Religion.]

In this Passage St. Austin neither mentioneth nor appears to have thought of the Roman Church. And although the Chair of Rome had been named in it, yet this would avail no­thing [Page 57]for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Universal Church. For the Primacy of the Apostolick Chairs is attributed by the Ancients no less to the Church of Alexandria, of Antioch, of Jerusalem, &c. than to the Church of Rome. Sozomen speaks thus of the Council of Nice, Soz. hist. lib. 1. c. 16. There met among the Bishops that held Apostolick Sees, Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem, Eu­stathius Bishop of Antioch upon the Ri­ver Orontes, and Alexander near the Mareotid Marshes. And again,idem 4.24. of the Ephesine Council, Cyrillus Prelate of the Apostolick See, meaning Jerusalem. Ruffinus in the second Book, chap. 21. In Alexandria Timothy, in Jerusalem John, restored the Apostolick Sees. The­odoret in the fifth Book of his History chap. 9. calls Antioch the most ancient Church and wholly Apostolick. St. Au­stin in his 162 Epistle, speaks of the Apostolick Sees in the plural, saying, that Cecilian might have reserved his Cause to the Judgment of the Apostolick Sees. We have alledged Basil before, saying that St. Ambrose Bishop of Mi­lan had the Apostolick Preheminence, and Hierom saying, that all Bishops are [Page 58]Successors of the Apostles. Sidonius in the first Epistle of the 6. Book, saith that Lupus Bishop of Troyes had alrea­dy set nine times five years in the A­postolick See.

They do then abuse your Grace, that make you believe that Austin speaks only of the Apostolick See of the Roman Bishop, seeing that the Primacy of the Apostolick See, be­longed to so many other Bishops. And though in that place St. Austin had spoken of the Bishop of Rome on­ly, he had not thereby excluded the other Bishops from the same Dignity. He that saith the King of France en­joyeth the Royal Preeminence, doth not thereby deny to the Kings of Eng­land and Spain their Authority in their own Countries.

Here it is observable, that St. Au­stin was never subject to the Bishop of Rome, that he never took an Oath of Fidelity to him, that when he was ad­mitted Bishop, he took no Letters of Investiture from him, and paid him no Annates for his Entry. He was one of those that made the Canons of the Milevitan Council, which for­bad [Page 59]the Appeals from Africa to Rome; and one of those that made that Re­monstrance to Celestin Bishop of Rome, that he should for the time to come abstain from sending Legats into Afri­ca, and medling with their Businesses, and using Supposititious Canons to ad­vance his Authority. The Bishops of Africa were of the same Faith with the Bishop of Rome, and spake to him in respectful Terms, because of the Dig­nity of the Imperial City, and because they believed that St. Peter died at Rome, and had founded that Chair among many others. But if the Bishops of Rome had taken upon them the Title of God, and boasted that they could not err; if they had taken up­on them to canonize Saints, to give Indulgences, to draw Souls out of Purgatory, to alter the Command­ments of God, and to add unto the Creed; those African Bishops would have bestowed their Censures upon him as freely as they did upon any other who fell into Heresie.

Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

For the Sacrifice of the Mass, Your Grace alledgeth two Passages out of St. Austin. The one saith, That the Catholick Faith suffers not that the Sa­crifice of the Body and Blood of the Lord be offered for those that are not bap­tized. In the other, speaking of his dead Mother, he saith, that the Sacri­fice of our Ransom was offered for her, when her Body was upon the Brink of the Grave.

There is nothing more easie than to deceive one that will be deceived, and hath no Knowledge in the Fa­thers. St. Austin declareth his Mind upon this point very often, and tells us that the Eucharist is called the Sa­crifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, because it is the Sign and Fi­gure of his Body and Blood; and that the Signs are ordinarily called by the Names of the things which they re­present. Thus in his Epist. 23 to Bo­niface, Hath not Christ been once sacrifi­ced in himself? And yet he is sacrificed unto the People in a sacred Sign; and [Page 61]he doth not lye, who being asked, answer­eth, that he is sacrificed. For if the Sa­craments had not some Likeness to the things of which they are Sacraments, they could not be Sacraments. Now by Rea­of that Likeness they take often the name of the very things.

Add to this the Canon,De consecr. dist. 2. cap. 48. i. e. the Roman Code of Canon Law. The Immolation of the Flesh, which is done by the hands of the Priest is called the Passion, the Death, and the crucifying of Jesus Christ, not in Truth, but by a significant Mystery.

This is then the Sense of these pla­ces of St. Austin; that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of the same Price, because it is the Sign and the Sacrament of it, and because the Signs take commonly the name of the thing signified; as the same Father saith,St. Aug. quaest. 55. in Levit. Idem con­tra Adi­mant. c. 12. Theod. dialog. 1. The signifying thing useth to take the name of the thing signified. And the Lord hath made no Difficulty to say, This is my Body, when he gave the Sign of his Body. And Theodoret expounding these words, This is my Body, saith, that the Lord hath given to the Sign the name of his Body. [Page 62]And Tertullian, Tertul. contr. Marc. 4.40. This is my Body, that is, the Sign of my Body. Indeed the Eu­charist is called a Sacrifice of our Ran­som, in the same manner, as in the In­stitution of the Sacrament, the Bread is called the Body of Christ; and in the same manner as the Cup is called the New Testament, because it is the Sacrament and Memorial of the same; for neither the Cup nor that which is in it is a Testament. St. Austin knew that Jesus Christ hath wholly paid our Ransom on the Cross, and that there is no other Ransom but the Death of Jesus Christ to redeem us: now the Eucharist is not the Death of Jesus Christ. And if to apply the Sacrifice of the Cross unto us, we must sacrifice Jesus Christ again; by the same Rea­son to apply the Death of Jesus Christ unto us, we must put him to Death again.

But what can we ask more, since our Adversaries confess that Jesus Christ did not offer himself in Sacri­fice in the Eucharist, and put that Sa­crifice among the unwritten Traditi­ons? So much Bellarmine confesseth in the first Book of the Mass, Chap. 27. [Page 63]§ Quinta. The Oblation (saith he) which is made after the Consecration belongeth to the Integrity of the Sacrifice, but not to the Essence of it; which is proved, be­cause the Lord did not make that Obla­tion nor the Sacrifice at the first. And both Baronius and the Jesuit Salmeron put the Mass and the Sacrifice of the same among the unwritten Traditi­ons.

As for the Passage you alledge out of the Catechisms of Cyrill of Jerusalem, I need say no more but that the Book which you quote is supposititious, whose Style is far different from that of the other beforegoing. God hath permitted that an evident Sign of For­gery should be in that Book; the Au­thor exhorteth his Hearers, that they be no more Spectators of the Combats of Gladiators of the Amphitheater, and of the Horse-races in the Hippo­drome: But since Jerusalem was Chri­stian, there hath been no Spectacles in the Amphitheater or Hippodrome. Gesner in his Bibliotheca saith, that he hath seen those Catechisms in the Libra­ry of Ausburg, under the name of John of Constantinople.

Of the Invocation of Saints.

For the Invocation of Saints, Your Grace alledgeth St. Ambrose in the Book of Widows, where he saith, That we must pray to the Angels that have the keeping of us, and to the Saints and Martyrs, of whom we may expect Assi­stance. St. Ambrose writ that Book when he was a new Christian, but he changed his Language after that time: for in his Oration for Theodosius, writ­ten long after, he saith Thou alone, O Lord, must be called upon and prayed to. And Mary was the Temple of God, St. Ambr. l. 3. c. 12. de Sp. Sanct. but she was not God; wherefore we must worship God alone who wrought in that Temple. And a little before, We read, that we must not worship any but God, for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

The Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans ascribed to Ambrose, up­on the first Chapter saith, Address is made to the King by Colonels and Go­vernours, because the King is a man and knoweth not to whom he ought to commit [Page 65]the Administration of the State; but to get Gods Favour who is ignorant of no­thing, (for he knoweth what men are de­serving) there is no need of any ones Suffrage to help us, but of a devout Spi­rit. And upon Colos. 1. Christ holds the Primacy in all things; wherefore if any beleive that he must have Devotion for some Element, or for some of the An­gels and Powers, let him know that he is in an Errour.

Chrysostom in his first Sermon of Pe­nitence, speaks thus, God must be pray­ed to without an Intercessor. And upon Heb. 1. in his third Homily, Why do you look up to Angels, gaping after them? They are Servants to the Son of God, sent to several places in your behalf. And in the eighteenth Homily upon the Epistle to the Romans, towards the end, To whom wilt thou have Recourse? Whose Help wilt thou implore? Wilt thou call upon Abraham? But he cannot hear thee. Wilt thou call upon those Virgins? But they will give thee none of their Oyl. Wilt thou call upon thy Father or thy Grand-father? but none of them, though never so holy, hath Power to alter that Judgment. These things being consider­ed, [Page 66]thou must venerate him, and pray to him alone, who hath Power to blot out that Obligation, and to put out that Flame.

St. Austin saith,S. Aug. Enchir. c. 3. Of God alone we must ask the Good which we hope to do, or hope to obtain by our good Works. And in the Book of the Quantity of the Soul, 34 chap. God alone must be served by the Soul, for he alone is the Maker of it. And in the last Chapter of the Book of the true Religion. Let the Worship of dead men be none of our Religion; for if they have lived godly, they are not so disposed to seek such Honours: but they would have us worship him, by whose Il­lumination they rejoyce that we are Par­tners of their Dignity. We must there­fore honour them by way of Imitation, and not worship them on the account of Reli­gion. And he speaks thus to God,Idem l. confess. c. 42. Whom can I find to reconcile me with thee? Must I address my self to Angels? By what Prayers? By what Sacraments? Many have tryed these ways. and are fal­len to the Desire of curious Visions, and have deserved to be deceived.

Tertullian in the thirtieth Chapter of his Apologetick, speaks thus, I can­not [Page 67]ask these things of any but him of whom I know that I shall obtain them. For it is he only that grants them, and I am he that have a Right to obtain them, being his Servant that call upon him alone.

Likewise Origen against Celsus, the eighth Book saith, Above all things, we must pray to none but God and his only Son. Ignatius who lived near the time of the Apostles, saith in the Epi­stle to the Philadelphians, You Virgins have none but Jesus Christ, and the Fa­ther of Jesus Christ in your Prayers. Cle­mens Alexandrinus speaks thus,Cl. Ale­xand. l. 11. Strom. There being none but one only that is truly good, which is God, both we and the Angels pray to him alone. And so Athanasius. It is manifest (saith he) that the Patri­arch Jacob in his Prayer joyned none with God, but him that is his Word; Athan. Orat. 4. cont. Arian. be­cause it is he only, that manifesteth the Father unto us.

By a notorious Falshood, among the Works of this Father, was foisted a Book of the Mother of God, where she is called the Queen of Heaven, and Christians are commanded to adore her. But Bellarmine in his Book [Page 68]of Ecclesiastical Writers, and Banoni­us in the year 48. § 19 & 20. ack­nowledges the Book to be supposititi­ous. By the like Forgery in St. Au­stin's Book of the Spirit and the Soul, there is a Prayer to the Saints insert­ed, but in the same Book Boetius is quoted, who was not born when Au­gustine dyed, an evident Proof that the book is falsely attributed to him.

There is a Book of the same Father, Of the Care that must be had of the Dead, which is truly his, but corrupted and falsified in many places: For he is made to speak of Prayers to Saints departed as good and laudable; yet he saith there, that the departed Saints know nothing of all that the Living do; and that if it were otherwise, his good and holy Mother would not have forsaken him. Then he addeth, The Spirits of the deceased are in a place where they see nothing of all that is done, or that happeneth to men in this Life. And a little after. It must be acknowledged that the dead know not that which is done here, while it is a doing, but they know it afterwards by them that dye and come to them. Was St. Austin so much overseen [Page 69]as to teach that those must be called upon by us who understand us not, nor know what is done here below, unless some dye, and perhaps after­wards bring them News of it?

This Advantage we have in this point, that our Adversaries acknow­ledge, that there is no Commandment of God for the Invocation of Saints, and that the Holy Scripture saith no­thing of it: And that under the Old Testament, that is, for the space of four thousand years, the Church used no Invocation of them. All the Prayers in Scripture are addressed un­to God alone, and therefore we have no Assurance or Encouragement to call upon the Saints, which we can ground upon the Word of God. Is it not enough for us to have the Son of God for our Intercessor, who tells us, None comes to the Father but by me, John 14. For how can we pray with Faith and Assurance to those who dis­cern not the Prayers of the Heart? For Scripture tells us that God alone knoweth the Hearts of men. 2 Chron. 6.30.

I might say, that in the Roman Church many Saints are prayed to that never were in the World, and others whose Holiness is very dubious, and whose Lives were very bad. Three hundred and seventy years past in the Christian Church without any Invo­cation of Saints. The first that used it was Gregory Nazianzen, who yet in­vocating the Souls of Constantius, (who was an Arian) of Athanasius, and of Basil, added this Clause, If thou un­derstand me, and If the Dead have any Sense: But the Invocation of Saints was not received till a long time after in the Publick Service.

All these things considered, My Lord, I cannot wonder enough that Your Grace chooseth rather to be ru­led by one Passage of St. Ambrose, which perhaps is forged, than by the Word of God, and the Church of the first Ages after Christ. For would you subscribe to all that St. Ambrose saith? In the first book of Virgins he saith, that the Angels fell by lying with Women. In his Speech upon Gratian and Valentinian, and upon the first Psalm, he saith, that some rise again [Page 71]sooner than others. And in his Oration of the Faith of Resurrection, he makes three sorts of Resurrection; the first of the Patriarchs and Apostles, the se­cond of the Gentiles converted to the Faith, the third of those that come from the South and the North. In his first Book of Offices chap. 50. he con­demneth second Marriages. In the first Book of the Holy Ghost, he teach­eth that the Baptism in the name of the Holy Ghost alone, without na­ming the Father and the Son, is valid. In the tenth Sermon upon the 118 Psalm, he saith that the Damned which are in Hell, shall in the end be saved, when the time of their Punishment is fulfilled.

The Roman Church believeth not with Ambrose, that all Saints shall be burnt with the material Fire of the day of Judgment, as we shall see here­after. Neither doth the Roman Church believe with Ambrose, that Melchise­deck was Jesus Christ himself. Many Pages might be filled with the like Er­rours of this Father, whose Authority you value more than that of God speaking in the Holy Scriptures.

Of Prayer for the Dead, and of Purgatory.

Your Grace endeth your Allegati­ons of Fathers with Theodoret and Au­stin. The first of which is alledged to say, We believe that there is a Fire of Purgatory, in which Souls are purged like Gold in the Furnace. The other saith, He that will not till his Field, shall be chastised in this World, and after his Death shall be punisht in the Fire of Hell, or in that of Purgatory. And addeth, that he hath made a whole Book of the Prayers for the Dead, and that the whole Antiquity hath so pra­cticed it.

They that have helped you with these Passages have miserably abused your Grace. It is true, that all the ancient Church prayed for the Dead, but in a manner which the Roman Church condemneth, and holds to be ridiculous and erroneous. Not one Passage can be found in the genuine Works of any Father, by which it can appear, that he prayed for the Dead, to draw them out of Purgatory. [Page 73]Could Your Grace have the Patience to. read St. Austins Book of the Care to be taken of the Dead, you would find that there is not one Word of Purgatory in the whole Book.

The Christian Church in the III and IV Ages after Christ, prayed for the Saints, for the Apostles, and Martyrs. The publick Form of those Prayers is found in the eighth Book of the Apo­stolick Constitutions of Clement, in the eighteenth Chapter. We offer un­to thee for all the Faithful which have been pleasing unto thee from the Beginning of the World, Patriarchs, Prophets, Righteous, Apostles, Martyrs, Confes­sors. The same is to be found in the Book of Ecclesiastick Hierarchy, that goes under the name of Dionysius; and in Epiphanius, where he treateth of the Heresie of Arius. All consent, that none can imagine that these Prayers for the Saints, were to draw them out of Pur­gatory.

St. Austin who writ in the Begin­ning of the fifth Century, was the first that said it was doing Injury to a Mar­tyr to pray for him.

It further appears, that the ancient Church had not belief of this Doctrine, in that they prayed for the Souls that slept peaceably; which Prayer to this day remains in the Roman Mass, in which the Priest prayeth for the dead in these Words; Remember Lord thy Servants and Handmaids which are gone before us with the Sign of Faith, and which are sleeping in a quiet Sleep. It is evident, That this Prayer was made in a time when the Belief of Purgato­ry was not yet received, for those that are burning (perhaps for many Ages) in a Fire seven times hotter than Hell, do not sleep with a quiet Sleep.

If you ask me why they pray'd for the dead, whom they held not to be in any Torment, it will be no hard Matter to give you Satisfaction. First they asked that the Dead Person for whom they pray'd might rise again to Salvation in the last day. Such was the Prayer of Judas Maccabaeus, 2 Mac. 12.v. 43 & 44. Doing therein (saith the Author) very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the Resurrection. For if he had not hoped that they that were slain [Page 75]should have risen again, it had been su­perfluous and vain to pray for the Dead. By the Judgment of that Author, the Prayer made for the dead in the Ro­man Church, is superfluous and vain, since it is not made for their Resurre­ction. That this was in old time the intent of the Roman Church when they pray'd for the Dead, it appeareth by the Prayers which are used still in the Mass for the Dead, of which these are the Words; We beseech thee Lord to absolve the Souls of thy Servants from all Bonds of Sin, that in the Glory of the Resurrection, being risen again, they may breath among the elected Saints. Thus Ambrose prayeth for the Soul of Theo­dosius, and yet he saith, that he is re­ceived into Christ's Tabernacles in the heavenly Jerusalem. And St. Austin prayeth for the Soul of his Mother Monica, which is among the Saints, and whom St. Austin believes to be enjoying heavenly Blessedness.

Another Opinion was rife among the Antients, That some Souls should rise sooner than other Souls, and that many Sins were to be expiated by the Delay of the Resurrection. Tertulli­an [Page 76]towards the end of his Book of the Soul, makes the Suffering of Souls after Death, even for the least Sins to consist in that Delay. In the Book of Monogamy, chap. 10. he will have a Wi­dow to pray for her deceased Husband, and that she may keep him Company in the first Resurrection. The like Prayer Ambrose maketh for Gratian and Valen­tinian, I beseech thee O Supreme God, that thou wilt raise up again, more early, these most beloved young men. Here is then a se­cond end, for which the Ancients pray­ed for the dead.

They had one end more. It was an Opinion generally held by the Fathers, that in the day of Judgment, after men are risen again they shall not enter into Paradise before they have been sindged and purged by the Fire of the day of Judgment, some more, some less, as they have more or less sinned. This is the Purgatory Fire of the Antients, of which their Books are full. Through that fire they make all the Saints to pass, even the Virgin Mary. Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 21. declares thus his Opinion, which was then the general, When God hath judged the Just, he will try them by fire, and [Page 77]those whose Sins are very considerable ei­ther in Weight or number, shall be sindged and lightly burnt by the Fire. Thus Hil­lary upon St. Matthew, Hilar. in Mat. Ca­non. 2. To them that are baptized with Holy Ghost, it remains yet to be perfected by the fire of Judgment. And in the part Gimel upon the 119 Psalm, This Purification is reserved for us after the Baptism of Water, which must sanctifie us by the coming of the Holy Ghost, and refine us by the Fire of Judgment?

Again, Do we wish for the day of Judg­ment, in which we must pass through that unwearied Fire, and undergo those grie­vous Pains, to expiate the Soul of her Sins? And he makes the Virgin Mary go through that Fire, If (saith he) even that Virgin which hath conceived God must undergo the Severity of that Judg­ment, who will dare to desire to be judged by God?

St. Ambrose also saith, that all the Prophets and Apostles must in that day be purged by that Fire. In the 20 Ser­mon upon the 118 Psal. All must pass through the Flames, even John the Evan­gelist, whom the Lord loved, even Peter. And upon the 36 Psal. The Sons of Levi shall be purged by Fire, Ezekiel, Daniel, [Page 78] &c. Observe that he saith, they shall be; whence it appears, that he speaks of a Fire which is not yet. St. Austin is ex­press for it in the 16 Book of the City of God, chap. 24. By this Fire is under­stood the day of Judgment, which shall se­parate the Carnal, some to be saved by the Fire, some to be condemned to the Fire. And in the 25 Chap. of the 20 Book, By that which was said it seems to be evi­dent, that in that Judgment there will be some Purgatory Pains; And the Title of the chapter saith expresly, that he speaks of the Fire of the last Judgment. After the Purgation by that Fire, he holds that the Sentence of the last Judgment shall be pronounced, in the 21 Book chap. 16.

Of that Purgation by Fire speak Ire­naeus, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, and Hierom. It is of that Fire, My Lord, that Theodoret and Austin speak in the places which you alledge. And it is one of the grounds, why the Ancients prayed for the dead. For that St. Austin believed that Souls going out of the Body, went streight either into Paradise or into Hell, and that there is no middle or third place call­ed [Page 79]Purgatory: it is clear by these Pas­sages, in the 18 Sermon of the words of the Apostle, There are two Habitations, the one of the eternal Kingdom, the other of the eternal Fire. And in the 232 Ser­mon, which is against Drunkenness. Let none deceive himself, my Brethren, for there are two places and no third. He that hath not merited with Christ, shall perish without doubt with the Devil. And in the first Book of the merit of Sins and of Pardon, ch. 28. There is no middle place, so that he that dwelleth not with Christ, can be any where else than with the Devil. The fifth Book of the Hypognosticks speaks thus, The Catholick Faith ground­ed upon Divine Authority, is, that the first place is the Kingdom of Heaven, and the second is Hell. We believe no third place, and find none in the holy Scriptures. In the Book of the Vanity of the World, chap. 1. Know ye that when the Soul sepa­rates from the Body, it is at the same In­stant placed in Paradise for its good Works, or cast down into the Gulf of Hell for its Sins.

I could bring Your Grace Passages by hundreds out of the Fathers, which express that the Souls of the godly are [Page 80]presently after Death carried into Pa­radise or into Hell. I will content my self with one or two.

Cyprian in the Book against Demetri­an speaks thus, This temporal Life being ended, we are sequestred either in the Ha­bitation of Death, or in that of eternal Life. And in the same place, When men are gone from hence, there is no place left for Penitence, no Fruit, no effect of Sa­tisfaction, and in Death it self they pass to Immortality.

The Fathers were so far from belie­ving that Souls were burnt in Purgato­ry, that many of them believed not that the Souls could be tormented without the Bodies. Thus Tertullian in the 48 Chap. of his Apologetick, The Soul (saith he) cannot suffer without solid Matter, that is, without Flesh And Gre­gory in the Oration of the Lords Re­surrection, The Fire can never work up­on the separate Soul, and Darkness cannot be grievous to it, because it hath no Eyes. Ambrose in the first book of Penitence Chap. 17. The Soul without the Body, and the Body without the Soul, cannot be Partakers of Punishment or Reward.

Chrysostom in the 39 Homily upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians. The Soul without the Flesh shall not receive her hiden Goods, as likewise she shall not be punisht without the Flesh.

The Truth is so strong on our side, that many of our Adversaries freely confess that the Fathers speak little or not at all of Purgatory. Navarrus the Popes Penitentiary, in the beginning of the year of Jubile, saith, No Orthodox doubteth that there is a Purgatory. Yet the Ancients make no mention of it, or very seldom, and that he saith after Roffensis, otherwise the Cardinal of Rochester, whom he alledgeth.

Alphonsus de Castro one of the Do­ctors of the Councel of Trent, in his eight Book against Heresies, upon the Word Indulgentia, speaks thus. In the ancient Writers, the mention of the Tran­substantiation of the Body of Christ is ve­ry rare, of the Procession of the Holy Ghost more rare yet, of the Purgatory they make almost no mention at all, especially the Greek Authors; as also to this day the Greeks have not believed Purgatory.

One may see in the Dialogues of Gregory the First, That Satan in his [Page 82]time was brewing that Mystery by Vi­sions and Apparitions of Souls, some of which said that they purged them­selves at the Smoak of Baths, others in the Wind, others in Rivers; and this was already in the year of our Lord 595.

But the Popes that came after, found out another kind of Purgatory wonder­fully gainful, whereby they have heap­ed up to themselves and their Clergy infinite Riches. For the Pope by Bulls and Indulgences fetcheth Souls out of Purgatory at the Suit of those that will come to his Price to buy them, and particular Masses, whose number is in­finite, are bought very dear, and none of them is sung with particular Appli­cation to beggers or those that have given nothing.

Yet they hold one Age to be ex­empted from Purgatory, for (say they) when Jesus Christ cometh to judge the World, then all that live in the World shall be exempted from that Torment. In the mean while, one may wonder that whilst Jesus Christ is interceding for the Souls that are burning in that Fire (for he intercedeth for all the faithful) those [Page 83]Souls come not out by this Intercessi­on, but by the Popes Indulgence.

By all that has been said here, Your Grace may perceive how much you are mistaken in the Fathers, and indeed, by your manner of alledging them, it is easie to see that you have not read them; but that some ignorant men fur­nish you with Passages, which have quite another Sense than that which they put upon them. If forsaking what you know from the holy Scripture, which (as St. Paul saith) is able to make us wise upon Salvation, you take those things upon Trust which others tell you out of the Fathers, and if you greedily embrace all that shall be pre­sented unto you of this kind, you will find enough to help your Resolution, not to be separated neither in this World, nor in the other, from my La­dy, your Dutchess. You say that you would know the Grounds of her Re­ligion, whilst her Grace did not trou­ble her self to know the Grounds of yours.

My Lord, how could that Thought come into your Mind, to believe Pur­gatory upon two or three Passages [Page 84]of Fathers distored from their right Sense; and to shut your Eyes against all that the Word of God speaks against it?Apoc. 14.13. Out of that good Word you might have learned, that Blessed are they that dye in the Lord, that they rest from their Labours, and that their Works follow them; Isa. 57.1. & 2. that when the righteous dyeth he shall enter into Peace: that we must make to our selves Friends by Alms, Luke 16.9. which when we fail, may recieve us into everlast­ing Habitations. That Jesus Christ said to the repenting Thief crucified with him,Luke 23.43. This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. And yet by the Doctrine of the Roman Church, he had need of great Purgation.1 John. 1.7. That the Blood of Je­sus Christ the Son of God, cleanseth us from all Sin. This is our true Purgatory, God who is all just and all good, would he take two Payments for the same Debt, when the first Payment which is the death of Christ is sufficient? would he delight to torment his Chil­dren for many Ages in an internal fire, for Sins which he hath freely par­doned, as we learn of St. Paul, Eph. 4.32. Col. 2.13. that God for Christs sake hath forgiven us all our Trespasses?

Every Father that chastiseth his Chil­dren, unless he be altogether unnatural, doth it to make them better; but the Roman Church will have God to burn his Children, not to make them more righteous (for by their Doctrine they are perfectly righteous before they enter into Purgatory) but to content himself, and satisfie his Justice. Let them find if they can, one example in Scrip­ture of any Soul that was sent to Pur­gatory.

It is very considerable that in the Levitical Law there are Sacrifices pre­scribed for all sorts of Sin and Polluti­on, even of Leprosie and the touching of a dead body; but that law prescribes no Sacrifice for the dead, nor any Ser­vice for their Relief, yea,Deut. 26.12, & 14. it opposeth it plainly; for he that brought unto the Temple or Sanctuary his first Fruits, Tithes and Offerings, to give Thanks unto God for his Income, and all the Crop of the Year, was commanded to protest that he had not taken away ought thereof for any unclean use, nor given ought thereof for the dead.

All these things, My Lord, drawn out of the Word of God, any founded [Page 86]upon the Nature of the Gospel, which the Son of God hath brought you from Heaven, are they not better than some Passages of the Fathers, which you alledge contrary to their Intenti­on, and which say things that the Ro­man Church approveth not.

How comes it to pass, My Lord, that since your Marriage you have ta­ken another Rule for your Religion than the Word of God? You will be guided by the Fathers; but the Fathers send you back to the Scripture, and will not have you to rest upon their Authority, acknowledging that they themselves are subject to Errour. And for such the Roman Church doth ac­knowledge them, and in a thousand things find fault with them. Certain­ly the Holy Scripture without the help of mens Glosses hath light enough of its own to lead us to Salvation.

O! My Lord, it is dangerous to dal­ly with God, and to bow the rule of his Word to the Will of another. As for My Lady Duchess your wife, I won­der not, that being nursed in that Per­suasion that her Religion is good, she doth her utmost to draw you to it, [Page 87]thinking thereby to do Service to God. Having no Instruction in the Word of God, her Grace doth that which she thinks to be good; and I hope that God finally will be merciful to her. But you, My Lord, who have been care­fully instructed in the Word of God, in whose Family God had planted his Co­venant, whom God hath blest with so many effects of his Assistance, cannot but have a dreadful Account to give unto God.

I could alledge ti Your Grace the memory of my Lord your Father, whom God had endowed with an incompara­ble Capacity; the Sorrow of your La­dy Mother, whose Death you hasten by your Change; the Anguish of your nearest Relations, and of all your Ser­vants and Subjects, whom you fill with Confusion; and the Inconvenience to your Affairs, which you do your self ac­knowledge. I choose rather to exhort your Grace in the name of God, and as your most humble and faithful Servant, that you take pitty of your own Soul; and that at least you delay the taking of that final Resolution, till your Re­turn unto this your Town, and till I may endeavour to shew to those Do­ctors [Page 88]in your Presence, that they abuse your Grace with those Passages of the Fathers, wherewith they have armed you. But I am sure they dare not appear before me to maintain those things which they infuse into your mind. You have been many years hark­ning to them alone, without ask­ing any of our Counsel or Assistance. Grant us at least, that we may have some days to answer them.

I make no Doubt, but that by speak­ing thus, I may loose both your Gra­ces and your Ladies Favour. But ha­ving but few days to live, I commit to God all that may come of it, and will endeavour to discharge my duty with a good Conscience. Which I will al­ways do without any Diminution of the Respect and Obedience which I owe to your Grace, and without inter­mitting my continual prayers to God for Your Grace, and for my Lady Dutchess, as being,