I Received your Letter, wherein you desire I would give you satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Religion and Church in the Ages before Luther. In order thereunto, I send you these Lines, requesting you, as you love and value the safety of your own Soul, laying aside the blind belief of the Roman Infallibility, (which renders all Discoursing or Writing vain and unprofitable) to read them seriously and impartially. You begin thus: I find your Divines asserting that the Church hath been hidden and in­visible.

I How Prote­stant Writers are to be un­derstood when they argue a­gainst the per­petual Visibi­lity of the Church.To which I answer; That the Church hath been for some time hidden, i. e. obscured; so that it was not conspicuous or easily discernable by all Christians, much less Heathens, is a truth so manifest, that our Adversaries themselves grant it; as I shall shew afterward. That the Catholick Church was ever wholly rooted out by Heresie or Persecution; or that in any Age all outward profession of the Truth, though sometime more secret and private, was wholly hidden and utterly invisible in the eyes of all men, we affirm not. Car­dinal Bellarmine himself notes,Multi ex no­stris tempus terunt dum probant Eccle­siam non posse absolutè desice­re; nam Fle­retici id con­cedunt. De Eccles Militan. lib. 3. cap. 13. that many of his Church have taken much needless pains in proving against us the perpe­tuity and indefectibility of the Church, which as he confesses, we never denied: We only say that any particular Church, even that of Rome, may utterly fail. But you add, I find your Divines saying otherwise, for Bishop Juel, Apol. p. 7. [Page]writeth, That Luther's preaching was the very first appear­ing of the Gospel. And pag. 8. That Forty years and upward, i. e. at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuin­glius, the truth was unknown and unheard of; and that they came first to the knowledg and preaching of the Gos­pel. Let Bishop Juel answer for himself. Defence of the Apol. pag. 82. Ye say we confess our Church began only about Forty years since. No, Mr. Harding, we confess it not, and you your self well know we confess it not. Our Doctrine is the Old, and yours is the New. We say our Doctrine and the order of our Churches, is older than yours by Five hundred years. And he not only saith it, but un­answerably proves it by the Testimonies of the Ancient Fa­thers. Hence that Book is appointed to be had in all our Churches; so great a respect have we for Primitive Anti­quity; and so far are we from imagining the Gospel or the Truth we profess to be no older than Luther or Zuinglius. But Mr. White in his Defence of the Way to the Church,Pag. 355, 356. saith, Popery was such a Leprosie spreading so universally over the Church, that there was no visible Company of Peo­ple appearing to the World (viz. in the Ages next before Luther) free from it. True, he saith so, but he explains his meaning in the same place; for he acknowledgeth the Churches of Greece, Aethiopia, Armenia, to have been and still to be true visible Christian Churches; yea, that the Church of Rome is a part of the Visible Church of God, where­in our Ancestors possessed the true Faith, as to the Funda­mental Articles necessary to Salvation, and were some of them saved: So that he acknowledgeth in some sense, the Visibility of the Church, Ecclesia vera erat in Papa­tu, sed Papa­tus non erat vera Ecclesia. Alii cautiùs Papatum di­xerunt fuisse in Ecclesiâ, non Ecclesiam in Papatu. Prideaux Lect. de Visibil. Eccl. p. 136. even Roman; which Protestants deny not; who grant that the true Church was in or under the Papacy, although the Papacy was not that Church. Nei­ther is there any contradiction in this, for a Leper is a true Man, and as truly Visible as one that is clean. Leprosie is not a distinct Body, but a Disease cleaving to it. In like manner, Popery is not of it self a distinct Church, but a corrupt humour in latter Ages predominant in the true Vi­sible Church of God. Nevertheless he denies first the Pa­pacy, i. e. the Errors and Corruptions in Doctrine and Wor­ship introduc'd of late by the Popes and their adherents, to [Page 3]be any part of the true antient Christian Catholick Faith, by which our Ancestors were saved, any more than Lepro­sie is any part of a Man. Secondly, he denyeth that there is alwaies and at all times in this true Visible Church a visible Company or State of People actually and personally divided from the rest that profess the True Faith, perform Religi­ous Worship, and exercise Church-Discipline in open and con­spicuous manner, wholly free from the Corruptions and A­buses of such as have defiled the Church. For 'tis one thing to be a True Visible Church, another to be free from all such Errors and Corruptions, as may, being wilfully persisted in, endanger Mens Salvation, and therefore need Reforma­tion. The Church of the Jews was the true, yea, the only true Church of God; yet in the time of Elijah, and after in our Saviour's days, they were generally ten Tribes of twelve over-run with Idolatry and Superstition. The like we say of the Church of Rome in the Ages next before Luther, when not only gross Ignorance, but many palpable Errors and Cor­ruptions in Doctrine, Worship, and Government, did visibly appear, which many eminent Professors, (sufficient, The Answer to D. White, pag. 354. as a Jesuit confesseth, to prove the Churches Visibility under Per­secution) who lived and died in the Communion of that Church, openly opposed, lamented and bewailed, as S. Bernard, See the Arti­cles of Refor­mation propo­sed to the Council of Trent, by Fer­dinand the Emperour, and Charles the Ninth. Apud Goldast. constitut. Imp. tomo 2. p. 376. and tomo 3. p. 570.Clemangis, Alvarus, Pelagius, Cameracensis, Bishop Grosthead, with innumerable more; although they were over-born by the predominant Party then bearing rule, who could not in­dure to hear of Reformation, tho much desired by many true Catholicks, and promised by Adrian the Sixth, and other Popes before the calling of the Council of Trent. But it is very disingenuous to quote out of any Writer a line or two, and not to add with it his explained sense and meaning. As for Mr. Perkins, who in his Reformed Catholick (which I have not now by me) saith, That during the space of 900 years there was no Church Visible besides the Roman Catholick Church, his Words (if his) admit of the same Answer. But I dare ap­peal to any Christian, whether he can possibly believe that any learned Protestant Writer, yea any man in his wits, Juels Defence, pag. 45, 46. should think that the Gospel preached by our Saviour and the Apostles, asserted by the Antient Fathers and Martyrs, should first appear in the World, when Luther and Zuinglius began [Page 4]to preach. For my part I utterly renounce that Gospel, Faith, and Church, of which Luther, Zuinglius, or any mere mortal man, tho pretending to be Infallible, is the Author and Founder. Did not I believe the Doctrine generally own'd by the Protestants, to be grounded in the Scriptures and the concurrent sense of the Antient Fathers, I could not satis­fie my own Conscience as to the profession of it. The true meaning then of some Protestant Writers could be only this; That the Gospel or Christian Religion did in Luther's days begin first to appear more eminently freed or reformed from those after-grown Errors and Corruptions it was in some later Ages mis-figured with, being reduced to the prime Rule of Faith, Garenz. de Sergio de Con­ci [...] 706. Aquin. 2. qu. 1. art. 7. resp. ad 4. the Scripture, and its best interpreter, Primitive Anti­quity. And is it not an unspeakable Blessing, that we en­joy such a Reformation? For I can scarcely think, that any sober Romanist will deny, that the first were the best, and the last the worst Ages of the Church, and that there was after the Apostles days, and the first 5 or 600 years a mani­fest declension of the antient purity of Doctrin and simpli­city of Devotion, altho there still remained a true Church as to essentials.

II The Que­stion concern­ing the Visibi­lity of the Church stated.BUT that we may not beat the air, I shall first of all en­quire into the true state of the Question. Protestants do not, as Bellarmine grants, affirm the Church to be wholly and ab­solutely Invisible or utterly hid from the eyes of all men in any Age, but comparatively only, not being alwaies equally Visible. They acknowledg that God ever had and will have a Church in the World which shall make in some degree a Visible profession of Christian Religion even under Persecu­tion, Thus it was in the days of Athanasms and Hilary. See their words below. tho not so illustrious and conspicuous; for they say that the Church may be reduced to a small number, the Orthodox Pastors may be violently thrust out of their Churches, and the best Christians forced to worship God privately in corners. And will any man deny but this detracts much from the Vi­sibility and conspicuousness of the Church?

They of the Church of Rome grant all this. The Jesuit Mr. White answers, doth not avow, yea disowns it, that the Church is visible, Defence of the Way. p. 354. i. e. that it is a Company of Christians so illu­strious as it not only may be, but actually is known to all men [Page 5]living at all times; for saith he, Ecclesia ali­quando obscu­ratur & tan­quam obnubi­latur multitu­dine scandalo­rum, &c. Epist. ad Vin­cent. 48. Firmiores partim exula­bant, partim latitabant. Ibid. Diligenter animadverti debet non sic accipiendum esse quod dici­mus Ecclesiam esse semper conspicuam, quasi velimus eamomni tem­pore dignosci posse aequè facilé. Novimus enim illam aliquando errorum, schisinatum, persecutionum fluctibus esse agitatam, ut imperitis quidem nec satis prudenter rationes temporum rerumque circumstantias aestimantibus cognitu fuerit difficilis quod tum ma­ximè accidit cùm Arianorum perfidia in orb [...] p [...]enè t [...]to dominabatur. Analys. Fid. l. 6. c. 4. I know well enough that the Church hath not alwaies, especially in time of Persecution, such an outward worldly and prosperous estate. I grant also, adds he, that sometimes the Church is obscured, as S. Austin saith, with multitude of Scandals, and therefore it is not alwaies alike famous and illustrious, especially so as to shine actually through the whole World. I will add the Words of another learned Jesuite, Greg. de Valentiâ. When we say the Church is alway conspicuous, this must not be taken as if we thought it might at all times be discerned alike easily. For we know, that sometimes it (i.e. the Church, the Mountain, Isai. 2.2.) is so tossed with the waves of Errors, Schisms, and Persecutions, that to such as are unskil­ful (as the far greater part of Christians ever are) and do not discreetly enough weigh circumstances of times and things, it shall be very hard to be known; which then especially fell out, when the falshood of Arrians bare rule almost over all the World. Therefore we deny not, but that it will be harder to discern the Church at some time than at other some; yet this we avouch, that it alway might be discerned by such as could wisely esteem things: So he.

And is this all they would infer from Mat. 5.14, 15. Ye are the light of the world. A City that is set on an hill cannot be hid, &c. Is a Light or City on a hill only discernable by a few dis­creet quick-sighted persons? Is this the Visibility they so much contend for? Well, it's here granted us, that the Church is not alway easily visible or discernable to all, but only to a few discreet Persons. If this will satisfie them, we shall readily grant, that the Protestant Church under the Perse­cution and Errors of the Papacy was not easily discernable, yea was or is hardly visible to such as are unskilful, and do not wisely enough weigh circumstances of times, viz. of Oppression and Persecution: Yet this we say, that it might have been discern'd even in the next Ages before Luther, not only in the Waldenses, Wicklevists, Albigenses, and Bohemians, (how odious and contemptible soever they are render'd to [Page 6]the ignorant and unskilful by their Adversaries) but many other eminent Professors and Writers of their own Church, by such as can discreetly judg of things and times.

What great matter then can these men make of the Visi­bility of the Church they so much boast of? But is all this Contention about nothing? truly it is no easie thing to re­solve what it is our Adversaries would have more than is al­ready granted by us. I will give the best account I can find out of their own Writings, what it is they aim at. Bellarmin stateth not the question, Ecclesia est [...]tus homi­num [...]a visi­bilis & pal­pabilis ut est coetus populi Romani vel regnum Gal­liae. Bellarmin. de Eccles. Milit. lib 3. cap. 2. Ecclesia visi­bilis est, i. e. sic in luce hominum & conspectu posita ut quovis seculo evidenter internosci & quasi digito monstrari queat congregatio illa quam esse veram Ecclesiam determinatè oredere possis ac debeas. Haec autem Ecclesiae proprietas universos Haereticos pessimè habet. Anal. Fidei, lib. 6. pag. 30. but somewhere saith, that The true Church is a Company of men as visible and palpable as the King­dom of France, Spain, or the State of Venice. Gregory de Valentiâ above-mentioned affirms, that the Church is Visible, i.e. is so placed in the light and sight of men, that in any Age, that Congregation, or Company, may be evidently distinguished, and as it were pointed at with the finger, which you may and ought determinately or particularly believe to be the true Church. This property of the Church (saith he) exceedingly troubleth all Hereticks.

But it would exceedingly trouble him were he alive, or any man else, to reconcile this with his former concession. For if the true Church be so placed in the light and sight of men, that in any Age it may be evidently discerned and pointed at by the finger; how is it that (as he is forced to grant) in times of Persecution, and over-spreading Error, as under the Hea­then Emperors, and in the prevalency of the Arian Heresie, it is very hard to many, to see where the true Church is, yea none do discern it, but such as prudently weigh circumstances of times and things, which the far greater part of men neither do nor can? Who of our Adversaries if he had lived in the days of Hilary, would not have taken the Arians for the true Church? Did not all, or the far greater part of Bellarmin's Notes of the true Church belong to them only, as Multitude, Succession, temporal Prosperity, external Glory, efficacy of Doctrine, converting, Ad ann. 358. or rather perverting, almost, as Baronius grants, [Page 7]the whole World? Would they have taken those few for the true Catholick Church, who separated themselves from their heretical, but supposed infallible, Head and Guide of the uni­versal Church, Pope Liberius? Ad ann. 357. v. Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 9. Liberius post exactum in exilio bien­nium inflexus est, minisque mortis ad sub­scriptionem in­ductus, atque ita restitutus est Ecclesiae. Epist. ad Solit. vitam agentes. Hieron. in Catal. In For­tunatiano; Subscripsit Haeresi Aria­norum. Et in Chronico, ait Liberium tae­dio victum exilii in Hae­reticam pra­vitatem subscripsisse. Liberius is declared to be a Heretick by the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth General Council, and Pope Agatho, and Pope Leo the Second. Patet ex lib. de Romanis Pontificibus multos Clericos Romae à Constantio necatos esse qui noluerunt cum Liberio communicare. Baron. ad ann. 357. parag. 49.Baronius the Cardinal acknow­ledges that he communicated with the Arians, and in his own Letters still extant, he professeth, that in all things he agreed with them: Yea farther S. Hilary, Athanasius, and S. Hierome write that he subscribed to the Heresie of the Arians, and yet Bellarmine and other of their Writers, make it an essen­tial qualification of a Catholick or Member of the true Church, to hold Communion with the Bishop of Rome, and to live un­der his Government; who instead of being an infallible Guide to others, may fall into damnable Heresie himself. I would gladly know which Company was at that time the true Church, whether they that joyned with Liberius, or such as separated from him? Here I cannot but observe (which Cardinal Baronius takes notice of) that when by the favour of the Emperour Constantius, and the intercession of the Arian Bishops, Liberius was upon his subscription restored to his Bishoprick, many Clergy-men chose rather to suffer death, than to joyn in Communion with him; whom they them­selves account Martyrs, or at least dare not condemn as dam­nable Hereticks and Schismaticks; the appellations they be­stow upon Protestants, for their not communicating with the Roman Bishop.

But I have not yet done with Valentia, Non usque adeò ipsi volu­mus Ecclesiam esse conspicu­am ut censea­mus aut oculis cerni aut evi­denti ratione intelligi posse ipsam etiam Ecclesiae quasi essentiam & veritatem, aut etiam proprietates ejus omnes. Non enim arbitramur palam aspici aut evidenter cognosci posse quod ulla con­gregatio sit reverà coetus rectè colentium Deum, &c. Imò verò haec in illa ipsa congregatione hominum inesse, quae vera est Ecclesia, non nisi obscurâ fide credimus, &c. Anal. Fid. l. 6. p. 30. who in the same place farther granteth, that the Essence and Truth of the Church, i.e. true Faith, Holiness, and the like, are not visible, neither can be evidently known or believed to be really in that company of men it self, who are indeed the true Church. Is not this the Protestants Invisible Church? Who sometimes say that it is [Page 8]one thing to see that which is the Church, viz. the Persons publickly professing true Religion in it; and another to see that it is a true Church, which depends upon the sincerity of their Profession, known only by God, who searcheth the heart. Nothing can be more evidently true than this: For suppose I see (and what can I see more?) a Company of men baptized into the Name of Christ, meeting together in Churches to serve him, to read, pray, receive the Sacraments, as the Arians and other Hereticks did, and many prohane Persons or Hypocrites daily do; is this sufficient evidence to assure me that they, and not others, who perform the very same outward acts of divine Worship, tho more pri­vately, are the only true Church, to which I am bound un­der pain of Damnation to join my self? How is it then true that he saith a little before, that the Church is so visible, that in any age that Company may be evidently distinguished, and as it were pointed at with the finger, which you may and ought deter­minately and particularly believe to be the true Church? In short, The Persons and outward profession of the Members of the true Church are visible, Hieron. in Comment. in Psal. 130. Ecclesia non in parietibus con­sistit sed in dogmatum ve­ritate; ante 20 enim annos omnes Eccle­sias has Haeretici possidebant, Ecclesia autem vera illic erat ubi vera fides erat. Apud Bellar. de Eccles. Milit. lib. 3. cap. 2. & cap. 9. but that which makes them a true Church is still invisible; so that I am still to seek for the true Church, especially seeing 'tis granted by Bellarmine, Turre­cremata, Canus, Soto, and others, that wicked Men and Hypo­crites are only nominal or equivocal Members of the Church, that they are rather in or within, than of the true Church, as dead Members or ill humors are in humane bodies.

I will only add Costerus a noted Writer amongst them: Christ, saith he, would have his Church not only Visible but very conspicuous, that the grace of God, which in this Congregation, and not elsewhere, is preserved and conferred, may be known un­to all men; whence he hath made her like to a City placed on a hill, and to a Candle set on a Candlestick. Here we may plain­ly perceive that a mere Visibility of the Church will not con­tent our Adversaries unless it be very conspicuous, so as that all Persons may know it. The truth is, their Principles ob­lige them to no less.

For first they say, that God would have all men to be sav'd and come to the knowledge of the truth, and that therefore he affordeth all men sufficient means to come to the truth. Secondly, They deny that the Scripture, in regard of its imperfection and obscurity, is sufficient to this end, but that the teaching of the visible Church is the Rule of Faith, which all persons, especially those that are ignorant and un­learn'd, must by an implicite faith in all things adhere to. Whence thirdly, it unavoidably follows, that if God afford all men sufficient means to come to the knowledge of the truth in order to salvation, and the teaching of the true Church be the ordinary means appointed thereunto, then the Church must be in all ages and places, not only visible to some few discreet wise persons, as Valentia saith, but very conspicuous and clearly discernable to all, even the most ig­norant and weak-sighted, like a City set on an Hill, &c. Lastly, They affirm (where lies the Mystery) that their Roman Church is the only infallible teaching Church in and by its Head the Pope, to whose determination, as Pope Bo­niface solemnly determin'd and pronounc'd all are bound de necessitate salutis to submit. Subesse Rom. Pont. omni humanae crea­turae declara­mus, defini­mus & pro­nunciamus omnino esse de necessitate sa­lutis. Extra­vagant. de major. & obed. Ʋnam sanctam. Cum omnia planè dogmata ex testimonio Ecclesiae pendeant, nisi certissimi simus (certitudine scil. infallibili ut ibidem ait) quae sit vera Ecclesia, in­certa erunt prorsus omnia. De Eccles. milit. lib. 3. cap. 10. The perpetual, illustrious and glori­ous visibility of this their Church (as for other Churches they are not at all sollicitous what becomes of them) is that they so earnestly contend for. Their great Champion Bellarmine well perceiv'd this when he said, that in regard all points of faith depend upon the testimony of the Church (i. e. their Ro­man Church) unless we be most certain which is the true Church all things in Religion will be altogether uncertain.

III Arguments against the Church's be­ing always conspicuous or easily dis­cernable.But that this kind of glorious, illustrious and conspicuous visibility necessarily and perpetually belongs to any particu­lar, or their Roman Church is visibly and palpably false; as the Scriptures and Ecclesiastical Histories evidence. In Elijahs days there was a true Church of God in Israel; yet it was so far invisible that the Seer or Prophet himself could not see it. Whence he complains that he was left alone, [Page 10]altho God assures him he had reserv'd to himself 7000. 1 King. 19.18. that never bowed the knee to Baal. Let them not think to evade by saying that the Church of Israel was a particular Church, for so is the Church of Rome, which by all their infallibility can never be made the Catholick or Universal Church.

In the time of our Saviour the chief Priests with the con­sent of the generality of the people condemn'd and cruci­fy'd him as a Blasphemer and a false Prophet, whilst only some few persons, obscure and contemptible in the eyes of the World, as Simeon, Nicodemus, &c. believed on him. I desire to know amongst whom the true Church was then to be found, Etsi non nisi duo fideles re­manerent in mundo in iis salvaretur Ec­clesia. Forta litium fidei. lib. 5. quoted by B. Ives, p. 83. and that in a conspicuous and illustrious state? Do not some of your own Writers affirm that there was no true faith to be found on Earth, I mean at the time of his crucifixion, but in the heart of the Virgin Mary.

To descend lower, Durand. Ra­tionale lib. 6. c. 72. Turre­cremata de Consecrat. Di­stinct. 2. num. 4. Ad annum Christi 304. Nomine Chri­stianorum deleto qui rempub. ever­tebant. in the days of Dioclesian (the worst and last persecutor of Christians) such havock and prodi­gious destruction was made of the Christian Church, that several Trophies and Monuments, as Baronius grants, were set up in Spain in memory of the total extirpation of Chri­stianity, superstitione Christi ubique deletâ. Where was then the conspicuous, as Costerus phraseth it, and illustrious state of the Catholick or particular Roman Church? Surely had not the Church of Rome her self, as well as other Christian Churches been in a great degree invisible as to the know­ledge of the Roman Emperour and his Inquisitors, in all humane probability the name of Christians, as they boasted, had been wholly rooted out.

I might add the state of the Christian Church, even Roman, Ingemuit totus orbis & se factum esse Arianum ad­miratus est. Dialog. contra Luciferianos. under the prevalency of Arianism and its heretical Head Pope Liberius, when, as St. Hierom writes, the whole World sighed and wonder'd how it became Arian. When the Catholick Bishops were banish'd from their Sees, and the Orthodox Christians forsaking the Churches worshipped God in cryptis in private houses and corners. Concerning which deplorable times St. Hilary writeth in this manner to [Page 11]such as communicated with the Arians: Malè vo [...]s parietum a­mor cepit, ma­lè Ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedisiciisque veneramini. Montes mihi & lacus & carceres sunt tutiores. Ad­dit: Rarumesse apud Orien­tem invenire aut Episcopum aut populum Catholicum. Lib. contr. Auxentium. Quae nunc Ecclesia Christum liberè adorat? Siquid [...]m si pia est periculo subjacet. Nam si alicubi sunt pii, sunt atem ubique tales permulti, illi itidem absconduntur, &c. Epist. ad so­litariam vitam agent. Vid. Apolog. ejus ad Constant. & de fuga.You are ill taken with the love of walls, you ill seek or reverence the Church of God in Houses and Structures, Mountains and Prisons and Dun­geons are safer. He adds, that 'twas hard to find in the East a Catholick Bishop or people. Athanasius saith as much or more. What Church, saith he, now adores Christ freely? See­ing if it be pious it is in danger. For if there be some pious and studious of Christ, as there are every where many such, they also, as the great Prophet ELIAS, are hid, thrust themselves into holes and caverns of the Earth, or wander in solitude.

These things being undeniably evident, I desire to know whether in those days the true Church was not only visible, but very conspicuous to the sight of all men, so that it might be evidently distinguish'd, and as it were pointed at with the finger, as Costerus and Valentia affirm.

But what need is there of many words in this case? Pauiò ante mundi finem externus status Ec­clesiae Roma­nae cessabit, & publicum fi­delium cum eâdem com­mercium, & [...] pas­sim obtinebit, & tamen tunc pii corde Papâ & Ecclesiâ Romana communicabunt. Rhemenses in Annotat. in & animo cum 2 Thess. 2. & Revel. 12. when our Adversaries themselves grant, that a little before the end of the World when Antichrist shall come, the external state of the Roman Church shall cease, and that the publick worship of God shall by persecution be suppressed, and that the truly pious shall communicate with the Pope only in heart and soul. The difference then betwixt them and us cometh only to this, that what we say hath been, they say shall be hereafter; whilst it is agreed on both sides that an illustrious conspi­cuous visibility is no essential property or inseparable note of the true Church.

IV Texts alledg­ed for Visi­bility (as meant by the Papists) answered.I now come to examine the places of Scripture mention'd in your Letter to evince the contrary.

The first and principal urg'd by Valentia and many other is, Matth, 15.14, 15. Ye are the light of the World. A City that is set on an Hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a [Page 12]Candle to put it under a Bushel, &c. To which may be added, Isa. 2.2.60.20.61.9. Dan. 7.14. quoted in your Paper. To all which the same Answer may be applied.

My reply is, that those words do not prove a perpetual, conspicuous and illustrious visibility of the Church in all Ages to all persons, which our Adversaries contend for. First, Because the words are not spoken, at least directly, of the Church general or successive in all Ages, but of and to the Apostles personally, Ye are the light of the World. And seeing they were commanded by our Saviour to teach all Nations, we may reasonably suppose that they were under a special protection of divine Providence until they had ful­fill'd the work committed unto them. But the case of or­dinary Pastors and Teachers of the Church is not the same with that of Apostles. Secondly, Suppose we under­stand the words of the Church general or successive, which we grant to be a light to the ignorant World and like a City set on a Hill; yet it cannot be deny'd, yea our Adversaries grant it, that this light of Apostolick doctrine in the Church may be obscur'd or eclipsed by error, Aug. Epist: ad Vincenti­um supra. scandal and persecu­may be obscur'd or eclipsed by error, scandal and persecu­tion, as the Sun and Moon sometimes are, tho they be glo­rious and most visible lights.

In like manner a City set on an Hill may be so clouded by foggy mists and vapors that it may become for some time invisible, at least not so visible or conspicuous as that any man may point at it with his finger.

The other Similitude of Mens lighting a Candle and set­ting it on a Candlestick that so it may give light to all in the House, signifies the clearness, universality and diffusiveness of the doctrine taught by the Apostles. But that any one particular Church, Greek or Roman, should be such a Candle­stick as can never fail or be remov'd as well as that of E­phesus and many other Apostolical Churches wholly rooted out by Mahometanism, Revel. 2. or which should be, as our Adversa­ries too grosly affirm, more visible and discernable to all men than the light it self (viz. of the Gospel contain'd in the Scripture) plac'd in the Candlestick, i. e. the Church; this I suppose no prudent man will take to be our Saviour's mean­ing in those words.

That they make their Church (the Candlestick) and its Authority more visible to us than the truth or light of the ho­ly Scripture, is so notorious I will not stand to prove it. Quae sit vera scriptura, & quis ejus ve­rus sensus non possumus scire, nisi ex Testi­monio verae Ecclesiae. Bel­larmin. de Notis Eccl. lib 4. c. 2. In a word; A Candle tho burning clearly on a Candlestick may in time want snuffing, and so may the most Apostolical Church in after-Ages need Reformation.

The second place is, Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church; if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen or Publican. Now, saith the Letter, It were very hard to be condemn'd for a Heathen or a Publican for not hearing a Church that hath so closely lain hid that none could hear, see, feel or understand it for 900. years.

First, I answer, That these words prove not the Church vi­sible or palpable to all men Heathens and Infidels enquiring after the true Church, but at most to Christians only who live under the Church's government and submit to her Censures. Secondly, The words relate to a particular Christian Church of which a person is a member; for it were absurd to ima­gine our Saviour should oblige any Christian if his Brother should offend him, to tell the whole Catholick Church through­out the World his offence per literas Encyclicas. Yea, it's plain and undeniable, the place respects not the whole diffused number of Christians, no not in any particular Church, but the Governours only. Now our Adversaries will not I hope, say that any particular Church, except their own, much less its Rulers or Representatives, shall be eminently visible and conspicuous to all Christians at all times. Certainly our Saviour in this place does not promise any special privilege to the Church of Rome more than Antioch, Ephesus or any other Apostolical Church, to whom that Precept of telling the Church doth equally belong; some of whom are long since utterly extinguished by the overflowing of Mahometa­nism. How can they then from this place infer that any particular Church shall be perpetually visible and conspicuous to the World exercising Church-Government over its mem­bers? Nay farther, How could the Christians belonging to their Roman Church when under the persecution of Dioclesian or Constantius, (at which time the Shepherds being smitten the sheep were all scatter'd, the Church dissipated and all Church-discipline interrupted) tell the Church, or make [Page 14]complaint to the Governours of it, when they scarcely knew where they were, to whom in case of offence and scandal to make complaint. Our Saviour's Precept then supposes the free exercise of Church-government, which in times of violent persecution cannot be exercis'd or supposed.

I might add, Acosta de Temp. noviss. lib. 2. cap. 15. Telesphorus de Magnit. tri­bulat. pag. 32. Aquipontanus de Antichrist. pag. 23. That their own Writers, Acosta, Telesphorus the Hermite, and others confess, that when Antichrist cometh all Ecclesiastical Order and publick service of God shall be buried, the Church-doors destroy'd, the Altars for­saken, the Church empty, &c. Now I appeal to the con­science of any man, whether at that time it would be possible in case of Scandal to tell the Church, when the Church shall be forc'd to hide it self and all Ecclesiastical Order is suppress'd and dissolv'd by the violence of Persecution.

Lastly, Whereas 'tis objected, that the Protestant Church hath so closely lain hid for 900. years that no man could see or understand it; this is very falsly affirm'd as I shall shew afterward, unless such as profess'd the Religion of the Scriptures, Ancient Fathers and Councils, protesting against some new Roman additional Articles, impos'd of late by Pope Pius and the Tridentine Council, were no true vi­sible Church of God.

The last place, viz. 2 Cor. 4.5. If our Gospel be hid, &c. is least of all to the purpose; for there Saint Paul plainly speak­eth not of the Church but of the Gospel or Christian Faith, Hieronym. in Nahum c 2. Chrysost. Hom. 49. in Matth. Nunc nullo modo cognoscitur quae sit vera Ecclesia Chri­sti, nimirum ex quo obti­nuit haeresis Ecclesias, nisi tantummodo per Scriptu­ras. Irenaeus cont. Haeres. lib. 2. Quae praeconiaverunt pestea per Dei voluntatem scrip­serunt, &c Costerus Enchirid. cap. 1. Alphonsus de Castro cont. Haeres. grant this. which is clearly deliver'd by the Scripture, to which, as St. Hierom and St. Chrysostom acknowledge, we ought, especially in times of Heresie and Persecution, to have recourse for our establishment in the truth; and if the Gospel first preached and afterwards written by the Apostles (for what they first preached they afterwards by the will of God, as Irenaeus saith, wrote) be hid to any, it's hid to them that perish, whose minds the Devil hath blinded. Doth not this place expresly confute our Adversaries, who affirm that the Gospel as re­veal'd by the Scripture is dark, obscure and invisible to the Laity, that so they may hang their faith by a blind and im­plicite obedience on the visibility and infallible Authority [Page 15]of their Church or Popes, who may be, as some of them have been, notorious and manifest Hereticks? So that these words of St. Paul can do them no service.

V The Fathers alledg'd for the Roman vi­sibility consi­der'd.I come now to the Fathers quoted in your Letter; and first for Chrysostom's saying, Hom. 30. in Matth. It is easier for the Sun to be ex­tinguish'd than the Church to be darkned; I wonder any sober men should require us to believe that on Chrysostom's Au­thority which they do not believe themselves. For the Ro­manists, Valentia and others, as we have seen, confess that the Church, even their Roman Church, may be obscur'd or darkned; as it undeniably was under the Heathen and Arian Emperours, in times of prevailing Heresie and Persecution. So that Chrysostom must even by them be understood of a total, not partial, Eclipse or darkness: for in that place he treateth of times of persecution, wherein all grant the Church may be darkned, and saith, the Tyrants are gone and pe­rish'd, but the Church remaineth unconquer'd.

As to the places quoted out of Saint Austin, Tract. in Joan. & de Unitate Ecclesiae Cap. 7. I answer, That he speaketh of the state of the Christian Church as it was in his days, in its external lustre and glory, retaining the Pri­mitive Faith without addition or detraction. It was indeed strange blindness in the Donatists he writeth against, not to see the true Church, which as a Mountain or light on a Hill was then plainly visible before them all over Africa, yea the whole World; but to dare to restrain it to pars Do­nati, the faction of Donatus, as now the Jesuits restrain it to the Popish party, was plain impudence. Nevertheless, St. Austin doth not say, that the Church should always and in all after-Ages remain in that visible, prosperous and illustrious state, yea contrarily he confesseth, that it is sometimes ob­scur'd thro the multitude of scandals; Aliquando obscuratur. E­pist. ad Vin­centium 47. Ecclesia non appar [...]bit im­piis tunc persecutoribus ultra modum saevientibus. Epist. 80. ad Hesychium. Vide de Baptist contra Donatistas lib. 6 cap. 4. & Enarrat. in Psalmum. 10. that it is like the Moon that may be hid, that it shall not appear by reason of the un­measurable rage of ungodly persecutors, yea, so obscur'd that the members thereof shall not know one another.

This arguing then from the State of the Church of old in St. Austins days is just like theirs who would persuade us, that the Church of Rome is now the only true Catholick and Apostolick Church, because St. Paul 1600 years ago saith, their Faith was commended throughout the World, Rom. 1. ver. 8. (so was their Obedience also, Rom. 16.19.) But doth the Apostle say they should continue in that Faith more than Obedience unto the end of the World, or that their Church alone should never corrupt the Faith or apostatize in any de­gree from it? Tim. 4.1. He seemeth to say otherwise when he thus wri­teth to the Roman Church, Rom. 8.18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Boast not against the branches — thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Because of unbelief they, i. e. the Jewish Church, were broken off and thou standest by Faith, be not high-minded but fear, for if God spar'd not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. And as to Christian Obedience, De Pontif. in lib. 1. in Praefat. Ge­nebrard. Chro­nol. lib. 4. se­culo 10. Baronius in Ann. 912. num. 8. & in ann. 985. num. 1. it's granted by Bellarmin, Genebrard and others, that some Popes have been so scandalously wicked, that they were rather Apostatical than Apostolical, and scarcely deserved to have their names register'd in the Cata­logue of the Roman Bishops.

VI Concerning the Papists demanding the Names of such as pro­fessed the Pro­testant Reli­gion before the Reforma­tion.As for the second Question, wherein satisfaction is de­sir'd, to answer Roman Catholicks, when they demand the names of some Professors of the Protestant Religion before the Reformation; it being to them strange that if Prote­stancy be from the Apostles and hath been in all Ages, they can shew no Writings of some eminent Professors of it as well before the Reformation as many now since. To this I reply first, That altho the Apostles were not call'd by the name of Protestants, as neither were they by the name of Catholicks or Papists, yet they were really of that Religion Protestants do profess; for from the Apostles and their Writings have we learn'd the Religion we maintain against additional Popish Errors, and traditional or unwritten points of Faith. Such as these reckon'd up by Pope Pius as Articles of the Roman Catholick Faith, which all Papists must swear to profess as necessary to salvation. That there are seven [Page 17]Sacraments properly so call'd, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints and Angels, Worshiping Images and Reliques, Indulgences, the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over all Christian Churches, Real and proper Sacrificing of Christ in the Mass, Communion in one kind, &c. All which are either not mention'd in the Apostles Writings, or contradi­cted and condemn'd by them. Secondly, I answer, That the Ancient Fathers and Councils for 4 or 500 years at least, (I might say more) after Christ were not in the points above-mention'd of Pope Pius his Faith, but either say nothing of them, or testifie against them, or at least speak doubtfully of them; whence I conclude that they were of the Protestant, not Popish, Religion. This I shall shew from their Writings. Yea, thirdly, That some of the New Ar­ticles of Faith before named cannot be prov'd to be any part of the ancient Catholick belief by the Authority of any eminent Writers for above 1000 years after Christ, parti­cularly in the points of seven Sacraments, Purgatory, Indul­gences, Communion in one kind, and some others. Lastly, That there is scarcely any point, especially of them before rehears'd, condemn'd by us in the present Roman Church, but we are able to produce multitudes of eminent Writers and some of their own Communion, who complain of them or protest against them, as well as we, in the Ages next be­fore Luther. To perform my promise I shall now prove, 1. Assertion. First, That the Articles of the present Roman-Catholick Faith recited by Pope Pius, and added by him to the Nicene Creed, are either not mention'd at all in the Apostles Writings, or refuted and condemn'd by them.

VII Seven Sacra­ments not taught by the Apostles. First, For their seven Sacraments. The Apostles no where teach us to acknowledge seven Sacraments, or that Matrimo­ny, Orders, Extream Unction, Confirmation, Confession are such, and, as Bellarmin affirms,Nec plura, nec pauciora. De Sacram. lib. 2. c. 24. Chrysost. Am­bros. Au­stin, &c. only such. Baptism and the Holy Eucharist we own, flowing, as the antient Fathers speak, out of Christ's side, whence came forth Water and Bloud; which are answerable to the two only Jewish Sacra­ments, Circumcision and the Passover, as we read, 1 Cor. 10.2, 3, 4. More we find not. It's true, St. Paul discoursing of the Conjugal Union betwixt Christ and his Church, [Page 18]termeth it [...], Ephes. 5.32. a great Mystery. The vulgar Latine translation renders it ambiguously and improperly magnum Sacramentum, a great Sacrament. Hence the Romish Church will needs have Matrimonv instituted by God in Paradise to be a proper Christian Sacrament; but St. Paul declareth he meant no such matter; In locum. for, as Cardinal Cajetan observes, he immediately addeth, But I speak of Christ and the Church. St James also mentions Anointing the sick with Oil; James 5.14. but that was in order to the miraculous gift of healing the Body, as we may gather from Mar. So Cajetan expoundeth that place. 6.13. It had no spiritual ef­fect on the Soul, as all Sacraments properly so call'd have and must have, as is granted. The forgiveness of sins was by Prayer to God, not Oil, ver. 15.

VIII Nor Transubst. Secondly, The Apostles did not teach Transubstantia­tion, Durand. Biel, Scotus, Ca­meracensis, Cajetan, grant it can­be not evident­ly proved from the Scri­pture. See be­low, Matth. 26.26. 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. Card. Conta­renus de Sa­cram l. 2. c. 3. Canus. loc. Theol. l. 3. c, 3. Fisher cont. Luther c. 10. say the same, 1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28. Verse 29. The Church is called Christs Body, is it therefore his Natural Body in a literal sense? 1 Cor. 10. John 15.1. Did Christ eat his own Body, when the Sacrament was administred and taken by him? So Chrysostom Hom, 40, in Jean. 3. or that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper are annihilated or turned into the substance of Christ's body and blood. Yea, St. Paul expresly declares the contrary, for he calleth it Bread and Wine even after consecration. The Bread that we break (but Christ first blessed and afterwards brake it) is it not the communion of the Body of Christ? The Cup of Blessing we bless, is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ? So that Bread and the Cup, i. e. by a Figure or Metonymy, as all must grant, the Wine in the Cup remain in the Com­munion as means whereby we obtain the communion of Christ's Body and Blood. In the next Chapter in 3 Verses together he calleth it Bread. May not we call it so? or was it not what St. Paul call'd it? But he calleth it the Lord's Body. True. Yet not in a literal, but Sacramental sense, even as the Cup, (which to be sure is not transubstantiated) is term'd his Blood or the New Testament and Covenant in his Blood, as the Lamb was call'd the Passover, Circum­cision the Covenant, Baptism the Laver of Regeneration, in which nevertheless Romanists do not believe any Tran­substantiation. This Bread we doubt not, is in deed Christ Body, as that Rock in the Wilderness was Christ; as Christ was the true Vine or true living Bread, which no sober [Page 19]man will interpret in a literal, proper and substantial, but in a Sacramental, symbolical or typical sense.

IX Nor Purga­tory.Thirdly, According to the doctrine of the holy Scripture there neither is nor can be Purgatory.Polydore Vir­gil. de In­vent. l. 1. c. 1. Biel in Can. Missae lect. 57. Alphonsus de Castro, lib. 8. tit. Indulgent. Valentia de Indulg. grant that Purgatory is not to be found in Scri­pture, nor Indulgences. 1 Thess. 4.14. This I prove from Rev. 14.13. Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord—for they rest from their labours. How do men who die in a state of grace, and so in Christ the Lord, rest from their labours, if as soon as they die they are tormented, or, as the Roman phrase is, labour (none know how long) in the fire of Purgatory? It's confess'd by our Adversaries that all impenitent and wicked men, who being void of grace die not in the Lord, go to Hell, not Purgatory. How do righteous and good men enter into peace and rest according to Isa. 57.20. if after death they enter into fiery torments? St. Paul saith it generally of all Believers in Christ, not Martyrs only, as some would evade, that they sleep in Jesus, and would not have us to sorrow excessively for them: How do they as it were sleep in Christ's bosom? Why should we not mourn exceed­ingly for them, if they probably lie in flames of fi [...]e under unspeakable torments not much inferiour to them of Hell, as is granted, excepting only the duration or continuance? Add John 52.4. He that believeth shall not come into condem­nation, but is passed from death to life. But he that cometh unto Purgatory cometh into condemnation.

Possibly it will be objected that Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 3.12. Patres aliqui, per ignem non intelligunt ig­nem Purgato­rii sed Di­vini Judicii; quomodo lo­quitur Paulus. 1 Cor. 3. Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg cap. 1. Augustin. de fide & operi­bus, c. 15. Ad Dulcitium. qu. 1. Bellarmin. de Purgator. lib. 1. c. 5. [...]; As Chrysostom expounds it, Tom. 5. Hom. 28. p. 467. Ad Dulcitium qu. 1. plainly delivereth the doctrine of Purgatory, The fire shall try every mans work: he shall be saved, yet so as by fire. But how can it be a plain place for Purgatory, when Origen and Augustine, yea Bellarmine himself, confess it's a most obscure one, and therefore very unfit to ground an Article of Faith upon. St. Paul's whole discourse in that Chapter is Metapho­rical and allusive, as those words especially evidence, v. 15. [...], as it were by fire, or as by fire, i. e. with much danger and difficulty, like one who runs through the fire to save his life. That the place proveth not the Roman doctrine of Purgatory is manifest by this argument urg'd by * Saint Augustine. The fire St. Paul mentioneth shall try every man's [Page 20]work. The fire of Purgatory, as they themselves grant, tryeth not every mans work; Ignis proba­tionis, non purgationis, Aug. de fide & operibus c. 15. Non est plenè remissa culpa, quamdiu pec­cator est reus solvendae poe­nae. Ceanus loc. Theolog. lib. 12. pag. 435. Exemplo reatu eximi­tur & poena. Tert. de Bap­tismo, cap 5. So Theodoret, Theophylact, and Anselm, approved by Bellarmin, lib. 1. de Purgator. c. 5. pag. 586. Malachi 3. c. v. 3. for it tryeth only such mens works as die under the guilt of venial sins, or such mortal ones as are forgiven, but are not fully satisfied for, and there­fore (which is a contradiction) are still to be punish'd. Therefore St. Paul's fire cannot be the fire of Purgatory into which the best and worst sort of men come not at all. Again, It's one thing to try mens works whether they be good or bad, and another to punish and by punishing to purge away the guilt of such as are bad. In all probability St. Paul by the fire in that Text figuratively expressed the severe judgment of Christ at the last day. The day shall de­clare it. Then indeed our Saviour like a Goldsmith or Re­finer shall exactly try every mans work, &c. then such as retain the foundation, i. e. true faith in Christ, and build upon it wood, hay, stubble, i. e. erroneous opinions and fond ima­ginations, (of which this Purgatory doctrine is one instance) shall be saved, yet so as by fire, i. e. with much danger, un­dergoing a strict scrutiny.

X Nor Prayers to Saints. or Angels, Psalm 50. De Sanct. Beat. l 1. c. 19. Be­canus in Eu­chirid. c. 7. Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. dis­put. 2. art. 7. Vide Sixtum Senens. Bibli­oth. lib. 6. An­notat. 345. Enchiridion in 1 Tim. 2. disput. 7. art. 22. qu. 1. art. 10. Col. 2.18. Rom. 10.14.Fourthly, The Scripture no where commands, adviseth or encourageth us to pray to Saints or Angels but to God only. Call upon me in the time of trouble, &c. When ye pray say, Our Father, &c. In the Old Testament Bellarmine grants, there is no mention of Invocation of Saints, because the Patriarchs, Prophets and Saints were in Limbo, not admitted to see God; of which opinion as to Christians, were many of the ancient Fathers, altho the Papists now reject it as an Error. In the New, at least if we except that most abstruse Book, the Revelation, Eccius, Salmeron, Bannes and others con­fess that it hath no footsteps. Yea, Saint Paul expresly condemns worshiping Angels out of a voluntary humility after the vain Philosophy of the Platonists, who yet did not worship them as Gods, any more than Papists, but only as Messengers or Mediators betwixt God and men. Else­where he asketh the Roman Church (which she should remember) How shall they call on him, i. e. lawfully, on whom they have not believed? But we believe in God only, [Page 21]not in any Saint or Angel. How shall we then call on them? I might add, that the Church of Rome hath no certainty, even of humane Faith, that the Saints in Heaven know our wants or hear our Prayers; for they know not on what ground to settle this belief. Some flying to extraordinary Revelations, some to the brittle and voluntary Glass of the Trinity, some to the reports of Angels, intruding into the things they have not seen nor can be assur'd of, cleaving to what is uncertain, Certa ratione nescimus an Sancti nestra vota cogno­scant, quam­vis piè hoc credamus. Ca­jetan. in 22. qu. 88. Art. 5. 1 John 2.2. 1 Tim. 2.5. and neglecting what is undoubtedly law­ful, i.e. to pray to God through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, the only Mediator betwixt God and man, the only Advocate with the Father, who is alone the Propitia­tion for our sins, who so loved us as to die for us, which neither the blessed Virgin nor any Saint ever did. In a word, Prayer or Invocation is, as all grant, Latria, an act of divine Worship, and therefore must by no means upon any pretence be given in any degree to fellow-servants, but re­serv'd to God our Sovereign only. See thou do it not (as the Angel said to St. John who would have worshiped him, not as God, but as the subordinate revealer of those glo­rious mysteries to him) I am thy fellow-servant, worship God. Rev. 22.9. Ʋtinam vel­letis ipsos co­lere, facile ab­ipsis disceretis non [...]los ce­lere. Audite Angelum. doctorem &c. August. in Psalm 96. V. Psalterium B. Virginis apud Chemni­tium in Ex­am. Concilii Trident. See Bishop Andrews his Posthuma against Cardinal Perren. Doctor Brevint, &c. They who are for worshiping Angels, Why do they not, as St. Augustin saith, hearken to the Angel, saying, See thou do it not. As for their usual evasion, That they do not pray to them, but only desire them to pray for them, it's vain and impertinent; for they not only pray or desire them to pray for them, but they directly pray to them, using the very words and Prayers which David and other holy men of God have us'd to God himself; yea they beg of them such things as none but God can bestow; as forgiveness of sins, increase of Grace, and Eternal Glory. No man that has read their Breviaries and Prayer-Books can be ignorant of the truth of this.

XI Fifthly, the Scripture no where commends to us or commands worshiping of any Images, Nor the worshiping of Images, Inter tradi­tiones est Imaginum veneratio. Aquinas par. 3. q. 25. art.3. This Law is not cere­monial, but natural, or moral; as I­renaeus, Tertul. Cyprian, Au­slin affirm. See Bellar­min. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 7. The 2. Nicene Council say it was ceremo­nial, who yet ground wor­ship of Ima­ges, not on Scripture, but Ecclesiastical Tradition, V. Concil. Nic. 2. act. 7. apud Coriol. Abulensis in loc. qu. 5. Aquinas part. 3. qu. 25. art. 3. Durandus lib. 3. dist. 9. qu 2. ait fatuum esse imagines ad repraesen­tandum Deum facere. Vas­quez lib. 2. de Adorat. disp. 4. c. 2. who quoteth o­thers. Exod. 32.5. Lactant. Instit. lib. 2. Exod. 32.1. In Exod. 32, 6. 1 Cor. 10.7. Par. 3. qu. 25. art. 3. & 4. Azor. Instit. lib. 9. c. 6. Suarez. Tom. 1. disput. 54. sect. 4. Vasques de adoratione lib. 2. c. 4. Valentia, Costerus. but exp esly forbids it. No Precept nor Example can be found of any Prophet or Apostle that requir'd or practis'd it. The second Com­mandment, [Page]most suspiciously, if not consciously, thrust up into the first by Popish Catechisms, is clearly against it, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, nor (which is more comprehensive) the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth, &c. thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them, &c. Now, what things are in Heaven? God, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, Angels and glorifi'd Saints. We may not therefore make (to worship them) the Images or likenesses of any of these. All are forbidden. Surely if any Image were to be made and worshiped, certainly that of God might. But God himself expresly forbids it, Deut. 4.15, 16. for saith he, When I came down from Mount Sinai, ye saw no manner of similitude, &c. take heed therefore lest you corrupt your selves by making any graven or molten Image, and likeness, &c. Hence some, even of the Roman Church, condemn the ma­king of any image of God. How highly was God incens'd against the Jews for making and worshiping the golden Calf, which yet was, tho not a formal Image, an Emblem or memorial of the true God? Hence the Feast was pro­claim'd to be kept at least ultimately and intentionally, as Papists use to distinguish, Johovae, to the honour of Jehovah. Could the Jews be such Sots themselves as to imagine that the Calf, made a day or two before, brought them out of Egypt several months before it was made? They call'd it therefore their God only as a representative or Hieroglyphi­cal memorial of him they had a mind to see, (as Heathen Idolaters ever had) going before them in Effigie. Make us Gods (or a God) to go before us. Yet St. Paul expresly con­demns this Feast and Worship as plain Idolatry. Neither be ye Idolaters as were some of them, as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, &c. And Idolatry is summus seculi reatus as Tertullian hath it, no less than high Treason against the Majesty of God in giving his honour upon any pretence, or in any respect to what is not God but a Creature, as every Image, whether materially or formally consider'd, is. Now it's the known doctrine of Aquinas, Azorius, and the Je­suits, that the very same honor, latria, which belongs to God or [Page 23]Christ is to be given to their Images for their sakes whom they represent; as if out of reverence to the King I should honour his Judges, Officers or Favourites with the very same outward expressions of reverence, homage and Alle­giance I yield to himself. Would any wise Prince take this well? In a word; Let it be only remember'd that God, especially in this particular of worshiping Images, hath declar'd himself to be a jealous God, visiting the iniquity, Exod. 20. signally the Idolatry, of Fathers upon their Children, 2 Chron. 5.3.24. of which good King Josiah the Son of Manasseh was a remark­able instance.

XII Nor Indul­gences.Sixthly, Concerning Indulgences, i. e. a Power in the Pope for Money to grant out of the common Treasury of Christ and the Saints merits amassed together, as much as he pleaseth to any person for the freeing of him from the tem­poral punishment due here or in Purgatory for his sins; as if Christ alone were not abundantly sufficient; is a doctrine which hath no real ground, not the least, in holy Scripture. We read indeed of St. Paul's remitting to the penitent ince­stuous Corinthian part of that Ecclesiastical Penance which was imposed on him, but of making over to him, V. Cassand. consult. art. 12. in fine. 2 Cor. 2.10. or any one else, the merits of any Saints, we find not the least intimation. Cardinal Cajetan, Durand, Roffensis and others grant that Indulgences have no ground in Scripture, as we shall shew hereafter; yea they are contrary to it, which every where ascribes all remission of all sorts of sins, and consequently of all punishment properly so call'd to be in­flicted by God for them, wholly and onely to the blood, merits and satisfaction of Christ our Saviour and Redeemer, who is highly dishonour'd by these pretended Pardous. Saint Paul, not without some indignation, asketh the Corinthians, Was Paul crucified for you? 1 Cor. 1.13. If the sufferings of St. Paul and other Saints satisfie, at least in part, for mens sins, or, which is all one, for the temporal punishment due to them; why may it not be truly said, that Paul as well as Christ was cru­cifi'd or suffer'd death for us? Indeed I cannot but wonder at the strange perverseness of our Adversaries, who will by no means grant that the merits, righteousness and obedience, especially active of Christ, are or can be through saith im­puted unto us for our justification and remission of our sins, [Page 24]and yet earnestly contend that by the Papal Indulgence the merits, fastings, and prayers of Saints, Monks and Fryars may be imputed or made over to any that will be at the cost to purchase it.

XIII Nor the Popes Supremacy.Seventhly, As to the Popes Supremacy over all Christians and Churches, altho a great noise is made with Thou art Peter, &c. and to thee will I give the Keys, &c. Certainly, Card. Cusa­nus concor­dant. lib. 3. cap. 13. Mar­silius defens. part. 2. cap. 18. Licèt fortè non sit de jure divino Rom. Pontif. ut talem Petro succedere, &c. Bellar. de P.R. l. 1. c. 12. Matth. 22.26. as some of their own Writers confess, it hath no ground in Scripture, yea, it is contrary thereunto. For that our Sa­viour, altho his Apostles were often disputing who should be chief amongst them, never declar'd Peter to be his Vice­roy or Vicar, which would have put a final end to all this contention about Supremacy. Yea, he makes them all alike equal, even after he had said, Thou art Peter, &c.

Secondly, V. Euseb. Hist. l. 2. c. 1. de primatu Ja­cobi. Hic primus Epi­scopalem ce­thedram ce­pit; cum ante caeteros omnes suum ei in terris thronum Dominus tradidisset. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. lib. 3. Tom. 2. pag. 1039. Jacobus Apostolorum princeps, Ruffinus Hist. lib. 2. cap. 1. Saint John was the Disciple whom Jesus loved in an especial manner above the rest of the Apostles, for no doubt he had a love for every one of them. Saint James, his Brother or Cousin was made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles, and succeeded our Saviour in his Throne, as Epipha­nius saith. Why might not either of these plead a right of Supremacy as well as Peter?

Thirdly, Saint Paul, altho he was Novissimus Apostolorum the last Apostle call'd after all the rest, 2 Cor. 12.11. yet he saith he thought he came not behind even the chiefest Apostles; yea, 1 Cor. 15.10. that he labour'd more than they all, and had on him the care of all the Churches. 2 Cor. 11.28. Can we think he would have presum'd to have written of himself in such an high manner if he had thought that Christ his Lord had appointed St. Yet Stapleton durst write, Petro data est potestas man­dativa, atque regiminis. Apostolis po­testas executiva, tantùm est gubernationis. Doctrin. Princip. lib. 6. c. 7. Peter as his Vice-gerent to be the Head, Sovereign Prince and supreme Governour of all the Apostles, Churches and Christians? Nay farther, it is clear from Gal. 1.12, 17.18. That St. Paul [Page 25]neither receiv'd instruction nor Authority to preach the Go­spel from St. Peter, but immediately from Christ himself, Cypr. Epist. 71. Nec Petrus super quem Dominus aedi­ficavit Ec­clesiam cùm secum Paulus disceptaret, vendicavit se primatum te­nere, & ob­temperari sibi oportere. Petrus & Paulus ambo principes, Card. Cusanus Epist. 2. de usu Commun. Gal. 2.11. Erat Paulus Princeps A­postolorum honore par Petro, ne quid dicam amplius. Chrysostom. in Galat. c. 2. Petrus uni­versalis Epi­scopus non vocatur, Greg. lib 4. Epist. 32. Paulus ascen­dit Hierosoly­mam Petri cognoscendi causa, ex Of­sicio & Jure scil. ejusdem fidei praedica­tionis. Tertul. de Praescr. non subjectionis. Matth. 16. V. Cyprian Epist. unit. Eccl. in locum h [...]. It's St. Chry­sostoms observation Sermon de Pentecoste & Hom. 55. in Matth. Add Hilary lib. 2. de Tri­nit. 16. Ambrose in Eph. cap. 2. Pope Gregory the Great, in Psal. 102. v. 25. Cyril de Tri­nit. lib. 4. Aug. de Verb. Domini, Ser. 13. Beda in cap. 21. Joan. Lib. 1. in Jovnian. Com­pare Origen. in Matth. 16. Ephes. 2.20. and executed his Apostolick Office three years before he ever saw St. Peter's face. Which is furthermore evident and unde­niable from Gal. 2.9. That James is plac'd before Cephas or Peter, and Cephas and John gave to Paul the right hand of fel­lowship, as to one equal in Authority with themselves; and in ver. 11. we find Paul withstanding Peter to his face, not seemingly (as St. Hierom thought, opposed therein by Saint Augustine) but really and in earnest, for Peter was indeed, as the Text saith, to be blamed. All which particulars laid together evince, I think, to any ingenuous man that St. Peter was not supreme over all the Apostles; for where there is an Equality there can be no Supremacy. But St. Paul doth assert and prove himself equal, not inferiour, to St. Peter. Therefore St. Peter was not Supreme, at least St. Paul did not think him to be so. Now if S. Peter had not Supreme Power over all Christians, how can the Pope pretend to it as succeeding St. Peter in his Authority? Can he have more Power than St. Peter had? As for those words, Thou art Peter, &c. it is to be observ'd that our Saviour saith not, Thou art Peter and on thee, but on this Rock, i. e. this faith thou hast professed that I am the Son of God, will I build my Church, and so many of the Fathers expound it, as I shall shew afterward. 'Tis true, Our Lord promised to give unto Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and accordingly after his Resurrection he gave him them; but our Saviour gave them him and the rest of the Apostles all together at the same time and in the same manner. And as the Christian Church was in some sense built on Peter, i. e. in respect of the faith he taught, so it was equally pari modo & ex aequo (as St. Hierom saith) on the rest of the Apostles, agreeable to that of St. Paul, being built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself (not Peter) being the Chief Corner-stone. It is not therefore true [Page 26]that some affirm, Potestatem Apostoli rece­perunt im­mediate à Christo. Fran­cis. de victoria Relect. 2. qu. 2. Conclus. 3. & 4. John 20.22. Matth. 16.16. John 21.17. Non Petrus sed Christus Graecis Pau­lum praefecit. Chrysost. Hom. in 2. cap. ad Gala­tas. Matth. 28.18, 19. Cùm dicitur Petro, pasce oves meas, ad omnes dicitur. Aug. de a­gone Christi c. 30. 1 Pet. 5.2. Acts 20.28. Gal. 2. Chrysost. at least in 18 places calls St. Paul [...]. Casaubon. Exercit. 16. Paulus Apostolorum maximus. Origen. Hom. 3. in Numer. Quamvis Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem Christus tribuat, &c. Cypr. de unitate Ecclesiae, Paulus erat Petro [...], nec opus habuit Petro, Chrysost. in Gal. c. 2. that our Lord gave the Keys first to Peter to be communicated by him [...]o the rest of the Apostles. No. The Scripture plainly saith, Christ breathed on them all at once together and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit they are remitted, &c. Here the Keys promis'd to Peter are given not onely to him, or first to him to be given to the rest of the Apostles by him, but to all of them toge­ther in one and the same breath without preferring one be­fore another. Neither doth that other place, feed my Lambs, feed my sheep, prove in the least that Christ committed his whole Church to Peter onely as Universal Pastour and Head of it; for to feed Christ's sheep is to teach them with the word of life; and this is charg'd immediately and equally on all the Apostles who had their Mission and Commission not from Peter but from Christ himself, saying, All power is committed to me, &c. Go ye therefore teach all Nations, &c. Yea, this duty of Feeding, as also Ruling, implied, as some think, in the word [...], is a Duty incumbent on all in­feriour Pastors and Bishops, as St. Peter himself acknowledg­eth, Feed the flock of God taking the care thereof, [...]. To this I might add that St. Paul had a greater part by far of Christs flock under his Pastoral care than St. Peter, for he was the Apostle of the Uncircumcision or Gentiles, preach­ing to them; Peter of the Circumcision or Jewish Nation. From all which it is evident that the Pope, supposing him (which is not at all granted) to succeed Peter in his whole Apostolick Power in plenitudinem potestatis, it no way fol­lows that he is or can be Supreme Head of the Universal Church. Other Apostles in their Apostolick Churches plant­ed by them being as to Ecclesiastical Power not at all infe­riour but equal to him and the Roman Church.

As for a priority of Place or Order, in regard Rome was at first before Constantine's days the Seat of the Emperour, we deny it not; but this Preheminency, as the General Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon declare, was given by the An­cient [Page 27]Fathers and Bishops (they say not by any appointment of Christ) in regard it was the Imperial City; of which more hereafter.

But to put an end to this Controversie, we will appeal to an infallible Judge such as the Pope himself shall not re­fuse, even Saint Peter himself, whose words are these, 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit your selves, &c. whether to the King as supreme, &c. If St. Peter acknowledge not himself, but the King, to be Su­pream, methinks it should ill become his Successours to deny Kings to be supream over them. But possibly it will be said, St. Peter meant this supremacy onely in matters Civil, not Ecclesiastical. Well, we take what is granted. Carerius de Potestate Pontificis lib. 2. cap. 23. Cajetan. in Aquin. 2. qu. 99. art. 3. See the R R. Bishop of Lin­coln, his ob­servation on the Pope's Bull, against Q Elizabeth. How is it then consonant to Apostolical doctrine for St. Peter's Succes­sors to exempt, and that in civil matters, all Clergy-men from the jurisdiction and commands of the King, as if they were not his Subjects as well as others? Yea farther, to absolve the Laity also from all obedience to their natural Princes, cursing all such as obey them, stirring them up when they think fit to fight against, depose and murther them. Is this to acknowledge the King supream? Peter did but draw his sword to rescue Christ the Son of God from the hands of Murtherers, and he is commanded to put it up; And may Popes, as they often have done, command Subjects to draw it against their lawful Sovereigns? But the King here spoken of was an Heathen, even Nero. True. However all Chri­stians according to Apostolical doctrine must be subject to their King tho an Heathen, and ought they not much rather then to be subject to him being a Christian? St. Paul's Pre­cept is general, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; which Powers were at that time Heathens, yet every soul, i.e. a Synecdoche, every Person, tho an Apostle or Evangelist, [...]. Chrysost. in locum. As also Theodoret. Theophylact. and Oecumenius in locum. Add Bernard. Epist. 64. ad Senonensem Archiepisc. Qui scipsum excipit, seipsum decipit. as St. Chrysostom comments on that Text, much more the Pope, ought to be subject.

Possibly some will reply, That the Church and St. Peter the Head of it had no Auhority over Heathens which are without, but that they had a supremacy over all Christians and consequently over Kings as Christians.

If this exception be of any weight, it unavoidably follows that whilst Nero was an Heathen St. Peter was his Subject and he Sovereign, but if he had become a Christian S. Peter was his Sovereign and had the supremacy over him. Was not this an excellent reason to persuade Nero to become a Chri­stian, whereby he must deprive himself of the Sovereignty? The truth is, Christ came not tollere jura sed peccata mundi, to take away the sins, not the rights of the meanest Sub­jects, much less of Kings, or in the least to diminish their just Authority. 1 Tim. 6.1, 2, The Apostles expresly charge Children to be obedient to their Parents, Servants to their Masters, tho they were Heathens and themselves Christians. Dominion is not founded in Grace, neither is Christ's Kingdom, as he himself professed, of this World, for then would my Servants fight. He that gives Kings converted a Crown of Glory, de­prives not them of their Earthly one, or any due right be­longing to it. Obedience therefore in all things either active or passive, is necessarily to be yielded unto them as supream Governours.

VIII Nor the Sa­crifice in the Mass.Eighthly, Concerning a real and proper Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass or Holy Eucharist, it is expresly contradicted in the Scripture, especially by St. Paul, Heb. 7.27.9, 25, 26, 27, 28. 10.10. In which places the blessed Apostle distin­guisheth Christ's Sacrifice from, and prefers it before the Le­vitical ones, in regard they were reiterated and often re­peated, not so this; but by once offering of himself, once offer­ed up by himself, Heb. 9.27, 28. and once for all, he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. As then men properly can die no more than once, so Christ can be properly sacrific'd no more but once. 'Tis St. Paul's own argument. In the Mass there­fore Christ is not properly sacrific'd. Mark what an absur­dity in the Apostles judgment would follow thereupon. If Christ should be offer'd by himself, or others often, more than once, ver. 26. then must he have often suffered. But Christ hath suffer'd once and cannot suffer again. Therefore he is not offer'd again by himself, or by any Priest in the Mass as a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead, which our Adversaries affirm. Yea, if Christ were truly and properly sacrific'd in the Mass, he must necessarily suffer death a thousand times over; for sacrificing any living thing, [Page]and such is Christ, to God, Ad verum sacrificium re­quiritur, ut plane destrua­tur, & ipsa e­tiam substan­tia consuma­tur. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. implieth killing and taking away the life of what is sacrificed, as the very name [...] from [...] noteth. But I hope Romanists will not say they kill Christ in the Mass: if they deny it, then Christ is not there properly sacrific'd; if they should attempt it, the thing is im­possible; for Christ, being now impassible and in a glorify'd State, can die no more, as we read, Rom. 6.9. When then they distingush of sacrificing Christ in a bloudy and unbloudy manner, and say they offer up and sacrifice him incruentè, with­out bloudshed, they yield the cause; for all proper sacrificing implieth destruction, as Bellarmine grants, De Missa lib. 10. cap. ul. or if it be a living thing the shedding the bloud is killing of what is sacrificed, for without shedding of bloud there is no remission.

If by their sacrificing Christ in the Mass they meant only a representation to God or men of Christ's bloudy sacrifice of the Cross, or a commemoration of his death, termed, 1 Cor. 11.26. a shewing and setting it forth visibly and sa­cramentally by eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup, we should not oppose them: but Representation or Commemoration of Christ's death is one thing, and proper Sacrificing his Body and Bloud, really, corporally, and car­nally as it was on the Cross, is quite another.

As for Bellarmin's Reply, that Christ is sacrific'd not under the likeness of a living thing but of Bread which hath no life, and therefore there is no necessity he should be slain or kill'd in the Mass, it signifies nothing. For I ask, Is the likeness of Bread onely offer'd up to God as a propitiatory Sacrifice, or Christ himself, his Body and Bloud, Bellarmine placeth the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Priests manducation, or eating, and consumption not of the substance of Christ's Body, but the Accidents or Appearance of Bread only, de missa l. 1. c. [...]. But a true Sacrifice requireth a consum­ption of its substance; as is above by him granted. Ergo. who is a living Person; yea, liveth for ever? If Bread onely, 'tis blasphemous to make it a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. If Christ himself, who is a living Person, be truly and properly sacrific'd, he must be truly and properly slain.

As for their usual pretence that Masses apply to us the Vertue and Merits of Christ's Passion: I answer, That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is abundantly sufficient thereunto, [Page]and peculiarly instituted to that very purpose; for the bread that we break is it not the Communion or communication of the Body of Christ, and the Cup of blessing that we bless the Com­munion of the Bloud of Christ? And what is the Communion or communication of Christ's Body and Bloud broken and shed for the remission of our sins, but the communication or application of the Merits of both unto us in order there­unto? So that the reiteration of Christs sacrifice of himself on the Cross is altogether unnecessary.

IX Nor Commu­nion in one kind only.As to the ninth Article of Pope Pius his Creed, That is is not necessary to receive both Bread and Cup in the Holy Sacrament of Christ's Body and Bloud, it is so plainly and almost palpably contrary to the institution, example and command of Christ himself, as also the Apostolical tradi­tion of St. Paul, that 'tis a wonder how any Christians dare own any such Doctrine. Take, eat, drink, do this in remem­brance of me; so our Lord at the first institution of it. Saint Paul repeats this Institution to the Corinthians, commending it to the observation of the whole Church, Laity as well as Clergy; joineth eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup together four several times in four Verses, 1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28, 29. Layeth down an express Apostolical Canon, Let a man examine himself, &c. What man? An Apostle only? or a consecrating Priest? No. But any ordinary Chri­stian capable of this Sacrament. Well. What is then to be done? Let him eat of that bread, as it is his necessary and indi­spensable duty to do; but is that all? No. For he addeth, And let him, (whether Layman or Clerick, whether Conse­crator or not) also drink of that Cup. For as often as ye (Chri­stians in general) eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup, ye shew forth (as is your duty to do and which otherwise you do not) the Lords death till he come. Doth it not look like Antichristia­nism for Christ's Vicar to presume to alter, Panis & vi­num ad essen­tiam sacra­menti perti­nent. Bellar­min. de Eu­char. lib. 40. cap. 60. v. Concil. Trident. Panis & vinum non tam essentiales, quam in­tegrales hujus sacramenti partes videntur, Bellarmin. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 22. Sine vino igitur sacramentum non integrè administratur. mutilate, or in any substantial part (as the Cup in the Eucharist is acknow­ledg'd to be) to abrogate his Lords Instituion and Command? How dare any Christian divide asunder what Christ and Saint Paul have join'd together? The receiving the Cup is as neces­sary [Page 31]to any Christian, Clerick or Laick, as the sacred Bread. By the same reason the Church of Rome forbids the Laity one, they may both; for both are equally commanded, both are as necessary as either. The Romish pretended Power to dispense with the Laws of God and to alter the institutions of Christ is alone a sufficient argument to discover how little they regard the Apostolical Doctrine or Primitive practice of the Church, from which, as we see, they have manifestly depart­ed. In a word, If the Pope and his Councils have power to al­ter and dispense with, yea countermand, Christ's express Laws and Institutions, Sir Edward Sandys Europae Speculum. but it is made, as a learned Traveller ob­serves, a mere piece of humane Policy to be fram'd, alter'd and modell'd at the wills and pleasures of men; which directly tends to promote Atheism; for which crime Italians are notorious.

Thus I hope I have made it evident to any unprejudic'd Person that the 9 Articles above-mention'd, which Pope Pius not 200 years ago added to the old Nicene Creed, as parts of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith, without which no salvation is to be had or expected, are errors and cor­ruptions of it, contrary to the doctrine that the holy Apostles have deliver'd to them and us in their Writings. So that I may justly ask them, Where was your Creed and Church before Pope Pius, who was hardly so old as Luther.

I might add several other Doctrines and Practices as con­trary to Scripture (if I understand any thing in it) as Dark­ness is to Light; particularly, Concerning some pra­ctices in the Roman Church which are against Scripture. As 1. Service in an unknown Tongue. that unreasonable service of God in a Tongue the people do not-understand. Can any thing be more plainly contradictory to the whole fourteenth Chapter of 1 Cor. Doth not Saint Paul there condemn all Speaking, whether in Sermons, Prayers or Thanksgivings, in the Church in an unknown Tongue? ver. 2. Unknown, not to God; who knows all things, even Sermons in Latin, Greek or any Tongue else, but to Men. He prefers Prophe­cying, i.e. Preaching or expounding the Scripture, before Tongues, i. e. strange and not understood by the Hearers, for this very reason; because he that speaketh in an unknown Tongue speaketh to God, not unto men, for no man under­standeth him, howbeit in the Spirit, i.e. by a miraculous gift of the [Page 32]Spirit,Ver. 3. as the gift of Tongues was, he speaketh mysteries, i. e. profound and admirable Truths. But he that prophesieth or preacheth in a known Tongue speaketh unto men, to Edification, Exhortation and Comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown Tongue edifieth himself,Ver. 4. not the Church. But Saint Paul would have the whole Church edifi'd or profited by whatever is spoken. Hence he commands ver. 26. all things to be done to edification, and forbids any one to use his miraculous gift of Tongues in the Church unless he in­terpret what he saith, or another for him, that so the Church may receive Edifying, i.e. spiritual profit, being built up in their most holy Faith. Is it not as clear as the day at Noon, that according to St. Paul's doctrine there is no profit or edification redounding to the People by whatsoever is spo­ken in the Church in an unknown Tongue? Neither doth he in that Chapter speak only of Sermons (Papists them­selves are not so absurd as to preach in Latin to their people) or private Conferences, as Bellarmine would evade, he speak­eth generally of whatever is spoken in the Church, it must be in a Tongue known to the people, that so the people may be profited by it, in regard else they are not edify'd or pro­fited at all. Neither doth he speak of Sermons only, but Prayers and Thanksgivings: hence ver. 15, 16. I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also, I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. So that in St. Paul's judgment it's necessary to pray and sing Praises, Psalm 47.7. as David saith, with understanding. Then he adds, Else when thou shalt bless (God) with the Spirit, i.e. by an extraordinary gift of strange Tongues bestow'd by the Spirit on many in those days, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen to thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? Where two things are as plain as if they had been written with a Sun­beam. First, That St. Paul in that Chapter discourseth not of Sermons or Conferences onely, but Prayers and Hymns. Secondly, Justin. Martyr, Apol. 2. Hie­ron. in Epist. ad Galatas, lib. 2. in praefat. That the unlearned cannot, as they ought, say Amen to Prayers or Hymns of Thanksgiving they under­stand not. We use, as the ancient Church did, to say Amen to Prayers, not to Sermons or Conferences. So that Saint Paul expresly condemns Prayers in an unknown Tongue [Page 33]used at this day by the Roman Church in her Latin Service. And there is ground to think this is one reason why they suffer not the Laity to read the Scriptures, lest they should by them discern this amongst other of their palpable, erroneous and corrupt practices. This may be a second instance that the Romish Religion is not Apostolical.

2 Denying the use of the Scripture to the Laity. V. Claudium E­spenceum in Titum cap. 2.For what can be more contrary to our Saviour's command, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, &c? And that of Saint Paul, Col. 3.16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wis­dom and spiritual understanding? Yea, to the very end of Gods giving the Scriptures, than to forbid the generality of the people to read them, lest they should by it become Here­ticks, i.e. Protestants? Did Saint Paul write his Epistles to the learned or Clergy only at Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, &c. and not to the whole Church? Yea, doth he not adjure them at Thessalonica to cause his Epistle to be read, 1 Thess. 5.27. not onely to the Rulers or Elders of the Church, but to all the holy Brethren or Saints? Might they hear what was written to them, but not read it? Were they not Greeks, and did not Saint Paul write unto them in their own vulgar Tongue? To what end, if not that they should read it? Otherwise surely he would have written to them in Hebrew or Syriack, for he had the gift of many Tongues.

But say some Politicians, The common people are apt to mistake and to wrest the Scriptures to Heresies and their own destruction.

To which I answer, First, Plus inde ob hominum te­meritatem detrimenti, quam utilita­tis oriri, &c. Index libror. prohib. Reg. 1. If the Scriptures be so apt to be misunderstood, and do more hurt than good, why should we look upon them as a singular blessing of God to his Church? Secondly, Do onely unlearn'd men wrest the Scriptures? We know the old Hereticks, as Arius, Nesto­rius, Pelagius, &c. were neither unlearn'd nor Laicks. Thirdly, Why did St. Paul, if the Scripture be so dangerous to the common people, command his Epistle to be read to all the holy Brethren? Might they not mistake his true meaning by hearing it read as well as reading it? Lastly, I answer, The Church of God is not to be govern'd by the late Policies of men, but by the Laws of Christ and the example of the Primitive Church; who altho many dam­nable Heresies arose in those Ages, Cyril. contra Julian. lib. 6. and were colourably [Page 34]maintain'd by the Scripture, Hom. 2. in Matth. Chry­sost. Hom. 3. in Lazarum Hom. 9. in Coloss. Hieron Epist. ad Eu­stochium, Sal­vinam, Celan­tiam, in Epita­phio Paulae. as Julian the Apostate objected, yet never forbad any man to read the Scripture, but exhorted and encourag'd the Laity, even Women to do it. A Licence to read the Scriptures would have been looked upon in those days as a prodigious Novelty. Because many people receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood unworthily to their own damnation, may therefore the Laity be wholly and ge­nerally kept as well from that Bread as they are by Romanists from that Cup unless they have a special Licence from the Church? But concerning the judgment and practice of Pri­mitive times, we shall say more by and by. I might add more instances, but these may suffice to make good my first Assertion, that the present Roman Faith or Religion is not grounded on the holy Scriptures.

Assert. 2 The sence of Antiquity con­cerning the Points in Dispute.The second thing I am oblig'd to shew, is, That the Points above-mention'd are no parts of the true antient Catho­lick Faith, or were so esteem'd by the holy Fathers and Councils for at least 4 or 500 years after Christ, but rather condemn'd and rejected by them.

Art. 1 Concerning the seven Sa­craments.I will begin with the Doctrine of the seven Sacraments. The antient Fathers when they treat of the Sacraments of the Church in the strict and proper sense of the word (for it is equivocal) mention two onely, V. Augustin. de Symbolo. Ambros. de Sacram. Card. Riche­lieu hence grants there are properly but two, Examen Pacific. Epist. 118. ad Januar. V. Ambros. de Sacram. Incarnation. V. Cyprian. de ablution. pedùm. Aug. de bono Conjug. 1.18. & lib. 1. cont. Faust. c. 14. Bernard. de coena Domini. viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These Justin Martyr in the end of his 2d Apology, where he describeth the publick service of the Church on the Lord's days, takes notice of, and none of the other five. Chrysostom, Cyril and Theophylact on John 19. As also Ambrose, Austin and Damascen write, that the Water and Bloud that came out of our Saviours side, signify'd the Sacraments of the Church, viz. the Water, Baptism, and the Bloud, the Eu­charist. Irenaeus no where mentions any more Sacraments than these two. Saint Austin saith, Christ hath left us a very few Sacraments, numero paucissima, Baptism and the Eucharist. 'Tis true, The Fathers sometimes term Confirmation, Or­ders, &c. Sacraments; but then they use the word in a more large sense, as when they call the Doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, &c. Sacraments, i. e. Mysteries. Our Saviour's washing his Disciples feet, the sign of the Cross; yea Polygamy are sometimes honour'd by Cyprian, Augustin, Bernard, with [Page 35]the name of Sacraments, i. e. sacred or mystical Signs; In which sense there may be not onely seven but seventeen Sa­craments. But to avoid falling into a Logomachia or strife about words, it is agreed, as Bellarmin himself grants, that the essential note of a proper Sacrament is to communicate justifying Grace. De Sacram l. 1. c. 11. Costerus En­chir. p. 340. Peter Lom­bard and Durandus say; Matri­mony confers not Grace. See Cassandr. Art: 14. Do holy Orders communicate justifying Grace, or Matrimony either? If the latter, I wonder why they should prohibit it the Clergy. If the former, surely there would not be found sons of Eli or Belial in their Church who know not the Lord. But enough of this at pre­sent.

Art. 2 Concerning Transubstant.Secondly, The Ancient Fathers did not believe or teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Alphonsus de Castro de Haeres. lib. 8. saith the same: It was first taught by Paschasius, anno 818. See Bellarmin. de Script. i.e. that by consecra­tion, the substance of the Bread and Wine cease to be, and are turn'd into the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ, which he now hath being at the right hand of God.

Ad Philadelphin. Ignatius saith, that in the holy Eucharist one and the same Bread is administred to all.

Justin Martyr calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecra­tion, and saith, our flesh and bloud are nourished by them: In Apol. 2. [...]. In like manner Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 12. Bellar. min, lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. ad finem. V. Bonavent. l. 4. Sent. Dist. 12. art. 3. qu. 1. I adjoin, But mere Accidents cannot nourish our bodies. Therefore the true substance of Bread and Wine still remain. Our Adversaries dare not affirm that our bodies are nourish'd by some substance. He addeth a little after, that the Deacon useth to carry to the sick Bread and Wine to be receiv'd at their own Houses. Irenaeus declareth that the Eucharist con­sists of two things, one terrestrial, viz. the Elements of Bread and Wine; the other Celestial, viz. Christ's Body and Bloud. Iren. Lib. 4. adv. Haer. c. 34. Ex duabus rebus constat, terrena & caelesti.

Clemens Alex. Paed. l. 1. cap. 6. [...]. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. in fine. [...]. understood those words, Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, in a symbolical or figurative sense; and dis­puting against the Encratites, who condemn'd all use of Wine, he confutes them from the Example of our Saviour who drank in the holy Eucharist of the fruit of the Vine. An evident proof that Clemens did not believe any transubstantiation of the substance of the Wine into the very Bloud of Christ.

Tertullian disputing against Marcion, who held that Christ had not a real but phantastick body onely, (as Romanists speak of the Sacramental Elements, which seem only to be what in truth they are not) draws an argument from the Eucharist, saying, A figure of a Body argues a true Body; (in another place, Christ represented by Bread his Body) But Christ taking Bread made it his Body, In Marcion lib. 1. c. 14. Repraesentat corpus suum pane. Ad Marcion. lib. 4. c. 4. Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est figura corporis mei. V. lib. 3. in Marcion. c. 19. corporis sui figuram pani dedisse. saying, This is my Body, i.e. the figure of my Body. So Tertullian understood it. Marcion might easily have retorted this Argument, if the sub­stance of Bread remained not in the Sacrament, by saying, As the Bread in the Sacrament seems to be Bread, but is not truly and really so, in like manner Christ's body appear'd to to be a true humane Body, but was not really what it seem'd.

Origen in his third Dialogue against Marcion uses the same argument, V. Hom. 9. Si secundum literam se­quaris occidit haec litera. Hom. 7. In cap. 17. Matth. Juxta id quod habet materiale. Haec de Typi­co Symbolico (que) corpore. and in his seventh Homily on Levit. he saith, In the Gospel there is the Letter which killeth him who under­standeth not spiritually. If according to the letter you take those words, Unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man, &c. Occi­det haec litera, this letter or literal sense will kill ye. And in another place he is not affraid to affirm, that the consecra­ted Elements according to what is material in them go into the belly and so into the draught, which it were horrid blas­phemy to affirm of Christs natural Body. But he ascribes it to his sacramental, typical or symbolical Body, as he there calls it.

Cyprian disputing against the Aquarii, who would not use Wine but Water onely in the holy Eucharist, Epist. 63. Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur. argueth in this [Page 37]manner, Where there is no Wine in the Cup, the bloud of Christ cannot be express'd, for we see the bloud to be shown, (ostendi) in the Wine. And in his Comment upon the Lords Prayer he applies those words, Give us this day our daily bread, to the sacramental bread. The same Cyprian declares in his Sermon of the Lords Supper what manner of body is in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, when he saith, Veracissi­mum & san­ctissimum creat & corpus suum sanctificat. De coena Dom. Who con­tinually, even to this present day, doth create, sanctifie and bless his Body, distributing the same to godly Receivers. Now it's undeniable that Christ's very own proper body is not continually created, sanctified or blessed.

The words of Athanasius are very remarkable. "Our Lord distinguisheth the Spirit from the Flesh, Ad Serapion. De Spir. S. In cap. 6. Joann. V. C [...]prian. de coena Dom. & August. de verb [...]s Apost. Serm. 2. Tom. 10. spirituali­ter intelligen­da sunt, nisi manducaveri­tis carnem, &c. Aug. Tract. 27. in Joan. ubi plura. that we might learn that the words he spake John 6. were not carnal, but spiritual. For to how many men was his body enough to eat, that it should become the food of the whole World? But therefore he menti­ons his Ascension into Heaven, that he might draw us off from a corporal sense, and thenceforward should understand his Flesh he spake of as heavenly and spiritual Food [...], for the words I speak to you are spirit and life; as if he had said, my Body which is shown and given for the World is given for food that it may be spiritually [...] com­municated to every one.

Cyril of Hierusalem saith under the Type, [...] of Bread, Mystagog. lib. 4. where he granteth that in John 6, &c. Except ye eat, is to be understood [...] spiritually. Christs Body is given thee, and under the Type of Wine, his Bloud.

Nazianzen termeth the Bread and Wine [...] antitypes of Christs Body and Bloud. In like manner Dionysius A­reopag. and Basil in his Liturgy.

But I must not forget Gregory Nyssen; As, saith he, In Laudem Gorgoniae. Orat. in Bap­tis. the Altar is by Nature a common Stone, but being consecrated to God's service is made an Holy Table; and as the Eucha­ristical Bread is at first common Bread, but when the My­stery, i.e. Mystical Prayer of consecration hath sanctify'd it, [Page 38]is called and is the Body of Christ. As the Priest to day a common man by benediction is made a Teacher of Piety, and nothing changed in body, hath his soul transform'd by invisible Grace, so the Water in Baptism when it's nothing else but water by the heavenly blessing of Grace reneweth a man. Where it's evident Gregory Nyssen alloweth no other Transubstantiation in the Eucharist than in Baptism, the Ordination of a Priest, or the Consecration of an Altar.

Chrysostom in his Epistle to Caesarius (which is to be seen in the Florentine Library Which is published since this Au­thor wrote. See the Expo­sition of the Doctrin of the Ch. of E. in answer to the Bishop of Meaux, in Append. It is quoted by Damascen. con­tra Acephalos. Etiamsi Na­tura panis permansit. Hom. 11. in Math. V. Athanas. ad Serap. de SS. Comment. in 1 Cor. 10. V. Chrysost. Hom. 46. in Joan. Sicut mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, ità etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis. De Sacramentis lib 4. cap. 5. Haec oblatio est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini. Ibid. Fide tangitur Christus, non corpore., as Peter Martyr a Florentine witnes­seth, as also in the University-Library at Oxford) wri­teth after this manner, Before the bread be sanctify'd, we call it Bread; but the divine Grace sanctifying it, we call it the Lords Body, altho the nature of bread remain. These words directly overthrow Transubstantiation. In another place the same Father discourses after this manner, If it be so dangerous to apply to private uses these hallowed Vessels in the which is not the very true body of Christ, but onely the Mystery of his Body is contain'd, &c. much more our bo­dies to sin. Adding, That we ought to climb up into Hea­ven, when we receive the Communion, if we would have the fruition of Christ's Body, yea rather above the Heavens; for, saith he in another place, Wheresoever the carcass is, there will the Eagles be gather'd together. The Lord is the Carcass because of his death, and this is a Table for mounting Eagles, not for pratling Jays.

I shall now add the words of St. Ambrose, who discoursing of our Saviour's celebrating the holy Sacrament with his Dis­ciples, breaking bread and giving it to them, saying, Take, eat, this is my body, &c. adds, As ye have received the simi­litude of my death, so drink also the similitude of my pre­cious bloud. This oblation is the figure of the Body and Bloud of the Lord. In another place, Christ is touch'd by Faith, not bodily.

Let us now hear Theodoret's testimony, Our Saviour, saith he, In Lucam lib. 6. cap. 8. So Saint Je­rom in Psal. 50. Dei, tui corpus & sanguinem mente contin­ge, cordis ma­nu suscipe. in the institution of the Eucharist chang'd the names (not natures) of things, and applied that to his body, which belonged to the symbol or sign of it, and to the sign what appertain'd to his body, which he did, that such as partake of the divine Mysteries should not be attent on the nature of those things they see, but by the change of names should believe that mutation which is made by Grace. For he, (that is Christ) that called what is by nature a Body, Wheat or Bread, the same honoured the signs or symbols with the names of his Body and Bloud, not changing their Nature, Dial. 1.8. [...]. but adding Grace to Nature. And when the Eutychian He­retick would hence draw an argument, that as the signs of Christs Body and Bloud are one thing before Consecration, another after it; so our Lord's body after it's Union to his divine Person ceased to be in substance what it appeared, and was chang'd into the divine Nature of the Godhead. Theodoret replieth upon him, [...]. You are taken in your own Net; for the Mystical signs after Consecration recede not from their former nature, but remain in their former sub­stance, form and appearance. Mark. He saith not onely in their former form and appearance, but in their substance also. This is an irrefragable testimony against the Novel Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

I will add the words of Gelasius, who was, as some say, Bishop of Rome; but however one that liv'd towards the lat­ter end of the fifth Century. His words are plain in his Book against Eutyches and Nestorius. Lib. de dua­bus Christi Naturis. The Sacraments we receive of Christs body and bloud are divine things, by which we are made partakers of the divine Nature, and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not. And indeed the Image of the body and bloud of Christ in the sa­cramental participation is celebrated. Tamen non definit esse substantia vel Natura panis & vini Ima­go & simili­tudo, &c. In ejus ima­gine profite­mur, celebramus & sumimus. Permanent tamen in sua proprietate. We must therefore think that of Christ our Lord which we profess, celebrate and take in his Image, i.e. the Sacramental signs of his Body and Bloud, that as these by the operation of the Holy Ghost pass into a divine substance, and yet remain in the propriety of their own nature; so that great mystery of the [Page 40]Incarnation whose Vertue they represent, shew one whole true Christ consisting of two Natures properly remaining. The same is affirmed by the Patriarch Ephraim, in Photii Bibliotheca Cod. 229.

I I purposely conclude with Saint Augustin, Tract. 25. in Joan. Basil in Psal. 33. saith the same. Lib. 3. de Doctrin. Christ. cap 16. Flagitium jubere videtur Nolite pa­rare fauces sed Cor. Nos non tangimus Christum, sed credimus. Augustin. Serm. 33. in Lucam. Devorandus auditu, rumi­nandus intel­lectu, side di­gerendus, Tertul. de Resur. who hath with the consent of the more Ancient Fathers, deliver'd several things which utterly overthrow the present Roman Article of Faith, Transubstantiation. As first, That Christ's Body or Flesh is not to be eaten in a proper, carnal, oral, but figura­tive and spiritual sense; not by the mouth of the body, but by Faith the mouth of the Soul. For having laid it down as a general Rule, that whensoever the Scripture seems to command any thing wicked or flagitious, we must under­stand it as a figurative and improper form of speech, he in­stanceth in those words, Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, &c. Figura est ergo, It is therefore, saith he, a figure, requiring us to communicate in Christ's Passion sweetly, and profitably, remembring that his flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us. The same is affirm'd by Cyprian de coena Do­mini, As often as we do this in remembrance of him we whet not our teeth to bite, but with a sincere Faith we break the holy Bread. Which is, saith he, Cibus non dentis aut ven­tris, sed mentis, meat not of the mouth or teeth, but mind. In like manner Cyril Catec. Mystag. 4. Ambrose de Sacramen­tis lib. 1. cap. 4. Idem Serm. 58. & in Lucae cap. 10. v. 24. Besides others of the Fathers I shall not now mention.

II Secondly, He expresly affirmeth that wicked men in the Sacrament do not eat Christ's body or drink his bloud.Tract. 26. in Joan. Cyprian de coena saith the same. Compare Aug. De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Of the Lord's Table, saith he, some receive to life, others to damnation; but the thing whereof it is a Sacrament every man receives to life, none to death. To eat that meat and to drink that drink our Saviour explaineth when he saith, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me; whence he that dwelleth not in Christ, (proculdubio) que­stionless neither eats nor drinks spiritually, altho he carnally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of Christ's body and bloud; but rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing to his own condemnation, because being un­clean he presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ. [Page 41] Whosoever eateth me shall live by me. In another place; Non dicitur qui manducat dignè, sed qui manducat me. Cajetan. in locum. He that is at discord with Christ or an enemy to Christ, neither eateth his body nor drinketh his bloud, altho he daily receive indifferently (as if there were no difference betwixt that bread and common bread) the Sacrament of so great a thing to the punishment of his own presumption. Which is no more than what Origen had written long before him on Matth. 15. where he saith, Sentent. 339. Qui discordat à Christo non corpus ejus manducat, &c. V. Ambrose de tis qui myster. initi­antur, cap. 9. If it were possible for any wicked man, persevering such, to eat the Word made flesh, seeing he is the living bread, it would not have been written, Whoso­ever eateth this bread shall live for ever. St. Hierom in Jerem. lib. 4. cap. 22. and also cap. 66. in Esai. affirms the same, saying, That Hereticks do not eat the body or drink the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, because then they should have everlasting life.

III Thirdly, Saint Augustin expresly affirmeth,In signis di­versis cadem fides. Aug. Tract. 45. in Joan. ubi plura legas. Lib. 20. cont Faustum, c. 21. that our Fa­thers the Patriarchs and Prophets under the Law did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink with us under the Gospel, i.e. Christ: for they drank of that Rock which follow'd them, and that Rock, St. Paul says, was Christ, Tract. 26. on John. Contr. Faustum. lib. 19. cap. 16. Whence it undeniably follows, that the eating of Christ's flesh in an oral carnal manner is not necessary to salvation, which be­fore Christ's Incarnation was impossible as it is now unprofi­table.

IV Fourthly, Saint Augustin, Epist. ad Dardanum, writeth,Epist. 57. Tolie à Corpo­ribus locorum spatia & nus­quam erunt. Christus ubi­que per id quod Deus est, in coe [...]o autem per id quod homo est, &c. that Christ's body being a true humane body necessarily ta­keth up a space answerable to its quantity; and saith, That to deny a body to take up space, is to deny it to be a true body. And adds, That the body of Christ is not every­where, but in a certain determinate place. Whereby he ut­terly overthrows the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the possibility of eating and chewing, or, which is all one, the swallowing down whole Christ's body, that it should be in a thousand places at once, and should be contain'd whole un­der the least piece of Wafer. Which is in effect to revive the Heresie of Marcion and the Manichees, who denyed the ve­rity of Christ's Body turning it into a Phantasm, Non hee cor­pus quod vi­detis mandu­caturi estis. Sacramentum vobis com­mendavi, &c. Compare Cy­prian de unctione Chri­smatis. Christus tra­didit Disci­pulis figuram corporis sui. Augustin. in Psalm 3. Non hoc cor­pus quod vi­detis, man­ducaturi estis. Sacramentum commendavi vobis quod spiritualiter intellectum vivificabitvos. Epist. 23. Sprite or Spirit. But I cannot omit his words upon the 98th Psalm, where he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to his Apostles: [Page 42] Ye shall not eat this body ye see, nor drink that bloud that my Crucifiers shall shed. I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood, spiritualiter intellectum shall give you life. What can possibly be said more plainly by any Protestant against Transubstantiation? Our Adversaries answer, That they did eat the very same body which they did see, but not codem modo, not in a mortal, visible, but in an invisible, immortal and impassible manner. Which Answer signifies nothing; For altho not in the same man­ner, yet they grant the very same body was really and sub­stantially eaten by the Apostles which they saw present with them at the Table, and that not in a spiritual and Sacramen­tal, but in a corporal, carnal and substantial sense, which perfectly contradicts what Saint Augustin there saith, Ye shall not eat the body ye see, &c. Again, I would gladly be re­solv'd whether the Apostles did eat Christ's very body then present as mortal or immortal. If as mortal and passible, then they did eat it eodem modo after the same manner, as it was there present and seen by them; if as immortal, how did then Christ's body really die upon the Cross? And then it must be granted that Christ's body was immortal before his Resurrection or Ascension. I will onely add, that I be not too tedious, his words in his Epistle to Boniface, If Sa­craments had not some similitude or likeness of those things of which they are Sacraments,Ex hac si­militudine plerumque etiam ipsa­rum rerum nomina acci­piunt. Com­pare Quaest. in Levit. lib. 3. cap. 57. Sicut scrip­tum est, sep­tem spicae septem anni sunt. Non enim dixit septem annos significant.they would be no Sacraments. From this similitude for the most part they receive the names of the things themselves they represent. As then, secundùm quendam modum, after some manner, the Sacrament of Christ's body is his body, so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. Thus I hope I have made it evident, that the present Doctrine of Tran­substantiation is no part of the Primitive and Catholick Faith; which the Fathers in the five first Centuries after Christ owned not, but refuted and condemn'd it.

I know very well that many things are objected against us out of the Fathers, that Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus affirm, that the Bread and Wine in the holy Eucharist is the Body, flesh and bloud of Christ; yea, as Cyprian and Saint [Page 43] Ambrose declare, That they are changed, De coena Do­mini. De Sacram. tho not in shew or Effigies, yet in Nature; that they remain what they were, and are changed into another thing. To all which in brief I answer, That we question not the truth of him that said, This is my Body. We unfeignedly grant it is so, secundum quendam modum, as Augustin above, Epist. 23. in a true and sacramen­tal, tho not literal and proper sense. We undoubtedly be­lieve on Saint Paul's infallible Authority, that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was Christ; he saith not, as Saint Augustin somewhere observes, it signify'd Christ, but it was Christ; yet no man is so simple as to un­derstand those words not in a figurative and improper but a proper and literal sense. Furthermore, Petra erat Christus. Non dixit Petra significat Christum, &c. Quaestiones in Levitic. l. 3. c. 37. we grant with Cy­prian that the Bread and Wine are not changed in outward shew, yet in Nature (taking the word Nature in a general sense, as when we say, a man becoming more kind and civil, he is grown better natur'd.) In regard of common bread and wine they are chang'd and converted into an holy Sa­crament, wherein we have Communion with, or real, tho spi­tual, communication of the body and bloud of Christ. In like manner, we subscribe to that of Ambrose, That they re­main what they are, i.e. as to substance, (which directly overthrows Transubstantiation) and yet are changed into other things as to use and quality. When in and by the Re­surrection a natural, mortal and corruptible body is turned into a spiritual and immortal one, we all grant the nature of it is changed; yet no good Christian will deny but that it remains for substance the very same body.

I know also our Adversaries much urge the sayings of Hi­lary and Cyril of Alex. Lib 6. de Trin. in Con­cil. Ephes.That by vertue of the Eucharist Christ's body and blood is corporally and naturally united to us. But this is impertinently alledg'd; for they speak not of the Union of Christ's Body and Bloud to the outward Elements of Bread and Wine, but to the souls and bodies of all faithful Communicants, and to them onely, who thereby become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. In a word. As the Fathers say, Christ's Body is in us, V. Ambrose de Sacram. l 4. c. 4. Augustin. Tract. 1. in Epist. Joann. Sicut Christus in nobis hic, ita nos ibi in illo sumus. so that our bodies are in him; not onely by Faith and Charity, but in very deed. And [Page 44]if it be so, that our substance is not turn'd into Christ's sub­stance, why should we think that the substance of the bread must be changed into the substance of Christ's body? Or his body should be any more corporally in our body than our body is in his?

Lastly, They vehemently press the sayings of Chrysostom and other of the Fathers in their popular Homilies who say, Hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 63. in Matth. Hom. 60. ad Popu­lum Antio­chen. Hom. 45. in Joann. Hom. 24. in 1. Epist. ad Corinth. Vid. Aug. in the holy Sacrament, we see, touch and eat Christ's body, that our tongues are made red with his bloud, even that bloud which did flow from his side on the Cross, that what he suffer'd not on the Cross he suffers in the Sacrament, viz. his body to be broken with our teeth. Dost thou see Bread and Wine in the Sacrament? Think it not. In like manner Cyril of Jerus. Mystag. But such Hyperboli­cal expressions used by the Fathers to stir up devotion and preserve an high reverence of the Sacrament in the minds of their Hearers are not to be taken, as our Adversaries well know, in a strict, literal and dogmatical sense. No Papist according to his own principles can rationally hold, that Christ's body is corporally pressed, pierc'd or touch'd by mens teeth, or that their tongues are dyed red with his bloud, seeing they affirm that Christ's Body is there, incruentè, in an unbloudy manner; insomuch that they acknowledge those words in Berengarius his Recantation, tho drawn up by the Pope, viz. That Christ's flesh in the Sacrament is sensually press'd or torn by mens teeth, must be cautiously understood, not of Christ's Body, but of the outward Species or Elements onely, Autor Glossae in Decret. lest we fall into a worse Errour, than that he re­tracted.

Secondly, I answer, That the Fathers use the like Rheto­cal or Hyperbolical expressions in their popular Discourses concerning Baptism; Cap 19. Passio Domini in qua tingimur. Mystag. 4. In Sacramentis, non quid sint, sed quid o­stendant, attenditur; quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud existentia & aliud significantia. Aug. cont. Max. l. 3. c. 22. Ne quis attendat in eis quod sunt, &c. de Doctr. Christ. c. 7. Hom. 16. in Sacram. Euchar. Tom. 6. wherein neither we nor our Adversa­ries admit of any Transubstantiation. Thus Tertullian in his Book of Baptism saith, that thereby we are dyed in the pas­sion or bloud of our Lord. In like manner Cyril of Hierusalem, after he had instructed Christians not to look upon the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament as mere Bread and Wine, what­ever [Page 45]sense suggesteth, but as the body and bloud of Christ, affirmeth the same of the Water in Baptism, that it is not [...] mere or bare Water, and the same he saith of the Oil in Chrism, though neither of them are substan­tially chang'd into the very bloud of Christ. Many more instances might be added, but these may suffice. I will onely take notice of a Similitude used by St. Chrysostom, in which Bellarmin triumphs. 'Tis this: As, saith he, Wax set on fire loseth its substance being turn'd into fire, so by consecration the substance of the bread is chang'd into the flesh of Christ. To which, and the like expressions quoted out of the Fathers, In Epipha­nium, pag. 244. & pag. 288. I shall answer in the words of Petavius the Jesuit: There are many things, saith he, in the Holy Fathers, especially in Chryso­stom, scatter'd here and there in their Homilies, which if you would reduce to the rule of exact Truth, they will seem altogether void of good sense: Sixtus Se­nensis lib. 6. Biblioth. An­notat. 152. Another of their own Church ingenuously aknowledgeth that Preachers, such as the Fathers were in their Homilies and popular Discourses, often speak things by an Hyperbole, being carried away, affectuum impetu & ora­tionis cursu, with the heat of their affections; which often, saith he, befell Chrysostom. Yea, Rhetoricati sumus & ali quid declama­tionibus dedi­mus. Saint Hierom confesses of himself, We have play'd the Rhetoricians in a Declamatory way. To close this. Similitudes are the weakest kind of Ar­guments. Neither may our Adversaries in prudence urge this similitude of fired Wax too vehemently against us. If so; they must necessarily grant, that not onely the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament ceaseth to be, but the very outward accidents also. For when Wax is fired, not onely the substance but the very accidents are disserent from what they were before. And so much at present for Tran­substantiation.

I pass to the next Article, Purgatory. 3. Art. Concerning Purgatory. The Antient Fa­thers for five hundred years after Christ, did not hold the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory as an Article of Faith; yea, some of them expresly contradict it. I will begin with the Greek Fathers. Clemens Romanus and Ignatius in their genuine Writings take no notice at all of it.

Justin Martyr denies it. We believe, saith he, [...], ☜ [...]. every man after his departure hence goeth according to his works either in­to everlasting punishment or life. And immediately addeth. Men [Page 46] would avoid sin, if they consider'd that they must go (without Repentance) into eternal punishment by fire. But of enduring temporal punishment for sin by fire, not a word is to be found in all his Writings. Quest. 75. Amongst the Questions and An­swers which are printed with his Works, it is thus resolved. After the departure of Souls out of their Bodies [...], presently, they are by Angels carried to places fit for them; the Souls of the just to Paradise, of the unjust to Hell, in which places they are kept until the Resurrection. Here no notice is taken of Purgatory or any middle or third place out of which Souls may be deliver'd by Prayers, Masses, Indulgences, &c. It's true, this Writer is much younger than Justin Martyr, but it maketh the more against our Adversaries; for it sheweth that long after his death this Article of Roman Faith was not Catholick or universally received.

In Irenaeus, (as Erasmus also hath observ'd who was very well seen in his Writings) there is no mention of Purgatory, but in the close of his last Book there is somewhat contradi­cting it, for without any distinction of Persons or sins, mor­tal or venial; he declares his opinion, that the Souls of all Christ's Disciples go to one invisible place, Origen. Hom. 18. in Jeremiam, pag. 163. edit. Huet. Dum hic su­mus, remedi­um non postea. Vita Con­stant. lib. 4.63. (hades) there remaining till the Resurrection, as Tertullian, Origen, Lactan­ctius, Ambrose and other of the Fathers held, which is in­consistent with Purgatory as invocation of dead Saints also, and contradicted by the Romanists.

Eusebius Caesariensis hath written several Volumes, in all which, as Scultetus hath noted, there is not the least mention of Purgatory. It's true, he relates how the people pray'd for the Soul of Constantine. But Constantine, as he assures us in the next Chapter, went not to Purgatory, but was taken up to his God, and joined his divine part, his Soul, to God; yea, a little before his death, he himself, as Eusebius reports, used these words, Now I know my self to be happy, to be now accounted worthy of eternal life. Prayer then for the dead doth not necessarily infer Purgatory. De Praep. Evang. lib. 11. c. 20. lib. 13. I grant, he reporteth Plato's opinion concerning purgation of a middle sort of men by temporal punishments after death. But adds, that Plato, through ignorance of the Scripture erred in many things.

I pass to Athanasius, in all whose Writings, tho many and large, I can find no mention of this Article of Faith, Pur­gatory; [Page 47]and am the more confirm'd it cannot be found, in regard Bellarmin quotes nothing out of him or Eusebius a­gainst us.

Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration in Caesarium, Oratio 10. delivers himself thus, I am mov'd by the sayings of the Wise, that every Soul that is belov'd of God (as the Souls sent by Romanists to Purgatory are acknowledg'd to be) presently [...], after the loosing from the body and departure hence, that which darkned the mind, being either purged or cast from it or done away, in what sort I cannot well express, (whence it's evident he be­lieved not they were purged by fire, as Romanists perempto­rily affirm) beginneth sensibly to discern that good which re­maineth for it, to be filled with wonderful delight, and to leap for joy. But this wonderful delight and joy cannot consist with Purgatory torments, or the fear of them. Nazianzen then was no Papist in this point. On those words, Orat. de Paschate, [...]. Ye shall carry out nothing until the morning, &c. He saith, Beyond or after this night, i. e. after death, there is no purging; if no purging, no Purgatory. In another place he saith, After this life is a time of punishment, but not of purging. Hence he adds, It is better for a man to be chastis'd and purg'd by temporal affliction here. All which places directly confront the Romish Doctrine concerning purgation of Souls by fire after death. In his fourth Oration on Baptism he mentions several sorts of fire: I know, saith he, the purging fire, viz. that which Christ came to send on Earth, viz. the fire of Tribulation and temporal Affliction, as Nicetas in his Com­ment understands it. The fire of love and faith towards God which purgeth the Soul from sin. Therefore, saith he, Christ de­sired to have it kindled on Earth as soon as might be that we might have the benefit of it. This cannot be Purgatory-fire which Christ kindled not on Earth. I know, saith he, ano­ther fire; but it is a punishing, not purging fire, as that of So­dom, or that which goeth before the face of the Lord to burn up his Enemies, or the fire join'd with the never-dying worm, which is eternal. Had Nazianzen known any other fire pur­gative of Souls after this life, no question he would here have mention'd it; but he was it seems wholly ignorant of this Romish Purgative fire after death, which Bellarmine as­serts to be a point of Faith, which he that believeth not [Page 48]cannot be saved, De Purgat. l. 10. c. 15. but shall go to Hell. Parcite, non credimus. However to make a shew of Nazianzen's consent, he quoteth those words in his Oration, In Sancta lumina, They shall be baptiz'd with another fire, which is the last Baptism — which devours the gross matter like fire, and consumeth the levity of sin. But herein the Cardinal discovers much want of since­rity and fair dealing, for Nazianzen in that place speaketh thus [...]. By chance, or it may be, they shall be there bap­tiz'd with fire; so that he delivers it not positively as an Ar­tiele of Faith, but as an uncertain Opinion or possibility onely, as Augustin doth after him. Again, he directs his Speech to the Novatian Hereticks. But the Roman Church is not so merciful as to send Hereticks to Purgatory, and possibly he might mean by that Fire, Origen. cont. Cols. l. 5. Cyril. Ca­tech. 15. the fire of Conflagra­tion at the end of the World; as others of the Fathers, (which Bellarmin denies not) are sometimes to be understood.

I must not omit his intimate Friend Basil the Great, who saith, Moral. sum. lib. 10. The present time is the time of repentance and remission of sins. In his Exhortation to Baptism, he mentions only Hea­ven and Hell taking no notice of Purgatory. By the Baptism of Fire he understands [...], the word of Doctrine. In his Comment on Psal. 33. he distinguisheth two sorts of men onely, such as are dead to sin and die in a mortify'd and sanctify'd Estate, and such as are sinners. The death of the former is blessed, of the latter, miserable, in regard punish­ment attends them like Dives in the Parable: Now Dives, we know, was in Hell, as is plain, Luke 16. not Purgatory. Basil therefore it seemeth knew no such place.

I pass to Epiphanius, who confuting the Novatians, writeth thus: Her. 59. In the other World after mens death there is no Fasting, Pennance, Alms or Piety; there Lazarus cometh not to Dives, nor Dives to Lazarus. (Why did he not except those who are labouring in Purgatory, as Romanists speak?) Epiphanius goes on; The Store-houses are sealed, no coming out, the time accom­plished, the Combat ended, the Race run, and the Crowns are given, (To what end then are Prayers, Masses, Indulgen­ces, &c?) and they who have striven are quiet. If quiet, how labouring in Purgatory? Again, All things are plainly ended after death; whilst all are in Combate, after falling there may be rising again. There is yet hope, there is yet help — Sal­vation [Page 49]is not desperate. After death the King shuts the door, ad­mitteth none. After our departure we may not correct what was amiss formerly in us. How are these words reconcileable to the modern Romans Faith? They say, men may correct after death, by the help of others, what was formerly amiss in them. After death Salvation is not desperate, there is yet hope and help for some of a middle sort when they have undergone temporary punishment or penance in Purgatory. The door of Heaven after death is not shut, the Store-houses are not seal'd up, but may be open'd afterward; the Combate is not ended, nor, (whatsoever Epiphanius saith) all the Crowns yet given, some being reserv'd for those that are making satisfaction, for their venial sins or compleating it for those that were mortal in Purgatory. Yet the Fathers are all theirs, and the Roman Church never did, never can, err.

But it's objected, that Epiphanius undoubtedly held Purga­tory as a point of Faith, in regard he alloweth Prayers for the dead, and condemns Aërius as an Heretick for deny­ing it.

I answer, Prayer for the dead doth no way prove the Romish Purgatory. Or that they for whom the Church an­ciently prayed were in pain or torment; neither doth Epi­phanius intimate any such thing, yea he contradicts it in part at least, when he saith, We pray for the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs; who, as our Adversaries confess, were never in Purgatory, but happy in the Lord. Saint Ambrose pray'd for the Emperour Valentinian when deceased, De Obitu Valentin. Confess. lib. 9. cap. ult. yet in the very same place he declares that he believ'd he was in hea­venly Glory: Saint Augustin also pray'd for his Mother Mo­nica when departed; yet immediately adds, that he believ'd God had granted what he begg'd, i. e. remission of her sins and everlasting life. Prayer then for the dead does not infer Purgatory. But this by the way.

Let us now hear what Saint Chrysostom saith in his third Sermon upon the Philippians, he makes not three, but onely two sorts of Christians; Such as die in the true Faith, and such as die in Infidelity and their Sins. The former after their departure out of this life are blessed, who are gone to Christ, and there are nearer to him, not by Faith, but face to face. And Homily the fourth on the Epistle to the Hebrews, [Page 50]Tell me what mean those bright Lamps in Funerals? Is it not that we bring forth the dead like victorious Combatants? [...].Why are the Hymns? Is it not because we glorifie God, for crowning him that is departed, [...], that he hath free'd him from labours and from the fear of death, having him with himself? Consider what ye sing when ye say, Return unto thy Rest, O my soul, &c. These expressions agree with Purgatory like Water with Fire. How are they blessed with Christ, victorious, crowned, free from all sorrows, at rest and peace, who being of the number of the faithful, no gross sinners, but in a state of Grace, are yet tormented in the fiery flames of Purgatory. The same Father in another place hath these words, Hom. 5. in Genesin. He that in this present life shall not wash away his sins, shall find no consolation hereafter; this is the time of combating, that, of crowning. I shall onely add what he writeth in his second Homily upon Lazarus, quoted by Bellarmin, When we are departed hence it is not in our power to repent, or to wash away the sins we have committed. V. Cyril. A­lexand. in Joan. lib. 12. c. 36. Thus we have seen that the Greek Fathers in the first Ages of the Church were not of the present Roman Faith as to this new Article of Purgatory. I might descend lower were it not needless; for 'tis confess'd by some of the Romish Writers, V. Polyd. Virg. de in­vent. rerum. lib. 8. c. 1. Alph. de Ca­stro c. 8. p. 572. particularly Roffensis the Pope's Martyr in Henry VIII. his days, That in the an­cient Fathers, especially the Greeks, there is either none, or very rare, mention of Purgatory. Neither, saith he, did the Latin Fathers all at once receive it, neither does the Greek Church at this day believe it. This Concession is true; for the Greeks in their printed Confession offer'd to the Council of Basil, Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople, Ann. 1438. in his Censure of the Lu­theran Confession, and Cyril Patriarch of that Church in his Confession of Faith, sent by him to Cornelius Hage Ambassa­dour for the States of Holland at Constantinople, An. 1630. deny any purgation of sins after death by fire in Purgatory, which, say the Greeks in their Apology, was condemn'd by the fifth General Council, altho it is not now to be found in the late Editions of the Councils.

From what hath been said I hope it is evident, First, That there neither is nor ever was any Catholick or universal con­sent of all Christian Churches as to this new Roman Article of Faith, viz. Purgatory. Secondly, That Bellarmin the [Page 51] Jesuit doth but abuse the World in quoting the Greek Fathers as owning it. For, is it probable that the Romans should understand their meaning in their Writings better than them­selves?

It's true, some of them, as Origen, Gregory Nyssen, &c. mention Purgation of Souls from sin by Fire, but it makes nothing for the Popish doctrine of Purgatory. For First, Origen's Purgatory is universal, which all, Prophets, Apostles, Origen. in Exod. Hom. 6. the blessed Virgin, must pass through; not some onely, nei­ther very good nor very bad, but of a middle sort, as Roma­nists hold. Secondly, The Purgation, Saint Basil, Gregory Nyssen, and others speak of, is not before the Resurrection, V. Origen in lib. Re­gum. p. 36. Contra Cel­sum, lib. 5. p. 241. Cyrilli Catech. l. 15. pag. 168. Ego puto quod & post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento nos eluente & pur­gante. Origen. Hom. 14. in Lucam. but at the end of the World, by the fire of Conflagration, which shall purge, as some think, the whole Creation, so that at last all men, even Devils too, shall be saved, as Origen held, who turn'd Hell into Purgatory. Such Sentences of the Fathers will not at all be serviceable to our Adversaries purpose. So much for the Greek; come we now to the Latin Fathers.

I shall begin with Tertullian, who in his Apologetick, Cap. 47. mentions onely two places to which Souls go, Hell and Paradise. In his Book De Testimon. Animae Cap. 4. He thus bespeaketh the Soul: We affirm thee to remain after death, and to expect the day of judgment; Expectare diem Judicii proque meri­to aut cru­ciatui destina­ri, aut refri­gerio utroque sempiterno.and according to your beha­viour to be destinated to torment or comfort; and both eter­nal. As for temporary torments in the fire of Purgatory before the day of Judgment, Tertullian takes no notice of them. In his fifth Book against Marcion, Cap. 6. comment­ing on that famous place, 1 Cor. 3. he rightly understandeth the Gold, Silver, Hay, Stubble, not of sins venial or mortal, but Doctrines worthy or unworthy of the foundation, i. e. Christ or Christian Religion, Strom 5. [...]. with whom agrees Clemens of Alex. in his fourth Book Cap. 34. against Marcion, as also De Anima Cap. 35.55. he saith, The Souls of all good Chri­stians are in Abraham 's bosom, in refrigerio, a place of refresh­ment until the Resurrection (as many of the ancient Fathers [Page 52]thought) when they shall receive plenitudinem mercedis, the fulness of their reward; Not, as Papists now teach, any of them in Purgatorian torments. It is farther observable, that he there distinguisheth that place from Hell or any part of it, as Purgatory is supposed to be. And discoursing on those words apply'd by Romanists to Purgatory, Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing; He affirm­eth, that all Souls abide apud inferos, till the Resurrection. Which utterly overthrows the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory and renders all their Masses, Indulgences, &c, vain and unprofitable.

From the Master let us pass to his Scholar Saint Cyprian, who in his Epistle to Demetrian, saith, that at the ending of this temporal life we are severed into the receptacles either of eternal death or immortality. Ad aeternae mortis vel immortalita­tis hospitia dividamur, p. 166. And in his Book De bono mortalitatis, he comforts the Christians generally in a time of raging Pestilence with these considerations: That the servants of Christ when they die, depart, as Simeon desired, in peace. Enter into Paradise, go to Christ, begin to reign with Christ, that when they are taken out of the storms of this World they gain the haven of Rest and eternal security. Securitatis aeternae por­tum petimus. Lastly, That after death the righteous are call'd ad refrigerium to refreshment; (not torment in Purgatory fire whither some are sent by the Romanists) and the unrighteous to punishment. All which ex­pressions are utterly inconsistent with this new Article of Faith; as every man not blinded with prejudice may easily discern. To the same purpose in his Epistle to Antonium; he adviseth, in contradiction to the bitter doctrine of Nova­tus, that pardon and peace should be granted to Penitents in extremis, at or a little before their death; Because, saith he, apud inferos exomologesis fieri non posset, in Hell or the state of death, or in the grave (as the word Inferi is sometimes taken) there can be no satisfaction made by suffering penance or punish­ment for sin. It's true, in the latter end of the same Epistle, he saith, It's one thing to be presently admitted to the re­ward of Faith or heavenly Glory, and another to be purged from sins by being long tormented in fire. But this testi­mony is no good proof of the Roman Purgatory, in regard he there speaketh expresly De die judicii, of the day of Judgement after the Resurrection; whereas our Adversaries [Page 53]confess, that their Purgatory Fire is of no use after the Re­surrection and eternal Judgment. The like saying he hath in his Epistle to Demetrian. After we have gone out of this life, nullus remanet satisfactionis locus; There is no place for sa­tisfying for our sins. Here life is got or lost for ever. Our Ad­versaries say, after we are gone out of this World we may by suffering in Purgatory fully satisfie God for our sins, com­pleat our Exomologesis or Penance, obtaining thereby at last life eternal. Surely Saint Cyprian was of another opinion.

Come we to Lactantius. The Heathens, saith he, Instit. lib. 6. c. 3. & lib. 3. c. 19. Caeli & in­ferorum. speak of a Bivium two ways, apud inferos, relating to the dead; which more truly say, that these two ways are Heaven and Hell, for to the righteous immortality, to the wicked eternal death be­longs. Here Lactantius mentions two, not three ways, men go after death.

The next Latin Father is Saint Hilary, who in his Com­ment on Matth. C. 27. overthroweth the main ground on which Purgatory is built; for he saith, expounding the Parable of the Virgins, Alienis meritis ac operibus neminem adjuvan­dum &c. that no man after this life can be helped or deliver'd by the good works or merits of others, because every man must ne­cessarily provide Oil for his own Lamp. The wise Virgins in Saint Hilary's judgment are they, who embracing the oppor­tunity or season of this life, the time of repentance and re­conciliation with God, prepare themselves for Christ's coming. The foolish are they who would be borrowing Oil of their Neighbours, provide not in time for themselves, but depend on the courtesie of others, their Works, Prayers, Merits, which will stand them in no stead, when being out of their bodies they have neglected and lost the time of repentance. If Hilary was in the right, redemption of Souls out of Pur­gatory by other mens Prayers, Merits, Fastings, by Indul­gences, Masses, Pardons, Scapularies, and such foolish inven­tions, are all vain and insignificant, which will stand men in no stead, yield them no help or relief. The same Father elsewhere maketh only two sorts of men Fideles & Impii, In Psal. p. 120.faithful and impious; The former, he saith, going out of the body are placed in Abraham's bosom, where they are kept free from evil, viz. of punishment, till after the resurrection (so he thought) they be admitted into Heaven; the other are hindred like Dives [Page 54] by the interposing Gulf from going thither. To the same purpose he discourseth in Psalm 2.

I pass to Saint Ambrose, who in his Book De Bono Mortis, saith thus: Cap. 2. He that receiveth not here remission of sins shall not be there, i. e. in Heaven. He speaketh indefinitely of all sins whether mortal or venial. And again, Cap. 12. When that day, viz. of death, cometh, they go to their Redeemer, to the very bosom of Abraham, a place of rest, not torment, speaking of good Christians. Certainly, it is harsh to affirm that justify'd persons reconcil'd to God by Christ's bloud, (for as Hilary even now taught us, this must be done here in this life or no where) and consequently in a state of Grace and favour with him, should in regard of some small venial sins or mor­tal, as they are called, not fully satisfy'd for in this life by Penance, Fasting, Alms, &c. be cast into fiery torments, and to lie there many years, none know how long, unless helped out by the uncertain Prayers, Merits, &c. of others; particu­larly unless the alsufficient and abundantly satisfactory Merits of Christ be applyed to them by the Popes Indulgences.

I add next Saint Hierom, In Amos cap. 9. who saith, When the Soul freed from the bands of the body shall have liberty to fly whither it will, or whither it is compell'd to go, It shall either be car­ried to Hell, of which it is written, In Hell who will confess to thee? or it shall be lifted up to Heaven. It seemeth a third place, viz. Purgatory, Hierom knew not.

I will end with Saint Augustin, who having mention'd Heaven and Hell, Hypognost. lib. 5. De Pecc. mer. & remiss. c. 28. Epist. 80. adds, A third place we are altogether igno­rant of, neither do we find it in holy Scripture. Elsewhere he saith, There is no middle place to any, that he should not be with the Devil, who is not with Christ. In his Epistle to Hesychius, he writeth thus: In what state the day of death findeth any one, accordingly shall he be judged at the last day. The like Sentence almost word for word we find in Justin Martyr, In Dial. p. 107. who quoteth it as a saying of our Saviour, In what things I find you, so will I judge you. In his Epistle to Macedonius, he saith, After this life there is no place to correct our manners or what hath been amiss. How then can Repentance or tem­poral satisfaction for sins be perfected or supply'd after death? I will add his words upon the 31. Psalm, If God pardon sins he will cover them; if he cover them, he will not take notice [Page 55]of them, if he will not take notice of them, he will not punish them. How is this reconcileable with Gods punishing the sins that he hath pardon'd, in Purgatory? It's true, We know God punisheth sometimes in this life such as he pardons, for their future amendment and for example to others; but what is this to punishing men after this life, when there is no amendment possible, as our Adversaries grant, nor others to be thereby warned?

I acknowledge there are some places quoted by Bellarmin and others, wherein St. Augustin seemeth to own Purgation of the Souls of some men from sin after this life, as De Ge­nesi lib. 2. contr. Manich. Cap. 10. de Civit. Dei, lib. 21. cap. 24. Altho Ludovicus Vives saith, Comment. in locum. the place is not to be found in the antient Manuscripts, nor in that printed at Friburge, Hom. 16. inter 50. in Psalm 37.

But in his Enchiridion, his Book De fide & operibus, and Ad Dulcitium, where he professedly handles this Point, and ex­poundeth the principal place of Scripture now urged by Ro­manists for their Doctrine of Purgatory; he speaketh very doubtfully and uncertainly. First, He acknowledgeth that 1 Cor. 3. is difficult and obscure, one of those intimated by Saint Paul, 2 Epist. Cap. 3. ver. 16. of the true meaning of which he was not certain. But such an obscure place is, as all will grant, a very unfit ground to build an Article of Faith upon, which to deny shall be Heresie and destructive of Sal­vation. Secondly, To Dulcitius, quoting his own Books be­fore-mention'd, he interprets it expresly De igne doloris, of the figurative and metaphorical Fire of grief, (according to Psalm 39. My heart was hot within me, at last the fire kind­led, &c.) arising from the loss of temporal enjoyments, as Estate, Wealth, &c. too earnestly loved, yet renounced, and with some reluctancy forsaken for Christ's sake and the Gospels. Such a man, saith St. Augustine, is saved, yet as it were by fire, urit enim eum dolor, for grief burneth him, as Latin Authors speak. So that by Fire in that place, 1 Cor. 3. This learned Father did not, so far as I can perceive, under­stand any proper and material fire but Metaphorical onely. Then he immediately adds, Whether therefore in this life only men suffer these things, i. e as I said before, this figurative fire of grief, or also after this life some such judicia, judgments [Page 56]or punishments follow the sense of Saint Pauls words, quan­tum arbitror, as I think abhors not from truth. So that Saint Austin doth not peremptorily assert it as a point of Catholick Faith to be believed necessarily to Salvation, that there is any such, to wit, grief after this life, but leaveth it uncertain, and delivereth it as his opinion onely. Thirdly, It is worthy of our observation, that they who held (amongst whom Saint Jerom was one) that all Christians, In fine Com­ment in Isaiam. not Hereticks or Schismaticks) who professed faith in Christ should, how wickedly soever they had lived and died be at last saved (an Opinion detested by Saint Austin, and earnestly con­futed by him in several places of his Works) did bring this very Text, 1 Cor. 3. to prove it. He that buildeth on this foundation, i. e. faith in Christ and the p rofession of it, wood, bay, stubble, i. e. a wicked and barren life, shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Saint Austin labouring to bring men off from this dangerous Error so plainly contradicted by the Holy Scripture in many places, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. Forsitan ve­rum est, lib. 21. de Civit. Dei, cap. 26. is sometimes not unwilling to grant, that it is possible that some of the weaker sort of Christians departing out of this life under the guilt of some lesser sins might be purged some way or other from them after this life, (which the Greeks at this day, who deny the Romish Purgatory, grant) but he is far from believing or urging it on others as an Article of Catholick Faith, of which to be sure he would never have spoken in so doubting and uncer­tain a manner; neither will any learned man deny but that some of the Ancient Fathers, as Saint Chrysostom, St. Jerom, with others noted by Sixtus Senensis were of Opinion that men dying grosly wicked, yea and Devils too, saith Origen, should at last be saved, or might at least have their punishment in Hell mitigated by the Prayers and Alms of their surviving Friends, which Tenet is now condemned even by the Papists themselves. Fourthly, It is considerable that Saint Austin ad Dulcitium expresly affirmeth, that the Fire mentioned 1 Cor. Ergò utrius­que opus pro­babit. 3. is such, as not onely he that buildeth on the foundation Wood, Hay, Stubble, but also he that buildeth or layeth on Gold, Silver, precious Stones must pass through. For, Saint Paul immediately adds, the fire shall try every mans work: then he adds, the tentation of tribulation, ignis est, is fire, i. e. in a figurative and metaphorical sense, as it is [Page 57]written, Ecclesiasticus 27. The Furnace trieth the Potters Vessels, and just men the tentation of tribulation, which he explains thus: He that mindeth the things of this life, (1 Cor. 7. careth too much for them) if yet for Christ's sake he be at last willing to forsake them, shall be saved, but quasi per ignem, as it were by fire, quia urit eum dolor rerum quas dilexerat amissa­rum, sed non subvertit neque consumit fundamenti stabilitate munitum & incorruptum; because the grief of the beloved things he hath lost burneth him, but subverts or consumes him not being preserved incorrupt by the stability of the foundation; to wit, Faith in Christ: Then he adds, Tale aliquid, &c. some such thing (i. e. burning in the fire of grief, for of it he before spake) to happen also after this life, non incredibile est, is not incredible. (He saith not, as Bellarmin, must be believed un­der peril of damnation,) and whether it be so or no, quaeri potest may be enquired after, and either be found or lies hid, to wit, that some (not all) of the faithful by a kind of Purga­tory or Purgative fire per ignem quendam purgatorium, (whe­ther figurative or proper and material he resolveth not) by how much the more or less they have loved these perishing good things, shall by so much the sooner or later be saved, but not such of whom it's said by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 6.9. they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, unless they be pardoned here upon their true re­pentance. Can any ingenuous Person believe St. Austin took this Purgatory Doctrine, whatsoever it be, or our Adversa­ries will have his meaning to be, for an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith? Lastly, St. Austin expoundeth that place the Romanists urge much in maintenance of their Purga­tory. Matth. 5.26. Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing, as Protestants do, that is, thou shalt never come out thence; as donec, until, is taken, Matth. 1. last; and in other places. So Dulcitius had interpreted that place, which S. Austin approveth of, and applieth to this present Controversie.

From all that hath been said I infer, First, That the Fire mentioned, 1 Cor. 3. is not the Popish Purgatory fire, nei­ther did Saint Austin so understand it. Secondly, That the true sense of that place is, as he confesseth, very difficult, dark and obscure. Thirdly, That whatsoever Saint Austin inferr'd from it, Whether that there is after this life a proper, or only a figurative fire of Grief, it is no part of the Antient Catho­lick [Page 58]Faith, but a truth, if a truth, which a true Christian may be ignorant of without peril of damnation. Quaripotest, It may be questioned or sought after, and possibly never be found out, but lie hid. Fourthly, That therefore Saint Austin was no Roman Catholick, Lib. quarto Dialog. cap. or of Pope Pius's faith. I might add, that even Pope Gregory the Great confesseth that the Fire, 1 Cor. 3. may be understood of temporal affliction: but I shall not descend so low at this time.

To these express places quoted out of Saint Austin, Bellar­min replies, 39. Apud Bel­larm. lib. 10. c. 5. de Pur­gatorio. that he doubted not of Purgatory, but of the quality of the punishment and sins there to be purged.

But it's evident from his own words above recited: First, That he understood not the Fire mentioned, 1 Cor. 3. (the principal place alledged by our Adversaries) in a proper and natural sense as they do, but moral and Metaphorical, not of material but figurative Fire, the fire of Grief. The Greeks in their Apology deny not Pardon or purgation of some sins after death, tho not by material fire, for which nevertheless the Romish Church condemns them as Hereticks and rejecters of Purgatory. Secondly, It's undeniable that he did not hold the Purgation of sins after death, no not by the fire of Grief, much less material fire, to be an undoubted truth or Article of Christian Faith, De Purgat. lib. 10. cap. ult. as Bellarmin in that place affirmeth it to be.

But in regard the words of Saint Cyprian in his Epistle to Antonian are much urged by some as clearly confirming the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory, where he writeth, Aliud est statim fidei & virtutis mercedem accipere, aliud pro peccatis longo dolore cruciatum emendari & purgari diu igne: It's one thing presently to receive the reward of Faith and Vertue; ano­ther for one being long tormented with grief for his sins to be cleansed and purged a great while in fire. To answer this place, we are first of all to observe the occasion of these words: Saint Cyprian a little before takes notice of an Obje­ction of the Novatian Hereticks against the receiving the Lapsi, such as for fear in time of Persecution, like Peter, denied Christ. They alledged, that if such might be admit­ted to Absolution and the Communion of the Church, none would be Martyrs, or lay down their lives for the faith of Christ. Saint Cyprian answers, not so; for altho a time of [Page 59]Penance and then Peace, is granted to Adulterers, yet Vir­ginity and Continency did not languish or decay in the Church. Then follow the words above mentioned, Aliud est, &c. It's evident enough then that the Fire here mentio­ned is not to be understood of any proper and material Pur­gatorian fire, which Papists plead for, but Metaphorical, or of the fire of Grief, as St. Austin expounds the Fire, 1 Cor. 3. which place most probably Saint Cyprian here alludes unto; in regard such as fell away in time of Persecution were not to be admitted to the peace of the Church until they had un­dergone the grief and shame of a publick, As Bellar­min grants, de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 5. long and severe Penance, termed Exomologesis. So much Saint Cyprian's own words intimate: It's one thing presently to receive, as Mar­tyrs did, the reward of their Faith and Vertue (a great encou­ragement to Martyrdom) another to be cleansed longo do­lore with long grief, and (which are Paraphrastical of his former words) to be long purged with fire. To this I shall add, that it was the Opinion of many of the Ancient Fa­thers, as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lactantius, Biblioth. l. 6. annotat. 345.Am­brose, with others quoted by Sixtus Senensis, that none ex­cept Martyrs were immediately upon their death admit­ted admitted to the presence of God, ad oscula Domini, to receive the Crown of Eternal Glory, but were kept in loco invisibili, as Irenaeus, or in abditis receptaculis, in some se­cret invisible places until the day of Judgment, sollicitously expecting then to receive their final Sentence; this is pen­dere in die judicii ad sententiam Domini, as Saint Cyprian there phraseth it.

Thus I hope I have given (let the Learned Reader judge) a true and fair interpretation of Saint Cyprian's words, which do not import any proper fire to purifie Souls before the day of Judgment; so that upon the view of what is above­said, we may conclude that the Romish Doctrine of Pur­gatory is no part of the Antient, Primitive and Apostolick Faith, but in the Fifth Century in Saint Austin's days began to be a doubtful and uncertain Opinion only. So much at present for Purgatory.

I should now make some enquiry in the Writings of the Antient Fathers after Indulgences, the fuel that feeds this Purgatorian Fire. Lib. 80. Tit. Indulgentiae. De Indulgen­tiis pauca dici possunt per certitudi­nem, quia nec Scriptura ex­pressè de iis loquitur. Du­rand. l. 4. dist. 20. qu. 3. Ambr. Hi­lar. Aug. Hieronym. minimè de iis loquuntur, Idem. ibid. Roffensis as­sert. Luther. confut. art. 18. But I am much discouraged in regard Alphonsus de Castro a learned and earnest Papist, who lived near Luther's time, and knew what was the first occa­sion of his opposing the Church of Rome, to wit, the abo­minable abuse of these Indulgences by the Pardon-mon­gers: He, I say, in that very Book which he wrote against Heresies, and Luther by name hath informed me, Inter om­nes est, &c. that amongst all the Points in dispute betwixt Protestants and Papists, there is not one which the Scrip­ture hath less clearly delivered, and of which Antient Wri­ters have spoken less than concerning Indulgences. The Popes Martyr Roffensis confesseth the use of them was sero re­ceptus in Ecclesia, of late received by the Church. Of Purga­tory, he saith, there is especially amongst the Greek Writers, ferè nulla mentio, almost no mention of it. Now Indulgences, as is granted, are grounded on Purgatory; they must stand and fall together. So long, saith he, as there was no care or fear of Purgatory no Man sought for Pardons; for on it depends all the credit of Pardons: Take away Purgatory, and what use of Pardons? When therefore Purgatory was so lately known and received in the Church, who now can marvel at Pardons, that in the beginning of the Church there was no use of them. Pardons therefore began after that they had trembled a while at the pains of Purgatory. Thus he. Antoninus, Sylvester, Pierius, Ostiensis, the Lovain Divines, Polydore Virgil, Cajetan, and others, of whom more hereaf­ter, say as much: so that it will be labour in vain to search for them in the Writings of the antient Authors. Here I cannot but wonder our Adversaries do not blush to boast of their present Roman Faith and Church, as if they were the same, only the same, with the antient Primitive and Catho­lick one, and to accuse us Protestants of Novelty, Heresie, and setting up a new Faith and Church under the Banner of M. Luther, whereas they, not we, are guilty of those Crimes by introducing new Articles of Faith, Purgatory and Indulgences amongst the rest, which we only protest against.

Art. 4 Concerning Invocation of Saints.I now come to Invocation of Saints and Angels, a grand Article of the Roman Faith according to Pope Pius his new Creed,Eximium adorationts genus. Bellarm. de Beat. Sanct. concerning which I shall in general take the bold­ness to say, that for above three hundred years after Christ there cannot be produced out of the genuine Writings of one antient Father one clear and pertinent testimony for Invocation of Saints or Angels. Besides my own little ob­servation I have good Vouchers for this Assertion, to wit, the most Reverend and learned Primate Usher, who read over all the Fathers, and Mr. Mountague in his Treatise of Invocation of Saints, V. Molinaeum de Novit. Pa­pis. p. 388. apud Chemnit. in Exam. p. 6. 13. Apol. 2. yea Cardinal Perron acknowledgeth this to be truth, who (as also Cassander) never used in private Devotions to pray to any Saint. As for the place usually quoted out of Justin M. to this purpose, it is grosly pervert­ed by false pointing. The words are these: But him (i. e. God the Father) and him, who came from him and taught us and the Host of good Angels these things, the Son, and the Prophetick Spirit we worship and adore. Bellarmine was not ashamed to render them thus: But him (the Father) and his Son, who came and taught us these things, and the Host of good An­gels, and the Prophetical Spirit we worship and adore. Thus by placing a note of distinction after [...], teaching us these things, he abuseth his Reader into a con­ceit that the Primitive Christians, as Justin here witnesseth, did adore not only the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but the Host of Holy Angels also. Yea, if the Cardinals read­ing be right, then they worshiped and adored the Holy An­gels in the third place next to the Father and Son before the Holy and Prophetical Spirit; which certainly was far from the least thought or practice of the Primitive Christians or their Apologist Justin Martyr, who elsewhere declares in his own and the Christians names that they worshipped as the Father and Son; so in the third place, not the Holy An­gels, but the Holy Ghost. But enough of this, [...]. only we may observe by the way, with what honesty and fidelity our Ad­versaries quote the Fathers.

There is another place they bring out of Irenaeus, Ut Ma­ria Virgo sit Evae advocata,Lib. 5. cont. Haer. ultra medium.That the Virgin Mary may be Eves Advocate: Hence most impertinently they infer, that Eve prayed or might pray to the Virgin Mary; whereas all that [Page 62]can be concluded from those words is, that the Virgin Mary prayeth for Eve. I wonder how it is possible to conceive that Eve should pray to the Virgin Mary some thousands of years before she was born. The truth is, those words of Irenaeus do not at all relate to any religious Advocation or Invocation; for in that place he onely makes a Parallel or comparison betwixt Eve and the Virgin Mary, that as Eve a Virgin brought sin and death into the World, so Mary a Virgin brought forth a Saviour and Redeemer, ut Maria sit Evae advocata, that Mary might be an Advocate or Pleader to excuse the sin of Eve and defend the honour of the Sex. Take Tertullians Verses as a Comment on Irenaeus, who speaks fully and clearly what he meant,

That as by a Virgin came Death, so also by a Virgin came deliverance from Death. The Virgin Mary in and by her Son making full reparation or satisfaction for Eves trans­gression. What? Doth this concern religious Invocation of the blessed Virgin? But I shall not satisfie my self, much less others, in bare Asserting. Let us come to the trial of the Cause and produce our Witnesses.

Justin Martyr, Ecclesia nec invocationi­bus Angelicis facit aliquid, sed purè ora­tiones diri­gens ad Dominum. Iren. lib. 20. c. 57. in fine. Apol. 2. giving an account to the Emperor Antoninus of the Christian Religion saith, We offer up the Sacrifices of Prayer and Thanksgiving to God; We think him alone worthy of this Honour, by whom all things were created. And a little after, We worship God alone.

The Church of Smyrna being accused by the Heathens, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. c. 15. V. Lactant. Instit. lib. 5. cap. 11. de vera relig. c. 55. Cont. Fau­stum, lib. 22. c. 21. as if they intended to worship their martyred Bishop Saint Polycarp, answer in vindication of themselves, We worship Christ the Son of God, but Martyrs we worthily love [...] as his Disciples and faithful Servants, whose memory on their Natalitia or Obit days we celebrate: which exactly agrees with St. Austins's dogmatical resolution of this Question. We honour Angels Charitate, non servitute, with love, not service: and in another place, with the worship or honour of Love and Fellowship, as holy Men are worshipped in this life.

Origen against Celsus. Lib. 8, p. 386. Edit. Cant. and the same he saith, lib 5. c. 60. vet. Edit. The good Angels in some sense we reverence, honour or worship as Gods Ministers, but we worship one God and his onely Son with Prayers and suppli­cations, offering them to God by his onely begotten, beg­ging that he as our High Priest would present them to God. He saith not by the Intercession of Saints upon our Prayers to them, or Angels, but Christ the Son of God our High Priest, whose peculiar Office it is as such to present our Prayers and spiritual Sacrifices unto God. And a little after, God alone is to be prayed unto. Prayers are to be offered also to his onely Son. [...]. And whereas Celsus alledged (as now Papists do) the power of Courtiers to injure or help those who respect or disrespect them, V. Ambros. p. 300. in Rom. cap. 1. Origen adviseth him to com­mit and commend himself to God onely the Supreme Ruler of all things, and to beg of him all that help and protection which cometh from Angels and just Men; For, saith he, as the shadow follows the motion of the Body, so he that pleaseth God hath the Friends of God, V. Origen. in Romanos 2. p. 140. Angels and blessed Souls favourable to him, who will render God more favou­rable, and will pray together with him, although unrequested. But of our praying therefore to them not a word is to be found in all his Books against Celsus, yea in these words the ground of all Invocation of Saints or Angels is wholly taken away. Not to weary the Reader, lib. 5. in Cels. p. 233. He saith, all Prayers are to be offered up to God, and that it is not fit or reasonable [...], to call upon Angels. If not on Angels, much less on Saints. The same we find, lib. 8. in Cels. p. 402.

Clemens Alexandrinus accounted it gross folly to beg of those who are no Gods as if they were; Strom. 7. wherefore justly (seeing there is one good God) we and Angels beg of him the bestowing of good things.

Tertullian says, Apologet. cap. 34. Prae­cepit Christus secretè orare ut quem ubi­que audire fideret, ei soli Religio­nem offerret. Tertullian. Apologet. cap. 30. These things I can beg of none else but of him of whom I know I shall obtain them, because he alone (which Papists dare not deny) granteth them, and I to whom it be­longeth to obtain them am his Servant, whom (not Saints or Angels) I onely serve or observe. And in another place, We are to ask of him by whom something is promised, i. e. God. Have Saints or Angels promised us any thing? De praescript. c. 8.

Arnobius, Lib. 3. contra Gent. The first God is enough to us, in him we worship all that is to be worshipped.

Lactantius agreeth with him: Invocatio supponit om­nipraesenti­am lib. 6. p. 183. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 16. 17. for he adviseth all men to look up and adore nothing, worship nothing but the Majesty of God our Father and Maker.

Eusebius Caesar. Demonstr. lib. 1. c. 5. & lib. 3. c. 3. shew­eth, that the Jewish Church directed their Adorations to God onely; and for Christians he affirmeth, lib. 4. c. 6. that they prayed to God onely in the name of Christ (not of Saints or Angels) as their Mediator. For seeing, saith he, it is peculiar to Christ, as the great High Priest, to frame for us spiritual Sacrifices in praises and thanksgivings, and be­cause as a Priest he hath offered up himself a perfect Sacrifice to God for us; V. Origen. supra. Psalm 20. Si cultus tantum dica­tur, non soli Deo debetur, sed religio, &c. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 10. c. 1. De Praep. lib. 12. c. 7. hence we say to him, let him remember all thy sacrifice, &c. Here we see Propitiation is the ground of Intercession. As for Angels, he granteth to them [...], honour according to the dignity of their excellent nature (so do we) but reserveth [...] all religious honour or worship to God only. This is the very Doctrine of Protestants. The due honour of Saints he ex­plaineth thus: We go to their Sepulchres [...], at them, [...] to make Prayers, not [...] ipsis to them (as Trapezuntius falsly, if not perfidiously translated it) but [...], at them, which is another thing.

But let us hear the testimony of Athanasius the truly Great, who every where in his Orations against the Arians, Orat. tertia in Arian. proveth (as the rest of the Fathers unanimously do) Christ to be true God by this argument, especially because he is prayed to; V. Novatian de Trinit. c. 14. Si homo tan­tummodo Christus, cur in orationi­bus invo­caeur, &c. Quomodo adest ubique invocatus, cum haec hominis natura non sit, sed Dei? which were of no force if any Creature, Saint or Angel might be in any sense invocated. Particularly in his fourth Oration against the Arians from that Prayer of Saint Paul, God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way un­to you: He inferreth Christ to be consubstantial with the Father. For no man is a true Catholick, (which appeareth [Page 65]hereby a Papist is not) would pray to receive any thing of God and Angels or any Creature. Neither, saith he, hath any Christian as yet (then Invocation of Saints or Angels was unknown and unpractised amongst all true Christians) used this form of Prayer or words: God, and an Angel (we may add Saint) grant it you. Laus Dec, Virginique Mariae, in fine. Tom 2. & 3. Bellarm. See Dr. Bre­vint's Saul and Samuel at Endor. Whether Papists use not such forms of words in their Prayers is too notorious to be proved to any who are acquainted with their Books of Devotion. Then taking notice of one of their chief Arguments now pressed by our new Roman Catholicks for proof of their Invocation of Angels, to wit, the words of dying Jacob, The Angel that delivered me out of all my distresses, bless the Lads: Athanasius (as the other Fathers unanimously) ex­pounds them not of any created Angel, but of the Son of God, who is God and the Angel of the Covenant, whom Jacob saw face to face at Peniel, and termeth God. So Euseb. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 2. Am­brose in Psalm. 43. Novatian. de Trinit. [...]. Aug. Hi agno­scunt se esse creaturas. [...]. Athanas. Orat. 3. in Arian. He ad­deth, David prayed to none for deliverance but to God; To thee, O Lord, have I cryed, &c. and concludes, [...] It is evident the Patriarch Jacob joined none in his prayer to God but the Word, whom he therefore calleth the Angel, because he alone revealeth the Father. Do not they then willingly abuse themselves and others, who take Athanasius for a Roman Catholick, or Invocation of Angels for an Ar­ticle of the antient Catholick faith, held by all sound Chri­stians in all Ages, or that the Angel appearing to the Old Patriarchs, was a created Angel?

I will add his Contemporary Saint Hilary, who altho he granteth (which Protestants deny not) that the Angels pray for the Church Militant here on Earth, yet he no where alloweth Invocation of them, but on Psalm 29, and 124. he adviseth all Christians to pray to God, in regard he is Om­nipresent in all places, ready to help, which is not true of Saints or Angels. In like manner on Psalm 140. he saith, In maledicto est religio creaturae. Hil. de Trinit. l. 8. p. 106. Magnificentiae Dei est orari, It pertaineth to the magnificence or Prerogative of God to be prayed unto.

Hitherto the Coast is clear, and we have the unanimous consent of the Fathers for about 340 years after Christ a­gainst Invocation of Saints, Angels or any Creature. Whence we undoubtedly conclude that it is, tho a part of the present Roman, yet not of the true antient and Catho­lick Faith believed semper, ubique, & apud omnes, always, in all places, by all sound Christians, for such Doctrines, as Vincentius Lyrinensis rightly notes, are onely truly Catholick, that is, Universal, as the name it self Catholick signifies.

To proceed. Basil the Great, Hom. 3. in Hexaemeron. all Ho­nour, Worship [...], is due to God onely. In Psalm 7. he saith, Our hope is to be placed in God onely. In Psal. 18. That if any man worship the Creature beside (tho with) the Creator, he giveth not glory to God, but the Creature; and in Psalm 45. Instead of Saints and Angels he telleth us, that in all our necessities God is our onely Refuge. In his Funeral Oration on Gordius, he acquainteth us with the true ends of those commendatory or commemoratory Solemni­ties observed on the Natalitia or Festivals of the Martyrs, to wit, to glorifie God, and to stir up the people to imitation of their Virtues, but no mention find we there of praying to them.

I am not ignorant that out of Basil, Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, &c. their Funeral Orations, some Rhetorical Apostro­phes to and Compellations of the Saints deceased are urged for Invocation of Saints by Bellarmine and others.

To which I answer, First, That in the most Primitive and antient Fathers, we as we have seen, find them not; from the beginning it was not so. Secondly, That Rhetorical flourishes of Eloquence are no safe and sure grounds to build an Ar­ticle of faith upon, as Theodoret grants, Non ego dogmatum regulam ea duco, Dial. 3.quae in Ecclesia Panegyricè dicantur. The Fa­thers in their Panegyrical Orations and popular Sermons (as Sixtus Senensis a Papist acknowledgeth) spake often affectuum impetu & orationis cursu rapti, Biblioth. lib. 6. Anno­tat. 152. such things as taken accord­ing to the literal and strict sense cannot be justified.

To give one instance amongst many. Nazianzen in his Funeral Oration on St. Basil saith of him. Now in Heaven [...], as I suppose (for he was not certain) [...] he offereth up Sacrifices for us. Yet no Papist will say that [Page 67]he celebrated Mass, or as we speak, the Holy Encharist, or consecrated it in Heaven, as that phrase of Offering Sacrifice is sometimes used by the Fathers. In like manner he saith of his Father, [...]. that he did in Heaven [...] fight for his Flock on Earth. Thirdly, Many of their expressions are not [...] Prayers, but rather [...], wishes. So Na­zianzen in his Oration on Basil; Thou, Mountague of Invocation of the Saints, O sacred and divine Head, respice nos quaeso de caelo, look on us from Heaven; So Billius a Papist, falsly translates it. In the Greek the word is, [...], O si, or utinam nos de caelo respiceres; O that, or I wish, thou mightest look down from Heaven on us. So that it is rather a Wish than a true Prayer. This is certain, Nazianzen in the Oration above-mentioned no where pray­eth to his own Father.

4. They speak doubtfully and uncertainly; so Nazianzen making an Apostrophe to the Soul of Constantius, puts in [...], if thou hast any sense or knowledge of our af­fairs; I am compelled to speak to him as present. More plainly in his Oration on his Sister Gorgonia, [...], If there be such a reward bestowed on pious Souls, [...], that thou hast any knowledge or regard of our affairs, receive [...], not o­rationem, my prayer (for he no where prays to her, or Saint Basil, or his Father) but my speech, sermonem, which cer­tainly he would have done had he been a right Roman Ca­tholick. But who can imagine or believe that Nazianzen, Basil and other of the antient Fathers would have spoken concerning the Saints departed, their knowledge of humane affairs, so doubtfully and uncertainly, if they had in the least believed that Invocation of Saints in Heaven was an Ar­ticle of Catholick Faith necessary to be believed under pe­ril of Heresie and Damnation. Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.

But before I go on, I will take particular notice of a place quoted by Bellarmine out of Saint Basil's Oration on the 40 Martyrs in these words: Qui aliquâ premitur angustiâ ad hos confugiat, &c. He that is in any affliction or strait, let him fly to these, i. e. these Martyrs. To this I answer, First, That Bellarmine abuseth his Reader with a false Latin Trans­lation, which is not unusual with him. In the Greek it is [Page 68]onely [...], not let him, but he doth fly to them. Here is matter of fact or practice; they did so: But here is no ap­probation, advice or counsel of Saint Basil that they should do so. Secondly, He exhorts them to join their Prayers unto, and with the supplications of the Martyrs. Here then we find Intercession by them, not Prayer to them. Thirdly, It is to be considered that these 40 Martyrs were all Cappado­cians of that Country, Montague of Invocation of Saints. and so being, as I suppose, not long since deceased, might retain some particular remembrance of the place of their Nativity, and near Relations. There is not the same reason of praying to Saints, who never knew us nor we them. Fourthly, In that very place Saint Basil af­firmeth, that these 40 Martyrs, not severally, but all together were at the same time with divers persons in distant places, which whether it be a truth or no, I appeal to the judgment of any learned Papist. They in some things reject the say­ings of the Fathers, as well as we. Lastly, He speaketh only of the place and time of their annual Festivity, which will not amount to a sufficient ground of Invocation in any place, and at any time of need of any Saint.

I now pass on to St. Chrysostome, who Hom. 44. in Gen. Hom. 5. in Matth. Hom. de Profectu Evang. and elsewhere ex­horteth his Hearers not to rely on the Intercession of others, but to go immediately to God themselves, propounding to them the Example of the Woman of Canaan, Hom. 12. in Matth. who was never the better for the Apostles Intercession, who intreated not Peter or James to beg for her, but went directly to Christ herself, and received a better answer from him. Then he addeth, V. Ambrose infra. There is no need of Intercessors with God.

I come to Theodoret, who in his Comment Coloss. 2. hath these words, which give a deadly blow to this new point of Faith, to wit, worshipping Angels mentioned and con­demned by Saint Paul in that Chapter, v. 18. They, saith he, who defended the Law persuaded the Colossians to worship An­gels, saying, that the Law was given by them. Observe, their reason is not because they were Gods or Creators of the World, but deliverers of the Law, as Saint Stephen noteth, Acts 7. This Errour, saith he, remained a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia; wherefore the Synod of Laodicea, not far distant from Colosse, forbid by a Law or Canon praying [Page 69]to Angels, and to this day (adds he) are to be seen the O­ratories (not of any Heathenish Idol) but of Saint Michael the Arch-Angel. This they advised, pretending or under a shew of voluntary humility; for they said, God himself could not be seen or comprehended, neither could be approached unto, and we must gain his favour through the Angels. Thus Theodoret. Here we have the Original of the worship­ping of Angels, to wit, certain Hereticks condemn'd by Saint Paul, by the Council of Laodicea and Theodoret. We may note also, that the Argument used by the Romanists to establish this pretended Article of Faith is borrowed from Hereticks, to wit, that God being infinite and incomprehen­sible, it becometh not the humility of sinful Creatures to make immediate addresses to him, but to use the Interces­sion of Angels the favourites of God. Cardinal Baronius is so netled with this testimony of Theodoret, that notwith­standing his pretended reverence of the Fathers, he saith plainly, Theodoreti pace dictum sit, non assequitur mentem Pauli, Ad Ann. Christi 60. sect. 17, 22.Let it be spoken by the good leave of Theodoret, that he un­derstandeth not St. Paul's meaning. But by Baronius his leave, I think Theodoret, though no Cardinal, understood St. Paul's meaning as well, yea far better than he. The Canon of the Council of Laodicea related to by Theodoret, we find expres­sed in these words: It becometh not Christians leaving the Church to run to Angels (their Oratories) and to hold meetings of abominable Idolatry. Where you see running to, i. e. as Theodoret understood it, praying to and so worshiping Angels at their Oratories, is condemned by the Council as no less Crime (tho Papists cannot endure to hear it) than abomi­nable Idolatry. Caranza a Popish Translator of the old Trade, ignorantly or wickedly turns [...] Angelos Angels, Can. 35. into angulos, Corners But according to the old saying, Veri­tas non quaerit angulos, Truth seeketh not these Corners.

I had almost forgot the good old Father Epiphanius, in all whose Writings Bellarmine it seemeth could find nothing for Invocation of Saints; but we can produce what is directly against it. Haeres. 74. contra Collyrid. he condemneth certain fond Women of more zeal than knowledge, who like those in Jeremy, Jer. 7.18. offer'd up Cakes to the Virgin Mary as the Queen of Heaven (a Title the Roman Catholicks have, little to [Page 70]her honour, put upon her) saying. If God will not have Angels worshipped, how much less the Daughter of Ann, born as other Women (ergo in Original Sin.) What then do we, as Romanists calumniate us, or Epiphanius, deny Mary her due honour? No. We say with Epiphanius, Let her be in ho­nour, but let God alone be adored; Let none worship Mary, she is to be honoured, (as we really grant) but she is not given us [...] to be bowed to, or worshipped. So that no religious worship is to be given to her. Certainly these foolish Women were not so filly as to take the Holy Virgin for a Goddess or Deity, (but adored her as the Mother of Christ) for then they had been plain Heathens rather than, as Epiphanius esteemed them, Hereticks. Surely, if offer­ing up to the Virgin Mary a few Cakes was heretical and un­lawful, is it not much worse to offer up to her the Evange­lical Sacrifices of (to say nothing now of their Masses in honour of her) Prayers, Vows and Thanksgivings, which themselves acknowledge to be acts of Latria or Divine Wor­ship, Aquin. 2.2. quaest. 88. art. 5. V. Chemnit. Exam. p. 609, 610. & 580, 581. Biel in Can. Missae, lect. 8. Chemnit. su­pra, p. 585.595. See B. An­drews's Answer to Cardinal Perron. O faelix Puerpera, nostra pians scelera, Jure matris impera Redemptori. of which their Offices of the Virgin Mary and Books of Devotion are brimful. In them they beg of her Grace and Glory; Affirm (which is sacrilegious blasphemy) that God hath made over the Kingdom of his mercy to her. They term her the Mother of mercy, and fountain of Grace; the Queen of Heaven, their Life and onely hope. In a word, they stile her, as Cardinal Bembus, Deam, a Goddess. Is not this far to exceed the Collyridian Hereticks? Is not this adoring of her gross Idolatry?

I come now to the learned Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria in his sixth Book against Julian the Apostate, who objected, that the Christians instead of many Gods worshiped many miser­able Men, to wit, Christ and the Martyrs; To which he answer­eth, We worship Christ a man, but God as well as man. Where we may observe that the grounds of worshipping the man Christ Jesus is, because he was God as well as man, not a reli­gious man or Saint only: As for the Martyrs, we, saith Cyril worship them, not [...], with latria or divine Worship, [Page 71]but [...], relatively and honourably, (that is, with honourable respect) such, saith St. Austin, as we yield to Holy men in this life in respect of their piety and godliness. Then he sheweth, wherein the honour given to Martyrs did consist, to wit, in a reverend regard to their [...], Tombs or Monuments, in crowning them with Praises as Conquerors—and concludes, we bestow on them [...], an immortal or never withering memory. But no mention at all of any Religious (tho the grounds of honouring Martyrs is their Piety and Religion) Worship, Invocation or Ado­ration.

The same Cyril on the 16. Chapter of St. John hath these words, No man cometh to the Father but by the Son. Hence he termeth himself the Door and Way, who, as he is the Son and God, bestoweth with the Father all good things on us. As our Mediator and High Priest presenteth our Prayers to God; and hence concludeth, We must therefore pray in the name of our Saviour, if we would be heard of God.

Saint Ambrose de obitu Theodosii speaketh to the same pur­pose, Thou, O Lord, art alone to be invocated, solus rogandus es, art onely to be prayed unto. On the Epistle to the Ro­mans, c. 1. he hath these remarkable words, spoken I confess of Heathens, but too justly applicable to Papists, who use the very same excuses: Being, saith he, ashamed of their neglect of God the Creator (by worshipping Creatures ra­ther than him) they use a miserable shift saying, by them, Rom. 1.25. i. e. Angels and dead Heroes, men may go to God, as by Counts, or Earls, or Courtiers we use to go to the King. It is our Adversaries ordinary Similitude. What saith St. Am­brose to it? Tertul. de Praescr. c. 8. saith the same. Rev. 22.9. See Chrysost. de Paenit. Hom. 4. & de profectu Evangel. Is any man so mad and unmindful of his own safety (it being laesa Majestas, Treason) as to give the ho­nour of the King to a Count, and not judge themselves guilty who yield the honour of God to a Creature, and a­dore, leaving the Lord, their Fellow-servants, as if there were any thing more to be given to God. For therefore we go to the King by Lords and Captains because he is a man, but to God, to whom nothing is hid and who know­eth all mens deserts, there is no need of an Intercessour, but a devout mind. This is plain.

I go on to Saint Hierom, who in his Epitaph on Nepotian acknowledgeth, that although the Saints departed possibly pray for us, yet do not hear our prayers or Apostrophes to them: Ille non au­dit. Examen Concilii Tri­dent. "Whatsoever I shall say is as if I said nothing, for he (Nepotian) heareth me not. It's also not unworthy of our observation, as Chemnitius hath noted, that Saint Hierom in his Book against Vigilantius, who condemn'd Invocation of Saints, censures him not as an Heretick for so doing. If it had been then a point of Faith, no doubt St. Hierom would not have spared him. Yea, in his Epistle to Riparius he saith of Angels and dead Saints or Martyrs, nec colimus nec adora­mus, We neither adore them (with [...]) nor worship them (with [...], an inferiour religious worship) although (as we Pro­testants do) honoramus, we honour them.

I will end with Saint Austin, Nominantur, non invocan­tur. in his 22. Book de Civitate Dei, Cap. 10. he saith, The Saints are at the Communion named by the Priest, but not invocated. In the Canon of the Mass; Commemorantes & memoriam facientes, Prayer is directed to God onely. In his 8th Book, de Civit. Dei, cap. 17.22, 27. Nos Marty­ribus non Templa, sicut Diis, sed Memorias (sicut homini­bus mortuis) fabricamus, &c. Aug, de Civit. Dei, lib. 22. c. 10. similiter, lib. 8. cap. ultimo. Charitate non servitute. Ibid. he affirmeth expresly, That whatsoever religious Ser­vices were performed at the Tombs of the Martyrs: as Pray­ers, Sacrifices, Thanksgivings, were offered not to them, but to God. So contra Faust. lib. 20. c. 21. Quicquid offertur, Deo offertur. In his Epistle to Maximus the Grammarian, Know, saith Saint Austin, that of Catholicks, (true Catho­licks, not Roman) no dead man is worshipped; And in his Book of True Religion, c. 55. Our Religion stands not in worshipping the dead. They seek not such honour. This they would have, that we with them worship one God ac­cording to the Angels admonition, Revel. 22.9. Martyrs are to be honoured (as Origen, Cyril, Epiphanius granted) for imitation, not adored for Religion: or as he expresseth it, Cont. Faustum, l. 20. c. 21. colimus Martyres, &c. we wor­ship or honour Martyrs with a worship of love and fellow­ship, with which the Saints in this life are worshipped. Is any religious Worship properly so called, to be given to Saints or religious Persons by us in this life? Let our Adver­saries consider this. Lastly, in his Book De Cura pro mor­tuis, cap. 10.11, 12. He overthroweth the principal grounds and reasons on which Invocation of Saints is built. For [Page 73]first, He judgeth it very probable at least, that the Saints or Martyrs did not really and personally appear to their Friends, although it was believed by many, Compare Basil. M. in Mamantem. but in imagina­tion or appearance onely. Secondly, He proveth (which he saith he knew would be ill taken by some) that the souls of the departed Saints are in a place where they see or know not what is done by or happens to their nearest Relations, from Gods Promise to Josiah, 2 Chron. 34.18. That he should not see all the Evil he would bring on his People; as also from those words of Esaiah, Isai. 63.16.Abraham is ignorant of us and Israel knows us not. Whence he infers, si tanti Pa­triarchae, &c. If such great Patriarchs were ignorant of what happened to the People who sprang from them, how are the dead interessed or concerned in knowing and helping their Friends? He confirmeth his conclusion thus: If the dead were interested in the affairs of the living, or spake to us in Dreams, my dear Mother would no night he ab­sent from me. But it's true, as in the Psalm, My Father and my Mother have forsaken me, &c. If our Parents have forsaken us, who else among the dead know what we do or suffer? Now our Adversaries grant, that unless the Saints departed know our particular state and wants, it is vain and to no purpose to pray unto them. Thirdly, He answers an Objection drawn from Dives his desiring Abraham to send to his Brethren on Earth, wherefore he knew what they did. To this he replieth, Dives had such or so great a care of the living, although he knew not what they did, as we have of the dead, although what they do we know not in parti­cular. It was onely a general care or well wishing: But, Abraham knew they had Moses and the Prophets. To this he answereth, that he might know it by the information of Lazarus. Fourthly, He enquireth how the Saints come postea afterwards (so that this knowledge cometh too late to ground Prayer to Saints in present extremities and sudden dangers.) He answereth, Possunt ab Angelis, possunt Deo re­velante cognoscere, they may know it by Angels who are con­versant with us, or by Revelation from God; they may, he saith not positively that they do. Fifthly, He maketh a dif­ference (which Romanists take little notice of) between Martyrs and other Saints, and denies that because Martyrs [Page 74] per Divinam potentiam miraculously, or by special dispensa­tion are sometimes here on Earth in their Temples, therefore we are to think the same of all dead Saints generally, or that they can come to us quando volunt, when they will, as Bellarmine determines. D. Sanct. Beatit. lib. 1. c. 20. But miraculous Dispensations are no safe Rule for ordinary supplications to all Saints promis­cuously. Lastly, supposing it true that the living are helped some way or other by Martyrs prayed unto; he saith, Whe­ther it be by their being present in so many distant places at the same time where their memories (i. e. Monuments or Churches) are, or (which no doubt he could not but think more probable) whether they being in some place remote from humane converse are yet generally praying for such as pray (not to them, but God who might employ Angels in answering their requests) as we pray in the general for the dead, although we know not where they are, or what they do, definire non audeo, I dare not resolve. From all which we may easily discern how uncertain Saint Austin was concerning the presence, knowledge and assistance of Saints departed, afforded to some, not who pray to them but to God; from whence we may certainly conclude, that Invocation of dead Saints was no part of St. Austin's Creed, but at utmost a probable and doubtful Opinion onely, as we have seen before from the writings of the Greek Fathers, Nazianzen, Basil and others.

I know well, our Adversaries urge much Nazianzen's Ora­tion on Cyprian, and how a Virgin assaulted by the Devil, prayed to the Virgin Mary to help her.

But Gelasius with the Authority of the Roman Church con­demns that Book of the Conversion of Saint Cyprian, which Nazianzen supposed to be genuine, as false and suppositi­tious; neither is it at all probable that Saint Cyprian was ever a Magician, of which neither himself in the relation of his conversion, Lib 2. E­pist. 2. nor Pontius in his life, nor any more antient creditable Writer maketh any mention.

They glory also much in those words of Saint Chrysostome, Hom. 66. ad Popul. An­tioch. He that is Emperour standeth praying to the Saints, to the Tent-maker, and Fisherman Peter, and Paul to intercede with God for him.

To which I first oppose Saint Austin's words; Epist. 42. non Petro, sed Deo. De script. Eccl. ad ann. 398. Hom 39. in 1 Cor. 15. Sixtus Se­nens. The Em­perour at the Tomb of Peter, prayeth not to Peter, but God. Secondly, The Homily is supposititious; for, as Bellarmine himself granteth, the true Homilies of Chrysostome, ad Popul. Antiochen. were but 21. Thirdly, Chrysostome held, that Christian Saints departed are not till the Resurrection ad­mitted to the sight of God, and consequently, knowledge of our Prayers. Of which Opinion were many of the antient Fathers, quoted for this Invocation by our Adversaries.

Art. 5 Concerning Image-wor­ship.I come to another Article of Pope Pius his Roman Catho­lick Faith, to wit, worshipping of Images. Concerning which it is certain, that the Christian Churches for three hundred years after Christ had in them no Images to wor­ship.The Temple at Jerusalem had none. Philo de Leg. ad Caium. To which purpose it is remarkable what Aelius Lam­pridius In the Life of Alexander Severus. Lib. 7. Epist. 109. an Heathen Historian writes; When Adrian the Emperour had commanded that Temples should be made in all Cities without Images: it was presently conceived that he did prepare those Temples for Christ. Secondly, That worshipping them came in above six hundred years after Christ: for Pope Gregory the Great himself allowed not of worshipping Images, as is manifest from his Epistle to Se­tenus, Quia eas a­dorari vetu­isses omnino laudavimus, &c. Lib. 9. Epist. 9. He commends him for forbidding the worshipping them, though not his breaking them. who broke down Images in some Churches because the People worshipped them. Thirdly, That a great part of the Writings of the Antient Fathers Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, Lactantius, &c. are spent in condemning the wor­ship of Images, or using them as helps of Devotion.

It's true, They speak directly against the Images and Idols of the Heathens, but most of their Reasons fight generally against all religious use or worship of Images of what kind soever, especially of Images made to represent God him­self. Let us then hear the Fathers and judge.

Justin Martyr saith, It's [...], Apol. 2. p. 44. an injury or contumely to God to make an Image of him [...], of base and un­worthy wood or stone. pag. 52. That we ought not to worship the work of mens hands. Are not Popish Images of the Tri­nity the work of mens hands, made of wood and stone as well as those of the Heathens?

Origen in Cap. 1. ad Rom. and lib. 3. in Celsum, saith the same, of whom more by and by.

Athenagoras in Legat. to the Heathens, asking, Why the Christians worshipped not Statues, Answers, because material Statues and God very much differ. Not the World (or any part of it) but it's Maker is to be worshipped. Men (saith he to the Emperour) pass by or through your Palace and above all honour you. In your Games they crown not the Harp, but the Harpers. We submit not an immaterial Spirit (i. e. the Soul) to worship material and beggerly E­lements, i. e. Images. Doth not this confute submitting our Souls in religious worship to Popish Images? are not they material? &c.

Irenaeus testifieth, Lib. 1. c. 24. Epiphan. Panar. Haer. 27. & in A­naceph. p. 525. c. 20. that the Gnostick or Carpocratian Here­ticks (the first worshippers of Images we can find amongst Christians) crowned the Image of Christ made by Pilate, as they said, and worshipped it. The Simonians, followers of Simon Magus, worshipped his Image, and of Helena his Whore. Ib. Ch. 26. The Basilidian Hereticks used also Images, Ib. Ch. 23. Here we see the Primitive Antiquity and first Ori­ginal of worshipping Images: the Authors were then con­demned Hereticks, but now their Abettors are the only true Catholicks.

Tertullian saith, Apologet c. 12. We Christians worship (he speaks gene­rally) no Statues or Images, which Crows, Rats and Spiders understand. Do they not as well understand Popish Images? They seem to understand them better than Romanists. Yea, the Antient Fathers so detested Images, that they condemn­ed the very Art of Painting and Graving, excommunica­ting such Christians who onely to get a livelihood made them, as he sheweth, De Idololat. c. 4, 5, 6.

In like manner Clemens Alexand. V. p. 46. and Strom. 5.in Protreptico, where he farther saith, I have learned to tread upon Earth (i. e. Images or Statues) not to worship them. [...] Protr. p. 38. Simiae Imagi­mbus non de­cipiuntur, vos deteriores. Protrept. ad gentes, p. 39.

It would be too tedious to quote all that Origen hath written against worshipping Images in his Books only against Celsus: I will mention some few passages, Lib. 3. He saith, we instil first of all into all young Christians a contempt of all Images, and lift up their minds (Images then lift not up the mind to God) from Veneration of Creatures to God.

In the Jewish Commonwealth no maker of Images was suffer'd, which turn the mind from God. Lib. 4. Cont. Celsian. Pag. 284. Our New Catho­licks say, they turn the mind to God. In his sixth Book he writeth thus: We count them rude and ignorant who are not ashamed to speak to sensless things, See Cassan­der Consult. Art. 21. to beg life of the dead, although some of them confess they are not Gods (as Papists excuse themselves) but signs and representations of them onely. However, they are ignorant in imagining that a vain Smith or Carpenter can make (so much as) a resemblance of Divinity. In the same Book he adds, They are blind who regard the fallacious Arts of Painters or Car­vers. In his 8th Book, Celsus the Heathen accuseth the Chri­stians for not having, yea not enduring to look on Images; See Minu­tius Foelix, Arnobius, &c. Which; saith he, none but fools take to be Gods themselves, (the Heathens were not so foolish) but signa, signs or Re­presentations of them: a not Gods, but Daemons, Angels, To which Origen replieth both for Jews and Christians; In regard of those words, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve. And thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, &c. It cannot be that any one who knoweth God should pray also to Images. Do these rea­sons confute onely Heathen Image-worshippers? Did not the Primitive Fathers and Christians understand those Texts as Protestants now do? He adds, We have also Images (of what kind?) not made by impure Workmen, but by the Word of God, Temperance, Justice and other Virtues. So that Origen in the name of the Christians in his days re­jects and condemns all material Images in order to religious worship.

Arnobius brings in the Heathens saying, non ipsa timemus simulachra, &c. we fear not the Images, lib. 6. but those whom they represent, i. e. Gods (who were but dead men) Dae­mons, Angels and Heroes. Yet he grants, that by them they strook the vulgar (as Papists do) with fear and dread of God. And Lib. 7th, he acquaints us that the Original of Images was, that men could not conceive what God is, and therefore resolved to make him like themselves.

Lactantius, Instit. Lib. 1. saith, We cannot worship God, if we give the same honour to any thing else. Part 3. qu. 25. Art. 3. Azor. Instit. l. 9. c. 6. B. Ʋsher's Answer to Malon. But the Pa­pists, as Aquinas, Cajetan, Catechismus Rom. Azorius, Pedro de Crabrera, &c. acknowledge and defend, they give to the Images of God and Christ latria, i. e. the very same Divine Honour they yield to God and Christ themselves. In vain then do they worship God, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men: yea so besotted are they with their Images, that they condemn Durand as little less than a Heretick, for saying that Images are adored onely improperly, Bellarmine de Imag. cap. 21. lib. 2. because they put men in mind of the Persons represented by them, so that they properly adore not the Images, but adore and worship the Prototypes before them. Contrarily Azorius affirms, as also Jacob Naclantus following Aquinas, that it's the constant Opinion of their Divines, In Rom. c. 1. Constans opinio. V. Cassand. Consult. de Imagin. In Rom. c. 1. fol. 42. quo­ted by Bishop Ʋsher, in his Answer to Malon, and Bellar. l. 2. de Imag. c. 20, 21. that the Image is to be worship­ped with the same worship given to him, whose Image it is; seeing then for Example Christ is to be adored with Latria, so must his Image also. The Faithful, saith Naclan­tus, must not onely Adore coram Imagine, sed & adorare I­maginem, before the Image, but adore the Image it self. To return to Lactantius. In his 2d Book, he disputes against Images thus: Images are of the absent and dead; But God or the Gods are living and in all places. The Heathens re­plied, they are present onely in their Images. Then saith Lactantius, When they are present, what need of Images. Again, the Heathen Idolaters fear lest all their Religion should be vain, if they see not present before their eyes what they worship, Religio nulla ubicun (que) simu­lachrum sed mimus, Ch. 18, 10. So Varro apud Au­gustin. Can. 36. and therefore place Images before them. Do not Romanists use Images to the same purpose? He adds, If Images (any Images of whomsoever) had any under­standing, they would worship men as more Noble Crea­tures; and concludes, it is beyond all doubt that there is no Religion (at least true) where there is an Image, but onely a mimical shew of it: This is plain and home.

The Antient Council of Elliberis, Ann. 310. decree, that Pictures ought not to be in Churches, lest that which is adored or worshipped should be painted on Walls. Non solum imprudenter sed impie, &c. Loc. Theol. lib. 5. c. 4. Melchior Canus (out of his great reverence no doubt of Antiquity) is not afraid to charge this Council not onely with impru­dence, but impiety for making such a Canon.

The Images of Christ, and the Woman he healed of her Bloudy-issue, as also the Pictures of Peter and Paul in colours, Eusebius, Hist. lib. 7. c. 14. rather excuseth than commend­eth, [...]. See Ter­tul. adv. Mar­cion. l. 4. c. 22. as implying some favour or imitation of Heathenish Custome to honour their Benefactors, but hath not a word of any sort of Worship given by any to them, De Praeparat. lib. 3. c. 3. he saith, What corporeal thing can be like God? when we cannot have an image of any mans Soul? Ibid. l. 9. c. 2 Clem. Strom. 555. saith the same, p. 304. Clem. Strom. 1. He affirmeth, that there was no Image in the Jewish Temple, [V. Philo de legatione] and Chap. 3. That Pythagoras taught by Moses, advised the Romans not to make any Image of God; whence for one hundred and seventy years they had no Images in their Temples.

Epiphanius conformably to the Canon of Elliberis, Epist. ad Joannem Hie­ros [...]lymit. Contra Col­lyrid. Haeres. 79. [...], &c. Haeres. 79. [...], C [...]em. A [...]. Pro­trept. Divina Ma­jestas in simu­lachrorum stoliditate facilè contem­nitur. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 4. c 31. finding the Image Christi vel Sancti, of Christ or some Saint painted on a Veil in a Church, rent it in pieces as contrary to Di­vine Law. In another place he telleth us the Virgin Mary was to be honored, but not given for us to worship; if not her Person, much less, say we her Image. In the same place confuting the Collyridian Heresie, he termeth the making Images of God and dead men to be a coarse, Idolatrous and devillish practice, whereby the minds of men go awho­ring from the onely true God.

Athanasius adversus Gentes, brings in the Heathens plead­ing for their Images or Idols, that they used them as Letters or Lay-mens Books (as Papists speak) to help them to spell out the nature of God, of which they are marks and signi­ficant Characters. To which he answereth, that then they ought to Deifie the maker of those Images, and prefer the Artificers before their work made by them; yea, he saith, in the beginning that Christ the Image of God was made man on purpose to draw men off from the use of Images. The same hath Eusebius Caesariensis, adding, that true Chri­stians spit on the Images of the dead, and worship God onely.

Chrysostome, Hom. 4. de poenitentia, Let us always fly to God both willing and able to relieve us. If we be to make our addresses to men, we must apply our selves unto Por­ters, Door-keepers, &c. In God there is no such thing. In like manner, Hom. 12. in Matth. If we need not ap­ply [Page 80]our selves to Saints or Angels, much less to their Images.

Saint Ambrose, C. 1. ad Rom. agreeth with Saint Chry­sostome above, and speaking of Idolaters, saith, They do not deny God, yet they serve the Creature, whereby they are not excused, but more accused, because knowing God, they ho­nour him not as God. And de fuga seculi, cap. ult. Rachel hid her Fathers Idols, so doth the Church; for she knoweth not vain figures of Images, Nazianz. in Pascha Orat. 2. saith the same. but understands the true sub\ stance of the Trinity. Let us then leave the shadow, who seek after the Sun.

Saint Jerome in Psalm 113. In St. Jerom's and Austin's days, there no were Images in Churches, say Cassander, Consult. de Imag. Poly­dore Virg. de Invent. re­rum, and E­rasm. in Ca­tech. Dost thou make a God with thine own hands to adore? If thou didst adore a Beast, it were evil, yet a Beast hath Eyes and Feet, but that which thou adorest (with latria) neither seeth nor moveth.

I will add Saint Austin in Psalm 113, & 114. The Holy Scriptures arm us against such as say, I worship not this Vi­sible Image, but the Numen or Deity, that dwelleth in it, or as others, I neither worship Image nor any Spirit, but by the corporal Effigies or Picture, I see the sign of that which I ought to worship. Saint Paul with one sentence condemns both, who have changed the truth of God into a lye, and served the creature rather than the Creator, &c. In the former part he condemns Images, in the latter their interpretations of Images, Turn the truth into a lye. But who prayeth looking on an Image, who is not so affected that he thinketh he is heard of it? and hopes he shall have what he desireth? For this the outward figure of members extort from us, that the mind living in the body, thinketh the more that the body so like its own body hath sense also. The like we find in his 49th Epistle, Who doubts that Idols want all sense? yet when they are placed aloft in an honourable sub­limity by the very likeness of living members, although dead and without sense, they affect our minds, the venera­tion of a multitude being added thereunto, which crazy and pestilent distempers the Scripture healeth; saying, They have eyes but see not. Whether Images in Popish-Churches have not the very same influence and effect on ignorant and superstitious Women, let impartial men and such as have tra­velled abroad amongst them determine. The same Saint [Page 81] Austin, quoteth and commendeth a saying of Varro, De Civitat. Dei, Lib. 4. c. 9. & 31. that they who brought in Images for the People, both took away the Fear of a Deity (render'd base and contemptible by representations of wood and stone) and added Error, i. e. false and unworthy apprehensions of God.

To all this it will I suppose be answered: First, That the Fathers inveigh against making Images of God, or false Gods, not Saints.

I reply: 1. Some of them expresly condemn all Images. 2. Do not Roman Catholicks (though some of their own Writers condemn it) make Images or Pictures of God the Father in the likeness of an old Man, and of the Holy Ghost of a Dove? True, say they, but we do it not to re­present the nature of God, but certain properties and actions appertaining to God: I do not wonder, they say they do not what cannot be done, to wit, to represent by an Image the infinite, invisible and incomprehensible nature of God; But herein they say what even the Heathens said of their Idols. For Hermes Trismegistus quoted by Cyril, Xenophon by Minutius Foelix, Olympius by Sozomen confessed, Hist. Lib. 7. c. 15. that it is im­possible to signifie the incorporeal God by a Body, and that the form of God cannot be seen, that invisible Spirits or heavenly Powers dwelt in those corporeal Images, but they were not the Powers themselves.

It's granted, Ne facias nisi & tibi Deus jusse­rit. Tertul. de Idololat. c. God and the Holy Ghost did appear in such likenesses, what's that to us? We have an express command not to make to our selves any likeness of any thing in Hea­ven, &c. Is not God the Father with the Holy Ghost in Heaven?

Secondly, They answer, V. Concil. Constant. 6. Can, 82. apud Caranzam. that they give religious worship to Images not for themselves, propter se, but for the sake of the Persons they represent.

The Heathens, as we have seen above, said the very same. If Romish worship of Images be lawful, it will be difficult to condemn or convince the Heathens of Idolatry. The Jews did not worship the Calf for it self, but as a Representative of God.

Lastly, They affirm, that they yield to Images a mean, low and inferiour worship, not what belongs to God onely.

I answer that, as we have shewn above, they give to the Images of God and Crucifixes the same Divine worship they yield unto God and Christ themselves. To say, they give Images Latria, and yet an inferiour kind of such religious worship, is to contradict themselves, for all Latria as such is summus cultus, the highest worship a creature can give; if they give them an inferiour religious honour, it is not Latria.

Art. 6 Concerning the Popes Supremacy.I come now to the Capital Article of the Roman Catho­lick Faith, The Popes Supremacy over all Emperors, Kings, Bishops, Councils, Churches and Christians throughout the World. Concerning the Fathers before the Nicene Council, called above 300 years after Christ, we need not make any strict enquiry, seeing Aeneas Sylvius (who was Pope him­self afterwards) confesseth, Epist. 288. that before this Council aliquis, sed non magnus, some, but no great respect was given to the Roman Bishops: in Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tatianus, Athenagoras, I find no mention of any Su­premacy in the Bishop of Rome.

Come we then to the Antient Father Irenaeus. He in his third Book, Cap. 12. quoting the words of the Church of Jerusalem, ☞ Acts 22, 23, 25. saith, These are the words of that Church, from which every Church had its beginning. If every Church, V. Epist. Concilii Con­stant. 1. c. 9. Epist. ad Da­masum. then the Roman. How can she then be Ma­ter, & Magistra, the Mother and Mistris of all Churches, as is now pretended by our Romanists? This was that Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France, who sharply reproved Victor Bishop of Rome, for threatning or attempting at least to Excom­municate the Bishops and Churches of Asia, Lib. 5. Hist. Eccl. c. 15. for not ob­serving Easter on the same day he did, as Eusebius re­lateth.

At the same time lived Polyerates the renowned Bishop of Ephesus (with whom many Catholick Bishops meeting in several Councils concurred,) who opposed Pope Victor's Sentence, and professed he was not at all terrified with his threatned Excommunication, but resolutely persisted in the Tradition and Custom received from his Predecessors, par­ticularly John the Evangelist, as we find in Eusebius, lib. 5. Hist. c. 23.

Hence it is evident that Polycrates, as also Irenaeus, did not look upon the Bishop of Rome as Prince and Sovereign Head of the Church, or more infallible than any other Bishop. It's true, Irenaeus had a great reverence for the Roman Church, and testifieth to her honour, that in his days the Apostolick Doctrine or Tradition remained pure and incorrupt, which he opposed to the Heretical Novelties of the Valentinians: But this no way proveth that she had Supreme Jurisdiction over all Churches; But in regard it would be long, as he saith, to reckon up all Apostolical Churches, as of Corinth, Ephesus, &c. Lib. 3. cap. 3. (to whom he giveth the same testimony of purity of doctrine) he instances in Rome, propter potentiorem principalitatem, in regard of its more powerful principality, known to all. But these words plainly enough relate not to the Roman Church immediately as a Christian Church, but to the City of Rome, which at that time was the Imperial City and Head of the World. Alas! What powerful Principality could the poor persecuted Church of Rome enjoy then, li­ving under Heathen Emperours? It is not therefore meant strictly and properly of an Ecclesiastical, but Civil Power and Principality of the City of Rome, V. Concil. Chalcedon. infra. Epist. ad Roman. in which the Church of Rome sojourned, as St. Ignatius writeth to them, whereby through concourse of all Nations, it was rendred more con­spicuous and honourable to the World. The words of Aeneas Sylvius before mentioned confirm the same.

In Clemens Alexandrinus I find nothing concerning this matter.

I will go on to Tertullian: Run through, saith he, the Apo­stolical Churches. If ye be near Achaia, ye have Corinth; if Macedonia, Philippi and Thessalonica: si Italiae adjaces, habes Romam; If ye live near Italy, ye have Rome. Where first observe, that he with Irenaeus ascribeth the same Autho­rity to Corinth, Philippi, &c. which he doth to Rome. Secondly, He speaketh not of Jurisdiction, but matter of Faith and Apostolick Doctrine. Thirdly, It's conditional, if you be near Italy, you have Rome. Tertullian never thought that all Christian Churches were subject to Rome, either as to Doctrine or Government, or were bound to appeal and sub mit unto her. Again, Chap. 20. The Apostles having first preached the Gospel in Judea promulged the same doctrine [Page 84]of Faith to the Nations. — In regard of this doctrine they are accounted Apostolical. — Wherefore so many and great Churches are that one first Church from the Apostles, of which all are. So all are first omnes primae, and all Aposto­lical, whilst all prove one Unity; Now if all are first, all Apostolical, how can the Roman Church claim any Primacy or Principality over all, even Apostolical Churches?

Origen in Matth. Petra est omnis Christi imitator. 16. Every Disciple of Christ is that Rock; If you think the Church to be built on Peter onely, what will become of John and the rest of the Apostles? What was spoken to Peter was spoken to all the Apostles and Christians. All are Peter and the Rock. The Keys were not onely given to Peter. This now at Rome is no less than Heresie. Epist. 45.47.49. Let us hearken to Saint Cyprian, who usually wrote to Pope Cornelius as to his Brother, Colleague and Fellow-Bishop, not as his Prince and Sovereign, or Universal Bi­shop, especially in his 72. Epistle directed to him. 'In which matter we force no man, we give Law to no man, seeing every Bishop hath the free liberty of his own will in the administration or Government of his Church, being to give account of his actions (not to the Bishop of Rome, but) to God. In his Preface before the Council of Carthage he hath these words: None of us maketh himself Bishop of Bishops (i. e. Supreme Universal Bishop) or compelleth his Colleagues by tyrannical terrour to obedience, &c. where he seemeth to reflect on Pope Stephen. Compare those words of Tertullian de Pudicit. c. 10. The High Priest, the Bishop of Bishops (meaning the Bishop of Rome) saith, I absolve Adulterers: Ejus erro­rem denotabis, qui Haeretico­rum causam defendit. Baronius ad Ann. 258. N. 47. A Canonized Saint, Meno­log. Graec. in Octob. 28. ☞ Epist. 75. which no doubt he spake ironically and by way of irrision. In his Epistle 74. he writeth against Pope Stephen, charging him with Errour, and pleading the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God. Can any man believe Cyprian took Pope Stephen for his Supream Go­vernour and infallible Head of all Churches? But Firmilian the famous Bishop of Cappadocia highly commended by Ba­ronius ad ann. 258. num. 45. was not afraid to accuse the same Pope Stephen of open and manifest folly; who, saith he, glorying, de Episcopatûs sui loco, of his Episcopal Seat or Sea, and that he is Successour of Saint Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, maketh many Rocks [Page 85]and buildeth new Churches. He addeth also, Eos qui Romae sunt, non ea in omnibus abservare, quae sunt ab origi­ne tradita. De Ʋnitate Eccles. Paci con­soretio prae­dicti honoris, & potestatis. Although he said before of Peter, tibi dabo, &c. & super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam, & illi pascendas mandat oves suas. that the Ro­man Church was guilty of violating the Antient Canons, and that Pope Stephen by Excommunicating so many Chri­stian Churches, Excommunicated himself. I will add that noted passage of St. Cyprian, Idem caeteri quod Petrus, &c. The rest of the Apostles were the same with Peter, endowed with an equal fellowship or copartnership of Honour and Power. They are all Pastors, but the Flock is but one, which is to be fed by all (not Peter onely or his Successours by vertue of feed my sheep) by unanimous consent, not by depu­tation by or subjection to Peter and such as succeed him at Rome. A little before, he saith, Although Christ granted to all the Apostles after his Resurrection parem potestatem, equal power, breathing on them the Holy Ghost, and saying, whose sins ye remit, &c. Yet to manifest Unity, he appointed one Chair; He speaketh to Peter and to thee will I give, &c. singularly; Why? not that Peter had a greater Power or Authority (which he expresly denied before) than the rest of the Apostles: but, saith Saint Cyprian, to commend to us Unity, that the Church ought to be one without Schism to the end of the World; which is the intent of all that Dis­course. Now, if Saint Peter had no Supremacy over all the Apostles and Churches, the Pope as deriving it from him can have just right to none. Let me add Saint Cyprian's 67. Epistle, where he adviseth them what to do concerning the Heretical French Bishop, whom he would not have the People to own, though he had surreptitiously obtained Pope Stephens confirmation. He addeth as a reason, V. Epist. 68. We are many Pastors, but we feed one Flock, and we ought to gather and succour all the Sheep, yea, if any of our Society è collegio nostro, i. e. any Bishop, Si haeresin facere, & gre­gem Christi lacerare, & vastare tenta­verit; subveniant caeteri. Epist. 67. should fall into Heresie and rent the Church, the rest ought to help; where he exempteth not any Bishop, no not the Pope, from possibility of erring even He­retically, as to be sure Pope Liberius and Honorius did.

In Arnobius and Lactantius I find nothing to our present purpose.

I pass to Saint Hilary. De Trinit. l 2. Lib. 6. n. 674. Haec fides est Ecclesiae fun­damentum, pag. 174. This is the one immoveable foun­dation; this is the Rock of Faith confessed by Saint Peter, Thou art Christ the Son of God. Again, On this Rock of Confession the Church is built. This Faith is the founda­tion of the Church.

In the same manner Saint Chrysostome often expounds the Rock, In locum Hom. 55. Christus ipse est Petra. Greg. M. in Psalm. Poenitent. 5. Augustin. in Joann. Epist. 1. Tract. 10. Matth. 16. of the [...], confession of the Deity of Christ made by Peter in the name of the rest of the Apostles.

Add Theophylact, See Liberius his Epistle to Achanasius, Opera Athan. Tom. 1. lib. 1. in Jovi­nian. c. 14. Saint Basil of Seleucia, with others. Basil the Great, Epist. 8 [...]. ad Athanasium termeth Athanasius, in the name of the Greeks their Head, the leader and Prince of Ecclesiastical affairs, to whom they did fly for advice. Surely Saint Athanasius rather than the Arian Heretick Pope Libe­rius was like a Rock unshaken in those days.

Saint Hierome saith, the Church is built on the Apostles, ex aequo, In 1. Epist. Joan. Tract. 10. equally, not on Peter principally or onely, much less on his Successours, and that at Rome rather than An­tioch.

Saint Austin agreeth, Quid est super hanc petram, &c. What is it? On this Rock will I build my Church, super hanc fidem, on this Faith, Thou art Christ the Son of God.

But sparing at present particular testimonies: I shall shew that all the four first General Councils, These P. Gregory the Great receiv­ed as the four Gospels, Lib. 1. Epist. 24. all Popes are sworn to them. Ad apicem observaturos Can. sicut Dist. 16. Hist. lib. 60. c 23. & l. 1. c. 6. Roma Me­tropolis Romanae ditionis. Athanas. ad solitar. vit. agentes. either expresly or by con­sequence and implicitly have refuted and overthrown the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. I begin with the first Nicene Council, Can. 6. where we read, Let the Antient Customs remain. The Bishop of Alexandria shall have the Government of the Churches of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, Quoniam Episcopo Romano parilis mos est, Because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Custom, i. e. to govern Rome and the suburbicarian Region, as Ruffinus as Roman Presbyter understood it, and the precedent words plainly enough intimate. The Bishop of Alexandria is to govern his Diocess as the Bishop of Rome doth the Churches belonging to him of antient Custom. Here is a manifest limitation, or rather exclusion of the Bishop of Romes Universal Jurisdiction.

Baronius, Bellarmin and Coriolanus answer, that those words, because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Custome, means no more but this, because the Bishop of Rome, consuevit per­inittere, hath used of old Custom to permit the Bishop of A­lexandria to govern those Churches of Egypt, &c.

A strange gloss and a mere begging of the Point in question: As if the right of governing all Churches be­longed to the Bishop of Rome, when the Council as of antient Custome, inviolable and equal to that of Rome (parilis mos) commit the government of those Churches to the Bishop of Alexandria as his antient Right, might not we say as well, that the Patriarch of Alexandria permitted the Pope to govern the Church of Rome? It is evident enough from this Canon, that the Nicene Fathers did not imagine that the Supreme Government of all Churches did belong to the Bishop of Rome, or that the Patriarch of Alexandria needed to supplicate him for a Pall.

The first Council of Constantinople, Can. 2. forbids all Bi­shops to encroach on the Diocesses of others lest they con­found the Churches: And Can. 5. they decree that the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have the honour of Primacy next to the Bishop of Rome, in regard it was new Rome, to wit, made the Imperial City by Constantine, who called it after his own name Constantinople. Here we see the Bishop of Rome is forbid as well as others [...], to play the Bishop in other mens Dioceses, and that the Council out of Reverence to antient custome grants him a priority of Place or Order, not a superiority of Power and Jurisdiction. The general Council of Chalcedon expounds and confirms this 5th Canon of Constantinople, who Can. 27. decree in these words: Following in all things the Decree of the 150 Fathers (to wit, in the Council of Constantinople before mentioned) we decree the same concerning the Priviledges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is new Rome. Their Reason is, for the Fathers [...], (not God the Father, nor Christ his Son, Matth. 16 16. but) the Fathers the Bishops did of right give Priviledges to the Throne Ecclesiastical of old Rome, because it was the Imperial City; and upon the same consideration the 150 Bishops (before mentioned) have granted to the Throne of new Rome, (i.e. Constanti­nople) [Page 88] [...], equal Priviledges; rightly judging that the City which is honoured with the Empire and Senate, and enjoyeth equal Priviledges (i.e. Civil) with old Rome the Imperial City, should also in matters Ecclesiastical be equally with her magnified and extolled, being the second in order after her. Here we see plainly, First, That the Church of Constantinople is in all Ecclesiastical matters and Priviledges equally extolled and magnified with old Rome. Gratians corruption of this Canon is abominable, for he translates it thus: We Decree that the Seat of Constantinople may have, not [...], equal, but similia, like Priviledges with [...], not Semor, old, but Superiour, superior Rome, non tamen in Ecclesiastic is magnificatur ut illa, but is not in Ecclesiastical mat­ters magnified as she is; whereas in the Greek it's [...], in Ecclesiastical matters shall be equally extolled: An ignorant or shameless man. Secondly, Observe the reason why the Fathers in both Councils being near eight hundred Bishops, granted Priviledges and Preeminences to the Bishop of old Rome, was, because it was the Imperial City, and upon the very same ground the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedo. judged it right and fit to grant the same and equal Privi­ledges to the Bishop of Constantinople, in regard it being made the Seat or Head of the Empire by the Emperour Constan­tine, it was new Rome or the Imperial City. Here is no mention made of any Divine Right granted by Christ to Peter or his Successours at Rome. This Canon is of more weight than all the Decrees of Popes, and the Writings of all the Schoolmen and Jesuits put together. It was con­firmed in the sixth General Council in Trullo, Can. 36. as also by the Emperours Marcian, Justinian, Novel. 115. cap. 3, &c.

Our Adversaries alledg, In Edicto de Confir. Syn. Chalced. apud Binium, Tom. 3. p. 471. Caranza, p. 369. that this Canon was surrepti­tiously obtained by the Bishop of Constantinople, Anatolius, when the Bishop of Romes Legates with others were gone out of the Council.

But Caranza, a Popish Collector of the Councils informs us, that upon this complaint made by the Legates, the Canon was debated the second time, and confirmed by the Bishops in Council; so much doth Binius, Concil. Tom. 3. p. 404. & 463. acknowledgeth also; yea, the Bishop of Rome is de­sired [Page 89]by the Council to consent to it, as Baronius himself confesseth.

I hasten to the General Council of Ephesus, where upon com­plaint of the Bishops of Cyprus, that the Patriarch of Antioch claimed a Power to ordain their Bishops contrary to antient custome, the Fathers decree that they should enjoy their antient right, adding a Canon, whereby they forbid any Bishop, not excepting the Roman, to invade the Dioc [...]ses of others — lest the Statutes of the Fathers be broken, and under pretence of the sacred function the tumour of secular power should creep in, and so unadvisedly by little and little we lose our liberty which Christ hath purchased by his own bloud. Thus those Re­verend Bishops decreed, V. Bernard. ad Eugenium de Consid. lib. 3. as if by a Prophetical Spirit they had foreseen the future Captivity of the Church under the subtle Usurpation and tyranny of Popery.

The answer given by the Proctors of the Romish Court to this Canon, as that of Chalcedon, Hunc Cano­nem Ecclesia Romana non recipit. Corio­lanus, p. 285. Ad An. 381. l. 38. or any other that opposeth their Dominion, is: The most holy Church of Rome approveth or receiveth not that Council or Canon; for all Councils, saith their great Cardinal Baronius, have more or less Au­thority as they are approved or not allowed by the Roman Church or Pope. An Answer which scarcely deserves a re­ply, and sheweth what esteem our Romanists have of even General Councils, if they cross their ambitious designs.

I cannot omit that famous Synodical Epistle sent by the Bishops of Africa, of whom St. Austin was one, to the Bishop of Rome, Pope Celestine, which is an invincible Bulwark or Sea-wall against the inundation of Papal Supremacy. It would be tedious to transcribe the whole Letter which is still extant, and written directly against this new Article of, Codic. Canon. Ecclesiae Afri­canae in fine. not Catholick, but Roman, Faith. They first desire the Pope not easily to give Audience to such as appealed from them to him, Ab aliis ex­communicati, ab aliis ad commum­onem ne re­cipiantur sine synodo provin­ciali. Con­cil. Nicaen. Can. 5. or to receive into his Communion such as they had (as Apiarius a most scandalous Presbyter amongst others) deser­vedly excommunicated. Which was, say they, contrary to the Nicene Canons, which respect Bishops as well as inferiour Clericks. They tell him, that the Canons of the Church had prudently provided, that all Controversies should be de­termined in the places where they arose, where the Grace of the Holy Ghost would not be wanting to direct, unless any [Page 90]one can believe that God will inspire any one man (the Pope) with Justice (i. e. just or right judgment) and deny it to multitudes of Priests met in Council. The African Bi­shops thought no Christian man could believe this: but there are Roman Catholicks who have made it an unquestio­nable truth, that though all Councils may err, yet the Pope being infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, cannot. The Afri [...]n Fathers go on — How can a transmarine Sentence (at Rome) be firm and good, V. Cyprian. Epist. 55. to which the necessary presence of Witnesses, either in regard of Sex or infirmity of Age, and many other impediments cannot be had? That any should be sent from your side (as Legates suppose à Latere) we do not find in any Council of Fathers, nor in the authentick Canons of the Nicene. Do not send upon any ones request your Clericks as inforcers (to wit, of your Sentence upon Appeals) lest we seem to bring the smoaky Pride of the World into the Church. So these holy Bishops (I had almost said, Prophets) without fear or flattery, wrote of old to Christ's Universal Vicar at Rome. As for the condemning Appeals to the Pope, therein they trod in their steps, and use almost the very words of Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, and his Colleagues to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, [...] Epist. 55. vel [...]ab. 10. Epist. 3. ad [...]ornelium. to whom he wrote in this manner: Cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis, &c. Whereas it is decreed by all of us (in some National Council of Africa) and is both just and fit, that every cause Ecclesia­stical should be there heard where the fault was committed, and to all Pastors a part, portio gregis, of the flock of Christ (not all the flock to one) is entrusted, which every one ought to rule as he that must give an account to God (not the Bishop of Rome, Cornelius) it becometh not those whom we are over, to run about to other Churches (aiming particularly at the Roman) and by their subtle and fallacious rashness to divide the Concord of Bishops, and dissolve the Unity of the Church, but there to plead their cause where Witnesses and Accusers may be produced against them. Epist. 68. The same St. Cyprian in another Epistle adviseth and encourageth the People of Spain, not to receive Basi­lides again as their Bishop, although he had been at Rome with Pope Stephen, by whom he was (he saith) unjustly and as he supposed, in a surreptitious manner restored (for he had been deposed) to his Bishoprick. Can any one now be­lieve [Page 91]that Saint Cyprian held the supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome over all Bishops and Churches to be his law­ful right, or which is more incredible, an Article of the antient Primitive and Apostolick Faith, as Pope Pius hath declared it? Surely he must then be a Person of very Catho­lick, i. e. Universal Faith to believe any thing. Hen. 1. Hen. 2. apud Matth. Pa­risien. And what did Henry VIII. as other Kings of England before him, worse than Saint Austin and the whole African Church in forbid­ding Appeals, and forbidding his Legates in their own King­dom? Why might not England do this as well as Africa? Well, however our Adversaries will relish it, Can. 22. the Council of Mi­levis (another African Council) forbad all Appeals to trans­marine Churches (aiming no doubt especially at Rome) under pain of Excommunication out of all the Churches of Africa; and another at Carthage, Concil. Car­thag. 3. Can. 26. decreed that no Bishop who­soever, no not the Roman, should be called the Prince of Bishops, but onely the Bishop of the first Seat or See. Gratian the Roman Canonist according to his excellent faculty of translating, giveth us the meaning of the Canon thus: That no Bishop is to be called the Prince of Bishops, but the Bishop of the first Seat, i. e. the Pope. Glossa quae corrumpit tex­tum.

I will onely add the Testimonies of two Bishops of Rome: The former is Pelagius the 2d. Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 36. & 38. who writing to his Rival for the Supremacy, the Bishop of Constantinople saith, Nullus Patriarcharum, &c. none of the Patriarchs (and so neither the Roman) may use or assume the Title of Universal Bishop, for hereby the name of Patriarch is indeed taken from all the rest; which, saith he, far be it from the thought of any faithful Christian. This is upon Record in the Popes Canon Law.

But his Successor Pope Gregory the Great, Dist. 99. Cap. Nullus Patriarcha­rum. Lib. 4. E­pist. 34. speaketh out more plainly, who, writing to the Empress against John Bi­shop of Constantinople his Rival, saith, — In this his Pride (in affecting the Title of Universal Bishop) appeareth the ap­proach of Antichrist. Wherefore, I beseech you by the Almighty God, give not any consent to this perverse Title. In like manner, Epist. 32. to the Emperor, — Peter himself is not called the Universal Apostle, (Feed my sheep, it seems proveth it not.) None of the Roman Bishops ever assumed, [Page 92]though offer'd to them, Lib. 4. E­pist. 38. ad Joann. Con­stantin. In isto sce­lesto vocabulo consentire, nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere. Greg. M. ad Sabi­nian. lib. 4. Indict. 13. Epist. 39. Lib. 7. Epist. 30. ad Eulo­gium; he re­jects the name given to him­self. this name of Singularity, or consented to use it (as Popes now do.) And who is he who contrary to the Gospel and the Decrees of the Canons, presumeth to take upon him this foolish and proud Name? Did ever any Pro­testant inveigh more bitterly against the Popes Universal Episcopacy? I would gladly know whether both parts of a contradiction can be true. Whether the antient or modern Roman Bishops, or both, be infallible? Do not the modern Popes assume and earnestly contend for this foolish, proud and Antichristian Name? And lest we should imagine, that Pope Gregory condemn'd this Name in other Patriarchs only, not as to himself, he addeth in the before-mentioned Epistle to Mauritius the Emperour, Gracious Lord, Nunquid hac in re propriam causam defendo, &c. Do I in this speak for my self, or plead my own cause, and not rather the cause of the whole Church? Where note, he acknowledgeth the Emperour to be his Lord, and to whose judgment he is willing to refer the whole cause. Did Pope Gregory make the Emperour supreme Judge in an Article of Faith? Let Papists judge. Notwithstanding all this zeal his successor Boniface soon after, Ann. 607. as Sigebert, Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus and other Historians testifie, Epist. 32. ad Maurit. & lib. 2. Epist. 61. ad Maur. Beda de ae­tate Anastas. vita Boni­facii 3. Ad. Chron. l. 1. In Praefat. Reipub. Eccl. by the favour of that execrable Regicide Phocas obtained this proud, foolish and prophane Title, and the present Pope, not onely owneth the Name, but contrary to the judgment of his Predecessors (who are supposed to have been infallible) executeth an Universal ju­risdiction over all Princes, Bishops, Churches (as far as he is able.) to the diminution, yea almost abrogation of their due Rights, Priviledges and Authority, as Marcus Antonius de Dominis Arch-bishop of Spalato justly complained. So much for the Popes Supremacy.

Art. 7 Concerning the sacrifice of the Mass.The next Article is the proper and real Sacrificing Christ, his very Body and Bloud in the Mass by the Priest, as a Propi­tiation for the sins both of quick and dead. This Error in all probability arose from want of a discreet understanding of some Rhetorical or Hyperbolical expressions used by the Antient Fathers in their popular Sermons and Discourses concerning the Sacrament of Christ's death and Passion. Christus in seipso immor­taliter vivens, iterum in hoc Mysterio mo­ritur. Greg. M. de Concil. Dist. 2. Quid sit. But that it was no part of their Faith, to believe that Christ [Page 93]is really and properly sacrificed in the Mass, we shall evi­dently prove out of their own Writings.

I shall begin with Justin Martyr, Apol. ad An­tonin. who discoursing of the Holy Eucharist, sheweth how the Christians then used to offer Bread and Wine to the [...], or Minister, who re­ceiving them, offereth up to God (not Christ himself, but) Glory, Thanks and Praise for those his gifts (i. e. Bread, [...]. Mal. 1.11. which relates to all Christians. [...]. and Wine) which after the Ministers Prayers and Thanks­givings are distributed to every one that is present. Where note, First, They termed Bread and Wine after the Mini­sters Prayers or Consecration: Secondly, Both Bread and Wine were given to all present; not Bread onely, much less neither one nor the other, as in Private Masses. But of sacrificing or offering up Christ himself to God, he hath not a word in that place. The same Father in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, P. 201. treateth at large concerning the abro­gation of the Jewish Sacrifices; and coming to mention the Christian Sacrifice, [...]. In Dialog. pag. 270. which Malachy foretold should be offered up to God by the Gentiles in every place: he interprets it (as Tertullian, Eusebius, and the rest of the Fathers do) of Prayers and Praises; Which, saith he, I account the onely perfect sacrifices pleasing to God. Which Spiritual Sacrifices a little after he opposeth to all the Sacrifices, Offerings and Obla­tions of the Law. Surely, had Saint Justin believed that in the Eucharist Christ himself, his Body and Bloud were by the Priest really and properly sacrificed to God, he would no doubt have made mention of this Christian Sacrifice, far exceeding in virtue and value, no onely all Jewish Offerings, but the Prayers and Thanksgivings of all Christians: at least he would never have affirmed, that the latter were in his opinion the onely perfect Sacrifices under the Gospel pleasing to God. But he is altogether silent as to any such Sacrifice; yea, contrarily in that very place he addeth, That these onely Sacrifices, to wit, Prayers and Praises Christians have learned to make, and that in or at the commemoration or remembrance of their alimony both wet and dry (i. e. the Eucharistical Bread and Wine) in which they remember the Passion of Christ. Where it is remarkable that Justin Mar­tyr, instead of proper sacrificing of Christ in the Holy Eu­charist, mentions onely the Commemoration or Memorial [Page 94]of his Passion, and that the Prayers and Thanksgivings at­tending it (for it's called the Eucharist, [...]) were the onely Sacrifices Christians had learned in that most solemn Office of Religion to offer up to God. So much for Justin.

I pass on to St. Irenaeus, who acknowledgeth that Christ teaching his Disciples to offer to God First-fruits of his Creatures, Lib. 4. c. 32.32, 34. lest they should seem ungrateful, took that Bread, which is of the creature or Creation ( [...], possibly was the word) and gave thanks, and said, This is my Body. In like manner the Cup of Wine, which is of the creature (i. e. the Vine) confessing it to be his Bloud, and taught the Ob­lation of the new Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the World, to him who granteth to us the First-fruits of his Gifts in the New Testament. Here we find an Oblation, but not a Sa­crifice (which two, De Missa. l. 1. c 2. as Bellarmine observeth, are different things) much less a sacrifice of Christs Body and Bloud. Irenaeus plainly sheweth what kind of Oblation he meant, when he declareth it to be not of Christ the Creator, but of Gods creatures, to wit, Bread and Wine, which the Church offers to God. De Euchar. lib 10. c. 27. V. Litur. Chrysost. (Bellarmine grants this) First, as an expres­sion of honour, love and gratitude to him for his creatures bountifully bestowed on us for our sustenance. Secondly, That out of a part of them, to wit, Bread and Wine set on Gods Table or Altar, by the prayers of the Priest they might be­come sacramentally and mystically his Body and Bloud. Thirdly, That out of the remains the poor might be relieved. These Oblations Saint Cyprian after him calleth in an im­proper sense Sacrifices, In Dominicum sine sacrificio venis? Dost thou come, Serm. de E­leemosyna. V. Canonem Missae and D. Field, in Ap­pend. p. 212. speaking to a rich Widow, to Church without a Sacrifice, i. e. Oblation? These Oblations of Bread and Wine offered up to God, in a way of grateful acknowledg­ment of his mercies, out of which the sacramental Elements were of old taken, are the Oblation of the New Testament taught by Christ, and observed by the Primitive Christians. That this was his true sense and meaning appeareth plainly from the next Chapter, Cap. 33. where having quoted the Prophecy of Malachy, concerning the pure Incense and Offering of the Gentiles (a place urged by our Adversaries for their Mass-Sacrifice) [Page 95]Sacrifice) he expounds it according to Revel. 8.3. Cap. 34. of the Prayers of Saints; and in the next Chapter discoursing of this Oblation which our Saviour taught to be offered in all places throughout the World, which is accounted by God a pure Sacrifice; he applieth to it those words: If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar, &c. Matth. 5. which Gift was never understood by any of Christs Body and Bloud, which according to our Ro­manists own Doctrine, none but Priests, not private Chri­stians, offer at Gods Altar. To this he subjoineth the words of God by Moses; Thou shalt not appear before the Lord empty, i.e. without an Oblation; For gifts, saith he, Cap. 34. testifie love and honour of the Person to whom they are presented. Then he addeth, In regard the Church offereth with Simplicity, her Oblation is justly accounted by God a pure Sacrifice, as Saint Paul writeth to the Philippians of their Oblations, i.e. Psal. 4.18.Alms, sent to him, terming them an Offering pleasing to God; For it becometh us, saith Irenaeus, to make an Obla­tion to God, and in all things to be found grateful unto the Creator — offering primitias creaturarum ejus (not his Son, but) the first-fruits of his Creatures.

The Synagogue of the Jews offereth not thus, ☜ in regard they have not received the word (Christ) by whom it is to be offered to God; in which respect it is termed a New Ob­lation of the Church. However then our Adversaries boast much of Irenaeus as owning their Sacrifice of the Mass; it is evident to any who will weigh the whole Context of his Discourse, that he saith nothing in the least of sacrificing Christ in the Sacrament, but of Oblations and Alms, which are still used in our Churches at the Offertory when the Eu­charist is celebrated.

Let us now proceed to Tertullian, Lib. 3. cap 22. Gloriae Rela­tio, Benedi­ctio, & Laus & Hymni, & Lib. 4. c. 1. Simplex O­ratio de Con­scientia pura. Purâ prece. who against Marcion ex­pounds Malachy's clean or pure Sacrifice, of giving Glory, Bles­sing and Praise to God; and in another place of Simple or pure Prayer from a pure Conscience, Lib. 4. in Marc. c. 1. In like manner, ad Scapulam, written in defence of the Christians who were accused, because they did not offer up (as the Gentiles) any Sacrifice for the life of the Emperour, He answereth, We do sacrifice for the Emperour, but as God hath commanded, purâ prece, with pure Prayer. Why doth he not say, (which Bellarmine granteth, de Missa, l. 2. c. 6. [Page 96]might lawfully have been done) we offer up for him a most perfect and venerable Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of the Son of God. V. Tertul. adv. Judaeos, c. 5. Strom. 7. p. 717. [...], &c. It seemeth he was ignorant of this Mass Sa­crifice. Clemens Alexand. discoursing much about Heathenish and Jewish Sacrifices, addeth, We Christians honour God with our Prayers, and this most excellent Sacrifice we pre­sent unto him. And a little after, The Sacrifice of the Christian Church is speech, [...], breathed out from holy Souls.

I will add Lactantius, Instit. lib. 6. cap. ult.Summus colendi Dei ritus, &c. The highest rite or office of worship to God, is praise from the mouth of a righteous Man. Would he or Clemens have ad­vanced Prayer or Praise above the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, Epist. 63. had they believed it? But I must not forget Saint Cyprian, ad Luc. where he saith, Christ offered himself to God a Sacrifice, Add Cyprian de Ʋnctione Chrismatis. In mensa Panem & Vinum, in cruce militi­bus Corpus vulnerandum tradit. Vino Christi sanguis often­ditur. Aqua sola Christi sanguinem non potest expri­mere. Cypr. Epist. 17. V. Lactant. Instit. p. 1. c. 1. and commanded the Eucharist to be cele­brated in commemoration or remembrance of him. It is the Passion of our Lord which is the Sacrifice we offer; where­fore, as often as we offer the Cup in remembrance of the Lord and his Passion, we ought to do what he did before us. Which last words confute the Romish Half-communion. Surely, if the Passion of Christ on the Cross be the Sacrifice we offer to God, evident it is, that it can be offered only by way of commemoration or remembrance; for Christ suf­fered but once on the Cross, which was performed above 1600 years ago. How can that very Passion be really and properly reiterated or acted over again, unless by way of representation and commemoration? But if the Sacrifice of the Mass be onely a representation or commemoration of Christs Passion, then it cannot be a proper Sacrifice, but improper and by similitude onely, as the Picture of the Pas­sion of a Martyr is not really and properly the Passion it self.

I come now to Eusebius the learned Bishop of Cesarea, [...], Lib. 1. de Demonstr. E­vang. c. 10. V. Euseb. de Laudib. Con­stantini, pag. 488. who teacheth us, that the Sacrifice of Christ himself was prefigured by all the Jewish Sacrifices, of which Christians make in the Eucharist a continual remembrance, as he often repeateth it. But concerning sacrificing Christ again and again by the Priest we find not a word. Yea, in the same place he saith, That Christians offer up [...], [Page 97]the memory or memorial of Christs sacrifice on the Cross instead of a sacrifice to God; which Memorial saith, we celebrate signis quibusdam, by certain signs, to wit, Bread and Wine on the Holy Table, wherein we offer up to God unbloudy and rational Sacrifices [...], incorporeal and with­out bloud, by his most eminent High-Priest Jesus Christ, i. e. Prayers and Praises. He saith not, We offer Jesus Christ the High-Priest, but we offer up other Sacrifices by him. Nei­ther by incorporeal and unbloudy Sacrifices in the plural, could he intend offering up Christs Body and Bloud; for how possibly can Christs Body be incorporeal or his bloud without bloud? A little after, he explaineth more fully what he meaneth by those Rational, Incorporeal or spiritual Sacrifices, to wit, the sacrifices of Prayer and Praise; to which purpose he quoteth the words of David: Psalm 50.Offer unto God thanksgiving, &c. and those of Malachy above-mention­ed, concerning pure Incense, i. e. Prayer, and a pure Offer­ing, i. e. saith he, A broken and contrite heart. He conclu­deth in these words: We sacrifice and offer Incense some­times by celebrating the memory, [...], of that great Sacri­fice, (to wit, of Christ on the Cross) by those sacramental Mysteries, which he hath delivered to us, giving thanks to God for our Redemption, and offering Hymns and Praises to him. (The same do Protestants) otherwise by consecra­ting and devoting our selves to God, and dedicating Soul and Body to his High-Priest, the Word. Ye see here how many sorts of Christian Sacrifices Eusebius reckons up, Prayers, Praises, consecrating our souls and bodies to God, celebra­ting the memory of his Sacrifice on the Cross; but concern­ing sacrificing of Christ himself in and by the sacramental Mysteries, we find nothing. Can this now be a point of Catholick Faith, of which Eusebius and all the antient Fathers were ignorant? Lib. 5. c. 3. The same Eusebius in another place dis­courseth concerning Christs Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedeck. His words are: In like manner, first our Saviour, then the Priests of, or from him exercising a spiritual Priesthood, by Bread and Wine, V. Tertul. cont. Judaeos. Ambross. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. do obscurely repre­sent the Mysteries of his Body and Bloud. This maketh nothing for the Popish Mass-sacrifice. For first, Melchize­deck, as he said a little before, [...], protulit (as the vulgar [Page 98]translation rendreth it) brought forth to Abraham Bread and Wine, but offered obtulit, no corporal Sacrifices. The truth is, the Mass Priests, if Transubstantiation be admitted, offer neither Bread nor Wine, which they tell us are changed into Christs Body and Bloud, which are corporal things. But the Christian Priesthood saith Eusebius, is spiritual, so there­fore are their Sacrifices also. Secondly, All that Eusebtus saith of the Executors of this spiritual Priesthood, is, that after Christs Example by Bread and Wine (which he supposeth to remain in their substance) they obscurely represent Christs Body and Bloud. Doth this imply, that the Bread and Wine are miraculously changed into the body and bloud of Christ? or that representing Christs body and bloud in the Holy Sacrament rendreth them a Sacrifice, or implieth any offering them up as a propitiatory Victim for the sins both of quick and dead? Certainly, did this sacrificing Christ by or under Bread and Wine at all appertain to the Christian Priesthood, Eusebius no doubt would have (it being so eminent and wonderful an action) made at least some little mention of it. But how could he mention that which it appeareth he was wholly ignorant of, to wit, the sacrificing Christ by Priests in the Holy Eucharist?

Athanasius in a few words giveth the Sacrifice of the Mass a deadly blow. Orat. 3. in Arian. The Sacrifice of our Saviour once offered perfects all, and remaineth firm all times. Aaron had Suc­cessors, our Lord had none. Saint Chrysostome adv. Judaeos Hom. 36. expounds Malachy's Pure Offering of Prayer; and Hom. in Psalm 95. reckoning up about ten sorts of Sa­crifices in the Christian Church, as Martyrdom, Prayer, Alms, &c. he taketh no notice of the Sacrifice of all Sacri­fices, to wit, of Christ in the Mass. But that noted place, Hom. 17. on the Hebrews must not be omitted; where ha­ving first said, Heb. 10.10. that Jesus Christ is both Priest and Sacri­fice, who offer'd himself to God once for all, for us; he raiseth an Objection against what he had said from Saint Paul, What then do we Priests? Do not we daily offer? He answereth, We do indeed offer, but it is making a remem­brance of his death, V. Basil. M. in Cap. 1. Esaiae. we do it in commemoration of what is already done; we do offer the same Sacrifice [...], or rather (correcting himself [Page 99]that he might speak more properly and exactly,) We cele­brate or operate the remembrance of a Sacrifice, i. e. of Christ on the Cross, commemorantes, & memoriam facientes, as the Roman Missal it self speaketh.

Saint Ambrose in his Comment on the Hebrews saith the very same, as if he had translated Saint Chrysostome: Cap. 10. Do not we daily offer? Yes, We offer memoriam facientes, ma­king in and by the Eucharist a memorial of his death. We offer him (Christ) magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur, Rather or more properly, we make a remembrance of a Sacrifice. Lib. 4. de Sacra. c. 6. In another place he sets down the antient forms of Consecration; Wherefore being mindful of his Passion (i. e. V. Canonem Missae Rom. Christ on the Cross) we offer to thee this Sacrifice — this bread. Bread, not the very Body of Christ in a carnal and corporeal sense. The like words we find in Saint Chry­sostomes and the Gregorian Liturgies.

I will now add Epiphanius, who saith, as Athanasius above, Haer. 55. Christ hath no Successour in his Priesthood, that he is both Priest and Sacrifice, in regard none can properly sacrifice him but himself, which he did once for all on the Cross. And Haer. 42. Christ by his Sacrifice hath taken away the use of all Sacrifices (i. e. properly so called) under th [...] [...]ospel. In like manner Saint Cyril of Alexandria again [...] Julian the Apostate, who objected that the Christians had no Sacrifice: Lib. 9. cont. Julian. [...]. For answer, he asserts not any external, visible and corporeal one, but [...], an intellectual and spiritual Worship; for, saith he, a most immaterial and spiritual Sacrifice be­cometh God, who is in his nature pure and immaterial.

I will end with Saint Austin, who in his 20th Book against [...]stus thus writeth: Christians celebrate the memory of this finished Sacrifice, (to wit, Ch. 18. of Christ on the Cross) by the Holy Oblation or Sacrament, i. e. of Bread and Wine, and by participation of the body and bloud of Christ; not by immolation, but participation of them; not by reiteration of Christs Sacrifice which is finished (consummatum est) but commemoration of it. And Chap. 21. he hath these words: Lib 20. contr. Faust. c. 21. The like he hath de fide, ad Petrum Dia­con. c. 19. The flesh and bloud of this Sacrifice of Christ before his In­carnation was promised or represented by the similitude of Levitical Sacrifices: In the Passion of Christ it was performed per ipsam veritatem, by the very truth of the thing [Page 100]it self: After his Ascension, it is celebrated per sacramentum memoriae, by a Sacrament of memory, or commemoration, not by a true proper Sacrifice of Christ, per ipsam veritatem, and immolation of his very body and bloud, as Romanists affirm. In his Epistle to Boniface, he expresseth it more clearly. Is not Christ immolated or offer'd up once in semetipso, Quod natum est ex Virgine nobis quoti­die nascitur & crucifigi­tur. Hieron. in Psal. 86. & 97. in himself, i. e. his own body and bloud really, and yet in the Sacrament, not onely every Easter, but every day, quotidie populis immolatur, he is immolated or offer'd to the people. He saith not to God, but to the people. For Sacraments, if they had not some similitude, similitudinem, of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they could not at all be Sa­craments. Hence the names of the things signified are communicated to them. Here Saint Austin plainly affirmeth, that Christs body and bloud are immolated or offer'd up in and by the sacramental Signs, not really, properly and sub­stantially, but per similitudinem, by way of similitude or re­presentation, in regard the sacramental Symbols as he saith, secundum quendam modum, after some manner, not proper but figurative, Epist. 23. are his body and bloud; or as Saint Ambrose hath it, in imagine, in an Image or representation, but there (in He [...] at Gods right hand) in veritate, Lib. 1. de Offic. c. 48. & in Psal. 38. in truth; where he pre [...] [...] his very body and bloud by way of interpel­lation to the Eyes of his Father as our Advocate. In ano­ther place, As often as the Pascha, the Christian Passover is offer'd, In Psal. 21. Compare in Psalm 75. Memoriâ quotidie nobis immolatur. Cùm hostia frangitur, & sanguis in ora fidelium in­funditur, quid aliud quam Dominici corporis immolatio significatur, Aug. de Cons. dist. 2. doth Christ so often die? No: yet anniversaria re­cordatio quasi repraesentat quod olim factum est, The Anniversary recordation at Easter, doth as it were represent what was done long since; and so admonisheth us as if we saw Christ hang­ing on the Cross. So much for sacrificing Christ in [...]e Mass, or Sacrament, which the antient Fathers own not, allowing only with Protestants an improper offering of him by way of Image, representation, similitude, memorial and communication.

Art. 8 Concerning Communion in one kind.I come to the last Article before-mentioned of the new Roman Creed, Receiving the Communion in one kind in bread onely. Evangelistae ita tradide­runt praece­pisse sibi Je­sum, Apol. 2. prope finem. Epist. 54.56, 63. lib. de Lapsis. Cypr. de coena Domini. Here it is needless to quote many Testimonies, seeing our Adversaries themselves confess, that herein they have departed from the practice of all the antient Fathers. We have already seen in Justin Martyr, that both Bread and Wine were administred to all that were present at the Sa­crament; yea, he there informs us that the Deacon carried [...], consecrated Bread and Wine to such as were sick and absent. In Cyprian's days it's undeniable, that the Sacramental Cup was given to the people, yea Infants. Bi­bimus de sanguine Domini ipso jubente, Christ commanding us, we drink of his Bloud. I might alledge Ignatius ad Phi­ladelph. Origen Hom. 16. in Num. Tertul. ad Uxorem, lib. 2. Cyril Hierosol. Catech. &c. Ambrose lib. 1. de Offic. c. 41. de Sacrament. l. 4. c. 4. Jerome in Sophon. c. 3. & 1 Cor. 11. Chrys. Hom. 18. in 2. ad Corint. Theodoret in 1 Cor. 11. Dionysius Carthusian. in 1 Cor. 11. Austin in Levit. qu. Theophylact. 1 Cor. 11. Paschasius de Coena, Dom. with many more; but it's needless, as we shall shew by and by, Lyra in Proverb. 1.9. and Carthusianus grant it.

Assert. 3 Several Ar­ticles of the Romish Faith are not 600 years old.I come to my third Assertion. That some of the Articles before-mentioned in Pope Pius's Creed, and declared by him to be parts of the Primitive Catholick and Apostolick Faith, necessary to be believed by all Christians to salvation, cannot be proved to be such by the Testimonies of any eminent Writers for above one thousand years after Christ. I instance, First, In the Article concerning their seven Sa­craments. It was first made an Ar­ticle of Faith by the Coun­cil of Florence. 1439. V. Cassand. Consul. Art. 13 Chemnit. in Examen. Perkins De­monstr. Pro­blem. Licet Pri­mitiva Ec­clesia, &c. Concil. Basil. Licet ab Initio Christianae Religionis, &c. Trent Council, Can. 1. Sess. 5. No antient Writer for one thousand years after Christ ever taught that there were seven Sacraments, nec plura, nec pauciora, neither more nor less, and that extreme Unction, Matrimony with the rest, were they. Peter Lom­bard, who lived An. 1160. first taught this Doctrine, which he could not prove, although he endeavoureth it in other Points, by the Testimonies of the antient Fathers. But of this more below.

Secondly, In the Article concerning Communion in one kind. The Councils of Constance and Trent confess, that the Primitive Church administred the Eucharist to the people in both kinds as Christ did; yet non obstante, as if this were [Page 102]little to be regarded, they decree the Laity shall not receive both yea, anathematize such as say, it is necessary from the Institution, practice and command of our Saviour, Do this, &c. Drink ye all of this. The same is acknowledged by Bellarmine, Valentia, Costerus, and others of their most eminent Writers. Consult. Art. 13. Cassander confesseth, that the Primitive Church, at least in all her publick Administrations, gave both Elements to the people for one thousand years after Christ. Part 3. qu. 80. Art. 12. V. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. Alph. de Castro. De Transubst. rara apud antiquos mentio, p. 572. c. 8. The present Roman Custom in Aquinas his days was but in quibusdam Ecclesiis, in some Churches only.

Thirdly, Transubstantiation, as Scotus and Biel in Can. Sect. 4. acknowledge, was first made an Article of Faith by Pope Innocent in the Lateran Council, not much above four hundred years ago.

Fourthly, Opuse. de Imagin. Worshipping of Images with Latria came in, as Camarinus granteth, one thousand years after Christ. The second Nicene Council condemns it.

Fifthly, V. Caran­zam in Concil. Nicaeno 2. Art. 2. Alph. de Castro, lib. 8. p. 572. V. Concess. fidei Cyrilli, Patriarchae Constant. Dr. Field a­gainst Hig­gons. The belief of Purgatory and use of Indulgences were, serò recepti in Ecclesia, lately received by the Church, as we have seen Roffensis and Alphonsus de Castro, two zea­lous Papists affirming: It's notorious that Purgatory was first made an Article of Faith in the late Council of Flo­rence about three hundred years ago, which the Greek Church owneth not at this day, nor ever did. Who can now but wonder at the confidence of our Adversaries, who boast of their Antient Catholick and Apostolick Religion, accusing Protestants of Novelty and Heresie, setting up a new Faith and Church, because we protest against and reject these erroneous Novelties they would impose upon us, and all Christians, as Catholick Truths necessary to be believed to Salvation?

Assert. 4 Several Ar­ticles of the Roman Faith, condemned by eminent Writers before Lu­ther, and by some of their own Commu­nion since.But I hasten to my fourth and last Assertion, which was this; That there is scarcely any point in Controversie be­twixt us and the Papists, especially of them before-mention­ed, made by Pope Pius, and the late Tridentine Council, Ar­ticles of Faith, but we are able to produce many eminent Writers, and some of their own Church, who condemn [Page]them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther appeared in the World. So that what Doctrines and practices the Reformed Protestant Churches rejected and condemned, were not the generally received, and unanimously avowed Opinions and observances of the Roman, much less Catholick Church, but onely of a powerful and predominant Party in it.

The Numb [...]r of Sacraments.I will first begin with their Doctrine of seven Sacra­ments. The Canonists, as Panormitan and the Glosse on Dist. 5. de Poenitentia, V. Rhe [...] ­num [...] in Tertul. de Poenitent. Loc. Com­mun. lib. [...]. c. 4. & 5. In qu. Gent. Di [...]t. 26. qu. 3. say, That Penance was not ordained (as the Trent Council grants all true Sacraments are) a Sacra­ment by Christ, but is an Institution of the Church onely. Canus affirmeth, it's uncertain whether it giveth Grace or no. Durandus holds, 4. Dist. 26. qu. 3. That Matrimony is no Sacrament univocally and properly so called, confer­ring Grace.

Hugo de S. Victore denieth, that extreme Unction is a Sacrament. Holcot quoted by Cassander, Consult. art. 13. saith, Confirmation is no Sacrament. De Sacrum. Euchar. Part. 4. qu. 5. Mem. 2. Naucler. Vol. 2. Bessarion the Cardinal owneth onely two Sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist. Alexander Halensis is of opinion, that there are onely four Sacraments of the Gospel. See Dr. Field of the Church, In Append. p. 332. and Bishop Mortons Appeal, p. 337. The Waldenses held but two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper, as Protestants do.

2 Transubstan­tiation.Secondly, As for their new Article of Transubstantiation, Petrus de Alliaco a Cardinal ingenuously acknowledgeth, Dist. 11. qu. 6. Art. 2. add Cameracensis 4. Gent. qu. 6. Art. 2. Occam in 4. Gent. 2.5. De Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23 quaest. 3. Lib. 4. Dist. 11. qu. 23. Art. 1. that the Opinion which supposeth the substance of Bread to remain still after Consecration (which was Luther's Opinion) is pos­sible; neither is it contrary to reason or Scripture: Nay, saith he, it is easier to conceive and more reasonable than that which holdeth, that the substance doth leave the acci­dents, and of this Opinion no inconvenience doth seem to ensue, if it could be accorded with the Churches (i. e. his Roman Churches) determination. Scotus quoted by Bellar­mine, saith, that before the Lateran Council it was no point of Faith. To be sure, P. Lombard the Father of the School­men believed it not. For, he saith, if it be demanded, what manner of conversion of the Elements into Christs body and bloud, is made by Consecration, whether formal or [Page 104]substantial, De Verit. Corp. & Sang. D. in Euchar. p. 46. I am not able to define. Tunstal Bishop of Dur­ham in Queen Maries days declares, that before the Council of Lateran no man was bound to believe Transubstantia­tion, it being free for all men till that time to follow their own conjecture, as to the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament. Hence he only required the Confession of a Real presence (which we grant) and no more. Yea, he used to say, That if he had been at Pope Innocent's El­bow when he decreed Transubstantiation as an Article of Faith, he could, he thought, have offered him such reasons as should have dissuaded him from it. In Can. Mis­sae. Lect. 41. Biel affirmeth, that Transubstantiation is a very new Opinion and lately brought into the Church; and was believed onely or principally on the Authority of Pope Innocent, and the Infallibility of the Church (you must suppose Roman) which expounds the Scripture by the same Spirit which delivered the Faith to us.

To which Durand agreeth: 4 Dist. 11. qu. 1. Num. 9. It is rashness, saith he, to think the body of Christ by his divine Power cannot be in the Sacrament, unless the bread be converted into it. He adds, that the Opinion of Transubstantiation (held by Lutherans) is liable to fewer difficulties, but it must not be holden, since the Church (of Rome) hath determined the contrary, which is presumed not to err in such matters. Yet see how doubtfully he speaketh of their Churches Infallibi­lity, V. Bell. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. In 4 Sent. qu. 6. Scotus in 4. Dist. 11. qu. 3. on whose Authority onely he owneth Transubstantia­tion, not at all from any cogent authority of Reason or Scripture, which he saith, cannot be found. In like man­ner Cameracensis professeth, he saw not how Transubstan­tiation could be proved evidently either out of Scripture, or any determination of the Universal or Catholick Church, making it a matter of Opinion, not Faith, and inclining rather as Alliaco, to Consubstantiation. Aquinas himself ac­knowledgeth, that some Catholicks quidam Catholici thought, that one body could not possibly be present in two places locally, but sacramentally only, which overthroweth Tran­substantiation: Ferus is very moderate in this point. Seeing, saith he, it's certain that Christs body is in the Sacrament, what need we dispute whether the substance of bread re­main or not? Tom. 3. Disp. 46. c. 3. Cardinal Cajetan himself, quoted by Suarez, [Page 105]confesseth, that those words so urged by Romanists in this Point, This is my Body, Supra in Part. 3. summ. qu. 75. art. 14. secluding the Authority of the Church, are not sufficient to confirm Transubstantiation. Of the same Opinion was Scotus. The same Cajetan no­teth, that many in truth deny what the word Transubstantia­tion indeed importeth. So if I be not much mistaken, doth Cardinal Bellarmine, who instead of a substantial change or conversion of the Bread into Christs Body, maintains onely a Translocation, adduction or succession of Christs Body into the room and place of it; which (as easie to discern) is no Transubstantiation of the bread into Christs Body, properly so called. Johannes Scotus Erigena about the year 800. wrote against Transubstantiation, proving out of the Scri­ptures and antient Fathers, that the Bread and Wine are not properly, but figuratively and sacramentally Christs body and bloud. This Book is still extant, and (no won­der) condemned by the Infallible Index Expurgatorius.

Aelfricus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury set out, Anno 996. in the Saxon Tongue his Homilies: wherein he affirms, that the bread is not Christs Body corporaliter, corporally, but spi­ritually, spiritualiter. With which perfectly agreeth the Pas­chal Saxon Homily of Aelfrick Abbot of Malmsbury, ap­pointed publickly to be read to the People in England on Easter day before the Communion, still extant in Manu­script in the publick Library of the University of Oxford, and the private Library of Bennet College in Cambridge; To which place I gratefully acknowledge I owe the foundation of that small knowledge I have in Divinity. Panis ille est corpus Christi, figurate, &c. Fulber. Epist. ad Adeoda­tum. Epist. ad Heribaldum. To these may be added, Bertram de corpore & sanguine Domini to Charles the Great, who about seven hundred years ago in a just Treatise impugneth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; to whom you may add Fulbertus, Carnoton, Berengarius, Hinc­marus in vita Remigii, Rabanus Maurus.

3 Purgatory.As for Purgatory and its Appendix, Indulgences, whose most gross abuse defended by the Pope, first opened Luther's mouth against him, much need not be said; in regard, as we have seen above. Roffensis the Popes Martyr, and Alphonsus de Castro, to whom I may now add Polydore Virgil, confess, they are late Novelties, of which in the antient Greek Fathers there is little or no mention. The modern Greek Church, as ap­peareth [Page 106]peareth from their Confession offer'd to the Council of Basil, and since that of Cyril late Patriarch of Constantinople, denieth any Purgation of sins after death by Fire. Lumbard and Gratian take no notice of Indulgences. The later School­men, Albertus, Al. Halensis, Durand, Cajetan, quoted by Bishop Usher and Dr. Field in his Appendix, say, that Fina­lis Gratia, &c. final Grace abolisheth all remains of sin in Gods Children: Answer to the Challenge, p. 179. Part. prima summae. Tit. 10. c. 3. Opusc. 15. c. 1. De Indulg. lib. 4. dist. 20. qu. 3. Primus in Purgatorium extendit In­dulgentias. V. Chemnit. Exam. de In­dulg. 742. & 100 Gravamina. what need then of any Purgatorian fire? Antoninus acknowledgeth, that concerning Indulgences, ni­hil habemus expressè, &c. We have nothing expresly or clear­ly delivered, either in Scripture or the antient Fathers. This same is affirmed by Cajetan and Durand. Agrippa de Vanitate Scient. cap. 61. saith, that Pope Boniface VIII. first extended Indulgences to Purgatory, they were opposed before Luther, by the University of Paris, Wesselus, Wickliffe, Hus, Jerome of Prague, Savanorola, yea the States of Ger­many complain to the Pope of them as intolerable burdens, cheats and incentives to all manner of wickedness. Add Platina in Boniface 9. Urspergensis, Chron. p. 322.

Art. 4 Image-wor­ship.Worshipping of Image was, V. Polyd. Virgil. de In­vent. rerum, lib. 6. V. Cassand. infra. See Ʋsper­gensis & Rhegino ad Ann. 794. and Matth. West­minst. ad Ann. 794. Cassand. Consult. art. de Imagin. The work of Mens Hands may not be adored, no not in honour of their Prototypes, p. 213. De Trad. Part 3. De Imagin. as is notorious, first Decreed (though not with Latria) in the second Nicene Council a­bout the year 794 but was opposed and condemned by the General Councils of Constantinople and Frankfort, in which last were three hundred Bishops, called by the Emperour and Pope whose Legates were there present, as the Bishop of Rhemes reports, apud Alanum Copum, Dial. 4. and Suarez grants it, in 3. Part. Thomae qu. 25. disp. 54. This worship of Images was confuted also by Albinus or Alcuinus out of the Scriptures, as Hoveden relates in continuat. Bedae ad ann. 794. Moreover, by the Book of Charles the Great (if it be not the same with the former,) which is still extant in the Va­tican, and acknowledged to be genuine by some learned Papists. Agobardus Bishop of Lyons wrote against worship­ping Pictures or Images. So did also Jonas Bishop of Or­leans [Page 107]in his Book de Cultu Imaginum, cap. 5. allowing them onely for Ornament in Churches, but detests the giving them any part of divine Honour, as accursed wickedness. Peresius saith as much. Gerson de defect. viror. Eccles. Holcot de Sapien­tia Lect. 158. Miraudula, Apol. qu. 3. condemn bowing be­fore them: Durand. de ritib. Eccl. Catharinus de cult. Imagin. grant, that their use is dangerous in regard of the peril of Idolatry. See our Churches Homily on the Peril of Idolatry. Polydore Virgil saith, De Invent. rerum. lib. 6. c. 13. De Imag. l. 2. c. 22. all the Fathers condemn'd worshipping Images. Bellarmine himself granteth, that the worship of Images (as defended and practised by the Roman Church, i.e. with Latria or the same worship we give to the Proto­types) cannot be maintained without such nice distinctions of absolutely and relatively, or accidentally, univocally or analogically, properly or improperly, as scarce themselves, much less the weak common people can understand, or if they do, can hardly avoid Error in practising them; Pere­sius more plainly: They are a scandal to the weak who cannot understand them, but by erring. Hence the Car­dinal accounteth it not safe to teach their Votaries publickly to give Divine Honour or Latria to the Image of Christ for his sake. De Trad. p. 226. V. Biel. in Canon. Missae Sect. 49. Part 3. qu. 28. Art. 3. Instit. Mor. Tom. 1. l. 9. Suarez. Tom. 1. Disp. 54. Sect. 4. Vasq. in qu. 25. disp. 110. c. 2. See Orig. in Cels. l. 6. & 8. Arnob. lib. 6. Apud Bellar. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. V. Aug. de fide & symb. cap. 7. Biblioth. Patrtom, Tom. 5. pag. 609. Concil. Trident. Compare Origen, Lib. 7. in Celsum. Nevertheless it's undeniable that this is the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome, declared by their Oracle Aquinas, and constans opinio, as Azorius speaks, the constant Opinion of their Divines, defended by Valentia, Suarez, and that as the sense of the Council of Trent. Vas­quez the Jesuit to defend this Adoration blushed not to write, that it is lawful to worship the Sun, yea (God bless us) the Devil himself, so the worship be directed ultimately to God and his Honour; whereas it's notorious, that the Heathens might and did in this very manner defend their gross Idolatry. The very making of the Images of the Trinity is condemn'd by Abulensis, Durand, Peresius and o­thers, yet defended and practised by the Roman Church. Walafridus Strabo called it Superstition and blockishness, hebitudinem, to worship Images. I will end, that I be not too tedious, with the words of Jonas Bishop of Orleans, as [Page 108]an Answer to our Adversaries Reply, That they place no Divinity in their Images, but worship them onely in honour of God and of him whose Image it is, seeing they know there is no Divinity in Images, they are the more to be condemned for giving to an infirm and beggerly Image the honour that is due to the Divinity. I cannot omit what I find in Agobardus, it being so consonant with Jonas as making one sentence. De Pict. & Imag. p. 237. They which answer (as our Roman Catholicks now do) they think no Divinity to be in the Image they worship, but that they worship it in honour of him whose image it is, are easily answered, because if the Image they worship be not God, neither is it to be worship­ped in honour of the Saints, who use not to arrogate to themselves Divine Honour. He adds, That the Images of Christ and the Apostles were expressed by the Antients after the custom of the Gentiles, V. Euseb. supra. rather for love and me­mory than for any religious honour or worship. He con­cludes; This is the sincere Religion, this is the Catho­lick Custome, p. 251. In Confess. sidei per Cri­topulum Pa­triarch. 5. Ann. 1430. Sess. 4. Veritas fidei Catholicae. Caranza, An. 1409. An. 1414. Respons. de Privileg. Patriarch. Concord. l. 2. c. 25. Supra, cap. 20. p. 748. this is the Tradition of the Fathers, &c. The Greeks condemn giving Latria or Douleia to Images in their confession of Faith. The Popes Supremacy over Empe­rours, Councils, Bishops, &c. This was contradicted by the Council of Basil (confirmed by Pope Nicolas) who de­creed, that it was de fide a point of Faith, that the Pope ought to be subject to a General Council. Of the same opinion were the Councils of Pisa and Constance, who depo­sed several Popes as Schismaticks and Hereticks, for refu­sing to appear upon their Summons. Balsamon a Greek Writer sheweth, that the five Patriarchs were equal in ho­nour and power, and were all instead of one Head over the whole Church. Cusanus the Cardinal confesseth, that the eight first General Councils were all called by the Em­perours, and that the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the precedency of the Bishop of Constantinople before him of Alexandria (notwithstanding Pope Leo's dis­claiming it) was in full force and Authority. Card. Cusa­nus Concord. l. 2. c. 20. Ad An. 1088. Sigonius de Regno Ital. l. 7. Sigebert termeth the Pope absolving Subjects from their Oath of Al­legiance to their Princes, Novelty and Heresie. Otho the Emperour deposed Pope John, and assumed his antient right of Nomination to the Popedom. The Popes usurped [Page 109]Authority over the Emperour, was wrote against by Mcrsi­lius, Occam, Gerson, Dantes, Zabarella, Cusanus, Tostatus,Apud Bellar­min. de Con­cil. l. 1. c. 140. In Sent. lib. 4. dist. 12. art. 5. Part 3. qu. 83. Art. 1.Al­liaco, Antoninus and many others.

The Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass was unknown to Pope Lumbard, who saith, The Sacrament is called a Sacrifice, because it is the Memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Aquinas expresseth his sense after the same manner. The Celebration of this Sacrament is an image and representation of the passion of Christ, quae est vera im­molatio, which is a true Immolation or Sacrifice; and now its celebration dicitur, is called, the Immolation, immolatio, of Christ. In Can. Mis­sae Lect. 85. Loc. Treol. l. 12. c. 12. p. 660. Biblioth. l. 4. Concord. c. 131. Decret. part. 3. de Conse­crat. dist. 2. c. 48. Glossa in Grat. de Consecr. See Canon of the Mass, and Dr. Field in Append. Of the same judgement were Biel and Cornelius Muss, a Bishop of note in the Council of Trent, who (as Canus and Sixtus Senensis relate) openly denied, that Christ instituted any proper Sacrifice of himself when he celebrated his Supper. Jansenius acknowledgeth it can hardly be proved from Hoc facite, Do this, &c. Instead of many more who might be added, take the words of the Popes own Canon Law, set out by Gregory XIII. The sacramental Bread, suo modo vo­catur, after its manner is called the Body of Christ, when revera indeed, it is the Sacrament of Christs Body, and the immolation of his Flesh made by the Priest, is termed his Passion, death and crucifixion, non rei veritate, sed signifi­cante mysterio, not in the truth of the thing, but in a significant mystery. The Gloss upon it is still more plain. The Sacra­ment, in regard it truly representeth Christs Flesh, dicitur Christi corpus, sed impropriè, is called Christ's Body, but impro­perly. It is called Christs Body, that is, saith the Gloss, sig­nificat, it signifies it.

7 Communion in one kind. The Ordo Romanus, appointed the Wine allo to be consecrated, De Observ. Eccles. c. 19. In 4. Dist. 9. Prop. 6. Con­sult. Art. 22. In 4. Sent. qu. 11. Mem. 3. V. Tapperum apud Cas­sandr. de Com­mun. sub utraque specie, Ibid. qu. 31. that the people might fully communicate, saith Micrologus. Ovandus declares, as also Cassander, that it were better to grant the Cup to the people, which was earnestly desired by the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian, and under some good conditions permitted to the Bohemians. Halensis a famous Schoolman granteth, (con­trary to Bellarmine) that it ought to be received under both kinds, Which manner of receiving, saith he, Dominus tradidit, our [Page 110] Lord delivered, is majoris efficaciae, of more efficacy and per­fection, Totus Chri­stus non con­tinetur sub utraquespecie, 4. qu. 40. Aquin. in 6. Joann. Alph. de Castro adv. Haeres. lib. 6. Serm. de Quadragess. quoted by B. Juel. (as to Grace) than to receive one onely. Eccius, Salmeron, Lindanus, Valentia, Costerus, Bellarmine, Card. Bona, confess, that the Primitive Christians for many Ages, yea, say some, for above one thousand years after Christ, re­ceived the Sacrament in both kinds. The custome of re­ceiving in one kind, had its first Original from the Mani­chean Hereticks, as we learn from Pope Leo the Great. P. Gelasius decrees, That if they would not receive both, they should be excluded from both. Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, in his Book called the Devil's Sophistry, ascribes its first beginning to the private superstitious Devotion of some indiscreet persons. Others, as Costerus in Enchir. to the connivance or negligence of Church Governours. In the Mass-book it self, there are (as Dr. Field observes) some expressions which imply, In Append. in lib. 3. In Miss. de Sanct. that the people were recei­vers of both kinds: as particularly those words, Cibo potuque refecti, being refreshed with meat and drink, in a Prayer after the receiving the Communion. Again, Sacramenta quae sumpsimus, Domini, prosint nobis, &c. Let the Sacraments, Lord, we have received, be profitable to us. To these add those words: Quotquot sacrosanctum corpus & sanguinem Filii tui sumpseri­mus, V. Consult. p. 238. Art. 24. quoted by Cassander; As many of us as have received the body and bloud of thy Son. Gerardus Lorichius, and Ruardus Tapperus, are for the peoples receiving in both kinds. See Dr. Field's Appendix to his second Book, where are many clear Testimonies.

8 I had almost forgot Invocation of Saints. Bannes, 22. qu. 1. Art. 10. Conclus. 2. a late learned Schoolman agreeth with Protestants, that it hath no express grounds in Scripture. In like manner Eccius in Enchirid. c. 15. De Venerat. SS. Suarez in 3. Thomae qu. 3. disput. Lib. 1. de Eccles. trium, c. 6. 42. Salmeron in 1 Tim. cap. 2. disp. 8. Bellarmine himself, although to make a shew he alledg places out of the old Testament, granteth, that there was no Invocation of Saints before Christs Ascension, in regard the Saints were then in Limbo, and not admitted to the sight of God. The same is affirmed of the Saints under the New Testament by many of the most antient Fathers, V. Sixtum Senens. lib. 6. Annotat. 345. In 4. Sent. qu. 3. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Chry­sostome, to wit, that they shall not be admitted to the Vision beatifical till after the Resurrection; Occam. Scotus, lib. 4. [Page 111]dist. 45. qu. 4. Valentia with others deny, that the Saints departed, or Angels, see all things in Speculo Trinitatis, in God who seeth all things, but onely such as are essential to their happiness, Videt omnia qui videt vi­dentem omnia, Greg. M. In 2. Tom. 3. digres. 17. p. 118. In August. de Civil. Dei, l. 8. c. 27. and which he is pleased to represent to them. Claudius Espencaeus testifieth, that some old Folk trusted in the Saints, and ascribed no less to them than to God himself, and thought it easier to intreat or prevail with one of them for obtaining their requests and desires than him. Ludovicus Vives professeth he could discern no difference betwixt the worship of Saints practised in his time and the heathenish Parentalia. Wickliffe, apud Walden. Tom. 3 Tit. 12. the Albigenses and Waldenses rejected long before Luther Invocation of Saints. I shall close this Parti­cular with the words of Cassander a learned and ingenuous Papist; Cons. p. 154. — This false and pernicious Opinion is too well known to have prevailed among the Vulgar, while wicked men persevering in their naughtiness, are persuaded that onely by the intercession of the Saints, whom they have chosen to be their Patrons and worship with cold and pro­phane Ceremonies, they have Pardon and Grace prepared them with God: which pernicious Opinion hath been con­firmed in them with lying Miracles. And there is another Errour, that men not evil of themselves, Compare Sir Edwin. San­dys's Europae Speculum, pag. 56. Biel in Can. Missae, Lect. 30. saith as much. Solus Deus simpliciter orandus est. Sancti magis se tenent ex parte orantium, quam illius qui oratur Halens. qu. 92. Mem. 10. Art. 4. have chosen cer­tain Saints to be their Patrons and keepers, and put confi­dence in their Merits and Intercession more than in the Merits of Christ; so far, that the onely Office of Christs Intercession being obscured, they substituted into his place the Saints, and specially the Virgin his Mother, &c. Are not these things highly injurious to the honour of our bles­sed Saviour and Redeemer? Did they not call aloud for an effectual Reformation?

I might add several other Points of Doctrine, which, if they be not already by the Tridentine Decrees, may become Articles of Faith whensoever the Pope pleaseth.

The Popes Infallibility, To deny it, is sententia Hae­resi proxima, non proprie haeretica. De Infallib. Papae, l. 4. c. 1. V. Caranzam. Sess. 12.38.35. V. Alphons. de Castro adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 2. vid. cap. 4. Ibid. Stapleton Contr. 3. qu. 4. saith, it's no Point of Faith, but of Opinion only. Cusan. Con­cord. l. 1. c. 14. Canus loc. Com. l. 6. c. ult. Cajetan. de Authorit. Papae c. 26. Lib. 1. c. 4. Valent. Lib. 8. Analys. fidei, cap. 1. Pope Ha­drian in 4. de Sacram. Confirmat. sub finem. Canus Loc. l. 6. c. ult. p. 331. Valentia Analys. fidei, lib. 8. c. 3. & 4. V. Bellar. de Pontif. M. Waldensis Doctrin. sidei, l. 2. c. 19. Add Alph. de Castro, lib. 1. cap. 4. the Ground, Rock and foundation of all their Faith and Religion, is ferè, almost, saith Bellarmin, an Article of Faith, and but almost, which all prudent and considering men may well wonder at. Yet it is not only denied by the Council of Basil, who decree that it is de fide, a Point of Faith, that the Pope ought to be subject to a General Coun­cil, (in regard he may be, as Liberius, Zepherinus, Honorius, Anastasius and some other Popes were, a notorious Heretick and Schismatick) but strongly confuted by Occam qu. 1. de potestate Pontif. c. 9. Almain Quaest. in Vesp. de Autoritate Eccl. c. 10. Ovandus 4. Dist. 18. prop. 25. Coroll. 2. Nico­las Clemangis de corrupto Eccles. statu. Alvarus Pelagius de planctu Eccl. Contarenus Gerson, &c. Lyra in Matth. 16. Tur­recremata Summ. Eccl. l. 4. part 2. c. 16.20. with many more, grant the Pope may be a Heretick in his private person or judgment; yea, as Alphons. de Castro, Bozius, Tom. 2. de sign. Ec­cles. l. 18. c. ult. Bannes 22. qu. 1. Art. 10. acknowledge that he may be, not onely a Heretick himself, but impose by his Pontifical Authority in his Decrees Heresie on the whole Church. The truth is, there is need of an infallible Judge to determine where, or in whom the Roman In­fallibility resides. Some of them say, in the Pope alone; whether he maturely considers what he decrees, or no. Whe­ther the Premisses on which he builds his conclusion be pertinent or not, true or false. Some in the Pope, assisted with a General or Provincial Council. Some in a General Council without, yea, decreeing against the Pope. Some in the Universal Tradition of the Church. They have little reason then to upbraid Protestants with their difference of Opinion in lesser matters, seeing they differ amongst themselves in the fundamental Article and ground of all their Religion.

2. The Immaculate Conception of the blessed Virgin Mary. This is almost an Article of Faith amongst them; inso­much that no Divine can commence Doctor (as Salmeron [Page 113]reports) in the University of Paris, Orig. Hom. 17. in Lu­cam. Chrysost. Hom. 45. & 46. in Mat­thaeum. August. Quaest. vet. & novi Test. qu. 73. Theophylact. in 2. Lucae & Matth. 12. unless he swear to maintain it. Nevertheless, it is not onely contradicted by the Antient Fathers generally, but by the Elder School men, as Bannes, Part 1. in Tho. qu. art. 8. dub. 5. and Tur­recremata de Consecrat. dist. 4. num. 11. acknowledge. Lumbard lib. 3. Sent. dist 3. Aquinas summ. 3. part. qu. 27. art. 2. Ca­jeran opusc. Tom. 2. Tract. 1. de conceptione Virg. Bonaven­ture, Dist. 3. in Sent. 3. qu. 1. Art. 1. Capreolus, l. 3. dist. 3. to whom many more may be added, assirm the same.

3. That the Apocryphal Books are to be received as of equal Authority with the Canonical, is decreed and so made a point of Faith by the Council of Trent; yet it is evidently contradicted, not onely by the Laodicean Council, Ruffinus, Augustin. cont. Gauden­tium, l. 2 c. 23. See Field's Appendix to his third Book of the Church. Loc. lib. 2. c. 9. Biblioth. lib. 1. c. 19.Origen, Hierom, P. Gregory the Great and others; but by multitudes of their own modern Writers, as Cajetan, Lyra, Hugo, Sigonius, Occam, the ordinary Gloss, Waldensis, Anto­ninus, Tostatus, Carthusianus, Faber, Clichtoveus, Driedo, Fe­rus, with many more. Canus, even since the Council of Trents Decree, saith, It's no Heresie to reject the Book of Baruc, and Sixtus Senensis since that Council, denies the additions to the Book of Hester to be Canonical.

4. That we are justified by our own good Works, or in­herent Righteousness, and not by Faith onely, is decreed by the Trent Council as an Article of Catholick Faith; yet it is plainly contradicted, not onely by the Antient Fathers, Clem. Rom. Epist. ad Corinth. Justin Martyr ad Diognet. Ori­gen in cap. 3. ad Rom. Ambrose in Rom. c. 4. & 9. Basil de Humil. Theodoret de curand. Graec. affect. lib. 7. Chryso­stome in Galat. c. 3. Hesychius in Levit. l. 4. c. 3. with others; but by Aquinas in Galat. 3. lect. 4. in Rom. 3. lect. 4. Pighius de justific. Cardinal Contarenus. The Antirdidag. Coloniens. Anselm, apud Hosium. Tom. 1. Confess. Cathol. Bo­naventure 4. dist. 15. qu. 1. Jansenius Concordant. c. 20. p. 157. Gerson, lib. 4. de Consolat. Theolog. prosa 1.

5. That good Works merit Eternal life, is in like manner decreed by the Council of Trent. But Waldensis Sacramen­tal. Tit. 1. c. 7. saith, He is the better Catholick that simply denieth all Merit, and confesseth that Heaven is obtained by Grace onely. The like is affirmed by Ferus, lib. 3. Com. cap. 20. in Matthaeum. Stella in Lucam. c. 8. Ibid. c. [...]. Marsilius de [Page 114]gratuita justif.P. Adrian and Clitoveus apud Cassand. Consult. Art. 6.Faber Stapulensis in cap. 11. ad Roman. Pe­tavius the Jesuit, in effect denieth all Merits, which he saith, Dissert. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4. depend on Gods Grace and free Promise. Bellarmine after his long dispute about Justifica­tion by Works and Salvation by Merits, confates all he had said in these few words, De Justif. lib. c. 7. Tutissinum est, &c. It's the safest way, propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae, in regard of the un­certainty of our own righteousness (on which the certain knowledge that we have any Merits at all is grounded) and the danger of pride and vain glory, periculum inanis gloriae, to place our whole trust totam fiduciam, ☞ in Gods mercy onely, in solâ misericordia Dei. Can any Protestant say more in op­position to Merits and Justification, C. Contare­nus Epist. ad Card. Far­nesium. by our good own Works? Let our very Enemies be Judges. I might add Greg. Arimi­nens. 1. dist. 17. qu. 1. art. 2. Durand. 2. dist. 27. qu. 2. p. 400. Scotus lib. 1. c. 17. qu. 1. in solutione quaest.

6. See Brere­woods Enqui­ries, Ch. 26. Contaren. Instructio Christ. Rhemish Annotat. in 1 Cor. 14. Prayer in a Tongue not understood by the People, is de­fended and practised in the Roman Church; yet censured and disapproved by Cardinal Contarenus. Cajetan and A­quinas, in 1 Cor. 14. confess, it were better for Edification of the people for Prayer and other sacred Offices to be performed in the Vulgar Tongue. Of the same Judgment were Lyranus, in 1 Cor. 14. Cassander defensio officii pii viri cont. Calvin. p. 141. Haymo and Sedulius, in 1 Cor. 14. Biel in Can. Missae Lect. 62.

7. Auricular Confession, so severely urged by the Roman Church, is denied to be necessary by any Divine Law, by Peresius a Tridentine Bishop, de Tradit. part 3. consid. 3. — Petrus Oxoniensis apud Caranzam in Sixto. By Cajetan, Bona­venture, Rhenanus, Erasmus, with many others. It were easie, but I suppose needless, to add any Points more. These are sufficient to evince, that besides other Doctrines, some Articles of the present Roman Catholick Faith so decreed and made by the late Council of Trent, were never Univer­sally owned and received as such by the visible Catholick Church in all Ages, no not by all such as lived and died in the Communion of the Roman Church not long before Luther's time, but were openly opposed, contradicted and condemn'd by them.

What is already said is, as I conceive, a full and satisfa­ctory Answer to Roman Catholicks, demanding of us some Professors of our Religion before the Reformation: It being strange, if it be from the Apostles and have been in all Ages, that we can shew no Writings of some eminent Professors of it before the Reformation; For here we have produced the Writings of Eminent Professors of it, to wit, of the Prophets, Apostles, Holy Fathers, and many of their own modern most learned Writers. As to the Wri­tings of the Prophets and Apostles, many of their own Writers, Lindanus, Peresius, Soto, Andradius, &c. confess, Panopl. lib. 3. c. 5. De Tradit. Cont. Brent. l. 2. c 68. Orthodox. explic. 1. 2. Canus Loc. Tom. l. 3. c. 3. that all or most of their new Trent Articles of Faith, to wit, Seven Sacraments: Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indul­gences, &c. have little or no ground at all in Scripture, but are unwritten Verities depending on Tradition onely, to wit, of their Roman Church. We can shew what we be­lieve as necessary to Salvation from the Scripture; which they, as they confess, in many Points cannot. Yea, what soever we believe as Articles of Faith contained in the Primitive Creeds, they dare not deny. All our dispute is about Points either not at all to be found, at least with any convincing evidence, in the Bible; or plainly contradi­cted by it.

The Protestant Religion then is the true, antient, visible, Catholick and Apostolick Religion professed and taught by the Apostles, in and by their Writings; Iren. lib. 3. c. 1. Quod praeco­niaverunt, postea per Dei voiunta­tem in scri­pturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam sidei nostrae futurum. for what they first preached, they afterward by the will of God set down in their Writings, that so in them we might have a sure foun­dation to build our Faith upon, as Irenaeus saith. Father, we have produced also the Writings of the Antient Farthers, who lived in the Ages near the Apostles, and have made it evident, that they were either wholly ignorant of the new additional Articles of the present Roman Catholick Faith, or much doubted of them, or utterly condemned them. It's true, these Writers were not known by the name of Protestants, as some may object, and no more were they known by the name of Papists. But if they professed, as to be sure they did, that Doctrine or Religion onely, which is delivered and declared in their Writings; Who will deny that they were, although not nominally, yet really [Page 116]Protestants, and Professours of our Antient, not of their new-minted Roman Religion, made as to some parts of it, to wit, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, &c. and framed in late Councils, near twelve hundred years after the decease of the Apostles?

To their usual Question then, Where was the Protestant Church or Religion before Luther? I Answer, First, That it was there, where their whole Religion cannot, as they grant, be found; to wit, in the Holy Scriptures. Secondly, It was, Dr. White, sub Papatu, non Papatus. as Bishop Usher saith well, where their Church was, in the same place, though not in the same state and condi­tion. The Reformation or Protestantism did not make a new Faith or Church, but reduced things to the Primitive purity; Plucked not up the good Seed, the Catholick Faith or true Worship, but the after-sown Tares of Errour, as Image-worship, Purgatory, &c. which were ready to choak it. Did the Reformation in Hezekiah's or Josiah's days, set up a new Church or Religion different in essence from the old one? Had it not been a ridiculous impertinency for one that knew Naaman before, whilst he stood by to ask, where is Naaman? and being answered this is he; for the Enquirer to reply, it cannot be he, for Naaman was a Leper, this man is clean: Was not Naaman formerly a Leper, and now cleansed the same person? A Field of Wheat in part weeded, is the same it was as to ground and seed, not another. In like manner, the true visible Chri­stian Church cleansed and unclean, reformed and unre­formed is the same Church altered, not as to Essence or sub­stance, but quality or condition.

That the true Visible Church of God may be generally over-run with corruptions in Worship, Errours, yea Here­sies; we see not onely in the Jewish but Christian Churches of Corinth, Thyatira, &c. and all the Eastern Churches, yea almost the whole World in Athanasius his days, is so un­deniable a truth, Ad ann. 358. Totus mundus abiit post Pelagium. Bradwardin de causa Dei in praefat. that Baronius and others of our Adversaries are forced, as we have seen above, to grant it. Why should it then seem to them impossible or incredible, that the Church of God in the blind and unlearned Ages before Luther should in like manner be over-run with many pernicious Errours in Doctrine and corruptions in Worship: If so, [Page 117]as Nicolas Clemangis, Alvarus, Pelagius and others of their own Church confess and bewail; V. Caranzam de Conciliis, p. 786, 789. why might not the King of England, as well as Hezekiah or Josiah, redress these A­buses, and suppress these Errours in his own Dominions? Why might not other States and Princes do the same? espe­cially when Reformation of them by a free General Council, (not enslaved to the Popes will and pleasure) though pro­mised, could not be obtained. V. Concil. Pisanum Sess. 16. & 20. Was it necessary for fear of making a new Church or Religion, that the Church of God must for ever lie under those defilements and corruptions? If not, may not our Reformers justly say, What Evil have we done?

Not to be too tedious: This Question, Where was the Protestant Church in the Ages before Luther, ariseth from several mistakes: First, From want of distinguishing betwixt a true visible Church and a sound one. The Roman Church from which Luther and others received their Baptism and Ordination, We grant to be a part or member of the Catholick Church, but it was unsound and subject to many Diseases, i. e. corruptions in Doctrine, Worship and Disci­pline, which like ill humours endangered its very life. The Reformation wherein Luther with many more were instru­mental, was not Poison to destroy its Vitals, but purgative Physick to remove its distempers, and to preserve them. Secondly, It's a mistake, that they will not distinguish be­twixt the avowed and universally owned Doctrines of a Church, and the Opinions or practices of some few or many in it. In the Churches of Pergamus or Thyatira there were some, and possibly not a few, who held the Doctrine of Balaam, and were seduced by that wicked Jezabel, pre­tending to be a Prophetess and infallible; yet these Do­ctrines were not properly the Doctrines of those Churches, but of a party in them. The like we say of the Errours in the Church of Rome, that they were never universally owned and allowed, no not by many eminent Professours and Writers of her own Communion, as we have made evident. Thirdly, It's a great mistake when they demand that we shew the Protestant Religion and Church distinct and separate from the Catholick in all Ages, when we af­firm [Page 118]and prove, that not onely in the Apostles days, but for near five hundred years after, the true Apostolick Faith was, at least as to substance, kept pure and uncorrupt. Would they have us to shew Protestants protesting against the antient and Primitive Faith? As for their New Tri­dentine Articles of Faith, they were to be sure, not some of them then in being to be protested against. Fourthly, It's a gross mistake to think, that all who live in a true but corrupted Christian Church, are either bound to approve of those corruptions, or at all times necessary to separate actually and personally from the Church for their sake. See Bull a­gainst Can. This Protestants condemn in Donatists and Brownists or Se­paratists. The Errors and corruptions of the Roman Church were a long time growing in or upon her. The Tares were not seen as soon as they were sown, but after they were grown up. God forbid we should condemn to Hell all our Forefathers, that lived and died in the Communion of the Roman Church. In the Prophet Elijah's, Isaiah's, Jeremiah's days the true Visible Church of God was cor­rupted, both Princes, Priests and People severely reproved, yet the Prophets advised none to separate therefore from the Temple and Worship of God, although no doubt their mind was that all, as far as was possible, should keep them­selves free and undefiled from those prevalent corruptions. Likewise, our Blessed Saviour forsook not the Temple; and although he warned them to take heed of the leaven, i. e. false Doctrines, of the Scribes and Pharisees, yet in regard they sate in Moses his Chair, he commands the people to do as they said (i. e. according to the Law) and consequently to go and hear what they said. Much, very much, as Austin and other Fathers tell us, is to be born rather than to make a Schism in the Church of God. On this ground no doubt many of our Forefathers before the Reformation continued till death in the Communion of the Roman Church, that so they might enjoy the benefit of the Word and Sacraments; although they mourned for and groaned under the over­flowing predominancy of many Errors and superstitious Ob­servations in their days, heartily desiring, yea openly requi­ring a removal of them, but could not obtain it.

The Jesuit whom Dr. White answered acknowledgeth, that the Church is not actually seen at all times, Pag. 379. yet it may be discerned with prudent and diligent enquiry, in regard even in times of its greatest obscurity or persecution there were always some Eminent and known Members of it. He ands, although it have not always an outward and illustrious Estate, and cannot, where persecution rageth, practise pub­lickly the Rites of Divine Worship, yet the Church never did or shall want an inward Estate or subordination to Pastors, &c. If this be, as he grants, sufficient to make good the perpetual visibility of the Church, we can easily evince the Visibility of the Protestant Church and Reli­gion under Papal persecutions from the Writings of those times, as the Reader may in part discern from what we have collected. But in regard they so vehemently urge us to shew some Professours of the Protestant Religion divi­ded and separated from the Roman Church, we (though it be no way necessary, as we have seen above) mention the Wicklevists, Lollards, Bohemians, Waldenses, See Bishop Ʋsher, de success. Eccl. and Albi­genses, who were vastly numerous and had Pastors of their own, resisting Popery even unto bloud. Onely I must mind our Adversaries, these persons were rather fugati, vio­lently driven out of the Roman Church by Excommunica­tions armed with Fire and Sword, than fugitivi, fugitives or voluntary Separatists. As for their condemning them as Hereticks, it signifies little or nothing, for that's the mat­ter in question, and seeing the Pope and Court of Rome, as Saint Bernard, Pope Adrian, Bernard de Concil. Adri. in lega­tione ad Prin­cipes Ger­maniae. Polycrat. lib. 6. cap. 24.Sarisberiensis and others ac­knowledge, were in those days charged as the source and original cause of all disorders and abuses in the Church, it's most unreasonable their known Enemies should be admit­ted as their Judges in their own cause. The truth is, some of the Popish Writers of those days have accused Wickcliffe, the Waldenses and Albigenses of such inconsisting, horrid and self-contradicting Opinions, Ʋsher de Success Eccl. that no ingenuous and impartial man can possibly believe any thing they say of them. I verily think their great fault or Heresie was, that they were victus populus Dei, as they said, conquered, quelled and subdued by force of Arms, not Arguments: [Page 120]So were the Catholicks under the Heathen and Arian per­secuting Emperours. Certainly no prudent Christian will take Prosperity, Victory, outward Pomp and Power to be certain notes or perpetual properties of the true Church and right Believers: nay Adversity and persecution rather, as our Saviour intimates, when he assures his Apostles, they should be hated of all men for his Names sake, and that the time would soon come, when whosoever killed them should think, (as the Crusadoes and their Military Saint Dominic no doubt thought) they did God service. It's sufficient to our present purpose, that we shew some who held with us against the present Doctrine of the Pa­pacy.

But here I expect their usual Objection: That many of the Writers and Persons we alledg did not in all things agree with the Protestants, though in some particulars they consented.

True, no more did they in all things agree with the present Roman Church. If some who believed not the Popes Supremacy, the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, Merits, Purgatory, &c. were yet Members as of the Ca­tholick, so Roman Church and were saved (which I sup­pose no Papist will deny:) Why are we Protestants con­demn'd as Hereticks to Hell for believing as some of their Infallible Popes, and Canonized Saints have done? I challenge any Papist to shew me one National or Pro­vincial Church (I might go farther) in the whole World, that for at least twelve hundred years after Christ, did in all points believe as the Trent Council have decreed; or professed that Catholick Religion, which Pope Pius hath summ'd up in his Creed: We may ask them, Where was your Tridentine Faith and Church before Luther? Was Pope Leo the Great for receiving the Communion in one kind? Was Pope Gregory the Great for worshipping of Images, or for that proud, profane, Antichristian and foolish name (as he calls it) of Universal Bishop? Were Cyprian, Saint Austin, the Council of Chalcedon, the Affri­can Bishops for Appeals to the Bishop of Rome, and sub­jecting all Churches to the Popes Universal jurisdiction? [Page 113]Were these Tridentine Papists? Was P. Gelasius for Tran­substantiation? Were they in all things agreeing with our present Roman Catholicks? Who hath so hard a forehead as to affirm it, or so soft a head as to believe it?

I shall onely add, That it is no wonder, if many good Men and learned did not at once see and discover in an Age wherein Ignorance and Superstition abounded, all these Errours, Abuses, and corruptions which infected the Church of God, but did in some things, not altogether so gross and palpably wicked as others, errare errorem seculi. follow the current of the times.

To end, I hope Sir, by what hath been said, you plainly perceive that those Doctrines and Practices Protestants have rejected, were never any part of the true, Primitive and Catholick Faith contained in the Scriptures or the Writings of the Antient Fathers and Councils. Yea, that in the later, and as is confessed, worst Ages of the Church, were never received and visibly professed by all true Catholicks, whether of the Grecian or Roman Communion. See Brere­woods En­quiries. The most and best that can be said, is, that at first some of them were the private Sentiments, and doubtful Opinions of some Worthy Men; as Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, &c. in the fourth or fifth Century: Which after many Ages by the Policy and Power of the Pope and his Party were obtruded by the Councils of Lateran, Constance, Florence, Trent, &c. as Articles of Faith, on this Western part of the World, but not without visible opposition and open con­tradiction. I have shewn how multitudes of learned and pious Men did complain of them, and write against them; and others, as the Waldenses and Albigenses, forced by vio­lence, and persecution separated themselves, (as the Ortho­dox Christians did under the prevalence of the Arians) actually and personally from them, besides others who cor­dially, yet for fear of persecution more privately and se­cretly, i. e. in some sense or degree invisibly renounced and detested them.

I shall here add, that indeed this is more than we are in reason bound to shew; for it was sufficient to prove the perpetual existence or visibility of the Catholick Church, [Page 122]and to denominate the Roman a true, though corrupt, part or member of it, V. Augustin. de Baptismo contra Dona­tist. l. 1. c. 8. & 10. B. Ʋsher's Serm. before King James of the Unity of Faith. that she professed the fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Apostolick, Nicene, Atha­nasian Creeds, although she superadded, as Hay and Stubble thereunto many additional or traditional Points and erro­neous practices, whereby consequentially the foundation of Faith was much shaken and undermined; yet so, as some amongst them not erring wilfully, upon a general repen­tance might be saved, yet so as by fire, i. e. with much dan­ger and difficulty. However, undeniable it is, that many Eminent Writers and Professors in the Ages before Luther never owned them as Theological truths, much less Articles of Faith, but visibly, openly and couragiously resisted them, even unto bloud. These, and not the Popish domineering Party (termed by some the Court rather than the Church of Rome) were, August. E­pist. ad Vin­cent. as the persecuted Catholicks under Liberius and the Arian Emperours, in the strict and most proper sense the true, visible, Catholick Church, which remained discernible, though more obscurely, in firmissimis suis mem­bris, as Saint Austin speaketh, in these her most firm and in­vincible members. Others who maintained, promoted and tyranically imposed these Errours as points of Faith, were in respect of these introduced corruptions like an impostu­mated Wen, growing by little and little on the body of the Church, or like a Gangrene, or Leprosie spreading it self by degrees over it; the cutting of this Wen, the curing this Gangrene, the cleansing and removing this Leprosie, our Adversaries most unreasonably and absurdly condemn, as destroying the antient Catholick Faith and setting up a new Church under the Banner of Luther; which we detest and abhor. Contrarily we, not they, contend earnestly for the antient true Catholick Faith once and once for all, deliver­ed to the Saints, in opposition to their late subintroduced Novelties of Transubstantiation, Image-worship, Purgato­ry, &c. which, as we see by Pope Pius his new Creed, they will needs add as Articles of the Antient, Primitive and Catholick Faith, to the Nicene Creed, necessarily to be be­lieved and professed by all Christians under peril of Heresie and Damnation. If the Pope and Church of Rome may [Page 123]make as many Articles of Faith as they please; surely in time we may have a Creed as large as Aquinas his Sum. I shall only add my earnest Prayer, that God would enlighten you with his Holy Spirit that you may see the truth, and renouncing all secular ends and private interests, cordially embrace it, Theodoret de curand. Grae­cor. affect. Serm. 1. in regard (as an Antient Father long since said,) It becometh not wise Men rashly to give up them­selves to their Fathers Customs, but to endeavour to find out the Truth. Amen.