A Brief EXAMINATION Of the present Roman Catholic Faith; Contained in Pope PIUS HIS New Creed, BY The Scriptures, Ancient Fathers and their own Modern Writers, in Answer to a Letter, desiring satisfaction concerning the Visibility of the Protestant Church and Religion in all Ages, especially before Luther's time.  
Imprimatur.  
Octob. 26. 1688.  
Guil. Needham.  
London, Printed for James Adamson, at the Angel and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1689.   

Pope Pius his CREED, OR THE Profession of the Roman Catholic Faith.  

V Bullam Pii 4. super forma professionis fidei, sub finem Concilii Tridentini.  THAT the Profession of one and the same Faith may be uniformly exhibited to all, and its certain form may be known to all; we have caused it to be published, strictly commanding that the Profession of Faith be made after this form and no other. I N. do with firm Faith believe and profess all and singular things contained in the Creeds (to wit, Nicene, etc.) which the Roman Church useth; namely, I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible, etc. The Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other observances and Constitutions of that Church I firmly admit and embrace.— I do also confess, that there be truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, Extreme Unction, Orders, Marriage, etc. And that they confer Grace. All things which concerning Original Sin and Justification were defined in the 4th Council of Trent I embrace and receive. Also I confess, that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead; and that in the Holy Eucharist is truly, really and substantially the body and blood of our Lord, and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into his Body, and of the Wine into his Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calleth Transubstantiation. I confess also, that under one kind only all and whole Christ, and the true Sacrament is received. I do constantly hold there is a Purgatory, and the Souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful. And likewise, that the Saints reigning with Christ, are to be worshipped and prayed to— and that their Relics are to be worshipped. And most firmly I avouch, that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God and other Saints, are to be had and retained, and that to them due honour and veneration is to be given. Also, that the power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church; and I affirm the use thereof to be most wholesome to Christ's people. That the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches. I acknowledge, and I vow and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. And all other things likewise do I undoubtingly receive and confess which are delivered, defined and declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils; and especially the Holy Council of Trent. And withal, I condemn and accurse all things that are contrary hereunto,— and that I will be careful this true Catholic Faith, out of the which no man can be saved, which at this time I willingly profess, be constantly (with God's help) retained and confessed whole and inviolate to the last gasp, and by those that are under me— holden, taught and preached to the uttermost of my power, I the said N. promise, vow and swear. So God me help, and his Holy Gospels.   

A Brief EXAMINATION OF THE Present Roman Catholic Faith, etc.  
SIR,  
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.  

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 discernible by all Christians, much less Heathens, is a truth so manifest, that our Adversaries themselves grant it; as I shall show afterward. That the Catholic Church was ever wholly rooted out by Heresy 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 , Apol. p. 7. 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 knowledge and preaching of the Gospel. Let Bishop  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 yourself 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 Leprosy 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. Leprosy is not a distinct Body, but a Disease cleaving to it. In like manner, Popery is not of itself 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 introduced of late by the Popes and their adherents, to be any part of the true ancient Christian Catholic Faith, by which our Ancestors were saved, any more than Leprosy is any part of a Man. Secondly, he denyeth that there is always 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 men's 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 overrun 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 Church's 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 Emperor, 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 overborn by the predominant Party then bearing rule, who could not endure to hear of Reformation, tho much desired by many true Catholics, 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 Catholic (which I have not now by me) saith, That during the space of 900 years there was no Church Visible besides the Roman Catholic 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 Ancient Fathers and Martyrs, should first appear in the World, when Luther and Zuinglius began to preach. For my part I utterly renounce that Gospel, Faith, and Church, of which Luther, Zuinglius, or any mere mortal man, though pretending to be Infallible, is the Author and Founder. Did not I believe the Doctrine generally owned by the Protestants, to be grounded in the Scriptures and the concurrent sense of the Ancient Fathers, I could not satisfy 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 reform 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 ancient purity of Doctrine and simplicity of Devotion, although there still remained a true Church as to essentials.  

The Question concerning the Visibility of the Church stated.  BUT that we may not beat the air, I shall first of all inquire 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 always equally Visible. They acknowledge 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.  though 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 living at all times; for saith he, 

Ecclesia aliquando obscuratur & tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum, etc. 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 always, 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 always alike famous and illustrious, especially so as to shine actually through the whole World. I will add the Words of another learned Jesuit, Greg. de Valentiâ. When we say the Church is always 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 falsehood of Arrians bore 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 always 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, etc. Is a Light or City on a hill only discernible by a few discreet quicksighted persons? Is this the Visibility they so much contend for? Well, it's here granted us, that the Church is not always easily visible or discernible to all, but only to a few discreet Persons. If this will satisfy them, we shall readily grant, that the Protestant Church under the Persecution and Errors of the Papacy was not easily discernible, 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 discerned even in the next Ages before Luther, not only in the Waldenses, Wicklevists, Albigenses, and Bohemians, (how odious and contemptible soever they are rendered to the ignorant and unskilful by their Adversaries) but many other eminent Professors and Writers of their own Church, by such as can discreetly judge 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 easy 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  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 Heretics.  
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 overspreading Error, as under the Heathen Emperors, and in the prevalency of the Arian Heresy, 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, the whole World? Would they have taken those few for the true Catholic 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 Heretic 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 writ that he subscribed to the Heresy of the Arians, and yet Bellarmine and other of their Writers, make it an essential qualification of a Catholic 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 Heresy himself. I would gladly know which Company was at that time the true Church, whether they that joined 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 Emperor Constantius, and the intercession of the Arian Bishops, Liberius was upon his subscription restored to his Bishopric, many Clergymen chose rather to suffer death, than to join in Communion with him; whom they themselves account Martyrs, or at least dare not condemn as damnable Heretics and Schismatics; 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, etc. Imò verò haec in illa ipsa congregatione hominum inesse, quae vera est Ecclesia, non nisi obscurâ fide credimus, etc. 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 itself, who are indeed the true Church. Is not this the Protestants Invisible Church? Who sometimes say that it is one thing to see that which is the Church, viz. the Persons publicly 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 baptised into the Name of Christ, meeting together in Churches to serve him, to read, pray, receive the Sacraments, as the Arians and other Heretics 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, though more privately, are the only true Church, to which I am bound under pain of Damnation to join myself? 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 humours 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 saved 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 unlearned, must by an implicit 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, than 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 discernible to all, even the most ignorant and weak-sighted, like a City set on an Hill, etc. 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 determined and pronounced all are bound the necessitate salutis to submit. 
Subesse Rom. Pont. omni humanae creaturae declaramus, definimus & pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. Extravagant. de major. & obed. Vnam 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 solicitous what becomes of them) is that they so earnestly contend for. Their great Champion Bellarmine well perceived 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.  

Arguments against the Church's being always conspicuous or easily discernible.  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, although God assures him he had reserved 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 Catholic or Universal Church.  
In the time of our Saviour the chief Priests with the consent of the generality of the people condemned and crucified 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, etc. 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 havoc 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 Catholic or particular Roman Church? Surely had not the Church of Rome herself, as well as other Christian Churches been in a great degree invisible as to the knowledge of the Roman Emperor 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 wondered how it became Arian. When the Catholic Bishops were banished 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 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, etc. 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 Catholic 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 distinguished, 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? 
Paviò 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 public 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.  

Texts alleged for Visibility (as meant by the Papists) answered.  I now come to examine the places of Scripture mentioned in your Letter to evince the contrary.  
The first and principal urged 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 Candle to put it under a Bushel, etc. 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 fulfilled 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 denied, yea our Adversaries grant it, that this light of Apostolic doctrine in the Church may be obscured or eclipsed by error, 
Aug. Epist: ad Vincentium supra.  scandal and persecumay be obscured or eclipsed by error, scandal and persecution, as the Sun and Moon sometimes are, though they be glorious and most visible lights.  
In like manner a City set on an Hill may be so clouded by foggy mists and vapours 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 men's 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 removed 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 grossly affirm, more visible and discernible to all men than the light itself (viz. of the Gospel contained in the Scripture) placed 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 though 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 condemned 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 Catholic 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 Governors 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 scattered, the Church dissipated and all Church-discipline interrupted) tell the Church, or make complaint to the Governors of it, when they scarcely knew where they were, to whom in case of offence and scandal to make complaint. Our Saviour's Precept than supposes the free exercise of Church-government, which in times of violent persecution cannot be exercised 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 Hermit, and others confess, that when Antichrist cometh all Ecclesiastical Order and public service of God shall be buried, the Church-doors destroyed, the Altars forsaken, the Church empty, etc. 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 forced to hid itself and all Ecclesiastical Order is suppressed and dissolved 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 falsely affirmed as I shall show afterward, unless such as professed the Religion of the Scriptures, Ancient Fathers and Councils, protesting against some new Roman additional Articles, imposed 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, etc. 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 count. 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 delivered by the Scripture, to which, as St. Hierom and St. Chrysostom acknowledge, we ought, especially in times of Heresy 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 expressly confute our Adversaries, who affirm that the Gospel as revealed by the Scripture is dark, obscure and invisible to the Laity, that so they may hang their faith by a blind and implicit obedience on the visibility and infallible Authority of their Church or Popes, who may be, as some of them have been, notorious and manifest Heretics? So that these words of St. Paul can do them no service.  

The Fathers alleged for the Roman visibility considered.  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 extinguished than the Church to be darkened; 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 obscured or darkened; as it undeniably was under the Heathen and Arian Emperors, in times of prevailing Heresy 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 darkened, and saith, the Tyrants are gone and perished, but the Church remaineth unconquered.  
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 obscured 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 obscured that the members thereof shall not know one another.  
This arguing then from the State of the Church of old in St. Augustine's days is just like theirs who would persuade us, that the Church of Rome is now the only true Catholic and Apostolic 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 apostatise 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 highminded but fear, for if God spared 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 registered in the Catalogue of the Roman Bishops.  

Concerning the Papists demanding the Names of such as professed the Protestant Religion before the Reformation.  As for the second Question, wherein satisfaction is desired, to answer Roman Catholics, 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 show no Writings of some eminent Professors of it as well before the Reformation as many now since. To this I reply first, That although the Apostles were not called by the name of Protestants, as neither were they by the name of Catholics or Papists, yet they were really of that Religion Protestants do profess; for from the Apostles and their Writings have we learned the Religion we maintain against additional Popish Errors, and traditional or unwritten points of Faith. Such as these reckoned up by Pope Pius as Articles of the Roman Catholic Faith, which all Papists must swear to profess as necessary to salvation. That there are seven Sacraments properly so called, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints and Angels, Worshipping Images and Relics, Indulgences, the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over all Christian Churches, Real and proper Sacrificing of Christ in the Mass, Communion in one kind, etc. All which are either not mentioned in the Apostles Writings, or contradicted and condemned 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 abovementioned of Pope Pius his Faith, but either say nothing of them, or testify against them, or at least speak doubtfully of them; whence I conclude that they were of the Protestant, not Popish, Religion. This I shall show from their Writings. Yea, thirdly, That some of the New Articles of Faith before named cannot be proved to be any part of the ancient Catholic 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 rehearsed, condemned 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 mentioned at all in the Apostles Writings, or refuted and condemned by them.  

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, Extreme Unction, Confirmation, Confession are such, and, as Bellarmin affirms, 
Nec plura, nec pauciora. De Sacram. lib. 2. c. 24. Chrysost. Ambros. Austin, etc.  only such. Baptism and the Holy Eucharist we own, flowing, as the ancient Fathers speak, out of Christ's side, whence came forth Water and Blood; 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, termeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ephes. 5.32.  a great Mystery. The vulgar Latin 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 called have and must have, as is granted. The forgiveness of sins was by Prayer to God, not Oil, ver. 15.  

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 Christ's 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 administered 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 expressly declares the contrary, for he calleth it Bread and Wine even after consecration. The Bread that we break (but Christ first blessed and afterwards broke it) is it not the communion of the Body of Christ? The Cup of Blessing we bless, is it not the communion of the blood 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 called 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 termed his Blood or the New Testament and Covenant in his Blood, as the Lamb was called 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 man will interpret in a literal, proper and substantial, but in a Sacramental, symbolical or typical sense.  

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 confessed 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 inferior 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 Purge 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 man's 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 urged by * Saint Augustine. The fire St. Paul mentioneth shall try every man's work. The fire of Purgatory, as they themselves grant, tryeth not every man's 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 men's 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 punished. 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 men's 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 judgement of Christ at the last day. The day shall declare it. Then indeed our Saviour like a Goldsmith or Refiner shall exactly try every man's work, etc. 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.  

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, etc. When ye pray say, Our Father, etc. In the Old Testament Bellarmine grants, there is no mention of Invocation of Saints, because the Patriarches, Prophets and Saints were in Limbo, not admitted to see God; of which opinion as to Christians, were many of the ancient Fathers, although 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 expressly condemns worshipping 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, 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 assured 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 reserved to God our Sovereign only. See thou do it not (as the Angel said to St. John who would have worshipped 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. utinam velletis ipsos colere, facile abipsis disceretis non ●●los celere. Audite Angelum. doctorem etc. August. in Psalm 96. V Psalterium B. Virgins apud Chemnitium in Exam. Concilii Trident. See Bishop Andrews his Posthuma against Cardinal Perren. Doctor Brevint, etc.  They who are for worshipping Angels, Why do they not, as St. Augustin saith, harken 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 used 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.  
Fifthly, the Scripture no where commends to us or commands worshipping of any Images, 

Nor the worshipping 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 expresly forbids it. No Precept nor Example can be found of any Prophet or Apostle that required or practised it. The second Commandment, most suspiciously, if not consciously, thrust up into the first by Popish Catechisms, is clearly against it, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, nor (which is more comprehensive) the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth, etc. thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them, etc. Now, what things are in Heaven? God, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, Angels and glorified 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 worshipped, certainly that of God might. But God himself expressly forbids it, Deut. 4.15, 16. for saith he, When I came down from Mount Sinai, ye saw no manner of similitude, etc. take heed therefore lest you corrupt yourselves by making any graven or molten Image, and likeness, etc. Hence some, even of the Roman Church, condemn the making of any image of God. How highly was God incensed against the Jews for making and worshipping the golden Calf, which yet was, though not a formal Image, an Emblem or memorial of the true God? Hence the Feast was proclaimed to be kept at least ultimately and intentionally, as Papists use to distinguish, Johovae, to the honour of Jehovah. Can 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 called 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 Effigy. Make us Gods (or a God) to go before us. Yet St. Paul expressly 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, etc. 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 considered, is. Now it's the known doctrine of Aquinas, Azorius, and the Jesuits, that the very same honour, latria, which belongs to God or 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 remembered that God, especially in this particular of worshipping Images, hath declared 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.  

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 show 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 called to be inflicted by God for them, wholly and only to the blood, merits and satisfaction of Christ our Saviour and Redeemer, who is highly dishonoured 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 satisfy, at least in part, for men's 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 crucified or suffered 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, and yet earnestly contend that by the Papal Indulgence the merits, fastings, and prayers of Saints, Monks and Friars may be imputed or made over to any that will be at the cost to purchase it.  

Nor the Pope's Supremacy.  Seventhly, As to the Pope's Supremacy over all Christians and Churches, although a great noise is made with Thou art Peter, etc. and to thee will I give the Keys, etc. Certainly, 

Card. Cusanus concordant. lib. 3. cap. 13. Marsilius' defence. part. 2. cap. 18.  
Licèt fortè non sit de jure divino Rom. Pontif. ut talem Petro succedere, etc. 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, although his Apostles were often disputing who should be chief amongst them, never declared 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, etc.  
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, although he was Novissimus Apostolorum the last Apostle called 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 laboured more than they all, and had on him the care of all the Churches. 
2 Cor. 11.28.  Can we think he would have presumed 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. Doctrine. Princip. lib. 6. c. 7.  Peter as his Vicegerent to be the Head, Sovereign Prince and supreme Governor of all the Apostles, Churches and Christians? Nay farther, it is clear from Gal. 1.12, 17.18. That St. Paul neither received 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 Jounian. Compare Origen. in Matth. 16. Ephes. 2.20.   and executed his Apostolic Office three years before he ever saw St. Peter's face. Which is furthermore evident and undeniable from Gal. 2.9. That James is placed 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 inferior, 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, etc. it is to be observed 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 show 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 Cornerstone. It is not therefore true 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 ago 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, etc. 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, etc. Here the Keys promised to Peter are given not only 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 only as Universal Pastor and Head of it; for to feed Christ's sheep is to teach them with the word of life; and this is charged 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, etc. Go ye therefore teach all Nations, etc. Yea, this duty of Feeding, as also Ruling, implied, as some think, in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a Duty incumbent on all inferior 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 Christ's 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 Apostolic Power in plenitudinem potestatis, it no way follows that he is or can be Supreme Head of the Universal Church. Other Apostles in their Apostolic Churches planted by them being as to Ecclesiastical Power not at all inferior 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 Emperor, we deny it not; but this Preeminency, as the General Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon declare, was given by the Ancient 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 Controversy, 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 yourselves, etc. whether to the King as supreme, etc. If St. Peter acknowledge not himself, but the King, to be Supreme, methinks it should ill become his Successors to deny Kings to be supreme over them. But possibly it will be said, St. Peter meant this supremacy only 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 Clergymen 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 murder them. Is this to acknowledge the King supreme? Peter did but draw his sword to rescue Christ the Son of God from the hands of Murderers, 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 though an Heathen, and ought they not much rather than 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, though 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, aught 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 expressly charge Children to be obedient to their Parents, Servants to their Masters, though 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 than 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 supreme Governors.  

Nor the Sacrifice in the Mass.  Eighthly, Concerning a real and proper Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass or Holy Eucharist, it is expressly 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 than men properly can die no more than once, so Christ can be properly sacrificed no more but once. 'Tis St. Paul's own argument. In the Mass therefore Christ is not properly sacrificed. Mark what an absurdity in the Apostles judgement would follow thereupon. If Christ should be offered by himself, or others often, more than once, 
ver. 26.  then must he have often suffered. But Christ hath suffered once and cannot suffer again. Therefore he is not offered 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 sacrificed in the Mass, he must necessarily suffer death a thousand times over; for sacrificing any living thing, 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, than Christ is not there properly sacrificed; if they should attempt it, the thing is impossible; for Christ, being now impassable and in a glorified State, can die no more, as we read, Rom. 6.9. When then they distinguish of sacrificing Christ in a bloody and unbloudy manner, and say they offer up and sacrifice him incruentè, without bloodshed, 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 blood is killing of what is sacrificed, for without shedding of blood there is no remission.  
If by their sacrificing Christ in the Mass they meant only a representation to God or men of Christ's bloody sacrifice of the Cross, or a commemoration of his death, termed, 1 Cor. 11.26. a showing 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 Blood, really, corporally, and carnally as it was on the Cross, is quite another.  
As for Bellarmin's Reply, that Christ is sacrificed 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 killed in the Mass, it signifies nothing. For I ask, Is the likeness of Bread only offered up to God as a propitiatory Sacrifice, or Christ himself, his Body and Blood, 
Bellarmine placeth the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Priest's 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 only, 'tis blasphemous to make it a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. If Christ himself, who is a living Person, be truly and properly sacrificed, he must be truly and properly slain.  
As for their usual pretence that Masses apply to us the Virtue and Merits of Christ's Passion: I answer, That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is abundantly sufficient thereunto, 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 Blood of Christ? And what is the Communion or communication of Christ's Body and Blood 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 Christ's sacrifice of himself on the Cross is altogether unnecessary.  

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 Blood, 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, etc. 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 show forth (as is your duty to do and which otherwise you do not) the Lord's 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 acknowledged to be) to abrogate his Lord's Instituion and Command? How dare any Christian divide asunder what Christ and Saint Paul have joined together? The receiving the Cup is as necessary to any Christian, Clerick or Laic, 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 framed, altered and modelled 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 unprejudiced Person that the 9 Articles abovementioned, which Pope Pius not 200 years ago added to the old Nicene Creed, as parts of the true Catholic Apostolic 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 delivered 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 Prophesying, 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 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 edified 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 edified 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 judgement 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 bestowed 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 only, 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 expressly condemns Prayers in an unknown Tongue 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.  

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 Heretics, i.e. Protestant's? Did Saint Paul writ his Epistles to the learned or Clergy only at Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, etc. 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 only 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, etc. 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 only unlearned men wrist the Scriptures? We know the old Heretics, as Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, etc. were neither unlearned nor Laics. 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 governed by the late Policies of men, but by the Laws of Christ and the example of the Primitive Church; who although many damnable Heresies arose in those Ages, 
Cyril. contra Julian. lib. 6.  and were colourably maintained 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 forbade any man to read the Scripture, but exhorted and encouraged 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 Christ's 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 judgement 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 sense of Antiquity concerning the Points in Dispute.  The second thing I am obliged to show, is, That the Points abovementioned are no parts of the true ancient Catholic Faith, or were so esteemed by the holy Fathers and Councils for at least 4 or 500 years after Christ, but rather condemned and rejected by them.  
Art 1 
Concerning the seven Sacraments.  I will begin with the Doctrine of the seven Sacraments. The ancient 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 only, 

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 public 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 Blood that came out of our Saviour's side, signified the Sacraments of the Church, viz. the Water, Baptism, and the Blood, 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, etc. Sacraments; but then they use the word in a more large sense, as when they call the Doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. Sacraments, i. e. Mysteries. Our Saviour's washing his Disciples feet, the sign of the Cross; yea Polygamy are sometimes honoured by Cyprian, Augustin, Bernard, with the name of Sacraments, i. e. sacred or mystical Signs; In which sense there may be not only 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 turned into the very substance of the Body and Blood 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 administered to all.  
Justin Martyr calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration, and saith, our flesh and blood 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 nourished by some substance. He addeth a little after, that the Deacon useth to carry to the sick Bread and Wine to be received 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 Blood. 
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 condemned 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 Blood of Christ.  
Tertullian disputing against Martion, who held that Christ had not a real but fantastic body only, (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 Martion lib. 1. c. 14. Repraesentat corpus suum pane. Ad Martion. lib. 4. c. 4. Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est figura corporis mei. V lib. 3. in Martion. c. 19 corporis sui figuram pani dedisse.  saying, This is my Body, i.e. the figure of my Body. So Tertullian understood it. Martion 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 appeared to to be a true humane Body, but was not really what it seemed.  
Origen in his third Dialogue against Martion 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 Symbolicoque 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, etc. Occidet haec litera, this letter or literal sense will kill ye. And in another place he is not afraid 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 Christ's 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 only in the holy Eucharist, 
Epist. 63. Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur.  argueth in this manner, Where there is no Wine in the Cup, the blood of Christ cannot be expressed, for we see the blood to be shown, (ostendi) in the Wine. And in his Comment upon the Lord's 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 create & corpus suum sanctificat. De coena Dom.  Who continually, even to this present day, doth create, sanctify 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 verbs Apost. Serm. 2. Tom. 10. spiritualiter intelligenda sunt, nisi manducaveritis carnem, etc. Aug. Tract. 27. in Joan. ubi plura.  that we might learn that the words he spoke 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 spoke 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 Jerusalem saith under the Type, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Bread, 
Mystagog. lib. 4. where he granteth that in John 6, etc. Except ye eat, is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritually.  Christ's Body is given thee, and under the Type of Wine, his Blood.  
Nazianzen termeth the Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antitypes of Christ's Body and Blood. 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 sanctified it, 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 transformed 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 Doctrine 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 sanctified, we call it Bread; but the divine Grace sanctifying it, we call it the Lords Body, although 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 only the Mystery of his Body is contained, etc. 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 carcase is, there will the Eagles be gathered together. The Lord is the Carcase because of his death, and this is a Table for mounting Eagles, not for prattling 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, etc. adds, As ye have received the similitude of my death, so drink also the similitude of my precious blood. This oblation is the figure of the Body and Blood of the Lord. In another place, Christ is touched 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 ment continge, cordis manu suscipe.  in the institution of the Eucharist changed 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 appertained to his body, which he did, that such as partake of the divine Mysteries should not be attended 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 Blood, not changing their Nature, 
Dial. 1.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but adding Grace to Nature. And when the Eutychian Heretic would hence draw an argument, that as the signs of Christ's Body and Blood are one thing before Consecration, another after it; so our Lord's body after its Union to his divine Person ceased to be in substance what it appeared, and was changed 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 only 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 lived 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 Christ's body and blood 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 blood of Christ in the sacramental participation is celebrated. 
Tamen non definit esse substantia vel Natura panis & vini Imago & similitudo, etc. 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 Blood, 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 Incarnation whose Virtue they represent, show one whole true Christ consisting of two Natures properly remaining. 
The same is affirmed by the Patriarch Ephraim, in Photii Bibliotheca Cod. 229.   
I purposely conclude with Saint Augustin, 
Tract. 25. in Joan. Basil in Psal. 33. saith the same. Lib. 3. de Doctrine. 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, delivered 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, etc. Figura est ergo, It is therefore, saith he, a figure, requiring us to communicate in Christ's Passion sweetly, and profitably, remembering that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. The same is affirmed by Cyprian de coena Domini, As often as we do this in remembrance of him we whet not our teeth to by't, 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.  
Secondly, He expressly affirmeth that wicked men in the Sacrament do not eat Christ's body or drink his blood. 
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 blood dwelleth in me; whence he that dwelleth not in Christ, (proculdubio) questionless neither eats nor drinks spiritually, although he carnally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood; 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. 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 blood, although 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, etc. 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 Heretics do not eat the body or drink the blood of Christ in the Sacrament, because than they should have everlasting life.  
Thirdly, Saint Augustin expressly affirmeth, 
In signis diversis cadem fides. Aug. Tract. 45. in Joan. ubi plura legas. Lib. 20. count Faustum, c. 21.  that our Fathers the Patriarches 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 followed 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.  
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, etc.  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 , 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 contained whole under the least piece of Wafer. Which is in effect to revive the Heresy of Martion and the Manichees, who denied the verity of Christ's Body turning it into a Phantasm, 
Non hee corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis. Sacramentum vobis commendavi, etc. 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.  Spirit or Spirit. But I cannot omit his words upon the 98th Psalm, where he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to his Apostles: Ye shall not eat this body ye see, nor drink that blood 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 impassable manner. Which Answer signifies nothing; For although 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, etc. Again, I would gladly be resolved whether the Apostles did eat Christ's very body then present as mortal or immortal. If as mortal and passable, than 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 only 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 Catholic Faith; which the Fathers in the five first Centuries after Christ owned not, but refuted and condemned 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 blood of Christ; yea, as Cyprian and Saint Ambrose declare, That they are changed, 
De coena Domini. De Sacram.  though not in show 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, though 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 signified 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, etc. Quaestiones in Levitic. l. 3. c. 37.  we grant with Cyprian that the Bread and Wine are not changed in outward show, 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 natured.) In regard of common bread and wine they are changed and converted into an holy Sacrament, wherein we have Communion with, or real, though spitual, communication of the body and blood 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 say of Hilary and Cyril of Alex. 
Lib 6. de Trin. in Concil. Ephes.  That by virtue of the Eucharist Christ's body and blood is corporally and naturally united to us. But this is impertinently alleged; for they speak not of the Union of Christ's Body and Blood to the outward Elements of Bread and Wine, but to the souls and bodies of all faithful Communicants, and to them only, 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 only by Faith and Charity, but in very deed. And if it be so, that our substance is not turned 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 say 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 blood, even that blood which did flow from his side on the Cross, that what he suffered 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, pierced or touched by men's teeth, or that their tongues are died red with his blood, seeing they affirm that Christ's Body is there, incruentè, in an unbloudy manner; insomuch that they acknowledge those words in Berengarius his Recantation, though drawn up by the Pope, viz. That Christ's flesh in the Sacrament is sensually pressed or torn by men's teeth, must be cautiously understood, not of Christ's Body, but of the outward Species or Elements only, 
Author Glossae in Decret.  lest we fall into a worse Error, 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. count. Max. l. 3. c. 22. Ne quis attendat in eyes quod sunt, etc. 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 died in the passion or blood of our Lord. In like manner Cyril of Jerusalem, after he had instructed Christians not to look upon the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament as mere Bread and Wine, whatever sense suggesteth, but as the body and blood 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 changed into the very blood of Christ. Many more instances might be added, but these may suffice. I will only 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 turned into fire, so by consecration the substance of the bread is changed 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, scattered 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 & all quid declamationibus dedimus.  Saint Hierom confesses of himself, We have played 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 only 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 only 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 Ancient Fathers for five hundred years after Christ, did not hold the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory as an Article of Faith; yea, some of them expressly 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 would avoid sin, if they considered 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 Body's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 delivered by Prayers, Masses, Indulgences, etc. It's true, this Writer is much younger than Justin Martyr, but it maketh the more against our Adversaries; for it showeth that long after his death this Article of Roman Faith was not Catholic or universally received.  
In Irenaeus, (as Erasmus also hath observed 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 prayed 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 myself 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, though many and large, I can find no mention of this Article of Faith, Purgatory; and am the more confirmed 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 moved by the say of the Wise, that every Soul that is beloved of God (as the Souls sent by Romanists to Purgatory are acknowledged to be) presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after the losing from the body and departure hence, that which darkened the mind, being either purged or cast from it or done away, in what sort I cannot well express, (whence its 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, etc. He saith, Beyond or after this night, i. e. after death, there is no purging; if not 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 chastised and purged 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 joined 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 mentioned 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 cannot be saved, 
De Purgat. l. 10. c. 15.  but shall go to Hell. Parcite, non credimus. However to make a show of Nazianzen's consent, he quoteth those words in his Oration, In Sancta lumina, They shall be baptised 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 baptised with fire; so that he delivers it not positively as an Artiele of Faith, but as an uncertain Opinion or possibility only, as Augustin doth after him. Again, he directs his Speech to the Novatian Heretics. But the Roman Church is not so merciful as to send Heretics to Purgatory, and possibly he might mean by that Fire, 

Origen. count. 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 only, such as are dead to sin and die in a mortified 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 known no such place.  
I pass to Epiphanius, who confuting the Novatians, writeth thus: 
Herald 59  In the other World after men's death there is no Fasting, Penance, 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 Storehouses 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 Combat, after falling there may be rising again. There is yet hope, there is yet help— Salvation 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 Storehouses are not sealed up, but may be opened afterward; the Combat is not ended, nor, (whatsoever Epiphanius saith) all the Crowns yet given, some being reserved for those that are making satisfaction, for their venial sins or completing 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 Heretic 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 Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs; who, as our Adversaries confess, were never in Purgatory, but happy in the Lord. Saint Ambrose prayed for the Emperor Valentinian when deceased, 
De Obitu Valentin. Confess. lib. 9 cap. ult.  yet in the very same place he declares that he believed he was in heavenly Glory: Saint Augustin also prayed for his Mother Monica when departed; yet immediately adds, that he believed God had granted what he begged, 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 only 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, 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 glorify God, for crowning him that is departed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he hath freed 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, etc. 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 only 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 confessed 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 offered 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 Ambassador 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 condemned by the fifth General Council, although 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 Catholic or universal consent of all Christian Churches as to this new Roman Article of Faith, viz. Purgatory. Secondly, That Bellarmin the 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, etc. 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 only, 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 turned 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 Apologetic, Cap. 47. mentions only 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 judgement; 
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 Judgement, Tertullian takes no notice of them. In his fifth Book against Martion, 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 Martion, 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 Father's thought) when they shall receive plenitudinem mercedis, the fullness 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 applied 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 called 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 expressly De die judicii, of the day of Judgement after the Resurrection; whereas our Adversaries confess, that their Purgatory Fire is of no use after the Resurrection and eternal Judgement. 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 satisfy God for our sins, complete 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 etc. that no man after this life can be helped or delivered 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 judgement 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 courtesy 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 men's Prayers, Merits, Fast, 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 hindered like Dives 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 justified persons reconciled to God by Christ's blood, (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 satisfied for in this life by Penance, Fasting, Alms, etc. be cast into fiery torments, and to lie there many years, none know how long, unless helped out by the uncertain Prayers, Merits, etc. of others; particularly unless the alsufficient and abundantly satisfactory Merits of Christ be applied to them by the Pope's 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 compelled 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 mentioned 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 supplied after death? I will add his words upon the 31. Psalms, If God pardon sins he will cover them; if he cover them, he will not take notice 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 pardoned, 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. Although Ludovicus Vives saith, 
Comment. in locum.  the place is not to be found in the ancient 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 Heresy and destructive of Salvation. Secondly, To Dulcitius, quoting his own Books beforementioned, he interprets it expressly 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, etc.) arising from the loss of temporal enjoyments, as Estate, Wealth, etc. 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 dolour, 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 only. 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, judgements or punishments follow the sense of Saint Paul's words, quantum arbitror, as I think abhors not from truth. So that Saint Austin doth not peremptorily assert it as a point of Catholic 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 only. 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 Heretics or Schismatics) 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 Catholic 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 grossly 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 expressly affirmeth, that the Fire mentioned 1 Cor. 
Ergò utriusque opus probabit.  3. is such, as not only 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 man's work: then he adds, the tentation of tribulation, ignis est, is fire, i. e. in a figurative and metaphorical sense, as it is written, Ecclesiasticus 27. The Furnace trieth the Potter's 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, etc. some such thing (i. e. burning in the fire of grief, for of it he before spoke) 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 Controversy.  
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 inferred from it, Whether that there is after this life a proper, or only a figurative fire of Grief, it is no part of the Ancient Catholic 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 Catholic, 
Lib. quarto Dialog. cap.  or of Pope Pius' 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 alleged 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, though not by material fire, for which nevertheless the Romish Church condemns them as Heretics 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: Its one thing presently to receive the reward of Faith and Virtue; 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 Heretics against the receiving the Lapsi, such as for fear in time of Persecution, like Peter, denied Christ. They alleged, 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 although a time of 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, etc. 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 public, 
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 Virtue (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 Judgement, solicitously 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 purify Souls before the day of Judgement; so that upon the view of what is abovesaid, we may conclude that the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is no part of the Ancient, Primitive and Apostolic 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 Ancient 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, etc. 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 Ancient Writers have spoken less than concerning Indulgences. The Pope's 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 Louvain 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 ancient 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 ancient Primitive and Catholic one, and to accuse us Protestants of Novelty, Heresy, 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 ancient 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. Montague 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 grossly 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 Prophetic 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, than they worshipped 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 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 only 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 Tertullia's Verses as a Comment on Irenaeus, who speaks fully and clearly what he meant, 
Virgo viro nocuit, sed vir de virgine vicit;  
Lib. 1. advers. Marcionem. V Origen in Dialog, p. 256. & Tertul. de Habitu mulier. c. 10.  
Virgins ut virgo, caro carnis debita solvat.  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 satisfy myself, 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 Obits days we celebrate: which exactly agrees with St. Austins' 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 God's Ministers, but we worship one God and his only Son with Prayers and supplications, offering them to God by his only 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 only Son. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And whereas Celsus alleged (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 only 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 Cells. 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 Cells. 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 only 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 prescript. 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. showeth, that the Jewish Church directed their Adorations to God only; and for Christians he affirmeth, lib. 4. c. 6. that they prayed to God only 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, etc. 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, etc. 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 Sepulchers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make Prayers, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsis to them (as Trapezuntius falsely, 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, etc. 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 Catholic, (which appeareth 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 (than 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 Catholics 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 cried, etc. 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 Catholic, or Invocation of Angels for an Article of the ancient Catholic faith, held by all sound Christians in all Ages, or that the Angel appearing to the Old Patriarches, was a created Angel?  
I will add his Contemporary Saint Hilary, who although 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, though a part of the present Roman, yet not of the true ancient and Catholic Faith believed semper, ubique, & apud omnes, always, in all places, by all sound Christians, for such Doctrines, as Vincentius Lyrinensis rightly notes, are only truly Catholic, that is, Universal, as the name itself Catholic signifies.  
To proceed. Basil the Great, Hom. 3. in Hexaemeron. all Honour, Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is due to God only. In Psalm 7. he saith, Our hope is to be placed in God only. In Psal. 18. That if any man worship the Creature beside (though 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 only 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 glorify 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, etc. 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 ancient 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) spoke 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 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, 
Montague of Invocation of the Saints,  O sacred and divine Head, respice nos quaeso de caelo, look on us from Heaven; So Billius a Papist, falsely 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  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 not 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 Catholic. But who can imagine or believe that Nazianzen, Basil and other of the ancient 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 Catholic Faith necessary to be believed under peril of Heresy 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, etc. 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 only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 than 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 judgement of any learned Papist. They in some things reject the say 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. chrysostom, 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 entreated 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 Error, saith he, remained a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia; wherefore the Synod of Laodicea, not far distant from Colosse, forbidden by a Law or Canon praying to Angels, and to this day (adds he) are to be seen the Oratories (not of any Heathenish Idol) but of Saint Michael the Archangel. This they advised, pretending or under a show 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 Heretics condemned 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 Heretics, 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 nettled 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 worshipping 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angelo's 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.  offered up Cakes to the Virgin Mary as the Queen of Heaven (a Title the Roman Catholics have, little to 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  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, Heretics. 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' 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 only hope. In a word, they style her, as Cardinal Bembus, Deam, a Goddess. Is not this far to exceed the Collyridian Heretics? 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 worshipped 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, 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 showeth, 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 (though 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 only 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 men's deserts, there is no need of an Intercessor, 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 condemned Invocation of Saints, censures him not as an Heretic 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 inferior 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 only. In his 8th Book, de Civit. Dei, cap. 17.22, 27. 

Nos Martyribus non Templa, sicut Diis, sed Memorias (sicut hominibus mortuis) fabricamus, etc. Aug, de Civit. Dei, lib. 22. c. 10. similiter, lib. 8. cap. ultimo.  
Charitate non servitute. Ibid.   he affirmeth expressly, 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 Catholics, (true Catholics, 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 Angel's 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 Martyrs, etc. 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 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 only. 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, etc. If such great Patriarches 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 spoke 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, etc. 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 only 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 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 only, 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 ancient creditable Writer maketh any mention.  
They glory also much in those words of Saint chrysostom, 
Hom. 66. ad Popul. Antioch.  He that is Emperor standeth praying to the Saints, to the Tentmaker, 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 Emperor 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 chrysostom, ad Popul. Antiochen. were but 21. Thirdly, chrysostom 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 ancient Fathers, quoted for this Invocation by our Adversaries.  
Art 5 
Concerning Image-worship.  I come to another Article of Pope Pius his Roman Catholic 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 Emperor 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, etc. 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 Ancient Fathers Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, Lactantius, etc. 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 men's hands. Are not Popish Images of the Trinity the work of men's 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, ask, Why the Christians worshipped not Statues, Answers, because material Statues and God very much differ. Not the World (or any part of it) but its Maker is to be worshipped. Men (saith he to the Emperor) 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 beggarly Elements, i. e. Images. Doth not this confute submitting our Souls in religious worship to Popish Images? are not they material? etc.  
Irenaeus testifieth, 
Lib. 1. c. 24. Epiphan. Panar. Haer. 27. & in Anaceph. p. 525. c. 20.  that the Gnostick or Carpocratian Heretics (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 Heretics used also Images, Ib. Ch. 23. Here we see the Primitive Antiquity and first Original of worshipping Images: the Authors were then condemned Heretics, but now their Abettors are the only true Catholics.  
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 Ancient Fathers so detested Images, that they condemned the very Art of Painting and Graving, excommunicating such Christians who only to get a livelihood made them, as he showeth, 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 than lift not up the mind to God) from Veneration of Creatures to God.  
In the Jewish Commonwealth no maker of Images was suffered, which turn the mind from God. 
Lib. 4. Cont. Celsian. Pag. 284.  Our New Catholics 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 senseless 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 only. 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, etc.  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 only shalt thou serve. And thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, etc. It cannot be that any one who knoweth God should pray also to Images. Do these reasons confute only 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, etc. 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 struck 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. usher's Answer to Malon.  But the Papists, as Aquinas, Cajetan, Catechismus Rom. Azorius, Pedro de Crabrera, etc. 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 Heretic, for saying that Images are adored only 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 Imagine.  
In Rom. c. 1. fol. 42. quoted by Bishop Usher, 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 only Adore coram Imagine, sed & adorare Imaginem, before the Image, but adore the Image itself. 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 only 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 ubicunque 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 only a mimical show of it: This is plain and home.  
The Ancient 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, etc. 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 only 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. Martion. l. 4. c. 22.  as implying some favour or imitation of Heathenish Custom 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 man's 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.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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, rend it in pieces as contrary to Divine Law. In another place he telleth us the Virgin Mary was to be honoured, but not given for us to worship; if not her Person, much less, say we her Image. In the same place confuting the Collyridian Heresy, he termeth the making Images of God and dead men to be a coarse, Idolatrous and devilish practice, whereby the minds of men go whoring from the only true God.  
Athanasius adversus Gentes, brings in the Heathens pleading for their Images or Idols, that they used them as Letters or laymen's 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 Deify 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 only.  
chrysostom, 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 ourselves unto Porters, Doorkeepers, etc. In God there is no such thing. In like manner, Hom. 12. in Matth. If we need not apply ourselves to Saints or Angels, much less to their Images.  
Saint Ambrose, C. 1. ad Rom. agreeth with Saint chrysostom 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 hide her Father's 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 seethe 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 lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator, etc. In the former part he condemns Images, in the latter their interpretations of Images, Turn the truth into a lie. 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 traveled abroad amongst them determine. The same Saint 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 (rendered 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 expressly condemn all Images. 2. Do not Roman Catholics (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 signify the incorporeal God by a Body, and that the form of God cannot be seen, that invisible Spirits or heavenly Powers dwelled 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 ourselves any likeness of any thing in Heaven, etc. 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 itself, but as a Representative of God.  
Lastly, They affirm, that they yield to Images a mean, low and inferior worship, not what belongs to God only.  
I answer that, as we have shown 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 inferior 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 inferior religious honour, it is not Latria.  
Art 6 
Concerning the Pope's Supremacy.  I come now to the Capital Article of the Roman Catholic Faith, The Pope's 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 Silvius (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 Ancient 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.  than the Roman. How can she then be Mater, & Magistra, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, as is now pretended by our Romanists? This was that Irenaeus Bishop of Lions in France, who sharply reproved Victor Bishop of Rome, for threatening 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 Catholic Bishops meeting in several Councils concurred,) who opposed Pope Victor's Sentence, and professed he was not at all terrified with his threatened 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 Apostolic 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, etc. 
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 Emperors? 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 rendered more conspicuous and honourable to the World. The words of Aeneas Silvius 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, etc. which he doth to Rome. Secondly, He speaketh not of Jurisdiction, but matter of Faith and Apostolic 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 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 only, 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 only given to Peter. This now at Rome is no less than Heresy. 
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 terror to obedience, etc. 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 Canonised Saint, Menolog. Graec. in Octob. 28.  
☞ Epist. 75.   which no doubt he spoke ironically and by way of irrision. In his Epistle 74. he writeth against Pope Stephen, charging him with Error, and pleading the cause of Heretics against the Church of God. Can any man believe Cyprian took Pope Stephen for his Supreme Governor 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 Successor of Saint Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, maketh many Rocks and buildeth new Churches. He addeth also, 

Eos qui Romae sunt, non ea in omnibus abservare, quae sunt ab origine tradita.  
De Vnitate Eccles.  
Paci consoretio praedicti honoris, & potestatis.  
Although he said before of Peter, tibi dabo, etc. & super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam, & illi pascendas mandat oves suas.   that the Roman Church was guilty of violating the Ancient 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, etc. 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 only or his Successors by virtue 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, etc. Yet to manifest Unity, he appointed one Chair; He speaketh to Peter and to thee will I give, etc. singularly; Why? not that Peter had a greater Power or Authority (which he expressly 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 Stephen's confirmation. He addeth as a reason, 
V Epist. 68  We are many Pastors, but we feed one Flock, and we ought to gather and secure 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 Heresy 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  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 chrysostom 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 Heretic 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 only, much less on his Successors, and that at Rome rather than Antioch.  
Saint Austin agreeth, Quid est super hanc petram, etc. 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 show 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 expressly 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 Ancient 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 Diocese as the Bishop of Rome doth the Churches belonging to him of ancient Custom. Here is a manifest limitation, or rather exclusion of the Bishop of Rome's Universal Jurisdiction.  
Baronius, Bellarmin and Coriolanus answer, that those words, because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Custom, 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, etc.  
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 ancient Custom, inviolable and equal to that of Rome (parilis mos) commit the government of those Churches to the Bishop of Alexandria as his ancient 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 Dioceses 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 men's Dioceses, and that the Council out of Reverence to ancient custom 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 Privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is new Rome. Their Reason is, for the Father's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (not God the Father, nor Christ his Son, Matth. 16 16. but) the Fathers the Bishops did of right give Privileges 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) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, equal Privileges; rightly judging that the City which is honoured with the Empire and Senate, and enjoyeth equal Privileges (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 Privileges 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 Privileges with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not Semor, old, but Superior, 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 Privileges 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 Privileges to the Bishop of Constantinople, in regard it being made the Seat or Head of the Empire by the Emperor 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 Successors 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 Emperor's Marcian, Justinian, Novel. 115. cap. 3, etc.  
Our Adversaries allege, 
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 Rome's 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 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 ancient custom, the Father's decree that they should enjoy their ancient right, adding a Canon, whereby they forbidden any Bishop, not excepting the Roman, to invade the Dioceses 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 blood. 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 showeth 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 Catholic, 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 inferior 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 one can believe that God will inspire any one man (the Pope) with Justice (i. e. just or right judgement) and deny it to multitudes of Priests met in Council. The African Bishops thought no Christian man could believe this: but there are Roman Catholics 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 African 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 authentic Canons of the Nicene. Do not send upon any one's request your clerics as enforcers (to wit, of your Sentence upon Appeals) lest we seem to bring the smoky 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, etc. 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 Bishopric. Can any one now believe 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 ancient Primitive and Apostolic Faith, as Pope Pius hath declared it? Surely he must then be a Person of very Catholic, 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) forbade 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 only 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 only 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, etc. none of the Patriarches (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 Pope's 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, though offered 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 Pope's Universal Episcopacy? I would gladly know whether both parts of a contradiction can be true. Whether the ancient 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 condemned this Name in other Patriarches only, not as to himself, he addeth in the  Epistle to Mauritius the Emperor, Gracious Lord, Nunquid hac in re propriam causam defendo, etc. Do I in this speak for myself, or plead my own cause, and not rather the cause of the whole Church? Where note, he acknowledgeth the Emperor to be his Lord, and to whose judgement he is willing to refer the whole cause. Did Pope Gregory make the Emperor 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 testify, 

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 profane Title, and the present Pope, not only owneth the Name, but contrary to the judgement 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, Privileges and Authority, as Marcus Antonius de Dominis Archbishop of Spalleto justly complained. So much for the Pope's Supremacy.  
Art 7 
Concerning the sacrifice of the Mass.  The next Article is the proper and real Sacrificing Christ, his very Body and Blood 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 Ancient 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 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, showeth 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 only, 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 only 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 Blood 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 only 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 only 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 only 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 only the Commemoration or Memorial of his Passion, and that the Prayers and Thanksgivings attending it (for it's called the Eucharist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) were the only 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 Blood, 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 too, 
De Missa. l. 1. c 2.  as Bellarmine observeth, are different things) much less a sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. Irenaeus plainly showeth what kind of Oblation he meant, when he declareth it to be not of Christ the Creator, but of God's 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 God's Table or Altar, by the prayers of the Priest they might become sacramentally and mystically his Body and Blood. 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 acknowledgement 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) 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, etc. 
Matth. 5.  which Gift was never understood by any of Christ's Body and Blood, which according to our Romanists own Doctrine, none but Priests, not private Christians, offer at God's 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.  testify 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 than 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 Martion 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 Emperor, He answereth, We do sacrifice for the Emperor, but as God hath commanded, purâ prece, with pure Prayer. Why doth he not say, (which Bellarmine granteth, de Missa, l. 2. c. 6. might lawfully have been done) we offer up for him a most perfect and venerable Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Son of God. 

V Tertul. adv. Judaeos', c. 5.  
Strom. 7. p. 717.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.   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, etc. 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 Vnctione Chrismatis. In mensa Panem & Vinum, in cruse 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 only a representation or commemoration of Christ's Passion, than it cannot be a proper Sacrifice, but improper and by similitude only, as the Picture of the Passion of a Martyr is not really and properly the Passion itself.  
I come now to Eusebius the learned Bishop of Caesarea, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the memory or memorial of Christ's 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 blood, by his most eminent Highpriest Jesus Christ, i. e. Prayers and Praises. He saith not, We offer Jesus Christ the Highpriest, but we offer up other Sacrifices by him. Neither by incorporeal and unbloudy Sacrifices in the plural, could he intent offering up Christ's Body and Blood; for how possibly can Christ's Body be incorporeal or his blood without blood? 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, etc. and those of Malachy , 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 ourselves to God, and dedicating Soul and Body to his Highpriest, 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 Catholic Faith, of which Eusebius and all the ancient Fathers were ignorant? 
Lib. 5. c. 3.  The same Eusebius in another place discourseth concerning Christ's Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedeck. His words are: In like manner, first our Saviour, than the Priests of, or from him exercising a spiritual Priesthood, by Bread and Wine, 

V Tertul. count. Judaeos.  
Ambross. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3.   do obscurely represent the Mysteries of his Body and Blood. This maketh nothing for the Popish Mass-sacrifice. For first, Melchizedeck, as he said a little before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, protulit (as the vulgar translation rendereth 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 Christ's Body and Blood, 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 Christ's Example by Bread and Wine (which he supposeth to remain in their substance) they obscurely represent Christ's Body and Blood. Doth this imply, that the Bread and Wine are miraculously changed into the body and blood of Christ? or that representing Christ's body and blood in the Holy Sacrament rendereth 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 chrysostom 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, etc. 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 offered 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 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 itself speaketh.  
Saint Ambrose in his Comment on the Hebrews saith the very same, as if he had translated Saint chrysostom: 
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 ancient 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 Chrysostom's and the Gregorian Liturgies.  
I will now add Epiphanius, who saith, as Athanasius above, 
Haer. 55.  Christ hath no Successor 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 against 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 blood of Christ; not by immolation, but participation of them; not by reiteration of Christ's 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 blood 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 itself: 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 blood, as Romanists affirm. In his Epistle to Boniface, he expresseth it more clearly. Is not Christ immolated or offered 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 blood really, and yet in the Sacrament, not only every Easter, but every day, quotidie populis immolatur, he is immolated or offered 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 Christ's body and blood are immolated or offered 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 blood; or as Saint Ambrose hath it, in imagine, in an Image or representation, but there (in He … at God's right hand) in veritate, 
Lib. 1. de Offic. c. 48. & in Psal. 38.  in truth; where he pre … 〈◊〉 his very body and blood 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 offered, 

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 ancient 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  of the new Roman Creed, Receiving the Communion in one kind in bread only. 

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 ancient Fathers. We have already seen in Justin Martyr, that both Bread and Wine were administered 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 Blood. I might allege Ignatius ad Philadelph. Origen Hom. 16. in Num. Tertul. ad Uxorem, lib. 2. Cyril Hierosol. Catech. etc. Ambrose lib. 1. de Offic. c. 41. the 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 show 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  in Pope Pius' Creed, and declared by him to be parts of the Primitive Catholic and Apostolic 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, etc. Concil. Basil. Licet ab Initio Christianae Religionis, etc. Trent Council, Can. 1. Sess. 5.   No ancient 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 ancient 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 administered the Eucharist to the people in both kinds as Christ did; yet none obstante, as if this were little to be regarded, they decree the Laity shall not receive both yea, anathematise such as say, it is necessary from the Institution, practice and command of our Saviour, Do this, etc. 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 public 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 Imagine.  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 higgon's.   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 Ancient Catholic and Apostolic Religion, accusing Protestants of Novelty and Heresy, 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 Catholic 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 Controversy betwixt us and the Papists, especially of them , 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 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 Catholic Church, but only of a powerful and predominant Party in it.  

The Number of Sacraments.  I will first begin with their Doctrine of seven Sacraments. The Canonists, as Panormitan and the Gloss on Dist. 5. de Poenitentia, 

V the … 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 only. 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 only two Sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist. Alexander Halensis is of opinion, that there are only 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.  

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 Christ's body and blood, is made by Consecration, whether formal or substantial, 
De Verit. Corp. & Sang. D. in Euchar. p. 46.  I am not able to define. Tunstal Bishop of Durham in Queen Mary's 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 Christ's presence in the Sacrament. Hence he only required the Confession of a Real presence (which we grant) and not 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 only 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 Church's Infallibility, 

V Bell. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23.  
In 4 Sent. qu. 6.  
Scotus in 4. Dist. 11. qu. 3.   on whose Authority only 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 Catholic Church, making it a matter of Opinion, not Faith, and inclining rather as Alliaco, to Consubstantiation. Aquinas himself acknowledgeth, that some Catholics 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 Christ's 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, confesseth, that those words so urged by Romanists in this Point, This is my Body, 
Supra in Part. 3. sum. 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 Christ's Body, maintains only a Translocation, adduction or succession of Christ's Body into the room and place of it; which (as easy to discern) is no Transubstantiation of the bread into Christ's Body, properly so called. Johannes Scotus Erigena about the year 800. wrote against Transubstantiation, proving out of the Scriptures and ancient Fathers, that the Bread and Wine are not properly, but figuratively and sacramentally Christ's body and blood. This Book is still extant, and (no wonder) condemned by the Infallible Index Expurgatorius.  
Aelfricus Archbishop of Canterbury set out, Anno 996. in the Saxon Tongue his Homilies: wherein he affirms, that the bread is not Christ's Body corporaliter, corporally, but spiritually, spiritualiter. With which perfectly agreeth the Paschal Saxon Homily of Aelfrick Abbot of Malmsbury, appointed publicly to be read to the People in England on Easter day before the Communion, still extant in Manuscript in the public Library of the University of Oxford, and the private Library of Bennet College in Cambridge; To which place I gratefully acknowledge I own the foundation of that small knowledge I have in Divinity. 

Panis ille est corpus Christi, figurate, etc.  
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.  

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 Pope's Martyr, and Alphonsus de Castro, to whom I may now add Polydore Virgil, confess, they are late Novelties, of which in the ancient Greek Fathers there is little or no mention. The modern Greek Church, as appeareth peareth from their Confession offered to the Council of Basil, and since that of Cyril late Patriarch of Constantinople, denieth any Purgation of sins after death by Fire. Lombard and Gratian take no notice of Indulgences. The later Schoolmen, Albertus, Al. Halensis, Durand, Cajetan, quoted by Bishop Ʋsher and Dr. Field in his Appendix, say, that Finalis Gratia, etc. final Grace abolisheth all remains of sin in God's 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, etc. We have nothing expressly or clearly delivered, either in Scripture or the ancient 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, Wickliff, 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 Vspergensis & Rhegino ad Ann. 794. and Matth. Westminst. ad Ann. 794.  
Cassand. Consult. art. de Imagine. The work of men's Hands may not be adored, no not in honour of their Prototypes, p. 213. De Trad. Part 3. De Imagine.   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 Emperor and Pope whose Legates were there present, as the Bishop of Rheims 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 Lions wrote against worshipping Pictures or Images. So did also Ionas Bishop of Orleans in his Book de Cultu Imaginum, 
cap. 5.  allowing them only 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. Imagine. grant, that their use is dangerous in regard of the peril of Idolatry. See our Church's 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 condemned 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 publicly 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 Cells. 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 condemned 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 Ionas Bishop of Orleans, as an Answer to our Adversaries Reply, That they place no Divinity in their Images, but worship them only 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 beggarly Image the honour that is due to the Divinity. I cannot omit what I find in Agobardus, it being so consonant with Ionas as making one sentence. 
De Pict. & Imag. p. 237.  They which answer (as our Roman Catholics 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 Ancients 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 Catholic Custom, 

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, etc. The Greeks condemn giving Latria or Douleia to Images in their confession of Faith. The Pope's Supremacy over Emperors, Councils, Bishops, etc. 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 Schismatics and Heretics, for refusing to appear upon their Summons. Balsamon a Greek Writer showeth, that the five Patriarches 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 Emperors, 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 Heresy. Otho the Emperor deposed Pope John, and assumed his ancient right of Nomination to the Popedom. The Pope's usurped Authority over the Emperor, was wrote against by Mcrsilius, Occam, Gerson, Dantes, Zabarella, Cusanus, Tostatus, 

Apud Bellarmin. de Council. 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 Lombard, 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, etc. 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 Christ's 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 Christ's Flesh, dicitur Christi corpus, sed impropriè, is called Christ's Body, but improperly. It is called Christ's Body, that is, saith the Gloss, significat, it signifies it.  
Communion in one kind. The Ordo Romanus, appointed the Wine allo to be consecrated, 

De Observe. 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 Emperor's 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 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. .   (as to Grace) than to receive one only. 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 custom of receiving in one kind, had its first Original from the Manichean Heretics, 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 Governors. In the Mass-book itself, 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, etc. 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 blood of thy Son. Gerardus Lorichius, and Ruardus Tapperus, are for the people's receiving in both kinds. See Dr. Field's Appendix to his second Book, where are many clear Testimonies.  
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 show he allege places out of the old Testament, granteth, that there was no Invocation of Saints before Christ's 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 ancient Fathers, 
V Sixtum Senens. lib. 6. Annotat. 345. In 4. Sent. qu. 3.  Irenaeus, Tertullian, chrysostom, to wit, that they shall not be admitted to the Vision beatifical till after the Resurrection; Occam. Scotus, lib. 4. dist. 45. qu. 4. Valentia with others deny, that the Saints departed, or Angels, see all things in Speculo Trinitatis, in God who seethe all things, but only 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 entreat 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. Wickliff, 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 only by the intercession of the Saints, whom they have chosen to be their Patrons and worship with cold and profane 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 Error, that men not evil of themselves, 

Compare Sir Edwin. Sandies 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 only Office of Christ's Intercession being obscured, they substituted into his place the Saints, and specially the Virgin his Mother, etc. 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 Pope's 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 Doctrine. 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 Heretic and Schismatic) 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. Coral. 2. Nicolas Clemangis de corrupto Eccles. statu. Alvarus Pelagius de planctu Eccl. Contarenus Gerson, etc. Lyra in Matth. 16. Turrecremata Summ. Eccl. l. 4. part 2. c. 16.20. with many more, grant the Pope may be a Heretic in his private person or judgement; yea, as Alphons. de Castro, Bozius, Tom. 2. the sign. Eccles. l. 18. c. ult. Bannes' 22. qu. 1. Art 10. acknowledge that he may be, not only a Heretic himself, but impose by his Pontifical Authority in his Decrees Heresy 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 Premises 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 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 only contradicted by the Ancient 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. Lombard lib. 3. Sent. didst 3. Aquinas sum 3. part. qu. 27. art. 2. Cajeran opusc. Tom. 2. Tract. 1. the conceptione Virg. Bonaventure, Dist. 3. in Sent. 3. qu. 1. Art 1. Capreolus, l. 3. dist. 3. to whom many more may be added, affirm 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 only by the Laodicean Council, Ruffinus, 

Augustin. count. 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 Heresy 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 only, is decreed by the Trent Council as an Article of Catholic Faith; yet it is plainly contradicted, not only by the Ancient 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. chrysostom 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 Catholic that simply denieth all Merit, and confesseth that Heaven is obtained by Grace only. The like is affirmed by Ferus, lib. 3. Com. cap. 20. in Matthaeum. Stella in Lucam. c. 8. 
Ibid. c. ●●.  Marsilius de gratuita justif. 
P. Adrian and Clitoveus apud Cassand. Consult. Art 6.  Faber Stapulensis in cap. 11. add Roman. Petavius the Jesuit, in effect denieth all Merits, which he saith, Dissert. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4. depend on God's 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, etc. 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 God's mercy only, 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 brerewood's Inquiries, 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 Judgement 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 easy, but I suppose needless, to add any Points more. These are sufficient to evince, that besides other Doctrines, some Articles of the present Roman Catholic Faith so decreed and made by the late Council of Trent, were never Universally owned and received as such by the visible Catholic 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 condemned by them.  
What is already said is, as I conceive, a full and satisfactory Answer to Roman Catholics, 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 show 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, etc. 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, etc. have little or no ground at all in Scripture, but are unwritten Verities depending on Tradition only, to wit, of their Roman Church. We can show 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 than is the true, ancient, visible, Catholic and Apostolic Religion professed and taught by the Apostles, in and by their Writings; 

Iren. lib. 3. c. 1.  
Quod praeconiaverunt, postea per Dei voiuntatem in scriptures 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 Ancient 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 Catholic 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 only, which is delivered and declared in their Writings; Who will deny that they were, although not nominally, yet really Protestant's, and Professors of our Ancient, not of their new-minted Roman Religion, made as to some parts of it, to wit, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc. 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 Ʋsher 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 Catholic Faith or true Worship, but the after-sown Tares of Error, as Image-worship, Purgatory, etc. which were ready to choke 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 overrun with corruptions in Worship, Errors, yea Heresies; we see not only in the Jewish but Christian Churches of Corinth, Thyatira, etc. 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 overrun with many pernicious Errors in Doctrine and corruptions in Worship: If so, 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 Errors 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 Pope's 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 Catholic 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 Physic 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 Errors in the Church of Rome, that they were never universally owned and allowed, no not by many eminent Professors and Writers of her own Communion, as we have made evident. Thirdly, It's a great mistake when they demand that we show the Protestant Religion and Church distinct and separate from the Catholic in all Ages, when we affirm and prove, that not only in the Apostles days, but for near five hundred years after, the true Apostolic Faith was, at least as to substance, kept pure and uncorrupt. Would they have us to show Protestants protesting against the ancient 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 forbidden we should condemn to Hell all our Forefathers, that lived and died in the Communion of the Roman Church. In the Prophet Elijah's, Isaiahs, 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 sat 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, hearty 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 and's, although it have not always an outward and illustrious Estate, and cannot, where persecution rageth, practise publicly the Rites of Divine Worship, yet the Church never did or shall want an inward Estate or subordination to Pastors, etc. 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 show some Professors 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 Usher, de success. Eccl.  and Albigenses, who were vastly numerous and had Pastors of their own, resisting Popery even unto blood. Only 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 Heretics, 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 Council  
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 Wickliff, the Waldenses and Albigenses of such inconsisting, horrid and self-contradicting Opinions, 
Usher 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 Heresy was, that they were victus populus Dei, as they said, conquered, quelled and subdued by force of Arms, not Arguments: So were the Catholics under the Heathen and Arian persecuting Emperors. 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 show 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 allege 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 Pope's Supremacy, the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, Merits, Purgatory, etc. were yet Members as of the Catholic, so Roman Church and were saved (which I suppose no Papist will deny:) Why are we Protestant's condemned as Heretics to Hell for believing as some of their Infallible Popes, and Canonised Saints have done? I challenge any Papist to show 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 Catholic Religion, which Pope Pius hath summed 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 African Bishops for Appeals to the Bishop of Rome, and subjecting all Churches to the Pope's Universal jurisdiction? Were these Tridentine Papists? Was P. Gelasius for Transubstantiation? Were they in all things agreeing with our present Roman Catholics? Who hath so hard a forehead as to affirm it, or so soft a head as to believe it?  
I shall only 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 Errors, 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 Catholic Faith contained in the Scriptures or the Writings of the Ancient 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 Catholics, whether of the Grecian or Roman Communion. 
See brerewood's Inquiries.  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, etc. 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, etc. as Articles of Faith, on this Western part of the World, but not without visible opposition and open contradiction. I have shown 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 show; for it was sufficient to prove the perpetual existence or visibility of the Catholic Church, 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. usher's Serm. before King James of the Unity of Faith.   that she professed the fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Apostolic, 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 courageously resisted them, even unto blood. 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 Catholics under Liberius and the Arian Emperors, in the strict and most proper sense the true, visible, Catholic 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 Errors 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 Leprosy spreading itself by degrees over it; the cutting of this Wen, the curing this Gangrene, the cleansing and removing this Leprosy, our Adversaries most unreasonably and absurdly condemn, as destroying the ancient Catholic 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 ancient true Catholic Faith once and once for all, delivered to the Saints, in opposition to their late subintroduced Novelties of Transubstantiation, Image-worship, Purgatory, etc. which, as we see by Pope Pius his new Creed, they will needs add as Articles of the Ancient, Primitive and Catholic Faith, to the Nicene Creed, necessarily to be believed and professed by all Christians under peril of Heresy and Damnation. If the Pope and Church of Rome may 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 Ancient Father long since said,) It becometh not wise Men rashly to give up themselves to their Father's Customs, but to endeavour to find out the Truth. Amen.  
Your faithful Friend.  
FINIS.   

Books lately printed for James Adamson.  
I. A Treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy, wherein its Rise and Progress are Historically considered. In Quarto.  
II. A Treatise proving Scripture to be the Rule of Faith, writ by Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester, before the Reformation, about the Year 1450.  
III. Doubts concerning the Roman Infallibility: 1. Whether the Church of Rome believe it. 2. Whether Jesus Christ or his Apostles ever Recommended it. 3. Whether the Primitive Church Knew or Used that way of Deciding Controversies.  
iv The Salvation of Protestants asserted and defended, in Opposition to the Rash and Uncharitable Sentence of their Eternal Damnation pronounced against them by the Romish Church; by J. H. Dalhusius, Inspector of the Churches, In the County of Weeden, upon the Rhine, etc.  
V The present State of the Controversy between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome: or an account of the Books written on both sides, in a Letter to a Friend. In Quarto.  
VI Two Discourses of Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead. In Quarto.  
VII. Clementis epistolae duae ad Corinthios. Interpretibus Patricio Junio, Gothofredo, Vendelino, & Joh. Bapt. Cotelerio. Recensuit & notarum spicilegium adjecit Paulus Colomesius, bibliothecae Lambethanae curator; accedit Tho. Brunonis Windsoriensis dissertatio de Therapeutis, Philonis. His subnexae sunt Epistolae aliquot singulares, vel nunc primum editae, vel non ita facile obviae. In Quarto.  
VIII. Pauli Colomesii Observationes sacrae, Editio secunda, auctior & emendatior; accedunt ejusdem Paralipomena, de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, & passio sancti Victoris Massiliensis, ab eodem emendata, editio quarta & ultima longe auctior & emendatior. Octavo.  
IX. The Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant, in three Parts, viz. 1. Into Turkey, 2. Persia,, 3. The East-Indies. In Folio.  
A brief Historical Account of the Behaviour of the Jesuits and their Faction for the first twenty five Years of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, with an Epistle of W. Watson a Secular Priest; showing how they were thought of by other Romanists of that time. Quarto.  
The Argument of Mr. Peter de la Marteliere Advocate in the Court and Parliament of Paris, made in Parliament in the Chambers thereof being assembled, An. Dom. 1611. for the Rector and University of Paris, Defendants and Opponents, against the Jesuits Demandants, and requiring the Approbation of the Lectors Patent which they had obtained, giving them power to read and to teach publicly in the aforesaid University, translated out of the French Copy, set forth by public Authority, and printed at London 1612. Quarto.