THE Primitive Fathers NO PAPISTS: IN ANSWER to the VINDICATION of the NUBES TESTIUM.  
To which is added An Historical Discourse CONCERNING INVOCATION of SAINTS; In ANSWER to The Challenge of F. Sabran the Jesuit.  
Wherein is shown, that Invocation of Saints was so far from being the Practice, that it was expressly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers.  
IMPRIMATUR  
Liber cui Titulus, The Primitive Fathers no Papists, etc.  
Ex Aedib. Lamb. Febr. 4. 1687. Guil. Needham R.R. in Christo Patri ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacr. Domest.  
LONDON, Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXXVIII.   

THE PREFACE.  
I Have been so much larger in my Vindication of the Primitive Fathers than I intended at first, that I would not have troubled the Reader with any Preface at all, but that I think it requisite to give him some account of the length of it. In the present Controversy with the Writers of the Church of Rome, we lie under one great unhappiness, which our Forefathers were not troubled with in their Contests with the Romanists; they were wont then fairly to own their Popish Doctrines, and our Authors had nothing to do but to oppose them: but we have not only the disproving of Popery upon our hands now, but must be obliged also to prove the Popery itself upon them: We must now not only prove the Worship of Images to be unlawful, but prove, that they worship Images.  
This is that which hath engaged me to be so large, for the Adversary I have to do with is one of the new Stamp, one of the Assertors of the NEW POPERY, who since they see they cannot defend the true old downright Popery, have set up such a Popery as they think they can defend. Thus when they find how perfectly inconsistent with the Honour of God, and how directly contrary to the Word of God it is to give Adoration or Religious Worship to Images or Relics; they are for salving all by bearing the Reader in hand that they do not do it: and thus when we show them that their Purgatory-Fire is not only inconsistent with the Account we have of the State of the Dead in the Holy Scriptures, but also with the Account of it in the Primitive Fathers for six hundred years, they have no other refuge than to tell us, that they do not hold a Fiery Purgatory.  
This dissembling and betraying of their own Popery is that which hath occasioned my insisting so largely and distinctly upon these points, by which I have effectually shown, that the Church of Rome doth command and practise the Adoration of Images and Relics, and that her Purgatory differs only from Hell in the Duration of their Torments.  
I did expect and hope I shall reap a double advantage from my care to expose these things; the first of which is to confute my Adversary, and the other to make it evident to the meanest Reader, how very unsincere the Representer is in giving us the true State of their Popery. I am sure, that as to Purgatory, about which he took the most pains to defend himself, I have invincibly proved upon him, that he either did not understand the Doctrine of his own Church, or did most unfaithfully dissemble it.  
I hope I need not trouble myself to warn our People of the Confidence with which these Romish Writers can write the most false and most disingenuous things: if Confidence be all that is necessary to carry any cause, I must confess that we should come off losers, because we cannot tell how to imitate these men: however no one is ignorant that a Mountebank is but a Mountebank still for all his pretending to Infallible Cures, to neverfailing Remedies.  
But we must allow our Adversaries this Assurance, since they have nothing else to set off or recommend their Cause, excepting that which is a consequence of it, their writing with a Contempt of us, and treating us scurrilously; but this we can bear cheerfully enough, tho' reproach is uneasy to Mankind, because it does so plainly speak out, that all Scholarlike Arguments are spent, and that they have no other left to encounter us with.  
Of this we have had a great deal of late, and I have had my share from them; I will not animadvert further on it than to say, that their late Pamphlets against us are so very abusive, as if they had been Written as well as Printed by the Ditch-side. I do hearty forgive them, and believe all our Writers do, and desire to make no other return to such Treatment, than to offer up hearty Prayers to God, That He would bring into the way of Truth all those who have erred and are deceived, and that He would frustrate the Devices of them, who are endeavouring to deceive others.   

THE CONTENTS.  

AN Account of the Controversy about the Postscript to the Answer to the NUBES TESTIUM with Sabran the Jesuit p. 2.  
About the Answer itself with the Representer p. 4.  
His Vindication of the Nubes Testium against the Answerer, shown to be very weak and very defective, from a Catalogue of Twenty seven material Points and Charges against him, to which he hath given not one word of Answer p. 10.  
His vain attempt to clear himself about the stealing his Nubes out of a condemned Author, shown to be made up of Confidence and Falsehood p. 18.  
F. Alexandre his Master proved to be also either a Compiler, or a Falsifier of the Fathers p. 22.  
His Chapters in the Nubes about Schism, shown further to have been altogether impertinent p. 25.  
His Coldness and Diffidence about the Defence of his Chapter of the Supremacy, shown from his letting fall the Vindication of all the numerous Quotations upon that Head, excepting Three, The Defence of which is shown to be very vain  
His Defence of his Chapter about Tradition, shown to be merely a giving us over again two or three Pieces of his Old Testimonies in the Nubes p. 31.  
That the Primitive Fathers did look upon the Scriptures as containing and handing down to us all matters of Faith, shown further from Origen, Gregory Nyssen, S. Austin, and S. Hierom. p. 32.  
That the Church of England doth not symbolise with the Church of Rome, which gives Religious Worship to the Saints on their Festivals, but with the Primitive Church, who paid them only Civil Honour; proved from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna and S. Austin p. 35.  
His Defence of his Chapter about Invocation of Saints, begun with Falsification of my Words p. 37. and built wholly upon that false Supposal, That I had granted Invocation to have been practised in the Fourth and Fifth Ages p. 39  
The Jesuit Sabran's Challenge about Invocation of Saints, accepted and answered,  
Wherein is proved, That the Primitive Fathers did not practise Invocation of Saints, during the Five first Centuries, from the Acts of the Martyrdoms of S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp p. 41. from the Liturgy of the first Christians in Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement's Constitutiones Apostolicae, & S. Austin p. 42. that the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers for those Ages was directly against, and inconsistent with Invocation of Saints, proved from Ignatius p. 45. from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, and S. Irenaeus p. 46. from Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian p. 47. from Origen p. 49. from S. Cyprian, and Novatian p. 54. from Lactantius p. 55. from S. Athanasius p. 56. from Hilary the Deacon p. 58. from S. Basil, Gregory Nyssen and S. Ambrose p. 59 from S. Epiphanius p. 60. from S. Chrysostom p. 61. from S. Austin p. 62. p. 62.  
The Jesuits Confidence in asserting in both his Letters that all the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries did teach Invocation of Saints, exposed p. 65.  
The Argument for Invocation of Angels and Saints, from S. Ambrose disproven p. 67.  
The Jesuits Arguments for it answered, 

His first from S. Austin, shown to be directly against himself p. 69.  
His second from Origen, shown to be as much, if not more against him p. 71.  
His third from S. Basil, answered p. 72.  
His fourth from Gregory Nazianz. answered ibid.  
His fifth from Gregory Nyssen answered p. 73.  
His last from Theodoret answered p. 74.    
Three Differences assigned betwixt what was practised towards the Saints, in the end of the Fourth and Fifth Ages, and what is practised towards them by the Church of Rome at this day p. 77.  
A Challenge to the Jesuit, if he intends to reply p. 79.  
A horrid blundering Objection of the Representer's about Invocation, displayed and confuted p. 80.  
The Defence of his Chapter about Relics, shown to be disingenuous, and unreasonable Cavilling from S. Athanasius p. 84.  
The whole of his Vindication upon this Head ruined, by the proof of two things: first, That the Church of Rome doth worship Relics, proved from the Council of Trent, from Vasques, and Thomas Aquinas their Oracle p. 85.  
Secondly, That the Primitive Church did not worship them, proved from S. Hierom and Austin p. 89.  
The Purgatory of the Church of Rome, shown to be inconsistent with the Belief of the Ancients about the State of the Dead, from the belief of its being a place of torments p. 93.  
That the Compiler has forsaken the Doctrine of his own Church by denying it to be a Place of Fire and fiery Torments p. 94.  
That the Purgatory of the Church of Rome is such a place, proved from Bellarmine, from the Council of Florence p. 98. from the Catechism ad Parochos p. 101. from the Office for the Dead in the Romish Missal p. 103. and from Cardinal Capisucchi's Interpretation of the Prayer in that Office p. 105.  
His Doctrine of the Three States of Men departed, and of Purgatory, shown to be unserviceable to the Church of Rome, from S. Austin himself, who first taught it p. 109.  
That the Ancients did pray for those in Heaven, and for those in Hell, proved against the Compiler from S. Ambrose, p. 111. from the Canon of the Mass itself p. 112. and from S. Chrysostom and S. Austin ibid.  
His great disingenuity and false dealing about representing our Doctrine about the Eucharist, laid open p. 113.  
The Insincerity of his Defence proved from Point to Point, p. 116.  
That the Primitive Fathers did believe that the Eucharist does in a proper sense nourish our Bodies, proved from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Isidore of Sevil, etc. p. 118.  
A digression, wherein is proved that the Editors of Rabanus Maurus' Works have abused the World by putting in things which are not his, and leaving out Books which certainly belong to him p. 119.  
His forsaking the Defence of his Proofs about Images, shown to be unavoidable, since they do prove against himself p. 130.  
Directions to the Compiler if he intent to reply p. 132.  
A recapitulatory Conclusion, wherein is shown, in short, how far the Primitive Fathers were from being Papists 133.    

THE Primitive Fathers NO PAPISTS: IN ANSWER to the VINDICATION of NUBES TESTIUM, etc.  

WHat reception My Answer to the Nubes Testium found among the Members of the Church of England, I am neither so curious, nor so vain to inquire, the entertainment it met with among the Romish Party doth very fully discover that some people were very much galled, and very much incensed at it; for no sooner was it published in Print, than I was told that the Clouds were gathering, and that I should find them break in Thunder and Lightning upon me: I will not trouble the World with the Stories and the Messages I had sent me about it; but will only assure the Reader, that if big words, and great threaten could have done any good upon me, I had certainly been spoiled for ever venturing upon Controversy again, or even upon defending what I had already written therein.  
But upon second thoughts I suppose it was, that my Adversaries found it would be their best way to treat me as a Writer, and that it must be their care to have some sort of an Answer made to those severe things I had charged the Representer and the Jesuit with.  
The Jesuit Sabran was the first that took the Field against me, and reason good; since he had but a small Postscript of half a page to encounter; and therefore after three Weeks time from the publishing of the Postscript at the end of my Answer to the Nubes Testium, out comes his Letter of a Sheet and a half to a Protestant Lord in defence of the Passage in his Printed Sermon, which I had reflected on.  
Assoon as I saw his Letter, I could not but smile to see them begin at the wrong end of my Book to answer it, and to see them withal undertake the Defence of that thing, in which they were opposed not only by us Protestants, but by all the Men of Learning in their own Church: and therefore I needed not to be much concerned, since I perceived I was engaged with an Adversary whom I might answer as fast as I could write, who, instead of acquitting himself fairly of the first and single charge against him, had blundered ignorantly into several other mistakes; which I resolved to call him to account for, and therefore immediately I wrote him an Answer, and got it dispatched so suddenly at the Press, that there was but one day betwixt the publishing of his Letter to the Protestant Lord, and my Letter to the Jesuit himself in Answer to it.  
Whether the suddenness of my Reply, or the discovering to the World of his further mistakes, was the reason of his passionate Reply, I cannot tell; however I wondered to see a Jesuit who wrote with so much temper in the first Letter, and resolved not to be provoked into insulting or scurrilous Language, quite forget himself in the Reply he made to my first Letter; and in this Reply which he published within less than a Week after his so solemn professions unto the contrary to the Protestant Lord, to fall into such indecent heats and such scurrilous language: but I can assure him, I was not moved by it, and did as little mind as I did little deserve such impertinent language from him: All my concern was to send him a second Letter, and to let him know that I was resolved to make his Ignorance as apparent to the World, as his Sermon had been, and to expose his confident mistakes and his bold untruths about the fourteenth and eighteenth as well as the thirty fifth Sermons of St. Austin de Sanctis.  
I did in two days dispatch and print, and the next day sent him my second Letter; to which I have not since received one word of Answer, and I suppose I never shall; and I think that Jesuit is by this time convinced that it had been better for him to have sat down at first quietly under the reproof given him in the Postscript to the Answer to the Nubes Testium: since he hath by his vain attempt to vindicate himself, betrayed his Ignorance and his weakness so very much to the World, and his Answerer hath not omitted (in the second Letter especially, wherein he had more room) to expose and publish it to the World, and to convince all Readers what sort of Adversaries we deal with at present.  
I thought myself obliged to make such a discovery of this Jesuit to the World, because I did understand while I was engaged with him, that he does appear wonderfully great in his own Eyes, and was as desirous of being thought a very terrible Jesuit to the People in Wales, when he went thither, not long since, filled with the design and pleasing thoughts of bringing in the Welsh Nation by shoals into the Bosom of the Bishop of Rome's Church: but I question not but before this time that Country hath another very different Idea of him and his Learning; and that they now see that his Ignorance is altogether as great, as the Confidence with which he appeared and made such blustering among them.  
While I was thus engaged with Sabran the Jesuit, the Representer, or the Compiler of the Nubes Testium (for he that wrote Popery misrepresented and represented, is the same Person that stole the Nubes Testium out of Natalis Alexandre) had got something ready against me, and was willing to be the Jesuits Second: that they might therefore divert me from meddling any further with the Jesuit, who, they could not but see, had grievously overshot himself, and yet if possible, was to make some sort of a creditable retreat; the same day that the Jesuit published his Reply to my first Letter, the Representer also appeared in Print against me, but in Masquerade, lest it should look a little ungenerous, to fall two of them, and two such men of wonderful prowess and skill, at the same instant upon one weak and unskilful Writer, if you will believe the Representer: and as if he had been Secretary to a Committee of Dissenters, and had Orders to draw up Articles of Popery against me, he publishes from his Masters a Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England, wherein I am complained of for no fewer than sixteen Articles of Popery to be found in my Answer to the Compiler of the Nubes Testium.  
But I did no sooner see this pretended Letter from a Dissenter, than I was satisfied, not only of the design, but of the Author of it, and to spoil the design I immediately set to answering the Jesuit, that so I might put an effectual end to the Controversy with him, and thereby be wholly at leisure to attend my new Adversary in disguise. I was not deceived in my intentions, for after the sending him my second Letter, I have not heard one word of the Jesuit since, and now after above six Weeks expectations I think I may have leave to believe that I have done his business, and have wholly rid my hands of the Jesuit.  
And lest the Representer should think I should despise him, because I might not know him in his Dissenter's Masque, and that I should disdain to vindicate myself against such a false and groundless Charge, I was careful in an Advertisement at the End of my Second Letter which I was sending to his Friend the Jesuit, to let him and the World understand that I knew him notwithstanding his Disguise, and that I intended to give him a speedy Answer to that pitiful cheat.  
I was as good as my word, and did shortly after publish my Vindication against the Popish-Dissenter's Letter, wherein I shown the great Knavery, the intolerable disingenuity and frequent Calumnies and Falsifications up and down that Letter, by which I am satisfied that I did sufficiently acquit myself, and that if the Representer himself be not, yet the World is convinced, that he ought to be ashamed of such mean and contemptible projects of defaming an Adversary; that he had much better never to have meddled with such a knavish Prank, as that pretended Letter was, since this piece of knavery had the fate that attends all such unlawful and disingenuous actions, to do the Representer and his Cause, now it is displayed, ten times more mischief, than it ever could have done him service, had it continued (as he doubtless hoped it would) concealed; for I can assure the Representer that I do not speak my own Opinion, but that of abundance of people who are competent Judges of these things, and of a great many worthy and Honourable Persons too, if I tell him, that he hath by that dissembling Practice quite sunk his Reputation, and is now and will be looked upon as a Person of no Honesty, nor Conscience: and this I hope will at last convince the Representer himself, that the publishing of that pretended Letter hath cost him very dear, hath forfeited that thing which every good and honest man values next to his Life.  
I thought it not improper to give this State of the Controversy betwixt me and the Romish Jesuit and Representer in relation to that Answer to the Nubes Testium, which hath been the Cause of all the dispute betwixt us, since it was published unto the World, especially since those two Persons will be so much concerned in this Book, which I am now writing: and it cannot be ungrateful to the Reader to know the Characters of them, particularly of the Representer, who hath made so much noise in the World, and is the Person against whom this Answer of mine is chief aimed.  
For within some time after the publishing of his Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England against me, he was pleased to lay aside his Fanatical Masque, and to publish to the World in his own Name a formal Vindication of his Nubes Testium with the pompous Title of The Primitive Fathers no Protestants, or a Vindication of Nubes Testium from the Cavils of the Answerer.  
Assoon as his Book was brought to my hands, and I had cast my Eye on his Title-page, I began to suspect that now he had stolen from his own dear self, and that we should now be served up again with his 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th Chapters of his Second Part of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented, which is no new thing with him; but upon the Perusal of his Book, I found that this Title was only for Ornament sake, to help his Printer in the Sale of them, or to use one of his own dearly beloved Elegancies, that this Title is much like his Bartholomew-Fair-Narrative at the outside of a Booth, of which he gives such a Critical Account in the first page of his Preface to his Third Part of Popery Misrepresented and Represented, as would make one suspect that the Representer uses to be very conversant at that Fair, and that he there picked up most of those pretty Phrases, and fine Elegancies which appear up and down his Pamphlets, and set them off so very much to the Generality of his credulous Readers.  
Well, but tho' the Representer did not formally set himself to show that the Primitive Fathers were no Protestants, yet did he not do it effectually enough in vindicating his Nubes Testium throughly from the Cavils of the Answerer? this I know is that he will value himself upon, and therefore I come next to examine whether, and how he hath done that.  
I must confess that when I saw his Title so promising and his Pamphlet so small, I did expect that he would have kept close to his Vindication, and would have come up fairly to me in every point and charge; but when I came to read him, I found him spending page after page in general discourse nothing to the purpose, and roving here and there, first into Oats' Plot, then quickly into the Pulpits, than back into the defence, nothing but rambling and incoherent Discourse, as if his business had been not to give a fair answer to an Adversary, but to fill up six sheets of paper with something.  
After I heard of his Intentions of vindicating the Nubes, I did not wonder to find such rambling stuff in his Book, for I very well knew his Ignorance was so great that it would be impossible for him to do it as it did require: the collecting of the Nubes out of Natalis Alexandre, is no more than what might have been done by a Bookseller's Apprentice, who brought so much learning with him from School, as to be able to understand a Latin Author, and to translate some passages of him into English: But to defend those passages, and to prove they were not curtailed, nor abused, nor misunderstood, nor misapplied, did require a knowledge and skill in the Writings of the Fathers themselves out of whom they had been borrowed, and therefore the Representer was here at a loss, was carried beyond his depth, and was hereby engaged in Matters he knew nothing more of than what he found in his Master Natalis Alexandre, who not foreseeing what answers would be made to his several quotations out of the Fathers could not set down his Defences of them, and therefore could not supply the Representer in this Emergency, wherein he was so hard put to it by his Adversary.  
Yet notwithstanding all this, the Representer plucks up a good heart, and what he wanted of Learning for this occasion, he seems resolved to make up with Confidence, and therefore talks with as much assurance in his Vindication, as if he had the Fathers at his Finger's ends, and was resolved to carry the World before him; but since he was so hardy as to venture once more into the Combat, I think it fit to make up to him, and to let him know that I must stop him a while, that we two may fairly and calmly examine what hath been written and said on both sides, and see whether things have been managed betwixt us, as might be expected from those who understood what they were about, and had no other design than to make Truth appear, which all men will be ready enough to follow.  
At the end of his Book he tells his Reader he hath run through all the Sections of his Answerer but one, and talks as if he had been as particular and as substantial in his Replies as any Reader could desire; but to let the World see the bold disingenuity of this Representer, and to display his Confidence and his Ignorance alike, I must take a new method with such a pretender, and let the World see how much of my Book he hath not said one word to in defence of the Nubes: his dexterity at dropping the defence of his thirty seven Chapters of his Popery Misrepresented and Represented hath been very well shown in the View of the whole Controversy betwixt him and the Answerer; but such things cannot put him to the Expense of but one blush: for in his Preface to his last Piece of Popery Misrepresented and Represented he stands to it, that as for the Misrepresentations no body can prove that he had not such apprehensions of Popery while he was a Protestant; And for the Representations, no body can prove that he did not therein give that account of Popery which he had learned in sixteen years' Conversation among the Papists; and thinks this answer sufficient, and a very good reason why he needed not to dispute: but the World is by this time satisfied, that there is a better reason why he did not dispute and defend his Characters, which is, because he had not learning enough to do it.  
And this perhaps will be his next answer to me, that in the Nubes Testium he did only represent the Father's Doctrine and Opinions, as he had learned them in Natalis Alexandre, and other Catholic Writers: but I will take care to shut up that Door, by letting him know, that if he quote the Fathers themselves, and either falsify, or misapply, or curtail their words, no man else is to be answerable for them but himself, and that herein he is inevitably put upon defending what he hath quoted, and disputing that such and such is the true sense of the words, and the doctrine of such or such a Father.  
And therefore since I was so very particular in my Answer to the Nubes Testium as to follow him from passage to passage, and to show him that such and such passages were nothing to the purpose, that others were falsified, that a third sort were misunderstood, and wretchedly misapplied, and gave my reasons and Arguments for it all along; He ought either to have been as particular and fair in his Vindication; or since he really was unable to do it, to have got some Friends to have done it for him; but he is for doing all himself, and thinks, I warrant him, that his Vindication will pass well enough upon the Generality of Readers, since it is written with an air of Confidence, and with such an assurance as certainly persuades the Readers, that he has the Truth on his side.  
And therefore I think the greater obligation is upon me to expose such an affected confidence, and I must beg the Reader's pardon if I begin a tedious but new Method to clear this to the World, and show these two things. First a Catalogue of abundance of material points and arguments in my Book, to which he hath offered no sort of Answer. Secondly, The Weakness and Vanity of all that he hath said in Answer to any parts of my Book. The clearing of these two things will give a full Answer to his pretended Vindication, and will also, I do not doubt it, put a full End to the Controversy about the Nubes Testium, betwixt the Representer and Me.  
As to the Catalogue therefore, I will place the several particulars as they lie in the distinct Chapters and Sections of my Answer, but must begin with my Preface, wherein I charged him in the first place with affirming not only what was false, but what was more than he could know, to wit, that the Latin of his Nubes Testium was out of such Editions as are most authentic; since I shown it to be false from N. Alexandre's own Confession; and that he could not know what Editions N. Alexandre did use, because N. Alexandre does not tell the Readers what Editions he used in his Work, excepting Christopherson's Edition of Eusebius, which all know to be far from being the most authentic. To this severe Charge he gives no Reply.  
I charged him also in the Preface with stealing the whole of his Nubes Testium (excepting a passage or two) out of N. Alexandre. This is not denied by him; and reason good, since every page of my Book did invincibly prove it; which hath so much enraged him against me. I charged him with stealing his Book out of a forbidden Author, every one of whose Volumes used by him in that Plagium had been condemned to the Flames by this present Pope two years before, and with his standing Excommunicate by this Pope for his pains. This he durst not deny any more than the other, since I had reprinted the Pope's Bull itself, by which those Books were condemned, and the Representer for keeping and using them Excommunicated by this present Pope.  

Answer to the Compiler of the Nubes Testium, p. 4.  In my first Chapter I accused the Compiler first of quoting some passages, as from the 34th, 45th, and 36th Chapters of St. Austin's third Book against Cresconius, which are not to be found in those Chapters. To this I have not one word of Reply.  
2. In the same page I accused N. Alexandre of falsifying a notable passage of S. Austin, and the Compiler of obtruding it upon the World so falsified. To this not a syllable is offered in defence of either of them.  

Answer to Nubes Testium, p. 7.  3. I accused N. Alexandre with falsifying another passage from S. Austin, and our Compiler with putting it off so falsified. But to this not a word of Reply.  
P. 8, 9 4. I charged our Compiler, when he was come to the point of the Pope's Supremacy, with giving a false state of that Controversy betwixt us. To this I find no Reply.  
P. 10 5. I charged the Compiler with a deluding translation of the Decree of the Council of Florence. To this I meet with no Reply.  
P. 12, 13. 6. I charged N. Alexandre with affirming a gross untruth, in saying the Fathers did with a Nemine contradicente, interpret the Rock in St. Matthew to be meant of St. Peter; and I charged our Compiler for coming in for his share in it, in saying indefinitely, that the Fathers teach, that Christ built his Church upon Peter, whereas I shown there from Launoy and some Fathers themselves, that the Generality of the Fathers, nay the almost unanimous consent of them was directly against our two bold and mistaken Asserters: To this heavy charge our Compiler in his Vindication was not able, or forgot to give one word of Reply.  
P. 21 7. I charged the Council of Florence of being notoriously guilty, either of Ignorance or of Forgery in that Decree which they made, and our Compiler quoted for the Pope's Supremacy; but our Compiler was not at leisure to say any thing in defence either of that Council, or himself.  
P. 25 8. I charged our Compiler with citing a passage as out of S. Basil's Comments on Esaiah, which not only is not there, but the direct contrary to it is in that place, and put down from thence by me in my Answer. To this not a syllable of Reply.  
P. 26, 27. 9 I charged both N. Alexandre and our Compiler of very egregious disingenuity about St. Basil's Epistle, which I proved was directed to the Western Bishops, not to the Bishop of Rome in particular; was sent to beg help and assistance from them, not from the Bishop of Rome in particular against Eustathius. I proved also that it was not through any Letter from Pope Liberius, but through a Letter from the Western Bishops that Eustathius had formerly recovered his Restitution to his See, and that the Oriental Bishops did not request that assistance from the West, because they had not power enough of their own to have judged and deposed Eustathius, but upon a quite different account. To all these particular charges of disingenuity, and cheat, our Compiler durst not offer at one word of Reply.  
P. 27 10. I charged them with falsehood in urging a passage in favour of the Pope from Gregory Nazianzen, which did concern S. Basil and not the Bishop of Rome, as Elias Cretensis, and Billius do assure us. To this we find no Reply.  
P. 27 11. I charged N. Alexandre and our Compiler with prefixing impertinent and false Accounts to the passage in Athanasius about Dionysius of Alexandria. No Answer is given to this.  
P. 27, 28, 29. 12. I charged them both with perfect Romancing about the business of Julius' taking the Cause of Athanasius into his hands, and of his citing him and his Enemies to appear before his Apostolic Tribunal, and proved that it was false in every part of it; I charged the Compiler with adding to the falsehood in saying Athanasius appealed to the Bishop of Rome, with contradicting his own Master who had written a Dissertation in which he shown that Athanasius did not appeal thither, nay with contradicting his own next Testimony from Sozomen. To this heavy load our Compiler has not a Word to answer.  
P. 31, 32. 13. I charged both of them with great disingenuity in calling St. Chrysostom's Letter directed to Innocentius his Letter of Request, and with their forgeries about his presenting it: I charged them with wholly mistaking that affair. To this not a Syllable of Answer or Defence.  
P. 32 14. I accused both of 'em of Ignorance and Disingenuity for affirming that the Synod of Capua had committed to Theophilus the Decision of the quarrel betwixt Evagrius and Flavianus at Antioch, when the contrary was as plain as words could express a thing; for laying that to St. Ambrose which he had not said. But this Charge wants a Reply as well as the rest.  
P. 34, 35. 15. I desired an Answer from our Compiler himself whether he designed the passage from Valentinian's Letter to prove the Bishops of Rome had power alone, or with other Bishops of judging Matters of Faith, and the Cause of Priests or Bishops: and shown him that if he designed only the latter, he was guilty of trifling, if the former, that he was contradicted by his own Master F. Alexandre and by the Clergy of France. But the Compiler is sullen and was too angry to give an Answer in his Vindication to such an ensnaring Question.  
P. 35 16. I charged our Representer and his Master with a false Assertion in saying the Council of Constantinople did submissively desire the Confirmation of their Decrees from Pope Damasus: but Natalis Alexandre is too far off, and the Compiler too sullen to make a Defence.  
P. 36 17. I charged our Compiler with Impertinence in saying, the Heretics rejected Doctrines and Practices because they were not in Scripture; I charged his Master with egregious falsehood in saying the Heretics appealed only to Scripture; and shown them that had either of them read that Chapter, nay but the bare Title of that Chapter which they both quote in Iraenaeus in defence of what they so falsely affirmed, they would have been ashamed of what they did; But I cannot find a word of Reply to this.  
P. 42 18. I charged our Compiler with Ignorance in Chronology, and with contradicting his Master in the very places he transcribes from, and gave the Instances of his placing Vigilantius in the beginning of the fourth Century, whom his Master and all men of Learning place a hundred Years later; of his placing Damasus and Julius in the Third Century, who lived in the Middle of the Fourth Century; of his putting Victor into the First Century, who flourished not till the Second Century was almost at an end: and lastly, of the gross and intolerable Blunder of putting Aerius in the middle exactly of the First Century, whereas he lived not till Three Hundred years after. Our Compiler in his Vindication wanted not only forehead to defend them, but ingenuity to acknowledge his Mistakes, and therefore thought it were best to say nothing about it.  
P. 49 19 I charged him with making use of a false Translation of a passage in Eusebius. To this not a Syllable of Reply.  
P. 54 20. I charged our Compiler and his Master with making use of a passage in defence of their Purgatory, which was direct Heresy. But not a word of Reply to this.  
P. 56 21. I charged Our Compiler with abusing Gregory Nazianzen by an ensnaring Translation of his words. To which our Compiler will give us no Reply.  
P. 61 22. I charged both N. Alexandre and our Compiler with abusing and quite perverting a passage from St Ambrose by leaving out a Line which was connected to it, and would have given light to the whole passage. To which no Reply.  
P. 55, 56, 57 etc. to 62. 23. I charged them both with misunderstanding, and misapplying St. Ambrose's words about Theodosius, I charged them of being guilty of the same towards all the passages urged by them from S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Hierom and S. Austin, but cannot find a word of Reply to this large Charge in our Compiler's Vindication of himself.  
P. 67 24. I charged the Compiler with disingenuity for curtailing and maiming the passage from Gelasius Cyzicenus about receiving but a small portion of Christ's Body and Blood. To which I meet with not one word of Reply.  
P. 78 25. I laid to his charge either gross Ignorance, or great disingenuity in saying that the Jews, Marcionites, Manichees and Theopaschites had always showed themselves Enemies of holy Images. No Answer to this.  
P. 85 26. I charged the Compiler with giving a false state of the Controversy about Images, with palliating in talking only of respect to Images, when not only their Council of Trent, but that second of Nice commanded a Worship of them, and their Index Expurgatorius was so careful to strike out of any Author any thing that did but offer to deny Adoration to Images; nay his own Quotations do prove as far as they are able, that Images were to be adored. But to this I find not one syllable of a Reply.  
27. I challenged the Compiler to show that as they made use of the Figure of the Cross in Constantine's time, so they adored it; that the Ancients did adore the Image of the Cross, and paid that Latria to the Image of the Cross, which the Church of Rome doth now say, is due to it. But our Compiler is not at leisure to answer Challenges, and therefore finds it the wisest way to say nothing.  
Thus I have given the Reader a Catalogue of a great many severe and very considerable Accusations against our Compiler, and his Master Natalis Alexandre, to which he hath not given one Syllable of Reply, or made any Defence for himself or Master against them, though they be charges that call not only their Learning, but their Ingenuity and Honesty so often into question; should I add to this Catalogue another of abundance of considerable passages in my Book, which I put down to explain the true and genuine sense of the several Fathers, and to confront those curtailed, misunderstood, misappliea, and abused passages with which he had filled his Nubes Testium, to all which I find no better or more Reply than to the former Catalogue in his pretended Vindication; I should be forced to transcribe almost my whole Answer hither: for this Representer hath a considerable knack of his own to answer Authorities by saying nothing to them; He does not in that whole Vindication bear up fairly to any one Argument, or Authority urged in confutation of him, but knows very well how to fence off any thing that does press home, by stepping out of the way of it, and has got a peculiar Art first of abusing and misrepresenting his Adversaries words or sense, and then of ridiculing them, and making them for to appear absurd or unreasonable: and then this must pass for a full answer, and a complete Vindication of himself.  
After such an account of the Compiler's giving no answer, nor making any defence against so very many severe charges; and of his skulking, and shifting off all replying fairly to the rest of my Book: the Reader will be very desirous to know about what it is that the Compiler hath employed his six sheets, and what he would mean by a Vindication of himself, if nothing be said to so very many, and so very heavy charges: I come therefore to satisfy that desire, and to show the Reader how very well the Compiler's Answer deserves the name of a Vindication of the Nubes Testium from the Cavils of the Answerer; by which false Title I do not question but it was his design to make people believe that I had only carped at a passage here and there, and never bore up fairly to him; but this is but one of a great many of disingenuous tricks so frequent with this Writer, as I have made it already sufficiently apparent from the Catalogue of considerable things, to which he hath given not a syllable of Reply; and shall make it much more visible in the following part of my Book, and prove there, that it was the Representer himself that was thus guilty of that cavilling, of which he so falsely in his Title Page accuses me, that it is he himself that is really guilty of cavilling only and catching at here and there a passage in my Answer: and this will give the World a better knowledge of the Representer, and discover with what disingenuity and confidence he can both write, and affirm the most groundless things.  
I have hitherto given account of that part of my Book, to which the Representer hath been pleased to return no sort of answer; I must now undertake my second promise, and that was to discover the weakness and vanity of all that he hath said in answer to the rest of my Book.  
He gins his Vindication, and certainly wrote it in a very angry mood, and therefore we must pardon his running out into generals, and making such frequent and odd excursions into matters that are wholly foreign to the Controversy betwixt him and me, to which I am resolved to confine myself, tho' his anger would not let him, but hurries him so much and so often quite out of his way. I will set aside therefore his general talk, in which though there is a great deal of malice, yet not one syllable of argument; I am never at leisure to mind or to answer such stuff: but will pass to the first thing he intends to reply to, which is my charge against him of stealing the Nubes Testium out of Natalis Alexandre.  
He acquaints his Reader, that I pretend to discover, that the greatest part of the Nubes Testium is in Natalis Alexandre's History: but when he is got about a dozen lines lower, than it is come to my discovering, that a great part of his Testimonies are in that History; and in the next page to his only taking the choice of those great numbers of Testimonies that are in N. Alexandre, and his adding some others to them: I thought I had told him often enough in my Answer, and I suppose those who have read my Answer to Nubes Testium do very well remember, that I do not only prove that the passages of the Fathers in the Nubes Testium are all of them (except one or two) to be met with in Father Alexandre, but that they were all of them stolen from thence: and that I do not charge him only with stealing some of his choice Testimonies thence, with stealing a great part, or the greatest part of the Nubes Testium, but I did in my Preface charge him more than once with stealing the WHOLE of his Nubes Testium, with stealing ALL his Book out of Natalis Alexandre, without once mentioning or hinting at Natalis Alexandre's History or Name through the whole Book; with being the greatest Plagiary that hath appeared on the stage in these times.  
And now what answer hath he made to all this? Can he deny that the whole of his Nubes is to be met with in Father Alexandre? No, that he does not deny? can he disprove me, or will he deny that he stole that whole Book out of that Historian? No, he dare not pretend to do that neither; since every page in my Answer, did to his great vexation prove it upon him: What is it then that he would be at, while he has not the face or confidence to deny the thing? his business in his Vindication about this thing seems to be no other than to cast a mist before his Reader's Eyes, to lessen his crime as much as he can, and much more than he ought, by bearing them in hand, that the greatest part only, and soon after, a great part, and (as if he were to lessen and diminish the accusation gradually) in the next page the Choice only of the Testimonies in his Nubes Testium were to be met with, and were borrowed from Natalis Alexandre: but this trick will not do, nor shall this cheat pass upon any one, that will read us both, since I did from the beginning, and do here again accuse the Representer of stealing implicitly his whole Nubes Testium (except a passage or two) out of Father Alexandre without one naming whence he stole it.  
But perceiving that all this would not clear him, or remove the Imputation of a very great Plagiary, under which he lay, he puts as good a face as he can upon the matter, and now is for assuring his Reader, that he is so far from being offended in being thought [he should have added, and being proved] a Compiler, that he should have thought himself unwise, if he had done more than compiled. This is pleasant stuff, and shows what metal some men are made of, who can make that to be a Virtue in themselves, which all men else look upon to be a very great disgrace: but such men are proof against a thing called Modesty, and think nothing more necessary to defend any of their most unaccountable actions, than by setting a good face to it.  
But since our Compiler pretends here to the politic part, and since he does just after own that he hath not read the Fathers, and that it would be ridiculous for him in his circumstances to have attempted to read them over; I hope it will not be amiss if I can tell him of another and a better point of prudence, and that is, that he should not in his Circumstances have meddled at all with presenting the World with such a Collection out of the Fathers: I will also give him my reasons along with it, because they that know nothing of the Fathers themselves ought not to meddle in these things; because every one that can translate Latin into English is not straghtways an Adept, and fit to be employed, or to employ himself in such things, because they that are ignorant of the Fathers themselves, must rely wholly upon the credit and honesty of those out of whom they collect, and can neither answer for the genuineness of the Authors, nor the Sincerity of the Authorities, which they take wholly upon trust; nor show that the Author out of whom they borrow, did not misapply or misunderstand, or abuse the Father's sense.  
These reasons together ought to convince him that his excuse here is vain, and that it had been his wisest way not to have meddled with such business, since he owns his Ignorance in the Fathers themselves, and I have shown him that some things else are requisite for a Man's setting up for a Collector of Authorities out of Fathers, besides the ability of translating Latin into English. But the Representer thinking by this time that he had got pretty well rid of the severe accusation by the sleight and art of pleading guilty, and giving a knackish turn to the whole Matter, is now got into a merry mood, and cannot but send me his thanks for giving the World notice of the Representer's having more Consideration, than to take so much unnecessary pains as to read the Fathers themselves in order to his publishing such a Collection of Testimonies out of them.  
I cannot but smile and can hardly keep from laughing out at such a Scene as this: well then, since he is for thanking me for proving he was so great a Plagiary, I cannot in civility but receive his Thanks, and assure him withal that I am so very desirous and ambitious of doing things for which I can have thanks from such Friends as he is, that I shall always be at his service upon the same account, and at the service of all his Friends (to let him see how grateful I am to him) and will make it my business to deserve his and their Thanks, by finding out where they have been stealing their Books, and publishing their Thefts to the World, as often as I can, that so I may have the more of their Thanks.  
But is this Man really serious in giving me thanks in this business? Can he be hearty in sending me thanks for the discovery of that thing which hath made him ridiculous, and wholly contemptible in the Eyes of all Scholars, and I believe I may add, in the Eyes of all those who have perused my Answer to his Nubes Testium? I must profess that I look upon this as one of the most extravagant things I ever met with in Print, and that I cannot refrain giving it its true Name, and telling the World that I look upon it to be the very height of Impudence, for a man to be so far from being ashamed, or from blushing at that which lays him so open to the World, and makes him to be hist at, and ridiculous to all men, as to thank him for it who made him such an Object of Contempt and Derision.  
But he hath something more to urge in his Defence, and says he had Authority enough for it, since I make F. Alexandre himself a Compiler, but never discover the Author made use of by him in his History. Here I would gladly know, how this can be any excuse to our Compiler that F. Alexandre himself is suspected and believed to be guilty of the same crime: as to the reasons of believing F. Alexandre also to be a Compiler, I did urge this one that he never, that I could observe, does tell his Reader what Editions of the Fathers he made use of, nor quotes the Page of the Author above once in a thousand Quotations. This made me reasonably suspect that he did not deal with the Fathers themselves, but with Coccius and Bellarmine and such Voluminous Quoters of the Fathers: and I am since much more persuaded, and fully confirmed in the Justice of my Suspicion by the inquiries I have made concerning him among Learned Men, but especially from one extraordinary Person, who knows him very well, and hath given me a very good reason why we meet with the Greek Fathers always speaking Latin in this Historian, and why he made use of Christopherson's Latin and corrupt Translation of Eusebius in his History, who lived at Paris, and could not want the convenience of the best Greek and Latin Edition of Eusebius. However it is with him, I will offer F. Alexandre this choice, whether he desires to have the Character of a Compiler, or of a Falsifier of the Fathers: if he disdains to be thought a Compiler, I do here engage that I will at any time prove it upon him that he hath falsified several passages of the Fathers in his History: but if he will not endure such an odious Character, he must even sit down content with the other.  
Upon the mention of the word stealing, the Representer is up in a rage again, and is got raving into Oates' Plot, and therefore I must leave him swaggering and tearing, and doing something worse than that for a page and a half, and can rest myself awhile till he is got into his senses again, and returned to the Controversy betwixt us two. He than tells his Reader that the other Crime I called him to account for, was for making use of an Author in this Collection, whose Books had been condemned by the Pope two years before.  
This Crime he thinks to get clear off very easily, and therefore dispatches it in a very few words. But since, says the Representer, for this he remitts me to my F. Confessor, I'll even see to compound the matter with him as well as I can. And did I then remit him to F. Confessor? Did I remit it to the Confessor to decide whether the Pope had by his Breve condemned Natalis Alexandre's Books to the Flames? Did I remit it to him to decide whether the Pope had by that Breve forbidden the faithful of what condition or state soever under the pain of Excommunication immediately incurred the keeping or reading any of those Books? Did I remit it to him to decide whether the Representer, who had not only kept, but transcribed and Printed part of those condemned Books, had incurred or no that severe Sentence of Excommunication, which his Confessor can no more absolve him from, than I can, since the Pope hath reserved that Absolution solely to himself and the Popes of Rome? Every syllable of this is so utterly false and groundless, that I should admire at it in any other Person than the Representer.  
All that I said in relation to the Confessor was, that this bold contempt of the Pope's Breve seemed to be a trial of Skill about Infallibility betwixt the Compiler and the Pope, and that I would refer the Decision of this unto the Compiler's Confessor; which any one else would have seen that I spoke it Ironically, and was far from leaving it to the Confessor to decide whether the Compiler did stand excommunicated for the pains he took in collecting and Printing the Nubes Testium.  
Every body knows of their brags of Discipline and of their professed Obedience to the Pope in the Church of Rome: but this behaviour of the Representer, and of Sabran the Jesuit, whom I catcht in the same Crime and Disobedience, will satisfy most people how little some men's Writings agreed with their Practices, and what little credit is to be given to their so much celebrated Discipline, when those that make the greatest noise about it, are at the same time discovered to be the most notorious Offenders against it.  
Having dispatched all that he has offered in defence of himself about the stealing his Book out of a forbidden Author, I cannot but ask him before we part upon this point, whether it had not been better for him not to have meddled any more with those things which were so evident that they could not be denied, and so criminal that they could not be defended without the forfeiture of all Sense of Modesty, as well as betraying a want of Learning.  
He is now come to the Body of my Answer, and complains of my admirable Talon of trifling in quarrelling him for beginning his Book with The History of Donatus, and showing the Nature of Schism, and for my saying, That this was so far from being a Chief Point, that it is no Point of Controversy at all betwixt us. And upon this he falls to pitying me who had dwelled so long among Books for losing my time, and then shows that a Chapter about Schism was not improper to begin his Book with. But I would fain see this trifling proved; and will now prove that he is the guilty person who hath shuffled three Chapters together here, and hath not given us a true or fair state of the Chapters: I do own that a Discourse about Schism might be a proper Introduction to a Controversial Book, however I did show that what he advanced there was perfect trifling.  
I have once already done it sufficiently, and must be forced in Vindication of myself to do it again to let the World see who is the Caviller, and at whose Door the trifling must be laid. His first Chapter was, that the Fathers accused the Donatists of being guilty of Schism for making the wicked Lives of the Members of the Church the reason of their Separation. My answer to this was, that this can be no point of Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome as he had made it, since we never urged the wicked Lives of some Members of the Church of Rome, as the ground of our Separation from them: and what says our Representer in Reply to this? Does he either prove, that that is a point of controversy betwixt us, or that our Separation from the particular Church of Rome is grounded upon the same matter that the Donatists was? No, we have no reason to expect a fair Reply from him, who did not set down the state of this Chapter at all.  
The second Chapter was, that the Fathers teach against the Donatists that the Catholic Church cannot fail. This I told him could be no Controversy betwixt the Church of England and the Church of Rome, since we believe with the Fathers that the Catholic Church cannot fail. Was this then the trifling I am accused of? if it be, the Compiler had done well to have shown it, that so upon the sight of my error I might have altered my mind: but this he thought fit not at all to attempt.  
His third Chapter was, that the Fathers taught, that whosoever breaks the Unity of the Catholic Church upon any pretext whatsoever, is guilty of Schism. Upon this I told him, that taking the word pretext for a groundless pretence, I was of the same mind, and did believe the Donatists who acted so, to be guilty of a Criminal Schism: but assured the Compiler withal that this could not be matter of dispute betwixt us, who both assented to that doctrine of the Fathers; and here it is my trifling must be discovered, and here he will have me not only to differ from them, but from the Fathers: this is hard when I had assented to that Chapter as set down by him and proved by the Fathers: but he will have it that I am for making the breach of the Unity of the Catholic Church not Schism, unless it be done causelessly; whereas the Fathers teach there can be no just cause: I grant the Fathers teach that there can be no just cause given by the Catholic Church; however that particular Churches can give and do often give just cause for others to break Communion with them, is what no Father will deny, is what the Church of Rome itself must grant, which hath not only broken Communion with us, but with the whole Greek Church, and yet I suppose does pretend to show that she had a just cause for it. He hath offered hereupon nothing new in defence of his three Chapters, but some hard words, and those I do not intent to reply to, but will pass to the defence of his Chapter about the Supremacy.  
I had charged him with giving a false and imperfect state of the Controversy betwixt us in relation to the Pope's Supremacy; but this he is not willing to defend, but turns it off with saying, that it only is so, if my word be to be taken for it: but I had not only given him my word, but very good reasons for it; and therefore since the Compiler hath no mind to be meddling with reasons, it would be uncivil to be importunate with calling upon him to disprove them. That Chapter as it did concern the greatest point of Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome, so it did require a great deal of canvasing, and admit of a vast variety of dispute in it: I was careful to follow the Compiler through it, and to debate and disprove every thing that was brought to support the Pope's Supremacy in it: but our Compiler is not so civil to me, nor so just to his Book in his Vindication, but forsakes the defence of every one of his passages, and only seems solicitous to make a show; and that he may not be accused of saying nothing at all in defence of his Testimonies, and in Answer to a great many very severe charges in that Chapter, he serves us up again two or three bits of his former passages, and that is all.  
I told him his first quotation from Irenaeus was of no use; and gave him in short my reasons for it, all the answer he makes is to give us anew a piece of the same passage; and this with two or three scornful words, and crying good and great! must be called defending, and we must be content with such from him, since it seems the Man is not furnished with better, but if the old quotations presented anew will signify any thing, they are at your service, but upon this condition, that they may serve for a defence of themselves.  
And such is his behaviour as to the next passage from Optatus, which I shown to have been very obscure, and that in affirming there was but one Cathedra in the World possessed first by S. Peter, and after him by his Successors at Rome it did not only contradict the other parts of his Writings, but all Church Writers before and after him for hundreds of years, who make as many Cathedra's as Bishops in the World, and I instanced in a most plain place in Tertullian, which did assert the direct contrary to the Doctrine of that passage of Optatus. All the Answer besides rude language to these reasons that I can observe is, that it is a notorious fraud in me to pretend that the Father maintains here, That the Chair of Rome was such, that the rest of the Apostles might not have Cathedra's for themselves, whereas (says the Compiler) S. Optatus no where affirms this, but only, that the rest of the Apostles should not set up other Episcopal Chairs in opposition to this of Rome, or to contend with it.  
I believe I have considered this passage a little better than this confident Gentleman, who perhaps never saw it any where but in Natalis Alexandre, or some Romish Writer: and upon all the care I could take, I can see no reason for my being accused of fraud in this thing: or for altering my opinion of its denying Cathedra's to the rest of the Apostles. It first speaks of the Episcopal Cathedra being bestowed on S. Peter at Rome, it immediately calls it the one Chair, and requires such an Unity to be preserved by all in this one Chair, as to forbid even the Apostles themselves to erect Cathedra's for themselves, and makes it Schism to set up a Chair against this SINGLE Cathedra; and to secure us from mistaking his meaning, it is just after this called the ONLY or SOLE Cathedra. If all this be not enough to satisfy that he speaks here of a single and ONLY Cathedra exclusively to any other Chair, I must confess I cannot see what words could do it, since had it been as much his design here, as I verily believe it was, to speak of there being but one single Cathedra in the World, he could not have used more full and larger expressions to declare his sense.  
And now if this was his meaning in this passage, which it certainly was, notwithstanding the Compilers weak defence, what crime was it in me to show that this was contrary to the rest of the Fathers, and what can be my fault to assent rather to what was the general and certain doctrine of the generality of Fathers, than to a small passage in S. Optatus, which does certainly contradict all them. This account of that passage will, I doubt not, acquit me of that hard thing I am accused of in the Opinions of all unprejudiced Readers: as for the Compiler's Opinion I do not value it, and therefore am far from being solicitous to gain it.  
When I did in the next place declare my dissent to two affirmations quoted from S. Hierom, I did, as it was just, set down the reasons of that my dissent: my reasons the Compiler meddles not with, because it was too hard for him to answer them, but thinks he has got advantage enough, and he makes triumphant use of it, that I durst be so hardy as not to assent to any thing said by S. Hierom, as if the words of S. Hierom were sacred, and one might as well deny assent to our blessed Saviour's words as to his; whereas had this ignorant boaster but been conversant even in Bellarmine and Baronius, he might have found them frequently enough setting aside the Authority and Interpretation of a particular Father, of S. Hierom for example, whose expressions about Presbyters and Bishops I do not believe this Compiler himself does subscribe to, any more than I did to those mentioned above: but he is too ignorant in these things, and therefore makes such tragical and womanish outcries about things, for which he would certainly be laughed at by all men of learning, even in his own Church.  
Having made a little fluttering as to those three passages, he thinks he has done very great feats, and therefore needed not to trouble himself to examine the rest as they came in their order, but makes one answer to serve for them all, by telling the Reader I only shift them off, and that the most eminent Protestants did acknowledge that the Popes did exercise a like authority with that which is attributed to the Pope by the Council of Florence: and so I am shifted off, the reason of which is, because this Compiler is too ignorant for such things, and since it would be ridiculous here to serve us up again the passages themselves out of the Nubes in the Vindication, he hath nothing more for us: but thinks all is well if he can but bring in the Concessions of Protestants; but suppose he could bring such Protestants in, why must we be obliged to stand by what they granted or affirmed any more than he thinks himself obliged to be set down by what some Schoolmen have said, whom he does so frequently, nay always throw by as abusers or mistakers of the Church's genuine Doctrine.  
I used to wonder whence it came to pass that every little Romish Writer could with so much readiness quote the Protestant Writers, insomuch that the most trifling Pamphleteer would not fail to serve you up with a last course of the Protestant Concessions. Thus the Antiquary of Putney, and the Maker of the Ecclesiastical Prospective-glass, and the Representer himself not only here, but in his other Pamphlets are very punctual in quoting the Protestant Authors, whom they have no more read, than the Alcoran in Arabic. But as soon as I saw Brerely's Protestant Apology, I quickly discovered that this was the Armoury out of which these doughty Writers did furnish themselves, and that this is the Book out of which they all borrow, and very fairly take things upon his credit, the truth or falsehood of which they know nothing of: but why should not such men take their quotations as well as their Faith upon trust, and be as confident about the truth of the first, as they are of the certainty of the other? I will only tell our Compiler again, that I do no more pin my Faith upon the groundless Concessions of some Protestant Writers, than he does his upon the Concessions of some of his Church-Writers.  
When he is come to his Point about Tradition, he is almost for thanking me for giving him but little trouble by granting there almost all that he contended for about Traditions, as I had granted as kind things in favour of the Pope. As to any Concessions about the Pope I shown them to be false and groundless, in my Answer to the Representer's Letter from a Dissenter, by which Answer I question not but I have laid open sufficiently to the World the great Knavery of the Representer in that matter: but here he is for charging me again in his own Shape, what be had before accused me of in his Fanatical Disguise. I have fully vindicated myself about my pretended Concessions as to Tradition, and throughly explained in what sense I spoke of Tradition in my Book, and as fully exposed the great Disingenuity of the Representer there: I do refer the Reader for these things to my Vindication of myself in Answer to the Dissenter's Letter, because I would not do like the Representer, transcribe one Book into another.  
In my Answer to the Nubes, I told the Compiler that his Testimonies about Tradition did refer to matters of Discipline and Practice, which every Church hath power to retain or alter as she sees most expedient, and that if he intended them for to prove that Tradition doth hand down to us some Points of Faith, which we are to receive, tho' they cannot be shown to be founded upon the Holy Scriptures, I told him that Sett of Testimonies would not do his business, and was not to the purpose, and thereupon challenged him to produce Fathers for that Point, promising him at the same time a fair Answer: But our Compiler durst not offer to accept of the Challenge, dares not meddle with such a thing; but if two or three bits of the Old Testimonies out of the Nubes may be admitted, they are at my Service; and from these it is that he would fain prove that even in matters of Belief, the Tradition of the Catholic Church is the best Demonstration. What? better than the Express Testimony of Scripture itself? Methinks our ignorant Compiler might have been contented to have made Tradition only as good or equal to Scripture for the Demonstration of Faith, which is the highest the Council of Trent itself durst rise in favour of Tradition, and never pretended to mount Tradition so much above Scripture as to make it the BEST DEMONSTRATION of Matters of FAITH. But when Ignorance and too great a stock of Confidence meet together, such Assertions as these are commonly the fruits of them. But for this extravagant Assertion he hath a mind to bring in Origen for a Voucher, who speaking concerning the Belief of Christ's being the Son of God, says, that is to be embraced which by a Succession from the Apostles is preserved in the Church by Ecclesiastical Tradition: but in Answer to this, Is not that Truth and Faith concerning Christ's being the Son of God expressly taught and held forth in the Holy Scriptures; and which is more, doth not Origen himself expressly tell us in this very place (for our Compiler is for looking no further than his own Book) that that Truth was to be learned by us ab IPSO from Christ himself, whose Words, Doctrine and Actions are used to be thought to have been the Subject of the New Testament, which I take to be Scripture: and as this Doctrine was to be read in the Scriptures, so it was delivered down from thence in Ecclesiastical Tradition, which can mean nothing else than either that the Scriptures which did comprehend that Faith, were delivered down successively from Age to Age in the Church, or that this was always taught in the Sermons and Homilies of the Fathers of the Church successively.  
And to give our Compiler a better knowledge of Origen's sense about these things, I will refer him to one Passage which I will set down and desire him to consider of it: 
Origen in Leviticum, c. 7. Homilia 5. p. 144. Edit. Froben. 1536.  Origen in his Homilies upon Leviticus speaking of the Old and New Testament tells us, that in THEM every word that appertaineteh to God [by which Expression the least he can mean is, that every Point of Faith] may be sought after and found out, and all Knowledge of things may be apprehended from THEM. But if any thing doth remain which the Holy Scripture doth not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for the Authorising any Knowledge, but we are to commit to the Fire that which remaineth, that is, we must leave it to God, for in this present World God is not for having us to know all things.  
Our Compiler is next for having Tertullian on his side, but why does he not then bring us something to prove it, or rather why did he not disprove what I had produced for the Authority and Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures from Tertullian? He neither does the one, nor offers at the other, and yet this must pass it seems for vindicating.  
And just thus he serves me after; for when I in Vindication of S. Basil had quoted him declaring for the necessity of Scripture-Evidence for Matters of Faith, he says not one Syllable in Answer to it, but is for referring me to the old Quotations out of Basil, Epiphanius and Lirinensis, which I had shown him before were not to the purpose; which is such perfect trifling as none but such a Compiler as he is would be guilty of.  
He than falls to thanking me for saying in relation to the Testimony from Gregory Nyssen, that we allow the Tradition of Antiquity to be highly useful and necessary in the Interpreting or giving us the genuine Sense of Points of Faith: all the Answer I will give him is, much good may it do him, however how far that Expression was from doing us any hurt, or them any good, I have abundantly shown in my Vindication, which I am loath to transcribe hither: but that I may not be behindhand in Civility for the Compiler's Thanks, I will present him in Token of my Gratitude with a Passage or two from his Gregory Nyssen and other Fathers, which I must recommend to his Consideration.  
Gregory Nyssen in his Dialogue de Animâ & Resurrectione lays it down for a Position, which no Man ought to contradict, that in that only the Truth 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nyssen Dial. de Animâ & Resurrect. Tom. 2. P. 639. Edit. Paris. 1615.  must be acknowledged, which hath upon it the Seal of Scripture-Testimony. And in another part of his Works he calls the Holy Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Idem in Orat. de iis qui adeunt Hierosol. Tom. 2. p. 1084.  a true, or straight, and inflexible Rule.  
S. Austin is as clear and full against our Compiler, while he assures us that in those things which are laid down plainly in the Scripture, all those things are found which concern Faith or Manners. 
(c) In iis quae aperte in Scripturâ posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem, moresque vivendi. August. de Doctr. Christianâ, l. 2. c. 9 Tom. 3. p. 17, 18.   
S. Hierom speaking of the Heretics in his time, which made so much noise, and pretended so highly to Apostolical Tradition, gives this severe Doom upon them, but those things also, which they of themselves invent and [yet] feign to have received as it were by Tradition from the Apostles without the Authority and Testimonies of the Scriptures, the sword of God doth smite. 
(d) D. Hieron. in Aggeum, c. 1. Tom. 6. p. 230. Edit. Basil. 1565.   
I could give him several such Testimonies from other Fathers, but I will neither trouble him or the Reader with any more at present, it will be time enough to send him the rest when he hath answered these. And will now pass to his next Chapter and the Vindication of it.  
But here it seems there was no need of any Vindication, for I am brought in as one of their own side, for saying and granting that our Church doth honour the Saints in observing days in honour or memory of them: and I have the Compiler's thanks for it here: we have had this Concession up once already, it made one of the most terrible Articles of Popery against me in our Compiler's masquerading Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England: In my Answer to that scurrilous Letter I did sufficiently acquit myself and our Church in relation to her Practice about Festival Days.  
However our Compiler, now he has laid aside his Disguise, advances the same Accusation against me in his own Person, but considering what Church he was of, could do no less than give me Thanks for my Concessions: Well then, since this Man is not ashamed of serving us up again the very same Objections which I had already answered, I must even be forced to trouble the Reader with Repetition, since the importunity of an Adversary that cannot blush, forces me upon it, and must tell the Compiler a second time, that when our Church doth set apart Days for the commemorating of the Saints, which is all the Honour she either gives or intends Them, she only appoints them for to bless God for the good and pious Examples of his Saints and Martyrs, not to put up Prayers to the Saints themselves, nor to offer Praises unto Them, but to their God, which was the genuine Practice of the Primitive Church, as I shown from the Example of the Church of Smyrna, in relation to S. Polycarp their Martyred Bishop. Our Church pays no Religious Worship to the Saints themselves, but the Church of Rome does not only worship them, but is very lavish and extravagant in it, as it were easy to show: however as they of the Church of Rome are not imitated by us, so neither have they the Example of the Primitive Church to defend their present Practices.  
We do with the Primitive Church honour the Martyrs and Saints, and have often enough declared it to be such an Honour as was given to them in the Primitive Times, and what that Honour was, S. Austin shall determine, who in answer to a false Aspersion of the Manichees, of the Church's worshipping the Saints upon their Festival Days and at their Monuments, told Faustus the Manichee, that the Church did indeed worship the Martyrs, but that it was with no other Worship than that of Love and Fellowship which is paid to the 
(e) Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis & societatis, quo & in hâc vitâ coluntur sancti homines Dei. D. Aug. cont. Faust. Manich. l. 20. c. 21. in Tomo 6. Oper. August.  Holy Men of God while they are alive on Earth. That this was no other than a civil worship or respect I hope will not be denied by my Adversary, since I suppose he will not pretend to show, that mortal and frail men, while on Earth, are used to have Religious Worship paid unto them, and solemn Prayers offered up to them with all the external indications of devotion.  
As to the Concessions which he pretends I have made, and supposes it here again, because I did not particularly consider the Testimonies under that Head; I must tell him a second time that I neither did grant all that he had collected in the Nubes Testium upon that Subject, nor seemed to grant it, but did set them aside as needless: and am, notwithstanding our Compiler, far from joining with them in this Point, as he falsely would insinuate that I do: but this is not the first of such wrongs done to me by this Compiler.  
When he is next come to the Chapter about Invocation of Saints, he tells the Reader that I appear with some disconfidence of my cause: and therefore (says the Compiler p. 19) tho' he pretended in the Title Page, that Antiquity for the first five hundred years did not favour this, or any Doctrine of the Church of Rome: here he has considered better on't, and therefore cutting off Two of the Five, he says, we cannot show this to have been the Practice of the first Three Centuries. So that here he is willing to give us the Fourth and Fifth Ages, as Practising the Invocation of Saints. The Compiler quotes for all this the 43. page of my Answer to the Nubes Testium; and a little after tells the Reader, that I grant that Invocation of Saints was practised in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries.  
If ever I was surpized at the reading any thing in my life, it was at this account of my Book against that Chapter in the Nubes; my memory of what I had written and this account of it were so diametrically opposite, that I could not but immediately look into my Book to see whether was in the fault, and quickly found that this Compiler had need to have a very large forehead that would venture at this, when my Book was in so many hands.  
For first as to his saying, I have cut off two of the five Centuries, and only insist on their being not able to show, that Invocation of Saints was practised in the First Three Centuries, it is very false: I neither cut off two of the five, nor insisted upon the three first Centuries only, but said in that very page and place quoted by the Compiler, that I would pass on to Invocation of Saints, and see whether the Compiler did show this to have been the practice of the Three first Centuries, and so on: does and so on here signify nothing? I did intent it, and I question not but the World understood it to mean the two next Centuries, to wit, the Fourth and Fifth in Controversy betwixt us: and yet this Writer hath the assurance to tell the World I had cut them two off.  
He next tells them, that I am willing to give the Papists the Fourth and Fifth Ages as practising Invocation of Saints; and a little lower, that I have granted that Invocation of Saints was practised in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. This is just as true as the other, for to expose this bold falsehood, I need turn over only to the next page in my Book, and transcribe what I had said there, which I entreat the Reader to compare with what the Compiler says of it here.  
Speaking in defence of the Church of England's not practising Invocation of Saints, I have these very expressions; We have far more reason to reject Invocation and solemn Prayers to Saints as Superstitious, since it is against Scripture, and against the Practice of the Three first Centuries, AGAINST A COUNCIL in the FOURTH CENTURY, and WANTS A PATTERN EVEN IN THE FIFTH and SIXTH, and hath NO EXAMPLE in ANY of the PLACES produced by our Compiler on this head.  
With what face then could this man write that I had given up the fourth and fifth Centuries? Who can believe that such men have in reality either Religion or Conscience, that can with so much deliberation commit such a deliberate wrong? Had he had any regard to Truth or Honesty, his Conscience must have flown into his Face, and told him, that what he was then writing was a very great injustice, and directly false. Good God that men who make such show of Religion, make such frequent appeals unto the God of purer Eyes, than either to behold iniquity, or to let it go unpunished; that talk so often of a day of Judgement, and severe reckoning, can do such things as must force the World to believe, that they are not in earnest in these things! I must say, that the Representer with some other Writers which I could name are very unhappy men, since they either are embarked in defence of a Cause which cannot be upheld by better Arguments and Methods, or they do very great hurt to their cause in defending a good cause with such unlawful Weapons.  
But to return, the only excuse that can be made for him is, that he was necessitated to it; for as to the three first Centuries he found there was no manner of defence to be made for their Invocation of Saints thence, and that if I did not grant him that the fourth or fifth Century practised Invocation of Saints, he should have nothing to say for his Church, or his Book, as to those five hundred years which in the Title of his Nubes Testium he had appealed, and pretended to. He was forced therefore, since I neither did grant him, nor could do it, to set the best Face he could upon the matter; and to say, I had granted that Invocation of Saints was the Practice of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries.  
And upon this all is built that he hath to say in defence of his Nubes in the Vindication, and he sets very hearty to it with the assistance of his Friend Monsieur de Meaux, and wonders how we can think those illustrious Fathers should practise it, had not the same been a doctrine of the foregoing Ages: and runs on in commending the Virtue and Learning of those Fathers: forgetting all this while that he was guilty of begging the question, and which is worse, of taking that as granted, which had been expressly denied him, that those Fathers did practise Invocation of Saints: He should first have proved the thing, and then he might have harangued upon it, but he begun at the wrong end, and since he was not at leisure to disprove fairly and fully any of the Answers I had given to his Nubes, but only by saying, that my distinguishing betwixt Requests made to Saints, and Prayers solemnly addressed to them was a shift, and a piece of Controversial Legerdemain, and serving us up with the old provision out of the Nubes to confirm what he said; I should not trouble myself any further with this Matter: but that I am called upon by his Friend F. Sabran the Jesuit, and challenged to show a difference betwixt what was practised by S. Austin, and ALL the Fathers of his and the precedent Century, and what is now practised by the Church of Rome in relation to Invocation of Saints.  
This I promised to do, as soon as the Controversy betwixt him and me about the 35th Sermon of S. Austin de Sanctis was either ended or dropped: and since it is dropped, and that matter by my second Letter to the Jesuit was (to use one of his own expressions) made out against him beyond the possibility of a seeming Answer; I will now be just to my word: and that I may more fully vindicate our Church from that Schism the Jesuit lays to her charge upon this account, I will beg leave of the Reader to enlarge a little more upon this point in order to the further clearing of matters about it.   

What is meant by Invocation itself is no matter of Controversy betwixt us, their Council of Trent, and their Catechism afterwards have sufficiently taught this, and make it to be an offering up of Prayer to the glorified Saints, and a calling upon them for their Prayers, Help and Assistance. I will not insist upon the invincible arguments from the Word of God against such Invocation of Saints, nor stay to show how both Old and New Testament command and direct all our Prayers and Addresses to God, and how that there is not one Example of Invocation of Saints in the whole word of God: but will pass to the Testimonies and Writings of the Fathers, which they of the Church of Rome insist so much upon. The Jesuit my Adversary hath offered nothing new, but hath assaulted me with those passages out of the Nubes Testium which I had answered before, and challenges me to show what the Church of Rome doth more, or different from what was practised then by S. Austin, and ALL the Fathers of his Age, and the precedent Century.  
I will take leave in order to showing these things, to prove these four Particulars, First, That Invocation of Saints is the Practice of the Church of Rome.  
Secondly, That it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that it is good and profitable to invocate Saints.  
Thirdly, That Invocation of Saints was not the Practice of the Primitive Fathers.  
Fourthly, That the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers was directly against, and inconsistent with any Invocation of Saints.  
The two first of these, to wit, that the Invocation of Saints is not only the Doctrine but the Practice of the Church of Rome, I hope the Jesuit will give me leave to suppose, since those things need no proving which are the daily Practices of their Church, and the avowed Doctrine of every true Son of their Church. I could else fill up two or three sheets with Collections out of their Missals and Offices of the Virgin Mary to prove this thing plainly upon them: but there is no need of it, and therefore I will begin the proof of my Third Particular.  
That Invocation of Saints was not the Practice of the Primitive Fathers. I will deduce this methodically through the several first Ages, and show not only what was the Practice of the Church in her Liturgy, but also the Practice of the most eminent Fathers thereof.  
Century. I Towards the later end of the first Century lived S. Ignatius, an account of his Practice we meet with in that Relation of his Martyrdom, which was drawn up by Philo, Gaius, and Agathopus, who attended him from Antioch, and were present at his Martyrdom at Rome. 
Acta & Martyrium S. Ignatii. Edit. Usser. 1647.  In that account we can meet with no recommendation of himself in his greatest distress, or of his Church, to any tutelar Saint or Angel, or to the Virgin Mary; but upon his being condemned to be torn apieces by the wild Beasts from the Emperor Trajan's own mouth we find him breaking out into joy, and giving praises to the Lord for honouring him with those Chains the Soldiers were putting upon him, and praying to Him for his Church of Antioch, and recommending it with tears unto his Saviour. When he was come to Rome, and was met by the Christian Brethren there, they went to Prayers together, and made up a Christian Assembly, with bended Knees praying earnestly to their blessed Saviour the Son of God for the several particular Churches, for a stop to the Persecution, and for the mutual Charity of the Christian Brethren.  
And as the Writers of this Martyrdom represent the glorious Martyr always making his Addresses to God the Son: So after his Martyrdom, 
Ibidem.  they give the same account of their own Devotions, that they were offered up with tears and bended knees unto the same Lord.  
Century. TWO In the second Century we have the famous Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning the Martyrdom of S. Polycarp, wherein we meet with an account of his Practice in his Devotions. They inform us of his continuing instant in Prayer to God day and night for the peace and Tranquillity of all the Christian Churches, and have preserved us the very Prayer he used when he was tied to the stake to suffer Martyrdom, which we find addressed wholly to God the Father 
* Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 15.  through the everlasting Highpriest Jesus Christ his only Son: not one syllable, nor the least hint of any Romish Invocation of Saint or Angel, either to assist, or defend, or recommend him unto God.  
After this account of the Religious Practice of those two most glorious Martyrs the Christian Church ever had next to the Apostles, I will set down in the same Century Justin Martyr's account of the Christian Liturgy; where we may justly expect to meet with a full relation to whom all the Services of the Church were addressed at that time. His account is, that their Public and Common Prayers, their Praises, and 
f Justin M. in Apol. 2. Edit. Paris. p. 97, 98.  Thanksgivings for the good things of this life were offered up by their Bishop to God the Father through his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Here is no mention in this very exact account of the Christian Service of any Prayers, or so much as Wishes made to Angels or Saints; no footsteps of any Practice of invocating of Saints, which is evidence strong enough that such things were not then in being any where.  
Century. III In the beginning of the Third Century, Tertullian in his Apologetic, 
Terull. Apologet. c. 39 Edit. Franck. 1597.  acquaints us at large with the Practice of the Catholic Church, and the nature of her Liturgy, and sets her out as offering up her Prayers with the united Forces and joint requests of the whole Congregation unto God, as praying to him for all Estates and Conditions; and in his account of their Love-Feasts in the same place he acquaints us, that they did not sit down to those Feasts, till they had made their Prayers unto God, that as they begun them with Prayers unto God, so they ended them with singing Hymns unto God. Not a syllable is to be met with in Tertullian's Narration of the Customs and Divine Service of the Church of God of the Third Century, about any Prayers to, or Invocation of Saints, of any Praises to God and the Virgin Mary, or to God and any other of the Angels or Saints.  
Century. IV In the Fourth Century we meet with a much larger and more particular account of the Divine Service in the Christian Assemblies from the Book called Constitutiones Apostolica, which bears the name of Clemens Romanus, but really belongs to some Author of the Fourth Age. In this there is not only an account of their Practice, but a very great many of the Prayers then used are put down at large, every one of which we find directed to God alone, 
See Clementis Romani Constitutiones Apostolicae, from the 25th Chapter of the 7th Book to the end of the Eighth Book in Labbe's Councils. Tom. 1. p. 428, etc.  not the least mention or hint of any Invocation of Saints, of any Prayers to the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint; and as all the Prayers of the Church then in that Century, according to this Author, as well on all other days as the Lord's day, as well in all other Offices and services of the Church as in the Communion-Service itself were offered up only to God, so there is no desire or Petition in them for any of the Saints aid, assistance or Intercession. All which Circumstances together show how far Invocation of Saints was from being the Practice of the Catholic Church in the Fourth Century, when in the Prayers addressed to God alone, there was not so much as any mention of the Saints Intercession or Aid, which are things so frequent now in the Church of Rome, that they desire of God for the Merits of the Saints both spiritual and temporal Blessings.  
Century. V As we find the Practice of the Fourth Century so visibly, without any Prayers to, or Invocation of Saints, so we are as certain that such Invocation or Prayers got no footstep in the Public Offices of the Church, either during the rest of this Century, or in the Fifth Century; of this we cannot desire a more certain and satisfactory account than we have from S. Austin himself, about whom the Jesuit Sabran hath made so much stir, and doth still insist upon it, that S. Austin did invocate the Virgin Mary. S. Austin in his Books de Civitate Dei, giving an account of the Service of the Church in his Age, and of what was the Practice of the Church in relation to the Martyrs, tells us indeed, that the Martyr's names were recited during the divine Service, but tells also as expressly, that they were not then invocated by the Priest who did officiate 
g August. de Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 10. .  
I have traced hitherto the Practice of the Primitive Church through the Five First Centuries; I have insisted chief upon those Authors and Books which present us with the Liturgies, which are doubtless the best and only Evidences of the Practice of the Primitive Church for those Ages. I have not insisted upon the Practice of particular Persons, excepting those two glorious and most conspicuous Martyrs, S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp, whose Prayers I question not were wholly conformed to the Public Services in the Churches in their time: Had I done the same concerning the other Martyrs of the first and later Ages that I did about them two, or had I been careful to urge the Practice of particular Persons apparent in their own writings, I must have transcribed a great part of the ancient Martyrologies, where we find all the Prayers of those Martyrs addressed to God; and must have filled too many Pages with the Instances of other particular Persons and Writers.  
But I thought the other method of urging only the Liturgies of the several first Centuries, as the fairest way of understanding the Practice of the Primitive Church in those Ages, and I believe I have made it fully and undeniably evident, that Invocation of Saints was not the Practice of the Primitive Fathers.  
As we are able to show from the ancient Accounts of the Church's Services, that Invocation of Saints was not their Practice, so we are as able to show, that the Doctrine of the Fathers of those first five Centuries was directly against, and inconsistent with any such Invocation of Saints as is now practised in the Church of Rome: and this I shall the more largely insist upon, because this is an Argument which they of that Church cannot evade, and this doth so firmly strengthen and back the other Argument against Invocation of Saints drawn from the Practice of the Primitive Church.  
And this one would think would stop their mouths, and make them lay aside their Pretensions to Instances of Invocation of Saints practised in the fourth and fifth Centuries, to show them not only that Invocation of Saints was not practised then, but that the Doctrine of the first Ages and Fathers were directly against, and utterly inconsistent with any such Invocation of Saints as is practised in the Church of Rome. And this is that which I will endeavour to show from the Writings of the several Fathers, putting them down methodically in their several Ages, to wit,  
That the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers was directly against, and inconsistent with any Invocation of Saints.  
Century. I S. Ignatius who lived immediately after the Apostles, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians gives the Virgins of that Church his advice to direct all their Prayers to the blessed Trinity: O ye Virgins (says he) have Christ 
h Ignat. in Ep. ad Philadelph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  alone before your Eyes, and his Father in your Prayers, being illuminated by the Holy Spirit. If they are to direct all their Prayers to the Father and Son, I am sure it is against this Doctrine of S. Ignatius to practise Invocation of Saints, and direct some of their Prayers to the Virgin Mary and other Saints, which the Church of Rome now does expressly against this First Father's Advice.  
Century. TWO The Church of Smyrna in their Golden Epistle concerning the Martyrdom of S. Polycarp, giving an Account of the Devil, and the Jews slandering them as if they would have left Christ, and worshipped Polycarp, if they could but gain his Martyred Body, expose that gross Calumny, by showing 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eccl. Smyrn. in Ep. de Martyr. Polyc. p. 27. Edit. Usser.  that Christians could never leave Christ who had suffered all for them, nor pay any Worship to any other Person, (or as the Old Latin Translation hath it, nor offer up the Supplication of Prayer to any other Person). If they could not do it then, I suppose it is not grown more lawful to do it since.  
S. Irenaeus in the same Century discoursing about the many Graces bestowed by God upon his Church, and the great benefits done by the Church to the whole World without either design of seducing, or desire of gain thereupon, says, that as the Church doth receive those Graces freely from God's hands, so she freely ministers them, 
k Nec Invocationibus Angelicis faciat aliquid, nec incantationibus, nec aliqua prava curiositate, sed mundè, & purè, & manifestè Orationes dirigens ad Dominum, qui omnia fecit, & Nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi invocans virtutes secundum utilitates hominum, sed non ad seductionem perficit. S. Iren. adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 57 Edit. Fevardent.  and then tells us also that the Church doth nothing by Invocation of Angels, or Charms, or any such curious Art, but directing her Prayers purely and manifestly to her Lord, who made all things, and Invocating the Name of our Lord jesus Christ doth those Miracles for the good of Mankind, not for their seduction.  
As Irenaeus is plain for the Prayers being directed only to God and his Christ, and does in express Terms deny that there was any Invocation of Angels practised in the Church then; so Clemens of Alexandria in the same Century, and not long after him, is so express against any Prayers being then put up to either Saints or Angels, that he defines Prayer itself to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a conversing with God, which had been a very false definition, had Prayers then been put up to Saints and Angels also. But Clemens had reason sufficient to define Prayer in this manner to the Exclusion both of Saints and Angels, since in the same Book he delivers it for the Doctrine of his time, that 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clemens Alexandr. Strom. l. 7.  since there is but ONE GOOD GOD, both we and Angels ought to make our Prayers to HIM ALONE for the obtaining of those good things which we want, and for the continuance of those which we enjoy.  
There are a great many more such Expressions to be met with in this Learned Father, but this doubtless is able to convince any reasonable Person that in Clemens' time the Doctrine of the Church was, that all Prayer or Invocation should be offered up to the GREAT GOD ALONE.  
Century. III That there was no alteration made in the next Century in the Doctrine of the Fathers herein, we can easily show from the most considerable Writers of that Age.  
Tertullian in his Apology for the Christians to the Roman Judges, gives an account of the Practice of the Christians, that they did invocate the Eternal God for the safety of the Emperors; and acquaints them withal, that They durst not offer up their Prayers to any other. 
m Nos enim pro salute Imperatorum Deum INVOCAMUS Aeternum,— Haec ab alio orare non possum quàm à quo me scio consecuturum, quoniam & ipse est qui SOLUS praestat, & ego sum cui impetrare debetur, famulus ejus qui eum solum observo, qui propter disciplinam ejus occidor, qui ei offero opimam & majorem hostiam, quam ipse mandavit, Orationem de carne pudica, de anima innocenti, de spiritu sancto profectam. Tertul. Apologet. c. 30.  I cannot (says he) pray for these things to any other, but to HIM at whose hands I am certain of obtaining them, since it is HE ALONE that does afford them, and I alone have a Right of obtaining them, that am his Servant, and observe HIM ALONE, who am killed for his Religion, and do offer unto Him that rich and best Sacrifice which He himself hath commanded, Prayer proceeding from a chaste Body, from an innocent Soul, and Holy Spirit.  
In his Prescriptions the same Father tells us, 
Idem de Prescript. c. 33.  that the serving or Worshipping of Angels, brought in first by Simon Magus, was reckoned to be Idolatry.  
In considering these passages of Tertullian, I cannot believe that He, and the Church of Rome are of the same Faith as to this very thing about Prayer. I am sure this Doctrine of his is no less than Heresy in some parts of the World, and that Tertullian, and the Honest Monk who translated S. Thomas of Canterbury, or to speak more intelligibly Thomas à Becket's Life into English Metre, were not of the same Church. Tertullian told the Romans, that the Christians of his time offered up their Prayers to GOD ALONE for the Welfare of the Emperors and Empire, and that it was contrary to God's Will for them to offer up any Prayers to any other: but this Romish Monk was of another Church sure, when he gives us a very different practice. It will be very acceptable to give the Reader the Monk's Prayer, not only for the extraordinary nature of it, but for the Saints sake so famous in England. Having finished his Translation of the Saints Life, He concludes all with this Prayer to the Saint himself.  
To whom with all devotion now let ws heartily pray  
and with this subsequent Prayer thus shall I end and feast  
O Laureate Precious Martyr preserve the Church all way  
our King with the Commynaltee, and send ws rest and pease  
The Head Father of this Monastery with all his both more and less  
Preserve of special grace, and pray for the queck and deed  
which for the Church cause list gladly thy blood shed.  
Vita cum Actibus Thomae Cant. Archiep. in English Metre, Translated 1497. in a MS. in Bennet College Library.  
I will pass on to the next Father, Origen, who will give us the fullest account of the Doctrine of the Church, especially in that Treatise which he wrote in defence of Christianity itself against Celsus, the eighth Book of which Treatise is almost wholly spent in the proving, that all Worship and Prayer are to be offered up to GOD ALONE through our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Celsus the Heathen was of opinion, that inasmuch as the Angels did belong to God, men ought to make Oblations and Prayers to them, that thereby they might obtain their favour, and Intercession, and make them propitious unto them. Origen rejects this Advice with indignation. Away (says he) with Celsus' Counsel, that tells us we must PRAY TO ANGELS, and let us not afford the least ear to it 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ΜΟΝΩ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΘΕΩ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΜΟ ΝΟΓΕΝΕΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ΛΟΓΩ ΘΕΟΥ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Origen. contra Celsum, l. 8. p. 395. Edit. Cantabr. 1658. : for [as for us Christians] we must PRAY TO HIM ALONE, who is GOD over all: and we must PRAY to the WORD of GOD his only Begotten, and the Firstborn of all Creatures; and we must entreat HIM, that He as High Priest would present our Prayer (when come up to him) unto his God, and our God. And for the procuring the favour of the Angels, he just after tells Celsus, that the way to attain it was to lead holy Lives, and to imitate the Angels in their uninterrupted service of God: assuring him withal that if by that means we have God favourable to us, we have all his Friends, both Angels, Souls and Spirits, loving and affectionate to us.  
And before this in his Fifth Book against the same Heathen, upon Celsus' inquiry what the Christians looked upon Angels to be, and his answer, that though they were wont from their office to call them Angels, yet that they found them named Gods in the Scriptures by reason of a certain Divinity in them; Origen does prevent the Heathen's Assumption, that if they were such, they ought to be worshipped, by telling him that the Scriptures did not give Angels the Names of Gods, so as to command us to worship and adore them instead of God who are ministering 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ΠΑΣΑΝ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΔΕΗΣΙΝ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΗΝ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΝΤΕΥΞΙΝ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΙΑΝ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΤΩ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΘΕΩ, ΔΙΑ ΤΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ΕΜΨΥΧΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΘΕΟΥ. ΔΕΗΣΟΜΕΘΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΥ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Origen. contra Celsum, l. 5. p. 233. Edit. Cantab.  Spirits, & bring down to us the Blessings from God. But that ALL SUPPLICATION, and PRAYER, and INTERCESSION, and THANKSGIVING must be sent up unto GOD ALMIGHTY, by the HIGH PRIEST who is above all Angels, and is the LIVING WORD and GOD. And we must put up our Supplications also unto the WORD HIMSELF, our Intercessions also and Prayers and Thanksgivings must be offered up to HIM. But to invocate Angels is ABSURD, since we do not comprehend the knowledge of them, which is out of our reach. And granting that the knowledge of them (which is wonderful and secret) might be comprehended; this very knowledge declaring their nature to us, and their several charges, would not suffer us to presume so far as to PRAY unto ANY OTHER, but the GOD who is Lord over all, and abundantly sufficient for all by our Saviour the Son of God.  
I cannot leave this so particular an account of the Church's Doctrine against Invocation, without making an Observation from it, which is, that Origen does make Invocation and Worship to be Synonymous here, and does confine them both to the same Object, and shows, that whatsoever is invocated is worshipped, and that since all Worship is peculiar to God alone, all Prayer upon that account must be offered up to Him alone: and if this was the Church's sense at that time, as we are hence certain it was, we can very justly gather from it, that they were far from either practising or teaching an Invocation of Saints or Angels, who were for dedicating all Prayer to God alone: and we may also gather this further from it, that where any other Fathers do deny any worship's being paid to any Creature, they did by that very denial exclude all Invocation, or Prayer being made to any, even the most glorified Creature, since Invocation or Prayer is one of the chief parts of Worship. Origen himself, and other Fathers after him (as I shall show at large) do make Invocation and Adoration to be the same thing, and do prove the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour from his being Invocated or prayed to, which would have been a false and an absurd Argument, had Saints and Angels been invocated at that time, and it would have proved too much, since if our Saviour is proved to be God from his being Invocated, all the Saints as well as Angels were by the same Argument proved to be Gods, had they been Invocated in those days. I will give the Reader his words, since they are of such extraordinary moment herein.  
Origen commenting upon that passage in St. Paul, How shall they call on [or invocate] him in whom they have not believed, tells us, that the Jews did not invocate Christ, because they did not believe in Him; and argues afterwards, that if Enos, Moses, Aaron and Samuel did call on, or invocate the Lord, they did without doubt invocate Christ Jesus the Lord: for if (says he in proof thereof) to call upon the name 
p— Et si INVOCARE Domini nomen, & ADORARE DEUM, UNUM atque IDEM est, sicut INVOCATUR CHRISTUS & ADORANDUS est Christus, & sicut offerimus Deo Patri primo omnium Orationes, ita & Domino Jesu Christo, etc. Orig. In Ep. ad Rom. l. 8. c. 10. p. 477, 478 Edit. Frob. 1536.  of the Lord, and to ADORE GOD, be ONE and the SAME THING; as CHRIST is INVOCATED, so CHRIST is also to be ADORED; and as we offer to God the Father first of all Prayers, so we do also to the Lord Jesus Christ; and as we offer up supplications to the Father, so do we offer Supplications also to the Son; and as we do offer Thanksgivings to God, so we do offer Thanksgivings to our Saviour; for we must pay ONE and the SAME HONOUR to THEM BOTH, to wit, to GOD the FATHER and SON.  
I must obviate also before I leave Origen an objection commonly made, that in these passages there is no mention nor denial of Prayers to Saints, nor no forbidding of them, to which we can easily answer, that there is indeed no mention of Prayers to Saints, but only of Prayers to Angels: but we argue à fortiori from these places, that if Invocation be forbidden and denied to the greater, it is thereby much more forbidden to the less; that if Invocation of Angels which are the most glorious Creatures be forbidden, the Invocation of Saints which are less glorious is forbidden in it: and we find the Father's using this very Argument against the Worship of any Creatures tho' never so good, or so much glorified: we find Epiphanius urging this very Instance of Angels not being worshipped against the worship of the Virgin Mary in the Heresy of the Collyridians', If (says he) God will not 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Epiphan. Haer. 79. p. 1062. Edit. Petau. 1622.  suffer Angels to be worshipped, how much more will he not suffer her to be worshipped that was born of Anna [to wit, the Virgin Mary?] It is but putting the word Invocated instead of Worshipped (which Origen hath already told us are but two words for the same thing) and joining the rest of the Saints to the Virgin Mary, and then we can argue against the Romish Invocation of Saints in S. Epiphanius' words, If God will not suffer Angels to be Invocated, how much more will he not suffer the Virgin Mary and the rest of the Saints to be Invocated. The World indeed is since well mended in relation to the Virgin Mary, and she has got the start of the Angels, and tho' in Epiphanius' time the Angels were looked upon as above her, and more glorious Creatures than she, or any other Saint; yet since that time she hath got to be worshipped, and to be advanced above all the Orders of the Angels in Heaven, the reason of which is very plain, because since Epiphanius' days she was made Queen of Heaven, which must needs advance her infinitely above the Angels, who are no better than the Officers of Heaven, and the Ministers of that Court.  
But we need no foreign help to baffle the Objection about Invocation of Saints being not forbidden in the passages out of Origen against Celsus; if we do but observe the passage itself, I mean that out of Origen's fifth Book against Celsus, and the Antithesis in it, the Romish Objection will immediately vanish. Origen having laid it down for a ground, That Angels were not to be worshipped or adored, proceeds in the Antithesis to tell us who was to be worshipped, and there delivers it for the doctrine of Christianity, that ALL SUPPLICATION, and PRAYER, and INTERCESSION, and THANKSGIVING was to be made to GOD ALONE. That this Answer did fully exclude Angels from any participation of Religious Worship, the Romanists will grant; that it does also as fully exclude the Saints from any participation of the worship of Invocation, is what doth evidently and necessarily follow from it, since if ALL PRAYER was to be made to GOD ALONE, there is no more share for the Saints than for the Angels, but both alike are equally excluded from having Prayer or Invocation made to either of them.  
S. Cyprian in his Book concerning the Lord's Prayer, urges the Duty of Prayer to God throughout the whole Discourse, and is so far from mentioning or hinting at any use of Invocation or Prayer to Saints or Angels, that he says, that to pray otherwise 
r Ut aliter orare quam docuit, non ignorantia sola est, sed & culpa, quando ipse posuerit & dixerit: Rejicitis Mandatum Dei, ut Traditionem vestram statuitis. D. Cypr. de Orat. Domin. p. 264. Edit. Paris. 1607.  than our Saviour hath taught us, is not only Ignorance but a Crime: since he hath laid it down [for a warning to us] and said; Ye reject the Commandment of God, that ye may establish your own Tradition. We know very well that our Saviour taught us to Pray to OUR FATHER in Heaven: and if it be a Crime not to follow his Directions, we are sure that Invocation of Saints is a Crime, since that is a rejecting (to use St. Cyprian's application of the passage out of the Gospel to the same purpose which he did) of our Saviour's Commandment, and a following the Tradition of the Church of Rome.  
Novatian in his Tract concerning the Trinity, printed among Tertullian's Works, doth prove that Christ is God from his being Invocated. If Christ (says he) 
s Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo adest ubique Invocatus, cum haec hominis natura non sit, sed DEI, ut adesse OMNI LOCO possit? Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur homo in ORATIONIBUS MEDIATOR INVOCATUR, cum INVOCATIO HOMINIS ad praestandam salutem inefficax judicetur? Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur spes in illum ponitur, cum spes in homine maledicta referatur? Novatianus de Trinitate, cap. 14.  be only a Man, how is he present every where being Invocated, since this is not the NATURE of MAN, but of GOD, to be PRESENT in EVERY PLACE? If Christ be only a Man, why is a Man Invocated in our Prayers to be a Mediator for us, since the INVOCATION of a MAN to HELP or to SAVE us, is judged to be ineffectual? If Christ be only a Man, why is Hope placed upon him, whereas Trust in Man is cursed in Scripture? There is not one word in this short passage, which is not only against Invocation of Saints being any Doctrine of the Fathers, but does wholly ruin all the grounds for any Invocation of them. For if a mere Man can neither be present every where, nor can help us with his Mediation, nor aught to have hope placed in him; and yet every one of these is required to be in Him that may be Invocated: then I am sure Invocation of Saints, who are but Men, is both groundless, and to no purpose.  
Lactantius in his Institutions contending for the Worship of the One sole God of Heaven and Earth, and against any worship of Angels uses this argument, that God alone with his Son hath the Power over all things 
t Solus habet rerum omnium cum Filio suo potestatem: nec in Angelis quicquam, nisi parendi necessitas. Itaque nullum sibi honorem tribui volunt, quorum omnis honor in Deo est. Lactant. l. 2. de Origine Erroris, c. 16. p. 223. Edit. Lugd. Bat. 1660. , that there is nothing belonging to Angels but the necessity of obedience, and therefore they are against ANY HONOUR being paid to THEM, all their Honour being in God himself.  
And in his next Chapter, Lactantius excludes Saints, as much as he does the Angels here from any share of Worship, when he advises, that we should adore NO OTHER THING, nor WORSHIP 
u Nihilque aliud adoremus, nihil colamus, nisi solum Artificis, Parentisque nostri UNICUM NUMEN.  ANY THING, but the ONLY DIVINITY of our Creator and our Parent.  
This was the Doctrine of the Fathers of the Third Century of the Church, and how little it is consistent with any Worship or Invocation of Saints, the most ordinary Reader will apprehend: We must next inquire into the Doctrine of the Fourth Century, and see whether theirs agree with what I have hitherto set down.  
Century. IV S. Athanasius the most famous Father of the Fourth Century, in his Fourth Oration against the Arians, proving the Unity of the Father and the Son from that passage in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, Now God himself and our Father, and 
* 1 Thess. 3.11.  our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you, gives this reason for it: 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. D. Athanas. Orat. 4. contra Arianos, p. 259, 260. Edit. Commelini, 1601.  For one would not pray to receive any thing from the Father, and the Angels, or from any of the other Creatures, nor would one say, God and the Angel give thee this or that; but [one would pray to receive any thing] from the Father and the Son, because of that Unity, and uniform manner of giving, that is betwixt them two. For by the Son are all Gifts given, and there is no one thing, which the Father doth not work by the Son. After this the Father goes on to answer the Objection from Jacob's praying to the Angel to bless the Lads, and proves, that that Angel was no other than God the Son: and then to confirm it, shows, that Jacob did invocate no body but God to deliver him from his Brother Esau; that David did pray to no one but God for his deliverance, and that he returned his Praises to GOD ALONE for the blessing of it: and concludes, that it doth not belong to any other person, but to GOD ALONE, to bless and to bestow Deliverances.  
I cannot read these passages of this excellent Father without reflecting upon these extravagant Applications to Saints, and especially to the Virgin Mary, which are so frequently or rather constantly to be met with in the Writers of the Church of Rome; and can least of all forgive Cardinal Bona's Preface to the Virgin Mary, which is such an undecent and almost blasphemous piece of Courtship as is not to be paralleled in any serious and learned Writer of these days, excepting F. Alexandre, who in the Conclusion of one of his Volumes tells the Virgin Mary what wonderful things she had done for him, and how mightily he was beholding to her, with a great deal more of such fulsome stuff. I am sure such things were far from being the Practice of the Church in S. Athanasius' time, since his Doctrine is so directly contrary to any such thing: and tho' now what so common as God and the Virgin, God and such, or such a Saint help you, Jesus, Maria, and the like; yet we see in S. Athanasius, that no Christians were guilty of such an extravagancy as to say, God and the Angel give you this or that: and as they did not then pray to Angels, or any other Creatures (in which number the Saints must be included) so neither did they offer up their Thanksgivings to any of them for any Blessings, whereas now nothing is so ordinary as Praises to the Saints for this and t'other blessing, and scarce a Book can be writ without thanks at the beginning or end of it to some of their Saints, or the Virgin Mary for their great assistance, and their continual protection; and as if the Saints were equal with God, or did equally communicate every blessing to a Writer, such or such a Book is said to be written for the greater Glory of God and the Virgin for example; and I have at this instant Cardinal Capisucchi's Book in my hands, which was written, forsooth, ad majorem Dei, Deiparae ac S. Thomae Angelici Doctoris Gloriam, for the Greater Glory of God, the Virgin-Mother, and S. Thomas Aquinas. But such things were neither so from the beginning nor of a long time after.  
In the same Century Hilary the Deacon in his Comments on the Epistle to the Romans, exposing the folly of those who were curious in searching out the natural reasons of things, and the Courses of the Stars, and the Qualities of the Elements, and yet did neglect the Lord of all those beings, gives us their pretences for it. They are wont (says he) notwithstanding when they are put to the blush for their neglecting of God 
y Solent tamen pudorem passi neglecti Dei, miserâ uti excusatione, dicentes per istos posse ire ad Deum, sicut per Comites pervenitur ad Regem. Age, nunquid tam demens est aliquis, aut Salutis suae immemor, ut Honorificentiam Regis vendicet Comiti, cum de hâc re siqui etiam tractare fuerint inventi, jure ut rei damnentur Majestatis? Et isti se non putant reos, qui honorem Nominis Dei deferunt Creaturae, & relicto Domino, Conservos adorant, quasi sit aliquid plus quod servetur Deo. Nam & ideo ad Regem per Tribunos aut Comites itur, quia homo utique est Rex, & nescit quibus debeat Rempublicam credere. Ad Deum autem, quem utique nihil latet, omnium enim merita novit, ad promerendum suffragatore non opus est, sed ment devotâ. Ubicunque enim talis locutus fuerit ei, respondebit illi. Hilarius Diacon. Come. in Ep. ad Rom. c. 1. apud Ambrosii Opera, Tom. 5. p. 174. Edit. Froben. 1538. , to make use of this miserable Excuse, that they can by these go to God, as Men get to the King by his Officers. Well then! Is any Man so mad, or so unmindful of his Safety, as to give the King's Honour to an Officer, whereas if any have been found but to treat of such a thing, they are justly condemned to be guilty of Treason? And yet these Men do not think themselves guilty who give to a Creature the Honour of God's Name, and leave the Lord and adore their Fellow-servants; as though there were any thing more, that can be reserved to God. For, therefore do we go to the King by his Tribunes or Officers, because the King is but a Man, and knows not to whom he ought to commit the Care of the Commonwealth. But for God, to whom nothing is hid, and who knows the Merits of all Men, there is no need of a Spokesman, but of a devout mind to procure his favour. For wheresoever such an one shall address to God, He will answer him.  
And this same Father in his Questions out of the Old and New Testament insists upon the same Argument, telling the Heathens, That the Christians 
z Christiani autem— UNUM DEUM colunt in Mysterio, ex quo sunt omnia, nec aliquid quod ab eo conditum est, venerantur. Ipsum enim solum sufficere sibi & abundare sciunt ad Salutem, non ignorantes, quia si Gloriam & Nomen ejus aliis deputaverint, offendant eum, quia nullus Imperator permittit, ut cum Nomine ejus Tribuni & Comites adorentur. Idem. lib. Quaestionum Vet. & Nou. Testam. apud Augustini Opera in Appendice ad Tom. 4. p. 46. Edit. Colon. 1616.  worship ONE GOD in Mystery, from whom are all things, and do not pay any Veneration to any thing created by him [here is no exception either for Angels or Saints, much less for their Relics or Images] for they know that He alone is abundantly sufficient for their Salvation, and are not ignorant, that if they give his Glory and his Name to others, they offend Him, since no Emperor does permit, that his Tribunes and Officers be adored together with Himself.  
S. Basil did look upon Prayer to be so peculiar to God, that he defines Prayer to be a Request of some good, which is made by pious Men unto God 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. Homil. in Julitt. T. 1. p. 370. : and his Brother Gregory Nyssen gives the same definition of Prayer which Clemens Alexandrinus had, that It is a Conversing with God 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nyssen. 1. Orat. de Oratione, p. 715. : and in another place gives us almost the same definition of Prayer that S. Basil did, that Prayer is a Request of some good things 
c Idem Orat. 2. de Oratione Dominica, p. 724. , which is offered with Supplication to God. Now had Prayers to Angels or Saints been either the Practice or the Doctrine of this Age in which these Fathers lived, both S. Basil's and his Brother's Definitions of Prayer had been ridiculous and false, since they make Prayer peculiar to God alone, whereas it would have been common to God and the Saints, had these been prayed to as well as God in those days.  
I need not insist much upon what Gregory Nyssen says in his Fifth Oration against Eunomius, that we are commanded in the Word of God not to worship any of those things which are created, but that we are to worship and adore that Nature only, which is uncreate: since we have cleared this sufficiently above from Origen and others.  
S. Ambrose is the last Father that I will urge in this Fourth Century. He agrees with the Precedent Fathers about the nature of Prayer, and does deny to Angels and Saints the having any Prayers put up to them, in that short but comprehensive passage: Notwithstanding THOU ALONE, O Lord, art to be INVOCATED, THOU art to be ENTREATED, that thou 
d Sed tamen TU SOLUS, Domine, INVOCANDUS, TU ROGANDUS, ut eum in filiis repraesentes, D. Ambros. Orat. in Obitu Theodosii, Tom. 3. p. 59  wouldst represent him [to wit the Dead Emperor Theodosius] in his Sons.  
Century. V I am now arrived at the Fifth Century of the Church, and must inquire whether in this Age the Doctrine of the Church was altered from what we have shown it to in the four precedent Centuries in relation to the Worship and Invocation of Saints.  
S. Epiphanius does make the Invocation of Angels to be the Heresy of the Angelicks; but those people had very hard measure from that Father, if Invocation of Saints was not as much a Heresy, since if it were lawful to invocate the one of these two, the Angels ought to have had the preference, since as they are God's ministering Spirits, they see and hear us, whereas the departed Saints do neither see nor hear us.  
The same Father in his Confutation of the Heresy of the Collyridians', concludes fully against the Worship of any Creature. For neither is Elias to be worshipped, tho' he is reckoned 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— ἩΜΑΡΙΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΕΙΣΘΩ. Epiphan. Haer. 79. p. 1062.  among the living, nor John— nor any other of the Saints. That ancient error shall not prevail over you to forsake the living God, and to worship the things which were made by Him. For they served and worshipped the Creature more than the Creator, and became Fools. For if God will not have us to worship the Angels, how much more would He not have us to worship Her that was Born of Anna.— Let Mary be had in honour, but let the Lord be worshipped. And in his Confutation of the Heresy of the Arians, He does prove the Divinity of Christ from his being Worshipped. For if (says he 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiphan. Haer. 69. p. 755, 759. ) He be not true God, neither is he to be worshipped, and if He be a Creature, He is no God; and if He be not to be worshipped, how comes it to pass that he is called God?— For it is a foolish thing to make a Creature God, and to reject the first Commandment, which says, Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Whereupon the Holy Church of God doth not worship a Creature, but the Begotten Son, the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, with the Holy Ghost.  
I appeal to all men of sense, whether this Argument to prove the Divinity of Christ from his being worshipped had not been the vainest and most frivolous that ever was used, had Saints or Angels been worshipped in those Days, had they had Prayers put up unto them, which is the highest Expression of Worship.  
S. Chrysostom doth define Prayer as the rest of the Fathers had done before him, and says 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. D. Chrysost. Hom. 30. in Genesim.  that Prayer is a discoursing with God: and up and down his Works he doth frequently urge it upon Men to go directly to God himself, and to make their Prayers unto Him. When (saith he) we have any suit to make to Men, we have need of expense and servile Flattery, and much hurrying hither and thither, 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. D. Chrysost. in Matthaeum, citat. à Theodoro Daphnopato in Eclogis in Tom. 7. Operum Chrysost. p 768. Edit. Savil.  and much contrivance. For it happens often that we cannot get straight unto the Lords themselves to present our Gift, and speak with them, but it is necessary for us first to procure an interest in their Servants and Stewards, both by Gifts and by Entreaties' and by all other means possible: and then by their mediation we may obtain our request. But it is not thus with God, for there is no need of Intercessors for the Petitioners, nor is God so ready to gratify our Petition, when entreated by others, as he is to do it when we pray to him ourselves.  
I will but instance in One Father, St. Austin, about whom this whole Controversy touching Invocation was begun betwixt me, and Sabran the Jesuit. This Father in his Enchiridion to Laurentius, showing, that the things which appertain to Hope, are all included in the Lord's Prayer, and that the Scriptures pronounce him accursed, who putteth his Trust in MAN, concludes from it, that for that very Reason 
i Ideo non nisi à Domino Deo petere debemus, quicquid speramus nos vel bene operaturos, vel pro bonis operibus adepturos. D. Aug. Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 114. Tom. 3. p. 73. , we ought not to ask or pray to any other but our Lord God alone for whatever we hope either to do well, or to be rewarded for after we have done so.  
In another part of his Works, in the very last that he wrote, He asks this question of the Heathen; Can we then believe that these Angels, whose employment is to declare to Mankind the Will of the Father, 
k Num igitur hos Angelos, quorum ministerium est declarare voluntatem Patris, credendum est velle nos subdi nisi ei, cujus nobis annunciant voluntatem? Unde optimè admonet etiam ipse Platonicus, IMITANDOS Eos potius quam INVOCANDOS. Idem de Civit. Dei, l. 10. c. 26.  would have us be subject and serve any other besides Him, whose Will they declare to us? the Platonician himself doth give us herein the best Admonition, That the ANGELS are to be IMITATED rather than INVOCATED.  
If this Father was so very earnest against any Invocation of Angels, we have reason to believe, that upon his own reasons urged above against placing any Trust in MAN, he was as positive, if not much more against Invocation of Saints, since according to him, the Angels who are so constantly employed in the affairs of men, cannot but see and understand our wants; whereas the Saints, according to Him, know nothing of us, and therefore cannot be Invocated by us, except we are resolved to throw away our Prayers, and to pray to those who do not hear us. It is his own Doctrine in his Tract about taking care of the Dead, in which after several Arguments Pro and Con he concludes, 
l Proinde fatendum est, nescire quidem mortuos quid hic agatur. Idem de Cura pro Mort. c. 15.  That we must acknowledge, that the Dead are ignorant of what is done here upon earth; He had just before this Conclusion argued, that if the dead had any knowledge of things on earth, he should not have wanted the constant assistance of his dear Mother Monica in his troubles: and that if (as the Scriptures assure us) the Patriarches themselves were ignorant of their Posterity, and knew nothing of the Condition good or bad of the People of Israel: we have a great deal of reason to conclude, that all the Dead were in the same Condition.  
This certainly was that Father's Opinion, and this Doctrine I am sure is perfectly inconsistent with Invocation of Saints, since it takes away the very foundation itself on which Invocation is built, to wit, that the Dead do know our wants, and do hear us, and are able to relieve us. I will conclude the Testimonies upon this Head against Invocation of Saints with that severe question which Hilary the Deacon put to those who were wont to worship the Elements, because they believed that the Government or Patronage of men's lives was entrusted with them. We demand of them, whether this be commanded or ordered by God 
m A quibus ut supra requirimus si mandatum est aut jussum à Deo, quem etiam ipsi magnum & summum fatentur & negligunt. Si enim fieri debet, ab illo mandari oportuit, qui Author eorum dicitur. Si autem ab illo non est mandatum, praesumptio est, & ad poenam proficiet, non ad praemium, quia ad contumeliam pertinet Conditoris, ut contempto Domino colantur servi, & spreto Imperatore adorentur Comites. Hilar. Diacon. Quaestion. Vet. & Nou. Testam. apud August. in Append. ad Tom. 4. p. 45. , whom they themselves own to be Great and the Supreme, and yet neglect him. If this thing must be done, it ought to have been commanded by Him, who is the Creator of those Elements. But if it is not commanded by Him, it is a presumption, and will bring us punishment, not a reward, because it is an affronting of the Creator of all, to have the Lord contemned and his servants worshipped, to have the Emperor despised, and his Officers adored.  
It is but altering a few words in this passage, and we may put the same question to the Church of Rome about their Invocation and worship of Saints. We require to know, whether their Invocation of Saints be commanded and appointed by God; for if Invocation of Saints ought to be practised, it ought to be commanded by him who made them Saints: but if it is not where commanded by him, Invocation of Saints is a PRESUMPTION, and will bring a Punishment on their Heads that practise it, since it is a Contempt and affront to God to have his Servants made sharers with him in his WORSHIP.  
Thus I have gone through the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers down to St. Austin's time in the Fifth Age of the Church, and have found their Doctrine to be like their Practice: we had no reason to expect to meet with any Practice of Invocation of Saints or Angels in their days, since we find their Doctrines so fully and so unanimously against any such thing; I am not conscious to myself of having either curtailed, or misapplyed, or perverted one of all the passages I have produced out of the Fathers of the Five Centuries; I hope the Reader hath carried them in his memory, that so he may help me to compare them with what Sabran the Jesuit had the Assurance in both his Letters to say concerning St. Austin, and the Fathers of his and the precedent Century, that Invocation of Saints was taught by S. Austin, and ALL the Fathers of his Age, and the Precedent Century.  
And is all this certainly true? Yes surely, or else the Jesuit would have scorned to have asserted it so boldly in both his Letters: but alas, it will not prove so, since what I have collected out of the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries will prove this to be a scandalous falsehood; for to argue the matter a little with him, did S. Athanasius teach Invocation of Saints, who tells us, that no good Christian ever prayed to Angels, or any other Creatures (of which number are the Saints) together with God, who proves the Divinity of our Saviour from his being Invocated? did Hilary the Deacon teach Invocation of Saints, who does so very well expose the very ground of Invocation of going to God by the Saints, and ridicules the Comparison drawn from Addresses made to Temporal Princes by the mediation of their Officers, and shows, that the comparison is groundless, since Temporal Princes are forced to make use of their Officers in such things, because they are but men, whereas God knows the Merits of all men, and therefore no need of a Spokesman to him?  
Did S. Basil or Gregory Nyssen teach Invocation, or a Praying to Saints, who define Prayer to be a Request for some good thing TO GOD?  
These are the most noted Fathers of the Fourth Century; and for the Fifth, did S. Epiphanius teach Invocation of Saints, who proves the Divinity of Christ (as S. Athanasius had done) from his being worshipped; the most solemn expression of Worship being Invocation or Prayer? did S. Ambrose after he rightly understood the Christian Religion teach any such Invocation, who said, that GOD ALONE was to be INVOCATED? Did S. Chrysostom teach it, who does so often exhort to our going to God ourselves, assuring us we shall be sooner heard when we ask ourselves, than when we ask by another; who does with the rest of the Fathers make the Essence of Prayer to be a Discoursing with God? Did S. Austin lastly, whom the Jesuit names, teach Invocation or Prayer to Saints, who says expressly, that we ought to Pray to, or ask of GOD ALONE those things we hope for?  
I am so much accustomed to the Writers of the Church of Rome, that I do not so much wonder as I otherwise should at the Jesuits asserting a thing so very false with so much assurance: it is too frequent among them to challenge ALL the Fathers, when perhaps not one in twenty is on their side, and therefore for the Jesuit to assert, That all the Fathers of those two Centuries are for Invocation of Saints, is merely a being in the fashion. But can he think to impose upon us with such things? does he think that Confidence is enough, or all that is necessary for the carrying of any cause? if he does, he shall find himself mistaken, since there is too much learning in England to let such bold and false assertions to pass upon and delude the people without control, or putting a stop to them.  
I need not aggravate, or further insist on the falseness of all that the Jesuit said there; I had rather employ myself to vindicate the Fathers than to expose him: and therefore in order to the doing that by answering all the passages quoted out of them by the Jesuit to defend Invocation of Saints, I will only request, that these two very reasonable Postulatums may be granted me.  
First, That the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries [about whom the Controversy is betwixt me and the Jesuit] did know the Practices, and understand the Doctrines of the Fathers of the Three preceding Ages of the Church.  
Secondly, That the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, had so much learning as to understand, and so much sense as not to contradict themselves.  
Both these Concessions are so very just, that I hope there will be no dispute about them; I will then with the help of them begin the Examination of all that the Jesuit hath offered out of the Primitive Fathers in defence of Invocation of Saints. And to let the Jesuit see I am not afraid of their best Arguments, I will answer that one which is omitted, I wonder how by himself, but was not only urged in the Nubes Testium, but is twice repeated by the Compiler in his Vindication of the Nubes Testium. It is the passage from S. Ambrose's Book de Viduis, wherein he says, Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis. Martyrs obsecrandi, the Angels are to be prayed to, who are appointed for our defence; the Martyrs are to be prayed to, whose Patronage we justly claim. This passage doth make the greatest show of any for the Church of Rome, however in answer to this we tell them, that what S. Ambrose wrote in that Book, was not the Doctrine of the Christian Church, which S. Ambrose did not understand when he wrote that Book, being then but a Novice, as not only this passage about Angels, but some others in it do very evidently show, and therefore this passage ought not to be insisted on as the Doctrine of the Church then, since He doubtless did not at that time understand the Church's Doctrines, nor ought it to be insisted on as S. Ambrose's Opinion at least, since it is evident, that he did afterwards change his mind, when he understood Christianity better, and did then declare his sense to be, that GOD ALONE was to be INVOCATED or PRAYED TO.  
This Answer is fair, and cannot be reasonably gainsayed, however since the Jesuit and the Compiler will be angry at my saying S. Ambrose was a Novice, and did not understand the Doctrines of the Christian Church, when he wrote that Book; I will, to prevent their Cavils, offer some further reasons in defence of that Answer I have just made. I will not insist upon the Concessions of their own Learned Men of the Church of Rome, of Baronius for Example, who do own, that S. Ambrose was a Novice, when he wrote that Book, and therefore did not throughly understand the Christian Doctrine; I have better reasons, the chief of which is, that this doctrine of praying to Angels and Martyrs, is expressly contrary to the doctrine of the Church, and the Practice of it in St. Irenaeus' time, who tells us, that the Church then made no use of any Invocation of Angels; in Origen's time, who informs us, that the Church's Doctrine was, that Angels were not to be PRAYED TO, nor Martyrs neither, but that ALL PRAYER was to be offered up to GOD ALONE through our Lord Jesus Christ; and in St. Athanasius' time, who lived but a little time before S. Ambrose, and who shows us, that no Christian then did Pray to Angel, or Martyr, or Saint, or any other Creature: but which is worst of all, this Doctrine of praying to Angels is directly contrary to a Canon of a Council of Bishops at Laodicea, held not above ten years before St. Ambrose's Conversion to Christianity, by which Canon an Anathema is denounced against any person that should Pray to Angels, and as if the Council 
* Can. 35. Concil. Laodicen. held A.D. 364.  had a mind throughly to have secured all Christians from slipping into it, they call the Praying to Angels a secret Idolatry and a forsaking of Christ.  
This is sufficient to show, that Praying to Angels was far enough from being either a Practice or a Doctrine of the Primitive Church, since it was accursed and branded with the title of Idolatry; and to show further, that it was not S. Ambrose's own Opinion, when he understood Christianity better, we need only look into that Oration I quoted above, where he doth expressly teach, that GOD ALONE is to be Invocated and Prayed to.  
Had the Compiler of the Nubes Testium known the true State and Doctrines of the Primitive Church during the first four Ages, He would never have been guilty of bringing in S. Ambrose for a Teacher of Invocation and Praying to Angels, which the Church had not only always opposed, but had just before S. Ambrose's own time accursed as secret Idolatry, and a forsaking of Christ: but such passages as this, and downright Heresy sometimes are quoted, if they do but promise any the least service to the defence of the present Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome: Unhappy Church! that art forced to make use of such, or to have none.  
It is time for me now to attend the Jesuit, and see what he produces to show, that Invocation or Prayer to Saints, was taught in the Fourth and Fifth Ages.  
He gins with S. Austin, but so little is the Jesuits Skill, and so ill his Fortune, that he first quotes a passage that breaks the neck of his whole design. For in that answer to Faustus the Manichee, who had objected to the Christians the Worshipping of their Martyrs, he owns indeed (as the Jesuit quotes him) that they did worship the Martyrs, but he tells him also, that it was only with the Worship of Love and Fellowship, which is paid also to the Holy Men of God while on earth. I ask the Jesuit therefore what Church ever did, and whether even their Church of Rome doth order Invocation or Prayers to be put up to their Fellow Christians, tho' the most holy on Earth? Let him but name me the Church that ever practised or appointed this, and I will be his Convert upon it, but since no Church in the World was ever so forsaken of God as to command this, and since the worship paid to the dead Saints was the very same that is paid to the Living Saints, it is evident to a Demonstration, that there was nothing of Invocation in it, and consequently no Patronage for Invocation of Saints from this place, but the direct contrary to it.  
The Jesuit had in his Printed Sermon, and in his Letter to the Lord, quoted two of S. Austin's Sermons, de Sanctis, for the same purpose; for the passage in relation to the Virgin Mary out of the 35th Sermon, de Sanctis, I have sufficiently answered that already, by proving that whole Sermon to be a Forgery; and for the other passage out of the 18th Sermon de Sanctis, I told him before that it is none of S. Austin's; and for the Passage itself set down by the Jesuit in his Letter to the Protestant Peer it is almost word for word in the 35th Sermon, de Sanctis, so that there was Stealing in the case, either the 18th stole from the 35th, or the 35th served the 18th that Trick: but to convince the World how little that Passage could pretend to be S. Austin's, or near his Age, I will give the Reader that Piece which the Jesuit left out of the middle of his Quotation; It is an Address to the Virgin Mary, in these Words, Excuse us from what we fear, for thou art the ONLY HOPE of Sinners, THROUGH THEE we hope for pardon of our Sins, and in THEE, O most Blessed Virgin, is the Expectation 
a Excusa quod timemus, quia TU es SPES UNICA peccatorum, per TE speramus veniam delictorum, & in TE, Beatissima, nostrorum est Expectatio Praemiorum. Serm. 18. de Sanctis.  of our Rewards. This is such Doctrine, as had no Being in S. Austin's days, and happy had it been for the whole Church, had such absurd Doctrine been always kept out, and I am glad to see the Jesuit so much ashamed of it, as to leave it out of the middle of his Quotation.  
His next Author for Invocation of Saints is Origen, and which is still more strange, his Eighth Book against Celsus, which, as I shown above, was particularly written against the Invocation of Angel or Saint; but some men are very unhappy, and it is a just Judgement that they that only steal from one another should suffer, and be exposed for their Imprudence. What the Jesuit quotes is, That if Men would gain the Favour of many, they were taught in Scripture that thousands of thousands assisted before him: but what is all this to the purpose? What is said here is, That the Angels assist good Men with their Prayers, which is nothing at all to Invocation of Angels: nay the place is so far from countenancing any such thing, that Origen's Design through that whole eighth Book, is to show, that no Worship nor Invocation is to be offered up to Angels or Saints, and upon Celsus' urging that Men should worship and pray to the Angels that they might be propitious to them, Origen answers him with a Detestation of his Counsel (as I have put it down at large above) showing him that all our Prayers were to be offered to God, and for the obtaining the Assistance of the Angels, he tells him, a Holy Life is the best Means.  
And is not this Jesuit then very skilful in these things? could any other Person have had the face to quote that very place for an Instance and Proof of Invocation of Angels and Saints, which was intended by the Author directly against it. I believe the Jesuit never saw Origen himself, I entreat him to look into that Page out of which his Quotation is taken, and then I am sure he will see very good reason to thank me for saying no more to him upon this Account.  
His next Testimony is out of S. Basil's Oration upon the Forty Martyrs, that whoever was in Affliction had recourse to them: whoever was in Prosperity, betook himself likewise to them; the one that he might find Relief, the other to beg continuance of his Happiness, etc. There was occasion for Craft in the Translation of this Place, however I do not charge it upon the Jesuit who had it from the Compiler, nor the Compiler who had it from Father Alexandre, nor F. Alexandre himself who had it from Bellarmine, or some other of their Writers, who all conspire in the same Abuse of S. Basil's Words. There is not a Syllable for Invocation here, for S. Basil in this place to persuade the People to frequent the Anniverssaries of the Martyrs, tells them, that the Church of the Martyrs, that is, where the Martyr's Bodies or Ashes were laid, was a ready help to Christians, but how? Because those that came to offer up their Prayers at the Memories of the Martyrs, had the assistance of the Martyr's Prayers, whom S. Basil believed to join their Prayers to those that were put up at their Memories; and upon this account it is that He says people betook themselves to the Martyrs, not by praying to the Martyrs, as the Jesuit and the Romish Writers would insinuate, but by frequenting their Assemblies, and by running to the Churches of the Martyrs: for immediately after he plainly enough prevents his being misunderstood, as tho' he was telling how the people prayed to the Martyrs, by annexing this to it. Let your Prayers therefore 
b ΜΕΤΑ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΩΝ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Basil. Orat. 20 in 40. Martyrs, p. 459.  be put up or joined with the Martyr's Prayers. Here had been his place to have explained himself if he would have had them to have prayed to the Martyrs: but we see his direction was not that they should pray To, but WITH the Martyrs, which is directly against Invocation of them: and therefore was cunningly, tho' not honestly, left out of the middle of the passage, by the Compiler, and the Jesuit after him.  
That which he quotes next from Gregory Nazianzen about Cyprian, and Justina the Virgin, that he while He was a Magician did tempt her to uncleanness, and she escaped him by praying to the Virgin Mary, is every bit of it a shame, since the learned men of the Church do own that there was no ground in History for it, but that it was a perfect Mistake throughout.  
As to the next Quotation out of Gregory Nyssen's Oration upon Theodorus of his ask that Saints Intercession for their Country, it is so plainly a Rhetorical Apostrophe, as nothing can be more, and is put down in such familiar Style, as if he was talking not praying to the Martyr, and to convince us that it must be only a Rhetorical Expression or Request to the Martyr, he does suppose the Martyr himself to be present there, and to hear what he said as well as any of the Congregation did; and to help out that Supposition he further supposes that the Martyr (wheresoever his Mansion was) had got leave to come down, and be present at their Assemblies; all which are pleasant Fancies, but are such as show that Gregory Nyssen would have thought it vain even to have talked with, or called to the Martyr, had he not had leave to have been present with them; which is further cleared from his desiring Theodorus to get the rest of the Martyrs, S. Peter, S. Paul, and S. John to pray for the several Churches planted by them; by which very Expressions he shows his belief that they did not hear him, because they were not present, and therefore he was forced to desire of Theodorus to do it. All which with more which I could add out of this very Oration upon Theodore the Martyr, is absolutely inconsistent with that Invocation of Saints which is practised in the Church of Rome, by which any Saint is called upon in any place, and in Ten thousand places at the same time.  
We must allow for Rhetorical Expressions, and Harangues, and ought not to suspect that Gregory Nyssen doth here contradict his own Doctrine, as well as of all the Fathers before him, by which he makes Invocation or Prayer peculiar to God, when he defines Prayer to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Conversing with GOD exclusive to Saint or Angel.  
His next Quotation from S. Ambrose I have already answered above, where I told the Reader that the Jesuit had omitted it, but that was partly a Mistake; but the Jesuit himself is in the fault, for in his Margin here he puts Ambros. de m. Cyprian, whereas it should have been Ambros. l. de Viduis. I never met with such a blundering Margin in my days; had I not had the Nubes Testium to have directed me, I should no more have understood his next Quotation from Theod. de cur. grac. than I did this from Ambrose. The Jesuit either does not understand how to quote an Author intelligibly, or hath a very unlucky Printer: however H. Hills ought not to have the blame, since his other Prints are just enough as to these Marginal References.  
The Jesuit than next quotes Theodoret's Words, in Serm. 8. de Martyribus, about the Temples of the Martyrs being frequented, and about the People praying to the Martyrs upon all occasions. But to this we answer, That if the whole Book, de Curandis Graecorum Affectionibus, be not deservedly doubted to be none of Theodoret's, yet there is a very great Reason to believe that this Book about the Martyrs hath been tampered with; since in a Book of his, which is unquestionable, we meet with Doctrines inconsistent with any such Prayer to Saints as is made in the Church of Rome. I mean his Commentary on the 17th Verse of the Third Chapter of S. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, where upon those Words, And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him: He thus comments, For because they [against whom S. Paul warns the Colossians] did command Men 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret. in 3. cap. Ep. ad Coloss. in Tom. 3. p. 359. Edit. Paris. 1642.  to worship the Angels, He enjoins the contrary, that they should adorn both their Words and Actions with the Commemoration of Christ their Lord. And send up (saith he) Thanksgiving to God and the Father by HIM, and not by the ANGELS. The Synod of Laodicea also in pursuance of this Rule, and being desirous to cure that old Disease, made it a Law that none should pray unto Angels, nor forsake our Lord Jesus Christ. Theodoret urges this same Canon of the Council of Laodicea against the Worshipping of Angels spoken of in the 2d Chapter to the Colossians.  
So that if we may judge of Theodoret's True Sentiments about these things from his undoubted Comments, we are very sure he was utterly against Invocation of Angels, and consequently against Invocation of Saints, since the same Reasons lie against them both, but are much stronger against the Invocation of Saints, who must be allowed to be the less Glorious, and less knowing in humane Affairs.  
But granting, notwithstanding all this, that Theodoret's Eighth Discourse about the Martyrs is genuine, and that there have been no Frauds committed in it, yet the Reason of his Praying to the Martyrs there will not defend the present Invocation of the Church of Rome, since he makes the Martyrs to be present at their Memories, and to hear the Requests made to them there; which was not only his, but some other Father's Opinions: and this cannot properly be called Invocation, since the Saint is supposed to be within the Lines of Communication, and all that passes to be no more than a Request from one Friend to another; nor can it be called Prayer any otherwise than improperly as we use it in Conversation, when one man prays another to do such or such a thing for him.  
And therefore tho' Invocation or Prayer be reserved in Scripture to God alone, and was looked upon as such by the Primitive Fathers, yet were any man certain that S. Paul, for Example, was present though invisibly in the same place he is in, I do not believe it would be any more against Scripture for that Man to pray S. Paul to assist him with his Prayers at the Throne of Grace, than it is against Scripture for one Man here to pray another to do the same thing for him; and I think such a Prayer or Request (call it whether you will) made to S. Paul with those Circumstances ought on more to be named Invocation, than the Prayer or Request made by one Christian to another upon the same account: since all the difference betwixt the two Cases is only this, that the one is present invisibly, the other visibly, but both equally present.  
This Answer doth not only satisfy for what is alleged out of Theodoret, but is equally serviceable for some other such like passages quoted from S. Chrysostom and others, all which are grounded upon that persuasion that had gotten footing among them, that the Martyrs by God's permission, were present at their Memories during the time of the Christians Assemblies there, as I could very distinctly show, but have not room here to do it: if the Jesuit would but read over again his own next quotation from S. Basil, he may see the grounds for all that hath been answered by me here.  
I need not trouble myself to answer what he further quotes from S. Austin, of whose Doctrine upon this point we have had a full account already, nor to take any notice of his following Quotations, which concern the Relics of the Saints.  
What I have collected from the Practice and Doctrines of the Primitive Fathers in my third and fourth particular is sufficient to demonstrate that as Invocation of Saints was not the Practice, so it was expressly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers; so that Invocation of Saints was no more countenanced by them, than it is by the Church of England, and we have all the reason in the World to conclude that as they did not practise Invocation of Saints, so they were no Papists, but of the same Faith with the Church of England as to these things: and therefore the Church of England is not guilty of Schism in separating from the Church of Rome upon occasion of Invocation of Saints, since the Primitive Church practised no such thing, and she is bound to Communicate with the Primitive Church rather than with the Church of Rome, who has been guilty of bringing into her own Practice This among other Superstitious things, which every Orthodox Church is bound to refuse, or to throw out and reform as soon as she is sensible of her Error.  
And as for those Practices of Addresses to the Martyrs at their Memories cited from S. Basil, S. Gregory Nyssen, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, and so much insisted on by the Jesuit as being the same thing, and all that is practised by the Church of Rome towards the Saints and Angels; we can very easily prove a vast difference betwixt what was done then, and what is practised now by the Church of Rome, and since the Jesuit doth challenge me so often to show the difference, I will answer his Challenge, and do assign only three Differences out of more that I could offer.  
The First Difference is that the Church of Rome doth use a direct Invocation, or formal Prayer to the Saints and Angels, as is apparent from hundreds of places in their missals, Breviaries and Offices, whereas the Primitive Fathers of the end of the Fourth and Fifth Century did not invocate or make Prayers to the Saints, but merely such Addresses or Requests as are made from one Friend to another: and this I do prove out of their own mouths, who make PRAYER to be PECULIAR to GOD ALONE, and therefore would not contradict their own Doctrine by their own Practice, which these Fathers had inevitably done, had they reserved Prayer as proper to GOD ALONE, and yet offered Prayer or Invocation to the Saints.  
A second Difference is that, whereas those Requests were made at the Memories of those Martyrs to whom they were presented, and who were believed to be present there tho' invisibly at that time; the Invocations and Prayers to the Saints in the present Church of Rome, are made not only in every place, but in ten thousand different and most distant places to such or such a particular Saint; which is virtually to ascribe to them an Omnipresence, an Attribute that no finite Being is capable of.  
The third Difference is that those Requests and Interpellations to the Martyrs were neither commanded by the Primitive Church, Authorized by her General or Provincial, or any other Councils, nor used in the Public Offices of the Church; whereas; on the contrary, the Invocations and Prayers to Saints in the Church of Rome are enjoined by the Roman Church, are authorized by her last General Council of Trent, and used not only in the Public Offices of their Church, but in the most solemn Parts of their Offices, in the Litanies of the Church.  
I could add more, but these are enough to show the vast difference betwixt what is now practised in the Church of Rome towards the Saints, and what was done to them at the latter end of the Fourth, and in the Fifth Age of the Church, which is the time of the Primitive Church in dispute betwixt me, and the Compiler, and the Jesuit.  
Thus I have been so civil as to accept the Jesuits Challenge, and to make him a fair and distinct Reply, and have been more civil to him than I ought to have been, since according to the Law of Arms, I think the Challenge I made to the Jesuit among the rest of the Romish Priests in England (to show me but one Canon of the Catholic Church for the first six hundred years of the Church for the Pope's Supremacy) ought to have been accepted and answered before any of them were allowed to make any Challenges to me. But since it was impossible for the Jesuit or any of them to produce such a Canon, and therefore to make any Reply to that Challenge; I will at parting tell the Jesuit, that if he intends to prosecute this Controversy about Invocation of Saints, it is my turn to challenge, and therefore I do challenge him to show as fair and as uninterrupted a Practice and Doctrine for Invocation of Saints, as I have produced against it for the Four First Centuries of the Church, out of the Liturgies and Genuine Works of the Fathers of those distinst Ages.   

I must now return to the Compiler's Vindication of the Nubes Testium, and should pass to the next Chapter about Relics, but that I must not forget to take notice of a very terrible Objection against us in relation to this Invocation, which I had like to have omitted. The Reader I suppose does remember, that the Compiler had said, that I had granted that Invocation of Saints was practised in the Fourth and Fifth Ages of the Church, upon this he very learnedly observes against me, that even one of the Four First General Councils was held within the same time, without ever censuring it as an Error, tho' even before that, this Practice is owned to have taken root in many Places. This passage is very diverting, and shows with what an air of confidence some men can write the most absurd things, and tack together the most inconsistent: I had thought I had taught the Compiler a little more care and circumspection when he meddles with Chronology-matters in my Answer to his Nubes Testium, but I perceive nothing will do good upon him, nor learn him more caution. Well then, since he is so wilful, and cannot be persuaded from making such lamentable blunders in Chronology, he must even thank himself if he be exposed for it, and lashed for it as he does deserve.  
He first then observes, that even one of the Four First General Councils was held within the same time, that is, within the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. By this One of the Four First General Councils, I suppose, he means the Council of Nice; and I must needs tell him, that he guessed very well to say, that that Council was held within the time of those two Centuries, but that he had guessed a great deal better if he had said, that even all the Four First General Councils were held within that time; for there is no body that pretends to any the least skill in Chronology, that would not have readily told him that they were all four held and over within two Years after the middle of the Fifth Century.  
His next Observation is like this, he tells us, That this General Council did not censure Invocation of Saints as an Error; if he means the Council of Nice, as I before supposed he did, it is a very great Truth that that Council did not censure Invocation of Saints as an Error, and there was a very good Reason for it, and that was, because there was no such thing as Invocation of Saints practised in the Church when that Council was held, nor of above two hundred Years after; but some men love to make wise Observations, tho' they miss their aim too too often. Well! But what will the Compiler say, if I show him that tho' not the First, yet One of these Four General Councils did censure Invocation of Angels, (and consequently of Saints) as an Error, and as a most gross one too? This I will do, that so he may curse his ill Fate for putting him upon making such an untoward Objection against us, and learn for the future, if he is not deaf to Advice, to look before he leaps into such recoiling Objections.  
The Council of Chalcedon doth in her first Canon admit and approve of the Synod of Laodicea, and makes the Canons of that Synod part of the standing Law of the Universal Church: now among the Canons of that Synod we find the 35th directly forbidding Invocation of Angels. I will set down the whole Canon, not only because it was made by a Diocesan Synod of a great many Bishops, but because it was confirmed by the Greatest and last General Council, consisting of above Six hundred Bishops, in the middle of the Fifth Century, (which is the Century most contested for betwixt me and the Compiler) and made by them a Rule to the Catholic Church: and the Canon is this, That Christians ought 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Laodicen. Can. 35. in Biblioth. Juris Canonici. Edit. Justel. 1661.  not to forsake the Church of God, and go into Conventicles and Invocate, or pray to Angels, and make Meetings; all which are forbidden them: If any Man therefore be found to give himself to this Secret Idolatry, let him be accursed, for that he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and hath betaken himself to Idolatry.  
The Compiler hath still another Observation to be examined which is as good as either of the other two: It is, That this Practice [of Invocation of Saints] is owned to have taken root in many places, even before that [Council of Nice]. I will not accuse him here of a wilful Falsehood, it is merely because he knew not when that Council was held, that makes him write at this extravagant Rate: I do not own that Invocation of Saints took root either before or within a hundred Years after that Council: and the very first Instance of any Addresses in Orations, or otherwise made to the Saints that any of the Romish Writers are able to produce comes not within forty Years of that Council, so that our Compiler is a very unlucky Man at these Chronology businesses, and should not have ventured so rashly to crowd so many false, and such ridiculous things into so small a compass: and tho' perhaps I shall have no Thanks for my good Intentions, yet could I but in the least suspect that he and I should have any further Controversy about these things, rather than he should go on in this blundering blindfold manner, I would be at the Expense of presenting him with a Chronology-Table, that so no more Paper may be spent in correcting or exposing his Mistakes in Chronology. I entreat him to consider of it, and not to venture at such things any more, except he is sure of an Adversary just as wise as himself, and that hath just as much Knowledge in Chronology and Antiquity as himself: then indeed he may write on as he has done here, courageously without the fear of being discovered, and they two may serve only to make diversion for their Readers.  
The next Chapter in my Book is about Relics, and here the Compiler takes me up very quick, and says that I retire within the Three first Centuries, but for the Fourth and Fifth that I dare not put the Cause [about Relics] upon their Verdict. And is not this very pleasant Matter? Suppose I had retired, which I did not, for the Disproof of the Worship of Relics within the Three first Centuries, and durst not stand to the Verdict of the Fourth or Fifth Century; does not he himself remember that the Design of his Nubes Testium was to show that the Fathers of the first five hundred years did teach and practise what the Church of Rome at present doth? And did not he pretend there to the Tradition of the First Five Centuries? How then should I have betrayed or hurt my pretences to the same Ages, had I retired within the Three First Centuries, and disproven him as to those Centuries. When a Man at Law pretends to have five hundred years' Prescription to the Toll (for Example) of some great Fair, doth not his Adversary sufficiently ruin his five hundred years' Prescription, if he can make it appear, that for three of the five hundred years there was no Fair at all kept at that place, and therefore no Toll paid there? The Case betwixt me and my Adversary, as set down by himself, is the very same, and yet I must not be allowed to ruin his first five hundred years' Prescription, tho' I could prove, that there was no enquiry after, much less any worship of Relics for three of those five hundred years. This is a very hard Case, however the Compiler writes as if he feared no Colours, nor that any body would dare to take up the Pen against him.  
But I must bring him to a better consideration of these things, and inform him that the Controversy betwixt him and me about Relics is whether they were worshipped or no during the first five hundred years, and that I am so far from retiring within the Three first Centuries, that I challenged the Fourth and Fifth as well as the Three first as expressly rejecting and denying the worship of Relics.  
It is necessary for me to do this, since the Compiler confounding what I had said in relation to the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries with what we do at present condemn the Church of Rome of, runs me down most grievously for a page or two, for daring to censure what was then done about the searching and treasuring up of Relics, tho' I had shown it to be expressly contrary to what was the Practice of the three first Centuries, for which I suppose I ought to have as great veneration at least, as for the Practice of the Fourth and Fifth. Ay, but says he, don't you see what men he dares to censure, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nyssen, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Jerom, S. Austin and Theodoret, and then grows very angry upon it, forgetting all the while that he is as pert against what the Church of Antioch did to S. Ignatius' body, the Church of Smyrna to S. Polycarp's; against what the Body of the Clergy of the Church of Rome did expressly enjoin in their Letter to the Clergy of Carthage; against what was done by all the Faithful of the first Ages towards the Bodies and Ashes of all the Martyrs; against what the Great Anchorite S. Anthony (as it is related in his Life, written by S. Athanasius) did so often beg of the Bishops, that they would forbid their people to keep the Bodies of their dead Friends unburied, censuring thereby the Custom of the Egyptians [and I may add, of all those Fathers mentioned by the Compiler against me] who before his time had begun what was so zealously practised and commended by those Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, and is so angrily contended for by the Compiler in his Vindication.  
I will set down the whole passage, because it is so complete a defence of all that I have written about these things, and is so full an Answer to all that the Compiler doth make so much noise about. S. Athanasius having related S. Anthony's farewell Oration to his Brother Monks, and their great desire to stay him with them, that so they might be honoured with his ending his days among them, tells us, that S. Anthony upon several reasons was utterly against it, but especially for that presumptuous custom of Egypt, which he thus describes. For the Egyptians 
e Mos etenim Aegyptiis est, nobilium & praecipue beatorum Martyrum Corpora linteamine quidem obvolvere, & studium funeri solitum non negare: terrâ verò non abscondere, sed super lectulos domi posita reservare. Hunc honorem quiescentibus reddi, inveteratae con vetudinis VANITAS tradidit. De hoc Antonius saepe & Episcopos deprecatus est, ut populos Ecclesiastica consuetudine corrigerent, & laicos viros ac mulieres rigidius ipse convenit, dicens: Nec LICITUM HOC ESSE, nec DEO PLACITUM, quip cum Patriarcharum & Prophetarum Sepulchra, quae ad nos usque perdurant haec facta convincerent: Dominici quoque Corporis exemplum oportere intueri jubebat, quod in Sepulchro positum lapide usque ad resurrectionis tertium diem clausum fuerit. Atque his modis vitium circa defunctos Aegypti, etiam si Sancta essent Corpora, coarguebat,— Haec justa persuasio multorum insitum evellit errorem, & repositis in terra cadaveribus domino gratias pro bono Magisterio retulerunt. D. Athanasii Vita S. Antonii Tom. 2. p. 482. Edit. Commelin. 1600.  have a Custom among them of wrapping up indeed in linen the Bodies of their Virtuous Men, and especially of the blessed Martyrs, and of giving them Funeral Rites, but they do not bury them in the Earth, but lay them upon Couches, and keep them in their Houses. The VANITY of an inveterate Custom hath taught them, that this Honour is to be shown to the Deceased. S. Anthony had often complained to the Bishops about this thing, and requested of them, that they would by Ecclesiastical Censure cure the People of this Evil Custom; and He himself was wont to chide both Men and Women very severely for it, telling them, that it was NOT LAWFUL, and that IT was NOT PLEASING TO GOD, and that the Sepulchers of the Patriarches and Prophets, which continue to these days, did convince these actions to be unlawful; and he bid them to consider the Example of our Lords own Body, which was buried in a Sepulchre, and sealed up with a Stone to the Third day on which he was to rise again. And by these means S. Anthony did reprehend and put a stop to this Evil Custom of Egypt towards the deceased, tho' it was to the Bodies which were Holy;— and this just Reproof did root out of many this inbred Error, and they having buried the dead Bodies of their deceased Friends, returned the Lord thanks for the Good Admonition.  
Our Compiler however is very earnest upon it, that what was practised in the latter end of the fourth and fifth Centuries towards the Relics of the Saints and Martyrs is the very same, and no more than what is now practised towards them by the Order of the Church of Rome; and he builds this whole fancy upon the equivocalness of some words and actions used then as well as now; but that I may ruin this groundless pretence, and all his Jingling about words, I will settle and prove these two things:  
First, That the Church of Rome doth command and practise the worship of Relics.  
Secondly, That for the First Five Centuries of the Church the Worship of Relics was neither commanded nor practised by the Primitive Church.  
For the proof of the First, I need only insist on what the Council of Trent in her twenty-fifth and last Session did decree about Relics, that the Bodies and Relics of the Saints were to be worshipped, and a little after she denounces an Anathema against all that should affirm, that Veneration and Honour are not to be paid to Relics. That by Veneration and Honour in this Decree Religious Worship is meant, may be cleared from the best Writers of the Church of Rome, who use the words Veneration and Adoration promiscuously, and in the same sense.  
Thus Vasques the great Schoolman, 
Vasques in Par. 3. D. Thom. Disp. 112.  since that Council, in his Disputations upon S. Thomas, having proposed this question, whether the Bodies and Relics of the Saints are to be VENERATED; answers, that it is an indisputable Truth among the Catholics, that the RELICS of SAINTS, whether they be any parts of them, as Bones, Flesh and Ashes, or any other things that have touched them, or did belong to them, aught to be ADORED and honoured with Sacred or DIVINE HONOUR: and a little after concluding, that he had proved, that RELICS are to be ADORED, he next sets upon explaining with what kind of Worship and Honour THE RELICS ought to be VENERATED.  
And S. Thomas himself before Vasques had thus promiscuously used the Words VENERATION and ADORATION, 
S. Thom. Summa, Pars 3. Quaest. 25. Artic. 6. p. 65.  and whereas Vasques had put the Question whether Relics were to be VENERATED, S. Thomas puts it, whether RELICS are to be ADORED, and as Vasques had answered that they were to be ADORED, so S. Thomas answers his Question, that seeing we VENERATE the Saints of God, we must also VENERATE their Bodies and RELICS. And he does throughout that Article in his Objections and Answers sometimes use the one, and sometimes the other, but more frequently the Word ADORATION to express what Honour the Church did think due to RELICS.  
I was more careful to make use of the Authority of S. Thomas herein, because he is looked upon to be of such Sacred Authority in the Church of Rome, that Sabran the Jesuit assures me that above one half of the Divines of the Christian World [and those I am sure are at least all the Divines that are in the Church of Rome] do own Him for Master, 
Reply to my I. Letter to him.  and bind themselves to maintain ALL He hath taught. Well then, If the Case be as the Jesuit represents it, I am certain to carry my Cause that the Church of Rome doth ADORE the RELICS of the Saints, since I am sure that S. Thomas taught that RELICS ARE TO BE ADORED.  
But without the Authority of S. Thomas, from whose Decision, the Jesuit told me in his Letter to the Peer, that he would not swerve, tho' I had proved S. Thomas altogether and certainly mistaken about that thing: I think we may prove that by VENERATION the Council of Trent did mean the ADORATION of RELICS, if they will but permit us to explain the meaning of the Decrees of that Council by the standing Reformed Offices in their Church.  
In the Twenty fifth Session of that Council, in their Decree about Images, they do use the very same Words to express what Honour they will have done to Images, that they had used immediately before for the Relics of the Saints. VENERATION and HONOUR are the Words employed in both the Paragraphs. Now to find what that VENERATION means, which the Council of Trent appoints to be paid to the Images, we need only look into their Good-Fryday-Service, and into their Pontitical to find their Church's Sense. 
Missale Rom. Feria 6. in Parasceve. fol. 83, 84. Edit. Paris. in 8ᵒ. 1582.  In the Good-Friday-Service we meet with the Word ADORATION, and ADORED, about the Honour paid to the Image of the Cross above Ten times; and that we cannot mistake them, the Worship or VENERATION of the Cross is three times plainly styled the ADORATION OF THE CROSS. In their Pontifical, to show what they mean by VENERATION and HONOUR in the Decree of the Council, it is given as the Reason why the CROSS carried before a Legate should take the right Hand of the Emperor's Sword (at the Reception of an Emperor with Procession into any City) because, LATRIA, a DIVINE WORSHIP IS DUE TO THE CROSS.  
This I question not will be able to convince all Men that VENERATION and ADORATION are promiscuously used for the same thing, and that by appointing a VENERATION to be paid to the RELICS of the Saints, the Council of Trent did command that THE RELICS of Saints should be ADORED: and this is sufficient for what I undertook to prove, That the Church of Rome doth command the Worship of Relics.  
That she doth practise the Worshipping of Relics is what I have next to show; but this may be dispatched in a few Words, since every body knows that their People in the Church of Rome are not behind hand in practising what their Church commands about Relics: and I suppose that this will be granted me, That what the Church commands, the People may very lawfully do; and that they do practise in all their Popish Countries the Adoration of Relics.  
I must then prove my Second Particular, That for the First five Centuries of the Church, the Worship of Relics was neither commanded nor practised by the Primitive Church.  
To prove that the Worship of Relics was not commanded during that time, we need only to appeal to the Canons and Laws of the Four General Councils held within the Fourth and Fifth Century, wherein not a Syllable is to be met with about any such thing: and they of the Church of Rome are as well satisfied as we, that there is nothing in those Councils for their purpose about Relics, and therefore do not pretend to show any Command for the Worship of Images from any of those Councils.  
And that the Primitive Church did not practise any Worship of Relics during that time, is as easy to show from the Generality of the Fathers, who were utterly against Worshipping the Saints themselves, and consequently much more against the Worshipping any of the Mortal Remains of those Saints. I will only insist upon two, who lived in the beginning of the Fifth Century of the Church, S. Austin to prove that they did not then worship the Saints themselves, and S. Hierom to show that they did not worship the Saints Relics. 
Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis & societatis, quo & in hâc vitâ coluntur sancti homines Dei. Aug. c. Faust. l. 20. c. 21.   
S. Austin in answer to Faustus the Manichee who had objected to the Orthodox their Worshipping the Saints, shows him the Falseness and Silliness of his Accusation, by telling him, that the Church did indeed worship the Martyrs, but that it was merely such civil Worship as is paid to Holy Men while they are alive; and that I am sure was never hitherto accused of being Religious Worship.  
And for the Relics of the Saints, when Vigilantius had objected to several in the Church (as S. Hierom represents it) a Worship of Relics: S. Hierom with his usual vehemence falls upon him, and asks him first, who ever adored the Martyrs? [A Question that can very easily be answered in our days without the danger of being called Madmen for our pains, as Vigilantius was for even thinking that any of the Church should be so foolish as to worship the Martyrs] and then he tells him that They did not WORSHIP the Saints RELICS, and were so far from it, that they did not Worship or Adore even the Sun itself 
f Nos autem NON dico Martyrum RELIQUIAS, sed ne Solem quidem— non Angelos, non Archangelos— COLIMUS & ADORAMUS. D. Hieron. advers. Vigilant. ad Riparium. , nay not the Angels, nor the Archangels. Here we see S. Hierom confuting the Accusation of Worshipping of Relics, by showing that the Church did not worship the Sun itself, nor the Angels or Archangels themselves, which are Creatures so much above, and more Glorious than the dead Remains of any Saint, and therefore must needs be much further from the giving WORSHIP to the Saints Relics.  
Having thus proved these two things, that the Church of Rome doth worship Relics, and that the Primitive Church did not, we ought to conclude as to this Point about Relics, that the Primitive Fathers were no Papists, but Protestants, since they did declare against the Worship of Relics as much as the Church of England doth, and did detest the Worshipping of them as much as we can.  
There is one Great Mistake that the Compiler must be rectified in, before I leave this Chapter about Relics, and that is from the Community of Actions and Expressions to gather that the same thing was done by some of the Fathers towards the Relics, that is done now in the Church of Rome: He cannot be ignorant that most of the External Expressions of Respect are common to Civil and Religious Worship, and yet that no Body is so wild as to conclude from thence that Civil and Religious Worship are the same thing.  
When Abraham bowed himself to the ground before the Children of Heth, he used the very same Gesture that he was wont to make use of in his Worship of God, and yet I hope our Compiler would not have it concluded from the same Gesture used upon both those Occasions, either that Abraham, when he bowed to the Children of Heth, paid Religious Worship unto them, or that he, using the same Gesture in the Service of God, paid only a Civil Worship unto Him. And yet This is all that he builds upon, when he is so earnest about the thing, and would confound Civil and Religious Worship, by showing what no Body denies, that several of the Outward Expressions of Civil and Religious Worship are the same. Whereas, notwithstanding the Outward Gestures be the same, we do easily know Religious from Civil Worship, by the Object to whom it is paid, and by the Professions of them who pay it.  
And by this we are able to decide and resolve that Scruple which the Compiler would fain raise about the Matter of Relics. The Primitive Fathers did declare that they were against giving any Religious Worship to Relics, and therefore when we meet with any extraordinary Expressions or Actions among them which might otherwise appear to be Religious, we are obliged to look upon them only as Expressions of Civil Worship by reason of the Declaration so often made by them, that they did not worship Relics. But for the same Gestures or Actions used by the Church of Rome towards the Relics or Bodies of the Saints, we are obliged upon the very same Reason to look upon them as Expressions of a Religious Worship or Adoration, since She hath prevented our taking them in the other Sense, by declaring and decreeing in her Council of Trent that the BODIES and RELICS of the SAINTS are to be WORSHIPPED or ADORED.  
And further to let him see this by an Instance used by Himself, He urges that they used to touch and kiss the Relics of the Martyrs, and shows it from Gregory Nyssen, which was the highest Expression of Respect used then towards Relics: Now how far this is from being Religious Worship, in them, or the same Kiss from being but Civil Worship in the Church of Rome, I have already abundantly cleared, from the Professions made about Relics by the Primitive Fathers, and by the Church of Rome in her Council of Trent.  
I have insisted the longer upon this Business about the Relics, because the Compiler himself did; and have taken the more care to clear the whole Matter about the Worship of Relics, because He took so much pains to disguise and obscure it, and by confounding Civil and Religious Worship, to bear the credulous Reader in hand that the Church of Rome and the Primitive Church are exactly the same in their Respect to Relics: and that the Church of Rome doth no more pay a Religious Worship or Adoration to Relics, than the Primitive Fathers did: the Vanity and Falsehood of all which I have fully displayed, that so the Compiler being driven out of this Hold, and being made ashamed of such groundless Delusions and Distinctions, may even fall into the Old Track of defending Popery, and speak out fairly the Sense of their Church about the Worship of Relics, and defend with the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas Aquinas, and his Disciples, (who, Sabran the Jesuit tells us, are above One half of the Divines of the Christian World) that THE RELICS of the SAINTS OUGHT TO BE ADORED.  
He next undertakes the business of Purgatory, and finding that I had invincibly shown, that the Primitive Fathers, notwithstanding their Prayers for the Faithful deceased, did believe, that they were at the same time in a state of Bliss, of Comfort, of Peace, of Joy, and Light and Tranquillity, nay in Heaven itself; every one of which is utterly inconsistent with the Condition of Purgatory believed and taught by the Church of Rome; He hopes to salve all, by granting what he could not deny of the Primitive Fathers believing the Faithful deceased to be in such a Condition, and reconciling all this to the Belief of Purgatory in his Church.  
To this purpose he tells us, that the supposing those Souls, for which the Fathers prayed, to be in a State of Joy and Comfort, does most nearly agree with the present Practice and Doctrine of the Church of Rome. I am glad to hear this, and now I perceive there is none of those torments and burn in the Case, with which the people used to be frighted out of their Wits themselves, and to scare one another: but the unhappiness is, this is too good news to be true; and I doubt we shall find by and by that the Romish Purgatory is the very same place that it used to be thought, and that it is just as hot, and as tormenting and intolerable at this very day as it was six hundred years ago, when those lamentable shrieks were so often heard from the poor Souls in Purgatory: However since I suppose our Compiler knows himself not to have been so careful of his Life as to imagine he shall escape calling at Purgatory, I cannot discommend his making Purgatory as easy as he can, and his representing it to be just such a place as he would with all his heart find it, when he comes thither.  
He endeavours to prove this agreement from that Prayer in the Canon of the Mass used in their Church, wherein they pray God to grant to those his faithful Servants who rest in the sleep of Peace, a Place of Comfort, Light and Peace. In answer to which I will only tell him here, that this Old-Prayer in the Canon of the Mass is directly against the present Church of Rome in the business of Purgatory, and against what the Compiler hath positively asserted a little after this about Prayer not being made for those in Bliss, or those in Hell, but only for those who could be relieved by the Prayers of the Living; as I shall by and by show. In the mean time I will consider what he further offers to prove this Agreement; and this is no other than to tell us over again, that the State of Purgatory is agreeable to that Prayer, and then to describe it, by telling us very gravely, that in Purgatory there is a kind of Rest and Quiet, where the Interior Powers of the Souls are well ordered and composed; the Understanding settled in the Light of Faith, the Will inflamed with the Love of God, the Imagination undisturbed, and secure Hopes of once enjoying God, filling the Souls with a happy Resignation and Comfort.  
And is not this very Comical stuff? Certainly, all that read it will wonder whence this Man comes to have so very nice and exact an account of the State of Purgatory, as to know how every one of the Faculties of our Soul are employed there. One would think he had been there already himself, or that somebody hath slipped out thence, and instead of going straight to Heaven had come to Earth again, to inform the Compiler how things stand there, and how every one is employed there; which brings into my mind that Dialogue of Lucian, which gives us just such another account of the State of the Dead: I must confess I cannot read such things without an Indignation to see grave men Romancing about things so serious; and tho' I can bear well enough Sir Thomas Moor's Accounts what people do, and how they are taken up in his Utopia, yet I cannot forgive any Christian that will bring such Comical Accounts into our Religion: and for any Man to write at the rate the Compiler does here, and to give such a formal account of things for which he can have no grounds, nor reasons, nor any probability or possibility (without a divine Revelation) of knowing any of the things he so confidently affirms, is to make another Utopia, and to ridicule the Christian Religion to the World.  
I cannot find that the Compiler makes the nature of their Purgatory to be any thing else than the Longing desire of those in it of seeing and enjoying God, which longing desire doth give them a most afflicting Anguish; from which they are capable of being delivered and relieved by the Prayers of their Friends on Earth. And he concludes, that this is all that is required in our Profession of Faith, in which 'tis said, I hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the Souls there detained, are relieved by the Suffrages of the Faithful.  
I know the Compiler too well to trust him in these things, wherein he hath taken a great deal of pains to no purpose in the World, since it is very easy to demonstrate, that He and F. Alexandre, with the other Expositors of the New Popery have quite run away from the true old doctrine of their Church about Purgatory; that the true Purgatory of the Church of Rome is as inconsistent with that State of Light, Tranquillity and Comfort, wherein the Primitive Fathers supposed the Faithful to be, as Light is with Darkness, Torment with Ease, and the most exquisite Pain with Pleasure.  
And this is what I will now prove, that the Romish Purgatory is a place of Corment, wherein the Souls of those who are in it, undergo the same pains that the damned do, and that there is no other difference betwixt Hellfire and Purgatory-Fire, but that the one is Eternal, and the other but Temporal: and this I am sure will discover the absurdity of all that our Compiler hath said here in his Vindication, and ruin the pretended agreement betwixt the Primitive Father's State of Joy and Tranquillity, and the Purgatory of the Church of Rome.  
The Council of Trent was so shy, or rather so cunning, about the business of Purgatory, that she only decrees in general terms, That there is a Purgatory, and that the Souls detained there do receive Relief by the Prayers of the Faithful, but especially 
g Concil. Trident. Sessio 25. de Purgatorio.  by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Mass; without telling us one word further of the State, Nature, Condition or Place of this Purgatory, or any other Circumstances that might explain the Nature of it to them, who, notwithstanding these general ambiguous words, are bound to believe it as much as the Article of the Trinity: So that either there is no way of knowing what this Purgatory is, or we must gather the knowledge of the nature and condition of it from the best approved Writers or general sense of their Church about it.  
I could not but smile, I must confess, to find the Compiler to be so very shy in his Vindication, and to be so afraid of having any body believe that there is any thing of Fire in the Case when he is describing the nature of Purgatory, since tho' he had forgotten it, yet I had not, how in his Nubes Testium he makes the greatest show for Purgatory with his PURGING FIRE out of Gregory Nyssen, with his PURGATORY FIRE out of S. Basil, and with his Baptism of FIRE after Death, out of Gregory Nazianzen; but now in his Vindication, He hath put all the Three Fires out, and all this because tho' they did agree well enough with Places of Light, yet there were no ways possible of making 'em Places of Comfort and Joy; and therefore they deserved to be put quite out.  
Of all the Writers I ever met with, I never observed any that would plunge himself so grievously as this poor Compiler will; tho' he set himself never so warmly to prove any thing, nay to be as earnest for it as if the whole of Christianity did depend upon it; yet if afterwards he finds that the matter is or may be turned upon him, then farewell this or that Opinion, and all the quotations for it into the bargain; he wipes his Mouth, gets into another Box, and then talks or writes as if he had never affirmed, nay not heard of any such thing.  
Well then, since the Compiler is for throwing away all his quotations out of the Fathers to prove Purgatory was a FIRE, I cannot make use of them, since he has put them all out: but must inquire among other people to see what they make the Nature of Purgatory to be. There is none so able or so probable to help me herein as Bellarmine; One of the greatest Men their Church ever had. The Cardinal in his second Book about Purgatory, examining the Nature of Purgatory, concludes thus, It is certain, that in Purgatory as well as in Hell, there is a Punishment 
h Certum est 4 to, in Purgatorio, sicut etiam in Inferno esse poenam Ignis, sive iste Ignis accipiatur propriè, sive Metaphoricè, & sive significet poenam sensus, sive damni, ut quidam volunt— ex Patrum Testimoniis. Omnes enim IGNEN appellabant Purgatorii poenam. Bellarm. de Purgatorio, l. 2. c. 10.  of FIRE. Whether this Fire be taken properly, or Metaphorically, and whether it signify the Pain of sense, or of loss, as some will have it. This he did gather, as he tells us immediately after in the same Chapter, from the Testimonies of the Fathers for: ALL of them (says He) did call the Punishment of Purgatory FIRE.  
Here we find Bellarmine determining that Purgatory-Fire, and Hellfire, are the very same by Nature: and the Title of his next Chapter is Ignem Purgatorii esse Corporeum, that the FIRE of Purgatory is CORPOREAL, for the proof of which, 
Idem ibid. l. 2. c. 11.  He urges, that it is Communis sententia Theologorum, the Common Opinion of their Divines, that Purgatory-Fire is True and Real Fire, and of the same kind with our Elementary Fire.  
I have chosen thus to give Bellarmine's words in this Controversy, because he does not urge his own sense or Thoughts only about the Nature of Purgatory, but insists upon it, and tells us, that it is the COMMON JUDGEMENT of their DIVINES, that Purgatory-Fire is true real Elementary Fire: as before he had delivered as a thing CERTAIN, that Purgatory-Fire and Hellfire are the same in kind.  
But I need not content myself with Bellarmine and the Common Consent of the Divines of the Church of Rome to prove that the Romish Purgatory is a Place of Torments by Fire: I have better evidence for it, and such as our Compiler, nor any of the New Expositors of Popery dare not refuse, if they will allow One of their General Councils to be of as much Authority among them as another. In the Account we have of the General Council of Florence, we find the Latins continually contending for a Purgatory-Fire.  
Thus in the History of what did immediately precede the First Session of this Council at Ferrara (from whence, by reason of the Plague, it was removed to Florence) we find a select number of twelve Latins and twelve Greeks, appointed to meet, and debate of the chief points in Controversy betwixt the Greek and Roman Church. The point about Purgatory was the first debated, where the Latins at first word told their Church's sense, that by Purgatory they meant a Purging FIRE, and throughout the whole debate we find them still using the term Purgatory-Fire for to express their Church's sense about the Nature of Purgatory: the Greeks are perfectly against there being any such thing as a Purgatory-Fire; and their Opinions are distinctly set down in the Preliminary Acts of that Council, which I will transcribe hither for to show, not only that the Romans did believe Purgatory to be Fire, but also to let the World see, that the Compiler, tho' he was for the Church of Rome in his Nubes Testium, is since run over (in his Vindication) to the Opinion of the Greeks about Purgatory.  
The sense of the Latin Church is thus delivered, The Italians do acknowledge a Fire even during this present World, and a Purging by Fire; They own also a FIRE in the World 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Concil. Florent. p. 28. Edit. Cossart.  to come, but not a Purgatory Fire, but an Eternal One: and that during this World the Souls are purged by FIRE, and delivered thence [sooner or later] according to every one's Sins, so that He which hath committed many Sins is not delivered thence till after he hath been a long time purged; but he that was guilty of but few sins, was the sooner absolved, the Church also (as hath already been said) helping them; and [last] that all are PURGED by FIRE. Wherefore the Italians do take this FIRE to be TEMPORARY during this present World, but ETERNAL in the World to come, and THIS TEMPORARY FIRE they name PURGATORY.  
After this the sense of the Greeks about it is immediately set down in these very Words: But the Greeks think that there is NO FIRE but in the World to come, [tho' they do own] a temporary Punishment of Souls [which they make to consist herein] that the Souls of Sinners go into a Dark Place, into a Place of Grief, where they are grieved for a time, and punished with the want of Divine Light [or as our Compiler hath expressed it, of seeing and enjoying God] but by the Prayers and Sacrifices of the Priests, and by Alms they are purged, that is, they are delivered out of that obscure Place and Affliction, and are dismissed thence, but not in the least purged by FIRE, for the Greeks do not own any Operation of Fire here with the Italians, but merely that Prayer, Intercession, and Alms do operate and obtain that Deliverance.  
After the setting down of both the Latins and Greeks Opinions in this manner, I will end this with the Conclusion that was placed there in the Acts of that Council immediately after them. This then is the Difference betwixt them; the Greeks say there is a Punishment and Affliction, and a Place for this Punishment, but that it is NOT BY FIRE: but the Italians [on the other hand] say 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Florent. p. 28. , that this Punishment and Purgation is BY FIRE.  
This Account of the Sense of the Roman Church is so plain for a Purgatory Fire, which differs only from Hell Fire in that the one is Temporary and during this World, but the other Eternal in the World to come, that it would be very vain to offer at any thing for the further clearing of it here: I must only not forget to take notice of the Confidence of the Compiler, who will very magisterially have the Greeks and the Latins to differ chief herein about a Name; and is angry at me for saying the Greeks disown any such Place as Purgatory: whereas it is as plain as the Sun, that the Greeks do disown Purgatory, as it signifies a Place of Torment, wherein Souls are purged by Fire, which he cannot but know was the Sense in which I used the word, and the whole Church of Rome too, excepting a few Expositors and Representers, who since they cannot defend the Doctrines and Practices of their Church, are running away quite from them, and setting up a New Popery, which they think they can defend.  
The Passages I have produced out of the Council of Florence itself do unanswerably show what the Latins do mean by Purgatory; and we find after all the Debates and Contests in the Council that the Pope Eugenius insisted mostly upon having it granted that those faithful who died in the state of the Penitents, do GO into a PURGATORY FIRE, and after having been PURGED there, are removed to the Society of them 
k Concil. Flor. Sessio 25. p. 494  who enjoy the Vision of God.  
Another Authority I am able to produce, which if it be not equal, yet is next to that of a General Council, from the Catechism ad Parochos, drawn up by the Order of the Council of Trent.  
Tho the Council itself was so sly about the business of Purgatory, yet the Persons who drew up the Catechism did see it necessary to speak out more plainly the Sense of their Church about the Nature of Purgatory; and therefore upon the Fifth Article in the Apostles Creed about the Descent into Hell, when they come to give the various Senses in which the word Hell is used, they tell us it is first taken for the Receptacle of the Damned, wherein the Souls of them are tormented with an Eternal and Unquenchable Fire. They next will have it to signify Purgatory, and these are their own Words. Furthermore there is a PURGATORY FIRE, in which the Souls of the Pious are 
* Praeterea est PURGATORIUS IGNIS, in quo Piorum Animae ad definitum tempus cruciatae expiantur, ut iis in aeternam Patriam ingressus patere possit, in quam nihil coinquinatum ingreditur. Catechism. ad Parochos, Pars 1. p. 50. Edit. Lugd. 1676.  TORMENTED FOR A SET TIME, in order to their being expiated, that so an Entrance into their Eternal Country may lie open unto them, into which nothing polluted does enter. And to let the World see they did not give their own Sense herein, but that of their Church, they quote in the Margin the Council of Trent itself for it, in the 25th Session about Purgatory: and tell us immediately after, that Holy Councils [by which they must mean, that of Florence as well as that of Trent] have declared for the Truth of this Doctrine, that it is confirmed by the Testimonies of Scripture, and Apostolical Tradition: and therefore the Parish Priest is to treat more diligently, and more frequently of Purgatory, because we (say the Authors of the Catechism) are fallen into those times, wherein Men do not endure SOUND DOCTRINE.  
If the Times were thought so bad, when that Catechism was drawn up, what must be thought of ours, when not only the Protestants will not endure this SOUND DOCTRINE, but the Present Writers of the Church of Rome, the Bishop of Meaux, his Vindicator, and the Compiler will no more endure this SOUND DOCTRINE of a PURGATORY FIRE than the Heretics, but cry out so often that the Church doth not believe, that the Church doth not teach a Purgatory FIRE. Whereas it is as evident as that there is Day and Night, that this Catechism drawn up by the Order of the Council of Trent, and confirmed by Pope Pius the Fifth, doth not only here deliver it as Sound Doctrine, that there is a PURGATORY FIRE WHEREIN THE SOULS of the FAITHFUL are TORMENTED FOR A SET TIME, but in the next Page, speaking of the Souls of the Faithful which departed this Life before Christ's Resurrection, says, that they went not to Heaven, which was not opened to any before Christ's Death and Resurrection, but that they were carried either into Abraham 's Bosom, (or as it NOW happens to those, who have something to discharge when they die) were expiated or purged by the FIRE OF PURGATORY.  
But I have a better evidence than all these to prove, that by Purgatory the Church of Rome doth certainly mean a Place of Torment, wherein those Souls that are detained in it undergo Fiery-Torments which differ not otherwise from Hell-Torments, but only in the Duration of them, that Purgatory Torments are but for a time, but the other are everlasting: and it is no other than the Office for the Dead in the Romish Missal.  
In the Mass for the Dead the Offertory runs thus, O Lord jesus Christ, King of Glory! DELIVER the SOULS of all the FAITHFUL DECEASED from the PAINS OF HELL, and from the BOTTOMLESS PIT: Deliver them 
l Domine Jesus Christ, Rex Gloriae, libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de Poenis Inferni, & de profundo lacu: libera eas de Ore Leonis, ne absorbeat eas Tartarus, ne cadant in Obscurum: sed signifer Sanctus Michael repraesentet eas in Lucem Sanctam: quam olim Abrahae promisisti, & semini ejus. Missa pro Defunctis in Missali Romano, fol. 51. Edit. Paris. in 8ᵒ. 1582.  from the MOUTH of the LION, that HELL may not SWALLOW THEM UP FOR EVER, and that they may not fall into outer Darkness; but let thy Holy Angel Michael convey them unto that Heavenly Light, which thou hast promised of old to Abraham and to his Séed.  
This is the service of the Church of Rome at this very day for the Dead, the only enquiry now to be made is, who these are for whom the Church of Rome is so solicitous to have them delivered out of the Pains of Hell, and out of the Mouth of the Lion, etc. And who can I better inquire of than our Compiler himself? He shall be the Man, that the World may see how very fairly I deal with my Adversaries. This Prayer then must be put up for one of these three sorts of men, either for the Souls who are in Heaven, or for the Souls who are in Hell, or for some Souls who are neither in Heaven, nor Hell, but in a middle State or Place which their Church doth call Purgatory.  
Is this Prayer therefore used for the Souls in Heaven? No, says our Compiler, for it is needless to pray for those that are in Heaven; there being no want there at all, no want of Relief, of Refreshment [and consequently no Hell-Torments undergone by any Souls there] of Pardon; there being no Gild there of Sins. Is it for the Souls in Hell? No, replies the Compiler again, it is as fruitless to pray for those in Hell, that State being wholly irreversible: So that by his help we have light upon the Souls that are prayed for there, and those are the Souls in Purgatory, which according to this Prayer, undergo their Hell-Torments, and are in a Condition nothing different from the damned but merely in the Duration of their Pains, these Souls torments being but temporary, but those of the damned eternal. And for the Condition of the Place in which these miserable Souls are, we find it here represented in this Prayer as the same with Hell, and we meet in this short Prayer with all the Terms by which Hell is described to us in the word of God; so that there is no danger of our mistaking the sense of the Church of Rome about Purgatory, since we find it so plainly set forth in her Office for the Souls in it, as a Place of Fiery Torments.  
However to put this thing without the possibility of a Reply; that the Compiler may see that it is not I alone who gather thus much out of that Prayer, I will give the Reader an account of Cardinal Capisucchi's Opinion in his 5th Controversy about the Words of this very Prayer which I have made use of, and put down above.  
The Cardinal first puts down the Opinion of them who look upon that Prayer as offered up for those that are in Hell, who may come to be delivered thence as Trajan the Heathen Emperor is said to have been: but This he refuses as most false and erroneous upon the reasons commonly given in this Case. He next puts down their Opinion that will have it to relate to those who are just a dying and drawing on: but this Opinion he says is generally rejected, not only because those that are only drawing on cannot be, with any propriety of Speech, called the Souls of the Dead, but because the Custom of the Church is to use this Prayer for those Souls which have many years ago left the Body. After which He concludes, that this Prayer is used for those that are in Purgatory, and gives us this Exposition of the Words of the Prayer, Deliver, O Lord, the Souls of all the Faithful Deceased from the Pains of Hell, that is, from PURGATORY-FIRE, WHICH IS HELD TO BE ALTOGETHER THE SAME WITH HELL-FIRE, and from the Bottomless-Pit, and from the Mouth of the Lion, that is, from the Prison hid under 
m Juxta haec singula illius Orationis verba exponi possunt, nam dicitur, Domine, libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis Inferni; id est, à PURGATORIO IGNE, qui IDEM prorsus esse perhibetur, atque IGNIS INFERNI, & de profundo lacu, de Ore Leonis; à Carcere nimirum sub Terram abdito, ubi detentae expurgantur animae piorum. Ne absorbeat eas Tartarus: hoc est ne amplius & diutius eas profundi illius Carceris Cavernae & vincula remorentur, nec Inferni poenae tanquam fauces quaedam belluae immanis, saevae & truculentae detineant; Unde IGNEM PURGATORIUM, cum sit IDEM qui IGNIS INFERNI, appellat Ecclesia Tartarum. Ne cadant in Obscurum; id est, ne obscurum, quas cadentes excepit, longius detineat. Fr. Raimund Capisucchi Controversiae Theolog. selectae. Controversia 5 ta p. 237. Edit. Romae 1677.  the Earth, wherein the Souls of the Faithful are detained to be purged; that HELL may not swallow them up for Ever: that is, that the Receptacles and Bands of that deep Prison may not stay them further or any longer: nor the PAINS OF HELL, as the Jaws of some fierce, cruel and savage Beast detain them: Whereupon the Church doth call PURGATORY-FIRE Hell, because Purgatory-Fire and Hellfire is the same; that they may not fall into outer darkness; that is, that this Obscure Place may no longer detain the Souls which it receives falling into it.  
Here is the Interpretation of a Great Cardinal of the Church of Rome now alive, and which is more, the Chief Licenser of all Divinity Books at Rome, as Master of the sacred Palace; one of the qualifications for which place certainly is to understand the Faith and Doctrines of the Church of Rome. Here we meet with him explaining that Prayer in the Mass for the Dead, as relating to Purgatory, and calling it over and over again a place of Torment, Purgatory-Fire, and declaring it to be the same with Hellfire.  
I took the pains to peruse and transcribe that large passage about the Exposition of this Prayer hither, because I could not call it to mind without a secret Indignation, that this Cardinal Capisucchi, but two years before the Printing of this Book (which was not then first written, but Reprinted) was one of those who Licenced and so much commended the Bishop of Condom's Exposition, in which we find an account of Purgatory perfectly inconsistent with what the Cardinal had written in his Controversies.  
In the Bishop of Condom's Exposition, we find these expressions about Purgatory. This is what the Council of Trent proposes to our Belief, touching the Souls detained in Purgatory, without determining 
n Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. By the Bishop of Condom, p. 15.  in WHAT Their PAINS consists, or many other such like things; concerning which this holy Council demands great moderation, blaming those who divulge what is uncertain or suspected. Such is the innocent, and holy DOCTRINE of the CATHOLIC CHURCH touching Satisfactions.  
But for all Cardinal Capisucchi's Licensing and approving this passage in that Exposition, He himself had written the direct contrary, when he makes the Pains of Purgatory to be by Fire, and makes Hellfire and Purgatory-Fire to be the SAME; and not only knew this to be, but published that it was the Faith of their Church that does in that Prayer for the Dead call Purgatory Hell, because Purgatory-Fire and Hell Fire were the very same.  
All the defence that can be made for Cardinal Capisucchi, must be, that the Bishop of Condom's words were restrained to the Council of Trent, which Council it is certain did not determine any thing about what the Purgatory pains consisted in; but this can by no means excuse him, since it is false that the Bishop of Condom's words are confined to that Council, for he just after the mention of the Council says, that what he had set down there about Satisfactions [in this World, or in Purgatory] was the innocent and holy Doctrine of the CATHOLIC CHURCH; which thing Cardinal Capisucchi did not only know in his Conscience to be false, but had written the contrary to it, which I suppose he is willing should be thought the truer of the two.  
But granting that the Bishop of Condom's words had been restrained wholly to the Council of Trent; Cardinal Capisucchi ought not to have Licenced or approved that Bishop's Exposition, if he would have approved himself a sincere Man: since he could not but know that this passage of the Bishop of Condom about Purgatory was a perfect Juggle, and altogether unbecoming a Christian, much more a Bishop; for tho' the Council had been so reserved about the nature of the Pains in Purgatory, yet he knew too well that their Church, their Catholic Church had plainly and fully determined about the nature of those Purgatory Pains in her Office for the Dead, by which she had spoken her sense intelligibly enough to the very meanest Capacities, that those pains are by FIRE, by FIRE which is the SAME with HELL-FIRE.  
I will urge this thing no further, but only pray to God, that those great men may repent of such unwarrantable actions, and of such arts which are altogether a dishonour to our Holy Religion. I think I have very fully shown what I did undertake for upon this business, to wit, that the Romish Purgatory is a place of Torment, wherein the Souls of those who are in it, undergo the same pains that the damned do, and that there is no other difference betwixt Hellfire and Purgatory-Fire, but that the One is Eternal, and the other but Temporal.  
Having shown all this so effectually from their approved Writers, from the Council of Florence, from the Catechism ad Parochos, and from the Office for the Dead in their Romish Missal, it would be the veriest loss of Paper, and the greatest affront to Readers of any sense, to set formally here to the showing how inconsistent this Romish Purgatory is with the Opinions of the Primitive Fathers about the State of the Deceased Faithful, whom they believed to be (when they prayed for them) in a State of Comfort, Joy and Tranquillity; if our Compiler be not convinced also by what I have proved here, that there is really no more agreement betwixt their Purgatory in the Church of Rome, and the State of Bliss and Comfort of the Primitive Fathers, than there is between Light and Darkness, betwixt Torment and Pleasure; I must tell him that I will never have any further to do with an Adversary that is obstinate and resolute not to be overcome; and therefore resolved not to be persuaded. I question not but this account of Purgatory that I have given from such unquestionable Authority in their Church, will not little discompose the Compiler, not only because it will ruin all he contended for about Purgatory in his Vindication, but for a nearer concern, because it shows, that the Compiler in giving such a contrary account of Purgatory in his Vindication, either did not know the Doctrine of his own Church about Purgatory, or did dissemble it, the first of which makes him unable, the second unfit to write about these things, since Ignorance or Insincerity are singly sufficient Bars against any Man's gaining Credit, that will notwithstanding set up for a Writer.  
Notwithstanding that which I have already demonstrated about the Romish Purgatory's Inconsistency with any Opinions of the Primitive Fathers touching the State of the Faithful deceased, ought justly to supersede all further Controversy with the Compiler about Purgatory; yet since he offers something further in Defence of himself and his Church, I will consider it briefly. He says the Primitive Fathers did believe three States of Men gone off the Stage of this World, and that the middle State (to wit, of them who were neither very bad, nor very good) did suffer Temporal Punishment after their Death in order to their thorough Purgation. We inquire therefore from what Fathers he proves this, his Stock is small, and S. Austin is his only Author for all this, whom, of all the Primitive Fathers, he ought least to have insisted upon, since S. Austin is on every side, and is in for almost every of the different Opinions about the State of the Dead, as I could easily show here, were it worth while. We grant S. Austin did talk of three States of Men after this Life; but must tell our Compiler withal that S. Austin was the First Father that begun this Distinction, and therefore it ought to be of no consideration herein, especially since it apparently contradicts the Doctrines of the Elder Fathers, who did look upon the Dead in the two Conditions only of Good Men, who were carried into Abraham's Bosom, and Wicked Men, who were hurried into the Place of Torments. This I made sufficiently apparent in my Answer to the Nubes Testium, particularly from S. Chrysostom, whose Third Homily upon the Epistle to the Philippians, doth evidently divide the Dead into Two States only; the Righteous whom he makes to go, immediately after they have left this world, to God, and to be possessed of Crowns and eternal Rest; and the Wicked, whom he places among the Damned, and looks upon their Judgements alike irreversible. But as S. Austin first talked of Three Conditions of Men after Death, so we own that he talked of Temporal Pains after this Life, for the middle Condition of those departed Souls; yet all this will do the Church of Rome no Service for her Pargatory, since S. Austin is not only so very doubtful about any such Temporal Pains after this Life, which plainly shows it then to have been no Doctrine of the Catholic Church, but his Temporal Pains are wholly different from those of the Romish Purgatory.  
It is impossible to express any thing more doubtfully than he did this, 
Enchiridion ad Laurentium c. 69.  That there may be such a thing (speaking of this his Notion about Temporal Pains for some after this Life) is not incredible, and whether it be so or no, it may be questioned, and either be found out, or lie concealed. And is not this a pleasant Account of that thing for which the Church of Rome pretends to the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and told the Greeks, at the Council of Florence, that she had this Doctrine delivered to her from hand to hand successively from S. Peter and S. Paul  
But these Temporal Pains S. Austin here spoke of are wholly different from those of the Romish Purgatory: that the Pains of the Romish Purgatory are by Fire, I have just now proved, whereas S. Austin's are no more (as is apparent from the preceding Chapter) than an intense Grief with which Men are afflicted or burnt for the loss of those things which they 
o— Salvus est quidem, sic tamen quasi per ignem. Quia urit eum rerum dolour, quas dilexerat amissarum. Idem ibid. c. 68  loved very much here on Earth.  
The last Argument our Compiler hath for his Purgatory, which is rather insinuated than urged barefaced, is, That since it is allowed the Fathers did pray for the Dead, it must be only for them who want Relief and are in Purgation, and neither for them who are in Heaven, nor for them who are in Hell, for the former of which they are needless, and for the other fruitless. And this is what F. Alexandre, our Compiler's Master, does speak out plainly.  
But to ruin this Conclusion, I will prove these two things, That the Fathers did pray for those they believed to be in Heaven; and That, secondly, they prayed for those in Hell.  
For the Proof of my first I will make use of our Compiler's help, who brings in S. Ambrose praying for the Soul of the Emperor Theodosius, in his Nubes Testium, and will, I suppose, still yield it me, that the Father did pray for the Emperor's Soul. Now that S. Ambrose did at the same time believe that that Emperor's Soul was in Heaven, is evident beyond contradiction, since he does, in the same Oration, expressly affirm that the Emperor's Soul was then placed in the Heavenly Jerusalem, which all People own to be Heaven itself. I could prove further from the ancient Liturgies, that the Prayers of the Church were made for the best of Men, for the Martyrs themselves, whom they of the Church of Rome suppose to be in Heaven: but I need not stay to do it, however I will, to take notice of that Evasion which S. Austin hath taught them; who looking upon it as an absurd thing to pray for the Martyrs who were fit to pray for us, and yet finding the Liturgies of the Church directly practising it, had no other way to answer the Practice of the Church, but by saying (as our Compiler quotes him) that the Prayers of the Church, when put up for such as Martyrs, were Thanksgivings, but for others were a Propitiation: which with all Reverence towards S. Austin is a Fineness of too bold, and too groundless a Nature, since had the Church intended only to praise God for the Martyrs, I question not but she would have made her Intentions plain enough, by putting down the Praises for the Martyrs as distinctly and as properly, as she would the Prayers for others. I must not forget to prove this also from that Prayer in the Canon of the Mass urged by our Compiler, wherein they pray not only for those Servants of God, who have gone before them with the Seal of Faith, and rest in the Sleep of Peace, but for ALL WHO REST in CHRIST, which does comprehend all, even Martyrs as well as Saints, or Men of Lesser Sanctity, and as it includes Martyrs, it prays for those whom the Compiler and his whole Church believe to be in Heaven. But this Prayer is no more consistent with the Doctrines of the present Writers of the Church of Rome, than it is with the present Purgatory of that Church, which supposes the Faithful deceased to endure Fiery Torments in order to Expiation, whereas this very Old Prayer supposes them to rest in the Sleep of Peace.  
That they prayed also even for the Damned is plain, from S. Chrysostom, who in his above-quoted Third Homily upon the Philippians, did advise such Prayers upon this Persuasion, that tho' they could not obtain a Release for them from Hell, yet they would procure for them some Alleviation of Torments, some small Relief: and S. Austin himself seems to be for the same thing, when he speaks of the Prayers of the Living profiting so much, as either 
p Aut ad hoc prosunt, ut sit plena Remissio, aut certe tolerabilior fiat ipsa Damnatio. D. August. Enchirid. ad Laur. c. 110.  to procure a complete and full Remission, or that their Damnation should be made more tolerable.  
Our Compiler cavils (before he leaves this Point) very rudely at me for saying S. Chrysostom only advises the Oblation of Alms for the Increase of Happiness to his Son's Soul; and does very scornfully ask me what means S. Chrysostom's bidding him also pray for the discharge of his Son's Gild? I can answer him without such rudeness in a very few Words, That the Increase of Glory was the sole Intention of his praying for the discharge of the Gild of Sin: and that the latter was wholly designed for the former.  
Thus I have got through that Chapter about Purgatory, and have fixed all that I had proved before in my Answer to the Nubes Testium, that the Fathers neither knew of nor taught any such Purgatory as the Church of Rome doth, and therefore since they believed the Romish Purgatory no more than we of the Church of England, they are no more Papists than we are in this thing.  
When he is come to the next great Controversy about Transubstantiation, he was resolved to divert himself, and his Reader, and in order to it by perverting of my sense to make himself sport. He pretends to be mightily at a loss what I would have the Doctrine of our Church to be about the Eucharist: and brings me in first saying, Christ's Body is really present in the Eucharist, then that 'tis the Body of Christ Figuratively only, but within four lines after, that it is the Flesh and Blood of Christ ABSOLUTELY, without any addition of really or figuratively: yet that in the next page 'tis not Christ's True Natural Body, but his Figurative or Symbolical Body. So that he says, I play backward and forward in declaring the Doctrine of our Church, and make the Sacrament to be really Christ's Body, and yet to be Figuratively only (that is, really not) his Body.  
But does this Man believe himself in all this? Does he from his heart think that I am guilty of all this confusion and contradiction about this thing? I am well enough assured, that no Man of the least sense doth find such stuff in my Book itself, and therefore that the Compiler did not, but was forced to abuse my sense, and falsify my words, in order to his ridiculing of them and me. For as to the first passage about Christ's Body being really present in the Eucharist, it was occasioned by my telling Him, that the Controversy betwixt the Church of England and Rome, is not about a Real Presence, which the Church of England did believe, when she looks upon the Consecrated Elements not to be the Body and Blood of Christ themselves, but to be appointed by God to exhibit to every faithful Receiver (not to every Receiver) the Body and Blood of Christ. But for the Consecrated Elements themselves, she believes them to be Figuratively only Christ's Body and Blood: the Reason of which I so often inculcated, because BREAD and WINE CAN NO OTHERWISE BE THE BODY and BLOOD of CHRIST, AND BREAD STILL AT THE SAME TIME; and therefore our Compiler ought to blush at his great disingenuity when he brings me in contradicting those very words within four lines of them, and says, I grant there, that It (that is, the Sacrament) is the Flesh and Blood of Christ ABSOLUTELY, WITHOUT ANY ADDITION of Really or Figuratively: whereas any Man else would have carried my meaning along with him for so short a way as four lines, had I said so absolutely, without any Addition of Really or Figuratively: but this is absolutely false, for immediately after I had granted, as to Justin Martyr's words, that the Consecrated Food was the Flesh and Blood of Christ, to prevent any such misinterpretation of my words, as the Compiler would make notwithstanding it, I added these very words: However to corroborate what we said above [which was, that the Blessed Bread is the Flesh of Christ, but Figuratively only] it is evident to a Demonstration, that This Consecrated Food was still Bread, and NOT TRANSUBSTANTIATED into the Natural Body and Blood of Christ.  
Did I here then say it was the Flesh of Christ absolutely, without any Restriction or Explication of my words and sense? Is this the Candour that becomes a Scholar? Is this the Sincerity that becomes a Christian? Is this the Veracity of a Priest of the Living God? Well, Well, If this be answering an Adversary, I perceive it is no matter whether it be true or false which we writ, nor whether it be right or wrong which we assert, so that we secure our main design of ridiculing or abusing our Adversary.  
That I might state the Controversy betwixt us and Rome aright in this great point, I shown our Compiler that it was whether upon Consecration the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into that very Body and Blood of Christ which was nailed and poured out upon the Cross, or whether after Consecration there is no other substance there but the Natural Body and Blood of Christ. This I told him we expect they should prove, and that it is to no purpose to bring us only passages of the Fathers to show, that they gave to the Consecrated Elements the Name and Appellation of the Body and Blood of Christ, and that they said of the Elements, that they were Consecrated, made, or turned into the Body and Blood of Christ, since we can demonstrate to them, that by the Body and Blood of Christ which the Fathers said the Elements were made, they meant always that Body of Christ, which (in contradistinction to his Natural Body which he took from the Virgin Mary, and his Mystical Body, which is his Church) we call Christ's Symbolical, or Figurative Body.  
And therefore Our Compiler is miserably out in his Vindication, when he thinks to carry his Cause by repeating only what he had put down more at large in his Nubes Testium, and by supposing the very words of Body and Blood of Christ, sufficient Reply to all I had said in my Answer to the Nubes. I did not say only this means, and that signifies only so and so, as he would represent me to do in answer to any thing that did seem strong against us, but did all along give my Reasons for such things, till to repeat them further to the same Objections, would have been more tedious to the Reader than me.  
He talks as if the Fathers were clearly in their possession, and wholly on their side, and therefore that he need not much concern himself in confuting some untoward passages out of the Fathers, urged by us against Transubstantiation, since he supposes the Fathers are on their side, and would not contradict themselves: else surely we should find Him answering fairly to our Objections, as I had done to all his. But this is not the Man's way, tho' he is desirous it should be his Adversaries: but for himself he writes as if the Controversy had not made one step forwards betwixt us two.  
But to let the World be judge also what a sort of an Adversary he is, I will very briefly run over his first Testimonies in the Nubes, and my answer to them, and show how He does reply. To the passage from S. Ignatius, that the Eucharist was the Body of Christ, I answered that it was, but that it could be Figuratively only so, since Bread could not otherwise be the Body of Christ and Bread still; to this he makes no Reply. In Answer to the passage from the Council of Nice about not minding the Bread and Wine before us, but raising up our minds by Faith to consider the Lamb of God offered by the Priests without shedding of Blood, I showed him it meant only that Communicants should by Faith represent to themselves the offering of the Lamb, and that had he but transcribed on the rest of that passage out of his Master Alexandre, every one would have seen at first blush, that by the precious Body and Blood of the Lamb was not meant Christ's Natural Body, but his Figurative only, since the Communicants are advised to take but a small portion of his Body and Blood; and that tho' it is sense to talk of receiving little or much of the Elements, yet that it is not sense to talk of taking a little or much of the True Natural Body of Christ. To all which there is no Reply: and Reason good, since there was not room for any.  
And when, in the next place, to explain a very obscure Passage in S. Hilary, I had produced a place that proved he did not believe any Annihilation or Transubstantiation of the Elements, since he says it was Wine which they drank in the first Institution of the Eucharist, the Compiler had nothing to reply with, and therefore runs back, and makes much ado with the obscure Passage.  
In answer to S. Cyril, he was told, that that very Passage (wherein the Bread is said by Christ to be his Body) was proof sufficient that Cyril did not believe Transubstantiation, since, as I had urged before, Bread can be Christ's Body only Figuratively. To this he gives no manner of Reply; but when I had further answered that Cyril had spoken as lofty things of the Chrism-Oyl, as he does of the Eucharist, and that no Body, for all that did believe that the Chrism-Oyl was Transubstantiated, tho' he said it was no longer bare or common Oil; he asks me whether Cyril said that Oil is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ? A Question so ridiculous, that I would forgive no Body the ask it me that had three Grains of Sense. S. Cyril, if this Compiler knew any thing of Him, does compare the Change in the Eucharist to this in the Chrism-Oyl, but I would feign know how the one Change does illustrate or prove the other; when according to the wise Masters of the Church of Rome, the one is changed in its very Substance, but the other is not. It is a tedious thing to have to do with People that know nothing of the Fathers themselves, but by a little Quotation, which they make such a fluttering with, and as much noise as if they had read them through, and understood them as throughly.  
To his next Authorities from Gregory Nyssen about the Body of Christ being received into our stomach, and making our Bodies Immortal by the Dispersion of the Sacrament into our several parts in order to their being cured of that poison which had affected every part, and made them Mortal. I showed him that this was directly against them, since this nourishing of our Bodies in a strict and proper sense cannot, without Blasphemy, be attributed to the Natural Body and Blood of Christ. All the Reply he makes to this, is to ask, What need of nourishing here in a strict and proper sense? My Answer is very ready, because this was the general opinion of the Fathers, That our Bodies are nourished with the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. This I did abundantly clear in my Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney, and made it the Instance of my Second Corollary against Transubstantiation in that Book, 
Veteres Vindicati. p. 93, 94.  that to attribute a nourishing of our Bodies to the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ doth altogether exclude their being Transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Blood of Christ: and that the Fathers did attribute such a Nourishment of our Bodies to them, I proved from Justin Martyr, who did assert in plain terms, That our Flesh and Blood are nourished by the Consecrated Elements being changed into our Substance; from Irenaeus and Tertullian, That our Flesh is fed and nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ. I proved it from Origen, who says, That the Eucharist, as to its Material Part, goes into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught: from Isidore of Sevil, from Rhathramn, and from our Saxon Paschal Homily, which proves that the Eucharist is corruptible, for that it may be broke into several Pieces, grinded by the Teeth, and cast out into the Draught. I will add to these but one other Proof from Rabanus Maurus, who lived in the Ninth Century, and does not only tell us, That the Sacrament is made to nourish our Bodies 
p Sacramentum enim in all mentum corporis redigitur.— Sicut ergo in nos Id convertitur, cum Id manducamus & bibimus, sic & nos in Corpus Christi convertimur, dum obedienter & piè vivimus. Raban. Maur. de Institutione Clericorum, l. 1. c. 31. in Tom. 6. Edit. Colon. 1627. ; and that as it is converted into us, when we eat and drink it, so we are converted into Christ's Body, when we live in a Godly Obedience: but he speaks of it in the Penitential (or Epistle, as Baluzius calls it) to Heribaldus as a thing not at all questioned that the Sacrament, after it is received into our Bodies, is consumed, and cast out into the Draught: 
Rabani Liber Poenitentialis ad Heribaldum. c. 33.  which he had Reason enough to think, since, as he speaks in the same Chapter, he did not believe that Body of Christ to be the same with the Body which was born of the Virgin Mary.   

And upon this I will beg leave to make a Digression to discover a double wrong done to this great Archbishop, by the Romish Publishers of his Works at Colen, 1627.  
Finding the Passage, which I had just quoted, quite lamed, by being part of it razed out of that Manuscript, which Stevartius made use of in his Impression of Rabanus' Penitential among other Pieces: I had the Curiosity to inquire whether the Colen Edition of Rabanus' Works had this Passage entire, and whether those very Great Men, who had the care of that Edition, had been more successful than Stevartius in procuring an entire Copy of that 33. Chapter in the Penitential: But when I examined their Edition, I was surprised to find that their Edition did not only want that Passage, but that it wanted the whole Book. I found indeed in their Catalogue of the Tracts in every Tome, mention of Three Books to Heribaldus about Questions of the Canons touching Penance, but this Penitential was not there, but instead of it three Books upon the same Subject which were not his, but Halitgarius', as Baluzius tells 
q Praef. in Epist. Raban. ad Heribald. Edit. cum Reginone, Paris.  us for a thing certain: so that here we find that which was certainly Rabanus' own Work quite left out, and that which was as certainly none of his obtruded for his upon us. I cannot but look upon all this as an industrious and contrived Piece of wrong, since such Great and Learned Men as Pamelius, and the Bishop of Ipres, and Colverius the Regius Professor and Chancellor of the University of Douai, who were jointly concerned in taking Care of this Edition of Rabanus' entire Works, could not be all of them ignorant of Rabanus' Penitential, being published in a Large Quarto, with other choice Pieces of Ancient Writers, by Stevartius at Ingolstad, but just Ten Years before. I cannot but believe that the whole Penitential was left quite out, and suffered this for the sake of the Thirty third Chapter, which was directly against Paschasius' Doctrine, and consequently against Transubstantiation.  
The other wrong I have to complain of is, their leaving out too and depriving Rabanus of the Tract he wrote concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and they are so careful not to have this discovered or suspected, that they do not so much as mention this Tract in their Catalogue of those Pieces of Rabanus, which they, after all diligent search, could not find in order to Print them with the rest of his Works, tho' afterwards among the Testimonies in favour of Rabanus we find Arnoldus Wion out of his Second Book concerning the Archbishops of Mentz, reckoning up, among Rabanus' Writings, A Treatise de Corpore & Sanguine Domini, and a little after, another de Sacramento Eucharistiae, (which he rightly says was Printed at Colen, 1551.) over-against the mention of the first Tract indeed we find a Marginal Note, which will teach us what is become of that poor banished Tract, it is, that, in Pamelius' Opinion, that Tract, concerning the Body and Blood of Christ, is Paschasius Radbertus 's Work, and that it is accordingly extant among his Works: with this Information, I consulted Paschasius' Works, and there found this Tract had got a New Owner, Sirmondus having Printed it there as his, and all People, of the Church of Rome especially, concurring with him herein, so that Mabillon, in his Preface to the Fourth Age of the Lives of the Benedictine Saints, treating of Paschasius' Works, makes not the least scruple of this Tract's being his, and does but once mention its being Printed under Rabanus' own Name at Colen, 1551. but makes no reflection upon it.  
However, notwithstanding Paschasius' being in present Possession of that Discourse, concerning the Body and Blood of Christ, and Sirmondus and Mabillon, with the whole Church of Rome, (as I believe I may safely affirm it) looking upon it as undoubtedly his: I am very well satisfied that this Tract is Rabanus Maurus', and that Paschasius has no Right at all to it, and will give the Reader the Reasons of that my Persuasion. The first of which is, That the Manuscripts, which I have seen, give it directly for Rabanus. I must begin with one MS. which I have not seen, that which did belong to Cuthbert Tonstal Bishop of Durham, from which this Tract was Printed at Colen the same Year, and by the same Printer, that Printed Crabbe's Edition of the Councils. 
Joannes Quentel. 1551.   
In that MS. as we see by the Printed Copy, it bore the Name of Rabanus de Sacramento Eucharistiae: and so it doth in a very fine ancient MS. belonging to S. John's College Library in Cambridge 
i MS. in folio, marked, A. 17. , where at the Top of the first Leaf we find Rabanus' Name set to it in Three very different and very Old Hands, and at the Head of every Leaf, almost of the whole MS. his Name is written, as if they were resolved to prevent any one's mistaking the Author of that Tract. And in another very ancient MS. which I met with in Bennet College Library, there it bears the same Title, and the Tract is thus entitled, Hic incipit Rabanus de Corpore & Sanguine Christi, 
This MS. is in the 303. Volume, according to Dr. James of Oxford's Catalogue of MSS. in Bennet Library, but is carelessly omitted by him, it is betwixt Guitmund and Austin's Tracts upon the same Subject, and should have been number 8. in that Volume.  and at the End of it, Explicit Liber Rabanus, which false Latin is so far from discrediting the MS. that all Learned Men will, on the contrary, own that it is a certain Evidence of the Great Antiquity of it.  
But besides these MSS. vindicating this Tract to Rabanus, the very Passage at the Beginning of it in Sirmondus' Edition (upon which they conclude it so certainly to be Paschasius') is evidently a mere Patch that does not agree with the rest.  
In the Colen Edition of this Discourse from Bishop Tonstal's MS. and in both the Cambridge MSS. the Preface gins thus: Dilectissimo Filio & Vice Christi praesidenti, Magistro Monasticae Disciplinae, alternis successibus veritatis Condiscipulo, at the end of which Salutation every Body will allow me that Salutem is understood. Let me but put it down then there, and we shall next see how very finely this Preface runs in Sirmondus' Edition. Paschasius Radbertus Monachorum omnium peripsema Placido suo Salutem, Dilectissimo Filio & Vice Christi praesidenti, Magistro Monasticae Disciplinae, alternis successibus veritatis Condiscipulo Salutem. Is not here plainly two Salutations, and therefore two beginning of this little Epistle, which is just such a Solecism, as if a Man writing a short Letter to a Friend should begin, Dear Sir, To yourself and all with you health in Christ, Dear Sir, To yourself and all with you health in Christ. Which thing discovers not only that this beginning about Paschasius and his Placidus, is a downright Patch, that makes a gross Tautology at the very entrance of the Preface, but that he was a very Bungler that forged it, that could not invent something for his Paschasius to begin with, which would suit with the rest of the Preface.  
Another Argument I have against Paschasius' being the Author of this Tract, and for Rabanus, taken from the Doctrine of the Discourse itself; which will fully dispatch the Controversy. It is as known a thing that Rabanus Maurus did hold, that the Sacramental Body of Christ was different from the Body which he took from Mary, as that Paschasius Radbertus did hold, that they were both the very same. This we learn from the MS. of an Anonymus (which Mabillon hath since found out to be Herigerus Abbot of Job) concerning the Opinions of these very men, in Sidney College Library in Cambridge: which tells us, that Paschasius Radbertus Abbot of Corbey, doth lay down from S. Ambrose, that the Flesh of Christ which is received from the Altar, is altogether no other than that which was born of the Virgin 
r— ponit ex Beati Ambrosii nomine, quod non alia plane sit caro quae sumitur de Altari, quam quae nata est de Maria Virgin & Passa in Cruse & quae resurrexit de Sepulchro, quaeque pro mundi vitâ hodie offeratur. Contra quem satis argumentatur & Rabanus in Epistolâ ad Elgionem Abbatem, & Ratramnus quidam libro composito ad Karolum Regem, dicentes aliam esse vel testimonio Beati Jeronymi, qui dicit dupliciter dici Corpus Domini, vel ex auctoritate Sancti Augustini qui dicit tripliciter. Liber de Sacramento MS. in Sidney Coll. Library, in 4 to. marked K. 3.6.  Mary, suffered upon the Cross, risen out of the Grave, and is daily offered for the Life of the World. Against whom both Rabanus doth sufficiently argue in his Epistle to Abbot Elgio, and one Ratramnus, in a Book made for King Charles [the Bald] saying, that the Flesh is not the same, either from the Testimony of S. Hierom, who says, that the Body of Christ is twofold, or from the Authority of S. Austin, who says, there is a Threefold Body of Christ.  
Here we find the Opinions of these two Men as opposite as the two Poles, and we find Paschasius so utterly against the Opinion of his Adversaries about a Threefold Body of Christ, that in his Epistle to Fredugardus, he warns him not to follow ineptias de tripartito Christi Corpore, those Fooleries about a Threefold Body of Christ. I will then inquire with whether of these two Men the Doctrine of the Treatise contended for doth agree. Had Sirmondus but given us the Chapters of this Treatise, and the Titles of 'em as distinctly as they are in the Colen Edition, and in the two Cambridge MSS. the Title of the 15th Chapter had decided this business, which is, that the Body of 
s Quod tribus modis Corpu-Christi appelletur.  Christ is so called three ways; but tho' his Title does not, yet his Chapter doth prove as well as ours the distinction of a Threefold Body of Christ: and does begin with showing, that the Body of Christ is so called three ways, or to make it more intelligible English, that there are three Bodies of Christ; which the Chapter divides and makes his Mystical Body the Church, his Symbolical Body the Eucharist, and his Natural Body which he took from the Virgin Mary.  
Now who does not plainly see, that the Doctrine of this Chapter alone is directly contradictory to Paschasius Radbertus' Doctrine, who was not only against the distinction, but calls it foolery in his unquestioned Epistle to Fredugardus, and therefore that this Tract, which so formally asserts it, cannot be Paschasius Radbertus'. And on the contrary we see, that the Doctrine of this Chapter does exactly agree, and is the very same with what the Manuscript of Herigerus told us was the Doctrine of Rabanus in his Epistle to Abbot Elgio, 
This is but what was the case of his other Tract left out by these people, which in Stevartius bears the name of Liber Poenitentialis ad Heribaldum, but Baluzius hath very well proved, that its true Title is, Epistola ad Heribaldum.  or Egilo, as others writ it: And I must confess that this doth almost persuade me, that the Tract concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the Epistle to the Abbot Egilo are one and the same thing under two names: especially since I find that account from Augustine about the Threefold Body of Christ, which Herigerus tells us was urged by either Rabanus, in his Epistle to Egilo, or Ratramn against Paschasius, not in Rathramn's Book to Charles the Bald, but in this 15th Chapter of this Tract almost word for word, as Herigerus afterwards puts it down in his Tract; but this only is a Conjecture, and let it pass as such. I am sure I have sufficiently proved, that that Tract which the Romish Party have ravished unjustly from Rabanus, was truly his, and not Paschasius'.  
I will take the leave, now I am in at this sort of writing, to animadvert a little upon Sirmondus' Notes, upon that Tract in his Edition of Radbertus, because it will further corroborate what I have insisted upon here.  
In the Third Chapter of this Discourse (according to Sirmond's Edition, for it is the 9th in the Colen Edition) Rabanus (for so I hope I may now call the Author of that Treatise) hath these Expressions about the Sacraments of the Church: Now Christ's Sacraments in his Church are Baptism, Chrism, and the Body and Blood of our Lord. Upon this Sirmondus in his Notes, not finding here the seven Sacraments of his Church, but that four of them are disowned, tells us very gravely, that Paschasius mentions only three of the seven Sacraments of the Church for example sake only, and that it was not his business here to treat of the number of the Sacraments. But this is not answering, but eluding the place, and to show the Vanity of it: we will look into another of Rabanus' Tracts, and see whether he is not of the same mind, when he is professedly treating of the Sacraments of the Church. If we look then into his 24th Chapter of his first Book of the Institution of the Clergy, we do find him using the very same Expressions, and almost the same numerical words in his Explication of the Nature of Sacraments (which is another Evidence, that this Tract is really Rabanus') and this too when he is instructing the Clergy professedly about the Nature and Number of the Sacraments; for in that Book having treated first of the Unity of the Church, and the three Orders of Clergy in the Church, and those under them, and of their several habits, he comes to treat (chap. 24.) of the Sacraments of the Church, and there it is that he says plainly, that the Sacraments are Baptism, Chrism, and the Body and Blood of our Lord, after which having treated distinctly about every one of them, he says (ch. 32.) that having spoken sufficiently of the Sacraments of the Church, he would there pass on to discourse of the Office of the Mass.  
Rabanus in the 41. ch. of this Tract according to us (which is but the 15th in Sirmondus' Edition) says in Explication of our Saviour's words, Take and Drink of this All of you, as well Ministers as the rest of the Believers. This Doctrine being expressly against their taking the Cup from the Laity, Sirmondus is very hard put to it in his Notes about it, and tells us, that John of Louvain, and Bellarmine and others, think the place is abused; and that instead of, Drink ye, it should be read, Eat ye; well it shall be so to please those men; and now let's see how the period will run, Take and Eat ye all of this, as well the rest of the Faithful as the Ministers, This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament, which is very pleasant stuff, and therefore Sirmondus looking upon this emendation as too bold and unreasonable, has a better way to solve the difficulty, and that is, that the rest of the Faithful do indeed drink the Blood of the Lord, but that they did not do it under the Species of Wine, but under the Species of Bread, by concomitancy, since they do not receive a Bloudless Body.  
But to expose the violence of such an Interpretation of Rabanus' words, and to let all see how forced this is, we need only appeal to this Chapter itself, nay, to the bare Title itself (which I am afraid Sirmondus did for that reason omit) which tells us, that we do receive and offer 
t Quod non alium calicem accipimus, & offerimus hodie, nisi quem ipse Jesus in suis Sanctis manibus accepit in Coena. Tit. c. 41.  at this very day no other Cup, but that which our Saviour himself took into his blessed hands at his last Supper: and there I hope Sirmondus will grant me, that our Saviour did make use of a real Cup, and that He did give it his Disciples to drink, as the Church did, in Rabanus' time, give the Cup to all the Faithful.  
I need make no Apology for this large Digression, since it is a Justice we own to the Memories of those who did oppose Transubstantiation, when it was first started into the World, and since it disarms our Adversaries of One Weapon, which they use to employ against us, tho' it was really intended, by the Author of it, for us: but I did it chief because of that popular Argument so often in their mouths, which they use when ever they are urged with any Passage out of the Fathers, or Church-Writers against their Transubstantiation. We grant, cry they, that this Argument looks very promising for you, but, notwithstanding this, the Father is consistent with himself, and certainly for us, and was always looked upon to be so: we'll give you an Instance of it, no Body hath written things so plausible for you, and which, at first blush, seem so perfectly inconsistent with Transubstantiation, as Paschasius Radbertus himself, in his Treatise about the Body and Blood of our Lord, and yet who ever doubted that Paschasius was of the contrary Opinion, and the greatest Man for Transubstantiation the Church ever had?  
Thus we see what Feats may be done merely by the supposing this, and such Books, to belong to Paschasius, and such as he, and how they carry the Cause, by looking upon this Book to be certainly Paschasius Radbertus'. For which very Reason, and that mentioned above, I have taken some pains here effectually to prove, that this Treatise was most certainly none of Paschasius Radbertus', but does certainly belong to Rabanus Maurus, the True Author of it.   

It is high time to return to my Friend, the Compiler, and the Business of Transubstantiation, and see whether he makes a better Defence for the rest of his Fathers for Transubstantiation, than for those hitherto. To the rest of his Quotations, from Gregory Nyssen, I shown him that that Father does compare the Changes of the Water in Baptism, and the Oil in Chrism, and the Altar at its Dedication to that of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist: which plainly shows he meant no more Change of the Substance of any one of these, than of the rest. What he says to this is nothing but confusion, I did not only prove that the Water and the Oil have a Virtue from Christ, but that the Father said they were changed as well as the Bread and Wine, so that if the Change of the Bread and Wine was more than a Change of Use and Quality only, theirs must be so too, since he makes them all the very same: and it is too childish to urge that he does not say the Water and Oil are changed into the Body of Christ, since we do see he asserts the same Change in them all: and what matters it that he does not determine into what?  
He hopes next to secure S. Chrysostom, by saying, that I would fain evacuate all the plain and positive Testimonies of that Father, by a doubtful and obscure Passage out of his Epistle to Caesarius. But I have too fully shown in my Answer to repeat it here, That those Testimonies from Chrysostom were not plain, but very Allegorical, and not positive but very Rhetorical, as reasonable People of their own side, must own, that consider them. And for the Passage from Caesarius, I urged that alone against them, because it was so very plain and so positive against Transubstantiation, and I will be judged by the Reader whether I needed (tho' I easily could have done it, and was prepared) to add any other Evidence to It, which runs thus. For as [in the Eucharist] before the Bread is consecrated, we call it Bread; but after that by the Mediation of the Priest, the Divine Grace hath sanctified it, it is no longer called Bread, but is honoured with the NAME of our LORD'S BODY, THO' THE NATURE OF BREAD CONTINUE IN IT STILL. I cannot discommend the Compiler for calling it obscure, since it is the easier way to get rid of it, by saying so of it, than by answering it.  
To his Quotation from S. Ambrose I answered fairly, by showing him that S. Ambrose, when he was at the height of his Illustrations from Scripture, to prove a Change in the Sacrament, doth yet not only compare the Change in the Eucharist to the Change of a Man by Baptism, which every one owns is merely a Change in Quality, but doth positively assert, That the Elements were what they were before Consecration, notwithstanding their Change into another thing; which Passage the Compiler dare not meddle with, but only says, I give the pretended Authority of this Father against them. But this is all the Man is able to say, and this is his way of trifling, when he hath nothing to answer fairly with. Whereas the Passage I quote is in the very same Book some of his own Quotations are taken from, and some of his Church were so sensible, that the Passage I make use of, is directly against their Transubstantiation, that they have struck part of it out of their Edition of S. Ambrose at Rome 
u Si ergo tanta vis est in Sermone Domini Jesus, ut inciperent esse quae non erant: quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur, which last part the Roman Edition hath altered into, ut quae erant in aliud commutentur. D. Ambros. de Sacramentis, l. 4. c. 4. , which did entirely run thus, If there be therefore so great Power in the Words of our Lord Jesus, as to give a Being to things which had none before, how are they not much more powerful to make that things may still be what they were, and yet be changed into another thing; which is quite altered by the Romish Edition, which makes S. Ambrose to say, How are they not more powerful to make, that those things which were, may be changed into another? Which is a pretty way of getting the Fathers over to their Party.  
After all he rallies up his scattered Forces, and shows them in a Body, calling the Bread, Christ's Body, and saying it was changed into Christ's Body; but since I have answered all that are out of genuine Authors already, and he has nothing farther to say for them, I need not stand to make any Reply, but refer the Reader to my Answer, wherein I had not only urged the Doctrines of Antiquity, but several Practices out of It, perfectly inconsistent with any Belief of Transubstantiation: but the Compiler was not so fair as to give one Word of Reply to them; but it is his way, and there is no hopes of getting him out of it.  
In Answer to the Chapter about Images, he offers not one Word, but refers the Reader and me, to a whole Discourse (as he calls it) which he had published in Defence of that Chapter: But why must we be turned off to an Answer to a Third Person? Is all I have laid to the Compiler's Charge answered there? If it be not, To what Purpose am I sent thither? Well! To comply with this shuffling Adversary, I did look there, and all that I found was, that he can treat much Worthier Persons than I pretend to be, in the most contemptuous Manner. I had thought my finding out where he stole his Book, and publishing it to the World, had sharpened him more than ordinary against me, but by this Book I was convinced of my Mistake, for in it I found him treating the Worthy Person he was writing against, with the same opprobrious scornful Language, that he uses towards me. Another thing I did learn there, That this Man can, with a very good Grace, accuse others of that very thing which he is the most guilty in of any Writer that I know; he accuses that Reverend Person continually of false stating, and of not stating the Controversy about Images: and yet he himself (as I proved it upon him) hath not truly stated any one Point of Controversy (except that about Invocation) through his whole Nubes Testium; hath most falsely stated, for Example, this about Images, for whereas their Council of Trent hath decreed the Worship of Images, he states the Matter, as if the Church of Rome, and second Council of Nice were only for giving Respect to Holy Images: and yet when he is got into his Cloud of Witnesses, as if no Body could discover what he would be at, he falls to proving that the Christians did not only adore the Cross, but the very Nails of it, and which is more, that they were commanded by the Law of God to do it. Which were strong Proofs indeed, especially for the Times in which the Authors of them are said to have lived, but are such as show there is nothing so absurd but that some Men will be found to assert it, and that there can be nothing so absurd, but that it will be swallowed and quoted by such Authors as Natalis Alexandre, and our Compiler.  
I had charged the Compiler with many other things, and his Church; not a syllable of which is answered in the Discourse I am referred to: I had challenged himself about the Worship of the Cross, and some other things, but he was wiser it seems than to accept my Challenge, or to trouble himself about that and forty such things laid to his charge: However, since he will not, I must then take leave to tell him, that this was not vindicating his Nubes Testium, but that his pretended Vindication does deserve the name of some Cavilling Reflections upon the Answerer to the Nubes Testium, instead of that of an Answer to Him.  
If he intends to make any further defence of himself against this Reply, I will tell him what scores he must clear, before I need to take further notice of Him. I have drawn up the Catalogue of near Forty considerable Charges against Him, which I must require him to reply to: and besides that, to go regularly through the several Parts of this Reply to Him, if he would acquit himself like a Scholar, or like an Honest Man in this Controversy: but above all things I must not forget to put him in mind of getting a Chronology Table; the want of which hitherto hath done him such a scurvy deal of mischief: it will prevent his stumbling so often in those things, and will prevent some sharp Replies upon that account.  
I have thus got through my Vindication of myself, and which I value much more, of the Primitive Fathers, and have made it further appear how far they were from joining with, or countenancing any of those Practices or Doctrines of the Church of Rome, set down by our Compiler in his Nubes Testium. As to the Supremacy of the Pope, I had little to answer, since the Compiler had so little to say in his Vindication for it, but was forced to leave almost all I had urged from the Fathers against it, without once touching it, but only picked at a place here and there. One of his little touches at me I had like to have slipped, I know not how, over; his saying, I impose sillily upon the Reader, when in answer to the Objection made about no one's denying the Bishop of Rome 's power of Excommunicating the asiatics, I had said, Every Bishop might deny to communicate with any other Bishop or Church, against whom they had sufficient reason: As if (says he) denying to communicate were the same thing as to Excommunicate, to the doing of which an Authority or Jurisdiction over them who are Excommunicated is required, whilst refusing Communion may be done without any such power. Well then this Man shall have his Will, and I therefore tell him, that by denying Communion, I meant a doing it authoritatively, that is, a putting the other Bishop from them by Ecclesiastical Censure: but I must also tell him, that an Authority or Jurisdiction over the persons to be Excommunicated, is not required, but that an Equality of State with the other persons is sufficient: and this of his is dangerous Doctrine, since every Greek can prove their Bishops of Constantinople to have Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Rome by this Argument since Photius' time, who did Excommunicate the then Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of that Church do continue to excommunicate yearly to this day the Bishop and Church of Rome; and not only the Greeks, but the French Bishops also, may by this Argument also be proved to be above the Pope, since they so long ago (as Monsieur Talon told the Parliament of Paris the other day) threatened the Pope, that if he came to Excommunicate them, He should be Excommunicated himself for meddling in things he had nothing to do with.  
So that I suppose I shall hear no more of my imposing sillily about this thing, nor the Compiler have any thanks for his untoward Observation.  
Such little things will not serve to build that Supremacy upon, which is pretended to by the Bishops of Rome.  
And as the Primitive Fathers neither knew of, nor believed, nor therefore could submit to any Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome for the first six Centuries, so they were as far from the Romish Doctrines about Tradition, grounding all Matters of Faith, as we do, upon the Holy Scriptures; and were as far from Invocating Saints as we of the Church of England, and from the Belief of Purgatory or Transubstantiation, and did detest the Worship of Images and Relics as much as we can; so that since in all these Points their Doctrines were contrary to the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, and their Practices contrary to the present Practices of that Church, we are bound to vindicate them to the world, and to inform our Readers that they were no more Papists as to those Points mentioned by the Compiler in his Nubes Testium, than we of the Reformation are: and therefore I have Reason to conclude my Defence, as I did my last Book against the Nubes, with asserting it upon further Reasons, That the Primitive Fathers were no Papists.   
THE END.   

Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell.  
A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants. Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [A Papist Misrepresented and Represented] 4 to.  
An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM, [in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.] 4to.  
A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; against the Exceptions of Mons. de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. 4to.  
A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome: With an Answer thereunto. By a Protestant of the Church of England. 8vo.  
A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented, being an Answer to the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the [Papist Misrepresented and Represented;] and a further Vindication of the CATECHISM, truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome. 4to.  
The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures. 4to.  
The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholic Missionaries. 24.  
An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed, concerning the Authority of the Catholic Church in matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England. 4to.  
A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church, and the Reformation of the Church of England. 4to.  
Mr. Chillingworth's Book, called [The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation] made more generally useful by omitting personal Contests, but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants, or defends the Church of England: with an exact Table of Contents, and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's, never before Printed, viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church, Transubstantiation, Tradition, etc. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist, with his Confutation of the said Motives.  
An Historical Treatise written by an Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome, touching Transubstantiation: Wherein is made appear, That according to the Principles of that Church, this Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. 4to.  
The Protestants Companion, or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established, with the main Doctrines of Popery: Wherein is shown, that Popery is contrary to Scripture, Primitive Fathers and Councils; and that proved from Holy Writ, the Writings of the ancient Fathers, for several hundred years, and the Confession of the most learned Papists themselves. 4to.  
The Pillar and Ground of Truth. A Treatise showing that the Roman Church falsely claims to be that Church, and the Pillar of that Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, chap. 3. ver. 15. 4to.  
A Sermon preached on St. Peter's Day, published with Enlargements.  
A short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines, in answer to a late Pamphlet, entitled [Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs.] 4to.  
An Answer to a late Pamphlet, entitled [The Judgement and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one special Branch of the King's Prerogative, viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws.]  
A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points of the Real Presence, and the Adoration of the Host; in Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject: To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument.  
Two Discourses; Of Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead.  
The People's Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted.  
The Fifteen Notes of the Church, as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmine, examined and confuted. 4 to With a Table to the whole.  
Preparation for Death, being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France, in a dangerous Distemper of which she died. By William Wake, M. A. 12mo.  
The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, in opposition to a late Book, Entitled, An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. 4to.  
A Private Prayer to be used in difficult Times.  
A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London; Sept. 29. 1687. between A. Pulton, Jesuit, and Tho. Tenison, D. D. as also of that which led to it, and followed after it. 4to.  
The Vindication of A. Cressener, Schoolmaster in Long-Acre, from the Aspersions of A. Pulton, Jesuit, Schoolmaster in the Savoy, together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith.  
A Discourse showing that Protestants are on the safer side, notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgement of their Adversaries; and that Their Religion is the surest way to Heaven. 4to.  
Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist, wherein is showed, That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion.  
A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction; with an Account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church. In Three Parts. With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom.  
The Pamphlet entitled, Speculum Ecclesiasticum, or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass, considered in its false Reasonings and Quotations. There are added, by way of Preface, two further Answers, the first, to the Defender of the Speculum; the second, to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences.  
A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the new Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. The FIRST PART: in which the Account that has been given of the Bishop of Meauxes Exposition, is fully vindicated; the Distinction of Old and New Popery Historically asserted, and the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in point of Image-Worship, more particularly considered. 4to.  
The incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome: By the Author of the [Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist.] 4to.  
Mr. Pulton considered in his Sincerity, Reasonings, Authorities: Or a Just Answer to what he hath hitherto published in his True Account; his True and Full Account of a Conference, etc. His Remarks; and in them his pretended Confutation of what he calls Dr. T's Rule of Faith. By Th. Tenison, D. D.  
A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist, wholly different from those of the Present Roman Church, and inconsistent with the Belief of Transubstantiation: being a sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum, Nubes Testium, and other late Collections of the Father's pretending to the contrary. 4to.  
An Answer to the Representer's Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversy; With a Reply to the Vindicators Full Answer; showing, that the Vindicator has utterly ruined the New Design of Expounding and Representing Popery.  
An Answer to the Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England.