AN ANSWER TO THE CHALLENGE Of Mr. Henry Jennings (Protestant  of Dromore) which evidently makes-out the present Church of Rome's doctrine to have been maintained in the first five ages, & the adversaries Principles to be only a heap of heresies lawfully condemned by the primitive Church.  
To which is annexed An Answer to one Whealy.  
Set forth by JAMES O SHIELL Reader of Divinity.  Remember the days of old consider the years of many generations, ask thy Father, & he will show thee, thy elders, & they will tell thee. Deut c. 32. v. 7. 
Permissu Superiorum. 1699,   

TO THE QUEEN  
MADAM,  
THis little book makes bold to address itself to your Sacred Majesty, not to inform or instruct you in any thing it contains, for beside the gifts of nature and great perfections, with which your Majesty is so richly endowed; you had the advantage of being born & bred in the most Catholic Country of Europe, & being well educated & throughly instructed in virtue, piety, religion & in all other things, proper for so great a Princess to learn. The end and scope of this small treatise is Madam; first to answer a Challenge made to all Catholics in General, by one of the most daring, & most presumptuous of the protesant it party; next to prevent unwary, and well meaning Christians from being seduced, or imposed upon by such artifices which it will effect by God's help; so it be but countenanced by your Sacred Majesty; If you consider only its style & contexture, or the Author that composed it, it cannot on either of those accounts deserve this honour: but the doctrine it comprehends, being compiled & faithfully extracted out of the scripture, holy Fathers, & Ancient Councils, it may on that score well pretend the patronage & protection of so great a Quen; a descended from the Glorious House of Est, which has furnished Europe for many hunderds of years, with Illustrious Dukes & Princes, Famous Generals, great statesmen & most Eminent prelate's, & Churchmen; & yet never did oblige it more than in giving it so great a Princess, so fit a consort for our Gracious King, whose piety & zeal are without example, who for his religion only, has lost the Imperial crown of three Kingdoms, & for his great resignation, & Christian patience, will infallibly receive a crown of everlasting Glory; your Majesty's heroical & stead fast resolution of still preferring religio beforé all Temporal increst, and your great zeal for the service of God & the Catholic cause do evidently prove that no other Princess, but yourself could be so agreeable to his Majesty; & so conformable to his generous inclinations in this particular, as well as in all other Royal perfections. The King, & your Majesty's chief study is to maintain & support that religion for which both have sacrificed your all; & your daily business is to comfort the poor, to  the naked, & to feed the hungry, to provide for the Fatherless & widows, & to supply all their wants, ever to the straitning of yourselves; & in a word to promote in others ' by your own example the practice of all the works of piety & Charity imaginable. Now since standing-up in defence of truth & endeavouring to instruct the ignorant in matters of salvation, has ever been accounted a work of Charity, this little book, (how ever meanly write) may deserué your majesty's Royal protection & approbation, this will render it more acceptable to all good Christians, & supply its want wherever it is defective either in language or composition; for this reason Madam, the Author does most humbly presume to lay it at your Majesty's feet, & to beg you would be Graciously pleased not only to afford it the honour of your Royal patronage; but also ot accept of it, as a small testimony of the fidelity, & greatfull respect, justly due from all his Country, where with he is obliged daily to pray for your Majesty, & ever to continue.  
MADAM, Your Majesty's Most obedient, and most Loyal and most Humble Subject, and Sevarnt. JAMES O SHIELL   

An Answer to Mr. jenning's Challenge.  
ALtho' this Treatise be but small, yet it treats not of small matters, the subject of it being of no less consequence than the salvation of those christians, who are led astray from the true faith, because they are not guided by any christian motive or Authority, but rather by their own worldly interest, and libertinism;  now a days too many prefer before god's cause and the salvation of their own souls, notwithstanding all the convincing arguments both of our ancient and modern controvertists, who with a great deal of pains have shifted the wheat from the tares, and inspite of all opposition, have made out very clearly the real and naked truth of their assertions in all controverted points between our pretended reformers & the present church of Rome; for which reason I would at present forbear writing of a subject so often scanned and discussed before, but that I was over persuaded at the earnest request of a certin person of quality, who faithfully promised to be come a Roman catholic, if she cu'd get but a satisfactory answer to an extravagant bold challange of one that styles himself a prelate of the church of England, now residing in the north of Ireland, where he makes a great figure, and would feign, persuade the ignorant and unwary to belive that his notions are truly catholic. To prevent wdich imposture, and in hopes that some copies of this little work may for the good of souls pass over the seas to that afflicted country, where books of controversy are very scarce. I made it my business to get it printed, having composed it as succint and compendious as the subject could possibly permit that it may-be no burden in a man's pocket. If the reader be not of the church of Rome, I do advise him to perruse it with a serious consideration and remorse of conscience, which if he does, perhaps it may be an occasion of leading him to the true light, and way of salvation, whatever he may carp upon the method or language; I shall bear it patiently if he does but observe and consider the meaning, and doctrine thereof. But before I proceed further, I must take notice of this daring champions legerdemain, who being sensible ●● of his own want of proofs, and authorities to make out any one point now controverted, he would feign turn the scale & impose upon the Roman catholics to prove their assertions; whereas it is plain that since he owns the church of Rome to have been in a legal possession of the true faith for above 300 years after christ, he ought consequently to suppose that she kept the same faith all along, unless he can prove the contrary: yet this is no peculiar device of our bold challenger, but rather the ordinary practice of all pretended reformers, who finding no solid grounds for their new notions are forced to trust wholly to negatives, and endeavour upon that account to impose the proof upon the lawful possessors; but among all methinks it seems very unfair for any that styles himself of the church of England, to deny this principle of lawful possession, since their own best writers do much insist upon it to make out their right against thoses secttaryes, who like new swarms separated from the stock. As the Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Quakers, sosinians etc. But to come to the present point let us see the arrogant challange of this proud Goliath, which runs to this purpose.  
Whosoever is deserious to find and embrace a church where the old incorrupted principles of christianity are taught, & such doctrines only as were maintained by the ancient and pure church even of Rome for upward of 300 years after christ, let him embrace the present church of England, where the said principles are duly professed the old church of Rome and the present church of England, being the same in principles; whereas the doctrines which the presnt church of Rome has added over and above what the church of England, maintains, & wherein the said churches do now differ, were never maintained by the said ancient church of Rome, but newly brought-in, some eight or nine hundred years, others seven & the most of them 600 years after christ. In justification of which charge we always have and still do bid defiance to any Roman catholic living to bring any sufficient sentence out of any old doctor or father, or out of any old council, or out of the holy scriptures or any one, example of the primitive church whereby it may be clearly, and plainly proved.  
1 That there was any private mass in the whole world at that time for the space of six hundred years after christ.  
2 That the communion was administered unto the people under one kind.  
3 That the people than had their common preys in a tongue, which they understood not.  
4 That the bishop of Rome was then called the universal bishop, or the head of the universal church.  
5, That then the people were taught to believe that christs body is really or substantially in the sacrament.  
6. That then the people did fall down, and worship it with godly honour.  
7. That in the sacrament after the words of consecration there reman only the accidents & show, without the substance of bread and wine.  
8. That whosoever had then said the sacrament is only but a figure, a pledge, a token, or remembrance of christs body, had therefore been judged for an here tick.  
9 That images were then set up in churches to the intent that the people might worship them.  
10. That then the people did invocate saints, or pray to them.  
11. That then the people believed that there is a third place, which commonly the Papists call purgatory.  
12 That than the people were forbidden to read the word of god in their own tongue.  
If these things be as we allege, it follows that whosoever maintain the v abused principles, are not of the ancient church of Rome but only of the present corrupted church of Rome & if our allegations be false, we desire to be disproven.  
Before I come to any particular answer to the several points of this extravagant challange, which the man's ignorance or vanity makes him belive unanswerable. I will only thus in general retort his own argument upon himself, that I may form his discurse, in the true and right method.  
Whosoever desires to find and embtace a church wherein the old incorrupted principles of christianity are taught and such doctrines only as were maintained by the ancient and pure church even of Rome for upwards of 300 years after christ, let him embrace the present church of Rome, wherein the said principles are duly professed, the old and the present church of Rome being still the same in principles, whereas the doctrines of those who now call themselves the church of England, and wherein the said churehes do now differ, were never maintained by the ancient church of Rome, but rather impiously brought in by a series of heretics, who for those very doctrines were from time to time condemned by many general, national, and provincial councils and also by the most eminent fathers and doctors of the catholic church in those respective ages; whose authorityes, and very words. I will hereafter produce in my answer to the several points heré controverted, that every impartial reader may see how all the aspersions, and calumnies raised by our pretended reformers against the church of Rome, are but mere fictions without any toserable ground, reason or authority.  
In the mean time I think it is very plain that my retortion ought to take place before my adversaries precarious sort of discourse, and consequently that such a challange belogs properly to the church of Rome, and not to any upstart sectary whatsoever, for as I hinted before, it is a principle in all well governed commonwealths that a peaceable possessor ought not to be disturbed until by manifest proof he is convicted to be an unlawful possessor: but the church of Rome which undeniably was a peaceable possessor of the true faith for the first 300 or as my adversary is willing to allows for six hundred years after christ was never convicted by any competent authority or proof, that ever she fell from the true faith of Jesus christ: therefore it necessarily follows that she must be still supposed to retain the same true faith to this very day. The major is manifest, and a maxim in law, and the minor I prove thus. If the church of Rome could at any time be juridically condemned, or declared to have fallen from the true faith, it must have been either by some immediate revelation or commission from God, as the written law was abrogated to make Place for the law of grace and as the high Priesthood was transferred from the house of Heli, to an other family, or by some other Church called and summoned by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, in some National, or general Council, as the Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Eutychians, and many other Heresies were condemned in former times, but neither of those can be alleged in the case proposed, the first is not so much as pretended, nor can the later be alleged by any man in his wits; for no National, or General Council, no, nor any old Chronicles, Registers, Ecclesiastical, or profane Histories, makes tention that ever the Roman Church fell from the true faith: so that if we except the inconsiderable dregs of condemned Heresies; which lay hid in obscure corners of the earth, there wa● no Church, or society of Christians extant in the sixth, seventh, eighth● ninth, etc. Centuryes, but were a●● in communion with the Church o● Rome, in their respective ages, & all the eminent Doctors & Father's of those times, seriously expos● her cause as the cause of Chris● wherefore either the Church Rome, kept the true faith inviolably all that while, or Christ ha● no true Church upon earth: whic● is plainly giving the lie not only to the Angel Gabriel, who declared that ● of Christ's Kingdo● which is his Church, their shou●● be no end. Luke chap. the 1. v. ● but also to Christ himself, who expressly promised, that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church. Math. chap. the 16. v. 18. and that he would be with his disciples in the administration of their function, even to the end of the world. Math. chap 28. v. the 20.  
For a further confirmation of this point, it is evident, that no Church, or society of Christians, can show their lineal, and lawful succession of pastors, and Bishops, ever since the Apostles time, but the present Church of Rome, and such as are in communion with her; for those that now style themselves, the Church of England, cannot for their lives show any before Cranmer, in Edward the fixth time; as appears by Goodman, the Protestant Bishop of Hereford, in his Catalogue of all the Bishops of England since the first plantation of Christian religion amongst them, where he expressly names, Thomas Cranmer to be the first protestant Bishop, tha● was ever seen in England. Upon the whole matter, since none but the present Roman Catholik Church, can pretend to have had since the Apostles time, a continued series of Bishops, with whom all their contemporaryes of the orthodox▪ part of Christians always agreed in one faith and comunion, it plainly follows that she alone can pretend to the purity of the Christian faith. And therefore, whosoever desires to find, and embrace a Church, wherein the old incorrupted principles of Chrstianity are taught, and such principles only as were maintain, d, by the Ancient and pure Church of Rome, for upwards of 300. years after Christ, let him embrace the present Church of Rome, wherein the said principles are duly professed; as I shall manifestly prove in my Answer to the v points: for being the ancient Father St. Basile in his 63. Epistle, declares unto us. That we ought not to pace ●●er calumnies; not out of revenge but lest we should seem to give way to a lyeor suffer men seduced to be further deceved: I shall (therefore) answer my Adversary a challenge, in the same order that he has laid ●●, chap. 1. Proving both public and priva●● Masses, to have been celeb●cated in the premitive Church.  
This Challenger, seens to lav his main stress, upon the word private Mass, but what he means by it, he does not explain: 'tis certain, that altho' Masses were said privately in all age, especially during the persecution of the Heathens when Christians performed their Devotions, in caves, and vaults, under ground; yet the word private mass, was seldom used by Catholic writers, either before or since the year 600. until Martin Luther by his book demissa privata, obliged Catholic Divines, to write upon that subject, and confute to the full Luther's arguments against it, but why is the question raised about private mass does my adversary own that public Masses were in use, in the primitive church? If so, he must either quit the old, as well as the present Church of Rome, or condemn his own Church of England, which declares against all masses, both private & public; and indeed whosoever admits one, can have no tolerable reason to deny the other, contrary to the practice of so many ages. But let him deny or own what he pleases, 'tis evident to us by the undeniable testimonies of several Fathers, and Councils, more ancient than the year 600, that both public, and private masses, were then in use in the Catholic Church, and offered to the Almighty, both for the living, and the dead, as occasion required. St. James the Apostle speaking to Almighty God in his liturgy says: we offer unto thee an unbloody sacrifice for our sins, and for the ignorance of the people. And St. Andrew likewise said, (as the Priests and Deacons of Achia in the book they writ of this Apostles passion I sacrifice daily unto Almighty God, an immaculate lamb— who, when he is truly sacrificed, and his flesh truly eaten remains still wholly and alive. St. Ireneus, who lived the year 180 in his 4. book against heresies, c: 32: after speaking of the sacrifices which were offered in the old law: says, that our Lord taught the Apostles to offer anew sacrifice, which the Church afterwards being taught by the Apostles offered through the universal world St. Cyprian, who lived the year 250. prohibited to offer any sacrifice for the soul of Gemininus Faustus, because he did not observe the decree of his own antecessors, the Bishops. Cornelius' Bishop of Rome, who lived about the year 254. complains, that the persecution was so great in his own time, that they could not say masses, either in public Churches, or in Caves under ground, which Authority may be seen, Tomo. 1. Biblia Sanctorum Patrum. Tertuiliam who lived in the same century says: in his book decorona mi●it s, c. ●. that masse● were then offer ● so the souls of the dead. and Fusebius Cesariensis, who lived the year 326, relates in his 4. book c, 4●. that there were masses said for the soul of Constant the Great St Cyri●l of Jerusalem who lived in the same century, Catech: 5. says thus: we believe that the holy, and dreadful sacrifice▪ which is offered upon the altar, is agreat relief to those for whom its offered, so Zomenus relates in his 7. book c. 5. that St. Gregory Nazianzen said Mass in a private chapel, and Paulinus (writing the life of St. Ambrose) affirms that St. Ambrose said Mass in a certain gentle somans' house & St. Ambrose himself in his commentary on the 38: Psal. ● bids the Priests, to offer this holy sacrifice for others The●d●●et (who lived the year 4●0. in his History c▪ 20.) declare●▪ himself to have said mass, in a Hermit's cell; and St▪ Gregory in his 37. Homily affirms that the holy Bishop Cassins' was wont to say mass, in his oratory, being hindered from going to the church, by reason of his infirmity: St. Hierome (who lived the year 390. in his Commentary on the ●. chap of the proverbs) says the following words: It's to be Observed, that altho' there is no hopes of pardon for the wicked, after their death, yet there are those who die with small sins. and after their death, can be discharged, either by chastifing them with punishments, or by their friends prayers, alms, and celebration of masses. In his commentary on St. Paul's Epist: to Titus, he says thus If the Laity are commanded to abstain from their wives in the time of communion, what is to be supposed of the Bishop▪ who daily for his own, and the people's sins, offers to God the underfiled sacrifice; he hath such an other Authority, in his first book against Jovinian, c. 19 speaking of the priests. St. Chrisostome who lived in the later end of the 4. century in his; homily on St. Paul's Epist. to the Philippians, speaking of those who die in the fear of God) says thus: It was not in vain the Apostles ordered that they should be remembered in the venerable, and terribile mysteries, for they knew this to be a relief, and help to them for when all the people with open arms, and the priests offer that dreadful sacrifice, full of veneration, how shall we not pacific God, praying for them he hath such an other Authority in his 41. Homily, on St. Paul's first Epist: to the Corinthians, and in his 7. Homily on his Epist: to the Hebrews, he says thus, speaking of Christ, we offer always the same, truly noe other, but still the same, therefore it is one sacrifice for this reason; because he is offered in several places. are they many Christ's, no, not at all, but one Christ, in all places, who is wholly and entirely, here, and there, one bo●● in his 32. de Consubstantiali ●● Sharply reprehend, those who neglect to hear mass; and in his 2● Homily (de baptismo) he compare those, who leave mass before th● last benediction) to Judas, who the Lords last supper, depart before giving thanks, More ●● his Authorityes may be seen, n● only in his liturgy, but (also) i● several places; manifestly proving, the ancient practice of celebrating masses: St. Augustin (wh● lived in the beginning of the 5. century) declares (in his 9 book o● Confession c. 12. that there w● mass said for the soul of his own Moth● Monica, her body being laid beside t● sepulchre. In his 32 Ser: de verb is Apostoli, speaking of the dead, he says the following words: the prayers of the holy church, the comfortable sacrifice, and the alms, which are offered for those spirits, is not to be doubted, that they are helped by them— for this hast been delivered by the Fathers, which new the universal Church observes; that those whodye, in the communion of the body, & blood of Christy are remembered, when the sacrifice is offered— who doubts them to be favoured for prayers are not in vain offered for them to God. And in his Enchiridion c. 110. he (also) says: that it is not to be denied, that the soul of the dead are o●s'd, when the holy sacrifice is offered for them. In his 22. book of the city of God, chap. 8. he relates, that when Hesperious's country house was troubled, by malignant spirits; tha● he desired one of his priests, to go thither, by the virtue of whose prayers, the spirits might give over: one of them went (saith he) and offered there, the sacrifice of the body of Christ— and afterwards the House, was no more trouled. More of St. Augustins' Authorityes may be seen, in hi● 46. Epist. in his book de cura promorcuis: c. 18. in his book desancta virgin: c. 45. in his first book de origine animae c. 9 11: & in his 84. treatise in Joamnem. All which I omit to produce for breviti sake; & shall only insert, that of venerable Bede, who in his first book c: 29 palates▪ that St. Gregory had sent Priestly ornaments to St. Augustin, the apostle of England, and in his 4 book c: ●2 he tells, that when J●ma was taken captive by the enemies that he could never betid by reason of several masses, which his brother Tunna the monk said for his soul; believing that he was killed in the battle and also in his 5 book c. 13. speaking of that terrible vision of Driethelme, who after his death revived and told wonderful things concerning the pains of purgatory from which (said venerable Bede) Prayers, alms, fasts, and celebrations of masses do release many before the day of Judgement. Now let us see the councils Authorityes, It was decreed in the 5 can: of the council of Vasens (atowne in France where 18 Bishops gathered the year 442) that kyrie eleison should be said in the masses throughout all the Churches of France; as it was said long before in the East and in all Italy, here are the councils very words: quia tam in sede apostolica, quam etiam per totas Orientis atque Italiae provincias dulcis, et nimis salubris consuetudo in tromissa est, ut kirieelcison cum grandi affectu, accompunctione dicatur, placuit etiam ut in ominibus Ecclesiis nostris ista consuetudo sancta, et ad matutinum, et ad missas, et ad vesperam deo propitiante intromittatur.;; Likewise it was enacted in the 6 can of the same council that the following words, holy, holy, holy, should be said immornig masses, in the masses of lent and in those masses which were offered for the dead, as it was accustomed to be said in solemn Masses the words of the Council are these: In omnibus missis, sive matutinis, sive quadragessimalibus sive in illisquae prodefunctorum commemorationibus siunt semper sanctus, sauctus, sanctus, eo ordine quo ad missas publicas dici debeat, quiatam dulcis, et desiderabilis vox etiam die noctuque possit dici fastidium non potest generare, et hoc nobis justum visum est ut nomen Domini Papae quicunque sedi apostolicae praefuerit in nostris Ecclesiis recitetur. Which Authorieyes do not only make out the ancient practice of celebreating Masses, but also the Pope's supremacy of which I shall treat in my answer to the 4 point. In the mean time let us hear the Declarations of other old Councils concerning the present point. We read in the 18 can: of the council of Agato celebreated the year 506 that the seculars were then obliged to receive the Communion trice in the year (viz) at Christmas, haster and Whitsuntide, and in the 47 can of the same council 'tis expressed that they were obliged to hear mass every sunday. Which plainly makes. out, that in the primitive Church it was lawful for the Priest to say mass tho' none else would receive the Communion along with him; to confirm which I shall produce the Authorityes of the two following Councils, who sat above a thousand years ago the fathers of the 12 council of Toleto can▪ 5, sharply reprehended certain Priests for not receiving the Communion when they said Masses; which is asign, that they acknowledged the Mass to be lawful tho' none would communicate, but only the Priest. And the council of Nant c: 30 (quoted by Ivo p: 3 deer: e 70 ● prohibited the Priests to say mass alone withonut the assistance of one to answer them, which Authority proves the ancient practice of celebrating private masses, Tho' Luther and his doctrine aleadges the contrary) for the fathers of that Council only obliges the Priests to have clerks to answer them, but mentions not a word of a second person to be requisite for receiving the communion along with the Priest, for they knew too well that there was no divine, or Ecclesiastical precept obliging the Priest not to say Mass, if none else would communicate along with him; and moreover, that there was no Precept commanding others to receive the Communion as often as the Priest would celebrat Mass, (for that was left to the people's own Devotion) but in the time of the aforesaid solemnities specified by the council of Agatho. all which may be confirmed, by St. Chrysostom's words, who in his 3. Homily on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, complains, that then the people were so undevout, that tho' there was Mass daily celebrated yet none of them Communicated. There are several other Authorityes, that might be produced, for the further proof of this point, but to avoid tediousness, I will conclude with the following passage. 'Tis not pertinent to the Essence of a Sacrifice, the standers by or those for whom 'tis offered to be partakers of it: but Mass is a Sacrifice: therefore 'tis not pertinent to the essence of Mass the standers by, or those for whom it's offered to be partakers of it. The major is evident out of the 6. & 7. chap. of Leviticus, where we read that the Priests of the old law were commanded to offer Sacrïfices & that the standers by or any of those for whom they were offered did not take the least particle of them; the minor also is evident, out of the 9 th● canon of the Apostles; and out of the 24 chap: of the 3 Council of Cartage. who sat in the year 397: and declared mass to be a lawful sacrifice; as for the consequence 'tis undeniable, being the argument is in form:  

Chap. 2 Proving that the Communion was adminnistred under one kind in th● Primitive Church  
The Authorityes which my adversary defies to be produced do clearly make-out the ancient pratice of Receiving the Communion under one sole species in the Primitive Church therefore this doctrine was not first brought in by the present Church of Rome, either in the 6, 7, 8, or 9 age; the consequens is manifest, as will appear hereafter. As for the anticedent▪ it may be proved by the example of Christ himself, Luck c. 24 v: 30. 35 where we read the following words. It came to pass as he sat at me●t with them, he took bread & blessed i● & b●ake, & gave to them. And they told wha● things were done in the way, & how he wa● know●n by them in breaking of bread. But there is no mention made of the cup: no, not in the whole Chapter & St. Hierome in Paula's epitaph St. Augustin in his 3 book d● consensu Evangelistarum c: 23 venerable Bede, Thèophilactus and several others in the commentary of this chapter, do● plainly affirms, that our saviour gave then the blessed sacrament to those two disciples? moreover we read in the acts of the Apostles [c: 2 v: 42) that the beliver● Continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in prayers; but w● see no kind of mention made o● the cup, but rather a confirmation of the contrary, as is manifest b● the 46 verse of the same Chapter: wherefore I may lawfully infer that our Saviour Jesus Christ did not oblige all the belivers to Communicate in both species; otherwise certainly himself would not be the first transgressor of his own law; neither would he promise everlasting life to those who would receive the communion under the form of bread, as he did, John c. 6 v: 51 saying thus; I am the living bread, which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; where by we see plainly that everlasting life is promised to us, for eating worthily that heavenly bread.  
Now let us see did those of the primitive Church ever practise to give the communion in one sole species; to prove which will produce the Authority and examples of those, Father● who then lived. Tertulian, wh● Lived th● year 230, in is bo●● of Oration c. 14 and in his book ad Uxorem, c. 5. gives ●● understand that it was then custom to carry the Euchar● home for private Communi●● St. Ambrose who lived in the Century, relates in his Oration ●● Obitu Satyri that then the people were wont to keep the Euchar● about them, and that his o●● brother Satyras once in a shi●●●rak was miraculously Sa●● from being drowned▪ by the v●tue of the blessed Euchar● which was tied about his ne●● St. Basil, who lived in the same Century expressly affirms (in his Epist: to Caesaria Patricia) that it was a common practice to bring the Eucharist home to their houses, and to receive it, when they pleased; which is a manifest sign that then the people did not always receive the Communion in both species, for those who took it under the form of wine, received it in the Church from the Priests, or Deacons; as St. Cyprian relates in his ser. De lapsis, and those who pleased to bring it home under the form of bread for private Communion were not hindered; until by reason of several abuses, which happened; the Father of the Council of Caesaragust: who sat the year 382 Can: 3, prohibited it. St. Denis who lived in the 2 〈…〉 in his book de Eceles: 〈…〉 Chap: affirms that it was 〈…〉 custom to give the Communion to the children under the 〈◊〉 of wine, and St. Cyprian, who lived the year 250 in his sermon Delapsis, makes mention of ascertain child, who received the Communion under the form of wine and also of three more who received it under one sole species. St. Denis of Alexandria, who has been St. Cyprians contemprory, in his Epists to Tobias, tells of a certain Priest▪ who gave a particle of the consecrated host to aboy, in order to bring it, to serapion, who wa● desperate ill in his dying bead. Paulinus, who has been very familiar with St. Ambrose and present at his deah, relates (writing his life) that he received the Communion only under the form of bread; and St. Basil did the same, as also we read in his Life; which neither of them would offer to do, if they had believed it to be either against the doctrine of the Church, or the institution of Christ. Sozomenus in his 8 book c: 5, & Nicepherus in his 13: Book c 7 writeth of a certain woman who was infected by the Macedonian heresy, but thinking to conceal her wickedness, and pretending before the people, to be a Catholic, she received the blessed Sacrament under the form of bread from the hand of St. Chrisostome, which afterwards she gave privately to her maid thinking to eat in its stead other bread, which she brought from home▪ but it seems, that God Almighty was pleased to discover her profane intention, for that bread which she thought to eat, was sudendly turned into a stone before all the congregation. The Manichees who abhorred wine (believing it to be the Devil's gall) never Communicated by only under the form of bread: as St. Leos 4 Ser: in ●ent expressly testifies: but Epiphanius, St. Augustin & several others who writ of the Manichean errors never mentioned that they erred in Receiving the Communion in one sole species. But I acknowledge that the Bishops of Italy about the year. 444. did much Recommend the use of the Chalice, that the Manichees might be discovered, who lurking amonghst the Catholics always Received the Communion under the form of bread; but never the Chalice & whosoever then during that Heresy would not at the public Communion of Easter Receive the Chalice was suspected to be a Manichean; whereby the reader may plainly see, that the Church has reason to forbid at one time, what it permits, at an other; Christ having left unto it a dispensing power to alter all matters of indifferency in the discipline thereof, as the time, place, and circumstances would require, which St Augustin (in his 118 Epistle openly declares, and it may be confirmed by St. Paul's first Epistle: to the Corinthians. c. 11 v. 34. but the Manichean heresy being smothered, the Receiving of the communion under one kind was afterwards Commonly practised in the Church as Hugo de sancto Victore, who lived about the year 1130 relates in his book  
Now before I shall proceed further in my Answer, let the reader observe those four points, which Commonly have been in practice in the Primitive Church (viz. that then the people would bring the Eucharist home to their houses under the form of bread for private Communion.  
Secondly that the Communion was sent and given to the sick under the same form.  
Thirdly that infants & children Received the Communion under the form of wine only:  
Fourthly that the Primitive Christians Received publicly in the Churches, the Communion either under one or both species as they pleased, until the Fathers of the Council of Constance about the year 1414.) ordered the laities to Receive in one sole species; not decreeing that the Receiving thereof in both species was unlawful, or ever prohibited before by the Church, but for several other weighty reasons, of which I shall produce only two.  
First, that (thereby) they might suppress and smother the Heresy of certain Germans & Bohemians who then obstinately denied th● integrity of the Sacrament to be contained in one sole species.  
Secondly that for the future they might prevent several abuses & profanations which formerly happened, when the Chalice was given to the laity, who thro' their weak zeal, and cold Devotion permitted very offten drops of the holy blood to be spilt, as St. Chrys. ostome (in his first Epistleto Innocentius, & Aeneas' Silviusin his dialogue de utraque specie) relate●, which is against the sublime Reverence due to this most excell●t Sacrament.  
Wherefore it evidently appears, that neither the G●●c●ā, or Lat●nes ever believed that all which is written in the Gospel touching the Communion under two species, is to be so universally understood that it ●on prehends all Christians▪ but that they always supposed and believed from the very beginning of Christianity that one sole spe●●es was sufficient for a true & lawful Communion; so that the Council of Constance did but follow the tradition and Doctrine of all precedent ages, when it defined that the Communion under, one sole species, was as good, and as sufficient as under both species; and that those who would Receive it under one kind, would neither contradict the institution of Christ or deprive themselves of the fruit of this holy Sacrament; for whether we eat or whether we drink, or whether we do both together, we always apply the same Death of Jesus Christ, & always Receive the same substance of the blessed Sacrament, and the same effect of grace, for the true flesh, and blood of Jesus Christ are whoely and ●ntirly contained in ever● drop of the blessed blood, an● in every particle of the blesse● Host: 〈◊〉 as well as he is contained the whole cup, or in the whole Host or in both, therefore let no body foolishly belive, that more benefit is Received by taking the Communion in two species, than in taking it in one alone; for being that every drop of the blessed blood and every particle of the divided Host, is a main Ocean of spiritual Blessings, many of them by the same moral action Received, affords no more grace than one alone; being that one alone contains the whole fountain intirly: therefore it appears that it was never our Saviour's intention to oblige all Christians to Receive the Sacrament in both species, for if this had been his intention, he would certainly institute i●, in a materia more common to all nations, as he did in the institution of the Sacrament of baptism; knowing the wine to be so scarce in several parts of the world, that the poor inhabitants thereof cou●d but very seldom, or perhaps never Receive the Communion for the want of wine, therefore our Saviour's intention was (when he said Drink ●e all of this ●o oblige the Disciples who only then were present, and also their successors who are the Priests, that da●●y offer this most holy Sacrifice under both species, and when he said to his Disciples John▪ c 6. v. 63. that the flesh profitteth nothing, his meaning was, that it profitteth nothing ●o believe his body to be only human flesh excluding the divine nature as the Jews believed, who denied Ch●ist to be the son of God.   

C●ap 3 proving ●hat t●e Co●m●n Prayers were 〈…〉 generally understood by all ●hose of the Primitive Church.  
The holy scripture encourag●s us to p●ay tho' we ●●de●stand ●o● what is said: therefore ●●is lawful and expedient for us ●o pr●y tho' we understand no● 〈…〉 is sa●● the antecedent is manifest by S● Paul● fi●st Epist: to ●●e, Cor●nthi●ns, chap. ●4 v. ● whe●●●e says thu●: 〈…〉 speaks ●n 〈◊〉 unknown tong●●, ●●eak●●h not 〈◊〉 men but unto God, for no man understandeth him. Nay some times the speaker did not understand what himself said for the gift of languages and the gift of interpreting languages are two distinct gifts as is evident by the 11. v. and did not always meet together as may be seen by the 13. v. of the v chapter for there the Apostle exhorts him who speaketh in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret; which is a sign that ordinarily he could not; as is manifest by the 14. v; where he says thus, ●● I pray in an unknown 〈…〉 spirit praiseth, but 〈◊〉 understanding is unfruitful where 〈…〉 see, that St. Paul 〈…〉 understanding to be unfruitful and not our prayers, when we pray in an unknown tongue; moreover you see, that St, Paul gives to understand that it is lawful, and not prohibited to pray in an unknown tongue.  
Now let us prove the consequence what the Apostles did, and practised, is lawful and expedient for us to practice: but the Apostles public liturgies have been in languages, which were not Generally understood by all the nations they Converted therefore 'tis lawful and expedient for our liturgies to be in a language not generally understood by all nation's 〈◊〉 use them: the major is evident and I shall prove the Minor ●he Apostles public liturgies were all in Hebrew, Greec●, Syriack, or Latin, as is manifest by all Ancient writters.) which were not generally known languages, to all n●r ●alf the Nations by them converted, and it was also in the same languages those of the primitive Church had their own public liturgies, af●er the Apostles death, as all the following. Father's do openly declare St cyprian (who lived in the 3 Century expounding the Lord's Prayer) affirms that then the public liturgy was in Latin, and St. August●●● in his bookde Dono pe●●e●, chap 13, in his ●. book de Doctrine Ch●istiana chap. 13, and also expounding the 123. Psal: and in his 173. Epistle declares that all the western Churches had their Mass in Latin and St. Hierome (〈◊〉: in 〈◊〉:) affirms that all the ●●stern Churches had their Mass in Greek and used St. Basils' Greek liturgy: but then the Latin and Greek were not the vulgar languages of all Nations for before those times there were several other languages as is manifest, by the acts of the Apostles: Chap: 2. V 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. where we read the following words : and they were all filled with the holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance. ●nd there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men out of every Nation under heaven, Now when this was noised abroad the multitude came together and were confounded, because that every man hea●d them speak in his own language, and they were all amazed, and marvelled, saying one to an other; behold, are not all these who speak Galileans, and how hear we every man in our tongue, wherein we were born. Whereby it plainly appears, that neither the Apostles or the Fathers of the Primitive Church, ever judged it to be expedient or necessary to translate the public liturgy into the mother tongue of every Nation; nor consequently that it was Requisite, that it should be immediately and expressly understood by every one of the hearers; for they knew too well that the end, for which the public liturgy has been first instituted. does not require this: for the drift which the Church had in appointing liturgies, is that thereby a continual tribute, or homage of prayers, and thanksgivings, might be publicly offered to God by the Priest & also that the Christians (by their personal assistance at this public service might unanimously exercise exterior acts of Religion agreeing With the whole Church represented by the Ecclesiastical meeting of every pious congregation: moreover that every Christian by his presence at this service, might consent to the public Prayers, and thanksgiving of the Church, in order to be made partaker of the graces, fruits, and benefits, which the Church commonly obtains by its liturgies and public oblation, for when the Priest celebrats Mass, or says any publck prayers belonging to it, he offers them to God for the people present, for the whole Church, or for any other necessity of the people who are absent: so that it matters not, whether the people understands him or no: because they have as much benefit by his prayers, and oblation as if they had understood what he says; for if they hear him not speaking aword, they might be partakers of his prayers, and intercession, being God to whom they are offered, hears and understands him: for in Sacrifices, Prayers, and thanksgivings; the Priest speaks not to the Congregation, but to God: according to that of St. Paul's first Epist: to the Corinth : c 14. v 2: which is Confirmed by the following example: when any man lays sick, or in distress at home, he sends to the Church to be prayed for, by the Priest, and Congregation: now, shall we believe? because he neither hears, or understands the prayers offered for him, that he obtains no benefit thereby? no, (the Lord forbidden) for if so, the Prayers of the Righteous would avail nothing, which is against that of St, James. c. 5. v. 15 16: and w●ich is more, we would never be the better for our Saviour's intercession for us▪ to his heavenly Father because we neither hear nor understand him, or know when he interceds for us: yet we Receive innumerable benefits by his intercession: and also by the Priest's intercession, when he Celebrats' Mass, or says any other public office or prayers instituted by the Church: for in this Common office he represents our Saviour's place one earth: and we are certain that the fervent Prayers of a Righteous man availeth much, according to that of St. James c. ● v. 15. 16. whether we understand them, or no● for their effects do not depend of our intelligence, but rather of the acceptation of God Almighty, to whom they are offered.  
But now ●o discover the folly of those who do uncharitably censure th● Church of Rome for having her Common Prayers in an unknown tongue: let them know, that there are many Millions of the said Church, who do understand it in Latin and those who do not, that they are so well instructed by the Clergy, that they know when to kneel, when to stand, when to Pray▪ when to give thanks▪ and when to do reverence, and when not: besides they have the most part of the Mass if not the whole, in their English, Italian, French, Dutch, and Spanish prayer book●: which also was formerly in the Irish prayer books▪ and would continue so still; but that the penna● laws of that Kingdom (in Qeen Elizabeth's reign) prohibited any Irish Schools; which obliged them to use their Prayers in Latin and English? exceptsome of the vulgar, who were not able to allow their Children Schooling to learn either of them: yet they have traditionaly from their Clergy and parents their prayers: and other necessary instructions in Irish, taught them by word of mouth, and also that part of the Mass wherein they might have any doubt, or scrouple. So that it is not said in Latin by the Priest, to the intent that the people might not understand him; or to the intent that the flock might be kept in darkness (as some of the pretended Reformers do falsely report) but to the intent that the holy Catholic Church in her Liturgies might use one general, & Common language, wherein all Nations do indisputably agree, & which is more practised than any other langauge, by the whole world; so that if one travels through all Europe, he shall always find the same liturgy used in all Catholic Churches which conformity is a manifest sign of good Government, which is in the Church of Rome.   

Chap 4 Proving the Pope of Rome's Supremacy in the Premitive Church.  
Christ's promise to St. Peter, and the charge which he committed unto him after his resurrection, requires some chief and Universal Pastor in the Church▪ whom all the rest ought to obey: but it was always believed in the Primitive Church. St. Peter and his successor (the Pope of Rome) to have been that chief and Universal Pastor: therefore it was always believed in the Primitive Church, St. Peter and his successor (the Pope of Rome) to have been the chief and Universal Pastor, whom all the rest ought to obey: the minor and consequence are manifest: as shall appear hereafter. In the mean time, let us hear our Saviour's Promise to St. Peter. Matt: Chap 16. v: 18, and I say also unt● yo●, that thou art Peter, and upon this 〈◊〉 I will ●uild my Church, and the Gates of H●l● shall not prevail against it. By which words our Saviour promised the Supreme Government of the whole Church on Earth, to St Peter: as all the following Fathers and Doctor●, do openly Declare. Origines Homily 5 in Exo●um, Tertullian in his book de Praescrip: St, Cyprian in his Epist: to Quintus: St Athanasius in his Epist: to Felix: St. Basil in his book against Eunomius St. Hilarius & St. Hierome expounding the v text: St. chrysostom Hom: 55. in Matt: St. cyril of Alexandria in his 2 book c 1: in joann: St, Ambrose ser: 47, and in his book de Isaac c. 3, St. Leo ser: 11. of our Saviour's Passion, and in his 2 ser: of St. Peter and St. Paul, St, Augustin in Psal: Contra partem Donati, and in his 2 book against Gaudentius Epistles, c 23. which promise was effectually fullfiled after Christ's Resurrection, as all the v Fathers do Testify: and it manifestly appears by our Saviour's own words: john c. 21, v. 15 16. & 17 where we read that Christ Commanded St. Peter thrice consequently to feed the flock, saying thus: feed my Lambs, feed my Lambs, feed my Sheep, which words do plainly make-out, that it was our Saviour's intention to appoint Peter the Supreme head and chief pastor over all Christians, under himself on earth: which is further Confirmed ●y the following Testimonies. S. Denis the Areopagite (cited by S Damascen ora: 2. de dormitione Deiparae affirms, that he and Timothy were both present : at the blessed V●rgin Mar●'s death, to be hold that body, which gave t●e beginning of life: and that there was also present both fames, and Peter the Supreme, and most an●●ent top of Divines S, Irenaeus (who lived in the 2 Age, in his 3 book c 3) says, that all Churches round abou● ought to resort the Roman Church, by reason of her more pow●rfull Principality. Tertullia (who lived in the ye●● 2●●, in his boo● call'● Scorpia●u● 〈◊〉, speaking to a heretic) says thus : so although ' you th●●k heaven to be still 〈◊〉 ●p: remember t●e Lord to have lef● her its ●eres, with P●ter, and by Peter to the Church. Origines (who lived about the same time Ho● 5 in Exod: says thus : Observe what th● Lo●d said to ●hat great f●●ndation of the Church, and most solid ●oc● upon whom Christ built his Church And o● t●e 6 Chap. of S. Paul's. Epist: to the Rome: he also says, the following whords : when the c●i●f char●● of f●●dīg Christ▪ s sheep was given to S. Peter, and the Church founded upon him— there was required of him t●e Confession of no virtue, but of Charity. S. Cyprian (who also lived in the same Century. Epist to julian) says thus : we hold Peter to ●e the h●●d & root of the Church. Epist: 5, he says the following words : Peter upon whom the Church ha●● been bui●● spo●e for all, aswe●īg in the Church's name saying, ●●nd to whom shall we go: and in hi● 71. Epist: he also sa●es thus: Peter whom th● Lor● first choesed, and upon whom he built his Church St. Epiphanius, who lived in the year 3●0 says ' (heresy 51) that Christ cho●s'd Peter first in order to ma●● him the Captain of his Disciples; and heresy 5●, ●e calls St. Peter the ●ri● of the Apostles, St. Ambrose, who also lived about that same time, in his Commentary on St. Paul's Epist: to the Gala : c. 1, speaking of St. Paul says thus: I● was ●it, that he longed for to see Peter, who was the chiefest of the Apostles, to whom our Saviour entrusted the care of all the Churches. and also in his Commentary on St Paul's 2. Epist: to the Corin: c▪ 12, he says : Andrew fir●t f●llow●●●ur Saviour, yet Andrew Received not the supremacy, but Peter. Optatus, who lived in the year 365. says thus (in ●is 2. book against Perminian) there is o●e chai●●, and you dar● not deny to ●now that the chai●● was first bestowed unto Peter in the City of Rome, where Peter the head f●ll the Apostles continued. S. Basil (who also lived in the ●ame age in his ser: de judicio dei) calls Peter that blessed one, who was preferred before the rest of the Apostles. ●usebius Emissenus (who also liv, d about the same time, in his ser: de nativi: St. Joan▪ speaking of Christ) says that he first committed his Lambs, afterwards his sheep to Peter, because he made him not only pastor, but p●stor of pastors; and Ecumenius, who like wise then lived, says the following words, in his commentary on the 1. Cap. of the acts, Not james, but Peter raised up, as being both mor● fervent, and also the precedent of the Disciples. S. cyril of jerusalem (●ho lived in the same Century, Catech: 2: says thus, Peter the Prince and most excellent of all the Apostles St Hierome (who lived, in the year ●90, in his first book against the Pelagians c 14) calls, Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, upon whom the Lord's Church has been built: and also in his first book against Jovinian Cap. 14, he says, That one of the twelve was choesen to be the head of the rest that the occ●sion of schism might be prevented St. Chrysostom, [who lived in the same time, in his 2 Hom: de paenit: in Psal. 50) calls St Peter the pillar: of the Church, the foundation of the fa●th and the head of the Apostolical qu●re: and in his last Hom: on Io●n he says, that the charge of the brothers (that is to say, of the Apostles) & of the whole wh●●ld was committed to Peter and also in his 55 hom: on Matt: he says; that the pastor and he●d of the Church was once a poor fisherman. Theodoretus who lived in the year 430. says thus, [in his Epist: to Leo.) Paul that preacher of the truth, and trumpet of the holy Ghost, ruined to great Peter, that he might bring his Sentence to those, who endeavour▪ d, to establish the legals in Antioch. S Augustin who lived in the same age in his 24 Ser: de Temp: ● cas●'s Peter, the governor of the Church. And in his 68 Epist: he calls him, the head of the Apostles, the gate keeper of hea●en, etc. & in his last Treatise in joan: he says thus: whom Peter by reason of the Supremacy of his Apostle-ship etc. S. Leo (who lived in the year 440, in his 3 ser: de Aslump: sua ad Pon●i●:) says the following words: out of the whol● world one Peter ●is cho●sen, who is preferred before all people, and before the Apostles, and before all the fathers of the Church, and altho' among the people of God the● be many Priests, and many pastors, ye● Peter particularly governs them all and Christ governs them principally S Gregory (in his 4. ●ook 32. E. pissed: which is to Mauritius the Emperor) says : that it was manifest to all that knew the ●hosple, the charge of the wh●le Church to have been committed by the ●ord to Peter the Prince of all the Apostle. And the General Council of Chalcedon, wherein 630 Father● were assembled, called (action 3) S. Peter the Rock and pillar of the Church. All which proofs do sufficiently make-out, that it was always believed, and acknowledged, by those of the Primitive Church, St. Peter to have been instituted a supreme pastor: but the same charge still remains, being the office of a pastor is an ordinary, and a perpetual office and as long as there are sheep to be feed, so long there ought to be a pastor to feed them. which because St. Peter did not perform in his own person those many hundred years; there must needs be some other lawful successor, to execute the office in his place: for we see by daily experience many strifes and contentions to happen amonghst the flock, in matters of faith and discipline: who then shall appease & reconcile them? you will say the Bishops; but how often doth differences of this sort araise, and happen amonghst the Bishops themselves? perhaps you will answer, that they ought to appeal to Primates and patriarchs: but what if they be also at variance? as Flavianus and Dioscorus, Cyrill and Nestor were: peradventure you may say: that they ought to go to temporal princes, and civil Magistrates: but 'tis not their part to engage themselves in Ecclesiastical affairs; and their factions may be more dangerous than any of the former: to whom then shall the people appeal? it will be said, to a general Council: but who shall summon? who shall order? or who shall direct, and guide that assembly? what if they decline from the true faith of jesus Christ? as the Council of Ariminium, the second Council of Ephesi●● ' and several other Schismatical Councils did? who then shall judge their case? who shall decide their dissensions? unless some certain head be appointed by the divine providence of the holy Ghost: whose decrees are infallible & whose censures ought to be obeyed, and in respect of whom St. Peter may be still said to performs his duty, and feed the sheep entrusted to his charge? as the premises do plainly make-out  
Now let us see, if those of the Primitive Church did belive, and acknowledge, the Popes of Rome (successively from age to age, since Peter's death) to have been that Supreme head of the Universal Church (as St Peter was in h●s own time, St. Irenous, who lived in the year 180, in his 3 book Chap 3) says, the following words: The founder's of the Church delivered the Episcopacy of over-seeing the Church to Linus, and Anacletus succeeded Linus, Clemens, Anacletus, Evaristus, Clemens: etc. numbering all the rest of the Popes of Rome, who governed the Church, from St. Peter's time, to that very instant St. Basil (who lived, in the 4 Century, in his 52 Epist: which is to St. Athanasius) says thus: It is convenient, that we should write to the Bishop of Rome, that he might take notice of what is done here, and produce his sentence— and use his Authority in the case, & choese some sound men— who can c●rrect those stoburn and cross people, that are here with us— and cancel what has been done, by force ud violence in Ariminium. St. Athavasius (in his Ep: written in the name of all the Bishops in Egypt, to Mark Pope of Rome) says the following words: To the holy and Venerable Mark, Pope of the Universal Church, ruler of the holy Apostolical sea— we desire (by the Authority of your holy sea which is the Mother, and h●ad of all Churches,) that we may know by the present legates, what ought to be done, for the recovery and correction of the faith full Orthodox; fo● being supported by your Authority, and s●r●nthn'd by your Prayers, we can escape safe from the enemies of God's Church, and ours— and & be able to root-out those committed unto us. such an other convincing Authority may be seen, in St Athanasius' Epist: to Felix, and also in St, Cyprian's Epistles, to Cornelius, Lucius, and Stephen, Popes of Rome. St, Hierome (in his Epistle, to Pope Damas') says thus : altho' your grande●● terrisies me yet y●●r mildness invicts me I do crave from the Priest, the victim of Salvation, from the Pastor, secure to a sheep— I speak to the successor of the fisher, and disciple of the cross, following none bu● Christ, I do join with your holiness in communion, that is to say, with the chair of Peter, for I know the Church to have been built upon that Rock: whosover shall eat the ●amb out of this house, is profane: St Crysostome (in his first Epist: to Pope Innocentius beseeches him, to declare the proceed of the Eastern Bishops void, and of no effect, and to punish (with Ecclesiastical Censure) the promoters of the discord, and in his 2 book (de Sacerdotio Ch●p ●● he syes the fallowing words (speaking of Christ) why did he s●ed his own blood? certainly it was to purchase those sheep, whose care he committed both to Peter, and to Peter's succesors, Theodoretus (in his Epist. to Pope Leo) says thus : I do expect the sentence of your Aposlolical sea, and I humbly beseech, and Pray your holiness, that your just and upright judgement may a●de me, appealing to you, and command m● to come before you: & in his Epist: to Renatus, he also says thus : I beseech you to persuade the most holy Archbishop Leo to use his Apostolical Authority and command me to appear, at your Council, for that holy sea has, the Government of all Churches through the whole world: St Augustin (in his 262 Epist: which is to Pope Caele●stinus) says the following words: I congratulate your merits, that our Lord established you in that sea, without any opposion of the people, secondly I do inform your holiness of what is committed near us here that, not only by praying for us, but also by advising and assisting us, you may rel●ef us— I beseech you through the blood of Christ and remembrance of the Apostle Peter who admonished the chiefest of the Christian people) not to sufer these things to be done. All which Authorityes do plainly make-out, that the holy Fathers and Doctors of the primitive Church firmly believed, and acknowledged, the Popes of Rome to have been (successively from age, to age,) the Supteam head of the Universal Church on earth: Which may be further confirmed by the continual practice, and consent of several Nations: who in the primitive Church appealed to the Popes of Rome: acknowledging each of them [in his own time to have been Christ's Vicar-general on earth: As for exemple, to whose high tribunal did Flavianus the Patriarch of Constantinople appeal from the ● Ephesian Council● but to that of Leo Pope ● Rome: as Liberatus in his breviate c 12. writes; whose assistance di● Athanasius Bishop of Alexandr● (deposed by the Aerians] implore● but the assistance of Mark Feli● and julius, Popes of Rome: ● St. Athanasiu's own Epistles (● the v) do expressly testify and also Sozomenus, in his; boo● c. ●. Under whose wings, did S● chrysostom fly, for justice? (beit deposed by Theophilus, and h● adherences) but under the win● of Innocentius the first: as appea● by St Chrysostome's 1. & 2. Epi●● to the same To whom did For●● na●us, & Felix (being deposed afric) appeal? but to Corneli● Pope of Rome. as St. Cyprian ●● his first book Epist: 3: declares. To whom did Basilide● appeal? but to Pope Stephen, as St. Cyprian testifies, Epist: 68 To the Pope of Rome, Valent, and Ursacius came to give an account of their treachery against St. Athanasius, and to crave pardon for the same as Epiphanius (heresy 68 relates) Martion (being excommunicated by his own Bishop in Asia (came to Rome, to be absolved by P●us the first: as St. Epiphanius relates, (heresy 42) who deposed Anthimus, the Patriarch of Constantinople? and established in his place Mena; but Agapetus the Pope, as Liberatus affirms in his breviate 62. and also Zonarias, writing the life of justinian. Who deposed Flavianus the Patrian of Antioch? but Pope Danias', Theodoret relates, in his 5 ●●● c 23 who deposed Polychron● Bishop of jerusalem▪ about ● year 434, but Pope Sixtus th● as appears, in the acts of Six● Who deposed Dioscorus Paarch of Alexandria? but the of Rome: as Gelatius' Epistle the Dardanian Bishops, expre●● declares: wherein he also rela● that Pope julius the first, reslo●● Athanasius Alexandrinus, Pau● Constantinopolitanus, & Mar●lus Ancyranus to their own Bishoprics. who re-established Pe● (St. Athanasius successor be wrongfully deposed by the A●●ans) but Pope Damas': as Sozo● ●us affirms, in his 6 bo●k c: 9 who restored Theodoretus (being also wrongfully deposed, by the A●●i●ns in the 2 Ephesian sunod, but Pope Leo: as is manifest by the first action of the General Council of Chalcedon.  
It was, only the Popes of Rome, ●hat had (i● the Primitive Church) their deputies, and Vicars-general in all foreign and remote Countries (viz.) Anastasius Bishop of Thesalonica, in the Orient: as appears by St. Leo's 84 Epist: Potentius ' in Africa as the same Leo's 87 Epist declares: A●acius Patriarch of Constantino●le, in Egypt: whom the Pope of Rome, commanded to depose the Bishop of Alexandria, as Gelatius, relates in his Epist to the Dardanian Bishops. Celestinus Pope of Rome, Authorised St. Cyrill of Alexandria to proceed against Nestor (than Bishop of Counstontinople) as appears by Caelestinus' Ep: to St Cyrill: which is to be seen in St. cyril's 4. tome, where also St Cyrill declares) in his Epist: to those of Counstantinople) that the charge of that Bishopric, was committed unto himself by the Bishop of Rome. Pope Hormisda instituted Salustius (Bishop of Sevil) his Vicar-general through Spain, and Portugal, as appears by the said Hormista's Epist: to the same: and St, Gregory instituted Vigilius Bishop of Orleans to be his Vicargeneral, through all France: as may beseen, in St Gregory's 4th. book Epïst: 52.  
It was also the Pope of Rome's Legates, that were Precedents in the General Councils of the Primitiuc Church, as for example; Hosius, Vitus, and Vincentius, St, Sylvester's Legates, have been precedents in the General Council of Nice: as Cedrinus in his Compendio, Potius in his book de 7, Synodis, and St: Athanasius in his Epist (to those, who lead a solitary life) do relate. St cyril of Alexandria, Pope Caelestinu's Legate preceded, in the Council of Ephesias as Liberatus in his Breviate c, 15. & Evagrius in his first book c. 4: do write. Paschasius L●c●●sius, and Bonifacius, St. 〈◊〉 Legates, were Precedents in the General Council of Chalcedon, a● is evident by the ● action of ●he ●ame Councils, and also by S Leo's 47 Epist: Arch●d●mus, and Philaxen●s julius the first's Legates, pre●e●●d in the General Council of Sard●s: as St. Athanasius in his ● Apology, and Theodoretus in his a book c 15, do declare.  
It was, only to the Pope of Rome, the decrees and Canons, of all General, and famous Councils, where sent (in the primitive Church) in order to be approved, and confirmed, by his holiness: as for example: it was, to St. Sylvester Pope of Rome, the Fathers of the Council of Nice, sent a letter most humbly beseeching his holiness, to Ratify and confirm, the decrees of the said Council: which letter is to be seen in the second Tome of the Councils. The Fathers of this Council, were in number, 318, and sat in the year 325. The Fathers of the General Council of Constantinople (being in number 150, assembled in the year 381) writ to Damas' Pope of Rome, by (Cyriacus Eusebius, and Pris●ianus, Bishops) praying him, to approve and confirm their Canons: this Councils letter, is to be seen in Theodoret's 5th. book c. 9 The decrees of the General Council of Ephes●s (wherein 200 Fathers sat, in the year 431) were sent to Pope Celestinus, in order to be confirmed: as St. cyril's Epist: testifies: which Epistle is to be seen in the 3 Tome of the Councils. The Fathers of the General Council of Chalcedon (being in number 630, and sat in the year 451) sent their Canons, to Pope Leo, in order to be confirmed, by him: as appears, by the said Council's Epistle to the same; which is to be seen in the 4th: Tome of the Councils. The Fathers of the Milevian Council, sent their Canons to Pope Innocentius the first, (in the year 416) to be confirmed: as appears, by this Council's Epistle; which is to be seen▪ in the 1 Tome of the Councils. The Fathers of the Council of Carthage, sent their Canons, (the year 356, to be confirmed, by Pope Stephen: as is manifest by their own Epistle, which is to be seen in St. cyril's 2 book, and also in the first Tome of the Councils  
I might produce several other convincing proofs, concerning this point; but that I may be easy to the reader: I will conclude, only with these following Councils, who sat, in the Primitive Church and acknowledged in their very Canons, the Pope of Rome's Supremacy (viz.) the 20 chap: of the Council of Rome, who sat in the year 324. The 3 chap: of the 3. & 4th: Council of Rome, who sat in the year 502. The 3, 4th & 9th Canon, of the Council of Sardis, wherein 376 Fathers were. The 6th Canon of the General Council of Nice. The 5 Canon of the General Council of Constantinople. The 1, 2, 3, & 16. Action of the General Council of Chalcedon, who says thus: (in the 16th) we throughly consider ●ruly, that all Primacy & chief honour, is to be kept, for the Arch Bishop of old Rome.   

Chap: 5 Proving, that the Real Presence, was believed by those of the Primitive Church  
The very words of jesus Christ, and also the Authentical Testimonies of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church do clearly affirm, that Christ's true body and blood, are Really and Substantially present, in the holy Sacrament: therefore this Doctrine was not newly brought-in, since the Primitive Church: the consequens is most certain, as we shall see hereafter, and I prove the first part of the Anticedent, by our Saviour's own words, john c 6 v 51, where he says thus: I am the living bread, which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. But then the jews wanting true faith, said one to an other: how can this man give u● his flesh to eat v 52. certainly then our Saviour (who came to this world to instruct, and lead us, out of all darkness, to the true light) hearing the jews murmuring so, and doubting of what he said to be true, would explain the aforesaid words, if he had any mystical meaning: but he was so far from so doing, that he confirmed and repeated them again, over and over● as is manifest by the 53 54 etc. v: where we read the following words. then jesus said unto them, verily verily I say unto ye, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in ye: whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day: for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I 〈◊〉 him: as the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven: not as your Fathers did eat ●anna, and are dead, he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. So that every faithful & sincere Christian may plainly understand, that if our Saviour then had not meant, that he was to give his own true flesh and blood to be really eaten and drank, that he would not so proceed, in confirming what he said in the beginning, and also that he would not suffer his own disciples to part without declaring his mind to them, as he did often before when he spo●e in parables; neither would he declare, at his last supper, that he gave to his discples, his own body and blood saying thus: Take eat, this his my b●dy: and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying drink ye all of it; for his is my blood of the new testament, which shall be sh●d for many for the remission of sins. Matt: c 26 v: 26 27 & 28  
I leave it to all faithful Christians, seriously to be considered; whether Christ gave, only figuratively his own body and blood, for the remission of our sins, or his real body and blood? If he gave them really for our Salvation; he also gave them really t● his disciples, as his own word● do manifestly affirm; to deny which, is of no less consequence, than to charge Christ with untruth: or at lest that he had not words significant, to explain his intention; which is rash and impious to judge of his infinite power: therefore all Christians are obliged not to mistrust of the truth of Christ's words, or doubt of their literal sense, in the aforesaid text: for being we acknowledge, that Christ is omnipotent, and consequently that it is in his Power to make of the bread and wine his own flesh and blood, (by his divine benediction) we ought not to doubt of what he said to be true; and if in case he had not expressed so plainly his mind unto us, concerning this mystery, we ought to believe it firmly, by St, Paul's testimony (●ae Corinth: c: 11 v: 23 24 etc.) saying thus: for I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered u●to ye; that ●he Lord Jesus (the same night in which he w●● betrayed) ●ooke bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke and said, take eat, this is my body which shall be ●●liver'd for ye thi● do ye in remembrance of m●: after the ●ame manner also he took the c●p when he had supped, saying this cup is the new testament, in my blood, this do ye, as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me; for as often as ye eat th●s br●ad and drink this cup, ye do show the Lords death till be come. whosoever shall ●at this bread, ●● drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the ●o●d. By which words St Paul openly declares, that Christ gave his own body & blood to his disciples, at his last supper; and also he affirms, himself to have been taught this doctrine, by the Lord; and that he delievered the same, to the Corinthians, that there by he might persuade them not to doubt of what he said to be true; but to firmly believe the real presence, being it was the Lord's doctrine delieuered unto him, in order to teach it to the Christians.  
Now let us hear the Authorityes of the holy Fathers & Doctors of the Primitive Church, wherewith I shall prove the second Part of the antecedent. St. Ignatius (the Apostles Disciple. in his Epist: to those of Smyrna, cited by Theodoret in his ● Dialogue) says thus : they ●●mit not the Eucharists and o●lations, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, who suffered for ou● sinne●. Let the reader take notice of those heretics, against whose principles St Ignatius speaks in the v text: for they rejected the Eucharist, lest they would be forced to confess, that Christ had true flesh: but if the Eucharist had not then been believed to be Christ's ●rue flesh, those heretics could have no kind of reason to re-ject it, for they did no● deny the figure or Image of Chris● but what they denied was, tha● Christ had true flesh. The like argument may be formed against the Jews admiration (hearing the word▪ of Christ john c: 6 v. 51 etc.) for if then the jews would believe that Christ was to give his flesh only in figure and remembrance, they would have no reason to murmur, or to mistrust the truth of Christ's words: so that it manifestly appears, that the Jews supposed, that Christ meant his true flesh; and also that those heretics of the prmitive Church believed and acknowledge, that it was then some of the Catholick● Doctrine, to believe that Christ's true flesh, was really present in the holy Eucharist St. agustin Martyr (who lived in the year 150, in his 2 Apology to Antoninus) says thus: we do not receive this as common bread, or as common drink, but as the son of God jesus Christ ou● Saviour incarnate, had flesh and blood for our salvation, so— are we taught, that th● Eucharist is the flesh & blood of the same jesus incarnate St Irenaeus (who lived in the same Century, speaking of the heretics of the Synagogue, who denied, Christ to have been the son of God) says the following words: [in his 4th book c 34) how can they be assured, the bread in which thanks are given to be the body of our Lord, & the chalice his blood? if they acknowledge him not to be the son of the maker of the world. Tertullian (who lived in the year 230) says thus: (in his book of the resurrection of the flesh) the flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleaned, the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated the flesh eateth of the body and blood of Christ: that the soul may be nourished. Origines (who lived in the same age,) says thus (hom: 7th in Eum: speaking of the old law) th●n the manna was meat in figure, but now the flesh of God, is meat inspecie, as himself says. my flesh is m●at in deed; and in his 5th Hom: in diversa loca Evangely (speaking of the Centurion) he says the follwing words : wh●n you receive the holy meat and uncorrupted banquet, when you receive the bread and cup of ●ief▪ you eat & drink the body & blood of the Lord, than the Lord inters into your house; you therefore (humbling yourself) imitate this Centurion, & say● o Lord I am not worthy, that thou sho●●est inter into ●y house. St Cypria● who lived in same Century, in his 5th: ser: de Lapsis) says thus Violence is inferred to his body & blood & they offend now more the Lord wi●● their hands & mou●h, than when th● denied the Lord, and in his ser: o● the Lords supper, he also says the following words : the doctrine of this Sacrament is streange, ● the Evangelical schools published 〈◊〉 this doctrine, & it first appeared to th● world by Christ the teacher thereof, th● Christians should drink blood, who drinking is most strictly forbidden ●● the Authority of the old law— but ●● Gospel commends to drink it. Befo●● I shall proceed further, I mu●● take notice of St. Cyprian's words positively affirming, that this Doctrine of the real presence has been first taught by Christ, and his Disciples, and also that Christians are commanded to drink blood, which was prohibited by the old law: for the old law● did not prohibit to drink blood in figure, or in remembrance; for the Jews did drink the blood of Christ figuratively, in drinking the water, which flowed our of the Rock: therefore that which was prohibited by the old law, was only to drink true and real blood: but St. Cyprian clearly affirms, that the Gospel commands the Christians to drink that, which was prohibited by the old law: therefore St. Cyprian affirm that the Christians are commanded by the Gospel, to drink t●● and real blood, and consequent not in figure, as my adversa● would feign persuade. St. Hila●us (who lived in the 4th: Cent●ry, in his 18th: book of the T●nity, says thus : If the word be t●● incarnate, we do truly receive the w●● flesh— of the flesh & blood's ●●● there is no room left for being doubt, for by the Lord's own confes● and by our faith, it is truly flesh truly blood— let us read what is wri●● and let us understand what we r●● and then we will perform the dut● perfect faith, for according to the tural truth of Christ in us, what ●● we learn, unless we learn it f●om ● we learn it imprudently, & impiously; f●r he said, my fl●●h is meat in deed etc. St. Cyril of jerusalem (who lived in the s●me Century, Catech: 4) say●● the following words. This of St. Paul's Doctrine can sufficiently make ye most certain concerning the divine mysteries— & seeing Christ himself so affirms, & says of the bread, this is m● body: wh● afterwards can presume to doubt? & the same also saying & confirming, this is my blood; who I say can doubt? & say, that it is not his blood. St. Ambrose (who also lived in the same Century, in his book de Mysteries Initiandis c 9th:) says the following words : Perhaps you may say; I see the contrary; how can you affirm to me, that I can receive Christ's body? & this now we are to prove: therefore w● use great examples, that we may prove this not to be what nature formed, but what benediction consecrated; & the benediction to be of more power, than the nature's, because even ●he very nature is converted by the benediction; Moses threw a rod, which he converted into a serpent, & afterwards he took the serpent's tail & converted the same into a rod: therefore you see the nature of the serpent, & of ●he rod to have been twi●e changed by a Prophetical benediction— If human benediction be of such power, that it can change nature; what do we say to the divine consecration? where the very words of the Lord our Saviour, do work, for the Sacrament which you receive is perfected by the words of Christ, what if Elias' words were of such force that they could draw fi●e out of heaven? will not Christ's w●rds be able to change the nature of the elements? Of all the works in the world you have read! because he said & they were made, he commanded & they were created: therefore Christ's words which could make that which was not, of nothing, can they not change these things, which are, into that, which they were not? for it is not less to give things new beings, than to change their natures: but why do w● use arguments? but let us use his own examples, & prove the truth of this mystery by the Incarnation's example: did the course of nature take place, when the Lord was born of Mary?— it is manifest that the Virgin conceived contrary to the order of nature, & this body which we perform is of the Virgin. Why do you inquire here th● c●u●se of 〈…〉 Ch●●st's body? when the Lord himself w●●●or● of the Virgin beyond the co●rs● of nature. Surely the true flesh of Christ was crucified; & buried, truly th●n the sacrament i● of that same flesh. Tho' what I have already produced of this eminent Doctor's, Authority might satisfy any impartial reader; yet I will add these other Authorityes of his, confirming the same: in his 4th: book de Sacram: c: 5. he says thus : The Lord jesus Christ declared unto us, that we receive his own body & blood, why should we doubt of his Authority, & testimoney, and in his 6th: book c, 1, he also says thus : as our Lord jesus Christ, is the true son of God— even so it is true flesh, which we receive, as himself said. St. Gregory Naz●anzen (who lived in the same age, in his 2 Oration de Pascha●e) says, the followings words : eat the body & drink the blood, without confusion & doubt— be constant firm, & steadfast, you need not be any thing troubled in mind, for the adversary's discourse. St Ephrem, (who lived in the year 365, in his book de Natura Dei minima Scrutanda c: 5) says the following words: why do you track-out unsearchable things? If you search curiously these things; new you will not be called faithful, but curious, be faithful & innocent partake of the immaculate body of thy Lord, with full faith, being sure that you do eat the entire lamb, the mysteries of Christ are everlasting fire, do not rashly sear●● them over, ●est you should burn in their search. St. Epiphanius (who lived in the year 370, in his book named Ancoratus] says thus : We see tha● our Saviour took in his hands (as th● Evangelist hath)— & when he gave thanks, he said this is my body— & none mistrusts his words, for he wh● dose not believe, it to be his true fle●h falls from grace & life; and in a nother place (cited by the Fathers of the 7th: General Council, in the 6th: Action) he says the following words : Never shall ●o find our Lord, or his Apostles, or the Fathers, saying that the unbloody sacrifice, which is offered by the Priests, is an Image, but his very body & blood St. Hierome (who lived in the year 390, Epist: to Hedib:) says thus: but let us know, that the bread which the Lord broke & gave to his Disciples was the Lord our Saviour's body; himself saying to them, take ye, & eat this is my body. St, Chrysostom, (who lived the year 398, Hon: ●1 in Matt:) says, the following words: he who bestowed his own life for you, why will he s●orn to give you his own body? therefore let us harken the Priests— how noble how admirable is that thing, which is granted unto us— he has given us, his own flesh etc. He also says thus: (Hom: 53) Let us believe God, let us not contradict him, altho' what he says, may seem strange to our sense & imagination, for it surpasses our sense & reason. I beseech you, what may we suppose of his words in all things, chief in mysteries not only considering ●hese things, which lays before us, but also his words, for we cannot be deceived by them, but our senses may easily be deceived: his words cannot be false— therefore because he said this is my body, let us he convinced by no ambiguity, but let us believe, & perceive this, with the eyes of our understanding— O how many now says! I would fain se● his face, & countenance, I would wish to see his garments;— therefore you see him, you feel him, you eat him, you desire to see his garments, truly he delivered himself to you, not only that you may see him, but also that you may touch him, &  him, in yourself, In his 3. book de sacerdotio, he says thus: he that ●its above with his Father, even in the same instant of time, is touched by the hands of all, & gives himself to all those, who are willing to receive him— whereas Christ leaving his flesh to us, yet ascending to heaven, there also he hath it. More of St. Chrysostom's Authorityes (plainly confirming the same) may be seen in his 8●. Hom. on Matt. 45th. on John. 3 on St. Paus' Epist. to the Ephes. in his 2. to those of Antioch, and in his 6th. book de Sacerdotio. St. Augustin (who lived the year 420) expounding that of the 33. Psal. he was carried in his own hands: puts the question enquiring, how can these words be understod; & answers saying thus: we cannot find this in David according to the literal sense; but we may find it in Christ; for C●r●s● 〈…〉 in his own ha●ds w●e g●v● 〈…〉 body▪ he said thi● 〈…〉 he caprid that b●d● 〈…〉. In his ●. book 〈…〉, legis e● Prophet c 9 he says, ●he following w●rds : w● receive the Mediator of God & man Ie●us Christ, with a fu●l heart & mouth, gluing us, his own fl●sh & blood, to be 〈◊〉 & drank. Here the Reader may take notice of the word mouth, that thereby he may understand S. Augustin to have openly declared, that we do not receive the flesh & blood of Christ in figure, and by faith only (as my adversary believes) which may be further confirmed, by S. Augustin's own words, in his 2. ser. de verbis Apostoli, where he says thus: we understand the true master, divine redeemer, kind Saviour, recommending unto us our price his own ●lood, for he spoke of his own body & blood. More of S. Augustin's, Authorityes (proving the Real presence) may be seen, in his 11th. 26th. 27th. & 31 Treatise in John. in his commentary on the 98th▪ psal. in his 2. book against Petilians letters in his 17th. book of the City of God, c. 20. In his 3. book or the Trinity c. 4. & 10. in his, book super Leviticum, ●. 57 In his 2. ser. de Temp. an● in several other places, which wou●d be too tedious to produce here: therefore I will conclude only, with the two following Authorityes: S. Cyr●ll of Alexandria (who lived in the year 430, in his Epist. to Nestor, which Epist. was approved of, by the Fathers of the General Council of Ephesi●) says thus: so immediately we come to the mystical blessings, & we are sanctified, being partakers of the holy body, & precious blood of Christ, the Redeemer of us all, not taking it to be, common flesh (God forbidden)— But made the proper flesh of the word himself: that ●s to say of the son of God. It was defined in the 18. Can. of the first General Council of Nice, That Deacons, who have no power to offer sacrifice, ought not to give the body & blood of Christ to Priests, who have that power. All which proofs, do evidently make-out, that it was always believed (in the Primitive Church) that Christ's body and blood, were really and substantially present in the holy sacrament▪ and consequently that our Saviour had no mystical, or figurative meaning, in the institution of this sacrament. So that it is to be admired, what pretence can my adversary allege, for denying the real presence, If he has not a mind to deny all mysteries, that surpasles, his own weak understanding; if so, he may be the same rule, Presume to deny that of the blessed Trinity Incarnation, Resurrection etc. for they surpass his understanding and capacity, as well as this of the real presence.   

Chap. 6 Proving that the holy Eucharist was adored, & worshipped by those of the Primitive Church.  
If it was lawful to fall down and worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour, when he was in this world, 'tis also lawful to falldown and worship the holy Eucharist with Godly honour, but it was lawful to falldown & worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour, when he was in this world therefore 'tis lawful to fall down & worship the holy Eucharist with Godly honour. The consequence is most certain, as we shall see hereafter, and the minor is manifest Mat. c. 2 v 11. c. 14. v. 33. Jo. c 9 v. 38. as for The major it may be proved t●us: the same Saviour Jesus Christ, who was worshipped, in this world is really & substantially present in the holy Sacrament, as I have proved in my answer to the adversaries 5th. point, and will confirm it, in my answer to his 7th. therefore if ●t was lawful to full-down, and worship our Saviour jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world; 'tis also lawful to falldown, and worship t●e holy Eucharist with Godly honour. Tho' the aforesaid argument might be a sufficient answer to this point. yet I will produce the following Authorityes, to confirm the same. St Denis the Areeopagite (who lived in the Apostles time, in his book de Eccles. Hier. c. 3) makes mention, of the Incencing of the altar, of the Priest washing his hands, of ●●● elevation of the blessed Host, & ● the adoration thereof. Origines (wh● lived in the 3. Cētury in his 3. Ho● in Exod.) says thus : I design to admonish ye, with the examples of ●●● own religion: ye know who are acc●●●m'd to be present at the divi● mysteries, when ye receive the Lor● body, how with all caution ●● veneration, ye take heed, least ● small particle of it, should fall down, le●● any thing of the consecrated gift sh●● slip out: for ye believe yourselves, ●●● guilty, (and ye rightly believe) if ● thing of it would fall by your negligence. St Ambrose (who lived in th● 4th. Century, in his 3. book of th● Holy Ghost c. 12. expounding, th● of the 98. Psal: where we a● bid to worship the footstool of his fee●) says thus : therefore by the footstool, the earth is understood, and by the earth, the flesh of Christ, which, also even at this day, we adore in mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in the Lord Jesus. S. chrysostom (who also lived in the 4▪ Century, in his ●. hom. on S Pau'ls Epist. to the Ephesians.] says thus : we speak of the body, and of him, who differs nothing from it, how many are made partakers of that body? how many tastes of his blood? remember that it is the body, & blood of him, who refides above the heavens, who is humbly adored by the Angels. He also says the following words (hom. 24th. on St. Paul's first Epist. to the Corinthians) the wisemen regarded thîs body la●ing ●n the ●ange●, the i●pio●●●a●●arou● men, having le●t th●i● 〈◊〉 t●ey & home, & made along voy● & when they arrived, wi●h gr●at ●● & trembling they worship▪ d ● let us therefore the Citizens of he●● imitate the barbarous people— do not see him in the m●nge●, but on● a●t●●, not a woman keeping: him, ●● the Priest holding him— let us therefore weaken ourselves, an● be gr●● afraid, let us show a great deal n● reve●ece, than these barbarous people● for open the gates of heaven, and l●● and then you will see, that whi●● said to be true; for that which i● t●● most precious, and most to be adored a●l thinks, I do ●h●w you the same ●● on earth, even as, in a King's pal●● that which is most magnificent of things, not the ●alls, no● 〈…〉 ●t the King's , ●t that y●● 〈…〉 do n●t h●w yo● th● A●g●l●▪ Ar●●ge●s, o● he heaves b●t t●●ir mas●er; ●● have perceived, h●w ●ou 〈◊〉 on the ●●●h, that which is most excellent, & ●est to be regarded of a●l things, nei●her do ●ou only see hi● but also yo●●●●h him▪ & you ea● him & after you ●at him, you return home; clean & purify your soul, & prepare your mind against the receiving of these mysteries●●or if a King's son wi●h a neat, & pre●ious ●●own had been give● to you ●o ●e carried, you would slight all the things ●● the world, but now receiving, not ●he son of a worldly King, but the only ●egottn son of Go● etc. St Augustin who lived in the beginning of the 5th. Century, expounding the 9● Psal) says that the earth, is th● Lords footstool, according to th● of Isaiah c 66 v. 1. saying thu● the heaven is my throne, & the ear● is my footstool, and he inquires ho● is it lawful to adore the earth without impiety: and then h● says the following words : being troubled in mind I do turn myself Christ, because I do seek him & I find▪ how the earth is adored, without impiety, the footstool of his feet is adored▪ for he received earth from the earth, because the flesh is of the earth & he received flesh from the flesh of Mary▪ & because he walked here in that flesh, & gave us the same flesh to eat for our safety, none eats of that flesh if he adores it not before; 'tis found-out after what 〈…〉 footstool of ●● Lord may 〈…〉 not only, ●●t we do not 〈…〉 it, but ●● we si●n, in not a ●ori●g it. More ● S. Augustin's Author●●yes may ● seen (to the same purpose) in ●s 118. Epist. c. 3. and in his 120 ●pist c. ●7. which I omit to produ●● least, I should be too troublesome to the reader.   

Chap. 7 Proving that Transubstātia●● was believed by those of the Primitive Church.  
I shall only here enlarge those ●●●ts of scripture, produced in my answer to the 5th. point, with the ●●llowing Authorityes of the ●●ly Fathers and Doctors of the primitive Church. Tertullian (who lived in the beginning of the 3. Cen●ury in his 4. book again M●●cian c. 4●) sa●es 〈◊〉 ●● b●ead taken and distributed ●● his disciples, he ma●e h●s ow● body: St. 〈◊〉 martyr, and S I●eneus (who bo●● lived before ●ertulliā do aff●● the same: as the reader may see ●● their Authorityes produced ●● my answer to the 5. point. S: ●●prian (who lived the year 25●● his sermon of the Lord's sup●●●ayes thus : the ●read which ou● gave to his Disciples, being chang● not in sh●pe, but in natûre b● the omnipotency of the word, was made ●le●● S, cyril of Jerusalem (who lived in the 4. Century speaking ●● Christ in his 4. Catech.) says th●● followig words : he did once in Ca●● of Galelee, only by his will, turn water ●nto wine, which is near blood; a●d ●hall he not be worthy, to be believed ●o u●? that he tu●n'd wine into blood ●●erefore let us receive the body and ●●ood of Christ, with all assurance, for ●nder the shape of bread the body is given to you, and under the shape of ●ine the blood is given— therefore let us not consider it, as bare bread, and bare wine; for it is the body and blood of Christ, according to the Lord's own words: for altho' your sense would not represent this to you, nevertheless let faith confirm you: you ought not to judge these things by the taste— therefore knowing this & with all certainly holding, the bread which is seen ●y us, not to be bread (altho' the taste perceives it to be bread) but to be the body of Christ, & the wine which is see●●● altho' it may seem to the pall●● be wine: notwithstanding it is not ●● but the blood of Christ. Let the ●●der be Pleased to take notice ●● plainly Saint Cyprian affirms, (by ●● former words) that the substance of the bread & wine is dissolve at the intrance of Christ's b●● and blood: and also how St. Cy●● bids us not to judge of this mystery according to the apprehension of our senses, but to firmly believe the true and real presence of Christ's body and blood unde● the shape of bread, and wine▪ that is to say under the accidents, which the bread and wine had, before cheir substance was changed. St. Gregory Nysen, (who lived the year 380. in his Oration termed Cateehetica c. 370.) says thus: I do also now rightly believe the sanctified bread to be changed into the body of Christ— and these things he bestows transelementing the things that are seen, into it, by the virtue of his blessings. which words do plainly make-out, that St. Gregory positively believed the Transubstantiation, otherwise he would not have said these words. St Ambrose (who sived about the same time, in his 4th. book of sacraments c. 4th.) says thus : perhaps you may say, my bread is ordinary, but the bread is bread before the words of consecration, but when consecration comes it is the flesh of Christ a nother convincing Authority of St. Ambrose may be seen in my answer to the 5th point St, Gaudentius (who also lived in the 4th. age, in his 2. Treatis on Exod.) says the following words : the Cream and Lord of natures, who brought forth the bread out of the earth, and again of the bread (because he can do it, & promised it) made his proper body: and who of the water made wine, made of the wine his own blood S. chrysostom (who lived in the year 398. in his 83. hom. on S. Matt. speaking of this mystery) says thus: these are not the works of human power which the Lord performed in that supper, the same also offers now the sacrifice he performs, we enjoy the office of ministers: truly 'tis he, who sanctifies, and cha●ges these things. And (in his Homily of the Eucharist in ●●●aenys) he also says the following words : do you see the bread? do you see the wine? do they go like other meat to the privy? (the Lord forbidden) you ought not to imagine so: for even as after wax is applied to the fire— nothing of the substance remains— even so, consider here the mysteries, the substance of the body to be consumed: that is to say, that the breads substance is annichilated, when Christ's body inters under those accidents, which formerly the bread had before it was annulled St. Augustin [in his ●8, ser▪ de verbis Apostolic says thus: I told ye, that the bread which is offered is called bread, before the words of Christ; but as soon, as Christ's words are pronounced, then 'tis not called bread, but it is called the body. And in the book of the Incarnation of Christ, we read the following words : 'tis not to be believed, that the substance of the bread, or wine remains, but that the bread is cheanged into Christ's body, and the wine into his blood &c, St. Cyrill of Alexandria, in his Epist. to Calosyrius, and Eusebius Emissenus, Ser. de corpore Domini, do affirm the same. All which Authorityes do evidently make. out, the thing signified by the word Transubstantiation (that is to say the real change of the substance of bread and wine, a● the intrance of Christ's flesh & blood) to have been always believed, and maintained by the holy Fathers, and Doctors of the Primitive Church; so that it plainly appears, that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not broughtin, by the Church of Rome, either in the 6th. 7th. 8th. or 9th age; or by the Council of Latran (in the year 1215) as some of the pretennded reformers do falsely allege.  
It is not worth my while to answer here the Adversary's 8th. point; for it is sufficiently answered by what I have produced in my answers to the three last points: for 'tis manifest, that all those, who contradicted (in the Primitive Church) the v Doctrine, that they were esteemed and believed (by the holy Catholic Church) to have been notorious heretics: as I will show in the later end of this work.   

Chap. 8. Proving the use, and veneration of Images, in the Primitive Church.  
If it be lawful to worship other creatures, 'tis also lawful to worship Images: but 'tis lawful to worship other creatures: therefore 'tis lawful to worship Images, the major is manifest for the sa●e honour, which the scripture forbids to be given to the one; forbids it to be given to the other: (as I will show hereafter) therefore if it be lawful to worship other creatures, 'tis also lawful to worship Images. whose making and putting up in Churches, is commanded by the holy scripture: as evidently appears by the following texts (Exodus c 25 v. 18. 19 22) where we read that God commanded two Cherubin's to be made of go●d which were to be set up on both sides of the Ark, before which the people were to pray, and promised that there he would meet with Moses▪ we read also (Numb. c. 21 v. 8 and 9) that the Lord commanded Moses, to make a fiery serpent, and to set it up, on a pole and that it should come to pass, that if any one, would be bitten by a serpent, that he would recover, when he would look upon the serpent of brass. more examples may be seen in the 3 book of Kings c. 6. v. 35. c. 7. v. 25. 29. and 36. c. 10. v. 19 in the 2. book of Chronicles c 3. v. 10 and 14. where we read that Solomon caused, (at several times) Images to be made, but we can never find out, that ever he was reprehended for so doing.  
Now let us see is it lawful to worship other creatures, that thereby the minor may be proved, Lot seeing the Angels, bow●● himself with his face to wards the ground, Gen. c. 19 v. 1. Ba●aam did the same, seeing the Angel of the Lord, Numb. c▪ 22 v. 31. and also Joshua: as may be seen Joshua c. 5. v. 14. Saul seeing the soul of Samuel, stooped with his face towards the ground and ●bowed himself: as may be seen in the first book of Kings c. 28 v. 14. and (in the 3. book of Kings. c 18 v 7.) we read, that Abadiah fell on his face, and worshipped Elyah. The sons of the Prophets seeing Elisha, they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him: as may be seen in the 4th book of Kings c. 2. v. 15. we also read in the 2. c. v. 46. of Daniel, that the King Nabuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation, and sweetodours unto him. Chirist approved of the making, and exalting of the brazen serpent, and owen's it to have been the type and figure of himself exalted on the cross, ●ohn c. 3 v 14. S. john the Baptist worshipped the very latehet of our Saviour's shoe the latchet of whose shoes (saith he) I am not worthy to unloose: John. c. 1. v. 27. for which fact St Augustin on that place, concludes him to have been full of the holy Ghost▪ the Patriarch Jacob adored, the top of Jo●eph's rod (a sign, or Image of his regal power) as we read in S Paul's Epist to the Hebrews c. 1 v 2●. the Primitive Christians venerated the very shadow, and garments of S Peter and Paul, and received thereby special benefit: as may be seen in the acts of the Apostles ● 5. v. 15. and c 19 v. 11. and St. Paul in his Epist. to the Philippians ●. 2. v. 10. commands us to honour the name of Jesus, which is only asign, or Image of our redemption: as the name Ieho●a is of our creation, which was in so great honour, with the Jews that the common people durst not utter it: no! nor the very Priests but only in the time of sacrifice, and solemn benediction: as Phil● relates, writing the life of Moses, nay the very plate on which the name of God was written, on the high Priest's forehead, is called the plate of sacred veneration, Exodus c. 18. v▪ 36. 38. and we read in the 22. c. v 26 of Ezekiel, that God commanded the temple (which was an Image of his heavenly house) to be honoured as a holy place, and reprehended those Priest's, who polluted it, saving thus : her Priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy thinks; they have put no diference between the holy and prophen●.  
Now let us see did those of the Primitinve Church, ever use or worship Images. Tertulian (who lived in the 3 age, in his 2▪ book de Pudici.) affirms, that the Image of Chrinst bearing a lamb on his shoulders, was graven on the chalices used in Churches, St, Gregory Nysen (who lived in the 4th. Century, in his Oration of Theodorus) says : that the silent picture painted on the wall doth declare several things, and that it is very profitable, this same holy Father, was wont to weep contemplating the Image of Abraham facrifizing his son Isaac: as himself testifies, in his ser. preached in Constantinople. S. Basil (who lived in the same Century, in his Epist. to Julian the Emperor) after numbering seyeral points of faith▪ which himself believed; brings in, the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyers, & then concludes saying thus : the characters of their Images. I do honour and worship, thiefly being this was delivered by the Apostles, and not prohibited: and why should it not be showed painted in all our Churches. & in hisser. of Barlaam, he also says, the following words: ●ye famous painters raiseup! and extol your arts in painting this saint's Image— and likewise let Christ's Image be painted St. Hierome (who lived in the year ●90. writing the life of Paula) says, that she was wont to prostrate herself before the crucifix, and adored it as if she had beheld the Lord crucified b●fo●e her eyes. S, Crysostome (in his ser. quod veteris et novi Testamenti unus sit Legislator) declared, that himself loved a picture of melted wax full of piery. and (in his Liturgy) he says, that the Priest was wont to how down his head before the Image of Christ: he makes also mention of Christ: Image in his ser. deferia quint● Caena D●mini Paladius (who lived in the same time, in his 11th. Epist.) relates that the Bishop of Jerusalem was wont yearly, at the solemnity of Easter, to expose the cross, to be adored by the people, he himself first adoring it. St. cyril of Alexandria (who lived in the 5 Century, in his homily against Nestor) says thus : hail mother of God— through whom the precious cross is made famous, and adored throughout the world. Caelius Sedulius (who also lived in the 5 Century, in his 5th book) says the following words: neither is there any, who dose not know, that the Image of the cross aught to b● worshipped. S. Gregory (who lived in the same Century, in his 7 book Epist. 5) bids the Bishop Januarius. to take the crucifix and the Image of the blessed virgin from the Jews, who did not give them the due veneration. And in his 53 Epist. (which is to Secundinus) he says thus: I do know that you long for our Saviour's Image, that by contemplating it, you might burn the more with the love of the Lord, Eusebius (writing the life of Constant the great,) relates, that agreat many of Golden, and Silver Images were put up in the Churches, which he caused to be built, in Palestine, & in his 7. book, c. 14. he affirms himself to have seen the Apostles Images, which then were very old, and in great veneration with the people. Damas' relates (writing the life of St. Sylvester) that the aforesaid Constantine commanded an Image of pure Gold to be made, which he ordered to be put up in the Church, wherein he was baptised, on the right hand of which, he placed the Image of our Saviour, and on the left hand, the Image of St. John the Baptist; he also ordered the Image of our Saviour, of four Angels, and of the twelve Apostles, to be put up in the Church of St. John Latran, in Rome, in order to be venerated by the Christians. Evodius (in his 2. book writing of S. Stephen's miracles) says that his Image was put up in the same Church wherein his relics were pre, served, and that agreat multitude-of people were used to freqent that Church, out of particular devotion, who venerated both the Image & his relics. The Disciples of S. Epiphanius, placed his Image in the Church which they built in his honour, and were wont to pray most fervently before the same Image: as the Fathers of the 7th General Council do declare, in the 6th. Action. St. Ambrose (in his Oration of Theodosiu's death, says that it was discreetly done of Helena to order the cross (where upon our Saviour was crucified) to be taken up our of the ground (where the Jews absconded it, that it might be worshipped by the Christians: and (in his Epist. de invention sanctorum Gervasy et Protasy) he declares, that he knew him, who appeared to himself, to be S. Paul, by his Image, which he had before. S Augustin (in his first book de Consensu Evangelistarum) affirms, himself to have seen in several places Christ's Image, painted between S. Peter and St. Paul's Images: and (in his 3th. book of the Trinity c. 10. in his 2. de Doct. Christ. c. 25. and also in his 3. book c. 9) he says, that Images are very profitable, in order to move the people to devotion. Metaphrastes (in the life of Constantine the great) Euagrius (in his 4t●. book c. 26) and Dams●enus (in his first book de Imaginibus) do relate, that a painter endeavouring to ●raw the Image of Christ, whose splendour when he could not behold, our Saviour himself took a piece of white ●●nen and saving it on his face, imprinted there-on the Image of his divine countenance, and afterwards sent it to King Abagarus, who longed to see our Saviour, which Image after awhile (out of of particular veneration) was brought by Philip the General of Mauritiu●'s army unto the field, and gained thereby a most glorious victory from the Persians: as Theopa●es relates in his 17th. book. Marianus scotus in his Chronicles (writing of the 39 year) makes mention of an other Image painted after the same manner by our Saviour, in a handkerchief offered to him (by a devout woman called Veronica) as he sweared carrying the cross to mount calvary, which Image in the reign of Tiberius the Emperor,) was brought to Rome, and there honourably reserved, and showed to the people every monday and thursday. Several other Images of Christ, were made even by those who lived in his one time: as for example, there was one made by the woman whom he healed of the bloody flux, which was set up in the city Penades, where several miracles were wrought upon the account of it: as Eusebius (in his 7 book c. 14th) Sozomenus (in his 5th. book c. 20) and Damascenus (in his first book de Imaginibus) do relate, for a certain herb which grew at the foot of that Image, when it came to be so high that it could touch the hem of the Image, it received virtue to heal all kind of distempers, and (as Sozomenus testifies) when Julia● the Emperor ordered to fall it down and to place his own Image in stead of it, his was immediately consumed by fire from heaven, which miracle the Pagans seeing, most impiously (by the instinct of the devil) broke our Saviour's Image, not considering, that he who caused their Emprours' Image to be burned, might by the same power, cause also fire to come down from heaven, in order to burn both themselves and their Emperor too, only that his divine goodness and clemency had more patience to expect their conversion of which the Emprours' Image was uncapable. another Image of Christ was made by Nicodemus; which a Christian (43. years after it was made) carried from Jerusalem to Berith a Village in Syria, where (in de●ision of our Saviour's Passion) it was by the Jews crowned whipped, pierced, &c & used it with all manner of villainy as they used our Saviour himself: but not with out great miracle for as they pierced it, there issued out of it, abundance of water and blood: by which divers maladies were cured, and several Jew's converted, seeing these miracles: as Athanasius (in his book de Passione Imaginis Domini c. 4th.) and Gregory of Tours (de gloria martyrum c. 21.) do relate. To which examples may be also added those Images of our blessed Lady; one made by S. Luke, which is to be seen at this very day in the Church of Loretta in Itali●; and an other of hers, wh●ch Eudoxia sent from Jerusalem to Pulcheria, which she placed near her own seat in the Church, that she built in Constantinople: as Nicepherus writes (in his 14th. book c. 2.) I● might Produce several other Images, which were made & worshipped by those of the Primitive Church, If I had not supposed that any impartial reader might plainly perceive (by what I have already produced) that the use of Images is no new Doctrine i● the holy Catholic Church, and consequently that their worship and veneration, is not prohibited by the second commandment, (as my adversary and his adherence do falsely teach) for that which is prohibited by this commandment, and also by the scripture in several places, is to worship, or adore any creature with that honour, which is due to the Almighty God: as formerly the Gentiles did, when they made Idols and false Gods; which afterwards they worshipped and adored even as if every one of them had been a true, and an Eternal God: wherefore they are always believed by those of the Church of Rome to have been Idolators, & impious for so doing; which they would not judge, if themselves were guilty of the same crime, or of any other of that kind: therefore the worship which is peculiar to God is commonly called by the divines, Cultus ●atriae that is to say, a sovereign honour, and the Church of Rome most strictly forbids all her members, to give it to any creature: therefore the honour & veneration, which she allows to be given to Images, is not that of Latria, or severaign as all the Fathers of the 7th. General Council do declare (in the 7th. Action) but it is an inferior kind of veneration called relative, that is to say, that they are worshipped, in as much as they represent unto us Godly things and are instruments apt to move the people to think of what our Saviour & the Saints, have suffered & done in this world, so that they serve in a manner as books to those who cannot read, & excites the people to great devotion, & pietv, which other wise would not have interred into their thoughts or imaginations: ●o that the reader may take notice, how uncharitable the pretended reformers do continually preach to their poor ignorant flock▪ that the Papists are Idolators and impious, by worshipping graven Images, as Gods, that thereby they might render the holy Catholic Church odious and abominable, to the very simple people, fearing that any of the● would embrace her principles, o● offer to find out the real verity of her uncorrupted doctrine.   

Chap. 9 Proving the invocation of Angels, and Saints to be lawful, ● practised by those of the Primitive Church  
The Angels, and Saints his a special care of us, and we receive several benefits by their assistance and merits: therefore it is lawful to invocate them, that they may interced for us to God the antecedent is manifest by the following tex●s. And the Ang●● of God called t● Haga● ou● of heaven and said unto her, what aileth th● Haga●? fear not: for God hath ha●● the voice of the child. Genesis c. 17. and the Angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven and said Abraham, Abraham; lay not their hand upon the child, neither do thou any thing unto him, for I know that thou fearest God. Genesis c. 22. v. 11. 12. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless these boys. Genesis c. 48. v. 16. Then the Angel of the Lord went forth, & smote in the camp of the Assytian, an hundred and fou● score & five thousand. Isaiah c. 37. v. 36. Then the Angel of the Lord Answered & said O Lord of hosts! how long will thou not have mercy in Jerusalem, and ●n the cities of Juda, against which thou hast indignation these three score and ten years. Zechariah c. 1. v. 12. Michael one of the Princes come to help me. there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael Daniel ●, 10. v 13. & 21. But while he thought ●● these things, beholed, the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, joseph son of David, fear no● to take unto thee Mary they wife▪ for that which is conceived in her is of the holy Ghost. Matt. c. 1. v. 20. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones for I say unto ye that in heaven their Angels do always behold the face of my Father, which is in heaven. Matt. c. 18. v. 1●. And four & twenty elders felldown before the lamb having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints. Revelations, c. 5 v. 8. and c. 8. v. 3. & 4. and an other Angel came & stood at the altar, having a golden censer, & there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar, which was before the throne: & the smoke of the incense which came with the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hands. we read in the 2. book of the Maccabees c. 15. that Judas Machabeus had seen Onias the high Priest and Jeremiah the Prophet (after their death) interceding to God for the people of Israel, and that this book is Canonical I will prove in my answer to the next point.) we read also in the 15 c. v. ●. of Jeremiah that the Lord spoke unto him saying thus : Tho' Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be towards this people cast them out of my sight, and let th●● go forth: which words our Lor● would not have said; If Moses ● Samuel (tho' dead) were not wo●● to interced for the Jews: whi●● may be confirmed out of Exod● c. 32 v. 13. where we read th●● Moses himself begged of the Lor● to show his mercy to the people for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, a●● Israel, his own servants. for (as Theodoret q. 67. on Exod▪ saye● Moses thinking himself so ●● insufficient to pacify the Lord● he sets down not only his o●● promise, but also the aforsai● Patriarches merits, that the reb● the Lord might be more willi●● to have commisseration upon th● people, and pardon them, whic● than he did: as is manifest by the 14 v. of the same chap. Moses also endeavoured an other time to pacify the Lord's fury through the v Patriarches merits, & assistance: as is evident out of Deut. c. 9 v. 27 wherre he says thus: remember they servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: look not unto the stoubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin▪  
Was it not for the sake of Abraham (tho' dead) his son Isaac obtained several requests & favours from the Lord? Genesis c. 26. v. 3. 4▪ 5. & 24. would not the Lord divide Salomon's Kingdom, & give it to his servants? If it had not been for the sake of David: as may be seen ïn the 3 book of Kings c. 11. v. 11. 12. was it not for the sake of David Aby as obtained? that his son Asa reigned in Jerusalem: as may be seen in the same book c. 15. v. 4. was it not also for the sake of David (tho' dead) the Lord saved the city of Jerusalem from being destroyed by the Assyrians: as is evident out of the 4th. book of King's c. 19 v. 32 & 3●. & ●. 20. v. 6. when Solomon begged any great request from the Lord, was not he wont, to set down the merits of David? that thereby he might the sooner obtain his request; as may be seen in the 131. Psalm. v. 1. 10. which is in the Protestant bible the 132. Psalm.  
Now let the reader consider what a great happiness it is to have a faithful friend and Patron in great honour and request with God almighty through who●e merits and intercission, one may obtain several benefits, which otherwise would not be granted: as the premises do evidently make-out, for as God almighty was graciously pleased (through the bountifulness of his infinite mercy) to grant for the merits and intercession of these patriarchs, (who then were but in Limbo Patrum) so many benefits and requests, to those whom they protected in this world why also now in the law of grace would not the same God (most mercifully) grant us any lawful request? for the intercession and great merits of his holy Mother, beloved Apostles, faithful Martyrs, and true Confessors, who are in great honour and request, residing with himself in ●eaven; Especially being this dose not derogate to the honour of Christ▪ as I will prove by the following passage.  
If it be unlawful to invocate Angel, & Saints either it is because they k●nown not what we say: or because it would derogate to the honour of Christ, who is said to be the mediator between God & man, according to that of John in his first Epist. c. 2. v. 1. not for the first, as I have already showed and shall confirm it by the following examples. We read in the 4th. book of Kings c. 5. v. 26 that Eli●ha knew (tho' absent) Gehazie's Simony: and (in the c, 6th. v. 12.) that Elisha also knew what was said in the King of Syria's private Chamber: & (in the 15th▪ c. v. 10. of Luke) that the Angels of God doth rejoice at the conversion of a sinner, which is the greatest secret that one can have; yet it can be known to the Angels, and also to the Saints in heaven, either by a distinct revelation from the clear vision of God's essence, or by the vision of themselves: as S. Gregory [in his 2. book of Dialogues c. 3.) affirms saying thus : what is it, that there they know not? where they know him who knows all.  
Neither dose it derogate to the honour of Christ, for the Church of Rome certainly believes, Christ to be the chief Mediator between God and man: as St Paul affirms, (in his Epist to Timothy c. 2. v. 5.) therefore she dose not allow to invocate Angels or Saints in order to obtain any request immediately and directly from themsleves, for she acknowledges that to be a folly, & consequently not to be in their power. So that she only allows to beg of them to join their prayers, & intercession with those of the faithful, that thereby they might the sooner & easier obtain from God their requests, through the meri●● and intercession of Jesus Christ, which is manifest out of St. Leo's 2 Oration de Jejunio, and also by the public Orations of the Church, wherein she implores the intercession of Angels and Saints: for she would have them to be efficacious through the assistance and merits of Christ; it is therefore they always end with the following words: Per Domi●um nostrum Jesum Christum Fili●m ●●um, qui t●cum vivit, et regna● in unitate spiritus sainti, Deus per osnnia saecula sae●ulorum A men, whereby the reader may plainly perceive, that the invocations of Saints dose not derogate to the honour of Christ: otherwise St Paul might be accused for beseeching the Romans Colossians, Hebre●s, & Theslalonians, to assist himself in his prayers, and also to pray for him to God: as is evident by St Paul's own Epistles: to the Romans c, 15 v. 30. to the Hebrews c. 13. v. 18. 19 to the Colossians c. 4. v. 3. in his first and s●cond to the Thessalonians c. 5 v. 25. c, 3. v. 1 so that the Adversary must either Confess the invocation of Saints not to derogate Christ's honour; or else to condemn St: Paul's Doctrine: for I defy him ever to make-out that the intercession of those, who live in this world, is acceptable to God, & n●t the intercession of ●hose, who are confirmed in grace & glory: or that one is prejudice to Christ & the other not  
Now letus héare the holy Father's Authorityes and the practice of the Primitive Church. St Ire●aeus● who lived in the 2 Century, in his 5th book against herese) says thus : and as Eve was seduced that the might avoid God: even so, ma●y was advised to obey God that she might become Eves advocate Origines who lived in the 3 Century, in his first homily on Ezech:) says thus - come Angel and receive the converted from the former error, from the devilish Doctrine— call the rest of your companions that ye may together instruct in the faith, all those who formerly has ●een deceived: more of Origen's Authorityes may be seen hom. 3. in Diversa Loca Novi T●estamenti hom. 16. in ●osue, and hom. 26: in Nun. Cornelius (who lived in the same century, in his first Epist. says thus we are Praying God, & our Lord Jesus Christ that by the intercessions of his own holy Apostles, he may purge out the blemishes of your sins. St. Cyprian (who also lived in the 3. Century, in his book de Disiplina, et Habitu Virginum speaking to the Virgins) says thus: peform spiritually come prosperously, and be mindful of us. Eusebius Caes. (who lived the year 326. in his 13. book de Evang. Praep. c. 7.) says, we soldiers of true piety do daily practise these thing, honouring the friend▪ s of God— & praying to them— by whose intercession to God we do freely acknowledge to be much favoured. S. Athansius (who lived in the same Century in his ser. in Evangelium, speaking of the blessed Virgin Mary) says the following words: incline they hearing to our prayers, and do not forget they people—, we cry to thee, be mindful of us most holy Virgin, who also after your delivery continued a Virgin— Lady & Mistress, and Queen and Mother of God intercede for us. St Hilarius (who lived the year 355. in psal ● 9) says that the nature of God dose not want the intercession of Angels— God being ignorant of nothing that we do but our own weakness wants it: he has such another Authority speaking of the Apostles, and Prophet's intercession expounding the 124. Psalm. St. Basil (who lived in the same age, in his Oration of the 40. Martyrs') says thus: whosoever is oppress'● with trouble, let him sly for refuge t● these martyrs, that he may be rid o● his troubles: and whosoever rejoices let him Pray to them ●hat he ●ay continue in his prosperityes. And in his 205. Epist. which is to Julian, after specifying several points of faith which himself believed, he says the following words: and I do embrace the holy Apostles, Prophets and invocate them in my supplication to God, that by their intercession he might be merciful to me. S. cyril of Jerusalem (who lived about the same time, Catech. 5.) says thus: when we offer this sacrifice we also make mention of those who d●'d before us, first of the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, that God may receive our prayer by their intercession. S. Ephraem (who also lived in the same Century in his ser. de Laudibus Martyrum) says the following words: we beseech ye most holy Martyrs, who for the sake of the Lord readily and willingly suffered torments for which ye are all now most familiar with God, that ye may be pleased to intercede to the Lord for us poor sinners, that the grace of Christ might light upon us. St. Gregory Nazianzen (who lived the year 370, in his Oration speaking to S. Athanasius after his (death) says thus and look upon us favourably from alove and govern this holy people, nu●ish and feed us in peace, direct and take us up in the battle, and place us with yourself and with those, who are in the same condition with you; he implores also St. Cyprian & St. Basil's assistance, in his Oràtions of them (after their death.) St. Ambrose (who lived the same time) says the following words: the Ange●s who are employed to assist us aught to be prayed to, and the Martyrs— they can intercede for our sins, who with their proper blood washed a way if they had any sins— let ●s not be ashamed to apply them a intercessors of our weakness. More of this holy Doctor's Authority may be seen in his 2. book de Virg. in his 10, book in Lucam, expounding the 21. ●, and in his Preparation before mass, where he begs the assistance and intercession of the Apostles, Martyrs & Confessors, S. Gregory Nysen (who lived the year 380 in his Oration of St. Theod●r Merrier) says thus : we stand i●●●ed o● great favours, int●rc●de a●d p●ay earnestly to the ●niversal Ki●● 〈◊〉 Lord for the Country— for we 〈…〉, ●e ex●●ct dangers, the wicked S●ithio●s are ●t far o● declaring war against ●s, 〈◊〉 for us as a Soldier▪ as a mar●yer ●se the liberty of 〈◊〉 for your fellow ●rvant: altho' you ha●e ●e●s the world 〈◊〉 you kn●w th● disposition, interest ●●d 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 nature; beg 〈◊〉, that these public assemblies ●ay not give over 〈◊〉 the ●urious, wi●●ed and ●orb●rous 〈◊〉 wo●'d ●aise against us and assails our Church●● and Altars— but if it be requisite ●● have more assistance and prayers gather your consorts the Martyrs, and pray along with them, for the prayers o● many righteous doth wash away the 〈◊〉 of many: admonish Peter, move Paul and John th●t beloved Disciple, tha● they may take care of those Churches, for whose sake they endured chains, suffered dangers and death. S. Hierome (who lived the year 390, in his Oration on Paula says thus : ●earwel O Paula and help with your prayers thy worshipper in his old age— fo● you who is present will more easily obtain, what you demand. S. Chrisostome (who also lived the same time, in his 45. homily, speaking of St. Meletuis) says thus: therefore let us all together men and women both young and old pray to holy Miletius etc. In his ser. speaking of the blessed Lady, he says the following words: ●t us recur to the most holy Virgin Mary Mother of God, that by her inter●●ssion ●e may obtain our request— we beseech ●●ee to intercede for us daily to our Lord Jesus Christ thy own son, that ●y thee through his grace and benignity ●e may be pardoned. & in his 66. hom. to the people of Antioch he says thus : he who goose in his purple ●d royal crown laying by his pride ●raws near the Saints sepulchers, humbly beseeching them to intercede for him ● God etc. More of St. Chrysostoms' Authorityes may be seen in his 5th. hom. in Matt. in his ser. de Juventio, and Maximio and in his first hom. on St. Paul's first Epist. ●o the Thessalonians, where he Numbers several benefits granted by the Saint's intercession & through their merits S. Augustin (who lived the year 4●0 in his 7 book against the Donatists 〈◊〉, speaking of St. Cyprian) says the ●ollowing words we beseech him to a●●●●● us with his prayers etc. in his 84. Treatise in John, he says, that it was therefore they did not pray for the Martyrs as they did for other people who died, because they knew that they did not want their payers; but they wanted the Martyrs' ●rayers: and in his 29. Ser: of the Saints (speaking of St Peter's Miracles) he says thus : If then the shadow of his body coul'd relieve, how much more now the plenitude of his virtue? If then a certain noise of him passing ●prevaic'd to these who beseeched him, ●● much 〈◊〉 ●his 〈◊〉 gra●s? ●f the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he may see ●ore of Saint 〈◊〉 Authorities, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 V●rbis Apos●oli: ●● his 〈◊〉 Q●●● 〈◊〉 his book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 4. and in ●● 〈◊〉 ●n the 19 ●. of 〈…〉 〈…〉 pro●●, 〈…〉 with the Auth●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 General Co●cil of 〈…〉 Fa●ers 〈◊〉 ●●●●. & earnestly 〈◊〉 Fl●●ianus (then 〈…〉 themselves as 〈◊〉 ●● by the ●●. Action: we ●●re●d in the Bishop● of Eu●●ps 〈◊〉 to ●●eo the Emp●●●r 〈…〉 in the ●ater end of this Council that they declared themselves to acknowledge, that holy Pro●erius was registered in the Cathologue of Marty res, & that they begged God Almighty to be favourable & merciful to themselves through his intercession all which Authorityes do evidently make out that the Catholics of the Primitive Church where accustomed to invocate Saints.   

Chap. 10 Proving that Purgatory, was believed by those of the Primitive. Church.  
For the better intelligence of this point let the reader know, that altho' the sinner's crime is forgiven, yet the sinner under goose some temporal punishment: as is manifest Numb: c. 12. v: 1. 2 10, 14; where we read that when the sin of murmuring was forgiven to Mary, by Moses intercession; yet in punishment thereof she had the leprosy for the speace of seven days, and was obliged to lev● the whole camp during that time. When the Israelites sinned against God, and offered to rebel against Moses tho' their sins ●e●e forgiven through the Lord's infinite mercy, and by the intercession of Moses yet in punishment of their crime several of them died in the wilderness and never ●as admitted to come to the land of promise Num ● 14, v. 19 20, ●●. ●. 24▪ 3 7. & also when David sinned against the Lord his crime was forgiven but in punishment thereof; his son died the ● book of Kings ●, 12 v 13 14 18▪ finally we read in Saint Paul's first Epist: to the Cormthians, ● 11 v: 30 that several of the Cormthians were mortified by the Lord and also that some of them died; because they received unworthily the holy Sacrament, but then their sins has been forgiven: as is evident by the 32, v, where St. Paul says the following words: but when we are judged we 〈◊〉 chastised, by the Lord, that we should not be condemned. ●hereby the reader may plainly 〈◊〉 that God dose not 〈◊〉 the punishment, as 〈…〉 forgiven the 〈…〉 demency and infinite mercy changes that eternal punishment into some temporal affliction, 〈◊〉 if the sinner dose not undergo in this world▪ he must suffe● for it after his d●ath, before ever he shall enter into the Kingdom of ●eaven, for non● is received there until he is even as clean f●om all manner of sin, and fault as he was immediately after his Baptism, as witnesseth that of john 〈◊〉: c 21. v 27,  
This presupposed I may lawfully infer that ther● must be some place of temporal punishment ●● order to purify and cleanse nos●●ouls who do not perform 〈…〉 world, and 〈…〉 sins, to which ●ternal punishment is not due; for it would be a most unreasonable thing of us to believe that he who immediately has been in the state of grace and dies suddenly after speaking an idle word, or committing some other small offence should be obliged to everlasting torments, even as he who suddenly dies without any kind of repentance after committing murder, adultery, or some other great crime: therefore being he cannot inter the into heaven by reason of that small offence he must go to some other place until he is purified which I shall prove by the following argument. what ever the old and new Testament, the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church, several Councils, true and wonderful revelations, affirms; aught to be believed by all Christians: but the old and new Testament, the holy Fathers, and Doctors of the Primitive Church, several Councils, true and wonderful revelation affirms that which the Church of Rome calls Purgatory; to be a place of temporal punishment wherein some souls are chastised and purified after lenving this world: therefore Purgatory ought to be believed by all Christians: the consequence is evident; ●s we shall see hereafter: and the major cannot be denied by any true Christian: as for the minnor, I will prove it after the same order, w●erei●●●'s f●●●'d: therefore I ●ill beg●n 〈◊〉 the Au●●o●●es of the old Testament. We fin● in the 6● Ps●●● which is the 〈◊〉 ●n the 〈◊〉 English 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 ●18 〈◊〉. O , s●● c. 〈◊〉 ●8. ●t. 〈…〉 his perpetual●y, and ●o c●as●en one in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is ●o punish hi● severely 〈◊〉 this ●ite i● order 〈…〉, and so concludes w●●● the following words : O Lord 〈◊〉 pleased to, 〈…〉 in this wo●ld— th●● I 〈◊〉 ●ot w●nt tha● correcting ●ire. And it ●hall 〈◊〉 to p●sse, that he that is le●t i● z●●● and ●e that remaineth in Jer●salem, sha●l be called ●o●y. when t●e Lord that ha●e washed away the 〈◊〉 of the daughters of zion, & shall have pu●g'd the blo●d of Jerusalem from the ●id●t the ●o by the spirit of jugedment, and by the spirit of burning. Isaih c. 4. v 3. and 4. which text (according to St. Augustin in his 20th. book of the City of God c. 25.) m●●ns the releasement, ●hich souls do get from the burning fire of Purgatory. Micah. c. 7. v. 7. 8. and 9 ● will look unto the Lord. I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me, rejoice not against me O! mine enemy when I fall I shall arise, when I sit in darkness the Lord shall be light onto me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my case, and execute judgement for me he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness. Which words (as St. Hierome affirms in his commentary on the last c. of I saiah) means the releasement of those souls who do suffer in Purgatory fire. Zechariah c. 9 v, 11. you also by the blood of they covenant have brought forth your prisoners out of the p●t wherein there is no water. S●. Pete● speakïg of those Prisoner's (in his 〈◊〉 Ep. c. 3. v. 18. 19 & 20,) says thus. for christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust (that he might bring us to God) being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometimes were disobedient when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, M●lachi. c. 3 v. 3, and he shall sit is a refiner and a purifier of silver: and ●e shall purify the sons of Levi, and ●urge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Which text signifies the punishment of Purgatory; as the following Fathers do testifies Origines hom. 6. in Exod. S. Ambrose in his commentary on the 36. psal. St Hier●me in the exposition of this text, and St. Augustin in his 20th. book of the city of God c. 25. we find in the 2, book of Maccabees, c. 12. v. ●3. that Judas Machabeus had sent to Jerusalem twelve thousand pieces of silver to be offered for the souls of his souldi●rs, here are the very words of the scripture : and making a ●athering he sent twelve thousand dracmes of f●●ver to ●erusalem for sacr●fice to be offered for ●●nne well and religiously thinking of the Resurrection for unless he ●●p'd that they that were slaire should raise again, it should seem superflous and vain●●● prayfor the dead and because he considered tha● they, which had taken their sleep with Godliness, had very Good grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and healthful cogitation to pray for the dead, that t●ey may ●e lose from sins. perhaps you may Answer, saying that this book is not the word of God, or canonical, and consequently that its Authority is of no force. but in case it would not be canonical itself, it ought to be sooner beliered then either Calvin or Luther's ●nd consequently preferred before their Authorityes; being Ju●as was always esteemed to have ●een a most faithful servant to God Almighty, and then has ●een a high Priest of the true Church. Moreover ti's false that this book is not Canonical, for Tradition and the Authority of the holy Catholic Church, (which is all the testimony we can produce to prove that any book of the whole Bible is canonical or the true word of God) expressly affirms, that this book is Canonical, and consequently the word of God: as may ●e seen in Innocent the first's letter to Exuperius, in St Cyprian's first book c. 3. in his book de Ex●or●atio● Martyry; c. 11. in St. Gregory Nazianzens Oration de Machabaeis, in St, Ambrose's 2. book de Jacob c, 10. 11. 12. in St. Augustins' 2. book against Gaudent●us Epistles, c. 23 in his 2 book de Doc. Christ. c. 8. & in his 18. book of the City of God c. 36. and also in the 47 Chap. of the 3. Council of Carthage, celebrated the year 397▪ whose very words are these: Item placuit, ut praeter scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur, sub nomine divinarum scripturarum. Sunt autem canonicae Scripturae, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus nave, Judicum Ruth Reg●um libriquatuor, Paralip●menon libri duo, Job, psalterium, Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinque, libri duodecim Prophetarum, Isaias, Jeremia, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Ester, Esdrae libri, duo, Machaba●rum libri duo, Novi autem Testamenti, Evangeliorum libri quatuor, Actuum Apostolorum liber unus, Pauli Apostoli Epistolae tredecim, ejusd●m ad Hebraeos una, Petri Apostoli duae, Joamnis Apostoli tres, Judae Apostoli una, et Jacobi una, apocalypsis Joannis ●iber unus. Whereby the reader may plainly see that my adversary can have no kind of tolerable reason to reject the books of M●chabees, more than any other book of the whole Bible; Now let us hear those texts of the new Testament which speaks of Purgatory Mat. c, 5. v. 2● But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of judgement & whosoever shall say to his brother Racha, shall be in danger of Council: but whosoever shall say thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire. Which text expressly declares the soul to be punished after leaving this world. for three several sins; and that only for the last of them he shall suffer Eternal fire: so that I m●y lawfully infer, that there must be some other place wherein the souls are punished for the two other sins: but that other place cannot be heaven: as is evident; neither is it hell, as the text makes-out: therefore it must be that place of temporal Punishment, which the holy Catholic Church commonly calls Purgatory; Which may be confirmed by the 2● & ●6. v. of the same Chap. where we read thus: agree with your adversary quickly whil●s you are in the way with him, lest the adversary would deliver thee to the judge & the judge deliver thee to the officer. & thou be cast in pr●son. ver●ly I say unto thee, thou shal● by n● means come ou● thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. Whereby the reader may see, that the word of God confirms the premises, by bidding us to make penance in this world, lest we should be sent to that prison, out of which ●● cannot go till we pay the last farthing: that is to sa●, until our souls will be purified from all manner of ●innes: as the following Fathers do expressly declare. ●ertullian in his book de Anima. c 17. S. Cyprian in his 4th. book Epist. 2 Origines hom 35 in Luca● Eusebius Emi●senus hom● de ●piph●ia. St Ambrose expounding the 12. c of Luke & St. Hierome on thee aforesaid text▪ where he says the following words: this is what St. Matthew declares you shall not go out of the prison, till also the small sin● be punished Matt. c. 12 v. 32. and whosoever speaks a word against the son of ma● i● shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nei●her●n the world. to come. Which words S Matthew would ●ot have said, If he ha● not supposed, that some si●● will be forgiven in the world to come. We fi●d also the following words in St. Paul's first Epist. to the Corinthians c, 3 v. 15. ●f any man● w●r●e shall be burnt, he shall suffer cross; but himself shall be saved yet so, as by fire. By which words▪ S. Paul clearly firms that some souls after leaving this world shall be purged, and purified by a temporal fire; as the following Fathers do testify: St. Ambrose in his commentary on this text, & in his 20. ser. on the ●18. psal: S● Hierome on the 4. Chap. of Amos, St. Augustin on the 37. Psal. & S, Gregory in his 4. book of Dialogues c. 39  
Now let us bear the holy Father's very words. S. Denis (who has been St. Paul's Disciple▪ in his book de Ecc●es. Higher, c. 7.) says thus : Then the Venerable Bishops do draw near▪ and perform the ho●y prayers over the dead, beseeching the divine clemency, to forgive the dead all the sins, which he commit●d by his human weakness, and to place h●●▪ in light, and in the region of the living, Ter●ullian (who lived in the year 230. in his book de Monogamia) bids ascertain wom●n, to pray and give offerings for the soul of her deceased husband. Origenes (who lived in the year 220. ho●. 6 on Exod. speaking of the soul's progress, when it comes to Purgatory) says the following words: and when it is ar●●sl●d there 〈…〉 willbring many good wor●s a●d al●●tle iniquity, that 〈◊〉 is purged and dissolved even as lead is by ●●re St. Athanasius (who lived in the 4 age, in his 34. Question to Ant●●chus, speaking of the Prayer● and obla●ions offered for the dead) says thus: If they wou●d ●ot receive some benefit by this, certainly there would be ●●no commemorat▪ on made in grief, ●orr●● and ●nerals— we know the ●o●ls ● sinners to receive som● benefit by the ●● bloody sacrifice & by the gratific ●i●● offered for them ●s our Lord who h●● the dominion of both the qu●ck a●● the dead ordered and commanded. S● Cyrill of Ierusa●em (who lived i● the same age, Catech. Mist: ●.) says the following wor●is: we ●● pray f●r all ●hose, who died amongst us, believing the oblation of the holy & terrible sacrifice to be a great help to those souls, for whom it is offered St. Ephrem (who liv▪ d the ●ame time in his la●t will: earnestly be ●eches the people to be always mindful of himself in their Prayers St. Ba●il (who also then lived) instituted an Oration in his Liturgy, in order to ●e said for the dead; and on the 9 ●●p of Isaiah, he says thus : there ●● if we w●●l discover the sin by ●infession, we shall dr●●, even a● the ●●y which is ea●e●, and it is ●●t that ●urrasory fire so●uld make an● e●d of 〈◊〉 ●dose not treaten perpetual death, ●●d exile, but it grants purging: a coring to that of the Apostle, bu● h●m●elf shall be saved, ye● so as b● f●re. Gregory NaZ●anz●n (who liv●d the year ●70. in his Funeral Ora●tion of Caes●rius most humbly beseeche● the Christians to pray for the sou●s of the dead and himself prays: for the soul of Cae●arius, in the same Oration. St. ●p●phanius (who as been contemporary to St Gregory, in th● end of his ●ork against Heresis ● numbers the prayers for the dead amongst th● doctrine of the holy Catholics Church; and Heresy 75. he call● Aerius an heretic, for denying it to be lawful to pray for the de● ad. St. Ambrose (who also lived about the same time, in his 2 boo● Epist. 8. which is to Faustus concerning his sister's death) saye● thus: therefore I do judge that she i● not as much to be moaned, as she i● to be obliged b● prayers, neither is s●● to he grieved by your tears; but rath● h●r soul is to be recommended to G●● by ●blations & in his Orati●s of The odosius, Valentinianus & Satyrus death, he prays most fervently ●o their souls, & promises to offer sacrifices for them; And expound the 3, Chap. of St. Paul's Epist. ● corinthians, he says the following words: but wh●n ●aul says, ●so, as by f●re indeed ●e dec●ares it he shall be saved, but he will suf●r the punishment of fire, that he may spurged b●●ire and ma●e sound, and mus● not be tortured perpetually by anal fire, a● the traitors' ●re. he has ●ch a nother passage in his 20th ●● in psal ●●8. St. Gregory Nys●n (who lived the year 380 in is Oration of the dead) says ●us: wherefore, that both the digni●● of human nature and free will mi●ht left, and that the evil might cease, divine wisdom invented this means— ●t either in this pesent life one must ● purged by prayers, and exercise of ●rtue, or after his death to be cleansed the furnace of purging fire— he cannot be capable to enjoy C●d, unle●● Purgatory fire will take away the spi●● dispe●s'd on the soul. St Hierom● (who lived in the year 390. in hi●●pist. to Pammachus concerning ● the death of Paulina) says thus▪ other husba●ds dospread violets rose● lilies, and flowers ●pon the tombs 〈◊〉 their wives; but our Po●machus ●● uses the balcom of alms●: knowing 〈◊〉 to be written, that as water quenchet● fire, even so alms quencheth the sinnes; and expounding the 4. chap. of Amos, he also says thus: according to tha●, whi●h we read in St Paul; he● shall be saved, yet so as by fire: therefore he ●ho is saved by f●re, is hurried away as if ●● were a firebrand out of the bu●ni●g flame. St Chrisosto●e (who lived in the year 398 hom 41 on St ●uls first Epist. to the Corinthi●s speaking of the dead) says ●e following words: l●t us assist ●um, not with tears, but with prayers ●● supplications, alms and oblations; ● these things has not been rashly v●nted; neither is it in vain that we szember those w●ody'd, in the divi●● Mysteries, and that we pray for ●●m, bese●ehing the exposed lamb, ●ho takes away the sins of the world ●at thence forth they might have some ●●solation— therefore let us help ●●m and let us perform their comme●nation; for if ●obs sacr●fice made sa●sfaction for his ●ons! what do you doubt? if tho●e who dy● ha● some ●●solation we effe●ing sacrifice for ●●m More of St. Chris●stom 's Authority may be seen, in my answer to the first point? and in his ● hom in joann & 2● in act a Apost St Augustin (who lived in th● year 426. in his 21. book of th● C●ty of God c. 27) says, that the●● are some Saints, who a●ter thei● death goose strait to heaven an● afterwards can help oth●rs: an● that there are others of such a bad life, who after their death are no● saved, neither can they help others and finally that there are others, who after their death cannot go● strait to heaven by the virtue of their own proper merits; but that they can be relieved, by the merits and good works of their friends; and in the 16th chap of the same book, (speaking of the infants, who immediately die after ●●eir Baptism) he says thus : It is ●●t only that Eternal punishment is ●● prepared for them; but neither shall ●●ey suffer Purgatory torments; and ●● t●e 24 Chap. he puts a question squiring, why dose not the Church pray for those who die without repentance; & answers saying ●hus: Ti's's because they are computed be of the devil's party— but the church & faithfull's prayers are heard ●● the behalf of others, who did not ●have themselves so ill in this life, ●ither did they deserve to go directly ●heaven; In his book● of Homil yes ●om. 16. he says, that those who ●●s sins deserving temporal punishments, shall go through purgatory fire according to that of ●●ul. he shall be saved, as by fire. And expounding the 37. psalm. he says thus : that ●ire is slighted because ti's said he shall be saved; ti's sure▪ but altho' he shall be saved by fire; yet that fire is more grievous than any thing, that a man can suffer in this life. In his 2. book de Genesi c. 20 (speaking of him who makes not good use of his life) he says thus: after this life, he shall either suffer the purging fire, or eternal punishment; & in his book de Cura pro Mortuis e. 1. he says the ●ollowing words: we read in the Maccabees that sacrifice has been offered for the dead but altho' it would never be read in the old Testament, yet the Authority of the who●e Church which is manifest in this custom, is not weaks, where in the priests prayers, which are offered to God at his Altar, the commemoration for the dead has also its one place. and in the 4 c of the same book he says thus : supplications for the souls of the dead ought not to be omttted, which are to be made for all those who died in the Ch●istia● and Catholic society, tho' their names be n●t specified the Church receives it under a General●●mmemoration, that it might be offered by the holy public mother for them, even as for those who has not parents oy children, relation or friends to remember them; and in the 18. c. ●speaking of the sacrifices, prayers, and alms which are offered for the dead) he says the following words : they do not avail to all those for whom they are offered, but only to those who deserved it when they lived, but because we can not discern who are those, it must needs be offered for all Christians; in his 9th. book of Confession c. 13. he earnestly beseeches others to pray for the soul of his mother Monica; and in his book of heresy c. 53. he calls Aerius a heretic for not allowing sacrifice to be offered for the dead; more of his Authority may be seen in my answer to the first point.  
Now let us hear the Council● decrees. It was enacted in the 29 Chap. of the 3. Council of Carthage the year 397. that the holy sacrament should not be received by any, but by those who would be fasting, and in case that there would be any office to be performed in the afternoon, for the dead, that it should be only performed in prayers without offering the holy sacrifice. It was also decreed in the 47. ●hap. of the 4. Council of Carthage celebrated the year 398 that in prayers and oblations there should be a commemoration made of those who accidentally would die in their Journey or by sea, If they executed attentively the law of penance. Likewise it was enacted in the 34 chap of the first Council of Bracara (now called Braga a City in Portugal the year 412.) not to pray for the souls of those who would kill themselves; and in the 39 chap. of the same Council the clergy where commanded to divide the ablations which would be offered amongh themselves, that equally they might be obliged to pray for the dead. It was also decreed in the Council of Cavaillon (a town in France the year 4●0) that they should pray in their solemn Masses for the souls of the dead c. 16. which may be seen de Consee Dist 1. Can. Visum est; and the same was practised before in France: as is evident by the 6. Canon of the Council of Vasens produced in my answer to the first point.  
But that I may not be too tedious in proving the minor, I shall conclude with the following revelations. St. Gregory relates (in his 4th. book of Dialogues ●. 40) that the soul of Paschasius appeared to the holy Bishop St, Germa●●●s, and ●ould him that God was pleased to release himself ou● of Purgatory by his prayers; he also relates (c. 55) that the soul of a certain monk appeared to himself, and ●ould him that it ●as released by the virtue of thirty mas●es which he ordered to be said for him. St. Gregory the bishop of Tours (in his book de Gloria Confes●orum c 5.) affirms that the soul of Vitulina appeared to St Martin, and ●ould him that it suffered the punishment of Purgatory by reason of a small si●ne which she committed in this life. Venerable Bede (in his 5. book of the History of England, c 13) relates that terrible vision of Driethelme, who after his death revived and told wonderful things concerning hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. Petrus Damianus (in his ●pist to Desiderius) relates that the soul of Severinus the Bishop of Coliein appeared to a certain Priest and told that he suffered in purgatory, because when he was a live he did not use to say his canonical hours in distinct times, but said all in the morning, that he might spend the whole day attending temporal affairs & also St. Bernard (writing the life of St. Malachias) relates that his Sister's soul appeared to St. Malachias, and told him that it suffered the pains of Purgatory. and Gul●●●●us Abbess (w●i●īg the life of St. Bernard in his first book c. 10 says that one of St. Bernard's monks (●ho died) appeared to St Bernard, and told him that he was released out of purgatory by his prayers. It is also to be seen in the life of St Anselmus that he was for a ●●ole twelve-mounth offering sacrifices for the releasement of a certain friends soul, who was punished in Purgatory, but was released through the merits of God and by his continual prayers. several other revelations might be produced, which for brevity sake ● omit to inse●● here: for I suppose what I have already produc▪ d to have evidently made out the verity, of my minor, and also to have fully satisfied the reader.   

Chap 11 Proving that all those of the Primitive Church had not the word of God in their Mother tongue, and that the reading thereof is not profitable (or generally allowed) to all people.  
There were several nations in the first five centuryes who did not generally understand either the Syriack, Hebrew, Greeck, or Latin Tongue: therefore there were several nations in the first five centuryes, who had not the word of God in their own tongue▪ the antecedent is evident Acts Cap 2. as may be seen in my answer to the adversary's 3. point. And ● prove the consequence thus: the word of God was neither written, or translated into any other language in the first five C●nturyes, but only in the aforesaid? as all ancient writters do unanimously affirm; therefore there were several nation's in the first five Centuryes, who had not the word of God in their own tongue, who conseqently could not rea● the Scripture: nav those who could understand some of these languages, had no General access to the reading thereof; for in those times there were but few exampl●s ●● of it, which were only in Manu-script (for the art of Printing was not then found-out, nor in a long t●me after) & researved by the Church: as St Denis the Are●pagite declares (in his book de Eccles. Hier.) saying, that the sacred mysteries were kempt sacred from the commonality; whereby it appears that it was then needless to prohibit them to read the scripture; whereas they were otherwise ●●nder'd by the v impediments; It also appears that the reading thereof in the Mother tongue is not necessary for all nations; for if it were; certainly those of the Primitive Church would translate it into several other languages; and the Apostles, who had the gift of all tongues (Acts c. 2.) would not only write the new Testament in Greek, Hebrew, & ●atin, (as they have done) but also in other languages in which they preached the gospel through out the universal world, according ●o that of St. Paul to the Romans ●. 10 v. 18. neither would S. Paul write in Greeck, but in Latin to the Romans, whose v●lgar language was not the Greeck, but the Latin tongue; and St. Peter and St. James would not write in Greeck their Epistles to the Jews, bu● in the languages of those countries wherein they were dispersed, which then have been the jews maternal languages, and not the Greeck: neither finally would St. john writ his first Epist in Greeck to the Parthians, whose, maternal Language was not the Greeck but another distinct Language; whereby it plainly appears that neither the Apostles or the Primitive Church ever believed that it was necessary for all nations to have the word of God in their own tongue.  
Now let us see, who are those, that are obliged to, expound read, and interpret the word of God, to thew which I will produce the following Authorityes. St. Basil (in his 25 Question) says, that it is the superiors obligation (that is to say the pastors) to know and ●earn those things, whi●h afterwards they ought to teach others, but of others not 〈◊〉 know more than behoveth them; and S. Augustin (in his first book de moribus Ecclefie c. 1.) puts the Question enquiring, what man if judgement doth not understand that the exposiition of the scripture is to be asked of them who by their profession are Doctors of the Church. which may be further confirmed by the Eunuchs' example (Acts c. 8. v. 30. 31 & 35) for when Philip asked him did he understand what he ●as reading out of Isaiah he▪ answered saying, how ●an I understand it, except some man should guide me wherefore he desired Philip to sit with him, in order to expound it to him, which Philip willingly performed (knowing that it was his obligation) whereby it appears, that the Eunuch, tho' a man of great Authority (with Qeen Candace) yet did not presume to interpret the scripture himself; but asked the meaning thereof from one of those, who were appointed by God in order to instruct and teach others; according to that of St. Paul to the Ephesians c. 4. v. 11 12▪ & 14 saying t●us : and he gave some Apostles and some prophets, and some Evangelists & some pastors, and teachers for the perfecting o● the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the bo●● o● Christ; t●at we hence forth may be no more children tossed to and fr●, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. to prevent which danger St. Paul himsel●●● his Epist. to the Hebrew●●. 13 v. 17) expressly commands us to obey the pastors, and to submit ourselves to their judgement's ●hom God employed to rule us, and watch over our souls, for ●hich they must give an account for the want of which submission, and due obedience to the lawful Pastors, and Doctors of the true Church ti's a●●●st lamentable prospect to behold the miserable condition, wherein those of Ireland, England, Scotland, Holland &c are, ever since they unfortunatly (by the apostasy of Luther, and Calvin in the 16 age) have deserted their true and lawful mother, the Chu●●at ●Rome, which is (as St. August●● affirms in his first book of Symbol to the Cateched c. 6) the holy Church, the only Church the true Church, the Catholic Church, that fights against all hereitc●s, yet cannot be convineed, all heresies deserts he●, even as usless twigs, that are cut from the vine, but she still remains in her root, in her vine and in her charity. which character the pretended reformers cannot give to any of their own new Conventicles; who are always in a continual confusion, never agreeing among themselves, for every different sect of them supports the tenets of its own doctrine by some misinterpreted text of scripture (even as those heretics of the Primitive Church which is so inculeated in their brains, that each of them is ready to sacrifice his life for the defence of his own particular Doctrine: the Lutherans condemning the Calvinists, the modern presbyterians condemning the reformed Church of England, the Ana●aptists, and Quakers despising all others, in respect of their own purity; some of them admiting all the books of scripture to be canonical, others affirming part of it to be apocryphal; some adding to their Bibles, that which they suppose the Apostles either neglected, or forgot; others diminishing, and taking away what in their opinion were first put-in overplus, which now a days they found disagreeable to their own principles; by reason of which alteration, several of their Bible's do differ in many places; which is to be admired, for how durst they be so presumptuous? as ●e alter or corrupt it, being he is cursed, who adds to, or diminisheth the word of God. Revelation, c. 22. v. 18. 19 for since we are all certain that the first Bible, which the holy Catholic Church received from the Apostles, (and used it for the space of 14. hundred and od● years, after Christ's birth) was written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost▪ what kind of any tolerable pretence can they have now after so many ages to alter and corrupt it, whereas very often the altering of one letter changes the sense of a whole sentence; much more when they alter words, ●ay whole sentence! as if what God ordained in the beginig, had now need to be corrected by their wisdom; to such presumptuous people might be we applied the following words of Christ Matt. c, 7. v. 6. give not that which is holy unto the dogs; neither carlye ●our pearls before swine, l●st they trample them under their feet, and turn again, and rend you. So that it appears if those corrupters could c●oake ●y any pretention their ungodly design, that they would not leave one text in the who●e scripture, which they find disagreeable to their own principles, but what they would a terror corrupt; & if in case any zealous Christian should offer to dissuade their followers from perusing it after that corruption, they would imprudently answer, (as they do now) that if they should be hindered from reading the word of God in their own tongue; that they would be kempt in ignorance and darkness, as the Papists are; so that as the serpent deceived Eve persuading her to eat of the forbidden fruit, that she might come to the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. c. 3) even so the devil by his subtlety and ambuss● deludes the poor ignorant people persuading them to read expound and interpret their corrupted Bibles, and not to be beholding to the Church or pastrors, who might deceive them, in teaching that which would be contrary to the word of God, to prevent which, now their very tinkers, cobblers, butchers, tailor's, and all sort of curious, and ignorant mechanics do take the liberty of interpreting and expounding the whole Bible to their own ruin and destruction, 2. Petri c. 3. v. 16. for how can such ignorant people understand, or expound either ●o themselves, or to others the prophecy of Ezekiel, of Daniel the Revelations of St. john? where a● S. H●erome affirms, every sentence is a misttery: which of them can expound the Canticles, or what Solomon meant by those similitudes of God's Church? or the following texts? I am the Lord they God visiting the iniquit of ●he Fathers upon the children unto the 3. & 4. Generation Exod. c. 20. v. 5. which seems to be contradicted by that of Fzekiel c. 18. v. 20 saying thus : the soul that sinneth it shall die, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father, we are expressly commanded by the 20 c. v. ●2. of Exodus to honour our Fathers, and mothers. But it is said in the 14. Chap. of Luke v. 26 that he 〈◊〉 heats not his Father and mother— cannot be the disciple of Christ. Moreover Deuteronomie c. 6. v. 13. it is written, that thou shall fear the Lord thy G●d & serve him, and ●w●ar by his Name. Which seems to be contradicted by that of St. Mat. c. 5. v. 34. where we read thus. I sa unt● yo● swear not at all. these and several other texts (which ●ight seem to the unlearned to contradict each others, and also the mister●es of the holy scripture) do excee● the poor ignorant people's understanding and weak capacity, nay the very Disciples of Christ▪ cu'd not understand the prop esi●s of the old Testament, until their understanding were opened, whereby they came to their true knowledge: as evidently appears Luck c 24. v. 27. and 45 where we read the following words. and beginning at Moses and all the prophets he expounded unto them that things concerning himself; then he opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures. For want of which understanding in the law of God, the pretended reformers, and also the ancient heretics of the Primitive Church, deserted their true Mother, the holy Catholic Church; by misinterpreting the word of God; as for example: the Aerians den●ing t●e 2. person of the Bl●ssed Trinity to be God, and alle●ging for their ground, that of St. John c. 17. v. ●● saying thus : holy Father keep through thine own Name, tho●e who●●●ou hast given me, that they may be one as we are▪ the Eunomians asserting the holy Ghost not to be God, and producing for their Authority that of Christ Matt. c. 11. v 27. where he says thus: all things are delivered unto me by my Father, neiher knoweth any man the Father, save the son' and he to whomsoever the son will reveal him the Eutychians affirming, the divine nature in Christ to have been converted into his human nature, and alleging for their ground that of St John c. 1. v, 14. where we read the following words. & the word was made ●lesh, and dowleth among us. The Berengarians, Wicklefians, Husites, Lutherans, and Caluinists erred so grossly & in so many texts of scripture, by reason of the great liberty they took in interpreting, and expounding it to the advantage of their own design that their errors (i● they were all related) would require a whole book to themselves; so that it plainly appears, that the reading, and interpreting of the scripture is not profitable to all people, & specially to those, who do not ●ecur for the interpretation thereof to the holy Catholic Church, which has a▪ promise of the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost to the consummation of the world Matt c. 2● v. 2●. so that the Church of Rome had great reason to hunger the ignorant sort of people, (who might easily be deceived) ●rom perusing it, without having licence from their respective Bishops, & especially in those countries where heresy abounds and where Bibles are corrupted; fearing lest that instead of acquiring more knowledge thereby, they might peradventure fall into greater ignorance, or some heresy as the v sectaries have done; & in so prohibiting she imitate● the example of fond parents, who keeps all sort dangerous weapons from the hands of their children & forbids them all kind of diea●, which might occasion, or create any ill distemper.   

Chap. 12 Proving that the pretended reformers Doctrines are but a heap of several old heresies lawfully condemned by the Primitive Church  
Having sufficiently made-out by the same Authorityes (which my adversary in his Challenge defies to be produced) that the old and present Church of Rome is still the same in principles; ti's now fit that I should let my adversary know what principles himself, & the rest of the new reformers do embrace; I will only produce the following point.  
1 The Aerians demolished, and threwdown the Altars where upon the holy sacrifice were wont to be offered; as the following Fathers do relate: St. Athanasius in his Epist. de fuga sua, Theodoretus in his 4th. book of History c. 19 & 2●. and Ruffinus in his 11. book c. ●,  
Martin Luther, who apostated from the Church of Rome the year 1517. and John Calvin who did the same the year 1538. caused al●o the Altars of those Churches, which ere under their jurisdictions, to be throwdown & demolished: as may be seen in Luther's boo● de Formula Missa pro Ecclesia Witt●mbergen●i. & in Calvin's 4th. book of Institutions c. 18.  
2 The Adrian's rejected all traditions, which were not written in the word of God: as St. Augustin in his first book against Maximi●us c. 2. & last, testifies; which heresy the Nestorians, & ●utychians held afther-wards: as appears by the first Action of the 2 General Council of Nice, the N●itorians errors were condemned by the General Council of Ephese the year 4●1. as may be seen Tomo 3 Co●ciliorum.  
Luther in his commentary on St. Paul's ●pist. to the Gala●●ans c 2. and Calvin in his 4. book of Institutions ●. 8. held also the same heresy  
3 The Aerians and Eunomians denied that Images ought to be venerated: as the Father● of the 2 Council of Nice, do relate in the 6. Action  
John Calvin in his first book Chap. 11. and in his ● 4 book c. 9 and now all the reformers do teach the same  
4 The Aerians held that there is no difference between Bishops and Priests, but that they are of equal dignity and jurisdiction: As St. Epiphanius heresy 75. & St: Augustin heresy ●3. do writ.  
Luther in his book of the Captivity of Babylon cap. de Ordinis Sacramento, and adversus falso nominatum ordinem Episcoporum and Calvin in his 4. book of Instutions c. 3 held likewise the same here●ie, which now the presbyterians, and several others do embrace  
5 The Aerians did not judge it lawful to pray for the dead, or to offer any sacrifice or alms for their releasement, and did not believe that there was any place of temporal punishments after this life; as St, Augustin heresy 33 and St. Epiphanius heresy ●5 do relate; the Cerinthians held the same as, St. Epiphanius writes heresy ●8. the Cerinthians errors were condemned by the General Council of Ephese the year 431. as may be seen tomo 3. Conciliorum; as for the Adrian's errors they have been condemned by all the following Councils (viz) by the Council of Alexandria the year 3 5. tomo 1. Conciliorum, by the Councils of Rome which sat the year ●37. and the year 369. by the first General Council of Nice the year 325. the first General Council of Constantinople the year 381. and by the Council of A reminium which sat the year 359. all which Councils are to be seen tomo 2. Conciliorum, their errors were also condemned by the General Council of Ephese the year 431 tom. 3. Conciliorum● by the Council of Chalcedon, that sat the year 451 tom. 4. Counciliorum, and by the Fathers of the 2. Council of Constantinople the year 536. which may be seen tomo 5. Conciliorum.  
Luther in his Epist. to the Valdinians & Calvin in his & book of Institutions c. 5. taught also this last point of the Aerian heresy about Purgatory, which now all their followers do firmly believe;  
6 The Novatians believed that confirmation was no sacrament as Theodoretus in his 3 book de Haere. Fab. writeth; & the Donatists believed the same: as Optatus, in his 2 book against Perminian relates:  
Luther in his book of the Captivity of Babylon cap. d● Confirmatione, and Calvin in his 4th, book of Institutions c. 19 did embrace, & teach the same heresy  
7 The Novatians held that the Church had no power to forgive sins committed after Baptism, & consequently they did not allow auricular confession, or that the Church cu'd grant Indulgence as all the following Fathers do write St, Cyprian in his 57 Epist. to Pope Cornelius St. Epiphanius heresy 59 St Augustin heresy 38 and Theodoretus in his 3 book de haereticis fabulis; the Novations errors have been condemned by the Council of Carthage the year 252. by the Council of Rome the year 253. by the Council of Italy the same year & by the Council of Arles the year 452. as may be seen ●omo 1. and 4. Conciliorum.  
Luther in his book of the Capitivity of Babylon Cap. de extrema unctione, & Calvin in his 4. book of Institutions c. 19 held also this point of the Novatian heresy.  
8 The Donatists gave out that the Catholic Church fell from the true faith of Jesus Christ, and that themselves were renewing it again in afric: as Optatus in his 1. 2. & 6. book against the Donatists, and St. Augustin heresy 69. and in his book de unitate Ecclesiae c. 12. do relate.  
Luther in his discourse tomo 2. cap. de partibus and Calvin in his 4th. book c. 2. likewise gave-out that the holy Catholic Church fell visibly from the true faith, and that themselves were reviving it again: 〈◊〉 therefore they & their followers are called reformers▪  
9 The Donatists held that the holy Eucharist ought not to be adored, they brake-down the Altars, and gave the blessed sacrament to their dogs: as Optatus in his 2. & 6 book against Perminian, and St. Augustin in his 2. book against Petilian c. 51. 60. in his 3 ●●. book c. 40. and also in his 163 Epist. do relate.  
Luther in his book de Eucharistia ad Waldenses, and Calvin de vitand is supersti●ionibus, held likewise that the holy Eucharist ought not to be adored:  
10 The Donatists' denied the Pope of Rome's supremacy: ●s Opatus and St. Augustin do declare in the v books.  
Luther in his book de potestate Papae and assertione articuli 25. and Calvin in his 4th book of Institutions c. 6. denied the same.  
11 The Donatists reproved the life and vows of monks and religious people: as also Optatus & St. Augustin write in the aforesaid books; Vigilantius and Petilianus reproved the same; as St. Hierome in his book against Vigilantius, and St. Augustin in his 3. book c: 40 against Petilianus do affirms but the Donatists' errors were declared to be false & erroneous Doctrines by the Council of Rome the year 313. by the Councils which sat in afric in the time of J●nocentius the first being the beginning of the 5. Century and by several other Councils  
Marti● Luther writing of the monastical vows held also this last point of the Donatists here●e, that he might have some kind of pretence to dispense with himself in his three religious ●ows & merry Cathrine the Nun, whom he deluded out of her monastery; our Saviour jesus Christ most strictly commands us to be ware of the doctrine of such false Prophets, and he tells us, that we shall know them by their fruits; here are his very words. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in she●ps clothing, but inwardly they are ruvening wolves. ye shall know them, by their ●ruits: do men ●ather grapes of thorns, or ●igs of thistles? even so every good tree bring●th forth good fruit, but a bad ●ree b●●ngeth for●h evil fruit. Matt c. 7. v. 15. 16. & 17.  
12 The Eustachians endeavoured to demolish and extirpate the Ecclesiastical convents: as socrates in his 2 book c. ●3 and sozomenus in his 3. book c. 13, do relate; the Eustachians errors have been condemned by the Fathers of the Council of Gangris, which sa●e the year 324.  
Luther an● calvin's Disciples did embrace this Eustachian error, for they threwdown all the convents and monastarves of those Countries and Provinces, wherein they made any conquest.  
13 All the following heretics rejected matrimony & den●'d it to be a Sacrament, as these Fathers do write of their heresy; Simon Magus: as St Augustin in his book ●e here●ibus c, 1. Nicolaites as ●t. Epiphanius heresy 25 Titia●us as St. Irenaeus in his first book. ●●. 31▪ Ad●miani, as St. Augustin heresy 31 the Manicheans as St. Augustin heresy 46 the ●usta●hians as socrates in his 2. book ●. 33. Marcian as St Hierome in ●is first book against Jovinianus, and the Prisillanists: as St Leos ●● Epist d●clares; the Prisillanists errors were condemned by all the following Councils (viz) by the Council of Caesaragust the year 28. by the Council of Toleto the year 400 the Council ●f Bordeaux the ●ear 385. and by the Council of Spain in the year 447 which Councils are to be seen ●omo 2 & ● Conci●●orum Luther in his book de captivitate cap de matrimony & Calvin in his 4 book of Institutions c, 19 held also that matrimony is no sacrament  
14 jovinianus held that there are no venial sins, but that all sins are mortal, as St. Hierome relates in his 2 book c, 15 & 16. against Jovinianus, and also St. Augustin heresy 28; the Pelagians were of the same opinion as St. Hierome writes in his 2 book against them Jovinianus' errors were condemned by the Fathers of the Council of Milan, which ●ate the year 390 tomo secundo Conciliorum; and so were the Pelagians errors by the following Councils (viz) by the Milevian Council the year 416 by the A●ican Council the year 4●8, as ●y be seen tomo 〈◊〉 Conciliorum ●and also b● 〈◊〉 ●ral Council of 〈◊〉 which ●●e the year 43● 〈◊〉 Conci●orum  
Luther assertione articuli 32 & ●alvin in his 2 book of Ins●●u●ons c. 18 and in his 3 book c 4 ●eld likewise that all sins are mor●l.  
15 Simon Magus and Menander ●eld that Christ's true flesh is not ●●lly present in the holy Eucharist: as St. Ignatius declares ●● his Epist. to those of Smyrna, ●f which Theodoretus makes ●ention in his 3. dialogue, other heretics of the Primitive Church held the same, as S● Cyrill writes in his Epist. to Calosirius,  
Tho' Luther never expressly affirmed this point of the old he re●●e; yet all his Disciples do endeavour to defend it; and so di● Calvin in his book de Caena Domini, (where he reprehends Luther for not holding it,) and als● in his 4 book c. 17.  
16 Simon Magus held that fait● alone is sufficient for salvation and consequently that good wo●kes are needless in order to savation: as St. Irenaeus in his fir● book c. 20. and Theodoret● de heretic is fabulis, do writ Eunomius held the same erro● as St. Augustin in his book d● ●eresibus declares, c. 54  
Luther in his book de libertate ●hristiana, and Calvin in his 3. ●ook of Institutions c. 19 held ●o the same error, that thereby ●ey might provoke others to be ●ven to all kind of vices as them●lves were.  
17. The Eunomians held that ●e relics of Saints ought not ● be venerated, as Magnes in ●s 4 book against Theostines ●firms▪ and Vigilantius held the ●e error: as St. Hierome writes ● his book against Vigilant●us ●ut the Eunomians errors have ●een condemned by the ●. Councils of Rome the year 369. by the ●eneral Council of Constantino●e the year 381 tomo secundo by the Council of Chalcedon which sat the year 451 tomo 4. Counciliorum & also by the Council of Constantinople the year 553. tomo 5 Conciliorum  
Luther in his 〈◊〉 de cruse and in his book de missa abroganda, held the same and so did Calvin admonitione de reliquiis  
18 Vigilancius affirmed that it is unlawful to invocate Saints, as St. Hierome writes in his book against Vigilantius' errors.  
Luther in his book de Eucharistia ad Waldenses, and Calvin in his 3 book of Institutions c. 20. believed and held the same error.  
19 The Massalians rejected the fast commanded by the Church as St. Epiphani●s heresy 8. and Theodoretus in his 4. book c. 11. do relate; the Aerians did the same: as St. Augustin declares in his book of heresy c. 33. and so did the Eustachians as St. Epiphanius heresy 75. and Socrates in his 2. book c. 33. do write.  
Calvin in his 4th. book of Institutions c. 12 rejected the same: which error both his and Luther's Disciples do willingly embrace, that théy might indulge their own bodies, whilst they are in this world.  
20 Thë Massalia●s held that holy order is no sacrament: as St. Damascenus relates in his ●irst book of heresy. the Massa●ians errors were condemned by ●he Fathers of the Council of Syda, who sat the year 383. as may be seen Tomo▪ 2. Conciliorum, and by a nother Council in the Orient the year 417 Tomo 3. Conciliorum  
Luther in his book of the Captivity of Babylon cap. de ordine, held also that holy order is no Sacrament, which error his Disciples do now firmly believe.  
21 Helvidius reached that the Blesled Virgin Mary bore children to Joseph, who were brothers to jesus Christ; as St. Hierome relates in his book against Helvidius' errors, which were condemned in the Council of Milan the year 390. as may be seen Tomo 2. Conciliorum.  
Calvin ad Caput 1. Lucae affirmed the same error, which several of his followers do now certainly believe.  
22 Eusebius in his 3. book of history c. 25. and St. Hierome in his book de viris illustribus, do make mention of certain heretics, who denied the Epist. of St. James, o● Juda, the 2. Epist. of St Peter, & also the 2. & 3. of St. John to be canonical  
Luther in his prologue on these Epist. rejects St James and Judas Epistles; and he doubts of the rest to be canonical.  
23 The Marcionites denied the revelations of St. John to be canonical, as Tertullian relates in his 3. & 4. book against Martion the Theodotians denied the same as St. Epiphanius writes here●ie 51. & 54. the aforesaid Martion●tes did also deny St. Paul's ●pist. ●o the Hebrews to be canonical, as St. Hierome declares in his preface on St. Paul's Epist. to Ti●us, and so did Arius, as Theod●retus relates in his preface on St. Paul's Epist. to the H●brews.  
Luther in his preface on the old Testament affirms the revelation not to be canonical, and in his prologue on that to the Hebrews he says likewise that it is not canonical  
24 The Marcionites, & Basilidians held that all the old Testament was apocryphal; as St. Irenaeus relates in his book c. 20. 22. & 29. the Manicheans held the same as St Epiphanius affirms heresy 66. but the Mani●heans errors were condemned by the General Ephesian Council, the year 431. To●o ●. Concilioru●, and also by the Council of Rome the year 444. which is to be 〈◊〉 in the sa●e Tom●. as for th● M●●●i●ni-te●●●●ors, they 〈◊〉 b●●n c●demn'd by the General Co●n●il o● Cal●●●o● the 〈…〉 51. ●o●o 4. Conciliorum, and by the 〈◊〉 Council of Constan●in●●le the year 553. where also the 〈◊〉 errors were condemned, as may be seen Tomo 5. Conciliorum.  
Lu●●●r and calvin's Disciples are something milder than the aforesaid heretics, for they do no● 〈…〉 tha● all the old Testament is apocryphal, yet théy deny several books of it, to be canonical, and chief those books, which evidently do falsify their own principles.  
If I had not supposed that the premises might sufficiently demonstrate, what Doctrines my adversary and the reformers do maintain; I would produce several other points of ●old heresies, which also they maintain, but lest I should be too troublesome to thè reader, I will only conclude with the following passage.  
Whosoever maintains or hath for his principles the aforesaid points, is lawfully accused, for maintaining old heresies, false and erroneous Doctrines confuted by the holy Fathers, and lawfully condemned by several Councils of the Primitive Church: but th● pretended reformers do maintain and have for their principles the aforesaid points: therefore the pretended reformers are lawfully accused for maintaining old heresies false and erroneous Doctrines confuted by the holy Fathers, and lawfully condemned by several Councils of the primitive Church. the minor is manifest, as for the major ti's proved, by what I have already produced: for certainly all those holy Fathers and Doctors, would not make it their business to reprehend, and confute the chief promoters of the said points, if they had not understood, and firmly believed. that they taught false and erroneous Doctrines: neither would all the aforesaid Councils of the Primitive Church, (which my adversary in his challenge acknowledges to have then retained the true faith of Jesus Christ) condemn their Doctrines if they were not also Hethrodox, & contrary to the true faith, which they and their forefathers received from Jesus Christ & his Disciples: therefore whosoever desires to find & embrace a Church, wherein the old incorrupted principles of Christianity are ●aught, and such Doctrines only as were maintained by the ancient & p●r● Church even of Ro●e for up-wards of 500 years after Christ, let him embrace the present Church of Rome, wherein the said principles are duly professed, the old, and the present Church of Rome being still the same in principles, whereas the Doctrines of those who now call themselves reformers, the Church of England, Presbyterians, Quakers etc. & wherein the said convin●icles do now di●●er from the present Church of Rome, 〈◊〉 never maintained by the ancient Church of Rome; but 〈◊〉 ●●piously brought in by a ser●es of Heretics, who for these very Doctrines, were from time to 〈◊〉 condemned by many 〈◊〉, national, & Provincial Councils; & ● also by the most eminent 〈◊〉 and Doctors of the primitive Church; as the premises do evidently make-out, so that the reader may take no●●ce of my adversaries ignorance and presumption for censuring, & contradicting a religion so ancient, which lawful mission, acknowledgement of antiquity, holy Fathers, several Councils, divine miracles, & the word of God, do plainly demonstrate to be the only true and Apostolical line, which leads Souls to the true way of everlasting glory & happiness: therefore reader if you have been heretofore of my adversaries opinion, I beseech you for the love of Jesus Christ, to compare seriously his principles, and those of the Church of Rome together, and then to consider attentively the state and circumstances, wherein you are out of ●he holy Catholic Church; out of which there is no salvation to be expected, as the following holy Fathers do openly declare. St. Cy●rian in his book de unitate Ecclesiae (speaking of those who are out of the Church) says thus: do they think Christ is amongst them? ●●● tho' they were drawn to torments, & execution for the confession of the name of Christ, yet this pollution is not washed away, no● not with blood this inexpiable, and inexcusable crime, of schis●● is not purged away, even by death itself. St. chrysostom (in his 11. ho●. on St. Paul's Epist. to the Ephesians) ●ayes also thus: there is nothing so provokes the wr●th of God, a● the division of the Church, i● so ●uch that tho' we should have performed all other sort of good things, y●t we ●hall incur ap●●is●ment ●● l●ss cr●●●, for dividing the unity of the Church, than those who have do●●, who 〈◊〉 and divided Christ's 〈◊〉. St. Augustin in his 4. book of symbol Cap: 10. says ●●e following words. If any man be so●●● separated from her, he sha●l be 〈◊〉 from ●he number of the child●●n▪ ●●ither shall ●e have God for his Father, 〈◊〉 wou●d not have the Church for 〈◊〉 ●●ther, ●nd it will nothing 〈◊〉 him to have rightly believed, o● to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so many good works, with●●t the ●●●clusion of the so●eraign good, 〈◊〉 s●p●r g●●●a Emar. he say● also the following ●ords: out of the Church a● heretic ●ay have all things, but salvation, ●● may have the sacraments, he may ●ave faith, and preach it— only salvation he cannot hav●; which may be ●urther confirmed by the words of ●t. James c. 2. v. 10. saying thus : who●i●ver shall keep the whole law and ●●t offends in one point, he is guilty of ●ll▪ therefore being the salvation ●f your soul doth wholly depend ●f the true belief, and entire observation of all those points of ●ith, which the holy Catholic Church sufficiently proposes, & universally teaches: I do earnestly ●eseech you, to open the eyes of ●our understanding (for I know ●hat you have no invincible ignorance whereby yo● might be excused) to embrace the principles and Doctrines of that pure & ancient Church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail Matt. c. 16. v. 1●. assure yourself that I do not invite you to any old heresy (as my adversary does) no● (the Lord forbidden) but to the religion preached and taught by Jesus Christ and his Disciples; to that I say where with your fore● fathers, and anteceslors have been still contented, since eve● they left Paganism, until in the 16. age they were deceived by the erroneous Doctrines of those false prophets; Luther, and Calvin▪ hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast hard from me in faith and live which is in Christ Jesus 2. Timothy c. 1 v. 13, neither give heed to fables, and endless genelogies, which minister questions, rather than Godly ●●ifying in the faith: from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to be teachers if the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 1. Timothy c. 1. v. 4. 6. 7. let not villfull or gross ignorance, the temporal riches and vanity of this transitory world, or compliance to the request of your friends deceive & misled you, but consider seriously the very words of your Saviour and redeemer Jesus Christ Matt: c. 16. v. 26. saying thus : for what is a man profited, if he ●hall gain the whole world & lose his own soul● or what shall a man give in exchange for his own soul? what will it then a ●●il you (after this life) to be now for few years, or days in great honour, favour & request in this deceitful world? & afterward to be perpetually tormented in pain, grief, & miseries, with out any hopes of mercy, or redemption, where neither frieds pomp, nor riches can prevail in order to give you the  dram of consolation: from which punishment the Lord Jesus Christ of his infinite mercy defend both you & me & all Christians, Amen.   
FINIS.   

An Answer to what o●e W●ealy ●lleages (in his Almanac) against St. Peter's Supremacy.  
AFter having composed this little work Whea●y's Almanac (for the year 1●99) came accidentally into my hands, wherein he (or some other malicious person in his name) labours to infect the whole Kingdom, with false & pernicious Doctrine, which he pretends to ground on some nonsensical arguments, that he forms against St. Peter & the Pope of Rome's Supremacy; and tho' 'tis hardly worth any man's while to confute them; yet because it concerns what I have said in my Answer to mr lennings fourth poit; ● think it fit to let him know his own ignorance and the errors of his pretended Doctrine.  
First he offers to infer (by a new invented consequence of his own) that Peter was neither Bishop of Antioch, or Rome, because (as he falsely alleages) the Papists have not as yet agreed among themselves about the time he first removed from Antioch to Rome.  
But in case this had been true which I will show hereafter to be false his illegal consequence does not follow: for tho' the Authors do not agree about the beginning of the w●●cks of Daniel (c. 9 v. 24.) prophesying the com●īg of Christ or how many years Saul did reign in Isr●el, or how many years there are since the creation of the world, shall we infer that daniel's prophesy never began, that Saul never reigned in Israel, and that the world was never created? no, we leave such illegitimate consequences to Whealy, who as it seems cannot infer better.  
His second argument is. he that suffers ●ebu●e is not superior to him that gi●es it: but Peter suffered rebuke from his ●●llow Apostle Paul (Gal. c. 2. v. 11. 12. ● ●herefore Peter was not superior to Paul. This ma●or is evidently false: as appears in the first book of Kings, c. 13 ●here we read that Saul though King of Israel, suffered to be rebuked by Samuel; and in the second book of Kings c. 12. that David suffered to be rebuked by Natha●; & finally we read in the 6th Chap. of St. John that our ●aviour suffered not only the Jews, but also the very Disciples to reprehend his words, ●hen he told them that he wou●d g●ve them his flesh to eat and his blood to drink; we see also by d●●ly experience, that King's Magistrates, and superiors are reprehended by their inferiors, not only privately, but in public Sermons, w●en they preach against the vices of the said superiors: & indeed we see that the Prince of Orange has been often rebuked these six or seven year● passed by Whealy in his yearly Almanacs, wherein he reflects with the unlest expressions imaginable on their sacred Majesties, King ●ames, his Queen, & the Prince of Wales; whereby the Prince of Orange, himself is consequently rebuked, yet never ordered the Author to be punished.  
As for that action of Peter not eating meat with the Gentiles, for which he was rebuked by Paul; let the adversary know that if Peter had 〈◊〉 then eaten with the Gentiles, he would ●●●harply reprehended by 〈…〉 the Jews & Pharisees, who thought it to be unlawful by any means to keep company, eat, or drink with the Gen●●●; an● so Peter being between these too extremes, he thought it be●● to eat with the Gentiles and in so doing, he is not only excused, but highly commended by all the Eastern, and Gre●ian Fa●he●s in their commentary on the v text; and St. Chrisostome in his commentary on the 10. Chap. of the Acts affirms that it was done by divine dispensation, which evidently appears Act● c. 1▪ v. 7. 8. & 9 where we read that Peter was 〈◊〉 commanded to eat with the Gentiles. And the motive that moved St. Paul to reprehend him, was fearing le●t that others, who would not be in the same circumstances wherein Peter then has been or dispensed with, as he was should be lead by his example; for inferiors are commonly led by the examples of their superiors, which to prevent in that point St. Paul thought it convenient to reprehend him whose humility, for not contradicting Paul (his inferior) is most highly praised by the following Fathers (viz) St. Cyp●ian in his Epist. to Quintus St, Augustin in his ●9: Epist. St. Gregory hom. 18: o● Ezekinel, saying thus: behold St. Peter reprehended by his own inferior, and does not fe●● 〈◊〉 reprehension.  
As for these texts which the adversary brings out of St. Paul's second Epist. to the Cor. (c. 11. 5. and c. 12. v. 11.) they prove nothing against Pe●er's supremacy, for Paul's intention was to s●op ●●e mouths of some adversaries he had among the Corinthians, that opposed his Doctrine, alleging it to be grounded ●n some subtle and sophistical arguments and not thought by Christ: as that of Peter, John, & Jame● was & consequently ought not to be of any great Authority; which suspicion occasioned him to declare (in the aforesaid text) that he was not in●erior to an●●f the Apostles; that is to say, that his Doctrine was as true, & of as much Authority (being written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost ● as any of the Apostles Doctrine, which is true but nothing to t●e present purpose  
Whealy's third argument. he that is accused by other, and pleads his cause before them, is not superior ●● those that acc●ses him, or before whom he plead▪ but St, Peter was accused before the rest of the Apostles, & blended his cause before them at Hieru●alem (Acts. c. 11. v. 1. etc.) therefore Peter was not superior to ●he rest of the Apostles. The major is false for tho' a King is accused by some of his own subjects, and pleads his cause before the Pa●l●ment, or a Prince before a Council, ● superior before his community; It does not argue that the King has no superemmency over the Pa●●ment; the Prince over his Council, the superior over his community; otherwise it might be lawfully inhered, that our Saviour had no superemme●cy over his own Disciples, before ●ho● he was often accused by the Jews: as appears Matt. c. 21 Ma●ke c. 15 L●ke c. ●3 john ●● 7 & 8. As for that which Wh●aly brings out of Peter's second ●pist c. 3. v. ●. ti's not to hi● purpose, tho' he deceitfully wrists it in order to infer a● u●atural consequence; for it was Pe●er● i●●cut in that Chap. to assure certain people of Christ's coming to judgement etc. and to think the pa●●ence of God to conduce to their salvation, as Paul writ to them in his Epistles; so th●t it was necessary for Peter to speak in the plural number: but perhaps Whealy by some new f●und Ari●me●ick, may make two into one: ●● fo● I acknowledge that Peter ought to speak in the singular number: but it is too late for W●ealy, after so many ages, to pretend to teach him how ought to express himself in matters of such great consequences. Whealy's fourth argument he that is sent is not superior to him that sends him, but when the Apostles at Jerusalem hea●d that Samaria received the word of God they sent to them Peter & john Acts. c. 8. v. 14. therefore Peter was not superior to the rest of the Apostles. this major is false, for one may undergo such a mission by his inferiors advise of his own accord. with out any subjection to those that send● him; as is evident in the second book of Kings c 15 where we read that S●muel sent Saul (tho' King) to destroy Amal●●k & the children of Israel sent Phine▪ has their high Priest and superior to the children of Reuben & G●d (then in the land G●lead) as may be seen in the 2●, Chap of Joshua v. 13 and finally H●rod sent the wisemen over whom ●e had no● pour to Be●helem to serge diligently for the child Matt: c 2. v 8. so that Whealy can make no advantage of Peter's mission to Samaria, which favours not his design in the ●es●; but rather confirms the contrary: whereas he denys Peter to have been bishop, for it was resolved by those that were in that assembly that it would be expe●ient to send Bishop to the Samarians who then received th● faith in order to confirm them in the same; so that it was agreed that John and the chiefest Bishop (viz,) Peter should go thither to perform the same, which they did to the Samarians great satisfaction  
After this Whealy produces an argument which he sound in a manuel of controversy (printed at Douai the ●ear 654) proving that to be the only Church of God, whi●h hath had a continued succession of Bishops & pastors from the time of Christ and the Apostles to this present da●; which he denys with out giving any Authority, or reason; but promises in the following page to confute it; I will be silent in the matter until I see what he can allege against it.  
He afterwards ●ites out of the same manuel the following texts Isa. c. 59 v. ●. c. 60. v 1. 3. 1. c. 62 v. ●▪ Ez●●●i●l c. 37 v. 26 & Daniel c. 7 v. 13. 14 proving the infallibility of the Church which in Whealy's opinion can have no relation ●o ●●, they being writ long before the Apostles days; but if this should ta●e place, it would as well prove that all the prophecies of the old Testament concerning Christ's passion, resurrection, and ascension could have no relation to the said Mysteries they being prophesied long before any ●f h●m came to pass, all Whealy's wit can show no tolerable reason for denying the one and admitting the other; as for the texts which he brings out of Matt c. 28 v. 20 John c 14 v. 16. Ephe c. 4 v. 11. & 12 it is but some of Whealy's calumnies to allege that the Author of the said Manuel ever Produced them in order to prove St Peter supremacy; whereas he only ●akes use of them to prove the visibility and infallibility of the true Church, and its continnued succession of Bishops & Pastors from the time of the Apostles till now as appears in the 2. 37 & 45 page of the same Manuel  
After this Whealy denies Peter to have been Bishop of Antioch or Rome for six several reasons, and says in the first that he cannot grant it because the scriptures are wholly silent in the matter But if he can grant nothing wherein t●e scriptures are silent he is no true Christian for he does not believe or grant the Apostles creed or t●at the present Bible of which he makes use himself to be the uncorrupted word ●f God, or the baptism of children before they come to the years of discrection to be lawful and sufficient for salvation seeing the scriptures are ● holly silent in these matters beside, he Positively swears to several points that are not mentioned therein, and consequently contradicts his own assertion, this is too evident to require a proof for he wickedly swears & believes that the true flesh & blood of Christ are not really present in the blessed Sacrament, that the Virgin Mary Mother of God hath no more power than a nother Woman, that the Bishop of Rome hath no spiritual or temporal jurisdiction over England, Ireland, or Scotland; and several other points proposed by the present government: therefore he believes and wickedly swears to several points (as articles of faith) wherein he himself pretends the Scripture to be wholly silent: but let Whealy deny or own what he pleases its evident to us by the testimonies of all ancient writers, and the following holy Fathers & Doctors that Peter was Bishop of Rome, (viz) St. Irenaeus in his 3. book c. 36. Tertullian in his book de Prescrip. adversus hereticos St. Cyprian in his first book Epist:. 3. and in his 4. book Epist. 2. Eusebius in his chronicle of the 44. year S. Epiphanius heresy 27. S. Athanasius in his Epist. to those who lead a solitary life. Dorotheus in his Inventory. Sozomenus in his 4. book c. 4. Optatus in his 2. book against Permininan, S. Ambrose in his book of the Sacraments c. 1. St. Hierome de Viris Illustribus and in his first Epist. to Damas' St. Augustin in his 2. book against Petilian c. 51. and in his 165 Epist. Theodoret in his Epist to Leo. Isidorus writing the life of Peter, and all other ancient writers till the year 1400. before which time I defy Whealy to produce any Author that ever write of Peter's not being Bishop of Rome.  
Whealy's second reason for denying this matter. the office of an Apostle was derived immediately from Christ, and by consequence more honourable and supreme than that of Bishop, which was ordained by men only. it were therefore no less than madness to think Peter so weak of judgement to quit the more honourable for the lesser, or the superior for an inferior. But in this Answer Whealy makes two false suppositions; first he supposes that Peter was ordained Bishop by men and not by Christ as Aron was formerly ordained by God chief Priest over the Isralites secondly he supposes that there is an incomp●●●bility between the office of an Apostle and that of Bishop, which ●s also 〈…〉 tho' they be two 〈…〉 they do not tend to incompatible effects; for they both tend to the glory of God propagating the Doctrine of Christ, and establishing the holy Catholic Church, which no man of sense can deny.  
As to Whealy's third reason wherein he says, that the commission of an Apostle, go ye forth & teach all nations etc. was then more universal than that of Bishopric etc. If this would prove any thing against Peter's being Bishop, it would also prove that James was not Bishop of Jerusalen, or John Bishop of Ephese, because their commission, was also, to go forth and teach all nations etc. which hindered them not from being Bishops of the aforesaid seas as all ancient writers do unanimously testify; as to that which he adds saying that 'tis epressly against the special command of Christ to accept of bishopric at all; 'tis but some of his presbyterian Doctrine, where with he not only attakes the Church of Rome; but also the present Church of England: as manifestly appears by what he produces in his last argument out of Luke c. 12. v 25 & 26.  
His fourth reason against Peter being Bishop is, that Peter was Apostle of the circumcision and such as write his Epistles from Babylon not to Rome but to the scattered ●e●es etc. which reason contradicts Whealys third Answer, where in he says that it was against Christ's command that Peter should accept of bishopric at all, because (as he alleages) he was obliged to go f●●th and teach all nations; but if Peter was obliged to teach all nations, he was not only an Apostle of the circumcision for the word all nations comprehends both the Jews and Gentiles; by which it appears that Whealy in his own discourse contradicts himself; as for Peter's being Apostle only of the circumcision, and Paul only of the Gentiles, 'tis false as is manifest by that of the Acts c. 15. v, 7, where we find the following words when there had been much disputing Peter risen up and said to them men & brothers ye know that a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should he are the word of the Gospel and believe &c. as for that which Whealy adds that Peter writ his Epistles from Babylon and not to Rome etc. it proves his ignorance, and confirms what he would feign deny: for in Peter first Epist c. 5. v: 1●. by the word Babylon Rome is meant▪ as Papias the Apostles Disciple (cited by Eusebius in his 2. book of History c. 15. St. Hierome in his book de Viris Illustribus in Marco, Eunomius, Venerable Bed● and all the Fathers that ever writ a commentary on that Epist. do unanimously declare; and it is evident out of the 17. c. of revelations, where John says that Babylon was builded on seven hills and that its empire did extend over the Kings of the earth: which notwithstandig should fall down and be destroyed; all which has been verified of the City of Rome and of no other City in the whole world, for it was fo●erly and is at present builded on seven hills and its empire only did then reach all parts of the world, yet what John fore see came to pass for the Roman empire was reduced almost to nothing, the City wholly ruined, by the Goths, Wandals, Hunns, & Longobards: but what occasioned people in them times to call Rome Babylon, was a certain similitude that was between the City of Rome and that of Babylon, when in the time of Nabuchodōo●or Babylon was an Imperial City, whose King Nabuchodono●or crully persecuted the people of God during their captivity there; even so in the time of the Apostles Rome was an Jmperial City, whose Improur was Nero, who persecuted most cruelly the people of God during his reign it's therefore the City of Rome was called another Babylon Whealy's fifth reason is grounded on the audience given to Paul in the Apostles assembly Acts c. 15. v. 12. by which it seems that Peter till then was wholly a stranger to the wonders Paul told them he had performed among the Gentiles. this consequence is false, for tho' General Ginkle related in a Council of war before the Prince of Orange how he behaved himself at the breach of Agherim against the Irish, it cannot be inferred that the Prince of Orange himself was till then wholly a stranger to the Irish affairs, and that he never fought at the breach of the Boyne, or elsewhere against them. & tho' Peter gave audience to Paul telling the Miracles & wonders, which God had wrought among the Gentiles by him and Barnabas; it does not follow that Peter never preached the Gospel to any of the Gentiles before that time. as for Whealy's 6th reason that it was after Paul's said relation that the Apostles and Elders sent Barsabas and Silos with him to Antioch to assist in the ministry; I allow that to be true but what Whealy would infer out of it is false; for it does not at all follow out of this, that the Gospel was never preached before in any of those Countries; but what might be lawfully inferred, is that Barsabas & Silos were not commanded to go with Paul to Antioch, till after the said relation but before this time (being the 18. year after our Saviour's Passion) the Gospel was preached not only in Antioch. but also in Rome by Peter, as I will show hereafter. as for Whealy's new commentary on the words of our Saviour Matthew c. 16. v. 18. 19 John c. 21. v. 15. 16 17. I believe no man of sense will prefer it before the exposition of all the holy Fathers and Doctors which is contrary to that of Whealy's: as may be seen in my Answer to Mr. Jennings 4 point; as for that word only which our Saviour would have added if he meant Peter in particular as Whealy pretends I would willingly know by what reason can he or any other show that the word only would be requisite here to prove Peter's supremacy and not in that of John. c, 6. v. 50. where he & the present Church of England do wrest the words of Christ to a figurative sense without the  mention of the word only or siguratively; by which it appears how incoherently Whealy argues; a●d pretends to expound the wor●s of Christ in the said texts, ' its apparent that it would be superfluous for Christ to express the word only in either of these texts (viz) Matt c. 16. & John, c. 21 it was enough that he spoke to Peter personaly in the singular number, & in these words Blessed art t●ou Simon B●rjona for flesh & blood have not revealed it unto thee but my Father who is in heaven, & I say also unto thee that thou art Peter & upon this r●ck I will build my Church & the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it & I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven & what soever thou shall bind on earth shall he bound in heaven whatsoever thou shall lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Mat. c. 16 v. 1718. 19 so when they had dined Jesus said to Simon Peter Simon son of Ionas lovest thou me more than these he said unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee, he saith unto him feed my lambs, he saith unto him again the second time Simon son of Ionas lovest thou me? he saith unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee, he saith unto him feed my sheep, he said unto him the third time Simon son of Ionas lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, lovest thou me, and he said unto him, Lord thou knowest that I love thee, jesus said unto him feed my sheep. John c▪ 21. v. 15. 16 17. which words do plainly prove that our Saviour then meant Peter and none else of the Apostles, for he excluded them by the words Simon Peter son of Ionas levest thou me, which as the reader may observe our Saviour thrice consequently repeated and after Peter answered each time, he gave him in charge his lambs and sheep commanding him to feed them; which he would not have done if he had then meant equally all the rest of the Apostles (as Whealy falsely alleages) but would speak to them Generally in the plural number, as he did in that of Matt. c. 18. v. 19, when he commanded them to go and teach all nations; as for that new explication which Whealy gives, saying that our Saviour speak particularly to Peter more than to the other Apostles because they were not in the danger that Peter was of swearing cursing & denying his blessed Master as Peter afterwards did (Matt c. 26. v. 7●.) therefore wanted not the consolation which the Saviour of the world judged n●edfull for the support of a fa●lin● Pe●er ●nd therefore it was he prayed that his faith should not fai●e Luke c. ●2. v. ●●. Whealy expressly contr●dicts himself in this matter, for in his very last point he sla●ly denies that our Saviour committed any particular charge to Peter more than to any other of the apostles for want of the word only and here he owns that our Saviour's words were particularly applied to Peter more than to any other of the Apostle which is a manifest contradiction for things signified by words must of necessity be applied to him to whom the words are applied: as Philosophers commonly teach as for Whealy's explication saying that it was particularly applied to Peter because he was in danger of swearing cursing &c. 'tis nonsense, at lest if he pretends to be a Christian, for our Saviour spoke these words of John (c. 21.) to Peter after he denied him, & after his resurrection: so that there was no danger of Peter's cursing, swearing, and denying Christ the second time, if our Saviour was not to suffer again after his resurrection, which would be an abominable Doctrine to think of, that his first Passion & sufferings was not suficient to redeem all mankind; If it was in order to give Peter some consolation our Saviour spoke to him & also prayed to his heavenly Father that his faith should not fail (according to that of Luke c. 22 v. 31. a● Whealy alleages) why did he exclude St. Thomas? who by no persuasion would believe our Saviour's resurrection, until he saw the wounds in his hands, and put his finger into the same, and trust his hand into his side, John c. 20. v. 25▪ for really Peter's error was of less conse quence, than that of Thomas, for he only denied that he knew Christ personally, and that out of human fear, for which act he immediately repent and wept betterly; as appears Mat c. 26. v. 75. but we find nothing of Thomas' repentance, tho' he would not believe one of the chiefest Misteryes of faith; nor do we find in Scripture that our Saviour spoke so favourably to him, or prayed his heavenly Father that his faith should not fail; so that there must needs be some other thing understood by the said texts, which Whealy ought not to deny since he cannot show scripture, Authority, or reason but impiously strives to misinterpret the plain words of our Saviour, to favour his own wicked design. I see he passes over slightly one of the convincing arguments that he▪ found in that manuel of controversy, which he pretends to confute; and denies the major, minor, and consequence without giving any manner of reason, only alleging that th● r●st of the Apostles are named before Peter in several places of Scripture; but because he could not point any of those places he was forced to leave the wh●le argument in its vigour, and run to an other of his own (as commonly all sectaryes do when they find themselves at a stand) saying that if Christ had invested Peter with any such dominion, either Peter or ●ome of the Evangelists would upon some occasion or other mentioned it: but Peter is not where in scripture said to be invested therefore Peter had no such dominion, as they pretend he had. the major passes yet it may be absolutely denied, for all the actions of Christ are not individually mentioned in scripture; as evidently appears by the following words of John C. ●1, v. 25 there are also many other things, which Jesus did, which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. So that it appears that if the scriptures were silent in this matter (as they are not) that it would not follow that no such thing hath been, as I have showed by several other examples before now; the minor also is false: as evidently appears by what I have produced on●●f St. Matthew c. 16. & S. John c. ●●, & the consequence cannot be true, for out of false premises there cannot follow but a false consequence.  
As for that frivolus argument wherewith the adversary falsely accuses the Catholics, alleging that they conclude Peter to have been bishop of Rome, because he removed his sea from Antioch; let the reader be pleased to observe that consequence, to be only some of his calumnies, and not that consequence which the Catholics do infer, but this which follows: Peter removed his sea from Antioch to Rome: therefore Peter was bishop of Rome; so that the other is but some of his ill inferred consequences. As for these two reasons which he alleages, first saying, that it would be more reasonable to conclude▪ that in case Peter had been Bishop of Antioch and would from thence remove, that it was to jerusalem he removed, because his following calculation proves S. Peter to have been often there▪ secondly because he was Apostle of the circumcision I retort his first reason thus.  
It were more reasonable to conclude that all shoemakers would apply themselves in making of shoes, than to impeach themselves in matters of divinity & contraversye: therefore it were more reasonable to conclude that Whealy, who is a shoemaker would apply himself in making of shoes than to impeach himself in matters of divinity and controversy, this consequence does not happen: as is manifest by what Whealy publishes in his Almanac; so that it appears, that that which is more reasonable to conclude does not always happen; for if it thou'd indeed we would never wrong our neighbours, or commit any sin against our creator & redeemer; for it would be more reasonable to conclude that we ought to obey his commandments, than to be come rebels against him, yet we see by daily experience that this happens, & no● that which is more reasonable to conclude. As to that removing of Peter, let Whealy know that it was convenient that the chiefest sea of Christianity should be fixed, and flourish in that City of Rome, which formerly was the chiefest City & head of Idolatry; & it's the General opinion of several holy Fathers, that Peter was commanded by a special revelation to fix his sea there; but if in case he had fixed it in Jerusalem his successors the Bishops of Jerusalem would in hae●i▪ St Peter's supremacy, & have the same jurisdiction, that now those of Rome have▪ as to the adversary's second reason, I say tha● there was no such compact between Peter & Paul (viz) that o●● should only preach to the Jews, & the o●ner to the Gentiles; otherwise Peter would not have declared in the assembly that the Apostles & 〈◊〉 is had at Jerusalem, that God 〈…〉 among them that the Gentiles by his mouth should h●are the word of God & bel●eve Acts c. 15. v. 7. neither would Paul preach to the Je●●s when he came to Rome. Acts c. 28. v. 2. 3 etc. So that the agreement between them was, that Peter should preach where ever he pleased, but principally to the Jews, and that also Paul would do the same, but principally to the Gentiles▪ as for Peter's being at Jerusalem several times, it argues not that he removed his sea thither, when he quitted Antioch: as for example Mr. Boil the Bishop of Down (in Ireland) removed his sea from thence, and sat in the three last Parlements in Dublin: shall you therefore infer that it was to Dublin he removed his sea? this consequence would not follow: for he removed his sea to Clougher, and so might Peter remove his from Autioch to Rome; tho' he was present at these assemblies of the Apostles & Elders at Jerusalem▪ as for Peter's creation, I say that he was created Bishop by Christ, after hi● Resurrection (even as Aron was instituted high Priest by God over the Israelites) when he gave him in charge the whole Church, as all the proofs which I have produced in my Answer to Mr Jennings 4th. point do plainly make-out; & if in case he had been made Bishop by the Apostles it would not prove that he was not their superior: as appears in the case of our Saviour, who was superior to S. John Baptist, and the jews, yet was Baptised by the one, and circumcised by the others: as in manifest Luke c. 2▪ & ●. Now to come to Whealys preposterous sort of calculation, the reader will be pleased to take notice of the following discourse, whereby he may plainly see how S. Peter came to be Bishop of Antioch and Rome before the 19th. year after our Saviour's Passion; he stayed about four years after in Judea, he ●as at Jerusal●m beholding Christ's asecution according to that of the Acts c. 1. v. ● & Paul gave him a visit the third year after his own conversion Gala, c. 1: v. 18. in the beginning or the 5th. year after our Saviour's Passion, Peter went to S●r●●a and fixed his sea in Antioch, where he remained seven years, but did not continue in the City all that time for he went now and then to the ajacent provinces, and preached the Gospel there (viz) in Pontos, Asia, Capodocia etc. about the end of the 7th year he returned to jerusalem (being 11 years after our Saviour's Passion) and was immediately imprisoned by Herod Acts c. 12. v. 4. but was soon enlarged by an Angel: as appears by the 7. 8. & 9 v. of the same chap. the same year, which was the second of the empire of Claudius: he came to Rome and fixed his sea there, & preached the Gospel to them for the space of seven years, after which time he was expelled out of the City by Claudius, and so were all the Jews then in Italy Acts. c. 18. v. 2. after this expulsion (which happened in the be giving of the 19th, year after our Lord's Passion (Peter went to Jerusalem, & when those of Antioch heard of his coming thither they sent Paul and Barnabas to him in order to decide a controversy risen among them about the circumcision, which he did before the whole assembly; as appears Acts. c. 15 v, 10. he could not afterwards return to Rom, e for the space of four years, by which time Claudius the Improur died; so that the advers party's foolish demonstration is groundless & apparently false, wherein he pretends to prove, that Peter could not be Bishop of Rome dureing the first 19 years after Christ's Passion, because the scripture makes mention of his being in jerusalem four several times during that time as also his preaching the Gospel in judea Syria etc. But if this had hindered Peter's being Bishop of Rome until that 19th. year Whealy may as well conclude that the Prince of Orange was not Crowned in England from the year 1688. until 1699. because that dureing this time he was seen every year in Ireland, Holland, or Flanders as for his saying that the Second year of Nero's empire is the 19th. of the years assigned of Peter's being Bishop of Rome. it's manifestly false; for it is but the 1●th. year, for as I have showed before, Peter came first to Rome the second year of Claudius' empire, who reigned 13 years, nine mounths & 20, days so that eleven years of Cl●u●iu's empire with those 〈◊〉 and two years of Nero's, do not make up fully 14 years: before which time Paul never came to Rome, as is evident Act, c. 28. v. 14 but he writ before then his Epist. to the Romans in his Journey to jerusalem, and in the 16. c. he salutes many of the Romans, and Jews, who were then Christians, and converted by Peter before he was expelled by Claudius: where by it appears that Whealy is wholly a strenger not only to ancient Histories, but also to the very scripture, by which he pray tends to prove his false Doctrine▪ as for Paul's two years' imprisonment in Rome under Nero, and not making mention of Peter in his Epistles to the Golossians, Timothy etc. It proves not that Peter could not be then in Rome, as for example: it cannot be inferred that Christ was not circumcised, because S. Matthew makes no mention of it; that the star did not appear to the wisemen, because Luke is silent in the matter: that Christ was not born of a Virgin, because Mark makes no mention of it; so that it is to be admired, how any man of sense can offer to infer such an illegal consequence: as if St. Paul had been obliged to specify all Christians then in Rome, or as if he had positively affirmed that not Christian had been at Rome that time, but only those that he names▪ to explain these texts Colo: c. 4. v. ●1 12. 2. Timoth. c. 4 v. 10. 11. etc. on which Whealy insists; the reader may observe, that Paul's intent, was to give an account of his own domestic family to those, to whom then he writ, who knew them before, which is a most usual thing, for commonly when people write to their wellwishers, they salute them in their acquaintences name, & if they go from one place to an other they give them an account of their removal. so that from first to last Whealy cannot make out that Peter was not Bishop of Rome from the second year of Claudius' reign, till he was crucified in the same City (with his head down wards) by Nero the Emp●our's orders 25 year after, which Whealy might easily understand (without any manner of confusion, or incongruity) out of the following Fathers and ancient writers, (viz) S. Ignatius in his Epist. to the Romans; Eusebius in his 2 book c. 25. Egesippus in his 3. book c. 2. Origenes in his 3. on Geneses St. Athanasius in his Apology de fuga sua. S. chrysostom in his 32 hom. on S. Paul's Epist to the Romans▪ Tertullian in his book de Praescrip. Lactantius in his ●. book Divinarum Institutionum c. 21. St. Ambrose in his Oration against Auxen●i●s St. Hierome de Viris Illustribus. St. Augustin in his fi●st book de Consensu Evangelist. c. 10. St: Maximus in his 5. ser de Natali Apostolorum. Sulpitius in his 2 book of History Orosius in his 7th. Eutropius also in his 7th. book writing the life of Nero. Isidorus writing the life of St. Peter. S. Leo in his first ser. de Natali Apostolorum & several other Fathers do testify the same: by which it manifestly appears that the Papists do agreed among themselves about the time that St. Peter came to be Bishop of Rome; for of all the Catholic writers there are only two, who do not agree in this point (viz) Marianus Scotus▪ who says that St. Peter came first to Rome in the fourth year of Claudius' reign, and On●●phrius Panonius, who says that he first fixed his sea in Rome before he came to Antioch, and removed again from Antioch to Rome  
Whealy 's last argument▪ when there was a dispute among the Apostles which of them should be counted greatest (Luck c. 22. v. 24.) our Saviour told them (v. 25. & 26.) the King of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, (but says he) ye shall not be so, but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief, as him that doth serve; so that it seems Christ himself denied them any such supremacy, and if Christ was in the right, the Church now in communion with the sea of Rome, is much in the wrong, to exercise a jurisdiction which Christ himself Prohibited  
This argument proves what Whealy would willingly deny; for these words greatest & chief do plainly show that there was one chief among the Apostles, whom Christ commanded to be as their minister, not obeying & serveing them, as servants do; but ruling & governing them in humility & Charity, according to that of the Acts c. 20. v. 24. & also to that of St. Paul's first Epist. to the Corinth. c. 11. v. 22. & 23. & this is the same title that the Popes of Rome give themselves in their bulls & patents, for every one of them styles himself thus▪ servant to the servants of God; & truly if these words would mean what Whealy pretends to prove they would plainly make-out that it is not only the Church of Rome; but also the present Church of England exercises such a jurisdiction, as he pretends to be prohibited by Christ, for the Church of England allows of primates, Bishops, and several other Ecclesiastical dignitaryes; & perhaps this is what he would feign prove, in order to run them down, and make them all Presbyterians, who do not allow of such dignitaryes, not withstanding that St. Paul in his Epist to Timothy c. 3 v. 1. recomends the office of a Bishop. as for that which Whealy adds, saying that there was no such thing, as suprematy heard of, till about the year of Christ 196. 'tis but some of his inuèntions, as may be seen in my Answer to Mr. Jennings fourth point, wherein I have showed that St. Denis the Apostles Disciple calls S▪ Peter the Supreme; etc. and indeed if Whealy will not give better reasons and grounds, for what he promises to prove in his following Almanacs, than he has given in what he pretends to prove in this years' Almanac, he will show, but his own ignorance & presumption as he has done in what he writ this year  
FINIS   

INDEX  

MAsses were said in the first five ages after Christ's birth p. 20.  
The communion was given under one kind to the la●ty in the first five ages p. 38  
Common prayers were said in a language not vulgarly understood by all the hearers in the first five ages p, 55  
The Pope of Rome's supremacy was acknowledged in the first five ages, p. 68  
The real presence was believed in the first five ages p. 98.  
The holy Eucharist was adored in the first five ages p 125.  
Transu●statiation was believed in the first five ages p. 133.  
Images has been venerated in the first five ages p. 142.  
Saints were prayed too, in the first five ages p. 164.  
Purgatory was believed in the first five ages p. 188.  
All these of the first five ages had not the word of God in their maternal language p. 224.  
The reformers Doctrines are but a heap of old heresies lawfully condemned in the first five ages p 243  
An Answer to what Whealy alleages against St, Peter's Supremacy at the later end p. 1.    

Errata.  
PAge. 8. 1. 13. r. prayers p. 13. l. 13. r. peaceable. p. 16 l. 11. r. espoused p. 30, l. 13 r. 64. p. 39 l, 12. r. Luke. p. 66. l. 5. r. Queen. p. 85. l. 8 r. says. p. 86. l. 16. r. relieve. p. 109 l. 8. r. Num. l. 17. r, life p. 100L. l. 4. r. the p. 118. l. 10. 151. l. 9 172. l. 5. 173. l. 20. 174. l. 6. 175. l. 1●. 79. l. 12. 190. l. 16. 191 l. 4. & 209. l, 7. r. does p. 148. l. 3 r. things p. 76. l, 18. r. a before prejudice p. 78. l. 14. r. soldiers p. 220. l. ●. r. were p. 232. l. 4. r, catechesed p. 237. l. 13. r. ruin. these with ●ome other oversights which ●appen'd in the correction, the ●ourteus reader is most humbly desired charitably to mend with ●is pen.