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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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