thought I had taught the Compiler a little more care and circumspection when he meddles with Chronology-matters in my Answer to his Nubes Testium but I perceive nothing will do good upon him nor learn him more caution Well then since he is so wilful and cannot be persuaded from making such lamentable blunders in Chronology he must e'en thank himself if he be exposed for it and lasht for it as he does deserve He first then observes that even one of the Four First General Councils was held within the same time that is within the Fourth and Fifth Centuries By this One of the Four First General Councils I suppose he means the Council of Nice and I must needs tell him that he guessed very well to say that that Council was held within the time of those two Centuries but that he had guess'd a great deal better if he had said that even all the Four First General Councils were held within that time for there is no body that pretends to any the least skill in Chronology that would not have readily told him that they were all four held and over within two Years after the middle of the Fifth Century His next Observation is like this he tells us That this General Council did not censure Invocation of Saints as an Error if he means the Council of Nice as I before supposed he did it is a very great Truth that that Council did not censure Invocation of Saints as an Error and there was a very good Reason for it and that was because there was no such thing as Invocation of Saints practised in the Church when that Council was held nor of above two hundred Years after but some men love to make wise Observations tho' they miss their aim too too often Well! But what will the Compiler say if I shew him that tho' not the First yet One of these Four General Councils did censure Invocation of Angels and consequently of Saints as an Error and as a most gross one too This I will do that so he may curse his ill Fate for putting him upon making such an untoward Objection against us and learn for the future if he is not deaf to Advice to look before he leaps into such recoyling Objections The Council of Chalcedon doth in her first Canon admit and approve of the Synod of Laodicea and makes the Canons of that Synod part of the standing Law of the Vniversal Church now among the Canons of that Synod we find the 35th directly forbidding Invocation of Angels I will set down the whole Canon not only because it was made by a Diocesan Synod of a great many Bishops but because it was confirmed by the Greatest and last General Council consisting of above Six hundred Bishops in the middle of the Fifth Century which is the Century most contested for betwixt me and the Compiler and made by them a Rule to the Catholick Church and the Canon is this That Christians ought d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Laodicen Can. 35. in Biblioth Juris Canonici Edit Justel 1661. not to forsake the Church of God and go into Conventicles and Invocate or pray to Angels and make Meetings all which are forbidden them If any Man therefore be found to give himself to this Secret Idolatry let him be accursed for that he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and hath betaken himself to Idolatry The Compiler hath still another Observation to be examined which is as good as either of the other two It is That this Practice of Invocation of Saints is own'd to have taken root in many places even before that Council of Nice I will not accuse him here of a willful Falshood it is meerly because he knew not when that Council was held that makes him write at this extravagant Rate I do not own that Invocation of Saints took root either before or within a hundred Years after that Council and the very first Instance of any Addresses in Orations or otherwise made to the Saints that any of the Romish Writers are able to produce comes not within forty Years of that Council so that our Compiler is a very unlucky Man at these Chronology businesses and should not have ventured so rashly to croud so many false and such ridiculous things into so small a compass and tho' perhaps I shall have no Thanks for my good Intentions yet could I but in the least suspect that he and I should have any further Controversie about these things rather than he should go on in this blundering blindfold manner I would be at the Expence of presenting him with a Chronology-Table that so no more Paper may be spent in correcting or exposing his Mistakes in Chronology I intreat him to consider of it and not to venture at such things any more except he is sure of an Adversary just as wise as himself and that hath just as much Knowledge in Chronology and Antiquity as himself then indeed he may write on as he has done here couragiously without the fear of being discovered and they two may serve only to make diversion for their Readers The next Chapter in my Book is about Reliques and here the Compiler takes me up very quick and says that I retire within the Three first Centuries but for the Fourth and Fifth that I dare not put the Cause about Reliques upon their Verdict And is not this very pleasant Matter Suppose I had retired which I did not for the Disproof of the Worship of Reliques within the Three first Centuries and durst not stand to the Verdict of the Fourth or Fifth Century does not he himself remember that the Design of his Nubes Testium was to shew that the Fathers of the first five hundred years did teach and practice what the Church of Rome at present doth And did not he pretend there to the Tradition of the First Five Centuries How then should I have betray'd or hurt my pretences to the same Ages had I retired within the Three First Centuries and disprov'd him as to those Centuries When a Man at Law pretends to have five hundred years Prescription to the Toll for Example of some great Fair doth not his Adversary sufficiently ruin his five hundred years Prescription if he can make it appear that for three of the five hundred years there was no Fair at all kept at that place and therefore no Toll paid there The Case betwixt me and my Adversary as set down by himself is the very same and yet I must not be allowed to ruine his first five hundred years Prescription tho' I could prove that there was no enquiry after much less any worship of Reliques for three of those five hundred years This is a very hard Case however the Compiler writes as if he fear'd no Colours nor that any body would dare to take up the Pen against him But I must bring him to a better consideration of these things and inform
HONOUR and a little after concluding that he had proved that RELIQUES are to be ADORED he next sets upon explaining with what kind of Worship and Honour THE RELIQUES ought to be VENERATED And S. Thomas himself before Vasques had thus promiscuously used the Words VENERATION and ADORATION S. Thom. Summa Pars 3. Quaest 25. Artic 6. p. 65. and whereas Vasques had put the Question whether Reliques were to be VENERATED S. Thomas puts it whether RELIQUES are to be ADORED and as Vasques had answered that they were to be ADORED so S. Thomas answers his Question that seeing we VENERATE the Saints of God we must also VENERATE their Bodies and RELIQUES And he does throughout that Article in his Objections and Answers sometimes use the one and sometimes the other but more frequently the Word ADORATION to express what Honour the Church did think due to RELIQUES I was more careful to make use of the Authority of S. Thomas herein because he is lookt upon to be of such Sacred Authority in the Church of Rome that Sabran the Jesuit assures me that above one half of the Divines of the Christian World and those I am sure are at least all the Divines that are in the Church of Rome do own Him for Master Reply to my I. Letter to him and bind themselves to maintain ALL He hath taught Well then If the Case be as the Jesuit represents it I am certain to carry my Cause that the Church of Rome doth ADORE the RELIQUES of the Saints since I am sure that S. Thomas taught that RELIQUES ARE TO BE ADORED But without the Authority of S. Thomas from whose Decision the Jesuit told me in his Letter to the Peer that he would not swerve tho' I had proved S. Thomas altogether and certainly mistaken about that thing I think we may prove that by VENERATION the Council of Trent did mean the ADORATION of RELIQUES if they will but permit us to explain the meaning of the Decrees of that Council by the standing Reformed Offices in their Church In the Twenty fifth Session of that Council in their Decree about Images they do use the very same Words to express what Honour they will have done to Images that they had used immediately before for the Reliques of the Saints VENERATION and HONOUR are the Words employed in both the Paragraphs Now to find what that VENERATION means which the Council of Trent appoints to be paid to the Images we need only look into their Good-Fryday-Service and into their Pontitical to find their Church's Sense Missale Rom. Feria 6. in Parasceue fol. 83 84. Edit Paris in 8o. 1582. In the Good-Friday-Service we meet with the Word ADORATION and ADORED about the Honour paid to the Image of the Cross above Ten times and that we cannot mistake them the Worship or VENERATION of the Cross is three times plainly styled the ADORATION OF THE CROSS In their Pontifical to shew what they mean by VENERATION and HONOUR in the Decree of the Council it is given as the Reason why the CROSS carried before a Legate should take the right Hand of the Emperour's Sword at the Reception of an Emperour with Procession into any City because LATRIA a DIVINE WORSHIP IS DUE TO THE CROSS This I question not will be able to convince all Men that VENERATION and ADORATION are promiscuously used for the same thing and that by appointing a VENERATION to be paid to the RELIQUES of the Saints the Council of Trent did command that THE RELIQUES of Saints should be ADORED and this is sufficient for what I undertook to prove That the Church of Rome doth command the Worship of Reliques That she doth practise the Worshipping of Reliques is what I have next to shew but this may be dispatch'd in a few Words since every body knows that their People in the Church of Rome are not behind hand in practising what their Church commands about Reliques and I suppose that this will be granted me That what the Church commands the People may very lawfully do and that they do practise in all their Popish Countries the Adoration of Reliques I must then prove my Second Particular That for the First five Centuries of the Church the Worship of Reliques was neither commanded nor practised by the Primitive Church To prove that the Worship of Reliques was not commanded during that time we need only to appeal to the Canons and Laws of the Four General Councils held within the Fourth and Fifth Century wherein not a Syllable is to be met with about any such thing and they of the Church of Rome are as well satisfied as we that there is nothing in those Councils for their purpose about Reliques and therefore do not pretend to shew any Command for the Worship of Images from any of those Councils And that the Primitive Church did not practise any Worship of Reliques during that time is as easie to shew from the Generality of the Fathers who were utterly against Worshipping the Saints themselves and consequently much more against the Worshipping any of the Mortal Remains of those Saints I will only insist upon two who lived in the beginning of the Fifth Century of the Church S. Austin to prove that they did not then worship the Saints themselves and S. Hierom to shew that they did not worship the Saints Reliques Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vitâ coluntur sancti homines Dei. Aug. c. Faust l. 20. c. 21. S. Austin in answer to Faustus the Manichee who had objected to the Orthodox their Worshipping the Saints shews him the Falseness and Silliness of his Accusation by telling him that the Church did indeed worship the Martyrs but that it was meerly such civil Worship as is paid to Holy Men while they are alive and that I am sure was never hitherto accused of being Religious Worship And for the Reliques of the Saints when Vigilantius had objected to several in the Church as S. Hierom represents it a Worship of Reliques S. Hierom with his usual vehemence falls upon him and asks him first who ever adored the Martyrs A Question that can very easily be answered in our days without the danger of being called Madmen for our pains as Vigilantius was for even thinking that any of the Church should be so foolish as to worship the Martyrs and then he tells him that They did not WORSHIP the Saints RELIQUES and were so far from it that they did not Worship or Adore even the Sun it self f Nos autem NON dico Martyrum RELIQUIAS sed ne Solem quidem non Angelos non Archangelos COLIMUS ADORAMUS D. Hieron advers Vigilant ad Riparium nay not the Angels nor the Archangels Here we see S. Hierom confuting the Accusation of Worshipping of Reliques by shewing that the Church did not worship the Sun it self nor the Angels or Archangels themselves which are Creatures so
way to get rid of it by saying so of it than by answering it To his Quotation from S. Ambrose I answered fairly by shewing him that S. Ambrose when he was at the height of his Illustrations from Scripture to prove a Change in the Sacrament doth yet not only compare the Change in the Eucharist to the Change of a Man by Baptism which every one owns is meerly a Change in Quality but doth positively assert That the Elements were what they were before Consecration notwithstanding their Change into another thing which Passage the Compiler dare not meddle with but only says I give the pretended Authority of this Father against them But this is all the Man is able to say and this is his way of trifling when he hath nothing to answer fairly with Whereas the Passage I quote is in the very same Book some of his own Quotations are taken from and some of his Church were so sensible that the Passage I make use of is directly against their Transubstantiation that they have struck part of it out of their Edition of S. Ambrose at Rome u Si ergo tanta vis est in Sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur which last part the Roman Edition hath altered into ut quae erant in aliud commutentur D. Ambros de Sacramentis l. 4. c. 4. which did entirely run thus If there be therefore so great Power in the Words of our Lord Jesus as to give a Being to things which had none before how are they not much more powerful to make that things may still be what they were and yet be changed into another thing which is quite altered by the Romish Edition which makes S. Ambrose to say How are they not more powerful to make that those things which were may be changed into another Which is a pretty way of getting the Fathers over to their Party After all he rallies up his scatter'd Forces and shews them in a Body calling the Bread Christ's Body and saying it was changed into Christ's Body but since I have answered all that are out of genuine Authors already and he has nothing farther to say for them I need not stand to make any Reply but refer the Reader to my Answer wherein I had not only urged the Doctrines of Antiquity but several Practices out of It perfectly inconsistent with any Belief of Transubstantiation but the Compiler was not so fair as to give one Word of Reply to them but it is his way and there is no hopes of getting him out of it In Answer to the Chapter about Images he offers not one Word but refers the Reader and me to a whole Discourse as he calls it which he had published in Defence of that Chapter But why must we be turn'd off to an Answer to a Third Person Is all I have laid to the Compiler's Charge answered there If it be not To what Purpose am I sent thither Well! To comply with this shuffling Adversary I did look there and all that I found was that he can treat much Worthier Persons than I pretend to be in the most contemptuous Manner I had thought my finding out where he stole his Book and publishing it to the World had sharpened him more than ordinary against me but by this Book I was convinc'd of my Mistake for in it I found him treating the Worthy Person he was writing against with the same opprobrious scornful Language that he uses towards me Another thing I did learn there That this Man can with a very good Grace accuse others of that very thing which he is the most guilty in of any Writer that I know he accuses that Reverend Person continually of false stating and of not stating the Controversie about Images and yet he himself as I proved it upon him hath not truly stated any one Point of Controversy except that about Invocation through his whole Nubes Testium hath most falsely stated for Example this about Images for whereas their Council of Trent hath decreed the Worship of Images he states the Matter as if the Church of Rome and second Council of Nice were only for giving Respect to Holy Images and yet when he is got into his Cloud of Witnesses as if no Body could discover what he would be at he falls to proving that the Christians did not only adore the Cross but the very Nails of it and which is more that they were commanded by the Law of God to do it Which were strong Proofs indeed especially for the Times in which the Authors of them are said to have lived but are such as shew there is nothing so absurd but that some Men will be found to assert it and that there can be nothing so absurd but that it will be swallow'd and quoted by such Authors as Natalis Alexandre and our Compiler I had charged the Compiler with many other things and his Church not a syllable of which is answered in the Discourse I am refer'd to I had challenged himself about the Worship of the Cross and some other things but he was wiser it seems than to accept my Challenge or to trouble himself about that and forty such things laid to his charge However since he will not I must then take leave to tell him that this was not vindicating his Nubes Testium but that his pretended Vindication does deserve the name of some Cavilling Reflexions upon the Answerer to the Nubes Testium instead of that of an Answer to Him. If he intends to make any further defence of himself against this Reply I will tell him what scores he must clear before I need to take further notice of Him. I have drawn up the Catalogue of near Forty considerable Charges against Him which I must require him to reply to and besides that to go regularly through the several Parts of this Reply to Him if he would acquit himself like a Scholar or like an Honest Man in this Controversie but above all things I must not forget to put him in mind of getting a Chronology Table the want of which hitherto hath done him such a scurvy deal of mischief it will prevent his stumbling so often in those things and will prevent some sharp Replies upon that account I have thus got through my Vindication of my self and which I value much more of the Primitive Fathers and have made it further appear how far they were from joining with or countenancing any of those Practices or Doctrines of the Church of Rome set down by our Compiler in his Nubes Testium As to the Supremacy of the Pope I had little to answer since the Compiler had so little to say in his Vindication for it but was forc'd to leave almost all I had urged from the Fathers against it without once touching it but only pickt at a place here and there One of
you will made to S. Paul with those Circumstances ought on more to be named Invocation than the Prayer or Request made by one Christian to another upon the same account since all the difference betwixt the two Cases is only this that the one is present invisibly the other visibly but both equally present This Answer doth not only satisfie for what is alledged out of Theodoret but is equally serviceable for some other such like passages quoted from S. Chrysostom and others all which are grounded upon that persuasion that had gotten footing among them that the Martyrs by God's permission were present at their Memories during the time of the Christians Assemblies there as I could very distinctly shew but have not room here to do it if the Jesuit would but read over again his own next quotation from S. Basil he may see the grounds for all that hath been answered by me here I need not trouble my self to answer what he further quotes from S. Austin of whose Doctrine upon this point we have had a full account already nor to take any notice of his following Quotations which concern the Reliques of the Saints What I have collected from the Practice and Doctrines of the Primitive Fathers in my third and fourth particular is sufficient to demonstrate that as Invocation of Saints was not the Practice so it was expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers so that Invocation of Saints was no more countenanced by them than it is by the Church of England and we have all the reason in the World to conclude that as they did not practise Invocation of Saints so they were no Papists but of the same Faith with the Church of England as to these things and therefore the Church of England is not guilty of Schism in separating from the Church of Rome upon occasion of Invocation of Saints since the Primitive Church practised no such thing and she is bound to Communicate with the Primitive Church rather than with the Church of Rome who has been guilty of bringing into her own Practice This among other Superstitious things which every Orthodox Church is bound to refuse or to throw out and reform as soon as she is sensible of her Errour And as for those Practices of Addresses to the Martyrs at their Memories cited from S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen St. Chrysostom and Theodoret and so much insisted on by the Jesuit as being the same thing and all that is practised by the Church of Rome towards the Saints and Angels we can very easily prove a vast difference betwixt what was done then and what is practised now by the Church of Rome and since the Jesuit doth challenge me so often to shew the difference I will answer his Challenge and do assign only three Differences out of more that I could offer The First Difference is that the Church of Rome doth use a direct Invocation or formal Prayer to the Saints and Angels as is apparent from hundreds of places in their Missalls Breviaries and Offices whereas the Primitive Fathers of the end of the Fourth and Fifth Century did not invocate or make Prayers to the Saints but meerly such Addresses or Requests as are made from one Friend to another and this I do prove out of their own mouths who make PRAYER to be PECULIAR to GOD ALONE and therefore would not contradict their own Doctrine by their own Practice which these Fathers had inevitably done had they reserved Prayer as proper to GOD ALONE and yet offered Prayer or Invocation to the Saints A second Difference is that whereas those Requests were made at the Memories of those Martyrs to whom they were presented and who were believed to be present there tho' invisibly at that time the Invocations and Prayers to the Saints in the present Church of Rome are made not only in every place but in ten thousand different and most distant places to such or such a particular Saint which is virtually to ascribe to them an Omnipresence an Attribute that no finite Being is capable of The third Difference is that those Requests and Interpellations to the Martyrs were neither commanded by the Primitive Church Authorized by her General or Provincial or any other Councils nor used in the Publick Offices of the Church whereas on the contrary the Invocations and Prayers to Saints in the Church of Rome are enjoyned by the Roman Church are authorized by her last General Council of Trent and used not only in the Publick Offices of their Church but in the most solemn Parts of their Offices in the Litanies of the Church I could add more but these are enough to shew the vast difference betwixt what is now practised in the Church of Rome towards the Saints and what was done to them at the latter end of the Fourth and in the Fifth Age of the Church which is the time of the Primitive Church in dispute betwixt me and the Compiler and the Jesuit Thus I have been so civil as to accept the Jesuit's Challenge and to make him a fair and distinct Reply and have been more civil to him than I ought to have been since according to the Law of Arms I think the Challenge I made to the Jesuit among the rest of the Romish Priests in England to shew me but one Canon of the Catholick Church for the first six hundred years of the Church for the Pope's Supremacy ought to have been accepted and answered before any of them were allowed to make any Challenges to me But since it was impossible for the Jesuit or any of them to produce such a Canon and therefore to make any Reply to that Challenge I will at parting tell the Jesuit that if he intends to prosecute this Controversy about Invocation of Saints it is my turn to challenge and therefore I do challenge him to shew as fair and as uninterrupted a Practice and Doctrine for Invocation of Saints as I have produced against it for the Four First Centuries of the Church out of the Liturgies and Genuine Works of the Fathers of those distinst Ages I must now return to the Compiler's Vindication of the Nubes Testium and should pass to the next Chapter about Reliques but that I must not forget to take notice of a very terrible Objection against us in relation to this Invocation which I had like to have omitted The Reader I suppose does remember that the Compiler had said that I had granted that Invocation of Saints was practised in the Fourth and Fifth Ages of the Church upon this he very learnedly observes against me that even one of the Four First General Councils was held within the same time without ever censuring it as an Error tho' even before that this Practice is own'd to have taken root in many Places This passage is very diverting and shews with what an air of confidence some men can write the most absurd things and tack together the most inconsistent I had
much above and more Glorious than the dead Remains of any Saint and therefore must needs be much further from the giving WORSHIP to the Saints Reliques Having thus proved these two things that the Church of Rome doth worship Reliques and that the Primitive Church did not we ought to conclude as to this Point about Reliques that the Primitive Fathers were no Papists but Protestants since they did declare against the Worship of Reliques as much as the Church of England doth and did detest the Worshipping of them as much as we can There is one Great Mistake that the Compiler must be rectified in before I leave this Chapter about Reliques and that is from the Community of Actions and Expressions to gather that the same thing was done by some of the Fathers towards the Reliques that is done now in the Church of Rome He cannot be ignorant that most of the External Expressions of Respect are common to Civil and Religious Worship and yet that no Body is so wild as to conclude from thence that Civil and Religious Worship are the same thing When Abraham bowed himself to the ground before the Children of Heth he used the very same Gesture that he was wont to make use of in his Worship of God and yet I hope our Compiler would not have it concluded from the same Gesture used upon both those Occasions either that Abraham when he bowed to the Children of Heth paid Religious Worship unto them or that he using the same Gesture in the Service of God paid only a Civil Worship unto Him. And yet This is all that he builds upon when he is so earnest about the thing and would confound Civil and Religious Worship by shewing what no Body denies that several of the Outward Expressions of Civil and Religious Worship are the same Whereas notwithstanding the Outward Gestures be the same we do easily know Religious from Civil Worship by the Object to whom it is paid and by the Professions of them who pay it And by this we are able to decide and resolve that Scruple which the Compiler would fain raise about the Matter of Reliques The Primitive Fathers did declare that they were against giving any Religious Worship to Reliques and therefore when we meet with any extraordinary Expressions or Actions among them which might otherwise appear to be Religious we are obliged to look upon them only as Expressions of Civil Worship by reason of the Declaration so often made by them that they did not worship Reliques But for the same Gestures or Actions used by the Church of Rome towards the Reliques or Bodies of the Saints we are obliged upon the very same Reason to look upon them as Expressions of a Religious Worship or Adoration since She hath prevented our taking them in the other Sense by declaring and decreeing in her Council of Trent that the BODIES and RELIQUES of the SAINTS are to be WORSHIPPED or ADORED And further to let him see this by an Instance used by Himself He urges that they used to touch and kiss the Reliques of the Martyrs and shews it from Gregory Nyssen which was the highest Expression of Respect used then towards Reliques Now how far this is from being Religious Worship in them or the same Kiss from being but Civil Worship in the Church of Rome I have already abundantly cleared from the Professions made about Reliques by the Primitive Fathers and by the Church of Rome in her Council of Trent I have insisted the longer upon this Business about the Reliques because the Compiler himself did and have taken the more care to clear the whole Matter about the Worship of Reliques because He took so much pains to disguise and obscure it and by confounding Civil and Religious Worship to bear the credulous Reader in hand that the Church of Rome and the Primitive Church are exactly the same in their Respect to Reliques and that the Church of Rome doth no more pay a Religious Worship or Adoration to Reliques than the Primitive Fathers did the Vanity and Falshood of all which I have fully display'd that so the Compiler being driven out of this Hold and being made ashamed of such groundless Delusions and Distinctions may e'en fall into the Old Track of defending Popery and speak out fairly the Sense of their Church about the Worship of Reliques and defend with the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas Aquinas and his Disciples who Sabran the Jesuit tells us are above One half of the Divines of the Christian World that THE RELIQUES of the SAINTS OUGHT TO BE ADORED He next undertakes the business of Purgatory and finding that I had invincibly shewn that the Primitive Fathers notwithstanding their Prayers for the Faithful deceased did believe that they were at the same time in a state of Bliss of Comfort of Peace of Joy and Light and Tranquillity nay in Heaven it self every one of which is utterly inconsistent with the Condition of Purgatory believed and taught by the Church of Rome He hopes to salve all by granting what he could not deny of the Primitive Fathers believing the Faithful deceased to be in such a Condition and reconciling all this to the Belief of Purgatory in his Church To this purpose he tells us that the supposing those Souls for which the Fathers pray'd to be in a State of Joy and Comfort does most nearly agree with the present Practice and Doctrine of the Church of Rome I am glad to hear this and now I perceive there is none of those torments and burnings in the Case with which the people used to be frighted out of their Wits themselves and to scare one another but the unhappiness is this is too good news to be true and I doubt we shall find by and by that the Romish Purgatory is the very same place that it used to be thought and that it is just as hot and as tormenting and intolerable at this very day as it was six hundred years ago when those lamentable shreeks were so often heard from the poor Souls in Purgatory However since I suppose our Compiler knows himself not to have been so careful of his Life as to imagine he shall escape calling at Purgatory I cannot discommend his making Purgatory as easy as he can and his representing it to be just such a place as he would with all his heart find it when he comes thither He endeavours to prove this agreement from that Prayer in the Canon of the Mass used in their Church wherein they pray God to grant to those his faithful Servants who rest in the sleep of Peace a Place of Comfort Light and Peace In answer to which I will only tell him here that this Old-Prayer in the Canon of the Mass is directly against the present Church of Rome in the business of Purgatory and against what the Compiler hath positively asserted a little after this about Prayer not being made for those in Bliss or those in Hell but only