his little touches at me I had like to have slipt I know not how over his saying I impose sillily upon the Reader when in answer to the Objection made about no one 's denying the Bishop of Rome 's power of Excommunicating the Asiaticks I had said Every Bishop might deny to communicate with any other Bishop or Church against whom they had sufficient reason As if says he denying to communicate were the same thing as to Excommunicate to the doing of which an Authority or Jurisdiction over them who are Excommunicated is required whilst refusing Communion may be done without any such power Well then this Man shall have his Will and I therefore tell him that by denying Communion I meant a doing it authoritatively that is a putting the other Bishop from them by Ecclesiastical Censure but I must also tell him that an Authority or Jurisdiction over the persons to be Excommunicated is not required but that an Equality of State with the other persons is sufficient and this of his is dangerous Doctrine since every Greek can prove their Bishops of Constantinople to have Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Rome by this Argument since Photius's time who did Excommunicate the then Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of that Church do continue to excommunicate yearly to this day the Bishop and Church of Rome and not only the Greeks but the French Bishops also may by this Argument also be proved to be above the Pope since they so long ago as Monsieur Talon told the Parliament of Paris the other day threaten'd the Pope that if he came to Excommunicate them He should be Excommunicated himself for medling in things he had nothing to do with So that I suppose I shall hear no more of my imposing sillily about this thing nor the Compiler have any thanks for his untoward Observation Such little things will not serve to build that Supremacy upon which is pretended to by the Bishops of Rome And as the Primitive Fathers neither knew of nor believed nor therefore could submit to any Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome for the first six Centuries so they were as far from the Romish Doctrines about Tradition grounding all Matters of Faith as we do upon the Holy Scriptures and were as far from Invocating Saints as we of the Church of England and from the Belief of Purgatory or Transubstantiation and did detest the Worship of Images and Reliques as much as we can so that since in all these Points their Doctrines were contrary to the Doctrines of the Church of Rome and their Practices contrary to the present Practices of that Church we are bound to vindicate them to the world and to inform our Readers that they were no more Papists as to those Points mentioned by the Compiler in his Nubes Testium than we of the Reformation are and therefore I have Reason to conclude my Defence as I did my last Book against the Nubes with asserting it upon further Reasons That the Primitive Fathers were no Papists THE END Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented 4 to An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church 4to A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Mons de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator 4to A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 8vo A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome 4to The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures 4to The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England 4to A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England 4to Mr. Chillingworth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting personal Contests but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England with an exact Table of Contents and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before Printed viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church Transubstantiation Tradition c. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist with his Confutation of the said Motives An Historical Treatise written by an Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome touching Transubstantiation Wherein is made appear That according to the Principles of that Church this Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. 4to The Protestants Companion or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established with the main Doctrines of Popery Wherein is shewn that Popery is contrary to Scripture Primitive Fathers and Councils and that proved from Holy Writ the Writings of the ancient Fathers for several hundred years and the Confession of the most learned Papists themselves 4to The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be that Church and the Pillar of that Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy chap. 3. ver 15. 4to A Sermon preached on St. Peter's Day published with Enlargements A short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs 4to An Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one special Branch of the King's Prerogative viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host in Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead The People's Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted The Fifteen Notes of the Church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmine examined and confuted 4 to With a Table to the whole Preparation for Death being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France in a dangerous Distemper of which she died By William Wake M. A. 12mo The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in opposition to a late Book Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome 4to A Private Prayer to be used in difficult Times A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London Sept. 29. 1687. between A. Pulton Jesuit and Tho. Tenison D. D. as also of that which led to it and followed after it 4to The Vindication of A. Cressener Schoolmaster in Long-Acre from the Aspersions of A. Pulton Jesuit Schoolmaster in the Savoy together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer side notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgment of their Adversaries and that Their Religion is the surest way to Heaven 4to Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist wherein is shewed That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vnction with an Account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church In Three Parts With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom The Pamphlet intituled Speculum Ecclesiasticum or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass considered in its false Reasonings and Quotations There are added by way of Preface two further Answers the first to the Defender of the Speculum the second to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the new Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator The FIRST PART in which the Account that has been given of the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition is fully vindicated the Distinction of Old and New Popery Historically asserted and the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in point of Image-Worship more particularly considered 4to The incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome By the Author of the Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist 4to Mr. Pulton considered in his Sincerity Reasonings Authorities Or a Just Answer to what he hath hitherto published in his True Account his True and Full Account of a Conference c. His Remarks and in them his pretended Confutation of what he calls Dr. T 's Rule of Faith. By Th. Tenison D. D. A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist wholly different from those of the Present Roman Church and inconsistent with the Belief of Transubstantiation being a sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and other late Collections of the Fathers pretending to the contrary 4to An Answer to the Representer's Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversy With a Reply to the Vindicators Full Answer shewing that the Vindicator has utterly ruin'd the New Design of Expounding and Representing Popery An Answer to the Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England
he is professedly treating of the Sacraments of the Church If we look then into his 24th Chapter of his first Book of the Institution of the Clergy we do find him using the very same Expressions and almost the same numerical words in his Explication of the Nature of Sacraments which is another Evidence that this Tract is really Rabanus's and this too when he is instructing the Clergy professedly about the Nature and Number of the Sacraments for in that Book having treated first of the Vnity of the Church and the three Orders of Clergy in the Church and those under them and of their several habits he comes to treat chap. 24. of the Sacraments of the Church and there it is that he says plainly that the Sacraments are Baptism Chrism and the Body and Bloud of our Lord after which having treated distinctly about every one of them he says ch 32. that having spoken sufficiently of the Sacraments of the Church he would there pass on to discourse of the Office of the Mass Rabanus in the 41. ch of this Tract according to us which is but the 15th in Sirmondus's Edition says in Explication of our Saviour's words Take and Drink of this All of you as well Ministers as the rest of the Believers This Doctrine being expresly against their taking the Cup from the Laity Sirmondus is very hard put to it in his Notes about it and tells us that John of Louvain and Bellarmine and others think the place is abused and that instead of Drink ye it should be read Eat ye well it shall be so to please those men and now let 's see how the period will run Take and Eat ye all of this as well the rest of the Faithful as the Ministers This is the Cup of my Bloud of the New and Eternal Testament which is very pleasant stuff and therefore Sirmondus looking upon this emendation as too bold and unreasonable has a better way to solve the difficulty and that is that the rest of the Faithful do indeed drink the Bloud of the Lord but that they did not do it under the Species of Wine but under the Species of Bread by concomitancy since they do not receive a Bloudless Body But to expose the violence of such an Interpretation of Rabanus's words and to let all see how forced this is we need only appeal to this Chapter it self nay to the bare Title it self which I am afraid Sirmondus did for that reason omit which tells us that we do receive and offer t Quod non alium calicem accipimus offerimus hodie nisi quem ipse Jesus in suis Sanctis manibus accepit in Coena Tit. c. 41. at this very day no other Cup but that which our Saviour himself took into his blessed hands at his last Supper and there I hope Sirmondus will grant me that our Saviour did make use of a real Cup and that He did give it his Disciples to drink as the Church did in Rabanus's time give the Cup to all the Faithful I need make no Apology for this large Digression since it is a Justice we owe to the Memories of those who did oppose Transubstantiation when it was first started into the World and since it disarms our Adversaries of One Weapon which they use to employ against us tho' it was really intended by the Author of it for us but I did it chiefly because of that popular Argument so often in their mouths which they use when ever they are urged with any Passage out of the Fathers or Church-Writers against their Transubstantiation We grant cry they that this Argument looks very promising for you but notwithstanding this the Father is consistent with himself and certainly for us and was always lookt upon to be so we 'll give you an Instance of it no Body hath written things so plausible for you and which at first blush seem so perfectly inconsistent with Transubstantiation as Paschasius Radbertus himself in his Treatise about the Body and Bloud of our Lord and yet who ever doubted that Paschasius was of the contrary Opinion and the greatest Man for Transubstantiation the Church ever had Thus we see what Feats may be done meerly by the supposing this and such Books to belong to Paschasius and such as he and how they carry the Cause by looking upon this Book to be certainly Paschasius Radbertus's For which very Reason and that mentioned above I have taken some pains here effectually to prove that this Treatise was most certainly none of Paschasius Radbertus's but does certainly belong to Rabanus Maurus the True Author of it It is high time to return to my Friend the Compiler and the Business of Transubstantiation and see whether he makes a better Defence for the rest of his Fathers for Transubstantiation than for those hitherto To the rest of his Quotations from Gregory Nyssen I shewed him that that Father does compare the Changes of the Water in Baptism and the Oyl in Chrism and the Altar at its Dedication to that of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which plainly shews he meant no more Change of the Substance of any one of these than of the rest What he says to this is nothing but confusion I did not only prove that the Water and the Oyl have a Virtue from Christ but that the Father said they were changed as well as the Bread and Wine so that if the Change of the Bread and Wine was more than a Change of Use and Quality only theirs must be so too since he makes them all the very same and it is too childish to urge that he does not say the Water and Oyl are changed into the Body of Christ since we do see he asserts the same Change in them all and what matters it that he does not determine into what He hopes next to secure S. Chrysostom by saying that I would fain evacuate all the plain and positive Testimonies of that Father by a doubtful and obscure Passage out of his Epistle to Caesarius But I have too fully shewn in my Answer to repeat it here That those Testimonies from Chrysostom were not plain but very Allegorical and not positive but very Rhetorical as reasonable People of their own side must own that consider them And for the Passage from Caesarius I urged that alone against them because it was so very plain and so positive against Transubstantiation and I will be judged by the Reader whether I needed tho' I easily could have done it and was prepared to add any other Evidence to It which runs thus For as in the Eucharist before the Bread is consecrated we call it Bread but after that by the Mediation of the Priest the Divine Grace hath sanctified it it is no longer called Bread but is honoured with the NAME of our LORD'S BODY THO' THE NATURE OF BREAD CONTINUE IN IT STILL I cannot discommend the Compiler for calling it obscure since it is the easier
as well as the rest P. 34 35. 15. I desired an Answer from our Compiler himself whether he designed the passage from Valentinian's Letter to prove the Bishops of Rome had power alone or with other Bishops of judging Matters of Faith and the Cause of Priests or Bishops and shewed him that if he designed only the latter he was guilty of trifling if the former that he was contradicted by his own Master F. Alexandre and by the Clergy of France But the Compiler is sullen and was too angry to give an Answer in his Vindication to such an ensnaring Question P. 35 16. I charged our Representer and his Master with a false Assertion in saying the Council of Constantinople did submissively desire the Confirmation of their Decrees from Pope Damasus but Natalis Alexandre is too far off and the Compiler too sullen to make a Defence P. 36 17. I charged our Compiler with Impertinence in saying the Hereticks rejected Doctrines and Practices because they were not in Scripture I charged his Master with egregious falshood in saying the Hereticks appealed only to Scripture and shewed them that had either of them read that Chapter nay but the bare Title of that Chapter which they both quote in Iraenaeus in defence of what they so falsly affirmed they would have been ashamed of what they did But I cannot find a word of Reply to this P. 42 18. I charged our Compiler with Ignorance in Chronology and with contradicting his Master in the very places he transcribes from and gave the Instances of his placing Vigilantius in the beginning of the fourth Century whom his Master and all men of Learning place a hundred Years later of his placing Damasus and Julius in the Third Century who lived in the Middle of the Fourth Century of his putting Victor into the First Century who flourished not till the Second Century was almost at an end and lastly of the gross and intolerable Blunder of putting Aerius in the middle exactly of the First Century whereas he lived not till Three Hundred years after Our Compiler in his Vindication wanted not only forehead to defend them but ingenuity to acknowledge his Mistakes and therefore thought it were best to say nothing about it P. 49 19. I charged him with making use of a false Translation of a passage in Eusebius To this not a Syllable of Reply P. 54 20. I charged our Compiler and his Master with making use of a passage in defence of their Purgatory which was direct Heresy But not a word of Reply to this P. 56 21. I charged Our Compiler with abusing Gregory Nazianzen by an ensnaring Translation of his words To which our Compiler will give us no Reply P. 61 22. I charged both N. Alexandre and our Compiler with abusing and quite perverting a passage from St Ambrose by leaving out a Line which was connected to it and would have given light to the whole passage To which no Reply P. 55 56 57. c. to 62. 23. I charged them both with misunderstanding and misapplying St. Ambrose's words about Theodosius I charged them of being guilty of the same towards all the passages urged by them from S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Hierom and S. Austin but cannot find a word of Reply to this large Charge in our Compiler's Vindication of himself P. 67 24. I charged the Compiler with disingenuity for curtailing and maiming the passage from Gelasius Cyzicenus about receiving but a small portion of Christ's Body and Bloud To which I meet with not one word of Reply P. 78 25. I laid to his charge either gross Ignorance or great disingenuity in saying that the Jews Marcionites Manichees and Theopaschites had always shewed themselves Enemies of holy Images No Answer to this P. 85 26. I charged the Compiler with giving a false state of the Controversie about Images with palliating in talking only of respect to Images when not only their Council of Trent but that second of Nice commanded a Worship of them and their Index Expurgatorius was so careful to strike out of any Author any thing that did but offer to deny Adoration to Images nay his own Quotations do prove as far as they are able that Images were to be adored But to this I find not one syllable of a Reply 27. I challenged the Compiler to shew that as they made use of the Figure of the Cross in Constantine's time so they adored it that the Antients did adore the Image of the Cross and paid that Latria to the Image of the Cross which the Church of Rome doth now say is due to it But our Compiler is not at leisure to answer Challenges and therefore finds it the wisest way to say nothing Thus I have given the Reader a Catalogue of a great many severe and very considerable Accusations against our Compiler and his Master Natalis Alexandre to which he hath not given one Syllable of Reply or made any Defence for himself or Master against them though they be charges that call not only their Learning but their Ingenuity and Honesty so often into question should I add to this Catalogue another of abundance of considerable passages in my Book which I put down to explain the true and genuine sense of the several Fathers and to confront those curtail'd misunderstood misappliea and abused passages with which he had filled his Nubes Testium to all which I find no better or more Reply than to the former Catalogue in his pretended Vindication I should be forced to transcribe almost my whole Answer hither for this Representer hath a considerable knack of his own to answer Authorities by saying nothing to them He does not in that whole Vindication bear up fairly to any one Argument or Authority urged in confutation of him but knows very well how to fence off any thing that does press home by stepping out of the way of it and has got a peculiar Art first of abusing and misrepresenting his Adversaries words or sence and then of ridiculing them and making them for to appear absurd or unreasonable and then this must pass for a full answer and a compleat Vindication of himself After such an account of the Compiler's giving no answer nor making any defence against so very many severe charges and of his skulking and shifting off all replying fairly to the rest of my Book the Reader will be very desirous to know about what it is that the Compiler hath employed his six sheets and what he would mean by a Vindication of himself if nothing be said to so very many and so very heavy charges I come therefore to satisfie that desire and to shew the Reader how very well the Compiler's Answer deserves the name of a Vindication of the Nubes Testium from the Cavils of the Answerer by which false Title I do not question but it was his design to make people believe that I had only carpt at a passage here and there and never bore up
of all Sense of Modesty as well as betraying a want of Learning He is now come to the Body of my Answer and complains of my admirable Talent of trifling in quarrelling him for beginning his Book with The History of Donatus and shewing the Nature of Schism and for my saying That this was so far from being a Chief Point that it is no Point of Controversy at all betwixt us And upon this he falls to pitying me who had dwelt so long among Books for losing my time and then shews that a Chapter about Schism was not improper to begin his Book with But I would fain see this trifling proved and will now prove that he is the guilty person who hath shuffled three Chapters together here and hath not given us a true or fair state of the Chapters I do own that a Discourse about Schism might be a proper Introduction to a Controversial Book however I did shew that what he advanced there was perfect trifling I have once already done it sufficiently and must be forced in Vindication of my self to do it again to let the World see who is the Caviller and at whose Door the trifling must be laid His first Chapter was that the Fathers accused the Donatists of being guilty of Schism for making the wicked Lives of the Members of the Church the reason of their Separation My answer to this was that this can be no point of Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome as he had made it since we never urged the wicked Lives of some Members of the Church of Rome as the ground of our Separation from them and what says our Representer in Reply to this Does he either prove that that is a point of controversie betwixt us or that our Separation from the particular Church of Rome is grounded upon the same matter that the Donatists was No we have no reason to expect a fair Reply from him who did not set down the state of this Chapter at all The second Chapter was that the Fathers teach against the Donatists that the Catholick Church cannot fail This I told him could be no Controversie betwixt the Church of England and the Church of Rome since we believe with the Fathers that the Catholick Church cannot fail Was this then the trifling I am accused of if it be the Compiler had done well to have shewn it that so upon the sight of my errour I might have altered my mind but this he thought fit not at all to attempt His third Chapter was that the Fathers taught that whosoever breaks the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon any pretext whatsoever is guilty of Schism Upon this I told him that taking the word pretext for a groundless pretence I was of the same mind and did believe the Donatists who acted so to be guilty of a Criminal Schism but assured the Compiler withal that this could not be matter of dispute betwixt us who both assented to that doctrine of the Fathers and here it is my trifling must be discovered and here he will have me not only to differ from them but from the Fathers this is hard when I had assented to that Chapter as set down by him and proved by the Fathers but he will have it that I am for making the breach of the Vnity of the Catholick Church not Schism unless it be done causelesly whereas the Fathers teach there can be no just cause I grant the Fathers teach that there can be no just cause given by the Catholick Church however that particular Churches can give and do often give just cause for others to break Communion with them is what no Father will deny is what the Church of Rome it self must grant which hath not only broken Communion with us but with the whole Greek Church and yet I suppose does pretend to shew that she had a just cause for it He hath offered hereupon nothing new in defence of his three Chapters but some hard words and those I do not intend to reply to but will pass to the defence of his Chapter about the Supremacy I had charged him with giving a false and imperfect state of the Controversie betwixt us in relation to the Pope's Supremacy but this he is not willing to defend but turns it off with saying that it only is so if my word be to be taken for it but I had not only given him my word but very good reasons for it and therefore since the Compiler hath no mind to be medling with reasons it would be uncivil to be importunate with calling upon him to disprove them That Chapter as it did concern the greatest point of Controversie betwixt us and the Church of Rome so it did require a great deal of canvasing and admit of a vast variety of dispute in it I was careful to follow the Compiler through it and to debate and disprove every thing that was brought to support the Pope's Supremacy in it but our Compiler is not so civil to me nor so just to his Book in his Vindication but forsakes the defence of every one of his passages and only seems solicitous to make a shew and that he may not be accused of saying nothing at all in defence of his Testimonies and in Answer to a great many very severe charges in that Chapter he serves us up again two or three bits of his former passages and that is all I told him his first quotation from Irenaeus was of no use and gave him in short my reasons for it all the answer he makes is to give us anew a piece of the same passage and this with two or three scornful words and crying good and great must be called defending and we must be content with such from him since it seems the Man is not furnisht with better but if the old quotations presented anew will signify any thing they are at your service but upon this condition that they may serve for a defence of themselves And such is his behaviour as to the next passage from Optatus which I shewed to have been very obscure and that in affirming there was but one Cathedra in the World possessed first by S. Peter and after him by his Successours at Rome it did not only contradict the other parts of his Writings but all Church Writers before and after him for hundreds of years who make as many Cathedra's as Bishops in the World and I instanced in a most plain place in Tertullian which did assert the direct contrary to the Doctrine of that passage of Optatus All the Answer besides rude language to these reasons that I can observe is that it is a notorious fraud in me to pretend that the Father maintains here That the Chair of Rome was such that the rest of the Apostles might not have Cathedra's for themselves whereas says the Compiler S. Optatus no where affirms this but only that the rest of the Apostles should not set up other Episcopal Chairs in
the World to believe that they are not in earnest in these things I must say that the Representer with some other Writers which I could name are very unhappy men since they either are embarkt in defence of a Cause which cannot be upheld by better Arguments and Methods or they do very great hurt to their cause in defending a good cause with such unlawful Weapons But to return the only excuse that can be made for him is that he was necessitated to it for as to the three first Centuries he found there was no manner of defence to be made for their Invocation of Saints thence and that if I did not grant him that the fourth or fifth Century practised Invocation of Saints he should have nothing to say for his Church or his Book as to those five hundred years which in the Title of his Nubes Testium he had appealed and pretended to He was forc'd therefore since I neither did grant him nor could do it to set the best Face he could upon the matter and to say I had granted that Invocation of Saints was the Practice of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries And upon this all is built that he hath to say in defence of his Nubes in the Vindication and he sets very heartily to it with the assistance of his Friend Monsieur de Meaux and wonders how we can think those illustrious Fathers should practise it had not the same been a doctrine of the foregoing Ages and runs on in commending the Virtue and Learning of those Fathers forgetting all this while that he was guilty of begging the question and which is worse of taking that as granted which had been expresly denied him that those Fathers did practise Invocation of Saints He should first have proved the thing and then he might have harangued upon it but he begun at the wrong end and since he was not at leisure to disprove fairly and fully any of the Answers I had given to his Nubes but only by saying that my distinguishing betwixt Requests made to Saints and Prayers solemnly addressed to them was a shift and a piece of Controversial Legerdemain and serving us up with the old provision out of the Nubes to confirm what he said I should not trouble my self any further with this Matter but that I am called upon by his Friend F. Sabran the Jesuit and challenged to shew a difference betwixt what was practised by S. Austin and ALL the Fathers of his and the precedent Century and what is now practised by the Church of Rome in relation to Invocation of Saints This I promised to do as soon as the Controversie betwixt him and me about the 35th Sermon of S. Austin de Sanctis was either ended or dropt and since it is dropt and that matter by my second Letter to the Jesuit was to use one of his own expressions made out against him beyond the possibility of a seeming Answer I will now be just to my word and that I may more fully vindicate our Church from that Schism the Jesuit lays to her charge upon this account I will beg leave of the Reader to enlarge a little more upon this point in order to the further clearing of matters about it What is meant by Invocation it self is no matter of Controversie betwixt us their Council of Trent and their Catechism afterwards have sufficiently taught this and make it to be an offering up of Prayer to the glorified Saints and a calling upon them for their Prayers Help and Assistance I will not insist upon the invincible arguments from the Word of God against such Invocation of Saints nor stay to shew how both Old and New Testament command and direct all our Prayers and Addresses to God and how that there is not one Example of Invocation of Saints in the whole word of God but will pass to the Testimonies and Writings of the Fathers which they of the Church of Rome insist so much upon The Jesuit my Adversary hath offered nothing new but hath assaulted me with those passages out of the Nubes Testium which I had answered before and challenges me to shew what the Church of Rome doth more or different from what was practised then by S. Austin and ALL the Fathers of his Age and the precedent Century I will take leave in order to shewing these things to prove these four Particulars First That Invocation of Saints is the Practice of the Church of Rome Secondly That it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that it is good and profitable to invocate Saints Thirdly That Invocation of Saints was not the Practice of the Primitive Fathers Fourthly That the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers was directly against and inconsistent with any Invocation of Saints The two first of these to wit that the Invocation of Saints is not only the Doctrine but the Practice of the Church of Rome I hope the Jesuit will give me leave to suppose since those things need no proving which are the daily Practices of their Church and the avowed Doctrine of every true Son of their Church I could else fill up two or three sheets with Collections out of their Missals and Offices of the Virgin Mary to prove this thing plainly upon them but there is no need of it and therefore I will begin the proof of my Third Particular That Invocation of Saints was not the Practice of the Primitive Fathers I will deduce this methodically through the several first Ages and shew not only what was the Practice of the Church in her Liturgy but also the Practice of the most eminent Fathers thereof Century I Towards the later end of the first Century lived S. Ignatius an account of his Practice we meet with in that Relation of his Martyrdom which was drawn up by Philo Gaius and Agathopus who attended him from Antioch and were present at his Martyrdom at Rome Acta Martyrium S. Ignatii Edit Usser 1647. In that account we can meet with no recommendation of himself in his greatest distress or of his Church to any tutelar Saint or Angel or to the Virgin Mary but upon his being condemned to be torn apieces by the wild Beasts from the Emperour Trajan's own mouth we find him breaking out into joy and giving praises to the Lord for honouring him with those Chains the Souldiers were putting upon him and praying to Him for his Church of Antioch and recommending it with tears unto his Saviour When he was come to Rome and was met by the Christian Brethren there they went to Prayers together and made up a Christian Assembly with bended Knees praying earnestly to their blessed Saviour the Son of God for the several particular Churches for a stop to the Persecution and for the mutual Charity of the Christian Brethren And as the Writers of this Martyrdom represent the glorious Martyr always making his Addresses to God the Son So after his Martyrdom Ibidem they give the same
account of their own Devotions that they were offered up with tears and bended knees unto the same Lord. Century II In the second Century we have the famous Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning the Martyrdom of S. Polycarp wherein we meet with an account of his Practice in his Devotions They inform us of his continuing instant in Prayer to God day and night for the peace and Tranquillity of all the Christian Churches and have preserved us the very Prayer he used when he was tyed to the stake to suffer Martyrdom which we find addressed wholly to God the Father * Apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 4. c. 15. through the everlasting High-Priest Jesus Christ his only Son not one syllable nor the least hint of any Romish Invocation of Saint or Angel either to assist or defend or recommend him unto God. After this account of the Religious Practice of those two most glorious Martyrs the Christian Church ever had next to the Apostles I will set down in the same Century Justin Martyr's account of the Christian Liturgie where we may justly expect to meet with a full relation to whom all the Services of the Church were addressed at that time His account is that their Publick and Common Prayers their Praises and f Justin M. in Apol. 2. Edit Paris p. 97 98. Thanksgivings for the good things of this life were offered up by their Bishop to God the Father through his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost Here is no mention in this very exact account of the Christian Service of any Prayers or so much as Wishes made to Angels or Saints no footsteps of any Practice of invocating of Saints which is evidence strong enough that such things were not then in being any where Century III In the beginning of the Third Century Tertullian in his Apologetic Terull Apologet c. 39. Edit Franck. 1597. acquaints us at large with the Practice of the Catholick Church and the nature of her Liturgy and sets her out as offering up her Prayers with the united Forces and joint requests of the whole Congregation unto God as praying to him for all Estates and Conditions and in his account of their Love-Feasts in the same place he acquaints us that they did not sit down to those Feasts till they had made their Prayers unto God that as they begun them with Prayers unto God so they ended them with singing Hymns unto God. Not a syllable is to be met with in Tertullian's Narration of the Customs and Divine Service of the Church of God of the Third Century about any Prayers to or Invocation of Saints of any Praises to God and the Virgin Mary or to God and any other of the Angels or Saints Century IV In the Fourth Century we meet with a much larger and more particular account of the Divine Service in the Christian Assemblies from the Book called Constitutiones Apostolica which bears the name of Clemens Romanus but really belongs to some Author of the Fourth Age. In this there is not only an account of their Practice but a very great many of the Prayers then used are put down at large every one of which we find directed to God alone See Clementis Romani Constitutiones Apostolicae from the 25th Chapter of the 7th Book to the end of the Eighth Book in Labbe's Councils Tom. 1. p. 428 c. not the least mention or hint of any Invocation of Saints of any Prayers to the Virgin Mary or any other Saint and as all the Prayers of the Church then in that Century according to this Author as well on all other days as the Lord's day as well in all other Offices and services of the Church as in the Communion-Service it self were offered up only to God so there is no desire or Petition in them for any of the Saints aid assistance or Intercession All which Circumstances together shew how far Invocation of Saints was from being the Practice of the Catholick Church in the Fourth Century when in the Prayers addressed to God alone there was not so much as any mention of the Saints Intercession or Aid which are things so frequent now in the Church of Rome that they desire of God for the Merits of the Saints both spiritual and temporal Blessings Century V As we find the Practice of the Fourth Century so visibly without any Prayers to or Invocation of Saints so we are as certain that such Invocation or Prayers got no footstep in the Publick Offices of the Church either during the rest of this Century or in the Fifth Century of this we cannot desire a more certain and satisfactory account than we have from S. Austin himself about whom the Jesuit Sabran hath made so much stir and doth still insist upon it that S. Austin did invocate the Virgin Mary S. Austin in his Books de Civitate Dei giving an account of the Service of the Church in his Age and of what was the Practice of the Church in relation to the Martyrs tells us indeed that the Martyrs names were recited during the divine Service but tells also as expresly that they were not then invocated by the Priest who did officiate g August de Civ Dei. l. 22. c. 10. I have traced hitherto the Practice of the Primitive Church through the Five First Centuries I have insisted chiefly upon those Authors and Books which present us with the Liturgies which are doubtless the best and only Evidences of the Practice of the Primitive Church for those Ages I have not insisted upon the Practice of particular Persons excepting those two glorious and most conspicuous Martyrs S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp whose Prayers I question not were wholly conformed to the Publick Services in the Churches in their time Had I done the same concerning the other Martyrs of the first and later Ages that I did about them two or had I been careful to urge the Practice of particular Persons apparent in their own writings I must have transcribed a great part of the ancient Martyrologies where we find all the Prayers of those Martyrs addressed to God and must have filled too many Pages with the Instances of other particular Persons and Writers But I thought the other method of urging only the Liturgies of the several first Centuries as the fairest way of understanding the Practice of the Primitive Church in those Ages and I believe I have made it fully and undeniably evident that Invocation of Saints was not the Practice of the Primitive Fathers As we are able to shew from the ancient Accounts of the Churches Services that Invocation of Saints was not their Practice so we are as able to shew that the Doctrine of the Fathers of those first five Centuries was directly against and inconsistent with any such Invocation of Saints as is now practised in the Church of Rome and this I shall the more largely insist upon because this is an Argument which they
practice It will be very acceptable to give the Reader the Monk's Prayer not only for the extraordinary nature of it but for the Saint's sake so famous in England Having finished his Translation of the Saints Life He concludes all with this Prayer to the Saint himself To whom with all devotion now lett ws hartely pray and with this subsequent Prayer thus shall I end and seast O Laureat Precious Martyr preserve the Church all way our Kynge with the Commynaltee and send ws rest and pease The Hed Father of this Monastery with all his both more and lesse Preserve of special grace and pray for the queck and dede which for the Church cause list gladly thy blod shede Vita cum Actibus Thomae Cant. Archiep. in English Metre Translated 1497. in a MS. in Bennet College Library I will pass on to the next Father Origen who will give us the fullest account of the Doctrine of the Church especially in that Treatise which he wrote in defence of Christianity it self against Celsus the eighth Book of which Treatise is almost wholly spent in the proving that all Worship and Prayer are to be offered up to GOD ALONE through our LORD JESUS CHRIST Celsus the Heathen was of opinion that inasmuch as the Angels did belong to God men ought to make Oblations and Prayers to them that thereby they might obtain their favour and Intercession and make them propitious unto them Origen rejects this Advice with indignation Away says he with Celsus's Counsel that tells us we must PRAY TO ANGELS and let us not afford the least ear to it n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΜΟÎΩ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΘΕΩ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΜΟ ÎΟΓΕÎΕΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΛΟΓΩ ΘΕΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen contra Celsum l. 8. p. 395. Edit Cantabr 1658. for as for us Christians we must PRAY TO HIM ALONE who is GOD over all and we must PRAY to the WORD of GOD his only Begotten and the First-born of all Creatures and we must intreat HIM that He as High Priest would present our Prayer when come up to him unto his God and our God. And for the procuring the favour of the Angels he just after tells Celsus that the way to attain it was to lead holy Lives and to imitate the Angels in their uninterrupted service of God assuring him withal that if by that means we have God favourable to us we have all his Friends both Angels Souls and Spirits loving and affectionate to us And before this in his Fifth Book against the same Heathen upon Celsus's inquiry what the Christians lookt upon Angels to be and his answer that though they were wont from their office to call them Angels yet that they found them named Gods in the Scriptures by reason of a certain Divinity in them Origen does prevent the Heathen's Assumption that if they were such they ought to be worshipped by telling him that the Scriptures did not give Angels the Names of Gods so as to command us to worship and adore them instead of God who are ministring o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΠΑΣΑΠ〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΔΕΗΣΙΠ〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΗΠ〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕÎΤΕΥΞΙΠ〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΙΑΠ〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΤΩ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΘΕΩ ΔΙΑ ΤΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΜΨΥΧΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΘΕΟΥ ΔΕΗΣΟΜΕΘΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Origen contra Celsum l. 5. p. 233. Edit Cantab. Spirits bring down to us the Blessings from God. But that ALL SUPPLICATION and PRAYER and INTERCESSION and THANKSGIVING must be sent up unto GOD ALMIGHTY by the HIGH PRIEST who is above all Angels and is the LIVING WORD and GOD. And we must put up our Supplications also unto the WORD HIMSELF our Intercessions also and Prayers and Thanksgivings must be offered up to HIM But to invocate Angels is ABSURD since we do not comprehend the knowledge of them which is out of our reach And granting that the knowledge of them which is wonderful and secret might be comprehended this very knowledge declaring their nature to us and their several charges would not suffer us to presume so far as to PRAY unto ANY OTHER but the GOD who is Lord over all and abundantly sufficient for all by our Saviour the Son of God. I cannot leave this so particular an account of the Church's Doctrine against Invocation without making an Observation from it which is that Origen does make Invocation and Worship to be Synonymous here and does confine them both to the same Object and shews that whatsoever is invocated is worshipped and that since all Worship is peculiar to God alone all Prayer upon that account must be offered up to Him alone and if this was the Church's sense at that time as we are hence certain it was we can very justly gather from it that they were far from either practising or teaching an Invocation of Saints or Angels who were for dedicating all Prayer to God alone and we may also gather this further from it that where any other Fathers do deny any worship's being paid to any Creature they did by that very denyal exclude all Invocation or Prayer being made to any even the most glorified Creature since Invocation or Prayer is one of the chief parts of Worship Origen himself and other Fathers after him as I shall shew at large do make Invocation and Adoration to be the same thing and do prove the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour from his being Invocated or prayed to which would have been a false and an absurd Argument had Saints and Angels been invocated at that time and it would have proved too much since if our Saviour is proved to be God from his being Invocated all the Saints as well as Angels were by the same Argument proved to be Gods had they been Invocated in those days I will give the Reader his words since they are of such extraordinary moment herein Origen commenting upon that passage in St. Paul How shall they call on or invocate him in whom they have not believed tells us that the Jews did not invocate Christ because they did not believe in Him and argues afterwards that if Enos Moses Aaron and Samuel did call on or invocate the Lord they did without doubt invocate Christ Jesus the Lord for if says he in proof thereof to call upon the name p Et si INVOCARE Domini nomen ADORARE DEUM UNUM atque IDEM est sicut INVOCATUR CHRISTUS ADORANDUS est Christus sicut offerimus Deo Patri primo omnium Orationes ita Domino Jesu Christo c. Orig. In Ep. ad Rom. l. 8. c. 10. p. 477 478. Edit Frob. 1536. of the Lord and to ADORE GOD be ONE and the SAME THING as CHRIST is INVOCATED so CHRIST is also to be ADORED and as
Addresses made to Temporal Princes by the mediation of their Officers and shews that the comparison is groundless since Temporal Princes are forc'd to make use of their Officers in such things because they are but men whereas God knows the Merits of all men and therefore no need of a Spokesman to him Did S. Basil or Gregory Nyssen teach Invocation or a Praying to Saints who define Prayer to be a Request for some good thing TO GOD These are the most noted Fathers of the Fourth Century and for the Fifth did S. Epiphanius teach Invocation of Saints who proves the Divinity of Christ as S. Athanasius had done from his being worshipped the most solemn expression of Worship being Invocation or Prayer did S. Ambrose after he rightly understood the Christian Religion teach any such Invocation who said that GOD ALONE was to be INVOCATED Did S. Chrysostom teach it who does so often exhort to our going to God our selves assuring us we shall be sooner heard when we ask our selves than when we ask by another who does with the rest of the Fathers make the Essence of Prayer to be a Discoursing with God Did S. Austin lastly whom the Jesuit names teach Invocation or Prayer to Saints who says expresly that we ought to Pray to or ask of GOD ALONE those things we hope for I am so much accustomed to the Writers of the Church of Rome that I do not so much wonder as I otherwise should at the Jesuits asserting a thing so very false with so much assurance it is too frequent among them to challenge ALL the Fathers when perhaps not one in twenty is on their side and therefore for the Jesuit to assert That all the Fathers of those two Centuries are for Invocation of Saints is meerly a being in the fashion But can he think to impose upon us with such things does he think that Confidence is enough or all that is necessary for the carrying of any cause if he does he shall find himself mistaken since there is too much learning in England to let such bold and false assertions to pass upon and delude the people without controul or putting a stop to them I need not aggravate or further insist on the falseness of all that the Jesuit said there I had rather employ my self to vindicate the Fathers than to expose him and therefore in order to the doing that by answering all the passages quoted out of them by the Jesuit to defend Invocation of Saints I will only request that these two very reasonable Postulatum's may be granted me First That the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries about whom the Controversie is betwixt me and the Jesuit did know the Practices and understand the Doctrines of the Fathers of the Three preceding Ages of the Church Secondly That the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries had so much learning as to understand and so much sense as not to contradict themselves Both these Concessions are so very just that I hope there will be no dispute about them I will then with the help of them begin the Examination of all that the Jesuit hath offered out of the Primitive Fathers in defence of Invocation of Saints And to let the Jesuit see I am not afraid of their best Arguments I will answer that one which is omitted I wonder how by himself but was not only urged in the Nubes Testium but is twice repeated by the Compiler in his Vindication of the Nubes Testium It is the passage from S. Ambrose's Book de Viduis wherein he says Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis Martyres obsecrandi the Angels are to be pray'd to who are appointed for our defence the Martyrs are to be pray'd to whose Patronage we justly claim This passage doth make the greatest shew of any for the Church of Rome however in answer to this we tell them that what S. Ambrose wrote in that Book was not the Doctrine of the Christian Church which S. Ambrose did not understand when he wrote that Book being then but a Novice as not only this passage about Angels but some others in it do very evidently shew and therefore this passage ought not to be insisted on as the Doctrine of the Church then since He doubtless did not at that time understand the Church's Doctrines nor ought it to be insisted on as S. Ambrose's Opinion at least since it is evident that he did afterwards change his mind when he understood Christianity better and did then declare his sense to be that GOD ALONE was to be INVOCATED or PRAY'D TO This Answer is fair and cannot be reasonably gainsay'd however since the Jesuit and the Compiler will be angry at my saying S. Ambrose was a Novice and did not understand the Doctrines of the Christian Church when he wrote that Book I will to prevent their Cavils offer some further reasons in defence of that Answer I have just made I will not insist upon the Concessions of their own Learned Men of the Church of Rome of Baronius for Example who do own that S. Ambrose was a Novice when he wrote that Book and therefore did not throughly understand the Christian Doctrine I have better reasons the chief of which is that this doctrine of praying to Angels and Martyrs is expresly contrary to the doctrine of the Church and the Practice of it in St. Irenaeus's time who tells us that the Church then made no use of any Invocation of Angels in Origen's time who informs us that the Church's Doctrine was that Angels were not to be PRAY'D TO nor Martyrs neither but that ALL PRAYER was to be offered up to GOD ALONE through our Lord Jesus Christ and in St. Athanasius's time who lived but a little time before S. Ambrose and who shews us that no Christian then did Pray to Angel or Martyr or Saint or any other Creature but which is worst of all this Doctrine of praying to Angels is directly contrary to a Canon of a Council of Bishops at Laodicea held not above ten years before St. Ambrose's Conversion to Christianity by which Canon an Anathema is denounced against any person that should Pray to Angels and as if the Council * Can. 35. Concil Laodicen held A.D. 364. had a mind throughly to have secured all Christians from slipping into it they call the Praying to Angels a secret Idolatry and a forsaking of Christ This is sufficient to shew that Praying to Angels was far enough from being either a Practice or a Doctrine of the Primitive Church since it was accursed and branded with the title of Idolatry and to shew further that it was not S. Ambrose's own Opinion when he understood Christianity better we need only look into that Oration I quoted above where he doth expresly teach that GOD ALONE is to be Invocated and Prayed to Had the Compiler of the Nubes Testium known the true State and Doctrines of the Primitive Church during the first four Ages
He would never have been guilty of bringing in S. Ambrose for a Teacher of Invocation and Praying to Angels which the Church had not only always opposed but had just before S. Ambrose's own time accursed as secret Idolatry and a forsaking of Christ but such passages as this and downright Heresy sometimes are quoted if they do but promise any the least service to the defence of the present Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Unhappy Church that art forc'd to make use of such or to have none It is time for me now to attend the Jesuit and see what he produces to shew that Invocation or Prayer to Saints was taught in the Fourth and Fifth Ages He begins with S. Austin but so little is the Jesuit's Skill and so ill his Fortune that he first quotes a passage that breaks the neck of his whole design For in that answer to Faustus the Manichee who had objected to the Christians the Worshipping of their Martyrs he owns indeed as the Jesuit quotes him that they did worship the Martyrs but he tells him also that it was only with the Worship of Love and Fellowship which is paid also to the Holy Men of God while on earth I ask the Jesuit therefore what Church ever did and whether even their Church of Rome doth order Invocation or Prayers to be put up to their Fellow Christians tho' the most holy on Earth Let him but name me the Church that ever practised or appointed this and I will be his Convert upon it but since no Church in the World was ever so forsaken of God as to command this and since the worship paid to the dead Saints was the very same that is paid to the Living Saints it is evident to a Demonstration that there was nothing of Invocation in it and consequently no Patronage for Invocation of Saints from this place but the direct contrary to it The Jesuit had in his Printed Sermon and in his Letter to the Lord quoted two of S. Austin's Sermons de Sanctis for the same purpose for the passage in relation to the Virgin Mary out of the 35th Sermon de Sanctis I have sufficiently answered that already by proving that whole Sermon to be a Forgery and for the other passage out of the 18th Sermon de Sanctis I told him before that it is none of S. Austin's and for the Passage it self set down by the Jesuit in his Letter to the Protestant Peer it is almost word for word in the 35th Sermon de Sanctis so that there was Stealing in the case either the 18th stole from the 35th or the 35th served the 18th that Trick but to convince the World how little that Passage could pretend to be S. Austin's or near his Age I will give the Reader that Piece which the Jesuit left out of the middle of his Quotation It is an Address to the Virgin Mary in these Words Excuse us from what we fear for thou art the ONELY HOPE of Sinners THROUGH THEE we hope for pardon of our Sins and in THEE O most Blessed Virgin is the Expectation a Excusa quod timemus quia TU es SPES UNICA peccatorum per TE speramus veniam delictorum in TE Beatissima nostrorum est Expectatio Praemiorum Serm. 18. de Sanctis of our Rewards This is such Doctrine as had no Being in S. Austin's days and happy had it been for the whole Church had such absurd Doctrine been always kept out and I am glad to see the Jesuit so much ashamed of it as to leave it out of the middle of his Quotation His next Author for Invocation of Saints is Origen and which is still more strange his Eighth Book against Celsus which as I shewed above was particularly written against the Invocation of Angel or Saint but some men are very unhappy and it is a just Judgment that they that only steal from one another should suffer and be exposed for their Imprudence What the Jesuit quotes is That if Men would gain the Favour of many they were taught in Scripture that thousands of thousands assisted before him but what is all this to the purpose What is said here is That the Angels assist good Men with their Prayers which is nothing at all to Invocation of Angels nay the place is so far from countenancing any such thing that Origen's Design through that whole eighth Book is to shew that no Worship nor Invocation is to be offered up to Angels or Saints and upon Celsus's urging that Men should worship and pray to the Angels that they might be propitious to them Origen answers him with a Detestation of his Counsel as I have put it down at large above shewing him that all our Prayers were to be offered to God and for the obtaining the Assistance of the Angels he tells him a Holy Life is the best Means And is not this Jesuit then very skilful in these things could any other Person have had the face to quote that very place for an Instance and Proof of Invocation of Angels and Saints which was intended by the Author directly against it I believe the Jesuit never saw Origen himself I intreat him to look into that Page out of which his Quotation is taken and then I am sure he will see very good reason to thank me for saying no more to him upon this Account His next Testimony is out of S. Basil's Oration upon the Forty Martyrs that whoever was in Affliction had recourse to them whoever was in Prosperity betook himself likewise to them the one that he might find Relief the other to beg continuance of his Happiness c. There was occasion for Craft in the Translation of this Place however I do not charge it upon the Jesuit who had it from the Compiler nor the Compiler who had it from Father Alexandre nor F. Alexandre himself who had it from Bellarmine or some other of their Writers who all conspire in the same Abuse of S. Basil's Words There is not a Syllable for Invocation here for S. Basil in this place to perswade the People to frequent the Anniversaries of the Martyrs tells them that the Church of the Martyrs that is where the Martyrs Bodies or Ashes were laid was a ready help to Christians but how Because those that came to offer up their Prayers at the Memories of the Martyrs had the assistance of the Martyrs Prayers whom S. Basil believed to joyn their Prayers to those that were put up at their Memories and upon this account it is that He says people betook themselves to the Martyrs not by praying to the Martyrs as the Jesuit and the Romish Writers would insinuate but by frequenting their Assemblies and by running to the Churches of the Martyrs for immediately after he plainly enough prevents his being misunderstood as tho' he was telling how the people prayed to the Martyrs by annexing this to it Let your Prayers therefore b
for those who could be relieved by the Prayers of the Living as I shall by and by shew In the mean time I will consider what he further offers to prove this Agreement and this is no other than to tell us over again that the State of Purgatory is agreeable to that Prayer and then to describe it by telling us very gravely that in Purgatory there is a kind of Rest and Quiet where the Interior Powers of the Souls are well order'd and compos'd the Vnderstanding setled in the Light of Faith the Will inflam'd with the Love of God the Imagination undisturb'd and secure Hopes of once enjoying God filling the Souls with a happy Resignation and Comfort And is not this very Comical stuff Certainly all that read it will wonder whence this Man comes to have so very nice and exact an account of the State of Purgatory as to know how every one of the Faculties of our Soul are employ'd there One would think he had been there already himself or that somebody hath slipt out thence and instead of going streight to Heaven had come to Earth again to inform the Compiler how things stand there and how every one is employ'd there which brings into my mind that Dialogue of Lucian which gives us just such another account of the State of the Dead I must confess I cannot read such things without an Indignation to see grave men Romancing about things so serious and tho' I can bear well enough Sir Thomas Moor's Accounts what people do and how they are taken up in his Vtopia yet I cannot forgive any Christian that will bring such Comical Accounts into our Religion and for any Man to write at the rate the Compiler does here and to give such a formal account of things for which he can have no grounds nor reasons nor any probability or possibility without a divine Revelation of knowing any of the things he so confidently affirms is to make another Vtopia and to ridicule the Christian Religion to the World. I cannot find that the Compiler makes the nature of their Purgatory to be any thing else than the Longing desire of those in it of seeing and enjoying God which longing desire doth give them a most afflicting Anguish from which they are capable of being delivered and reliev'd by the Prayers of their Friends on Earth And he concludes that this is all that is required in our Profession of Faith in which 't is said I hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detain'd are reliev'd by the Suffrages of the Faithful I know the Compiler too well to trust him in these things wherein he hath taken a great deal of pains to no purpose in the World since it is very easy to demonstrate that He and F. Alexandre with the other Expositors of the New Popery have quite run away from the true old doctrine of their Church about Purgatory that the true Purgatory of the Church of Rome is as inconsistent with that State of Light Tranquillity and Comfort wherein the Primitive Fathers supposed the Faithful to be as Light is with Darkness Torment with Ease and the most exquisite Pain with Pleasure And this is what I will now prove that the Romish Purgatory is a place of Corment wherein the Souls of those who are in it undergo the same pains that the damned do and that there is no other difference betwixt Hell-Fire and Purgatory-Fire but that the one is Eternal and the other but Temporal and this I am sure will discover the absurdity of all that our Compiler hath said here in his Vindication and ruin the pretended agreement betwixt the Primitive Fathers State of Joy and Tranquillity and the Purgatory of the Church of Rome The Council of Trent was so shy or rather so cunning about the business of Purgatory that she only decrees in general terms That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls detain'd there do receive Relief by the Prayers of the Faithful but especially g Concil Trident Sessio 25. de Purgatorio by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Mass without telling us one word further of the State Nature Condition or Place of this Purgatory or any other Circumstances that might explain the Nature of it to them who notwithstanding these general ambiguous words are bound to believe it as much as the Article of the Trinity So that either there is no way of knowing what this Purgatory is or we must gather the knowledge of the nature and condition of it from the best approved Writers or general sense of their Church about it I could not but smile I must confess to find the Compiler to be so very shy in his Vindication and to be so afraid of having any body believe that there is any thing of Fire in the Case when he is describing the nature of Purgatory since tho' he had forgotten it yet I had not how in his Nubes Testium he makes the greatest show for Purgatory with his PURGING FIRE out of Gregory Nyssen with his PURGATORY FIRE out of S. Basil and with his Baptism of FIRE after Death out of Gregory Nazianzen but now in his Vindication He hath put all the Three Fires out and all this because tho' they did agree well enough with Places of Light yet there were no ways possible of making 'em Places of Comfort and Joy and therefore they deserv'd to be put quite out Of all the Writers I ever met with I never observed any that would plunge himself so grievously as this poor Compiler will tho' he set himself never so warmly to prove any thing nay to be as earnest for it as if the whole of Christianity did depend upon it yet if afterwards he finds that the matter is or may be turn'd upon him then farewel this or that Opinion and all the quotations for it into the bargain he wipes his Mouth gets into another Box and then talks or writes as if he had never affirmed nay not heard of any such thing Well then since the Compiler is for throwing away all his quotations out of the Fathers to prove Purgatory was a FIRE I cannot make use of them since he has put them all out but must inquire among other people to see what they make the Nature of Purgatory to be There is none so able or so probable to help me herein as Bellarmine One of the greatest Men their Church ever had The Cardinal in his second Book about Purgatory examining the Nature of Purgatory concludes thus It is certain that in Purgatory as well as in Hell there is a Punishment h Certum est 4 to in Purgatorio sicut etiam in Inferno esse poenam Ignis sive iste Ignis accipiatur propriè sive Metaphoricè sive significet poenam sensus sive damni ut quidam volunt ex Patrum Testimoniis Omnes enim IGNEN appellabant Purgatorii poenam Bellarm. de Purgatorio l. 2. c. 10. of FIRE
this Case He next puts down their Opinion that will have it to relate to those who are just a dying and drawing on but this Opinion he says is generally rejected not only because those that are only drawing on cannot be with any propriety of Speech called the Souls of the Dead but because the Custom of the Church is to use this Prayer for those Souls which have many years ago left the Body After which He concludes that this Prayer is used for those that are in Purgatory and gives us this Exposition of the Words of the Prayer Deliver O Lord the Souls of all the Faithful Deceased from the Pains of Hell that is from PURGATORY-FIRE WHICH IS HELD TO BE ALTOGETHER THE SAME WITH HELL-FIRE and from the Bottomless-Pit and from the Mouth of the Lion that is from the Prison hid under m Juxta haec singula illius Orationis verba exponi possunt nam dicitur Domine libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis Inferni id est à PURGATORIO IGNE qui IDEM prorsus esse perhibetur atque IGNIS INFERNI de profundo lacu de Ore Leonis à Carcere nimirum sub Terram abdito ubi detentae expurgantur animae piorum Ne absorbeat eas Tartarus hoc est ne amplius diutius eas profundi illius Carceris Cavernae vincula remorentur nec Inferni poenae tanquam fauces quaedam belluae immanis saevae truculentae detineant Unde IGNEM PURGATORIUM cum sit IDEM qui IGNIS INFERNI appellat Ecclesia Tartarum Ne cadant in Obscurum id est ne obscurum quas cadentes excepit longius detineat Fr. Raimund Capisucchi Controversiae Theolog selectae Controversia 5 ta p. 237. Edit Romae 1677. the Earth wherein the Souls of the Faithful are detain'd to be purged that HELL may not swallow them up for Ever that is that the Receptacles and Bands of that deep Prison may not stay them further or any longer nor the PAINS OF HELL as the Jaws of some fierce cruel and savage Beast detain them Whereupon the Church doth call PURGATORY-FIRE Hell because Purgatory-Fire and Hell-Fire is the same that they may not fall into outer darkness that is that this Obscure Place may no longer detain the Souls which it receives falling into it Here is the Interpretation of a Great Cardinal of the Church of Rome now alive and which is more the Chief Licenser of all Divinity Books at Rome as Master of the sacred Palace one of the qualifications for which place certainly is to understand the Faith and Doctrines of the Church of Rome Here we meet with him explaining that Prayer in the Mass for the Dead as relating to Purgatory and calling it over and over again a place of Torment Purgatory-Fire and declaring it to be the same with Hell-Fire I took the pains to peruse and transcribe that large passage about the Exposition of this Prayer hither because I could not call it to mind without a secret Indignation that this Cardinal Capisucchi but two years before the Printing of this Book which was not then first written but Reprinted was one of those who Licensed and so much commended the Bishop of Condom's Exposition in which we find an account of Purgatory perfectly inconsistent with what the Cardinal had written in his Controversies In the Bishop of Condom's Exposition we find these expressions about Purgatory This is what the Council of Trent proposes to our Belief touching the Souls detained in Purgatory without determining n Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church By the Bishop of Condom p. 15. in WHAT Their PAINS consists or many other such like things concerning which this holy Council demands great moderation blaming those who divulge what is uncertain or suspected Such is the innocent and holy DOCTRINE of the CATHOLICK CHURCH touching Satisfactions But for all Cardinal Capisucchi's Licensing and approving this passage in that Exposition He himself had written the direct contrary when he makes the Pains of Purgatory to be by Fire and makes Hell-Fire and Purgatory-Fire to be the SAME and not only knew this to be but published that it was the Faith of their Church that does in that Prayer for the Dead call Purgatory Hell because Purgatory-Fire and Hell Fire were the very same All the defence that can be made for Cardinal Capisucchi must be that the Bishop of Condom's words were restrained to the Council of Trent which Council it is certain did not determine any thing about what the Purgatory pains consisted in but this can by no means excuse him since it is false that the Bishop of Condom's words are confin'd to that Council for he just after the mention of the Council says that what he had set down there about Satisfactions in this World or in Purgatory was the innocent and holy Doctrine of the CATHOLICK CHURCH which thing Cardinal Capisucchi did not only know in his Conscience to be false but had written the contrary to it which I suppose he is willing should be thought the truer of the two But granting that the Bishop of Condom's words had been restrain'd wholly to the Council of Trent Cardinal Capisucchi ought not to have Licensed or approved that Bishop's Exposition if he would have approved himself a sincere Man since he could not but know that this passage of the Bishop of Condom about Purgatory was a perfect Juggle and altogether unbecoming a Christian much more a Bishop for tho' the Council had been so reserved about the nature of the Pains in Purgatory yet he knew too well that their Church their Catholick Church had plainly and fully determined about the nature of those Purgatory Pains in her Office for the Dead by which she had spoken her sense intelligibly enough to the very meanest Capacities that those pains are by FIRE by FIRE which is the SAME with HELL-FIRE I will urge this thing no further but only pray to God that those great men may repent of such unwarrantable actions and of such arts which are altogether a dishonour to our Holy Religion I think I have very fully shewn what I did undertake for upon this business to wit that the Romish Purgatory is a place of Torment wherein the Souls of those who are in it undergo the same pains that the damned do and that there is no other difference betwixt Hell-Fire and Purgatory-Fire but that the One is Eternal and the other but Temporal Having shewn all this so effectually from their approved Writers from the Council of Florence from the Catechism ad Parochos and from the Office for the Dead in their Romish Missal it would be the veriest loss of Paper and the greatest affront to Readers of any sense to set formally here to the shewing how inconsistent this Romish Purgatory is with the Opinions of the Primitive Fathers about the State of the Deceased Faithful whom they believed to be when they