Church in relation to her Practice about Festival Days However our Compiler now he has laid aside his Disguise advances the same Accusation against me in his own Person but considering what Church he was of could do no less than give me Thanks for my Concessions Well then since this Man is not ashamed of serving us up again the very same Objections which I had already answered I must e'en be forced to trouble the Reader with Repetition since the importunity of an Adversary that cannot blush forces me upon it and must tell the Compiler a second time that when our Church doth set apart Days for the commemorating of the Saints which is all the Honour she either gives or intends Them she only appoints them for to bless God for the good and pious Examples of his Saints and Martyrs not to put up Prayers to the Saints themselves nor to offer Praises unto Them but to their God which was the genuine Practice of the Primitive Church as I shewed from the Example of the Church of Smyrna in relation to S. Polycarp their Martyred Bishop Our Church pays no Religious Worship to the Saints themselves but the Church of Rome does not only worship them but is very lavish and extravagant in it as it were easie to shew however as they of the Church of Rome are not imitated by us so neither have they the Example of the Primitive Church to defend their present Practices We do with the Primitive Church honour the Martyrs and Saints and have often enough declared it to be such an Honour as was given to them in the Primitive Times and what that Honour was S. Austin shall determine who in answer to a false Aspersion of the Manichees of the Church's worshipping the Saints upon their Festival Days and at their Monuments told Faustus the Manichee that the Church did indeed worship the Martyrs but that it was with no other Worship than that of Love and Fellowship which is paid to the (e) Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vitâ coluntur sancti homines Dei. D. Aug. cont Faust Manich. l. 20. c. 21. in Tomo 6. Oper. August Holy Men of God while they are alive on Earth That this was no other than a civil worship or respect I hope will not be denied by my Adversary since I suppose he will not pretend to shew that mortal and frail men while on Earth are used to have Religious Worship paid unto them and solemn Prayers offered up to them with all the external indications of devotion As to the Concessions which he pretends I have made and supposes it here again because I did not particularly consider the Testimonies under that Head I must tell him a second time that I neither did grant all that he had collected in the Nubes Testium upon that Subject nor seemed to grant it but did set them aside as needless and am notwithstanding our Compiler far from joining with them in this Point as he falsly would insinuate that I do but this is not the first of such wrongs done to me by this Compiler When he is next come to the Chapter about Invocation of Saints he tells the Reader that I appear with some disconfidence of my cause and therefore says the Compiler p. 19. tho' he pretended in the Title Page that Antiquity for the first five hundred years did not favour this or any Doctrine of the Church of Rome here he has considered better on 't and therefore cutting off Two of the Five he says we cannot shew this to have been the Practice of the first Three Centuries So that here he is willing to give us the Fourth and Fifth Ages as Practising the Invocation of Saints The Compiler quotes for all this the 43. page of my Answer to the Nubes Testium and a little after tells the Reader that I grant that Invocation of Saints was practised in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries If ever I was surpized at the reading any thing in my life it was at this account of my Book against that Chapter in the Nubes my memory of what I had written and this account of it were so diametrically opposite that I could not but immediately look into my Book to see whether was in the fault and quickly found that this Compiler had need to have a very large forehead that would venture at this when my Book was in so many hands For first as to his saying I have cut off two of the five Centuries and only insist on their being not able to shew that Invocation of Saints was practis'd in the First Three Centuries it is very false I neither cut off two of the five nor insisted upon the three first Centuries only but said in that very page and place quoted by the Compiler that I would pass on to Invocation of Saints and see whether the Compiler did shew this to have been the practice of the Three first Centuries and so on does and so on here signifie nothing I did intend it and I question not but the World understood it to mean the two next Centuries to wit the Fourth and Fifth in Controversie betwixt us and yet this Writer hath the assurance to tell the World I had cut them two off He next tells them that I am willing to give the Papists the Fourth and Fifth Ages as practising Invocation of Saints and a little lower that I have granted that Invocation of Saints was practis'd in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries This is just as true as the other for to expose this bold falshood I need turn over only to the next page in my Book and transcribe what I had said there which I intreat the Reader to compare with what the Compiler says of it here Speaking in defence of the Church of England's not practising Invocation of Saints I have these very expressions We have far more reason to reject Invocation and solemn Prayers to Saints as Superstitious since it is against Scripture and against the Practice of the Three first Centuries AGAINST A COUNCIL in the FOURTH CENTURY and WANTS A PATTERN EVEN IN THE FIFTH and SIXTH and hath NO EXAMPLE in ANY of the PLACES produced by our Compiler on this head With what face then could this man write that I had given up the fourth and fifth Centuries Who can believe that such men have in reality either Religion or Conscience that can with so much deliberation commit such a deliberate wrong Had he had any regard to Truth or Honesty his Conscience must have flown into his Face and told him that what he was then writing was a very great injustice and directly false Good God! that men who make such shew of Religion make such frequent appeals unto the God of purer Eyes than either to behold iniquity or to let it go unpunished that talk so often of a day of Judgment and severe reckoning can do such things as must force
heats and such scurrilous language but I can assure him I was not moved by it and did as little mind as I did little deserve such impertinent language from him All my concern was to send him a second Letter and to let him know that I was resolved to make his Ignorance as apparent to the World as his Sermon had been and to expose his confident mistakes and his bold untruths about the fourteenth and eighteenth as well as the thirty fifth Sermons of St. Austin de Sanctis I did in two days dispatch and print and the next day sent him my second Letter to which I have not since received one word of Answer and I suppose I never shall and I think that Jesuit is by this time convinc'd that it had been better for him to have sat down at first quietly under the reproof given him in the Postscript to the Answer to the Nubes Testium since he hath by his vain attempt to vindicate himself betrayed his Ignorance and his weakness so very much to the World and his Answerer hath not omitted in the second Letter especially wherein he had more room to expose and publish it to the World and to convince all Readers what sort of Adversaries we deal with at present I thought my self obliged to make such a discovery of this Jesuit to the World because I did understand while I was engaged with him that he does appear wonderfully great in his own Eyes and was as desirous of being thought a very terrible Jesuit to the People in Wales when he went thither not long since filled with the design and pleasing thoughts of bringing in the Welsh Nation by shoals into the Bosom of the Bishop of Rome's Church but I question not but before this time that Country hath another very different Idea of him and his Learning and that they now see that his Ignorance is altogether as great as the Confidence with which he appeared and made such blustering among them While I was thus engaged with Sabran the Jesuit the Representer or the Compiler of the Nubes Testium for he that wrote Popery misrepresented and represented is the same Person that stole the Nubes Testium out of Natalis Alexandre had got something ready against me and was willing to be the Jesuit's Second that they might therefore divert me from medling any further with the Jesuit who they could not but see had grievously overshot himself and yet if possible was to make some sort of a creditable retreat the same day that the Jesuit published his Reply to my first Letter the Representer also appeared in Print against me but in Masquerade lest it should look a little ungenerous to fall two of them and two such men of wonderful prowess and skill at the same instant upon one weak and unskilful Writer if you will believe the Representer and as if he had been Secretary to a Committee of Dissenters and had Orders to draw up Articles of Popery against me he publishes from his Masters a Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England wherein I am complained of for no fewer than sixteen Articles of Popery to be found in my Answer to the Compiler of the Nubes Testium But I did no sooner see this pretended Letter from a Dissenter than I was satisfied not only of the design but of the Author of it and to spoil the design I immediately set to answering the Jesuit that so I might put an effectual end to the Controversie with him and thereby be wholly at leisure to attend my new Adversary in disguise I was not deceived in my intentions for after the sending him my second Letter I have not heard one word of the Jesuit since and now after above six Weeks expectations I think I may have leave to believe that I have done his business and have wholly rid my hands of the Jesuit And lest the Representer should think I should despise him because I might not know him in his Dissenter's Masque and that I should disdain to vindicate my self against such a false and groundless Charge I was careful in an Advertisement at the End of my Second Letter which I was sending to his Friend the Jesuit to let him and the World understand that I knew him notwithstanding his Disguise and that I intended to give him a speedy Answer to that pitiful cheat I was as good as my word and did shortly after publish my Vindication against the Popish-Dissenter's Letter wherein I shewed the great Knavery the intolerable disingenuity and frequent Calumnies and Falsifications up and down that Letter by which I am satisfied that I did sufficiently acquit my self and that if the Representer himself be not yet the World is convinced that he ought to be ashamed of such mean and contemptible projects of defaming an Adversary that he had much better never to have medled with such a knavish Prank as that pretended Letter was since this piece of knavery had the fate that attends all such unlawful and disingenuous actions to do the Representer and his Cause now it is displayed ten times more mischief than it ever could have done him service had it continued as he doubtless hoped it would concealed for I can assure the Representer that I do not speak my own Opinion but that of abundance of people who are competent Judges of these things and of a great many worthy and Honourable Persons too if I tell him that he hath by that dissembling Practice quite sunk his Reputation and is now and will be looked upon as a Person of no Honesty nor Conscience and this I hope will at last convince the Representer himself that the publishing of that pretended Letter hath cost him very dear hath forfeited that thing which every good and honest man values next to his Life I thought it not improper to give this State of the Controversie betwixt me and the Romish Jesuit and Representer in relation to that Answer to the Nubes Testium which hath been the Cause of all the dispute betwixt us since it was published unto the World especially since those two Persons will be so much concerned in this Book which I am now writing and it cannot be ungrateful to the Reader to know the Characters of them particularly of the Representer who hath made so much noise in the World and is the Person against whom this Answer of mine is chiefly aimed For within some time after the publishing of his Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England against me he was pleased to lay aside his Fanatical Masque and to publish to the World in his own Name a formal Vindication of his Nubes Testium with the pompous Title of The Primitive Fathers no Protestants or a Vindication of Nubes Testium from the Cavils of the Answerer Assoon as his Book was brought to my hands and I had cast my Eye on his Title-page I began to suspect that
fairly to him but this is but one of a great many of disingenuous tricks so frequent with this Writer as I have made it already sufficiently apparent from the Catalogue of considerable things to which he hath given not a syllable of Reply and shall make it much more visible in the following part of my Book and prove there that it was the Representer himself that was thus guilty of that cavilling of which he so falsly in his Title Page accuses me that it is he himself that is really guilty of cavilling only and catching at here and there a passage in my Answer and this will give the World a better knowledge of the Representer and discover with what disingenuity and confidence he can both write and affirm the most groundless things I have hitherto given account of that part of my Book to which the Representer hath been pleased to return no sort of answer I must now undertake my second promise and that was to discover the weakness and vanity of all that he hath said in answer to the rest of my Book He begins his Vindication and certainly wrote it in a very angry mood and therefore we must pardon his running out into generals and making such frequent and odd excursions into matters that are wholly foreign to the Controversie betwixt him and me to which I am resolved to confine my self tho' his anger would not let him but hurries him so much and so often quite out of his way I will set aside therefore his general talk in which tho' there is a great deal of malice yet not one syllable of argument I am never at leisure to mind or to answer such stuff but will pass to the first thing he intends to reply to which is my charge against him of stealing the Nubes Testium out of Natalis Alexandre He acquaints his Reader that I pretend to discover that the greatest part of the Nubes Testium is in Natalis Alexandre's History but when he is got about a dozen lines lower then it is come to my discovering that a great part of his Testimonies are in that History and in the next page to his only taking the choice of those great numbers of Testimonies that are in N. Alexandre and his adding some others to them I thought I had told him often enough in my Answer and I suppose those who have read my Answer to Nubes Testium do very well remember that I do not only prove that the passages of the Fathers in the Nubes Testium are all of them except one or two to be met with in Father Alexandre but that they were all of them stolen from thence and that I do not charge him only with stealing some of his choice Testimonies thence with stealing a great part or the greatest part of the Nubes Testium but I did in my Preface charge him more than once with stealing the WHOLE of his Nubes Testium with stealing ALL his Book out of Natalis Alexandre without once mentioning or hinting at Natalis Alexandre's History or Name through the whole Book with being the greatest Plagiary that hath appeared on the stage in these times And now what answer hath he made to all this Can he deny that the whole of his Nubes is to be met with in Father Alexandre No that he does not deny can he disprove me or will he deny that he stole that whole Book out of that Historian No he dare not pretend to do that neither since every page in my Answer did to his great vexation prove it upon him What is it then that he would be at while he has not the face or confidence to deny the thing his business in his Vindication about this thing seems to be no other than to cast a mist before his Reader 's Eyes to lessen his crime as much as he can and much more than he ought by bearing them in hand that the greatest part only and soon after a great part and as if he were to lessen and diminish the accusation gradually in the next page the Choice only of the Testimonies in his Nubes Testium were to be met with and were borrowed from Natalis Alexandre but this trick will not do nor shall this cheat pass upon any one that will read us both since I did from the beginning and do here again accuse the Representer of stealing implicitely his whole Nubes Testium except a passage or two out of Father Alexandre without one naming whence he stole it But perceiving that all this would not clear him or remove the Imputation of a very great Plagiary under which he lay he puts as good a face as he can upon the matter and now is for assuring his Reader that he is so far from being offended in being thought he should have added and being proved a Compiler that he should have thought himself unwise if he had done more than compil'd This is pleasant stuff and shews what metal some men are made of who can make that to be a Virtue in themselves which all men else look upon to be a very great disgrace but such men are proof against a thing called Modesty and think nothing more necessary to defend any of their most unaccountable actions than by setting a good face to it But since our Compiler pretends here to the politick part and since he does just after own that he hath not read the Fathers and that it would be ridiculous for him in his circumstances to have attempted to read them over I hope it will not be amiss if I can tell him of another and a better point of prudence and that is that he should not in his Circumstances have medled at all with presenting the World with such a Collection out of the Fathers I will also give him my reasons along with it because they that know nothing of the Fathers themselves ought not to meddle in these things because every one that can translate Latin into English is not straitways an Adept and fit to be employed or to employ himself in such things because they that are ignorant of the Fathers themselves must rely wholly upon the credit and honesty of those out of whom they collect and can neither answer for the genuineness of the Authors nor the Sincerity of the Authorities which they take wholly upon trust nor shew that the Author out of whom they borrow did not misapply or misunderstand or abuse the Fathers sense These reasons together ought to convince him that his excuse here is vain and that it had been his wisest way not to have medled with such business since he owns his Ignorance in the Fathers themselves and I have shewn him that some things else are requisite for a Mans setting up for a Collector of Authorities out of Fathers besides the ability of translating Latin into English But the Representer thinking by this time that he had got pretty well rid of the severe accusation by the sleight
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
belonging to Angels but the necessity of obedience and therefore they are against ANY HONOUR being paid to THEM all their Honour being in God himself And in his next Chapter Lactantius excludes Saints as much as he does the Angels here from any share of Worship when he advises that we should adore NO OTHER THING nor WORSHIP u Nihilque aliud adoremus nihil colamus nisi solum Artificis Parentisque nostri UNICUM NUMEN ANY THING but the ONLY DIVINITY of our Creator and our Parent This was the Doctrine of the Fathers of the Third Century of the Church and how little it is consistent with any Worship or Invocation of Saints the most ordinary Reader will apprehend We must next inquire into the Doctrine of the Fourth Century and see whether theirs agree with what I have hitherto set down Century IV S. Athanasius the most famous Father of the Fourth Century in his Fourth Oration against the Arians proving the Vnity of the Father and the Son from that passage in the Epistle to the Thessalonians Now God himself and our Father and * 1 Thess 3.11 our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you gives this reason for it x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Athanas Orat. 4. contra Arianos p. 259 260. Edit Commelini 1601. For one would not pray to receive any thing from the Father and the Angels or from any of the other Creatures nor would one say God and the Angel give thee this or that but one would pray to receive any thing from the Father and the Son because of that Vnity and uniform manner of giving that is betwixt them two For by the Son are all Gifts given and there is no one thing which the Father doth not work by the Son. After this the Father goes on to answer the Objection from Jacob's praying to the Angel to bless the Lads and proves that that Angel was no other than God the Son and then to confirm it shews that Jacob did invocate no body but God to deliver him from his Brother Esau that David did pray to no one but God for his deliverance and that he returned his Praises to GOD ALONE for the blessing of it and concludes that it doth not belong to any other person but to GOD ALONE to bless and to bestow Deliverances I cannot read these passages of this excellent Father without reflecting upon these extravagant Applications to Saints and especially to the Virgin Mary which are so frequently or rather constantly to be met with in the Writers of the Church of Rome and can least of all forgive Cardinal Bona's Preface to the Virgin Mary which is such an undecent and almost blasphemous piece of Courtship as is not to be parallel'd in any serious and learned Writer of these days excepting F. Alexandre who in the Conclusion of one of his Volumes tells the Virgin Mary what wonderful things she had done for him and how mightily he was beholding to her with a great deal more of such fulsom stuff I am sure such things were far from being the Practice of the Church in S. Athanasius's time since his Doctrine is so directly contrary to any such thing and tho' now what so common as God and the Virgin God and such or such a Saint help you Jesus Maria and the like yet we see in S. Athanasius that no Christians were guilty of such an extravagancy as to say God and the Angel give you this or that and as they did not then pray to Angels or any other Creatures in which number the Saints must be included so neither did they offer up their Thanksgivings to any of them for any Blessings whereas now nothing is so ordinary as Praises to the Saints for this and t'other blessing and scarce a Book can be writ without thanks at the beginning or end of it to some of their Saints or the Virgin Mary for their great assistance and their continual protection and as if the Saints were equal with God or did equally communicate every blessing to a Writer such or such a Book is said to be written for the greater Glory of God and the Virgin for example and I have at this instant Cardinal Capisucchi's Book in my hands which was written forsooth ad majorem Dei Deiparae ac S. Thomae Angelici Doctoris Gloriam for the Greater Glory of God the Virgin-Mother and S. Thomas Aquinas But such things were neither so from the beginning nor of a long time after In the same Century Hilary the Deacon in his Comments on the Epistle to the Romans exposing the folly of those who were curious in searching out the natural reasons of things and the Courses of the Stars and the Qualities of the Elements and yet did neglect the Lord of all those beings gives us their pretences for it They are wont says he notwithstanding when they are put to the blush for their neglecting of God y Solent tamen pudorem passi neglecti Dei miserâ uti excusatione dicentes per istos posse ire ad Deum sicut per Comites pervenitur ad Regem Age nunquid tam demens est aliquis aut Salutis suae immemor ut Honorificentiam Regis vendicet Comiti cum de hâc re siqui etiam tractare fuerint inventi jure ut rei damnentur Majestatis Et isti se non putant reos qui honorem Nominis Dei deferunt Creaturae relicto Domino Conservos adorant quasi sit aliquid plus quod servetur Deo. Nam ideo ad Regem per Tribunos aut Comites itur quia homo utique est Rex nescit quibus debeat Rempublicam credere Ad Deum autem quem utique nihil latet omnium enim merita novit ad promerendum suffragatore non opus est sed mente devotâ Ubicunque enim talis locutus fuerit ei respondebit illi Hilarius Diacon Commen in Ep. ad Rom. c. 1. apud Ambrosii Opera Tom. 5. p. 174. Edit Froben 1538. to make use of this miserable Excuse that they can by these go to God as Men get to the King by his Officers Well then Is any Man so mad or so unmindful of his Safety as to give the King's Honour to an Officer whereas if any have been found but to treat of such a thing they are justly condemned to be guilty of Treason And yet these Men do not think themselves guilty who give to a Creature the Honour of God's Name and leave the Lord and adore their Fellow-servants as though there were any thing more that can be reserved to God. For therefore do we go to the King by his Tribunes or Officers because the King is but a Man and knows not to whom he ought to commit the Care of the Common-wealth But for God to whom nothing is hid and who knows the Merits of all Men there is no need of a Spokesman but of a devout mind to procure his favour For
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
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
Condiscipulo at the end of which Salutation every Body will allow me that Salutem is understood Let me but put it down then there and we shall next see how very finely this Preface runs in Sirmondus's Edition Paschasius Radbertus Monachorum omnium peripsema Placido suo Salutem Dilectissimo Filio Vice Christi praesidenti Magistro Monasticae Disciplinae alternis successibus veritatis Condiscipulo Salutem Is not here plainly two Salutations and therefore two beginning of this little Epistle which is just such a Solecism as if a Man writing a short Letter to a Friend should begin Dear Sir To your self and all with you health in Christ Dear Sir To your self and all with you health in Christ. Which thing discovers not only that this beginning about Paschasius and his Placidus is a downright Patch that makes a gross Tautology at the very entrance of the Preface but that he was a very Bungler that forg'd it that could not invent something for his Paschasius to begin with which would sute with the rest of the Preface Another Argument I have against Paschasius's being the Author of this Tract and for Rabanus taken from the Doctrine of the Discourse it self which will fully dispatch the Controversie It is as known a thing that Rabanus Maurus did hold that the Sacramental Body of Christ was different from the Body which he took from Mary as that Paschasius Radbertus did hold that they were both the very same This we learn from the MS. of an Anonymus which Mabillon hath since found out to be Herigerus Abbot of Lob concerning the Opinions of these very men in Sidney College Library in Cambridge which tells us that Paschasius Radbertus Abbot of Corbey doth lay down from S. Ambrose that the Flesh of Christ which is received from the Altar is altogether no other than that which was born of the Virgin r ponit ex Beati Ambrosii nomine quod non alia plane sit caro quae sumitur de Altari quam quae nata est de Maria Virgine Passa in Cruce quae resurrexit de Sepulchro quaeque pro mundi vitâ hodie offeratur Contra quem satis argumentatur Rabanus in Epistolâ ad Elgionem Abbatem Ratramnus quidam libro composito ad Karolum Regem dicentes aliam esse vel testimonio Beati Jeronymi qui dicit dupliciter dici Corpus Domini vel ex auctoritate Sancti Augustini qui dicit tripliciter Liber de Sacramento MS. in Sidney Coll. Library in 4 to markt K. 3.6 Mary suffered upon the Cross rose out of the Grave and is daily offered for the Life of the World. Against whom both Rabanus doth sufficiently argue in his Epistle to Abbot Elgio and one Ratramnus in a Book made for King Charles the Bald saying that the Flesh is not the same either from the Testimony of S. Hierom who says that the Body of Christ is twofold or from the Authority of S. Austin who says there is a Threefold Body of Christ Here we find the Opinions of these two Men as opposite as the two Poles and we find Paschasius so utterly against the Opinion of his Adversaries about a Threefold Body of Christ that in his Epistle to Fredugardus he warns him not to follow ineptias de tripartito Christi Corpore those Fooleries about a Threefold Body of Christ I will then inquire with whether of these two Men the Doctrine of the Treatise contended for doth agree Had Sirmondus but given us the Chapters of this Treatise and the Titles of 'em as distinctly as they are in the Colen Edition and in the two Cambridge MSS. the Title of the 15th Chapter had decided this business which is that the Body of s Quod tribus modis Corpu-Christi appelletur Christ is so called three ways but tho' his Title does not yet his Chapter doth prove as well as ours the distinction of a Threefold Body of Christ and does begin with shewing that the Body of Christ is so called three ways or to make it more intelligible English that there are three Bodies of Christ which the Chapter divides and makes his Mystical Body the Church his Symbolical Body the Eucharist and his Natural Body which he took from the Virgin Mary Now who does not plainly see that the Doctrine of this Chapter alone is directly contradictory to Paschasius Radbertus's Doctrine who was not only against the distinction but calls it foolery in his unquestioned Epistle to Fredugardus and therefore that this Tract which so formally asserts it cannot be Paschasius Radbertus's And on the contrary we see that the Doctrine of this Chapter does exactly agree and is the very same with what the Manuscript of Herigerus told us was the Doctrine of Rabanus in his Epistle to Abbot Elgio This is but what was the case of his other Tract left out by these people which in Steuartius bears the name of Liber Poenitentialis ad Heribaldum but Baluzius hath very well proved that its true Title is Epistola ad Heribaldum or Egilo as others write it And I must confess that this doth almost persuade me that the Tract concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the Epistle to the Abbot Egilo are one and the same thing under two names especially since I find that account from Augustine about the Threefold Body of Christ which Herigerus tells us was urged by either Rabanus in his Epistle to Egilo or Ratramn against Paschasius not in Rathramn's Book to Charles the Bald but in this 15th Chapter of this Tract almost word for word as Herigerus afterwards puts it down in his Tract but this only is a Conjecture and let it pass as such I am sure I have sufficiently proved that that Tract which the Romish Party have ravisht unjustly from Rabanus was truly his and not Paschasius's I will take the leave now I am in at this sort of writing to animadvert a little upon Sirmondus's Notes upon that Tract in his Edition of Radbertus because it will further corroborate what I have insisted upon here In the Third Chapter of this Discourse according to Sirmond's Edition for it is the 9th in the Colen Edition Rabanus for so I hope I may now call the Author of that Treatise hath these Expressions about the Sacraments of the Church Now Christ's Sacraments in his Church are Baptism Chrism and the Body and Bloud of our Lord. Upon this Sirmondus in his Notes not finding here the seven Sacraments of his Church but that four of them are disown'd tells us very gravely that Paschasius mentions only three of the seven Sacraments of the Church for example sake only and that it was not his business here to treat of the number of the Sacraments But this is not answering but eluding the place and to shew the Vanity of it we will look into another of Rabanus's Tracts and see whether he is not of the same mind when
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