HONOUR and a little after concluding that he had proved that RELIQUES are to be ADORED he next sets upon explaining with what kind of Worship and Honour THE RELIQUES ought to be VENERATED And S. Thomas himself before Vasques had thus promiscuously used the Words VENERATION and ADORATION S. Thom. Summa Pars 3. Quaest 25. Artic 6. p. 65. and whereas Vasques had put the Question whether Reliques were to be VENERATED S. Thomas puts it whether RELIQUES are to be ADORED and as Vasques had answered that they were to be ADORED so S. Thomas answers his Question that seeing we VENERATE the Saints of God we must also VENERATE their Bodies and RELIQUES And he does throughout that Article in his Objections and Answers sometimes use the one and sometimes the other but more frequently the Word ADORATION to express what Honour the Church did think due to RELIQUES I was more careful to make use of the Authority of S. Thomas herein because he is lookt upon to be of such Sacred Authority in the Church of Rome that Sabran the Jesuit assures me that above one half of the Divines of the Christian World and those I am sure are at least all the Divines that are in the Church of Rome do own Him for Master Reply to my I. Letter to him and bind themselves to maintain ALL He hath taught Well then If the Case be as the Jesuit represents it I am certain to carry my Cause that the Church of Rome doth ADORE the RELIQUES of the Saints since I am sure that S. Thomas taught that RELIQUES ARE TO BE ADORED But without the Authority of S. Thomas from whose Decision the Jesuit told me in his Letter to the Peer that he would not swerve tho' I had proved S. Thomas altogether and certainly mistaken about that thing I think we may prove that by VENERATION the Council of Trent did mean the ADORATION of RELIQUES if they will but permit us to explain the meaning of the Decrees of that Council by the standing Reformed Offices in their Church In the Twenty fifth Session of that Council in their Decree about Images they do use the very same Words to express what Honour they will have done to Images that they had used immediately before for the Reliques of the Saints VENERATION and HONOUR are the Words employed in both the Paragraphs Now to find what that VENERATION means which the Council of Trent appoints to be paid to the Images we need only look into their Good-Fryday-Service and into their Pontitical to find their Church's Sense Missale Rom. Feria 6. in Parasceue fol. 83 84. Edit Paris in 8o. 1582. In the Good-Friday-Service we meet with the Word ADORATION and ADORED about the Honour paid to the Image of the Cross above Ten times and that we cannot mistake them the Worship or VENERATION of the Cross is three times plainly styled the ADORATION OF THE CROSS In their Pontifical to shew what they mean by VENERATION and HONOUR in the Decree of the Council it is given as the Reason why the CROSS carried before a Legate should take the right Hand of the Emperour's Sword at the Reception of an Emperour with Procession into any City because LATRIA a DIVINE WORSHIP IS DUE TO THE CROSS This I question not will be able to convince all Men that VENERATION and ADORATION are promiscuously used for the same thing and that by appointing a VENERATION to be paid to the RELIQUES of the Saints the Council of Trent did command that THE RELIQUES of Saints should be ADORED and this is sufficient for what I undertook to prove That the Church of Rome doth command the Worship of Reliques That she doth practise the Worshipping of Reliques is what I have next to shew but this may be dispatch'd in a few Words since every body knows that their People in the Church of Rome are not behind hand in practising what their Church commands about Reliques and I suppose that this will be granted me That what the Church commands the People may very lawfully do and that they do practise in all their Popish Countries the Adoration of Reliques I must then prove my Second Particular That for the First five Centuries of the Church the Worship of Reliques was neither commanded nor practised by the Primitive Church To prove that the Worship of Reliques was not commanded during that time we need only to appeal to the Canons and Laws of the Four General Councils held within the Fourth and Fifth Century wherein not a Syllable is to be met with about any such thing and they of the Church of Rome are as well satisfied as we that there is nothing in those Councils for their purpose about Reliques and therefore do not pretend to shew any Command for the Worship of Images from any of those Councils And that the Primitive Church did not practise any Worship of Reliques during that time is as easie to shew from the Generality of the Fathers who were utterly against Worshipping the Saints themselves and consequently much more against the Worshipping any of the Mortal Remains of those Saints I will only insist upon two who lived in the beginning of the Fifth Century of the Church S. Austin to prove that they did not then worship the Saints themselves and S. Hierom to shew that they did not worship the Saints Reliques Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vitâ coluntur sancti homines Dei. Aug. c. Faust l. 20. c. 21. S. Austin in answer to Faustus the Manichee who had objected to the Orthodox their Worshipping the Saints shews him the Falseness and Silliness of his Accusation by telling him that the Church did indeed worship the Martyrs but that it was meerly such civil Worship as is paid to Holy Men while they are alive and that I am sure was never hitherto accused of being Religious Worship And for the Reliques of the Saints when Vigilantius had objected to several in the Church as S. Hierom represents it a Worship of Reliques S. Hierom with his usual vehemence falls upon him and asks him first who ever adored the Martyrs A Question that can very easily be answered in our days without the danger of being called Madmen for our pains as Vigilantius was for even thinking that any of the Church should be so foolish as to worship the Martyrs and then he tells him that They did not WORSHIP the Saints RELIQUES and were so far from it that they did not Worship or Adore even the Sun it self f Nos autem NON dico Martyrum RELIQUIAS sed ne Solem quidem non Angelos non Archangelos COLIMUS ADORAMUS D. Hieron advers Vigilant ad Riparium nay not the Angels nor the Archangels Here we see S. Hierom confuting the Accusation of Worshipping of Reliques by shewing that the Church did not worship the Sun it self nor the Angels or Archangels themselves which are Creatures so
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
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