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
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