of all Sense of Modesty as well as betraying a want of Learning He is now come to the Body of my Answer and complains of my admirable Talent of trifling in quarrelling him for beginning his Book with The History of Donatus and shewing the Nature of Schism and for my saying That this was so far from being a Chief Point that it is no Point of Controversy at all betwixt us And upon this he falls to pitying me who had dwelt so long among Books for losing my time and then shews that a Chapter about Schism was not improper to begin his Book with But I would fain see this trifling proved and will now prove that he is the guilty person who hath shuffled three Chapters together here and hath not given us a true or fair state of the Chapters I do own that a Discourse about Schism might be a proper Introduction to a Controversial Book however I did shew that what he advanced there was perfect trifling I have once already done it sufficiently and must be forced in Vindication of my self to do it again to let the World see who is the Caviller and at whose Door the trifling must be laid His first Chapter was that the Fathers accused the Donatists of being guilty of Schism for making the wicked Lives of the Members of the Church the reason of their Separation My answer to this was that this can be no point of Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome as he had made it since we never urged the wicked Lives of some Members of the Church of Rome as the ground of our Separation from them and what says our Representer in Reply to this Does he either prove that that is a point of controversie betwixt us or that our Separation from the particular Church of Rome is grounded upon the same matter that the Donatists was No we have no reason to expect a fair Reply from him who did not set down the state of this Chapter at all The second Chapter was that the Fathers teach against the Donatists that the Catholick Church cannot fail This I told him could be no Controversie betwixt the Church of England and the Church of Rome since we believe with the Fathers that the Catholick Church cannot fail Was this then the trifling I am accused of if it be the Compiler had done well to have shewn it that so upon the sight of my errour I might have altered my mind but this he thought fit not at all to attempt His third Chapter was that the Fathers taught that whosoever breaks the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon any pretext whatsoever is guilty of Schism Upon this I told him that taking the word pretext for a groundless pretence I was of the same mind and did believe the Donatists who acted so to be guilty of a Criminal Schism but assured the Compiler withal that this could not be matter of dispute betwixt us who both assented to that doctrine of the Fathers and here it is my trifling must be discovered and here he will have me not only to differ from them but from the Fathers this is hard when I had assented to that Chapter as set down by him and proved by the Fathers but he will have it that I am for making the breach of the Vnity of the Catholick Church not Schism unless it be done causelesly whereas the Fathers teach there can be no just cause I grant the Fathers teach that there can be no just cause given by the Catholick Church however that particular Churches can give and do often give just cause for others to break Communion with them is what no Father will deny is what the Church of Rome it self must grant which hath not only broken Communion with us but with the whole Greek Church and yet I suppose does pretend to shew that she had a just cause for it He hath offered hereupon nothing new in defence of his three Chapters but some hard words and those I do not intend to reply to but will pass to the defence of his Chapter about the Supremacy I had charged him with giving a false and imperfect state of the Controversie betwixt us in relation to the Pope's Supremacy but this he is not willing to defend but turns it off with saying that it only is so if my word be to be taken for it but I had not only given him my word but very good reasons for it and therefore since the Compiler hath no mind to be medling with reasons it would be uncivil to be importunate with calling upon him to disprove them That Chapter as it did concern the greatest point of Controversie betwixt us and the Church of Rome so it did require a great deal of canvasing and admit of a vast variety of dispute in it I was careful to follow the Compiler through it and to debate and disprove every thing that was brought to support the Pope's Supremacy in it but our Compiler is not so civil to me nor so just to his Book in his Vindication but forsakes the defence of every one of his passages and only seems solicitous to make a shew and that he may not be accused of saying nothing at all in defence of his Testimonies and in Answer to a great many very severe charges in that Chapter he serves us up again two or three bits of his former passages and that is all I told him his first quotation from Irenaeus was of no use and gave him in short my reasons for it all the answer he makes is to give us anew a piece of the same passage and this with two or three scornful words and crying good and great must be called defending and we must be content with such from him since it seems the Man is not furnisht with better but if the old quotations presented anew will signify any thing they are at your service but upon this condition that they may serve for a defence of themselves And such is his behaviour as to the next passage from Optatus which I shewed to have been very obscure and that in affirming there was but one Cathedra in the World possessed first by S. Peter and after him by his Successours at Rome it did not only contradict the other parts of his Writings but all Church Writers before and after him for hundreds of years who make as many Cathedra's as Bishops in the World and I instanced in a most plain place in Tertullian which did assert the direct contrary to the Doctrine of that passage of Optatus All the Answer besides rude language to these reasons that I can observe is that it is a notorious fraud in me to pretend that the Father maintains here That the Chair of Rome was such that the rest of the Apostles might not have Cathedra's for themselves whereas says the Compiler S. Optatus no where affirms this but only that the rest of the Apostles should not set up other Episcopal Chairs in
THE Primitive Fathers NO PAPISTS IN ANSWER to the VINDICATION of the NUBES TESTIUM To which is added An Historical Discourse CONCERNING INVOCATION of SAINTS In ANSWER to The Challenge of F. Sabran the Jesuit Wherein is shewn that Invocation of Saints was so far from being the Practice that it was expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus The Primitive Fathers no Papists c. Ex Aedib Lamb. Febr. 4. 1687. Guil. Needham R.R. in Christo Patri ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacr. Domest LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII THE PREFACE I Have been so much larger in my Vindication of the Primitive Fathers than I intended at first that I would not have troubled the Reader with any Preface at all but that I think it requisite to give him some account of the length of it In the present Controversy with the Writers of the Church of Rome we lye under one great unhappiness which our Forefathers were not troubled with in their Contests with the Romanists they were wont then fairly to own their Popish Doctrines and our Authors had nothing to do but to oppose them but we have not only the disproving of Popery upon our hands now but must be obliged also to prove the Popery it self upon them We must now not only prove the Worship of Images to be unlawful but prove that they worship Images This is that which hath ingaged me to be so large for the Adversary I have to do with is one of the new Stamp one of the Assertors of the NEW POPERY who since they see they cannot defend the true old down-right Popery have set up such a Popery as they think they can defend Thus when they find how perfectly inconsistent with the Honour of God and how directly contrary to the Word of God it is to give Adoration or Religious Worship to Images or Reliques they are for salving all by bearing the Reader in hand that they do not do it and thus when we shew them that their Purgatory-Fire is not only inconsistent with the Account we have of the State of the Dead in the Holy Scriptures but also with the Account of it in the Primitive Fathers for six hundred years they have no other refuge than to tell us that they do not hold a Fiery Purgatory This dissembling and betraying of their own Popery is that which hath occasion'd my insisting so largely and distinctly upon these points by which I have effectually shewn that the Church of Rome doth command and practise the Adoration of Images and Reliques and that her Purgatory differs only from Hell in the Duration of their Torments I did expect and hope I shall reap a double advantage from my care to expose these things the first of which is to confute my Adversary and the other to make it evident to the meanest Reader how very unsincere the Representer is in giving us the true State of their Popery I am sure that as to Purgatory about which he took the most pains to defend himself I have invincibly proved upon him that he either did not understand the Doctrine of his own Church or did most unfaithfully dissemble it I hope I need not trouble my self to warn our People of the Confidence with which these Romish Writers can write the most false and most disingenuous things if Confidence be all that is necessary to carry any cause I must confess that we should come off losers because we cannot tell how to imitate these men however no one is ignorant that a Mountebank is but a Mountebank still for all his pretending to Infallible Cures to never-failing Remedies But we must allow our Adversaries this Assurance since they have nothing else to set off or recommend their Cause excepting that which is a consequence of it their writing with a Contempt of us and treating us scurrilously but this we can bear chearfully enough tho' reproach is uneasy to Mankind because it does so plainly speak out that all Scholar-like Arguments are spent and that they have no other left to encounter us with Of this we have had a great deal of late and I have had my share from them I will not animadvert further on it than to say that their late Pamphlets against us are so very abusive as if they had been Written as well as Printed by the Ditch-side I do heartily forgive them and believe all our Writers do and desire to make no other return to such Treatment than to offer up hearty Prayers to God That He would bring into the way of Truth all those who have erred and are deceived and that He would frustrate the Devices of them who are endeavouring to deceive others THE CONTENTS AN Account of the Controversie about the Postscript to the Answer to the NUBES TESTIUM with Sabran the Jesuit p. 2. About the Answer it self with the Representer p. 4. His Vindication of the Nubes Testium against the Answerer shewn to be very weak and very defective from a Catalogue of Twenty seven material Points and Charges against him to which he hath given not one word of Answer p. 10. His vain attempt to clear himself about the stealing his Nubes out of a condemned Author shewn to be made up of Confidence and Falshood p. 18. F. Alexandre his Master proved to be also either a Compiler or a Falsifier of the Fathers p. 22. His Chapters in the Nubes about Schism shewn further to have been altogether impertinent p. 25. His Coldness and Diffidence about the Defence of his Chapter of the Supremacy shewn from his letting fall the Vindication of all the numerous Quotations upon that Head excepting Three The Defence of which is shewn to be very vain His Defence of his Chapter about Tradition shewn to be meerly a giving us over again two or three Pieces of his Old Testimonies in the Nubes p. 31. That the Primitive Fathers did look upon the Scriptures as containing and handing down to us all matters of Faith shewn further from Origen Gregory Nyssen S. Austin and S. Hierom. p. 32. That the Church of England doth not symbolize with the Church of Rome which gives Religious Worship to the Saints on their Festivals but with the Primitive Church who paid them only Civil Honour proved from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna and S. Austin p. 35. His Defence of his Chapter about Invocation of Saints begun with Falsification of my Words p. 37. and built wholly upon that false Supposal That I had granted Invocation to have been practised in the Fourth and Fifth Ages p. 39. The Jesuit Sabran's Challenge about Invocation of Saints accepted and answered Wherein is proved That the Primitive Fathers did not practise Invocation of Saints during the Five first Centuries from the Acts of the Martyrdoms of S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp p. 41. from the Liturgy of the first Christians in Justin
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
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
Christ since we can demonstrate to them that by the Body and Bloud of Christ which the Fathers said the Elements were made they meant always that Body of Christ which in contradistinction to his Natural Body which he took from the Virgin Mary and his Mystical Body which is his Church we call Christ's Symbolical or Figurative Body And therefore Our Compiler is miserably out in his Vindication when he thinks to carry his Cause by repeating only what he had put down more at large in his Nubes Testium and by supposing the very words of Body and Bloud of Christ sufficient Reply to all I had said in my Answer to the Nubes I did not say only this means and that signifies only so and so as he would represent me to do in answer to any thing that did seem strong against us but did all along give my Reasons for such things till to repeat them further to the same Objections would have been more tedious to the Reader than me He talks as if the Fathers were clearly in their possession and wholly on their side and therefore that he need not much concern himself in confuting some untoward passages out of the Fathers urged by us against Transubstantiation since he supposes the Fathers are on their side and would not contradict themselves else surely we should find Him answering fairly to our Objections as I had done to all his But this is not the Man's way tho' he is desirous it should be his Adversaries but for himself he writes as if the Controversy had not made one step forwards betwixt us two But to let the World be judge also what a sort of an Adversary he is I will very briefly run over his first Testimonies in the Nubes and my answer to them and shew how He does reply To the passage from S. Ignatius that the Eucharist was the Body of Christ I answered that it was but that it could be Figuratively only so since Bread could no otherwise be the Body of Christ and Bread still to this he makes no Reply In Answer to the passage from the Council of Nice about not minding the Bread and Wine before us but raising up our minds by Faith to consider the Lamb of God offered by the Priests without shedding of Bloud I shew'd him it meant only that Communicants should by Faith represent to themselves the offering of the Lamb and that had he but transcribed on the rest of that passage out of his Master Alexandre every one would have seen at first blush that by the pretious Body and Bloud of the Lamb was not meant Christ's Natural Body but his Figurative only since the Communicants are advised to take but a small portion of his Body and Bloud and that tho' it is sense to talk of receiving little or much of the Elements yet that it is not sense to talk of taking a little or much of the True Natural Body of Christ To all which there is no Reply and Reason good since there was not room for any And when in the next place to explain a very obscure Passage in S. Hilary I had produced a place that proved he did not believe any Annihilation or Transubstantiation of the Elements since he says it was Wine which they drank in the first Institution of the Eucharist the Compiler had nothing to reply with and therefore runs back and makes much adoe with the obscure Passage In answer to S. Cyril he was told that that very Passage wherein the Bread is said by Christ to be his Body was proof sufficient that Cyril did not believe Transubstantiation since as I had urged before Bread can be Christ's Body only Figuratively To this he gives no manner of Reply but when I had further answered that Cyril had spoken as lofty things of the Chrism-Oyl as he does of the Eucharist and that no Body for all that did believe that the Chrism-Oyl was Transubstantiated tho' he said it was no longer bare or common Oyl he asks me whether Cyril said that Oyl is changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ A Question so ridiculous that I would forgive no Body the asking it me that had three Grains of Sense S. Cyril if this Compiler knew any thing of Him does compare the Change in the Eucharist to this in the Chrism-Oyl but I would feign know how the one Change does illustrate or prove the other when according to the wise Masters of the Church of Rome the one is changed in its very Substance but the other is not It is a tedious thing to have to do with People that know nothing of the Fathers themselves but by a little Quotation which they make such a fluttering with and as much noise as if they had read them through and understood them as throughly To his next Authorities from Gregory Nyssen about the Body of Christ being received into our stomach and making our Bodies Immortal by the Dispersion of the Sacrament into our several parts in order to their being cured of that poison which had affected every part and made them Mortal I shew'd him that this was directly against them since this nourishing of our Bodies in a strict and proper sense cannot without Blasphemy be attributed to the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ All the Reply he makes to this is to ask What need of nourishing here in a strict and proper sense My Answer is very ready because this was the general opinion of the Fathers That our Bodies are nourished with the Sacramental Body and Bloud of Christ This I did abundantly clear in my Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney and made it the Instance of my Second Corollary against Transubstantiation in that Book Veteres Vindicati p. 93 94. that to attribute a nourishing of our Bodies to the Sacramental Body and Bloud of Christ doth altogether exclude their being Transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ and that the Fathers did attribute such a Nourishment of our Bodies to them I proved from Justin Martyr who did assert in plain terms That our Flesh and Bloud are nourished by the Consecrated Elements being changed into our Substance from Irenaeus and Tertullian That our Flesh is fed and nourished with the Body and Bloud of Christ I proved it from Origen who says That the Eucharist as to its Material Part goes into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught from Isidore of Sevil from Rhathramn and from our Saxon Paschal Homily which proves that the Eucharist is corruptible for that it may be broke into several Pieces grinded by the Teeth and cast out into the Draught I will add to these but one other Proof from Rabanus Maurus who lived in the Ninth Century and does not only tell us That the Sacrament is made to nourish our Bodies p Sacramentum enim in ali mentum corporis redigitur Sicut ergo in nos Id convertitur cum Id manducamus bibimus
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
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