Eliensis Respon ad Apol. Bel. pag. 7. Garnet openly confessed and therefore though they stande obliged to believe that the Bread is Transubstantiated some where or other at some time or other by some Priest or other yet they think no man is obliged to believe that any Priest now or at any one certain time does consecrate effectively And this concession is not very liberal if we consider what is acknowledged by Suarez b Multae sut causae propter quas potest accidere ut Christus non sit praesens ut si sacerdos non sit baptizatus vel non sit ritè ordinatus quod pendet ex multis aliis causis quibus ferè in infinitum progredi possumus ut ex parte materiae saepe accidit defectus Suarez in 3 Thom. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65.2 That we may almost infinitely proceed in the enumeration of the defects which will obstruct Christs presence in the Holy Sacrament For as we are informed by the Roman Missal if the c Si aliquid desit ex iis quae ad integritatem verborum in ipsâ consecratione requiruntur Verba autem consecrationis quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti sunt haec hoc est enim corpus meum hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti misterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum Si quis autem aliquid diminueret vel immutaret de forma consecrationis corporis sanguinis in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent non Conficeret sacramentum Miss Rom. de Defec Miss p. 35. Priest happen to diminish or alter any of the words of Consecration so that the sense be varied or any word belonging to the form of Consecration be ontitted in all these cases Christ is not present in the Sacrament but it remaineth Bread now since the form of Consecration of the Cup containeth 11 words and so is the more subject to diminution or alteration seeing the Priest doth always speak the words of Consecration in a d Si quis dixerit Ecclesiae R. ritum quo submissa voce pars canonis verba consecrationis proseruntu◠damnandum esse aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere anathema sit Concil Trid Sess 22. Can. 9. secret voice and not to be heard and in the Latine Tongue none of the People can be certain that he speaks the words of Consecration so fully and so regularly as to secure them from Worshipping a piece of Bread Secondly e Si panis non sit triticeus vel si triticeus sit admixtus granis alterius generis in tanta quan titate ut non maneat panis triticeus vel sit alioqui corruptus non conficitur Sacramentum ibid. pag. 34. If the Bread be corrupted or if it be not Wheaten-Bread then is it not converted into Christs Body and if the Wine be sowre or turned into Vinegar if it be made of unripe Grapes if it be mixt with so much Water as will corrupt the Wine then is it not converted into the Blood of Christ Now by what means the person that adores the Sacrament can be assured that the Bread and Wine is subject unto none of these defects it is not easie to conceive f Si vinum sit factum pe nitus acetum vel penitus putridum vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expessum vel admixtum tantum aquae ut vinum sit corruptum non conficitur Sacramentum ibid. Thirdly g Siquis non intendit conficere sed delusorie aliquid agere non consecrat quiarequiritur inten tio ibid. P. 35.36 If the Priest have uo intention to consecrate the Bread and Wine if in this matter he acts dilusorily if he be asecret Atheist a Moor a Jew in all these cases the person Worshiping must give Latria to a Creature if none of all this happen yet h Quicquid horum deficit scilicet mat eria debita for ma cum intentione ordo Sacerdotalis in conficiente non consicitur Sacramentum ib. p. 34. if the Consecrated Priest were not Baptized with due form of words or if the Person that Baptized him doth not intend to do as the Church doth if he be not a Priest which often happens saith Pope * In quaest quodlib quaest 3. Adrian and certainly falls out when he that doth Ordain him doth noth not intend to do so or faultreth by diminution of or by addition to the form of Ordination so that the sence is changed or made imperefct or lastly if the Bishop that Ordain'd this Priest that doth now Consecrate were not himself Ordained and Baptized with due matter form and intention or if this happened to any Priest to Bishop before him or any one in the same Line of Ordainers till you come unto St. Peter that is if this hath happen'd out in sixteen hundred years then will the Elements remain still Bread and Wine as wanting Consecration by a real Priest for Baptism and Ordination being necessary requisites to Priesthood he who by the defect of these is only a supposed Priest can give but a supposed Priesthood and they that do receive their Priesthood or do derive it from such as have received it from them can receive nothing but a shadow it being undeniably certain that the unsupplyable defect of any necessary antecedent doth cause a nullity in all those consequences which depend upon it So that no R. Catholick can be assured he doth not Worship Bread without he can have no assurance there being no necessity that they should be true From the consideration of all these defects it is exceeding evident That all that live in the Communion of the Church of Rome and daily practice the adoration of the Host are unavoidably subjected to the continual peril of Idolatry and have just reason to suspect although the Doctrine of Transubstantiation should in the general be certain that the material object of their Worship is but Bread and Wine On this Objection T. G. reflects with so much insolence and triumph as if it were the vainest scruple that a tongue could utter and had been managed by the Dr. with the greatest weakness And yet so little reason had he to be thus insolent and pert that by his first reply unto it he hath quite overthrown the Roman Cause and given all considering persons such a clear convincing motive to desert the Church of Rome that nothing can be more prevailing For thus he speaks The absurdness of the assertion that another mans defect and wickedness should make me incur the Crime of Idolatry whether I will or no might suffice to make any reasonable man depose so Chimerical a seruple This I confess is a most clear and certain truth that it is infinitely absurd to say I should be guilty of so great a Crime only by reason of anothers fault or wickedness But then it must
see them But we have great reason to suspect that they also are cited more Romano i.e. with great impertinence and falshood And I am certainly informed from Oxford that what is cited as from Vrsin is really the words of Vrsins Adversary Such ingenuity we meet with in the Citations of the Roman party Having produced these Testimonies of the Fathers which I have proved to be impertinent or spurious and these confessions of the Protestants which are insignificant or false or only such as do assert that Cyprian de Caena Domini Eusebius Emissenus and such spurious pieces seem to speak in favour of this Idle Dream He thus concludes that to deny what is confirmed by the Testimony of so many Ancient Fathers P. 308 309 and strengthned by the confession of our Brethren is most unreasonable But alas this flourish doth most assuredly confound the Church of Rome and evidently confutes that Doctrine it was intended to confirm For First it is confessed by many Doctors of the the Church of Rome that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine viz. Peter Lombard Scotus Biel Erasmus and Peroon And Secondly a In Primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide substantiam panis in co pus Christi converti Job Yribarn in 4 Sent. Dist 11. Q. 3. Disp 42. Sect. 1. That in the Primitive Church it was not any Article of Faith Thirdly b Scotus in 4 Distinct 11. Qâ—aest 3. s 1 â— Aâ—â—â—m That were it not for the authority and Determination of the Roman Church the words of Christ might more simply plainly and truly be understood and expounded Fourthly the Cardinal of c Distinct 4. Qu. 6. A. 2. Cambray adds that the opinion which holds the substance of bread not to remain doth not evidently follow of the Scripture nor to his seeming of the Churches determination Fifthly Your Secular d Discourse Modest p. 13. Priests affirm that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Society and what Catholick would not believe them that the Fathers have not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation Sixthly It is no wonder saith e Antequam quaestio illa de Transubstantiatione in Ecclesia palam agitaretur minimè mirum est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui ex veteribus minus consideratè Rectè hâc de re senserint scripserint de Transub l. 2. c. 7. Gregory de Valentia if one or two or more of the Ancients have thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly And f Hinc discimus non essemirandum si Augustinus Theodoretus alii Veteres quaedam dixerint quae in specitem videntur favere haereticis L. 2. Euch. c. 25 p. 649. B. Bellarmin confesseth it is not to be wondred at if St. Austin Theodoret and other of the Ancients speak something which in show seems to favour the Hereticks The sayings of the ancient Fathers which interpret the words of Christ This is my Body in a figurative sence as much as any Protestant can do and which forced these Confessions from so many Cardinals Bishops Schoolmen Priests and Jesuites are these g Pane corpus suum representat l. 1. adv Marcion c. 14. by Bread Christ represents his Body saith Tertullian and again h Panem corpus suum appellat ut hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse L. 3. c. 19. Christ hath called Bread his Body that thereby thou mayest understand that he hath given to Bread the Figure of his Body And again i L. 4. c. 4 c. This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body St. k Ep. 63. §. 6. p. 175. Cyprian noteth That it was Wine even the Fruit of the Vine which the Lord saith was his Blood Our Lord saith St. l Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100 106. Clemens did bless Wine when he said Take drink this is my Blood and that it was Wine which was blessed be sheweth again saying I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine 2. Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100. 106. Our Lord in the Gospel of St. John doth otherwise expound Meat by Symbols when he saith Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood an evident Symbol of Faith and the promises And again there is a donable Blood of the Lord Paed. l. 2. c. 2. one Carnal by which we are redeemed froim destruction and another Spiritual by which we are Anointed Origen speaks thus m Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino comedenti illum haee quidem de typico Symbolicoque corpore Orig. in Mat. 15. p. 17. Col. 1. B. It is not the matter of bread but the word spoken which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof and these things I speak of the Typical and Symbolical Body To the Fathers of the first three hundred years we will add the Testimonies of those that flourished in the 4th the first whereof shall be n Euseb l. 8. c. 1. Eusebius who saith ' That our Saviour delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Dispensation commanding them to make the Image of his own Body and appointing them to use bread for the Symbol of his body And that o Euseb Demonst l. 1. c. 10 p. 27. we still celebrate upon the Lords Table the memory of his Sacrifice by the Symbols of his Body and Blood according to the Ordinances of the New Testament And lastly p Demoâ—ist l. 5. c. 3. p. 141. Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that have followed in all Nations celebrating the Spiritual Divine Service according to the Ordinances of the Church signifie unto us by the bread and wine the Mysteries of his body and blood q Serm. in illud quiounque dixerit verbum p. 979. Athanasius faith ' That Christ distinguished the Spirit from the Flesh that we might learn that the things he spake were not Carnal but Spiritual For how many men might his body have sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world it is as if he should have said that which is given for the world shall be given for meat that it may be Spiritually given to all In the Church saith r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macar Aegypt Hom 27 p. 164. Marcarius is offered bread and wine the Type of his Flesh and Blood and they which are partakers of the visible bread do Spiritually eat the Flesh of our Lord. Now we shall be partakers of the Passeover saith Å¿ Orat. 2 de Pasch To. 1. p. 692. Gregory Nazianzen but as yet in a Figure though more clear then in the Old Law For the Passover of the Law I will be bold to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure Elsewhere he calls the Symbols the t In Epita Gorgon p. 187. Antitypes of the
Usher Answ to the Jesuits challenge p. 79. Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housel the body truly that Christ suffered in was born of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable soul living and his spiritual body which we call the housel is gathered of many Corns without blood and bone without limb without Soul and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily but spiritually This mystery is a pledge and a figure Christs body is truth it self And again Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to housel before his suffering and said this is my body and my blood Yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned through invisible vertue the Bread to his own body and that Wine to his blood as he before did in the Wilderness before that he was born to men when he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to be his own blood The like matter also was delivered to the Clergy by the Bishops at their Synods out of two or three writings of the same Aefrick in the one one whereof directed to e Impress Lond. cum Homil. Paschali Ms. in Bibl. Bodl. Wulfsine Bishop of Shirburn we read thus That housel is Christs body not bodily but spiritually Not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spake when he blessed Bread and Wine to housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed Bread this is my body and again by the holy Wine this is my blood which is shed for many in forgiveness of sins In the other written to Wulfstane Archbishop of York thus The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering and saith that the Bread was his own body and that the Wine was truly his blood halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest Bread to his body and Wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books And yet notwithstanding that lively Bread is not bodily so nor the self-same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy Wine is that Saviours blood which was shed for us in bodily thing but in spiritual understanding But now if T. G. should deny all this that is the testimony of almost all the Fathers of the Church and the confessions of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen and of the Fathers of the Society aforesaid to prove that Transubstantiation is a late upstart Doctrine and that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to the mind of Protestants to shew the unreasonableness of this denyal I would propose this case to his consideration and the Readers viz. in supposition that a controversie arise in this present age about the sense of a Law which was made 500 years past and that a considerable number of those who framed the novel exposition should confess that for the last Two hundred years the contrary to what they maintained was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law and should farther confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former ages from the first enacting of the Law held the same with the latter Nor had there ever been any disagreement or opposition among them in that point whether it be not a sufficient proof that what they taught to be the sence of the Law was generally received as the sence and meaning of it from the beginning The Testimonies themselves of those antient Lawyers would be conviction enough how much more when strengthned by the confession of the adverse party it self Now if this be so in the delivery of the sense of a human Law where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be and often are of different judgments how much more in the delivery of a Divine Doctrine where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received and the succeeding age is still bound to receive what they delivered surely if we add to this the confession of the very Adversaries themselves the proof as St. Ireneus saith must be true and without contradiction for if the Testimony of Ten Fathers and a few false impertinent confessions of our meanest Writers was by T.G. esteemed sufficient cause of this Triumphant flourish the Testimony of so many hundred Fathers of the Church and the confession of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen Jesuits and Fathers of the Roman party must be a demonstration of the truth of our assertion and exposition of the words of Christ sufficient to convince the obstinacy of this vain Apostate wherefore I shall conclude with that most pertinent exhortation of the learned Origen d Haec qui audire nesciâ— detorqueat ortasse avertaâ— auditum secundum illos qui â—â—icebant 〈…〉 bis carnem suam manducare sed vos Si fiâ—â—â— estis Ecclesiae si Evangelicis imbuti mysteriis si verbum caro fastum habitat in vobis agnoscite quia figurae sunt quae in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt ideo tanquam spirituales non tanquam carnales examinate intelligite quae dicuntur Si â—nim tanquam carnales ista suscipitis laedunt vâ—s non alunt-Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit c. ut supra Orig. in Levit. c. 10. Hom 7. p. 87. If you be Sons of the Church if you are imbued with Gospel Mysteries and if the word made flesh doth dwell within you acknowledge these are figures which are written in the Sacred Volumns and therefore understand ye what is written as spiritual and not as carnal men for if as carnal you receive them they will hurt but will not nourish you There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually understand it for if according to the letter you do follow that which is said except you eat the flesh c. the letter killeth Hence we may see the vanity of this assertion of T. G. That the definition of the present Church of Rome for that is most absurdly called the Church-Catholick p. 252. is ground sufficient to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Whereas it is confessed by their most learned Writers that in primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide i. e. this was not any Article of Faith delivered to her by the antient Church and that the e De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribusmentio Alphonsus a castro de Haer l 8. v indulgentia thing as well as name of transubstantiation is very rarely mentioned by the antient Fathers Nay they spake nothing of it And it is evident from the clear pregnant Testimonies and the concurrent judgment of many Hundred Fathers that the Church of Christ did generally hold the contrary to what the Church doth now define and held that exposition of our Saviours words was true and Genuine which they have now condemned as Heretical 2. How
A DISCOURSE CONCERNING The Idolatry OF THE CHURCH of ROME WHEREIN That CHARGE is Justified AND The Pretended Refutation of Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Discourse is Answered By DANIEL WHITBY D. D. Mirum videtur quare in uno articulo qui non est principalis artriculus fidei debeat talis intellectus asseri propter quem fides pate at contemptui omnium sequentium rationem Scotus in 4 sent dist 11. q. 3. lit B. LONDON Printed for Tho. Basset at the George near St. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet and Ja. Magnes near the Piazza in Covent Garden 1674. TO THE Most Reverend Father in God GILBERT LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY May it please your Grace IT is the Custom of the Adversaries of our Church to thrust out their Errors into the World under some great name that by the Protection of some honorable Person to whom they Dedicate their Books they may render them more plausible in the Eye of the World and add greater weight and Authority to their gross Falshoods My Lord We live in such an age in which Truth stands in greater need of a Patron than Falshood it self and though this little poor Treatise be not worthy to bear your great name in the front yet the Truth I here defend will I doubt not be owned and supported by your Grace whose great design in this World is to support the Church of England 'T is the same Faith and the same Doctrin I here deliver which your Glorious Predecessors in both your Sees of Canterbury and London Cranmer and Ridley owned and asserted even unto Blood 'T is a defence of that great learned man who has made it his business now for some years to defend the Writings of the renowned Archbishop Laud for whose memory and writings you have often expressed so great Veneration These considetions are enough alone to prove the fitness of this address But besides these your Grace may justly challenge the labours of all your own Vniversity You have obliged them to that degree that the Gifts of half their Benefactors amassed into one summe would scarce equal your famous Theatre And as they fail not to give God thanks for so great a Patron at the times of publick solemnity so am I under the same Obligation for that support you bestowed on me for some years together whilest I was a member of Trinity Colledge and before I had the happiness and honor to be related to my Lord of Sarum Whosoever knows this will certainly excuse my boldness and if to make this address be impudence yet not to have done it would have been ingratitude God preserve your Grace for the Chruches sake I am Your Graces humbly devoted Servant D. W. TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Think my self obliged to give thee an account 1. Why I undertake to answer this Discourse And 2. Why having undertaken to return an Answer to it I have omitted part the first of which the true account is briefly this since the Printers would not undertake the Printing of the whole before the Term expired I was contented do defer that part which I conceived to be least material to the Term ensuing That which first moved me to frame this Answer to T. G. was this having perused this Author and having found him laying the most scandalous accusations and imputations of Sophistry and Legerdemain Falshood and Contradiction to the Doctors charge I knew not how to think that any person who professed Christianity or valued either his credit or his cause should lay such imputations upon others and be himself the person Guilty Nor yet could I be easily perswaded that any person in so good a cause as ours in which Authorities and Arguments do press for an admittance and Men of ordinary Capacities must be abundantly supplied with them much less that the incomparable Dr. Stilling fleer that prodigy of Ingenuity and Learning should betake himself to such dishonourable Arts. Besides I knew that his Integrity and sense of honour was so great that he must scorn such sordid dealing and that it was his business to detect the Frauds and religious Cheates of Rome and therefore I presumed he would not imitate her when he did confute her Wherefore my curiosity engaged me to examine all that was devised to blast his Credit and having found it to be written in the old Roman Style and to contain nothing but the pure quintessence of Calumny I thought it charity to ease the Doctor and to declare unto the World what was the fruit of this inquiry And should this work be so unhappy which I hope it will not as to rob the World of the Ingenious and Triumphant Labors af the Learned Dr. yet I have two things to apologize 1. That the Dr. hath given us the greatest evidence that he can write most admirable Books upon the meanest Subjects and in answer to the most trifling and inconsiderable Scriblers so that what ever Adversarie he vouchsafes to answer he almost equally obligeth and instructeth all that read him but most of all his adversary whose Name he rescues from obscurity whilst he vouchsafes to mention it 2. That with I have performed will give us this advantage to the common cause viz. That through the strength and goodness of it a little inconsiderable David may worst the best Goliah of the Roman Church In prosecution of this subject I have set down the Doctrine of the Church of Rome not from the sayings of her private Doctors but from her Councils Catechisms and Authentick Liturgies that so I might obstruct all possibility of pleading that I do falsly represent her Tenets But though I use this method I do not think it either sophistical or useless to represent unto the World what are the Doctrines and Practices which have so far obtained in the Church of Rome as to be Doctrines and Practises of no small Credit Authority amongst them they being held and defended by their most able Writers and taught and practised with as much freedome in the Church of Rome as are the contrary Doctrines And to omit those many instances which do not so immediately concern the present Controversy It is a very common and prevayling Doctrine among the Doctors of the Church of Rome that the blessed Virgin is the Mother of Mercy not only by vertue of her intercession but by way of distribution and of Dispensation and that Christ having reserved the Kingdom of Justice to himself hath granted the Kingdom of mercy to his Mother and that he hath given to her what Assuerus promised to Queen Hester viz. The half of his Dominions or his Kingly Office This Doctrine is delivered by Thomas Bonaventure Gerson Gabriel Biel Antoninus Bernardinus Gorrhan Holcoth Rutilius Benzonius Blasius Viegas Osorius Paulus Cararia and many others whose words are cited by Dr. * From p. 356. to p. 363. White * p. 321.323.398.399 p 478.481 p. 480. p. 486. Crakanthorp and Bishop Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge
Innocent the first S. Austin and which was the current Doctrine of the Church of Christ for many hundred years I wave the Opinion of Austin and of Innocent the first saith Maldonate which flourished in the Church six haundred years In Joh. 6. n. 116. viz. that the Eucharist was necessary even for Infants the things is now unfolded by the Church and by the use of many ages and the decree of the Trent Council that it is not only unnecessary for them but that it cannot lawfully be given to them 2. It must be false which is defined by the Council of Florence and is received by the whole Church of Rome that Saints departed before the Resurrection do see the face of God in Glory for we have proved and Sixtus Senensis doth acknowledge that this definition was Bibl. l. 6. An. 345. Repugnant Ingenti numero illustrium Ecclesiae Patrum 3. Hence it will follow that the Trent Catechism and all the Roman Doctors who generally urge that of Jacob The Angel that redeemed me from all evil bless the Lads to prove that Angels may be Invocated embrace that exposition of these words of Scripture which is heretically false as I have proved Chap. 10. Sect. 6. Thirdly I have not entred into that deep dispute betwixt him and the Doctor whether jubere doth signify to command or entreat and whether imperare be to enjoyn or supplicate I Judge it is sufficient advantage to our cause that if Jubere and imperare should not be rendred to entreat and supplicate but to command the Romanists must unavoidably be guilty of Idolatry T. G. indeed informs us that it is not the dead words but the intention of the speaker that makes them to be prayer for otherwise a Parrot might be taught to Pray as well as a Christian and thence he manfully concludes that in these expressions Nos a peccatis omnibus solvite jussu quaesumus Cassand Consult tit de meritis intercess Sanctor p. 971. Jube filio O foelix puerpera jure Matris Impera Redemptori c. They only pray to Saints to pray for us As if a man should call his Prince a Tyrant and his Brother Knave and being brought before the Judge should plead that by a Tyrant he meant only a King and by a Knave a Servant and since it was not the dead words but the intention of the speaker that made them significative for otherwise a Parrot might be hanged for speaking what he did he hoped that he had spoken nothing which might give offence especially seeing he had more Authors ready to produce to justify this sense and acceptation of these words than had the Church of Rome for this interpretation of jubere and imperare if when the Sentence were thus passed upon him Jubemus imperamus hunc suspendi he should plead that it did only signify that they entreated him to be hanged I say should such a plea be made it would be as significant as is this Answer of T. G. And all that any man can say against the Plea of such a trifling Sophister will equally conclude against this pittiful defence which he hath offered Josh 10.12 14. and hath confirmed by a false citation of that place of Joshuah which doth not say that God obeyed as from the Vulgar he translates it but that God hearkened to the Voice of man Fourthly In this discourse I have not waved any thing which had the least appearance of an argument but have returned a full and as I hope a satisfactory Answer to all that hath been offered by T. G. and all that I desire of him is that if be should be pleased to Reply he would not nibble at some few Expressions as is the manner of the Roman party but would return a perfect Answer to the whole and then I do not doubt but he will Suffer me to rest for some convenient Season Thy Friend and Servant D. WHITBY Errata PAg. 4. l. 5. for Surerstition r. superstition p. 11. l. 12. honerem r. honorem p. 33. l. 18. mby r. may p. 40. l 27. from r. for p. 45. l. 5. 〈…〉 r. 〈…〉 p. 55. l. 16. overthrows r. overthrow p. 56. marg configere r. confingere p. 60. l. 23. ef r. of ibid marg creatura r. creaturam p. 78. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 86. l. 23. sguiritual r. spiritual p. 90. Marcarius r. Macarius p. 91. Symbol a r. a Symbol p. 93. po r. do p. 340. Chap. 11. r. Chap. 12. THE IDOLATRY Of the Church of ROME CHAP. I. The CONTENTS That according to the Doctrine of the Church of England the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry 1. In Worshipping the Host § 1. And 2. In Praying to departed Saints § 2. The Method used to Justifie this Charge § 3. The Notion of Idolatry considered Negatively in two Propositions 1. That to render any Person Guilty of Idolatry it is not Requisite that he should Conceive the Object of his Worship to be the Great Creator or the chiefest Good § 4. 2. That Worship may be Guilty of Idolatry which is not Given to a Creature with an Intent to Ascribe unto it that Worship which Agrees to God alone § 5. Idolatry is then Committed when any Honour due to God alone is Attributed to or is Conferd on that which is not God § 6. THe Doctrine of the Church of England as it is Delivered in her Injunctions Canons Orders Ordinances and Constitutions her Liturgies and Publick Homilies commanded to be Read in every Parish Church and to be Subscribed and Received by all that Exercise the Ministerial Function and by them to be acknowledged to contain a Good and Wholesome Doctrine and Needful for the Times in which those Homilies were Published is this That the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry in Worshipping the Host The Rubrick after the Communion speaks thus The Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural Substances and therefore may not be Adored for that were Idolatry to be Abhorred of all faithful Christians The Constitutions and Canons of the Convocation held A. D. 1640. Can. 7. and Published by the Authority of our Royal Martyr Charles the First affirm That at the time of Reforming this Church from that gross Superstition of Popery it was carefuly Provided that all Means should be used to Root out of the Minds of the People both the Inclination thereunto and Memory thereof Especially of the Idolatry committed in the Mass for which cause all Popish Altars were Demolished That the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry by Praying unto Saints Departed §. 2. Thus in the Homily touching the Peril of Idolatry we have these words Terrentius Vorro sheweth That there were 300 Jupiters in his time I think we had no fewer Saints to whom we gave the Honour due to God Then follows this Apostrophe Oh Heaven Earth and Seas what Madness and
pretend to consult these wicked Artists as persons guilty of Idolatry T. By the like reason no married man commits Adultery by lying with another woman provided he intends not to con verse with any other under the notion of a wife a fine expedient in this debauched age to make new converts to the Church of Rome And in like manner no Subject will he guilty of Rebellion though he desert his Prince follow the Ensigns of his Enemy and fight in his defence against his Soveraign provided he intend not by so doing to procure to his Enemy the estimation of a King These false opinions being thus removed § 6. we assert That Idolatry is then committed when any honour due to God alone is attributed to or is conferd upon any thing that is not God and that all actions which give unto the Creature the honour due to the Creator only are Idolatrous And this description of Idolatry is that which was received by the antient Schoolmen till the disputes of Protestants constrained them to renounce and vary from it Thus in the judgment of (s) 2a 2ae qu. 94. Art 1.3 Aquinas it is Idolatry cuicunque Creaturae divinum cultum exhibere honerem divinum Creaturae impendere divinum cultum exhibere cui non debet exhiberi To impart divine worship to any Creature or any thing to which it ought not to be given All divine worship given to a Creature is Idolatry So (t) Part. 2. qu. 160. Alexander Halensis to omit divens others This also is the definition or description of Idolatry we have received from the antient Fathers of the Church [u] Vid. voss de Idol l. 1. c. 3. p. 9. Rainold de R. Ecc. Idol l. 2. c. 9. §. 4. Tertullian and Nazianzen St. Augustine and almost all the Greek and Latine Fathers with one voice consent to this Idolatry is then committed when divine honour is ascribed to another hence that of Hilary the Deacon Idolatry usurps the honour hue to God and gives it to the Creature * Idololatria Dei honorisicentiam usurpat vendieat creatuax in cap. 5. ad Ephes This Thirdly may be evidently proved from Scripture for that the Gentiles were guilty of this hainous crime cannot be doubted by the Christian now their Idolatry did in the judgment of St. Paul consist in this that they did homage to those beings which by nature were not Gods but Creatures only Secondly the first commandment in the affirmative * Gal. 4.8 commands us to have the true Jehovah for our God and consequently to give unto him that worship which is due to God when therefore in the Negative it doth enjoyn us to have no ether God besides him it must be deened to enjoyn us also to give unto no other that worship which we owe unto him and by which we acknowledge him to be our God and even reason will instruct us that he who doth ascribe Gods worship he gives his glory to another and acknowledgeth another God as much as any man can do For we know no other way whereby we can acknowledge any thing to be a Deity but by ascribing to it in our thoughts or actions that worship which is due to God alone CHAP. II. The CONTENTS Prop. 1. That if the Sacrament continue after Consecration to be Bread the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry Prop. 2. That if it really be doubtful whether it be Bread or not she cannot be excused from that Crime Prop. 3. That we have just cause to doubt of every particular Host according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that it is not duely consecrated and consequently that the Sacrament is after Consecration Bread and Wine Prop. 4. That were it certain that every particular Host contains Christs real Flesh and Blood yet have we no just warrant upon that Supposition to adore it with Latria THe Church of Rome expresly doth enjoyn us to give the Worship of Latria * Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi sideles Latrix cultum qui vero Deo debetur huie Sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuer it a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum Concil Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. huic Sanctissimo Sacramento to the Holy Sacrament § 1. as the Trent Council hath defined that is unto that very being vvhich the Priest puts into the mouth of the Communicant and vvhich he must svvallovv dovvn into his Stomack for that they call the Holy Sacrament Hence presently they tell us That this Holy Sacrament ought not to be the less adored because our Lord commanded that it should be taken This practice vve conceive to be Idolatry and to make good the charge vve lay dovvn these preparatory Propositions We may be guilty of Idolatry in paying divine Homage to a Creature Prop. 1. though we conceive that Creature to be God and sointend to give that worship only to God for if such a vain conception which we may have just reason to reject but can have no inevitable and certain reason to embrace can be sufficient to excuse this guilt then he who thus conceits touching the vilest Creature cannot justly be charged with Idolatry what ever act of worship he should pay unto it admit we then the Heathen Jupiter the World the Sun the Earth and whatsoever else was worshiped by the ignorant and superstitious world as their supream Creator to be the vilest Devils pitty we may their ignorance and folly but no man should accuse them of Idolatry for paying Adotation to a Subject which in their apprehensions did so well deserve it p. 363. and what T. G. so often mentions as an Aggravation of that worship which Pagans gave to their inferior Daemons viz. that they esteemed them to be Gods would be their best excuse and the extenuation of their guilt And those expressions of the Prophets which reproach the Jevvs and Heathens for saying to a stock or stone thou art my God Jet 2.27 Hos 4.12 if they be literally understood as many Roman Doctors do conceive they ought to be will be so far from proving that they were Idolaters that they will perfectly excuse them from this crime because according to that supposition they worshiped only that which they conceived to be God The Collyridions if we be well informed by Baronius conceived the blessed Virgin vvas a real Deity and yet St. Epiphanius calls them a Sect of Idol-makers who offered their Cakes unto her Haer. 79. p. 1061. B. The (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol 2. p. 69. Samaritans who worshiped Simon Magus The Romans who if Justin Martyr may be credited p. 91 in honour of him did erect a Satue with this inscription Simoni Deo Sancto to Simon the Holy God and many others who as (c) Hic sgitur a multis quasi Deus Glorificatus est Iren
That when the Encratitae held it unlawful to drink Wine the Fathers did confute them by this very Argument That Christ himself drank Wine and did appoint it to be received in the Sacrament Wherefore did he not drink Water after his Resurrection but Wine saith Chrysostom that he might pull up by the Roots another wicked Heresie for because there are some who in the Mysteries use Water declaring that when he delivered the Mysteries he delivered Wine and that when he rose and spread a Common Table without the Mysteries he used Wine he saith I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine Now the Vine produceth Wine not Water Chrysost Hom. in Mattheum 12. p. 511. l. 12. Edit Eton. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 158. B. Ed. Paris 1641. Be ye sure saith Clemens to the Encratitae he also did drink Wine for he blessed Wine when he said take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine but that the thing which had been Blessed was Wine he shewed again saying to his Disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this Vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom h Illud quod lex dicit quia sanguis est anima esse positum dicimus sicut alia multa paenè â—mnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta lignis â—guris N. B. plena sunt suthrae pradicationis quae jam per Donm â—â—strum Jesu dâ—clatate est Contr. Adiman Coy 12. Sic est enim sanguis anima quo modo Petta erat Christus sicut dicit Apostolus bibehant enim de spirituali sequence eos Petra Petra autem erat Christus Notum est autem filâ—s Israel Petra percussa bibisse aquam in cremo de quibus loquebatur Apostolus cum haec diceres nec tamen ait Petra significabat Châ—istum â—sed ait Petra erat Christus quz rursus ne Garnaliter accipererur spiritualem illam vocat Ib. Cap. 12. Now had not the Sacramental Cup been truly Wine this Argument would have been frivolous and vain Had not they held as the Church of England their answer must have been a contradiction to the Doctrine of the Church of Christ Secondly The Manichees to prove the contradiction betwixt the Gospel and the Law opposed to that saying of our Saviour that none was able to cause the Soul to perish that of Moses that the Blood was the Soul To this St. Austin answers those words may be expounded thus the Blood is that is it signifies the Soul this he confirms 1. by this general assertion that almost all the Sacraments of those Scriptures are full of signs and figures of the future Preaching which is now declared by Christ and I am apt to think they were such signs and figures as were not properly converted into what they signified Seconly this he illustrates by a double instance †So is Blood the Soul as the Rock was Christ they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ he said not the Rock signified Christ but the Rock was Christ 2. I may expound it thus saith he * Blood is the Soul that is it signifies the Soul because our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body since then as the Rock is Christ and as the signs and figures of the Old Testament are what thâ—â— Typified in the New so is the Bread Christs Boâ—â— It is wonderfully evident that in St. Austin's Judgment it is Christs Body not by conversion into Christs real Body but by signification of it k Nam ex â—o quod sâ—riptum est sanguinem pecoris animam ejus esse possum interpretaâ—i preceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret sui corporis bl yea by such signification as excludes Christs body from being corporally present under the accidents of Bread for else the Manichees might have replyed upon St. Austin and given him the baffle thus as the sign not only signified Christs real Body but contained it too so must the Blood not only signifie but really contain the Soul Therefore it is apparent that in St. Austin's time the words of Christ were so interpreted by the Orthodox as to exclude Transubstantiation and to confirm the exposition of the Protestants Thirdly The Nestorians and Eutichians asserted that Christs humane nature was absorpt and changed into the Deity this some of them affirmed to be done after his Resurrection and Ascension only but others that it was thus changed at his Conception whence they affirm that whilst he lived on Earth he had the form and shape of man but not his proper nature For Illustration and Confirmation of these Heresies they urge †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. To. 4. Dial. 2. p. 84 85. the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and had the Bread and Wine by Consecration lost their natures had they been really changed into Christs Flesh and Blood no greater Confirmation of their Heresie no fitter illustration of their Tenet could be well imagined for thus the similitude would run First That as in the Eucharist there is only the outward shape and form of Bread and not the real substance even so in Christ there was the shape and form of Flesh but not the very nature Secondly Even as in the Eucharist the essential form and material substance of Bread and Wine are swallowed up and converted into the Body and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs ascension the humane nature is absorpt and converted into the Deity What is it therefore that the Fathers answer do they confess the thing and say Transubstantiation was the Tradition of the Church and was the Doctrine of the Scriptures but that no like Tradition nor evidence from Scripture can be produced in favour of the Doctrine of the Eutichians and Nestorians which is the only thing that can be answered by men of T. G's principles No they expresly say and that in words as plain full as any Protestant could use that this similitude doth overthrow the Doctrine it was brought to justisie * Certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione Mysteriorum celebrantur satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumus Ut sicut in hance scilicet in divinam transeant Sacramenta Sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate-naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cujus nobis effâ—eientiam virtutemque veraciter representant Gelasius de duabus naturis in Christo contra Euthich
c. 12. Run through all the words of holy Prayers and you will be able to find nothing which is not included in the Lords Prayer in this both Protestants and Roman Catholicks agree Hence therefore I assume if when we pray for any thing contained in this Prayer we are enjoyned to pray to God then all our acceptable Prayers must be directed to him and whensoever we do pray for any blessing we must call upon him besides Our Father doth belong to every Petition no other person being mentioned in this Prayer so that the sense runs thus Our Father c. let thy Kingdome come Our Father let thy will be done c. And then the import of this injunction will be this when you pray for the advancement of Gods Glory or the promotion of his Kingdom or the performance of his Will when you solicite for any Temporal blessing or for the pardon of your Sin or lastly for the prevention of any Evil or Temptation of what kind soever when you desire any of these mercies for your selves or others pray to your Heavenly Father for them 3. None of these blessings must be asked of him to whom the Kingdom Power and Glory doth not of right belong For this is added as the cause or motive of making these addresses to God and where the motive or cause is wanting the effect must cease Now to God only the Kingdome Power and Glory doth agree Jude 25. We therefore must address our Prayers to him only for the obtaining of these blessings And least you should object that this Argument excludes the third and second persons of the Sacred Trinity let it be noted that all the Schoolmen do affirm That the word Father in this Prayer must not be taken personally but essentially and so excludeth not the other Persons of the Trinity but those things only which have not the same nature with them 2. Prayer offered up in any time or place to an invisible and for any thing we know a Being absent from us as far as Earth from Heaven doth ascribe unto that Being the knowledge of the secrets of the heart now to worship any Being whether Saint or Angel with such a kind of worship which doth ascribe unto it the knowledge of the desires and secrets of the heart both where and whensoever they are conceived or uttered is to ascribe unto them by way of worship what is not due to Saints or Angels but alone to God as hath been proved already and may be further thus confirmed 1. If Saints departed were acquainted with the desires of our hearts why did Elijah speak unto Elisha thus 2 Kings 2.9 Ask what thou wilst before I am taken from thee The Scripture doth affirm that he was taken up into the Heavens and therefore did behold the face of God And Roman Catholicks themselves deny that he was held in Limbo as they imagine other Prophets were being in Heaven his love unto Elisha and the Church of God was not diminished but enlarged and therefore upon that account he had a stronger reason to ask what he desired then before Besides the Prophet being now with God in Heaven his Prayers would more effectually prevail for any Blessing for his Friend and therefore he had greater reason to have said had he believed this Doctrine of the Church of Rome Ask what thou wilst when I am taken from thee And therefore we have reason to presume that he did not believe this Doctrine but rather thought that his departure would render all Elijah's future wishes and add resses to him vain and ineffectual 2. From that known passage of Isaiah Abraham nescivit nos Israel ignoravit nos St. Augustine thus concludes (o) Si tanti Patriarchae quid erga populum ex his procreatum ageretur ignoraverunt quibus Deo credentibus populus ipse ex corum stirpe promissus est quomodo mortui suorum rebus atque actubus cognoscendis adjuvandisque miscentur ibi ergo sunt spiritus defunctorum ubi non vident quaecunque aguntur aut eveniunt in ista vita hominibus De curâ pro mortuis c. 13. If such great Patriarchs were ignorant of what was done towards the people that proceeded from their Loins how should the dead be conversant in knowing or helping of their friends in what they do There therefore are the Spirits of dead persons where they do not see what things are done or happen to men in this life 2. I reason thus this practice doth ascribe unto the objects of our Prayer such knowledge of the heart and such a cognisance of all petitions presented to them at all times and in all places of the world which we have proved to agree to God alone or such a presence in all places which is proper to him and therefore it ascribeth to them the honor due to God alone 2. If Saints departed do know the minds and inward thoughts of those who put up their petitions to them they have this knowledge either from Revelation or from the beatifick Vision but they have no such knowledge either from Revelation or from the Beatifick Vision Ergo. And 1. God doth not ordinarily reveal unto them the knowledge of the hearts of their petitioners For if they do not want this Revelation God who doth nothing vainly must not be supposed to impart it But these blessed Spirits do not want it for did they need this Revelation to perceive our minds saith Bellarmine the Church would not so confidently say to all the Saints Votis precamur cordium audite preces supplicum Brev. in Com. Apost p. 2. pray for me much less we offer to you the desires of our hearts but sometimes would desire God thus to reveal our prayers and to acquaint them with the desires of our hearts 2. If God thus reveal the Prayers of the Petitioner to the deceased Saints what reason can be given saith the forementioned Author why all the holy Patriarchs and Prophets were not invoked by the Church of Israel before our Saviours advent and he had reason to make this enquiry For 1. It is as easie to Almighty God to make this Revelation to the souls in Limbo that Papal prison of the Antient Patriarchs and holy Prophets as to the souls in Heaven nor have we one example or declaration that what God is supposed now to do he was not willing to do then 2. Certain it is the charity of those departed Patriarchs and Prophets towards their relatives and friends and the whole Church of God must be exceedingly advanced by their change they must be more the friends of God and their petitions must be more prevailing then whilst they did continue in the flesh Wherefore the Jews had as good reason to invoke these Patriarchs and Prophets as hath the Romanist to call upon the Christian Martyrs And God had equal reason to declare this was the duty of the Jew and to reveal their Supplications to the Patriarchs as to
This answer gives us some shew of reason why this Invocation was not enjoyned in Scripture but it affords not the least shadow of a reason why it was not practised 2. Either this Invocation was practised by the Church in the Apostles time or not if not Quem seuâ—per Ecclesia Catholica adhibuit Câ—t Rom. p. 3 c. 2. Sect. 8. then the Trent Council and the Roman Catechism falsly do assert that this was the perpetual and Apostolick practice of the Church of Christ if it was practised then that practice must give rise unto the same Objection viz. that the Disciples of Christ had brought into the world this custom on purpose to advance their honour and to procure worship to themselves 3. This doctrine had it been consistent with the Christian Faith ought more especially to have been often preached to the Jews to reconcile them to that Faith by giving them assurance that they might have recourse unto the prayers of Father Abraham and their beloved Moses and that Noah Job and Daniel Elijah Samuel and all the blessed Patriarchs and Prophets who were so powerful with God on Earth would upon their request be ready to procure for them the greatest Temporal and Spiritual blessings since therefore we have no such Revelation in any of these Writings or Epistles which are especially directed to them and were designed for their conversion and satisfaction it may be well concluded this was no doctrine of the Christian faith 2. Some others do assert That the Apostles did abstain from giving any precept or example of this Invocation lest Heathens should conceive that for the multitude of Heathen * Nondum erat tempus in ipsius fidei exordiis eam mundo doctrinam divulgandi ne Gentiles arbitrarentur plures nos Deos colere Alanus Copus Dial. 3. f. 239. Eckius ubi supra Deities they worshipped the Christians only introduced a multitude of Christian Gods Repl. 1. This evasion is a meer conjecture of which we have not the least hint in any of the Ancient Fathers or the Church Historians which is sufficient to crack the credit of it for that such a change should happen in the worship of the whole Church of Christ without the notice or observation of any single person is incredible Besides this figment thwarts that declaration of St. Paul that he was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ and that profession that he with-held not from them any useful Doctrine Act. 20.20 it thwarts that Doctrine and Assertion of the Church of Rome that this hath been the constant custom of the Church of God including the Apostles time Besides the reasons of abstaining from this practice must continue as long as there were Heathenâ— to be converted to the Christian Faith and so beyond the time of Constantine Now albeit it be a certain truth that Christians till after the days of Constantine abstained from this practice yet cannot that Assertion consist with the pretences of the Church of Rome for Apostolical Tradition and derivation of these Doctrines which they obtrude upon us from the Apostles of our Lord. 4. Either these Primitive Professors were not well advised to let this fear of Scandal deter them from the publication of a truth so pious and profitable to the Church of Christ or else the Roman Doctors are not so cautious in their attempts to propagate the Gospel as they ought to be as not concealing from the †8. Dali. de cultu Latin To. 1. l. 3. cap. 25. p. 493. Pagans whom they endeavour to convert this so suspicious practice of their Church In a word if the Apostles and the Church of Christ which was converted by and flourished under them had no such practice certain it is we have no reason now to do what they did never practise or command for all instructions we embrace as from them must be what they did teach or practise but if they did admit this practice then could not Jews and Heathens want the knowledge of it seeing the number of Apostates and hypocritical Professors was so great and there were many who took upon them the profession of the Christian Faith Cal 2 4. Phil. 1.16 only to spy out what they practised 3. If it be said they might abstain by reason of some precept which forbad this Invocation I reply that which Gods wisdom doth forbid us to give unto the noblest of his Creatures he by so doing doth declare that he reserves unto himself and when we act against his precept we may be certain that he will not reveal or manifest that supplication which he hath forbidden and therefore they that tender to these Blessed Spirits this forbidden worship must ascribe unto them that knowledge which agrees to God alone and that honour which he will not give unto another and so be guilty of Idolatry To conclude If this Invocation were so beneficial to mankind and was not derogatory to Gods honour it might be well presumed that Christ and his Apostles would have been careful to instruct us in it for they neither wanted knowledge to perceive the benefit or love sufficient to engage them to acquaint us with it Lastly P. 420. Whereas T. G. objects That it is certain by many and great Miracles wrought by God upon addresses made to the Saints that those who call upon them are heard and obtain what they desire and that therefore it cannot be unlawful or Idololatrical to desire their intercession Answ This is an Argument in which the Romanists much triumph but it is only what their Brother Donatists had urged long before L. de unitate Ecc. contra Petâ—liani Donatistae Epistolam and what St. Austin hath admirably answered And first I say It is but a Translation of that Argument which formerly was used by the Donatists in confirmation of their Schism for thus St. Austin propoundeth their Objection * Non dicat verum est quâ—a hoc 〈◊〉 dico aut quia hoc dixit ille Collega meus aut illi Collegae mei aut illi Episcepi vel Clerici vel Laici nosiri aut ideo verum est quia illa illa Mirabilia fecit Donatus vel Pontius velquilibet alius aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant exaudiuntur aut quia illa illa ibi contingunt aut quia ille Frater noster aut illa Seror nostra tale visum vigilans vidit vel tale visun dormiens somniavit removeantur isâ—a vel figmenta mendacium hominum vel portenta fall icium Spirituum aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur aut si Haereticorum aliqua mira sunt facta magis cavere debemus quod cum dixisset Dominus quesdum futuros esse falleces qui nonnuâ—la signa faciendo etiam Electos si fieri posset fallerent adjecit vehementer commendans dit ecce praedixi vebis unde Aposiclus admenens Spiritus autem manifesâ—e decet
the Creator to the Creature and the like and are sufficiently warded against the force of this assault by being told that Antichrist must be ushered in with Signs and lying Wonders 2 Thess 2.9 Secondly What Austin saith unto the Donatists we also say unto the Church of Rome Shew us your Scriptures for this Invocation haec sunt causae nostrae firmamenta The third Particular contained in this Answer is That the Holy Spirit hath forewarned us that in the latter times this Doctrine of Damons should prevail which Doctrine both the ingenious Mr. Mede and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adv Antidico marionitas Haer. 78. §. 23. A. Epiphanius do well interpret to be the Doctrine of worshipping the Spirits of dead Men and by the pertinency of this Sense unto St. Austins present subject we have good reason to conjecture that he approved their Opinion St. Austins second Answer to this Objection is as followeth †Porrò si aliquis in Hereticorum memoriis orans exauditur non pro merito loci sed pro merito desiderii sui recipit sive matum sive bonum nonne legimus ab ipso domino Deo nonnullos exauditos in excelsis montium Judaeae quae tamen excelsa ità displicebant Deo ut Reges qui ea non everterent crâ—lparentur qui everterent laudarentur unde intelligitur magis valere peâ—entiâ— assectium â—u â—m petitioâ—is locum ib. p. 116. Col. 2. K. L Moreover if any person praying in the memorials of Hereticks be heard it is not for the merit of the place but of his own desire that he receiveth any good Do we not read that God himself hearkned to many of those Jews who prayed in the high places although those places so displeased him that he rebuked those Kings that suffered them Whence we may understand that the affection of the Supplicant is more prevailing then the place of Prayer And accordingly we say That if any person praying to these Saints was heard it was not for the merit of this prayer considered as directed to the Saints but for the affection of his heart and as it will not follow that it was lawful for the Jew to pray in those high places or for the Christian to pray in the memorials of Hereticks because that they who prayed there were sometimes heard So neither doth it follow that it is lawful to pray unto the Saints departed because of some few instances that they who have thus prayed have received the desired Blessing Thirdly saith St. Austin ‖ De visis autem fallacibus legunt quae scriâ—ta sunt quia ipse Satanas se transfigurat tanquam Angelum lucis quia multos seduxerunt somnia sua Audiant etiam quae narrant pagani de Templis Diis suis mirabiliâ—er vel facta vel visa tamen dii Gentium Baemonia Exaudiuntur ergo multi multis modis non solum Christâ—â—ani Catholici sed Pagant Judaei Haeretici variis errorâ—lus superstiâ—ionibus dediti exaudiuntur autem vel ab spiritibus seductoribus qui tamen nihil faciunt nisi permitâ—antur Deo subliâ—iter aâ—que ineffabiliter judieante quid cuique tribuendum sit sive ab ipso Deo vel ad poenam malitiae vel ad solatium miseriae vel ad monitionem quaerendae salutis aeternae ib f. B. Col. 2. L.M. Let them hear what the Pagans tell of the Wonders done by their Gods and at their Temples and yet the Gods of the Heathens are but Daemons and therefore many not only Catholicks but Pagans Jewes and Hereticks may many wayes be heard either by those seducing Spirits which yet do nothing but with Gods permission or else by God himself either for castigation of their wickedness or comfort of their misery or in admonition of them to pursue eternal safety Which Answer also doth suggest these things 1. That the Argument is vain because it will serve the Paegan as well as it well serve the Donatist or Roman Catholick and proves as much their Invocation of Daemons to be lawful as the invocation of the Saints departed which is now practised in the Church of Rome For as (a) Quibusdam signis miraculis oraculis fidem divinitatis operatur Apol. c. 21. §. 8. Tertullian saith by Signs and Miracles and Oracles they obtained to be reputed Gods (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—om 6. p 375 l. 20. They often by their skill have cured diseases and restored to health those that were sick what should we partake therefore with them in their iniquity God forbid So Chrysostome (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Praepar Evang. l. 5. c. 2. The wicked Daemons saith Eusebius counterfeited by working many Miracles the Souls of them that were deceased and thence they were thought worthy to be celebrated with greater service (d) Frustra tantum arrogas Christo cum saepe alios sciamus scierimus Deos laborantibus plurimis dedisse medicinas multorum hominum morbos valetudiâ—ésque curasse Arnobius l. 1. p. 28. In vain say they you arrogate so much to Christ for we have often known that other Gods have given Medicines to and healed the infirmities of many Moreover these benefits they still pretended to receive by vertue of those Supplications which they offer'd to them (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Orig. l 8. p. 407. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 416. How many saith Celsus being troubled that they had no children have by them enjoyed their wishes How many being maimed in their body's have been healed by them Hence saith (f) Daut cautelam periculi mâ—rbâ—s medelam spem afflictis opeâ—â— mâ—seris sâ—latium calamitatibus laboribus levameâ—um Minur p. 7. Cecilius they give us caution in dangers and medicine in diseases hope to the afflicted help to the miserable comfort in calamities ease from labours 2. This Argument is vain because it serves the Heretick as well as Catholick For what can be more glorious then what Philostorgius records of (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philost Hist Eccl. l 2. §. 8. p. 14. Agapetus one of his fellow Hereticks That he wrought many miracles he raised the dead and healed many that were sick and converted many to the Christian Faith And of Theophilus another of his brother Arrians * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem l. 3. § 4. p. 27. That his wonders were so great and such convincing demonstrations of the Christian Faith as to constrain the obstinacy of the Jews and Silence all their contradictions Lastly Hence we may learn that although Austin should have related some few instances of persons healed by Supplications tendered to the Saints we cannot thence infer as T. G. doth that by so doing he commends them or doth relate them as patterns for our imitation CHAP. VIII The Contents The Judgment of the Fathers proved to be the same with that of Protestants because they do assert
that Prayer must be offered unto none but God and by no other Intercessor but our Saviour Christ Sect. 1. And this Assertion they prove 1. Because God only can be called good 2. Because he only can answer our Petitions ibid. 2. They do affirm That by addressing a Petition to a Saint or Angel we become guilty of distraction from God and of deserting our Lord Jesus Christ Sect. 2. 3. That to pray unto a Creature or to that which is no God is to worship it as God or give that honour to it which is due to God alone Sect. 3. 4. They hence infer that Christ is God and that the Holy Ghost is God because we put up our Petitions to them Sect. 4. 5. Because the invocation of the inferior Heathen Daemons was by the Fathers censured as Idolatry And there is no desparity betwixt the invocation of those Daemons and that invocation of the blessed Martyrs which is now practised in the Church of Rome sufficient to acquit the Papist from that Guilt if it be duly charged on the Heathens by reason of their Supplications tendred to inferior Daemons Sect. 5. 6. The Fathers dispute against the Heathens with such Arguments as perfectly destroy this practise and confute this Doctrine Sect. 6. 7. Because the ancient Fathers prayed for all the Saints without exception of Martyrs or Apostles or the blessed Virgin 8. Because the Fathers gave no Rules touching the Canonizing of the Saints departed ibid. TO what we have discoursed from the holy Scriptures and from the Principles of Reason we shall now add the suffrage of those ancient Fathers who flourished in the first and purest Ages of the Church Who do not only say expresly that our Prayers should only be directed to God asserting this without those limitations and distinctions which are now used by the Church of Rome but also do it upon the very same enducements and motives which Protestants are wont to use for confirmation of this truth Moreover in their conflicts with the Arrians and other Adversaries of the Church of Christ they use those very weapons wherewith we fight against the Church of Rome and do pronounce that Doctrine and Practice which that Church contends for to be the giving to the Creature what is due to God And first the Fathers do assert that prayer must be offered unto none but God and by no other Intercessor but our Saviour Christ When Celsus had pronounced that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 8. p. 394. Heathen Daemons did belong to God and thence inferred we should entreat their favour Origen replys two things 1. That those Daemons being wicked Spirits could not belong to God 2. That this advice of †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen contra Cels lib. 8. p. 395. Celsus to put up our Petitions to them was to be utterly rejected and by no means allowed by Christians Because God only was to be made the object of our prayer nor were we to sollicite any other than our great High Priest to offer and present them to the Father And hence in two Catena's both published by the Doctors of the Church of ‖ Nicet Caten in Psal 5. Rome we have this free confession of an antient Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We Christians pray to God alone And upon this account they tell us the Psalmist uttered this expression Attend unto the voice of my petition my King and my God For unto thee will I pray because (a) Oraâ—io enim soâ— Deo â—ffâ—rtur Aurea Catena in 50. Psal edit Venâ—t Anno 1569. Pag. 53. Petitions were to be offered unto God alone according to that Question of St. Austin (b) Cui alteri praeter te clamabo Aug. Confess lib. 1. cap 5. to whom else shall I cry but unto thee and that expression of (c) L. de Creatione Dracontius esse nihil prorsus se praeter ubique rogandum that nothing besides God should be invoked And this assert on they do not barely offer but also they confirm it by many pregnant Arguments as first He only must be prayed unto because he only can be called Good (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexand Strom. l. 7. p. 721. since God alone is good saith Clemens it is reasonable we should sollicite him alone for the Donation and Continuance of good things 2. because God only is present in all places and so at hand to hear and help us wherever we address our prayers to him It is an absurdity saith (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. contra Celsum lib. 5. pag. 239. Origen having that God with us and nigh at hand who filleth Heaven and Earth to go about to pray to that which is not omnipresent This I confess is spoken to demonstrate that intercessions were not to be made unto the Sun and Moon and Stars but then it must be noted that this Father held both Sun and Moon and Stars to be intelligible Creatures and in this very place asserts that (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id pag. 238. they do offer up their Prayer to God and from this very Argument concludes we must not pray to them because they pray to him Whence it will follow that he conceived them as fit and able to be our Intercessors as the Saints departed and that it was absurd to pray to any who themselves properly did pray for us And 2. he adds (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Id ib. if any Christian be not sufficient immediately to direct his Prayers to God let him address them to the Word of God making no mention of an address to be preferred either to Saint or Angel or to the B. Virgin in this Case 3. He adds that put the (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. p. 239. Case that Sun Moon and Stars were heavenly Angels and Messengers of God yet were they not to be adored for this but he whose Messengers and Angels they were Where by the way observe that he insensibly slides from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to adore Whence we may certainly conclude that in the Judgment of this Father it was the same to pray to any person and to adore that person and that nothing may be invocated which may not be adored Lastly it is evident his reason will hold good as well against addresses made to Saints as to the Sun and Moon they being neither of them omnipresent 3. They say he only must be prayed unto who seeth and heareth every where Let us consider saith (i) De Orat. c. 1. Sect. 8. Tertullian the Heavenly Wisdom of our Lord in his Injunction to pray in secret whereby he both requires the Faith of Man confiding that God omnipotent both hears and sees under our Roofs and in our secret Places and also that our Faith be modest so that we offer our Religion unto him alone whom we are confident doth
ask T. G. what mean the Images of the Church of Rome which are either the monuments of the dead or absent persons in what order will you place your Saints and Angels If in the number of dead men Why then are you so foolish as to worship them If in the number of the absent they are not to be worshipped since they can neither see our actions nor hear our prayers What I have thus retorted on the Church of Rome if the like practice had then obtained in the Church of Christ might have been with like evidence returned upon Lactantius Tertullian tells the Heathens that by allowing many Gods (a) Cum alii alios Deos colitis eos quos non colitis utique contemnitis praelatio alterius sine alterius contumelia esse non potest nec ulla electio non reprobatione componitur Qui de pluribus suscipit aliquem eum quem non suscipit despexit Sed tot ac tanti ab omnibus coli non possunt Jam ergo tunc primo contempsistis non veriti scilicet ita instituere ut omnes coli non possent Tertul. ad Nationes L. 1. c. 10. they do affront as many of them as they do not worship for the prelation of any one is a reproach to all the rest which Argument doth equally impugne the worship of the Church of Rome For who knows not that many of their Saints who in some Countries are worshipped more than Christ himself are scarcely known in others 2. The Ancients prayed for all the Saints departed excepting neither Apostles Martyrs or the blessed Virgin The Liturgy of the Church of Constantinople ascribed to St. Chrysostome saith (b) Chrysost Tom. 6. p. 998 999. We offer unto thee this reasonable Service for those who are at rest in the faith our Fore-fathers Fathers Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles Preachers Evangelists Martyrs Confessors Religious Persons and every Spirit perfected in the Faith But especially for our most holy immaculate most blessed Lady the Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary Remember all them who are fallen asleep in the hope of the Resurrection to eternal life give them to rest where the Light of thy Countenance presideth The Liturgy ascribed to St. Mark having made mention of the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles c. speaketh thus (c) Biblioth Patrum Gr. Lat. Tom. 2. p. 35. A. Lord make the Souls of all these to rest in the Tabernacles of thy Saints in thy Kingdom conferring on them all the good things promised Which is a pregnant evidence that the first Authors of those Liturgies did not invoke the Blessed Virgin or the Evangelists Apostles Martyrs or any other Saints departed this being a known Rule and as (d) Cum sacrae Scripturae dicat auctoritas quod injuriam facit Martyri qui orat pro Martyre Innocent III. P. R. Decret l. 3. de celeb Miss tit 41. Pope Innocent declares the voice of Scripture that he who prayes for any Martyr doth offer an affront unto that Martyr Nay even common sense and reason shews that it is very foolish and absurd to pray for them and to commend them to Gods favour to whom we therefore pray because we think their merits and their interest with God is such as that they can prevail by vertue of them for all the blessings they can ask for others 3. The Heathens did object against the Christians that they put up Supplications to the Man Christ Jesus whose birth and ignominious death they owned (e) Inique non scis quem invocas hominem quendam factum sub custed à Pontii Pilati punitum In Act. Andr. apud Bar. A. D. 290. §. 26. Dost thou not know saith Maximus unto Andronicus the Martyr that him whom thou invokest was a man who suffered under Pontius Pilate And in Arnobius the Heathen thus disputes (f) Sed non inquit idcirco Dii vobis infesti sunt quod omnipâ—lentem colatis Deum sed quod hominem natum quod personis infane est vilibus crucis supplicio interemptum Deum fuisse contenditis superesse adhuc creditis quotidianis supplicationibus adâ—â—atis Arnobii adversus Gentes l. 1. p. 20. You Christians do adore with daily Supplications and look upon him as a God who was both born a man and suffered an ignominious Death on the Cross And had the Christians of that time put up their Supplications to the Apostles Evangelists and Martyrs and the Blessed Virgin had not the Heathens greater reason to object that they offered up their Supplications unto such as were but ordinary men and who continued in the state of death When in the dayes of Julian this custome did insinuate it self into the Church of Christ and they began in Panegyrical Orations to speak unto the Martyrs as to men present with them Eunapius presently cryes out Eunap in Aedesso p. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they call their Martyrs Ministers and Legats of their Prayers to God That therefore this was not objected by Porphyry or Celsus or taken notice of as their objection by any of the ancient Fathers is an assurance that they had no such practice in the purest Ages of the Church 4. This will be farther evident if we consider that in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists and of the ancient Fathers we have no rules prescribed for the Canonizing of any Saints departed or any mention of this custome till the seventh Century for since it is so great a Crime to worship damned Spirits next to God seeing to celebrate their praises and to give God thanks for their Examples and for the Graces of his Spirit is so absurd a thing And yet it is a thing saith (g) Nisi judicio Ecclesiae certi Sancti proponerentur colendi facil fieri posseâ— ut populus saepe â—rraret damnatos pro Beaâ—is coleret Bellarm de Sanct. Beat c. 7. §. Sed. Bellarmine that easily might happen from the neglect of this Canonization we may conclude that they who never took the care to practise it did not allow that worship which made its observation necessary CHAP. IX The Contents General Heads of Answer to the Testimonies produced by T. G. from Antient Fathers 1. That the Fathers of that time did more unquestionably practise and approve what hath been since condemned by the Church of Rome V.G. They practised the communicating of Infants they approved the necessity of it to Salvation Sect. 1. They approved the Doctrine that the Righteous did not enjoy the sight of God before the Resurrection Sect. 3. Secondly That the Fathers cited by him do many of them in words more clear and writings more authentick deny or disapprove this practise Sect. 2. Thirdly Many of the Fathers of those times beld Doctrines inconsistent with that practise Sect. 3. viz. that Saints did not enjoy the Beatifick Vision ibid. Secondly That they did not hear or understand our words directed to them and that it was doubtful
unbaptized Infants cannot have it The Words of Innocentius are these (f) Haec enim ejus verba sunt Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine Baptismatis Gratia posse donari perfatuum est risi enim manducaverint carnem filii hominis August contr duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c 4. Whereas your Brotherhood asserts that the Pelagians say that Infants may be saved without Baptism this is a very fond opinion for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood they have no life in them (g) Hinc constat Inncoentii primi sentententia quae 600 circiter annos in Ecclesia viguit quamque Augusitnus sectatus est Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus neceâ—sarium fuisse Concil Tom. 1. part 4. p. 624. Whence it is evident saith Binius that this was Pope Innocents opinion which also was maintained in the Church 600 years viz. that the participation of the Eucharist was necessary to Infants and what he thus confesseth is made good by * Dalle from the fourth inclusivè to the eleventh Century by the plain pregnant Testimonies of them that lived in those Times Who also doth abundantly consute that vain imagination of Mr. Cressy and Vasquezius that they conceived it necessary that Infants should partake Christs Body and his Blood not Sacramentally but Spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptism Lastly they also do affirm this Doctrine to be derived from (h) Optimè Funici Christiani Baptismum ipsum nihil a liud quam salutem Sacramentum Corporis Christi nihil aliud quam viâ—um vocant unde nisi ex Aatiqua ut existimo et Apostolica traditione qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum participationem dominicae mensae non solum ad regnum Dei sed we ad salutem vitam aeternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire hoc enim scriptura testatur viz. Tit. 3.5 1 Petr. 3.21 John 6.51 53. si ergo ut tot tanta Divina testimonia concinunt nec salus nec vita aeâ—crna sine Baptâ—â—mâ— Corpore Sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est frustra â—â—ne his promittitur parvulis Tom. 7. lib. 1. de peccat meritis c. c. 24. p. 144 D. E. Apostolical Tradition and deeply setled in the Churches of Christ as doth most evidently appear from that of Austin From an ancient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them that without Baptism and the participation of the Lords Supper no man can attain to the Kingdom of God nor yet to life eternal If therefore so many Testimonies Divine convince us that everlasting Life is not to be expected without Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ 't is in vain to promise it to children without them And yet the Church of Rome hath laid aside this practise and determined against this Doctrine thus (i) Concil Trid. Sesi 21. Can. 4. Si quis dixerit Parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem anathema sit Which must be thus interpreted If any Person now doth say what the whole Church of Christ did for 600 years together viz. That it is necessary for Infants to be partakers of the Eucharist let him be accursed I will not quarrel with them as Mr. Dalle doth for their intolerable irreverence to the ancient Fathers or for the Curse they have pronounced on the whole Church of Christ for many Ages but I will take the Boldness to infer that if they may condemn a practice far more ancient than was the Invocation of departed Saints a practice not opposed as that was by many Fathers of the Church upon its first encroachment when about A. D. 360. it began to creep into the Church a practice so deeply setled in all Christian Churches in St. Austins time when that of Invocation of Saints departed was but in the Embryo Lastly a practice proved from clear unanimous and numerous assertions of the learned Fathers Whereas what is produced for the other practice is obscure and contradictory to what in other places they deliver and fairly may admit another sense as you shall see hereafter I say if they may wholly lay aside this practice and may pronounce Anathema's against it I hope we also may refuse to practice this Invocation of the Saints departed provided that it were as ancient as the Times of Nazianzen Basil and St. Austin 2 Observe § 2. That though these Fathers cited by T. G. seem in some places to assert or use this invocation of the Saints departed in others they deny the Doctrine and disapprove the practice of it and this they do in Writings more assuredly Authentick and in words more clear and pregnant than are or can be brought to justifie it This I might easily make good by an induction of the places cited pro and con from all these Father but since T. G. hath singled out St. Austin p 431. as a man so clear and pregnant in this Point that whosoever shall deny St. Austin to have held such formal invocation to be the Worship due to Saints must shut his eyes and fight against the light of a noon-day truth Let any man peruse the places which are cited from that Father and say whether I have not reason to affirm this bold Assertion to be a manifest untruth The passages produced out of the genuine Works of Austin for Invocation are 1. Let Blessed Cyprian help us with his prayers T. G. p. 430. 2. We Christian People do with religious solemnity celebrate the memory of Martyrs both to excite us unto the imitation of them and that we may become partakers of their merits and may be helped by their prayers T. G. p. 433. 3. It is an injury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be commended T. G. p. 434. Against it we produce these Testimonies * Ipse Sacerdos est qui nunc ingressus in interiora Veli solus ibi ex his qui carnem gestaverunt interpellat pro nobis In Psalm 64. p 144. M. 1. Christ is the Priest who being now entred within the Vail only of all that have been made partakers of flesh makes intercession for us there †Si vero ita diceret hoc scripsi vobis ut non peccetis si quis peccaverit Mediatorem me habetis apud Patrem ego exoro pro peccatis vestris sicut Parmenianus quodam loco Mediatorem posuit Episcopum inter Populum Doum quis cum ferret bonorum atque fidelium Christianorum quis sicut Apostolum Christi non sicut Antichristum intueretur Contr. Epistol Parmen l. 2. c. 8. p. 7. L. Tom. septimo 2. If he i. e. St. John had said thus If any man sin you have me a Mediator with the Father I make intercession for your sins
betwixt the practice that in these times began to be approved by some men and what is now the Doctrine of the Church of Rome For 1. That which we chiefly do object against that Church is that she doth enjoyn us to believe That even mental prayers are well addressed to them and consequently that they have the knowledge of the conceptions of the heart and the sincerity of its intentions Whereas the Fathers of that age without distinction or exception held that it was proper to God to perceive the secrets of the heart this by the concurrent judgment of the Fathers being no more communicated to the Creatures than was the Knowledge of what was future and contingent as I have proved already chap 6. Prop. 2.4 2. Whereas the Doctrine and practice of the Roman Church doth make it good and profitable for all people to call upon them in all places though as far distant from them as is Earth from Heaven or as one corner of the Earth is from the other some of these Fathers did conceive the Saints were present at their Tombs and Shrines and being so they might attend unto the prayers of them that did resort unto them Thus when it was objected by Vigilantius to St. Jerom If it be so then the souls of Martyrs love their ashes and hover still about them and are always there lest if any Petitioner should come they being absent should not hear him I say when this was urged by Vigilantius agreeably to that opinion which then began to gather strength and to be owned in the Christian Church St. Jerom doth not as T. G. deny the sequel but lays down this absurd and monstrous Tenet to defend it That * Si agnus ubique ergo hi qui cum agno sunc ubique esse credendâ— sunt if the Lamb be every where they also that be with the Lamb must be believed to be every where Moreover he represents it as a wicked speech of Vigilantius †Ais enim vel in sinu Abrahae vel in loco refrigerii vel subter aram Dei animas Apostolorum Martyrum consedisse nec posse de suis tumulis ubi volâ—erunt adesse praesentes Hier. adversus Vigilant That the souls of the Apostles and Martyrs could not be present at their Tombs never suggesting in the least that such a presence was needless to this end * De cura pro mortuis c. 16. St. Austin doth affirm That either the Martyrs themselves must be at one time in such divers places so far distant from one another viz. as they were distant with whom they were conceived to pray at their memorials or if they were not present they must be removed from all commerce with the affairs of men here and only prayed in general for the necessities of supplicants Sulpitius upon the death of St. Martin comforts himself with this consideration ‖ Non deerit nobis ille mibi crede non deerit intererit de se sermocinantibus adsiabit orantibus Epist 2. de obitu appar S. Martini p. 533 ed. Lugd. Batav That he would not be wanting to them and of this assertion he immediately subjoyns this reason viz he will be present with us speaking of him and will stand by us when we pray upon which passage the Scholiast observes that it was vulgarly believed that holy Martyrs were present at their Sepulchers That this was also the Opinion of Nazianzen Basil and all the Fathers cited by T.G. is largely proved by †Bochartus If then these Fathers did in this particular maintain what is confessedly erroneous why might they not be subject to the same mistake touching the doctrine of invocation of the Saints departed and then that error in their judgment must necessarily give rise to that unwarrantable practise which in those times began to be approved Having in general laid down these propositions Traiteé second deâ—l'invoc des Saints c. 4. I might decline all farther Answer to what T.G. produceth from the testimonies of the fore mentioned Fathers in favour of that practise we dispute against but that he may not think we study to decline what he hath offered we proceed to a particular reflection on them and shall endeavour to demonstrate that they are either cited out of spurious and doubtful books or are impertinently alledged And Sect. 7. Hom. 26. in 2 Cor. 1. Amongst the spurious or doubtful Authors we reckon that passage cited from St. Chrysostom this was the Judgment of Erasmus who in his preface before his Latin Translation of Basil de Spiritu sancto saith that there are somethings in that book which must own him for their Parent who mixed his weak and wordy trifles with the sweet works of Athanasius on the same subject and who in this Epistle and in the Acts of the Apostles endeavoured to be esteemed Chrysostom And therefore when Erasmus came to the 7th Homily of this Epistle he would translate no farther 2. this passage in some editions is not extant though these editions have proceeded from the hands of Romanists Novelty of Popery p. 422 p. 423. 3 Peter Du Moulin makes evident the falshood of this passage and the words preceding not only from the diversity of the stile and want of a connexion with the precedent words but chiefly from the doctrine so full of ignorance absurdity as shews it to be inconsistent with the Judgment and Learning of that Holy Father Lastly this place is cited by Garesius under the name of Theodorus Daphnopatus De Sanct. iâ— vâ—c p. 〈◊〉 who therefore is most like to be the Father of this spurious passage Secondly amongst spurious and doubtful writings We may reckon the Oration upon Cyprian fasly ascribed to Gregory Nazianzen where S. Justina is brought in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i e Entreating that the Virgin Mary would defend her against Câ—â—â—an who being then a Pagan endeavoured by Mâ—gical inchantments to attempt her chastity but finding his attempts all frustrate was by that means converted to the Christian Faith and was that famous Bishop of Carthage whose memory was precious through the Christian World Whereas 1. It is certain St. Cyprian was never in his life a Sorcerer Pag. 1. for Pontius his Deacon who hath writ his life assures us that whilst he was a Heathen he was addicted to good arts and such as tended to the benefit of the World which sure no Christian would affirm of a ' Magician 2. Whereas this fable ascribeth his conversion to Justina or the experience of his vain attempts upon her This Pontius wholly omits that Fable and doth assure us that he was converted by * Erat sane illi etam de nebis contubern um viri justi laud ibilis Memoriae Cecilii aetatetune honore Presbyteri qui eum ad agnitionâ—m verae divinitaâ—is a saeculari errore correxerat P. 2. Cecilius a Carthaginian Presbyter 3. †Explosâ fabula
dilectam commendat recordantis precantis affectus Ibid F. That when the mind doth cast about where the body of a dear friend may be buried and straight a place occurreth to his mind renowned for the name of some Martyr the affection of him who thus remembreth and prayeth forthwith commends the beloved soul to the same Martyr viz. that affection which induced the surviving person to think of placing his beloved friend by the memorial of that Martyr and made him choose that as the place where he would commend the soul of his beloved friend to God For that the prayer was directed to God though put up at the Martyrs Tomb is evident from the following words ‖ Plurimum intersit ubi ponat corpus mortui sui qui pro Spiritu ejus Deo N. B supplicat quia precedens affectus locum elegit sanctum illic corpore posito recordatus locus sanctus eum qui praecesserat renovat auget offectum Cap. 5. H. It may very much concern any where he should place the body of his deceased who prayeth for his Spirit unto God because both the preceding affection hath chosen an holy place and the body being placed there the remembrance of that holy place renews and augments the affection That this is the true import of the place and that the benefit St. Austin speaks of was to be expected not from any prayers put up unto the Saints but partly from the desire of burying the deceased by the Martyrs shrine upon presumption of some advantage he might receive by being there interred and partly from the increase of the affection of him that prayeth in that place to God is admirably evident from that which follows viz. * Cum ergo fide lis mater fidelis filii defuncti corpus desideravit in Basilicam Martyris poni siquidem credidu ejus animam meritis Martyrts adjuvari hoc quod ita credidit supplicatio quaed im fuit haec profuit siquid profuit quod ad idem sepnichrum recurrit anime filium precibus magis magisque commendat adjuvat defuncti Spirtum non mortui corporis locus sed ex loci memoria vivus martyris affectus Ibid G. When therefore a believing Mother desireth that the body of her Son may be buried in the Martyrs Temple as believing that his soul may be advantaged by the merits of the Martyr this very thing that she believeth thus is a kind of prayer and if any thing profiteth it is this Since therefore nothing else doth in St. Austin's judgment profit certain it is he doth not speak of prayer directed to the Martyrs for if so he could not have confessed that the fore-mentioned faith did only profit much less could he affirm it to be that supplication to the Martyr which alone did profit Lastly It is confessed that Basil Nazianzen and Nyssen do in their Panegyrical Orations seem to invocate the Holy Martyrs But then it is apparent 1. That they doubted whether these Martyrs had any sense or apprehension of the Requests put up unto them and therefore prefaced their addresses with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you have any sense 2. They do ingeniously confess that though they knew them to be absent yet they were moved to speak unto them as if they had been present and could hear them 3. They make the like addresses to insensate Creatures of whom they were assured that they could not hear them which makes it reasonable to interpret their Addresses rather as Wishes and Rhetorical Apostrophes than direct Invocations and Petitions tendred to them especially if we consider that all those Fathers when they discourse of Prayer define it to be a Colloquy with God and therefore did not think that those addresses made unto the blessed Martyrs had the true nature of a Prayer Moreover it is certain that they never offer'd any mental Prayer to Saint or Angel And 2. That they conceived the Martyrs present in those places where they offer'd these devotions and therefore were not guilty of those Doctrines and unwarrantable practices for which especially we do condemn the Roman Church CHAP. X. The CONTENTS The Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome touching the Invocation of the Blessed Angels delivered from their own Catechism and Rituals Sect. 1. The Question stated Sect. 2. The Idolatry of this Practice proved 1. This practice doth ascribe unto them by way of Worship what is proper to God viz. The Knowledge of the Secrets of the Heart Sect. 3. 2. Because it is the Worship of the Mind Sect. 4. 3. From the silence of the Old Testament Sect. 5. An objection answered Sect. 6. The Reasons of this silence which are alleged by the Romanist Refuted Sect. 7. And from the silence of the New Testament Sect. 8. 4. From the Consideration of those principles whereby the Romanists condemn White Magick as a practice guilty of Idolatry Sect. 9. THe Catechism of the Church of Rome §. 1. Published by the Decree of the Trent Council gives us the Doctrine of that Church touching the Invocation of the Holy Angels in these words * Extant divinae scriptuae testimonia hujus invocationis Jacob enim ab Angelo quicum luctatus fuerat petit ut sibi benedicat immo cogit se enim non dimissurum illum profitetur nisi benedictione accepta neque solum sibi ab eo tribui quem intuebatur sed ab eo etiam quem minimè videbat tum cum dixit Angelus qui eruit me de cunctis malis benedicat pueris istis Catechis Rom. Part 3. cap. 2. See 10. concerning this Invocation we have the Testimonies of the Scripture extant For Jacob requested of the Angel with whom he wrestled that he would bless him and he compels him so to do for he professeth that he would not let him go without his Blessing nor doth he only put up his Petition unto the Angel whom he saw but also unto him whom he saw not when he thus said the Angel who delivered me from all evil bless the Lads Agreeable unto this Doctrine is the continual practice of that Church in her Authentick Lyturgies For to St Michael they pray thus * Sancte Michael Archangele defende nos in praelio ut non percamus in tremendo judicio Miss festo Appar Sancti Mich. Maii. 8. Defend us in our Warfare we thee pray Least we should perish in the dreadful day In the Roman Ritual a Dying person is taught to pray with his Heart when he cannot do it with his Mouth thus * Hortetur praeterea ut co modo quo potest saltem ex Corde ita per intervalla precetur Maria Mater Gratiae Mater Mifericordiae tu nos ab hoste protege hora mortis suscipe Omnes Sancti Angeli omnes Sancti intercedite prome mihi succurrite Rituale Ed. Antuerp 1617. All ye Holy Angels intercede for me and succour me To the Guardian
this is manifestly false and that Doctor Stillingfleet not only contradicis the Truth but himself too to wit because he had before affirmed that the Aegyptian Daemons saith Celsus healed the diseases of the parts proper to themselves and therefore might justly be Invocated And 2. because he had told us from S. Augustin that it was their Office to inform the superior Gods of what they could not know otherwise this is the only ground of this rude imputation of falsehood and contradiction to the Doctor and yet this ground is as ridiculously vain as if I should affirm this Proposition to be false that all the Heathens attributed to their good Spirits was only Intercession because they attributed to them Wings and an Aetherial body who is so blind as not to see that when the Doctor saith they made them Mediators of Intercession only not Mediators of Redemption by that exclusive only he could not intend to say that they asserted nothing else concerning them as he most grosly doth mistake or most unconscionably doth interpret him but only that they ascribed nothing to them which made them Mediators of Redemption Moreover is it fair dealing when he thus rails against Dr. Stillingfleet to do himself what he imputes unto the Doctor and quote him falsely in that very place which yet he manifestly doth in setting down this passage as the Doctors words viz. that the giving them Divine Worship proceedeth upon that superstition c. For both to this citation and to many passages pretendedly translated from the Fathers or cited as the sense and meaning of their words he adds this word Divine where it is not expressed or in the least intended only that he may seem to answer when he doth nothing less which is a fraud so horrible and disingenious that no man can sufficiently detest it or judge that man can make a conscience of his actions who makes a common practice of it 2. Let any man peruse S. Augustin's whole discourse upon this matter and he will find that to overthrow this Tenet of * Sed quia eosdem Daemones inter homines Deos ita medios constitutos putant tanquam nullus deus homini misceatur ut hine perferant desiderata inde referant impetrata atque hoc Platonici precipui Philosophorum ac nobilissimi sentiant cum quibus velut cum excellentioribus placuit istam examinare quaestionem utrum cultus plurimorum Deorum prosit ad consequendam vitam beatam quae post mortem futura est De Civitat Dei l. 9. c. 1. p. 268. D. Apuleius and all Philosophers that were of the same judgement with him and held that their good Doemons did so mediate betwixt the Gods and men as that they carried our petitions up to them and did return the Aids and Blessings of the God to us He undertakes the Refutation of this Platonick Doctrine and the examination of this Question whether the worship of those many Gods or Daemons was profitable to the obtaining of our future Bliss and to confute this Doctrine of the Platonists and to prove this Mediation not to be profitable to this end he argues thus * Proinde mediatorem inter nos Deum mortalitatem habere oportuit transeuntem beatudinem permanentem ut per id quod transit congrueret morituris ad id quod permanet transferret ex mortuis Boniigitur Angeli inter miseros mortales beatos immortales medii esse non possunt quia ipsi quoque beati immortales sunt Id. ib. c. 15. vid. etiam c. 13. Multi sunt medii Separatores ne possit ad illud unum beatificum perveniri ad quod ut perduceremur non multis sed uno Mediatore opus erat hoc eo ipso cujus participatione sumus beati hoc est Verbo Dei non facto sed per quod facta sunt omnia Ib. c. 15. A. This Mediation cannot be performed but by a middle person who partakes of some what that makes him like unto hoth parties and therefore cannot be performed by good Angels such as the Platonist asserts these Daemons are because Good Angels have happiness and immortality with God but neither misery nor mortality by which they may agree with Man This is his argument even in that place whence Dr. Stillingfleet doth cite these words that those who are Christians do believe that we need not many but one Mediator and that such a one by whose participation we are made happy i. e. the word of God not made but by whom all things were made Now here the Doctor is with great confidence p. 373. and with as little reason accused of false translation and addition to St. Austins words of addition because he saith those that are Christians do believe Of false Translation in those words we need not many but one Mediator but it is easie to vindicate the Doctor from these false aspersions for that Christians only could be brought to the Enjoyment of God was certainly St. Austins Faith so then ut perduceremur sc nos ad Deum non multis sed uno Mediatore opus erat sc nobis must import thus much That we Christians may be brought to God we have no need of many Mediators To cavil at this Translation is to expose his ignorance to every School Boy But to the Testimony of St. Austin he returns this Answer that it is plain he speaks of such a Mediator p. 374. by whose participation we are made happy that is a Mediator of Redemption and not a Mediator of Intercession Rep. it is as plain that St. Austin speaks of such a Mediator who is the word of God not made but making all things and that the Platonist acknowledged his Mediating Demons to be made by God the Platonist may therefore with T. G. infer that it is plain he speaketh not against them though he designed nothing else because he speaks of such a Mediator by whose participation we are made happy that is sayth he the word of God not made c. 2. Doth not St. Austin tell us in the begining of this Book that seeing some Philosophers affirmed that their Good Demons were Ministers to intercede with God or carry up our Prayers to him and to bring back his Blessings unto us therefore he would enter upon this dispute whether the worship of those many Gods was profitable to Salvation And therefore it is evident he stood obliged to shew they did not contribute to our Salvation by being Mediators of Intercession for us as well as to exclude them from from being Mediators of Redemption The Works of Origen against Celsus §. 2. are so express and clear against this practice of the Church of Rome that if he had designed to confute the Doctrine of that Church he could not have devised expressions more repugnant to it for having confessed that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 233. holy Angels did carry up our
Prayers to God and bring down blessings from God to us as he had learned in the School of Plato least any should be tempted to infer from this that we should pray unto these Angels or that it was useful or needful so to do that so these Blessed spirits might be more propicious or helpful to us he doth expresly say that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 233. to invoke them is no reasonable thing and this assertion he confirms by many arguments 1. It is absurd saith he to call upon them because we want the knowledge of their nature nd because it is above the reach of Man And 2. That if we could attain unto this Knowledge that very Knowledge which declares their Nature and their Offce to us would not permit us to pray to any other but unto God the Lord of all who is abundantly sufficient for all by the Son of God 3. He reckons up in the Apostles language all the kinds and sorts of Prayer (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. contra Celsum l. 5. p 233. Petition Deprecation Intercession and Thanksgiving And then he adds all these we must put up to God by that high Priest who doth Transcend all Angels and that this worship in any of the kinds forementioned was therefore not to be conferred upon the Angels because they were not to receive (b) Ibid. the worship due to God 4. He adds that it was sufficient to obtain the favour of the holy Angels and the assistance of their Prayers to labour to have God propitious and to procure his good will by godliness and vertue and by imitation of the Angels Piety And therefore not only in his answer to this objection Lib. 5. p. 233. but elsewhere he tells us me must endeavor to approve our selves to him who is one God over all and we must pray to him for mercy and that if Celsus will yet have us to procure the good will of others after him who is God over all he must consider that as when the body is moved the motion of the shadow thereof doth follow so in like manner having God favourable unto us who is over all it followeth that we shall have all his Friends both Angels and Souls and Spirits loving unto us For they have a fellow feeling with them that are thought worthy to find favour from God To whom they are not only favourable but they pray with them So as we may be bold to say that when Men which with resolution propose unto themselves the best things do pray unto God many thousand of the sacred powers pray together with them unspoken to Moreover when Celsus affirmed Id. l. 8. p. 420. that thanks were to be given to Daemons and that our Prayers and first Fruits were to be offered to them * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 8. p. 396. that so we might obtain their presence with us and their favour to us who have obtained of God to be Dispensers of inferiour things to this it is replyed by Origen 1. That God had given no such Government to Daemons * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. p. 400. 2. That first Fruits must be offered to God alone who said let the Earth bring forth Fruit and to him to whom the Christians offered their first Fruits they offered also their petitions 3. He doth acknowledge that office which Celsus had ascribed to wicked Daemons did agree to Angels who upon that account in Scripture were stiled ministring spirits and do encamp about Gods servants for their protection and deliverance But least we should infer with Celsus that we must therefore pray unto them to be thus propicious he adds we shall sufficiently obtain their favour by imitation of their Piety and Invocation of that God to whom they pray For thus he speaks If we have a desire to a multitude whom we would willingly have to be favourable unto us l. 8. p. 400. we learn that thousand thousands stand by him and Millions of Millions minister unto him who beholding them that imitate their Piety towards God as if they were their Kinsfolkes and Friends help forward their Salvation and call upon God and pray sincerely appearing also and thinking that they ought to do service to them and as it were upon one watch-word to set forth for the benefit and salvation of them that pray to God unto whom they themselves also pray Now to all these and all the Arguments that any man can bring T. G. returns this Answer §. 3. p. 360. Viz. That Prayer implies either a total dependance upon God as the Author of all good and so we ought to pray to God alone or an address unto the Members of the Church triumphant for the assistance of their Prayers to him who only can give what we ask and in this sense it is still used by Roman Catholicks when it is applied to Saints and Angels when therefore Origen denies that our Prayers are to be offered to any but to Christ alone he speaks of Prayer in the first sense This is that Catholick answer which upon all occasion he produceth This Origen and all the Fathers mean verily it is this and nothing else Not that the Fathers of the four first Centuries when they so roundly and frequently assert that Prayer is to be offered unto God alone did ever thus distinguish or speak one title of this nature no simple Creatures as they were they absolutely and without all distinction condemned what they daily practised and practised what they had condemned they all spake what was absolutely false and meant only what was true so that no Man could have imagined this to have been their meaning had not T. G. been their Interpreter Thus when Origne expresly saith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 8. p. 402. It is no reasonable thing to pray unto the Angels †l. 5. p. 258. we must only pray to God and to his Son Christ Jesus He nust affirm what was a plain and absolute contradiction to the Churches Doctrine but then his meaning must be Orthodox and contradictory to what he doth assert When he adds almost by way of Syllogism to whom we Christians offer our first Fruits to him we offer up our Prayers But to God alone we offer up our first Fruits Ergo to him alone we offer up our Prayers When he informs us that the Christians were such as did not pray to Angels but undividedly and inseparably did worship God by Jesus Christ l. 8. p. 382. and came to God by Christ alone and so as to transcend even those blessed spirits which are called Gods He must apparently bely the Christian World according to the plain Interpretation of his words but his intentions must be Orthodox And yet 3. he doth not only deny the Doctrine and the practice of the Church of Rome to be the Doctrine and practice of the time wherein he lived but he destroys
a little after that to them it was given to preside over the Earth or to be patrons or Inspectors of such a City or of such a Countrey and upon that account infers we must both pray and offer our thandsgiving and first fruits unto them To all this Origen replies that we must offer up our prayers to God alone and we must pray to him alone to whom we offer our first fruits in both which places if Origen intended only to affirm that prayer was due to God which implies the object of our supplication to be the highest God and the chief Author of all Good it is apparent he doth not in the least deny what Celsus pleaded for viz. such supplication as he conceived due to such Daemons as were commissionated from God and belonged to him 5. This Answer renders the discourses of this learned Father rediculously weak and unconcluding as v. g. 1. We cannot rationally pray to Angels saith this learned Father Because we do not know their natures nor are we capable of the knowledge of them lib. 5. p. 233. Which if we understand it thus We know not what their understanding is or whether they have any knowledge of our hearts when present or of our prayers when absent And therefore do not conceive it rational to pray unto them it is both pertinent and conclusive But if we understand it thus we must not pray unto them as we do to the great God of Heaven because we do not know their Natures Nothing is more absurd and foolish for certainly all Christians knew so much of their nature as to believe they were not Gods Besides we neither know the nature of God nor are we capable of understanding it and yet it will not follow that we we may not pray unto him lib. 5. p. 239. as to the Author of all Good Again it is absurd saith he having God alwayes present with us to pray unto the Son which is not alwayes present now this absurdity doth equally respect Prayer relative and absolute for if the Son can hear our prayers and can obtain Gods blessings when he is not present it cannot be absurd to pray unto him because not present but if he cannot then must it be absurd to put up to him such petitions as the Church of Rome doth tender to the holy Angels Moreover we do not in the least contemne saith he so admirable a work of God but yet we must not pray unto the Creature or this work of God lib. 5. p. 238. because it prayes for us Now here can any man conceive he should intend no more but this you must not look on that as the supremest Deity which I have told you is his Creature No sure had he and all the Christian World prayed daily to them who do pray for us he would have rather said you must not pray unto him as to that God who is the Author of all good because he is a Creature 6. When Origen discourseth of this subject he usually saith that we must put up our petitions unto God by Christ and having once confessed that we may pray directly to Christ whom he conceived to be inferior to the Father he makes that very same distinction which our Author and his party do viz. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5. p. 233. That prayer may be taken properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an improper and abusive sense and in this sense alone he doth approve of prayer made to Christ whereas had he allowed of any prayers made to Saints and Angels it is to be presumed having so many provocations and occasions to treat upon and to explain the subject he would have sometimes used this distinction and would not alwayes have denied this practice and condemned that doctrine without distinction or exception elsewhere he saith If any man be not sufficient viz. to go directly to God let him go to the Son of God who is able to heal him Since then he never saith as doth the Church of Rome let him go to Saints and Angels certain it is that he did not approve this practise and this is yet more evident from his reply to Celsus Orig. lib. 8. p. 416. for when Celsus had objected that according to the Doctrine of the Aegyptians every part of a man hath a particular Daemon or Aethereal God and every one of these being invocated heals the diseases of the parts proper to themselves Why then may not the Christians justly invocate the favor both of them and others if they had rather be in health than sickness To this it is replied by Origen 1. That Celsus by advising us to go to Daemons sufficiently declared his distrust of the inseparable and undivided worship of the God of all lib. 8. p. 417. and did imagine that to Worship God alone and honor him was not sufficient to preserve those that did so from diseases and the insidiations of evil spirits which is an evident conviction that he did not think the invocation of the Archangel Gabriel Michael Raphael or of Sebastian Valentinus or any other Roman Saint which they of Rome do daily invocate for their protection from these evil spirits and the diseases which they are subject to was needful for that end or that it could be practised without distrusting of the all-sufficient God 2. He adds It is much better to commit our selves to God the Lord of all things by Jesus Christ and ask of him all help lib. 8. p. 418. and in particular the custody of the holy Angels who may deliver us from these terrestrial Daemons where also it is manifest that he would have us ask the help and custody of Angels not from them as is the manner of the Roman Church but only from the God of Angels Orig. ib. 3. He affirms that health is to be sought either by means of the Physitian which is the ordinary way or by extraordinary means viz. by piety towards God in our addresses to him by which expression it is also manifest that he was ignorant of that way of seeking health which had its rise from after ages and is so common in the Church of Rome for otherwise as it is excellently observed by the learned Doctor p. 150. he must have told him that Christians were not to address themselves to Chnumen Chnaachnumen Cnat Sicat Biu Eru or any other Heathen Daemons to obtain these Blessings but unto Raphael and Appollonia Sebastian and Roach Unto the first and second argument urged by the Doctor and most apparently confounding the doctrine and common practice of the Roman Church T. G. affords us not one word of answer the evidence being too plain and pregnant to admit of a reply but over the third remark he triumphs and undertakes to render it ridiculous to all sober Readers by shewing two things 1. The difference between the Doctrine and Practice of the Aegyptians
saith he set down the Doctrine of the Church as it stands Recorded in the Council of Trent What that Council teacheth is that it is good and profitable for Christians humbly to Invocate the Saints and to have recourse to their prayers aid assistance whereby to obtain benefits of God by his Son our Lord Jesus Christ who is our only Redeemer and Saviour These are the very words of the Council and any Man but of common reason would think it were as easy to prove Snow to be black as so innocent a practice to be Idolatry even Heathen Idolatry Answ That the Reader may see what disingenuity is here insinuated it is sufficient only to advertise him that we do not accuse the Church of Rome as guilty of Idolatry for holding what she delivers in the words now cited but for holding what she insinuates in the words which follow and which T. G. thought most convenient to conceal viz. That every person may pray unto them and that not only with vocal but with mental prayer and for enjoyning the sick to pray with his heart when he cannot do it with his mouth O all ye Saints intercede for me and succour me What we teach saith he and do in this matter is to desire the Saints in Heaven to pray for us as we desire the Prayers of one another upon Earth and must we for this be compared to Heathens Do we not profess to all the World that we look upon the Saints not as Gods but as the friends and Servants of God that is as just Men whose prayers therefore are available with him where then lies the Heathenism where lies the Idolatry Answ it lies in praying to them with mental prayer and in praying to their when they are as distant as is Earth from Heaven p. 353. But saith T. G. the Question at present between Dr. Stillingfleet and the Church of of Rome p. 353. is not whether Divine Worship be to be given to the Saints but whether an inferiour worship of the like kind with that which is given to holy Men upon Earth for their holiness and near relation to God may not be lawfully given to them p. 389. now they are in Heaven And again we pray no otherwise to them than we do to holy Men upon Earth though more devoutly upon the account of their unchangeable estate of bliss Answ This he doth frequently affirm but till he can produce some instance of this practice of praying only with mental prayer to any Man alive or of petitions vocal directed unto living persons at so great a distance his affirmation can be no better than a manifest untruth but this is a peculiar Topick of which all those who vainly do endeavor to excuse this Idol worship of the Church of Rome are forced to make use of viz. to affirm her Doctrine and practice not to be what certainly it is and thence conclude her not to be guilty of that crime which could not be denied without this Artifice Again the Question between us § 10. p. 173. saith the Dr. is not how far such wishes rather then prayers were thought allowable being uttered occasionally as St. Austin doth this in St. Cyprian but whether solemn Invocation of Saints in the Duties of Religious worship as it is now practised in the Roman Church p. 44◠were ever practised in St. Austins time Here T. G. represents him as a very Shuffler and most Rhetorically cries out alass that so many Learned Men should all this while have been mistaken in the Question that they should have spent so much oyl and sweat to no purpose The Question hitherto controverted between Catholicks and Protestants was held to be whether it be lawful to invocate the Saints to pray for us and whether this were agreeable to the practice of the primitive times But now like a mischievous Card that will spoil the hand this is dropt under the Table and all the show aboveboard is whether it may be clone in the Duties as the calls them of religious worship Thus T. G. as if all persons that ever writ before them must have spoken nothing to the purpose if this had been the Question between T. G. and him or that this could not be the Question if what he mentions were another or that it were impossible that Men disputing whether this were agreeable to the practice of the Primitive times should also dispute whether it were the practice of St. Austins time Who knows not that one medium to prove this practice to be lawful is that it was the practice of the primitive times and that St. Austins times are instanced in as a sufficient Confirmation of that grand assertion This is the very method of T. G. and these are his formal word This was the Doctrine and practice of Christian people in St. Austins time p. 25. this he endeavors to confirm from that of Cyprian and unto this the Dr. returns this Answer and yet this must not be the Question betwixt T. G. and him § 11. Lastly the Dr. sayth he undertakes to shew out of the Primitive Fathers that it was the property of the Christian Religion to give Divine Worship to none but God and in this strain he runs on for no less than ten leaves together and without ever proving that Catholicks do give Divine Worship to holy Angels and Saints he most triumphantly concludes them to be Idolaters Answ The falshood of this passage is so exceedingly notorious that there is nothing requisite besides the use of reason to discern it for p. 146 159. We have this triumphant Argument Upon the same account that the Heathen did give Divine honor to their inferior Deityes those of the Roman Church do so to Saints and Angels And how unhappy T. G. was in his attempts upon this Argument I have abundantly evinced Again the Doctor Argues thus The Fathers do expresly deny that Invocation or Prayer is to be made to Angels for so Origen p. 158. and theodoret speak expresly that men are not to pray to Angels and any one that reads St. Austin will find that he makes solemn Invocation to be as proper to God as Sacrifice is 2. On what account should it be unlawful to Sacrifice to Saints and Angels if it be lawful to Invocate them May not one be relative and transient as well as the other can any man in his senses think that a meer outward Sacrifice is more acceptable to God than the Devotion of our heart is Thus the learned Doctor and there needs nothing to convince us of the strength and pertinency of this discourse but to reflect upon the vanity and weakness of what T. G. hath ventured to oppose against it See Ch. 6. Prop. 4. Corol. 3. besides in vindication of the Testimonies of Irenxus Origen Theodoret St. Austin Hilary the Deacon and of the Council of Laodicea I have clearly manifested that all these Fathers cited by the learned
from page 478 to page 496. Where also you may find them teaching that the Dominion of the blessed Virgin is equal to the Dominion of her Son that all power in Heaven and Earth was given to her that she is constituted over every Creature and whosoever boweth his knee unto Jesus doth fall down also and supplicate unto his Mother so that the glory of the Son may be judged not so much to be common with the Mother Ibid. as to be the very same That the mighty God did as far as he might make his Mother partner of his Divine Majesty and power giving unto her of old the Soveraignty both of Coelestial things and Mortal p. 478. That in the redundance of effusion of Grace upon the Creatures the Lords power and will is so accommodated unto her that she may seem to be the first in that both Diadem and Tribunal p. 481. And that all things are subject to the command of the Virgin even God himself p. 482. They also teach that by sinning after Baptisme men seem to have contemned and despised the Passion of Christ That so no Sinner doth deserve that Christ should any more make Intercession for him to the Father without whose Intercession none can be delivered either from Eternal Punishment or the temporal nor from the fault which he hath voluntarily committed And therefore that it was necessary that Christ should constitute his well-beloved Mother a Mediatrix betwixt us and him And so in this our Pilgrimage there is no other refuge left unto us in our tribulations and adversities but to have recourse unto the Virgin Mary our Mediatrix that she would appease the wrath of her Son Ibid. That as he is ascended into Heaven to appear in the sight of God for men Heb. 9.24 So she ought to ascend thither to appear in the sight of her Son for sinners that so mankind might have alwayes before the face of God a help like unto Christ for the procuring of his Salvation And that she is that throne of Grace p. 484. whereof the Apostle specketh Heb. 4.16 Let us go boldly unto the Throne of Grace that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in the time of need That she comes before the Throne of Grace not entreating but commanding p. 486. In the Psalter of our Lady we have these Addresses Blessed are they whose hearts do love thee Ps 31. O Virgin Mary their sinns by thee shall be mercifully washed away Have mercy upon me O Lady Ps 50. who art called the Mother of Mercy and according to the bowels of thy Mercies cleanse me from all mine Iniquities Save me Lady by thy name Ps 53. Ps 71. and deliver me from mine unrighteousness Give the King thy judgement O God and thy mercy to the Queen his Mother Oh come let us sing unto our Lady Ps .. 94. Cant ad Virg. M. post Psal Let us make a joyful noise to Mary our Queen that brings Salvation Oh our Omnipotent Lady thou art my Salvation thou hast freed me condemned to death thou art the beginning and the finisher of my Salvation There you may find them teaching that by her Ps 118. Ps 41. Ps 136. De Arcan Ca. thol verit l. 7. c. 10. White p. 357. Sinns are purged by her true satisfaction is made for sinns the Death and Passion of Christ and of the blessed Virgin saith Petrus Galatinus conduced to the redemption of Mankind The Stellarium Coronae beatae Mariae saith she bought us and as Christ Redeemed Mankind by his Flesh and Blood so she redeemed the same with her Soul These Doctrines and many other of the same Blasphemous stamp are taught and held by many Doctors of the Roman Church these books and doctrines are written and licensed by that Church and so have Catholick permission no censure ever passed upon them no Expurgatory Index hath cleansed them from these horrid Blasphemies but it is still left free for any of the Doctors of that Communion to maintain and propagate them and for any of the members of that Church to practise sutably to these conceptions To ascribe all this power and Authority to the Blessed Virgin and all this vertue to her Death to give her the praises of it and accordingly to trust in her to pray unto her for the blessings she hath purchased and for the distribution of those Favours which naturally do result from this advancement and when they address themselves unto her to use the most extravagant expressions contained in the Ladys Psalter and in other books of the like nature with it Whence it will follow 1 That any person who acts according to these Doctrines and puts up these Petitions doth not deviate from that Tradition which the Catholick conceives to be his only rule of Faith id est a person may be guilty of horrid Blasphemy and Idolatry and notwithstanding be a good Roman Catholick 2. It follows that no man ought to be condemned for writing or asserting any of these Tenets or for using any of the formes contained in those books for Oral Tradition cannot be conceived to condemn what is allowed and practised without censure in the Church of Rome 3. Hence evident it is that private Catholicks may unavoidably be subject to these evil practises for seeing in these matters they cannot have the judgement of the Church and must not be permitted to act according to their private judgements what remains but that they follow the judgement of their Priest which as we have seen is often impious and Blasphemous 4. Hence evident it is that neither these opinions nor practises can ever be condemned by the Church of Rome for to make the contrary Tenets pass into Tradition or to make them Articles of Faith is to empower the Church to coyn new Articles and to pretend Tradition where it is not to be had So that all these Blesphemous and Idolatrous Devotions must be as lasting as the Church of Rome Secondly I have observed this method in my whole discourse 1. To confirm the propositions which I have laid down by Scripture and by reason and then to introduce the Judgement of the Fathers Whereas T. G. is very sparing both as to Scripture and Reason and doth endeavor to supply his want of Reason and of Scripture by some impertinent citations from the Fathers This I conceive to be a very weak and disingenious way of arguing for if the Testimonies of some few Fathers be not sufficient to confirm an Article of Faith and to give us the true sense of any text of Scripture he must confess that what he thus discourseth is weak and infufficient to prove what he hath undertaken to demonstrate but if he shall assert this method to be good and cogent then it will clearly follow 1. That the Doctrine of the Trent Council must be false for they have certainly decreed that Doctrine which was asserted by Pope
be more absurd to think I shall be damned only by reason of the defect or wickedness of others which yet all R. Catholieks stand bound as firmly to believe as any other Doctrine of that Church for it is certainly the Doctrine of the Church of Rome a Quoties infans aut adultus versatur in vitae periculo potest sine solemnitate à quocunque Baptizari servata tamenforma intentione Ecclesia Ritual Rom. de Bap. P. 7. That where the perfect form of Baptism or the intention of b Quicquid enim horum deficit scihect materia debita forma cum intentione non conficitur Sacramentum Miss Rom. p. 34. doing what the Churth doth is wanting the person that is brought unto the Fout is not Baptized And it is also the definition of that Church c Siquis dixerit Baptiâ—mum liberum esse hoc est non necessarium ad salutem anathema sit Coxcil Trid. Sess 7 de Bept Can. 5. That Baptism is necessary to Salvation and consequently that no unbaptized person can be Saved and hence the Roman Ritual speaks thus d Ritual Rom. de Bapt. p. 5. That Holy Baptism the Gate of Christian Religion and Eternal Life e Nihil magiâ— necessarium videri potest quà m ut doceatur omnibus hominibus Baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse ita ut niu per Baptifmi gratiam Deo renascantur in sempirernam miseriam c interitum a parentibus sive illi fidles sive infideles sint procreentur Igitur saepiùs à Pastoribus explicandum crit quod apud Evangelistam legitur Nssiquis renatus suerit ex apua spiritu non potest intâ—oire in reguum Dei Catechis Rom. part 2. Cap. 11.5.31 is necessary to the Salvation of all Men is testified by truth it self in these expressions unless a Man be born again c. and therefore in the due ministration of it the greatest diligence is needfull 2 It is most certainly the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that Sinners are not absolved by the Priest unless the e Nihil magis necessarium videri potest quà m ut doceatur omnibus hominibus Baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse ita ut nisi per Baptismi gratiam Deo renascantur in sempiternam miseriam anteritum a parentibus sive illi fideles sive infideles sint procreentur Igitur saepiùs à Pastoribus explicandum crit quod apud Evangelistam legitur Nssi quis renatus suerit ex aqua spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei Catechis Rom. part 2. Cap. 11. §. 31. Priest intend to do it and yet that Church defineth That this f Siquis dixerit in ministris dum Sacra mentum conficiunt conferunt non requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia anathema sit Concil Trid. Sess 7. Cap. 1. Can. 11. f Est autem hoc Sacramentum Paenitentiae lapsis post Baptismum ad salutem necessarium ut nondum regeneratis ipse Baptismus ibid. Stss 14. Cap. 2. Sacrament of Penance is necefsary to Salvation to those that after Baptism do fall and tells the penitent g Non debet poenitens adeò sibi de suaipsius fide blandiri ut etiam si nulla illi adsit contritio aut sacerdoti animus seriò agendi verè absolvendi deslt putet tamen se propter suam solam fidem verè coram Deo esse absolutum Nec enim fides fine penitentia remissionem ullam peccatorum praestaret Nec is esset nisi salutis suae negligentissimus qui sacerdotem joco se absolventem cognofceret non alium seriò agentem sedulò requireret ib. Cap. 6. he must not so far flatter or deceive himself as to expect to be absolved by God by reason of his Faith if the Priest doth not in his mind intend truly to absolve him and to act seriously in the matter So that T. G. and all of his perswasion must recant this principle which he hath here laid down and which shines with the brightest evidence or else he must renounce the Church of Rome and one would wonder at the stupidity of our R. Catholicks that they can think of this without the greatest horrour and amazement for if this be not true then their Religion must be false and if it be then how great soever be the Piety and Virtue of their Lives yet if their Priest be a secret Atheist if he be impious enough not to be serious or if he be so negligent or so malicious as not to intend their absolution they must infallibly be damned to all Eternity Secondly His instances are all impertinent and insufficient to take off the scruple upon several accounts as for example P. 259. T. G. askes what certainty hath a Husband that the person he takes for his Wife is so indeeds and yet a Husband may pay the conjugal debt Answer The case is no way parallel for here is no apparent cause of doubt for otherwise the duty ought not to be paid but there is almost infinite reason to suspect Christ is not present in the Sacrament once in a Thousand instances perhaps it happeneth that a Man may be cheated with another Woman but here it is an Hundred to one that we are cheated in our supposition of Christs Real and Corporal presence For since the power of the Priest to Consecrate depends upon the due Baptizing and due Ordination of all that Line which was before him should we allow to every Ordaining Bishop 16 years yet must that Line contain an Hundred Bishops at least and if but one neglect in matter form or the intention of the Priest hath been committed in the Baptizing or Ordaining of one of the whole Hundred Bishops the Bread must certainly be Bread so that the want of due intention form or matter being as common and as like to happen in any single instance as a cheat put upon the Husband the disparity in this must be as great as that of One to an Hundred and if we do again consider that according to the Canon of the Nicene Council One Bishop and Two Priests are requisire to the Ordaining of a Priest then the disparity runs thus as Three hundred to one so is the possibility of being cheated in the Sacrament to that of being cheated in my Bed But then if we consider that throughout the a Cent. 9. In eodem concilio de vita honestate sacrificulorum quorum mores a Disciplina Majorum lapsi ad luxum libidinemque plus quam profano licet tendebant leges latae sunt Avent lib. 4. p. 359. Isti octo Pontifices sequentes brevi tempore sederunt nescio notabile aliquid de ipsis dicere quia non nisi scandalosa de ipsis reperi Fascic p. 67. Quod proinde seculum ab Historicis infaelix inscribitur Genebrard ad Ann. Christi 899. Ninth b Cent. 10. Quo tempore ipsa
Rhenanus and de la Cerda upon these words of Tertulian Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis â—s ulentis habemus and being charged with the eating of the Blood of Infants they to evince the impudence and falseness of that charge did constantly return this answer d Nobis homicidium nec videre sas nec audire tantumque abhumano sanguine cayâ—mus ut neceduilum peccorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus Minuâ— par 34. cum notis Ouzel porro quale est ut quos sanguinempecoris horâ—ere confiditis humano inhiare credatis Tertul. Apol. c. 9. vid. Eusib Hist Eccl. l. 5. c 1. That they who held it utterly unlawful to eat the Blood of Beasts could not be guilty of Feasting on the Blood of Men whereas had they conceived that by partaking of the consecrated Cup they drank of humane Blood this answer could not have excused them nor could it with sincerity be urged by them since notwithstanding their abstaining from the Blood of Beasts they daily fed upon his Blood who was the Man Christ Jesus and to depose a Priest from eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Flesh that contains the Blood as the fore-mentioned Canon doth would in effect be to depose him for pertaking of the Holy Sacrament that being most emphatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Flesh with Blood according to the Roman Doctrine And therefore this opinion that it was lawfull for Christians to eat Blood found little or no countenance in the Church of Christ till the time of Berengarius when this prodigious Doctrine came in voge besides the ancient Fathers objected this against the Heathens as a most horrible reproachful thing e Quod Saturni filiâ—dignum est mali nexâ—â— hominis â—angâ—inâ—â— gâ—natur ipsoâ—â— credo decuâ—sse sanguinss foedere conjurare catalinam Bellonam sacrum suum haustu humani cruoris imbuere Comitialem morbum hominis sanguine id est â—orbo graviore sanare Minuc p. 34. de sanguinis pabulo ejusmodiâ—t agâ—es serculis legite nec ubi relatum sit est apud Herodotum opiâ—â—â— defusum brachiis sanguinem ex alterutro degustatum nationes quasdam foederà comparasse nescio quid sub Catilina tale degustatum est Tertul. Apol. C. 9. That they made Covenants by drinking humane Blood and used that barbarous custom as a fit cure of the Falling Sickness now had this been the Christians daily practice to bind themselves by the participation of humane Blood to the performance of all works of Piety as Pliny saith they did by the participation of the Holy Sacrament Had they thus used humane Blood to cure the diseases of their Souls and of their Bodies too as f Erat apud nos Acatius quidam honesto apud suos ortus loco qui clausis oculis natum se esse dicebat Sed quia intus sani palpeoris cohaerentibus non patebant medicum eos ferro aperire voluine neque hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam sed id effecisse ex Eucharistia Cataplasmare cum jam puer quinque aut fere ampliuâ— esset annorum unde hoc se satis meminisse narrabat August l. 3. Sec. adv Julian Op. S. 164. they did use the Holy Sacrament what had been more a condemnation to the Christians then their own words and arguments and what could lay upon them an imputation of greater impudence and folly then to reproach the Heathens for doing what they daily practised Besides this they insisted on as a most pregnant evidence that many of the Heathen Deities were wicked and pernitious Spirits because g Hodie istic Bellonae sacratos sanguis de femore proscisso in palmulam exceptus esui datus signat Tertul. Apol. c. 9. a draught of humane Blood or the Oblation of the Blood of Man was deemed an acceptable service to them and that which would appease their anger and because their Priests were Consecrated by drinking humane Blood Now if the Christians did daily offer humane Blood to God as a most acceptable Sacrifice and if both Priest and People did as often drink it as they did celebrate the Sacrament what could these charges be but indications of the stupidity and impudence of those that made them Had Christ commanded his Disciples to eat his real Flesh Arg. 2. §. 2. and feed for ever on that very body which suffered on the Cross he had delivered that which could not have been thought of and much less practised without the greatest horrour For had he only taught them to eat humane flesh he had enjoyned them to do that which is repugnant unto humane nature and hath been constantly esteemed by the more sober Heathens a barbarous and inhumane thing Hence that expression of our Saviour Christ That they who would be made partakers of Eternal Life must eat his Flesh was by the unbelieving Jew rejected as a thing impossible Joh. 6.52 how can this Man say they give us his Flesh to Eat And if they deemed it a thing impossible that the whole Nation of the Jews should eat of one mans Flesh well might the Gentiles think it impossible that they should do so Nay when his own Disciples heard it verse 60. they presently cried out This is an hard saying who can hear it they judged it so absurd a Proposition and were so highly scandalized at it that notwithstanding all the conviction they received from their Eyes and other senses that he was the true Messiah they think this one proposal a sufficient motive to reject him verst 66. for from that very time many of his Disciples went back and walked no more with him So that our Blessed Saviour to obviate and to remove this Scandal doth in the judgment of the Fathers presently expound himself in a Spiritual sence and doth assert that this corporal eating was unprofitable and not the thing he did exhort them to for thus Eusebius doth paraphrase his words g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 3. Eccles Theol. contra Marcell Ancyr M. S. Bibl. Oxon. do not think that I speak of that Flesh where with I am compassed as if you must eat of that neither imagin that I command you to drink my sensible and bodily Blood but understand well that the words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and h See Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuites p 48 49 50 51. Life This also is the Exposition of Tertullian Origen St. Augustin Athanasius to omit divers others And of this Exposition they give this account i August de Doct. Christiana l. 3. c. 15 16. that those expressions taken literally command what is an impious and k Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quaedicuntur adverterit si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveritis carnem meam c. occidit haec litera Origen in Lev. c. 10. Hom 7.
p. 87. wicked think and are a killing Letter and therefore must be taken in a Spiritual sence And we are informed by l Horum ergo nefarii ritus Christianis imputati ca autem immanitas coepit a Simone Mago ut Narrat Clem. de rebus geftis Petri qui perperam intellexerat illa Johannis cap. 6. nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis biberitis ipsius sanguinem c. Not. in Min. p. 34. vide Elmenhorst in haec verba Minuc infans farre contectus ut decipiat incautos apponitur Wowerius out of the Writings of Pseudo Clemens that that accursed practice of the Pepuzians Quintilians and others who mixt the Blood of Infants with the Eucharistick Bread had its first rise from Simon Magus misunderstanding those very words of John except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. Now if this oral manducation of the Flesh of Christ seemed so repugnant at the first view and apprehension to all that heard it can we suppose it would pass down so glib not only with the Jewish but all the Gentile converts and yet we do not find that ever Jew or Gentile was offended at the participation of the Holy Sacrament or that any Heathen or Apostate did object unto the Christians that they were Canibals on this account or that they did devour humane Flesh When Christ was careful to prevent this gross conception in the Jews can we believe that he should institute this oral manducation of his Flesh and Blood or had this Doctrine been delivered by Apostolical tradition and so received by the Church of Christ could those renowned Fathers have pronounced the literal and proper acceptation of the words to be a killing Letter and the injunction of the greatest wickedness could they have thought that place of John was misinterpreted by being used to countenance the eating humane Blood or could those Hereticks have any need to fly to such accursed arts that they might truly eat Christs Blood But then if we conceive this person we thus devour to be also God and therefore look upon this action as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devouring of our God and Maker it is so full of horrour scandal and amazament that nothing can be more for what this Doctrine doth assert was in the judgment of the a Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse de natura Deorum C. 3. Orator such an incredible madness as humane nature never could be guilty of And Averroes upon this single score pronounceth that b Qui dicit se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire cujus sectatores suum quem colunt Deum denibus discerpunt devorant Vide Perron de Euch. l. 3. c. 29. P. 973. among all Religious Sects the Christians were the worst and most ridiculous because that God they Worshipped they with their Teeth devoured and tore in pieces Hence as the highest Calumny which the Mahumetan can cast upon us we are by them reproached as d Christianos atrociores esse in Christum quam Judaeos ait Akmed Ben. Edris Mahummed hos enim Christum occisum reliquisse illos vero carnem ejus edere sanguinem bibere quod ipsa expeperientia teste trucu lentius esse affirmat V. Hotting Apol. de Luch §. 14. p. 220. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devourers of our God and they are wont to say that by thus eating of his Flesh we use him worse then did the Jews that Crucified him The ancient Fathers do agree in these with Cicero and Averroes and say with them That to adore what we do eat is the extreamest sottishness and hence we often find this objected to the Heathens as the most pregnant evidence of the absurdity of their devotions and of the Gods they Worshiped that what they Worshiped they did also Sacrifice and that they did devour him whom they adored as Tatian and Minutius suggest And Origen doth represent it as a most foolish thing That any Men should Worship that which was the food of other Nations Theodoret also doth affirm That e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest 55. in Genesin God foreseeing Men would fall to such extremity of madness as to Worship Beasts the better to restrain that Wickedness did suffer us to eat them which he conceived to be the greatest bar unto this gross Idolatry because saith he it is the evtreamest of all folly to Worship what we Eat He again adds That f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. God divided Beasts into clean and unclean that Men abhorring what they judged unclean and eating what they called clean might Worship neither for can any Man of sense saith he f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. conceive that to be God which he abominates as unclean or which he offers to the true God and himself doth Eat Thirdly he adds That God enjoyned the Jews to Eat and Sacrifice those Creatures which the Aegyptians Worshiped as Gods Serm. 7. de Sacrif To. 4. P. 585. that they might be induced to despise what they did Eat and Sacrifice and not be guilty of such extream stupidity and folly as to conceive them to be Gods Had therefore this been the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ it must have given greater scandal and been a fitter matter of reproach to Christians then was the scandal of the Cross and therefore had it been the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles they would have been as careful to have removed this scandal as that other of the Cross The Jews and Heathens who cast this always in their Dish That they did Worship him who lately suffered on the Cross would not have stuck to load them with this more hainous Crime of Eating and Devouring that very God they did adore at least when this was frequently objected to them as the extreamest madness they must have presently retorted That you Christians confessedly do the same your God is also deemed your Sacrifice and you do first adore and then devour him The ancient Fathers of the Church who spent so many Writings and Apologies in vindication of that honour which they payed unto a Crucified Saviour would surely have afforded some Apology for that which in the Judgment of Heathens Turks and Christians seems the greatest folly that can be charged on any Sect. Since then we never find that Christs Disciples or the Ancient Fathers were in the least concerned to remove the Scandal since no malitious Jew or subtile Gentile did in the least accuse the Christians of what they all conceived a crime so monstrous although they were not wanting to seek occasions of reproach against them and to divulge false stories of them and were particularly upbraided with doing what if this Doctrine had obtained amongst them must be the Christians constant practice Lastly Seeing the
on the diseased Christians if then in all those Miracles we cannot find one instance which was not made apparent to the senses of mankind what reason have we to esteem this so Besides is not a Miracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a sign sure I am the Scripture often calls it so and is not every sign declared by St. * Signum est res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire De Doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 1. Austin to be something sensible whereby we do perceive what is not sensible what therefore is no object of the sence can be no sign or Miracle Secondly we cannot possibly obtain a greater evidence that any Revelation is Divine than is the evidence of sence whence it doth follow that we can have no reason to believe a Revelation more than we do our sences as T. G. asserts for all the certainty we have of any object of our Faith depends on our assurance that the deliverers of it were infallibly assisted by the Divine Wisdom in that delivery and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought the Prophesies they delivered the Doctrine they taught and that by sence should any of them be questioned must not we recur unto the sences of the Primitive Christians to confirm them and must they not then be the ultimate foundation of our Faith and our Traditions must we not be surer of the proof than of the thing proved And consequently of the evidence of sense than that of Faith which deriveth from it if not why Secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather Blessed who believe and have not seen 20 Joh. 29 than Thomas who first saw and felt and then believed is it not because they do it upon lesser though sufficient evidence and so their Faith is more illustrious and praise worthy Thirdly should it be otherwise how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see but have not the like fulness of perswasion in what they believe That being once assured of the objects of sence they can admit of no greater certainty whereas after all our boasts of a Plerophory of Faith we have still need to strive and labour to encrease it Since then the certainty of Faith is proved inferior to that of sence It is not possible we should have greater reason to believe a Revelation or any matter of our Faith than to believe our sences as T. G. suggests hence also it doth follow that we can have no greater reason to believe that these four words this is my body are contained in Scripture or that they do assert the Sacrament to be Christs Body than that assurance which the sences of all Christians do afford us that it remaineth Bread And Thirdly hence it follows that we can have no greater reason to profess the Christian Faith than we have to reject the Figment of Transubstantiation Answer 3. As for that vain pretence that Christ hath said this is his Body and therefore we stand bound to think that he doth work a Miracle to make it so although it be against the sence and reason of mankind that he should do it This will oblige us also to believe that by some other like prodigious Miracle before his Incarnation he was Transubstantiated into the Rock which ministred water to the Jews during their Travels in the Wilderness for of that it is expresly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 10.4 or that Rock was Christ 2. This will oblige us to believe that Christ hath neither Flesh nor Blood because the Scripture doth assure us that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15.50 which yet Christ Jesus doth inherit We unbelieving Protestants perhaps might think it strange that Christ should have neither Flesh nor Blood yet the Sacrament should be his very Flesh and Blood but as for you you know the danger of not believing God more than your sences and your reasons and therefore this and many thousand contradictions of like nature can be no reason why you should not embrace the Letter 3. This will oblige us to be Anthropomorphites and to confess that all the arguments which have been urged against that Tenet by the Church of Christ are vain and ineffectual for Scripture hath not only said that man was made after the likeness and similitude of God but also doth in very many places attribute unto him the parts and members of an humane body what then will you oppose against them sence and reason T. G. will give this answer for them that they well know the danger of not believing Holy Scripture more than their sences or their reason Will you confute them by a Text of Scripture which seems to contradict their Doctrine alas that which is often stiled Bread must not be thought to be so because Christ hath once said it is his body and can we be so vain as to imagine that one ambiguous passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be rendred God makes or searcheth God loves or seeks the Spirit 4 Joh. 24. should carry it against so many which more expresly do ascribe unto him the members of an humane body or shall we fly unto Tradition alas is it not that which is derived from the sences of those men which in the matter of Transubstantiation have been all constantly deceived and if their hearing be a sufficient ground of Faith against the Doctrine of the Anthropomorphites must not their eyes and tast and smell and feeling be as cogent against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Fourthly This must oblige us to believe what is the greatest Blasphemy viz. That Christ by all the Miracles he wrought among them gave no sufficient motive to the Jews to own him for the true Messiah for all his Miracles were only motives to believe that Law should be abolished which God hath often said should last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for ever Doth nor he tell them that the things he had revealed belonged to them and to their Children for ever Deut. 29.29 Exod. 12.17 that they might do all the things of this Law Doth not he call the Passover an everlasting Statute Hath not he said the Law of their first fruits shall be a Statute for ever throughout their Generations 23 Lev. 14 And if you answer that this word Gnolam doth not alwayes signifie an infinite duration but is sometimes used for such duration as admits a period and so must not be urged against so great conviction of their sence and reason Will not this answer justifie the Protestants when they produce so many instances to shew that when a thing in Scripture is stiled this or that the meaning only is that it doth signifie what it is said to be for to omit those passages so often cited 40 Gen. 12. 41 Gen. 26. 7 Dan. 38. 8 Luk. 11. 13 Mat. 38 39.
viz. The three branches are three days The seven Kine and seven ears of Corn are seven years The four great Beasts are four Kingdoms Thou art that Golden head The Seed is the word the Field is the World the Reapers are the Angels the Harvest is the end of the World the Rock is Christ c. Should we omit I say all these and many other instances of this familiar Trope it would be easie to produce many expressions of the like import with them For doth not the Scripture say of that same hair which by Ezekiel was burnt 5 Ezek. 5. and cut and bound up in his skirt this is Jerusalem And of that water which the three mighty men procured for David 2 Sam. 23. â—7 this is the Blood of the men that went in Jeopardy of their lives Have we not clear and pregnant instances of Sacramental Tropes in Scripture and in Jewish Writers doth not our Saviour call the Paschal-lamb the Passover doth not he say the Cup is the New Testament and was it not familiar with the Jewes to say of their unleavened Bread this is that Bread of affliction which our Fathers did eat and of the Lamb that it was Corpus Paschatis or the memorial of the Passover Buxt de Caena Dom §. 25. And is it therefore any absurdity to think Christ should affirm of Sacramental Bread designed to signifie and represent his Body broken for us and to conveigh the blessings he had purchased by the oblation of it on the Cross This is my Body Fifthly This Answer will render us unable to confute the Marcionites the Valentinians and the Manichaeans who thought Christs Body to be only the appearance of a Body and so denied the Article of his Incarnation and his real Passion This fond imagination the ancient Fathers did confute by Mediums which overthrows this answer and the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor can it be sufficiently confuted by men of T. G's Principles 1 The ancient Fathers did confute it from this principle that we must certainly believe the evidence of Sence and that to doubt the certainty of what our sences apprehend is to endanger all Religion Tertullian discourseth thus a Non licet nobis in dubium sensesistos revorate ne in Ghristo de fide corum deliberetur Ne forte dicatur quod salso patris vocem audierit de ipso testificatum Recita Johannis testa ionem quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus quod manibus nostris palpavimus c. falsa utique testatlo si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur de anima Cap. 17. B. C it is not lawful to doubt of our Sences least the same doubt be made concerning Christ least peradventure it should be said he was deceived when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him Recite the Testimony of St. John what we have heard with our Ears and our Eyes have seen and our Hands have handled of the word of Life that declare we to you The Testimony verily is false if nature do deceive us in the Testimony of our Eyes and Ears and Hands And in his Book de Carne Christi he speaks thus b Sed qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma configere ut conceptus praegnatus partus Virginis Ipsrus exindeinfantis ordo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haberentur eosdem oculos eosdemque sensus fefellissent quos carnis opinio elusit cap. 1. He that doth introduce the Tenet of the Imaginary Flesh of Christ hath equal reason to introduce an imaginary Nativity and to assert the Conception Pregnance and the Virgins Birth and the whole Order of the Infant was Phantastical for they would only have deceived the same Eyes and Sences which were deceived by the opinion of his Flesh 2. They argue thus that if Christ had no real Flesh and if he did not suffer really the Sacrament cannot duely be stiled the Image Figure Symbol Type Similitude Memorial or Representation of his real Flesh c Acceptum panem distributum Discipulis corpus illum suum secit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura Corporis mei Figura autem non suisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non possit Quid tune voluerit significasse panem satis declaravit corpus suum vocans panem Tertul. contra Marcionem l. 4. c. 40. Christ saith Tertullian said This is my Body i. e. the figure of my Body but it had been no figure unless the Body had been true for a Phantasme can have no figure But what he would have Bread to signifie he hath sufficiently declared calling Bread his Body and therefore thus he sums up his discourse d Panis calicis Sacrimento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversus phantasma Marcionis l. 5. c 8 against the Phantasme of Marcion We have proved the verity of Christs Body and Blood by the Sacrament of Bread and Wine And Maximus who flourished Anno Dom. 190. discourseth thus e Apud Orig. Dial. 3. part 2. If Christ as these Men say were without Body and Blood of what kind of Elesh or of what Body or of what kind of Blood did he give the Bread and Cup to be Images of when he commanded his Disciples by them to make a Commemoration of him Theodoret against the Eutichians disputeth thus f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. p. 84 85. That the Flesh of Christ was not transformed into the nature of the Godhead because that Christians do participate of the Signs of his Body Now had this been the Doctrine of the Church of Christ that this blessed Sacrament contained his very Flesh and Blood they had much weakned their argument by those expressions for what is more convincing then this inference if Christians in the Sacrament do eat Christs real Flesh and Blood then must his Flesh and Blood be real if they do eat Christs real Body he had a real Body Secondly Why do they so absurdly and untruly set the Sacrament in opposition to Christs real Body as the Figure stands opposed to the Truth Thirdly why do they all expresly say the Bread and Wine are Types and Symbols and Remembrances of his Body and Blood and that of them he said This is my Body and my Blood seeing such Speeches cannot properly be true but must admit a Figure But Secondly These Hereticks can never be confuted by Men of T. G's Principles for hath the Roman Catholick one Text of Scripture to build his Dream upon so hath the Marcionite that passage of St. Paul which tells us that as in the Eucharist we have the shape of bread and yet no real bread so Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the shape of Man and yet no Man as we have
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that to be made doth not continually import a change of nature and therefore that this passage of St. Ambrose cannot with any certainty be thus interpreted Secondly we must not know what follows in that very Chapter to explain these words and to confute the Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. p Si tant a vis Sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant N. B. in aliud commutentur ibid. if there be so great force in Christs words that by it things begin to be that which before they were not how much more operative must it be to cause that things be what they were and yet be changed into another Which words are extant thus in all the Ancient Maniscripts and old Editions of St. Ambrose and are thus cited by Guitmund Yvo Algerus Gratian and Anselm and in the old Editions of Lanfrancus though in the late Editions of St. Ambrose they are corrupted and to abet this fraud Lanfraneus in a new Edition is produced affirming that some Copies did admit a diverse lection We must not know what also here he doth affirm That q Sed forte dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet fimilitudinem sicut enim similitudinem mortis sumpsisti ita etiam smilitudinem pretion sanguinis bibis ut nullus horror cruoris sit pretium tamen operetur redemptionis ibid. as we do receive in Baptism the likeness of his death so in the holy Sacrament do we receive the likeness of his pretious blood Again we must be told St. Ambrose saith * T. G. p. 305 de Sacram. l. 6 c 1. That as our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God not as men are by Grace but as the Son of the substance of his Father so it is his very true Flesh as him self hath said which we receive and his very true Blood which we drink But then we must not know what follows to explain this passage and to confirm our Doctrine viz. That r In similitudinem quidem accipls Sacramentum sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris de Sacr l 1 c. 6. we receive this Sacrament in a Similitude but truly do obtain the grace and the vertue of the nature whence it is evident that it is therefore said to be Christs very Flesh and Blood because it doth convey the vertue of them which is more evident form that which follows to wit that Å¿ Quomodo discendit panis vivus de Caeso Resp quia idem Dominus noster Jesus Christus consors est divinitatis corporis to quia accipis Panem N. B. Divinae ejus substantiae in illo participaris alimento ibid. our Lord Christ being partaker of the Divinity and humane nature thou who receivest Bread dest in that nourishment partake of his Divinity And let it be observed that Ambrose doth indeed affirm that as Christ said that which we receive is truly Flesh and is true drink but he doth not affirm that we receive it truly and substantially and as when Christ declared that unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man c. That Flesh drink he spake of was true Flesh and drink but the receiving the eating and the drinking of it was Metaphorical so may it be here and hence * De Baptismo Aethiopum c. ult Cyril Glaphyr in Exod. l. 2. Fulgeutius and others tells us that we do eat it in our Baptisme and therefore as we are said to eat it there so also may we be conceived to eat it in the other Sacrament Lastly we must be told how the same Ambrose doth assert that the Word of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can change those things which are into that which before they were not And yet that this mutation was not a change of nature but of signification and of the vertue of the Sacrament is evident from that vvhich follovvs in this Chapter viz. That * T. G. p. 304. Non corporealis esus sed spiritualis est ante benediction in verborum caelestium aliaâ—pecies nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur c. 9. de his qui initiantur it is not Corporal meat but Spiritual and that before the benediction it is named another kind but after Consecration it signifies Christs body or that elsevvhere he tells us that the power of God so operates to change them as that they still continue what they were before Nay this is also evident from the vvords cited by T. G. viz. That word of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can it not change those things which are into those things which they were not For it is not a less matter to give new natures to things than to change their natures vvhere evident it is that this nevv nature given to the Sacramental Elements is opposed to the mutation of their nature and therefore it is evident that in the judgment of St. Ambrose this change was made not by mutation of the nature of Bread and Wine but by addition of a new nature to them i.e. by the addition of new qualities and vertues in which familiar acceptation of the word St. Peter tells us that by the promises of Christ we are all made partakers of the diuine nature And the Fathers frequently affirm that by faith and by the holy spirit we are changed into another nature and that after the Resurrection we shall thus be changed Or this kind * De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 489.504 Albertinus hath collected above Thirty instances Ob. The change which is made in the nature of Bread is here illustrated by the examples of those miraculous changes T. G. p. 304. which were wrought by holy men of old in the natures of things as of Moses his Rod being turned into a Serpent the waters of Aegypt into Blood c. Answ But this c. conceals three instances produced by Ambrose which only signifie an accidental change viz. t Jordanus retrorsum conversus contra naturam in sui fontis revertltur exordium nonne claret naturam vel maritinotum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam Marath fluvius amarissâ—mus erat ut sitiens populus bibere non posset Mifit Moses lignum in aquam amari tudinem suam aqua rum natura deposuit quam infusa subito gratia temperavit Sub Haeliseo propheta uni ex filiis prophetarum excussum est ferrum de securi statim mersum est Rogavir Helisaeum qui amisserit ferrum misit etiam Helisaeus lignum in aquam ferrum natavit utique hoc praetet naturam factum esse cognoscimus cap. 9. de his qui initiantur The sweetning of the waters of Marah the swimming of the Iron and the returning of the waters of the River Jordan Whence it is
supposed to be In fine P. 2â— to set before us the danger of nor believing Christ more then our sences and to make others know it as well as Roman Catholicks he promiseth to set before them the words of Epiphanius viz. We see the Sacrament is neither equal nor like unto the fleshly Image or the invisible Deity or the Characters of his Members for this is of a round form and insensible according to power And yet because he was pleased to say through Grace This is my Body every one believeth his saying For who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace and Salvation Answ by this Translation of the words of Epiphanius we are like to see and others to know nothing but the detestable fraud and falshood of T. G. For Epiphanius doth not say as T. G. translates him That who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace But his words are these a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius Anch. p. 60 He that believeth not that Christ is true doth fall from Grace Now he that differs from another Church or Person in exposition of Christs words may yet believe that Christ is true in all his sayings as much as they from whom he differs Secondly had he considered well the context he would have found this passage is a strong argument against him For Epiphanius in this very Section affirmeth Man to be like God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. in a similitude or figure but not according to nature for saith he men have not the Image of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equally and yet what God hath constituted we will not substract * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. for he is true who by his Grace hath given to man to be like unto him and we have many like examples and then immediately follows the example of the Eucharist Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this That we are like unto God after his Image but yet not according to nature even as the Sacramental Bread is like the Body of Christ it is plain that the Sacramental Symbols are the Body of Christ and his Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Image or representment not according to nature Thridly St. Epiphanius affirms that Christ pronounced of Bread and Wine this is mine his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum panem Petav. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now since that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the things Christ took and blessed confessedly were Bread and Wine the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth answer to them must be so I might have added many other answers produced from these Fathers but I have chosen only to answer what the very places did suggest that so the Reader might perceive that T. G. either never read the places cited or else did chuse to cite them though he saw they held the contrary to that Doctrine for which he doth produce them and to convince the Reader that the Judgment of the Fathers must be clearly for us seeing the strongest passages the Romanists cite against us do confirm our Doctrine We have now done with his Fathers and briefly shall consider what he hath to â—ay from Protestants And thus he begins P. 299. That Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Vniversal Church from the time of Berengarius that is 600 years ago is scarcely denied by any I know of Answ One of the Protestants you cite will be sufficient to help your ignorance I mean the Reverend Bishop Morton in the Treatise of the Mass Lib. 3. c. 2. §. 3 4. A.D. 1159 Where we have this confession of Peter Lumbard Master of the Sentences whether the conversion be substantial or not I am not able to determine And Scotus affirming a Si quaeratur qualis sit conversio viz. panis in Eucharistia an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definire non sufficio Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Destruct 11. Lit. a. that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Council of Lateran And Suarez saying that some School-men held that Transubstantiation was not very ancient Scotus to wit and Gabriel Biel among others And Erasmus that it was but lately determined in the Church And lastly Cardinal Perroon who did not look upon it as b Scotus dicit ante consilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem Bellar. Lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 23. ss sed tamen c In Synaxiserò definivit Ecclesia Transubsiantiationem diâ—iatis erat credere sub pane quocunque modo adesse verum CoÌ„rpus Christi Erasm in 1. Cor. 7. p. 373. a thing very commendable to oppugne the received Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ asserts Card. Perroon En. Sa. Hâ—rrang Autiâ—rs Estates p. 33 De Christ Eccles Suc câ—â—s p. 19 208. That if it had not been for the Council of Laterane it might be now lawful to oppugne it Pious and Learned Bishop Vsher shews out of ancient and authentick Records That after the times of Berengarius many continued even there where Satan had his Throne who privately employed both their Tongues and Pens in defence of the truth against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Hamelman and Chemniitus are most impertinently cited T.G. p. 301. for they only do confess that St. Ignatius said what we all grant what doth not in the least confirm the Roman Doctrine as we have already proved p. 300. Perkins is also falsly and impertinently cited for he doth not affirm that this particular Heresie of Transubstantiation was spread over the whole world during the space of nine hundred years Nay he expresly doth assert That it was not concluded in the days of Lumbard Problem p. 155 156 nor then received as an Article of Faith and that for a whole thousand years the Church of Christ taught Sgiritual Manducation and that the Ancients did interpret the institution by a figure That the Centuriators do affirm of Origen T.G. p. 301. Cent. 3. p. 260. and of Tertullian p. 58. that they speak not commodiously of Transubstantiation is a notorious falshood what the Centuriators cite from Tertullian p. 58. is most expresly for the contrary and of Origen p. 260. they speak thus recte in Caena Domini sub pane vino sumi asserit corpus sanguinem Domini i.e. Origen rightly doth assert that in the Supper of the Lord under the bread and wine we take the body and blood of Christ What they cite out of Ambrose Cent. 4. p. 294. is from the Authour precationis primae Praepar ad Missam which is a spurious piece as they themselves have noted from Erasmus Erasmus non esse Ambrosii censuit The true Ambrosius is reckoned among the Fathers that maintained the pure Doctrine in this point p. 242. Of Hamphrey and Camerarius I can say nothing because I know not where to
can we know what is the present judgment of the Church of Rome but by our eyes and ears since therefore one of her determinations is that all our senses in the Eucharist do actually deceive us how can we be infallibly assured of her judgment by what she hath declared to be fallacious CHAP. V. The CONTENTS The Host was not worshipped with Latria in in the primitive Church 1. Becâ—use we have no command in Scripture for this worship § 1. 2ly Because the Holy Scripture and the Fathers have spoken things extremely contradictory to this worship § 2. Thirdly Because the Antient Fathers have not informed us of this Worship § 3. Fourthly Because they have both said and practised many things which are very inconsistent with this Opinion that it ought thus to be Worshipped § 4. An Objection Answered § 5. The Instances produced by T. G. to prove this practise are considered § 6. THe Doctrine of Transubstantiation being overthrown Sect 1. the Adoration of the Host must fall together with it p 222. But since T. G. affirms That it was Vniversally practised and recommended by the Fathers of the primitive Church both Greek and Latine whereas it was not practised or commended by any single person for Eight hundred years after the coming of our Saviour We shall proceed to evidence the vanity and the absurdness of this practise and the unconscionable falshood of this bold assertion And 1. The commandment to Worship God alone is so express saith Bishop Taylor the distance betwixt God and what our senses represent as bread of Transubst p. 338. so vast the danger of Worshipping that which is not God or of not Worshipping that which is God is so formidable that it is infinitely to be presumed that if it had been intended that we should have Worshipped the Holy Sacrament the Holy Scripture would have call'd it God or Jesus Christ or have bidden us in express terms to have Adored it that either by the first as by a reason indicative or by the second as by a reason imperative we might have had sufficient warrant direct or consequent to have paid Divine Worship to it To strengthen and confirm this Argument it may deserve to be considered 1. That the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul are very punctual in the Relation of what our Saviour did or enjoyned in this Institution they all inform us that Christ commanded them to eat the Bread and drink the Cup which he had given to them and had he given them to be adored would they who mention things so obvious forget to tell us that either Christ intended they should be Adored or that they were Adored by them that which induced St. Paul to mention this Institution and to assert that he received it from our Lord was the irreverence of those that did participate 1 Cor. 11 18 28. and their want of preparation to receive those Holy Mysteries To cure this disease he tells them that the Holy Sacrament was Christs own Institution the charge he left behind him that very night in which he was beirayed and that the Institution was intended for the Commemoration of our Saviours death all which is proper to beget within us a greater Reverence and care in celebration of these holy mysteries but yet it cannot be denyed that this consideration viz. That what they thus irreverently treated was that very Son of God which suffered for them and that it was that Host which they and all good people did Worship for their God I say this one consideration would have been infinitely more proper and effectual to aggravate the sin of those who slighted it and irreverently behaved themselves at the participation of this Sacrament This therefore was omitted by St. Paul upon no other score but the absurdity and falshood of the thing Secondly consider with what expreseness the Scripture doth inform us that Christ is God true God God blessed for evermore and yet because his conversation in the World was in the habit and likeness of a Man and his Divinity was hid under the veil of humane flesh and because this Jesus was made subject to an ignominious and accursed death the Scripture thinks it not sufficient to ascribe unto him in 100 places the nature proprieties of God and to leave us upon Record a Mat. 2.11 8 2 9 18 15 25 20 20 28 9 17. examples of his Adoration by the wise Men of the East and by his own Disciples and by divers others I say the Scriptures think it not sufficient to have done all this and therefore they inform us that this is the decree of Heaven that to the name of Jesus every knee should bow Phil 2 10 Joh 5.23.1 Heb. 6. and that all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father and that when this first born came into the World Gods Angels were commanded to Adore him now it is evident the humane nature did not so much conceal the Deity as do the accidents of Bread for God sometimes did appear unto his Prophets in a human shape but never in the shape of Bread and Wine Christ while encompassed with our flesh gave signal demonstrations of his Divine perfections by Miracles and by declaring that he knew the thoughts of those with whom he did converse but in the Sacrament Christ giveth not the least appearance or demonstration of his presence He doth not rescue his most Sacred body from the Mouse or Rat or from the Sacriligious hands of Theives and Sorcerers Here then was greater reason to have told us as often that the Sacrament was God and was to be adored as they have told us Christ was God and was to be adored Since therefore we have no precept or example in the Holy Scripture for adoration of the Sacrament nor any information that the nature and properties of God do belong unto it seeing it is asserted of the Rock 1 Cor. 10.4 6 15.1 Pet. 2.4 and of the Church that they are Christ and of the Saints that they are made Partakers of the Divine nature but it is not once asserted of the Sacrament that it is Christ or that it partakes of his Divinity but only that it his body we have just reason to conclude that it neither was adored by Christs Disciples nor was intended so to be If that which Romanists adore were truly Christ Arg. 2. § 2. Brevint p. 72 one might safely aver what even to think were Blasphemy That neither Prophets nor Holy Fathers in their Speeches against Heathenish Gods either considered well what they said or ever thought well of their Saviour And First to begin with their Original when the Prophet Isaiah inveighs against them who worship Gods made by a Carpenter of a Tree which the worshipers had Planted and after hewen into pieces whereof one was to heat an Oven and the other to make a God Can any rational Man think that the Holy Ghost did foresee That
little Beasts cannot drink so little but they drink him whole and have him in their little Guts the Priest must by all means swallow down these Flies and Spiders if he can do it without the endangering of his Life or fear of Vomiting Once was the time that Aegypt was made ashamed of their chief God Theod. Hist Eccles l 5. c. 22. when they saw Mice creeping out of his Belly what would they have said if they had seen their God creeping down as the Mass God doth into the Belly of those Mice or Flyes God doth in Scripture often threaten a wicked Church or Nation that he would spue them out of his Mouth And were this Doctrine true the Wicked of the Church of Rome might do the like to him nay they might not only vomit up their God but cause him to be burnt witness the constitution of the Mass De desect circa Miss Occurrent p. 38. That if the Priest do vomit up the Eucharist and find the Species whole he should then reverently eat the Vomit but if the Species appear not he should burn it Thirdly If T. G. rightly had asserted that this was the continual practise of the ancient Church the ancient Fathers of the three first Centuries would not have quite neglected to inform us of it some time or other it is like they would have styled it God or Jesus Christ or have declared that it was or ought to have been Worshipped by them For the absurdness of the thing to sense and reason is so great and obvious that it seems plainly to require more Apologyes than they bestowed to vindicate and to wipe of the scandal of the Cross At least it would have been remembred by Justin Martyr or Tertullian who undertake to give us an account of what the Christians practised in this case and yet neither the Romanists themselves nor their new Champion T. G. do cite one passage from them to confirm this practise In the Fourth Century it was the chief concern of all the Fathers to oppose the Arians and all their under-Sects and their chief Argument was this that h communis est illa S. Patrum argumentatio qua verum a qualem Patridcum esse probant filium quod summo illo genere adorationis quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant afficiatur Petavius Theol. Deg. l. 2. c. 12.55 Christ according to the precept of the Holy Scriptures and the practise of all Christians was adored and therefore could not be a Creature Now had the Adoration of the Host been the continual practise of that Age they lived in how could they all forget and wave an Argument so plain and obvious and so convincing as this practise doth afford it being natural thus to conclude Christ in the Sacrament is Worshipped with Latria and this Adoration is there tendered upon presumption of his Deity and therefore he is God Since then the Fathers of those times did newer use this Argument certain it is the practise of the Church did give them no occasion so to do Thirdly the Marcionites and Valentinians denyed that Christ did take upon him real flesh and the great objection which forced them thus to slight the senses of all those that saw him and * P. 97. 98. Apol. c. 39. all the evidence of reason in this case was this that they conceived it i Turpe hoc deo indignum hoc dei filio stultum Tertul. de carne Christi c. 4. D. improper for the Son of God to be conceived in the Womb or come forth of it The Manichees were also startled with the same objection 't is an unworthy thing saith k August contra Faustum Man l. 3. cap. 6. Faustus ex utero credere Deum Deum Christianorum to think that God and especially the God of Christians should issue from a Womb. The Synod held at Ephesus amongst the impious speeches of Nestorius takes special notice of this one that he could not l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ephes Acts 3. Extr in Ep. Syn ad Cler CP p. 335. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib Acts 1 p 265 endure to Worship one that was two moneths old or nourished by Milk And yet amongst all these and many other Hereticks who were so highly scandalized at the humiliation of our Saviour and at his sufferings on the Cross we find not one that ever did except against this Adoration of him in the Sacrament against the cating of their God the mixing of him with their spittle or with the ferment of the most depraved Stomach During Eight hundred years we have not one complaint or scruple that the Christians God was pittiful immured and shut up in the shape of Bread and Wine deprived of the use of all his faculties and exposed to the Teeth of Vermin which gives just reason to believe that what the Christians of those times did practise gave no occasion to them to discourse these things or to be scandalized with them Besides in answer unto these exceptions we do not find that any of the Fathers urged this practise or undertook by saying that Christians did Adore him in the shape of Bread did lodge him in their Stomachs and the like to shew that he might properly be God and regularly Worshipped although he lay concealed in the Womb and was subjected unto the like infirmities with other children Since then no other instance had been more proper to oppose to these objections then this Adoration of the Host yet the Fathers constantly declined it we may be certain that they had no such practise and that they did not hold that Doctrin from whence this practise took its rise Fourthly If this had been the judgment of the Ancient Church why did they m Hoc quod reliquum est de carnibus panibus in igne incendi praecepit quod nunc videmus in Ecclesia sensibiliter fieri ignique tradi quacunque remanere contigerit inconsumpta Hesyck l. 2. in Lev. c. 8. burn the Host For can we possibly imagine any thing more hainous then is the burning of that God we Worship To prove that Calvinists do offer the most vile affronts to holy Saints and Martyrs the * Bellarm. de Reliq storum l. 2. c. 1. To. 1. controv 7. Roman Doctors hold it sufficient to affirm they burn their bodies and reliques and cast their ashes into Rivers And is it not a greater evidence of the abominable contempt these Fathers offered to our blessed Lord that they did burn and bury that most sacred body which was united to the Divinity To shew the great stupidity of Heathens in thinking that which they had made was God the Prophet Esay tells them that part of the same Wood which makes the Image is burned in the Fire and the Prophet †Baruch c. 6. v. 55. Jeremiah layes down this strong conviction that the Heathen Idols ought not to be esteemed Gods because when Fire fell
introduced Now who knows not that the substance of Bread is not a proper object of Latria and it that Christ God-man was properly contained in the Sacrament there could be no suspition of Idolatry in the adoration of it What I have thus discoursed I judge sufficient to convince the Reader that this was not the practice of the Ancient Church What T. G. offers to the contrary is §. 6. that St. Basil saith the words of invocation when the Eucharistical Bread was shewed T G. p. 222 223. are Apostoliâ—al Tradition Ergo the Host was worshiped with Latria St. Austins Mother assisted at the Altar from whence she knew the Holy Victim was disp aced Ergo the Host was Worshiped with Latria Optatus calls the Altar the Seat of the Body of our Lord. Ergo the Host was Worshiped with â—atria He might have added that Protestant do call the Sacrament the Blood and Body of our Lord they do uncover and shew it to the people they therefore do adore it with Latria These are the wretched Sophisms by which this universal practice is confirmed and they prove only this That the abettors of them do not renounce their sence and reason only when they do believe this Doctrine but also when they discourse on this unhappy Subject Thus when T. G. proceeds to tell us p. 224. That the practice of the Church was so notorious in this point of the Adoration of the Eucharist that the Heathens because they knew that the Christians made use of Bread and Wine in the Mysteries objected to them that they Worshiped Ceres and Bacchus Nothing is so notorious as is the weakness of this Inference For if this argument be valid the Heathens thought that Christians Worshiped Ceres and Bacchus because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries therefore all Christians Worshiped what seemed to be Bread and Wine this must be also valid the Heathens thought that the Jews did Worship Saturn because they met on Saturday August conâ—a Faust Mamich l. 20. c. 13. as the same Austin in the same place informs us therefore all Jews Worshiped Saturday 2. St. Austin saith and he himself confesseth that the Heathens thus conceived not because they Worshiped the likeness of Bread and Wine but because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries the bare use therefore not the Worship of these things was that which gave the rise to this absurd imagination as St. Austin deems it Like to this stuff is that of Chrysestom viz. That the whole order of heavenly Powers lift up their voice T G. p. 224. and the place round about the Altar is filled in honour of him that lyeth upon it And that of Nazianzen p. 222. affirming That Gorgonia went with Faith to the Altar and with a loud voice besought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him that was honoured upon it For who knows not that Christ is honoured at the Holy Table when by the invocation of his Holy name the Sacrament of his true Body and Blood is Consecrated and to his Glory is distributed to all the Faithfull who knows not that the honour done to that which represents and is the true memorial of our Blessed Lord is Honour done to him And therefore these expressions only signifie that Holy Angels and Good Christians do honour the memorials of Christs Body and this we Protestants do as truly but more safely then the Church of Rome witness the preparations made before we do receive them and the Reverence we use when we receive them and witness lastly our confession Eucharistiam ut signum utile divinitus institutum venerandam confitemur saith Albertinus And that Nazianzen could intend no more is clear from what he doth immediately subjoyn viz. In Epitaph Gorgon p. 187 That if his Sister could lay hold of any of the Antitypes of our Lords Blood and Body she presently bedewed them with her Tears What therefore lay upon the Altar was only the Antitype of Christs true Body This also was the mind of Chrysostom for he declares Epistol ad Caefar Monach. That before the Bread is Sanctified we name it Bread but the Divine Grace Sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is sâ—eâ—d from the name of Bread and is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remaineth in it To the words of Chrysostom p. 224. cited from Hom. 24. in Epist ad Corinth I answer That Chrysostom doth here exhort us to Worship Christs Body which we do he also saith we see this Body on the Altar Nay elsewhere he adds * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aâ— Pop. Antâ—oc Hom. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. Hom. 24 Vide Albert l. 2. at Sacr. Euch. p. 535 536. we see it slain and jugulated d In Mat. Hom. 82. And when the Hereticks do ask whence it is evident that Christ was Crucified we stop their mouths saith he by the consideration of these Mysteries for if Christ be not â—ead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what do these Symbols mean Christs Body therefore is seen upon the Altar not as to its substance for there according to the Roman Doctors its being is invisible but as to that Sacrament which represents his Body this then must be the mind of Chrysostom that Body which is really in Heaven and in the Altar is seen slain and jugulated in effigie do you adore Hitherto we have complained only of the want of reason in the citations following we have just reason to suspect his want of Conscience For with what Conscience could he offer this passage of f Theodoret in confirmation of this practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 2 p. 84.85 viz. The mystical symbols * Those words T. G. leaves out do not receed from their nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and from and may be seen and touched as they were before but they are understood to be what they are made and are believed and adored as being the things they are believed for can that be a Demonstration of this practise which is a most convincing demonstration that the supposition upon which the Romanist doth build this practise is absurd and false And that the Adoration of the Host would be the Adoration of what continues Bâ—ead as certainly as the humanity of Christ continues to retain its nature and its proper substance had not T. G. sufficient reason to leave our these words which are so clear a Condemnation of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently of the Adoration of the Host that their great Doctors are even forced to say that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substance Theodoret doth understand no substance out only accidents which are the opposite to substance And that by substance and nature he meaneth form and figure though in this very place he makes a clear distinction of substance both from form and figure and consequently that he grants unto the Heretick that
see and hear us every where And Chrysostom upon the same Expression finds fault with those that pray aloud and bids us Imitate the Hymnes and Melodies of holy Angels who pray with us although we do not hear them for saith he (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Tom. 2. Homil. in Matt. 19. pag. 137. thou dost not pray to Man but to God omnipresent to him that hears before thou speakest to him that understandeth what the Mind doth not utter 4. Because he only can Answer our Petitions and from him only can we obtain what we desire * Precantes sumus proomnibus Imperatoribus vitam illis prolixam imperium securum domun tutam populum probum orbem quietum quaecunque hominis Caesaris vota sunt Haec ab alio orare non possum quam à quo me scio consequnturum quoniam ipse est qui SOLVS praestat ego sum cui impetrare debetur famulus ejus qui eum Solum observo Tertul. Apol. c. 30. Sect. 2 3. We beg for all our Emperors long life safe Empire valiant Armies a faithful Senate an honest People and a quiet World and whatsoever any man or Emperor could wish So Tertullian And then he adds These things I may not pray for from any other but from him of whom I know I shall obtain them because both it is he who alone is able to give and I am be to whom it appertaineth to obtain that which is requested being his servant who observe him alone From all which sayings it is evident these antient Fathers did not only think as we now do that all our Intercessions should be made to God but also that they did it for these very Reasons we alledg viz. that he alone is omnipresent that he alone discerns the secrets of the Heart that he alone is able to confer the Blessings which we want and pray for 2 The Fathers do affirm that by addressing a petition to a Martyr Saint or Angel we become guilty of distraction from God and of deserting our Lord Jesus Christ (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 15. pag. 135. We cannot be induced saith the Church of Smyrna to forsake Christ or worship any other Person where first it well deserveth to be noted that what is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the antient Interpreter of the Acts of Polycarp Alteri cuiquam Orationis precem impendere we cannot pray to any other Act. Polyc in Append Ignat Usser p. 27. And what the Jews objected that if the Christians could obtain the Martyrs body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deserting Christ they would begin to worship him is by the Metaphrast thus rendred huic fundenda esset oratio singulorum they would all pray unto him Now seeing this Translation was of such credit in the Western Church that it was read in their assemblies it is most certain that Church did antiently conceive 1. that the Church of Smyrna did deny that any genuine Christian would pray to any Saint departed 2. That to put up a petition to a Martyr was to renounce their Saviour And 3. that to pray to and afford religious worship to a Martyr was the same And 4. that we must only put up our petitions to the Son of God because he only must be worshipped Secondly observe the reason of this assertion of the Church of Smyrna We cannot worship any other delivered in these words For him being the Son of God we worship but the Martyrs as the Disciples and followers of the Lord we highly love for their exceeding great affection to their own King and Master The Church of Rome could have informed them of a better Reason why they should affect them viz. as being Intercessors and Mediators for and Patrons of the Christian Church and the Procurers of all spiritual Blessings for them She could have told them it was ignorantly done to comprehend that Service vvhich was due to the deceased Martyrs in this one expression We love them worthily For if the Veneration and Worship of the Saints departed nay the Worship of their very Ashes hath been the constant Custom of the whole Church of God and if the Invocation of them be that which Holy Scripture teacheth and the Apostles have delivered and which the Church of God hath alwaies practised as is delivered in the * Catechism of the Church of Rome Part. 3. c. 2. Sect. 8. it may be well admired that the Church of Smyrna which daily practised say they this veneration and invocation of the holy Martyrs should without distinction appropriate all worship and adoration to the Son of God in opposition to the Martyrs and comprehend the Service they performed to the blessed Martyrs in a word which doth not in the least import the Veneration which they daily practised 2. Observe the Reason vvhich is given by the Church of Smyrna why they could not worship any other viz. Because they worshipped the Son of God if any worship had been then paid to Martyrs or any other Saints departed by the Church of Christ what could have been more stupid than this Way of reasoning Now that this Doctrine is introduced into the Church of Rome we hear them speaking thus †Tantum abest ut Sanctis invocandis Dei gloria minuacur ut eo maximè augeatur Cat. Rom. part 3. c. 2. Sect. 11. We worship Saints and Martyrs in honour of the Son of God So far do they esteem that honour which they pay to him from being any prejudice unto the Worship of those blessed Spirits 3. Observe the Argument which the Jews urged to move the Proconsul to retain the body viz. That if the Christians could obtain it it might be feared they would leave Christ and worship Polycarp The Jews could not be ignorant of what the Christians practised in this case by reason of those numerous Apostates who daily left the Church and of that liberty they had to come to their Assemblies Had then the Christians worshipped other Martyrs with Christ and had they professed to do it for his sake and honour could this have been objected by the Jews with any sense and reason that they would quit Jesus Christ that they might worship Polycarp Must they not rather have objected that with Christ they would worship Polycarp which since they did not we may well suspect the practice of the Church gave them no reason so to do Athanasius discoursing upon these words of Jacob The Angel that delivered me from all evil defend the Lads which by the Arians were urged to the same purpose as they are used by Roman Catholicks viz. to prove that Invocation was not so proper to God but that it might be used to Creatures and therefore that it was no evidence that Christ was God declares that Jacob did not speak of a created Angel 1. Because he joyns the Angel with God and saith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
as I have proved already Prop. 4. Corol. 1. 2. As Roman Catholicks do pray to Saints departed and do ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart because they vainly do conceive these things are not so proper to God but that they may be attributed to the Creature so Heathens offered their first fruits and Sacrifices to inferior Daemons because they vainly did conceive they were not properly that worship which was due unto the highest God but such as might be given to those Daemons which they acknowledged to be Creatures This is apparent from what St. Austin doth assert concerning them viz. De C. D. l. 10. c. 19. That they conceiv'd these visible Sacrifices might agree to lesser Gods but that to him who is invisible the greater and the better God invisible greater and better Sacrifices do agree viz. the duties of a pure mind and a good will I grant they were deceived in this apprehension But if the Romanists cannot be justly charged with Idolatry although the object of their worship should be Bread because they do conceive it not to be so why should the Heathens be deemed guilty of Idolatry in this particular although the act of worship which they confer upon the Creature be proper to God seeing they also do conceive it not to be so For as Dr. Taylor argues in behalf of them if these Heathens thought this act of worship proper to God they who command us not to exceed in paying honour to them would be far from doing of it which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is Idololatrical Lastly The Doctor saith P. 145. The wiser Heathens acknowledged one God not Jupiter of Creet but the Father of Gods and Men. P. 350. To this T. G. replies That Origen saith that Jupiter was a Devil But if Origen spake this of Jupiter of Creet or if he did not speak it of the Philosophers supreme God which T. G. never offers to assert he did De Theol. Gent. l. 1. c. 2. p. 7. what can be more impertinent The Learned Vossius had met with some as ignorant as T. G. who thought that the Philosophers God was not the true Jehovah and that the Heathens had not the knowledge of him and thus he puts the Question to them What will these persons say to Blessed Paul who calleth Jupiter God What doth he understand that Jupiter who was so infamous for his Adulteries Sure it is no such matter he with the Philosophers did understand that infinite mind that runs through all things why else doth he approve that saying of Aratus For we are all his off-spring Why doth he manifestly apply that to the true God which Aratus spake of Jupiter for he begun his Verses with him This therefore is the mind of the Apostle that we are his off-spring whom the wiser Heathens understood by Jupiter which he would not have said had not some of the Heathens had the knowledge of the true Jehovah When St. Paul saith Him whom you ignorantly worship Acts 17. I declare unto you how manifestly doth he affirm that the Athenians worshipped that very Deity of which he was about to speak viz. God that made the world c. And how can any man deny this thing saith he when the same Apostle doth affirm that they knew God Rom. 1.20 and that he had manifested to them that which may be known of God for what is more absurd than to imagine that the true and only God should manifest unto them any other God besides himself ‖ Veteres cum adversus Deorum cultores Christianam causam agunt insignium Poetarum ac philosophorum necnon Sibyllarum testimonia quamplurima referunt quae unicum Deum esse Deos autem illos quos vulgus ascivit mentitos inanes esse praedicant Petav T. 1. l. 1. c. 3. p. 17. Petavius could have informed him That it was the business of the Fathers in their Apologies and Exhortations to the Gentiles to shew that both the wisest and the most eminent Poets and Philosophers acknowledged the one true God and laughed at those vain fictitious Deities the vulgar worshipped But 2. The God whom we adore saith T. G. is not that wise Father of Gods and Men who was so high as not to know what was done here below but the true and immortal God who sees the secrets of our hearts and knows our necessities before we utter them Answ This also did the God of the Philosopher as we have largely proved * Quisquis est Deus totus est sensus totus visus totus auditus totus animae totus animi totus sui Let God be what he will saith Pliny he must be all sense all eye all hearing †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Lipsii Physiol Stoicorum l. 1. dissert 6. p. 30. He must be deemed saith Hippocrates to be immortal and to hear and see and know all things both present and to come Of this we have innumerable evidences in Lipsius Physiol Stoic l. 1. Dissert 6. xi Petav. de Deo To. 1. l. 4. cap. 1.2 3 4. and l. 8. c. 4. sec 6. and Gataker in Antoninum l. 1. sec 3. l. 6. sec 13. l. 12. sec 2. To this convincing evidence of Dr. St. That invocation of the Saints deceased was not the Doctrine of the ancient Church we add these four Considerations 1. That Lactantius and others dispute against the Heathens with such Arguments as perfectly destroy this practice and confute this Doctrine and which could never without the highest folly be alledged by those who did approve either the Doctrine or practice of the Church of Rome * Quid sibi volunt denique ipsa simulachra quae aut mortuorum aut absentium monimenta sunt Deos igitur in quorum numero reponemus Si in absentium colendi ergo non sunt si nec vident quae facimus nec audiunt quae precamur Si antem Diâ— absentes esse non possunt â—qus quoniam divini sunt in quacunque mundi parte fuerint vident audiunt universa Supervacua ergo sunt simulachra illis ubique praesentibus cum satis sit audientum nomina precibus advocare Lactant. de Origine Erroris l. 2. c. 2. Quid sibi volunt simulacra what mean their Images saith he which either are the Monuments of the Dead or absent Persons for upon this account were these similitudes invented that the memory of them might be retained who are either dead or absent from us in which of these two orders will you place your Gods If in the number of the dead men is any man so foolish as to worship them If in the number of the absent they are not to be worshipped if they can neither see what we do nor hear our Prayers Where note that it is here supposed as an unquestionable thing that persons absent can neither hear our Prayers nor see our Actions Let me then
Spiritus morâ—norum August in Psal 108. Enar. 1. p. 276 A. whether at all or how far or after what manner the Spirits of the dead could know the things that are done here is a great question And the like doubt we find in Nazianzen in his Rhetorical Apostrophe's for in his invective against Julian he speaks thus (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 2. Ed. Eton. Hear O thou soul of great Constantius if thou hast any understanding of these things and as many souls of the Kings before him as loved Christ Where the Greek Scholiast upon that Parenthesis nutteth this Note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He speaketh according to the manner of Isocrates meaning if thou hast any power to hear the things that are here And therein he saith rightly for Isocrates useth the same form of speech both in his Evagoras and in his Aegineticus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If they which be dead have sense of the things which are done here The like limitation is used by the same Nazianzen toward the end of the funeral Oration which he made upon his Sister Gorgonia where he speaketh thus unto her (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nazian Orat. 2. in Gorgon If thou hast any care of the things done by us and holy souls receive this honour from God that they have any feeling of such things as these receive this Oration of ours instead of many and before many funeral obsequies Whence it is evident that the Foundation of this Doctrine was doubted by them And then it follows that the thing it self was in those times only a doubtful or a disputable point and therefore that it was not delivered to them by tradition or confirmed by Scripture and cannot be required as the Condition of Communion without Schisme 2. Hence we have just reason to suspect that in those other passages we meet with of like Nature these words If thou hast any sense or apprehension of these things when they are not expressed may very well be understood and that this is the genuine import of their Rhetorical Petitions § 4. Observe that the afore mentioned Fathers did often speak to their deceased Friends in such a manner as if they did suppose them present although they did not think them so to be thus * Tom. 1. p. 314. B. Nazianzen when ready to conclude his Funeral Oration upon his Father speaketh thus What saist thou Father is this sufficient And †l. 1. contra Julian c. 6. Austin speaks to Chrysostom who had been dead some years before Enter St. John enter and sit together with thy brethren And ‖ Tom. 1. in Psal 50. p. 703. l. 27. Chrysostom to David thus What is it thou desirest David thy sins are pardoned what wouldst thou more Oh David go give God thanks and ever glorifie him And again why art thou troubled David let me know This * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 19. ed. Eton. Nazianzen doth acknowledge to be the meaning of his addresses to Constantius when he believed he did enjoy the vision of God for thus he speaks What was the matter oh divinest King and greatest lover of our Lord for I am moved to find fault as if thou wast here present and didst hear me though I do know thee to be now with God and in possession of his Glory And this way of speaking they borrowed from the Heathen Orators and Poets whom we find speaking thus O M. Drusius I appeal to thee O †Audisne haec Amâ—â—hiarie sub terram abdite Tuscul Qu. l. 2 p. 147. Amphiarius who art now buried in the Earth hearest thou this ‖ Quid dicemâ—â— Câ—eanthe num in illa re mali nihil fuisse Tusc Quaest l. 3. p. 163. Ed. Paris 1555. What shall we say Cleanthes is this a wicked thing § 5. The very same Authors do many of them make the like Apostrophe's to insensate Creatures and use Expressions which contain as formal and direct petitions as any which are used in the places cited by the Roman Doctors St. * Nazianz. Orat. Decima quarta p. 214. Nazianzen invokes peace thus Oh friendly Peace who art that good which all men praise but few observe where hast thou so long left us and when wilst thou return unto us And unto Easter he speaks thus †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O at 42. p. 696. Oh great and holy Passover who art the reconciliation of both the Worlds For I will speak to thee as unto one endued with life In his invective against Julian he speaks thus Hear O Heavens and perceive O Earth Hear all ye Nations perceive all you that dwell upon the Earth For to you all I speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 1. Hear you who live at present and hereafter shall be born St. Ambrose speaks unto the Water thus * Ambros l. 10. in Luc. c. 22. Oh Water which hast obtained to be the Sacrament of Christ which washest all things and art not washed thy self thou dost begin the first and dost compleat the perfect Mysteries In the like manner we find * De Vir. Constantim l. 5 Eusebius calling upon Piety and †Optat. l. 6. p 98. Optatus upon Water and this they did agreeably to the Example of the ‖ Vos vos Albani â—umuli atque luci vos inquam iâ—ploro aâ—qu obtestor vosque A â—banorum obruâ—ae arae c. Orat. pro Milone p. 558. Ed. Pâ—ris Orator who doth implore and doth beseech the broken Altars of the Albans and puts up his Petition to their Tombs and Gâ—oveâ— and to the frequent custome of the sacred Writers who cry out * Isa 1.2 Hear O Heaven and perceive oh Earth Hear ye O Mountains the Lords controversie and ye strong Foundations of the Earth †Micah 6.2 Praise the Lord from the Earth ye Dragons and all Deeps ‖ Psal 148.7 8 9. Fire and hail snow and vapor stormy wind fulfilling his word Mountains and all Hills fruitful Trees and all Cedars Which form of Compellation is still retained in our Liturgy And yet I hope T. G. will not infer that the Jews of old did and English Protestants do at present properly invoke and intercede to those insensate Creatures Lastly we find in Lipoman one speaking to the girdle of the Blessed Virgin in this manner O venerable girdle make us Heirs of eternal and blessed Life and preserve us in this our present life from perdition O undefiled Girdle preserve thy people from pollution If this and such like speeches of the Church of Rome must be acknowledged to be figurative why may we not assert the same of such Expressions of the Fathers as are used to those Saints departed of whom they do assert that what is spoken to them because they do not hear it is as if it had been spoken to insensate Creatures 6. Observe Sect. 6. there is great difference
amounting to this only That they forbid only that supplication which was tendred to them as to Gods or as to primary and only Mediators But 1. the Canon speaks of Christians now to suppose that they whose Fundamental Principle it is to own one only God should also worship Angels as God is the extremity of folly 2. Theodoret and Jerom declare Epist ad Algasiam quest 10. that they who did abet this Doctrine were Jews or persons zealous of the Law Now these Men knew that Angels were but the Instruments and Creatures of God and therefore could not worship them as Gods 3. They chose these Angels as fit persons to introduce them to God and used their Meditation upon this pretence that such mean persons should not go directly to him and therefore could not look upon them as partakers of the nature to God In a word § 8. what can be more incredible then that St. Paul being assisted by the Holy Spirit and the whole Church of Christ should daily practice this worship and Invocation of the Holy Angels and teach all Christians so to do and yet affirm these things without any limitation or distinction which if we may interpret them according to the plain and obvious meaning of the words do manifestly condemn that which they did daily practice and lay upon Saint Paul and the whole Church of Christ on supposition of this practice the imputation of Idolatry and of deserting our Blessed Lord and should deliver and approve these things as the Doctrines of the Christian Faith which all Men stood obliged to believe Nothing can be more contrary unto the worship and Invocation of these blessed Spirits then an express command that we should neither worship nor Invoke them can it then enter into the heart of any sober person to believe that the whole Church of Christ even when they taught and practised both should make receive and in their Universal Synods should solemnly confirm a Law without distinction or exception forbidding both the worship and Invocation of them and requiring all good Christians to avoid this practice as being the deserting of their Saviour and the giving of Gods worship to those Spirits Since this Devotion hath obtained in the Church of Rome who ever heard of any Romanist who roundly and without distinction would assert that to invoke an Angel was Idolatry or that this Invocation was forbidden by the Church of Christ as doth Theodoret and Photius and the Laodicean Council who of them ever cautioned all Christian people as St. Paul hath done that no Man should seduce them to the worship of those Blessed Spirits What Council ever did decree that they should not be worshipped or invoked or own such Doctrine as any part of Christian Faith And yet we find this done both by Saint Paul and by the Laodicean Council by Origen Theodoret and Photius and the whole Church of Christ viz. what they confirmed by their daily practice they not only did forbid but they pronounced it to be Idolatry and the deserting of their Saviour what they had thus decreed in opposition to their own daily practice that they obtruded as a dictate of the Holy Ghost and as the matter of their Faith but against the worshiping of Angels with Divine Worship or as sole or primary Mediators which if we may believe the Church of Rome was the only thing in which they did offend we have no mention in the least That there were in the world such Hereticks as said it was beyond us or was too great an arrogance to go directly to the Son of God and that God was Inaccessible and therefore we must go to Angels this Synod I suppose must know as well as Chrysostom and Theodoret why therefore do they never mention as do the latter Comments on this Canon what they alone designed to prevent Why do they not recall these Hereticks unto that invocation of these Blessed Angels which had obtained in the Church of Christ and tell them that they need not to desert the Church or gather private conventicles in order to the Invocation of these Angels Why do not they or or any other person that flourished in the fourth or fifth Ages of the Church when this injunction was in force distinguish between the Invocation of the Holy Angels which the Church did practise and that which was forbidden by this Canon Why doth S. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5. contra Celsum p. 236. Origen conclude that Celsus had not read that passage of St. Paul to the Colossians because he said the Worship of the Holy Angels was no transgression of their Law For what is this but to suggest that this text of Scripture is so plain against the worship of them that he that reads it cannot think that they who own it can admit that Worship Why doth Theodoret affirm that because Hereticks commanded men to worship Angels S. Paul enjoyned the contrary for what is contrary to a command to worship Angels but an injunction not to Worship Angels Why doth he say that the Apostle doth command us to send up our Thanksgivings by Christ and not by the Angels for by whom we may send up our Petitions why may we not send up Thanksgiving too Why doth both he and Photius inform us that the Laodicean Synod being desirous to heal this old disease enjoyned Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to pray to Angels For is not this a shrewd suspition that this Idololatrical disease was only that of praying to Angels or else that both Theodoret and Photius were such intolerable dolts as to represent the very practise of the Christians as the disease of the Idolaters and the desertors of our Blessed Lord Why is it lastly that St. Chrysostom informes us that for a cure of this disease St. Paul enjoyned all Christians to invoke the name of Christ and not to bring in Angels suggesting this unto us that the Invocation of Angels was not consistent with that of Christ and that by saying do all things in the name of Christ he hath commanded us to pray unto him and call upon him as our helper and not upon the holy Angels Who knows not that a sentence against any person ought in some words or other to specify the crime that it condemns and that an act so framed as to condemn a person as guilty of the highest crimes and worthy of the severest punishments for doing what in the plain and literal meaning of the words all they that framed the act and they that owned it as a Law did dayly practise is an absurdity that Humane Nature cannot possibly be guilty of When therefore I can find an Act of Parliament intending only to condemn Incestuous conversation framed thus whosoever shall marry any Woman let him be severely punished or a decree of any Council intending only to forbid us to go to the Assembly of Hereticks thus worded Whosoever shall go to Church let him be
Anathema then shall I think this Synod and the whole Church of Christ intending only to forbid such invocation of the Blessed Angels as made them Gods or sole and primary Mediators would make a Law M 〈◊〉 not to pray to Angels and thus decree whosoever shall go and invocate the Angels let him be Anathema When I can find that such determinations and decrees shall pass for current in a Church or Nation without all limitation or restriction for some hundred years though contradictory to what they practise and believe then shall I be induced to believe this Canon could be thus admitted and confirmed as a Law of the whole Church of Christ in contradiction to their Faith and practise CHAP. XII The CONTENTS The Invocation of Angels confuted from the Testimony of Irenaeus and st Augustin c. Sect. 1. From the Testimonies of Origen Sect. 2. The exceptions of T. G. against them largely confuted Sect. 3. The Testimony cited from Origen Hom. in Ezech. considered Sect. 4. TO this so pregnant Testimony of the whole Church of Christ we shall adjoyn such sayings of the antient fathers as do directly overthrow this doctrine or manifestly affirm that no such practise was allowed by the Church of Christ Non est numerum dicere Gratiarum quas per universum Mundum Ecclesia a Deo accipiens in nomine Christi Jesu crucifixi sub Pontio Pilato per singulos dies in opitulationem Gentium perficit neque seducens aliquem nec pecuniam ei auferens nec invocationibus Angelicis faciat i. facit aliquid nec incantationibus nec aliqua prava curiositate sed mundè purè manifestè orationes dirigens ad Dominum qui omnia fecit nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi invocans virtutes secundum utilitates hominum sed non ad seductionem perfecit Iren. l. 2. c. 57. Thus in the second Century it is declared by Irenaeus that the Church of Christ did nothing by the Invocation of Angels but purely simply and openly addressed her prayers to God and the Lord Jesus Christ To this T. G. Replies that Irenaeus speaks only of such superstitious Invocating of Angels as was used by the Martionites and Carpocratians in their Magical operations and working of false Miracles p. 388. Repl. 1. The words of Irenaeus do absolutely say that Christians did nothing by the Invocation of angels which if T. G. will limit thus he stands obliged in equity and and by the Laws of Disputation to give some reason of that limitation which since he hath not done it is apparent that he hath answered nothing to the Doctors argument But 2. what he replyes as it is absolutely groundless so is it false and inconsistent with the words of Irenaeus For he doth manifestly distinguish betwixt those magical operations and the invocation of holy Angels and affirms that the Church doth nothing by incantations or by Angelick invocations 3. He doth oppose unto this Angelick invocation the invocation and directing of our Prayers purely to God and Christ What therefore he ascribes thus purely unto God and Christ he must be deemed to deny to Angels and consequently must deny that they directed their petitions to them Besides why doth he tell us that the Church addresseth her petitions to that God who made all things if not to shew that this was the true reason of our praying to him alone seeing he only is the maker of all things 4. He manifestly speaks of the miraculous gifts of Christians in curing diseases and casting out of Devils which things not only Irenaeus but * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 3. contra Celsum p. 124. l. 1. p. 7. Origen affirmes to be performed only by the invocation of the name of God and Christ Lactantius tels us that * Ille autem preses Mundi rector Universi qui scit omnia cujus divinis oculis nihil septum est solus habet rerum omnium cum Filio suo potestatem nec in Angelis quicquam nisi parendi nicessitas it que nullum sibi honorem tribui volunt quorum omnis honor in Dao est l. 2. c. 16. the holy Angels will not have any honor bestowed on them because their honor is in God and they have nothing else to do but to obey S. Chrysostome is very copious on this subject For 1. he tels us the Devil brought in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Calling upon Angels as is apparent from its opposition to calling upon God and that saith he he doth endeavoring to rob us of this honor of going unto God by Christ alone as is apparent from the words preceding (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do all things by God and introduce not Angels And lastly he concludes in these expressions (c) Hom. 9. in Epist ad Coloss Tom. 4. p. 139. be he Angel or Archangel or Cherubim do not suffer it for neither will these powers receive this honor but reject it when they see their Lord dishonored I have honored thee saith God and have said call upon me and dost thou dishonour him Again * Hom. 3. ad Heb. p. 443. Why gape ye saith he after Angels they are our fellow servants Now from that very name the Fathers argue that they are not to be adored Hence (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Orat. 3. p. 394. Athanasius concludes no Creature ought to adore his fellow Creature though he be an Angel because the Angel said to John see thou do it not I am thy fellow servant And Gregory Nazianzen saith (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. Orat. Qudragessim p. 668 669. If I adore the Creature what shall I say to the Idolatrous Heathen since I my self adore my fellow servants For Creatures are all servants though some more excellent than others Of the same judgement was St. Angustin who speaks thus * Quem invenirem qui me reconciliatet tibi an eundum mihi suit ad Angelos qua prece Quibus Aacramentis multi conantes ad te redire neque per seipsos valentes sicut audio tentaveâ—unt haec inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum digni habiti sunt illusionibus Consell l. 10. c. 42. Whom should I find that might reconcile me unto thee should I have gone unto the Angels With what Prayer With what Sacraments many endeavoring to return unto thee and not being not able to do it by themselves as I here have tryed those things and have fallen into the desire of curious visions and were accounted worthy of illusions de C. D. l. 9. c. 23. Elsewhere he tels us those blessed Spirits however they are called are no Mediators to bring miserable mortals to blessedness and immortality where saith the Doctor p. 154. It would be ridiculous to distinguish between Mediators of Redemption and Intercession for all that they attributed to their good Spirits was only Intercession to this T. G. Replyes p. 375 376. that
the very ground and reason of that practice viz. the benefit we may receive by putting up requests unto them and the concernments which ly upon us so to do in order to our preservation from all evil and the obtainment of the greatest blessings for he expresly tels us our care must be to get his favour who alone is God and that if Celsus or the Church of Rome would have us to procure the favor of the inferior beings he must know that all good Spirits Souls and Angels if we do obtain Gods favor when we pray to him they need not be called upon for the assistance of their prayers for they will pray together with us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being called upon so to do This he doth frequently repeat and indeed it is the common language of those times he lived in witness the like expression of Arnobius * In hoe omne quod colendum est colimus quod adorari convenit adoramus quod obsequium Venerationis exposcit Venerationibus promeremur Cum enim divinitatis ipsius tencamus caput à quo ipsa Divinitas divorum omnium quicunque sunt ducitur supervacuum putamus personas ire per singulas cum ipsi qui sint quae habeant nomina nesciamus cujus sint praeterea numeri neque liquidum neque comprehensum neque exploratum habere possimus Atque ut in terrestribus Regnis necessitate nulla compellimur regalibus in familiis constitutos nominatim cum Principibus adorare sed in Regum ipsorum cultu quicquid illis annexum est tacita se sentit honorificentia comprehendi Non alia ratione quicunque hi Dii sunt quos esse nobis proponitis fi sint progenies Regia principali oriuntur è capite etiam si nullos accipiant nominatim à nobis cultus intelligunt se tamen honorari communiter cum suo Rege atque in illius venerationibus contineri Arnobius contra Gentes lib. 3 p. 101. In worshiping the Father and the Lord of all things we worship all things that are to be worshiped we adore all things that may conveniently be adored we venerate all that calls for veneration For holding to the head from whence these Divi borrow their Divinity we think it needless to go to every Person seeing wee know not what they are what names they have or of what order they may be And as in honoring the King wee honor all that do belong unto him so what ever Gods you do propose unto us if they be of this Kingly progeny and do belong unto this head although they do receive no worship from us they understand that they are worshiped together with their King and are included in that veneration which we pay to him 4. This Answer renders the discourse of Origen impertinent and a perfect declination of the Question betwixt him and Celsus For Celsus thus disputes no God nor any Son of God can possibly descend from Heaven but if you do assert this of the Angels of God these are no other than our Daemons Orig. l. 7. 5. p. 23â— To this St. Origen returns this Answer 1. That to deny that any God descends from Heaven is to deny what was esteemed a thing common by the Heathen World 2. That Christians do indeed confess this is the office of the Angels to come down from and to ascend to Heaven and to offer up the Prayers of men to God but yet saith he we must not worship them as God for all our Prayers must be directed to God and to his Son Christ Jesus who is the living Word and God Which argument if it have any strength at all consists in this that whiâ—h you must not worship and adore as God you must not pray unto but Angels you must not worship and adore as God Ergo Angels you must not pray unto This is that Fathers plea to which T. G. may answer in behalf of Celsus as well as of the Church of Rome that he apparently distinguisheth those Angels both from God and from the Son of God and therefore did not contend that we should pray unto them as to that God who is the Author of all good but only as to the Ministers and Servants of God whom he appointed to preside over such persons Families and Countries And therefore he was contented only that it might be lawful to say unto them as doth the Church of Rome to St. Sebastian Cerne familiam tuam id est behold thy family and to St. Gabriel preserve thy Countrey 2. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus objects that if with God we do adore his Son then may we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 venerate his Ministers To this St. Origen replies that if †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Contra Celsum lib. 8. p. 386. Celsus by the Ministers of God had understood Gabriel and Michael and other Angels and Archangels and had contended that they should be venerated perpaps by purifying of the word and of the actions of the venerators we might say something of that matter i.e. Perhaps some actions which in some sense may bear the name of veneration might be performed to those Angels This T. G. thinks a great advantage to his cause and wonders that the Doctor would produce this passage But I conceive it is the clearest confutation of it that we could desire For having granted this and then restraining our petitions unto God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ as he expresly doth he most apparently demonstrates that prayer could be no part of the forementioned service he allowed to Saints 2. In that he thus distinguisheth of veneration and never doth distinguish in the like manner of prayer and supplication or of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est of adoration and worship it follows that although he thought some veneration might be allowed to Angels in some inferior kind yet no petition was to be put up unto them and that no worship and adoration should be given unto them 3. When Origen in answer to this passage saith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Ibid. we Christians venerate with supplications only God and his Son Jesus Christ and put up our petitions to God by his only Son If he doth understand only such supplications as are made to him as to the Author of all good he is as vain and impertinent as T. G. in his Answers to the Dr. for Celsus only doth contend for such a worship and consequently for such addresses only as agree unto the Ministers and Servants of God 4. Origen plainly doth inform us that the veneration he allowed to Angels was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. l. 8. p. 416. to speak well of them and pronounce them blessed and imitate to their virtues and what is this to supplication 3. Celsus objects that Daemons do belong to God and therefore must be prayed unto and