his little touches at me I had like to have slipt I know not how over his saying I impose sillily upon the Reader when in answer to the Objection made about no one 's denying the Bishop of Rome 's power of Excommunicating the Asiaticks I had said Every Bishop might deny to communicate with any other Bishop or Church against whom they had sufficient reason As if says he denying to communicate were the same thing as to Excommunicate to the doing of which an Authority or Jurisdiction over them who are Excommunicated is required whilst refusing Communion may be done without any such power Well then this Man shall have his Will and I therefore tell him that by denying Communion I meant a doing it authoritatively that is a putting the other Bishop from them by Ecclesiastical Censure but I must also tell him that an Authority or Jurisdiction over the persons to be Excommunicated is not required but that an Equality of State with the other persons is sufficient and this of his is dangerous Doctrine since every Greek can prove their Bishops of Constantinople to have Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Rome by this Argument since Photius's time who did Excommunicate the then Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of that Church do continue to excommunicate yearly to this day the Bishop and Church of Rome and not only the Greeks but the French Bishops also may by this Argument also be proved to be above the Pope since they so long ago as Monsieur Talon told the Parliament of Paris the other day threaten'd the Pope that if he came to Excommunicate them He should be Excommunicated himself for medling in things he had nothing to do with So that I suppose I shall hear no more of my imposing sillily about this thing nor the Compiler have any thanks for his untoward Observation Such little things will not serve to build that Supremacy upon which is pretended to by the Bishops of Rome And as the Primitive Fathers neither knew of nor believed nor therefore could submit to any Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome for the first six Centuries so they were as far from the Romish Doctrines about Tradition grounding all Matters of Faith as we do upon the Holy Scriptures and were as far from Invocating Saints as we of the Church of England and from the Belief of Purgatory or Transubstantiation and did detest the Worship of Images and Reliques as much as we can so that since in all these Points their Doctrines were contrary to the Doctrines of the Church of Rome and their Practices contrary to the present Practices of that Church we are bound to vindicate them to the world and to inform our Readers that they were no more Papists as to those Points mentioned by the Compiler in his Nubes Testium than we of the Reformation are and therefore I have Reason to conclude my Defence as I did my last Book against the Nubes with asserting it upon further Reasons That the Primitive Fathers were no Papists THE END Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented 4 to An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church 4to A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Mons de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator 4to A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 8vo A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome 4to The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures 4to The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England 4to A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England 4to Mr. Chillingworth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting personal Contests but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England with an exact Table of Contents and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before Printed viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church Transubstantiation Tradition c. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist with his Confutation of the said Motives An Historical Treatise written by an Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome touching Transubstantiation Wherein is made appear That according to the Principles of that Church this Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. 4to The Protestants Companion or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established with the main Doctrines of Popery Wherein is shewn that Popery is contrary to Scripture Primitive Fathers and Councils and that proved from Holy Writ the Writings of the ancient Fathers for several hundred years and the Confession of the most learned Papists themselves 4to The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be that Church and the Pillar of that Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy chap. 3. ver 15. 4to A Sermon preached on St. Peter's Day published with Enlargements A short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs 4to An Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one special Branch of the King's Prerogative viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host in Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead The People's Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted The Fifteen Notes of the Church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmine examined and confuted 4 to With a Table to the whole Preparation for Death being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France in a dangerous Distemper of which she died By William Wake M. A. 12mo The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in opposition to a late Book Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome 4to A Private Prayer to be used in difficult Times A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London Sept. 29. 1687. between A. Pulton Jesuit and Tho. Tenison D. D. as also of that which led to it and followed after it 4to The Vindication of A. Cressener Schoolmaster in Long-Acre from the Aspersions of A. Pulton Jesuit Schoolmaster in the Savoy together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer side notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgment of their Adversaries and that Their Religion is the surest way to Heaven 4to Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist wherein is shewed That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vnction with an Account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church In Three Parts With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom The Pamphlet intituled Speculum Ecclesiasticum or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass considered in its false Reasonings and Quotations There are added by way of Preface two further Answers the first to the Defender of the Speculum the second to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the new Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator The FIRST PART in which the Account that has been given of the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition is fully vindicated the Distinction of Old and New Popery Historically asserted and the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in point of Image-Worship more particularly considered 4to The incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome By the Author of the Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist 4to Mr. Pulton considered in his Sincerity Reasonings Authorities Or a Just Answer to what he hath hitherto published in his True Account his True and Full Account of a Conference c. His Remarks and in them his pretended Confutation of what he calls Dr. T 's Rule of Faith. By Th. Tenison D. D. A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist wholly different from those of the Present Roman Church and inconsistent with the Belief of Transubstantiation being a sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and other late Collections of the Fathers pretending to the contrary 4to An Answer to the Representer's Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversy With a Reply to the Vindicators Full Answer shewing that the Vindicator has utterly ruin'd the New Design of Expounding and Representing Popery An Answer to the Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England
you will made to S. Paul with those Circumstances ought on more to be named Invocation than the Prayer or Request made by one Christian to another upon the same account since all the difference betwixt the two Cases is only this that the one is present invisibly the other visibly but both equally present This Answer doth not only satisfie for what is alledged out of Theodoret but is equally serviceable for some other such like passages quoted from S. Chrysostom and others all which are grounded upon that persuasion that had gotten footing among them that the Martyrs by God's permission were present at their Memories during the time of the Christians Assemblies there as I could very distinctly shew but have not room here to do it if the Jesuit would but read over again his own next quotation from S. Basil he may see the grounds for all that hath been answered by me here I need not trouble my self to answer what he further quotes from S. Austin of whose Doctrine upon this point we have had a full account already nor to take any notice of his following Quotations which concern the Reliques of the Saints What I have collected from the Practice and Doctrines of the Primitive Fathers in my third and fourth particular is sufficient to demonstrate that as Invocation of Saints was not the Practice so it was expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers so that Invocation of Saints was no more countenanced by them than it is by the Church of England and we have all the reason in the World to conclude that as they did not practise Invocation of Saints so they were no Papists but of the same Faith with the Church of England as to these things and therefore the Church of England is not guilty of Schism in separating from the Church of Rome upon occasion of Invocation of Saints since the Primitive Church practised no such thing and she is bound to Communicate with the Primitive Church rather than with the Church of Rome who has been guilty of bringing into her own Practice This among other Superstitious things which every Orthodox Church is bound to refuse or to throw out and reform as soon as she is sensible of her Errour And as for those Practices of Addresses to the Martyrs at their Memories cited from S. Basil S. Gregory Nyssen St. Chrysostom and Theodoret and so much insisted on by the Jesuit as being the same thing and all that is practised by the Church of Rome towards the Saints and Angels we can very easily prove a vast difference betwixt what was done then and what is practised now by the Church of Rome and since the Jesuit doth challenge me so often to shew the difference I will answer his Challenge and do assign only three Differences out of more that I could offer The First Difference is that the Church of Rome doth use a direct Invocation or formal Prayer to the Saints and Angels as is apparent from hundreds of places in their Missalls Breviaries and Offices whereas the Primitive Fathers of the end of the Fourth and Fifth Century did not invocate or make Prayers to the Saints but meerly such Addresses or Requests as are made from one Friend to another and this I do prove out of their own mouths who make PRAYER to be PECULIAR to GOD ALONE and therefore would not contradict their own Doctrine by their own Practice which these Fathers had inevitably done had they reserved Prayer as proper to GOD ALONE and yet offered Prayer or Invocation to the Saints A second Difference is that whereas those Requests were made at the Memories of those Martyrs to whom they were presented and who were believed to be present there tho' invisibly at that time the Invocations and Prayers to the Saints in the present Church of Rome are made not only in every place but in ten thousand different and most distant places to such or such a particular Saint which is virtually to ascribe to them an Omnipresence an Attribute that no finite Being is capable of The third Difference is that those Requests and Interpellations to the Martyrs were neither commanded by the Primitive Church Authorized by her General or Provincial or any other Councils nor used in the Publick Offices of the Church whereas on the contrary the Invocations and Prayers to Saints in the Church of Rome are enjoyned by the Roman Church are authorized by her last General Council of Trent and used not only in the Publick Offices of their Church but in the most solemn Parts of their Offices in the Litanies of the Church I could add more but these are enough to shew the vast difference betwixt what is now practised in the Church of Rome towards the Saints and what was done to them at the latter end of the Fourth and in the Fifth Age of the Church which is the time of the Primitive Church in dispute betwixt me and the Compiler and the Jesuit Thus I have been so civil as to accept the Jesuit's Challenge and to make him a fair and distinct Reply and have been more civil to him than I ought to have been since according to the Law of Arms I think the Challenge I made to the Jesuit among the rest of the Romish Priests in England to shew me but one Canon of the Catholick Church for the first six hundred years of the Church for the Pope's Supremacy ought to have been accepted and answered before any of them were allowed to make any Challenges to me But since it was impossible for the Jesuit or any of them to produce such a Canon and therefore to make any Reply to that Challenge I will at parting tell the Jesuit that if he intends to prosecute this Controversy about Invocation of Saints it is my turn to challenge and therefore I do challenge him to shew as fair and as uninterrupted a Practice and Doctrine for Invocation of Saints as I have produced against it for the Four First Centuries of the Church out of the Liturgies and Genuine Works of the Fathers of those distinst Ages I must now return to the Compiler's Vindication of the Nubes Testium and should pass to the next Chapter about Reliques but that I must not forget to take notice of a very terrible Objection against us in relation to this Invocation which I had like to have omitted The Reader I suppose does remember that the Compiler had said that I had granted that Invocation of Saints was practised in the Fourth and Fifth Ages of the Church upon this he very learnedly observes against me that even one of the Four First General Councils was held within the same time without ever censuring it as an Error tho' even before that this Practice is own'd to have taken root in many Places This passage is very diverting and shews with what an air of confidence some men can write the most absurd things and tack together the most inconsistent I had
THE Primitive Fathers NO PAPISTS IN ANSWER to the VINDICATION of the NUBES TESTIUM To which is added An Historical Discourse CONCERNING INVOCATION of SAINTS In ANSWER to The Challenge of F. Sabran the Jesuit Wherein is shewn that Invocation of Saints was so far from being the Practice that it was expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus The Primitive Fathers no Papists c. Ex Aedib Lamb. Febr. 4. 1687. Guil. Needham R.R. in Christo Patri ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacr. Domest LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII THE PREFACE I Have been so much larger in my Vindication of the Primitive Fathers than I intended at first that I would not have troubled the Reader with any Preface at all but that I think it requisite to give him some account of the length of it In the present Controversy with the Writers of the Church of Rome we lye under one great unhappiness which our Forefathers were not troubled with in their Contests with the Romanists they were wont then fairly to own their Popish Doctrines and our Authors had nothing to do but to oppose them but we have not only the disproving of Popery upon our hands now but must be obliged also to prove the Popery it self upon them We must now not only prove the Worship of Images to be unlawful but prove that they worship Images This is that which hath ingaged me to be so large for the Adversary I have to do with is one of the new Stamp one of the Assertors of the NEW POPERY who since they see they cannot defend the true old down-right Popery have set up such a Popery as they think they can defend Thus when they find how perfectly inconsistent with the Honour of God and how directly contrary to the Word of God it is to give Adoration or Religious Worship to Images or Reliques they are for salving all by bearing the Reader in hand that they do not do it and thus when we shew them that their Purgatory-Fire is not only inconsistent with the Account we have of the State of the Dead in the Holy Scriptures but also with the Account of it in the Primitive Fathers for six hundred years they have no other refuge than to tell us that they do not hold a Fiery Purgatory This dissembling and betraying of their own Popery is that which hath occasion'd my insisting so largely and distinctly upon these points by which I have effectually shewn that the Church of Rome doth command and practise the Adoration of Images and Reliques and that her Purgatory differs only from Hell in the Duration of their Torments I did expect and hope I shall reap a double advantage from my care to expose these things the first of which is to confute my Adversary and the other to make it evident to the meanest Reader how very unsincere the Representer is in giving us the true State of their Popery I am sure that as to Purgatory about which he took the most pains to defend himself I have invincibly proved upon him that he either did not understand the Doctrine of his own Church or did most unfaithfully dissemble it I hope I need not trouble my self to warn our People of the Confidence with which these Romish Writers can write the most false and most disingenuous things if Confidence be all that is necessary to carry any cause I must confess that we should come off losers because we cannot tell how to imitate these men however no one is ignorant that a Mountebank is but a Mountebank still for all his pretending to Infallible Cures to never-failing Remedies But we must allow our Adversaries this Assurance since they have nothing else to set off or recommend their Cause excepting that which is a consequence of it their writing with a Contempt of us and treating us scurrilously but this we can bear chearfully enough tho' reproach is uneasy to Mankind because it does so plainly speak out that all Scholar-like Arguments are spent and that they have no other left to encounter us with Of this we have had a great deal of late and I have had my share from them I will not animadvert further on it than to say that their late Pamphlets against us are so very abusive as if they had been Written as well as Printed by the Ditch-side I do heartily forgive them and believe all our Writers do and desire to make no other return to such Treatment than to offer up hearty Prayers to God That He would bring into the way of Truth all those who have erred and are deceived and that He would frustrate the Devices of them who are endeavouring to deceive others THE CONTENTS AN Account of the Controversie about the Postscript to the Answer to the NUBES TESTIUM with Sabran the Jesuit p. 2. About the Answer it self with the Representer p. 4. His Vindication of the Nubes Testium against the Answerer shewn to be very weak and very defective from a Catalogue of Twenty seven material Points and Charges against him to which he hath given not one word of Answer p. 10. His vain attempt to clear himself about the stealing his Nubes out of a condemned Author shewn to be made up of Confidence and Falshood p. 18. F. Alexandre his Master proved to be also either a Compiler or a Falsifier of the Fathers p. 22. His Chapters in the Nubes about Schism shewn further to have been altogether impertinent p. 25. His Coldness and Diffidence about the Defence of his Chapter of the Supremacy shewn from his letting fall the Vindication of all the numerous Quotations upon that Head excepting Three The Defence of which is shewn to be very vain His Defence of his Chapter about Tradition shewn to be meerly a giving us over again two or three Pieces of his Old Testimonies in the Nubes p. 31. That the Primitive Fathers did look upon the Scriptures as containing and handing down to us all matters of Faith shewn further from Origen Gregory Nyssen S. Austin and S. Hierom. p. 32. That the Church of England doth not symbolize with the Church of Rome which gives Religious Worship to the Saints on their Festivals but with the Primitive Church who paid them only Civil Honour proved from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna and S. Austin p. 35. His Defence of his Chapter about Invocation of Saints begun with Falsification of my Words p. 37. and built wholly upon that false Supposal That I had granted Invocation to have been practised in the Fourth and Fifth Ages p. 39. The Jesuit Sabran's Challenge about Invocation of Saints accepted and answered Wherein is proved That the Primitive Fathers did not practise Invocation of Saints during the Five first Centuries from the Acts of the Martyrdoms of S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp p. 41. from the Liturgy of the first Christians in Justin
Martyr Tertullian Clement's Constitutiones Apostolicae S. Austin p. 42. that the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers for those Ages was directly against and inconsistent with Invocation of Saints proved from Ignatius p. 45. from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna and S. Irenaeus p. 46. from Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian p. 47. from Origen p. 49. from S. Cyprian and Novatian p. 54. from Lactantius p. 55. from S. Athanasius p. 56. from Hilary the Deacon p. 58. from S. Basil Gregory Nyssen and S. Ambrose p. 59. from S. Epiphanius p. 60. from S. Chrysostom p. 61. from S. Austin p. 62. p. 62. The Jesuit's Confidence in asserting in both his Letters that all the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries did teach Invocation of Saints expos'd p. 65. The Argument for Invocation of Angels and Saints from S. Ambrose disprov'd p. 67. The Jesuit's Arguments for it answered His first from S. Austin shewn to be directly against himself p. 69. His second from Origen shewn to be as much if not more against him p. 71. His third from S. Basil answered p. 72. His fourth from Gregory Nazianz. answered ibid. His fifth from Gregory Nyssen answered p. 73. His last from Theodoret answered p. 74. Three Differences assign'd betwixt what was practis'd towards the Saints in the end of the Fourth and Fifth Ages and what is practis'd towards them by the Church of Rome at this day p. 77. A Challenge to the Jesuit if he intends to reply p. 79. A horrid blundering Objection of the Representer's about Invocation displayed and confuted p. 80. The Defence of his Chapter about Reliques shewn to be disingenuous and unreasonable Cavilling from S. Athanasius p. 84. The whole of his Vindication upon this Head ruin'd by the proof of two things first That the Church of Rome doth worship Reliques prov'd from the Council of Trent from Vasques and Thomas Aquinas their Oracle p. 85. Secondly That the Primitive Church did not worship them prov'd from S. Hierom and Austin p. 89. The Purgatory of the Church of Rome shewn to be inconsistent with the Belief of the Ancients about the State of the Dead from the belief of its being a place of torments p. 93. That the Compiler has forsaken the Doctrine of his own Church by denying it to be a Place of Fire and fiery Torments p. 94. That the Purgatory of the Church of Rome is such a place prov'd from Bellarmine from the Council of Florence p. 98. from the Catechism ad Parochos p. 101. from the Office for the Dead in the Romish Missal p. 103. and from Cardinal Capisucchi's Interpretation of the Prayer in that Office p. 105. His Doctrine of the Three States of Men departed and of Purgatory shewn to be unserviceable to the Church of Rome from S. Austin himself who first taught it p. 109. That the Antients did pray for those in Heaven and for those in Hell prov'd against the Compiler from S. Ambrose p. 111. from the Canon of the Mass it self p. 112. and from S. Chrysostom and S. Austin ibid. His great disingenuity and false dealing about representing our Doctrine about the Eucharist laid open p. 113. The Insincerity of his Defence prov'd from Point to Point p. 116. That the Primitive Fathers did believe that the Eucharist does in a proper sense nourish our Bodies proved from Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Tertullian Isidore of Sevil c. p. 118. A digression wherein is proved that the Editors of Rabanus Maurus's Works have abused the World by putting in things which are not his and leaving out Books which certainly belong to him p. 119. His forsaking the Defence of his Proofs about Images shewn to be unavoidable since they do prove against himself p. 130. Directions to the Compiler if he intend to reply p. 132. A recapitulatory Conclusion wherein is shewn in short how far the Primitive Fathers were from being Papists 133. THE Primitive Fathers NO PAPISTS IN ANSWER to the VINDICATION of NUBES TESTIUM c. WHat reception My Answer to the Nubes Testium found among the Members of the Church of England I am neither so curious nor so vain to inquire the entertainment it met with among the Romish Party doth very fully discover that some people were very much galled and very much incensed at it for no sooner was it published in Print than I was told that the Clouds were gathering and that I should find them break in Thunder and Lightning upon me I will not trouble the World with the Stories and the Messages I had sent me about it but will only assure the Reader that if big words and great threatnings could have done any good upon me I had certainly been spoil'd for ever venturing upon Controversy again or even upon defending what I had already written therein But upon second thoughts I suppose it was that my Adversaries found it would be their best way to treat me as a Writer and that it must be their care to have some sort of an Answer made to those severe things I had charged the Representer and the Jesuit with The Jesuit Sabran was the first that took the Field against me and reason good since he had but a small Postscript of half a page to encounter and therefore after three Weeks time from the publishing of the Postscript at the end of my Answer to the Nubes Testium out comes his Letter of a Sheet and a half to a Protestant Lord in defence of the Passage in his Printed Sermon which I had reflected on Assoon as I saw his Letter I could not but smile to see them begin at the wrong end of my Book to answer it and to see them withal undertake the Defence of that thing in which they were opposed not only by us Protestants but by all the Men of Learning in their own Church and therefore I needed not to be much concerned since I perceived I was engaged with an Adversary whom I might answer as fast as I could write who instead of acquitting himself fairly of the first and single charge against him had blundered ignorantly into several other mistakes which I resolved to call him to account for and therefore immediately I wrote him an Answer and got it dispatcht so suddenly at the Press that there was but one day betwixt the publishing of his Letter to the Protestant Lord and my Letter to the Jesuit himself in Answer to it Whether the suddenness of my Reply or the discovering to the World of his further mistakes was the reason of his passionate Reply I cannot tell however I wondered to see a Jesuit who wrote with so much temper in the first Letter and resolved not to be provoked into insulting or scurrilous Language quite forget himself in the Reply he made to my first Letter and in this Reply which he published within less than a Week after his so solemn professions unto the contrary to the Protestant Lord to fall into such indecent
heats and such scurrilous language but I can assure him I was not moved by it and did as little mind as I did little deserve such impertinent language from him All my concern was to send him a second Letter and to let him know that I was resolved to make his Ignorance as apparent to the World as his Sermon had been and to expose his confident mistakes and his bold untruths about the fourteenth and eighteenth as well as the thirty fifth Sermons of St. Austin de Sanctis I did in two days dispatch and print and the next day sent him my second Letter to which I have not since received one word of Answer and I suppose I never shall and I think that Jesuit is by this time convinc'd that it had been better for him to have sat down at first quietly under the reproof given him in the Postscript to the Answer to the Nubes Testium since he hath by his vain attempt to vindicate himself betrayed his Ignorance and his weakness so very much to the World and his Answerer hath not omitted in the second Letter especially wherein he had more room to expose and publish it to the World and to convince all Readers what sort of Adversaries we deal with at present I thought my self obliged to make such a discovery of this Jesuit to the World because I did understand while I was engaged with him that he does appear wonderfully great in his own Eyes and was as desirous of being thought a very terrible Jesuit to the People in Wales when he went thither not long since filled with the design and pleasing thoughts of bringing in the Welsh Nation by shoals into the Bosom of the Bishop of Rome's Church but I question not but before this time that Country hath another very different Idea of him and his Learning and that they now see that his Ignorance is altogether as great as the Confidence with which he appeared and made such blustering among them While I was thus engaged with Sabran the Jesuit the Representer or the Compiler of the Nubes Testium for he that wrote Popery misrepresented and represented is the same Person that stole the Nubes Testium out of Natalis Alexandre had got something ready against me and was willing to be the Jesuit's Second that they might therefore divert me from medling any further with the Jesuit who they could not but see had grievously overshot himself and yet if possible was to make some sort of a creditable retreat the same day that the Jesuit published his Reply to my first Letter the Representer also appeared in Print against me but in Masquerade lest it should look a little ungenerous to fall two of them and two such men of wonderful prowess and skill at the same instant upon one weak and unskilful Writer if you will believe the Representer and as if he had been Secretary to a Committee of Dissenters and had Orders to draw up Articles of Popery against me he publishes from his Masters a Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England wherein I am complained of for no fewer than sixteen Articles of Popery to be found in my Answer to the Compiler of the Nubes Testium But I did no sooner see this pretended Letter from a Dissenter than I was satisfied not only of the design but of the Author of it and to spoil the design I immediately set to answering the Jesuit that so I might put an effectual end to the Controversie with him and thereby be wholly at leisure to attend my new Adversary in disguise I was not deceived in my intentions for after the sending him my second Letter I have not heard one word of the Jesuit since and now after above six Weeks expectations I think I may have leave to believe that I have done his business and have wholly rid my hands of the Jesuit And lest the Representer should think I should despise him because I might not know him in his Dissenter's Masque and that I should disdain to vindicate my self against such a false and groundless Charge I was careful in an Advertisement at the End of my Second Letter which I was sending to his Friend the Jesuit to let him and the World understand that I knew him notwithstanding his Disguise and that I intended to give him a speedy Answer to that pitiful cheat I was as good as my word and did shortly after publish my Vindication against the Popish-Dissenter's Letter wherein I shewed the great Knavery the intolerable disingenuity and frequent Calumnies and Falsifications up and down that Letter by which I am satisfied that I did sufficiently acquit my self and that if the Representer himself be not yet the World is convinced that he ought to be ashamed of such mean and contemptible projects of defaming an Adversary that he had much better never to have medled with such a knavish Prank as that pretended Letter was since this piece of knavery had the fate that attends all such unlawful and disingenuous actions to do the Representer and his Cause now it is displayed ten times more mischief than it ever could have done him service had it continued as he doubtless hoped it would concealed for I can assure the Representer that I do not speak my own Opinion but that of abundance of people who are competent Judges of these things and of a great many worthy and Honourable Persons too if I tell him that he hath by that dissembling Practice quite sunk his Reputation and is now and will be looked upon as a Person of no Honesty nor Conscience and this I hope will at last convince the Representer himself that the publishing of that pretended Letter hath cost him very dear hath forfeited that thing which every good and honest man values next to his Life I thought it not improper to give this State of the Controversie betwixt me and the Romish Jesuit and Representer in relation to that Answer to the Nubes Testium which hath been the Cause of all the dispute betwixt us since it was published unto the World especially since those two Persons will be so much concerned in this Book which I am now writing and it cannot be ungrateful to the Reader to know the Characters of them particularly of the Representer who hath made so much noise in the World and is the Person against whom this Answer of mine is chiefly aimed For within some time after the publishing of his Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England against me he was pleased to lay aside his Fanatical Masque and to publish to the World in his own Name a formal Vindication of his Nubes Testium with the pompous Title of The Primitive Fathers no Protestants or a Vindication of Nubes Testium from the Cavils of the Answerer Assoon as his Book was brought to my hands and I had cast my Eye on his Title-page I began to suspect that
of all Sense of Modesty as well as betraying a want of Learning He is now come to the Body of my Answer and complains of my admirable Talent of trifling in quarrelling him for beginning his Book with The History of Donatus and shewing the Nature of Schism and for my saying That this was so far from being a Chief Point that it is no Point of Controversy at all betwixt us And upon this he falls to pitying me who had dwelt so long among Books for losing my time and then shews that a Chapter about Schism was not improper to begin his Book with But I would fain see this trifling proved and will now prove that he is the guilty person who hath shuffled three Chapters together here and hath not given us a true or fair state of the Chapters I do own that a Discourse about Schism might be a proper Introduction to a Controversial Book however I did shew that what he advanced there was perfect trifling I have once already done it sufficiently and must be forced in Vindication of my self to do it again to let the World see who is the Caviller and at whose Door the trifling must be laid His first Chapter was that the Fathers accused the Donatists of being guilty of Schism for making the wicked Lives of the Members of the Church the reason of their Separation My answer to this was that this can be no point of Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome as he had made it since we never urged the wicked Lives of some Members of the Church of Rome as the ground of our Separation from them and what says our Representer in Reply to this Does he either prove that that is a point of controversie betwixt us or that our Separation from the particular Church of Rome is grounded upon the same matter that the Donatists was No we have no reason to expect a fair Reply from him who did not set down the state of this Chapter at all The second Chapter was that the Fathers teach against the Donatists that the Catholick Church cannot fail This I told him could be no Controversie betwixt the Church of England and the Church of Rome since we believe with the Fathers that the Catholick Church cannot fail Was this then the trifling I am accused of if it be the Compiler had done well to have shewn it that so upon the sight of my errour I might have altered my mind but this he thought fit not at all to attempt His third Chapter was that the Fathers taught that whosoever breaks the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon any pretext whatsoever is guilty of Schism Upon this I told him that taking the word pretext for a groundless pretence I was of the same mind and did believe the Donatists who acted so to be guilty of a Criminal Schism but assured the Compiler withal that this could not be matter of dispute betwixt us who both assented to that doctrine of the Fathers and here it is my trifling must be discovered and here he will have me not only to differ from them but from the Fathers this is hard when I had assented to that Chapter as set down by him and proved by the Fathers but he will have it that I am for making the breach of the Vnity of the Catholick Church not Schism unless it be done causelesly whereas the Fathers teach there can be no just cause I grant the Fathers teach that there can be no just cause given by the Catholick Church however that particular Churches can give and do often give just cause for others to break Communion with them is what no Father will deny is what the Church of Rome it self must grant which hath not only broken Communion with us but with the whole Greek Church and yet I suppose does pretend to shew that she had a just cause for it He hath offered hereupon nothing new in defence of his three Chapters but some hard words and those I do not intend to reply to but will pass to the defence of his Chapter about the Supremacy I had charged him with giving a false and imperfect state of the Controversie betwixt us in relation to the Pope's Supremacy but this he is not willing to defend but turns it off with saying that it only is so if my word be to be taken for it but I had not only given him my word but very good reasons for it and therefore since the Compiler hath no mind to be medling with reasons it would be uncivil to be importunate with calling upon him to disprove them That Chapter as it did concern the greatest point of Controversie betwixt us and the Church of Rome so it did require a great deal of canvasing and admit of a vast variety of dispute in it I was careful to follow the Compiler through it and to debate and disprove every thing that was brought to support the Pope's Supremacy in it but our Compiler is not so civil to me nor so just to his Book in his Vindication but forsakes the defence of every one of his passages and only seems solicitous to make a shew and that he may not be accused of saying nothing at all in defence of his Testimonies and in Answer to a great many very severe charges in that Chapter he serves us up again two or three bits of his former passages and that is all I told him his first quotation from Irenaeus was of no use and gave him in short my reasons for it all the answer he makes is to give us anew a piece of the same passage and this with two or three scornful words and crying good and great must be called defending and we must be content with such from him since it seems the Man is not furnisht with better but if the old quotations presented anew will signify any thing they are at your service but upon this condition that they may serve for a defence of themselves And such is his behaviour as to the next passage from Optatus which I shewed to have been very obscure and that in affirming there was but one Cathedra in the World possessed first by S. Peter and after him by his Successours at Rome it did not only contradict the other parts of his Writings but all Church Writers before and after him for hundreds of years who make as many Cathedra's as Bishops in the World and I instanced in a most plain place in Tertullian which did assert the direct contrary to the Doctrine of that passage of Optatus All the Answer besides rude language to these reasons that I can observe is that it is a notorious fraud in me to pretend that the Father maintains here That the Chair of Rome was such that the rest of the Apostles might not have Cathedra's for themselves whereas says the Compiler S. Optatus no where affirms this but only that the rest of the Apostles should not set up other Episcopal Chairs in
would not do his business and was not to the purpose and thereupon challenged him to produce Fathers for that Point promising him at the same time a fair Answer But our Compiler durst not offer to accept of the Challenge dares not meddle with such a thing but if two or three bits of the Old Testimonies out of the Nubes may be admitted they are at my Service and from these it is that he would fain prove that even in matters of Belief the Tradition of the Catholick Church is the best Demonstration What better than the Express Testimony of Scripture it self Methinks our ignorant Compiler might have been contented to have made Tradition only as good or equal to Scripture for the Demonstration of Faith which is the highest the Council of Trent it self durst rise in favour of Tradition and never pretended to mount Tradition so much above Scripture as to make it the BEST DEMONSTRATION of Matters of FAITH But when Ignorance and too great a stock of Confidence meet together such Assertions as these are commonly the fruits of them But for this extravagant Assertion he hath a mind to bring in Origen for a Voucher who speaking concerning the Belief of Christ's being the Son of God says that is to be embrac'd which by a Succession from the Apostles is preserved in the Church by Ecclesiastical Tradition but in Answer to this Is not that Truth and Faith concerning Christ's being the Son of God expresly taught and held forth in the Holy Scriptures and which is more doth not Origen himself expresly tell us in this very place for our Compiler is for looking no further than his own Book that that Truth was to be learnt by us ab IPSO from Christ himself whose Words Doctrine and Actions are used to be thought to have been the Subject of the New Testament which I take to be Scripture and as this Doctrine was to be read in the Scriptures so it was delivered down from thence in Ecclesiastical Tradition which can mean nothing else than either that the Scriptures which did comprehend that Faith were delivered down successively from Age to Age in the Church or that this was always taught in the Sermons and Homilies of the Fathers of the Church successively And to give our Compiler a better knowledge of Origen's sence about these things I will refer him to one Passage which I will set down and desire him to consider of it Origen in Leviticum c. 7. Homilia 5. p. 144. Edit Froben 1536. Origen in his Homilies upon Leviticus speaking of the Old and New Testament tells us that in THEM every word that appertaineteh to God by which Expression the least he can mean is that every Point of Faith may be sought after and found out and all Knowledge of things may be apprehended from THEM But if any thing doth remain which the Holy Scripture doth not determine no other third Scripture ought to be received for the Authorizing any Knowledge but we are to commit to the Fire that which remaineth that is we must leave it to God for in this present World God is not for having us to know all things Our Compiler is next for having Tertullian on his side but why does he not then bring us something to prove it or rather why did he not disprove what I had produced for the Authority and Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures from Tertullian He neither does the one nor offers at the other and yet this must pass it seems for vindicating And just thus he serves me after for when I in Vindication of S. Basil had quoted him declaring for the necessity of Scripture-Evidence for Matters of Faith he says not one Syllable in Answer to it but is for referring me to the old Quotations out of Basil Epiphanius and Lirinensis which I had shewn him before were not to the purpose which is such perfect trifling as none but such a Compiler as he is would be guilty of He then falls to thanking me for saying in relation to the Testimony from Gregory Nyssen that we allow the Tradition of Antiquity to be highly useful and necessary in the Interpreting or giving us the genuine Sense of Points of Faith all the Answer I will give him is much good may it do him however how far that Expression was from doing us any hurt or them any good I have abundantly shewn in my Vindication which I am loth to transcribe hither but that I may not be behind-hand in Civility for the Compiler's Thanks I will present him in Token of my Gratitude with a Passage or two from his Gregory Nyssen and other Fathers which I must recommend to his Consideration Gregory Nyssen in his Dialogue de Animâ Resurrectione lays it down for a Position which no Man ought to contradict that in that only the Truth (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen Dial. de Animâ Resurrect Tom. 2. P. 639. Edit Paris 1615. must be acknowledged which hath upon it the Seal of Scripture-Testimony And in another part of his Works he calls the Holy Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem in Orat de iis qui adeunt Hierosol Tom. 2. p. 1084. a true or streight and inflexible Rule S. Austin is as clear and full against our Compiler while he assures us that in those things which are laid down plainly in the Scripture all those things are found which concern Faith or Manners (c) In iis quae aperte in Scripturâ posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi August de Doctr. Christianâ l. 2. c. 9. Tom. 3. p. 17 18. S. Hierom speaking of the Hereticks in his time which made so much noise and pretended so highly to Apostolical Tradition gives this severe Doom upon them but those things also which they of themselves invent and yet feign to have received as it were by Tradition from the Apostles without the Authority and Testimonies of the Scriptures the sword of God doth smite (d) D. Hieron in Aggeum c. 1. Tom. 6. p. 230. Edit Basil 1565. I could give him several such Testimonies from other Fathers but I will neither trouble him or the Reader with any more at present it will be time enough to send him the rest when he hath answered these And will now pass to his next Chapter and the Vindication of it But here it seems there was no need of any Vindication for I am brought in as one of their own side for saying and granting that our Church doth honour the Saints in observing days in honour or memory of them and I have the Compiler's thanks for it here we have had this Concession up once already it made one of the most terrible Articles of Popery against me in our Compiler's masquerading Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England In my Answer to that scurrilous Letter I did sufficiently acquit my self and our
Church in relation to her Practice about Festival Days However our Compiler now he has laid aside his Disguise advances the same Accusation against me in his own Person but considering what Church he was of could do no less than give me Thanks for my Concessions Well then since this Man is not ashamed of serving us up again the very same Objections which I had already answered I must e'en be forced to trouble the Reader with Repetition since the importunity of an Adversary that cannot blush forces me upon it and must tell the Compiler a second time that when our Church doth set apart Days for the commemorating of the Saints which is all the Honour she either gives or intends Them she only appoints them for to bless God for the good and pious Examples of his Saints and Martyrs not to put up Prayers to the Saints themselves nor to offer Praises unto Them but to their God which was the genuine Practice of the Primitive Church as I shewed from the Example of the Church of Smyrna in relation to S. Polycarp their Martyred Bishop Our Church pays no Religious Worship to the Saints themselves but the Church of Rome does not only worship them but is very lavish and extravagant in it as it were easie to shew however as they of the Church of Rome are not imitated by us so neither have they the Example of the Primitive Church to defend their present Practices We do with the Primitive Church honour the Martyrs and Saints and have often enough declared it to be such an Honour as was given to them in the Primitive Times and what that Honour was S. Austin shall determine who in answer to a false Aspersion of the Manichees of the Church's worshipping the Saints upon their Festival Days and at their Monuments told Faustus the Manichee that the Church did indeed worship the Martyrs but that it was with no other Worship than that of Love and Fellowship which is paid to the (e) Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vitâ coluntur sancti homines Dei. D. Aug. cont Faust Manich. l. 20. c. 21. in Tomo 6. Oper. August Holy Men of God while they are alive on Earth That this was no other than a civil worship or respect I hope will not be denied by my Adversary since I suppose he will not pretend to shew that mortal and frail men while on Earth are used to have Religious Worship paid unto them and solemn Prayers offered up to them with all the external indications of devotion As to the Concessions which he pretends I have made and supposes it here again because I did not particularly consider the Testimonies under that Head I must tell him a second time that I neither did grant all that he had collected in the Nubes Testium upon that Subject nor seemed to grant it but did set them aside as needless and am notwithstanding our Compiler far from joining with them in this Point as he falsly would insinuate that I do but this is not the first of such wrongs done to me by this Compiler When he is next come to the Chapter about Invocation of Saints he tells the Reader that I appear with some disconfidence of my cause and therefore says the Compiler p. 19. tho' he pretended in the Title Page that Antiquity for the first five hundred years did not favour this or any Doctrine of the Church of Rome here he has considered better on 't and therefore cutting off Two of the Five he says we cannot shew this to have been the Practice of the first Three Centuries So that here he is willing to give us the Fourth and Fifth Ages as Practising the Invocation of Saints The Compiler quotes for all this the 43. page of my Answer to the Nubes Testium and a little after tells the Reader that I grant that Invocation of Saints was practised in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries If ever I was surpized at the reading any thing in my life it was at this account of my Book against that Chapter in the Nubes my memory of what I had written and this account of it were so diametrically opposite that I could not but immediately look into my Book to see whether was in the fault and quickly found that this Compiler had need to have a very large forehead that would venture at this when my Book was in so many hands For first as to his saying I have cut off two of the five Centuries and only insist on their being not able to shew that Invocation of Saints was practis'd in the First Three Centuries it is very false I neither cut off two of the five nor insisted upon the three first Centuries only but said in that very page and place quoted by the Compiler that I would pass on to Invocation of Saints and see whether the Compiler did shew this to have been the practice of the Three first Centuries and so on does and so on here signifie nothing I did intend it and I question not but the World understood it to mean the two next Centuries to wit the Fourth and Fifth in Controversie betwixt us and yet this Writer hath the assurance to tell the World I had cut them two off He next tells them that I am willing to give the Papists the Fourth and Fifth Ages as practising Invocation of Saints and a little lower that I have granted that Invocation of Saints was practis'd in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries This is just as true as the other for to expose this bold falshood I need turn over only to the next page in my Book and transcribe what I had said there which I intreat the Reader to compare with what the Compiler says of it here Speaking in defence of the Church of England's not practising Invocation of Saints I have these very expressions We have far more reason to reject Invocation and solemn Prayers to Saints as Superstitious since it is against Scripture and against the Practice of the Three first Centuries AGAINST A COUNCIL in the FOURTH CENTURY and WANTS A PATTERN EVEN IN THE FIFTH and SIXTH and hath NO EXAMPLE in ANY of the PLACES produced by our Compiler on this head With what face then could this man write that I had given up the fourth and fifth Centuries Who can believe that such men have in reality either Religion or Conscience that can with so much deliberation commit such a deliberate wrong Had he had any regard to Truth or Honesty his Conscience must have flown into his Face and told him that what he was then writing was a very great injustice and directly false Good God! that men who make such shew of Religion make such frequent appeals unto the God of purer Eyes than either to behold iniquity or to let it go unpunished that talk so often of a day of Judgment and severe reckoning can do such things as must force
much above and more Glorious than the dead Remains of any Saint and therefore must needs be much further from the giving WORSHIP to the Saints Reliques Having thus proved these two things that the Church of Rome doth worship Reliques and that the Primitive Church did not we ought to conclude as to this Point about Reliques that the Primitive Fathers were no Papists but Protestants since they did declare against the Worship of Reliques as much as the Church of England doth and did detest the Worshipping of them as much as we can There is one Great Mistake that the Compiler must be rectified in before I leave this Chapter about Reliques and that is from the Community of Actions and Expressions to gather that the same thing was done by some of the Fathers towards the Reliques that is done now in the Church of Rome He cannot be ignorant that most of the External Expressions of Respect are common to Civil and Religious Worship and yet that no Body is so wild as to conclude from thence that Civil and Religious Worship are the same thing When Abraham bowed himself to the ground before the Children of Heth he used the very same Gesture that he was wont to make use of in his Worship of God and yet I hope our Compiler would not have it concluded from the same Gesture used upon both those Occasions either that Abraham when he bowed to the Children of Heth paid Religious Worship unto them or that he using the same Gesture in the Service of God paid only a Civil Worship unto Him. And yet This is all that he builds upon when he is so earnest about the thing and would confound Civil and Religious Worship by shewing what no Body denies that several of the Outward Expressions of Civil and Religious Worship are the same Whereas notwithstanding the Outward Gestures be the same we do easily know Religious from Civil Worship by the Object to whom it is paid and by the Professions of them who pay it And by this we are able to decide and resolve that Scruple which the Compiler would fain raise about the Matter of Reliques The Primitive Fathers did declare that they were against giving any Religious Worship to Reliques and therefore when we meet with any extraordinary Expressions or Actions among them which might otherwise appear to be Religious we are obliged to look upon them only as Expressions of Civil Worship by reason of the Declaration so often made by them that they did not worship Reliques But for the same Gestures or Actions used by the Church of Rome towards the Reliques or Bodies of the Saints we are obliged upon the very same Reason to look upon them as Expressions of a Religious Worship or Adoration since She hath prevented our taking them in the other Sense by declaring and decreeing in her Council of Trent that the BODIES and RELIQUES of the SAINTS are to be WORSHIPPED or ADORED And further to let him see this by an Instance used by Himself He urges that they used to touch and kiss the Reliques of the Martyrs and shews it from Gregory Nyssen which was the highest Expression of Respect used then towards Reliques Now how far this is from being Religious Worship in them or the same Kiss from being but Civil Worship in the Church of Rome I have already abundantly cleared from the Professions made about Reliques by the Primitive Fathers and by the Church of Rome in her Council of Trent I have insisted the longer upon this Business about the Reliques because the Compiler himself did and have taken the more care to clear the whole Matter about the Worship of Reliques because He took so much pains to disguise and obscure it and by confounding Civil and Religious Worship to bear the credulous Reader in hand that the Church of Rome and the Primitive Church are exactly the same in their Respect to Reliques and that the Church of Rome doth no more pay a Religious Worship or Adoration to Reliques than the Primitive Fathers did the Vanity and Falshood of all which I have fully display'd that so the Compiler being driven out of this Hold and being made ashamed of such groundless Delusions and Distinctions may e'en fall into the Old Track of defending Popery and speak out fairly the Sense of their Church about the Worship of Reliques and defend with the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas Aquinas and his Disciples who Sabran the Jesuit tells us are above One half of the Divines of the Christian World that THE RELIQUES of the SAINTS OUGHT TO BE ADORED He next undertakes the business of Purgatory and finding that I had invincibly shewn that the Primitive Fathers notwithstanding their Prayers for the Faithful deceased did believe that they were at the same time in a state of Bliss of Comfort of Peace of Joy and Light and Tranquillity nay in Heaven it self every one of which is utterly inconsistent with the Condition of Purgatory believed and taught by the Church of Rome He hopes to salve all by granting what he could not deny of the Primitive Fathers believing the Faithful deceased to be in such a Condition and reconciling all this to the Belief of Purgatory in his Church To this purpose he tells us that the supposing those Souls for which the Fathers pray'd to be in a State of Joy and Comfort does most nearly agree with the present Practice and Doctrine of the Church of Rome I am glad to hear this and now I perceive there is none of those torments and burnings in the Case with which the people used to be frighted out of their Wits themselves and to scare one another but the unhappiness is this is too good news to be true and I doubt we shall find by and by that the Romish Purgatory is the very same place that it used to be thought and that it is just as hot and as tormenting and intolerable at this very day as it was six hundred years ago when those lamentable shreeks were so often heard from the poor Souls in Purgatory However since I suppose our Compiler knows himself not to have been so careful of his Life as to imagine he shall escape calling at Purgatory I cannot discommend his making Purgatory as easy as he can and his representing it to be just such a place as he would with all his heart find it when he comes thither He endeavours to prove this agreement from that Prayer in the Canon of the Mass used in their Church wherein they pray God to grant to those his faithful Servants who rest in the sleep of Peace a Place of Comfort Light and Peace In answer to which I will only tell him here that this Old-Prayer in the Canon of the Mass is directly against the present Church of Rome in the business of Purgatory and against what the Compiler hath positively asserted a little after this about Prayer not being made for those in Bliss or those in Hell but only
she would have made her Intentions plain enough by putting down the Praises for the Martyrs as distinctly and as properly as she would the Prayers for others I must not forget to prove this also from that Prayer in the Canon of the Mass urged by our Compiler wherein they pray not only for those Servants of God who have gone before them with the Seal of Faith and rest in the Sleep of Peace but for ALL WHO REST in CHRIST which does comprehend all even Martyrs as well as Saints or Men of Lesser Sanctity and as it includes Martyrs it prays for those whom the Compiler and his whole Church believe to be in Heaven But this Prayer is no more consistent with the Doctrines of the present Writers of the Church of Rome than it is with the present Purgatory of that Church which supposes the Faithful deceased to endure Fiery Torments in order to Expiation whereas this very Old Prayer supposes them to rest in the Sleep of Peace That they prayed also even for the Damned is plain from S. Chrysostom who in his above-quoted Third Homily upon the Philippians did advise such Prayers upon this Perswasion that tho' they could not obtain a Release for them from Hell yet they would procure for them some Alleviation of Torments some small Relief and S. Austin himself seems to be for the same thing when he speaks of the Prayers of the Living profiting so much as either p Aut ad hoc prosunt ut sit plena Remissio aut certe tolerabilior fiat ipsa Damnatio D. August Enchirid. ad Laur. c. 110. to procure a compleat and full Remission or that their Damnation should be made more tolerable Our Compiler cavils before he leaves this Point very rudely at me for saying S. Chrysostom only advises the Oblation of Alms for the Increase of Happiness to his Son's Soul and does very scornfully ask me what means S. Chrysostom's bidding him also pray for the discharge of his Son's Guilt I can answer him without such rudeness in a very few Words That the Increase of Glory was the sole Intention of his praying for the discharge of the Guilt of Sin and that the latter was wholly design'd for the former Thus I have got through that Chapter about Purgatory and have fixed all that I had proved before in my Answer to the Nubes Testium that the Fathers neither knew of nor taught any such Purgatory as the Church of Rome doth and therefore since they believed the Romish Purgatory no more than we of the Church of England they are no more Papists than we are in this thing When he is come to the next great Controversy about Transubstantiation he was resolved to divert himself and his Reader and in order to it by perverting of my sense to make himself sport He pretends to be mightily at a loss what I would have the Doctrine of our Church to be about the Eucharist and brings me in first saying Christ's Body is really present in the Eucharist then that 't is the Body of Christ Figuratively only but within four lines after that it is the Flesh and Blood of Christ ABSOLUTELY without any addition of really or figuratively yet that in the next page 't is not Christ's True Natural Body but his Figurative or Symbolical Body So that he says I play backward and forward in declaring the Doctrine of our Church and make the Sacrament to be really Christ's Body and yet to be Figuratively only that is really not his Body But does this Man believe himself in all this Does he from his heart think that I am guilty of all this confusion and contradiction about this thing I am well enough assured that no Man of the least sense doth find such stuff in my Book it self and therefore that the Compiler did not but was forc'd to abuse my sense and falsify my words in order to his ridiculing of them and me For as to the first passage about Christ's Body being really present in the Eucharist it was occasion'd by my telling Him that the Controversy betwixt the Church of England and Rome is not about a Real Presence which the Church of England did believe when she looks upon the Consecrated Elements not to be the Body and Bloud of Christ themselves but to be appointed by God to exhibit to every faithful Receiver not to every Receiver the Body and Bloud of Christ But for the Consecrated Elements themselves she believes them to be Figuratively only Christ's Body and Bloud the Reason of which I so often inculcated because BREAD and WINE CAN NO OTHERWISE BE THE BODY and BLOUD of CHRIST AND BREAD STILL AT THE SAME TIME and therefore our Compiler ought to blush at his great disingenuity when he brings me in contradicting those very words within four lines of them and says I grant there that It that is the Sacrament is the Flesh and Bloud of Christ ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY ADDITION of Really or Figuratively whereas any Man else would have carried my meaning along with him for so short a way as four lines had I said so absolutely without any Addition of Really or Figuratively but this is absolutely false for immediately after I had granted as to Justin Martyr's words that the Consecrated Food was the Flesh and Bloud of Christ to prevent any such misinterpretation of my words as the Compiler would make notwithstanding it I added these very words However to corroborate what we said above which was that the Blessed Bread is the Flesh of Christ but Figuratively only it is evident to a Demonstration that This Consecrated Food was still Bread and NOT TRANSUBSTANTIATED into the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ Did I here then say it was the Flesh of Christ absolutely without any Restriction or Explication of my words and sense Is this the Candour that becomes a Scholar Is this the Sincerity that becomes a Christian Is this the Veracity of a Priest of the Living God Well Well If this be answering an Adversary I perceive it is no matter whether it be true or false which we write nor whether it be right or wrong which we assert so that we secure our main design of ridiculing or abusing our Adversary That I might state the Controversy betwixt us and Rome aright in this great point I shewed our Compiler that it was whether upon Consecration the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into that very Body and Bloud of Christ which was nail'd and pour'd out upon the Cross or whether after Consecration there is no other substance there but the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ This I told him we expect they should prove and that it is to no purpose to bring us only passages of the Fathers to shew that they gave to the Consecrated Elements the Name and Appellation of the Body and Bloud of Christ and that they said of the Elements that they were Consecrated made or turned into the Body and Bloud of
of that Church cannot evade and this doth so firmly strengthen and back the other Argument against Invocation of Saints drawn from the Practice of the Primitive Church And this one would think would stop their mouths and make them lay aside their Pretensions to Instances of Invocation of Saints practised in the fourth and fifth Centuries to shew them not only that Invocation of Saints was not practised then but that the Doctrine of the first Ages and Fathers were directly against and utterly inconsistent with any such Invocation of Saints as is practised in the Church of Rome And this is that which I will endeavour to shew from the Writings of the several Fathers putting them down methodically in their several Ages to wit That the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers was directly against and inconsistent with any Invocation of Saints Century I S. Ignatius who lived immediately after the Apostles in his Epistle to the Philadelphians gives the Virgins of that Church his advice to direct all their Prayers to the blessed Trinity O ye Virgins says he have Christ h Ignat. in Ep. ad Philadelph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone before your Eyes and his Father in your Prayers being illuminated by the Holy Spirit If they are to direct all their Prayers to the Father and Son I am sure it is against this Doctrine of S. Ignatius to practise Invocation of Saints and direct some of their Prayers to the Virgin Mary and other Saints which the Church of Rome now does expresly against this First Father's Advice Century II The Church of Smyrna in their Golden Epistle concerning the Martyrdom of S. Polycarp giving an Account of the Devil and the Jews slandering them as if they would have left Christ and worshipped Polycarp if they could but gain his Martyred Body expose that gross Calumny by shewing i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. Smyrn in Ep. de Martyr Polyc. p. 27. Edit Usser that Christians could never leave Christ who had suffered all for them nor pay any Worship to any other Person or as the Old Latin Translation hath it nor offer up the Supplication of Prayer to any other Person If they could not do it then I suppose it is not grown more lawful to do it since S. Irenaeus in the same Century discoursing about the many Graces bestowed by God upon his Church and the great benefits done by the Church to the whole World without either design of seducing or desire of gain thereupon says that as the Church doth receive those Graces freely from God's hands so she freely ministers them k Nec Invocationibus Angelicis faciat 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 perficit S. Iren. adv Haer. l. 2. c. 57. Edit Feuardent and then tells us also that the Church doth nothing by Invocation of Angels or Charms or any such curious Art but directing her Prayers purely and manifestly to her Lord who made all things and Invocating the Name of our Lord Iesus Christ doth those Miracles for the good of Mankind not for their seduction As Irenaeus is plain for the Prayers being directed only to God and his Christ and does in express Terms deny that there was any Invocation of Angels practised in the Church then so Clemens of Alexandria in the same Century and not long after him is so express against any Prayers being then put up to either Saints or Angels that he defines Prayer it self to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a conversing with God which had been a very false definition had Prayers then been put up to Saints and Angels also But Clemens had reason sufficient to define Prayer in this manner to the Exclusion both of Saints and Angels since in the same Book he delivers it for the Doctrine of his time that l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexandr Strom. l. 7. since there is but ONE GOOD GOD both we and Angels ought to make our Prayers to HIM ALONE for the obtaining of those good things which we want and for the continuance of those which we enjoy There are a great many more such Expressions to be met with in this Learned Father but this doubtless is able to convince any reasonable Person that in Clemens's time the Doctrine of the Church was that all Prayer or Invocation should be offered up to the GREAT GOD ALONE Century III That there was no alteration made in the next Century in the Doctrine of the Fathers herein we can easily shew from the most considerable Writers of that Age. Tertullian in his Apology for the Christians to the Roman Judges gives an account of the Practice of the Christians that they did invocate the Eternal God for the safety of the Emperours and acquaints them withal that They durst not offer up their Prayers to any other m Nos enim pro salute Imperatorum Deum INVOCAMUS Aeternum Haec ab alio orare non possum quà m à quo me scio consecuturum quoniam ipse est qui SOLUS praestat ego sum cui impetrare debetur famulus ejus qui eum solum observo qui propter disciplinam ejus occidor qui ei offero opimam majorem hostiam quam ipse mandavit Orationem de carne pudica de anima innocenti de spiritu sancto profectam Tertul. Apologet. c. 30. I cannot says he pray for these things to any other but to HIM at whose hands I am certain of obtaining them since it is HE ALONE that does afford them and I alone have a Right of obtaining them that am his Servant and observe HIM ALONE who am killed for his Religion and do offer unto Him that rich and best Sacrifice which He himself hath commanded Prayer proceeding from a chast Body from an innocent Soul and Holy Spirit In his Prescriptions the same Father tells us Idem de Praescript c. 33. that the serving or Worshipping of Angels brought in first by Simon Magus was reckoned to be Idolatry In considering these passages of Tertullian I cannot believe that He and the Church of Rome are of the same Faith as to this very thing about Prayer I am sure this Doctrine of his is no less than Heresy in some parts of the World and that Tertullian and the Honest Monk who translated S. Thomas of Canterbury or to speak more intelligibly Thomas à Becket's Life into English Metre were not of the same Church Tertullian told the Romans that the Christians of his time offered up their Prayers to GOD ALONE for the Welfare of the Emperours and Empire and that it was contrary to God's Will for them to offer up any Prayers to any other but this Romish Monk was of another Church sure when he gives us a very different
practice It will be very acceptable to give the Reader the Monk's Prayer not only for the extraordinary nature of it but for the Saint's sake so famous in England Having finished his Translation of the Saints Life He concludes all with this Prayer to the Saint himself To whom with all devotion now lett ws hartely pray and with this subsequent Prayer thus shall I end and seast O Laureat Precious Martyr preserve the Church all way our Kynge with the Commynaltee and send ws rest and pease The Hed Father of this Monastery with all his both more and lesse Preserve of special grace and pray for the queck and dede which for the Church cause list gladly thy blod shede Vita cum Actibus Thomae Cant. Archiep. in English Metre Translated 1497. in a MS. in Bennet College Library I will pass on to the next Father Origen who will give us the fullest account of the Doctrine of the Church especially in that Treatise which he wrote in defence of Christianity it self against Celsus the eighth Book of which Treatise is almost wholly spent in the proving that all Worship and Prayer are to be offered up to GOD ALONE through our LORD JESUS CHRIST Celsus the Heathen was of opinion that inasmuch as the Angels did belong to God men ought to make Oblations and Prayers to them that thereby they might obtain their favour and Intercession and make them propitious unto them Origen rejects this Advice with indignation Away says he with Celsus's Counsel that tells us we must PRAY TO ANGELS and let us not afford the least ear to it n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΜΟÎΩ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΘΕΩ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΜΟ ÎΟΓΕÎΕΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΛΟΓΩ ΘΕΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen contra Celsum l. 8. p. 395. Edit Cantabr 1658. for as for us Christians we must PRAY TO HIM ALONE who is GOD over all and we must PRAY to the WORD of GOD his only Begotten and the First-born of all Creatures and we must intreat HIM that He as High Priest would present our Prayer when come up to him unto his God and our God. And for the procuring the favour of the Angels he just after tells Celsus that the way to attain it was to lead holy Lives and to imitate the Angels in their uninterrupted service of God assuring him withal that if by that means we have God favourable to us we have all his Friends both Angels Souls and Spirits loving and affectionate to us And before this in his Fifth Book against the same Heathen upon Celsus's inquiry what the Christians lookt upon Angels to be and his answer that though they were wont from their office to call them Angels yet that they found them named Gods in the Scriptures by reason of a certain Divinity in them Origen does prevent the Heathen's Assumption that if they were such they ought to be worshipped by telling him that the Scriptures did not give Angels the Names of Gods so as to command us to worship and adore them instead of God who are ministring o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΠΑΣΑΠ〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΔΕΗΣΙΠ〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΗΠ〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕÎΤΕΥΞΙΠ〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΙΑΠ〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΤΩ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΘΕΩ ΔΙΑ ΤΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΜΨΥΧΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΘΕΟΥ ΔΕΗΣΟΜΕΘΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Origen contra Celsum l. 5. p. 233. Edit Cantab. Spirits bring down to us the Blessings from God. But that ALL SUPPLICATION and PRAYER and INTERCESSION and THANKSGIVING must be sent up unto GOD ALMIGHTY by the HIGH PRIEST who is above all Angels and is the LIVING WORD and GOD. And we must put up our Supplications also unto the WORD HIMSELF our Intercessions also and Prayers and Thanksgivings must be offered up to HIM But to invocate Angels is ABSURD since we do not comprehend the knowledge of them which is out of our reach And granting that the knowledge of them which is wonderful and secret might be comprehended this very knowledge declaring their nature to us and their several charges would not suffer us to presume so far as to PRAY unto ANY OTHER but the GOD who is Lord over all and abundantly sufficient for all by our Saviour the Son of God. I cannot leave this so particular an account of the Church's Doctrine against Invocation without making an Observation from it which is that Origen does make Invocation and Worship to be Synonymous here and does confine them both to the same Object and shews that whatsoever is invocated is worshipped and that since all Worship is peculiar to God alone all Prayer upon that account must be offered up to Him alone and if this was the Church's sense at that time as we are hence certain it was we can very justly gather from it that they were far from either practising or teaching an Invocation of Saints or Angels who were for dedicating all Prayer to God alone and we may also gather this further from it that where any other Fathers do deny any worship's being paid to any Creature they did by that very denyal exclude all Invocation or Prayer being made to any even the most glorified Creature since Invocation or Prayer is one of the chief parts of Worship Origen himself and other Fathers after him as I shall shew at large do make Invocation and Adoration to be the same thing and do prove the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour from his being Invocated or prayed to which would have been a false and an absurd Argument had Saints and Angels been invocated at that time and it would have proved too much since if our Saviour is proved to be God from his being Invocated all the Saints as well as Angels were by the same Argument proved to be Gods had they been Invocated in those days I will give the Reader his words since they are of such extraordinary moment herein Origen commenting upon that passage in St. Paul How shall they call on or invocate him in whom they have not believed tells us that the Jews did not invocate Christ because they did not believe in Him and argues afterwards that if Enos Moses Aaron and Samuel did call on or invocate the Lord they did without doubt invocate Christ Jesus the Lord for if says he in proof thereof to call upon the name p Et si INVOCARE Domini nomen ADORARE DEUM UNUM atque IDEM est sicut INVOCATUR CHRISTUS ADORANDUS est Christus sicut offerimus Deo Patri primo omnium Orationes ita Domino Jesu Christo c. Orig. In Ep. ad Rom. l. 8. c. 10. p. 477 478. Edit Frob. 1536. of the Lord and to ADORE GOD be ONE and the SAME THING as CHRIST is INVOCATED so CHRIST is also to be ADORED and as