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
opposition to this of Rome or to contend with it I believe I have considered this passage a little better than this confident Gentleman who perhaps never saw it any where but in Natalis Alexandre or some Romish Writer and upon all the care I could take I can see no reason for my being accused of fraud in this thing or for altering my opinion of its denying Cathedra's to the rest of the Apostles It first speaks of the Episcopal Cathedra being bestowed on S. Peter at Rome it immediately calls it the one Chair and requires such an Vnity to be preserved by all in this one Chair as to forbid even the Apostles themselves to erect Cathedra's for themselves and makes it Schism to set up a Chair against this SINGLE Cathedra and to secure us from mistaking his meaning it is just after this called the ONLY or SOLE Cathedra If all this be not enough to satisfie that he speaks here of a single and ONLY Cathedra exclusively to any other Chair I must confess I cannot see what words could do it since had it been as much his design here as I verily believe it was to speak of there being but one single Cathedra in the World he could not have used more full and larger expressions to declare his sense And now if this was his meaning in this passage which it certainly was notwithstanding the Compilers weak defence what crime was it in me to shew that this was contrary to the rest of the Fathers and what can be my fault to assent rather to what was the general and certain doctrine of the generality of Fathers than to a small passage in S. Optatus which does certainly contradict all them This account of that passage will I doubt not acquit me of that hard thing I am accused of in the Opinions of all unprejudiced Readers as for the Compiler's Opinion I do not value it and therefore am far from being solicitous to gain it When I did in the next place declare my dissent to two affirmations quoted from S. Hierom I did as it was just set down the reasons of that my dissent my reasons the Compiler meddles not with because it was too hard for him to answer them but thinks he has got advantage enough and he makes triumphant use of it that I durst be so hardy as not to assent to any thing said by S. Hierom as if the words of S. Hierom were sacred and one might as well deny assent to our blessed Saviour's words as to his whereas had this ignorant boaster but been conversant even in Bellarmine and Baronius he might have found them frequently enough setting aside the Authority and Interpretation of a particular Father of S. Hierom for example whose expressions about Presbyters and Bishops I do not believe this Compiler himself does subscribe to any more than I did to those mentioned above but he is too ignorant in these things and therefore makes such tragical and womanish outcries about things for which he would certainly be laught at by all men of learning even in his own Church Having made a little fluttering as to those three passages he thinks he has done very great feats and therefore needed not to trouble himself to examine the rest as they came in their order but makes one answer to serve for them all by telling the Reader I only shift them off and that the most eminent Protestants did acknowledge that the Popes did exercise a like authority with that which is attributed to the Pope by the Council of Florence and so I am shifted off the reason of which is because this Compiler is too ignorant for such things and since it would be ridiculous here to serve us up again the passages themselves out of the Nubes in the Vindication he hath nothing more for us but thinks all is well if he can but bring in the Concessions of Protestants but suppose he could bring such Protestants in why must we be obliged to stand by what they granted or affirmed any more than he thinks himself obliged to be set down by what some Schoolmen have said whom he does so frequently nay always throw by as abusers or mistakers of the Church's genuine Doctrine I used to wonder whence it came to pass that every little Romish Writer could with so much readiness quote the Protestant Writers insomuch that the most trifling Pamphleteer would not fail to serve you up with a last course of the Protestant Concessions Thus the Antiquary of Putney and the Maker of the Ecclesiastical Prospective-glass and the Representer himself not only here but in his other Pamphlets are very punctual in quoting the Protestant Authors whom they have no more read than the Alcoran in Arabick But as soon as I saw Brerely's Protestant Apology I quickly discovered that this was the Armoury out of which these doughty Writers did furnish themselves and that this is the Book out of which they all borrow and very fairly take things upon his credit the truth or falshood of which they know nothing of but why should not such men take their quotations as well as their Faith upon trust and be as confident about the truth of the first as they are of the certainty of the other I will only tell our Compiler again that I do no more pin my Faith upon the groundless Concessions of some Protestant Writers than he does his upon the Concessions of some of his Church-Writers When he is come to his Point about Tradition he is almost for thanking me for giving him but little trouble by granting there almost all that he contended for about Traditions as I had granted as kind things in favour of the Pope As to any Concessions about the Pope I shewed them to be false and groundless in my Answer to the Representer's Letter from a Dissenter by which Answer I question not but I have laid open sufficiently to the World the great Knavery of the Representer in that matter but here he is for charging me again in his own Shape what be had before accused me of in his Fanatical Disguise I have fully vindicated my self about my pretended Concessions as to Tradition and throughly explained in what sense I spoke of Tradition in my Book and as fully exposed the great Disingenuity of the Representer there I do refer the Reader for these things to my Vindication of my self in Answer to the Dissenter's Letter because I would not do like the Representer transcribe one Book into another In my Answer to the Nubes I told the Compiler that his Testimonies about Tradition did refer to matters of Discipline and Practice which every Church hath power to retain or alter as she sees most expedient and that if he intended them for to prove that Tradition doth hand down to us some Points of Faith which we are to receive tho' they cannot be shewn to be founded upon the Holy Scriptures I told him that Sett of Testimonies
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
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
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
this Case He next puts down their Opinion that will have it to relate to those who are just a dying and drawing on but this Opinion he says is generally rejected not only because those that are only drawing on cannot be with any propriety of Speech called the Souls of the Dead but because the Custom of the Church is to use this Prayer for those Souls which have many years ago left the Body After which He concludes that this Prayer is used for those that are in Purgatory and gives us this Exposition of the Words of the Prayer Deliver O Lord the Souls of all the Faithful Deceased from the Pains of Hell that is from PURGATORY-FIRE WHICH IS HELD TO BE ALTOGETHER THE SAME WITH HELL-FIRE and from the Bottomless-Pit and from the Mouth of the Lion that is from the Prison hid under m Juxta haec singula illius Orationis verba exponi possunt nam dicitur Domine libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis Inferni id est à PURGATORIO IGNE qui IDEM prorsus esse perhibetur atque IGNIS INFERNI de profundo lacu de Ore Leonis à Carcere nimirum sub Terram abdito ubi detentae expurgantur animae piorum Ne absorbeat eas Tartarus hoc est ne amplius diutius eas profundi illius Carceris Cavernae vincula remorentur nec Inferni poenae tanquam fauces quaedam belluae immanis saevae truculentae detineant Unde IGNEM PURGATORIUM cum sit IDEM qui IGNIS INFERNI appellat Ecclesia Tartarum Ne cadant in Obscurum id est ne obscurum quas cadentes excepit longius detineat Fr. Raimund Capisucchi Controversiae Theolog selectae Controversia 5 ta p. 237. Edit Romae 1677. the Earth wherein the Souls of the Faithful are detain'd to be purged that HELL may not swallow them up for Ever that is that the Receptacles and Bands of that deep Prison may not stay them further or any longer nor the PAINS OF HELL as the Jaws of some fierce cruel and savage Beast detain them Whereupon the Church doth call PURGATORY-FIRE Hell because Purgatory-Fire and Hell-Fire is the same that they may not fall into outer darkness that is that this Obscure Place may no longer detain the Souls which it receives falling into it Here is the Interpretation of a Great Cardinal of the Church of Rome now alive and which is more the Chief Licenser of all Divinity Books at Rome as Master of the sacred Palace one of the qualifications for which place certainly is to understand the Faith and Doctrines of the Church of Rome Here we meet with him explaining that Prayer in the Mass for the Dead as relating to Purgatory and calling it over and over again a place of Torment Purgatory-Fire and declaring it to be the same with Hell-Fire I took the pains to peruse and transcribe that large passage about the Exposition of this Prayer hither because I could not call it to mind without a secret Indignation that this Cardinal Capisucchi but two years before the Printing of this Book which was not then first written but Reprinted was one of those who Licensed and so much commended the Bishop of Condom's Exposition in which we find an account of Purgatory perfectly inconsistent with what the Cardinal had written in his Controversies In the Bishop of Condom's Exposition we find these expressions about Purgatory This is what the Council of Trent proposes to our Belief touching the Souls detained in Purgatory without determining n Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church By the Bishop of Condom p. 15. in WHAT Their PAINS consists or many other such like things concerning which this holy Council demands great moderation blaming those who divulge what is uncertain or suspected Such is the innocent and holy DOCTRINE of the CATHOLICK CHURCH touching Satisfactions But for all Cardinal Capisucchi's Licensing and approving this passage in that Exposition He himself had written the direct contrary when he makes the Pains of Purgatory to be by Fire and makes Hell-Fire and Purgatory-Fire to be the SAME and not only knew this to be but published that it was the Faith of their Church that does in that Prayer for the Dead call Purgatory Hell because Purgatory-Fire and Hell Fire were the very same All the defence that can be made for Cardinal Capisucchi must be that the Bishop of Condom's words were restrained to the Council of Trent which Council it is certain did not determine any thing about what the Purgatory pains consisted in but this can by no means excuse him since it is false that the Bishop of Condom's words are confin'd to that Council for he just after the mention of the Council says that what he had set down there about Satisfactions in this World or in Purgatory was the innocent and holy Doctrine of the CATHOLICK CHURCH which thing Cardinal Capisucchi did not only know in his Conscience to be false but had written the contrary to it which I suppose he is willing should be thought the truer of the two But granting that the Bishop of Condom's words had been restrain'd wholly to the Council of Trent Cardinal Capisucchi ought not to have Licensed or approved that Bishop's Exposition if he would have approved himself a sincere Man since he could not but know that this passage of the Bishop of Condom about Purgatory was a perfect Juggle and altogether unbecoming a Christian much more a Bishop for tho' the Council had been so reserved about the nature of the Pains in Purgatory yet he knew too well that their Church their Catholick Church had plainly and fully determined about the nature of those Purgatory Pains in her Office for the Dead by which she had spoken her sense intelligibly enough to the very meanest Capacities that those pains are by FIRE by FIRE which is the SAME with HELL-FIRE I will urge this thing no further but only pray to God that those great men may repent of such unwarrantable actions and of such arts which are altogether a dishonour to our Holy Religion I think I have very fully shewn what I did undertake for upon this business to wit that the Romish Purgatory is a place of Torment wherein the Souls of those who are in it undergo the same pains that the damned do and that there is no other difference betwixt Hell-Fire and Purgatory-Fire but that the One is Eternal and the other but Temporal Having shewn all this so effectually from their approved Writers from the Council of Florence from the Catechism ad Parochos and from the Office for the Dead in their Romish Missal it would be the veriest loss of Paper and the greatest affront to Readers of any sense to set formally here to the shewing how inconsistent this Romish Purgatory is with the Opinions of the Primitive Fathers about the State of the Deceased Faithful whom they believed to be when they