Addresses made to Temporal Princes by the mediation of their Officers and shews that the comparison is groundless since Temporal Princes are forc'd to make use of their Officers in such things because they are but men whereas God knows the Merits of all men and therefore no need of a Spokesman to him Did S. Basil or Gregory Nyssen teach Invocation or a Praying to Saints who define Prayer to be a Request for some good thing TO GOD These are the most noted Fathers of the Fourth Century and for the Fifth did S. Epiphanius teach Invocation of Saints who proves the Divinity of Christ as S. Athanasius had done from his being worshipped the most solemn expression of Worship being Invocation or Prayer did S. Ambrose after he rightly understood the Christian Religion teach any such Invocation who said that GOD ALONE was to be INVOCATED Did S. Chrysostom teach it who does so often exhort to our going to God our selves assuring us we shall be sooner heard when we ask our selves than when we ask by another who does with the rest of the Fathers make the Essence of Prayer to be a Discoursing with God Did S. Austin lastly whom the Jesuit names teach Invocation or Prayer to Saints who says expresly that we ought to Pray to or ask of GOD ALONE those things we hope for I am so much accustomed to the Writers of the Church of Rome that I do not so much wonder as I otherwise should at the Jesuits asserting a thing so very false with so much assurance it is too frequent among them to challenge ALL the Fathers when perhaps not one in twenty is on their side and therefore for the Jesuit to assert That all the Fathers of those two Centuries are for Invocation of Saints is meerly a being in the fashion But can he think to impose upon us with such things does he think that Confidence is enough or all that is necessary for the carrying of any cause if he does he shall find himself mistaken since there is too much learning in England to let such bold and false assertions to pass upon and delude the people without controul or putting a stop to them I need not aggravate or further insist on the falseness of all that the Jesuit said there I had rather employ my self to vindicate the Fathers than to expose him and therefore in order to the doing that by answering all the passages quoted out of them by the Jesuit to defend Invocation of Saints I will only request that these two very reasonable Postulatum's may be granted me First That the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries about whom the Controversie is betwixt me and the Jesuit did know the Practices and understand the Doctrines of the Fathers of the Three preceding Ages of the Church Secondly That the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries had so much learning as to understand and so much sense as not to contradict themselves Both these Concessions are so very just that I hope there will be no dispute about them I will then with the help of them begin the Examination of all that the Jesuit hath offered out of the Primitive Fathers in defence of Invocation of Saints And to let the Jesuit see I am not afraid of their best Arguments I will answer that one which is omitted I wonder how by himself but was not only urged in the Nubes Testium but is twice repeated by the Compiler in his Vindication of the Nubes Testium It is the passage from S. Ambrose's Book de Viduis wherein he says Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis Martyres obsecrandi the Angels are to be pray'd to who are appointed for our defence the Martyrs are to be pray'd to whose Patronage we justly claim This passage doth make the greatest shew of any for the Church of Rome however in answer to this we tell them that what S. Ambrose wrote in that Book was not the Doctrine of the Christian Church which S. Ambrose did not understand when he wrote that Book being then but a Novice as not only this passage about Angels but some others in it do very evidently shew and therefore this passage ought not to be insisted on as the Doctrine of the Church then since He doubtless did not at that time understand the Church's Doctrines nor ought it to be insisted on as S. Ambrose's Opinion at least since it is evident that he did afterwards change his mind when he understood Christianity better and did then declare his sense to be that GOD ALONE was to be INVOCATED or PRAY'D TO This Answer is fair and cannot be reasonably gainsay'd however since the Jesuit and the Compiler will be angry at my saying S. Ambrose was a Novice and did not understand the Doctrines of the Christian Church when he wrote that Book I will to prevent their Cavils offer some further reasons in defence of that Answer I have just made I will not insist upon the Concessions of their own Learned Men of the Church of Rome of Baronius for Example who do own that S. Ambrose was a Novice when he wrote that Book and therefore did not throughly understand the Christian Doctrine I have better reasons the chief of which is that this doctrine of praying to Angels and Martyrs is expresly contrary to the doctrine of the Church and the Practice of it in St. Irenaeus's time who tells us that the Church then made no use of any Invocation of Angels in Origen's time who informs us that the Church's Doctrine was that Angels were not to be PRAY'D TO nor Martyrs neither but that ALL PRAYER was to be offered up to GOD ALONE through our Lord Jesus Christ and in St. Athanasius's time who lived but a little time before S. Ambrose and who shews us that no Christian then did Pray to Angel or Martyr or Saint or any other Creature but which is worst of all this Doctrine of praying to Angels is directly contrary to a Canon of a Council of Bishops at Laodicea held not above ten years before St. Ambrose's Conversion to Christianity by which Canon an Anathema is denounced against any person that should Pray to Angels and as if the Council * Can. 35. Concil Laodicen held A.D. 364. had a mind throughly to have secured all Christians from slipping into it they call the Praying to Angels a secret Idolatry and a forsaking of Christ This is sufficient to shew that Praying to Angels was far enough from being either a Practice or a Doctrine of the Primitive Church since it was accursed and branded with the title of Idolatry and to shew further that it was not S. Ambrose's own Opinion when he understood Christianity better we need only look into that Oration I quoted above where he doth expresly teach that GOD ALONE is to be Invocated and Prayed to Had the Compiler of the Nubes Testium known the true State and Doctrines of the Primitive Church during the first four Ages
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
now he had stolen from his own dear self and that we should now be served up again with his 11th 12th 13th and 14th Chapters of his Second Part of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented which is no new thing with him but upon the Perusal of his Book I found that this Title was only for Ornament sake to help his Printer in the Sale of them or to use one of his own dearly beloved Elegancies that this Title is much like his Bartholomew-Fair-Narrative at the outside of a Booth of which he gives such a Critical Account in the first page of his Preface to his Third Part of Popery Misrepresented and Represented as would make one suspect that the Representer uses to be very conversant at that Fair and that he there pickt up most of those pretty Phrases and fine Elegancies which appear up and down his Pamphlets and set them off so very much to the Generality of his credulous Readers Well but tho' the Representer did not formally set himself to shew that the Primitive Fathers were no Protestants yet did he not do it effectually enough in vindicating his Nubes Testium throughly from the Cavils of the Answerer this I know is that he will value himself upon and therefore I come next to examine whether and how he hath done that I must confess that when I saw his Title so promising and his Pamphlet so small I did expect that he would have kept close to his Vindication and would have come up fairly to me in every point and charge but when I came to read him I found him spending page after page in general discourse nothing to the purpose and roving here and there first into Oats's Plot then quickly into the Pulpits then back into the defence nothing but rambling and incoherent Discourse as if his business had been not to give a fair answer to an Adversary but to fill up six sheets of paper with something After I heard of his Intentions of vindicating the Nubes I did not wonder to find such rambling stuff in his Book for I very well knew his Ignorance was so great that it would be impossible for him to do it as it did require the collecting of the Nubes out of Natalis Alexandre is no more than what might have been done by a Bookseller's Apprentice who brought so much learning with him from School as to be able to understand a Latin Author and to translate some passages of him into English But to defend those passages and to prove they were not curtail'd nor abused nor misunderstood nor misapplied did require a knowledge and skill in the Writings of the Fathers themselves out of whom they had been borrowed and therefore the Representer was here at a loss was carried beyond his depth and was hereby ingaged in Matters he knew nothing more of than what he found in his Master Natalis Alexandre who not foreseeing what answers would be made to his several quotations out of the Fathers could not set down his Defences of them and therefore could not supply the Representer in this Emergency wherein he was so hard put to it by his Adversary Yet notwithstanding all this the Representer plucks up a good heart and what he wanted of Learning for this occasion he seems resolved to make up with Considence and therefore talks with as much assurance in his Vindication as if he had the Fathers at his Fingers ends and was resolved to carry the World before him but since he was so hardy as to venture once more into the Combat I think it fit to make up to him and to let him know that I must stop him a while that we two may fairly and calmly examine what hath been written and said on both sides and see whether things have been managed betwixt us as might be expected from those who understood what they were about and had no other design than to make Truth appear which all men will be ready enough to follow At the end of his Book he tells his Reader he hath run through all the Sections of his Answerer but one and talks as if he had been as particular and as substantial in his Replies as any Reader could desire but to let the World see the bold disingenuity of this Representer and to display his Confidence and his Ignorance alike I must take a new method with such a pretender and let the World see how much of my Book he hath not said one word to in defence of the Nubes his dexterity at dropping the defence of his thirty seven Chapters of his Popery Misrepresented and Represented hath been very well shewn in the View of the whole Controversie betwixt him and the Answerer but such things cannot put him to the Expence of but one blush for in his Preface to his last Piece of Popery Misrepresented and Represented he stands to it that as for the Misrepresentations no body can prove that he had not such apprehensions of Popery while he was a Protestant And for the Representations no body can prove that he did not therein give that account of Popery which he had learnt in sixteen years Conversation among the Papists and thinks this answer sufficient and a very good reason why he needed not to dispute but the World is by this time satisfied that there is a better reason why he did not dispute and defend his Characters which is because he had not learning enough to do it And this perhaps will be his next answer to me that in the Nubes Testium he did only represent the Fathers Doctrine and Opinions as he had learnt them in Natalis Alexandre and other Catholick Writers but I will take care to shut up that Door by letting him know that if he quote the Fathers themselves and either falsify or misapply or curtail their words no man else is to be answerable for them but himself and that herein he is inevitably put upon defending what he hath quoted and disputing that such and such is the true sense of the words and the doctrine of such or such a Father And therefore since I was so very particular in my Answer to the Nubes Testium as to follow him from passage to passage and to shew him that such and such passages were nothing to the purpose that others were falsified that a third sort were misunderstood and wretchedly misapplied and gave my reasons and Arguments for it all along He ought either to have been as particular and fair in his Vindication or since he really was unable to do it to have got some Friends to have done it for him but he is for doing all himself and thinks I warrant him that his Vindication will pass well enough upon the Generality of Readers since it is written with an air of Confidence and with such an assurance as certainly persuades the Readers that he has the Truth on his side And therefore I think the greater obligation is upon me to expose such an
affected confidence and I must beg the Reader 's pardon if I begin a tedious but new Method to clear this to the World and shew these two things First a Catalogue of abundance of material points and arguments in my Book to which he hath offered no sort of Answer Secondly The Weakness and Vanity of all that he hath said in Answer to any parts of my Book The clearing of these two things will give a full Answer to his pretended Vindication and will also I do not doubt it put a full End to the Controversie about the Nubes Testium betwixt the Representer and Me. As to the Catalogue therefore I will place the several particulars as they lye in the distinct Chapters and Sections of my Answer but must begin with my Preface wherein I charged him in the first place with affirming not only what was false but what was more than he could know to wit that the Latin of his Nubes Testium was out of such Editions as are most authentick since I shewed it to be false from N. Alexandre's own Confession and that he could not know what Editions N. Alexandre did use because N. Alexandre does not tell the Readers what Editions he used in his Work excepting Christopherson's Edition of Eusebius which all know to be far from being the most authentick To this severe Charge he gives no Reply I charged him also in the Preface with stealing the whole of his Nubes Testium excepting a passage or two out of N. Alexandre This is not denied by him and reason good since every page of my Book did invincibly prove it which hath so much enraged him against me I charged him with stealing his Book out of a forbidden Author every one of whose Volumes used by him in that Plagium had been condemned to the Flames by this present Pope two years before and with his standing Excommunicate by this Pope for his pains This he durst not deny any more than the other since I had reprinted the Pope's Bull it self by which those Books were condemned and the Representer for keeping and using them Excommunicated by this present Pope Answer to the Compiler of the Nubes Testium p. 4. In my first Chapter I accused the Compiler first of quoting some passages as from the 34th 45th and 36th Chapters of St. Austin's third Book against Cresconius which are not to be found in those Chapters To this I have not one word of Reply 2. In the same page I accused N. Alexandre of falsifying a notable passage of S. Austin and the Compiler of obtruding it upon the World so falsified To this not a syllable is offered in defence of either of them Answer to Nubes Testium p. 7. 3. I accused N. Alexandre with falsifying another passage from S. Austin and our Compiler with putting it off so falsified But to this not a word of Reply P. 8 9. 4. I charged our Compiler when he was come to the point of the Pope's Supremacy with giving a false state of that Controversie betwixt us To this I find no Reply P. 10 5. I charged the Compiler with a deluding translation of the Decree of the Council of Florence To this I meet with no Reply P. 12 13. 6. I charged N. Alexandre with affirming a gross untruth in saying the Fathers did with a Nemine contradicente interpret the Rock in St. Matthew to be meant of St. Peter and I charged our Compiler for coming in for his share in it in saying indefinitely that the Fathers teach that Christ built his Church upon Peter whereas I shewed there from Launoy and some Fathers themselves that the Generality of the Fathers nay the almost unanimous consent of them was directly against our two bold and mistaken Asserters To this heavy charge our Compiler in his Vindication was not able or forgot to give one word of Reply P. 21 7. I charged the Council of Florence of being notoriously guilty either of Ignorance or of Forgery in that Decree which they made and our Compiler quoted for the Pope's Supremacy but our Compiler was not at leisure to say any thing in defence either of that Council or himself P. 25 8. I charged our Compiler with citing a passage as out of S. Basil's Comments on Esaiah which not only is not there but the direct contrary to it is in that place and put down from thence by me in my Answer To this not a syllable of Reply P. 26 27. 9. I charged both N. Alexandre and our Compiler of very egregious disingenuity about St. Basil's Epistle which I proved was directed to the Western Bishops not to the Bishop of Rome in particular was sent to beg help and assistance from them not from the Bishop of Rome in particular against Eustathius I proved also that it was not through any Letter from Pope Liberius but through a Letter from the Western Bishops that Eustathius had formerly recovered his Restitution to his See and that the Oriental Bishops did not request that assistance from the West because they had not power enough of their own to have judged and deposed Eustathius but upon a quite different account To all these particular charges of disingenuity and cheat our Compiler durst not offer at one word of Reply P. 27 10. I charged them with falshood in urging a passage in favour of the Pope from Gregory Nazianzen which did concern S. Basil and not the Bishop of Rome as Elias Cretensis and Billius do assure us To this we find no Reply P. 27 11. I charged N. Alexandre and our Compiler with prefixing impertinent and false Accounts to the passage in Athanasius about Dionysius of Alexandria No Answer is given to this P. 27 28 29. 12. I charged them both with perfect Romancing about the business of Julius's taking the Cause of Athanasius into his hands and of his citing him and his Enemies to appear before his Apostolic Tribunal and proved that it was false in every part of it I charged the Compiler with adding to the falshood in saying Athanasius appealed to the Bishop of Rome with contradicting his own Master who had written a Dissertation in which he shewed that Athanasius did not appeal thither nay with contradicting his own next Testimony from Sozomen To this heavy load our Compiler has not a Word to answer P. 31 32. 13. I charged both of them with great disingenuity in calling St. Chrysostom's Letter directed to Innocentius his Letter of Request and with their forgeries about his presenting it I charged them with wholly mistaking that affair To this not a Syllable of Answer or Defence P. 32 14. I accused both of 'em of Ignorance and Disingenuity for affirming that the Synod of Capua had committed to Theophilus the Decision of the quarrel betwixt Evagrius and Flavianus at Antioch when the contrary was as plain as words could express a thing for laying that to St. Ambrose which he had not said But this Charge wants a Reply
and art of pleading guilty and giving a knackish turn to the whole Matter is now got into a merry mood and cannot but send me his thanks for giving the World notice of the Representer's having more Consideration than to take so much unnecessary pains as to read the Fathers themselves in order to his publishing such a Collection of Testimonies out of them I cannot but smile and can hardly keep from laughing out at such a Scene as this well then since he is for thanking me for proving he was so great a Plagiary I cannot in civility but receive his Thanks and assure him withal that I am so very desirous and ambitious of doing things for which I can have thanks from such Friends as he is that I shall always be at his service upon the same account and at the service of all his Friends to let him see how grateful I am to him and will make it my business to deserve his and their Thanks by finding out where they have been stealing their Books and publishing their Thefts to the World as often as I can that so I may have the more of their Thanks But is this Man really serious in giving me thanks in this business Can he be hearty in sending me thanks for the discovery of that thing which hath made him ridiculous and wholly contemptible in the Eyes of all Scholars and I believe I may add in the Eyes of all those who have perused my Answer to his Nubes Testium I must profess that I look upon this as one of the most extravagant things I ever met with in Print and that I cannot refrain giving it its true Name and telling the World that I look upon it to be the very height of Impudence for a man to be so far from being ashamed or from blushing at that which lays him so open to the World and makes him to be hist at and ridiculous to all men as to thank him for it who made him such an Object of Contempt and Derision But he hath something more to urge in his Defence and says he had Authority enough for it since I make F. Alexandre himself a Compiler but never discover the Author made use of by him in his History Here I would gladly know how this can be any excuse to our Compiler that F. Alexandre himself is suspected and believed to be guilty of the same crime as to the reasons of believing F. Alexandre also to be a Compiler I did urge this one that he never that I could observe does tell his Reader what Editions of the Fathers he made use of nor quotes the Page of the Author above once in a thousand Quotations This made me reasonably suspect that he did not deal with the Fathers themselves but with Coccius and Bellarmine and such Voluminous Quoters of the Fathers and I am since much more perswaded and fully confirmed in the Justice of my Suspicion by the enquiries I have made concerning him among Learned Men but especially from one extraordinary Person who knows him very well and hath given me a very good reason why we meet with the Greek Fathers always speaking Latin in this Historian and why he made use of Christopherson's Latin and corrupt Translation of Eusebius in his History who lived at Paris and could not want the convenience of the best Greek and Latin Edition of Eusebius However it is with him I will offer F. Alexandre this choice whether he desires to have the Character of a Compiler or of a Falsifier of the Fathers if he disdains to be thought a Compiler I do here engage that I will at any time prove it upon him that he hath falsified several passages of the Fathers in his History but if he will not endure such an odious Character he must even sit down content with the other Upon the mention of the word stealing the Representer is up in a rage again and is got raving into Oates's Plot and therefore I must leave him swaggering and tearing and doing something worse than that for a page and a half and can rest my self awhile till he is got into his senses again and returned to the Controversie betwixt us two He then tells his Reader that the other Crime I called him to account for was for making use of an Author in this Collection whose Books had been condemned by the Pope two years before This Crime he thinks to get clear off very easily and therefore dispatches it in a very few words But since says the Representer for this he remitts me to my F. Confessor I 'll e'en see to compound the matter with him as well as I can And did I then remit him to F. Confessor Did I remit it to the Confessor to decide whether the Pope had by his Breve condemned Natalis Alexandre's Books to the Flames Did I remit it to him to decide whether the Pope had by that Breve forbidden the faithful of what condition or state soever under the pain of Excommunication immediately incurr'd the keeping or reading any of those Books Did I remit it to him to decide whether the Representer who had not only kept but transcribed and Printed part of those condemned Books had incurr'd or no that severe Sentence of Excommunication which his Confessour can no more absolve him from than I can since the Pope hath reserved that Absolution solely to himself and the Popes of Rome Every syllable of this is so utterly false and groundless that I should admire at it in any other Person than the Representer All that I said in relation to the Confessor was that this bold contempt of the Pope's Breve seemed to be a trial of Skill about Infallibility betwixt the Compiler and the Pope and that I would refer the Decision of this unto the Compiler's Confessour which any one else would have seen that I spoke it Ironically and was far from leaving it to the Confessour to decide whether the Compiler did stand excommunicated for the pains he took in collecting and Printing the Nubes Testium Every body knows of their brags of Discipline and of their professed Obedience to the Pope in the Church of Rome but this behaviour of the Representer and of Sabran the Jesuit whom I catcht in the same Crime and Disobedience will satisfie most people how little some Mens Writings agree with their Practices and what little credit is to be given to their so much celebrated Discipline when those that make the greatest noise about it are at the same time discovered to be the most notorious Offenders against it Having dispatcht all that he has offered in defence of himself about the stealing his Book out of a forbidden Author I cannot but ask him before we part upon this point whether it had not been better for him not to have medled any more with those things which were so evident that they could not be denied and so criminal that they could not be defended without the forfeiture
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
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
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
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
Christ since we can demonstrate to them that by the Body and Bloud of Christ which the Fathers said the Elements were made they meant always that Body of Christ which in contradistinction to his Natural Body which he took from the Virgin Mary and his Mystical Body which is his Church we call Christ's Symbolical or Figurative Body And therefore Our Compiler is miserably out in his Vindication when he thinks to carry his Cause by repeating only what he had put down more at large in his Nubes Testium and by supposing the very words of Body and Bloud of Christ sufficient Reply to all I had said in my Answer to the Nubes I did not say only this means and that signifies only so and so as he would represent me to do in answer to any thing that did seem strong against us but did all along give my Reasons for such things till to repeat them further to the same Objections would have been more tedious to the Reader than me He talks as if the Fathers were clearly in their possession and wholly on their side and therefore that he need not much concern himself in confuting some untoward passages out of the Fathers urged by us against Transubstantiation since he supposes the Fathers are on their side and would not contradict themselves else surely we should find Him answering fairly to our Objections as I had done to all his But this is not the Man's way tho' he is desirous it should be his Adversaries but for himself he writes as if the Controversy had not made one step forwards betwixt us two But to let the World be judge also what a sort of an Adversary he is I will very briefly run over his first Testimonies in the Nubes and my answer to them and shew how He does reply To the passage from S. Ignatius that the Eucharist was the Body of Christ I answered that it was but that it could be Figuratively only so since Bread could no otherwise be the Body of Christ and Bread still to this he makes no Reply In Answer to the passage from the Council of Nice about not minding the Bread and Wine before us but raising up our minds by Faith to consider the Lamb of God offered by the Priests without shedding of Bloud I shew'd him it meant only that Communicants should by Faith represent to themselves the offering of the Lamb and that had he but transcribed on the rest of that passage out of his Master Alexandre every one would have seen at first blush that by the pretious Body and Bloud of the Lamb was not meant Christ's Natural Body but his Figurative only since the Communicants are advised to take but a small portion of his Body and Bloud and that tho' it is sense to talk of receiving little or much of the Elements yet that it is not sense to talk of taking a little or much of the True Natural Body of Christ To all which there is no Reply and Reason good since there was not room for any And when in the next place to explain a very obscure Passage in S. Hilary I had produced a place that proved he did not believe any Annihilation or Transubstantiation of the Elements since he says it was Wine which they drank in the first Institution of the Eucharist the Compiler had nothing to reply with and therefore runs back and makes much adoe with the obscure Passage In answer to S. Cyril he was told that that very Passage wherein the Bread is said by Christ to be his Body was proof sufficient that Cyril did not believe Transubstantiation since as I had urged before Bread can be Christ's Body only Figuratively To this he gives no manner of Reply but when I had further answered that Cyril had spoken as lofty things of the Chrism-Oyl as he does of the Eucharist and that no Body for all that did believe that the Chrism-Oyl was Transubstantiated tho' he said it was no longer bare or common Oyl he asks me whether Cyril said that Oyl is changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ A Question so ridiculous that I would forgive no Body the asking it me that had three Grains of Sense S. Cyril if this Compiler knew any thing of Him does compare the Change in the Eucharist to this in the Chrism-Oyl but I would feign know how the one Change does illustrate or prove the other when according to the wise Masters of the Church of Rome the one is changed in its very Substance but the other is not It is a tedious thing to have to do with People that know nothing of the Fathers themselves but by a little Quotation which they make such a fluttering with and as much noise as if they had read them through and understood them as throughly To his next Authorities from Gregory Nyssen about the Body of Christ being received into our stomach and making our Bodies Immortal by the Dispersion of the Sacrament into our several parts in order to their being cured of that poison which had affected every part and made them Mortal I shew'd him that this was directly against them since this nourishing of our Bodies in a strict and proper sense cannot without Blasphemy be attributed to the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ All the Reply he makes to this is to ask What need of nourishing here in a strict and proper sense My Answer is very ready because this was the general opinion of the Fathers That our Bodies are nourished with the Sacramental Body and Bloud of Christ This I did abundantly clear in my Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney and made it the Instance of my Second Corollary against Transubstantiation in that Book Veteres Vindicati p. 93 94. that to attribute a nourishing of our Bodies to the Sacramental Body and Bloud of Christ doth altogether exclude their being Transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ and that the Fathers did attribute such a Nourishment of our Bodies to them I proved from Justin Martyr who did assert in plain terms That our Flesh and Bloud are nourished by the Consecrated Elements being changed into our Substance from Irenaeus and Tertullian That our Flesh is fed and nourished with the Body and Bloud of Christ I proved it from Origen who says That the Eucharist as to its Material Part goes into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught from Isidore of Sevil from Rhathramn and from our Saxon Paschal Homily which proves that the Eucharist is corruptible for that it may be broke into several Pieces grinded by the Teeth and cast out into the Draught I will add to these but one other Proof from Rabanus Maurus who lived in the Ninth Century and does not only tell us That the Sacrament is made to nourish our Bodies p Sacramentum enim in ali mentum corporis redigitur Sicut ergo in nos Id convertitur cum Id manducamus bibimus
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