witness And he shall be intestate and not have power to make a Will nor come to succession of inheritance And no man shall be forced to answer him in any cause but he shall be forced to answer others And if he be a Judge his sentence shall be invalid and no causes shall be brought unto his hearing If he be an advocate his Plea shall not be admitted If a Notary or Register the Instruments made by him shall be utterly void and damned with the damned Author And so in other the like cases we command that it be observed Thus the Council The Summ of which is that all the Pope calls Hereticks must be condemned and destroyed That all Kings Princes or Lords that will not execute his sentence and root them out must be dispossessed of their Dominions and the subjects absolved from fidelity whatever Oaths they had taken and all others that do but favour or receive them be utterly undone and exterminated Now seeing our Author tells us that the determination of a general Council is infallible truth and we have this with the decernimus firmiter statuimus of a general Council this must be acknowledged to be so Indeed I confess that some Romanists do affirm that this is not the genuine Decree of the Lateran Council but only of Pope Innocent foisted in amongst the genuine Decrees Epist Monit ad Johannem Barclaium But against this Eudaemo-Johannes asks if the business were so Cur in editione hujus Canonis ne Vnus quidem reclamavit cur ne unus quidem ex tot Imperatorum et Regum oratoribus mutire ausus sit Yea why is it so generally Extant in all Editions Coâ—t Barclaium 2. Bellarmine tells us that it was defined in a general Council at Leyden under Innocent the fourth in a Roman Synod under Gregory the seventh Ad quam plurimi Episcopi undique convenerant omnibas consentientibus laudantibus to which there was a general Conflux of Bishops from every place who all consented to and applauded the determination and by another at Rome under Paschal the second by one at Colen under Gelasius the second at Rhemes under Calixtus the second at Beneventum under Victor the third at Placentia under Vrbane the second and further that it was the judgement of twenty one prime leading men in Italy and as many in Spain fifteen in France twelve in Germany England and Scotland seven besides many others which unquestionably he had not read I say he tells us that it was the judgement and definition of all these that it was in the power of the Pope to Excommunicate Kings and Emperours and deprive them of their Kingdoms if they be Hereticks and must it not thence follow that this Dominus fac totum this Lord Paramount may dispose of their Dominions to others and they obtaining thus a right may invade the King and exterminate all that do oppose them all that are Loyal to their Soveraigns doth it not hence follow that their subjects thence forwards are absolved from their obedience to them and may make insurrections against them without scruple and then not to add their Jesuites Oaths of blind obedience to go whethersoever and do whatsoever the Pope shall be pleased to require is it not sufficiently evident that even the Canons of the Church of Rome do allow the effusion of blood upon religious accounts CHAP. II. Why this Work was undertaken by the Author Sect. 1. M. C ' Protestation incredible Sect. 2. His Slur cast upon his Majesty Sect. 3. OCcasionally perusing this Author Sect. 1 and examining his arguments and quotations I found by a little enquiry that there was scarce one single allegation in his book that was not either disingenuously forged or fully and satisfactorily answered already by Protestant Divines and therefore I thought it proper for such a one as I though I should profess no greater abilities then to write and read to evince this unto the world and to make it appear that the greatest Champions of the Roman Church are able to bring nothing in the defence of their Novelties but old and bafled arguments such as any man may Answer who can write and read And here I tremble to consider Sect. 2 that our Author should be so imprudent to say no worse to call God to witness upon his soul Pag. 10. that his purpose was studiously to avoid all cavilling distortions either of Text of Scripture or the holy Fathers and much more those falsly called pâ—as fraudes corruptions of either And that he would alledge nothing as a proof which for the present he thought could possibly be answered For let any man read what is answered to his defence of the infallibility of the Church Purgatory Invocation of Saints Celibacy of Priests but especially Transubstantiation and the Popes Supremacy and if he do not find Scriptures miserably distorted Fathers not only wrested but corrupted I will forfeit presently my life And is it possible that any man should believe him perswaded that his proofs are unanswerable who knows that he hath read and so diligently perused the famous Chillingworth and Reverend Dr. Hammond out of whom I have transcribed so many satisfactory Answers to his arguments He that considereth his Discourse upon the Churches practice of Praying in the Latine tongue will find it altogether unpossible for him to imagine that there is any thing of truth in what he here asserts with such a solemn invocation of Almighty God And Thirdly Sect. 3 Whereas he accuseth the learned Doctor of open Disobedience to his Majesty Pag. 11. of transgressing his injunctions to his very face doth he not cast a slur upon his Majesty in making him so highly pleased with such notorious disobedience as to give special command that his Sermon should be Published and consequently others be encouraged to commit the like enormities to his face CHAP. III. The Challenge of Bishop Jewel owned by us Sect. 1. M. C's malitious accusation of our Church Sect. 2. His mistake Sect. 3. Antiquity not acknowledged to run contrary to us Sect. 4. His abuse of Dr. Hammond ib. Not We but the Romanist self-condemned Sect. 5. This evidenced from their Indices expurgatorii Sect. 6. M. C's Mistake rendring his whole Book impertinent Sect. 7. An Answer to his Questions Sect. 9. Scripture not abused by the Doctor ib. IN this third Chapter You begin with a bold assertion Sect. 1 Defen Eccl. Ang. c. 15. and again c. 18. s 3. Ecclesia illius temporis ad 600. annos sola nostra est nihil omnino ab ea vel decretum vel receptum pro sidei dogmate quod non est nostrum vide quae sequuntur Demonst of the Problem in fine Defence of the way c. 43. F. Ap to his third Book That Bishop Jewel and the Doctor are singular in the matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves and imputing Novelty to the Catholick Church whereas we
to what these testimonies seem to speak nor doth he there say as our Author cites him Baptisme alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants indeed one of the places tels us that there is full remission of sins in Baptisme and consequently if the person Baptized should instantly depart this life si continuo consequatur ab hac vita migratio he will not be obnoxious to any thing agreeable to which is the place cited from venerable Bede but hence we can only infer that St. Austin thought in such a case of absolute necessity they might be dispensed with through the mercy of God but yet 't is evident he held they had a right to the Sacrament and that ordinarily it was necessary to their obtaining life eternal Which also most evidently appears from the Book cited by our Author cap. 24. he cites cap. 22. From an Antient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them that without Baptisme and the participation of the Lords Supper no man can attain to the Kingdom of God nor yet to life eternal which after he had endeavoured to prove from 1 Peter 3. and John 6. he proceeds thus If therefore so many testimonies Divine convince us that everlasting life is not to be expected without Baptisme and the body and blood of Christ 't is in vain to promise it to children without them Now if this opinion which St. Austine saith was so deeply setled in the See Austin ep 95. De usu Patrum p. 263 264. Church of God and which was held by Innocent the first by St. Cyprian and others as Dally may inform you be not a flat contradiction to the Trent Councils Anathema upon those who hold Parvulis necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem let any reasonable man judge CHAP. X. The Question stated by Mr. C. Sect. 1. Prayer for the dead infers not Purgatory Sect. 3. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome not faithfully related Sect. 4. Prayer for the dead not of Apostolical Antiquitie Sect. 5. The Testimony of St. Denis considered Sect. 6. Of Tertullian Sect. 7. Of St. Cyprian Sect. 8. St. Chrysostome Sect. 9. Eusebius Sect. 10. Epiphanius Sect. 11. An evasion confuted Sect. 12. St. Ambrose Sect. 13. St. Austin not for Purgatory Sect. 14. Mr. C s. Dilemma considered Sect. 15. Arguments against Purgatory Sect. 16 17. Mr. C s. Argument Answered S. 18 19. IN this Chapter our Author tells us Sect. 1 That the Church obligeth all Catholicks no further Sect. 4. 5. 111 112. then simply to believe there is a State or place of Souls in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Prayers whereupon he gives us a Prayer of the Mass which mercifully desires to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshment light and peace through Christ our Lord and also another which beseecheth the Lord to absolve the soul of his servant from all the Chains of his sin Now saith he if it can be demonstrated That by the Universal practice of the Church such Prayers as these were made for the dead it unavoydably follows that the souls for whom they are made are neither in Heaven nor Hell and if so where are they Dr. Pierce speak like an honest man Sect. 1 Answer This is a shrewd Argument which forceth the Doctor either to lose his Honesty or his Cause But sure the Case is not so desperate For were this the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which yet is an evident untruth and were these Prayers used from the beginning and that through the Universal Church of God which cannot be proved yet would I defie his Conclusion and his Argument to infer it For 1. Sect. 2 If Prayer for a place of refreshment exclude the person prayed for at present out of Heaven then is there not one Saint one Martyr nay not the Virgin Mary her self now in Heaven seeing the Prayer begs this to all that rest in Christ Sess 9. De invocatione Sanctorum and then farewel the Council of Trent which talks of Saints reigning with Christ aeterna felicitate in Coelo fruentium Nay the Liturgy of Saint James prayes for the Spirits of all flesh which they had prayed for and which they had not from righteous Abel to that very day that they might rest in the Region of the living in the Kingdome of God in the delights of Paradise in the bosome of Abraham Isaac and Jacob And yet will our Authour say That there is not one of these souls in Heaven And so for the absolving of their sins which is his second instance The Liturgy of Saint Crhysostom Prayes for all the Fathers and Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that had gone before them for all that had laboured and administred in the Holy Function before them for the forgiveness of the sins of the builders of their Mansions worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance and prayes God to pardon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Orthodox Fathers and Brethren which slept in the Communion of God in the hope of the Resurrection and Eternal Life Dall de Satisfact page 510. And likewise Saint Augustin prayes for his Mother that the Lord would pardon her sins Confes l. 9 c. 13 I know O Lord saith he That she was merciful and from her heart forgave her Debtors Do thou therefore forgive her debts if she hath contracted any after her Baptisme for so many years Forgive her Lord forgive her I beseech thee do not thou enter into judgment with her And so on and yet the same Austin tells us what ever it be that is signified by Abrahams bosome there his Mother is ibi vivit nam quis alius tali animae locus for what other place was fitting for her Of such prayers our Author may find good store in Dall ubi supra pag. 520. Now then is Abrahams bosome Purgatory Are all the Orthodox Fathers in Purgatory or if not is it not evident that the Church hath made such prayers for those that are not in Purgatory Sect. 4 2. We shall tell him in the sequel of the Chapter That these prayers of the Fathers depended partly upon suppositions exploded by the Romanist himself partly upon other things which cannot suppose a Purgatory in the mild'st sence Sect. 5 But is it true that the Romanist's Purgatory is onely a place wherein souls are capable of receiving help or ease by prayers why then may it not be Heaven for the souls there may be help't to a fuller state of Glory by our prayers as the Fathers generally affirm 2. The Trent Council tells us that the Catholick Church out of Scripture and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers and the holy Councils hath taught us that there is a Purgatory and thereupon commands the Bishops to be diligent that the sound Doctrine of Purgatory taught by the Fathers and Councils should be believed held and every where preached Now
Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving thanks or praying to God the Father by him he thus Paraphraseth do all things to God bring not in Angels doest thou eat give thanks to God or pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See 1 Cor. 14.16 17. before and after meat doest thou sleep give thanks to God before and after and so in other things And that prayer is one of these things that must be done to God and not to Angels appears from that which follows Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lat. orantem vel quidvis facientem whatever you do in word or deed that is saith he either praying or doing any other thing then presently after he tels us that it was the Devil that brought in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Invocating and worshipping of Angels for he is speaking still of Prayer and this he did envying us that honour of going immediately to the Trinitie or Christ but saith he be he Angel or Archangel yea or Cherubin do not suffer it much less if he be a Saint only for they will not endure it but shake you off when they see this contumely done unto their Lord. I have honoured thee saith God and said call upon me à nd thou dishonourest him Viz. by invocating Angels or others besides him Sect. 23 Thirdly the Fathers argue that Christ is God blessed for ever because he is invocated by us and accepteth of our prayer and therefore could not invocate the Saints whom they esteemed not to be gods Thus Origen Saint Paul when in the beginning of the Epistle to the Corinthians L. 8. in Ep. ad Rom. c. 10. he speaks thus with all that call upon the name of Christ Jesus pronounceth Jesus Christ whose name is called upon to be God De Trin. c. 14. and Novatian If Christ be only Man why is a Man invocated in our prayers as Mediator seeing the invocation of a Man is judged of no force to yield salvations why is there Hope reposed in him seeing hope in man is said to be accursed so likewise Athanasius C. 16.23 in the place forecited Cyril of Alexandria upon that of Saint John If you ask any thing in my Name I will do it crieth out He clearly manifests himself to be God in that he promiseth to receive our prayers Theophilus Alexand. Paschae Sec. How will they call upon him in whom they have not believed We must therefore first believe that He is the Son of God that our invocation of Him may be right And as he is not to be worshipped who is not God So on the contrary He is to be worshipped who is manifestly so Yea the Council of Laodicea decreed that we ought not to forsake the Church of God Can. 35. S. 24. and depart aside and invocate Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and make meetings which are things forbidden If any man therefore be found to give himself to this privie Idolatry let him be accursed because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and betaken himself to Idolatry Some very wisely would read angulos corners and make the Councel forbid the invocating corners Brev. Can. S. 90 Cod. Con. num 138. Brev. Can. S. 184. Henric. Canis Tom. 6. p. 424. but the Greek expresly readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in that Tongue hath no affinitie at all with corners Cresconius Dionysius Exiguus Fulgentius Ferrandus and pope Adrian in the Epitome of the Canons which he delivered to Charles the Great at Rome readeth Angelos and Theodoret gives us the mind of the Synod thus The Synod of Laodicea following this rule viz. of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the 3d. chap. of the Col. v. 17 On the 2d chap. Col. 3.17 of coming to the Father by Christ and not by Angels and desiring to heal that old Disease made a Law that they should not pray unto Angels nor forsake our Lord Jesus Christ And again The Synod forbad them by Law to pray unto Angels And Oecumenius saith The Synod of Laodicea did by Law forbid to come unto Angels and pray unto them Yea in that great Council of three hundred thirty eight Bishops at Constantinople l. 1. de Con. c. 6. which Binius and Bellarmine stile general these two Canons were fraâ—dulently inserted 1. Defin. 15. Conc. Const citat in Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. pag. 380. Ib. Defin. 17. Crakanth Def. Ec. An. pag. 420. Ab omnibus rejectum est For which the cites Paul Dial. l. 22. and again Omnes uno ore rejicerunt sanctorum invocationem Cannonem illum Notis in Con. Const sub Steph. 30. If any with a sincere Faith implores not the Intercessions of the Virgin Mary let him he Anathema 2. If any one shall not confess all the Saints to be Honourable before God and shall not entreat their prayers let him be Anathema But when the definition came to be read in the Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they rejected them and caused them to be blotted out and this saith the Conluter Act the 6th 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all men know yea further they bound their Members or themselves by an Oath Juramentum Sacro Sanctum solenne à suis exegerunt That they would never invocate the Saints Apostles Martyrs or the blessed Virgin as Binius relates Yea Lastly the greater part of the Fathers viz. Irenaeus l. 5. in fine Justine Martyr qu. 76. Tertull. ad Mar. l. 4. Clem. Rom. l. 2. Hypotepos Origen Hom. 7. in Lev. Lactantius l. 7. Institut c. 21. Victorinus Com. in Apoc. c. 6. Prudentius Hym. pro exequio defunct Ambrosius l. 2. de Cain Abel c. 2. Chrysostome Hom. 39. in 1. ad Cor. Austin in Ps 36. Euthymius in c. 23. luc Theodoret in cap. 11. ad Heb. Arethus in Apoc. Oecumenius in cap. 11. ad Heb. Cont. Whit. 1. c. 2. In part 2. direc inquis Com. 21. denied the souls of the Saints to have nay enjoyment of the beatifical Vision and this is acknowledged by their Stapleton and Franciscus Pegna and therefore these Fathers according to their own doctrine and practice of invocating only the Saints in Glory and the fruition of the beatifical Vision can not be reasonably supposed to have held the Invocation of Saints To Conclude I know what Distinctions they use of Prayer direct and indirect of prayer relative or terminative c. but First They are onely shifts to cover a desâ—erate cause the Fathers never used any one of them on this Occasion but reject this worship invocation without such distinctions even in those places where it seemed necessary to have used them had they been acquainted with this Sophistry yea Celsus and others intended no more Secondly These distinctions are equally serviceable for the evacuating the Fathers Argument hence for the Divinity Christ And Lastly are contradicted by the Fathers Let one Athanasius speak for all who not content to tell the
persist in Bishop Jewels challenge unanimously and are rather willing to enlarge it then contract it Dr. Crackentborp doth not only tell you That Bishop Jewels provocation was most just but reitterates it himself and adds that albeit this worthy Prelate the Chariots of our Israel and the Horsemen thereof is now in Heaven yet hath he left behind him in the Camp of the Lord many Valiant men who dare without the least fear provoke all your Philistines and Goliahs to the like Battel Yea further that he would not be very bold or rash qui numerum istum plusquam duplicet which is consonant to that of Mr. Perkins No Apostle no holy Father no sound Catholick for 1200. years after Christ did ever hold or profess that Doctrine of all the principles and grounds of Religion that is now taught by the Church of Rome and authorized by the Councel of Trent Dr. White you know riseth up to 800. years and Dr. Fields Appendix clearly proves that the Latine or West Church in which the Pope Tyrannized was and continued a true Orthodox and Protestant Church and that the devisers and maintainers of Romish errours and superstitious abuses were only a faction in the same at the time when Luther not without the applause of all good men published his propositions against the prophane abuse of Papal indulgences Yea Mr. Baxter insults over you in this matter and tells you There was never such a creature as a Papist known in all the world till 600. Safe Rel. p. 175. years after the birth of Christ we confidently affirm saith he elsewhere and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us P. 118.119 that Popery is a Fardel of new Doctrines unknown to the first Churches And again let any Papist living bring out their cause to the tryal of Antiquity and let them that are of the most antient Church and Religion carry the cause yea further he desires no better recreation then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papist that will undertake their cause I hope you will take up the Cudgels To pass over your impertinent Citation of Beza Sect. 2 Melancthon p. 17. c. persons that are strangers to us 1. You malitiously accuse our Church for leaving out these words in the Roman office V. Be mindful of thy Congregation O Lord R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning Because say You apparently the Church from the beginning could not be ours Yea You add We had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church then for that which was from the beginning Answ This is a very uncharitable surmise and it might as well have been concluded that because the first Reformers have left out the words immediately ensuing V. Fiat pax in virtute tua R. Et abundatia in turribus tuis That they had rather the English Church should have no Prayers then that she should pray for the peace and prosperity of the Church Catholick 2. The surmise is the more uncharitable in that our first Reformers so solemnly profess they rejected nothing but your innovations and superstitions and that the Religion they had chosen was everywhere conformed to the primitive Purity how unreasonable is it upon such pittiful surmises to conclude that all these Reformers should be such gross and notorious Hypocrites and should so solemnly profess what was so great a contradiction to the convictions of their conscience 3. Yet had it been purposely left out by them least it should be offensive to some weak people not able to distinguish betwixt a Reformation and an Innovation betwixt the Purgation of a Church from its superstitions and the introducing of a new Religion would it have deserved such Sinister Constructions or have been blame worthy You tell us Bishop Jewel had not the confidence to reckon in his Catalogue as novelties the infallibility of the Church Sect. 3 P. 19. invocation of Saints purgatory prayer for the dead celibacy of the Clergy or Sacrifice of the Mass Answ You are still weak in your deductions to let pass your mistake of the sacrifice of the Mass which was one of the Novelties he charged you with may I not in like manner argue that M. C. had not the confidence to defend traditions not mentioned in Scripture as necessary to salvation and to be embraced with equal authority to the Word of God nor the Trent Canon of Scripture because he declined the doing of it In your twentieth Chapter You renew the discourse of Antiquity Sect. 4 P. 309 c. and when the Doctor had most truly said that you never have shewed that Iota in which we have left the yet uncorrupted or primitive Church or the four first general Councils you are put into a passion and call this most palpable and notorious truth a shameless boast And then you send us to Simon Vogorius Ibid. as if we could not send you to twenty Authors that have answered and bafled what ever he or others of your party can alledge You send us to your Chapter of the Celibacy of Priests to view your forgeries there Pag 3 12â— Again You cite such concessions of men some of which are meer strangers to us as that no rational man can think you did believe them to be pertinent for what if Luther saith there was never any one pure Council but either added something to the faith or substracted must we be accountable for all Luthers words 2. How will you evince that he speaks of such things as are matters of dispute betwixt us or that we esteem these things to be additions or substractions which he did and what if D. Whitaker assert that to believe by the testimony of the Church is the plain Heresie of the Papists did ever any Protestant say otherwise do not the Fathers require us to believe them upon the sole authority of Scripture reason or tradition handed down from the Apostles which to be sure the Doctor never dreamt of but the Carbonaria fides you so often speak of and whereas he saith that the Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the fathers errours sown together viz. Origen Tertullian c. See the fragments of old Heresies out of which he proves Popeâ—y to have risen and with which to symbolize To. 2. p. 800. 2 Thes 3. is it not perfectly ridiculous hence to conclude that we deserted Antiquity in deserting these errours And again to what end do you cite Dr. Willet speaking of your supposed Antiquity is that a confession that Antiquity is Yours then must he confess that all the Doctrines which you maintain are reall truths because by you they are supposed to be so What if he tell us from Scripture Antichrist began to raign in St. Pauls days that the Mystery of iniquity did then work did he speak of your Papal Supremacy then evidently did the Apostle also for to his sentence he refers did he not then is
I ask whether the Scriptures Thus Bellarmine lib. 2. c. 10. That there is some fire in Purgatory appears from these words of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 3. He shall c. So also from the Testimony of the Fathers eited in the first Book who generally call the punishment of Purgatory fire and this he puts among the thing in which all agree upon which especially they build their Purgatory be not such as these They shall be saved yet so as by fire some sins are forgiven in this world some in the world to come And as for the Tradition of the Fathers is not the purging fire they speak of most insisted on And do not many of the places cited by our Author speak of the pardon of their sins Well then if this was the Doctrine confirmed by Scripture and delivered by Tradition of the Fathers then must Purgatory needs be a place of fire wherein the souls are tormented or something analogous thereunto 2. It must needs follow that Purgatory is a place where souls be imprisoned till they have satisfied for their sins 3. Is it not the common Doctrine that sounds almost in every Pulpit that Purgatory is a place under the Earth in the lower regions of it wherein some souls departed are grievously tormented and where they are to continue till they have satisfied Gods Justice for some venial sins unless they can be helpt out sooner by the prayers of the living sacrifice of the Mass indulgences of the Pope c. Let Master Cressy speak his Conscience whether this be not the Doctrine most frequently taught in their writings and in their Sermons ad populum And being so I ask him whether it be the sana doctrina the Trent Council speaks of If it be not then are all their Bishops disobedient to this Council which charges them to look to it generally that the sound Doctrine be taught And if so either this disobedience is wilful and contrary to their knowledge and so they live continually in a wilful sin or from ignorance of the true Doctrine of the Church and then must our Author say that he knows the Doctrine of the Church better then all these Bishops If it be then is the Doctrine which we commonly oppose the Doctrine of the Church of Rome Again are these things tending to Edification or not if not then are all the Bishops in fault for suffering them to be taught contrary to the Council If they be then I hope they are the sound Doctrine of Purgatory The Trent Council speaks of Again De Puigatorio Their Bellarmine will tell us l. 2. c. 6. That Purgatory is in a place nigh unto the damned and prove it from the second of the Acts solutis doloribus inferni the pains of Hell being loosed which Saint Augustine saith he understands of Purgatory and that hence it is that the Church in the Mass for the Dead saith Deliver the Souls departed from the punishments of Hell and the deep Lake Libera animas defunctorum de paenis inferni de profundo lacu Yea secondly He will tell you from the venerable Beda That this was confirmed by a Vision wherein Purgatory was seen next to Hell And thirdly that omnes fere Theologi almost all their Divines assert that the souls in Purgatory are in the same place and tormented with the same fire as the damned are Well then first if the Mass prayes that the souls in Purgatory may be deliverd from the punishment infernal de profundo lacu then must they be supposed to be in some infernal place if almost all the Divines teach this place to be the same with that in which the damned are tormented then must almost all the Divines be guilty of contradicting the Decree of the Synod of Trent all the Bishops be negligent of the charge there given or else this which they teach must be the sana Doctrina which it required to be held Sess ult doc de Purg. Again I suppose your Trent Council when it speaks of holy Councils defining Purgatory excludes not the Florentine which thus defines it That if true penitents depart in the love of God before they have satisfied for their sins of Omission or Commission by fruits of repentance their souls go to Purgatory to be purg'd and the Indulgencies which the Pope gives sometimes to these poor souls are nothing else but the Application of the satisfaction of Christ or his Saints to the dead So then out of these things so deduced we have all that usually we charge you with First That there are some sins venial such as if God should deal with men in rigour deserve onely a temporal punishment Secondly That you hold that albeit the sin may be pardoned and remitted yet there may be a guilt of punishment to be endured for it This is clear from the Council of Florence and these two Bellarmine joyns together De Purg. l. 2. c. 2. The true and Catholick opinion is that Purgatory is a place appointed for those that die with some venial sins which are the hay and stubble mentioned 1 Cor. 3. and again for those that depart with the guilt of punishment the fault being formerly remitted Thirdly That you say the souls of many that die in the Lord go into Purgatory to satisfie for these venial sins or to undergo the Temporal punishments due to these sins whose fault is pardoned Fourthly That this Purgatory whither they go is a place of punishment next to Hell and that there they are tormented with the same torments which the damned suffer however they may differ for Degree and Space Now these are things which all your skill shall never be able to deduce from prayers as they were used by the ancients for the dead Sect. 5 And first whereas you say De Satisfac page 452. these prayers for the dead have confessed Apostolical antiquity to plead for them here Dally telling you That of the custome of praying for the Dead Justine and Irenaeus who flourished in the second Age do make no mention so that it is credible it came in after that Age for Causes we shall hereafter mention Sect. 6 But to pass on to your proofs p. 112. Sect. 6. you tell us That the Author of the Book fathered on Saint Denis the Areopagite by Confession of Protestants lived within the second Century after the Apostles when as even Bishop Forbs upon the Question tells you that he lived in the third or rather the fourth Century and it is clear that he speaks of Monks which had no being till the third Century of Temples and Altars which Origen and Arnobius who flourished in the third Century have told us the Christians never had And therefore whereas he sayes that what he teacheth he had from the Apostles his Divine Teachers this lye can sure avail you nothing but to evidence how willing cheats are to put off their ware at the best hand But as he is
let us hear him telling us what the Priests demand from God for the person departed Eccles Hist c. 7. a pardon of all fins committed by him through humane frailty and that he may be conducted into Abrahams bosome into a place from which grief sadness and mourning was banished But that this place of Dionysius makes nothing for Purgatory appears first in that the party is described by him to have departed out of this life replenished with Divine joy as now not fearing any change to worse being come to the end of all his labour and to have been both privately acknowledged by his friends and publickly pronounced by the Ministers of the Church to be a happy man See Dr. Fern against Spencer C. de Purgatorio and to be verily admitted into the society of the Saints that have been from the beginning of the world Secondly in that the Bishop or Priest so praying is said by him to be the Interpreter or publisher of the Divine Judgements viz. in giving rewards according as men deserve And how that the Divine loving kindness in great goodness over-looks their infirmities or spots and stains of sin contracted by humane weakness Thus that prayer which begs the full forgiveness of his sins is doctrine to the living shewing and assuring them of Gods mercy to them that strive to live well notwithstanding through humane weakness they offend often and cannot be free from all spots and stains of sin Then in relation as it seems to the other part of the prayer which begg'd that he might be placed in light c. This Author adds The Bishop or Priest knows such good things are promised and therefore prayes that they may come to pass and be given to them that have lived well Also he knows that the good things promised will come to pass and therefore as the Interpreter of Gods Will he shews that they will surely be made good to them that so live and die and if these be the intents of this prayer surely they will not conclude a Purgatory Well then when he prayes for the pardon of his fin he refers to that second sentence of the day of Judgement that God would then proclaim him pardoned and then would receive him into heaven Ibid. c. 7. both as to body and soul And hence our Dionysius tels us that in these Solemnities the Church was wont to read the undoubted promises which were recorded touching the resurrection and then devoutly sang Psalms of the same Argument As you may see in Bishop Vsher page 205. Secondly as for that of Tertullian Sect. 7 where he bids the faithful wife pray for the soul of her husband begging for him refreshment and a part in the first resurrection Ter. de Mon c. 19. Dally will tell you First that he was infected with the errour of the Millenaries and thence it was that he required her to pray for a part in the first resurrection supposing some to be raised sooner and some later within that 1000. years Or secondly that this refreshment is begg'd at the day of Judgement or the Resurrection See Dall p. 513. 517. Digna co loco solatia refrigeria and that the Antients supposing those that were departed to be touch'd with a longing desire of being in Heaven they begg'd a refrigerium to them that is the enjoyment of such comforts as they were thought to have had while they lay in the bosome of Abraham expecting the Resurrection As touching the place of Saint Cyprian Sect. 8 Epist 66. the Answer lies hid in a word which he hath cheatingly conceal'd in his Translation for whereas * Ib. p. 116. p. 516. he hath Translated it that no Oblation shall be made for him viz. That names in his Will for an Executor an Ecclesiastical person The Latine hath it pre Dormitione ejus and as Dally answers his Bellarm. refers to the Eucharistical thanksgivings which they offered ob Dormitionem ejus that the faithful soul was delivered from the evils of the world which he confirms from the testimony of the Author of the Commentary on Job commonly ascribed to Origen And from Saint Ambrose who tells us Diem quo obierint sancti sc De Cor. Mil. c. 3. See Dally p. 516. colebri solennitate renovamus which is as far from Purgatory as Earth from Heaven And this is that which Tertullian saith Tradition was the Author and Custome the confirmer of The first Testimony which he borrows from Chrysostome tell us only this That according to the Apostles Institution Sect. 9 during the celebration of the Mysteries In Ep. ad Philip c. 1. Hom. 3. Commemoration was made of the dead Secondly That this was done that some comfort and refreshment might accrue to them thereby Now that the first comes not up to a shew of any proof for Purgatory is evident to any eye but blur'd with prejudice as appears from those many other ends for which the Fathers esteemed it useful as to bring and keep their souls in Abrahams bosome See Dally de Satisfac l 5. c. 12. to procure them a portion in the millenary reignhere on earth an augmentation of their Glory to procure the Resurrection of their bodles an abatement or exemption from the flames of the last day and the rigour of the last judgment And as for the second Hom. Cor. in c. 15. v. 46. S. Chrysost might well say that 't was not in vain to pray for sinners when he held that thereby the torments of the greatest sinners were or might be alleviated as appeares from his 21. Hom. on the Acts of the Apostles where speaking of a man who had not lived one day to himself but to Voluptuousness Intemperance Covetousness to sin and the Devil if he chance to die saith he shall we not mourn for him shall we not endeavour to pull him out of these dangers For there be waies if we will whereby his punishment may be made light for him If then we do continually make prayers for him if we bestow Almes though he be unworthy God will respect us And whereas he adds that it was the practice of the Church we grant it but the Church then practised it for the ends now specified not because she believed the Roman Purgatory For that Saint Chrysostome thought that the parties deceast if they had lived well were in a state of Joy and not of Grief appears by the funeral Ordinances of the Church related by him which were appointed to admonish the living of it Hom. 4. in Ep. ad Hebr. For tell me saith he What do the bright Lamps mean Do we not accompany them therewith as Champions what mean the Hymns Consider what thou dost sing at that time Return my Soul unto thy rest for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee And again I will fear no evil because thou art with me And again Thou art my refuge from the affliction that compasseth me
there is no probability of being cloathed upon and therefore they cannot be supposed to go to purgatory naked since they that go thither are sure afterward to go to heaven Again vers 6 7. the Apostle tells us that whilest we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord and that Here the faithful desire to be absent from the body because it hinders them from the presence of the Lord and walking by sight now had they been acquainted with purgatory surely they would have express'd their desires of being absent from that also seeing that was like not only to be more irksome to them but also more durable and therefore a greater impediment since therefore they groan'd so much to be deliver'd from a short life here which hinders their enjoyment of Gods presence and not at all for deliverance from a hundred or two hundred years continuance in purgatory for so long saith Bellarmine the Church hath prayed for Souls in purgatory we infer they were not acquainted with it Again they that are to be receiv'd into Eternal habitations when their life fails them are to be received at death for then they fail But so are charitable men and by parity of Reason other pious souls The minor is proved from Luke 16. v. 8. Make unto your selves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness that is use it so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when you fail i. e. dy they may receive you that is may procure you a reception or rather as Doctor Hammond you may be received into everlasting habitations But our Author hath his arguments also Sect. 18 which come now to be considered And first he tells us of an express testimony for Purgatory in the Book of Macchabees Now not to call upon him for an Answer to Dr. Cosens of the Canon of Scripture as knowing how impossible it is to be done albeit it be necessary to make this Testimony a Cogent proof seeing he onely tells us that there is such a place in the Book of Macchabees I will add where the words may be found even in Dally page 439. where they are fully considered and it made evidently to appear that they come not up to a proof of Purgatory neither are they consistent with the received Maxims of the abettors thereof and whereas our adversary calls in the Universal Tradition and practice of the Synagogue of the Jews to justifie this place the same worthy person hath made it evident that neither this nor any other Testimony produced by them is any tolerable proof of such practice p. 449. 450. Nay he evinceth most clearly from this passage that this practice was not received in our Saviour's or the Apostles time Ne apud infimos corruptos Judaeos yea he spends the 14. Chapter of his second Book to evidence that the Jewes were ignorant of Prayers for the dead and should we after all this give any credit to your confident assertions of such evident untruths It concerns you if you respect your credit to answer what is extant in the forecited places of the Learned Dally and to evince this universal Tradition and practice you here speak of without the least offer of any proof unless what follows must be so esteem'd viz. that from the Jewes no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrine and from Plato Cicero But I pray you Sir permit us who have the Arguments fore-mentioned to evidence that in our Saviours time the Jewes had no such Custome to doubt of what you boldly here assert l. 4. c. 5. p. 360. especially when the same Dally runs antipodes unto you and tells us though with greater modesty ab iis Platonicis ut videtur illam Purgatorii rationem baustam atque acceptam tum Judaei tum adversarii retinent Sect. 19 that both you and they as it seems received your Purgatory from the Platonists Mr. Cr. P. 120. You have one assault more from natural Reason which you say will tell us that heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect souls as unto perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers become immediately perfect 1 Thess 4.17 Now to this I Answer that what ever natural Reason may seem to dictate I am sure the Oracles of God will tell us that they who are alive at the Resurrection if pious souls though surely some of them shall be imperfect shall not go to Purgatory for 100. years but be caught up into the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air and so shall be for ever with the Lord. Secondly albeit there be nothing of Reason or Scripture to intimate that onely by dying we become perfect yet doth both Reason and Scripture more then intimate that presently after death we are amongst the Spirits of just men made perfect that when this Tabernacle is dissolved we go to an house Eternal in the Heavens when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord and consequently are purified by the holy Spirit from the imperfections that adhered to us CHAP. XI Master Cressie's misadventures Sect. 1. His first Argument from 1 Cor. 11. Answered Sect. 2. His second from Reason Sect. 3. His Authorities spurious Sect. 4. As 1. Saint Basils Liturgy Sect. 5. Cyrils Mystag Catechism Sect. 6. The Acts of the Nicene Council Sect. 7. Greg. Nyssens Catechism Sect. 8. Saint Cyrils testimony considered Sect. 9. His Authorities say no more then our Churches Liturgy Sect. 10. Saint Chrysostome not for them but against them Sect. 11. His Citation abused by Master Cressie Ib. as likewise Saint Ambrose Sect. 12. The Doctours argument from the fruit of the Vine vindicated Sect. 13 14. Mr. Cressie's evasion confuted Sect. 15. The weakness of his argument against the Doctours Exposition evidenced and confessed by Jansenius Sect. 16 17. an argument against Transubstantiation Sect. 18. Why the Fathers not insisted on Sect. 19. The Fathers are not for the adoration of the Sacrament Sect. 20. Saint Chrysostome Saint Ambrose and Saint Austins testimonies considered Sect. 21 22 23. The contrary evidenced from Doctor Taylor Sect. 24. IN this Chapter we meet with many misadventures Sect. 1 Mr. Cressie p. 124. and mistakes as 1. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as old as the first general Council whereas it was never used by any Father or at least never applied unto this matter for the space of a thousand years and upwards nor can I find any of their own writers besides himself that ever pleaded the use of such a word 2. Another mistake is that the Church onely saith the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation when the Trent Council expresly tells us Mr. Cressie p. 124. that it is called so propriè convenienter aptissime most fitly properly and conveniently 3. Whereas you tell us Sect. 5 that it is a difficult matter to define what is our Churches Tenent
is the body which we worship Saint Austine will tell us presently no for he brings in Christ speaking to his Disciples thus You eat not the body which you see I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you That which is brought out of the 120 Epistle needs no further answer but onely to note that our Adversary hath added it to worship determining the object which Saint Austine did not and by the same reason saith the Lord Du Plessis may be added to body transubstantiated or what you please Sect. 24 Now that the primitive Church did not terminate such Adoration upon the Elements is made out evidently by the Learned D. Taylor in these words Lib. de trans towards the end If the Primitive Church had ever taught that Divine worship was to be given to the Sacrament it had been certain that the Heathen would have retorted most of the Arguments upon their heads by which the Christians reproved their worshipping of Images The Christians upbraided them with worshipping the works of their hands to which themselves gave what figure they pleased and then by certain formes consecrated them and made by invocation as they supposed a Divinity to dwell there They objected to them that they worshipped that which could neither see nor hear nor smell nor taste nor move nor understand That which could grow old and perish that could be broken and burn'd that was subject to the injury of rats and mice of worms and creeping things that can be taken by Enemies and carried away That is kept under lock and key for fear of Thieves and sacrilegious persons Now if the Church of those ages had practis'd and thought as they have at Rome in these last ages might not they have said why might not we as well as you Do not you worship that with divine honours and call it your God which can be burnt and broken which your selves form into a round or square figure which the oven first hardens And then your Priests consecrate and by invocation make to be your God which can see no more nor hear nor smell then the silver and gold upon our images Do not you adore that which rats and mice eat which can grow mouldy and sowre which you keep under locks and barrs for fear your God be stolne Did not Lewis the ninth pawn your Deity to the Sultan of Egypt insomuch that to this day the Egyptian Escucheons by way of Triumph bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it True it is that if we are beaten from our Cities we carry our gods with us But did not the Jesuites carry your Host which you call God about their necks from Venice in the time of their interdict And now why do you reprove that in us which you do your selves What could have been answer'd to them if the Doctrine and accidents of the times had furnished them with the like instances In vain it would have been to have replyed Yea but ours is the true God and yours the false gods For they would easily have made a rejoynder that this is to be prov'd by some other Argument In the mean time all your Objections against our worshipping of Images return violently upon you upon this account since none of the witty and subtle Adversaries of Christianity ever did or could make this defence by way of recrimination it is certain there was no occasion given And therefore those trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers pretending the practice of worshipping the Sacrament must needs be Sophistry and Illusion and need no particular consideration Will they say that the Fathers kept these mysteries secret Sect. 29 and so the Heathens could not be acquainted with what they did I answer But were not there wise and subtle Apostates such as Julian such as the pesecutors of the Church forc'd to relinquish their profession of Christianity Such as turn'd Christians chiefly upon these Arguments enforced upon them by the Champions of the Christian cause Doth not Saint Paul tell us that even in his time all that were in Asia fell away from the truth 2 Tim. 1.15 And could it be that none of these should be able to retort this Objection Was it not strange that none of the Converts of the Church should be scandaliz'd at this when as Avicenna presently cries out Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis CHAP. XII The State of the Question Sect. 1. The lawfulness of communicating in one kind not proved from the Christians practice in the times of persecution Sect. 2. Nor from their communicating of Infants Sect. 3. Nor from their communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4. Nor from communions at Sea Sect. 5. Nor lastly from communions sent to other provinces Sect. 6. Christs institution respected Laicks as well as Priests Sect. 7 8. An evasion obviated Sect. 9. Further evidence of the Laicks interest in the Cup and a farther evasion obviated Sect. 10. Christs Institution a Command Sect. 11. The verdict of Antiquity for us Sect. 12. No evidence of concomitance Sect. 13 14. Three Arguments against it Sect. 16 17 18. The vain pretences alledged for this half communion Sect. 19. Vpon what conditions a dispensation may be granted Sect. 20. THe State of this Question is not Sect. 1 as our Author would perswade us Mr. C. p. 138. Ibid. whether The receiving in both kinds be necessary to the essence of the Communion Albeit that be very true but whether the administring the Sacrament in both kinds to the people or Priests non-Conficients capable of it in both kinds be not necessary necessitate praecepti or from the injunction of our blessed Saviour or in a word whether the with-holding of the Cup from such be not a violation of the will of Christ If so then farewel Trent Council Now this we assert to be so our Author on the contrary will make it good that the Fathers thought the contrary and appeals to Doctor Peirces Conscience Ibid. whether if he should side with us in it he should not be overwhelmed with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against him And then he produceth his old Arguments in defence of this apparent Novelty And first he tells us out of Tertullian and Cyprian Sect. 2 that during the times of persecution the Eucharist was delivered to the faithful under the species of Bread alone Ibid. and carried home to be reverently participated by them according to their particular Devotions To which we Answer P. 184. First in the words of Doctor Featly That the Sacrament was anciently carried home in both kinds and not in one as the Romanist here pleadeth And this is proved from Justin Martyr who in his second Apology declaring the order of the Church saith thus Of the things that be consecrated viz. the Bread Water and Wine they give a part to every
one and carry them to those that be absent And Gregory Nazianzen writes to his sister Gorgonia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if her hand had laid up any portion of the tokens of the pretious Body and Blood of Christ in her Devotions she mingled it with her tears and so received it 2. See Dr. Taylor duc dub B. 2. c. 3. p. 425. We acknowledge that it was attempted to be changed upon occasion of the Eremites who coming but seldome to Church could but seldome receive the Chalice but desiring more frequently to communicate they carried the consecrated Bread with them into their Cels and when they had a mind to it in that imperfect manner Can. 3. did celebrate the Lords Supper But this custome was condemned with a curse in the Council held at Caesar-Augusta in Spain Non Consumpsisse in Ecclesiâ which saith If any man receive the Sacrament and can be proved not to have finished it in the Church let him be accursed for ever 3. We say that the Doctors of the Church in Tertullian and Saint Cyprians time did think it necessary to receive the Cup and therefore could not be thought to have approved this half communion except in cases of necessity Justin Martyr who was before Tertullian tells us P. 97. 98. that the Deacons distributed to all present the body and blood and that the Apostles in their Gospels had delivered to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ had so commanded them S. Lib. 2. Ep. 63. Cyprian tells us that if it be not lawful to break one of Christs least Commandements much less is it lawful to break any of those great commandments belonging to the passion of our Lord or the Sacrament of our Redemption Hom. 16. on Numb or by humane Tradition to alter them And Origen saith speaking of the Sacrament the Christian people embrace him who saith Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you Now he that saith so surely must be supposed to think it necessary that the people should have this blood to drink which is so necessary to their spiritual life Fourthly and lastly Sect. 9 we say that the Fathers cited by you in the Margine do not affirm that they received the bread onely To. 3 l. 9. c. 3. And this you have been told by Chamier and other Learned Protestants upon this Controversie produce your Fathers in the next and confirm it from their words The next supposed Evidence he brings is Sect. 3 the communicating of Infants in one kind Now here again We answer as before 1. That Saint Cyprian and others cited in his Margine do not say that the Infants which communicated received in one kind onely and that they mention but one kind doth prove no more the thing in contest then Saint Pauls charge of the unworthy persons not discerning the Lords Body proves that he participated not of the Cup or if he did participate discern'd it 2. We say that Infants did communicate in both kinds As you may see in D. Featly's Grand Sacriledge p. 186. Chamier To. 4. l. 9. and this is proved from the testimony of the same Cyprian from Saint Anstin Ep. 107. To which you may adde a passage in his Hypognostic's cited by the Learned Chamier and by Gennadius 3. Sect. 14 We acknowledge the Church in Communicating of Infants did sometimes dip the Holy bread into the Chalice and so ministred the Sacrament but this is an Evidence that they thought not the bread alone sufficient 4. We acknowledge also that upon occasion of this use Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 p. 426. Can. de Consecrat dist 2d some fell in love with the trick and would have had it so in ordinary Administrations but against those Pope Julius opposeth himself declaring it to be against the Divine Order and Apostolical Constitutions and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles and Custome of the Church and his words are remarkable to shew from whence this Article is to be determined Non difficulter hoc ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur in quâ ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt shewing that the very institution of the Sacrament is the Fountain from whence we are to derive the truth in this inquiry But when this superstition was again revived about the year 580. the now mentioned Decree of Pope Julius was repeated in the third Council of Braccara and all set right again according to the perpetual custome of the Church and the institution of our blessed Lord and their pretence which was lest they should spill any thing of the holy Chalice laid aside as trifling and superstitious His third instance is the Communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4 Ibid. which according to him was in one kind Now to this we say that the two last answers given to the former instance suit to this For the Church did sometimes administer the bread dipped in the Chalice to dying persons And upon that occasion also it was abused and the opposition now mentioned was made to that abuse Next we say his proofs are not concluding indeed Euseb l. 6. tells us That the old mans mouth was dry and therefore the Boy was desired to moysten the Bread by sopping it but thence to argue that the old man received no Wine is a strange and contradictory inference 3. We say and that out of the same Authors by him cited that such did communicate in both kinds This appears by the charge that Dionysius Alexand. Euscb Eccl. Hist lib. 6. c. 6. gave to his Priests that if any that were ready to die desired to partake of the Holy Mysteries they should obtain their desires If in health they had been humble suiters for it Yea this may be gathered from Justin Martyr who in the place forecited saith That the body and Blood of our Lord before hand consecrated was sent to those that were absent amongst whom were necessarily the sick Lastly Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 N. 429. S. 28. the Council of Turon considering the necessities of sick and dying persons appointed the consecrated Bread to be sopped in the Consecrated Chalice adding this reason that the Priest might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable to you for the Remission of your sins unto Eternal Life ' wherein they intimate that it was necessary to the truth of these words and cousequently to the receiving an entire Sacrament that the sick person should participate of both the Elements and consequently never dreamed of your concomitance the onely salvo imaginable for this your sacriledge Fourthly Sect. 5 He tells us this was practis'd in Communions at Sea Ibid. Now First He should have made this good by testimony and not have produced it back'd with no authority especially when Secondly 'T is manifest
be multitudes little sensible of Religion and so multitudes of wicked men to whom they without scruple give the holy bread which is Christs body albeit some of them may haply vomit him som spit him out again some throw him to the Dogs c. I can very easily perswade my self that Christ had rather be spilt upon the ground then devoured by wicked men Secondly Sect. 21 He conjectures that the heresie of Berengarius might occasion this order of the Church Mr. C. p. 142. Ans But who gave the Roman Church warrant to violate Christs Institution to those ends to commit Sacriledge to uphold a gross untruth and to conspire with the heresie of the Manichees against an Orthodox and apparent truth and here our Authour leaves Divining though some of his brethren adde that should the Laity have the Cup then some drops of Christs blood might stick unto their beards some might be ejected with their spittle and if I may be permitted to adde my Symbol some of them may be poisoned by the cup the Romanist knows how to play such pranks Oh Sect. 22 Mr. C. p. 141. but a dispensation may haply be had seeing the Trent conventicle or the General Council of fifty Bishops hath referred this matter to the Pope Ans Very good but with these provisoes 1. That those who are willing thus to communicate do in every other thing agree with the received faith doctrine and manners of the Roman Church and religiously observe all the decrees of this Synod Secondly That they believe and confess that the custom of communicating in one kind is laudable and to be observed as a Law unless the Church decree the contrary and that those who continue to think otherwise are Hereticks that is she will permit the Pope to grant us a dispensation if we will acknowledge it to be needless Thirdly That they will give all Reverence to the Pope as Bishop and Pastor of the Universal Church the Pope you see hath not this power of dispensation given him for nothing with other the like stuff and after all these things 't is but videtur posse concedi it seems the Pope may grant a dispensation But were it as he would have it seeing we openly declare this as one ground of our separation that the Church of Rome necessitates us not only to receive an half Communion but also to profess that we believe this manner of Administration agreeable to the word of God is it possible that the Schisme should be on our part who proclaim our selves willing to close with her if she will cease to require these unlawful terms of Communion and not rather on the part of the Church of Rome which still obstinately persists in exacting such conditions from us CHAP. XIII The state of the Question Sect. 1. No Argument from the name of Sacrifice Sect. 2. Preaching call'd a Sacrifice and the Testimony of Saint Austine considered Ibid. Almes call'd a Sacrifice and testimony of Irenaeus largely considered Sect. 3. The Eucharist a symbolical Sacrifice and the testimonies of Ignatius and Saint Cyprian considered Sect. 4. In some sence propitiatory Sacrifice and the testimony of Saint Chrysostome considered Mr. C. saith no more then our Church doth Sect. 6. The Eucharist no true proper Sacrifice Sect. 7. THe Council of Trent hath pronounced her Anathema upon all who shall affirm that in the Mass there is not offered a true and proper Sacrifice Sect. 1 and that propitiatory This therefore is the Doctrine of the Romanist and we are now to consider whether Scripture Reason or the Fathers of the Primitive times do countenance it 1. Sect. 2 Therefore the name of Sacrifice is attributerd to those things both by Scripture and the Primitive Fathers which even the most rigid Papist must acknowledge not to be truly and properly so called and consequently the Argument taken from this Topick must be invalid And first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haer. 79. Coul. Collor in Lovit l. 5. Mr. C. P. 146. l. 2◠De Civ Dei c. 10. C. 20. v. 6. Qui proprie jam vocantur in Ecclesiâ Sacerdotes the preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice Rom. 15.16 where the Apostle tells the Romans that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice the Gospel of God Whence Origen stiles the preaching of the Word a work of Sacrificing Epiph. saith that the Apostles were elected to Sacrifice the Gospel and Cyril of Alexandria that the Priest did slay the Host of the Word of God and offer the victimes of Holy Doctrine To omit the like sayings of Chrysostome and others and hither we refer that of Saint Austine cited by Mr. C. to evince this proper Sacrifice where descanting upon that passage of the Apocalyps They shall be Priests with God and Christ and shall reign with him 1000. years he informs us that this Text speaks not in a peculiar manner of Bishops and Presbyters to whom the name of Priests was appropriated in the Church but is to be extended to all Christians so stiled as being members of their high Priest So that he saith they are Priests properly so called not in reference to any proper sacrifice to be offered by them of which no mention at all was made but in Opposition to other Christians not entred into holy Orders Seipsum obtulit ejus sacrificii similitudinem in suae passionis memoriam celebrandum obtulit lib. qu. 83. qu. 6. Epist 23. ad Bonif. and therefore catachrestically called so And that Saint Austine was far enough from asserting the Eucharist to be a proper sacrifice is extremely evident in that he calls it the similitude of Christs sacrifice and tells us He that saith Christ is immolated in this Sacrament would not lie because if Sacraments had not a similitude of things of which they are Sacraments they could not be so Now from this similitude they take the names of the things themselves even as saith he after a manner the Sacrament of Christs Body is his Body Secundùm quendam modum and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ his blood which therefore according to Saint Austine are such only by way of similitude or by a Metonymie of the sign for the thing signified and accordingly the Sacrifice must be so stiled on the same account And hence it is that elsewhere he saith L. 10. Cont. Faust c. 2. L. 20. c. 21. and c. 28. Christiani peracti ejuedem sacrificii memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione perticipatione corporis sanguit is Christi That which by all is called a true sacrifice is the sign of a true sacrifice and then presently after will have it to be a sacrifice of remembrance or the remembrance of a sacrifice § 3. Secondly Almes and Offerings made for the poor are called Sacrifices S. Paul stiles them Offerings well pleasing and acceptable to God Philip. 4.14 and Victims Heb. 13.16 * l.
4. c. 32. De Elemosyna L. 4. c. 32. Mr C. p. 114. 1. Irenaeus saith That these first fruits are the Offerings of the Vniverse S. * l. 4. c. 32. Dee Elemosyna L. 4. c. 32. M. C. p. 114.1 Cyprian checks the rich widow for approaching the Lords Table without her Corban without a Sacrifice yea eating of the sacrifice the poor man bronght And in St. Austins phrase the Alms of pious Matrons are Oblations And of this sacrifice doth Irenaeus speak in the Sentence urged by Mr. C. to evince this proper sacrifice when he tells us That our Saviour giving counfel to his Disciples to offer the first fruits to God of his creatures not as if he wanted any thing but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful took the creature of bread and gave thanks saying this is my Body Qui est ex ea creatura quae est secunâ—um nos and the Câ—p likewise which consists of a creature which is usual amongst us he confessed to be his blood and brought a new Oblation of the New Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers through all the world unto that God who gives us nourishment to wit the first fruits of his gifts in the New Testament of which the Prophet Malachy speaks cap. 1. vers 11. where it is manifestly declared that the former people of the Jewes have ceased to offer unto God and in all places a pure sacrifice is now offered to him Where first not to deal rigidly with him in telling him that Irenaeus doth not determine whether this Oblation be Eucharistical or Ilastical or if Ilastical whether properly or rather metonimycally so I confidently affirm that the Sacrifice here mentioned can not be the sacrifice of the Mass or of Christs Body and Bloud the reasons are 1. From these words Chap. 34. The Oblation of the Church which the Lord taught us to be offered in the whole world is reputed a pure sacrifice before God and acceptable to him not because God wants our gift or sacrifice but because he that offereth is glorified thereby if his gift be accepted When therefore thou offerest this gift at the Altar Matt. 5.24 25. Go first and be reconciled to thy brother then come and offer it You must therefore offer to God the first fruits of his creatures Deut. 16.26 as Moses said Thou shalt not appear empty before God Now had he spoken of the sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood would he have told us that it is reputed apure sacrifice not is so when to be and to be reputed are disparates But secondly the Oblation which he speaks of is that which all Christians offer not the Priest onely as is evident from the two places cited when thou offerest thy gift And thou shalt not appear empty before God Seeing therefore that the first fruits of the creature to be offered to God here are not the Body and Blood of Christ and Irenaeus tells us that he speaks of this Oblation which the Church offers throughout all the world neither can that be such 3. You have a further Evidence in that it is said We offer this sacrifice to God not that he wants it but that we should not be unfruitful For that this passage must refer to Almes not to Christs Body Let Irenaeus himself assure us who in this 34. Chapter tells us that God wants not any thing of ours but yet 't is needful we offer somewhat to him for as Solomon saith Pro. 19.17 He that hath mercy on the poor lendeth to the Lord and that God which wants nothing yet takes our good works as done to him that he may give us a reward of his good things for them as our Lord saith Come you blessed of my Father c. for I was an hungry and you gave me to eat I Mat. 24.25 and a little after he tells us that God will have these things done by us that we may not be unfruitful so that evidently this refers to Almes and the Oblations at the Eucharist not of the Eucharist and therefore the same words in this Sentence touching the same matter must in all reason be esteemed to refer unto them also Again in the same Chapter he addes The Sacrifice doth not sanctifie the man but the conscience of him that offers being pure doth sancâ—ifie the Sacrifice Seeing therefore with simplicity or sincerity The Church doth offer the Sacrifice is justly reputed pure by God And hence it is that Saint Paul calls them an Odour of sweetness an Offering acceptable and well pleasing unto God For we must offer unto God Thus the Church offers to him the first Fruits and that of his Creatures and a little after we offer sanctifying the Creature Now first can it be tollerably said we sanctifie the sacrifice of Christs body and that it sanctifieth not us That this sacrifice is reputed pure before God from our sincerity in offering That the Apostle in the place now cited speaks of the Body of Christ not Alms And consequently can the Offering of the first Fruits of his Creatures be any other Seeing therefore this Offering of the New Testament which the Church offers is expresly said to be primitias suorum munerum the first fruits of her gifts offered to him that affords us sustenance is it not rationally inferred that it refers also to these Almes and Oblations made at the Sacrament not to any Oblation of the Sacrament well then 2. Mr. Mede's Christian Sicrifice In short in the Primitive times the Church of God was wont to offer very freely of what God afforded them and amongst the rest they offered Bread and Wine to him that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief Minister of the Brethren who took it and gave thanks and glory to the Lord of the whole world then made a large and prolix thanksgiving to him that had made them worthy of such gifts and the rest of the Offerings were distributed either to serve the necessities of the poor or for other uses of the Church as you may find in Justin Martyr Apol. 2. and Irenaeus every where And to this it is that he here refers when he tells us that our Lord instituting this Sacrament taught us a new Oblation of the New Testament I confess Bellarmine here objecteth that Irenaeus speaks of such a sacrifice as was to succeed the sacrifices made in the Jewish Paedagogy Now such were not the sacrifices of Almes Prayers Thanksgivings and therefore Irenaeus cannot be supposed to speak of them But first Irenaeus doth no where say that the sacrifice he speakes of succeeds those of the Jewish Laws but onely that they have ceased to Offer and in their places we now do 2. See this Argument shamtfully balfled in Mat. Boehart traitte du sacrifice de la Mâ—sse seconde partiè Chapitre 5. Will it hence follow that we must offer a proper sacrifice as they did Doth not our service
the Sacrament which first is contrary to what * P. 131. he himself produceth from Cyrils Epistle ad Calosyrium And secondly were it so either it loseth this Sacramental being when it is eaten or before or after viz. when the species of bread cease to remain If this last then is it sacrificed in the belly not on the Altar if when it is eaten 't is sacrificed in the mouth if before then do not the Communicants eat the body and blood of Christ Secondly if this be sufficient to make it a proper mutation because the body of Christ loseth his esse Sacramentale and ceaseth to be present under these species then by parity of reason God himself and his Angels may be said to suffer a real Physical mutation when he ceaseth to be where he was by the destruction of that wherein he was or the annihilation of the same Secondly If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice then neither do his Ministers but the first is so the sequel is evident because that which is delivered to us to be done was receiv'd from Christ for seeing it is deliver'd by the Evangelists and Saint Paul and we are peremptorily told by him delivering what the Evangelists had rehearsed that he received it of Christ and delivered no other thing If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice neither did he deliver it to us from Christ but Christ did not offer such a sacrifice Hist Conc. Trent for then the oblation of the Cross would have been superfluous because Mankind would have been redeemed by that of the Supper which went before Besides the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted by Christ for a memorial of that which he offered on the Cross now there cannot be a memorial but of a thing past and therefore the Eucharist could not be a sacrifice before the oblation of Christ on the Cross but shewed what we were afterwards to do And thus I have considered what is material in this Chapter and onely desire Mr. C. in case he reply to state evidently this Doctrine of their Church and wherein they differ from us and what are the requisites of a sacrifice that so we may know what we are to dispute against CHAP. XIIII Why Master C. omits the dispute touching the Books stiled Apocryphal Sect. 1. His way of reasoning weak Sect. 2. 3 4 5 6. The Primitive Fathers against the veneration of Images Sect. 7. All their pretences evacuated by the Fathers Sect. 8. The Honour given to Images is called worship by the Romanists themselves Sect. 9. To worship false Gods not necessary to Idolatry Sect. 10. Vulgar Papists give divine honour to Images Sect. 11. Papists pray to them Sect. 12. Master Cs. Argument for veneration of Images Answ Sect. 13. An Argument against it Sect. 14. His Story further requited Sect. 15. WE come now to consider his Pleas for the Roman Churches practice in veneration of Images Sect. 1 of which the Doctor saith onely this That the Council of Trent was not afraid to make new Articles the Invocation of Saints the worship of Images yea saith he many humane writings the Apocryphal Books and many unwritten Traditions also were by her decreed to be of equal Authority with the Scripture and an Anathema added to all that should not so receive them Now because he formerly had managed a dispute with Mr. Bagshaw about Images he takes advantage of these few words to transcribe the whole dispute over-looking that which more copiously is insisted on to wit the ascribing Divine Authority to the Books which we commonly stile Apocryphal Doctor John Reynolds and Bishop Cousens which sure was onely upon this account because it hath been made appear by two Champions of our Church that this decree of the Trent Council is contrary to Reason and the suffrage of the Fathers and learned men even from Christ time to the Sessiâ—n of this worthy Conventicle we call upon him for answer to them in his next Well but we will be content to undergo this trouble also and that the rather because this peice is esteemed by some to have a vein of Reason in it although it be fraught if I mistake not with inconsiderable Sophismes Sect. 2 First if then he catechizes us thus Should you see the Picture of our Lord hanging on the Cross Mr. C. p. could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was and what he had done and suffered for you Answer Your own Gerson will tell us another story compertum est c. It is very well known that some devout persons by aspect of Images had their thoughts turn'd from holy cogitations and pure affections to carnal filthy wicked and impure yea execrably blasphemous but to let this passe Secondly I see a Crucifix almost every day in our Colledge windows and yet seldom have found such an effect upon me and I appeal to the carvers of these Pictures whether they do not often behold their workmanship without this effect to the members of our Colledges whether they do not often look upon their windowes without such remembrance of the Saints or Apostles there lively pictured as may make them spiritual or compell them into a fit of devotion yea the reason why our Church thinks meet yet to preserve them in her Assemblies notwithstanding the loud cries of the Phanaticks that they are scandalous and dangerous is evidently this because she knows they have an historical use and that the people upon the sight of them are not found inclined to yield any worship or corporeal reverence unto them Thirdly The picture of Cromwell or Bradshaw the parts of the Rebels that hang up at the Gates of London Spanish Inquisition Irish Rebellions Popish Cruelties to the Waldenses and Albingenses yea the picture of Hell and the Devil are apt to bring their cruelties and torments into our remembrances and doing so may not I adresse my self with Praises and Thanksgivings to this God who hath delivered us from such Tyrants and pray heartily to be freed from the torments of Hell and tyranny of Satan Is not there as much reason for my devotion here as at the sight of an Image yea the very names of Peter and Paul Heaven and Hell are as subservient to the productions of such thoughts and therefore when I read in a play Heavens bless c. must I turn to my devotions I might be endlesse in such instances Again he tells us Sect. 3 Should we have the picture of his Majesty and Bradshaw should we have the Bible and Pantagruel they would force upon us quite contrary thoughts almost impossible to be avoided Answer First Would not the mention of their names have the same effect upon us Secondly When he walks along London streets and there sees the sign of his Majesty at so many Taverns doth he find it impossible for him to avoid thoughts of due subjection and reverence And should he have Faux in his
are they not Earth and taken out of the Earth But as for me I have learned to tread upon the Earth not worship it So Saint Augustin saith they are worse then bruit beasts Lib. 7. Conr. Celsum and if you are asham'd to worship the one you may be asham'd to worship the other So Origen we do not venerate Images with many other like places In Consul lit de Imag. which made Cassander cry out How far the Ancients were ab omni veneratione from all veneration of Images one Origen declares Cruces saith Mintius Felix nec Colimus nec optamus and there we find it objected to them cur nulla nota simulachra habetis Hence Lactan. l. 2. c. 7. They think there is no Religion where these Images appear not not as if they had any kept secretly but as * Dallie puts it beyond dispute because the Heathens thought it impossble to worship God without some sensible Image Saint Cyprian Why dost thou bow thy captive body before foolish Images and terrene figments God hath made thee straight and when other animals are made prona ad terram depressa thou hast a countenance erect towards God and Heaven thither look thither direct thy eyes not to Images seek God above The 36. Canon of the Iliberine Council tells us its pleasure was there should be no Images in the Church * De Imag. Ep. ad Demetr Lib. 2. cap. 19. Lactantius tells us there can be no Religion where there is an Image Saint Ambrose will tell you the Church knoweth no vain Idea's and divers Figures of Images Yea Ambr. de sugâ secul c. 5. this was so notorious to the very Heathens that when Adrian commanded that Temples should be made in all places without Images they presently conceived they were for Christians Lamprid. in vit Alexandri Severi What should I say Orig. in Cels l. 2. p. 373. there is not any Father almost but is evidently against you Nay you can scarce find out any excuse which they have not prevented with their contradiction 1. You tell us that images are instruments to call to your memories the Objects they represent Orig. tells us If we be not out of our wits we must needs laugh at this folly who look on Images and by the sight thereof offer prayer to him who is conceived thereby In Ps 113. Saint Augustine will tell you this answer is borrowed from the Heathens who use to say I neither worship the very Image nor the Devil but by corporcal representation I look upon the sign of that which I ought to worship Dissert 38. And indeed Max. Tyr. hath taught you that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They lead you by the hand to the remembrance of the things they represent That in procuring them you do like lovers who willingly behold the Images of those they love that so their memory may be stir'd up in them 2. Sect. 8 Your ninth Section tels us we help our selves by them to fix our thoughts upon Objects good for our souls and every where you insist upon the usefulness of them to Common people In Ps 113. But Saint Augustine saith they are very dangerous especially to them for who is it that adores or prayes beholding an Image and is not so affected as to think he is heard by it Epiphanius will warn them to avoid these helps Have this in your memories beloved Children not to bring Images into the Church nor into the Coemeteries of the Saints no not into any ordinary House but alwayes carry about the rememberance of God in your hearts Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hicros Tom. 1. oper Hier. Ep. 60. for it is not lawful for a Christian man to be carried about in suspence by his Eyes and the wandering of his mind He will tell you that the having them in the Church is contrary to our Religion to the authority of Scripture Give charge against it He is cited by the Fathers of the Council of Constant An. Dom. 754. Eus Hist. l. 7. C. 17. Ubi supra and tear such a one though it were the Image of our Lord and Saviour Amphilochius will adde we have no care to figure by colours the bodily Visages of the Saints in Tables because we have no need of such things but by virtue to imitate their conversations Eusebius will assert that you borrowed this Custome from the Heathens And surely Max. Tyrius lent you this pretence who tells you that the use of Images is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoniam tenuitatis Nostrae ita poscat ratio and 't is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was the cause of it You say that Humane nature cannot hinder it Sect. 11. They say that God and Religion forbid it And doth God forbid what humane nature cannot hinder and the Jews abhorred it had they razed out their natural principles You say that we call this Honour given to him worship sect 9 to make you odious Ans 2. Council of Nice by them General Sâ—e the places in Dally de Imag. Cat. Rom. par 1. C. 2.5.14 ut Colantur licet illis cultum adhibere In 3. par Th. quaest 24. Art 3. Orthodox Consul par 2. Reg. 1. In Ep. ad Rom. C. 1. In 3. Th. quaest 25. Art 3. disp 2. Nu. 5. Apud Cabr ib. p. 796. Hath not a General Council call'd it so an hundred times do not almost all your writers call it so Doth not your Trent Catech. require the priest to declare that the images of Christ are put in Churches that they may be Worshipped and that it is lawful to worship them and that it hath still been done to the great good of the faithfull Doth not Cajetan tell us that they are painted that they may be worshipped ut adorentur as the frequent use of the Church doth testifie And Boverius that this is the Doctrine of the Roman Church imagines piâ religione colendas esse will not Jacobus Naclantus tells you that albeit you speak warily in this matter yet the very truth is that the faithful in the Church do adore not only coram imagine sed imaginem Will not Friar Pedro de Cabrera teach you your lesson a little better that you must downright and absolutely say that images are to be worshipped in Churches and out of Churches and that the contrary is heretical And Franc. Victoria will back him in asserting it to be plainly so Yea and Arriaga for a close will tell you Haeretici negant non Exemplarium venerationem and what you plead for he does not think any Heretick so simple as to deny I might here adde half an hundred of your Authors who tell us that Images are to be worshipped with that very homage we afford to the exemplar but I let that pass for haply I may have another opportunity to acquaint you with them I shall conclude with the Roman
dulia due unto your Images if latria then again according to your own principles they were the grossest of Idolaters Secondly The Idolatry of Achaz is thus described that he made high places wherein to burn Incense unto other gods and likewise the Idolatry of Israel This burning Incense is therefore Idolatry Jer. 44.21 23. because the Nature of Idolatry agrees to it which is to give the honour due unto God unto another thing and therefore seeing this was done by burning Incense to the brazen Serpent that also must be Idolatry for to say that 't is not sufficient to make an act idolatrous that it attributes the honour due to God unto another thing unlesse it be an Idol is very false for then the offering of sacrifice to the Image of Christ would not be Idolatry the giving it latria terminated thereon would not be so The Arrians could not have been accused of Idolatry in worshipping our Saviour with divine honours and yet esteeming him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Collyridians in worshipping the Virgin Mary the Carpocratians in worshipping the Image of Christ and a 1000. other things 2. This major may be farther confirmed thus to offer sacrifice is Idolatry by the confession of the * Mag sent l. 3. dist 9. Bell. li. de Eccles Triumph c. 12. See Exod. 22. He that effers sacrisice to any but God alone shall be cut off And Act. 7. The Israelites are said to offer sacrifice to the Calf and then presently are called Idolaters Ste 1 Cor. 10. Papists themselves but to offer Incense to an Image or any other thing is to offer sacrifice Thus Tertull. Apol. c. 30. Offero majorem hostiam quam ipse mandavit non grana Thuris so that according to him Incense must be a sacrifice and Gyprian de lapsis speaking of those that presently went to offer Incense They would not stay saith he to be apprehended nor did they leave this to themselves ut sacrificare Idolis inviti viderentur Saint Basil tells us in his Oration on Barlaam the Martyr that they brought him to the Altar and put Incense into his Hands that so by casting it out he might seem to offer sacrifice and this he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus * Lib. de poenit c. 14. p. 512. Tom. primi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 male 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lat. ver pro more daemoniaci libaminis Peter Bishop of Alexandria as we have it in Balsamon tells us that the hands of many were brought unwillingly to offer prophanum sacrificium that is as Balsamon hath it coacti sunt thus immolare yea Saint Austin C. 16. de unico Baptismo having said that Petilian accused Melchiades de Thurificatione of offering Incense he adds that had it been true he might have been excused as being not bound to plead his cause coram homine sacrificijs idolorum inquinato It may be Answered that to offer animate or living sacrifice is Idolatry but as for inanimate sacrifices they may be given to a creature Rep. Now not to mention how arbitrary this distinction is the Fathers frequently teach this offering of inanimate sacrifices to be Idolatry Thus Epiphanius condemns the Collyridians for offering cakes to the blessed Virgin which yet were inanimate sacrifices Ep. au 〈◊〉 num l. 10. Ep. 97. so Pliny tells the Emperour that some worship his Image with Incense and Wine which they that are true Christians cannot be compelled to do albeit it was the Image of him who was himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as counting that homage due to God alone Now this refusal Tertullian calls obstinationem non sacrificandi The onely fault saith he with which the Christians stood charged by Pliny in his Epistle to the Emperour yea the Carpocratians were condemned as Hereticks for offering Incense to the Image of Christ among other things l. 1. c. 24. as you may see in Irenaeus Observationem circa cas similiter ut Gentes faciunt they observed the rites of the Gentiles towards them what were they Saint Austine tels us l. de Haer. c. 7. they did it adorando incensumque ponendo Eis thura adolebant ac libahant saith Theodoret l. de Haer. fab And this as he condemned in the Israelites who worshipp'd the brazen Serpent of Idolatry calling them Ophitae worshippers of a Serpent qu. 18. in 4. Reg so here he adds tanquam deos adorabant not that they did it by any other sacrifice of which we have no mention made but that the performing of these ceremonies was an evidence thereof this being worship proper to a Deity Haer. 27. and Epiphanius tells us that with the Images of the Philosophers imagines Jesu collocant they place the Images of Christ and worship them and perform the Rites of the Gentiles to them or Heathenish Rites and then presently he adds Gentium myfleria persiciunt Tom. 2. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cap. nunc autem distinct 2. P. 334 335. what are the Rites of the Gentiles but sacrificium alia Now what he means by sacrifice he tells us in his Epit. viz. to offer Incense yea Bellarmine informes us that Marcellinus sacrificed to Idols and proves it from the Pontifical of Damasus the Epistle of Nicholaus the first to Michael but the Pontifical onely saith he did incendere offerre burn Incense and offer it and Nicholaus that he did grana thuris super prunas imponere put corns of Incense on the coals So then from Scripture and the assertions of Fathers grounded on it we have evinced them to be Idolaters And yet I cannot chuse but requite your story with an other out of Master Chillingworth That one great impediment which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the Churches Communion was a visible Calumny raised against the Catholicks that they did set some strange thing upon their Altar which as Optatus informes us was a picture which the Donatists knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time to set up any Pictures in a Church to worship them as your new fashion is bruted abroad to be done in the Churches of the Catholique Church but what Answer do Saint Austine and Optatus make to this accusation do they confess and maintain it Do they say as you would now it is true we do set Pictures upon our Altars and that not onely for ornament and memory but for worship also but we do well to do so and this ought not to trouble you or fright you from our Communion what other Answer your Church could now make to such an Objection is very hard to imagine And therefore were your Doctrine the same with the Doctrine of the Fathers in this point they must have answered so likewise but they on the contrary not onely deny the crime but abhor
the Messias that he was not from God but an Impostor Well then either these were Judges infallible or not if so then the absurdity foremention'd is not avoidable if not then let him tell us what other infallible Judge they had or acknowledge they had none and if so then I ask leave to inquire what necessity have we to think the people should have such a one under the Gospel when they were far more ignorant under the Law nor had such guidance of the Spirit to lead them into all truth and yet God did not then think it meet to constitute such a one Well Sect. 11 but our Adversary seems to triumph in an Argument from Scripture against the reading of this Sacred book Mr. C. 168. and it may thus be formed Certainly none of them whom we know to be apt to pervert the Scriptures should be permitted to read them 2 Pet. 3.16 But the unlearned and unstable are apt to do so therefore c. And for Confirmation of this we are told that the unlearned and unstable of England are 99 of each hundred therefore if they are not to be permitted to read the Scripture 99 of each hundred in England should not be permitted To this Argument we reply 1. That the major is false as is evident For tell me were not the Jews apt to pervert the Scripture who were yet commanded to be daily conversant in the same were not the Scribes and Pharisees apt to pervert Scripture And yet our Saviour bids the one search the Scripture tells the other that they erre not knowing the Scripture 2. Doth not Saint Peter 1 Epist chap. 1. prescribe attending to the word as a remedy to keep us from the deceptions of false prophets And if you will say with Stapleton we are bid indeed to attend to Scripture but as preach'd by the Pastours of the Church not read the contrary is evident for 't is a word of prophecy which holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost and sure that is the Scripture 3. If this were true then were the fathers much to blame who call'd the Heretiques to Scripture bid them look to Scripture and see their Errours when it is notorious that they were made Hereticks by perverting Scripture Again to the minor I say that the Apostle doth not say that such are apt to pervert all Scripture but something hard and difficult in Saint Pauls Epistle and other Scripture and now the benefit we receive by the other places not so hard may recompence the danger 2. I say the unlearned are so if they proceed to judge of the scripture and will take things in their own sence without going to God for direction begging his Spirit and using the help of the guides set over them whence 't is well infer'd they should not read scripture without a sense of weakness and aptness to pervert it when they permit themselves to draw conclusions and decide controversies by it and therefore should not read it after such a manner but pray to God more for his Assistance in reading and have closer dependance on the guides that are given them and not dote upon questions which administer strife rather then edifying The second part of this Chapter is taken up in a miserable defence of their Churches prayers in an unknown tongue which cannot more effectually be confuted Sect. 12 then by an impartial consideration of those pitiful sophisms that uphold it And 1. he tells the Doctor Mr. C. p. 172. that he mistakes the Churches meaning as if one of it's positions were that Gods publick worship ought to be in an unknown tongue or as if it forbad the people to understand it And truly saith he if it were so we could never hope to be reconciled with that passage of Scripture out of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 14.13 thus he Answ But where I pray you hath the Doctor one Iota from whence you can be able to make good this charge why did you not direct us to his words from whence this consequence could be infer'd but confidently tell him he mistakes when as 't is only your prevarication makes him do so did you peruse that paragraph or not if you did not then what unparallel'd boldness was it at all adventures to charge him with mistakes if you did what wilfull insincerity was it to charge him with that which you knew to be a palpable untruth Secondly Had he affirmed what you unjustly charge him with yet might he very easily be freed from a mistake for seeing your Trent Conventicle hath determined that 't is not expedient that the publick service should be celebrated in the vulgar Tongue it must have consequently determined that it ought not to be so seeing the Apostles rule requires that in things lawful in themselves we should be guided 1 Cor. 6.12 See Bishop Sanderson his Sermon In locum as to practise by expedience and consequently that if the vulgar tongue be not expedient in Gods publick service it ought not to be used and if so then sure a tongue not vulgar or unknown must necessarily take place Thirdly I affirm that if you could not reconcile her command to celebrate Gods publick service in an unknown tongue with that passage of S. Paul neither can you reconcile her practice it being notoriously evident that what S. Paul there speaks respects the practice not the commands of the Church of Corinth but only as the prohibition of the practice infers a prohibition of the commanding such a practice so that our Authors mouth sufficiently condemns him but to proceed He tells us Sect. 13 Sect. 9. That they generally acknowledge the service of God in the primitive times to have been performed in a tongue better understood then now it is but yet not for many places or countrys in their vulgar native or best known tongue for saith he 't is evident by Saint Augustine that in Africa it was in the Latine not in the Punick which yet was the only tongue the vulgar understood Ans If this be not related Punica fide let any indifferent man judge for do we not know that his Sermons ad populum were in Latine when as yet you generally acknowledge they ought to be in the vulgar tongue doth not he tell us in his retractions l. 1. c. 10. psalmum qui iis cantaretur per latinas literas feci De verbis Apost Ser. 16. In psal 50. ps 138. that being willing to have the cause of the Donatists known to the meanest of the vulgar that it might stick upon their memories he made a psalm which should be sung to them in Latine Letters Yea doth he not give them a Punick proverb in the Latine tongue and annex this reason quia Punice non omnes nostis did he not condescend to the use of barbarous words ossum for os sanguines and sanguina upon this account because it was better Gramarians should reprehend him
See Dr. Field p. 246. c. du pless Sac Mis l. 2 c. 6. c. 7. then that the people should not understand him could you be ignorant of these and other evidences of this truth and cite so frequently that Dr. Field from whence I had them And would it not make an Heraclitus laugh to hear you tell us of S. Sect. 14. Ib. Basils Liturgy used in the Greek tongue in most parts of the Eastern Churches and adde that this was not the vulgar or tongue sufficiently understood in many of these Eastern Churches Act. 14.11 and that because the people said in the language of Lycaonia the Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men Act. 2.8 9 10. and further Parthians and Medes and Elamites and the dwellers of Mesopotamia and in Judea and Cappadocia in Pontus and Asia Phrygia and Pamphilia heard the Apostles speak in their own tongues the wonderful works of God For can this do you any service till you have proved these things 1. That Saint Basils Liturgy was in all or any of these places 2. That those places where this Liturgy was used did not understand Greek as well as their vulgar tongue 3. That if they could not understand Greek in the days of the Apostles neither could they do it 600 years after their decease and upwards about which time this spurious Liturgy might haply have been used and when all this is done which will be ad Graecas Calendas the consequence will be only this that after six hundred years Saint Pauls precept was disregarded by some Eastern Churches Farther we have sufficient evidences that in many parts of Asia the Greek was a sufficiently vulgar tongue Saint Chrysostom preached in Greek at Antioch S. Basil at Caesarea Athanasius at Alexandria Cyril at Jerusalem thus from Constantinople to Antioch throughout Asia was the Greek language sufficiently known S. Jerom will tell us Tom. in Ep. ad Gal. in proamia pro Archia Pocta sermme Graeco omnis oriens loquitur all the East used the Greek tongue and Cicero Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus that almost all Nations used it and why not then those places in which this Liturgy was used But you go on to inform us Sect. 15. Ib. that your Church did not intend that her publick devotions should therefore be in Latine because it is not vulgarly understood but this hath hapned as it were by accident of the mixture of barbarous nations but why then was it thus performed in England where it was always a tongue unknown unto the vulgar and notwithstanding this accident you do not think meet to change it upon these accounts 1. Because no example can be given of anciently established Churches that any of them changed the Language of Gods publick service entirely Ans Were it so the reason evidently must be the no-necessity of such a change seeing 't is evident beyond all possibility of contradiction that the most holy and pious of every age required the performance of Gods service in a language known Rupert de Diz officiis l. 3. c. 8. hence in mixt congregations the Service was read both in Greek and Latine and at the funeral solemnities of Paula the Greeks Hier ad Eustoch Epitaph Paulae Syrians Latines c. had their devotions in their proper tongues Yea Innocent the third decreed that seeing there were mixed people of divers languages in sundry parts within the same Diocess or City the Bishops of these places should provide fit men to Celebrate Divine Service p. 248. De Sac. Mis l. 2. c. 6. according to the diversities of their Rites and Languages as you may see in Doctor Field he that would be glutted with the suffiages of Antiquity let him have recourse to the honourable the Lord du Plessis and he shall find abundant satiâ—faction Secondly As the evasion is evidently weak and impertinent so is it notoriously false for Methodius having translated the Scripture into the Sâ—lavenian tongue perswaded the Dalmatians to explode the Latine and make use of their own in the service of God p. 434. as Aventinus informs us yea the same Mâ—thodius went into the Kingdoms of Boiaria and sought to perswade Noricum Pannenia Veneda to abandon the Latine and have the service in the vulgar and albeit at the present he was resisted yet afterwards the attempt took effect See Doctor Field ubi supra at least in part as appears by Aventinus telling us that in his age the priests of Liburnia did celebrate Divine Service in their own De missa Latine facienda in locis communibus p. 241. that is in the Sclavonian tongue yea Eckius a rigid Papist will consess that heretofore the Divine Service was in the Dalmatian tongue throughout all Illiricum the same you may find evinced of many others that now use the Latine in the most Learned Dr. Field You go on Sect. 16 and tell us that the Greeks now use the Ancient Mass of Saint Chrysostom Mr. C. p. 173. written in pure Greek as much dissering from the vulgar as Latine from the Italian Spanish c. and that the like may be said of the Syrian Cophtites c. yea the Jews continue their devotions in the Hebrew to this day albeit understood by few of them Ans 1. The Lord du Plessis would have informed you albeit the Mass which the Greek Church useth is different from their vulgar p. 268. non tamen quantum aut Italica à Latinâ aut Gallica ipsa à Narbonensi and farther that where the Greek tongue is not in use as among the Muscovians and Russiane albeit they follow the Greek customs yet do they celebrate Divine Service in the vulgar tongue and I have so much confidence of the truth of his assertion as to judge your contradiction to it to exceed the bounds Secondly The Aegyptians indeed have their service in a bastard Chalde or Syriaque their vulgar being Arabique Field p. 241. but then they first read the Gospel in the Chaide and afterwards in Arabique which is not done in their publick Services Thirdly When the example of the Russians Muscovians Com. in 1 Cor. 16. disp 50. s 7. l 2 de verbo dei c. 16. Aethiopians c. was objected to Salmeron in behalf of Service in the vulgar tongue he Answers we will not be moved with the examples of such barbarous people and their famous Bellar adds 't is all one as if Lutherans and Anabaptists should be called for confirmation of an opinion seeing these are Hereticks as well as they so that our adversary might as well have argued that Arrius and his followers denyed the Godhead of Saviour and therefore we also ought to do so the Jews deny him to be the Saviour of the world blaspheme him in their Services and therefore so should we Again he argues thus Sect. 17. Ib. a great fitness there is that
prayer should be interpreting the Churches Prayer or dare he affirm that the Pastors interpret their Prayers as they are Read 2. Doth the Apostle require that onely some part of the Prayer should be interpreted is there not equall reason for the whole especially when he adds let all be done for edification 3. Were this done frequently yet it is evident that the Apostles precept would be neglected though more rarely His 2 Ans I shall confute in consideration of the 16. v. It follows Sect. 23 For if I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prays that is v. 14. the extraordinary gift of the Spirit in me thus Chrysostome Theodoret Photius I know the Rhemists by Spirit understand affections and make the sence run thus in this case my heart and affections pray albeit I understand not what I say But were this the truth that he that speaketh in an unknown tongue understandeth not himself Then 1. We must acknowledge that when the Apostles at the day of Pentecost were endued with the gift of tongues they understood not what they said which will not easily be granted Secondly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Chapter ordinarily imports the gift of tongues and therefore most probably it doth so here Thirdly The Fathers generally do thus interpret it besides the three already cited Saint Hierom Basil Oecumenius are clearly for this sence and therefore Papists cannot without perjury run counter to it But 4. The Apostle in this very Chapter tells us he that speaks with tongues edifies himself vers 4. and also that where the voice is not understood it doth not edifie vers 15 16. Fiftly In the very next verse he requires that over and above praying by the spirit we should adde praying with the Understanding also so that how ever you interpret your praying with the spirit yet must you pray so also as to be understood well then our Exposition must take place It follows but my mind is unfruitful that is the reason why an unknown tongue is prohibited in prayer viz. because although our spiritual gift perform it's work the mind becomes unfruitfull now here by mind some understand the Intellect some as the Reverend Bishop Morton the matter of the prayer which is the effect of the mind and made out of the conceptions that we have of the necessities of Gods Church c. But this is not material in our dispute this mind is said to be unfruitful not to our selves as the foregoing arguments evince but to the hearer thus Saint Jerome mens ejus non ipsi efficitur fine fructu sed audienti In loeum and Saint Basil In locum when they that are present understand the prayer then he that prayeth hath fruit to wit the edification of those that are helped by his prayer now to be unfruitful in this sence what is it but to be such whereby the Auditour reaps no benefit the Church is not edifyed others are not instructed as the 19. verse doth clearly intimate where we have these words in the Church I had rather speak five words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with my mind understood that I may instruct others then ten thousand in an unknown tongue now hence I argue That which makes the prayer unfruitful to the hearers ought not to be done this being the reason of the Apostles prohibition but the expressing of publick prayers in an unknown tongue makes them unfruitful to the hearer Vers 15. Sect. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what therefore is the result of this even that this gist of the Spirit may be so managed in prayer that the Church may understand us that this or somewhat like it must be the sence of orabo mente is evident as from the precedent verse which tells us that if we do not pray in a known tongue our mind will be unfruitful unto others and thence infers that we must so pray in the Spirit as that we pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vol sc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to understand it of the mind of him that prays is to make a ridiculous inference after this manner if you use only the gift of the Spirit you will be unfruitfull unto others therefore pray so as to understand your self or that your mind may be employed Nay it is further evident from the next verse which tells us that otherwise the Ideot cannot say Amen Now surely my understanding my own mind will nothing contribute unto the Ideot or make him more able to say Amen Well then to pray with the mind or understanding is to pray so as that the Congregation made up of learned and unlearned may comprehend the import of our words and so this verse affords us a third Argument If we must pray so as to be understood by the Congregation made up of literate and illiterate persons Ideots then must we not pray in an unknown tongue but in the publick service of the Church we should thus pray according to the mind of our Apostle Verse 16. Sect. 25 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit which is a part of prayer how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks for he understandeth not what thou sayest still the Apostle speaks of Thanks-giving which is a part of prayer and must be concluded with Amen Now here we shall inquire what is meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Clerk say some Papists but surely they themselves are Ideots for 't is very evident that the whole people in the time of the Apostle yea See Du Plessis ubi supra a great while after their Martyrdome as Justine Martyr Clom Alexand and others do inform us did sound forth Amen with the greatest vigour Well then t is an Hebrew Idiotism and signifies no more then he that is an Ideot for as Moses Egypt informes me More Nevoc part 1. c. 8. and Bux lex Talm. p. 2001. voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extended to note estimationem hominis in certâ quapiam re and they use to say N est in tali loco in hac vel illâ re and such a one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth patrissare So here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is an Ideot And thus the Fathers generally interpret it Chrysostome and Oecumenius indoctum and Plebium Jerome and Theodoret laicum Ambrose imperitum Sedulius Anselme Haymo and Thomas Aquinas propriam linguam tantum modò scientem all in locum Well then this Ideot is he that understands not the learned Tongues and the Congregation is divided into two parts see Acts 4.13 the literate and the unlearned and prayers in an unknown Tongue are here prohibited because the unlearned part of the Church are not able to say Amen unto them and the reason given because they understand not what is said by him that prayeth in such a Tongue Whence we infer First That 't
to your precept And in the Feast of Saint Peter and Paul to Saint Peter they pray much after the same manner and yet the Scripture puts the question Who can forgive sins but God Mar. 2.7 Secondly They pray to them for Grace and Glory * Ps 56. Lady in thy name let me be safe and free me from my unrighteousness have mercy upon me and cleanse me from all mine iniquities and again * Ps 27. 50. Dissolve the Bonds of mine iniquities Take away the bundles of our sins purge my soul from its filth * Ps 3. 87. By thy Holiness are my sins purged * Ps 44. Thou art the beginning and end of my whole salvation totius salutis meae c. * Ps 41. * Ps 136. By her are sins purged by her is made true satisfaction for sins c. whereas 't is Gods propriety to be the God of all Grace Thirdly they pray for these things upon the account of the merits of the Saints Thus the Roman Breviary By the merits of Saint Franciscus April 2. Let us enjoy our promised rewards and grant that by the merits of Saint Peter and Saint Paul we may attain to eternal Glory July 6. That by the merits of Saint Nicholaus the Church may enjoy perpetual peace by the intercession of the merits of Saint Basil Sept. 10. Let us be absolved from allour sins and to the blessed Virgin Mary Jan. 14. By thee let the wrath of God be averted from me appease him by thy merits and again By the blood which Saint Thomas shed for thee Ps 72. make us to ascend that Heaven whither Thomas is ascended and this is consonant to that of Bellarmine Prec ad usum Sacrum in fest Th. Becket who tells us that it is lawful to pray unto the Saints even for salvatian and other spiritual blessings if so be we understand it thus that they should impetrate them by their merits Now if this be not derogatory to the Merits of Christ to have veram satisfactionem de'peccatis to have Grace and Glory purchased by the blood and merits of others let any unreasonable Man judge Section 4th and 5th Sect. 3 Our Authour affords us some considerations from which I suppose he would infer the lawfulness of this practise and first saith he we may beg prayers from one another as Saint Paul himself did from the Ephesians and others c. 6.19 c. 2. Thes 3.1.4 Col. 3. where he bids the Brethren pray for him Answer Very good but yet we dare not beg from these our Brethren Grace Glory pardon of sins nor say with the Roman Breviary to the Virgin Mary We flye unto thee O Virgin Mary for thy defence and for as much as being conscious of our great offences we fear the wrath of a severe Judge whom we dare not see We flye unto thee his Mother that thou wouldst intercede for us unto God excuse our sins and obtaining for its the Grace of thy Omnipotent Son procure us the pardon of what ever we have committed Secondly He tells us such begging of prayers is far from Idolatry or diminution to Christ since holy persons living or dead are not invocated as donors but fellow beggars with God for us Answer Why then doth your Breviary talk so often of procuring Grace and Glory and the pardon of sins by the merits of the Saints Why do you tell us that by the Holiness of the Virgin Mary are your sins purged That she is the beginning and end of your salvation that she hath made true satisfaction for us are these things no diminution to Christs merits and satisfaction to procure mercy for us upon these scores is this to procure it as fellow bâ—eggars Thirdly say you the refusing of the assistance of those whose prayers God more willingly hears is a neglect of using all means helpful to us Answer True but if the neglect of this Invocation of Saints be the neglect of any means thus helpful then were the Apostles negligent in giving us no intimation of our duty in this particular Yea the Saints of God for some thousand of yeares under the Old Testament and the Primitive Church for 300 years must be accused of this negligence for of their practise in this case nullibi vola nec vestigium Scripture and Histories afford us no one Tittle but pregnant Evidence to the contrary But you proceed Mr. C. S. 5. If the praiers to Sts. departed be prejudicial to the merits intercessions of our Lord Sect. 4 so is the beging of the prayers of those alive if one be unlawful so is the other and if both be lawful the prayers of Saints departed will be incomparably more effectual and therefore will better deserve to be made use of then the other Answer Is it not then a wonder that Saint Paul if he may be permitted to have known as much as Mr. C. should thrice call upon his Brethren alive for their supplications and yet not put up one Petition to a Saint or Angel Secondly We know it is the duty of living Saints to pray for one another but whether the Saints departed pray at all whether for any in particular and how far we know not We know a certain way to excite the Saints on earth to the performance of that Duty in reference to us but we are ignorant of any way of conveighing our desires to the Saints in Heaven We have Rule President and Command in Scripture for the first not one jot of all these in reference to the second the Requests we make to the living are no elicite Acts of Religion the requests made by the Romanist to the Saints departed are We pray to the living neither directly nor indirectly but desire them only by vertue of our Communion with them to assist us in their prayers as we might ask an Alms or any other good turn at their hands the Saints departed are by you directly invocated and in your devotions you immediately step from God and Christ unto a Saint We do not plead the merits of our Brethren nor bid them do so in our behalf you do both in reference to the Saints departed we do not kneel to our Brethren or ly prostrate before them on these accounts we do not invoke them in our Churches insert them into our Liturgies believe them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any way or that we are committed to their care or custody all this you do believe in inreference to the Saints departed Is not this therefore a very good Argument if the prayers made to Saints departed by the Romanists wherein they beg of them Grace and Glory and all spiritual good things trust in their Patronage plead for audience on the account of their merits be prejudicial to the merits of satisfaction and intercession of our Saviour or otherwise unlawful then must the asking of my brothers prayers in spight of all these differences be
the Saints in Heaven are prayed to at once as it is in many Collects and peculiarly on all Saints Dayes surely that day is not an holy day to the Guardian Angel who must be fain to trot to all the Saints in Heaven and acquaint them that Serenus Cressie being very sick and weak desires their prayers But when they pray to all Angels then the poor Angel must not travel over all the Heavens onely but the Earth to boot But we will not deal too severely with him let him proceed and thus he doth it History tells us that Magiclans have alwaies the Devil ready to come at their call why then should not Angels be witnesses of our Actions P. 184. and especially our prayers which as the Scrripture saith they offer as Incense to God Now to I eave the Scripture till anon Here we have more work for the Angel for seeing 't is an Angel Apoc. 8.3 that offers up the prayers and incense of all Saints the Guardian Angel must make a journey to him to unless you will have him to be Christ which will do our Author but little service 2. History likewise will tell us that Magicians and Witches can swim over the Sea in a shell can creep through a key-hole Can dip their finger in a little juice and flie away out of the Chimnie he may believe one as soonas the other Lastly the number of Magitians I hope is few in comparison of other men and so there is some difference as to that for one Devil may better afford to be nigh them especially seeing his service is so much promoted thereby As to that dispute of Saint Austine which concludes the Section I say 1. That he was very uncertain in it and one while denies and again suspects that such a thing might be 2. He saith only possit fieri it may be done this way And again 3. Vt quaedam cognoscant that they may know something and how little service this will do him every one may see P. 184. S. 8. 2. He further tells us We are ignorant how great the sphere of Activitie of the glorified Saints may be in respect of this whole visible world perhaps saith he in the words of Spalatensis the whole sensible world may be no more to one of them then its proper body to an humane soul informing it Answ And are not these men think you put to their shifts who are fain to coin such inventions to salve their Hypothesis But tell me is it probable they inform the whole world so as to be present each of them in every part of the world Or Secondly to operate in each part of the world albeit not present there If the first then will they be little short of omnipresent nor will it be proper to God to fill Heaven and Earth and they being in Hell as well as Heaven and also in Purgatorie How do they escape the fire How â—re the Angels said to ascend to Heaven and descend from it Is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only How are the souls of the Fathers delivered from their limbus said to depart thence and to be with Christ to be absent from the body and present with the Lord was Lazarus's soul carried to Heaven and afterwards extended Again to what end is this extension seeing they may be happie without it and why should we imagine it seeing here 't is certain they are not extended beyond their bodies If the second let them tell me how or by what Operation a soul that is in Heaven can tell that such a one who praies in his mind only is praying to him And suppose two were praying together and the one prayed to Peter and the other to Paul by what operation can these spirits discern that the one prayed to him and not the other I suppose a Praier to Saint Paul makes a different motion in their Orb of Aether but then how doth St Paul know who it is that praies to him Perhaps different men make different motions but Saint Paul never knew them and how shall he be informed Why the Guardian Angel must go up and tell him 't is S. C. that makes such a motion and haply he will remember it But how will he know when he prayes Hypocritically why truly when an Hypocrite praies it makes a different motion from a sincere one in the spirits Orb of Air. This Platonical stuff is all that I can imgine to salve the Hypotheses Si quid novisti rectius istis candidus imperti Lastly be it that their presence or operations were so vast yet could they not judge of the heart seeing to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proper to God and consequently must be as zealous for an Hypocrite as a devout Christian Thirdly Sect. 9 we cannot tell saies he what things God may reveal to them Answ Nor he whether he reveals any thing to them at all and therefore in these things he doth most evidently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. What a ridiculous thing is this to suppose such a Circle that when a man hath made a praier that praier should come to God and be revealed by him to a Saint and that Saint bring it to God again 3. Why must he be thought to reveal this to the Spirits in Heaven and not to the Souls in Purgatorie or if equally why are not they also praied to 4. But it is evident from Scripture that God doth not make any revelations of this kind for 't is said Eccles 9.5 The Dead know nothing that is done in this world neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the Sun And again Abraham is ignorant of us Esay 93.16 5. Bellar. himself confutes this Evasion by 2 Arguments 1. If it were so the Church would not say so boldly to all Saints Orate pro nobis but sometimes would prayto God to reveal our desires to them 2. No good reason can be given why Saints under the Old Testament should not be invoked for God might have revealed their Petitions to them though in Limbo Patrum and sure their praiers might have been as beneficial as the praiers of such as were alive 6. Why upon the same presumption should we not pray to the Saints living for albeit their praiers be not quite so effectual as the praiers of Saints departed yet they are effectual and consequently to neglect this will be to neglect one means conducing to our welfare I say upon the same presumption for this reason why God must be supposed to reveal our Praiers can be no other then our good and would not the reason move him to reveal them to Saints on Earth as well as those in Heaven Mr. Cr. p. 185. Oh but saith our adversarie If God said to Abraham a Pilgrim on Earth shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I do how much more may we imagine tha he hideth not the mightie works of his mercie
and justice here from his Domestick Servants 'T is pitie that this Argument was not framed before the Church of Israel madeher complaint that Abraham was ignorant of her It would have taught her better divinity 2. 'T is no Demonstration sure God would not hide from Abraham the thing he was to do which concern'd so much his Brother Lot albeit he never revealed afterwards to any of his dearest servants that we read of unless his Prophets any such thing therefore he will reveal to any Saint in Heaven the praiers that are made to them by any person whatsoever By what hath been said I may be bold to infer that the invocation of Saints is very foolish and if so that the Church of Rome is not infallible But our Authour claps in two places of Scripture without any coherence at all Sect. 10 to prove I know not what and albeit they have been answered an 150. times he shall not bate me a single unite Yet doth he bolt them forth without any notice of the answers given We read saith he not only an Angel but every one of the four and twentie Elders to have in their hands golden Censers and Vials full of Odours Rev. 8.3.5.8 which are the prayers of the Saints that is of their Brethren upon Earth Now to take these two places in their Order 1. Revel 8.3 We read another Angel came and stood before the Altar having a golden Censer and many Odours were given to him that he should offer them with the prayers of all Saints upon the Golden Altar which was before the Throne and verse 4. The smoke of the Odours which came of the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hand Now 1. Let it be granted that to one Angel was this given to offer Odours to come up with the praiers of all Saints How doth it follow that they are to be invocated or that he knows when any particular person praies to him or any other Saint May not he offer up his incense continually as knowing onely this that praiers are made continually 2. If one Angel do this How will it follow that all do it or that all Saints 3. If this be a created Angel is there not a fine round of Praiers 1. They are carried by an Angel or revealed by God to the Saints then he pteseuts them to the Angel the Angel to Christ and Christ to the Father 2. This Angel is said to offer Odours to come up with the praiers of all Saints which surely is to do somwhat which may make them more acceptable to God and will they say that the Virgin Mary is no Saint or that any Created Angel offers somwhat to God which makes her praier more acceptable Well but we denie it to have been a created Angel but say it was the Angel of the Covenant who by the incense of his merits and intercessions offers the praiers of all Saints to God and makes them more acceptable unto him For 't is manifest that here is reference to that which was used to be done in the Levitical administration where the Priest entering the Temple offered Incense on the Golden Altar whilest the people in the Court put up their praiers to God Luk. 1.10 Whence we may understand that phrase that the Angel offered his Odours with the prayers of the Saints Now the Levitical Priest who offered incense was a type of Christ not of the Angels and this is that which the Apostle intimates that Christ the Angel of the Covenant Typified by the Levitical Priest offers up the praiers and sighes of his members groaning under the Tyrannie of wicked men and by the incense of his merits makes them acceptable unto God The second Scripture is Apocal. 5.8 where we are told That twenty foure Elders fell down before the Lamb having every one of them Harps and Golden Vials full of Odours in their hands which are the prayers of the Saints Answ 1. Many interpret these of the Elders of the Church as Beda in verse 10. Here it is more plainly declared that the Beasts and the Elders are the Church redeemed by the blood of Christ and gathered from the Nations also he sheweth in what Heaven they are saying they shall reign upon the Earth And so Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 33. Ambrose on the Apccalyps and Haimo 2. Vossius will tell you that here is nothing intended but Eucharistical praiers not petitory and the four and twenty Elders onely intimate that the whole Family of Christians in Earth and Heaven did render continuall Doxologies to God for the redemption of the World by his Son There is one Argument of greater moment insisted on and that is taken from the miraculous effects not onely of prayers directed to God at the monuments of the Saints but also directed to the Saints themselves Now to this I answer First By denyal that any approved testimonies can be produced of such miraculous effects wrought by any prayers immediately directed unto Saints the Instances which Mr. C. refers us to shall be answered anon Secondly I say that these pretended miracles may justly be suspected for Satanical delusions and that upon several accounts First From the silence of all undoubted Antiquity of any such Sepulchre wonders in the three first ages albeit the Christians long before had used to keep their assemblies at the Coemiteries and Monuments of their Martyrs When God had ceased to exert his power as in former times that he should thus freshly exert it upon these occasions seems incredible and that which cannot easily be admitted by considering men who are acquainted with the Artifices of the Devil Secondly from the nature of them which rendreth them very ridiculous Basilius Selutensis l. 2. c. 10. Thus of Saint Thecla we are told that they who watch the night before her festivity do at at that time yearly see her driving a fiery Chariot in the aire and removing from Seleucia unto Dalisandus a place which she did principally affect in regard of the commodity and pleasantness of the scituation that when she had demanded of Alypius the Grammarian C. 24. forsaken by the Physitians what he ailed and he had replied upon her in that of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou knowest why should I tell it thee that knowest all things the Martyr being delighted partly with the man and partly with the verse for you must know that after her death she was much affected with Poetry and Oratory C. 21. 24. and continually delighted with such as would be accurate in her praises conveyed a certain round stone into his mouth with the touch whereof he was presently healed Yea the same Basil tells us how having prepared an Oration for her anniversary festivity the day before it should be pronounced he was taken with such an extream pain in his ear C. 27. that the Auditory was like to be quite disappointed But that the Martyr the same night
to them and then Saint Basil adds here it is that a woman praying for her sons is heard or wishing a safe return to her travelling Husband wherefore together with these Martyrs let us poure forth our prayers Immediately before he told the people they had often sought for one that might intercede to God for them Here saith he are forty sending up as it were one prayer and if where two or three be gathered together God is there present who doubts his presence where forty are He therefore c. From whence it is plain that here is not one Iota that bids us pray unto them but when it is said he that is under any pressure flyes unto them it is not to pray unto them but because they were esteemed which the Fathers frequently intimate to pray with them and this interpretation is evinced as by the argument that we shall be heard because we are in the presence of fourty so from that which follows that upon this account it is that the Wife comes hither and is heard And the testimony of Ruffinus will reach no higher then this doth Hist Ecc. l. 2. c. 23. and it onely shews that the Emperour came to the monuments of the Martyrs that so he might more assuredly procure the intercession of the Saints according to that vulger opinion above mentioned But Mr. C. will never be able from this intercession to conclude their Invocation unlesse he can assure us that they hear us and shew us a command to pray unto them no saith Bishop Andrews they will intercede for us on their own accord not being called upon to do so but must not be invocated by us so to do Saint Chrysostom's 66. Sect. 14 Hom. ad pop Antioch must be cited albeit he knows it to be spurious Possevin apparat in Chrys Bellar. de Scrip. Eccl. in eundem Reply to Card. Perron and his own party do confesse it and as for the same passage cited from the 26. Hom. in 2 Cor. Bishop Andrews hath told him that it smelt rank of forgery in Erasmus's nose who in his Preface before his Latine Translation of Basil and Amphilooc de Spiritu Sancio saith that there are some things there which must own him for their Parent qui dulcissimis Athanasii libellis de Spiritu Sancto suas loquaces sed Elumbes attexit noenias quique in Epistola ad Corinthios posteriore in Actis Apostolerum Chrysostomus haberi studuit And Secondly That this passage is not extant in the Latine Edition by Stelsius at Antwerp 1556. set forth by Johannes Affinius so that all Copies had it not yea further that this place is found in Garetius P. 69. de Invocatione Sanctorum cited under the name of Theodorus Daphnopatus whom thence the Reverend Bishop well concludes to have been the Author of it And yet if it had not been spurious we could have told you that it was thus to be interpreted The Emperour who is cloathed with purple makes a journey to visit these Sepulchres of Saint Peter and Saint Paul and laying aside his pomp stands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consid Modest p. 113. wanting the Saints to go before him in their prayers to God or intercede for him He whose Temples are encompassed with a Diadem wants for his protection even the Tent maker and Fisher-man though dead Bishop Forbs I acknowledge quarrels with this interpretation but he hath nothing at all confuting it as will appear to an unprejudiced eye Yea lastly In Saint Chrysostome's Rhetorical stile he might very well be said to desire the prayers of the Saints because he went to those places where the assistance of their prayers according to the vulgar opinion then on foot was especially to be had As to that of Saint Ambrose Sect. 15 Martyrs are to be intreated De Viduis l. 1. de off and let us not be ashamed to employ them as Intercessors for our infirmities I Answer Bishop Andrews makes it evident that this was written by him whilest a Neophite for saith he he was fain to be christened before he could be consecrated now the very next year after that he wrote his Commentaries upon Luke as Baronius proves from his own words in his eleventh Book upon the twentieth Chapter in which Commentary he cites this Book de viduis which therefore must needs be written before these Commentaries and so consequently in the first year of his Christianity yea he ingeniously confesseth that he beganâ— to teach before he had learnt and Saint Austine confirmes it saying Instruct. Hist Ambr. Vix Christanus de rebus Ecclesiae scribit thus he Now here we must be sent to Vossius and Forbs who considereth some other passages but gently slideth over this convincing evidence without the least notice taken of it but because he sends us to Forbs let him hear him giving us this rule l. 7. c. 5. When one and the same Writer seems to speak contradictions let it be considered where he professedly states the Question and confirmes his sentence by the suffrage of Scripture and Reason confuting disertly the opposite opinion and where he speaks of the same thing as it were aliud agens by the by without such confirmation from the testimonies of Scripture and Reason and confutation of the opposite opinion such things as do not well consist therewith and in this case that which he taught in the former manner must be esteemed to be his Doctrine l. 3. c. 12. C. 1. Thus saith he â—aint Ambrose in his Book De Spiritu Sancto and De Fide teacheth that God alone is to be worshipped not the Virgin Mary or any creature This he confirmes ex professo by the testimonies of Scripture and manifest Reason and yet in his Dook De Viduis he delivers a Doctrine which is plainly otherwise but then it is not operose confirmata industriously confirmed and therefore we must estimate Saint Ambrose his judgement from the former places To which we add that as he grew elder he grew wiser Ambros de obitu Theod. for afterwards he had learnt to say Thou O Lord onely art to be invocated Secondly This may be interpreted to be the obsecration of deeds rather then words for there he teacheth the Widow pleading she was weak and without help to make the Apostles her friends and neighbours to procure her help as Peter and Andrew entreated our Saviour to cure Peters wives Mother Now the way saith he to make them so to her was to draw near to them in the fellowship or likeness of piety and doing good for it was not the relation of blood but the kinred of Virtue that makes the Martyrs our Friends and neighbours Sect. 16 To that place of Austine Ad viginti Martyres c. ut vestiretur oravit Further let lt be considered that here we have no better president then a Taylor and that so simple as to bargain with the Martyrs
the Priest as by the people as well at Mass as at Mattins as well at the Altar as in the body of the Church Indeed you tell us it might have been lawful if the Church had so ordered it But do you think S. Austin would have said so too is it not his business to distinguish betwixt the honour which was given to the Martyrs by the Christians and by the Gentiles to the Daemons and having said that they erect no Altars to them as the heathens did for sacrifice but sacrificed to God alone he adds that at this sacrifice the Martyrs were not invocated as the Gentile Daemons were but only nominated now what is it to his purpose to tell us they are not invocated at the Altar if they were invocated elsewhere well then your last refuge is the invocation of Latria which Saint Austin must be thought to speak of C. 21. because he tells us in his twentieth Book against Faustus Manichaeus that they do not worship the Saints with Latria Ans But who told you that invocation of them was not esteemed Latria by him why else doth he say that the Saints were not worshipped sicut dii as the Heathen Gods and then after this non invocantur Secondly Doth he not say non invocantur sed nominantur now I hope your invocation is not nomination and therefore 't is somewhat above it and consequently somewhat comprehended in that which he opposeth to it so likewise in the place you cite he tells us they afforded that cultum dilectionis and such as was given to holy men that were now alive yea saith he we sound forth their praises but we do not worship them with Latria where albeit Faustus there objected that they worshipped them votis similibus with such prayers or vows as the heathens worshipped their Idols with yet could he not get Saint Austin to acknowledge they prayed unto them at all but having told us that they praised them there he stops and riseth no higher albeit the objection and the business in hand which was to shew what honour the Saints did receive from them and what they thought not fit to yield unto them did require it Thus have we returned an Answer to our Authours pleas from Scripture and Antiquity our next work should be to confront to them those many arguments by which our Champions do confute this superstition and plead the cause of Christ against them but I shall wave it at present and content my self with evidencing the judgement and practice of Antiquity to run contrary to them And 1. Sect. 19 It is a strong presumption that this Invocation of Saints is not so pious so profitable as the Trent Council doth imagine in that we find neither precept nor example of all the Fathers of the Old Testament whereby this kind of service to them may be warranted To this the usual Answer of the Papist is Vid. Bellar. praefat in controvers de Eccles triumph ante that the spirits of the Patriarchs and Prophets and other Worthies who flourished under the Old Testament were kept in limbus patrum a place nigh to hell appointed for these Fathers to be retained in till the descent of our Blessed Saviour thither But this Answer is evidently grounded upon a false foundation it being clear from Scripture that they were not included in such a place but did enjoy the Kingdome of Heaven Luk. 13 28. For Abrahams bosom is clearly propounded as the place into which the Blessed Angels before the death of Christ convey'd the souls of those which departed in the favour of God Luke 16. and that this bosome is virtually and in terms equivalent Cap. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shall ly down promised to those which afterwards should believe is sufficiently evinced from that place of Saint Matthew many shall come from the East and West and shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven for the joys of heaven are likened to a feast in which according to the custom then in use they lay down with the head of one towards the breast of another who is therefore said to lie in his bosom and therefore when 't is said of the faithful that believed after Christs death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they shall lie down at this feast with Abraham 't is as much as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Euthymius paraphraseth it that is they shall lie down in the bosom of Abraham adde to this that when God translated Enoch and Elias was carried up in a Chariot to heaven they could not be conveyed to this limbus patrum a place so nigh to the receptacle of the damned spirits yea 't is not likely they were conveyed to a place where they had no vision of God and yet there is no reason to think Abraham David Daniel and other of the Prophets should be in a worse place or condition then Enoch or Elias seeing they had as large a testimony of their pleasing God as they We go farther yet and urge against them Sect. 20 that in the New Testament it self we can descry no footsteps of this Invocation more then we did in the Scriptures of the Old Saint Paul doth frequently sollicite his brethren to pray for him and for the furtherance of the Gospel P. 1. but not one petition can we find directed to an Angel or Saint departed here presently they flie to their traditions but in vain for if any such tradition as this were at first delivered we demand how it should come pass that for the space of 360 years together after the birth of our Saviour we can find no mention in the Fathers of any such thing but on the contrary when urged by heathens that it was their duty to pray to Saints and Angels they stoutly denied it and cried away with such evil counsel Irenaeus in his first book speaks of Hereticks that had strange phansies concerning Angels attributing much unto them in relation to which he denies that the Church did any thing l. 2. c. 57. viz. in reference to miraculous cures by invocation of Angels or by incantations but purely and manifestly directing prayers to the Lord which made all and invocating the name of our Lord Jesus Christ now whereas Fevardentius tells us that he speaks of the invocation of evil spirits we ask him why then is it that no limitation is given but all Angellical invocation absolutely denied why is it that he binds up the prayers of the Church to God the Father through the name of his Son Lib. de Orat. cap. 12. Tertullian saith we deservedly upbraid those prayers with vanity which are made without the Authority of any precept of our Lord or his Apostles for such are rather to be esteemed superstitious then Religious shew us then a precept of our Lord or his Apostles and we will cease to impeach your practice as superstitious vanity but seeing that is impossible
let him receive it nor would the Apostle have been so nice in his perswading it And again Christ saith this that every one may consider his strength whether hee be able to satisfie this command of Virginity and Chastity for our abilities ought to bee considered that so hee that can receive it may St. Austin Lib. 1. de nupt concup ad voler C. 16. id ad Pollent In cap. 20 Leviticus Pt 3. cur past C. 30. this vertue of such excellent Continence he that can receive let him receive it And again the Apostle counsels Celibacy to him that can receive it Hesyc we do not require any thing beyond mens power but onely what is possible viz. virginity of him to whom it is possble And Gregory Hee that is truth it self saith all cannot receive this Word And again the Pastors that are single are to bee admonished that if they cannot withstand the storms of temptation without difficulty of Shipwrack they betake themselves to the Haven of Wedlock To these you may add Ignat. Ep. 8. ad Smyrnenses Cyril L. 1. Ep. 11. Si perseverare nolunt aut non possunt nubant Lactan. L. 6. Inst C. 23. Chrysost L. de Virg. Homil. 19. in 1 Cor. Bernard in Serm. de convers ad Cler. C. 29. Amrbose cited in Jure Canon C. Integritas 32. qu. 2. yea Bell armine himself C. 34. resp ad 19. CHAP. XVIII Schisme is an unnecessary separation sect 1. Our separation necessary by reason 1 Of many things unjustly required to be believed 2 To be practised by us sect 2 3. That supposing these doctrines to be innovations wee are bound to separate sect 4. The result of Mr. C ' s. positions ibid. His pretensions to make his assertion reasonable considered sect 5 6 7. The Church of Rome Schismatical sect 8. The Arguments to the contrary answered sect 9 10 11. WE are at length arrived at our last Sect. 1 and largest taske to wipe off that odious name of Schisme which hee most irrationally casts upon us Now in this business Mr. C. as he is more voluminous so is he more weak and more confused And therefore I will not follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but draw up some thesis or propositions and confront them to his assertions and then return an answer to his arguments 1. 1. Proposition Therefore Schism is an unnecessary separation that it is a separation Sect. 2 the very import of the word assures us that it is an unnecessary one appears because nothing can bee sinful which is necessary with a necessity not introduced upon my self through my own default and consequently where cause of Schism is necessary there not hee that separates but hee that is the cause of separation is the Schismatick for schism there cannot bee in leaving the communion of any Church Chilling p. 17. unlesse wee were obliged to continue in it man cannot be obliged by man but to what either formally or virtually hee is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least or the most â—nâ—ocent falshood to bee a Divine Truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that seeing you require the belief of errours among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to communicate with you ceaseth yea we are obliged not to communicate with you upon these terms which are evidently sinful and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth to nothing but it falls heavy upon your own heads for making our separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion Thus being not content with Christ the Mediatour of mankind you require us to hold the Saints departed to bee our Mediatours besides the head Christ Jesus you require us to believe the Pope to bee the head and Husband of the universal Church by Divine right besides the Sacrifice of the Cross you force upon us that of the Altar as a true and proper Sacrifice besides the blood of Christ you command us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs besides the torments of Hell which are threatned to the wicked you require us to assert Purgatorian torments to bee inflicted on the faithful Besides the Worship of the great God you require us to adore and that with the worship due and proper unto him the holy Sacraments besides the holy Scriptures you require us to receive with equal authority certain Books Apocriphal and Traditions like unto them with the same faith wee give to these Holy Scriptures the veneration of Images the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ you require us to believe The Churches power in mutilating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in enjoyning the celebration of publick service in a tongue unknown in imposing perpetual Celibacy upon such as take upon them holy orders you require us to acknowledge These things you have established in your councels and thundred your Anathemaes against all those that will not yeild their assent unto them so that without the belief of these things it is impossible for us to keep in the communion of your Church nay the denial of any of these Articles excludes us at least in your esteem not only from the Roman but the Church of God and makes it unlawful for you to communicate with us the confessions of these things you exact from us with the greatest rigour and that as the true Catholick faith Bulla pii quarti extra quam neâ—o salvus esse potest without beleiving of which there is no salvation to any man continually proclaiming that you esteem them Hereticks enemies of Christ and worse than Infidels that reject these opinions or any of them nay which is worst of all in making of these and such like decrees you give out that you are infallible So that to question any one of them is ipso facto to thrust our selves out of your Communion sith therefore you require the belief of these untruths as necessary conditions of communion you evidently free us from the guilt of Schisme in refusing to communicate with you upon such terms Again wee confidently assert Sect. 3 there can be no necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions nay there is a necessity of separation when the performance of them is required a necessity of getting out of Babylon when wee cannot stay there Rev. 18.4 but we must be partakers of her sins And evidently to practise what I esteem and look upon as forbidden by God is to be guilty of damned hypocrisie and wilful disobedience against him seeing therefore the Church of Rome requireth of us the practise of such unlawful actions as the Adoration of the Sacrament which is Idolatry the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Images petitions for deliverance of Souls from Purgatory which are superstitions yea and injoyns her