the speech will bear another more agreeable to the purpose of the place and to impose upon omnipotencie a necessitie of making it good what is it but to tempt God And here we may mind him again of the other proposition this cup is the new Testament in my blood which we found him above loath to speak to but desire him here to examine whether this Scripture can be taken in a literal proper sense He can not say it many things compel to the contrary then is it a figurative speech and that in the words of institution as well as this is my body The last objection is from Jo. 6. the Capernaites conceit of eating our Saviours flesh and his saying the flesh profiteth nothing some indeed will apply this against the Romish doctrine but I will not quarrel with him about the force of it The Protestant doctrine rests not upon this place of Scipture we say the true flesh of Christ profiteth where ever it is really given and received or eaten and let the Romanists consider whether they must not say the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing when they say the wicked really eat the true flesh of Christ It is plain by what our Saviour saith in that Chapter of eating his flesh that albeit the Sacramental eating of his flesh may profit nothing as in them that receive unworthily yet is there no real eating of our Saviours flesh but what profiteth St. Paul might say He that eateth that bread unworthily but could not say he that eateth Christs flesh unworthily taking it not for the bare Sacramental eating but for real participation of his very flesh which the Romanists allow unto the wicked The cause of this and many more and greater incongruities is that gross kind of Real Presence which puts our Saviours body in stead of the substantial bread fixing it under those species or qualities of bread making it unum quid as we noted above one thing with them and so carryed whither soever they are given to whom soever and received by whomsoever they are Having done with these objections which he calls the chief arguments of protestants from Scripture Considerations of Transubstantiation as to natural reason he tells us there are other drawn from Natural Reason fitter for Heathens then Christians p. 306. If we do but speak the horrid inconveniences and indignities that the blessed and glorious body of our Saviour is or may be exposed to by this gross way of presence or binding his body under to the species they presently cry this is fitter to be spoken by Infidels then Christians we may not so much as utter the ill consequences of their belief without note of infidelity So if inquiring a Reason of this their belief and not finding in Scripture any express witness of Gods will nor any example of the like conversion but finding many things that compel to the contrary from the reason of a body and of a Sacrament we profess that we cannot see how it should be and that we have no reason to make it an Article of our belief then are such arguments or questionings of it fitter for Heathens then Christians so unwilling is that Church to have any thing questioned or searched into that it propounds as Article of Faith St. Chrysostome speaking of that questioning of the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15.35 how are the dead raised and with what body do they come saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be asking still how shall this be is the part of one that believes not and it was well said supposing the Article or thing to be believed clearly expressed in Scripture as the Resurrection of the dead Incarnation Birth of our Saviour and the like when God Almighty has expresly declared these then to ask how this shall be sounds unbelief it s more fit for a Heathen then Christian therefore we believing the Sacrament is his body and blood or as S. Paul the communication of his body blood and consequently his body and blood really present in the Sacrament we do not question nor define the Modus how this is done but challenge the boldness of the Church of Rome that has determined the Modus by transubstantiation that is by destroying one essential part of the Sacrament the outward Element Bread and Wine and would impose this upon the world as an Article of Faith These arguments from Reason as he calls them he will undertake to answer and because he deals with such as profess themselves to be Christians he will endeavour it by giving clear instances in some Article of Christian faith which they believe wherein they must solve the like difficulties to those they urge from natural Reason against this mystery p. 306. This is fair and will be satisfactory if he can make it good But still we must remember if he could make it good it evinces but the possibility of the thing which is needless in this point to contend much about and does acknowledge a needless multiplying of miracles and engaging of Gods omnipotency where he has made no express declaration of his will or evidence of the thing The Arguments as he calls them are propounded here by way of question and he answers by other questions which binds him to see to it that there be no disparity between the reason of the one and of the other or that the like difficulty as he undertook above must be solved in that Instance he gives But this is not likely to be done if we observe the doubts proceed upon our Saviours body considered not onely simply in it self or nature of a body but also as concerned in this business in the nature of a Sacrament also if we observe his way of proceeding for he is fain still to serve himself of the capacity of a spirit as Soul Angel God himself to shew the possible conditions a Body may be put under or of the mystery of the hypostatical union to shew the like supply of defects in nature here now this at first sight presents a great disparity between the things The first question enquires how can Accidents the species of bread and wine exist without a subject This question Accidents without a subject although we will not dispute it to the denying of Gods omnipotency in sustaining Accidents without a Subject yet may it be put to the prejudice of Romish Transubstantiation many wayes First because it implies a needless multiplying of miracles in the Sacrament Secondly because it binds the body and blood of Christ to and under those Accidents or Species upon which many inconveniences follow Mr. Spencers answering this question by the humane nature in Christ which subsists without its proper personality and receives it from the divine nature must suppose that Christs body and blood in the Eucharist does supply the defect of the proper subject of those species * Bell. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. Sect. sed haec Bellarm. makes them and Christs body
Vnum quid as it were one and the same thing †Valen disput 6. in 3. Tho. punct 1. Sect. 19. Christum illa accidentia in Eucharistia vere proprie formaliter inter se uniri Greg. de Val. proves Christ and those Accidents to be truly properly formally united From hence as I said many inconveniences follow for what happens to the species must also to the body and blood of Christ Thirdly if we consider this with reference to the Sacrament we may well put the question how can Accidents of bread and wine be in the Sacrament without their proper subject how can they supply the purposes of the Sacrament as to the outward part of it without the substances of bread and wine or if the body and blood of Christ under the species must supply the defect of their proper subject or substances as his answering by the personality of our Saviour must imply then must the body and blood of Christ supply the place and property of the outward part of the Sacrament which is most absurd By this of the Personality of our Saviour he serves himself in answering the eight question and the three last But the disparity is evident for the personality of the divine nature may supply the defect of it in the humane by reason of the hypostatical union which joyns the humane nature to the divine But the body and blood of Christ can neither be united to the species of bread and wine in such a manner as to make it supply the defect of their proper subject neither is apt to supply the properties of that subject or outward element of the Sacrament as we noted above yet does Mr. Spencer by his answer suppose the body and blood of our Saviour to supply all and the Romish writers by that strict union which they suppose to be between his body and the Species make it subject to many inconveniences To the question how can the same body be in several places at once Same body in several places he returns this question as satisfactory how can the Soul or an Angel or God be at the same time in many places But any one may see the disparity between the properties and condition of a Body and of a Spirit and consequently the unsatisfactoriness of his Answer Nor is it true which he here must suppose that a Soul can be in several bodies distant one from other or an Angel in distant places at once therefore they are forced to take in Gods property of being present in many places l 3. c 4. de Enchar quomdo Deus est in Loco Mr. Spencer learnt it of the Cardinal affirming the body of Christ to be in place as God is To that of Penetration of parts if our Saviours body should be contained in the least part or crumb of the host Penetration of Dimensions he answers by our Saviours body passing through the doors and through his mothers womb both being shut But it s no where said they remained absolutely shut * in 4. sent dist in 44. qu. 6. Durand shews how with more reason it may be said our Saviour came in the doors opening to him unperceived by his Disciples for it is not said saith he that he came in per januas clausas but januis clausis not through the shut doors but the doors being shut And for his passage through his Mothers womb it being shut the Scripture puts him among the first born that opened the womb and though the Fathers often speak of the womb being shut yet is it only to deny such an opening of the womb as is injurious to her Virginity and much to this purpose Durand shews in the place above cited may be said of our Saviours coming out of the womb citing Saint Aug. Ambr. Greg. Another objection p. 308. If our Saviours flesh and blood be really in the Sacrament Our Saviours body exposed to indignities then may Catts and Rats eat it This objection is not carefully expressed for such inconveniences do not follow upon a Real presence but such a Presence as the Romanists fancy which binds his body and blood to the species and so makes it liable to all the indignities which happen to them But see how he would answer it by the like as he supposes If the flesh and blood of Christ saith he were really in the Passion then might dogs eat his blood that was shed As if it were alike what was done to his passible body appointed then to suffer and done now to his glorious body All the disgraces and indignities that were done or could happen unto him then were agreeable to the work he came about viz. to redeem us by suffering and whatever became of that precious blood that was shed it had notwithstanding its due effect for our Redemption but now to expose his glorious body to such indignities as they do by uniting it so to the species does not beseem Christians The next objection or question If there were so many miracles as you must hold wrought in the Sacrament Multiplying of miracles need lessy Why are none of them seen He answers by another question If there be so many miracles wrought in the incarnation of our Saviour why were none of them seen p. 309. But great disparity here for albeit the miraculous Incarnation of our Saviour was secret and unseen in the working of it yet seen and apparent enough in the effect wrought Again the nature of that mystery required it should be secret in the working but for our believing it the word doth sufficiently attest it and the thing or work wrought was sufficiently evident therefore S. Jo. saith c. 1.14 The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we saw his glory c. Nothing like in the sacrament notwithstanding that the nature of sacraments requires all be done to the sense for confirmation and as nothing appears of all the supposed miracles so nor does the word of God plainly attest any of them so destitute is their way of Transubstantiation of any just proof or evidence CHAP. VIII Against Communion in one kinde THe Doctrine of the Church of Rome delivered in the Council of Trent and here prefixed by Mr. Spencer carries its Condemnation in the forehead The boldness of the Church of Rome in this point acknowledging that our Saviour instituted and administred in both kinds and that the use of both kinds was frequent might have said Constant in the beginning of Christian Religion might have said for 1200. years after the beginning of Christian Religion yet is not ashamed to approve the contrary practice and to plead for it an authority in the Church about the Sacraments to make a change Salvâ substantia that is the substance being preserved entire where again it speaks its own condemnation for how can the substance be preserved when half of that which our Saviour made the Sacrament is denied to the people He calls
to some Temporal punishment after forgiveness which how far and in what sense true we have seen Now let us see how supposing it true in the Romish sense as indeed it is not he can transfer it from the living to the dead that it may be a ground and proof of Purgatory after death as they suppose it is of satisfactions in this life for if ask supposing such persons in this life liable to some temporall punishment why should they be so in the next it rests upon that false assertion of his Council that such punishment must be satisfied or paied either in this world or the world to come for there is a third way which * Vid Alens summ l. 4. qu. 15. mem 3. artic 3. some have allowed and that is a removal of all the stains of sin and guilt of punishment by the final grace and in the passage of the soul from the body And how bold is this Author to make God a respecter of persons if he should not punish in the other world one that had sinned as David and not payed for it in this pa. 187. for then he should not saith this Author reward every man according to his works God no respecter of persons if he forgive all Temporal punish ment with out our satisfaction But this is First a bold inference upon the former falls supposal of such punishments retained and inflicted in the Course of vindicative justice if not satisfied for by us whereas we saw three reasons against it and other purposes which God has in so retaining and inflicting punishment when he sees fit for chastisement amendment admonition to others and to shew how he is displeased with sin in his children yea it is very profitable for us that he should retain and inflict it after forgiveness as and when he sees fit But none of these purposes can hold in the punishments of Purgatory Secondly that Rewarding every man according to his works is misapplied to sins of just persons forgiven for the reward of punishment which God without respect of persons renders to works is to works not reckoned for i. e. not repented of not forgiven And whereas they will not allow that God either in mercy or justice can remit the remainder of Temporal punishment without being a Respecter of persons why do they contend for the power of Indulgence to be in the Pope and allow him to be a Respecter of persons as the Rich finde him to be And whereas they hold Christ to entreat and intercede for souls in Purgatory yet none come out upon his Intercession but upon the Popes Indulgence All they can pretend to here is that by such Indulgencies the application of Christs merit and satisfaction is made Papal Indulgences But why should they allow the Pope to be a respecter of persons in applying the merits of Christ with respect as he does to friends or those that can pay well when they will not allow God Almighty to dispense his own mercy or justice to them that have not satisfied here unless they do it in Purgatory or why do they allow the Pope to extend that power of loosing to souls in Purgatory that is under the earth which was given to the Church for loosing only things * Mat 16.19 Mat. 18.18 upon earth Indeed God has appointed many wayes and means in his Church of applying Christs satisfaction such as his Word both Sacraments and Absolution but as for the many new invented wayes of the Church of Rome they are unwarrantable and ineffectual to the purpose deceiving the people not only of their money but of their souls by staying on things that must be payed for yet profit not false applications of what they pretend the merits and satisfaction of our Saviour Christ Unto this debate of Purgatory it will not be amiss to adde something concerning satisfactions Of satisfactions and of doing the things signified by that name We do not here condemn or deter people from doing the things which in the language of the Church of Rome come under the name of satisfaction viz. those Penals self-afflictives acts of self-denial or such spiritual exercises or bodily austerities reasonably used that way But we commend them as profitable and to good purpose if rightly undertaken and directed only we cannot allow the grounds upon which that Church has established her satisfactions nor the purposes that Church seems to have in the commending or injoyning them The grounds we saw in the discourse of Purgatory That God does retain part of the temporal punishment which may by works of penance be remitted here in this world or payed in the world to come as this Author expresses it pa. 187. of this sufficiently above Nor can we allow the purposes or at least practises of the Romish Church in commending those Penals as meritorious and satisfactory to Gods justice that I may say nothing of the no small gain that is made thereby But we allow and commend the doing of the things these self-afflictives First in order to the obtaining of remission of sin and punishment so the Sackeloth Ashes Lying on the ground as in the Ninivites Ion. 3. this they do not as having any merit or satisfaction for punishment due by Gods justice unto sin nor yet as the prime conditions of forgiveness but as expressions of that inward Repentance and humiliation of which they are effects and which they conduce to encrease by a reaction or working back again upon the soule Secondly After forgiveness they are profitable when done either in respect to sin past by way of wholsome discipline to make more wary of such sins more careful to avoid them hereafter and more diligent in doing the contrary duties or when done in order to the averting some Temporal judgment wherewith God might strike us justly for some failing remisness or want of due carefulness as is requisite for that avoiding of sin and performance of duty For these are the fruits of Repentance which God accepts as the great and only satisfaction on our parts as for those Penals and bodily afflictives they are pleasing unto him so far as conduce to inforce care and strength of the spirit against sin and as they are expressions and effects of that humiliation and Repentance which is the Condition of forgiveness And these Afflictives or exercises of self-denial may be either voluntary undertaken of our selves or by advise of the Priest that has the ministery of reconciliation and the power of loosing committed unto him and the less that God does inflict on us i. e. the greater prosperity health ease quietness that any man enjoys in the world the more is he concerned to impose on himself such acts of self-denial and keep the soul exercised by sometimes afflicting the body or else the flesh will gather strength against the spirit and bring in the world too fast into the soul Upon the aforesaid Respects we commend and allow the things
conclude all Religious worship or service due to God The name of Religion saith * Lactan. l. 4. Inst c. 28. quòd hominem sibi Deus relegaverit Lactantius is deduced from the bond of piety because God has bound man to himself S. Aug. is copious to this purpose who in one place deduces Religion from another word but to the same effect from religendo choosing God again whom we had lost and serving him only Hunc eligentes vel potius religentes nam amiseramus negligentes c. Civit. Dei l. 10. c. 4. * Aug de vera Relig. c. 55. Non est nobis Religio c. Elsewhere Our Religion stands not in the worship of the Dead or Saints departed They are to be honoured for imitation not to be adored for Religions sake and so having denied the worship of other creatures even Angels too he concluds according to the force of the Word Religion given above by Lactantius * Religet ergò Religio uni omnipotenti Deo Let therefore Religion bind us to Almighty God alone And speaking of worship †Aug. de Civ Dei l. 10. c. 1. Cultus saith he the word worship if we say no more agrees to many things but if we adde to it the name of Religion it distinguishes it from all other and speaks that worship which is due to God Our second evidence is from the Argument which the Fathers made for the Godhead of our Saviour The Fathers argument against the Arrians and of his consubstantiality with the Father against the Arrian Heresy proving the Deity of the Son by worship to be given unto him according to the Apostles argument Heb. 1.6 worship him all the Angels and challenging the Arrians for allowing him to be worshiped and invocated yet denying him to be God which might have been evaded by the Arrians if the Romish answer and distinction had been known doctrine then for they might according to that have said they allowed him to be religiously worshiped not as God but as the most excellent Creature and in high favour with God Here Athanasius * Athan. 2. orat contr Arr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 charging the Arrian Heresie with this absurdity consequential to it Now that the worship of the Creature was done away viz. the Heathen worship taken away by Constantine again to worship and serve a Creature and that which was made so they accounted Christ to be Also in the same oration he argues against that saying of the Arrians that our Saviour began then to be worshiped when he was exalted of God but more fully against this in his next oration citing that of the Apostle Heb. 1.6 Let all the Angels worship him for a disproving of that Arrian tenet and a proof of our Saviours Deity and he goes on there to take away as it seems the Arrian limitation of worship something like the aforesaid evasion of the Romanists That he was worshiped by the Angels as higher then they in glory Athan. 3. orat contr Arrian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exalted above them This the Father denies and adds If he was adored as higher in glory then ought every inferior worship him that is so but so it ought not to be for saith he A creature doth not worship a creature citing S. Peter and the Angel who refused worship Act. 10. and Rev. 19. then concludes Therefore it belongs only to God to be worshiped And this saith he the Angels know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who albeit excelling one another in glory yet being all of them Creatures they are not in the number or rank of those that are to be worshiped but of those that do worship The like argument from adoration he * Athan. in libr. de Trinitate ad Serapionem elsewhere uses and so does Hilary in his books of the Trinity more then once so does S. Aug. use it to prove the Deity of the holy Ghost in his first book of the Trinity and sixt chapter So Nazianzen Nazen orat 37. de spiritu sancto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Holy Ghost is not to be worshiped how doth he deify or sanctify us in baptisme but if he must be adored then worshiped if worshiped how then is he not God for the one cleaves to or follows the other as a Golden Chain Thus the Fathers generally proved the Deity of the Son and holy Ghost because to be worshiped Our next evidence that the ancient Church knew no such Religious worship The Fathers answer to the Heathens denying such worship is taken from the answers given to Heathens who observing that Christians did acknowledge the ministery of Angels and resort to the memories of the Martyrs objected to the Christians that they held and worshiped Angels and Martyrs like as they themselves did their Daemons and Heroes that is as mediators between men and the Supreme God Origen had to do with Celsus upon this argument Orig. l. 5. contrà Celsum omnia Vota interpellationes c. and acknowledges Angels to be ministring spirits but all our Vowes Interpellations put up to God the Lord of all by our high Priest then shews that our applying to Angels without our better knowing of them that is their nature and offices is not agreeable to reason wherein he seems to relate to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 2.18 an intruding or searching into those things a man has not seen or known as those worshipers of Angels did who could not see or know that the Angels had any such place or office appointed to them But more below out of this place of Origen when we come to the point of Invocation Elsewhere Celsus objecting that the worship or honour given to those Orig. l. 8. contr Cel sum that the supreme God would have honoured was a thing acceptable to him so is their worshiping of Daemons and Hero's for an honouring of his subjects cannot offend him and that this was apparent in Kings and their subjects and officers and that it was seditious to say otherwayes This discourse of Celsus is not much unlike what the Romanists plead for their worshiping and honouring of Saints and Angels But Origen by way of answer Nostra ratio potior est adducens nos ad serviendum uni Deo per filium Quisquis habet Deum propitium insinuates it is not so with God as amongst men and that our reason is more forcible inducing us to serve God only by his Son and a little after saith he God alone is to be worshiped and prayed to by his Son and whosoever has God propitious by his Son the Angel of the great Counsel let him be content he cannot want the protection of Angels and more to this purpose So may we say Our Reason is more forcible which induceth us Protestants to refuse their way of worship and to serve God only by his son our only high Priest and mediatour Now
holy Men living and the rest may be answered by that honour which was done to the Martyrs in frequenting their Memories keeping their Festivals celebrating their Victories Vertues and Praises or by that reverend respect had to their bones or Reliques But secondly we may question the Cardinals honesty in his very first Testimony where he brings in Justin Martyr with this pomp of words Justin speaking in the Name of all Christians Bel. ibid. Loquens nomine omnium Christianorum fidem totius Ecclesiae explicans Illum Filium qui ab ilto venit docuit nos haec bonorum Angelorum exercitum Spiritum prophetiâ—um colimus adoramus and delivering the faith of the whole Church saith VVe worship and adore Him the Father and the Son that came from Him and taught us these things and the host of good Angels also the Spirit of prophesie so that Author usually stiles the Holy Ghost Now what a strange sense little less then blasphemy doth the Cardinal put upon that ancient Father for the Advancing of Angel-worship as if the Host of good Angels were set here as one of the parties to be worshipped and that before the Holy Ghost whereas the * Bel. l. 10. de Christo Cardinal in his first Book de Christo did argue well that the Holy Ghost was not a Creature because coupled with the Father and the Son This indeed was answerable to the usual argument made by the * Sic Basil l. de Spir. Sancto c. 18 19. Fathers for the Deity of the Holy Ghost but here the Cardinal can couple the Host of Angels with the Father and the Son as to be adored with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin in Apolog. 2. and that before the Holy Ghost He that looks into Justin will easily discern that the Host of Angels there is coupled with these things and both relating to the word taught not to worship or adore For he spake immediately before of the wicked Angels or Devils not to be worshipped and as the Son taught us these things so likewise concerning the Host of good Angels Another place he hath out of St. Aug. saying to Heathens that professed to worship Angels Aug. in Ps 96. Vtinam velletis colere Angelos ab ipsis disceretis non illos colere id est adds the Cardinal non ut Deos sed ut Sanctos i.e. their Daemons I wish you would Worship Angels for you would then learn of them not to worship them Here the Cardinal adds his own words in the same character that is not as Gods but as holy But St. Aug. did not intend really to commend Angel-worship to them but wisheth they would instead of their Daemons honour the good Angels and of them they might learn true worship for he had said a little before The good Angels would have God alone to be worshipped Another Testimony he pretends from Eusebius Euseb de praepar Euang. l. 13. c. 11. hath it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. at their monuments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he makes to say We approach their Monuments and make Vows unto them by whose intercession we profess our selves to be much helped Thus the Cardinal wilfully following the corrupt Translation of Trapezuntius whereas Eusebius saith we make vowes and prayers not to Them but there i. e. at their monuments but to God as the custom then was And that which followes by whose intercession we profess is added in stead of we honour their blessed souls for so it follows in Eusebius Lastly out of St. Chrysost he cites Adoremus tumulos Let us adore the Martyrs monuments whereas that Father saith not so but thus * Chrys homil de Juvent Maxime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us visit or often go thither let us touch their Coffin or Chest Embrace their Reliques This is all the Adoration he speaks of Then a little after he shews the profit of it That from the sight of the Saints Monuments and consideration of their rewards we may gather much treasure Thus hath the Cardinal acquitted himself in the Testimonies from Antiquity To conclude Bel. de beat Sanct. c. 13. In his arrgument which he makes from the objections of Jewes and Heathens we may challenge his want of Candor in concluding that it was the practice of the Ancient Church because their Enemies charged the Christians with such a Worship That which the Heathens observed in the practise or doctrine of Christians was as we have seen above their allowing of and depending on the Ministery of Angels their resort to Martyrs Tombs their offering up prayers there their keeping the daies of the Martyrs sufferings their celebrating of the Martyrs praise Now it was a gross mistake in the Heathens thence to infer the Christian Church did worship them or did set Angels and Martyrs in like place and office as they did their Daemons and Heroes So is it a false inference in the Romanists from the practise of Christians then to conclude a Romish Worship and to make the mistaken allegation of the Heathen a pretence for it when the Fathers in answering their objection so plainly discover the mistake and deny the Worship There were some excesses it is like committed at the Tombs of Martyrs by some inconsiderat Christians but not to be charged upon the Church as appears by St. Aug. his answer above to Maximus the Grammarian A Catholicis Christianis None of the Dead are worshipped by Catholick Christians what ever excesses were used by some Aug. de Civ Dei l. 8. c. 27. Sed non fieri à melioribus Christianis yet none of the Catholick Christians so worshipped also by what he saith of feasting and banqueting used by some at the Tombs of Martyrs These things are not done by the better sort of Christians I will only add what I meet with in the History of the Councel of Trent anno 1549. How the Archbishop of Mentz during the Interim held a Synod by which in the 45 Head of Doctrine it was determined according to St. Augustin That the Saints were to be honoured but with Civil worship or honour of dilection and love no otherwise then Holy Men in this Life SECT II. Of Invocation of Saints or Angels AS for Scripture proof by the Confession of Romanists little is to be expected in this point Pretence of Scripture yet because Scripture is Scripture the written Word of God as I said at * Sect. 1. in Introduct the beginning it must and is pretended to and many places alledged by them There is nothing express saith †Salm. in 1 Tim. c. 2. disp 7. Nihil hac de re expressum habetur Salmeron in the Old Testament or Gospels or Epistles of the Apostles touching this matter but in the Apocalyps where there was occasion of writing the future success of the Church it is expressed The places he
notes are ch 5. 8. ch 6. 10. ch 8. 3. which we shall touch below but hear what he saith in his next disputation * Non fuisse morem in V. Tâ—â—adeundi Sanctos Intercessores Erat etiam olim periculum Idololatriae Salm. disp 8. sect postremo It was not their manner in the Old Testament to use the Saints as intercessors the Reason because they were not then glorified and because of old there was danger of Idolatry Mark the danger of the Romish practises in Religion and Worship But was there not danger under the New Testament he acknowledges it saying it is not express but was left to Tradition secretly to be delivered which he cals * Tacitam Spiritus suggestionem ibid. the silent suggestion of the Spirit but why because †Quia durum erat id Judaeis praecipere Gentib daretur occasio putandi multos sibi deos exhibitos pro it was hard to command such a thing to the Jewes and it was likely to give occasion to the Gentiles of thinking that many Gods were put upon them in stead of the many Gods they had forsaken And might not the same Reasons still be good against Romish Invocation and Image-worship either to keep them out or cast them out of the Church seeing they give such occasion of scandal to Jewes and Infidels throughout the Romish Communion The Cardinal is not so liberal with us Bel. l. 1. de Beat Sanct. c. 19. Non consuetum Nec ordinariè cognoscere preces c. 20 sect sed dices for he would confine it to the Old Testament acknowledging It was not the custom then to say Holy Abraham pray for us and his reasons are because they did not see God and could not ordinarily i. e. without special Revelation know the prayers of the living Neither is the Cardinal so ingenuous with us as was his fellow Salmeron for albeit he gives reasons why prayers were not made to them in the Old Testament which reasons were good against their Invocation till our Saviours ascension yet he brings places out of the Old Testament for a seeming proof of it Some of them indeed concern Invocation of Angels as that Gen. 48.16 Job 5.1 to which we briefly answered †Chap. II. nu 9. above And though the Cardinals reasons which exclude the Saints of the Old Testament do not conclude against the Angels which did see Gods face and as well hear and know what was said and done below on Earth in the time of the Old Testament as after yet Salmerons Reasons might prevail against invocation of them because of danger of Idolatry then and it would have seemed strange and hard to the Jewes And albeit they had Cherubins in the picture yet not Angels in their worship Which is acknowledged by Azor and Vasquez and that out of several Fathers clearing the Jewish Church from Worshipping of Angels or Images and somthing to this purpose was said †Chap. III. nu 10. above Now for the places out of the Revelation Places of Scripture alledged for Invocation which are the only Texts that have any semblance or pretence for Invocating Saints or Angels they are mistaken as applied to that purpose That Text Rev. 5.8 where the four living Creatures and the 24 Elders are set out as falling down before the Lamb having harps and viols full of odours or incense which are the prayers of the Saints Here the Romanists that would have these prayers of the Saints to be meant of the prayers of men living offered up by the Saints in heaven are mistaken for the whole place is a representation of the Church below offering up prayers to God by Christ the Lamb and those Eucharistical or prayers of thanksgiving and praise chiefly for the Victories of the Lamb and Redemption by Christ as the next verse specifies them Thus Viega understands them of the Church below and he follows good Authors in it The next is Rev. 6.10 how long O Lord Here also is a great mistake of Romanists making this a formal prayer of the Martyrs for revenge which stands not with that charity they have in so great a degree and therefore this is but a figurative or emblematical representation of their Souls lying under the Altar and calling for revenge only to shew the certainty of that judgement and vengeance which God would in time bring upon the Heathen Persecutors for their bloud as when Abels bloud is said to cry for vengeance And for the Argument they make If the Souls of Martyrs cry for Vengeance upon their Enemies therefore their charity much more prompts them to pray for Gods servants It fails first in the Antecedent for they do not as we see make any formal prayer for vengeance and then it fails in the Inference for it would only conclude that they do pray for the Church Militant which we grant not that they offer up prayers made to them which is the point in question The third Text Rev. 8.3 where Another Angel is said to stand by the Altar having a golden Censer and much incense was given to him that he might offer it with the prayers of all Saints A great mistake this and impious to make this the office of any created Angel for the very Text seems to imply that this was a special Angel differing from the seven Angels set out in the second verse as ministring Spirits and what one created Angel is sufficient for this to receive and offer up their prayers that are made by all the Saints or just men on Earth Therefore generally it is interpreted of Christ the great Angel of the Counsel of God as Viega and other modern Writers and herein they have Ambrose Haimo Rupertus and the Interlinâ—ary Gloss consenting To whom I may add what Irenaeus saith reflecting upon this place and the other cap. 5.8 where speaking of the Church offering up all by Christ applies to it that of Malachi cap. 1.11 in every place Incense shall be offered then adds Now †Iren. l. 4. c. 33. Incensa autem Joan. in Apocal. Orationes ait esse Sanctorum Tert. advers Marcion l. 4. c. 9. Per Jesum Christum Catholicum Patris sacerdotem St. John in the Revel saith that Incense or the sweet odours are the prayers of the Saints And Tertul. upon that of our Saviour to the Leper cleansed shew thy self to the Priest and offer Mat. 8.4 Inferreth we must offer up all our prayers and thanksgivings by Jesus Christ the Catholick or universal Priest of the Father No Created Angel can be such a Catholick Priest to offer up the Prayers of all Saints Thus much for Scripture to shew how destitute they are of any real proof and therefore want the first and main ground of Catholick faith and doctrine Sect. 1. in Introduct according to Vincentius his certain and safe Rule at first mentioned Now let us make a brief Survey of Antiquity and see
expression importing not the Advocation of Words or pleading but of Deeds and acting The Father sets the one Woman against the other the great Good that came by one against the great Evil that was caused by the other Gen. 3. as the Scripture sets the Womans Seed against the Effect of the Womans transgression the meaning of Irenaeus in calling the Blessed Virgin Eves Advocat is that she was an Instrument or Means in bringing forth the Saviour of Mankinde the Only Mediator between God Man St. * Ambr. de Obitu Theodosii Foeminam visitavit Christus in Maria. Visitata est Maria ut Evam liberaret Ambrose may explain that speech of Irenaeus by what he saith to like purpose but more clearly Christ saith he visited the Woman in Mary Mary was visited that she might free Eve What they have out of the True Origen speaks only that the Saints do or may pray for us which cannot be denied But as for Invocation we shall presenly see he declared against it The Intercession of Saints departed for the living how far extendible Such Testimonies as imply the Saints interceeding or entreating for us are frequent among the Ancient Fathers and not only in General but in Particular for those they knew here both for their particular Persons for their particular Necessities or Infirmities known to them before they went from hence for as they lose not their memory so they encrease their charity by going to God Thus †Ignat. Ep. ad Trallens Salutat vos spiritus mons non modo nunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius My spirit salutes you not only now but will also when I obtain or enjoy God So between Cornelius and Cyprian it was agreed that which of them went first to God should remember the other †Cypr. epist 57. Perseveret apud Dominum nostra dilectio pro fratribus sororibus nostris apud misericordiam patris non cesset Oratio Let our love continue when either of us shall be with the Lord and let not our prayer cease to sollicit the mercy of the Father for our brothers and sisters left behinde So Chrysost in his Oration ad Illuminandos to those that were to be baptized Remember me saith he when that Kingdom receives you Such sayings as these that avouch the Saints praying for them they knew and in general for all the Church are often shuffled in by the Romanists as good proofs of Invocation and sufficient to take the unwary that discern not the Paralogism or inconsequent Reasoning From such intercession of the Saints departed to infer they were or ought to be invocated by the Living That which they bring out of Athanasius as a Testimony of primer Antiquity for invocating of the blessed Virgin is taken out of the book De Sanctiss Deipara Of the most holy Mother of God Not written by that holy Father but by a much later and unlearned Author and so rejected of Baronius with scorn But see the other †Bell. de Script Eccles tit Athanasius Cardinals honesty or diligence who having censured this very Book as Suppositious and written after the sixt General Council 300 years after Athanasius his Time yet can cite it as his Hitherto the first proof of our second General Testimonies of Antiq against Invocation because the Defenders of Invocation can bring no witness for it beyond the middle of the fourth Age Our second proof is from Testimonies excluding or denying such Invocation Irenaeus in his first Book speaks of Hereticks that had strange Phansies concerning Angels attributing much unto them in relation to which he denies †Iren. l. 2. c. 25. Nec invocationibus Angelicis faciat aliquid nec incantationibus sed purè manifeste orationes dirigens ad Dominum qui fecit omnia nomen Domini Jesu Christi invocans that the Church did do any thing he speaks of miraculous Cures done then by Invocation of Angels nor by incantations but purely and manifestly directing prayers to the Lord that made all and invocating the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ Fevardentius his Gloss here will not help saying the Father means Invocation of such evil spirits as the former Hereticks used for if the Church had used to the working of those cures the Invocation of good Angels the same Father could not have condemned their invocations and so absolutely denied without any mention or limitation of such use in the Church all Angelical Invocations could not have bound up the prayers of the Church as we see here to God the father through the Name of his Son So afterward when Cures were so frequently don at the Monuments of Martyrs the first and regular way was as here to direct their prayers to God through Christ not using Invocations of the Martyr which was the abuse creeping in by degrees as we shall see below Our next Testimony is from Origen out of whom we cited some passages * Sect. 1. Num. 4. Orig. contra Celsum l. 5. Omnia Vota deprecationes gratiarum actiones destinandae ad Deum per summum Pontificem above against Angel-worship so is he very express against their Invocation †Angelos invocare absque ipsorum cognitione Notwithstanding that the Angels are Ministring Spirits as he acknowledges yet all our vowes prayers thanksgivings are to be directed unto God the Lord of all by our High Priest greater then all Angels And he gives severall reasons against Invocation of Angels Because saith he to invoke Angels without knowing them better then we do as to their nature condition offices is little agreeable to reason But saith he if we had sufficient knowledge of them and their condition yet * Hoc cohibebit ne quis preces â—udeat offerre nisi soli Domino Deo qui omnibus abunde suffiâ—it per servatorem nostrum Dei fil um Angelos habet satis Propiâ—ios this will withhold any from daring to offer up prayers to any save God alone who abundantly is sufficient for all through our Lord Jesus Christ and because this will render the Angels sufficiently propitious to us and willing to do all things for us if we so far as humane nature permits be well affected as they are to Gods service Something like it is that S. Aug. saith of every good Angel †Aug de vera Religcap 55. In illo me exaudit in illo me adjuvat He hears me in him i.e. in God when I pray to God in him he helps me To the like purpose doth Origen reply again to Celsus Origen l 8. contrae Celsum propè initium that prayers are to be offered up to God alone by his only begotten Son and this exclusive to Angels because opposed to Celsus pleading for their going to God by their Daemons For our Saviour Christ saith Origen * Qui ut pontifex eaâ— deferat ad Deum as high Priest presents our prayers to God the Father Again
whether the book be forged or no and the story of Justina true or false yet Nazienzen approves the fact or practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We answer that he tels us she betook her self to God for help and to Christ that she strengthened her self with the Examples of Susanna Daniel c. then follows having considered these things she also supplicated the Virgin Mary that she would help a Virgin now in danger and so he leaves the story neither commendig this practise nor reproving it We have seen what Testi monies the Romanists alledge out of the Fathers and how faithfully it is done especially by the Cardinal One Argument remains which all of them make from the success they found who applyed themselves to the Martyrs whereby it is evident that God did approve the practise But this is a fallacious Argument à non Causa making their invocation of the Martyr to be the Cause or motive of Gods hearing and granting success It is certain in History that many were heard who resorted to the monuments of Martyrs and prayed to God there yea many that prayed there to God with reference to the Intercession which the Martyr and all other Saints made for the Church below but if some were heard that did directly invocate or pray to the Martyr of which Examples cannot certainly be given we may say God overlooked the Excess or the voluntaries of their mouth as St. August Aug. Confess l. 9. c. 13. Voluntaria oris mei call'd his Excesses or breakings out in his praying for his mother whom he believed to be in bliss hoping that God would pardon the extravagance And as the same Father insinuates God overlooked and pardoned the infirmities of the Midwives not speaking altogether according to truth Aug. Qu. 12 in Exod. non potuit ad laudem sed ad Veniam pertinere and rewarded their good will Exod. 1.20 Their untruth could not deserve praise might obtain pardon So when the Romanists urge the miracles which Augustine sent hither by Greg. the first is said to work as Gods witness to the Truth of all the Doctrines he brought from Rome we say those Miracles supposing them to be wrought were Gods witnesses to the Catholick Faith which Austin preached and planted here not to all that he taught God in mercy overlooking those lesser errors and vanities when he was pleased and saw it fit to give testimony by those Miracles to the Faith of Christ But this may suffice for the former Argument If therefore we be asked why we do not conform in this practise to the Ancient Church it may be answered Because we see what the more Ancient Church held and practised and we find by St. Aug. conFaust l. 20. c. 21. Alind est quod docemus aliud quod sustinemusEt donec emendemus to lerare compellimur Aug. that many things were done at the Martyrs Tombs but not by the better sort of Christians as we noted above Sect. 1. nu 6. and that in his answer to Faustus about the worship or honour given to Martyrs he concludes thus It is one thing that we teach another thing which we bear with and we are compelled to tolerate it till we can amend it Therefore because we saw much deflexion in the Romish practise from the Primitive Verity when we had opportunity and power to amend it the thing St. Aug. desired we did it and with good Reason allowing in this point what may consist with Catholick Doctrine such we count the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wish of having benefit by those prayers which the Saints above make for the members of the Church militant and labouring below yea such we may account the indirect Invocation which begs of God that benefit or effect of those Prayers but we cannot account the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or direct Invocation to consist with Catholick Doctrine when it is made to Saints and that by way of Religious address as the Church of Rome practiseth it in her offices which practise none of the Ancients knew SECT III. Of Image-worship HOw the Romanists labour in this point to stand against Scripture which so forcibly encounters them Romanists altogether forsaken here of Scripture and Antiquity we saw above Chap. III. and there was answered what they bring from Ps 99.5 to worship his footstool and the Images of the Cherubins upon the Ark This is the best and only plea they can make from Scripture yet so weak and ungrounded that their own Authors give it over as impertinent and raised upon a false supposal that the Jewish Church had any Images for worship as abovesaid Ch. 3. nu 10. Now let us see how they strive to bear up against the universal consent of Antiquity which with a strong Current for 700 years runs contrary unto them Our first evidence against this Image-worship The first Evidence Had there been any such thing amongst Christians those Ancient Apologists and Defenders of Christian Religion against Heathens Justin Clemens Tertullian Minutius Lactantius Arnobius Eusebius would have mentioned it when they give account of the worship used in their assemblies Nay they could not have declined it when they set themselves to refute the Heathen Image-worship And therefore Tertul. Tert. Apol. c. 12. Igitur si statuas imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus quas milvi araneae intelligunt nonne laudem in his Apologetick professes and defends their not worshiping of Images If therefore saith he we do not worship Statues and cold Images like indeed to the Dead whom they represent and which Birds and Spiders understand well enough it deserves praise rather then punishment See how he not only denies the worship but vilifies them as unfit for worship cold and like the Dead and that the Birds understand them and therefore fear not to dung upon them Minutius Faelix answering Cecilius a Heathen that objected against the Christians their having no Temples no Images gives reasons wherefore they had not or not used them in worship Clemens Alexandr as he denies the Jewish Church had any Images to worship saying * Clem. strom 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses set no statue or figure in the Temple to be worshiped so is he very severe against Images among Christians insomuch that he scarce allowes the Art of painting or of making Images as we may see in his Protreptic Origen had to do with Celsus about worship and Invocation and to answer why the Christians gave it not to Angels whom they acknowledged to be ministring Spirits sent of God as they the Heathen gave it to their Daemons of which in the two former Sections But he was also put to satisfie Celsus why the Christians did not use Images and for which he compares them to Scythians Barbarians that had no Temples and Images because they knew not what the Gods or Heroes were How does Origen answer by saying as a Romanist
wishes intercessions Thus they prayed at the Burial or carrying out of the Dead and did it as we saw above for the reasons there mentioned viz. the instruction of the living and confirming of their hope and demonstration of their affection and the like And upon the like respects they yearly repeated the like prayers as we hinted above out of the Cardinal acknowledging as much Lastly it was a private opinion but notorious and held by many That the Damned had benefit or ease by the Prayers of the Church a private opinion or misapplication That they which died in their sins without true faith and repentance might at length be recovered out of their Pains or at least have them mitigated And to these the Prayers for the Dead which begged forgiveness ease or release were I do not say referred by the Church but applied or rather misapplied by many Origen gave occasion first to this Error for he held that All should at length come out of their Torments and his Error was as Vincentius notes a great temptation to the Church by reason of the wit and parts of the Author Aug. Enchirid cap. III. Frustra quamplurimi aeternam damnatorum poenam miserantur affectu and St. Aug. tels us in several places that many were of this merciful opinion Very many saith he do commiserate through humane affection the eternal sufferings of the damned and do not believe it will be so c. Of these also in other places especially in his work Of the City of God l. 21. c. 17 18 19 20. where he reckons five latitudes in the extent of that Opinion refuting them all Greg. Nyssen seems to be deeply tainted with that merciful opinion and is noted for it by the Greeks in their Apology against the Romish Purgatory made and given out in the time of the Council of Florence for that * Nyssen in orat Deus omnia in ommbus Idem in orat le Mor. tuâ—s pag 1067. Mixtam clementi sententiam Father seems plainly to assert the restoring of all men to salvation and in another place speaks of the purging of some and their turning to God after death who were impure in their lives And that place of St. Hierom upon Isa 66. ult which the Cardinal misapplies to Purgatory for it plainly speaks of wicked Christians does shew some tincture of that merciful opinion Now it is plain that Chrysostoâ—e applies the Prayers and oblations made for the Dead to such sinners And I should choose rather to silence those errors and mistakes of some ancient Fathers did not the importunity of the Romanists force us to shew the misapplication of them to Purgatory I shall insist therefore in some passages of St. Chrysostome Hom. 61. in Jo. Hom. 21. in Act. Serm. 3. in Philip. The sinners he speaks of to be prayed for are in several Homilies towards the End of them thus set forth by him One saith he that daily offended God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One that lived every day to his own pleasure One that died in his riches and never used them to the benesit of his soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupted and lost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of whom he saith Hom. 32. in Mat. If God had seen he would have changed he would not have cut him off before his Repentance Such as these the Romanists will not say that they go to Purgatory but to Hell yet of these he saith Let us mourn for such a one but that avails not Let us help him as we can How is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by prayers and alms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things must be done which may bring some comfort and ease to him To this tenour he speaks in all the places above cited but especially in Hom. 21. upon the Acts Shall we not try saith he of one that lived to himself and the Devil to rescue him from the dangers and evils he is encompassed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there is a way if we will to make his punishment lighter and this by making prayer for him and almsdeeds and these saith he so much the more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he was guilty of the more sins And this he takes to be doctrine sutable to the loving kindness of God towards man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though we be not vertuous our selves yet let us get friends that will do this for us when we are gone Then presently follows * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblations are not in vain nor Supplications nor Almsdeeds All these things the Spirit has ordained willing or commanding that we should help one another Then he mentions the Offering of the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith It is not the Minister simply or only that praies so for those that are faln asleep in Christ It is not he only that sends forth that voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Spirit He indeed holds the Offering or Sacrifice in his hands c. And so goes on expressing the honour to be then remembred and the power and efficacy of Christs death then represented Where we may observe that this saying of his The Spirit has ordained all these things which the Romanists do much urge as if their prayers and offerings for souls in Purgatory were by an Ordinance of the Spirit relates to the help of one another by Prayers Oblations and Almsdeeds which in general is true so far as we are capable to be helped by them But if it be particularly applied to the helping of such sinners as before he had spoken of it makes nothing for the Romanists for they will not allow that the Prayers and Oblations of the Living do avail or help such as died in their sins but if it be applied to the Prayers and Offerings in the Eucharist as he seems here to intend it it makes nothing still for them or against us for we allow that Ancient practice of remembring there and praying as they did for those that sleep in Christ The intent and purpose of those prayers he expresses in the close of his speech that they and we saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may obtain the good things promised through the Grace and merciful loving kindness of our Saviour Christ A place parallel to the former he hath in his third Hom. on the Epist to the Philip. where speaking of Prayers and Oblations with respect to the Dead These things Chrys in Phil. hom 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he were not in vain ordained by the Apostles that a remembrance be made of those that are dead in the most reverend and holy Mysteries For when all the people stand and the company of Priests with their hands stretch'd out toward heaven and the great sacrifice lies
before them how shall we not them move and make God propitious while we pray for them that are departed Here again the Romanists triumph as if St. Chrysost made their praying for Souls in purgatory an Ordinance of the Apostles whereas he plainly restrains this Ordinance of the Apostles as above he did the Ordinance of the Spirit to that which the Church did in the Holy Eucharist and that concerned only them who were at rest in Christ Nothing of Souls in pains and torment is mentioned in the Ancient Liturgies or Prayers of the Church As for this Fathers speaking of prayer for such sinners as he described in all the forementioned places such as were gone to endless pains yet might receive as he thought a little case thereby we must reckon it as a private opinion and misapplication of that practise of praying for the Dead And indeed he seems to acknowledge so much himself for in his forementioned Hom. 61. in Jo. he faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in relation to those his exhortations for such prayers and offerings These things I speak not as one giving precept or setting a Law but as one allowing and condescending to the affections and frailties of men The Romanists here reply that St. Chrysost and others seem to urge Prayer for All because they knew not who died in the state of repentance and so they pray for all in the Church of Rome yet hold those prayers appliable to and available for only those that dye in that state and go to Purgatory pains This is a meer shift for St. Chrysost does plainly suppose that those sinners he speaks of died in their sins such Chrys hom 61. in lo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if God had seen they would have changed he would not have cut them off before their repentance as we had it above such as he in another place speaks thus of of such a one there is no cause to rejoyce but only because the course of his wicked life is cut off yet for such he exhorts to pray and offer and help him as they can And indeed the reason of this extending the benefit of Prayers to such sinners was not any supposal of Purgatory but of some mitigating and easing of those eternal pains to which such sinners were adjudged and this in part according to that merciful opinion and the motion of humane affection of which St. Aug. speaks in his Enchiridion C. 111. as we noted above and to which affection St. Chrysost gives too much scope as we see in the forementioned passages of prayers oblations for such sinners But as for Purgatory pains which are supposed to begin at death to end before the resurrection he knew no such pains as evidently appears by that exact distribution of the several sorts of punishments made by this Father and cited below Nu. 11. What we have said of some expressions of Chrysost applying prayer and relief to such sinners as before were described may be said of that place which the Romanists much urge out of St. Cyril Myst â—atech 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril who tels us they prayed simply for all and accounted it a great help to those souls for which the prayer of the great and holy sacrifice was offered and the great power which that prayer hath to help he sets out by the similitude of a King intreated to pardon and call back one that is banished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the same manner saith he we praying for sinners render God propitious Now if it be after the same manner then by the force of this similitude it must be implyed that the prayers of the Church may obtain pardon for sinners not reconciled to God before their death for so the banished person is supposed to be not reconciled to his Prince and then it sounds to like purpose as those passages in Chrysostom did and is but a private application or misapplication of that Ancient practise neither agreeable to the intent of the Ancient Church remembring in her prayers and offerings only those that were at rest in Christ as by the Forms of those prayers may appear nor making any thing for Purgatory which supposes the person reconciled and justified before he comes there But if the Sinners which Cyril here saith are prayed for be taken in a more remiss sense for such as the Romish Church sends to purgatory then the praying for them comes to no more then what we said above to Epiphanius and Dionysius that such prayer had reference to the passage of such souls and their appearing in judgment not to their being in pains after death For that such persons must appear in judgment the first and the last judgment and undergo a scrutiny or examination and have as it were their hay and stubble burnt up was a Catholick Truth but that persons reconciled to God dying and resting in Christ should presently go to pain and torment was no doctrine of the Church and therefore the prayers of the Church could not refer unto such persons And we may observe that the undoubted Cyril for those Mystagogical Catechismes are thought to be composed by John B. Cyril Catech 15. of Jerusalem tels us that Christ when he comes to judgment shall draw after him a sloud of trying fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shall burn up all hay and stubble of their Actions So that if such sinners be prayed for it must be with reference to the fire of trial and examination which they are to undergo in the day of Judgment and according to the true Cyril Thus much for that practise of the Church praying for the Dead that it does not prove a belief of Purgatory but was used upon other Reasons The third general Head was Forgiveness of sins after Death Forgiveness of sins after death or in the world to come out of which the Romanists would conclude a Purgatory The Text of Scripture is our Saviours speech Mat. 12.32 it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come Here they are bound to make good three things 1. That the world to come signifies the Time beginning at every mans death 2. That from our Saviours Negative nor in the world to come this affirmative followes therefore there are some sins shall be forgiven in the World to come 3. That if some sins shall be forgiven then to them to whom they shall be forgiven there remains pain and torment to be suffered I. For the Time Of the world to come The world to come is no where put for the Time between every mans death and the Resurrection for so it would be present to some and future to others but is every where seculum futurum which is so to every one whether it be taken according to the Jewish acception or the Christian With the Jewes the world to come did sometimes signifie the Time of their exspected