supposed to be In fine P. 2â— to set before us the danger of nor believing Christ more then our sences and to make others know it as well as Roman Catholicks he promiseth to set before them the words of Epiphanius viz. We see the Sacrament is neither equal nor like unto the fleshly Image or the invisible Deity or the Characters of his Members for this is of a round form and insensible according to power And yet because he was pleased to say through Grace This is my Body every one believeth his saying For who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace and Salvation Answ by this Translation of the words of Epiphanius we are like to see and others to know nothing but the detestable fraud and falshood of T. G. For Epiphanius doth not say as T. G. translates him That who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace But his words are these a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius Anch. p. 60 He that believeth not that Christ is true doth fall from Grace Now he that differs from another Church or Person in exposition of Christs words may yet believe that Christ is true in all his sayings as much as they from whom he differs Secondly had he considered well the context he would have found this passage is a strong argument against him For Epiphanius in this very Section affirmeth Man to be like God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. in a similitude or figure but not according to nature for saith he men have not the Image of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equally and yet what God hath constituted we will not substract * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. for he is true who by his Grace hath given to man to be like unto him and we have many like examples and then immediately follows the example of the Eucharist Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this That we are like unto God after his Image but yet not according to nature even as the Sacramental Bread is like the Body of Christ it is plain that the Sacramental Symbols are the Body of Christ and his Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Image or representment not according to nature Thridly St. Epiphanius affirms that Christ pronounced of Bread and Wine this is mine his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum panem Petav. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now since that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the things Christ took and blessed confessedly were Bread and Wine the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth answer to them must be so I might have added many other answers produced from these Fathers but I have chosen only to answer what the very places did suggest that so the Reader might perceive that T. G. either never read the places cited or else did chuse to cite them though he saw they held the contrary to that Doctrine for which he doth produce them and to convince the Reader that the Judgment of the Fathers must be clearly for us seeing the strongest passages the Romanists cite against us do confirm our Doctrine We have now done with his Fathers and briefly shall consider what he hath to â—ay from Protestants And thus he begins P. 299. That Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Vniversal Church from the time of Berengarius that is 600 years ago is scarcely denied by any I know of Answ One of the Protestants you cite will be sufficient to help your ignorance I mean the Reverend Bishop Morton in the Treatise of the Mass Lib. 3. c. 2. §. 3 4. A.D. 1159 Where we have this confession of Peter Lumbard Master of the Sentences whether the conversion be substantial or not I am not able to determine And Scotus affirming a Si quaeratur qualis sit conversio viz. panis in Eucharistia an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definire non sufficio Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Destruct 11. Lit. a. that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Council of Lateran And Suarez saying that some School-men held that Transubstantiation was not very ancient Scotus to wit and Gabriel Biel among others And Erasmus that it was but lately determined in the Church And lastly Cardinal Perroon who did not look upon it as b Scotus dicit ante consilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem Bellar. Lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 23. ss sed tamen c In Synaxiserò definivit Ecclesia Transubsiantiationem diâ—iatis erat credere sub pane quocunque modo adesse verum CoÌ„rpus Christi Erasm in 1. Cor. 7. p. 373. a thing very commendable to oppugne the received Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ asserts Card. Perroon En. Sa. Hâ—rrang Autiâ—rs Estates p. 33 De Christ Eccles Suc câ—â—s p. 19 208. That if it had not been for the Council of Laterane it might be now lawful to oppugne it Pious and Learned Bishop Vsher shews out of ancient and authentick Records That after the times of Berengarius many continued even there where Satan had his Throne who privately employed both their Tongues and Pens in defence of the truth against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Hamelman and Chemniitus are most impertinently cited T.G. p. 301. for they only do confess that St. Ignatius said what we all grant what doth not in the least confirm the Roman Doctrine as we have already proved p. 300. Perkins is also falsly and impertinently cited for he doth not affirm that this particular Heresie of Transubstantiation was spread over the whole world during the space of nine hundred years Nay he expresly doth assert That it was not concluded in the days of Lumbard Problem p. 155 156 nor then received as an Article of Faith and that for a whole thousand years the Church of Christ taught Sgiritual Manducation and that the Ancients did interpret the institution by a figure That the Centuriators do affirm of Origen T.G. p. 301. Cent. 3. p. 260. and of Tertullian p. 58. that they speak not commodiously of Transubstantiation is a notorious falshood what the Centuriators cite from Tertullian p. 58. is most expresly for the contrary and of Origen p. 260. they speak thus recte in Caena Domini sub pane vino sumi asserit corpus sanguinem Domini i.e. Origen rightly doth assert that in the Supper of the Lord under the bread and wine we take the body and blood of Christ What they cite out of Ambrose Cent. 4. p. 294. is from the Authour precationis primae Praepar ad Missam which is a spurious piece as they themselves have noted from Erasmus Erasmus non esse Ambrosii censuit The true Ambrosius is reckoned among the Fathers that maintained the pure Doctrine in this point p. 242. Of Hamphrey and Camerarius I can say nothing because I know not where to
that Prayer must be offered unto none but God and by no other Intercessor but our Saviour Christ Sect. 1. And this Assertion they prove 1. Because God only can be called good 2. Because he only can answer our Petitions ibid. 2. They do affirm That by addressing a Petition to a Saint or Angel we become guilty of distraction from God and of deserting our Lord Jesus Christ Sect. 2. 3. That to pray unto a Creature or to that which is no God is to worship it as God or give that honour to it which is due to God alone Sect. 3. 4. They hence infer that Christ is God and that the Holy Ghost is God because we put up our Petitions to them Sect. 4. 5. Because the invocation of the inferior Heathen Daemons was by the Fathers censured as Idolatry And there is no desparity betwixt the invocation of those Daemons and that invocation of the blessed Martyrs which is now practised in the Church of Rome sufficient to acquit the Papist from that Guilt if it be duly charged on the Heathens by reason of their Supplications tendred to inferior Daemons Sect. 5. 6. The Fathers dispute against the Heathens with such Arguments as perfectly destroy this practise and confute this Doctrine Sect. 6. 7. Because the ancient Fathers prayed for all the Saints without exception of Martyrs or Apostles or the blessed Virgin 8. Because the Fathers gave no Rules touching the Canonizing of the Saints departed ibid. TO what we have discoursed from the holy Scriptures and from the Principles of Reason we shall now add the suffrage of those ancient Fathers who flourished in the first and purest Ages of the Church Who do not only say expresly that our Prayers should only be directed to God asserting this without those limitations and distinctions which are now used by the Church of Rome but also do it upon the very same enducements and motives which Protestants are wont to use for confirmation of this truth Moreover in their conflicts with the Arrians and other Adversaries of the Church of Christ they use those very weapons wherewith we fight against the Church of Rome and do pronounce that Doctrine and Practice which that Church contends for to be the giving to the Creature what is due to God And first the Fathers do assert that prayer must be offered unto none but God and by no other Intercessor but our Saviour Christ When Celsus had pronounced that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 8. p. 394. Heathen Daemons did belong to God and thence inferred we should entreat their favour Origen replys two things 1. That those Daemons being wicked Spirits could not belong to God 2. That this advice of †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen contra Cels lib. 8. p. 395. Celsus to put up our Petitions to them was to be utterly rejected and by no means allowed by Christians Because God only was to be made the object of our prayer nor were we to sollicite any other than our great High Priest to offer and present them to the Father And hence in two Catena's both published by the Doctors of the Church of ‖ Nicet Caten in Psal 5. Rome we have this free confession of an antient Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We Christians pray to God alone And upon this account they tell us the Psalmist uttered this expression Attend unto the voice of my petition my King and my God For unto thee will I pray because (a) Oraâ—io enim soâ— Deo â—ffâ—rtur Aurea Catena in 50. Psal edit Venâ—t Anno 1569. Pag. 53. Petitions were to be offered unto God alone according to that Question of St. Austin (b) Cui alteri praeter te clamabo Aug. Confess lib. 1. cap 5. to whom else shall I cry but unto thee and that expression of (c) L. de Creatione Dracontius esse nihil prorsus se praeter ubique rogandum that nothing besides God should be invoked And this assert on they do not barely offer but also they confirm it by many pregnant Arguments as first He only must be prayed unto because he only can be called Good (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexand Strom. l. 7. p. 721. since God alone is good saith Clemens it is reasonable we should sollicite him alone for the Donation and Continuance of good things 2. because God only is present in all places and so at hand to hear and help us wherever we address our prayers to him It is an absurdity saith (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. contra Celsum lib. 5. pag. 239. Origen having that God with us and nigh at hand who filleth Heaven and Earth to go about to pray to that which is not omnipresent This I confess is spoken to demonstrate that intercessions were not to be made unto the Sun and Moon and Stars but then it must be noted that this Father held both Sun and Moon and Stars to be intelligible Creatures and in this very place asserts that (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id pag. 238. they do offer up their Prayer to God and from this very Argument concludes we must not pray to them because they pray to him Whence it will follow that he conceived them as fit and able to be our Intercessors as the Saints departed and that it was absurd to pray to any who themselves properly did pray for us And 2. he adds (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Id ib. if any Christian be not sufficient immediately to direct his Prayers to God let him address them to the Word of God making no mention of an address to be preferred either to Saint or Angel or to the B. Virgin in this Case 3. He adds that put the (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. p. 239. Case that Sun Moon and Stars were heavenly Angels and Messengers of God yet were they not to be adored for this but he whose Messengers and Angels they were Where by the way observe that he insensibly slides from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to adore Whence we may certainly conclude that in the Judgment of this Father it was the same to pray to any person and to adore that person and that nothing may be invocated which may not be adored Lastly it is evident his reason will hold good as well against addresses made to Saints as to the Sun and Moon they being neither of them omnipresent 3. They say he only must be prayed unto who seeth and heareth every where Let us consider saith (i) De Orat. c. 1. Sect. 8. Tertullian the Heavenly Wisdom of our Lord in his Injunction to pray in secret whereby he both requires the Faith of Man confiding that God omnipotent both hears and sees under our Roofs and in our secret Places and also that our Faith be modest so that we offer our Religion unto him alone whom we are confident doth
A DISCOURSE CONCERNING The Idolatry OF THE CHURCH of ROME WHEREIN That CHARGE is Justified AND The Pretended Refutation of Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Discourse is Answered By DANIEL WHITBY D. D. Mirum videtur quare in uno articulo qui non est principalis artriculus fidei debeat talis intellectus asseri propter quem fides pate at contemptui omnium sequentium rationem Scotus in 4 sent dist 11. q. 3. lit B. LONDON Printed for Tho. Basset at the George near St. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet and Ja. Magnes near the Piazza in Covent Garden 1674. TO THE Most Reverend Father in God GILBERT LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY May it please your Grace IT is the Custom of the Adversaries of our Church to thrust out their Errors into the World under some great name that by the Protection of some honorable Person to whom they Dedicate their Books they may render them more plausible in the Eye of the World and add greater weight and Authority to their gross Falshoods My Lord We live in such an age in which Truth stands in greater need of a Patron than Falshood it self and though this little poor Treatise be not worthy to bear your great name in the front yet the Truth I here defend will I doubt not be owned and supported by your Grace whose great design in this World is to support the Church of England 'T is the same Faith and the same Doctrin I here deliver which your Glorious Predecessors in both your Sees of Canterbury and London Cranmer and Ridley owned and asserted even unto Blood 'T is a defence of that great learned man who has made it his business now for some years to defend the Writings of the renowned Archbishop Laud for whose memory and writings you have often expressed so great Veneration These considetions are enough alone to prove the fitness of this address But besides these your Grace may justly challenge the labours of all your own Vniversity You have obliged them to that degree that the Gifts of half their Benefactors amassed into one summe would scarce equal your famous Theatre And as they fail not to give God thanks for so great a Patron at the times of publick solemnity so am I under the same Obligation for that support you bestowed on me for some years together whilest I was a member of Trinity Colledge and before I had the happiness and honor to be related to my Lord of Sarum Whosoever knows this will certainly excuse my boldness and if to make this address be impudence yet not to have done it would have been ingratitude God preserve your Grace for the Chruches sake I am Your Graces humbly devoted Servant D. W. TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Think my self obliged to give thee an account 1. Why I undertake to answer this Discourse And 2. Why having undertaken to return an Answer to it I have omitted part the first of which the true account is briefly this since the Printers would not undertake the Printing of the whole before the Term expired I was contented do defer that part which I conceived to be least material to the Term ensuing That which first moved me to frame this Answer to T. G. was this having perused this Author and having found him laying the most scandalous accusations and imputations of Sophistry and Legerdemain Falshood and Contradiction to the Doctors charge I knew not how to think that any person who professed Christianity or valued either his credit or his cause should lay such imputations upon others and be himself the person Guilty Nor yet could I be easily perswaded that any person in so good a cause as ours in which Authorities and Arguments do press for an admittance and Men of ordinary Capacities must be abundantly supplied with them much less that the incomparable Dr. Stilling fleer that prodigy of Ingenuity and Learning should betake himself to such dishonourable Arts. Besides I knew that his Integrity and sense of honour was so great that he must scorn such sordid dealing and that it was his business to detect the Frauds and religious Cheates of Rome and therefore I presumed he would not imitate her when he did confute her Wherefore my curiosity engaged me to examine all that was devised to blast his Credit and having found it to be written in the old Roman Style and to contain nothing but the pure quintessence of Calumny I thought it charity to ease the Doctor and to declare unto the World what was the fruit of this inquiry And should this work be so unhappy which I hope it will not as to rob the World of the Ingenious and Triumphant Labors af the Learned Dr. yet I have two things to apologize 1. That the Dr. hath given us the greatest evidence that he can write most admirable Books upon the meanest Subjects and in answer to the most trifling and inconsiderable Scriblers so that what ever Adversarie he vouchsafes to answer he almost equally obligeth and instructeth all that read him but most of all his adversary whose Name he rescues from obscurity whilst he vouchsafes to mention it 2. That with I have performed will give us this advantage to the common cause viz. That through the strength and goodness of it a little inconsiderable David may worst the best Goliah of the Roman Church In prosecution of this subject I have set down the Doctrine of the Church of Rome not from the sayings of her private Doctors but from her Councils Catechisms and Authentick Liturgies that so I might obstruct all possibility of pleading that I do falsly represent her Tenets But though I use this method I do not think it either sophistical or useless to represent unto the World what are the Doctrines and Practices which have so far obtained in the Church of Rome as to be Doctrines and Practises of no small Credit Authority amongst them they being held and defended by their most able Writers and taught and practised with as much freedome in the Church of Rome as are the contrary Doctrines And to omit those many instances which do not so immediately concern the present Controversy It is a very common and prevayling Doctrine among the Doctors of the Church of Rome that the blessed Virgin is the Mother of Mercy not only by vertue of her intercession but by way of distribution and of Dispensation and that Christ having reserved the Kingdom of Justice to himself hath granted the Kingdom of mercy to his Mother and that he hath given to her what Assuerus promised to Queen Hester viz. The half of his Dominions or his Kingly Office This Doctrine is delivered by Thomas Bonaventure Gerson Gabriel Biel Antoninus Bernardinus Gorrhan Holcoth Rutilius Benzonius Blasius Viegas Osorius Paulus Cararia and many others whose words are cited by Dr. * From p. 356. to p. 363. White * p. 321.323.398.399 p 478.481 p. 480. p. 486. Crakanthorp and Bishop Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge
Wickedness against God are men fallen into What dishonour do the Creatures to their Creator and Maker And if we remember God sometimes yet because we doubt of his Ability or will to help us we joyn to him another Helper using these sayings Such as Learn God and St. Nicholas be my good speed Such as Neese God help and St. John To the Horse God and St. Loy save thee Thus are we become like Horses and Mules which have no Understanding For is there not one God only who Governeth the same and by his goodness maintaineth and serveth them be not all things of him by him and through him Why dost thou turn from the Creator to the Creatures This is the manner of the Gentil-Idolaters but thou art a Christian and therefore by Christ alone hast access to God the Father and help of him only These things are not written to any reproach of the Saints themselves but against our foolishness and wickedness making of the true Servants of God false Gods by attributing to them the Power and Honour which is Gods and due to him only And for that we have such opinions of the power and ready help of Saints all our Legends Hymns Sequenses and Masses did contain stories Lauds and praises of them and prayers to them and this we do altogether agreeable to the Saints as did the Gentile-Idolaters to their false Gods If answer be made that they make Saints but Intercessors to God and means for such things as they would obtain of God That is even after the Gentile-Idolatrous usage to make them of Saints Gods called Dij medioximi to be mean Intercessors and helpers to God This is the Doctrine appointed to be read and taught in every Parish Church of England In the Injunctions of Edward the Sixt published 1547. All Pastors are enjoyned to teach for the reproof of Surerstition and Pilgrimage made to Saints that all goodness health and grace ought to be both asked and looked for only of God as of the very Author and Giver of the same and of none other And in the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth 1559. We have the same reiterated viz. To the intent that all Superstition and Hypocrisie crept into divers mens hearts may vanish away they shall teach that all goodness health and grace ought to be both asked and looked for only of God as of the very Author and giver of the same and of none other And now to evidence the Truth and Justice of this imputation §. 3. we shall first shew what is the nature of Idolatry and what actions may be duely charged with it Next we shall faithfully relate the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome from her own Catechism Church-service and Authentick Councils Thirdly we shall consider what T. G. and others of that Church have offer'd to excuse her practice from this imputation And then shall leave it to the judgment of all impartial and discerning Readers whether we have not such convincing clear and pregnant reasons to pronounce her guilty of this most hainous sin that the most subtil wit cannot evade nor the most obstinate deny And first to shew wherein the nature of Idolatry consists and to confute and baffle all the tricks and Salvo's which the adverse party hath of late invented to excuse their practice in this matter from this hainous guilt we assert as followeth That to render any person guilty of Idolatry Prop. 1. it is not necessary that be should conceive the Creature which he worships to be the great Creator and the chiefest good the end and the beginning of all things or to conceive that which he worships is no Creature For first if this were requisite to render any person guilty of this crime then no man could commit Idolatry who knows and doth acknowledge the true Jehovah to be the only God Though he should Sacrifice to Devils and to stocks and stones Though he should worship the Sun Moon and Stars and all the host of Heaven with all the Rites and Ceremonies that have been used by the Heathen world nay should he have as many petty and inferior Gods as Aegypt Rome or the whole Heathen world did ever own and should perform that homage which according to the custom of those Nations where they were received was due unto them yet would he not be guilty of the least Idolatry because he could not possibly conceive them to be the great Creator or the highest God and yet conceive the true God to be only so 2. Hence it would clearly follow that those Christians who refused to Sacrifice or offer Incense unto the Images and Statues of the Heathen Emperors and to those Daemons which they worshiped as inferior beings and subject to that being whom the Heathens stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Supream and highest God were miserably out and wretchedly deceived in their apprehensions for it is evident by all their writings and by the accusations of their Adversaries that they refused to pay this homage to them because they thought it was Idolatry whereas according to this Rule it was not possible that they who owned the true Jehovah in contradiction to all others could commit that sin or justly be suspected of it 3. The Christians constantly pronounced the Heathens guilty of Idolatry in worshiping their lesser Deities And when the Arians and Nestorians sprung up they with one voice pronounced them guilty of the like hainous crime because by giving that homage which the Orthodox conceived due to God to him whom they affirmed to be only man they did * Basil Hom. 27. Ed. Paris P. 510. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. they introduced that Idolatry the Heathens practised the Angelitae as * Nomo Can. Tit. 12. c. 8. Cod. Can. Ecc. Univ. Cant. 139. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 79. p. 1061. B. Photius or the Angelicks as St. Austine stiles them who prayed to Angels and by them thought to have access unto the Father The Church of God did antiently condemn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being guilty of occult Idolatry The Collyridians who offerd Cakes unto the blessed Virgin were said to do a devilish work and introduce a custom which made them guilty of Idolatry and yet it is exceeding manifest that neither any of those Heathens did conceive those petty Gods as they are pleased to stile them the supream being or the great Creator of the world nor could the like conceptions of Christ the blessed Virgin or the Angels be any ways consistent to that Christianity which the Arians Angelicks and Collyridians did constantly profess As for the Heathens their Daemons were accounted a Plutarc de Def. Or. p. 416 417. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ministers of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secundary Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministring Spirits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sen b Apuleus de demon Socratis p. 45. potestatis Mediae a middle sort of Intercessors c Sen
be more absurd to think I shall be damned only by reason of the defect or wickedness of others which yet all R. Catholieks stand bound as firmly to believe as any other Doctrine of that Church for it is certainly the Doctrine of the Church of Rome a Quoties infans aut adultus versatur in vitae periculo potest sine solemnitate à quocunque Baptizari servata tamenforma intentione Ecclesia Ritual Rom. de Bap. P. 7. That where the perfect form of Baptism or the intention of b Quicquid enim horum deficit scihect materia debita forma cum intentione non conficitur Sacramentum Miss Rom. p. 34. doing what the Churth doth is wanting the person that is brought unto the Fout is not Baptized And it is also the definition of that Church c Siquis dixerit Baptiâ—mum liberum esse hoc est non necessarium ad salutem anathema sit Coxcil Trid. Sess 7 de Bept Can. 5. That Baptism is necessary to Salvation and consequently that no unbaptized person can be Saved and hence the Roman Ritual speaks thus d Ritual Rom. de Bapt. p. 5. That Holy Baptism the Gate of Christian Religion and Eternal Life e Nihil magiâ— necessarium videri potest quà m ut doceatur omnibus hominibus Baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse ita ut niu per Baptifmi gratiam Deo renascantur in sempirernam miseriam c interitum a parentibus sive illi fidles sive infideles sint procreentur Igitur saepiùs à Pastoribus explicandum crit quod apud Evangelistam legitur Nssiquis renatus suerit ex apua spiritu non potest intâ—oire in reguum Dei Catechis Rom. part 2. Cap. 11.5.31 is necessary to the Salvation of all Men is testified by truth it self in these expressions unless a Man be born again c. and therefore in the due ministration of it the greatest diligence is needfull 2 It is most certainly the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that Sinners are not absolved by the Priest unless the e Nihil magis necessarium videri potest quà m ut doceatur omnibus hominibus Baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse ita ut nisi per Baptismi gratiam Deo renascantur in sempiternam miseriam anteritum a parentibus sive illi fideles sive infideles sint procreentur Igitur saepiùs à Pastoribus explicandum crit quod apud Evangelistam legitur Nssi quis renatus suerit ex aqua spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei Catechis Rom. part 2. Cap. 11. §. 31. Priest intend to do it and yet that Church defineth That this f Siquis dixerit in ministris dum Sacra mentum conficiunt conferunt non requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia anathema sit Concil Trid. Sess 7. Cap. 1. Can. 11. f Est autem hoc Sacramentum Paenitentiae lapsis post Baptismum ad salutem necessarium ut nondum regeneratis ipse Baptismus ibid. Stss 14. Cap. 2. Sacrament of Penance is necefsary to Salvation to those that after Baptism do fall and tells the penitent g Non debet poenitens adeò sibi de suaipsius fide blandiri ut etiam si nulla illi adsit contritio aut sacerdoti animus seriò agendi verè absolvendi deslt putet tamen se propter suam solam fidem verè coram Deo esse absolutum Nec enim fides fine penitentia remissionem ullam peccatorum praestaret Nec is esset nisi salutis suae negligentissimus qui sacerdotem joco se absolventem cognofceret non alium seriò agentem sedulò requireret ib. Cap. 6. he must not so far flatter or deceive himself as to expect to be absolved by God by reason of his Faith if the Priest doth not in his mind intend truly to absolve him and to act seriously in the matter So that T. G. and all of his perswasion must recant this principle which he hath here laid down and which shines with the brightest evidence or else he must renounce the Church of Rome and one would wonder at the stupidity of our R. Catholicks that they can think of this without the greatest horrour and amazement for if this be not true then their Religion must be false and if it be then how great soever be the Piety and Virtue of their Lives yet if their Priest be a secret Atheist if he be impious enough not to be serious or if he be so negligent or so malicious as not to intend their absolution they must infallibly be damned to all Eternity Secondly His instances are all impertinent and insufficient to take off the scruple upon several accounts as for example P. 259. T. G. askes what certainty hath a Husband that the person he takes for his Wife is so indeeds and yet a Husband may pay the conjugal debt Answer The case is no way parallel for here is no apparent cause of doubt for otherwise the duty ought not to be paid but there is almost infinite reason to suspect Christ is not present in the Sacrament once in a Thousand instances perhaps it happeneth that a Man may be cheated with another Woman but here it is an Hundred to one that we are cheated in our supposition of Christs Real and Corporal presence For since the power of the Priest to Consecrate depends upon the due Baptizing and due Ordination of all that Line which was before him should we allow to every Ordaining Bishop 16 years yet must that Line contain an Hundred Bishops at least and if but one neglect in matter form or the intention of the Priest hath been committed in the Baptizing or Ordaining of one of the whole Hundred Bishops the Bread must certainly be Bread so that the want of due intention form or matter being as common and as like to happen in any single instance as a cheat put upon the Husband the disparity in this must be as great as that of One to an Hundred and if we do again consider that according to the Canon of the Nicene Council One Bishop and Two Priests are requisire to the Ordaining of a Priest then the disparity runs thus as Three hundred to one so is the possibility of being cheated in the Sacrament to that of being cheated in my Bed But then if we consider that throughout the a Cent. 9. In eodem concilio de vita honestate sacrificulorum quorum mores a Disciplina Majorum lapsi ad luxum libidinemque plus quam profano licet tendebant leges latae sunt Avent lib. 4. p. 359. Isti octo Pontifices sequentes brevi tempore sederunt nescio notabile aliquid de ipsis dicere quia non nisi scandalosa de ipsis reperi Fascic p. 67. Quod proinde seculum ab Historicis infaelix inscribitur Genebrard ad Ann. Christi 899. Ninth b Cent. 10. Quo tempore ipsa
This answer gives us some shew of reason why this Invocation was not enjoyned in Scripture but it affords not the least shadow of a reason why it was not practised 2. Either this Invocation was practised by the Church in the Apostles time or not if not Quem seuâ—per Ecclesia Catholica adhibuit Câ—t Rom. p. 3 c. 2. Sect. 8. then the Trent Council and the Roman Catechism falsly do assert that this was the perpetual and Apostolick practice of the Church of Christ if it was practised then that practice must give rise unto the same Objection viz. that the Disciples of Christ had brought into the world this custom on purpose to advance their honour and to procure worship to themselves 3. This doctrine had it been consistent with the Christian Faith ought more especially to have been often preached to the Jews to reconcile them to that Faith by giving them assurance that they might have recourse unto the prayers of Father Abraham and their beloved Moses and that Noah Job and Daniel Elijah Samuel and all the blessed Patriarchs and Prophets who were so powerful with God on Earth would upon their request be ready to procure for them the greatest Temporal and Spiritual blessings since therefore we have no such Revelation in any of these Writings or Epistles which are especially directed to them and were designed for their conversion and satisfaction it may be well concluded this was no doctrine of the Christian faith 2. Some others do assert That the Apostles did abstain from giving any precept or example of this Invocation lest Heathens should conceive that for the multitude of Heathen * Nondum erat tempus in ipsius fidei exordiis eam mundo doctrinam divulgandi ne Gentiles arbitrarentur plures nos Deos colere Alanus Copus Dial. 3. f. 239. Eckius ubi supra Deities they worshipped the Christians only introduced a multitude of Christian Gods Repl. 1. This evasion is a meer conjecture of which we have not the least hint in any of the Ancient Fathers or the Church Historians which is sufficient to crack the credit of it for that such a change should happen in the worship of the whole Church of Christ without the notice or observation of any single person is incredible Besides this figment thwarts that declaration of St. Paul that he was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ and that profession that he with-held not from them any useful Doctrine Act. 20.20 it thwarts that Doctrine and Assertion of the Church of Rome that this hath been the constant custom of the Church of God including the Apostles time Besides the reasons of abstaining from this practice must continue as long as there were Heathenâ— to be converted to the Christian Faith and so beyond the time of Constantine Now albeit it be a certain truth that Christians till after the days of Constantine abstained from this practice yet cannot that Assertion consist with the pretences of the Church of Rome for Apostolical Tradition and derivation of these Doctrines which they obtrude upon us from the Apostles of our Lord. 4. Either these Primitive Professors were not well advised to let this fear of Scandal deter them from the publication of a truth so pious and profitable to the Church of Christ or else the Roman Doctors are not so cautious in their attempts to propagate the Gospel as they ought to be as not concealing from the †8. Dali. de cultu Latin To. 1. l. 3. cap. 25. p. 493. Pagans whom they endeavour to convert this so suspicious practice of their Church In a word if the Apostles and the Church of Christ which was converted by and flourished under them had no such practice certain it is we have no reason now to do what they did never practise or command for all instructions we embrace as from them must be what they did teach or practise but if they did admit this practice then could not Jews and Heathens want the knowledge of it seeing the number of Apostates and hypocritical Professors was so great and there were many who took upon them the profession of the Christian Faith Cal 2 4. Phil. 1.16 only to spy out what they practised 3. If it be said they might abstain by reason of some precept which forbad this Invocation I reply that which Gods wisdom doth forbid us to give unto the noblest of his Creatures he by so doing doth declare that he reserves unto himself and when we act against his precept we may be certain that he will not reveal or manifest that supplication which he hath forbidden and therefore they that tender to these Blessed Spirits this forbidden worship must ascribe unto them that knowledge which agrees to God alone and that honour which he will not give unto another and so be guilty of Idolatry To conclude If this Invocation were so beneficial to mankind and was not derogatory to Gods honour it might be well presumed that Christ and his Apostles would have been careful to instruct us in it for they neither wanted knowledge to perceive the benefit or love sufficient to engage them to acquaint us with it Lastly P. 420. Whereas T. G. objects That it is certain by many and great Miracles wrought by God upon addresses made to the Saints that those who call upon them are heard and obtain what they desire and that therefore it cannot be unlawful or Idololatrical to desire their intercession Answ This is an Argument in which the Romanists much triumph but it is only what their Brother Donatists had urged long before L. de unitate Ecc. contra Petâ—liani Donatistae Epistolam and what St. Austin hath admirably answered And first I say It is but a Translation of that Argument which formerly was used by the Donatists in confirmation of their Schism for thus St. Austin propoundeth their Objection * Non dicat verum est quâ—a hoc 〈◊〉 dico aut quia hoc dixit ille Collega meus aut illi Collegae mei aut illi Episcepi vel Clerici vel Laici nosiri aut ideo verum est quia illa illa Mirabilia fecit Donatus vel Pontius velquilibet alius aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant exaudiuntur aut quia illa illa ibi contingunt aut quia ille Frater noster aut illa Seror nostra tale visum vigilans vidit vel tale visun dormiens somniavit removeantur isâ—a vel figmenta mendacium hominum vel portenta fall icium Spirituum aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur aut si Haereticorum aliqua mira sunt facta magis cavere debemus quod cum dixisset Dominus quesdum futuros esse falleces qui nonnuâ—la signa faciendo etiam Electos si fieri posset fallerent adjecit vehementer commendans dit ecce praedixi vebis unde Aposiclus admenens Spiritus autem manifesâ—e decet
as Parmenian in one place doth make the Bishop a Mediator betwixt the People and God what good and faithful Christian would endure him who would look upon him as the Apostle of Christ and not as Antichrist ‖ Non est quo cas nisi ad me non est quâ eas nisi per me Tract 22. in Joh. 3. Thou hast not whither thou canst go but to me nor hast thou any other way to go but by me Thirdly §. 3. Observe that many of these Fathers held those Doctrines and opinions which are inconsistent with this practice according to the Judgment of the Romanist As 1. It is the Judgment of the Doctors of the Church of Rome (a) Illi qui sunt in Purgatorio nondum fruuntur visione verbi ut possint cognoscere ea quae nos cogitumus vel dicimus ideo eorum suffragia non imploramus orando Aquin 2a 2ae qu. 83. Art 4. That our petitions should be directed only to such Saints as do enjoy the beatifick vision or a clear sight of God and are admitted into those glorious Mansions which are emphatically stiled Heaven And this they do imagine to be necessary upon three accounts 1. That they may give a reason why this practice was never used by the (b) Notandum est quia ante Christi adventum sancti qui moriebantur non intrabant in coelum nec Deum videbant nec cognoscere poterant ordinariè preces supplicantium ideo non fuisse consuetum in Testamento veteri ut diceretur sancte Abraham Ora pro me Bellar. de Sanctorum Beatitud l. 1. cap. 19. S. item Exodi Prophets or the Jewish Church and why it is not said in Scripture or in the Jewish Records Sancte Abraham Ora pro me Holy Abraham Pray for me And 2. Why neither they nor any other persons did ever put up a petition to the (c) Dicendum est ideo non fuisse morem in veteri Testamento adeundi Sanctos Intercessores quia nondum erant beati glorificati ut modo sunt Alphons Salmer in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Saints in Purgatory 3. Because this (d) Quod autem aliquis dirictè oraverit Sanctos defunctos ut se adjuvarent vel pro se orarent nusquam legimus hic enim modus orandi est proprius legis Gratiae in quo Sancti videntes Deum possunt etiam in co videro orationes quae ad ipsos fundantur Fr. Suarez in part 3. Th. To. 2. disp 42. Sect. 1. V. Albert. Pigh Controv. 13. beatifick vision is conceived to be that glass in which the blessed do behold the prayers that are made unto them or at the least it is required as a preparatory to this Revelation Now Thomas Stapleton informs us That (e) Tot illi tam celebres antiqui Patres Tertullianus Irenaeus Origenes Chry sostomus Theodoretus Oecumenius Theophy lactus Ambrosius Clemens Romanus D. Bernardus huic sententiae quae nunc in Concilio Florentino magnd demum corquisitione factâ ut dogma fidei definita est quod justorum animae ante diem Judicti Dei visione fruuntur non sant assensi sâ—d sententiam contrariam tradiderunt Defens Eccles Authorit contr Whitak l. 1. cap. 2. many famous ancient Fathers Tertullian Irenaeus Origen Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact Ambrose Clemens Romanus and Bernard did not assent unto this sentence That the Souls of the righteous enjoy the sight of God before the day of Judgment but did deliver the contrary sentence thereunto To these Franciscus Pegna adds In part 2. direct Inquisitor comment 2â— Justin Martyr Austin Lactantius Victorinus Prudentius Aretas and Euthymius The truth of which Confessions of these Roman Doctors you may see largely prov'd in †De poenis satisfactâ— 5. c. 3 4 5 6. Dalle And that this Doctrine was almost generally received about that time when all those Fathers flourished which T. G. citeth to confirm the invocation of Saints is evident from that of * Post vitam istam parvum nondum eris ubi erunt Sancti quibus dicetur Venite benedicti Fatris percipite regnum quod vobis paratum est ab initio mundi Nondum ibi eris quis nescit Sed jam poteris ibi esse ubi illum quondam ulcerosum pauperem dives ille superbus sterilis in medits suis tormentis vidit à longè qutescentem Tom. 8 in Psal 36. fol. 61. G.H. Austin Nondum ibi eris quâ—s nescit Thou shalt not as yet be there who knoweth it not 2. It is confessed by many Doctors of the Church of Rome that if the Saints deceased do not hear and understand our Prayers it is a vain and idle thing to pray unto them if this saith (a) DeBeatitud disp 25. Lorca was not supposed by the Church of Christ she would first pray unto God to reveal our Prayers and then would put up her Petitions to them Now almost all the Fathers cited by T.G. held that the Dead did neither know nor were acquainted with our Petitions or our wants or at the least they were of (b) Sâ—etiam exâ—ra corpus positi vel sancti qui cum Christo sunt agunt aliquid laboranâ— pro nohis ad similitudinem Angelorum qui saluâ—is nostâ—ae ministeria procurant habeatur hoc queque inter occulia Dei â—ee charâ—ulae committenda mysteria Orig. in Rom. l. 2. p. 472. Origens Opinion that it was doubtful whether they did or no. Thus Ambrose speaking of his dead brother saith didst thou now know how * Si nunc urgeri Italiam tam propinquo bosie cognosceres quantum ingemisceres Ambros de obitu sr Satyri Italy was pressed with so near an Enemy how wouldst thou groan within thy self St. Hierom in Nepotians Epitaph professeth he believs him (d) Quicquid dixero quia ille non audit mâ—tum videâ—ur f. 8. B. Scimus quidem Nepotianum nostrum esse cum Christo Sanctorum mixtum châ—ris ib. 1. Fâ—lix Nepotianus qui haec non videt felix qui haec non audit p. 10. B. mingled amongst the Quire of Saints And yet he adds whatsoever I shall say will be but speaking to the Deaf because he hears not and again happy is Nepotian who neither hears nor sees these things (e) Ibi ergo sunt Spiritus defunctoruâ— ubi non vident quaecunque aguntur aut eveniunt in isrâ vitâ hominibus De cura pro mortuis c. 13. The Spirits of dead men are there where whatsoever things are done or happen in this life to men they do not see them So St. Augustine and therefore Anselm in his interlineal Gloss upon that Text Abraham is ignorant of us noteth thus Austin saith that the dead do not know what the living do Else where he is less positive and only saith (f) Respondeo magnam quidem esse quaestionem vtrum vel quatenus vel quomodo ea quae circa nos aguntur 〈◊〉 verâ—nt
advantage to our cause the Fathers speak upon this Text if we had nothing more to say but what they have delivered on these words yet should we have what is abundantly sufficient to confirm our Faith and justifie that Imputation which we lay upon the Cburch of Rome for first they do expresly say that this Exposition of T. G. and his Infallible Mother is not only false but an heretical exposition * Ac si aliquis Haereticus pertinaciter obluctans adversus veritatem voluerit in his omnibus exemplis proprie Angelum aut intelligere aut intelligendum esse contenderit in hoc quoque viribus veritatis frangatur necesse est de Trin. c. 15. If any heretick saith Novatian who pertinaciously strives against the truth would have us in all these Examples properly to understand the Angel or would contend for such a sense of that expression in this he must assuredly be broken by the force of truth This Exposition of the Papists saith St. Cyril Thesaur p. 115.116 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. the sottish exposition of the Arians The Exposition of the Protestants must therefore be both true and Orthodox 2. They add that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Alexandr Thesaur p. 116. if the Enemies of Christ did think that Jacob was a Holy Man and one endned with the Prophetick spirit when he spake these words they might be well ashamed to charge him with so gross an error as was the Invocation of an Angel with God This Custom therefore of putting up the same Petition in the same sentence to God and to the Blessed Angel or to God and to the Saints or Angels must be acknowledged to be a thing * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 4 contr Arr. exceedingly repugnant to the Doctrine which then obtained in the Church of Christ and that which they esteemed the †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B. Cyrill Alexandr Thesau p. 115. grossest error 3. They give us this as a sufficient Evidence that Jacob spake not to a Creature because he saith Orat. 4. contra Arian p. 260. the Angel that delivered me from all evils Hence it is manifest saith Athanasius and St. Cyril that he did not speak of a created Angel but of the Angel of the Covenant and therefore it is manifest that these petitions prescribed in the Church of Rome and often tendred both to Saints and Angels are in the Judgment of these Fathers such as ought not to be tendred to a Creature and so are guilty of Idolatry As therefore Athanasius to the Arians so say I to the Church of Rome * Contr. Arian Ora 2. p. 369. Let them know that never any good Man put up such a Prayer to any thing that was begotten They being taught by Christ to pray to God the Father to be delivered from all Evil. c. 16. v. 8. And by the Son of Syrach to confess that it is he who delivereth from all evil And this Interpretation of the Antient Fathers will manifestly appear to be the truth if we consider who this Angel was for the Angel who delivered him from all Evil must be that very Angel which delivered him from Labans wrath and from the fury of his Brother Esau now the Angel which said unto him I have seen all that Laban doth unto thee 31 Gen. 13.20 28 Gen. 13. return thou therefore into the Land of thy Kindred was the God of Bethel the God to whom he vowed a vow that God who did appear in Haran to him it was the God of his Father Abraham and the fear of Isaack that rebuked Laban and charged him not to do him hurt v. 29.42.32 Gen. 23. 12 Hos 4. The Angel that he wrestled with and with whom he prevailed was the God of Heaven Lastly it was his Prayer to this God that made his Brother Esau melt into expressions of the greatest love 2. I answer this is no Prayer but a Wish thus when St. Paul concludes in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God 2 Cor. 13.14 and the Communion of the holy Ghost be with you all I hope he doth not pray unto the Grace of Christ and the Love of God and the Communication of the holy Ghost so then this passage may be thus Expounded I wish to God that he and that good Angel who under him preserved me from all evils may preserve the Lads Some Roman Catholicks confess that which we now contend for and tell us Vide Vossium de invoc Sanct. disp 2 Th. 18. that although this practice in its self was good and profitable God would not suffer his own people to invoke these blessed spirits least they should worship them as Gods Idolatry being a Vice they were so prone upon the least occasion to commit Answer we find that notwithstanding the proneness of this people to that sin God often did appear in the similitude of Angels to them he used the Ministry of Angels in the delivery of that Law they did so highly reverence he used their Ministry both in conferring of the choicest Blessings on his people and the inflicting of the most remarkable Judgments both on them and on their Enemies And he delivered those things touching the Ministry and custody of holy Angels which Romanists conceive to be sufficient ground and motive for their Invocation Whence we may very well conclude it was not out of fear of any proneness of that people to this Idolatry that he did not enjoyn this practice but only because he is a jealous god and will not give his honour to another Against the Worship of an Image or of the Host of Heaven or any other Gods which by the Heathens were still worshipped under some visible representation we have frequent Cautions and very dreadful threatnings in Moses and the Prophets but against this Idolatry of Worshiping those spirits which in their nature are invisible those writings give us not one Caution or Prohibition though they do often call them Gods of which affair I am not able to conceive a better Reason then this is that it was just matter of suspition that this rude heavy people might be prone to worship what they saw but it was not to be feared that they should worship what was invisible and seldome did appear and hence we find this people continually revolting from the invisible Jehovah to the Sun Moon and Stars and to the Heathen Deities but never do we find them in the least inclined to the worship of these blessed spirits Moreover if we do consider that in the whole New Testament § 8. we have not any precept to enjoyn Example to commend or promise to encourage us unto this Invocation we have a further reason to believe that Christ and his Apostles disapproved of it for can we think that Christ himself and all his Servants and Apostles would have neglected to