Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A42574
|
The primitive fathers no papists in answer to the Vindication of the Nubes testium : to which is added an historical discourse concerning invocation of saints, in answer to the challenge of F. Sabran the Jesuit, wherein is shewn that invocation of saints was so far from being the practice, that it was expresly [sic] against the doctrine of the primitive fathers.
|
Gee, Edward, 1657-1730.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing G459; ESTC R18594
|
102,715
|
146
|
would not do his business and was not to the purpose and thereupon challenged him to produce Fathers for that Point promising him at the same time a fair Answer But our Compiler durst not offer to accept of the Challenge dares not meddle with such a thing but if two or three bits of the Old Testimonies out of the Nubes may be admitted they are at my Service and from these it is that he would fain prove that even in matters of Belief the Tradition of the Catholick Church is the best Demonstration What better than the Express Testimony of Scripture it self Methinks our ignorant Compiler might have been contented to have made Tradition only as good or equal to Scripture for the Demonstration of Faith which is the highest the Council of Trent it self durst rise in favour of Tradition and never pretended to mount Tradition so much above Scripture as to make it the BEST DEMONSTRATION of Matters of FAITH But when Ignorance and too great a stock of Confidence meet together such Assertions as these are commonly the fruits of them But for this extravagant Assertion he hath a mind to bring in Origen for a Voucher who speaking concerning the Belief of Christ's being the Son of God says that is to be embrac'd which by a Succession from the Apostles is preserved in the Church by Ecclesiastical Tradition but in Answer to this Is not that Truth and Faith concerning Christ's being the Son of God expresly taught and held forth in the Holy Scriptures and which is more doth not Origen himself expresly tell us in this very place for our Compiler is for looking no further than his own Book that that Truth was to be learnt by us ab IPSO from Christ himself whose Words Doctrine and Actions are used to be thought to have been the Subject of the New Testament which I take to be Scripture and as this Doctrine was to be read in the Scriptures so it was delivered down from thence in Ecclesiastical Tradition which can mean nothing else than either that the Scriptures which did comprehend that Faith were delivered down successively from Age to Age in the Church or that this was always taught in the Sermons and Homilies of the Fathers of the Church successively And to give our Compiler a better knowledge of Origen's sence about these things I will refer him to one Passage which I will set down and desire him to consider of it Origen in Leviticum c. 7. Homilia 5. p. 144. Edit Froben 1536. Origen in his Homilies upon Leviticus speaking of the Old and New Testament tells us that in THEM every word that appertaineteh to God by which Expression the least he can mean is that every Point of Faith may be sought after and found out and all Knowledge of things may be apprehended from THEM But if any thing doth remain which the Holy Scripture doth not determine no other third Scripture ought to be received for the Authorizing any Knowledge but we are to commit to the Fire that which remaineth that is we must leave it to God for in this present World God is not for having us to know all things Our Compiler is next for having Tertullian on his side but why does he not then bring us something to prove it or rather why did he not disprove what I had produced for the Authority and Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures from Tertullian He neither does the one nor offers at the other and yet this must pass it seems for vindicating And just thus he serves me after for when I in Vindication of S. Basil had quoted him declaring for the necessity of Scripture-Evidence for Matters of Faith he says not one Syllable in Answer to it but is for referring me to the old Quotations out of Basil Epiphanius and Lirinensis which I had shewn him before were not to the purpose which is such perfect trifling as none but such a Compiler as he is would be guilty of He then falls to thanking me for saying in relation to the Testimony from Gregory Nyssen that we allow the Tradition of Antiquity to be highly useful and necessary in the Interpreting or giving us the genuine Sense of Points of Faith all the Answer I will give him is much good may it do him however how far that Expression was from doing us any hurt or them any good I have abundantly shewn in my Vindication which I am loth to transcribe hither but that I may not be behind-hand in Civility for the Compiler's Thanks I will present him in Token of my Gratitude with a Passage or two from his Gregory Nyssen and other Fathers which I must recommend to his Consideration Gregory Nyssen in his Dialogue de Animâ Resurrectione lays it down for a Position which no Man ought to contradict that in that only the Truth (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen Dial. de Animâ Resurrect Tom. 2. P. 639. Edit Paris 1615. must be acknowledged which hath upon it the Seal of Scripture-Testimony And in another part of his Works he calls the Holy Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem in Orat de iis qui adeunt Hierosol Tom. 2. p. 1084. a true or streight and inflexible Rule S. Austin is as clear and full against our Compiler while he assures us that in those things which are laid down plainly in the Scripture all those things are found which concern Faith or Manners (c) In iis quae aperte in Scripturâ posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi August de Doctr. Christianâ l. 2. c. 9. Tom. 3. p. 17 18. S. Hierom speaking of the Hereticks in his time which made so much noise and pretended so highly to Apostolical Tradition gives this severe Doom upon them but those things also which they of themselves invent and yet feign to have received as it were by Tradition from the Apostles without the Authority and Testimonies of the Scriptures the sword of God doth smite (d) D. Hieron in Aggeum c. 1. Tom. 6. p. 230. Edit Basil 1565. I could give him several such Testimonies from other Fathers but I will neither trouble him or the Reader with any more at present it will be time enough to send him the rest when he hath answered these And will now pass to his next Chapter and the Vindication of it But here it seems there was no need of any Vindication for I am brought in as one of their own side for saying and granting that our Church doth honour the Saints in observing days in honour or memory of them and I have the Compiler's thanks for it here we have had this Concession up once already it made one of the most terrible Articles of Popery against me in our Compiler's masquerading Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England In my Answer to that scurrilous Letter I did sufficiently acquit my self and our
Addresses made to Temporal Princes by the mediation of their Officers and shews that the comparison is groundless since Temporal Princes are forc'd to make use of their Officers in such things because they are but men whereas God knows the Merits of all men and therefore no need of a Spokesman to him Did S. Basil or Gregory Nyssen teach Invocation or a Praying to Saints who define Prayer to be a Request for some good thing TO GOD These are the most noted Fathers of the Fourth Century and for the Fifth did S. Epiphanius teach Invocation of Saints who proves the Divinity of Christ as S. Athanasius had done from his being worshipped the most solemn expression of Worship being Invocation or Prayer did S. Ambrose after he rightly understood the Christian Religion teach any such Invocation who said that GOD ALONE was to be INVOCATED Did S. Chrysostom teach it who does so often exhort to our going to God our selves assuring us we shall be sooner heard when we ask our selves than when we ask by another who does with the rest of the Fathers make the Essence of Prayer to be a Discoursing with God Did S. Austin lastly whom the Jesuit names teach Invocation or Prayer to Saints who says expresly that we ought to Pray to or ask of GOD ALONE those things we hope for I am so much accustomed to the Writers of the Church of Rome that I do not so much wonder as I otherwise should at the Jesuits asserting a thing so very false with so much assurance it is too frequent among them to challenge ALL the Fathers when perhaps not one in twenty is on their side and therefore for the Jesuit to assert That all the Fathers of those two Centuries are for Invocation of Saints is meerly a being in the fashion But can he think to impose upon us with such things does he think that Confidence is enough or all that is necessary for the carrying of any cause if he does he shall find himself mistaken since there is too much learning in England to let such bold and false assertions to pass upon and delude the people without controul or putting a stop to them I need not aggravate or further insist on the falseness of all that the Jesuit said there I had rather employ my self to vindicate the Fathers than to expose him and therefore in order to the doing that by answering all the passages quoted out of them by the Jesuit to defend Invocation of Saints I will only request that these two very reasonable Postulatum's may be granted me First That the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries about whom the Controversie is betwixt me and the Jesuit did know the Practices and understand the Doctrines of the Fathers of the Three preceding Ages of the Church Secondly That the Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries had so much learning as to understand and so much sense as not to contradict themselves Both these Concessions are so very just that I hope there will be no dispute about them I will then with the help of them begin the Examination of all that the Jesuit hath offered out of the Primitive Fathers in defence of Invocation of Saints And to let the Jesuit see I am not afraid of their best Arguments I will answer that one which is omitted I wonder how by himself but was not only urged in the Nubes Testium but is twice repeated by the Compiler in his Vindication of the Nubes Testium It is the passage from S. Ambrose's Book de Viduis wherein he says Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis Martyres obsecrandi the Angels are to be pray'd to who are appointed for our defence the Martyrs are to be pray'd to whose Patronage we justly claim This passage doth make the greatest shew of any for the Church of Rome however in answer to this we tell them that what S. Ambrose wrote in that Book was not the Doctrine of the Christian Church which S. Ambrose did not understand when he wrote that Book being then but a Novice as not only this passage about Angels but some others in it do very evidently shew and therefore this passage ought not to be insisted on as the Doctrine of the Church then since He doubtless did not at that time understand the Church's Doctrines nor ought it to be insisted on as S. Ambrose's Opinion at least since it is evident that he did afterwards change his mind when he understood Christianity better and did then declare his sense to be that GOD ALONE was to be INVOCATED or PRAY'D TO This Answer is fair and cannot be reasonably gainsay'd however since the Jesuit and the Compiler will be angry at my saying S. Ambrose was a Novice and did not understand the Doctrines of the Christian Church when he wrote that Book I will to prevent their Cavils offer some further reasons in defence of that Answer I have just made I will not insist upon the Concessions of their own Learned Men of the Church of Rome of Baronius for Example who do own that S. Ambrose was a Novice when he wrote that Book and therefore did not throughly understand the Christian Doctrine I have better reasons the chief of which is that this doctrine of praying to Angels and Martyrs is expresly contrary to the doctrine of the Church and the Practice of it in St. Irenaeus's time who tells us that the Church then made no use of any Invocation of Angels in Origen's time who informs us that the Church's Doctrine was that Angels were not to be PRAY'D TO nor Martyrs neither but that ALL PRAYER was to be offered up to GOD ALONE through our Lord Jesus Christ and in St. Athanasius's time who lived but a little time before S. Ambrose and who shews us that no Christian then did Pray to Angel or Martyr or Saint or any other Creature but which is worst of all this Doctrine of praying to Angels is directly contrary to a Canon of a Council of Bishops at Laodicea held not above ten years before St. Ambrose's Conversion to Christianity by which Canon an Anathema is denounced against any person that should Pray to Angels and as if the Council * Can. 35. Concil Laodicen held A.D. 364. had a mind throughly to have secured all Christians from slipping into it they call the Praying to Angels a secret Idolatry and a forsaking of Christ This is sufficient to shew that Praying to Angels was far enough from being either a Practice or a Doctrine of the Primitive Church since it was accursed and branded with the title of Idolatry and to shew further that it was not S. Ambrose's own Opinion when he understood Christianity better we need only look into that Oration I quoted above where he doth expresly teach that GOD ALONE is to be Invocated and Prayed to Had the Compiler of the Nubes Testium known the true State and Doctrines of the Primitive Church during the first four Ages