Censuram Hungaricam Quatuor Propositionum Cleri Gallicanâ— p. 16. in Richerius's Vindiciae Doctrinae Majorum Scholae Parisiensis of Hungary that there is nothing so directly contrary to the most plain words of Scripture to the most evident Testimonies of the Fathers and the Practice of the whole Catholick Church for above a thousand years as the Doctrine of the Pope's having sole power in Judging Controversies of Faith so that I hope if I cannot those Authorities may convince our Compiler that he had better let this Testimony alone I will pass the two next Testimonies and tell our Compiler that as to the Council of Constantinople they did not submissively desire as our Compiler b Nub. Test p. 46. Nat. Alex. p. 306. and F. Alexandre do most falsly assert they did the Confirmation of their Decrees from Damasus Bishop of Rome there is nothing in this Epistle of Damasus to ground such a thing on and which is more it is certain that they did desire of the Emperour Theodosius c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prosphoneticus Concilii C. P nd Imper. Theodosio in T. 2. Concil p. 945. Edit Cossart who had convened this Council that H E would confirm their Decrees Thus I have gone through all the Testimonies collected by our Compiler and instead of answering the last to wit the Definition of the Council of Florence in the method I have done those hitherto I will conclude against it that as I have shewn above that there was no ground from Scripture nor Canon of the Vniversal Church that did in the least countenance what the Council of Florence did define concerning the Pope so neither doth any of the instances pickt up by our Compiler confirm or illustrate that Decree and therefore we have reason to say that the Pope's Supremacy had neither countenance nor being during the first five hundred years after our Saviour CHAP. III. Concerning Tradition SECT I. THE business of Tradition is that which our Compiler undertakes next to defend I cannot understand to what purpose He takes so much pains to tell us the Gnosticks Heresie with that of the Marcionites and Valentinians since I hope none of those Heresies are chargeable now upon us no not that worship of Images which was among the Gnosticks and is to be heard of in a Church now in the World We could wish all our Neighbours were as far from any thing bordering on those Heresies we do heartily desire that as they do not believe in Thirty Gods with the Valentinians so they were as far from having thrice thirty Objects of Religions Worship I heartily wish our Compiler had read that second Chapter of Saint Irenaeus his third Book against the Hereticks which he a Nubes Testium p. 48. Nat. Alex. Dissertatio decima sexta adversus Valentinianâ—â— c. in Par. secunda Seculi secundi p. 349. from F. Alexandre quotes to a very false purpose if either He or F. Alexandre himself had read this third Book of Irenaeus had read but this second Chapter nay more but the very Title of it our Compiler would not have talked so sillily about those Hereticks rejecting the received Doctrines and Practices of the Church because they pretended they were not in Scripture nor F. Alexandre b Nat. Alex. Ibidem p. 348. Praenotandum tertio hanc fuisse Veterum Haereticorum indolem ut solas ad Scripturas provocarent have put down such an egregious falshood as to say the Hereticks in defence of their Tenets appealed onely to Scripture when the very Title of this Chapter in Irenaeus tells us that the Hereticks would be ruled neither by Scripture nor Tradition in their Disputes with the Church * Quod neque Scripturis neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici Titulus c. 2. l. 3. Irenael adv Haereses I will set down here the beginning of the Chapter it self because it is so like the prattle of a sort of people now in the World who would be very angry to be called Hereticks When says Irenaeus c Cùm enim ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate quia variè sint dictae quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesci ant Traditionem Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem D. Irenaeus adv Haereses l. 3. c. 2. Edit Fevardent you argue against these Hereticks from the Scriptures themselves they quickly fall to accusing them that They are not right that they are not of Authority a Romanist would have added without our Church's approbation that things are set down variously and that there is no finding the Truth out of them by those who are ignorant of Tradition since It was delivered by Word of mouth not by Writing But to proceed to his new point of Controversie d Nubes Test p. 48. Nat. Alexan. p. 351. our Compiler tells us that the Fathers maintain that the Tradition of the Catholick Church is to be received and that Her Constitutions and Practices are not to be rejected though not found expresly in Scripture How loose a Writer our Compiler is the World hath been sufficiently informed by the Answers to his other pieces in this point He is resolved to act the same person while he so gingerly puts down part of the Debate betwixt us and suppresses the rest of it To state therefore the Controversie about Tradition if there really be any betwixt us He should not have put down that for the account of the Debate herein betwixt us which is agreed to by both sides nor should have omitted that wherein we really disagree and that is about the Scriptures being a certain and perfect Rule of Faith without the help of Tradition which the Council of Trent hath made to be of Equal Authority with the Scripture What our Compiler hath set down is no Controversie betwixt us since we do declare that the Tradition of the Catholick Church is to be received we do own that by This we received the Holy Scriptures and know how to separate the Scriptures from Apocryphal or Supposititious Writings and we profess also that we are willing and ready to receive any Doctrine not written that hath as perpetual unanimous and certain a Tradition as the Doctrines written in Scripture have that we onely wait for their proving that any of those Doctrines they would obtrude upon us have been thus Vniversally delivered so that herein is no Controversie betwixt us and if by Constitutions our Compiler means those about Matters of Discipline and Government and by Practices the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church He knows or least ought to know that it is the Doctrine of our Church that there is no necessity of express Scripture for the Constitutions and Practices which she enjoins in order to the more regular and decent service of God. So that here
that should we compare the Writers which wrote for that Doctrine which Berengarius afterwards taught with those that wrote against him all Learned Men will grant that Berengarius had vastly the advantage of his Adversaries since those who wrote for his Doctrine against Paschasius did so far excell in Learning those that did oppose him since the Scotus's the Rhathramn's and the Rabanus's were men of infinite more worth and learning than the Adelman's the Durand's and the Lanfrank's the last of whom tells the formal silly story about two Heresies e Lanfran de Euch. Sacr. in Tom. 6. Biblioth PP p. 203 204. Edit 1624. started about the Flesh of the Son of Man which the Sacramental Bread was to be converted into and makes the Council of Ephesus to have been procured for the suppression of those two Heresies which is such a forged and ridiculous piece of stuff as shews what learned Adversaries Berengarius was like to have when the most learned of them all is guilty of such ignorance It is not worth while to confute either Lanfrank's or any of the other Authour's Arguments against Berengarius set down by our Compiler he knows we do not derive our Doctrine from Berengarius and he might know would he consult our Protestant Writers that we have evidently shewn that Berengarius was no starter of a new Doctrine but that what Berengarius stood up for in the Eleventh Century had always been the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and this some of his own Church are so far satisfied of that One of them who is said to be a person of very great note in France at present did but the other day shew in an historical manner that the Belief of our Church concerning the blessed Eucharist was the Belief of the Catholick Church for a thousand years after Christ and that we ought not to be obliged to believe their Transubstantiation since it wanted what they themselves made necessary for any Catholick Doctrine at the Council of Trent the Tradition to wit of the Church of all Ages Setting then aside their objecting to us Berengarius in the Eleventh Century and our objecting to them Paschasius Radbertus in the Ninth Century whose opinion was so learnedly and so invincibly baffled by the famous Rhathramn assoon as it made any stir in the World let us pass on to that which we both so eagerly contend for in this point the Sentiments and Doctrines of the first six Centuries about the Eucharist I think the Controversie might be sufficiently determined from Scripture it self where the Eucharist is so often noted by Breaking of Bread in the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul does so often call it Bread after Consecration but since our Compiler waves all proofs from Scripture and appeals to the Doctrine and Belief of the Primitive Fathers of the first six hundred years I am very willing to attend his Motions and to join issue with him herein The Question betwixt our Church and theirs may be stated in a very few words it is not whether Christ's Body be really present in the Eucharist which he knows we declare to be our Opinion since we believe that the consecrated Elements do by the appointment of God communicate to every faithfull Receiver the Body and Bloud of Christ but the real debate betwixt us is whether the Bread and Wine upon Consecration are transubstantiated into that very Body and Bloud of Christ which was nailed and poured out upon the Cross or in other words whether after Consecration there is no other Substance there but the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ This they of the Church of Rome affirm and this is what our Compiler must prove to have been the Belief and Doctrine of the first six hundred years if he intends to convince us Our Compiler hath amassed together so great a number of Testimonies upon this point with which he fills up forty pages that should I oblige my self to a particular Examination of every one of his Testimonies it would make a book as large as all I shall gather against his whole Treatise I will therefore to shorten my task but much more to deliver my Reader from a tedious repetition of the same Answers to those Testimonies which speak onely over again what was said before answer those that are of most moment and Authority and refer the rest unto the same classes with them He is very carefull to follow his Guide Natalis Alexandre out of whom he transcribes every syllable of his Testimonies for forty pages together except two small passages out of St. Austin which do not occur as far as I have observed in that long Dissertation yet is so cunning very often to curtail those parts of the Testimonies which he thought I suppose did speak too broad against them SECT II. The Compiler a Nub. Testium p. 109. Nat. Alex in Par. 3. Sec. 11 12. Dissertatio 12. p. 476. and his Guide also begin with St. Ignatius who is quoted bringing in the reason why the Hereticks abstained from Communion because they did not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ I have sufficiently answered this passage in my Preface by turning it upon my late Adversary from the Authority of Irenaeus b eum PANEM in quo gratiae actae sint CORPVS esse DOMINI SVI Iren. adv Haer. l. 4. c. 34. who explains the Eucharistia here by Bread which had been blessed and Origen c Orig. contra Celsum l. 8. who speaks of the Christians having a Bread which was called Eucharistia so that we say that the Eucharist or Blessed Bread is the Flesh of Jesus Christ but that this must be figuratively onely since Bread can no otherwise be the Body of Christ and Bread still at the same time The second Testimony from Ignatius falls in with the first so that I must pass to our Compiler's next d Nubes Test p. 110. Nat. Alex. p. 479. from Justin Martyr the strength of which lyes onely in his saying they were taught that the consecrated food was the Flesh and Bloud of Jesus Christ We have already granted that it is however to corroborate what we said above it is evident to a demonstration that this consecrated Food was still Bread and not transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ because St. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΞἩΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΤΠΕ ΦΟÎΤΑΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apolog. 2. p. 98. Edit Paris 1636. Justin says at the same time and in the same sentence that our bodies are NOVRISHED by that very consecrated Food to affirm which of the Natural Flesh of Christ is impious and detestable St. Jrenaeus f Nubes Testium p. 111. Nat. Alex. p. 485 486 487. must be answered in the same way since when he says that the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup his Bloud he does also tell us g Sic nostra
Champion of the Protestant Cause and derides my next words about my saying this matter and argument was so demonstrative that I could not but stand amazed that Men who pretend to reason could refuse it as if what he had said had fully answered the demonstration as he calls it when as he had not the face to say one word to the latter and stronger part of it This is just as if one in the Schools could say Nego minorem to the first Syllogism of his opponent and not one Syllable to the following Syllogisms wherein the Argument it brought to a Head and yet brag that he had not onely answered but exposed his Opponent And so he deals with me about my Remarks upon this thing I observed that tho' our Saviour did not say plainly This Bread is my Body yet he said according to St. Luke and St. Paul This CUP is the new Testament in my Blood which passage I thought and said did fully determine that the Bread was as much meant in the This is my Body as the Cup was in the This is my Blood in St. Matthew and St. Mark. This the Answerer will not allow but goes as weakly to work about disproving as any Adversary could wish He begins with an excellent Observation that the word This in the Proposition This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood is joyned to the word Cup by a known Figure I will lay him all I shall be worth this year that there is never a Schoolmaster in this City can tell me by what Figure it is that THIS is joyned to Cup and for my part I have forgot my Rhetorick as well as Logick if there be such a Figure And am affraid it is some Metaphysical not Rhetorical Figure But to leave this ridiculous stuff what he would say is that by this Cup is meant That which is contained in the Cup And pray who ever denyed this and how does this disprove me His only business is to bewilder himself I brought that plain passage in St. Paul This Cup to determine what was meant by the THIS in the Obscure one in St. Matthew He is for carrying it back and for illustrating the plain Text by the obscure one which is such a sottish sort of management as will perplex Controversy to eternity and make every thing alike obscure His further Answer is that if we explain the words This Cup c. to mean This Wine is my Blood as it most certainly ought to be then the words in this sense will be contrary to the Rules of Humane discourse as he says he shews p. 33 34. of his Book I have looked there and desire every one else that hath a mind to read two or three Pages about nothing I will onely answer that our sense of the words is onely contrary to his Rules of Discourse and that since He was not the Master of Language to our Saviour to teach him how to express himself we will be ruled by our Saviour's words and the phrase of the Eastern Nations when our Saviour conversed in the world and not by this pragmatical Master of Mataphysical Ceremonies He hath had enough of this Remark and therefore lets the other pass quietly wherein I observed that as our Saviour after Consecration called the Wine the Fruit of (c) Matth. 26.29 the Vine so St. Paul does not less than three times call the Bread after Consecration Bread. I have promised in my Book and therefore should have shewn here against my Adversary that not onely our Saviour's and the Apostles expressions cannot be understood otherwise than to mean by THIS the Bread but that St. Ignatius and Justin Irenaeus and Origen and twenty other Fathers do say of Bread that It is the Body of Christ which it cannot be any otherwise than in a figurative sense but since I am told I shall have occasion to wade deeper into this Controversy I shall reserve it for a further opportunity if the Superiours have a mind to have the Antiquary of Putney set forth once more in his true Colours But this as He and They can agree it I will onely tell him here that I hope in God I am able and that I am sure I am willing to make good the Charge drawn up against him in the Expostulatory Letter I have but one word more to my Answerer that he is very disingenious in saying that I have a Reserved Distinction of Christ's Natural and Spiritual Flesh and Blood whereas if any one will take the pains to consult that place which he refers to in my Book he will find that the Distinction is not mine but the Fathers (d) Veteres Vindicati p. 102. and that by Spiritual was meant Christ's Sacramental or Symbolical Body as he might have seen often enough in that Book This is all that concerns me in that Introduction to TRANSVBSTANTIATION DEFENDED I shall not trouble my self with the rest of the Introduction or with the Book I will only tell him that he is fallen into the hands of one who it 's forty to one will spoil his ever putting out his Second Part against that Incomparable Discourse but that if he does and brings any thing against me as he threatens to do in that Second Part worth answering I will take care to return him the civility of an Answer and only desire him that he would manage what he says there with a little more care clearness and ingenuity or else I may be persuaded not to throw away my time in answering such weak and silly objections as He hath made against me here AN ANSWER TO The COMPILER of the Nubes Testium CHAP. I. Concerning the Donatists SECT I. THE Compiler of the Nubes Testium having undertaken to shew in the thirty seventh Chapter of his Papist Misrepresented and Represented the great improbability of any Innovations being made by the Church of Rome in Matters of Faith was almost willing in that place to have made it evident from the Vnanimous Tradition of the Primitive Fathers of the first five hundred years especially for which good purpose He was making up his Collections as he tells us a Papist Misrepres and Repres p. 57. but finding the Matter to increase much beyond expectation upon his hands He did reserve them for another Occasion and hath now acquitted himself of that obligation in the publishing of this Book In his first Book he was very solicitous with abundance of words to remove the false slander as he would have it thought of Novelty affixed to his Church in this Book He is as desirous of doing it by an Abundance of Quotations out of the Primitive Fathers and thereby of throwing it among us of the Reformation Since Novelty in Faith therefore is such a Scandal as all that are Christians are for clearing themselves from we of the Church of England are very willing to join issue with this Compiler and to refer the Judgment of the Points of
timeat Vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum Tertull. advers Hermogen c. 22. He said he adored the Fulness of the Scripture and bids Hermogenes to have a care of the Woe denounced against those that added or took any thing away from Scripture if he could not shew that what he taught was to be found in the Scriptures And the same We can shew of St. Basil who as he does plead Tradition without express Scripture for the Practices and Constitutions of the Church with the rest of the Fathers as our Compiler hath quoted him t Nubes Test p. 55 56. Nat. Alexan. p. 375 376 377. so he is as earnest as any of the Fathers for the Sufficiency and Authority of the Written Word as to Matters of Faith and in his Sermon about True Faith u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Basil Sermo de vera Fide T. 2. p. 251. declares it to be a manifest deviation from Faith and a sign of Pride either to reject any part of the Scriptures or to add to them since Christ had told us that his Sheep would hear his voice and not a Stranger 's Our Compiler is very exact in his next quotation and * Nubes Test p. 57. Nat. Alexan. p. 377. gives us book and page but instead of thanking him we must thank F. Alexandre who help'd him to them but should have remembred himself to have quoted Oration instead of Book the place from Gregory Nyssen however might have been spared since the Tradition he speaks of is that of the Apostles and Evangelists and That we are sure was written in the Scriptures but allowing this Tradition to be an unwritten one it is not about a point of Faith but the Interpretation of it wherein we allow the Tradition of Antiquity to be highly usefull and necessary The first Authority from Epiphanius x Nub. Test p. 58. N. Alex. p. 351. is not against us who do not require express Scripture for every custome but admit of Tradition as Authority sufficient in such a case and in his next all that he contends for is that it was a Tradition of the Church to pray for the dead and y Nub. Test p. 58. N. Alex. p. 378. that the Holy Ghost did teach partly by the written word and partly by Tradition which last part of his words if it be stretched to speak of matter of Faith is more than can be allowed to Epiphanius since the first Fathers teach the direct contrary as I could have shewn from Tertullian and others as well as I did from Irenaeus St. Austin's places z Nub. Test p. 59 60. N. Alex. p. 380 381 382 383. as relating to Ecclesiastical Practices and Constitutions are answered above that from Vincentius Lirinensis relates to the same the last from St. Chrysostome * Nub. Test p. 61. N. Alex. p. 354. speaks of the times of the Apostles themselves whose Preachings as well as Writings were the very same did proceed from the same Holy Spirit and therefore were of equal Authority and for what he adds about the Tradition of the Church that when it is offered to us we should enquire no farther it does certainly refer onely to Practices and Customs of the Church since as to matters of a higher nature to wit those that concern our Faith and Salvation He makes Scripture-Authority absolutely necessary and teaches us not to say any thing of our own heads without the Testimony of the Sacred Inspired Writers for this very reason †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrys Hom. in Ps 95. p. 1042. Tom. 3. Edit Ducaei because if we affirm or say any thing without having the Authority of Scripture for it the understandings of our Auditors waver one while assenting another while doubting one while rejecting our discourse as frivolous another while admitting it but as probable at most but when once we produce the Written Testimony of God's Word we confirm our own discourse and fix and settle the Vnderstanding of the Auditors I hope our Compiler when he hath read this will have another notion concerning the Authority of Tradition We do admit it as to Discipline and Practice with the Primitive Fathers but as to points of Faith and Doctrines of necessity to Salvation we do require with them the Written Testimony of the Word of God or an Vniversal uninterrupted Tradition as clear as that by which we receive the Scriptures themselves CHAP. IV. Concerning Invocation of Saints SECT I. HOW little the Church of Rome is able to produce Vniversal Tradition for those points of Controversie which we at present contend about is what our Compiler's next head comes now to shew That there is no foundation in Scripture no command for nor Practice of Invocation of Saints or paying any Religious Worship to them or their Reliques is what they are forced to grant they must then have recourse to Tradition and shew us from that what they were not able to doe from Scripture it self that the Church of God always practised and taught such a Worship of Saints and Reliques as the Church of Rome doth now teach and practise Our Compiler begins this point with an account of the Heresie of Vigilantius as F. Alexandre calls it this account he hath borrowed out of that Fathers a In Par. 1. Sec. 5. c. 3. p. 50 51 c. account of the Heresie of Vigilantius and every syllable of the Testimonies under this head for above twenty pages together out of the same Friend b Dissertat 5. in Panoplia adv Haereses Sect. 5. in Par. 2. Seculi quinti. He tells us that in the beginning of the fourth Century Vigilantius began to teach his pestilent Doctrines but this is a mistake of our Compiler who hath placed Vigilantius here by the same figure that he puts Damasus and Julius c Append. to Nub. Test p. 191. in the Third Century Victor in the first and Aerius exactly in the middle of the same Century Vigilantius lived in the beginning of the fifth Century when the quarrel betwixt him and St. Hierome began we are not at all concerned in this quarrel any farther than to stand by that Doctrine and those Practices which were most agreeable to the Scriptures the Foundation of Faith. The Differences betwixt us and the Church of Rome in these points are so well known that I need spend no time about shewing wherein they are it is sufficient to advertise that they of that Church teach and practise the putting up prayers to Saints and Angels paying Religious Worship to them prostrating themselves before Reliques and the like every one of which we refuse upon reasons which from Scripture and the purest Antiquity seem invincible to us The Church of Rome will have what she teaches and practises in these things to have been the Constant Practice and Original Tradition of the Whole Church of Christ and this is the thing which lies upon them to
prove and this is what we demand that they would shew us from the Writings of the Fathers that the Invocation of Saints and Worship of them and their Reliques was the Practice of the Vniversal Church in the first second third and fourth Ages of the Church the Practice of the Three first Centuries is that which they know we so much value and insist upon and therefore always demand Evidences thence of any Doctrine or Practice when Tradition was certainly freshest in their Memories and the Fathers in best capacity of knowing the sense of Scriptures and of the Apostles Our Compiler will not be the man serviceable to us in such demands As to honouring the Saints in observing days in honour of them he knows we doe it and therefore needed not to bring passages from the latter end of the fourth Century and the fifth d Nub. Test p. 63 64 c. N. Alex. Disser 5. in Panoplia in Par. 2. Sec. 5. p. 279 281 283 c. to prove it was then practised in the Church he might very easily have shewn such a Practice from the first Ages of the Church But I will pass on to Invocation of Saints and see whether He shews this to have been the Practice of the Three first Centuries and so on and here Alas his Authorities fail him and he is not able to produce us one for his passages from St. Cyprian and Origen e Nub. Test p. 67. N. Alex. p. 305. do onely prove what is generally piously believed that the glorified Saints do intercede for the Church Militant and the two next f Nub. Test p. 68. N Alex. p. 308. from the fourth Century prove no more But what is this to Invocation of Saints is there no difference betwixt our praying to them and their interceding for us The next Authority from Nazianzen g Nub. Test p 69. N. Alex. p. 309. cannot doe it since all know this to be a Rhetorical Apostrophe and his other Orations shew that this thing of addressing their discourse or wishes to the Saints was now but in its infancy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his third Oration against Julian addressing himself to Constantius does invincibly prove that it was far from being a settled belief then that the Saints could hear or perceive requests put up to them nor does any of his following Authorities h Nub. Test p. 70 71 c. N. Alex. p. 311 312 c. from Gregory Nyssen Chrysostome Ambrose prove any more than an interpellation or Request to the Saints that they would do that which they did believe they were always a doing that is praying for the distressed here on earth none of his Testimonies proceed so far as to prove any formal Prayers like those now used in the Church of Rome they look much liker the Requests from Equals or familiar Friends let but any one compare the Speech of Gregory Nyssen for example i Nub. Test p. 70. where he applies himself to Theodorus the Martyr with the Devotions of the present Church of Rome to the Saints and he will easily see the great difference betwixt the Prayers used now during Divine Service and the Requests then made in their Orations So that we of the Church of England are still where we were notwithstanding our Compiler we dare not practise Invocation of Saints because we believe Prayer or Religious Invocation to be peculiar to God alone who will not give his Glory k Isa 42.8 to any other who in any of our necessities hath directed us to call upon him l Psal 50.15 and hath promised that he will deliver us we believe our blessed Saviour knew his Father's mind better than all the men in the World who ordered his Disciples and us by them to put up our Prayers to Our Father not to this or that Saint that is in Heaven We do not follow the latter Ages of the Church in their Interpellations to Saints because as we are sure that they had not Scripture to ground their Practice upon so we are as certain that they had not the Example of the first Ages to guide them into such Practices But we are farthest of all from joyning with the present Church of Rome which hath turned the Interpellations and Requests used to Saints in the fifth and sixth Centuries into formal Prayers and Services and hath put her Prayers to them into the most solemn parts of her Devotions into her Litany for instance so that if we could not admit of using such Requests to Saints because groundless and without Example we have far more reason to reject Invocation and solemn Prayers to Saints as Superstitious since it is against Scripture and against the Practice of the three first Centuries of the Church against a Council in the fourth Century and wants a Pattern even in the fifth and sixth and hath no example in any of the places produced by our Compiler on this head This is sufficient to shew that what our Compiler hath produced from the End of the fourth and from the fifth Century does not defend or reach up to the present Practices of the Church of Rome in this point since there is so great a difference betwixt Interpellations put up in Rhetorical Orations and Homilies and Prayers used in the very Litanies themselves betwixt Requests not put up in the Liturgies of the Church nor commanded any where in Antiquity for those first five hundred years of the Church and Prayers formally put into the Liturgies of the Church of Rome and as strictly commanded to be used by all her members In Origen's time we are sure that the Doctrine of the Church was that no worship nor adoration nor consequently no Invocation was to be paid to Angels m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Angelos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen contr Celsum l. 5. p. 233. Edit Cantabr because all prayer supplication intercession and thanksgiving was to be offered up to God Almighty by the high Priest our Lord Jesus Christ and it was lookt upon as an absurd thing to invocate Angels or Saints for the same reason holds for both who had no knowledge of the particular affairs of men As this was the Doctrine of the third Century so as soon as Invocation of Angels began to take root in some parts of the Church in the fourth Age the Council of Laodicea which was confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon in her 35th Canon did command that no Christians should leave the Church of God and go and Invocate Angels and did anathematize any that n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 35. Conc. Laodicen p. 53. in Bibliotheca Juris Canonici Veteris Edit Justel 1661. should be guilty of this secret Idolatry and did interpret it to be a forsaking of Christ I cannot but observe upon this Canon that Theodoret interpreting the eighteenth verse o Quocirca Synodus quoque quae convenit Laodiceae