affected confidence and I must beg the Reader 's pardon if I begin a tedious but new Method to clear this to the World and shew these two things First a Catalogue of abundance of material points and arguments in my Book to which he hath offered no sort of Answer Secondly The Weakness and Vanity of all that he hath said in Answer to any parts of my Book The clearing of these two things will give a full Answer to his pretended Vindication and will also I do not doubt it put a full End to the Controversie about the Nubes Testium betwixt the Representer and Me. As to the Catalogue therefore I will place the several particulars as they lye in the distinct Chapters and Sections of my Answer but must begin with my Preface wherein I charged him in the first place with affirming not only what was false but what was more than he could know to wit that the Latin of his Nubes Testium was out of such Editions as are most authentick since I shewed it to be false from N. Alexandre's own Confession and that he could not know what Editions N. Alexandre did use because N. Alexandre does not tell the Readers what Editions he used in his Work excepting Christopherson's Edition of Eusebius which all know to be far from being the most authentick To this severe Charge he gives no Reply I charged him also in the Preface with stealing the whole of his Nubes Testium excepting a passage or two out of N. Alexandre This is not denied by him and reason good since every page of my Book did invincibly prove it which hath so much enraged him against me I charged him with stealing his Book out of a forbidden Author every one of whose Volumes used by him in that Plagium had been condemned to the Flames by this present Pope two years before and with his standing Excommunicate by this Pope for his pains This he durst not deny any more than the other since I had reprinted the Pope's Bull it self by which those Books were condemned and the Representer for keeping and using them Excommunicated by this present Pope Answer to the Compiler of the Nubes Testium p. 4. In my first Chapter I accused the Compiler first of quoting some passages as from the 34th 45th and 36th Chapters of St. Austin's third Book against Cresconius which are not to be found in those Chapters To this I have not one word of Reply 2. In the same page I accused N. Alexandre of falsifying a notable passage of S. Austin and the Compiler of obtruding it upon the World so falsified To this not a syllable is offered in defence of either of them Answer to Nubes Testium p. 7. 3. I accused N. Alexandre with falsifying another passage from S. Austin and our Compiler with putting it off so falsified But to this not a word of Reply P. 8 9. 4. I charged our Compiler when he was come to the point of the Pope's Supremacy with giving a false state of that Controversie betwixt us To this I find no Reply P. 10 5. I charged the Compiler with a deluding translation of the Decree of the Council of Florence To this I meet with no Reply P. 12 13. 6. I charged N. Alexandre with affirming a gross untruth in saying the Fathers did with a Nemine contradicente interpret the Rock in St. Matthew to be meant of St. Peter and I charged our Compiler for coming in for his share in it in saying indefinitely that the Fathers teach that Christ built his Church upon Peter whereas I shewed there from Launoy and some Fathers themselves that the Generality of the Fathers nay the almost unanimous consent of them was directly against our two bold and mistaken Asserters To this heavy charge our Compiler in his Vindication was not able or forgot to give one word of Reply P. 21 7. I charged the Council of Florence of being notoriously guilty either of Ignorance or of Forgery in that Decree which they made and our Compiler quoted for the Pope's Supremacy but our Compiler was not at leisure to say any thing in defence either of that Council or himself P. 25 8. I charged our Compiler with citing a passage as out of S. Basil's Comments on Esaiah which not only is not there but the direct contrary to it is in that place and put down from thence by me in my Answer To this not a syllable of Reply P. 26 27. 9. I charged both N. Alexandre and our Compiler of very egregious disingenuity about St. Basil's Epistle which I proved was directed to the Western Bishops not to the Bishop of Rome in particular was sent to beg help and assistance from them not from the Bishop of Rome in particular against Eustathius I proved also that it was not through any Letter from Pope Liberius but through a Letter from the Western Bishops that Eustathius had formerly recovered his Restitution to his See and that the Oriental Bishops did not request that assistance from the West because they had not power enough of their own to have judged and deposed Eustathius but upon a quite different account To all these particular charges of disingenuity and cheat our Compiler durst not offer at one word of Reply P. 27 10. I charged them with falshood in urging a passage in favour of the Pope from Gregory Nazianzen which did concern S. Basil and not the Bishop of Rome as Elias Cretensis and Billius do assure us To this we find no Reply P. 27 11. I charged N. Alexandre and our Compiler with prefixing impertinent and false Accounts to the passage in Athanasius about Dionysius of Alexandria No Answer is given to this P. 27 28 29. 12. I charged them both with perfect Romancing about the business of Julius's taking the Cause of Athanasius into his hands and of his citing him and his Enemies to appear before his Apostolic Tribunal and proved that it was false in every part of it I charged the Compiler with adding to the falshood in saying Athanasius appealed to the Bishop of Rome with contradicting his own Master who had written a Dissertation in which he shewed that Athanasius did not appeal thither nay with contradicting his own next Testimony from Sozomen To this heavy load our Compiler has not a Word to answer P. 31 32. 13. I charged both of them with great disingenuity in calling St. Chrysostom's Letter directed to Innocentius his Letter of Request and with their forgeries about his presenting it I charged them with wholly mistaking that affair To this not a Syllable of Answer or Defence P. 32 14. I accused both of 'em of Ignorance and Disingenuity for affirming that the Synod of Capua had committed to Theophilus the Decision of the quarrel betwixt Evagrius and Flavianus at Antioch when the contrary was as plain as words could express a thing for laying that to St. Ambrose which he had not said But this Charge wants a Reply
of all Sense of Modesty as well as betraying a want of Learning He is now come to the Body of my Answer and complains of my admirable Talent of trifling in quarrelling him for beginning his Book with The History of Donatus and shewing the Nature of Schism and for my saying That this was so far from being a Chief Point that it is no Point of Controversy at all betwixt us And upon this he falls to pitying me who had dwelt so long among Books for losing my time and then shews that a Chapter about Schism was not improper to begin his Book with But I would fain see this trifling proved and will now prove that he is the guilty person who hath shuffled three Chapters together here and hath not given us a true or fair state of the Chapters I do own that a Discourse about Schism might be a proper Introduction to a Controversial Book however I did shew that what he advanced there was perfect trifling I have once already done it sufficiently and must be forced in Vindication of my self to do it again to let the World see who is the Caviller and at whose Door the trifling must be laid His first Chapter was that the Fathers accused the Donatists of being guilty of Schism for making the wicked Lives of the Members of the Church the reason of their Separation My answer to this was that this can be no point of Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome as he had made it since we never urged the wicked Lives of some Members of the Church of Rome as the ground of our Separation from them and what says our Representer in Reply to this Does he either prove that that is a point of controversie betwixt us or that our Separation from the particular Church of Rome is grounded upon the same matter that the Donatists was No we have no reason to expect a fair Reply from him who did not set down the state of this Chapter at all The second Chapter was that the Fathers teach against the Donatists that the Catholick Church cannot fail This I told him could be no Controversie betwixt the Church of England and the Church of Rome since we believe with the Fathers that the Catholick Church cannot fail Was this then the trifling I am accused of if it be the Compiler had done well to have shewn it that so upon the sight of my errour I might have altered my mind but this he thought fit not at all to attempt His third Chapter was that the Fathers taught that whosoever breaks the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon any pretext whatsoever is guilty of Schism Upon this I told him that taking the word pretext for a groundless pretence I was of the same mind and did believe the Donatists who acted so to be guilty of a Criminal Schism but assured the Compiler withal that this could not be matter of dispute betwixt us who both assented to that doctrine of the Fathers and here it is my trifling must be discovered and here he will have me not only to differ from them but from the Fathers this is hard when I had assented to that Chapter as set down by him and proved by the Fathers but he will have it that I am for making the breach of the Vnity of the Catholick Church not Schism unless it be done causelesly whereas the Fathers teach there can be no just cause I grant the Fathers teach that there can be no just cause given by the Catholick Church however that particular Churches can give and do often give just cause for others to break Communion with them is what no Father will deny is what the Church of Rome it self must grant which hath not only broken Communion with us but with the whole Greek Church and yet I suppose does pretend to shew that she had a just cause for it He hath offered hereupon nothing new in defence of his three Chapters but some hard words and those I do not intend to reply to but will pass to the defence of his Chapter about the Supremacy I had charged him with giving a false and imperfect state of the Controversie betwixt us in relation to the Pope's Supremacy but this he is not willing to defend but turns it off with saying that it only is so if my word be to be taken for it but I had not only given him my word but very good reasons for it and therefore since the Compiler hath no mind to be medling with reasons it would be uncivil to be importunate with calling upon him to disprove them That Chapter as it did concern the greatest point of Controversie betwixt us and the Church of Rome so it did require a great deal of canvasing and admit of a vast variety of dispute in it I was careful to follow the Compiler through it and to debate and disprove every thing that was brought to support the Pope's Supremacy in it but our Compiler is not so civil to me nor so just to his Book in his Vindication but forsakes the defence of every one of his passages and only seems solicitous to make a shew and that he may not be accused of saying nothing at all in defence of his Testimonies and in Answer to a great many very severe charges in that Chapter he serves us up again two or three bits of his former passages and that is all I told him his first quotation from Irenaeus was of no use and gave him in short my reasons for it all the answer he makes is to give us anew a piece of the same passage and this with two or three scornful words and crying good and great must be called defending and we must be content with such from him since it seems the Man is not furnisht with better but if the old quotations presented anew will signify any thing they are at your service but upon this condition that they may serve for a defence of themselves And such is his behaviour as to the next passage from Optatus which I shewed to have been very obscure and that in affirming there was but one Cathedra in the World possessed first by S. Peter and after him by his Successours at Rome it did not only contradict the other parts of his Writings but all Church Writers before and after him for hundreds of years who make as many Cathedra's as Bishops in the World and I instanced in a most plain place in Tertullian which did assert the direct contrary to the Doctrine of that passage of Optatus All the Answer besides rude language to these reasons that I can observe is that it is a notorious fraud in me to pretend that the Father maintains here That the Chair of Rome was such that the rest of the Apostles might not have Cathedra's for themselves whereas says the Compiler S. Optatus no where affirms this but only that the rest of the Apostles should not set up other Episcopal Chairs in
Church in relation to her Practice about Festival Days However our Compiler now he has laid aside his Disguise advances the same Accusation against me in his own Person but considering what Church he was of could do no less than give me Thanks for my Concessions Well then since this Man is not ashamed of serving us up again the very same Objections which I had already answered I must e'en be forced to trouble the Reader with Repetition since the importunity of an Adversary that cannot blush forces me upon it and must tell the Compiler a second time that when our Church doth set apart Days for the commemorating of the Saints which is all the Honour she either gives or intends Them she only appoints them for to bless God for the good and pious Examples of his Saints and Martyrs not to put up Prayers to the Saints themselves nor to offer Praises unto Them but to their God which was the genuine Practice of the Primitive Church as I shewed from the Example of the Church of Smyrna in relation to S. Polycarp their Martyred Bishop Our Church pays no Religious Worship to the Saints themselves but the Church of Rome does not only worship them but is very lavish and extravagant in it as it were easie to shew however as they of the Church of Rome are not imitated by us so neither have they the Example of the Primitive Church to defend their present Practices We do with the Primitive Church honour the Martyrs and Saints and have often enough declared it to be such an Honour as was given to them in the Primitive Times and what that Honour was S. Austin shall determine who in answer to a false Aspersion of the Manichees of the Church's worshipping the Saints upon their Festival Days and at their Monuments told Faustus the Manichee that the Church did indeed worship the Martyrs but that it was with no other Worship than that of Love and Fellowship which is paid to the (e) Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vitâ coluntur sancti homines Dei. D. Aug. cont Faust Manich. l. 20. c. 21. in Tomo 6. Oper. August Holy Men of God while they are alive on Earth That this was no other than a civil worship or respect I hope will not be denied by my Adversary since I suppose he will not pretend to shew that mortal and frail men while on Earth are used to have Religious Worship paid unto them and solemn Prayers offered up to them with all the external indications of devotion As to the Concessions which he pretends I have made and supposes it here again because I did not particularly consider the Testimonies under that Head I must tell him a second time that I neither did grant all that he had collected in the Nubes Testium upon that Subject nor seemed to grant it but did set them aside as needless and am notwithstanding our Compiler far from joining with them in this Point as he falsly would insinuate that I do but this is not the first of such wrongs done to me by this Compiler When he is next come to the Chapter about Invocation of Saints he tells the Reader that I appear with some disconfidence of my cause and therefore says the Compiler p. 19. tho' he pretended in the Title Page that Antiquity for the first five hundred years did not favour this or any Doctrine of the Church of Rome here he has considered better on 't and therefore cutting off Two of the Five he says we cannot shew this to have been the Practice of the first Three Centuries So that here he is willing to give us the Fourth and Fifth Ages as Practising the Invocation of Saints The Compiler quotes for all this the 43. page of my Answer to the Nubes Testium and a little after tells the Reader that I grant that Invocation of Saints was practised in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries If ever I was surpized at the reading any thing in my life it was at this account of my Book against that Chapter in the Nubes my memory of what I had written and this account of it were so diametrically opposite that I could not but immediately look into my Book to see whether was in the fault and quickly found that this Compiler had need to have a very large forehead that would venture at this when my Book was in so many hands For first as to his saying I have cut off two of the five Centuries and only insist on their being not able to shew that Invocation of Saints was practis'd in the First Three Centuries it is very false I neither cut off two of the five nor insisted upon the three first Centuries only but said in that very page and place quoted by the Compiler that I would pass on to Invocation of Saints and see whether the Compiler did shew this to have been the practice of the Three first Centuries and so on does and so on here signifie nothing I did intend it and I question not but the World understood it to mean the two next Centuries to wit the Fourth and Fifth in Controversie betwixt us and yet this Writer hath the assurance to tell the World I had cut them two off He next tells them that I am willing to give the Papists the Fourth and Fifth Ages as practising Invocation of Saints and a little lower that I have granted that Invocation of Saints was practis'd in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries This is just as true as the other for to expose this bold falshood I need turn over only to the next page in my Book and transcribe what I had said there which I intreat the Reader to compare with what the Compiler says of it here Speaking in defence of the Church of England's not practising Invocation of Saints I have these very expressions 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 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 With what face then could this man write that I had given up the fourth and fifth Centuries Who can believe that such men have in reality either Religion or Conscience that can with so much deliberation commit such a deliberate wrong Had he had any regard to Truth or Honesty his Conscience must have flown into his Face and told him that what he was then writing was a very great injustice and directly false Good God! that men who make such shew of Religion make such frequent appeals unto the God of purer Eyes than either to behold iniquity or to let it go unpunished that talk so often of a day of Judgment and severe reckoning can do such things as must force
HONOUR and a little after concluding that he had proved that RELIQUES are to be ADORED he next sets upon explaining with what kind of Worship and Honour THE RELIQUES ought to be VENERATED And S. Thomas himself before Vasques had thus promiscuously used the Words VENERATION and ADORATION S. Thom. Summa Pars 3. Quaest 25. Artic 6. p. 65. and whereas Vasques had put the Question whether Reliques were to be VENERATED S. Thomas puts it whether RELIQUES are to be ADORED and as Vasques had answered that they were to be ADORED so S. Thomas answers his Question that seeing we VENERATE the Saints of God we must also VENERATE their Bodies and RELIQUES And he does throughout that Article in his Objections and Answers sometimes use the one and sometimes the other but more frequently the Word ADORATION to express what Honour the Church did think due to RELIQUES I was more careful to make use of the Authority of S. Thomas herein because he is lookt upon to be of such Sacred Authority in the Church of Rome that Sabran the Jesuit assures me that above one half of the Divines of the Christian World and those I am sure are at least all the Divines that are in the Church of Rome do own Him for Master Reply to my I. Letter to him and bind themselves to maintain ALL He hath taught Well then If the Case be as the Jesuit represents it I am certain to carry my Cause that the Church of Rome doth ADORE the RELIQUES of the Saints since I am sure that S. Thomas taught that RELIQUES ARE TO BE ADORED But without the Authority of S. Thomas from whose Decision the Jesuit told me in his Letter to the Peer that he would not swerve tho' I had proved S. Thomas altogether and certainly mistaken about that thing I think we may prove that by VENERATION the Council of Trent did mean the ADORATION of RELIQUES if they will but permit us to explain the meaning of the Decrees of that Council by the standing Reformed Offices in their Church In the Twenty fifth Session of that Council in their Decree about Images they do use the very same Words to express what Honour they will have done to Images that they had used immediately before for the Reliques of the Saints VENERATION and HONOUR are the Words employed in both the Paragraphs Now to find what that VENERATION means which the Council of Trent appoints to be paid to the Images we need only look into their Good-Fryday-Service and into their Pontitical to find their Church's Sense Missale Rom. Feria 6. in Parasceue fol. 83 84. Edit Paris in 8o. 1582. In the Good-Friday-Service we meet with the Word ADORATION and ADORED about the Honour paid to the Image of the Cross above Ten times and that we cannot mistake them the Worship or VENERATION of the Cross is three times plainly styled the ADORATION OF THE CROSS In their Pontifical to shew what they mean by VENERATION and HONOUR in the Decree of the Council it is given as the Reason why the CROSS carried before a Legate should take the right Hand of the Emperour's Sword at the Reception of an Emperour with Procession into any City because LATRIA a DIVINE WORSHIP IS DUE TO THE CROSS This I question not will be able to convince all Men that VENERATION and ADORATION are promiscuously used for the same thing and that by appointing a VENERATION to be paid to the RELIQUES of the Saints the Council of Trent did command that THE RELIQUES of Saints should be ADORED and this is sufficient for what I undertook to prove That the Church of Rome doth command the Worship of Reliques That she doth practise the Worshipping of Reliques is what I have next to shew but this may be dispatch'd in a few Words since every body knows that their People in the Church of Rome are not behind hand in practising what their Church commands about Reliques and I suppose that this will be granted me That what the Church commands the People may very lawfully do and that they do practise in all their Popish Countries the Adoration of Reliques I must then prove my Second Particular That for the First five Centuries of the Church the Worship of Reliques was neither commanded nor practised by the Primitive Church To prove that the Worship of Reliques was not commanded during that time we need only to appeal to the Canons and Laws of the Four General Councils held within the Fourth and Fifth Century wherein not a Syllable is to be met with about any such thing and they of the Church of Rome are as well satisfied as we that there is nothing in those Councils for their purpose about Reliques and therefore do not pretend to shew any Command for the Worship of Images from any of those Councils And that the Primitive Church did not practise any Worship of Reliques during that time is as easie to shew from the Generality of the Fathers who were utterly against Worshipping the Saints themselves and consequently much more against the Worshipping any of the Mortal Remains of those Saints I will only insist upon two who lived in the beginning of the Fifth Century of the Church S. Austin to prove that they did not then worship the Saints themselves and S. Hierom to shew that they did not worship the Saints Reliques Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vitâ coluntur sancti homines Dei. Aug. c. Faust l. 20. c. 21. S. Austin in answer to Faustus the Manichee who had objected to the Orthodox their Worshipping the Saints shews him the Falseness and Silliness of his Accusation by telling him that the Church did indeed worship the Martyrs but that it was meerly such civil Worship as is paid to Holy Men while they are alive and that I am sure was never hitherto accused of being Religious Worship And for the Reliques of the Saints when Vigilantius had objected to several in the Church as S. Hierom represents it a Worship of Reliques S. Hierom with his usual vehemence falls upon him and asks him first who ever adored the Martyrs A Question that can very easily be answered in our days without the danger of being called Madmen for our pains as Vigilantius was for even thinking that any of the Church should be so foolish as to worship the Martyrs and then he tells him that They did not WORSHIP the Saints RELIQUES and were so far from it that they did not Worship or Adore even the Sun it self f Nos autem NON dico Martyrum RELIQUIAS sed ne Solem quidem non Angelos non Archangelos COLIMUS ADORAMUS D. Hieron advers Vigilant ad Riparium nay not the Angels nor the Archangels Here we see S. Hierom confuting the Accusation of Worshipping of Reliques by shewing that the Church did not worship the Sun it self nor the Angels or Archangels themselves which are Creatures so