Text of St. Austin which runs thus nec eo ad adoranda daemonia non servio lapidibus sed tamen in parte Donati sum I wonder why F. Alexandre should be so much afraid of this passage though we do object to his Church as a most grievous crime the giving religious worship to Saints and Angels and their Images yet he cannot but know that we do not lay to their charge the worshiping of Devils which we are very glad our selves that we cannot doe But I begin to suspect strongly that Father Alexandre and our Compiler are very near a-kin that our Compiler hath made the same use of N. Alexandre that Alexandre himself hath done of others that which inclines me very much to this Opinion is that Father Alexandre never tells us that I have observed what Editions of the Fathers he used nor quotes the page where one may find his quoted passage above once in five hundred passages I believe through all his Volumes CHAP. II. Concerning the Pope's Supremacy SECT I. AFter twenty pages spent about matters that do not at all concern our present Controversie we are come to that which must be allowed not onely to be a Controversie but the greatest of any that are now on foot in the World and which hath been and is the cause of all those tyrannical pretensions and uncanonical impositions which do at present divide the Christian World. The Pope's Supremacy is that point which the Members of the Church of Rome especially the Vltramontaines are so carefull to defend and we of the Reformation to oppose Our Compiler being now come to a point of debate doth not forget his art of palliating which was so very serviceable to him in his Misrepresentations and Representations of Popery He cannot but know and therefore ought to have avoided it that this loose talk about Successor of Peter and Centre of Catholick Communion does not reach the Pretensions of the Bishops of Rome nor fully and fairly declare what Power Jurisdiction and Authority in and over the Catholick Church those Bishops challenge as their right To let him see how loosely he manages this debate betwixt us I can with putting in two or three necessary words subscribe to all our Compiler says for the Pope and yet be as far from owning the Pope's Supremacy as the Church of England is or ever was The Fathers teach Nub. Testium p. 22. says our Compiler that Christ built his Church upon Peter so say I too if by Fathers here be meant two or three of them and not the Fathers unanimously as he hath it before or generally That the Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Saint Peter is what I can also grant and that That See is the Centre of the Catholick Communion if I may but put in here what is absolutely necessary while possessed by an Orthodox Bishop and that whosoever separates himself from it I add professing the true Faith and possessed by a Catholick Bishop is guilty of Schism I can I say subscribe though I do not to all this without any Obligation in the least of believing the Pope's Supremacy all that our Compiler puts down here reaching no farther than a Primacy of Order does not at all suppose in the Popes any Jurisdiction or Authority over the Catholick Church Since then our Compiler seems to be afraid of setting down a true account of this Controversie betwixt us by mincing the matter so much about the Pope's power I must borrow of him his last Quotation under this head the Canon of the Council of Florence and set that down as the true account of their Doctrine concerning the Pope's power and then not onely shew our reasons why we dare not submit to it but that all the Testimonies our Compiler hath put down from F. Alexandre except two or three under this head do not prove the Pope's Supremacy as it is stated by their General Council of Florence m Diffinimus Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem Romanum Pontificem in universum orbem tenere Primatum ipsum Pontificem Romanum Successorem esse Beati Petri Principis Apostolorum verum Christi Vicarium totiúsque Ecclesiae Caput omnium Christianorum Patrem ac Doctorem existere ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam à Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse quemadmodum etiam in Gestis Oecumenicorum Conciliorum in Sacris Canonibus continetur Concil Florent Pars 2. Collatio 22. p. 1136. Edit Cossart We define says the Canon that the Holy Apostolick See and Bishop of Rome is invested with the Primacy over the whole World and that the Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Saint Peter Prince of the Apostles and that he is the true Vicar of Christ and Head of the whole Church and the Father and Doctour of all Christians and that the full power of feeding ruling and governing the whole Church was given to him in St. Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ as it is expressed or contained in the Acts of General Councils and in the Holy Canons The Reader will very easily see what a great difference there is betwixt this account of the Pope's Supremacy and that set down by our Compiler and yet this Gentleman would be thought to be an exact Stater of the Controversie betwixt us and to have represented fairly what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is concerning their Popes Power and Jurisdiction I hope I am out of the danger of being made a Misrepresenter while I charge that onely upon them as their Doctrine which hath been defined by one of their General Councils which is the greatest strength and countenance that any Doctrine is capable of among them This then being the true state of their Doctrine concerning their Popes Power or Supremacy and that which I would call naked Popery I am sure I have Commission from the Church of England to declare that she cannot without betraying the Rights of all Bishops and the Interest of the Catholick Church espouse the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy which we of her Communion do believe is altogether without foundation either from Scripture or Primitive Antiquity It will not be consistent with that brevity I have confined my self to in this Answer to go through our several arguments against this usurped Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome I am onely desirous to consider in short whence they have this their extraordinary Power which they do as extraordinarily contend for there are but Three Sources whence they can pretend to derive it either that it is from the Law of God set down in the Scriptures or from the Laws of the Vniversal Church to be seen in her Code or lastly from the favour and authority of secular Princes the first of these is that which they commonly claim and insist upon the second is what this Canon of the Florentine Council doth challenge also in the
Conclusion of it though our Compiler is so sly in the translating of it as if the Canon meant onely that the Bishop of Rome should govern the Vniversal Church according to the Acts of General Councils and to the Holy Canons whereas it is plain this Canon speaks not of the Exercise but of the Original of the Pope's Power and of the Testimonies for it in the Acts and Canons of the General Councils but F. Alexandre himself taught our Compiler to translate thus n Dissertatio quarta Par. prima Sec. prim p. 398. and truly I think he ought to have the Reputation of first finding the Gallican Liberties in this Definition of the Council of Florence which Council was not usually thought to have been such a friend to the Gallican Liberties witness what the Cardinal of Lorrain is said to have spoken of it in just such another Council at Trent but the Men of this age are strangely set upon making new discoveries this age found out that the Libri Carolini nor the Council of Frankfort were not against the Image-council of Nice that Bertram was as true a man for Transubstantiation as Paschasius Radbertus that first in all probability forged it and our Nat. Alexandre must come in for his share for discovering that greatest thing the French Clergy are so earnest upon in this Definition of the Council of Florence SECT II. The places of Scripture that are urged by the Church of Rome to prove the Divine Institution of the Pope's Supremacy are very few that of St. Matthew with another from St. John Nat. Alexandre our Compiler's Guide doth insist upon them for the proof of the Pope's Supremacy One would expect that they should be very clear and very full Texts that are brought to confirm such a Portentous Authority as the Papal Supremacy appears to be St. Matthew doth relate o Matth. 16.18 19. that upon St. Peter's having confessed our Saviour to be the Son of the living God our Saviour should say unto him Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. Here they tell us that our Saviour built his Church upon St. Peter who is the Rock mentioned here and that he was thereupon invested with all Church power the power of the Keyes which power and government was by him deposited with his Successours the Bishops of Rome In answer to this we say that there is nothing extraordinary or particular for St. Peter here because He is not the Rock mentioned here nor had the power of the Keyes committed to him any otherwise than in common with the rest of his fellow-Apostles as our Saviour put the Question to all the Apostles so St. Peter answering it in the name of them all had the promise of or received this power of the Keyes in behalf of them all and for their common use of them Since then this place of Scripture is not sufficiently evident or clear for the purpose both parties claiming an interest in it for their contrary senses and we avouching that it is absolutely against St. Peter's being either Rock or having any particular extraordinary power if it be considered with its relation to the context before and to the rest of the Gospels and Epistles either this passage of St. Matthew as obscure must be set aside as useless towards the proof of a Supremacy or They of the Church of Rome must convince us that the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers did always interpret this place of Scripture in favour of St. Peter's Supremacy This thing one would think they were very able to doe since they are so ready to say they can and to assert that the Fathers did unanimously interpret the Rock mentioned in this passage to be the Person of St. Peter Thus our Compiler p Nubes Test p. 22. very gravely tells us that the Fathers teach that Christ built his Church upon Peter and this F. Alexandre had taught him to say who certainly had considered the thing very well when he q Dissert 4. P. 1. Sec. 1. p. 274. tells us that the Fathers did with a Nemine contradicente r Quocirca Sancti Patres Communi suffragio c. Ibid. p. 274. interpret the Rock to be meant of St. Peter Ignorance among all people is allowed to alleviate a crime and a blind-fold implicit transcribing of a Writer's sense must be allowed to be very near allyed unto it or else our Compiler ought to be treated as a person guilty of very disingenuous and unjust behaviour towards the memory of the Fathers F. Alexandre however who taught our Compiler to publish so gross an untruth is by no means excusable for should we allow him to be ignorant in the Fathers own writings and to have transcribed this bold untruth out of Bellarmine Å¿ Accedat speaking of Peter 's being the Rock consensus Ecclesiae totius Graecorum ac Latinorum Patrum c. Bellarm. de Romano Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. or some other of their Writers yet He cannot be ignorant I am sure how fully his learned Countrey-man the famous Monsieur Launoy hath examined the sense of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers upon this Text of St. Matthew how distinctly he hath put down the four different Interpretations of the Rock in this Text the first of which makes it to be the Person of St. Peter the second makes it to be all the Apostles with their Successours the third teaches that it is the Faith confessed by St. Peter and the last that the Rock here is the Person of Christ himself t Launoii Epist ad Guil. Voellum apud Part. 5. Epistolarum p. 4 11 18 38. Natalis Alexandre cannot but know how invincibly this most learned Sorbonist hath shewn that the Generality of Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers are for the third Interpretation which makes the Faith confessed by St. Peter and not St. Peter himself to be the Rock on which Christ's Church was built that a great many are for the fourth Interpretation that says the Rock was Christ himself This last Interpretation falling in with the third for Christ or the Faith confessed concerning Christ come to the same thing may be with most reason called the unanimous Consent of the Church-Interpreters that the rock here is not Peter whenas there are but a few of those Fathers for the first Interpretation and most of their expressions capable of the second and not inconsistent with the third Interpretation So that if the Interpretations of above fifty Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we muster no fewer than eleven Popes and two Synods are to be admitted against that of three or four Fathers We are sufficiently secured that the Interpretation of the Rock in this Text its being the Faith confessed by St.
restoring him to his Apostolical Function from which he might seem to have fallen by his grievous denyal of his Master I have thus proceeded through all the places that are alledged for to ground the Papal Supremacy upon Scripture I think I have abundantly shewn that none of these three places does in the least favour such pretensions since not onely the comparing these with other places of Scripture but the almost Vnanimous Consent of Primitive Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers who interpret them in favour of all the Apostles against St. Peter does prove to the perfect silencing of these pretensions that such a Supremacy hath no foundation in Scripture and if it hath none there it is in a sad condition since if Christ himself did not make the Bishop of Rome his Vicar all the General Councils in the World together cannot make him such I am sure St. Luke who tells Theophilus t Acts 1.1 2. that he drew up his former Treatise about all that our Saviour did till his Ascension does no where tell us that he did this but does in the next verse tell us in effect that he did the direct contrary while he speaks of his charges to the Apostles whom he had chosen I cannot omit the observing here that as none of these places of Scripture do prove any Supremacy for St. Peter so neither do they prove any Primacy or Prerogative for him as they equally concerned all the Apostles so they equally distribute any honour among them without preferring one above another This Observation I do make for the sake of those Gentlemen in France especially who though they have with unanswerable arguments baffled the extravagant pretensions of the Romish Courtiers yet do allow the Bishop of Rome to be Christ's Vicar instated by him in the Primacy over the whole Church I would onely recommend to such the Consideration of the Fathers Interpretations of the places of Scripture cited above and these three short passages in Antiquity the first from St. Cyprian who speaking about the nature and government of the Catholick Church says that there is but one Episcopacy in it whereof every particular Bishop of the Catholick Church had an equal share and the full power of that Function u Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur Cyprianus de Vnit Eccl. p. 108. Edit Oxon. The second is St. Chrysostom's who speaking of the Apostles tells us that they were all ordained Princes or Primatâ—â— If any would have it so by our Saviour * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrysost Tom. 8. p. 115. Edit Savil. not temporal Princes to receive each his Nation or City but spiritual Princes intrusted IN COMMON ALL TOGETHER with the Care and Government of the Catholick Church throughout the World. The last shall be that of a Pope himself which is more with some people than the Authority of a Thousand Fathers and let it be so here who in an Epistle to a Bishop of Arles compares Episcopacy to the Trinity x Nam dum ad Trinitatis instar cujus Vna est atque Indivisa Potestas Vnum sit per diversos Antistites Sacerdotium Symach Ep. 1. ad Aeonium Arel apud T. 4. Concil p. 1291. Edit Cossart and says that as in the Trinity there is but one inseparable power so Episcopacy is but ONE though in the hands of particular Bishops I hope those that own the Athanasian Creed where we are taught that in the Trinity no person is greater or less than another but that the three Persons are co-equal will for the future believe with Pope Symmachus that in the Episcopal Office no Bishop is greater or less than another but that all the Bishops in the world are co-equal and then I am sure all Christians will believe with us that there was no Superiority nor Supremacy nor Primacy communicated by our blessed Saviour unto any one of his Twelve Apostles SECT III. Having fully ruined their pretensions from the Holy Scriptures for the Supremacy I come next to inquire whether the Laws of the Vniversal Church have declared the successive Bishops of Rome to be Christ's Vicars to have the Primacy over the whole World to be Heads of the Vniversal Church and to have the plenary power of governing and feeding the whole Church What Laws the primitive Church for the first six Centuries made for the Government and Discipline of the Catholick Church are to be found in the Code of the Canons of the Vniversal Church consisting of the Canons of the four Oecumenical Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon and of the five diocesan Synods of Ancyra of Gangra of Antioch of Ncocaesarea and of Laodicea confirmed and admitted by the Council of Chalcedon to be part of the Laws of the Vniversal Church and afterwards by the Emperour Justinian in Novel Const 231. de Can. Eccl. We desire therefore to be informed how many of these Canons which were-looked upon as of Sacred Authority not onely by the Emperour Justinian in the Novel just cited but by a Pope Gregory the Great a Et sic quatuor Synodos Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae sicut quatuor Libros Sancti Evangelii recipimus Greg. M. Ep. 49. l. 2. p. 717. Edit Froben 1564. or which of them do constitute the Bishop of Rome Primate over the whole World or Vicar of Christ or Head of the whole Church or Father and Doctour of all Christians or do confess that Christ had intrusted him with the plenary Power of governing the Vniversal Church I will not trouble my self to shew in particular how such and such Canons place the Discipline of the Church in Provincial or Diocesan Synods any one that looks into them will see these things evident enough they therefore that talk of those Canons making the Bishop of Rome supreme must either be such as never read them or are men of no conscience and integrity To put a quick end to this pretence though I will not challenge our Compiler because he perchance does not know what the Code of the Vniversal Church means yet I do here challenge all the Romish Priests in England to shew me but one Canon in this Code b Published by Justel which hath so great a number no fewer than two hundred and seven Canons in it that does constitute the Bishop of Rome Primate over the whole World Head of the Catholick Church and the Father and Doctour of all Christians or confer upon him the full power of governing the whole Church nay farther I challenge them to produce any Canon or Canons hence that do assert that the Bishop of Rome is Primate over the whole World Vicar of Christ Head of the whole Church Doctour of all Christians and that he had the whole power of governing the Vniversal Church committed to him in St. Peter by our blessed Saviour I will make one step farther I challenge all of them to shew those Canons or
that Canon in this Code of the universal Church which does suppose the Bishop of Rome to be either Primate over the World Vicar of Christ Head of the whole Church Doctour of all Christians or to have had the plenary power of governing the whole Church given him by Christ This challenge so fair so plain and so full I leave to the Reverend Fathers Consideration and in the mean time I will take the liberty since I have very good grounds for it to declare and assert to their as well as our people that there is no Law of the Catholick Church for the first six hundred years nor ever a Canon in the Code of the Laws of the universal Church that does either constitute or assert or suppose the Bishop of Rome to be that Primate Vicar Head Doctour and universal Pastour which the Council of Florence says he is and that the Council of Florence founding their Definition for the Pope's Supremacy upon the Acts and Canons of General Councils were notoriously guilty either of ignorance or of forgery either of which is more than sufficient to ruine their having any esteem from us and as for the Title of Vicar of Christ which they do now glory so much in One of their own Communion the Learned Monsieur Launoy c Launoii Ep. ad Mich. Marollium p. 29. apud Par. 3. Epp. assures us that for above a thousand years after Christ there was scarce a Bishop of Rome to be met with who either said he was or wrote himself Vicar of Christ so far were they in those days from thinking themselves to be the true or onely Vicars of Christ their custome then being to write themselves Vicars of St. Peter SECT IV. These are some of the Reasons why we cannot believe or submit to the Papal Supremacy if neither Scripture nor the Laws of the universal Church be for it we believe it is no crime in us not to be for it if both Scripture and those Canons be directly against it as it hath in part and might have been more fully shewn it certainly is no sin in us to be against it too nay so far from being a sin that it would be a very great one not to be so It will appear by this time I believe needless to most people to examine what our Compiler from F. Alexandre does produce from Antiquity to help out this groundless Supremacy one advantage I hope I shall reap from what hath been observed hitherto on this head that I need not at all be copious in the refuting his Testimonies which are brought to prove a Supremacy from St. Peter's being called by some Rock of the Church and Prince of the Apostles from Appeals being made to the Bishops of Rome and from the necessity of their confirming all Councils to make them obligatory to the Church I shall inform the Reader before I begin with the particular Testimonies of our Compiler that they are generally stolen from Natalis Alexandre's fourth Dissertation in his Pars prima Seculi primi His first Testimony from Irenaeus is of no use a Nubes Test p. 22. ex Nat. Alexand. p. 297. since it onely proves that there was a Church planted at Rome by the joint endeavours of St. Peter and St. Paul which passage makes directly against a Supremacy except our Compiler can prove that St. Peter and St. Paul were but one individual man as to the potentior Principalitas there they have been told often enough that it relates to the Civil State Rome being the Imperial City whither business brought all people Christians as well as others The next obscure passage from Optatus b Nub. Testium p. 23 24. Nat. Alex. Pars secunda Seculi quarti p. 225. cum Pars prima Seculi primi p. 283. doth indeed seem to prove that there is but one Cathedra in the World possessed by St. Peter and after him by his Successours at Rome but I have these objections against Optatus taken in this sense first that he is made to contradict himself since in his first Book against this same Parmenian c Nec Caecilianus recessit à Cathedra Petri vel Cypriani sed Majorinus Opt. Milev l. 1. c. Parmen p. 38. Edit Paris 1631. he speaks of the Cathedra of St. Cyprian aswell as of that of St. Peter and in the same Book against the same Schismatick shewing how the people stuck to Caecilian against Majorinus he tells him d Conferta erat Ecclesia populis plena erat Cathedra Episcopalis erat Altare loco suo in quo pacifici Episcopi retro temporis obtulerunt Cyprianus Lucianus caeteri sic exitum est foras Altare contra Altare erectum est Idem l. 1. contr Parmen p. 41 42. that the Church was full of people where the Episcopal Cathedra was and the Altar whereon Cyprian Lucian and other peaceable Bishops had offered that the Donatists were Schismaticks who separated from the Church and set up Altar against Altar Secondly That he is made to contradict all Church Writers before and after him for hundreds of years who make as many Cathedra's as Bishops in the World and every of these Bishops to be Successours to the Apostles who had committed to them in common by our Saviour the Care and Government of the Catholick Church as I have fully shewn above I will name but one Father and he an African too Tertullian who bids c Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Philippos Thessalonicenses Ephesum Romam Tert. de Praescrip c. Haeret. c. 36. the Hereticks take a view of all the Apostolick Churches in which the very Chairs the Apostles used are possessed by the Bishops in their several places after which he reckons Corinth and Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus and Rome it self So that I think it plain enough that there were other Cathedra's besides that at Rome and therefore that cannot be the onely one and this makes me farther wonder at what Optatus talks about the Vnity of this Chair at Rome being such as that the rest of the Apostles might not have Cathedra's for themselves I cannot but say that this obscure passage is false as well as groundless and that if Optatus wrote it himself which some question Illyricus f Flacii Illyrici Catalogus Testium Verit. l. 4. p. 194. F. Genevae 1608. for one in his Catalogus Testium Veritatis he had very little considered the Scriptures and Fathers before him and I hope it is no crime to affirm this of him who gives such a reason for St. Peter's being called Cophas who does swerve from the ancienter Fathers so very much in giving the Succession of the Bishops of Rome and which is more doth faulter in his account of the Donatists Schism a thing which begun so near his own time and does confound the two Donatus's as Monsieur
vend it for true History and which is more to add to it by telling us that Athanasius appealed upon his deposition by the Eusebians unto the Bishop of Rome whereas his own Master F. Alexandre puts it down for his first Conclusion in his Dissertation concerning the Cause of Athanasius that Athanasius did not appeal to Julius Bishop of Rome e Nat. Alex. Dissert 21. in Pars 3. Sec. 4. p. 329. nay his own next Testimony from Sozomen says that Julius being satisfied f Sozom. H. E. l. 3. c. 10. Edit Vales there was no safety for Athanasius in Aegypt invited him to Rome which is evidence enough he had not appealed thither What our Compiler designs from this passage about Athanasius and the three next Testimonies from Sozomen g Nub. Test p. 28 29 30. Nat. Alex. p. 302 303. Socrates g Nub. Test p. 28 29 30. Nat. Alex. p. 302 303. and Theodoret g Nub. Test p. 28 29 30. Nat. Alex. p. 302 303. is to shew the custome of Appeals to the Pope In answer to which I say first that there is no evidence that Athanasius did appeal to the Pope next I say that this Letter drawn up by Julius was in the name and therefore spoke the sense of a Synod of Wostern Bishops at Rome this thing Athanasius himself informs us of for after he hath put down the Letter penned by Julius to the Orientals he says that after that the Synod at Rome h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. D. Athan. Apolog 2. p. 58 had wrote that Letter by Julius the Roman Bishop the Eusebians still persisted in disturbing the Churches farther it is evident from this Synodical Epistle as I hope I may now call it 〈◊〉 Julius did not pretend to any Judgment of the cause himself in particular as Bishop of Rome which our Compiler from F. Alexandre doth very falsly assert since in this Letter the complaint is that the Orientals had in this affair about Athanasius acted against Canon in that they had not written to all the Western Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Idem Ibidem p. 586. B. are their own words which according to our wise Guide and his Transcriber must be translated to the Bishop of Rome that so it might have been determined by all together Occidentals as well as Orientals what was just and necessary in this affair lastly as I partly observed above the Bishop of Rome was so far from being owned or thought the sole Judge in this affair that Sozomen tells us k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΠΡΟ'Σ'ΑΥΤΟΥ'Σ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΑΥΤΟ'Π〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΔΙ'ΚΗΠSozom. H. E. l. 3. c. 7. Edit Vales that upon St. Athanasius and the other Bishops being deposed by the Eusebian Faction the Bishop of Rome and all the Western Bishops lookt upon these practices of the Eusebians as wrongs done to themselves and therefore did receive St. Athanasius who came to them very kindly and took upon themselves the hearing and judging of his Cause This was such a mortification to Eusebius the Ring-leader of the Arian Faction to see Athanasius received to Communion and the hearing of his Cause espoused by the Body of the Western Bishops that he l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΑΥΤΟ'Π〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Ibidem wrote to Julius of Rome that he would take upon himself to be Judge of what had past against Athanasius at Tyre the design of which Letter could certainly be no other than either to make a Division among the Western Bishops if the Bishop of Rome should hearken to such a thing or to have served for a pretence to have thrown out Athanasius again should he be restored by the Bishop of Rome's Sentence when opportunity served because this Judgment would have been against the Laws of the Church which appoints such Judgments to be managed Synodically Socrates and Sozomen upon this business speak of a Canon which the present Writers of the Church of Rome urge often enough that no Acts of the Church should be valid which were made without the Approbation of the Bishop of Rome They both seem to ground what they write upon Julius's Letter to the Orientals and upon that passage in it wherein Julius asks them whether they did not know that the Custome is that we ought first to be written to that what was just might be determined hence m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. Synod apud Athan Apol. 2. p. 586. if They did ground their words upon that Letter they are guilty of two great mistakes first in saying there was such a Canon whereas the Letter it self pretends to no more than that there was such a Custome secondly They are much more mistaken in thinking the Letter to be Julius his own when as it was a Synodical Letter penn'd onely by Julius and by ut primum NOBIS scribatur was meant the Western Bishops whose the Letter was and not Julius the Bishop of Rome in particular This answer I think is fair and sufficient but if any one will notwithstanding this have Julius to speak here of himself I refer him for an answer not very creditable to that Bishop unto the Learned Monsieur Launoy who n Launoii Ep. ad Jac. Bevilaquam p. 269 c. 273. in Part. 6. Ep. will shew him that Julius went upon a great mistake since there is no Canon in the Code of the Vniversal Church nor in the ancient Code of the Church of Rome that makes any mention of such a thing The next Testimony of the Pope's Authority in restoring Paulus of Constantinople Asclepas and others to their Bishopricks is taken from Socrates and Sozomen o Nubes Test p. 30 31. Nat. Alex. p. 303 304. How far from accurate in these affairs those two Historians are I have just shewn and how little they are to be followed or credited in this account about Paulus is what the Learned Valesius in his Observationes Ecclesiasticae p Valesii Observationes Eccles in Socr. Sozom l. 2. c. 3. upon them hath made apparent from St. Athanasius whose Authority in this business must be of infinitely greater value than Socrates and Sozomen since He lived at the very same time and they two so many years after this business There is no evidence in Antiquity that these Bishops appealed to the Bishop of Rome it is very plain from Athanasius q Vide Valesii Observationes Eccles in Socrat. Soz. l. 2. c. 6. that these Historians give a false account of the several banishments and restitutions of Paulus for example and it is as certain from him r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Paulus CP 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Athan Ep. ad Solitar Vit. agentes p. 630. that Paulus could not come to Rome nor was restored by Julius since Constantius had
Controversie betwixt us and the Church of Rome set down by him in this Book to the Writings of the Primitive Fathers that so after a fair and true stating of the particular Points in debate and the calling in of the Testimonies of the first Fathers the learned and unlearned part of the World also may see whether of the two Churches of England or Rome deserves the charge of Novelty and whether of them after all this dust that hath been raised must be content to wear this hated badge of Novelty and Innovation Since the One of them must of necessity doe it in this great Division of Doctrine and Difference of Practice that is so visible betwixt them I shall proceed in the Method used by the Compiler and fairly examine how and whether the Testimonies from Antiquity all which excepting two or three our Compiler hath without making the least mention of it borrowed from Natalis Alexandre do declare for and illustrate the present Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Our Compiler begins his Book with an Account of the Donatists Schism and Heresie which He hath collected out of Natalis Alexandre's Account of them in his Pars prima Seculi quarti from page 30 b Natalis Alexandri Selecta Historiae Ecclesiasticae Capita c. Paris 1679. I shall not trouble my self with any Observations upon that Account of the Donatists in this place nor my Reader with any dissent about the beginning of this Schism betwixt the Learned H. Valesius and Father Alexandre but proceed to the first charge against the Donatists and the Fathers Opposition to it Who did as our Compiler tells us maintain against those Schismaticks That in the Church of Christ there are both good and wicked men That her Faith remains Pure and Vncorrupted notwithstanding the Sins of her corrupt Members and that their wickedness is not sufficient Motive for any to desert her Communion c Nubes Testium page 2. For the Proof of this our Compiler cites the Testimonies of St. Cyprian St. Austin St. Hierom and St. Austin again every syllable of which Quotations are taken out of Natalis Alexandre's thirty eighth Dissertation against the Donatists d In his Pars secunda Seculi quarti the first from page 173. of that Dissertation the second from page 174. the third from page 175. the last from pages 178 179. I wonder how this Gentleman came to begin this Book with the Business of the Donatists The Title-page of his Book tells us that his Collections concern the chief points of Controversie at present under debate now this is so far from being a chief point that it is no point of Controversie at all betwixt us at present He that hath been so much concerned in the Debates of late cannot but very well know that this thing of the Wickedness of some Members in the Church of Rome hath not been insisted on or ever urged as the Reason of the Division betwixt us and them And indeed it would have puzled me to have guessed what this business of the Donatists was now started for and what service it would doe these Gentlemen of the Church of Rome had I not found in Father Alexandre himself e Dissertatio tricesima octava in Pare secunda Seculi quarti pag. 158. that those Proofs of the Fathers were as severe upon the Lutherans and Calvinists among one of which parties I know they rank us of the Church of England as upon the Donatists themselves But this is such a misty Consequence as I confess I cannot see through or penetrate into it the Fathers taught that none ought to forsake the Communion of the Church for the wicked lives of any members thereof and that the Donatists were Schismaticks for forsaking it upon such an account these Proofs by consequence says Father Alexandre hold as strong against our modern Schismaticks but how I pray do the Calvinists and Lutherans make the bad lives of some Papists the reason of their Separation from them It was great pity that F. Alexandre does not shew where they do because without the doing it he makes this the pitifullest Consequence I ever read and very unbecoming one that sets up for a Writer of Panoplies against all Hereticks Our Compiler should not have omitted how this business of the Donatists reaches us but should have e'en borrowed the Consequence to have mawled us with it as well as he does the Quotations from the Dominican but perchance He hath found by dear experience that such Consequences will not down here in England and therefore was so wise as to omit it and to leave Him that made it to defend it Since then the bringing in of this Errour of the Donatists was to no purpose in the World but very silly and very ridiculous if designed against us nor consequently the Testimonies of the Fathers about it I should now pass on to his next head but before I doe that I will here observe to the Reader that our Compiler is so exact a Transcriber of his Master Father Alexandre that where the Master is guilty of fault he is not ashamed of being so too F. Alexandre quotes St. Austin l. 3. cont Crescon c. 34 45 36. I have perused those Chapters but cannot find those passages there however our Compiler is happier for he finds them exactly there or else takes Father Alexandre's word for them I leave it to the Reader to judge whether is the more probable I cannot but complain here of that Father himself also that in his other f Dissert 38. Pars secunda Seculi quarti p. 178 179. Nubes Test p. 5. Testimony from St. Austin he hath dealt unfaithfully with his Reader he doth omit in the middle of the Quotation some considerable Names without giving any notice of it by a Mark of distinction where the sentence is broke off St. Austin in this place is taking to task an Objection of the Donatists against the Church for the Wickedness of some Members thereof particularly of some Bishops of Rome whom they accused of having been Traditours and of having offered incense to the Heathen Gods. He answers their Objection by telling them that it did not at all prejudice the Catholick Church g Prorsus qualescunque fuerint here Nat. Alexandre and our Compiler leave off Marcellinus Marcellus Sylvester Melchiades Mensurius Caecilianus atque alii quibus objiciunt pro sua dissensione quod volunt now they begin again nihil praejudicat Ecclesiae Catholicae toto terrarum orbe diffusae nullo modo eorum innocentiâ coronamur nullo modo eorum iniquitate damnamur D. Aug. de Vnico Bapt. cont Petilian c. 16. p. 342. Edit Erasm 1528. what sort of men soever Marcellinus Marcellus Sylvester and Melchiades Bishops of Rome Mensurius Caecilianus Bishops of Carthage and the rest were to whom they in defence of their Schism did object what things they pleased that their innocence would not crown us whose then I pray are
the merits that are in the Treasury of the Church and to what purpose are they kept there nor their wickedness damn us An Answer that doth at once ruin the Papal Infallibility and Supremacy and therefore was the more likely to be concealed by one of that Church I do not lay the accusation against our Compiler also because he good man was I believe purely passive in the thing and if he is here unfaithfull to St. Austin and to the Reader it is because his Guide was unfaithfull to him SECT II. The next Errour of the Donatists is about the failure of the Church in Opposition to which our Compiler tells us Nubes Testium p. 6. that the Fathers maintain That the Catholick Church cannot fail as being assisted by the Spirit of God. I am as much at a loss about this point of Controversie as I was about the first I have not met with any of our Writers that are for proving or asserting that this Catholick Church can fail and am thereby pretty well assured that it is none of the Tenets of our Church-men that the Catholick Church can or hath failed and I am as certain that it is none of the Doctrines of the Church it self so that I must beg this Gentleman's pardon that I cannot believe that this opinion of the failure of the Catholick Church is one of the chief points of Controversie at present under debate I am so far from being of that faith that I think it not onely ridiculous but false to assert that there is any Controversie betwixt us about the failing or not failing of the Catholick Church and I cannot but observe that our Compiler who is so carefull in the Appendix to his Collections to gather the Concessions or Assertions of Protestants about the points and heads of Controversie in his Book either forgot to produce their Assertions and Concessions concerning this and the precedent point or was not able to produce any which I am the more ready to believe because I look on the thing as impossible If then not withstanding this Gentleman there really be no Controversie betwixt us touching this head both parties believing that the Catholick Church by reason of our blessed Lord his promised assistence cannot fail it will very readily be granted that all the citations out of the Fathers upon this head against the Donatists do not in the least affect or concern the Church of England since she detests that Errour of the Donatists as much as any other Church can I need not therefore examine the particular passages since granting them all the strength and evidence they are produced for they are not at all against the Church of England I will onely inform the Reader that the passages for this point are taken out of the same Volume and the same Dissertation of Natalis Alexandre h See Dissertatio 38 â—â—rs secunda Seculi quarti p. 182 186 164. that the former were borrowed from I must except the first quotation from St. Cyprian which does not occur in that place but is I question not borrowed from some other part of N. Alexandre's works I must observe also that our Compiler does in the first Testimony i Nub. Test p. 6. from St. Cyprian exactly transcribe the Errours of his Guide and that the Guide himself either did not look into St. Austin for this passage but very honestly copied some Romish Friend of his or was more than half asleep when he was writing this passage thence without one of these I cannot see how he should put reges for regna and virtutis for fortitudinis in the beginning of it I have looked into two or three Editions for this thing and find them exactly agreeing in this place and directly against the Guide and the Compiler SECT III. The last crime of the Donatists set down by our Compiler is their Schism Nub. Test p. 10. upon which he says the Fathers unanimously declare that whosoever breaks the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon any pretext whatsoever is guilty of Schism c. I am so far from the humour of making disputes or quarrels in things wherein there ought to be none and so desirous of reaching that part of his Book which does contain matter of real Disputes betwixt us that I shall here assure our Authour that taking the word Pretext here in the sense wherein it is commonly used among us for a false shew or groundless pretence I am perfectly of his Father's mind that it is destructive of Salvation causelesly to break the Vnity of the Catholick Church and that the Donatists who acted thus were really guilty of a Criminal Schism but I must withall assure our Compiler that I cannot see how this can be made matter of dispute betwixt us who both agree in asserting the same thing with those venerable Fathers or how this can any way affect or concern the Division that is at present betwixt us and the particular Church of Rome that Church tells us that they separate from us upon grounds which make such a Separation absolutely necessary and we prove against them that our Reasons for not communicating with them are much more absolutely such and that Communion with them upon the Terms fixt by their Council of Trent were destructive of Salvation and therefore by no means to be espoused Our Compiler hath gathered a great many Authorities of the Fathers upon this head to every one of which we of the Church of England do very heartily subscribe and are at the same time able from Scripture and Antiquity to justifie our necessary separation from the Bishop and Church of Rome I heartily wish those that allowed this Book to the Press and all the Romish Missionaries in England would consider the quotations on this point of Schism from St. Cyprian especially and above the rest that about the aliud Altare which was always so odious in the Catholick Church and will be so while there is a Church of Christ on Earth All the passages upon this head except two or three are to be found with the very same mistakes in them in the same Volume and Dissertation of Natalis Alexandre k Dissertatio tricesima octava Pars secunda Seculi quarti the first with a foolish consequence about Calvinists sympathizing with the Donatists tack'd to the end of it in p. 187. the next with the rest in page 187 188 189 223 191 192 193 194 195 230 196. The passage from St. Austin in p. 230. in Nat. Alexandre l Nubes Test p. 20. Nat. Alex. p. 230. is very much abused non eo ad daemonia sed tamen in parte Donati sum is not all that Saint Austin says here it is much fuller in him and Father Alexandre had shewed himself an ingenuous man if instead of putting in Luther and Calvin's name there after Donatus which is nothing to the purpose he had put in what should have been there and let us see the
before that from whence we have this passage about Sheep and Lambs f Joh. 20.21 22 23. Perhaps some may be so impudent to avouch that it doth cancell the other and some mens Opinions I am sure do oblige them to believe it however we must tell such that St. Paul was not of their Opinion for when he had sent for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to Miletus g Acts 20.17 28. He honours them with the Title of Bishops whereas according to these men they were no Bishops but St. Peter's Curates He tells them that the Holy Ghost had made them Pastours of their Flocks which must be a mistake in St. Paul since these Elders could not be the Holy Ghost's Pastours while they were onely St. Peter's Curates and no Pastours at all And St. Peter himself is as far from these mens fancies he would not otherwise have been so forgetfull of himself as to call the Bishops among the dispersed Jews his fellow-Pastours whereas according to these men Those Elders were so far from being Christ's Bishops that they were but his own Curates they were so far from being his Equals as he says they were h 1 Pet. 5.1 2. that they at most were but his Servants sent by him to feed their several flocks but enough of this Both parties of the Romanists as well those that from this place make St. Peter prime Bishop as those that make him sole Bishop of the Catholick Church appeal to the Fathers in defence of their several Interpretations and thither we are very willing to go with them and to be judged by the Fathers what is the true sense and import of these words St. Cyprian in his Tract concerning the Vnity of the Church according to Pamelius's Edition speaking concerning the Apostles says that every of them were Pastours yet the flock but one which was to be fed by all the Apostles with their unanimous and united endeavours i Et Pastores sunt omnes sed grex unus ostenditur qui ab Apostolis omnibus unanimi consensione pascatur D. Cypr. de Vnit Eccl. Edit Pamel and the same thing this excellent Father says in his Epistle to Stephen Bishop of Rome whom He calls his Brother that though they were many Pastours they two among the rest yet that the flock was but one which they were to feed and therefore that it was k Nam etsi Pastores multi sumus unum tamen gregem pascimus oves universas quas Christus sanguine suo ac passione quaesivit colligere fovere debemus Cypr. Ep. 68. Stephano p. 178. Edit Oxon. to be their care to secure and preserve all those Sheep which Christ had purchased by his bloudy Passion In this Epistle one may see the true state of the Catholick Church and of Episcopal Dignity at that time how little they thought then of the Bishop of Rome's being either the Prince of Bishops or the sole Bishop in the Church when St. Cyprian l Cui rei nostrum est consulere subvenire frater charissime qui divinam clementiam cogitantes gubernandae Ecclesiae libram tenentes sic censuram vigoris peccatoribus exhibemus c. Idem Ibidem p. 176 177. tells Stephen Bishop of Rome that it was every Bishop's Province to take care lest any damage should accrew to the flock of Christ through Hereticks and such evil Workers since they the Bishops were in common intrusted not He at Rome alone or above the rest with the Government of the Catholick Church St. Ambrose speaking of our Saviour's bidding Peter to feed his Sheep m Quas oves quem gregem non solum tunc beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes D. Ambrosius de Dignitate Sacerdotali c. 2. p. 386. T. 4. Edit Erasm says that St. Peter did not receive alone those Sheep and that flock but that he did receive them in common with the rest of the Pastours of the Church and the Pastours also with him St. Chrysostom in his Dialogue persuading St. Basil to undertake the Pastoral Charge assures him that n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrys de Sacerdotio c. 1. p. 15. in T. 4. Edit Ducaei thereby he should shew his love towards Christ if he would feed his flock since it was recorded in Scripture if thou lovest me feed my flock St. Austin baffles the Opinions of both parties of the Romanists in a very few but very expressive words o Et cùm ei viz. Petro dicitur ad OMNES dicitur Amos me Pasce oves meas D. August de Agone Christiano c. 30. p. 550. in T. 3. Edit Erasm 1528. When it is said to Peter it is said to all Pastours lovest thou me Feed my Sheep There is nothing more evident in Antiquity than that the Bishops of the Catholick Church looking upon themselves as the Apostles Successours and intrusted by them with that care and charge of the flock of Christ which they themselves had from Christ himself thought themselves obliged by their station in the Church to feed to preserve and to watch over the flock of Christ remembring that as Christ committed to them that great charge so He would require as strict an account of their discharge thereof And the Bishops of Rome were so far in those days from taking too much upon them or pretending to a peculiar or sole charge of the Catholick Church that it is evident from those first times that the term of Brother Collegue and Fellow-Bishop passed mutually from them to others and from others to them witness the Synodical Epistle of the Synod of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus p Apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 7. c. 27. the Epistle of St. Cyril and the Synod at Alexandria to Nestorius q Concil T. 3. p. 395. Edit Cossartii and several of the Epistles in St. Cyprian and the learned Monsieur Launoy hath produced the concurrent Authority of about fourty Popes who in their occasional Letters to other Bishops used the term of Brother or Fellow-Bishop and thereby owned them their Fellow-Pastours in the charge and government of the flock of Christ r J. Launoii Epist ad Formentinum apud Par. 5. Epp. p. 27 c. If notwithstanding all this any inquire to what purpose then was this threefold question and charge to St. Peter though it is answer sufficient to tell them that they have nothing to doe to be so inquisitive yet since they are I do refer them to St. Cyril of Alexandria on this place ſ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B. Cyril Comment in Joann l. 12. p. 1119 1120. Edit Par. 1638. where they will find that this threefold question about his love to Christ was to put him on making satisfaction for his threefold denyal of Christ and that the charge of feeding the Sheep was as it were a
d'Aubespine owns in his third Observation upon him but enough of this passage I will onely observe farther that as Optatus calls St. Peter Head of all the Apostles so do others give as great Titles and as honourable Compellations to other Apostles Hesychius for example as Photius hath it Cod. 275. calls St. James the Bishop of Jerusalem Head of the Apostles g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Photii Biblioth Cod. 275. p. 1525. Edit Haeschel 1612. I must also tell our Compiler that Socius in this passage is a little more than Contemporary Optatus calls the Bishop Syricius our Fellow-bishop which was a very rude thing to one so much a Prince above them and a false one too if there were but one Cathedra and consequently but one Bishop in the World Syricius at Rome The four next little passages from St. Cyprian h Nubes Test p. 24 25. Nat. Alex. p. 276 293. the first of which is directly against our Compiler have been sufficiently considered in the Interpretations of the Rock in St. Matthew I shall not trouble my self with saying much to his Synodical Epistle of i Nubes Test p. 25. Nat. Alex. p. 290. the Sardican Synod which was for giving to the Bishop of Rome a power of granting the revision of causes already judged in the Provincial Synods this very attempt of this Synod is sufficient to shew that the Bishop of Rome had no such a power before that time I will not enlarge here though I easily might he that desires to see the Romish Pretensions for Appeals founded upon the third fourth and fifth Canons of this Western Synod sufficiently baffled ought to consult our Excellent and most Learned Dean of St Paul's Origines Britanicae k Ch. 3. p. 142 143 c. and after him the very Learned Du Pin in his second Historical Dissertation l De Antiqua Ecclesiae Disciplina Dissertationes Historicae Sect. 3. p. 103 104 c. at Paris 1686. I will onely say that this Synod's Canons were admitted to no Authority in the Church because they were not admitted into the Code of the universal Church which is answer sufficient to our Compiler who pretends to prove this Supremacy from the first six Centuries I will onely remark that if the Sardican Synod could or did take away from Constantius the Emperour the power of granting the revising and rehearing of Causes which had been already judged in Provincial Synods because he was an Arian It should not upon the same reasons have granted or given that power to the Bishops of Rome since the very next Bishop to Julius turned Arian Liberius who confirmed the Council of Sirmium and during his Exile before his Arianism Felix who was put into his place was an Arian also as St. Hierom doth assure us m D. Hieron Catalogus Scriptorum Illustr in Acacio p. 297 298. T. 1. Edit Basil 1565. so that in endeavouring to avoid one Rock they split upon another The best answer any one can make for these their Canons is that they were onely a present temporary provision limited to Julius his time who was a Catholick against Constantius who was an Arian The next instance n Nubes Test p. 25. Nat. Alex. p. 298. about Irenaeus his writing to Victor with F. Alexandre's silly Remarks before and after it is so far from being for that it is one of the clearest instances in Antiquity against the Pope's Supremacy When the Controversie about the celebration of Easter began to grow warm there were several Synods gathered about it in Palestine Pontus o Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 23. Edit Vales Rome France and other places and from them all together not from the Bishop of Rome or his Synod did proceed p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. the Ecclesiastical Rule of celebrating Easter onely on the Lord's day This Rule or Determination it is probable Victor was desired to transmit to the Asiaticks thereby to bring them to a consent in practice in this Thing The Asiaticks refused upon the grounds set down in Polycrates his Letter to the Bishop and Church of Rome which was so highly resented by Victor that he immediately does that which he seems to have threatned them with before in his Letter to them and excommunicates the Asiatick Churches This practice of his was so far from being consented to or approved by those Bishops who were agreeing with him about the matter of the time of keeping Easter that they all immediately q Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 24. fell upon him for his extravagant irregular action and do not onely exhort him as Valesius translates but command him as I think a compound from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be translated to mind those things that are for promoting Peace Vnity and Charity towards their neighbours and Eusebius tells us in the same place that several of those Letters were to be seen in his time wherein the Bishops had so severely checkt and reprehended this Bishop of Rome and he puts down part of that from Irenaeus which F. Alexandre and our Compiler make use of I think this behaviour does not very clearly prove the Supremacy of the Pope and this would certainly have been very unaccountable carriage towards Christ's True Vicar who had full power of governing the whole Church the truth is they knew of no such person in those days he was not born into the world till near a Thousand years after them But says our Compiler from F. Alexandre and this is a pert saying among a great many among us Irenaeus does not deny the Bishop of Rome's power of Excommunicating the Asiaticks it is true he does not and which is more he could not since every Bishop in the Catholick Church and therefore he at Rome among the rest might deny to communicate with any other Bishop or Church against which they thought they had sufficient reason for such a suspension of Communion One thing however I would commend to his and F. Alexandre's consideration and that is that this Action of Victor's was so little valued in the Catholick Church that it does not appear that any Christians did thereupon refuse Communion with the Asiaticks which is a great commendation truly of that Bishop's management but a certain evidence of the Opinion of the Ecclesiasticks of those days concerning the Bishop of Rome's Power The next Quotation r Nubes T. p. 25 26. from St. Basil's Comments ad cap. 2. Isaiae is not from F. Alexandre so that here our Compiler doubtless would take it amiss if he be not allowed to have something of his own and to have perused St. Basil for example but the great unhappiness is that he must not be allowed it since he either borrowed this passage from some other friend or made it himself there being no such passage in that Commentary of this Father upon the second of Isaiah and
which is more unhappy still there is the direct contrary to it for St. Basil ſ in Domo Dei quae est Ecclesia Dei viventis cujus Fundamenta in Montibus Sanctis est enim aedificata supra Fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum unus ex Montibus erat Petrus c. S. Basil in cap. 2. Esa Vol. 1. p. 869. Edit Par. 1618. speaking of the Church of God that its Foundations are upon the Holy Mountains says that St. Peter is one of those Mountains and that the Church of God is built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets As the first passage is guilty of falshood so the second t Nub. Test p. 26. N. Alex. p. 304 305. from St. Basil is guilty of very egregious disingenuity Certainly F. Alexandre borrowed this passage from some such Writer as Bellarmine and never consulted the Epistle it self or he could not have been guilty of such disingenuous dealing had he read the Epistle he might have seen that as it is directed to the Western Bishops so it did desire from them not from the Bishop of Rome onely or more than the rest help and assistence in their present afflictions caused by this Eustathius and others There are two reasons set down in the Epistle why they did desire this help the first of them is because that Eustathius v Eustathius his business to Rome was not to appeal but as Legate from the Synod of Lampsacus as Du Pin assures us Dissert 2. p. 163. to draw Liberius to communicate with the Semiarians coming to Rome and having imposed upon Liberius and the Western Bishops in Synod perhaps with him so far as to be admitted to communion had obtained their Communicatory Letter to testifie the Orthodoxy of his Faith upon his producing of which to the Synod of Tyana he had been restored and thence had the opportunity of ravaging the Churches and dispersing his Impieties and therefore they desire that as their Letter was the cause of his being restored and thereby enabled to doe them such mischief so they would from thence * Quoniam igitur isthinc vires accepit laedendi Ecclesias ac publicandae suae impietatis fiducia quam VOS dedistis ad subversionem multorum usus est necesse est ut isthinc quoque veniat malorum istorum correctio scribatúrque Ecclesiis quibus quidem conditionibus ad Communionem susceptus sit simul vero adjiciatur quomodo jam immutatâ sententiâ gratiam à PATRIBVS qui tum erant acceptam irritam reddat S. Basilii Ep. 74. ad Occident Episcopos p. 875 876. Edit Par. 1618. vouchsafe them a Cure for this spreading Evil the other reason is because that what they at home said against Eustathius was said to proceed from a private pique or a contentious humour x Quae nos enim loquimur multis suspecta sunt quasi propter privatas quasdam contentiones metum ac pusillanimitatem illis incutere velimus Vo◠vero quanto ab illis habitatione remotiores estis tanto plus apud plebem habetis fidei Idem Ibidem p. 874. and therefore St. Basil in their name desires their Letter who lived so far off and would thereupon be considered as disinteressed persons and have the greater credit among their people I appeal to any man of sense whether any thing can be more evident than that it was not Liberius alone who gave Eustathius that unhappy Letter and that the Community of Western Bishops were desired not he at Rome alone to help them in their distress and lastly that they desired this help not because they had not power enough of their own to have judged and deposed Eustathius but because they were desirous to use the least invidious Method of ridding their Communion of him by getting a great number of the Western Bishops to condemn his Opinions and to exhort the faithfull not to communicate any longer with him Had our Compiler but translated the two words Occidentales Episcopos in the beginning of this Testimony there are few Readers but would have seen the cheat The next Testimony of Gregory Nazianzen's y Nub. Test p. 27. which says the faith confessed by St. Peter was the foundation of the Church ought in prudence to have been omitted since it is directly against our Compiler the next passage from him does not concern the Bishop of Rome as our Compiler z Nub. Test p. 27. N. Alex. p. 289 290. from F. Alexandre does most falsly assert but St. Basil as Elias Cretensis and Billius in their Comments upon him assure us The following story about Dionysius of Alexandria is nothing to our Compiler a Nub. Test p. 27 28. N. Alex. p. 300 301. or F. Alexandre's purpose since here is nothing done but what any Bishop might have done and which is more nothing done by the Bishop of Rome himself but by a Synod then met when the complaint was made against Dionysius and all the share the Bishop of Rome hath in this affair besides his suffrage is onely to be the Synods Secretary in drawing up this Letter and sending their Opinion b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Athan. de Synod Arimin Seleuc. p. 707. Edit Commel 1600. to his name-sake at Alexandria and therefore our Compiler is very much to be blamed but F. Alexandre much more for their impertinent and false accounts prefixed to this passage from Athanasius What credit in Ecclesiastical History Natalis Alexandre may have beyond Sea I cannot tell if all his twenty five Volumes be of the same strain with his first I must needs say that he was fitter to write Romances than Church-History for certainly no man whose talent does not lie wonderfully that way could with so much art have drest up the story about Dionysius or with so much address and formality have told the next story of Julius's taking the Cause of Athanasius into his hands and of his citing him and his enemies to appear before his Apostolick Tribunal and yet ground this formal story upon a bit of Julius's Letter as he calls it to the Orientals which hath not one syllable of any such thing in it first here is nothing here of Julius's taking the Cause of Athanasius into his own hands but the contrary to it is evident from Sozomen who writes that upon the Eusebians prevailing against the Orthodox Bishops in the East and deposing them all the Western Bishops He at Rome among the rest did very kindly receive Athanasius when he came into the West and did take upon themselves the hearing and Judgment of his Cause c Sozom. Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 7. Edit Vales secondly it is as false that there is in this Letter any citation of St. Athanasius and the Orientals before the Apostolick Tribunal As false as this account is our Compiler d Nubes Test p. 28 29. Nat. Alex. p. 302 303. ventures upon F. Alexandre's credit to transcribe and
in this his third exile put him in chains and banished him to Singara in Mesopotamia and afterwards removed him to Emesa so that he could not be at Rome nor be restored by that Bishop upon his Profession of the Nicene Faith as Sozomen tells the story He that will compare Athanasius and these two Historians will find perfect Confusion in the latter but if he grudge so much pains he may find it very sufficiently done by Valesius in his second Book of Ecclesiastical Observations upon these two Historians The next quotations from St. Chrysostome ſ Nub. Test p. 31 32. are onely some of his Rhetorical flights his Opinion against any Superiority in St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles we have had above t p. 25. I will pass therefore to his Letter of Request forsooth to Innocent the First v Nub. Test p. 32 33. N. Alex. p. 307 308. that he would repeal the Sentence of the Synod ad Quercum against him and order him to be restored to his See. But how little this History helps the Papal Supremacy these few Observations will shew First that Chrysostome did appeal from that Synod ad Quercum not to the Bishop of Rome which they of his Communion should prove but to a General Council as is apparent not onely from Sozomen * Sozomen H. E. l 8. c. 17. Edit Vales but from this Epistle it self x ac mille appellante Judices paratum praesente orbe universo quaeque objecta diluere D. Chrys Ep. apud Palladium de Vita Chrys p. 5. in T. 2. Chrys Edit Duc. to Innocent Secondly that Chrysostome sent the same Epistle to Venerius Bishop of Milain and to Chromatius of Aquileia y Scripsimus ista ad Venerium Mediolanensem ad Chromatium Aquilegiensem Episcopum Vale in Domino Idem Ibidem so that if this Epistle prove any Prerogative for Innocent it will prove the same for Venerius and Chromatius and that I am sure is no help towards a Supremacy Thirdly That this Letter was not sent to Innocent in particular but to some other Bishops z Haec igitur cogitantes omnia Domini beatissimi a◠Reverendissimi dignum vestrae constantiae congruum robur ac studium sumite Ne igitur immanis ista confusio cuncta percurrat scribite precor authoritate vestrâ decernite c. Idem Ibidem with him which I take to be the Bishops of his Diocese as the Letter to Venerius did I suppose concern the Bishops of his Diocese and that to Chromatius all that were under his Jurisdiction and therefore yields no assistence towards the proving a particular Prerogative for Innocent in this case Fourthly That Innocent did not pretend to give Judgment in the Quarrels betwixt St. Chrysostome and Theophilus but told St. Chrysostome a Ad haec rescripsit Innocentius dicens oportere conflari aliam irreprehensibilem Synodum Occidentalium Orientalium Sacerdotum cedentibus Concilio amicis primum deinde inimicis Neutrarum quippe partium ut plurimum rectum esse Judicium Innoc. Ep. apud Palladium Ibidem c. 3. that there must be a Synod which neither side could take exceptions at of Oriental and Occidental Bishops together to put an end to this business upon which account Innocent did request of Honorius to call a Western Council which the Emperour b Non tulit ultra Innocentius Pontifex indignitate summâ permotus scripsitque ad Honorium Imperatorem Motus his literis Princeps praecepit Synodum Occidentalium Episcoporum congregari cùm in unam sententiam concurrisset ad se referre Congregati Italiae Episcopi Imperatorem orant ut scriberet Arcadio Fratri suo ut juberet Thessalonicae Concilium fieri quo facilius possent utraeque partes Orientis Occidentisque concurrere Palladius in Vita D. Chrysost p. 6. in T. 2. Operum Chrysost Edit Ducaei readily did and this Synod did beseech the Emperour to write to his Brother Arcadius that he would appoint a General Synod at Thessalonica where the Western and Eastern Bishops might meet and pass a final Judgment upon this Affair of St. Chrysostome How far this Account is from proving any thing extraordinary about Innocent is what the meanest Reader will readily apprehend I will not inquire of our Compiler because I believe he knows nothing of the business but I do of Father Alexandre in what Edition of St. Chrysostome he found this Epistle called Libellus Supplex and where he read that St. Chrysostome presented it upon his knees I suppose they would have it as Letters of Requests use to be to Innocent for that must be the sense of F. Alexandre's porrexit Innocentio I. Pontifici Romano I desire our Compiler to send F. Alexandre word that He that will be guilty of such tricks must either be no Scholar or no honest Man. The two next Authorities from Vincentius and St. Ambrose c Nub. Test p. 33. N. Alex. p. 298 299. are of too little value to deserve much consideration that of Lirinensis supposes other Bishops to have equal share in the Care of the Church while it calls them the Collegues of the Bishop of Rome and for St. Ambrose about feeding the sheep that Text hath been sufficiently secured and cleared above d p. 22. and I need be no longer upon the next passage from his Epistle to Theophilus but that I cannot pass over the ignorance and disingenuity of our Compiler and his Master F. Alexandre upon this point e Nub. Test p. 33 34. N. Alex. p. 307. They tell us that the Synod of Capua did commit to Theophilus the decision of the quarrel betwixt Evagrius and Flavianus at Antioch which is very false for it is expressed as plain in this Epistle as words can doe it that the decision of that business was committed to Theophilus and the Aegyptian Bishops f Cùm sancta Synodus cognitionis Jus unanimitati tuae Caeterisque ex Aegypto Consacerdotibus nostris commiserit c. Ambros Ep. 78. T. 3. p. 233. Edit Frob. 1538. who were in Synod to determine that affair They tell us also that St. Ambrose owns that Theophilus ought to give an account of his Decision not of the Cause as our Compiler mistakes his Master to the See Apostolick and that his Decision would be of no force or obligation if the Bishop of Rome did not ratifie it the folly of which is sufficiently exposed from the Determination of the Synod of Capua it self which utterly ruins this foolish talk when it did commit the final Decision of that business to a Synod of Aegyptian Bishops without taking the least notice of the Bishop of Rome and they have as little ground for what they so boldly affirm here from St. Ambrose's Epistle since all that St. Ambrose who had been consulted in the business by Theophilus directs here is that his opinion is that they would advise with the Bishop of Rome
in this affair that so what was decided by them in Synod might have a general reception His next Authorities are much more unfit for the proving such great things as the Florentine Council says of the Pope Nub. Testium p. 34. none but a very short-sighted person would quote the Comparison of St. Peter and Plato which passage is not in St. Hierome as set down by our Authour since no one ever made or believed Plato to be such a Prince over the Philosophers as the Church of Rome says St. Peter was over the Apostles and the whole Church g Nub. Test p. 34 35. Nat. Alex. p. 281 282. The business of the Council of Jerusalem with St. Hierome's leave makes more for the honour of St. James Bishop there than of St. Peter since he concluded the debates and the Canon was drawn up in the very expressions prescribed by him and I must confess that as to the next passage from St. Hierome h Nub. Test p. 35. Nat. Alex. p. 283. about a Head constituted among the Apostles since I find nothing in the Gospels or in the Acts of the Apostles that either our Saviour did appoint or the Apostles elect or constitute Peter Head of the Apostles I cannot believe it though St. Hierome doth affirm it especially since his being made the Apostles Messenger Acts 8.14 is so home an Evidence against it The next Testimony i Nub. Test p. 35. Nat. Alex. Par. 2. Sec. 4. p. 190. proves onely that St. Hierome acted as every good Christian ought in keeping to the Faith and Church of Christ against the Hereticks that he acted as every Presbyter ought when he consulted his own Bishop whether he might use the term Hypostases about the Trinity The two last Testimonies from him do not deserve a word of answer and therefore I will pass to those from St. Austin the two first k Nub. Test p. 37. Nat. Alex. p. 284. passages from whom are directly against our Compiler the rest are too weak for his designs and to very little purpose since as to the first l Nub. Test p. 39. of them several other Câ—urches as well as that at Rome did enjoy the prerogative of having an Apostolical Chair and as to the next m Nub. Test p. 39 40. Nat. Alex. p. 308. it was very expedient the Africans should try all means and use all helps that could be got to suppress a growing Heresie and for the third n Nub. Test p. 40. Nat. Alex. p. 309. it was customary enough for other Bishops to call Bishops to Synods the History of the first ages of St. Cyprian in particular will put this out of doubt the last o Nub. Test p. 40 41. Nat. Alex. p. 309. falls in with the second and therefore I pass it and ought to doe so by those of St. Cyril since they p Nub. Test p. 41. were answered sufficiently above in the Interpretation of the Rock Having spent so much time about the Testimonies hitherto I will make the more haste through the rest there are but one or two lest that can give us much occasion of an Answer that about Nestorius had need to have a Preface to make it look great for the Pope as if Nestorius could not be excommunicated but by his Authority and Cyril did excommunicate him by virtuo onely of the power given him by that Pope q Nub. Test p. 41 42. Nat. Alex. p. 309 310. whereas it is certain from Saint Cyril's own Letter to Coelestine that before then upon Dorotheus his having denounced in the presence of Nestorius an Anathema r Cyril Alex Ep. ad Coelest in T. 3. Concil p. 341. Edit Coss against all that should say the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God not onely the people of Constantinople but almost all the Monasteries with their Abbats had lest off communicating with Nestorius and that St. Cyril himself had already broke off Communion with him but does not publickly denounce Excommunication against Nestorius till he had consulted with Coelestine in the thing Å¿ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΜΕΤΑ ' ΠΑΡΡΗΣΙ'ΑΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Ibid. who upon the hearing of Nestorius his great Errour did send an Answer to Cyril wherein he tells him that They ought to excommunicate Nestorius if he did not recant his Errour and therefore gave Cyril leave to join his Authority to his own and in their names to excommunicate Nestorius t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΕΜΕΙ Σ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΟΦΕΙ'ΛΟΜ ΕΠ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΣΟΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Coelest Ep. Cyrillo What is cited next from the Council of Ephesus signifies nothing at all but what the Pope's Legate said there signifies much less since this is a Controversie that is not to be decided by what this Pope or that Legate said passing therefore what either Coelestine or his Legate say here u Nubes Testium p. 42 43. Nat. Alexan. p. 310 311 312. or Pope Leo's Legate at Chalcedon * Nubes Testium p. 44. Nat. Alexan. p. 312. and the little passage of the Council there as of no strength I am come to that passage from the Emperour Valentinian's Letter which speaks of the Bishop of Rome 's having power to judge of Matters of Faith and the Cause of Priests or Bishops I onely ask our Compiler x Nub. Test p. 44 45. whether he designs from this passage to prove that the Bishop of Rome had such a power of judging Matters of Faith and the Causes of the Clergy alone or in Conjunction with other Bishops if he designs onely the latter no body does oppose a Synod's having power of Judging and examining such things but if he will have the Bishop of Rome alone to have full power over such Matters and Controversies See Nouvelles de la Republ. des Lettres for the Month October 1684. p. 262. I cannot but refer him to his own Master F. Alexandre who was so earnest and so vigorous to have the Proposition censured which is in the Hungarian Censure of the Propositions of the Clergy of France which teaches that it doth belong to the Apostolical See alone by divine immutable z Ad solam Sedem Apostolicam divino immutabili privilegio spectat de Controversiis Fidei judicare privilege to determine in Controversies of Faith against which extravagant Proposition it is said that Father made a Discourse of two hours long which pleased Monsieur Colbert so well that he sent him a present of a hundred Louidores This Doctrine of the sole power of the Pope in Judging Controversies of Faith is so odious to the Clergy of France that they call it the Heresie of the Jesuites and the Sorbonists who wrote the Notes upon the Hungarian Censure of the four Propositions of the Gallican Clergy tell the Clergy a Notae in
Discretion in this Account than his Master himself our Compiler * Nub. Test p. 151. begins his account with telling his Reader that the Jews Marcionites Manichees and Theopaschits had always shew'd themselves profess'd Enemies of Holy Images but his Master F. Alexandre tells us a greater piece of news that the Gentiles as well as b Nat. Alex. ibidem p. 65. Gentiles Judaei Marcionitae Manichaei Theopaschitae jam olim Sacris Imaginibus bellum indixere c. Jews Marcionites Manichees and Theopaschits had of a long time or as our Compiler translates jam olim always been enemies of the Holy Images I think this about the Pagans being such enemies to Images is a Discovery and a thing which few people would have thought or hit on but so it is if we may believe F. Alexandre and therefore his Transcriber was to blame not to let his English Reader hear of it that so he might know whom we herd with that are such enemies to Images and that he might upon occasion call Protestants either Pagans or Iconoclasts since they are all of a humour and in the same faction against Holy Images It is not my business to examine this account of the Quarrels in the Eighth Century about Images it is owned that in that Century as one part of the Church by a large Council of Bishops did put a stop to and utterly forbid the making and Worship of Images which was an Evil then creeping into the Church so after them another Synod at Nice did endeavour to undoe what those religious Bishops had appointed and did command that Images should be put into Churches and be worshipped there But it must be remembred also that this last Conventicle of Nice was despised by the Western part of the Christian World and her Definitions condemned in a Council of three hundred Bishops at Frankford under Charles the Great who himself or some by his Command yet not without his Royal Assistence did with so much learning and accuracy fully confute all the Pleas and grounds for Images made use of by that Conventicle at Nice And as to our own Nation so far were They from submitting to what had been enacted at Nice that when the Emperour Charles the Great transmitted hither the Definitions of the Synod at Nice to Offa King of Mercia Hoveden c Imagines Adorari debere quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur Contra quod scripsit Albinus Alcuinus r. Epistolam ex authoritate Divinarum Scripturarum mirabiliter affirmatam illamque cum eodem libro ex Persona Episcoporum ac Principum nostrorum Regi Francorum attulit R. Hoveden Annal. Pars 1. p. 405. Edit Wechel 1601. tells us that the Church of God here did abominate and abhor what they had enacted at Nice about the Adoration of Images and that the famous Alcuin wrote and carried a Letter in the name of the Bishops and Princes of England to that Emperour wherein from the Sacred Authority of Scripture Alcuin baffled the Adoration of Images Passing therefore these things as nothing to the purpose of the present debate which should be to shew that Images were not onely used but adored within and during the first six Centuries after Christ We challenge our Enemies to shew that the Church of God in those first ages did not onely use but worship Images Our Compiler manages the beginning of his account so slyly and in his old way that I question not but most of his credulous and unthinking Readers do thereupon believe that Images were always used in the Catholick Church and always worshipped by Her. The Jews saith he Marcionites Nubes Test p. 151. Manichees and Theopaschits had ALWAYS shew'd themselves profess'd Enemies of Holy Images and had been industrious for the suppressing them among Christians But in the year 723 the Jews with an unusual fury declared War against them c. I appeal to all Learned men whether most men would not hence believe that Images had always been used and worshipped in the Primitive Church and I do not see why all that reade him should not believe the same since it is very natural for every one to argue thus with himself that the Holy Images could not Always have been opposed by the Jews Marcionites and the other Hereticks except they had Always been used and worshipped in the Church If then our Compiler did thus believe himself and had a mind to convey the same belief unto his Readers I must tell him that for all his reading of Father Alexandre's Books He discovers a great deal of ignorance in this thing since what He writes here is a notorious falshood but if he pretends that his meaning onely was that since Images were used in the Christian Church they had always been opposed by those Jews and others I must then assure him that He deals most disingenuously and uses too much craft for an Honest Writer while He suppresses that in this account which could onely keep his Readers from believing a gross untruth If our Compiler would doe the Controversie about Image-Worship any true service and keep within his own bounds the Belief and Practice of the first five hundred years of the Church He must shew that for those five hundred years as well as since Images were not onely used but worshipped by the Christians in their Assemblies How unable either our Compiler or his Master Father Alexandre are to shew such a worship of Images then is hence apparent in that they are not able to produce any Authour for the first three hundred years of the Church that speaks of Images either used or worshipped in the Church of Christ during that space of time I know our Compiler quotes Tertullian d Nub. Test p. 160. N. Alex. Dissertatio 6. be in Sec. 8. p. 628. but He is very unhappy in it since all the world knows that know any thing of Antiquity that Tertullian was so a far from speaking of the use of Images or the Lawfulness of them among Christians or any people else that he was against the very art of painting and making Images and lookt upon it as utterly unlawfull and universally forbidden e Idolum tam fieri quam coli Deus prohibet Propter hanc causam ad eradicandam scilicet materiam Idololatriae Lex Divina proclamat Ne feceris Idolum conjungens neque similitudinem eorum quae in coelis sunt c. Toto mundo ejusmodi Artibus interdixit Servis Dei. Tert. de Idololat c. 14. Edit Franek by God and farther that place of Tertullian which our Compiler alludes to for he does not give us Tertullian's but his Master F. Alexandre's words speaks not of any Image but of a mere embleme engraven upon a Chalice As to the three Testimonies f Nub. Test p. 154 155. N. Alex. p. 627 624. about the Statue of our Saviour set up before her door by the Woman whom our Saviour cured of the Issue of Bloud our
Compiler might very well have spared them since Eusebius in the very next words to his account of it tells us g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 18. Edit Vales that it was through her heathenism that she did this and that upon the same ground the Painted Images of our Saviour and Peter and Paul were in many hands which a heathenish gratitude had taught some to make to shew their respect to them All the following Testimonies about the Transient Sign or Figures of the Cross used by Constantine the Great and afterwards h Nub. Test p. 155 156 157 c. N. Alex. in Panoplia Seculi septimi p. 67 68 69 70 76 71 64 65 77 78 c. are to no purpose since our Compiler cannot shew withall that they were worshipped if he could why did he not let him shew that as they used in Constantine's time the Figure of the Cross so They adored it let him shew that the Ancients did practise what the Church of Rome now does that They adored the Image of the Cross and which is far more according to themselves that Latria was paid to it which the Church of Rome now says i Crux Legati quia DEBETVR EI LATRIA erit à dextris c. Pontificale Romanum p. 480. col 1. Edit Romae 1611. is due to it That the Reader may see the direct contrary Practice betwixt the Church of God in those days and the Church of Rome at this present I will produce onely St. Ambrose's account of Helena the Mother of Constantine's finding at Jerusalem the Cross on which our Saviour was crucified He tells us k Invenit ergo Titulum REGEM ADORAVIT non LIGNUM utique quia hic GENTILIS est ERROR VANITAS IMPIORUM Ambros in Orat. de Obitu Theodosii T. 3. p. 61. Edit Erasm 1538. that upon her finding the Title by which she knew our Saviour's Cross from either of the other two She ADORED the KING of Heaven not THE WOOD OF THE CROSS which would have been in Helena and in it self is a PAGANISH ERROUR and the VANITY of the IMPIOUS By these words I question not but St. Ambrose meant that to have Adored the Cross would have been downright Idolatry and yet our Compiler hath furnished us in defence of Image-Worship with two or three Fathers which are of the opposite Opinion his St. Asterius Amasenus l Nub. Test p. 163 164. Nat. Alex. Panopl Sec. 7. p. 71. is so far from thinking it an Impious Vanity to adore the Cross that He if we may believe the Romish Writers and the second Synod at Nice for there is nothing of this Oration in Rubenius's Edition or in the Biliotheca Patrum of La Bigne says that Christians are COMMANDED by the LAW of GOD to ADORE the CROSS m Apparet Signum viz. Crucis Quod ex PRAESCRIPTO LEGIS Christiani ADORANT Asterius Orat. de S. Euphemia in Nubes Testium p. 164. We are very unhappy that we could never see this Command in the Law could we but see it or had St. Ambrose ever dreamt of such a Law neither He nor we would call Adoration of the Cross Idolatry but this of Asterius is too gross and too absurd to deserve a word of answer As Asterius said the Adoration of the Cross was commanded so Paulinus Nolanus another of our Compiler's Vouchers assures us n Nubes Testium p. 168 169. Nat. Alex. Panopl Sec. 7. p. 61 62. that it was practised yearly at Jerusalem when at every Easter the Bishop of that Church did produce the Cross on which our Saviour suffered and which was kept by Him to be ADORED by the People and his third Authour o 〈◊〉 Nubes Testium p. 172. Nat. Alex. Panopl Sec. 7. p. 66. Rusticus Diaconus to clear the Point tells us that the WHOLE CHVRCH throughout the WHOLE WORLD did without any Contradiction or Dispute ADORE the NAILS p Clavos Lignum venerabilis Crucis Omnis per totum mundum Ecclesia absque ulla contradictione-adorat Rust Diac. in Nubes Test p. 172. with which our Saviour was fastned as well as the WOOD of the HOLY CROSS on which He suffered I question not but every one that reads these passages will admire how things came to be so much altered or rather how St. Ambrose and this Paulinus who were Contemporaries for some time should give us such diametrically opposite accounts about the Adoration of the Cross I will onely desire the Reader that I may deliver him from his admiration to observe that Paulinus in this very Epistle tells us that the place from whence our Saviour ascended into Heaven could never after our Saviour's ascension be paved with Marble or any thing else but that the Earth threw it all off and that the footsteps of our Saviour are plainly to be seen there and which is a better Story that though the Bishops of Jerusalem did give an infinite number of the pieces of the Cross to Pilgrims and others who begged them of those Bishops yet that the Cross it self is to put it into our Compiler's translation nothing at all diminished but remains as entire as if never touch'd or mangled I hope this will give the Reader enough of Paulinus whose Epistle I have once read over but hope in God I never shall again As for Rusticus Diaconus I will return no other answer than that those who know any thing of the State and Practices of the Church for the first six Centuries know very well that what Rusticus says is not to speak softly the greatest Truth Though Paulinus Nolanus is not worth the vindicating yet I cannot but tell our Compiler that he wrongs Him very much when He says q Nubes Test p. 166 167. Nat. Alexan. Dissert 6. Sec. 8. p. 631. after F. Alexandre that the blessed Trinity was described in Mosaick work in a Church built by this Paulinus whereas there is no such thing mentioned by Paulinus there in that Epistle nor ought it or can it be gathered from the Verses set down by F. Alexandre and our Compiler since though the Son might be represented by a Lamb and the Holy Ghost by a Dove there was nothing to represent God the Father except these wise Gentlemen will have him represented by a Voice which is a little too odd and a Voice too hard a thing to be painted The rest of our Compiler's Testimonies within the first six Centuries prove no more than the use of r Nub. Test p. 160 163 164 165 172. Nat. Alexan. Dissert 6. Sec. 8. p. 629. 630 631 632 633. Painting in the Churches the Saints and the Martyrs Sufferings and some Scripture Histories all which is nothing to the purpose except he could prove which he is far from being able to doe that those that brought those Paints into the Churches were as carefull to worship them as the Church of Rome now is However we
must inform the Reader that as this Custome of having Paints and Images in the Churches was without any Command from Scripture and without any Example of the Church for the golden Ages thereof the first three hundred years so neither was it universal but met with great opposition In the beginning of the fourth Century the Council of Illebiris in Spain commanded that there should be no Pictures in any Church ſ Placuit Picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere Concil Eliberit can 36. in T. 1. Concil p. 974. and the Story of St. Epiphanius in the end of this Century is sufficiently known who coming by chance into a Church which had a Veil over the door painted with the Picture of our Saviour or some other Saint tore it to pieces and gives this reason for his doing so in his Letter to the Bishop of Jerusalem because t Cùm ergò hoc vidissem in Ecclesia Christi contra Autoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere Imaginem scidi illud c. Epiphan Ep. ad Joann Episc Hierosol apud Hieronymi Opera Tom. 2. p. 58. Edit Paris 1533. it was against Scripture to have the Picture or Image of any person hang in a Christian Church But afterwards Custome by degrees brought these Pictures into most Churches and the ignorant people began to worship and fell to adoring them in the sixth Century which one of the Bishops of the Church Serenus of Marseilles taking notice of broke down the Pictures and Images and cast them out of the Church This was taken notice of by Gregory the Great and though he would not have had him to have broken the Images yet v Et quidem Zelum vos nè quid manu factum adorari possit habuisse laudavimus sed frangere easdem Imagines non debuisse judicamus Greg. M. in Ep. 109. l. 7. Edit Frob. 1564. he commends his Zeal against their being worshipped I think his Authority sufficient to end this point of Controversie betwixt me and the Compiler He does in this Epistle fully declare himself that he would have the people kept by all means from giving any worship to Images and recommends onely an Historical Vse of them for the Ignorant * Tua ergò fraternitas illas servare ab earum ADORATV populum prohibere debuit Idem Ibidem He is of the same mind in his next Epistle to this same Bishop Serenus and though at this day in the Church of Rome Images are set up not onely for an Historical Vse but to be worshipped yet I am sure from his own Pen that Gregory the Great 's Doctrine was that Images were placed in the Churches for an Historical Vse onely and NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED x Frangi verò non debuit Quòd NON ad ADORANDVM in Ecclesiis sed ad instruendas SOLVMMODO mentes fuit Nescientium collocatum Idem Ep. 9. l. 9. and Gregory concludes his Directions to that Bishop that if any body would have an Image made He should not hinder it but for the paying Adoration to Images He should by all means hinder and forbid it and He advises him to admonish y Et si quis Imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe Adorare verò Imagines omnibus modis DEVITA Sed hoc sollicitè fraternitas tua admoneat ut ex visione rei gestae ardorem compunctionis percipiant in ADORATIONE SOLIVS OMNIPOTENTIS SANCTAE TRINITATIS humiliter prosternantur Idem Ibidem his Charge that upon the sight of those representations they would raise up in themselves sutable affections and with humility prostrate themselves to and pay all their Adoration to the OMNIPOTENT BLESSED TRINITY ALONE Such passages as this I have just mentioned to which I could add many more out of Antiquity do so much affect me that I cannot enough wonder at the Index Expurgatorius of the present Church of Rome z Index Libror Prohibit Expurgandorum p. 234. Edit Madriti 1667. which commands Solus Deus Adorandus to be struck out of the Marginal Notes of Humfredus's Latin Translation and Edition of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Comments upon Esaias a Cyrillus ex Vers Humfredi Basil 1566. p. 258. and out of the Marginal Notes in Robert Stephens Bible printed 1557. Serviendum Soli Deo * Index Expurg p. 99. whereas both these passages are the very words of our Saviour himself Matthew 4.10 I would fain know of any Romanist how this is not virtually and in effect to command that that Verse in the Gospel should be struck out though it contains our Saviour's own expressions who should surely be allowed to understand his own Religion as well as the Managers of the Index Expurgatorius And for what relates to the Cross it self they have b Index Expurg p. 47. col 2. ordered that non ut Adoremus not that we should Adore it should be struck out of Masius his Learned Commentary upon Joshua 22.28 These are things so very notorious that my wonder increases and my admiration at those people who notwithstanding all this would fain have us believe that they do not worship the Cross it self when not onely their PONTIFICAL and their SERVICE on Good-friday teach and shew that they of the Church of Rome adore the Cross but their Index Expurgatorius is so carefull to strike out of the Indexes to the Fathers Works any thing that doth but appear to thwart or contradict such worship If the Church of Rome doth not worship Images why is she so carefull to strike out c Index Expurg p. 311. of the Index to St. Hierome such innocent passages as these Adorare Statuas vel Imagines Cultores Dei non debent the Worshippers of God ought not to ADORE Statues or Images Imago una tantùm veneranda One onely Image to wit God the Son the express Image of his Father is to be worshipped Why doth the poor Index suffer here and not St. Hierome in whom d Nos autem unum habemus virum VNAM veneramur Imaginem quae est invisibilis omnipotentis Dei. D. Hier. in Ezek. l. 4. c. 16. these very expressions are If the Church of Rome give no Adoration to Saints or Angels why doth her Index Expurgatorius command such passages as these following to be struck out of e Index Expurg p. 52. the Index to St. Athanasius's Works Adorari solius Dei est nullius autem creaturae Adoration is to be paid to God alone and to no creature with him Angeli non sunt Adorandi Angels are not to be Adored Creatura nulla adoranda nulla invocanda immo eam adorare Arianorum Ethnicorum sit No creature is to be adored or invocated to adore which would be to play the Arian or the Pagan I would fain know why the Index to his Works must be dealt so severely with while Athanasius himself is guilty if there be any crime in them of every expression in the passages