Censuram Hungaricam Quatuor Propositionum Cleri Gallicanâ— p. 16. in Richerius's Vindiciae Doctrinae Majorum Scholae Parisiensis of Hungary that there is nothing so directly contrary to the most plain words of Scripture to the most evident Testimonies of the Fathers and the Practice of the whole Catholick Church for above a thousand years as the Doctrine of the Pope's having sole power in Judging Controversies of Faith so that I hope if I cannot those Authorities may convince our Compiler that he had better let this Testimony alone I will pass the two next Testimonies and tell our Compiler that as to the Council of Constantinople they did not submissively desire as our Compiler b Nub. Test p. 46. Nat. Alex. p. 306. and F. Alexandre do most falsly assert they did the Confirmation of their Decrees from Damasus Bishop of Rome there is nothing in this Epistle of Damasus to ground such a thing on and which is more it is certain that they did desire of the Emperour Theodosius c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prosphoneticus Concilii C. P nd Imper. Theodosio in T. 2. Concil p. 945. Edit Cossart who had convened this Council that H E would confirm their Decrees Thus I have gone through all the Testimonies collected by our Compiler and instead of answering the last to wit the Definition of the Council of Florence in the method I have done those hitherto I will conclude against it that as I have shewn above that there was no ground from Scripture nor Canon of the Vniversal Church that did in the least countenance what the Council of Florence did define concerning the Pope so neither doth any of the instances pickt up by our Compiler confirm or illustrate that Decree and therefore we have reason to say that the Pope's Supremacy had neither countenance nor being during the first five hundred years after our Saviour CHAP. III. Concerning Tradition SECT I. THE business of Tradition is that which our Compiler undertakes next to defend I cannot understand to what purpose He takes so much pains to tell us the Gnosticks Heresie with that of the Marcionites and Valentinians since I hope none of those Heresies are chargeable now upon us no not that worship of Images which was among the Gnosticks and is to be heard of in a Church now in the World We could wish all our Neighbours were as far from any thing bordering on those Heresies we do heartily desire that as they do not believe in Thirty Gods with the Valentinians so they were as far from having thrice thirty Objects of Religions Worship I heartily wish our Compiler had read that second Chapter of Saint Irenaeus his third Book against the Hereticks which he a Nubes Testium p. 48. Nat. Alex. Dissertatio decima sexta adversus Valentinianâ—â— c. in Par. secunda Seculi secundi p. 349. from F. Alexandre quotes to a very false purpose if either He or F. Alexandre himself had read this third Book of Irenaeus had read but this second Chapter nay more but the very Title of it our Compiler would not have talked so sillily about those Hereticks rejecting the received Doctrines and Practices of the Church because they pretended they were not in Scripture nor F. Alexandre b Nat. Alex. Ibidem p. 348. Praenotandum tertio hanc fuisse Veterum Haereticorum indolem ut solas ad Scripturas provocarent have put down such an egregious falshood as to say the Hereticks in defence of their Tenets appealed onely to Scripture when the very Title of this Chapter in Irenaeus tells us that the Hereticks would be ruled neither by Scripture nor Tradition in their Disputes with the Church * Quod neque Scripturis neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici Titulus c. 2. l. 3. Irenael adv Haereses I will set down here the beginning of the Chapter it self because it is so like the prattle of a sort of people now in the World who would be very angry to be called Hereticks When says Irenaeus c Cùm enim ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum quasi non rectè habeant neque sint ex authoritate quia variè sint dictae quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesci ant Traditionem Non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem D. Irenaeus adv Haereses l. 3. c. 2. Edit Fevardent you argue against these Hereticks from the Scriptures themselves they quickly fall to accusing them that They are not right that they are not of Authority a Romanist would have added without our Church's approbation that things are set down variously and that there is no finding the Truth out of them by those who are ignorant of Tradition since It was delivered by Word of mouth not by Writing But to proceed to his new point of Controversie d Nubes Test p. 48. Nat. Alexan. p. 351. our Compiler tells us that the Fathers maintain that the Tradition of the Catholick Church is to be received and that Her Constitutions and Practices are not to be rejected though not found expresly in Scripture How loose a Writer our Compiler is the World hath been sufficiently informed by the Answers to his other pieces in this point He is resolved to act the same person while he so gingerly puts down part of the Debate betwixt us and suppresses the rest of it To state therefore the Controversie about Tradition if there really be any betwixt us He should not have put down that for the account of the Debate herein betwixt us which is agreed to by both sides nor should have omitted that wherein we really disagree and that is about the Scriptures being a certain and perfect Rule of Faith without the help of Tradition which the Council of Trent hath made to be of Equal Authority with the Scripture What our Compiler hath set down is no Controversie betwixt us since we do declare that the Tradition of the Catholick Church is to be received we do own that by This we received the Holy Scriptures and know how to separate the Scriptures from Apocryphal or Supposititious Writings and we profess also that we are willing and ready to receive any Doctrine not written that hath as perpetual unanimous and certain a Tradition as the Doctrines written in Scripture have that we onely wait for their proving that any of those Doctrines they would obtrude upon us have been thus Vniversally delivered so that herein is no Controversie betwixt us and if by Constitutions our Compiler means those about Matters of Discipline and Government and by Practices the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church He knows or least ought to know that it is the Doctrine of our Church that there is no necessity of express Scripture for the Constitutions and Practices which she enjoins in order to the more regular and decent service of God. So that here
prove and this is what we demand that they would shew us from the Writings of the Fathers that the Invocation of Saints and Worship of them and their Reliques was the Practice of the Vniversal Church in the first second third and fourth Ages of the Church the Practice of the Three first Centuries is that which they know we so much value and insist upon and therefore always demand Evidences thence of any Doctrine or Practice when Tradition was certainly freshest in their Memories and the Fathers in best capacity of knowing the sense of Scriptures and of the Apostles Our Compiler will not be the man serviceable to us in such demands As to honouring the Saints in observing days in honour of them he knows we doe it and therefore needed not to bring passages from the latter end of the fourth Century and the fifth d Nub. Test p. 63 64 c. N. Alex. Disser 5. in Panoplia in Par. 2. Sec. 5. p. 279 281 283 c. to prove it was then practised in the Church he might very easily have shewn such a Practice from the first Ages of the Church But I will pass on to Invocation of Saints and see whether He shews this to have been the Practice of the Three first Centuries and so on and here Alas his Authorities fail him and he is not able to produce us one for his passages from St. Cyprian and Origen e Nub. Test p. 67. N. Alex. p. 305. do onely prove what is generally piously believed that the glorified Saints do intercede for the Church Militant and the two next f Nub. Test p. 68. N Alex. p. 308. from the fourth Century prove no more But what is this to Invocation of Saints is there no difference betwixt our praying to them and their interceding for us The next Authority from Nazianzen g Nub. Test p 69. N. Alex. p. 309. cannot doe it since all know this to be a Rhetorical Apostrophe and his other Orations shew that this thing of addressing their discourse or wishes to the Saints was now but in its infancy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his third Oration against Julian addressing himself to Constantius does invincibly prove that it was far from being a settled belief then that the Saints could hear or perceive requests put up to them nor does any of his following Authorities h Nub. Test p. 70 71 c. N. Alex. p. 311 312 c. from Gregory Nyssen Chrysostome Ambrose prove any more than an interpellation or Request to the Saints that they would do that which they did believe they were always a doing that is praying for the distressed here on earth none of his Testimonies proceed so far as to prove any formal Prayers like those now used in the Church of Rome they look much liker the Requests from Equals or familiar Friends let but any one compare the Speech of Gregory Nyssen for example i Nub. Test p. 70. where he applies himself to Theodorus the Martyr with the Devotions of the present Church of Rome to the Saints and he will easily see the great difference betwixt the Prayers used now during Divine Service and the Requests then made in their Orations So that we of the Church of England are still where we were notwithstanding our Compiler we dare not practise Invocation of Saints because we believe Prayer or Religious Invocation to be peculiar to God alone who will not give his Glory k Isa 42.8 to any other who in any of our necessities hath directed us to call upon him l Psal 50.15 and hath promised that he will deliver us we believe our blessed Saviour knew his Father's mind better than all the men in the World who ordered his Disciples and us by them to put up our Prayers to Our Father not to this or that Saint that is in Heaven We do not follow the latter Ages of the Church in their Interpellations to Saints because as we are sure that they had not Scripture to ground their Practice upon so we are as certain that they had not the Example of the first Ages to guide them into such Practices But we are farthest of all from joyning with the present Church of Rome which hath turned the Interpellations and Requests used to Saints in the fifth and sixth Centuries into formal Prayers and Services and hath put her Prayers to them into the most solemn parts of her Devotions into her Litany for instance so that if we could not admit of using such Requests to Saints because groundless and without Example we have far more reason to reject Invocation and solemn Prayers to Saints as Superstitious since it is against Scripture and against the Practice of the three first Centuries of the Church against a Council in the fourth Century and wants a Pattern even in the fifth and sixth and hath no example in any of the places produced by our Compiler on this head This is sufficient to shew that what our Compiler hath produced from the End of the fourth and from the fifth Century does not defend or reach up to the present Practices of the Church of Rome in this point since there is so great a difference betwixt Interpellations put up in Rhetorical Orations and Homilies and Prayers used in the very Litanies themselves betwixt Requests not put up in the Liturgies of the Church nor commanded any where in Antiquity for those first five hundred years of the Church and Prayers formally put into the Liturgies of the Church of Rome and as strictly commanded to be used by all her members In Origen's time we are sure that the Doctrine of the Church was that no worship nor adoration nor consequently no Invocation was to be paid to Angels m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Angelos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen contr Celsum l. 5. p. 233. Edit Cantabr because all prayer supplication intercession and thanksgiving was to be offered up to God Almighty by the high Priest our Lord Jesus Christ and it was lookt upon as an absurd thing to invocate Angels or Saints for the same reason holds for both who had no knowledge of the particular affairs of men As this was the Doctrine of the third Century so as soon as Invocation of Angels began to take root in some parts of the Church in the fourth Age the Council of Laodicea which was confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon in her 35th Canon did command that no Christians should leave the Church of God and go and Invocate Angels and did anathematize any that n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 35. Conc. Laodicen p. 53. in Bibliotheca Juris Canonici Veteris Edit Justel 1661. should be guilty of this secret Idolatry and did interpret it to be a forsaking of Christ I cannot but observe upon this Canon that Theodoret interpreting the eighteenth verse o Quocirca Synodus quoque quae convenit Laodiceae
that should we compare the Writers which wrote for that Doctrine which Berengarius afterwards taught with those that wrote against him all Learned Men will grant that Berengarius had vastly the advantage of his Adversaries since those who wrote for his Doctrine against Paschasius did so far excell in Learning those that did oppose him since the Scotus's the Rhathramn's and the Rabanus's were men of infinite more worth and learning than the Adelman's the Durand's and the Lanfrank's the last of whom tells the formal silly story about two Heresies e Lanfran de Euch. Sacr. in Tom. 6. Biblioth PP p. 203 204. Edit 1624. started about the Flesh of the Son of Man which the Sacramental Bread was to be converted into and makes the Council of Ephesus to have been procured for the suppression of those two Heresies which is such a forged and ridiculous piece of stuff as shews what learned Adversaries Berengarius was like to have when the most learned of them all is guilty of such ignorance It is not worth while to confute either Lanfrank's or any of the other Authour's Arguments against Berengarius set down by our Compiler he knows we do not derive our Doctrine from Berengarius and he might know would he consult our Protestant Writers that we have evidently shewn that Berengarius was no starter of a new Doctrine but that what Berengarius stood up for in the Eleventh Century had always been the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and this some of his own Church are so far satisfied of that One of them who is said to be a person of very great note in France at present did but the other day shew in an historical manner that the Belief of our Church concerning the blessed Eucharist was the Belief of the Catholick Church for a thousand years after Christ and that we ought not to be obliged to believe their Transubstantiation since it wanted what they themselves made necessary for any Catholick Doctrine at the Council of Trent the Tradition to wit of the Church of all Ages Setting then aside their objecting to us Berengarius in the Eleventh Century and our objecting to them Paschasius Radbertus in the Ninth Century whose opinion was so learnedly and so invincibly baffled by the famous Rhathramn assoon as it made any stir in the World let us pass on to that which we both so eagerly contend for in this point the Sentiments and Doctrines of the first six Centuries about the Eucharist I think the Controversie might be sufficiently determined from Scripture it self where the Eucharist is so often noted by Breaking of Bread in the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul does so often call it Bread after Consecration but since our Compiler waves all proofs from Scripture and appeals to the Doctrine and Belief of the Primitive Fathers of the first six hundred years I am very willing to attend his Motions and to join issue with him herein The Question betwixt our Church and theirs may be stated in a very few words it is not whether Christ's Body be really present in the Eucharist which he knows we declare to be our Opinion since we believe that the consecrated Elements do by the appointment of God communicate to every faithfull Receiver the Body and Bloud of Christ but the real debate betwixt us is whether the Bread and Wine upon Consecration are transubstantiated into that very Body and Bloud of Christ which was nailed and poured out upon the Cross or in other words whether after Consecration there is no other Substance there but the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ This they of the Church of Rome affirm and this is what our Compiler must prove to have been the Belief and Doctrine of the first six hundred years if he intends to convince us Our Compiler hath amassed together so great a number of Testimonies upon this point with which he fills up forty pages that should I oblige my self to a particular Examination of every one of his Testimonies it would make a book as large as all I shall gather against his whole Treatise I will therefore to shorten my task but much more to deliver my Reader from a tedious repetition of the same Answers to those Testimonies which speak onely over again what was said before answer those that are of most moment and Authority and refer the rest unto the same classes with them He is very carefull to follow his Guide Natalis Alexandre out of whom he transcribes every syllable of his Testimonies for forty pages together except two small passages out of St. Austin which do not occur as far as I have observed in that long Dissertation yet is so cunning very often to curtail those parts of the Testimonies which he thought I suppose did speak too broad against them SECT II. The Compiler a Nub. Testium p. 109. Nat. Alex in Par. 3. Sec. 11 12. Dissertatio 12. p. 476. and his Guide also begin with St. Ignatius who is quoted bringing in the reason why the Hereticks abstained from Communion because they did not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ I have sufficiently answered this passage in my Preface by turning it upon my late Adversary from the Authority of Irenaeus b eum PANEM in quo gratiae actae sint CORPVS esse DOMINI SVI Iren. adv Haer. l. 4. c. 34. who explains the Eucharistia here by Bread which had been blessed and Origen c Orig. contra Celsum l. 8. who speaks of the Christians having a Bread which was called Eucharistia so that we say that the Eucharist or Blessed Bread is the Flesh of Jesus Christ but that this must be figuratively onely since Bread can no otherwise be the Body of Christ and Bread still at the same time The second Testimony from Ignatius falls in with the first so that I must pass to our Compiler's next d Nubes Test p. 110. Nat. Alex. p. 479. from Justin Martyr the strength of which lyes onely in his saying they were taught that the consecrated food was the Flesh and Bloud of Jesus Christ We have already granted that it is however to corroborate what we said above it is evident to a demonstration that this consecrated Food was still Bread and not transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ because St. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΞἩΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΤΠΕ ΦΟÎΤΑΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apolog. 2. p. 98. Edit Paris 1636. Justin says at the same time and in the same sentence that our bodies are NOVRISHED by that very consecrated Food to affirm which of the Natural Flesh of Christ is impious and detestable St. Jrenaeus f Nubes Testium p. 111. Nat. Alex. p. 485 486 487. must be answered in the same way since when he says that the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup his Bloud he does also tell us g Sic nostra
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
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
again He sees we are agreed and therefore what he hath put down here as a Point at present under debate betwixt us is really none at all But if He mean here Constitutions of Points of Faith necessary to Salvation let him undertake to produce Fathers when he pleases for that point and I do here promise him an Answer what He hath collected under this head are not to that purpose For as to his two e Nubes Test p. 48 49. Nat. Alexan. p. 358-360 first Authorities from Irenaeus they are taken out of that very book wherein St. Irenaeus as he tells him who put him upon writing against the Valentinians undertook to confute that Heresie from f In hoc autem tertio Libro ex SCRIPTVRIS inferamus ostensiones ut nihil tibi ex his quae praeceperas desit à nobis Iren. Pref. in Lib. 3. adv Haeres the Scriptures themselves I wish some in the World would but imitate him and not be angry at us for being solicitous and earnest for the same Method In this Book Irenaeus takes notice of the extravagant humour of the Hereticks that they would be confined to no Rule nor submit either to Scripture or Tradition g D. Iren. l. 3. c. 2. By Tradition here this Father meant the preaching of the Christian Faith and the Delivery of the Apostles Creed h Hanc praedicationem cùm acceperit hanc fidem Ecclesia diligenter custodit consonanter haec praedicat o docet tradit quasi unum possidens os D. Iren. adv Haer. l. 1. c. 3. every Article of which is expressy contained in the Holy Scriptures so that this cannot be of any service to them since both sides agree that the Creed is but a Summary of the Holy Scriptures which Creed he says was unanimously without any variation believed taught and delivered from hand to hand in every Church There is a passage in this third Chapter urged indeed by F. Alexandre k Nat. Alex. p. 359. but more prudently omitted by our Compiler which I think may with abundance of reason be turned upon the Romanists by us in all points of Controversie betwixt us as well as it was by St. Irenaeus against the Hereticks of his time He arguing against them that there were no Bishops in the World that either taught or knew of any such things as they held urges them with this argument That if the Apostles had known of any such hidden Mysteries l Etenim si recondita Mysteria scissent Apostoli quae seorsim latenter ab reliquis Perfectos docebant His vel maximè traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant Valde enim perfectos irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse quos Successores relinquebant c. St. Iren. c. Haer. l. 3. c. 3. which they were to teach the Perfect onely in private and unknown to the rest of their Disciples they would most likely have delivered them to those to whom they committed those Churches they had planted inforcing it with this reason because they certainly would be very desirous that those to whom they left their Churches and their Episcopal Charge should be very perfect and irreprovable in all things which they could not be if they wanted those secret Mysteries the Hereticks did pretend to And in the same manner may we urge against the Church of Rome that if the Apostles had known of such things as Purgatory Praying to Saints and the Lawfulness of Worshipping Images and the like they would certainly either have put them down in their own Writings or would have delivered them to those to whom they left their Charges that so we might have seen and heard of these things among them as frequently and as unanimously as we do of the Tradition of the Apostles Creed But to return and put a short Answer to these Quotations the Tradition here spoken of was about the Apostles Creed the Tradition here is what the Apostles had preached and what the Apostles preached is the very same that they afterwards by the Will of God and the Request of Christians as Eusebius m Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. for example does inform us about three of the Gospels committed to Writing This is what Irenaeus himself says particularly in the first Chapter of this Book n Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos Quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postea verò per Dei voluntatem in SCRIPTVRIS nobis TRAVIDERVNT Fundamentum Columnam Fidei nostrae futurum St. Iren. adv Haer. l. 3. c. 1. that we had no other knowledge of the Oeconomy of our Salvation than by the Labours of those by whom we first received the Gospel which Gospel indeed at first They DELIVERED by PREACHING but afterwards by the Will and Appointment of God committed It to WRITING that IT might be the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith and so of our Salvation If those Divine Writings be of that Efficacy as to found and stablish us in the True Faith thither in God's name let us have recourse and learn what the Apostles taught by what they writ We have not the least ground or intimation from this Father of any Doctrines necessary to Salvation not written or forgotten to be penned by the Apostles among the rest We have his Opinion directly against any such secret Traditions In a word if it were God's Will that the Apostles should commit to writing the same Word of Salvation that they had preached I cannot see how it should come to pass that some part of it should be written and another not If it were all written I am sure our Compiler is besides the Cushion and the whole Church of Rome as much What I have said here is not onely answer sufficient for what is out of Irenaeus but for the two next Testimonies from Origen o Nubes Test p. 50 51. Nat. Alexan. p. 365 366. the latter of which speaking so very honourably of the Scriptures is a very unfit one for the Church of Rome's purpose and would have been omitted had either F. Alexandre or our Compiler read the whole Tract they so readily quote The last from Origen p Nubes Test p. 51. Nat. Alex. p. 366. and those from Tertullian q Nubes Test p. 52. Nat. Alex. p. 367. relate onely to Ecclesiastical Rites as for Tertullian's not disputing with the Hereticks from Scripture r Nubes Test p. 54. Nat. Alex. p. 369. it was not from the Imbecillity of Scriptures for such purposes but upon other accounts one of which was that they had nothing to doe with the Scriptures all the World knows the Reverence Tertullian had for the Fulness and Sufficiency of the Scriptures to all purposes when ſ Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina Si non est scriptum
timeat Vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum Tertull. advers Hermogen c. 22. He said he adored the Fulness of the Scripture and bids Hermogenes to have a care of the Woe denounced against those that added or took any thing away from Scripture if he could not shew that what he taught was to be found in the Scriptures And the same We can shew of St. Basil who as he does plead Tradition without express Scripture for the Practices and Constitutions of the Church with the rest of the Fathers as our Compiler hath quoted him t Nubes Test p. 55 56. Nat. Alexan. p. 375 376 377. so he is as earnest as any of the Fathers for the Sufficiency and Authority of the Written Word as to Matters of Faith and in his Sermon about True Faith u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Basil Sermo de vera Fide T. 2. p. 251. declares it to be a manifest deviation from Faith and a sign of Pride either to reject any part of the Scriptures or to add to them since Christ had told us that his Sheep would hear his voice and not a Stranger 's Our Compiler is very exact in his next quotation and * Nubes Test p. 57. Nat. Alexan. p. 377. gives us book and page but instead of thanking him we must thank F. Alexandre who help'd him to them but should have remembred himself to have quoted Oration instead of Book the place from Gregory Nyssen however might have been spared since the Tradition he speaks of is that of the Apostles and Evangelists and That we are sure was written in the Scriptures but allowing this Tradition to be an unwritten one it is not about a point of Faith but the Interpretation of it wherein we allow the Tradition of Antiquity to be highly usefull and necessary The first Authority from Epiphanius x Nub. Test p. 58. N. Alex. p. 351. is not against us who do not require express Scripture for every custome but admit of Tradition as Authority sufficient in such a case and in his next all that he contends for is that it was a Tradition of the Church to pray for the dead and y Nub. Test p. 58. N. Alex. p. 378. that the Holy Ghost did teach partly by the written word and partly by Tradition which last part of his words if it be stretched to speak of matter of Faith is more than can be allowed to Epiphanius since the first Fathers teach the direct contrary as I could have shewn from Tertullian and others as well as I did from Irenaeus St. Austin's places z Nub. Test p. 59 60. N. Alex. p. 380 381 382 383. as relating to Ecclesiastical Practices and Constitutions are answered above that from Vincentius Lirinensis relates to the same the last from St. Chrysostome * Nub. Test p. 61. N. Alex. p. 354. speaks of the times of the Apostles themselves whose Preachings as well as Writings were the very same did proceed from the same Holy Spirit and therefore were of equal Authority and for what he adds about the Tradition of the Church that when it is offered to us we should enquire no farther it does certainly refer onely to Practices and Customs of the Church since as to matters of a higher nature to wit those that concern our Faith and Salvation He makes Scripture-Authority absolutely necessary and teaches us not to say any thing of our own heads without the Testimony of the Sacred Inspired Writers for this very reason †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrys Hom. in Ps 95. p. 1042. Tom. 3. Edit Ducaei because if we affirm or say any thing without having the Authority of Scripture for it the understandings of our Auditors waver one while assenting another while doubting one while rejecting our discourse as frivolous another while admitting it but as probable at most but when once we produce the Written Testimony of God's Word we confirm our own discourse and fix and settle the Vnderstanding of the Auditors I hope our Compiler when he hath read this will have another notion concerning the Authority of Tradition We do admit it as to Discipline and Practice with the Primitive Fathers but as to points of Faith and Doctrines of necessity to Salvation we do require with them the Written Testimony of the Word of God or an Vniversal uninterrupted Tradition as clear as that by which we receive the Scriptures themselves CHAP. IV. Concerning Invocation of Saints SECT I. HOW little the Church of Rome is able to produce Vniversal Tradition for those points of Controversie which we at present contend about is what our Compiler's next head comes now to shew That there is no foundation in Scripture no command for nor Practice of Invocation of Saints or paying any Religious Worship to them or their Reliques is what they are forced to grant they must then have recourse to Tradition and shew us from that what they were not able to doe from Scripture it self that the Church of God always practised and taught such a Worship of Saints and Reliques as the Church of Rome doth now teach and practise Our Compiler begins this point with an account of the Heresie of Vigilantius as F. Alexandre calls it this account he hath borrowed out of that Fathers a In Par. 1. Sec. 5. c. 3. p. 50 51 c. account of the Heresie of Vigilantius and every syllable of the Testimonies under this head for above twenty pages together out of the same Friend b Dissertat 5. in Panoplia adv Haereses Sect. 5. in Par. 2. Seculi quinti. He tells us that in the beginning of the fourth Century Vigilantius began to teach his pestilent Doctrines but this is a mistake of our Compiler who hath placed Vigilantius here by the same figure that he puts Damasus and Julius c Append. to Nub. Test p. 191. in the Third Century Victor in the first and Aerius exactly in the middle of the same Century Vigilantius lived in the beginning of the fifth Century when the quarrel betwixt him and St. Hierome began we are not at all concerned in this quarrel any farther than to stand by that Doctrine and those Practices which were most agreeable to the Scriptures the Foundation of Faith. The Differences betwixt us and the Church of Rome in these points are so well known that I need spend no time about shewing wherein they are it is sufficient to advertise that they of that Church teach and practise the putting up prayers to Saints and Angels paying Religious Worship to them prostrating themselves before Reliques and the like every one of which we refuse upon reasons which from Scripture and the purest Antiquity seem invincible to us The Church of Rome will have what she teaches and practises in these things to have been the Constant Practice and Original Tradition of the Whole Church of Christ and this is the thing which lies upon them to
Let us now see whether our Compiler can shew us the Practice of the Church to be contrary to what we have here set down and whether he can shew that the Primitive Church did use those Acts of Worship those Prostrations and Kissings those Processions and Resorts to them for Cures and Assistence in Distresses which are now the ordinary stated Practices in the Church of Rome during the three first Centuries which He knows we always insist upon and demand as the surest Witnesses of the Doctrines and Practices of the Apostles and the Church from the beginning Our Compiler is not able to produce even one Instance of any Reliques of Saints treasured up in order to cure Maladies or be prostrated unto but that he may not appear quite destitute of a Testimony from those purest Ages of the Church he brings us in the old Chair of St. James Bishop of Jerusalem but how comes this to be the Relique of that Saint were St. James and his Chair * Nub. Test p. 75. N. Alex. p. 231. so near a-kin as to be both of a piece the world is very low with such people when they are forc'd to bring in old Chairs instead of the Saints Bodies or any parts of them but let it pass for a sort of a Relique does it appear from Eusebius out of whom the quotation is brought that the Christians then worshipped it carried it about in solemn Processions or that it was resorted to for Cures or that it did any great Cures This our Compiler should have shewn and without it I must tell him that this is worse than trifling because we are now about the Defence of the present Practices of the Church of Rome by shewing that the Primitive Church practised the same But F. Alexandre told him and he doth tell us that the Faithfull of the Church of Jerusalem did shew great Reverence to this Chair 't is true Valesius his Translation which Father Alexandre follows here though Christopherson is his man at other times says this but the Mischief is Eusebius himself does not what Eusebius says is that the faithfull at Jerusalem were wont and to that day did shew to all Comers the x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. Chair it self which St. James sate Bishop in which I think is pretty different from Valesius his translation about shewing great reverence to the Chair it self as to the Honour they then payed to the Memories of the Saints themselves it was but what was highly just and that wherein they are imitated by us as well as any other Christians His next Testimony from St. Cyril y Nub. Test p. 75. Nat. Alex. p. 232. of Jerusalem is so far from being for them that I think it may and ought to rise up as a Witness against them for when God had given such a virtue to the bones of Elisha as to raise a dead man and when that Miracle was wrought by God's permission can our Compiler shew or dare any of his Church pretend to doe it that the Jewish Church did thereupon take up and enshrine the Prophets bones that they appointed Processions to them or did command the Worship of prostration or kissing to be paid to them or that they used to frequent his Monument for the same or like Miracles This they ought to reflect upon and to consider how far the Scriptures are from mentioning or the Jewish Church from practising any religious and superstitious addresses to those bones notwithstanding so extraordinary a Miracle effected by them How happy had it been for the Christian Church if Christians had kept within the same bounds and not given such a helping hand to the Superstitions and Idolatries of after ages by their hunting out and searching so much for the Ashes and Remains of the Servants of God some of whom had been buried above a thousand years before This therefore we must grant to the Members of the Church of Rome that Superstition taking root in the end of the fourth Century of the Church a great part of Religion began to be placed in searching for Martyrs bones in building Churches where they found or fixed them especially when they found that God was pleased at those places I dare not say by those ashes and bones to work Miracles upon which they did pay an Honour to those Reliques but that they did worship them as they now do in the Church of Rome is what themselves so often deny St. Hierome z Nos autem non dico Martyrum Reliquias sed nè Solem quidem non Angelos non Archangelos colimus adoramus D. Hieron adv Vigilant ad Riparium in particular who contended so earnestly for them with Vigilantius Had the Church of Rome stayed here and not proceeded so much farther in these things I do not see that we could have broken Communion with them upon such an account and therefore I need not examine by retail his Testimonies from the latter end of the fourth and fifth Centuries the design of which he himself makes onely to prove that the Fathers kept the Reliques of Saints with Respect and Veneration and believed that God often wrought Miracles by them which we do grant the Fathers of those latter ages did and might doe it too as long as they kept as they said of themselves that they always did from paying Religious Worship unto them but we say withall that what the Christians of those Ages did about these things does no ways defend the present Extravagancies of the Church of Rome the excesses wherein about Reliques are come to that Scandalous height as to make the learned men of their own Church ashamed of them As to the Practice of the Church of England which inquires not after nor is solicitous about the Reliques of Saints this may be said in her Defence that she finds no Practice or Command about any such searching after the bones of the Dead in any part of Scripture of either Testament but that their whole care then was to commit them to their Sepulchres in hopes of a future Resurrection and never to disturb their Ashes and therefore she thinks it must needs be her greatest commendation that she is more carefull to imitate what she finds written and practised in the Scriptures themselves than to imitate what the fourth Age of the Church began to practise when the Church of Christ was near four hundred years old The Holy Scriptures themselves are the Rule of her Faith and for any Apostolical Practices she inquires among them who lived with the Apostles or nearest to them among whom finding nothing of any searching for Reliques or any Miracles done by them in those first three hundred years she is resolved to practise what the Christians of those first and purest Ages did rather than what after-ages did wherein plenty and prosperity let loose the reins to some peoples fancies and made that a part of Religion which was
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