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
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus An Answer to the Compiler of the Nubes Testium c. Octob. 11. 1687. Hen. Maurice Rmo in Christo P.D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscopo Cant. a Sacris AN ANSWER TO THE COMPILER OF THE Nubes Testium Wherein is shewn That ANTIQUITY in relation to the Points of Controversie set down by Him did not for the first five hundred years Believe Teach or Practise As the Church of Rome doth at present Believe Teach and Practise Together with a Vindication of the VETERES VINDICATI From the late weak and disingenuous Attempts Of the Author of Transubstantiation Defended By the Author of the Answer to Mr. Sclater of Putney LONDON Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard 1688. THE Introduction WHen I first entertained the thoughts of answering this Collection of Nubes Testium I must confess that I could not begin the doing it without some aw and dread of the Author thereof I was so affraid of encountering with a man of those parts and learning he was said to be of that I was for leaving the answering his book to men of equal parts and learning And I was very fearful of medling with the man who wrote the best book that ever was writ or ever would be written for their cause as a Learned young Squire was pleased to say of his Papist Misrepresented and Represented not knowing but this Nubes Testium might be the Second best book in the world and therefore too gigantick for me to grapple with But I took courage notwithstanding such a Character of the Author and lookt upon the Squires Saying as one of his Complements to his New Church and that Honour and Hopes were things so surprizing and dazeling to his Worship that 't is no wonder they made him speak something becoming his New Great self for as to that Book of Representations and Misrepresentations every body saw but those who were resolved to wink hard that his excellent Answerer hath sufficiently exposed that book and shewn how much more of paint and cunning than of Solidity and Sincerity was to be seen in it and for this Book under my hands I question not but that I have let the Reader see that it is the true second part of the Representer who hath served Antiquity and the Primitive Fathers in this Nubes just as he did in his other book the Church of England and her present or late Writers For the Matter and Authorities out of which this book is made up One would have believed that a Man who had presented the world with so large a Collection was very conversant in those Fathers he here makes use of and for my part I should have had such an opinion of him could he but have kept his own Councel a little better and not have brag'd that the Latin of his Authorities was out of (a) Preface to Nubes Testium near the end of it such Editions as are most authentick But when I came to examine things I quickly perceived to say no worse of it that this Collector said more than he knew since the present French Historian Natalis Alexandre out of whom this whole Nubes Testium excepting a very few passages is wholly stole does not acquaint his Reader that I can observe what Editions of the Fathers he makes use of And reason good since I believe he saw very little more than our Compiler the Fathers themselves but did very fairly take upon trust And which is more F. Alexandre tells his Reader in his Preface to his first volume that he makes use of Christophersons Translation of Eusebius's History which the Men of this age I am sure do not believe to be the most Authentick If our Compiler for he that steals a whole book without once mentioning whence he had it deserves no better a title of the Nubes Testium do there is no help for it It was by remembring this last passage in Natalis's Preface and comparing it with our Compilers Brag about his Editions of the Fathers being the most authentick that I came to discover our Compilers haunts and found him to be the greatest Plagiary that has appeared I believe on the Stage in these times I will not trouble my self to prove this charge upon him here since I do it abundantly in my Answer it self where I follow him from passage to passage and shew not onely the book but the very pages in Natalis Alexandre from whence he steals But I have a much worse thing to lay to our Compilers charge here than the Ungrateful Plagium it self and it is That he hath stole this Nubes Testium out of an Author every one of whose Volumes that are made use of by our Compiler had been condemned to the flames two years before and forbidden by the supream Authority in this Church I cannot but look upon this as a great instance of our Compilers Sincerity In his Papist Misrepresented and Represented He gives this Character of his Papist That he is one who is ready to behave (b) Papist Misrepr Repr c. 18. p. 22. himself towards his Chief Pastor the Pope with all Reverence and submission never scrupling to receive his Decrees and Definitions such as are issued forth by his Authority with all their due Circumstances and according to the Law in the Concern of the whole Flock and this whether He the Pope has the Assistance of a Divine Infallibility or no c. Here our Compiler did not characterize himself nor is this I am sure any Picture of his for notwithstanding all this smooth discourse in that Chapter about the Pope He does in this book act directly contrary to it F. Alexandre's books to the twelvth Century inclusively were ordered to be examined and the Pope committed the examination of them to some of his Cardinals joyning with them some peculiar Divines who together did agree unanimously that F. Alexandre's books deserved to be prohibited and condemned upon this the Pope did not only by his Breve condemn those Books but did forbid the keeping as well as reading of them did inhibit all the faithful of what condition or state soever under the pain of excommunication immediately incurred the Printing TRANSCRIBING READING or VSING ALL or ANY of THOSE BOOKS and yet our Compiler had the Courage notwithstanding the Excommunication denounced and incurred by him not onely to KEEP and TO READ but to PRINT TO TRANSCRIBE and TO MAKE VSE OF SOME of THOSE CONDEMNED BOOKS I cannot see how our Compiler will answer this his contempt and this seems to be a tryal of skil betwixt the Pope and Him about Infallibility if the Pope be Infallible as I believe our Compiler used to think (c) See for this his 18th chap. concerning the Pope in his Papist Misrepres and Repres him then our Compiler is in a miserable condition but if our Compiler be the Infallible as He had need to be that acted thus point-blank against the
Champion of the Protestant Cause and derides my next words about my saying this matter and argument was so demonstrative that I could not but stand amazed that Men who pretend to reason could refuse it as if what he had said had fully answered the demonstration as he calls it when as he had not the face to say one word to the latter and stronger part of it This is just as if one in the Schools could say Nego minorem to the first Syllogism of his opponent and not one Syllable to the following Syllogisms wherein the Argument it brought to a Head and yet brag that he had not onely answered but exposed his Opponent And so he deals with me about my Remarks upon this thing I observed that tho' our Saviour did not say plainly This Bread is my Body yet he said according to St. Luke and St. Paul This CUP is the new Testament in my Blood which passage I thought and said did fully determine that the Bread was as much meant in the This is my Body as the Cup was in the This is my Blood in St. Matthew and St. Mark. This the Answerer will not allow but goes as weakly to work about disproving as any Adversary could wish He begins with an excellent Observation that the word This in the Proposition This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood is joyned to the word Cup by a known Figure I will lay him all I shall be worth this year that there is never a Schoolmaster in this City can tell me by what Figure it is that THIS is joyned to Cup and for my part I have forgot my Rhetorick as well as Logick if there be such a Figure And am affraid it is some Metaphysical not Rhetorical Figure But to leave this ridiculous stuff what he would say is that by this Cup is meant That which is contained in the Cup And pray who ever denyed this and how does this disprove me His only business is to bewilder himself I brought that plain passage in St. Paul This Cup to determine what was meant by the THIS in the Obscure one in St. Matthew He is for carrying it back and for illustrating the plain Text by the obscure one which is such a sottish sort of management as will perplex Controversy to eternity and make every thing alike obscure His further Answer is that if we explain the words This Cup c. to mean This Wine is my Blood as it most certainly ought to be then the words in this sense will be contrary to the Rules of Humane discourse as he says he shews p. 33 34. of his Book I have looked there and desire every one else that hath a mind to read two or three Pages about nothing I will onely answer that our sense of the words is onely contrary to his Rules of Discourse and that since He was not the Master of Language to our Saviour to teach him how to express himself we will be ruled by our Saviour's words and the phrase of the Eastern Nations when our Saviour conversed in the world and not by this pragmatical Master of Mataphysical Ceremonies He hath had enough of this Remark and therefore lets the other pass quietly wherein I observed that as our Saviour after Consecration called the Wine the Fruit of (c) Matth. 26.29 the Vine so St. Paul does not less than three times call the Bread after Consecration Bread. I have promised in my Book and therefore should have shewn here against my Adversary that not onely our Saviour's and the Apostles expressions cannot be understood otherwise than to mean by THIS the Bread but that St. Ignatius and Justin Irenaeus and Origen and twenty other Fathers do say of Bread that It is the Body of Christ which it cannot be any otherwise than in a figurative sense but since I am told I shall have occasion to wade deeper into this Controversy I shall reserve it for a further opportunity if the Superiours have a mind to have the Antiquary of Putney set forth once more in his true Colours But this as He and They can agree it I will onely tell him here that I hope in God I am able and that I am sure I am willing to make good the Charge drawn up against him in the Expostulatory Letter I have but one word more to my Answerer that he is very disingenious in saying that I have a Reserved Distinction of Christ's Natural and Spiritual Flesh and Blood whereas if any one will take the pains to consult that place which he refers to in my Book he will find that the Distinction is not mine but the Fathers (d) Veteres Vindicati p. 102. and that by Spiritual was meant Christ's Sacramental or Symbolical Body as he might have seen often enough in that Book This is all that concerns me in that Introduction to TRANSVBSTANTIATION DEFENDED I shall not trouble my self with the rest of the Introduction or with the Book I will only tell him that he is fallen into the hands of one who it 's forty to one will spoil his ever putting out his Second Part against that Incomparable Discourse but that if he does and brings any thing against me as he threatens to do in that Second Part worth answering I will take care to return him the civility of an Answer and only desire him that he would manage what he says there with a little more care clearness and ingenuity or else I may be persuaded not to throw away my time in answering such weak and silly objections as He hath made against me here AN ANSWER TO The COMPILER of the Nubes Testium CHAP. I. Concerning the Donatists SECT I. THE Compiler of the Nubes Testium having undertaken to shew in the thirty seventh Chapter of his Papist Misrepresented and Represented the great improbability of any Innovations being made by the Church of Rome in Matters of Faith was almost willing in that place to have made it evident from the Vnanimous Tradition of the Primitive Fathers of the first five hundred years especially for which good purpose He was making up his Collections as he tells us a Papist Misrepres and Repres p. 57. but finding the Matter to increase much beyond expectation upon his hands He did reserve them for another Occasion and hath now acquitted himself of that obligation in the publishing of this Book In his first Book he was very solicitous with abundance of words to remove the false slander as he would have it thought of Novelty affixed to his Church in this Book He is as desirous of doing it by an Abundance of Quotations out of the Primitive Fathers and thereby of throwing it among us of the Reformation Since Novelty in Faith therefore is such a Scandal as all that are Christians are for clearing themselves from we of the Church of England are very willing to join issue with this Compiler and to refer the Judgment of the Points of
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
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
Peter concerning Christ which is espoused by the Church of England is true and Catholick that to interpret it of St. Peter's person is to contradict the Stream of Catholick Antiquity and consequently that there is no ground from this Text of St. Matthew for the Supremacy of St. Peter or the Bishops of Rome I suppose it will not be expected here that I should set down all these numerous Authorities which the excellent Launoy hath with so much industry collected to prove that by the Rock in this Text is meant the Faith confessed by St Peter I will onely put down one or two passages of the Fathers omitted by him that the World may see that that excellent Person hath not exhausted the Subject nor produced all the Proofs of those Authours whom He sets down The first shall be Epiphanius omitted by Launoy who brings in our Saviour saying to St. Peter That upon this Rock of unshaken u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. adv Haer. L. 2. T. 1. p. 500. Edit Par. Petav. 1622. Faith I will build my Church St. Chrysostom tells us that our Saviour said upon this Rock not upon Peter for he built his Church not upon the man Peter but upon the Faith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrys Sermo de Pentecoste p. 233. in T. 6. Edit Ducael 1636. which He had confessed As to the latter part of this passage from St. Matthew to wit about the promise made to St. Peter of having the Keyes bestowed upon him I am sure it is very far from doing the Romanists any service since it is abundantly plain that when our Saviour after his Resurrection came to perform the promise he had made here He did bestow the Power of the Keyes equally among the Apostles without preserring one Apostle above another or giving to one a greater share in the Vse of the Keyes than to the rest so that if St. John's Gospel be but as Authentick as St. Matthew's we are fully secured that this Power of the Keyes was equally given in Saint John x S. John 20.21 22 23. and therefore equally promised in St. Matthew to all the Apostles It were very easie to shew from abundance of the Fathers Expressions that there is nothing in this promise peculiar to St. Peter Origen tells us that what was promised here was common to the rest of the Apostles y Quod si dictum hoc tibi dabo claves regni coelorum caeterisque quoque commune est c. Orig. Tr. 1. in Matt. p. 39. Edit Freb. 1530. and Saint Austin informs us somewhere as I have met with it quoted that as St. Peter made the Confession in the name and as the mouth of all the Apostles so He received this promise in the behalf of all as representing them all But if any contend that this promise was performed assoon as spoken and therefore that there was something extraordinary and particular to St. Peter here since he is here invested with those Keyes which the rest of the Apostles had nothing to doe with nor were admitted to any share in them till just before our Saviour his Ascension our Answer is very ready that the rest of the Apostles did certainly here receive the same power of the Keyes that they will have St. Peter invested with because in the next Chapter but one a Matth. 18.17 18. to this our Saviour speaks to all the Apostles as already invested with this power of the Keyes which Assertion of ours the Generality of the Fathers are so far from opposing that the abovenamed b In Ep. ad Vallantium Learned Sorbonist Monsieur Launoy hath with prodigious pains demonstrated that St. Peter did receive the power of the Keyes in the name of the Apostles their Successours and the whole Church and that the Catholick Church is the proximate Subject of all Church-power This he hath evidenced from the concurrent Authority of at least c Launoii Ep. ad Hadrian Vallantium in Par. secunda Epp. seventy Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we find eight Councils three Vniversities one Learned King our Henry the Eighth eleven Popes and two Rituals from above two hundred Testimonies as I think I may safely say it out of these Writings So that if these passages from St. Matthew about the Rock and the Power of the Keyes be not invincibly demonstrated to be directly contrary to the Romish Pretensions and their urging St. Matthew's Expressions for their Popes Supremacy be not hence proved to be extravagantly unreasonable and perfectly groundless I must e'en say that it is utterly impossible for the wisest man in the World to prove any thing even from the best Evidences and that the Decree of their Council of Trent That Scripture be interpreted by the unanimous consent of Fathers is the foolishest order in the World if so many and so great Testimonies be not able to rescue these two passages of St. Matthew from the abusive Interpretations of the Popes Vpholders The other place of Scripture alledged by them to prove the Divine Institution of St. Peter's Supremacy is that of St. John d S. Joh. 21.15 16 17. wherein our Saviour bids St. Peter thrice to feed his Sheep and Lambs From this place they say F. Alexandre among the rest that the chief care of the Church and a sacred Principality in it over all conditions aswell Apostles as others was conferred upon St. Peter by our Saviour but this is much easier said than proved since the natural sense and a fair interpretation of the words extends no farther than a repeated command of feeding Christ's Flock which hath nothing of extraordinary in it since the rest of the Apostles had had the same Injunctions though not in the same terms laid upon them and farther if this place must be forced to settle something upon St. Peter it will make him not the chief but the sole Pastour of the Catholick Church since here just before his Ascension our Saviour gives his Commands and commits the Charge of his whole Flock to St. Peter alone and this is the sense wherein the Council of Florence seems to have taken these words in St. John when in the Canon I set down above it defines that the full or whole power of feeding P. 9. ruling and governing the whole Church was given to the Pope in St. Peter If this be their sense therefore I desire to know of these men what is become of the charge given to the rest of the Apostles of going to teach which is the same with feeding all Nations which includes old and young Sheep and Lambs I would be informed also what there is more either of Authority or Charge in this passage than in that general Commission in St. Matthew e Matth. 28.19 20. and farther I would fain know whether this Commission here about feeding the Sheep and Lambs doth cancell that solemn and general one to all the Apostles in the Chapter next
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
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
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
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
which are condemned by the Index Expurgatorius Let any one but look into St. Athanasius's third Oration against the Arians and He may there find this Great Father upon occasion of his mentioning St. John 's offer to worship the Angel speaking out f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Athanas Orat. 3. contra Arian p. 204. Edit Commel 1600. plainly enough that God alone is to be adored and that the Angels since they are but Creatures notwithstanding their Excellencies are in the number of Worshippers not of the worshipped In his Epistle to Bishop Adelphius He himself says what the Index to him did but transcribe That we do not adore any Creature God forbid says the Good Father g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Athan. Ep. ad Adelph p. 331. that we should since this would be the same sin that the Arians and Pagans are guilty of but we do adore the Lord of the Creation the incarnate Word of God. If the Church of Rome doth not adore the Martyrs and their Reliques why doth her Index Expurgatorius strike out of the Index to St. Hierome Non adorantur Martyres Martyrs are not to be adored Adoramus Solum Deum honoramus Reliquias Martyrum We adore God alone and honour onely the Reliques of the Martyrs The Managers of the Index Expurgatorius ought to have considered that if there be any crime in these passages St. Hierome himself ought to answer for them since it was He that said Christians did not adore the Martyrs h Quis enim O insanum caput aliquando Martyras adoravit quis hominem putavit Deum c. D. Hier. c. Vigilan T. 2. p. 122. much less their Reliques Either the present Writers of the Church of Rome are not serious and in earnest with us or they think our eyes shut and that we do not see some of their Books it is very vain to talk as our Compiler doth of respect onely and honour to Saints and their Reliques and Images when we see that any thing which offers to deny Adoration to all these is condemned by their Autentick earthly Purgatory the Roman Index I will insist no farther on these scandalous things but hope I may under the Protection and after the Example of Gregory the Great conclude not onely against Images as i Greg. M. Ep. 9. l. 9. He did but against every Creature animate or inanimate that NO RELIGIOVS WORSHIP is or can be due or given to any of them because of that saying of our blessed Saviour Matth. 4.10 Thou shalt WORSHIP THE LORD THY GOD and HIM ONELY shalt thou SERVE CONCLUSION HAving now gone through all our Compiler's Collections and answered all his Testimonies that were of moment or came within the first six Centuries I have nothing left but his Appendix upon my hands but since He owns whence he borrowed this Appendix and all Scholars know how solidly Bishop Morton answered the whole of Brereley's Apology I need not trouble my self with answering any little parcels of it Having answered our Compiler's Collections out of the Fathers themselves and shewn that they neither taught nor believed nor practised what our Compiler would have them to have done the Appendix is not worth considering since if any Protestants did confess that the Fathers believed and practised as the Church of Rome now doth they were mistaken as hath been sufficiently proved but if they did not as I think it were easie to shew They are abusively brought in here being Witnesses against not for the Church of Rome I always lookt upon it so servile a thing to flatter or court a Reader for his good opinion or approbation that as I dislike it in our Compiler's Preface so I am resolved to keep it out of my Book as well as Preface All I intreat of the Reader is that he would read without Prejudice and judge impartially betwixt this Answer and the Nubes Testium and then I believe he will see very good reason for that which I will conclude with That the Fathers of the first five hundred years did neither believe nor practise in relation to the Points at present under debate what the Church of Rome at present doth believe and practise POSTSCRIPT HAving a little room lest here I cannot employ it better than to take notice of a very great cheat put upon His Sacred Majesty as well as the rest of the Auditours by F. Sabran in his Sermon before the King at Chester in August last Sermon preached at Chester before the King August 28. and Printed by Henry Hills He told his Auditory that he followed the Advice of St. Austin when he did recommend himself to the most blessed Virgin 's Intercession and did advise them to doe the same and he quotes for this Saint Austin's 35th Sermon de Sanctis whereas it is confessed by all men of any Learning that this Sermon was not St. Austin's the very Title of it is sufficient to convince all that know any thing of Antiquity Sermo in Festo Assumptionis Mariae does not at all agree to any thing that is near St. Austin's time the Benedictines of Paris have cast it into the Appendix as spurious and tell us In Praes Serm. 208. in Append. Tom. 5. p. 343. Edit Par. 1683. that in their Manuscripts it wants the name of any Authour but the Divines of Louvain tell us that in several MSS. which they used in their Edition of St. Austin In Praes Serm. 83. in Apend T. 10. p. 631. Colon Agripp 1616. this Sermon de Sanctis was intituled to Fulbertus Carnotensis It is certain it was not writ by St. Austin or within two hundred years after him from St. Isidore's being quoted in it who lived in the beginning of the seventh Century it is probable that it does belong to Fulbertus who lived not till past a thousand years after Christ So that I have reason to conclude that F. Sabran was guilty either of great Ignorance or of notorious disingenuity who would ascribe to the venerable St. Austin this notorious forgery and lay that brat to St. Austin which their own Divines do and cannot but own to be altogether illegitimate and therefore F. Sabran now he cannot but see his great errour ought to undeceive the Members of his Church that so we may have no more boasting from them of this egregious cheat as if it were the genuine issue of St. Austin THE END Books printed for and sold by H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard A Letter to Mr. G. giving a True Account of the Late Conference at the D. of P. in Quarto A second Letter to Mr. G. In Answer to Two Letters lately published concerning The Conference at the D. of P. in Quarto VETERES VINDICATI In an Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney upon his Consensus Veterum c. wherein the Absurdity of his method and the Weakness of his reasons are shewn His false Aspersions upon the Church of England are wiped off and Her Faith concerning the Eucharist proved to be that of the Primitive Church Together with Animadversions on Dean Boileau's French Translation of and Remarks upon Bertram In Quarto