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
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
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
Conclusion of it though our Compiler is so sly in the translating of it as if the Canon meant onely that the Bishop of Rome should govern the Vniversal Church according to the Acts of General Councils and to the Holy Canons whereas it is plain this Canon speaks not of the Exercise but of the Original of the Pope's Power and of the Testimonies for it in the Acts and Canons of the General Councils but F. Alexandre himself taught our Compiler to translate thus n Dissertatio quarta Par. prima Sec. prim p. 398. and truly I think he ought to have the Reputation of first finding the Gallican Liberties in this Definition of the Council of Florence which Council was not usually thought to have been such a friend to the Gallican Liberties witness what the Cardinal of Lorrain is said to have spoken of it in just such another Council at Trent but the Men of this age are strangely set upon making new discoveries this age found out that the Libri Carolini nor the Council of Frankfort were not against the Image-council of Nice that Bertram was as true a man for Transubstantiation as Paschasius Radbertus that first in all probability forged it and our Nat. Alexandre must come in for his share for discovering that greatest thing the French Clergy are so earnest upon in this Definition of the Council of Florence SECT II. The places of Scripture that are urged by the Church of Rome to prove the Divine Institution of the Pope's Supremacy are very few that of St. Matthew with another from St. John Nat. Alexandre our Compiler's Guide doth insist upon them for the proof of the Pope's Supremacy One would expect that they should be very clear and very full Texts that are brought to confirm such a Portentous Authority as the Papal Supremacy appears to be St. Matthew doth relate o Matth. 16.18 19. that upon St. Peter's having confessed our Saviour to be the Son of the living God our Saviour should say unto him Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. Here they tell us that our Saviour built his Church upon St. Peter who is the Rock mentioned here and that he was thereupon invested with all Church power the power of the Keyes which power and government was by him deposited with his Successours the Bishops of Rome In answer to this we say that there is nothing extraordinary or particular for St. Peter here because He is not the Rock mentioned here nor had the power of the Keyes committed to him any otherwise than in common with the rest of his fellow-Apostles as our Saviour put the Question to all the Apostles so St. Peter answering it in the name of them all had the promise of or received this power of the Keyes in behalf of them all and for their common use of them Since then this place of Scripture is not sufficiently evident or clear for the purpose both parties claiming an interest in it for their contrary senses and we avouching that it is absolutely against St. Peter's being either Rock or having any particular extraordinary power if it be considered with its relation to the context before and to the rest of the Gospels and Epistles either this passage of St. Matthew as obscure must be set aside as useless towards the proof of a Supremacy or They of the Church of Rome must convince us that the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers did always interpret this place of Scripture in favour of St. Peter's Supremacy This thing one would think they were very able to doe since they are so ready to say they can and to assert that the Fathers did unanimously interpret the Rock mentioned in this passage to be the Person of St. Peter Thus our Compiler p Nubes Test p. 22. very gravely tells us that the Fathers teach that Christ built his Church upon Peter and this F. Alexandre had taught him to say who certainly had considered the thing very well when he q Dissert 4. P. 1. Sec. 1. p. 274. tells us that the Fathers did with a Nemine contradicente r Quocirca Sancti Patres Communi suffragio c. Ibid. p. 274. interpret the Rock to be meant of St. Peter Ignorance among all people is allowed to alleviate a crime and a blind-fold implicit transcribing of a Writer's sense must be allowed to be very near allyed unto it or else our Compiler ought to be treated as a person guilty of very disingenuous and unjust behaviour towards the memory of the Fathers F. Alexandre however who taught our Compiler to publish so gross an untruth is by no means excusable for should we allow him to be ignorant in the Fathers own writings and to have transcribed this bold untruth out of Bellarmine Å¿ Accedat speaking of Peter 's being the Rock consensus Ecclesiae totius Graecorum ac Latinorum Patrum c. Bellarm. de Romano Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. or some other of their Writers yet He cannot be ignorant I am sure how fully his learned Countrey-man the famous Monsieur Launoy hath examined the sense of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers upon this Text of St. Matthew how distinctly he hath put down the four different Interpretations of the Rock in this Text the first of which makes it to be the Person of St. Peter the second makes it to be all the Apostles with their Successours the third teaches that it is the Faith confessed by St. Peter and the last that the Rock here is the Person of Christ himself t Launoii Epist ad Guil. Voellum apud Part. 5. Epistolarum p. 4 11 18 38. Natalis Alexandre cannot but know how invincibly this most learned Sorbonist hath shewn that the Generality of Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers are for the third Interpretation which makes the Faith confessed by St. Peter and not St. Peter himself to be the Rock on which Christ's Church was built that a great many are for the fourth Interpretation that says the Rock was Christ himself This last Interpretation falling in with the third for Christ or the Faith confessed concerning Christ come to the same thing may be with most reason called the unanimous Consent of the Church-Interpreters that the rock here is not Peter whenas there are but a few of those Fathers for the first Interpretation and most of their expressions capable of the second and not inconsistent with the third Interpretation So that if the Interpretations of above fifty Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we muster no fewer than eleven Popes and two Synods are to be admitted against that of three or four Fathers We are sufficiently secured that the Interpretation of the Rock in this Text its being the Faith confessed by St.
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
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
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