that Canon in this Code of the universal Church which does suppose the Bishop of Rome to be either Primate over the World Vicar of Christ Head of the whole Church Doctour of all Christians or to have had the plenary power of governing the whole Church given him by Christ This challenge so fair so plain and so full I leave to the Reverend Fathers Consideration and in the mean time I will take the liberty since I have very good grounds for it to declare and assert to their as well as our people that there is no Law of the Catholick Church for the first six hundred years nor ever a Canon in the Code of the Laws of the universal Church that does either constitute or assert or suppose the Bishop of Rome to be that Primate Vicar Head Doctour and universal Pastour which the Council of Florence says he is and that the Council of Florence founding their Definition for the Pope's Supremacy upon the Acts and Canons of General Councils were notoriously guilty either of ignorance or of forgery either of which is more than sufficient to ruine their having any esteem from us and as for the Title of Vicar of Christ which they do now glory so much in One of their own Communion the Learned Monsieur Launoy c Launoii Ep. ad Mich. Marollium p. 29. apud Par. 3. Epp. assures us that for above a thousand years after Christ there was scarce a Bishop of Rome to be met with who either said he was or wrote himself Vicar of Christ so far were they in those days from thinking themselves to be the true or onely Vicars of Christ their custome then being to write themselves Vicars of St. Peter SECT IV. These are some of the Reasons why we cannot believe or submit to the Papal Supremacy if neither Scripture nor the Laws of the universal Church be for it we believe it is no crime in us not to be for it if both Scripture and those Canons be directly against it as it hath in part and might have been more fully shewn it certainly is no sin in us to be against it too nay so far from being a sin that it would be a very great one not to be so It will appear by this time I believe needless to most people to examine what our Compiler from F. Alexandre does produce from Antiquity to help out this groundless Supremacy one advantage I hope I shall reap from what hath been observed hitherto on this head that I need not at all be copious in the refuting his Testimonies which are brought to prove a Supremacy from St. Peter's being called by some Rock of the Church and Prince of the Apostles from Appeals being made to the Bishops of Rome and from the necessity of their confirming all Councils to make them obligatory to the Church I shall inform the Reader before I begin with the particular Testimonies of our Compiler that they are generally stolen from Natalis Alexandre's fourth Dissertation in his Pars prima Seculi primi His first Testimony from Irenaeus is of no use a Nubes Test p. 22. ex Nat. Alexand. p. 297. since it onely proves that there was a Church planted at Rome by the joint endeavours of St. Peter and St. Paul which passage makes directly against a Supremacy except our Compiler can prove that St. Peter and St. Paul were but one individual man as to the potentior Principalitas there they have been told often enough that it relates to the Civil State Rome being the Imperial City whither business brought all people Christians as well as others The next obscure passage from Optatus b Nub. Testium p. 23 24. Nat. Alex. Pars secunda Seculi quarti p. 225. cum Pars prima Seculi primi p. 283. doth indeed seem to prove that there is but one Cathedra in the World possessed by St. Peter and after him by his Successours at Rome but I have these objections against Optatus taken in this sense first that he is made to contradict himself since in his first Book against this same Parmenian c Nec Caecilianus recessit à Cathedra Petri vel Cypriani sed Majorinus Opt. Milev l. 1. c. Parmen p. 38. Edit Paris 1631. he speaks of the Cathedra of St. Cyprian aswell as of that of St. Peter and in the same Book against the same Schismatick shewing how the people stuck to Caecilian against Majorinus he tells him d Conferta erat Ecclesia populis plena erat Cathedra Episcopalis erat Altare loco suo in quo pacifici Episcopi retro temporis obtulerunt Cyprianus Lucianus caeteri sic exitum est foras Altare contra Altare erectum est Idem l. 1. contr Parmen p. 41 42. that the Church was full of people where the Episcopal Cathedra was and the Altar whereon Cyprian Lucian and other peaceable Bishops had offered that the Donatists were Schismaticks who separated from the Church and set up Altar against Altar Secondly That he is made to contradict all Church Writers before and after him for hundreds of years who make as many Cathedra's as Bishops in the World and every of these Bishops to be Successours to the Apostles who had committed to them in common by our Saviour the Care and Government of the Catholick Church as I have fully shewn above I will name but one Father and he an African too Tertullian who bids c Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Philippos Thessalonicenses Ephesum Romam Tert. de Praescrip c. Haeret. c. 36. the Hereticks take a view of all the Apostolick Churches in which the very Chairs the Apostles used are possessed by the Bishops in their several places after which he reckons Corinth and Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus and Rome it self So that I think it plain enough that there were other Cathedra's besides that at Rome and therefore that cannot be the onely one and this makes me farther wonder at what Optatus talks about the Vnity of this Chair at Rome being such as that the rest of the Apostles might not have Cathedra's for themselves I cannot but say that this obscure passage is false as well as groundless and that if Optatus wrote it himself which some question Illyricus f Flacii Illyrici Catalogus Testium Verit. l. 4. p. 194. F. Genevae 1608. for one in his Catalogus Testium Veritatis he had very little considered the Scriptures and Fathers before him and I hope it is no crime to affirm this of him who gives such a reason for St. Peter's being called Cophas who does swerve from the ancienter Fathers so very much in giving the Succession of the Bishops of Rome and which is more doth faulter in his account of the Donatists Schism a thing which begun so near his own time and does confound the two Donatus's as Monsieur
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
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
Pope's mature and most Solemn Decree then the Pope himself is in a very simple Condition I leave the Decision of the Point to the Romish Priests in England who confess our Compiler But least our Compiler should evade the severe charge laid against him by pretending all this is but a dream and an Invention of us Protestants and that I may gratify the Curiosity of those who never heard of or saw this severe Breve against Natalis Alexandre I will here put it down and translate it so as that my English Reader may understand it also INNOCENTIUS P. P. XI ad perpetuam Rei memoriam Cum in Lucem prodierint quidam libri Authore fratre Natali Alexandre Ordinis Praedicatorum Parisiis impressi videlicet alii in sexdecim volumina distributi à primo usque ad duodecimum seculum inclusive editi sub titulo Selecta Historia Ecclesiasticae capita in loca ejusdem insigniora Dissertationes Historicae Chronologicae Criticae Dogmaticae alii vero in quatuor opuscula divisi sub Titulis Summa S. Thomae vindicata Dissertationum Ecclesiasticarum Trâ—as c. Dissertatio Polemica de Confessione Sacramentali c. contra Launoianas circa Simoniam observationes Animadversio Quamplures autem ex Venerabilibus sratribus nostris S. R. E. Cardinalibus ad eorundem librorum examen una cum nonnullis in Sacrâ Theologiâ Magistris à nobis specialiter delâ—cti auditis dictorum Theologorum matureque discussis sententiis omnes libros praedictos si ita NOBIS placeret probibendos condemnandos esse unanimi consensu censuerint Hinc est quod nos creditum nobis à Domino pastoralis curae atque vigilantiae munus quantum nobis ex alto concoditur salubriter exequi cupientes de eorundem Cardinalium Consilio ac etiam motu proprio ex certâ scientiâ ac matura deliberatione nostra deque APOSTOLICAe POTESTATIS PLENIFVDINE omnes sineulos libros supradictas tenore praesentium damnamus reprobamus ac LEGI seu RETINERI prohibemus ipsorumque librorum OMNIVM SINGVLORVM Impressionem DESCRIPTIONEM LECTIONEM VSVM OMNIBVS SINGVLIS Christi Fidelibus etiam specifica individua mentione expressione dignis SVB POENA EXCOMMVNICATIONIS per contrafacientes ipso facto ABSQVE ALIA DECLARATIONE INCVRRENDA a quae nemo à quoquam praeterquam à Nobis seâ— Romano Pontifice pro tempore existente nisi in mortis articulo constitutus absolutionis beneficium valeat obtinere omnino interdicimus Volentes Apostolica Authoritate mandantes ut quicunque libros praedictos vel corum aliquam penes se habuerint illos seu illum statim atque praesentes literae eis innotuerint teneantur tradere atque consignare locorum Ordinariis vel haereticae pravitatis Inquisitoribus qui exemplariae sibi sic tradita illico flâ—mmis aboleri curent in contrarium facientibus nonobstantibus quibuscunque Vt autem istae istae praesentes Literae omnibus facilius innotescant nec quisquam Illarum ignorantiam allegare possit Volumus Authoritate praedictâ decernimus illas ad valvas Basilicae Principis Apostolorum ac Cancellariae Apollolicae c. Datum Romae apud Sanctum Petrum sub Annulo Piscatoris die decimo Julii 1684. Pontifiâ—atus nostri anno octavo c. In the Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres for the month of October 1684. p. 260 261 c. INNOCENT the Eleventh POPE for the PERPETUAL MEMORY OF THE THING Whereas certain Books have been published the Author Br. Natalis Alexandre a Dominican printed at Paris some of which divided into sixteen Volumes deducing the History of the Church from the first to the twelvth Century inclusively are put forth under the Title of Select Heads of Ecclesiastical History with Historical Chronological Critical and Dogmatical Dissertations upon the more famous parts thereof others divided into four Tracts under the Titles of St. Thomas's Summes vindicated a Triade of Ecclestastical Dissertations c. a Polemical Dissertation concerning Sacramental Confession c. an Animadversion upon Launoy's Observations about Simony Having made choice of many of our Reverend Brethren the Cardinals together with some other Doctors in Divinity for the examination of the said Books and having heard and throughly examined the said Divines Opinions they did unanimously give their Judgment that all the above-named Books if it seemed good to us should be prohibited and condemned Hereupon being desirous to discharge carefully that Pastoral charge committed to us by our Lord as well by the Counsel of the said Cardinals as of our own proper motion and certain knowledge and mature deliberation and also by the PLENITUDE OF APOSTOLICAL POWER We do DAMN and REPROBATE by virtue of these presents ALL and EVERY of the above-named Books and we do forbid their being either READ or KEPT and we do altogether inhibit ALL and EVERY of the FAITHFUL of what condition or quality soever the PRINTING TRANSCRIBING READING or USE of all and EVERY of the said Books under Pain of Excommunication to be incurred ipso facto WITHOUT ANY OTHER DECLARATION by any that act contrary to this our Decree who shall not be absolved except AT THE POINT OF DEATH by any person besides our self and the Pope of Rome for the time being And We will and command by our Apostolick Authority that if any persons have all or any of those said Books in their custody they shall deliver and resign up those Books or that Book as soon as these our present Letters shall be made known to them unto the Ordinaries of the places where they live or to the Inquisitors who are to take care that the Copies so delivered up to them be immediately condemned to the flames any Canon or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding And that these our present Letters may more easily come to the knowledge of all persons and none may pretend ignorance of them We will and decree by our Apostolick Authority that these Letters be affixed to the Doors of the Church of St. Peter and of the Apostolick Chancery c. the rest concerns onely the securing of this publick notice Given at Rome at St. Peters under the Seal of the Fisher the tenth day of July 1684. being the eighth year of our Pontificate I have not room or leisure here to make Reflections upon the odd management of the Pope towards this poor Dominican who does not refrain complaining (b) In his Preface to his Pars 1. sec 15. 16. that such a Tempest should be raised against him and nothing said to the Prelates of France to the Doctors of the Sorbonne who all taught and wrote the same that he had done in any of these Books concerning the Pope's Jurisdiction or Infallibility Nay that he should be condemned for writing that which this Pope himself had approved of in his Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition I think NATALIS ALEXANDRE ought to be added to the Instances of the
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
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
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