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
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
the merits that are in the Treasury of the Church and to what purpose are they kept there nor their wickedness damn us An Answer that doth at once ruin the Papal Infallibility and Supremacy and therefore was the more likely to be concealed by one of that Church I do not lay the accusation against our Compiler also because he good man was I believe purely passive in the thing and if he is here unfaithfull to St. Austin and to the Reader it is because his Guide was unfaithfull to him SECT II. The next Errour of the Donatists is about the failure of the Church in Opposition to which our Compiler tells us Nubes Testium p. 6. that the Fathers maintain That the Catholick Church cannot fail as being assisted by the Spirit of God. I am as much at a loss about this point of Controversie as I was about the first I have not met with any of our Writers that are for proving or asserting that this Catholick Church can fail and am thereby pretty well assured that it is none of the Tenets of our Church-men that the Catholick Church can or hath failed and I am as certain that it is none of the Doctrines of the Church it self so that I must beg this Gentleman's pardon that I cannot believe that this opinion of the failure of the Catholick Church is one of the chief points of Controversie at present under debate I am so far from being of that faith that I think it not onely ridiculous but false to assert that there is any Controversie betwixt us about the failing or not failing of the Catholick Church and I cannot but observe that our Compiler who is so carefull in the Appendix to his Collections to gather the Concessions or Assertions of Protestants about the points and heads of Controversie in his Book either forgot to produce their Assertions and Concessions concerning this and the precedent point or was not able to produce any which I am the more ready to believe because I look on the thing as impossible If then not withstanding this Gentleman there really be no Controversie betwixt us touching this head both parties believing that the Catholick Church by reason of our blessed Lord his promised assistence cannot fail it will very readily be granted that all the citations out of the Fathers upon this head against the Donatists do not in the least affect or concern the Church of England since she detests that Errour of the Donatists as much as any other Church can I need not therefore examine the particular passages since granting them all the strength and evidence they are produced for they are not at all against the Church of England I will onely inform the Reader that the passages for this point are taken out of the same Volume and the same Dissertation of Natalis Alexandre h See Dissertatio 38 â—â—rs secunda Seculi quarti p. 182 186 164. that the former were borrowed from I must except the first quotation from St. Cyprian which does not occur in that place but is I question not borrowed from some other part of N. Alexandre's works I must observe also that our Compiler does in the first Testimony i Nub. Test p. 6. from St. Cyprian exactly transcribe the Errours of his Guide and that the Guide himself either did not look into St. Austin for this passage but very honestly copied some Romish Friend of his or was more than half asleep when he was writing this passage thence without one of these I cannot see how he should put reges for regna and virtutis for fortitudinis in the beginning of it I have looked into two or three Editions for this thing and find them exactly agreeing in this place and directly against the Guide and the Compiler SECT III. The last crime of the Donatists set down by our Compiler is their Schism Nub. Test p. 10. upon which he says the Fathers unanimously declare that whosoever breaks the Vnity of the Catholick Church upon any pretext whatsoever is guilty of Schism c. I am so far from the humour of making disputes or quarrels in things wherein there ought to be none and so desirous of reaching that part of his Book which does contain matter of real Disputes betwixt us that I shall here assure our Authour that taking the word Pretext here in the sense wherein it is commonly used among us for a false shew or groundless pretence I am perfectly of his Father's mind that it is destructive of Salvation causelesly to break the Vnity of the Catholick Church and that the Donatists who acted thus were really guilty of a Criminal Schism but I must withall assure our Compiler that I cannot see how this can be made matter of dispute betwixt us who both agree in asserting the same thing with those venerable Fathers or how this can any way affect or concern the Division that is at present betwixt us and the particular Church of Rome that Church tells us that they separate from us upon grounds which make such a Separation absolutely necessary and we prove against them that our Reasons for not communicating with them are much more absolutely such and that Communion with them upon the Terms fixt by their Council of Trent were destructive of Salvation and therefore by no means to be espoused Our Compiler hath gathered a great many Authorities of the Fathers upon this head to every one of which we of the Church of England do very heartily subscribe and are at the same time able from Scripture and Antiquity to justifie our necessary separation from the Bishop and Church of Rome I heartily wish those that allowed this Book to the Press and all the Romish Missionaries in England would consider the quotations on this point of Schism from St. Cyprian especially and above the rest that about the aliud Altare which was always so odious in the Catholick Church and will be so while there is a Church of Christ on Earth All the passages upon this head except two or three are to be found with the very same mistakes in them in the same Volume and Dissertation of Natalis Alexandre k Dissertatio tricesima octava Pars secunda Seculi quarti the first with a foolish consequence about Calvinists sympathizing with the Donatists tack'd to the end of it in p. 187. the next with the rest in page 187 188 189 223 191 192 193 194 195 230 196. The passage from St. Austin in p. 230. in Nat. Alexandre l Nubes Test p. 20. Nat. Alex. p. 230. is very much abused non eo ad daemonia sed tamen in parte Donati sum is not all that Saint Austin says here it is much fuller in him and Father Alexandre had shewed himself an ingenuous man if instead of putting in Luther and Calvin's name there after Donatus which is nothing to the purpose he had put in what should have been there and let us see the
Text of St. Austin which runs thus nec eo ad adoranda daemonia non servio lapidibus sed tamen in parte Donati sum I wonder why F. Alexandre should be so much afraid of this passage though we do object to his Church as a most grievous crime the giving religious worship to Saints and Angels and their Images yet he cannot but know that we do not lay to their charge the worshiping of Devils which we are very glad our selves that we cannot doe But I begin to suspect strongly that Father Alexandre and our Compiler are very near a-kin that our Compiler hath made the same use of N. Alexandre that Alexandre himself hath done of others that which inclines me very much to this Opinion is that Father Alexandre never tells us that I have observed what Editions of the Fathers he used nor quotes the page where one may find his quoted passage above once in five hundred passages I believe through all his Volumes CHAP. II. Concerning the Pope's Supremacy SECT I. AFter twenty pages spent about matters that do not at all concern our present Controversie we are come to that which must be allowed not onely to be a Controversie but the greatest of any that are now on foot in the World and which hath been and is the cause of all those tyrannical pretensions and uncanonical impositions which do at present divide the Christian World. The Pope's Supremacy is that point which the Members of the Church of Rome especially the Vltramontaines are so carefull to defend and we of the Reformation to oppose Our Compiler being now come to a point of debate doth not forget his art of palliating which was so very serviceable to him in his Misrepresentations and Representations of Popery He cannot but know and therefore ought to have avoided it that this loose talk about Successor of Peter and Centre of Catholick Communion does not reach the Pretensions of the Bishops of Rome nor fully and fairly declare what Power Jurisdiction and Authority in and over the Catholick Church those Bishops challenge as their right To let him see how loosely he manages this debate betwixt us I can with putting in two or three necessary words subscribe to all our Compiler says for the Pope and yet be as far from owning the Pope's Supremacy as the Church of England is or ever was The Fathers teach Nub. Testium p. 22. says our Compiler that Christ built his Church upon Peter so say I too if by Fathers here be meant two or three of them and not the Fathers unanimously as he hath it before or generally That the Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Saint Peter is what I can also grant and that That See is the Centre of the Catholick Communion if I may but put in here what is absolutely necessary while possessed by an Orthodox Bishop and that whosoever separates himself from it I add professing the true Faith and possessed by a Catholick Bishop is guilty of Schism I can I say subscribe though I do not to all this without any Obligation in the least of believing the Pope's Supremacy all that our Compiler puts down here reaching no farther than a Primacy of Order does not at all suppose in the Popes any Jurisdiction or Authority over the Catholick Church Since then our Compiler seems to be afraid of setting down a true account of this Controversie betwixt us by mincing the matter so much about the Pope's power I must borrow of him his last Quotation under this head the Canon of the Council of Florence and set that down as the true account of their Doctrine concerning the Pope's power and then not onely shew our reasons why we dare not submit to it but that all the Testimonies our Compiler hath put down from F. Alexandre except two or three under this head do not prove the Pope's Supremacy as it is stated by their General Council of Florence m Diffinimus Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem Romanum Pontificem in universum orbem tenere Primatum ipsum Pontificem Romanum Successorem esse Beati Petri Principis Apostolorum verum Christi Vicarium totiúsque Ecclesiae Caput omnium Christianorum Patrem ac Doctorem existere ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam à Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse quemadmodum etiam in Gestis Oecumenicorum Conciliorum in Sacris Canonibus continetur Concil Florent Pars 2. Collatio 22. p. 1136. Edit Cossart We define says the Canon that the Holy Apostolick See and Bishop of Rome is invested with the Primacy over the whole World and that the Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Saint Peter Prince of the Apostles and that he is the true Vicar of Christ and Head of the whole Church and the Father and Doctour of all Christians and that the full power of feeding ruling and governing the whole Church was given to him in St. Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ as it is expressed or contained in the Acts of General Councils and in the Holy Canons The Reader will very easily see what a great difference there is betwixt this account of the Pope's Supremacy and that set down by our Compiler and yet this Gentleman would be thought to be an exact Stater of the Controversie betwixt us and to have represented fairly what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is concerning their Popes Power and Jurisdiction I hope I am out of the danger of being made a Misrepresenter while I charge that onely upon them as their Doctrine which hath been defined by one of their General Councils which is the greatest strength and countenance that any Doctrine is capable of among them This then being the true state of their Doctrine concerning their Popes Power or Supremacy and that which I would call naked Popery I am sure I have Commission from the Church of England to declare that she cannot without betraying the Rights of all Bishops and the Interest of the Catholick Church espouse the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy which we of her Communion do believe is altogether without foundation either from Scripture or Primitive Antiquity It will not be consistent with that brevity I have confined my self to in this Answer to go through our several arguments against this usurped Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome I am onely desirous to consider in short whence they have this their extraordinary Power which they do as extraordinarily contend for there are but Three Sources whence they can pretend to derive it either that it is from the Law of God set down in the Scriptures or from the Laws of the Vniversal Church to be seen in her Code or lastly from the favour and authority of secular Princes the first of these is that which they commonly claim and insist upon the second is what this Canon of the Florentine Council doth challenge also in the
Conclusion of it though our Compiler is so sly in the translating of it as if the Canon meant onely that the Bishop of Rome should govern the Vniversal Church according to the Acts of General Councils and to the Holy Canons whereas it is plain this Canon speaks not of the Exercise but of the Original of the Pope's Power and of the Testimonies for it in the Acts and Canons of the General Councils but F. Alexandre himself taught our Compiler to translate thus n Dissertatio quarta Par. prima Sec. prim p. 398. and truly I think he ought to have the Reputation of first finding the Gallican Liberties in this Definition of the Council of Florence which Council was not usually thought to have been such a friend to the Gallican Liberties witness what the Cardinal of Lorrain is said to have spoken of it in just such another Council at Trent but the Men of this age are strangely set upon making new discoveries this age found out that the Libri Carolini nor the Council of Frankfort were not against the Image-council of Nice that Bertram was as true a man for Transubstantiation as Paschasius Radbertus that first in all probability forged it and our Nat. Alexandre must come in for his share for discovering that greatest thing the French Clergy are so earnest upon in this Definition of the Council of Florence SECT II. The places of Scripture that are urged by the Church of Rome to prove the Divine Institution of the Pope's Supremacy are very few that of St. Matthew with another from St. John Nat. Alexandre our Compiler's Guide doth insist upon them for the proof of the Pope's Supremacy One would expect that they should be very clear and very full Texts that are brought to confirm such a Portentous Authority as the Papal Supremacy appears to be St. Matthew doth relate o Matth. 16.18 19. that upon St. Peter's having confessed our Saviour to be the Son of the living God our Saviour should say unto him Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. Here they tell us that our Saviour built his Church upon St. Peter who is the Rock mentioned here and that he was thereupon invested with all Church power the power of the Keyes which power and government was by him deposited with his Successours the Bishops of Rome In answer to this we say that there is nothing extraordinary or particular for St. Peter here because He is not the Rock mentioned here nor had the power of the Keyes committed to him any otherwise than in common with the rest of his fellow-Apostles as our Saviour put the Question to all the Apostles so St. Peter answering it in the name of them all had the promise of or received this power of the Keyes in behalf of them all and for their common use of them Since then this place of Scripture is not sufficiently evident or clear for the purpose both parties claiming an interest in it for their contrary senses and we avouching that it is absolutely against St. Peter's being either Rock or having any particular extraordinary power if it be considered with its relation to the context before and to the rest of the Gospels and Epistles either this passage of St. Matthew as obscure must be set aside as useless towards the proof of a Supremacy or They of the Church of Rome must convince us that the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers did always interpret this place of Scripture in favour of St. Peter's Supremacy This thing one would think they were very able to doe since they are so ready to say they can and to assert that the Fathers did unanimously interpret the Rock mentioned in this passage to be the Person of St. Peter Thus our Compiler p Nubes Test p. 22. very gravely tells us that the Fathers teach that Christ built his Church upon Peter and this F. Alexandre had taught him to say who certainly had considered the thing very well when he q Dissert 4. P. 1. Sec. 1. p. 274. tells us that the Fathers did with a Nemine contradicente r Quocirca Sancti Patres Communi suffragio c. Ibid. p. 274. interpret the Rock to be meant of St. Peter Ignorance among all people is allowed to alleviate a crime and a blind-fold implicit transcribing of a Writer's sense must be allowed to be very near allyed unto it or else our Compiler ought to be treated as a person guilty of very disingenuous and unjust behaviour towards the memory of the Fathers F. Alexandre however who taught our Compiler to publish so gross an untruth is by no means excusable for should we allow him to be ignorant in the Fathers own writings and to have transcribed this bold untruth out of Bellarmine Å¿ Accedat speaking of Peter 's being the Rock consensus Ecclesiae totius Graecorum ac Latinorum Patrum c. Bellarm. de Romano Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. or some other of their Writers yet He cannot be ignorant I am sure how fully his learned Countrey-man the famous Monsieur Launoy hath examined the sense of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers upon this Text of St. Matthew how distinctly he hath put down the four different Interpretations of the Rock in this Text the first of which makes it to be the Person of St. Peter the second makes it to be all the Apostles with their Successours the third teaches that it is the Faith confessed by St. Peter and the last that the Rock here is the Person of Christ himself t Launoii Epist ad Guil. Voellum apud Part. 5. Epistolarum p. 4 11 18 38. Natalis Alexandre cannot but know how invincibly this most learned Sorbonist hath shewn that the Generality of Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers are for the third Interpretation which makes the Faith confessed by St. Peter and not St. Peter himself to be the Rock on which Christ's Church was built that a great many are for the fourth Interpretation that says the Rock was Christ himself This last Interpretation falling in with the third for Christ or the Faith confessed concerning Christ come to the same thing may be with most reason called the unanimous Consent of the Church-Interpreters that the rock here is not Peter whenas there are but a few of those Fathers for the first Interpretation and most of their expressions capable of the second and not inconsistent with the third Interpretation So that if the Interpretations of above fifty Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we muster no fewer than eleven Popes and two Synods are to be admitted against that of three or four Fathers We are sufficiently secured that the Interpretation of the Rock in this Text its being the Faith confessed by St.
restoring him to his Apostolical Function from which he might seem to have fallen by his grievous denyal of his Master I have thus proceeded through all the places that are alledged for to ground the Papal Supremacy upon Scripture I think I have abundantly shewn that none of these three places does in the least favour such pretensions since not onely the comparing these with other places of Scripture but the almost Vnanimous Consent of Primitive Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers who interpret them in favour of all the Apostles against St. Peter does prove to the perfect silencing of these pretensions that such a Supremacy hath no foundation in Scripture and if it hath none there it is in a sad condition since if Christ himself did not make the Bishop of Rome his Vicar all the General Councils in the World together cannot make him such I am sure St. Luke who tells Theophilus t Acts 1.1 2. that he drew up his former Treatise about all that our Saviour did till his Ascension does no where tell us that he did this but does in the next verse tell us in effect that he did the direct contrary while he speaks of his charges to the Apostles whom he had chosen I cannot omit the observing here that as none of these places of Scripture do prove any Supremacy for St. Peter so neither do they prove any Primacy or Prerogative for him as they equally concerned all the Apostles so they equally distribute any honour among them without preferring one above another This Observation I do make for the sake of those Gentlemen in France especially who though they have with unanswerable arguments baffled the extravagant pretensions of the Romish Courtiers yet do allow the Bishop of Rome to be Christ's Vicar instated by him in the Primacy over the whole Church I would onely recommend to such the Consideration of the Fathers Interpretations of the places of Scripture cited above and these three short passages in Antiquity the first from St. Cyprian who speaking about the nature and government of the Catholick Church says that there is but one Episcopacy in it whereof every particular Bishop of the Catholick Church had an equal share and the full power of that Function u Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur Cyprianus de Vnit Eccl. p. 108. Edit Oxon. The second is St. Chrysostom's who speaking of the Apostles tells us that they were all ordained Princes or Primatâ—â— If any would have it so by our Saviour * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrysost Tom. 8. p. 115. Edit Savil. not temporal Princes to receive each his Nation or City but spiritual Princes intrusted IN COMMON ALL TOGETHER with the Care and Government of the Catholick Church throughout the World. The last shall be that of a Pope himself which is more with some people than the Authority of a Thousand Fathers and let it be so here who in an Epistle to a Bishop of Arles compares Episcopacy to the Trinity x Nam dum ad Trinitatis instar cujus Vna est atque Indivisa Potestas Vnum sit per diversos Antistites Sacerdotium Symach Ep. 1. ad Aeonium Arel apud T. 4. Concil p. 1291. Edit Cossart and says that as in the Trinity there is but one inseparable power so Episcopacy is but ONE though in the hands of particular Bishops I hope those that own the Athanasian Creed where we are taught that in the Trinity no person is greater or less than another but that the three Persons are co-equal will for the future believe with Pope Symmachus that in the Episcopal Office no Bishop is greater or less than another but that all the Bishops in the world are co-equal and then I am sure all Christians will believe with us that there was no Superiority nor Supremacy nor Primacy communicated by our blessed Saviour unto any one of his Twelve Apostles SECT III. Having fully ruined their pretensions from the Holy Scriptures for the Supremacy I come next to inquire whether the Laws of the Vniversal Church have declared the successive Bishops of Rome to be Christ's Vicars to have the Primacy over the whole World to be Heads of the Vniversal Church and to have the plenary power of governing and feeding the whole Church What Laws the primitive Church for the first six Centuries made for the Government and Discipline of the Catholick Church are to be found in the Code of the Canons of the Vniversal Church consisting of the Canons of the four Oecumenical Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon and of the five diocesan Synods of Ancyra of Gangra of Antioch of Ncocaesarea and of Laodicea confirmed and admitted by the Council of Chalcedon to be part of the Laws of the Vniversal Church and afterwards by the Emperour Justinian in Novel Const 231. de Can. Eccl. We desire therefore to be informed how many of these Canons which were-looked upon as of Sacred Authority not onely by the Emperour Justinian in the Novel just cited but by a Pope Gregory the Great a Et sic quatuor Synodos Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae sicut quatuor Libros Sancti Evangelii recipimus Greg. M. Ep. 49. l. 2. p. 717. Edit Froben 1564. or which of them do constitute the Bishop of Rome Primate over the whole World or Vicar of Christ or Head of the whole Church or Father and Doctour of all Christians or do confess that Christ had intrusted him with the plenary Power of governing the Vniversal Church I will not trouble my self to shew in particular how such and such Canons place the Discipline of the Church in Provincial or Diocesan Synods any one that looks into them will see these things evident enough they therefore that talk of those Canons making the Bishop of Rome supreme must either be such as never read them or are men of no conscience and integrity To put a quick end to this pretence though I will not challenge our Compiler because he perchance does not know what the Code of the Vniversal Church means yet I do here challenge all the Romish Priests in England to shew me but one Canon in this Code b Published by Justel which hath so great a number no fewer than two hundred and seven Canons in it that does constitute the Bishop of Rome Primate over the whole World Head of the Catholick Church and the Father and Doctour of all Christians or confer upon him the full power of governing the whole Church nay farther I challenge them to produce any Canon or Canons hence that do assert that the Bishop of Rome is Primate over the whole World Vicar of Christ Head of the whole Church Doctour of all Christians and that he had the whole power of governing the Vniversal Church committed to him in St. Peter by our blessed Saviour I will make one step farther I challenge all of them to shew those Canons or
that Canon in this Code of the universal Church which does suppose the Bishop of Rome to be either Primate over the World Vicar of Christ Head of the whole Church Doctour of all Christians or to have had the plenary power of governing the whole Church given him by Christ This challenge so fair so plain and so full I leave to the Reverend Fathers Consideration and in the mean time I will take the liberty since I have very good grounds for it to declare and assert to their as well as our people that there is no Law of the Catholick Church for the first six hundred years nor ever a Canon in the Code of the Laws of the universal Church that does either constitute or assert or suppose the Bishop of Rome to be that Primate Vicar Head Doctour and universal Pastour which the Council of Florence says he is and that the Council of Florence founding their Definition for the Pope's Supremacy upon the Acts and Canons of General Councils were notoriously guilty either of ignorance or of forgery either of which is more than sufficient to ruine their having any esteem from us and as for the Title of Vicar of Christ which they do now glory so much in One of their own Communion the Learned Monsieur Launoy c Launoii Ep. ad Mich. Marollium p. 29. apud Par. 3. Epp. assures us that for above a thousand years after Christ there was scarce a Bishop of Rome to be met with who either said he was or wrote himself Vicar of Christ so far were they in those days from thinking themselves to be the true or onely Vicars of Christ their custome then being to write themselves Vicars of St. Peter SECT IV. These are some of the Reasons why we cannot believe or submit to the Papal Supremacy if neither Scripture nor the Laws of the universal Church be for it we believe it is no crime in us not to be for it if both Scripture and those Canons be directly against it as it hath in part and might have been more fully shewn it certainly is no sin in us to be against it too nay so far from being a sin that it would be a very great one not to be so It will appear by this time I believe needless to most people to examine what our Compiler from F. Alexandre does produce from Antiquity to help out this groundless Supremacy one advantage I hope I shall reap from what hath been observed hitherto on this head that I need not at all be copious in the refuting his Testimonies which are brought to prove a Supremacy from St. Peter's being called by some Rock of the Church and Prince of the Apostles from Appeals being made to the Bishops of Rome and from the necessity of their confirming all Councils to make them obligatory to the Church I shall inform the Reader before I begin with the particular Testimonies of our Compiler that they are generally stolen from Natalis Alexandre's fourth Dissertation in his Pars prima Seculi primi His first Testimony from Irenaeus is of no use a Nubes Test p. 22. ex Nat. Alexand. p. 297. since it onely proves that there was a Church planted at Rome by the joint endeavours of St. Peter and St. Paul which passage makes directly against a Supremacy except our Compiler can prove that St. Peter and St. Paul were but one individual man as to the potentior Principalitas there they have been told often enough that it relates to the Civil State Rome being the Imperial City whither business brought all people Christians as well as others The next obscure passage from Optatus b Nub. Testium p. 23 24. Nat. Alex. Pars secunda Seculi quarti p. 225. cum Pars prima Seculi primi p. 283. doth indeed seem to prove that there is but one Cathedra in the World possessed by St. Peter and after him by his Successours at Rome but I have these objections against Optatus taken in this sense first that he is made to contradict himself since in his first Book against this same Parmenian c Nec Caecilianus recessit à Cathedra Petri vel Cypriani sed Majorinus Opt. Milev l. 1. c. Parmen p. 38. Edit Paris 1631. he speaks of the Cathedra of St. Cyprian aswell as of that of St. Peter and in the same Book against the same Schismatick shewing how the people stuck to Caecilian against Majorinus he tells him d Conferta erat Ecclesia populis plena erat Cathedra Episcopalis erat Altare loco suo in quo pacifici Episcopi retro temporis obtulerunt Cyprianus Lucianus caeteri sic exitum est foras Altare contra Altare erectum est Idem l. 1. contr Parmen p. 41 42. that the Church was full of people where the Episcopal Cathedra was and the Altar whereon Cyprian Lucian and other peaceable Bishops had offered that the Donatists were Schismaticks who separated from the Church and set up Altar against Altar Secondly That he is made to contradict all Church Writers before and after him for hundreds of years who make as many Cathedra's as Bishops in the World and every of these Bishops to be Successours to the Apostles who had committed to them in common by our Saviour the Care and Government of the Catholick Church as I have fully shewn above I will name but one Father and he an African too Tertullian who bids c Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Philippos Thessalonicenses Ephesum Romam Tert. de Praescrip c. Haeret. c. 36. the Hereticks take a view of all the Apostolick Churches in which the very Chairs the Apostles used are possessed by the Bishops in their several places after which he reckons Corinth and Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus and Rome it self So that I think it plain enough that there were other Cathedra's besides that at Rome and therefore that cannot be the onely one and this makes me farther wonder at what Optatus talks about the Vnity of this Chair at Rome being such as that the rest of the Apostles might not have Cathedra's for themselves I cannot but say that this obscure passage is false as well as groundless and that if Optatus wrote it himself which some question Illyricus f Flacii Illyrici Catalogus Testium Verit. l. 4. p. 194. F. Genevae 1608. for one in his Catalogus Testium Veritatis he had very little considered the Scriptures and Fathers before him and I hope it is no crime to affirm this of him who gives such a reason for St. Peter's being called Cophas who does swerve from the ancienter Fathers so very much in giving the Succession of the Bishops of Rome and which is more doth faulter in his account of the Donatists Schism a thing which begun so near his own time and does confound the two Donatus's as Monsieur
again He sees we are agreed and therefore what he hath put down here as a Point at present under debate betwixt us is really none at all But if He mean here Constitutions of Points of Faith necessary to Salvation let him undertake to produce Fathers when he pleases for that point and I do here promise him an Answer what He hath collected under this head are not to that purpose For as to his two e Nubes Test p. 48 49. Nat. Alexan. p. 358-360 first Authorities from Irenaeus they are taken out of that very book wherein St. Irenaeus as he tells him who put him upon writing against the Valentinians undertook to confute that Heresie from f In hoc autem tertio Libro ex SCRIPTVRIS inferamus ostensiones ut nihil tibi ex his quae praeceperas desit à nobis Iren. Pref. in Lib. 3. adv Haeres the Scriptures themselves I wish some in the World would but imitate him and not be angry at us for being solicitous and earnest for the same Method In this Book Irenaeus takes notice of the extravagant humour of the Hereticks that they would be confined to no Rule nor submit either to Scripture or Tradition g D. Iren. l. 3. c. 2. By Tradition here this Father meant the preaching of the Christian Faith and the Delivery of the Apostles Creed h Hanc praedicationem cùm acceperit hanc fidem Ecclesia diligenter custodit consonanter haec praedicat o docet tradit quasi unum possidens os D. Iren. adv Haer. l. 1. c. 3. every Article of which is expressy contained in the Holy Scriptures so that this cannot be of any service to them since both sides agree that the Creed is but a Summary of the Holy Scriptures which Creed he says was unanimously without any variation believed taught and delivered from hand to hand in every Church There is a passage in this third Chapter urged indeed by F. Alexandre k Nat. Alex. p. 359. but more prudently omitted by our Compiler which I think may with abundance of reason be turned upon the Romanists by us in all points of Controversie betwixt us as well as it was by St. Irenaeus against the Hereticks of his time He arguing against them that there were no Bishops in the World that either taught or knew of any such things as they held urges them with this argument That if the Apostles had known of any such hidden Mysteries l Etenim si recondita Mysteria scissent Apostoli quae seorsim latenter ab reliquis Perfectos docebant His vel maximè traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant Valde enim perfectos irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse quos Successores relinquebant c. St. Iren. c. Haer. l. 3. c. 3. which they were to teach the Perfect onely in private and unknown to the rest of their Disciples they would most likely have delivered them to those to whom they committed those Churches they had planted inforcing it with this reason because they certainly would be very desirous that those to whom they left their Churches and their Episcopal Charge should be very perfect and irreprovable in all things which they could not be if they wanted those secret Mysteries the Hereticks did pretend to And in the same manner may we urge against the Church of Rome that if the Apostles had known of such things as Purgatory Praying to Saints and the Lawfulness of Worshipping Images and the like they would certainly either have put them down in their own Writings or would have delivered them to those to whom they left their Charges that so we might have seen and heard of these things among them as frequently and as unanimously as we do of the Tradition of the Apostles Creed But to return and put a short Answer to these Quotations the Tradition here spoken of was about the Apostles Creed the Tradition here is what the Apostles had preached and what the Apostles preached is the very same that they afterwards by the Will of God and the Request of Christians as Eusebius m Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. for example does inform us about three of the Gospels committed to Writing This is what Irenaeus himself says particularly in the first Chapter of this Book n Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos Quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postea verò per Dei voluntatem in SCRIPTVRIS nobis TRAVIDERVNT Fundamentum Columnam Fidei nostrae futurum St. Iren. adv Haer. l. 3. c. 1. that we had no other knowledge of the Oeconomy of our Salvation than by the Labours of those by whom we first received the Gospel which Gospel indeed at first They DELIVERED by PREACHING but afterwards by the Will and Appointment of God committed It to WRITING that IT might be the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith and so of our Salvation If those Divine Writings be of that Efficacy as to found and stablish us in the True Faith thither in God's name let us have recourse and learn what the Apostles taught by what they writ We have not the least ground or intimation from this Father of any Doctrines necessary to Salvation not written or forgotten to be penned by the Apostles among the rest We have his Opinion directly against any such secret Traditions In a word if it were God's Will that the Apostles should commit to writing the same Word of Salvation that they had preached I cannot see how it should come to pass that some part of it should be written and another not If it were all written I am sure our Compiler is besides the Cushion and the whole Church of Rome as much What I have said here is not onely answer sufficient for what is out of Irenaeus but for the two next Testimonies from Origen o Nubes Test p. 50 51. Nat. Alexan. p. 365 366. the latter of which speaking so very honourably of the Scriptures is a very unfit one for the Church of Rome's purpose and would have been omitted had either F. Alexandre or our Compiler read the whole Tract they so readily quote The last from Origen p Nubes Test p. 51. Nat. Alex. p. 366. and those from Tertullian q Nubes Test p. 52. Nat. Alex. p. 367. relate onely to Ecclesiastical Rites as for Tertullian's not disputing with the Hereticks from Scripture r Nubes Test p. 54. Nat. Alex. p. 369. it was not from the Imbecillity of Scriptures for such purposes but upon other accounts one of which was that they had nothing to doe with the Scriptures all the World knows the Reverence Tertullian had for the Fulness and Sufficiency of the Scriptures to all purposes when ſ Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina Si non est scriptum
prove and this is what we demand that they would shew us from the Writings of the Fathers that the Invocation of Saints and Worship of them and their Reliques was the Practice of the Vniversal Church in the first second third and fourth Ages of the Church the Practice of the Three first Centuries is that which they know we so much value and insist upon and therefore always demand Evidences thence of any Doctrine or Practice when Tradition was certainly freshest in their Memories and the Fathers in best capacity of knowing the sense of Scriptures and of the Apostles Our Compiler will not be the man serviceable to us in such demands As to honouring the Saints in observing days in honour of them he knows we doe it and therefore needed not to bring passages from the latter end of the fourth Century and the fifth d Nub. Test p. 63 64 c. N. Alex. Disser 5. in Panoplia in Par. 2. Sec. 5. p. 279 281 283 c. to prove it was then practised in the Church he might very easily have shewn such a Practice from the first Ages of the Church But I will pass on to Invocation of Saints and see whether He shews this to have been the Practice of the Three first Centuries and so on and here Alas his Authorities fail him and he is not able to produce us one for his passages from St. Cyprian and Origen e Nub. Test p. 67. N. Alex. p. 305. do onely prove what is generally piously believed that the glorified Saints do intercede for the Church Militant and the two next f Nub. Test p. 68. N Alex. p. 308. from the fourth Century prove no more But what is this to Invocation of Saints is there no difference betwixt our praying to them and their interceding for us The next Authority from Nazianzen g Nub. Test p 69. N. Alex. p. 309. cannot doe it since all know this to be a Rhetorical Apostrophe and his other Orations shew that this thing of addressing their discourse or wishes to the Saints was now but in its infancy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his third Oration against Julian addressing himself to Constantius does invincibly prove that it was far from being a settled belief then that the Saints could hear or perceive requests put up to them nor does any of his following Authorities h Nub. Test p. 70 71 c. N. Alex. p. 311 312 c. from Gregory Nyssen Chrysostome Ambrose prove any more than an interpellation or Request to the Saints that they would do that which they did believe they were always a doing that is praying for the distressed here on earth none of his Testimonies proceed so far as to prove any formal Prayers like those now used in the Church of Rome they look much liker the Requests from Equals or familiar Friends let but any one compare the Speech of Gregory Nyssen for example i Nub. Test p. 70. where he applies himself to Theodorus the Martyr with the Devotions of the present Church of Rome to the Saints and he will easily see the great difference betwixt the Prayers used now during Divine Service and the Requests then made in their Orations So that we of the Church of England are still where we were notwithstanding our Compiler we dare not practise Invocation of Saints because we believe Prayer or Religious Invocation to be peculiar to God alone who will not give his Glory k Isa 42.8 to any other who in any of our necessities hath directed us to call upon him l Psal 50.15 and hath promised that he will deliver us we believe our blessed Saviour knew his Father's mind better than all the men in the World who ordered his Disciples and us by them to put up our Prayers to Our Father not to this or that Saint that is in Heaven We do not follow the latter Ages of the Church in their Interpellations to Saints because as we are sure that they had not Scripture to ground their Practice upon so we are as certain that they had not the Example of the first Ages to guide them into such Practices But we are farthest of all from joyning with the present Church of Rome which hath turned the Interpellations and Requests used to Saints in the fifth and sixth Centuries into formal Prayers and Services and hath put her Prayers to them into the most solemn parts of her Devotions into her Litany for instance so that if we could not admit of using such Requests to Saints because groundless and without Example we have far more reason to reject Invocation and solemn Prayers to Saints as Superstitious since it is against Scripture and against the Practice of the three first Centuries of the Church against a Council in the fourth Century and wants a Pattern even in the fifth and sixth and hath no example in any of the places produced by our Compiler on this head This is sufficient to shew that what our Compiler hath produced from the End of the fourth and from the fifth Century does not defend or reach up to the present Practices of the Church of Rome in this point since there is so great a difference betwixt Interpellations put up in Rhetorical Orations and Homilies and Prayers used in the very Litanies themselves betwixt Requests not put up in the Liturgies of the Church nor commanded any where in Antiquity for those first five hundred years of the Church and Prayers formally put into the Liturgies of the Church of Rome and as strictly commanded to be used by all her members In Origen's time we are sure that the Doctrine of the Church was that no worship nor adoration nor consequently no Invocation was to be paid to Angels m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Angelos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen contr Celsum l. 5. p. 233. Edit Cantabr because all prayer supplication intercession and thanksgiving was to be offered up to God Almighty by the high Priest our Lord Jesus Christ and it was lookt upon as an absurd thing to invocate Angels or Saints for the same reason holds for both who had no knowledge of the particular affairs of men As this was the Doctrine of the third Century so as soon as Invocation of Angels began to take root in some parts of the Church in the fourth Age the Council of Laodicea which was confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon in her 35th Canon did command that no Christians should leave the Church of God and go and Invocate Angels and did anathematize any that n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 35. Conc. Laodicen p. 53. in Bibliotheca Juris Canonici Veteris Edit Justel 1661. should be guilty of this secret Idolatry and did interpret it to be a forsaking of Christ I cannot but observe upon this Canon that Theodoret interpreting the eighteenth verse o Quocirca Synodus quoque quae convenit Laodiceae
Let us now see whether our Compiler can shew us the Practice of the Church to be contrary to what we have here set down and whether he can shew that the Primitive Church did use those Acts of Worship those Prostrations and Kissings those Processions and Resorts to them for Cures and Assistence in Distresses which are now the ordinary stated Practices in the Church of Rome during the three first Centuries which He knows we always insist upon and demand as the surest Witnesses of the Doctrines and Practices of the Apostles and the Church from the beginning Our Compiler is not able to produce even one Instance of any Reliques of Saints treasured up in order to cure Maladies or be prostrated unto but that he may not appear quite destitute of a Testimony from those purest Ages of the Church he brings us in the old Chair of St. James Bishop of Jerusalem but how comes this to be the Relique of that Saint were St. James and his Chair * Nub. Test p. 75. N. Alex. p. 231. so near a-kin as to be both of a piece the world is very low with such people when they are forc'd to bring in old Chairs instead of the Saints Bodies or any parts of them but let it pass for a sort of a Relique does it appear from Eusebius out of whom the quotation is brought that the Christians then worshipped it carried it about in solemn Processions or that it was resorted to for Cures or that it did any great Cures This our Compiler should have shewn and without it I must tell him that this is worse than trifling because we are now about the Defence of the present Practices of the Church of Rome by shewing that the Primitive Church practised the same But F. Alexandre told him and he doth tell us that the Faithfull of the Church of Jerusalem did shew great Reverence to this Chair 't is true Valesius his Translation which Father Alexandre follows here though Christopherson is his man at other times says this but the Mischief is Eusebius himself does not what Eusebius says is that the faithfull at Jerusalem were wont and to that day did shew to all Comers the x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. Chair it self which St. James sate Bishop in which I think is pretty different from Valesius his translation about shewing great reverence to the Chair it self as to the Honour they then payed to the Memories of the Saints themselves it was but what was highly just and that wherein they are imitated by us as well as any other Christians His next Testimony from St. Cyril y Nub. Test p. 75. Nat. Alex. p. 232. of Jerusalem is so far from being for them that I think it may and ought to rise up as a Witness against them for when God had given such a virtue to the bones of Elisha as to raise a dead man and when that Miracle was wrought by God's permission can our Compiler shew or dare any of his Church pretend to doe it that the Jewish Church did thereupon take up and enshrine the Prophets bones that they appointed Processions to them or did command the Worship of prostration or kissing to be paid to them or that they used to frequent his Monument for the same or like Miracles This they ought to reflect upon and to consider how far the Scriptures are from mentioning or the Jewish Church from practising any religious and superstitious addresses to those bones notwithstanding so extraordinary a Miracle effected by them How happy had it been for the Christian Church if Christians had kept within the same bounds and not given such a helping hand to the Superstitions and Idolatries of after ages by their hunting out and searching so much for the Ashes and Remains of the Servants of God some of whom had been buried above a thousand years before This therefore we must grant to the Members of the Church of Rome that Superstition taking root in the end of the fourth Century of the Church a great part of Religion began to be placed in searching for Martyrs bones in building Churches where they found or fixed them especially when they found that God was pleased at those places I dare not say by those ashes and bones to work Miracles upon which they did pay an Honour to those Reliques but that they did worship them as they now do in the Church of Rome is what themselves so often deny St. Hierome z Nos autem non dico Martyrum Reliquias sed nè Solem quidem non Angelos non Archangelos colimus adoramus D. Hieron adv Vigilant ad Riparium in particular who contended so earnestly for them with Vigilantius Had the Church of Rome stayed here and not proceeded so much farther in these things I do not see that we could have broken Communion with them upon such an account and therefore I need not examine by retail his Testimonies from the latter end of the fourth and fifth Centuries the design of which he himself makes onely to prove that the Fathers kept the Reliques of Saints with Respect and Veneration and believed that God often wrought Miracles by them which we do grant the Fathers of those latter ages did and might doe it too as long as they kept as they said of themselves that they always did from paying Religious Worship unto them but we say withall that what the Christians of those Ages did about these things does no ways defend the present Extravagancies of the Church of Rome the excesses wherein about Reliques are come to that Scandalous height as to make the learned men of their own Church ashamed of them As to the Practice of the Church of England which inquires not after nor is solicitous about the Reliques of Saints this may be said in her Defence that she finds no Practice or Command about any such searching after the bones of the Dead in any part of Scripture of either Testament but that their whole care then was to commit them to their Sepulchres in hopes of a future Resurrection and never to disturb their Ashes and therefore she thinks it must needs be her greatest commendation that she is more carefull to imitate what she finds written and practised in the Scriptures themselves than to imitate what the fourth Age of the Church began to practise when the Church of Christ was near four hundred years old The Holy Scriptures themselves are the Rule of her Faith and for any Apostolical Practices she inquires among them who lived with the Apostles or nearest to them among whom finding nothing of any searching for Reliques or any Miracles done by them in those first three hundred years she is resolved to practise what the Christians of those first and purest Ages did rather than what after-ages did wherein plenty and prosperity let loose the reins to some peoples fancies and made that a part of Religion which was
Discretion in this Account than his Master himself our Compiler * Nub. Test p. 151. begins his account with telling his Reader that the Jews Marcionites Manichees and Theopaschits had always shew'd themselves profess'd Enemies of Holy Images but his Master F. Alexandre tells us a greater piece of news that the Gentiles as well as b Nat. Alex. ibidem p. 65. Gentiles Judaei Marcionitae Manichaei Theopaschitae jam olim Sacris Imaginibus bellum indixere c. Jews Marcionites Manichees and Theopaschits had of a long time or as our Compiler translates jam olim always been enemies of the Holy Images I think this about the Pagans being such enemies to Images is a Discovery and a thing which few people would have thought or hit on but so it is if we may believe F. Alexandre and therefore his Transcriber was to blame not to let his English Reader hear of it that so he might know whom we herd with that are such enemies to Images and that he might upon occasion call Protestants either Pagans or Iconoclasts since they are all of a humour and in the same faction against Holy Images It is not my business to examine this account of the Quarrels in the Eighth Century about Images it is owned that in that Century as one part of the Church by a large Council of Bishops did put a stop to and utterly forbid the making and Worship of Images which was an Evil then creeping into the Church so after them another Synod at Nice did endeavour to undoe what those religious Bishops had appointed and did command that Images should be put into Churches and be worshipped there But it must be remembred also that this last Conventicle of Nice was despised by the Western part of the Christian World and her Definitions condemned in a Council of three hundred Bishops at Frankford under Charles the Great who himself or some by his Command yet not without his Royal Assistence did with so much learning and accuracy fully confute all the Pleas and grounds for Images made use of by that Conventicle at Nice And as to our own Nation so far were They from submitting to what had been enacted at Nice that when the Emperour Charles the Great transmitted hither the Definitions of the Synod at Nice to Offa King of Mercia Hoveden c Imagines Adorari debere quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur Contra quod scripsit Albinus Alcuinus r. Epistolam ex authoritate Divinarum Scripturarum mirabiliter affirmatam illamque cum eodem libro ex Persona Episcoporum ac Principum nostrorum Regi Francorum attulit R. Hoveden Annal. Pars 1. p. 405. Edit Wechel 1601. tells us that the Church of God here did abominate and abhor what they had enacted at Nice about the Adoration of Images and that the famous Alcuin wrote and carried a Letter in the name of the Bishops and Princes of England to that Emperour wherein from the Sacred Authority of Scripture Alcuin baffled the Adoration of Images Passing therefore these things as nothing to the purpose of the present debate which should be to shew that Images were not onely used but adored within and during the first six Centuries after Christ We challenge our Enemies to shew that the Church of God in those first ages did not onely use but worship Images Our Compiler manages the beginning of his account so slyly and in his old way that I question not but most of his credulous and unthinking Readers do thereupon believe that Images were always used in the Catholick Church and always worshipped by Her. The Jews saith he Marcionites Nubes Test p. 151. Manichees and Theopaschits had ALWAYS shew'd themselves profess'd Enemies of Holy Images and had been industrious for the suppressing them among Christians But in the year 723 the Jews with an unusual fury declared War against them c. I appeal to all Learned men whether most men would not hence believe that Images had always been used and worshipped in the Primitive Church and I do not see why all that reade him should not believe the same since it is very natural for every one to argue thus with himself that the Holy Images could not Always have been opposed by the Jews Marcionites and the other Hereticks except they had Always been used and worshipped in the Church If then our Compiler did thus believe himself and had a mind to convey the same belief unto his Readers I must tell him that for all his reading of Father Alexandre's Books He discovers a great deal of ignorance in this thing since what He writes here is a notorious falshood but if he pretends that his meaning onely was that since Images were used in the Christian Church they had always been opposed by those Jews and others I must then assure him that He deals most disingenuously and uses too much craft for an Honest Writer while He suppresses that in this account which could onely keep his Readers from believing a gross untruth If our Compiler would doe the Controversie about Image-Worship any true service and keep within his own bounds the Belief and Practice of the first five hundred years of the Church He must shew that for those five hundred years as well as since Images were not onely used but worshipped by the Christians in their Assemblies How unable either our Compiler or his Master Father Alexandre are to shew such a worship of Images then is hence apparent in that they are not able to produce any Authour for the first three hundred years of the Church that speaks of Images either used or worshipped in the Church of Christ during that space of time I know our Compiler quotes Tertullian d Nub. Test p. 160. N. Alex. Dissertatio 6. be in Sec. 8. p. 628. but He is very unhappy in it since all the world knows that know any thing of Antiquity that Tertullian was so a far from speaking of the use of Images or the Lawfulness of them among Christians or any people else that he was against the very art of painting and making Images and lookt upon it as utterly unlawfull and universally forbidden e Idolum tam fieri quam coli Deus prohibet Propter hanc causam ad eradicandam scilicet materiam Idololatriae Lex Divina proclamat Ne feceris Idolum conjungens neque similitudinem eorum quae in coelis sunt c. Toto mundo ejusmodi Artibus interdixit Servis Dei. Tert. de Idololat c. 14. Edit Franek by God and farther that place of Tertullian which our Compiler alludes to for he does not give us Tertullian's but his Master F. Alexandre's words speaks not of any Image but of a mere embleme engraven upon a Chalice As to the three Testimonies f Nub. Test p. 154 155. N. Alex. p. 627 624. about the Statue of our Saviour set up before her door by the Woman whom our Saviour cured of the Issue of Bloud our
Compiler might very well have spared them since Eusebius in the very next words to his account of it tells us g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 18. Edit Vales that it was through her heathenism that she did this and that upon the same ground the Painted Images of our Saviour and Peter and Paul were in many hands which a heathenish gratitude had taught some to make to shew their respect to them All the following Testimonies about the Transient Sign or Figures of the Cross used by Constantine the Great and afterwards h Nub. Test p. 155 156 157 c. N. Alex. in Panoplia Seculi septimi p. 67 68 69 70 76 71 64 65 77 78 c. are to no purpose since our Compiler cannot shew withall that they were worshipped if he could why did he not let him shew that as they used in Constantine's time the Figure of the Cross so They adored it let him shew that the Ancients did practise what the Church of Rome now does that They adored the Image of the Cross and which is far more according to themselves that Latria was paid to it which the Church of Rome now says i Crux Legati quia DEBETVR EI LATRIA erit à dextris c. Pontificale Romanum p. 480. col 1. Edit Romae 1611. is due to it That the Reader may see the direct contrary Practice betwixt the Church of God in those days and the Church of Rome at this present I will produce onely St. Ambrose's account of Helena the Mother of Constantine's finding at Jerusalem the Cross on which our Saviour was crucified He tells us k Invenit ergo Titulum REGEM ADORAVIT non LIGNUM utique quia hic GENTILIS est ERROR VANITAS IMPIORUM Ambros in Orat. de Obitu Theodosii T. 3. p. 61. Edit Erasm 1538. that upon her finding the Title by which she knew our Saviour's Cross from either of the other two She ADORED the KING of Heaven not THE WOOD OF THE CROSS which would have been in Helena and in it self is a PAGANISH ERROUR and the VANITY of the IMPIOUS By these words I question not but St. Ambrose meant that to have Adored the Cross would have been downright Idolatry and yet our Compiler hath furnished us in defence of Image-Worship with two or three Fathers which are of the opposite Opinion his St. Asterius Amasenus l Nub. Test p. 163 164. Nat. Alex. Panopl Sec. 7. p. 71. is so far from thinking it an Impious Vanity to adore the Cross that He if we may believe the Romish Writers and the second Synod at Nice for there is nothing of this Oration in Rubenius's Edition or in the Biliotheca Patrum of La Bigne says that Christians are COMMANDED by the LAW of GOD to ADORE the CROSS m Apparet Signum viz. Crucis Quod ex PRAESCRIPTO LEGIS Christiani ADORANT Asterius Orat. de S. Euphemia in Nubes Testium p. 164. We are very unhappy that we could never see this Command in the Law could we but see it or had St. Ambrose ever dreamt of such a Law neither He nor we would call Adoration of the Cross Idolatry but this of Asterius is too gross and too absurd to deserve a word of answer As Asterius said the Adoration of the Cross was commanded so Paulinus Nolanus another of our Compiler's Vouchers assures us n Nubes Testium p. 168 169. Nat. Alex. Panopl Sec. 7. p. 61 62. that it was practised yearly at Jerusalem when at every Easter the Bishop of that Church did produce the Cross on which our Saviour suffered and which was kept by Him to be ADORED by the People and his third Authour o 〈◊〉 Nubes Testium p. 172. Nat. Alex. Panopl Sec. 7. p. 66. Rusticus Diaconus to clear the Point tells us that the WHOLE CHVRCH throughout the WHOLE WORLD did without any Contradiction or Dispute ADORE the NAILS p Clavos Lignum venerabilis Crucis Omnis per totum mundum Ecclesia absque ulla contradictione-adorat Rust Diac. in Nubes Test p. 172. with which our Saviour was fastned as well as the WOOD of the HOLY CROSS on which He suffered I question not but every one that reads these passages will admire how things came to be so much altered or rather how St. Ambrose and this Paulinus who were Contemporaries for some time should give us such diametrically opposite accounts about the Adoration of the Cross I will onely desire the Reader that I may deliver him from his admiration to observe that Paulinus in this very Epistle tells us that the place from whence our Saviour ascended into Heaven could never after our Saviour's ascension be paved with Marble or any thing else but that the Earth threw it all off and that the footsteps of our Saviour are plainly to be seen there and which is a better Story that though the Bishops of Jerusalem did give an infinite number of the pieces of the Cross to Pilgrims and others who begged them of those Bishops yet that the Cross it self is to put it into our Compiler's translation nothing at all diminished but remains as entire as if never touch'd or mangled I hope this will give the Reader enough of Paulinus whose Epistle I have once read over but hope in God I never shall again As for Rusticus Diaconus I will return no other answer than that those who know any thing of the State and Practices of the Church for the first six Centuries know very well that what Rusticus says is not to speak softly the greatest Truth Though Paulinus Nolanus is not worth the vindicating yet I cannot but tell our Compiler that he wrongs Him very much when He says q Nubes Test p. 166 167. Nat. Alexan. Dissert 6. Sec. 8. p. 631. after F. Alexandre that the blessed Trinity was described in Mosaick work in a Church built by this Paulinus whereas there is no such thing mentioned by Paulinus there in that Epistle nor ought it or can it be gathered from the Verses set down by F. Alexandre and our Compiler since though the Son might be represented by a Lamb and the Holy Ghost by a Dove there was nothing to represent God the Father except these wise Gentlemen will have him represented by a Voice which is a little too odd and a Voice too hard a thing to be painted The rest of our Compiler's Testimonies within the first six Centuries prove no more than the use of r Nub. Test p. 160 163 164 165 172. Nat. Alexan. Dissert 6. Sec. 8. p. 629. 630 631 632 633. Painting in the Churches the Saints and the Martyrs Sufferings and some Scripture Histories all which is nothing to the purpose except he could prove which he is far from being able to doe that those that brought those Paints into the Churches were as carefull to worship them as the Church of Rome now is However we
must inform the Reader that as this Custome of having Paints and Images in the Churches was without any Command from Scripture and without any Example of the Church for the golden Ages thereof the first three hundred years so neither was it universal but met with great opposition In the beginning of the fourth Century the Council of Illebiris in Spain commanded that there should be no Pictures in any Church ſ Placuit Picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere Concil Eliberit can 36. in T. 1. Concil p. 974. and the Story of St. Epiphanius in the end of this Century is sufficiently known who coming by chance into a Church which had a Veil over the door painted with the Picture of our Saviour or some other Saint tore it to pieces and gives this reason for his doing so in his Letter to the Bishop of Jerusalem because t Cùm ergò hoc vidissem in Ecclesia Christi contra Autoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere Imaginem scidi illud c. Epiphan Ep. ad Joann Episc Hierosol apud Hieronymi Opera Tom. 2. p. 58. Edit Paris 1533. it was against Scripture to have the Picture or Image of any person hang in a Christian Church But afterwards Custome by degrees brought these Pictures into most Churches and the ignorant people began to worship and fell to adoring them in the sixth Century which one of the Bishops of the Church Serenus of Marseilles taking notice of broke down the Pictures and Images and cast them out of the Church This was taken notice of by Gregory the Great and though he would not have had him to have broken the Images yet v Et quidem Zelum vos nè quid manu factum adorari possit habuisse laudavimus sed frangere easdem Imagines non debuisse judicamus Greg. M. in Ep. 109. l. 7. Edit Frob. 1564. he commends his Zeal against their being worshipped I think his Authority sufficient to end this point of Controversie betwixt me and the Compiler He does in this Epistle fully declare himself that he would have the people kept by all means from giving any worship to Images and recommends onely an Historical Vse of them for the Ignorant * Tua ergò fraternitas illas servare ab earum ADORATV populum prohibere debuit Idem Ibidem He is of the same mind in his next Epistle to this same Bishop Serenus and though at this day in the Church of Rome Images are set up not onely for an Historical Vse but to be worshipped yet I am sure from his own Pen that Gregory the Great 's Doctrine was that Images were placed in the Churches for an Historical Vse onely and NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED x Frangi verò non debuit Quòd NON ad ADORANDVM in Ecclesiis sed ad instruendas SOLVMMODO mentes fuit Nescientium collocatum Idem Ep. 9. l. 9. and Gregory concludes his Directions to that Bishop that if any body would have an Image made He should not hinder it but for the paying Adoration to Images He should by all means hinder and forbid it and He advises him to admonish y Et si quis Imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe Adorare verò Imagines omnibus modis DEVITA Sed hoc sollicitè fraternitas tua admoneat ut ex visione rei gestae ardorem compunctionis percipiant in ADORATIONE SOLIVS OMNIPOTENTIS SANCTAE TRINITATIS humiliter prosternantur Idem Ibidem his Charge that upon the sight of those representations they would raise up in themselves sutable affections and with humility prostrate themselves to and pay all their Adoration to the OMNIPOTENT BLESSED TRINITY ALONE Such passages as this I have just mentioned to which I could add many more out of Antiquity do so much affect me that I cannot enough wonder at the Index Expurgatorius of the present Church of Rome z Index Libror Prohibit Expurgandorum p. 234. Edit Madriti 1667. which commands Solus Deus Adorandus to be struck out of the Marginal Notes of Humfredus's Latin Translation and Edition of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Comments upon Esaias a Cyrillus ex Vers Humfredi Basil 1566. p. 258. and out of the Marginal Notes in Robert Stephens Bible printed 1557. Serviendum Soli Deo * Index Expurg p. 99. whereas both these passages are the very words of our Saviour himself Matthew 4.10 I would fain know of any Romanist how this is not virtually and in effect to command that that Verse in the Gospel should be struck out though it contains our Saviour's own expressions who should surely be allowed to understand his own Religion as well as the Managers of the Index Expurgatorius And for what relates to the Cross it self they have b Index Expurg p. 47. col 2. ordered that non ut Adoremus not that we should Adore it should be struck out of Masius his Learned Commentary upon Joshua 22.28 These are things so very notorious that my wonder increases and my admiration at those people who notwithstanding all this would fain have us believe that they do not worship the Cross it self when not onely their PONTIFICAL and their SERVICE on Good-friday teach and shew that they of the Church of Rome adore the Cross but their Index Expurgatorius is so carefull to strike out of the Indexes to the Fathers Works any thing that doth but appear to thwart or contradict such worship If the Church of Rome doth not worship Images why is she so carefull to strike out c Index Expurg p. 311. of the Index to St. Hierome such innocent passages as these Adorare Statuas vel Imagines Cultores Dei non debent the Worshippers of God ought not to ADORE Statues or Images Imago una tantùm veneranda One onely Image to wit God the Son the express Image of his Father is to be worshipped Why doth the poor Index suffer here and not St. Hierome in whom d Nos autem unum habemus virum VNAM veneramur Imaginem quae est invisibilis omnipotentis Dei. D. Hier. in Ezek. l. 4. c. 16. these very expressions are If the Church of Rome give no Adoration to Saints or Angels why doth her Index Expurgatorius command such passages as these following to be struck out of e Index Expurg p. 52. the Index to St. Athanasius's Works Adorari solius Dei est nullius autem creaturae Adoration is to be paid to God alone and to no creature with him Angeli non sunt Adorandi Angels are not to be Adored Creatura nulla adoranda nulla invocanda immo eam adorare Arianorum Ethnicorum sit No creature is to be adored or invocated to adore which would be to play the Arian or the Pagan I would fain know why the Index to his Works must be dealt so severely with while Athanasius himself is guilty if there be any crime in them of every expression in the passages