force of his Argument Sunt certe saith the Saint libri Dominici quorum Authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus c. There are certain books of our Lord He means Scripture to whose Authority we both yeild we both believe Ibi Quaeramus ecclesiam Let us look for the Church there c. That is seeing we both who now dispute admit of Scripture and believe it let us upon such a supposition go forward and prove the Church by Scripture which is an excellent way of Arguing but if any question the Authority of Scripture it self take it we must when we make a right Analysis upon the Church's Authority solely and say with St. Austin I would not believe the Scripture but for the Church I omit the brags he hath pag. 6. of Protestants being more then indubitably Conquerors meer empty words and observe how he puts himself on a new trouble pag. 7th where he saith Whatsoever we cannot prove by Scripture we disclaim it I will not here tell the Doctor he must then disclaim every Tenet of Protestant Religion no more in Scripture then Arianism as it stands opposite to the Roman Faith But briefly I argue thus A Church secured from Error and which Infallibly proposeth Divine Truth can be proved by Scripture or cannot If the first there was is and shall ever be in the World a society of Christians un-crrable and certain in Doctrine that neither injures Faith nor by intromitting Novelties destroy Apostolical Doctrine for the Scripture as we now suppose saith so and what it saith is true One favour therefore I humbly beg of the Doctor that he would by a plain designation point me out this unerrable body of Christians and clearly also design me such known out cast Christians that are not of this Moral body my demand is reasonable and require's no long discourse nor any definition of a Church but to have this unerring company design'd and candidly If the Scripture Warrant 's not such an Infallible company of Christians the Doctor though he pretend to it can never believe with a true and infallible Act of Supernatural faith that the Ancient Church Inherited Catholick Doctrine that it sent Milions of Souls to Heaven That what we now read is the Apostles Creed that the Ancient Councils erred not in their Definitions No nor that there ever was or is now Pure and Incorrupt Scripture among Christians I say he cannot believe these truths with a certain assent of Supernatural Faith but at most with a meer opinative Judgment which may as well be wrong as right false as true staggering assuredly it is and not steddy if a meer Opinion yes and wholly destitute of that strength which God requires to Supernatural Faith In his 10th page he is fierce against the Church of Rome for pretending to a power not only of declaring New Articles of Faith but of making new Symbols and Creeds and imposing them as necessary to Salvation To this purpose he cites the Bull of Leo the tenth against Martin Luther whose twenty seventh Proposition is this and condemned Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae non esse statuere Articulos fidei imo nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certain that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to appoint or determine Articles of Faith nor Laws of manners or good Works First here is not a word of making new Articles or Creeds and the word statuere may as well signifie to determine a Question not yet decided as to make any thing a new but to pass these niceties and shew clearly the Doctors Error I demand whether the Fathers assembled together in the Nicen Council made new Articles of Faith against the Arians whether St. Athanatius in his Creed did the like who was no Pope What the Doctors Answer is here is ours also for all and every Definition made by the Church in after Ages And I would have him to reflect that as he now cavil's at both Pope and Church for constituting new Articles so the Arians might have done against the Nicen Council and Athanasius his Creed yes and cried out Novelties novelties as loud as the Doctor In a word then I answer with St. Gregory in Ezechiel homit XVI post med pag. 1164. 6. edit Antwerp 1615. that per incrementa temporum Crevit scientia spiritalium Patrum With time Faith encreased hut how not that either the Church or Pope have Power to coin Articles at pleasure or to force Christians to the acceptance of Novelties contrary to Scripture or ancient Tradition No but the Power given them is to dispence the Mysteries of the Word of God to lay out more clearly verities contained in Scripture so the Fathers did in the Nicen Council when they defined the Son to be consubstantial with his Father which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never read in Scripture Finally to declare more explicitely what the Ancient Tradition of the Church and sence of the Fathers hath been within such a compass the Church holds it self when after mature deliberation it defines in Council Hence both Divines and Canonists teach that rigorously speaking the Church hath no new Articles of Faith but only a more full and explicite knowledge of that belief which anciently was among Primitive Christians yet none there is that reads our Doctor both in the page now cited and elsewhere after but must have this perswasion wrought in him that the Church and Pope may define as it were at Random make new Articles new Creeds as they list and impose them as necessary to Salvation All is false and fraudulent dealing CHAP. II. The Doctors Quotations not true His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis THe Doctor in his tenth page to prove our making new Articles cites Augustinus Triumphus de Anconâ—a quaest 59 Art 1 2. and pittifully abuseth that Catholick Author who in his resolution Art 1. â— concludes thus Respondeo quod hanc quaestionem determinat Augustinus libro 1. de symbolo ubi vult quod omnis symboli condendi ordinandi in sancta dei ecclesia terminatur authoritas I Answer St Austin resolves this Question lib. 1. de symbolo Where he saith That all Authority of making and setting a Symbol in order is within the bounds of the Church Mark first St. Austins words Omnis authoritas condendi ordinandi c. Then follow these other in Anconitanus his resolution wrongfully interpreted and unhandsomly mangled by the Doctor Ex his patere potest quod novum symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat nam in symbolo ponuntur illa quae universaliter pertinent ad Christianam fidem By this you may see that to make a new Symbol belongs only to the Pope for those things are set down in a Symbol which Universally concern Christian Faith These last words which explicate both St. Austins and Anconitanus his meaning are fraudulently left out
all peradventure as if he had read where an Image is there is no Religion without all peradventure the good man is deceived I say no more To what he next cites out of Origen we shall answer hereafter Now to the Doctors Chapters and Sections CHAP. I. Of the Doctors ungrounded discourse to the wrongful charge on Catholicks for making new Articles in Faith TOugh my task be chiefly to follow the Doctor in his Quotations and note as he goes along some few of his many Errors Yet touch I must a little on a discourse he is pleased to begin with Chapter the first It seems to enervate much our Christian Faith and weaken the Authority of the most Ancient Councils Page then the fourth and first Section he holds the two Testaments the words of Christ and of the Apostles the Fountains of Faith which none denies but next he adds Whatsoever caeme in after these foris est is to be cast out it belongs not unto Christ This latter assertion to say no more hath too much of the harshness in it for the difinitions of the Nicen Council and of the other three general Councils with St. Athanasius his Creed came in after the words of Christ and Holy Scripture are these Think ye like old Garments to be laid a side or cast out as not at all belonging to Christ belong they do most certainly as Rivers to their Fountains though not own'd as Original Springs and the first Foundations of our Faith Observe therefore I beseech you how the Doctor deals with us how he leads us on in darkness whilst he sets men a seeking after the Fountains of Faith but with it turns by the Stream cuts of the Torrent of Authority whereby to find them that is in a word he makes null all Authority that can assert with certainty Such were the Words of Christ such the Doctrine of the Apostles c. Judge whether I say not aright and demand of the Doctor upon whose certain proposal can he rely or indubitably admit of Christ's words as sacred If he answers Scripture the Question return's again and he is asked a new who it is that doth ascertain him of Scripture If the Fathers they are with him Fallible yes and full of ambiguous sences If the Church that saith he is changeable hath brought in novelties contrary to Ancient Faith if Councils not one is found but lyable to Error Turn by therefore these intermedial Streams running between us and the Fountains of Faith destroy the certainty of such Witnesses say that no man or society of men since Christ and his Apostles hath without a possibility of erring assured us that Christ spake that the Evangelists writ as they did the whole Scripture God knows will be cast aside also yes and become a comfortless an unwarranted Book Whence follow 's a total ruin of Christian Religion This is not my assertion but the great St. Austins the Quotation is known Tom. 6. contra epistolam Manichei cap. 5. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem c. I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved me to believe it Our Doctor may think he salves this objection in his next ensuing lines pag. 4. where he saith To these that is to Scripture we add not as Authors but as helpers of our Faith and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical the sentiments and Catholick Doctrine of the Church in the Ages next after the Apostles not that we think c. I Answer Here is no man knows what confusedly shut up in two Ambiguous VVords Heirs and Helpers to get out of darkness I might first demand how knows the Doctor now exactly what the Sentiments or Catholick Doctrine of the Church Anciently were in the Ages next after the Apostles The Proposal of our present Church overgrown as he saith with a thousand Errors is an infufficient warranty Both Fathers and Councils were even then Fallible and had they been Infallible their writings since that may perhaps have fallen into ill hands and lost their purity But I wave this discourse and propose to our present purpose this Question only Are we Christians now being obliged under Damnation to believe those Sentiments of the Ancient Church as undoubted Helpers as certain apparent Heirs of Divine Truth or no if not They cast us wholly upon uncertainties and may as well help us on to Err as hit right if we are bound to own them as certain Heirs of Divine Truth Scripture must assure it for saith the Doctor To believe any thing Divine that is not Scripture is a divillish spirit and undoubtedly affirm that at least in the Ages next after Christ there was a society of men not lyable to Error that kept our Christian Faith entire without spot or blemish faithfully transmitted it to Posterity c. Now all I can desire of the Doctor is to produce that Scripture which purifies the Ancient Church only and makes the next ensuing Ages of that Church Spurious in Doctrine fearfully despicable and lyable to Error Thus much I am confident he shall never shew for our dearest Saviour that Established a Christian Church promised he would be with it to the end of the World Gods alseeing providence drives not on his work by halfs nor leaves his Church when the Doctors fancy listeth Souls are now as dear to Christ as they were in the Primitive Ages He shed his Sacred Blood for All if then he secured his Church from Error and directed Souls into Truth he doth the like favour now and will not permit his Immaculate Spouse to beguile them with falshood All therefore the Doctor saith here is a deceitful Paralogism yes and Paradoxes not to be tolerated A Paradox it is to talk of Heirs and Helpers of Apostolical Doctrine and rob them of their Infallibility A Paradox it is to say that these Heirs and Helpers sent Milions of Souls into the Bosom of Christ and cast more Milions in after Ages out of his Bosom for want of true Faith A Paradox it is that Christ only remained with his Church for a time and then left it destitute of Divine Assistance yes and in points most Fundamental But the greatest Paradox of all which amuses every one is That now towards an end of the World a new sort of unknown men the Doctor is one will become our Teachers and tell us exactly how long Christ was with his Church and when he leap'd out of it He was with it say they for some three or four hundred years and then left it fluctuating tossed and at last saw it without Mercy overturned with a deluge of Errors And credit this we must upon their bare word because they say it without Sctipture without Reason yes expresly contrary to both and all Ancient Authority The Doctor to prove the Church by Scripture only quotes St. Austin in his Margent pag. 4. de vnit ecclesiae cap. 3 4. 5. but both mangles his words and conceals the
〈◊〉 ut dicitur cane Incomparabiliter enim pulchrior est Veritas Christianorum quam Helena Graecorum c. Such I say is my Petition presented to our Doctor and if the Love of Truth bears sway in his Breast yeeld he needs must to a speedy retractation Nothing can Retard him from so generous a Resolution but either Motives of interest drawn from a naughty World or his own once vented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So forsooth he hath said in his Disswasive and so it must stand though all run to Ruin and Christianity suffers The Doctor I confess hath been most Unluckily in broaching Heresies and wanting Grace to retract them Some years are now past since he was so Unfortunate as to become a Patron of the Pelagian Heresie when ex professo he Writ a Book against Original sin and stoutly defended it and being Friendly told by his own Brethren that what he said was not only opposite to Catholick Faith but also to the very Doctrine of the Church of England expresly deliver'd in her Liturgy in 39. Articles in the Office of Baptism c. He had yet the boldness to deny all and assert that the Church of England held not Original Sin though both Prince and Prelate knew then and believ'd the contrary I know not that he ever yet Recanted this Heresie if not 't is now high Time to do it and with it to Weep for the Errors in his Disswasive if he fails in both Duties the World will say and say truly that Dr. Taylor is Notior peccans quam paenitens more known for his Sin then for his Repentance and may Prudently Judge that he of all others was the unfittest Man to Write against Popery that disowns the Doctrine of his own Church unless this makes him fit that being a Pelagian his Words though he multiplies Volums will want weight against Catholicks For this is my reflection and I think a true one that this man who dar'd to say that the Church of England holds not Original Sin so plainly taught and believ'd by all will not Boggle to miscite the Fathers remote from our knowledge Read by few and Understood by fewer Farewel Gentle Reader with a thousand well-wishes for thy profitting by this Treatise I bestow as many on Dr. Taylor whose Enemy God knows I am not Nor can he think me one for laying out his Errors and telling Truth Upon this very Account he ought and I hope will to return me Thanks If now I Merit none I may hereafter have better Luck and deserve them If plain dealing may do it he shall have Reason to account me as indeed I am his Faithful True SERVANT and Friendly ADVERSARY E. W. QUOTATIONS Faulty in DOCTOR TAYLORS PREFACE To the READER TO destroy Tradition not contain'd in Scripture the Doctor cites Tertullian thus I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenes fear the Wo that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it I answer the Dr. turn's the true genuine sence out of this whole sentence chiefly by these guileful particles of his own making And if it be not written which seem exclusive of all unwritten tradition yet this Authority no more relates to Catholick Doctrine concerning Tradition then a Fable in Esop Briefly therefore Tertullian disputing against Hermogenes that held these visible things were created of I know not what prejacent matter speaks thus Lib. adversus Hermog Antwerp Print cap. 22. page 495. In principio c. In the beginning God made heaven and Earth then adds Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem I adore the fulness of Scripture Wherein in what doth he adore this fulness He answers Qua mihi factorem manifestat facta I adore the fulness of Scripture that doth manifest to me both the Maker and things made As who should say in this particular the Scripture is compleat and I adore its fulness c. Now these last words Qua mihi factorem c. which explain the Fathers sence our Dr. wholly omits and beguiles his Reader with these perverted particles if it be not written Tertullian after those words In Evangelio vero amplius goes on An autem de aliqua subiacenti materia facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi Whether all these things be made of a subjacent matter I never yet read Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Let Hermogenes his Work-house shew us that this particular is written Si non est Scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum If this thing now in controversie concerning the prejacent matter Hermogenes asserts be not written let him justly fear that Wo destin'd to them that detract from Scripture or add to it Here is exactly the whole context of Tertullian and it renders this sence Hermogenes holds the world made of a strange unknown matter The Scripture directly tells us how it was made and Created of nothing I adore the fulness of Scripture in this particular let therefore Hermogenes when the Scripture hath clearly said all that belongs to the first Creation of things prove by Scripture that unknown matter he defends if he cannot he may well fear that Wo threatned to such as detract from Scripture or add to it a prejacent matter never mentioned in it Judge good Reader whether this Quotation have so much as a likelyhood of gain-saying any constant received Tradition in the Church The Dr. may reply as Hermogenes added to Scripture his unknown matter so we add our unknown Traditions I answer first what Hermogenes defended was not only an addition but expresly contrary to Holy Scripture declaring that God made the VVorld of Nothing No Catholick Tradition is expresly or positively opposite to Gods written VVord unknown tradition we own not 2. Hermogenes had no such approved consent for his foolery as we have for our Catholick and ever received Tradition justly therefore did Tertullian oppugn him by the Authority of Scripture only for destitute he was of all warranted Tradition 3. The Doctrine of our Tradition not a pretended one or any superaddition of new Articles as the Dr. imputes to us is expresly allow'd of by Scripture it self the place is known 2 Thessa 2. 14. and enervates what ever hath the colour of an objection against us He cites next St. Basil de vera fide whose words are these Paris Print 1618. Tom. 2. page 251. Haud dubie manifestissimum hoc infidelitatis argumentum fuerit signum superbiae certissimum si quis eorum quae Scripta sunt aliquid velit rejicere aut eorum quae non Scripta introducere VVithout doubt this is a most manifest Argument of infidelity if one will reject any one of those things which are written these words our Dr. omits to make the Quotation sound to his sence or of those things which are not written introduce to wit into Scripture and so the St. explicates himself clearly in these following words Vehementissime
interdicat ne quid corum quae in Divinis literis habeantur dematur aut quod absit addatur VVhich is in plain English to say Add we must not nor diminish any thing in Scripture No Catholick pretends to make that Scripture which is not Scripture Nor to diminish so much as one jot in that sacred Book You see therefore so forceless this Authority is to gain-say received Tradition that it doth not so much as touch upon the very Question As proofless also are those other two Quotations in the Doctors Margent out of St. Basil's Morals for regula 72. C. 1. in the same Edition page 372. He only speak's as the Apostle doth Though an Angel Preach another Gospel then what is Preached let him be Anathematized and reg 80. cap. 22. pag. 386. he saith no more but that we must believe the true force of those things that are in Scripture reject nothing or make any thing new extra divinam Scripturam that is as I interpret without the warranty of Scripture but the Scripture indubitably warrants the declarations of Councils witness the Nicen definitions and constant received Tradition of the Church Therefore this Authority also is wholly impertinent to the Doctors purpose VVho next to oppose Tradition cites Theoph. Alexandrinus in English thus It is the part of a devillish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the Authority of Holy Scripture I Answer here are three faults in this one Quotation First The words are not faithfully cited Secondly They are weighed outof their circumstances and wrested contrary to the Authors meaning Thirdly VVere they as the Doctor would have them they prove nothing against Tradition Briefly all know how sharp an Adversary Theop. Alex. was to Origen and his followers He writ expresly against his errors but that work is not extant and in his 2. Epist paschali cited by the Doctor you have it Tom. 4. Biblioth Patrum Cullen Print 1618. pag. 716. after he had checked Origen for his rashness for broaching Fopperies of his own head and arrogantly making himself his own Master contrary to St. Pauls Humility who conferred the Gospel with other Apostles He speaks thus of Origen solely Sed ignorans quod Daemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humanarum mentium sequi aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum But not knowing that it is an instinct of a Devillish spirit to follow the sophistry or deceit of mans VVit these words which fully express the Authors sence our Doctor totally omit's or to think any thing divine not authorized or without the Authority of Holy Scripture So Theophilus who as you see wholly here relates to Origen's private errors condemns his Pride opposeth his sophistry and boldness in making himself a master of new Fancies but toucheth not the least on Catholick Doctrine concerning unwritten Tradition and though the Doctor draws him to such a sence it is soon answer'd that Catholick Tradition so expresly approved by Scripture cannot be thought a Doctrine extra Scripturae authoritatem without warrant of Gods Word Now if he tells us that he opposeth not any ancient Tradition but our pretended one only that found 's New Articles New Propositions c. I Answer He meerly combates with shadows we neither own such a Tradition nor can the Doctor prove it He should have first named one or two of these New Articles and then assaulted us with the Authority of Fathers directly opposite to our Doctrine and not winck and fight as he doth against no man knows what If he says again that he impugns all Tradition in general all Doctrine not expresly contain'd in Scripture forced he is not only to throw away Scripture it self and the Nicen definitions not only to disclaim a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence Baptizing Children c. but every tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestanism E. G. the belief of two Sacraments only which is not at all contain'd in Scripture nor can it be drawn from Scripture by any probable discourse or gloss of Protestant testants though these are worse and less able to derive unto us a true belief then the poorest tradition were any such that the Doctor can except against in the Catholick Church When the Doctor pleaseth I am ready to discuss this sole point with him of proving Protestant Tenets by Scripture only I believe he will not accept the Challenge Against the worshipping of Images he cites Lactantius lib. 2 cap. de Orig. Error observe I beseech you Lactantius hath seven Books de Divin Instit adversus gentes the Title to his second Book is de Origine erroris which contains ninty Chapters and our Doctor unskilfully throws the Title of the whole Book into a Chapter not found at all in the Author either in my Copy ann 1465. or in that extent Biblioth Patrum saeculo 3. pag. 224. However Chap. 18. these words are found Quare non est dubium quin religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est which the Doctor unworthily translates thus Without all peradventure wherever an Image is meaning for Worship there is no Religion I say unworthily and it pitties me to see so much want of candor for here a sence is rendered as if Lactantius declaim'd against the use and worship of Images among Christians whereas it is more then evident that he only speaks against Simulacra not Images against the Idols and Gods of the Gentils Non sub pedibus quaerat Deum saith he in the beginning of this eighteenth Chapter None is to seek for his God under his feet Nec a vestigijs suis eruat quod adoret Nor pull from under his footsteps what he is to adore Sed quaerat in sublimi quaerat in summo Let him look for God above in Heaven c. The Worship therefore of one Supream God Lactantius chiefly presseth in this whole second book In his first Chapter he tells us that he had above demonstrated the false Religion of many Gods and that in this second Book he declares against the Gentils the cause or Origen of their multiplying many gods In his second Chapter he saith That though the Image of a man absent be necessary yet to circumscribe God diffused every where in any form is both needless and superfluous afterward he shews that no deceased men nor any thing in this world ought to be adored as God In his fourth Chapter he gives this reason Unde apparet istos deos nihil in se habere amplius quam materiam de quâ sunt fabricati These gods have nothing but only the matter they are made of In his eighth Chapter he proposeth the question how these false Gods of the Gentils did work strange wonders and prosecutes the same subject in his ninth Chapter In a word Lactantius through this whole Treatise speaks no more against the Catholick use of Images then I do now while I defend them yet hear we must the Doctor talk and without
Paul St. Peter could make Laws for the Universal Church and was St. Paul limited in this Power what then signifies this Priority and orderly Precedency in one above the other Apostles Let him declare this ingeniously bring it to a reality and prove it as it behoveth him by Scripture and that very Place he cites shall prove also that Primacy which Catholicks give to St. Peter In the interim be pleased to hear how pag. 64. he quotes St. Cyprian deunit Eccle. for equality of Power among the Apostles and deceives his Reader by concealing part and depraving the whole sence of St. Cyprians words They are long and thus Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus super istam petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae c. tibi dabo claves c. iterum eidem post resurrectionem suam dicit pasce oves meas Super illum unum aedificat Aecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat dicat sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos c. Tamen ut unitatem manifestaret unam Cathedram constituit unitatis ejusdam originem ab uno incipientem sua Authoritate disposuit Our Lord spake unto Peter I say unto thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. And again after his Resurrection he said unto him Feed my Sheep Upon him one alone or only he builds his Church to him he committed his Flock to be fed And although he gave after his Resurrection equal power to all the Apostles and said As my Father sent me I send you yet to manifest Unity he appointed or setled one Chair and the Origen of this Unity he ordered by his own Authority to proceed from one Now follows the Doctors words Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pariconsortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur ut una Christi Ecclesia Cathedra una monstretur What Peter was the other Apostles were endowed with like fellowship of Honour and Power but the beginning comes from Unity The Primacy is given to Peter that one Church of Christ and one Apostolical Chair might be manifest These last words sed exordium c. Primatus Petro datur and super illum unum as also the precedent unam Cathedram constituit which clear all the Doctor conceals Is not here plain jugling This Primacy and true Head-ship of St. Peter all Antiquity so amply confirms that Volumes might be made of their Writings See that Learned and ancient Author Optatus milevitanus lib. 2. adversus Parmenianum page with me in his works printed at Paris 1631 48. Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma Petro primam Cathedram Episcopalem esse collocatam in qua sederit omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus unde Cephas appellatus est in qua una Cathedrâ unit as ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderet ut jam schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra una est quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino successit Clemens Clementi Anacletus c. The sence is Deny you can not that you know that the first Bishops Seat was placed at Rome where Peter the head of all the Apostles did sit and therefore was called Cephas This was done to prevent least any should erect another Chair against it The Seat therefore is one the first of Gifts and Graces first sate Peter Linus succeeded c. And he gives you a List of the other ensuing Popes to Siricius who sate in this Chair when Optatus lived See also that known passage of St. Hierom lib. 1. adversus Iovinianum cap. 14. circa medium in his works printed at Colen anno 1616. where after those words which Protestants usually alledge Ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur He adds Tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio Yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being appointed occasion of schism might be taken away See also Tertullian de pudicitia with me page 743. printed at Paris anno 1641. Qualis es evertens commutans manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem super te aedificabo Ecclesiam mean dabo tibi claves What a man are you overturning and changing the manifest intention of our Lord who gave to Peter personally this priviledge Upon thee will I build my Church to thee will I give the keys c. See lastly St. Cyprian to omit St. Austin de Baptismo lib. 3. cap. 17. Paris Print 1648. it is pag. 139. and 71. Epistle ad Quintum where spkeaking of St. Peters humility reprehended by St. Paul he saith Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam cum secum Paulus de circumcisione post modum disputaret vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere For Peter whom our Saviour first made choice of and upon whom he built his Church did not insolently vindicate himself when Paul disputed with him concerning Circumcision or proudly said that he was superior or held the Primacy c. Endless should I be if I held on with such manifest Authorities for St. Peters Primacy and Superiority even over the Apostles If you would have more Ballarm largely furnisheth you but none me thinks goes beyond a book Printed at Paris anno 1553. the Author is a Lawyer Remundus Rufus a most Eloquent Solid and Learned man that writ against Molinaeus and so pithily defends the Popes Authority and solves all Arguments against it that I verily perswade my self had the Doctor read him he would never have troubled the World with his four forceless leaves against either Pope or Peter My task is now to solve those words of St. Cyprian which the Doctor hath pag. 64. The other Apostles were the same that St. Peter was c. add to them St. Hieroms Ex aequo c. One obvious and known distinction clears all distinguish then inter Apostolatum Primatum between Apostles-ship and Primacy and whatever the Doctor hath or can alledge falls to nothing The Apostles therefore were all equal in the Dignity and Office of their Apostles-ship or to speak with some Divines quoad clavem Doctrinae this is most true and granted But that they were all equal in Goverment in Superiority and Primacy shall never be proved so long as those words stand in the Gospel Tu es Petrus c. You will ask where I have this distinction of Apostles-ship and Primacy I Answ First out of
In his 79. he excepts against our Doctrine of contrition and saith we allow it not valuable unless it includes a desire or will to confess our sins to a Priest Answ We do so and give this reason True contrition which reconciles to God votively at least implies a will of doing what God Commands But one Command is that we confess our sins to a Priest therefore true Contrition submits to it This proof is evident if God have laid a precept on us to confess to a Priest which by all Law of disputation we may here suppose until the Doctor shews the contrary Add to this what our Doctor hath page 101. viz. That confession is of excellent use among the Pious Children of the Church of England If so give me leave to ask him who Ordained this Confession God or the Church or whether there is Scripture for it or no if neither God Scripture nor Church warrant it it is an invention of man and may participate according to our Doctor of a devilish spirit consequently cannot be of excellent use among any c. Now if Scripture be for Confession if God or the Church have Ordained it the Doctor must say if he knows what true Contrition is that the Supernatural Act which reconciles to God doth of necessity imply Actually or Votively a serious will of doing what ever God Scripture or Church Commands us for to say I am sorry for my sin out of the Motive of Gods infinite Love I purpose amendment I 'll do his Will hereafter and not to say I 'll do what God Scripture or Church commandeth implies a contradiction in a word it is to say and unsay purpose and not purpose c. To confirme this discourse I have enough from the Doctor pag. 79. who saith that Genuine and true Contrition is a Cordial sorrow for having sinned against God c. Ending in a dereliction of all sin and a walking in all Righteousness I wish no more for this very walking in all Righteousness implies the obedience we give to Contrition and will make our good Doctor walk to Confession also if Scripture or Church have Ordained it for finners perhaps he may say that Confession is only of Counsel not of Command when I have his Scripture for such an assertion he shall have his answer fully In the interim know that it is but vain to talk as our Doctor doth of a repentance towards God as it were in abstracto without descending to the ultimate worth and Efficacy of it which as now I said includes a serious will of doing Gods Command This truth supposed with what conscience can the Doctor say that we prefer repentance towards men before that which the Scripture calls repentance towards God It is a flat Calumny and as ill intended as expressed improperly for in this Sacrament there is Confession to a man but what repentance is there towards men that we prefer before the Noble Act of Contrition which resting in God prefers him and his Commands before all things in the World A few lines after he saith pag. 80. As Contrition without their Ritual and Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us to God so Attrition with their Sacrament will reconcile the sinner Contrition without it will not Attrition with it will reconcile us And this Doctrine saith he is expresly Decreed at Trent I stand here astonished at this ignorance Do I read in a Doctor that Contrition without Ritual and Sacramental Confession doth not reconcile a sinner and that the Council of Trent Decrees this expresly I say first that the Council expresly declares the contrary Sect. 14. cap. 4. de contritione Docet praeterea Sancta Synodus Si contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contingat hominem Deo reconciliare prius quam hoc Sacramentum actu suscipiatur c. The Holy Synod teaches Although it sometimes falls out that this Contrition when perfect with Charity reconciles a man with God before actual taking of the Sacrament c. The words are contrary to the Doctors assertion and need no explication I say 2. It is the certain and constant Doctrine of Divines that Contrition proceeding from the Love of God or true motive of Charity in the very Moment a Soul hath it gain 's pardon reconciles to God disposes immediately to supernatural Grace whereby a sinner is justified and made an adopted Child of God and this I say In the very Moment a Soul hath it though Sacramental Confession follows not for weeks or months or by accident never for would it not be apittiful case to send a poor sinner to Hell who lies at deaths door or is mortally wounded doth his utmost to be contrite for his sins though neither Priest is present nor Sacramental Confession can be had or hoped for This very case is enough to unbeguile the Doctor and to satisfie him that we Catholicks are not so severe in exacting Sacramental Confession when either accident or necessity excludes a poor penitent from it I know not how the Doctor will come off and satisfie for the enormious injustice done both to the Council of Trent and all Catholicks but by one evasion that shall nothing at all avail him Perhaps he may tell us that when he says Contrition without Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us he only speaks of Votive Confession included in the Act of Contrition and not of Actual No I thought Ritual as he terms it and Sacramental Confession had been in plain English Synonimas or of the same signification with Actual Confession However if the Doctor understands it of Votive Confession read his words thus Contrition without Confession in Vote or desire reconciles not a sinner to God and this you must suppose to be his meaning Then know we Catholicks hold constantly that Contrition without the Vote or Efficatious will of Confession is no Contrition consequently all he proves is that that Act which is no Contrition doth not reconcile to God How then doth he advance any new proof against us Where lies the Mischief or Malignity of our Doctrine in saying that an Act which is no Contrition and submits not in Voto to Gods Command doth not reconcile us to God yet more If he speaks not of Actual but Votive Confession included in Contrition his whole discourse is lame hobling and renders you this Non-sence As Contrition without Sacramental Confession in Vote or desire doth not reconcile us to God so attrition with actual Sacramental Confession doth reconcile us which inference without life and vigor shews nothing to the Doctors purpose for what doth it avail him to say in this place as no Contrition doth reconcile us so Attrition with the Sacrament doth Had he said as Contrition with Votive Confession reconciles us to God so Attrition also with Actual Confession doth the sence had been good and Catholick But never shall he make sence out of these words As Contrition without Confession will not reconcile us
beautified the Church and gained millions to it I mean the glory of miracles And this is done by a Doctor to maintain his wordy Religion made up of a few abused Scripture phrases and I know not what other canting language without fruits of Religion without efficacy of doctrine without miracles or finally any one mark of credibility that may prudently evidence it to be Christian Now concerning our Doctors other exception against pious good people who seek the patronage of Saints in time of danger or otherwise I 'le briefly give you one instance taken out of S. Gregory Nyssen a worthy Bishop who was present at the first Council of Constantinople and writ the Symbolum Fidei there read him I beseech you in the Oration he hath de Stâ— Theodoro Martyre with me it is in his second Tome Printed at Paris 1615. pag. 1011. and pag. 1017. Because the impious Scythians threatned a war to the Country Timemus afflictiones saith S. Gregory expectamus pericula non longe absunt scelestes Scythae belluÌ„ adversus nos parturientes We fear afflictions we expect danger the wicked Scythians are as it were in labour for a war against us What doth the Saint he betakes himself thus by earnest prayer to S. Theodore a Soldier Intercede ac deprecare pro patria apud communem Regem Dominum Make intercession and pray for our country to him who is our common King and Lord. Again Vt miles propugna pro nobis ut Martyr pro conservis utere libertate loquendi As you are a soldier fight for us and defend us as a martyr speak freely for your fâ—llow servants here Finally a few lines after Quod si majori etiam opus fuerit advocatione c. And if more prayer be needful assemble together the whole quire of your brethren martyrs and jointly pray for us Admone Petrum excita Paulum Joannem item c. Put S. Peter in mind stir up S. Paul and that beloved disciple of our Lord S. John that these be sollicitous for the Churches they once wore chains passed dangers and finally died Thus S. Gregory If therefore this worthy Bishop sought protection and patronage of a Soldier Martyr in danger of war well may a frail woman in danger of sinning become a suppliant to S. Mary Magdalen which our Doctor likes not of And for Gods sake tell me what mischief is it to Christianity if Saints hear our prayers that a Painter have a special devotion to S. Luke skilful in that Art though our Doctor no man knows why holds it superstition I say if Saints hear our Prayers and that they do so this very Petition made by S. Gregory to S. Theodore is my warrant neither Doctor Andrews nor Chamier nor Whitby who vainly endeavour to make the Oration spurious because they know not what else to say shall utter so much as a probability against it CHAP. XXI Of Saints Canoniz'd excepted against by the Doctor Of his untrue quotations Of his Mistake concerning the Multitude of Holydayes AFter this long digression I return to my task imposed on me and needs must say a word of our Doctors quotations I find in his pag. 132. S. Austin cited for this excellent truth Tutius incundius loquar ad meum Jesum quam ad aliquem Sanctorum Spirituum Dei I 'le speak more safely and more chearfully to my Lord Jesus then to any of the Saints or Spirits of God And 't is worthily spoken but where find we this The Doctor points us to S. Austin Visitatione Minorum Sept. S. Aug. what this Sept. S. Aug. signifies no man knows and less know I where to find Visitat Minorum Perhaps it is an error of the Printer However these words are in S. Austin's 9th Tome lib 2. de Visitatione Infirmorum not Minorum cap. 2. which no way exclude praying to Saints but manifestly suppose it Tutius Iucundius clear all and render this Sence 'T is good and safe to pray to Saints but our Lord Jesus is eminently above them and therefore more safely and chearfully we pray to Jesus Page 133. he cites Cardinal Bessarion apud Bodin undervaluing certain Saints and our Doctor gives you a list of them thus S. Fingar S. Anthony of Padua S. Christopher Charles Borromeus Ignatius Loyola Xaverius then deceitfully adds and many others of whom saith the Doctor Bessarion complained that many of them were such persons whose life he could not approve c. observe here first the Context of our Doctor and how he cheats his Reader whom he would have believe that beside many others Bessarion reproved the life of S. Fingar S. Anthony of Padua S. Charles Borromeus S. Ignatius Loyola and S. Xaverius yet these three last blessed men were not in the world when Bessarion lived for he quitted this mortal life Anno Domini 1472. 2. I affirm that our Doctor shall never shew out of Bessarion that he unsaints any approved for Sanctity by the Roman Catholick Church S. Fingar though some say S. Anselm accounted him a blessed man was never yet canonized and I wonder what our Doctor hath against S. Christopher of whom little is known Certainly for I have run slâ—ightly over some works of Bessarion this Grecian Bishop and Cardinal employed in so many Embassies as we read of troubled not himself to cavil either with S. Christopher or S. Anthony of Padua 3. Our Doctor deals not wel with his Reader for he should for Bessarions assertion have remitted him to the Cardinals own book and not to Bodinus or Iohn Pudding a man of Atheistical Principles whose authority with the judicious is altogether as little as the Doctor 's Bodinus his Republick I have but yet cannot get a sight of his Method Historica to which the Doctor remits me Next he cites Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona affirming that all who are canonized by the Pope cannot be said to be in Heaven And where find we this assertion of Triumphus in two places answers our Doctor viz. quaest 14. ad quartum and quaest 17. ad quartum Observe here the Doctors ignorance For to say nothing of his unskilfull omitting the Article these two quotations ad quartum are the Authours Objections not his resolution The resolution follows no way asserting what the Doctor saith but contrary thus That the Pope in canonizing a Saint by the exterior evidence he hath of his Sanctity cannot err Although saith this Authour neither Pope nor Church can know certainly per certitudinem causae by the certainty of the cause that all canonized possess beatitude He saith per certitudinem causae because God who only endues a Soul with Charity causaliter is only conscious that it is enriched with this gift The Pope and Church know not this causaliter but by the effects of Charity shewed to the world Therefore saith Anconitanus quaest 14. cit art 4. Ad prim dicendum quod licet Papa non possit scire per certitudinem causae c.
He professedly acknowledgeth the power of casting out Devils given to Christians yes and after he had taxed Celsus of injustice and open calumny for ascribing their ejection done by Christians to Incantations and Sorcery He answers thus n. 6. Non enim incantationibus pollere videntur sed nomine Jesu cum commemoratione ejus factorum nam his verbis saepenumero profligati sunt daemones ex hominibus That is Christians do nothing in this matter by any Charms or Enchantments but prevail against Devils by naming Christ Jesus and commemorating his glorious works Thus these wicked spirits are driven out of possessed persons And truly the like we do yet in our Catholick adjurations 3. It is madness to think that one so well versed in Scripture as Origen was had such a horror of this word Adjuro that he judged it unseemly in the mouth of a Christian for the Apostle himself useth it writing to the Thess Epist 1. cap. 5. v. 27. Adjuro vos per dominum ut legatur Epistola haec I adjure ye by our Lord c. And mark it is a word of command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yes and the same that the Devil used against our Saviour Mar. 5. v. 7. Adjuro te per Deum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I adjure thee by Almighty God Briefly therefore distinguish a double adjuration the one of no Efficacy because either vain or Judaical and this Origen rejecteth The other is Christian used in our Catholick Exorcisms with the sacred Name of Jesus and this he approves The Doctor may object that Origen speaking of the High Priest adjuring our Saviour makes this Argument Si enim jurare non licet quia nec alterum adjurare licet If it be not lawful to swear neither lawful is it to adjure another I answer This confirms all we have said hitherto in Origens defence For as none can judge that so great a Doctor as Origen condemned all swearing which God allowes in Scripture Vivit Dominus Jurabit Dominus Per nomen ejus jurabis c. but only such as is irreligious and profane So none can infer upon this proof that he thought all adjuration illicit though he professedly opposed irreligious and Judaical Exorcisms Thus much in behalf of Origen if these Treatises on S. Mat. be his for Erasmus in the preface to them saith Neque enim Hieronimus agnoscit hoc opus S. Hierom acknowledgeth them not The Doctor pag. 142. having done with Origen quotes S. Chrisostom for this sober saying we poor wretches cannot drive away flies much less Devils And remits you to the Saint in illa verba qui credit in me major a faciet I answer that S. Chrisostom may perhaps have these words qui credit in me c. 40. times over in his Large and Voluminous writings Must I therefore run over all these Tomes to meet with this sober saying for most certainly it is not where any Reader would expect to have it I mean in S. Chrisostoms 73. hom in cap. 14. Joan. there are the words of Scripture qui credit in me c. And S. Chrisostoms large Explication on them but not so much as one syllable of either Flie or Devil or any poor wretch unable to cast out Devils but much to the contrary Hoc vestrum jam est saith the Saint miracula operari ego abeo It belongs to you my Disciples to work miracles I am now on my departure The Chrisostom I cite is the Paris print anno 1588. his Comments on the words qui credit c. are page 293. and other Editions accord also with it even the Greek by Sir Henry Savil. CHAP. XXIV The blessing of Water prov'd by Irrefragable Authority Of Miracles done by Holy Water No proof against it THe Doctor pag. 143. and 11 Section thinks with a few empty words and a like number of insipid jeers to unhollow such Creatures as the most ancient Fathers of Gods Church have reputed holy because made so with a sacred benediction Such are Holy Water the Paschal Candle Oyl and Holy Bread sleighted by him without proof at all Truely I am astonished at our Doctor having at least read Bellarmin de cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 7. and perused the Arguments of this Learned Authour for the blessing of Water Oyl c. That he neither affords us so much as a word of answer to the Arguments nor yet endeavours to gainsay them by one Syllable of Scripture by any Authority of Councils of Fathers or the Antient practice of the Primitive Church Bellarmin first proves out of Scripture that creatures are capable of benediction Every Creature is good saith the Apostle 1. ad Tim. 4. Sanctificatur autem per verbum Dei orationem And is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer He showes you also out of S. Dennis Alexander the first Optatus S. Cyprian S. Basil and others that Water anciently was blessed in the Church The like of Oyl by the Authority of S. Clement Dennis and Basil The benediction of Bread besides the Eucharist is taught by S. Austin Tom. 7. lib. 2. De peccatorum meritis remissione cap. 26. speaking of the Catechumens Et quod accipiunt saith the Saint quamvis non sit Corpus Christi Sanctum est tamen sanctius quam cibi quibus alimur And what these Catechumens take although it be not Christs Body yet it is holy yes and more holy then the meat wherewith we are nourished Hence I argue if Bread can be hallowed Water may And this I prove by three irrefragable Arguments The first is taken out of the Ancient Synesius Bishop of Ptolemaijs or Cyrene in his book printed at Paris anno 1633. we have it also in Bibliotheca Patrum read these words in that Treatise he intitles Catastasis * De clade pentapolitanâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. with me pag. 304. Ego in loco meo in ecclesia permanebo Lustralis ante me aquae sanctissima vasa collocabo c. Illic ego sedebo vivus mortuus jacebo I le remain in my place that is the Church I le place before me the hallowed Vessels of Water there I le sit alive and ly when I am dead Yet more read his 121. Epistle to Anastasius pag. 258. If saith Sinesius the Administration of the Common-wealth resides in Bishops these are the men that must do justice on wickedness Quandoquidem publicus gladius non minus quam lustralis aqua quae in templorum vestibulis collocatur civitatis est piaculum Seeing that the publick Sword no lesse purgeth a City then Holy Water doth that is placed in the entry of our Churches And thus it is kept in Churches to this day The second Testimony we have is in the more ancient Epiphanius Tom. 2. lib. 1. contra haereses haeresi 30. with me pag. 61. in the Basil print where the Saint tells us that Josephus the Jew seeing fire contrary to its own nature made unactive
lib. 7. contra Celsum num 18. page with me 789. Nos vero ideo quoque non honoramus simulacra quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem ut his tribuamus divinitatis aliquid We therefore honour no feigned Figures because we warily hold our selves from a credulity of ascribing to them any Divinity A few lines after Origen he cites St. Cyril denying That in the time of Julian the Emperour the Christians did give veneration to the Images even of the Cross it self The Doctor here runs more at random then ever which St. Cyril Alexand. or Hieros where in what Treatise is this denied I think he means St. Cyril Hieros who lived neer the time of Iulian and hath in the end of his Catechesis printed at Paris 1609. a letter to Constantius Augustus wherein he declares a strange apparition of the Cross seen in the Heavens by innumerable at Ierusalem but not one word in it that denies Veneration to that Holy Ensign but rather the contrary Beata inquam crux they are his words splendoribus luminis coruscans Hierosolimis apparuit c. The Blessed Cross all luminous and glorious appeared at Hierusalem c. Until the Doctor therefore directs me better to the place in St. Cyril I 'll tell him that Athanasius de passione Domini Edit ex officina Comeliniana anno 1600. pag. 808. highly honoured the Cross Nunquid dignius est potius crucem adorare quà m Iudaeorum mundi gratiam lucrifacere Is it not more worthy and better to adore the Cross then to gain the favour of Iews and of the whole World Again the other Athanasius quaest 39. ad Antioch eâdem edit pag. 286. Crucem nobis fidelibus adorari osculando honorari propter Christum qui in ea pependit manifestum 'T is manifest that the Cross is to be adored and honour'd by us Christians for Christ our Lord who dyed on it St. Ambross agrees also oratione de obitu Theodosii thus Colen Print anno 1616. Tom. 5. page 60. Sapiens Helena egit quae crucem in capite Regum levavit ut Christi crux in Regibus adoretur non insolentia ista sed Pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni Helena did wisely that placed the Cross on the head of Kings to the end it might be adored by them Insolency it was not but Piety done to our Sacred Redemption St. Hierom also is consonant Epist. 17. ad Marcellam Paris Print anno 1609. Tom. 1. pag. 156. Ergone erit illa dies quando nobis liceat speluncam salvatoris intrare crucis lambere lignum Will that day once be when we may enter the Sepulcher of our Saviour and kiss the Wood of his Cross Again Epist 27. ad Eustochium pag. 221. Prostrata ante crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat Postrat before the Cross she adored as if she had seen our Lord hanging on it See St. Chrisostom in a Sermon he hath de veneratione crucis Tomo 1. Paris Print 1588. pag. 1331. none speaks more significantly Venit anniversarius Dies omni religione colendus c. The anniversary day of the Cross is come worthy of all Religious Veneration And a little after Quia igitur pretiosae crucis venerationi constitutus est huc adeste omnes cum metu atque desiderio eam amplectamur Because therefore this day is appointed for the worship of the pretious Cross come ye all let us embrace it with fear with love with affection Again Ejus pretiosam atque vitalem crucem adoramus pro thesauro magni pretji tenemus We adore his pretious and life-giving Cross and hold it as a Treasure of mighty value Read St. Austin also tractatu 36. in Iohannem ante medium in Psal 36. ante medium you will see what veneration was given to the Cross in his days I cite not others in after ages they are innumerable The Doctor pag. 59. brings that often answered objection out of the Council Elibery that pictures might not be in Churches Ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur Least What is worship'd and ador'd be Painted on the Walls Mark first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to Pictures Ne quod colitur adoratur Next it will not that what is thus Adored and Worshiped be Painted on the Walls either because as Bellar. observes the Humidity of the place spoiled them or because they could not be so readily took away when the Gentils persecuted Christians in Frames or Tables they might most easily Baronius suspects this Cannon to be supposititious but there is no need of his answer The Doctor in the same page hath three places out of St. Austin to no purpose The first is de moribus Ecclesiae lib. 1. cap. 34. where he speaking to the Manichees saith Novi multos esse Sepulchorum Picturarum adoratores c. I know many honouring Sepulchers and Pictures yet in life reprehensible The second deside symbolo cap. 7. where he saith and truly that God cannot be circumscribed in any humane form and then adds Tale enim Simulacrum Dei nesas Christiano in templo collocare 'T is wickedness in a Christian to place such a vain Figure of God circumscribed in a Church The third is contra Adimantum cap. 13. where he forbids cultum simulacrorum which God prohibited in the old Law What is here for the Doctor who next hath a fling at the seventh Synod or second Council of Nice Whose Acts about the worshiping of Images were reproved by the Council of Francfurt An old old story answered a hundred times over Let it pass yet I must not omit to say a word of what he hath pag. 58. out of St. Epiphanius his Epistle to Iohn of Hierusalem because Protestants urge it much The story which you may read in the very end of that Epistle is briefly thus Praeterea quod audivi quosdam murmurare contra me c. Besides that I heard some murmur against me because when we passed to the holy place which is called Bethel the Doctor calls it the Village of Bethel for fear I think of naming a holy place that there I might make a collect according to the custom of the Church Et venissem ad villam quae vocatur and came to the Village called Anablatha and passing by had seen a Lamp burning asking what the place was and understanding it was a Church and entring to Pray Inveni ibi velum pendens in foribus Ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum habens imaginem quasi Christi aut sancti cujusdam I found there in the entry of the Church no decent place but the Doctor conceals this a Veil hanging dyed and painted having an Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for saith St. Epiphanius I do not remember whose Picture it was when I had seen this viz. the Picture of a man hanging in the Church
contrary to the Authority of Scripture I cut it in pieces and gave Counsel to those who kept the place that some poor man should be buried in that Veil Here is the story that which follows adds no new light to it for the Doctor Now if all this were true what makes it for the Doctors purpose St Epiphanius cut in pieces a cloth Picture the Image was unknown to him whether of Christ or no perhaps it was of some prophane man who was there honoured for Christ or a Saint therefore St. Epiphanius judged that the undoubted Picture of Christ and his Saints cannot be in Churches No consequence at all But in a word the story is supposititious and added to the Letter as Bellar. Learnedly shews lib. 2. de Imag. 9. § ad quintum First because Epiphanius his Epistles clearly ends with these words Deus autem pacis praestet nobis juxta suam clementiam ut conteratur satanas c. Then follows Praeterea audivi so harshly and Either this story is true or false If true it condemns the Practise in England for they have Crucisixes in their Churches if false it is not to the purpose dis-joynedly that one with half an eye might see the want of order in it 2. Because those Haereticks who withstood so industriously the use of Images in the seventh Synod or 2d Nicen Council and objected all that could be said against Pictures out of any Fathers never so much as alledged this Testimony of Epiphanius which argues they either thought it not to the purpose or which is true judged it supposititious 3. Because Epiphanius Diaconus demonstrated in that 7th Synod that two other Testimonies were falsly shufled into St. Epiphanius his Works by Hereticks Add 4. that St. Basil and others who lived with Epiphanius had Images in their Churches and reverenced them Thus Bellarmine and he hath yet more on this subject The Doctor in his 9th Section page 61. fiercely reproves the Picturing of God the Father and the undevided Trinity And liberal he is with the Fathers He gives you a whole list of them in his Margent but not their words and he does wisely for their words would have taught the Reader how little they make for him though I must tell you that it is not so certain that Images may be made of God and the Sacred Trinity as of Christ and his Saints some Catholick Doctors dislike the first saying it is only tolerated by the Church not approved None the second Well one Principle of St. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Orthodox fidei cap. 17. and St. Austin points at the same de fide symbolo cap. 7. solves all the Doctor hath or can alledge in this matter Quisnam est saith St. Damascen qui invisibilis corpore vacantis ac circumscriptionis Figurae expertis Dei Simulacrum effingere queat extremae itaque dementiae atque impietatis fuerit divinum numen fingere figurare Who is there that can make an Effigies of or Paint out the likeness of God invisible without any body without Circumscription that is immens and Figure at all Madness it is thus to figure a Detty or a Divine Power As who should say He that goes about to express by any Image the perfect Similitude of Gods intrinsecal Perfections or his Nature which is Immens without body or figure would be both impious and act the part of a mad man Yes and as Bellar. observes lib. 2. de imag cap. 8. § prosolutione would make a very Idol Such picturing of God the Fathers now cited reprove but if God or an Angel appear in the form of a man as he did walking in Paradise why may not those visible and circumscribed Lineaments be exhibited to our eyes He was no Idol walking in Paradise neither is he one Painted in Paper The Doctor pag. 62. after the Fathers cites Macrobius lib. 1. de somno Scipionis cap. 2. The exact words of Macrobius are these after he had declared what a powerful Being God is Quod sciri quale sit ab homine non possit that it cannot be known by man of what Nature he is Ideo nullum ejus simulacrum quod cum Dis aliis constitueretur finxit antiquitas And therefore Antiquity never made any semblance of him that might be placed with other of their Gods Exactly the same that St. Damascen and other Fathers say Next he cites Nicephorus Calixtus lib. 18. cap. 53. where delating the Heresie of the Iacobits and Armenians the Doctor saith They made Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is absurd Hold there good Doctor you name one person more then Nicephorus doth Imagines saith he Patris spiritus Sancti effigiant quod perquam est absurdum They made Pictures of the Father and the Holy Ghost which is very absurd And pray you is it not absurd to Picture the Father and the Holy Ghost without the Son Well I answer To Paint their incomprehensible Divinity is most blameable but not to Picture their visible apparitions neither doth Nicephorus affirm it nay he saith four lines after Imagines sacras honorant illi quidam sed non osculantur These Hereticks worshiped holy Images c. Ergo he held some Pictures Holy and Sacred but this the Doctor mentioneth not yet shuts up his Sect. pag. 63. with a weighty sentence of Polidor Virgil lib. 2. de inventione rerum cap. 23. His words are these in the beginning of the Chapter Quo fit ut cum Deus ubique praesens sit nihil a principio post homines natos stultius visum sit quam ejus simulacrum fiagere When God is every where present that is immens a foolery it is to make his Picture For immensity cannot be circumscribed If Polidor means more I care as little for his Authority as the Doctors Thus you see how one Principle out of St. Damascen a most exact truth silenceth the Doctor every where though he cites so new an Author as Polidor Virgil. CHAP. IX Of the Popes Supremacy Of the Doctors cavils against it Of his deceitful and false Quotations THe Doctor pag. 63. Sect. 10. enters upon a large debated controversie the Popes Authority and thinks with his four leaves and a few old defeated objections to undo both Pope and Popery He tells us first When Christ founded his Church he left it in the hands of his Apostles without any Praerogative given to one above the rest save only of Priority and orderly precedency which of it self was natural necessary and incident I would gladly know of our Doctor in plain English what these minced words of Priority and orderly Precedency signifie or what could that one Apostle let it be St. Peter if he please do more by force of this Priority and orderly Precedency then St. Paul or any of the Apostles St. Peter writ Canonical Scripture so did St. Paul St. Peter governed the whole Church and had jurisdiction over it so saith the Doctor had St.