CHAP. XXV. Their jumbling all our differences together, and then making lesser or common differences to be
CHAP. XXV. Their jumbling all our differences together, and then making lesser or common differences to be the Protestant Religion.
D etect. 16. Another notable fraud of the Papists, is, to confound all their own errors and corruptions together, and then to instance in some of those errors that are common to them with some others, and to omit the Essential parts of Popery: And so they would make the world believe, that if they prove the Antiquity of any points in difference between them and us, they do thereby prove the antiquity of Popery (and so of the succession) And so they would make our Religion also Essentially to consist in every inferior difference between us.
Suffer them not therefore thus to juggle in the dark, but distinguish between the Essentials of Popery, or the main difference between them and us, and the other errors, which are not proper to them alone.
Thus Bellarmine opens his juggling lib. 4, de Eccles. c. 9, where he pleadeth Antiquity of Doctrine as a Note of the true Church: And (saith he)
Jam duobus modis, &c. Two ways we may by this Mark prove our Church.
1. By showing the sentences of the Ancients, by which we confirm all our tenets, and refute our adversaries. But this way (saith he) is most prolix, and
obnoxious to many calumnies and objections. (Mark Papists, and take heed of appealing to Antiquity.) The other way (saith he) is shorter and surer, by showing first from the confession of the adversaries, that our tenets are the doctrine of all the ancients, &c.] And indeed if the weakness or rashness of any Protestants be the Papists strength, its time for us to be more prudent: but if it be the Papists unhappiness that cannot understand the ancients in the ancients, but only from the Pope or the Protestants, the Fathers are fallen into the hands of Babies as well as the Scriptures; and the Protestants have too little wit if they will join with the Pope in an abusive interpreting the Fathers for the Papists. And thus Bellarmine proceeds to cite Calvin, and the Centurists, as giving them the Fathers. But wherein? Forsooth in the point of Free-will, Limbus, Concupiscence, Lent, Lay baptism in necessity,
&c. And therefore by our Confessions Antiquity is for the Papists. And this is their shortest and surest way. (The more fools we then.) Is not here great diffidence in the Fathers, when they have more confidence in our sayings then their writings?
But this juggling will not serve the turn. Take up the Essentials of Popery, and prove a Catholic succession of them, and you shall win the day. In Explication of my former professions, I here again solemnly promise and protest, that [When Ever I See A Valid Proof Of A Catholic Succession Of These Following Points, I Will Presently Turn Papist: Or Of Any One Of Them, I Will Take Up That One.] And I provoke the Papists that boast of Tradition, Succession and Antiquity, to do this if they are able.
1. Let them prove a Catholic Succession, or continuation of this point, that The Pope of Rome is appointed by Christ to be the universal Monarch,
Sovereign, Governor, Head of the Catholic Church, and the Vicar of Christ on earth, and holding the place of God himself, whom all must obey.
2. And that the true and only Catholic Church is a Society thus headed and Governed by the Pope, and that no man is a true member of the Catholic
Church, that is not the subject of the Pope as universal Monarch: Nor can any other be saved, as being without the Church.
3. And that the Church of Rome is by God's appointment the Mistress of all other Churches.
4. And that the Pope of Rome is Infallible.
5. That we cannot believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, or the Christian doctrine to be true, but upon the Authoritative Tradition of the Roman Church, and upon the knowledge or belief of their Infallibility: that is, we must believe in the Pope as Infallible, before we can believe in Christ
(who is pretended to give him that infallibility.) 6. That no Scripture is by any man to be interpreted but according to the sense of the Pope or Roman Church, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
7. That a General Council approved by the Pope cannot err; but a General Council not approved by the Pope may err.
8. That nothing is to us an Article of faith till it be declared by the Pope or a General Council; (though it was long before declared by Christ or his
Apostles as plain as they can speak.) 9. That a General Council hath no more validity than the Pope giveth it.
10. That no Pastor hath a valid Ordination, unless it be derived from the Pope.
11. That there are Articles of faith of Necessity to our Salvation, which are not contained in the Holy Scriptures, nor can be proved by them.
12. That such Traditions are to be received with equal pious affection and reverence as the holy Scriptures.
13. That Images have equal honor with the Holy Gospel.
14. That the Clergy of the Catholic Church ought to swear obedience to the Pope as Christ's Vicar.
15. That the Pope should be a temporal Prince.
16. That the Pope and his Clergy ought to be exempted from the Government of Princes, and Princes ought not to judge and punish the Clergy, till the Pope deliver them to their power, having degraded them.
17. That the Pope may dispossess Princes of their Dominions, and give them to others, if those Princes be such as he judgeth heretics, or will not exterminate Heretics.
18. That in such cases the Pope may discharge all the subjects from their allegiance and fidelity.
19. That the Pope in his own Territories, and Princes in theirs, must burn or otherwise put to death, all that deny Transubstantiation, the Popes
Sovereignty, or such doctrines as are afore expressed, when the Pope hath sentenced them.
20. That the people should ordinarily be forbidden to read the Scripture in a known tongue; except some few that have a license from the ordinary.
21. That public Prayers, Praises and other public worship of God, should be performed constantly in a language not understood by the People; or only in Latin, Greek or Hebrew.
22. That the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, is Transubstantiate into the very body and blood of Christ; so that it is no more true Bread or Wine, though our eyes, taste, and feeling tell us that it is.
23. That the consecrated host is to be worshipped with Divine worship, and called our Lord God.
24. That the Pope may oblige the people to receive the Eucharist only in one kind, and forbid them the Cup.
25. That the sins called venial by the Papists, are properly no sins, and deserve no more but temporal punishment.
26. That we may be perfect in this life by this double perfection. 1. To have no sin, but to keep all God's Law perfectly. 2. To supererogate, by doing more than is our Duty.
27. That our works properly merit salvation of God, by way of Commutative Justice, or by the Condignity of the works as proportioned to the Reward.
28. That Priests should generally be forbidden Marriage.
29. That there is a fire called Purgatory, where souls are tormented, and where sin is pardoned, in another world.
30. That in Baptism there is an implicit vow of obedience to the Pope of Rome.
31. That God is ordinarily to be worshipped by the Oblation of a true proper propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, where the Priest only shall eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, while the Congregation look on and partake not.
32. That the Canon of Scripture is the same that is declared by the Council of Trent.
I will pass by abundance more to avoid tediousness; And I will not stay to inquire which of these are proper to the Papists. But I am resolved so to receive many of them as they can prove a Catholic succession of; that is, that they were in all ages the Doctrine of the Universal Church: And I crave the charity of such a proof from some Papist or other, if they have any
charity in them; and that they will no longer keep universal Tradition in their purses.
And I would desire H.T. to revise his Catalogue, and instead of twenty or thirty dead and silent names, that signify no more than Blanks or Cyphers, he would prove that both those persons and the Catholic Church did in every age hold these thirty-two forementioned doctrines. And when hath done, then let him boast of his Catalogue. Till they will perform this task, let them never more for shame call to us for Catalogues or proof of succession. But if they are so unkind that they will not give us any proof of such a Catholic succession of Popery, we shall be ready to supererogate, and give them full proof of the Negative, [That there hath been no such succession of these thirty-two points,] as soon as we can perceive that they will ingeniously entertain it: though indeed it hath been often done already.
But certainly it belongeth to them that superinduce more Articles of Faith, to prove the continuation of their own Articles through all ages; of which anon.
Well! But one of these Articles at least (the Popes Sovereignty) H.T. will prove successively, if you will be credulous enough. In the first age he proves it from Peters words, Act. 15:7-10. God chose Peter to convert
Cornelius and his company: therefore the Pope is the Universal Monarch.
Are you not all convinced by this admirable argument? But he forgot that Bellarmine, Ragusius (in Council. Basil.) and others of them say, that no Article can be proved from Scripture, but from the proper literal sense. To say somewhat more, he unseasonably talks of the Council of Sardis and Calcedon, an. 400, and 451, lest the first age have but a blank page.
In the second age he hath nothing but the names of a few that never dreamt of Popery, and a Canon (which you must believe was the Apostles)
that Priests must communicate. Of which we are well content.
In the third Age he nameth fifteen Bishops of Rome, of whom the last was deposed for offering incense to Saturn, Jupiter, &c. But not a syllable to prove that one of these Bishops was the universal Monarch: Much less that the Catholic Church was for such Monarchy. But to excuse the matter, he tells you, that the second and third Age produced no Councils (the greater deceivers then are the Papists that have found us Councils then) and so you have no Catholic succession proved. Yea, but he saith, they have successions of Popes, Martyrs and Confessors, which is sufficient for their purposes. See the strength of Popery! Any thing is sufficient for your purposes, it seems. Rome had Bishops, therefore they were the Universal
Rulers of the Church: A strong consequence! Rome had Martyrs and Confessors: therefore it was the Mistress of all Churches. Who can resist these arguments? But why did you not prove that your Confessors and Martyrs suffered for attesting the Popes Sovereignty! If they suffered but for Christianity, that will prove them but Christians, and not Papists. Thus you see to the confusion of the Papists, that they have nothing to show for the succession or antiquity of Popery for the three first Ages. Yea worse than nothing: For here he comes in with some of the Decretals forsooth of some of their Bishops. Decretals unknown, till a while ago in the world, brought out by Isidore Mercator: but with so little cunning as left them naked to the shame of the world; the falsehood of them being out of themselves fully proved, by Blondell, Reynolds, and many more, and confessed by some of themselves. Here you see the first foundation of Papal succession; even a bundle of fictions, lately fetched from whence they please to cheat the ignorant part of the world.
But in the fourth and fifth ages H.T. doth make us amends for his want of proof from the three first. But suppose he do, whats that to a succession, while the three first ages are strangers to Popery? Well! But lets hear what he hath at last. His first proof (after a few silent names) is from the Council of Nice; And what saith that? Why 1. It defined that the Son of God is consubstantial to his Father, and true God And whats that to Popery? 2. But it defined the Popes Sovereignty: But how prove you that? Why it is in the thirty ninth Arab. Canon. O what Consciences have those men that dare thus abuse and cheat the ignorant! As if the Canons of the first General
Council had never been known to the world, till the other day that Alphonsus Pisanus a Jesuit publisheth them out of Pope Julius and I know not what Arabic book. These men that can make both Councils and Canons at their pleasure above a thousand years after the supposed time of their existence, do never need to want authority. And indeed this is a cheaper way of Canon-making in a corner, then to trouble all the Bishops in the world with a great deal of cost and travail to make them. But if this be the foundation, the building is answerable. Their Bishop Zosimus had not been acquainted with these new Articles of an old Council, when he put his trick upon the sixth Council of Carthage, where for the advancement of his power (though not to an universal Monarchy, yet to a preparative degree) he layeth his claim from the Council of Nice, as saying [Placuit ut si
Episcopus accusatus fuerit, &c.] which was that If an ejected Bishop appeal to Rome, the Bishop of Rome appoint some of the next province to judge; or if yet he desire his cause to be heard, the Bishop of Rome shall appoint a Presbyter his Legate, &c.] In this Council were 217. Bishops, Aurelius being president, and Augustine being one. They told the Pope that they would yield to him till the true copies of the Council of Nice were searched;
for those that they had seen had none of them those words in, that Zosimus alleged. Hereupon they send abroad to the Churches of the East, to Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. for the ancient Canons. From hence they received several copies, which all agreed; but none of them had either Zosimus forgery in; nor the forged clause which Bellarmine must have in; much less the eighty Canons of Pisanus the Jesuit, or this one which H.T. doth found his succession on, but only the twenty Canons there mentioned, which have not a word for the Popes Sovereignty.
And here note 1. That Zosimus knew not then of Pisanus Canons, or else he would have alleged them; nor yet of Bellarmine's new part of a Canon for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. 2. That Zosimus himself had not the faith, the wit or the memory, to plead either Scripture, Apostolical
Institution, or Tradition, for his privilege, but only a false Canon of the Council of Nice: as looking no higher it seems for his authority. 3. How early the Roman Bishops begun both to aspire, and make use of forgeries to accomplish it. 4. That there was no such Apostolic or Church Tradition for this Roman power, as our Masters of Tradition now plead for; which all the Catholic Church must know. For the whole Council, with all the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. that is, in a manner all save
Rome were ignorant of that which Zosimus would have had them believe, and Bellarmine and H.T. would have us to believe. 5. Note also how little the Church then believed the Popes infallibility. 6. Yea Note, how upon the reception of the several Copies of the Nicene Canons, they modestly convicted Zosimus of falsehood: And how the Council resolved against his usurpation. See in the African Councils, the Epistle of Cyril and Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople: and the Epistles of the Council to Boniface and Celestine. In their Epistle to Boniface before they had received their
answers from other Churches about the Nicene Canons, they tell him that they believed they should not suffer that Arrogancy [non sumus istum typhum passuri] But to Celestine they conclude more plainly, though modestly [Presbyterorum quoque & sequentium, &c. i.e. [Let your holiness, as beseemeth you, repel the wicked refuges of Presbyters and the Clergy that follow them; because this is not derogate, or taken from the African
Church by any Definition of the Fathers; and the Nicene Decrees most plainly committed both the inferior Clergy, and Bishops themselves to the Metropolitans. For they did most prudently, and most justly provide, that all businesses (N. B. all) should be ended in the very places where they begun; and the Grace of the holy Ghost will not (or should not) be wanting to each province: which equity should by the Priests of Christ be prudently observed, and most constantly maintained: Especially, because it is granted to everyone to appeal to the Councils of their own Province, or to a Universal Council, if he be offended with the judgment of the Cognitors.
Unless there should be any one that can think that our God can inspire a justice of trial into any one man (N. B.) and deny it to innumerable Priests that are congregated in Council. Or how can that judgment thats past beyond sea be valid, to which the necessary persons of the witness could not be brought, either because of the infirmities of sex, or of age, many other impediments intervening. For that any (i.e. Legates) should be sent as from the side of your holiness, we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers. Because that which you sent us by our fellow Bishop Faustinus as done by the Nicene Council in the truer Councils, received as the Nicene,
(sent from holy Cyril our fellow Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, and from venerable Atticus the Bishop of Constantinople, out of the Authentic
(Records,) which also heretofore were sent by us to Boniface your
predecessor, Bishop of venerable memory, by Innocent a Presbyter, and Marcellus Subdeacon, by whom they were from them to us directed,) in which we could find no such matter. And do not ye send your Clergy executors to potent men; do not ye yield to it; lest we seem to bring the smoky Arrogancy of the world (or secular arrogancy) into the Church of Christ, which preferreth the light of simplicity and day of humility for them that desire to see God. For of our brother Faustinus, we are secure, that the safe brotherly charity in your holinesses honesty and moderation, can suffer him to stay no longer in Africa.] Well said Aurelius! Well said Augustine! Well said all you African
Fathers! Had others stuck as close to it as you, the Papacy had been kept from the Universal Monarchy.
Note here 1. That this Council looked no higher for the power of the Pope and other Metropolitans, then to the Council of Nice, and thought it a good argument, that the Pope had no such power, because no Council had so subjected the African Church: And therefore they never dreamt that Christ or the Apostles had given it him. 2. Note that they evince the Nullity of his pretended power out of the Nicene Council. 3. Note that they took him not to be above a Council, having power to dispense with its Canons. 4. Note that by the Nicene Council, not some, but all business must be ended where they begin, and this Council so interpreted them: and therefore there's no appeals to the Pope. 5. And that he that saith otherwise unjustly chargeth the Holy Ghost to be wanting to the Church. 6. That this order is to be held fast.
7. That they took it for a sufficient reason against appeals to Rome, because all might appeal to a provincial or general Council. 8. Note that they thought it a thing not to be imagined by a man, that God should give his
Spirit to any one man, even to the Pope, to enable him to try and judge, and
deny it to a Council, General or Provincial. This seemed to them a thing that none should imagine, so that they little dreamt of the Roman infallibility or power of Judging all the world. 9. Note also that they thought the Pope to be uncapable of this universal judgment, were it but by distance, and the natural impediments of age, sex, and many the like that must needs hinder the necessary witnesses from such a voyage or journey. So that they give an Argument from Natural necessity against the Popes pretended Sovereignty and judgment. 10. Note also that they plainly make such judgments to be invalid for want of necessary witness and means of prosecution. 11. And whereas the Pope might object that he could prevent all this by his Legates, they flatly reject that too, and say they find no such thing Constituted by any Synod: so that they both rejected the Popes trying and judging by Legates in other Metropolitans jurisdiction; and they took it for a sufficient ground to do so, that there was no Council had so constituted; little dreaming of a Scripture constitution, or Apostolical Tradition. And if the Pope may neither judge them by himself nor his Legates, he may sit still.
12. Next they convince the Roman Bishop of sending them a false Canon of the Nicene Council. 13. And they show us here what way the Pope then took to get and keep his Power: even by sending to the secular commanders of the Provinces, (in whom they had special interest by their residence at Rome,) to execute their wills by force. 14. And note how the Council plainly accuseth them for this, of introducing secular Arrogancy into Christ's Church, that better loveth simplicity and humility and light. 15.
And note how plainly they require the Bishop of Rome to do so no more.
16. And how plainly they tell him that Faustinus his stay any longer in Africa will not stand with that honesty and moderation of the Bishop of Rome which is necessary to the safety of brotherly charity.
I give you but the plain passages of the Council as they lie before you, and screw no forced consequences from them. And now let Binius and his brethren go make women and children believe that it was not Appeals to Rome, but a troublesome manner of trial that the Council was against. And let H.T. tell men that take him for infallible, of a Nicene Canon for the Popes Supremacy and Monarchy. And let him persuade idiots and dotards that the Catholic Church in the fourth and fifth ages was for the universal
Government of the Pope. And so I proceed to his next proof.
Saith H.T. [The first Constantinople Council decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next the Bishop of Rome.]
Answ. 1. You see then that Primacy was but the Institution of Councils, for order sake. 2. You see then that it was grounded on a secular reason; for so saith the Canon [because it is new Rome.] 3. You see then that the Popes
Primacy was but honorary, and gave him no universal Government. For the primacy here granted to Constantinople, gave them no Government over Alexandria, Antioch, &c. 4. Yea expressly the second Canon limits all
Bishops without exception to their own Diocese. And so doth the third Canon, expressly affirming [that according to the Nicene Council in every province, the provincial Council ought to administer and govern all things.]
See now what a proof here is of Catholic succession of the Roman Monarchy! Nay how clearly still it is disproved to that time.
The next proof of H.T. is from the third Act of the first Council of Ephesus, that Peter yet lives and exercises judgment in his Successors]
Answ. He turns us to look a needle in a bottle of hay. That Council is a large volume, containing six Tomes in Binius, and not divided into Acts. But I suppose at last I have found the place, Tom. 2, c. 15, where the words [that Peter was the Head of the Apostles] though nothing to their purpose, are
neither spoken nor approved by the Council, but only by Philip a Presbyter, Celestines Legate. And the Council, though specially moved by his concurrence to extol Celestine to the highest, yet 1. Never spake a word of his Governing power or Sovereignty, but only his consent: And when they mention the Roman Church, it is only their consent which they predicate. 2.
And they extol Cyril equally with Celestine [Novo Paulo Celestine (they forgot Peter) Novo Paulo Cyrillo: —Unus Celestinus, Unus Cyrillus,] &c.
The next witness brought is the Council of Calcedon, as calling Leo Universal Archbishop and Patriarch of old Rome, and sentence is pronounced against Dioscorus in the names of Leo and Saint Peter.] Answ.
1. This is but one of your common frauds. It was not the Council that called him universal Archbishop, but two Deacons in the superscription of their
Libels, viz. Thedodorus and Ischirion. And were they the Catholic Church?
2. By [Universal Archbishop] its plain that they meant no more than the chief in dignity and order of all Archbishops; and not the Governor of all. 3.
I have shown you before that this very Council in its Canons not only give the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome, but expressly say that Rome received this primacy of order à patribus, from a Council, because it was Sedes Imperii, the seat of the Emperor. I thought I had given you enough of this Council before. Sure I am when Bellarmine comes to this Canon, he hath nothing to say for his cause, but plainly to charge this famous fourth General Council with lying or falsehood, and to say, that the Pope approved not this Canon. But approved or not approved, if this was the Catholic Church representative, sure I am that their testimony is valid to prove that there was then no Catholic reception of the Roman
Monarchy as of God, but contrarily a mere primacy of Dignity and Honor given it newly by men.
In the sixth age he had not one Council to pretend it seems for the Roman Sovereignty, for he cites none, but about other matters (of which anon.)
In the seventh age (which he calls the sixth) though then the Sovereignty was claimed by Boniface, he citeth no Council for it neither.
In the eighth age (from the year seven hundred) he cites the second Council of Nice, as approving an Epistle of Pope Adrian, wherein he saith that the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches.] Answ. 1. But whether
Adrian himself by the Head meant the chief in Dignity, or the Governor of all, is a great doubt. 2. But whatever he meant, the Synods approving his
Epistle for Images, is no proof that they approved every word in it. 3. Yea Tharasius seems to imply the contrary, calling him only, Veteris Romae primas & testatorum principum successor; as if his See had the Privilege only of being the Primate of Rome, and not the Ruler of the world. 4. But if this Council did (as it did not) openly own the Papal Sovereignty, it had been no great honor to him: For as in their decrees for Images they contradicted two Councils at Constantinople; and that at Frankford contradicteth them; so might they as well contradict the Church in this:
Even as they defined Angels to be corporeal, which the Council of Lateran afterward contradicted. But the plain truth is, it was the scope of Adrian's
Epistle as for Images, which they expressed themselves to approve. And that their Image-worship itself hath no Catholic succession, me thinks they should easily grant, considering not only, 1. That there is nothing in the first ages for them. 2. And that Epiphanius and many before him speak expressly against it. 3. But specially that there have been more General Councils of those ages against them then for them, and that before this of Nice decreed for them, the representative Catholic Church (except still the Pope be the Catholic Church) did condemn them.
I suppose by this time you will think it needless for me to follow H.T. any further in his Catalogue. I am content that any impartial sober person judge, whether here be a satisfactory proof of a Catholic succession of the Papal
Sovereignty, when through so many ages, they bring not a word for any succession at all; much less that it was owned by the Catholic Church: and least of all that all the rest of Popery was so owned.
Obj. But at least some other points of Popery are proved by H.T. to have such a succession. Answ. Peruse his proofs and freely judge. Two of the thirty-two Articles which I mentioned before he speaks to: The one is that Bishops, Priests and Deacons should abstain from their Wives, or be degraded.] But 1. The Council which he cites for this, is but a Provincial
Council in Spain in the fifth Age: and whats this to Catholic succession? 2.
The Evidences for the Antiquity of Priests marriages are so clear and numerous, that I will not thank any of them to confess their doctrine a Novelty. 1 Cor. 9:5. Have we not power to lead about a Sister, a Wife as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? I hope they will not deny that Peter had a Wife? 1 Tim. 3:2,4. A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one Wife—One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. ver. 12. Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children, and their own houses well, Tit. 1:7. If any be blameless, the husband of one Wife, having faithful children,— The Antient Canons called the Apostles, say, Can. 6. Let not a Bishop or Presbyter put away his own Wife on pretense of Religion. And if he reject her, let him be excommunicated: but if he persevere, let him be deposed.] Let Bellarmine persuade those that will believe him, that this
Canon speaks but of denying them maintenance: Canons as well as Scripture are unintelligible to these men. The Canons at Trull. of the fifth
and sixth Council, do expressly expound this Apostolic Canon as I do here: and they profess it was the Apostles concession then to the Bishops to marry: and they themselves forbid any to separate Priests from their Wives, and professedly oppose the Roman Church in it, Can. 12,13. For this
Bellarmine, lib. 2, c. 27, de Pontif. Rom. reproacheth them, and thats his answer. Forsooth, the Pope approved not these Canons: 1. Let Adrian's words be read, and then judge. 2. What if he did not? Our enquiry is of Catholic Tradition and succession, and not of the Popes opinion. But its easy to bring much more for this.
Another point that H.T. proves, is, The same Canon of Scripture which they own: And for this he brings one Provincial Council, Carth. 3, as in the sixth Age. An excellent proof of Catholic succession through all Ages. But have we not better proof of the contrary? Let him that would be satisfied peruse these records and judge. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 3, c. 9, vel. 10, and there Joseph. li. 1, cont. Apion. Constitut. Apostol. (whosoever was the author) lib. 2, c. 57. Canon. Apostult. Dionys. Eccl. Hier. c. 3. Melet. in Euseb. Eccl. Histor. lib. 5, c. 24. Origen in Niceph. hist. Eccles. lib. 5, c. 16.
Orig. Philocal. c. 3. Euseb. Hist. l. 6, c. 25. Tertul. cont. Marcion. Carm. lib. 4, c. 7. Athanas. Tom. 2. Epist. 39. Et in Synops. Sacr. scrip. Hilar.
Pictav. Explanat. in Psalmos. Cyril. (vel. Johan.) Hierosol. Catech. 4.
Council. Laodic. Can 59. Epiphan. haeres. 8, and 76, and de Mensur. and ponderib. Greg. Nazianz. Carmin. de veris and genuinis libris SS.
Amphiloch. in Balsam. p. 1082. Hieronym. in Prolog. in lib. Reg. and Prol. in lib. Solom. Et Epist. ad Laetam. and passim. Ruffinus in Symbolum. But what need I cite anymore, when Dr. Cosin hath done it in a volume purposely? Where this allegation also of the third Conc. Carthag. is answered.
And now having shown you that Papists cannot prove any Catholic Succession, or Continuation, or Tradition of their Religion, let us consider of their silly shift, by instancing in some by-points common to them with others. Of which I shall say the less because I have spoke to it already in my
Safe Religion.
And before I mention any particulars, remember that I have proved before that ignorance or difference about many points not essential to Christianity, may consist with our being of one Religion and Catholic Church, and therefore such differences are nothing to the point of succession of the Catholic Church or Religion. This is plain to any reasonable man. And that the Papists may see that for their parts they have nothing to say against it, I shall add to what is said, that they tolerate or plead for the toleration of greater differences among themselves, which yet they affirm to consist with the unity of faith. I will now give you but an instance or two.
The Jesuits maintain, that if a man do but believe in their Pope and Church as infallible, he may (not only as some say, be ignorant of some
Article of the Creed itself, and yet be a true Catholic, yea and be saved, but also) believe a false Article as from God and the Church: The former is commonly taught not only by such as Suarez, that say the Article of Christ's
Descent into Hell is not to all of Necessity to Salvation, but by many others in the Doctrine of Implicit faith. The later clause you may see among others in Franc. Albertinus the Jesuit, Corollar. p. 250, where his objectors put this case [Suppose twenty Bishops preach to a country man a false Article, as if it were spoken by God and the Church: that proposal of the twenty Bishops is so sufficient, that the Country man prudently formeth an evident practical judgment, and morally certain, to believe with a speculative assent the Article proposed by the twenty Bishops, for the Authority of God as the
formal reason. Three absurdities seem hence to follow. 1. That the Country man should be obliged under mortal sin, to believe the twenty Bishops, and so the precept of faith should bind to believe a falsehood. 2. The Country man should be in God's Grace without faith. In Grace, because he commits no mortal sin, yea he obeys the command of believing: Yet without faith, because he believes a falsehood opposite to faith, and so loseth faith. 3. God should concur to deceive—To the first Albertinus answereth that its no Absurdity that the command of faith do oblige to believe a falsehood, it being not per se, but per accidens. To the second he saith, that the Country man doth not lose his grace or faith, because the falsehood believed is not formally opposite to the true faith (but materially)— Here you see that a man may hold an Article opposite to the faith materially, and yet not only be a true Christian in grace and faith, but also in so doing obey by accident the command of believing, so be it he believe in their Church. And if that be so, with what face can these men say, that our Church or Religion is new, or not the same with the Greeks, &c. when we have the same formal Object of faith, and differ in no Essential Material point? See here their lubricity and partiality.
One Instance more: The second Council of Nice that decreed for ImageWorship, doth yet expressly decree that Latria, Divine worship is to be given only to God; Thomas Aquinas sum. 3, q. 25, art. 3, and 4, purposely maintaineth that Latria, Divine Worship is to be given to the Image of Christ, and to the Cross that he died on; and to the sign of that Cross. Here is an Article of their faith expressly contradicted: And yet Aquinas is a member of their Church; And if any say, he is no member, its proved past doubt, for the Pope hath Canonized him for a Saint: So that now it is a part of their Religion to take him for a true believer: And Albertinus hath (as he
thinks) proved, that though in many other matters of fact the Pope be fallible, yet in the Canonizing of Saints he is infallible, because of some promise of God's special assistance (if one knew where to find it.)
Abundance of such Instances might be brought that prove, that the Papists own men as true believers, that deny or contradict Articles of their faith. But what need we more, then that France and thousands elsewhere are yet members of their Church, that deny the Lateran and Florentine definition for the Popes Supremacy above a General Council? And when most Papists hold that Angels are incorporeal, contrary to the definition of the said second Council of Nice. And therefore by their own law, nay much more, we may well say that those were of our Religion that differed from us in nothing that is indeed or our esteem Essential to the faith. Now to a few particulars.
1. The Papists tell us that [Fulk confesseth that Jerome, Austin, Ambrose, &c. held the invocation of Saints] H.T. p. 49. Answ. 1. If any hold that they should desire the departed Saints to pray for them, as they do the living, we have reason enough to take it for their error, but its no proof that they are not of the same Church and Religion with us: As long as they give no part of that adoration or honor to Saints which is proper to God the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, it is not inconsistent with true Faith and Christianity.
2. But yet we must tell you that the Primitive Church was unacquainted with the Romish prayer to Saints. Till the end of the fourth Century they are not able to prove that ever three men (if any one) were for any prayer to the Dead at all, except such a conditional speech in an Oration as Greg.
Nazianzen hath [If holy souls have any care or feeling of such things as these, receive this Oration] Orat. 11. I entreat the Reader that needeth information of the way of Antiquity in this point, to read Bishop Ushers
Answer to the Jesuit on this point, p. 418, &c. Where he saith that [for nine parts of the first four hundred years, he dare be bold to say that the Jesuit is not able to produce so much as one true testimony out of any Father whereby it may appear that any account at all was made of it] Where he citeth the full express words of the Fathers of those first ages against praying to Saints, as Origen in Jos. Hom. 16. And in Rom. lib. 2, c. 2. And Contr. Celsum lib. 8, p. 432,433,406,411,412, and lib. 5, p. 239. Tertullian
Apol. c. 30. Tertullian and Cyprian of Prayer: Athanasius Orat. 4. Cont.
Arrium p. 259,260. Eccles. Smyrn. apud Euseb. Hist. lib. 4. &c. I am loath to recite what is there already given you. 3. And when Prayer to the dead did come in, how exceedingly it differed from the Romish Prayers to the dead, I pray you read there in the same Author. 4. And also of those
Adorations and Devotions offered by the Papists to the Virgin Mary, I desire you to read in the same Author, and Place, enough to make a Christian tremble, and which for my part I am not able to excuse from horrid
Blasphemy or Idolatry, though I am willing to put the best interpretation on their words that reason will allow.
5. The Reason why in the Old Testament men were not wont to pray to Saints, Bellarmine saith was, because then they did not enter into heaven nor see God. Bellar. de sanct. Beat. li. 2, c. 19. So Suarez in the third part,
Tom. 2, disp. 42. Sect. 1. But abundance of the chief Doctors of the Church for diverse Ages were of opinion that the Saints are not admitted into Heaven to the clear sight of God before the day of Judgment (as most of the Eastern Churches do to this day) therefore they could not be for the Popish
Prayer to Saints.
And here again observe, that men may be of the same faith and Church with us, that differ and err in as great a matter as this. The Council of
Florence hath now defined it, that departed souls are admitted into Heaven to the clear sight of God: And yet Stapleton and Francis. Pegna. à Castro,
Medina, Sotus, affirm that Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Austin, Lactantius, Victorinus,
Prudentius, Theodoret, Aretas, Oecumenius, Theophilact, Euthymius, yea and Bernard, have delivered the contrary sentence. See Staplet. Defens.
Eccles. author. cont. Whitak. lib. 1, c. 2, with Fran. Pegna in part. 2.
Director. Inquisitor. come. 21.
Now as all these must needs be against the Popish Invocation of Saints, so they were against that which is now determined to be de fide; Whence I gather (on the by) 1. That the Romish faith increaseth, and is not the same as heretofore. 2. That they had not this Article by Tradition from any of these Fathers, or from the Apostles by them (unless from the Scriptures.) 3.
That men that err in such points as are now defined by Councils to be de fide, are yet accounted by Papists to be of their Church and faith: And therefore they may be of ours, notwithstanding such errors as this in hand.
4. And note also by this taste, whether the Papists be not a perjured generation, that swear not to expound Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
6. The Council of Laodicea condemned them as Idolaters that prayed to Angels, Can. 35. (which Caranza, Crab, and other Papists have turned into Angulos; whose falsification you may see fully detected by the said Bishop
Usher, ibid. p. 470,471,472. Read there also the full Testimonies of Greg.
Nissen, Athanasius, Epiphanius, &c. against praying to Saints and Angels, and the detection of Bellarmine's fraud, that pretendeth the Fathers to speak of the Gentiles Idolatry when they mention the Virgin Mary and the Saints, and say expressly they were not to be adored.
But for all this, H.T. Manual. P. 291, &c. hath Fathers for this Adoration of Angels and Saints. And who are they? The first is Dionysius: to which I answer, 1. There is never a such a word in the place cited in Dionysius, in the Book that I have at hand, printed Lugdun. 1572. 2. We are for praying the Saints to pray for us too, that is, those on earth: And the words cited by him, mention not the Saints in heaven. 3. That Dionysius is not Dionysius but a spurious Apocryphal Book: Not once known and mentioned in the world till Gregory the greats days, (six hundred years after Christ) as Bellarmine himself saith Lib. de Scriptor. Eccles. de Dionys. And lib. 2, de
Monach. c. 5.
The second is Clem. Apostol. Constit. 5. Answ. 1. The words speak only of honoring the Martyrs, which is our unquestioned duty; but not of Praying to them. 2. Its an Apocryphal forgery, and neither the Apostles nor Clements
Work which he citeth (but anything will serve these men:) Let him believe Bellarmine de scriptor. Eccles. p. 38,39, where he proveth it, and saith that [in the Latin Church, these Constitutions are of almost no account, and the Greeks themselves Canon. 2. Trul. reject them as depraved by Heretics, and that the receiving of them is it that misleadeth the Ethiopians.] See more against them in Cooks Censurâ, p. 17,18,19, and Rivets Crit. Sac. &
Dalaeus in Pseudepigrap.
The third Testimony of H.T. is from Justins second Apol. Answ. It is not Praying to Angels that Justin seemeth to intend, but giving them due honor, which we allow of. His intent is to stop the mouths of Heathens that called the Christians impious for renouncing their God's: To whom he replieth, that we yet honor the true God, and his Angels, &c.—
His Testimony for the third age is only Origen (and yet none of Origen) First in his Lament. Answ. 1. Origen there mentioneth the Saints, but not the
dead Saints. It may be all the Saints in the Church on earth whose prayers he desireth. 2. If this satisfy you not, at least be satisfied with this, that you cite a forgery that is none of Origen's works. Not only Erasmus saith that [This Lamentation was neither written by Origen, nor translated by Jerome, but is the fiction of some unlearned man, that by this trick devised to defame Origen:) But Baronius Annal. Tit. 2, ad an. 253, p. 477, witnesseth that Pope Gelasius numbers it with the Apocryphals.
But H.T. hath a second testimony from Origen. in Cantic. Hom. 3. Answ.
1. That speaks of the Saints prayer for us, but not of our prayers to them one word, which is the thing in question. 2. But Erasmus and others have shown that neither is this any of Origen's works. Sixtus Senensis saith, that some old Books put Jerome's name to it: And Lombard and Aquinas cite passages out of it as Ambroses.
You see now what Testimonies H.T. hath produced for the first three Ages, even till above four hundred years after Christ. And yet no doubt but this is currant proof with the poor deluded Papists that read his Book.
2. The next exception to be considered is, Praying for the Dead: which they say the ancient Church was for.
Answ. 1. We are for the Commemoration of the holy lives and sufferings of the Saints: and the first sort of the ancients prayers for them began here, as the occasion. 2. We are for thankful acknowledgement of God's Mercies to the departed Saints, and to the Church by them. And the first prayers for them were such as these. 3. Bishop Usher hath copiously proved that they were Saints, supposed to be in Heaven or Paradise, and not in Purgatory, that were then prayed for: and therefore that it was not the Popish praying for tormented souls that was then practiced: And therefore their prayers then were besides Commemorations and Thanksgivings, the petitioning of all
those following Mercies for them which are not to be received till the resurrection: Bellarmine himself proving that though we were certain that the blessed souls shall have a raised glorified body, and be justified in the last Judgment, yet may it be prayed for, because it is yet future. Now we are far from being of another Church or Religion then those that hold such an opinion as this. Saith Usher p. 224, when he had cited many testimonies [In these and other prayers of the like kind, we may descry evident footsteps of the primary intention of the Church in her supplications for the dead: which was that the whole man (not the soul separated only) might receive public remission of sins, and a solemn acquittal in the judgment of that great day; and so obtain both a full escape from all the Consequences of sin (the last enemy being now destroyed, and death swallowed up in victory) and a perfect consummation of bliss and happiness: all which are comprised in that short prayer of S. Paul for Onesiphorus (though made for him while he was alive) [The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day] Yea, diverse prayers for the dead of that kind are still retained in the Roman offices; of which the great Spanish Doctor John Medina thus writeth; Although I have read many prayers for the faithful deceased, which are contained in the Roman Missal, yet have I read in none of them that the Church doth petition, that they may more quickly be freed from pains: but I have read that in some of them petition is made, that they may be freed from everlasting pains.] Again there be other prayers (saith Medina) wherein petition is made, that God would raise the souls of the dead in their bodies unto bliss at the day of judgment.]
You see then, that our Question is not whether the dead may be prayed for: but what prayers may be made for them. And therefore to find that about three hundred years after Christ (more or less) men begun to pray for
the dead, is no proof that they were not of our Church or Religion; or that therefore we want succession. It was not a praying to be sooner out of Purgatory that then was used, as Papists do, but a Praying for the mercies promised at the Resurrection: And thus we think it lawful to pray for the dead; were it not for the accidental evil that might follow with them that will misunderstand and abuse it.
And its further to be noted, that as Pegna, Stapleton and others confess, the Fathers, Greek and Latin, before mentioned, did believe that men had not their perfect Joys till the Resurrection; and therefore they had the far stronger motive to pray for the dead. And if Protestants had not been partly of this mind (save only that we put not the soul into hidden receptacles, nor anywhere but with Christ) Bellarmine had not found so much occasion of that unworthy calumny against Calvin for the words cited by him in his
Instit. as if he denied the beatifical vision, if not the immortality of the soul:
Even because he took not our bliss to be perfect till the Resurrection, but somewhat short of what we shall then be. Now seeing the Fathers were so commonly of that mind, and the Greeks and Ethiopians are still of that mind, and Bellarmine saith Luther and Calvin are of that mind, you may see that neither in that nor the point of praying for the dead as used by the ancients, is our distance so great as to weaken the proof of our succession, or make us to be of two Churches or Religions.
And here you may see the differences between the Prayers for the dead which are used by the Papists, and by the Eastern Churches to this day. And yet if upon private unsound opinions any should go somewhat further in this point, it followeth not that such error changeth the faith. I desire the Reader that would have a fuller sight of the face of Antiquity in this point, to read Bishop Usher of it in the forementioned Answer to the Jesuit.
3. Another point that they much challenge us about, is, The Veneration or Adoration of Images, Relics, and the Cross, to which I may join, peregrinations to places esteemed by them to be of eminent holiness.
Concerning Peregrinations, you may see by a plain Epistle of Gregory Nyssen (in the end of his printed works, but in the midst of a M. S. in Paris
Library) written purposely against going on Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, what is to be thought of this. He adviseth even the retired Monastics even in those Countries that were near Judea, to forbear such Pilgrimages as dangerous and unnecessary, and not at all commanded in the Scripture. The Papists did as long as they could persuade the world that this Epistle was none of Gregory's, and when they were made ashamed of that, they would expound it as prohibiting Pilgrimages to none but the Monastics: And sure if it should be forbidden them, then much more should others be forbidden, that have not the leisure, and pretend not to the devotions which these pretend to. Read but the Epistle itself without either Molinaeus his notes on our side, or Gretsers frivolous answers, and judge as thou seest cause.
As for Images, we allow the Historical use of them, and the setting them up in Churches the Lutherans allow, and we dislike it only as dangerous and a needless snare, but take not ourselves to be of another Church or Religion from those that are otherwise minded: No nor from those that Reverence them as they respect the persons whom they signify. But its one thing to use
Images, and another thing to use them Popishly, which is to make them mediate objects of Divine worship, yea to worship the very Image itself, and the Cross and the sign of the Cross with the same worship as we do him that is signified by them: So that we confidently affirm, 1. That the Primitive Church did make no use of Images at all in the worship of God; no nor endure them in the place of Worship. 2. That when they were first
brought in, the Popish use of them was still renounced and detested.
Clemens Alexandrinus Protreptic. ad Gent. saith that [We are plainly forbidden to use that deceitful Art] (of painting or image-making)—And [We have no sensible Image made of any sensible matter, but such an Image as is to be conceived with the understanding] Origen against Celsus lib. 7, p. 373,384,386,387, is large and plain against this use of Images, as the Protestants are. And the Eliber. Council. C. 36, saith [Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur, aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur. It seemeth good to us, that Pictures ought not to be in the Church, lest that which is worshipped or adored should be painted on Walls]
Some Papists would fain find a sense for this (anon contrary to the words:
But Melch Cano plainly saith, that the Council did not only imprudently but impiously make this law to take away Images, Loc. Theol. lib. 5, c. 4, conc.
4. I shall cite no more, but entreat the Reader that is willing to be informed how much Antiquity was against the Papists in the points of Images, to peruse only Dallaeus de Imaginibus, and Usher in his Answer to the Jesuit and Sermon to the Parliament: And I provoke the Papists to confute what is in them alleged if they can.
H.T. hath no better shift to salve their credit (Manual p. 319,320.) then to set their own Schoolmen and General Council together by the ears. The second Council of Nice (that did most for Images) did openly renounce the adoring them with Divine honor, and Tharasius solemnly professed,
Duntaxat in unum verum Deum latriam & fidem se refer & reponere [They did refer and repose faith and divine worship in the true God alone] But Aquinas sum. 3, q. 25, a. 3, & 4, maintaineth (as I before observed) that the Image of Christ, and the Cross and the sign of the Cross are to be worshipped with Divine worship.] And what saith H. Turbervile to this?
Why [This is a mere school opinion and not of faith with us: Urge not therefore what some particular Divines say, but hearken to the Doctrine of God's Church.—] Very good! Is not this so gross a kind of juggling, that would never down if devout ignorance and implicit faith had not prepared the stomachs of the people? 1. You see here that to contradict the Determination of a General Council, is not of faith with them. But it is not against your faith? Do you give leave to mere school opinions to contradict
General Councils? See here what's become of the Popish faith? If the Determinations of Councils be not Articles of faith with you, then you have no faith, but give up your cause: And if they be, then Aquinas and his followers are Heretics. 2. And then see whats become of the Popes
Infallibility in Canonizing Saints, that have sainted Thomas Aquinas that proves a Heretic by your Law: so that your cause is gone which way ever you turn you. 3. And then see what it is to pray to Saints, when some of them are made Heretics by your own Laws. 4. And then also see, at what
Unity the Church of Rome is among themselves, when it is the very common doctrine of their learned Schoolmen, which contradicteth a General Council: Are you not well agreed that while? 5. And lastly note what a Holy Church you have, when the common sort of your most learned
Divines are thus made Heretics: See Bishop Ushers allegations of Th.
Arundels Provincial Council at Oxford, 1408, ex Guil. Linewood lib 5. And Jac. Naclantus in Rom. c. 1, fol. 42, saith [We must not only confess, that the faithful in the Church do worship before the Image, as some cautiously speak, but that they adore the Image, without any scruple: yea and that they worship it with the same worship as the Prototype: so that if it be worshipped with Divine worship, the Image must have Divine worship—]
And Cabrera in 3 part. Thom. qu. 25, art. 3, disp. 2, num. 15, there cited by
Usher, saith that it is of faith that Images are to be worshipped in Churches and without: and we must give them signs of servitude and submission, by embracing, lights, offering incense, uncovering the head, &c. 2. That Images are truly and properly to be adored, with an intention to adore themselves, and not only the samplars represented in them. This Conclusion is against Durand and his followers, whose opinion by the Moderns is judged dangerous, rash, and savoring of Heresy: and M. Medina reporteth that M. Victoria reputed it heretical: but our conclusion is the common one of Divines. If Images be improperly only adored, then they are not to be adored simply and absolutely; which is manifest Heresy. And if Images were to be worshipped only by way of Remembrance, because they make us remember the samplars, which we thus adore as if they were present, it would follow that all creatures are to be adored with the same adoration as God—which is absurd. 3. The Opinion of Saint Thomas, that the Image must be worshipped with the same act of adoration, as the samplar which it representeth, is most true, most pious, and very consonant to the decrees of faith] Thus Cabrera, who adds that this is the doctrine of Thomas and all his
Disciples and almost all the old Schoolmen, and particularly of Cajetan, Capreolus, Paludanus, Ferrariensis, Antoninus, Soto, Alexand. Ales.
Albertus Magnus, Bonaventura, Richardus de media villa, Dionysius Carthusianus, Major, Marsilius, Thom.
Waldensis, Turrecremata, Clichtovaeus, Turrian, Vasquez, &c. And Azorius saith [It is the constant opinion of Divines,] Institut. Moral tom. 1, lib. 9, c. 6. Yea in the Roman
Pontifical published by the Authority of Clement the eighth, it is expressed, that [The Legates Cross shall have the right hand, because Divine worship is due to it See here whether the Pope himself be not an Heretic, and the Pontifical contain not heresy, and the whole rabble of the Schoolmen
heretics, by contradicting the determination of the General Council at Nice 2, which H.T. citeth, and the doctrine which he saith is the doctrine of God's
Church, such is the faith and unity of the Papists.
But they will say still that though all these worship the very Cross and Images themselves, and that with Divine worship, yet there be some of a better mind, that do but worship God by the Image, such as H.T. &c. Answ.
And do you think that rational Pagans did not know as well as you that their Images were not God's themselves, and so worshipped them not as God's, but as the representers and instruments of some Diety? Lactantius Instit. lib.
2, c. 2, brings them in saying thus [Non ipsa, &c. We fear not them, but those whom they represent, and to whose names they are consecrated [And Arnobius thus [Deos per simulachra veneramur: It is the God's that we worship by Images] And Augustine thus reporteth the Pagans sayings [in Psal. 96. Non ego lapidem, &c. I do not worship that stone, nor that Image, which is without sense] And in Psal. 113, cono. 2. [Nec simulachrum, nec daemonium colo, &c. 1. Worship neither the Image, nor a Spirit in it; but by the bodily likeness I behold the sign of that which I ought to worship.] Yea that many of them renounced the worshipping of Devils, appeareth by Augustine's report of their words, in Psal. 96. [Non colimus mala daemonia,
&c. We worship not evil spirits: It is those that you call Angels, that we worship, who are the powers of the great God, and the Ministers of the great God] To whom Austin answers [Would you would worship them (that is, honor them aright,) then you would easily learn of them not to worship them] And doubtless few could be so silly as to think there were as many
Jupiter's or Apollos as there were Images of them in the world. So that you see here that some of the Pagans as to Image-worship disclaimed that which the Papists ascribe to them, viz. Divine worship.
Oh but saith H.T. tell us not of particular Doctors, but of the Doctrine of God's Church. Answ. What not of Saint Thomas? What! Not of the Army of School Divines before mentioned? What! Not of the [Communis sententia
Theologorum:] the common judgment of Divines? For so they call it; What?
Not of that which is de fide, or consonant to it, and whose contrary is heresy, or savors of Heresies? (as they say of Durand opinion) what! Not of Pope Clement the eighth and the Roman Pontifical? (p. 672.) wonderful!
Are all these nobody in your Church? O admirable harmony that is in your united Church!
But you can agree to leave out the second commandment lest the very words should deter the people from Image worship; and to make an irrational division of the tenth to blind their eyes. And yet you cry up the Testimony of the Fathers, when you are fain to hide one of the ten commandments, so that thousands of your poor seduced followers, know not that there is such a thing. No wonder if you cast away Gregory Nyssen's
Epistle against Pilgrimages; and Epiphanius his words (in the end of his Epistle to Johan. Herosol.) against Images; and if Vasquez (in 3 Thom. disp.
105, c. 3.) contrary to the plain words do fain that it was the Image of a profane or common man that Epiphanius pulled down; and Al. Cope (Dial.
5, c. 21.) say, that the epistle is counterfeit and not Epiphanius': and if Bellarmine (de Imag. c. 9.) and Baronius (ad an. 392.) say that this part of the Epistle is forged: and if Alphons. a Castro. (cont. Haeres. de Imag.) reproach Epiphanius for it as an Iconoclast: so well are you agreed also in the confutation of the Fathers Testimonies, that any way will serve your turn, though each man have his several way. Fair fall Vasquez that plainly confesseth, that indeed the Scripture doth forbid not only the worship of an Image for God, but also the worshiping of the true God in an Image: but
saith that this commandment is now repealed, and therefore under the Gospel we may do otherwise. (Vasq. li. 2, de Adorat. Disp. 4, c. 3. Sect.
74,75. &c. 4. Sect. 84.) But of this point I shall say no more now but this. 1. Many Christian
Churches do reject Images from their Churches and worship as well as Protestants. 2. More reject statues that reject not pictures. 3. Many that keep them, worship not them, nor God in them, or by them, as by a mediate Obj.
4. General Councils have been against Images, that want nothing but the pleasure of the Pope to make them of as good authority as the Council that was for them. 5. That Council that was for them (Nice 2.) condemneth the Schoolmen and Pope Clement himself as Heretics, for worshiping them, or the Cross with Divine worship. 6. I again urge any Papist to answer
Dallaeus book rationally that can. 7. To spare me the labor of saying more of the judgment of the ancient Catholic Church against the Popish use of Images, I desire the Reader to peruse what Cassander an honest Papist hath written to that end, Consultat. de Imag. et simulac. who begins thus [Ad
Imagines vero sanctorum quod attinet, certum est, initio praedicati Evangelii aliquanto tempore inter Christianos, praesertim in ecclesiis, imaginum usum non fuisse, ut ex Clemente & Arnobio patet: Tandem picturas in ecclesiam admissas ut rerum gestarum historiam exprimentes
&c.—] And he produceth abundance from antiquity against the present Popish use of them.
4. Another point in which the Papists pretend to better Countenance from Antiquity then we, is the point of the Corporal presence with Transubstantiation: But of this there is so much said by multitudes of our
Divines, that I shall now say no more, but desire the studious to Read at least Bishop Ushers Answ. to the Jesuit of it, and Edmundus Abertinus de
Eucharistia: a Treatise so full of evidence from Scripture, Reason, and the judgment of the Fathers, that I boldly challenge all the Papists in the world to give a tolerable answer to it, that is a better than that is given.
When we have thus shown them the stream of Antiquity to have been against them, they pass us by, and thrust into the ignorant people's hands, a few musty scraps of abused words, which are answered and cleared over and over: Thus do H.T. D. Bailey, and others.
5. In the point of Satisfaction and Purgatory, besides what Sadeel, Chamier and others have said, Usher and the foresaid Dallaeus in a full
Treatise have shown the Papists nakedness from Antiquity, so that modesty should forbid them to pretend the Fathers for them anymore, if any modesty be left.
6. About their Fasts (though that be no essential of Religion) both the time, manner &c. is so fully spoke to by the said Dallaeus in another just volume de Jejuniis, that Popery in this also is openly condemned by the Fathers in the view of the impartial considerate world.
The point of Free will, and most of the rest in which they imagine that we dissent from Antiquity or the Eastern Churches, I have spoke to already in my first Book against Popery. I had thought to have gone through the rest particularly, at least the rest mentioned by H.T. and D. Bailey; but finding them so frequently and fully handled already, I will forbear such labor in vain.