A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 25

A Key for Catholics · Treatise 1 · Chapter 25

p. 141CHAP. XXV.

Detect. 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 Eſſentiall 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 inferiour 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.

p. 142Thus Bellarmine opens his jugling lib. 4. de Eccleſ. cap. 9. where he pleadeth Antiquity of Doctrine as a Note of the true Church: And (ſaith he) Jam duobus modis, &c. Two wayes we may by this Mark prove our Church. 1. By ſhewing 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 ſhewing firſt from the confeſſion of the adverſaries, that our tenents are the doctrine of all the antients, &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 antients in the antients, but only from the Pope or the Proteſtants, the Fathers are faln 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 jugling will not ſerve the turn. Take up the Eſſentials of Popery, and prove a Catholick 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 CATHOLICK 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 Catholick Succeſsion, or continuation of this point, that The Pope of Rome is appointed by Chriſt to be the univerſall Monarch, Soveraign, Governour, Head of the Catholick p. 143Church, 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 Catholick Church is a Society thus headed and Governed by the Pope, and that no man is a true member of the Catholick 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 Gods appointment the Miſtris 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 ſence 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 then 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 honour with the Holy Goſpel.

14. That the Clergy of the Catholick Church ought to ſwear obedience to the Pope as Chriſts Vicar.

15. That the Pope ſhould be a temporal Prince.

16. That the Pope and his Clergy ought to be exempted from p. 144the 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 hereticks, or will not exterminate Hereticks.

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 Soveraignty, 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 publick Prayers, Prayſes and other publick worſhip of God, ſhould be performed conſtantly in a language not underſtood by the People; or only in Latine, Greek or Hebrew.

22. That the Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt, is Tranſubtantiate into the very body and blood of Chriſt; ſo that it is no more true Bread or Wine, though our eyes, taſt, 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 Gods Law perfectly. 2. To ſupererogate, by doing more then 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 fordidden 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 implicite vow of obedience to the Pope of Rome.

p. 14531. 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 enquire which of theſe are proper to the Papiſts. But I am reſolved ſo to receive many of them as they can prove a Catholick 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 ſignifie no more then Blanks or Cyphers, he would prove that both thoſe perſons and the Catholick 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 Catholick 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 Soveraignty) H. T. will prove ſucceſſively, if you will be credulous enough. In the firſt age he proves it from Peters words, Act. 15. 7, 8, 9, 10. God choſe Peter to convert Cornelius and his company: therefore the Pope is the Univerſall Monarch. Are you not all convinced by this admirable argument? But he forgot that Bellarmine, Raguſius (in Concil. Baſil.) and others of them ſay, that no Article can be proved from Scripture, but from the proper literall ſence. To ſay ſomewhat more, he unſeaſonably p. 146talks of the Council of Sardis and Calcedon, an. 400. & 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 Catholick 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 Catholick 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 Miſtris of all Churches. Who can reſiſt theſe arguments? But why did you not prove that your Confeſſors and Martyrs ſuffered for atteſting the Popes Soveraignty! 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 ſhew for the ſucceſſion or antiquity of Popery for the three firſt Ages. Yea worſe then 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 falſhood of them being out of themſelves fully proved, by Blondell, Reignolds, and many more, and confeſſed by ſome of themſelves. Here you ſee the firſt foundation of Papal ſucceſſion; even a bundle of fictions, lately fetcht 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 p. 147proof (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 conſubſtantiall to his Father, and true God And whats that to Popery? 2 But it defined the Popes Soveraignty: 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 Jeſuite publiſheth them out of Pope Julius and I know not what Arabick 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 univerſall 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 deſtre 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 alledged. 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 Jeſuite, 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 Soveraignty.

And here note 1. That Zoſimus knew not then of Piſanus Canons, or elſe he would have alledged them; nor yet of Bellarmines p. 148new 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 priviledge, 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 Apoſtolick or Church Tradition for this Roman power, as our Maſters of Tradition now plead for; which all the Catholick 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 falſhood: 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 quo que & ſequentium, &c. i. e. [Let your holineſs, as beſeemeth you, repell 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 inferiour 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 every one to appeal to the Councils of their own Province, or to a Univerſall Council, if he be offended with the judgement of the Cognitors. Unleſs there ſhould be any one that can p. 149think that our God can inſpire a juſtice of tryall into any one man (N. B.) and deny it to innumerable Prieſts that are congregated in Councill. Or how can that judgement 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 Authentick (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 ſmoaky 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 Univerſall Monarchy.

Note here 1. That this Council lookt 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 p. 150is 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 judgement, 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 Soveraignty and judgement. 10. Note alſo that they plainly make ſuch judgements 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 Metropoſitans 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 ſhew 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 Chriſts 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 p. 151you, and ſcrue no forced conſequences from them. And now let Binnius and his brethren go make women and children believe that it was not Appeals to Rome, but a trouble ſome manner of tryal 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 perſwade ideots and dotards that the Catholick 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 Conſtantinop. 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 expreſly the ſecond Canon limits all Biſhops without exception to their own Dioceſs. And ſo doth the third Canon, expreſly 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 Catholick 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 judgement 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 Binnius, 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 extoll Celeſtine to the higheſt, yet 1. Never ſpake a word of his Governing power or Soveraignty, but only his concent: And when they mention the Roman Church, it is only their concent which they predicate. 2. And they extoll Cyril equally with Celeſtine [Novo Paulo Celeſtine (they forgot Peter) Novo Paulo Cyrillo: p. 152—Unu… Celeſtinus, Unus Cyrillus,] &c.

The next witneſs brought is the Council of Calcedon, as caling 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 univerſall Archbiſhop, but two Deacons in the ſuperſcription of their Libels, viz. Thedodorus and Iſchirion. And were they the Catholick Church? 2. By [Univerſal Archbiſhop] its plain that they meant no more then the chief in dignity and order of all Archbiſhops; and not the Governour of all. 3. I have ſhewed you before that this very Council in its Canons not only give the Biſhop of Conſtantinople equal priviledges with the Biſhop of Rome, but expreſly ſay that Rome received this primacy of order à patribus, from a Council, becauſe it was Sedes Imperii, the ſeat of the Emperour. 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 falſhood, and to ſay, that the Pope approved not this Canon. But approved or not approved, if this was the Catholick Church repreſentative, ſure I am that their teſtimony is valid to prove that there was then no Catholick reception of the Roman Monarchy as of God, but contrarily a meer primacy of Dignity and Honour given it newly by men.

In the ſixth age he had not one Council to pretend it ſeems for the Roman Soveraignty, for he cites none, but about other matters (of which anon.)

In the ſeventh age (which he calls the ſixth) though then the Soveraignty was claimed by Boniface, he citeth no Council for it niether.

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 Governour 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 Sea p. 153had the Priviledge 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 Soveraignty, it had been no great honour 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 Laterane afterward contradicted. But the plain truth is, it was the ſcope of Adrians Epiſtle as for Images, which they expreſſed themſelves to approve. And that their Image-worſhip it ſelf hath no Catholick 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 expreſly 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 Catholick Church (except ſtill the Pope be the Catholick 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 Catholick ſucceſſion of the Papal Soveraignty, when through ſo many ages, they bring not a word for any ſucceſſion at all; much leſs that it was owned by the Catholick Church: and leaſt of all that all the reſt of Popery was ſo owned.

Object. 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 Catholick 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 p. 154that 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 faithfull children,—The Antient Canons called the Apoſtles, ſay, Can. 6. Let not a Biſhop or Presbyter put away his own Wife on pretence of Religion. And if he reject her, let him be excommunicated: but if he perſevere, let him be depoſed.] Let Bellarmine perſwade 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 expreſly expound this Apoſtolick 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. cap. 27. de Pontif. Rom. reproacheth them, and thats his anſwer. Forſooth, the Pope approved not theſe Canons: 1. Let Adrians words be read, and then judge. 2. What if he did not? Our enquiry is of Catholick Tradition and ſucceſſion, and not of the Popes opinion. But its eaſie 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 Catholick 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. cap. 9. vel. 10. and there Joſeph. li. 1. cont. Apion. Conſtitut. Apoſtol. (whoſoever was the author) lib. 2. cap. 57. Canon. Apoſtult. Dionyſ. Eccl. Hier. cap. 3. Melet. in Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſtor. lib. 5. cap. 24. Origen in Niceph. hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 5. cap. 16. Orig. Philocal. cap. 3. Euſeb. Hiſt. l. 6. cap. 25. Tertul. cont. Marcion. Carm. lib. 4. cap. 7. Athanaſ. Tom. 2. Epiſt. 39. Et in Synopſ. Sacr. ſcrip. Hilar. Pictav. Explanat. in Pſalmos. Cyril. (vel. Johan.) Hieroſol. Catech. 4. Concil. Laodic. Can 59. Epiphan. haereſ. 8. & 76. & de Menſur. & ponderib. Greg. p. 155Nazianz. Carmin. de veris & genuinis libris SS. Amphiloch. in Balſam. pag. 1082. Hieronym. in Prolog. in lib. Reg. & Prol. in lib. Solom. Et Epiſt. ad Laetam. & paſſim. Ruffinus in Symbolum. But what need I cite any more, when Dr. Coſin hath done it in a volume purpoſely? where this allegation alſo of the third Conc. Carthag. is anſwered.

AND now having ſhewed you that Papiſts cannot prove any Catholick 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 Catholick Church, and therefore ſuch differences are nothing to the point of ſucceſſion of the Catholick 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 it ſelf, and yet be a true Catholick, 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 Chriſts Deſcent into Hell is not to all of Neceſſity to Salvation, but by many others in the Doctrine of Implicite faith. The later clauſe you may ſee among others in Franc. Albertinus the Jeſuite, Corollar. pag. 250. where his objectors put this caſe [Suppoſe twenty Biſhops preach to a countrey 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 Countrey man prudently formeth an evident practical judgement, and morally certain, p. 156to 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 Countrey man ſhould be obliged under mortall ſin, to believe the twenty Biſhops, and ſo the precept of faith ſhould bind to believe a falſhood. 2. The Countrey man ſhould be in Gods 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 falſhood 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 falſhood, it being not per ſe, but per accidens. To the ſecond he ſaith, that the Countrey man doth not loſe his grace or faith, becauſe the falſhood 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 Image-Worſhip, doth yet expreſly decree that Latria, Divine worſhip is to be given only to God; Thomas Aquinas ſum. 3. q. 25. art. 3. & 4. purpoſely maintaineth that Latria, Divine Worſhip is to be given to the Image of Chriſt, and to the Croſs that he dyed on; and to the ſign of that Croſs. Here is an Article of their faith expreſly 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 Gods ſpeciall 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, p. 157that deny or contradict Articles of their faith. But what need we more, then that France and thouſands elſwhere are yet members of their Church, that deny the Laterane 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 Hierom, 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 honour 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 intreat the Reader that needeth information of the way of Antiquity in this point, to read Biſhop Uſhers Anſwer to the Jeſuite on this point, page 418, &c. Where he ſaith that [for nine parts of the firſt four hundred years, he dare be bold to ſay that the Jeſuite 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 Jus. Hom. 16. And in Rom. lib. 2. cap. 2. And Contr. Celſum lib. 8. page 432, 433, 406, 411, 412. & lib. 5. pag. 239. Tertullian Apol. cap. 30. Tertullian and Cyprian of Prayer: Athanaſius Orat. 4. Cont. Arrium pag. 259, 260. Eccleſ. Smyrn. apud Euſeb. Hiſt. lib. 4. &c. I am loth to recite what is there already given you. p. 1583. 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. cap. 19. So Suarez in the third part, Tom. 2. diſp. 42. Sect. 1. But abundance of the chief Doctors of the Church for divers Ages were of opinion that the Saints are not admitted into Heaven to the clear ſight of God before the day of Judgement (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, Chryſoſtome, 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. cap. 2. with Fran. Pegna in part. 2. Director. Inquiſitor. com. 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, p. 159notwithſtanding ſuch errours as this in hand. 4. And note alſo by this taſt, 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. pag. 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 Bellarmines fraud, that pretendeth the Fathers to ſpeak of the Gentiles Idolatry when they mention the Virgin Mary and the Saints, and ſay expreſly they were not to be adored.

But for all this, H. T. Manual. page 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 Apochryphal Book: Not once known and mentioned in the world till Gregory the greats dayes, (ſix hundred years after Chriſt) as Bellarmine himſelf ſaith Lib. de Scriptor. Eccleſ. de Dionyſ. And lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 5.

The ſecond is Clem. Apoſtol. Conſtit. 5. Anſw. 1. The words ſpeak only of honouring the Martyrs, which is our unqueſtioned duty; but not of Praying to them. 2. Its an Apochryphal forgery, and neither the Apoſtles nor Clements Work which he citeth (but any thing will ſerve theſe men:) Let him believe Bellarmine de ſcriptor. Eccleſ. pag. 38, 39. where he proveth it, and ſaith that [in the Latine Church, theſe Conſtitutions are of almoſt no account, and the Greeks themſelves Canon. 2. Trul. reject them as depraved by Hereticks, and that the receiving of them is it that miſleadeth the Aethiopians.] See more againſt them in Cooks Cenſurâ, pag. 17, 18, 19. and Rivets Crit. Sac. & Dalaeus in Pſeudepigrap.

The third Teſtimony of H. T. is from Juſtins ſecond Apol. p. 160Anſw. It is not Praying to Angels that Juſtin ſeemeth to intend, but giving them due honour, which we allow of. His intent is to ſtop the mouths of Heathens that called the Chriſtians impious for renouncing their Gods: To whom he replyeth, that we yet honour 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 ſatisfie you not, at leaſt be ſatisfied with this, that you cite a forgery that is none of Origens works. Not only Eraſmus ſaith that [This Lamentation was neither written by Origen, nor tranſlated by Hierom, 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 ſhewed that neither is this any of Origens works. Sixtus Senenſis ſaith, that ſome old Books put Hieroms 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 thankfull acknowledgement of Gods 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 practiſed: And therefore their prayers p. 161then 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 Judgement, 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 pag. 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 publick remiſſion of ſins, and a ſolemn acquittal in the judgement 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 comprized 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, divers 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 faithfull 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 judgement.]

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 lawfull to pray for the dead; were it not for p. 162the 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 Latine, before mentioned, did believe that men had not their perfect Joyes 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 denyed 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 Aethiopians 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 Jeſuite.

3. Another point that they much challenge us about, is, The Veneration or Adoration of Images, Reliques, 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 Monaſticks even in thoſe Countreyes that were near Judaea, to forbear ſuch Pilgrimages as dangerous and unneceſſary, and not at all commanded p. 163in the Scripture. The Papiſts did as long as they could perſwade the world that this Epiſtle was none of Gregories, and when they were made aſhamed of that, they would expound it as prohibiting Pilgrimages to none but the Monaſticks: 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 it ſelf without either Molinaeus his notes on our ſide, or Gretſers frivilous 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 our ſelves 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 ſignifie. 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 it ſelf, 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 deceitfull 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. page 373, 384, 386. 387. is large and plain againſt this uſe of Images, as the Proteſtants are. And the Eliber. Concil. 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 ſain find a ſenſe for this (anon contrary to the words: But Melch Canus plainly ſaith, that the Council did not only imprudently but impiouſly make this law to take away Images, Loc. Theol. lib. 5. cap. 4. conc. 4. I ſhall cite no more, but intreat the Reader that is willing to be informed how much p. 164Antiquity was againſt the Papiſts in the points of Images, to peruſe only Dallaeus de Imaginibus, and Uſher in his Anſwer to the Jeſuite and Sermon to the Parliament: And I provoke the Papiſts to confute what is in them alledged if they can.

H. T. hath no better ſhift to ſalve their credit (Manual page 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 honour, and Tharaſius ſolemnly profeſſed, Duntaxat in unum verum Deum latriam & fidem ſe referre & 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 meer ſchool opinion and not of faith with us: Urge not therefore what ſome particular Divines ſay, but hearken to the Doctrine of Gods Church.—] Very good! Is not this ſo groſs a kind of jugling, that would never down if devout ignorance and implicite faith had not prepared the ſtomacks 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 meer 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 Hereticks. 2. And then ſee whats become of the Popes Infallibility in Canonizing Saints, that have ſainted Thomas Aquinas that proves a Heretick 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 Hereticks 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 Hereticks: See Biſhop Uſhers allegations of Th. Arundels Provincial Council at Oxford, 1408, p. 165ex Guil. Linewood lib 5. And Jac. Naclantus in Rom. cap. 1. fol. 42. ſaith [We muſt not only confeſs, that the faithfull in the Church do worſhip before the Image, as ſome cautelouſly 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 worſhipt 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 Durandus and his followers, whoſe opinion by the Moderns is judged dangerous, raſh, and ſavouring of Hereſie: 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 Hereſie. 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. cap. 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 Heretick, and the Pontifical contain not hereſie, and the whole rabble of the p. 166Schoolmen hereticks, 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 Gods 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 Gods themſelves, and ſo worſhipped them not as Gods, but as the repreſenters and inſtruments of ſome Diety? Lactantius Inſtit. lib. 2. cap. 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 Gods 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. 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 Auguſtines 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, honour 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 Jupiters 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 Gods 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 judgement of Divines? for ſo they call it; What? not of that which is de fide, or conſonant to it, and whoſe contrary p. 167is hereſie, or ſavours of Hereſies? (as they ſay of Durandus opinion) what! not of Pope Clement the eighth and the Romane Pontifical? (pag. 672.) wonderful! are all theſe no body 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 prophane or common man that Epiphanius puld down; and Al. Cope (Dial. 5. c. 21.) ſay, that the epiſtle is counterfeit and not Epiphanius's: 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 object. 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 Hereticks, p. 168for 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 labour of ſaying more of the judgement of the ancient Catholick 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 Jeſuite of it, and Edmundus Abertinus de Euchariſtia: a Treatiſe ſo full of evidence from Scripture, Reaſon, and the judgement of the Fathers, that I boldly challenge all the Papiſts in the world to give a tolerable anſwer to it, that is a better then that is given.

When we have thus ſhewed them the ſtream of Antiquity to have been againſt them, they paſs us by, and thruſt into the ignorant peoples hands, a few muſty ſcraps of abuſed words, which are anſwered and cleared over and over: Thus do H. T. D. Baily, 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 ſhewed the Papiſts nakedneſs from Antiquity, ſo that modeſty ſhould forbid them to pretend the Fathers for them any more, if any modeſty be left.

6. About their Faſts (though that be no eſſential of Religion) both the time, manner &c. is ſo fully ſpoak 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, p. 169I have ſpoak 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. Baily; but finding them ſo frequently and fully handled already, I will forbear ſuch labour in vain.