alleadge for this that the books of Scripture like the Sun shew themselves to be such to him who hath the spirit But I would ask at such why the Rev. St. James Epistle the second of St. Peter and two of St. John did not shew themselves to be Scripture to Luther that spiritual man and the Protestants very first Apostle in the work of reformation in the end you say Let any judge whither it be safest that the revealed will of God be your rule and determiner or the dictats of self contradicting creatures Where you seem to rubbe on Catholicks But Sir this toucheth not them at all for they profess not to believe self-contradicting creatures but the unanimous consent of Councils and fathers or the Catholick Church known to be the only Church established by Christ and his Apostles and by the continued succession of Popes Bishops and Pastors the unity universality and gifts of miracles in all ages c. Which Christ hath called the ground and pillar of truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. and against which he assureth us the gates of hell shal not prevail Math. 16. 18. and which he hath commanded us to hear otherwise to be holden as heathens and publicans Math. 18. 17. so you see that the written word maketh the Church our judge which we should obey and that ye who make so much of the written word do not believe it when ye do not obey her And here I remarke that Protestant Ministers and preachers deceive the people in that they ground their faith on the written word only and Roman Catholicks say they on humane tradition and their Churches authority which being composed of men is subject to errour Whereas the contrar is true for Roman Catholicks believe nothing which the written word believing both the tradition of the Church and Apostles doth not expresly warrand As for the Church what is more expresly said then what I have cited both to prove that we are bound to hear her Mat. 18. 18. and hold her authority infallible Math. 16. 18 and the house of God which is the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. Neither doth it avail you to say this is not said of the Roman Church which is not the universal Church but a particular one a strumpet c. For we speak not of any particular Church when we say that the Church is infallible nor when we say the Roman the Catholick do we understand the particular Church at Rome But that Church which professeth constantly the Romans faith spread in saint Pauls time through all the world As we call yet the Roman Empire that which hath its seat in Vien of Austria Yea Protestants calling their own the reformed Church cannot say but we have one Church on earth which Christ commanded us to hear constantly And if the reformed Church be the true Church then she must have taken the place from that church which was deformed and had fallen into an errour and so deserved no more to be called the pillar and ground of truth or to be heard Moreover the very pillars of the Protestant Religion grant all the world to be in an errour before themselves and so against the express written Word must deny the infallibility of any Church whatever For Calv. Instit lib. 4. cap. 18. saith they made all the Kings and People of the earth drunk from the first to the last and Hospinian epist 41. saith Luthers separation was from all the world White in his defence chap. 37. saith Popery was a leprosie breeding so universally in the church that there was no visible company of men free from it Jewel in his Sermon on Luke 11. The whole world Princes and people were overwhelmed by ignorance and bound by oath to the Pope which if it be true that the Church in former ages did erre the reformed Church may erre that themselves do not deny Thence it followeth clearly that the Protestant Church is not the house of GOD called the pillar and ground of truth that she is not Christs Church against which the gates of hell shal not prevail that none are bound to hear her in matters of faith being subject to errour And so Protestants may well desire men to read the Scripture and believe what they found there but not urge any man to follow their doctrine but in so far as they find it conforme to Scripture which all Roman Catholicks protest they do not As for traditions are we not commanded to hold them in the clear written Word 2. Thess 2. 15. Hold the traditions which ye have learned whither by word or our epistle Protestants read documents but documents by word and traditions are the same thing on which place Chrysost saith It is evident that the Apostle did not deliver all things by writ but many things by word which are worthy of credit as wel as the other That is Christs word as well as his writ therefore we call them divine and Apostolical traditions Aug. lib. 5. de Trinit cap. 23. speaking of rebaptization The Apostle saith he commanded nothing of it but that customâ— which is believed to proceed from the Apostle is opposed against Cyprian in it as many things are which the whole Church holdeth and therefore are believed to be commanded by the Apostles though not written Aâ—d in the first age saint Dennis chap. 1. speaking of the Ecclesiastick hierarchy saith These our chief captains of Priestly function did deliver to us the chiefest and supersubstantial points partly in written partly in unwritten institutions Epiph. Haeres 61. is of the same minde we must hold traditions saith he for the Scripture hâ—th not all things and Tertullian de praescrip grounds his faith on the authority of the Church and what tradition I believe saith he I received from the present Church the present Church from the primitive that from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Here I hope you see you must either admit traditions as necessar in themselves and infallible in their authority or else disclaim both Scripture and Fathers All that Protestants can say either against the authority of the Church in general Councils or Apostolick traditions delivered by her is that all her decisions and traditions flow from men and so are not infallible But I answer neither were the Prophets Apostles Evangelists who penned the Scripture but men yet I hope their writtings are not fallible or subject to errour Because they were inspired directly and assisted by the Spirit of God The Fathers of the Church have to this day that promise verified to them Math. 28. 20. which was made as well to their successours as to themselves As for that some Protestante speak of an invisible Church composed of the Elect it is but a shift to delude the ignorant for as it is a Maxime of law Idem est non esse non apparere i. e. it is the same not to be and not to appear to be in the matter of any
to baptize Canon 100. ye allow it The Sacrament was administred in the primitive Church to all present and they who did not partake were appointed to remove Ite missa est exite foras qui non vultis accipere Sacramentum i. e. Go it is closed go forth ye that will not receive the Sacrament Now the words are muttered and administred before all They took with their hand and the bread was broken of old Now it is not for ye make whole wasers and put them into their mouth For fourthteen hundred years the Church appointed the Sacrament to be administred by bread and wine to the people all Christians of whatever judgement except Papists do so communicat as yet Petau de poenit pub lib. 2. sheweth that it cannot be denyed nisi ab homine insigniter supra omnem modum vel impudenti vel imperito i. e. Except by a man remarkably and above all measure either impudent or unskilful that this was the primitive practise yet the Council of Constance hoc non obstante and the Council of Trent decree the contrar The primitive Church heard nothing of the Popes universal supremacie or infallibility which now by you iâ— made Summa rei See Cyprian ep 55. â—â— Cornelius Bishop of Rome and how he stileth him fâ—ater c. and he saith that they were formerly chosen to officiat Non sine consensu plebis not without the Popes consent ep 68. Ipsa plebs habet potestatem c. Is not this far from your imperious pompous way of Monarchy how then can you so boldly averre that ye have the unanimous consent of Councills and fathers for you when indeed ye do not regard them so much as we Hear your own Cornelius Mus †See Dâ—lleus ubi supra ep Biâ—ont in ep ad Rom. cap 14. Ego ut ingenue fâ—teâ—r plus uni summo pontisici crederem in his quae fidei misteria tangunt quam mâ—lle Hieronymis Augustinis Gregoriis Credo enim scio quod summus Pontifex in his quae fidei sunt errare non potest quia auctoritas determinandi quae ad fidem spectant in Pontisice residet i. e. That I may ingenuously confesse I would give more credit to one Pope in tâ—e things which belong to the misteries of truth then to a thousand such as Augustin Jerom or Gregory For I know certainly that the Pope cannot erre in these things that belong to faith because the authority of determining matters of saith resideth in the Pope yet ignorant people are made to believe that Papists have the consent and practise of the primitive Church along with them and Melchior Canus lâ—c Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num 10. Sequi majores nostros per omnia in illorum vestigiis pedes nostros figere ut pueri faciunt per lusum nihil aliud est quam ingenia nostra dâ—mnare judicio nos privare nostro facultate inquirendae veritatis i. e. to follow our ancestors in all things and to â—race their footsteps and fixe in them as children use to do in play is no other thing but to condemn our own wit and to deprive our selves of our own judgement and faculty of searching the truth Salmeron in cap. 5. epist ad Rom. disp 5. asserteth quo juniores eo perspicaciores sunt doctores and citeth Exod. 23. follow not the multitude viz. of ancients This is sufficient to prove that as the Papists are jealous of Scripture so are they of the Primitive Church her consent But it is alleadged that ye have the word of God for your warrand Matth. 16. 18. Matth. 18. 18. 1. Tim. 3. 15. To this I answere that the first Text is meaned of the collective body of the Church which fall not away this is clear from the context for it is the Church builded on that confession mentioned by the Apostles and an house so builded cannot fall because it is builded on a rock Matth. 7. 25. Yet it will not follow that there be no drops in it for particular beleevers cannot totally and finally fall away but that they are infallible who can say see Iohn 10. 28. and comyare it with 1. Cor. 13. 9. Iames 3. 2. beside your own writters interpret it so see Melchior Canus lib. 5. de loc Theol. cap. 5. and Panormitan on the place The second Text Mat. 18. is to be understood of a particular Church which you grant is not infallible so Chrysostom interpreteth the place and it is further clear from the Connexion for it is the Church to which appeals should be made in prima instantia this undoubtedly is a particular Church But admitting that it is meaned of the universal church your Pope nor your Church is not it The third Text 1. Tim. 3. 15. holdeth forth no more then what is granted in the answer to the fourth question or if you please to take learned Cameron his exposition who knitteth these words with the 16. verse you may do well But what ever be the priviledges of the true Gospel Church which is the Bride of Jesus Christ Rome hath forefaulted all these and is but a leprous part of the universal Church you grant that the church of Rome is but a particular church Why plead you then for the whole priviledges of the universal Church Is not this absurd arrogance Nor doth Calvin Hospinian Luther or White speak absolutly as ye alleadge but assert that the generality for a time was leavened by Popery which is truth But what then followeth That the mysterie of iniquity did arise by degrees and over-runne all for the most we grant so did the Arrian heresie therefore was not Athauasius and such as adbered to the truth right in their way The whole world in the Apostles time did ly in wickedness 1. Iohn 5. 19. Therefore were they not Sons of truth who endeavoured a Gospel reformation Your last hold is tradition and you say we are commanded to hold them 2. Thes 2. 15. for this you cite Aug. Cyprian St. Dennis Epiphanius To this I answer we are not against Apostolick traditions nor Church history in matters of fact We make use of traditions there mentioned But for your Legends we deny that they are such and disclaim them Have you Sir learned Logick Why do you argument so a genere ad speciem affirmative Is this a good argument Est annual ergo est homo he is a living creature therefore he is a man Can this be better there were traditions delivered to the Church of Thessalonica ergo yours are these Credat Judaeus Appella Secondly If there were unwritten traditions why do you dare to writ these things which the Apostles would not writ Thirdly Will that argue the Scripture of imperfection You may as well argue the Minister writteth a book the summe of which he hath preached to people Ergo his book is imperfect You have then to prove for your end that these traditions mentioned 2. Thess 2. 15. were
directly answered by me whither on man or many should be judge of controversies To this he saith I dare not answer because I will not grant the power either to the high Bishop or general council nevertheless he findeth this to have been the constant practise of the Church both in the Old and New Testament established by the express word of God and received by the Fathers in all ages for in the Old Testament from Deut. 17. from 8. to 13. we read that GOD did command the people in matters of controversie to go to the Priests Levits and judge who should be in those days appointed by him for that end saying and thou shalt do according to the sense of the law which they shal teach thee and according to the judgement which they shal tell thee Remark he saith not according to the sense of the law which thou shalt read but which they shal teach thee not taken according to the privat judgement and spirit but according to the judgmeÌ„t which they shal tel thee where God promiseth out of their mouth judicii veritateÌ„ truth and verity in judgement or as you turn it sentence of judgement See for this also 2. Chr. 19. 8. where Jehosophat established what was first instituted Viz. a council of Levits Priests and chief fathers of Israel to judge not only between brethren and brethren blood and blood but also betwixt law and coÌ„mandments statutes and judgements Not leaving law and commandments to the peoples privat reading and interpretation as you do in your rule of faith In the 11. verse he concludeth thus Amaziah is over you in all matters of the Lord where it is evident that the council and chief Priest is established judge of controversie and not the written Word as every one readeth and expoundeth In the New Testament again you have this practise clearly set down Acts. 15. Where Paul and Barnabas though Apostles themselves go up to Jerusalem about the question of circumcising the Gentiles converted to the faith And there was holden the first council in which this is decided not out of Scripture but by the authority of the Council it self It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us said they having the assured promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost as the Church hath at all time Wherefore after the Apostles councils have decided with the same authority and upon the same infallible ground of the Holy Ghosts assistance promised to the Church Many controversies are acknowledged by Protestants for points of faith without express passage of Scripture Marcion teaching that Baptism should be conferred more then once and Donatists that Baptism conferred by Hereticks should be reiterated as invalid are condemned in the council holden at Rome under Melchiadâ—s Pope in the year 313. now what passage of Scripture I pray you is for this Sâ—bellius putting one person only in the God-head is câ—ndemned in the council of Alexandria under Pope Cornelius in the year 319. but scripture maketh no mention of persons Nestorius putting two persons in Christ is condemned in the Generall Council holden at Ephesus under Pope Caelestin the year 434. Yet neither doth the Scripture speak of thâ—â— The Monotheliâ—s giving to Christ one will in two Natures are condemned in the third general Câ—uncil holden at Constantinople under Pope Agathon the year 679. albeit there be no formal scripture for this So you see it belongeth both in the Old and New Testament to the high Priest and general Council to decide controversie either by Scripture if there be any passage clear for that point or without Scripture by Apostolick tradition conserved in the Church which scripture it self warranteth 2. Thess 2. 15. Hold fast the traditions which ye have learned either by word or our epistle but it seemeth you care not who be condemned or by whom if you take away all power on earth to condemne your selves Every Protestant will be condemned by none but Scripture and yet will make none judge of the Canon Version and sense of Scripture but himself All your answer is that we grant the Promulgation of the law to the pure Gospel Church but you shew not what is this pure Gospel Church neither can you infallibly prove the purity of the Gospel it self or that there is a Gospel or the true sense of the Gospel but by the Catholick Church her authority Hear Aug. contta Ep. fund cap. 5. Where he saith I my self would not have believed the Gospel were it not that the authority of the Church moved me to it Now the Catholick Church is that whose faith is spread through all the world in the Apostle Paul his time which maketh her to be justlie called the Catholick Roman Church and whose faith hath been in all ages since Christ which all the records of the Protestant writters witness of the Roman Church wherein the succession of Popes Bishops Councils is made conspicuous to all who have written Chronology or Church history in every age none whereof make mention of your Church or of men professing your tenets before Luther and Calvin from whom ye dissent in many things Answer first This is a prolix reply the Pro. Du. 1 substance of which might have been taken up in seven or eight lines As it is spacious so it is an impertinent rapsodie and like a beggers cloak clouted here and there with divers parcells without any method or cohesion It seemeth to have been taken out of some Index and cast in here to fill the page For the answer was That the promulgation of the law is not denyed to the pure Gospell-Church which is not the Roman-Church for it is impure Is not this a direct answer You prove that there hath been a Ministerial-Church in the old and new Testament which we doe not deny but this is the point did they so pronounce sentence and decide Controversies that all discretive judgement was taken from people or called they themselves infallible whether they had scripture warrand or not Or wil the promise of presence to the Apostles Prophets and penners of Scripture in measure and duration agree to any Church Officers now on Earth Or should promises made to the Universal-Church agree to any particular Church such as Rome Or will promises made to the collective body of the Church agree to the representative unless these be proved you fight with your own shadow For we are much for the authority of Christs Church and think that her judgment of old and late should sway privat men unless they can prove by scripture or sound reason that she erreth We are much for the authority of all lawful Councils and we give them all reverence in regard of the authority of their constitution but if they depart from the scriptures we owe them not active obedience Well speaketh our learned Camero tom 1. tract de infallibilitate ecclesiae So oft as any thing is decreed by a Council or assembly of men appointed by lawfull autharity
We are bound as Christians not only to bear the scourge of tongues but more also for the Gospels sake when called to it Augustin said to Petilian his tongue was not the fan I am a man in the floore of Christ and if good grain will be laid up in the Garner blow the wind as it will So we may say to such râ—ilers yea if the adversarie would write not only pasquils but a book of this kind we may bind it to our shoulders and wear it as our crown For the Lord will in due time wipe of the rebuke of his people Is 25. 8 which they bear for his Name That saying of Bernard is sweet Cimbae me comitto in tanto discrimine confidens in Domine qui pro illo recte lâ—quentibus pro illo laborautibus dicit Adsum 〈◊〉 run the reaâ—k trusting in the Lord who hath promised presence to all who speak and act rightlie for him And heroickly Luther to the same purpose if truth be on my side quidni pro viribus agam why should â—â—ot do my uttermost sim homicida sim adulter â—â—â—do silentii non arguar dum Christus patitur Let them call me what they wil if I be not guilty of sinful silence when Christ suffereth in his truth It is a very smal matter upon this account to be judged of men 1. Cor. 4. 3. these things are light and heavy as we ordinarily take them If this strain of reproaching did siste at us it were not so much but they reproach the written word of GOD and sentence it boldly of imperfection contrar to Psalm 19. 7. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. and of obscuritie as if it were not a light and lantherue to our paths Psalm 119. 105. Yea they shamelesly averre that the authority of the Church and Pope of Rome is greater to us nor Scripture Is it not lamentable that men called Christians for pompous selfish interests should laboriously studie to cast aspersions upon the unâ—ported word of GOD and depretiate it so in the world May not this render Popery suspicious to any knowing man that the abettors thereof decline the written word of GOD to be the sole umpire of faith and manners and endeavour to discredit it before the Nations which is the touch-stone of truth and best fence we have against Satan and all his complices such non sunt audiendi saith holy Aug. Confes lib. 6. cap. 5. they should not in this be heard far less obeyed Their second device when they are pressed with the truth is to coin evil grounded distinctions and with this ley money to make merchandise of poor simple souls Needle headed men have strangely acted their inventions herein and cruÌ„bled Gospel truths thus that he is now thought the best and most learned Papist who can findout subtile subterfugies and receptacles against plain Scripture verities So that the Romanists are the great foxes which eat up the tender vines Other Sectaries who separat themselves from the Church builded on the foundation Eph. 2. 20. and deface the doctrine which is according to Godliness are of lesser magnitude That ye may know what sort of proppes uphold their rotten building take these five instances First When we prove that the Scripture is the rule of faith this they grant in part but say they it is a partial not the total rule they must sowder somewhat of their own tradition to it erre they acknowledge it for a rule This is a reasonless shift If the rule be not total and perfect in its own kinde for its own ends it is no rule at all but a semi-rule regula nec appositionem nec ablationem admittit saith Theophilact on the 3. chap. to the Philip. Nothing can be added to or taken from a rule the law of nature the law of reason are sufficient for their own ends so is the written word of GOD for salvation When we say Secondly that the word of GOD cannot have authority from men therefore the Scripture is judge of the Church and not the Church of the Scripture They answer by a leaden distinction that it hath authority from the Church in respect of us but not in respect of it self This is a reasonless evasion for all authority is an act quoad extra and relative to us The Scriptures have excellency and dignity internal but all its authority is external and relative to men So that distinction is null If the Scripture hath its authority from the testimony of their Church then their faith must be ultimatly resolved into their Church testimony as more authoritative nor the word of GOD. Propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale Therefore Popish faith by this maxime is not divine but ecclesiastick and humane Now the Church and faith of Believers should be builded immediatly upon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone Eph. 2. 20. Therefore the Pope with his traditions cannot found the Church nor the faith of Christians other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid 1. Cor. 3. 11. To this they returne a distinction that Iesus Christ is the principal and the Pope the secondary foundation seeing it was said to Peter upon this rock I will build my Church This subterfuge in like the rest if this was said to Peter personally as Tertul. de praescrip thinketh then not to his successours suppose the Pope were the man a personal individual prerogative is incoÌ„municable If it was not personal but to him and his successours then if the Apostle Paul were living the Pope behoved to be above him in dignity and Church prerogative by reason Peter was above him and he succeedeth to his superioritie This to any discerner may appear absurd Beside the Church is builded on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. then not upon one Apostle take the words as ye will The true meaning of these words upon this rock I will build my Church is this the confession of Peter concerning Iesus Church the Son of the living GOD was a â—ock on which the Church was builded This interpretation is authorized by Augustin who interpreteth the words thus Tract ult in Iohan. serm 13. de verbis Apost he giveth also strong reason for it lib. 1. retract cap. 21. non enim dictum est Petro tu es petra sed tu es Petrus which reason Valentia challengeth in vain disp 1. to 3. quaest 1. punc 7. Further there câ—nnot be two foundations if we speak properly If no man can lay another as the Scripture speaketh why should it be asserted Christ Iesus alone set forth in the doctrine of Prophets and Apostles is that solid foundation on which we build all our salvation he is that sure foundation laid in Zion and no wayes can this without blasphemie be applyed to the Pope seeing the Apostle Peter maketh application of it to Christ only 1. Peter 2. 6. Thirdly When we
image-worship whither of the true or false Gods which is here forbiddeÌ„ For it is certain that the Golden-call was intended by them to represent the true GOD. Exod. 32. 5. To morrow is a feast to the Lord and 2. Chro. 33. 17. They sacrifized in high places yet to the Lord their God only The like may be said of the Calves at Dan and Bethel Ps 106. 20. And of Micahs Image For be confidently sayeth Now know I that the Lord will bless me Judges 17. because I have a Levit to be my Priest They used not Levits for the worship of false Gods Further the speech of Stephen seemeth to prove it strongly Acts 7. 40. 41. for speaking of Israels worshiping the Calf he saith The Lord for this gave them up to worship the host of Heaven Now when sin is punished by sin that sin which is the judicial punishment useth to be more gross then the antecedent sin which is the procuring cause but the worshiping the host of Heaven is not so gross as the worship of an Oxe therefore they did worship GOD at first by the representation of a Calf yet were Idolaters This answer then cannot satisfie the conscience or reason of any man And admit that the image of false Gods is forbidden in the second Command how dare Papists without warrand and contrar to the word make the Image of the true GOD which he hath expresly forbidden Deut. 4. 12. Seeing Omnis cultus saith Tertullian de Jejunio should be ex imperio divinâ— non ex arbitrio humano Lastly We are forbidden to worship the likeness of any thing in the Heaven above or in the Earth beneath Now the Lord GOD is in the Heaven above gloriously therefore we should not make his Image for to what can ye liken him saith he Isaiah 40. 18. Bellarmin de Imag. and Gregorius de Valentia distinguish the Minor another way and reject the two former answers as extream For first they say that they worship Images properly so they are againâ—t Durand a great Anti-Thomist who maketh them only memorials Secondly They say that they give them not worship equal to the Pattern so they renounce Thomas and all his adherents Valent. lib. 3. disp 6. saith it is not sicut DEO that they worship the Image of the Trinity Bellarmin saith further that it is not Aeque certum an Imagines Trinitatis sint in Templis collâ—candae reperendae Yet say they that veneration suitable to them is to be rendered Which is he ambiguoâ—s phrase of the Council of Trent like the Delphian oracle If this answer hold good then Thomas and all his Clients are guilty of Idolatrie for they give veneration to Images equal with the Pattern all the Thomists say sicut DEO so to the Image Secondly Cultus religiosus est accidens hominis if we speak Physice now gradual difference in these altereth not the kind of worship Therefore according to the rules of Logick the worship is one with the worship of Thomists or else they disclaim a maxime by making the one Idolatrie the other not Thirdly We are forbidden to bow down to them therefore the meanest degree of religious worship is forbidden in the second Command And they who break the least Command and teach men so shal be least in the Kingdom of Heaven Matth. 5. 19. Lastly the seduced people know nothing of this difference Yea Bellarmin thinketh it not fit that in concione â—oram populo it should be divulged and he hath reason to say so seeing they cannot conceive the groundless distinction betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Clergie men will not make it hold water Fourthly Some as Eckius in his Enchir answers nothing but this to the argument that it is the tradition of their Church and Command of their Pope which they judge themselves obliedged to obey If this answer be relevant then they were not faulty who with their traditions made the word of GOD of none effect Matth. 15. 6. And Papists are too like the Pharisees in this Secondly By that Logick the Turk may mantain his worship of Mahomet for his Church and Mufti authorize it Thirdly The Pope in his Conclave may bring in the Alcoran the next day for that may have authority from them contrar to the word of GOD. Arg. third If Image-worship be condemned by all pure antiquity then this worship is not only a breach of the second Command but contrar to the custom of all the Churches of Christ Upon which argument the Apostle layeth stress 1. Cor. 11. 16. But the first is true Ergo c. The Minor is proved thus Many of the Ancients as Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian c. Were against the art of statâ—e making Epiph. in his ep to John 23. of Jerusalem abominateth the putting them up in Churches and saith it is contrar to scripture that any Image should be in the Church of Christ Now if they wer against the making of them against the hanging of them in Churches much more against teligious veneration given to them Secondly the council called Eliber which is as old if not older then the Council of Nice made a decree that no Image should be in the Church ne forte quod in parietibus pingatur colatur least that which is painted be worshipped and till the second Council of Nice which was in the 8. Centurie no such thing as image-worship was approved in the Christian Church Thirdly It is an ordinar objection made by Celsus and all Pagans against Christians as I said before from Lorinus Ye have Nulla Templa nulla simulachra nullas aras quod colitis celatis To this objection Origen and Arnobius answer yeelding the matter of fact and vindicating their way which they could not have done if Images had been in use amongst them Further when Adrian did build a Temple for himself the Pagans suspected that it was for the Christians because it was sine simulachris without Images whence it is clear that the Image worship cometh nearer Paganism then Primitive antiquity See Dâ—laeus de Imagin Arg. fourth That which notwithstanding of all distinctions draweth and driveth people to Idolatrie is abominable but by the concession and confession of some learned Papists the Romish worship doth involve people into Idolatrie therefore it is abominable The Major is proved by reason that when the people made an Idol of the brazen Serpent the statue was brocken and called Nehushtan although at first it was appointed by GOD. The Minor is thus proved by the testimonies of learned Romanists as Polyd Virgil. de invent lib. 6. cap. 13. Many are now saith he become so mad that they worship the Images of wood and stone as if theâ— had sense in 〈◊〉 and put more confidence in them then theâ— do in Jesus Christ or other Saints to whom they are dedicated Cassander consult de imag saith It is too manifest that the worship of Images hath so prevailed that
about matters of faith Secondly If so they be no where written in Scripture Thirdly That if they be not written they be the same which ye deliver to the people and by what authority ye press and writ them But to take this text wholly from your mis-interpretation hear Theodoret who saith that the Apostle spake not of diverse doctrines but of the same diversely delivered For first he preached to the Thessalonians and then did writ the substance of it But as where ever ye find fire in the Scripture ye make it Purgatory so where ye find tradition ye make it pari ratione yours Will ye listen to Bell. lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 10. and he will put all out of doubt for he granteth that all in substance were written by the Apostles which they preached to the people or were necessar to salvation Cyprian in his epist ad Pompeium admitteth not any traditions but such as may be perceived to be in the Evangels in the Epistles or Acts of the holy Apostles Therefore it is a perfect rule to all discerners say I and no more was at first asserted Your Maxime Idem est non esse non apparere holdeth in law but not in divinity For the soul is not visible yet who can deny the being of it What is more in the Reply I judge not worthy the noticeing and I am forced to make digression because of an impertinent return Is it not strange that when I called men mutable creatures and at their best state vanitie subject to clashing contradiction and that the written Word is the only infallible rule for direction that upon this tradition universal consent should be so prolixely commented on without any connexion They who follow this reflecter must resolve to deviat from tho high way Question seventh Your Church which ye Papists Quest. 7 call reformed is but of yesterday where was it before Luther Answer It is as old in its doctrinals as Prote ∣ stants Answer the Scripture therefore not of yesterday See what societie from the beginning professed the doctrine mantained there that was out Church The Romans Corinthians Ephesians Philippians Thessalonians as taught by the Apostle Paul are our Church of old so it is not new Secondly In all ages there have been and are eminent professours of that doctrine which we mantaine as is abundantly proved by Flaccus Illyricus in his Catalogue Testium veritatis and learned Dr. Usher in successione Ecclesiae reform which testimonies no Popish shaveling of what ever ordour yet could answer Thirdly where was the church of Rome as now constituted before the council of Trent Nay more was the Popes supremacy and infallibility heard of the 600 year after Christ Is not all Popish faith as such resolved into a lie viz. the infallibility of the Pope or Council which though errand untruths are the key of the Popish Religion Fourthly All the positives of the reformed Religion were mantained substantially in the Primitive church the first 300. years I speake not of changeable circumstances nor integrals but essentials and the negatives could not be there because the controversies were not then started But ye Papists have amassed a body of humane inventions gross errours contrare to scripture obtruding them under Anathema to be the established doctrine of the Church And because we of the reformed Profession will not own these and call that which is new old ye excommunicat us as Hereticks Reply In your seventh Answere you say Papists Reply your doctrine is as old as scripture and your Church as the Apostles and this is common to you with all sectaries to claime the scripture and the Church in the time of the Apostles And like to that answer of the common people we are all come of Adam and Eve But I shall let you presently see how contrar your doctrine is to that scripture and how unlike your Church is to that of the Apostles the first 300 year In the second part ye pretend that Illyricus and Doctor Usher have sufficiently shewed that there have been eminent men of your Profession in all ages and that without a Reply of any Popish shaveling of whatever ordour But Sir I am sorrie that you who are a Nazarian and not a shaveling shoule be so ill versed in books of controversie as not to have seen so many Catholick writters who demonstrat clearly that of all these eminent men before Calvin you pretend to be yours there is not one hath holden all the same tenets with you and no more For it is enough for you that they dissent from the Church of Rome and sling at the Popes authority what ever tenets they hold in matters of belief to call them yours Which hath made Dr. Vane Chaplain to our late King judiciously compare them to Sampsons foxes which were all bound together by the tails although their heads went diverse wayes So that when you call the Luthereans Valdenses Albigenses Hussites Catharists Wicklessians Graecians Egyptians yours you may as well call the Turks and Tartars yours if we trust all records which speake of their tenets And as for the Fathers hear if they were yours in the opinion of the most learnea Protestants Dudithius apud Bezam ep 1. If that be true which Papists say the Fathers with mutual consent are altogether on their side Pet. Martyr 2. de verbo col 1539. as long as we stand to Councils and fathers we shal alwayes remain in the same errours And fully confesseth that Hierom Ambrose and Augustin held the invocation of Saints Chemnitius in ex concil trid art 3. pag. 100. did not disput but avouch that most of the Fathers said the souls of the Martyrs heard the petition of those that prayed to them they went to monuments and invocated Martyrs by name Whitgift in his defence pag. 473. all the Bishops and writters of the Greek and Latine Church too who no doubt were the Fathers for the most part were spotted with the doctrine of Free-will Merit Invocation of Saints Judge then Sir if they were pure In the third part you ask where was the Church of Rome before the council of Trent I answer you even where she is now except in Jappony India China and some parts of America where by their Christian labours and by the blessing of GOD she hath been established since Neither can you instance that she is not constantly the same in all points Nay more say you was the Popes infallible universal supremacie heard of the first 600. years Where it seems you must be very deaf who hear not the voice of 1200. Fathers speaking only in the four first general Councils He who holdeth the See of Rome is chief and head of all Patriarchs saith right seeing he is the first as Peter to whom all power is given over all Christian Princes and all their people and who ever contradicteth this is excommunicated Can. 29. Concil Nicaeni anno 325. Where 316 Bishops were conveened Secondly