QUOTATIONS Faulty in DOCTOR TAYLORS PREFACE To the READER.

TO destroy Tradition not contain'd in Scripture, the Doctor cites Tertullian thus, I adore the ful∣ness of Scripture, and if it be not written, let Her∣mogenes fear the Wo that is destin'd to them that detract from, or add to it. I answer, the Dr. turn's the true ge∣nuine sence out of this whole sentence, chiefly by these guileful particles of his own making: And if it be not written, which seem exclusive of all unwritten traditi∣on; yet this Authority no more relates to Catholick Doctrine concerning Tradition, then a Fable in Esop. Briefly therefore; Tertullian, disputing against Hermo∣genes that held these visible things were created of I know not what prejacent matter; speaks thus: Lib. ad∣versus Hermog. Antwerp Print cap. 22. page 495. In principio, &c. In the beginning God made heaven and Earth: then adds; Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem, I a∣dore the fulness of Scripture: Wherein? in what doth he adore this fulness? He answers, Qua mihi & factorem manifestat & facta, I adore the fulness of Scri∣pture, Page  2 that doth manifest to me both the Maker, and things made; As who should say, in this particular the Scripture is compleat, and I adore its fulness, &c. Now these last words, Qua mihi & factorem, &c. which explain the Fathers sence, our Dr. wholly omits, and beguiles his Reader with these perverted particles, if it be not written: Tertullian, after those words [In Evan∣gelio vero amplius] goes on, An autem de aliqua subiacenti materia facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi: Whether all these things be made of a subjacent matter, I never yet read: Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina; Let Hermogenes his Work-house shew us that this particular is written. Si non est Scriptum, timeat vae illud adjicientibus, aut detrahentibus destinatum; If this thing now in con∣troversie concerning the prejacent matter Hermogenes asserts, be not written; let him justly fear that Wo de∣stin'd to them that detract from Scripture, or add to it. Here is exactly the whole context of Tertullian; and it renders this sence; Hermogenes holds the world made of a strange unknown matter: The Scripture directly tells us how it was made and Created of nothing. I a∣dore the fulness of Scripture in this particular; let therefore Hermogenes (when the Scripture hath clearly said all that belongs to the first Creation of things) prove by Scripture that unknown matter he defends; if he cannot, he may well fear that Wo threatned to such as detract from Scripture, or add to it a prejacent mat∣ter never mentioned in it. Judge good Reader whe∣ther this Quotation have so much as a likelyhood of gain-saying any constant received Tradition in the Church. The Dr. may reply, as Hermogenes added to Scripture his unknown matter, so we add our unknown Traditions: I answer first, what Hermogenes defend∣ed was not only an addition, but expresly contrary Page  3 to Holy Scripture, declaring that God made the VVorld of Nothing: No Catholick Tradition is ex∣presly or positively opposite to Gods written VVord (unknown tradition we own not) 2. Hermogenes had no such approved consent for his foolery, as we have for our Catholick, and ever received Tradition; justly therefore did Tertullian oppugn him by the Authority of Scripture only; for destitute he was of all warranted Tradition: 3. The Doctrine of our Tradition (not a pretended one, or any superaddition of new Articles, as the Dr. imputes to us) is expresly allow'd of by Scri∣pture it self; the place is known 2 Thessa. 2. 14. and enervates what ever hath the colour of an objection a∣gainst us.

He cites next St. Basil de vera fide, whose words are these Paris Print 1618. Tom. 2. page 251. Haud dubie manifestissimum hoc infidelitatis argumentum fuerit, & sig∣num superbiae certissimum, si quis eorum quae Scripta sunt a∣liquid velit rejicere, aut eorum quae non Scripta introducere: VVithout doubt this is a most manifest Argument of infidelity, if one will reject any one of those things which are written (these words our Dr. omits, to make the Quotation sound to his sence) or, of those things which are not written, introduce; to wit, into Scripture; and so the St. explicates himself clearly in these follow∣ing words—Vehementissime interdicat ne quid corum quae in Divinis literis habeantur, dematur, aut quod absit, addatur: VVhich is in plain English to say, Add we must not, nor diminish any thing in Scripture. No Catholick pretends to make that Scripture, which is not Scripture: Nor to diminish so much as one jot in that sacred Book: You see therefore, so forceless this Autho∣rity is to gain-say received Tradition, that it doth not so much as touch upon the very Question: As proofless Page  4 also are those other two Quotations in the Doctors Margent out of St. Basil's Morals; for regula 72. C. 1. in the same Edition, page 372. He only speak's as the Apostle doth; Though an Angel Preach another Gospel then what is Preached, let him be Anathematized, and reg. 80. cap. 22. pag. 386. he saith no more, but that we must be∣lieve the true force of those things that are in Scripture; reject nothing, or make any thing new, extra divinam Scripturam; that is, as I interpret, without the war∣ranty of Scripture: but the Scripture indubitably war∣rants the declarations of Councils (witness the Nicen definitions) and constant received Tradition of the Church. Therefore this Authority also is wholly im∣pertinent to the Doctors purpose.

VVho next, to oppose Tradition, cites Theoph. Al∣exandrinus in English, thus; It is the part of a devil∣lish spirit to think any thing to be divine, that is not in the Authority of Holy Scripture. I Answer, here are three faults in this one Quotation: First, The words are not faithfully cited; Secondly, They are weighed outof their circumstances, and wrested contrary to the Au∣thors meaning; Thirdly, VVere they as the Doctor would have them, they prove nothing against Tradition. Briefly, all know how sharp an Adversary Theop. Alex. was to Origen and his followers; He writ expresly a∣gainst his errors, but that work is not extant; and in his 2. Epist. paschali cited by the Doctor (you have it Tom. 4. Biblioth. Patrum, Cullen Print 1618. pag. 716.) after he had checked Origen for his rashness, for broaching Fopperies of his own head, and arrogantly making himself his own Master, contrary to St. Pauls Humility who conferred the Gospel with other Apo∣stles: He speaks thus of Origen solely; Sed ignorans quod Daemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata huma∣narum Page  5 mentium sequi, & aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum: But not knowing that it is an instinct of a Devillish spirit to follow the sophistry or deceit of mans VVit (these words which fully express the Authors sence our Doctor totally o∣mit's) or to think any thing divine, not authorized, or without the Authority of Holy Scripture: So Theophilus; who, as you see, wholly here relates to Origen's private errors, condemns his Pride, opposeth his sophistry and boldness, in making himself a master of new Fancies, but toucheth not the least on Catholick Doctrine, concern∣ing unwritten Tradition: and though the Doctor draws him to such a sence; it is soon answer'd, that Ca∣tholick Tradition, so expresly approved by Scripture, cannot be thought a Doctrine extra Scripturae authori∣tatem, without warrant of Gods Word. Now if he tells us that he opposeth not any ancient Tradition, but our pretended one only that found's New Articles, New Propositions, &c. I Answer, He meerly combates with shadows; we neither own such a Tradition, nor can the Doctor prove it: He should have first named one or two of these New Articles, and then assaulted us with the Authority of Fathers directly opposite to our Doctrine, and not winck and fight, as he doth against no man knows what. If he says again, that he impugns all Tradition in general, all Doctrine not expresly con∣tain'd in Scripture; forced he is, not only to throw a∣way Scripture it self, and the Nicen definitions: not only to disclaim a Trinity of Persons in one Di∣vine Essence, Baptizing Children, &c. but eve∣ry tenet of Protestant Religion (as Protestanism) E. G. the belief of two Sacraments only, which is not at all contain'd in Scripture, nor can it be drawn from Scripture by any probable discourse or gloss of Pro∣testant Page  6 testants, though these are worse, and less able to derive unto us a true belief, then the poorest tradition (were any such) that the Doctor can except against in the Catholick Church. When the Doctor pleaseth, I am ready to discuss this sole point with him of proving Protestant Tenets by Scripture only: I believe he will not accept the Challenge.

Against the worshipping of Images, he cites Lactan∣tius, lib. 2 cap. de Orig. Error: observe, I beseech you. Lactantius hath seven Books de Divin. Instit. adversus gentes, the Title to his second Book is de Origine erroris, which contains ninty Chapters; and our Doctor un∣skilfully throws the Title of the whole Book into a Chapter not found at all in the Author, either in my Copy, ann. 1465. or in that extent Biblioth. Patrum saecu∣lo 3. pag. 224. However Chap. 18. these words are found, Quare non est dubium, quin religio nulla sit, ubi∣cunque simulacrum est, which the Doctor unworthily translates thus, Without all peradventure wherever an Image is (meaning for Worship) there is no Religi∣on; I say unworthily (and it pitties me to see so much want of candor) for here a sence is rendered, as if Lactantius declaim'd against the use and worship of I∣mages among Christians; whereas it is more then e∣vident, that he only speaks against Simulacra, (not I∣mages) against the Idols, and Gods of the Gentils: Non sub pedibus quaerat Deum, saith he, in the beginning of this eighteenth Chapter; None is to seek for his God under his feet: Nec a vestigijs suis eruat quod adoret, Nor pull from under his footsteps what he is to adore: Sed quaerat in sublimi, quaerat in summo, Let him look for God above in Heaven, &c. The Worship therefore of one Supream God, Lactantius chiefly presseth in this whole second book: In his first Chapter he tells us, that Page  7 he had above demonstrated the false Religion of many Gods; and that in this second Book, he declares against the Gentils, the cause or Origen of their multiplying many gods. In his second Chapter he saith, That though the Image of a man absent be necessary, yet to circumscribe God, diffused every where, in any form, is both needless and superfluous; afterward he shews that no deceased men, nor any thing in this world ought to be adored as God. In his fourth Chapter he gives this reason, Unde apparet istos deos nihil in se habere amplius quam materiam de quâ sunt fabricati: These gods have nothing but only the matter they are made of. In his eighth Chapter he proposeth the question how these false Gods of the Gentils did work strange won∣ders, and prosecutes the same subject in his ninth Chapter. In a word, Lactantius through this whole Treatise, speaks no more against the Catholick use of Images, then I do now while I defend them; yet hear we must the Doctor talk, and without all peradventure, as if he had read where an Image is, there is no Religion; without all peradventure the good man is deceived. I say no more: To what he next cites out of Origen, we shall answer hereafter. Now to the Doctors Chapters and Sections.