but not any dignity A Prince it seems signifies only one that is to go before not one that has any dignity or power to command those that follow after Thus will your adversary put authorities into his mouth and draw them in an instant most nimbly out of his throat without ever touching his stomack Can we think him unable by such Hugonot evasions to whiff away all the four gospels and apostles creed as to its former sence and meaning if there should once be a necessity urging him to submit to Mahomets fables or reconcile them and his creed together Who dare say he cannot do it and do it as wisely too as perhaps he ever did thing in his life I think it not amiss Sir to give you yet a little further taste here of our Author your adversaries nimblenes only som little of much for I mean to be very breef Doth emperour Valentinian establish that whatsoever is decreed by the See apostolik which is raised upon the merits of St. Peter dignity of the city and autority of councels should have the force of a law to all Byshops Valentinian faith Whitby was a young man and easily seduced What doth this conclude for the Popes supremacy c. The laws then of Kings and Emperours are to be weighed it seems by the age of the law-maker And if he should be a young man they signifie nothing against any delinquent or transgressour if he have but the wit to plead here with Whitby that the King was young when that law was made This easily seduced young mans law was in force notwithstanding in following times and put into the code by the old mature grave man and not easily seduced Emperour Justinian And no man either young or old ever excepted against it for the youth of the legislator Young Princes do not make laws as boyes tell tales only by strength of their own wits Valentinian was a young man and his laws therfor according to Whitby not to be regarded And what then shall we think of our English protestancy which was here first publikly set up by King Edward the sixt a child Doth an ecclesiastical cannon say that no decree can be established in the Church without the assent of the Roman byshop That is quoth Whitby except the Roman Byshop be present What doth this make for supremacy c. But if he have no autority there why may he not as well be absent There is no certain number required for the making of a decree and that byshop does no more it seems then make up a number Doth the councel of Ephesus refer the judgment of the Patriarch of Antioch his caus to the Pope for that the Church of Antioch had been ever governed by the Roman That was saith Whitby not to use his autority but only to know his mind c. And what matters it I pray what his mind may be if the others never mean to heed it We consult any that are present whether equal or inferiours to know their minds and yet do our selves what we list but we never trouble men a thousand miles off for that Surely when a judgment is referred by parties to another power so far distant with great expence and long expectation and only upon this ground that they are subject and have ever been governed by that power they cannot be thought only to require his mind but use his authority Our honest Quaker will not be unwilling thus to have his caus referred to the judgment of our English Bishops not to use their authorities but only to know their minds Doth the Sardican councel ordain that in a controversie between byshops Appeal should be made to the Byshop of Rome to appoint Judges and renew the proces That cannon sayes he is against the Papists for it permits the Pope to receiv not to command appeals c. So then Papists it seems think the Pope may command not receiv appeals And besides saith he the appellation was there ordained ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum Not to the Pope who then was Julius but to Julius who then was Pope We have here surely another Hudibras In logick a great critick profoundly skilled in Analytick he can distinguish and divide a hair 'twixt South and South-West side Appeal to Julius Pope not to Pope Julius And what does he think to gain by this subtilty The cannon he hopes will ceas forsooth when Julius dies O the wit of some men above other some especially when it is assisted by French Hugonots who drink good wine Our English ale could never have made us out so subtil a distinction as this is Doth the councel of Arles send their decrees to the Byshop of Rome from whom all Christians are to receiv what to beleev and practis Here is somthing of trouble quoth Whitby but nothing of jurisdiction in the Pope c. Can any thing hang more tight then this Conciliar decrees must be sent to Rome from whence all Christians must receiv what they are either to beleev or practis But this is not to acknowledg his power but to trouble his patience Doth St. Basil say it is convenient to write to the byshop of Rome to conclude affairs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to pass his sentence O quoth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to give sentence but advice Here you have a spice of his grammer to mix with his logick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies counsel and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is greek for a juridical sentence Doth Athanasius fly to Rome against the Eusebians and Pope Julius appoint a day in his behalf 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for plea and judgment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following therein the law and method of the Church He followed that law saith Whitby not in citing them but in not condemning them uncited c. He was just then in not condemning parties uncited But by what authority he either cited or judged them we must not here know Is ther any law of the Church that justifies a condemnation of persons cited to judgment when they are neither cited nor judged by any legal autority And it is to be observed here Sir all this while and quite through his book that Whitby has forgot the fearful execration he made upon himself in the beginning that all fathers are miserably corrupted by you and allegations most disingeniously forged c. This I say he has quite forgot even so far forgot that there is not one autority in a hundred that he does so much as challenge either of forgery or corruption And is therfor in danger to forfeit presently his life But he was then in his own heat now he is amongst his Protestant authors who afford him other kind of evasions And we must leav him to their wits when he has lost his own memory Doth S. Augustin witnes that the caus of the Donatists in Africa was judged by Pope Melchiades in Rome
Church-government which finally rested now no longer in any Roman byshop but in our own princely monarch If any will but take the pains to look upon our constituions and statutes he will soon find all this to be most true This your Disswader in despight of all our laws to the contrary will have the government of Christs Church not to be monarchical but a pure aristocracy ruled by a company of byshops standing like a company of trees all in a row one by another but no one between the other and heaven An order he admits or precedency according as I suppose as one begins to count or number them but no jurisdiction no power no autority no superiority of any one over the rest One byshop sayes he is not superiour to another Christ made no head of byshops Beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls Under him every byshop is supream in spirituals and in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ. But the laws of the land and constitutions of our English Protestant Church teach us on the contrary that one byshop is superiour to another and he therfor called an Arch-byshop and that according to Christ ther is a head both of Byshops and and Arch-byshops so that ther is one other step yet before you rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls even he who is under Christ supream head and governour of his Church in these his Majesties realms of England Scotland and Ireland and that under Christ every byshop is not supream in spirituals or in all power mark I say he is not supream in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ. The statutes and acts of Parliament are in every mans hands to look into But the canons and ecclesiastical constitutions becaus they are not so obvious I shall name one or two of them to justifie this my speech In our canonical law made in Kings Edwards dayes ther is an act tit 189. De officio jurisdictione omnium judicum which speaks thus Si Episcopus fuerit negligens in administrand â justitiâ pertinet ad ejus Archiepiscopum ipsum compellere ad jus dicendum illique terminum praescribet quem si non observaverit absque legitimo impedimento non modò censaris ecclesiasticis puniet verum in estimationem justam litis damnabit It is manifest by this canon that every byshop is not supream but that one is superiour and head over the other so far as to compel and punish him which cannot justly be done without autority and power Ther is another canon or law yet more full than this tit 92. De ecclesia ministris ejus which speaks thus Omnia quae de Episcopis constituta sunt ad se pertinere Archiepiscopi quoque agnoscant Et praeter illa munus illorum est in suà provinciâ episcopos collocare cum à nobis faith the King electi fuerint Utque totius provinciae suae statum melius intelligat Archiepiscopus semel provinciam suam universam si possit ambibit visitabit Et quoties contigerit aliquas vacare sedes episcopales episcoporum locos non modo in visttatione sed etiam in beneficiorum collocatione omnibus aliis sunctionibus ecclesiasticis implebit Quin ubi episcopi sunt si eos animadvertat in suis muneribus curandis praesertim in corrigendis vitiis cardiores negligentiores esse quà m in gregis Domini praefectis ferri possit primum illos paterne monebit Quod si monitione non profuerit illi jus esto alios in eorum loco collocare Appellantium etiam ad se querelas causasque judicabit Episcopi suae provinciae si qua de re inter se contenderint aut litigarint judex finitor inter eos esto Archiepiscopus Ad haec audiet judicabit accusationes contra episcopos suae provinciae Ac denique si ullae contentiones aut lites inter episcopum archiepiscopum ortae fuerint nostro judicio saith the King who ratifies these ecclesiastical canons and puts them forth in his own name cognoscentur definientur Archiepiscopi quoque munus esto synodos provinciales nostro jusses convocare By this constitution of canon one of those canons on which our very English Protestant Chuŕch is founded it manifestly appears that an Archbyshop or in plain English a prime byshop or chief byshop is not a name only of order or decent precedency as your Disswader here speaks but of dignity autority power superiority and jurisdiction over byshops And he is as much above them as other ordinary byshops are above a Presbyter or parochial minister For in administring Sacrarnents and preaching Gods word every minister is impowred as fully as any byshop but the government of ministers or presbyters within the Diocess is proper only to one who therfor has the name and title of byshop which signifies an Overseer of the rest This byshop admits of presbyters into a parish and when any parish is vacant he sees that one be put in if any be careles and negligent in the duty of his parish he first advises him like a father and if he will not amend his manners he puts him out and surnishes the place with a better pastour he judges the complaints between parishioners and parsons or between parsons or presbyters among themselves and decides them he visits and keeps chapter or should do at least and finds and speaks and punishes their faults All these things are contained in the office of a byshop which therfor argue him to have an autority power or jurisdiction over other Presbyters or pastours within his Dioces although he bea presbyter or pastour himself and a chief one too that is to say with a more ample and large autority then any one of those who be under him hath given them and therfor called a byshop or overseer by way of eminence And if all these things do as needs they must argue not only an order or bare precedency but a jurisdiction and power of a byshop over other presbyters then must they needs conclude the same power to be in one byshop over another in him namely who by way of eminency is called the byshop or archbyshop or prime byshop amongst the rest who is as truly the byshop of byshops as these are overseers of presbyters For this prime byshop is declared by the abovesaid canon to be enabled by vertue of his office to have all the power and charge that other byshops have and then over and above that first to place the byshops elect and seat them each one in their provinces then to go over and visit the whole province authoritatively which none of the byshops under him can do thirdly to see vacant feats supplied fourthly if such byshops as he shall find slow and negligent in their duty after a fatherly admonishment mend not to put others in their place fiftly
This was saith Whitby a brotherly not an authorative decision I make no doubt it was brotherly but why not authorative Mr. Whitby hath seen perhaps som elderly cockerel to part the frayes of younger chickens and thinks tribunals of byshops do no more The Pope it seems was ever a loving brother at least still ready to decide the frayes of all Churches and Byshops upon all occasions which was a pious and good work and not belonging to Antichrist He would do well Sir to part this fray of yours with Mr. Whitby which otherwis will never be ended Is the Roman Patriarch said to have the care of all the Churches Any one saith Whitby may have that repute sor he that serves one Church serves all And if Whitby get but the cure of any one little Chappel here in England though it be but to read prayers in an hospital he must then be beleeved to have the solicitude of all the English Churches upon him In brief doth S. Chrysostom to declare a supremacy among the apostles affirm that St. James obtained the throne of Jerusalem but St. Peter was constituted master and teacher not of one throne but of the whole world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That text sayes he is in all likelihood by negligence of transcribers or som other way mistaken However it makes nothing for supremacy were not all the apostles so He gathers they were all so becaus the peculiarity of the title master and teacher of the whole world is there attributed unto one exclusively to all the rest Every minister is a byshop or overseer if we mind only the signification of the word but is he therfor so in the whole meaning and peculiarity of the title Finally doth our Mr. Whitgift acknowledg that the apostles were all equal as to their function not as to government equal quoad ministerium not quoad polititiam which is a plain and manifest assertion Sir of the supremacy you plead for What is this saith Whitby to the purpos He findes never a word in that speech of Dr. Whitgift which begins with s. u. p. and therfor cries out What is this to the purpos what is this to supremacy You must not expect Sir that in the succeeding chapters I should give you any more account of the particular quicknesses of your adversary They are all like these which I have here briefly hinted to you in this first controverted point of Supremacy only that you may see that he or the several champions rather which he makes use of have more distinctions than one But by such evasions distinctions and shifts wherewith most men are now made so acquainted that they can use them nimbly against any laws and authorities either divine or humane are the people of our distressed Kingdom carried up and down like a cork in water or gossimor in the air with every wind and billow of a fancy now here now there being removed once from their ancient stability unto endles disquiet Cannot a man in this manner and method evacuate slight and frustrate every thing What authority law or custom either human or divine can stand in force if it may be thus by Whitbean Sophomorismes laughed out of countenance I will be bold to say that the witty Presbyterian does more substantially resute all prelatick principles and practices then these answer the Roman Nay these in answering the Roman have made way for the Presbyterian And yet they will still be scribling But you must know Sir withall that Mr. Whitby in his intervals or cooler moods allows the Roman Patriarch a priority of order and honour although he will not afford him any authority of jurisdiction A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or uppermost seat he shall have although no supremacy or power For he sayes p. 52. The byshop of Rome was to do it judg causes he means receiv appeals and the like more especially for the dignity of his seat which made him prime in order of Byshops And again p. 66. St. Basil calling the Byshop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head or apex of Western Byshops makes him only saith he the chief in order and most eminent Byshop of the West which title we can very well allow him So that the Pope if he should come hither to us either for love or hospitality although our byshops will not allow him authoratively to visit keep chapter make laws or punish any of them for transgressing the ecclesiastical cannons yet will they give him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and suffer him if Mr. Whitby be any legal master of ceremonies to sit at the upper end of the table And St. Peter it seems had no more Nor had he any power so much as to command any man to rise from the table if he behaved himself unmannerly at his meat And such a precedency he allows his own chief Superiour the Arch-byshop of Canterbury and no more A Metropolitan saith he p. 23. hath no jurisdiction over byshops He can do nothing c. And again page 33. His grace of Canterbury hath no power of jurisdiction over byshops And this he speaks boldly although he assert withall that a byshop hath jurisdiction over parish-priests and these over their parishioners So that according to Whitby that autority dignity and power which is in the lowest must be wanting in the highest degree of hierarchy which must if this be true end with power and begin with feeblenes contrary both to common reason and that famous speech of learned Porphyry In summis est unitas cum virtute in insimis multitudo cum debilitate Mr. Whitby has no hope perhaps ever to be made Metropolitan although he may possibly see himself a byshop and will not therfor devest himself aforehand of the dignity he may one time or other arrive at althought the fox call the grapes he has no hopes to reach unsavory and sowre stuff But his grace of Canterbury hath he no jurisdiction Mr. Whitby over byshops What law custom or tradition gives byshops a power over parish-priests which allows not a Metropolitan as much over byshops And if he have only a precedency of place then can these have no more And it is as easie to say the one as the other And is all our hierarchy com only to a precedency of honour Here will be fine work for a Quaker who will as resolutely deny the honour as you the power How coms that eminent person to be stiled his grace of Canterbury but only for his power dignity and jurisdiction over the venerable byshops And this power and dignity hath I am sure belonged to the See of Canterbury ever since the first planting of Christianity among the English which inables that byshop to make laws to visit his province to call together his byshops to censure to punish even Prelates themselves if they transgress the cannons which is as much as any byshop can do to his parish priests Is it not a strange presumption in a young
to judg the complaints and causes of such as appeal unto him from their own byshops sixtly to decide the controversies that may happen between one byshop and another seventhly to judg the accusations that are against any byshop lastly to call synods and there conclude and decide what may seem best for the welfare and spiritual government of his province Are these the works of authority power and jurisdiction yea or no If they be not how can any autority or power be proved For all power is proved by its act or how in particular may it appear that byshops have any autority over their presbyters of ministers But if they be then is ther more than a precedency or order amongst byshops then did not Christ leav his Church in the hands of the Apostles without any superiority of one above another as this Disswader talks For the laws and constitutions of this our Church and Kingdom do publikly attest that this our English Church is settled according to the will of Christ by archbyshops and byshops which is absolutely true then also did not Christ send all his apostles with the same whole power then were not all the apostles the same that Peter was then did not an equality of power descend from the apostles to all byshops then is there a step beyond the ordinary byshop nay two steps before you come to rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls then under Christ is not every byshap supream in spirituals nor yet in all the power which to any byshop is given by Christ all this I say is true whatsoever your Disswader talks against not only the Catholik Church and government which was here for above a thousand years together in England but against the very frame and constitution of his own Protestant Church wherof he is himself an unworthy member But ministers when they begin to talk against popery they are so heedlesly earnest that they knock out their own brains and either to get a benefice or honour in it they destroy their own Church that gives it them I can no more wonder now that such an one as Whitby in his book written against worthy Cressy should say so peremptorily that an archbyshop hath no power or autority and that his grace of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction as he there talks impar congressus Achills since a man of such renown as Doctor Taylor should speak the same here and give the Presbyterians and other Sectaries in the Land such a fair occasion and president to undermine and overthrow that Church which is but lately lift out of the ruins of their hands The same argument that proves the byshop an ordinary byshop to be under none but immediately under Christ will prove as much for a single Presbyter or Presbyterian And it is already done by the subtle pen of John Bastwick in his Apologeticus ad praesules Anglicanos which book is so strongly written both against Popish and Protestant Prelacy too that upon the grounds on which all Protestants go it can never be answered and upon the grounds Doctour Taylor here layes it is all of it in a manner confirmed and made good What a strange madnes is it for any one that he may seem to weaken another Church to overthrow his own Truth is here is no tye in England that any one will be held with The scriptur is in every mans bosom to make what he will of it Ancient canons customs and councels they slight as erroneous Their own constitutions and statutes they do not so much as heed What can be expected from hence but eternal dissention and wars Nay the minister to get his orders and benefice the bishop to enter into his See make a solemn protestation of obedience and subjection When they have got their ends they wipe their mouths and so far forget what they have done that they write and act presently as if they had never thought any such thing See here the form of consecration of byshops prescribed and used by our English Protestant Church ' In the name of God Amen I N. chosen byshop of the Church or See of N. do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the archbyshop and to the Metropolitan Church of N. and to their successours So help me God through Jesus Christ. Where reverence subjection and obedience is due on one side there must needs be autority power and jurisdiction on the other And that man who hath One set over him with such an authority under Christ cannot be immediately under Christ himself and if he affirm he is so then ipso facto doth he reject and rebel against that autority which in words he acknowledged This is Dr. Taylors case who teaches here that byshops are successours of the Apostles and that ther was no superiority amongst the Apostles that by the law of Christ one byshop is not superiour to another that Christ made no head of byshops that beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls c. What is this but to reject all obedience and loyalty solemnly vowed and promised and to rebell against all the laws and constitutions of his own Church and finally which is wors than all the rest to give an example to disaffected ministers of doing the like But how does he prove all this very copiously both by reasons of his own and autorities of other men Only the mishap is those signifie nothing at all for him these very much against him But what are his reasons Byshops are the Apostles successours and ther was no superiour amongst the Apostles Mr. Bastwick and such as he will tell you Sir that priest minister and byshop were but several synonomous words for one and the same thing upon divers respects so that it is to be feared your Disswader hath proved too much here and hath spoken against himself but if he hath not proved too much he hath proved nothing I am sure there was a superiority amongst the Apostles and shall demonstrate it by and by as well as I can In the mean time how prove you ther was none Christ sent all his apostles with the same whole power his father sent him Good Sir our Lord sayes indeed as my father sent me so do I send you giving them a legal commission from him as himself had from God his eternal Father But that he sent them every one with the same whole power that is so to teach and govern that they should be subject to no one amongst them these are your Disswaders words cast in by fraud and fallacy and no autority evangelical and therfor prove nothing Nay if Christ had so sent his Apostles every one with the whole power of governing in himself then had he changed his fathers commission For he was sent himself to be one head and governour and yet he had then constituted many But how can you dream good Doctour that Christ sent his apostles
faggot guns and daggers do more then show you have not yet let go those hot and surious imaginations It is a phrase so ordinary with you that when another writer of your own judgment would have told me that my words are false or besides the purpos or the like you in a phrase of your own tell me still that I speak guns and daggers If he mean say you of me p 27. that ther is in good works an intrinsecal worth c. he speaks daggers and doth not himself beleev what he sayes And again p. 94. For men to come now in the end of the world and tell us That we must rest in the autority of the present Church c. is to speak daggers and swords to us upon a confidence that we will suffer our selves to be befoold So likewise p. 340. He tells us say you of me it is good to prefer a Translation besore the Originals What shall we do with those men that speak such swords and daggers and are well neither full nor fasting I pray Sir where did you borrow this trope had you it from the school of Aristotle or Mars his camp Thirdly your prophetick assurance so often inculcated that if you could but once com to whisper me in the ear I would plainly acknowledge either that I understand not my self what I say or if I do beleev it not givs a fair character of those fanatick times wherin ignorance and hypocrisy prevailed over worth and truth wherof if your self wer any part it is no wonder you should think that I or any man els should either speak he knows not what or beleev not what himself speaks It was the proper badg of those times when after the alarm sounded in the Pulpit that our people therupon went forth in troops to battle neither did the peasant understand nor the man in black beleev although the sound rung generally in their ears that it was the sword of the Lord and of Gideon which they brandisht against the loyal band their foes Measuring me it seems by your self you tell me no loss than seaven times in your book that I beleev not and I think seaventy times that I understand not what I speak my self It is a kind of charity in you to think your neighbour is as you know your self to be But I do not much care for that charity except you were better than I find you are Fourthly your pert assertion so often occurring in your book that ther is neither reason truth nor honesty in my words is but the overflowing of that former intemperat zeal and the more frequent it occurs the less approbation it will find Fiftly your sharp and frequent menaces that if I write or speak again I shall hear more find more feel more more to my smart more than I imagin more than I would rellishes too much of that insulting humour our bleeding Land then groaned under the many years of our anarchical confusion Sixthly the absence of your name in the frontispiece of your book which I have never before observed in all my life of any Protestant writer that hath ever in my time set forth a book here in England against Popery givs no small suspicion that the Authour of our Animadversione is no such Protestant as he would be thought to be Lastly that I may omit other special reasons your other general trick of charging me then most of all with sraud ignonorance and wickedness when in your own heart you find me most clear from any such blemish thereby to put a vail upon your own caus which would otherways be disparaged makes me smell a fox a notorious one Sic notus Ulysses This has been too often acted here in England to be soon forgotten The better the caus the lowder still was the cry against those who stood for it that the blustering nois of calumnies might drown all report of their innocence And by all this I cannot Sir but suspect that if the description of Popery your Animadversions givs us be right you are a Papist your self and no true Protestant a notorious Papist But as it is so let it be Thus much I only tell you that you may see I am neither neglective of your book nor idle but have perused and read it over And although what for the threats of your Animadversions and what for the reasons of my own Fiat I may not enter into controversie yet I hope I may let you know that I have seen your work And that you may the better credit me I will give you a short account of it first in general then in particular And this is all I mean here to do The whole design of Fiat Lux you do utterly mistake throughout all your book of Animadversions so that you conceiv that to be a controversy which is none that to be absolutely asserted which is but hypothetically discoursed out of the exceptions of other men that to be only for one side which is indifferently for all although I speak most for them that are most spoken against and am in very deed absolutely against all speaking quarrelling disputing about Religion If you will but have patience to hear my purpos and design which to all men not interested and blinded with a prejudice is clear enough relucent in the whole context of my Fiat what I say will easily appear to your self Fiat Lux sayes one thing and supposes it another thing he desires and aims at that he dislikes this he commends We are at this day at variance about Religion this Fiat Lux supposes But it were better to have peace this he aims at and desires And both these things are intermingled up and down in my book according to that small faculty that God hath given me though not according to the usual method that is found now adayes in books Here Sir in few words you have the summe of my Fiat And I hope you will grant that to be the scope of my book which I made it for That we are now at variance is most clear and certain by me supposed and not to be denied And that it were better to have peace is as absolutely expedient as the other is evidently true These then being things both of them which no man can resist either by denying the one or disliking the other I thought them better intermingled then set apart and with more reason to be supposed then industriously proved Yet to superinduce a disposition unto peace my only work was to demonstrate an uselesnes an endlesnes an unprofitablenes of quarrels which I laboured quite through my book beginning it with an intimation of our quarrels which St. Paul calls the fruits and works of the flesh and ending it with a commendation of charity which is the great fruit and blessing of Gods holy Spirit Now the easier to perswade my Countreymen to a belief both of the one and the other first is insinuated in Fiat Lux both the ill grounds and
now actual inhabitants of this Land and progeny of the Saxons received first our Gospel and Christendom from Rome though the Brittans who inhabited this Land before us differing as much from us as Antipodes had some of them been Christned long before us And yet the Christendom that prevailed and lasted among the Brittans even they also as well as we had it from Rome too mark this likewise But you reply Though persons from Rome did first plant Christianity among the Saxons was it the Popes Religion they taught did the Pope first finde it out or did they Baptise in the name of the Pope Good Sir it was the Popes Religion not invented by him as your cavil fondly imagines but owned professed and put in practice by him and from him derived unto us by his missioners You adde Did not the Gospel come to Rome as well as to us for it was not first preached there Sir properly speaking it came not so to Rome as it came to us For one of the twelve fountains nay two of the thirteen and those the largest and greatest was transferred to Rome which they watered with their blood we had never any such standing fountain of Christian Religion here but only a stream derived to us from thence My second assertion must be From whom we first received our Religion with them we must still abide This principle as it is never delivered by Fiat Lux though you put it upon me so is it in the latitude it carries and wherin you understand it absolutely fals never thought of by me and indeed impossible For how can we abide with them in any truth who may perhaps not abide in it themselvs Great part of Flanders was first converted by Englishmen and yet are they not obliged either by Fiat Lux or any lux whatsoever to accompany the English in our now present wayes If Rome first taught us Christianity she may then rather plead a power to guide us than we her This or some such like thing I might speak and rationally speak it But that we or any other should be obliged still to abide or rather to follow them who first taught us Religion though they should themselvs forsake their own doctrin as you would make me speak is a piece of folly never came into my thoughts And you may be ashamed to put it upon me Why do you not set down my own words and the page of my book where I delivered this principle My third must be The Roman Religion is still the same This also I do no where formally express nor enter into any such common place You will say I suppose it But doth this justifie you who say here that I assert it as a principle let it then be supposed for I do indeed suppose it becaus I know it hath been demonstrativly proved a hundred times over You deny it has bin proved why do you not then disprove it Becaus you decline say you all common places Very good so do I let us com to proper ones You fall then upon my Queries in the end of my book The Roman was once a true flourishing Church and if she ever fell she must fall either by apostasie heresie or schism c. So I speak there And to this you reply that the Church that then was in the Apostles time was indeed true not that Roman Church that now is So so then say I that former true Church must fall then som time or other when did she fall and how did she fall by apostacy heresy or schism Perhaps say you neither way for she might fall by an earthquake Sir we speak not here of any casual or natural downfall or death of mortals by plague famine or earthquake but a moral and voluntary laps in faith What do you speak to me of earthquakes You adde therfor the second time that she might fall by idolatry and so neither by apostacy heresy or schism Good Sir idolatry is a mixt misdemeanour both in faith and manners I speak of the single one of faith And he that falls by idolatry if he keep still some parts of Christianity entire he falls by heresy by apostacy if he keep none At last finding your self pusled in the third place you lay on load She fell say you by apostacy idolatry heresy schism licentiousnes and prophanenes of life And in this you do not much unlike the drunken youth who being bid to hit his masters finger with his when he perceived he could not do it he ran his whole fist against it But did she fall by apostacy By a partial one say you not a total one Good Sir in this division apostasy is set to expres a total relaps in opposition to heresy which is the partial Did she then fall by heresy or partial apostasy in adhering to any error in faith contary to the approved doctrin of the Church Here you smile seriously and tell me that since I take the Roman and Catholik Church to be one she could not indeed adhere to any thing but what she did adhere unto Sir I take them indeed to be one but here I speak ad hominem to one that does not take them so And then if indeed the Roman Church had ever swerved in faith as you say she has and be her self but as another ordinary particular Church as you say she is then might you find som one or other more general Church if any ther were possitively to judg her som Oecumenical councel to condemn her som fathers either greek or latin expresly to write against her as Protestants now do som or other grave solemn autority to censur her or at least som company of beleevers out of whose body she went and from whose faith she fell Since you are no wayes able to assign any of these particulars my Query remains unanswered and the Roman still as flourishing a Church as ever she was The fourth assertion frequently say you pleaded by our Authour is that all things as to religion were ever quiet and in peace before the Protestants relinquishment of the Roman Sea This principle you pretend is drawn out of Fiat Lux not becaus it is there but only to open a door for your self to expatiate into som wide general discours about the many wars distractions and factious altercations that have been aforetime up and down the world in som several ages of Christianity And you therfor say it is frequently pleaded by me becaus indeed I never speak one word of it And it is in truth a fals and fond assertion Though neither you nor I can deny that such as keep unity of faith with that Church can never so long as they hold it fall out upon that account If you had either cited the place or set down my own words they would have spoke their meaning I might say perhaps that our Land had no part of those disturbances upon the account of religion all the thousand years it was Catholik which
will reply to all such reasonings but you have the pregnant wit not to heed any thing that may hinder your flourishes But Sir if you were kept up in a chamber with a learned Jew without bread water and fire till you had satisfied him in that objection I am still well enough assured for all your aery vaunts that if you do not make use of your Credo which here you contemn you might there stay till hunger and cold had made an end of you But I beleev you love not such dry blows however you may be delighted with pen encounters at a distance where after your suppositum has been well inspired with the warm spirits blown hither out of the fortunate islands you may cavil revile and threaten at your pleasure and knock down the shadow of your adversary which your own spirits have raised up and presented to you in your chamber 10 ch from page 213 to 228. Your tenth chapter runs over two of my paragraffs which speak the plea of Independents Presbyterians and Protestants That you esteem idle the other sensles the last insufficient And to make this last good you endeavour to disable both what I have set down to make against the prelate Protestant and also what I have said for him I said in Fiat Lux that it made not a little against our Protestants that after the prelate Protestancy was settled in England they were forced for their own preservation against Puritans to take up som of those principles again which former Protestants had cast down for Popish as is the autority of a visible Church efficacy of ordination difference between clergy and laiety c. Here first you deny that those principles are popish But Sir ther be som Jews even at this day who will deny any such man as Pontius Pilate to have ever been in Jury I have other things to do than to fill volums with useles texts which here I might easily do out of the books both of the first reformers and catholik divines and councels Then secondly you challenge me to prove that those principles were ever denied by our prelate Protestants And this you do wittily and like your self You therfor bid me prove that those principles were ever denied by our prelate Protestants becaus I say that our prelate Protestants here in England as soon as they became such took up again those forenamed principles which Protestants their forefathers both here in England and beyond the seas before our prelacy was set up had still rejected When I say then that our prelate Protestant affirmed and asserted those principles which former Protestants denied you bid me prove that our prelate Protestant ever denied them Thus you contradict what I say is pleaded against our prelate Protestant And again you do as stiffly gain-say what I plead for him my self You laugh at me even with head and shoulders and tell me that the prelate-Protestant has far better arguments for themselvs then either mine is or any I can bring nor do they need the help of such a weak logician as my self in this their caus Sir give me leav to tell you here once for all that I thought it sufficient for my design to set down either for Papist or Protestant when occasion required such reasons as appeared plausible to my self and to say all for them that can be said was neither the work of my small ability nor any purpos of my design And it is enough to me that I know no better But let us see what my argument is and how you crush it The Church say I must have a byshop or otherwise she will not have such a visible head as she had at first c. This that you may evacuate you tell me that the Church hath still the same head she had which is Christ who is present with his Church by his Spirit and laws and is man-God still as much as ever he was and ever the same will be and if I would have any other visible bishop to be that head then it seems I would not have the same head and so would have the same and yet not the same Thus you speak But Sir I cannot in any reason be thought to speak otherwise if we would use true logick of the identity of the head than I do of the identity of the body of the Church This body is not numerically the same for the men of the first age are long ago gone out of the world and another generation com who yet are a body of Christians of the same kind becaus they adhere to the same principles of faith And as the body is of the same kind though not numerically the same so do I require that since Jesus Christ as man the head immediate of other beleeving men is departed hence to the glory of his Father that the Church should still have a head of the same kind as visibly now present as she had in the beginning or els say I she cannot be completely the same body or a body of the same kind she was But this she hath not this she is not except she have a visible by shop as she had in the beginning present with her guiding and ruling under God Christ our Lord is indeed still man-God but this man-hood is now separate nor is he visibly now present as man which immediately headed his beleevers under God on whose influence that natur depended His Godhead is still the same in all things not only in it self but in order also to his Church as it was before equally invisible and in the like manner beleeved but the natur delegate under God and once ruling visibly amongst us by words and examples is now utterly withdrawn And if a natur of the same kind be not now delegate with a power of exteriour government as at the first ther was then hath not the Church the same head now which she had then nor is she the same polity or body she was before Qui habet aures audiendi audiat And here by the way we may take notice what a sincere English Protestant you are who labour so stoutly to evacuate my argument for episcopacy and leav none of your own behind you nor acquaint the world with any although you know far better but would make us beleev notwithstanding those far better reasons for prelacy that Christ himself as he is the immediate and only head of the invisible influence so is he likewise the only and immediate head of visible direction and government among us without the interposition of any person delegate in his stead to oversee and rule under him in his Church on earth which is against the tenour both of sacred gospel and S. Pauls epistles and all antiquity and the present ecclesiastick polity of England and is the doctrin not of any English Protestant but of the Presbyterian Independent and Quaker Christ then in your way is immediate head not only of subministration and influence but of
fear and observ them universally in all whatever their commands being taught by their religion of which they alone give account at times appointed for penance to hearken and obey for conscience sake all higher powers constituted over them for good That catholiks do universally observ their King in all affairs as well ecclesiastick as civil I need not to make it good send you Sir either to the testimonies of civil law and Codex of Justinian or the othervarious constitutions of so many several provinces and kingdoms as are and have been in Christendom our own home will suffice to justifie it Were not the spiritual courts both court Christian Prerogative court and Chancery all set up in catholik times about matters of religion and affairs of conscience and all mannaged by clerks or clergy-men under the King In brief where ever any civil coaction or coactive power intervenes be it in what affair it will all such power and action who ever uses it hath it autoritatively only from the King For neither Pope nor Byshop nor any Priest ought to be a striker as S. Paul teaches nor have they any lands or livings or court or power to compel or punish either in goods or body but what is lent or given by princes and princely men out of their love and respect to Jesus Christ and his holy gospel whose news they first conveighed about the world although a just donation is I should think as good a title as either emption inheritance or conquest if it be irrevocable The King is the only striker in the land ex jure and the sword of the almighty is only in his hand and none can compel or punish either in body or goods but only himself or others by his commission in any whatever affair He can either by his autority and laws blunt the sword of those who have one in their hand whether by pact or nature as have masters over servants and parents over children or put a civil power into the hands of those who otherwise have none as prelates priests and byshops So that although the Pope derive religion and chiefly direct in it yet is the King the only head of all civil coercition as well in Church affairs as any other which his commands and laws do reach unto So that the line of Church government amongst catholiks since the conversion of kings runs in two streams the one is of direction the other of coercition That of direction is from Christ to the chief pastour from him to patriarchs then to metropolitans arch-byshops byshops priests and people and in this line is no corporal coaction at all except it be borrowed nor any other power to punish but only by debarring men from sacraments In the other line of corporal power and autority the King is immediately under God the Almighty from whom he receivs the sword to keep and defend the dictates of truth and justice as fupream governour though himself for direction and faith be subject to the Church from whose hands he received it as well as other people his subjects after the King succeed his princes and governours in order with that portion of power all of them which they have from him their leige sovereign received This in brief of papal Church government which we in England by our canting talk of the Lord Christ to the end we may be all lords and all Christs have utterly subverted Indeed in primitive times the channel of religion for three hundred years ran apart and separate from civil government which in those dayes persecuted it And then the line of Christian government was unmixt None but priests guided defended governed the Church and Christian flock which they did by the power of their faith vertue secret strength and courage in Jesus their Lord invisible Afterward it pleased the God of mercies to move the hearts of emperours and kings of the earth to submit unto a participation of grace which they were more easily inclined by the innocence and sanctity of Christian faith especially in that particular of peaceful obedience unto kings and rulers though aliens and pagans and persecutors of religion And now kings being made Christian were looked upon by their subjects with a double reverence more loved more feared more honoured than before Nor could Christian people now tell how to expres that ineffable respect they bore their Kings now co-heirs of heaven with them whom before in their very paganism they were taught by their priests to observ as gods upon earth not for wrath only or fear of punishment but for conscience also and danger of hazarding not only their temporal contents but their eternal salvation also for their resisting autority though resident in pagans And Kings on the other side who aforetime by the counsel of wordly senatours enacted laws such as they thought fit for present policy and defended them by the sword of justice wielden under God to the terrour of evil doers and defence of the innocent began now as was incumbent on their duty to use that sword for the protection of Christianity and faith and the better way now chalked out unto them by Christian priests from Jesus the wisdom and Son of God And by the direction of the same holy prelates abbots and other priests who were now admitted with other senators into counsel did they in all places enact speciall and particular laws answerable to the general rule of faith which they found to be more excellent and perfect than any judgment they had by natural reason hitherto difcovered Thus poor Christians who had hitherto but only a head of derivation of counsel and direction which could but only bid them have patience for Christs sake and conform themselves to his meek passion when they suffered from aliens and when they suffered injury from one another could only debar the evil doer if he gave not satisfaction from further use of sacraments those Christians I say who could hitherto have no other comfort or assistance in this world under their spiritual pastour than what words of piety could afford had now by the grace of heaven princely protectours royal defenders and head champions under God to vindicate and make good all Christian rights discipline and truths now accepted and established from faith as well as other civil rites and customs dictated aforetime from meer reason equally revengers upon all evil doers indifferently that were found criminal in affairs as well purely Christian as civil still using the advice and direction of their prelates and Christian peers in the framing and establishing of all those laws they were now resolved to maintain So it was don in England so in all places of the Christian world And then the line of Christian government ran mixt which before was single And Christians now had a Joshua to their Aaron who were only led by Moyses before And although Aaron was head of the Church yet Joshua was head and leader prince and captain of all those people
unto a particular end of future bliss whereas all states do of themselves aim no further then the peace and happines of this life And so for the particular end and means answerable therunto which religion uses it will require a particular and special overseer Thus Aristotle though he conceited the celestial orbs to be contiguous and so all rapt together in a motion from East to West yet becaus they had special motions of their own he therfor allowed them particular intelligences to guide those motions So we see in ordinary affairs a man that hath several wayes and ends is guided by several directours in this by a lawyer in that by a physician by a gardener by a tradesman c. Fistly becaus head of the Church absolutely must be one that succeeds in his chair whom Jesus the master left and appointed personally to feed his flock No King upon earth ever pretended to sit in that Fishermans chair or to succeed him in it which the Pope to my knowledg for sixteen hundred years hath both challenged as his right and actually possest And Catholiks are all so fixt in this judgment that they can no more disbeleev it then they can ceas to beleev in Jesus Christ. 11 ch from page 228. to 246. Your eleventh chapter falls directly upon my fifteenth paragraff of Scriptur And therfor I may here expect you should insult over me to the purpos But Sir I told you before and now tell you again that I know no other rule to Christians either for faith or manners no other hope no other comfort but what scriptur and holy gospel affords But this is not any part of the debate now in hand however you would perswade the world to think so When four or five men Sir of several judgements collected from the very scriptur you and I talk of rise up one against another with one and the same scriptur in their hands with such equal pretence of light power and reason that no one will either yield to another or remain himself in the same faith but run endles divisions without controul does scriptur prevent this evil does it has it can it remedy it can any one man make a religion by the autority of scriptur alone which neither himself nor any other upon the same grounds he framed it shall rationally doubt of This is our case Sir and only this which you do not so much as take notice of to the end you may with a more plausible rhetorick insult over me as a contemner of Gods word Nor do you heed any particle of my discours in this paragraff but according to your manner collect principles to the number of seven out of it you say which I do not know to be so much as hinted in it that as you did before so you may now again play with your own bawble and confute your self And they are in a manner the very same you sported with before in your second chapter 1. from the Romans we received the gospel 2. what is spoken in scripture of the Church belongs to the Roman 3. the Roman every way the same it was c. of all which I do not remember that I have in that my paragraff so much as any one word Sir either speak to my discours as you finde it or els hold your peace As if then you had overheard me afore-hand to give you this deserved check at the close of your chapter you bring in som few words of mine with a short answer of your own annext to the skirts of it which I here set down as you place them your self No man can say speaks Fiat Lux what ill popery ever did in the world till Henry the eights dayes when it was first rejected Strange say you in your Animadversions when it did all the evils that ever were in the Christian world With the Roman catholiks unity ever dwelt Never Protestants know their neighbour catholiks not their religion They know both Protestants are beholding to Catholiks for their benefices books pulpits gospel For som not all The Pope was once beleeved general pastour over all Prove it The scriptur and gospel we had from the Pope Not at all You cannot beleev the scriptur but upon the autority of the Church We can and do You count them who brought the scriptur as lyars No otherwise The gospel separated from the Church can prove nothing Yes it self This short work you make with me And to all that serious discours of mine concerning scriptur which takes up sixteen pages in Fiat Lux we have got now in reply thereunto this your Laconick-confutation Strang. Never Know both Som not all Prove it Not at all Can and do No otherwis Yes it self 12 ch from page 246. to 262. Your twelfth chapter meets with my history of religion as a flint with steel only to strike fire For not heeding my story which is serious temperate and sober you tell another of your own fraught with defamations and wrath against all ages and people and yet speak as confidently as calm truth could do First you say that Joseph of Arimathea was in England but he taught the same religion that is in England now But what religion is that Sir Then you tell us that the story of Fugatius and Damian missioners of Pope Eleutherius you do suspect for many reasons But becaus you assign none I am therfor moved to think they may be all reduced to one which is that you will not acknowledg any good thing ever to have come from Rome Then say you succeeded times of luxury sloth pride ambition scandalous riots and corruption both of faith and manners over all the Christian world both princes priests prelates and people Not a grain of vertue or any goodnes we must think in so many Christian kingdoms and ages Then did Goths and Vandals and other pagans overflow the Christian world To teach them we may think how to mend their manners These pagans took at last to Christianity Haply becaus it was a more loose and wicked life than their own pagan profession These men now Christened advanced the Popes autority when Christian religion was now grown degenerate And now we come to know how the Roman byshop became a patriark above the rest by means namely of new converted pagans It was an odde chance they should think of advancing him to what they never knew either himself or any other advanced before amongst Christians whose rotten and corrupt faith they had lately embraced And yet more odde and strange it was that all Christendom should calmly submit to a power set up anew by young converted pagans no prince or byshop either there or of any other Christian Kingdom either then or ever after to this day excepting against it Had not all the byshops and priests of Africa Egypt Syria Thrace Greece and all the Christian world acknowledged by a hundred experiments the supreme spiritual autority of the Roman patriarch in all times before
man thus to disable his own chief prelate before his face and say peremptorily that a Metropolitan can do nothing that his grace of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction I know and am fully assured ther is not one of those poor catholik priests who were lately banished out of England but would have defended even to extremity if need were this one most certain verity That a Metropolitan hath a jurisdiction as solid and good a jurisdiction over byshops as any these can have or plead for over parish priests And by as firm and good and ancient law is the one established as the other and indeed by the very same whilst a minister of his own presumes to tell the Arch-byshop his own prelate to his face that he hath no jurisdiction at all His 9 ch from page 91. to 169. Is wholly fanatick There he tells us plainly That neither Convocations Byshops nor Parliaments are judges of our faith That the English Church doth not punish for difference in opinions nor require that all should beleev as she beleevs or submit to her determinations but leaves every man to the liberty of his own judgment so he do not make factions against her Who ever urged men saith he to beleev as the Church beleevs p. 101. Also that no decrees of any Church are further to be admitted then they appear to particular ' mens judgments to agree with scriptur That every private man must make use of his own reason to judg or reject doctrin and rites propounded though scriptur be his guide That the business must there end without resigning to any further authority which is all as fallible as we be our selves That points fund amental are as perspicuous as the sun-beam and points not fundamental the Church doth not determin them and if any dispute should rise about them she silences indeed but expects not her children should be of her opinion only would not have them gainsay her That that Church does but mock us which expects a beleef to her proposals becaus she pretends to guide her self by scriptur For if scriptur must bend to their decrees and we must have no sence of scriptur but what they think fit then their decrees and not scriptur is our last rule And it is a pretty devise quoth he first to rule the rule and then be ruled by it c. Can a good Quaker say more for himself or desire more to be said for him If we be not bound to beleev we are not bound to hear Nay we are bound not to hear any such Church lest we should chance to beleev what aforehand we condemn and they themselvs dare not justifie He hath much of this talk up and down in his book Faith saith he p. 439. cannot be compelled By taking this liberty of discretion from men we force them to becom hypocrits and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbeleev And again p. 450. We allow not any man openly to contradict the Churches decrees But when he thinks contrary to the determination of our Church he must keep his judgment to himself only refusing obedience with all humility till he be better informed No fanatick will desire to refuse obedience any longer Thus doth this champion deliver up himself and Church unto the will and disposal of all whatever sects and cares not so he may avoid catholik obeysance to make himself a prey to those who upon these grounds here laid down will soon turn him out of Church and pulpit too and strip him not only of his cloak but his coat also At last he answers the catholik arguments for the Churches assured and infallible guidance just as he did before your others for supremacy Seeing him there you see him every where Finally he brings in for a certain testimony of the Churches liability to errour the two opinions so rife in old time about communicating infants and the Millenaries thousand years of blessedness with Christ in this world after dooms-day Which are both of them now condemned saith he by a contrary beleef and practice of the present Church although they were held by not a few very antient Fathers in the primitive times And in this he triumphs exceedingly Surely without caus I should think Those primitive doctors we may be assured knew somthing more then their Catechism and committed to writing somthing of that they conceived beyond their Christian faith as well as the present Fathers and Doctors of the Church now do And if there were so great varieties of opinion among them concerning those two things as there are now adayes among catholik doctors about a thousand others it is a sign that those two points did not belong to their Catechisme of faith then assuredly known but only to scholastical Theology especially sith they had neither clear scriptur or general councel nor assured tradition for either side And it is of no moment that som of them should be so confident of their opinion as to think it to be a right firm Christian beleef For so I have heard my self many a school Divine in catholik countreys to say of his Thesis or school position the better to countenance his own divinity that it was either faith or very near it Besides I do not know that the present Church hath ever declared in any cannon of her faith either that the faithfull shall not reign upon earth a thousand years with Christ after dooms day or that we may not communicate the Eucharist to children although this last is declared not necessary His 10 ch from page 169. to 180. Is against prayer for the dead and Purgatory Where both by the testimonies which you Sir do cite in your book and by the authorities he brings himself Mr. Whitby acknowledges that praying and offering for the dead is a very ancient and general custom amongst Christians Nay that S. Paul himself prayed for his deceased friend Onesiphorus This I say he plainly grants p. 182. But he addes that all this does not infer Purgatory or that Purgatory is a place under ground near hell where is fire and darknes or that all are in pain and torments there And so he pusles to the end of his chapter acknowledging faith and denying only theology For whether Purgatory signifie any one place as our imagination is apt to fancy or only a state and condition of som souls departed out of this visible world I see Mr. Whitby understands not that it is no Christian faith but a meer scholastical divinity But that our prayers offerings penances and good deeds do benefit the souls deceased this the very testimonies cited by Mr. Whitby himself as they do sufficiently evince so do they confirm catholik faith though they touch not upon theology at all And so while he oppugns the divinity of som catholiks he establishes the catholik faith of all Divines In the interim he ought to remember although in this he often forgets himself that by the very testimonies not only which you Sir do
were had been only sent over to make folks sick they had don him som service but to poison men and kill them down-right that may give the Physician a just caus of wrath against those intruding empyricks He begins his book thus I suppose it is a matter of faith with all Papists that the Pope is infallible and that he can depose Kings c. Thus doth that wise man open his mouth and begin his Recipe Two things very seldom seen in any Academick conclusions when students defend a whole body of divinity in the schools but never delivered in Gospel or declared in Councels or heard or thought of by any one Catholik in the world as any thing of his religion these Mr. Denton supposes to be matter of faith with all Papists I would ask Mr. Denton whether he thinks it a matter of faith among Papists That the earth moves or no. If one Catholik hold those two assertions which in his sence I cannot tell whether any one do or no I will be bold to say a thousand hold this The next book Dr. Denton writes against Papists will haply begin thus I suppose it is a matter of faith with all Papists that the earth moves And then he may go on with his moon-stories and build castles in the air and Dentonise as here he hath done Ch. 21. from p. 448. to 456. Allows that general Councels although they be not infallible are highly notwithstanding both themselvs and their decrees to be esteemed provided that they keep to Gods rule that clear reason be not against them that men of worth do not gainsay them and that their proceedings be legal Not otherwis Thus he recalls himself and mends the matter All these four things if general Councels observ they shall be observed themselves notwithstanding they may haply be a company of bastards and buffoons neither legitimately begotten nor rightly baptised nor validly elected nor legally ordained And whether these specified conditions be or be not in councels and their decrees every man as Whitby here and several other places of his book speaks is to judg according to his own pleasur and discretion So that according to his rule the discretion and will of particular men is the final resolv of all religion faith and practis Whence it will follow that if there be as many religions as men they must be all good When you object Sir that such a liberty as this will be destructive even of all articles canons and acts of Parliament in order to our establisht Protestancy or other affairs To this Whitby replyes according to his custom very hotly Doth it becom a consuter of Mr. Chillingworth saith he thus to trifle Hath he not told you that others may make the same defence as we as murderers may cry not guilty as well as innocent persons but not so justly not so truly For Gods sake who trifles here when both Chillingworth and Whitby too had put into every private mans hand an equal power of judging admitting or rejecting the decrees orders and laws of their superiours he now distinguishes with Chillingworth his fanatick Master that som do it justly and truly others not so justly not so truly But who shall pass judgment upon the final and only irrefragable judg or aver such a thing of any one who hath an equal and unlimited power beforehand to take and reject what himself pleases Both truth and justice must solely be in his will who may admit and refuse as himself willeth But the party now esteemed faulty will be meal-mouthed we must think and not dare to say he both truly and justly does what he does or to affirm that he uses his own discretion in that which he takes or refuses by his own liking The Protestant forsooth separated from the Roman both truly and justly but the Presbyterian Independent and Quaker these refuse the Protestants communion not so truly not so justly although they do it upon the same right and title and by the same principles the other used himself and allows to other men The Protestant shall reject the Parliament of Prelates who establisht Catholik religion and do it justly and truly only for this reason that they do it upon their own discretion but another if he shall except against a Council of Lords and Commons that shall set up Prelate Protestancy although according to Whitby they be no judges of our faith he does it not so justly not so truly though he do it by his own discretion allow'd him to be his final resolv What is this but to do wickedly and talk fondly First to subjugate all degrees of autority to every mans judgment as the final and last rule and then to question that rule which he made subject unto nothing But that we may understand what a worthy respect Mr. Whitby has for general Councels he tells us here that it is neither impossible nor improbable that general Councels may erre Nay our writers quoth he do not acknowledg generall Councels to be infallible even in fundamentals And Whitby writes we all know by this time what his writers writ before him I cannot but marvel at this his talk For Whitby in several places of his book affirms himself that fundamentals are so perspicuous and clear that no man can be so ignorant if he be not a natural fool as to mistake therin We saith he p. 104. distinguish between points fundamental and not fundamental These are clearly revealed and so of necessary beleef And to determine their sence there is no more need of a judg then for any other perspicuous truth What need of a judge to decide whether scriptur affirms that there is but one God that this God cannot lye that Jesus Christ was sent by his commission into the world that he was crucified and rose again that without faith and obedience we cannot com to heaven These and such like are the truths which we entitle fundamental And if the sence of this needs an infallible judg then let us bring Euclids elements to the bar and call for a judg to decide whether twice two make four So he likewise avers p. 441. that fundamentals are as perspicuous as if they were written by a sun-beam He reckons not the Trinity amongst his fundamentals perhaps he does not take it for one or will have no fundamentals but what are perspicuous I could make it easily appear that even fundamentals have been denied and that with as great reason as any he calls otherwis are denied now But I must be brief That which I here note is this What is as perspicuous as a sun-beam as certain as Euclids elements as evident as that which is most clearly revealed as notorious a known truth as that twice two make four so clear that there needs no judg to determin it This the Prelates of the Christian world met together which none but a natural fool can mistake must not be able to discern They and none but they can erre in
of his I think he borrowed of som French Hugonots For all the wayes that be here now in England concur each one unto a body an organical body not only Roman Catholiks but our English Prelacy and Presbyterians too Yea the very Quakers to my knowledg esteem none to be so much as Christians who assemble not with them And they have with them som ministers of the gospel too though extemporary ones A wary reader may observ by the sole mirrour of this book of Whitbies which is a collection of most of the chief authors that have written against Popery since the Reformation how unsettled all Protestants be in all the controverted points of religion wherof ther is not any one by som of them denied but is by som others of them assirmed They know what Church to oppose but how much of her doctrin they should evacuate they could never yet unanimously agree nor what answer to fix steadily to any Catholik ground He will find also amongst other things that our present Protestants now adayes do generally swerv from the first reformers almost in all points both of disciplin and faith about supremacy good works free will possibility of keeping Gods commands the real presence prayer for the dead tradition c. which former Protestants for the first forty years would not abide to hear of but now they are all in a manner so allowed by most Protestants that there appears little difference between their way and catholik faith but only that this stands unchanged the other may alter again to morrow Indeed every Protestant writer is in one thing or other a new reformer as Whitby is here And every half-score years brings forth new scenes nor is there any now that heeds any Protestant writer that is gon if he speak contrary to him though he were never so eminent even in the very point and busines of Reformation This is enough for Whitby I heard Sir above half a year ago that Dr. Barlow had made ready for the Press another book of his own against Mr. Cressy and therfor deteined this my letter with me till I might give you an account of his with it Truly Sir I watched as earnestly for it as any cat watches for a mous But it will not yet appear In the interim one Mr. Stillingfleet has lately written a great book against Popery even so big a book in folio that none may buy it but only such as hate Popery more than they love sixteen shillings And he also proceeds this new french Hugonot way insisted on by Whitby He is only for a Church diffusive that holds fundamentals what ever they be and makes no account of any Church organical Wherby he utterly disables not the Roman Hierarchy only but even our English Protestant Church and government if men do but understand what he sayes And yet this man is mightily applauded by our English by shops which I cannot but marvel at and do thence conclude that they all begin now to think our English Church it self that it may be made good must be pulled down Councels he holds with Whitby that they can have no autority to move our assent although they be general as ther has never been any he sayes these thousand years And what is ther then for Gods sake shall move the Presbyterians Independents and others here in England to approve of the constitutions and government of our English Church set up by a far lesser assembly In a word this whole book of Stillingfleets is a large discours against a Theological argument of some Catholik disputant The argument it seems was this Christian faith cannot be divine except it have its birth from an infallible proposer and consequently the Church must either be infallible or els our faith is not divine The answer of this argument is the very life and vitals of Mr. Stillingfleets whole book That same argument of the Catholik Gentleman is indeed a pretty theological ratiocination and Stillingfleets answer evasions and distinctions both concerning the argument in general and all the particulars it runs into are not unwitty But this is no part of our busines Alas we in our controversies about religion are not come thus far Such a discours had been handsomly fitted to theologicall schools and very proper amongst learned divines there but here not so What is it to our busines in hand whether faith can or cannot be divine except the proposer be infallible and as it were divine This is a meer theological dispute And he that answers Stillingfleets book defends not faith immediately but an argumentators syllogisme Religion indeed as soon as ever it is questioned or disputed runs presently into Philosophy And therin if great heed be not taken it is quite lost And thence it comes to pass that most part of our controversie books is about school philosophy and human reasonings I blame not the Catholik Gentleman who ever he was for his argumenting Nor will Stillingfleet be blamed for defending his place But I let my countreymen spectators of the contest understand that in deed and truth so often as we dispute we are beyond the busines All writers of controversie speak more then faith when they either defend or oppose it And in reading controversies we see not so much the nature of the faith as the wit of him who opposes or defends it and so much this some times that the other is nothing at all discerned This the world must know and understand well or els they will be miserably mistaken as indeed I see all men are When two lawyers plead about a case of right perhaps three hours together all that three hours talk is not law or the right they talk of but only their ratiocinations about it And such are all our controversies about religion And he does best therin who still puts his adversary in mind what is his talk and what is the faith they talk of But he that defends both of them equally forgets himself And thus I see that generally men do miscarry on both sides the Protestant by calling that Romanish doctrin which is but a Catholiks discours for it and the Catholik by maintaining that talk of his which it is not a pin matter whether it stand or fall For faith is firm and constant though all my talk for it be miserably weak Now all the whole busines of faith which Stillingfleet and his adversary talk of is as I take it only this That the Church of Christ hath by Gods divine promis of being ever with her a power to oblige her subjects to hear and obey her if they mean to be happy in their way The Catholik affirms this Stillingfleet with his Protestants deny it And this is all the faith that is in it which is not here touched And a theological busines of Infallibility only spoke of And therfor Stillingfleet is much to blame when he speaks so often in his book of the Romanists way of resolving faith the
in him all their requests every one according to their several necessities So that the priest and peoples great work is soon ended the consecration lifting up the host and chalice and adoration being all accomplished in half a quarter of an hour and in som Churches that especially of Ethiopia in yet lesser time And all the prayers and meditations and what other things the Priest either speaks with his lips or heart besides are only to dispose himself before and after that great work And in all times have Christian people ever made it their special care to furnish themselvs with such meditations and affections as that their solemn work of adoration requires I find in my heart here to set down the way I have been taught to hear Mass and which I practise my self Such an ocular pattern would I am sure give more satisfaction to my countrymen than any general words I can speak concerning it But I shall have som better place for that hereafter The testimony of authorities which your Disswader brings against this Roman custom of one and the same language all over the world which he calls an unknown tongue either speak nothing at all to that busines or say nothing but what Papists say themselves and many of them by his usual trick either of total falsity or partial depravation are made by your Disswader to speak against a custom which they never so much as dreamed to impugn If Origen say that the Grecians in their prayers use Greek and the Romans the Roman language c. so say all Papists too The Maronites with some others use the Hebrew Liturgy Grecians the Greek and Western Christians the Roman and so every one in his own tongue that is proper to that part of the Church wherof he is a member prayeth and praiseth God And yet it was never thought necessary that any people in the Christian world should have their Liturgy in their mother tongue Again if St. Ambrose say when people meet sor edification in the Church things ought to be spoken which hearers understand so say and so do Papists also For all their Sermons which are made for edification are ever in the mother tongue or vulgar language of the Countrey and in so plain a manner they either are or should be uttered that hearers may understand and edifie thereby But the Christian sacrifice is offered up to God not for the peoples edification or instruction but for their reconciliation and peace Likewise if S. Jerom and Ulphilas translated the Bible so has it been translated by several other Priests since their time I beleev into all languages of the world and is continually read and expounded in Catholik Countreys now one mystery of it then another unto peoples constant edification But this infers not that it ever was or ought to be read in the Churches one chapter after another instead of their Liturgy No such thing did antiquity ever hear of If the civil law of Justinian ordain all byshops and Prtests to celebrate the sacred oblation not in a low voice but with a loud clear voice which may be heard by people so do Roman Priests at this day act all according to that Canon But how came the first reforming Procestants to leave off the name of Priests but only becaus they had no such sacred oblation which was abolished by them any longer now to make Again if there issued from Pope Innocent the third a precept or decree in the Councel of Lateran that in the same city as your disswader here speaks thinking it I beleev to be som City called Lateran where people had then met together from several parts of the world service should be celebrated according to the diversity of ceremonies and languages no doubt but that precept or decree was then observed throughout all the City of Rome where that Councel was kept And the Maronites with their adherents had the sacred Liturgy in Chaldee or Hebrew the Grecians in Greek others in Latin with such variety of ceremonies therin as was used in these several nations though they acted the same thing in substance So that such as came from Syria Egypt or Greece were not bound to be present at the Latin Liturgy although they were then in Rome nor yet the Romans to the Hebrew or Greek Mass. And if any were met there from our English Sarum Church they might use their Sarum Missal and not that of the Roman Dioces although it might have shorter or perhaps longer graduals more or fewer meditations or differing evangiles or a longer solemnity of consecration This difference is still in the world amongst Roman Catholiks at this day and ever was and will be although the whole substance of their Messach or Liturgy be every where the same And for this reason a Dominican Fryar now deceased coming over some years ago into England becaus he began his Mass with Confitemini Domino after the manner of the Dominicans and not with the usual psalm Judica me Deus although they had patience with him till he had ended yet the women that were present at it got together afterwards and in their indiscreet zeal fell upon him and beat him for a counterfeit And if the Councel be of any force here otherwise why is it brought then are Catholiks according to that Councel to celebrate in the very same city here with Protestants without controul though they use diversity of ceremonies and languages All these authorities then make nothing against this piece of Popery but rather confirm it And the glosses which your Disswader makes upon them and all his insulting invectives are but the froth of his own evil will When your Disswader tells us further that Basil Chrysostome Ambrose Austin Aquinas and Lyra speak against Service in an unknown tongue as unapt to edifie the aforenamed Catholik Gentlemen who have endeavoured with all care to search the Libraries for a trial of your Disswaders honesty have found in som of those Fathers no such book as your Disswader cites and in none of them any such words Which I am apt to beleev not only by reason of the industrious sincerity of the said Gentlemen and palpable insincerity of this Disswader but for other special reasons drawn from the authors themselves For St. Basil and St. Chrysostome St. Austin and St. Ambrose the two first were Greek Priests that used a Greek Liturgy of their own one of them an Archbishop or Patriarch the other a monk the two last S. Ambrose a Priest and Bishop of Millain in Italy S. Austin the like in Africa and founder of the Augustin Canons regulars and Hermits used a Latin one both which differed even in their times from the vulgar language of their respective places And Aquinas and Lyra are manifestly known to be later popish Priests and Friars using one and the same Latin Liturgy differing from the languages of England and Spain As also becaus it is unlikely they would use this Disswaders reason
holy Trinity especially God the Father to be pourtrayed at all And if now they suffer it they have for it I make no doubt a sufficient reason especially since they heed not at all however your Disswader imagines any natural similitude in any of their pictures If they be so made as to raise the sansie to thoughts above and the love and vertues that may bring us thither they care not whether for example Saint Bennet were a man just of that complexion or Christ their Redeemer of those direct features the limner has given him They come not into their Churches nor do they cast their eyes upon their pictures for any such end And if God the Father be represented to their eyes as he is to their ears when he is called Father I see no harm in it If we may use such a form of words when we speak to God as this world we live in may afford our ears why may not the eyes have such an answerable form too But this is a busines which your Disswader if he were a Catholik might well propound in the next general Councel and do otherwise in the mean time if so he please in his own Diocess For neither books nor picturs can be used in any Diocess but what the Ordinary of the place allows And the Byshop still guides himself by the general doctrin and discipline the faith and custom the tradition and laws of the Church in the whole mannagement of his care And when these do not clearly descend to any particular which he is to deal with he uses therin his own discretion going that way if he do well that he findes comes nearest to the rule as temporal superiours also do in their affairs O but the Roman Church with much scandal and against nature and the reason of mankind in their mass-books and breviaries portuises and manuels picture the holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot And do they so I have seen I think as many Catholik countreys and mass-books and breviaries portuises and manuels as your Disswader ever did and yet I never saw any such picture therin all my life He has been it seems an earnest pryer into the front and faces of books But did he not mistake trow you and take some fortune-book written in old letters for a mass-book and thence conclude that all breviaries and mass-books portuises and manuels were stored with such figures However it were the picture was to blame For three noses and three faces ought to have more than four eyes And if ther were but four eyes I cannot see how ther should be three whole faces although ther were there three noses in it But this is as good stuff and as true and as pertinent too as any other part of this his book which he calls a Disswasive from Popery §. 10. Which is against Papal authority Sayes that the Popes universal byshoprick is another novelty though not so ridiculous yet as dangerous as any other And a novelty it is for Christ left his Church in the hands of the Apostles without any superiority of one above another And in the Councel of Jerusalem James and not Peter gave the decisive sentence Christ sent all his Apostles with the same whole power as his Father sent him Therfor S. Paul bid the byshops of Miletum feed the whole flock And well said S. Cyprian that the Apostles were all the same that S. Peter was And this equality of power must descend to all byshops who succeed the Apostles in their ordinary power as embassadours for Christ. So then by the law of Christ one byshop is not superiour to another Christ made no head of byshops Beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepheard and byshop of souls Under him every byshop is supream in spirituals and in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ. And that this was ever beleeved in ancient times is proved by Pope Eleutherius his epistle to the byshops of France by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian Pope Symmachus S. Denyse Ignace Gelasius Jerom Fulgentius and even Pope Gregory the great Wherfor S. Paul expresly sayes that Christ appointed in his Church first Apostles but not S. Peter first Nor did Peter ever rule but by common councel as S. Chrysostom witnesses And it is even confest by som of the Romish party that the succession is not tyed to Rome as Cusanus Soto Driedo Canus and Segovius Nor was any thing known therof in the primitive times when the byshops of Asia and Africa opposed Pope Victor and Pope Stephen and all byshops treated with the Roman byshop as with a brother not superiour and a whole general Councel gave to the byshop of C. P. equal right and preheminence with the byshop of Rome Finally Christ gave no commandment to obey the byshop of Rome and probably never intended any such thing A man would surely think Sir that this nail is knocked in to the head What could be said more But to be brief with you If all the other sections of this your Disswasive have said nothing this I may say speaks somthing wors than nothing For his reasons are senceles his testimonies either impertinent or manifestly against himself and his whole discours contrary to the laws and constitutions of our English Protestant Church To begin with the last whether you look upon the statutes and acts of Parliament wherby our English Church and government were first settled in England upon the reformation in the dayes of Edward the sixth and afterwards ratified or the articles canons and constitutions that were agreed upon by the byshops and clergy and confirmed both by King Edward Queen Elizabeth King James and our good King Charles we shall clearly see that our English Protestant Church and government is Monarchical and that byshops are as much subjected to their Arch-byshops as Ministers to Byshops and Arch-byshops in like manner to the King in whom the Episcopal power is radical and inherent and in whom is the fulness of ecclesiastical authority and from whom byshops do receiv their place authority power and jurisdiction And that Parson Vicar or other Doctour who shall write or speak contrary to this by the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical made in the time of our late good King Charles he is to be suspended and by the Canons and constitutions ecclesiastical made and confirmed in the Reign of King James he is excommunicated ipso facto and by the laws of Queen Elizabeth and King Edward to be further punished How comes it then that this your disswading Doctour utterly dissolves all this frame of government under pretence of talking against papal power as contrary to the mind and will of Christ which will and mind is notwithstanding most resolutely asserted by the constitutions and laws of this our very English Church and Kingdom which rejected indeed the Roman seat and person but retained still the power and ordination of
of unity they were all united although they were all alike in power and commission of administring Sacraments If it be so what shall we think of this Disswader and of his excellent saying of S. Cyprian to prove that the Church was intrusted to the apostles in common and that no one apostle exercised a power over another The text of S. Cyprian runs thus Our Lord said to Peter Upon this rock will I build my Church and again feed thou my sheep Upon the one Him Christ builds his Church and unto Him he commends his sheep to be sed And although after his resurrection he gave to all his apostles equal power and said as my father sent me so I send you yet that he might manifest unity he constituted one chair and by his authority disposed the origen of unity beginning srom one The other apostles are the same that Peter was c. But the beginning comes srom unity the primacy is given to Peter that one Church of Christ and one flock of Christ may be monstrated Thus St. Cyprian testifies of the apostles that although they were all equal in their spiritual commission of Gods word and Sacraments yet were they brought to an unity by the government of one superiour and one chair which oversaw them all And is this a fit place to prove that the Apostles had no superiour over them which expresly testifies that they had one In the same manner doth our Disswader deal with the other testimonies But I have been too long upon this point Here is enough Sir to let you see what I said in the beginning of this discours that your Disswaders reasons are senceles his testimonies either impertinent or manifestly against himself and his whole talk and doctrin contrary to the laws and constitutions of our own Protestant English Church §. 11. Which concludes the novelties Gives notice of nine other popish novelties Saints invocation Scripture-insufficiency absolution before pennance Priests confirmation nine-penny-masses circumgestation of Eucharist intention in Sacraments mass-sacrifice and communionless mass After your Disswader has mentioned these to show the fertility of his brain he sayes nothing of them at all but only that they be also innovations and thence concluds that the Roman Religion is neither old nor primitive nor catholik and that it is easier for Protestants to tell where their religion was before Luther then for Papists to tell where their religion was before Trent And that when the enemy had sowed these tares and honest men in the Church durst not complain then England and other nations by the glass of Scriptur resormed to pure antiquity preferring a new cure before an old sore In the beginning of the section it was a new sore in the end it is an old sore so long time was he a writing this one no-section And he has so ordered the busines that it will be hard now for Papists to show their Religion before Trent although he has neither deduced the original of these nine or his other ten novelties from Trent nor can ever show that these or they are the Papists religion For as he has handled them ther is not one of them any part of their Religion much less doth their religion consist in them His sirst busines of the power of making articles sect 1. is so far from religion that it is not so much as the philosophy of any one school in the Catholik world His leash of new articles sect 2 is partly a fond dream and partly an erroneous vision of his own His discours of Indulgences sect 3. is utterly besides the purpos and what ther is of Catholik faith in it he allows himself as ancient 4. His talk of Purgatory is so ridiculously absurd that granting all that Roman faith teaches to be both ancient and universal he yet sayes at random that Roman faith is not that and yet never speaks himself what that Roman faith is 5. In Transubstantiation he wholly playes with the word which he knows when it came in wholly neglecting the thing it self and brings a multitude of Popish Doctours that own it not for their faith and not any one popish man or woman that own it he sayes it was defined in the Lateran Councel first and yet is not that which was defined in the Lateran Councel and never speaks what this thing is which notwithstanding he will have called Popery 6. The busines of half-communion as he calls it is no Popery at all that is to say no Catholik faith but a custom only in the exercise of their religion and that neither universal for time or place And although Catholiks beleev that it is not necessary to communicate in both kinds yet do they not beleev that it is necessary to communicate only in one kind either this kind or that but have used all the three wayes 7. His discours about service in an unknown tongue is a like mistake taking custom for religion and discipline for doctrin and he perverts and falsifies the custom too saying that Papists understand not their own prayers nor know what they ask of God 8. His talk of images passes by all the use of them that religion requires and is wholly taken up in some school disputes and his own lies 9. His exceptions against the pictures of the Trinity with so many eyes and noses and faces in a knot is as much popery as Euclids book de Triangulis 10. His section about the sovereignty of one byshop over all Christians had been about popery and catholik religion indeed if he had handled it right but as his reasons are fond and autorities fals so he mistakes the very thing it self imagining that papists beleev that spiritual supremacy to be tied to the walls of Rome which is no faith of theirs and consequently none of their popery And so none of his sections nor any part of his discours touches either all or any part of Papists religion And is not this a doughty piece of work to prove popery by which all his readers understand the Roman Catholik religion to be neither old nor primitive nor apostolical How he would have handled the other nine points becaus he says nothing of them I will not trouble my self to read But I am sure that seven of the nine have not any relation to Catholik religion all of them I mean besides Saints invocation and the Sacrifice of the Mass. What Councel hath determined or what Catholik beleevs that the sacred scripture is insufficient or that absolution ought to be given before pennance or that single priests are to confirm or that masses are to be sold for nine pence or circumgestation or any such intention in sacraments as to damn folks which the Disswader here speaks or that mass is to be without communion And I may now think if he had spoke of the other two Saints invocation and Sacrifice he would even there also have mistaken and strayed For he has so behaved himself hitherto as
in the camp a portable altar and tabernacle and priests and deacons attending it for celebration of divine mysteries how much also he honoured the holy monk S. Anthony for the great austerities of his life how he would have all conciliar decisions to be regarded as most sirm and unalterable and that he would not undertake the judgment of ecclesiastical causes and that he had great veneration for the sign of the Cross. These and such like things speaks Zozomen So likewis that Churches and Altars were consecrated in the time of Constantin the Great with the sign of the Cross and sprinkling of holy water amongst other Catholik rites and ceremonies is witnessed by S. Austin and S. Bede That Constatin the Emperour translated to Constantinople the holy reliques of S. Andrew S. Luke and S. Timothy at which the devils even audibly yelled and roared out is asserted by S. Jerom. That the Emperour in all his glory went to kiss the Martyrs Sepulchres humbly praying those Saints that they wou'd be intercessoars to God for him is told us by S. Chrysostom And lastly that in Constantins dayes the Popes authority was acknowledged and reverenced is apparent by the great Synod of Arles then celebrated who decreeing that Easter should be uniformly kept intreated Pope Sylvester to direct his letters according to the Churches custom all the world over for that end Nay the Century writers of Magdeburg enemies of the Catholik Church and so renowned Protestants that they have been stiled by their followers Men worthy of eternal memory even these do write of Constantin though with a design to diminish his honour that he appointed a great holiday for the temples dedication which we in English call a Wake that he favoured consecrations and superstitious exornations of Churches that he with other Christians in those times met for Gods service only in consecrated places that he would have candles to burn in Churches in the day time that superstitiously he sent to Constantinople some reliques of the Cross found by his mother Helena for the prefervation of the City that in Constantins time pilgrimages were much in use and that his mother Helena went to the holy land to worship that Priests were forbid to marry by the Synod of Arles in the time of Emperour Constantin and Pope Sylvester that both under Constantin and long before his time were both Monks and Nuns spread all over Asia Syria Palestin Aegypt Bithynia c. that Constantin did so reverence Byshops that he would not sit amongst them in the Nicen Councel but in a lower seat That the said Emperour checked Akesius for denying Priests to have power of forgiving sins bidding him set up a ladder for himself and go up to heaven his own way all alone and lastly that after his death they poured out tears and prayes every where for the Emperours soul. And other Protestant writers many of them since as Napper for example in an English treatise upon the Revelations and Frigivillaeus in a latin one called Palma Christiana dedicated to Queen Elizabeth convinced by so palpable testimonies every where obvious acknowledg the Christian Church in Constantins time to have been wholly Papistical After the year of God three hundred saith Napper the Emperour Constantin subjugated all Christian Churches to Pope Sylvester from which time till these our dayes the Pope and his Clergy have possessed the outward visible Church And Frigivillaeus in his wrath calls therupon the noble Emperour Constantin the great Dragon who gave power to the Beast Take it all in their own words Thus Eusebius Ab omni licentiâ vitae luxu diffluente sese vocavit inediâ corporis afflictione seipsum coercuit imperator l. 2. de vitâ Constantini c. 14. Atque interdum vultum salutari illâ signavit not â l. 3. c. 2. Imperator triumphale signum honoravit and again In qua parte istud crucis vexillum visum fuit hostes fugam capere victores persequi Quâ re intellect â imperator sicubi partem aliquam sui exercitus languentem cernebat ibi salutare illud vexillum tanquam quoddam subsidium ad victoriam obtinendam locari mandavit cujus adjumentis extemplò parta est victoria quippe dimicantium vires divina quadam potenti â suere admodum confirmatae l. 2. c. 7. Civitatem multis templis in honorem martyrum illustrissimisque aedibus sacris adornavit l. 3. c. 47. Cùm parva quaedam sella ex auro fabrificata illi esset loco posita non prius consedit quà m episcopi ad id annuissent l. 3. c. 10. Apostolorum templum ad perpetuam illorum memoriam conservandam aedificare caepit l. 4. c. 58. In oportunum ventura mortis diem hic locum sibi provida dispensatione designavit ut defunctus quoque precationum quae ibidem essent ad apostolorum gloriam offerendae particeps efficeretur l. 4. c. 60. Sacerdotes alii qui horum nihil poterant efficere incruentis consecrationibus divinum numen placabant supplices Deo preces offerebant pro communi pace pro ecclesia Dei ipsoque imperatore l. 4. c. 45. Humi procumbens genibus in ipsa martyrum aede errata sua confessus est c. Adhuc quidem licet contemplari ter beatae animae tumulum divinis ceremoniis mystico sacrificio sanctarumque precationum societate perfrui l. 4. c. 61. 71. Thus Zozomen Tabernaculum ecclesiae figuram exprimens cùm contra hostes praelio contenderet secum circumferre consuevit imperator Constantinus ad eum sinem uti neque sibi in soiitudine agenti neque exercitui deesset aedes sacra c. Sacerdotes diaconi tabernaculum assiduè secuti sunt l. 1. c. 8. Antonium magum illum monachum in solitudinibus AEgypti magnâ cum nominis famae celebritate vitam degentem Constantinus imperator propter ejus virtutis splendorem sibi amicum fecit literas honorificè scriptas ad eum misit l. 1. c. 13. Jussit Constantinus ut Conciliorum decisiones firmae immutabiles existerent l. 1. c. 9. Mihi verò non est fas cùm homo sim ejusmodi causarum cognitionem arrogare l. 1. c. 16. Sanctae cruci plurimum tribuit honoris tum propter subsidia in bello contra hostes gerendo ex ejus virtute sibi allatâ tum propter divinam sibi de câ oblatam visionem l. 1. c. 8. Thus the other Fathers Crucis character◠basilicae dedicantur altaria consecrantur Aug. serm 19. de sanctis Bed l. 1. c. 30. l. 5. c. 4. Constantinus imperator sanctas reliquias Andreae Lucae Timothei transtulit Constantinopolin ad quas daemones rugiunt Hieron contra Vig. Nam ipse qui purpuram inductus est accedit illa amplexus sepulchra fastu deposito stat sanctis supplicaturus ut pro se ad Deum intercedat Chrys. hom 26. in ep 2. Cor. De observatione Paschae Domini constitutum est in hac Synodo ut uno