almost from the very beginning of the Church This is not a novelty then As for Papal Superiority the Protestant Centuriators acknowledg That in the fift age of the Church above a thousand years ago the Roman Byshops applyed themselves to establish dominion over other Churches and That they usurped to themselves right of granting priviledges and ornaments to other Archbyshops and That they confirmed Archbyshops in their Sees and That they deposed and excommunicated some and absolved others That they arrogated power to themselves of citing other Archbyshops to declare their caus before them That against a byshop appealing to the Apostolick See nothing should be determined but what the byshop of Rome censured That they appointed their legates in remote Provinces challenging autority to hear and determin all uprising controversies especially in questions of faith That they took upon them power of appointing general councels and to preside therein either by themselves or their deputies rejecting for unlawful those Synods that were called without their authority They also adde in the same century That Roman Byshops had flatterers in those times who affirmed that without permission of the Roman byshop none might undertake the person of a judge Nay forgetting themselves they averre in the same century Collat. 775. That antiquity had attributed the principality of Priesthood to the Roman byshop above all I could alledg also the like confession of Beza Mr. Whitgift and Cartwright but those eminent Protestant Centuriators may serv for all who testifie further in that fifth century That Victor called the Roman Church the head of all Churches That Turbius Asturiensis flattered Pope Leo and acknowledged his superiority That sometimes byshops condemned in Synods appealed to the See of Rome as did say they Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople in the Councel of Ephesus and that Councels also requested to have their acts confirmed by the byshop of Rome And so indeed did not only Flavianus appeal to Pope Leo but Talida Patriarch of Alexandria deposed by the Emperour Zeno appealed also to Pope Simplicius S. Athanasius to Pope Julius c. So did the Councel of Chalcedon request to be confirmed by Pope Leo the Councel of Carthage by Pope Innocent the Councel of Ephesus by Pope Celestin c. The like superiority of the Roman byshop not only over the neighbour Churches and Byshops of Italy but over remote provinces and the greatest Archbyshops and Patriarks of the world is acknowledged by Protestants to have been practised also before that in the fourth age when the Church first lift up her head by favour of Constantine the great and appeared openly in the world In this age say the Centuriators the mystery of iniquity was not idle And they say also that then the byshop of Rome challenged by ecclesiastical canon the disallowing of those Synods whereat they were absent That Theodoret a greek father who lived about the latter end of this age deposed by the Councel of Ephesus was restored to his byshoprick by Pope Leo unto whom he had made his appeal and that S. Chrysostom appealed likewise to Pope Innocentius who thereupon decreed his adversary Theophilus to be excommunicated and deposed That the famous and ancient Councel of Sardis consisting of above 300. byshops assembled from Spain France Italy Sardinia Greece Egypt Thebais Lybia Palestin Arabia and sundry other places of the world and wherat sundry fathers of the Nicen Councel were present decreed appeals to the byshop of Rome for which fact the Centuriators blame the said councel as do also Osiander Calvin Peter Martyr and others And lastly that wheras the Arrians had expelled Athanasius byshop of Alexandria Paulus byshop of Constantinople and other Catholick byshops of the East and brought their accusation to Julius then byshop of Rome that he might ratifie what they had done he the said byshop summoned Athanasius according to the canons and when he had heard all sides speak he restored Athanasius and his fellow byshops to their own place fretus ecclesiae Romanae praerogativa as the Centurists there speak In the age before this when raging persecution obscured both the government and most of the written monuments of that time yet want there not monuments of the Popes power in confirming deposing restoring byshops Then it was that S. Cyprian as himself testifies moved Pope Stephen by his letters to depose Martianus from his byshoprick and appoint another in his place and he tells us likewise in his fourth epistle how Basilides went to Rome hoping to beguile Pope Stephen then ignorant of the whole matter so to procure himself to be restored to his byshoprick from which he had been justly saith S. Cyprian deposed In this age the foresaid learned Centuriators reprove Pope Stephen for his undertaking to threaten excommunication to Helenus and Firmiltanus and all others throughout Cilicia Cappadocia and Asia for rebaptizing hereticks they reprove also as became Protestants to do both S. Cyprian and Tertullian in this point Tertullian for saying that the keyes were committed to S. Peter and the Church built on him S. Cyprian for affirming the Church to be built upon S. Peter and one chair founded by our Lords voice upon the rock for calling Peters chair the principal Church from whence Priestly unity ariseth and for saying that there ought to be one byshop in the Catholik Church and that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other for the mother and root of the Catholik Church In the second age the next after the apostles wherof fewer monuments remain yet be there some testimonies of this superiority acknowledged even by Protestants Pope Victor is owned even by our Mr. Whitgift in his defence to be a godly byshop and martyr and the Church in his time in great purity not being long after the apostles times and yet Amandus Polonus a Protestant Professour at Basil sayes in his theological thesis of the same Pope Victor That he shewed a Papal mind and arrogancy and Mr. Spark in his answer against John Albines thinks him somewhat Pope-like to have exceeded his bounds when he took upon him to excommunicate the byshops of the East and Whitaker charges him with exercising jurisdiction upon other Churches So that these three Protestants discerned a papal power even in this second pure age of the Church although they liked it not But the Protestant Centuriators do much except against a saying of S. Irenaeus who lived in this age next after the apostles and might well remember the apostles own lively preachings as Hamelmannus a Protestant writer in his book of traditions speaks both of Irenaeus and Polycarp recorded in the third chapter of his third book Ad hanc enim ecclesiam Romanam propter potentiorem principalit atem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam It is necessary that every other Church saith Irenaeus comply with the Roman by reason of her greater principality First becaus he sayes it is necessary secondly that every Church thirdly for
festum admodum solennem ad celebrandam dedicationem templi indixit Cent. 4. coll 452. Templorum recens extructorum consecrationes exornationes superbas aliaque superstitiosa quorum maximam partem Constantinus excogitavit in multas ecclesias propagavit coll 497. Christianos in templis nondum consecratis non convenisse clarè indicat Athanasius coll 408. Accensiones candelarum interdiu in templis Constantinus instituit coll 497. Plane simili superstitione Constantinus reliquias quasdam de cruce ab Helenâ repertâ Constantinopolinin dicitur transtulisse ut esset ejus urbis conservatrix coll 1529. Caeperunt hoc saeculo primùm sub Constantino loca terrae sanctae c. in pretio haberi c. Helena mater imperatoris mulier superstitiosa illuc profecta est adorandi causâ coll 457. Secunda Synodus celebrata est Constantini imperatoris Sybvestri tempore c. ubi can 2. dicitur Assumi aliquem ad sacerdotium in vinculo conjugii constitutum nisi fuerit promissa conversio non oportet coll 704. Fuisse etiam ante Constantinum virgines seu mulieres continentes castitatem perpetuam professas ex libro quarto Fusebii de vita Constantini apparet ubi magnopere approbasse disciplinam ejusmodi imperatorem Constantinum affirmat adeo ut frequenter eorum contubernium adierit Helenam vero Constantini matrem Hierosolymis virgines Deo sacras reperisse Socrates testatur quarum professionem usque adeo probarit ut ministram illis sese praebuerit coll 467. Monachi per Syriam Palestinam Bythiniam reliqua Asiae loca sub Constantino magno coll 1294. Notum est quam reverentiam observantiam episcopis habuerit Constantinus in Synodo Nicaena ubi nec consedere prius quam episcopi annuissent voluit coll 460. Ad poenitentiam admoneri homines spem verò remissionis non à sacerdotibus sed 〈◊〉 ipso Deo expectaâ—e c. Cù haec dixisset Acesius subjunxit imperator Pone scalam ô Acesi solus ascende in coelum coll 653. Turba frequens preces cum fletu pro animâ imperatoris fudit coll 454. Thus Frigivillaeus Gauvius Constantinus tribuit Romano episcopo primatum ante omnes And again Ex eo apparet satale fuisse ut Constantinus daret potestatem bestiae quâm statim Julius exercuit Nam etiam Constantinus magnus ferebat arma draconis in insignis suis c. ita ut ipse sit draco qui dedit potestatem bestiae typus draconis serpentis antiqui Apoc. 13. qui bestiae potestatem dedit These words are in his Palma p. 34. And the same Centurists learned and industrious Protestants do manifesty acknowledg although they also dislike it even in that fourth age above thirteen hundred years ago when the Christian Church first lift up her head in the world all in a manner practices beleef and rites yet held in the Roman Church and utterly now abolisht by the Protestant reformation as then in vogue amongst the prelates and people of those times for example the Primacy of the byshop of Rome deduced by divine right from that of S. Peter coll 515.551.556.458 the single life of Priests 616.486 the sumptuousnes of consecrating Churches and celebrating Masses in hallowed places 497. the rites used in ordination of deacons subdeacons acolytes exorcists readers door-keepers and in the unction and consecration of Priests 873 874.435 ecclesiastical vestments the alb the stole Dalmatick cope mytre 504.876.835 saying of prayers upon little stones or beads coll 1329. worshipping and estimation of the Cross 302. praying towards the East 432. canonical hours 433. mattins in the night 459. solemn funeral rites and prayer for the souls of the deceased 453 454 455. Priests blessing of the bride and bridegroom after marriage 453. prohibition of marriage as well as eating of flesh in Lent 453.441 consecration of monks and monasteries 466. vowed chastity poverty and abstinence anchorets hermits their cells and austerity of life 470.488.300 301.471.474 Images in the Church and candles there burning in the day time 409 410. solemn translation of Saints relicks and placing them under the altar with pilgrimages to them wherat sick persons were miraculously cured 456 457.602 consecration of baptismal water and confirmation by a byshop with chrysme 415.420.865 sign of the cross in baptisme and exorcismes 421.417 Free-will interiour justification and merit of good works 291 292 293. confession of sins to a priest pennance and absolution with imposition of hands 425.834 unwritten traditions 299. invocation of Saints 295. Purgatory 304. altars consecrated with the sign of the cross and chrisme called the sâ—at of Christs body and blood 409. real presence and transubstantiation 209.985 the reservation of that sacrament and offering it up a sacrifice to God propitiatory both for the living and dead 427.430.985 challice coverings and holy vessels which lay people might not touch 490.835 mixtur of water with wine in the chalice in time of consecration 480. In a word all things which the Roman Catholik Church now beleevs and practises contrary to themselves are acknowledged by those learned Protestants in that fourth age to be so spread over the face of Christianity that many others of the same beleef with them have not feared to say that the Church in those dayes when she first lift up her head in the world was Antichristian and Papistical Popery then is no such novelty as Dr. Taylor imagines or would have us at least imagin it to be The Disswasives second Chapter That the Church of Rome uses doctrins and practices that are directly or by consequent impious and give warranty to a wicked life IS declared in 12. Sections For the Roman doctrin teaches saith he that a sinner is not bound presently to repent and that contrition is of it self of no value Sect. 1. Teaches also a confession that is frivolous and either of ill or no consequence sect 2. Teaches a pennance that is ineffective sect 3. Teaches Indulgences of no use sect 4. Teaches other assertions attending hereon both fals and wicked as that a habit of sin is no sin and that one sin is venial another mortal sect 5. Teaches that a probable opinion may safely be followed sect 6. Teaches fond battologies and prayers without attention sect 7. Teaches prayer to dead men sect 8. Teaches fond and wicked exorisations and incantations sect 9. Teaches new Sacraments without warrant sect 10. Teaches image-worship against good life and vertue sect 11. Lastly teaches the abuse of faith hope and charity And so is demonstrated your Disswaders second plea against Papists But to answer all this in a word The Roman Church or Catholik faith teaches none of this His third Chapter That the Roman Church teaches doctrins destructive of Christian society and monarchy IS shown in three sections First she teaches it is lawful to lye and speak falsities Secondly she does intollerable prejudice to government by exemption of Clergy Thirdly subjects Princes to the Pope and separateth wives from husbands and
the pen of her own ungrateful Scribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What Doctour Taylor against Popery And such a Disswasive as this But my amazement Sir is now blown over The Doctour appeared to me after some serious thoughts to be for a special reason that touches none so much as himself in some manner excusable That none should love Popery or ever come to know it concerns not only his wealth and dignity and life of ease which is the common caus of others also with himself but all the honour and fame he hath hitherto got by transcribing popish as now he calls but in former times named Catholik authors For having bin twenty years and upwards deeply plunged in reading and transcribing som of the in-numerous spiritual books that are amongst Catholiks not only in Latin but other languages of several Kingdoms where that Religion flourishes he hath culled out thence many fine treatises which he hath set forth in his own name and language to his much renown and no small wealth and dignity amongst us Nor is it to be doubted but that he means for his yet further glory reaped from other mens labours and that spirit of piety which thence he got into his own pen to write out yet one book more The same store-house that furnished him with the life of Christ will dictate to him also the lives of his twelve Apostles and many other raptures of divine love and heavenly devotion And if people be but kept from Popery as he hopes and labours they may it will never be known whence he gathers those his fragrant pieties It was not handsom yet a piece of wisdom it was in the Grecian Cynick to spit in the dish which pleased him best lest others should taste how good it was and deprive him therby of som of his content This book of Doctour Taylors called a Disswasive printed in Dublin and as I understand reprinted here in London I suppose in the very same words by reason of the Authors absence is large enough containing 173 pages in quarto marvellously bitter and contumeliously insulting over that Religion which he cannot but know he misreports Indeed Sir there is more popery in one page of Dr. Taylors Life of Christ which he transcribed from popish Authors than is in all this whole book which he writes against those Authors popery that is owned by them to be their religion all this he puts upon them under the notion of popery throughout his whole hundred and seventy three pages except haply som three or four words whose sence also he perverts no Catholik upon earth acknowledges for any parcel of his faith Is not this strange disingenuous dealing How he comes to act thus and what is the feat he makes use of to discolour their Religion you shall hear by and by when I have first opened his book and the things contained in it His Disswasive hath three chapters and each chapter several sections The first chapter is intitled thus The Doctrin of the Roman Church in the controverted articles is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive The second thus The Church of Rome as it is at this day disordered teaches doctrins and uses practices which are in themselvs or in their true and immediat consequences direct impieties and give warranty to a wicked life The third thus The Church of Rome teaches doctrins which in many things are destructive of Christian society in general and of Monarchy in special both which the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland does by her doctrins greatly and Christianly support These three be things of importance and must either be great notorious crimes in the Defendant or monstrous slanders in the Plaintiff A Religion that is new impious and unsociable that is against antiquity piety and society is hardly good enough for Hell Who is he that shall dare to profess or countenance such a religion upon earth But let us see in order how all this is demonstrated to us by an old pious and sociable Doctour His first Chapter First then That the doctrin of the Roman Church in the controverted Articles is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive he declares in eleven sections which make up that his first chapter First section sayes that the Roman Church pretends a power to make new Articles of faith and doubtles uses that power and for that end corrupts the Fathers and makes expurgatory Indices to alter their works The second that this power of making new articles is a novelty and yet beleeved by Papists Third that the Roman doctrin of Indulgences is unknown to antiquity Fourth that Purgatory is another novelty Fift Transubstantiation another Sixt Half-communion another Seventh Liturgy in an unknown tongue another Eighth Veneration of Images the like Ninth Pictures the same Tenth the Popes general Episcopacy likewise And the eleventh and last speaks almost as many more all of a heap to make up his one last section as Invocation of Saints sufficiency of scriptures absolving sinners before pennance simple Priests giving Confirmation selling Masses for nine pence circumgestation of the Eucharist intention in Sacraments Mass-sacrifice and supper without Communion All this is Popery all new and therfor the Roman Church is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive This is the sum of his first Chapter What in the name of God does this Author of the Disswasive your learned Doctour mean by the Church of Rome and by the doctrin of the Roman Church This Sir is a main busines and ought if he had meant sincerity to have been firmly stated before any thing were treated either of the one or the other But this he utterly here omits which he should principally have heeded that he may speak loosely and hand over head any thing he may deem fit to black his own paper and other mens fame If he take them as he ought the Church of Rome for that universality of Catholik beleevers who live in several kingdoms of the world united in faith and sacraments under the Spirit of Jesus Christ and one visible Pastour and the doctrin of that Church for the body of faith and religion handed to them from age to age as taught and delivered from Christ and his Apostles which they call in the phrase of St. Paul Depositum fidei or treasure of faith I say if he mean this by the Roman Church and doctrin of that Church as he ought to do I will be bold to aver that ther is not any one claus or period in his book true and three parts of his book absolutely impertinent If he mean otherwis then Catholiks themselvs conceiv or profess he was bound in honour to make his mind known that the renown of an innocent Religion and worthy persons might not suffer prejudice by his ambiguous speech But perhaps he studied how to abuse that Religion that he may be thought worthy of the dignity and wealth he has now obtained in another slipt our of it But concerning the way he takes to
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 it hath suffered in one age since or the like But that all
he such an immediate head to all beleevers or no if he be to all then is no man to be governed in affairs of religion by any other man and Presbyterian Ministers are as needless as either Catholik or Protestant byshops On the other side if he be not immediate head to all but ministers head the people and Christ heads the ministers this in effect is nothing els but to make every minister a byshop Why do you not plainly say what it is more than manifest you would have All this while you heed no more the laws of the land than constitutions of gospel As for gospel That Lord who had been visible governour and pastour of his flock on earth when he was now to depart hence as all the apostles expected one to be chosen to succeed him in his care so did he notwithstanding his own invisible presence and providence over his flock publikly appoint one And when he taught them that he who were greatest among them should be as the least he did not deny but suppose one greater and taught in one and the same breath both that he was over them and for what he was over them namely to feed not to tyrannize not to domineer abuse and hurt but to direct comfort and conduct his flock in all humility and tendernes as the servant of all their spiritual necessities And if a byshop be otherwise affected it is the fault of his person not his place As for the laws of the land it is there most strongly decreed by the consent and autority of the whole Kingdom not only that byshops are over ministers but that the Kings majesty is head of byshops also in the line of hierarchy from whose hand they receiv both their place and jurisdiction This was establisht not onely by one but several acts and constitutions both in the reign of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth So that by the laws of the land ther be two greeces between ministers and Christ which you cut off to the end you may secretly usurp the autority and place of both to the overthrow at once both of gospel and our law too By the laws of our land our series of ecclesiastical government stands thus God Christ King Byshop Ministers People the Presbyterian predicament is this God Christ Minister People So that the Ministers head in the Presbyterian predicament touches Christs feet immediately and nothing intervenes You pretend indeed that hereby you do exalt Christ but this is a meer cheat as all men may see with their eyes for Christ is but where he was but the minister indeed is exalted being now set in the Kings place one degree higher than the byshops who by the law is under both King and byshop too You will here say to me What is the Papists line of Church government There the Pope must sit next Christ and Kings under his feet Sir I have not time in this short letter to discours this subject as it deserves Nor does it now concern me who have no more here to say than only this that my argument for prelacy howsoever in your words you may disable it is not weakned by you in deeds at all and as far as I can perceiv not understood Yet two things I shall tell you over and above what I need in this affair also First is that Roman catholiks do more truly and cordially acknowledg the respective Christian King of any Kingdom to be supream head of his catholik subjects even in affairs of religion than any other whether Independents Presbyterians or even prelate Protestants have if we speak of truth and reality ever done And this I could easily make good both by the laws and practises of all catholik kingdoms upon earth in any age on one side and the opposite practises of all Protestants on the other Second is that for what reasons Roman catholiks deny a prince to be head of the Church for the same ought all others as they deny it in deeds so if they would speak sincerely as they think and act to deny it in words also as well as they For catholiks do beleev him to be head of the Church from whom the channel of religion and all direction in it is derived and flows for which reason a spring is said to be head of a river But neither does any King upon earth except he be priest and prophet too ever trouble himself to derive religion as the Pope has ever don neither does either Protestant Presbyterian or Independent either in England or elswhere ever seek for religion from the lips of the king or supplicate unto him when any doubt arises in those affairs as they ought in conscience and honesty to do for a final decision any more than the Roman catholik does So that whatever any of them may say all Protestants do as much deny the thing in their behaviour as catholiks do in words and catholiks do in their behaviour observ as much as Protestants either practise or pretend What is the reason that Roman catholiks in all occurring difficulties of faith both have their recours unto their papal Pastour unto whom Kings themselvs remit them and acquiesce also to his decision and judgment but only becaus they beleev him to be head of the Church And if Protestants have no such recours nor will not acquiesce to his Majesties autority in affairs of religion but proceed to wars and quarrels without end the prince neglected as wholly unconcerned in those resolvs they do as manifestly deny his headship as if they profest none Nay to acknowledg a headship in words and deny it in deeds is but mockery By these two words Sir it may appear that the Kings majesty is as much head of the Church to Roman Catholiks as to any Protestants and these no more than they either derive religion or decision of their doubts from the kings chair i th interim it is a shame and general scandal to the whole world that we in England should neither supplicate nor acquiesce in affairs of religion to his Majesties judgment whom in words we acknowledg head of the Church but fight and quarrel without end and yet have the confidence to upbraid Roman catholiks with a contrary beleef who although they ever looked upon their papal patriarch as spiritual head and pastour and deriver of their faith unto whom they so submit that he who after his decision remains contumacious forfeits his Christianity yet have they notwithstanding in all ages and kingdoms resigned with a most ready cordial reverence unto all decisions orders and acts of their temporal princes even in spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs as well as civil so far as their laws reached as supreme head and governours of their respective kingdoms And all kings and princes find in a very short space however others may utter hypocritical words of flattery that indeed none but catholik subjects do heed and fear and observ them universally in all whatever their commands being taught
determining in such affairs Nor is ther any the least mention either in Luther's resistance or Leo his censure about constituting new articles but only deciding the old which Luther would have thought to be erroneous however strengthened by antiquity and from which old errours he would make himself a reformation and innovation by the right which was in himself not subjected to any man no not to the Pope himself in those affairs Is this a mistake think you in your Disswader or somthing wors Truly I cannot think he was so ignorant The like insincerity doth this your Disswader exhibit in all that his talk of the Catholiks dealing with the Fathers works and the indexes or tables adjoyned to them jumbling his words so confusedly together that his reader might beleev that to be don to the Fathers writings themselvs which the Churches care provided to be done to the false glosses tables and indexes annexed to those writings and that to be taken out of those writings which ever was and still is in them and Printers and Correctours complaining of that fault of making alterations in the Fathers Editions which they did not so much as think of Which is a most stupendious insincerity And thus saith he are the Fathers maimed and curtailed by Papists insomuch that Sixtus Senensis praises Pope Pius 5. for this his car ein purging the Fathers works I say this whole talk of his is most prodigiously unjust For that Index Expurgatorius extended not to any writings or works of the Fathers but only to the marginal notes and false glosses and indexes or tables put to them by the hereticks and therfor are Tertullian Origen and some others still printed intire though ther be not a few things in them contrary to Catholik faith And this the very words of Junius a Correctour of a Press cited by the Doctour clearly intimates What saith he Papists dare not do with the Fathers they practise upon us he means Protestant printers and writers and with their little forks thrust out our annotations in the margent and our sayings in the indices although they be consonant to the Fathers minds But saith he this care was so great in Pius 5. that Sixtus Senensis commends the Pope for his industry in purging the Fathers works He did so indeed but if the Doctour had spoken out the sentence he had betrayed his own false heart which he would not willingly do Expurgari saith Senensis emaculari curasti omnium Catholicorum Scriptorum ac praecipue veterum Patrum scripta haereticorum aetatis nostrae faecibus contaminata venenis infecta Your Doctour our Disswader makes Senensis praise the Pope for his purging the Fathers as though he had scowred and scraped off the substance whereas he commended him only for his care in cleansing them from the infectious notes and glosses superadded to them by the hereticks of our times But Sir that I may tell you once for all The falsifications of Authours perverted by this your Disswader are so many so notorious and gross ones that in the very relating them I shall tire both my self and you My design is only to let you know that this whole work of his Disswasive from Popery if the proofs and citations he brings for his talk were true as they are all false signifies nothing at all Two worthy Catholik Gentlemen have discovered by the help of the Libraries in London and Oxford so many most gross falsifications one of them a hundred and fifty the other yet more and greater that it cannot but amaze an honest minded reader to behold them Pray read them Sir and ponder seriously and so rid of that trouble I shall make the more haste in my own design It was their endeavour it seems to show him to be dishonest mine is only to prove him impertinent God reward them for their pains and help me in mine For my hand denies me now his office not able to write with that facility it was wont But becaus I saw no abler pen to appear as I thought they would in the confutation of this slanderous book I judged it my part Sir to give you som general hints of light concerning it till there might issue som more plenary confutation by a better hand And here Sir you must know too that I had no sooner finished this my Epistle but that I understood of another book against this Doctour Taylors Disswasive a very solid book written by Ja. Ser. in order to his own book called Sure-Footing lately set forth which made me doubt for a while whether I should let this of mine appear especially when I considered the industry care and solidity of those three men the last wherof had so taken up what the other two had left for me to say and so utterly confounded this Disswasive that I might well be silent But I remembred a story which I had sometime read in holy writ of Joas the King of Israel who coming to visit Elizeus the Prophet when he lay sick on his death-bed was bid by him for his encouragement against his enemies to strike the ground with the javelin he had in his hand Joas at his word struck the floor three times But the holy man of God was angry with him and said If thou hadst struck five or six or seven times thou hadst smote Syria even to an utter consummation but now thou shalt smite it but thrice So very faulty is this Disswasive that it cannot be smote too often even to an utter consummation § 2 Which is about a leash of new Articles Sayes that in the Church of Rome faith and Christianity encreas like the moon and that ther be now two new articles of faith a coining namely the immaculate Conception and the Popes being above the Councel and one other lately produced in the Councel of Trent sess 21. which is That although the antient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants yet they did not beleev it necessary to salvation Which decree is saith he beyond all bounds of modesty and evident truth Here your Doctour tells news of one Article lately made and two more a coining which will shortly be out of the mint both which news he knows but we know not Indeed Sir this section belongs more to a writer of Diurnals or weakly Intelligencer than to a Doctour of Divinity And therfor at the reading of it I turned suddenly to the frontispiece of the book to see whose Imprimatur it had to it And I found it licensed not by Mr. l' Estrange but Geo. Stradling First then he tells us news to come and then news past A pair of faith articles are now he saith in the mint and will shortly come forth The Virgins immaculate Conception and the Popes being above a Councel But how can your Disswader say that these two are shortly to com forth wheras in this very section he tells us a little afterward that the Councel of Basil decreed the second Article against the
defend all the new curious and scandalous questions and to uphold the gainfull trade Thus heavily poor man does your Disswader complain of the Councels silence in those philosophical points neither resolving the doubts nor so much as explicating the terms therof that he might understand what is superstitious and what is scandalous and what they mean by Indulgence and what by curious and the like hard words i th' interim while the Councel sends him to school to learn the meaning of those hard words and the result of those disputes which belonging not to faith make little to edification and from whence no accession to piety can be made nor indeed any useful knowledg all your Disswaders sport is spoiled And he has som reason indeed to complain and weep But I pray you Sir consider If I have a releasement granted me from som temporal penalties due to my misdoings what does it concern me to know whether that releasement be a substance or an accident whether it be in the predicament of quantity or quality whether it be a solution or absolution whether it be from power or bounty whether it issue as out of a treasure or from a tribunal or the like The Schoolmen whence your Doctour picked those curious questions would I am sure have acquainted him with their opinions concerning all such things if he had staid to read their answers But he was in haste and indeed it concerned him not to know their resolution He had enough to pick out their philosophicall prattle in the general heads of it which becaus it is found in the school-books of such as are Catholik beleevers he makes no doubt but the very naming of it will suffice to perswade the Land that it is all popish doctrin and Popery and that Papists cannot agree in it and that it is new Indeed Sir he has great need to go to school to those Doctours not only to hear their resolutions but to understand the very terms of the question For had he known what those very words of solution and absolution mean he had never added that absurd interpretation of his own which he give p. 20. It is a very strange thing saith he a solution not an absolution that is the sinner is let go free without punishment in this world or world to come a wise interpretation of a pittiful Divine But I cannot stand here to give notice of his special mistakes simple inferences vain insultings and particular falsifications all which are gross and various I do only assure you Sir that if he mean by Popery the Religion and faith of Roman Catholiks concerning this busines of Indulgences in one period above named he approves establishes and ratifies it all And in all the rest he sayes nothing against it and indeed nothing at all to it For the subtile curious theories that are made by wits upon this subject over and above what their faith extends unto as well as in all other things even from the worlds first creation to its final consummation all whatever is contained in the whole Bible about which they have raised many thousands of disputes over and above that which is there plainly delivered by their faith these for such as are at leasure and love them may serve for Academick exercise and discours The disorders and abuses that have been in this as well as other affairs all good men and sacred Councels have laboured to their power to suppress and rectifie And are ther not abuses of all kinds in the Protestant world notwithstanding any endeavors to the contrary But the faith that is in this point and all the whole practice of it Catholiks still hold and Protestants have forsaken it For these have neither confession of sins nor pennance for those sins confest nor indulgence of any such pennances injoyned as Catholiks have Indeed the Prelat Protestant keeps still one ancient custom of commuting as they call it which is but a new word for Indulgence when the pennance of standing in a white sheet for one kind of sin imposed is upon som considerations released For although the Reformation have taught that Matrimony is no Sacrament but a meer secular contract yet Ministers I know not how keep still that Spiritual Court as they call it unto themselves as being it seems the only men that are able to judg in those affairs But there be other sins that require pennance and satisfaction besides that one and other pennance besides a white sheet to be commuted § 4. Which is about Purgatory Sayes that Purgatory is another ill novelty both becaus the Greek Fathers never make any mention of Purgatory and also becaus the doctrins on which it is built are either fals or at least dubious as that there is distinction betwixt mortal sins and venial that sin may be taken away the obligation to punishment remaining that God requires of us a full exchange of pennances for the pleasure of sin notwithstanding Christ suffering for us But Papists are deceived in this point upon two mistakes the first wherof is that ancient Fathers used to pray for the dead but they prayed not in relation to Purgatory and so the Church of England allows to pray for the departed namely as the Fathers did The second is that the Fathers speak of a fire of purgation after this life which was but an opinion of such a thing after the day of judgment And this is also refuted by those other Fathers who hold the souls to be kept in secret receptacles untill dooms-day which opinion cannot stand with Purgatory Beside St. Austin in his time doubted whether Purgatory was or no. And though ancient Fathers speak much of intermedial states and purgations and fires and common receptacles and delivery of souls yet they never agreed throughout with the Church of Rome But Papists have been brought into this beleef by frightful relations of apparitions which the wiser sort beleev not And Tertullian denies that the souls of the dead do ever appear How the Greek Church denies this purgatory doctrin appears in the Councel of Florence Moreover S. Cyprian and others teach against it that after death is no place for pennance no purgation and no less holy scripture who saith Blessed are those who dye in the Lord. What a rapsody of stuff is here Papists gathered this doctrin of Purgatory out of fals grounds Papists have been frighted into this doctrin of Purgatory by apparitions The Fathers speak of a fire of purgation after this life but they meant not as Papists do The Fathers held secret receptacles for souls until dooms-day but that cannot stand with Papists Purgatory though they speak much of intermedial states yet that does not agree throughout with the Roman doctrin of Purgatory And blessed are the dead for they â—est from their labours Blessed surely had your Disswader been if he had rested from his labours too Sir if your Disswader had meant to say any thing to the purpos in this affair he
but lost with som grief may not burn and afflict them in that place of expiation as well as other venial offences and be som part of the wood hay and straw the Apostle mentions And truly the doubt is very rational and remains still a doubt But when your Disswader takes hereupon occasion to say that St. Austin doubted Purgatory I cannot doubt but that he wanted either sincerity in his heart or eyes in his head But in the time of Otho in the twelfth age of the Church the doctrin of Purgatory was got no further than a Quidam asserunt Some say so Sir Otho here cited to say quidam asserunt speaks not at all of any expiation after death as your Disswader would have us think but after judgment which som divines in those dayes held over and above that which their faith had delivered which opinion had then but a some say so for it as it hath also now and it was then and is now but a philosophical opinion Can you beleev your Disswader did not see this It was truly if he did see it a gross and inexcusable insincerity to make Otho say it was only the opinion of som that ther was a purgation after death who expresly treats of that particular opinion concerning a purgation after judgment which their faith and religion did not reach unto But as I told you before I must not insist upon your Disswaders falsifications however they be various and very gross becaus that work is well don already and my design looks another way As he is to blame for making som Fathers think and speak what they did not so is he while he makes all the Fathers in general to acknowledg and practise as much in this point as any Roman Catholik beleevs and yet addes withall that those Fathers notwithstanding agreed not with the Roman doctrin which himself never declares what it is most palpably ridiculous But the doctrin of Purgatory is grounded saith your Disswader upon false principles as upon a supposed distinction betwixt venial sins and mortal between sin and its obligation to punishment c. Sir if we would speak properly neither is this beleef of future expiations nor any other point of Catholik Religion to be called a doctrin or opinion or judgment of som divines or all divines or any such like thing For it is the faith as well of divines as other Christians unto which they as well as these submit all equally with the same resignation and no doctrin of any mans Upon the pin of this one mistake if it be a mistake and not rather a malicious wilfulness hangs all this your Doctors Disswasive which being removed all his whole book falls to the ground And therfor it were worth the labour to discours more copiously upon this subject which all Anticatholiks either understand not or dissemble that they may have the more ample field of scholastical Divines and som rotten Casuists to ride a hunting in when they chase Popery which the world must beleev to be a doctrin of divines And this doctrin must not be the doctrin of any one of their schools much less of all their schools but of this or that obscure man who followed no school at all nor any good thing that he delivered but som uncouth odd speech unheedfully dropt from his pen nor this candidly delivered neither as he spoke it but wrested and perverted against his meaning And this is the mode of chasing that wild beast of Popery with seven heads and ten horns made by the slight of ministers both terrible and yet at the self-same time ridiculous to people not to all for God be thanked there be very many grave and wise men in the land but only to the inferior and more numerous sort of people such as will stand to hear Jack Pudding talk in Bartholomew Fair. But I have not now time to enlarge my self upon this subject as it may deserv I say then that no Catholik faith which ministers express by the odious name of Popery is properly speaking any mans doctrin much less is it a doctrin grounded upon this or that principle as indeed all school-doctrin is but it is a Catholik faith and beleef grounded immediately upon the veracity and truth of the Revealer our Lord and his Apostles But your Disswader speaks still of doctrin and Roman doctrin and grounds of doctrin as if he were utterly unacquainted with faith Christian faith and of all he is to speak imagining Religion to be som school conclusion of Philosophers wherein he is either notoriously mistaken or would in his heart have others most notoriously to mistake Wherfor although I could easily defend those scholastical grounds wheron he sayes the doctrin of Purgatory is built yet I must first tell him that which is of more concern both for himself and others to know namely that those are not be they true or fals any grounds of Purgatory at all nor is Purgatory a doctrin built upon those grounds what then are those assertions that som sins are mortal som not that the pardon of sin may stand with an obligation to temporal punishment c. They are Sir rational congruities invented by Catholik Divines the more fully to clear unto weak beleevers the rationality and truth of that old Christian Tradition concerning our expiatory sufferings after this life before entrance into glory But if we will look for more ancient and Christian-like grounds for this expiation so far as one busines of faith may be said to be grounded on another even as Gods attributes are said by school-divines one to flow from the other namely in order to our understanding which cannot otherwise think or speak of that most simple and infinit being the great depositum fides affords other grounds far better more intelligible simple and easie grounds of Purgatory than those your Disswader catches at although even they be solid and good ones too As for example these Christians are culled and called out of darknes by the mercy of their gracious Redeemer unto purity light and holines which they are to practice and act all their whole life after and if they do otherwise they shall suffer accordingly so much of pain as they have had of unlawful pleasures to the despight of that precious blood that redeemed and brought them out of sin and darknes and of that holy Spirit of his wherwith they have been anointed every one as he hath acted in his body whether good or evil being to receiv accordingly after this life So that he who shall at all times cooperating faithfully with Gods holy grace keep his hands pure and heart clean from such enormities as may violate friendship with his Redeemer shall be in another condition at his departure then he who hath in his life time polluted himself and don injury to the sanctifying blood of Christ by his many filthy adulteries drunkennesses cheats slanders murders or the like although by Gods grace he should find
not in plain terms to have told us what this piece of popery is that we may know what he speaks of Surely he ought If it neither be owned by so many popish doctours which here he names and names not any one popish doctour that owns it if it neither be determined in the Councel of Lateran nor he himself can name any other Councel wherein it was lately or otherwise determined how is it Popery What doctours own it What Councel has declared it What people profes it And what is that thing they should profes declare or own What is it I say This he ought to have spoken openly sincerely and plainly And yet he endeavours not at all which he should one would think have principally heeded either to set down what doctours own it or what it is they own but spends his whole time in telling us only of a great company of popish doctours that like not of that Roman doctrin which he never declares himself what it is And then exhorts all his charge and all good people to take heed of that Roman doctrin that scandalous doctrin that blasphemous novelty which was determined in the Councel of Lateran and yet is another thing from that which was determined in the Councel of Lateran not any part of Catholik beleef until that Councel nor yet esteemed to belong to faith after that Councel by the greatest of popish doctours about which they make many foolish questions as whether a mouse may run away with her maker c. Sir your Doctour who pretending a Disswasive from Popery by which he doubts not but his reader will understand the Roman Catholik faith never meant to touch at all their real Religion which is universally in their hearts and hands and no power of man is able to confute but either som obscure parcels of philosophy or abuses of men which he is better able to make sport withall was fallen here it seems upon the Catholik faith afore he was aware And therfor he suddenly drew back and so blundered up and down in the affrightment that he seems neither to know what to speak nor against what he is to speak of The Roman doctrin of Transubstantiation was first determined in the Lateran Councel The opinion was not determined in the Lateran Councel as it is now held in Rome What would this man have What does he speak of What opinion is that which is now held in Rome differing from that of the Lateran Councel What is that doctrin of the Lateran Councel differing from that is now held in Rome What is that Rome the Church of Rome or Court of Rome the City of Rome or schools in Rome And is it in all Rome or som particular streets or parishes or schools or shops And how do they hold it with their hands or teeth or pens or hearts as a matter of faith or busines of dispute as delivered to them or invented by them in their confession of Religion or profession of Philosophy These things ought all of them to have been exprest that we might rightly understand who in Rome hold it and how they hold it and what is that same It they hold But your Disswader hopes that upon those general words of his The opinion was not determined in the Lateran Councel as it is now held in Rome his unwary reader will be bold to think more than he dares himself utter And perhaps he is not deceived For few readers are wiser than their book But the Romans make many foolish and blasphemous questions about it The more blasphemous and foolish they who urge them to it if any one amongst them have resolved such doubts as infidelity in derision of holy things hath raised They who aforetime denied Gods Incarnation gave occasion of as foolish and blasphemous disputes as any these be And if any then studied to give an answer to such sordid unmanly and scurrillous opposition although they might fail in discretion yet their heart was innocent and intention good The busines which I suppose your Doctour would be at here is the real presence of our Lords blessed and glorious body under the species of corruptible elements which is one of the paragraffs I left out of my Fiat And I am sorry now with all my heart it was left out becaus here is no time or place to treat of it as that great and weighty subject would require Neither is it my intention here to declare the old Christian Tradition but only to give you Sir to understand that this Disswader though he may hurt his unwary reader yet he nothing at all indammages the old Catholik faith by any words of his which speak it to be new Large volumes have been written upon this subject enough to satisfie any moderate well disposed mind qui legit intelligat Let me only give you notice Sir that this parcel of Christian faith now abolisht here in England was so antient that the very old Pagans and Jews derided the primitive Christians above a thousand years ago for their worshipping a breaden God as they pleased then and the infidels of our times are not ashamed now to misname that sacred mystery It was so universally beleeved that their adversaries by that one only mark expressed as it were in short the very substance of their Religion Since the Christians adore that which they eat said one of the Infidel writers well enough acquainted with the cours of Christian Religion let my soul be with Philosophers It was so sure and undoubted in their hearts that som ancient holy Fathers have elucidated the mystery of the Incarnation by this of the real presence in the Eucharist as the more manifest It was so grave and solemn that all the Churches or Temples in the Christian world were built principally for it and the devotion of those times studied to erect them with a strength and magnificence answerable as far as they could to the majesty of that divine mystery It was such a princely leading point of faith that it drew all other pieties after it frequent prayers and meditations alms-deeds contrition for sins singing of psalms hymns and canticles in the Quire before that presence in the Altar Confessions Sermons Catechise Processions Fasts Festivals and all that real fear and love of God that has been ever found in Christian hearts Finally it is the very legacy of Jesus Christ the holy One to his Spouse the Church whereby he proved himself both to be a poor and most loving and also omnipotent Espouse Another man might leave wealth and possessions but though he be never so kind and loving he cannot leave his body to his wife to remain ever with her for exercise of her love for comfort of her heart and glorifying of her soul by vertue wherof she should be raised up to follow and joyn with him in the eternal glory of another world This was a Testament only fit for Jesus Prince of Angels and men to make And this
such a stiff impertinency against Popish Images have never laboured at all against these Protestant pictures O but Protestants do not worship these pictures Do they not I would to God that all good Catholiks could so heartily love imitate and worship those blessed persons represented in their portraictures as Protestants do theirs who by such amorous faces in their curious dresses are brought I fear too often on their knees Motives to filthy iniquity they may stand but representation of austerity of contemplation of martyrdom of divine extasies of charity of our Lord Jesus and his Saints these are popish these are antichristian these are abominable If the God of holiness will not have any sacred figures to be made surely he cannot allow lascivious prophane and light ones But though he do not our Ministers will O but the Papists give the same worship to the representation and the thing represented This your Disswader may gather haply by his own experience For the figure of a King a father and a wife if they do raise any affections or thoughts these must needs be so much differing as the persons represented are For the shadow figure or representation if we would speak according to right philosophy neither does not can terminate any such respect though it may its own For example that I may declare this my speech put case I have three or four Crucifixes before me of a several make or form and of a much differing art All these four figures have but one and the same representation becaus they represent but one and the same thing Christ Jesus our Lord crucified for our reconciliation and redemption and whatever good affection may arise in my heart upon the sight and thought of it must needs be the same to that representation and thing represented becaus it is terminated upon the thing represented by means of the representation of it And that is but one and the same respect though the figures be many For the representation or figure can terminate no such thought although it be a means of directing it But yet all those four figures have respects of their own which they bound and terminate themselves by reason for example of the excellency of their colours the material on which they are wrought the exactness of art in limning every part to the life and the proportions of the whole in its due and full measure These and such like considerations are ended fully in the picture without any consideration had to its object represented And they may be of such concerment in the business that a man may be moved to prefer one of those four pictures before all the other three This is that I mean Sir when I say that a shadow figure or representation neither does nor can terminate any such respect as results naturally upon the samplar or prototype though it may its own And this is no sophistry of Aristotle but meer natural and vulgar reason common to all mankind O but the Papists make their pictures their gods I this is the talk of black ministers in the dark to fools and children while they sit warm in the Roman Catholik Benefices which they have invaded it behooves them to say what ever they can think against Popery be it right be it wrong be it sence or nonsence All goes down by a people once inveigled And if they be not still kept warm in their mistake the minister is lost Good God in what a world do we live I did my self beleev all this once And I wondred when I first saw Roman Catholiks to tear their pictures somtimē and put them into the fire It is no such marvel if Epiphanius should tear a Saints picture which your Disswader here tells us although that story be not found in that epistle of Epiphanius translated by St. Jerom Roman Catholiks do it ordinarily For they use picturs but as they do their prayer-books and when they are so sullied and worn they can use them no more they are turned both into ashes which is the last end of picturs books and men And the respect they give to pictures is but the very same kind with what they give to the holy Gospels save only that the Gospel is looked on as the inside and a Crucifix the outside of their Redeemer but both are still but shadows of him I could say more concerning this busines and make it appear both that Christians have ever in all ages had images of their Lord and his Saints in their houses and Churches and how profitable and useful they are and that they are neither against the will of God nor any right reason And this I could clearly prove out of S. Basil Eusebius Caesariensis S. Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen S. Austin Bede Jo. Damascen Athanasius Ambrose Chrysostom But I have here said enough if I have enough demonstrated as I think I have that your Disswader has said nothing § 9. Which is an appendage to the former Reprovs the picturing of God the Father and holy Trinity which many of the holy Fathers speak against much to the blame of the Roman Church which in their Mass-books and Breviaries Portuises and Manuals picture the holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot Though the Catholik Christian Church hath ever used and approved of the use of Images as well as spiritual books yet they allow not of any abuse in either And Ordinaries Byshops Visitors and Superiours in all places are to look to that So that in this his appendage as he calls it your Disswader acts but the part of a good Visitour to blame and mend that which is amiss which must continually be done and continually is done all over the Catholick world as well in this as other affairs And if any Ordinary be negligent herein he is worthy of blame But Sir this is nothing of Popery or Catholik Religion which allows only in general the use of pious figures to forward our thoughts and desires to that eternal felicity above which so many holy Virgins Confessours Martyrs Apostles Monks Hermits and pious Princes portrayed all before our eyes arrived unto by their austerities alms-deeds purity fastings disciplines meditations watchings and patient sufferings in love and conformity to their holy Redeemer who is the prince and leader and crown of all those his glorious Saints redeemed and sanctified by the vertue of his precious blood and passion out of the thraldom of Satan and this wicked world Nor has Catholik Religion ever descended unto the particular cirumstances of these figures This belongs to the care of Bishops and Ordinaries Catholiks have generally no figures but of such only as once have lived amongst them in their Church either as head or members of it Nor of many ages would byshops permit the 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 fansie 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 troâ—… 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 â—…gures 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 expressy 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 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 constitutions
sacraments can not be given to man You see how fondly as well as falsly you have foisted in these words with all his whole power What follows next S. Paul bid the byshops of Miletum feed the whole flock Pray Sir how many byshops were ther do you think in that one no huge town of Miletum Bastwick brings this for a proof that byshops and priests were all one thing in those dayes And if it be otherwise the times are much changed Then many byshops served one town now many towns will hardly serve one byshop But you cut off the sentence Sir that it may sound better for your purpos and which is wors change it too The Apostle charges them to attend to themselves and all the flock wherin the holy Ghost hath constituted them overseers Which last words becaus they limit both their care and your own argument you thought it prudence to leav them out Pray Sir would you have any byshop to enter upon anothers Diocess What then would you have here when you make S. Paul bid the pastors all of them to feed all the whole flock without any restriction In all your heats remember still your self Go on The equality of power must descend to all byshops who are their successours I can easily grant you that they have all of them equal power of administring Sacraments and looking to their flock every one within his own precincts And this is all your discours infers But an equality of power over one another was neither amongst the Apostles nor yet here in our English byshops nor ever in the Church of God How do you prove that By the law of Christone 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 Vnder him every byshop is supream This argument is in a mood and figure called Ita dico You say so and the statutes and canons of the Church of England say no. Whom shall we beleev I alwayes prefer a Church before any one Church-man though he be in her when he is against her But S. Paul sayes expresly that Christ appointed in his Church first apostles but not S. Peter first I marry Sir now we are come to an argument indeed And it runs thus According to S. Paul the apostles were the first rank or dignity in the Church but S. Peter was none of that rank or dignity therfor he could not be first Was not S. Peter then one of the apostles or will you make it run thus The apostles were the first rank or dignity in the Church but S. Peter was not that rank or dignity therfor he was not first This is indeed the surer way Becaus no one man can be reckoned for a rank or dignity or so many persons in the plural number This is an argument never yet thought of in Oxford or Cambridg to prove they have no superiour either over all or over any one Colledge Not over all For ther be first Colledges then Halls then Inns c. therfor the Vice-Chancellour is not first Not over one Colledge For ther are first Fellows then Schollars then Pensioners c. and therfor Mr. such a one who is neither fellows schollars nor pensioners is not first So here Christ saith S. Paul set in his Church first of all apostles therfor saith our learned Doctour not first S. Peter and secondarily apostles but all the apostles were first The apostles were the first rank of dignity good Sir but that rank had order in it too And so ther might be place for a first man even in the first rank But Peter did never rule but by common councel as S. Chrysostome witnesses He ruled then good Sir it seems he ruled then Will you bring this for an argument of his not ruling You are shrewdly put to it in the mean time And if he ruled and governed and mannaged all by common councel he was the better superiour for that but not therfor no superiour Will you admit no rulers but tyrants who do all by their own will But even some of their own popish writers do grant that the succession is not tied to Rome as Cusanus Soto Canus Driedo Segovius What does that opinion of theirs if they did say so prove against the sovereignty of one byshop over the rest which is the only thing now in hand wherever he reside I cannot in reason be thought to speak against our English monarchy although I should haply say that the King is not bound to reside still at Westminster The papal pastour hath ever since S. Peters time ever resided yet in that Roman Diocess which Catholiks do indeed consider as a thing somwhat strange since all other apostolical Sees besides that are failed and gone but no man knows the disposition of divine providence here on earth for future times Perhaps that Roman See I mean the particular Roman Diocess shall so remain to the worlds end and perhaps again it may not And if it should not or if that whole City should be destroyed or Christian Religion in it or if the City and all the whole Kingdom of Italy should lye under the ocean quite overwhelmed and drowned yet so long as the world lasts ther shall be a Church of Christ on earth and so long as ther is a Church ther will be one supream pastour of it where ever he reside And this is that which som Catholik doctours mean when they say that the succession is not tied to Rome What doth this make to your purpos Mr. Disswader Go on then No papal sovereignty was thought of in primitive times when the byshops of Asia and Africa opposed Pope Victor and Pope Stephen Does an opposition infer a nullity of power Then Sir ther would be no power upon earth either ecclesiastical or civil which are all resisted one time or other Was there no royalty or byshops in England so much as thought of thirty years ago when they were both of them more than opposed by the rabble What miserable shifts are these You may find and I am confident you do find and know well enough that even in those times you speak of and before and after them the papal power was acknowledged and reverenced by the whole world and yet you will take advantage of a dispute that happens more or less in all ages to say against your conscience and from thence infer that the papal power was not so much as thought of in those primitive times God keep you Sir from contesting with any of your servants For if you do this argument of yours will prove that your autority in your own hous was not so much as thought of in those dayes either by you or them or any els Have you any thing els to say A general Councel of Chalcedon gave to the byshop of C. P. equal rights and preheminence with the byshop of Rome What general Councel was that and
the Roman Church's more potent principality to comply with her the Centurists are much displeased at it and censure it for a very corrupt speech And indeed the papal power and jurisdiction was so eminent in all ages that Philip Nicolai in his comment de regno Christi resers the beginning of it to the infirmity of the Apostles and byshops succeeding them For there speaking of the origin and increas of papal power Primatus affectatio saith he communis fuit infirmitas apostolorum ac etiam primorum urbis episcoporum Finally in the first age that St. Peter had a primacy above the other apostles is acknowledged by Calvin The twelve apostles had one among them to govern the rest by Musculus The celestial spirits are not equal the apostles themselves were not equal Peter is found in many places to have been chief amongst the rest which we deny not by Mr. Whitgift Amongst the Apostles themselves ther was one chief and by Dr. Covel who in his examinations teaches at large against the Puritans both that there was one appointed over the rest amongst the apostles to keep them in unity and that that government was not to ceas with the apostles but ever to continue in the Church and that it is the only way to prevent dissention and suppress heresies and that otherwise the Church would be in a far wors case than the meanest Commonwealth nay almost than a den of thieves But the Centurists like not this and therfor do they in their 4. Cent. reprehend many of the Fathers for entituling Peter the head of the apostles and the byshop of byshops So indeed Optatus calls him apostolorum caput and therfor Cephas Origen apostolorum principem Cyril of Jerusalem principem caput caeterorum Cyril of Alexandria Pastorem caput ecclesiae Arnobius Episcoporum episcopum the Councel of Chalcedon Petram verticem ecclesiae Catholicae Thus much for that point which by all this is proved to be far from any novelty As for Saints invocation and the antiquity of that beleef and custom it is acknowledged by the Centurists Chemnitius our Dr. Whitgift and Fulk Dr. Whitgift in his defence hath these words Almost all the byshops and writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with doctrins of Free-will of merit of invocation of Saints and such like Fulk in his rejoynder to Bristow I confess saith he that Ambrose Austin and Jerom held invocation of Saints to be lawful and in his book against the Rhemish Testament In Nazianzen Basil and Chrysostom I confess saith he is mention of invocation of Saints and again that Theodoret also speaketh of prayers to martyrs and again in the same book that Leo ascribeth much to the prayers of S. Peter for him and again that many ancient fathers held that Saints departed pray for us Chemnitius in his examen acknowledges as much of S. Basil Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen Theodoret S. Jerom and even S. Austin himself The Centurists charge the same upon S. Cyprian who is ancienter than S. Austin and again upon Origen who was ancienter than Cyprian adding that there are manifest steps of Saints invocation in the doctors of that ancient age So this is no novelty then Lastly as for the Sacrifice of Mass and Altars which as Dr. Reynolds sayes well in his conference with Hart are linked together Peter Martyr in his common places reproveth Peter of Alexandria for attributing more as he speaks to the outward altar than to the living temples of Christ and he checks Optatus also for saying what is the altar even the seat of the body and blood of Christ such sayings as these saith Peter Martyr edified not the people and lastly all the fathers in general he finds fault with for their abusing so frequently the name Altar which indeed is spoken of even by S Ignatius the Apostles undoubted schollar who is therfor carped at by Cartwright Calvin Fulk and Field acknowledg that most ancient fathers S. Athanasius Ambrose Austin Arnobius talked much of the Christian Sacrifice and Altar and Priests who offer and pour out daily on the holy table adding that the fathers without doubt received that their doctrin from the Jews and Gentiles whom therin they imitated The Centuriators in 3. Cent. blame Cyprian as superstitious in that point and in their 2 Cent. say that S. Irenaeus and Ignatius though disciples of the apostles were dangerously erroneous in that account Sebastianus Francus in his epistle de abrogandis in universum omnibus statutis ecclesiasticis affirms that presently after the apostles times the supper of our Lord was turned into a sacrifice Andreas Chrastovius in his book de opificio missae charges the most ancient fathers with using a propitiatory sacrifice And our own Ascham in his Apologet. pro coena Domini is found to acknowledg that sacrifice for the dead and living is so ancient in the Christian Church that no beginning of it can be found although he thinks also with Calvin that it was derived whensoever it first began from the custom either of the Jews or Gentiles or both thus bespattering with his rash pen the very first sproutings of Christianity in the world However it is in the mean time no novelty at least And let any one in any age of Christianity look all over the Christian world on any of those who profess that name whether they kept communion with the Roman Church or brake by schisme from it or perhaps never heard of it as they say the Church in Ethiopia did not and he shall find that they all had this Christian sacrifice amongst them as the great capital work of their Religion The Grecians under their Patriarch of Constantinople even still after their schisme have their Priests celebrating in all their ancient robes this their sacred liturgy to this day in the learned greek tongue all over the world where they live and may serv God not only in Greece Epirus Macedon and islands of the Egoean sea but in many parts of Natolia Circassia Russia Thrace Bulgaria Rascia Servia Bosnia Walachia Moldavia Dalmatia Croatia Thracia and up as far North as Trebisond The Assyrians or Melchites who are under the Archbyshop of Damascus whom they intitle Patriarch of Antioch The Georgians that dwell between the Euxin and Caspian seas under their Metropolitan who resides in the monastery of S. Catherin in Mount Sinai The Circassians that live between them and the river Tanais The Muscovites or Russians under the primate of Mosco The Nestorians dispersed up and down in Assyria Mesopotamia Parthia Media even to Cataia and India under their Patriarch residing either in Muzal or the monastery of S. Ermes fast by it The Indians or Christians of S. Thomas about the cities of Coulan and Maliapar Angamal and Cochin under their own archbyshop who is subject to the patriark of Muzal or patriark of Babylon as they call him The Jacobites in Cyprus Syria Mesopotamia and Palestin