which infers a worship of God in it not by it Chap. 15. from page 247 to 273. Is very earnest for scriptur and liturgy in a vulgar tongue This plea of Protestant ministers makes a plausible sound And they know it well enough For it was the first thing that by their rhetorical colours cast upon it commended them to the people after the Apostacy of the first reformers by whose perswasion the people was then made to beleev they should now be as gods all of them knowing good and evil The word of God saith Whitby is kept from the knowledge of the vulgar people in the Roman Church And thus they all say and ever will say be they never so much satisfied by Catholik writers to the contrary becaus it is to their own advantage it should be so thought in England and all other places where Protestants have invaded and now actually sit upon the Catholick Clergies benefice and byshoppricks But is ther any part or particle of Christian faith or religion or of the word of God that is kept from Catholiks or not made known to them in Books Catechismes Sermons all in their own language and in daily practis of that Church wherof they are members Do they not hear and read and see all the mysteries of our Christian faith Christ our Lords birth and passion resurrection and ascension into glory what he acted what he suffered what he taught what he constituted and ordained for our salvation what we are to hope what to beleev what to practice in order thereunto set before their eyes not only by continual sermons made to them all over the catholik world in their own vulgar tongue but by their Gospels and Epistles which they have lying by them collected for the cours of the whole year and translated into their own language together with several pious treatises and meditations upon all these rules and mysteries of faith unto so ample use that if they do but walk accordingly which is all that religion intends they cannot miss salvation Is not all this Gods word It is nothing els And what is ther more of the word of God except we will count letters and syllables The word of God then is not kept from the knowledg of the vulgar people in the Roman Church But why have they not the Bible translated as it lies in all languages where catholik faith is profest Becaus it is obscure as it lies in that short and ambiguous phrase and under so many several tropes of rhetorick and schemes also of logick wherin it was wrote apt therby to be perverted and misunderstood as we see by experience to be true unto endles factions Nor does the word of God consist so much in letters and syllables as in the marrow and meaning of his will And not the sence and meaning but the letter of the scriptur is that which makes hereticks But is not that the word of God which is kept from the people It is the word of God but not kept from the people For it is but the same with that which is delivered and made known unto the people So much as it contains whatever it be either of faith or morality either of what is to be beleeved or hoped or practised they have it all but disintangled from those artificiall schemes of logick and rhetorick wherof the holy writ is fuller then any book was ever writ by man which there inwrap and render it obscure Ther is no instruction no rule of piety no particle of comfort either for this world or the other in St. Pauls epistles for example but Catholiks have it they read it in their own language if they be able to read they know it all And they have it in a better and more facil manner then they could find it out by perusing those high theological discourses of his which the learnedst of men can hardly and very hardly understand The like I say of other portions of holy writ Only the disputative part with the interwoven systems of rhetorick this may exercise great and more sublime divines who by help of their various litterature may consider not only the plain truths therin contained which are common to them with other vulgar beleevers but the nature of the Metonymies Synechdoche's Metaphors together with the several modes of argumentation refutation objections and inopinate transitions in the context This if my adversary OeN had understood it had saved one fourth part of his Animadversions upon Fiat Lux and Whitby here had been utterly silent But it is their only advantage both in this and other controverted points of faith with Roman Catholiks either to be ignorant or dissemble their knowledg And therfor I have good reason to think they will never seem to understand But God grant they may The wonder is that English Protestants should still be as fiercely eager in this point when they write controversies as ever they were when they do themselves most heartily repent I have heard several great clergy-men amongst them speak it that they had ever given the Bible in that short ambiguous phrase it is penned into the hands of people in their own tongue to be thus perverted as it is every one his own way unto endles and irreconcilable schismes It would glad their hearts no doubt to see the Roman Church do indiscreetly as they have don But that will never be Holy catholik Church has revealed translated and several wayes made known the will of God to her people appointing most divine wayes and methods such as she had her self received from God to inure and keep them in the practis of that their holy faith And the disputative and sublimer divinity or as I may so speak the philosophical part of holy writ such as can may read on Gods name and the Church will commend them for it while these with all the rest attend unto those duties and good works every one in his calling which their holy faith prescribes These are and ever were the wayes and method of the now present and ancient catholik Church most wise and holy And her subjects and beleevers have profited therby many thousands of them unto angelical sanctity and all of them unto somthing more than otherwise they would have had whilst others that swerv from these wayes promote themselvs unto wildness and schisme without end missing indeed the word of God in the very scripture they read and never attaining to the true life and power in that form of words which they use not unto intended sanctification but by their own misinter pretations wrest and deprave daily unto their own destruction Nor will people be ruled now by their ministers but thinking it their own right to interpret as they pleas make it their only work to read and cant sentences and coin opinions as they list Excepting only this one fruit of our vulgar reading of scripture as it lies which in all mens judgments is an evil fruit I do not see nor
relation to the same death and passion when it was to com And this the very gospel if we would but understand it by the ancient practis of the Church which interprets all written words sufficiently declares And though this great sacrifice be exhibited in Eucharistian species and symbols yet do all Fathers and ancient Councels speak clearly that it is a real true and propitiatory sacrifice though accompanied also with a figur and not only a figurative and symbolical one A child may be the figur of his father and yet is he not rightly said to be only a figurative and symbolical child A sacrifice only symbolical a figurative altar and representative priesthood make only a symbolical figurative and representative religion Chap. 14. from page 230 to 247. Rejects images and sacred figures as both useles and sinful And Mr. Whitby seems here good Sir pardon me to have got indeed a real vantage over you Doubtles you were somwhat overseen when you wrote in your book most advised in other things and serious these ill pondered words to Protestants Were there represented to any of you thinking of other matters a pictur of our Lord hanging upon a Cross could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was and what he hath done and suffered for you c. And again Ask your heart and you will find that you would not place St. Peters pictur or the Kings in an unclean place c. I say you are to blame Sir to think men of that way so scrupulous or prone to devotion For Whitby confutes you by an evident demonstration Alas quoth he I see every day Crucifixes in our Colledg windows and yet never find any such effect wrought in me as you talk of Indeed neither those Colledges nor windows in the colledges nor Crucifixes in the windows were ever set up by their good Catholik founders for any such students as Whitby is who findes it seems no effect wrought in him there by the sight of any thing but his good chamber distributions and dinner provided for him in the hall So likewise the connatural respect you plead for as due to figures by force of their representation of respected persons by an example of a Kings pictur he confutes it nimbly I would not fear quoth Whitby to tear his Majesties picturs which somtimes may be found in smoaky Alehouses c. he puts them in smoaky Ale-houses the better to cover his own rudenes nor would I scruple sayes he to put a piece of Popish Mass wherin were haply an Epistle or Gospel extant unto an unclean use And here also he puts the Gospel in a Mass-book as before he set the Kings pictur in a smoaky alehouse to prevent offence that som tender one amongst themselvs might take at his uncivil talk In brief he will not allow any figur or image though it were a Crucifix to have any influence upon our minds unto good thoughts any more then the pictur of Bradshaw or Cromwell hell or the devil Somtimes he sayes they caus bad thoughts but never any good ones And yet he addes that Protestants do keep up picturs notwithstanding though the cries of fanaticks be never so loud against them becaus of the historical use they have What historical use can they have in the name of God if the sight of them as Whitby himself here speaks can bring no part of sacred history to our minds nor the very Crucifix have so much influence upon us as to mind us who our Lord was or what he hath don or suffered for us Unles he will say according to his usual method of answering that they bring into our minds the history of the civil wars betwixt Cesar and Pompey But surely if these kind of sacred images and figures caus only evil thoughts and no good ones the cry of fanaticks against them notwithstanding any historical use which according to Whitby although he talk of it is none at all will not be judged unjust In conclusion he will needs have the Papists both to worship their Images and pray to them And this becaus they use them commonly in their Oratories whither they retire from places of worldly busines to recollect themselvs and pray when time and devotion invites them to it But if for this the Papist must suffer his doom what will Whitby say when he shall be accused himself for worshipping the roof and rafters of the Church towards which he casts up his eyes when he stands in his pulpit to pray before and after his sermon Even the poor Jews were derided by the Roman Satyrist as adorers of the Welkin and clouds And who can escape the censur whether he have som pious representation before him to fix his fancy or turn only to the wall and stones He must still kneel before somthing whether he be within door or without in the open air And if he have the assistance of his crucified redeemer represented before him it is probable enough it may help to recollect his mind to humble his spirit and fix his fancy at least it can do no hurt And if I may and needs must frame an idea or pictur of him in my mind why may I not have it in mine eye too But Mr. Whitby will have it whatever you or the whole world knows to the contrary that Papists pray to picturs and consequently make a God of them And he will not have them any more excusable then those Israelites who worshipped God in a Calf Here Sir I learn what I never knew before that the idolatrous Israelites worshipped God in a calf He that shall worship a calf for God I could never in my life yet conceiv how he should worship God in a calf Moses worshipped God in a flaming bush And why Becaus God was by a peculiar presence in that bush or flame to terminate that worship Nor was he blamable in worshipping God so present there But God was not so present in that golden statue of the molten heifer which the Hebrews had set up in Moses absence as the very God which brought them out of Egypt that they could be said to worship God in it And if he had been so present in it they might surely as well have fallen down before him there as any where els The heathen whom the holy Prophet rebuked so earnestly for worshipping the stars and host of heaven did they also worship God in the stars or heavens surely then they were not blame-worthy Where ever God is by a peculiar presence as in heaven and Moses his flame there may and ought he to be worshipped And so Christians worshipped God even in the man Jesus our great and blessed Lord. But his figur or effigies has no more of Gods presence in it then the wall it hangs upon save only the reflection of his outward effigies to recollect the fancy And the respect if we will speak properly does not terminate upon the pictur but upon the person whom it represents
mercy at his last hour These if I could stand to enlarge my self upon them being themselves Christian Traditions and Apostolical doctrin might in som sence be said to be the grounds of expiatory penalties after this life commonly called Purgatory But those others which your Disswader mentions are but som congruities latelier put together by Doctours to clear unto unstable Christians as far as they may be able the rationality of their Christian Tradition concerning expiations after this life which Preachers in their sermons and Doctours in their chairs usually invent and utter as well in this affair as other businesses of faith som with more firmitude and som with less according to their learning and capacity I say they are congruities for it and good ones too but no grounds of it For faith is not deduced by reasons or drawn from premises or concluded from grounds And although this faith be manifold and about sundry matters as the Creation Redemption Justification Resurrection and the like yet all these particular faiths depend immediatly like several raies on one sun upon the one only authority and truth of the first Revealer which is the foundation and ground of all And if those above-named assertions be no grounds of this faith concerning future expiations much less is that true and firm tradition Blessed are those that dye in our Lord any ground against it For they are happy and happy that ever they were born who dye in our Lord that is to say in his faith and fear in his love and grace But ther are as many degrees of dying in our Lord as ther be varieties of the lives and actions of those that dye in him And they all rest from the labours of this life and som also are freed from the pains of the other who depart hence in a more complete reconciliation with him § 5. Which is about Transubstantiation Sayes that Transubstantiation is another novelty in the Roman Church so much a novelty that we know the very time of its birth and how it was introduced For Scotus Occam Biel Fisher Bassolis Cajetan Melchior Caen acknowledg that it is not exprest in Scripture and in Peter Lombards time they knew not whether it was true or no. Durandus a good Catholik after the Lateran Councel where it was first declared said it was not faith as Scotus sayes it was no faith before it Nor did the Lateran Councel determin that which now the Roman Church holds which doctrin of theirs is a stranger to antiquity as Alphonsus à Castro acknowledges and the same is made good by the testimonies of Tertullian Justin Martyr Eusebius Macarius Ephrem Gregory Nazianzen Chrysostom Austin the Canon law it self Theodoret and Pope Gelasius who all witness that the bread is our Lords body spiritually And your Disswader therfor advises his charge to take heed they be not led away by rhetorical words to beleev the Roman doctrin which is an innovation and dangerous practice about which they make many foolish questions as whether a mouse may run away with her maker whether a Priest is the Creatour of God c. In fine Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible For Christs glorious body cannot be broken nor yet the mere accidents nor one body multiplied as be many wafers and it is against the demonstration of our sences Sir I know well enough that Tertullian Justin Martyr Eusebius Macarius Ephrem Gregory Nazianzen Theodoret Chrysostom and S. Austin were all of them not only Roman Catholiks but Catholik priests too and could easily prove it But if your Disswader should have the confidence to deny that I hope yet he will grant me that Scotus Occham Biel Bassolis Cajetan Melchior Caen Durand and Alphonsus à Castro Papish School-men and Doctours of the Church and Friars were all such and as for Bishop Fisher Peter Lombard and Pope Gelasius these I may almost presume he will let pass for Papists What is then this Roman doctrin which so many Roman Doctours whereof each one had such a multitude of disciples and followers in the Catholik world do not so much as acknowledg Where shall we finde it For your Disswader names heaps of Popish Doctours that deny it and not any one that owns it nor ever so much as tells us what it is What strange kind of proceeding is this Nay in the beginning of the section he tells us that this Popery of Transubstantiation is so new that it is well enough known to have begun in the Councel of Lateran and yet in the middle of the very same section sayes expresly that the opinion was not determined in the Lateran Councel as it is now held at Rome The Popery or popish doctrin of Transubstantiation now held at Rome it is very well known to all saith he that it had its first beginning in the Lateran Councel and yet addes that the opinion was not determined in the Lateran Councel as it is now held at Rome What opinion Sir was determined in the Lateran Councel and what is that which is now held at Rome Does not your Disswader speak of the doctrin now held at Rome when beginning his section he speaks thus The doctrin of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began to be owned publickly for an opinion and the very Councel in which it passed for a publick doctrin which Councel two or three lines afterward he sayes was the Councel of Lateran under Pope Innocent the third twelve hundred years after Christ And against that new doctrin which began he sayes twelve hundred years after Christ and thereby convicted of novelty he writes this his whole section What means he then in the name of God but only two pages after namely p. 39. to say that the opinion was not determined in the Lateran as it is now held at Rome Is that opinion now held at Rome younger or older than the Councel Lateran and when began that opinion held at Rome or was it from the beginning And against which of the opinions does he speak in this section For against both of them together he cannot The very head and principal and as it were the summe of all his discours in this section The doctrin of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began and the Councel it passed for a doctrin c. It was but a disputable question till the Councel of Lateran in the time of Pope Innocent 1200. and more after Christ c. This I say cannot agree with the doctrin now held at Rome which he sayes afterward is another thing from that which was determined in the Councel of Lateran If then this parcel of Popery which he sayes in one place is not that which was determined in the Councel of Lateran and in another place is that which was determined in the Councel of Lateran be the matter and subject of his discours in this section ought he
by little and little according as themselvs increas all the whole frame of ancient religion Secondly it may be gathered by this that Christ our Lord instituted a monarchical government of his Church ruled so long as he lived by one and therfor must that government ever remain He set it up to remain For surely he did not set it up to be pulled down again Thirdly becaus there is no power on earth to change it What God has constituted man cannot undo lawfully I mean he cannot Now we have no such body of Christians in England that remain under one who is general pastour over all the Christian flock in the world or do so much as pretend it save only the few Roman Catholiks that are yet here left alive by the strange providence of that God unto whose universal Church they have still adhered notwithstanding the greatest trials that ever poor Christians were put to Neither Quaker Anabaptist or Independent Presbyterian or Prelate-Protestant do so much as pretend to any such thing but they all oppose it And as they do not pretend to belong to any general body that hath a visible head overseeing the whole flock of Christ throughout the world so neither is any of their Church-governments monarchical in their respective place if we may beleev themselvs I know our English Protestant Church was first appointed in the dayes of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth to be respectively monarchical that is to say within the precincts of this Kingdom the hierarchy ending in the Kings majesty who is doubtles the supream head and governour both of the Protestant Church and the temporal or civil state in all these his three Kingdoms But indeed and truth none of them acknowledg it For they do not any of them expect as they ought all of them to do a full decisive sentence from the Kings Majesties lips in all their controversies or doubts of faith nor will they acquiesce in his judgment which is a strange mad refractorines in our nation and contrary to our own principles The Independents last tribunal is in the light of his own breast The Presbyterian will not look beyond his Presbyteral Consistory And the Prelate-Protestant writer which I most marvel at ends all in the byshops allowing no autority power or jurisdiction to their Archbyshops but only an order and decent precedency for manners sake which in effect is wholly to dissolve the constituted frame of Church-government in this land They speak not indeed of the Kings majesty for fear I suppose of the rod God hath put into his hands But it is not hard to gather both by their words and actions what they think Whitby of late wrote a book against Dean Cressy and there he sayes expesly that an Arch-byshop hath a decent precedency but no authority and that his Grace of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction and that the Kings Majesty is not the root of Episcopal jurisdiction here in England And yet he was approved and praised even by our Protestant byshops Do they not see that à pari nay à fortiori the same be affirmed of our byshops that they have no autority and that they have but a decent precedeney over Presbyters and that they are not the root of ecclesiastical jurisdiction With what a strange blindnes are our eyes possest Nay this great Disswader an eminent man among Prelate-Protestants here teaches publickly that byshops are all supream under Christ So that this our Church-government by byshops can be no other but Aristocracy the Presbyterians a Democracy and the rest a plain Anarchy every man thinking and acting what is good in his own eyes And none of these who are all fallen from the general flock and general pastour heed unto effect any one thing that may restrain them either statutes canons laws constitutions or ought els But God blesses his true Church with a true obedience Thus I have given you Sir my reason why I think ther is and must be one general pastour over all the whole flock of Christians Pray ponder it well Brief I am in it becaus it is beyond my general design which is only to shew that Doctour Taylors Disswasive from Popery is insignificant I am now come to the testimonies your Disswader cites for himself which I told you before are above half of them impertinent and the rest if he had not fraudulently maimed them flatly against himself As for the first sort your Disswader imagining in his head that the Apostles had no superiour which is the grand falsity on which all his whole discours runs brings all those authors who either say that byshops are the successours of the Apostles or that they had received the keyes of heaven or that they are not to be contemned and the like for witnesses of his opinion as Irenaeus Cyprian Ambrose Anacletus Clemens Hieronimus Gregorius and various others All this is impertinent But the other autorities had they not been curtaild and perverted by him had openly and plainly spoken that Catholik truth which he here opposes namely that the Apostles had a superiour and that all the whole Christian flock have and ought to have one general pastour and that he ever hitherto hath sate since S. Peters death in the Roman See I know it would be worth my labour to set down all those testimonies by him here cited at large as they lye in those Catholik Fathers and Divines as apt at one and the same time to convince this his whole section of falsity and the Catholik doctrin to be no novelty as he sayes it is But becaus this is already done by the above-named Catholik Gentlemen who with a greater patience than I am master of turned over those many ancient authours I will content my self with only the first of them In the whole new testament saith your Disswader ther is no act or sign of superiority or that one apostle exercised power over another but to them whom Christ sent he in common intrusted the Church of God according to that excellent saying of S. Cyprian the other apostles are the same that S. Peter was indowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power c. This then is the excellent saying of S. Cyprian The other apostles are the same that St. Peter was indowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power And he cites it out of his epistle de unit Ecclesiae ad Novatian But did S. Cyprian either say or mean by that saying so much of it as is S. Cyprians that ther was no superiority among the apostles or that the Church of God was intrusted to them in common Nay does not S Cyprian use those words in a discours wherin he endeavours industriously to declare that there was a superiority among the Apostles in which as in a cone 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
flitted from the richer byshoprick of Durham to that of York becaus as he himself gave the reason he wanted Grace But Doctor Taylor must remember his own doctrin that an Archbyshop although he have Grace yet he has no jurisdiction with it and it is a question whether is better to have power without grace or grace without power He is well enough as he is if he could be content But ambition and covetousnes will know no bounds And as your Doctor in this his Disswasive prattles about a Popery which is no part of Catholik religion so does he wholly pass by their chief religion which is in a manner their whole popery and all their religious customs attending it not that only which the first reformers allowed of as their faith of one God all powerfull most wise and good who made all things visible and invisible and by his providence conserves them in their being who in the fulnes of time sent his beloved son to reconcile the world to himself c. but that also which they rejected and principally inveighed against as first internal sanctification and renovation of our spirits which was the end of Christs appearing in the world the efficacy of his grace in our hearts and the intention of his counsels and laws secondly the comfort merit and necessity of good works unto which holy gospel by all sweet promises invites us Gods holy spirit moves the very excellency of mans nature and condition suggests the name and profession of Christian calls for and future happines requires These by the first Protestants were all cried down as mortal sins and of no value at all in the eyes of God by which doctrins they debauched mankind and made men so dissolute careless and licentious that if good nature right reason and the gracious working of God in our hearts had not more force upon some than the principles of the first Protestancy earth had become a meer hell by this Thirdly he passes by the priesthood altar and sacrifice which Christ our Lord instituted for our daily atonement in the figuration of his holy passion at which old Christians with all fear and reverence offered up their daily praises requests and supplications to God for themselves and allies and whole Church of Christ for all distressed persons for kings and princes and for all men that we may lead a quiet and godly life in this world Fourthly the seven sacraments of Christs which are so many conduits of sanctification for our several necessities and for all conditions of men and for all degrees of spiritual comforts Fifthly the obligations of vows which any shall freely make for Gods glory and his own advancement in piety in continency in charity and the blessed condition of singing and praising God in monastical retirement Sixtly the communion and union of the whole body of Christians under one visible pastor by whom they are aptly knit and compaginated together into one flock and body of Christ however they may differ otherwis in countrey language laws civil government and other affections Sevently the marks of the true Church and the autority she hath to keep her people in unity of faith and observance of their Christian duties Eightly the danger of original sin and actual transgressions which however we may have heard of Christian faith and beleev it to be true may notwithstanding exclude us eternally from the bliss of heaven now opened to beleevers such as by mortifying ungodly lusts shall render themselves conformable to their Lord and head who is ascended into heaven and gone before to prepare there a place for them in bliss with himself Ninthly the necessary concurrence of Gods grace and mans will unto his justification and sanctity and future glory in him Qui creavit te sine te non salvabit te sine te as good S. Austin speaks Tenthly the necessity and great benefit of prayer alms-deeds and fasting which is practised in the Catholik Church and commended to all as worthy fruits of that religion which labours to root out pride of life concupiscence of eyes and concupiscence of flesh thereby and our obligation to exact justice in all our contracts and dealings with our neighbour Eleventhly the danger of living and dying in sin to such as profess Christianity and uselesnes of faith without the good works of grace attending it Twelftly the possibility of keeping Gods commandments with the assistance of his grace Lastly not to mention more the great duty incumbent upon all Christians when led away by the deceit of Satan flesh and this wicked world they shall chance to have strayed from their holy rule to set all streight again by humble confession restitution and other penal satisfactions for their fault These and such like principles of ancient Christianity our first reforming Protestants Luther and Calvin with other their companions all apostate priests from the mother Church so stifly cryed down as notorious popery that they have thereby corrupted the whole world But your Doctour in this your Disswasive from Popery for reasons best known to himself takes no notice of them at all Protestant writers however loth to practise them yet ashamed they are now to speak against good works as their fore-fathers did Indeed every one of them that upon the hope of a richer benefice writes against Catholik Religion makes both a new Popery and a new Protestancy too and while they speak in general against that they may say in particular of this what they pleas For Protestants had never any Councel to make them all agree how much of Popery they should reject or what they should positively establish nor ever will nor can have nor do they care so they keep but their livings and places that they have extorted from Catholik hands which they know they cannot keep except by libelling against Popery they get the power of the land honester and better men then themselvs to back and support them in their wayes whether any thing be ever settled or no. I should also here set down the substantial customs of Catholik Christians in their chappels and churches oratories and private houses wholly neglected by the Disswader though they be in the hearts and hands of them all throughout the whole earth If he had declared either their substantial faith or customs he had lost his credit with some but he had saved his own soul which now is becom as black as hell with slaunders lyes and uncharitable depravations both of their customs and immaculate Religion What he can pervert and make sport with that he puts upon them for popery and what he cannot that must be thought no popery at all But this I cannot now insist upon My letter is already grown too long ANd yet I cannot but give you notice Sir that even these things specified here by your Disswader for popish novelties as they are rightly understood in the catholik sence and meaning Indulgences the real presence under the apperances or species of
on the Defendants side which is not in the Plaintiff or Actour but this at present I am not to take notice of nay finally that they have ever don much harm in Kingdoms but never good In all this Sir you do like your self you love nois and whirlwinds and when you hear of Peace prepare your self to Battle so ill do you understand the sound of a retreat or becaus it suits not with your ends and inclinations will not But all this discours of Fiat Lux tends say you to Popery A fearful thing and ungrateful news to Ministers for whose foolish endles and ungrounded quarrels we have lately engaged our honour peace livelihood lives and all that is dear unto us and yet we are still but where we were before we began Nay we are ten times farther off from any reconcilement unity or satisfaction then before And such success have all wars ever had where the alarm was given in the Pulpit But why must it tend to Popery Becaus that Fiat Lux is bold to say that Popery in its own likenes is not so ugly as we imagin it Lord what a strange thing is this that either Fiat Lux or any els should presume to say that we in England or other Nations may be carried by the reports of som interested men to think wors of a thing then it may deserv especially considering that we com all to Church to hear Gods Words and there meet with a man who in the first opening of his lips cryes Hearken my Beloved to the word of the Lord and so having with that airy honey-comb sweetned the edges of our ears pours into them afterward what poison of his own conceived interests he pleases all which we his dearly beloved let down greedily into our hearts as that precious word of the Lord which he at first proclaimed By which fallacies we have been in the time of these our late wars so far inveigled I speak to men now alive who all know I speak true that it became then a most dangerous thing yea treason it self to say God save the King who was by this our Pulpit rhetorick made as odious then throughout the land as Popery what ever it be ever was or can be And are not neighbours thus abused daily almost in every thing Where is that man who hath not by such like means been one time or other induced to think amiss even of his most innocent and dearest friends till himself by trial found the contrary O but God forbid you will say that ever we should come by trial to know what Popery is Sir may it be far from us so long as heaven pleases But i' th interim what harm can it be to us to mitigate our passions which if there be no mistake are prejudicial notwithstanding to our own peace and if a mistake there should be are double injurious and desperately sinful before God and man Oh but mistake there can be none Sir let me tell you roundly By your own Book of Animadversions I do as clearly see as ever I beheld Sun in the Firmament that you do not your self understand what Popery is even no more then the poorest meanest peasant in the Parish But who is able to make this good and clear unto you no body Sir so long as you are in passion in a calm of indifferency your very self Nor could I without that serenity have been ever able to discern it But yet there is one thing more which will hinder your acknowledgement although you should come to know it It is their interest to justifie themselvs and yours to condemn them Had not you with your threats so much frighted me from any thought of writing any more I could I think my self who am in your judgement one of the greatest ingrams in the Land make it yet appear that the present Popish Religion if to pleas you they will give me leave to call it so is not only less ugly then we conceive it but far more innocent and amiable then I have made it And if there were not so much as one Catholik or Romanist or Papist upon earth yet so far am I from any interest herein that in that judgment I would notwithstanding dy alone Nor had I set before my eyes any other end in that my Fiat of moderation against which you write your hot Animadversions then the peace and welfar of my Countrey which under the pretended shadow of Popery inflamed by the alarms of Vicars and their Wives for whom we fight as it were pro aris focis hates and mischiess strikes and destroyes one another without end And yet which is a strange thing whilst every one conceits himself to fight for Purity of Gospel against Popery they fight all for Popery against Purity of Gospel And this you must affirm your self if you do but remember what in your Book of Animadversions you so frequently assert that what good soever the Papists or Roman Catholiks either do or have amongst them they have and do the same as Christians and not as Papists and that Popery is it self nothing els but pride interest ambition tyranny worldly respects thirst of blood affectation of dominion c. As I am sure on the other side that grace charity and peace is the pure quintessence of Gospel and the very extract of true Religion Either then I had reason to tell you that you understand not what Popery is or if you do you must needs acknowledge that those who here in England betwixt the years of 1640. and 1660. with guns and daggers as you often phrase it with field rhetorick and pulpit cannon subverted all before them even Church and State too let them call themselvs Puritans Independents Presbyterians or what they pleas were all of them by this your own rule as arch Papists as ever trode upon the earth Nor is it of concernment so they have the reality of the thing whence they may borrow their name whether some man upon earth be their Pope or whether the Devil be himself their ghostly father And I fear Sir you wer your self some part of that dismal tempest which in the last years of our woful Anarchy overbore all before it not only Church and State but reason right honesty all true Religion and even good natur too The very flashings of your pen move me to this thought The whole physiognomy of your Book speaks the hot and fiery spirit of the Authour First you cannot abide to hear of moderation it is with you most wicked hypocritical and devillish especially as it coms from me And for this one thing Fiat Lux suffers more from you then for all the contents of the Book put together My reason is your passion my moderation inflames your wrath and you are therfor stark wild becaus I utter so much of sobriety Secondly your so frequent talking of sword and blood fire and faggot guns and daggers do more then show you have not yet let
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
to him whom God hath set over us as our head and ruler under him and none exalt himself against him I know you will laugh at this my observation but I cannot but tell you what I think To return then to my former discours when I speak good Sir of the news of Christianity first brought to this land I mean not that which was first brought upon the earth or soil of this land and spoken to any body then dwelling here but which was delivered to the fore-fathers of the now present inhabitants who be Saxes or Englishmen And I say that we the now present inhabitants of England off-spring of the English or Saxons had the first news of our Christianity immediately from Rome and from Pope Gregorius the Roman Patriarch by the hands of his missioner St. Austin And this all men know to be as true as they know that Papists are now becom odious Sith then the categorick assertions are both clear namely that the Papist first brought us the news of Christianity and secondly that the Papist is now becom odious amongst us what say you to my consequence that the whole story of Christianity may as well be deemed a Romance as any part of that Christianity we at first received as now judged to be part of a Romance This consequence of mine it behoved a man of those great parts you would be thought to have to heed attentively and yet you never mind it You adde in the close of your discours that many things delivered us at first with the first news of Christianity may be afterwards rejected for the love of Christ and by the commission of Christ But Sir what love of Christ dictates what commission of Christ allows you to choos and reject at your own pleasure what heretick was ever so much a fool as not to pretend the love of Christ and commission of Christ for what he did How shall any one know you do it out of any such either love or commission sith those who delivered the articles of faith now rejected pretended equal love of Christ and commission of Christ for the delivery of them as of any other And why may we not at length reject all the rest for love of something els when this love of Christ which is now crept out into the very outside of our lips is slipt off thence Do you think men cannot finde a cavil against him as well as his law delivered unto us with the first news of him and as easily dig up the root as cut up the branches Is not the thing already don and many becom atheists upon that account Pray speak to me somthing of reason Did not the Jews by pretens of their love to that immortal God whom their forefathers served reject the whole Gospel at once and why may not we possibly as well do it by peece-meals Let us leav cavils Grant my supposition which you know you cannot deny then speak to my consequence which I deem most strong and good to infer a conclusion which neither you nor I can grant I tell you plainly and without tergiversation before God and all his holy angels what I should think if I descended unto any conclusion in this affair And it is this either the Papist who holds at this day all those articles of faith which were delivered at the first conversion of this land by St. Austin is unjustly becom odious amongst us or els my honest Parsons throw off your cassocks and resign your benefices and glebe-lands into the hands of your neighbours whose they were aforetime my consequence is irrefragable If any part much more if many parts great substantial parts of religion brought into the land with the first news of Christianity be once rejected as they are now amongst us as Romish or Romancical and that rejection or reformation be permitted then may other parts and all parts if the gap be not stopt be lookt upon at length as points of no better a condition Nay it must needs be so for the same way and means that lopt off som branches will do the like to others and root too A villification of that Church wherein they find themselvs who have a minde to prevaricate upon pretens of Scritur and power of interpreting light spirit or reason adjoyned with a personal obstinacy that will not submit will do it roundly and to effect This first brought off the Protestants from the Roman catholik Church this lately separated the Presbyterian from the English Protestant Church the Independent from the Presbyterian the Quaker from other Independents And this last good man heeds nothing of Christian religion but only the moral part which in deed and truth is but honest paganisme This speech is worthy of all serious consideration And I could wish you would ponder it seriously See if the Quaker deny not as resolutely the regenerating power of baptism as you the efficacy of absolution See if the Presbyterian do not with as much reason evacuate the prelacy of Protestants as they the Papacy See if the Socinian arguments against the Trinity be not as strong as yours against the real presence in the Eucharist See if the Jew do not with as much plausibility deride Christ as you his Church See if Porphiry Julian and other ancient pagans do not as strongly confute all Christianity as we any part of it He is a fool that having a will and power enough cannot find out as plausible a pretence for the pulling down of Churches as we had any for the destroying of Monasteries Ther be books lately set forth and by more then one authour here in this land which do as powerfully dissipate the conceit we once had of hell as any ever did elude Purgatory Did we not lately find out texts and reasonings against our King and monarchy as many as we found out long ago against Pope and popery Gods providence and our souls immortality if any list to deny he may have more abundant argumentations every where occurring than any other piece of popery now rejected ever felt If one text of scriptur be by a trope of rhetorick made to speak a sens contrarty to what was beleeved in catholik times in any one point cannot another text by some such slight be forced to frustrate another I am sure it may do so and has done so And thus when all articles are at last by such tricks of wit cashiered can there be wanting several appearing incongruities contradictions tautologies improbabilities to disable all holy writ at once And cannot the Jew afford us at last arguments enough to dissipate at length the very name of Christ out of the world which after the whole extirpation of his law will but float on mens lips like an empty shadow till it quite vanish These things Sir are not only true but clear and evident And nothing is wanting to justifie them but a serious consideration These few words Sir which I have bestowed upon you by way of
easily conveighed Christ our Lord drew a compendium of all divine truths into two words which his great apostle again abridged into one And if the several gospels for every day in the year which are or may be in the hands of all catholiks the chiefest particles of divine epistles books of sacred history and meditation upon all the mysteries of salvation and spiritual treatises for all occasions and uses which be numberles amongst catholiks adjoyned to the many several rites of examination of conscience daily and continual practis of prayer and fasting and an orderly commemoration of the things God hath wrought for us throughout the year which all by law are tied to observ and do observ them may not give a sufficient acquaintance of what concerns our salvation and promote them enough towards it I am to seek what it is that can or what further good it may do to read the letter of Saint Pauls epistles to the Romans for example or Corinthians wherin questions and cases and theological discourses are treated that vulgar people can neither understand nor are at all concerned to know And I pray you tell me ingeniously and without heat what more of good could accrew to any by the translated letter of a book whereof I will be bold to say that nine parts in ten concern not my particular either to know or practis than by the conceived substance of Gods will to me and my own duty towards him or what is ther now here in England when the letter of scriptur is set open to every mans eye any more either of peace or charity piety or justice than in former catholik times when the substance of Gods word and will was given people in short and the observance of their duty prolixly prest upon them What did they do in those ancient catholik times they flockt every day in the week to their Churches which stood continually open there to pray and meditate and renew their good purposes they sung psalms hymns and canticles all over the land both day and night they built all our churches that we have at this day remaining amongst us and as many more which we have razed and pulled down they founded our universities established our laws set out tythes and glebe-land for their clergy built hospitals erected corporations in a word did all the good things we found don for our good in this our native kingdom But Quid agitur in Anglia Consulitur de religione The former Christians practised and we dispute they had a religion we are still seeking one they exercised themselvs in good works by the guidance of their holy catholik faith which leads to them all these works we by our faith evacuate as menstruous rags they had the substance of true religion in their hearts we the text in our lips they had nothing to do but to conform their lives to Gods will all our endeavour is to apply Gods word to our own factions Sir mistake me not The question between us is not Whether the people are to have Gods word or no but whether that word consists in the letter left to the peoples disposal or in the substance urgently imposed upon people for their practis And this becaus you understand not but mistake the whole business all your talk in this your eighteenth chapter vades into nothing Where Fiat Lux sayes in that forenamed paragraff that the Pentateuch or hagiography was never by any High-priest among the Jew◠〈◊〉 into a vulgar tongue nor the Gospel or Litâ—… out of greek in the Eastern part of the Christian Church or latin in the Western You slight this discours of mine becaus hebrew greek and latin was say you vulgar tongues themselvs I know this well enough But when and how long ago were they so not for som hundreds of years to my knowledge And was the Bible Psalms or Christian liturgy then put into vulgar tongues when those they were first writ in ceased to be vulgar This you should have spoke to if you had meant to say any thing or gain-say me Nor is it to purpos to tell me that S. Jerome translated the Bible into Dalmatian I know well enough it has been so translated by some special persons into Gothish Armenian Ethiopian and other particular dialects But did the Church either of the Hebrews or Christians either greek or latin ever deliver it so translated to the generality of people or use it in their service or command it so to be don as a thing of general concernment and necessity So far is it from this that they would never permit it This I said and I first said it before you spoke and your meer gainsay without further reason or probability of proof cannot disposses me Dr. Cousins now byshop of Durham lately sojourneying in Paris when he understood of a grecian byshops arrival there did with some other English Gentlemen in his company give him a visit and with the same or like company went afterwards to see him The articles of our English Church were translated into greek and shown him Many questions were asked him about the service of the grecian Church praying for the dead invocation of Saints real presence confession c. Dr. Cousins can tell himself what answer he received from that venerable grave prelate Cyrillus archbishop of Trapesond for that was his name and title In brief he owned not those articles as any way consonant to the faith of the Greeks who beleeved and had ever practised the contrary He also told them distinctly and openly that Mass or Liturgy was and had ever been the great work of their Christianity all over the greek Church that confession of sins to a priest praying for the dead invocation of saints and such like points wherein we in England differ from papists were all great parts of their religion and their constant practis Finally he let them know that all the Liturgies both those of St. Basil St. Chrysostom St. Gregory Nazianzen were ever kept in the learned greek differing from the vulgar language And withall showed his own greek book of Liturgy which he used himself at the altar Dr. Cousins did himself see him officiate with his lay-brother a monk of St. Basil belonging to St. Catherins monastery in mount Sina ministring to him at the altar and found both by his words and practis that in all those and other essential parts and observances of Christianity the Greeks agreed perfectly with the Roman Church This testimony Sir of a venerable arch-byshop to such a worthy person as Dr. Cousins might I should think suffice to justifie my words and make you beleev with me that Christian Liturgies have ever been used as Fiat Lux speaks in a learned language distinct from the vulgar But we need not go far from home for a testimony Neither the Bible nor Service-book was ever seen here in England for a thousand years space in any other language but Latin before Edward the sixt dayes
except haply the Psalter which the Saxons and almost all people have ever had in their own tongue being a chief part of Christians devotion nor in Brittish or Welch before the byshop of S. Asaphs translation And yet the people all that while wanted no know-knowledge of Gods will or comfort of his word You mightily insult over me in your 336 page for saying that the bible was kept by the Hebrews in an ark or tabernacle not touched by the people but brought out at times to the priest that he might instruct the people out of it Here say you the authour of Fiat Lux betrayes his gross ignorance and somthing more for the ark was place in sanctum sanctorum and not entered but by the priest only once a year wheras the people were weekly instructed But Sir do I speak there of any sanctum sanctorum or of any ark in that place Was ther or could ther be no more arks but one If you had been only in these latter dayes in any synagogue or convention of Jews you might have seen even now how the bible is kept still with them in an ark or tabernacle in imitation of their fore-fathers when they have now no sanctum sanctorum amongst them You may also discern how according to their custom they cringe and prostrate at the bringing out of the bible which is the only solemn adoration left amongst them and that there be more arks than that in sanctum sanctorum If I had called it a box or chest or cupboard you had let it pass But I used the word Ark as more sacred 19 ch from page 365. to 386. I discerned in your nineteenth chapter which is upon my paragraff of Communion in one kind a somwhat more than ordinary swelling choller which moved me to look over that my paragraff afresh And I found my fault there is in it so much of Christian reason and sobriety that if I had since the time I first wrote it swerved from my former judgment of the probability I conceived to be in that Roman practis of communicating in one kind I had there met with enough to convert my self And therfor wondered no more that you should load me so heavily with your wonted imputations of fraud ignorance blasphemy and the like I ever perceiv you to be then most of all passionate when you meet with most convincing reasons When the exorcist is most innocent his patient they say then frets and foams and curses most Ther is not a word in this your chapter which is not by way of anticipation answered in that my § of Fiat Lux against which you write 20 ch from page 386. to 402. Ther is in your twentieth chapter which prosecutes my paragraff of Saints or Hero's one word of yours that requires my notice I say in that my paragraff that the pagans derided the ancient Christians for three of their usages First for eating their own God Secondly for kneeling to the Priests genitals Thirdly for worshipping an asses head This last you except against and impute my story to my own simplicity and ignorance if not to somthing wors for that imputation say you was not laid upon Christians at all but only upon Jews as may be seen in Josephus c. But Sir you may know that in odiosis the primitive Christians were ever numbred among the Jews and what evil report lay upon these was charged also upon them though somtimes upon another ground And although Josephus may excuse the Jews and not the Christians yet a long while after his time if not even then also that slander was generally all over the pagan world charged upon Christians also as may be read in Tertullian and other ancient writers yea and very probably by the very Jews themselvs who bitterly hated them cast off from themselvs upon the poor Christians on another account which I specified in Fiat Lux. And through the whole Roman Empire did the sound of this scandal ring up and down for som ages together Insomuch that Tertullian himself conceited that as the Christian religion was derived from the Jews so likewise that the imputation of the asses head first put upon the Jews might from them be derived upon Christian religion And the same Tertullian in his Apologetick addes these words The calumnies saith he invented to cry down our religion grew to such excess of impiety that not long ago in this very city a pictur of our God was shown by a certain infamous person with the ears of an ass and a hoof on one of his feet clothed with a gown and a book in his hand with this inscription This is Onochoetes the God of Christians And he addes that the Christians in the city as they were much offended with the impiety so did they not a little wonder at the strange uncouth name the vaillain had put upon their lord and master Onochoetes forsooth he must be called Onochoetes And are not you Sir a strange man to tell me page 393. that what I speak of this business is notoriously fals nay and that I know it is fals and I cannot produce one authentick testimony no not one of any such things But this is but your ordinary confidence 21 ch from page 402. to 416. I must not marvel that my following paragraff called Dirge is so wantonly plaid upon in your one and twentieth chapter You think of no body after they are dead nor does it at all concern you whether they be in hell or heaven or som third place or not at all But Sir were not all the ancient monuments of the foundations of our churches colledges and chappels in England now destroyed you would find your self with that wretched opinion of yours absolutely incapable to enter upon any benefice cure or employment in this land But the times are changed and you have nothing now to do but to eat drink and preach for to morrow you shall dye 22 ch from page 416 to 435. In your two and twentieth chapter which is of the Pope you do but only repeat my words and not understand and deny and laugh 23 ch from page 435. to Finis Your last chapter is upon my paragraff of Popery wherin I set down eleven other parcels of catholik profession all of them innocent unblamable and sacred You only bite at the first of them and having it seems enough filled your self with that your wearied bones go to rest With Mas comedido the title of my last paragraff you meddle not at all It is doubtless to you who understand not the English word Messach another Gnostick Paldabaoth But I would you had Mas comedido by heart You cannot but marvel that I have taken so little notice all this while of your only one strong and potent Argument your stout Achilles that meets me in every paragraff and period and beats me back into the walls of Troy Wherever I am whatsoever I say your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is upon me All
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
they at one time or other trip and fail And particular mens failings are to be rectified by the straightnes and integrity of the General Canon but they are not to be esteemed that Canon as your Doctor Taylor not inclined to mend things but marre them rather would here have them to be thorowout this whole book of his Disswasive where whatever he can read or hear of amongst the writings of any one in the Catholik world that may either swerv or be wrested from the universal judgment and beleef of Papists that he calls Popery and what they speak that the Roman Church must pretend O the strange perversness and wickedness of mans heart And yet this book of his thus made up has carried away not the weaker sort of men only but it seems has made even your discretion Sir to stagger For when I gave you lately a visit I perceived within a while that I had but gon forth to see a reed shaken with the wind What the Church can do is but one of the Questions of School-divinity and no Catholik faith Consequently no Popery And if two or three in the Schools should chance to aver this power in the Church where more then two or three thousands deny it why should not the opinion of three thousand Papist doctours be esteemed Popery as well as that of only three Whilst all of them agree in their faith which is that the Church hath a power authoritatively to decide controversies and dispute only of a further power then their faith reaches unto I should think that the opinion of three thousand Papist doctours is rather to be esteemed Popery if one of them must be called so rather then the single opinion of two or three if any such be to the contrary But truth is ther is no such opinion of any one I know to the contrary Nor does Turrecremata nor any els teach that the Church hath power to make new articles in that sence your Dr. Taylor means who therby would infer that Catholik faith is therfor not primitive but new Nay it is rather Popery and a part of Catholik faith that no new articles can be made For General Councels have determined that nothing is to be beleeved or held but id quod traditum est that which has been received from Christ and his Apostles Nor can the Religion otherwise be the faith of Christ or Christian Religion Sir if you do but seriously peruse the last one general Council which all Protestants hold to be rank popish that I mean which was kept at Trent you will find that they testifie almost in every Session and profes to make all their determinations according to that which had been delivered according to that they had received according to that which had been conserved by continual succession to that which was conformable to Apostolical tradition to that which had been perpetually and uninterruptedly retained to that which ancestours profest to that which the Church of God ever taught ever understood ever beleeved that which hath been received down by hands that which was the ancient judgment and custom that which has been approved since the apostles dayes c. These are all the very words of the Councel in several of their Sessions And shall a Doctor Taylor com now after all this and tell the world that Popery is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive and that Papists pretend to make new faith c. after a general Synod which all Protestants look upon as the most popish Councel that ever was and that too the last and nearest to us hath so manifestly so pathetically so generally profest the contrary What should we say to such a Doctor And other general Councels in like manner never determined any thing for the quieting of dissentions for which end they met together but what was latent at least in the seed of Christs word and so no new article in this Doctours sence as did that Councel for example which determined two wills in Christ which was no new article becaus the former old faith which had made known two perfect natures in our Lord the one divine the other humane apparently dictated that truth against all those who would acknowledg but one will in him And this being defined by the Councel received a new strength against a novel heresie but not a new birth For this caus Councels do not determin the varieties that are in Schoolmen becaus these are superstructures and none of them more latent in ancient tradition than is the opinion that is opposit to it But Turrecremata Triumphus Ancoran and Panormitan teach that the Church can make new articles If they should say any such thing I have already made it enough evident that it cannot be thence inferred to be popery or any part of popery But what if they speak no such thing What shall we think then of this your Dr. Taylor Turrecremata in the place cited by him never so much as dreamed as any man may there see that the Pope is the rule of faith as the Doctour would have him speak but in that whole chapter labours only to shew that it belongs to him principally to regulate disputes in faith as being the chief Prelate In the like manner does he most unworthily abuse the other three brought by him as witnesses that the Pope can make new Creeds and new faith wheras Panormitan teaches expresly that he cannot make but only declare faith Ancorano sayes the like adding that what he so declares may be new to us though not in it self and Triumphus no less manifestly speaks in the very place cited by him that ther is one and the same faith in the ancients and moderns and that in our holy Creed are inserted all those things which universally pertain to Catholik faith although he say withall which is also very true that to adde explicate or declare a truth which is contained in holy Scripture hath alwayes been lawful for the Church But is this to make new faith which is not Apostolik and primitive as this your Doctour would have them to assert Do you Sir your self judg And him that thus abuses the world God Almighty judg So that when we come to the close of all ther is not any one Catholik Doctour that ever said that the Church can make new articles of faith in Doctour Taylors sence Why then did Pope Leo the 10. condemn Luther for denying the Pope to have this power Neither did Luther or Pope Leo ever dream of any such thing For Luther wholly busied himself about his old Catholik Religion from which he had revolted which he called an Egyptian darkness that had overspread the earth even from the Apostles dayes and never thought of this school question which in his dayes was not heard of And he denied the then present Pope who was Leo the tenth to be any judg in those Controversies of Religion or to have any power statuendi of deciding or
discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem anathema sit And this is all the articles of faith determined in that Councel upon this affair wherein the faithful are forbid to hold that the Communion of Infants is necessary to salvation If any one sayes the Councel shall say that communion of the Fucharist is necessary to babes before they come to years of discretion let him be Anathema And this doctrin I am perswaded your Disswader himself holds for good But this would not make him sport enough And therfor he lets pass the Canon or Article of faith and speaks of the doctrin or Declaration of it which is not propounded for faith at all to any beleever although all Catholiks that know it adhere to it as good and solid And this is his first legerdemain to propound that for an Article of faith which is only a doctrin or declaration of faith His next trick is to make it run short like a Canon of faith wheras it is a large and serious explication wherein those words he catches at are so connexed with others that their rationality there appears which here is hid Third is that he makes it the Councels busines to determin only a matter of fact of the ancient Fathers not beleeving infants communion necessary though themselves used it which was none of the Councels intention but insinuated only by way of anticipation to cut off the arguments of hereticks who strengthned their errour about the necessity of infants communion by example of the ancient Fathers who practised it Denique eadem sancta Synodus docet parvulos usu rationis carentes nulla obligari necessitate ad Sacramentalem Eucharistiae Communionem Siquidem per Baptisms lavacrum regenerati Christo incorporati adeptam jam filiorum Dei gratiam in illa aetate amittere non possunt Neque ideo tamen damnanda est antiquitas si eum morem in quibusdam locis aliquando servavit Vt enim sanctissimi illi Patres sui facti probabilem causam pro illius temporis ratione habuerunt ita certe eos nulla salutis necessitate id fecisse sine controversia credendum est Thus speaks the Councel in their doctrin or declaration of that Article of faith Siquis dixerit But enough of this busines And although your Disswaders talk deserv it not yet your own satisfaction concerning these three novelties here specified becaus I thought it might haply require what I have said therof pray take it in good part And be assured that faith and Christianity in the Roman Church increases not like the moon although out of that Church it decreas indeed like the moon in her wain daily and in all Reformations to the wors § 3. Which is about Indulgences Sayes that the doctrin of Indulgences is wholly new and unknown to antiquity as Antonius Prierias Byshop Fisher Agrippa and Durandus Popish doctours do acknowledg And hence it is that Gratian and Magister sententiarum both of them eminent doctors among the Papists have not a word of them Indeed in primitive times when the Byshop imposed several pennances and that they were almost quite performed and a great caus of pitty intervened or danger of death or an excellent repentance or that the martyrs interceded the Byshop did somtimes indulge to the penitent and relax som remaining parts of his pennance But the Roman doctrin of Indulgence is another thing They talk of Jubilees and treasure of the Church and pilgrimages which ancient Fathers either speak against or never heard of In fine theirs is becom a doctrin of solution not absolution that is the sinner is to go free without any punishment which is destructive to true repentance and right hope to Christs merits and free pardon nourishes pride and brings in money condemned by holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers who teach repentance reducing to a good life faith in Christs merits and hope in his promises Neither can any Papists tell what they are the better for their Indulgences or whether they be absolutions or compensations whether they take off actual pennances or potential such as be due in the court of man or of God whether they avail if the receiver do nothing for them or not whether they depend only of Christs satisfaction or the Saints likewis And therfor the Councel of Trent durst determin nothing about all these things but contented themselves only to declare this That ther is in the Church a power of granting Indulgences advising Catholiks to set other superfluous and curious questions aside Sir if I had had the opportunity to print the four paragraffs which to lessen the book I left out of my Fiat Lux becaus one of them was about Indulgence I should need to say the less to this section wherin I must notwithstanding be brief that I may speak somwhat also to those that follow Three things are in this his third section confusedly jumbled together by your Disswader concerning this busines of Indulgence Faith School-philosophy and Abuses Catholik faith and Tradition he sets down himself p. 17. and acknowledges it for good Now lest the Roman Emissaries saith he should deceiv any of the good sons of the Church we think it fit to acquaint them that in the primitive Church when the Byshop imposed severe pennances and that they were almost quite performed and a great caus of pitty intervened or danger of death or an excellent repentance or that the Martyrs interceded the Byshop did somtimes indulge to the Penitent and relax som of the parts of his pennance and according to the example of S. Paul in the case of the incestuous Corinthian gave them ease lest they should be swallowed up with too much sorrow These are his words And in them he hath set down exactly not only the faith but all the faith of Roman Catholiks in this point to stop the mouths of Roman Emissaries which faith and practise he acknowledges also expresly to be antient and primitive And thus much he would have us beleev that Protestants hold and allow although not their books and writings only which manifestly gainsay it but their very practise which hath long ago abandoned and is now utterly ignorant either of confession or pennance or relaxation or indulgence and the very Articles of the English Protestant Church refute him But he that writes against Popery need not heed what he sayes If another say the contrary so that he speak against Popery too they will both pass for good But the Papists saith your Disswader they are quite gone from this primitive way their doctrin of Indulgence is another thing quite another thing And then jumbles together heaps of their school-disputes about solutions absolutions compensations relaxations and such like stuff which together with som abuses that time has brought forch as well in that as other affairs and which Councels and Pastours have in all ages endeavoured to rectifie must make up a Miscellan which he would have to be thought 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
should have clearly set down in this his section before he had discoursed further what is the Papists beleef and practice in this business But this he utterly omits and neglects to do lest he should spoil his own sport and thinks it enough in a rambling talk to say that the Fathers prayed for the dead the Fathers spoke much of intermedial states but no Greek Fathers no Latin Fathers agree with the Roman doctrin of Purgatory S. Cyprian denied it S. Austin doubted it the Scripture is against it the grounds for it are dubious apparitions for it are frivolous And he never speaks one word what that Roman doctrin of Purgatory is nor can I imagin what he fancies it to be If he do but speak against it be it what it will he has said enough So he thinks But Sir had he declared it as he ought to have don it had then clearly appeared that those Fathers who prayed for a joyful Resurrection to their friends departed who speak of a fire of purgation after this life of an intermedial state and purgations and delivery of souls thence were directly and perfectly of the now present Papists beleef and that St. Austins doubting whatever it was and the Greeks disagreeing in Florence and S. Cyprians affirming that ther is no place of repentance after this life so far as they are truly cited stand all very well perfect and completely with the Roman Catholik beleef and practice But what think you Sir of our English Protestant Church Does she pray or so much as leave it indifferent to pray for the dead as this Disswader speaks if it be not don in relation to Purgatory the name Purgatory I mean For if they pray for the refreshment ease and comfort of souls departed as ancient holy Fathers did ther is nothing els but the bare name remaining if those prayers bear any sence Hath the Protestant Church any altar or priesthood or sacrifice for the dead which all ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin speak of as the usage and custom of the Christian Church in their times Does any amongst them when he dies give alms either to priests or poor people or other friends to pray for his soul when he is departed hence Is not he looked upon that shall be heard to say for his deceased friend God give him rest or God grant him a joyful Resurrection as either som profest or at least a tacit and concealed Papist What is it this Doctour then tells us of the English Churches allowing prayer for the dead which our very Protestant articles condemn and all their writers have hitherto opposed Nor have they any Priests amongst them to perform any such rite in that way the Fathers speak of and used themselves on their altars which are all razed here to the ground And as for the people they neither do nor dare under the danger of being thought Papists if they had the mind either practise or commend any such custom But Greek Fathers never mention Purgatory as Polydor and Roffensis witness Where does Polydor and Roffensis witness that How would your Disswader have them mention it Purgatorium is a latin word and not to be found in greek writings Did not S. Basil pray to God for rest and pardon for the soul of thy servant N. N. Does not S. Chrysostom speak of his offering sacrifice for all those who slept before us c. and for the rest and pardon of thy servant N c. Does not S. Cyril frequently say We offer this sacrifice for our deceased Fathers and Bishops and all those who have departed this life c. And S. Epiphanius We make mention both of just and sinners c. And what is the Papists Purgatory for Gods sake but only such a condition of souls deceased as requires help from the prayers of the faithful living This I take to be the Roman doctrin or Catholik beleef both of the Eastern and Western part of the Church both Greeks and Latines wherein all ancient Christians unanimously agreed And your Disswader that he may leave it free for every mans thoughts to imagin what he lists never speaks himself what it should be But the Fathers prayed for those who perhaps never were in Purgatory as Apostles c. And they prayed too for those who perhaps were there or in that condition that required their prayers Truth is they prayed far differently for the just ones and other men as any one may see in those very Fathers insinuated in those your Disswaders words And if som just ones commemorated by the Fathers wanted not our prayers does this infer that no condition of souls deceased wants them or that those Fathers who prayed also for others then deceased as wanting those helps although in another manner than for the just should think so I trow not however your Doctour throws his ink about confusedly to blind our eyes But S. Austin doubted whether there were any Purgatory or no. And is it likely Sir that he who in his Enchiridion Cura pro mortuis Civitate Dei and several other of his works speaks so expresly of souls expiation after death and of the sacrifices which himself made being a Priest for souls deceased in particular for his mother Monica and her husband for that end so expresly I say and clearly that no Roman Catholik now either does or could possibly say more should doubt whether there were after this life any expiatory place or condition I will but set down two or three places of many in that holy Fathers works which may suffice to show his mind Temporarias poenas alii in hac vita tantùm alii post mortem alii nune tunc patiuntur l. 21. de Civitate Dei Again Orationibus vero sanctae Ecclesiae sacrificio salutari eleemosynis quae eorum spiritibus erogantur non est dubitandum mortuos adjuvati ut cum eis misericordius agatur à Domino quam eorum peccata meruerunt hoc enim à patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia De verb. apost serm 34. Again Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari cum pro illis sacrificium mediatoris offertur Ench. c. 10. The Disswader cannot but have read several such like passages in that eminent Doctor And the jest is that the place he cites for S. Austins doubting of Purgatory is one of those wherin he expresly teaches it So expert a Doctour is this of yours What is it then St. Austin doubted For he must needs doubt somthing Otherwise ther had been nothing for your Disswader to catch hold of Speaking therfor of those sufferings after this life before eternal bliss can be obtained in which condition such as upon a good foundation have built som light matter which the Apostle calls wood hay and straw may be saved yet so as by fire S. Austin doubts whether those very affections men bear to things in this life which are lawfully had
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
Fathers speak of a figure or trope in Rhetorick it is manifestly apparent they speak of a figure in nature that figure or shape which accompanies natural things which in this mysterious Sacrament is made by the power of God to accompany another substance So that here the appearance of natural bread is no more the figure of bread as naturally it is but the figure now of our Lords blessed body couched by the power of God under that appearance which is naturally the figure of wine and bread And a figure of the body it could not be unless the substance of that body were really and truly there under that figure or appearance Figura non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus But in Peter Lumbards time Transubstantiation was so far from being an article of Catholik faith that they did not know whether it were true or no as appears by the same authour in his 4. book and eleventh distinction so that it made haste to pass in the Lateran Councel for faith which about fifty years before in Lumbards time was but a new disputable opinion Your Disswader had done wisely if he had produced for himself as frequently he does only some obscure authours which seldom fall into mens hands But Peter Lumbard the master of sentences is an authour so known by all and in every mans hand that your Disswader had he not utterly abandoned both honesty and reason too had never mentioned him For this great master from his eight to the fourteen distinction of his fourth book doth with all solidity and art so declare and confirm the real presence in this Sacrament of the Altar and the conversion of the elements by Gods powerful word into the very substance of our Lords body as a great article of ancient Christian faith that nothing can be said either more solidly or with more earnest resolution But Quem Deus vult perdere dementat After your Disswader had wilfully thrown away his honesty God in his just judgment so darkened his reason that he could not so much as heed what he said There I say that learned Catholik Doctour does industriously and in a copious manner in thirty whole pages together according to the edition I have by me printed at Colen both declare and establish that Catholik Christianity of the real presence and transmutation of the elements into Christs sacred body answering and clearing many things which hereticks and pagan philosophers might object against it And your Disswader takes hold of one of the philosophical objections which the great master presently solves for an argument of the masters own doubting although he could not but see him assert declare and establish the contrary the real presence I mean and miraculous mutation of the elements into the substance of our Lords flesh and blood in all that his copious and learned discours both before and after that objection O unhappy Kingdom of ours by these lying fals teachers so wofully misled This one only passage which any one that hath but a mediocrity of learning may see with his own eyes may suffice to show what a man your Disswader is and how little to be credited But whom God will overthrow for his grand misdemeanours him he in his justice blindeth I could find in my heart to give here an abridgment of all that great masters discours concerning this Sacrament of the altar as he there calls it But it is somwhat besides my way and I have already been too long Qui legit intelligat The great weight and importance of this business hath made me speak somthing more of it than I shall of other things That I may therfor here recapitulate in brief what I have hitherto said to manifest your Disswaders insignificancy and to speak plainly his impertinency in this point First he is faulty in that he never declares this busines of Transubstantiation what it is or what it means in the beleef and judgment of that Roman Church he opposes Secondly that he makes all the Popish Doctours which he mentions concerning it to speak against it and to disown it whatever he meant by it and not any one of them to speak for it or profes it And how then is it Popish or Popery Thirdly that he sayes in the beginning of his section that the piece of Popery he here writes against was first determined in the Councel of Lateran and yet but two pages after forgetting himself he sayes that the opinion was not determined in the Lateran as it is now held in Rome and yet never expresses how it is now held in Rome or what that is which is now held in Rome contrary to the Councel or by whom or in what manner Fourthly becaus the busines of the real Presence which Protestants love to call Transubstantiation that they may play with that fine long gingling word as children with a rattle is not touched at all by him And yet that is all the substance of Popery in this point which that Berengarius the heretick together with his associates might fully acknowledg without any slight of the manifold evasions used by him this word was invented by the Prelates of the Councel as was Consubstantiation by those of Nice for a firmer establishment of Catholick Tradition and ancient truth So that your Disswader here touches but the lid and rind not the heart and substance of Popery which he is afraid indeed to deal with And being weak in sence he playes with words § 6. Which is against Popish Communion Sayes that the half-communion is another Innovation in Popery swerving from the Apostles practice and Chirsts Institution as appears in the Popish Councel of Constance where it is decreed though Christ instituted and primitive Christians received in both kinds yet that no Priest under pain of Excommunication should communicate the people under both kinds which is a bold affront to Christ himself although even their own Cassander and Aquinas teach that to be the ancient custom of the Church and Paschasius resolves it dogmatically that the one is not to be communicated without the other This busines Sir is more amply discussed and cleared in my Fiat Lux which you have by you If you do but read that I shall have here less to say But know Sir that this busines touches not any unalterable dogme of faith but an alterable use and practice as shall be declared by and by and therfor is it not to be called Popery upon that account And a change in such things is so far from blame that it is oftentimes necessary so long as the substance of Religion is preserved intire as here it is Christians are to fast after the departure of the Espouse and set times therfor to be appointed that such a good work be not in the Church of God utterly neglected yet the dayes and times are some of them for urgent reasons altered They did fast on Wednesdayes and not Saturdayes in many places now on Saturdayes not Wednesdayes
Christians did stand at their Liturgy all Paschall time now they kneel Little children were in old time communicated after Baptisme in many places of the Catholik world now no where Absolution is now given upon an humble confession and a promis either exprest or tacite of performing the due pennance but it could not be in ancient times obtained till the pennance was fulfilled Priests may be consecrated now at twenty five years old in former times not till thirty Many holy dayes were then kept which now cannot Many now which could not then Communion was oftner in som ages than it is now There is a reason for all these changes of disciplin and custom But the substance of Religion remains ever the same about Fasts Liturgy Baptism Pennance Confession Priesthood Feasts Communion and such like things though som circumstance may change So concerning this point of the Eucharist the substance of Religion is that in memory of our blessed Lords Passion a benediction or consecration of bread and wine be made in the Church of God by his Priests for ever until our Lords second coming to the end that the Church his spouse may ever have his body with her to feed upon This I say is the substance of religion in this point But som circumstances such as may will change For example Priests rarely celebrated in som times of the Church but yet when any Mass or Messach was kept by any one of them all the other Priests and Clergy-men that were near would assuredly be present at it and hear and pray and meditate with other people in most humble and fervent manner as became all good Christians to do but now in this last age they go generally every one to the Altar daily Which custom is the better I will not here determin But I am sure that great S. Francis commanded all his children to hear Mass once a day both Priests and others but forbad those that were Priests every day to celebrate and I think he had the Spirit of God in him In old times all Christian Priests had their head covered at the Altar with an Amictus or amice of pure linnen now they generally let it fall into their neck and their heads are utterly bare And time will come that they will put it upon their heads again So likewise for good and just reasons were catholik people in som times and places communicated in the one kind and som time in the other and som time and place in both But they were never debard Communion nor was ever the Sacrifice of the Altar stopped Nor is it so indifferent a circumstance to consecrate or celebrate in one kind as it is in one kind to communicate For Communion respects the thing contained the body and blood of Christ which was ever beleeved to be equally present in either kind But the sacrifice or consecration in one kind would not figure our Lords death and passion and the effusion of his blood as it ought to do But this great Christian work of sacrificing which is essential Religion and the very characteristical badg of Christianity becaus our Protestant Reformers cast it off they talk ever since only of Communion of lay-people as though the sacred benediction or consecration and oblation which indeed is the Christian sacrifice according to the rite and figure of Melchisedek recounted admired and worshipped by all primitive Christians were instituted only for that end Wheras indeed Christ our Lords institution touches immediately the figuration only of his death and passion which is completly don in the sacrifice consummated by the Priest although the peoples communion unto whose comfort and benefit all that work of consecration is exercised in the Church ought to follow by sequel when it is necessary or expedient Now the ancient primitive Church so firmly beleeved that the blessed body and blood and whole humanity and divinity of Christ were so present to those sacred symbols after the benediction or consecration of them by their Priests in Christs name and vertue tho it be unconceivable and wholly ineffable unto us that if a man with an indifferent and unprejudiced eye will but look back upon antiquity he may plainly see that in all ages it was indifferent to Christians though not to consecrate yet to communicate either in one kind or both For the younger people and such as were sick were generally communicated only in the liquid kind and others though som also received in both when solemn Communion was made yet that in the very primitive times they thought it all one to receiv either in both or one S. Cyprian S. Basil and Tertullian very ancient Priests and Fathers do abundantly witness For Tertullian in his book de oratione describing the Christian wayes of old Vsque adeo accepto corpore saith he stationem liceret solvere that is when they had communicated the body of their Lord no mention made of the chalice they brake up their station and had their Ite missa est to be gon as it is now even at this day among Catholiks And as for S. Basil he in his epistle to Caesarea Patricia tells at large how Christians in those dayes communicated four times a week and oftner if a Martyrs feast chanced to fall in the week and how that if persecution happened so violent that a Priest could not be had to give the people Communion they were forced with their own hands to touch that sacred body which was consecrated and kept in ciborium's boxes or pixis for them And this the peoples irreverence of touching the sacred body good S. Basil labours to excuse both by the urgency of their devotion and need and also by the example of the Hermits who leading a monastical life for want of Priests at that time among them kept the sacred Communion in their cells and received it with their own hands touching it contrary to the general custom when devotion and piety required as also by that of the Christians in Alexandria and Egypt who in such times of persecution and danger would have the sacred Communion at home in their own houses lest upon any necessity they should chance to dye without it and lastly by the very custom of Priests in the Church who then so delivered the host to communicants that when it was put by the Priests into their mouths they touched som part of it who received it with their own hands All this S. Basil there discourses more at large which agree well to the consecrated bread thus touched by the people in time of necessity thus put into their mouths by the help of the Priests and their own hands thus kept at home in times of persecution thus reserved in pixes or little arks but not at all to the chalice And all those devout Christians thought themselves sufficiently communicated in one kind who understood Christianity as well surely as we do now abov a thousand years after them St. Cyprian likewise in his book
de lapsis has much to the same purpos giving us also to understand by his testimony that those ancient Christians for fear of death and the grievances of persecution had usually the Sacrament kept by them in a Repository or Ark in their houses which with all devout reverence when they were necessitated to it they put with their own hands into their mouths and participated on such like occasion although by general custom it used to be put into their mouths by the hands of Priests And he relates amongst other things a frightful story of a certain woman who for fear or other weaknes had complied to the idol sacrifices and when she came home to repent and humble her self in her Oratory and by holy communion both to expiate that her transgression and strengthen her against the like temptation as soon as she had opened her Ciborium or Pixis wherein the body of her Lord and Redeemer was kept a terrible flash of fire issuing thence upon her did so affright her that she durst not touch it Quandam saith he mulierem sacrificiis idolorum contaminatam cum Repositorium seu Arcam suam in quâ sanctum Domini posuerat manibus pollutis tentasset aperire ignis efflans eam terruit nec tangere erat ausa This and much more might be brought to witnes that primitive Christians thought themselves completly communicated in one kind and this very kind that is now in use amongst Catholiks But I must come to your Doctour Half-Communion saith he is another Popish novelty wherby they deprive the people of Christs blood Sir if they eat in memory that Christ died for them which they do and which in all Protestancy makes a perfect communion how are they deprived of his blood Can they beleev his death and passion without faith of his blood shed for them But they ought to have wine as well as bread So they have as much as the Disswader and his Church allows their people wherby they may feed upon Christ who shed his blood for us in their heart by faith with thanksgiving and which as your Disswader here speaks may make Christs body and blood present to them by sacramental consequence And how is it then a half-communion O but the wine is not the blood of Christ Not carnally as your Disswader speaks of his Sacrament but it is so by sacramental conseqence It is as much then as yours the blood of Christ And how is it then a half-communion and yours a whole one O but their bread is beleeved to be the body of Christ So it is but yours is not And therfor if theirs be but a half-communion yours is none at all But how good Doctour Disswasive is half-communion either new Popery or old Popery or any Popery at all Roman Catholiks or Papists use no such word nor do they own any such thing as Half-Communion They beleev and call it a whole Communion Is it lawful for you to forge a Popery of your own and then put it upon them who neither in thought word or any of their writings profess any such thing But is not Communion in one kind all one with Half-Communion No Sir it is not all one It differs as much as half and whole And that I think is somthing It is a whole Communion Sir both in the tenour of their beleef and according to that of yours And why then should you call it a half-communion According to theirs whole Christ is equally present under either of those figures or appearances and therfor according to their faith it is a whole Communion And according to yours it is no less When you your selves give the bread to your people and say Take this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed upon him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving you do not intend I suppose nor do the people mean to feed only upon one half of him Why then would your Disswader injuriously misname that a half-communion which in all opinions is a whole one Neither Catholiks nor Protestants feed upon the signs but thing signified This difference too there is that Catholiks have all the mystery of the passion represented to them in their sacrifice and the presence of the whole Lord in their Communion But Protestants have no such thing although the mystery be preacht to them And therfor is the Catholik not a half but whole Communion and that of the Protestants may well be doubted whether it be any Communion at all though it be a whole Sermon For how can any one discern the Lords body there where in reality it is not If your Disswader had a candour becoming a gentleman he would neither falsifie the wayes nor misname the practice of any Religion But be it as it is Since Papists as he will have them called have equally used the Communion in the liquid kind alone as this in only the other why should he call one of them more than the other by the name of Popery And why is not Communion in both kinds which he acknowledges to have been more in use amongst them and proves it by the testimony of their own popish doctours be rather Popery than either of the other O but this half-communion began but in the Councel of Constance I have sufficiently shown you Sir that the custom was in the world before the City of Constance knew what Christianity were And even this Councel of Constance is perverted by the Disswader too as if he had sworn to act nothing sincerely That busines in the Councel was thus Petrus Dresdensis and other associates of Huz had taught publickly and with much scandal that the Eucharist is necessarily to be given to lay-people after supper and in both kinds This doctrin and practice of theirs was censured by the Councel which at one and the same time declared those two circumstances of communicating in both kinds and after supper not to be of necessary obligation because the Canons and approved ancient custom of the Church had never looked upon those two circumstances as of necessity to be observed But what does your Disswader here First he sets down the Councels resolution in direct opposition to Christ Whereas Christ instituted c. yet we command contrary c. as though the Councel had absolutely annulled Christs institution which notwithstanding they acknowledg and allow for good and only declare the two said circumstances in that institution of our Lord not to be of that necessity as the substance of the institution it self giving for their reason for it which your Disswader thinks not good to take notice of that the Canons and ancient custom of the Church had sufficiently made manifest that those two circumstances of communicating at night and in both kinds were not necessary by allowing the contrary practice in primitive times Secondly whereas the Councel joyned both the circumstances together namely of communicacating in both kinds and after supper he quite leaves out that of receiving
book and besides all rule and against truth The occasion of assembling this Councel of Frankford were the misdemeanours of Elipandus Byshop of Tolledo in Spain For Faelix Urgelitanus his Countreyman having consulted Elipandus concerning that scholastick difficulty Whether Christ as man ought to be called the natural or only the adoptive Son of God by means of his discours and a book written by him upon that subject beleeved and said against the ancient language of the Church that Christ was to be held an adoptive child of God and not his natural son And these two together with Claudius Taurinensis who came to them from Italy filled all Spain with the clamour This act of theirs was fond as well as wicked For though in the schools it might haply be held that Christ as man is not the natural but only the adoptive Son of God if that particle as be taken for a note of reduplication yet they could not be igrant that beleevers have nothing to do with such nice logical points These conceiv Christ altogether specifically as he is in himself And so they had ever beleeved him to be the only begotten natural Son of God and we â—…l so many as are made partakers of his graâ—e â—…opted in him And he that shall â—rea 〈…〉 st to be as man only his adoptive Son whâ—ther that as of his be taken reduplica 〈…〉 ficatively he make but an ass 〈…〉 and a knave to boot But these three though often admonished yet would they not desist And therfor in a Councel at Ratisbone Faelix by name was condemned respect being then had to the person and dignity of the Archbyshop of Toledo and the other Byshop Faelix therfor was brought to the Emperour Charles his Court who then wintered at Rheginum where after a while he humbly submitted to the Councel there then met together and from thence sent to the presence of Pope Adrian in the Cathedral of S. Peter he publickly acknowledged his errour and returned home to his own City Elipand when he heard of all this grew more violent than before and laboured not only with his whole endeavour to reclaim Faelix to his former errour but by letters patent and large dated to all the Byshops of France and Germany to draw those two Kingdoms to his opinion Wherupon Faelix returned again to his vomit And least the infection should spread any further by the agreement of the Pope and Charles the Emperour a Councel was called at Frankford This was the very busines and occasion of that Councel wherby every one may discern himself not only the improbability that the said Councel of Frankford which purposely met together to maintain the honour of Christ should deface his figures but the falsity also of this your Disswader who tells us that a while after this Councel of Frankford Ludovicus son to Charles the great sent Claudius a famous Oratour to preach against images in Italy p. 60. Wheras Claudius had troubled Italy and Spain too three or four years before that Councel nay before the Councel of Ratisbone which was two years before and his way was condemned with himself both at Ratisbone and Frankford too These things being so how in the name of God comes your Disswader here against so much reason to aver that the Councel of Frankford declared against images that they condemned the second Nicen Synod wherin the use of Images had been maintained that they published a book wherin that Synod was declared Antichristian and that Ludovicus Charlemains son sent down Claudius after that Councel to preach against Images in Italy I know that other Protestants have been guilty too of some part of this his story so far at least as to say in particular that the Frankford Councel was against images But they never set down any of that Councels declaration against them nor is ther any extant Binius who set forth all the Councels at large both shows and copiously proves that the acts of the second Nicen Councel were all confirmed in the Councel of Frankford which is also averred by Alanus Surius Vasquez and several other learned men And since it is likely enough that somthing was done in this Councel about Images wherof ther is so much talk in the world ther can nothing be thought more rational than that Pope Adrian whose legates presided in both the Councels should according to the Churches custom send those decrees of Nice about the same time lately finished unto the Councel now at Frankford that the definition of the Nicen Councel might be made known to all the West by their acceptation and promulgation at Frankford Which also that it was absolutely done and no other thing done but it may sufficiently be gathered by the authority of the Councel of Senon which in the 14. of their decrees speaks thus Carolus magnus Francorum rex Christianissimus in Francofordiensi conventu ejusdem error is Iconomachorum suppressit insaniam quam infaelicissimus quidam Faelix in Gallias Germani as invexerat And the same is ratified by Platina who in the life of Pope Adrian Biennio post saith he Theophylactus Stephanus Episcopi insignes Adriani nomine Francorum Germanorum Synodum habuerunt in qua Synodus quam septimam Graeci appellabant haerests Faeliciana de tollendis imaginibus abrogata est as also by Paulus Emilius who in his second book de gestis Francorum speaking of that Councel of Frankford Et imaginibus saith he suus honor restitutus est The like may be proved out of Blondus in his Decads Sabellicus his Aeneads Gablisards Chronology Alanus his Dialogues Nauclerus c. All which various testimonies joyned in one together with the motives of that Frankford Councel the great procurer and protectour of that Councel Charles the great an eminent Champion of the Roman Church the Presidents of that Councel Theophylact and Stephen legates of the same Pope Adrian who had lately finished and confirmed the second Councel of Nice may suffice I should think to refute the trifling humour of this Disswader But his confidence is greater in his readers light beleef then either the weight or truth of his own words But all the devices of Roman writers to palliate this their crime he sayes are frivolous What are these devices and what is their crimes Sir where there is no crime there needs not any palliating devices Is it a crime to keep an image of Christ crucified for us that we may be often put in mind of the good and vertue of his holy passion and our fansie assisted and kept in at our prayers within the compass of their object This is the busines Sir speak directly unto this before you go any further You will make all sorts of prophane Images either to some civil use or indifferent or perhaps a naughty end This is no crime with you If it be how comes it to pass that never any byshop or other minister in England who scribble with
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
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 or 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 consticutions 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 byshop 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 Achilli 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 as 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 Metropolit an 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 each one with all his whole power he had received from God since the very chiefest of his power which is to confer grace upon the ministerial acts of his words and
material symbols Communion in one kind Liturgy in hebrew greek or latin tongus unknown generally to vulgar people Use and respect of images and sacred figures Spiritual Supremcay in one byshop over the rest Saints invocation and sacrifice of mass are all acknowledged by former Protestant Reformers for old errours errours indeed but old very old ones a thousand years older than your Disswader makes them who would here make us beleev they are but fresh novelties As for the antiquity of Indulgences so far as they belong to Catholik beleef I need not trouble my self with further testimonies then the only one of your Disswader himself who is instar omnium For p. 17. he acknowledges their use to be ancient and primitive As for the real presence Humpred in his Jesuitism sayes that Gregory the great who lived a thousand years ago taught Transubstantiation The Century writers Cent. 5. teach that Chrysostom who was two hundred years before Gregory is thought to confirm transubstantiation and Cent. 4. they place under the title of hurtful opinions and errours of the fathers that saying of S. Greg. Nyssen in his catechist sermon de divino sacramento Not becaus it is eaten doth the bread becom the body of the word but forthwith by the word it is changed into the body as it is said by the word This is my body And they say in the same century c. 10. That Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation Antony de Adamo in his anotomy of the mass sayes That the book of Sacraments ascribed to Ambrose affirms the opinion of Christs bodily presence in the sacrament Peter Martyr in his defence wholly dislikes the judgment of St. Cyril in this point Mr. Whitgift in his defence against Cartwright testifies of St. Ignatius disciple to St. John the Evangelist that he should say of some hereticks in his time That they do not admit Eucharists and oblations becaus they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins Adamus Francisci in his margarita theologica saith Commentum papistarum de transubstantiatione maturè in ecclesiam irrepsit And Antony de Adamo in his anatomy of the Mass saith I have not yet hitherto been able to know when this opinion of the real and bodily being of Christ in the Sacrament did begin This then according to the acknowledgment of Protestants and those very learned men is no novelty The indifferency of communion either in one kind or both is manifestly affirmed by Luther in his epistle ad Bohemos by Melanchton in his century of theological epistles and several other Protestants convinced therof by the current of primitive antiquity That the Christian Liturgy was in ancient times ever celebrated in Greek Chaldee Latin or other language unknown to vulgar Christians and in a part of the Church where lay people might not approach and great part of it secretly and out of the hearing of any body and with much pomp of vestments gold and silver chalices c. is amply testified by Theodore Beza in his eight epistle theological And therfor Queen Elizabeth did not think she acted against antiquity when she caused the Service to be read in English all over Wales where the people understand it not For which very same reason the great Cardinal Richlieu deservedly taxed heretical ministers who except at least in outward show against this ancient custom for their practising the very same thing as convinced in their own consciences that it was the ancient practice both in Bearn Narbo Province and other places where the ministers of those places read Service in the French Tongue which was not the language of those Provinces nor by any of those people any more understood than is Latin by the vulgar of mankind And yet the case is far otherwise in this affair affair amongst Catholiks than other people For these do but only come together to hear and attend to the Minister what he sayes But the Priests in the Catholik Church comes to make atonement for the people which may well be done so long as the said people are in a general disposition of heart fitly disposed to present themselvs before the face of their Lord for that end whether they hear and know the sighs and requests of their petitioner in particular for them or no so long as they are assured they are of that true Church by whom their priests are directed in their duty For thus it was in the law of Moyses dictated by God himself There shall be no man saith the sacred text Lev. 16. in the tabernacle of the congregation when the priest goeth in to make an atonment in the holy place untill he come out and have made an atonement for himself and for his houshold and for all the congregation of Israel If God allowed of this custom four thousand years ago it can neither be a novelty nor ill As for images and their due respect the Magdeburgian Centuriators in their 4. Century testifie That Lactantius affirms many superstitious things concerning the efficacy of Christs image And in their 8. century That S. Bede erred in the worshipping of images So Bale in his pageant of Popes sayes That Gregory by his indulgences established pilgrimages to images and defended worshipping of images As also That S. Leo allowed the worshipping of Images Functius another Protestant in his chronology at 494. addes That Xenaias who lived thirteen hundred years ago was specially noted and condemned for being the first that stirred up wars against images This is then no novelty neither As for Purgatory and prayer for the dead Fulk in his Retentive affirms That it prevailed within three hundred years after Christ And in his confutation of Purgatory That Ambrose allowed prayer for the dead and that it was the common errour of his time And again in the same book That Chrysostom and Jerom allowed prayer for the dead and in another place of the same book That Austin blindly defended it and again there That Tertullian Cyprian Austin Jerom and many others affirm that sacrifice for the dead is the tradition of the Apostles As also he had acknowledged about ten pages before in the same book That prayers for the dead is taught in the writings now extant under the name of Dionysius Areopagita mentioned in the acts of the Apostles which book though he doubt whether it be his or no yet himself writing against the Rhemish upon the 2. Thessalonians allows it to have been written above thirteen hundred years ago Chemnitius in his Examen sayes That it was taught by Austin Epiphanius and Chrysostom as nine pages before that he had said It was taught by Origen Ambrose Prudentius and Jerom. Mr. George Gifford in his Demonstration sayes That it was generally in the Church long before Austin as may be seen in Cyprian and Tertullian And Bucer in his Enarrations upon the Gospels speaks That prayer and alms were made for the dead
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
under their patriark resident in Caramit metropolis of Mesopotamia or els in the monastery of S. Saphran near the city Merdin The Cophti or Christians of Egypt subject to the patriark of Alexandria The Habassms or midland Ethiopians under their own patriark or Abuna who is ever a monk of S. Antonies order consecrated for them by the patriark of Alexandria The Armenians on this side and beyond Euphrates under their two patriarks resident one of them in Mitilene or els in the city of Sis not far from Tarsus in Cilicia the other in Sebastia or els in the monastery of Ecmeazin The Maronites resident in mount Libanus under their patriark who is ever a monk and resides either in Tripoli or in the great monastery of S. Antony All these although many of them fell away long since from ecclesiastick unity upon their dislike of the Councel of Ephesus and Chalcedon where one person and two natures in Christ was declared and others of them upon other such like occasion yet do they still keep up all of them their monasteries altars priesthood sacred ordination messach and ancient Christian Liturgy Nor do they know any other way of serving or appeasing the Almighty in order to heavenly bliss than this propiatory sacrifice which received from their forefathers they practise and exercise to this day And this was ever the great devotion of all Christians and still is excepting only some few here in the North who have gone out of that primitive Christianity the last age by following the unhappy steps of Luther and Calvin and not all of them neither For Luther although he fouled yet did he not throw down the altar and the pure Lutherans that be yet in Germany Denmark and Sweathland keep it up still Thus Sir have other Protestants admitted all that to be ancient which this your Disswader calls a novelty unheard of in ancient times Nay Luther and Calvin esteemed all Popery an old Egyptian darknes spread over the face of the Church all ages since the Apostles dayes and dissipated at length by that new light which they revealed It is a strange thing that Popery which in Luther and Calvins dayes was old should now after a hundred years be grown young again But when Protestancy was new then Popery was old and now Popery must be thought new when Protestancy is grown old and rotten Truth is it was the Ministers advantage to acknowledg Popery to be old when 〈◊〉 where Catholik Religion spread all over â—…e earth had all her monuments intire by her to show her antiquity to all people then living who had also heard of the Catholik faith of their ancestours although they made it by slight of fallacious oratory erroneous But here and now in England where all those monuments are destroyed it is a double convenience to say that Popery is erroneous and new too When the first Reformers endeavoured to supplant the Catholik professours of their means and livings it was best to accuse them of old errours But now to keep their livings they have invaded it is a wiser part it seems to inveigh against Popery as a novelty There novelty could no way be proved and here in England antiquity cannot easily be shown Then matter of fact would have disproved novelty now matter of fact will not prove antiquity here in this Kingdom where the ancient religion is abrogated about a hundred years ago and people now alive that behold Protestancy never saw Catholick Religion and are almost perswaded by their ministers there was never any such thing here Nor will people read Catholik authors nor beleev them if they do nor have they power to consider who built all their Churches or made their laws or any other good thing done for them by Catholik beleevers but take all Papists to be in a manner Atheists becaus they com not to hear their ministers talk in those Churches from whence poor Catholiks were first solemnly banisht and then within a while after were punished for not coming there at such a time when their altar sacrifice and priesthood were now abolished and their priests put to death and others made liable to it afterwards when ever they should come into those Churches again to do their functions and ministers had got into their places to rail against them and that holy ancient Religion which had built those Churches to their hands Ther is I think no better way imaginable to discover the natur of the ancient Christian Church than by considering what was said to be her beleef and practice then when first she dared to show her face openly in the world appearing at length as it were from under ground and her former lurking condition wherin she had remained three hundred years under the cruel persecution of Pagan Emperours As soon as Constantin the Great Gods heavenly grace so moving him had first taken this holy Church by the hand and cloathed her with her ornaments of peace then surely she would appear her self And what she was then may be easily gathered by such ancient writers who either purposely spake of the life of Constantin or incidentally of the things which were done in those dayes as Eusebius Zozomen S. Jerom Bede and others who deliver us the form and features of the Christian Church in those times so like unto the Popery that is now adayes after thirteen or fourteen hundred years both in the particulars Dr. Taylor speaks of and several others now cancelled by our Protestant Reformation that a man may safely swear that the now present Popery and old Christianity are one and the same thing Eusebius tells us how Constantin the Emperour after the fashion of those good times chastised his own body with fasting and disciplines how he used to bless himself and sign his face with the sign of the Cross how highly he honoured and set up that triumphal ensign having confidence of victory in vertue therof how he erected illustrious temples in memory of the Christian martyrs how he refused to sit down in the general Councel of Nice till the Prelates there had given their consent how he dedicated a sumptuous Church in memory of the apostles and provided there a sepulchre for himself to the end that after his death he might be partaker of the prayers there offered how he assembled the priests to the dedication of his temple wherof some preached others offered sacrifice for the common peace for the Church of God and for the Emperour and lastly how in his sickness he confest his sins in a chappel of the martyrs and prayer and sacrifice made for his soul after his deceas Zozomen in his history tells us also of him that becaus those primitive Christians used consecrated places and only them for their publick Liturgy Constantin had ever carried with him 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