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
excellent saying of S. Cyprian to prove that the Church was intrusted to the apostles in common and that no one apostle exercised a power over another The text of S. Cyprian runs thus Our Lord said to Peter Vpon this rock will I build my Church and again feed thou my sheep Vpon the one Him Christ builds his Church and unto Him he commends his sheep to be fed And although after his resurrection he gave to all his apostles equal power and said as my father sent me so I send you yet that he might manifest unity he constituted one chair and by his authority disposed the origen of unity beginning from one The other apostles are the same that Peter was c. But the beginning comes from unity the primacy is given to Peter that one Church of Christ and one flock of Christ may be monstrated Thus St. Cyprian testifies of the apostles that although they were all equal in their spiritual commission of Gods word and Sacraments yet were they brought to an unity by the government of one superiour and one chair which oversaw them all And is this a fit place to prove that the Apostles had no superiour over them which expresly testifies that they had one In the same manner doth our Disswader deal with the other testimonies But I have been too long upon this point Here is enough Sir to let you see what I said in the beginning of this discours that your Disswaders reasons are senceles his testimonies either impertinent or manifestly against himself and his whole talk and doctrin contrary to the laws and constitutions of our own Protestant English Church § 11. Which concludes the novelties Gives notice of nine other popish novelties Saints invocation Scripture-insufficiency absolution before pennance Priests confirmation nine-penny-masses circum gestation of Eucharist intention in Sacraments mass-sacrifice and communionless mass After your Disswader has mentioned these to show the fertility of his brain he sayes nothing of them at all but only that they be also innovations and thence concluds that the Roman Religion is neither old nor primitive nor catholik and that it is easier for Protestants to tell where their religion was before Luther then for Papists to tell where their religion was before Trent And that when the enemy had sowed these tares and honest men in the Church durst not complain then England and other nations by the glass of Scriptur reformed to pure antiquity preferring a new cure before an old sore In the beginning of the section it was a new sore in the end it is an old sore so long time was he a writing this one no-section And he has so ordered the busines that it will be hard now for Papists to show their Religion before Trent although he has neither deduced the original of these nine or his other ten novelties from Trent nor can ever show that these or they are the Papists religion For as he has handled them ther is not one of them any part of their Religion much less doth their religion consist in them His first busines of the power of making articles sect 1. is so far from religion that it is not so much as the philosophy of any one school in the Catholik world His leash of new articles sect 2. is partly a fond dream and partly an erroneous vision of his own His discours of Indulgences sect 3. is utterly besides the purpos and what ther is of Catholik faith in it he allows himself as ancient 4. His talk of Purgatory is so ridiculously absurd that granting all that Roman faith teaches to be both ancient and universal he yet sayes at random that Roman faith is not that and yet never speaks himself what that Roman faith is 5. In Transubstantiation he wholly playes with the word which he knows when it came in wholly neglecting the thing it self and brings a multitude of Popish Doctours that own it not for their faith and not any one popish man or woman that own it he sayes it was defined in the Lateran Councel first and yet is not that which was defined in the Lateran Councel and never speaks what this thing is which notwithstanding he will have called Popery 6. The busines of half-communion as he calls it is no Popery at all that is to say no Catholik faith but a custom only in the exercise of their religion and that neither universal for time or place And although Catholiks beleev that it is not necessary to communicate in both kinds yet do they not beleev that it is necessary to communicate only in one kind either this kind or that but have used all the three wayes 7. His discours about service in an unknown tongue is a like mistake taking custom for religion and discipline for doctrin and he perverts and falsifies the custom too saying that Papists understand not their own prayers nor know what they ask of God 8. His talk of images passes by all the use of them that religion requires and is wholly taken up in some school disputes and his own lies 9. His exceptions against the pictures of the Trinity with so many eyes and noses and faces in a knot is as much popery as Euclids book de Triangulis 10. His section about the sovereignty of one byshop over all Christians had been about popery and catholik religion indeed if he had handled it right but as his reasons are fond and autorities fals so he mistakes the very thing it self imagining that papists beleev that spiritual supremacy to be tied to the walls of Rome which is no faith of theirs and consequently none of their popery And so none of his sections nor any part of his discours touches either all or any part of Papists religion And is not this a doughty piece of work to prove popery by which all his readers understand the Roman Catholik religion to be neither old nor primitive nor apostolical How he would have handled the other nine points becaus he says nothing of them I will not trouble my self to read But I am sure that seven of the nine have not any relation to Catholik religion all of them I mean besides Saints invocation and the Sacrifice of the Mass What Councel hath determined or what Catholik beleevs that the sacred scripture is insufficient or that absolution ought to be given before pennance or that single priests are to confirm or that masses are to be sold for nine pence or circum gestation or any such intention in sacraments as to damn folks which the Disswader here speaks or that mass is to be without communion And I may now think if he had spoke of the other two Saints invocation and Sacrifice he would even there also have mistaken and strayed For he has so behaved himself hitherto as though he were resolved not to speak any one word true or to the purpos And yet he would seem to do it perhaps on the same motive that Sir Toby Matthews
that has any dignity or power to command those that follow after Thus will your adversary put authorities into his mouth and draw them in an instant most nimbly out of his throat without ever touching his stomack Can we think him unable by such Hugonot evasions to whiff away all the four gospels and apostles creed as to its former sence and meaning if there should once be a necessity urging him to submit to Mahomets fables or reconcile them and his creed together Who dare say he cannot do it and do it as wisely too as perhaps he ever did thing in his life I think it not amiss Sir to give you yet a little further taste here of our Author your adversaries nimblenes only som little of much for I mean to be very breef Doth emperour Valentinian establish that whatsoever is decreed by the See apostolik which is raised upon the merits of St. Peter dignity of the city and authority of councels should have the force of a law to all Byshops Valentinian saith Whitby was a young man and easily seduced What doth this conclude for the Popes supremacy c. The laws then of Kings and Emperours are to be weighed it seems by the age of the law-maker And if he should be a young man they signifie nothing against any delinquent or transgressour if he have but the wit to plead here with Whitby that the King was young when that law was made This easily seduced young mans law was in force notwithstanding in following times and put into the code by the old mature grave man and not easily seduced Emperour Justinian And no man either young or old ever excepted against it for the youth of the legislator Young Princes do not make laws as boyes tell tales only by strength of their own wits Valentinian was a young man and his laws therfor according to Whitby not to be regarded And what then shall we think of our English protestancy which was here first publikly set up by King Edward the sixt a child Doth an ecclesiastical cannon say that no decree can be established in the Church without the assent of the Roman byshop That is quoth Whitby except the Roman Byshop be present What doth this make for supremacy c. But if he have no autority there why may he not as well be absent There is no certain number required for the making of a decree and that byshop does no more it seems then make up a number Doth the councel of Ephesus refer the judgment of the Patriarch of Antioch his caus to the Pope for that the Church of Antioch had been ever governed by the Roman That was saith Whitby not to use his autority but only to know his mind c. And what matters it I pray what his mind may be if the others never mean to heed it We consult any that are presem whether equal or inferiours to know their minds and yet do our selves what we list but we never trouble men a thousand miles off for that Surely when a judgment is referred by parties to another power so far distant with great expence and long expectation and only upon this ground that they are subject and have ever been governed by that power they cannot be thought only to require his mind but use his authority Our honest Quaker will not be unwilling thus to have his caus referred to the judgment of our English Bishops not to use their authorities but only to know their minds Doth the Sardican councel ordain that in a controversie between byshops Appeal should be made to the Byshop of Rome to appoint Judges and renew the proces That cannon sayes he is against the Papists for it permits the Pope to receiv not to command appeals c. So then Papists it seems think the Pope may command not receiv appeals And besides saith he the appellation was there ordained ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum Not to the Pope who then was Julius but to Julius who then was Pope We have here surely another Hudibras In logick a great critick profoundly skilled in Analytick he can distinguish and divide a hair twixt South and South-West side Appeal to Julius Pope not to Pope Julius And what does he think to gain by this subtilty The cannon he hopes will ceas forsooth when Julius dies O the wit of some men above other some especially when it is assisted by French Hugonots who drink good wine Our English ale could never have made us out so subtil a distinction as this is Doth the councel of Arles send their decrees to the Byshop of Rome from whom all Christians are to receiv what to beleev and practis Here is somthing of trouble quoth Whitby but nothing of jurisdiction in the Pope c. Can any thing hang more tight then this Conciliar decrees must be sent to Rome from whence all Christians must receiv what they are either to beleev or practis But this is not to acknowledg his power but to trouble his patience Doth St. Basil say it is convenient to write to the byshop of Rome to conclude affairs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to pass his sentence O quoth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to give sentence but advice Here you have a spice of his grammer to mix with his logick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies counsel and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is greek for a juridical sentence Doth Athanasius fly to Rome against the Eusebians and Pope Julius appoint a day in his behalf 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for plea and judgment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following therein the law and method of the Church He followed that law saith Whitby not in citing them but in not condemning them uncited c. He was just then in not condemning parties uncited But by what authority he either cited or judged them we must not here know Is ther any law of the Church that justifies a condemnation of persons cited to judgment when they are neither cited nor judged by any legal autority And it is to be observed here Sir all this while and quite through his book that Whitby has forgot the fearful execration he made upon himself in the beginning that all fathers are miserably corrupted by you and allegations most disingeniously forged c. This I say he has quite forgot even so far forgot that there is not one autority in a hundred that he does so much as challenge either of forgery or corruption And is therfor in danger to forfeit presently his life But he was then in his own heat now he is amongst his Protestant authors who afford him other kind of evasions And we must leav him to their wits when he has lost his own memory Doth S. Augustin witnes that the caus of the Donatists in Africa was judged by Pope Melchiades in Rome This was saith Whitby a brotherly not an authorative decision I make no doubt it was brotherly but why not
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
per singulos prophet ari ut omnes discant omnes exhortentur Et spiritus prophet arum prophetis subjecti sunt This is the great result of this whole chapter and the very utmost that the Quakers would have and what they practice daily in their meetings If any speak in a tongue saith the Apostle let it be by two or at most by three and that by cours and let one interpret But if there be no interpreter let him keep silence in the Church and speak to himself and God Let the Prophets speak two or three and let the other judg and if any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by let the first hold his peace for ye may all prophesie one by one that all may learn and all be exhorted or comforted And the spirit of the prophets are subject to Prophets Let your Disswader now speak what he thinks but speak it openly that the good Quaker may as well hear him as the Papist and speak it so effectually that as far as in him lies all the whole three Kingdoms may be perswaded that this chapter concerns the publick Service of the Church If this were once done I beleev there would not be ere long so much as one by shop or minister left in the Land And it were a less dammage to your Disswader that adultery were reconciled to the seventh Commandment than Church-service to his fourteenth Chapter of Corinthians Why ther is a language used in the Catholik liturgy which though it be not the tongue of any one Countrey yet it is the most universally known language of the whole Catholik family upon earth is sufficiently discoursed in Fiat Lux. I need not stand here to repeat it I must go on § 8. Which is about Images Sayes that Image-worship wherin Papists give the same worship to the pictures as is due to the thing represented is another novelty and that a heathenish one too brought in first by Simon Magus and then the Gnosticks against which writes Clemens Alexandrinus and others insomuch that S. Cyril in the time of Emperour Julian denies that Christians did worship the Cross and Epiphanius is said to have cut in pieces a cloth picture wherin was the image of Christ or some Saint And therfore the decrees of the second Nicen Synod which had approved images was abrogated by another general Councel at Frankford a little after which Councel the Emperour sent Claudius a godly preacher to preach against Images in Italy And well he might for the Councel of Eliberis had long before that time declared against them And all the devices of Roman writers to palliate this crime are frivolous for the pure primitive times would not allow the making of Images as witnes Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen Here is much ado about a shadow Whatsoever your Disswader could pick up that might sound but like his purpos is here in a general mass heaped up together whether it do touch his purpos or not at all concern it or be haply against himself Theodoret forsooth S. Austin and Irenaeus these must all testifie that Simon Magus first brought images into the Church wherof they have not any one such word The same fathers with Epiphanius must accuse the Gnosticks and Carpocratians for the same thing wheras they only blame them for placing the pictur of Jesus and S. Paul with Homer Pythagoras Plato Aristotle and other Heathens Clemens and Origen disown and write against heathens Idolatry So that all this concerns not our purpos The two Councels of Eliberis and Frankford are against him and so is likewise S. Cyril who in the very place cited object extream ignorance to Julian the Apostate who had cast the Christians in the teeth with their worshipping a wooden Cross which they would not do to great Jupiter and their painting the ima 〈…〉 foreheads and afore their houses And Saint Cyril tells Julian that the Cross put Christians in mind of the vertue and good which Christ their Lord had done and suffered for them which the good Doctour calls the precious and health-giving wood And we may see not only by S. Cyrils answer but by the objections of the Apostate Julian what manner of Christians ther were in those dayes fourteen hundred years ago The Councel of Eliberis was kept in Spain in the time of Emperour Galerius when many Christians by reason of the bitterness of perfecution sacrificed through fear unto the heathen gods and much contumely was done all over the world and especially in Spain both to Christians themselves and the holy Gospel and all sacred things Wherfor the Councel laid heavy pennances on all such Christians as should so apostatize either into heathensme herefie or the notorious sin of adultery and amongst other things c. 36. ordained that no sacred pictures should be painied upon the walls becaus namely there they stood fixed and were liable to the contumely of pagans wheras such as were in frames and tables might easily be removed and put into a safe place That Councel of Eliberis becaus they adjoyn not a reason unto their decree may easily be mistaken although the one may be discerned in the other by a judicious and serious reader Ne quod colitur adoratur saith the Councel in pariotibus depingatur For the picture properly speaking terminates neither respect nor contumely but the thing represented by it which if it be divine must not receiv contumely if it can be helped from wicked men But the Councel of Frankford I cannot but wonder why your Disswader should cite it as an enemy to Images Did not that Councel consist of Catholik or popish Prelates 300. of them gathered together under the Legates of Pope Adrian the first in which also the Emperour Charles the Great as stout a Champion of the Roman Church as any ever was in the world was actually present O but Eginard Hincmar Amonius Blondus and others testifie that the said Councel of Frankford condemned the second Nicen Synod wherin images were establisht calling it an Antichristian assembly But how can this be thought probable nay I may say possible of those two Councels being so near one another that ther were not above eight or nine years space between them and both of them under one and the same Pope Adrian the first Can any beleev this though twenty Eginards should say it But he is not found indeed to speak ought of it Hincmar sayes that they of Frankford condemned the Synod assembled at Nice without the Popes authority But that Nicen Synod was both assembled and confirmed by the authority of that very same Pope who called and ratified this of Frankford Blondus sayes that they abrogated the seventh Synod and the Faelician heresie de tollendis imaginibus And none of them say that they of Frankford called that Nicen Synod an Antichristian assembly or that they published any book to that purpos What strange confidence then is this of your Disswader to talk thus at random without
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
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
his grace of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction I know and am fully assured ther is not one of those poor catholik priests who were lately banished out of England but would have defended even to extremity if need were this one most certain verity That a Metropolitan hath a jurisdiction as solid and good a jurisdiction over byshops as any these can have or plead for over parish priests And by as firm and good and ancient law is the one established as the other and indeed by the very same whilst a minister of his own presumes to tell the Arch-byshop his own prelate to his face that he hath no jurisdiction at all His 9 ch from page 91. to 169. Is wholly fanatick There he tells us plainly That neither Convocations Byshops nor Parliaments are judges of our faith That the English Church doth not punish for difference in opinions nor require that all should beleev as she beleevs or submit to her determinations but leaves every man to the liberty of his own judgment so he do not make factions against her Who ever urged men saith he to beleev as the Church beleevs p. 101. Also that no decrees of any Church are further to be admitted then they appear to particular mens judgments to agree with scriptur That every private man must make use of his own reason to judg or reject doctrin and rites propounded though scriptur be his guide That the business must there end without resigning to any further authority which is all as fallible as we be our selves That points fund amental are as perspicuous as the sun-beam and points not fundamental the Church doth not determin them and if any dispute should rise about them she silences indeed but expects not her children should be of her opinion only would not have them gainsay her That that Church does but mock us which expects a beleef to her proposals becaus she pretends to guide her self by scriptur For if scriptur must bend to their decrees and we must have no sence of scriptur but what they think fit then their decrees and not scriptur is our last rule And it is a pretty devise quoth he first to rule the rule and then be ruled by it c. Can a good Quaker say more for himself or desire more to be said for him If we be not bound to beleev we are not bound to hear Nay we are bound not to hear any such Church lest we should chance to beleev what aforehand we condemn and they themselvs dare not justifie He hath much of this talk up and down in his book Faith saith he p. 439. cannot be compelled By taking this liberty of discretion from men we force them to becom hypocrits and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbeleev And again p. 450. We allow not any man openly to contradict the Churches decrees But when he thinks contrary to the determination of our Church he must keep his judgment to himself only refusing obedience with all humility till he be better informed No fanatick will desire to refuse obedience any longer Thus doth this champion deliver up himself and Church unto the will and disposal of all whatever sects and cares not so he may avoid catholik obeysance to make himself a prey to those who upon these grounds here laid down will soon turn him out of Church and pulpit too and strip him not only of his cloak but his coat also At last he answers the catholik arguments for the Churches assured and infallible guidance just as he did before your others for supremacy Seeing him there you see him every where Finally he brings in for a certain testimony of the Churches liability to errour the two opinions so rife in old time about communicating infants and the Millenaries thousand years of blessedness with Christ in this world after dooms-day Which are both of them now condemned saith he by a contrary beleef and practice of the present Church although they were held by not a few very antient Fathers in the primitive times And in this he triumphs exceedingly Surely without caus I should think Those primitive doctors we may be assured knew somthing more then their Catechism and committed to writing somthing of that they conceived beyond their Christian faith as well as the present Fathers and Doctors of the Church now do And if there were so great varieties of opinion among them concerning those two things as there are now adayes among catholik doctors about a thousand others it is a sign that those two points did not belong to their Catechisme of faith then assuredly known but only to scholastical Theology especially sith they had neither clear scriptur or general councel nor assured tradition for either side And it is of no moment that som of them should be so confident of their opinion as to think it to be a right firm Christian beleef For so I have heard my self many a school Divine in catholik countreys to say of his Thesis or school position the better to countenance his own divinity that it was either faith or very near it Besides I do not know that the present Church hath ever declared in any cannon of her faith either that the faithfull shall not reign upon earth a thousand years with Christ after dooms-day or that we may not communicate the Eucharist to children although this last is declared not necessary His 10 ch from page 169. to 180. Is against prayer for the dead and Purgatory Where both by the testimonies which you Sir do cite in your book and by the authorities he brings himself Mr. Whitby acknowledges that praying and offering for the dead is a very ancient and general custom amongst Christians Nay that S. Paul himself prayed for his deceased friend Onesiphorus This I say he plainly grants p. 182. But he addes that all this does not infer Purgatory or that Purgatory is a place under ground near hell where is fire and darknes or that all are in pain and torments there And so he pusles to the end of his chapter acknowledging faith and denying only theology For whether Purgatory signifie any one place as our imagination is apt to fancy or only a state and condition of som souls departed out of this visible world I see Mr. Whitby understands not that it is no Christian faith but a meer scholastical divinity But that our prayers offerings penances and good deeds do benefit the souls deceased this the very testimonies cited by Mr. Whitby himself as they do sufficiently evince so do they confirm catholik faith though they touch not upon theology at all And so while he oppugns the divinity of som catholiks he establishes the catholik faith of all Divines In the interim he ought to remember although in this he often forgets himself that by the very testimonies not only which you Sir do bring for Purgatory but those also which Mr. Whitby has against it we may see manifestly that our Protestant Church hath
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
villifie the Roman faith and Church which is indeed the comm on road of all her adversaries I shall speak more fully if I have time by and by Now I hasten to his text which I shall give and my own judgment of it very briefly § 1. Which is about Novelties in general Sayes that the Protestant hath the word of God and Gospel and Apostles writings and if need be the four first general Councels and cannot be therfore doubted to be Apostolical but the Roman Church cannot so much as pretend that all her Religion is primitive since she pretends a power of making new articles of faith for Turrecremata Triumphus Ancorano and Panormitan affirm she can do it And this power Pope Leo the tenth challenged when he condemned Luther for denying him to have it To further this their pretended power the Papists corrupt and alter the Fathers works insomuch that Saurius the correctour of the Press at Lions complained to Junius that he was forced to blot out many sayings of St. Ambrose which had been in a former edition printed there For this care of purging Catholik writers Sixtus Senesis commends Pope Pius Nay they correct the very Indexes made by Printers as those of Probens and Chevallonius Thus the Doctour begins his book and I cannot but commend his wit For he wisely assumes that to himself which is the very one great busines wherin every particular controversie sticks and which if it were once agreeed on would put an end to all controversies that either now are or ever shall be in the world For they all com at length to this question which of the many Professours of Christianity now so much divided in their wayes have the Gospel and word of God on their side in this that and the other particular We saith Dr. Taylor we Protestants have the word of God we have the Gospel of Christ we have the Apostles writings with us and for us and therfor our Religion is for certain both ancient primitive and Apostolical This is Sir a very good consequence That Religion must needs be ancient which hath God for his Author that must be a primitive Christianity which Christ founded and what the Apostles writings confirm must needs be Apostolical faith But is it proved here by the Doctour that Protestants and not Catholiks have the word of God and of Christ and of his Apostles on their side No it is all supposed and his whole endeavour is to tell us that the religion which issued from God and Christ and his holy Apostles must needs be Apostolical primitive and ancient He supposes Protestancy as distinct from Catholik faith to have com all of it from those divine hands which is the only thing to be proved and declares at large that a religion which came from such hands must needs be ancient and primitive which is a thing no man can ever doubt It is certain and manifestly known that Protestants received both Law and Gospel and Apostles writings from the hands of Roman Catholiks who had kept and canonized and lived by those rules fifteen hundred years before Protestancy rose up in the world and all the whole hundred years since The only question is about the sence and mind of that holy writ in the many particular points now controverted in the world He has the law that has the mind and purpos and meaning of the law not he that hath the form of words without it This is the great business and the very extract and quintessence of all controversies which your quick Doctour assumes as granted on his side without any more ado We saith he we Protestants have the Law and Gospel and Apostles writings and the old Councels too if need be and therfor is not the ancientness of our Religion to be doubted But the Papists what of them the Papists Religion cannot so much as be pretended to be Apostolical old or primitive Why so Have not they the law and Gospel and Apostolical writings He does not plainly say they have not but he hopes his reader will think so What then of the Papists They saith he can make new Articles and therfor cannot their Religion be antient Sir although they could make new articles so long as they do not their Religion may be old still for all that A man may live in an old house although he be able to build a new one And this seems indeed to be the case here For the Disswader in confirmation of his speech brings in although unjustly the testimony of som Catholik Doctours who should say The Church can make new Articles but not one that sayes she has made any That I may yet go further although the Church should make new obliging Articles so long as these do not contrary the former but declare them more amply in such and such circumstances they annull not but rather confirm and explicate the old ones Is not our Law the same old Law of England and we the same polity our fore-fathers were although the King and Parliament upon occasion of new disorders make new acts and statutes continually But let us go on yet one step more The Roman Church does plead Sir whatever your Disswader would have you think that her religion is Catholik Apostolik and primitive becaus all her Councels by which that Church is governed have openly and continually declared when they came together to decide any affair which had raised new disturbance in the Christian world that they must firmly adhere to that which is Primitive to that which is Apostolical to that which is Catholik to that which has been delivered and received from fore-fathers And by that rule they decided the difference How then can this Church pretend to make new Articles Does your Doctour bring any General Councel which is the loud voice of that Church or any Tradition which is the Churches still voice to speak it No not any at all But this he ought to have done if he would prove that Church to pretend any such power What then Wy Turrecramata and som other doctours sayes she can do it But Sir if some one or other clergy-man should think that the Church can make new articles does it therfor follow that the Church it self does pretend any such power Surely the voice of one or two Ministers here in England cannot in reason be thought the voice of our whole Protestant Church especially when they speak against the tenour of her doctrin and practice But your Disswader has been many years picking in cobweb holes and obscure writings that he might where he could find any half sentence apt to be wrested from the common judgment of Catholik Religion mark that out for Popery to the end it may be thought either naught or new This is the chief ingredient of your Disswaders Policy Catholik Doctours Sir though they may have written many other most excellent catholik and pious things yet through humane infirmity in this and that particular may
determining in such affairs Nor is ther any the least mention either in Luther's resistance or Leo his censure about constituting new articles but only deciding the old which Luther would have thought to be erroneous however strengthened by antiquity and from which old errours he would make himself a reformation and innovation by the right which was in himself not subjected to any man no not to the Pope himself in those affairs Is this a mistake think you in your Disswader or somthing wors Truly I cannot think he was so ignorant The like insincerity doth this your Disswader exhibit in all that his talk of the Catholiks dealing with the Fathers works and the indexes or tables adjoyned to them jumbling his words so confusedly together that his reader might beleev that to be don to the Fathers writings themselvs which the Churches care provided to be done to the false glosses tables and indexes annexed to those writings and that to be taken out of those writings which ever was and still is in them and Printers and Correctours complaining of that fault of making alterations in the Fathers Editions which they did not so much as think of Which is a most stupendious insincerity And thus saith he are the Fathers maimed and curtailed by Papists insomuch that Sixtus Senensis praises Pope Pius 5. for this his car ein purging the Fathers works I say this whole talk of his is most prodigiously unjust For that Index Expurgatorius extended not to any writings or works of the Fathers but only to the marginal notes and false glosses and indexes or tables put to them by the hereticks and therfor are Tertullian Origen and some others still printed intire though ther be not a few things in them contrary to Catholik faith And this the very words of Junius a Correctour of a Press cited by the Doctour clearly intimates What saith he Papists dare not do with the Fathers they practise upon us he means Protestant printers and writers and with their little forks thrust out our annotations in the margent and our sayings in the indices although they be consonant to the Fathers minds But saith he this care was so great in Pius 5. that Sixtus Senensis commends the Pope for his industry in purging the Fathers works He did so indeed but if the Doctour had spoken out the sentence he had betrayed his own false heart which he would not willingly do Expurgari saith Senensis emaculari curasti omnium Catholicorum Scriptorum ac praecipue veterum Patrum scripta haereticorum aetatis nostrae faecibus contaminata venenis infecta Your Doctour our Disswader makes Senensis praise the Pope for his purging the Fathers as though he had scowred and scraped off the substance whereas he commended him only for his care in cleansing them from the infectious notes and glosses superadded to them by the hereticks of our times But Sir that I may tell you once for all The falsifications of Authours perverted by this your Disswader are so many so notorious and gross ones that in the very relating them I shall tire both my self and you My design is only to let you know that this whole work of his Disswasive from Popery if the proofs and citations he brings for his talk were true as they are all false signifies nothing at all Two worthy Catholik Gentlemen have discovered by the help of the Libraries in London and Oxford so many most gross falsifications one of them a hundred and fifty the other yet more and greater that it cannot but amaze an honest minded reader to behold them Pray read them Sir and ponder seriously and so rid of that trouble I shall make the more haste in my own design It was their endeavour it seems to show him to be dishonest mine is only to prove him impertinent God reward them for their pains and help me in mine For my hand denies me now his office not able to write with that facility it was wont But becaus I saw no abler pen to appear as I thought they would in the confutation of this slanderous book I judged it my part Sir to give you som general hints of light concerning it till there might issue som more plenary confutation by a better hand And here Sir you must know too that I had no sooner finished this my Epistle but that I understood of another book against this Doctour Taylors Disswasive a very solid book written by Ja. Ser. in order to his own book called Sure-Footing lately set forth which made me doubt for a while whether I should let this of mine appear especially when I considered the industry care and solidity of those three men the last wherof had so taken up what the other two had left for me to say and so utterly confounded this Disswasive that I might well be silent But I remembred a story which I had sometime read in holy writ of Joas the King of Israel who coming to visit Elizeus the Prophet when he lay sick on his death-bed was bid by him for his encouragement against his enemies to strike the ground with the javelin he had in his hand Joas at his word struck the floor three times But the holy man of God was angry with him and said If thou hadst struck five or six or seven times thou hadst smote Syria even to an utter consummation but now thou shalt smite it but thrice So very faulty is this Disswasive that it cannot be smote too often even to an utter consummation § 2 Which is about a leash of new Articles Sayes that in the Church of Rome faith and Christianity encreas like the moon and that ther be now two new articles of faith a coining namely the immaculate Conception and the Popes being above the Councel and one other lately produced in the Councel of Trent sess 21. which is That although the antient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants yet they did not beleev it necessary to salvation Which decree is saith he beyond all bounds of modesty and evident truth Here your Doctour tells news of one Article lately made and two more a coining which will shortly be out of the mint both which news he knows but we know not Indeed Sir this section belongs more to a writer of Diurnals or weakly Intelligencer than to a Doctour of Divinity And therfor at the reading of it I turned suddenly to the frontispiece of the book to see whose Imprimatur it had to it And I found it licensed not by Mr. l' Estrange but Geo. Stradling First then he tells us news to come and then news past A pair of faith articles are now he saith in the mint and will shortly come forth The Virgins immaculate Conception and the Popes being above a Councel But how can your Disswader say that these two are shortly to com forth wheras in this very section he tells us a little afterward that the Councel of Basil decreed the second Article against the
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
such a stiff impertinency against Popish Images have never laboured at all against these Protestant pictures O but Protestants do not worship these pictures Do they not I would to God that all good Catholiks could so heartily love imitate and worship those blessed persons represented in their portraictures as Protestants do theirs who by such amorous faces in their curious dresses are brought I fear too often on their knees Motives to filthy iniquity they may stand but representation of austerity of contemplation of martyrdom of divine extasies of charity of our Lord Jesus and his Saints these are popish these are antichristian these are abominable If the God of holiness will not have any sacred figures to be made surely he cannot allow lascivious prophane and light ones But though he do not our Ministers will O but the Papists give the same worship to the representation and the thing represented This your Disswader may gather haply by his own experience For the figure of a King a father and a wife if they do raise any affections or thoughts these must needs be so much differing as the persons represented are For the shadow figure or representation if we would speak according to right philosophy neither does not can terminate any such respect though it may its own For example that I may declare this my speech put case I have three or four Crucifixes before me of a several make or form and of a much differing art All these four figures have but one and the same representation becaus they represent but one and the same thing Christ Jesus our Lord crucified for our reconciliation and redemption and whatever good affection may arise in my heart upon the sight and thought of it must needs be the same to that representation and thing represented becaus it is terminated upon the thing represented by means of the representation of it And that is but one and the same respect though the figures be many For the representation or figure can terminate no such thought although it be a means of directing it But yet all those four figures have respects of their own which they bound and terminate themselves by reason for example of the excellency of their colours the material on which they are wrought the exactness of art in limning every part to the life and the proportions of the whole in its due and full measure These and such like considerations are ended fully in the picture without any consideration had to its object represented And they may be of such concerment in the business that a man may be moved to prefer one of those four pictures before all the other three This is that I mean Sir when I say that a shadow figure or representation neither does nor can terminate any such respect as results naturally upon the samplar or prototype though it may its own And this is no sophistry of Aristotle but meer natural and vulgar reason common to all mankind O but the Papists make their pictures their gods I this is the talk of black ministers in the dark to fools and children while they sit warm in the Roman Catholik Benefices which they have invaded it behooves them to say what ever they can think against Popery be it right be it wrong be it sence or nonsence All goes down by a people once inveigled And if they be not still kept warm in their mistake the minister is lost Good God in what a world do we live I did my self beleev all this once And I wondred when I first saw Roman Catholiks to tear their pictures somtimē and put them into the fire It is no such marvel if Epiphanius should tear a Saints picture which your Disswader here tells us although that story be not found in that epistle of Epiphanius translated by St. Jerom Roman Catholiks do it ordinarily For they use picturs but as they do their prayer-books and when they are so sullied and worn they can use them no more they are turned both into ashes which is the last end of picturs books and men And the respect they give to pictures is but the very same kind with what they give to the holy Gospels save only that the Gospel is looked on as the inside and a Crucifix the outside of their Redeemer but both are still but shadows of him I could say more concerning this busines and make it appear both that Christians have ever in all ages had images of their Lord and his Saints in their houses and Churches and how profitable and useful they are and that they are neither against the will of God nor any right reason And this I could clearly prove out of S. Basil Eusebius Caesariensis S. Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen S. Austin Bede Jo. Damascen Athanasius Ambrose Chrysostom But I have here said enough if I have enough demonstrated as I think I have that your Disswader has said nothing § 9. Which is an appendage to the former Reprovs the picturing of God the Father and holy Trinity which many of the holy Fathers speak against much to the blame of the Roman Church which in their Mass-books and Breviaries Portuises and Manuals picture the holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot Though the Catholik Christian Church hath ever used and approved of the use of Images as well as spiritual books yet they allow not of any abuse in either And Ordinaries Byshops Visitors and Superiours in all places are to look to that So that in this his appendage as he calls it your Disswader acts but the part of a good Visitour to blame and mend that which is amiss which must continually be done and continually is done all over the Catholick world as well in this as other affairs And if any Ordinary be negligent herein he is worthy of blame But Sir this is nothing of Popery or Catholik Religion which allows only in general the use of pious figures to forward our thoughts and desires to that eternal felicity above which so many holy Virgins Confessours Martyrs Apostles Monks Hermits and pious Princes portrayed all before our eyes arrived unto by their austerities alms-deeds purity fastings disciplines meditations watchings and patient sufferings in love and conformity to their holy Redeemer who is the prince and leader and crown of all those his glorious Saints redeemed and sanctified by the vertue of his precious blood and passion out of the thraldom of Satan and this wicked world Nor has Catholik Religion ever descended unto the particular cirumstances of these figures This belongs to the care of Bishops and Ordinaries Catholiks have generally no figures but of such only as once have lived amongst them in their Church either as head or members of it Nor of many ages would byshops permit the holy Trinity especially God the Father to be pourtrayed at all And if now they suffer it they have for it I make no doubt a sufficient reason especially since
they heed not at all however your Disswader imagines any natural similitude in any of their pictures If they be so made as to raise the fansie to thoughts above and the love and vertues that may bring us thither they care not whether for example Saint Bennet were a man just of that complexion or Christ their Redeemer of those direct features the limner has given him They come not into their Churches nor do they cast their eyes upon their pictures for any such end And if God the Father be represented to their eyes as he is to their ears when he is called Father I see no harm in it If we may use such a form of words when we speak to God as this world we live in may afford our ears why may not the eyes have such an answerable form too But this is a busines which your Disswader if he were a Catholik might well propound in the next general Councel and do otherwise in the mean time if so he please in his own Diocess For neither books nor picturs can be used in any Diocess but what the Ordinary of the place allows And the Byshop still guides himself by the general doctrin and discipline the faith and custom the tradition and laws of the Church in the whole mannagement of his care And when these do not clearly descend to any particular which he is to deal with he uses therin his own discretion going that way if he do well that he findes comes nearest to the rule as temporal superiours also do in their affairs O but the Roman Church with much scandal and against nature and the reason of mankind in their mass-books and breviaries portuises and manuels picture the holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot And do they so I have seen I think as many Catholik countreys and mass-books and breviaries portuises and manuels as your Disswader ever did and yet I never saw any such picture therin all my life He has been it seems an earnest pryer into the front and faces of books But did he not mistake troâ—… you and take some fortune-book written in old letters for a mass-book and thence conclude that all breviaries and mass-books portuises and manuels were stored with such â—…gures However it were the picture was to blame For three noses and three faces ought to have more than four eyes And if ther were but four eyes I cannot see how ther should be three whole faces although ther were there three noses in it But this is as good stuff and as true and as pertinent too as any other part of this his book which he calls a Disswasive from Popery § 10. Which is against Papal authority Sayes that the Popes universal byshoprick is another novelty though not so ridiculous yet as dangerous as any other And a novelty it is for Christ left his Church in the hands of the Apostles without any superiority of one above another And in the Councel of Jerusalem James and not Peter gave the decisive sentence Christ sent all his Apostles with the same whole power as his Father sent him Therfor S. Paul bid the byshops of Miletum feed the whole flock And well said S. Cyprian that the Apostles were all the same that S. Peter was And this equality of power must descend to all byshops who succeed the Apostles in their ordinary power as embassadours for Christ So then by the law of Christ one byshop is not superiour to another Christ made no head of byshops Beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepheard and byshop of souls Under him every byshop is supream in spirituals and in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ And that this was ever beleeved in ancient times is proved by Pope Eleutherius his epistle to the byshops of France by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian Pope Symmachus S. Denyse Ignace Gelasius Jerom Fulgentius and even Pope Gregory the great Wherfor S. Paul expressy sayes that Christ appointed in his Church first Apostles but not S. Peter first Nor did Peter ever rule but by common councel as S. Chrysostom witnesses And it is even confest by som of the Romish party that the succession is not tyed to Rome as Cusanus Soto Driedo Canus and Segovius Nor was any thing known therof in the primitive times when the byshops of Asia and Africa opposed Pope Victor and Pope Stephen and all byshops treated with the Roman byshop as with a brother not superiour and a whole general Councel gave to the byshop of C. P. equal right and preheminence with the byshop of Rome Finally Christ gave no commandment to obey the byshop of Rome and probably never intended any such thing A man would surely think Sir that this nail is knocked in to the head What could be said more But to be brief with you If all the other sections of this your Disswasive have said nothing this I may say speaks somthing wors than nothing For his reasons are senceles his testimonies either impertinent or manifestly against himself and his whole discours contrary to the laws and constitutions of our English Protestant Church To begin with the last whether you look upon the statutes and acts of Parliament wherby our English Church and government were first settled in England upon the reformation in the dayes of Edward the sixth and afterwards ratified or the articles canons and constitutions that were agreed upon by the byshops and clergy and confirmed both by King Edward Queen Elizabeth King James and our good King Charles we shall clearly see that our English Protestant Church and government is Monarchical and that byshops are as much subjected to their Arch byshops as Ministers to Byshops and Arch-byshops in like manner to the King in whom the Episcopal power is radical and inherent and in whom is the fulness of ecclesiastical authority and from whom byshops do receiv their place authority power and jurisdiction And that Parson Vicar or other Doctour who shall write or speak contrary to this by the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical made in the time of our late good King Charles he is to be suspended and by the Canons and constitutions ecclesiastical made and confirmed in the Reign of King James he is excommunicated ipso facto and by the laws of Queen Elizabeth and King Edward to be further punished How comes it then that this your disswading Doctour utterly dissolves all this frame of government under pretence of talking against papal power as contrary to the mind and will of Christ which will and mind is notwithstanding most resolutely asserted by the constitutions and laws of this our very English Church and Kingdom which rejected indeed the Roman seat and person but retained still the power and ordination of Church-government which finally rested now no longer in any Roman byshop but in our own princely monarch If any will but take the pains to look upon our constitutions
sacraments can not be given to man You see how fondly as well as falsly you have foisted in these words with all his whole power What follows next S. Paul bid the byshops of Miletum feed the whole flock Pray Sir how many byshops were ther do you think in that one no huge town of Miletum Bastwick brings this for a proof that byshops and priests were all one thing in those dayes And if it be otherwise the times are much changed Then many byshops served one town now many towns will hardly serve one byshop But you cut off the sentence Sir that it may sound better for your purpos and which is wors change it too The Apostle charges them to attend to themselves and all the flock wherin the holy Ghost hath constituted them overseers Which last words becaus they limit both their care and your own argument you thought it prudence to leav them out Pray Sir would you have any byshop to enter upon anothers Diocess What then would you have here when you make S. Paul bid the pastors all of them to feed all the whole flock without any restriction In all your heats remember still your self Go on The equality of power must descend to all byshops who are their successours I can easily grant you that they have all of them equal power of administring Sacraments and looking to their flock every one within his own precincts And this is all your discours infers But an equality of power over one another was neither amongst the Apostles nor yet here in our English byshops nor ever in the Church of God How do you prove that By the law of Christone byshop is not superiour to another Christ made no head of byshops beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepheard and byshop of souls Vnder him every byshop is supream This argument is in a mood and figure called Ita dico You say so and the statutes and canons of the Church of England say no. Whom shall we beleev I alwayes prefer a Church before any one Church-man though he be in her when he is against her But S. Paul sayes expresly that Christ appointed in his Church first apostles but not S. Peter first I marry Sir now we are come to an argument indeed And it runs thus According to S. Paul the apostles were the first rank or dignity in the Church but S. Peter was none of that rank or dignity therfor he could not be first Was not S. Peter then one of the apostles or will you make it run thus The apostles were the first rank or dignity in the Church but S. Peter was not that rank or dignity therfor he was not first This is indeed the surer way Becaus no one man can be reckoned for a rank or dignity or so many persons in the plural number This is an argument never yet thought of in Oxford or Cambridg to prove they have no superiour either over all or over any one Colledge Not over all For ther be first Colledges then Halls then Inns c. therfor the Vice-Chancellour is not first Not over one Colledge For ther are first Fellows then Schollars then Pensioners c. and therfor Mr. such a one who is neither fellows schollars nor pensioners is not first So here Christ saith S. Paul set in his Church first of all apostles therfor saith our learned Doctour not first S. Peter and secondarily apostles but all the apostles were first The apostles were the first rank of dignity good Sir but that rank had order in it too And so ther might be place for a first man even in the first rank But Peter did never rule but by common councel as S. Chrysostome witnesses He ruled then good Sir it seems he ruled then Will you bring this for an argument of his not ruling You are shrewdly put to it in the mean time And if he ruled and governed and mannaged all by common councel he was the better superiour for that but not therfor no superiour Will you admit no rulers but tyrants who do all by their own will But even some of their own popish writers do grant that the succession is not tied to Rome as Cusanus Soto Canus Driedo Segovius What does that opinion of theirs if they did say so prove against the sovereignty of one byshop over the rest which is the only thing now in hand wherever he reside I cannot in reason be thought to speak against our English monarchy although I should haply say that the King is not bound to reside still at Westminster The papal pastour hath ever since S. Peters time ever resided yet in that Roman Diocess which Catholiks do indeed consider as a thing somwhat strange since all other apostolical Sees besides that are failed and gone but no man knows the disposition of divine providence here on earth for future times Perhaps that Roman See I mean the particular Roman Diocess shall so remain to the worlds end and perhaps again it may not And if it should not or if that whole City should be destroyed or Christian Religion in it or if the City and all the whole Kingdom of Italy should lye under the ocean quite overwhelmed and drowned yet so long as the world lasts ther shall be a Church of Christ on earth and so long as ther is a Church ther will be one supream pastour of it where ever he reside And this is that which som Catholik doctours mean when they say that the succession is not tied to Rome What doth this make to your purpos Mr. Disswader Go on then No papal sovereignty was thought of in primitive times when the byshops of Asia and Africa opposed Pope Victor and Pope Stephen Does an opposition infer a nullity of power Then Sir ther would be no power upon earth either ecclesiastical or civil which are all resisted one time or other Was there no royalty or byshops in England so much as thought of thirty years ago when they were both of them more than opposed by the rabble What miserable shifts are these You may find and I am confident you do find and know well enough that even in those times you speak of and before and after them the papal power was acknowledged and reverenced by the whole world and yet you will take advantage of a dispute that happens more or less in all ages to say against your conscience and from thence infer that the papal power was not so much as thought of in those primitive times God keep you Sir from contesting with any of your servants For if you do this argument of yours will prove that your autority in your own hous was not so much as thought of in those dayes either by you or them or any els Have you any thing els to say A general Councel of Chalcedon gave to the byshop of C. P. equal rights and preheminence with the byshop of Rome What general Councel was that and
who is that C. P. and what were those equal rights universal over all or by way of similitude over some A Constable may have given him equal rights and preheminence in his lesser charge unto som purposes as a King hath in his whole Kingdom what then If this prove any thing it is that there is a sovereign power over all in proportion to which in measured out the right and authority of another in order to one particular But all byshops ever treated with the Roman Byshop as with a brother not as a superiour As brother and superiour too he both treated with them and they with him as I could easily show at large But to a bare fals affirmation one single negation will suffice Christ gave no command to obey the byshop of Rome and probably never intended any such thing He commanded and probably intended that all should obey those that were set over them Is not that enough I pray you Sir tell me did he give any command to obey the byshop of Canterbury here in England or the byshop of Armagh in Ireland or probably ever intend any such thing Speak out If he did the Roman Prelate will challenge obeysance upon the same title if he did not then is your promise and vow in episcopal ordination infignificant and fond But James and not Peter gave the decisive sentence in the Councel at Jerusalem And why say you so How prove you that his words and not the other were decisive when one of them did but second the other Now since your Disswader hath proved after his manner that ther is not any one sovereign byshop over all pray give me leav Sir to let you know why I think on the contrary that one such there is and ought to be And to omit testâ—monies which are in this point innumerable I shall for brevities sake only use two reasons The first is That Christ our Lord would have the whole company of Christians upon earth ever to be and remain one flock This I conceiv can never be except they be all under one visible pastour Nor can it suffice to say here that they are all under one Christ and one God For this can never make them all either really to be or truly to be called one flock on earth All the Kingdoms and people in the world however they be governed are under one God the supream King as the whole Church is said to be under one Christ but this makes them not to be one Kingdom Nay those that have not a visible King are not any Kingdom at all but an aristocracy only or commonwealth or wild straglers But if you will have no visible flock of Christians upon earth you teach the Quakers doctrin and abolish all government It is certain then that if the ecclesiastical government of each place do end in the byshop of that respective Diocess as the Disswader talks that ther must be then as many flocks of Christians as there be byshops upon earth which being not subordinate all of them to one general pastour can never bring their flocks into one Second is That such a polity and government must ever be preserved in Christs Church which himself set up and practised This is most certain For if that polity or body be changed it is no more Christs polity or Christs body but that other whatever it be which is introduced in his place and the body of that man or men that introduced it from whence also it receivs its name as from Luther his followers are called Lutherans and Calvinists from Calvin and consequently all the laws which do ever follow the condition of the government must alter with it Thus it was with us here in England the other day When our government was changed we were no more the body of William the Conquerour or any polity instituted by him but another polity or body set up by the Rump-Parliament and all our laws became then liable to their arbitrary interpretation to be wrested as themselvs pleased And they had been if we had continued a while longer in that sad condition by degrees utterly abolished All this not our reason only but heavy experience will acknowledg for a certain truth But Christ our Lord did assuredly both set up and practise himself a visible sovereignty over all the whole flock of Christians which he gathered together from other visible companies of Jews and Pagans And therfor must ther still and ever be som one visible pastour over this one flock unto the worlds end For if that polity or body change then is it no more Christs body but another thing And his laws and religion will be then interpreted according to the pleasure of those who first rejected the government and of their followers afterward unto infinite and endles misery And that this polity or government is ever to remain in Christs Church on earth may be gathered first by this That every wise legislatour knows well enough that all his people under him look upon his example as their rule to steer by ever after so long as they mean to preserv his way and be of his body Thus when any state is once founded either in aristocracy democracy or monarchy the founder of such a state has no need to tell the people what he would have them to do afterwards or whether they should choos themselvs one governour or many where they have his clear example to walk by They will naturally follow his steps therin so long as they mean to preserv the state he has established Now the Apostles and all his disciples and beleevers knew and saw that the Church of Christ which is his state spiritual was founded by him in monarchy or the superintendency of one over all And therfor as soon as our Lord spoke to them of his own departure they began all of them naturally to think of one who should succeed in his general care and who that one should be Nor did they doubt whether one should be over all the flock but who should be that one that should preside and oversee it And to prevent the faction our Lord as Catholik tradition teaches and the letter of the Gospel not obscurely insinuates pointed out one giving him withall a good rule of humility and charity to remain for after ages That he that is greatest among them should be as the least most humble most servâ—ceable most full of observance and charity which rule if that chief pastour observ not he is the more to blame And all ages have ever looked upon the successour of that chief apostle as Vicegerent of our Lord and master under whom they are united in one flock and so keep their laws and religion still one and intirely the the same from age to age however they lye divided in place and time under several byshops up and down the world Wheras all others besides this one Catholik flock run into several bodies and by their various interpretations dissolv
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
almost from the very beginning of the Church This is not a novelty then As for Papal Superiority the Protestant Centuriators acknowledg That in the fift age of the Church above a thousand years ago the Roman Byshops applyed themselves to establish dominion over other Churches and That they usurped to themselves right of granting priviledges and ornaments to other Archbyshops and That they confirmed Archbyshops in their Sees and That they deposed and excommunicated some and absolved others That they arrogated power to themselves of citing other Archbyshops to declare their caus before them That against a byshop appealing to the Apostolick See nothing should be determined but what the byshop of Rome censured That they appointed their legates in remote Provinces challenging autority to hear and determin all uprising controversies especially in questions of faith That they took upon them power of appointing general councels and to preside therein either by themselves or their deputies rejecting for unlawful those Synods that were called without their authority They also adde in the same century That Roman Byshops had flatterers in those times who affirmed that without permission of the Roman byshop none might undertake the person of a judge Nay forgetting themselves they averre in the same century Collat. 775. That antiquity had attributed the principality of Priesthood to the Roman byshop above all I could alledg also the like confession of Beza Mr. Whitgift and Cartwright but those eminent Protestant Centuriators may serv for all who testifie further in that fifth century That Victor called the Roman Church the head of all Churches That Turbius Asturiensis flattered Pope Leo and acknowledged his superiority That sometimes byshops condemned in Synods appealed to the See of Rome as did say they Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople in the Councel of Ephesus and that Councels also requested to have their acts confirmed by the byshop of Rome And so indeed did not only Flavianus appeal to Pope Leo but Talida Patriarch of Alexandria deposed by the Emperour Zeno appealed also to Pope Simplicius S. Athanasius to Pope Julius c. So did the Councel of Chalcedon request to be confirmed by Pope Leo the Councel of Carthage by Pope Innocent the Councel of Ephesus by Pope Celestin c. The like superiority of the Roman byshop not only over the neighbour Churches and Byshops of Italy but over remote provinces and the greatest Archbyshops and Patriarks of the world is acknowledged by Protestants to have been practised also before that in the fourth age when the Church first lift up her head by favour of Constantine the great and appeared openly in the world In this age say the Centuriators the mystery of iniquity was not idle And they say also that then the byshop of Rome challenged by ecclesiastical canon the disallowing of those Synods whereat they were absent That Theodoret a greek father who lived about the latter end of this age deposed by the Councel of Ephesus was restored to his byshoprick by Pope Leo unto whom he had made his appeal and that S. Chrysostom appealed likewise to Pope Innocentius who thereupon decreed his adversary Theophilus to be excommunicated and deposed That the famous and ancient Councel of Sardis consisting of above 300. byshops assembled from Spain France Italy Sardinia Greece Egypt Thebais Lybia Palestin Arabia and sundry other places of the world and wherat sundry fathers of the Nicen Councel were present decreed appeals to the byshop of Rome for which fact the Centuriators blame the said councel as do also Osiander Calvin Peter Martyr and others And lastly that wheras the Arrians had expelled Athanasius byshop of Alexandria Paulus byshop of Constantinople and other Catholick byshops of the East and brought their accusation to Julius then byshop of Rome that he might ratifie what they had done he the said byshop summoned Athanasius according to the canons and when he had heard all sides speak he restored Athanasius and his fellow byshops to their own place fretus ecclesiae Romanae praerogativa as the Centurists there speak In the age before this when raging persecution obscured both the government and most of the written monuments of that time yet want there not monuments of the Popes power in confirming deposing restoring byshops Then it was that S. Cyprian as himself testifies moved Pope Stephen by his letters to depose Martianus from his byshoprick and appoint another in his place and he tells us likewise in his fourth epistle how Basilides went to Rome hoping to beguile Pope Stephen then ignorant of the whole matter so to procure himself to be restored to his byshoprick from which he had been justly saith S. Cyprian deposed In this age the foresaid learned Centuriators reprove Pope Stephen for his undertaking to threaten excommunication to Helenus and Firmiltanus and all others throughout Cilicia Cappadocia and Asia for rebaptizing hereticks they reprove also as became Protestants to do both S. Cyprian and Tertullian in this point Tertullian for saying that the keyes were committed to S. Peter and the Church built on him S. Cyprian for affirming the Church to be built upon S. Peter and one chair founded by our Lords voice upon the rock for calling Peters chair the principal Church from whence Priestly unity ariseth and for saying that there ought to be one byshop in the Catholik Church and that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other for the mother and root of the Catholik Church In the second age the next after the apostles wherof fewer monuments remain yet be there some testimonies of this superiority acknowledged even by Protestants Pope Victor is owned even by our Mr. Whitgift in his defence to be a godly byshop and martyr and the Church in his time in great purity not being long after the apostles times and yet Amandus Polonus a Protestant Professour at Basil sayes in his theological thesis of the same Pope Victor That he shewed a Papal mind and arrogancy and Mr. Spark in his answer against John Albines thinks him somewhat Pope-like to have exceeded his bounds when he took upon him to excommunicate the byshops of the East and Whitaker charges him with exercising jurisdiction upon other Churches So that these three Protestants discerned a papal power even in this second pure age of the Church although they liked it not But the Protestant Centuriators do much except against a saying of S. Irenaeus who lived in this age next after the apostles and might well remember the apostles own lively preachings as Hamelmannus a Protestant writer in his book of traditions speaks both of Irenaeus and Polycarp recorded in the third chapter of his third book Ad hanc enim ecclesiam Romanam propter potentiorem principalit atem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam It is necessary that every other Church saith Irenaeus comply with the Roman by reason of her greater principality First becaus he sayes it is necessary secondly that every Church thirdly for
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