our very Justices of peace and Constables But in ecclesiastical affairs the proper businesses of the Church and matters of religion as distinct from civil this is the plea which the good Quakers use against the Byshops and Priests of not only the Roman but even this our English Church which Whitby defends Why say they to them why are we harrassed imprisoned beaten and spoiled so many wayes by your instigation who have made your selves drank with the blood of Saints Do not we either confront the evidence of Scriptur against you or the intent of the Apostles or rather of God himself and tell you expresly that you oppose the evidence of Gods word in your observances and ordinations in your tythes and Lents and Mass-tides in your lawn sleeves and cassocks and canonical girdles in your Pulpits Universities and Steeple-houses in your Chapters and Deanaries in your orders and degrees in your oppressions of conscience and jurisdictions in your surplices copes and preaching for hire c. Is it not enough to shew our innocence in not accepting these things becaus in the beginning it was not so nor were any of these things to be found amongst the apostles Especially when you know we hold and we know also you hold that in matters of faith and religion it is all one to be beside Scriptur and to be against it Are your Chapters and Deanaries your lawn sleeves and surplices your Lents and common-prayers your tythes and livings of five or six hundred a year your universities and steeple-houses in Scriptur and Christian Gospel yea or no If they be there shew it us If they are besides scriptur or not in it then are they by your own confession here against it Ch. 4 5 6 7 8. from p. 17. to 90. These five following chapters speak against ecclesiastical Supremacy either amongst the apostles or any other succeeding prelates And with so much earnestnes and little heed doth Mr. Whitby whiff away all your defence of it that he strikes off that authority not only from the Popes head but from any Prince or Prelate whatsoever not caring so the Roman fall if the English Prelacy sink too So earnest indeed is he bent against it that he professes p. 39. he would sooner perswade himself of the truth of Mahomets fables then any such pretension Thus well is he disposed against the coming of the Turk These few propositions he advances here amongst others 1. That the apostles had an equality of power and jurisdiction or dignity over the rest But whence then comes our English Hierarchy of byshops arch-byshops ministers and deacons Whitby himself denies that our Kings are the root of Episcopal jurisdiction here in England Who ever thought so quoth he p. 88. I think I could show him out of the statutes and laws of the Land that our English Episcopacy and their whole jurisdiction is from the King as the sole fountain and root of it But if it be not so and no such subordination as here he affirms was ever found amongst the apostles whence is our English Hierarchy If it neither come from God nor from the King it may not irrationally be suspected to be from an insufficient if not an ill original His second is that such an ecclesiastical jurisdiction is useles and unable to prevent schismes whether they rise from breach of charity or difference of judgement p. 20. And if it be useles for that for Gods sake what is it good for Third is that to submit to one is to slight the judgment of thousands that may be as wise as he and to endanger the very being of religion Ibid. And is it so indeed why then are so many millions here in England subjected to one Byshop much people to one minister all the people ministers and byshops to one King Is this to slight all that are subjected or to endanger the very being of religion Fourth is that general causes cannot be dispatched by one supreme governour over all as may particular by inferiour superintendents And other such like fanatick assertions he has which do as much evacuate the subordination of our English as the Roman Church and civil government as well as ecclesiastical hierarchy I am sure they have done both even in this our Kingdom and in our own dayes a thing which will not be soon forgotten And little did I think to see any prelatick minister broach such whimsies again here in our land so lately made desolate thereby What he means by it I cannot tell But I am sure he is not so unadvised but he understands the consequence For p. 423. upon his grant of a liberty of judging to particular persons in matters of religion whence all our wars and animosities here in England do first flow even so far as to deny obedience therupon to their spiritual superiours he speaks thus Would a gracious King think you presently condemn all those to the utmost severity who in such cases after consultation and deliberation duly made by reason of som prejudices or weaknes of reasoning should be induced to think it their duty to follow the mutinous party he craftily uses the phrase of utmost severity the better to palliate his more secret judgment who by his own principles here and elsewhere not obscurely expressed must needs conceiv them liable to no severity at all But that you may see Sir this adversary of yours what a lively spark he is he makes in his 5 chapter the very Popes themselvs when significantly they would express their own supremacy either to say nothing for it or altogether against it If Pope Agatho speak of his own solicitude over the Churches of God even to the utmost bounds of the ocean Whitby hence infers that his headship therfor is not universal becaus it is bounded Is not this witty And thus the great Prophet when he describes the vaste unlinited extent of the Messias his dominion dominabitur à mari usque ad mare à flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrarum must be understood to limit and confine it Again if Pope Julius defend his acts of power and jurisdiction by ancient cannons and custom Whitby concludes from thence that it is not therfor of divine institution for custom and cannons are but humane Witty still Thus a master when sending his servant on an errand he tells him he may well go for that he gave him lately a pair of new shooes loses therby all his other claim of commanding him Again if St. Gregory prefer the Apostolicall See before other Churches That is quoth Whitby not for it self but for the Emperours seat And for the same reason must the Byshop of London or Abbot of Westminster if any now were be preferred before the Byshop of Canterbury If Pope Leo derive his autority from St. Peter prince of the apostles That may infer quoth he a precedency of order but not any dignity A Prince it seems signifies only one that is to go before not one
purposes as catholik Church uses For so the women which were particularly addicted to the service of the altar St. Paul would have them to be elderly and mature lest being young they should grow wanton from Christ and desire to marry This distinction will in no wise serv Mr. Whitby For saith he with his reverend Hall the doctrin thus stigmatised by the apostle as the doctrin of Devils is in general of such as do forbid marriage and not upon this or that particular account And the act is all one whether the prohibition be relative or absolute as poison is poison whether absolutely or conditionally taken Thus speaks Whitby with his reverend Hall thence inferring if I understand him that it is as full and truly the doctrin of devils to forbid marriage to any one upon any account of serving God more purely and the like as it is to forbid it absolutely as evil and unlawful in it self as poison c. But is this true Poison conditionally taken or taken upon condition either of a preservative against it or of som diseas whereof it is a proper remedy may not poison or hurt the man that takes it but rather help perhaps and cure him And if it do not poison but help then is it no poison to him but physick And do they forbid marriage as in it self unlawful who do relatively prohibit it Or is it equally the doctrin of devils to withhold it as unlawful to all or only to som upon a special occasion Do they condemn it in it self who withhold it in relation to som times or persons That I may omit other several reasons which may convince this assertion of folly and falsehood how coms our Church of England to forbid marriage in Advent and Lent and som other times of the year Is not this a relative prohibition And doth our Church of England therfor absolutely forbid it in it self becaus she relatively forbids it I am sure the prohibition is as much relative to forbid marriage to all persons at som times as to forbid it to som persons at all times And if the doctrin be stigmatized in general upon what account soever it run then doth the Church of England hold and teach the doctrin of devils when upon this or that particular account she prohibits marriage although she absolutely allows it as the Roman Church does The rubrick of our English Church now put into our Almanack runs thus Times prohibiting Marriage Marriage comes in the 23 of January and by the 7 of February it goes out again until Low Sunday at which time it coms in again and goes not out till Rogation Sunday from that time it is unforbidden until Advent Sunday But then it goes out and coms not in again till the 23. of January following All which in the phrase of Dr. Pierce and Whitby his champion runs thus Times commanding the doctrin of devils The doctrin of devils goes out the 23 of January and by the 7 of February it comes in again until Low Sunday at which time it goes out again and coms not in till Rogation Sunday from that time it goes out until Advent Sunday But then the doctrin of devils coms in and it goes not out again till the 23 of January The same is also to be said about abstaining from flesh in Lent For this prohibition is equally stigmatized by the same Apostle in the very self-same text as the devils doctrin And a dispensation to eat flesh in Lent cannot be obtained in our Byshops Courts without a sum of moneys and generally to abstain from the doctrin of devils we give an angel either a gold angel or a silver one Truth is it is no devils doctrin or evil counsel to refrain either from flesh or marriage or any way to bridle and mortifie our carnal appetites which our holy apostles have counselled us carefully to do but a blessed angelical conversation For the angels of God saith Christ our Lord do neither marry nor are given in marriage And the flesh of bulls and goats neither doth God nor his angels feed on And both the counsel and practis of Christ and his apostles lead us that way When the Bridegroom is taken away then saith Christ shall my disciples fast that is they shall then enter upon their austerities of life after their solemn profession in Pentecost which now in their noviceship I will not put upon them while they are yet weak in faith Unto those very same disciples he also perswaded continence and coelibacy both by his own example and words of counsel And devils are all friends to the contrary uncleannes and gluttony But why then are these two abstinencies so opposite both of them to the devils will and inclination called by St. Paul Doctrina daemoniorum wheras devils were never known to move any man to those abstinencies but rather to the contrary excesses being enemies themselvs to all cleanlines temperance Doth the devil approve of that which our Lord advises us to follow Or does he labour to promote Christs counsel and practis No in no wise But whatsoever he may pretend of good he ever does it to som evil end and for snares and subversion He likes not of continence he loves not temperance he hates cleanlines But so to praise that which himself indeed dislikes and perswade men to beleev that such an act of high vertue and counsel is also of such necessity that no man can be a Christian without it This is one of his demoniacal subtilties The Greek hath two several words to expres those evil spirits in general Daemonium and Diabolus the one speaks his crafty subtilties the other his malicious will But we in English have but one and it renders properly the last For the old Saxes our forefathers called that evil spirit Deuvill or Doill which relates to the will or practice But Daemonium or Daemon for which we have no English word has a reference to the understanding and to the perverting of it And it signifies intelligent or knowing Now this doctrin of abstinence from meats and marriage as things unlawful is called by St. Paul doctrina daemoniorum the doctrin of daemons or of those evil spirits not as they are wicked practisers but cunning seducers not as they corrupt the will but delude the understanding They hate continence and never have or will move any man towards it But if under colour of its excellency they could once perswade men to beleev that salvation is not possible for married people as in primitive times of Christianity they did then have they acted the part of demons or cunning seducers indeed and brought much ruin and disorder and snares upon the Christian world which it is indifferent to them what way it suffer so it receiv a dammage This craft of demons consists generally in this that to make themselvs and temptations plausible they still advance one ability or vertue to depress another In primitive times of the Church
book and besides all rule and against truth The occasion of assembling this Councel of Frankford were the misdemeanours of Elipandus Byshop of Tolledo in Spain For Faelix Urgelitanus his Countreyman having consulted Elipandus concerning that scholastick difficulty Whether Christ as man ought to be called the natural or only the adoptive Son of God by means of his discours and a book written by him upon that subject beleeved and said against the ancient language of the Church that Christ was to be held an adoptive child of God and not his natural son And these two together with Claudius Taurinensis who came to them from Italy filled all Spain with the clamour This act of theirs was fond as well as wicked For though in the schools it might haply be held that Christ as man is not the natural but only the adoptive Son of God if that particle as be taken for a note of reduplication yet they could not be igrant that beleevers have nothing to do with such nice logical points These conceiv Christ altogether specifically as he is in himself And so they had ever beleeved him to be the only begotten natural Son of God and we â—…l so many as are made partakers of his graâ—e â—…opted in him And he that shall â—rea 〈…〉 st to be as man only his adoptive Son whâ—ther that as of his be taken reduplica 〈…〉 ficatively he make but an ass 〈…〉 and a knave to boot But these three though often admonished yet would they not desist And therfor in a Councel at Ratisbone Faelix by name was condemned respect being then had to the person and dignity of the Archbyshop of Toledo and the other Byshop Faelix therfor was brought to the Emperour Charles his Court who then wintered at Rheginum where after a while he humbly submitted to the Councel there then met together and from thence sent to the presence of Pope Adrian in the Cathedral of S. Peter he publickly acknowledged his errour and returned home to his own City Elipand when he heard of all this grew more violent than before and laboured not only with his whole endeavour to reclaim Faelix to his former errour but by letters patent and large dated to all the Byshops of France and Germany to draw those two Kingdoms to his opinion Wherupon Faelix returned again to his vomit And least the infection should spread any further by the agreement of the Pope and Charles the Emperour a Councel was called at Frankford This was the very busines and occasion of that Councel wherby every one may discern himself not only the improbability that the said Councel of Frankford which purposely met together to maintain the honour of Christ should deface his figures but the falsity also of this your Disswader who tells us that a while after this Councel of Frankford Ludovicus son to Charles the great sent Claudius a famous Oratour to preach against images in Italy p. 60. Wheras Claudius had troubled Italy and Spain too three or four years before that Councel nay before the Councel of Ratisbone which was two years before and his way was condemned with himself both at Ratisbone and Frankford too These things being so how in the name of God comes your Disswader here against so much reason to aver that the Councel of Frankford declared against images that they condemned the second Nicen Synod wherin the use of Images had been maintained that they published a book wherin that Synod was declared Antichristian and that Ludovicus Charlemains son sent down Claudius after that Councel to preach against Images in Italy I know that other Protestants have been guilty too of some part of this his story so far at least as to say in particular that the Frankford Councel was against images But they never set down any of that Councels declaration against them nor is ther any extant Binius who set forth all the Councels at large both shows and copiously proves that the acts of the second Nicen Councel were all confirmed in the Councel of Frankford which is also averred by Alanus Surius Vasquez and several other learned men And since it is likely enough that somthing was done in this Councel about Images wherof ther is so much talk in the world ther can nothing be thought more rational than that Pope Adrian whose legates presided in both the Councels should according to the Churches custom send those decrees of Nice about the same time lately finished unto the Councel now at Frankford that the definition of the Nicen Councel might be made known to all the West by their acceptation and promulgation at Frankford Which also that it was absolutely done and no other thing done but it may sufficiently be gathered by the authority of the Councel of Senon which in the 14. of their decrees speaks thus Carolus magnus Francorum rex Christianissimus in Francofordiensi conventu ejusdem error is Iconomachorum suppressit insaniam quam infaelicissimus quidam Faelix in Gallias Germani as invexerat And the same is ratified by Platina who in the life of Pope Adrian Biennio post saith he Theophylactus Stephanus Episcopi insignes Adriani nomine Francorum Germanorum Synodum habuerunt in qua Synodus quam septimam Graeci appellabant haerests Faeliciana de tollendis imaginibus abrogata est as also by Paulus Emilius who in his second book de gestis Francorum speaking of that Councel of Frankford Et imaginibus saith he suus honor restitutus est The like may be proved out of Blondus in his Decads Sabellicus his Aeneads Gablisards Chronology Alanus his Dialogues Nauclerus c. All which various testimonies joyned in one together with the motives of that Frankford Councel the great procurer and protectour of that Councel Charles the great an eminent Champion of the Roman Church the Presidents of that Councel Theophylact and Stephen legates of the same Pope Adrian who had lately finished and confirmed the second Councel of Nice may suffice I should think to refute the trifling humour of this Disswader But his confidence is greater in his readers light beleef then either the weight or truth of his own words But all the devices of Roman writers to palliate this their crime he sayes are frivolous What are these devices and what is their crimes Sir where there is no crime there needs not any palliating devices Is it a crime to keep an image of Christ crucified for us that we may be often put in mind of the good and vertue of his holy passion and our fansie assisted and kept in at our prayers within the compass of their object This is the busines Sir speak directly unto this before you go any further You will make all sorts of prophane Images either to some civil use or indifferent or perhaps a naughty end This is no crime with you If it be how comes it to pass that never any byshop or other minister in England who scribble with
and statutes he will soon find all this to be most true This your Disswader in despight of all our laws to the contrary will have the government of Christs Church not to be monarchical but a pure aristocracy ruled by a company of byshops standing like a company of trees all in a row one by another but no one between the other and heaven An order he admits or precedency according as I suppose as one begins to count or number them but no jurisdiction no power no autority no superiority of any one over the rest One byshop sayes he is not superiour to another Christ made no head of byshops Beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls Vnder him every byshop is supream in spirituals and in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ But the laws of the land and constitutions of our English Protestant Church teach us on the contrary that one byshop is superiour to another and he therfor called an Arch-byshop and that according to Christ ther is a head both of Byshops and and Arch-byshops so that ther is one other step yet before you rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls even he who is under Christ supream head and governour of his Church in these his Majesties realms of England Scotland and Ireland and that under Chirst every byshop is not supream in spirituals or in all power mark I say he is not supream in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ The statutes and acts of parliament are in every mans hands to look into But the canons and ecclesiastical constitutions becaus they are not so obvious I shall name one or two of them to justifie this my speech In our canonical law made in Kings Edwards dayes ther is an act tit 189. De officio jurisdictione omnium judicum which speaks thus Si episcopus suerit negligens in administrandâ justitiâ pertinet ad ejus Archiepiscopum ipsum compellere ad jus dicendum illique terminum praescribet quem si non observaverit absque legitimo impedimento non modò censuris ecclesiasticis puniet verum in astimationem justam litis damnabit It is manifest by this canon that every byshop is not supream but that one is superiour and head over the other so far as to compel and punish him which cannot justly be done without autority and power Ther is another canon or law yet more full than this tit 92. De ecclesia ministris ejus which speaks thus Omnia quae de Episcopis constituta sunt ad se pertinere Archiepiscopi quoque agnoscant Et praeter illa munus illorum est in suâ provinciâ episcopos collocare cum à nobis saith the King electi fuerint Vtque totius provinciae suae statum melius intelligat Archiepiscopus semel provinciam suam universam si possit ambibit visitabit Et quoties contigerit aliquas vacare sedes episcopales episcoporum locos non modo in visitatione sed etiam in beneficiorum collocatione omnibus aliis functionibus ecclesiasticis implebit Quin ubi episcopi sunt si eos animadvertat in suis muneribus curandis praesertim in corrigendis vitiis tardiores negligentiores esse quà m in gregis Domini praefectis ferri possit primum illos paterne monebit Quod si monitione non profuerit illi jus esto alios in eorum loco collocare Appellantium etiam ad se querelas causasque judicabit Episcopi suae provinciae si qua de re inter se contenderint aut litigarint judex finitor inter eos esto Archiepiscopus Ad haec audiet judicabit accusationes contra episcopos suae provinciae Ac denique si ullae contentiones aut lites inter episcopum archiepiscopum ortae fucrint nostro judició saith the King who ratifies these ecclesiastical canons and puts them forth in his own name cognoscentur definientur Archiepiscopi quoque munus esto synodos provinciales nostro jussu convocare By this constitution or canon one of those canons on which our very English Protestant Church is founded it manifestly appears that an Archbyshop or in plain English a prime byshop or chief byshop is not a name only of order or decent precedency as your Disswader here speaks but of dignity autority power superiority and jurisdiction over byshops And he is as much above them as other ordinary byshops are above a Presbyter or parochial minister For in administring Sacraments and preaching Gods word every minister is impowred as fully as any byshop but the government of ministers or presbyters within the Diocess is proper only to one who therfor has the name and title of byshop which signifies an Overseer of the rest This byshop admits of presbyters into a parish and when any parish is vacant he sees that one be put in if any be careles and negligent in the duty of his parish he first advises him like a father and if he will not amend his manners he puts him out and furnishes the place with a better pastour he judges the complaints between parishioners and parsons or between parsons or presbyters among themselves and decides them he visits and keeps chapter or should do at least and finds and speaks and punishes their faults All these things are contained in the office of a byshop which therfor argue him to have an autority power or jurisdiction over other Presbyters or pastours within his Dioces although he be a presbyter or pastour himself and a chief one too that is to say with a more ample and large autority then any one of those who be under him hath given them and therfor called a byshop or overseer by way of eminence And if all these things do as needs they must argue not only an order or bare precedency but a jurisdiction and power of a byshop over other presbyters then must they needs conclude the same power to be in one byshop over another in him namely who by way of eminency is called the byshop or archbyshop or prime byshop amongst the rest who is as truly the byshop of byshops as these are overseers of presbyters For this prime byshop is declared by the abovesaid canon to be enabled by vertue of his office to have all the power and charge that other byshops have and then over and above that first to place the byshops elect and seat them each one in their provinces then to go over and visit the whole province authoritatively which none of the byshops under him can do thirdly to see vacant seats supplied fourthly if such byshops as he shall find slow and negligent in their duty after a fatherly admonishment mend not to put others in their place fiftly to judg the complaints and causes of such as appeal unto him from their own byshops sixtly to decide the controversies that may happen between one byshop and another seventhly
to judg the accusations that are against any byshop lastly to call synods and there conclude and decide what may seem best for the welfare and spiritual government of his province Are these the works of authority power and jurisdiction yea or no If they be not how can any autority or power be proved For all power is proved by its act or how in particular may it appear that byshops have any autority over their presbyters 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
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
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