in this very section he tells us a little afterward that the Councel of Basil decreed the second Article against the Pope And I am sure the same Councel of Basil decreed the first article of the immaculate Conception sess 36. Surely the year of our Lord 1431. when that Councel was kept is not now to come Where and when and how can they be more then they are already I suppose he prophesies this by reason of som vehement disputes about those points If this be it he may adde yet five hundred more which are more vehemently disputed than these be One of them it is much he could miss For the superiority betwixt the King of France and Spain has been often agitated not only by their Embassadours in Kingdoms where they reside but even in Councels also and that with too much of vehemency there As concerning the Conception I know the two schools of divine S. Thomas and subtile Scotus have much altercation about an instant of time an Aristotelical Instant so swift and short an instant that no thought of man though never so nimble can ever catch it And the general Pastour has silenced that School-dispute becaus it sounded ill and signified nothing What is it to action or any esteem towards that Blessed Virgin that she was pure in her Conception by Gods preventing grace as one school speaks or by his sanctifying grace as the other school declares it that she was ever Immaculate Gods mercy providing that in no instant imaginable she should be liable to original sin as Scotus teaches or Gods grace so working that immediatly after that instant she should be made pure and holy as Saint Thomas speaks For this is the school dispute which your Disswader if he understands himself here talks of And those very Doctours who dispute this and all pious Christians have ever unanimously beleeved that the Blessed Virgin was not only most pure and unspotted in her whole life but even from her first animation in the womb So that if we speak of a real and complete Conception she is already beleeved to be Immaculate And from this universal Tradition wherin Catholiks agree and are already resolved the first reforming Protestants departed as well as from many others Nor in any probability will ever that Aristotelical School instant which signifies just nothing as to any Christian action be ever thought of unless som greater disorder then I have yet heard of exact a further decision about a thing which it is not the weight of a hair whether it be expressed according to the school of S. Thomas or of Scotus The like I say to that other article which your Disswader prophesies will shortly come forth concerning the Popes being above a Councel For that ther is and ought to be one visible Pastour over all Christs slock upon earth whether essential or representative is a Christian Tradition which Catholiks still embrace but Protestants have left And this tradition together with the former of the immaculate Conception if your Disswader had endeavoured to show either not to have been or likely not to be perpetual his endeavour however insufficient had not been at least impertinent But instead of that he tells us that this and that will shortly com forth new articles not heeding that himself and such as he have departed from the old And this his prophesie in this is as vain as in the other For that the Pope who is and ever was beleeved the head and Prince of the whole Councel should be also above it and his authority there greater then all the rest beside is a speculative querk that ambition may think but sober reason will never deem of moment For whether he be above the Councel that is to say of greater authority then all the other Prelates put together or not above but their authority joyned together as great or greater then his neither they without him nor he without them can positively declare any thing with authentick authority for the silencing of differences which arise in faith I' th interim the chief Prelate is for certain above the Councel in this sence that he is their Prince and Superiour as also he has in himself a negative voice both with the Councel and without it For this is a right ingrafted naturally in the condition of all whatever superiority spiritual or civil without which they could not rule or mannage their charge By it they silence disquiets and end debates according to the tenour of laws already made which in such cases they are by their place and office to interpret so far at least that one party shall not carry it against the other which he shall judge in such and such circumstances to com nearer to law and right than he This power I say every superiour must have over his subjects whether his authority be greater then all theirs put together in the making of laws or not Nor is it of any concernment at all since one without the other can enact no laws that may have their full and perpetual force which of them is the greater The statutes and acts that are made in any Kingdom by the King and Parliament of the place have the same force whether the Kings Majesty who is superiour prince and head of the Parliament be above the whole Parliament that is of more authority than all the rest there put together and weighed in a ballance against him yea or no. Nor would he gain or lose any one jot of his dignity authority or reverence whatever should be concluded in a pair of subtil speculatours scales concerning that point Although for my part I hold it little better than busie sedition to rais such fantastick doubts And the danger of it we experienced here in this Kingdom but the other day And I may be bold to say by what I know and heard my self that the hint was given them by Ministers talking upon this point of the Popes not being above his Councel Catholiks know how to obey their Pope and Pastour whether he be above or not above a Councel which silly querk concerns not them to think of But others are apt to catch fire at any thing which may any wayes dissolve the bands of their due obedience Thus much concerning the two points of school-speculation which your Disswader prophesies will shortly be determined But he does but dream and so let him sleep on The third new article is that which was lately produced saith he in the Councel of Trent sess 21. which is That although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Insants yet they did not beleev it necessary to salvation Your Disswader seems here tacitly to grant that all the other Canons and Decrees of the Councel of Trent are old and primitive doctrin He would not otherwis have culled out from thence this one only article for new I looked into the Councel of Trent and found there no such article of faith as this your Disswader speaks
Church-government which finally rested now no longer in any Roman byshop but in our own princely monarch If any will but take the pains to look upon our constituions and statutes he will soon find all this to be most true This your Disswader in despight of all our laws to the contrary will have the government of Christs Church not to be monarchical but a pure aristocracy ruled by a company of byshops standing like a company of trees all in a row one by another but no one between the other and heaven An order he admits or precedency according as I suppose as one begins to count or number them but no jurisdiction no power no autority no superiority of any one over the rest One byshop sayes he is not superiour to another Christ made no head of byshops Beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls Under him every byshop is supream in spirituals and in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ. But the laws of the land and constitutions of our English Protestant Church teach us on the contrary that one byshop is superiour to another and he therfor called an Arch-byshop and that according to Christ ther is a head both of Byshops and and Arch-byshops so that ther is one other step yet before you rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls even he who is under Christ supream head and governour of his Church in these his Majesties realms of England Scotland and Ireland and that under Christ every byshop is not supream in spirituals or in all power mark I say he is not supream in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ. The statutes and acts of Parliament are in every mans hands to look into But the canons and ecclesiastical constitutions becaus they are not so obvious I shall name one or two of them to justifie this my speech In our canonical law made in Kings Edwards dayes ther is an act tit 189. De officio jurisdictione omnium judicum which speaks thus Si Episcopus fuerit negligens in administrand â justitiâ pertinet ad ejus Archiepiscopum ipsum compellere ad jus dicendum illique terminum praescribet quem si non observaverit absque legitimo impedimento non modò censaris ecclesiasticis puniet verum in estimationem justam litis damnabit It is manifest by this canon that every byshop is not supream but that one is superiour and head over the other so far as to compel and punish him which cannot justly be done without autority and power Ther is another canon or law yet more full than this tit 92. De ecclesia ministris ejus which speaks thus Omnia quae de Episcopis constituta sunt ad se pertinere Archiepiscopi quoque agnoscant Et praeter illa munus illorum est in suà provinciâ episcopos collocare cum à nobis faith the King electi fuerint Utque totius provinciae suae statum melius intelligat Archiepiscopus semel provinciam suam universam si possit ambibit visitabit Et quoties contigerit aliquas vacare sedes episcopales episcoporum locos non modo in visttatione sed etiam in beneficiorum collocatione omnibus aliis sunctionibus ecclesiasticis implebit Quin ubi episcopi sunt si eos animadvertat in suis muneribus curandis praesertim in corrigendis vitiis cardiores negligentiores esse quà m in gregis Domini praefectis ferri possit primum illos paterne monebit Quod si monitione non profuerit illi jus esto alios in eorum loco collocare Appellantium etiam ad se querelas causasque judicabit Episcopi suae provinciae si qua de re inter se contenderint aut litigarint judex finitor inter eos esto Archiepiscopus Ad haec audiet judicabit accusationes contra episcopos suae provinciae Ac denique si ullae contentiones aut lites inter episcopum archiepiscopum ortae fuerint nostro judicio saith the King who ratifies these ecclesiastical canons and puts them forth in his own name cognoscentur definientur Archiepiscopi quoque munus esto synodos provinciales nostro jusses convocare By this constitution of canon one of those canons on which our very English Protestant Chuŕch is founded it manifestly appears that an Archbyshop or in plain English a prime byshop or chief byshop is not a name only of order or decent precedency as your Disswader here speaks but of dignity autority power superiority and jurisdiction over byshops And he is as much above them as other ordinary byshops are above a Presbyter or parochial minister For in administring Sacrarnents and preaching Gods word every minister is impowred as fully as any byshop but the government of ministers or presbyters within the Diocess is proper only to one who therfor has the name and title of byshop which signifies an Overseer of the rest This byshop admits of presbyters into a parish and when any parish is vacant he sees that one be put in if any be careles and negligent in the duty of his parish he first advises him like a father and if he will not amend his manners he puts him out and surnishes the place with a better pastour he judges the complaints between parishioners and parsons or between parsons or presbyters among themselves and decides them he visits and keeps chapter or should do at least and finds and speaks and punishes their faults All these things are contained in the office of a byshop which therfor argue him to have an autority power or jurisdiction over other Presbyters or pastours within his Dioces although he bea presbyter or pastour himself and a chief one too that is to say with a more ample and large autority then any one of those who be under him hath given them and therfor called a byshop or overseer by way of eminence And if all these things do as needs they must argue not only an order or bare precedency but a jurisdiction and power of a byshop over other presbyters then must they needs conclude the same power to be in one byshop over another in him namely who by way of eminency is called the byshop or archbyshop or prime byshop amongst the rest who is as truly the byshop of byshops as these are overseers of presbyters For this prime byshop is declared by the abovesaid canon to be enabled by vertue of his office to have all the power and charge that other byshops have and then over and above that first to place the byshops elect and seat them each one in their provinces then to go over and visit the whole province authoritatively which none of the byshops under him can do thirdly to see vacant feats supplied fourthly if such byshops as he shall find slow and negligent in their duty after a fatherly admonishment mend not to put others in their place fiftly
themselvs and temptations plausible they still advance one ability or vertue to depress another In primitive times of the Church they exalted that of the right hand to depress the left in these later times they exalt the vertue of the left hand to depress the right Thus marriage is good and continence also is good they are both good Nay S. Paul sayes that continence is better or the vertue of the right hand For he that is unmarried only cares sayes he how to serve God well and pleas him but he that is married is solicitous for many worldly affairs concerning his wife and children and so is distracted and divided two wayes To exalt then the one of these two which are both good things unto such a monopoly of goodnes and excellency that the other shall be thought unlawful and evil this is doctrina daemoniorum the doctrin of demons who were cunning seducers from the beginning Thus faith is good and other works of piety justice and sobriety unto which Christ and his apostles exhort us are good also and necessary and healthful He therfor that so magnifies the one as to evacuate the other teaches doctrinam daemontorum the doctrin of demons who were cunning seducers from the beginning Meat is good and fasting is good good to eat with thanksgiving and good in times and occasions to abstain But that man who so exalts the one as to exclude the other out of Christianity is a seducer and teaches the doctrin of demons So likewise doth he who either so highly magnifies free will as to exclude Gods grace or so defends grace that he abolishes all concurrence of free will unto works of piety and merit teach both of them equally the doctrin of demons who were cunning seducers from the beginning In a word not to mention more examples wherin I might be copious so to commend continence as to make marriage unlawful is the doctrin of demons who were cunning seducers from the beginning And so agian to set up marriage as to teach continence to be both sinful and impossible is the doctrin both of demons and devils too implacable enemies both to truth and continence And Christ is equally crucified between both the theeves Ch. 18. from page 410. to 420. Begins to justifie the departure or schisme of the English from the Roman Church as good and lawful For if Schisme faith he be a crime it lies upon the Church not which separated but which gave the caus of separation the Roman not the English Church Causal schisme which gives the occasion bears all the blame but formal schisme which separates from an offensive society is an action of necessary vertue Nor can there be quoth he any necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions but a necessty rather of going out of Babylon Nor does every schisme turn the Church of Christ into a synagogue of Satan but only schisme in sundamentals which fundamentals he saith elswhere are as clear and perspicuous to all men as that twice two make four These Sir be his capital assertions in this chapter which howlittle they will serve his purpos against the Roman Church he that seriously reads your book against which this reply is made will soon perceiv But how much they will disadvantage him before the Presbyterian Quaker and other wayes here in England who separating from our English Church do thus justifie their schisme either by mincing the fault or laying it upon her from whom they have revolted it behoovs him well to consider Ch. 19. from page 420 to 428. Endeavours yet more to diminish the fault and justifie the secession Schisme faith he that proceeds from weaknes in persons that desire to know the truth and endeavour after it is free from crime And again External unity is not essential to the Church And schisme that is contrary to that unity divides not from Christs body in things absolutely necessary to be united but only in things not so necessary as in the same liturgies or ceremonies about matters not sundamental wherein an union is neither necessary nor yet possible This is I am sure the voice of a Presbyterian and no Prelatick Protestant as Whitby speaks himself to be And if it be indeed the sence of our English Church as her spokes-man here would make us beleev it is then are surely our English Byshops in charity all obliged earnestly to intercede with his royal Majesty who for civil respects hath forbidden all meetings out of ordinary Churches and Chappels that the poor Quaker who endeavours after truth and light with an innocent and unfeigned heart may be permitted for religious respects to meet at Bull and Mouth and other such like places where they may think fit being now resolved never to resort more to Protestant Steeple-houses or to any of their liturgies or ceremonies which communion is neither necessary unto any unity any substantial unity in Christs body nor yet possible that they may declare amongst themselvs the sons of light the power and truth in simplicity of heart without impeachment of the wicked Ch. 20. from page 428. to 448. Falls again to speak against Infallibility which he had battered before in his whole 9 chapter of above 30 pages and that with as much earnestness here as if nothing had been yet said of it But this chapter was written haply by som other hand which knew not what the former had performed till coming together both of the papers to the Press it was perceived they might both pass And here all general Councels and their determinations are disabled as destitute of any assurance of truth Is this Infallibility quoth he out of Chillingworth in the Councel alone or Pope alone c. What shall we do if they run counter c. To whom must we hearken when many pretend to the Popedom c. What if the Popes misdemeanour be the thing to be judged c. How can we be assured that any one is true Pope not Synioniacally ordained not illegally elected not invalidly baptised c. which are saith he uncertainties propounded by Mr. Chillingworth not possible to be resolved This kind of discours fills up this whole chapter By vertue of these uncertainties we can never tell whether Mr. Whitby be any minister or no or whether he be a Christian or so much as a Whitby If titulus coloratus and moral evidence may not suffice us we can be sure of no authority either spritual or civil in this world And if any one should learn by this wise master thus to except against the obliging power of acts and decrees of King or Parliament Is that power in the King alone or in the Parliament alone c. What if they run counter c. What if they should not be rightly chosen c. would he not talk as wise as this man and his little Doctor Chillingworth It ought to suffice an honest man and a good subject that an authority is set over him and
were had been only sent over to make folks sick they had don him som service but to poison men and kill them down-right that may give the Physician a just caus of wrath against those intruding empyricks He begins his book thus I suppose it is a matter of faith with all Papists that the Pope is infallible and that he can depose Kings c. Thus doth that wise man open his mouth and begin his Recipe Two things very seldom seen in any Academick conclusions when students defend a whole body of divinity in the schools but never delivered in Gospel or declared in Councels or heard or thought of by any one Catholik in the world as any thing of his religion these Mr. Denton supposes to be matter of faith with all Papists I would ask Mr. Denton whether he thinks it a matter of faith among Papists That the earth moves or no. If one Catholik hold those two assertions which in his sence I cannot tell whether any one do or no I will be bold to say a thousand hold this The next book Dr. Denton writes against Papists will haply begin thus I suppose it is a matter of faith with all Papists that the earth moves And then he may go on with his moon-stories and build castles in the air and Dentonise as here he hath done Ch. 21. from p. 448. to 456. Allows that general Councels although they be not infallible are highly notwithstanding both themselvs and their decrees to be esteemed provided that they keep to Gods rule that clear reason be not against them that men of worth do not gainsay them and that their proceedings be legal Not otherwis Thus he recalls himself and mends the matter All these four things if general Councels observ they shall be observed themselves notwithstanding they may haply be a company of bastards and buffoons neither legitimately begotten nor rightly baptised nor validly elected nor legally ordained And whether these specified conditions be or be not in councels and their decrees every man as Whitby here and several other places of his book speaks is to judg according to his own pleasur and discretion So that according to his rule the discretion and will of particular men is the final resolv of all religion faith and practis Whence it will follow that if there be as many religions as men they must be all good When you object Sir that such a liberty as this will be destructive even of all articles canons and acts of Parliament in order to our establisht Protestancy or other affairs To this Whitby replyes according to his custom very hotly Doth it becom a consuter of Mr. Chillingworth saith he thus to trifle Hath he not told you that others may make the same defence as we as murderers may cry not guilty as well as innocent persons but not so justly not so truly For Gods sake who trifles here when both Chillingworth and Whitby too had put into every private mans hand an equal power of judging admitting or rejecting the decrees orders and laws of their superiours he now distinguishes with Chillingworth his fanatick Master that som do it justly and truly others not so justly not so truly But who shall pass judgment upon the final and only irrefragable judg or aver such a thing of any one who hath an equal and unlimited power beforehand to take and reject what himself pleases Both truth and justice must solely be in his will who may admit and refuse as himself willeth But the party now esteemed faulty will be meal-mouthed we must think and not dare to say he both truly and justly does what he does or to affirm that he uses his own discretion in that which he takes or refuses by his own liking The Protestant forsooth separated from the Roman both truly and justly but the Presbyterian Independent and Quaker these refuse the Protestants communion not so truly not so justly although they do it upon the same right and title and by the same principles the other used himself and allows to other men The Protestant shall reject the Parliament of Prelates who establisht Catholik religion and do it justly and truly only for this reason that they do it upon their own discretion but another if he shall except against a Council of Lords and Commons that shall set up Prelate Protestancy although according to Whitby they be no judges of our faith he does it not so justly not so truly though he do it by his own discretion allow'd him to be his final resolv What is this but to do wickedly and talk fondly First to subjugate all degrees of autority to every mans judgment as the final and last rule and then to question that rule which he made subject unto nothing But that we may understand what a worthy respect Mr. Whitby has for general Councels he tells us here that it is neither impossible nor improbable that general Councels may erre Nay our writers quoth he do not acknowledg generall Councels to be infallible even in fundamentals And Whitby writes we all know by this time what his writers writ before him I cannot but marvel at this his talk For Whitby in several places of his book affirms himself that fundamentals are so perspicuous and clear that no man can be so ignorant if he be not a natural fool as to mistake therin We saith he p. 104. distinguish between points fundamental and not fundamental These are clearly revealed and so of necessary beleef And to determine their sence there is no more need of a judg then for any other perspicuous truth What need of a judge to decide whether scriptur affirms that there is but one God that this God cannot lye that Jesus Christ was sent by his commission into the world that he was crucified and rose again that without faith and obedience we cannot com to heaven These and such like are the truths which we entitle fundamental And if the sence of this needs an infallible judg then let us bring Euclids elements to the bar and call for a judg to decide whether twice two make four So he likewise avers p. 441. that fundamentals are as perspicuous as if they were written by a sun-beam He reckons not the Trinity amongst his fundamentals perhaps he does not take it for one or will have no fundamentals but what are perspicuous I could make it easily appear that even fundamentals have been denied and that with as great reason as any he calls otherwis are denied now But I must be brief That which I here note is this What is as perspicuous as a sun-beam as certain as Euclids elements as evident as that which is most clearly revealed as notorious a known truth as that twice two make four so clear that there needs no judg to determin it This the Prelates of the Christian world met together which none but a natural fool can mistake must not be able to discern They and none but they can erre in
be thought worthy of the dignity and wealth he has now obtained in another slipt out of it But concerning the way he takes to 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 Senensis 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 Catholick 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 Conncel 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
holy Trinity especially God the Father to be pourtrayed at all And if now they suffer it they have for it I make no doubt a sufficient reason especially since they heed not at all however your Disswader imagines any natural similitude in any of their pictures If they be so made as to raise the sansie to thoughts above and the love and vertues that may bring us thither they care not whether for example Saint Bennet were a man just of that complexion or Christ their Redeemer of those direct features the limner has given him They come not into their Churches nor do they cast their eyes upon their pictures for any such end And if God the Father be represented to their eyes as he is to their ears when he is called Father I see no harm in it If we may use such a form of words when we speak to God as this world we live in may afford our ears why may not the eyes have such an answerable form too But this is a busines which your Disswader if he were a Catholik might well propound in the next general Councel and do otherwise in the mean time if so he please in his own Diocess For neither books nor picturs can be used in any Diocess but what the Ordinary of the place allows And the Byshop still guides himself by the general doctrin and discipline the faith and custom the tradition and laws of the Church in the whole mannagement of his care And when these do not clearly descend to any particular which he is to deal with he uses therin his own discretion going that way if he do well that he findes comes nearest to the rule as temporal superiours also do in their affairs O but the Roman Church with much scandal and against nature and the reason of mankind in their mass-books and breviaries portuises and manuels picture the holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot And do they so I have seen I think as many Catholik countreys and mass-books and breviaries portuises and manuels as your Disswader ever did and yet I never saw any such picture therin all my life He has been it seems an earnest pryer into the front and faces of books But did he not mistake trow you and take some fortune-book written in old letters for a mass-book and thence conclude that all breviaries and mass-books portuises and manuels were stored with such figures However it were the picture was to blame For three noses and three faces ought to have more than four eyes And if ther were but four eyes I cannot see how ther should be three whole faces although ther were there three noses in it But this is as good stuff and as true and as pertinent too as any other part of this his book which he calls a Disswasive from Popery §. 10. Which is against Papal authority Sayes that the Popes universal byshoprick is another novelty though not so ridiculous yet as dangerous as any other And a novelty it is for Christ left his Church in the hands of the Apostles without any superiority of one above another And in the Councel of Jerusalem James and not Peter gave the decisive sentence Christ sent all his Apostles with the same whole power as his Father sent him Therfor S. Paul bid the byshops of Miletum feed the whole flock And well said S. Cyprian that the Apostles were all the same that S. Peter was And this equality of power must descend to all byshops who succeed the Apostles in their ordinary power as embassadours for Christ. So then by the law of Christ one byshop is not superiour to another Christ made no head of byshops Beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepheard and byshop of souls Under him every byshop is supream in spirituals and in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ. And that this was ever beleeved in ancient times is proved by Pope Eleutherius his epistle to the byshops of France by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian Pope Symmachus S. Denyse Ignace Gelasius Jerom Fulgentius and even Pope Gregory the great Wherfor S. Paul expresly sayes that Christ appointed in his Church first Apostles but not S. Peter first Nor did Peter ever rule but by common councel as S. Chrysostom witnesses And it is even confest by som of the Romish party that the succession is not tyed to Rome as Cusanus Soto Driedo Canus and Segovius Nor was any thing known therof in the primitive times when the byshops of Asia and Africa opposed Pope Victor and Pope Stephen and all byshops treated with the Roman byshop as with a brother not superiour and a whole general Councel gave to the byshop of C. P. equal right and preheminence with the byshop of Rome Finally Christ gave no commandment to obey the byshop of Rome and probably never intended any such thing A man would surely think Sir that this nail is knocked in to the head What could be said more But to be brief with you If all the other sections of this your Disswasive have said nothing this I may say speaks somthing wors than nothing For his reasons are senceles his testimonies either impertinent or manifestly against himself and his whole discours contrary to the laws and constitutions of our English Protestant Church To begin with the last whether you look upon the statutes and acts of Parliament wherby our English Church and government were first settled in England upon the reformation in the dayes of Edward the sixth and afterwards ratified or the articles canons and constitutions that were agreed upon by the byshops and clergy and confirmed both by King Edward Queen Elizabeth King James and our good King Charles we shall clearly see that our English Protestant Church and government is Monarchical and that byshops are as much subjected to their Arch-byshops as Ministers to Byshops and Arch-byshops in like manner to the King in whom the Episcopal power is radical and inherent and in whom is the fulness of ecclesiastical authority and from whom byshops do receiv their place authority power and jurisdiction And that Parson Vicar or other Doctour who shall write or speak contrary to this by the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical made in the time of our late good King Charles he is to be suspended and by the Canons and constitutions ecclesiastical made and confirmed in the Reign of King James he is excommunicated ipso facto and by the laws of Queen Elizabeth and King Edward to be further punished How comes it then that this your disswading Doctour utterly dissolves all this frame of government under pretence of talking against papal power as contrary to the mind and will of Christ which will and mind is notwithstanding most resolutely asserted by the constitutions and laws of this our very English Church and Kingdom which rejected indeed the Roman seat and person but retained still the power and ordination of