exterior direction and government to his Church Pray tell me is he such an immediate head to all beleevers or no if he be to all then is no man to be governed in affairs of religion by any other man and Presbyterian Ministers are as needless as either Catholik or Protestant byshops On the other side if he be not immediate head to all but ministers head the people and Christ heads the ministers this in effect is nothing els but to make every minister a byshop Why do you not plainly say what it is more than manifest you would have All this while you heed no more the laws of the land than constitutions of gospel As for gospel That Lord who had been visible governour and pastour of his flock on earth when he was now to depart hence as all the apostles expected one to be chosen to succeed him in his care so did he notwithstanding his own invisible presence and providence over his slock publikly appoint one And when he taught them that he who were greatest among them should be as the least he did not deny but suppose one greater and taught in one and the same breath both that he was over them and for what he was over them namely to feed not to tyrannize not to domineer abuse and hurt but to direct comfort and conduct his flock in all humility and tendernes as the servant of all their spiritual necessities And if a byshop be otherwise affected it is the fault of his person not his place As for the laws of the land it is there most strongly decreed by the consent and autority of the whole Kingdom not only that byshops are over ministers but that the Kings majesty is head of byshops also in the line of hierarchy from whose hand they receiv both their place and jurisdiction This was establisht not onely by one but several acts and constitutions both in the reign of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth So that by the laws of the land ther be two greeces between ministers and Christ which you cut off to the end you may secretly usurp the autority and place of both to the overthrow at once both of gospel and our law too By the laws of our land our series of ecclesiastical government stands thus God Christ King Byshop Ministers People the Presbyterian predicament is this God Christ Minister People So that the Ministers head in the Presbyterian predicament touches Christs feet immediately and nothing intervenes You pretend indeed that hereby you do exalt Christ but this is a meer cheat as all men may see with their eyes for Christ is but where he was but the minister indeed is exalted being now set in the Kings place one degree higher than the byshops who by the law is under both King and byshop too You will here say to me What is the Papists line of Church government There the Pope must sit next Christ and Kings under his feet Sir I have not time in this short letter to discours this subject as it deserves Nor does it now concern me who have no more here to say than only this that my argument for prelacy howsoever in your words you may disable it is not weakned by you in deeds at all and as far as I can perceiv not understood Yet two things I shall tell you over and above what I need in this affair also First is that Roman catholiks do more truly and cordially acknowledg the respective Christian King of any Kingdom to be supream head of his catholik subjects even in affairs of religion than any other whether Independents Presbyterians or even prelate Protestants have if we speak of truth and reality ever done And this I could easily make good both by the laws and practises of all catholik kingdoms upon earth in any age on one side and the opposite practises of all Protestants on the other Second is that for what reasons Roman catholiks deny a prince to be head of the Church for the same ought all others as they deny it in deeds so if they would speak sincerely as they think and act to deny it in words also as well as they For catholiks do beleev him to be head of the Church from whom the channel of religion and all direction in it is derived and slows for which reason a spring is said to be head of a river But neither does any King upon earth except he be priest and prophet too ever trouble himself to derive religion as the Pope has ever don neither does either Protestant Presbyterian or Independent either in England or elswhere ever seek for religion from the lips of the king or supplicate unto him when any doubt arises in those affairs as they ought in conscience and honesty to do for a final decision any more than the Roman catholik does So that whatever any of them may say all Protestants do as much deny the thing in their behaviour as catholiks do in words and catholiks do in their behaviour observ as much as Protestants either practise or pretend What is the reason that Roman catholiks in all occurring difficulties of faith both have their recours unto their papal Pastour unto whom Kings themselvs remit them and acquiesce also to his decision and judgment but only becaus they beleev him to be head of the Church And if Protestants have no such recours nor will not acquiesce to his Majesties autority in affairs of religion but proceed to wars and quarrels without end the prince neglected as wholly unconcerned in those resolvs they do as manifestly deny his headship as if they profest none Nay to acknowledg a headship in words and deny it in deeds is but mockery By these two words Sir it may appear that the Kings majesty is as much head of the Church to Roman Catholiks as to any Protestants and these no more than they either derive religion or decision of their doubts from the kings chair i th interim it is a shame and general scandal to the whole world that we in England should neither supplicate nor acquiesce in affairs of religion to his Majesties judgment whom in words we acknowledg head of the Church but fight and quarrel without end and yet have the confidence to upbraid Roman catholiks with a contrary beleef who although they ever looked upon their papal patriarch as spiritual head and pastour and deriver of their faith unto whom they so submit that he who after his decision remains contumacious forfeits his Christianity yet have they notwithstanding in all ages and kingdoms resigned with a most ready cordial reverence unto all decisions orders and acts of their temporal princes even in spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs as well as civil so far as their laws reached as supreme head and governours of their respective kingdoms And all kings and princes find in a very short space however others may utter hypocritical words of flattery that indeed none but catholik subjects do heed and
peaceably accepted whom he ought indefinitly to obey not only for wrath but conscience It is not his part to weaken due loyalty with these seditious querks and quibbles Who can tell whether he be legitimatly begotten or rightly baptised or legally elected c. Catholiks have as much ground for their obedience to civil and spiritual Superiours as they have for their observance of their own natural father And I think that is enough If we had it not promised in Gospel as we have that Christ would preserv his Church from failing and errour yet the very beleef we have in his divinity would naturally infer such a confidence as Catholicks have in the Churches truth But Mr. Whitby understands not in whom this infallibility does originally reside as I perceiv by his fond interrogatories nor consequently what it is If he had ever had the happy hour to read the System of that learned Doctour Franciscus Davenport by whose light I have lately Sir since your departure hence to Paris sufficiently declared in our English tongue all this whole busines of infallibility he had saved a multitude of idle words drawn out of his famous fanatick Mr. Chillingworth Catholik Divines may several wayes defend and declare this busines of Infallibility as well as other points of religion according to their several conceptions and abilities and may go som of them so far as to defend even an intrinsecal inherent Infallibility either in the Pope or Councel And although this may suffer more difficulty then the extrinsecall one of Gods providence and guidance yet do I not see how any one can disprove a possibility of it However faith does not require so much at their hands If God be but infallible and Christ be true the church is safe Very many bitter books have been written against Catholiks and their religion injuriously diminishing both them and it upon the mistake of this one busines of Infallibility perhaps a wilful one two very lately by Mr. Moulin and Denton to the great hurt and dammage of the innocent if men beleev them It is a very pious and good rule that of the Canon and civil law Cum sunt jura partium obscura reo favendum est potius quam actori But I doubt much whether the people of England who may read these invective books against Papists follow that rule or no. When the right of Parties is obscure saith the law the defendant is rather to be favoured than the plaintiff If it were so here we should not have been by such bitter books so highly incensed as I see we are against poor Catholiks but against those rather who slander them Mr. Moulin would prove that Catholik religion and not Protestancy is guilty of sedition and he does it by a relation of passionate words and actions of some Popes recorded in stories And this he takes to be a sufficient proof that Catholik religion is guilty of sedition It were indeed to be wished that all Popes words and actions were answerable to their religion and rule But that is hardly to be expected in this world The very place and honour that has ever been given to that seat is no small temptation of pride or other passions incident therupon into a mind not more then ordinarily furnished with all Christian vertues But if we will beleev histories concerning them we shall find no series or succession of men in any one place or dignity of this world to have held forth so many lights of vertue as that one chair hath don And if som have been faulty they gave no doubt much caus of grief or scandal but none of wonderment to the world They may surely fail in a greater temptation since other Christians who have the same means of grace do fail in lesser But Catholiks saith Mr. Moulin are bound by the very tenour of their religion to hold for good and justifie all that any of their Popes have ever said or don This would be very strange why so Becaus saith he they beleev them infallible Who beleevs them infallible How infallible that they can neither do nor speak amiss Who ever thought that Insallible is a word taken up lately by schoolmen to expres the sovereign power and indeficiency of Gods Church and not any inherent endowments of a Pope who is brought up when he is young like one of us in the Catechise and practice of Christian religion and when he is ripe and placed by Gods providence in that supream chair is eminently to practise those holy rules and carefully to keep and maintain that depositum fidei the treasury of faith which he hath received and if he fail therin shall give an account and suffer for it in another world as severely as any other for their faults Nor are his words and actions a rule to other men of Christian religion but Christian religion is a rule to him both for his actions and words And all that Infallibility which Catholik writers to expres more than one thing in one short word make use of in their discourses with Protestants is only an extrinsecal providence of God watching over his Church to preserv the primitive apostolik spirit in her and to keep her alwayes even to the consummation of the world from errour and deficiency notwithstanding any opposition from without or the misdemeanours of any one or other within her self even the providence of that good God whose property it is not only to prevent evil from the good but even to work good out of evil that his Church which he hath promised to preserv may be ever safe And if ever this insallible providence do show it self it must furely be then when the ship is ready to be split by heresies and schismes that rise from som violent spirits breaking unity with that body so dangerously that Prelates are called together from all parts of the world as a help extraordinary in a general Councel to prevent the ruin And this is that which Divines mean when they say that the Pope is infallible in Cathedra in the Chair that is to say in consessu Seniorum Presbyterorum ecclesiae in a general convention of Christian Prelates So that Moulin speaks not one word to the purpos But Doctour Dentons book is not any such mistake but pure malice He intends to show that Papists were never punished for religion but for treason And his book is altogether made up of several stories of men Papists men sent over hither from beyond seas as he sayes to kill poison and destroy people Some when they had read his book took the Authour for a fool but I heard afterwards that he is Physician And upon that account I had him excused For if he be as bad at physick as he is in affairs of religion he had caus to be angry with them who came hither from forreign parts to take his office and emploiment out of his hands kill and poison people If the villains who ever they
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
was determined in the Councel of Lateran be the matter and subject of his discours in this section ought he not in plain terms to have told us what this piece of popery is that we may know what he speaks of Surely he ought If it neither be owned by so many popish doctours which here he names and names not any one popish doctour that owns it if it neither be determined in the Councel of Lateran nor he himself can name any other Councel wherein it was lately or otherwise determined how is it Popery What doctours own it What Councel has declared it What people profes it And what is that thing they should profes declare or own What is it I say This he ought to have spoken openly sincerely and plainly And yet he endeavours not at all which he should one would think have principally heeded either to set down what doctours own it or what it is they own but spends his whole time in telling us only of a great company of popish doctours that like not of that Roman doctrin which he never declares himself what it is And then exhorts all his charge and all good people to take heed of that Roman doctrin that scandalous doctrin that blasphemous novelty which was determined in the Councel of Lateran and yet is another thing from that which was determined in the Councel of Lateran not any part of Catholik beleef until that Councel nor yet esteemed to belong to faith after that Councel by the greatest of popish doctours about which they make many foolish questions as whether a mouse may run away with her maker c. Sir your Doctour who pretending a Disswasive from Popery by which he doubts not but his reader will understand the Roman Catholik faith never meant to touch at all their real Religion which is universally in their hearts and hands and no power of man is able to confute but either som obscure parcels of philosophy or abuses of men which he is better able to make sport withall was fallen here it seems upon the Catholik faith afore he was aware And therfor he suddenly drew back and so blundered up and down in the affrightment that he seems neither to know what to speak nor against what he is to speak of The Roman doctrin of Transubstantiation was first determined in the Lateran Councel The opinion was not determined in the Lateran Councel as it is now held in Rome What would this man have What does he speak of What opinion is that which is now held in Rome differing from that of the Lateran Councel What is that doctrin of the Lateran Councel differing from that is now held in Rome What is that Rome the Church of Rome or Court of Rome the City of Rome or schools in Rome And is it in all Rome or som particular streets or parishes or schools or shops And how do they hold it with their hands or teeth or pens or hearts as a matter of faith or busines of dispute as delivered to them or invented by them in their confession of Religion or profession of Philosophy These things ought all of them to have been exprest that we might rightly understand who in Rome hold it and how they hold it and what is that same It they hold But your Disswader hopes that upon those general words of his The opinion was not determined in the Lateran Councel as it is now held in Rome his unwary reader will be bold to think more than he dares himself utter And perhaps he is not deceived For few readers are wiser than their book But the Romans make many foolish and blasphemous questions about it The more blasphemous and foolish they who urge them to it if any one amongst them have resolved such doubts as infidelity in derision of holy things hath raised They who aforetime denied Gods Incarnation gave occasion of as foolish and blasphemous disputes as any these be And if any then studied to give an answer to such fordid unmanly and scurrillous opposition although they might fail in discretion yet their heart was innocent and intention good The busines which I suppose your Doctour would be at here is the real presence of our Lords blessed and glorious body under the species of corruptible elements which is one of the paragraffs I left out of my Fiat And I am sorry now with all my heart it was left out becaus here is no time or place to treat of it as that great and weighty subject would require Neither is it my intention here to declare the old Christian Tradition but only to give you Sir to understand that this Disswader though he may hurt his unwary reader yet he nothing at all indammages the old Catholik faith by any words of his which speak it to be new Large volumes have been written upon this subject enough to satisfie any moderate well disposed mind qui legit intelligat Let me only give you notice Sir that this parcel of Christian faith now abolisht here in England was so antient that the very old Pagans and Jews derided the primitive Christians above a thousand years ago for their worshipping a breaden God as they pleased then and the infidels of our times are not ashamed now to misname that sacred mystery It was so universally beleeved that their adversaries by that one only mark expressed as it were in short the very substance of their Religion Since the Christians adore that which they eat said one of the Infidel writers well enough acquainted with the cours of Christian Religion let my soul be with Philosophers It was so sure and undoubted in their hearts that som ancient holy Fathers have elucidated the mystery of the Incarnation by this of the real presence in the Eucharist as the more manifest It was so grave and solemn that all the Churches or Temples in the Christian world were built principally for it and the devotion of those times studied to erect them with a strength and magnificence answerable as far as they could to the majesty of that divine mystery It was such a princely leading point of faith that it drew all other pieties after it frequent prayers and meditations alms-deeds contrition for sins singing of psalms hymns and canticles in the Quire before that presence in the Altar Confessions Sermons Catechise Processions Fasts Festivals and all that real fear and love of God that has been ever found in Christian hearts Finally it is the very legacy of Jesus Christ the holy One to his Spouse the Church whereby he proved himself both to be a poor and most loving and also omnipotent Espouse Another man might leave wealth and possessions but though he be never so kind and loving he cannot leave his body to his wife to remain ever with her for exercise of her love for comfort of her heart and glorifying of her soul by vertue wherof she should be raised up to follow and joyn with him in the eternal
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 cannot 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 stock 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 Christ one byshop is not superiour to another Christ made no head of byshops beyond the byshop is no slep till you rest in the great shepheard and byshop of souls Under 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 faith S. Paul set in his Church first of all apostles therfor faith 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 them 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
that every other Church saith Irenaeus comply with the Roman by reason of her greater principality First becaus he sayes it is necessary secondly that every Church thirdly for the Roman Church's more potent principality to comply with her the Centurists are much displeased at it and censure it for a very corrupt speech And indeed the papal power and jurisdiction was so eminent in all ages that Philip Nicolai in his comment de regno Christi refers the beginning of it to the infirmity of the Apostles and byshops succeeding them For there speaking of the origin and increas of papal power Primatus affectatio saith he communis suit infirmit as apostolorum ac etiam primorum urbis episcoporum Finally in the first age that St. Peter had a primacy above the other apostles is acknowledged by Calvin The twelve apostles had one among them to govern the rest by Musculus The celestial spirits are not equal the apostles themselves were not equal Peter is found in many places to have been chief amongst the rest which we deny not by Mr. Whitgift Amongst the Apostles themselves ther was one chief and by Dr. Covel who in his examinations teaches at large against the Puritans both that there was one appointed over the rest amongst the apostles to keep them in unity and that that government was not to ceas with the apostles but ever to continue in the Church and that it is the only way to prevent dissention and suppress heresies and that otherwise the Church would be in a far wors case than the meanest Commonwealth nay almost than a den of thieves But the Centurists like not this and therfor do they in their 4 Cent. reprehend many of the Fathers for entituling Peter the head of the apostles and the byshop of byshops So indeed Optatus calls him apostolorum caput and therfor Cephas Origen apostolorum principem Cyril of Jerusalem principem caput caeterorum Cyril of Alexandria Pastorem caput ecclesiae Arnobius Episcoporum episcopum the Councel of Chalcedon Petram verticem ecclesiae Cathobais Thus much for that point which by all this is proved to be far from any novelty As for Saints invocation and the antiquity of that beleef and custom it is acknowledged by the Centurists Chemnitius our Dr. Whitgift and Fulk Dr. Whitgift in his defence hath these words Almost all the byshops and writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with doctrins of Free-will of merit of invocation of Saints and such like Fulk in his rejoynder to Brittow I confess saith he that Ambrose Austin and Jerom held invocation of Saints to be lawful and in his book against the Rhemish Testament In Nazianzen Basil and Chrysostom I confess faith he is mention of invocation of Saints and again that Theodoret also speaketh of prayers to martyrs and again in the same book that Leo ascribeth much to the prayers of S. Peter for him and again that many ancient fathers held that Saints departed pray for us Chemnitius in his examen acknowledges as much of S. Basil Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen Theodoret S. Jerom and even S. Austin himself The Centurists charge the same upon S. Cyprian who is ancienter than S. Austin and again upon Origen who was ancienter than Cyprian adding that there are manifest steps of Saints invocation in the doctors of that ancient age So this is no novelty then Lastly as for the Sacrifice of Mass and Altars which as Dr. Reynolds sayes well in his conference with Hart are linked together Peter Martyr in his common places reproveth Peter of Alexandria for attributing more as he speaks to the outward altar than to the living temples of Christ and he checks Optatus also for saying what is the altar even the seat of the body and blood of Christ such sayings as these saith Peter Martyr edified not the people and lastly all the fathers in general he finds sault with for their abusing so frequently the name Altar which indeed is spoken of even by S Ignatius the Apostles undoubted schollar who is therfor carped at by Cartwright Calvin Fulk and Field acknowledg that most ancient fathers S. Athanasius Ambrose Austin Arnobius talked much of the Christian Sacrifice and Altar and Priests who offer and pour out daily on the holy table adding that the fathers without doubt received that their doctrin from the Jews and Gentiles whom therin they imitated The Centuriators in 3. Cent. Hame Cyprian as superstitious in that point and in their 2 Cent. say that S. Irenaeus and Ignatius though disciples of the apostles were dangerously erroneous in that account Sebastianus Francus in his epistle de abrogandis in universum omnibus statutis ecclesiasticis affirms that presently after the apostles times the supper of our Lord was turned into a sacrifice Andreas Chrastovius in his book de opificio missae charges the most ancient fathers with using a propitiatory sacrifice And our own Ascham in his Apologet. pro coena Domini is found to acknowledg that sacrifice for the dead and living is so ancient in the Christian Church that no beginning of it can be found although he thinks also with Calvin that it was derived whensoever it first began from the custom either of the Jews or Gentiles or both thus bespattering with his rash pen the very first sproutings of Christianity in the world However it is in the mean time no novelty at least And let any one in any age of Christianity look all over the Christian world on any of those who prosess that name whether they kept communion with the Roman Church or brake by schisme from it or perhaps never heard of it as they say the Church in Ethiopia did not and he shall find that they all had this Christian sacrifice amongst them as the great capital work of their Religion The Grecians under their Patriarch of Constantinople even still after their schisme have their Priests celebrating in all their ancient robes this their sacred liturgy to this day in the learned greek tongue all over the world where they live and may serv God not only in Greece Epirus Macedon and islands of the Egoean sea but in many parts of Natolia Circassia Russia Thrace Bulgaria Rascia Servia Bosnia Walachia Moldavia Dalmatia Croatia Thracia and up as far North as Trebisond The Assyrians or Melchites who are under the Archbyshop of Damascus whom they intitle Patriarch of Antioch The Georgians that dwell between the Euxin and Caspian sea under their Metropolitan who resides in the monastery of S. Catherin in Mount Sinai The Circassians that live between them and the river Tanais The Muscovites or Russians under the primate of Mosco The Nestorians dispersed up and down in Assyria Mesopotamia Parthia Media even to Cataia and India under their Patriarch residing either in Muzal or the monastery of S. Ermes fast by it The Indians or Christians of S. Thomas about the cities of Coulan and Maliapar Angamal
and Cochin under their own archbyshop who is subject to the patriark of Muzal or patriark of Babylon as they call him The Jacobites in Cyprus Syria Mesopotamia and Palestin under their patriark resident in Caramit metropolis of Mesopotamia or els in the monastery of S. Saphran near the city Merdin The Cophti or Christians of Egypt subject to the patriark of Alexandria The Habassins or midland Ethiopians under their own patriark or Abuna who is ever a monk of S. Antonies order consecrated for them by the patriark of Alexandria The Armenians on this side and beyond Eaphrates under their two patriarks resident one of them in Mitilene or els in the city of Sis not far from Tarsus in Cilicia the other in Sebastia or els in the monastery of â—â—meazin The Maronites resident in mount Libanus under their patriark who is ever a monk and resides either in Tripoli or in the great monastery of S. Antony All these although many of them fell away long since from ecclesiastick uniâ—y upon their dislike of the Councel of Ephesus and Chalcedon where one person and two natures in Christ was declared and others of them upon other such like occasion yet do they still keep up all of them their monasteries altars priesthood sacred ordination messach and ancient Christian Liturgy Nor do they know any other way of serving or appeasing the Almighty in order to heavenly bliss than this propiatory sacrifice which received from their forefathers they practise and exercise to this day And this was ever the great devotion of all Christians and still is excepting only some few here in the North who have gone out of that primitive Christianity the last age by following the unhappy steps of Luther and Calvin and not all of them neither For Luther although he fouled yet did he not throw down the altar and the pure Lutherans that be yet in Germany Denmark and Sweathland keep it up still Thus Sir have other Protestants admitted all that to be ancient which this your Disswader calls a novelty unheard of in ancient times Nay Luther and Calvin esteemed all Popery an old Egyptian darknes spread over the face of the Church all ages since the Apostles daves and dissipated at length by that new light which they revealed It is a strange thing that Popery which in Luther and Calvins dayes was old should now after a hundred years be grown young again But when Protestancy was new then Popery was old and now Popery must be thought new when Protestancy is grown old and rotten Truth is it was the Ministers advantage to acknowledg Popery to be old when and where Catholik Religion spread all over the earth had all her monuments intire by her to show her antiquity to all people then living who had also heard of the Catholik saith of their ancestours although they made it by slight of fallacious oratory erroneous But here and now in England where all those monuments are destroyed it is a double convenience to say that Popery is erroneous and new too When the first Reformers endeavoured to supplant the Catholik professours of their means and livings it was best to accuse them of old errours But now to keep their livings they have invaded it is a wiser part it seems to inveigh against Popery as a novelty There novelty could no way be proved and here in England antiquity cannot easily be shown Then matter of fact would have disproved novelty now matter of fact will not prove antiquity here in this Kingdom where the ancient religion is abrogated about a hundred years ago and people now alive that behold Protestancy never saw Catholick Religion and are almost perswaded by their ministers there was never any such thing here Nor will people read Catholik authors nor beleev them if they do nor have they power to consider who built all their Churches or made their laws or any other good thing done for them by Catholik beleevers but take all Papists to be in a manner Atheists becaus they com not to hear their ministers talk in those Churches from whence poor Catholiks were first solemnly banisht and then within a while after were punished for not coming there at such a time when their altar sacrifice and priesthood were now abolished and their priests put to death and others made liable to it afterwards when ever they should come into those Churches again to do their functions and ministers had got into their places to rail against them and that holy ancient Religion which had built those Churches to their hands Ther is I think no better way imaginable to discover the natur of the ancient Christian Church than by considering what was said to be her beleef and practice then when first she dared to show her face openly in the world appearing at length as it were from under ground and her former lurking condition wherin she had remained three hundred years under the cruel persecution of Pagan Emperours As soon as Constantin the Great Gods heavenly grace so moving him had first taken this holy Church by the hand and cloathed her with her ornaments of peace then surely she would appear her self And what she was then may be easily gathered by such ancient writers who either purposely spake of the life of Constantin or incidentally of the things which were done in those dayes as Eusebius Zozomen S. Jerom Bede and others who deliver us the form and features of the Christian Church in those times so like unto the Popery that is now adayes after thirteen or fourteen hundred years both in the particulars Dr. Taylor speaks of and several others now cancelled by our Protestant Reformation that a man may safely swear that the now present Popery and old Christianity are one and the same thing Eusebius tells us how Constantin the Emperour after the fashion of those good times chastised his own body with fasting and disciplines how he used to bless himself and sign his face with the sign of the Cross how highly he honoured and set up that triumphal ensign having confidence of victory in vertue therof how he erected illustrious temples in memory of the Christian martyrs how he refused to sit down in the general Councel of Nice till the Prelates there had given their consent how he dedicated a sumptuous Church in memory of the apostles and provided there a sepulchre for himself to the end that after his death he might be partaker of the prayers there offered how he assembled the priests to the dedication of his temple wherof some preached others offered sacrifice for the common peace for the Church of God and for the Emperour and lastly how in his sickness he confest his sins in a chappel of the martyrs and prayer and sacrifice made for his soul after his deceas Zozomen in his history tells us also of him that becaus those primitive Christians used consecrated places and only then for their publick Liturgy Constantin had ever carried with him
framed by Moses remained that we might learn to give a due respect to him whom God hath set over us as our head and ruler under him and none exalt himself against him I know you will laugh at this my observation but I cannot but tell you what I think To return then to my former discours when I speak good Sir of the news of Christianity first brought to this land I mean not that which was first brought upon the earth or soil of this land and spoken to any body then dwelling here but which was delivered to the fore-fathers of the now present inhabitants who be Saxes or Englishmen And I say that we the now present inhabitants of England off-spring of the English or Saxons had the first news of our Christianity immediately from Rome and from Pope Gregorius the Roman Patriarch by the hands of his missioner St. Austin And this all men know to be as true as they know that Papists are now becom odious Sith then the categorick assertions are both clear namely that the Papist first brought us the news of Christianity and secondly that the Papist is now becom odious amongst us what say you to my consequence that the whole story of Christianity may as well be deemed a Romance as any part of that Christianity we at first received as now judged to be part of a Romance This consequence of mine it behoved a man of those great parts you would be thought to have to heed attentively and yet you never mind it You adde in the close of your discours that many things delivered us at first with the first news of Christianity may be afterwards rejected for the love of Christ and by the commission of Christ But Sir what love of Christ dictates what commission of Christ allows you to choos and reject at your own pleasure what heretick was ever so much a fool as not to pretend the love of Christ and commission of Christ for what he did How shall any one know you do it out of any such either love or commission sith those who delivered the articles of faith now rejected pretended equal love of Christ and commission of Christ for the delivery of them as of any other And why may we not at length reject all the rest for love of something els when this love of Christ which is now crept out into the very outside of our lips is slipt off thence Do you think men cannot finde a cavil against him as well as his law delivered unto us with the first news of him and as easily dig up the root as cut up the branches Is not the thing already don and many becom atheists upon that account Pray speak to me somthing of reason Did not the Jews by pretens of their love to that immortal God whom their forefathers served reject the whole Gospel at once and why may not we possibly as well do it by peece-meals Let us leav cavils Grant my supposition which you know you cannot deny then speak to my consequence which I deem most strong and good to infer a conclusion which neither you nor I can grant I tell you plainly and without tergiversation before God and all his holy angels what I should think if I descended unto any conclusion in this affair And it is this either the Papist who holds at this day all those articles of faith which were delivered at the first conversion of this land by St. Austin is unjustly becom odious amongst us or els my honest Parsons throw off your cassocks and resign your benefices and glebe-lands into the hands of your neighbours whose they were aforetime my consequence is irrefragable If any part much more if many parts great substantial parts of religion brought into the land with the first news of Christianity be once rejected as they are now amongst us as Romish or Romancical and that rejection or reformation be permitted then may other parts and all parts if the gap be not stopt be lookt upon at length as points of no better a condition Nay it must needs be so for the same way and means that lopt off som branches will do the like to others and root too A villification of that Church wherein they find themselvs who have a minde to prevaricate upon pretens of Scritur and power of interpreting light spirit or reason adjoyned with a personal obstinacy that will not submit will do it roundly and to effect This first brought off the Protestants from the Roman catholik Church this lately separated the Presbyterian from the English Protestant Church the Independent from the Presbyterian the Quaker from other Independents And this last good man heeds nothing of Christian religion but only the moral part which in deed and truth is but honest paganisme This speech is worthy of all serious consideration And I could with you would ponder it seriously See if the Quaker deny not as resolutely the regenerating power of baptism as you the efficacy of absolution See if the Presbyterian do not with as much reason evacuate the prelacy of Protestants as they the Papacy See if the Socinian arguments against the Trinity be not as strong as your against the real presence in the Eucharist See if the Jew do not with as much plausibility deride Christ as you his Church See if Porphiry Julian and other ancient pagans do not as strongly consute all Christianity as we any part of it He is a fool that having a will and power enough cannot find out as plausible a pretence for the pulling down of Churches as we had any for the destroying of Monasteries Ther be books lately set forth and by more then one authour here in this land which do as powerfully dissipate the conceit we once had of hell as any ever did elude Purgatory Did we not lately find out texts and reasonings against out King and monarchy as many as we found out long ago against Pope and popery Gods providence and our souls immortality if any list to deny he may have more abundant argumentations every where occurring than any other piece of popery now rejected ever felt If one text of scriptur be by a trope of rhetorick made to speak a sens contrarty to what was beleeved in catholik times in any one point cannot another text by some such slight be forced to frustrate another I am sure it may do so and has done so And thus when all articles are at last by such tricks of wit cashiered can there be wanting several appearing incongruities contradictions tautologies improbabilities to disable all holy writ at once And cannot the Jew afford us at last arguments enough to dissipate at length the very name of Christ out of the world which after the whole extirpation of his law will but float on mens lips like an empty shadow till it quite vanish These things Sir are not only true but clear and evident And nothing is wanting to justifie them but a serious consideration
bring for Purgatory but those also which Mr. Whitby has against it we may see manifestly that our Protestant Church hath much swerved from the ancient primitive practice of former Christians For Protestants have neither priests nor altars nor offerings nor sacrifice nor satisfactions nor expiations for the dead which those authorities speak of Ch. 11. from page 188. to 203. The real presence under the elements of the Eucharist Mr. Whitby here will not by any means endure And he hath one shield of a word which consists of almost as many syllables as Ajax his buckler of bulls hides to repell all autorities that may witness it Representatively that is the word Thou seest saith St. Chrisostom upon the altar the very body which the wise-men saw and worshipped Representatively saith Whitby Again The most precious thing in heaven I will shew thee upon earth saith the same father It is shewed represent atively saith Whitby it is seen representatively I dare not adore the earth saith St. Augustin and yet I have learned how the earth is to be adored becaus flesh is of the earth and our Lord gave us his flesh to eat which no man eats except he first adore It is Christ saith Whitby who is adored representatively And if any words will not bear that distinction then are they all spurious Nay if any should say expresly that not only Cbrist in heaven but his very Sacrament is worshipped this man will tells us presently who hath as many shifts in readiness where one will not serv his turn as Achelous had to slip out of the hands of Hercules that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and adoro have other significations But he has poor man no very good memory For after he had in this one chapter spent many of his pages to show that the real presence was not the former faith of Christians and that they never adored the Eucharist he lets fall a word by chance in the very close which spoils all by giving us to understand that this was so universal a beleef and practis among Christians that it came even to the notice of Infidels and that it was withall of so great concernment amongst beleevers that it expressed their whole religion as the abridgment of their faith and great capital work of their devotion Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis It was the speech of Avicen saith Whitby although I think it was Averroes who well enough understood both of them the natur of Cbristian religion not only by what they saw themselves but what they had read from more ancient writers both Christian pagan and Mahometan up and down the world concerning the religion of Christians Since the Christians worship that which they eat saith that Infidel let my soul be with Philosophers Ch. 12. from page 203. to 218. Labours much for the general use of the Cup in all Communions But neither does Mr. Whitby nor can he distinguish as appears by his discours wherein he sayes that otherwise ther would not be a representation of Christs death which is the wisest word he speaks in all this whole chapter I say he knows not and cannot distinguish that ther is in that one Eucharistian liturgy a double action the one of sanctifying and offering to God the other of giving or communicating to the people In the sanctifying and offering of the sacred simbols does only the sacrifice which is a representation of Christs death consist But the communicating of these symbols to the people is only a consequent of the former and no formal representation of our Lords death at all But he does not know and you need not heed what he sayes The concomitance of our Lords body and blood where ever it be in any one or other of the species or symbols which may enough justifie communion in one kinde he tells you very roundly it is a figment But if he had heeded the very practis of his own Church which indeed he never does he would have forborn those words For when the Protestant minister gives the people first the bread and sayes Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and seed upon him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving Do not the ministers words there imply a concomitance before the cup come even as perfect a concomitance as you Sir can plead for I think they do For surely they intend not to feed only upon one half of him Chap. 13. from page 218 to 230. Declares that alms-deeds and preaching of the Gospel is a sacrifice But the Eucharist he will not allow to be any true sacrifice at all Although to put by your arguments and solid reasonings for it he grants it may be called a Symbolical sacrifice And so he has caught hold of another distinction which runs quite through this matter or rather put the same distinction into other characters And if any ancient writers as ther are enough do give testimony that our Lords body and blood in the Eucharist is offered immolated and sacrificed on Christian altars by the priest for our attonement It is to be understood faith Whitby to be offered symbolically immolated symbolically sacrificed symbolically figuratively significatively representatively And though you beat his head never so much with your autorities and reasons so long as symbolically remains there you do but beat the air But where are any alters in our English Churches or any sacrifices offered or immolated theron And how comes it to pass that all these hundred years of our separation from Roman unity our people have never been told that they have priests still amongst them and altars and sacrifice although they be but symbolical ones symbolical sacrifice symbolical altars and symbolical priests For sacrifice is the very form and essence of all religion And they that know so much would have been much satisfied to hear that they have yet a sacrifice at least a symbolical sacrifice amongst them I will be bold to say that not one man of a million has ever heard of any such thing in an English pulpit or ever read it in a catechism The minister of the word and word of the minister that is all we ever hear of But it is thought perhaps that symbolical Priest would make but a jarring sound like two voices in a defective octave which have a semblance and shadow of a perfect concord but coming short of it produce the harshest and worst of discords in our car That our Lords death upon the Cross was a true and real sacrifice to God for mankinde all Catholiks know well enough and our Ministers need not put them in minde of that which already they beleev But as the sacrifices of the old law were instituted by almighty God to be often iterated before the passion of the great Messias for a continual exercise of religion in order to his future death So did the same Lord for the very same purpos of religious exercise
those ugly colours which so injuriously defaced that Religion that most innocent Religion which under the name of Popery lies here traduced by the pen of her own ungrateful Scribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What Doctour Taylor against Popery And such a Disswasive as this But my amazement Sir is now blown over The Doctour appeared to me after some serious thoughts to be for a special reason that touches none so much as himself in some manner excusable That none should love Popery or ever come to know it concerns not only his wealth and dignity and life of ease which is the common caus of others also with himself but all the honour and fame he hath hitherto got by transcribing popish as now he calls but in former times named Catholik authors For having bin twenty years and upwards deeply plunged in reading and transcribing som of the innumerous spiritual books that are amongst Catholiks not only in Latin but other languages of several Kingdoms where that Religion flourishes he hath culled out thence many fine treatises which he hath set forth in his own name and language to his much renown and no small wealth and dignity amongst us Nor is it to be doubted but that he means for his yet further glory reaped from other mens labours and that spirit of piety which thence he got into his own pen to write out yet one book more The same store-house that furnished him with the life of Christ will dictate to him also the lives of his twelve Apostles and many other raptures of divine love and heavenly devotion And if people be but kept from Popery as he hopes and labours they may it will never be known whence he gathers those his fragrant pieties It was not handsom yet a piece of wisdom it was in the Grecian Cynick to spit in the dish which pleased him best lest others should taste how good it was and deprive him therby of som of his content This book of Doctour Taylors called a Disswasive printed in Dublin and as I understand reprinted here in London I suppose in the very same words by reason of the Authors absence is large enough containing 173 pages in quarto marvellously bitter and contumeliously insulting over that Religion which he cannot but know he misreports Indeed Sir there is more popery in one page of Dr. Taylors Life of Christ which he transcribed from popish Authors than is in all this whole book which he writes against those Authors popery that is owned by them to be their religion all this he puts upon them under the notion of popery throughout his whole hundred and seventy three pages except haply som three or four words whose sence also he perverts no Catholik upon earth acknowledges for any parcel of his faith Is not this strange disingenuous dealing How he comes to act thus and what is the feat he makes use of to discolour their Religion you shall hear by and by when I have first opened his book and the things contained in it His Disswasive hath three chapters and each chapter several sections The first chapter is intitled thus The Doctrin of the Roman Church in the conroverted articles is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive The second thus The Church of Rome as it is at this day disordered teaches doctrins and uses practices which are in themselvs or in their true and immediat consequences direct impieties and give warranty to a wicked life The third thus The Church of Rome teaches doctrins which in many things are destructive of Christian society in general and of Monarchy in special both which the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland does by her doctrins greatly and Christianly support These three be things of importance and must either be great notorius crimes in the Defendant or monstrous slanders in the Plaintiff A Religion that is new impious and unsociable that is against antiquity piety and society is hardly good enough for Hell Who is he that shall dare to profess or countenance such a religion upon earth But let us see in order how all this is demonstrated to us by an old pious and sociable Doctour His first Chapter First then That the doctrin of the Roman Church in the controverted Articles is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive he declares in eleven sections which make up that his first chapter First section sayes that the Roman Church pretends a power to make new Articles of faith and doubtles uses that power and for that end corrupts the Fathers and makes expurgatory Indices to alter their works The second that this power of making new articles is a novelty and yet beleeved by Papists Third that the Roman doctrin of Indulgences is unknown to antiquity Fourth that Purgatory is another novelty Fift Transubstantiation another Sixt Half-communion another Seventh Liturgy in an unknown tongue another Eighth Veneration of Images the like Ninth Pictures the same Tenth the Popes general Episcopacy likewise And the eleventh and last speaks almost as many more all of a heap to make up his one last section as Invocation of Saints sufficiency of scriptures absolving sinners before pennance simple Priests giving Confirmation selling Masses for nine pence circumgestation of the Eucharist intention in Sacraments Mass-sacrifice and supper without Communion All this is Popery all new and therfor the Roman Church is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive This is the sum of his first Chapter What in the name of God does this Author of the Disswasive your learned Doctour mean by the Church of Rome and by the doctrine of the Roman Church This Sir is a main busines and ought if he had meant sincerity to have been firmly stated before any thing were treated either of the one or the other But this he utterly here omits which he should principally have heeded that he may speak loosely and hand over head anything he may deem fit to black his own paper and other mens fame If he take them as he ought the Church of Rome for that universality of Catholik beleevers who live in several kingdoms of the world united in faith and sacraments under the Spirit of Jesus Christ and one visible Pastour and the doctrin of that Church for the body of faith and religion handed to them from age to age as taught and delivered from Christ and his Apostles which they call in the phrase of St. Paul Depositum fidei or treasure of faith I say if he mean this by the Roman Church and doctrin of that Church as he ought to do I will be bold to aver that ther is not any one claus or period in his book true and three parts of his book absolutely impertinent If he mean otherwis then Catholiks themselvs conceiv or profess he was bound in honour to make his mind known that the renown of an innocent Religion and worthy persons might not suffer prejudice by his ambiguous speech But perhaps he studied how to abuse that Religion that he may
glory of another world This was a Testament only fit for Jesus Prince of Angels and men to make And this I suppose is that piece of Popery your Disswader here so fumbles at that he knows not what to call it or how to express it in his words O but it is Transubstantiation which the Disswader dislikes And what is Transubstantiation what does it mean What is that long winded hard word of Transubstantiation what is the meaning of it For Catholik Religion which your Disswader calls Popery is not words nor are words Catholik Religion but the sence and life and meaning delivered us by help of words for faith hope and charity to feed upon Neither Consubstantiality nor Trinity nor Incarnation nor Transubstantiation and such other like phrases are any thing at all of any Religion Your Disswader abuses the world when he tells you he knows when Transubstantiation first came up The meaning of it was in the Christian world all those many ages before that Lateran Councel he speaks of or else it had not been in the world then Pray let him tell me whether the consubstantiality of the Son of God with his eternal Father who made all things be a novelty or new article yea or no. He knows the very time as himself here speaks when it began to be owned publickly for an opinion and that very Councel in which it was said to be passed into a publick doctrin and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduced And if he do not know all this I can tell him Does this prove that same Consubstantiation to be a novelty yea or no Let him answer me directly I am a plain man and love plain dealing Was Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of mankind beleeved any otherwayes to be true and really God after that Councel had declared him to be consubstantial to Almighty God his heavenly Father than he was before Christians ever heard of that word Constsubstantiality or Consubstantiation If Christians notwithstanding that new word still beleeved and adhered to one and the same old faith they did before then say I the same of Transubstantiation And if that new word made no new article no more does this Nor doth the one word any more belong to Christian Religion than the other and both indeed only so far as they conveigh the old faith by this new invented word guarded against the subtilties of the hereticks then living who by their circumventing sophistry deluded all other expressions concerning the real presence of the Godhead in our Lords humanity and of his humanity in the Eucharist save only that other of Consubstantatiion and this of Transubstantiation both words in those dayes equally new And when those heresies and hereticks are once vanished ther is no further use of the words amongst Christians who beleev and worship by verthe of their Christian Tradition the very thing it self Gods divinity in his humanity and Christs humanity in his sacred Eucharist without troubling their heads with those hard words which were invented against subtil hereticks unless haply the same heresies should rise again And the Catholik flock acts and beleevs after both those Councels just as their Christian predecessours did before They acknowledg Christ our Lord really God and fear and love and hope in him whether they ever hear of his consubstantiality or consubstantiation with God or no. Nor do they ever trouble their heads to know what is the meaning of con or what is substance or what be accidents or what substantiation or consubstantiation no more after that Councel of Nice than before it Such terms and phrases are besides the simplicity of their holy and innocent beleef which holds notwithstanding all that is really meant by those words taught them in a more natural and plainer way So likewise do Catholik beleevers after the Councel of Lateran worship their crucified Redeemer in the Eucharist in the same manner others did before it being the very same Christians with those that lived the age before and think no more of Transubstantiation many thousands of these now then those others did that word making no more difference before and after this Councel of Lateran then had Consubstantiation made amongst the Catholik Christians which were before and after that other Councel of Nice By those words som cunning wolves had been by their Pastours discovered and separated from the sheep and after that the whole flock fed quietly in the same hills and by the same fountains they did before And in this sence Catholik Divines might say and truly say that Transubstantiation is not of faith either before the Councel or after if any one of them did indeed ever say so For Christian faith is not words as I said before nor words any Religion And if those Catholik Divines who ever they were meant any thing else as namely that the Christians before that Councel of Lateran who indeed worshipped their Redeemer in the Eucharist as true and fully as any that lived after that Councel ever did or can were not given generally to understand explicitely that Christ our Lord is so present in the Eucharist that ther is there no other substance but himself in this sence they spoke true that so much had not been spoken expresly by a Councel but yet that the faith and practice of Christians both before and after that Councel was the same And so consequently ther was no more of faith after that Councel than was before it whether we consider the learned or the common slock of Christians For these worship Christ in the Eucharist after that Councel as others did before it though neither of them think of Transubstantiation and those learned ones spake and wrote of our Lords presence in the Eucharist before that Councel as others do after it and both do equally beleev the thing that is meant by Transubstantianon which in a diverse sence according as men speak either of the word or meaning of the word may be either said to be or not to be of faith either before the Lateran Councel or after it Those words of Tertullian in his 2. book ad uxorem where he speaks of the marriage of a Gentile with a Christian woman Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustet si sciverit panem non illum credat esse qui dicitur c. Those also of S. Cyprian in his Coena Domini Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus c. And again Panis iste non in specie sed natur â mutatur c. Those likewise of St. Chrysostom de poenitent serm 5. Non quod panis sit respicias neque quod vinum sit reputes c. And again Mysteria hic consumi Christi corporis substantiâ c. Those too of S. Greg. Nyssen in his magna Catechista Rectè ergo nunc quoque Dei verbo sanctificatum panem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again Haec autem
now actual inhabitants of this Land and progeny of the Saxons received first our Gospel and Christendom from Rome though the Brittans who inhabited this Land before us differing as much from us as Antipodes had some of them been Christned long before us And yet the Christendom that prevailed and lasted among the Brittans even they also as well as we had it from Rome too mark this likewise But you reply Though persons from Rome did first plant Christianity among the Saxons was it the Popes Religion they taught did the Pope first finde it out or did they Baptise in the name of the Pope Good Sir it was the Popes Religion not invented by him as your cavil fondly imagines but owned professed and put in practice by him and from him derived unto us by his missioners You adde Did not the Gospel come to Rome as well as to us for it was not first preached there Sir properly speaking it came not so to Rome as it came to us For one of the twelve fountains nay two of the thirteen and those the largest and greatest was transferred to Rome which they watered with their blood we had never any such standing fountain of Christian Religion here but only a stream derived to us from thence My second assertion must be From whom we first received our Religion with them we must still abide This principle as it is never delivered by Fiat Lux though you put it upon me so is it in the latitude it carries and wherin you understand it absolutely fals never thought of by me and indeed impossible For how can we abide with them in any truth who may perhaps not abide in it themselvs Great part of Flanders was first converted by Englishmen and yet are they not obliged either by Fiat Lux or any lux whatsoever to accompany the English in our now present wayes If Rome first taught us Christianity she may then rather plead a power to guide us than we her This or some such like thing I might speak and rationally speak it But that we or any other should be obliged still to abide or rather to follow them who first taught us Religion though they should themselvs forsake their own doctrin as you would make me speak is a piece of folly never came into my thoughts And you may be ashamed to put it upon me Why do you not set down my own words and the page of my book where I delivered this principle My third must be The Roman Religion is still the same This also I do no where formally express nor enter into any such common place You will say I suppose it But doth this justifie you who say here that I assert it as a principle let it then be supposed for I do indeed suppose it becaus I know it hath been demonstrativly proved a hundred times over You deny it has bin proved why do you not then disprove it Becaus you decline say you all common places Very good so do I let us com to proper ones You fall then upon my Queries in the end of my book The Roman was once a true flourishing Church and if she ever fell she must fall either by apostasie heresie or schism c. So I speak there And to this you reply that the Church that then was in the Apostles time was indeed true not that Roman Church that now is So so then say I that former true Church must fall then som time or other when did she fall and how did she fall by apostacy heresy or schism Perhaps say you neither way for she might fall by an earthquake Sir we speak not here of any casual or natural downfall or death of mortals by plague famine or earthquake but a moral and voluntary laps in faith What do you speak to me of earthquakes You adde therfor the second time that she might fall by idolatry and so neither by apostacy heresy or schism Good Sir idolatry is a mixt misdemeanour both in faith and manners I speak of the single one of faith And he that falls by idolatry if he keep still some parts of Christianity entire he falls by heresy by apostacy if he keep none At last finding your self pusled in the third place you lay on load She fell say you by apostacy idolatry heresy schism licentiousnes and prophanenes of life And in this you do not much unlike the drunken youth who being bid to hit his masters finger with his when he perceived he could not do it he ran his whole fist against it But did she fall by apostacy By a partial one say you not a total one Good Sir in this division apostasy is set to expres a total relaps in opposition to heresy which is the partial Did she then fall by heresy or partial apostasy in adhering to any error in faith contary to the approved doctrin of the Church Here you smile seriously and tell me that since I take the Roman and Catholik Church to be one she could not indeed adhere to any thing but what she did adhere unto Sir I take them indeed to be one but here I speak ad hominem to one that does not take them so And then if indeed the Roman Church had ever swerved in faith as you say she has and be her self but as another ordinary particular Church as you say she is then might you find som one or other more general Church if any ther were possitively to judg her som Oecumenical councel to condemn her som fathers either greek or latin expresly to write against her as Protestants now do som or other grave solemn autority to censur her or at least som company of beleevers out of whose body she went and from whose faith she fell Since you are no wayes able to assign any of these particulars my Query remains unanswered and the Roman still as flourishing a Church as ever she was The fourth assertion frequently say you pleaded by our Authour is that all things as to religion were ever quiet and in peace before the Protestants relinquishment of the Roman Sea This principle you pretend is drawn out of Fiat Lux not becaus it is there but only to open a door for your self to expatiate into som wide general discours about the many wars distractions and factious altercations that have been aforetime up and down the world in som several ages of Christianity And you therfor say it is frequently pleaded by me becaus indeed I never speak one word of it And it is in truth a fals and fond assertion Though neither you nor I can deny that such as keep unity of faith with that Church can never so long as they hold it fall out upon that account If you had either cited the place or set down my own words they would have spoke their meaning I might say perhaps that our Land had no part of those disturbances upon the account of religion all the thousand years it was Catholik which
divine revelation whereunto by our humble beleef we have subscribed our consent is right and good but not at all against me who there treat a case of metaphysical concernment which you apprehend not It is no wonder then you should so much dislike all that my plea of uncertainty not only before any teacher appear but after too whiles you take the teacher and his words as they walk hand in hand actually linkt together with our beleef in him which actual beleef my supposition suspends and separates to the end I may consider whether any such teacher can appear so accomplisht as to move us who live in this present age and coin religion anew to a beleef invariable so that through your too much haste you utterly mistake all my whole discours and speak nothing at all to the case I treat of I speak wholly there as in other parts of Fiat Lux upon a supposition of the condition the generality of people are now actually in here in England where every one lets himself loose at pleasure to frame opinions and religions of themselvs And so cannot be thought to speak of a settled beleef but only of settling one or one to be settled which there and elswhere in that book I endeavour to show impossible to be so fixedly stated by any private man but that himself and others may rationally doubt it And that therfor our only way is to beleev and not dispute to submit to the old way we have formerly received and not to surmise a new This is the very substance scope and purpos not only of that paragraff but of my whole book which you do as utterly swerve from as ever any blinded man put to thrash a cock misplaced his blow Perhaps it is hard for you to conceiv your self in a state you are not actually in at present And if you cannot do this you will be absolutely unfit to deal with such hypothetik discourses as I see indeed you are Bellarmins little catechise had been a fitter book for you to write Animadversions upon than my Fiat Lux. There is good positive doctrin signed hic nunc and specified to your inclination and capacity I meddle not with any I deliver no positive doctrin at all I never descend to any particular conclusion or thesis of faith I defend no opinion but only this That every opinion is defensible and yet nonc impregnable Do you not blush Sir to see your own gross mistake God is my witnes when I finde you misled by your own errour so furiously to tax me with ignorance fraud blasphemy atheisme I cannot but pitty you And generally you talk at random as well in this chapter as others Let me give som little hint of it in particular for this once Where I in my foresaid paragraff say that differences of faith in its branches are apt to infer a suspition in its very root and consequently atheism To this you reply that That discours of mine is all rotten that Christian religion it self might thus be questioned that it is the argument of the Pagan Celsus that such contests have ever been that Protestants are resolved that Catholiks turn atheists as well as others that our religion is the same yesterday and to day that our evils are from our selves c. Doth this talk concern or plead to my assertion I know all this as well as you but that it is nothing to the purpos that I know and you it seems do not Though all this you say be true yet still it remains notwitstanding as true and certain as it was before and that is certain enough That difference of faith in its branches are apt to infer a suspicion in its very root and consequently atheism You have but beaten the air So likewise unto all that discours of mine If the Papist or Roman Catholik who first brought us the news of our Christianity be now becom so odious then may likewise the whole story of our Christianity be at length thought a Romance You speak with the like extravagancy and mind not my hypothetick at all to speak directly to my inference as it became a man of art to do But neglecting my consequence which in that discours is principally and solely intended you seem to deny my supposition which if my discours had been drawn into a syllogism would have been the minor part of it And it consists of two categories first that the Papist is now becom odious second that the Papist delivered us the first news of Christianity The first of these you little heed the second you deny That the Papist say you or Roman Catholik first brought Christ and his Christianity into this land is most untrue I wonder c. And your reason is becaus if any Romans came hither they were not Papists and indeed our Christianity came from the East namely by Joseph of Arimathea c. And this is all you say to my hypothetick or conditional ratiocination as if I had said nothing at all but that one absolute category which being delivered before I now only suppose You use to call me a civil logician but I fear a natural one as you are will hardly be able to justifie this motion of yours as artificial A conditional hath a verity of its own so far differing from the supposed category that this being fals that may yet be true For example if I should say thus A man who hath wings as an eagle or if a man had wings as an eagle he might fly in the air as well as another bird Such an assertion is not to be confuted by proving that a man hath not the wings of an eagle Yet so you deal with me here a great master of arts with a civil logician But that I may go along with you we had not Sir our Christianity immediately from the East nor from Joseph of Arimathea as I have already told you we Englishmen had not For as he delivered his Christianity to som Brittons when our land was not called England but Albion or Brittany and the inhabitants were not Englishmen but Brittons or Kimbrians so likewise did that Christianity and the whole news of it quite vanish being sodainly overwhelmed by the ancient deluge of paganisme nor did it ever come from them to us Nay the Brittons themselvs had so forgot and lost it that even they also needed a second conversion which they received from Pope Eleutherius And that was the onely news of Christianity which prevailed and lasted even amongst the very Brittans which seems to me a great secret of divine providence in planting and governing his Church as if he would have nothing to stand firm and lasting but what was immediately fixed and seated upon that rock For all other conversions have vanisht and the very seats of the other A postles failed that all might the better cement in an unity of one head Nay the tables which God made with his own hand were broken but the other
fear and observ them universally in all whatever their commands being taught by their religion of which they alone give account at times appointed for penance to hearken and obey for conscience sake all higher powers constituted over them for good That catholiks do universally observ their King in all affairs as well ecclesiastick as civil I need not to make it good send you Sir either to the testimonies of civil law and Codex of Justinian or the othervarious constitutions of so many several provinces and kingdoms as are and have been in Christendom our own home will suffice to justifie it Were not the spiritual courts both court Christian Prerogative court and Chancery all set up in catholik times about matters of religion and affairs of conscience and all mannaged by clerks or clergy-men under the King In brief where ever any civil coaction or coactive power intervenes be it in what affair it will all such power and action who ever uses it hath it autoritatively only from the King For neither Pope nor Byshop nor any Priest ought to be a striker as S. Paul teaches nor have they any lands or livings or court or power to compel or punish either in goods or body but what is lent or given by princes and princely men out of their love and respect to Jesus Christ and his holy gospel whose news they first conveighed about the world although a just donation is I should think as good a title as either emption inheritance or conquest if it be irrevocable The King is the only striker in the land ex jure and the sword of the almighty is only in his hand and none can compel or punish either in body or goods but only himself or others by his commission in any whatever affair He can either by his autority and laws blunt the sword of those who have one in their hand whether by pact or nature as have masters over servants and parents over children or put a civil power into the hands of those who otherwise have none as prelates priests and byshops So that although the Pope derive religion and chiefly direct in it yet is the King the only head of all civil coercition as well in Church affairs as any other which his commands and laws do reach unto So that the line of Church government amongst catholiks since the conversion of kings runs in two streams the one is of direction the other of coercition That of direction is from Christ to the chief pastour from him to patriarchs then to metropolitans arch-byshops byshops priests and people and in this line is no corporal coaction at all except it be borrowed nor any other power to punish but only by debarring men from sacraments In the other line of corporal power and autority the King is immediately under God the Almighty from whom he receivs the sword to keep and defend the dictates of truth and justice as fupream governour though himself for direction and faith be subject to the Church from whose hands he received it as well as other people his subjects after the King succeed his princes and governours in order with that portion of power all of them which they have from him their leige sovereign received This in brief of papal Church government which we in England by our canting talk of the Lord Christ to the end we may be all lords and all Christs have utterly subverted Indeed in primitive times the channel of religion for three hundred years ran apart and separate from civil government which in those dayes persecuted it And then the line of Christian government was unmixt None but priests guided defended governed the Church and Christian flock which they did by the power of their faith vertue secret strength and courage in Jesus their Lord invisible Afterward it pleased the God of mercies to move the hearts of emperours and kings of the earth to submit unto a participation of grace which they were more easily inclined by the innocence and sanctity of Christian faith especially in that particular of peaceful obedience unto kings and rulers though aliens and pagans and persecutors of religion And now kings being made Christian were looked upon by their subjects with a double reverence more loved more feared more honoured than before Nor could Christian people now tell how to expres that ineffable respect they bore their Kings now co-heirs of heaven with them whom before in their very paganism they were taught by their priests to observ as gods upon earth not for wrath only or fear of punishment but for conscience also and danger of hazarding not only their temporal contents but their eternal salvation also for their resisting autority though resident in pagans And Kings on the other side who aforetime by the counsel of wordly senatours enacted laws such as they thought fit for present policy and defended them by the sword of justice wielden under God to the terrour of evil doers and defence of the innocent began now as was incumbent on their duty to use that sword for the protection of Christianity and faith and the better way now chalked out unto them by Christian priests from Jesus the wisdom and Son of God And by the direction of the same holy prelates abbots and other priests who were now admitted with other senators into counsel did they in all places enact speciall and particular laws answerable to the general rule of faith which they found to be more excellent and perfect than any judgment they had by natural reason hitherto difcovered Thus poor Christians who had hitherto but only a head of derivation of counsel and direction which could but only bid them have patience for Christs sake and conform themselves to his meek passion when they suffered from aliens and when they suffered injury from one another could only debar the evil doer if he gave not satisfaction from further use of sacraments those Christians I say who could hitherto have no other comfort or assistance in this world under their spiritual pastour than what words of piety could afford had now by the grace of heaven princely protectours royal defenders and head champions under God to vindicate and make good all Christian rights discipline and truths now accepted and established from faith as well as other civil rites and customs dictated aforetime from meer reason equally revengers upon all evil doers indifferently that were found criminal in affairs as well purely Christian as civil still using the advice and direction of their prelates and Christian peers in the framing and establishing of all those laws they were now resolved to maintain So it was don in England so in all places of the Christian world And then the line of Christian government ran mixt which before was single And Christians now had a Joshua to their Aaron who were only led by Moyses before And although Aaron was head of the Church yet Joshua was head and leader prince and captain of all those people
unto a particular end of future bliss whereas all states do of themselves aim no further then the peace and happines of this life And so for the particular end and means answerable therunto which religion uses it will require a particular and special overseer Thus Aristotle though he conceited the celestial orbs to be contiguous and so all rapt together in a motion from East to West yet becaus they had special motions of their own he therfor allowed them particular intelligences to guide those motions So we see in ordinary affairs a man that hath several wayes and ends is guided by several directours in this by a lawyer in that by a physician by a gardener by a tradesman c. Fistly becaus head of the Church absolutely must be one that succeeds in his chair whom Jesus the master left and appointed personally to feed his flock No King upon earth ever pretended to sit in that Fishermans chair or to succeed him in it which the Pope to my knowledg for sixteen hundred years hath both challenged as his right and actually possest And Catholiks are all so fixt in this judgment that they can no more disbeleev it then they can ceas to beleev in Jesus Christ. 11 ch from page 228. to 246. Your eleventh chapter falls directly upon my fifteenth paragraff of Scriptur And therfor I may here expect you should insult over me to the purpos But Sir I told you before and now tell you again that I know no other rule to Christians either for faith or manners no other hope no other comfort but what scriptur and holy gospel affords But this is not any part of the debate now in hand however you would perswade the world to think so When four or five men Sir of several judgements collected from the very scriptur you and I talk of rise up one against another with one and the same scriptur in their hands with such equal pretence of light power and reason that no one will either yield to another or remain himself in the same faith but run endles divisions without controul does scriptur prevent this evil does it has it can it remedy it can any one man make a religion by the autority of scriptur alone which neither himself nor any other upon the same grounds he framed it shall rationally doubt of This is our case Sir and only this which you do not so much as take notice of to the end you may with a more plausible rhetorick insult over me as a contemner of Gods word Nor do you heed any particle of my discours in this paragraff but according to your manner collect principles to the number of seven out of it you say which I do not know to be so much as hinted in it that as you did before so you may now again play with your own bawble and confute your self And they are in a manner the very same you sported with before in your second chapter 1. from the Romans we received the gospel 2. what is spoken in scripture of the Church belongs to the Roman 3. the Roman every way the same it was c. of all which I do not remember that I have in that my paragraff so much as any one word Sir either speak to my discours as you finde it or els hold your peace As if then you had overheard me afore-hand to give you this deserved check at the close of your chapter you bring in som few words of mine with a short answer of your own annext to the skirts of it which I here set down as you place them your self No man can say speaks Fiat Lux what ill popery ever did in the world till Henry the eights dayes when it was first rejected Strange say you in your Animadversions when it did all the evils that ever were in the Christian world With the Roman catholiks unity ever dwelt Never Protestants know their neighbour catholiks not their religion They know both Protestants are beholding to Catholiks for their benefices books pulpits gospel For som not all The Pope was once beleeved general pastour over all Prove it The scriptur and gospel we had from the Pope Not at all You cannot beleev the scriptur but upon the autority of the Church We can and do You count them who brought the scriptur as lyars No otherwise The gospel separated from the Church can prove nothing Yes it self This short work you make with me And to all that serious discours of mine concerning scriptur which takes up sixteen pages in Fiat Lux we have got now in reply thereunto this your Laconick-confutation Strang. Never Know both Som not all Prove it Not at all Can and do No otherwis Yes it self 12 ch from page 246. to 262. Your twelfth chapter meets with my history of religion as a flint with steel only to strike fire For not heeding my story which is serious temperate and sober you tell another of your own fraught with defamations and wrath against all ages and people and yet speak as confidently as calm truth could do First you say that Joseph of Arimathea was in England but he taught the same religion that is in England now But what religion is that Sir Then you tell us that the story of Fugatius and Damian missioners of Pope Eleutherius you do suspect for many reasons But becaus you assign none I am therfor moved to think they may be all reduced to one which is that you will not acknowledg any good thing ever to have come from Rome Then say you succeeded times of luxury sloth pride ambition scandalous riots and corruption both of faith and manners over all the Christian world both princes priests prelates and people Not a grain of vertue or any goodnes we must think in so many Christian kingdoms and ages Then did Goths and Vandals and other pagans overflow the Christian world To teach them we may think how to mend their manners These pagans took at last to Christianity Haply becaus it was a more loose and wicked life than their own pagan profession These men now Christened advanced the Popes autority when Christian religion was now grown degenerate And now we come to know how the Roman byshop became a patriark above the rest by means namely of new converted pagans It was an odde chance they should think of advancing him to what they never knew either himself or any other advanced before amongst Christians whose rotten and corrupt faith they had lately embraced And yet more odde and strange it was that all Christendom should calmly submit to a power set up anew by young converted pagans no prince or byshop either there or of any other Christian Kingdom either then or ever after to this day excepting against it Had not all the byshops and priests of Africa Egypt Syria Thrace Greece and all the Christian world acknowledged by a hundred experiments the supreme spiritual autority of the Roman patriarch in all times before
other language but Latin before Edward the sixt dayes except haply the Psalter which the Saxons and almost all people have ever had in their own tongue being a chief part of Christians devotion nor in Brittish or Welch before the byshop of S. Asaphs translation And yet the people all that while wanted no know knowledge of Gods will or comfort of his word You mightily insult over me in your 336 page for saying that the bible was kept by the Hebrews in an ark or tabernacle not touched by the people but brought out at times to the priest that he might instruct the people out of it Here say you the authour of Fiat Lux betrayes his gross ignorance and somthing more for the ark was placed in sanctum sanctorum and not entered but by the priest only once a year wheras the people were weekly instructed But Sir do I speak there of any sanctum sanctorum or of any ark in that place Was ther or could ther be no more arks but one If you had been only in these latter dayes in any synagogue or convention of Jews you might have seen even now how the bible is kept still with them in an ark or tabernacle in imitation of their fore-fathers when they have now no sanctum sanctorum amongst them You may also discern how according to their custom they cringe and prostrate at the bringing out of the bible which is the only solemn adoration left amongst them and that there be more arks than that in sanctum sanctorum If I had called it a box or chest or cupboard you had let it pass But I used the word Ark as more sacred 19 ch from page 365. to 386. I discerned in your nineteenth chapter which is upon my paragraff of Communion in one kind a somwhat more than ordinary swelling choller which moved me to look over that my paragraff afresh And I found my fault there is in it so much of Christian reason and sobriety that if I had since the time I first wrote it swerved from my former judgment of the probability I conceived to be in that Roman practis of communicating in one kind I had there met with enough to convert my self And therfor wondered no more that you should load me so heavily with your wonted imputations of fraud ignorance blasphemy and the like I ever perceiv you to be then most of all passionate when you meet with most convincing reasons When the exorcist is most innocent his patient they say then frets and foams and curses most Ther is not a word in this your chapter which is not by way of anticipation answered in that my § of Fiat Lux against which you write 20 ch from page 386. to 402. Ther is in your twentieth chapter which prosecutes my paragraff of Saints or Hero's one word of yours that requires my notice I say in that my paragraff that the pagans derided the ancient Christians for three of their usages First for eating their own God Secondly for kneeling to the Priests genitals Thirdly for worshipping an asses head This last you except against and impute my story to my own simplicity and ignorance if not to somthing wors for that imputation say you was not laid upon Christians at all but only upon Jews as may be seen in Josephus c. But Sir you may know that in odiosis the primitive Christians were ever numbred among the Jews and what evil report lay upon these was charged also upon them though somtimes upon another ground And although Josephus may excuse the Jews and not the Christians yet a long while after his time if not even then also that slander was generally all over the pagan world charged upon Christians also as may be read in Tertullian and other ancient writers yea and very probably by the very Jews themselvs who bitterly hated them cast off from themselvs upon the poor Christians on another account which I specified in Fiat Lux. And through the whole Roman Empire did the sound of this scandal ring up and down for som ages together Insomuch that Tertullian himself conceited that as the Christian religion was derived from the Jews so likewise that the imputation of the asses head first put upon the Jews might from them be derived upon Christian religion And the same Tertullian in his Apologetick addes these words The calumnies saith he invented to cry down our religion grew to such excess of impiety that not long ago in this very city a pictur of our God was shown by a certain infamous person with the ears of an ass and a hoof on one of his feet clothed with a gown and a book in his hand with this inscription This is Onochoetes the God of Christians And he addes that the Christians in the city as they were much offended with the impiety so did they not a little wonder at the strange uncouth name the vaillain had put upon their lord and master Onochoetes forsooth he must be called Onochoetes And are not you Sir a strange man to tell me page 393. that what I speak of this business is notoriously fals nay and that I know it is fals and I cannot produce one authentick testimony no not one of any such thing But this is but your ordinary confidence 21 ch from page 402. to 416. I must not marvel that my following paragraff called Dirge is so wantonly plaid upon in your one and twentieth chapter You think of no body after they are dead nor does it at all concern you whether they be in hell or heaven or som third place or not at all But Sir were not all the ancient monuments of the foundations of our churches colledges and chappels in England now destroyed you would find your self with that wretched opinion of yours absolutely incapable to enter upon any benefice cure or employment in this land But the times are changed and you have nothing now to do but to eat drink and preach for to morrow you shall dye 22 ch from page 416 to 435. In your two and twentieth chapter which is of the Pope you do but only repeat my words and not understand and deny and laugh 23 ch from page 435. to Finis Your last chapter is upon my paragraff of Popery wherin I set down eleven other parcels of catholik profession all of them innocent unblamable and sacred You only bite at the first of them and having it seems enough filled your self with that your wearied bones go to rest With Mas comedido the title of my last paragraff you meddle not at all It is doubtless to you who understand not the English word Messach another Gnostick Paldabaoth But I would you had Mas comedido by heart You cannot but marvel that I have taken so little notice all this while of your only one strong and potent Argument your stout Achilles that meets me in every paragraff and period and beats me back into the walls of Troy Wherever I am whatsoever I
the fancy And the respect if we will speak properly does not terminate upon the pictur but upon the person whom it represents which infers a worship of God in it not by it Chap. 15. from page 247 to 273. Is very earnest for scriptur and liturgy in a vulgar tongue This plea of Protestant ministers makes a plausible found And they know it well enough For it was the first thing that by their rhetorical colours cast upon it commended them to the people after the A postacy of the first reformers by whose perswasion the people was then made to beleev they should now be as gods all of them knowing good and evil The word of God saith Whitby is kept from the knowledge of the vulgar people in the Roman Church And thus they all say and ever will say be they never so much satisfied by Catholik writers to the contrary becaus it is to their own advantage it should be so thought in England and all other places where Protestants have invaded and now actually sit upon the Catholick Clergies benefice and byshoppricks But is ther any part or particle of Christian faith or religion or of the word of God that is kept from Catholiks or not made known to them in Books Catechisines Sermons all in their own language and in daily practis of that Church wherof they are members Do they not hear and read and see all the mysteries of our Christian faith Christ our Lords birth and passion resurrection and ascension into glory what he acted what he suffered what he taught what he constituted and ordained for our salvation what we are to hope what to beleev what to practice in order thereunto set before their eyes not only by continual sermons made to them all over the catholik world in their own vulgar tongue but by their Gospels and Epistles which they have lying by them collected for the cours of the whole year and translated into their own language together with several pious treatises and meditations upon all these rules and mysteries of faith unto so ample use that if they do but walk accordingly which is all that religion intends they cannot miss salvation Is not all this Gods word It is nothing els And what is ther more of the word of God except we will count letters and syllables The word of God then is not kept from the knowledg of the vulgar people in the Roman Church But why have they not the Bible translated as it lies in all languages where catholik faith is prosest Becaus it is obscure as it lies in that short and ambiguous phrase and under so many several tropes of rhetorick and schemes also of logick wherin it was wrote apt therby to be perverted and misunderstood as we see by experience to be true unto endles factions Nor does the word of God consist so much in letters and syllables as in the marrow and meaning of his will And not the sence and meaning but the letter of the scriptur is that which makes hereticks But is not that the word of God which is kept from the people It is the word of God but not kept from the people For it is but the same with that which is delivered and made known unto the people So much as it contains whatever it be either of saith or morality either of what is to be beleeved or hoped or practised they have it all but disintangled from those artificiall schemes of logick and rhetorick wherof the holy writ is fuller then any book was ever writ by man which there inwrap and render it obscure Ther is no instruction no rule of piety no particle of comfort either for this world or the other in St. Pauls epistles for example but Catholiks have it they read it in their own language if they be able to read they know it all And they have it in a better and more facil manner then they could find it out by perusing those high theological discourses of his which the learnedst of men can hardly and very hardly understand The like I say of other portions of holy writ Only the disputative part with the interwoven systems of rhetorick this may exercise great and more sublime divines who by help of their various litterature may consider not only the plain truths therin contained which are common to them with other vulgar beleevers but the nature of the Metonymies Synechdoche's Metaphors together with the several modes of argumentation refutation objections and inopinate transitions in the context This if my adversary OeN had understood it had saved one fourth part of his Animadversions upon Fiat Lux and Whitby here had been utterly silent But it is their only advantage both in this and other controverted points of faith with Roman Catholiks either to be ignorant or dissemble their knowledg And therfor I have good reason to think they will never seem to understand But God grant they may The wonder is that English Protestants should still be as fiercely eager in this point when they write controversies as ever they were when they do themselves most heartily repent I have heard several great clergy-men amongst them speak it that they had ever given the Bible in that short ambiguous phrase it is penned into the hands of people in their own tongue to be thus perverted as it is every one his own way unto endles and irreconcilable schismes It would glad their hearts no doubt to see the Roman Church do indiscreetly as they have don But that will never be Holy catholik Church has revealed translated and several wayes made known the will of God to her people appointing most divine wayes and methods such as she had her self received from God to inure and keep them in the practis of that their holy faith And the disputative and sublimer divinity or as I may so speak the philosophical part of holy writ such as can may read on Gods name and the Church will commend them for it while these with all the rest attend unto those duties and good works every one in his calling which their holy faith prescribes These are and ever were the wayes and method of the now present and ancient catholik Church most wise and holy And her subjects and beleevers have profited therby many thousands of them unto angelical sanctity and all of them unto somthing more than otherwise they would have had whilst others that swerv from these wayes promote themselvs unto wildness and schisme without end missing indeed the word of God in the very scripture they read and never attaining to the true life and power in that form of words which they use not unto intended sanctification but by their own misinterpretations wrest and deprave daily unto their own destruction Nor will people be ruled now by their ministers but thinking it their own right to interpret as they pleas make it their only work to read and cant sentences and coin opinions as they list Excepting only this
they may have written many other most excellent catholik and pious things yet through humane infirmity in this and that particular may they at one time or other trip and fail And particular mens failings are to be rectified by the straightnes and integrity of the General Canon but they are not to be esteemed that Canon as your Doctor Taylor not inclined to mend things but marre them rather would here have them to be thorowout this whole book of his Disswasive where whatever he can read or hear of amongst the writings of any one in the Catholik world that may either swerv or be wrested from the universal judgment and beleef of Papists that he calls Popery and what they speak that the Roman Church must pretend O the strange perversness and wickedness of mans heart And yet this book of his thus made up has carried away not the weaker sort of men only but it seems has made even your discretion Sir to stagger For when I gave you lately a visit I perceived within a while that I had but gon forth to see a reed shaken with the wind What the Church can do is but one of the Questions of School-divinity and no Catholik faith Consequently no Popery And if two or three in the Schools should chance to aver this power in the Church where more then two or three thousands deny it why should not the opinion of three thousand Papist doctours be esteemed Popery as well as that of only three Whilst all of them agree in their faith which is that the Church hath a power authoritatively to decide controversies and dispute only of a further power then their faith reaches unto I should think that the opinion of three thousand Papist doctours is rather to be esteemed Popery if one of them must be called so rather then the single opinion of two or three if any such be to the contrary But truth is ther is no such opinion of any one I know to the contrary Nor does Turrecremata nor any els teach that the Church hath power to make new articles in that sence your Dr. Taylor means who therby would infer that Catholik faith is therfor not primitive but new Nay it is rather Popery and a part of Catholik faith that no new articles can be made For General Councels have determined that nothing is to be beleeved or held but id quod traditum est that which has been received from Christ and his Apostles Nor can the Religion otherwise be the faith of Christ or Christian Religion Sir if you do but seriously peruse the last one general Council which all Protestants hold to be rank popish that I mean which was kept at Trent you will find that they testifie almost in every Session and profes to make all their determinations according to that which had been delivered according to that they had received according to that which had been conserved by continual succession to that which was conformable to Apostolical tradition to that which had been perpetually and uninterruptedly retained to that which ancestours profest to that which the Church of God ever taught ever understood ever beleeved that which hath been received down by hands that which was the ancient judgment and custom that which has been approved since the apostles dayes c. These are all the very words of the Councel in several of their Sessions And shall a Doctor Taylor com now after all this and tell the world that Popery is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive and that Papists pretend to make new faith c. after a general Synod which all Protestants look upon as the most popish Councel that ever was and that too the last and nearest to us hath so manifestly so pathetically so generally profest the contrary What should we say to such a Doctor And other general Councels in like manner never determined any thing for the quieting of dissentions for which end they met together but what was latent at least in the seed of Christs word and so no new article in this Doctours sence as did that Councel for example which determined two wills in Christ which was no new article becaus the former old faith which had made known two perfect natures in our Lord the one divine the other humane apparently dictated that truth against all those who would acknowledg but one will in him And this being defined by the Councel received a new strength against a novel heresie but not a new birth For this caus Councels do not determin the varieties that are in Schoolmen becaus these are superstructures and none of them more latent in ancient tradition than is the opinion that is opposit to it But Turrecremata Triumphus Ancoran and Panormitan teach that the Church can make new articles If they should say any such thing I have already made it enough evident that it cannot be thence inferred to be popery or any part of popery But what if they speak no such thing What shall we think then of this your Dr. Taylor Turrecremata in the place cited by him never so much as dreamed as any man may there see that the Pope is the rule of faith as the Doctour would have him speak but in that whole chapter labours only to shew that it belongs to him principally to regulate disputes in faith as being the chief Prelate In the like manner does he most unworthily abuse the other three brought by him as witnesses that the Pope can make new Creeds and new faith wheras Panormitan teaches expresly that he cannot make but only declare faith Ancorano sayes the like adding that what he so declares may be new to us though not in it self and Triumphus no less manifestly speaks in the very place cited by him that ther is one and the same faith in the ancients and moderns and that in our holy Creed are inserted all those things which universally pertain to Catholik faith although he say withall which is also very true that to adde explicate or declare a truth which is contained in holy Scripture hath alwayes been lawful for the Church But is this to make new faith which is not Apostolik and primitive as this your Doctour would have them to assert Do you Siry your self judg And him that thus abuses the world God Almighty judg So that when we come to the close of all ther is not any one Catholik Doctour that ever said that the Church can make new articles of faith in Doctour Taylors sence Why then did Pope Leo the 10. condemn Luther for denying the Pope to have this power Neither did Luther or Pope Leo ever dream of any such thing For Luther wholly busied himself about his old Catholik Religion from which he had revolted which he called an Egyptian darkness that had overspread the earth even from the Apostles dayes and never thought of this school question which in his dayes was not heard of And he denied the then present Pope
times are some of them for urgent reasons altered They did fast on Wednesdayes and not Saturdayes in many places now on Saturdayes not Wednesdayes Christians did stand at their Liturgy all Paschall time now they kneel Little children were in old time communicated after Baptisme in many places of the Catholik world now no where Absolution is now given upon an humble confession and a promis either exprest or tacite of performing the due pennance but it could not be in ancient times obtained till the pennance was fulfilled Priests may be consecrated now at twenty five years old in former times not till thirty Many holy dayes were then kept which now cannot Many now which could not then Communion was oftner in som ages than it is now There is a reason for all these changes of disciplin and custom But the substance of Religion remains ever the same about Fasts Liturgy Baptism Pennance Confession Priesthood Feasts Communion and such like things though som circumstance may change So concerning this point of the Eucharist the substance of Religion is that in memory of our blessed Lords Passion a benediction or consecration of bread and wine be made in the Church of God by his Priests for ever until our Lords second coming to the end that the Church his spouse may ever have his body with her to feed upon This I say is the substance of religion in this point But som circumstances such as may will change For example Priests rarely celebrated in som times of the Church but yet when any Mass or Messach was kept by any one of them all the other Priests and Clergy men that were near would assuredly be present at it and hear and pray and meditate with other people in most humble and fervent manner as became all good Christians to do but now in this last age they go generally every one to the Altar daily Which custom is the better I will not here determin But I am sure that great S. Francis commanded all his children to hear Mass once a day both Priests and others but forbad those that were Priests every day to celebrate and I think he had the Spirit of God in him In old times all Christian Priests had their head covered at the Altar with an Amictus or amice of pure linnen now they generally let it fall into their neck and their heads are utterly bare And time will come that they will put it upon their heads again So likewise for good and just reasons were catholik people in som times and places communicated in the one kind and som time in the other and som time and place in both But they were never debard Communion nor was ever the Sacrifice of the Altar stopped Nor is it so indifferent a circumstance to consecrate or celebrate in one kind as it is in one kind to communicate For Communion respects the thing contained the body and blood of Christ which was ever beleeved to be equally present in either kind But the sacrisice or consecration in one kind would not figure our Lords death and passion and the effusion of his blood as it ought to do But this great Christian work of sacrificing which is essential Religion and the very characteristical badg of Christianity becaus our Protestant Reformers cast it off they talk ever since only of Communion of lay-people as though the sacred benediction or consecration and oblation which indeed is the Christian sacrifice according to the rite and figure of Melchisedek recounted admired and worshipped by all primitive Christians were instituted only for that end Wheras indeed Christ our Lords institution touches immediately the figuration only of his death and passion which is completly don in the sacrifice consummated by the Priest although the peoples communion unto whose comfort and benefit all that work of consecration is exercised in the Church ought to follow by sequel when it is necessary or expedient Now the ancient primitive Church so firmly beleeved that the blessed body and blood and whole humanity and divinity of Christ were so present to those sacred symbols after the benediction or consecration of them by their Priests in Christs name and vertue tho it be unconceivable and wholly ineffable unto us that if a man with an indifferent and unprejudiced eye will but look back upon antiquity he may plainly see that in all ages it was indifferent to Christians though not to consecrate yet to communicate either in one kind or both For the younger people and such as were sick were generally communicated only in the liquid kind and others though som also received in both when solemn Communion was made yet that in the very primitive times they thought it all one to receiv either in both or one S. Cyprian S. Blsil and Tertullian very ancient Priests and Fathers do abundantly witness For Tertullian in his book de oratione describing the Christian wayes of old Usque adeo accepto corpore saith he stationem liceret solvere that is when they had communicated the body of their Lord no mention made of the chalice they brake up their station and had their Ite missa est to be gon as it is now even at this day among Catholiks And as for S. Basil he in his epistle to Caesarea Patricia tells at large how Christians in those dayes communicated four times a week and oftner if a Martyrs feast chanced to fall in the week and how that if persecution happened so violent that a Priest could not be had to give the people Communion they were forced with their own hands to touch that sacred body which was consecrated and kept in ciborium's boxes or pixis for them And this the peoples irreverence of touching the sacred body good S. Basil labours to excuse both by the urgency of their devotion and need and also by the example of the Hermits who leading a monastical life for want of Priests at that time among them kept the sacred Communion in their cells and received it with their own hands touching it contrary to the general custom when devotion and piety required as also by that of the Christians in Alexandria and Egypt who in such times of persecution and danger would have the sacred Communion at home in their own houses lest upon any necessity they should chance to dye without it and lastly by the very custom of Priests in the Church who then so delivered the host to communicants that when it was put by the Priests into their mouths they touched som part of it who received it with their own hands All this S. Basil there discourses more at large which agree well to the consecrated bread thus touched by the people in time of necessity thus put into their mouths by the help of the Priests and their own hands thus kept at home in times of persecution thus reserved in pixes or little arks but not at all to the chalice And all those devout Christians thought themselves sufficiently
of unity they were all united although they were all alike in power and commission of administring Sacraments If it be so what shall we think of this Disswader and of his excellent saying of S. Cyprian to prove that the Church was intrusted to the apostles in common and that no one apostle exercised a power over another The text of S. Cyprian runs thus Our Lord said to Peter Upon this rock will I build my Church and again feed thou my sheep Upon the one Him Christ builds his Church and unto Him he commends his sheep to be sed And although after his resurrection he gave to all his apostles equal power and said as my father sent me so I send you yet that he might manifest unity he constituted one chair and by his authority disposed the origen of unity beginning srom one The other apostles are the same that Peter was c. But the beginning comes srom unity the primacy is given to Peter that one Church of Christ and one flock of Christ may be monstrated Thus St. Cyprian testifies of the apostles that although they were all equal in their spiritual commission of Gods word and Sacraments yet were they brought to an unity by the government of one superiour and one chair which oversaw them all And is this a fit place to prove that the Apostles had no superiour over them which expresly testifies that they had one In the same manner doth our Disswader deal with the other testimonies But I have been too long upon this point Here is enough Sir to let you see what I said in the beginning of this discours that your Disswaders reasons are senceles his testimonies either impertinent or manifestly against himself and his whole talk and doctrin contrary to the laws and constitutions of our own Protestant English Church §. 11. Which concludes the novelties Gives notice of nine other popish novelties Saints invocation Scripture-insufficiency absolution before pennance Priests confirmation nine-penny-masses circumgestation of Eucharist intention in Sacraments mass-sacrifice and communionless mass After your Disswader has mentioned these to show the fertility of his brain he sayes nothing of them at all but only that they be also innovations and thence concluds that the Roman Religion is neither old nor primitive nor catholik and that it is easier for Protestants to tell where their religion was before Luther then for Papists to tell where their religion was before Trent And that when the enemy had sowed these tares and honest men in the Church durst not complain then England and other nations by the glass of Scriptur resormed to pure antiquity preferring a new cure before an old sore In the beginning of the section it was a new sore in the end it is an old sore so long time was he a writing this one no-section And he has so ordered the busines that it will be hard now for Papists to show their Religion before Trent although he has neither deduced the original of these nine or his other ten novelties from Trent nor can ever show that these or they are the Papists religion For as he has handled them ther is not one of them any part of their Religion much less doth their religion consist in them His sirst busines of the power of making articles sect 1. is so far from religion that it is not so much as the philosophy of any one school in the Catholik world His leash of new articles sect 2 is partly a fond dream and partly an erroneous vision of his own His discours of Indulgences sect 3. is utterly besides the purpos and what ther is of Catholik faith in it he allows himself as ancient 4. His talk of Purgatory is so ridiculously absurd that granting all that Roman faith teaches to be both ancient and universal he yet sayes at random that Roman faith is not that and yet never speaks himself what that Roman faith is 5. In Transubstantiation he wholly playes with the word which he knows when it came in wholly neglecting the thing it self and brings a multitude of Popish Doctours that own it not for their faith and not any one popish man or woman that own it he sayes it was defined in the Lateran Councel first and yet is not that which was defined in the Lateran Councel and never speaks what this thing is which notwithstanding he will have called Popery 6. The busines of half-communion as he calls it is no Popery at all that is to say no Catholik faith but a custom only in the exercise of their religion and that neither universal for time or place And although Catholiks beleev that it is not necessary to communicate in both kinds yet do they not beleev that it is necessary to communicate only in one kind either this kind or that but have used all the three wayes 7. His discours about service in an unknown tongue is a like mistake taking custom for religion and discipline for doctrin and he perverts and falsifies the custom too saying that Papists understand not their own prayers nor know what they ask of God 8. His talk of images passes by all the use of them that religion requires and is wholly taken up in some school disputes and his own lies 9. His exceptions against the pictures of the Trinity with so many eyes and noses and faces in a knot is as much popery as Euclids book de Triangulis 10. His section about the sovereignty of one byshop over all Christians had been about popery and catholik religion indeed if he had handled it right but as his reasons are fond and autorities fals so he mistakes the very thing it self imagining that papists beleev that spiritual supremacy to be tied to the walls of Rome which is no faith of theirs and consequently none of their popery And so none of his sections nor any part of his discours touches either all or any part of Papists religion And is not this a doughty piece of work to prove popery by which all his readers understand the Roman Catholik religion to be neither old nor primitive nor apostolical How he would have handled the other nine points becaus he says nothing of them I will not trouble my self to read But I am sure that seven of the nine have not any relation to Catholik religion all of them I mean besides Saints invocation and the Sacrifice of the Mass. What Councel hath determined or what Catholik beleevs that the sacred scripture is insufficient or that absolution ought to be given before pennance or that single priests are to confirm or that masses are to be sold for nine pence or circumgestation or any such intention in sacraments as to damn folks which the Disswader here speaks or that mass is to be without communion And I may now think if he had spoke of the other two Saints invocation and Sacrifice he would even there also have mistaken and strayed For he has so behaved himself hitherto as
it hath suffered in one age since or the like But that all things should ever be at quiet throughout the world that ther should no heresies rise no seditions no wars any where this is a fansy that was never in my head and I wonder how it should drop into my paper But you are a martial man and resolved to bring me in with pikes and guns as the red-coat souldiers did the Cavaliers in the time of our late anarchy to suffer not only for the good they acted but for the ill they never thought of Fift must be that the first reformers were most of them contemptible persons their means indirect and ends sinister Where is it Sir where is it that I meddle with any mens persons or say they are contemptible or their means indirect or ends sinister Where do I say all this Do I speak any word of Reformers of Religion in general as you make me to do But this you adde of your own in a vast universal notion to the end you may bring in the apostles and prophets and kings into the list of persons by me surnamed contemptible and liken my speech who never speak any such thing to the sarcasms of Celsus Lucian Porphiry Julian and other Pagans So likewise in the very beginning of this your second chapter you spend four leaves in a parallel betwixt me and the pagan Celsus wherof ther is not any one member of it true Doth Fiat Lux say you lay the caus of all the troubles disorders tumults wars within the nations of Europe upon the Protestants Doth he charg the Protestants that by their schisms and seditions they make a way for other revolts doth he gather a rapsody of insignificant words doth he insist upon their divisions doth he mannage the argument of the Jews against Christ c. So doth Celsus who is confuted by learned Origen c. Where does Fiat Lux where does he does he does he any such thing Are you not ashamed to talk at this rate I give a hint indeed of the divisions that be amongst us and the frequent argumentations that are made to embroil and pusle one another with our much evil and little appearance of any good in order to unity and peace which is the end of my discours But must I therfor be Celsus Did Celsus do any such thing to such an end It is the end that moralises and specifies the action To diminish Christianity by upbraiding our frailties is paganish to exhort to unity by representing the inconvenience of factor is a Christian and pious work When honest Protestants in the Pulpit speak ten times more full and vehemently against the divisions wars and contentions that be amongst us than ever came into my thoughts must they therfor be every one of them a Celsus a pagan Celsus what stuff is this But it is not only my defamation you aim at your own glory coms in the reer If I be Celsus the pagan Celsus then must you forsooth be Origen that wrote against him honest Origen That is the thing Pray Sir it is but a word let me me advise you by the way that you do not forget your self in your heat and give your wife occasion to fall out with you However you may yet will not she like it perhaps so well that her husband should be Origen My sixt principle must be That our departure from Rome hath been the caus of all our evils This is but the same with the fourth in other words but added for one to make up the number And it is you say every where spread over the face of Fiat Lux. Sir you may say what you pleas to be in his face but I know best what is in the heart and bowels both of Fiat Lux and his Authour And sure I am this never came into my thoughts Our dissentions in faith may well multiply as we see with our eyes they do by our further departur from unity and this may caus much evil But the branches of our too too manifold evils found among the sons of men spread all as Fiat Lux also speaks from that fertil root of our innate concupiscence which by evil customs rises up into a thick bole of vitious inclinations while we study not to impair but rather to augment and nourish it However I must give you leave to number this among my silly principles to the end you may talk more copiously of the disputes and wars and broils that are and have been in several parts of Christendom and fall again into your much affected and often iterated strain So the Pagans judged the Primitive Christians c. And I must still be the Pagan and you the Primitive Christian. Seventh is There is no remedy of our evils but by a returning to the Roman Sea This and the principle foregoing had not you warily cloven a hair had been all one and both are equally mine But Sir that may remedy our difference in faith which neither can nor will prevent varieties in philosophy or other worldly judgements nor considering the infinite diversity of mens humours is there any one thing equally prevalent with all men and at all times to the like good effect and if it do certainly help one evil it is not therfor a remedy for all But it seems you have yet a little more mirth and choller to vent and therfor I must permit you to adde this principle for mine that you may smilingly consider how the Romans should cure our evils that cannot prevent disorders differences and sins amongst themselvs I can tell you Sir another remedy of our evils that we suffer about dissentions in Religion besides that If the King and Parliament would pleas to give back all the ecclesiastical livings into the hands of secular gentlemen who out of a blind zeal as you phrase it gave them up aforetime unto the pious uses of spirituall men now no more extant all our controversies and the evils thence ensuing would soon ceas Even you zealous Sir would be then as quiet as a wolf tumbled into a pit-fall Other remedies I could yet acquaint you with more than one or two If you did Sir really and not in words only acknowledge any one superiour governour in the land unto whose power and judgment you would heartily all of you resign the word of that Oracle would solve all doubts and end all your quarrels But you will never do it The very genius of the Reformation is wholly set against it The eight follows That Scriptur on sundry accounts is insufficient to settle us in the truth And in this you flourish and triumph most copiously for fifteen pages together as the champion of the word of God But Sir you speak not one word to the purpos or against me at all if I had delivered any such principle which I never did Gods word is both the sufficient and only necessary means both of our conversion and settlement as well in truth as vertue
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 is 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 insignificant 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 testimonies 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 Gossel 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 serv humble 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 Whereas all others besides this one Catholik flock run into several bodies and by their various interpretations dissolv by little and little according as themselvs increas all the whole frame of ancient religion Secondly it may be gathered by this that Christ our Lord instituted a monarchical government of his Church ruled so long as he lived by one and therfor must that government ever remain He set it up to remain For surely he did not set it up to be pulled down again Thirdly becaus there is no power on earth to change it What God has constituted man cannot undo lawfully I mean he cannot Now we have no such body of Christians in England that remain under one who is general pastour over all the Christian flock in the world or do so much as pretend it save only the few Roman Catholiks that are yet here left alive by the strange providence of that God unto whose universal Church they have still adhered notwithstanding the greatest trials that ever poor Christians were put to Neither Quaker Anabaptist or Independent Presbyterian or Prelate-Protestant do so much as pretend to any such thing but they all oppose it And as they do not pretend to belong to any general body that hath a visible head overseeing the whole flock of Christ throughout the world so neither is any of their Church governments monarchical in their respective place if we may beleev themselvs I know our English Protestant Church was first appointed in the dayes of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth to be respectively monarchical that is to say within the precincts of this Kingdom the hierarchy ending in the Kings majesty who is doubtles the supream head and governour both of the Protestant Church and the temporal or civil state in all these his three Kingdoms But indeed and truth none of them acknowledg it For they do not any of them expect as they ought all of them to do a full decisive sentence from the Kings Majesties lips in all their controversies or doubts of faith nor will they acquiesce in his judgment which is a strange mad refractorines in our nation and contrary to our own principles The Independents last tribunal is in the light of his own breast The Presbyterian will not look beyond his Presbyteral Consistory And the Prelate-Protestant writer which I most marvel at ends all in the byshops allowing no autority power or jurisdiction to their Archbyshops but only an order and decent precedency for manners sake which in effect is wholly to dissolve the constituted frame of Church-government in this land They speak not indeed of the Kings majesty for fear I suppose of the rod God hath put into his hands But it is not hard to gather both by their words and actions what they think Whitby of late wrote a book against Dean Cressy and there he sayes expesly that an Arch-byshop hath a decent precedency but no authority and that his Grace of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction and that the Kings Majesty is not the root of Episcopal jurisdiction here in England And yet he was approved and praised even by our Protestant byshops Do they not see that à pari nay à fortiori the same be affirmed of our byshops that they have no autority and that they have but a decent precedency over Presbyters and that they are not the root of ecclesiastical jurisdiction With what a strange blindnes are our eyes possest Nay this great Disswader an eminent man among Prelate-Protestants here teaches publickly that byshops are all supream under Christ. So that this our Church-government by byshops can be no other but Aristocracy the Presbyterians a Democracy and the rest a plain Anarchy every man thinking and acting what is good in his own eyes And none of these who are all fallen from the general flock and general pastour heed unto effect any one thing that may restrain them either statutes canons laws constitutions or ought els But God blesses his true Church with a true obedience Thus I have given you Sir my reason why I think ther is and must be one general pastour over all the whole flock of Christians Pray ponder it well Brief I am in it becaus it is beyond my general design which is only to shew that Doctour Taylors Disswasive from Popery is insignificant I am now come to the testimonies your Disswader cites for himself which I told you before are above half of them impertinent and the rest if he had not fraudulently maimed them flatly against himself As for the first sort your Disswader imagining in his head that the Apostles had no superiour which is the grand falsity on which all his whole discours runs brings all those authors who either say that byshops are the successours of the Apostles or that they had received the keyes of heaven or that they are not to be contemned and the like for witnesses of his opinion as Irenaeus Cyprian Ambrose Anacletus Clemens Hieronimus Gregorius and various others All this is impertinent But the other autorities had they not been curtaild and perverted by him had openly and plainly spoken that Catholik truth which he here opposes namely that the Apostles had a superiour and that all the whole Christian slock have and ought to have one general pastour and that he ever hitherto hath sate since S. Peters death in the Roman See I know it would be worth my labour to set down all those testimonies by him here cited at large as they lye in those Catholik Fathers and Divines as apt at one and the same time to convince this his whole section of falsity and the Catholik doctrin to be no novelty as he sayes it is But becaus this is already done by the above-named Catholik Gentlemen who with a greater patience than I am master of turned over those many ancient authours I will content my self with only the first of them In the whole new testament faith your Disswader ther is no act or sign of superiority or that one apostle exercised power over another but to them whom Christ sent he in common intrusted the Church of God according to that excellent saying of S. Cyprian the other apostles are the same that S. Peter was indowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power c. This then is the excellent saying of S. Cyprian The other apostles are the same that St. Peter was indowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power And he cites it out of his epistle de unit Ecclesiae ad Novatian But did S. Cyprian either say or mean by that saying so much of it as is S. Cyprians that ther was no superiority among the apostles or that the Church of God was intrusted to them in common Nay does not S Cyprian use those words in a discours wherin he endeavours industriously to declare that there was a superiority among the Apostles in which as in a cone