Popery of this busines Good Lord Is this ignorance in your disswading Doctour or illud quod dicere nolo He acknowledges manifestly that the Councel of Trent decided no more than that very Tradition which the Church hath kept in all ages acknowledged here by the Disswader himself to be primitive Nor can he bring any Catholik Councel that hath decided any more or any Gospel or Tradition for more If school-divines questions that are raised beyond faith in this point as well as hundreds of others may suffice to infer that Roman Catholiks are departed from the ancient primitive way although they keep it â—…e may as well say they are departed from the old faith of the Trinity Creation Incarnation Sacraments Resurrection Justice Grace and the whole contents of the old and new Testament For though they keep the ancient faith concerning all these things yet have their schoolmen raised many hundreds nay thousands of questions and conclusions beyond that faith that be variously agitated in the schools amongst them Your Disswaders craft lies in this that whilst he brings in here these school-disputes for popish faith and popery and points out eminent Doctours amongst Papists who witnes these fancies to be new and unknown to antiquity as Antonius Prierias Fisher Durandus Maironis Cajetan and the Councel of Trent either not able or not willing to determin them he hopes his reader will easily beleev without much labour of his that Popery is not only a new foppery but a confusion inextricable This is his drift not only in this section but all his whole book But he is intangled in his own snare For if neither the Councel of Trent determined those things nor yet any other Councel in the Catholik world nor any ancient Tradition delivered nor her Doctours acknowledg them then is ther not any popery therin nor is popery any such thing Wherfor your Dissawader is very angry with the Councel of Trent for that they would not there either justifie the abuses or determin the school-disputes in that point but rather condemned the one and exploded the other I will set down the Councels decree word for word that you may see without any further discours of mine how much your Doctour has abused his reader It runs thus Cùm potestas conferendi indulgentias à Christo Ecclesiae concessa sit atque hujusmodi potestate divinitus sibi traditâ antiquissimis etiam temporibus illa usa fuerit sacrosancta Synodus Indulgentiarum usum Christiano populo maximè salutarem sacrorum Conciliorum autoritate probatum in Ecclesia retinendum esse docet praecipit eosque anathemate damnat qui aut inutiles esse asserunt vel eas concedendi in Ecclesia potestatem esse negant In his tamen concedendis moderationem juxta veterem probatam in Ecclesia consuetudinem adhiberi cupit ne nimia facititate Ecclesiae disciplina enervetur Abusus verò qui in his irrepserunt quorum occasione insigne hoc Indulgentiarum nomen ab haereticis blasphematur emendatos correctos cupiens praesenti decreto generaliter statuit pravos quaestus omnes pro his consequendis unde plurima in Christiano populo abusuum causa fluxit omnino abolendos esse Caeteros vero qui ex superstitione ignorantia irreverentia aut aliunde quomodocunque provenerunt cùm ob multiplices locorum provinciarum apud quas hi committuntur corruptelas commodè nequeant specialiter probiberi mandat omnibus Episcopis ut diligenter quisque bujusmodi abusus Ecclesiae suae colligat eosque in prima Synodo Provinciali referat c. Thus the holy Councel condemns and labours with all fatherly and pastourly care possible to prevent and amend the abuses which your Disswader here sets down as one part of Popery in this point and the school-philosophy which he makes the other part therof the self same Councel explodes in their decree of Purgatory which your Disswader calls the mother of Indulgences Praecipit sancta Synodus Episcopis saith the Councel ut sanam doctrinam à sanctis Patribus sacris Conciliis traditam à Christi fidelibus credi teneri doceri ubique praedicari dìligenter studeant Apud rudem verò plebem difficiliores ac subtiliores quaestiones quaeque ad aedificationem non faciunt ex quibus plerumque nulla fit pietatis accessio à popularibus concionibus secludantur Incerta item quae specie falsi laborant evulgari ac tractari non permittant Ea vero quae ad curiositatem quandam aut superstitionem spectant vel turpe lucrum sapiant tanquam scandala fidelium offendicula prohibeant I would we could see our English Byshops meet together in a Councel and make such pious and fatherly provisions against scandalous books seditious sermons and vicious customs as this Popish Councel has don They would then give som help to temporal authority and not lay all the burthen upon their shoulders whilst themselvs sit like drones in their fat benefices and do nothing But here you may see Sir that all that which your Disswader makes here to be Popery abusive customs and school-philosophy is by a general Popish Councel expresly excluded from it What strange kinde of audacity is this to call that Popery or Catholik faith which Catholik Doctours deny Catholik Councels exclude and Catholik Professours never think of But what your Disswader knows to be new he first puts that upon Papists for their faith and then tells them that their faith is new And your Disswader as I told you before is much troubled and murmurs bitterly against the Councel of Trent for that they would not determin those philosophical subtilties whether Indulgences be solutions or absolutions whether donations or compensations whether for potential or actual pennances whether in the Court of God or man whether out of the treasure of Christ or Saints whether upon condition of doing somthing or nothing The Councel quoth he slubbereth all the whole matter both in the question of Indulgences and Purgatory in general and recommendatory terms affirming that the power of giving Indulgence is in the Church and that the use is wholesom and that all hard and subtile questions concerning Purgatory which although if it be at all it is a fire yet is it the fuel of Indulgences and maintain them wholly and all that is suspected to be false and all that is uncertain and whatsoever is curious and superstitious scandalous or for filthy lucre be laid aside And in the mean time they tell us not what is and what is not superstitious nor what is scandalous nor what they mean by the general term of Indulgence And they establish no doctrin neither curious nor incurious Nor durst they decree the very foundation of this whole matter the Churches treasure neither durst they meddle with it but left it as they found it and continued in the abuses and proceed in the practice and set their Doctours as well as they can 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 Senesis commends Pope Pius Nay they correct the very Indexes made by Printers as those of Probens and Chevallonius Thus the Doctour begins his book and I cannot but commend his wit For he wisely assumes that to himself which is the very one great busines wherin every particular controversie sticks and which if it were once agreeed on would put an end to all controversies that either now are or ever shall be in the world For they all com at length to this question which of the many Professours of Christianity now so much divided in their wayes have the Gospel and word of God on their side in this that and the other particular We saith Dr. Taylor we Protestants have the word of God we have the Gospel of Christ we have the Apostles writings with us and for us and therfor our Religion is for certain both ancient primitive and Apostolical This is Sir a very good consequence That Religion must needs be ancient which hath God for his Author that must be a primitive Christianity which Christ founded and what the Apostles writings confirm must needs be Apostolical faith But is it proved here by the Doctour that Protestants and not Catholiks have the word of God and of Christ and of his Apostles on their side No it is all supposed and his whole endeavour is to tell us that the religion which issued from God and Christ and his holy Apostles must needs be Apostolical primitive and ancient He supposes Protestancy as distinct from Catholik faith to have com all of it from those divine hands which is the only thing to be proved and declares at large that a religion which came from such hands must needs be ancient and primitive which is a thing no man can ever doubt It is certain and manifestly known that Protestants received both Law and Gospel and Apostles writings from the hands of Roman Catholiks who had kept and canonized and lived by those rules fifteen hundred years before Protestancy rose up in the world and all the whole hundred years since The only question is about the sence and mind of that holy writ in the many particular points now controverted in the world He has the law that has the mind and purpos and meaning of the law not he that hath the form of words without it This is the great business and the very extract and quintessence of all controversies which your quick Doctour assumes as granted on his side without any more ado We saith he we Protestants have the Law and Gospel and Apostles writings and the old Councels too if need be and therfor is not the ancientness of our Religion to be doubted But the Papists what of them the Papists Religion cannot so much as be pretended to be Apostolical old or primitive Why so Have not they the law and Gospel and Apostolical writings He does not plainly say they have not but he hopes his reader will think so What then of the Papists They saith he can make new Articles and therfor cannot their Religion be antient Sir although they could make new articles so long as they do not their Religion may be old still for all that A man may live in an old house although he be able to build a new one And this seems indeed to be the case here For the Disswader in confirmation of his speech brings in although unjustly the testimony of som Catholik Doctours who should say The Church can make new Articles but not one that sayes she has made any That I may yet go further although the Church should make new obliging Articles so long as these do not contrary the former but declare them more amply in such and such circumstances they annull not but rather confirm and explicate the old ones Is not our Law the same old Law of England and we the same polity our fore-fathers were although the King and Parliament upon occasion of new disorders make new acts and statutes continually But let us go on yet one step more The Roman Church does plead Sir whatever your Disswader would have you think that her religion is Catholik Apostolik and primitive becaus all her Councels by which that Church is governed have openly and continually declared when they came together to decide any affair which had raised new disturbance in the Christian world that they must firmly adhere to that which is Primitive to that which is Apostolical to that which is Catholik to that which has been delivered and received from fore-fathers And by that rule they decided the difference How then can this Church pretend to make new Articles Does your Doctour bring any General Councel which is the loud voice of that Church or any Tradition which is the Churches still voice to speak it No not any at all But this he ought to have done if he would prove that Church to pretend any such power What then Wy Turrecramata and som other doctours sayes she can do it But Sir if some one or other clergy-man should think that the Church can make new articles does it therfor follow that the Church it self does pretend any such power Surely the voice of one or two Ministers here in England cannot in reason be thought the voice of our whole Protestant Church especially when they speak against the tenour of her doctrin and practice But your Disswader has been many years picking in cobweb holes and obscure writings that he might where he could find any half sentence apt to be wrested from the common judgment of Catholik Religion mark that out for Popery to the end it may be thought either naught or new This is the chief ingredient of your Disswaders Policy Catholik Doctours Sir though they may have written many other most excellent catholik and pious things yet through humane infirmity in this and that particular may
reproaches of Christians And whatever my paragraff may be this your chapter seems to me as ingenious as the very best of your book and absolutely frivolous And must you invegh against calumnies whose whole book is nothing els It is a bundle of slanders and a meer quiver of fiery darts of desolation and malice 17. ch from page 313 to 325. Your seventeenth chapter upon my paragraff of Images or Figures nibbles at more of my discours made in that one paragraff then you have taken notice of in ten of my others A man say you may indeed have such thoughts of devotion as Fiat Lux speaks of upon the sight of images which be sees banging in Churches if he be a man distraught of his wits not if he be himself and sober So then mad men it seems can tell what figures represent sober and wise men cannot Again The violation of an image say you redounds to the prototype if it be rightly and duly represented not els And when then is Christ crucified for example rightly and duly represented Are you one of those mad men can tell what figures represent yea or no. The hanging up of traitors in effigie is don say you only to make a declaration of the fact and not to cast a dishonour upon the person So you say Becaus you know it don long after the fact has rung all the whole Kingdom over and don not in places of concours but ignominy not in the Exchange but Tyburn not with any characters declaring the fact but with a halter about his neck to denote the death and ignominy inflicted as far as is possible upon him You go on Where the Psalmist complains of Gods enemies breaking down his sculptures he means not therby any images or figures but only wainscot or carved ceiling Surely the Prophet wanted a word then to express himself or translatours to express the Prophet If we must guess at his meaning without heeding his words one might think it as probable what also holy scripture tells us that the hous of God was ordained with sculptures of Cherubims and other angels to represent his true hous that is above as with the circles quadrats triangels rhombos and rhomboides of wainscot The eye say you again may not have her species as well as the ear becaus God has commanded the one and not the other This Sir you only say Fiat Lux makes it appear that God commands and commends both and the nature of man requires both nor can you give any reason why I may not look upon him who was crucified as well as hear of him You adde Nor is the sole end of preaching as Fiat Lux would have it only to move the mind of the hearers unto corresponding affections Why do not you say then what els it is for you deny my words but declare your self no other end but what I have in those short words exprest You may haply conceal in your heart som other end of your preaching which you are loath to speak as to procure applaus to vent your rhetorick to get good benefices to show your fine cloth and silks your pure neat white starched bands and cuffs button'd handkerchiefs and ladies gloves to inflame factions get wives or the like but I could not think of all things at once nor needed I to express any more then that one end of preaching which is connatural apostolical and legal You go on God indeed commanded the Cherubims to be set upon the ark but those cherubims were images of nothing of what should they be images Nor were they set up to be adored Besides God who commanded them to be set up did no more gainsay his own prohibition of images to be made than he contradicted his own rule which forbids to steal when he commanded his people to spoil the Egyptians But Sir since the real Cherubims are not made of our beaten gold those set up by Moses must be only figures And of what els should they be figures but of those real ones Nor is it either to my purpos or yours that they are set up to be adored For images in catholick Churches are not set up for any such purpos nor do I any where say it No man alive has any such thought nor tradition no councel hath delivered it no practis infers it Christian Philosophers or Schoolmen have indeed raised a philosophical question Whether any respect may be terminated upon the figure purely as it such an absolute entity in it self besides that relative one that falls only upon the prototype But what they question or what they talk or what they resolve does no more belong becaus they say it unto catholik faith then if they had been asleep and said nothing All catholik councels and practis declares such sacred figures to be expedient assistants to our thoughts in our divine meditation and prayers and that is all that I know of it And the relative respect that is given to any figur as it is such a figur whether in a glass or in any more fixed postur to supply the defects of a mirrour that it terminates naturally upon the sampler or prototype is evident to right reason and philosophy And it cannot be otherwise That which you speak of the Israelites spoiling the Egyptians by Gods command hath som species of an argument in it But Sir we must know you as well as I that God who forbids men to steal did not then command to steal as you say he did when he bad his people spoil the Egyptians under the species of a loan Many things legitimate that their act of spoil and clear it from any notion of theft or robbery or stealing First they might have of themselvs a right to those few goods in satisfaction of the long oppression they had unjustly undergon and it may be that in that their great haste their own allowance was not then paid them But secondly becaus it is a thing of danger that any servant should be allowed to right himself by putting his hand to his masters goods though his case of wrong be never so clear therfor did the command of God intervene to justifie their action And the absolute dominion of the whole earth and all that is in it being inseparably in the hands of God made that by Gods express command to be truly now and justly the Hebrews right which by an inferiour and subordinate title such as is in the hand of creatures belonged to the Egyptians before So that the Hebrews in taking those goods with them did not steal nor did God command them to steal when he bad them carry those goods of the Egyptians with them for that upon that very command of God they now ceased to be the Egyptians any more But this can no wayes be applied to the busines of Images nor could God command the Hebrews to make any images if he had absolutely forbidden to have any at all made For this concerns not any affair between
the dignities glory and revenues of their prelates when they could not otherwise get them into their own hands by their lamentable tones in Eloimi raised up the people of the land to further their design This trick of theirs they learned from wolves For these when they spy a waifaring man whom they would devour and yet by a narrow search perceiv him to be too strong for them starting aside upon som hillock there set upon their tails they howl for help And if any will not beleev Fiat Lux that such be the fruits of disputes and controversies and such their nature and genius let them beleev the Authour of Animadversions who as he sayes what he pleases and denies what he lists so to his frequent reproaches villifications and slanders he adjoyns his own Menaces of terrour to make my words good and justify Fiat Lux. You frequently threaten me that if I write again I shall hear more far more than you have said in your Animadversions but I promis you Sir if you write again you shall never hear more from me For now the flies begin to com into my chamber which may haply expect I should heed their flight and hearken to their buzz and I must not leav those greater employments to look upon your Animadversions or any your other books Farewell Given this V. of the Ides of April in the year of our Lord MDCLXIII J. V. C. EPISTOLA AD CROESVM AGAINST Mr. Whitby The occasion of this second Epistle Doctour Pierce had preached a Sermon in the Court upon that text In the beginning it was not so from whence he took occasion to speak of Popery which in this and that and the other particular he said in the beginning was not so and consequently all of it a novelty This sermon was afterwards printed and not a little applauded by those who are taken with such airs Mr. Cressy a Catholik Gentleman the Authours friend then sojourning in London wrote a book called Catholik doctrin no novelties in confutation of that Sermon and went presently away to Paris But after his departure Mr. Whitby set forth a huge bulk of a book against Cressy The Authour in this his epistle gives notice to Mr. Cressy his friend then in France of the contents and tenour of that his adversaries book Epistola ad Croesum against Mr. Whitby SIR IT is now about a year since Dr. Pierce made his pretty featous Sermon in the Court where by vertue of those few words of his text In the beginning it was not so Matth. 19.8 he confuted all Popery in the space of one hour as a meer bundle of novelties The Treatise you left here in the hands of som friends before your departure to Paris to prove against the tenour of the said Sermon That Catholik doctrines are no novelties printed afterward by I know not what good hand gave us here in England after your departur a great deal of good satisfaction This book of yours about a moneth or two after it was extant was seconded by another against Dr. Pierce penned by Jo. Sim. a small but a very quick and lively piece to invalidate his reasons So that Pierce had now two adversaries against him The latter J. S. hears not yet of any reply But your book Sir is lately answered not by Dr. Pierce himself who hath other irons in the fire and meets now with somthing in his own life which in the beginning was not so but by one Mr. Daniel Whitby a young man of a forward spirit and possest as it seems of a fair reformed library who hath undertaken or is willing atleast to undergo the quarrel This book of Whitbyes wherof my antient love and friendship hath here invited me to give you a brief account is a great volum of 512 pages so fruitful is the seed of controversie when it is once sown to increase and multiply A compendium it is I think of his whole library Whether this book of his be made up all by one hand by reason of the unity of the name and diversity of stiles discerned in it is not easy to guess But that Mr. Whitby if he had many coadjutors with him either in his own chamber or abroad should by their mutual consent alone reap the honour of all their labours wherof his own part may haply be the least you need Sir neither grutch nor fear nor envy nor any way dislike The book is of that natur that it more behoovs it should be thought to issue from one young head then many old ones that the insufficiency when it shall appear may be rather attributed to the weaknes of the Author then caus he pleads for Of this Sir I may out of Whitbyes own words in his Epistle Dedicatory and the whole progres of his book assure you that this volume of his is wholly made up of the many several replies of divers Protestant writers who have stretcht their wits to the utmost in this last age to evacuate the Catholik faith and all their grounds autorities and reasons for it not only such as have written here in England which are not a few but those also beyond the seas who are all met friendly here together though never so much differing in their wayes twenty at least or thirty of the chiefest to help to make up Mr. Whitbies book These writers he tells us in his Epistle som of them who they be Hammond Field Salmasius Baron Usher Fern Dally Taylor Crackanthorp Hall Andrews Calixtus Plessis Chamier and Chillingworth But he does not there mention Pareus Blondel Baxter and several others whom in the context of his book he makes as much use of as any of those he there honours with the title of Champions with whose sword and buckler he means to defend himself and knock you down You may easily guess the reason Although indeed even Chamier Plessis and Dally his first and chiefest three wer as great Puritans as Baxter Pareus or Blondel and no less enemies to the English Protestant then Roman Catholik Church And Baxter himself if he will but do so much as dye shall seven year hence if not sooner be put into the next calendar and sit among the Champions of the English Church cited no more then as guilty of faction and heresy but as a Protector and Patron of the truth famous Baxter incomparable Baxter So p. 230. he cites Dr. Reynolds as a great Champion of his Church who was indeed a Champion of the Puritans against it Every non-Papist is a good Protestant especially when he is dead When they fight for their wives and children against catholik traditions and faith then are they all holy zealous champions But they are damned and swerv notoriously from the truth if they may be themselvs beleeved when they contest with one another which ever happens after the first great victory with the common enemy obtained One thing is singular in this book of Whitbies that he frames no answers out of any
almost from the very beginning of the Church This is not a novelty then As for Papal Superiority the Protestant Centuriators acknowledg That in the fift age of the Church above a thousand years ago the Roman Byshops applyed themselves to establish dominion over other Churches and That they usurped to themselves right of granting priviledges and ornaments to other Archbyshops and That they confirmed Archbyshops in their Sees and That they deposed and excommunicated some and absolved others That they arrogated power to themselves of citing other Archbyshops to declare their caus before them That against a byshop appealing to the Apostolick See nothing should be determined but what the byshop of Rome censured That they appointed their legates in remote Provinces challenging autority to hear and determin all uprising controversies especially in questions of faith That they took upon them power of appointing general councels and to preside therein either by themselves or their deputies rejecting for unlawful those Synods that were called without their authority They also adde in the same century That Roman Byshops had flatterers in those times who affirmed that without permission of the Roman byshop none might undertake the person of a judge Nay forgetting themselves they averre in the same century Collat. 775. That antiquity had attributed the principality of Priesthood to the Roman byshop above all I could alledg also the like confession of Beza Mr. Whitgift and Cartwright but those eminent Protestant Centuriators may serv for all who testifie further in that fifth century That Victor called the Roman Church the head of all Churches That Turbius Asturiensis flattered Pope Leo and acknowledged his superiority That sometimes byshops condemned in Synods appealed to the See of Rome as did say they Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople in the Councel of Ephesus and that Councels also requested to have their acts confirmed by the byshop of Rome And so indeed did not only Flavianus appeal to Pope Leo but Talida Patriarch of Alexandria deposed by the Emperour Zeno appealed also to Pope Simplicius S. Athanasius to Pope Julius c. So did the Councel of Chalcedon request to be confirmed by Pope Leo the Councel of Carthage by Pope Innocent the Councel of Ephesus by Pope Celestin c. The like superiority of the Roman byshop not only over the neighbour Churches and Byshops of Italy but over remote provinces and the greatest Archbyshops and Patriarks of the world is acknowledged by Protestants to have been practised also before that in the fourth age when the Church first lift up her head by favour of Constantine the great and appeared openly in the world In this age say the Centuriators the mystery of iniquity was not idle And they say also that then the byshop of Rome challenged by ecclesiastical canon the disallowing of those Synods whereat they were absent That Theodoret a greek father who lived about the latter end of this age deposed by the Councel of Ephesus was restored to his byshoprick by Pope Leo unto whom he had made his appeal and that S. Chrysostom appealed likewise to Pope Innocentius who thereupon decreed his adversary Theophilus to be excommunicated and deposed That the famous and ancient Councel of Sardis consisting of above 300. byshops assembled from Spain France Italy Sardinia Greece Egypt Thebais Lybia Palestin Arabia and sundry other places of the world and wherat sundry fathers of the Nicen Councel were present decreed appeals to the byshop of Rome for which fact the Centuriators blame the said councel as do also Osiander Calvin Peter Martyr and others And lastly that wheras the Arrians had expelled Athanasius byshop of Alexandria Paulus byshop of Constantinople and other Catholick byshops of the East and brought their accusation to Julius then byshop of Rome that he might ratifie what they had done he the said byshop summoned Athanasius according to the canons and when he had heard all sides speak he restored Athanasius and his fellow byshops to their own place fretus ecclesiae Romanae praerogativa as the Centurists there speak In the age before this when raging persecution obscured both the government and most of the written monuments of that time yet want there not monuments of the Popes power in confirming deposing restoring byshops Then it was that S. Cyprian as himself testifies moved Pope Stephen by his letters to depose Martianus from his byshoprick and appoint another in his place and he tells us likewise in his fourth epistle how Basilides went to Rome hoping to beguile Pope Stephen then ignorant of the whole matter so to procure himself to be restored to his byshoprick from which he had been justly saith S. Cyprian deposed In this age the foresaid learned Centuriators reprove Pope Stephen for his undertaking to threaten excommunication to Helenus and Firmiltanus and all others throughout Cilicia Cappadocia and Asia for rebaptizing hereticks they reprove also as became Protestants to do both S. Cyprian and Tertullian in this point Tertullian for saying that the keyes were committed to S. Peter and the Church built on him S. Cyprian for affirming the Church to be built upon S. Peter and one chair founded by our Lords voice upon the rock for calling Peters chair the principal Church from whence Priestly unity ariseth and for saying that there ought to be one byshop in the Catholik Church and that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other for the mother and root of the Catholik Church In the second age the next after the apostles wherof fewer monuments remain yet be there some testimonies of this superiority acknowledged even by Protestants Pope Victor is owned even by our Mr. Whitgift in his defence to be a godly byshop and martyr and the Church in his time in great purity not being long after the apostles times and yet Amandus Polonus a Protestant Professour at Basil sayes in his theological thesis of the same Pope Victor That he shewed a Papal mind and arrogancy and Mr. Spark in his answer against John Albines thinks him somewhat Pope-like to have exceeded his bounds when he took upon him to excommunicate the byshops of the East and Whitaker charges him with exercising jurisdiction upon other Churches So that these three Protestants discerned a papal power even in this second pure age of the Church although they liked it not But the Protestant Centuriators do much except against a saying of S. Irenaeus who lived in this age next after the apostles and might well remember the apostles own lively preachings as Hamelmannus a Protestant writer in his book of traditions speaks both of Irenaeus and Polycarp recorded in the third chapter of his third book Ad hanc enim ecclesiam Romanam propter potentiorem principalit atem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam It is necessary that every other Church saith Irenaeus comply with the Roman by reason of her greater principality First becaus he sayes it is necessary secondly that every Church thirdly for