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
faggot guns and daggers do more then show you have not yet let go those hot and surious imaginations It is a phrase so ordinary with you that when another writer of your own judgment would have told me that my words are false or besides the purpos or the like you in a phrase of your own tell me still that I speak guns and daggers If he mean say you of me p 27. that ther is in good works an intrinsecal worth c. he speaks daggers and doth not himself beleev what he sayes And again p. 94. For men to come now in the end of the world and tell us That we must rest in the autority of the present Church c. is to speak daggers and swords to us upon a confidence that we will suffer our selves to be befoold So likewise p. 340. He tells us say you of me it is good to prefer a Translation besore the Originals What shall we do with those men that speak such swords and daggers and are well neither full nor fasting I pray Sir where did you borrow this trope had you it from the school of Aristotle or Mars his camp Thirdly your prophetick assurance so often inculcated that if you could but once com to whisper me in the ear I would plainly acknowledge either that I understand not my self what I say or if I do beleev it not givs a fair character of those fanatick times wherin ignorance and hypocrisy prevailed over worth and truth wherof if your self wer any part it is no wonder you should think that I or any man els should either speak he knows not what or beleev not what himself speaks It was the proper badg of those times when after the alarm sounded in the Pulpit that our people therupon went forth in troops to battle neither did the peasant understand nor the man in black beleev although the sound rung generally in their ears that it was the sword of the Lord and of Gideon which they brandisht against the loyal band their foes Measuring me it seems by your self you tell me no loss than seaven times in your book that I beleev not and I think seaventy times that I understand not what I speak my self It is a kind of charity in you to think your neighbour is as you know your self to be But I do not much care for that charity except you were better than I find you are Fourthly your pert assertion so often occurring in your book that ther is neither reason truth nor honesty in my words is but the overflowing of that former intemperat zeal and the more frequent it occurs the less approbation it will find Fiftly your sharp and frequent menaces that if I write or speak again I shall hear more find more feel more more to my smart more than I imagin more than I would rellishes too much of that insulting humour our bleeding Land then groaned under the many years of our anarchical confusion Sixthly the absence of your name in the frontispiece of your book which I have never before observed in all my life of any Protestant writer that hath ever in my time set forth a book here in England against Popery givs no small suspicion that the Authour of our Animadversione is no such Protestant as he would be thought to be Lastly that I may omit other special reasons your other general trick of charging me then most of all with sraud ignonorance and wickedness when in your own heart you find me most clear from any such blemish thereby to put a vail upon your own caus which would otherways be disparaged makes me smell a fox a notorious one Sic notus Ulysses This has been too often acted here in England to be soon forgotten The better the caus the lowder still was the cry against those who stood for it that the blustering nois of calumnies might drown all report of their innocence And by all this I cannot Sir but suspect that if the description of Popery your Animadversions givs us be right you are a Papist your self and no true Protestant a notorious Papist But as it is so let it be Thus much I only tell you that you may see I am neither neglective of your book nor idle but have perused and read it over And although what for the threats of your Animadversions and what for the reasons of my own Fiat I may not enter into controversie yet I hope I may let you know that I have seen your work And that you may the better credit me I will give you a short account of it first in general then in particular And this is all I mean here to do The whole design of Fiat Lux you do utterly mistake throughout all your book of Animadversions so that you conceiv that to be a controversy which is none that to be absolutely asserted which is but hypothetically discoursed out of the exceptions of other men that to be only for one side which is indifferently for all although I speak most for them that are most spoken against and am in very deed absolutely against all speaking quarrelling disputing about Religion If you will but have patience to hear my purpos and design which to all men not interested and blinded with a prejudice is clear enough relucent in the whole context of my Fiat what I say will easily appear to your self Fiat Lux sayes one thing and supposes it another thing he desires and aims at that he dislikes this he commends We are at this day at variance about Religion this Fiat Lux supposes But it were better to have peace this he aims at and desires And both these things are intermingled up and down in my book according to that small faculty that God hath given me though not according to the usual method that is found now adayes in books Here Sir in few words you have the summe of my Fiat And I hope you will grant that to be the scope of my book which I made it for That we are now at variance is most clear and certain by me supposed and not to be denied And that it were better to have peace is as absolutely expedient as the other is evidently true These then being things both of them which no man can resist either by denying the one or disliking the other I thought them better intermingled then set apart and with more reason to be supposed then industriously proved Yet to superinduce a disposition unto peace my only work was to demonstrate an uselesnes an endlesnes an unprofitablenes of quarrels which I laboured quite through my book beginning it with an intimation of our quarrels which St. Paul calls the fruits and works of the flesh and ending it with a commendation of charity which is the great fruit and blessing of Gods holy Spirit Now the easier to perswade my Countreymen to a belief both of the one and the other first is insinuated in Fiat Lux both the ill grounds and
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
in this very section he tells us a little afterward that the Councel of Basil decreed the second Article against the Pope And I am sure the same Councel of Basil decreed the first article of the immaculate Conception sess 36. Surely the year of our Lord 1431. when that Councel was kept is not now to come Where and when and how can they be more then they are already I suppose he prophesies this by reason of som vehement disputes about those points If this be it he may adde yet five hundred more which are more vehemently disputed than these be One of them it is much he could miss For the superiority betwixt the King of France and Spain has been often agitated not only by their Embassadours in Kingdoms where they reside but even in Councels also and that with too much of vehemency there As concerning the Conception I know the two schools of divine S. Thomas and subtile Scotus have much altercation about an instant of time an Aristotelical Instant so swift and short an instant that no thought of man though never so nimble can ever catch it And the general Pastour has silenced that School-dispute becaus it sounded ill and signified nothing What is it to action or any esteem towards that Blessed Virgin that she was pure in her Conception by Gods preventing grace as one school speaks or by his sanctifying grace as the other school declares it that she was ever Immaculate Gods mercy providing that in no instant imaginable she should be liable to original sin as Scotus teaches or Gods grace so working that immediatly after that instant she should be made pure and holy as Saint Thomas speaks For this is the school dispute which your Disswader if he understands himself here talks of And those very Doctours who dispute this and all pious Christians have ever unanimously beleeved that the Blessed Virgin was not only most pure and unspotted in her whole life but even from her first animation in the womb So that if we speak of a real and complete Conception she is already beleeved to be Immaculate And from this universal Tradition wherin Catholiks agree and are already resolved the first reforming Protestants departed as well as from many others Nor in any probability will ever that Aristotelical School instant which signifies just nothing as to any Christian action be ever thought of unless som greater disorder then I have yet heard of exact a further decision about a thing which it is not the weight of a hair whether it be expressed according to the school of S. Thomas or of Scotus The like I say to that other article which your Disswader prophesies will shortly come forth concerning the Popes being above a Councel For that ther is and ought to be one visible Pastour over all Christs slock upon earth whether essential or representative is a Christian Tradition which Catholiks still embrace but Protestants have left And this tradition together with the former of the immaculate Conception if your Disswader had endeavoured to show either not to have been or likely not to be perpetual his endeavour however insufficient had not been at least impertinent But instead of that he tells us that this and that will shortly com forth new articles not heeding that himself and such as he have departed from the old And this his prophesie in this is as vain as in the other For that the Pope who is and ever was beleeved the head and Prince of the whole Councel should be also above it and his authority there greater then all the rest beside is a speculative querk that ambition may think but sober reason will never deem of moment For whether he be above the Councel that is to say of greater authority then all the other Prelates put together or not above but their authority joyned together as great or greater then his neither they without him nor he without them can positively declare any thing with authentick authority for the silencing of differences which arise in faith I' th interim the chief Prelate is for certain above the Councel in this sence that he is their Prince and Superiour as also he has in himself a negative voice both with the Councel and without it For this is a right ingrafted naturally in the condition of all whatever superiority spiritual or civil without which they could not rule or mannage their charge By it they silence disquiets and end debates according to the tenour of laws already made which in such cases they are by their place and office to interpret so far at least that one party shall not carry it against the other which he shall judge in such and such circumstances to com nearer to law and right than he This power I say every superiour must have over his subjects whether his authority be greater then all theirs put together in the making of laws or not Nor is it of any concernment at all since one without the other can enact no laws that may have their full and perpetual force which of them is the greater The statutes and acts that are made in any Kingdom by the King and Parliament of the place have the same force whether the Kings Majesty who is superiour prince and head of the Parliament be above the whole Parliament that is of more authority than all the rest there put together and weighed in a ballance against him yea or no. Nor would he gain or lose any one jot of his dignity authority or reverence whatever should be concluded in a pair of subtil speculatours scales concerning that point Although for my part I hold it little better than busie sedition to rais such fantastick doubts And the danger of it we experienced here in this Kingdom but the other day And I may be bold to say by what I know and heard my self that the hint was given them by Ministers talking upon this point of the Popes not being above his Councel Catholiks know how to obey their Pope and Pastour whether he be above or not above a Councel which silly querk concerns not them to think of But others are apt to catch fire at any thing which may any wayes dissolve the bands of their due obedience Thus much concerning the two points of school-speculation which your Disswader prophesies will shortly be determined But he does but dream and so let him sleep on The third new article is that which was lately produced saith he in the Councel of Trent sess 21. which is That although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Insants yet they did not beleev it necessary to salvation Your Disswader seems here tacitly to grant that all the other Canons and Decrees of the Councel of Trent are old and primitive doctrin He would not otherwis have culled out from thence this one only article for new I looked into the Councel of Trent and found there no such article of faith as this your Disswader speaks
his many filthy adulteries drunkennesses cheats slanders murders or the like although by Gods grace he should find mercy at his last hour These if I could stand to enlarge my self upon them being themselves Christian Traditions and Apostolical doctrin might in som sence be said to be the grounds of expiatory penalties after this life commonly called Purgatory But those others which your Disswader mentions are but som congruities latelier put together by Doctours to clear unto unstable Christians as far as they may be able the rationality of their Christian Tradition concerning expiations after this life which Preachers in their sermons and Doctoars in their chairs usually invent and utter as well in this affair as other businesses of faith som with more firmitude and som with less according to their learning and capacity I say they are congruities for it and good ones too but no grounds of it For faith is not deduced by reasons or drawn from premises or concluded from grounds And although this faith be manifold and about sundry matters as the Creation Redemption Justification Resurrection and the like yet all these particular faiths depend immediately like several raies on one sun upon the one only authority and truth of the first Revealer which is the foundation and ground of all And if those above-named affections be no grounds of this faith concerning future expiations much less is that true and firm tradition Blessed are those that dye in our Lord any ground against it For they are happy and happy that ever they were born who dye in our Lord that is to say in his faith and fear in his love and grace But ther are as many degrees of dying in our Lord as ther be varieties of the lives and actions of those that dye in him And they all rest from the labours of this life and som also are freed from the pains of the other who depart hence in a more complete reconciliation with him §. 5. Which is about Transubstantiation Sayes that Transubstantiation is another novelty in the Roman Church so much a novelty that we know the very time of its birth and how it was introduced For Scotus Occam Biel Fisher Bassolis Cajetan Melchior Caen acknowledg that it is not exprest in Scripture and in Peter Lombards time they knew not whether it was true or no. Durandus a good Catholik after the Lateran Councel where it was first declared said it was not faith as Scotus sayes it was no faith before it Nor did the Lateran Councel determin that which now the Roman Church holds which doctrin of theirs is a stranger to antiquity as Alphonsus à Castro acknowledges and the same is made good by the testimonies of Tertallian Justin Martyr Eusebius Macarius Ephrem Gregory Nazianzen Chrysostom Austin the Canon law it self Theodoret and Pope Gelasius who all witness that the bread is our Lords body spiritually And your Disswader therfor advises his charge to take heed they be not led away by rhetorical words to beleev the Roman doctrin which is an innovation and dangerous practice about which they make many foolish questions as whether a mouse may run away with her maker whether a Priest is the Creatour of God c. In fine Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible For Christs glorious body cannot be broken nor yet the mere accidents nor one body multiplied as be many wafers and it is against the demonstration of our sences Sir I know well enough that Tertullian Justin Martyr Eusebius Macarius Ephrem Gregory Nazianzen Theodoret Chrysostom and S. Austin were all of them not only Roman Catholiks but Catholik priests too and could easily prove it But if your Disswader should have the confidence to deny that I hope yet he will grant me that Scotus Occham Biel Bassolis Cajetan Melchior Caen Durand and Alphonsus à Castro Papish School-men and Doctours of the Church and Friars were all such and as for Bishop Fisher Peter Lombard and Pope Gelasius these I may almost presume he will let pass for Papists What is then this Roman doctrin which so many Roman Doctours whereof each one had such a multitude of disciples and followers in the Catholik world do not so much as acknowledg Where shall we finde it For your Disswader names heaps of Popish Doctours that deny it and not any one that owns it nor ever so much as tells us what it is What strange kind of proceeding is this Nay in the beginning of the section he tells us that this Popery of Transubstantiation is so new that it is well enough known to have begun in the Councel of Lateran and yet in the middle of the very same section sayes expresly that the opinion was not determined in the Lateran Councel as it is now held at Rome The Popery or popish doctrin of Transubstantiation now held at Rome it is very well known to all saith he that it had its first beginning in the Lateran Councel and yet addes that the opinion was not determined in the Lateran Councel as it is now held at Rome What opinion Sir was determined in the Lateran Councel and what is that which is now held at Rome Does not your Disswader speak of the doctrin now held at Rome when beginning his section he speaks thus The doctrin of Transubstantiation is so fan from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began to be owned publickly for an opinion and the very Councel in which it passed for a publick doctrin which Councel two or three lines afterward he sayes was the Councel of Lateran under Pope Innocent the third twelve hundred years after Christ. And against that new doctrin which began he sayes twelve hundred years after Christ and thereby convicted of novelty he writes this his whole section What means he then in the name of God but only two pages after namely p. 39. to say that the opinion was not determined in the Later an as it is now held at Rome Is that opinion now held at Rome younger or older than the Councel Lateran and when began that opinion held at Rome or was it from the beginning And against which of the opinions does he speak in this section For against both of them together he cannot The very head and principal and as it were the summe of all his discours in this section The doctrin of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began and the Councel it passed for a doctrin c. It was but a disputable question till the Councel of Lateran in the time of Pope Innocent 1200. and more after Christ c. This I say cannot agree with the doctrin now held at Rome which he sayes afterward is another thing from that which was determined in the Councel of Lateran If then this parcel of Popery which he sayes in one place is not that which was determined in the Councel of Lateran and in another place is that which
Prophetae autem duo tres dicant caeteri dijudicent Quod si alii revelatem fuerit sedenti prior taceat Potestis enim omnes per singulos prophetari ut omnes discant omnes exhortentur Et spiritus prophetarum prophetis subjecti sunt This is the great result of this whole chapter and the very utmost that the Quakers would have and what they practice daily in their meetings If any speak in a tongue saith the Apostle let it be by two or at most by three and that by cours and let one interpret But if there be no interpreter let him keep silence in the Church and speak to himself and God Let the Prophets speak two or three and let the other judg and if any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by let the first hold his peace for ye may all prophesie one by one that all may learn and all be exhorted or comforted And the spirit of the prophets are subject to Prophets Let your Disswader now speak what he thinks but speak it openly that the good Quaker may as well hear him as the Papist and speak it so effectually that as far as in him lies all the whole three Kingdoms may be perswaded that this chapter concerns the publick Service of the Church If this were once done I beleev there would not be ere long so much as one byshop or minister left in the Land And it were a less dammage to your Disswader that adultery were reconciled to the seventh Commandment than Church-service to his fourteenth Chapter of Corinthians Why ther is a language used in the Catholik liturgy which though it be not the tongue of any one Countrey yet it is the most universally known language of the whole Catholik family upon earth is sufficiently discoursed in Fiat Lux. I need not stand here to repeat it I must go on §. 8. Which is about Images Sayes that Image-worship wherin Papists give the same worship to the pictures as is due to the thing represented is another novelty and that a heathenish one too brought in first by Simon Magus and then the Gnosticks against which writes Clemens Alexandrinus and others insomuch that S. Cyril in the time of Emperour Julian denies that Christians did worship the Cross and Epiphanius is said to have cut in pieces a cloth picture wherin was the image of Christ or some Saint And therfore the decrees of the second Nicen Synod which had approved images was abrogated by another general Councel at Frankford a little after which Councel the Emperour sent Claudius a godly preacher to preach against Images in Italy And well he might for the Councel of Eliberis had long before that time declared against them And all the devices of Roman writers to palliate this crime are frivolous for the pure primitive times would not allow the making of Images as witnes Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen Here is much ado about a shadow Whatsoever your Disswader could pick up that might sound but like his purpos is here in a general mass heaped up together whether it do touch his purpos or not at all concern it or be haply against himself Theodoret forsooth S. Austin and Irenaeus these must all testifie that Simon Magus first brought images into the Church wherof they have not any one such word The same fathers with Epiphanius must accuse the Gnosticks and Carpocratians for the same thing wheras they only blame them for placing the pictur of Jesus and S. Paul with Homer Pythagoras Plato Aristotle and other Heathens Clemens and Origen disown and write against heathens Idolatry So that all this concerns not our purpos The two Councels of Eiiberis and Frankford are against him and so is likewise S. Cyril who in the very place cited objects extream ignorance to Julian the Apostate who had cast the Christians in the teeth with their worshipping a wooden Cross which they would not do to great Jupiter and their painting the images of it in their foreheads and afore their houses And Saint Cyril tells Julian that the Cross put Christians in mind of the vertue and good which Christ their Lord had done and suffered for them which the good Doctour calls the precious and health-giving wood And we may see not only by S. Cyrils answer but by the objections of the Apostate Julian what manner of Christians ther were in those dayes fourteen hundred years ago The Councel of Eliberis was kept in Spain in the time of Emperour Galerius when many Christians by reason of the bitterness of persecution sacrificed through fear unto the heathen gods and much contumely was done all over the world and especially in Spain both to Christians themselves and the holy Gospel and all sacred things Wherfor the Councel laid heavy pennances on all such Christians as should so apostatize either into heathensme heresie or the notorious sin of adultery and amongst other things c. 36. ordained that no sacred pictures should be painied upon the walls becaus namely there they stood fixed and were liable to the contumely of pagans wheras such as were in frames and tables might easily be removed and put into a safe place That Councel of Eliberis becaus they adjoyn not a reason unto their decree may easily be mistaken although the one may be discerned in the other by a judicious and serious reader Ne quod colitur aut adoratur saith the Councel in parietibus deping atur For the picture properly speaking terminates neither respect nor contumely but the thing represented by it which if it be divine must not receiv contumely if it can be helped from wicked men But the Councel of Frankford I cannot but wonder why your Disswader should cite it as an enemy to Images Did not that Councel consist of Catholik or popish Prelates 300. of them gathered together under the Legates of Pope Adrian the first in which also the Emperour Charles the Great as stout a Champion of the Roman Church as any ever was in the world was actually present O but Eginard Hincmar Amonius Blondus and others testifie that the said Councel of Frankford condemned the second Nicen Synod wherin images were establisht calling it an Antichristian assembly But how can this be thought probable nay I may say possible of those two Councels being so near one another that ther were not above eight or nine years space between them and both of them under one and the same Pope Adrian the first Can any beleev this though twenty Eginards should say it But he is not found indeed to speak ought of it Hincmar sayes that they of Frankford condemned the Synod assembled at Nice without the Popes authority But that Nicen Synod was both assembled and confirmed by the authority of that very same Pope who called and ratified this of Frankford Blondus sayes that they abrogated the seventh Synod and the Faelician heresie de tollendis imaginibus And none of them say that they of Frankford called that Nicen Synod