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
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
will reply to all such reasonings but you have the pregnant wit not to heed any thing that may hinder your flourishes But Sir if you were kept up in a chamber with a learned Jew without bread water and fire till you had satisfied him in that objection I am still well enough assured for all your aery vaunts that if you do not make use of your Credo which here you contemn you might there stay till hunger and cold had made an end of you But I beleev you love not such dry blows however you may be delighted with pen encounters at a distance where after your suppositum has been well inspired with the warm spirits blown hither out of the fortunate islands you may cavil revile and threaten at your pleasure and knock down the shadow of your adversary which your own spirits have raised up and presented to you in your chamber 10 ch from page 213 to 228. Your tenth chapter runs over two of my paragraffs which speak the plea of Independents Presbyterians and Protestants That you esteem idle the other sensles the last insufficient And to make this last good you endeavour to disable both what I have set down to make against the prelate Protestant and also what I have said for him I said in Fiat Lux that it made not a little against our Protestants that after the prelate Protestancy was settled in England they were forced for their own preservation against Puritans to take up som of those principles again which former Protestants had cast down for Popish as is the autority of a visible Church efficacy of ordination difference between clergy and laiety c. Here first you deny that those principles are popish But Sir ther be som Jews even at this day who will deny any such man as Pontius Pilate to have ever been in Jury I have other things to do than to fill volums with useles texts which here I might easily do out of the books both of the first reformers and catholik divines and councels Then secondly you challenge me to prove that those principles were ever denied by our prelate Protestants And this you do wittily and like your self You therfor bid me prove that those principles were ever denied by our prelate Protestants becaus I say that our prelate Protestants here in England as soon as they became such took up again those forenamed principles which Protestants their forefathers both here in England and beyond the seas before our prelacy was set up had still rejected When I say then that our prelate Protestant affirmed and asserted those principles which former Protestants denied you bid me prove that our prelate Protestant ever denied them Thus you contradict what I say is pleaded against our prelate Protestant And again you do as stiffly gain-say what I plead for him my self You laugh at me even with head and shoulders and tell me that the prelate-Protestant has far better arguments for themselvs then either mine is or any I can bring nor do they need the help of such a weak logician as my self in this their caus Sir give me leav to tell you here once for all that I thought it sufficient for my design to set down either for Papist or Protestant when occasion required such reasons as appeared plausible to my self and to say all for them that can be said was neither the work of my small ability nor any purpos of my design And it is enough to me that I know no better But let us see what my argument is and how you crush it The Church say I must have a byshop or otherwise she will not have such a visible head as she had at first c. This that you may evacuate you tell me that the Church hath still the same head she had which is Christ who is present with his Church by his Spirit and laws and is man-God still as much as ever he was and ever the same will be and if I would have any other visible bishop to be that head then it seems I would not have the same head and so would have the same and yet not the same Thus you speak But Sir I cannot in any reason be thought to speak otherwise if we would use true logick of the identity of the head than I do of the identity of the body of the Church This body is not numerically the same for the men of the first age are long ago gone out of the world and another generation com who yet are a body of Christians of the same kind becaus they adhere to the same principles of faith And as the body is of the same kind though not numerically the same so do I require that since Jesus Christ as man the head immediate of other beleeving men is departed hence to the glory of his Father that the Church should still have a head of the same kind as visibly now present as she had in the beginning or els say I she cannot be completely the same body or a body of the same kind she was But this she hath not this she is not except she have a visible by shop as she had in the beginning present with her guiding and ruling under God Christ our Lord is indeed still man-God but this man-hood is now separate nor is he visibly now present as man which immediately headed his beleevers under God on whose influence that natur depended His Godhead is still the same in all things not only in it self but in order also to his Church as it was before equally invisible and in the like manner beleeved but the natur delegate under God and once ruling visibly amongst us by words and examples is now utterly withdrawn And if a natur of the same kind be not now delegate with a power of exteriour government as at the first ther was then hath not the Church the same head now which she had then nor is she the same polity or body she was before Qui habet aures audiendi audiat And here by the way we may take notice what a sincere English Protestant you are who labour so stoutly to evacuate my argument for episcopacy and leav none of your own behind you nor acquaint the world with any although you know far better but would make us beleev notwithstanding those far better reasons for prelacy that Christ himself as he is the immediate and only head of the invisible influence so is he likewise the only and immediate head of visible direction and government among us without the interposition of any person delegate in his stead to oversee and rule under him in his Church on earth which is against the tenour both of sacred gospel and S. Pauls epistles and all antiquity and the present ecclesiastick polity of England and is the doctrin not of any English Protestant but of the Presbyterian Independent and Quaker Christ then in your way is immediate head not only of subministration and influence but of
me soberly Did the apostle mean by those words Cast out the Bond-woman with her son that the sons of Ishmael should be put to the sword or banisht out of their kingdom Now pray hear my discours which I coppied out of that original If my reader here be cautious he may easily discern a reason why all these sects are so boisterous one against another and every one of them against the Roman catholik Ismael disturbed the whole hous and was ever quarrelling and bustling against Isaac The reason is the same both here and there Ismael was a natural son and Isaac the legitimate heir And natural sons be generally seditious violent and clamorous As Ismael therfor was Isaac his natural brother so is a Protestant Minister but the by-blow of a catholick Priest the Presbyterian likewise to him and so forward till you com to the Quaker who was begot by a delusion and brought into the world by a fright his hand is against every man and every mans hand against him The remedy and only means of peace is Ejice ancillam cum puero suo These be my words out of S. Paul and what is his meaning the same is mine But you will have me in spight of my teeth becaus I speak nothing but good still to mean som evil I thought S. Paul had meant by those words if I must needs discover my understanding to you that the peaceable Isaacs were the only sons of Gods promised love and favour the inheritance of which blessing boisterous Ishmaels can never work out to themselvs by all their persecutions and bustling contentions And according to this meaning I concluded that to consider and think seriously of this were the only remedy and means of peace amongst us here in England Ejice ancillam cum puero suo is an antidote against all contentions emulations which are a suspicious mark not of an elect but of a reprobate But whatever I say I must neither think nor mean but what you will have me to do and that shall still be somthing that is odious An emblem hereof was the rod of Moses which in Moses hand was a walking-staff but out of it a serpent 15 ch from page 286 to 304. In your fifteenth chapter upon my paragraff of Messach you are in a mighty plunge what this Messach should be and what the ctimology of that word Latin it is not greek it is not and you are sure it is not hebrew surely it is say you some uncouth word like that of the Gnosticks Paldabaoth Alas good Sir it is English a pure English word used here in England all the Saxons time and som hundred years after the conquest till the French monosyllable had by little and little worn out the last syllable of the word And you may find it yet in the old Saxon laws which I have read my self those especially of King Ina if I rightly remember the name which be yet extant wherin strict care and provision is made that a due reverence be kept by all people in the Church all the time of their Messach which now we call Mess or Mass. Then having laughed at my admiration of catholik Service you carp at me for saying that the first Christians were never called together to hear a sermon and to convince me you bring som places out of S. Pauls Epistles and the Acts which commend the ministery of the word This indeed is your usual way of refuting my speeches you flourish copiously in that which is not at all against me and never apply it to my words lest it should appear as it is impertinent I deny not that people were by Gods word converted or that converts were further instructed or that the preaching of Gods word is good and useful many wayes but that which I say is that primitive Christians were never called together for that end as the great work of their Christianity This I have so clearly proved both in the second dialogue of the Reclaimed Papist and also in the foresaid paragraff of Messach that you divert from that to declaim of the necessity and excellency of preaching and bring neither text nor reason that may reach to my words at all You go on and wonder much that we should hear nothing in scriptur of this Christian sacrifice is any such were Sir you will neither hear nor see But say you the passion of our Lord is our Christian sacrifice Do not I say so too But that this incruent sacrifice was instituted by the same Lord before his death to figur out daily before our eyes that passion of his which was then approaching in commemoration of his death so long as the world should last this tho I plainly speak it you take no notice of it But the Judaical sacrifice say you is said by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews in this to differ from the sacrifice of Christians that ours was don but once theirs often It is true the sacrifice of our Lords passion of which the apostle in that whole discours only treats in opposition to that of bulls and goats was so don but once that it could not be don twice But as the sacrifices of the old law were instituted by almighty God to be often iterated before the passion of the Messias for a continual exercise of religion so did the same Lord for the very same purpos of religious exercise institute another to be iterated after his death unto which it were to have reference when it should be past as the former had to the same death when it was to com And it hath a reference so much the more excellent as that it doth by the almighty power of the same Messias exhibit to the faith of his beleevers that very true real body as crucified amongst us wherof the former Mosaical sacrifices gave meerly a shadow Did not our Lord do this Were not the apostles according to this rite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrificing to our great Lord God when S. Paul was by imposition of hands segregated from the laiety for his divine service as I clearly in that my paragraff evince out of the history of the Acts of the apostles No say you the apostles were not then about any sacrifice but only preaching Gods word or som such thing to the people in the name and behalf of God But Sir is this to be in earnest or to jest The sacred text sayes they were sacrificing to our Lord liturgying and ministring to him You say They were not sacrificing to God but only preaching to the people And now the question is whether you or I more rightly understand that Apostolicall book For my sence and meaning I have all antiquity as well as the plain words of sacred text you have neither 16 ch from page 304 to 313. Your sixteenth chapter upon my paragraff of the Virgin Mary which is you say the most disingenious of all my book is spent in an invective against calumnies which
brings you upon your often iterated common place of Pagans 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 he sees hanging 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 Propher 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
that lives the substance of it which is soon and easily conveighed Christ our Lord drew a compendium of all divine truths into two words which his great apostle again abridged into one And if the several gospels for every day in the year which are or may be in the hands of all catholiks the chiefest particles of divine epistles books of sacred history and meditation upon all the mysteries of salvation and spiritual treatises for all occasions and uses which be numberles amongst catholiks adjoyned to the many several rites of examination of conscience daily and continual practis of prayer and fasting and an orderly commemoration of the things God hath wrought for us throughout the year which all by law are tied to observ and do observ them may not give a sufficient acquaintance of what concerns our salvation and promote them enough towards it I am to seek what it is that can or what further good it may do to read the letter of Saint Pauls epistles to the Romans for example or Corinthians wherin questions and cases and theological discourses are treated that vulgar people can neither understand nor are at all concerned to know And I pray you tell me ingeniously and without heat what more of good could accrew to any by the translated letter of a book whereof I will be bold to say that nine parts in ten concern not my particular either to know or practis than by the conceived substance of Gods will to me and my own duty towards him or what is ther now here in England when the letter of scriptur is set open to every mans eye any more either of peace or charity piety or justice than in former catholik times when the substance of Gods word and will was given people in short and the observance of their duty prolixly prest upon them What did they do in those ancient catholik times they flockt every day in the week to their Churches which stood continually open there to pray and meditate and renew their good purposes they sung psalms hymns and canticles all over the land both day and night they built all our churches that we have at this day remaining amongst us and as many more which we have razed and pulled down they founded our universities established our laws set out tythes and glebe-land for their clergy built hospitals erected corporations in a word did all the good things we found don for our good in this our native kingdom But Quid agitur in Anglia Consulitur de religione The former Christians practised and we dispute they had a religion we are still seeking one they exercised themselves in good works by the guidance of their holy catholik faith which leads to them all these works we by our faith evacuate as menstruous rags they had the substance of true religion in their hearts we the text in our lips they had nothing to do but to conform their lives to Gods will all our endeavour is to apply Gods word to our own factions Sir mistake me not The question between us is not Whether the people are to have Gods word or no but whether that word consists in the letter left to the peoples disposal or in the substance urgently imposed upon people for their practis And this becaus you understand not but mistake the whole business all your talk in this your eighteenth chapter vades into nothing Where Fiat Lux sayes in that forenamed paragraff that the Pentateuch or hagiography was never by any High-priest among the Jews put into a vulgar tongue nor the Gospel or Liturgy out of greek in the Eastern part of the Christian Church or latin in the Western You slight this discours of mine becaus hebrew greek and latin was say you vulgar tongues themselvs I know this well enough But when and how long ago were they so not for som hundreds of years to my knowledge And was the Bible Psalms or Christian liturgy then put into vulgar tongues when those they were first writ in ceased to be vulgar This you should have spoke to if you had meant to say any thing or gain-say me Nor is it to purpos to tell me that S. Jerome translated the Bible into Dalmatian I know well enough it has been so translated by some special persons into Gothish Armenian Ethiopian and other particular dialects But did the Church either of the Hebrews or Christians either greek or latin ever deliver it so translated to the generality of people or use it in their service or command it so to be don as a thing of general concernment and necessity So far is it from this that they would never permit it This I said and I first said it before you spoke and your meer gainsay without further reason or probability of proof cannot disposses me Dr. Cousins now byshop of Durham lately sojourneying in Paris when he understood of a grecian byshops arrival there did with some other English Gentlemen in his company give him a visit and with the same or like company went afterwards to see him The articles of our English Church were translated into greek and shown him Many questious were asked him about the service of the grecian Church praying for the dead invocation of Saints real presence confession c. Dr. Cousins can tell himself what answer he received from that venerable grave prolate Cyrillus archbishop of Trapesond for that was his name and title In brief he owned not those articles as any way consonant to the faith of the Greeks who beleeved and had ever practised the contrary He also told them distinctly and openly that Mass or Liturgy was and had ever been the great work of their Christianity all over the greek Church that confession of sins to a priest praying for the dead invocation of saints and such like points wherein we in England differ from papists were all great parts of their religion and their constant practis Finally he let them know that all the Liturgies both those of St. Basil St. Chrysostom St. Gregory Nazianzen were ever kept in the learned greek differing from the vulgar language And withall showed his own greek book of Liturgy which he used himself at the altar Dr. Cousins did himself see him officiate with his lay-brother a monk of St. Basil belonging to St. Catherins monastery in mount Sina ministring to him at the altar and found both by his words and practis that in all those and other essential parts and observances of Christianity the Greeks agreed perfectly with the Roman Church This testimony Sir of a venerable arch-byshop to such a worthy person as Dr. Cousins might I should think suffice to justifie my words and make you beleev with me that Christian Liturgies have ever been used as Fiat Lux speaks in a learned language distinct from the vulgar But we need not go far from home for a testimony Neither the Bible nor Service-book was ever seen here in England for a thousand years space in any
of his I think he borrowed of som French Hugonots For all the wayes that be here now in England concur each one unto a body an organical body not only Roman Catholiks but our English Prelacy and Presbyterians too Yea the very Quakers to my knowledg esteem none to be so much as Christians who assemble not with them And they have with them som ministers of the gospel too though extemporary ones A wary reader may observ by the sole mirrour of this book of Whitbies which is a collection of most of the chief authors that have written against Popery since the Reformation how unsettled all Protestants be in all the controverted points of religion wherof ther is not any one by som of them denied but is by som others of them assirmed They know what Church to oppose but how much of her doctrin they should evacuate they could never yet unanimously agree nor what answer to fix steadily to any Catholik ground He will find also amongst other things that our present Protestants now adayes do generally swerv from the first reformers almost in all points both of disciplin and faith about supremacy good works free will possibility of keeping Gods commands the real presence prayer for the dead tradition c. which former Protestants for the first forty years would not abide to hear of but now they are all in a manner so allowed by most Protestants that there appears little difference between their way and catholik faith but only that this stands unchanged the other may alter again to morrow Indeed every Protestant writer is in one thing or other a new reformer as Whitby is here And every half-score years brings forth new scenes nor is there any now that heeds any Protestant writer that is gon if he speak contrary to him though he were never so eminent even in the very point and busines of Reformation This is enough for Whitby I heard Sir above half a year ago that Dr. Barlow had made ready for the Press another book of his own against Mr. Cressy and therfor deteined this my letter with me till I might give you an account of his with it Truly Sir I watched as earnestly for it as any cat watches for a mous But it will not yet appear In the interim one Mr. Stillingfleet has lately written a great book against Popery even so big a book in folio that none may buy it but only such as hate Popery more than they love sixteen shillings And he also proceeds this new french Hugonot way insisted on by Whitby He is only for a Church diffusive that holds fundamentals what ever they be and makes no account of any Church organical Wherby he utterly disables not the Roman Hierarchy only but even our English Protestant Church and government if men do but understand what he sayes And yet this man is mightily applauded by our English by shops which I cannot but marvel at and do thence conclude that they all begin now to think our English Church it self that it may be made good must be pulled down Councels he holds with Whitby that they can have no autority to move our assent although they be general as ther has never been any he sayes these thousand years And what is ther then for Gods sake shall move the Presbyterians Independents and others here in England to approve of the constitutions and government of our English Church set up by a far lesser assembly In a word this whole book of Stillingfleets is a large discours against a Theological argument of some Catholik disputant The argument it seems was this Christian faith cannot be divine except it have its birth from an infallible proposer and consequently the Church must either be infallible or els our faith is not divine The answer of this argument is the very life and vitals of Mr. Stillingfleets whole book That same argument of the Catholik Gentleman is indeed a pretty theological ratiocination and Stillingfleets answer evasions and distinctions both concerning the argument in general and all the particulars it runs into are not unwitty But this is no part of our busines Alas we in our controversies about religion are not come thus far Such a discours had been handsomly fitted to theologicall schools and very proper amongst learned divines there but here not so What is it to our busines in hand whether faith can or cannot be divine except the proposer be infallible and as it were divine This is a meer theological dispute And he that answers Stillingfleets book defends not faith immediately but an argumentators syllogisme Religion indeed as soon as ever it is questioned or disputed runs presently into Philosophy And therin if great heed be not taken it is quite lost And thence it comes to pass that most part of our controversie books is about school philosophy and human reasonings I blame not the Catholik Gentleman who ever he was for his argumenting Nor will Stillingfleet be blamed for defending his place But I let my countreymen spectators of the contest understand that in deed and truth so often as we dispute we are beyond the busines All writers of controversie speak more then faith when they either defend or oppose it And in reading controversies we see not so much the nature of the faith as the wit of him who opposes or defends it and so much this some times that the other is nothing at all discerned This the world must know and understand well or els they will be miserably mistaken as indeed I see all men are When two lawyers plead about a case of right perhaps three hours together all that three hours talk is not law or the right they talk of but only their ratiocinations about it And such are all our controversies about religion And he does best therin who still puts his adversary in mind what is his talk and what is the faith they talk of But he that defends both of them equally forgets himself And thus I see that generally men do miscarry on both sides the Protestant by calling that Romanish doctrin which is but a Catholiks discours for it and the Catholik by maintaining that talk of his which it is not a pin matter whether it stand or fall For faith is firm and constant though all my talk for it be miserably weak Now all the whole busines of faith which Stillingfleet and his adversary talk of is as I take it only this That the Church of Christ hath by Gods divine promis of being ever with her a power to oblige her subjects to hear and obey her if they mean to be happy in their way The Catholik affirms this Stillingfleet with his Protestants deny it And this is all the faith that is in it which is not here touched And a theological busines of Infallibility only spoke of And therfor Stillingfleet is much to blame when he speaks so often in his book of the Romanists way of resolving faith the
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 labours too Sir if your Disswader had meant to say any thing to the purpos in this affair he should have clearly set down in this his section before he had discoursed further what is the Papists beleef and practice in this business But this he utterly omits and neglects to do lest he should spoil his own sport and thinks it enough in a rambling talk to say that the Fathers prayed for the dead the Fathers spoke much of intermedial states but no Greek Fathers no Latin Fathers agree with the Roman doctrin of Purgatory S. Cyprian denied it S. Austin doubted it the Scripture is against it the grounds for it are dubious apparitions for it are frivolous And he never speaks one word what that Roman doctrin of Purgatory is nor can I imagin what he fancies it to be If he do but speak against it be it what it will he has said enough So he thinks But Sir had he declared it as he ought to have don it had then clearly appeared that those Fathers who prayed for a joyful Resurrection to their friends departed who speak of a fire of purgation after this life of an intermedial state and purgations and delivery of souls thence were directly and perfectly of the now present Papists beleef and that St. Austins doubting whatever it was and the Greeks disagreeing in Florence and S. Cyprians affirming that ther is no place of repentance after this life so far as they are truly cited stand all very well perfect and completely with the Roman Catholik beleef and practice But what think you Sir of our English Protestant Church Does she pray or so much as leave it indifferent to pray for the dead as this Disswader speaks if it be not don in relation to Purgatory the name Purgatory I mean For if they pray for the refreshment ease and comfort of souls departed as ancient holy Fathers did ther is nothing els but the bare name remaining if those prayers bear any sence Hath the Protestant Church any altar or priesthood or sacrifice for the dead which all ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin speak of as the usage and custom of the Christian Church in their times Does any amongst them when he dies give alms either to priests or poor people or other friends to pray for his soul when he is departed hence Is not he looked upon that shall be heard to say for his deceased friend God give him rest or God grant him a joysul Resurrection as either som profest or at least a tacit and concealed Papist What is it this Doctour then tells us of the English Churches allowing prayer for the dead which our very Protestant articles condemn and all their writers have hitherto opposed Nor have they any Priests amongst them to perform any such rite in that way the Fathers speak of and used themselves on their altars which are all razed here to the ground And as for the people they neither do nor dare under the danger of being thought Papists if they had the mind either practise or commend any such custom But Greek Fathers never mention Purgatory as Polydor and Rossensis witness Where does Polydor and Roffensis witness that How would your Disswader have them mention it Purgatorium is a latin word and not to be found in greek writings Did not S. Basil pray to God for rest and pardon for the soul of thy servant N. N. Does not S. Chrysostom speak of his offering sacrifice for all those who slept before us c. and for the rest and pardon of thy servant N c. Does not S. Cyril frequently say We offer this sacrifice for our deceased Fathers and Bishops and all those who have departed this life c. And S. Epiphanius We make mention both of just and sinners c. And what is the Papists Purgatory for Gods sake but only such a condition of souls deceased as requires help from the prayers of the faithful living This I take to be the Roman doctrin or Catholik beleef both of the Eastern and Western part of the Church both Greeks and Latines wherein all ancient Christians unanimously agreed And your Disswader that he may leave it free for every mans thoughts to imagin what he lists never speaks himself what it should be But the Fathers prayed for those who perhaps never were in Purgatory as Apostles c. And they prayed too for those who perhaps were there or in that condition that required their prayers Truth is they prayed far differently for the just ones and other men as any one may see in those very Fathers insinuated in those your Disswaders words And if som just ones commemorated by the Fathers wanted not our prayers does this infer that no condition of souls deceased wants them or that those Fathers who prayed also for others then deceased as wanting those helps although in another manner than for the just should think so I trow not however your Doctour throws his ink about confusedly to blind our eyes But S. Austin doubted whether there were any Purgatory or no. And is it likely Sir that he who in his Enchiridion Cura pro mortuis Civitate Dei and several other of his works speaks so expresly of souls expiation after death and of the sacrifices which himself made being a Priest for soals deceased in particular for his mother Monica and her husband for that end so expresly I say and clearly that no Roman Catholik now either does or could possibly say more should doubt whether there were after this life any expiatory place or condition I will but set down two or three places of many in that holy Fathers works which may sutlice to show his mind Temporarias poenas alii in hac vita tantùm alii post mortem alii nunc tunc patiuntur 1. 21. de Civitate Dei Again Orationilus vero sanctae Ecclesiae sacrificio salutari eleemosynis quae eorum spiritibus erogantur non est dubitandum mortuos adjuvati ut cum eis misericordius agatur à Domino quam-eorum peccata meruerunt hoc enim à patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia De verb. apost serm 34. Again Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari cum pro illis sacrificium mediatoris offortur Ench. c. 10. The Disswader cannot but have read several such like passages in that eminent Doctor And the jest is that the place he cites for S. Austins doubting of Purgatory is one of those wherin he expresly teaches it So expert a Doctour is this of yours What is it then St. Austin doubted For he must needs doubt somthing Otherwise ther had been nothing for your Disswader to catch hold of Speaking therfor of those sufferings after this life before eternal bliss can be obtained in which condition such as upon a good foundation have built som light matter which the Apostle calls wood hay and straw may be saved yet so as by fire
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
or perhaps a naughty end This is no crime with you If it be how comes it to pass that never any byshop or other minister in England who seribble with such a stiff impertinency against Popish Images have never laboured at all against these Protestant pictures O but Protestants do not worship these pictures Do they not I would to God that all good Catholiks could so heartily love imitate and worship those blessed persons represented in their portraictures as Protestants do theirs who by such amorous faces in their curious dresses are brought I fear too often on their knees Motives to filthy iniquity they may stand but representation of austerity of contemplation of martyrdom of divine extasies of charity of our Lord Jesus and his Saints these are popish these are antichristian these are abominable If the God of holiness will not have any sacred figures to be made surely he cannot allow lascivious prophane and light ones But though he do not our Ministers will O but the Papists give the same worship to the representation and the thing represented This your Disswader may gather haply by his own experience For the figure of a King a father and a wife if they do raise any affections or thoughts these must needs be so much differing as the persons represented are For the shadow figure or representation if we would speak according to right philosophy neither does nor can terminate any such respect though it may its own For example that I may declare this my speech put case I have three or four Crucifixes before me of a several make or form and of a much differing art All these four figures have but one and the same representation becaus they represent but one and the same thing Christ Jesus our Lord crucified for our reconciliation and redemption and whatever good affection may arise in my heart upon the sight and thought of it must needs be the same to that representation and thing represented becaus it is terminated upon the thing represented by means of the representation of it And that is but one and the same respect though the figures be many For the representation or figure can terminate no such thought although it be a means of directing it But yet all those four figures have respects of their own which they bound and terminate themselves by reason for example of the excellency of their colours the material on which they are wrought the exactness of art in limning every part to the life and the proportions of the whole in its due and full measure These and such like considerations are ended fully in the picture without any consideration had to its object represented And they may be of such concerment in the business that a man may be moved to prefer one of those four pictures before all the other three This is that I mean Sir when I say that a shadow figure or representation neither does nor can terminate any such respect as refults naturally upon the samplar or prototype though it may its own And this is no sophistry of Aristotle but meer natural and vulgar reason common to all mankind O but the Papists make their pictures their gods I this is the talk of black ministers in the dark to fools and children while they sit warm in the Roman Catholik Benefices which they have invaded it behooves them to say what ever they can think against Popery be it right be it wrong be it sence or nonsence All goes down by a people once inveigled And if they be not still kept warm in their mistake the minister is lost Good God in what a world do we live I did my self beleev all this once And I wondred when I first saw Roman Catholiks to tear their pictures somtime and put them into the fire It is no such marvel if Epiphanius should tear a Saints picture which your Disswader here tells us although that story be not found in that epistle of Epiphanius translated by St. Jerom Roman Catholiks do it ordinarily For they use picturs but as they do their prayer-books and when they are so fullied and worn they can use them no more they are turned both into ashes which is the last end of picturs books and men And the respect they give to pictures is but the very same kind with what they give to the holy Gospels save only that the Gospel is looked on as the inside and a Crucifix the outside of their Redeemer but both are still but shadows of him I could say more concerning this busines and make it appear both that Christians have ever in all ages had images of their Lord and his Saints in their houses and Churches and how profitable and useful they are and that they are neither against the will of God nor any right reason And this I could clearly prove out of S. Basil Eusebius Caesariensis S. Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen S. Austin Bede Jo. Damascen Athanasius Ambrose Chrysostom But I have here said enough if I have enough demonstrated as I think I have that your Disswader has said nothing §. 9. Which is an appendage to the former Reprovs the picturing of God the Father and holy Trinity which many of the holy Fathers speak against much to the blame of the Roman Church which in their Mass-books and Breviaries Portuises and Manuals picture the holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot Though the Catholik Christian Church hath ever used and approved of the use of Images as well as spiritual books yet they allow not of any abuse in either And Ordinaries Byshops Visitors and Superiours in all places are to look to that So that in this his appendage as he calls it your Disswader acts but the part of a good Visitour to blame and mend that which is amiss which must continually be done and continually is done all over the Catholick world as well in this as other affairs And if any Ordinary be negligent herein he is worthy of blame But Sir this is nothing of Popery or Catholik Religion which allows only in general the use of pious figures to forward our thoughts and desires to that eternal felicity above which so many holy Virgins Confessours Martyrs Apostles Monks Hermits and pious Princes portrayed all before our eyes arrived unto by their austerities alms-deeds purity fastings disciplines meditations watchings and patient sufferings in love and conformity to their holy Redeemer who is the prince and leader and crown of all those his glorious Saints redeemed and sanctified by the vertue of his precious blood and passion out of the thraldom of Satan and this wicked world Nor has Catholik Religion ever descended unto the particular circumstances of these figures This belongs to the care of Bishops and Ordinaries Catholiks have generally no figures but of such only as once have lived amongst them in their Church either as head or members of it Nor of many ages would byshops permit the
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
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
in the camp a portable altar and tabernacle and priests and deacons attending it for celebration of divine mysteries how much also he honoured the holy monk S. Anthony for the great austerities of his life how he would have all conciliar decisions to be regarded as most sirm and unalterable and that he would not undertake the judgment of ecclesiastical causes and that he had great veneration for the sign of the Cross. These and such like things speaks Zozomen So likewis that Churches and Altars were consecrated in the time of Constantin the Great with the sign of the Cross and sprinkling of holy water amongst other Catholik rites and ceremonies is witnessed by S. Austin and S. Bede That Constatin the Emperour translated to Constantinople the holy reliques of S. Andrew S. Luke and S. Timothy at which the devils even audibly yelled and roared out is asserted by S. Jerom. That the Emperour in all his glory went to kiss the Martyrs Sepulchres humbly praying those Saints that they wou'd be intercessoars to God for him is told us by S. Chrysostom And lastly that in Constantins dayes the Popes authority was acknowledged and reverenced is apparent by the great Synod of Arles then celebrated who decreeing that Easter should be uniformly kept intreated Pope Sylvester to direct his letters according to the Churches custom all the world over for that end Nay the Century writers of Magdeburg enemies of the Catholik Church and so renowned Protestants that they have been stiled by their followers Men worthy of eternal memory even these do write of Constantin though with a design to diminish his honour that he appointed a great holiday for the temples dedication which we in English call a Wake that he favoured consecrations and superstitious exornations of Churches that he with other Christians in those times met for Gods service only in consecrated places that he would have candles to burn in Churches in the day time that superstitiously he sent to Constantinople some reliques of the Cross found by his mother Helena for the prefervation of the City that in Constantins time pilgrimages were much in use and that his mother Helena went to the holy land to worship that Priests were forbid to marry by the Synod of Arles in the time of Emperour Constantin and Pope Sylvester that both under Constantin and long before his time were both Monks and Nuns spread all over Asia Syria Palestin Aegypt Bithynia c. that Constantin did so reverence Byshops that he would not sit amongst them in the Nicen Councel but in a lower seat That the said Emperour checked Akesius for denying Priests to have power of forgiving sins bidding him set up a ladder for himself and go up to heaven his own way all alone and lastly that after his death they poured out tears and prayes every where for the Emperours soul. And other Protestant writers many of them since as Napper for example in an English treatise upon the Revelations and Frigivillaeus in a latin one called Palma Christiana dedicated to Queen Elizabeth convinced by so palpable testimonies every where obvious acknowledg the Christian Church in Constantins time to have been wholly Papistical After the year of God three hundred saith Napper the Emperour Constantin subjugated all Christian Churches to Pope Sylvester from which time till these our dayes the Pope and his Clergy have possessed the outward visible Church And Frigivillaeus in his wrath calls therupon the noble Emperour Constantin the great Dragon who gave power to the Beast Take it all in their own words Thus Eusebius Ab omni licentiâ vitae luxu diffluente sese vocavit inediâ corporis afflictione seipsum coercuit imperator l. 2. de vitâ Constantini c. 14. Atque interdum vultum salutari illâ signavit not â l. 3. c. 2. Imperator triumphale signum honoravit and again In qua parte istud crucis vexillum visum fuit hostes fugam capere victores persequi Quâ re intellect â imperator sicubi partem aliquam sui exercitus languentem cernebat ibi salutare illud vexillum tanquam quoddam subsidium ad victoriam obtinendam locari mandavit cujus adjumentis extemplò parta est victoria quippe dimicantium vires divina quadam potenti â suere admodum confirmatae l. 2. c. 7. Civitatem multis templis in honorem martyrum illustrissimisque aedibus sacris adornavit l. 3. c. 47. Cùm parva quaedam sella ex auro fabrificata illi esset loco posita non prius consedit quà m episcopi ad id annuissent l. 3. c. 10. Apostolorum templum ad perpetuam illorum memoriam conservandam aedificare caepit l. 4. c. 58. In oportunum ventura mortis diem hic locum sibi provida dispensatione designavit ut defunctus quoque precationum quae ibidem essent ad apostolorum gloriam offerendae particeps efficeretur l. 4. c. 60. Sacerdotes alii qui horum nihil poterant efficere incruentis consecrationibus divinum numen placabant supplices Deo preces offerebant pro communi pace pro ecclesia Dei ipsoque imperatore l. 4. c. 45. Humi procumbens genibus in ipsa martyrum aede errata sua confessus est c. Adhuc quidem licet contemplari ter beatae animae tumulum divinis ceremoniis mystico sacrificio sanctarumque precationum societate perfrui l. 4. c. 61. 71. Thus Zozomen Tabernaculum ecclesiae figuram exprimens cùm contra hostes praelio contenderet secum circumferre consuevit imperator Constantinus ad eum sinem uti neque sibi in soiitudine agenti neque exercitui deesset aedes sacra c. Sacerdotes diaconi tabernaculum assiduè secuti sunt l. 1. c. 8. Antonium magum illum monachum in solitudinibus AEgypti magnâ cum nominis famae celebritate vitam degentem Constantinus imperator propter ejus virtutis splendorem sibi amicum fecit literas honorificè scriptas ad eum misit l. 1. c. 13. Jussit Constantinus ut Conciliorum decisiones firmae immutabiles existerent l. 1. c. 9. Mihi verò non est fas cùm homo sim ejusmodi causarum cognitionem arrogare l. 1. c. 16. Sanctae cruci plurimum tribuit honoris tum propter subsidia in bello contra hostes gerendo ex ejus virtute sibi allatâ tum propter divinam sibi de câ oblatam visionem l. 1. c. 8. Thus the other Fathers Crucis character◠basilicae dedicantur altaria consecrantur Aug. serm 19. de sanctis Bed l. 1. c. 30. l. 5. c. 4. Constantinus imperator sanctas reliquias Andreae Lucae Timothei transtulit Constantinopolin ad quas daemones rugiunt Hieron contra Vig. Nam ipse qui purpuram inductus est accedit illa amplexus sepulchra fastu deposito stat sanctis supplicaturus ut pro se ad Deum intercedat Chrys. hom 26. in ep 2. Cor. De observatione Paschae Domini constitutum est in hac Synodo ut uno
Caterum vacua res quod est phantasma figur am capere non posset c. And Ministers are grosly deceived to think the Fathers speak of a figure or trope in Rhetorick it is manifestly apparent they speak of a figure in nature that figure or shape which accompanies natural things which in this mysterious Sacrament is made by the power of God to accompany another substance So that here the appearance of natural bread is no more the figure of bread as naturally it is but the figure now of our Lords blessed body couched by the power of God under that appearance which is naturally the figure of wine and bread And a figure of the body it could not be unless the substance of that body were really and truly there under that figure or appearance Figura non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus But in Peter Lumbards time Transubstantiation was so far from being an article of Catholik faith that they did not know whether it were true or no as appears by the same authour in his 4. book and eleventh distinction so that it made haste to pass in the Lateran Councel for faith which about fifty years before in Lumbards time was but a new disputable opinion Your Disswader had done wisely if he had produced for himself as frequently he does only some obscure authours which seldom fall into mens hands But Peter Lumbard the master of sentences is an authour so known by all and in every mans hand that your Disswader had he not utterly abandoned both honesty and reason too had never mentioned him For this great master from his eight to the fourteen distinction of his fourth book doth with all solidity and art so declare and confirm the real presence in this Sacrament of the Altar and the conversion of the elements by Gods powerful word into the very substance of our Lords body as a great article of ancient Christian faith that nothing can be said either more solidly or with more earnest resolution But Quem Deus vult perdere dementat After your Disswader had wilfully thrown away his honesty God in his just judgment so darkened his reason that he could not so much as heed what he said There I say that learned Catholik Doctour does industriously and in a copious manner in thirty whole pages together according to the edition I have by me printed at Colen both declare and establish that Catholik Christianity of the real presence and transmutation of the elements into Christs sacred body answering and clearing many things which hereticks and pagan philosophers might object against it And your Disswader takes hold of one of the philosophical objections which the great master presently solves for an argument of the masters own doubting although he could not but see him assert declare and establish the contrary the real presence I mean and miraculous mutation of the elements into the substance of our Lords slesh and blood in all that his copious and learned discours both before and after that objection O unhappy Kingdom of ours by these lying fals teachers so wofully misled This one only passage which any one that hath but a mediocrity of learning may see with his own eyes may suffice to show what a man your Disswader is and how little to be credited But whom God will overthrow for his grand misdemeanours him he in his justice blindeth I could find in my heart to give here an abridgment of all that great masters discours concerning this Sacrament of the altar as he there calls it But it is somwhat besides my way and I have already been too long Qui legit intelligat The great weight and importance of this business hath made me speak somthing more of it than I shall of other things That I may therfor here recapitulate in brief what I have hitherto said to manifest your Disswaders insignisicancy and to speak plainly his impertinency in this point First he is faulty in that he never declares this busines of Transubstantiation what it is or what it means in the beleef and judgment of that Roman Church he opposes Secondly that he makes all the Popish Doctours which he mentions concerning it to speak against it and to disown it whatever he meant by it and not any one of them to speak for it or profes it And how then is it Popish or Popery Thirdly that he sayes in the beginning of his section that the piece of Popery he here writes against was first determined in the Councel of Later an and yet but two pages after forgetting himself he sayes that the opinion was not determined in the Later an as it is now held in Rome and yet never expresses how it is now held in Rome or what that is which is now held in Rome contrary to the Councel or by whom or in what manner Fourthly becaus the busines of the real Presence which Protestants love to call Transubstantiation that they may play with that fine long gingling word as children with a rattle is not touched at all by him And yet that is all the substance of Popery in this point which that Berengarius the heretick together with his associates might fully acknowledg without any slight of the manifold evasions used by him this word was invented by the Prelates of the Councel as was Consubstantiation by those of Nice for a firmer establishment of Catholick Tradition and ancient truth So that your Disswader here touches but the lid and rind not the heart and substance of Popery which he is afraid indeed to deal with And being weak in sence he playes with words §. 6. Which is against Popish Communion Sayes that the half-communion is another Innovation in Popery swerving from the Apostles practice and Christs Institution as appears in the Popish Councel of Constance where it is decreed though Christ instituted and primitive Christians received in both kinds yet that no Priest under pain of Excommunication should communicate the people under both kinds which is a bold affront to Christ himself although even their own Cassander and Aquinas teach that to be the ancient custom of the Church and Paschasius resolves it dogmatically that the one is not to be communicated without the other This busines Sir is more amply discussed and cleared in my Fiat Lux which you have by you If you do but read that I shall have here less to say But know Sir that this busines touches not any unalterable dogme of faith but an alterable use and practice as shall be declared by and by and therfor is it not to be called Popery upon that account And a change in such things is so far from blame that it is oftentimes necessary so long as the substance of Religion is preserved intire as here it is Christians are to fast after the departure of the Espouse and set times therfor to be appointed that such a good work be not in the Church of God utterly neglected yet the dayes and