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
themselvs and temptations plausible they still advance one ability or vertue to depress another In primitive times of the Church they exalted that of the right hand to depress the left in these later times they exalt the vertue of the left hand to depress the right Thus marriage is good and continence also is good they are both good Nay S. Paul sayes that continence is better or the vertue of the right hand For he that is unmarried only cares sayes he how to serve God well and pleas him but he that is married is solicitous for many worldly affairs concerning his wife and children and so is distracted and divided two wayes To exalt then the one of these two which are both good things unto such a monopoly of goodnes and excellency that the other shall be thought unlawful and evil this is doctrina daemoniorum the doctrin of demons who were cunning seducers from the beginning Thus faith is good and other works of piety justice and sobriety unto which Christ and his apostles exhort us are good also and necessary and healthful He therfor that so magnifies the one as to evacuate the other teaches doctrinam daemontorum the doctrin of demons who were cunning seducers from the beginning Meat is good and fasting is good good to eat with thanksgiving and good in times and occasions to abstain But that man who so exalts the one as to exclude the other out of Christianity is a seducer and teaches the doctrin of demons So likewise doth he who either so highly magnifies free will as to exclude Gods grace or so defends grace that he abolishes all concurrence of free will unto works of piety and merit teach both of them equally the doctrin of demons who were cunning seducers from the beginning In a word not to mention more examples wherin I might be copious so to commend continence as to make marriage unlawful is the doctrin of demons who were cunning seducers from the beginning And so agian to set up marriage as to teach continence to be both sinful and impossible is the doctrin both of demons and devils too implacable enemies both to truth and continence And Christ is equally crucified between both the theeves Ch. 18. from page 410. to 420. Begins to justifie the departure or schisme of the English from the Roman Church as good and lawful For if Schisme faith he be a crime it lies upon the Church not which separated but which gave the caus of separation the Roman not the English Church Causal schisme which gives the occasion bears all the blame but formal schisme which separates from an offensive society is an action of necessary vertue Nor can there be quoth he any necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions but a necessty rather of going out of Babylon Nor does every schisme turn the Church of Christ into a synagogue of Satan but only schisme in sundamentals which fundamentals he saith elswhere are as clear and perspicuous to all men as that twice two make four These Sir be his capital assertions in this chapter which howlittle they will serve his purpos against the Roman Church he that seriously reads your book against which this reply is made will soon perceiv But how much they will disadvantage him before the Presbyterian Quaker and other wayes here in England who separating from our English Church do thus justifie their schisme either by mincing the fault or laying it upon her from whom they have revolted it behoovs him well to consider Ch. 19. from page 420 to 428. Endeavours yet more to diminish the fault and justifie the secession Schisme faith he that proceeds from weaknes in persons that desire to know the truth and endeavour after it is free from crime And again External unity is not essential to the Church And schisme that is contrary to that unity divides not from Christs body in things absolutely necessary to be united but only in things not so necessary as in the same liturgies or ceremonies about matters not sundamental wherein an union is neither necessary nor yet possible This is I am sure the voice of a Presbyterian and no Prelatick Protestant as Whitby speaks himself to be And if it be indeed the sence of our English Church as her spokes-man here would make us beleev it is then are surely our English Byshops in charity all obliged earnestly to intercede with his royal Majesty who for civil respects hath forbidden all meetings out of ordinary Churches and Chappels that the poor Quaker who endeavours after truth and light with an innocent and unfeigned heart may be permitted for religious respects to meet at Bull and Mouth and other such like places where they may think fit being now resolved never to resort more to Protestant Steeple-houses or to any of their liturgies or ceremonies which communion is neither necessary unto any unity any substantial unity in Christs body nor yet possible that they may declare amongst themselvs the sons of light the power and truth in simplicity of heart without impeachment of the wicked Ch. 20. from page 428. to 448. Falls again to speak against Infallibility which he had battered before in his whole 9 chapter of above 30 pages and that with as much earnestness here as if nothing had been yet said of it But this chapter was written haply by som other hand which knew not what the former had performed till coming together both of the papers to the Press it was perceived they might both pass And here all general Councels and their determinations are disabled as destitute of any assurance of truth Is this Infallibility quoth he out of Chillingworth in the Councel alone or Pope alone c. What shall we do if they run counter c. To whom must we hearken when many pretend to the Popedom c. What if the Popes misdemeanour be the thing to be judged c. How can we be assured that any one is true Pope not Synioniacally ordained not illegally elected not invalidly baptised c. which are saith he uncertainties propounded by Mr. Chillingworth not possible to be resolved This kind of discours fills up this whole chapter By vertue of these uncertainties we can never tell whether Mr. Whitby be any minister or no or whether he be a Christian or so much as a Whitby If titulus coloratus and moral evidence may not suffice us we can be sure of no authority either spritual or civil in this world And if any one should learn by this wise master thus to except against the obliging power of acts and decrees of King or Parliament Is that power in the King alone or in the Parliament alone c. What if they run counter c. What if they should not be rightly chosen c. would he not talk as wise as this man and his little Doctor Chillingworth It ought to suffice an honest man and a good subject that an authority is set over him and
fundamentals And yet which does not a little encreas our admiration he acknowledges withall p. 439. That general Councels have 1 a greater assistance of the Spirit of God 2 greater means of finding out the truth 3 better reason of discovering what is the opinion of the whole Church 4 an authority delegated from Christ to decide controversies After all this and with all this it is neither impossible with him nor unprobable that general councels may erre even in fundamentals which himself affirms as perspicuous as if they were writ with a sun-beam as clear and evident as that twice two make four Prelates Christian Prelates these must be the only natural fools of the world Ch. 22. from page 456. to 465. Descends to Patriarchal Councels which saith he may be disobeyed and rejected becaus such conventions are fallible and may obtrude heresies and unlawful practises upon the world and that a judgment of discretion is to be allowed unto private men whether they are to submit to their determinations or no. This whole chapter might well have been spared For if a greater much more may a particular and lesser Church obtrude heresies and unlawful practises upon men But Mr. Whitby is desirous that all should be made plain and not any rub lie in the Presbyterian and good Quakers way when he shall plead an excuse for his separation from a Metropolitan Church here in England which he hath made with a judgment of discretion here allowed him Ch. 23. from page 465 to 478. Sayes that the Protestant never separated from the internal communion of the universal Church which unity is only essential but only from external union with som. And such an union external with any Church on earth is no wayes necessary to any ones being a member of the Church Why then is the poor Quaker so grievously persecuted imprisoned and beaten only for separating from an external communion with other Protestants Especially since he separates from it for no other end but to have the internal communion in pure faith and light and grace and charity more perfect Let any man read the Quakers books which are now not a few and see if they speak not for themselvs as Whitby here does for his own caus But the profest errours of the Roman Church justifie the Protestant separation And does not the Quaker justifie his separation both from Roman and Protestant too by the same argument of notorious abuses errours sins falsities disorders superstitions excesses of ministers priests byshops deanaries chapters lawn sleeves universities and steeple-houses Ch. 24. from page 478 to 494. Endeavours finally to justifie the English reformation upon the account that it was made here by the supream magistrate who may reform the Church either with a Synod or without it And that supream power I hope then may be permitted to set up the Presbyterian or Quaker at least to give them freedom of Conscience if himself pleas without any bishops consent no man daring to gain-say or murmur against it which not a few do heartily wish to see in this Land Ch. 25. with the Appendix from p. 494 to 512. Prescribes conditions and forms of disputing and replying with som additions to his former discourses Thus have you Sir the particular design of each several chapter of Mr. Whitby's book the negative part wherof denies your Church and the positive betrayes his own Why he gainsayes yours it is not hard to read But why he should so much endanger his own I cannot so easily say whether it be ignorance malice or necessity moves him to it Surely no Son of the English Church as Whitby professes himself to be could thus open a gap for the incursion of all sects who are now ready to swallow her up if he be in sound sences but he must either not have what he may or not will what he should or not know what positively he ought to affirm and teach for her better preservation This book of Whitbies can never bring any man to that Church nor keep any in that is there If an enemy attempt the subversion of a hous it may chance to scape But if the owner and inhabitant begin once to pull it down himself he that passes by may not improbably conjectur it will not long stand Well may the Church of England take up that heavy complaint against this her either ignorant or malicious son If an enemy had don me mischief I could have endured it And if one who openly hated had maligned me I could have kept my self from him But thou man thou my intimate friend thou my leader and acquaintance Thus unworthily to be betrayed by her own White boy must be no small aggravation to the mothers sorrow I might easily gather out of Whitbies own words consequently put together a compleat play for all the several wayes that are now of late risen up against our English Church even so compleat that they never have nor ever need to say more This sad fate accompanies erroneous wayes that even in defending they destroy themselvs If witty Presbyterians assisted him in his book they did their own work not his And if he did it himself by som Presbyterian principles received accidentally from them he hath don therby not his own work but theirs Notable is this Gentlemans art in citing of authorities which he does in most of his chapters against the points of catholik beleef which are either not expressed in his book where they may be found or not there found where they are exprest or express no such thing as he cites them in his book to utter I had in my chamber but one of those many authors which Whitby cites for himself and I found in it all this to be true But this Sir to spare here partly the mans modesty and partly my own pains and expence of time I now omit And indeed what would it avail to give you or the world to understand that Whitby never read the authors himself cites or understood not or wilfully wrested them Let him live and learn And God give him grace to make use of his time to his own advantage This thing I may assure you of that Whitby is an enemy not only to Catholiks but Protestants also of all profession here in England or if you had rather have me so speak an equal friend to all For he will not have the Church of Christ to be any organical body as he calls it or company of people linked together in Sacraments lyturgy beleef and government but to be only such and all such people who hold God and a life to com and som other fundamentals which he names not himself all of them and therfor as I suppose leavs unto others each man as he pleases to determin Nor will he have men bound either to an internal beleef or any exteriour conformity to any Church This himself avers in many several places of his book that we may not miss his meaning This new way
that every other Church saith Irenaeus comply with the Roman by reason of her greater principality First becaus he sayes it is necessary secondly that every Church thirdly for the Roman Church's more potent principality to comply with her the Centurists are much displeased at it and censure it for a very corrupt speech And indeed the papal power and jurisdiction was so eminent in all ages that Philip Nicolai in his comment de regno Christi refers the beginning of it to the infirmity of the Apostles and byshops succeeding them For there speaking of the origin and increas of papal power Primatus affectatio saith he communis suit infirmit as apostolorum ac etiam primorum urbis episcoporum Finally in the first age that St. Peter had a primacy above the other apostles is acknowledged by Calvin The twelve apostles had one among them to govern the rest by Musculus The celestial spirits are not equal the apostles themselves were not equal Peter is found in many places to have been chief amongst the rest which we deny not by Mr. Whitgift Amongst the Apostles themselves ther was one chief and by Dr. Covel who in his examinations teaches at large against the Puritans both that there was one appointed over the rest amongst the apostles to keep them in unity and that that government was not to ceas with the apostles but ever to continue in the Church and that it is the only way to prevent dissention and suppress heresies and that otherwise the Church would be in a far wors case than the meanest Commonwealth nay almost than a den of thieves But the Centurists like not this and therfor do they in their 4 Cent. reprehend many of the Fathers for entituling Peter the head of the apostles and the byshop of byshops So indeed Optatus calls him apostolorum caput and therfor Cephas Origen apostolorum principem Cyril of Jerusalem principem caput caeterorum Cyril of Alexandria Pastorem caput ecclesiae Arnobius Episcoporum episcopum the Councel of Chalcedon Petram verticem ecclesiae Cathobais Thus much for that point which by all this is proved to be far from any novelty As for Saints invocation and the antiquity of that beleef and custom it is acknowledged by the Centurists Chemnitius our Dr. Whitgift and Fulk Dr. Whitgift in his defence hath these words Almost all the byshops and writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with doctrins of Free-will of merit of invocation of Saints and such like Fulk in his rejoynder to Brittow I confess saith he that Ambrose Austin and Jerom held invocation of Saints to be lawful and in his book against the Rhemish Testament In Nazianzen Basil and Chrysostom I confess faith he is mention of invocation of Saints and again that Theodoret also speaketh of prayers to martyrs and again in the same book that Leo ascribeth much to the prayers of S. Peter for him and again that many ancient fathers held that Saints departed pray for us Chemnitius in his examen acknowledges as much of S. Basil Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen Theodoret S. Jerom and even S. Austin himself The Centurists charge the same upon S. Cyprian who is ancienter than S. Austin and again upon Origen who was ancienter than Cyprian adding that there are manifest steps of Saints invocation in the doctors of that ancient age So this is no novelty then Lastly as for the Sacrifice of Mass and Altars which as Dr. Reynolds sayes well in his conference with Hart are linked together Peter Martyr in his common places reproveth Peter of Alexandria for attributing more as he speaks to the outward altar than to the living temples of Christ and he checks Optatus also for saying what is the altar even the seat of the body and blood of Christ such sayings as these saith Peter Martyr edified not the people and lastly all the fathers in general he finds sault with for their abusing so frequently the name Altar which indeed is spoken of even by S Ignatius the Apostles undoubted schollar who is therfor carped at by Cartwright Calvin Fulk and Field acknowledg that most ancient fathers S. Athanasius Ambrose Austin Arnobius talked much of the Christian Sacrifice and Altar and Priests who offer and pour out daily on the holy table adding that the fathers without doubt received that their doctrin from the Jews and Gentiles whom therin they imitated The Centuriators in 3. Cent. Hame Cyprian as superstitious in that point and in their 2 Cent. say that S. Irenaeus and Ignatius though disciples of the apostles were dangerously erroneous in that account Sebastianus Francus in his epistle de abrogandis in universum omnibus statutis ecclesiasticis affirms that presently after the apostles times the supper of our Lord was turned into a sacrifice Andreas Chrastovius in his book de opificio missae charges the most ancient fathers with using a propitiatory sacrifice And our own Ascham in his Apologet. pro coena Domini is found to acknowledg that sacrifice for the dead and living is so ancient in the Christian Church that no beginning of it can be found although he thinks also with Calvin that it was derived whensoever it first began from the custom either of the Jews or Gentiles or both thus bespattering with his rash pen the very first sproutings of Christianity in the world However it is in the mean time no novelty at least And let any one in any age of Christianity look all over the Christian world on any of those who prosess that name whether they kept communion with the Roman Church or brake by schisme from it or perhaps never heard of it as they say the Church in Ethiopia did not and he shall find that they all had this Christian sacrifice amongst them as the great capital work of their Religion The Grecians under their Patriarch of Constantinople even still after their schisme have their Priests celebrating in all their ancient robes this their sacred liturgy to this day in the learned greek tongue all over the world where they live and may serv God not only in Greece Epirus Macedon and islands of the Egoean sea but in many parts of Natolia Circassia Russia Thrace Bulgaria Rascia Servia Bosnia Walachia Moldavia Dalmatia Croatia Thracia and up as far North as Trebisond The Assyrians or Melchites who are under the Archbyshop of Damascus whom they intitle Patriarch of Antioch The Georgians that dwell between the Euxin and Caspian sea under their Metropolitan who resides in the monastery of S. Catherin in Mount Sinai The Circassians that live between them and the river Tanais The Muscovites or Russians under the primate of Mosco The Nestorians dispersed up and down in Assyria Mesopotamia Parthia Media even to Cataia and India under their Patriarch residing either in Muzal or the monastery of S. Ermes fast by it The Indians or Christians of S. Thomas about the cities of Coulan and Maliapar Angamal
those ugly colours which so injuriously defaced that Religion that most innocent Religion which under the name of Popery lies here traduced by the pen of her own ungrateful Scribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What Doctour Taylor against Popery And such a Disswasive as this But my amazement Sir is now blown over The Doctour appeared to me after some serious thoughts to be for a special reason that touches none so much as himself in some manner excusable That none should love Popery or ever come to know it concerns not only his wealth and dignity and life of ease which is the common caus of others also with himself but all the honour and fame he hath hitherto got by transcribing popish as now he calls but in former times named Catholik authors For having bin twenty years and upwards deeply plunged in reading and transcribing som of the innumerous spiritual books that are amongst Catholiks not only in Latin but other languages of several Kingdoms where that Religion flourishes he hath culled out thence many fine treatises which he hath set forth in his own name and language to his much renown and no small wealth and dignity amongst us Nor is it to be doubted but that he means for his yet further glory reaped from other mens labours and that spirit of piety which thence he got into his own pen to write out yet one book more The same store-house that furnished him with the life of Christ will dictate to him also the lives of his twelve Apostles and many other raptures of divine love and heavenly devotion And if people be but kept from Popery as he hopes and labours they may it will never be known whence he gathers those his fragrant pieties It was not handsom yet a piece of wisdom it was in the Grecian Cynick to spit in the dish which pleased him best lest others should taste how good it was and deprive him therby of som of his content This book of Doctour Taylors called a Disswasive printed in Dublin and as I understand reprinted here in London I suppose in the very same words by reason of the Authors absence is large enough containing 173 pages in quarto marvellously bitter and contumeliously insulting over that Religion which he cannot but know he misreports Indeed Sir there is more popery in one page of Dr. Taylors Life of Christ which he transcribed from popish Authors than is in all this whole book which he writes against those Authors popery that is owned by them to be their religion all this he puts upon them under the notion of popery throughout his whole hundred and seventy three pages except haply som three or four words whose sence also he perverts no Catholik upon earth acknowledges for any parcel of his faith Is not this strange disingenuous dealing How he comes to act thus and what is the feat he makes use of to discolour their Religion you shall hear by and by when I have first opened his book and the things contained in it His Disswasive hath three chapters and each chapter several sections The first chapter is intitled thus The Doctrin of the Roman Church in the conroverted articles is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive The second thus The Church of Rome as it is at this day disordered teaches doctrins and uses practices which are in themselvs or in their true and immediat consequences direct impieties and give warranty to a wicked life The third thus The Church of Rome teaches doctrins which in many things are destructive of Christian society in general and of Monarchy in special both which the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland does by her doctrins greatly and Christianly support These three be things of importance and must either be great notorius crimes in the Defendant or monstrous slanders in the Plaintiff A Religion that is new impious and unsociable that is against antiquity piety and society is hardly good enough for Hell Who is he that shall dare to profess or countenance such a religion upon earth But let us see in order how all this is demonstrated to us by an old pious and sociable Doctour His first Chapter First then That the doctrin of the Roman Church in the controverted Articles is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive he declares in eleven sections which make up that his first chapter First section sayes that the Roman Church pretends a power to make new Articles of faith and doubtles uses that power and for that end corrupts the Fathers and makes expurgatory Indices to alter their works The second that this power of making new articles is a novelty and yet beleeved by Papists Third that the Roman doctrin of Indulgences is unknown to antiquity Fourth that Purgatory is another novelty Fift Transubstantiation another Sixt Half-communion another Seventh Liturgy in an unknown tongue another Eighth Veneration of Images the like Ninth Pictures the same Tenth the Popes general Episcopacy likewise And the eleventh and last speaks almost as many more all of a heap to make up his one last section as Invocation of Saints sufficiency of scriptures absolving sinners before pennance simple Priests giving Confirmation selling Masses for nine pence circumgestation of the Eucharist intention in Sacraments Mass-sacrifice and supper without Communion All this is Popery all new and therfor the Roman Church is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive This is the sum of his first Chapter What in the name of God does this Author of the Disswasive your learned Doctour mean by the Church of Rome and by the doctrine of the Roman Church This Sir is a main busines and ought if he had meant sincerity to have been firmly stated before any thing were treated either of the one or the other But this he utterly here omits which he should principally have heeded that he may speak loosely and hand over head anything he may deem fit to black his own paper and other mens fame If he take them as he ought the Church of Rome for that universality of Catholik beleevers who live in several kingdoms of the world united in faith and sacraments under the Spirit of Jesus Christ and one visible Pastour and the doctrin of that Church for the body of faith and religion handed to them from age to age as taught and delivered from Christ and his Apostles which they call in the phrase of St. Paul Depositum fidei or treasure of faith I say if he mean this by the Roman Church and doctrin of that Church as he ought to do I will be bold to aver that ther is not any one claus or period in his book true and three parts of his book absolutely impertinent If he mean otherwis then Catholiks themselvs conceiv or profess he was bound in honour to make his mind known that the renown of an innocent Religion and worthy persons might not suffer prejudice by his ambiguous speech But perhaps he studied how to abuse that Religion that he may
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
communicated in one kind who understood Christianity as well surely as we do now abov a thousand years after them St. Cyprian likewise in his book de lapsis has much to the same purpos giving us also to understand by his testimony that those ancient Christians for fear of death and the grievances of persecution had usually the Sacrament kept by them in a Repository or Ark in their houses which with all devout reverence when they were necessitated to it they put with their own hands into their mouths and participated on such like occasion although by general custom it used to be put into their mouths by the hands of Priests And he relates amongst other things a frightful story of a certain woman who for fear or other weaknes had complied to the idol sacrifices and when she came home to repent and humble her self in her Oratory and by holy communion both to expiate that her transgression and strengthen her against the like temptation as soon as she had opened her Ciborium or Pixis wherein the body of her Lord and Redeemer was kept a terrible flash of fire issuing thence upon her did so affright her that she durst not touch it Quandam saith he mulierem sacrificiis idolorum contaminatam cum Repositorium seu Arcam suam in quâ sanctum Domini posuer at manibus pollutis tentasset aperire ignis efflans eam terrait nec tangere erat ausa This and much more might be brought to witnes that primitive Christians thought themselves completly communicated in one kind and this very kind that is now in use amongst Catholiks But I must come to your Doctour Half-Communion saith he is another Popish novelty wherby they deprive the people of Christs blood Sir if they eat in memory that Christ died for them which they do and which in all Protestancy makes a perfect communion how are they deprived of his blood Can they beleev his death and passion without faith of his blood shed for them But they ought to have wine as well as bread So they have as much as the Disswader and his Church allows their people wherby they may seed upon Christ who shed his blood for us in their heart by faith with thanksgiving and which as your Disswader here speaks may make Christs body and blood present to them by sacramental consequence And how is it then a half-communion O but the wine is not the blood of Christ. Not carnally as your Disswader speaks of his Sacrament but it is so by sacramental conseqence It is as much then as yours the blood of Christ. And how is it then a half-communion and yours a whole one O but their bread is beleeved to be the body of Christ. So it is but yours is not And therfor if theirs be but a half-communion yours is none at all But how good Doctour Disswasive is half-communion either new Popery or old Popery or any Popery at all Roman Catholiks or Papists use no such word nor do they own any such thing as Half-Communion They beleev and call it a whole Communion Is it lawful for you to forge a Popery of your own and then put it upon them who neither in thought word or any of their writings profess any such thing But is not Communion in one kind all one with Half-Communion No Sir it is not all one It differs as much as half and whole And that I think is somthing It is a whole Communion Sir both in the tenour of their beleef and according to that of yours And why then should you call it a half-communion According to theirs whole Christ is equally present under either of those figures or appearances and therfor according to their faith it is a whole Communion And according to yours it is no less When you your selves give the bread to your people and say Take this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed upon him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving you do not intend I suppose nor do the people mean to feed only upon one half of him Why then would your Disswader injuriously misname that a half-communion which in all opinions is a whole one Neither Catholiks nor Protestants feed upon the signs but thing signified This difference too there is that Catholiks have all the mystery of the passion represented to them in their sacrifice and the presence of the whole Lord in their Communion But Protestants have no such thing although the mystery be preacht to them And therfor is the Catholik not a half but whole Communion and that of the Protestants may well be doubted whether it be any Communion at all though it be a whole Sermon For how can any one discern the Lords body there where in reality it is not If your Disswader had a candour becoming a gentleman he would neither falsifie the wayes nor misname the practice of any Religion But be it as it is Since Papists as he will have them called have equally used the Communion in the liquid kind alone as this in only the other why should he call one of them more than the other by the name of Popery And why is not Communion in both kinds which he acknowledges to have been more in use amongst them and proves it by the testimony of their own popish doctours be rather Popery than either of the other O but this half-communion began but in the Councel of Constance I have sufficiently shown you Sir that the custom was in the world before the City of Constance knew what Christianity were And even this Councel of Constance is perverted by the Disswader too as if he had sworn to act nothing sincerely That busines in the Councel was thus Petrus Dresdensis and other associates of Huz had taught publickly and with much scandal that the Eucharist is necessarily to be given to lay-people after supper and in both kinds This doctrin and practice of theirs was censured by the Councel which at one and the same time declared those two circumstances of communicating in both kinds and after supper not to be of necessary obligation because the Canons and approved ancient custom of the Church had never looked upon those two circumstances as of necessity to be observed But what does your Disswader here First he sets down the Councels resolution in direct opposition to Christ. Whereas Christ instituted c. yet we command contrary c. as though the Councel had absolutely annulled Christs institution which notwithstanding they acknowledg and allow for good and only declare the two said circumstances in that institution of our Lord not to be of that necessity as the substance of the institution it self giving for their reason for it which your Disswader thinks not good to take notice of that the Canons and ancient custom of the Church had sufficiently made manifest that those two circumstances of communicating at night and in both kinds were not necessary by allowing the contrary practice in primitive times
though he were resolved not to speak any one word true or to the purpos And yet he would seem to do it perhaps on the same motive that Sir Toby Matthews flitted from the richer by shoprick of Durham to that of York becaus as he himself gave the reason he wanted Grace But Doctor Taylor must remember his own doctrin that an Archbyshop although he have Grace yet he has no jurisdiction with it and it is a question whether is better to have power without grace or grace without power He is well enough as he is if he could be content But ambition and covetousnes will know no bounds And as your Doctor in this his Disswasive prattles about a Popery which is no part of Catholik religion so does he wholly pass by their chief religion which is in a manner their whole popery and all their religious customs attending it not that only which the first reformers allowed of as their faith of one God all powerfull most wise and good who made all things visible and invisible and by his providence conserves them in their being who in the fulnes of time sent his beloved son to reconcile the world to himself c. but that also which they rejected and principally inveighed against as first internal sanctification and renovation of our spirits which was the end of Christs appearing in the world the efsicacy of his grace in our hearts and the intention of his counsels and laws secondly the comfort merit and necessity of good works unto which holy gospel by all sweet promises invites us Gods holy spirit moves the very excellency of mans nature and condition suggests the name and profession of Christian calls for and future happines requires These by the first Protestants were all cried down as mortal sins and of no value at all in the eyes of God by which doctrins they debauched mankind and made men so dissolute careless and licentious that if good nature right reason and the gracious working of God in our hearts had not more force upon some than the principles of the first Protestancy earth had become a meer hell by this Thirdly he passes by the priesthood altar and sacrifice which Christ our Lord instituted for our daily atonement in the figuration of his holy passion at which old Christians with all fear and reverence offered up their daily praises requests and supplications to God for themselves and allies and whole Church of Christ for all distressed persons for kings and princes and for all men that we may lead a quiet and godly life in this world Fourthly the seven sacraments of Christs which are so many conduits of sanctification for our several necessities and for all conditions of men and for all degrees of spiritual comforts Fifthly the obligations of vows which any shall freely make for Gods glory and his own advancement in piety in continency in charity and the blessed condition of singing and praising God in monastical retirement Sixtly the communion and union of the whole body of Christians under one visible pastor by whom they are aptly knit and compaginated together into one flock and body of Christ however they may differ otherwis in countrey language laws civil government and other affections Sevently the marks of the true Church and the autority she hath to keep her people in unity of faith and observance of their Christian duties Eightly the danger of original sin and actual transgressions which however we may have heard of Christian faith and beleev it to be true may notwithstanding exclude us eternally from the bliss of heaven now opened to beleevers such as by mortifying ungodly lusts shall render themselves conformable to their Lord and head who is ascended into heaven and gone before to prepare there a place for them in bliss with himself Ninthly the necessary concurrence of Gods grace and mans will unto his justification and sanctity and future glory in him Qui creavit te sine te non salvabit te sine te as good S. Austin speaks Tenthly the necessity and great benefit of prayer alms-deeds and fasting which is practised in the Catholik Church and commended to all as worthy fruits of that religion which labours to root out pride of life concupiscence of eyes and concupiscence of flesh thereby and our obligation to exact justice in all our contracts and dealings with our neighbour Eleventhly the danger of living and dying in sin to such as profess Christianity and uselesnes of faith without the good works of grace attending it Twelftly the possibility of keeping Gods commandments with the assistance of his grace Lastly not to mention more the great duty incumbent upon all Christians when led away by the deceit of Satan flesh and this wicked world they shall chance to have strayed from their holy rule to set all streight again by humble confession restitution and other penal satisfactions for their fault These and such like principles of ancient Christianity our first reforming Protestants Luther and Calvin with other their companions all apostate priests from the mother Church so stifly cryed down as notorious popery that they have thereby corrupted the whole world But your Doctour in this your Disswasive from Popery for reasons best known to himself takes no notice of them at all Protestant writers however loth to practise them yet ashamed they are now to speak against good works as their fore-fathers did Indeed every one of them that upon the hope of a richer benefice writes against Catholik Religion makes both a new Popery and a new Protestancy too and whilo they speak in general against that they may say in particular of this what they pleas For Protestants had never any Councel to make them all agree how much of Popery they should reject or what they should positively establish nor ever will nor can have nor do they care so they keep but their livings and places that they have extorted from Catholik hands which they know they cannot keep except by libelling against Popery they get the power of the land honester and better men then themselvs to back and support them in their wayes whether any thing be ever settled or no. I should also here set down the substantial customs of Catholik Christians in their chappels and churches oratories and private houses wholly neglected by the Disswader though they be in the hearts and hands of them all throughout the whole earth If he had declared either their substantial faith or customs he had lost his credit with some but he had saved his own soul which now is becom as black as hell with slaunders lyes and uncharitable depravations both of their customs and immaculate Religion What he can pervert and make sport with that he puts upon them for popery and what he cannot that must be thought no popery at all But this I cannot now insist upon My letter is already grown too long ANd yet I cannot but give you notice Sir that even these