man thus to disable his own chief prelate before his face and say peremptorily that a Metropolitan can do nothing that his grace of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction I know and am fully assured ther is not one of those poor catholik priests who were lately banished out of England but would have defended even to extremity if need were this one most certain verity That a Metropolitan hath a jurisdiction as solid and good a jurisdiction over byshops as any these can have or plead for over parish priests And by as firm and good and ancient law is the one established as the other and indeed by the very same whilst a minister of his own presumes to tell the Arch-byshop his own prelate to his face that he hath no jurisdiction at all His 9 ch from page 91. to 169. Is wholly fanatick There he tells us plainly That neither Convocations Byshops nor Parliaments are judges of our faith That the English Church doth not punish for difference in opinions nor require that all should beleev as she beleevs or submit to her determinations but leaves every man to the liberty of his own judgment so he do not make factions against her Who ever urged men saith he to beleev as the Church beleevs p. 101. Also that no decrees of any Church are further to be admitted then they appear to particular ' mens judgments to agree with scriptur That every private man must make use of his own reason to judg or reject doctrin and rites propounded though scriptur be his guide That the business must there end without resigning to any further authority which is all as fallible as we be our selves That points fund amental are as perspicuous as the sun-beam and points not fundamental the Church doth not determin them and if any dispute should rise about them she silences indeed but expects not her children should be of her opinion only would not have them gainsay her That that Church does but mock us which expects a beleef to her proposals becaus she pretends to guide her self by scriptur For if scriptur must bend to their decrees and we must have no sence of scriptur but what they think fit then their decrees and not scriptur is our last rule And it is a pretty devise quoth he first to rule the rule and then be ruled by it c. Can a good Quaker say more for himself or desire more to be said for him If we be not bound to beleev we are not bound to hear Nay we are bound not to hear any such Church lest we should chance to beleev what aforehand we condemn and they themselvs dare not justifie He hath much of this talk up and down in his book Faith saith he p. 439. cannot be compelled By taking this liberty of discretion from men we force them to becom hypocrits and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbeleev And again p. 450. We allow not any man openly to contradict the Churches decrees But when he thinks contrary to the determination of our Church he must keep his judgment to himself only refusing obedience with all humility till he be better informed No fanatick will desire to refuse obedience any longer Thus doth this champion deliver up himself and Church unto the will and disposal of all whatever sects and cares not so he may avoid catholik obeysance to make himself a prey to those who upon these grounds here laid down will soon turn him out of Church and pulpit too and strip him not only of his cloak but his coat also At last he answers the catholik arguments for the Churches assured and infallible guidance just as he did before your others for supremacy Seeing him there you see him every where Finally he brings in for a certain testimony of the Churches liability to errour the two opinions so rife in old time about communicating infants and the Millenaries thousand years of blessedness with Christ in this world after dooms-day Which are both of them now condemned saith he by a contrary beleef and practice of the present Church although they were held by not a few very antient Fathers in the primitive times And in this he triumphs exceedingly Surely without caus I should think Those primitive doctors we may be assured knew somthing more then their Catechism and committed to writing somthing of that they conceived beyond their Christian faith as well as the present Fathers and Doctors of the Church now do And if there were so great varieties of opinion among them concerning those two things as there are now adayes among catholik doctors about a thousand others it is a sign that those two points did not belong to their Catechisme of faith then assuredly known but only to scholastical Theology especially sith they had neither clear scriptur or general councel nor assured tradition for either side And it is of no moment that som of them should be so confident of their opinion as to think it to be a right firm Christian beleef For so I have heard my self many a school Divine in catholik countreys to say of his Thesis or school position the better to countenance his own divinity that it was either faith or very near it Besides I do not know that the present Church hath ever declared in any cannon of her faith either that the faithfull shall not reign upon earth a thousand years with Christ after dooms day or that we may not communicate the Eucharist to children although this last is declared not necessary His 10 ch from page 169. to 180. Is against prayer for the dead and Purgatory Where both by the testimonies which you Sir do cite in your book and by the authorities he brings himself Mr. Whitby acknowledges that praying and offering for the dead is a very ancient and general custom amongst Christians Nay that S. Paul himself prayed for his deceased friend Onesiphorus This I say he plainly grants p. 182. But he addes that all this does not infer Purgatory or that Purgatory is a place under ground near hell where is fire and darknes or that all are in pain and torments there And so he pusles to the end of his chapter acknowledging faith and denying only theology For whether Purgatory signifie any one place as our imagination is apt to fancy or only a state and condition of som souls departed out of this visible world I see Mr. Whitby understands not that it is no Christian faith but a meer scholastical divinity But that our prayers offerings penances and good deeds do benefit the souls deceased this the very testimonies cited by Mr. Whitby himself as they do sufficiently evince so do they confirm catholik faith though they touch not upon theology at all And so while he oppugns the divinity of som catholiks he establishes the catholik faith of all Divines In the interim he ought to remember although in this he often forgets himself that by the very testimonies not only which you Sir do
peaceably accepted whom he ought indefinitly to obey not only for wrath but conscience It is not his part to weaken due loyalty with these seditious querks and quibbles Who can tell whether he be legitimatly begotten or rightly baptised or legally elected c. Catholiks have as much ground for their obedience to civil and spiritual Superiours as they have for their observance of their own natural father And I think that is enough If we had it not promised in Gospel as we have that Christ would preserv his Church from failing and errour yet the very beleef we have in his divinity would naturally infer such a confidence as Catholicks have in the Churches truth But Mr. Whitby understands not in whom this infallibility does originally reside as I perceiv by his fond interrogatories nor consequently what it is If he had ever had the happy hour to read the System of that learned Doctour Franciscus Davenport by whose light I have lately Sir since your departure hence to Paris sufficiently declared in our English tongue all this whole busines of infallibility he had saved a multitude of idle words drawn out of his famous fanatick Mr. Chillingworth Catholik Divines may several wayes defend and declare this busines of Infallibility as well as other points of religion according to their several conceptions and abilities and may go som of them so far as to defend even an intrinsecal inherent Infallibility either in the Pope or Councel And although this may suffer more difficulty then the extrinsecall one of Gods providence and guidance yet do I not see how any one can disprove a possibility of it However faith does not require so much at their hands If God be but infallible and Christ be true the church is safe Very many bitter books have been written against Catholiks and their religion injuriously diminishing both them and it upon the mistake of this one busines of Infallibility perhaps a wilful one two very lately by Mr. Moulin and Denton to the great hurt and dammage of the innocent if men beleev them It is a very pious and good rule that of the Canon and civil law Cum sunt jura partium obscura reo favendum est potius quam actori But I doubt much whether the people of England who may read these invective books against Papists follow that rule or no. When the right of Parties is obscure saith the law the defendant is rather to be favoured than the plaintiff If it were so here we should not have been by such bitter books so highly incensed as I see we are against poor Catholiks but against those rather who slander them Mr. Moulin would prove that Catholik religion and not Protestancy is guilty of sedition and he does it by a relation of passionate words and actions of some Popes recorded in stories And this he takes to be a sufficient proof that Catholik religion is guilty of sedition It were indeed to be wished that all Popes words and actions were answerable to their religion and rule But that is hardly to be expected in this world The very place and honour that has ever been given to that seat is no small temptation of pride or other passions incident therupon into a mind not more then ordinarily furnished with all Christian vertues But if we will beleev histories concerning them we shall find no series or succession of men in any one place or dignity of this world to have held forth so many lights of vertue as that one chair hath don And if som have been faulty they gave no doubt much caus of grief or scandal but none of wonderment to the world They may surely fail in a greater temptation since other Christians who have the same means of grace do fail in lesser But Catholiks saith Mr. Moulin are bound by the very tenour of their religion to hold for good and justifie all that any of their Popes have ever said or don This would be very strange why so Becaus saith he they beleev them infallible Who beleevs them infallible How infallible that they can neither do nor speak amiss Who ever thought that Insallible is a word taken up lately by schoolmen to expres the sovereign power and indeficiency of Gods Church and not any inherent endowments of a Pope who is brought up when he is young like one of us in the Catechise and practice of Christian religion and when he is ripe and placed by Gods providence in that supream chair is eminently to practise those holy rules and carefully to keep and maintain that depositum fidei the treasury of faith which he hath received and if he fail therin shall give an account and suffer for it in another world as severely as any other for their faults Nor are his words and actions a rule to other men of Christian religion but Christian religion is a rule to him both for his actions and words And all that Infallibility which Catholik writers to expres more than one thing in one short word make use of in their discourses with Protestants is only an extrinsecal providence of God watching over his Church to preserv the primitive apostolik spirit in her and to keep her alwayes even to the consummation of the world from errour and deficiency notwithstanding any opposition from without or the misdemeanours of any one or other within her self even the providence of that good God whose property it is not only to prevent evil from the good but even to work good out of evil that his Church which he hath promised to preserv may be ever safe And if ever this insallible providence do show it self it must furely be then when the ship is ready to be split by heresies and schismes that rise from som violent spirits breaking unity with that body so dangerously that Prelates are called together from all parts of the world as a help extraordinary in a general Councel to prevent the ruin And this is that which Divines mean when they say that the Pope is infallible in Cathedra in the Chair that is to say in consessu Seniorum Presbyterorum ecclesiae in a general convention of Christian Prelates So that Moulin speaks not one word to the purpos But Doctour Dentons book is not any such mistake but pure malice He intends to show that Papists were never punished for religion but for treason And his book is altogether made up of several stories of men Papists men sent over hither from beyond seas as he sayes to kill poison and destroy people Some when they had read his book took the Authour for a fool but I heard afterwards that he is Physician And upon that account I had him excused For if he be as bad at physick as he is in affairs of religion he had caus to be angry with them who came hither from forreign parts to take his office and emploiment out of his hands kill and poison people If the villains who ever they
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
who were of that Church The chief byshop is an Aaron and every Christian king a Joshua And as it is a content and support to Aaron to have a Joshua with him to fight Gods battles and keep the people in awe so is it not a little comfort to Joshua to have an Aaron by him with whom he may consult And indeed no kingdom can have a perfect accomplishment without the presence of these two swords civil and spiritual Ecce duo gladij hic satis est And although Christians even at this day when any heresy or novelty arises have still recours unto the same head of their religion for a decision of the doubt whom they consulted before for as the channel of Christianity is and must be still the same so must the spring-head be the same also yet when the thing is once decided they have none but kings and governours under him to see the direction executed as the only overseers with coactive power to do it And thus you see in brief how the Pope is head of the Church and the King head likewise and both immediately under God but with this difference that the king only governs Christianity established in his own royalty by law the Pope without further law rules and guides all the streams and rivulets of religion where ever it flows He is head of primary direction the king of sovereign execution he of guidance and spiritual autority only the king of civil and natural power invested in his place and dignity from God above to maintain any laws as well purely Christian as civil which himself shall accept establish and promulgate The Pope perswades but the King commands and although the Pope should formally command yet vertually and in effect such a command amounts only to a perswasion and he that obeys not feels no smart for it except the king be pleased to espous his caus and punish the contumacious which if he justly do then have kings a just autority in those affairs if otherwise then hath the Pope no means of help or defence in this world any more after the conversion of kings than before it and help himself he cannot any other way than only by putting people out of his communion who care not for it The Pope is obeyed for conscience and love only to his religion the King for wrath and conscience too the Pope delivers the rule but in general only and blunt on one side the King particularises it and gives it an edg the Popes headship is exercised in Ought and Should be the Kings is Will and shall be the Pope directs but the King compells the Pope secludes the contumacious from heaven which he that beleevs not feels not the King over and above that cuts off malefactors from the face of the earth too and they shall be made by feeling to beleev it And these two defend and secure one another and keep both Christians and their faith inviolate And while Christians themselvs do both tenderly love their Pape and chief pastour and spring-head of their religion which is beleeved beyond him to flow invisibly from God the great ocean of truth and withall do honor fear and observ their King and princely governour who only bears the sword of justice and not in vain to take revenge upon all those whom the love of religion and spiritual sword of their pastour will not keep in awe they do their duty as they ought and shall finde happines therein I must make haste and can say no more at present to this busines which as I have told you is somewhat besides my purpos Only one thing I must needs tell you before I pass on Although a King is in a good and proper sence stiled head as well of Church as State within his own dominions as for all coersive power therein yet head of the Church absolutely or head of primary direction in faith is so proper to the chief Prelate that no man upon earth besides himself hath ever so much as pretended to it and that for five reasons First becaus head of the Church absolutely intimates an universal right over the guidance of religion not in one kingdom only but all where ever that religion is And the King of France for example neither did nor can pretend to be head of the Church of England much less of Hungary Spain Africk Italy Greece Asia c. Yet such a head there must needs be to the end the Church may be one mystick body at unity in it self And that head must be unlimited to time and place as the Church it self is ever permanent and universally spread nor must the government alter as governments of particular kingdoms do Secondly head of the Church absolutely involves a primacy both of conveighing and interpreting faith and all princes in Europe received their faith at first from priests who sent for that end from their spiritual superiour converted their kingdoms but they never gave faith either to them or their pastour Thirdly he that is head of the Church absolutely must be of the same connatural condition with the whole hierarchy to confirm baptise ordain preach attone the almighty by sacrifice impose hands segregate men from their worldly state unto his own spiritual one and in a special manner to exercise those priestly functions unto which he segregates them Fourthly head of the Church absolutely is to be indifferent unto kingdoms and all sorts of government as the religion also is and keep it like it self in all places unaltered in its nature however in its general dictates it may concur to the direction and good of all people and governments And therefor he cannot be confined to one place or government but must be as it were separate and in a condition indifferent to all as a general byshop whose sole care is to heed those eradiations of faith spread up and down the world may be and is when princes heed but their own particular kingdoms and care not how religion goes in another any more then their wealth or polity Thus the sun-beams though they fall upon several soils diversly affected yet they keep their own nature unaltered by vertue of one general fountain-head of light which is indifferent to every kingdom and dispenses distributes and keeps the raies unchanged The ends and wayes of religion are quite of another nature from all worldly businesses and therfor require a particular superintendent set apart for them as indeed they ever have had since the time of religions first master who as he did educate his in order to a life eternal in a government apart being himself a man distinct from Caesar so used he to speak of religious duties as separate and differing from others Reddite saith he quae Caesari sunt Caesari quae Dei Deo In very truth the Church and Christianity as it is a thing accidental to all worldly states so is it superinduced upon them as an influence of another rank and order
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
Romanists arguments for their faith the Romanists doctrin about infallibility not divine but as it were divine the Romanists tenet about fundamentals the Romanists motives of credibility the Romanists doctrin about the material and formal object of faith c. For all this and several such like talk is but the theological discours of that Catholik Gentleman and of it self no Romanists doctrin at all For I know well enough what Stillingfleet means and would have meant by Romanists doctrin And all his Protestant readers understand therby only Catholik religion and he knows it well enough I should take it ill and be sorry and look upon it as an injury to the Church of God if any one should call my way of defending her faith the Romanists way or my talk the Romanists doctrin however the thing it self defended or excused by me is Roman or Catholik faith The Church has no one way but several methods and several schools and several wayes to declare and explicate and defend her religion And every writer does it according to his personall endowments and judgment some better some wors though the religion so explicated defended and declared be still and ever one and the very same And if indeed I had been to speak in that busines I should never have made any such argument as that Catholik Gentleman did nor will another man think himself obliged to discours as I do although he and I defend both of us the same thing This if Mr. Stillingfleet consider as he ought he will soon perceiv his own pittiful childishnes But thus Doctour OeN dealt with me to my very great pitty and regret Ever and anon Is this your Roman doctrin quoth he ' Who would have thought that the Romish Church should dare to utter so wicked blasphemies c. First misinterpreting my words and calling that a doctrin which was none at all but only a prosopopy of atheistical objections and then stiling that a Roman doctrin which was but the talk of a particular man So that what he called Roman doctrin and Romish doctrin was neither Romish nor doctrin neither But ministers care not what they say And so much the more wary does it behove all men to be who deal with them Too much care cannot be taken with such men who either cannot or will not distinguish between general faith and particular mens doctrin between religion and several school-methods of defending it between the faith of the whole Church of God and discourses of writers concerning it So ignorant they are all of them or wilfully malicious I find in my heart even a longing desire to expres to you in particular the various shifts and misdemeanours of Stillingfleet But here is now no time or place for it and such a thing if it were done would be but of little use to morrow I mention him only to let you know how much the French Hugonot religion begins here to prevail by means of Whitby Stillingfleet and others to the overthrow of our own Protestant Church here establisht and to let posterity who shall haply see any of these small writings have some little glimmerings of these our present times They doubtles will be glad to see the general cours of things now done even as we are to read the wayes of former reformers although neither we nor they can take any great pleasur in any long particular narrations of their fallacies either against logick or morality when the men are once past and gone Dr. Jeremy Taylor hath also put forth lately a very bitter insulting injurious book against Catholik religion which he calls a Disswasive from Popery Reddet illi dominus secundum opera ejus And God will bless his Catholik beleevers who trust in him and walk according to their holy rule in his fear and love unblamable the very contumelies of adversaries working at length to their greater good And I beseech God who revives all things and Jesus our Lord who gave his testimony under Pontius Pilate a good confession that they may ever observ the commandments of God and the Church his Spous possessing their souls in perfect patience unreprovable unto the coming of Jesus Christ our Lord whom in his own times will the blessed God shew forth the only potent one the King of kings and Lord of Lords who alone hath immortality and inhabits light inaccessible whom no mortal man hath ever seen nor yet can see him to whom be all honour domimion and power for evermore Amen This is the earnest desire and prayer of Sir Your real friend Given in the Nones of March 1664. J. V. C. EPISTOLA AD AMPHIBOLUM AGAINST Dr. Taylor The occasion of this Epistle THe first epistle was written to an adversary the second to a friend this third to a neuter who after he had began to think more moderately of Catholik religion returned upon his reading of Dr. Jeremy Taylor his Disswasive from Popery to his former misconceit And he is by this Epistle given to understand that the said Disswasive is of that nature that it can have no such force upon any judicious man Sermo Horatianus inter Davum Herum D. I Amdudum ausculto cupiens tibi dicere servus Pauca reformido H. Davusne D. It a Davus amicum Mancipium Domino frugi quod sit satis hoc est Ut vitale putes H. Age libertate Decembri Quando ita majores voluerunt utere Narra D. Pars hominum vitiis gaudet constanter urget Propositum pars multa natat modo recta capessens Interdum pravis obnoxia H. Non dices hodie quorsum haec tam putida tendunt Furcifer D. Ad te inquam H. Quo pacto pessime D. Laudas Fortunam mores antiquae plebis idem Si quis ad illa Deus subitò te agat usque recuses Aut quia non sentis quod clamas rectius esse Aut quia non firmus rectum defendis haeres Nequicquam coeno cupiens evellere plantam Non horam tecum esse potes non otia recte Ponere teque ipsum vitas fugitivus erro H. Unde mihi lapides D. Quorsum est opus H. Unde sagittas Aut insanit homo aut versus facit Ocyus hinc te Ni rapis accedes opera agro nona Dunano III. Epistola ad Amphibolum against Doctour Taylor SIR YOu were pleased to say upon your reading of Flat Lux that Popery may for ought you knew be more innocent then commonly it is reputed and no wayes so odious as some would make it But now upon the reading of Dr. Taylor 's Disswasive which you desire me to peruse I perceiv you look towards your former thoughts concerning this maligned Popery and invite them home again To deal freely with you I was amazed my self at the reading of that book though not Sir with your amazement but another of my own You startled at Popery whole uglines was there set before your eyes with such fresh colours I at
they may have written many other most excellent catholik and pious things yet through humane infirmity in this and that particular may they at one time or other trip and fail And particular mens failings are to be rectified by the straightnes and integrity of the General Canon but they are not to be esteemed that Canon as your Doctor Taylor not inclined to mend things but marre them rather would here have them to be thorowout this whole book of his Disswasive where whatever he can read or hear of amongst the writings of any one in the Catholik world that may either swerv or be wrested from the universal judgment and beleef of Papists that he calls Popery and what they speak that the Roman Church must pretend O the strange perversness and wickedness of mans heart And yet this book of his thus made up has carried away not the weaker sort of men only but it seems has made even your discretion Sir to stagger For when I gave you lately a visit I perceived within a while that I had but gon forth to see a reed shaken with the wind What the Church can do is but one of the Questions of School-divinity and no Catholik faith Consequently no Popery And if two or three in the Schools should chance to aver this power in the Church where more then two or three thousands deny it why should not the opinion of three thousand Papist doctours be esteemed Popery as well as that of only three Whilst all of them agree in their faith which is that the Church hath a power authoritatively to decide controversies and dispute only of a further power then their faith reaches unto I should think that the opinion of three thousand Papist doctours is rather to be esteemed Popery if one of them must be called so rather then the single opinion of two or three if any such be to the contrary But truth is ther is no such opinion of any one I know to the contrary Nor does Turrecremata nor any els teach that the Church hath power to make new articles in that sence your Dr. Taylor means who therby would infer that Catholik faith is therfor not primitive but new Nay it is rather Popery and a part of Catholik faith that no new articles can be made For General Councels have determined that nothing is to be beleeved or held but id quod traditum est that which has been received from Christ and his Apostles Nor can the Religion otherwise be the faith of Christ or Christian Religion Sir if you do but seriously peruse the last one general Council which all Protestants hold to be rank popish that I mean which was kept at Trent you will find that they testifie almost in every Session and profes to make all their determinations according to that which had been delivered according to that they had received according to that which had been conserved by continual succession to that which was conformable to Apostolical tradition to that which had been perpetually and uninterruptedly retained to that which ancestours profest to that which the Church of God ever taught ever understood ever beleeved that which hath been received down by hands that which was the ancient judgment and custom that which has been approved since the apostles dayes c. These are all the very words of the Councel in several of their Sessions And shall a Doctor Taylor com now after all this and tell the world that Popery is neither Catholik Apostolik nor Primitive and that Papists pretend to make new faith c. after a general Synod which all Protestants look upon as the most popish Councel that ever was and that too the last and nearest to us hath so manifestly so pathetically so generally profest the contrary What should we say to such a Doctor And other general Councels in like manner never determined any thing for the quieting of dissentions for which end they met together but what was latent at least in the seed of Christs word and so no new article in this Doctours sence as did that Councel for example which determined two wills in Christ which was no new article becaus the former old faith which had made known two perfect natures in our Lord the one divine the other humane apparently dictated that truth against all those who would acknowledg but one will in him And this being defined by the Councel received a new strength against a novel heresie but not a new birth For this caus Councels do not determin the varieties that are in Schoolmen becaus these are superstructures and none of them more latent in ancient tradition than is the opinion that is opposit to it But Turrecremata Triumphus Ancoran and Panormitan teach that the Church can make new articles If they should say any such thing I have already made it enough evident that it cannot be thence inferred to be popery or any part of popery But what if they speak no such thing What shall we think then of this your Dr. Taylor Turrecremata in the place cited by him never so much as dreamed as any man may there see that the Pope is the rule of faith as the Doctour would have him speak but in that whole chapter labours only to shew that it belongs to him principally to regulate disputes in faith as being the chief Prelate In the like manner does he most unworthily abuse the other three brought by him as witnesses that the Pope can make new Creeds and new faith wheras Panormitan teaches expresly that he cannot make but only declare faith Ancorano sayes the like adding that what he so declares may be new to us though not in it self and Triumphus no less manifestly speaks in the very place cited by him that ther is one and the same faith in the ancients and moderns and that in our holy Creed are inserted all those things which universally pertain to Catholik faith although he say withall which is also very true that to adde explicate or declare a truth which is contained in holy Scripture hath alwayes been lawful for the Church But is this to make new faith which is not Apostolik and primitive as this your Doctour would have them to assert Do you Siry your self judg And him that thus abuses the world God Almighty judg So that when we come to the close of all ther is not any one Catholik Doctour that ever said that the Church can make new articles of faith in Doctour Taylors sence Why then did Pope Leo the 10. condemn Luther for denying the Pope to have this power Neither did Luther or Pope Leo ever dream of any such thing For Luther wholly busied himself about his old Catholik Religion from which he had revolted which he called an Egyptian darkness that had overspread the earth even from the Apostles dayes and never thought of this school question which in his dayes was not heard of And he denied the then present Pope
glory of another world This was a Testament only fit for Jesus Prince of Angels and men to make And this I suppose is that piece of Popery your Disswader here so fumbles at that he knows not what to call it or how to express it in his words O but it is Transubstantiation which the Disswader dislikes And what is Transubstantiation what does it mean What is that long winded hard word of Transubstantiation what is the meaning of it For Catholik Religion which your Disswader calls Popery is not words nor are words Catholik Religion but the sence and life and meaning delivered us by help of words for faith hope and charity to feed upon Neither Consubstantiality nor Trinity nor Incarnation nor Transubstantiation and such other like phrases are any thing at all of any Religion Your Disswader abuses the world when he tells you he knows when Transubstantiation first came up The meaning of it was in the Christian world all those many ages before that Lateran Councel he speaks of or else it had not been in the world then Pray let him tell me whether the consubstantiality of the Son of God with his eternal Father who made all things be a novelty or new article yea or no. He knows the very time as himself here speaks when it began to be owned publickly for an opinion and that very Councel in which it was said to be passed into a publick doctrin and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduced And if he do not know all this I can tell him Does this prove that same Consubstantiation to be a novelty yea or no Let him answer me directly I am a plain man and love plain dealing Was Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of mankind beleeved any otherwayes to be true and really God after that Councel had declared him to be consubstantial to Almighty God his heavenly Father than he was before Christians ever heard of that word Constsubstantiality or Consubstantiation If Christians notwithstanding that new word still beleeved and adhered to one and the same old faith they did before then say I the same of Transubstantiation And if that new word made no new article no more does this Nor doth the one word any more belong to Christian Religion than the other and both indeed only so far as they conveigh the old faith by this new invented word guarded against the subtilties of the hereticks then living who by their circumventing sophistry deluded all other expressions concerning the real presence of the Godhead in our Lords humanity and of his humanity in the Eucharist save only that other of Consubstantatiion and this of Transubstantiation both words in those dayes equally new And when those heresies and hereticks are once vanished ther is no further use of the words amongst Christians who beleev and worship by verthe of their Christian Tradition the very thing it self Gods divinity in his humanity and Christs humanity in his sacred Eucharist without troubling their heads with those hard words which were invented against subtil hereticks unless haply the same heresies should rise again And the Catholik flock acts and beleevs after both those Councels just as their Christian predecessours did before They acknowledg Christ our Lord really God and fear and love and hope in him whether they ever hear of his consubstantiality or consubstantiation with God or no. Nor do they ever trouble their heads to know what is the meaning of con or what is substance or what be accidents or what substantiation or consubstantiation no more after that Councel of Nice than before it Such terms and phrases are besides the simplicity of their holy and innocent beleef which holds notwithstanding all that is really meant by those words taught them in a more natural and plainer way So likewise do Catholik beleevers after the Councel of Lateran worship their crucified Redeemer in the Eucharist in the same manner others did before it being the very same Christians with those that lived the age before and think no more of Transubstantiation many thousands of these now then those others did that word making no more difference before and after this Councel of Lateran then had Consubstantiation made amongst the Catholik Christians which were before and after that other Councel of Nice By those words som cunning wolves had been by their Pastours discovered and separated from the sheep and after that the whole flock fed quietly in the same hills and by the same fountains they did before And in this sence Catholik Divines might say and truly say that Transubstantiation is not of faith either before the Councel or after if any one of them did indeed ever say so For Christian faith is not words as I said before nor words any Religion And if those Catholik Divines who ever they were meant any thing else as namely that the Christians before that Councel of Lateran who indeed worshipped their Redeemer in the Eucharist as true and fully as any that lived after that Councel ever did or can were not given generally to understand explicitely that Christ our Lord is so present in the Eucharist that ther is there no other substance but himself in this sence they spoke true that so much had not been spoken expresly by a Councel but yet that the faith and practice of Christians both before and after that Councel was the same And so consequently ther was no more of faith after that Councel than was before it whether we consider the learned or the common slock of Christians For these worship Christ in the Eucharist after that Councel as others did before it though neither of them think of Transubstantiation and those learned ones spake and wrote of our Lords presence in the Eucharist before that Councel as others do after it and both do equally beleev the thing that is meant by Transubstantianon which in a diverse sence according as men speak either of the word or meaning of the word may be either said to be or not to be of faith either before the Lateran Councel or after it Those words of Tertullian in his 2. book ad uxorem where he speaks of the marriage of a Gentile with a Christian woman Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustet si sciverit panem non illum credat esse qui dicitur c. Those also of S. Cyprian in his Coena Domini Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus c. And again Panis iste non in specie sed natur â mutatur c. Those likewise of St. Chrysostom de poenitent serm 5. Non quod panis sit respicias neque quod vinum sit reputes c. And again Mysteria hic consumi Christi corporis substantiâ c. Those too of S. Greg. Nyssen in his magna Catechista Rectè ergo nunc quoque Dei verbo sanctificatum panem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again Haec autem
dat virtute benedictionis in illud transelement at â eorum quae apparent naturâ Lastly that I may not forget my own design which is not here to prove Catholik faith but only to take a little view of this Disswasive from it those words of S. Cyril in his Mystagogica quarta Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem bunc qui videtur â nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed corpus Christi vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensu gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse Christi c. I say these and such like words of ancient Christian Divines many hundreds of years before the Councel of Lateran speak as much the thing meant by Transubstantiation as any Doctour can express it now though these may know more of the word than they And indeed the definition of the Catholik Councel makes no alteration at all in the practice of Catholik faith which so considers their Lords presence in the Eucharist that it never heeds the Quomodo or concomitances the adoration love and devotion being still and ever in all things the very same If Christ our Lord should appear to two Christians now as he did once to S. Paul in a splendour of light and a voice out of that shining brightnes should issue so efficacious that they should both of them be fully perswaded in their hearts to worship him whom they beleeved both of them there present I suppose these two would equally do well and equally do the same thing although one of them should haply think ther was no other thing there but his Lord in an appearance of light and the other should not think at all of the light whether it were a substance or only an appearance of it But if a third man should deny the real presence of our Lord in that light he would for certain be of another faith So it is here Protestants who deny the real presence are of another beleef from Catholiks who acknowledg it but Catholiks who equally adore it are all of one beleef though perhaps not one of a million ever thinks of Transubstantiation O but Christ might be present in the Eucharist although Transubstantiation were not He might so and Christ likewise may be owned for God though Consubstantiation were never thought of Both there and here somthing is explicately spoken which was latitant in the former practice and beleef and he that can may understand it But the millions that never heard of it so long as they beleev and worship their Crucified Redeemer as they ought in the Eucharist are never the worse Had it not been for hereticks neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation had been ever heard of and yet the practice and faith of Catholik Christians the same it is The holy Fathers which your Disswader cites against this particle of Catholik beleef som say nothing at all there concerning that thing som speak what he cites in another manner som teach quite contrary But this I intend not now to insist upon Only thus much in general and I pray you Sir mark it well Those ancient Fathers who say somtimes that the words of our Lord are to be understood spiritually not carnally and that those symbols are a figure of his body agree with all Catholiks that are now in the world no less in the meaning of those their words than others wherin they manifestly assert the real presence in this Sacrament For all Catholiks say that our Lord is not to be so understood that his holy body in the Eucharist is to be fed upon in a carnal way as though it should be divided into gobbets and so digested by the stomack into flesh and blood as other meats are but that as that holy body now glorified is becom a spiritual body as good S. Paul speaks totally spiritual and divine and not now subject to any condition or laws of material corruptible bodies here on earth so is it spiritually to be taken as the food not of a mortal body but the immortal spirit So likewise do all Catholiks acknowledg and beleev that the symbols after the powerfull blessing of Christs consecration do so becom his sacred body by conversion mutation or transelementation as the same Fathers speak that outward appearance which remains of them is not now any more a figure of bread and wine as it was before but of our Lords precious body and blood which have succeeded in their place So that those very words of the ancient Fathers wherin they say that the elements are now becom a figure of Christs body and blood do prove not only a real presence but a transelementation too or Transubstantiation which your Disswader judges to sound somwhat more For every material body I pray you Sir mark this well I say every material body here on earth as a tree a man or beast or other thing exhibits to the eye ear taste or other sences an outward species of that which it is And the substance ever goes along in nature with that appearance it exhibits unless the power of God should interpose and make it otherwise Thus when I have bread before me or milk for example that I see taken from the cow I see it and feel it and tast it to be such as it shows it self and such it is as it shows it self to be Thus it is in all nature But we are not say those good holy Fathers to think so here For though here be the colour and touch and tast of bread yet after this strange and powerful conversion made by Gods omnipotent words it is no more bread you see it is not natural bread you touch it is not material bread you tast but the blessed body of your Redeemer which is touched seen and tasted under those remaining appearances which are no more now the figure of bread which they were before but the figure of our Lords body under the species appearance or representation of bread now wonderfully concealed And thus much is manifestly and clearly exprest by all those holy Fathers Hoc sciens faith great St. Cyril of Jerusalem pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed est Corpus Christi vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensu gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse Christi And this speak all holy Fathers both Greek and Latin It would be endles to bring their testimonies By these few words if Sir you have heeded them well you will presently conceiv the meaning of that speech of Tertullian in his third book against Marcion Acceptum panem distributum discipulis Corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus
of unity they were all united although they were all alike in power and commission of administring Sacraments If it be so what shall we think of this Disswader and of his excellent saying of S. Cyprian to prove that the Church was intrusted to the apostles in common and that no one apostle exercised a power over another The text of S. Cyprian runs thus Our Lord said to Peter Upon this rock will I build my Church and again feed thou my sheep Upon the one Him Christ builds his Church and unto Him he commends his sheep to be sed And although after his resurrection he gave to all his apostles equal power and said as my father sent me so I send you yet that he might manifest unity he constituted one chair and by his authority disposed the origen of unity beginning srom one The other apostles are the same that Peter was c. But the beginning comes srom unity the primacy is given to Peter that one Church of Christ and one flock of Christ may be monstrated Thus St. Cyprian testifies of the apostles that although they were all equal in their spiritual commission of Gods word and Sacraments yet were they brought to an unity by the government of one superiour and one chair which oversaw them all And is this a fit place to prove that the Apostles had no superiour over them which expresly testifies that they had one In the same manner doth our Disswader deal with the other testimonies But I have been too long upon this point Here is enough Sir to let you see what I said in the beginning of this discours that your Disswaders reasons are senceles his testimonies either impertinent or manifestly against himself and his whole talk and doctrin contrary to the laws and constitutions of our own Protestant English Church §. 11. Which concludes the novelties Gives notice of nine other popish novelties Saints invocation Scripture-insufficiency absolution before pennance Priests confirmation nine-penny-masses circumgestation of Eucharist intention in Sacraments mass-sacrifice and communionless mass After your Disswader has mentioned these to show the fertility of his brain he sayes nothing of them at all but only that they be also innovations and thence concluds that the Roman Religion is neither old nor primitive nor catholik and that it is easier for Protestants to tell where their religion was before Luther then for Papists to tell where their religion was before Trent And that when the enemy had sowed these tares and honest men in the Church durst not complain then England and other nations by the glass of Scriptur resormed to pure antiquity preferring a new cure before an old sore In the beginning of the section it was a new sore in the end it is an old sore so long time was he a writing this one no-section And he has so ordered the busines that it will be hard now for Papists to show their Religion before Trent although he has neither deduced the original of these nine or his other ten novelties from Trent nor can ever show that these or they are the Papists religion For as he has handled them ther is not one of them any part of their Religion much less doth their religion consist in them His sirst busines of the power of making articles sect 1. is so far from religion that it is not so much as the philosophy of any one school in the Catholik world His leash of new articles sect 2 is partly a fond dream and partly an erroneous vision of his own His discours of Indulgences sect 3. is utterly besides the purpos and what ther is of Catholik faith in it he allows himself as ancient 4. His talk of Purgatory is so ridiculously absurd that granting all that Roman faith teaches to be both ancient and universal he yet sayes at random that Roman faith is not that and yet never speaks himself what that Roman faith is 5. In Transubstantiation he wholly playes with the word which he knows when it came in wholly neglecting the thing it self and brings a multitude of Popish Doctours that own it not for their faith and not any one popish man or woman that own it he sayes it was defined in the Lateran Councel first and yet is not that which was defined in the Lateran Councel and never speaks what this thing is which notwithstanding he will have called Popery 6. The busines of half-communion as he calls it is no Popery at all that is to say no Catholik faith but a custom only in the exercise of their religion and that neither universal for time or place And although Catholiks beleev that it is not necessary to communicate in both kinds yet do they not beleev that it is necessary to communicate only in one kind either this kind or that but have used all the three wayes 7. His discours about service in an unknown tongue is a like mistake taking custom for religion and discipline for doctrin and he perverts and falsifies the custom too saying that Papists understand not their own prayers nor know what they ask of God 8. His talk of images passes by all the use of them that religion requires and is wholly taken up in some school disputes and his own lies 9. His exceptions against the pictures of the Trinity with so many eyes and noses and faces in a knot is as much popery as Euclids book de Triangulis 10. His section about the sovereignty of one byshop over all Christians had been about popery and catholik religion indeed if he had handled it right but as his reasons are fond and autorities fals so he mistakes the very thing it self imagining that papists beleev that spiritual supremacy to be tied to the walls of Rome which is no faith of theirs and consequently none of their popery And so none of his sections nor any part of his discours touches either all or any part of Papists religion And is not this a doughty piece of work to prove popery by which all his readers understand the Roman Catholik religion to be neither old nor primitive nor apostolical How he would have handled the other nine points becaus he says nothing of them I will not trouble my self to read But I am sure that seven of the nine have not any relation to Catholik religion all of them I mean besides Saints invocation and the Sacrifice of the Mass. What Councel hath determined or what Catholik beleevs that the sacred scripture is insufficient or that absolution ought to be given before pennance or that single priests are to confirm or that masses are to be sold for nine pence or circumgestation or any such intention in sacraments as to damn folks which the Disswader here speaks or that mass is to be without communion And I may now think if he had spoke of the other two Saints invocation and Sacrifice he would even there also have mistaken and strayed For he has so behaved himself hitherto as