those sometimes unwritten c. But if our Lord be faithful in all his words c. without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity either to detract from the things that are written or to introduce any thing that is not written seeing our Lord hath said My sheep c. wherefore we also as heretofore we have ever had that determined in our mindes to avoid all voice or speech contrary to the Doctrine of our Lord so at this time c. But in all his discourse he hath no such words as the Dr. quotes for his to adde any thing to the Faith that is not there found 3. To the same purpose he quotes Theophilus Alexandrinus It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in Scripture when he spake likewise onely of a particular Heresie that Origen had devised of his own proud head against express Scripture viz. that Christ was at one time or other to lose his Kingdom I cannot know with what temerity Origen feigning such things and following not the authority of Scriptures but his own error c. But being ignorant that it is an instinct of a devilish spirit to follow the sophismes of humane mindes which words the Dr. craftily left out and to think any thing Divine extra Scripturarum authoritatem without the Scriptures authority 4. To the same purpose he quotes S. Athanasius The Catholicks will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being immodestiae vecordia to speak those things which are not written when he spake it likewise onely of a particular Heresie contrary to Scripture viz. That Christs flesh was consubstantial to the Godhead If therefore ye be Disciples of the Gospels speak not against God iniquity but walk by the Scriptures But if ye will prate things dissonant from the Scripture why do ye contend with us who endure not either to speak or hear any thing beside what is written What is therefore the madness of your immodesty that ye speak things which are not written and think things that are dissonant from piety which words likewise the Dr. craftily left out as who presume to say that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial to the Deity 5. Against our veneration of the Images of Christ and his B. Mother and Heavenly Saints he quotes Lactantius Without all peradventure whereever an Image is meaning for worship there is no Religion when he knew Lactantius spake onely of worshipping with Divine honour the Idols of the Heathen Gods as his whole discourse afore and after manifests which it would be too long to set down 6. To the same purpose and in the same fraudulent manner he quotes Origen We ought rather to dye then pollute our Faith with such impieties when Origen spake onely of the worshipping of Idols of the Heathen Gods But the Christians not onely shun the Temples Altars and Idols of the Gods but go more readily to death lest with any excess or impiety they should altogether pollute that which they most rightly believe of God the Creator of all things 7. Against our giving the Communion in one kinde he saith The Primitive Church did Excommunicate them that did not receive the Sacrament in both kindes and quotes for it the Canon Comperimus when the Canon spake not of receiving the Sacrament by the Communicants but of the consummating of the Sacrifice by the Priest as appears by the reason given Because the division of one and the same Mystery or Sacrifice cannot be without great Sacriledge and by the title of the Canon The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without his Blood 8. To the same purpose he quotes S. Ambrose He who receives the Mystery otherwayes then Christ appointed that is saith the Doctor in one kinde when he hath appointed it in two is unworthy of the Lord c. where to wrest it to his purpose he first corrupts the words for S. Ambrose saith not who Receives but who Celebrates it plainly meaning the Priest alone nor doth he say otherwayes then Christ appointed but otherwayes then it was given by him 2. He corrupts the sense with his ridiculous gloss devised out of his own brain without any least colour of ground for it in the place nay S. Ambrose gives another reason for it Quia sine disciplinâ traditionis conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt c. They who come without the discipline of tradition and conversation are guilty c. In his 1. Chap. 1. Sect. 9. To prove that all who believe the unity of substance and Trinity of persons in the Godhead are Catholiques he quotes the Imperial Law All who believe this Doctrine that is in the Father Son and holy Ghost c. are Christians and Catholiques when he could not but know that that Law meant not that they were Catholiques absolutely but onely as to those points for after that Law the Novatians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Unity of the Godhead 10. To prove that in the Church of Rome there is a pretence made to a Power not onely to Declare but to Make new Articles of faith and new Creeds he quotes the Bull of Pope Leo X. condemning this Article of Luther It is not in the power of the Pope to constitute Articles of faith when Luthers word was not constituere but statuere i.e. to decide declare determine or settle Articles of Faith which may be without making them such 11. To the same purpose he quotes Turrecremata l. 2. c. 203. where he hath no such words as he is quoted for but cap. 107. he hath but then the words say not that the Pope hath power to make Articles of Faith nor do they mean any more but as the title of the Chapter proposeth to prove that to him belongs to declare or determine matters of Faith nor do they say absolutely as the quotes them The Pope is the measure and rule c. but onely that because the Pope is primus maximus Praelatorum ad eum maximè pertinebit c. To him most or above any other it will pertain to be the measure c. 12. To the same purpose he quotes Augustinus Triumphus who saith no such thing as he quotes him for viz. that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith or new Creeds nor did he mean that he could multiply any new Articles or put them into the Creed that were not alwayes of Faith and implicitely at least contained in holy Scripture as is manifest 1. from the reason given by him For in the Creed are put those things which universally pertain to Christian Faith which words are fradulently left out by the Doctor 2. From his express Doctrine in his Resolvendum There hath been one Faith of the
A LETTER To a Friend touching Dr. Jeremy Taylor 's Disswasive from Popery Discovering above an Hundred and fifty False or Wrested Quotations in it Psal. 26. 12. Mentita est iniquitas sibi Printed in the Year 1665. The Publisher to the Reader MEeting with this Letter I thought it worth the publishing as a means in the interim till the Book it self be Answered to give the Admirers of Dr. Taylor and of that Book some cause to lessen their great Opinion of him and it and the Cause it maintains For indeed after that Juel Mornay Morton Potter and other of the prime Protestant Controvertists had been found so guilty of this Fault of False Quotations and been so cryed out upon by our Catholick Writers for it and the Protestant Cause had suffered so much shame and prejudice by it who could have expected it in Dr. Jeremy Taylor a man so Eminent among them for Place Learning and Abilities in Controversie and who therefore it might be presumed would not discredit himself or his Cause by Quoting any thing upon Trust or Varying from his Author 's either Words or Sense Or though he might be incurious in this kinde when he wrote onely as a Private Divine or in a book of Devotion as ex gr when in his Book Of the Life of Christ he tells a story out of S. Gregory and cites the very Book and Chapter How S. Herminigilda chose to dye rather then she would receive the B. Sacrament from the hand of an Arrian Bishop when many Punies of our Clergy nay many of our ordinary Women could have told him that the person there mentioned by S. Gregory was not Herminigilda a Woman but Herminigildus a Man and Prince of Spain Yet in such a Work as this to which as himself saith he was appointed by a Synod of the Protestant Irish Bishops and published with design to Convert all the Catholicks of that Nation and entertained with that applause here in England as it hath been already in a short time twice or thrice Re-printed who could think but he would have been most exact in his Quotations which therefore since he hath not but sometimes quoted Books that never were or that in the places quoted have not any least syllable to the purpose they are quoted for and frequently quoted them in a Sense they never dreamt of yea and divers times by adding curtailing or otherwise altering them misquoted the very words themselves of all which the ensuing Letter will give sufficient instances What can be said or thought of it but that had it been possible for him to have upheld his Cause otherwayes he would never have used such sinister practices If it be said that divers of the Exceptions are little material be it so but then the least that is will be a false or wrested Quotation and help to shew the insincerity of the Author If it be said that divers of them are perhaps but Errors of his Pen or of the Press onely it may be so but till they appear to be so they are justly charged In fine if it be said that many of them are not so much as pretended to be False but Wrested onely 't is true but then 1. These also will be of avail to my end as well though not as much as those that are false 2. Of False Quotations and where cannot be supposed any Error of his Pen or the Press there are enow though all the other had been omitted in the Letter to my end namely for instance in some of the chief onely these six and forty viz. 8. 12. 14. 16. 17. 26 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 34. 36. 46. 47. 50. 53. 56. 57. 58. 61. 71. 76 77 78 79 93. 114. 115. 116. 118. 130 136. 137. 139. 140. 143. 144. 147. 149. 150. 152. 153. 155. 156. If any one therefore shall take upon him to justifie Dr. Taylors Quotations to save labour and time let him in the first place justifie these or which six of them he thinks the most justifiable and try it first in them and by their success let judgement be made of all the rest Vale. Errata Page 6. line 21. in the break insert 16. Page 21. line 15 in the break dele 48. A Note of above an Hundred and fifty False or Wrested Quotations in Dr. Jeremy Taylor 's late Disswasive from Popery sent by a Catholique to his Friend SIR WHen I told you Dr. Taylors Disswasive beside other faults in it was full of false or wrested Quotations you wondering at it desired of me a Note of them which I here send you of some which I have observed by examining those Authors which I could come by here And I doubt not but most of his other also would be found ejusdem farinae if the Authors were examined In the Preface 1. AGainst unwritten Traditions taught by the Church he quotes Tertullian as speaking against all Traditions absolutely I adore the fulness of Scripture if it be not written let Hermogenes fear the woe that is destin'd to them that detract from or adde to it when had he set down the words sincerely it would have appear'd he spake onely of one point taught by that Heretick painter not without but against express Scripture viz. that God made the World of some preexisting matter Igitur in principio fecit Deus coelum terram Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem quae mihi factorem manifestat facta In Evangelio verò ministrum atque arbitrum rectoris invenio Sermonem An autem de aliquâ subjacenti materiâ facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina si non est scriptum timeat vae illud c. Therefore saith he in the beginning God made Heaven and Earth I adore the fulness of Scripture meaning of this Text as to this point which manifests to me both the maker and the things made And in the Gospel I finde the Word both the minister and arbiter of God But whether all things were made of some subjacent matter I never have yet read Let Hermogenes's shop shew that it is written viz. his Doctrine that the World was made of some matter If not written let him fear that woe c. 2. Against the same he quotes three places of Basil as saying thus Without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity and a most certain sign of pride to introduce any thing that is not written c. Whereas in two of the places quoted S. Basil hath no such words and in the third he spake onely of certain particular Heresies devised by Hereticks not without but against express Scripture and which S. Basil there confuted not by Scripture alone but by Tradition also Whilst I was to fight against divers factions of Hereticks c. I thought it consequent to repress the blasphemies introduced by opposite sayings or sentences and
Epistle of S. Leo but there is not a word in it of those he quotes Sect. 5. 41. He quotes Scotus as declaring that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not 42. To the same purpose he quotes Occham but I can finde no such thing in him 43. To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he saith no such thing 44. To prove that the Decree of the Lateran Council was but a pretended one he quotes Platina Many thing 's indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed leaving out the next words giving the reason of it which shewed that he meant not of Decrees of Faith but of raising Force to send to the Holy Land against the Saracens which was the cause of calling that Council The Pope when he saw the power of the Saracens to encrease in Asia called a Council c. Many things came then in consultation but nothing could be fitly decreed because both the Pisans and Genowayes by Sea and the Cisalpins by Land were at war among themselves c. 45. To prove that our own men have affirmed that Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture he quotes Suarez That Cajetan affirmed that the Article of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture when Suarez saith no such thing but onely this But of Catholiques Cajetan alone taught that secluding the authority of the Church those words This is my body sufficed not to confirm this truth 46. To the same purpose he quotes Canus who saith not that it is not expressed but not so express i.e. not plainly or clearly and ranks it with the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead and in his next Chapter passeth to things which belong to Christian Faith which are neither clearly nor obscurely in Scripture Not all things which pertain to Christian Doctrine are expressed in holy Writ For the conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son the equality of three Persons in one substance and their distinction by relative proprieties you shall not finde so express in the Canonical Books wherefore as the Article of the Resurrection was contained in that I am the God of Abraham c. which afterward Christ expounded to the less intelligent so the Church by the Spirit of truth hath explicated some things which are had obscure in the holy Scriptures 47. He saith Henriquez affirms that Scotus saith Transubstantiation was not ancient when Henriquez saith no such thing 48. To prove that in Peter Lombards time Transubstantiation was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholique Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no and after Peter Lombard had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd he could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no he quotes these words If it be enquired what kinde of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kinde I am not able to define it Onely I know that it is not formall because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is changed into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former authorities seem to consent But to this Sentence others oppose these things If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted c. And saith they are a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was new not the Doctrine of the Church Which is a notable falsifying of that Author and the Doctor if he read him could not chuse but know he quoted him directly against his meaning For there were two Questions one whether the substance of the Elements be converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood and this question alone pertains to what we believe in the point of Transubstantiation And this question Peter Lombard had treated of afore and resolved positively 1. That it is undoubtedly to be held that under the visible species the Flesh of Christ which he took of the Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us is received by the wicked and the contrary he counted a Heresie The next Section he entitles De Haeresi aliorum c. Of the Heresie of others who say that the Body of Christ is not upon the Altar but in sign And thus he speaks of it There are other transcending the madness of the former Hereticks who measuring the power of God by the model of natural things do more audaciously and dangerously contradict the truth affirming that in the Altar is not the Body or Blood of Christ nor the substance of Bread and Wine converted into the substance of Flesh and Blood who take occasion of erring from the words of truth whence began the first Heresie against this truth among Christs Disciples It is the Spirit that quickens c. And they cite those words of S. Augustin Non hoc corpus quod videtis c. And there are other sayings also ministring fomitem to their madness The poor ye have alwayes with you but me not These and other sayings the aforesaid Hereticks use in maintenance of their Error Then he sets down his Proofs to the contrary which were the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article which having set down he concludes thus By these and other more it is manifest that the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of the Body and the substance of the Wine into the substance of the Blood Having thus dispatched that first question in the next Section which is that which the Doctor quotes he comes to a second which is a meer School nicety touching the manner of this substantial change whether it be formal or substantial or of some other kinde And touching that he useth the words quoted by the Doctor I am not able to define it c. Nay and even in that too he quotes him fraudulently to abuse the Reader For these words which he sets down as Peter Lombards argument against the modus substantialis were onely set down as an Objection to which he there gives an answer which the Doctor conceals To which may be answered in this manner that the Body of Christ is not said to be made in that sense as if the Body which was form'd in the Virgins womb were form'd again but because the substance of Bread or Wine which afore was not the Body or Blood of Christ is by the celestial Word made his Body and Blood And a little after Therefore after Consecration there is not the substance of Bread or wine although the species of Bread and Wine remain And to one that should object against this how this can be he answers briefly A mystery of Faith may salubriter be