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
in the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences and that they began after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory When he hath no such words for this is all he saith That it was not without the very great dispensation of the holy Ghost that after so many curricula of years the faith of Purgatory and the use of Indulgences was generally received by the Orthodox So long as there was no care of Purgatory none sought Indulgences 22. To prove that the Fathers do expresly teach that Pilgrimages to holy places and such like inventions which are now the earnings of Indulgences are not the way of salvation c. he quotes S. Gregory Nyssen in an Oration made wholly against Pilgrimages to Jerusalem when he made it not wholly against Pilgrimages but onely to shew Religious people tending to perfection of piety and counting it a part of piety to visit the holy places at Jerusalem that it was no necessary part of piety and that it was liable to some inconveniences misbecoming Religious people Cum itaque sint aliqui ex iis c. Seeing there are some of those who have chosen to themselves a solitary and private life who count it a part of piety to have seen the places at Jerusalem c. 23. To the same purpose he quotes S Chrysostome who in the place quoted never dreamt of Pilgrimages for he onely saith this That to obtain pardon for our sins it is not necessary to lay out moneys to travel into forreign countreys to undergo dangers and labours c. but onely to have a good will 24. To the same purpose he quotes S. Bernard when he might as well have quoted Moses Deut. 13. 14. for S. Bernard onely alludes to that Text It is not necessary for thee to pass over sea to penetrate the clouds to go beyond the Alps there is I say no great journey proposed to you meet God within your self for the word is nigh unto thee in thy mouth and in thy heart c. 25. To the same purpose he quotes these as S. Austins words God said not Go to the East c. in his Sermon De Martyribus whereof there is but one in S. Augustins Works with that title to wit his 117. Sermon De Diversis and in that there is not the least word to any such purpose Sect. 4. 26. He saith Roffensis and Polydor Virgil affirm That who so searcheth the writings of the Greek Fathers shall finde that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory Whereas Polydor Virgil affirms no such thing nor doth Roffensis say That very rarely any one of them mentions it but onely that in those ancient Writers he shall finde none or but very rare mention of it 27. He saith they Roffensis and Polydor affirm that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it but by degrees came to entertain opinions of 〈◊〉 but for the Catholique Church it was but lately known to her When Polydor affirms no such thing nor doth Roffensis say The Latine Fathers did not all believe it but they did not believe it all simul together or at once meaning but by parts nor doth he say That by degrees they came to entertain opinions of it but they conceived the truth of it 28 29 30. To prove that the Prayers and Oblations uesd in the Primitive Church for the Dead that God would shew them mercy c. do not inferre their belief of Purgatory he saith That they also made Prayers and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory as for the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs and even for the B. Virgin Mary and quotes for it Epiphanius S. Cyril and the Canon of the Greeks which if he meant not that they prayed for them in the same sense as for the rest of the Dead in general viz. that God would shew them mercy remit their sins c. which is that alone from whence we inferre their belief of Purgatory it is an abusing of his Reader and inferres nothing to his purpose and if he meant it they are three false Quotations for the Authors quoted precisely and expresly distinguish the Prayers for the one and the other viz. For the Dead in general or the other persons prayed for particularly for mercy and pardon for them But for the Patriarchs Apostles and the B. Virgin Mary c. they begged nothing for them but onely prayed and offered in their honour and for the honour of Christ and that they might be holpen by their intercession So Epiphanius We make mention both of Just and Sinners Of Sinners imploring the mercy of God for them Of the Just the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles c. that prosecuting our Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour we may separate him from the rank of other men c. So S. Cyril When we offer this Sacrifice we afterward make remembrance of all those that before us have slept First of the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs that God by their prayers and intercessions may receive our prayers Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops and finally all who among us who have departed this life believing it to be a very great help of the Souls for which is offered the obseâ—ration of that holy and dreadful Sacrifice So the Mass of S. James Let us make commemoration of the B. Virgin and of all the Saints and Just that by their prayers and intercessions we may all obtain mercy ... Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day make them to rest in the land of the living in thy kingdom and the delights of Paradice c. So the Mass of S. Basil. For rest and pardon for the Soul of thy servant N. So the Mass of S. Chrysostom In memory and honour of the B. Virgin Mary by whose intercessions receive O Lord our Sacrifice to thy heavenly Altar Of the B. John Baptist Apostles c. by whose prayers O Lord protect us ... And remember O Lord all those who have afore slept in hope of resurrection of life eternal ... For rest and pardon for the Soul of thy servant N. So the Greek Mass of S. Peter Afore Consecration Worshipping the memory first of the B. Virgin mother of our Lord c. Of the holy Apostles Martyrs c. by whose merits and prayers grant that in all things we may be guarded by the help of thy protection After Consecration Remember O Lord thy servants N. and N. who have gone afore us in the sign of faith c. To them O Lord and to all that rest in Christ we pray that thou indulge a place of refreshing light and peace 31. To the same purpose he saith So it is acknowledged by our own Durantus viz. That the Fathers of the Primitive Church made Prayers also and offered for the Patriarchs Apostles Martyrs B. Virgin
such are these out of the Councils of Basil and Florence For as to the Council of Basil I have examined it over and can finde no such Apology as he speaks of published by the Greeks in that Council And for what he saith of the Council of Florence there is not onely not one word of it true but the direct contrary passed in that Council In the very first meeting at Ferrara the Latines proposed the Catholique Doctrine in writing thus There is a Purgatory that is the Souls of such as dye in Venial sin are purged in the world present meaning temporally after death and afore the future world after the day of judgement by fire the Church also helping by the Priests prayers and moreover those Souls are delivered from pains by Sacrifices and Alms. ... To which the Greeks by their Prolocutor the Bishop of Ephesus instantly answered thus Whatsoever you have said and the testimonies of holy men that you have recited the Greek Church receives and reads and there is little difficulty betwixt us in this point meaning onely about those words by fire but we shall give our answer in writing c. And ten dayes after they gave it in these words The Italians or Romans confess or believe a fire both in the present world and Purgatory by it and in the world to come but not Purgatory but eternal ... But the Greeks hold a fire in the world to come onely and a temporary punishment of Souls that is that they go into a place dark and of grief but that they are purged that is delivered from that dark place and affliction by Priests Prayers and Sacrifices and by Alms but not by fire About a fortnight after the Italians brought their Proofs for their Doctrine touching the purgation by fire to which the Greeks delayed to answer After the Council was removed to Florence and the point of the procession of the Holy Ghost had been there long debated and brought to an issue the Pope called to the Greeks to debate the other points which remained touching Consecrating the unleavened Bread Purgatory the Supremacy of the Pope the Addition of Filioque to the Nicene Creed and the Consecrating of the Eucharist by words deprecative The Greeks answered For leavened or unleavened Bread let them be indifferent Touching Purgatory meaning the fire we neither divided for that nor is it necessary let there therefore be an Union and we will treat of that afterward Afterward the Greeks proposed to treat about Consecrating in unleavened Bread the Popes Supremacy and the additament of Filioque But for Purgatory and Consecration by Prayer nothing should be said The Latines answered there could be no Union unless those two controversies were added The Greek Emperor not yeilding to it the Latines proposed that in the definition should be only mention of Purgatory touching the Consecration it might be transacted viva voce The Pope said we are united in that for which the division was made meaning the procession of the Holy Ghost and is this which hath no harm in it an impediment to us Was not the point of Purgatory often examined at Ferrara ought it not to be put in the definition as a Doctrine of our Church But because the Greek Emperor said he was willing to hear touching the Primacy of the Romane Church and consecrating in unleavened Bread those points were debated Afterward say the Greek Bishops we met at the Emperors and examined the Proposals of the Latines and found them five all equal and right 1. Of the Procession 2. Of unleavened Bread 3. Of the Popes Primacy 4. Of the Additament 5. Of Purgatory And we urged mightily the Emperor saying we receive all let an end be determined to the business What controversie have we touching Purgatory We doubted of this because they said the Saints see God without any medium and that the Souls of penitent sinners are purged by prayers This thing therefore delayed us but we embracing these things also piously pressed the Emperor to bring the work of Union to an end But he would not Afterward the Emperor calling together all the Greek Bishops the rest of the Bishops endeavoured to draw the Bishop of Ephesus who was the onely stickler against the Union to agree with them The Bishop of Ephesus argued against the procession from the Son and that the Creed needed neither addition nor application and many other things until it was evening But I finde not that he argued against Purgatory Afterward there was a Congregation appointed of the Greek and Latine Prelates to draw up the Instrument of the Definition which being shown to the Emperor he objected against the Title of it because in the name of the Pope alone and the form of the Article touching the Popes Supremacy Secundum dicta Sanctorum These being amended the Instrument was agreed on Thus far the Records of the Council By all which appears how notoriously false was all that as the Doctor here alledged touching the Greek Church denying Purgatory 37. As a clear testimony of Antiquity expresly destroying the new Doctrine of Purgatory he quotes S. Cyprian When we are gone from hence there is no place left for repentance and no effect of satisfaction where he fraudulently translates S. Cyprian When we are gone from hence as if he had spoken it absolutely or of Christians and Catholiques in general when he spake it of impenitent Pagans onely and so the words relate not at all to Purgatory or Souls dying in Venial sin but onely to the Hell of the damned and Souls dying out of Christs faith such as Demetrian was to whom he then wrote Hortamur c. We exhort you whilst the opportunity is present to satisfie God and come out of the deep and dark night of Superstition into the bright light of true Religion When you shall be departed this life there is no place more for repentance 38. To the same purpose and in the same fraudulent manner he quotes Greg. Nazianzen for he affirms not that after this life there is no purgation meaning for any one as he quotes him but onely that there is none for those that dye in mortal sin or that are in the Hell of the damned as would have appeared by the words afore and after had he set them down I know the concussion and excussion the ebullition and confraction of heart and dissolution of the knees and such like punishments with which the sins of wicked men are plagued I omit to speak of the tribunals of the future life to which the indulgence and impunity of this life delivers them over so that it is better now to be chastised and purged then to be transmitted to that torment when it will be now the time of punishment not of purgation 39. To the same purpose he quotes another Oration of the same Saint but there is nothing in it to that purpose 40. To the same purpose he quotes an
believed but may not salubriter be searcht into 48. To the same purpose he quotes Durandus as even after the Lateran Council maintaining That even after Consecration the very matter of Bread remained which Durandus maintains not but the contrary for his first conclusion there is The substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood And in the very next words the Doctor himself saith that Durandus saith That by reason of the authority of the Church it is not to be held How then did he hold it All that he there maintain'd was the possibility of it supposing it were true which he saith it is not 49. To the same purpose he quotes Alphonsus de Castro fraudulently as if he had meant of the thing or Doctrine of Transubstantiation Rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio when he meant it onely of the name Of the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of Christ there is rare mention in ancient Writers Of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son much rarer c. yet who but an Heretick will dare to deny these because in ancient Writers they are not mentioned under these names 50. Against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he quotes Justin Martyr The Bread of the Eucharist was a Figure which Christ commanded to do c. when Justin Martyr saith no such thing but onely that the oblation of a Cake in the old Law was a figure of our Eucharist Truly the Oblation also of the Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical Bread which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded to do or make in remembrance of his Passion 51. To the same purpose he quotes Eusebius Demonstrat Evang. l. 1. c. 1. when the first three Chapters of that Book are not extant 52. To the same purpose he quotes another saying of Eusebius The Apostles received a command according of the constitution of the New Testament to make a memory of this Sacrifice upon the Table by the Symbols of his body and healthful blood when he saith not so but thus Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this Sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table and the memory of that body and healthful blood as is the institute of the New Testament 53. To the same purpose he quotes S. Macarius In the Church is offered Bread and Wine the antitype of his Flesh and of his Blood when Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary Bread and Wine exhibiting the exemplar or antitype his Flesh and Blood 54. To the same purpose he quotes S. Augustin as denying a real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but in figure onely when he denied not that but onely the eating it in that gross carnal or sensible manner as the Capernaites conceived as would have appeared had the Doctor set down the words before which he fraudulently suppressed Durum illis c. It seemed hard to them what he said Except ye eat the flesh c. they took it foolishly they understood it carnally and thought that our Lord would cut off some gobbets of his body and give them c. But he instructed the twelve c. understand spiritually what I speak You are not to eat this body which you see c. 55. To the same purpose he quotes S. Augustin lib. 10. cont Faustum as saying That which by all men is called a Sacrifice is the sign of the true Sacrifice c. when S. Aug. hath no such words in that book Sect. 6. 56 57 58. In citing the Decree of the Council of Constance against Communion in both kindes to make it fit his purpose and render it more odious to the Protestant Reader he commits three gross Falsifications and which unless he took not the words out of the Decree himself but upon trust could not but be wilfull For 1. Whereas the Decree recites three Errors and Innovations as the causes of it viz. 1. The maintaining it necessary to communicate the people under both kindes and the practice of that innovation 2. The maintaining that the Eucharist ought to be given after supper 3. Or otherwise to people that were not fasting Whereas in some Countreys some temerariously presume to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kindes and do ordinarily communicate the Lay people under the species of wine also affirm that the people ought to be communicated after supper or otherwise not fasting c. He recites it as made against the first onely concealing the other two fraudulently under a line of pricks Whereas in certain parts of the world some temerariously affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kindes of Bread and Wine and do every where communicate the Laity not onely in Bread but in Wine also ... Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error that although c. 2. That he sets down the Decree as containing an express and direct opposition to the institution of Christ and practice of the Primitive Church for communicating the people under both kindes The Council decrees and defines against this error of giving the Chalice to the Laity that although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kindes yet this notwithstanding ... And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kindes Here is the acknowledgement both of Christs Institution in both kindes and Christs ministring it in both kindes and the practice of the Primitive Church to give it in both kindes yet the conclusion from these premises is We command that no Priest communicate the people under both kindes The opposition is plain c. Thus far he Whereas in the Decree there is no such thing for these are the words of it Although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples under both kindes yet this notwithstanding the laudable authority of holy Canons and the approved custom of the Church observes that this Sacrament ought not to be Consecrated after supper nor received of the faithful not fasting unless in case of the Article of death And as this custom was reasonably introduced to avoid some dangers and scandals that although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received under both kindes afterward it came to be received under the species of Bread onely by the Laity it is to be had for a Law which is not lawful to reject or alter without authority of the Church 3. That he sets down these as the words of the Decree We command under the pain of Excommunication that no Priest communicate the people under both kindes whereas in the Decree are no such words for this is all it saith Wherefore to say that it is sacrilegious or unlawful to observe this custom or
Law ought to be judged erroneous and they that pertinaciously maintain the opposite of the Premises are to be expelled as Hereticks 59. Against Communion in one kinde he saith Paschasius resolves it dogmatically that neither the flesh without the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated because the Apostles did all of them drink of the Chalice When he resolves it not dogmatically but onely argues it in way of discourse nor doth he give any such reason Because the Apostles c nor saith any thing there but what is verified in the Priest celebrating or in a Communicant in either kinde onely The sense is manifest that now his flesh is broken because in the Chalice is the blood that flowed out of his side And therefore very rightly is the flesh sociated with the blood because neither the flesh without the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightfully or lawfully communicated But the whole man who consists of two substances is redeemed and therefore he is saginated with the flesh and blood of Christ together And therefore they are well rendred together in the Chalice because from one cup of Christs Passion these two flowed to us unto life Sect. 7. 60. Against our Latine Mass he saith S. Chrysostome urging the Apostles precept for Prayers in a Language understood by the hearers saith That if a man speak in the Persian tongue and understands not what himself saith to himself he is a Barbarian and therefore so he is to him that understands no more then he does When S. Chrysostome neither urged there any precept of the Apostle nor spake of Prayers nor used altogether that form of words for these are his words If one speak in onely the Persian or some other strange tongue but knows not what he saith certainly he will be now a Barbarian even to himself and not to another onely because he knows not the force of the word 61. To the same purpose he quotes Lyra That in the Primitive Church Blessings and all other things in the Church were done in the vulgar tongue when Lyra saith not caetera omnia but caetera communia Blessings and other common things 62 63. He saith we are told by S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine That the Bible was translated into all Languages when they tell us no such thing 64 65 66 67 68 69. To prove that the Fathers tell us That a Service or Prayers in an unknown tongue do not edifie he quotes S. Basil S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine Aquinas and Lyra when S. Basil hath no such Book as he quotes and none of the other hath any such words 70. Against our Latine Mass he quotes a Canon of the Lateran Council as if that had ordain'd that all people should have Mass in their vulgar tongue when it onely took care that where those who used Mass in divers Languages and with divers Rites as Greeks Latines Maronites c. lived in one City or Diocess the Bishop should provide every of them might have Mass and other Rites according to the manner of their own Church Because in most parts within the same City and Diocess the people of divers Tongues are mixed together having under one and the same Faith divers Ceremonies and Rites We command that the Bishop provide men fit who may celebrate according to the diversity of Ceremonies and Languages Sect. 8. 71. He saith S. Cyril denies that the Christians did give veneration to the Image even of the Cross it self But he names not which Cyril he means and if him of Alexandria as is most like what Book of his he means and if his 6th Book against Julian where Julian objects to the Christians their folly in worshipping the Cross as there is no other so probable to be meant S. Cyril doth there not onely not deny that the Christians worship it but seems rather to avow and justifie it For this was the Apostates Objection O wretched people whereas the Arms are preserved which great Jupiter sent down ye refuse to adore and worship them and in the mean time ye adore the wood of the Cross painting Images of it in your foreheads and afore your houses To which S. Cyrils answer is He saith they are wretched who have care alwayes to sign their houses and foreheads with the sign of the precious Cross we will shew that these kinde of speeches favour extream ignorance For the Saviour and Lord of all c. all these things that he did and suffered for us the health-giving wood makes us to remember ... We make a Cross of the precious wood in remembrance of all good and vertue 72. He saith the Epistle of Epiphanius in which is the story of his cutting in pieces a picture of Christ or some Saint which he found in a Church was translated into Latine by S. Jerom by which we may guess at his opinion in the question when S. Jerom translated indeed that Epistle but it appears not that this story was in that Epistle that S. Jerom translated which is a great argument that that story was foisted into that Epistle after S. Jeroms time 73 74 75. He saith S. Augustin complaining that he knew of many in the Church who were worshippers of Pictures calls them Superstitious and addes that the Church condemns such customs and strives to correct them and quotes for this three places when in the two latter of them he hath not a word to any such purpose and in the first he neither speaks of worshippers of Pictures apart or by it self alone as here he quotes him nor doth he formally call them Superstitious nor doth he adde that the Church condemns such customs for these are his words Do not follow the routs of the ignorant who even in the true Religion it self are superstitious or so given to lusts c. I know that some are adorers of Sepulchres and Pictures I know some who most riotously drink over the dead and exhibitting banquets to the Carcasses upon the buried bury themselves I know there are many that have renounced the world c. 76 77 78 79 80 81 82. He saith Eginardus Hincmarus Aventinus Blondus Adon Amonius and Regino tell us that the Bishops of Francfort condemned the second Synod of Nice or the seventh General that establisht the worship of Images and commanded it should not be call'd a General Council and published a Book under the name of the Emperor confuting that Antichristian Assembly when one of his Authors Eginard mentions not any of this and not one of them mentions that the Council of Francfort publisht any such Book under the name of the Emperor and Amonius saith not it condemned the second Nicene but the Synod which had assembled at Constantinople and Hincmarus saith onely it condemned the Synod which had assembled at Nice without the Popes authority
which could not mean the second Nicene and Blondus saith it abrogated the seventh Synod and the Felician Heresie for taking away of Images 83 84 85. He saith it appears in the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen that in those times they would not allow the making of Images when Tertullian saith no such thing and neither of the other two speaks of the Images of Christ or his Saints but of Jupiter and the other Heathen gods Sect. 9. 86 87 88 89 90 91 92. Against picturing those forms wherein God hath appeared which is all that some of ours do allow and practise he quotes Tertullian Eusebius Athanasius S. Hierom Theodoret Damascen Nicephorus and others when divers of these as namely Tertullian Eusebius and Jerom have nothing to this purpose and the rest spake onely against representing God as in his own essence shape or form as appears by their words which it would be too long to set down But to instance in one or two Theodoret Ye saw no likeness c. He saith this instructing them that they should not make any Idol nor at any time attempt to counterfeit the Divine Image when they never saw the species of the archetype c. Nicephorus They made Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is most absurd for Images are of bodies that may be seen and circumscribed not of those who are invisible and incomprehensible by our understanding Sect. 10. 93. To prove that Christ left his Apostles without any Eminency in one above the rest he saith S. Paul gave the Bishops congregated at Miletum caution to take care of the whole flock of God when the Text hath no such thing but rather the contrary The flock over which the H. Ghost hath made you Bishops 94. To the same purpose he quotes S. Cyprian The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was c. wresting them against that which S. Cyprian did in that very place expresly assert to wit an Eminency in S. Peter above the rest of the Apostles though not in the species of the power yet in the manner and degree of it viz. that Christ gave it first to S. Peters person as the origen of unity as would have appeared had he set down the words immediately before and after which most plainly and solidly maintain S. Peters Primacy notwithstanding that parity Our Lord said to Peter Upon this Rock I will build my Church and again Do thou feed my sheep Upon him one person he builds his Church and to him he commends his Sheep to be fed And although after his Resurrection he gave to all his Apostles equal power and say As my Father sent me so I send you yet that he might manifest unity that the Church was to be one by the unity of the Governour he constituted one Chair in S. Peters person and by his authority disposed the origen of unity beginning from one person S. Peter Then follow the words quoted by the Doctor The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was c. After which these But the beginning comes from unity the Primacy is given to Peter that one Church of Christ and one Chair may be monstrated That is they were all equal in power and honour but Peter had it with this Eminency above the rest that it was settled first in his single person 95 96 usque 113. To prove that all Antiquity does consent and teach that all the ordinary power of the Apostles descended to the Bishops as their successors though it be a truth and maintained by us yet of his twenty Quotations brought for it no less then eighteen are false or wrested viz. 1. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 43. saith onely We ought to obey the Presbyters that are in the Church that have succession from the Apostles who with succession of Episcopacy have received the certain Charisma of truth 2. Id. ib. c. 44. Hath not a word to this purpose 3. S. Cypr. l. 1. Ep. 6. Hath not a word to this purpose 4. Id. l. 2. Ep. 10. He saith onely this The unity delivered by our Lord and through the Apostles to us successors 5. Id. l. 4. Ep. 9. Saith nothing of Bishops but what is as true of Presbyters Christ said to his Apostles and by this to all that are praepositi who by Vicarious Ordination succeed to the Apostles He that despiseth you despiseth me 6. S. Ambrose de dign Sacred c. 1. Saith nothing but what rather makes against the Doctor viz. That all Bishops received the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven in the B. Apostle Peter 7. S. Aug. de Bap. co Donat. l. 7. c. 43. onely sets down the Sentence of one of the African Bishops Clarus a Muscula for the rebaptizing of Hereticks 8. Id. de verb. Dom. Serm. 24. saith nothing but what pertains to Priests as much as Bishops He that despises you despises me If he had said this to the Apostles alone despise us But if his word have come unto us and called us and placed us in their room see that ye despise not us 9. Conc. Rom. sub Sylv. saith nothing but that men should not detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is the successors of the Apostles 10. Anacletus P. Ep. 2. saith nothing but that the Pillars of the Holy Church which the Apostles and their successors are not unrightly called should not be easily shaken or accused 11. S. Clem. P. Ep. 1. saith nothing but that the Bishops supply the place of the Apostles as Priests do of the 72. Disciples whose successors properly they are not 12. S. Hieron Ep. 13. hath not a word to this sense 13. Id. Ep. 54. saith no more but that Bishops with us Catholiques hold the place of the Apostles whereas the Montanists put them down to the third place 14. Euthym. in Ps. 44. hath nothing to this purpose 15. S. Greg. in Evang. Hom. 26. saith no more but that Bishops hold now in the Church the place of them to whom Christ said Whose sins ye forgive c. 16. S. Jerom whom I suppose the Doctor meant for S. Gregory hath no such Epistle Ep. 1. ad Heliodor speaks not of Bishops properly but of Priests God forbid I should speak any sinister thing of them who succeeding to the Apostolique degree with their sacred mouth make Christs Body 17. S. Damasc. de Imag. Or. 2. onely useth the words of the Apostle God hath set in the Church first Apostles then Prophets c. 18. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. de Laud. Athanas. not as he quotes it Basilii hath not a word to this purpose 114 115. He saith Bishops are in express terms called by S. Ambrose Vicars of Christ and quotes two places for it in neither of which S. Ambrose speaks of Bishops but onely of the Apostles We are the helpers of God This pertains to the person of the
Apostles who it is manifest are Gods helpers because they are the Vicars of Christ. Therefore they the Apostles received from God the Father by Christ our Lord this power that in our Lords stead they should make the Doctrine of our Lord acceptable 116. He saith The Pope calls himself the Universal Bishop and the Vicarial Head of the Church the Churches Monarch he from whom all Ecclesiastical authority is derived to whose Sentence in things Divine every Christian under pain of damnation is bound to be subject And quotes for this the Canon Unam Sanctam when in that Canon there is not any one of these Sentences but onely that he is the Vicarial Head of the Church Of one onely Church there is one onely Head to wit Christ and his Vicar Peter and his successors we define it to be altogether necessary to every humane creature to salvation to be subject to the Roman Bishop 117. He saith S. Ambrose saith the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ and is his substitute and quotes for it S. Ambrose ubi supra and we have seen afore that S. Ambrose in none of those places saith any such thing 118. To prove that the Bishops of Rome had no superiority by the Laws of Christ over any Bishop and that his Bishoprick gave no more power to him then Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocess he quotes Pope Symmachus As it is in the Holy Trinity whose power is one and undivided or to use the expression in the Athanasian Creed none is before or after other none is greater or less then another so there is one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops and therefore why should the Canons of the ancient Bishops be violated by their successors When 1. there is no such saying of Symmachus in the place quoted 2. The Epistle which he meant and is to be found in the Tomes of the Councils is not a little altered and mangled by him in the very words 1. Symmachus saith not as he quotes him As it is in the Holy Trinity c. So there is one Bishoprick c. And therefore why should c. But thus For whilst there is like unto the Trinity whose power is one and individual one Bishoprick c. how agrees it or is it becoming c. 2. Symmachus saith not there is one Bishoprick inter multos amongst many Bishops as he renders it as if equalling all Bishops then living one to another but there is one per multos through many that is through the line of Bishops succeeding to one another in the same See and so it onely equals the successor to his predecessor 3. Where Symmachus saith priorum of former Bishops or predecessors in that See he translates it of the ancient Bishops 4. Finding that these words would make nothing to his purpose he wrests them to it with a Gloss None is before or after other none is greater or less then another and then inferres that these words do fully declare that the Roman Bishoprick gave no more power to the Pope then Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocess when he could but know that his gloss and inference had not onely no foundation in Symmachus's words but were directly contrary to the whole substance and drift of the Epistle it being an answer to a Letter of Complaint of the Archbishop of Arles to the Pope against the Archbishop of Vienna for invading the rights of the Church of Arles for ordaining some neighbour Bishops upon pretence of some Breve or Rescript of Pope Anastasius Symmachus his predecessor wherein he had contraried the Grants of former Popes to the Church of Arles and desiring from the Pope redress in it and he promises to redress it and gives for his reason the words quoted by the Doctor because it was not well done of Anastasius to contrary the Acts of his predecessors all which proves that the Roman Bishop was superior to those Archbishops of Arles and Vienna and had jurisdiction over them and that Symmachus himself thought so We have received your Letters by which appears there is a controversie betwixt the Churches of Arles and Vienna concerning ordaining of Bishops in neighbouring Cities caused by this that our predecessor of happy memory Anastasius had commanded some things to be observed contrary to the ancient custome transgressing the Ordinance of his predecessors which he ought not to have done for any necessity whatsoever For seeing there is but one Bishoprick through divers Bishops like the Trinity whose power is one and individual how is it becoming the Statutes of former Popes to be violated by them that follow c. 119. To the same purpose he quotes S. Dionysius As the whole Hierarchy ends in Jesus so does every particular one in its own Bishop As if he had meant that every Bishop was supreme Governour next under Christ in his own Diocess when he meant onely that the order of Bishops was the supreme Hierarchical order in compare to Priests Deacons c. The Divine order therefore of Bishops is the first of those Orders which see God and he is also the highest and the last For in him is finished and compleated all the distinction of our Hierarchy For as we see all our Hierarchy to end in Jesus c. 120 121 122 123. To the same purpose he quotes Origen Gelasius S. Jerom and Fulgentius as teaching That the Bishops have the supreme place in the Church But 1. for Origen he quotes no book nor hath Origen any saying to that sense to exclude the Primacy of the Roman See 2 For Fulgentius he quotes him in Concil Paris l. 1. c. 3. but tells not what Council of Paris he means nor what Fulgentius nor in what Collection the book is to be found I can finde no such in Fulgentius his Works nor in the Tomes of Councils nor in the Councils of France set out by Syrmondus 3. For Gelasius he teaches no such thing for all he saith is this There are two things by which this World is principally governed the sacred Authority of Bishops and Regal power Betwixt which the burthen of Bishops is so much the heavier by how much they are in the divine examen to give an account even for Kings themselves c. 4. For S. Jerom he quotes two places one is in Hom. 7. in Jerem. when he hath no such work of Homilies upon Jeremy and if he meant his Commentary upon the seventh Chapter of Jeremy there is not a tittle in it to any such purpose The other is in his Book adversus Lucifer in which likewise I can finde nothing to this purpose 124. He saith that when Bellarmin is in this question about the Pope's Supremacy press'd out of the Book of Nilus by the authority of the Fathers standing against him he answers the Pope acknowledges no Fathers in the Church for they are all his Sons As if Bellarmin had
answer'd this in contempt of the authority of the Fathers urged by Nilus against the Pope's Supremacy when there was no such thing For the objection of Nilus there urged was not from Fathers but from Reason and it was onely to prove that the Pope ought to be subject to the Canons of holy Fathers because he had his Dignity from the Fathers and Popes themselves had made divers Canons and he were unworthy to be honoured as a Father if he contemn'd the Fathers To which reasons Bellarmin answer'd That the Pope had not his Dignity from the Fathers and that if he made Canons he could not binde himself and that if he be honoured as a Father by all he hath no Fathers in the Church but all Children and therefore he cannot be subject to them and that he contemns not the Fathers c. 125. He saith this speech of S. Cyprian in the Council of Carthage None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by tyramical power drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obediance c. was spoken and intended against Pope Stephen to reprehend him for his Lording it over God's Heritage and excommunicating his brethren and this his chastising of Pope Stephen for this usurpation was also approved in him by S. Augustin when S. Augustin in the place quoted saith no such thing nor understood it as spoken against Pope Stephen but as spoken modestly and humbly to encourage the Bishops to deliver their Sentence without fear of excommunication and he interprets the words not to mean as if the Bishops were exempted absolutely from being judged by their Superiors but onely in such cases as that which were undetermined by the Church None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops c. What more meek what more humble Certes no authority should deterre us from inquiring what is true Since every Bishop c. I suppose he means in those questions which have not yet been discussed by the most eliquate perspection For he knew how great a profundity of Sacrament then the whole Church did by various disputation discuss and he made free the choice of enquiring that by examination the truth might be manifested For he did not lye or desire to catch his more simple Colleagues in their words that when they had discovered themselves to hold contrary to him he should censure them to be excommunicate This was it he approved in S. Cyprians speech and this was all he approved 126. Against S. Peters Primacy he quotes S. Chrysostom He did all things with the common consent nothing by special authority or principality when in that very place he most strongly asserted S. Peters Primacy as would have appear'd had the Doctor set down the words before and after Peter arising up in the midst of the Disciples said c. How fervent is he How doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ How is he Prince in the Chair and ever first begins to speak Now consider that also how he doth act all things by the common vote of the Disciples nothing by his own authority nor did he simply say we set up this man in the place of Judas And although he had a right equal to all of constituting him yet out of vertue or modesty congruently he did it not But deservedly doth he first exercise authority in the business as who had them all in his hand for to him Christ said Confirm thy Brethren 127. He saith Canus confesses That there is in Scripture no revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter in his special authority But Canus saith not all out so but that it is not indeed per se there revealed And in the next words he saith That it is had out of the Gospel that the Pastor substituted by Christ in the Church after Peter hath all the ordinary power of Peter and all other priviledges granted to Peter for the Churches sake 128 129 130 131. He saith it is confessed by Cusanus Soto Driedo and Canus that this succession of Peter's Chair was not addicted to any particular Church nor can be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church which last is not confessed by any out of them and for the first Driedo saith to the contrary in the very place quoted Not rashly therefore but with pious faith we believe with the Fathers our predecessors that the Faith and Primacy of the Church and the Chair of Peter are inseparable from the Roman Diocess Sect. 11. 132 133 134 135. He quotes four Canons as shewing that private Mass is against the Doctrine and practice of the ancient Church of Rome and the Tradition of the Apostles and is also forbidden under pain of Excommunication when not one of them hath any such thing nor forbids the Priest to celebrate without Communicants but onely enjoyns the Deacons or people at due times to communicate with the Priest So C. Peracta When Consecration is done that is when the Priest hath consummated let all Communicate that will not be excluded from the Church for so the Apostles have appointed and so holds the holy Roman Church Which Canon yet meant not of the Lay-people who as appears by another Canon made within twenty years after were obliged to Communicate onely three times a year Christmas Easter and Whitsuntide when yet the Priests said Mass every day but onely of the Deacons who assisted at Mass. For so declares the Title of it Let the Minister who after Consecration contemns to Communicate be excluded from entring into the Church And so the Gloss Let all Communicate that is all who minister the body and blood So C. in coena Upon Maundy Thursday the receiving of the Eucharist is by some neglected which that it is to be received on that day by all the faithful except those to whom for great crimes it is prohibited the use of the Church demonstrates seeing even Penitents are on that day reconciled to receive the Sacraments of our Lords body and blood So C. Si quis If any one come into the Church and hears the sacred Scriptures and out of wantonness averts himself from receiving the Sacrament and in observing the Mysteries declines from the constituted rule of Discipline we decree such a one to be cast out of the Church So C. omnes fideles All the faithful who come to the Church in the sacred Solemnities of Easter Christmas c. let them hear the Scriptures of the Apostles and the Gospels but they that persevere not in Prayer whilst Mass is finished nor receive the holy Communion it is fit they be deprived of Communion as raising disturbances of the Church Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 136. He saith It is taught by Navar that though the Church calls upon sinners to repent on Holy-Dayes and at Easter yet by the Law of God they are not tyed to so much but onely to repent in the Article or danger of