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
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
Ancients and Moderns 3. From what he saith Art 2. in resp ad 2. To adde a truth which is contained in holy Scripture to explicate or declare hath alwayes been lawful for the Church 13. To the same purpose he quotes Petrus de Ancorano who spake not of making new Articles of Faith as making opposeth declaring which was the sense for which he quoted him for this was his charge The Church of Rome pretends to a power not onely of declaring but of making new c. but onely of making them such quoad nos by declaring them to be of Faith as appears by his own explication The Pope may make new Articles of Faith that is that a thing ought now to be believed when afore it ought not so c. 14. To the same purpose he quotes Panormitan when he saith no such thing neither but rather the contrary viz. that the Pope cannot make but onely declare as would have appeared had the Dr. set down his words at length which he fraudulently curtail'd for these are his words The Pope can induce a new Article of Faith declaring this Divine right of which he had afore spoken and of this is inferred that this Constitution or Canon cum Christus looks back upon things past 15. To prove our corrupting the writings of the ancient Fathers he saith That when not long since we printed Origen we left out that whole 6. Chap. of S. John and Origens Commentary upon it and so maim'd the Author for the same cause that is because Origen argued there against Transubstantiation A meer slander as is manifest by the very Protestant Editions for in the Edition of Basil by Froben Anno 1545 there was no Commentary at all upon John And in a later Edition of Basil 1620. his Comment upon John is set out in the same manner as it is in our Catholique Editions and no other viz. without any Comment either upon the 5 6 or 7. Chap. of that Gospel To the same purpose he quotes our Index Expurgatorius in which in S. Chrysostoms Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no Merit but what is given us by Christ. And the like he saith we have done to S. Ambrose and to S. Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press of Lyons complained of it to Junius that he was forced to blot out many sayings of S. Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was printed at Lions 1559. so that we think it not sufficient to feign some convenient sense when they are opposed in Disputation but the words which make against us we wholly leave out of our Editions Nay saith he we correct the very Tables or Indexes made by the Printers or Correctors c. A notorious slander as appears 1. Because the Index Expurgatorius was not appointed till the end of the Council of Trent which was in Anno 1563. and therefore that could put no force upon Saurius for maiming S. Ambrose in Anno 1559. 2. Because the Index Expurgatorius extended not to any Writings or Works of the Fathers but onely to the Indices or marginal Notes or other corruptions made by Protestants as is confessed by his own Author Junius that published the Index for in his Preface to that Book he makes this Objection But here the Fathers are not purged and answers it 1. That yet by the purging of later Authors the truth of Doctrine and History is in many places expurged 2. That what they dare not with the Fathers they practise upon us Protestant Printers and Writers and with their little forks they thrust out our Annotations in the Margin and Sayings in the Indices although consonant to the Fathers minde For example saith Junius In the Index of S. Chrysostom printed at Basil this is commanded to be blotted out The Church is not built upon the Man but his Faith And likewise this There is no merit but what is given us by Christ. 17. To the same purpose he quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying to Pope Pius V. Expurgari emaculari curasti omnium Catholicorum Scriptorum ac praecipuè veterum Patrum Scripta Thou hast taken care for the purging of the Writings of all Catholique Writers and especially of the ancient Fathers most shamefully corrupting the sense of the Quotation by leaving out the words that follow Haereticorum aetatis nostrae faeâ—ibus contaminata venenis infecta Contaminated with the dregs and infected with the poisons of the Hereticks of our age 18. Against the power of the Church to adde any Articles to the Creed he quotes the Ephesine Canon That it should not be lawful for any man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed then that which was desined by the Nicene Council c. when that Canon did not mean adding Articles to the Faith defined by that Council for how could the supreme power binde its own hands or make that unlawful for another General Council which the Council of Constantinople had already done in adding divers Articles to the Nicene Creed but publishing any Creed repugnant by adding or detracting to the Nicene 19. To prove that the Council of Constance declared not for the Popes Supremacy he quotes John Gerson as saying That the Council of Constance did abate those heights to which slattery had advanced the Pope and that before that Council they spoke such great things of the Pope which afterwards moderate men durst not speak whereas he saith no such words nor had any meaning against the Popes Supremacy for this is all he saith Fallor si non ante celebrationem hujus S. Constantiensis Synodi c. I am deceived if afore the celebrating of this holy Council of Constance this Tradition which slattery suggested viz. that the Pope was supreme Monarch even in Temporals that he was above the Law could take away mens rights from them c. had not so possessed the mindes of the most that he that should have taught the contrary would have been noted or condemned of Heretical pravity Take a sign of this that after the determination and practice of the same Council there are found who fear not to assert openly such things 20. He puts down these for the words of the Council of Trent Although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants yet they did not believe it necessary c. whereas the words of the Council are not with any such Antithesis but thus onely Nor therefore is antiquity to be condemned if sometime they used that custome in some places For as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause of their so doing according to the condition of that time so truly it is without question to be believed that they did it with no necessity of salvation 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 21. He quotes Bishop Fisher as saying That
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
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
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