that the words of their Pontifical accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium provivis defunctis are contained in those others of our Saviour at the last Supper hoc facite in meam commemorationem Do this in remembrance of me is notoriously weak gratis dicitur gratis negatur as t is said without ground so it may be denied without regard Now as to the form of Ordination * Bellar. de Sacramento Ordinis lib. 1. c. 9. Bellarmine tells us that all agree in taking for form the words that are pronounced by the minister when he exhibits the sensible signs or matter he adds that tho the Scripture doth not mention particular words to be pronounced in each order yet the ancient Fathers of the Church Ambrose Jerome and Augustine do expresly teach that a forme of words suitable to each Order is required and was practiced so in the ancient Roman Ordinals and so is practiced to this day in the Ordinal of the Church of England which in King Edward the sixth his time was disposed according to the more qualified ancient Ordinals used in the Catholic Church In the Ordination of Deacons the Bishop laies his hands severally upon the Head of every one of them kneeling before him saying Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon in the Church of God committed unto thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost c. After delivering to every one of them the New Testament he saith Take thou authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God and to preach the same if thou be thereto licensed by the Bishop himself In ordaining Priests the Bishop with the Priests present do lay their hands severally upon the Head of every one that receiveth the order of Priesthood the Receivers kneeling and the Bishop saying Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands whose Sins thou do'st forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou do'st retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost In the consecration of Bishops the Archbishop and Bishops present do lay their hands upon the Head of the elected Bishop kneeling before them and the Archbishop saying Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands for God has not given us the Spirit of fear but of power and love and soberness The Church of England being thus exact in observing the form and matter essential to holy Orders it appears how rash and false was Kellison in saying that in King Edwards time neither matter nor form of Ordination was used How vain and windy * Fitz Symons Britonomach p. 3â—9 Fitz Symons his flourish cum in Sacramento mutatur materia forma intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia quae ejus essentiam conficiunt desinit esse Sacramentum omnium qui ante te vixerunt tecum vivunt post te victuri sunt orthodoxe sentientium consensu When in the Sacrament the matter form and intention of doing what the Church do's which make up the essence of it are changed it ceases to be a Sacrament by the common consent of all Catholics that lived before you do live with you and after you shall live Truly Fitz Symons seem'd to study more how his phrase should be round and sounding then to furnish it with sense and truth so as without injury I may say here of him dat sine mente sonum Setting aside what belongs to the matter and form who told Fitz Symons that the Ministers of the Church of England in the administration of Sacraments have not an intention to do what the true Church of God do's And tho their intention were to do expresly what their own Church of England do's and not what the Church of Rome Bellarmin declares that not to be an alteration annulling the Sacrament non est opus intendere quod facit Ecclesia Romana sed quod facit vera Ecclesia quaecunque illa sit vel quod Christus instituit vel quod faciunt Christiani imo si quis intendat facere quod aliqua Ecclesia particularis falsa ut Genevensis intendat non facere quod Ecclesia Romana respondeo etiam id sufficere nam qui intendit facere quod Ecclesia Genevensis intendit facere quod Ecclesia universalis It is not necessary saies Bellarmin to have an intention of doing what the Church of Rome do's but what the true Church which soever that be nay if he should intend to do what some particular false Church which he thinks to be true as that of Geneva saith the Cardinal even that will suffice for he that intends to do what the Church of Geneva * Bellar. de Sacra in Gen. lib. 2. c. 27. do's intends to do what the Universal Church do's of which he believes the Church of Geneva to be a member Then Fitz Symons was mistaken when he said that the supposed alteration in the intention of the Ministers did annul the Sacrament by consent of all Catholics if he will not have Bellarmine to be put out of that number not to take notice of his extravagancy in making the intention of the Minister an essential constitute of the Sacrament nor of the dismal confusion and discomfort he brings upon his proselytes by making the effects of Sacraments depending upon the foresaid intention whereof no Man receiving a Sacrament can have a full certainty the words of the Minister I can hear and his action I can see but of his intention I can never be entirely assured Then if the matter and form of Order necessary and essential be retained in our Church as we have seen and no reasonable doubt is left of the intention of our Ministers to do what the Church of England do's which according to Bellarmin's supposition now mentioned is sufficient How comes Fitz Symons to say that in the matter and form and intention of our Ministers such alteration is made as annulls our Sacraments CHAP. VII How far the form of Ordination used in the Church of England agrees with that of the ancient Câ—â—rch declared in tâ—e fourth Council of Carthage and how much the form prescribed by tâ—e Roman Pontifical of this time differs from the ancient fâ—rm AS in many other points so in this of Crdination especially I cannot but admire how bold the Romish Writers are in imposing upon the ignorant that themselves are the observers of antiquity and the Reformed Churches the contemners of it whereas indeed
in the Library of Dublin University where it is ordered that the Bishop consecrating together with the Bishops assisting to help him do place the Book over the neck and the shoulders of the Bishop consecrated without saying any word one of the Chaplains of the Bishop elect kneeling behind him and holding the Book until it be given to his hands and then the Bishop consecrating and the other Bishops assisting him do touch with both their hands the head of the Bishop elect saying Accipe Spiritum Sanctum Receive the Holy Ghost And in supposition that the mode of placeing the Book is not essential to this Ordination certainly the form prescribed by the Church of England in this particular is very decent and apposite to the purpose of this action the Arch-Bishop or other Bishop consecrating delivering the Bible to the Bishop consecrated saying give heed unto reading exhortation and Doctrine with other wholesome admonitions touching his pastoral duty Now touching the essential parts of this ordination which do consist in the imposition of hands as matter and the benediction or words pronounced by the Bishop consecrating as form the Church of England is exact in observing the form prescrib'd by the foresaid Council of Carthage since it orders that all the Bishops present should lay their hands upon the Bishop elect and only the Arch-Bishop or Bishop consecrating should bless or pronounce the words of the form saying Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Châ—st Here the Roman Pontifical deviates from the foresaid form prescribed by the Council of Carthage ordering that both the Bishop consecrating and the Bishops assisting should pronounce the words of the form saying Accipe Spiritum Sanctum By this we see how exact the Church of England is in observing all the essential and necessary parts and ceremonies prescrib'd by that renowned Council of Carthage for the ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons As for other ceremonies not essential the Council of Trent it self declares that even in the administration of Sacraments whereof they will have Orders to be a part they may be altered by the Church as the condition of matters times and places may require Neither is this to be understood of the Church Universal congregated in a general Council only but also of each particular Church whence proceeded the great variety of Rites in things indifferent amongst the ancient and even modern Christians of several places and orders approved by that grave sentence of a Lib. 1. Epist 41. Gregory the Great in una fide nihil ossicit Sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diversa And as the Roman Church upon this account introduces new rites why may not that of England abolish others especially such as are found to be superstitious for which the b Distinct 63. Quia Canon law giveth this warrant Docemur exemplo Ezechiae frangentis serpontem aeneum quae in superstitionem vertuntur illa sine tarditate aliqua cum magna autoritate à posteris destrui posse We are taught by example of Hezechias that such things as turn to superstition may be without delay and with autority extirpated in after ages As a good husband cuts off not only rotten but superfluous branches that may suck away the sap from the main tree so any Church that is free and independent such as this of England is may cut off superstitious and superfluous rites and ceremonies which by their multiplicity may distract both the Ministers and Congregation and take their attention from the main object of their devotion And certainly who ever considers the vast number of ceremonies used now by the Roman Church and prescribed in their Pontifical will find it a task not easie for even a good capacity to comprehend and practice them all and very hard to think of elevating the mind withall to praier or meditation CHAP. VIII How far the Church of England do's agree with the Romish in matter of Ordination wherein they differ and how absur'd the pretention of Romanists is that our difference herein with them should annul our orders AS the Church of England did not think convenient to follow that of Rome in all their superfluous ceremonies especially such of them as are noxious and opposite to the sincerity of Christian discipline so it do's not grudg to go along and conform with them in what they retain of ancient integrity In many things we agree with them First that only Bishops are to give Orders Secondly that none be promoted to Orders without the title of a benefice or sufficient patrimony which is far more exactly observed in the English then in the Romish Church Thirdly that the persons to be Ordained be examined as to behaviour and ability Fourthly that certain times and daies are appointed for Ordination Fifthly that the persons to be ordained ought to appear in the Church Sixthly that they receive their Orders on their knees Seventhly that they receive the Communion All this is commonly observ'd in both Churches but more exactly and indispensibly in the English as to Orders in general Now as to particular Orders we agree in the following points as to Deacons First that the Arch-Deacon presents them to the Bishop Secondly that the Bishop enquires of the Arch-Deacon whether he knows them to be worthy of that Order Thirdly that the Bishop admonishes the Congregation that if any person has any thing to say against them he should declare it Fourthly that the Bishop instructs them in the duty they are to perform Fifthly that litanies are said and the Bishop exhorts the Congregation to pray for the Persons to be ordained that they may be fit Ministers in that sacred Order Sixthy that the Bishop gives them the Book of the Gospels and power to read them in the Church of God Seventhly that one of the Deacons newly ordained should read the Gospel Herein we agree But we differ from the Roman Church First where they add to the litanies the invocation of Saints and Angels Secondly where power is given to the Deacons to read the Gospels for the dead Thirdly that what is not expresly delivered by the Roman formulary is more clearly expressed by the English As for example the Order of Deacons in the former is given by these words Receive the Holy Ghost for power to resist the Devil and his temtations in the Name of the Lord which being too general and common to all Christians is made more proper and apposite to the function of Deacons by these other words used in the English ordinal Receive autority to exercise the work of a Deacon in the Church of God committed to thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Fourthly that we redâ—ce the tedious variety of vestments and ceremonies used in the Roman Church to
saith he that the Pope is infallible If he misliked that doctrine he might have denyed it and remain a Catholic A Catholic I may remain and do but not of their communion that Prop failing for those structures which I saw clearly to be ruinous without it It is an intolerable cavil to say I should speak of the Pope alone or of the Roman Diocess to delude the Reader with impertinent Digressions as often he doth I having clearly expressed my meaning to be that neither the Pope alone nor in a Council such as that of Trent nor the Congregation under his obedience are infallible To say the said Congregation should be the Church Universal which I allow according to St. Pauls Expression to be the pillar and ground of truth is an arrogant begging of a conclusion which will never be allow'd to them all Christian Churches that differ from them which are far the greater part of Christendom crying against their blind presumtion in appropriateing unto themselves the name of the Catholic Church That the Church truly Universal composed of all believers in Christ whether diffusive or representative in a Council truly Oecumenicall and free such as were the first four General Councils and such as was not the Councill of Trent is to have the assistance of the holy Ghost so that tho it be not properly infallible yet it shall not err in things fundamental to mens Salvation I do piously believe and of my meaning therein I gave him no occasion to doubt Therefore if he will speak to the purpose granting it is not an Article of faith that the Pope is infallible in the sense I denyed infallibility to him that is to say in a Council of those depending upon him or out of it it follow 's they have no certainty for their Tenets relying upon the Popes Infallibility which being no article of faith cannot be certain in it self nor consequently give certainty to things depending upon it He only allow's Infallibility to the Pope jointly with a general Council Herein he gratifies the Jansenists who may by this plead for indemnity notwithstanding the definitions of Innocent the Tenth and Alexander the Seventh against them which being not confirmed or autorized by a general Council in conjunction with the Pope cannot pretend to Infallibility in Mr. I. S. his opinion who hereby must incense against himself all the party adverse to the Jansenists which will prove too hard for him But he saies all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of the Pope and a generall Council Therefore Aquinas Turrecremata and Alphonsus à Castro are in his opinion no Catholics of whom * Can. l. 4. De lo. c. 4. Aquin in 4 d. 6. qu. 1. art 7. in 3. qu. 2. ad 3. Turrecrem l. 2. sum Ecclesiae c. 91. Alphons à Cast de just Haer. pun l. c. 5. gloss interlin in illud Math. 16. portae infer c. Canus relates that the Church even Pope and Council together may err materially in their opinion as I mentioned in the 30. page of my discourse which if he did consider and examine he would not so peremtorily assert that all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of Pope and Councel jointly Neither indeed do's Mr. S. himself sâ—em to be very strong in the belief of this Infallibility for in the comfort he gives his brethren on this account extolling magnificently their happiness herein above Protestants he so orders the matter that their comfort must not be grounded upon the real existence of that Infallibility but upon a strong apprehension or belief of it tho not extant It is a comfort saies he to an unacquainted Traveller to be guided by one whom he firmly believes to be acquainted with the way tho really your guide were not acquainted with the way if you câ—â—tainly believe that he is and cannot stray c. This is such another comfort as the grand Turk gives to his men that dying in his quarrel they go immediately to Paradise tho it be not so it s a comfort to think it is A sad comfort for the unhappy souls lost but commodious for the Turk to get by these means people to sight desperately and dye for him Thus it is with the Church or Court of Rome To believe they are infallible is a satisfaction to the people and very important for the autâ—rity and grandeur of that Court whether it be so indeed is not material The understanding of this mystery we are to owe to Mr. S. his ingenuity Poor man he has not been well acquainted with the intrigues of that Court they do not love to have arcana imperii the mysteries of their government discovered He will certainly fall short of his expected remuneration for his writing and if a Cap be deputed to him for it sure I am it will not be that of a Cardinal CHAP. IV. That Protestants have a greater security for the truth of their doctrine then Papists have Mr. I. S. his ridiculous exposition and impious contradicting of St. Pauls Text in favor of Scripture rebuked OUR Adversary triumphs upon the aforesaid comfort of Papists in apprehending their Guide to be Infallible tho he be not so indeed which comfort he saies the Protestants cannot have being guided by a Church which they believe is not so well assured of the way but they may err God forbid Protestants should not have a better warrant for the truth of their Doctrine then that he gives to Papists They have the infallible word of God delivering all their doctrine and clearly containing all that is necessary to Salvation and a perfect life as appears evidently by what I delivered in the discourse which Mr. I. S. go's about to oppose and will be further evidenced by shewing how vain and weak the opposition is They have besides in the general tradition of the Church a full and sufficient certainty that the books commonly received for Canonical are the true word of God and therefore are certain of Gods infallible autority assisting in favor of the verities contained in those books which kind of certainty tho only morall touching the existence of Gods revelation in favor of those verities joined with an absolute and undoubted Certainty that whatsoever God reveals is infallible verity makes up all the certainty that a pious and prudent believer ought to expect in matters of divine faith Mr. I. S. talks of a kind of certainty requisite for Divine faith which I doubt muâ—h whether he or any of his party ever had for all those articles they pretend to be of faith He tells us and takes it upon credit of his instructors without much examination as often he does in other matters that for all acts of belief touching revealed truths an absolute certainty is requisite clearing the believer from all manner of doubt If you speak of an objective certainty relating to the mystery revealed all true believers have it being fully assured that God cannot reveal an untruth but
alledg that that he did not mean he could carry so much alone but he and a Horse with him Such quibbles as these are more becoming Mr. S. then S. Paul and so he may keep them for himself and not father them upon the great Apostle Further he proceeds to oppose St Paul saying that when he wrot that Epistle to Timothy the whole Canon of Scripture was not completed and only the whole Canon and no part of it can be sufficient means for our instruction therefore the Scripture that S. Paul spoke of cannot be a sufficient means for instructing us to Salvation Herein our Sophister is twice impious first in taxing the great Apostles assertion with untruth next that the Oracle of God delivered to men in each time for their instruction to Salvation should not be complete and sufficient By this it appears well how much a stranger this man is to the common Doctrine of Divines who affirm that in the Apostles Creed are contained all necessary verities to be believed for Salvation and in the Ten Commanâ—ments all duties to be performed of necessity to the same end And may not the Creed and Ten Commandments be known without a knowledg of the whole Canon of Scripture His boldness is prodigious in asserting extravagances without exhibiting any proof but his bare ipse dixit Pythagoras-wise Finding me say I was not fit for Pâ—thagoras his Schole where ipse dixit was the rule and men will not give reason for what they teach he opposes that if I am to expect reason for what I believe I am not fit for Christs Schole nor learning from Scripture which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit But if the Man had any ingenuity in him he would spare this Objection seeing it prevented in the 18. page of my discourse where I acknowledg with thanksgiving to God that I never doubted of the Truth of Holy Scriptures nor of the Creed proposed to us by the Catholic Apostolic Church and dictated by God Almighty worthy to be believed without examen not so Pythagoras nor the Pope CHAP. V. Mr. S. his prolixe excursion about the Popes Authority requisite to know which is the true Scripture declared to be Impertinent and the state of the Question cleared from the confusion he puts upon it OUR Adversary finding the Popes Infallibility to be an expression odious and ridiâ—ulous to all knowing men and whereof even the sober part of * Vid. Cress in exomologesi cap 4. Sect. 3. Romanists grow ashamed endeavours to serve us up the same Dish under another dress calling it the Autority of the Church Universal And if therein he did speak properly or sincerely he would have less opposition from us But if you do enquire what he means by Church Universal he tells you it is the Congregation Subject to the Pope of Rome excluding all other men and particularly the Church of England from being any part of that his Universal Church The said Congregation subject to the Pope whether diffusive or representative in a general Council depending upon the Pope and confirmed by him he pretends to be Infallible And whatever I alledge against the Infallibility of the Roman Church he thinks to elude by pretending I speak of the particular Diocese of Rome a gross misunderstanding or willful misrepresentation of my meaning for which I never gave any ground in my writing or discourses He is to know I speak in proper terms as used among Learned men speaking upon this Subject taking the Roman Church for the party following the Popes faction wheresoever extant whether congregated or dispersed prescinding from his Altercations with the rest or any they have among themselves for both he and the rest agreeing in making that Infallibility depending ultimately upon the Popes Autority we may well represent their assertion as opposite to the sentiment of all other Christians under the notion of the Popes infallibility * That all is bottomed upon the Popes Authority Bellarmin declares saying totam firmitatem conciliorum legitimorum esse á Pontifice non-partim à Pontifice partim à concilio lib. 4. de Rom. Pon. c. 3. sect at contra The terms and state of the Question being thus cleared it follows to declare how impertinent his prolixe excursion and vain ostentation is in telling us the diversity of Opinions that were in different times about Canonical Scripture and the difficulty of ascertaining us which is the true one This is an old device of those of his faction to decline the main controversy in hand wherein they still betray the weakness of their Cause They and he should remember the points controverted are among parties that agree in reverencing the Bible for the infallible Word of God And if he thinks the part of it received for Canonical by common consent will not suffice for ending our Controversies we admit willingly St. Augustins rule for clearing the difficulties touching particular Books the Authority of the Church and the Tradition of it as described by Lirinensis Quod semper quod ubique quod apud omnes What was in all time in all places and by all Christians delivered that we take for a true Apostolic Tradition and to it we resolve to stand or fall as well for discerning Canonical Scripture as for understanding the true meaning of it If Mr. S. did take Church and Tradiâ—ion in the sense that the Holy Fathers did and the Learned Men of the Church of England do he would find in us all due reverence to those sacred Fountains of Christian verities But to call Church Universal the faction adhering to the Pope of Rome in opposition to the rest of Christians is a presumtion like that of the Turk in calling himself King of Kings and Emperor of all the World such as are Vassals to him may revere that calling others do laugh at it But we do not find the Turk to have plaâ—'d the sool so far as to take that his assumed title as granted by other Princes independing upon him or to alledg it for ground of his pretentions with them This is Mr. S. his folly in taking for granted in his debates with us that the Romish faction is the Catholic Universal Church So great an Intruder upon disputes should learn that rule of Disputants Quod gratis dicitur gratis negatur what is barely said without proof is sufficiently refuted with a bare denial This alone well considered will suffice to overthrow man Chapters of Mr. S. his Book What makes him spend time in telling us of the difficulty of finding out which is true Scripture the rule truly infallible of our belief when he sees us thus ascertain'd of it why do's he trouble us with speaking of a Criterion or beam of light pretended by Fanatics confessing at the same time that to be exploded by Protestants is it to make his Book swell But finding he cannot hide Scripture from us he will have us to be beholden to the Pope for the true
with the autority of it which we have sufficiently proved not to be infallible And by this Reader you may see how rashly Mr. I. S. says I did most falsly aver that Suarez is not so certain whether the power of absolving given to the Church did extend to the profuse grant of Indulgences practised at present by the Roman Church Let the Learned Reader reflect upon Suarez his discourse upon this subject in the place forementioned and he shall find how farr he is from any certainty that this doctrine is grounded upon Scripture and primitive Antiquity but shall find that he only believes it as Scotus did that of Transubstantiation Non propter rationes quae non cogunt not in force of arguments alledged for it which are not convincing but for the autority of his Church And mark Reader that so great men as Cajetan and Suarez being employed by public autority in defending this doctrine after bestowing all their Learning and no small labor in procuring to establish it we find them confess they have nothing to say seriously for it but what the Collier for his Faith viz. that he believed as the Church believes And here also they mistake the true notion of the Church and autority of it a mistake in truth more tolerable in a Collier then in men of the Learning and repute of Cajetan and Suarez But such is the condition of their cause that it could not be defended better and such was their engagement that they must defend it by right or wrong I conceive my Antagonist complaining that I have neglected him in this Chapter and I confess freely I delight more in dealing with people of that Learning and ingenuity I see in Cajetan and Suarez then with Mr. I. S. but being we are debtors to all I will give a turn to him also upon this subject and it will be in the next Chapter CHAP. XXIX The unhappy success of Mr. I. S. his great boast of skill in History touching the Antiquity of Indulgences discovered IN the 90th page of my former Discourse speaking of the Antiquity of Indulgences I mentioned that the first notice I had of the grants of them after the manner now used is that of Gregory the VII given to those of his party who would fight against the Emperor Henry III. by error of the Printer IV. in the year 1084. which Baronius relates from his Penitentiary in which was promised remission of all their sins to such as would venture their lives in that holy War for which I quoted Baronius his Annals upon the foresaid year 1084. num 15. Here Mr. I. S. enters in triumph and declares that if I have no more skill in Divinity or moral Theology then I seem to have in History I am but a fresh-water Scholar as for Controversie saies he my Treatise shews well what I know of it Be it so Sir let me have truth on my side as I hope will appear by this Treatise and make you much of your skill in the mean while let us examine how much it is in the present point of History wherein you pretend to be most Magisterial First you mistake most absurdly the state of the Question as is usual with you and where I speak of Indulgences given by Gregory the Seventh to those of his party who would fight against the Emperor Henry the Third you report such Indulgences to be given by the said Gregory to Henry to encourage him and the Christians to war against the Saracens Whoever did read the History of that Gregory and his fierce persecution of the said Emperor to the end of his life even as his own Historians Platina and Baronius more biassed to him do report will more easily believe that Gregory should favor the Turk against Henry then uphold Henry against any Adversary If ever you had any tincture of the History of Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the Seventh how could you fall into so ridiculous an equivocation as to conceive him granting Indulgences in favor of the Emperor Henry III. If you did read my Discourse speaking expresly of an Indulgence granted to those that would fight again the Emperor how come you to pervert the narrative so absurdly as if I should have spoken of an Indulgence given in favor of that Emperor You say that the Indulgence I speak of nor any other to any such purpose was not granted by Gregory the Seventh but by Vrban the Second Read the place I quoted of Baronius upon the year 1084. numb 15 there you shall find Gregory the Seventh employing Anselm Bishop of Luca to publish Indulgences for all those that would fight in his quarrel against the Emperor Henry the Third And continuing your strange equivocations you speak of Indulgences given by Vrban the Second to the same Henry the Third but it was not to him he gave them but to Alexius Emperor of Constantinople as Baronius relates at the year 1095. numb 3. You speak of Indulgences granted by Leo the Third anno 847. but it was not Leo the Third but Leo the Fourth that reigned then and when Suarez finds not him nor any other giving Indulgences of so ancient date sure I am you never found them upon any warrantable account To one notice of Indulgences I will help you out of Baronius preceding that I mentioned of Gregory the Seventh given to them that would fight against the Emperor Henry the Third in the same year 1084. which I allow you to take for the genuine origin of your present practice of Indulgences given by profane Cardinals Creatures of Pope Guibert called Clement the Third Competitor of Gregory the Seventh of which kind of Cardinals Baronius in the foresaid year numb 9. giveth this account Erant enim cives Romani Vxorati sive Concubinarii barbati Mitrati peregrinis oratoribus praecipue vero multitudini rusticanae Longobardorum mentientes asserentes se Cardinales Presbyteros esse quique oblationibus receptis Indulgentiam remissionem omnium peccatorum usu nefari◠impudenter praestabant hi occasione custodiendae Ecclesiae consurgentes intempestae noctis silentio intra citra candem Ecclesiam impunè homicidia rapinas varia stupra diversa latrocinia exercebant There were saies he Roman Citizens either married or retaining Concubines shaven and wearing Mitres imposing upon forreign Embassadors but especially upon the rude multitude of Longobards that they were Presbyter Cardinals and who receiving offerings did impudently bestow Indulgences and remission of all sins these under pretext of defending the Church rising in the deep silence of the night did commit within and about the Church without hindrance horrible murders robberies and diverse sorts of whoredoms and luxuries Who were better Popes or better men Guibert and his Cardinals or Hildebrand and his as I do not know so I will not dispute but conclude that such Indulgences as these were given in Rome by relation of their own hired Historian and let the Reader see how unhappy Mr.
the Pope and his Emissaries with censures and manifold vexations let two copious Volumes published upon the subject declare the one in Latin by Richard Caron the other in English by Peter Walsh largely relating and learnedly refuting the unjust procedure of the Pope and his Emissaries upon this subject I received my self from Cardinal Rospigliosi then Internuncius in Brussels a Copy of Cardinal Francis Barberini his Letter to him intimating the Popes will and command that the Irish should not subscribe to the said Remonstrance and the censure of the Theological Faculty of Lovain declaring the said Remonstrance to be repugnant to the truth of Catholic Religion and therefore unlawful and abominable such as no man may subscribe to without Sacriledg And being question'd what part of the Remonstrance merited so grave a Censure they answered it was * Vid. Caron in Rem Hibern contra Lovaniens part 1. cap. 5. p. 19. the denial of a power in the Pope of making war by himself or by others against our King for usurping the Primacy due to the Pope and retaining unjustly the Lands of the British Church In which case say they it may not be lawful for Catholics to oppose the Pope making war or favor the King usurping the Popes rights Thus the warlike Theologians of Flanders do beat to arms and denounce war against opposers of their Church which according to the rules of Mahomet must be defended with the sword when words will not do And must not all this administer an occasion of Jealousie to our King All will not make Mr. I.S. beleive that the practices of the Pope and his Emissaries herein did occasion any sufferings to the Irish It s remarkable what the foresaid †Caron supra cap. 4. p. 15. Author relates that Cardinal Francis Barbarini being questioned by one of his acquaintance why the English and Irish Papists may not disclaim that doctrine of King deposing power in the Pope as the French do he answered it is not the fashion with the French to consult them of Rome in such cases But the Irish and English consulting them were to expect they would resolve in Rome what was more agreeable to their pretended right I like of the Cardinals noble dealing in delivering the truth of the matter but whether it be a noble proceeding of them in Rome to aggravate the miseries of the English and Irish suffering for their sake let Ovid tell At Lupus turpes instant morientibus Vrsae Et quaecunque minor nobilitate fer a est That it is for Bears and Wolves and such like ignoble Brutes to insult over those that are down and kill the dying It behooves men to be stiff with the Pope for if they stoop he 'l throw them quite down CHAP. XVII The complaint of Papists against our King for the Oath of Supremacy he demandeth from his Subjects declared to be unjust Mr. I. S. sleighting that of the Remonstrance would have me condole the sufferances of the Irish for not taking the Oath of Supremacy to the King of England as Head of the Church which he saies to be a cruelty against Souls to demand from them I do condole heartily the sufferings of the Irish for that I mean their folly and blindness in suffering themselves to be deluded by the Arts of Rome believing rebellion to be Religion and Catholic Piety to pass the Obedience due to their natural Prince by Gods command to a forreigner that has no other right over them then what by craft and cruelty he hath usurped as is declared in the Chapter preceding All this will be made clear to such as will consider that our Princes pretend not to any other Supremacy or power over their Subjects then such as the godly Kings of Israel had in their time over the Jews and the Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church over their respective Subjects as is declared in the thirty seventh Article and seventh Canon of the Church of England and as indeed our Princes do execute practising even less power in Church Affairs then the Kings of Israel and Christian Emperors did Do but read the second of Kings commonly called the fourth in the 23. Chapter and see how forward the godly King Josiah was in reforming the Church both Clergy and Laity reading himself to them the Book of the Covenant deposing unworthy Priests and substituting lawful ones The same you may see practiced by Hezekias in the second Book of Chronicles chap. XXIX and the Text approving his proceeding in all this particular saying He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord according to all his Father had don If you do but confer the proceeding of these two good Kings related in the fore-mentioned places with the behavior of our Princes in the several Convocations of their Clergy and people for the Reformation of the Church in these Kingdoms you shall find them not to have taken so much of the work upon them in their own persons as those Kings of Israel did but commended to Prelates and Divines the Examination of Points belonging to Religion and Government of the Church holding themselves the sword and stern of Government to keep peace at home and defend them from forreign Enemies Neither did our Savior diminish but rather confirm this supreme power of Princes over their Subjects We have his will herein intimated to us by St. Paul Rom. XIII 1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers where by higher Powers St. Augustin and the other Ancient Fathers do understand the secular power of Princes and the context it self is clear enough for that interpretation as Salmeron confesses a Salmer disp 4. in Rom. 13. Patres Veteres praecipuè Augustinus Ep. 54. Apostolum interpretantur de potestate seculari tantum loqui quod ipse textus subindicat And that to this power not only Seculars but all sorts of Ecclesiastical persons are subject S. Chrysostom b Chrysost Hom. 23. in Rom. Etiamsi Apostolus sis si Evangelista si Propheta sive quis tandem fueris declares Omnibus ista imperantur Sacerdotibus Monachis c. This is a command said upon all Men whether they be Priests or Monks whether Apostles Evangelists or Prophets or whoever they be and S. Bernard c Bernard Ep. 42. ad Henric. Archiep. Senonens Siomnis anima vestra quis vos excepit ab Vniversitate c. considers well that the very words of the text do declare so much If every Soul be subject unto the higher power says he writing to an Arch-Bishop yours also must be likewise subject Who hath exemted you from the general Rule c. Neither is it less certain by the practice of the Church both old and Christian and by the autority of Fathers that it belongeth to Princes to protect and have an eye over their people in matters of Religion to procure the integrity and reformation of it when decayed As for the
old Law the cases proposed above of Hezekiah and Josiah do assure us that this hath bin the practice of the best Kings of those times And if you consult the acts of Constantine the great of Arcadius and Honorius of Theodosius the elder Justinian Charles the great and others the best of Christian Emperors and greatest supporters of the Churches honor you shall find them intervening frequently and moderating the greatest consultation touching Religion and the good conduct of Church affairs It was a wonder to S. Augustin that any should doubt it should be the duty of an Emperor or Prince to do so a Aug. l. 1. in Epist contra Ep. Parm c. 9. An forte de Religione fas non est dicat Imperator vel quos miserit Imperator What doth it not belong to the Emperor or to him he employs to deliver his opinion touching Religion and elsewhere he says that to be the chief care and charge of the Emperor of which he is to give account to God b Aug. Ep. 50.162 ad Imperatoris curam de quâ rationem Deo redditurus est res illa maximè pertinebat All this being so that it is the duty of our Princes to govern all the states and affairs of this Kingdom and the dut◠of Subjects to obey them in all and that for conscience as S. Paul declareth Rom. 13.5 That you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake how can I omit to condole the misery of my Country-men and others so deluded by the arts of Rome as to take it for a breach of Conscience what S. Paul declares to be a duty of Conscience I mean an acknowledgment of their Princes Supreme Authority over all his Subjects and their obligation of obeying him accordingly Especially when I see what S. Bernard saw and lamented that it is not the welfare of Souls nor the zeal of their Salvation makes the Court of Rome to put this horror into the hearts of Men against their dutyful obedience and subjection to their Princes Non quod valdè Romani curant quo fine res terminetur sed quia valdè diligunt munera sequuntur retributiones not that the Ministers of Rome do regard much the end or purpose of Controversies raised so they obtain their own end of encreasing their own interest and power I wish with all my heart with S. Bernard that these corruptions of Rome were not so public and known to all the World * Bernard Ep. 42. ad Archiep. Senonens Vtinam nobis relinquerent Moderni Noae unde à nobis possint aliquatenus operiri nunc vero cernente Orbe mundi fabulam soli tacebimus I wish these modern Noahs did leave unto us some possibility of covering their shame but all the World beholding it shall we alone conceal it This being so consider Mr. I. S. how blind is your zeal or great your malice in saying it should be a cruelty in our Princes to demand from their subjects an acknowledgment of his supreme power over them and in them a blasphemy to acknowledg it And to make us believe it is so you produce the autority of Calvin When I alledg Vasquez or Suarez his doctrine to you if it be not to your liking you tell me they have bin mistaken as well as I so much I say to you at present of Calvin that if he be of your mind in this particular he is mistaken and in a foul error as well as you Calvin and Luther have no more autority in the Church of England then Suarez and Vasquez among you and I observe you are as singularly impertinent as unreasonable wheresoever you speak to me of Luther and Calvin it is not their writings which I never saw brought me to the Church of England nor conserves me in it The Scripture Fathers and the History of the Church did work both upon me Of them you are to speak to me as I do to you Many a thousand poor simple Souls in these Kingdoms misled by the Pope and his busy Emissaries do cry against the Oath of Supremacy without knowing or examining what it means or what is their Princes meaning in demanding it crying up the Popes Supremacy much like those 200. seduced by Absalon to follow him out of Jerusalem to rebel against the King his Father when they thought they did service to the King And with Absalon went two hundred men out of Jerusalem that were called and they went in their simplicity and they knew not any thing 2. Sam. 15.11 So it is with many seduced by the art and activity of Rome to den◠due submission to their lawful Prince and give it to a Forreign usurper under pretext of following a pretended Vicar of God to rebel against God S. Paul declaring that whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation A conclusion he doth very legally infer from a verity he had immediatly before premised That the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1.2 We are to believe in Charity that many have the excuse of those 200. seduced by Absalon That they went in their simplicity and they knew not any thing But the corruptions and impostures of Rome being so universally known even in S. Bernards time as declared above and much more now we may fear justly that too many do err with knowledg or for want of due inquiry and so resisting lawful power they may receive to themselves damnation Of which latter sort Mr. I. S. may seriously fear himself to be one if he be so conversant in the doctrine of both Churches Protestant and Popish and in that of primitive Christianity as he pretends to be This I commend to his mature consideration while I pursue him in his engagement about Transubstantiation CHAP. XVIII Our Adversarys Essay in favour of Transubstantiation examined His Challenge for solving two Syllogisms answered MR. I. S. I do generally find you unexact and much unlike a Scholar in your Arguments but more when you boast most and stand in defiances Now you defy all my Divinity to answer two Syllogisms you would have us believe to be of your own invention But a piece of my Logic will make both appear Paralogisms unworthy of any answer no formal Syllogisms The first grounded upon Luke 22.19 Eat this is my Body which is given for you runs thus He gave to them what he gave for them But what he gave for them was not a sigure but his real and true Body therefore what he gave to them was not a figure but his real and true body In this Syllogism nothing is new but the form you give it and that guilty of several vices against the rules of Logic. I say nothing is new in your argument nor any sense or force added to it by passing the case from Christ giving the last Supper to Christ suffering upon the Cross All your Syllogism may be
him and others immediatly following wherein he attributes the same opinion to the Council of Trent Sessione 25. in decret Fdei de sacris Imaginibus and to the seventh Synod Vasquez lib. 2. de Adoratione disp 6. cap. 2. gives this further Account of the mode of worshipping Images in the Roman Church Catholica veritas est Imaginibus deferendam esse adorationem h. e. signa servitutis submissionis amplexu luminaribus oblatione suffituum capitis nudatione c. That it is a Catholic verity that worship is to be given to Images that is to say expressions of Service and Submission by embraces light burning offering of Incense uncovering the head Azorius quotes for the same opinion Aquinas Bonaventure Alensis Cajetan and several other ancient and modern Schole-men Mr. I. S. will not have us believe all these Doctors in this their Declaration touching the Romish worship of Images But who are you good Mr. I. S. Quidam nescio quis nec puto nomen habet one I know not who and as I see nameless that we must believe you rather then so many famous Doctors now mentioned Give to your worship of Images what name you please to worship them at all is a formal transgression of the divine Precept above mentioned and therefore a grievous fin You would fain prove out of Scripture that God ordered Images to be adored which is to pretend that God should contradict himself and so it appears in the ill success of your attempt upon finding your doctrine in Scripture Your first discovery in Scripture is that God commanded the Brazen Serpent to be put up to be adored say you Gods command touching that matter is set down Numb XXIV 8. in these words Make thee a fiery Serpent and set it upon a Pole and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten when he looketh upon it shall live Here is no mention of adoring that Serpent you say that looking upon it was to be with inward reverence and veneration wherein adoration or worship doth properly consist Then when we look upon a Church with reverence as being the house of God we adore it the same when we look upon the Bible when a dutiful child looks reverently upon his Father all is adored Likely the Israelites in time came to be of your opinion and to adore the Serpent but how well was that taken at their hands you may see in the second of Kings XVIII 4. That the godly King Ezechias brake in pieces the brazen Serpent that Moses had made for unto those daies the Children of Israel did burn Ineense to it While they only looked upon it according to Gods Ordinance it was beneficial to them but when their devotion grew to a worship it provoked Gods Indignation declared in that action of Ezechias which the sacred Writer approves in these words And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. Your second discovery is Josue VII 6. where only we find that Josue together with the Elders of Israel fell upon their faces before the Ark and praied to God and that you take for an adoration of the Ark. So whensoever you pray before an Altar or a Bible you adore the Altar and the Bible The third Instance to which you say Protestants will never answer is that the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs Passion and a figure of his Body and is religiously worshiped by them if they do what St. Paul requires 1 Cor. XI 28. And what do's St. Paul require in that place This Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. That Protestants should never answer this Argument is no wonder what answer can be where no question is and questionless there is no sign or the least insinuation of Adoration to be paid unto the Communion Bread in the place you quote It is a work of your fancy no discovery of common sense to imagine worship given by Gods Ordinance to the Serpent to the Ark or to the Communion Bread in the places you relate You are to give me leave to tell you that your Argument is so frivolous as requires no more serious answer then to put you in mind of a Spanish Proverb Quien Vaccas ha perdido cencerrosse le antexan who has lost his Oxen Bells do ring in his cars His vehement desire of finding his Oxen makes him think every noise of a bough or leaf of a tree stirred be the wind to be the sound of the Bells his Oxen bare so your strong fancy for Image-worship makes you conceive it even where no shape nor sound of it appears You confess Images were little used in the Primitive Church nay were absolutely prohibited in the Council of Eliberis but that was say you to avoid the scandal of Pagans and the relapse of those converted from Paganism And are there not Pagans yet in the world Is not a conversion of them still procured What consequence is it to decry their adoration of stocks and stones and when they come to your Churches to see you perform to Images all those acts of worship which they used to their Idols by genuflexion thurification c. To speak to them of your distinction of terminative and relative worship will be insignificant as in it self its vain for the reasen I proposed pag. 70. of my former discourse to which you give no answer I alledged Nicephorus saying It is an absurd thing to make Images of the Trinity and yet they do it in the Roman Church You say that what Nicephorus and others do hold absurd is to paint Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substance and nature Nor do the Catholics use it as you falsly criminate them say you to me but herein certainly you do most falsly criminate me in saying I should impose such a thing upon them Where have I said that Papists do paint the Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substarce and nature Or how could any man in his senses conceive Images of that kind could be drawn with material colors To attemt the drawing of any shape of them is what Nicephorus called absurd and * Damascen l. 4. c. 15. ante medium Damascen madness and impiety Insiplentiae summae est impictatis sigurare quod est divinum Of this madness Cajetan more ingenuous then you confesses your Church to be guilty who after having said that in the old Law certainly Images of God were prohibited and for the same reason were reprehended as unlawful by several Doctors among Christians since in both occasions they may engender in men a false conception of Gods nature yet he concludes in these words In oppositum autem est usus Ecclesiae admittens Trinitatis Imagines representantes non solum silium incarnatum sed Patrem Spiritum Sanctum That contrary to the said reasons autority of Damascen the Church
uses to admit Images of the Trinity representing not only the Son Incarnate but also the Father and Holy Ghost To which I add of my knowledg that they use not only a Picture of the Trinity as you describe in the forms of an old Man our Saviour and a Dove but in the form of one Man with three heads or three faces in one head both undecent and horrible to look upon And thus much for the matter of fact of your painting the Holy Trinity Now I will pass to to see how able you are to defend your practice herein from the guilt of Idolatry CHAP. XXIII Mr. I. S. his defence of the Romish Worship of Images from the guilt of Idolatry confuted The miserable condition of the Vulgar and unhappy exgagement of the Learned among Romanists touching the Worship of Images discovered YOU pretend tho it be Idolatry to adore an Image as a God yet not so to adore God in an Image To which I say first that very many of your best Authors such as are Alensis Albert Bonaventure Abulensis Soto and others related and followed by Vascuez in 3. p. disp 104. c. 2. do affirm that God did not only forbid in the second Commandment that which was unlawful by the Law of Nature as the worship of an image for God but the worshiping the true God by any Similitude You will not be engaged in defending the coherence of their doctrine herein with saying that the same Precept of not adoring God by an Image should not oblige Christians neither indeed is it easie to find the coherence of it Certainly you will never find that God did dispense in the foresaid Law with Christians neither can any reason be imagined why such a practice should be lawful in one time and not in another Why Jews should be further from Idolatry then Christians This to have bin the sin of the Jews in the worship of the golden Calf which was so offensive to God I mean that they did adore it as an Image of God and not believing it was a real God is most apparent by the words of the Context These be thy Gods Oh Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt Exod. XXXII 4. Who can believe that men not altogether destitute of common sense would seriously judg that Images made before themselves of their own gold should be a real God In what sense or reason could they say it was he that brought them out of the Land of Egypt which was don long before that Calf was made If you say that Aaron declared that Calf to be a God saying These are thy Gods or this is thy God as you have in the ninth of Nehemiah the plural being taken for the singular in the former place by a Hebraism I answer it was a tropical Expression as you are wont to say where Images are of the Apostles This is St. Peter and this is St. Paul meaning the Images of St. Peter or St. Paul And as you say in your Processions of holy Friday of the Cross you bear in your hand and raise up to be adored by the people bowing upon their knees Ecce lignum crucis in quo salus mundi pependit Behold the timber of the Cross upon which was fixed the Saviour of the world Surely you are not so senseless as to think these words should be verified in a literal sense of the Cross you bear in your hand but rather in a tropical relating to the Cross whereon our Saviour was really fixed In the like sense you are to conceive Aaron did speak of the golden Calf if you will not make him quite senseless when he said This is thy God oh Israel which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt which is to say This is a Type or Image of thy God who brought thee out of the Land of Egypt and under that notion the people did adore it And all this while I hope you will not pretend to absolve them from the guilt of Idolatry for which they were so severely punished by God as we read in the 32. ch of Exâ—dus Therefore Idolatry is not only to adore an Image as God but also to adore God in an Image If we will give credit to Pagans touching their belief they will tell us they were never so blind as to think the Statues they adored were Gods Nemo unquam tam fatuus fuit saies Cicero qui saxum lapidem Jovem esse credidit None ever was so void of sense as to say that a stone should be Jupiter Neither could such a belief consist with what is generally supposed by them that their Gods are in heaven So the Inhabitants of Lystra when they saw Paul and Barnabas heal one that was a Creeple from his birth said The Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men Act. XIV 11. And if even Pagans thought it a stupidity unbecoming men of common sense to conceive a stock or stone to be a God less ought we to imagine that the Israelites with so much advantage of instruction should be so brutish Their guilt therefore was not to believe the golden Calf was a God but to attempt the worshiping of God by an Image which is your guilt You conclude that to worship the Image of Christ and his Saints cannot be called Idolatry For an Idol say you is a representation of a Deity that has no being but Christ and his Saints â—ave a being c. If you speak of the subject of Idolatrous worship tending to something created it is true that it looks upon a Deity that hath no being But if you believe S. Paul the real object of their worship was the true God which he preached Whom you ignorantly worship him declare I unto you Acts 17.23 and notwithstanding he rebuked them for Idolaters therefore Idolatry is not only a worship dedicated to false Gods but also a worship of the true God by a way prohibited But how will this your discourse reach to save from Idolatry the worship given to Images of Saints that have in them no Divinity real or apprehended Is it because they have a being opposite to a Chimera or nothing then the adorers of Mars and Apollo in their Statues and so of other Idols were no Idolaters Those Statues or Idols were representations of men whether living or dead is not material not Chimerical but such as had a real being Read the origin of Idolatry described in the 14. Chapter of Wisdom from the 12. verse you shall find it begun by making Images of men absent or dead to honor their memory Besides your supposition is clear contrary to what Gods Commandment against the worship of Images supposes Thâ—u shalt not make unto the any graven Image or any likâ—ness of any thing that is in Heaven above or that is in the Earth beneath c. Exod. 20.4 Images of things are prohibited to be worshipped and of things really being in the Heaven or upon