force of his Argument Sunt certe saith the Saint libri Dominici quorum Authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus c. There are certain books of our Lord He means Scripture to whose Authority we both yeild we both believe Ibi Quaeramus ecclesiam Let us look for the Church there c. That is seeing we both who now dispute admit of Scripture and believe it let us upon such a supposition go forward and prove the Church by Scripture which is an excellent way of Arguing but if any question the Authority of Scripture it self take it we must when we make a right Analysis upon the Church's Authority solely and say with St. Austin I would not believe the Scripture but for the Church I omit the brags he hath pag. 6. of Protestants being more then indubitably Conquerors meer empty words and observe how he puts himself on a new trouble pag. 7th where he saith Whatsoever we cannot prove by Scripture we disclaim it I will not here tell the Doctor he must then disclaim every Tenet of Protestant Religion no more in Scripture then Arianism as it stands opposite to the Roman Faith But briefly I argue thus A Church secured from Error and which Infallibly proposeth Divine Truth can be proved by Scripture or cannot If the first there was is and shall ever be in the World a society of Christians un-crrable and certain in Doctrine that neither injures Faith nor by intromitting Novelties destroy Apostolical Doctrine for the Scripture as we now suppose saith so and what it saith is true One favour therefore I humbly beg of the Doctor that he would by a plain designation point me out this unerrable body of Christians and clearly also design me such known out cast Christians that are not of this Moral body my demand is reasonable and require's no long discourse nor any definition of a Church but to have this unerring company design'd and candidly If the Scripture Warrant 's not such an Infallible company of Christians the Doctor though he pretend to it can never believe with a true and infallible Act of Supernatural faith that the Ancient Church Inherited Catholick Doctrine that it sent Milions of Souls to Heaven That what we now read is the Apostles Creed that the Ancient Councils erred not in their Definitions No nor that there ever was or is now Pure and Incorrupt Scripture among Christians I say he cannot believe these truths with a certain assent of Supernatural Faith but at most with a meer opinative Judgment which may as well be wrong as right false as true staggering assuredly it is and not steddy if a meer Opinion yes and wholly destitute of that strength which God requires to Supernatural Faith In his 10th page he is fierce against the Church of Rome for pretending to a power not only of declaring New Articles of Faith but of making new Symbols and Creeds and imposing them as necessary to Salvation To this purpose he cites the Bull of Leo the tenth against Martin Luther whose twenty seventh Proposition is this and condemned Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae non esse statuere Articulos fidei imo nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certain that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to appoint or determine Articles of Faith nor Laws of manners or good Works First here is not a word of making new Articles or Creeds and the word statuere may as well signifie to determine a Question not yet decided as to make any thing a new but to pass these niceties and shew clearly the Doctors Error I demand whether the Fathers assembled together in the Nicen Council made new Articles of Faith against the Arians whether St. Athanatius in his Creed did the like who was no Pope What the Doctors Answer is here is ours also for all and every Definition made by the Church in after Ages And I would have him to reflect that as he now cavil's at both Pope and Church for constituting new Articles so the Arians might have done against the Nicen Council and Athanasius his Creed yes and cried out Novelties novelties as loud as the Doctor In a word then I answer with St. Gregory in Ezechiel homit XVI post med pag. 1164. 6. edit Antwerp 1615. that per incrementa temporum Crevit scientia spiritalium Patrum With time Faith encreased hut how not that either the Church or Pope have Power to coin Articles at pleasure or to force Christians to the acceptance of Novelties contrary to Scripture or ancient Tradition No but the Power given them is to dispence the Mysteries of the Word of God to lay out more clearly verities contained in Scripture so the Fathers did in the Nicen Council when they defined the Son to be consubstantial with his Father which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never read in Scripture Finally to declare more explicitely what the Ancient Tradition of the Church and sence of the Fathers hath been within such a compass the Church holds it self when after mature deliberation it defines in Council Hence both Divines and Canonists teach that rigorously speaking the Church hath no new Articles of Faith but only a more full and explicite knowledge of that belief which anciently was among Primitive Christians yet none there is that reads our Doctor both in the page now cited and elsewhere after but must have this perswasion wrought in him that the Church and Pope may define as it were at Random make new Articles new Creeds as they list and impose them as necessary to Salvation All is false and fraudulent dealing CHAP. II. The Doctors Quotations not true His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis THe Doctor in his tenth page to prove our making new Articles cites Augustinus Triumphus de Anconâ—a quaest 59 Art 1 2. and pittifully abuseth that Catholick Author who in his resolution Art 1. â— concludes thus Respondeo quod hanc quaestionem determinat Augustinus libro 1. de symbolo ubi vult quod omnis symboli condendi ordinandi in sancta dei ecclesia terminatur authoritas I Answer St Austin resolves this Question lib. 1. de symbolo Where he saith That all Authority of making and setting a Symbol in order is within the bounds of the Church Mark first St. Austins words Omnis authoritas condendi ordinandi c. Then follow these other in Anconitanus his resolution wrongfully interpreted and unhandsomly mangled by the Doctor Ex his patere potest quod novum symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat nam in symbolo ponuntur illa quae universaliter pertinent ad Christianam fidem By this you may see that to make a new Symbol belongs only to the Pope for those things are set down in a Symbol which Universally concern Christian Faith These last words which explicate both St. Austins and Anconitanus his meaning are fraudulently left out
by Enchantment and hindred from burning by Witchcraft called for water a world of Jews being present made the signe of the Cross upon it put his finger into the Vessel of the blessed Water saying in the Name of Jesus of Nazareth whom my Fathers crucified Fiat virtus in hac aquâ ad reprobationem omnis incantationis Magiae quam hi fecerunt Let there be vertue in this water for the disolving the charms done by these men Then saith Epiphanius he took some of the water in his hand sprinkled the several enchanted Furnaces with it Et dissoluta sunt incantamenta the Witchcraft ceased the fire burned the people who saw the wonder cryed aloud one God there is who helps the Christians and so departed Add hereunto if you please a like Miracle done by Josephus upon a possessed man and with Holy Water also Epiphanius relates it in the precedent pag. 60. Joseph saith he having shut the doors took water into his hands blessed it with the signe of the Cross besprinkled the raging man with it commanded the Devil in the Name of Jesus to be gone and the possessed party was cured This Miracle saith Epiphanius the Jews knew and great talk there was of it some said Josephus had opened the Gazophilacium and finding there the Name of God writ did the wonder by force of this Name It was true he did the Miracle but not as the Jews imagined Thus Epiphanius In the last place I le give you Theodorets Testimony lib. 5. Ecclesiast histor cap. 21. in the Colen print anno 1577. pag. 312. where he tells you also how the Devil hindred fire from burning though wood of its own nature combustible was applied to it The Charm to be brief was told the Pastor who forthwith ran to the Church and commanded a little vessel of water to be given him this he put under the holy Altar falling prostrat on the ground earnestly begged of Almighty God not longer to suffer this Tyranny of the Devil c. prayer ended he made the signe of the Cross upon the water gave it to Equitius a Deacon commanding him withall speed to sprinkle the enchanted fire with it which done saith Theodoret daemon aufugit the Devil ran away the water burned like Oyl and the fire consumed the wood in a moment If any desire more for the blessing of water let him read Tertull. lib. de baptismo cap. 4. S. Ambros lib. 2. de Sacram. cap. 5. and S. Austin Tract 118. in Joannem For the blessing of Oyl and the Paschal Candle see Bellarmin above cited Let us now return to our Doctor and make my assertion good viz. That he hath not so much as a syllable of either Scripture Council or Father against the blessing of Water He cites pag. 143. S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 4. Saying that in the Holy and Divine Mysteries of our Faith necessary it is to do nothing by chance or of our own heads nor without Scripture From whence our Doctor must argue thus if he proves any thing but to bless water is one of the Divine Mysteries of Faith and done by chance or of our own heads without holy Scripture Therefore 't is unwarrantable and an Invention of man only To this discourse I answer That it is neither one of the Mysteries of Faith which S. Cyril handles in the place now cited for he speaks there only of the equality of the Holy Ghost with Father and Son neither is it done by chance or of our own heads witness the Fathers already cited nor without Authority of Holy Scripture Sanctificatur autem per verbum Dei orationem saith the Apostle nor finally is it against S. Cyril who possitively to the Doctors confusion saith that water may be blessed but two leaves only before his own quotation Catech. 3. with me pag. 401. Bibliot Patrum Colen print Tom. 4. his words are Nam ut illa quae in Aris offeruntur cum natura sint pura invocatione daemonum impura efficiuntur Sic contra aqua simplex per Spiritus Sancti Christi Patris invocationem accepta virtute sanctitatem consequitur As those things which are offered on Altars he means to Idols when pure in their own nature are made impure by the invocation of Devils So on the contrary simple Water is made holy gets a sanctity by invocating the Holy Ghost Christ our Lord and his Eternal Father Had the Doctor seen this Testimony of S. Cyril he would never have troubled his Reader with the other Quotation more remote from the purpose then York is distant from London Again our Doctor excepts against S. Gregories Dialogues and unworthily stiles them Romantick stories pag. 143. I answer Had a frantick brain brought forth such an expression none would have wondered but that a grave Divine slâ—ights these books highly reverenced both by the Greek and Latin Church cannot be tollerated In a word the Doctor shall never be able with any shadow of proof to infringe their authority What therefore that Learned Saint saith of Blessed Fortunatus curing a lame man c. is as certainly true as that the Doctor err's in discrediting those Dialogues Next the good man is upon us with a jeer They throw saith he pag. 143. this Water on sick Cows horns on Childrens cradles c. Answ And did not the Christian Italicus take water also from blessed Hilario and cast it on his Enchanted stable on his bewitched Horses on his Chariot on the place or Barriers from whence he used to run Did not the Charm or Witchery cease upon this sprinkling of water In so much that all cried out Marnas victus a Christo est Christ hath conquered Marnas Most true it is no lesse a Doctor then S. Hierom relates the story in vita Hilarionis Paris print pag. 323. Our Doctor may turn to the page and if he reverences S. Hierom leave of his jeering CHAP. XXV Of the Doctors dark Divinity Of his want of Charity towards his Ancestors and all Catholicks THe Doctor ends this 11. Section pag. 144. with a piece of scarce intelligible Divinity Vpon the Sacraments saith he they are taught to rely with so little of Moral and vertuous Dispositions that the Efficacy of the one is made to lessen the necessity of the other I answer That every Sacrament except Infant Baptism requires a vertuous disposition Penance is of no Efficacy without Contrition or at least Attrition The other Sacraments styled Vivorum require per se Supernatural inherent Grace previous to their worthy receiving How therefore the Efficacy of one is made to lessen the necessity of the other is Divinity too dark to be understood The Doctor goes on The Sacraments are taught to be so effectual by an inherent Vertue that they are not so much made the Instruments of Vertue as the Suppletory Answ Still we are in a cloud To get out on 't our Doctor must unriddle this word Suppletory We say thus and speak plain Language
interdicat ne quid corum quae in Divinis literis habeantur dematur aut quod absit addatur VVhich is in plain English to say Add we must not nor diminish any thing in Scripture No Catholick pretends to make that Scripture which is not Scripture Nor to diminish so much as one jot in that sacred Book You see therefore so forceless this Authority is to gain-say received Tradition that it doth not so much as touch upon the very Question As proofless also are those other two Quotations in the Doctors Margent out of St. Basil's Morals for regula 72. C. 1. in the same Edition page 372. He only speak's as the Apostle doth Though an Angel Preach another Gospel then what is Preached let him be Anathematized and reg 80. cap. 22. pag. 386. he saith no more but that we must believe the true force of those things that are in Scripture reject nothing or make any thing new extra divinam Scripturam that is as I interpret without the warranty of Scripture but the Scripture indubitably warrants the declarations of Councils witness the Nicen definitions and constant received Tradition of the Church Therefore this Authority also is wholly impertinent to the Doctors purpose VVho next to oppose Tradition cites Theoph. Alexandrinus in English thus It is the part of a devillish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the Authority of Holy Scripture I Answer here are three faults in this one Quotation First The words are not faithfully cited Secondly They are weighed outof their circumstances and wrested contrary to the Authors meaning Thirdly VVere they as the Doctor would have them they prove nothing against Tradition Briefly all know how sharp an Adversary Theop. Alex. was to Origen and his followers He writ expresly against his errors but that work is not extant and in his 2. Epist paschali cited by the Doctor you have it Tom. 4. Biblioth Patrum Cullen Print 1618. pag. 716. after he had checked Origen for his rashness for broaching Fopperies of his own head and arrogantly making himself his own Master contrary to St. Pauls Humility who conferred the Gospel with other Apostles He speaks thus of Origen solely Sed ignorans quod Daemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humanarum mentium sequi aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum But not knowing that it is an instinct of a Devillish spirit to follow the sophistry or deceit of mans VVit these words which fully express the Authors sence our Doctor totally omit's or to think any thing divine not authorized or without the Authority of Holy Scripture So Theophilus who as you see wholly here relates to Origen's private errors condemns his Pride opposeth his sophistry and boldness in making himself a master of new Fancies but toucheth not the least on Catholick Doctrine concerning unwritten Tradition and though the Doctor draws him to such a sence it is soon answer'd that Catholick Tradition so expresly approved by Scripture cannot be thought a Doctrine extra Scripturae authoritatem without warrant of Gods Word Now if he tells us that he opposeth not any ancient Tradition but our pretended one only that found 's New Articles New Propositions c. I Answer He meerly combates with shadows we neither own such a Tradition nor can the Doctor prove it He should have first named one or two of these New Articles and then assaulted us with the Authority of Fathers directly opposite to our Doctrine and not winck and fight as he doth against no man knows what If he says again that he impugns all Tradition in general all Doctrine not expresly contain'd in Scripture forced he is not only to throw away Scripture it self and the Nicen definitions not only to disclaim a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence Baptizing Children c. but every tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestanism E. G. the belief of two Sacraments only which is not at all contain'd in Scripture nor can it be drawn from Scripture by any probable discourse or gloss of Protestant testants though these are worse and less able to derive unto us a true belief then the poorest tradition were any such that the Doctor can except against in the Catholick Church When the Doctor pleaseth I am ready to discuss this sole point with him of proving Protestant Tenets by Scripture only I believe he will not accept the Challenge Against the worshipping of Images he cites Lactantius lib. 2 cap. de Orig. Error observe I beseech you Lactantius hath seven Books de Divin Instit adversus gentes the Title to his second Book is de Origine erroris which contains ninty Chapters and our Doctor unskilfully throws the Title of the whole Book into a Chapter not found at all in the Author either in my Copy ann 1465. or in that extent Biblioth Patrum saeculo 3. pag. 224. However Chap. 18. these words are found Quare non est dubium quin religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est which the Doctor unworthily translates thus Without all peradventure wherever an Image is meaning for Worship there is no Religion I say unworthily and it pitties me to see so much want of candor for here a sence is rendered as if Lactantius declaim'd against the use and worship of Images among Christians whereas it is more then evident that he only speaks against Simulacra not Images against the Idols and Gods of the Gentils Non sub pedibus quaerat Deum saith he in the beginning of this eighteenth Chapter None is to seek for his God under his feet Nec a vestigijs suis eruat quod adoret Nor pull from under his footsteps what he is to adore Sed quaerat in sublimi quaerat in summo Let him look for God above in Heaven c. The Worship therefore of one Supream God Lactantius chiefly presseth in this whole second book In his first Chapter he tells us that he had above demonstrated the false Religion of many Gods and that in this second Book he declares against the Gentils the cause or Origen of their multiplying many gods In his second Chapter he saith That though the Image of a man absent be necessary yet to circumscribe God diffused every where in any form is both needless and superfluous afterward he shews that no deceased men nor any thing in this world ought to be adored as God In his fourth Chapter he gives this reason Unde apparet istos deos nihil in se habere amplius quam materiam de quâ sunt fabricati These gods have nothing but only the matter they are made of In his eighth Chapter he proposeth the question how these false Gods of the Gentils did work strange wonders and prosecutes the same subject in his ninth Chapter In a word Lactantius through this whole Treatise speaks no more against the Catholick use of Images then I do now while I defend them yet hear we must the Doctor talk and without
all peradventure as if he had read where an Image is there is no Religion without all peradventure the good man is deceived I say no more To what he next cites out of Origen we shall answer hereafter Now to the Doctors Chapters and Sections CHAP. I. Of the Doctors ungrounded discourse to the wrongful charge on Catholicks for making new Articles in Faith TOugh my task be chiefly to follow the Doctor in his Quotations and note as he goes along some few of his many Errors Yet touch I must a little on a discourse he is pleased to begin with Chapter the first It seems to enervate much our Christian Faith and weaken the Authority of the most Ancient Councils Page then the fourth and first Section he holds the two Testaments the words of Christ and of the Apostles the Fountains of Faith which none denies but next he adds Whatsoever caeme in after these foris est is to be cast out it belongs not unto Christ This latter assertion to say no more hath too much of the harshness in it for the difinitions of the Nicen Council and of the other three general Councils with St. Athanasius his Creed came in after the words of Christ and Holy Scripture are these Think ye like old Garments to be laid a side or cast out as not at all belonging to Christ belong they do most certainly as Rivers to their Fountains though not own'd as Original Springs and the first Foundations of our Faith Observe therefore I beseech you how the Doctor deals with us how he leads us on in darkness whilst he sets men a seeking after the Fountains of Faith but with it turns by the Stream cuts of the Torrent of Authority whereby to find them that is in a word he makes null all Authority that can assert with certainty Such were the Words of Christ such the Doctrine of the Apostles c. Judge whether I say not aright and demand of the Doctor upon whose certain proposal can he rely or indubitably admit of Christ's words as sacred If he answers Scripture the Question return's again and he is asked a new who it is that doth ascertain him of Scripture If the Fathers they are with him Fallible yes and full of ambiguous sences If the Church that saith he is changeable hath brought in novelties contrary to Ancient Faith if Councils not one is found but lyable to Error Turn by therefore these intermedial Streams running between us and the Fountains of Faith destroy the certainty of such Witnesses say that no man or society of men since Christ and his Apostles hath without a possibility of erring assured us that Christ spake that the Evangelists writ as they did the whole Scripture God knows will be cast aside also yes and become a comfortless an unwarranted Book Whence follow 's a total ruin of Christian Religion This is not my assertion but the great St. Austins the Quotation is known Tom. 6. contra epistolam Manichei cap. 5. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem c. I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved me to believe it Our Doctor may think he salves this objection in his next ensuing lines pag. 4. where he saith To these that is to Scripture we add not as Authors but as helpers of our Faith and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical the sentiments and Catholick Doctrine of the Church in the Ages next after the Apostles not that we think c. I Answer Here is no man knows what confusedly shut up in two Ambiguous VVords Heirs and Helpers to get out of darkness I might first demand how knows the Doctor now exactly what the Sentiments or Catholick Doctrine of the Church Anciently were in the Ages next after the Apostles The Proposal of our present Church overgrown as he saith with a thousand Errors is an infufficient warranty Both Fathers and Councils were even then Fallible and had they been Infallible their writings since that may perhaps have fallen into ill hands and lost their purity But I wave this discourse and propose to our present purpose this Question only Are we Christians now being obliged under Damnation to believe those Sentiments of the Ancient Church as undoubted Helpers as certain apparent Heirs of Divine Truth or no if not They cast us wholly upon uncertainties and may as well help us on to Err as hit right if we are bound to own them as certain Heirs of Divine Truth Scripture must assure it for saith the Doctor To believe any thing Divine that is not Scripture is a divillish spirit and undoubtedly affirm that at least in the Ages next after Christ there was a society of men not lyable to Error that kept our Christian Faith entire without spot or blemish faithfully transmitted it to Posterity c. Now all I can desire of the Doctor is to produce that Scripture which purifies the Ancient Church only and makes the next ensuing Ages of that Church Spurious in Doctrine fearfully despicable and lyable to Error Thus much I am confident he shall never shew for our dearest Saviour that Established a Christian Church promised he would be with it to the end of the World Gods alseeing providence drives not on his work by halfs nor leaves his Church when the Doctors fancy listeth Souls are now as dear to Christ as they were in the Primitive Ages He shed his Sacred Blood for All if then he secured his Church from Error and directed Souls into Truth he doth the like favour now and will not permit his Immaculate Spouse to beguile them with falshood All therefore the Doctor saith here is a deceitful Paralogism yes and Paradoxes not to be tolerated A Paradox it is to talk of Heirs and Helpers of Apostolical Doctrine and rob them of their Infallibility A Paradox it is to say that these Heirs and Helpers sent Milions of Souls into the Bosom of Christ and cast more Milions in after Ages out of his Bosom for want of true Faith A Paradox it is that Christ only remained with his Church for a time and then left it destitute of Divine Assistance yes and in points most Fundamental But the greatest Paradox of all which amuses every one is That now towards an end of the World a new sort of unknown men the Doctor is one will become our Teachers and tell us exactly how long Christ was with his Church and when he leap'd out of it He was with it say they for some three or four hundred years and then left it fluctuating tossed and at last saw it without Mercy overturned with a deluge of Errors And credit this we must upon their bare word because they say it without Sctipture without Reason yes expresly contrary to both and all Ancient Authority The Doctor to prove the Church by Scripture only quotes St. Austin in his Margent pag. 4. de vnit ecclesiae cap. 3 4. 5. but both mangles his words and conceals the
fit sanguis Christi nec tamen aliquid additur corpori vel sanguini nec augetur corpus Christi vel sanguis To which we answer thus Christ's Sacred Body is not said after that manner made by a Heavenly word that 't is framed a new in the Virgin but because the substance of Bread and Wine which before were not the Body and Blood of Christ by the Heavenly Word of Consecration is made that Body and Blood and therefore Priests are said to make Christ's Body and Blood because by their work or Ministry the Substance of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ and the Substance of Wine is made his Blood yet nothing is added to that Body and Blood neither are made more or encreased Thus Lombardus answers the Objection which the Doctor only sets down and therefore in plain English he deals with his Reader as Sr. Morney Plessy once did with Cardinal Peron he gives you the Objections for Lombards own doctrine that this is most evidently Lombards Doctrine lit D. clears all chiefly towards the end Non sunt tamea multa corpora Christi sed unum corpus unus sanguis ideoque sive plus sive minus quis inde percipiat omnes aequaliter corpus Christi integerrimè sumunt post consecrationem ergo non est substantia panis vel vini licet species remaneant est enim species panis vini sicut sapor unde aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Yet there are not many bodies of Christ but one only Body and Blood and therefore though any take more or less all equally and wholly take the Body of Christ After the Consecration then there is no substance of Bread and Wine although the species of Bread and Wine remain as also the tast wherefore one thing is seen and another is understood Never did Lateran Council or any Catholick Author speak more plainly for Transubstantiation To be sure of what I here affirm I have read two Editions of Petrus Lombard that which was Printed at Loven anno 1546. and the other most usual with Albertus Magnus his Commentaries The Doctor next quotes Durandus lib. 4. sent distinc 11. qu. 1. Sect. Propter tertium who saies he Publickly maintained that after consecration the very matter of Bread remain'd although he saies by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held I Answer That Durand in all that first question hath not a word like what the Doctor asserts read him Art 3. he plainly maintains the Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation and absolutely concludes that the Substance of Bread and Wine are converted into Christs Body All he hath Sectio propter tertium is that the Words of Christ might be verified although the Body were present with Bread which is a Theological disputation and neither clears the Doctor for his abusing Durand nor advanceth him one whit in his cavils against Transubstantiation Page 40. and 41. he gives you a few weak Authorities against our Doctrine and thinks to confute all by the Testimony of St. Gregory Nazianzen cited page 42. Orat. 2. in Paseha The Oration is long and the Doctor well might either by page or number have helped his Reader to find the place but thus he deals with you often and far worse afterwards Well St. Gregory in his Works Printed at Antwerp 1612. Orat. 2. in Pascha pag. 261. nu 5. saith Iam vero Paschalis participes erimus nunc quidem adhuc typice tametsi apertius licet quam in veteri legale siquidem pascha nec enim dicere verebor figurae figura erat obscurior These words the Doctor gives you in English and what conclude they against Transubstantiation nothing for were the Sacred Body of our Dearest Lord present in the Eucharist with the substance of Bread were it as it now is really present without the substance of Bread In St. Gregori's sence Christ concealed under the species of Bread may be rightly called a Figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in Heaven For as the legal Pascha was a Figure because it more obscurely pointed out this true one in the New Law So this also where Christ Jesus is concealed from our sences may be rightly called a Figure because it exhibits not most clearly that Saviour we shall see with greatest clarity in Heaven This sence is gathered out of St. Gregories next ensuing words which the Doctor wholly omits Figurae erat figura obscurior saith the Saint aliquam post autem perfectius purius tum videlicet cum verbum novum illud nobiscum in regno Patris bibet pate faciens docens quae nunc plane demonstravit The legal Pascha was a more obscure Figure of this Figure which we shall afterward see perfectly and with greater clarity to wit when the new Word shall drink it with us in his Fathers Kingdom laying open himself and teaching us those things which now he hath fully demonstrated Mark these last words very useful to explicate other Authorities where mention is made of a Sign a Type and Figure in this matter but they are neither for or against Transubstantiation unless the Doctor shews which he shall never that Christs Sacred Body is so barely Figured in this Pascha that it is not also really present Theodoret and Gelasius cited pag. 43. are answered in every Book by our Writers The nature of the Symbols or Signs are not changed that is the Species or accidents of Bread and Wine remain these recide not from their nature Grace is added What is here against Transubstantiation I pass by those witty questions which the Doctor moves pag. 45. What if a Priest says Hoc est corpus meum over all the Bread in a Bakers shop doth he turn it into Christs Body the like question is And what if a Minister say the same words over the same Bread doth he turn it into Holy and Sanctifyed Bread may the People kneel down and take this as Christs Body Again Whether a Church-Mouse doth eat her Maker And what if a Mouse or a viler Creature had bit the Sacred body of our Saviour laid in Bethlem Stable had they bit their Maker Away with these Trifles they become not a Doctor of Divinity And be pleased To reflect on one doubty Argument he hath page 46. which is indeed pressing but how to shew that he knows not our Catholick Doctrine Since secondly saith he they say that every consecrated wafer is Christs whole Body and yet this wafer is not that Wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs Body or else Christ hath two Bodies for there are two Wafers My God! what is here out of two Wafers he inferrs two Bodies as if one from the two parts in man his Head and Feet should infer a necessity of two Souls or conclude there are two Gods one in Heaven and the other in Earth because Heaven and Earth are more distinct then two Wafers That known
Paul St. Peter could make Laws for the Universal Church and was St. Paul limited in this Power what then signifies this Priority and orderly Precedency in one above the other Apostles Let him declare this ingeniously bring it to a reality and prove it as it behoveth him by Scripture and that very Place he cites shall prove also that Primacy which Catholicks give to St. Peter In the interim be pleased to hear how pag. 64. he quotes St. Cyprian deunit Eccle. for equality of Power among the Apostles and deceives his Reader by concealing part and depraving the whole sence of St. Cyprians words They are long and thus Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus super istam petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae c. tibi dabo claves c. iterum eidem post resurrectionem suam dicit pasce oves meas Super illum unum aedificat Aecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat dicat sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos c. Tamen ut unitatem manifestaret unam Cathedram constituit unitatis ejusdam originem ab uno incipientem sua Authoritate disposuit Our Lord spake unto Peter I say unto thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. And again after his Resurrection he said unto him Feed my Sheep Upon him one alone or only he builds his Church to him he committed his Flock to be fed And although he gave after his Resurrection equal power to all the Apostles and said As my Father sent me I send you yet to manifest Unity he appointed or setled one Chair and the Origen of this Unity he ordered by his own Authority to proceed from one Now follows the Doctors words Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pariconsortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur ut una Christi Ecclesia Cathedra una monstretur What Peter was the other Apostles were endowed with like fellowship of Honour and Power but the beginning comes from Unity The Primacy is given to Peter that one Church of Christ and one Apostolical Chair might be manifest These last words sed exordium c. Primatus Petro datur and super illum unum as also the precedent unam Cathedram constituit which clear all the Doctor conceals Is not here plain jugling This Primacy and true Head-ship of St. Peter all Antiquity so amply confirms that Volumes might be made of their Writings See that Learned and ancient Author Optatus milevitanus lib. 2. adversus Parmenianum page with me in his works printed at Paris 1631 48. Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma Petro primam Cathedram Episcopalem esse collocatam in qua sederit omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus unde Cephas appellatus est in qua una Cathedrâ unit as ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderet ut jam schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra una est quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino successit Clemens Clementi Anacletus c. The sence is Deny you can not that you know that the first Bishops Seat was placed at Rome where Peter the head of all the Apostles did sit and therefore was called Cephas This was done to prevent least any should erect another Chair against it The Seat therefore is one the first of Gifts and Graces first sate Peter Linus succeeded c. And he gives you a List of the other ensuing Popes to Siricius who sate in this Chair when Optatus lived See also that known passage of St. Hierom lib. 1. adversus Iovinianum cap. 14. circa medium in his works printed at Colen anno 1616. where after those words which Protestants usually alledge Ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur He adds Tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio Yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being appointed occasion of schism might be taken away See also Tertullian de pudicitia with me page 743. printed at Paris anno 1641. Qualis es evertens commutans manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem super te aedificabo Ecclesiam mean dabo tibi claves What a man are you overturning and changing the manifest intention of our Lord who gave to Peter personally this priviledge Upon thee will I build my Church to thee will I give the keys c. See lastly St. Cyprian to omit St. Austin de Baptismo lib. 3. cap. 17. Paris Print 1648. it is pag. 139. and 71. Epistle ad Quintum where spkeaking of St. Peters humility reprehended by St. Paul he saith Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam cum secum Paulus de circumcisione post modum disputaret vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere For Peter whom our Saviour first made choice of and upon whom he built his Church did not insolently vindicate himself when Paul disputed with him concerning Circumcision or proudly said that he was superior or held the Primacy c. Endless should I be if I held on with such manifest Authorities for St. Peters Primacy and Superiority even over the Apostles If you would have more Ballarm largely furnisheth you but none me thinks goes beyond a book Printed at Paris anno 1553. the Author is a Lawyer Remundus Rufus a most Eloquent Solid and Learned man that writ against Molinaeus and so pithily defends the Popes Authority and solves all Arguments against it that I verily perswade my self had the Doctor read him he would never have troubled the World with his four forceless leaves against either Pope or Peter My task is now to solve those words of St. Cyprian which the Doctor hath pag. 64. The other Apostles were the same that St. Peter was c. add to them St. Hieroms Ex aequo c. One obvious and known distinction clears all distinguish then inter Apostolatum Primatum between Apostles-ship and Primacy and whatever the Doctor hath or can alledge falls to nothing The Apostles therefore were all equal in the Dignity and Office of their Apostles-ship or to speak with some Divines quoad clavem Doctrinae this is most true and granted But that they were all equal in Goverment in Superiority and Primacy shall never be proved so long as those words stand in the Gospel Tu es Petrus c. You will ask where I have this distinction of Apostles-ship and Primacy I Answ First out of
He professedly acknowledgeth the power of casting out Devils given to Christians yes and after he had taxed Celsus of injustice and open calumny for ascribing their ejection done by Christians to Incantations and Sorcery He answers thus n. 6. Non enim incantationibus pollere videntur sed nomine Jesu cum commemoratione ejus factorum nam his verbis saepenumero profligati sunt daemones ex hominibus That is Christians do nothing in this matter by any Charms or Enchantments but prevail against Devils by naming Christ Jesus and commemorating his glorious works Thus these wicked spirits are driven out of possessed persons And truly the like we do yet in our Catholick adjurations 3. It is madness to think that one so well versed in Scripture as Origen was had such a horror of this word Adjuro that he judged it unseemly in the mouth of a Christian for the Apostle himself useth it writing to the Thess Epist 1. cap. 5. v. 27. Adjuro vos per dominum ut legatur Epistola haec I adjure ye by our Lord c. And mark it is a word of command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yes and the same that the Devil used against our Saviour Mar. 5. v. 7. Adjuro te per Deum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I adjure thee by Almighty God Briefly therefore distinguish a double adjuration the one of no Efficacy because either vain or Judaical and this Origen rejecteth The other is Christian used in our Catholick Exorcisms with the sacred Name of Jesus and this he approves The Doctor may object that Origen speaking of the High Priest adjuring our Saviour makes this Argument Si enim jurare non licet quia nec alterum adjurare licet If it be not lawful to swear neither lawful is it to adjure another I answer This confirms all we have said hitherto in Origens defence For as none can judge that so great a Doctor as Origen condemned all swearing which God allowes in Scripture Vivit Dominus Jurabit Dominus Per nomen ejus jurabis c. but only such as is irreligious and profane So none can infer upon this proof that he thought all adjuration illicit though he professedly opposed irreligious and Judaical Exorcisms Thus much in behalf of Origen if these Treatises on S. Mat. be his for Erasmus in the preface to them saith Neque enim Hieronimus agnoscit hoc opus S. Hierom acknowledgeth them not The Doctor pag. 142. having done with Origen quotes S. Chrisostom for this sober saying we poor wretches cannot drive away flies much less Devils And remits you to the Saint in illa verba qui credit in me major a faciet I answer that S. Chrisostom may perhaps have these words qui credit in me c. 40. times over in his Large and Voluminous writings Must I therefore run over all these Tomes to meet with this sober saying for most certainly it is not where any Reader would expect to have it I mean in S. Chrisostoms 73. hom in cap. 14. Joan. there are the words of Scripture qui credit in me c. And S. Chrisostoms large Explication on them but not so much as one syllable of either Flie or Devil or any poor wretch unable to cast out Devils but much to the contrary Hoc vestrum jam est saith the Saint miracula operari ego abeo It belongs to you my Disciples to work miracles I am now on my departure The Chrisostom I cite is the Paris print anno 1588. his Comments on the words qui credit c. are page 293. and other Editions accord also with it even the Greek by Sir Henry Savil. CHAP. XXIV The blessing of Water prov'd by Irrefragable Authority Of Miracles done by Holy Water No proof against it THe Doctor pag. 143. and 11 Section thinks with a few empty words and a like number of insipid jeers to unhollow such Creatures as the most ancient Fathers of Gods Church have reputed holy because made so with a sacred benediction Such are Holy Water the Paschal Candle Oyl and Holy Bread sleighted by him without proof at all Truely I am astonished at our Doctor having at least read Bellarmin de cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 7. and perused the Arguments of this Learned Authour for the blessing of Water Oyl c. That he neither affords us so much as a word of answer to the Arguments nor yet endeavours to gainsay them by one Syllable of Scripture by any Authority of Councils of Fathers or the Antient practice of the Primitive Church Bellarmin first proves out of Scripture that creatures are capable of benediction Every Creature is good saith the Apostle 1. ad Tim. 4. Sanctificatur autem per verbum Dei orationem And is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer He showes you also out of S. Dennis Alexander the first Optatus S. Cyprian S. Basil and others that Water anciently was blessed in the Church The like of Oyl by the Authority of S. Clement Dennis and Basil The benediction of Bread besides the Eucharist is taught by S. Austin Tom. 7. lib. 2. De peccatorum meritis remissione cap. 26. speaking of the Catechumens Et quod accipiunt saith the Saint quamvis non sit Corpus Christi Sanctum est tamen sanctius quam cibi quibus alimur And what these Catechumens take although it be not Christs Body yet it is holy yes and more holy then the meat wherewith we are nourished Hence I argue if Bread can be hallowed Water may And this I prove by three irrefragable Arguments The first is taken out of the Ancient Synesius Bishop of Ptolemaijs or Cyrene in his book printed at Paris anno 1633. we have it also in Bibliotheca Patrum read these words in that Treatise he intitles Catastasis * De clade pentapolitanâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. with me pag. 304. Ego in loco meo in ecclesia permanebo Lustralis ante me aquae sanctissima vasa collocabo c. Illic ego sedebo vivus mortuus jacebo I le remain in my place that is the Church I le place before me the hallowed Vessels of Water there I le sit alive and ly when I am dead Yet more read his 121. Epistle to Anastasius pag. 258. If saith Sinesius the Administration of the Common-wealth resides in Bishops these are the men that must do justice on wickedness Quandoquidem publicus gladius non minus quam lustralis aqua quae in templorum vestibulis collocatur civitatis est piaculum Seeing that the publick Sword no lesse purgeth a City then Holy Water doth that is placed in the entry of our Churches And thus it is kept in Churches to this day The second Testimony we have is in the more ancient Epiphanius Tom. 2. lib. 1. contra haereses haeresi 30. with me pag. 61. in the Basil print where the Saint tells us that Josephus the Jew seeing fire contrary to its own nature made unactive
so really is this very sentence if you 'll compare it with those following words of St. Chrisostom in Frobens Edition Hoc est super confessionem super sermones pietatis c. That is Christ built his Church not upon the man as man but upon Peter confessing and piously acknowledging his Saviours Divinity which Flesh and Blood taught him not c. You see therefore a sentence weighed out of its circumstances changes often most blamless Doctrine and speaks well with them less well without them One only instance in Doctor Taylors 167. page shall serve for our purpose where he cites Bellarmine thus If the Pope should Err by commanding sin and forbiding Virtue the whole Church were bound to believe that Vices were good and Virtue evil unless she would sin against her Conscience These words are Bellarmin's and as they stand in the Doctor sound harshly and therefore he Quotes them but read in Bellarmine they have an excellent sence and directly prove that neither Church nor Pope can Err whereof see more in the 28. Chapter of this Treatise So true it is that words as they run on in the Context of an Author are often harmless though stript of their adjuncta they may prove hurtful to a less diligent Reader Our Doctor in his Disswasive is almost endless with these maimed and half-quoted Authorities Observe lastly good Reader how unworthily the Doctor pag. 13. deals with Sixtus Senensis by turning the Genuine sence of his words into another highly injurious Mark I beseech you Sixtus Praiseth Pope Pius the 5th for purging the Ancient Fathers vitiated by modern Hereticks c. But our Doctor for sooth will not allow him this sence but makes him speak as if he extolled the Pope for razing out the Fathers own Doctrine To know the truth read Sixtus his Epistle Dedicatory it is before his Bibliotheca where he speaks thus to Pius Quintus Deinde expurgari emaculari curasti omnia Catholicorum Scriptorum ac praecipuè Veterum Patrum Scripta haereticorum aetatis nostrae faecibus contaminata venenis infecta You have caused saith he all the writings of Catholick Authors and chiefly the Ancient Fathers stained with the dreggs of Hereticks in this our Age and poysoned with their Venome to be purged and made clear from blemish What is here more offensive then to take Poyson out of a sound body Yet our Doctor to perswade the world that Popes are ever busie in cancelating the Records of Antiquity gives you only Sixtus his first words You have purged the Ancient Fathers c. and there fraudulently leaves of utterly concealing what follows and clears all Hereticorum faecibus contaminata c. that is You have purged the Ancient Fathers contaminated with Heresie in these our days Briefly then our Doctor by this Quotation would either have his Reader judge that Sixtus praised the Pope for blotting out the Authentick writings of the Fathers or only for purging them from later Heresie If the second its worthy praise if the first viz. that the Pope is here commended for blotting out the writings of the Ancient Fathers which is the only thing aim'd at I do affirm this a flat corruption a wrong as you see to Sixtus A ginne to catch the unwary Reader and therefore deplorable in a Doctor of Divinity What is further opposed in that 13. page of places razed out of St. Austin is an Error read the above mentioned Expurgatory Index pag. 37. and you shall find the correction to be made upon Erasmus and Ludovicus his Notes not on St. Austins words and page the 39 you have Cluadius Chevalonius his Index upon St. Austin amended not any syllable of the Saint's corrected And this is the first which our Doctor storms at Solus Deus est adorandus God only is to be adored Frobens Indices mentioned in the same page of our Doctor deserved correction wholly contrary to the Originals CHAP. III. The Doctors Quotations not right Prayer for the dead proves a Purgatory TO what the Doctor hath in his 2d Section page the 14th concerning the power of making new Articles we have answered already and say that the Church coyns no Novelty yet may explicitly declare what anciently was believed implicitly The Declaration is new the substance of the Article as old as Christianity In the next page after he had a fling at a new Article ready for stamp concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin which is more then he knows He passeth to his third Section of Indulgences page 16. where he cites St. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence parte 1. summae cap. 3. saying We have nothing expresly for Indulgences in Scripture c. The Doctor omits what follows immediately quamvis ad hoc inducatur illud Apostoli 2. cor 2. si quid donavi vobis propter vos in persona Christi Although saith Antoninus that of the Apostle is alledged si quid c. He cites again our Bishop Fisher in Art 18. Lutheri to this sence At the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences Answer he saith it not so absolutely but with this interrogation Quis jam de Indulgentjis mirari potest and expresly in the beginning of that Article hath these words Fuit tamen non nullus earum usus ut aiunt apud Romanos vetustissimus quod vel ex stationibus in urbe frequentissimis intelligi datur There was as they say a most ancient Use and Practise of these Indulgences at Rome which thing the most frequented Stations of that City gives us to understand In the rest of that Section he hath only Vulgar Objections answered over and over and a number of calumnies a rising from the misunderstanding of Catholick Doctrine I therefore leave him for it is not my task to repeat what hath been most largely writ concerning Indulgences by others What I find more material in the Doctors fourth Section is page 27. Where he tells us our Writers vainly suppose that when the H. Fathers speak of Prayer for the dead they conclude for Purgatory For it is true saith he the Fathers did Pray for the dead But how that God would shew them Mercy and hasten their Resurrection c. Mark well that God would shew them Mercy whence I argue if the Souls prayed for be in Heaven they have Mercy the sentence is given for their Eternal happiness if in Hell they are wholly destitute of Mercy vain therefore were the Prayers of the Fathers for Mercy unless there be a third place where mercy can be shewed them I would willingly know of the Doctor if he would deal candidly what St. Austins ingenious meaning was when he prayed thus for his Mother Monica lib. 9. confess cap. 13. Dimitte illi tu debita sua si qua etiam contraxerit post tot annos post aquam salutis Forgive my Mother her debts if she hath after so many years contracted any since Baptism What are these debts Again
this Life yet keep to the True Foundation which is Christ and such a man is saved saith St. Austin as it were by the Fire of Tribulation Next he gives the reason of this assertion as follows Quia urit eum rerum dolor quas dilexerat amissarum c. Because the grief he has for things he loved torments him yet shakes not the Foundation he is fortifyed withal As who would say he hath a sence for the loss of Temporals yet the Foundation is not subverted Upon this reason Quia urit eum rerum dolor c. these words immediately follow cap. 69. Tale aliquid etiam fieri post hanc vitam incredibile non est Et utrum ita sit quaeri potest aut inveniri aut latere nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium quanto magis minusuè bona pereuntia dilexerunt tanto tardiùs citiùsque saluari That such a like thing be also after this life is not incredible What is not incredible Mark well the connection between urit eum dolor rerum amissarum and the ensuing words Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri non est incredibile This is not incredible that as some are punished in this life for their too much affection to worldly commodities by grief for the loss of them so likewise it is not incredible that they suffer a torment in those purging flames upon that account Of this particular pain saith the Saint we may inquire whether it be a part of Purgatory or no whether faithful Souls find it there or it be yet latent Find what I beseech you Quanto magis minùsue c. that by How much more or less they loved their perishing goods so much sooner or later they are saved and come to Heaven Which last words plainly gives us St. Austins meaning and shew that he doubted not of a Purgatory which he here supposeth but calls into question such a particular pain as is expiatory of lesser transgressions The ground of all is taken out of St. Austins Doctrine who much inclined to this Opinion that lesser offences are usually purged by the fire of Tribulation in this Life So Suarez observes Tom. 4. in 3. part disp 45. nu 23. Fine Et ideo dixit Augustinus haec peccata leviora in hoc saeculo purgari per Tribulationem And therefore St. Austin said that these lesser sins are purged by Tribulation in this life See his 41. Sermon de sanctis Tom. 10. where he first distinguisheth between great sins and little ones then shews the penalty due to both Finally concludes thus of lesser sins and he specifies the too much love of worldly substance Ita peccata ipsa in hoc saeculo purgantur ut in futuro ille ignis purgatorius aut non inveniat aut certe parum inveniat quod exurat So these lesser sins are purged in this Life that in the next the fire of Purgatory will not either find at all or truly very little to punish The Saint goes on Si autem nec in tribulatione Deo gratias egimus nec bonis operibus peccata redimimus ipsi tamdiu in illo igne purgatorio moras habebimus quamdiu supradicta peccata minuta tanquam ligna faenum stipula consumantur But if in our Tribulation we neither give thanks to God nor redeem our sins by good works we shall stay in Purgatory until those above mentioned little sins like Wood Hay and Stubble be consumed Thus the Saint who may rationally inquire as he doth yes and affirm that those lesser transgressions are usually cancelled by the fire of Tribulation in this Life The Doctor perhaps will say These Sermons de sanctis are not St. Austins for-sooth because they please not his Lordship Let him prove this Sermon now cited is not The same certitude saith Bellar. de seript Ecclesias cannot be had of those Sermons yet credible it is that for the most part they are St. Austins Be it how you will they are of greater Authority then any the Doctor can give us against Purgatory I hope the 2. Books de genesi contra Manichaeos are undoubtedly St. Austins Let the Doctor read the 20th Chapter of his 2d Book Fine he shall find these words qui forte agrum suum non coluerit spinis eum opprimi permiserit habet in hac vita maledictionem terrae suae in omnibus operibus suis post hanc vitam habebit vel ignem purgationis vel paenam aeternam He that cultivates not his Field but suffers it to be over grown with Thorns hath a curss on him in all he doth and after this life shall either have a Purgatory or suffer pains for ever St. Austins Books de civitate were never doubted of Read the 16. Chapter of his 21. Book where he saith If one be regenerated by the Sacraments of Christ our Lord as by Baptism and so pass from the power of darkness c. Non solum in paenis non praeparetur aeternis sed ne ulla quidem post mortem purgatoria tormenta patiatur Hath not only any Eternal punishment prepared for him but not so much as any purging torments after death Again in Psal 37. he distinguisheth a double Fire the one Eternal the other he calls a Fire Qui emundabit eos qui per ignem salui erunt which is more grievous then any torment in this world It would be endless to produce other Authorities for Purgatory Now to Otho Frisingensis whom the Doctor cites lib. 8. Croni cap. 26. and saith Purgatory in his time was got no farther then to a quidam asserunt Some say there is one Answ The Doctor saith He knows not what and strangely abuseth this Author Famous both for Vertue and Nobility In a word The Title of that 26. Chapter is this Si post judicium extra infernum inferiorem c. Whether after the day of Judgement any place for lesser pain remains out of Hell and what is to be thought of little ones who have Original sin only Thus the Title which meddles not with Purgatory The Chapter then begins His dictis indagandum puto si transacto judicio extra infernum inferiorem ad leviores paenas locus remaneat esse quippe apud inferos locum purgatorium in quo salvandi vel tenebris tantum afficiantur vel expiationis igne decoquantur c. We are to inquire saith Otho whether when Judgement is past there remains a place for lighter punishment out of Hell for there is place of Purgatory apud inferos amongst those that are under ground wherein saved Souls are in darkness and tormented with Fire Then follows the quidam asserunt of the Doctor which relates not to Purgatory but to that other place after Judgment whereof Otho makes inquiry and he answers negatively viz. That such a place when all causes are heard in the General Judgment remains not though some Fathers inclined to think the contrary See Lactan. lib. 7. cap. 21.
and believed as those Fathers assembled did c. to him and his might well be granted the use of their Rights and Lithurgy while their belief was one and Catholick Now let the Doctor tell me what Language the Maronits then used in their Lithurgy if Syriack it was Sacred and spoken by our Saviour What the Doctor hath out of Quint. pag. 55. is only to talk of Gypsie Language we use no such Barbarous Tongue in our Lithurgies CHAP. VII Of the Doctors cavils against Images Of Antiquity approving their Veneration Of the Doctors ill Quotations PAge 56. Section 8. our good Opponent spits a little Venom against the veneration of Images The Poyson he vents is cast upon the most Ancient Fathers that have lived in the Church Let him read Eusebius Caesariensis who lived in the third age lib. 3. de vita Constantini cap. 48. Paris Print where speaking of the pious Emperour he saith Tantus item divinus amor animum Imperatoris complexus est ut in ipso palatji introitu in medio tecti laqueari inaurato in tabulâ maximâ explicatâ salutaris passionis insigne ex lapillis pretiosis polite elaboratis figendum curaverit Istud Imperatori sanctissimo regni firmum videbatur esse propugnaculum So Great and Divine a Love posses'd this Pious Emperour that he caus'd the Ensign of our Saviours Passion to be fixed in the very entrance of his Pallace in the middle of his guilded Roof and this in a large displayed Table curiously wrought with precious Stones And this very thing seem'd to the most Holy Emperour a strong Fortress and defence for his Kingdom Read St. Basil in his Sermon of Barlaam Assurgite nunc mihi saith the Saint O clarissimi Athleticarum virtutum pictores militis abbreviatam imaginem vestris magnificate artibus c. and a few words after pingatur in tabula similiter ipse Agnotheta luctaminum Christus Rise up now ye Famous Painters of Champion-like Virtues shew your skill in abreviating a Souldiers Picture place also in your Table the Master or Iudge of such Warlick conflicts Christ our Lord. If you desire to know how Churches were adorned with Noble Pictures you may read St. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 19. in laudem defuncti Patris The like you have in St Gregory Nyssen oratione de laudibus Sti. Theodori before those words Solet enim etiam pictura tacens in pariete loqui maximeque prodesse A silent Picture speaks to us on the VVall and profits exceedingly See St. Austin de consensu Evangelji lib. 1. cap. 10. St. Gregory the Great lib. 9. Epistola 9. adserenum Massilensem our venerable Bede de templo Salamonis cap. 19. and innumerable others A Volume would not suffice for all But you 'll say here is nothing for the Venaration of Holy Images Answ I have often wondred why our good Protestants when they hear the name of Jesus bow in their Churches and when they see his Picture scruple to do the like reverence Well for the Veneration of Images besides the definition of a General Council the Second at Nice we have endless Authorities I 'll produce a few manifest ones which the Doctor shall never answer St. Basil the Great in his Epistle 205. ad Iulianum read it in the second Tome of his works Printed anno 1618 at Paris pag. 993. hath these unanswerable words Suscipio autem sanctos Apostolos Prophetas Martyres ad supplicationem quae est ad Deum hos invoco ut per eos id est per interventionem eorum propitius mihi sit misericors Deus c. I willingly admit of the Holy Prophets oft he Apostles and Martyrs and in my Prayer made to God call upon them that by their intercession God may be propitious and merciful to me c. He goes on thus Unde Figuras imaginum eorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 honoro adoro praecipue cum hoc traditum a sanctis Apostolis non prohibitum sit quin in omnibus Ecclesiis nostris ostendatur VVhereupon I honour and adore the Portracture or Figure of their Images chiefly when this adoration is delivered to us by the Apostles and no where forbidden but is manifestly shewed us in all our Churches What can be clearer Now if you 'll know how this Great Saint adored those Images none can tell you better then St. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Orthod fidei cap. 17. soon after the beginning of that Chapter Nam ut ille magna rerum divinarum eruditione praeditus Basilius ait imaginis honor exemplum transit c. For as that Great Master St. Basil highly endewed with the knowledge of Divine misteries tell 's us The honour given to Images passeth to the Prototype Bellar. in his Appendix de cultu imaginum cap. 4. § paulo post hath this Authority of St. Basil but as you may see of another Edition which makes it irrefragable To avoy'd all exceptions of the Doctor I here give you St. Basil in his own Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My second Authority is taken out of Athanasius in his interrog respons ad Antiochum cap. 38. Nos Christiani non alia ratione imagines colimus nisi I do not say this is the great Athanius valeat tamen quantum valere potest quem admodum cum filios nostros patres osculamur animi nostri desiderium indicamus sicut Iudaeus olim legis tabulas duo cherubim aurea sculptilia quondam adorabant non lapidis aurive naturam colens sed dominum qui ea ut fierent praeceperat VVe Christians saith he worship Pictures no otherwise then as we do when we shew great kindness and affection to our Children and Parents or as the Iews once worshiped the Tables of the Law and the two gilt or graven Cherubs They Worship'd not the material Stone or Gold but God who commanded them to be made The third is out of St. Chrisostom in Liturgia interpret Erasmo Sacerdos egrediens e parvo ostio portans evangelium praecedente Ministro cum lucerna conversus ad Christi Imaginem inter duo ostia inflexo capite dicit hanc orationem c. The Priest going out of a little door carrying the Gospel and his Minister before him with a Light turns himself to our Saviours Picture and between two Portals bows his head before the Picture and saith this Prayer c. The fourth is out of St. Gregory lib. 7. Epist 54. ad secundinum Nos quidem non quasi ante divinitatem ante imaginem salvatoris nostri prosternimur sed illum adoramus quem per imaginem aut natum aut passum recordamur We fall not down before the Image of our Saviour as before a Divinity but we adore him whom we remember by his Image as he was born or crucified The last is St. Iohn Damascen's lib. 4. Orthodoxae fidei cap. 17. Quoniam nonnulli saith the Saint eo nomine nos reprehendunt
against the invasion of the Rights of the Church of Arles by Anastasius do fully declare the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority by the Law of Christ over any Bishop c. A most weak discourse For admit Anastasius had less prudently dealt with the Church of Arles in changing the Ancient Custom admit a confusion ensued upon this change doth it therefore follow that the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority over any Bishop in the Catholick Church Both Prince and Prelate may out of less fore-sight make a Law damnable to their people Ergo they have no Superiority over them is but a wretched conclusion made by a Doctor of Divinity who if he had read Symmachus his Letter and long it is not he might have found the Popes Superiority asserted thus Relegentes ergo veterum antistitum c. dilectionem tuam enixissime commonemus ut in ordinandis per singulas urbes cana ac reverenda servetur antiquitas nec novella constitutio vetustae sanctionis robur imminuat Reading what was anciently done c. We warn you that in your Ordination through every City Venerable Antiquity be exactly observed and that no new Constitution impair the force of old Ordinances Here are words of Power and Authority Page 68. he cites St. Ignatius and before him St. Denis two Blessed Saints who in the very words the Doctor gives speaks not a syllable for him Next he cites Origen God knows where for he points to no place Then he furnisheth you with Pope Gelasius his Authority and St. Hierom The first saith he is distinct 97. cap duo sunt He mistakes the place it is distinctione 96. rightly cited thus Decreti prima pars distinct 96. cap. 10. Duo sunt the words are these Honor fratres sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati longe erit inferius Episcopal Honour and high Dignity cannot be match'd though compared with Kings and Princes What makes this I pray you to prove that there are no intermedial Degrees between Christ and the poorest Bishop in Europe True it is that the meanest Bishop in the Church for his Character or Dignity of a Bishop precisely considered is equal to the highest so all Priests are in respect of their Characters in Priest-hood yet this shews not but that one Bishop may have a more ample power and jurisdiction then an other I think my Lord of Down and Connor will not equalize himself with the Primative of England every way though if he were a true Bishop as he is none Gelasius his words would be verified Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The dignity of a Bishop is above comparison c. Now to St. Hierom cited in Ieremiam Homil. I answ Doctor Ieremy surely mistakes St. Hierom I have before me at this moment three Editions of St. Hierom whose Commentaries upon the Prophet Hieremias are divided into 6 books the Chapters handled are the Prophets but there is not one Word or Title of any Homily upon Ieremy I intreat him to direct me to that 7th Homily and because he cites also St. Hierom adversus Luciferianos which hath 8 or 9 Pages in Folio and 8 Chap. I desire he would point me out the page or Chapter I know what he aims at but because the objection is old it shall pass until he please to be more exact in his citations His fling at Bellarm. for speaking Truth deserves no answer nor that of St. Cyprian which he cites in Con. Carth. for who among those he speakes of could with probability make himself a Bishop of Bishops Or by Tyrannical power drive his Collegues to an necessity of Obedience No Pope pretends to this Tyranny CHAP. X. Of St. Gregory's refusing the Title of Universal Bishop Of Fathers asserting the Pope to be Supream Pastor Of the Doctors faulty Quotations NExt page 69. comes that so often answered objection out of St. Gregory who because Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop said it was a proud profane Sacrilegious Antichristian Title And it was so indeed in this Patriarck who had no right to the Title or thing either To clear the difficulty be pleased to know that this word Universalis may have a triple sence First it may signifie Unum Solum singulare one sole singular so we speak usually Universalis Ecclesia id est una tantum extra quam non est salus One Church only Universal out of which is no Salvation Whosoever therefore assumes to himself the Title of Universal Bishop in this sence importing that he is the sole only and singular Patriarck and that other Bishops are no more but suffragans or delegates is both Sacrilegious and Antichristian Sacrilegious because engrossing to himself the sole power he robs his Brethren of their true dignity Antichristian because he opposeth Christ who appointed Bishops with their respective power and jurisdiction to govern as spiritual Princes in the Church Now that the Patriarck of Constantinople arrogated to himself such an ample power may be proved out of St. Gregory in that often cited Epistle to Mauritius Nullus saith the Saint eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit nec uti consensit No one ever assum'd or consented to use that word of Singularity and mark the reason Ne dum privatim uni aliquid daretur honore debito privarentur universi Least whilst something is given to one privately the General or Universal are depriv'd of their due honour And a little before Si igitur illud nomen in ea Ecclesia sibi quisquam arripit Universa Ecclesia quod absit a statu suo corruit quando qui appellabatur Universalis cadit If therefore any one takes to himself that name in the Church the Universal Church which God forbid must fall when he that was call'd Universal falls More to this purpose you may see Apud Gratianum distinctione 991. But no where speaks St. Gregory clearer then in his 4th Book of his Epistles writing to John Qui indignum te fatebaris ut Episcopus dici debuisses ad hoc quandoque perdactus es ut dispectis fraâ—ribus Episcopus appetas solus vocari Thou who didst confess thy self unworthy to be call'd a Bishop art now come to this that dispising the Brethren then covetest to be call'd the only Bishop Evident therefore it is out of St. Gregory that this ambitious Patriarck with contempt of his Brethren would be the sole and only Bishop which is Sacrilegious and Antichristian and neither due to Pope nor Patriarck 2. The Title of Universal may render you a sence that savors of Pride Hautiness and Prophaness and therefore as Remundus Rufus observes it was often used by the Roman Emperours and sounds high in the Greek Language Be pleased to hear Remumdus his own words pag. 26. circa medium Et ille Ioannes cum Graecus esset utebatur graeca voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
quae non aliud significat quam mundi vel orbis terrarum patriarcham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim orbis terrarum est Latine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Universalis dicitur ut Pelagius Gregorius interpretabantur And John being a Graecian used the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies no other but Patriarck of the whole World for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Universal World and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine imports Universal as Pelagius and Gregory did interpret the word This Title also as Secular and Prophane St. Gregory rejected 3. The word Universal or Universalis Episcopus without any ill sence at all may signifie that ample Power and spiritual jurisdiction which Christ's Vicar here on Earth hath over the Church and under this notion the Fathers assembled in the Council of Calcedon offered it to Pope Leo in these words Sancto amantissimo Domino Leoni Universali Episcopo Romae c. To the Holy and most belov'd Leo Universal Bishop of Rome c. Certainly those Grave and Learned Fathers cannot be supposed either to have flattered the Pope or given him a prophane Title or the Title of sole and only Bishop assum'd by Iohn of Constantinople Well Leo refused the Title and why either because it seemed new to him or because it had not been given to his predecessors by any solemn and publick Rite in former ages or finally because the blessed man waved it out of Humility Admit that St. Gregory did so likewise upon the like Motives doth it follow that he yeilds up his Supremacy No he asserts this Supremacy over and over writing to Mauritius Petro Apostolorum principi cum totius Ecclesiae principatus committitur tamen Universalis Apostolus non vocatur vir sanctissimus consacerdos meus Ioannes vocari Universalis Episcopus conatur When the Principality of the Church was commited to Peter chief of the Apostles he was not called Universal Apostle and John my fellow Priest endeavours to be called universal Bishop Now the Saint saith That he knows no Bishop that is not subject to the Seat Apostolick Now That the Seat of Constantinople is also subject to him Now That it is lawful for none to transgress the Laws of that Seat Nec nostrae dispositionis ministerium Much more to this purpose you have in every Writer on this subject The Authorities are known and vulgar This truth supposed let us see the force of the Doctors Argument which must be this or nothing St. Gregory refused the Title of Universal Bishop Ergo he denyed his Supremacy over the Church In answer I plainly deny the consequence and say that the Saint by refusing a Title which might seem new to him and which his Predecessors had not by solemn Rite or finally out of the motive of Humility doth not therefore deny his Power and Supremacy over the Church whereunto positively he laies claim so often A Principality stands good entire and unshaken Though an innocent Title harmlesly expresing that Principality be for some reason refus'd by him who justly possesses the Principality His Majesty King Charles the Second is now absolute Monarch and Soveraign over his Kingdoms and is rightly stiled King of England c. Put case that either Parliament or People should go about to invest him with a New Title and call him Emperour of England Scotland France and Ireland might not his Majesty refuse this Title which neither adds to nor deminishes his regal Power without denying his Soveraignity This is our case in St. Gregory who as he never laid claim to be Sole Bishop of the World nor to any prophane Title so he never left off to maintain his due of Spiritual Principality over the Church Thus much is said in case it can be shewed that St. Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the last sence above mentioned For by what I have yet read he rejects it only in opposition to Iohn or in that sence in which this ambitious Prelate laid claim to it The Doctor pag. 70. cites St. Chrisostom in cap. 1. Act. Apost Hom. 3. Answer St. Chrisostom treats in that passage of electing one in the place of Iudas and hath these words Illud considera quà m Petrus agit omnia ex Communi discipulorum sententia nihil Authoritate sua nihil cum imperio Nothing by his own Authority which the Doctor more carefully then sincerely translates nothing by special Authority intimating as I conceive no special Authority given to St. Peter whereas those words Nothing by his own Original Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evidently suppose both Power and Authority in St. Peter for no Prince can properly be said not to do a thing by his own Authority only but with the advise of his Counsel unless he be supposed to have Authority which is here evidenced in St. Peter by the next ensuing words of St. Chrisostom Neque simpliciter dixit hunc in locum Iudae sufficimus sed consolans illos c. As who should say St. Peter used not the Power he had in this Election but rather sought the comfort of his fellow Disciples who were much disanimated at the fall of Judas Here by the way observe a most weak kind of arguing in our Doctor St. Peter did all in this particular by common consent of the Apostles nothing by his own Power or Command Ergo he had not the Power why because he used it not Is this a tollerable discourse A Prince concludes of some weighty Affair See the Supremacy of St. Peter amply confirmed by St. Chrisostom upon the Acts even in Sir Henry Savils Edition Tom. 4. pag. 624. and 625. cheifly at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 22. Again n. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Afterwards pag. 625. at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. by and with the advice of his counsel not by his own Authority Ergo he hath not this Power Doth the not actual using of Power and Authority either imply or argue the not having of it Toyes Had our good Doctor but cast his Eyes upon St. Chrisostom's Doctrine delivered a few lines above the place now quoted he would have found St. Peters Authority made good in these words Quà m est fervidus Quà m agnoscit creditum a Christo gregem Quà m in hoc choro princeps est ubique primus omnium incipit loqui How fervent is St. Peter How doth he acknowledge or own the Flock committed to him by Christ In this assembly he was Prince and chief and everywhere first of all begins to speak Here is enough to silence the Doctor Who cites next Melchior Canus de loc is Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 8. There is saith he no Scripture no Revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in it Answer Here is an Emphasis too much no Scripture no Revelation and that left out of Canus which moderates all Canus his words are these Illud
beautified the Church and gained millions to it I mean the glory of miracles And this is done by a Doctor to maintain his wordy Religion made up of a few abused Scripture phrases and I know not what other canting language without fruits of Religion without efficacy of doctrine without miracles or finally any one mark of credibility that may prudently evidence it to be Christian Now concerning our Doctors other exception against pious good people who seek the patronage of Saints in time of danger or otherwise I 'le briefly give you one instance taken out of S. Gregory Nyssen a worthy Bishop who was present at the first Council of Constantinople and writ the Symbolum Fidei there read him I beseech you in the Oration he hath de Stâ— Theodoro Martyre with me it is in his second Tome Printed at Paris 1615. pag. 1011. and pag. 1017. Because the impious Scythians threatned a war to the Country Timemus afflictiones saith S. Gregory expectamus pericula non longe absunt scelestes Scythae belluÌ„ adversus nos parturientes We fear afflictions we expect danger the wicked Scythians are as it were in labour for a war against us What doth the Saint he betakes himself thus by earnest prayer to S. Theodore a Soldier Intercede ac deprecare pro patria apud communem Regem Dominum Make intercession and pray for our country to him who is our common King and Lord. Again Vt miles propugna pro nobis ut Martyr pro conservis utere libertate loquendi As you are a soldier fight for us and defend us as a martyr speak freely for your fâ—llow servants here Finally a few lines after Quod si majori etiam opus fuerit advocatione c. And if more prayer be needful assemble together the whole quire of your brethren martyrs and jointly pray for us Admone Petrum excita Paulum Joannem item c. Put S. Peter in mind stir up S. Paul and that beloved disciple of our Lord S. John that these be sollicitous for the Churches they once wore chains passed dangers and finally died Thus S. Gregory If therefore this worthy Bishop sought protection and patronage of a Soldier Martyr in danger of war well may a frail woman in danger of sinning become a suppliant to S. Mary Magdalen which our Doctor likes not of And for Gods sake tell me what mischief is it to Christianity if Saints hear our prayers that a Painter have a special devotion to S. Luke skilful in that Art though our Doctor no man knows why holds it superstition I say if Saints hear our Prayers and that they do so this very Petition made by S. Gregory to S. Theodore is my warrant neither Doctor Andrews nor Chamier nor Whitby who vainly endeavour to make the Oration spurious because they know not what else to say shall utter so much as a probability against it CHAP. XXI Of Saints Canoniz'd excepted against by the Doctor Of his untrue quotations Of his Mistake concerning the Multitude of Holydayes AFter this long digression I return to my task imposed on me and needs must say a word of our Doctors quotations I find in his pag. 132. S. Austin cited for this excellent truth Tutius incundius loquar ad meum Jesum quam ad aliquem Sanctorum Spirituum Dei I 'le speak more safely and more chearfully to my Lord Jesus then to any of the Saints or Spirits of God And 't is worthily spoken but where find we this The Doctor points us to S. Austin Visitatione Minorum Sept. S. Aug. what this Sept. S. Aug. signifies no man knows and less know I where to find Visitat Minorum Perhaps it is an error of the Printer However these words are in S. Austin's 9th Tome lib 2. de Visitatione Infirmorum not Minorum cap. 2. which no way exclude praying to Saints but manifestly suppose it Tutius Iucundius clear all and render this Sence 'T is good and safe to pray to Saints but our Lord Jesus is eminently above them and therefore more safely and chearfully we pray to Jesus Page 133. he cites Cardinal Bessarion apud Bodin undervaluing certain Saints and our Doctor gives you a list of them thus S. Fingar S. Anthony of Padua S. Christopher Charles Borromeus Ignatius Loyola Xaverius then deceitfully adds and many others of whom saith the Doctor Bessarion complained that many of them were such persons whose life he could not approve c. observe here first the Context of our Doctor and how he cheats his Reader whom he would have believe that beside many others Bessarion reproved the life of S. Fingar S. Anthony of Padua S. Charles Borromeus S. Ignatius Loyola and S. Xaverius yet these three last blessed men were not in the world when Bessarion lived for he quitted this mortal life Anno Domini 1472. 2. I affirm that our Doctor shall never shew out of Bessarion that he unsaints any approved for Sanctity by the Roman Catholick Church S. Fingar though some say S. Anselm accounted him a blessed man was never yet canonized and I wonder what our Doctor hath against S. Christopher of whom little is known Certainly for I have run slâ—ightly over some works of Bessarion this Grecian Bishop and Cardinal employed in so many Embassies as we read of troubled not himself to cavil either with S. Christopher or S. Anthony of Padua 3. Our Doctor deals not wel with his Reader for he should for Bessarions assertion have remitted him to the Cardinals own book and not to Bodinus or Iohn Pudding a man of Atheistical Principles whose authority with the judicious is altogether as little as the Doctor 's Bodinus his Republick I have but yet cannot get a sight of his Method Historica to which the Doctor remits me Next he cites Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona affirming that all who are canonized by the Pope cannot be said to be in Heaven And where find we this assertion of Triumphus in two places answers our Doctor viz. quaest 14. ad quartum and quaest 17. ad quartum Observe here the Doctors ignorance For to say nothing of his unskilfull omitting the Article these two quotations ad quartum are the Authours Objections not his resolution The resolution follows no way asserting what the Doctor saith but contrary thus That the Pope in canonizing a Saint by the exterior evidence he hath of his Sanctity cannot err Although saith this Authour neither Pope nor Church can know certainly per certitudinem causae by the certainty of the cause that all canonized possess beatitude He saith per certitudinem causae because God who only endues a Soul with Charity causaliter is only conscious that it is enriched with this gift The Pope and Church know not this causaliter but by the effects of Charity shewed to the world Therefore saith Anconitanus quaest 14. cit art 4. Ad prim dicendum quod licet Papa non possit scire per certitudinem causae c.
pitty poured out in his own Pallace in the sight of the Sun and open view of the World it yet draws sighs from many a heart speaks loud enough of a Prince more horridly deposed and murthered then ever yet came to the knowledge of Christians or any Mariana once thought of And who were the Actors in this Abominable Tragedy Men of a reformed Faith and did it not in a sudden passion but deliberately which aggravates the crime while Catholicks ever loyal to their Sovereign look'd on with weeping eyes and heavy hearts Who approved who applauded that dayes sinful work Those of the same bran John Milton was one witness his wicked Book against Salmatius whose only praise is to speak Treason in good Latine What Doctors have we found among Catholicks since the death of our Sovereign that either side with Milton or speak a syllable in defense of those Regicides not one All unanimously cry shame upon them curse and anathematize the Fact and say t' was damnable Now after this so crying a Sin to hear a Doctor harp upon the far lesser faults of Mariana Santarel what is it but a weak and too splenish a Recrimination They said ill Be it so if yet Mariana said it their Doctrine is therefore prohibited and lies under censure but have they either said or done like these now mentioned What I say is not to touch in the least any Protestant loyal to his Sovereign No but only to tell the Doctor he did not well to rub on old Soars in others abroad while he hath more festered Vlcers to look on and Lance in some of his own Brethren at home I say in some for innumerable were Loyal and those I touch not Charity therefore might well have told him that the fault of a few is never to be cast on the greater part who were innocent and harmless Now concerning the Loyal fidelity both of English and forreign Catholicks towards their Prince and Magistrate could I license this short Treatise to grow to a greater bulk much might be said though indeed there is already enough published by that learned Author of the Protestants Apology the Book is had in England printed anno 1608. where Tract 3. Sect. 3 4 5. pag. 658 663 667. You shall find the Loyalty of Catholicks if Reason Authority and Confession of Adversaries may have place strongly asserted Beside other undenyable proofs he observs page 662. that when Queen Elizabeth enentred the Throne Royal all received her with most dutiful submission The then Catholick Lord Archbishop and chancellor of England in a publick oration perswaded the people to acknowledg her Maiesty for their lawful Queen and Sovereign And a like Loyal respect she had from other Catholick Lords and Bishops c. But was it so when queen Mary that reigned before her came to the Crown No saith my Author open rebellion in open field Stow recounts it in his Annals the pages are there exactly cited was her publick welcome and there was more of it in her 5. Years then in 25. of Queen Elizabeth and private turbulent Spirits witness that Dagger thrown at one Preachers head at Pauls Cross and a Gun shot off at another gave her no better entertainment Parallel here the Receptions of these two Sovereigns and say candidly who were then forwardly submissive who untowardly rebellious Nay shall I say more parallel the hideous A little Book in English cal'd Ierusalem and Babel or the Image of both Churches printed at London 1653. the 2d Edition will help you to make this parallel horrid and out-crying Rebellion of such as have deserted their Ancient Faith the whole World over with the faults of Catholicks for all are not faultless you shal find as great a disparity as is betwixt a little Skirmish and a fierce fought battle the half drawing of a Sword and sheathing it in the bowels of an Innocent man See for this Assertion the Protestants Apology Tract 3. Sect. 2. pag. 649. but chiefly in his Preface to the Reader from pag. the 10. to the end From this most Learned and Laborious Writer I will borrow some few of those many Instances he hath in that Preface to answer a pithless cavil of our Doctor p. 171. Where He dares not deny but that some Calvinists and warm spirited Puritans may have been reprehensible atleast Catholicks recriminate them in this point yet he gravely adds That indeed they borrowed these Doctrines from Rome using their Arguments making use of their Expressions and pursuing their Principles Answ And is it possible can a Doctor talk thus Can sober men give credit to his Obloquy Pray you tell me when the Waldenses in France the Hussites in Bohemia the Wicleffians in England some make these men Protestants ranted and vapour'd as they did contemned Magistrates raised up Rebellion and acted so Tragically against their lawful Governors c. Did Rome learn them their Lesson did Rome teach them the Dotage to contemn Roman Discipline When that Hector-rampant Zisca the Hussites General after the Ravage and Violences done on his own Native Country falling sick commanded his skin to be pull'd of his dead Carkass and a Drum to be made of it which the Hussites should use afterward in Battel Had he think yea Breve from Rome to do this more then Scithian cruelty on himself When Martin Luther Dogmatically taught That amongst Christians no man ought to be Magistrate none Superior and being told that he troubled the World with his new Gospel c. He returned this accursed Answer Quereris quod per Evangelium nostrum c. Thou complainest that by our Gospel the World is become tumultuous I answer God be thanked for it I would have it so wo to me He might have added and to my Kate also if things were not as they are all in tumults When I say such Malice against Rome boyled hot at his heart and the filthy froth of his rage ran thus out of his mouth did Rome add fuel to that flame or make that Vessel of iniquity to boyl as it did Apage Nugas 'T is triffling to say so Again when sneveling Calvin to say nothing of Zuinglius seditiously vented That Earthly Princes bereaved themselves of Authority if they were against God and that they are unworthy to be reckon'd amongst the number of men that we may spit in their faces so this holy faced man speaks rather then obey them Did Rome either instil such Poyson into his Breast or lay that Venom on his pernitious Tongue No God knows both Rome and the Rhemish Doctors assert that Christians are obliged in Conscience to obey even Heathen Emperors And worthy Doctor Kellison doubts not to say That Faith is not necessary to Jurisdiction Temporal neither is Authority lost by the loss of Faith See these Authorities quoted in the Protestants Apology Tract 3. Sect. 5. pag. 668. Once more and I end When bloody Beza preaching at Grenoble with his Sword and Pistol exhorted the