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
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
〈◊〉 ut dicitur cane Incomparabiliter enim pulchrior est Veritas Christianorum quam Helena Graecorum c. Such I say is my Petition presented to our Doctor and if the Love of Truth bears sway in his Breast yeeld he needs must to a speedy retractation Nothing can Retard him from so generous a Resolution but either Motives of interest drawn from a naughty World or his own once vented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So forsooth he hath said in his Disswasive and so it must stand though all run to Ruin and Christianity suffers The Doctor I confess hath been most Unluckily in broaching Heresies and wanting Grace to retract them Some years are now past since he was so Unfortunate as to become a Patron of the Pelagian Heresie when ex professo he Writ a Book against Original sin and stoutly defended it and being Friendly told by his own Brethren that what he said was not only opposite to Catholick Faith but also to the very Doctrine of the Church of England expresly deliver'd in her Liturgy in 39. Articles in the Office of Baptism c. He had yet the boldness to deny all and assert that the Church of England held not Original Sin though both Prince and Prelate knew then and believ'd the contrary I know not that he ever yet Recanted this Heresie if not 't is now high Time to do it and with it to Weep for the Errors in his Disswasive if he fails in both Duties the World will say and say truly that Dr. Taylor is Notior peccans quam paenitens more known for his Sin then for his Repentance and may Prudently Judge that he of all others was the unfittest Man to Write against Popery that disowns the Doctrine of his own Church unless this makes him fit that being a Pelagian his Words though he multiplies Volums will want weight against Catholicks For this is my reflection and I think a true one that this man who dar'd to say that the Church of England holds not Original Sin so plainly taught and believ'd by all will not Boggle to miscite the Fathers remote from our knowledge Read by few and Understood by fewer Farewel Gentle Reader with a thousand well-wishes for thy profitting by this Treatise I bestow as many on Dr. Taylor whose Enemy God knows I am not Nor can he think me one for laying out his Errors and telling Truth Upon this very Account he ought and I hope will to return me Thanks If now I Merit none I may hereafter have better Luck and deserve them If plain dealing may do it he shall have Reason to account me as indeed I am his Faithful True SERVANT and Friendly ADVERSARY E. W. QUOTATIONS Faulty in DOCTOR TAYLORS PREFACE To the READER TO destroy Tradition not contain'd in Scripture the Doctor cites Tertullian thus I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenes fear the Wo that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it I answer the Dr. turn's the true genuine sence out of this whole sentence chiefly by these guileful particles of his own making And if it be not written which seem exclusive of all unwritten tradition yet this Authority no more relates to Catholick Doctrine concerning Tradition then a Fable in Esop Briefly therefore Tertullian disputing against Hermogenes that held these visible things were created of I know not what prejacent matter speaks thus Lib. adversus Hermog Antwerp Print cap. 22. page 495. In principio c. In the beginning God made heaven and Earth then adds Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem I adore the fulness of Scripture Wherein in what doth he adore this fulness He answers Qua mihi factorem manifestat facta I adore the fulness of Scripture that doth manifest to me both the Maker and things made As who should say in this particular the Scripture is compleat and I adore its fulness c. Now these last words Qua mihi factorem c. which explain the Fathers sence our Dr. wholly omits and beguiles his Reader with these perverted particles if it be not written Tertullian after those words In Evangelio vero amplius goes on An autem de aliqua subiacenti materia facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi Whether all these things be made of a subjacent matter I never yet read Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Let Hermogenes his Work-house shew us that this particular is written Si non est Scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum If this thing now in controversie concerning the prejacent matter Hermogenes asserts be not written let him justly fear that Wo destin'd to them that detract from Scripture or add to it Here is exactly the whole context of Tertullian and it renders this sence Hermogenes holds the world made of a strange unknown matter The Scripture directly tells us how it was made and Created of nothing I adore the fulness of Scripture in this particular let therefore Hermogenes when the Scripture hath clearly said all that belongs to the first Creation of things prove by Scripture that unknown matter he defends if he cannot he may well fear that Wo threatned to such as detract from Scripture or add to it a prejacent matter never mentioned in it Judge good Reader whether this Quotation have so much as a likelyhood of gain-saying any constant received Tradition in the Church The Dr. may reply as Hermogenes added to Scripture his unknown matter so we add our unknown Traditions I answer first what Hermogenes defended was not only an addition but expresly contrary to Holy Scripture declaring that God made the VVorld of Nothing No Catholick Tradition is expresly or positively opposite to Gods written VVord unknown tradition we own not 2. Hermogenes had no such approved consent for his foolery as we have for our Catholick and ever received Tradition justly therefore did Tertullian oppugn him by the Authority of Scripture only for destitute he was of all warranted Tradition 3. The Doctrine of our Tradition not a pretended one or any superaddition of new Articles as the Dr. imputes to us is expresly allow'd of by Scripture it self the place is known 2 Thessa 2. 14. and enervates what ever hath the colour of an objection against us He cites next St. Basil de vera fide whose words are these Paris Print 1618. Tom. 2. page 251. Haud dubie manifestissimum hoc infidelitatis argumentum fuerit signum superbiae certissimum si quis eorum quae Scripta sunt aliquid velit rejicere aut eorum quae non Scripta introducere VVithout doubt this is a most manifest Argument of infidelity if one will reject any one of those things which are written these words our Dr. omits to make the Quotation sound to his sence or of those things which are not written introduce to wit into Scripture and so the St. explicates himself clearly in these following words Vehementissime
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
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
In his 79. he excepts against our Doctrine of contrition and saith we allow it not valuable unless it includes a desire or will to confess our sins to a Priest Answ We do so and give this reason True contrition which reconciles to God votively at least implies a will of doing what God Commands But one Command is that we confess our sins to a Priest therefore true Contrition submits to it This proof is evident if God have laid a precept on us to confess to a Priest which by all Law of disputation we may here suppose until the Doctor shews the contrary Add to this what our Doctor hath page 101. viz. That confession is of excellent use among the Pious Children of the Church of England If so give me leave to ask him who Ordained this Confession God or the Church or whether there is Scripture for it or no if neither God Scripture nor Church warrant it it is an invention of man and may participate according to our Doctor of a devilish spirit consequently cannot be of excellent use among any c. Now if Scripture be for Confession if God or the Church have Ordained it the Doctor must say if he knows what true Contrition is that the Supernatural Act which reconciles to God doth of necessity imply Actually or Votively a serious will of doing what ever God Scripture or Church Commands us for to say I am sorry for my sin out of the Motive of Gods infinite Love I purpose amendment I 'll do his Will hereafter and not to say I 'll do what God Scripture or Church commandeth implies a contradiction in a word it is to say and unsay purpose and not purpose c. To confirme this discourse I have enough from the Doctor pag. 79. who saith that Genuine and true Contrition is a Cordial sorrow for having sinned against God c. Ending in a dereliction of all sin and a walking in all Righteousness I wish no more for this very walking in all Righteousness implies the obedience we give to Contrition and will make our good Doctor walk to Confession also if Scripture or Church have Ordained it for finners perhaps he may say that Confession is only of Counsel not of Command when I have his Scripture for such an assertion he shall have his answer fully In the interim know that it is but vain to talk as our Doctor doth of a repentance towards God as it were in abstracto without descending to the ultimate worth and Efficacy of it which as now I said includes a serious will of doing Gods Command This truth supposed with what conscience can the Doctor say that we prefer repentance towards men before that which the Scripture calls repentance towards God It is a flat Calumny and as ill intended as expressed improperly for in this Sacrament there is Confession to a man but what repentance is there towards men that we prefer before the Noble Act of Contrition which resting in God prefers him and his Commands before all things in the World A few lines after he saith pag. 80. As Contrition without their Ritual and Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us to God so Attrition with their Sacrament will reconcile the sinner Contrition without it will not Attrition with it will reconcile us And this Doctrine saith he is expresly Decreed at Trent I stand here astonished at this ignorance Do I read in a Doctor that Contrition without Ritual and Sacramental Confession doth not reconcile a sinner and that the Council of Trent Decrees this expresly I say first that the Council expresly declares the contrary Sect. 14. cap. 4. de contritione Docet praeterea Sancta Synodus Si contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contingat hominem Deo reconciliare prius quam hoc Sacramentum actu suscipiatur c. The Holy Synod teaches Although it sometimes falls out that this Contrition when perfect with Charity reconciles a man with God before actual taking of the Sacrament c. The words are contrary to the Doctors assertion and need no explication I say 2. It is the certain and constant Doctrine of Divines that Contrition proceeding from the Love of God or true motive of Charity in the very Moment a Soul hath it gain 's pardon reconciles to God disposes immediately to supernatural Grace whereby a sinner is justified and made an adopted Child of God and this I say In the very Moment a Soul hath it though Sacramental Confession follows not for weeks or months or by accident never for would it not be apittiful case to send a poor sinner to Hell who lies at deaths door or is mortally wounded doth his utmost to be contrite for his sins though neither Priest is present nor Sacramental Confession can be had or hoped for This very case is enough to unbeguile the Doctor and to satisfie him that we Catholicks are not so severe in exacting Sacramental Confession when either accident or necessity excludes a poor penitent from it I know not how the Doctor will come off and satisfie for the enormious injustice done both to the Council of Trent and all Catholicks but by one evasion that shall nothing at all avail him Perhaps he may tell us that when he says Contrition without Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us he only speaks of Votive Confession included in the Act of Contrition and not of Actual No I thought Ritual as he terms it and Sacramental Confession had been in plain English Synonimas or of the same signification with Actual Confession However if the Doctor understands it of Votive Confession read his words thus Contrition without Confession in Vote or desire reconciles not a sinner to God and this you must suppose to be his meaning Then know we Catholicks hold constantly that Contrition without the Vote or Efficatious will of Confession is no Contrition consequently all he proves is that that Act which is no Contrition doth not reconcile to God How then doth he advance any new proof against us Where lies the Mischief or Malignity of our Doctrine in saying that an Act which is no Contrition and submits not in Voto to Gods Command doth not reconcile us to God yet more If he speaks not of Actual but Votive Confession included in Contrition his whole discourse is lame hobling and renders you this Non-sence As Contrition without Sacramental Confession in Vote or desire doth not reconcile us to God so attrition with actual Sacramental Confession doth reconcile us which inference without life and vigor shews nothing to the Doctors purpose for what doth it avail him to say in this place as no Contrition doth reconcile us so Attrition with the Sacrament doth Had he said as Contrition with Votive Confession reconciles us to God so Attrition also with Actual Confession doth the sence had been good and Catholick But never shall he make sence out of these words As Contrition without Confession will not reconcile us
this Section concerning the emptying of Purgatory Certainly the Millions of Indulgences and innumerable other helps in the Church should ere this have a hundred times over evacuated that place of its sad Inhabitants I answer this Objection is like the rest feeble and forceless and would the Doctor ponder well these words of the Royal Prophet Psal 100. Misericordiam judicium cantabo tibi Domine He would see the weakness of it God is Merciful but withal just His Mercy impowers the Church to free many But that prodigal use of the Keys in freeing all would be against Justice and would make sinners little to value or fear those torments which St. Austin says Surpass all the pains in this World CHAP. XIV A word more of Indulgences Of the Doctors Mistakes in quoting Authors Whether the Prayer of a sinner avails him Of the Doctors harsh Doctrine THe Doctor after his High heap of dangers and great number of little doubts pag. 97. tells us that there is one thing necessary viz. To work out our Salvation with fear and trembling Answ First a poor penitent that apprehends most deeply the pain of Purgatory and doth so much Penance as we see daily done among good Christians for the releasment of that pain cannot be supposed in any Christians Charity to be without fear and trembling 2. We might if it were worth the while move as many doubts concerning this fear and trembling as he doth against Indulgences We might ask him to work out our Salvation how often must we fear How often must we tremble From what motive-must this fear proceed How strong and intens must this trembling be when all is done How know we that we have trembled enough and whether we are not to tremble till we all turn Quakers Let the Doctor resolve these doubts upon good certainty and I 'll warrant you his scruples about Indulgences will cease What he adds of Venial sins hindring the fruit of Indulgences is not worth taking notice of But Saith he pag. 99. Pope Adrian taught a worse matter viz. He that will obtain an Indulgence for another c. And where find we this worse matter Mark I beseech you his Marginal Quotation Apud Petrum de Soto lect de institut Sacerd. de necessariis ad effectum Indulg Truly our Doctor all along hath been unfortunate in his citations and here he shews himself so very unskilful that I believe he never saw Soto Know then that Petrus de Soto besides other works hath a book in a large Decimo sexto which he Intitles Tractatus de institutione sacerdotum with me it is printed at Brixia anno 1586. under that Title in general he handles many Questions De scientia sacerdotum de Baptismo and other Sacraments c. Every Treatise he devides into Lectiones And after the middle of the Book hath a Title de Indulgentiis pag. 263. This Treatise he divides into three Lectiones Now the Doctor gives you not the Right Lectio of that Treatise which is the third in number but unskilfully directs you to his Lectio de Institutione sacerdotum There is no general Lectio but Tractatus de institutione sacerdotum the Lections are subdivisions to several Treatises Well though without much help from the Doctor we have found the place in Soto Lectio 3. now cited page with me 275. his words are Notat Hadrianus circahoc movet quaestionem c. Adrian who by the way speaks not as Pope but as a Divine or private Doctor proposeth this Question whether one in mortal sin can avail to obtain an Indulgence for another as if an Indulgence for Example be granted to him who gives an Alms or to him for whom it is given by another Adrian holds the Affirmative So that he who doth the work and wisheth the Indulgence to another doth an action Morally good Nam pro peccato non conceditur Indulgentia For an Indulgence is never granted for a sinful work This I say was Adrians private Opinion not so harshly related by Soto as it is by our Doctor who talks as if it were a definition of a Pope Pope Adrian taught a worse matter I censure not Adrians Opinion he was a great Divine nor approve it yet this I 'll say that the Doctor doth not so much as probably impugn it Mark how weakly he argues As if saith he a man could do more for another then he can do for himself Answ Most certainly he may Cannot one uncapable of a dignity or a favour in a Common-wealth beg of his Prince a Grace for another who is capable A meer secular man unlearned and Married may petition his Majesty and perhaps prevail that Doctor Taylor be the next Bishop of Canterbury who they say lives ever unmarried Here is our very Case This secular man is uncapable of such a Grace So a sinner is of an Indulgence This secular man prevails to get the Grace for another who is capable so a sinner may prevail to obtain an Indulgence for another just man capable of the favour The parity holds exactly Therefore it is evident that one may do more for another then he can for himself in some cases The Doctor goes on and speaks not like a Christian As if saith he God would regard the Prayers of a wicked person when he intercedes for another and at the same time if he Prays for himself his Prayer is an abomination Answ This last is certainly impious Doctrine for the consequence of it must needs be this That no sinner ought in conscience ever to Pray for himself I 'll prove what I say thus No sinner can in conscience commit an abomination in the sight of God or sin mortally But to pray for himself is an abomination and a mortal sin therefore no sinner can in conscience pray for himself Consequently that poor Publican 9 Ioan that prayed for himself Deus propitius mihi esto peccatori God be merciful to me a sinner Was an abominable man upon the account of his Prayer which place of Scripture no less a Doctor then St. Austin made use of to prove that a sinner may pray for himself Were the Doctor a Divine I could tell him that prayer in a wicked man may be a supernatural Act and proceed from Gods Grace not sanctifying Grace as Faith is supernatural which preceeds justification in a sinner What he adds of a work done ungratiously is a wrong to Adrian who requires Opus Moraliter bonum A work morally good though not meritorious Finally the Doctor saith that because Divines require the state of Grace necessary in a man at that time he gains an Indulgence though before a sinner they turn Divinity into Mathematicks and Clock-work A conceit not worthy a Doctor say I beseech you if this good man ascends a Pulpit and a larems his hearers thus Good people you have hitherto profited little by my Sermons Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis To day this very moment this minute
true story of a certain man who had his house miserably haunted with evil Spirits much affliction they gave both to his Servants and Cattle To be short he called for a Priest and begged him to pray in his house who did so he said Mass offered up the Sacrifice of Christs sacred body and prayed very earnestly that that trouble might cease His prayer prevailed cease it did Yet more This good man had from a friend some of that holy earth which was brought from Hierusalem where our Lotd Jesus was buried and this he hung up in his chamber to secure himself from danger of these evil Spirits This is the story and will the Doctor believe it on my word No he laughs at it it smells saith he of Superstition that offering up of Christs body sacrificed and keeping that earth should free the mans chamber from Devils is plain Popery savouring too much of an unbloody Sacrifice and the doctrin of relicks c. I grant all except the Superstition and tell the Doctor he must either credit the story or discredit S. Austin who relates it in his 22. book de civitate Antwerp print anno 1676. cap 8. page 297. The mans name was Hesperius vir tribunitius a chief commander More particulars you have in the place now cited worth reading if any yet desire more of the force of prayer and Exorcisms against Devils let him read that ancient authour Optatus Milevit lib. 4 adversus Parmenianum pag. 79. Paris print with Albaspins notes 1631 Hoc exorcismus operatur per quem spiritus immundus depellitur in loca deserta fugatur Exorcisms drive away Devils and banishâ— them into desert places Thus Optatus And S. Gregory the great tells you of strange wonders done upon possessed persons by B. Fortunatus Bishop in his first book of Dialog cap. 9. pag. 952. Paris print 1571. These truths supposed which no Protestant can answer I will with license inquire of our Doctor what it is he finds fault with in our Catholick Exorcisins against Devils Is it the power we have from Christ Jesus to cast them out of persons possessed or places haunted by them The very authority of Fathers already alledged and the continued favour of Almighty God to this our age in assisting many within the bounds of the Catholick Church to dispossess innumerable possessed proves the power and evidenceth most undeniably the effects of it Known History for those wonders done in later ages and yet living ey-witnesses in our dayes gain credit with prudent men and justly may conquer a greater increduty then the Doctor harbours in his breast All cannot be fiction nor the Authors proved lyars that writ such stories yet more Doth our Doctor reprehend the words we use in Exorcisms Yes And why Is it because they are adjurative If so the Fathers now cited are our warrant and will silence the Doctor Is it because they are words unusual and not easily understood by all If this offend him I answer first that there are more unusual pedantick words in one Dr Pierces Sermon then in all the approved Exorcisms of the Catholick Church yet that Sermon is for the people these Exorcisms are against the Devil who better understands the hardest terme in them then the generality of men that Sermon I answer 2. that in the Roman ritual which we chiefly defend not one word can be thought unusual it is plain Latin all a long intelligible to the poorest Schollar The like I say of that Manual of Exorcisms printed at Antwerp anno 1626. which our Doctor causelesly cavils at pag. 136. the like of the Exorcisms for the Dioces of Iper printed at S. Omers anno 1606. Besides these I have by me two other Exorcisms the one printed at Venice 1579. the other anno 1585. in an old Character The book is called Sacerdotale Romanum towards the end of these Editions you have the Exorcism and both Hebrew and Greek thus in Latin Letters Adjuro vos per nomina omnipotentis Dei Messias Sother Emanuel Sabaoth Adonias I adjure you by the names c. And this perhaps made our Doctor pag. 138. exclaim against some Exorcisms for their false Hebrew and base Greek Sure the good man thought that Messias and Sother should have been a genitive case because of Omnipotentis Dei whereas they relate to the precedent words per nomina as if one should say per nomen Jeremias adjuro by your name Jeremy I adjure you never to cavil without cause Like cavils about Letters and writing Messias without the Hebrew twang Sother less correctedly c. I omit and tell the Doctor that a poor Parish Priest shall do more against the Devil with this he calls false Hebrew and base Greek then twenty Ministers in England with the most quaint extemporal prayers they can make What else remains reprehensible in these exorcisms The Doctor answers pag. 141. Superstition a monstrous evil doubtless Wel. I 'le deale plainly and license the Doctor to make use of any definition which either ancient Father or new approved writers give us of Superstition we will stand to his choice yet I 'le assure him he shall never so much as touch Catholicks with the least likelihood of Superstition in their exorcisms What Lactantius saith of Superstition lib. 4. de inst cap. 28. initio qui Deos precabantur immolabant ut sui sibi filij superstites essent superstitiosi sunt appellati concerns not exorcisms at all and less doth that known one of Cicero lib. 2. de natura Deorum qui pro superstiti prole nimij erant in Dijs precandis c. touch them if the Doctor therefore please we will say that Superstition is Cultus indebitus seu vana religio A wrong vain and incongruous worship which look's like religion but is not And next let us read any approved exorcism The prayers made there to Almighty God are Acts of Religion and neither wrong nor incongruous worship The calling on God by several names we find in Scripture cannot be judged by a Christian vain or incongruous The reading of Davids Psalms and the Gospels of Jesus Christ is not in vain The adjuring of Devils is warranted by Fathers and the power of casting them out is given by Jesus Christ Where then lyes the danger of vain worship or so much as the least signe of any Superstition If the word exorcism displease our Doctor we have it to say nothing of others in S. Austin lib. 1. de peccatorum meritis remissione cap. 34. initio and lib. 6. contra Julianum cap 5. with an exsufflation added in Baptism Filios fidelium saith the S. nec exorcizaret nec exsufflaret c. The Church would neither exorcise nor breath on little Children were it not to free them from the power of darkness and Prince of death Let the Doctor say what he thinks of this exsufflation if such a Ceremony be not Superstition none in our exorcisms can be if the sign of the
God in the operation of Sacraments is the prime efficient cause of Grace Christ the Meritorious Sacraments the Instrumental Now whether they work by an intrinsecal Vertue imprinted as it were on them or are otherwise effectual concerns nothing Catholick Religion Supernatural inherent Grace we receive by them when a soul is fitly disposed This is our Doctrine Yet we have more obscure Divinity For he tells us we teach that Sacraments are not so much to increase Grace as to make amends for the want of Grace God only knows what he means by this making amends for the want of Grace I do not Qui potest capere capiat We say without this making amends that Grace is effectually given in every Sacrament to that soul that comes worthily disposed The Doctor in his 12. Section page 144. talks of Idolatry but not understanding what Idolatry is nor our Divines Tenets concerning the Worship he speaks of fights against shadows I 'll only leave him to Mr. Thorndike a great Divine of his own to learn of him what Idolatry is and how far the Church of Rome is to be charg'd with it and what the consequences of such a charge will be Mr. Thorndike in his just Weights and Measures chap. 1. discourseth it at large He says pag. 2. If the Pope be Antichrist and the Papists Idolaters we need not seek farther for the reason of the distance we are to own the separation for our own act and glory in it He says again pag. 7. If it be true viz. That the Papists be guilty of Idolatry we cannot without renouncing our Christianity hold communion with those whom we charge with it So that if this Section of our Doctor which charges us with Idolatry be true Mr. Thorndike tells him there is no need of seeking farther for the reason of the distance This must be it viz. That they could not hold communion with Idolaters without renouncing their Christianity and therefore they parted which separation they own for their own act and glory in it Yet Mr. Thorndike sayes that if this be the best reason they can give for their separation they must acknowledge themselves to be the Schismaticks His own words are Cap. 1. pag. 7. line 14. For in plain Termes we make our selves Schismaticks by grounding our Reformation upon this pretence and again in the same page line 29. So that sayes he should this Church declare that the charge which we call Reformation is grounded upon this Supposition I must then acknowledge that we are the Schismaticks Now that this Pretence and this Supposition are the same which our Doctor in his Section pretends and supposes us to be guilty of viz. Idolatry is evident by the whole Chapter now quoted and by the Contents of it printed before the Chapter which end thus They that separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters are thereby Schismaticks before God How the Doctor will answer this to his own brother I neither know nor care nor can I see how he can possibly avoid the Imputation of Schism in Mr. Thorndik's judgment for he believes or else he cheats his Charge that we are Idolaters if he does he must in Mr. Thorndikes Opinion and in all reason make that the ground of his Separation And if he does do so he is a Schismatick before God sayes Mr. Thorndike This may serve for answer to his charge in general His particular Instances in what we are Idolaters are Worshipping of Images sayes he is a direct breach of the Second Commandment an act of Idolatry as much as the Heathens themselves were guilty of c. Mr. Thorndike shall answer for us again in the Book before cited Cap. 19. in the Contents whereof you may read this Proposition Reverencing of Images in Churches is not Idolatry In this Chapter page 126. towards the bottome he has these words Whether or no having Images in Churches be a breach of the Second Commandment can be no more question then whether or no to have any Images be a breach of it for it must forbid Images in Churches because it forbids all Images c. This and what follows in that chap. clears the having of Images in Churches from being a breach of the Second Commandment Now to clear the Reverencing or Worshipping of them from being Idolatry read the same Chapter on and page 127. line 31. you shall find these words But to the Images of Saints there can be no Idolatry so long as men take them sor Saints That is Gods creatures Much less to the Images of our Lord For it is the honour of our Lord and not of his Image And again line the last of this page and page 128. Nay the Council it self meaning the 2. of Nice though it acknowledge that the Image it self is honoured by the honour given to that which it signifieth before the Image yet it distinguisheth this honour from the honour of our Lord and therefore teacheth not Idolatry by teaching to honour Images though it acknowledge that the Image it self is honoured when it need not This is quite contrary to our Doctors Divinity The pious Children of the Church of England may believe which they please of these two great Divines the one is a Bishop but the other seems the more wary man For he makes a cautious proposal in the 1 Chap. of his Book quoted before page 2. line 14. It were good sayes he that we did understand one another And line 30. Yet it is necessary to provide that we contradict not our selves But our Doctor never caring whom he understands or who understands him thinks it not necessary to provide that they contradict not one another But rashly sayes what comes next right or wrong What he hath more pag. 145 146 147. relate chiefly ad modum colendi or to the way of Worship which toucheth nothing on Catholick Religion or the due reverence given to Images Divines I know dispute this point largely their different Opinions make no Article of Faith Let us agree that Images are to be worshipped in the Sense of those Fathers we cited above and in Mr. Thorndikes Sense And afterward if the Doctor please we 'll discuss the Theological Difficulty how they are to be worshipped To what our Doctor has page 148. concerning the Idolatry of worshipping Consecrated Bread and Wine Mr. Thorndike shall once more answer for us who by good luck has the very Instance of the Pagans worshipping the Sun which our Doctor sayes is all one with our worshipping the Consecrated Bread and Wine But Mr. Thorndike I dare say will not believe him until he answers the beginning of his 19. Chap. quoted before page 125. the Contents of which at the very beginning have this Proposition The worship of the Host in the Papacy is not Idolatry If our Doctor will undertake to satisfie Mr. Thorndike that he is mistaken in what he here professes to teach I presume he will oblige him highly For he asks pag. 5. line 22.
and barbarously In a word the French men did it themselves nor had they as Dupleix affirms in his title page 285. any necessity at all to have had any recourse to the Pope for deposing Childerick To take away all cavil I rather cite a French Authour both Counseller and Historiographer to the King of France then any other Concerning the differences between Pope Boniface the 8. and Philip le Bell you have a whole Book set forth by a French Authour not named nor too great a friend to the Pope The Title is Histoire du differend d'entre le Pape c. Paris print 1655. Where you shall find no little Animosity in Philip and a paternal Condescendency in Boniface euer ready to comply with that Prince Tedious it would be to tell the whole Story The Doctor goes on They were Popes of Rome that armed the Son against the Father the Emperour Henry the 4th the Son fought against him took him prisoner c. Answ An infinite patience is necessary to hear a Doctor talk as this does Most justly may we say here the whole World knows what a man Henry the 4th was an Heretick a Sacrilegious wretch one given to Sodomy saith Stephanus Alberstatensis in his Letter to Walram Bishop which Dodechinus relates in his Appendix to Marianus Scotus anno 1090. page 460. A light headed Fellow and rash of no Counsel mighty bold and of a dissolute life who set the Bishopricks of Germany to sale c. saith Even good John Calvin lib. 4. instit cap. 11. § 13. his own pious and worthy Kinsman Otho Frisingensis saith lib. 7. cap. 11. That he was promoted potenter magis quam juste more by Power then Justice or honest Dealing These truths supposed which no historian questions excpt one lying Benno so Gretser cals him tomo 2. in his Apol. for Greg. the 7. p. 218. what is to be done with such a Prince must he revel it out run on in his lewdness ruin the Church destroy Kingdomes injure Princes without restraint or Ecclesiastical Censure Let the Doctor say candidly whether such an ungratious Son of the Church may be tolerated without being curb'd at all to violate or rather to tear out the very bowels of that Mother that begot him and made him Christian Nothing can be answer'd with probability but that the Church has power to check such insolences And To silence the Doctors groundless complaint hear in a word how it was done Marianus Scotus is my Authour lib. 3. Cron. Aetat 6. ad annum 1075. page chiefly 454. Franck fort print 1613. Where he first relates the Kings wickedness then adds Haec his similia nefanda inandita Henrici Regis flagitia videntes audientes fieri Catholici viri c. Catholick men constituted at that time in the Church seeing and hearing of such enormous Crimes committed by King Henry were carried on with zeal like another Helias for the House of Israel and therefore sent Messengers to Pope Alexander and as well by Letter as word of mouth with sighs and grief made their grievances known c. Alexander dying Gregory the 7th succeeded him Iste querimonijs clamoribus Catholicorum justis adversum Henricum scelerum immanitatem auditis zelo Dei accensus c. This Pope Gregory having heard the just complaints the loud clamours of Catholicks against Henry and his outragious proceedings moved with zeal of God declared him Excommunicated chiefly for his Simony Thus Marianus Where you see that the Pope depos'd him not but only declared him an Excommunicate person and this at the importunate Instances and just Complaints of the German Princes He that desires to know more of this unfortunate King let him read Baronius chiefly ad annum 1080. Tom. 11. where pag. 532. Antwerp print 1608. lit D. He shall find how justly that heavy Censure of the Church fell upon him how he was vilified by his own Children forced by them out of his Kingdom and died in misery It was God saith Baronius that shew'd his Judgment on him though late dum filios in patrem statuit esse carnifices acerbissimos suae sententiae executores while he made his own Sons to be Torturers of their Father and revengers of his just Sentence Our Doctor therefore both cavils and calumniats while he talks of Popes arming Sons against the Father c. And to take off more cavils most willingly would I have him to name that Pope and quote his Authour that made Charles the 5. and Francis the first of France take Arms against other Princes I love not good Doctor this running on in darkness Produce your Authours An answer is ready Yet Omit I cannot to say a word of Francis Dandulus whom saith our Doctor being Duke of Venice the Pope bound with Chains and fed him as Dogs arc fed with bones and scraps under his Table Answ It would make one sick to hear this tattle Where read we for Gods fake that the Pope chain'd Dandulus where that he fed him like a Dog or cast him bones and scraps where that Dandulus was then Duke of Venice All is coyn'd by the Doctor who as he tels his tale makes the Pope a Beast Whereas God knows the story is quite contrary and Briefly thus The Venetians had by their wrongs and violences highly offended Pope Clement the 5. and for a long time slighted his censures At last more wise they sought for pardon as Spondanus recounts ad annum 1310. num 5. Tom. 1. pag. 518. This good man therefore Francis Dandulus no Duke then but of the Doctors making yet of note and nobility among the States press'd them with might and main to a due Submission And to gain pardon for their insolencies on his own free accord compelled by no Pope he sacrificed his honor and did as strange an Act of humility as perhaps is read in Story Sabellicus an exact writer of the Venetian affaires relates it Tom. 2. Basil print Ennead 9. lib. 7 pag. 791. in this manner Eranciscus Dandulus illustri exemplo privatae pietatis in patriam publicae in religionem catenâ ferreâ collo injectá ad ejus mensam tam diu prostratus jacuit c. Francis Dandulus by a rare example of special piety towards his Country and publick for Religion having cast an iron Chain about his neck went to the Popes table and lay there prostrat so long Donec expugnatâ Clementis irâ c. Til by force of his vertue he vanquished Clements anger and cancelled the black ignominious note which lay on his Country whence it is saith Sabellicus that he was afterward called by the name of Dog yet witness Spondanus was welcom'd home with the applause of all and some years after made Prince in John's place that dyed Here is a difference between the Doctors story and mine mine hath nothing of scraps or bones or of the Popes feeding and chaining Dandulus c. Pray you tell me if our Ministers in England wearied
by the Doctor Briefly then condere Symbolum are St. Austins words and both in his sence and this Authors stand consignificant with Ordinare which is not to make a Novelty in Faith but to reduce to a Method or short form those Points which Christians both now do believe and have anciently believed in the general most evidently this is Anconitanus his sence First by the words now cited Nam in symbolo ponuntur illa quae Universaliter c. 2. By the express Doctrine in his resolution where he saith Una fuit fides antiquorum modernorum one Faith there was anciently And now 3. by his answer to the 2d Argument Art 2d Ad secundum est dicendum quod ad illa quae in sacra Scriptura ponuntur non debet fieri aliqua additio erroris vel falsitatis vel diminutio veritatis sed addere veritatem quam continet Scriptura explicare semper licuit Ecclesiae semper licet To the second Argument we say That to those things which are in Holy Scripture no addition of error or falshood is to be made nor diminution of Truth But to add a verity which the Scripture contains was and is ever lawful in the Church As he deals with Anconitanus so he abuseth Panormitanus cap. cum Christus the Doctor cites him thus Papa potest inducere novum Articulum fidei and leav's of there But Panormitan's words are Papa potest inducere novum Articulum fidei declarando istud jus Divinum ex hoc infertur quod ista Constitutio respicit praeterita The The Pope can introduce a new Article of Faith by declaring it to be Divine whence we have that this constitution relates to things past Mark a declarative Sentence and of things anciently believed Lastly he cites Ostiensis and Ferdinandus de Inciso apud Petrum Ciezam an Author I never heard of but assuredly most false it is that any Catholick Writer saies The Souls of men are in the hands of the Pope and that in his Arbritration Religion doth consist Page 12. he tells us of a story of the King of Spain giving Commission to purge all Catholick Authors with such secrecy that the Expurgatory Index might not be imparted to any Howsoever saith he by Divine providence Joannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius 13 years after met with it made it publick and since it came abroad against the Inquisitors wills they own it and have printed it themselves Yet more in their Index some words in St. Chrisostom others in St. Austin are commanded to be blotted out yes and Sixtus Senensis in his Epistle Dedicatory highly commends the Pope Pius Quintus for purging all Catholick Authors and chiefly the writings of the Ancient Fathers Thus the Doctor and he layes a foul aspertion on us for corrupting of Witnesses and razing out the Records of Antiquity I answer that he is both false and faulty through this whole Paragraph faulty in telling us of a clancular commission given by the King of Spain to the Inquisitors c. without directing us to either Book or Index where to find it Faulty he is in asserting without nameing his Author that the Inquisitors were forced to own the Expurgatory Index because Pappus and Iunius had first printed it against their wills faulty finally he is for citing words razed out of St. Chrisostom by an Index expurgatorius and leaving his Reader in darkness where to find the Quotations Now to his falsities which are evident In St. Chrisostoms works saith he Printed at Basil these words The Church is not Built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out yet they are read in his first Homily upon that of St. Iohn Ye are my Friends Here are two falsities The first is that these words are commanded to be blotted out of St. Chrisostom's works whereas most certainly the Prohibition falls only on St Chrisostom's Index made by Froben Printer at Basil or some of his Friends And is it not gross to mistake the Index of a Book drawn out by God knows whom for the Authors Doctrine If the Reader please to see that I wrong not the Doctor let him turn to this Index published by Cardinal Sandonal's order and Printed at Madrid anno 1612. pag 556. he shall read Ex D. Iohannis Chrisostomi Indice Basileae ex officina Frobeniana dele sequentia and in the very next page 1. columna soon after the middle these words of Frobens Index Ecclesia non super hominem sed supra fidem aedificata The second Error is that these words are found in the Homily now cited upon St. Iohn believe it there is not a syllable like them in that Homily Again saith the Doctor these words of St. Chrisostom There is no merit but what is given us by Christ are commanded to be blotted out yet they are found in his Sermon upon Pentecost Here are three Errors at once First the Index is taken for the Text Secondly Frobens words are not as the Doctor gives them but thus Salus nostra non ex merito nostro Our Salvation is not by our merit see the Index pag. 558. 1. columna 3. These words There is no merit c. are not in the Homily of Pentecost but in the other upon St. Iohn Ye are my Friends and as they stand in St. Chrisostom's Text are thus Frobens Edition Nullum in nobis meritum nisi quod contalit Christus There is no Merit but what Christ gave us which is most Catholick Doctrine Again those words The Church is not built upon the man c. Are not in that Homily on St. Iohn Ye are my Friends but in St. Chrisostom's Homily on Pentecost In a word to speak plain English our Doctor cited Kim Kam one Homily for an other which may pass for a fault or falsity make of it what you please However he may yet reply though he miscited the places at least grant we must that those words The Church is not built upon the man c. are extant in the Pentecost Homily and the Index Expurgatory commands them to be razed out I answer that it commands them to be razed out of Frobens Index is granted out of St. Chrisostom's works is denyed which yet our Doctor affirms And herein Iohn Pappus is the more honest man of the two for he ingeniously confesseth in the 3d. page of his Preface anno 1599 that we never yet had the boldness to change or cancelate a word in the writings of Ecclesiastical Authors read his 11th line Eo audaciae nondum proruperunt c. The Doctor may yet demand why then purge we Frobens Index of words found in St. Chrisostom's Works I answer because as they stand nudely in that Index devested of their precedent and subsequent words they may render a harsher sence to a Captious Reader and not sound well to any ear though pondered with a further explication of the Author they soon lose the harshness and clear themselves And
Non se interponat nec vi nec insidiis Leo vel Draco neque enim respondebit illa nihil se debere ne convincatur c. Sed respondebit dimissa debita sua ab eo c. Let not that Infernal Enemy intermeddle by his force or treachery she will not answer that she owes nothing least she be convicted but will say her debts are remitted by him c. Afterwards he beggs of his Brethren to Pray for his deceased Mother at the Altar and above in the same Chapter speaking to Almighty God he gives this reason why he Prayes Quia vero non requiris delicta vehementer fiducialiter speramus aliquem apud te locum inveniri Indulgentiae Because you deal not severely with offences confident we are that a place for Mercy may be found for Pardon and Remission that is in plain language for Remission of Pains But in Heaven all is remitted in Hell there is nothing forgiven Let the Doctor make here the inference and conclude for Purgatory There is no avoyding it Yet he goes on It is to be remembred that they the Fathers made prayers and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory for the Patriarks Apostles c. and especially for the Blessed Virgin Mary So we find in Epiphanius and Saint Cyril The Doctor here is both out and unlucky in his citations first there is not one word in either place cited of the Blessed Virgin Secondly Not a syllable of Pardon or Remission of Debts when a memory is made of Patriarks Apostles c. which is only to the purpose but expresly the contrary Be pleased to hear St. Epiphanius Heresie 75. where he speaks thus Pro justis peccatoribus memoriam facimus pro peccatoribus quidem misericordiam Dei implorantes pro justis vero Patribus Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis Evangelistis c. ut dominum Iesum ab hominum ordine separemus per honorem quem ipsi exhibemus adorationem ipsi praestemus that is We remember both just men and sinners for sinners we implore Mercy for the just and for the Ancient Fathers and Patriarks Prophets Apostles c. that we may seperate our Lord Jesus from the Order of men living by the honour we exhibit and adoration we give him Here is no praying for Patriarks and Apostles to have Pardon or Remissio as St. Austin did for his Mother but a memory of them to honour Christ Jesus St. Cyril also cited Catech. Mystagog 5. is more plain against the Doctor Cum hoc sacrificium offerimus saith he postea facimus memoriam etiam eorum omnium qui ante nobis obdormierunt primùm Patriarcharum Prophetarum Apostolorum Martyrum ut Deus Observe praying to Saints orationibus illorum deprecationibus suscipiat nostras preces When we offer up this Sacrifice we afterward make a memory of all those who are departed this life and first of the Patriarks Prophets Apostles and Martyrs that God by their Prayers and intercessions would accept of our prayers Deinde pro defunctis Patribus Episcopis denique pro omnibus oramus qui inter nos vita functi sunt maximum esse credentes animarum juvamen Observe the Sacrifice of the Altar is offered for the deceased pro quibus offertur obsecratio sancti illius tremendi quod in altari positum est sacrificji Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops who dyed amongst us believing it a mighty help of Souls for whom that holy and dreadful Sacrifice layd on the Altar is offered up And eight lines after Ad eundem modum nos pro defunctis peccatoribus precationes adhibemus non quidem coronam plectimus sed Christum pro nostris peccatis mactatum offerimus ut nobis illis eum qui benignissimus est propitium reddamus In like manner we pray for departed sinners not making them a Crown but we offer up Christ slain for our sins to make him who is most benign propitious and favourable both to our selves and departed sinners Unluckily I say did the Doctor make use of this place in his Disswasive from Popery which is all over old Popish Doctrine First a memory is made of Patriarks Apostles c. not to have Pardon or Remission but that God by their Prayers accept of ours Plain Popery 2. We pray for all the deceased believing those Souls are mightily benefitted for whom that holy and dreadful Sacrifice of the Altar is offered Two points of Popery more 3. We offer Christ Jesus Sacrificed mactatum slain on the Altar to the end that we may make Almighty God who is most benign merciful and propitious both to our selves and to the dead Still nothing but Popery By what is here said you may see the fraud of the Doctor who unlearnedly argues thus The Fathers prayed as well for Saints as sinners Ergo from prayer for the dead no conclusion for Purgatory Answer These Fathers made a memory of B. Saints as the Church still doth but never prayed that they might be released from punishment or have their debts forgiven as St. Austin did for his Mother Here then is the true Argument and a most efficatious one The Fathers prayed for deceased Souls that they might have Mercy Pardon and Remission of Debts contracted in this life They prayed that God would be propitious and favourable to them and for this end offered up Christ Jesus Sacrificed on the Altar therefore the Fathers supposed a place where Mercy Pardon and Remission might be had where God can shew himself propitious to them and the unbloody Sacrifice may be offered on the Altar for the cancelling their debts and abating their torments But this place is neither Heaven nor Hell in the one all debts are pardoned in the other is no Remission Ergo a third place or Purgatory is hence rightly concluded CHAP. IV. The Doctors Quotations still amiss St. Austin and Otho Frisingensis are abused by him THe Doctor page 30. cites St. Austin and Otho Frisingensis against the Doctrine of Purgatory but plainly corrupts both St. Austin is quoted in his Enchiridion cap. 69. and lib. 21. de civitate cap. 26. as one that doubts of Purgatory By the way our Adversary and the Church of England go higher and expresly condemn the Doctrine of Purgatory So the Doctor page 28. which is more then St. Austin dared to venture on But let that pass He gives you St. Austins words in English thus Whether Purgatory be to be found or not may be inquired and possibly it may be found and possibly it may never Answ There are no such words and possibly it may never in either place of St. Austin but here is the least of Errors for the whole drift of the Saints discourse is mistaken who first lays this Principle in his precedent Chapter 68. that some are Purged by the Fire of Tribulation or Grief for the loss of Temporal Goods in
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
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
lib. 7. contra Celsum num 18. page with me 789. Nos vero ideo quoque non honoramus simulacra quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem ut his tribuamus divinitatis aliquid We therefore honour no feigned Figures because we warily hold our selves from a credulity of ascribing to them any Divinity A few lines after Origen he cites St. Cyril denying That in the time of Julian the Emperour the Christians did give veneration to the Images even of the Cross it self The Doctor here runs more at random then ever which St. Cyril Alexand. or Hieros where in what Treatise is this denied I think he means St. Cyril Hieros who lived neer the time of Iulian and hath in the end of his Catechesis printed at Paris 1609. a letter to Constantius Augustus wherein he declares a strange apparition of the Cross seen in the Heavens by innumerable at Ierusalem but not one word in it that denies Veneration to that Holy Ensign but rather the contrary Beata inquam crux they are his words splendoribus luminis coruscans Hierosolimis apparuit c. The Blessed Cross all luminous and glorious appeared at Hierusalem c. Until the Doctor therefore directs me better to the place in St. Cyril I 'll tell him that Athanasius de passione Domini Edit ex officina Comeliniana anno 1600. pag. 808. highly honoured the Cross Nunquid dignius est potius crucem adorare quà m Iudaeorum mundi gratiam lucrifacere Is it not more worthy and better to adore the Cross then to gain the favour of Iews and of the whole World Again the other Athanasius quaest 39. ad Antioch eâdem edit pag. 286. Crucem nobis fidelibus adorari osculando honorari propter Christum qui in ea pependit manifestum 'T is manifest that the Cross is to be adored and honour'd by us Christians for Christ our Lord who dyed on it St. Ambross agrees also oratione de obitu Theodosii thus Colen Print anno 1616. Tom. 5. page 60. Sapiens Helena egit quae crucem in capite Regum levavit ut Christi crux in Regibus adoretur non insolentia ista sed Pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni Helena did wisely that placed the Cross on the head of Kings to the end it might be adored by them Insolency it was not but Piety done to our Sacred Redemption St. Hierom also is consonant Epist. 17. ad Marcellam Paris Print anno 1609. Tom. 1. pag. 156. Ergone erit illa dies quando nobis liceat speluncam salvatoris intrare crucis lambere lignum Will that day once be when we may enter the Sepulcher of our Saviour and kiss the Wood of his Cross Again Epist 27. ad Eustochium pag. 221. Prostrata ante crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat Postrat before the Cross she adored as if she had seen our Lord hanging on it See St. Chrisostom in a Sermon he hath de veneratione crucis Tomo 1. Paris Print 1588. pag. 1331. none speaks more significantly Venit anniversarius Dies omni religione colendus c. The anniversary day of the Cross is come worthy of all Religious Veneration And a little after Quia igitur pretiosae crucis venerationi constitutus est huc adeste omnes cum metu atque desiderio eam amplectamur Because therefore this day is appointed for the worship of the pretious Cross come ye all let us embrace it with fear with love with affection Again Ejus pretiosam atque vitalem crucem adoramus pro thesauro magni pretji tenemus We adore his pretious and life-giving Cross and hold it as a Treasure of mighty value Read St. Austin also tractatu 36. in Iohannem ante medium in Psal 36. ante medium you will see what veneration was given to the Cross in his days I cite not others in after ages they are innumerable The Doctor pag. 59. brings that often answered objection out of the Council Elibery that pictures might not be in Churches Ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur Least What is worship'd and ador'd be Painted on the Walls Mark first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to Pictures Ne quod colitur adoratur Next it will not that what is thus Adored and Worshiped be Painted on the Walls either because as Bellar. observes the Humidity of the place spoiled them or because they could not be so readily took away when the Gentils persecuted Christians in Frames or Tables they might most easily Baronius suspects this Cannon to be supposititious but there is no need of his answer The Doctor in the same page hath three places out of St. Austin to no purpose The first is de moribus Ecclesiae lib. 1. cap. 34. where he speaking to the Manichees saith Novi multos esse Sepulchorum Picturarum adoratores c. I know many honouring Sepulchers and Pictures yet in life reprehensible The second deside symbolo cap. 7. where he saith and truly that God cannot be circumscribed in any humane form and then adds Tale enim Simulacrum Dei nesas Christiano in templo collocare 'T is wickedness in a Christian to place such a vain Figure of God circumscribed in a Church The third is contra Adimantum cap. 13. where he forbids cultum simulacrorum which God prohibited in the old Law What is here for the Doctor who next hath a fling at the seventh Synod or second Council of Nice Whose Acts about the worshiping of Images were reproved by the Council of Francfurt An old old story answered a hundred times over Let it pass yet I must not omit to say a word of what he hath pag. 58. out of St. Epiphanius his Epistle to Iohn of Hierusalem because Protestants urge it much The story which you may read in the very end of that Epistle is briefly thus Praeterea quod audivi quosdam murmurare contra me c. Besides that I heard some murmur against me because when we passed to the holy place which is called Bethel the Doctor calls it the Village of Bethel for fear I think of naming a holy place that there I might make a collect according to the custom of the Church Et venissem ad villam quae vocatur and came to the Village called Anablatha and passing by had seen a Lamp burning asking what the place was and understanding it was a Church and entring to Pray Inveni ibi velum pendens in foribus Ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum habens imaginem quasi Christi aut sancti cujusdam I found there in the entry of the Church no decent place but the Doctor conceals this a Veil hanging dyed and painted having an Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for saith St. Epiphanius I do not remember whose Picture it was when I had seen this viz. the Picture of a man hanging in the Church
contrary to the Authority of Scripture I cut it in pieces and gave Counsel to those who kept the place that some poor man should be buried in that Veil Here is the story that which follows adds no new light to it for the Doctor Now if all this were true what makes it for the Doctors purpose St Epiphanius cut in pieces a cloth Picture the Image was unknown to him whether of Christ or no perhaps it was of some prophane man who was there honoured for Christ or a Saint therefore St. Epiphanius judged that the undoubted Picture of Christ and his Saints cannot be in Churches No consequence at all But in a word the story is supposititious and added to the Letter as Bellar. Learnedly shews lib. 2. de Imag. 9. § ad quintum First because Epiphanius his Epistles clearly ends with these words Deus autem pacis praestet nobis juxta suam clementiam ut conteratur satanas c. Then follows Praeterea audivi so harshly and Either this story is true or false If true it condemns the Practise in England for they have Crucisixes in their Churches if false it is not to the purpose dis-joynedly that one with half an eye might see the want of order in it 2. Because those Haereticks who withstood so industriously the use of Images in the seventh Synod or 2d Nicen Council and objected all that could be said against Pictures out of any Fathers never so much as alledged this Testimony of Epiphanius which argues they either thought it not to the purpose or which is true judged it supposititious 3. Because Epiphanius Diaconus demonstrated in that 7th Synod that two other Testimonies were falsly shufled into St. Epiphanius his Works by Hereticks Add 4. that St. Basil and others who lived with Epiphanius had Images in their Churches and reverenced them Thus Bellarmine and he hath yet more on this subject The Doctor in his 9th Section page 61. fiercely reproves the Picturing of God the Father and the undevided Trinity And liberal he is with the Fathers He gives you a whole list of them in his Margent but not their words and he does wisely for their words would have taught the Reader how little they make for him though I must tell you that it is not so certain that Images may be made of God and the Sacred Trinity as of Christ and his Saints some Catholick Doctors dislike the first saying it is only tolerated by the Church not approved None the second Well one Principle of St. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Orthodox fidei cap. 17. and St. Austin points at the same de fide symbolo cap. 7. solves all the Doctor hath or can alledge in this matter Quisnam est saith St. Damascen qui invisibilis corpore vacantis ac circumscriptionis Figurae expertis Dei Simulacrum effingere queat extremae itaque dementiae atque impietatis fuerit divinum numen fingere figurare Who is there that can make an Effigies of or Paint out the likeness of God invisible without any body without Circumscription that is immens and Figure at all Madness it is thus to figure a Detty or a Divine Power As who should say He that goes about to express by any Image the perfect Similitude of Gods intrinsecal Perfections or his Nature which is Immens without body or figure would be both impious and act the part of a mad man Yes and as Bellar. observes lib. 2. de imag cap. 8. § prosolutione would make a very Idol Such picturing of God the Fathers now cited reprove but if God or an Angel appear in the form of a man as he did walking in Paradise why may not those visible and circumscribed Lineaments be exhibited to our eyes He was no Idol walking in Paradise neither is he one Painted in Paper The Doctor pag. 62. after the Fathers cites Macrobius lib. 1. de somno Scipionis cap. 2. The exact words of Macrobius are these after he had declared what a powerful Being God is Quod sciri quale sit ab homine non possit that it cannot be known by man of what Nature he is Ideo nullum ejus simulacrum quod cum Dis aliis constitueretur finxit antiquitas And therefore Antiquity never made any semblance of him that might be placed with other of their Gods Exactly the same that St. Damascen and other Fathers say Next he cites Nicephorus Calixtus lib. 18. cap. 53. where delating the Heresie of the Iacobits and Armenians the Doctor saith They made Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is absurd Hold there good Doctor you name one person more then Nicephorus doth Imagines saith he Patris spiritus Sancti effigiant quod perquam est absurdum They made Pictures of the Father and the Holy Ghost which is very absurd And pray you is it not absurd to Picture the Father and the Holy Ghost without the Son Well I answer To Paint their incomprehensible Divinity is most blameable but not to Picture their visible apparitions neither doth Nicephorus affirm it nay he saith four lines after Imagines sacras honorant illi quidam sed non osculantur These Hereticks worshiped holy Images c. Ergo he held some Pictures Holy and Sacred but this the Doctor mentioneth not yet shuts up his Sect. pag. 63. with a weighty sentence of Polidor Virgil lib. 2. de inventione rerum cap. 23. His words are these in the beginning of the Chapter Quo fit ut cum Deus ubique praesens sit nihil a principio post homines natos stultius visum sit quam ejus simulacrum fiagere When God is every where present that is immens a foolery it is to make his Picture For immensity cannot be circumscribed If Polidor means more I care as little for his Authority as the Doctors Thus you see how one Principle out of St. Damascen a most exact truth silenceth the Doctor every where though he cites so new an Author as Polidor Virgil. CHAP. IX Of the Popes Supremacy Of the Doctors cavils against it Of his deceitful and false Quotations THe Doctor pag. 63. Sect. 10. enters upon a large debated controversie the Popes Authority and thinks with his four leaves and a few old defeated objections to undo both Pope and Popery He tells us first When Christ founded his Church he left it in the hands of his Apostles without any Praerogative given to one above the rest save only of Priority and orderly precedency which of it self was natural necessary and incident I would gladly know of our Doctor in plain English what these minced words of Priority and orderly Precedency signifie or what could that one Apostle let it be St. Peter if he please do more by force of this Priority and orderly Precedency then St. Paul or any of the Apostles St. Peter writ Canonical Scripture so did St. Paul St. Peter governed the whole Church and had jurisdiction over it so saith the Doctor had St.
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
St. Cyprian and St. Hierom now cited Hoc erant utique saith the first caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti That is equal in this fellowship and office of being Apostles Sed Primatus Petro datur But the Primacy is given to Peter Where you see that Cyprian clearly grants an equality common to the whole Colledge of Apostles and withal establisheth a Superiority proper to St. Peter only either the words of this Saint are senceless or the distinction of equality in many and Supremacy in one must stand And In this sence St. Hieroms Doctrine is most significant without gloss or wresting one syllable Ex aequo super eos c. The strength of the Church was equally built upon the Apostles viz. as Masters as Doctors and Teachers illuminated by the Holy Ghost yet therefore among twelve One was chosen that a Head or Governer being constituted all occasion of schism might be prevented Here is certainly more then that Dimunitive orderly Precedency our Doctor allows good St. Peter Ut schismatis tollatur occasio are significant words and point at what is most essential to the Church The Unity of it See the absolute necessity of this Head in order to Unity most solidly laid out by S. G. and remember well what I was to shew that St. Hierom acknowledgeth an equality amongst many and a Supremacy in One. Once more I repeat it equality relates to their Apostolical dignity Supremacy to the Head and Governour 2. I draw this distinction of Apostles-ship in All and Head-ship in One from St. Gregory the Great lib. 2. Epist 38. indictione 13. so it is with me in his works printed at Antwerp anno 1572. though others cite lib. 4. Certe saith the Saint Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae Universalis Ecclesiae est Paulus Ioannes Andreas quid aliud quam singularium sant capita tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae St. Peter is the first Member of the Universal Church the other Apostles not so nor in like manner Universal Yet with this Supremacy in Peter our Opponent must acknowledge an equality of their Apostle-ship I will add one word more and tell you though the Doctor should alledge out of some Fathers that St. Paul may be rightly stiled the Head of Nations and be said to have had a Principality over the Church yet the difference between him and St. Peter is most remarkable St. Paul and the other Apostles had this Principality as Legats by extraordinary concession St. Peter had it over the whole Church in solidum yes over the Apostles themselves as Pastor Ordinary I say Over the Apostles themselves so Anacletus Scholler to St. Prter cited by Remumdus Rufus in Molinaeum pag. 86. Inter beatos Apostolos saith he fuit quaedam discretio licet omnes essent Apostoli Petro tamen a Domino est consessum ipsi inter se voluerunt id ipsum ut reliquis praeesset Apostolis Cephas id est caput principium teneret Apostolatus There was a difference a distinction among the Blessed Apostles and although all were Apostles yet our Lord gave to Peter and the other Apostles among themselves will'd the same thing that Peter should be Superiour to the rest and Cephas that is Head and chief of Apostleship See this Authority more largely in the Cannon Law Decreti prima par distinct 22. cap. 2. and never leaveâ— of to wonder at the bold assertion of our Doctor pag. 65. viz. That by the Law of Christ one Bishop is not Superiour to another Christ gave the Power to all alike he made no Head of the Bishops he gave to none a Supremacy of Power c. So the Doctor In the same pag. 65. he fills his Margent with a cluster of Authors but to what purpose God only knows if they be to prove that Apostolical power is and shall be ever in the Church We grant it to the Pope of Rome If to prove that Bishops succeed the Apostles in all priviledges and ample power they had in the Church not one Father in the Doctors Margent asserts it though in a real sence Bishops that have a true mission may be called the Apostles successors by reason of their duty which is to uphold the Doctrine of Christ taught by the Apostles by reason of their spiritual power and Princely and Priestly Dignity and this is all St. Irenaeus saith in the place cited by the Doctor lib. 4. cap. 43. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Praesbiteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis Wherefore we ought to obey those who are Priests in the Church those who have succession from the Apostles Thus St. Irenaeus and the other Fathers say no more I see not to what purpose the Doctor cites those words of St. Paul We are Embassadors or Legats for Christ unless it be to prove what I asserted above that the other Apostles though Princes of the Church were not Pastors Ordinary as St. Peter was Less do I know why the Preface of the Mass Quos operis tui vicarios c. is brought in Pastors they were but all subordinate to St. Peter as I have shewed In his pag. 66. he jerks the Jesuits Monks and Cajetane for defending the Popes Authority over Bishops But frivolous stories are but weak Arguments yet the best the Doctor hath at hand Next he cites Pope Elutherius saying That Christ committed the Universal Church to Bishops How good Doctor That every Bishop hath jurisdiction over the Universal Church T is very strange the Bishop of Down and Connor will not pretend to such a power Christ indeed committed the Universal Church to Bishops by parts or portions whereof the whole Church is made yet ever with subordination to one head which prevents schism and conserves Unity Page 67. he cites the famous words of St. Cyprian The Church of Christ is one through the whole world divided by him into many members and the Bishoprick is but one c. No hurt in this which makes against the Doctor for if the whole Church of Christ be rightly called one Bishoprick there must be certainly one Head over so Vast a Bishoprick no other can be but the Pope who Governs in Ecclesiastical affaires Other Bishops have only a portion in the Flock He next cites you Pope Symmachus his words apud Baronium Tomo 6. anno D. 499. num 36. but falsly for Symmachus writing to Eonius speaks thus Nam dum ad Trinitatis instar cujus una est atque individua potestas unum sit per diversos Antistites sacerdotium As in the Blessed Trinity whose Power is one and individual so their is one Priest-hood our Doctor reads one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops and thus he reads after he had thrust in a Parenthesis of his own head not in Symmachus his Letter But the worst is the inference he draws from Symmachus his words They being spoken saith he
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
regret Next he saith It cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church And I think by his Marginal citation he directs me to Ioannes Driedo de dogm lib. 4. cap. 3. This Chapter hath 13. or 14. Leaves in Folio and three parts in it The Doctor might well have quoted the part had he ever read Driedo But let that pass I answer Driedo hath nothing for the Doctors purpose but expresly the contrary thus part 2. cap. 3. Folio with me 227. Primus Simon qui dicitur Petrus Mat. 10 Hoc autem non potest intelligi quod Petrus fuerit primus tempore aut vocationis ordine quoniam Andreas prius secutus est Christum quam Petrus c. dicitur ergo Petrus esse primus Apostolorum dignitate praelationis potestate St. Mathew reckons of St. Peter as first But this cannot saith Driedo be understood that Peter was first called for Andrew Was before him and first followed Christ Peter therefore is stiled the first of the Apostles because of his Dignity and Power of Superiority And this Principality Driedo earnestly maintains not only in St. Peter but in every lawful elected Bishop of Rome Vide folium 229. Part 2. Omnes saith he ab initio Ecclesiastici Pontifices Patres Martyres Universalis Ecclesiae concilia honoraverunt Romanae Ecclesiae Pontificem tanquam supremum Universalis Ecclesiae Episcopum All Bishops from the beginning The Fathers Martyrs and Councils of the Universal Church have ever honoured the Pope of Rome as the Supreme Bishop of the Universal Church And here is enough of the Doctors 10th Section for what he saith of the African Fathers opposing the Pope is handled so often that 't is time lost to repeat it So also is that which he hints at out of the Council of Calcedon giving equal Rights and Preheminency with Rome to the Patriarck of Constantinople I answer briefly This is most untrue the very Decree were it Authentical gives him only the second place as is manifest by these words Secundam post illam existere that is next after Rome I say if the Decree were Authentical for it was both clancular and surreptitious procured by Anatolius and his Confederates while the Popes Legates were absent This manifestly appears both by Pope Leo his Letters to Anatolius and the attestation of the whole Council which I have read more then once and am ready to maintain what I say against Dr. Taylor or any body else CHAP. XI Of the Doctors harsh Doctrine concerning speedy repentence after sin Of his mistakes and wronging Authors IN his 11th Section pag. 71. he hath little worth notice a croud of Controversies you have superficially run over E. G. Invocation of Saints in sufficiency of Scripture Nine penny Masses and I know not what lightly are they touched on by him without proof and let them on Gods name as lightly pass without answer Page 72. he cites the Cannon Law de consecrat distinct c. peracta where it is said that Consecration finished all are to Communicat c. for so the Apostles appointed and the Church of Rome holds Had the Doctor the Marginal gloss upon this Chapter he might have seen that this Ancient Law is now no more in force and this by the permission of the Church obliging only to Communicate once a year O but the Apostles appointed it So they also appointed Act. 15. v. 20. To abstain a suffocatis sanguine from strangled meat and blood Doth the Doctor comply with this precept Every positive Law even of the Apostles had not always force in after ages I wonder he cites this Law against us while Protestants themselves do not observe it doth every one that is present at service Communicate when the Minister makes his Caena but what will you there is neither Consecration nor Communion The rest that follows in this Section is most empty stuff Page 75. cap. 2. Sect. 1. he much reprehends Catholick Doctors who teach that a sinner is not bound presently to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it He adds pag. 76. Though the Church calls on sinners to repent on Holy days or at Easter yet that by the Law of God they are not tyed to so much but only to repent in the danger or article of Death Mark the word only And for this Doctrine he cites the Famous Navar in his Enchir or Manual cap. 1. num 31. Answ I see he never read Navar for he neither gives you the Right number nor his Doctrine exactly the number with me in his Manual printed at Antwerp 1601. is num 27. The Doctrine thus after Navar had declared that the other two affirmative precepts of Baptism and confession do not oblige under pain of a new sin but in time of necessity Ita saith he per consequutionem praeceptum affirmativum de se convertendo non obligat sub paena novi peccati Lethalis nisi in articulo necessitatis in illo vero sic quamobrem ad praedictam paenitudinem concipiendam tenebimur imminente articulo mortis naturalis vel violentae vel administrandi suscipiendique aliquod sacramentum imo etiam instante populi necessitate aliqua grandi cui absque orationis fervore provideri non posset So by consequence the affirmative praecept of converting one self doth not oblige under pain of a new mortal sin but in time of necessity and in that Article thus wherfore bound we are to repent in the imminent Article of death natural or violent or when we receive any Sacrament or any danger or great necessity presses on us not to be prevented but by ardent Prayer c. Perhaps the Doctor will say that these two last cases of the Sacrament or great necessity Per accident accidently oblige a sinner to contrition Be it so yet Navar saith not so much at least he doth not say that a sinner is obliged only to repent in the hour of his death It is one thing to oblige a sinner to repent when he is ready to dye and another to say he is only then obliged All sinners are certainly bound to repent then yet many great Divines add to this a further obligation and affirm that aliquoties in vita for some time in their life this Obligation lies on them I cannot but smile reading our Doctor pag. 76. whose whole aim is to shew out of our Authors that repentance is never necessary but in the hour of death only to see how unwarily he speaks from his own purpose while he makes Renaldus to say that a sinner is obliged to repent which is undoubtedly true He cites him Prax. Fori Paen. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sect. 4. n. 23. In English thus It is true and the Opinion of all men that the time in which a sinner is bound by the commandment of God to be contrite for his sins is the imminent Article of natural or violent death Let every ingenious Reader ponder these English words
till Dooms-day and say afterwards whether he can force any other sence out of them but this ascertained Truth only that a sinner at death is obliged to repent but that he is then only obliged which is to the purpose shall never be proved I 'll deal ingeniously and help the Doctor Reginald seems to say more then what this Empty English Quotation sets down His words are Omnium communis sententia est tempus in quo peccator conteri tenetur intellige per se seu vi specialis Praecepti de contritione a deo dati esse imminentem articulum mortis naturalis vel violentae The common Opinion of all is that the time wherein a sinner is bound to repent understand Per se or by force of a special command given by Almighty God of contrition is the imminent Article of a natural or violent death This Parenthesis intellige Per se which * I say it seems for I cannot assert that Reginald plainly says so much seems exclusive of other special precepts save only at death and would most have been for advantage the Doctor wisely leaves out However with it he shall never make his assertion good viz. that Reginald holds a sinner is not obliged to repent but only in the hour of death and I speak of an Obligation per se not of accidental cases as if one makes a vow to have contrition or to come to the Sacraments c. My reason is that although there be no special command given by Almighty God for contrition but only in that Article yet the very Law of Nature and the Charity that a long inveterate sinner owes to his own Soul both may and doth oblige him sometimes in life to convert himself to his Maker by hearty repentance whereof more hereafter Reginaldus further observes out of St. Austin That he who lives thus impenitent incurs not only the danger of transgressing anew but deeply hazards his Salvation which hazard intrincical to the state of such an inveterate Criminal calls loud upon him yes and obliges him sometimes in life to repentance or the Love of God Had the Doctor considered the counsel given us in Scripture Eccles 5. Ne tardes converti ad Dominum ne differas de die in diem Do not delay this conversion c. And how Zealously both Divines in Schools and Preachers in their Pulpits inculcate this wholesome Doctrine and lay open the danger of delaying sinners He would never have blamed Reginald who only rigoriously examins what men are obliged to under mortal sin Ex vi specialis praecepti de contritione a deo dati where every particle is restrictive and little warrants the Doctors charge on him in the general No repentance but in the Article of death only The Doctor cites other words of Reginald mangled and weighed out of their circumstances Let that pass among lesser faults Now one word of his new Learning He saith then pag. 76. that a sinner ought to repent presently after his sin I ask him whether he hath any precept for this assertion in Scripture and mind him of his own Quotation 'T is the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not Scripture Here we may have plain dealing if he please Either he can give Scripture for a sinners present repentence after sin or no if he cannot he hath a devilish spirit imposing on poor Souls a Divine command not proved by Scripture if he warrants this precept by Scripture without gloss and interpretation of his own I will proclaim to the whole World that Dr. Taylor is one of the most profound Divines we have now in Europe But this he shall never do Therefore I am afraid the other Lot will fall on him I will be plain Most harsh and an intolerable Doctrine it is to say that a sinner under new mortal sin is obliged to repent presently especially in the Doctors Opinion who makes no distinction between sins mortal and venial in their own Nature Observe I beseech you Put case that one commits a Murther this day and continues in the sin for Months and Years it followeth evidently that for every Moment of these Months and Years if he reflects on his Homicide be sins a new unless he repents Why The command of God is that he repent presently after his Fact This command he Transgresses and therefore sins a new the next Moment Hour or day the same severe Command of God obliging to repentance leaves him not he sins still on and consequently for as many Moments as he lives let it be for Years he heaps sin upon sin and multiplies them without number for the command of God obliging all this while to repentance is grieviously transgressed and to transgress that Law makes so often with our Doctor so many sins Is not here a sad and deplorable story to use the Phrase of our Doctor Is it not much better to say with Reginald that it is a lesser evil for a man to continue under one sin for a time though such a condition is deplorable then to have sins multiplyed hourly and daily almost numberless Now if the Negative precept as Reginald holds forbids not the perseverance in sin at least for some time these whole Troops of transgressions which according to the Doctor intervene between the first sin committed and final repentance are avoided Here is mercy to a poor sinner The Doctor mercilesly without Scripture without Authority at all saith what God never spake and drives him to desparation Page 77. he shews himself more then strangely ignorant And first I do not touch upon what he saith That the Church hath been more severe then God tying a sinner by collateral positive Laws to repent at Easter nor secondly of the seeming contradiction which follows that the Church Ordains but the means the exterior solemnity of it that is confession c. These I wave and wish the Reader to reflect on the last words in that Paragraph So that sinners saith he are still left to their liberties c. even to satisfie our selves with all the remaining pleasures of that sin for a little while even during our short mortal Life only we must be sure to repent at last Mark well Even to satisfie our selves with all the remaining pleasures of that sin for our mortal life What! a Doctor of Divinity and speak thus why there is none but knows that the taking of content or satisfaction in the pleasure of a sin past is another hidious sin forbidden by Almighty God and execrated by all Doctors A sin once committed remains habitually misery enough until it be retracted by penance but to take pleasure in it afterwards is another guilt distinct from the former unto which it seems our Doctors Divinity reaches not CHAP. XII Of the Doctors cavils against Contrition and Confession Of his wronging the Council of Trent and Catholick Authors THe Doctor in his 78. pag. has nothing but talk without substance
if you 'll hear God speak by me you are happy c. Doth he turn his Sermon into a Clock-work Or did the Apostle Clock it when he told the Corinthians Ecce nunc tempus acceptabile Now is the time acceptable Ecce nunc dies salutis Now is the day of Salvation 2 Cor. 6. Again Hora est jam nos de somno surgere nunc enim proprior est nostra salus 'T is the hour now c. Here is more of the Clock of Minutes and hours then any Divine mentioneth in our present matter Yet more Pray see how artificially he windes about to bring in his Clock-work Though saith he it be not necessary that when the Indulgenceâ— is granted the man be in the state of Grace yet it is necessary that at some time or other within the term prescribed of the Indulgence if he will gain it And to make his conceit of his Clock to run on he adds At any time it seems it wil serve which sounds falsly and is so but here is enough of this Clock Next he blames some Divines who say That if a man sin in hope of Iubilee or Indulgence to be granted afterward he may yet gain the pardon Answ He may so unless the Indulgence positively excludes such a man from the favour Why the guilt of that sin is remissible by Contrition and Penance and so likewise is the temporal pain due to it pardonable by vertue of an Indulgence Page 100. He is upon his old mistakes again concerning Contrition and thinks it may be sufficient without either act or desire of Confession This is answered above Page 101. After the praise he gives to that excellent use of Confession among the Pious Children of the Church of England He finds fault with our satisfaction and Penance much taken away by the new Doctrine of Indulgences Answ Most evident it is notwithstanding so many Indulgences granted that the Ancient use of Penance is in a manner only found among Catholicks These are they who fast these Pray these curb their passions these often practise great Austerity yes and live sometimes in a mean condition to relieve the Poor A Volume would not suffice to express the fruit of their hearty Repentance and eminent Charity manifest to our eyes in every Town and City Now for Gods-sake what have we like this among Protestants The hearing of a Sermon on Sunday is the most they do and yet there is no Declension of primitive Discipline among them Would to God our Doctor were shut up in a Carthusians Cell and lived as they live but for one year only he would both practice and see more Penance done then he hath either practised or seen in England for his whole life and yet forsooth we must hear his Lord-ship talk of a Declension in Primitive Discipline and think all fine when he words it with living Godly in Christ Iesus I never saw that book of Taxa Camerae which the Doctor mentions pag. 102. and therefore cannot say what is in it likely it is a Libel sure I am that Claudius Espencaeus wishes it suppressed and if as he saith Plurimis quidem licentia omnibus autem absolutio empturientibus proposita That licence is given to many and absolution proposed to all that buy it I cannot but judge ill of the book and as ill of the Doctor who Englishes Espencaeus thus And yet to them who will pay for it there is to many given a Licence and to all an absolution for the greatest and most horrid sins Pray you what may these words * Mark how the Doctor equivocates in those words To them that will pay for it yet to them who will pay for it signifie do they relate to the Book or to the License and absolution for sin if the second the whole sence is They who will lay down money have License many at least to sin and all have absolution from the most horrid sius If the Doctor works this sence out of Espencaeus his words he is more then uncharitable to think that ever Pope or Prelate favoured that book it is an infamous Libel that pretends License given to sin The best solution therefore is that Espencaeus is blamable as appears by the Index Expurgatorius of Cardinal Zapata printed Hispali 1631. where this very second digression of Espencaeus is prohibited Vide verbum Claudius Espencaeus page Indicis 219. The Doctor soon after cites you Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona teaching That the Pope ought not to grant Indulgences to them who have a desire of giving money but cannot as to them who actually give and he adds immediately That in such a case it is not inconvenient that the Rich should be in a better condition then the Poor In my whole life did I never meet with such a Doctor who neither cites right nor saies right Mark I beseech you how he cites Augustinus de Ancona in his Margent De potestate Papae quaest 3. ad 3. The Quotation is ridiculous and no more directs you to find any thing concerning Indulgences then if he sent you to the first Chapter of Genesis Know therefore briefly that August de Ancona writ a sum of Divinity De potestate Ecclesiastica printed anno 1320. under which general Title he handles many Difficulties and proceeds Methodically first by Questions next by Articles then gives his resolution and finally solves the objections At the beginning of his Book his first question is De potestate Papae and hath nine Articles under it in the third Article not a word of our present matter nor in any solution ad 3. In his third Question he treats De eligentium jurisdictione and hath ten Articles under it and so many Resolutions and Answers not a word of Indulgences In the mean while you see that our Doctors direction De potestate Papae quaest 3. ad 3. Helps you nothing He should had he lighted on the right question have pointed out the Article and then his ad 3. might have guided the Reader Well I find in the 31. question of Augustinus far off from any 3. question De potestate Papae Articulo 4. where he treats of Indulgences these words ad 3. Si dives ita parum dat ut pauper puto quod non tantum habeat de Indulgentia dives sicut pauper quia tunc oportet recurrere ad justam aestimationem facientis Indulgentiam quae pensanda est valere secundum facultatem dantis Sed si sic dicatur quicunque dabit unum denarium dives illud daret sicut pauper puto quod tantum haberet dives sicut pauper quamvis tamen in hoc essent pares in multis aliis melioris conditionis esset pauper quam dives The sence is If the Rich man gives as little as the Poor man I think the Rich man will not gain so much of the Pardon as the other Recourse here must be had to his will that grants the Pardon But if it be said
without a heart who made you judge of this forum The secrets of hearts are only known to God not to Angles much less to any poor spirit in England What follows in that 8th Section is onely talk without substance And Truly his 9th Section is like it though worse for blasphemies against the Mother of God and the blessed Saints in Heaven The Doctor about pag. 33. tells us that Scripture expresly forbids us to enquire of the dead but here he is more then inquisitive for he takes upon him to judge to degrade and cast out of Heaven many a happy soul witness his pag. 133. I pass by his jeers and blasphemies they are all numbred by one that errs not and take notice only of two or three quotations Pag. 124. he cites you S. Antoninus Sum. part 4. tit 15. without either chapter number or further direction Whereas that 15th title in an old close abreviated character contains about 60. whole leaves in folio which if printed in such a letter as the Doctors Dissuasive is would well make two or more of it I chiefly doubt whether S. Antoninus be fairly dealt with cited for these words How shall a sinner go to Christ as to an advocate but cannot now run over so large a Treatise to find the truth In the interim the Doctor may blush to paint his margent with such confused quotations A child may see he either read not Antoninus or minded not his Reader should meet with the place Soon after he cites F. Salazar in cap. 8. Proverb in ver 19. Saying that the Virgin Mary by offering up Christ was worthy to have after a certain manner that the whole salvation and redemption of mankind should be ascribed to her and that this was common to Christ and the Virgin Answ The Doctor deales most disingeniously with Salazar who numb 206. num 19. layes this Principle Exploratum est illud apud Catholicos Virginem nostrae salutis principalem causam minime fuisse solus enim Christus rem totam peregit pro peccatorum debito integre satis dando sed tantum sua impetratione eandem salutem quodammodo promovisse juvasse It is known to all Catholicks that the Virgin no way was the principal Cause of our Salvation Christ alone did that work and paid our ransom fully but only by her impetration she promoted in some sort and set forward that salvation S. Hierom cited by Salazar numb 204. says more and calls the Virgin salutis auctricem S. Anselm reparatricem S. Ireneus universo generi humano causa salutis c. Salazar therefore grounding himself upon these and other authorities of Fathers and pondering the great oblation the Virgin made of her only Son concludes num 222. Haec cum ita sint ob tantam tamque insignem tantique valoris ac meriti actionem Virgo Dei-para digna fuit ut illi communis totius generis humani salus redemptio aliquo modo ad scriberetur that is For that worthy and noble action she did in offering up her Son to his eternal Father she may be styled with S. Hierom the Actress of our salvation and accounted so worthy that the common safety and redemption of all mankind might in some manner be ascribed to her Which is not God knows to say as our Doctor strangely interprets that this redemption was common to Christ and the Virgin Christ was the sole and principal cause of our redemption he alone did the work saith Salazar and under this notion the Virgin had nothing common with him You see how constant the Doctor is in wronging Authors I should have told you how our Doctor before he cites Salazar talks of strange blasphemies delivered by Bernardinus de Bustis and Valentia but gives you no particular an answer is ready when he produceth them in the interim let him know that fraudulenti versantur in universalibus cheats like well to seâ—lk in generalities and that all is not blasphemy the Do 〈…〉 at CHAP. XX. Of recourse had by the Living to the Saints in Heaven for temporal Necessities S. Austin warrants this Practice S. Gregory Nissen approves it Of Miracles done in our age MUch patience I confess is necessary to read our Doctor and more to lose time in weighing his unweighty arguments Yet go on we must In his 9th Section therefore page chiefly 123. He tyres you with a few old trivial objections against invocation of Saints made long since by others God knows answer'd by Bellarmine before the Doctor was born though he talks as if they were the new Lights of his own learning never thought on by any body else He argues first We have no command no testimony no promise in Scripture for the invocation of Saints Bellarmin answers Tom. 2. de Sanctorum Beatit lib. 1. cap 20. § argumentum sextum and saith well the argument proves too much viz. That Saints cannot pray in general for the good of the Church which yet Protestants grant He argues 2. prayer to Saints lessens our honour to Christ destroys our confidence in God Answ If so we cannot pray for one another here on earth without lessening Christs honour and weakning our confidence towards God See Bellar. lib. Citato cap. 20. § argumentum secundum cap. 19. § preterea in utroque testamento He objects 3. We cannot know how our prayers come to the knowledge of Saints in Heaven Bellarmine answers codem cap. 20. § argumentum tertium and § de mode aut Shews you by four opinions of Doctors how Saints may hear our prayers I think the Doctor will not deny that the blessed soul of our Saviour in Heaven hears our prayers I speak of his sanctified created soul not of his Divinity every where present if this can be explicated all difficulty ceaseth well may both Saints Angels in heaven hear our prayers He saith 4. We give Saints too high titles Bellarmine answers lib Citato cap. 17. § Est tamen Notandum and saith we call not onâ— them as gods nor honour any above their merits He argues 4. afterward Every Nation hath a particular guardian Saint Answ And is this such a trespass I say no more But S. George for England Yet see if you please Bellarmine cap. 20. Citato § argumentum octavum he lastly argues out of Scripture in the end of this Section Rom. 10. 14. Bellarmine directly answers the place cap. 22. Citato initio § primum argumentum And is it not pitiful to hear such stale arguments as these thought doughty enough by a Doctor to defeat Popery God help him Now to some other Cavils he hath in this 9th Section Page 126 he slâ—ights the practice of common people who have recourse to Saints for their temporal goods make their addresses to them for health seek their Patronage c. Answ It was doubtless some good congruous thought that withheld our Doctor from slâ—ighting also that poor Taylor of Hippo by name Florentius who having lost his Cloak
we say although the Pope cannot know by the certitude of the cause that a Saint whom he canonizeth had Charity yet he knows it by effects to wit by works famous and spoken of him quia probatio charitatis exhibitio est operis the proofs of Charity are good works and this is enough whereby he may judge c. Thus Anconitanus To what the Doctor adds of some reputed Saints for a time and afterwards burnt for Hereticks I Answer The Objection is frivolous for no one canonized or universally honoured as a Saint by the Catholick Church was ever thus dealt with Though no wonder it is that a meer cheat gain for a time an opinion of Sanctity with men over credulous and afterward have his vizard pulled off and Hypocrisy disclosed The Doctor ends his ninth Section pag. 134. with a pittifull complaint against the multitude of Holy-dayes in the Church of Rome and saith out of Gavantus that there are about two hundred Holy dayes in the whole year which is an intolerable burthen to the poor labourer that on the rest he can scarce earn his bread besides much superstition and licentiousness that fellows such disorderly festivities Answ The ignorance of our Doctor is more then intolerable who neither understands Gavantus nor the practice of our Church Strange it is that he also complained not of two hundred fasting dayes answerable to these holydayes much weakning the labouring man and consequently that the year hath more fasts and feasts in it then dayes This later is as true as what the Doctor tells us of two hundred holydayes Let him therefore know that all these holydayes which Gavantus calls feasts or are placed in the Calender in red letters are not dayes of precept obliging poor labourers to desist from servile work but are styled feasts upon this account that the Church keeps a memory of so many blessed Saints in order with Office and Mass More then the most of them hinder no manual work nor lay any obligation on the labouring man Hence his argument of ease and licentiousness accompanying these festivities is made null Only thus much it proves that one may innocently smile at the Doctors skill in what he writes against CHAP. XXII Adjuration of Devils approv'd by the ancient Church and authority of Fathers The Doctor cannot except against our Catholick Exorcisms NOw to the Doctors 10. Section pag. 135. where God bless us he is resolved to be Tragical and passionately to act against all Exorcisms and conjuring of Devils For answer I le give him these few Considerations which perhaps may conjure him to silence hereafter on this Subject And first it is an eternal shame for a Doctor of Divinity to rayl with open mouth against all Exorcism's seeing we are ascertain'd that not only Christ our Lord impowered his own Disciples to cast out Devils but the Ancient Church likewise possitively prescribed a Form of Exorcism This we have in the 4th Council of Carthage celebrated in the year 398. and approved by Leo the third cap. 7. Exorcista saith the Council cum ordinatur accipiat de manu Episcopi libellum in quo Scripti sunt Exorcismi dicente sibi Episcopo Accipe commenda memoriae habeto potestatem imponendi manus super energumenum sive baptizatum sive Catechumenum Let the Exorcist when he is ordained take a book from the hand of the Bishop wherein the Exorcisms are writ the Bishop saying take this Book and commit it to memory and receive power to lay thy hands upon the possessed person whether Baptized or Catechumen Thus said the Ancient Church even when our Protestants say it was without error yet now up starts a new fashioned Doctor in a corner of the world brim full of anger and must needs vent it against these sacred rites Exorcism's forsooth with him are horible impiety a Conjugation of evils Incantations Diabolical charms and what not Well for adjuring of Devils and casting them out of possessed persons we have both the Practice and Authority of the most Ancient Fathers that ever lived in the Church I 'le give you a few and for others remit you to Pamelius his notes upon Tertullian de Baptismo pag. with me 468. printed at Antwerp Anno 1584. daemones saith Tertullian in his Apologet adv Gent. cap. 31. pag. 74. id est genios adjurare consuevimus ut illos ab hominibus exigamus Devils or Genii we haue a custome to adjure that we may drive them from men Again cap. 37. pag. 78. Quis autem vos ab illis c. who is there that will free you from the incursions of Devils which we without reward drive away And in his Book de Praeseip cap. 41. p. 400. He blames certain women for using Exorcisms Add to Tertullian a Father yet more ancient Justinus Martyr in his works printed at Paris an 1615. Apologia prima pro Christianîs pag. 45. Complures saith the Saint daemonum intemperijs correptos per orbem omnem hanc vestram vrbem c. You have many seized on by Devils the whole world over yes and in this your City which your Conjurers and Witches could not help and not a few of our men Per nomen Jesu Christi su◠Pontio Pilato Crucifixi adiurantes sanarunt c. Have by adjuring them in the Name of Christ Jesus Crucified cured them have disarmed these Devils and cast them out of those possessed men The like we read in S. Justins Dialogue cum Tryphone Judaeo with me in the same edition pag. 147. hodie quoque illi per nomen Jesu Christi adjurati nobis parent c. and at this day those infernall Spirits adjured by the name of Jesus Christ with fear and trembling obey us Read also S. Cyprian printed at Paris ann 1648. ad Demetrianum pag. 236. O si audire eos velles saith the St. videre quando à nobis adjurantur torquentur spiritualibus flagris verborum tormentis de obsessis corporibus ejiciuntur quando ejulantes gementes voce humana potestate divina flagella verbera sentientes venturum judicium confitentur O Demetrian if thou wouldst hear and see when those evil Spirits are conjured by us and vexed by our spiritual scourges and the torment of those words we speak being cast out of possessed bodys if thou didst but hear and see when howling and sighing like men they feel our stripes and lashes and confess a day of judgement to come c. Veni cognosce come and know these wonders to be true which we here relate Thus S. Cyprian Here are adjurations here are spiritual scourges here are sacred words here are Devils cast out of possessed bodys howling and crying by the power of God at these adjurations and speaking of words Let the Doctor speak out and tell us plainly if he dares with any conscience say that all this is nothing but Diabolical charming and horrible impiety Would he please to credit me I might tell him a
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
of his Weights and Measures Who will take upon him to shew us that the worship of the Host in the Papacy is Idolatry When these two great Doctors are agreed which of them teaches the truest Divinity concerning this Point this Section may and it may not too require a farther Answer Till then we 'll leave them to dispute it 'T is pitty they should be parted Cadmus his Brood that came into the world an unnatural and extraordinary way are a proper Embleme of all Hereticks Their births are monstrous and their ends as odd Angry men that they are they cannot agree but without any other help will alwayes if let alone destroy one another Pag. 150. Sect. 13. He takes on to tell those under his Charge how matters stand in point of Religion and saith that we Catholicks dangerously err yes and injure Faith spoil Hope sin against Charity In a word we are men that bring Ruin to all Religion Faith we injure by creating new Articles To this we have answered in the first Chapter that not one new Article is created by us though the Church as occasion is may more clearly explicate some old ones and hath ever done so We spoil saith he our Hope by placing it on Creatures Answ Hope good Doctor is a Theological Vertue and hath God as he is our final good for its formal Object The finis qui is no Creature the possession of this infinit goodness by a clear Vision is Both these which will make us happy in Heaven we hope for and I think without offence Which way the Doctors Hope tends I know not We sin saith he again against Charity by damning all that are not of our Opinion Answ First the Doctor sins most grievously against Charity by damning all his Ancestours his great great Grand-Father and so upward for a thousand years why they were all old Papists and as he tells us had naughty Faith spoiled Hope great want of Charity the Salutary doctrine of Repentance torn in pieces c. But none can be saved with a Faith Hope Charity and Repentance spoyled and worth nothing Therefore his Ancestours with thousand thousands of others are in a sad condition and all damned by his doctrin I Answ 't is a Calumny to say we damn any for differences in Opinion Now if the Doctor will needs tell us what Faith and what Opinion is exactly in every Tenet he goes beyond his skill and takes on him to teach his betters Here is enough of his 13. Section where little is said and less proved CHAP. XXVI The Doctors wrongful Charge on Catholick Doctors His weak Exceptions against Ambiguity in Speech His causless Cavils His Faults and Mistakes PAg. 152. the Doctor begins his first Section thus That in the Church of Rome it is publickly taught by their greatest Doctors that it is lawful to lye or deceive the question of the Magistrate to conceal their name and tell a false one to elude all examinations and to make them insignificant and toothless cannot be doubted c. I Answ This Charge as it is laid out is most injurious Not one amongst us say's that a lye ever is or can be lawful in any circumstance it is alwayes naught and prohibited by the Law of God and nature None say that we may elude all examinations of the Magistrate The Proposition is of so vast extent all examinations that it looses credit with sober men True it is most grave Divines hold that in certain cases of danger and other concernments the ambiguous use of words yes and of mental restriction also is allowable but ever without a lye never without just cause and Reason Impious therefore were it to make use of this Restriction in Contracts Leagues Promises Vowes or Oaths yes and most blameable in ordinary Conversation But If a Confessor be asked by a Judge or any body else whether a penitent confessed such a Sin though confessed doth not the light of nature tell us the question is if possibly to be eluded or if pressed on utterly denyed with a No he did not hear it What will the Doctor answer here will he say yes He betrayes the Penitent and Sacrilegiously breaks the Seal of Confession If he stands dumb and say's nothing S. Austin lib uno de mendacio ad Consent cap. 13 post medium rightly observes in a like case of danger Tacendo eum prodimus per nostram vel taciturnitatem homo proditur that by saying nothing we do as good as disclose the Secret and tell where the concealed man lyes hid and if so much more doth the speechless Confessor in our case though he shakes his head twenty times speaks out too plainly the Penitents Sin The Doctor therefore with his excellent use of Confession in England and we with ours must of necessity find a way not on the one Side to lye for this is never Lawful and on the other to keep the Seal of Confession safe and inviolable How shall we do this I can argue if holy Jacob when he positively affirmed Gen. 27. 19. that he was his Fathers first begotten Son Esau yet was not told no lye as many Fathers hold wel may a Priest also now in the case now proposed though he positively affirms that he heard no such Sin in Confession when he heard it say no He heard it not Jacob said yes that he was Isack's first begotten yet was not and as we now suppose said it without a lye the Priest sayes No he heard not such a Sin when he heard it and this in like manner without a lye The Parity is right every way if Jacob was not a lyar Be it how you wil Christ our Lord certainly spake Truth when he told his Disciples Joan. 7. 8. non ascendo that he did not ascend to the Feast of the Jews yet when they went he blessed Lord ascended also Here is some ambiguity of Speech In the vulgar translation which I follow though the Greek reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nondum ascendo and the Arabick nunc non ascendo and because uttered by our Saviour is wholy irreprehensible To clear all I ask of our Doctor what did this non ascendo spoken by eternal Truth signify He will answer that though the particle Non usually makes an absolute denyal and therefore the Apostles might wel think that our Lord would not go at all to the Solemnity yet here it was restrained and only denyed his visible or manifest ascending as may be gathered out of the ensuing words Non manifestè sed quasi in occulto He went but not openly If this answer may pass I argue The words of our Saviour non ascendo I ascend not when he did ascend were true though they had a restrained sense and only denyed the publick manner of his ascending not known to others Ergo these words of a Priest Non andivi I heard not such a Sin when he heard it in Confession are likewise true though they have a
but rather the contrary A Clergy man saith he n. 6. carrying Arms forbid by Secular Laws may have his Armour taken from him by the Ministers of secular Justice Again n. 7. A Clergy man taken in a crime may be laid hold of by a secular Judge and given up to the Ecclesiastical c. And surely much more may he be roughly dealt with if catch'd in the highest crime or found guilty of rebellion against his lawful Sovereign I therefore tell the Doctor such a Clergy man deserves hanging and that not so much as one Aphorism in Sa will save his life In the last Paragraph of this Section page 162. and 163. our Doctor is pleased to speak of another Iniquity so he terms it whereof our men are guilty And what is it They hold saith he the seal of Confession so highly of Divine right and Sacred that it cannot bee broken to save the lives of Princes or the whole world I answer they say also that to save the lives of Popes of Bishops of Prelats or the Church from ruin the seal of Confession made secret by God and nature cannot be violated What mischief then have we more by this Doctrine against Princes and worldly Interest than against Popes and the Spiritual welfare of the Church All God knows are a like concerned in the danger if any were though the kindness of our Doctor is for the security of secular Princes only More flattery believe it here then good Divinity To treat in this place of the great secresie whereunto the seal of Confession indispensably binds us is neither my task nor any way requisite Divines have amply done it to our hand It is enough to tell you how unworthily the Doctor fleights both Seal and Secresie in the last lines of his Section where he calls it a trifling Fancy of our own A strange word in the mouth of a Doctor which may both justly work a distrust in the heart of any penitent and make confession ridiculous even among the pious Children of the Church of England CHAP. XXVIII Of the Doctors injurious Calumnies Of his unjust Quotations THe Doctor pag. 164. and last Section tells us That the whole order of Jesuites is a great enemy to Monarchy by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope by making the Pope supreme Monarch of Christians and this they teach saith he as Catholick Doctrine c. I answer The calumny is so enormously great that I wonder the Doctor trembled not to write as he hath done and disgrace himself with it For if ever men immovably stood for Monarchy both in Church and Kingdomes they are Jesuites To prove this Assertion I need no more but only to remit you to one Learned Bellarmin and there is no Jesuite gainsays him lib. 1. de Romano Pontifice cap. 2. where he shews both by the Authority of Ancient Philosophers and Christian Writers that Monarchy simply considered is a better Government then Aristocracy or Democracy Farr is he off from Calvins spirit that thought it intollerable both in Ecclesiastical and Secular Government O but they destroy Monarchy by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope and making him the supreme Monarch of Christians I answer Had the Doctor made some Canonists less considerable in their writings asserters of this Papal power even in Politicks he had been more moderate But to ascribe the Doctrine to the whole Order of Jesuites runs beyond all bounds of Truth Jesuites in this particular hold with the other Catholick Doctors and say that the Pope is the Supreme visible Head of the Church in Spirituality that is in Power and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical Consequently is neither Lord nor Monarch of the whole World nor finally hath directly by Divine right any Temporal jurisdiction over Princes See for this Assertion Bellar. lib. 5. de potest pont cap. 2 3 4. Whence it follows and Jesuites assert it that Princes are the sole supreme Lords and Monarchs in their respective Dominions subject to none if we consider their Secular power but to God only Princely dignity therefore stands unshaken no Pope layes claim to that Soveraignty or meddles with it My God! had our Protestant Ministers as it behoov'd dutiful Children been as careful to preserve inviolably Ecclesiastical Monarchy in the Church as Popes have ever shewed themselves tender Fathers to uphold the Monarchy of Princes the World now had not seen what it sees and deplores I mean those woful Rents and Schisms which these wantonizing Children have made in Christendom while the good old Father looks on with a heavy heart and bemoans their folly Know then for certain 't is no dispute Protestant Ministers are the men that destroy Monarchy of Spiritual jurisdiction erected by Almighty God in the Church this is their crying sin unpardonable without Repentance whereunto Secular Princes never made claim nor can they in Justice Let then the Pope have still the Prerogative of Spiritual Jurisdiction over the Church 't is his due he seeks not for more our quarrels are ended And tell me I beseech you are not Princes better secured in their Dignities by owning this Spiritual Power as due to a Supreme Pastor who is Vigilant for their safety and has no little sway in the world then to have their Princely Prerogatives called into question debated yes and judged also by a knot of fickle Puritans as changeable as the Moon who now stand up defendants of Regal Power now turn stiff Opponents and arm against it Now they Crown their Monarch now pull the Crown off his Head Such doings we have seen and bewailed the Injury done to Princes Thought we say is free Every body may think safely but I 'll at present be a little bolder and speak out plainly Had England in the last unfortunate Civil Wars been as it was anciently Catholick or own'd as once it did a due Subjection to the Pope None perhaps had seen so much as a Sword drawn against our Gratious Sovereign who now Reigns nor his Royal Father so barbarously murthered as he was by his own Subjects No. For if Ecclesiastical censures had not stopp'd the raging fury of those Regicides one spark of Catholick Religion would have mollified such hearts though made of Adamant But what will ye When both Religion is bannished and Church Discipline is held contemptible Passion will sway corrupt Laws make Scaffolds draw Swords kill Kings and what not In the next place our Doctor pag. 165 and 166. enters upon this very odious subject of deposing and killing Kings and sayes we Catholicks are Defenders of both Mariana and Santarel are produced by him for horrid things spoken Answ As I hate at my heart to do so much as mention this impious Doctrine of killing Kings and abhor more to approve it So for no provocation of any will I speak a word 't is forbid me of their deposing Though were I minded to recriminate that one Execrable and Tragical shedding of our late Sovereigns blood without
people to shew their Courage and Manhood rather in butchering Papists than breaking down their Images was it Rome I beseech ye then so opposit to Popery and Images that armed that Gallant Combatant and gave him his Theam or Text to preach on Was it Rome that deposed that suffering Lady the Queen of Scots our Sovereign King James his vertuous Mother That deposed Sygismond from his Kingdom in Swedland The Temporal Lord of Geneva from his Sovereignty The King of Spain from a considerable part in the Low Countries the Emperour from many rights in Germany Was it Rome that Licensed those Rebels in the Netherlands by publick Writings to renounce all Obedience to Philip their Lord and King To ravage as they did at Gant and Antwerp and other places to break down Altars overthrow Churches murther Monks bannish Bishops make havock of all What can the Doctor say to these unfortunate Tragedies though I have not told half of the doleful story related in the Preface now cited he answers in part well We reprove the men and condemn their Doctrine So do we also good Sir in case either Catholick or any offend and Unanimously profess with S. Barnard Paris print anno 1602. Epist 170. ad Ludovicum Regem pag. 1565. Si totus orbis adversus me Conjuraret ut quippiam molirer c. If the whole World should conspire against me or move me to attempt any thing against my Sovereign I would fear God and not dare to offend the King appointed by him For I know it is written that who resisteth Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and purchaseth to himself damnation Here is our Catholick profession Rome both thinks and speaks with us to take off the Doctors injurious charge laid on us in this Paragraph I have said thus much never intending to cast the least aspertion on any Protestant that is Loyal to his Sovereign Next the Doctor quotes Suarez lib. 6. defens fidei cap. 6. Sect. 24. Sa is also cited and Scribanius but without their places for this assertion An excommunicat King may with impunity be depos'd or killed by any one Answ He either never read Suarez or is unpardonably guilty of falsity For Suarez saith expresly n. 24. that this very proposition now uttered simpliciter prolata falsissima est simply spoken is most false and gives this Reason Excommunication alone and nudely considered impowres no body to kill the excommunicated party nor to deprive him of his Dominions but only debarrs him from communication with others Rex ergo excommunicatus c. A King therefore excommunicated only if the Sentence say no more cannot be deposed and killed by his Subjects or any saith Suarez 'T is true he adds a limitation which because I think the Doctor well understands not I omit to say more of A sufficient vindication it is to tel you that the proposition here set down for Suarez his doctrin is none of his and utterly false in it self Page 167. after Suarez he hath a bout with Bellarmin for a strange proposition and thus it is lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. Secundo Si autem Papa erraret c. If the Pope should err by commanding vice or forbidding vertue the Church were obliged to believe that vices were good and vertues evil unless it would sin against Conscience They are the very words of Bellarmin saith our Doctor Answ they are so but most unworthily weigh'd out of their circumstances and as they stand here alone seem to assert I know not what mischief or error whereas most certainly in the context of Bellarmin they have an excellent Sense and prove that neither Pope nor Church can err Observe I beseech you Bell. in his § above Ac ut rem totam saith it cannot be that the Pope err by commanding any Vice as Vsury or forbidding any vertue as restitution c. This he proves first § quod autem because the Church would not be called holy if he did so 2. Because if the Pope taught sueh a doctrine the Church would err in Faith for Catholick Faith assures us that vertue is good and Vice is evil Now saith Bellarmin and here are the misconstrued words of our Doctor if the Pope should err by commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue the whole Church would be bound to believe amiss which you see does not assert any error in Pope or Church but plainly excludes both and renders this Sense Most impious it is to think that the whole Church is bound to believe that Vice is good and Vertue naught therefore impious it is to judge that the Pope can err in commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue As if one should say wicked it is to hold that the whole body of Christianity believes amiss therefore it is impious to hold that God commands us to believe so In a word the whole discourse of Bellarmin is grounded on this Principle that the Pope as Pope cannot err and by destroying it saith this learned Authour you may see what follows an Universal Error or Misbelief in the Catholick Church This is most exactly Bellarmins Sense and for my Assertion I appeal to the judgment of every Ingenuous Reader And therefore cannot but pitty the Doctor and most of our Protestants too who poor men utterly destitute of all Antiquity will rather play at small Game then sit out piddle they must and glean in our Authours faults if fancied must be found words wrested Sence turn'd out of Sentences The least hint serves them to misconstrue all Thus they proceed though it cost them dear an Eternal loss of their credit CHAP. XXIX Of our Doctors failing in History Of his blaming Popes that are blameless A word of his Conclusion OUr Doctor having now wronged Suarez and Bellarm. sets fiercely against Popes and speaks of their wickedness also but handles the matter so confusedly that no Reader can be the wiser for any Story he tells us He neither names Pope nor quotes Authour for what he sayes but begins thus pag. 167. All the World knows what the Pope did to King Childerick of France He depos'd him and put Pipin in his place Answ I think the Doctor knows not this Story very well therefore all the World 't is like knows it not which he dispatches in a word and runs slightly over However you have it largely in Scipion Dupleix the Kings Counseller Tom. 1. intituled Memoires des Gaules Paris print 1627. pag. chiefly 282. Les Francois ont recours au Pape Zacharie c. where you shall read that the French men themselves tous les Seigneurs all the Nobles saith Dupleix page 283. finding the great inabilities of Childerick and unfitness to govern a Kingdome stood for Pipin petitioned the Pope upon weighty Reasons to dispense in their Oath of Fidelity made to Childerick the Pope condescended but saith this Author page 286. si aucuns c. if any of the ancient Chronicles have attributed this great change to the Pope they have writ both ignorantly