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
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
quoque magnopere advertendum est Romanum Pontificem Petro succedere non esse per se quidem in sacris literis revelatum sed aliunde constare exeo scilicet quod gravissimae historiae prodidere Petrum Apostolum suam Cathedram Romae demum collocasse ibique cum esset Episcopum fuisse defunctum 'T is much to be reflected on That the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter is not indeed by its self reveal'd in Scripture but is manifested by other means to wit by most grave History that hath left on Record that Blessed St. Peter placed his Chair at Rome and when he was there dyed Bishop of that place For this Canus cites you eighteen or nineteen of the most Ancient Fathers that lived in the Church as St. Denis Clemens Anacletus Tertullian St. Hierom St. Austin c. and finally concludes Will the Doctor stand to this Bishops Judgment what thinks he of this determination of the Question Tam vero multis incorruptis testibus qui non credit is aut stultum aut haereticumse esse demonstrat He who gives not credit to so many and sincere witnesses either shews himself a Fool or an Heretick Now mark the disingenious dealing of our Doctor with Canus who to make his words sound loud for the Protestants purpose fraudulently omits these particulars non esse per se quidem which abates much and turns them out of that furious sence the Doctor gives There is no Scripture saith he no Revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed Peter Canus speaks thus and moderately That the Bishop of Rome does succeed Peter is not by it self precisely or in express terms revealed in Scripture which hath Truth in it for the Bishop of Rome per se or in formal express terms is not named in Scripture Yet neither Canus nor any can doubt but that this succession of the Roman Bishop is evidently deduced out of Scripture though not per se revelatum Were the Doctor versed in School Divinity or knew how precisely School-men speak when they inquire what is per se by it self immediately or in formal terms revealed I could tell him that Canus his words deserved more then totally to be omitted by him Put case it were revealed per se that a man is animal rationale a reasonable creature it follows by evident discourse he is also risibilis risibâ—le Yet I know many Divines and Canus may be one who say that the man is risiblle is not per se revealed why because this is not per se or in express terms affirmed by the Revelation though drawn from thence by good consequence But enough of these subtilties they are not for the Doctor After Canus he cites Cardinal Cusanus and Soto affirming as he says that This succession was not addicted to any particular Church c. Answ First Nicolaus de Cusa or Cardinal Cusanus writ that Treatise de Concordantiâ Catholicâ when he was a young man about the beginning of the Council of Basil and as Bellar. observes to exalt the Authority of the Council too much depressed the See Apostolick but afterwards seeing his error and how the Schisms grew on he opposed it and stood earnestly for the See Apostolick as you may see in that Epistle writ to Rodericus Trevinus you have it in Cusanus his works printed at Basil page 825. anno 1442. 20. May the Letter was dated 2. Cusanus speaks not so absolutely as the Doctor makes him for although he said Siper possibile Trevirensis Archiepiscopus per Ecclesiam congregatam c. If possible the Arch-bishop of Trevers were by the Church assembled chosen for Head and Governor he would be more the successor of Peter then the Roman Bishop Yet he adds this mitigation Licet credendum sit Romanum Pontificem sicut locum Petri ita principatum nunquam perditurum Although it is to be believed that the Roman Bishop as he will never lose the place of Peter so he will never lose his Principality This the Doctor thought fit to conceal Dominicus Soto in the place cited by the Doctor § Sed forsan stifly defends the Succession of the Roman Bishop to St. Peter Verba ipsa saith he tu es Petrus super hunc c. pasce oves meas palam demonstrant illa ratione Ecclesiam usque ad postremum diem orbis duraturam fundasse ut Petri successores perinde ac Petrus ipse vice Christi fungerentur atque adeo unusquisque eorum summum in Ecclesia fastigium teneret Those words Thou art Peter and feed my Sheep evidently demonstrate the Church founded in such a manner to the end of the World that the Successors of Peter as well as Peter himself be in the place of Christ and every one of them hold Supreme Authority in the Church of Christ It is true § Duo ergo he saith rem esse impendio decentissimam ut Romana sedes Petri sanguine decorata sit sedes successorum Petri. It is most decent that the Roman See honoured with the blood of Peter be the place of all the Successors of Peter And then adds Hac non obstante veritate nulla profecto ex Evangelio prohibitio plane colligitur quo minus posset Ecclesiae constitutione fieri ut Episcopus sedem suam ab urbe demutaret Imo ut nullam sibi particularem applicaret cujus diceretur Antistes sed esset Universalis mundi Episcopus cui omnes particulares subjicerentur Notwithstanding this Truth there is no clear Prohibition in the Gospel forbidding if the Church appoint so that the Bishop of Rome change his Seat yes and apply no other particular one to himself of which he may be called Bishop and yet he would be the Universal Bishop of the World to whom all particulars ought to be subject See now how little the Doctor hath got out of these two Authors Cusanus saith that if by any possibility the Bishop of Trevers were by the Votes of the Church Head of it he would have Universal jurisdiction over the Church as the Pope hath now for Cusanus ever defended this ample Authority of the Pope Soto saith that it is not plane fully clearly forbid in the Gospel that the Bishop of Rome change his See yet if he did so he would be still the Universal Bishop of the World to whom all were subject even the Bishop of Down and Connor Now here is that which vexeth our Doctor viz. that one man have such an ample command and Authority over all Put case Per impossibile say I that the Bishop of Trevers were elected Pope qua Trevirensis with the same ample Power and jurisdiction that the Pope ever had and that the Roman Bishop were laid aside our good Doctor would even then storm as much against Trevers Pope as he now doth against the Roman It is not God knows the place or person that he so furiously opposeth but the Power and Dignity annexed to what See soever This gives him
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
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
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
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
against the invasion of the Rights of the Church of Arles by Anastasius do fully declare the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority by the Law of Christ over any Bishop c. A most weak discourse For admit Anastasius had less prudently dealt with the Church of Arles in changing the Ancient Custom admit a confusion ensued upon this change doth it therefore follow that the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority over any Bishop in the Catholick Church Both Prince and Prelate may out of less fore-sight make a Law damnable to their people Ergo they have no Superiority over them is but a wretched conclusion made by a Doctor of Divinity who if he had read Symmachus his Letter and long it is not he might have found the Popes Superiority asserted thus Relegentes ergo veterum antistitum c. dilectionem tuam enixissime commonemus ut in ordinandis per singulas urbes cana ac reverenda servetur antiquitas nec novella constitutio vetustae sanctionis robur imminuat Reading what was anciently done c. We warn you that in your Ordination through every City Venerable Antiquity be exactly observed and that no new Constitution impair the force of old Ordinances Here are words of Power and Authority Page 68. he cites St. Ignatius and before him St. Denis two Blessed Saints who in the very words the Doctor gives speaks not a syllable for him Next he cites Origen God knows where for he points to no place Then he furnisheth you with Pope Gelasius his Authority and St. Hierom The first saith he is distinct 97. cap duo sunt He mistakes the place it is distinctione 96. rightly cited thus Decreti prima pars distinct 96. cap. 10. Duo sunt the words are these Honor fratres sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati longe erit inferius Episcopal Honour and high Dignity cannot be match'd though compared with Kings and Princes What makes this I pray you to prove that there are no intermedial Degrees between Christ and the poorest Bishop in Europe True it is that the meanest Bishop in the Church for his Character or Dignity of a Bishop precisely considered is equal to the highest so all Priests are in respect of their Characters in Priest-hood yet this shews not but that one Bishop may have a more ample power and jurisdiction then an other I think my Lord of Down and Connor will not equalize himself with the Primative of England every way though if he were a true Bishop as he is none Gelasius his words would be verified Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The dignity of a Bishop is above comparison c. Now to St. Hierom cited in Ieremiam Homil. I answ Doctor Ieremy surely mistakes St. Hierom I have before me at this moment three Editions of St. Hierom whose Commentaries upon the Prophet Hieremias are divided into 6 books the Chapters handled are the Prophets but there is not one Word or Title of any Homily upon Ieremy I intreat him to direct me to that 7th Homily and because he cites also St. Hierom adversus Luciferianos which hath 8 or 9 Pages in Folio and 8 Chap. I desire he would point me out the page or Chapter I know what he aims at but because the objection is old it shall pass until he please to be more exact in his citations His fling at Bellarm. for speaking Truth deserves no answer nor that of St. Cyprian which he cites in Con. Carth. for who among those he speakes of could with probability make himself a Bishop of Bishops Or by Tyrannical power drive his Collegues to an necessity of Obedience No Pope pretends to this Tyranny CHAP. X. Of St. Gregory's refusing the Title of Universal Bishop Of Fathers asserting the Pope to be Supream Pastor Of the Doctors faulty Quotations NExt page 69. comes that so often answered objection out of St. Gregory who because Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop said it was a proud profane Sacrilegious Antichristian Title And it was so indeed in this Patriarck who had no right to the Title or thing either To clear the difficulty be pleased to know that this word Universalis may have a triple sence First it may signifie Unum Solum singulare one sole singular so we speak usually Universalis Ecclesia id est una tantum extra quam non est salus One Church only Universal out of which is no Salvation Whosoever therefore assumes to himself the Title of Universal Bishop in this sence importing that he is the sole only and singular Patriarck and that other Bishops are no more but suffragans or delegates is both Sacrilegious and Antichristian Sacrilegious because engrossing to himself the sole power he robs his Brethren of their true dignity Antichristian because he opposeth Christ who appointed Bishops with their respective power and jurisdiction to govern as spiritual Princes in the Church Now that the Patriarck of Constantinople arrogated to himself such an ample power may be proved out of St. Gregory in that often cited Epistle to Mauritius Nullus saith the Saint eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit nec uti consensit No one ever assum'd or consented to use that word of Singularity and mark the reason Ne dum privatim uni aliquid daretur honore debito privarentur universi Least whilst something is given to one privately the General or Universal are depriv'd of their due honour And a little before Si igitur illud nomen in ea Ecclesia sibi quisquam arripit Universa Ecclesia quod absit a statu suo corruit quando qui appellabatur Universalis cadit If therefore any one takes to himself that name in the Church the Universal Church which God forbid must fall when he that was call'd Universal falls More to this purpose you may see Apud Gratianum distinctione 991. But no where speaks St. Gregory clearer then in his 4th Book of his Epistles writing to John Qui indignum te fatebaris ut Episcopus dici debuisses ad hoc quandoque perdactus es ut dispectis fraâ—ribus Episcopus appetas solus vocari Thou who didst confess thy self unworthy to be call'd a Bishop art now come to this that dispising the Brethren then covetest to be call'd the only Bishop Evident therefore it is out of St. Gregory that this ambitious Patriarck with contempt of his Brethren would be the sole and only Bishop which is Sacrilegious and Antichristian and neither due to Pope nor Patriarck 2. The Title of Universal may render you a sence that savors of Pride Hautiness and Prophaness and therefore as Remundus Rufus observes it was often used by the Roman Emperours and sounds high in the Greek Language Be pleased to hear Remumdus his own words pag. 26. circa medium Et ille Ioannes cum Graecus esset utebatur graeca voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
quae non aliud significat quam mundi vel orbis terrarum patriarcham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim orbis terrarum est Latine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Universalis dicitur ut Pelagius Gregorius interpretabantur And John being a Graecian used the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies no other but Patriarck of the whole World for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Universal World and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine imports Universal as Pelagius and Gregory did interpret the word This Title also as Secular and Prophane St. Gregory rejected 3. The word Universal or Universalis Episcopus without any ill sence at all may signifie that ample Power and spiritual jurisdiction which Christ's Vicar here on Earth hath over the Church and under this notion the Fathers assembled in the Council of Calcedon offered it to Pope Leo in these words Sancto amantissimo Domino Leoni Universali Episcopo Romae c. To the Holy and most belov'd Leo Universal Bishop of Rome c. Certainly those Grave and Learned Fathers cannot be supposed either to have flattered the Pope or given him a prophane Title or the Title of sole and only Bishop assum'd by Iohn of Constantinople Well Leo refused the Title and why either because it seemed new to him or because it had not been given to his predecessors by any solemn and publick Rite in former ages or finally because the blessed man waved it out of Humility Admit that St. Gregory did so likewise upon the like Motives doth it follow that he yeilds up his Supremacy No he asserts this Supremacy over and over writing to Mauritius Petro Apostolorum principi cum totius Ecclesiae principatus committitur tamen Universalis Apostolus non vocatur vir sanctissimus consacerdos meus Ioannes vocari Universalis Episcopus conatur When the Principality of the Church was commited to Peter chief of the Apostles he was not called Universal Apostle and John my fellow Priest endeavours to be called universal Bishop Now the Saint saith That he knows no Bishop that is not subject to the Seat Apostolick Now That the Seat of Constantinople is also subject to him Now That it is lawful for none to transgress the Laws of that Seat Nec nostrae dispositionis ministerium Much more to this purpose you have in every Writer on this subject The Authorities are known and vulgar This truth supposed let us see the force of the Doctors Argument which must be this or nothing St. Gregory refused the Title of Universal Bishop Ergo he denyed his Supremacy over the Church In answer I plainly deny the consequence and say that the Saint by refusing a Title which might seem new to him and which his Predecessors had not by solemn Rite or finally out of the motive of Humility doth not therefore deny his Power and Supremacy over the Church whereunto positively he laies claim so often A Principality stands good entire and unshaken Though an innocent Title harmlesly expresing that Principality be for some reason refus'd by him who justly possesses the Principality His Majesty King Charles the Second is now absolute Monarch and Soveraign over his Kingdoms and is rightly stiled King of England c. Put case that either Parliament or People should go about to invest him with a New Title and call him Emperour of England Scotland France and Ireland might not his Majesty refuse this Title which neither adds to nor deminishes his regal Power without denying his Soveraignity This is our case in St. Gregory who as he never laid claim to be Sole Bishop of the World nor to any prophane Title so he never left off to maintain his due of Spiritual Principality over the Church Thus much is said in case it can be shewed that St. Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the last sence above mentioned For by what I have yet read he rejects it only in opposition to Iohn or in that sence in which this ambitious Prelate laid claim to it The Doctor pag. 70. cites St. Chrisostom in cap. 1. Act. Apost Hom. 3. Answer St. Chrisostom treats in that passage of electing one in the place of Iudas and hath these words Illud considera quà m Petrus agit omnia ex Communi discipulorum sententia nihil Authoritate sua nihil cum imperio Nothing by his own Authority which the Doctor more carefully then sincerely translates nothing by special Authority intimating as I conceive no special Authority given to St. Peter whereas those words Nothing by his own Original Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evidently suppose both Power and Authority in St. Peter for no Prince can properly be said not to do a thing by his own Authority only but with the advise of his Counsel unless he be supposed to have Authority which is here evidenced in St. Peter by the next ensuing words of St. Chrisostom Neque simpliciter dixit hunc in locum Iudae sufficimus sed consolans illos c. As who should say St. Peter used not the Power he had in this Election but rather sought the comfort of his fellow Disciples who were much disanimated at the fall of Judas Here by the way observe a most weak kind of arguing in our Doctor St. Peter did all in this particular by common consent of the Apostles nothing by his own Power or Command Ergo he had not the Power why because he used it not Is this a tollerable discourse A Prince concludes of some weighty Affair See the Supremacy of St. Peter amply confirmed by St. Chrisostom upon the Acts even in Sir Henry Savils Edition Tom. 4. pag. 624. and 625. cheifly at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 22. Again n. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Afterwards pag. 625. at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. by and with the advice of his counsel not by his own Authority Ergo he hath not this Power Doth the not actual using of Power and Authority either imply or argue the not having of it Toyes Had our good Doctor but cast his Eyes upon St. Chrisostom's Doctrine delivered a few lines above the place now quoted he would have found St. Peters Authority made good in these words Quà m est fervidus Quà m agnoscit creditum a Christo gregem Quà m in hoc choro princeps est ubique primus omnium incipit loqui How fervent is St. Peter How doth he acknowledge or own the Flock committed to him by Christ In this assembly he was Prince and chief and everywhere first of all begins to speak Here is enough to silence the Doctor Who cites next Melchior Canus de loc is Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 8. There is saith he no Scripture no Revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in it Answer Here is an Emphasis too much no Scripture no Revelation and that left out of Canus which moderates all Canus his words are these Illud
beautified the Church and gained millions to it I mean the glory of miracles And this is done by a Doctor to maintain his wordy Religion made up of a few abused Scripture phrases and I know not what other canting language without fruits of Religion without efficacy of doctrine without miracles or finally any one mark of credibility that may prudently evidence it to be Christian Now concerning our Doctors other exception against pious good people who seek the patronage of Saints in time of danger or otherwise I 'le briefly give you one instance taken out of S. Gregory Nyssen a worthy Bishop who was present at the first Council of Constantinople and writ the Symbolum Fidei there read him I beseech you in the Oration he hath de Stâ— Theodoro Martyre with me it is in his second Tome Printed at Paris 1615. pag. 1011. and pag. 1017. Because the impious Scythians threatned a war to the Country Timemus afflictiones saith S. Gregory expectamus pericula non longe absunt scelestes Scythae belluÌ„ adversus nos parturientes We fear afflictions we expect danger the wicked Scythians are as it were in labour for a war against us What doth the Saint he betakes himself thus by earnest prayer to S. Theodore a Soldier Intercede ac deprecare pro patria apud communem Regem Dominum Make intercession and pray for our country to him who is our common King and Lord. Again Vt miles propugna pro nobis ut Martyr pro conservis utere libertate loquendi As you are a soldier fight for us and defend us as a martyr speak freely for your fâ—llow servants here Finally a few lines after Quod si majori etiam opus fuerit advocatione c. And if more prayer be needful assemble together the whole quire of your brethren martyrs and jointly pray for us Admone Petrum excita Paulum Joannem item c. Put S. Peter in mind stir up S. Paul and that beloved disciple of our Lord S. John that these be sollicitous for the Churches they once wore chains passed dangers and finally died Thus S. Gregory If therefore this worthy Bishop sought protection and patronage of a Soldier Martyr in danger of war well may a frail woman in danger of sinning become a suppliant to S. Mary Magdalen which our Doctor likes not of And for Gods sake tell me what mischief is it to Christianity if Saints hear our prayers that a Painter have a special devotion to S. Luke skilful in that Art though our Doctor no man knows why holds it superstition I say if Saints hear our Prayers and that they do so this very Petition made by S. Gregory to S. Theodore is my warrant neither Doctor Andrews nor Chamier nor Whitby who vainly endeavour to make the Oration spurious because they know not what else to say shall utter so much as a probability against it CHAP. XXI Of Saints Canoniz'd excepted against by the Doctor Of his untrue quotations Of his Mistake concerning the Multitude of Holydayes AFter this long digression I return to my task imposed on me and needs must say a word of our Doctors quotations I find in his pag. 132. S. Austin cited for this excellent truth Tutius incundius loquar ad meum Jesum quam ad aliquem Sanctorum Spirituum Dei I 'le speak more safely and more chearfully to my Lord Jesus then to any of the Saints or Spirits of God And 't is worthily spoken but where find we this The Doctor points us to S. Austin Visitatione Minorum Sept. S. Aug. what this Sept. S. Aug. signifies no man knows and less know I where to find Visitat Minorum Perhaps it is an error of the Printer However these words are in S. Austin's 9th Tome lib 2. de Visitatione Infirmorum not Minorum cap. 2. which no way exclude praying to Saints but manifestly suppose it Tutius Iucundius clear all and render this Sence 'T is good and safe to pray to Saints but our Lord Jesus is eminently above them and therefore more safely and chearfully we pray to Jesus Page 133. he cites Cardinal Bessarion apud Bodin undervaluing certain Saints and our Doctor gives you a list of them thus S. Fingar S. Anthony of Padua S. Christopher Charles Borromeus Ignatius Loyola Xaverius then deceitfully adds and many others of whom saith the Doctor Bessarion complained that many of them were such persons whose life he could not approve c. observe here first the Context of our Doctor and how he cheats his Reader whom he would have believe that beside many others Bessarion reproved the life of S. Fingar S. Anthony of Padua S. Charles Borromeus S. Ignatius Loyola and S. Xaverius yet these three last blessed men were not in the world when Bessarion lived for he quitted this mortal life Anno Domini 1472. 2. I affirm that our Doctor shall never shew out of Bessarion that he unsaints any approved for Sanctity by the Roman Catholick Church S. Fingar though some say S. Anselm accounted him a blessed man was never yet canonized and I wonder what our Doctor hath against S. Christopher of whom little is known Certainly for I have run slâ—ightly over some works of Bessarion this Grecian Bishop and Cardinal employed in so many Embassies as we read of troubled not himself to cavil either with S. Christopher or S. Anthony of Padua 3. Our Doctor deals not wel with his Reader for he should for Bessarions assertion have remitted him to the Cardinals own book and not to Bodinus or Iohn Pudding a man of Atheistical Principles whose authority with the judicious is altogether as little as the Doctor 's Bodinus his Republick I have but yet cannot get a sight of his Method Historica to which the Doctor remits me Next he cites Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona affirming that all who are canonized by the Pope cannot be said to be in Heaven And where find we this assertion of Triumphus in two places answers our Doctor viz. quaest 14. ad quartum and quaest 17. ad quartum Observe here the Doctors ignorance For to say nothing of his unskilfull omitting the Article these two quotations ad quartum are the Authours Objections not his resolution The resolution follows no way asserting what the Doctor saith but contrary thus That the Pope in canonizing a Saint by the exterior evidence he hath of his Sanctity cannot err Although saith this Authour neither Pope nor Church can know certainly per certitudinem causae by the certainty of the cause that all canonized possess beatitude He saith per certitudinem causae because God who only endues a Soul with Charity causaliter is only conscious that it is enriched with this gift The Pope and Church know not this causaliter but by the effects of Charity shewed to the world Therefore saith Anconitanus quaest 14. cit art 4. Ad prim dicendum quod licet Papa non possit scire per certitudinem causae c.
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
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.
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