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
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.
Truth Will out OR A Discovery of some Untruths Smoothly told by Dr. IEREMY TAYLOR In his DISSWASIVE From POPERY With an Answer to such Arguments as deserve ANSVVER By his Friendly Adversary Ed Worsley Ergo inimicus vobis factus sum verum dicens vobis Gal. 4. 16. Printed in the Year 1665. THE EPISTLE To the READER WE say all is not Gold that Glisters and that Most worth lyes not ever hid under a fair Outside A Comet seems sometimes as glorious as a Star a Parelion like the Sun and Falshood got under a handsome Visard well trim'd up may take with many and pass Disguised for current Truth But such slight Beauty beguiles not long True Worth undoes it The Suns lasting Glory the Stars constant Brightness enough Dislustres both Parelion and Comet And Truth though perhaps it may not here quite vanquish Falshood for Some will Defend it to the Worlds end is able at least to pull of it's Gaudy Visard and put it out of Countenance A World of this Counterfeit Lustre we have now a days in Books set forth as is pretended to Beautifie the Heaven of Christianity and Englighten a People that sit in Darkness One I have met with 't is the Disswasive from Popery that Parelion like in a Triple Cloud is as I am told Gloriously out in three Editions and lately appeared in the two Kingdoms of England and Ireland More I believe have been Gazing on it then well discovered the faulty Lustre Real Worth I cannot mention for what find we I beseech you considerable in this Book but a useless Repetition of old defeated Objections which have now for a whole Age run through a few Vulgar worn-out Controversies and in Rigor require only a Return of the Old Answers given a hundred times by Catholick Writers new Arguments which one might have expected from so Great a Doctor seldom appear You have moreover more then a few Mistakes relating to Catholick Doctrine Want enough of Divinity A seeming Zeal 't is true but ill season'd with Jeers and harsher Language Calumnies vented Talk and no Proof Here is what I think the Doctor must own the Inside and best substance of his Disswasive The Flash therefore and fair Lustre of his Book lies neither in the choice of Matter nor manner of handling it but in specious Quotations that flourish in the Margents These set down in the ensuing Treatise I have carefully examined Read with my own Eyes in the Original Authors not one have I taken on trust and after a diligent search must profess with all Candor not one worth notice have I found but 't is either wholly impertinent to what he would Prove or strangely wrested to a sinister Sence or not found at all in the Original nor a Word like it Or finally which is most usual and to be pittied in a Doctor unpardonably corrupted To insist on every less valuable Authority or on such as shew themselves Profless even Read in the Disswasive would be Time mispent and weary a Reader These I offer to your View are of the grosser Sort and Numerous enough to Evidence that the Doctors pretended Faultless Book is Proved Faulty and no more powerful to Disswade from Popery then Error is to draw men from Truth Far am I off from the Doctors Humour in Judging this small Treatise Faultless I willingly acknowledge many Faults but know not how to mend Them One is no little want of English but this I hope dear Reader you will easily Pardon I am sure you would did you but know how long I have been a Stranger to my Country An other is too tedious a length sometimes in Latin Sentences The Fault if any is unavoydable For while the Charge is laid on ill Quotations the Right ones must appear and in their proper Terms To give an Authors Meaning only and Wave his Words seems Forceless And in stead of laying Difficulties may Raise up more Where it most Imports I have done my best to English the Latin faithfully Ad pedem literae the Translation therefore cannot but look Rugged yet that is better then to have the Genuine Sence miscarry in smoother Language Lastly a harsher Word may perhaps through hast or unawares have casually fallen from me if so I here unsay it and Humbly crave Pardon And were my Papers now out of my reach in my Hands again I would in this Correct whatever might justly seem offensive If Doctor Taylor shall please to warn me of greater Faults I 'll thank him for his Charity And if he thinks it worth his Pains to take notice of my Exceptions against his Book my earnest Request is that he mispend not Time in Trifles nor weigh only lesser Matters while he hath greater charged on him that justly require Satisfaction For Example I have plainly tax'd him of wrong done to Sixtus Senensis to the Expurgatory Index to Petrus Lombardus Otho Erisingensis and others in the beginning of my Treatise let him as plainly Purge himself in these Particulars and shew me my Error for most certainly I have either wronged him or he these Authors I press him afterward with undeniable Authorities of most Ancient Fathers both for the Use and Worship of Holy Images His express Answer is herein required also chiefly to St. Basil and St. Iohn Damascen I have told him of his Forging strange Doctrines and Fathering them on Tolet Suarez Bellarmin Emanuel Sa and others If he be injured he can Right himself and shew where Sa affirms That if a man lies with his intended Wife before Marriage it is no sin or a light one Whether the true Sence of Bellarmin in his Quotation pag. 167. be not wholly perverted If the Pope should Err by Commanding c. These for an Essay only more you will have and of greater Concernment hereafter May it please the Doctor to clear himself by a solid Answer he 'll hearten me to Reply Or if he can produce against me but one Quotation so fowly amiss as that one Charg'd on Emanuel Sa to say nothing of many worse I do here profess a Readiness and will comply with it to publish my Fault to the Whole World O would he Encourage himself to proceed with like Candor and unsay only what his own Conscience knows Faulty in his Disswasive he might be Eternally Glorious And why should I forbid my self to hope for so Laudable a Retractation Justice requires it Conscience forcibly presses Truth that suffers strongly Pleads for it Christian Humility easily submits And Gods Victorious Grace is now no less Powerful to do this Work on him then once it was to Reclaim a Blessed St. Austin Quare Arripe obsecro te they are the Pious and well meant Words of this Saint Tom. 2. Epist 9. to a Great Doctor and my Submissive Petition to Doctor Taylor Arripe obsecro te ingenuan vere Christianam cum charitate severitatem ad illud tuum opus corrigendum atque emandandum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
or Darkness that is whether in a filthy station of Wickedness or a good state of Vertue a man is taken when he dies in that degree and order he remains for ever which is to say great sins will abide with the damned for Eternity and so Vertue shall ever remain with the Blessed for says Olympiodorus He shall either rest in the Light of everlasting Felicity with the Iust and Christ King of All or be tormented in Darkness with the Wicked and Prince of this World the Divil Most true Doctrine for there is no third place Eternal The Doctor lastly cites St. Leo Epist 59. for words not found at all in that Epistle he writes to Martianus and gives thanks for peace restored to the Church by the Great Council of Calcedon See this Epistle Colen Print 1561. Pittyful it is to see such strengthless Authorities produced not only against the express Testimony of other Fathers asserting Purgatory but more against the sentiment of the Universal Church But I know not by what chance we have missed a former Argument of our Doctor against Purgatory He hath it pag. 29. and speaks thus Sixtus Senensis saies and saies very true That many Fathers as Justin Martyr Tertullian St. Bernard and others did affirm that the Souls of men before the Day of Iudgment are kept in secret Receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great Day c. Then he Argues if this Opinion be true the Doctrine of Purgatory is false or if not true it is inconsistent with an Opinion of Fathers so generally received Answ The Doctor hath not one true word in this Objection false it is that Sixtus so peremptorily ascribs this Opinion to the Fathers he rather makes it his work to interpret them favourably and to do it distinguisheth a double beatitude the one imperfect of Soul only the other consummat and perfect of Soul and Body the first the Fathers called by several names of sinus Abrahae Atrium Dei sub altare c. the other perfect Ioy the Glory of the Resurrection and entire reward of merits a time of Coronation c. And this later they held was not till the day of Judgment Read Sixtus lib. 6. Bibliot Annot. 345. in his two last Paragraphs Hactenus Demum where after a friendly check given to Ockam he also takes off the charge laid on Pope Iohn 22. for any Decree made by him against the present beatitude of Souls Again False it is that the Doctor exactly set's down in his Marginal Quotation Sixtus his words more then half of them are not the Authors who ends with St. Bernard at the particle Praebuisse and our Doctor runs on in one continued uniform Character with a praeter citatos enumerat c. yet there is not a syllable like them in Sixtus and as they stand in the Doctors Margent are strangely incoherent False finally it is that though the Fathers held Souls as it were immur'd in secret Receptacles therefore their Tenet destroys Purgatory Why they may have a Purgatory before they enter those Receptacles They may have it in Origens Opinion afterwards yes and if need were to assert it punished they may be for a time in those very secret Cabinets Divels are tortured whether in the material place of Hell or out of it and so may souls be also though we supposed against Faith our Purgatory were not or no other then those Receptacles What I say here is not in the least to favour a condemned Opinion by the Church but only to shew the Doctors weak way of Arguing CHAP. V. The Doctors cavils against Transubstantiation His false Quotations His impertiment Questions and weak Arguments THe Doctor in his 5th Section pag. 36. falls upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation where he brushes up a few old dusty Arguments answered every where by our Writers We know saith he the very time it began to be publickly owned the very Council c. Answ Arius might have said thus much against the Consubstantiality of the Son of God with his Father and made it a Novelty first owned by the Council of Nice The vulgar solid and true answer is that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church though more fully and explicitly declared in the Lateran Council I say Was ever believed for if the most eminent Fathers that lived before the Lateran Council told us that Bread is changed out of his Nature into the Body of Christ That by Holy Invocation it is no more common Bread That as Water in Cana of Galilee was changed into Wine so in the Evangelist Wine is changed into Blood That Bread is only Bread before the Sacramental Words but after Consecration is made the Body of Christ If Ancient Fathers speak thus as most certainly they do every Polemical Writer furnisheth you with these Testimonies conclude we must that they either cheated the World into a false belief or held as we do the real Doctrine of Transubstantiation But my task is not so much to prove Catholick Doctrine already done by innumerable Authors as to shew you our Doctors faylings in his Quotations page therefore the 37. he cites Scotus saying that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith as Bellarm. confesses Most willingly would I have the Doctor to point me out the distinction and question where Scotus affirms this some cite him in 4. distin 11. q. 3. where he only saith in all Editions I have seen that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was more explicitly defined there but not first made an Article of Faith But the Famous or rather infamous Quotation is out of Petrus Lombardus usually called Magister Sententiarum the Doctor hath it to his disgrace page 38. after he had said that Transubstantiation was so far then from being an Article of Faith that they knew not whether it where true or no yes and that Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I beseech you mark an unexcusable Error Petrus Lombardus lib. 4. distinct 11. lit A. begins thus Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis definire non sufficio c. If it be asked what kind of conversion this is whether formal or substantial I am not sufficient to define observe the word define Then he sets down several Opinions much in those words the Doctor hath To these Opinions or Objections where the Doctor leaves off fraudulently Lombardus answers lit B. Quibus hoc modo responderi potest quia non ea ratione dicitur corpus Christi confici verbo caelesti quod ipsum corpus in conceptu virginis deinceps formetur sed quia substantia panis vel vini quae ante non fuerat corpus Christi vel sanguis verbo caelesti fit corpus sanguis ideo sacerdotes dicuntur conficere corpus Christi sanguinem quia eorum ministerio substantia panis fit caro substantia vini
passage of St. Austin Ferebatur in manibus suis in Psal 33. When Christ sitting at the Table with his Disciples gave them his Sacred Body Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis saith the Saint might well have learned the Doctor that then there were not two Christs at the Table Had he read what I cited above out of Petrus Lombard Non sunt tamen multa corpora Christi sed unum corpus c. He might well have spared the labour of this Argument CHAP. VI. Of the Doctors weak Arguments against Communion under one kind Of his sleight impugning Prayer in an unknown Language Of his ill Quotations THe Doctor in his 6 Section pag. 47. treats as he calls it of half Communion that is of receiving the Holy Sacrament in one kind only and besides a few vulgar Objections solved by every Catholick Writer he has nothing That which he alledgeth out of Paschasius Rathbertus supposeth a Law or practice in the Church for Communicating in both kinds Would to God our Doctor had reflected on what this good Abbot hath in the beginning of his 19. Chapter where he plainly acknowledgeth that the Blood which is in the Chalice is the very same that flowed out of the Sacred Side of our Saviour so far at least Rathbertus was a Papist and never said that Communion in both kinds is or was commanded by Christ our Lord. Pope Gelasius his Authority is so often answered by others that I need say little Briefly to discern Catholicks from the Manich'es occasioned that Law Christ his institution in both kinds figured in Melchisedeck's Oblation of Bread and Wine and not a perfect Sacrifice unless Priests do it in both is a most weak Argument to infer Therefore the Layety is commanded to receive the Sacrament as Priests do in both S. C. In his late excellent book against Doctor Pierce Chap. 12. demonstrat's by the Testimonies of ancient Fathers that Communion in one kind hath been in the most primitive ages a practice among Christians Thus much only I 'll say and end if Infants once received the Holy Eucharist in one kind only if men of riper Age did the like in time of persecution if what the Fathers assure us of Domestical Communion and the like of Ermits keeping the Blessed Sacrament in their solitude whereas the Cup was not given but in the Church be true and most true all is Finally if our Blessed Lord after his Resurrection gave his own Body going to Emaus to his Disciples as divers Fathers testifie without the Cup and they had their eyes opened let the Doctor once open his also and confess ingeniously that the Sacrament was in these cases reputed effective lawful and laudible in one kind only More I need not say for it s from my intent to handle this Controversie at large might I go on I could tell him that seeing the Fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up Faith in the receiver I can find no reason why their bit of Bread only may not as well work that effect as to taste of their Wine with it But enough of this Section The Doctor in his 7th Section pag. 50. cites against publick Prayer in in an unknown Language that so often discussed passage of the Apostle 1. ad corint 14. It would be lost labour to repeat here what our Learned Writers have with all clarity answered I. S. in his short Treatise against Doctor Pierce his Sermon pag. 89. and 90. solidly ponders that text and shewes it makes nothing for Protestants Next He cites Origen lib. 8. contra Celsum without either page or number whereas that 8th book with me Printed at Basil 1571. and in a closs letter hath ten whole leaves in Folio However the proof is nothing The Graecians were to pray in Greek the Romans in their Language both Sacred Tongues what is this to the Doctors purpose Page the 52. he cites St. Basil lib. qu. ex ver Scrip. locis q. 278. we have three Editions of St. Basil and the last both in Greek and Latin Printed at Paris in two Tomes and in no one Catalogue of his works do I find that Treatise the Doctor points at lib. qu. ex c. He would oblige me to direct me better to the Book Next he cites St. Chrisostom in a long Homily without giving his words and St. Austin in Ps 18. com 2. with me it is Expos 2. All I can find here to any purpose are these words Nos autem saith the Saint qui in Ecclesia divina eloquia cantare didicimus simul etiam instare debemus quod Scriptum est Beatus populus qui intelligit jubilationem proinde charissimi quod consona voce cantavimus sereno etiam corde nosse videre debemus We who have Learned to sing the Divine Words or Psalms in Church must also be earnest to follow what is written Blessed are they who understand Iubilation Therefore my dearest what we sing out with one voice endeavour we must to know and see with a serene heart First who are these We Priests and the Clergy that understood Latin yet perhaps penetrated not the deep and latent sence of those Sacred Canticles This saith St. Austin We are to be instant in and not only to sing the words but to know with a serene heart c. I believe most of the Ministers though they say and sing these Psalms in English are yet to seek for the very literal sence of them good Counsel 't is that all according to their capacity learn by an Interpreter or otherwise somewhat of it yes and of the Mystery also But to infer from hence Ergo these sacred words must be read in a vulgar Tongue in time of Church Service is no consequence at all though let me tell you things well considered the Greek respectively to the East and Latin to the West may be better called a known Tongue though not vulgar then particular Languages of several Nations Spain France England Germany Poland c. in the generality know Latin But doth the Spaniard know French or other People Dutch or Dutch the Poland Language not one among many The Doctor pag. 54. rightly cites which is a wonder the words of the great Council of Lateran sub Innocentio 3. cap. 9. but proves nothing with them First because the Several Rights and Languages there mentioned cannot be shewed to be different from Greek and Latin and in use among those who have one and the same Faith 2. Admit they were different the Church can upon weighty reasons dispense in her Law with Children of one and the same belief at most then here was a dispensation which both supposeth and confirms the received Law I say at most for I read in Binius his Notes upon this Council pag. 699. prim â columnâ Fine that the Patriark of the Maronites who had abjured his Heresie of the Monothelits came to this great Council submitted himself embraced the Catholick Faith
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
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
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
What is this but to say in plain English that the Oration is Spurious and though it were as bad as some Adversaries make it yet it may be without difficulty Explicated Our Doctor page 171. having done with his Dissuasive ends with an Vse of Exhortation to Persuade and Exhort all as they desire to be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus to decline from these horrid Doctrines those he means which he charges on us And so do I good Reader also without half the stirr the Doctor has made about them for they are all Monsters of his own making Horrid it is and Monstrous to Assert as he doth That we are Enemies to Monarchy that we profess not a due Obedience to Princes that the whole Order of Jesuites owns the Pope Lord of the World c. Ignorance begot these Doctrines Fancy mishaped them in some bodies Brain Passion brought them forth out they are as you see in print ugly and ill-favoured We utterly dis-own them and say they are false The naked Truth I have declared and therefore exhort all that love Christ Jesus ro decline from the Doctors horrid mistakes After the rest of his wordy paraenesis not worth taking notice of for a farwel he closes up all with a Behold we set before you Life and Death Blessing and Cursing Safety and Danger c. I answer He hath done so indeed but the danger God knows lies where he least thinks in his own unpardonable Errors mis-leading simple Souls to Perdition God prevent that he does not too late bewail his inconsiderate venting of them I need not preach to the Doctor he believes I hope already that Death and that Eternal will be the miserable portion of all those Seducers who do not timely repent and make themselves Members of the Catholick Church God give the Doctor grace to consider of this seriously and suddenly Into this House of God as I have heard he was once ready to enter but neglecting the Grace that call'd him he is now as you see so unfortunate as to diswade others from entering also With what sting of Conscience he hath done this evil God only knows done it is and I suspect the worst But the great Day of our Lord Jesus when both he and I must be heard to justifie our selves without farther dispute will lay open Whether he hath wrong'd his Conscience in writing this Dissuasive or I without cause have accused him of Errors To this Impartial Judge and most just Tribunal I appeal for Sentence And shall in the Interim earnestly pray as behoves a Christian and friendly Adversary for Doctor Taylor 's Conversion FINIS THE CONTENTS QVotations faulty in D. Taylors Preface to the Reader Chap. I. Of the Doctors ungrounded Discourse to the wrongful charge on Catholicks for making new Articles of Faith page 8 II. The Doctors Quotations not true His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis page 15 III. The Doctors Quotations not right prayer for the dead proves a Purgatory page 22 IV. The Doctors Quotations still amiss S. Austin and Otho Frisingensis are abused by him page 27 V. The Doctors Cavils against Transubstantiation His false quotations His Impertinent questions and weak Arguments page 37 VI. Of the Doctors weak Arguments against Communion under one kind Of his slight impugning prayer in an unknown language Of his ill quotations page 43 VII Of the Doctors Cavils against Images Of Antiquity approving their Veneration Of the Doctors ill quotations page 47 VIII Of the Drs confus'd quotations Of Veneration due to the Holy Cross Of picturing the sacred Trinity p. 54 IX Of the Popes Supremacy Of the Doctors Cavils against it Of his false quotations page 62 X. Of S. Gregory ' s refusing the Title of Vniversal Bishop Of Fathers asserting the Pope to be Supreme Pastor Of the Doctors faulty quotations page 72 XI Of the Doctors harsh Doctrine concerning speedy Repentance after Sin Of his mistakes and wronging Authors page 83 XII Of the Doctors Cavils against Contrition and Confession Of his wronging the Council of Trent and Catholick Authors page 89 XIII The sum of our Doctors discourse concerning Indulgences His two mistakes are discovered His Objections answered page 100 XIV A word more of Indulgences Of the Drs. mistakes in quoting Authors Whether the prayer of a sinner avails him Of the Doctors harsh doctrine page 106 XV. Of the Doctors weak argument against one satisfying for another Of his new Divinity that the habit of sin is sin Of his worse doctrine that all sins are mortal Of his mistakes and charging on Catholicks what they hold not page 114 XVI Divines prudently follow in innumerable cases a probable Opinion Of the Doctors exceptions against it Of his mistakes page 119 XVII How the Doctor wrongs both the Canon Law and Catholick Authours Of his quotations unworthily corrupted page 123 XVIII Of attention necessary in prayer One may pray that perfectly understands not the words of prayer The Doctor quotes amiss and abuseth Suarez page 137 XIX The Doctor yet holds on in quoting Authours amiss His errors are discovered page 142 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. page 147 XXI Of Saints Canoniz'd excepted against by the Doctor Of his untrue quotations Of his mistake concerning the multitude of Holy dayes page 154 XXII Adjuration of Devils approv'd by the Ancient Church and Authority of Fathers The Doctor cannot except against our Catholick Exorcisms page 158 XXIII Objections against Exorcisms solved Of the Doctors mistaken quotations page 166 XXIV The blessing of Water prov'd by Irrefragable Authority Of miracles done by holy Water No proof against it page 172 XXV Of the Doctors dark Divinity His doctrine concerning the charging of Catholicks with Idolatry weigh'd by Mr. Thorndikes just Weights The Doctor is prov'd a Schismatick by the Measure Mr. Thorndike makes of one Of the Doctors want of Charity towards his Ancestors and all Catholicks page 177 XXVI The Doctors wrongful charge on Catholick Drs His weak exceptions against Ambiguity in Speech His causless Cavils His faults and mistakes page 184 XXVII The Doctors strange way of arguing against the Exemption of Clergy-men His unjust dealing with Emanuel Sa in charging him with this saying the Rebellion of a Clergy man against his Prince is not Treason His unworthy slighting the Seal of Confession page 191 XXVIII Of the Doctors injurious Calumnies against Catholicks charging them with Horrid doctrines against Kings and Monarchy which they disown and abominate The known carriages of Catholicks towards Princes compared with the rebellious practices of Protestants The Catholicks have ever been found most Loyal and Obedient to their Kings Of his unjust quotations page 196 XXIX Of our Doctors failing in History Of his blaming Popes that are blamless A word of his Conclusion page 207 Advertisement THe Edition of the Dissuasive made use of in this Treatise is that Reprinted at London for Thomas Johnson at the Key in Pauls Church-yard 1664. in Quarto There may seem a defect in this Treatise by reason of a mistake of the Printer who using two Presses began with one in the later part of the Copy and not computing right how many sheets the fore part of the Copy would make the numbers affix'd to the Pages follow not in due order but after page 130. immediately follows page 137. However the Reader may please to take notice that the Treatise is in â—e Faults Escaped Thus Amended In the Epistle emandandum Read emendandum unluckily read unlucky PAge 8. Line 1. Tough REad Though p. 9. l. 3. Authority r. antiquity p. 11. l. 33. blot out 5. p. 17. l. 19. their r. this p. 21. l. 33. Cluadius r. Claudius p. 34. l. 10. living l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. sining r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. l. 7. Com. r. Tom. p. 42. l. 25. doubty r. Doughty p. 45. l. 5. p. 46. l. 28. rights bl in r. rites p. 47. l. 8. rights r. rites p. 50. marg Athanius l. 15. adorabant r. Athanasius r. adorabat p. 61. l. 11. delating r. relating p. 65. l. 26. said l. 29. more point said p. more p. 67. l. 10. S. G. p. 68. l. 15. leaves r. S. C. r. leave p. 68. l. 10. was p. 70. l. 9. their l. 24. damnable p. was r. there r. damageable p. 71. l. 27. primative p. 74. l. 5. the. ibid. then r. primat r. thy r. thou p. 88. l. 27. fin p. 95. l. 7. supar r. sin r. supra p. 102. l. 17. thsy p. 107. l. 29. another r. they po Another p. 127. l. 4. feceret p. 138. l. 18. even r. secerit r. ever p. 141. l. ult 68. p. 162. l. 30. increduty r. 67. r. incredulity p. 171. l. 15. saying 〈◊〉 l. 3. unhollow p. saying r. unhallow p. 174. l. 24. raging r. rageing p. 209. l. 19. inandita r. inaudita