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
by the Doctor Briefly then condere Symbolum are St. Austins words and both in his sence and this Authors stand consignificant with Ordinare which is not to make a Novelty in Faith but to reduce to a Method or short form those Points which Christians both now do believe and have anciently believed in the general most evidently this is Anconitanus his sence First by the words now cited Nam in symbolo ponuntur illa quae Universaliter c. 2. By the express Doctrine in his resolution where he saith Una fuit fides antiquorum modernorum one Faith there was anciently And now 3. by his answer to the 2d Argument Art 2d Ad secundum est dicendum quod ad illa quae in sacra Scriptura ponuntur non debet fieri aliqua additio erroris vel falsitatis vel diminutio veritatis sed addere veritatem quam continet Scriptura explicare semper licuit Ecclesiae semper licet To the second Argument we say That to those things which are in Holy Scripture no addition of error or falshood is to be made nor diminution of Truth But to add a verity which the Scripture contains was and is ever lawful in the Church As he deals with Anconitanus so he abuseth Panormitanus cap. cum Christus the Doctor cites him thus Papa potest inducere novum Articulum fidei and leav's of there But Panormitan's words are Papa potest inducere novum Articulum fidei declarando istud jus Divinum ex hoc infertur quod ista Constitutio respicit praeterita The The Pope can introduce a new Article of Faith by declaring it to be Divine whence we have that this constitution relates to things past Mark a declarative Sentence and of things anciently believed Lastly he cites Ostiensis and Ferdinandus de Inciso apud Petrum Ciezam an Author I never heard of but assuredly most false it is that any Catholick Writer saies The Souls of men are in the hands of the Pope and that in his Arbritration Religion doth consist Page 12. he tells us of a story of the King of Spain giving Commission to purge all Catholick Authors with such secrecy that the Expurgatory Index might not be imparted to any Howsoever saith he by Divine providence Joannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius 13 years after met with it made it publick and since it came abroad against the Inquisitors wills they own it and have printed it themselves Yet more in their Index some words in St. Chrisostom others in St. Austin are commanded to be blotted out yes and Sixtus Senensis in his Epistle Dedicatory highly commends the Pope Pius Quintus for purging all Catholick Authors and chiefly the writings of the Ancient Fathers Thus the Doctor and he layes a foul aspertion on us for corrupting of Witnesses and razing out the Records of Antiquity I answer that he is both false and faulty through this whole Paragraph faulty in telling us of a clancular commission given by the King of Spain to the Inquisitors c. without directing us to either Book or Index where to find it Faulty he is in asserting without nameing his Author that the Inquisitors were forced to own the Expurgatory Index because Pappus and Iunius had first printed it against their wills faulty finally he is for citing words razed out of St. Chrisostom by an Index expurgatorius and leaving his Reader in darkness where to find the Quotations Now to his falsities which are evident In St. Chrisostoms works saith he Printed at Basil these words The Church is not Built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out yet they are read in his first Homily upon that of St. Iohn Ye are my Friends Here are two falsities The first is that these words are commanded to be blotted out of St. Chrisostom's works whereas most certainly the Prohibition falls only on St Chrisostom's Index made by Froben Printer at Basil or some of his Friends And is it not gross to mistake the Index of a Book drawn out by God knows whom for the Authors Doctrine If the Reader please to see that I wrong not the Doctor let him turn to this Index published by Cardinal Sandonal's order and Printed at Madrid anno 1612. pag 556. he shall read Ex D. Iohannis Chrisostomi Indice Basileae ex officina Frobeniana dele sequentia and in the very next page 1. columna soon after the middle these words of Frobens Index Ecclesia non super hominem sed supra fidem aedificata The second Error is that these words are found in the Homily now cited upon St. Iohn believe it there is not a syllable like them in that Homily Again saith the Doctor these words of St. Chrisostom There is no merit but what is given us by Christ are commanded to be blotted out yet they are found in his Sermon upon Pentecost Here are three Errors at once First the Index is taken for the Text Secondly Frobens words are not as the Doctor gives them but thus Salus nostra non ex merito nostro Our Salvation is not by our merit see the Index pag. 558. 1. columna 3. These words There is no merit c. are not in the Homily of Pentecost but in the other upon St. Iohn Ye are my Friends and as they stand in St. Chrisostom's Text are thus Frobens Edition Nullum in nobis meritum nisi quod contalit Christus There is no Merit but what Christ gave us which is most Catholick Doctrine Again those words The Church is not built upon the man c. Are not in that Homily on St. Iohn Ye are my Friends but in St. Chrisostom's Homily on Pentecost In a word to speak plain English our Doctor cited Kim Kam one Homily for an other which may pass for a fault or falsity make of it what you please However he may yet reply though he miscited the places at least grant we must that those words The Church is not built upon the man c. are extant in the Pentecost Homily and the Index Expurgatory commands them to be razed out I answer that it commands them to be razed out of Frobens Index is granted out of St. Chrisostom's works is denyed which yet our Doctor affirms And herein Iohn Pappus is the more honest man of the two for he ingeniously confesseth in the 3d. page of his Preface anno 1599 that we never yet had the boldness to change or cancelate a word in the writings of Ecclesiastical Authors read his 11th line Eo audaciae nondum proruperunt c. The Doctor may yet demand why then purge we Frobens Index of words found in St. Chrisostom's Works I answer because as they stand nudely in that Index devested of their precedent and subsequent words they may render a harsher sence to a Captious Reader and not sound well to any ear though pondered with a further explication of the Author they soon lose the harshness and clear themselves And
〈◊〉 ut dicitur cane Incomparabiliter enim pulchrior est Veritas Christianorum quam Helena Graecorum c. Such I say is my Petition presented to our Doctor and if the Love of Truth bears sway in his Breast yeeld he needs must to a speedy retractation Nothing can Retard him from so generous a Resolution but either Motives of interest drawn from a naughty World or his own once vented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So forsooth he hath said in his Disswasive and so it must stand though all run to Ruin and Christianity suffers The Doctor I confess hath been most Unluckily in broaching Heresies and wanting Grace to retract them Some years are now past since he was so Unfortunate as to become a Patron of the Pelagian Heresie when ex professo he Writ a Book against Original sin and stoutly defended it and being Friendly told by his own Brethren that what he said was not only opposite to Catholick Faith but also to the very Doctrine of the Church of England expresly deliver'd in her Liturgy in 39. Articles in the Office of Baptism c. He had yet the boldness to deny all and assert that the Church of England held not Original Sin though both Prince and Prelate knew then and believ'd the contrary I know not that he ever yet Recanted this Heresie if not 't is now high Time to do it and with it to Weep for the Errors in his Disswasive if he fails in both Duties the World will say and say truly that Dr. Taylor is Notior peccans quam paenitens more known for his Sin then for his Repentance and may Prudently Judge that he of all others was the unfittest Man to Write against Popery that disowns the Doctrine of his own Church unless this makes him fit that being a Pelagian his Words though he multiplies Volums will want weight against Catholicks For this is my reflection and I think a true one that this man who dar'd to say that the Church of England holds not Original Sin so plainly taught and believ'd by all will not Boggle to miscite the Fathers remote from our knowledge Read by few and Understood by fewer Farewel Gentle Reader with a thousand well-wishes for thy profitting by this Treatise I bestow as many on Dr. Taylor whose Enemy God knows I am not Nor can he think me one for laying out his Errors and telling Truth Upon this very Account he ought and I hope will to return me Thanks If now I Merit none I may hereafter have better Luck and deserve them If plain dealing may do it he shall have Reason to account me as indeed I am his Faithful True SERVANT and Friendly ADVERSARY E. W. QUOTATIONS Faulty in DOCTOR TAYLORS PREFACE To the READER TO destroy Tradition not contain'd in Scripture the Doctor cites Tertullian thus I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenes fear the Wo that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it I answer the Dr. turn's the true genuine sence out of this whole sentence chiefly by these guileful particles of his own making And if it be not written which seem exclusive of all unwritten tradition yet this Authority no more relates to Catholick Doctrine concerning Tradition then a Fable in Esop Briefly therefore Tertullian disputing against Hermogenes that held these visible things were created of I know not what prejacent matter speaks thus Lib. adversus Hermog Antwerp Print cap. 22. page 495. In principio c. In the beginning God made heaven and Earth then adds Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem I adore the fulness of Scripture Wherein in what doth he adore this fulness He answers Qua mihi factorem manifestat facta I adore the fulness of Scripture that doth manifest to me both the Maker and things made As who should say in this particular the Scripture is compleat and I adore its fulness c. Now these last words Qua mihi factorem c. which explain the Fathers sence our Dr. wholly omits and beguiles his Reader with these perverted particles if it be not written Tertullian after those words In Evangelio vero amplius goes on An autem de aliqua subiacenti materia facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi Whether all these things be made of a subjacent matter I never yet read Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Let Hermogenes his Work-house shew us that this particular is written Si non est Scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum If this thing now in controversie concerning the prejacent matter Hermogenes asserts be not written let him justly fear that Wo destin'd to them that detract from Scripture or add to it Here is exactly the whole context of Tertullian and it renders this sence Hermogenes holds the world made of a strange unknown matter The Scripture directly tells us how it was made and Created of nothing I adore the fulness of Scripture in this particular let therefore Hermogenes when the Scripture hath clearly said all that belongs to the first Creation of things prove by Scripture that unknown matter he defends if he cannot he may well fear that Wo threatned to such as detract from Scripture or add to it a prejacent matter never mentioned in it Judge good Reader whether this Quotation have so much as a likelyhood of gain-saying any constant received Tradition in the Church The Dr. may reply as Hermogenes added to Scripture his unknown matter so we add our unknown Traditions I answer first what Hermogenes defended was not only an addition but expresly contrary to Holy Scripture declaring that God made the VVorld of Nothing No Catholick Tradition is expresly or positively opposite to Gods written VVord unknown tradition we own not 2. Hermogenes had no such approved consent for his foolery as we have for our Catholick and ever received Tradition justly therefore did Tertullian oppugn him by the Authority of Scripture only for destitute he was of all warranted Tradition 3. The Doctrine of our Tradition not a pretended one or any superaddition of new Articles as the Dr. imputes to us is expresly allow'd of by Scripture it self the place is known 2 Thessa 2. 14. and enervates what ever hath the colour of an objection against us He cites next St. Basil de vera fide whose words are these Paris Print 1618. Tom. 2. page 251. Haud dubie manifestissimum hoc infidelitatis argumentum fuerit signum superbiae certissimum si quis eorum quae Scripta sunt aliquid velit rejicere aut eorum quae non Scripta introducere VVithout doubt this is a most manifest Argument of infidelity if one will reject any one of those things which are written these words our Dr. omits to make the Quotation sound to his sence or of those things which are not written introduce to wit into Scripture and so the St. explicates himself clearly in these following words Vehementissime
force of his Argument Sunt certe saith the Saint libri Dominici quorum Authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus c. There are certain books of our Lord He means Scripture to whose Authority we both yeild we both believe Ibi Quaeramus ecclesiam Let us look for the Church there c. That is seeing we both who now dispute admit of Scripture and believe it let us upon such a supposition go forward and prove the Church by Scripture which is an excellent way of Arguing but if any question the Authority of Scripture it self take it we must when we make a right Analysis upon the Church's Authority solely and say with St. Austin I would not believe the Scripture but for the Church I omit the brags he hath pag. 6. of Protestants being more then indubitably Conquerors meer empty words and observe how he puts himself on a new trouble pag. 7th where he saith Whatsoever we cannot prove by Scripture we disclaim it I will not here tell the Doctor he must then disclaim every Tenet of Protestant Religion no more in Scripture then Arianism as it stands opposite to the Roman Faith But briefly I argue thus A Church secured from Error and which Infallibly proposeth Divine Truth can be proved by Scripture or cannot If the first there was is and shall ever be in the World a society of Christians un-crrable and certain in Doctrine that neither injures Faith nor by intromitting Novelties destroy Apostolical Doctrine for the Scripture as we now suppose saith so and what it saith is true One favour therefore I humbly beg of the Doctor that he would by a plain designation point me out this unerrable body of Christians and clearly also design me such known out cast Christians that are not of this Moral body my demand is reasonable and require's no long discourse nor any definition of a Church but to have this unerring company design'd and candidly If the Scripture Warrant 's not such an Infallible company of Christians the Doctor though he pretend to it can never believe with a true and infallible Act of Supernatural faith that the Ancient Church Inherited Catholick Doctrine that it sent Milions of Souls to Heaven That what we now read is the Apostles Creed that the Ancient Councils erred not in their Definitions No nor that there ever was or is now Pure and Incorrupt Scripture among Christians I say he cannot believe these truths with a certain assent of Supernatural Faith but at most with a meer opinative Judgment which may as well be wrong as right false as true staggering assuredly it is and not steddy if a meer Opinion yes and wholly destitute of that strength which God requires to Supernatural Faith In his 10th page he is fierce against the Church of Rome for pretending to a power not only of declaring New Articles of Faith but of making new Symbols and Creeds and imposing them as necessary to Salvation To this purpose he cites the Bull of Leo the tenth against Martin Luther whose twenty seventh Proposition is this and condemned Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae non esse statuere Articulos fidei imo nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certain that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to appoint or determine Articles of Faith nor Laws of manners or good Works First here is not a word of making new Articles or Creeds and the word statuere may as well signifie to determine a Question not yet decided as to make any thing a new but to pass these niceties and shew clearly the Doctors Error I demand whether the Fathers assembled together in the Nicen Council made new Articles of Faith against the Arians whether St. Athanatius in his Creed did the like who was no Pope What the Doctors Answer is here is ours also for all and every Definition made by the Church in after Ages And I would have him to reflect that as he now cavil's at both Pope and Church for constituting new Articles so the Arians might have done against the Nicen Council and Athanasius his Creed yes and cried out Novelties novelties as loud as the Doctor In a word then I answer with St. Gregory in Ezechiel homit XVI post med pag. 1164. 6. edit Antwerp 1615. that per incrementa temporum Crevit scientia spiritalium Patrum With time Faith encreased hut how not that either the Church or Pope have Power to coin Articles at pleasure or to force Christians to the acceptance of Novelties contrary to Scripture or ancient Tradition No but the Power given them is to dispence the Mysteries of the Word of God to lay out more clearly verities contained in Scripture so the Fathers did in the Nicen Council when they defined the Son to be consubstantial with his Father which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never read in Scripture Finally to declare more explicitely what the Ancient Tradition of the Church and sence of the Fathers hath been within such a compass the Church holds it self when after mature deliberation it defines in Council Hence both Divines and Canonists teach that rigorously speaking the Church hath no new Articles of Faith but only a more full and explicite knowledge of that belief which anciently was among Primitive Christians yet none there is that reads our Doctor both in the page now cited and elsewhere after but must have this perswasion wrought in him that the Church and Pope may define as it were at Random make new Articles new Creeds as they list and impose them as necessary to Salvation All is false and fraudulent dealing CHAP. II. The Doctors Quotations not true His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis THe Doctor in his tenth page to prove our making new Articles cites Augustinus Triumphus de Anconâ—a quaest 59 Art 1 2. and pittifully abuseth that Catholick Author who in his resolution Art 1. â— concludes thus Respondeo quod hanc quaestionem determinat Augustinus libro 1. de symbolo ubi vult quod omnis symboli condendi ordinandi in sancta dei ecclesia terminatur authoritas I Answer St Austin resolves this Question lib. 1. de symbolo Where he saith That all Authority of making and setting a Symbol in order is within the bounds of the Church Mark first St. Austins words Omnis authoritas condendi ordinandi c. Then follow these other in Anconitanus his resolution wrongfully interpreted and unhandsomly mangled by the Doctor Ex his patere potest quod novum symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat nam in symbolo ponuntur illa quae universaliter pertinent ad Christianam fidem By this you may see that to make a new Symbol belongs only to the Pope for those things are set down in a Symbol which Universally concern Christian Faith These last words which explicate both St. Austins and Anconitanus his meaning are fraudulently left out
In his 79. he excepts against our Doctrine of contrition and saith we allow it not valuable unless it includes a desire or will to confess our sins to a Priest Answ We do so and give this reason True contrition which reconciles to God votively at least implies a will of doing what God Commands But one Command is that we confess our sins to a Priest therefore true Contrition submits to it This proof is evident if God have laid a precept on us to confess to a Priest which by all Law of disputation we may here suppose until the Doctor shews the contrary Add to this what our Doctor hath page 101. viz. That confession is of excellent use among the Pious Children of the Church of England If so give me leave to ask him who Ordained this Confession God or the Church or whether there is Scripture for it or no if neither God Scripture nor Church warrant it it is an invention of man and may participate according to our Doctor of a devilish spirit consequently cannot be of excellent use among any c. Now if Scripture be for Confession if God or the Church have Ordained it the Doctor must say if he knows what true Contrition is that the Supernatural Act which reconciles to God doth of necessity imply Actually or Votively a serious will of doing what ever God Scripture or Church Commands us for to say I am sorry for my sin out of the Motive of Gods infinite Love I purpose amendment I 'll do his Will hereafter and not to say I 'll do what God Scripture or Church commandeth implies a contradiction in a word it is to say and unsay purpose and not purpose c. To confirme this discourse I have enough from the Doctor pag. 79. who saith that Genuine and true Contrition is a Cordial sorrow for having sinned against God c. Ending in a dereliction of all sin and a walking in all Righteousness I wish no more for this very walking in all Righteousness implies the obedience we give to Contrition and will make our good Doctor walk to Confession also if Scripture or Church have Ordained it for finners perhaps he may say that Confession is only of Counsel not of Command when I have his Scripture for such an assertion he shall have his answer fully In the interim know that it is but vain to talk as our Doctor doth of a repentance towards God as it were in abstracto without descending to the ultimate worth and Efficacy of it which as now I said includes a serious will of doing Gods Command This truth supposed with what conscience can the Doctor say that we prefer repentance towards men before that which the Scripture calls repentance towards God It is a flat Calumny and as ill intended as expressed improperly for in this Sacrament there is Confession to a man but what repentance is there towards men that we prefer before the Noble Act of Contrition which resting in God prefers him and his Commands before all things in the World A few lines after he saith pag. 80. As Contrition without their Ritual and Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us to God so Attrition with their Sacrament will reconcile the sinner Contrition without it will not Attrition with it will reconcile us And this Doctrine saith he is expresly Decreed at Trent I stand here astonished at this ignorance Do I read in a Doctor that Contrition without Ritual and Sacramental Confession doth not reconcile a sinner and that the Council of Trent Decrees this expresly I say first that the Council expresly declares the contrary Sect. 14. cap. 4. de contritione Docet praeterea Sancta Synodus Si contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contingat hominem Deo reconciliare prius quam hoc Sacramentum actu suscipiatur c. The Holy Synod teaches Although it sometimes falls out that this Contrition when perfect with Charity reconciles a man with God before actual taking of the Sacrament c. The words are contrary to the Doctors assertion and need no explication I say 2. It is the certain and constant Doctrine of Divines that Contrition proceeding from the Love of God or true motive of Charity in the very Moment a Soul hath it gain 's pardon reconciles to God disposes immediately to supernatural Grace whereby a sinner is justified and made an adopted Child of God and this I say In the very Moment a Soul hath it though Sacramental Confession follows not for weeks or months or by accident never for would it not be apittiful case to send a poor sinner to Hell who lies at deaths door or is mortally wounded doth his utmost to be contrite for his sins though neither Priest is present nor Sacramental Confession can be had or hoped for This very case is enough to unbeguile the Doctor and to satisfie him that we Catholicks are not so severe in exacting Sacramental Confession when either accident or necessity excludes a poor penitent from it I know not how the Doctor will come off and satisfie for the enormious injustice done both to the Council of Trent and all Catholicks but by one evasion that shall nothing at all avail him Perhaps he may tell us that when he says Contrition without Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us he only speaks of Votive Confession included in the Act of Contrition and not of Actual No I thought Ritual as he terms it and Sacramental Confession had been in plain English Synonimas or of the same signification with Actual Confession However if the Doctor understands it of Votive Confession read his words thus Contrition without Confession in Vote or desire reconciles not a sinner to God and this you must suppose to be his meaning Then know we Catholicks hold constantly that Contrition without the Vote or Efficatious will of Confession is no Contrition consequently all he proves is that that Act which is no Contrition doth not reconcile to God How then doth he advance any new proof against us Where lies the Mischief or Malignity of our Doctrine in saying that an Act which is no Contrition and submits not in Voto to Gods Command doth not reconcile us to God yet more If he speaks not of Actual but Votive Confession included in Contrition his whole discourse is lame hobling and renders you this Non-sence As Contrition without Sacramental Confession in Vote or desire doth not reconcile us to God so attrition with actual Sacramental Confession doth reconcile us which inference without life and vigor shews nothing to the Doctors purpose for what doth it avail him to say in this place as no Contrition doth reconcile us so Attrition with the Sacrament doth Had he said as Contrition with Votive Confession reconciles us to God so Attrition also with Actual Confession doth the sence had been good and Catholick But never shall he make sence out of these words As Contrition without Confession will not reconcile us
interdicat ne quid corum quae in Divinis literis habeantur dematur aut quod absit addatur VVhich is in plain English to say Add we must not nor diminish any thing in Scripture No Catholick pretends to make that Scripture which is not Scripture Nor to diminish so much as one jot in that sacred Book You see therefore so forceless this Authority is to gain-say received Tradition that it doth not so much as touch upon the very Question As proofless also are those other two Quotations in the Doctors Margent out of St. Basil's Morals for regula 72. C. 1. in the same Edition page 372. He only speak's as the Apostle doth Though an Angel Preach another Gospel then what is Preached let him be Anathematized and reg 80. cap. 22. pag. 386. he saith no more but that we must believe the true force of those things that are in Scripture reject nothing or make any thing new extra divinam Scripturam that is as I interpret without the warranty of Scripture but the Scripture indubitably warrants the declarations of Councils witness the Nicen definitions and constant received Tradition of the Church Therefore this Authority also is wholly impertinent to the Doctors purpose VVho next to oppose Tradition cites Theoph. Alexandrinus in English thus It is the part of a devillish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the Authority of Holy Scripture I Answer here are three faults in this one Quotation First The words are not faithfully cited Secondly They are weighed outof their circumstances and wrested contrary to the Authors meaning Thirdly VVere they as the Doctor would have them they prove nothing against Tradition Briefly all know how sharp an Adversary Theop. Alex. was to Origen and his followers He writ expresly against his errors but that work is not extant and in his 2. Epist paschali cited by the Doctor you have it Tom. 4. Biblioth Patrum Cullen Print 1618. pag. 716. after he had checked Origen for his rashness for broaching Fopperies of his own head and arrogantly making himself his own Master contrary to St. Pauls Humility who conferred the Gospel with other Apostles He speaks thus of Origen solely Sed ignorans quod Daemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humanarum mentium sequi aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum But not knowing that it is an instinct of a Devillish spirit to follow the sophistry or deceit of mans VVit these words which fully express the Authors sence our Doctor totally omit's or to think any thing divine not authorized or without the Authority of Holy Scripture So Theophilus who as you see wholly here relates to Origen's private errors condemns his Pride opposeth his sophistry and boldness in making himself a master of new Fancies but toucheth not the least on Catholick Doctrine concerning unwritten Tradition and though the Doctor draws him to such a sence it is soon answer'd that Catholick Tradition so expresly approved by Scripture cannot be thought a Doctrine extra Scripturae authoritatem without warrant of Gods Word Now if he tells us that he opposeth not any ancient Tradition but our pretended one only that found 's New Articles New Propositions c. I Answer He meerly combates with shadows we neither own such a Tradition nor can the Doctor prove it He should have first named one or two of these New Articles and then assaulted us with the Authority of Fathers directly opposite to our Doctrine and not winck and fight as he doth against no man knows what If he says again that he impugns all Tradition in general all Doctrine not expresly contain'd in Scripture forced he is not only to throw away Scripture it self and the Nicen definitions not only to disclaim a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence Baptizing Children c. but every tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestanism E. G. the belief of two Sacraments only which is not at all contain'd in Scripture nor can it be drawn from Scripture by any probable discourse or gloss of Protestant testants though these are worse and less able to derive unto us a true belief then the poorest tradition were any such that the Doctor can except against in the Catholick Church When the Doctor pleaseth I am ready to discuss this sole point with him of proving Protestant Tenets by Scripture only I believe he will not accept the Challenge Against the worshipping of Images he cites Lactantius lib. 2 cap. de Orig. Error observe I beseech you Lactantius hath seven Books de Divin Instit adversus gentes the Title to his second Book is de Origine erroris which contains ninty Chapters and our Doctor unskilfully throws the Title of the whole Book into a Chapter not found at all in the Author either in my Copy ann 1465. or in that extent Biblioth Patrum saeculo 3. pag. 224. However Chap. 18. these words are found Quare non est dubium quin religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est which the Doctor unworthily translates thus Without all peradventure wherever an Image is meaning for Worship there is no Religion I say unworthily and it pitties me to see so much want of candor for here a sence is rendered as if Lactantius declaim'd against the use and worship of Images among Christians whereas it is more then evident that he only speaks against Simulacra not Images against the Idols and Gods of the Gentils Non sub pedibus quaerat Deum saith he in the beginning of this eighteenth Chapter None is to seek for his God under his feet Nec a vestigijs suis eruat quod adoret Nor pull from under his footsteps what he is to adore Sed quaerat in sublimi quaerat in summo Let him look for God above in Heaven c. The Worship therefore of one Supream God Lactantius chiefly presseth in this whole second book In his first Chapter he tells us that he had above demonstrated the false Religion of many Gods and that in this second Book he declares against the Gentils the cause or Origen of their multiplying many gods In his second Chapter he saith That though the Image of a man absent be necessary yet to circumscribe God diffused every where in any form is both needless and superfluous afterward he shews that no deceased men nor any thing in this world ought to be adored as God In his fourth Chapter he gives this reason Unde apparet istos deos nihil in se habere amplius quam materiam de quâ sunt fabricati These gods have nothing but only the matter they are made of In his eighth Chapter he proposeth the question how these false Gods of the Gentils did work strange wonders and prosecutes the same subject in his ninth Chapter In a word Lactantius through this whole Treatise speaks no more against the Catholick use of Images then I do now while I defend them yet hear we must the Doctor talk and without
this Section concerning the emptying of Purgatory Certainly the Millions of Indulgences and innumerable other helps in the Church should ere this have a hundred times over evacuated that place of its sad Inhabitants I answer this Objection is like the rest feeble and forceless and would the Doctor ponder well these words of the Royal Prophet Psal 100. Misericordiam judicium cantabo tibi Domine He would see the weakness of it God is Merciful but withal just His Mercy impowers the Church to free many But that prodigal use of the Keys in freeing all would be against Justice and would make sinners little to value or fear those torments which St. Austin says Surpass all the pains in this World CHAP. XIV A word more of Indulgences Of the Doctors Mistakes in quoting Authors Whether the Prayer of a sinner avails him Of the Doctors harsh Doctrine THe Doctor after his High heap of dangers and great number of little doubts pag. 97. tells us that there is one thing necessary viz. To work out our Salvation with fear and trembling Answ First a poor penitent that apprehends most deeply the pain of Purgatory and doth so much Penance as we see daily done among good Christians for the releasment of that pain cannot be supposed in any Christians Charity to be without fear and trembling 2. We might if it were worth the while move as many doubts concerning this fear and trembling as he doth against Indulgences We might ask him to work out our Salvation how often must we fear How often must we tremble From what motive-must this fear proceed How strong and intens must this trembling be when all is done How know we that we have trembled enough and whether we are not to tremble till we all turn Quakers Let the Doctor resolve these doubts upon good certainty and I 'll warrant you his scruples about Indulgences will cease What he adds of Venial sins hindring the fruit of Indulgences is not worth taking notice of But Saith he pag. 99. Pope Adrian taught a worse matter viz. He that will obtain an Indulgence for another c. And where find we this worse matter Mark I beseech you his Marginal Quotation Apud Petrum de Soto lect de institut Sacerd. de necessariis ad effectum Indulg Truly our Doctor all along hath been unfortunate in his citations and here he shews himself so very unskilful that I believe he never saw Soto Know then that Petrus de Soto besides other works hath a book in a large Decimo sexto which he Intitles Tractatus de institutione sacerdotum with me it is printed at Brixia anno 1586. under that Title in general he handles many Questions De scientia sacerdotum de Baptismo and other Sacraments c. Every Treatise he devides into Lectiones And after the middle of the Book hath a Title de Indulgentiis pag. 263. This Treatise he divides into three Lectiones Now the Doctor gives you not the Right Lectio of that Treatise which is the third in number but unskilfully directs you to his Lectio de Institutione sacerdotum There is no general Lectio but Tractatus de institutione sacerdotum the Lections are subdivisions to several Treatises Well though without much help from the Doctor we have found the place in Soto Lectio 3. now cited page with me 275. his words are Notat Hadrianus circahoc movet quaestionem c. Adrian who by the way speaks not as Pope but as a Divine or private Doctor proposeth this Question whether one in mortal sin can avail to obtain an Indulgence for another as if an Indulgence for Example be granted to him who gives an Alms or to him for whom it is given by another Adrian holds the Affirmative So that he who doth the work and wisheth the Indulgence to another doth an action Morally good Nam pro peccato non conceditur Indulgentia For an Indulgence is never granted for a sinful work This I say was Adrians private Opinion not so harshly related by Soto as it is by our Doctor who talks as if it were a definition of a Pope Pope Adrian taught a worse matter I censure not Adrians Opinion he was a great Divine nor approve it yet this I 'll say that the Doctor doth not so much as probably impugn it Mark how weakly he argues As if saith he a man could do more for another then he can do for himself Answ Most certainly he may Cannot one uncapable of a dignity or a favour in a Common-wealth beg of his Prince a Grace for another who is capable A meer secular man unlearned and Married may petition his Majesty and perhaps prevail that Doctor Taylor be the next Bishop of Canterbury who they say lives ever unmarried Here is our very Case This secular man is uncapable of such a Grace So a sinner is of an Indulgence This secular man prevails to get the Grace for another who is capable so a sinner may prevail to obtain an Indulgence for another just man capable of the favour The parity holds exactly Therefore it is evident that one may do more for another then he can for himself in some cases The Doctor goes on and speaks not like a Christian As if saith he God would regard the Prayers of a wicked person when he intercedes for another and at the same time if he Prays for himself his Prayer is an abomination Answ This last is certainly impious Doctrine for the consequence of it must needs be this That no sinner ought in conscience ever to Pray for himself I 'll prove what I say thus No sinner can in conscience commit an abomination in the sight of God or sin mortally But to pray for himself is an abomination and a mortal sin therefore no sinner can in conscience pray for himself Consequently that poor Publican 9 Ioan that prayed for himself Deus propitius mihi esto peccatori God be merciful to me a sinner Was an abominable man upon the account of his Prayer which place of Scripture no less a Doctor then St. Austin made use of to prove that a sinner may pray for himself Were the Doctor a Divine I could tell him that prayer in a wicked man may be a supernatural Act and proceed from Gods Grace not sanctifying Grace as Faith is supernatural which preceeds justification in a sinner What he adds of a work done ungratiously is a wrong to Adrian who requires Opus Moraliter bonum A work morally good though not meritorious Finally the Doctor saith that because Divines require the state of Grace necessary in a man at that time he gains an Indulgence though before a sinner they turn Divinity into Mathematicks and Clock-work A conceit not worthy a Doctor say I beseech you if this good man ascends a Pulpit and a larems his hearers thus Good people you have hitherto profited little by my Sermons Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis To day this very moment this minute
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