alledg that that he did not mean he could carry so much alone but he and a Horse with him Such quibbles as these are more becoming Mr. S. then S. Paul and so he may keep them for himself and not father them upon the great Apostle Further he proceeds to oppose St Paul saying that when he wrot that Epistle to Timothy the whole Canon of Scripture was not completed and only the whole Canon and no part of it can be sufficient means for our instruction therefore the Scripture that S. Paul spoke of cannot be a sufficient means for instructing us to Salvation Herein our Sophister is twice impious first in taxing the great Apostles assertion with untruth next that the Oracle of God delivered to men in each time for their instruction to Salvation should not be complete and sufficient By this it appears well how much a stranger this man is to the common Doctrine of Divines who affirm that in the Apostles Creed are contained all necessary verities to be believed for Salvation and in the Ten Commanâ—ments all duties to be performed of necessity to the same end And may not the Creed and Ten Commandments be known without a knowledg of the whole Canon of Scripture His boldness is prodigious in asserting extravagances without exhibiting any proof but his bare ipse dixit Pythagoras-wise Finding me say I was not fit for Pâ—thagoras his Schole where ipse dixit was the rule and men will not give reason for what they teach he opposes that if I am to expect reason for what I believe I am not fit for Christs Schole nor learning from Scripture which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit But if the Man had any ingenuity in him he would spare this Objection seeing it prevented in the 18. page of my discourse where I acknowledg with thanksgiving to God that I never doubted of the Truth of Holy Scriptures nor of the Creed proposed to us by the Catholic Apostolic Church and dictated by God Almighty worthy to be believed without examen not so Pythagoras nor the Pope CHAP. V. Mr. S. his prolixe excursion about the Popes Authority requisite to know which is the true Scripture declared to be Impertinent and the state of the Question cleared from the confusion he puts upon it OUR Adversary finding the Popes Infallibility to be an expression odious and ridiâ—ulous to all knowing men and whereof even the sober part of * Vid. Cress in exomologesi cap 4. Sect. 3. Romanists grow ashamed endeavours to serve us up the same Dish under another dress calling it the Autority of the Church Universal And if therein he did speak properly or sincerely he would have less opposition from us But if you do enquire what he means by Church Universal he tells you it is the Congregation Subject to the Pope of Rome excluding all other men and particularly the Church of England from being any part of that his Universal Church The said Congregation subject to the Pope whether diffusive or representative in a general Council depending upon the Pope and confirmed by him he pretends to be Infallible And whatever I alledge against the Infallibility of the Roman Church he thinks to elude by pretending I speak of the particular Diocese of Rome a gross misunderstanding or willful misrepresentation of my meaning for which I never gave any ground in my writing or discourses He is to know I speak in proper terms as used among Learned men speaking upon this Subject taking the Roman Church for the party following the Popes faction wheresoever extant whether congregated or dispersed prescinding from his Altercations with the rest or any they have among themselves for both he and the rest agreeing in making that Infallibility depending ultimately upon the Popes Autority we may well represent their assertion as opposite to the sentiment of all other Christians under the notion of the Popes infallibility * That all is bottomed upon the Popes Authority Bellarmin declares saying totam firmitatem conciliorum legitimorum esse á Pontifice non-partim à Pontifice partim à concilio lib. 4. de Rom. Pon. c. 3. sect at contra The terms and state of the Question being thus cleared it follows to declare how impertinent his prolixe excursion and vain ostentation is in telling us the diversity of Opinions that were in different times about Canonical Scripture and the difficulty of ascertaining us which is the true one This is an old device of those of his faction to decline the main controversy in hand wherein they still betray the weakness of their Cause They and he should remember the points controverted are among parties that agree in reverencing the Bible for the infallible Word of God And if he thinks the part of it received for Canonical by common consent will not suffice for ending our Controversies we admit willingly St. Augustins rule for clearing the difficulties touching particular Books the Authority of the Church and the Tradition of it as described by Lirinensis Quod semper quod ubique quod apud omnes What was in all time in all places and by all Christians delivered that we take for a true Apostolic Tradition and to it we resolve to stand or fall as well for discerning Canonical Scripture as for understanding the true meaning of it If Mr. S. did take Church and Tradiâ—ion in the sense that the Holy Fathers did and the Learned Men of the Church of England do he would find in us all due reverence to those sacred Fountains of Christian verities But to call Church Universal the faction adhering to the Pope of Rome in opposition to the rest of Christians is a presumtion like that of the Turk in calling himself King of Kings and Emperor of all the World such as are Vassals to him may revere that calling others do laugh at it But we do not find the Turk to have plaâ—'d the sool so far as to take that his assumed title as granted by other Princes independing upon him or to alledg it for ground of his pretentions with them This is Mr. S. his folly in taking for granted in his debates with us that the Romish faction is the Catholic Universal Church So great an Intruder upon disputes should learn that rule of Disputants Quod gratis dicitur gratis negatur what is barely said without proof is sufficiently refuted with a bare denial This alone well considered will suffice to overthrow man Chapters of Mr. S. his Book What makes him spend time in telling us of the difficulty of finding out which is true Scripture the rule truly infallible of our belief when he sees us thus ascertain'd of it why do's he trouble us with speaking of a Criterion or beam of light pretended by Fanatics confessing at the same time that to be exploded by Protestants is it to make his Book swell But finding he cannot hide Scripture from us he will have us to be beholden to the Pope for the true
belief the Word of God contained in the Gospel and in the other Canonical Scriptures while the Roman preaches articles coined by her self and never given to the Apostles to be preached as we shall shew abundantly hereafter refuting the errors of it CHAP. IV. The Church of England proved to be Apostolic upon the foundation laid by Suarez to rob it of that Title SVarez after having used his best endeavours to deprive the Church of England of her right to the name of Catholic with so little success as we have seen in the precedent Chapter he passes in the 17. Chapter of his foresaid Book to rob it of the name of Apostolic so to deprive King James of the title he gives himself of Defender of the Faith truly Catholic and Apostolic To prove that the Faith of the Church of England is not Apostolic he laies this foundation that two things are requisite to make a Faith or Doctrine Apostolic The first that it proceed in some manner from the Preaching words or writings of the Apostles Secondly that it be conveyed to us by legal tradition and succession The first is contained in those words of St. Paul Ephes 2.19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and forreigners but fellow Citizens with the Saints of the houshold of God are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The second requisite is declared by Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. in these words Traditionem Apostolorum in omni Ecclesia adest perspicere quae vera velint audire habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos Who are willing to hear truth must look upon the tradition of the Apostles in all Churches and we can number those that were ordained Bishops by the Apostles and their successours to our own times Suarez pretends these two requisites to be wanting in the Church of England to merit the Name of Apostolic First saies he because the Doctrine of it was not preached by the Apostles neither was it taken out of their Doctrine or conveyed to us by lawful tradition Against which position he brings King James protesting himself to believe admit and reverence the Canonical Scripture the three Creeds and the first four General Councils in which sacred fountains he judged the Apostolic Faith to be contained and Suarez acknowledges that King James spoke herein not only his own sense but the sense and belief of the whole Church of England which is no small glory to it But how can Suarez make out that the Apostolic Faith and Doctrine is not sufficiently contained in those sacred Fountains of the Scriptures Creeds and Councils received by the Church of England See Reader and admire his answer Tho the Doctrine of the said Books considered in it self saies he be Catholic Apostolic Faith or rather a part of it for he pretends that all Catholic Faith is not contained in those fountains yet as it is received by sectaries either it is not Apostlic or it may not be certainly taken for such First because they cannot be certain whether those Books they receive be Canonical or the Councils legal Secondly that they cannot be certain of the true meaning of the Scriptures Creeds or Councils So that in conclusion the Divinity of our Saviour preached by a Romish Priest is Catholic Apostolic Faith but not so when preached by one of the Church of England I should indeed think this only consequence to be a sufficient confutation of this unhappy subtilty of Suarez but further to his reason when effectively we are secured that the Scripture received by us is truly Canonical and Divine and our adversaries do allow it what need is there for quarrelling about the grounds and motives of our security therein and touching the sense both of Scripture Creeds Councils the * Se tria symbola in eo seâ—su interpretari quem illis esse voluerunt Patres atque concilia a quibus funt condita atque descripta saying of K. James related by Suarez n. 9. that he does take the Creeds in the same sense which the Fathers and Councels by whom they were made were willing to give to them well considered is both pious and prudent When the words of a Scripture or article are capable of different senses all consistent with Christian verity and none repugnant to sound Doctrine it is bâ—t Catholic prety to suspend a firm assent to one and keep a readiness to adhere to what may be the real intention of the sacred writer For example that article of the Apostles Creed touching our Saviours descent into Hell is capable of different senses in relation to the Hell he descended into It s a groundless conjecture of Suarez that King James and the Church of England with him should deny a real descent and say he did suffer the pains of Hell in the garden as may be seen by the grave discourse of learned Dr. Pearson now Bishop of Chester upon that article We believe he descended really into Hell that is to say into some place under the Earth it may be without any absurdity to the Hell of the damned as declared in the second part of this Treatise c. 27. But whether it was that Hell or an other subterranean place he descended into we may with piety and prudence suspend our judgment having no Divine oracle to ground upon the determination of the place And Suarez gives us a signal example of this resignation of our intellects to the intention of the Writer in a matter less sacred then the Articles of the Creed I mean the expressions of Popes touching Indulgencies Finding insuperable difficulties in giving a congruous sense to terms of that art which appear non-sense as those of plena plenior plenissima full more full most full If full or plenary how can another be more full c. He confesses not to understand the propriety of these and other expressions used upon that Subject but will rest upon the judgment of the Church which knows the meaning of those measures as will be seen in the 39. Chapter And certainly all those of his party have need of this kind of resignation to rest upon if they will have quiet for there is no article of Creed or Council without diversity of Opinions touching the true meaning of it among their Doctors But this Author has more to say to us that the points wherein we differ from the Roman Church were never taught by any of the Apostles For example saith he to make the King Supreme Governour of the Church this nettles him still what place of Scripture what History do's warrant this Doctrine What Christian or Godly King did practise such a Supremacy over the Church to which I say that we have a warrant for this subjection to our Princes in the words of St. Paul Rom. XIII 1. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher powers where no distinction is
the Rule of our belief All this he must say of the Council of Trent or the Church represented in it of this Age that alone and not the Pope out of it must be in his doctrine our infallible Teacher Now further Is not the doctrin of the Council of Trent proposed to us as a Rule of our Faith of equal value and autority with the written word of God both proceeding from the Holy Ghost they say it is Is not moreover that doctrine known to us only by tradition certainly it is I have no notice of it nor can I have but by relation of others and they of no more credit with me but rather of far less then those Venerable Writers that relate to us the doctrine of the primitive Church Are there not Controversies dayly and endless about the sense and meaning of the Councill of Trent as well as about the more ancient Councils witness the dismall broyls betwixt Jesuists Jansenists and Dominicans Where is now Mr. I. S. his living infallible Judg The Councill of Trent and the Popes governing it are dead and gon The Pope now living or any Councill he can congregate less than a general one is not an infallible Judg. Who then will ascertain him will he have a generall Councill congregated for the resolution of his Faith in every doubt that comes into his head How shall we be sure that Pope Innocent and Alexander did not err in their definition of the great debate with the Jansenists Their definition not being in a general Council cannot be to us a warrant of security in Mr. I. S. his opinion The Jansenists will triumph at this and will that please them at Rome and Paris while Mr. I. S. agrees with them upon this particular I ask further Tho a General Council were congregated now to that effect such as that of Trent to ascertain us of the Articles defined against Jansenius how shall I be sure that God speaks by such a Council or the Church represented in it thus in Mr. I. S. his dialect because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her because he doth credit her by so many Miracles and supernatural marks which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her Well and where be those Miracles and supernatural marks assisting this Council present to ascertain us that God speaks by it are you sure to find them at hand when the Council is joined likely you are upon the experience of coining Miracles when occasion requires it By this Reader you may see how little Mr. I. S. hath don after so much ado to resolve his Faith without a Circle How rash his assurance was that Protestants will never resolve theirs without such a fault I will now shew briefly The Faith of Protestants is that contain'd in Canonical Scripture as he often supposes my Faith touching each point of those contained in Scripture I resolve thus I believe the Son of God was made Man because I find it written in the holy Scripture I believe what is written in the holy Scripture because it is the infallible Word of God And I believe it is the Word of God because the Apostles preaching it did confirm it with such Miracles and Wonders as only God could work And finally that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrine contained in Scripture and did confirm it with Miracles I beleive in force of universal tradition according to that celebrated notion of it delivered by Vincentius Lyrinensis quod ubique quod semper quod apud omnes est creditum what was alwaies in all places and by all Christians received and believed is to be taken for Universal and Apostolical Tradition This common consent of Christians making up universal Tradition we have in what is unanimously delivered by the ancient Fathers and declared in the first general Councils of those more holy and sincere primitive times Thither I go to take up my belief as to streams immediatly proceeding from the Fountain of Grace with more pleasure and satisfaction then to the muddy Waters of doctrine delivered by the Church of Rome of this corrupt Age past through so many hands defiled with ambition avarice and other earthly passions repugnant to sincerity of which we have too much assurance CHAP. XIV A Reflection upon the perverse Doctrine contained in the resolution of Faith proposed to us by Mr. I. S. and the pernicious and most dangerous consequences of it IT is a Providence of God and the great force of truth that our Adversaries should forget themselves sometimes and discover their wicked intentions covered under sacred pretexts All their Novelties they frequently set forth under the venerable cloak of Antiquity It is a glory of humility says S. Bernard that Pride should wear a cloak of it to be in esteem Gloriosa res humilitas qua se vestire solet Superbia ne evilescat and so it is a glory of Antiquity that Novellers should pretend credit to their inventions by casting on them a color of Antiquity It is very frequent with the Romanists to use this stratagem to cloak their new Decrees with the venerable name of ancient Canons to call their Church ancient Church tho composed of Novelties where it opposes the Reformed Mr. I. S. hath bin pleased to unmask his Church herein to us declaring that the ultimate ground and motive of their belief and their Proselytes must not be the Testimony of that sacred primitive Church govern'd by Christ himself and his blessed Apostles but the Testimony of the present Church of Rome infected with the corruptions which the World knows and both friends and foes do see and cry against with universal scanâ—al Besides the perversness of this Doctrine obvious to every one that will not blind himself wilfully taking from our sigâ—t and view the sweet and comfortable face of primitive Christianity and willing us only to attend the foul and abominable practices of the Roman Court calling it self Church and even the Catholic Universal and only Church to the offence and scandal of all sincere and knowing Men Besides the perversity of this Doctrine the dangerous consequences of it are much to be considered for preventing the growth of this destructive Seed First it followeth hence that as there is no end of Disputes and Controversies among Men nor any is like to be so there will be no end of coining new Articles of Faith all tending to the encrease of power and splendor of the Pope and his Court tho at the expences of disturbance and destructions to Men Cities Provinces and Kingdoms as often happen'd This to be their aim under the pretence of exalting and propagating the Faith of Christ appears by the next attemt of Mr. I. S. in favor of the Popes supremacy to be examined in the Chapter next following Having established the Pope and his present Church as he conceives in the possession of infallible Judges in matters of Faith the next point he takes in hand
perspicacity in striking the nail in the head This indeed is that stumbling stone and Rock of offence This is the chief and I may say the only cause of that irreconcileable disunion of the Roman Church with us We know by certain and well authorized * Tortura torti Pag. 152. records that Pope Paul the Fourth offered Queen Elizabeth to approve of the Reformation if the Queen would acknowledg his Primacy and the Reformation from him and he being dead his Successor Plus the 4. prosecuted the same as appears by his letters written the 5 * Cambden Anno 1560. of * Twisden H. Vind. Cap. IX n. 5. May 1560. and sent by Vincentius Parpalia offering to confirm the Liturgy of the English Church if she would acknowledg his Supremacy This being told by Sir Roger Twisden as he relates himself to an Italian Gentleman versed in public affairs together with the grounds on which he spake it well said the Gentleman if this were heard in Rome among religious Men it would never gain credit but with such as have in their hands the maneggi della corte the management of the court affairs it may be held true And indeed suâ—h as know the spirit of that Court may easily believe that if this great point of the Supremacy the foundation of their power and grandeur were agreed upon they would easily wink at other dissentions Whereof we have a pregnant testimony from Bellarmin Lib. 3. de Ecclesia Cap. 20. asserting that even such as have no interiour Faith nor any Christian vertue are to be taken for members of the Catholic Church provided they do but outwardly profess the Faith of the Roman Church and subjection to the Pope tho it be only for some temporal interest So ready they are in Rome to embrace all sorts of men provided they acknowledg the Popes Supremacy This being established all is well being denyed the best of Men and soundest Believers in Christ must be damned Heretics by sentence of that Court. But I shall declare sufficiently in the 15. Chapter of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain the pretence of Suarez and his party is to make the Popes Supremacy an article of saving Faith how unjust and tyrannical an usurpation it is how far the best Popes in the Primitive Church were from pretending to it and more from pressing it upon Christians as an article of saving Faith And indeed it must appear strange to any impartial judgment that the System of articles contained in the three Creeds and four first general Councels which gained the name of Catholic to the Church first called so should not suffice to make a Church Catholic in all times Therefore the Church of England professing all those Articles is to be taken for truly Catholic tho denying the Popes Supremacy not contained in the foresaid System nor ever own'd by the Church first called Catholic as hereafter will be proved As to the second sort of Universality consisting in taking the Word of God for a common reason or rule of belief how can any pretend the Church of England to be deficient herein having ever protested that the Word of God contained in Canonical Scripture is the prime and only rule of its belief while the Roman Church denies to stand to this rule as unable to make out all the belief it would force upon us What Suarez pretends that the Church of England wants a rule infallible for knowing which is true Scripture and the true meaning of it which they conceive to have themselves in the Popes infallibility I shall declare in the eighth Chap. of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain it is we having in universal tradition and in the Writings of the Holy Fathers means sufficiently certain for knowing which is the true Scripture and which the true meaning of it in points necessary to Salvation As for others less necessary if there be obscurity and diversity of opinions among our Writers so is there among theirs nor could their pretended Infallibility ever make them agree Nay among the best and wisest Fathers of the Church there was alwaies a great diversity of opinions in points not fundamental without breach of Catholic and Christian union Now concerning the third kind of union or universality consisting in a hierarchical order of Bishops Priests and Deacons c. Suarez is much mistaken in saying that we have them not true and legal I will declare at large from the fifth Chapter following that we have all the security they have of a legal sucession and true ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons It s their concern we should not be found deficient herein for any defect conceived in our hierachy will reflect upon theirs Finally touching the fourth manner of Universality signified by the name Catholic that a Church or Faith so called should be extended over all the Earth Suarez exceeds much in denying this property to the Church of England or Faith professed in it saying it passes not the bounds of Brittish land To which is contrary that grave and modest testimony of King James related by Suarez in the same place chapter xv n 6. Nos Dei benesicio nec numero nec dignitate ita sumus contemnendi qui â—â—ono vicinis nostris exemplo praeire possimis quandoquidem Christiani orbis omniumque in eo ordinum inde à Regibus liberisque Principibus usque ad insimae conditionis homines pars propè media in nostram Religionem consensit We by the grace of God are not so despicable either for number or dignity that we may not be a good example to our Neighbours whereas neer the one half of the Christian World and all orders of People in it from Kings and Soverain Princes to the meanest sort of persons have already embraced our Religion I shall declare hereafter from the XIX Chapter descending to particulars that this saying of King James was both true and modest and that more then the one half of the Christian World agrees with the Church of England in unity of Faith sufficient to render them Catholic and that the Church of Rome may cease bragging of her extent being now come so short of that latitude which made her swell to the contemt of all other Christian Churches now far exceeding her in number and lustre of Princes and Kingdoms embracing the Faith professed in them Suarez preventing a check to his argument from this discovery in the XVI Chapter num 4. of his said Book premises that this general extension of the Catholic Church over all the World is to be understood of extension either by right or by actual possession and tho the latter be deficient the former of right cannot want Christ having commanded that his Gospel should be preached to all the World But how can Suarez pretend that this right should belong to the Faith of his Church rather then to that of the Church of England whereas this latter preacheth only for object of
my great comfort and no small grief to consider the disingenuity of Romanists in fomenting animosities among Christians by calumniating thus the opposers of their errors CHAP. XIII Of the several large and flourishing Christian Churches in the Eastern Countries not subject to the Pope TO all men truly zealous of the honour of God and of his Son Jesus Christ it cannot but be comfortable to see how happily the blessed Apostles have complied with the command of our Soveraign Lord and Saviour * Math. 28 â—9 Go and teach all Nations baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and how gloriously the Churches planted by them have persevered in the Faith of our Saviour in spight of the greatest persecutions and under the greatest Enemies of the Christian name such as the Turk is known to be and yet under his Domions is a numberless number of Christians of which the Grecians are for antiquity number and dignity the chief They acknowledg obedience to the Patriarch of Constantinople under whose jurisdiction are in Asia the Christians of Natolia Circassia Mengrelia and Russia as in Europe also the Christians of Grece Macedon Epirus Thrace Bulgaria Servia Bosnia Walachia Moldavia â—odolia Moscovia together with all the Islands of the Aegean Sea and others about Grece as far as Corfu besides a good part of the large Dominion of Polonia and those parts of Dalmatia and Croatia that are subject to the Turkish Dominion all which Congregations of Christians subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople do exceed in number them of the Romish Communion as I find recorded by diligent a Brerewood inquiries cap. 15. Pagit Christianography cap. 2. Writers whereof Pagit saies that Christians make up the two third parts of the Grand Signiors Subjects All these Churches do deny the Popes Supremacy they account the Pope and his Church Schismatical The Patriarch of Constantinople doth yearly upon the Sunday called Dominica invocavit solemnly excommunicate the Pope and his Clergy for Schismatics They deny Transubstantiation touching which point Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople delivereth this excellent confession as agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England as opposite to the Romish In the Eucharist saith b Cap. 17. Pag. 60. he we do confess a true and a real presence of Christ but such a one as Faith offereth us not such as devised Transubstantiation teacheth for we believe the Faithful to eat Christ's body in the Lords Supper not sensibly champing it with our teeth but partaking it with the sense of the soul For that is not the Body of Christ which offereth it self to our Eies in the Sacrament but that which Faith spiritually apprehendeth and offereth to us Hence ensueth that if we believe we eat and participate if we believe not we receive no profit by it Hieremy the Patriarch teacheth a change of bread into the Body of Christ which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a transmutation which is not sufficient to infer a Transubstantiation because it may only signify a mystical alteration which the Patriarch in the same place plainly sheweth saying that the mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of Christ not that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he are changed into humane flesh but we into them for the better things have ever the preeminence The words of Cyril and Hieremy in Greek are to be found with Mr. Pagit in his Christianographie Cap. 4. They deny Purgatory fire So Nilus Arch-Bishop of Thessalonica a Nilus p 219. de purg igne we have not received by tradition from our teachers that there is any fire of purgatory nor any temporal punishment by fire neither do we know of any such Doctrine taught in the Eastern Church b Castr adver haeres l. 12. p. 1.8 Alphonsus de Castro It is one of the most known errors of the Grecians and Armenians that they teach there is no place of Purgatory where Souls after this Life are purged from their corruptions which they have contracted in their Bodies before they deserve to be received into the Eternal tabernacles They administer the Eucharist in both kinds of which c Cyr c 17. p. 61. Câ—rill the Patriarch As the institutor speaketh of his Body so also of his blood which commandment ought not to be rent asunder or mangled according to humane arbitrement but the institution delivered to be kept intire a Resp p. 129 distinct 31. aliter They allow married Priests Hier. Patr. We do permit those Priests that cannot contain the use of marriage They deny the worship of Images Concerning which point b Cyr. resp ad inter 4. p. 97. Cyril speaketh we forbid not the historical use of Pictures Painting being a famous and commendable Art we grant to them that will have them the pictures of Christ and Saints but their adoration and worship we detest as forbidden by the Holy Ghost in holy Scripture least we should before we are aware adore colours instead of our Creatour and Maker They acknowledg the sufficiency of Scripture for an entire rule of Faith and of our Salvation Of which c Damasc de Orthodoxa fide lib. 1. c. 1. Damascen giveth this testimony What soever is delivered unto us in the Law and in the Prophets by the Apostles and Evangelists that we receive acknowledg and reverence and beside these we require nothing else They do not forbid the layty the reading of Scriptures As the reading of Scripture is forbidden to no Christian Man saith Cyril the Patriarch so no Man is to be kept from the reading of it for the word is near in their mouth and in their hearts Therefore manifest injury is offered to any Christian Man of what rank or condition soever he be who is deprived or kept from reading or hearing the Holy Scripture They allow no private Masses as Châ—traeus relates No private Masses saies he are celebrated among the Grecks without other communicants as their liturgies and faithfull relations testifâ— They have prayer in a known tongue They use not prayer for Souls to be delivered out of purgatory nor the extreme unction nor elevating and carrying about the Sacrament that it may be adored nor indulgences nor sale of Masses Neither is there in their Canon any mention made of the sacrifice of the Body and blood of Christ for the living and dead as Chytraeus Guagnirus and others quoted by a Pagit c. 4. Pagit do relate Other differences of less account betwixt the Grecian Church and the Roman you may see related by b Brerew c. 15. Possev dereb Muscov pag. 38. Brerewood and Possevin Of the same Religion with the Grecians are the Christians of the vast and mighty Empire of Muscovia and Russia under their Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of Mosco nominated and appointed by the Prince the Emperour of Russia and upon this nomination consecrated by two or three of his own suffragans To these may
Parisian Doctors in their Declaration against the forementioned Thesis of Clermont Colledg presented to all the Bishops of France extant in the hands of many both in French and English And if their reason exhibited for their censure be considered well we shall find it to comprehend Mr. I. S. his opinion no less then that of the Clermont Jesuits since both the one and the other do bottom the pretended Infallibility of their Church upon the Popes Autority whether in a Council or out of it and so the reason of the Parisian Divines doth conclude in either case that it is a Blasphemy injurious to Jesus Christ to ascribe to the Pope that Infallibility which Christ alone possesses and that men should render that Supreme Cultus of Divine Faith to the words of the Pope which is only due to the word of God The allegations of our Adversary for obedience due to the Church as to Christ and of promises made of the assistance of the Holy Ghost to the Apostles and the Church governed by them will appear very impertinent to his purpose in favor of the Pope and his faction when we come to examine the Texts alledged for which I will assign the Chapter following In the mean time we may conclude from what is said in this Chapter That to ascribe Infallibility to the Pope is Blasphemy in the opinion even of Popish Doctors and Mr. I. S. his pecular way of defending that tenet declared for heretical by Doctors of his own party which was my present undertaking To which may be added the opinion of Mr. * Tabul Suff. cap. 19.20.21 Thomas White of the same Communion whose whole Book called his Tabulae suffragiales is purposely designed against this doctrine of the Popes personal Infallibility affirming it to be not heretical but Archiheretical and that the propagating of this doctrine is in its kind a most grievous sin so weary men of Learning and Parts begin to grow of this intolerable Arrogance of the Roman Church or Court and of their Flatterers CHAP. VII Our Adversaries corruption of Scripture detected OUR Adversary certainly never look'd into the Bible for the Texts he alledges for the Infallibility of his Church but snatch'd them out of some of his old Controvertists whose custom is to clip and cut Scripture to their own pretences without regard of their true meaning Or if he has seen them with their contexts he has bin strangely dull in not perceiving the right sense of them very obvious to any ordinary good understanding or malicious in misrepresenting the meaning of them This is especially seen in his Allegation of these words Joh. XV. 26. When the Paraclete will come whom I will send from my Father the spirit of truth he will give testimony of me and ye will give testimony This he will have us take for a certain testimony of the Holy Ghosts assistance promised to his Church If he did see the half verse immediatly following which he left out or his Tutors cut off he would find that these words were spoken to the Apostles with circumstances making them impossible to be applied to his Church The verse restored to its integrity saies thus And ye also shall bear witness because ye have bin with me from the beginning What man in his senses would think those words appliable to the Council of Trent Were the Fathers of that Council with Christ from the the beginning was the Holy Ghost not yet descended He confirms further his opinion out of Acts the XV. 28. where the Council of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem deciding the controversy concerning Circumcision delivers their opinion thus It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us signifying that the Holy Ghost did assist them and that grounded on the words aforesaid of our Saviour Joh. XV. 26. When the Paraclete will come he shall give testimony of me and you shall give testimony of me If that be the ground of the Apostles Phrase we have seen before to whom that promise was given whether to the Apostles alone or the Bishops of Rome to be for ever We have seen that the Text in its integrity cannot be applied to the latter But Mr. I. S. of his own autority declares that promise was made by Christ not only to the Apostles but to the Roman Church for ever And to make this latter Text sound somthing like to his purpose he patches it up with a piece of a verse fetch'd out of Matth. XXVIII Vntil the consummation of the world This usual art of theirs of cutting from the Texts what is against their purpose and patching them with other words far fetch'd that may have a gloss or appearance of their pretention may be practiced with more safety in conversation or in a Sermon to a vulgar Auditory then in a serious debate by print exposed to a strict examen This is a cheat like that used in Italy with rotten Apples to set them out for sound They cut off the rotten pieces and glue together the sound fragments to an appearance of a fair Apple but being handled more close it falls in pieces and discovers the cheat This abominable Legerdemain is too often seen in their Pulpits fathering upon the Gospel forsooth most execrable Blasphemies extolling their several new Saints to whom they would gain devotion and by that devotion mony to their Coffers above the Apostles above the Angels above Christ and all that is in heaven to the perpetual scandal of the discreet part of their own flock and edification of none All is sanctified with them by repeting at the end of every desperate discourse some words of the Gospel as a burden of the song tho with no relation in its sense to their purpose This is the art Mr. I. S. useth with the testimony related of Acts XV. touching the assistance of the Holy Ghost in the Council at Jerusalem grounded as he confesses upon the aforesaid Text of John XV. 26. declared to relate only to the Apostles then present and Mr. I. S. of his own head will have it extended to the Roman Church for ever and his Interpretation must be taken for Canonical Scripture by closing it up with this fragment of the twentieth verse of Matthew the XXVIII Vntil the consummation of the world The Text he corrupts and cuts off Matth. XXVIII contains a promise of Christ to the Apostles and Church founded and Faith preached by them that he will assist them for ever saying I am with you all the daies until the consummation of the world St. Hierom better then Mr. I. S. will tell us the meaning of these words glossing thus upon them qui usque ad consummationem seculi cum discipulis se futurum esse promittit illos ostendit semper esse victuros se nunquam à credentibus recessurum In these words our Saviour promises to his Disciples life everlasting and to the Church founded by them and to all true believers in him his
perpetual assistance This assistance of Christ to his own true Church following the steps and doctrine of the Apostles we believe with joy but cannot approve the Arrogancy of Mr. I. S. and his brethren in appropriating all such promises to their own Faction and perpetually taking for granted in his Debates with us that to be the only Church favoured by such gracious promises being indeed but a very corrupt Member of the Church Universal to whom these promises were made a thing which we do not say barely but prove evidently Another example of their skill in clipping and corrupting Scripture he fetches out of the same Store-house upon the words of John XIV 16. I will pray the Father and he will give you another Comforter the spirit of truth that will abide with you for ever who will lead you unto all truth I discovered their abuse of this Text by restoring it to its integrity which according to their own Bible goes in these words If ye love me keep my commandments and I will ask my Father and he shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive By the first words we see this to be a conditional promise limited to such as love God and keep his Commandments by the latter words worldly and sinful men are expresly excluded from receiving that gracious assistance of the Spirit of truth for which meaning of these words I related the Gloss interlineal and ordinary This discourse our Adversary opposes thus that after the former clause if you love me keep my commandments there is a punctum and then follows a distinct verse and I will ask my Father and he will give you another Paraclete c. which makes an absolute sense independent from the former This is indeed a subtilty well becoming a Sophister as if a punctum may not be interposed betwixt several clauses of one discourse tending to the same end or betwixt premises and a conclusion deduced from them as if the copulative particle and did not signify a conjunction of both clauses and an influence of the one upon the other as if all that were not cleared by the words I quoted in the Margin of the Gloss interlineal Mundus i. e. remanens amator mundi cum quo nunquam est amor Dei and of the Gloss ordinary non habent spirituales oculos quibus Spiritum Sanctum videant mundi amatores Here we see both Glosses denying the effect of that glorious promise to profane worldlings and consequently the promise made only to lovers of God and keepers of his holy Commandments If our Adversary were ingenuous he would spare his silly subtilties seeing them obstructed by this stating of the case CHAP. VIII Mr. I. S. his horrible impiety against the sacred Apostles and malicious imposing on the Church of England reprehended ANother grand Argument he has which he saies resolutely I can never answer is this that if the foresaid promise John XIV 16. was conditional as above-mentioned it follows we cannot be sure the Gospel is infallible whereas no Text of Scripture saies he pag. 89. tells us that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel nor nothing else gives us assurance of it My first answer to this so unanswerable Argument is that if this man had delivered this expression in Spain and were accused to the Inquisition his body would suffer for it if his intellect were not reduced to acknowledg and repent the horrid impiety of it And I am certainly perswaded that there is no Christian that has any sense of piety in him whether Protestant or Papist but will cry out with horror against the insolent impiety of this man in speaking so irreverently of those sacred Organs of the Holy Ghost and blessed Disciples of Christ confirmed by him in grace as is the common apprehension and expression of Christians and replenished with the Holy Ghost Act. 2.4 for whose perseverance in grace our Saviour praied so fervently to his heavenly Father as we see in John the XVII 11. Holy Father keep through thine own name those thou hast given me Upon which words Maldonate delivers this Gloss Non rogat Christus ut nunc à peccatis liberentur sed ut jam liberati in eo statu quo erant conserventur ne quis ab eâ decedat gratiâ quam consecutus suo erat beneficio quemadmodum Judae contigerat That our Saviour praied for their perseverance in grace that none of them should fall from it as Judas did And will this rash man say that the praier of our Saviour was not heard nor his request granted by his heavenly Father in favor of his beloved Disciples If he will not be so profligately impious how dares he say that no Text of Scripture tells us that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel nor nothing else gives us assurance of it If his Book did contain no other crime then this unchristian expression any true disciple of Christ and believer of his Gospel ought to judg the said Book more worth the burning then the reading He is not yet contented with the damnable expression fore-mentioned but must raise his censure against the truth of the Gospel of Christ to a higher degree p. 89. saying that not only we are not sure of the Infallibility of the Gospel but that we are assured it is not infallible and this horrible Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and the Gospel dictated by him he must father upon the Protestant Church but upon a ground so much of his own making that any dispassionate man and not blind may see the whole assertion to be his own and a product of his inclination which appears here and in many other places of destroying the foundations of all Christian Belief The ground he gives for this latter most damnable Blasphemy is That the common doctrine of the Protestant Church is That it is impossible to keep Gods Commandments therefore saies he The Evangelists when they wrote did not keep Gods Commandments and consequently they could not have the Paraclete to lead them into truth I never yet heard any Protestant deliver such a desperate proposition as this he fathers upon them which thus delivered categorically without further declaration or limitation were to say it were impossible for any man to be saved our Saviour often declaring that the only way to life everlasting is to keep Gods Commands It were also to give the lie to our Redeemer saying that his yoke is easy and his burden light Mat. XI 30. and that his Commandments are not grievous 1 Joh. V. 3. If he knows any Protestant Writer to have delivered that position in that latitude why do's not he tell me who he is and where he saith it that I may judg accordingly of the Author and of the Doctrine Must I take it upon his credit having so many experiences of
Ireland whither I was sent to convert Protestants The case was with Papists who concerned for the Salvation of their Relations and Friends of the Protestant Communion enquired whether such believing sincerely they were in the right never convinced of the contrary and living religiously in the fear of God and in the observation of his Commandments might be saved I answered they might and were not Heretics but Members of the Catholic Church a dignity received in their Baptism and not to be lost otherwise then by formal Heresy or Infidelity whereof they were not guilty by the foresaid Supposition You say all is true but 't is not discretion to declare truth it self when there is no obligation of declaring it Well but was there not an obligation upon me when question'd to answer according to truth No say you for if the Inquirers were Papists they needed not to be instructed in that truth 't is no Fundamental Truth If Protestants they were not oblig'd to know it for the same reason and that the answer was an encouragement to them to remain as they were A pretty subtilty We have declared before how touching Points not Fundamental there may be pernicious errors Such is that opposite to the Truth we now speak of an error subversive of Christian charity and public peace a seed of those Animosities Rebellion and Combustions which made this Land unhappy And ought not a sincere Instructor and faithful Minister of the Word of God to oppose this error No say you because it was to encourage Protestants to remain as they were and not to come under the Popes Obedience There is the ground of your dislike of me Thus indeed stood the case and this was one of my chief reasons to be dissatisfied of your way That the rule of my doctrine among you must not be truth but the interest of the Bishop of Rome and the increase of his Dominion whether by right or wrong This point of policy or discretion as you call it I refused openly to learn from you chusing rather to be of the Children of Light tho with less prudence in your opinion then of the Children of this World by that elevated point of prudence you would teach me of prostituting truth and honesty to the Popes pleasure and interest CHAP. VII Mr. I. S. his Answers to my Objections against the Popes Infallibility refuted his defence of Bellarmin of the Council of Constance and of Costerus declared to be weak and vain OUR Adversary fore-seeing what small assistance he could have from Scripture and reason to maintain his Tenets emploies his main forces in setting up their ordinary great engine of the Popes Infallibility and having bestowed the far greater part of his Book upon that subject turns to it again beginning the second part of his said Book with reflexions upon some of my Arguments against their pretention and wanting it seems materials to bring his Book to the intended bulk repotes much of what he said before wherein I will not imitate him by repeting my replies my desire being to abbreviate as far as may consist with a full satisfaction to all his Objections He pretends to cast a mist over the case turning the usual term of Popes Infallibility to Infallibility of the Church and by Church he means fraudulently not the Church Universal truly Catholic and Apostolic to which I allow all the priviledges and assistances of the Holy Ghost promised to it in Scripture tho he signifies that he doubts of my meaning herein but his own particular Church I do not mean the Diocess of Rome as he do's wilfully impose upon me happily to gain time or draw us from the point but the Congregation subject to the Pope wheresoever extant Defenders of a bad cause do love such confusion and obscurities as Foxes holes and thickets but we must keep him to the Light and to the ordinary use of terms taking for Popes Infallibility the same which he or any of his Communion attributes to their Church depending upon the Pope as is declared above in the beginning of the fifth Chapter I said I admired that Bellarmin should make it an Argument of the Popes Infallibility that the high Priest did bear in his Breast-plate two Hebrew words signifying Doctrine and Truth I questioned whether he believed all those high Priests even Caiphas condemning Christ to be infallible in their judgments Mr. I. S. to relieve Bellarmin endeavors to autorize the Affirmative and to that of Caiphas saâ—es nothing and so gives us leave to think that he held him also infallible according to that rule qui tacet consentire videtur By which we have this further notice of Mr. I. S. his singular doctrine that he finds Caiphas infallible in his judgment passed against the life of our Saviour and taxes me with ignorance for not knowing so much I accused them of making the Pope Arbiter and supreme Judg over Gods Laws So Bellarmin lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. sticketh not to say That if the Pope did command Vices and prohibit Virtues the Church would be obliged to believe Vice to be good and Virtue bad And the Council of Constance commanded the Decrees of Popes to be preferr'd before the Institutions of Christ since having confessed that our Saviour did ordain the Communion under both kinds to the Laity and that the Apostles did practice it they command it should be given for the future but in one kind alledging for reason that the precedent Popes and Church did practice it so Which is to extol the Decrees of Popes above them of Christ As if the Laws of England were not to be understood or practiced in Ireland but according to the will and declaration of the King of France certainly the King of France would be deemed of more power in Ireland then the King of England and the People more his subjects To that of Bellarmin you say he spoke of Vices and Virtues when there is a doubt of their being such for example if there should arise a doubt of Usury 's being a Vice and in that case the Pope should command Usury to be practiced we should be obliged to practice Usury Herein Sir you allow us all that we pretended and you confess what we condemned in Bellarmin I could alledg many Texts of Scripture supposing and affirming Usury to be a Vice But you spare me that labour presupposing that Vsury of it self is a Vice of its nature bad Per se malum and that you all know it to be such and notwithstanding that knowledg and Gods declaration in Scripture you say if the Pope should command Usury to be practiced we should be obliged to practice it And so it is indeed with you both in Usury and other Vices We know all that Rebellion is a sin and soodious to God that in Scripture it is compared to Witchcraft and Idolatry 1 Sam. xv 23. But if the Pope should command you to rebel against your King for Religions
sake forsooth then would you be obliged to rebel against him because say you with Bellarmin in dubious Cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope Men are apt to doubt of their duties and the Devil is ready to stir such doubts in them Thus he wrought the first Rebellion in Paradise Cur praecepit vobis Deus c. Why hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden And if the Pope comes out declaring that it is lawful and religious to rebel you must practice accordingly tho Scripture and reason makes you know that Rebellion is an heinous vice This is the great power of the Pope you teach to metamorphose vice into virtues and virtues to vices It is a common boast of your stout Bigots to say that if the Pope did prohibit them to say the Lords Praier Our Father c. they would not say it tho Christ did order them to pray so To that of the Council of Constarce you say it is false that they alledged no other reason for prohibiting the Cup to the Laity then the Decrees of precedent Popes You affirm they alledged also for reason the example of Christ and his Apostles who gave it in one kind whereby it appears you did not read the Council Read the thirteenth Session of it where this matter is handled and there you shall find no montion of Christ and his Apostles to have given the Sacrament in one kind but the contrary is supposed as appears by these words of the Decree Quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie postea à conficientibus sub utraque à Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur That tho the Sacrament of Communion in the Primitive Church was received by the faithful under both kinds for the future it is to be received by the Priests consecrating under both kinds and by the Laity only under the Species of Bread It is therefore from your self you say that Christ and the Apostles did administer it to the Laity under one kind and the Council do's not pretend to know so much only alledges the custom formerly introduced saying Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia Sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta diutissime observata sit habenda est pro lege That this custom being reasonably introduced and long time observed by the Church and holy Fathers it is to be taken for a Law Here you see no mention made of Christ or the Apostles to have don so as you say Upon what ground you do not tell us you will have it taken upon your credit By saying that I may flatter the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by telling him he hath more power in this Kingdom then the King his Master in whose place and name he acts because I accused you of giving more power to the Pope then to God by these priviledges of giving to divine Law what sense he pleases and overthrowing the Ordinances of Christ to set up his own by this your expression I say you are twice criminal in a hainous degree First for imagining it should be a way to flatter my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to say he had more power in Ireland then the Kings Majesty which he could not hear without horror and indignation Secondly for the falsehood of your supposition to frame your parity When or where did the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland say that notwithstanding the King of England did ordain this or that for the Government of Ireland himself would order the contrary as your pretended Vicar of Christ said in the Council of Constance now mention'd that notwithstanding Christ did order the Communion to be given in both kinds to the Laity he did order himself the contrary And all this senseless and groundless extravagancy you run upon only to find occasion of talking to us of a halter after your wonted grave and modest sâ—â—le But being convinced of a false accusation you deserve by the law of retaliation the punishment due to the crime you do so falsly impose upon us Certainly that of the ducking-stool will appear in all good judgments both due and necessary to so foul a mouth Another Example I produced of your extolling Papal Laws above the Divine in the case of Costerus saying It s a greater sin in a Priest to marry then to keep a Concubine the former being but a transgression of a Papal Law the second of a Divine You answer p. 173. that tho it be but a Papal Law that Priests should vow chastity yet the vow being made it is a trangression of Divine Law to violate it Consult your Casuists Sir and you shall find them all say that a vow made in any matter opposite to Gods orders is null or invalid There is an order of God intimated by St. Paul to the unmarried that if they cannot contain let them marry 1 Cor 7.9 Possible it is that a Priest should find by experience that he cannot contain This you will not deny Then the vow appears to be null because by it was promised a thing contrary to that order of God intimated by St. Paul and consequently the obligation of it ceaseth only the Popes Law prohibiting Priests to marry urgeth To it is opposite that other intimated to the unmarried if they cannot contain let them marry Which of these Laws or Orders must be observed If you say the Popes Law as Costerus do's then follows the Conclusion that you prefer the Popes Laws to those of God You may exclaim at this but you see the Premises containing in them the Conclusion is inbred undenied doctrine among you CHAP. XIII Our Adversary his foul and greater Circle committed pretending to rid his claim to infallibility from the censure of a Circle His many absurdities and great ignorance in the pursuit of this attempt discovered A better resolution of Faith proposed according to Protestant Principles I accused our Adversaries of a Circle committed in their pretence to Infallibility because they prove it by Scripture and the Infallibility of Scripture they prove by the infallibility of their Church which is to go still round in a Circle Mr. I. S. to wind himself out of this Circle presents to us a resolution of his Faith containing in it a greater Circle or many Circles together Having premised some trivial notions to ching the obscurity of Faith and evidence of credibility required to the assent of it he falls on extolling the power and aptness of Miracles to beget such credibility reducing all to the advantage of the Roman Church authorized with Miracles as he pretends and from page 180. he enters into his resolution of Faith thus You ask why I beleive the Trinity I answer because God hath revealed it You ask why I believe that God revealed it I answer because the Church by which God speaks tells us so You ask why I beleive that God speaks by the Church I must
old Law the cases proposed above of Hezekiah and Josiah do assure us that this hath bin the practice of the best Kings of those times And if you consult the acts of Constantine the great of Arcadius and Honorius of Theodosius the elder Justinian Charles the great and others the best of Christian Emperors and greatest supporters of the Churches honor you shall find them intervening frequently and moderating the greatest consultation touching Religion and the good conduct of Church affairs It was a wonder to S. Augustin that any should doubt it should be the duty of an Emperor or Prince to do so a Aug. l. 1. in Epist contra Ep. Parm c. 9. An forte de Religione fas non est dicat Imperator vel quos miserit Imperator What doth it not belong to the Emperor or to him he employs to deliver his opinion touching Religion and elsewhere he says that to be the chief care and charge of the Emperor of which he is to give account to God b Aug. Ep. 50.162 ad Imperatoris curam de quâ rationem Deo redditurus est res illa maximè pertinebat All this being so that it is the duty of our Princes to govern all the states and affairs of this Kingdom and the dut◠of Subjects to obey them in all and that for conscience as S. Paul declareth Rom. 13.5 That you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake how can I omit to condole the misery of my Country-men and others so deluded by the arts of Rome as to take it for a breach of Conscience what S. Paul declares to be a duty of Conscience I mean an acknowledgment of their Princes Supreme Authority over all his Subjects and their obligation of obeying him accordingly Especially when I see what S. Bernard saw and lamented that it is not the welfare of Souls nor the zeal of their Salvation makes the Court of Rome to put this horror into the hearts of Men against their dutyful obedience and subjection to their Princes Non quod valdè Romani curant quo fine res terminetur sed quia valdè diligunt munera sequuntur retributiones not that the Ministers of Rome do regard much the end or purpose of Controversies raised so they obtain their own end of encreasing their own interest and power I wish with all my heart with S. Bernard that these corruptions of Rome were not so public and known to all the World * Bernard Ep. 42. ad Archiep. Senonens Vtinam nobis relinquerent Moderni Noae unde à nobis possint aliquatenus operiri nunc vero cernente Orbe mundi fabulam soli tacebimus I wish these modern Noahs did leave unto us some possibility of covering their shame but all the World beholding it shall we alone conceal it This being so consider Mr. I. S. how blind is your zeal or great your malice in saying it should be a cruelty in our Princes to demand from their subjects an acknowledgment of his supreme power over them and in them a blasphemy to acknowledg it And to make us believe it is so you produce the autority of Calvin When I alledg Vasquez or Suarez his doctrine to you if it be not to your liking you tell me they have bin mistaken as well as I so much I say to you at present of Calvin that if he be of your mind in this particular he is mistaken and in a foul error as well as you Calvin and Luther have no more autority in the Church of England then Suarez and Vasquez among you and I observe you are as singularly impertinent as unreasonable wheresoever you speak to me of Luther and Calvin it is not their writings which I never saw brought me to the Church of England nor conserves me in it The Scripture Fathers and the History of the Church did work both upon me Of them you are to speak to me as I do to you Many a thousand poor simple Souls in these Kingdoms misled by the Pope and his busy Emissaries do cry against the Oath of Supremacy without knowing or examining what it means or what is their Princes meaning in demanding it crying up the Popes Supremacy much like those 200. seduced by Absalon to follow him out of Jerusalem to rebel against the King his Father when they thought they did service to the King And with Absalon went two hundred men out of Jerusalem that were called and they went in their simplicity and they knew not any thing 2. Sam. 15.11 So it is with many seduced by the art and activity of Rome to den◠due submission to their lawful Prince and give it to a Forreign usurper under pretext of following a pretended Vicar of God to rebel against God S. Paul declaring that whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation A conclusion he doth very legally infer from a verity he had immediatly before premised That the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1.2 We are to believe in Charity that many have the excuse of those 200. seduced by Absalon That they went in their simplicity and they knew not any thing But the corruptions and impostures of Rome being so universally known even in S. Bernards time as declared above and much more now we may fear justly that too many do err with knowledg or for want of due inquiry and so resisting lawful power they may receive to themselves damnation Of which latter sort Mr. I. S. may seriously fear himself to be one if he be so conversant in the doctrine of both Churches Protestant and Popish and in that of primitive Christianity as he pretends to be This I commend to his mature consideration while I pursue him in his engagement about Transubstantiation CHAP. XVIII Our Adversarys Essay in favour of Transubstantiation examined His Challenge for solving two Syllogisms answered MR. I. S. I do generally find you unexact and much unlike a Scholar in your Arguments but more when you boast most and stand in defiances Now you defy all my Divinity to answer two Syllogisms you would have us believe to be of your own invention But a piece of my Logic will make both appear Paralogisms unworthy of any answer no formal Syllogisms The first grounded upon Luke 22.19 Eat this is my Body which is given for you runs thus He gave to them what he gave for them But what he gave for them was not a sigure but his real and true Body therefore what he gave to them was not a figure but his real and true body In this Syllogism nothing is new but the form you give it and that guilty of several vices against the rules of Logic. I say nothing is new in your argument nor any sense or force added to it by passing the case from Christ giving the last Supper to Christ suffering upon the Cross All your Syllogism may be
Precepts is capable of a disjunctive sense and may be construed or Moreover this Argument would prove more then the Council or Bellarmin or Suarez himself would have That there is no command of drinking the Blood of our Saviour So the Council and Romish Writers commonly do pretend that Christs living Body being corporally present in the consecrated Bread and a living Body containing Flesh and Blood by taking the Bread we take both Flesh Blood But the supposition of this Argument that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament being pretended even proved clearly in our Opinion to be false it s in vain to perswade us with an Argument upon that Principle Besides tho that Supposition were true it s not easie to understand how by swallowing an Animal consisting of flesh and blood without separating both one may be said properly to drink blood All these Absurdities may be excused by following literally the words and and practice of our Saviour administring the Sacrament as he did in both kinds Here I am to admire again the good heart and confidence of Mr. I. S. in telling us that we have a positive example of Christ himself that once gave the Communion in the Accidents of Bread alone to his Disciples in the way towards Emaus pag. 217. How come you to be so positive in affirming that of Christ with his Disciples in Emaus should have bin a Communion rather then a common Supper Suarez in 3. p. Dis 71. Sec. 1. saies the Opinion of many Learned Authors denying it to have bin a Communion seems to him more probable And Maldonate supposes many good writers to be of the same Opinion But besides tho it were a Communion what is your ground for saying he should not have given the Cup in it That only Bread is mentioned that the Disciples told he was known of them in breaking of Bread But it is very frequent in Scripture to express a Dinner or Supper where both meat and drink is taken by this term of eating Bread and the Disciples might have found sufficient signs of knowing Christ by his way of breaking the Bread without mentioning more of his actions Furthermore Suarez in 3. p. Dis 42. Sec. 1. declares it to be the Opinion of all Divines and his own that the Species of Bread and Wine are the Essential Constitutes of this Sacrament Dico 30 Species consecratas esse Eucharistiae Sacramentum seu ad ejus constitutionem intrinsece essentialiter pertinere That the consecrated Species do belong essentially to the Constitution of this Sacrament How then could he give the Sacrament without the Species of Bread and Wine if they be essential Constitutes of it But Suarez say you in his Disp 71. saies that the whole Essence of the Sacrament consists in either kind and therein say I contradicts his former doctrine as also that of Gelasius * Gelas. Papa in cap. comperimus de Consecratione dist 2. quoted by himself Quidam sumt a corporis Christi portione à Calice sacri cruoris abstinent qui proculdubio aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque Mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Some taking the Body of Christ do abstain from the Cup of his sacred Blood who truly should either take all the Sacrament or leave all since being but one Mystery it may not be divided without great Sacriledg They pretend this should be understood of Priests only that they should take the Communion under both kinds but without shewing any sufficient ground for it We have no notice of Priests taking it under one kind to whom Gelasius his declaration should be directed and our Saviour did provide in this Sacrament a Spiritual food not only for Priests but for all the faithful and his words which are the ground of our Assertion did extend to all Mr. I. S. pretends that my Argument against Transubstantiation That neither for the effects of of the Sacraments neither for verifying the words of the Institution such a conversion of substances should be necessary comes pertinently to his purpose here That the Communion under both kinds is not needful either for the effects of the Sacrament or for verifying the words of Christ in the Institution of it But the Difference is wide first as to the effects Mr. I. S. himself confesses pag. 201. that Christ might were he pleased have given us the effects of the Sacraments with a figurative presence only Secondly as to the tenour of our Saviours words in the Institution of it many of their own more learned and exact Scholemen do affirm that the said words do not convince for Transubstantiation in force of their proper sense as we have seen in the precedent Chapter And * Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Bellarmin consesses saying it was the sentiment of most learned and acute Men. Both these things are wanting for making the like Argument serve our Adversary for we have proved hitherto that neither for the effect of the Sacrament nor for verifying the words of our Saviour in the Institution of it the half Communion may suffice Certainly he hath no such confession from us to his purpose as we have from him and from his brethren to ours CHAP. XXII The Roman Worship of Images declared to be sinfull Mr. I. S. is very tedious and no less impertinent in telling us its not a sin to make Images absolutely because God made man to his own Image and Protestants do make Images of the King and Queen c. but he might spare this labour I having declared that it is not only lawful but commendable to make Images and good use of them to several purposes The sin is to adore and worship them that being directly opposite to Gods Commandment set down in the twentieth Chapter of Exodus in these words Thou shalt not make to thee any graven Image c. thou shalt not bow down thy self to them of which sin the Roman Church is guilty by ordering honor and reverence to be given to Images In what degree Azorius with several others of their Divines do tells us saying the same honor is to be given to them which is due to the Prototype and consequently the honor of Latria to the Image of God and Christ the honor of Dulia to the Images of other Saints So Azorius saies and not I as Mr. I. S. falsifies in these words Constans est Theologorum sententia Imaginem codem honore cultu honorari coli quo colitur id cujus est Imago It is the constant opinion of Divines that the Image is to be honored and worshiped in the same manner as the thing whereof it is an Image Mr. I. S. saies resolutely Azorius has no such words but if he did read attentively the place I quoted of Azorius Tom. 1. Inst Moral lib. 9. c. 6. § Tota haec controversia he would find those formal words in
those indirect means which other solicitations of men tending to the like purchase are capable of All this being so how can you defend at least from blindness and imprudence your practice of more frequent recourse to your supposed Saints then to the supreme undoubted Saint of Saints Jesus Christ Not to treat at present how much this doctrine of the Invocation of Saints is in it self injurious to God by giving that worship to Creatures which belongs only to himself as may appear by all those places of Scripture which appropriate our Invocation to God only in regard of his incommunicable Attributes of Omniscience infinite goodness and power nor how dishonorable it is to Christ both in regard of his infinite merit and office of Mediator And finally the silence of such a practice in the first and better Ages of the Church so as Cardinal Perron confesses that in the Authors who lived nearer the Apostles times in the three first Centuries no foot-steps can be found of the Invocation of Saints this silence I say is a sufficient Argument of the unlawfulness of this practice how unsuitable it is to the spirit of the Apostles Origen is not only silent of such a practice but directly protests against it in several places assirming that Praiers and Supplications are to be directed only to God by Jesus Christ For being inquired by Celsus what opinion Christians had of Angels he answers That tho the Scripture somtime calls them Gods it is not with intention that we ought to worship them For all â—raiers and Supplications saies he and Intercession and Thanksgiving are to be sent up to the Lord of all by the high Priest who is above all Angels being the living word of God And reflecting often upon the unreasonableness of making addresses to Angels by reason of the little knowledg we have of their condition he adds That even such a knowledg if we were furnished with it * Origen contra Celsum lib. 5. p. 233. Edit Cantab. would not permit us to presume to pray unto any other but God the Lord of of all who is abundantly sufficient for all by our Saviour the Son of God And after he declares how Angels and Saints may assist us and pray for us to God if we be in the favor of God and do endeavor to please him We must endeavor to please God only saies he who is over all and pray that he may be propitious to us procuring his good will with piety and all kind of virtue And reflecting upon Celsus his proposal of worshipping Demons or Angels he addeth these remarkable words †Lib. 8. pag. 120. But if he will yet have us to procure the good will of any other after him that is God over all let him consider that as when the body is moved the motion of the shadow doth follow it so in like manner having God favorable to us who is over all it followeth that we shall have all his friends both Angels and Souls and Spirits favorable to us for they have a sympathy with them that are thought worthy to find favor with God ....... so as we may be bold to say that when men who with a resolution propose to themselves the best things do pray unto God many thousands of the sacred powers pray together with them uncalled upon Here and in other such Testimonies of Origen and others of his time we find mention of Angels and Saints to pray for men and to help them by Gods appointment but we find no mention at all of such a thing as an Invocation of them He saies they pray together with us when we pray to God himself and that not because we prai'd first to them to pray with us but uncalled upon Here we have the Spirit of that Church truly Catholic and Apostolic declared to us that we are to make our Addresses of Praiers and Invocations to God alone and thereby win the assistance and praiers of heavenly Spirits in our favor For as all the world shall fight with him against the unwise sinners so all the Court of Heaven will assist their King in favoring his Saints and Servants CHAP. XXV A great stock of Faults and Absurdities discovered in Mr. I. S. his defence of Purgatory SIR as you shew your special study to be to soure your Pen with all manner of sawciness even without occasion given to you and starting often from the point and purpose for to pleasure your self in the Sea of bitterness so it is my no small care and certainly a harder task then to answer your Arguments to refrain my Pen from pouring upon you continual showers of heavy Censures whether reflecting upon your boldness in asserting manifest untruths or upon your rudeness or malice in mis-understanding or mis-representing the state and terms of the Question in every point of my Discourse you pretend to answer or shunning shamefully or childishly the point and purpose and proposing another of your own instead of answering as Schole-boies do with riddles or hard questions as they call them when they want an answer to one of them they return for answer another of that kind of Questions Of all these faults I could easily convince you guilty in every point you handled from the beginning of your Book to the end I have abstained from doing it in formal reflexions tho in my replies faced with your Proposals the discreet Reader may easily see your foresaid faults really contained out of my aversion to offensive expressions and because I fear to offend my friends and Patrons on this side as you hope to please yours by bitter Language But when you tell palpable untruths shall I desert the defence of truth not to make you a liar when you clearly abandon the question proposed and misrepresent the case or misunderstand it shall I desist in my serious and close enquiry of the truth not to discover your ignorance and weakness So much complacency you are not to expect from me and by shewing you are guilty of all these faults in your reply to my discourse upon the point of Purgatory you will perceive I have bin indulgent to you in not enlarging upon a formal discovery of them in all the points hitherto treated upon among us Now to the proof of so much I begun my Discourse upon the point of Purgatory with the method and order that exact Disputants are wont to observe in handling seriously any subject First examining what we are to understand under the notion of Purgatory Seeondly whether such a thing be really extant As to the first I told how I did not find the more learned Men of the Roman Church so confident as the Vulgar in taking for Purgatory a determinate place in the bowels of the Earth with those frightful qualities their Legends do specify being contented to conclude from some places of Scripture by conjecture that after this life there must be some place to expiate sins without determining whether
others with a contemt of the earth Soon after he saies I should have taught That there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church without telling where or when I did deliver such a doctâ—ine as indeed he could not do I professing every day my belief in the Catholic Church and protesting I do and will live and die in it If by Catholic Church he means only the Popish or Roman it s a foul abuse of terms especially speaking to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or to any other of sense in a polemic discourse and even speaking of the Roman or Popish Church it is another great piece of untruth to say I should have taught that none may be saved in it as may appear by the second Chapter of this Treatise It s another wilful or rude mistake whereinto he falls very often that by Roman Church I should understand the Diocess of Rome of which I never took any notice or regard in my discourse which was of the Roman Church as opposiâ—e to the Reformed and so containing the whole congregation of men subject to the Pope of Rome and it is to me a wonder that this great pretender to skill in Controversies should not know before now that to be the meaning of the Roman Church in Controversies of this kind What shall I say of his pitiful spite and envy in his Preface to the Reader pretending to rob me of those titles my Emploiments gave me so public and known as appears in the Preface of of this Treatise without shame to be convinced of palpable untruths What of his rashness and rudeness in fixing for a Thesis or Title to the eighth Chapter of his Book That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it that they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets Of his prosane policy in accusing me of indiscretion in delivering what I knew to be truth touching the Salvation of Protestants when I was on the Romish side as mentioned in the fourteenth Chapter What of his blasphemous impiety in saying that no Text of Scripture tells us that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel nor nothing else gives us assurance of it Nay further against the Gospel it self he pronounceth this horrible Blasphemy That not only we are unsure of the Infallibility of the Gospel but that we are assured it is not infallible And this hellish conception of his own he must father upon the Protestant Church saying it s the common doctrine of it that it is impossible to keep Gods Commandments the falsehood of which maliâ—ious imposture I have declared above in the 8th Chapter of this Treatise What of his boldness in challenging me and all Protestants to answer his ridiculous and silly Sophisms with undertakings that they shall never be answered as appears in the eighteenth Chapter touching Transubstantiation and in the twenty sixt touching Purgatory in denying that Scotus Ocham and other Schole-men should deâ—lare Transubstantiation not to be proved out of Scripture as above declared chap. 20. As a so in denying that Costerus should say it is the common opinion of Romish Divines that the Image of God and Christ is to be adored by the worship of Latria as above mentioned Ch. 23. What of his terrible Hallucination in matter of History touching Indulgences declared in Chapt. 29. appearing in every word ridiculously mistaken when he pretends to be most magisterial in correcting mistakes of his Adversary And carrying on constantly to the end this spirit of Untruth Hallucination and Impropriety of terms he concludes his Book with telling me I know in my conscience the Church of Rome is not guilty of the errors I attribute to her for cause of my separation from her How came you Sr to know the interior state of my conscience You tell me I know the Popes Supremacy in temporal affairs over Princes was no article of Faith but a Schole question That the Popes infallibility was but an opinion of some Divines As to the Popes Supremacy I have declared above c. 25. what little comfort is left to Princes by that distinction of the Popes Supremacy in spirituals from that of his power in temporals whereas he backs his spiritual power with a temporal to the ruin and deposing of all Princes and Emperors that resist him The only case of furious Hildebrand with the Emperor Henry the 3d as related by his own most friendly Historians even Baronius is apt to strike a horror into any human heart and a terror into Princes and people if the unspeakable arrogance of the Roman Court should not be bridled As for the Popes Infallibility I have declared above in the 3d Chapter how impertinent your distinction of Pope alone from Pope and his Council together is to escape the force of my Arguments in the present Controversy How falsly you say I should speak only of the Infallibility of the Pope alone my Arguments proving he is fallible still whether alone or in a Council depending upon him as that of Trent You tell me I left the Roman Church because I saw the Bible prohibited in it to the People and the Liturgy performed in an unknown Language But tho that is a great crime of the Roman Church as I have declared in the precedent Chapter it was not the only cause others several grievous I produced more immediatly touching my own concern and daily practise wherein I could not continue with quiet or safety of Conscience You tell me I forsook a Church honored with many Saints for the Protestant Church whereof there was never yet any Saint If this be true S. Peter and S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were no Saints for I am certainly perswaded they were of the Church that I am of their Doctrine and their Faith and no other being taught in it But you speak with the vulgar of Protestants as condistinct from Roman Catholics Well and how come you to know that none of them was ever a Saint Were you in the hearts of all or did you sit in the Tribunal of God to know what degree of grace they had in his Soveraign inscrutable judgement What is rashness if this be not But you have titular Saints who have purchased that calling by public authority as Dukes Earls and Knights do purchase theirs of such we have none Then you speak of titular Saints not of real ones and upon this account you may not expect to win me from the Protestant Church to yours I hear of some Sectaries about us I know not where who style all of their Congregation Saints to this degree of Sanctity your Church did not aspire yet then if I am to remove to a Church of more titular Saints to these Sectaries I am to go not to you But you speak of Saints that come to Heaven and thither none may come but under the conduct of the Roman Pope he hath the keys of Heaven and none may go