say that this severe sentence is not of their making but delivered by Christ against all that will not obey his Vicar upon Earth the Pope of Rome And possible it is that some of the simpler sort may believe it is so But it s long since I knew and proved that none sufficiently conversant in the principles of their own Theology could seriously think it to be so but that according to their principles its blasphemy and Heresy to say without restriction and in general terms as commonly they do that none may be saved out of the communion of the Roman Church And my Antagonist I.S. tells us I did not trespass therein against truth of Doctrine but against policy or prudence as he calls it whereby I put a great stop to the conversion of Protestants if People did think that out of the Romish Communion any may be saved So as the prudence demanded from me was to fashion my Doctrine to the increase of the Popes Dominion be it with truth or untruth and pronounce sentence of damnation against all Christians not subject to him tho I should know no such sentence to be against them in the judgment of God I wish my good Brethren of the Roman Church did reflect upon and acknowledg the great injury they do to themselves in breeding and fomenting this unchristian hostility with the whole Society of Christians separated from their communion so numerous and illustrious as we have seen in the preceeding Chapters imprinting hatred towards all in the hearts of their Children which forceably must beget a return of hatred or disaffection and mistrust How incommodious it s to create to themselves so many Enemies how uneasie and disadvantagious to bereave themselves of the free and amiable society of so many noble Nations and brave People which the apprehension of Heresy makes intractable to them What happened to me with a Spanish young Man that came in my company out of Spain into England makes me more sensible of the misery that Romanists bring upon themselves this way He was of his own disposition chearfull and sociable but as soon as he came among the English People his heart and countenance fell down and he appeared sad and melancholic I inquiring of him the cause of that alteration he answered that he looked upon all those men as Heretics which made their very sight odious to him and their company displeasing The man did not well know what Heresy was and much less did he know whether those Men he saw were Heretics or no. He acknowledged them to be good men just and civil in their dealing and adorned with noble gifts of God yet the prejudice he was in against them by conceiving them to be Heretics made their sight and company odious to him Would not this Man have been more happy in conceiving a better opinion of the People would it not make him live with more ease and comfort among them not to mention now that higher Emolument and duty of maintaining charity towards all Men. CHAP. XVI Inferences from the preceeding Doctrine of this whole treatise against the several objections of N. N. HE that hath not considered the frame I proposed to observe in this treatise and seeth me go through many Chapters of it debating with Suarez and other Romish writers without any mention of N. N. may think I have neglected or forgotten him and his Book But if he will take notice of my purpose made in the beginning of cutting down by the root the whole Fabric of the said Book he shall find I am still upon my intended work The ground and foundation of all the cries and complaint of N. N. against me is a supposition that I have left the Catholic Church and Faith by withdrawing from the communion of the Roman Church and embracing this of England In the whole discourse of this Treatise I have proved that the Church of England is in all propriety Catholic and the Faith professed in it truly Catholic and Apostolic and all this by rules and principles taken from the ablest of Romish Writers for proceeding in this inquiry whereby it remains proved that all the exclamations of N. N. against me went upon a false supposition and consequently are vain and groundless Hence I infer first how vain is his query and more vain his divining answer about what drew me out of Gods house It appears by what is said hitherto and will be further declared in the rest of this Book that in my change I did not leave the house of God but removed to the best and soundest part of it that no private spirit or rash fancy moved me but a sincere acknowledgment of truth by the ordinary means God has disposed for us to come by it I infer secondly how groundless and unreasonable his pretention is that I should have quitted the holy Doctors Gregory Ambrose Augustine and Jerom and all the ancient Fathers and Catholic Doctors He do's not tell how or wherein I have deserted that noble company neither indeed were it easy for him to tell it I live and do firmly resolve to dy in the same Catholic Church which they lived and died in and in the profession of the same Catholic and Apostolic Faith which they professed The same and no other Faith is professed in the Church of England whose communion I have embraced as hath bin sufficiently demonstrated hitherto and I hope by the merits and grace of our Saviour Jesus to enjoy the company of those blessed Saints in Heaven maugreall the censures of Rome Neither was I ever closer with those Holy Fathers in the Romish Church then I am now in the English It is one of the perverse calumnies of our adversaries to give forth that there is not due regard had of them here I see the contrary I have observed diligently the waies of the Universities and method of Study with Learned men in England and Ireland and I see with them far greater application to the study and reading of holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church then ever I saw amongst Romanists Whilst the most learned of these spend their life and forces in speculative notions only serving Schole debates learned Protestants employ their time more happily in the study of the Holy Scriptures of Fathers and credible Histories I infer thirdly how rash and injurious is his censure in saying that by embracing the confession contained in the 39. Articles of the Church of England I have made my self partaker of all the Heresies and an associate of all the Heretics that were from the beginning of the World to this day Of these he makes a great list beginning with Lucifer whom he will have to be the first Heretic before Mans Creation and from him proceeds to Lamech the Gyants all those that entred not into the Ark but perished in the deluge who were all Heretics saies he Then enters Cham with the builders of Babels Esau Jannes and Jambres Corah and Dathan Nadah and
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
and the meaning of them then when he hears the same Psalm without understanding the words or sense of them Your comparison of a Polander presenting a Petition in English to the King of England which himself doth not understand doth aggravate your crime and publish the misery of the People abused by you Would not that Polander wish to know the English tongue for acting in his own cause and to be sure he was not abused by a Notary who possibly might have framed a Petition for him to the King for hanging his Father or Mother for Traitors If the King did understand the Polish Language as well as the English were it not a madness in the said Polander to have his Petition penn'd in a Tongue he doth not understand with the foresaid disadvantages being able to do it in his own Tongue with the contrary advantages What madness then is it in your People to frame their Praiers in a Tongue unknown to them to speak like Parrots without feeling or knowing what they say and exposed to the danger of being abused by a knave teaching them or reading before them blasphemous words in which they are to join with him bâ— their Amen And in case the Praier be good that is read before them what proportion can it have with elevating the minds of the People to a conjunction in sense with the Minister if they do not understand what he says And thus ill it go's with you even for the act of praying in your Liturgy which you allow to be an elevation of the mind to God Even in this point I have your own judgement against you and so may return your text upon you saying Ex ore tuo te judico serve nequam But what of the second part of the Liturgy above mentioned containing a speech of God to the People by the Epistles Gospels Psalms and other sacred Lectures directed to the Spiritual direction and food of their Souls can this end be compassed without sense and feeling in the People of what is said to them You confess that S. Paul 1. Cor. 14. prohibits preaching to the People in a Tongue unknown to them and are not those sacred Lectures a kind of preaching exhortation and instruction of the People and the best that can be as proceeding immediatly from God himself Then you act against the Apostles order by your own confession proposing such exhortations to the People in a Tongue unknown to them and so your text returns upon you here in full measure Ex ore tuo te judico serve nequam It is a discredit to a cause so clear to make more delay upon it but let the World cry against the tyranny you use this way with Souls in depriving them of their Spiritual food What you say of submitting your judgment herein to the Church is idle and absurd when our present business is to rebuke the abuses and corruptions of your Church the causes of our dislike of it CHAP. XXXXII. The cruelty of the Roman Church in prohibiting the reading of Scripture to the people and their common pretence of Sects and Divisions arising among Protestants refuted FRom the page 101. of my former Discourse I declared the cruelty used with the faithful people in prohibiting them the reading of Scripture which is the food of their Souls how contrary that is to the doctrine of Scripture it self often inviting us to the reading of it and to the doctrine and practice of the Fathers and people of the Primitive Church To all which Mr. I. S. replies that the fruit we have in the Protestant Church of permitting the people to read the Bible is the variety of Sects sprung from the reading of it But this you may tell better to others then to me that know now matters go on both sides and am certain that there are more divisions in several Societies of your Communion both in Doctrine and in Ceremonies then in the Protestant Church He that knows the differences of opinions betwixt Jesuists and Dominicans each one condemning the other of heresie and doctrines destructive of good life and of the merits of Christ and the great difference in Rites and Ceremonies used among them will clearly see they differ more in all the one from the other then the Orthodox Protestants do from any other Congregation of Christians in the Reformed Church Their differences are not in matters so fundamental and necessary to Salvation and a good Life as those of the dissenting Romish Societies Their censures of one another are not so heavy yea the very stating of their Questions on both sides do declare so much both supposing they are touching things indifferent the Dissenters or Non-conformists pretending that the points in Debate being only Ceremonial and indifferent not essential to Salvation or good life ought not to be forced upon them The Orthodox alledging that very thing to render Dissenters criminal that the things ordered being of their own nature indifferent and not opposite to Gods Law there is a necessity upon them of obeying lawful Autority ordering such matters So much we may say in relation to Rites and Ceremonies that there is not near so great a diversity in them used by Orthodox Protestants and other Congregations dissenting as there is in the Ceremonies and Rites used in Colledges of Jesuites and Convents of Dominicans Carmelites Franciscans Carthusians and other very many Societies differing both in Habit Diet Rites and Ceremonies one from the other All these differences both of Doctrine and Rites the Pope can wink at provided they agree in paying obedience to him and advancing his quarrel The great Union required by the Church of England makes meaner dissentions appear more sensible and greater would the Dissentions and Errors be if the light of holy Scriptures were removed for St. Hierome saith that infinite evils do arise from ignorance of Scripture from hence saith he most part of Heresies have come and so they are of their own nature and well used not a cause of Dissentions and Errors but a cure of them And therefore the Roman Church being resolved not to be cured of her corruptions decreed the Scriptures to be removed from the eies of the people as appears by the Council of Bishops mentioned by Dr. Stillingfleet and by other grave Writers of whose Autority you doubt And what need we the Autority of that Council for a thing that we see with our eies and ordered by the Council of Trent by Pius IV. Clement the VIII and Alexander the VII in the places alledged in the page 100. of my former Discourse CHAP. XXXIII Mr. I S. his Engagement touching the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and the practice of Confession confuted FOR instance of the cruelty of the Romish Church in pressing upon the belief of the faithful things uncertain and repugnant to their judgment I made a brief mention of the opinion about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary how they make people swear to
Papam de parte mea salutate Apostolica praecepta humiliter audite sed superfluas adinventiones regno meo adinferre nolite salute the Pope from him hear his precepts but bring no superfluous devices or innovations into his kingdom True it is That several of our Godly Kings did permit appeals should be made to Rome in matters wherein our own Bishops could not agree and directions to be sought from thence as from a flourishing and learned Church not as a superior Judicature And when the Roman Bishops did pretend to any such superiority our Kings did protest against it So Henry the fifth having demanded of Martin the fourth some particulars to which his Embassadors not finding him ready to assent they b Arthur Duc. in vita Henrici Chichly p. 56. 57. told him That they had orders to protest before him that the King would use his own right in those particulars as things which he demanded not out of necessity but for the honour respect he was willing to shew to that Sea that they should make a public protestation thereof before the whole Colledg of Cardinals And to this purpose are sundry examples remaining on c Rot. parliam 17 Edward 3. n. 59. 25. Edw. 3. oct purif n. 13. 7. Hen. 4. n. 114. 13. Hen. 6. n. 38. record where the King at the Petition of the Commons for redress of some things amiss belonging to Ecclesiastic cognizance first chuses to write to the Pope but on his delay or failing to give satisfaction doth either himself by statute redress the inconveniency or command the Archbishop to see it don For certain it is by the course of all our Chronicles and histories that our Kings together with the convocation of their Bishops and Clergy had in themselves absolute and entire power of governing and reforming the Church of this kingdom without any dependency uppon any forreign authority It was never doubted neither could it be denied upon any warrantable ground that they had within their own dominions the same power which Constantine had in the Empire and that our Bishops had the same which St. Peter had in the Church For which since the Erection of Canterbury into an Archbishoprick the Bishops of that Sea were held * Malms de Pontif. lib. 1. in Ansel fol. 127.15 Quasi alterius orbis Papae as Vrban the Second styled them and did exercise vices Apostolicas in Anglia that is they used the same power within this Island which the a Eadmer p. 27. Pope did in other parts And in our writers the Archbishop of Canterbury is frequently called Princeps Episcoporum Angliae b ib. p. 107. 33. Pontifex summus c Gervas Boro ber col 1663. 54. Patriacha King Edgar asserted this power to be in himself and in his Clergy in his memorable speech made to them d Apud Ailred col 361.16 Ego Constantini vos Petri gladium habetis in manibus I bear in my hand the sword of Constantin and you that of Peter And therefore as the affairs of most concerns in the Church had their dependance on the Emperor and the holy men of those times did not doubt to continue to him the style of Pontifex maximus as e Tom. 3. an 312. n. 106. Baronius notes sine ulla christianitatis labe So f Regularis Concordia c. Not. Seldeni ad Eadmerum p. 146. 16. King Edgar was solicito is of the Church of his Kingdom veluti domini sedulus Agricola pastorum pastor And wrote himself the Vicar of Christ and by his g Concil Spelm. Ã p. 444. aâ— p. 476. laws and Canons he made known that he did not assume those titles in vain King h Leg. Edw. Confes c. 17. p. 142. Rex quia vicartus summi Regis est ad hocest constitutus ut regnum terrenum populum domâ—ni sâ—per omnia sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus regat ab injurtis defendat Edward the Confessor a canonized Saint did declare the same and practised accordingly The King saies he being vicar of the supream King his duty is to govern and defend the earthly Kingdom and the people of the Lord from injuries and over all to reverence govern and defend his Church The same was declared and practised by i Leg. Inae in pras p. 1. Ina whom Baronius styles a most pious King by k Leg. fol. 11. p. 109. Canutus acknowledged for a most bountiful benefactour of Churches and of the servants of God Erga Ecclesias atque Dei servos benignissimus largitor as l Epist 97. fol. 93. Canut c Furbertus Carnotensis relates of him and several other godly Kings of England whose several laws touching Ecclesiastic affaires you may see related by Jorvalens c. 2. col 761. c. 5. col 830. c. 23. col 921. as also the laws of Emperors to the same purpose in the books of m Codex Theodos de seriis de nuptiis c. de sâ—de Catholica de Episcopis Ecclesiis clericis de monachis de haereticit de Apost de Religione de Episcopali judicio cod Jast l. 1. Tit. 1 2 3 4 5. passim in co Theodosius and Justinian The Emperors did employ their Bishops and Divines in resolving upon wholsome decrees touching Church affaires and these decrees they espoused themselves for Laws so as the transgressors of them should be subject to penalties This same course our Kings have taken as well in former ages as in this latter of the Reformation of our Church Henry the Eighth haveing those occasions of discontent with Pope Clement the Seventh which as too much known I omit to relate and being urged by the States of the Kingdom to execute at last what long time was desired and often attemted in England viz. to throw off the usurped power and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over this Kingdom to proceed with due legality and consideration in so weighty a matter he wrote to the Universities and great Monasteries and Churches of the Kingdom in the year 1534. and the eighteenth of May of the same year to the University of Oxford requiring them like men of vertue and profound Literature diligently to intreat examine and discuss a certain question viz. An Romanus Episcopus habeat majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem sibi collatam in Sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae quam alius quivis Externus Episcopus Whether the Bishop of Rome had any greater jurisdiction given to him in holy Scripture over this Kingdom of England then any other foreign Bishop and to return their opinion in writing under their common Seal according to the meer and sincere truth of the same To which after mature deliberation and examination they returned answer That he hath no such jurisdiction in this land The words of the University of Oxford returning their answer to the King upon this subject the 27. of June of the aforesaid 1534.
the ancient â—orm pag. 49. CHAP. VIII How far the Church of England do's agree with the Romish in matter of Ordination and wherein they do differ and how absurd the pretention of the Romanists is that our difference herein with them should annul our orders pag. 57. CHAP. IX That the succession of Bishops and Clergy since the Reformation is much more sure and unquestionable in the English Church then in the Romish pag. 6â— CHAP. X. A further cause of Nullity discovered in the Election of Pope Clement the 8 th pag. 75. CHAP. XI Nullities declared in the Popedom of Paul the 5 th and others following pag. 81. CHAP. XII Of the large extent of Christian Religion professed in the Church of England pag. 89. CHAP. XIII Of the several large and flourishing Christian Churches in the Eastern Countries not subject to the Pope pag. 98. CHAP. XIV Of the Jacobites Armenians Maronites and Indians pag. 110. CHAP. XV. A reflection upon the Contents of the three Chapters precceding and upon the pride and cruelty of the Romanists in despising and condemning all Christian Societies not subject to their Jurisdiction pag. 116. CHAP. XVI Inferences from the Doctrine preceeding of this who'e Treatise against the several objections of N. N. pag. 121. CHAP. XVII The Reformation of the Church of England vindicated from the slanderous aspersions of N. N. and other-Romanists pag. 130. CHAP. XVIII A view of N. N. his discourse upon Transubstantiation and upon the affinity of the Roman Church with the Grecian pag. 132. CHAP. XIX N. N. His Book intitled the bleeding Iphigenia examined his abusive language bestowed therein upon persons of Honor and his censure upon the Kings Majesty reprehended pag. 140. CHAP. XX. That it is not lawful for subjects to raise arms and to go to war with their fellow subjects without the consent of their Prince The Doctrine of killing men and making war by way of prevention and on pretext of Raligion confuted pag. 148. CHAP. XXI A Conclusion of my discourse with N. N. with a Friendly Admonition to him pag. 171. CHAP. XXII A check to I. E. his Scandalous Libel and a vindication of the Church of England from his false and sâ—anderous report of it pag. 178. The SECOND PART CHAP. I. AN Anatomy of Mr. I. S. his Genius and drifts appearing in his Dedicatory Epistle to my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland pag. 1. CHAP. II. A vindication of several Saints and worthy Souls our Ancestors from the sentence of Damnation passed upon them by I. S. pag. 6. CHAP. III. Mr. I. S. His cold defence of the Infallibility of his Church examined pag. 14. CHAP. IV. That Protestants have a greater security for the truth of their Doctrine then Papists have pag. 19. CHAP. V. Mr. I. S. His prolix 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 pag. 27. CHAP. VI. Mr. I. S. His defence of the Popes pretended infallibility from the censure of Blasphemy declared to be weak and impertinent his particular opinion censured for heretical by his own party pag. 33. CHAP. VII Our Adversaries corruption of Scripture detected pag. 41. CHAP. VIII Mr. I. S. His horrible Impiety against the Sacred Apostles and malicious impostures upon the Church of England reprehended pag. 46. CHAP. IX Our Adversartes pretention to prescription and Miracles in favour of the infallibility of their Church rejected his impostures upon me and upon the Church of England discovered further pag. 53. CHAP. X. A Check to Mr. I. S. his insolent Thesis prefixed for title to the 8th 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 And his own argument retorted to prove that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ pag. 59. CHAP. XI A Refutation of several other engagements of Mr. I. S. in that 8 th Chapter pag. 66. CHAP. XII Mr. I. S. His answer to my objections against the Popes in fallibility refuted his defence of Bellarmin of the General Council of Constance and of Costerus declared to be weak and vain pag. 70. CHAP. XIII Our Adversaries foul and greater circle committed pretending to rid his pretention of infallibility from the censure of a circle his many absurdities and great ignorance in the pursuit of that attemt discovered a better resolution of Faith proposed according to Protestant principles pag. 77. 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 consequence of it pag. 85. CHAP. XV. Mr. I. S. his defence of the Popes Supremacy declared to be vain their pretence to a Monarchical power over all Christians whether in Spiritual or Temporal proved to be unjust and Tyranical pag. 92. CHAP. XVI How falsly Mr. I. S. affirms the Irish did not suffer by the Popes prohibiting them to subscribe to the Remonstrance of fidelity proposed to them pag. 100. CHAP. XVII The complaint of Papists against our King for the Oath of Supremacy he demandeth from his subjects declared to be unjust pag. 103. CHAP. XVIII Our Adversaries essay in favour of Transubstantiation examined his challenge for solving two Syllogisms answered pag. 110. CHAP. XIX Several answers to my arguments against Transubstantiation refuted pag. 118. CHAP. XX. Ancient Schole men declare Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture and that it was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council Mr. I. S. his great boast of finding in my check to their worship of the hoste a prejudice to the Hierarchy of the Church of England declared to be void of sense and ground pag. 126. CHAP. XXI Mr. I. S. His weak defence of their halfe Communion confuted pag. 135. CHAP. XXII The Roman worship of Images declared to be sinfull pag. 142. CHAP. XXIII Mr. I. S. His defence of the Romish Worship of Images from the guilt of Idolatry confuted the miserable condition of the vulgar and unhappy engagement of the learned among Romanists touching the worship of Images discovered pag. 148. CHAP. XXIV Our Adversaries reply to my exceptions against their invocation of Saints declared to be impertinent pag. 159. CHAP. XXV A great stock of Faults and Absurdities discovered in Mr. I. S. his defence of Purgatory pag. 168. CHAP. XXVI The Argument for Purgatory taken from the 12 th of S. Matth. v. 32. solved 173. CHAP. XXVII The attemt of our Adversary to make the Doctrine of Purgatory an Article of the Apostles Creed declared to be vain pag. 185. CHAP. XXVIII How weak is the foundation of the grand Engine of Indulgences in the Roman Church pag. 188. CHAP. XXIX The unhappy success of Mr. I. S. his great boast of skill in History touching the Antiquity of Indulgences discovered pag 195. CHAP. XXX Of
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
and its appurtenances the Marquisates of Lusatia and Moravia the Dukedom of Silesia all which jointly in circuit contains 770. miles and in Austria it self and the Countries of Goritia Tirolis Cilia the principalities of Suevia Alsatia Brisgoia Constance the most part of the People are Protestants especially of the nobility and are in regard of their number so potent that they are formidable to their malignant opposites And they are neer of the same number and strength in the neighbour Countries of the Arch-Duke of Gratzden a branch of the house of Austria namely in Stiria Carrabia Carniola But the condition of the Protestants residing among the Cantons of Helvetia and their confederates the City of Geneva the Town of Saint Gall the Grisons Vallesians seven communities under the Bishop of Sedan is a great deal more happy and settled in so much that they are two third parts having the public and free practise of Religion for howsoever of the 13. Cantons only these five Zuric Scathausen Glarona Basil Abbaticella are entirely Protestant yet these in strength and ampleness of territory much exceed the other seven and hence Zuric in all public meetings and embassies hath the first place being chief of the five Now coming to Germany the whole Empire consisteth of three orders or states the Princes Ecclesiastical the temporal Princes and the free Cities Of the Ecclesiastics the Arch-Bishop of Maidenburg and Breame with the Bishoprics thereunto belonging are under the Protestants as also the Bishopricks of Verden Halberstad Osnaburg and Minden The temporal Princes all none of note excepted besides the Arch-Duke of Austria and the Duke of Bavaria are firmly Protestants And what the multitudes of Subjects are professing the same Faith with these Princes we may guess by the ampleness of Dominions under the government of the chief of them such as are the Prince Elector Palatin the Duke of Saxony the Marquess of Brandenburg the Duke of Wirtenburg Landgrave of Hesse Marquess of Baden Prince of Anhalt Dukes of Brunswic Holst Lunenburg Meckleburg Pomeran Swyburg Among whom the Marquess of Brandenburg hath for his Dominion not only the Marquisat it self containing in circuit about 320 miles and furnished with 50 Cities and about 60 other walled Towns but likewise a part of Prussia the Region of Prignitz the Dukedom of Crossen the Seigneuries of Sternberg and Corbus and lately the three Dukedoms of Cleve Dulic and Berg of which the two former have either of them in circuit 130 miles The free Cities which were in number 88. before some of them came to the possession of the French Polanders and Helvetians are generally Protestants especially those called the Hans Cities very rich and powerful situate in the northern part of Germany inclusively between Dantisk eastward and Hamburg westward As for Ratisbon Argentine Augusta Spire Wormes Francfort upon Main both Papists and Protestants in them make public profession Nearer to us are the Provinces of the low Countries governed by the States General namely Zutphen Vtrecht Overissel Gronninghen Holland Zeland West-Friesland in which only Protestants have the public and free exercise of their Religion The power and strength of these Provinces is too much known for to need a relation of it * Pagi Christianography chap. 2. I find in Mr. Pagit related that they contain about 210 Cities compassed with walls and ditches and 6300 Towns and villages and more and that they keep about 30000 Men in continual garrisons Now passing from the united Provinces into France those of the Religion as they usually stile them are seized of above 70 Towns having garrisons of Soldiers governed by Nobles and Gentlemen of the Protestant Religion they have 800 Ministers retaining pensions out of the public finance and are so dispersed through the chief Provinces of the Kingdom that in the Principality of Orange Poiclou almost all the Inhabitants in Gascony half in Languedoc Normandy and other western Provinces a strong party profess the Protestant Religion Besides the Castles and Forts that do belong in property unto the Duke of Bullen the Duke of Rohan Count of Laval the Duke of Trimovil Monsieur Chastillion the Mareschal of Digniers the Duke of Sully and others Now if to all the forenamed Kingdoms Principalities Dukedoms States Cities abounding with professors of the Reformed Religion we add the Monarchies of Great Britany Denmark Sweden wholly in a manner protestants we shall find them not inferior in number and power to the Romish party especially if we consider that the main bulk here of Italy and Spain are by a kind of violence and necessity rather then out of any free choice and judgment detained in their superstition namely by the jealousy cruelty and tyrannous vigilancy of the inquisition and by their own ignorance being utterly debarred from all reading of the Holy Scriptures and of controversial Books whereby they may come to the knowledg of truth and of their own errors If any shall object that the Protestants in divers Countries before mentioned cannot be reputed as one body and one Church by reason of many differences and contentions among them let him consider that however many private persons living among Protestants rather then of them have strained their weak understanding to coin several erroneous tenents and by them have bred dissentions and animosities yet these wicked practises are not to be imputed to the whole sâ—cred community of Orthodox Churches whose harmony and agreement in necessary points of Faith are to be seen and esteemed by their public confessions of their Faith which they have divulged unto the whole World by public autority and in which they do so agree that there is a most sacred harmony between them in the more substantial points of Christian Religion necessary to Salvation This is manifest out of the Confessions themselves which are the Anglican Scotian French Helvetian Belgic Polonic Argentine Augustane Saxonic Wirtembergic Palatine Bohemic or Waldensian For there is none of the Churches formerly pointed out in diverse places of Europe which doth not embrace one of those confessions and all of them do harmoniously conspire in the principal articles of Faith and which nearest concern our Eternal Salvation as in the divine essence and divinity of the Everlasting God the sacred Trinity of the three Glorious Persons the blessed Incarnation of Christ the Omnipotent providence of God the absolute Supreme head of the Church Christ the infallible verity and full sufficiency of Divine Scriptures for our instruction to life Everlasting c. In none of those confessions is to be seen that heap of desperate Heresies which my Antagonist N. N. attributes to the Church I have followed and wherewith Bellarmine and Becan and other Romish controvertists do make their volums swell to fill the minds of their proselytes with hatred and animosity against the Reformed Churches whilst in them such impious Heresies are most seriously rebuked and learnedly refuted by pen and tongue from Chairs and Pulpits as I am dayly seeing to
saith he that the Pope is infallible If he misliked that doctrine he might have denyed it and remain a Catholic A Catholic I may remain and do but not of their communion that Prop failing for those structures which I saw clearly to be ruinous without it It is an intolerable cavil to say I should speak of the Pope alone or of the Roman Diocess to delude the Reader with impertinent Digressions as often he doth I having clearly expressed my meaning to be that neither the Pope alone nor in a Council such as that of Trent nor the Congregation under his obedience are infallible To say the said Congregation should be the Church Universal which I allow according to St. Pauls Expression to be the pillar and ground of truth is an arrogant begging of a conclusion which will never be allow'd to them all Christian Churches that differ from them which are far the greater part of Christendom crying against their blind presumtion in appropriateing unto themselves the name of the Catholic Church That the Church truly Universal composed of all believers in Christ whether diffusive or representative in a Council truly Oecumenicall and free such as were the first four General Councils and such as was not the Councill of Trent is to have the assistance of the holy Ghost so that tho it be not properly infallible yet it shall not err in things fundamental to mens Salvation I do piously believe and of my meaning therein I gave him no occasion to doubt Therefore if he will speak to the purpose granting it is not an Article of faith that the Pope is infallible in the sense I denyed infallibility to him that is to say in a Council of those depending upon him or out of it it follow 's they have no certainty for their Tenets relying upon the Popes Infallibility which being no article of faith cannot be certain in it self nor consequently give certainty to things depending upon it He only allow's Infallibility to the Pope jointly with a general Council Herein he gratifies the Jansenists who may by this plead for indemnity notwithstanding the definitions of Innocent the Tenth and Alexander the Seventh against them which being not confirmed or autorized by a general Council in conjunction with the Pope cannot pretend to Infallibility in Mr. I. S. his opinion who hereby must incense against himself all the party adverse to the Jansenists which will prove too hard for him But he saies all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of the Pope and a generall Council Therefore Aquinas Turrecremata and Alphonsus à Castro are in his opinion no Catholics of whom * Can. l. 4. De lo. c. 4. Aquin in 4 d. 6. qu. 1. art 7. in 3. qu. 2. ad 3. Turrecrem l. 2. sum Ecclesiae c. 91. Alphons à Cast de just Haer. pun l. c. 5. gloss interlin in illud Math. 16. portae infer c. Canus relates that the Church even Pope and Council together may err materially in their opinion as I mentioned in the 30. page of my discourse which if he did consider and examine he would not so peremtorily assert that all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of Pope and Councel jointly Neither indeed do's Mr. S. himself sâ—em to be very strong in the belief of this Infallibility for in the comfort he gives his brethren on this account extolling magnificently their happiness herein above Protestants he so orders the matter that their comfort must not be grounded upon the real existence of that Infallibility but upon a strong apprehension or belief of it tho not extant It is a comfort saies he to an unacquainted Traveller to be guided by one whom he firmly believes to be acquainted with the way tho really your guide were not acquainted with the way if you câ—â—tainly believe that he is and cannot stray c. This is such another comfort as the grand Turk gives to his men that dying in his quarrel they go immediately to Paradise tho it be not so it s a comfort to think it is A sad comfort for the unhappy souls lost but commodious for the Turk to get by these means people to sight desperately and dye for him Thus it is with the Church or Court of Rome To believe they are infallible is a satisfaction to the people and very important for the autâ—rity and grandeur of that Court whether it be so indeed is not material The understanding of this mystery we are to owe to Mr. S. his ingenuity Poor man he has not been well acquainted with the intrigues of that Court they do not love to have arcana imperii the mysteries of their government discovered He will certainly fall short of his expected remuneration for his writing and if a Cap be deputed to him for it sure I am it will not be that of a Cardinal CHAP. IV. That Protestants have a greater security for the truth of their doctrine then Papists have Mr. I. S. his ridiculous exposition and impious contradicting of St. Pauls Text in favor of Scripture rebuked OUR Adversary triumphs upon the aforesaid comfort of Papists in apprehending their Guide to be Infallible tho he be not so indeed which comfort he saies the Protestants cannot have being guided by a Church which they believe is not so well assured of the way but they may err God forbid Protestants should not have a better warrant for the truth of their Doctrine then that he gives to Papists They have the infallible word of God delivering all their doctrine and clearly containing all that is necessary to Salvation and a perfect life as appears evidently by what I delivered in the discourse which Mr. I. S. go's about to oppose and will be further evidenced by shewing how vain and weak the opposition is They have besides in the general tradition of the Church a full and sufficient certainty that the books commonly received for Canonical are the true word of God and therefore are certain of Gods infallible autority assisting in favor of the verities contained in those books which kind of certainty tho only morall touching the existence of Gods revelation in favor of those verities joined with an absolute and undoubted Certainty that whatsoever God reveals is infallible verity makes up all the certainty that a pious and prudent believer ought to expect in matters of divine faith Mr. I. S. talks of a kind of certainty requisite for Divine faith which I doubt muâ—h whether he or any of his party ever had for all those articles they pretend to be of faith He tells us and takes it upon credit of his instructors without much examination as often he does in other matters that for all acts of belief touching revealed truths an absolute certainty is requisite clearing the believer from all manner of doubt If you speak of an objective certainty relating to the mystery revealed all true believers have it being fully assured that God cannot reveal an untruth but
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
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
which name of either he pleaseth to term it to put us to silence as to further debates as truly he had need accordingly he appears ill furnished to enter into them We will now proceed to see how ill armed he is to encounter upon the particular points I proposed for motive of my discontent with the Roman Church CHAP. XV. Mr. I. S. his defense of the Popes Supremacy declared to be vain Their pretence to a Monarchical power over all Christians whether in Spiritual or Temporal proved to be unjust and tyrannical OUR Adversary will have us take for an Article of Faith the Supreme power of the Pope over all Christians in Spiritual affairs Whether he hath the like supreme power over Princes in temporal concerns he leaves to our discretion to believe what we please the case being disputable And indeed it is a courtesy in Mr. I. S. to permit us this liberty even touching temporal affairs and beyond commission from the Court of Rome as may appear by what we are to say in this Chapter But what he allows him of Supremacy in Spiritual government over all other Bishops and over all Christians is certainly more then his right more then Christ gave him and more then S. Peter had whose Successor the Pope pretends to be He will never find any mention in History Ecclesiastic of any claim S. Peter should pretend to have of power over S. James in Jerusalem S. Andrew in Achaia over Thomas in the Indies or over any other of the Apostles in their respective Provinces no dependance of them upon him None of those more worthy first Bishops of Rome for five hundred years did ever pretend to any such Supremacy if we are to believe one of the best of them St. Gregory the Great in his many Epistles written against the Ambition of John Patriarch of Constantinople pretending to such a calling of Universal Bishop Neither did he therein act for himself as he do's formally protest to obviate the malice of those who would cast that aspersion upon his proceeding herein a Gregorius lib. 4. Regist Ep. 36. In damnando generalitatis nomine saies he nostrum specialiter aliquid non amamus Neither indeed could the reasons he alledges against the Ambition of John of Constantinople consist with a pretention to such a Prerogative in favor of his own See namely b Jactantiam sumsit ita ut Universa sibi tentet adscribere omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare cum fortasse in errore perit qui Universalis diâ—â—tur nullus jam Episcopus remansisse in statu veritatis invenitur ibid. that it is to rob Christ of his priviledg of being Head of the Universal Church that if the whole Church were subject to and depending upon one man he falling into Heresie all the Church would fall with him How foul an Aspersion Papists do cast upon this good Pope Gregory the Great saying he would claim to himself the calling he reprehended in John of Constantinople may appear by these words of his foresaid Epistle 36. written to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria and to Athanasius Bishop of Antioch saying a Vnt per Sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolica cui Deo disponente deservio hec Universitatis nomen oblatum est Sed nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consensit quia videlicet si unus Patriarcha Vniversalis dicitur Patriarcharum nomen ceteris derogatur Sed absit absit hoc à Christiani mente id sibi velle quempiam arripere unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulacunque parte videatur The name of Universal Bishop was by the holy Council of Chalcedon offered only to the Bishop of the See Apostolic in which by Gods providence I do serve but none of my Predecessors did consent to use this profane calling For if one Patriarch or Bishop be called Universal the name of a Bishop is taken from the rest But far be this far be it from the mind of a Christian that any should assume to himself any thing which may seem to diminish in the least the honor of his brethren How can this consist with saying that Gregory did claim to himâ—elf that calling which he reprehended in John of Constantinople since he declares that his Predecessors did refuse that calling and alledges reasons which prove that none ought to admit it The same St. Gregory is the first Author I find to have accused of Anti-Christianism the pretention of the Pope to Supremacy over all Christians in the person of the foresaid John Patriarch of Constantinople of whose ambitious pretention to the like Supremacy he writes thus to the Empress Constantina b Sed in hac ejus superbia quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Antichristi esse tempora designatur quia illum videlicet imitatur qui spretis in sociali gaudio Angelorum legionibus ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere dicens c. Lib. 4. Ep. 34. And what may we understand by this kind of pride but that the time of Anti-Christ is near since he imitates him who despising the social joy of Angels did endevor to rise up to the top of singularity saying I will ascend into Heaven I will exalt my Throne above the Stars of God I will sit also upon the Mount of the Congregation in the sides of the North I will ascend above the height of the Clouds I will be like the most high This singularity of the Bishops of Rome in despising a fair and brotherly society with other Bishops and pretending a Supremacy over all and an Equality with God in several of his priviledges gave occasion to such as in after Ages called them Anti-christs Certainly this Ambition of being head of the Universal Church a priviledg granted in Scripture only to Christ the boldness of preferring his own laws to the Laws of Christ whereof we gave several instances have great affinity with the qualities of Anti-christ described in Scripture And St. Gregory his prediction that the usurpation of this Supremacy would be a calamity to the Church is found to be too true All the Combustions and dismal Contentions that afflicted this Kingdom for a whole Age did proceed from the Popes pretention to Supremacy It is not the intrinsic quality of speculative doctrines of Faith controverted it is not the alterations of Ceremonies or Language in divine Service did minister fuel to this fatal fire all these things would be easily agreed upon if we did allow but Supremacy to the Pope or he did quit his pretention to it Of this we have certainty by what Sir Roger Twisden affirms out of warrantable Histories and Relations that Pope Paulus IV. finding his fierceness could not avail with Queen Elizabeth offered a Tortura torti pag. 148. to let things stand as they were
the purpose he talks of fitting it to the Predicate of the second Proposition about which is no question for none doubts whether it was the real Body of Christ that was given for us upon the Cross I allow you the benefit of the same rule alledged for the second Proposition Christs Body was given for us that the indifferency of the word Body which is the Subject may be determined by the quality of the Predicate and so taken for a real Body because 't was a real Body which was given for us upon the Cross Why will not you allow us the benefit of the same rule for the former Proposition This is my Body which is the proper Subject of this Debate that the indifferency of the word Body in the Predicate be determined by the quality of the Subject which was the Bread Christ had in his hand and of which with more propriety and less violence may be affirmed that its a figurative Body of Christ then his living Body But if the rules of your Logic must be so extravagant as to demand that when a discrepancy appears betwixt the Predicate and Subject of a Proposition supposed to be true it s the Subject must be altered or fashioned to a conformity with the Predicate not the Predicate to conform with the Subject what will you make of these two Propositions of our Saviour I am the true Vine Joh. XV. 1. I am the bread of life Joh. VI. 48. In which two Propositions a great discrepancy appears betwixt the Predicate and Subject The person of Christ speaking is the Subject in both Propositions Wine and Bread the Predicate Will you have the person of Christ to be altered and converted to a Vine and to Bread to verifie those Propositions I hope you will not be so blasphemous And why Because Christ was seen to be a Man not a Vine or Bread and so was the Bread in his hands seen and felt to be true Bread no humane Body I objected that the Council of Trent Sess 13. Can. 2. accursing such as affirm Bread and Wine to remain in the Eucharist after Consecration doth oppose St. Paul calling the consecrated Element Bread You say he called it Bread not because it was such then but because it was Bread before as in Scripture we read The blind do see the lame do walk not that they were blind and lame when they did see and walk but because they were such before I answer that in these latter cases an Ampliation of the term was necessary because the senses did assure that those men were not then blind or lame but not so in St. Pauls case the senses did see and feel what he called Bread to be such indeed I produced several clear and express testimonies of the most ancient and renowned Fathers of the Church delivering our doctrine that the Elements in the Eucharist do not change their nature but are Types and Symbols of the Body of Christ abiding still in their proper substance To all which Mr. I. S. answers that the Eucharist is indeed a Type and Representation of Christ's Body but Christ himself is there both representing and represented as a King that would act a part in a Tragedy of his own Victories he would be the thing represented and the representation Truly I wonder how this old Simile kept credit so long time among Romish Catechists but more that it should be brought to a serious dispute I wonder they should not apprehend a great indecency in the parity if a Tragedy were made of the late Seige of Maestricht wherein the King of France was in person active would not a judicious man think it unbecoming the majesty of so great a Prince to go himself about all the Cities of the Country acting a part in such a Tragedy to represent his own Chivalry Why will not they think it indecent that the King of Glory Christ should act personally and corporally in all corners of the World where the Eucharist is celebrated being able to do all intended by it in a more intelligible way and with more decency But all this while our Adversary slips the main Point intended by the testimony of the Fathers that the Elements of Bread and Wine remain in their own nature unchanged after Consecration whereby they seem to lie under the curse of the Council of Trent now mentioned To which testimonies I will add another out of Dionysius Syrus writing upon the first Chapter of S. John v. 14. and the word was made Flesh His words translated by a most * Dr Lofius learned and honorable person out of the Syriac Language into English are these Object The Heretics demand how was the word made Flesh being not changed Sol. Even as he appeared to the Prophets in Similitudes without being changed as he was before he was made so was he when he was made without change And as the Amianton or Salamander is united with the fire without being changed as the Bread is made the Body of Christ and the waters of Baptism are made Spiritual without being changed from their nature so the word was made Flesh without being changed from what it was as God that is to say he took Flesh without being changed From the same hand I had notice that the Ethiopic Liturgy printed at Rome dn Dom. 1548. useth these words in the Celebration of the Sacrament This Bread is my Body which determination of the Particle hoc to Bread disfavoring the doctrine of Transubstantion the Translator of the Liturgy plai'd the falsary in translating that passage by the words Hoc est Corpus meum To all these and the like Testimonies Mr. I.S. saies they are not so clearly for us but that Bellarmin and others of his side do find waies to give them another sense and therefore we needed an infallible living Judg to determine the sense of the Fathers as well as of Scripture and that Judg being to be the Bishop of Rome he may be sure of a favorable sentence if the cause be devolved thither But what if we find a Pope clearly delivering our Opinion twelve hundred years ago and saying The Sacramental Elements after Consecration do not cease to be the substance and nature of Bread and Wine as we have found Pope Gelasius do whose words I related pag. 56. of my sormer Discourse Will he find a way to decline such a sentence Were the Popes Infallible in that time Certain I am they did not pretend to be so But Mr. I.S. answers that Bellarmin saies that Gelasius was no Pope but a Monk Bellarmiâ— do's cast a thick cloud upon History to prove so much or at least to render the matter obscure and so do's Baronius But this latter fearing not to carry on that design or as he saies to war with more gallantry and contemt of his Adversaries will afford them the Arms they pretend and allow Gelasius the Pope should be Author of those words And what then Why Gelasius by
the words substance of Bread and Wine did mean the Accidents or Species of Bread and Wine which do remain and are to us the means of knowing the substance and may not be called properly Accidents in this Case because there is no substance left for them to rest upon as the nature and common notion of an Accident do's require And having deliver'd this most strange and never heard of complication of contradictory expressions to make of Accidents a substance and with all no substance of Bread to remain he sounds lowdly a triumph over his Adversaries that he has whipt them like boys with their own arms and altho it be allowed gratis that the foresaid testimony should be of Pope Gelasius yet it serves nothing to their purpose I could enlarge more upon the Absurdities of Baronius his discourse upon that subject and the injury he do's to Gelasius in fathering upon him so ridiculous a paradox but I think sufficient for the present to let the Reader see how solid and serious I should say how childish and ridiculous even great Men appear when engaged in a bad cause I am apt to think that some will hardly believe so great a Man as Cardinal Baronius should deliver so eminent nonsense as we have now related Read him in his fifth Tome of his Annals An. Dom. 406. Gelasii Papae an 5. from the first number to the twentieth And conclude Reader from this passage what little hopes we may have of peace and end of Controversy among Christians by allowing the Pope to be infallible when the most clear and plain words of a Pope are subject to an Interpretation of them so cross and diametrically opposite to the meaning of them according to common use As to understand Scripture a Popes Declaration is pretended to be necessary so to understand each Pope his Declaration another infallible Judg is to be look'd after without end CHAP. XX. Ancient School-men declare Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture and that it was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council Mr. I. S. his great boast of finding in my Check to their worship of the Host a prejudice to the Hierarchy of the Church of England declared to be void of sense and ground MR. I. S. with his usual confidence says it is most false what I imputed to Scotus Ocham Cajetan and other School-men that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not contained in the Canon of Scripture nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council He allows Cajetan was of that opinion and was censored for it he erred therein says he and what then but he denies resolutely that Scotus should be of such an opinion Then Bellarmin did him an injur in relating the contrary of him in these words One thing says he Scotus adds which is not to be approved that before the Lateran Council Transustantiation was no Article of Faith And a little before he tells us that Scotus said there is no place in Scripture that proves clearly Transubstantiation to be admitted if the authority of the Church did not intervene where Bellarmin adds Scotus his saying not to be improbable for tho the Scripture himself alledged may seem clear to the purpose yet even that * Vnum taemen addit Scotus quâ—d minimè probandum est ante â—ateranense consilium non fuisse dogina Fides Transidistantiaâ—â—enem may be doubted whereas most learned and acute Men such as Scotus chiefly was did hold the contrary These are the express words of Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Here you have Bellarmin declaring clearly against Mr. I. S. that Scotus said that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council and that both Scotus and other most learned and acute men were of opinion that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not clearly contained in Scripture And truly tho I had not seen Scotus his writing upon the point I am apt to believe that Mr. I. S. should be mistaken rather then Bellarmin but I have read over Scotus his discourse upon this subject not only in the printed Editions but in the ancient MS. kept in Merton Coll. in Oxon. whereof he was a Fellow with no small admiration and compassion to see so noble and excellent a wit forced to opine or seem to opine against his proper sentiment as he doth protest himself to do to comply with Pope Innocent and the Lateran Council Having stated the question of Transubstantiation related the opinion of Aquinas and others for it and confuted most vigorously their arguments out of Scripture and reason for it as not convincing at last yields to the opinion of Innocent in these words Teneo igitur istam opinionem ibi positam ab Innocentio quod substantia panis non maneat sed quod transubstantiatur in Corpus Christi non propter rationes praedictas quia non cogunt For which opinion to say something being forced to follow it he alledges two conveniences The first that if the substance of bread did remain under the Accidents of it a man taking the Body and Blood of our Savior under such Accidents would not be fasting and so may not celebrate twice in one day which is against that Canon de consecrat distinct primâ in nocte The second conveniency is that the Church prays as appears in the Canon of the Mass the bread and wine may be made the Body and Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ but prays not for a thing impossible therefore it is to be said that the substance of bread ceases to be there and is converted into the Body of Christ Whoever knew the subtilty and exactness of Scotus his reasoning may easily perceive that he spoke against his own sentiment when he alledged such weak Arguments as those two now mentioned and so not to forfeit the credit of his subtilty turns to protest with his accustomed ingenuity that he followed this opinion only for the Authority of the Church concluding thus hoc principaliter teneo propter Authoritatem Ecclesiae c. and the same his Scholiasts declares of him upon the foresaid words saying Tenet Doctor tertiam sententiam nempè panem converti in Corpus Christi quia sic Ecclesia tenet * Edit Lugdun an 1639. Vid. Scot. in 4. dist 10. q. 3. Scotus holds the bread to be converted into the Body of Christ because the Church declared it so in the Lateran Council not for any Authority of Scripture or reason which could move him to it The same I may easily prove of other learned Schoolmen By this you may see Mr. I. S. his rashness in saying I did most falsely impose upon Scotus what both Bellarmin and himself declares to be his proper opinion Of the same opinion with Scotus was Durandus in 4. Sent. dist 11. q. 1. sect propter 3. where he declares that the opinion affirming the substance of Bread to remain after Consecration was more convenient to obviate
fingere quem ferias to create your self an Adversary such as you may triumph over that is not to fit your answer to my Arguments but my Arguments to that you will have us take for an answer being what you have to say This is very usual with you as in many occasions I have declared from the beginning of this Discourse and will further declare in others to the end of it but in the present you appear notoriously guilty of this foul play I do neither ignore or doubt that if your doctrine of Christs personal presence in the consecrated host were true there is as much reason to adore such an host as to adore Christ himself both being the same thing in such a supposition This is the Mystery you pretend I should not understand but this is not the state of the Question with me What I did and do again call intolerable boldness is to say that the matter standing as now it doth doubtful and controverted there is as much reason for adoring the host consecrated as there is for adoring Christ his person since for adoring Christ we have several express commands laid upon us in Scripture which I related out of Heb. 1.6 Philip. 2.10 Jo. 5.23 but no intimation given of adoring Christ in the Sacramental bread supposing him corporally present there But if you go to the object of both worships Christ living in the World and your host consecrated to say that there is as much ground for believing your doctrine of Divinity existent in the latter as in the former I said and say still its intolerable boldness and a great injury to Christian Religion to make those two things of equal certainty whereof I was contented to make Bellarmin * Bellarm. de Christo lib. 1. c. 4. Judg who being to prove the Divinity of Christ goes through six Classes of Arguments out of Scripture with uncontroulable strength but being to prove Transubstantiation out of Scripture his only Argument is out of those words of Matth. 28. Take eat this is my Body Which place how unable it is in the opinion of the gravest School-men and of Bellarmin himself to make clear the doctrine of Transubstantiation we have seen from the beginning of this Chapter Is it not therefore intolerable boldness to say there is as much reason to assert that Christ is in the host really and corporally as there is for saying that Christ is God CHAP. XXI Mr. I. S. his weak defence of their half Communion confuted HE will have the Precept of Communion run parallel with that of Baptism wherewith I am well contented Both are commanded by Christ Baptism thus If one be not born again by the Water and the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Joh. VI. 53. And the Communion thus If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall not have life in you The essential requisites of Baptism are water and a set form of words In this no alteration may consist with the validity of the Sacrament not so of the mode or circumstances whether it be with immersion or sprinkling Herein alterations may be and were admitted by the Church Even so in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the essence of it consists in eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of our Saviour This may not be altered but the mode or circumstances whether it be kneeling or standing whether in leavened or unleavened Bread whether white or red Wine touching these Accidents there may be alterations without prejudice to the substance of the Sacrament but not touching the essential parts of Flesh and Blood in this much we agree on both sides Now what are we to understand by Flesh what by Blood our Saviour did not leave obscure so as we may err in so weighty a matter wherein the life of our Souls doth consist but made it clear and visible to us He took Bread in his hands and of it he said this is my Body he took likewise Wine in his hand saying this is my Blood The way therefore to take his Body and Blood is to take consecrated Bread and Wine in remembrance of him This is the way Christ did establish the taking of this blessed Sacrament this the Apostles and Primitive Church did practice and this way all true Christians ought to walk Mr. I. S. censures it as a pusillanimity in me to be surprized at that famous non obstante of the Council of Constance that notwithstanding Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds and in the Primitive Church they administred it so yet the Council thought convenient to ordain the contrary I should have a strong stomach to swallow without chawing or examining what our Lord God the Pope orders as the Glossist calls him He is Vice-god upon earth as all of them stile him and of such priviledg that the commands of God must oblige no further then he pleases If he tells us that virtue is vice and vice virtue we are to believe him Yet Mr. I.S. will reason the case with us He might have spared that labor for I declared it was sufficient to my purpose to know they will pretend reason for inverting Christs Institutions But how well beseeming the gravity of a Council are the reasons he alledges grounded upon principles of nigardliness nicety To spare expences of wine and hinder the inconveniency of clean people to drink out of the same Cup with the unclean Is there not so much plenty of Wine now in the World as was in the Primitive Church and the Communion less frequent Were not clean people then in the World Shall a groundless fear of annoying the body over-weigh a certain danger of losing the Soul Christ having declared that if we do not eat his Flesh and drink his Blood we shall not have life in us Is it fair that such frivolous reasons as these should suffice for a Pope to alter the Institutions of Christ and no reason be it ever so evident should excuse opposing a Popes Decree But Mr. I. S. tells us that in these words of our Saviour Joh. VI. If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall not have life in you The Particle and must be taken disjunctively for or not copâ—latively So as the command must be understood of eating his Flesh or drinking his Blood because in the Hebrew Language wherein our Saviour spake the Particle and is capable of such a sense Bellarmin and Suarez said so I see they did and thereby I see that a bad cause will make iâ—s Patrons run to narrow shifts At this rate you may pretend to comply with the precept of loving God and your Neighbor by loving either tho you do not love both And so of the precept of honoring your Father and Mother that you observe iâ— by honoring one tho you deny that duty to the other because the Particle and in those
of those who are to be saved but not without some note of infamy And a little after he added these words Sunt enim in Ecclesiâ credentes quidam acquiescentes divinis praeceptis erga servos Dei officiosi religiosi ad ornatum Ecclesiae vel ministorii satis promti sed in conversatione propriâ impuri obscoeni vitiis involuti nec omnino deponentes veterem hominem cum actibus suis Istis crgo Christus Jesus salutem concedit sed quandam infamiae notam non evadunt There are in the Church some believers and honorers of his Servants and ready to contribute towards the decency of his Service in the Church but in their private life impure and liable to vices not putting off altogether the old man with his works To these therefore Christ Jesus allows Salvation but they shun not a certain note of infamy According to this doctrine of Origen some may depart this life in state of Salvation and be received in Heavenly bliss tho with some blemishes of smaller guilt not inconsistent with Gods amity but occasioning a decrease in their degree of Glory and therefore capable of a pardon of such blemishes or imperfections even in Heaven if so your Text mentioning a pardon of sins in the other life doth not evince the existence of Purgatory If you say that Origen has erred herein as I conceive you will then first think it not a scandal to say that some one or other of the ancient Fathers should err Secondly acknowledg therein a fault of your Church in making choice of the foresaid words of Origen for Gloss ordinary of the above-mentioned passage of Joshua with the Gibeonites and conclude from all that this subtilty which clearly solveth your strongest Argument for Purgatory out of the New Testament is no invention of mine but a doctrine of a very learned Father of the ancient Church approved and received by yours modern with so public a qualification as to take it for an ordinary Gloss upon the fore-mention'd passage of Scripture CHAP. XXVII The attemt of our Adversary to make the doctrine of Purgatory an Article of the Apostles Creed declared to be vain Mr. I. S. makes sure account he found Purgatory in the Apostles Creed where it is said He descended into Hell And what if you are told those words were not in the Apostles Creed from the beginning and that the first time and place they were used in it was in the Church of Aquilcia some four hundred years after Christ that they are not expressed in those Creeds which were made by the Councils as larger Interpretations of the Apostles Creed not in the Nicene or Constantinopolitan not in that of Ephesus or Chalcedon not in those confessions made at Sardica Antioch Seleucia Syrmium not in the Creed expounded by St. Austin de fide Symbolo And * Ruffin in Expositione Symboli Râ—ffinus saies that in his time it was neither in the Roman or Oriental Creeds Sciendum sanè est quod in Ecclesiae Romanae Symbolo non habetur additum descendit ad inferna sed neque in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo It is certain saith he that the Article of the descent into Hell was not in the Roman or any of the Oriental Creeds It is not mentioned in several Confessions of Faith delivered by particular persons Not in that of Eusebius Caesariensis presented to the Council of Nice nor in that of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra delivered to Pope Julius nor in that of Acatius Bishop of Caesarea delivered to the Senate of Seleucia nor in others mentioned by the learned Bishop of Chester Dr. Pearson in that his grave and judicious exposition of the Creed writing upon the fifth Article of it I am perswaded this will appear strange unto you and tho sufficient to weaken the force of your Argument grounded upon the foresaid words of the Creed my Answer will not rely upon it I allow the said words to belong to the Catholic Creed long time received in the Church and embraced by that of England But I deny your inference from those words of the Creed in favor of your doctrine of Purgatory to be pertinent He descended into Hell I believe he did But not into the Hell of the damned say you for all Christians abhor the Blasphemy of Calvin that saies Christs Soul suffered the pains of the damned What then therefore he descended into Purgatory I am sure the more learned and pious men of your Communion will abhor this consequence I never heard any of them say that descent of Christ should have bin to Purgatory First because under the notion of Hell they never understood Purgatory Secondly if you mean he should descend thither suffering the pains of that place it s no less blasphemous then that you call Blasphemy in Calvin for if we believe your Authors the pains of Purgatory are the same with those of Hell and inflicted by the same Ministers of divine Justice that punish the damned souls in hell If you say he descended thither triumphant and glorious without suffering the pains of that place to purposes of divine Providence not manifested to us you may say without any Blasphemy he descended the same manner into the Hell of the damned triumphant and victorious without prejudice to his glory and honor as the Divinity of Christ is there still without prejudice to his glory why may not his Soul be there for a short time with the same immunity and to the same purpose of triumphing over Hell and his Enemies And the words of the Creed being capable of this Exposition more literal and obvious what need is there of your new Invention of Purgatory unknown to Primitive Christianity for the right understanding of that Article of our Creed CHAP. XXVIII How weak is the foundation of the grand Engine of Indulgences in the Roman Church WHEN first I came to examin the grounds of the doctrine of Indulgence used in the Roman Church I confess I was astonished to see how little ground they could shew in the Fountains of divine Faith for this mystery of the Romish belief of so great noise and so much use among them I thought it a strong negative argument against such a dectrine not to be contained in the Word of God that two so great Champions of the Roman Church Cajetan and Suarez both emploied by public authority to defend this doctrine should not meet with any convincing testimony of it in divine Scripture as both do confess plainly Both do examine the two chief Testimonies alledged for this doctrine the first out of John 20.23 Whose soever sins you remitt they are remitted to them The second out of Matth. 18.18 Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven And both do acknowledg them not to convince the doctrine of Indulgences as now practised in the Roman Church Cajetan tom