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
the Canons and rites of the Catholic Church With Thomas Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury they begin their quarrel Against him the Kings and Clergy of England Becan insults thus Legitimè consecrati non estis A quo enim an à Rege at is consecrandi potestatem non habet An ab Episcopo Cantuariensi vel aliquo simili ne id quidem Nam Thomas Cranmerus qui sub Hemico 8º Cantuariensem Episcopatum obtinuit non fuit consecratus ab ullo Episcopo sed à solo Rege intrusus designatus igitur quotquot ab eo postea consceratisunt non legitime sed ex praesumtione consecrati sunt You are not lawfully consecrated for by whom were you Whether by the King but he has not power to consecrate or by the Bishop of Canterbury or some other such neither that truly for Thomas Cranmer who under King Henry the Eighth obtained the Bishopric of Canterbury was not consecrated by any Bishop but intruded and designed by the King alone therefore as many as were afterward consecrated by him were not consecrated lawfully but by presumtion I cannot but note Becan's disingenuity in deluding thus his Reader as if he would have him believe that the Kings of England did take upon them to consecrate Bishops themselveâ— or to thrust into the Government of Churches men not consecrated contrary to what he knew well or might easily know to be true having Popes Cardinals Priests and Jesuits to aâ—â—ertain him of it such as were Clement the seventh Paul the fourth Cardinal Allen Parsons Kellison whose manifold testimonies of Cranmer to have been a true Bishop Mason relates lib. 2. cap. 7. adding for farther evidence this following testimony of the time place and persons ordaining him out of the public Records Thomas Cranmerus consecratus 30. Martij 1533. 24. Hen. à Joh. Lincolniensi Joh. Exoniensi Hen. Asaphensi Against all these evidences Henry Fitz Symonâ— takes up the cudgils in defence of Becan's assertion that Cranmer was not consecrated by any Bishop but a meer Layman intruded upon that see of Canterbury by Henry the Eighth his sole will This he promises to demonstrate à gravissimorum totius gentis authorum monumentis consularibus actis by the testimonies of the most grave Authors of the Nation and public Act of Parliament Seeing these big words and knowing upon what subject I could not but sigh and grieve remembring how these Rhetoricians do delude poor credulous People with such swelling phrases founding high in the eares of Boies and Women and of Womanish weak Men whereas being touched close they are found to be no better than a bubble floating pompously and containing nought but wind Where he promises the testimonies of the gravest Authors of the Nation in favour of his pretension he only brings one testimony and of whom of some impartial writer No but of * Sander de Schism lib. 3. pag. 296. Sanders the most passionate and bitter Enemy of the reformed Clergy that could be named But even his testimony how much to Fitz Simons purpose he relates these words of him Henricus 8. radix peccati cum ab Ecclesia sede Apostolica Regnum suum divisisset decrevit ne quisquam electus in Episcopum bullas Pontificias vel mandatum Apostolicum de consecratione requireret sed regium tantum diploma afferret Henry the Eâ—ghth the source of evil having separated his Kingdom from the Church and from the See Apostolic hath decreed that no Bishop elect should look for Bulls from the Pope for his consecration but only should bring the Kings Patent And here Fitz Symons stops fraudulently pretending his unskilful Reader should understand by those words that the King did give the title of Bishops without any consecration But the words following of Sanders do overthrow his purpose which run thus Sed Regium tantum diploma afferret secundum quod à tribus Episcopis cum consensu metropolitae ordinatus jubebatur lege comitiorum facta ad imitationem antiquorum canonum esse verus Episcopus nec alio modo ordinatum pro Episcopo agnosci oportere That he should bring the Kings mandat according to which the person ordained by three Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitan was by Act of Parliament made in imitation of ancient Canons declared to be a true Bishop and that any person otherwise ordain'd should not be taken for a Bishop And is this to say that Henry the Eighth should give the title of Bishops to and intrude upon Churches Persons without any consecration Truly this defence of Becan by Fitz Symons is like the cause defended both guilty of fraud and disingenuity so as we may call it malae causae pejus patrocinium of a bad cause a worse defence * Keâ—lison in replic contra Doct. Sut. p. 30. Kellison is more ingenious saying thus Cranmerum verè ordinatum non nego quia ab Episcopis Catholicis munus consecrationis accepit ita vixisse eum mortuum esse verum Episcopum fateor I do not deny that Cranmer was truly ordained having received his ordination from Catholic Bishops so as I confess he lived and died a true Bishop Let now the Author of Britonomachy I mean Fitz Symons come and reconcile this piece of Romanomachy In the mean time be it concluded that their testimonies against Cranmer are like those of the false witnesses against Christ which did not agree together Mark XIV 56. And let that blessed Martyr canonized by Christ for such where he declared blessed them that suffer persecution for justice as Cranmer did for doing justice to his King and Country in maintaining their right against the tyrannical usurpations of the Court of Rome let him I say enjoy in glory the indelible character of Bishop which all the malice of his adversaries will never be able to take from him And let their calumny against the Church of England be confounded wherewith they pretend the ordination of our Clergy to have been vitiated in that of Cranmer By this it appears that all Bishops made in King Henry the Eighth his reign were true and lawful Bishops as being consecrated by three Bishops and according to the accustomed rites of the Catholic Church it being a 25. Henr. 8. c. 20. enacted then that the Consecrations should be solemnized with all due circumstance and moreover that the Consecrators should give to the consecrated all benedictions ceremonies and things requisit for the same And if thing essential were abolished or omitted certainly Sanders speaking purposely of this point would not have concealed it But he rather saies plainly b Sanders de Schism lib. 3. p. 29â— it was King Henry's will that the ceremony and solemn unction should as yet be used in Episcopal Consecration after the manner of the Church But the c â— Mariae sess 2. c. 2. Statute of Qu. Mary putteth the matter out of all doubt enacting that all such Divine service and administration of Sacraments
posterity with false records And on the other side the Romish party is found guilty by uncessant experiences of aspersing without measure or regard of truth the protestant cause and all defenders of it Whereof the story of Ordination at the Nags-head confidently revived of late by one of a great calling and confuted to his shame and confusion by the Lord Primate Bramhall may be a conspicuous evidence To which I could add not a few more of my own experience and certain knowledg They got a great Person to relate in Dublin that I was struck Dumb at making of my Declaration in the Church of Cashel and that I fell suddainly Dead soon after going in the Street A miracle I suppose is put by this time into the annual letters of Rome and Indies to terrify others from following my Example An other Person of like quality was emploied to testifie that after my foresaid Declaration made at Cashel an extraordinary concourse of People being present at it I went to a Noble-Mans House where my habitation was formerly and said Mass in it whereas I was not out of the Arch-Bishops company from that day until I came to Dublin with a considerable number of Men and Arms to guard me And after some Months constant retirement in the Colledg of Dublin without ever lying out of it or going abroad but seldom to the Castle and few houses of the chief Prelates and Nobility an Irish Papist told confidently to one of my Lord Chancellors Gentlemen who related it to me after that he saw me few daies before saying Mass at Kilkullen Bridg where I was not in some years before that time after my public Sermon of Recantation at Dublin and the Gentleman asking how that could possibly be so I being in their sight and company and never out of Dublin all that time he took a Book into his hand and swore by it that what he said was true At this very instant it hapned that I should come out of Christ-Church from Praiers in company of an other Gentleman of the Colledg and my Lord Chancellors Gentleman seeing me asked of the swearer whether he did know me if he saw me he answered yea and asking whether I was of those two that went by he said no. But being told I was one of them he confessed that he never saw me before So punctual as this are their reports of us If they were but seldom we might take them for mistakes but seeing them so frequent and continual we have too much ground for suspecting a set purpose of imposing upon us especially their most creditable Doctors teaching them that t is lawful to raise false testimonies in defence of their credit that their opposers may not be believed The authors of this godly Doctrine confessors and Preachers to Emperours and Princes you may see quoted by John Caramuel Titular Bishop of Misia in Theologia fundamentali fundamento 55. n. 1589. This being so it appears how little credit is due to their testimonies against our cause and persons I premise secondly that by sacred orders a character indelible is given to the person ordained whether Bishop Priest or Deacon that is to say a spiritual sign or ability to certain functions uncapable of being taken away by humane power or accident So t is defined in the Council of Trent sess 7. can 9. Si quis dixerit in tribus sacramentis Baptismo sc Confirmatione Ordine non imprimi characterem in anima hoc est signum quoddam spirituale indelibile unde ea iterari non possunt anathema esto If any shall say that in these three Sacraments Baptism Confirmation and Order a character is not left in the Soul viz. a spiritual and undelible sign which is the cause they may not be repeted let him be anathema It is not my present business to dispute with the Council upon what account it calls Confirmation and Order Sacraments but to note that by it is defined that sacred orders do leave a character indelible and that they ought not to be reiterated upon the same person The same Doctrine is delivered again in the 23. sess 3. can of the same Council adding that who was once a Priest can never be made a Layman And in the eighth Council of Toledo cap. 7. and in the Council of Florence under Eugenius the 4th in decre de unione Hence follows saies Bellarmine that no superiour power can hinder a Bishop from confirming and ordaining if he pleases to do it And Peter Sotus saies that doubtless no Heresie excommunication or even degradation takes away the power of Orders tho the use of them may be unlawful so as tho a Heretic excommunicated or degraded person sin in giving Orders or administring Sacraments yet the actions are valid for where such a character is saies Bellarmine God in force of a Covenant doth concur to produce a supernatural effect to wit to give an other Character even Episcopal * Bellarmine de confir cap. 12. * Peter Soto lect 5. de inst Sacer. lin 5 fol. 279. edit diling an 1560. * Ubicunque est talis character Deus ex pacto concurrit ad effectum supernaturalem producendum Bellar. de Sacramentorum effectu lib. 2. c. 19. These two premises supposed for examining the matters of fact which is the ground and foundation of this work we are to rely upon the public authentic Records of the Church of England faithfully produced by Mr. Francis Mason and truly examined at the request of Mr. Fitz Herbert who seeing a mortal wound given to the Romish calumnies against the lawful ordination of English Clergy by this narrative of Mr. Mason desired that those Records related by Mr. Mason should be shown to some learned persons of the Romish communion which was accordingly don by the most Reverend Father in God George Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who having read this challenge in Fitz. Herberts Book called to him Mr. Collington then reputed Archipresbyter Mr. Laithwait and Mr. Faircloath Jesuits and Mr. Leagume a secular Priest All these being brought before the Arch-Bishop the 12. of May 1614. in presence of the Right Reverend Bishops of London Dunelm Ely Bath and Wells Lincolne and Rochester the said Records were given to them to see feel read and turn and having considered all exactly they declared that no exception could be taken against that Book in their opinion and the Arch-Bishop desiring them to signify so much by letters to Fitz Herbert they promised to do it as Mr. Champney relates the story And the same Records are at this day and alwaies to be seen if men will not be satisfied otherwise then by eye-sight Fitz Herbert Append. n. 13. The Records produced by Mr. Mason being thus justified we will take our measures by them to cleer this point First our adversaries allow us that the Bishops ruling in England at the beginning of Henry the Eighth his Reign were lawful Bishops and legally ordained according to
one passionatly bent to extol St. John the Evangelist above St. John Baptist the other preferring with no less animosity the Baptist before the Evangelist Our preacher before mentioned to pleasure the Nuns of the Evangelist delivers that prodigious Paradox which in English may be turned thus exceeding great is the excellency of John upon the account of being the Beloved It is greater then that of a Redeemer even in God it is so great as to be God in trinity and unity nay for this cause the word was made flesh Go now and compare this piece of Doctrine with any of those you related of the Protestant writers and if it has not out gon them all add to it what follows Being advertised by the inquisitor general of Spain at the second time he sent me a licence for reading prohibited Books that I had not given him account of what censureable propositions I might have lighted upon in my readings as he had charged me to do in the instrument of such a Licence which he had sent me the year before I sent to him a list of some perverse Doctrines I saw in Books approved and in much use among themselves for Protestant Books I could find none to give account of among which were the three propositions following prefixed for titles to so many moral discourses of Leander de Murcia in his Commentaries on the book of Esther The first of which goes thus Adeo essicax est mortis memoria ad reducendos in meliorem frugem homines ut non solum ipsi sed etiam Deus op Max. proposita ante oculos morte in meliora contendat The memory of Death is so powerful to reduce Men unto a better life that not only they but even God Almighty himself laying death before his eies becomes better The second runs thus Etiam daemon morte ante oculos constituta contendit in meliora even the Devil looking upon death mends himself The third proposition is this Tanta dilectione prosecutus est filius Dei homines vt pro ipsis quasi insanire videatur The Son of God his love to men has bin so great that he seems to be mad for them And if thus it goes even in Books current and approved among you what if I did relate the Doctrines of others censured and prohibited by your inquisitions as you and your party frequently do upbraid our Church with erroneous Doctrines of particular Men which we do utterly detest and our learned Men do vigorously oppose by word and pen in Pulpits Books and Scholes CHAP. XVII The Reformation of the Church of England vindicated from the slanderous aspersions of N. N. and other Romanists IT is very usual with the Zelots of the Romish Church to make Henry the Eight sole Author of the Reformation of the English Church loading that Prince with bitter invectives and odious reports thereby to render the reformation contemtible to which N. N. in the 14. chapter of his Book adds a slanderous relation of the lives and behaviour of some Monks and Friers come out of Germany which he pretends to have bin the authors and contrivers of the 39. Articles of the Church of England I will not repete the many idle stories he tells of them more fit to divertise simple persons of his own credulity in a Winter night at the fire then to work on serious and knowing Men. I have chosen for a more short and solid way rather to justify our cause with positive arguments then to follow our adversaries in sifting fopperies To this purpose I will lay for foundation of my present discourse that the whole frame of the Reformation standeth upon two points whereof the first and more resented at Rome is the denying of the Popes supremacy and the withdrawing of the Church of England from subjection to him The second is the Reformation of the Liturgy and Doctrine of the said Church from errors and corruptions introduced in it As for the first it is clear and evident that neither Henry the 8. nor Luther nor Calvin nor any of those strangers mentioned by N. N. were authors or causers of the freedom of the Church of England from subjection to the Pope of Rome This freedom being by its own right inherent in it from the beginning of its Christianity however King Henry his valour and resolution broke off effectually the Tyrannical usurpations of Rome which long time did oppress the English Church and Nation notwithstanding their continual reluctancy and complaint against those Romish extortions Far were those good Christians that inhabited England before the time of Gregory the Great from giving or owning obedience to the Bishop of Rome and so when Augustin came hither about the year 590 and demanded their obedience to the Church of Rome the Abbot of Bangor returned him answer * Concil Spelm. P. 108. That they were obedient to the Church of God to the Pope of Rome and to every godly Christian to love every one in his degree in charity to help them in word and deed to be the Children of God and other obedience then this they did not know due to him whom he named to be Pope nor to be Father of Fathers And if Augustin did pretend to such a subjection from England to Rome as the Popes of it now would have certainly he exceeded his commission for St. Gregory that sent him never pretended to that supremacy which his successors do aspire to as we shall demonstrate in the 15 chapter of the second part of this treatise and how far he was from pretending England to be of his jurisdiction may appear by what is related of him that being told certain children were de Britannica Insula he did not know whether the Country were Christian or Pagan The siliâ—â— and voluntary respect and obedience which the holiness and learning of Gregory and some other good Popes gain'd among the English gave occasion to others following of less merit to pretend to a right to such obedience which being perceived by the Kings they prohibited all appeals to Rome and the coming of Legats thence and so much as the receiving of letters without the Kings licence as may appear by Paschalis the Second his letter to Henry the first expostulating with him about this particular in these words Sedis Apostolicae nuncii vel literae praeter jussum regiae Majestatis nullam in potestate tua susceptionem aut aditum promerentur nullus inde clamor nullum inde judicium ad sedem Apostolicam destinantur c. This happened in an 1114. notwithstanding the King stood upon his resolution so as in the year following 1119 sending his Bishops to a Council held by Callixtus the 2. at Rhemes at their departing he gave them instructions not to complain of each other because himself would right each of them at home that they * Joh Diacon l. 1. c. 21. vita Greg. should a Orderi Vital is p. 857. Ite Dominum
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
I. S. has bin in his pretended triumph over me touching this point of History CHAP. XXX Of the strange and absurd terms used in the grants of Indulgences and the immoderate profuseness wherewith and slight causes for which they are granted TRuly if we do consider the absurd language used in the trade of Indulgences and the vast boundless profuseness in the grant of them for very slight causes of all which their most learned Defenders do confess not to be able to give a rational account we may with some grounds suspect that some such Lay-cardinals mentioned in the precedent Chapter out of Baronius granting Indulgences in Rome should have bin the Authors and Inventors of the present practice of Indulgences and terms of it used in the Roman Church First they divide Indulgences into total and partial A total Indulgence is a full remission of all the temporal pains due to the mans sins committed A partial Indulgence is a remission of a part of the penalties according to the will of the person granting it A total Indulgence is subdivided again into plena plenior plenissima a plenary or full more full and most full Here the wits of the Learned are strained to find sense in these words how one Indulgence that is plenary can be capable of these degrees of increase in regard of the same person If by any plenary Indulgence he has a total remission of all the penalties due to his sins how can he have a more total or full remission of them Suarez disp 1. De effectu Indulgent Sect. 4. finding no ground for these degrees would fain give some sense to them by a parity of the Virgin Mary full of grace by the coming of the Angel more full by the coming of her Son and most full in her death but finding himself weary of such bare conjectures resolves that according to the present state there is no substantial difference as to the effect in those gradations of plenary Indulgences whatsoever was the meaning of those terms with the first Authors of them whereof at present there is no clear knowledg and relates Sotus saying that Preachers of Indulgences have introduced those gradations by way of exaggeration Partial Indulgences are likewise subdivided into quadragena septena carena and the like Quadragena they call an Indulgence of forty daies septena of seven years carena composed of both the former containing seven years and forty daies And now enters a very perplex difficulty that turns the brains of their ablest Divines what to understand by these years and daies of remission whether so many years and daies of the pains of Purgatory to be remitted as Viguerius did conceive or so much time of penance enjoined by Canons for sins and tho this latter be the more received and common opinion and approved by Suarez in the place now mentioned yet he finds so many difficulties for a congruous sense of so many thousand years allowed by Indulgences so little consistence in reasons alledged by several Authors that he resolves it s a matter obscure and unknown to us and that we must rest upon the judgment of the Church which knows the meaning of those measures concluding thus Breviter vero assero de re nobis incertà Authores hos disputare Ecclesiam vero uti illa mensurâ quae sibi nota est I say briefly that these Authors do quarrel about a thing unknown to us and that the Church uses herein that measure which is known to it self remitting those pains of Purgatory which may be proportionable to the penalties of this life enjoined by Canons and so leaves us as wise as we were before for understanding what sense so many thousands of years can have whether relating to the pains of Purgatory or to penalties enjoined by Canons But this Language is used and received in the Roman Church and therefore we must stand to it let it mean what it will be it sense or non-sense and that 's all the account that Suarez can give us of it after the trial of his own wit and examining the discourses of others being to speak in earnest Now to the cause of giving Indulgences Mr. I. S. gives us occasion to say somthing since he boasts that Indulgences are not granted so slightly as Protestant Ministers would make their flock believe It s true that Cajetan teaches Opusc de Indulgent cap. 8. that great Indulgences ought not to be given for small causes and that there ought to be a proportion betwixt the quality of the Indulgence and the work performed to obtain it But how can this consist with what Cajetan tells there that a plenary Indulgence is given to every one that stands in the Yard of St. Peters Church when the Pope gives his blessing to the people there on Easter day Here he recurs to a mystery that tho to stand in that place be of its own nature of no great consideration yet relating to the purpose of representing the Members of the Church united under one head it s of great weight and proportioned to the Indulgence received But what mystery shall we find to render decent that famous Indulgence granted by Innocent III. to all such as would marry public Harlots as Spondanus relates in the year 1198. Who would not think that so many loud and learned cries made against the abuses of Indulgences in the Roman Church for more then a hundred years and the scandal and contemt of them grown among the sober and judicious men even of their own party would not be a means to moderate at least the boundless profuseness of those grants feeding continually the hopes of sinners for a remission of all their crimes and encouraging them to persevere in their wicked waies But that 's the unhappiness of that Church and the dismal symptom of a disease being mortal that it grows worse with remedies and hates a cure Setting aside numberless instances of their most absurd prodigalities in this kind whereof many Books are replenish'd I will only set down here a Copy of Indulgences granted by the present Pope Clement the Tenth upon the occasion of Canon zing certain new Saints of late in which you may see a full Idea of the Romish corruptions in this kind Formula Indulgentiarum cum quibus S. D. N. Clemens Papa X. Coronas Rosaria Cruces sacrasque Imagines numismata Medallias vulgo nuncupata benedicir per occasionem Canonizationis SS Confessorum Cajetani Francisci Borgiae Philippi Benitii Ludovici Bertrandi Sanctae Rosae Virginis Peruanae QVicunque saltem semel in hebdomada Coronam Domini vel Beatissimae Virginis aut Rosarium ejusve tertiam partem aut Officium divinum vel parvum Beatissimae Virginis vel defunctorum vel septem Psalmos poenitentiales vel graduales recitare aut detentos in carcere visitare aut pauperibus subvenire aut saltem horae quadrante mentali orationi vacare consueverit si confessus Sacerdoti ab Ordinario approbato sanctissimum Eucharistiae
thither without his leave I heard of some Popes that were kept out themselves from entring thither and I have great reason to believe it was so and to fear that I following their conduct may have the like repulse It is one of your damnable errors and not the least cause of my discontent with you to say that none may be saved without paying obedience to the Pope of Rome a spark of Hell-fire which kindled and conserves the miserable combustions and distractions of Christendom the bloody Massacre of so many thousands of Men and the desolation of so many noble Kingdoms and Provinces a monstrous Paradox cut out to the measure of the unmeasurable Ambition of the Roman Pope and his Court to force all the World with the fright of everlasting fire adding to it the power of the Sword where he can to resign up their obedience and contribute their wealth and liberties to the support of that power and grandeur the greatest that ever was entertained in the fancy of man if men were so mad as to yield to the proposals of the Pope and his Emissaries To diminish the heat of this hellish Ambition the Seminary of the miseries of Christendom I have contributed with my endeavors even while I was among you using only the armor of principles learned in your own Scholes and declaring that the practise of the Emissary Sycophants of the Roman Court is contrary not only to the intrinsic rules of Christian doctrine but to the very professed tenets of the Romish Church I do not say of the Romish Court for tho both corrupt they have their different waies and to conform with the tenets of the Roman Church was not thought sufficient in me if I did not also fashion my doctrine to the interest of the Roman Court and to the extension of the grandeur of it which is the want of policy or prudence Mr. I. S. accused me of as before mentioned I will continue now with more liberty and resolution the same endeavors of letting the World know how false and pernicious this doctrine is how great the disingenuity of Romish Emissaries in publishing and preaching it to the People contrary to truth and their own knowledg to win Proselytes by frights to the Romish faction but it shall be in the Schole language and style to make it more universal not in the Vulgar to shun dealing with quiblers and cavillers such as I find you to be Mr. I. S. What you are in your person I know not certainly but your style and mode of discourse fashioned to a vulgar humor with a total neglect of what learned and serious men may think of it makes me conceive you may be one of those Preachers I saw in Pulpits with a dead mans skull in their hand or the picture of a Devil or a damned Soul surrounded with flames and girded with Snakes and Toads moving the Vulgar with tragic cries and antic gestures to sighs and sobs and knocking of their breasts while those of more sense and discretion did exercise their patience and bite their lips to refrain laughing at showers of non-sense powred down with confidence He that will reflect seriously upon the passages of your discourse I pointed at in this Chapter and many others of the like sort to be seen in your Book will see I do you no injury in this Character I give of your writing resolving to take no notice of any I shall see for the future of this kind being desirous to make better use of the time God is pleased to lend me then to spend it in shifting such trifles Here I will add one argument more of this mans weakness and peevish temper that finding me refuting briefly a reply of Becan to an argument I was urging and not understanding the drift of my argument or wanting an answer he only says that he knows not why I mentioned Becan if it be not to let men know that I am acquainted with the Books of great Divines Such as are acquainted with Scholes and Books of Divinity do know for what kind of Dïvines the Summary Theology of Becan was made for such as have not time or other requisits to go deeper Truly when I take points of Divinity in hand to resolve upon them I am not wont rest upon the Memorandums of Becan I allow Mr. I. S. the glory of being more conversant in this Writer And indeed I find them svmbolize in one thing which is to put off pressing arguments of their Adversaries with a flout or sarcasm fitted more to a vulgar applause than to the satisfaction of solid understandings This I observed sometimes in Becan which made me regard him less but very often in Mr. J. S. Another proof of the mans truth and talent is to say that all the arguments contained in my discourse are found in Bellarmin as also the answers of them with which I ought to have bin contented without giving him the trouble of answering me Say you so Sr then the answers you return to me either are of Bellarmin or of your own making if of Bellarmin your cause is desperate when your ablest Champion could produce no better defence of it if of your own making you have betrayed your trust in building the credit of your cause upon so weak a ground and not producing the soundest reasons that were for it in an occasion of so great expectation for certainly he must be very blind that will not see by what is said in this Treatise that your answers are very weak impertinent and often ridiculous But of all this you have an excuse in the condition of your cause The greatest wits are too weak to support it Look upon Scotus in 4. dist 10. q. 3. shivering the arguments of Aquinas and others in favor of Transubstantiation and you will see wit and learning triumph in his discourses Look upon the same Scotus engaged in defending Transubstantiation to comply with the Lateran Council against his own fentiments as he confesses and you will find him ridiculous as may appear by what I related of him above chap. 23. How strong and formal is Suarez in defence of Christian verities against Infidels how faint and wavering in the defence of Purgatory Indulgences c. as seen above chap. 31. It s a complaint grown very common among your party against Bellarmin that the Arguments he objects against the Romish Tenets are stronger then his Answers to them and certain I am it was not for want of wit or will in him to advance the Roman interest it was the condition of the Cause You brag of Austerities used by some orders of the Roman Church If this be a rule of perfection Pagans there be that exceed you in it afflicting their bodies with desperate Austerities even to the destruction of soul and body together It is one of your calumnies to say Protestants should condem fasting and corporal afflictions discreetly used and without Hypocrisy to curb the lust of the