not ordained again after their ceremonies Which point of presumtion and contemt of ancient Canons the Church of England refuses to learn from the Romish admitting to the practise of their respective orders among us such as have bin ordained in the Romish Church tho we have far greater reasons to suspect their ordinations as disagreeing with ancient Canons then they have to suspect ours as we have hitherto largely declared By all this discourse it appeareth how groundless is the scruple of such as refuse to join with the Church of England for fear that the ordination of its Clergy is not valid whereas we have all the certainty and even more for the validity of our ordination that the Roman Church hath for hers how much Suarez was mistaken in affirming that the Church of England has not the Ecclesiastic hierarchy composed of Bishops Priests and Deacons necessary to the constitution of a Catholic Church CHAP. XII Of the large extent of Christian Religion professed in the Church of England THe fourth and chief kind of universality proposed by Suarez as necessary to the constitution of a Catholic Church is the extent of it over all the parts of the Earth This he denies to the Church of England as not passing saies he the Limits of the Brittish Dominions But if he speaks of the Faith professed in the Church of England as he ought to do for the present purpose he was greatly mistaken Here I will shew that King James's saying as Suarez relates that the one half of the Christian World do join with us in the same Faith did not exceed the bounds of truth and modesty and that of three parts of Christians two do join with us in the profession of the Faith of Christ contained in the Apostles Creed tho not of all contained in the Creed of Trent whereby the Roman Church alone is singled from us and from all other Christian Churches not unlike Ismael whose hand was against every one and every Mans hands against him And as the Donatists would confine the Church of God to that corner of Africa they inhabited so the Romanists would not have it extended further then their jurisdiction declaring for excommunicated and damned all that join not with them in obedience to their Pope That they may be ashamed or weary of their blind presumtion and cruelty in offering to mangle and deface in this manner the Church of God if avarice and ambition the genuine cause of this proceeding is capable of shame or amendment I will give to the People blinded by them a view of the multitude of illustrious Nations and Religious Believers in Christ which they do rashly if not maliciously condemn and segregate from their communion And beginning with Protestants inhabiting Europe from the remotest parts thereof Eastward in the Kingdom of Polonia containing under its dominion Polonia Lituania Podolia Russia the less Volhinia Massovia Livonia Prussia all which united in a roundish enclosure are in circuit about 2600 miles and of no less space then Spain and France laid together In this so large a Kingdom the Protestants in great numbers are diffused through all the quarters thereof having in every Province their public Churches and Congregations orderly severed and bounded with Dioceses whence they send some of their chiefest men of worth unto their general Synods which they have frequently held with great celebrity and with such prudence and piety as may be a happy example to be followed by all Christian Churches and likely would be followed upon a due consideration if the insatiable avarice and boundless ambition of Rome aspiring desperatly to a monarchical power over all did not obstruct all the waies that sincere piety and zeal of Religion can imagine for the peace of Christians For as much as there are diverse sorts of these Polonic Protestants some embracing the Waldensian or the Bohemic others the Augustan and some the Helvetian confession and so do differ in some outward circumstances of discipline and ceremony yet knowing well that a Kingdom divided cannot stand and that the one God whom all of them worship in Spirit is the God of peace and concord they jointly meet at one general Synod and their first act alwaies is a religious and solemn profession of their unfeigned consent in the substantial points of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation Thus in general Synods at Lendomire Cracovia Petricove Woodslave Torun they declared upon the Bohememic and Helvetic and Augustan confessions severally received amongst them that they agree in the general heads of Faith touching the Holy Scripture the sacred Trinity the person of the Son of God God and Man the providence of God Sin free will the Law the Gospel justification by Christ Faith in his name Regeneration the Catholic Church and supreme head thereof Christ the Sacraments their number and use the state of Souls after Death the Resurrection and life Eternal They decreed that whereas in the forenamed confessions there is some difference in phrases and forms of Speech concerning Christs presence in his holy Supper which might breed dissention all disputations touching the manner of Christs presence should be cut off seeing all of them do believe the presence it self and that the Eucharistical Elements are not naked and emty signs but do truly perform to the Faithful receiver that which they signify and represent To prevent future occasions of violating this sacred consent they ordained that no man should be called to the sacred Ministry without subscription thereunto and when any person shall be excluded by excommunication from the Congregation of one confession that he shall not be receiv'd by them of another Lastly For as much as they accord in the substantial verity of Christian Doctrine they profess themselves content to tolerate diversity of ceremonies according to the diverse practice of their particular Churches and to remove the least suspicion of rebelling sedition wherewith their malicious and calumniating adversaries might blemish the Gospel tho they are subject to many grievous pressures yet they earnestly exhort one another to follow that worthy and Christian admonition of Lactantius defendenda Religio est non occidendo sed moriendo non saevitiâ sed patientiâ non scelere sed side illa enim bonorum haec malorum sunt This is the State of the Professors of the Gospel in the Elective Monarchy of Polonia who in the adjoining Countries on the fouth Transylvania and Hungary are also exceedingly multiplied In the former by the favour of Gabriel Bartorius Prince of that Region who not many years since expelled thence all such as are of the Papal faction in a manner the whole Inhabitants except some few rotten and pâ—trid limbs of Arrians Antitrinitarians Ebionits Socinians Anabaptists who here as also in Polonia Lituania and Borussia have some public assembly are professed Protestants and in Hungary the greater part especially being compared with the Papists Thence Westward in the Kingdom of Bohemia consisting of 3200 Parishes
perspicacity in striking the nail in the head This indeed is that stumbling stone and Rock of offence This is the chief and I may say the only cause of that irreconcileable disunion of the Roman Church with us We know by certain and well authorized * Tortura torti Pag. 152. records that Pope Paul the Fourth offered Queen Elizabeth to approve of the Reformation if the Queen would acknowledg his Primacy and the Reformation from him and he being dead his Successor Plus the 4. prosecuted the same as appears by his letters written the 5 * Cambden Anno 1560. of * Twisden H. Vind. Cap. IX n. 5. May 1560. and sent by Vincentius Parpalia offering to confirm the Liturgy of the English Church if she would acknowledg his Supremacy This being told by Sir Roger Twisden as he relates himself to an Italian Gentleman versed in public affairs together with the grounds on which he spake it well said the Gentleman if this were heard in Rome among religious Men it would never gain credit but with such as have in their hands the maneggi della corte the management of the court affairs it may be held true And indeed suâ—h as know the spirit of that Court may easily believe that if this great point of the Supremacy the foundation of their power and grandeur were agreed upon they would easily wink at other dissentions Whereof we have a pregnant testimony from Bellarmin Lib. 3. de Ecclesia Cap. 20. asserting that even such as have no interiour Faith nor any Christian vertue are to be taken for members of the Catholic Church provided they do but outwardly profess the Faith of the Roman Church and subjection to the Pope tho it be only for some temporal interest So ready they are in Rome to embrace all sorts of men provided they acknowledg the Popes Supremacy This being established all is well being denyed the best of Men and soundest Believers in Christ must be damned Heretics by sentence of that Court. But I shall declare sufficiently in the 15. Chapter of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain the pretence of Suarez and his party is to make the Popes Supremacy an article of saving Faith how unjust and tyrannical an usurpation it is how far the best Popes in the Primitive Church were from pretending to it and more from pressing it upon Christians as an article of saving Faith And indeed it must appear strange to any impartial judgment that the System of articles contained in the three Creeds and four first general Councels which gained the name of Catholic to the Church first called so should not suffice to make a Church Catholic in all times Therefore the Church of England professing all those Articles is to be taken for truly Catholic tho denying the Popes Supremacy not contained in the foresaid System nor ever own'd by the Church first called Catholic as hereafter will be proved As to the second sort of Universality consisting in taking the Word of God for a common reason or rule of belief how can any pretend the Church of England to be deficient herein having ever protested that the Word of God contained in Canonical Scripture is the prime and only rule of its belief while the Roman Church denies to stand to this rule as unable to make out all the belief it would force upon us What Suarez pretends that the Church of England wants a rule infallible for knowing which is true Scripture and the true meaning of it which they conceive to have themselves in the Popes infallibility I shall declare in the eighth Chap. of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain it is we having in universal tradition and in the Writings of the Holy Fathers means sufficiently certain for knowing which is the true Scripture and which the true meaning of it in points necessary to Salvation As for others less necessary if there be obscurity and diversity of opinions among our Writers so is there among theirs nor could their pretended Infallibility ever make them agree Nay among the best and wisest Fathers of the Church there was alwaies a great diversity of opinions in points not fundamental without breach of Catholic and Christian union Now concerning the third kind of union or universality consisting in a hierarchical order of Bishops Priests and Deacons c. Suarez is much mistaken in saying that we have them not true and legal I will declare at large from the fifth Chapter following that we have all the security they have of a legal sucession and true ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons It s their concern we should not be found deficient herein for any defect conceived in our hierachy will reflect upon theirs Finally touching the fourth manner of Universality signified by the name Catholic that a Church or Faith so called should be extended over all the Earth Suarez exceeds much in denying this property to the Church of England or Faith professed in it saying it passes not the bounds of Brittish land To which is contrary that grave and modest testimony of King James related by Suarez in the same place chapter xv n 6. Nos Dei benesicio nec numero nec dignitate ita sumus contemnendi qui â—â—ono vicinis nostris exemplo praeire possimis quandoquidem Christiani orbis omniumque in eo ordinum inde à Regibus liberisque Principibus usque ad insimae conditionis homines pars propè media in nostram Religionem consensit We by the grace of God are not so despicable either for number or dignity that we may not be a good example to our Neighbours whereas neer the one half of the Christian World and all orders of People in it from Kings and Soverain Princes to the meanest sort of persons have already embraced our Religion I shall declare hereafter from the XIX Chapter descending to particulars that this saying of King James was both true and modest and that more then the one half of the Christian World agrees with the Church of England in unity of Faith sufficient to render them Catholic and that the Church of Rome may cease bragging of her extent being now come so short of that latitude which made her swell to the contemt of all other Christian Churches now far exceeding her in number and lustre of Princes and Kingdoms embracing the Faith professed in them Suarez preventing a check to his argument from this discovery in the XVI Chapter num 4. of his said Book premises that this general extension of the Catholic Church over all the World is to be understood of extension either by right or by actual possession and tho the latter be deficient the former of right cannot want Christ having commanded that his Gospel should be preached to all the World But how can Suarez pretend that this right should belong to the Faith of his Church rather then to that of the Church of England whereas this latter preacheth only for object of
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
judg of those quarrels I only attend the pernicious Doctrines I see assumed to maintain the interest of one side with intention to rebuke the same as universally false and destructive to the public peace and quiet Neither in truth can I understand which of both parties may fear more prejudice from the Doctrine I am reprehending I see complaints and jealousies upon both sides which of both hath more reason for it as I am not apt to determine so I do conceive that N. N. as also any other may be uncertain to which of the parties he do's prepare ruine by allowing subjects upon suspicion of danger from their fellow subjects to go to war with them without the consent of their Prince If both do complain and fear why may not either party as well as the other fall upon his fellow subjects when opportunity will assist him in conformity with that Doctrine Truly I cannot but wonder how any one living under a Prince or state that hath several Kingdoms Provinces or Societies to govern should dare to publish so pernicious a Doctrine as this I am reprehending If those of Navar and Arragon of Sicily and Sardinia of Brabant and Flanders should renew old quarrels or stir up new ones and run to war about them without the consent of their common Prince how long would the King of Spain be able to keep peace in his Dominions If his Ministers did take notice of this Doctrine and the consequences of it certainly they would have all Books containing it banished out of their territories But all this is sanctified with N. N. by telling us that the war was for Religion and since the law of God and nature do permit a Man to kill an other that pretends to take away his life with the same or more reason he may kill one that means to take away his Religion which ought to be more precious and dear to him then his life Good God whether has the perverseness of men arrived to canonize Murders and the most barbarous cruelties with the sacred name of Religion This language came not from Heaven Christ nor any of his Apostles did never teach it the Church instructed by them did not practise it Lactantius sets before us the maxims and practise of Christians in those times by these noble words Defendenda Religio est non occidendo sed moriendo non saevitia sed patientia non scelere sed fide Religion is to be defended not by killing but by dying for it not by cruelty but by patience not by mischief but by Faith Thus St. Peter and St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles thus did the brave Theban Legion defend their Religion tho able to defend it with Sword as is testified by Tertullian if the Spirit and Doctrine of Christ then steering the Church had permitted it A particular person to defend his life say you may kill by way of prevention an unjust aggressor that pretends to take it from him to this purpose you quote Divines and Civilians and from thence you infer two consequences the first that likewise a community or society may war against and destroy another society from whom it fears the like destruction the second consequence is that a private person or a Society may also by way of prevention set upon and kill another whom he suspects doth intend to take his religion from him You abuse foully the Doctrine above mentioned of Divines and Civilians by misapplying it both your consequences do not only contain a perverse Doctrine against right Divinity and Christian discipline as now declared but also do trespass against the rules of Logic. The former because it is not so easie to surprise a whole society largely dispersed as it is to surprise one particular person Evidences requisit to qualify a prudent fear such as may justify a preventing onset may not so easily be found against a society the threatning words or purpose of one particular or more in a society giveth not so much assurance of the purpose or intention of the whole society as the words of a particular may give of his intention Besides the killing of one particular is not so criminal and hainous nor so much exposed to an oppression of innocents as the killing and destroying of a whole society is therefore it s no lawful consequence a particular person may killby way of prevention another that he fear will kill him ergo a society or great party may likewise by way of prevention destroy another from whom it fears the like destruction Your second consequence above mentioned that if one to defend his life may kill an other that pretends to take it from him he may likewise kill him or them that intend to take his Religion from him this consequence also I say besides the perverse Doctrine it contains is a faulty piece of Logic it is not so easy to take his Religion from a man as his corporal life Your Religion may not be taken from you by a surprise or when you are a sleep or against your will as your corporal life may be Wherefore the same prevention cannot be necessary or lawful for the preservation of both Any that hath true Religion in him due love to God and a sincere and serious desire of his own happiness must take the loss of his corporal life for his Religion to be the greatest gain he can make it being the greatest security he can have of gaining life and glory everlasting for his Soul and body as our Saviour hath declared And is it not a desirable exchange to leave a painful short and wretched life for a glorious blessed and everlasting one Much he hath in him of Earth and little of Christian Spirit who would not wish to be dissolved if he were sure to be after his dissolution with Christ The only reason that can justifie a fear to dy and part with this miserable life is the uncertainty of what may be our doom in the other and the hopes of securing a good one by further living but when a security is given to pass by death to a life everlasting as Christ gives to such as die for God and his holy Faith what Christian consideration can justifie a fear to such a death so far as to kill those that intend to bring us to it Truly N. N. I have so much of kindness and true friendship left in me for you as made me sorry and not a little troubled to see such pernicious Doctrines as these contain'd in your book I took you for a Man better principled and if I had perceived any such errors in your conversation at the time of our acquaintance in Spain I would have refuted them and shewed my dislike to them as freely as I do now I am willing to imagine that non ex tuo haec dicis that it is not your own deliberate sentiment but imposed upon you by some of those fiery emissaries of Rome who will not stick to
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
thus Hoc inveni quod fecerit Deus hominem rectum ipse se infinitis miscuit quaestionibus And in the 12. Ch. and 12. v. he saith That of many Books there is no end The questions determinable being thus unlimited the faculty relating to them for an unerring determination must be likewise unlimited and consequently of infinite perfection Will he allow so much to the Pope He challenges me often and defies all my Divinity to answer his Arguments will he give me leave to challenge once all his Sophistry for a direct and formal solution of this Query And whilst he finds it I enquire secondly Whether it be granted and allowed that God has lent his Infallibility to the Pope of Rome to determine without error all questions possible occurring about Religion whether I have not denv'd resolutely the said grant to be made and confuted the foundations they pretend for it to his knowledg being so whether it be a proper kind of arguing to take for a Principle against us the Conclusion in debate whether it be not a damnable arrogance to parallel his Pope with the holy Evangelists and Apostles which all Christians do acknowledg and reverence for unerring Oracles of God to declare his holy Will to us whether it be not insolence to say that our censures upon Romanists for attributing Infallibility to the Pope should reflect upon the sacred Organs of the Holy Ghost speaking to us by their mouth as Mr. I. S. do's most impiously pretend And being I signified the censure of Blasphemy upon their pretence to Infallibility to be of their own Authors not of my making as not concerned for aggravating their crime so much as to shew they are absolutely in an error I will further declare how bitter they are in censuring one another in this particular How little is Mr. I. S. assisted by his brethren for his singular way to escape In the Colledg of Clermont at Paris the twelfth day of December of the year 1661. was defended this Thesis as a Catholic assertion against the heresy of the tenth Age * Christum nos ita caput Ecclesiae agnoscimus ut illius regimen dum in calos al iâ—t primum Petro tum deinde successer thus commisern candem quam habebat ipse Infallibilitatem concesseris quoties ex cathedra loquerentur Datur crgo in Ecclesià R. controversiarum sidei infallibilis judex ctiam extra concilium generale tum in quaestionibus juris â—nm facti Unde post Innocentii X. Alexandri VII constitutiones fide divina credi potest librum cui titulus Augustinus Jansenii esse haereticum quinâ—ue propositiones ex co decerptas esse Jansenii in sensa Jansenii damnatas We acknowledg Christ to be so the Head of the Church that during his absence in heaven he hath delegated the government thereof first to Peter and then to his Successors and do's grant unto them the very same Infallibility which himself had as often as they shall speak è è Cathedra There is therefore in the Church of Rome an infallible Judg of Controversies of Faith even without a General Council as well in questions appertaining to right as in matters of fact Therefore since the Constitutions of Innocent the X. and Alexander the VII we may believe with a divine Faith that the Book intitled The Augustin of Jansenius is heretical and the five Propositions which are gathered out of it to be Jansenius's and in the sense of Jansenius condemned Here we have a great authorized Colledg of his own declare against Mr. I. S. that the Pope even out of a General Conncil is Infallible that he hath the very same Infallibility which Christ himself had and if he slights the Authority of this Colledg which may not be safe for him if he be the man some say pretends to have the honor of being Author of this Book with more consideration he may find the common opinion of the chief Scholemen of his communion to be against him such as are * Aquin 2.2 q. 1. ar 10. Cajet op de authorit Pont. Concil cap. 9. Suar. d. 5. sect 8. Ban. in com brevi dub conclu 3. Valen. d. 1. q 1. punct 7. sect 39. 40. Mald. dub 5. Turri disp 16. dub 1. Can. lib. 6. de locis Theolog. c. 7.8 Bellar. lib. 4. de R. P. c. 2. Aquiâ—as Cajetanus Suarez Bannez Valentia Malderus Turrianus Canus Bellarmin and many others whereof Suarez Bannez and Valentia declare Mr. I.S. his opinion to be heretical and branded for such in the Bull of Leo the Tenth condemning for an error of Luther this Proposition Si Papa cum magna parte Ecclesiae sic vel sic sentiret nec etiam erraret adhuc non est peccatum aut haeresis contrarium sentire praesertim in re non necessariâ ad salutem donec fuerit per Concilium Vniversale alterum reprobatum alterum approbatum and by Sixtus IV. in a Council of fifty two Doctors celebrated at Complutum in the year 1479. Alphonsus Carillo Arch bishop of Toledo being President in it against Petrus Oxoniensis among whose Propositions condemned for erroneous this was the seventh Ecclesia Vrbis Romanae errare potest Here we have our poor Antagonist his peculiar way of defending the Romish quarrel declared for heretical by Popes and the common opinion of Popish Doctors Now let us see another party of them censure the foresaid position of the Clermont Colledg for a horrid impiety and a species of Idolatry for Idolatry say they do's not consist merely in giving to man the name of God but infinitely more when we attribute to him those qualities which are peculiar to God and when we render him those honors which are alone due to the Deity Now this entire submission of our Spirit and of all our intellectuals comprehended in the Act of our Faith is no other then that adoration which we pay to the prime Verity it self and therefore whosoever he be that renders it to the word of a man whatever rank he may hold in the Church who ever says that he believes with a faith Divine that which he would not believe but because a man has affirmed it do's constitute man in the place of God transfers to the creature that which is alone due to the Creator and makes as far as in him lies a kind of Idol of the Vicar of Jesus Christ And a little after they declare it to be a formal Blasphemy in these words But were it possible to offer a greater affront to the prime Minister of Jesus Christ then to conceive they do him honor by a Blasphemy so injurious to Jesus Christ that he should suffer them to equal him with his Master by ascribing to him the same Infallibility which he alone possesses and that men should render that Supreme Cultus of a Divine Faith to his words which is only due to the word of God Thus the party opposite of the
not answer because the Scripture says it neither must I answer that I beleive God to speak by the Church because she works Miracles Here I am to doubt whether this be the same man that spoke to us a little before p. 177. and more at large p. 102. extolling the force of Miracles to beget an evidence of Credibility in the proposer of divine Verities or another of his Auxiliaries that came in his place to carry on the work without regard to what the former said But whoever he be let us see how he disputes against Miracles If the Miracles be absolutely evident says he they can be no motive of Faith which is of its own nature obscure and if they be but morally evident Miracles they can not be the motive because the motive of Faith must be infallible How blind is the attemt of this Man against Miracles how destructive of his own purpose How absurd and ridiculous his argument against Miracles I have declared above in Chap. 9. whither I remitt the Reader Now let us see this mysterious work of our Adversary go on Having excluded Miracles from ascertaining us of the credibility of the Church proposing doctrines to us he tells us how we must answer that question Why I beleive that God speaks by the Church and it must be thus because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her and I am obliged to beleive be speaks by her because he doth credit her with so many Miracles and supernatural marks which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her If it be the same Man that wrote the whole page it cannot but appear a wonder that having employed his skill a few lines before in weakning the force of Miracles to ground the infallibility of the Church on he should now take up the same Miracles for his ultimate reason of beleiving in the Church As a nice Man who throwing away the paring of his apple and checking his companion for eating his without paring fell immediatly after upon eating the paring he threw away To cast a patch upon this foul breach of coherence in reasoning our Adversary shuffles in a distinction betwixt the motive of our act of Faith and the motive of our obligation of beleiving which indeed is nothing else at the present then Culicem excoriare to flay a flea after much ado to do nothing The present question immediatly proposed is why am I to beleive that God speaks by the Church the only reason he gives for beleiving in the Church is Miracles What needs that distinction of motive to my beleif and motive to my acknowledgment of obligation to beleive the same reason that makes me beleive intimates to me my obligation of beleiving The primitive Christians who heard the Apostles preach and saw their Miracles knew nothing of these distinctions Seing those Servants of God confirm their doctrine with Miracles they beleived God spake by them and for the same reason or motive thought themselves obliged to beleive them If we have the same Faith that the primitive Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch had as Mr. I. S. says p. 183. why shall not we go the same way to beleive as they did But our Adversary is upon a design of imposing upon us a Faith which the Apostles did not teach which he discovers clearly tho happily not so much to his own knowledg p. 184. in those remarkable words The cheif and last motive whereupon our Faith must rest is the Word of God speaking to us by the Church The Church I say by which God actually in this present Age speaks unto us for we do not beleive because God did speak in the first second or third Age by the Church c. Here you see Reader a plain Confession of the great guilt of the Roman Church deserving the most severe resentment of all true Christians that glorious truly Catholic Apostolic and holy Church of the primitive Ages excluded from the office of being Mistress of our beleif and the Church of this corrupt Age governed by the most corrupt Court in the World if we are to beleive them that are best acquainted with it that of Rome substituted in her place And as this is proposed by our Adversary without any proof so it ought to be rejected by all true Christians with indignation Only I will reflect upon the inconsequence of the Man and how farr he is from his purpose of ridding himself from a Circle in resolving his Faith All that great Labyrinth he works from p. 176. to p. 184. in order to declare his procedure to each act of Faith and able to puzzle the best understanding will certainly be requisite in his opinion to proceed to this last act of Faith which he will have to be the guide of all others that the Roman Church of this Age is infallible in teaching what we ought to beleive This being as he says an act of divine Faith I mean that the Pope with a Generall Council such as that of Trent is infallible in proposing matters of Faith how shall he go about to resolve his Faith upon this particular point Certainly thus according to his former discourse I beleive that the present Church governed by the Pope of Rome in the Councill of Trent is infallible and God speaks by her because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her and I am obliged to beleive that God speaks by her because he credits her by so many Miracles and supernaturall marks which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her These are Mr. I. S. his own words and his Confession of Faith set down in the 181. page of his Book And while the Reader reckons how many Circles he committs here endeavouring to rid himself of one I ask of him where be those Miracles wrought by the Fathers of the Councill of Trent and the Popes moderating in it to breed in me an evidence of credibility that God spake by their mouth as the Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch saw the Apostles work for believing that God spake by them being he says I must take the objects of Faith upon credit of the present Church and that credit must be grounded upon Miracles and supernaturall marks appearing for it Will he have us prefer his forg'd Miracles in favour of his newcoin'd-Faith to those wrought by the Apostles in confirmation of the Faith preached by them Turn Reader to what I said to this purpose in the 9. Chapter of this Treatise The more I consider this resolution of Mr. I. S. his Faith the less I find in it of resolution and the more Circles and obscurities Now I enquire of him further why doth he exclude the Church of the first second and third Age from the office of declaring Gods will and word to us He answers because the declarations of that ancient Church are known to us onely by tradition and tradition says he is not the motive but
those indirect means which other solicitations of men tending to the like purchase are capable of All this being so how can you defend at least from blindness and imprudence your practice of more frequent recourse to your supposed Saints then to the supreme undoubted Saint of Saints Jesus Christ Not to treat at present how much this doctrine of the Invocation of Saints is in it self injurious to God by giving that worship to Creatures which belongs only to himself as may appear by all those places of Scripture which appropriate our Invocation to God only in regard of his incommunicable Attributes of Omniscience infinite goodness and power nor how dishonorable it is to Christ both in regard of his infinite merit and office of Mediator And finally the silence of such a practice in the first and better Ages of the Church so as Cardinal Perron confesses that in the Authors who lived nearer the Apostles times in the three first Centuries no foot-steps can be found of the Invocation of Saints this silence I say is a sufficient Argument of the unlawfulness of this practice how unsuitable it is to the spirit of the Apostles Origen is not only silent of such a practice but directly protests against it in several places assirming that Praiers and Supplications are to be directed only to God by Jesus Christ For being inquired by Celsus what opinion Christians had of Angels he answers That tho the Scripture somtime calls them Gods it is not with intention that we ought to worship them For all â—raiers and Supplications saies he and Intercession and Thanksgiving are to be sent up to the Lord of all by the high Priest who is above all Angels being the living word of God And reflecting often upon the unreasonableness of making addresses to Angels by reason of the little knowledg we have of their condition he adds That even such a knowledg if we were furnished with it * Origen contra Celsum lib. 5. p. 233. Edit Cantab. would not permit us to presume to pray unto any other but God the Lord of of all who is abundantly sufficient for all by our Saviour the Son of God And after he declares how Angels and Saints may assist us and pray for us to God if we be in the favor of God and do endeavor to please him We must endeavor to please God only saies he who is over all and pray that he may be propitious to us procuring his good will with piety and all kind of virtue And reflecting upon Celsus his proposal of worshipping Demons or Angels he addeth these remarkable words †Lib. 8. pag. 120. But if he will yet have us to procure the good will of any other after him that is God over all let him consider that as when the body is moved the motion of the shadow doth follow it so in like manner having God favorable to us who is over all it followeth that we shall have all his friends both Angels and Souls and Spirits favorable to us for they have a sympathy with them that are thought worthy to find favor with God ....... so as we may be bold to say that when men who with a resolution propose to themselves the best things do pray unto God many thousands of the sacred powers pray together with them uncalled upon Here and in other such Testimonies of Origen and others of his time we find mention of Angels and Saints to pray for men and to help them by Gods appointment but we find no mention at all of such a thing as an Invocation of them He saies they pray together with us when we pray to God himself and that not because we prai'd first to them to pray with us but uncalled upon Here we have the Spirit of that Church truly Catholic and Apostolic declared to us that we are to make our Addresses of Praiers and Invocations to God alone and thereby win the assistance and praiers of heavenly Spirits in our favor For as all the world shall fight with him against the unwise sinners so all the Court of Heaven will assist their King in favoring his Saints and Servants CHAP. XXV A great stock of Faults and Absurdities discovered in Mr. I. S. his defence of Purgatory SIR as you shew your special study to be to soure your Pen with all manner of sawciness even without occasion given to you and starting often from the point and purpose for to pleasure your self in the Sea of bitterness so it is my no small care and certainly a harder task then to answer your Arguments to refrain my Pen from pouring upon you continual showers of heavy Censures whether reflecting upon your boldness in asserting manifest untruths or upon your rudeness or malice in mis-understanding or mis-representing the state and terms of the Question in every point of my Discourse you pretend to answer or shunning shamefully or childishly the point and purpose and proposing another of your own instead of answering as Schole-boies do with riddles or hard questions as they call them when they want an answer to one of them they return for answer another of that kind of Questions Of all these faults I could easily convince you guilty in every point you handled from the beginning of your Book to the end I have abstained from doing it in formal reflexions tho in my replies faced with your Proposals the discreet Reader may easily see your foresaid faults really contained out of my aversion to offensive expressions and because I fear to offend my friends and Patrons on this side as you hope to please yours by bitter Language But when you tell palpable untruths shall I desert the defence of truth not to make you a liar when you clearly abandon the question proposed and misrepresent the case or misunderstand it shall I desist in my serious and close enquiry of the truth not to discover your ignorance and weakness So much complacency you are not to expect from me and by shewing you are guilty of all these faults in your reply to my discourse upon the point of Purgatory you will perceive I have bin indulgent to you in not enlarging upon a formal discovery of them in all the points hitherto treated upon among us Now to the proof of so much I begun my Discourse upon the point of Purgatory with the method and order that exact Disputants are wont to observe in handling seriously any subject First examining what we are to understand under the notion of Purgatory Seeondly whether such a thing be really extant As to the first I told how I did not find the more learned Men of the Roman Church so confident as the Vulgar in taking for Purgatory a determinate place in the bowels of the Earth with those frightful qualities their Legends do specify being contented to conclude from some places of Scripture by conjecture that after this life there must be some place to expiate sins without determining whether