TRUE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH maintain'd in the CHURCH of ENGLAND By ANDREW SALL Doctor in Divinity Being A Reply to several Books published under the names of J.E. N.N. and J.S. against his Declaration for the Church of England and against the motives for his Separation from the Roman Church declared in a Printed Sermon which he Preached in Dublin Psal 27. v. 1. One thing have I desired of the Lord that will I seek after that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the daies of my life to behold the beauty of the Lord and to enquire in his Temple Printed at the Theater in OXFORD 1676. IMPRIMATUR RAD. BATHVRST Vice-Can Oxon. June 23. 1676. To his EXCELLENCY The most Honorable Arthur Earle of Essex Viscount Malden Baron Capel of Hadham Lord Lieutenant General and General Governor of his Majesties Kingdom of Ireland Lord Lieutenant of the County of Hertford and one of the Lords of his Majesties most Honorable Privy Council My LORD HERE I present to your Excellency a defence of the true primitive and Catholic Apostolic Faith maintained and professed in the Church of England against the assaults of Adversaries so bold â—s to present the venem they spit against it one of them to a most Illustrious person of the Court of England another to the generality of the people and a third to your Excellency representative of our Gracious Soveraign in Ireland This last in a mockery like that of Judas betraying our Saviour with a kiss while he endeavours to bereave your Excellency of the life of your soul telling you that * I. S. pag. 140. and 304. the Church of England your Mother is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it that no Saint which is to say no just man or true servant of God was ever of it that you cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for your Tenets with other like most insolent opprobries He stiles himself your Excellencies most humble and faithful servant He would have your Excellency burn the defenders of your Church for offering to deny that we are all confessedly Schismatics When our Adversaries are so bold and active it is much our concern to watch and stand on our guard I should prove undeserving the Gracious protection and favour I have from your Excellency enabling me to appear for truth if in this Exigency I did desert the defence of it I will therefore bâ— Gods Holy assistance betake me to the arms oâ— his Holy word to resist the insulting and detect the fraud of subtil and violent adversaries of the true Catholic Faith appearing under the veil of defenders of it and endeavor to shew with unfaigned plain and solid proofs that the Faith we profess in the reformed Church of England in which many other Illustrious nations join with us is the true primitive Catholic Apostolic faith which our Savior Jesus and his sacred Apostles taught and established on earth that our adversaries branding us with Heresy and Schism are themselves the prime cause of all the schisms and confusions which too long have vexed Christianity and are guilty of as many Heresies as Articles coined by them in after ages which I hope we shall prove to be opposit both to Canonical Scripture and to the Doctrin and practice of the Primitive Catholic and Apostolic Church In which opposition certainly the true nature of Heresy doth consist however they to their own advantage would make men believe that the Popes pleasure and decrees must be the rule of all and nothing Heresy but what is opposit to them His pretended Infallibility Supremacy Vice-Godship and such like big sounding Titles but emty as here will appear have frighted a great part of men to becom slaves unto him The invention of Purgatory indulgences remissions and other engines of lucre have increased his means to maintain his usurped power My work will be to shew with plainess of reasons suitable to the sincerity of my intention and apposit to overthrow their sophistry that the forementioned tenets of the Romish faction fewel of all the Combustions of Christendom are not from above conveied by the Holy Ghost but conceived in the mints of earthly passions for the wisdom that is from above is first pure then peaceable gentle and easy to be intreated full of mercy and good fruits without partiality and without Hypocrisy Jam. 3.17 Such is not the wisdom taught by the Roman Court or Church if they will have it so called It is not pure but corrupted with many pernicious errors as will appear in this Treatise It is not peaceable but contentious not easy to be intreated but obstinat against all reasonable overtures of peace against the continual and ardent desire of all good Christians for a Council truly Occumenical and free wherein the Roman Bishop and faction as others may sit with like freedom and indifferency to judg and to be judged by the â—ord of God and rules of Christian sincerity as practised in those purer ages of primitive Christianity Nothing will satisfy them but a blind obedience and entire submission to their will Far are they from being full of Mercy their thoughts are not of peace but of death and destruction to all their fellow Christians that will not be of their party All this I shall endeavor to demonstrate by a close and serious Examen of the particulars conducing to the discovery thereof with no other design then the Glory of God with no prejudice or Passion against the Roman Church but with a hearty desire of the happiness of it that setting aside all profane policy it may return to that primitive purity and lustre it had when the Faith of it was praised throughout the whole World Rom. 1.8 and so join heart and hands with other Christians to the Edification and thereby to to the Conversion of Infidels and to the encrease and splendor of Christianity This being my real intention as well as the hearty wishes of all good men in the reformed Churches sure I am that my study and endeavors to this end will be protected and countenanced by your Exellency Whose happiness Eternal and Temporal is the hearty and continual Prayer of Your Excellencies most Devoted Servant and Chaplain ANDREW SALL THE PREFACE SAINT John tells us that all the world lieth in wickedness 1 Jo. c. 5. v. 19. that hatred envy malice avarice and ambition are the most common â—actice of men If so who can expect a general apâ—ause of his actions exposed to public view What â—eed tho in it self just and commendâ—ble did ever â—â—ease a bitter enemy What elegancy of speech what â—â—rength of reasons could ever sound well in the ears of â—im whose cause they opposed And if envy reignâ—â—th could that black passion ever omit to lessen â—he credit of such as were applauded But if others â—retend to be wits now called so it is not for them â—o let any action pass without a Censure or without â—inding in it a
the erroneous Principles they profess having sucked them in their tender years as divine verities proceeding from a living reputed Infallible Autority They never heard them controuled or examined no books written against them were permitted to come in their sight They were taught it was a sin to doubt of the truth of their tenets ergo those men wanted the ordinary means of instruction and consequently may have the refuge of invincible Ignorance All this I know to be so by my own experience Having lived in Spain many years and having had for several of them licence from the Inquisitor general to read all manner of prohibited books the prohibition was so severe that I could never find one book of a Protestant to read And even in Ireland where more liberty may be expected there is a severe prohibition of reading books opposing the Romish tenets which appeared particularly touching that small book I published For offering it to be read by a Romish priest Vicar General of a famous Church in that kingdom that he might see I did not without consideration and reason what I did he desired to be excused from reading it fearing it would raise in him doubts which he could not solve and this injunction being so severe upon persons of that degree must be more indispensable upon the vulgar Means of instruction for knowing their errors being thus carefully prohibited to them of the Romish Communion in all times and places we may favorably conceive that many of them both learned and unlearned may have the excuse of invincible Ignorance the sin lying upon the Statists that for temporal ends do debar them from the means of healthful knowledg One touch more in favour of the learned Very many of them having bestowed the flower of their age in studies of Humanity Philosophy and Divinity speculative are taken up and often kept all their life time teaching those faculties without ever reflecting upon or having means to know the errors of their Church in the points controverted They take them upon the credit of their instructors for infallible verities being continually beaten into their ears with horror and execration against the opposite doctrine And how great the power of education and prejudice is let the Dominicans and Jesuits testifie How fierce and eagerly doth each one act and opine for the Schole he was educated in and against the opposite By this it appears how vain the Triumph of I. S. is as if in my opinion all learned men dying in the communion of the Church of Rome were damned to hell We have seen that impious sentence to be a product of his fancy no consequence of any doctrine of mine More rash and wicked was his attemt in casting the like sentence of Damnation upon those glorious Saints and great Doctors of the Church St. Augustin St. Jerome St Chrysostom What have they to do with his errors to be damned for them Strong opposers no Patrons of them were they as partly I have already and after will more fully declare It appears likewise by this discourse how ridiculous his charge upon me is of contradiction and speaking against my conscience in calling Thomas Aquinas a Saint I have declared how that doth consist with and contradicteth not what I have delivered touching the unsecurity of Salvation in the Communion of the Roman Church He pretends to render me guilty in the Tribunal of the English Inquisition for calling Aquinas a Saint but the inquisition of England is not so rude as that of Rome in denying common civility to men and the honorary Titles custom do's allow them He may as well accuse the compilers of the London Gazets for giving to the Pope the title of Holiness and will have as much thanks for it as for his present impeachment of me for calling Aquinas a Saint We do not take it for a certain proof of holiness to be canonized in the Church of Rome Many of their own more learned writers deny it to be unerreable therein It is not merit only gets that honor there And tho we know all this to be so we do not grudg to call those Saints we find by custom to be called so And by all that is said hitherto we may see and wonder how rare the boldness of this man is to term it Blasphemy in me to relate the common opinion of all learned Protestants or to consent to it and to propose to have us all burned for it by sentence of our own chief Governor to pretend for this wicked attemt the Authority of our Soveraign King James of glorious memory whose Decrees and sentiments herein I do most willingly obey and consent unto to impose upon me an opinion I never uttered by word or writing nor ever harbored in my thought that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church that her errors are inconsistent with Salvation to clip my words and force them against my will and well declared meaning to his malicious purposes And notwithstanding these enormous excesses and absurdities of his speech his presumtion is so blind that he concludes his Dedicatory Epistle saying that tho his Treatise contained nothing else but this check he gives to me it must be grateful to his Excellency If this address were made to a weak or dull person it were yet criminal enough but presented to so deep a judgment and well known wisdom as that of my Lord Lieutenant pardon me sacred laws of modesty if I say its a very insolent boldness But now to our chief case in Debate CHAP. III. Mr. S. his cold defence of the Infallibility of his Church examined BOTH in my Declaration and in my printed Sermon or discourse against the errors of the Roman Church I signified that the only anchor left to keep me in the communion of it after a strong apprehension of its erroneous Tenets was the opinion of Infallibility granted to that Church and the Head of it But that anchor being cut off and a clear discovery made of the fallacy of their pretended Infallibility I set open my eyes and heart to receive the light which God sent me in his holy Writ to discover their pernicious errors and declare for his truth against them My adversary preceiving this to be the hinge all the Fabric go's on and that if I were perswaded to that Infallibility I would blind my eyes and follow without any further dispute the conduct of such a Guide goes about to set up the said Infallibility with all his power and so entitles his book The unerring unerreable Church But his way to compass his design is very odd which is yielding to my first and main attack upon it that is the uncertainty of such an Infallibility to assist them which I proveed by the disconformity of their Authors in asserting it and the weakness of the grounds they produce for it But Mr. I. S. in the page 167. gives me leave to believe what I please therein It s no article of faith
alledg that that he did not mean he could carry so much alone but he and a Horse with him Such quibbles as these are more becoming Mr. S. then S. Paul and so he may keep them for himself and not father them upon the great Apostle Further he proceeds to oppose St Paul saying that when he wrot that Epistle to Timothy the whole Canon of Scripture was not completed and only the whole Canon and no part of it can be sufficient means for our instruction therefore the Scripture that S. Paul spoke of cannot be a sufficient means for instructing us to Salvation Herein our Sophister is twice impious first in taxing the great Apostles assertion with untruth next that the Oracle of God delivered to men in each time for their instruction to Salvation should not be complete and sufficient By this it appears well how much a stranger this man is to the common Doctrine of Divines who affirm that in the Apostles Creed are contained all necessary verities to be believed for Salvation and in the Ten Commanâ—ments all duties to be performed of necessity to the same end And may not the Creed and Ten Commandments be known without a knowledg of the whole Canon of Scripture His boldness is prodigious in asserting extravagances without exhibiting any proof but his bare ipse dixit Pythagoras-wise Finding me say I was not fit for Pâ—thagoras his Schole where ipse dixit was the rule and men will not give reason for what they teach he opposes that if I am to expect reason for what I believe I am not fit for Christs Schole nor learning from Scripture which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit But if the Man had any ingenuity in him he would spare this Objection seeing it prevented in the 18. page of my discourse where I acknowledg with thanksgiving to God that I never doubted of the Truth of Holy Scriptures nor of the Creed proposed to us by the Catholic Apostolic Church and dictated by God Almighty worthy to be believed without examen not so Pythagoras nor the Pope CHAP. V. Mr. S. his prolixe excursion about the Popes Authority requisite to know which is the true Scripture declared to be Impertinent and the state of the Question cleared from the confusion he puts upon it OUR Adversary finding the Popes Infallibility to be an expression odious and ridiâ—ulous to all knowing men and whereof even the sober part of * Vid. Cress in exomologesi cap 4. Sect. 3. Romanists grow ashamed endeavours to serve us up the same Dish under another dress calling it the Autority of the Church Universal And if therein he did speak properly or sincerely he would have less opposition from us But if you do enquire what he means by Church Universal he tells you it is the Congregation Subject to the Pope of Rome excluding all other men and particularly the Church of England from being any part of that his Universal Church The said Congregation subject to the Pope whether diffusive or representative in a general Council depending upon the Pope and confirmed by him he pretends to be Infallible And whatever I alledge against the Infallibility of the Roman Church he thinks to elude by pretending I speak of the particular Diocese of Rome a gross misunderstanding or willful misrepresentation of my meaning for which I never gave any ground in my writing or discourses He is to know I speak in proper terms as used among Learned men speaking upon this Subject taking the Roman Church for the party following the Popes faction wheresoever extant whether congregated or dispersed prescinding from his Altercations with the rest or any they have among themselves for both he and the rest agreeing in making that Infallibility depending ultimately upon the Popes Autority we may well represent their assertion as opposite to the sentiment of all other Christians under the notion of the Popes infallibility * That all is bottomed upon the Popes Authority Bellarmin declares saying totam firmitatem conciliorum legitimorum esse á Pontifice non-partim à Pontifice partim à concilio lib. 4. de Rom. Pon. c. 3. sect at contra The terms and state of the Question being thus cleared it follows to declare how impertinent his prolixe excursion and vain ostentation is in telling us the diversity of Opinions that were in different times about Canonical Scripture and the difficulty of ascertaining us which is the true one This is an old device of those of his faction to decline the main controversy in hand wherein they still betray the weakness of their Cause They and he should remember the points controverted are among parties that agree in reverencing the Bible for the infallible Word of God And if he thinks the part of it received for Canonical by common consent will not suffice for ending our Controversies we admit willingly St. Augustins rule for clearing the difficulties touching particular Books the Authority of the Church and the Tradition of it as described by Lirinensis Quod semper quod ubique quod apud omnes What was in all time in all places and by all Christians delivered that we take for a true Apostolic Tradition and to it we resolve to stand or fall as well for discerning Canonical Scripture as for understanding the true meaning of it If Mr. S. did take Church and Tradiâ—ion in the sense that the Holy Fathers did and the Learned Men of the Church of England do he would find in us all due reverence to those sacred Fountains of Christian verities But to call Church Universal the faction adhering to the Pope of Rome in opposition to the rest of Christians is a presumtion like that of the Turk in calling himself King of Kings and Emperor of all the World such as are Vassals to him may revere that calling others do laugh at it But we do not find the Turk to have plaâ—'d the sool so far as to take that his assumed title as granted by other Princes independing upon him or to alledg it for ground of his pretentions with them This is Mr. S. his folly in taking for granted in his debates with us that the Romish faction is the Catholic Universal Church So great an Intruder upon disputes should learn that rule of Disputants Quod gratis dicitur gratis negatur what is barely said without proof is sufficiently refuted with a bare denial This alone well considered will suffice to overthrow man Chapters of Mr. S. his Book What makes him spend time in telling us of the difficulty of finding out which is true Scripture the rule truly infallible of our belief when he sees us thus ascertain'd of it why do's he trouble us with speaking of a Criterion or beam of light pretended by Fanatics confessing at the same time that to be exploded by Protestants is it to make his Book swell But finding he cannot hide Scripture from us he will have us to be beholden to the Pope for the true
Parisian Doctors in their Declaration against the forementioned Thesis of Clermont Colledg presented to all the Bishops of France extant in the hands of many both in French and English And if their reason exhibited for their censure be considered well we shall find it to comprehend Mr. I. S. his opinion no less then that of the Clermont Jesuits since both the one and the other do bottom the pretended Infallibility of their Church upon the Popes Autority whether in a Council or out of it and so the reason of the Parisian Divines doth conclude in either case that it is a Blasphemy injurious to Jesus Christ to ascribe to the Pope that Infallibility which Christ alone possesses and that men should render that Supreme Cultus of Divine Faith to the words of the Pope which is only due to the word of God The allegations of our Adversary for obedience due to the Church as to Christ and of promises made of the assistance of the Holy Ghost to the Apostles and the Church governed by them will appear very impertinent to his purpose in favor of the Pope and his faction when we come to examine the Texts alledged for which I will assign the Chapter following In the mean time we may conclude from what is said in this Chapter That to ascribe Infallibility to the Pope is Blasphemy in the opinion even of Popish Doctors and Mr. I. S. his pecular way of defending that tenet declared for heretical by Doctors of his own party which was my present undertaking To which may be added the opinion of Mr. * Tabul Suff. cap. 19.20.21 Thomas White of the same Communion whose whole Book called his Tabulae suffragiales is purposely designed against this doctrine of the Popes personal Infallibility affirming it to be not heretical but Archiheretical and that the propagating of this doctrine is in its kind a most grievous sin so weary men of Learning and Parts begin to grow of this intolerable Arrogance of the Roman Church or Court and of their Flatterers CHAP. VII Our Adversaries corruption of Scripture detected OUR Adversary certainly never look'd into the Bible for the Texts he alledges for the Infallibility of his Church but snatch'd them out of some of his old Controvertists whose custom is to clip and cut Scripture to their own pretences without regard of their true meaning Or if he has seen them with their contexts he has bin strangely dull in not perceiving the right sense of them very obvious to any ordinary good understanding or malicious in misrepresenting the meaning of them This is especially seen in his Allegation of these words Joh. XV. 26. When the Paraclete will come whom I will send from my Father the spirit of truth he will give testimony of me and ye will give testimony This he will have us take for a certain testimony of the Holy Ghosts assistance promised to his Church If he did see the half verse immediatly following which he left out or his Tutors cut off he would find that these words were spoken to the Apostles with circumstances making them impossible to be applied to his Church The verse restored to its integrity saies thus And ye also shall bear witness because ye have bin with me from the beginning What man in his senses would think those words appliable to the Council of Trent Were the Fathers of that Council with Christ from the the beginning was the Holy Ghost not yet descended He confirms further his opinion out of Acts the XV. 28. where the Council of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem deciding the controversy concerning Circumcision delivers their opinion thus It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us signifying that the Holy Ghost did assist them and that grounded on the words aforesaid of our Saviour Joh. XV. 26. When the Paraclete will come he shall give testimony of me and you shall give testimony of me If that be the ground of the Apostles Phrase we have seen before to whom that promise was given whether to the Apostles alone or the Bishops of Rome to be for ever We have seen that the Text in its integrity cannot be applied to the latter But Mr. I. S. of his own autority declares that promise was made by Christ not only to the Apostles but to the Roman Church for ever And to make this latter Text sound somthing like to his purpose he patches it up with a piece of a verse fetch'd out of Matth. XXVIII Vntil the consummation of the world This usual art of theirs of cutting from the Texts what is against their purpose and patching them with other words far fetch'd that may have a gloss or appearance of their pretention may be practiced with more safety in conversation or in a Sermon to a vulgar Auditory then in a serious debate by print exposed to a strict examen This is a cheat like that used in Italy with rotten Apples to set them out for sound They cut off the rotten pieces and glue together the sound fragments to an appearance of a fair Apple but being handled more close it falls in pieces and discovers the cheat This abominable Legerdemain is too often seen in their Pulpits fathering upon the Gospel forsooth most execrable Blasphemies extolling their several new Saints to whom they would gain devotion and by that devotion mony to their Coffers above the Apostles above the Angels above Christ and all that is in heaven to the perpetual scandal of the discreet part of their own flock and edification of none All is sanctified with them by repeting at the end of every desperate discourse some words of the Gospel as a burden of the song tho with no relation in its sense to their purpose This is the art Mr. I. S. useth with the testimony related of Acts XV. touching the assistance of the Holy Ghost in the Council at Jerusalem grounded as he confesses upon the aforesaid Text of John XV. 26. declared to relate only to the Apostles then present and Mr. I. S. of his own head will have it extended to the Roman Church for ever and his Interpretation must be taken for Canonical Scripture by closing it up with this fragment of the twentieth verse of Matthew the XXVIII Vntil the consummation of the world The Text he corrupts and cuts off Matth. XXVIII contains a promise of Christ to the Apostles and Church founded and Faith preached by them that he will assist them for ever saying I am with you all the daies until the consummation of the world St. Hierom better then Mr. I. S. will tell us the meaning of these words glossing thus upon them qui usque ad consummationem seculi cum discipulis se futurum esse promittit illos ostendit semper esse victuros se nunquam à credentibus recessurum In these words our Saviour promises to his Disciples life everlasting and to the Church founded by them and to all true believers in him his
safe way to salsation Is it safe to venture in a leaky Ship upon a stormy Sea But what saies he to the streams of learned Authors of the Protestant Church which Dr. Stillingfleet relates and of the very learned Book he wrote himself proving with irresistible Arguments that the Romish Church in several of her present Tenets and Practices is guilty of Idolatry Is Idolatry of those pious opinions which matter not for salvation And let Mr. I.S. know that I considered long and examined throughly the doctrine of the Church of England before I declared for it and he may spare his labour of catechizing me in the Tenets of it CHAP. X. A check to Mr. I. S. his insolent Thesis prefixed for title to the eighth Chapter of his Book That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it That they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets And his own Argument retorted to prove that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ UNder so pregnant and big promising a title as this 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 c. and that in a Book presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the Earl of Essex under so magnificent a title I say exposed to the view of so great and judicious a person who would not expect a very exquisite discourse to go through so stout an undertaking And behold Reader what Mr. I. S. presents to his Excellency for that purpose For a Foundation of his discourse he will have us premise that Protestants do allow Papists not to err in points Fundamental to Salvation that our differences with them are about points not Fundamental He do's not seem to regard or know which be these points call'd Fundamental or not Fundamental which is a bad beginning to be clear and exact in the present Engagement But he is to suppose with Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Potter and other learned Writers of both Churches * See Chillingworth his Answer to the Book intitled Charity maintained c. c. 4. And Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Fundamentals c. 2. Stillingfleet in his Rational Account Part. 1. cap. 2. B. Laud p. 42. following therein the common opinion of Fathers and Scholemen that the points Fundamental or of necessary belief to Salvation and to the constitution of a true Christian Church are those contained in the Apostles Creed which is a system or summary of Articles which those sacred Founders of Christianity thought fit and sufficient to be proposed to all men where the Gospel was preached and necessary to be explicitly believed So as the Council of Trent calls it Fundamentum firmum unicum Sess 3. not the firm alone but the only Foundation Points not Fundamental or inferior truths are all other divine Verities contained in the Word of God whether written in Canonical Scripture or delivered to us by Apostolical Universal Tradition implicitly contained in the Creed where we profess to believe in God and in the Catholic Church and explicitly to be believed when we should be ascertained that they are contained in those Oracles of God called inferior truths not that they are of less certainty and objective Infallibility in themselves then the other called Fundamental but because the explicit knowledg of them is not so necessary or obvious to all men and consequently are more capable of inculpable ignorance of them and errors about them in many men And because the Roman Church do's agree with us in the explicit confession of this Creed it is said not to err in Fundamental points tho found guilty of pernicious errors touching other points not Fundamental And with this Supposition I am confident my Antagonist will not quarrel if you take him here before he sees my reflexions upon his unwary Argument Upon the foresaid Foundation Mr. I. S. builds this Thesis That the Protestant Church as it is condistinct from the Popish Church is not the Church of Christ because saies he it do's not teach the doctrine of Christ and no Church can be called of Christ further then it teacheth his doctrine That Protestancy or the doctrine of Protestants as opposite to the Popish is not the doctrine of Christ he undertakes to prove with this Syllogism No fallible doctrine is the doctrine of Christ but Protestancy is altogether fallible doctrine Therefore Protestancy as it is properly the doctrine of the Protestant Church is not the doctrine of Christ This Syllogism he chalks out to us in a different Character for remarkable as indeed it is and for unanswerable for it is in Ferio saies he pag. 142. The Major Proposition we allow willingly the Minor to wit that Protestancy is altogether fallible doctrine he saies is manifest by virtue of this other no less remarkable Syllogism Protestancy or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is altogether of points not Fundamental but the doctrine of points not Fundamental or inferior truths is fallible doctrine therefore Protestancy is but fallible doctrine and therefore no doctrine of Christ He concludes with these words I confess ingenuously I think this Argument cannot be solidly answer'd If his confession herein be ingenuous indeed let him take in return this other ingenuous confession from me that I think seriously he is a very weak man If he be sensible himself of the fallacy and falsehood of his Argument he is unworthy in beguiling his Reader and unwise in exposing it to a polemical strict debate and thinking we should want a solid Answer to so silly a Sophism not to give it yet a more severe check haply he has that poor excuse in his favor that he knows not what he saies To see whether my Answer be solid let us examine how solid his Argument is The stress of it lies in his latter Syllogism whose major Proposition is That Protestancy or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is altogether of Points not Fundamental This we allow him to take for granted Let us proceed to the Minor But the doctrine of Points not Fundamental or inferior Truths saies he is fallible doctrine Stop here Sir and if Justice were don to you a perpetual stop should be put to your tongue for blasphemons from speaking any more It is a formal Blasphemy and a horrid one to say that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental or inferior Truths in general is fallible doctrine It is to say that the Word of God is fallible Remember what is premis'd a little before and supposed by your self in many places of your present discourse that the Points called not Fundamental are all those other divine Verities contained in the Word of God whether written in Canonical Scripture or deliver'd to us by Apostolical Tradition besides the Points contained in the Creed of equal objective certainty and truth with the other Points They are of a size as
Ireland whither I was sent to convert Protestants The case was with Papists who concerned for the Salvation of their Relations and Friends of the Protestant Communion enquired whether such believing sincerely they were in the right never convinced of the contrary and living religiously in the fear of God and in the observation of his Commandments might be saved I answered they might and were not Heretics but Members of the Catholic Church a dignity received in their Baptism and not to be lost otherwise then by formal Heresy or Infidelity whereof they were not guilty by the foresaid Supposition You say all is true but 't is not discretion to declare truth it self when there is no obligation of declaring it Well but was there not an obligation upon me when question'd to answer according to truth No say you for if the Inquirers were Papists they needed not to be instructed in that truth 't is no Fundamental Truth If Protestants they were not oblig'd to know it for the same reason and that the answer was an encouragement to them to remain as they were A pretty subtilty We have declared before how touching Points not Fundamental there may be pernicious errors Such is that opposite to the Truth we now speak of an error subversive of Christian charity and public peace a seed of those Animosities Rebellion and Combustions which made this Land unhappy And ought not a sincere Instructor and faithful Minister of the Word of God to oppose this error No say you because it was to encourage Protestants to remain as they were and not to come under the Popes Obedience There is the ground of your dislike of me Thus indeed stood the case and this was one of my chief reasons to be dissatisfied of your way That the rule of my doctrine among you must not be truth but the interest of the Bishop of Rome and the increase of his Dominion whether by right or wrong This point of policy or discretion as you call it I refused openly to learn from you chusing rather to be of the Children of Light tho with less prudence in your opinion then of the Children of this World by that elevated point of prudence you would teach me of prostituting truth and honesty to the Popes pleasure and interest CHAP. VII Mr. I. S. his Answers to my Objections against the Popes Infallibility refuted his defence of Bellarmin of the Council of Constance and of Costerus declared to be weak and vain OUR Adversary fore-seeing what small assistance he could have from Scripture and reason to maintain his Tenets emploies his main forces in setting up their ordinary great engine of the Popes Infallibility and having bestowed the far greater part of his Book upon that subject turns to it again beginning the second part of his said Book with reflexions upon some of my Arguments against their pretention and wanting it seems materials to bring his Book to the intended bulk repotes much of what he said before wherein I will not imitate him by repeting my replies my desire being to abbreviate as far as may consist with a full satisfaction to all his Objections He pretends to cast a mist over the case turning the usual term of Popes Infallibility to Infallibility of the Church and by Church he means fraudulently not the Church Universal truly Catholic and Apostolic to which I allow all the priviledges and assistances of the Holy Ghost promised to it in Scripture tho he signifies that he doubts of my meaning herein but his own particular Church I do not mean the Diocess of Rome as he do's wilfully impose upon me happily to gain time or draw us from the point but the Congregation subject to the Pope wheresoever extant Defenders of a bad cause do love such confusion and obscurities as Foxes holes and thickets but we must keep him to the Light and to the ordinary use of terms taking for Popes Infallibility the same which he or any of his Communion attributes to their Church depending upon the Pope as is declared above in the beginning of the fifth Chapter I said I admired that Bellarmin should make it an Argument of the Popes Infallibility that the high Priest did bear in his Breast-plate two Hebrew words signifying Doctrine and Truth I questioned whether he believed all those high Priests even Caiphas condemning Christ to be infallible in their judgments Mr. I. S. to relieve Bellarmin endeavors to autorize the Affirmative and to that of Caiphas saâ—es nothing and so gives us leave to think that he held him also infallible according to that rule qui tacet consentire videtur By which we have this further notice of Mr. I. S. his singular doctrine that he finds Caiphas infallible in his judgment passed against the life of our Saviour and taxes me with ignorance for not knowing so much I accused them of making the Pope Arbiter and supreme Judg over Gods Laws So Bellarmin lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. sticketh not to say That if the Pope did command Vices and prohibit Virtues the Church would be obliged to believe Vice to be good and Virtue bad And the Council of Constance commanded the Decrees of Popes to be preferr'd before the Institutions of Christ since having confessed that our Saviour did ordain the Communion under both kinds to the Laity and that the Apostles did practice it they command it should be given for the future but in one kind alledging for reason that the precedent Popes and Church did practice it so Which is to extol the Decrees of Popes above them of Christ As if the Laws of England were not to be understood or practiced in Ireland but according to the will and declaration of the King of France certainly the King of France would be deemed of more power in Ireland then the King of England and the People more his subjects To that of Bellarmin you say he spoke of Vices and Virtues when there is a doubt of their being such for example if there should arise a doubt of Usury 's being a Vice and in that case the Pope should command Usury to be practiced we should be obliged to practice Usury Herein Sir you allow us all that we pretended and you confess what we condemned in Bellarmin I could alledg many Texts of Scripture supposing and affirming Usury to be a Vice But you spare me that labour presupposing that Vsury of it self is a Vice of its nature bad Per se malum and that you all know it to be such and notwithstanding that knowledg and Gods declaration in Scripture you say if the Pope should command Usury to be practiced we should be obliged to practice it And so it is indeed with you both in Usury and other Vices We know all that Rebellion is a sin and soodious to God that in Scripture it is compared to Witchcraft and Idolatry 1 Sam. xv 23. But if the Pope should command you to rebel against your King for Religions
shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come therefore say they some sins are pardoned in the other world I denied the consequence because out of a Negative a Positive do's not follow as out of this Premise Joseph knew not his wife until she had brought forth her first born son This consequence follows not in opinion of good Christians therefore he knew her after Mr. I. S. answers this consequence follows according to the letter of the Text but the Autority of the Church obligeth to believe it was not so that 's to say the Church declares against the Text. If you were not tied to this other engagement you would deem such a saying to be a dis-respect to your Church but hard undertaking puts people to hard shifts Bellarmin was contented to infer the existence of Purgatory out of the foresaid Text of St. Matthew according to the Laws of Prudence tho not according to the rules of Logic. But Mr. I. S. as more stout will pretend it to be evident according to rules of Faith and Logic. The Text goes thus He that will speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him but he that will speak against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the future out of which words he argues thus The Text denies to a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost what it grants to a blasphemy against the Son of Man but what it denies to the former is remission in this life and the other therefore what it grants to the latter is remission in this life and the other I answer that the major Proposition is false for more is denied to the sin against the Holy Ghost then allowed to the sin against the Son of Man for to the former is expresly denied pardon relating to both worlds and to the latter pardon is promised only indeterminate and so may be verified with pardoning in one life tho not in the other And tho Major and Minor were true the Consequence do's not follow according to rules of Logic which declare that where all the Premises are particulars such are those of that Syllogism the Conclusion is not convincent as in this Syllogism A man speaketh Peter is a man therefore Peter speaketh Mr. I. S. produces another Argument upon the same Text of a strange contexture It s evident saies he out of this Text that as blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable so all other sins are pardonable but a blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable in this world and in the future therefore other sins are pardonable in both The Major of this Syllogism is false first since it will have an adequate paritâ— in both cases relating to the places of pardon for which there is no ground in the Text as declared above touching the Major of the former Syllogism Secondly for saying that all other sins are pardonable for which neither is there any ground in the Text since from a particular Premise an Universal Conclusion may not be deduced from saying that a sin against the Holy Ghost is not pardonable it follows not by any rule of Faith or Logic that all other sins are pardonable for tho that occasion did require to speak only of a sin against the Holy Ghost possible it is that another sin may likewise be unpardonable And I can depose that I saw defended in a famous public Dispute wherein I had a share my self that a sin essentially unpardonable is possible and that distinct from a sin against the Holy Ghost But to make the matter clearer by an example I will let you see the frame and force of your Syllogism in another of the same Contexture thus As the King punisheth Rebels so he favoreth his loial Subjects he denies to every Rebel places of trust and honor in all his Dominions therefore he allows to every loial Subject places of trust and honor in all his Domimons If you do not think this consequence to be legal give us leave to think the same of your former consequence for they are both of the same frame But while you do not shew your doctrine of Purgatory to be built upon firmer grounds then such subtilties as these think not to force it upon us nor that for being possessors of it many years as you say we will judg you therefore to be bonae fidei possessores or that you possess it with a good conscience And whereas the fore-mentioned Text Matth. XII 32. is in so great repute with you for the present purpose that you say with Bellarmin it s the only Text wherewith St. Bernard did prove Purgatory I will declare further by a special doctrine of a great Father of the Church how inconsequent is the existence of Purgatory to the verity of that Text. The good reception you gave to a subtilty of Schole men I produced for solâ—ing your Argument out of the Book of Maccabees in the Chapter precedent doth encourage me to hope you may give the like reception to another subtilty of a learned and ancient Father of the Church for answering this other Argument out of Matth. XII In the 9th Chapter of the Book of Joshua we find that the Inhabitants of Gibeon hearing of victorious Joshua his approach and the rigor he used with the conquered places near them came into him as if they had bin Embassadors sent from forreign Countries to sollicit his amity they came in old cloathes with clouted shoes upon their feet their bread mouldy and wine bottles old and rent as if all did signifie the tediousness of the journy which they under-went and by this meens obtained from Joshua and the Princes of Israel a promise of safety and freedom But after three daies march the Israelites found those Gibeonites that seigned to have come from a forreign Country to be Inhabitants of that Land they were in complained to Josua of the fraud put upon them but he not to infringe the oath he made would not consent to destroy them but punished their cheat with a note of infamy ordaining they should be hewers of wood and drawers of water to all the Congregation Upon which passage Origin delivers this Gloss that Joshua being a type of our Saviour Christ and Palestine the promised Land a Symbol of Heavenly bliss to let people live in that Land with a note of infamy signifies that some may enter with some blemish into the joies of Heaven His words are remarkable as followeth * Origen hom in Josuam In domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt Joh. XIV 2. multae differentiae eorum quae ad salutem veniunt unde Gabaunitas arbitror portiunculam quandam corum esse qui salvandi sunt sed non sine nota alicujus infamiae In my Fathers house are many mansions Joh. XIV 2. many are the differences of them that come to be saved wherefore I conceive the Gibeonites to be a parcel
with the autority of it which we have sufficiently proved not to be infallible And by this Reader you may see how rashly Mr. I. S. says I did most falsly aver that Suarez is not so certain whether the power of absolving given to the Church did extend to the profuse grant of Indulgences practised at present by the Roman Church Let the Learned Reader reflect upon Suarez his discourse upon this subject in the place forementioned and he shall find how farr he is from any certainty that this doctrine is grounded upon Scripture and primitive Antiquity but shall find that he only believes it as Scotus did that of Transubstantiation Non propter rationes quae non cogunt not in force of arguments alledged for it which are not convincing but for the autority of his Church And mark Reader that so great men as Cajetan and Suarez being employed by public autority in defending this doctrine after bestowing all their Learning and no small labor in procuring to establish it we find them confess they have nothing to say seriously for it but what the Collier for his Faith viz. that he believed as the Church believes And here also they mistake the true notion of the Church and autority of it a mistake in truth more tolerable in a Collier then in men of the Learning and repute of Cajetan and Suarez But such is the condition of their cause that it could not be defended better and such was their engagement that they must defend it by right or wrong I conceive my Antagonist complaining that I have neglected him in this Chapter and I confess freely I delight more in dealing with people of that Learning and ingenuity I see in Cajetan and Suarez then with Mr. I. S. but being we are debtors to all I will give a turn to him also upon this subject and it will be in the next Chapter CHAP. XXIX The unhappy success of Mr. I. S. his great boast of skill in History touching the Antiquity of Indulgences discovered IN the 90th page of my former Discourse speaking of the Antiquity of Indulgences I mentioned that the first notice I had of the grants of them after the manner now used is that of Gregory the VII given to those of his party who would fight against the Emperor Henry III. by error of the Printer IV. in the year 1084. which Baronius relates from his Penitentiary in which was promised remission of all their sins to such as would venture their lives in that holy War for which I quoted Baronius his Annals upon the foresaid year 1084. num 15. Here Mr. I. S. enters in triumph and declares that if I have no more skill in Divinity or moral Theology then I seem to have in History I am but a fresh-water Scholar as for Controversie saies he my Treatise shews well what I know of it Be it so Sir let me have truth on my side as I hope will appear by this Treatise and make you much of your skill in the mean while let us examine how much it is in the present point of History wherein you pretend to be most Magisterial First you mistake most absurdly the state of the Question as is usual with you and where I speak of Indulgences given by Gregory the Seventh to those of his party who would fight against the Emperor Henry the Third you report such Indulgences to be given by the said Gregory to Henry to encourage him and the Christians to war against the Saracens Whoever did read the History of that Gregory and his fierce persecution of the said Emperor to the end of his life even as his own Historians Platina and Baronius more biassed to him do report will more easily believe that Gregory should favor the Turk against Henry then uphold Henry against any Adversary If ever you had any tincture of the History of Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the Seventh how could you fall into so ridiculous an equivocation as to conceive him granting Indulgences in favor of the Emperor Henry III. If you did read my Discourse speaking expresly of an Indulgence granted to those that would fight again the Emperor how come you to pervert the narrative so absurdly as if I should have spoken of an Indulgence given in favor of that Emperor You say that the Indulgence I speak of nor any other to any such purpose was not granted by Gregory the Seventh but by Vrban the Second Read the place I quoted of Baronius upon the year 1084. numb 15 there you shall find Gregory the Seventh employing Anselm Bishop of Luca to publish Indulgences for all those that would fight in his quarrel against the Emperor Henry the Third And continuing your strange equivocations you speak of Indulgences given by Vrban the Second to the same Henry the Third but it was not to him he gave them but to Alexius Emperor of Constantinople as Baronius relates at the year 1095. numb 3. You speak of Indulgences granted by Leo the Third anno 847. but it was not Leo the Third but Leo the Fourth that reigned then and when Suarez finds not him nor any other giving Indulgences of so ancient date sure I am you never found them upon any warrantable account To one notice of Indulgences I will help you out of Baronius preceding that I mentioned of Gregory the Seventh given to them that would fight against the Emperor Henry the Third in the same year 1084. which I allow you to take for the genuine origin of your present practice of Indulgences given by profane Cardinals Creatures of Pope Guibert called Clement the Third Competitor of Gregory the Seventh of which kind of Cardinals Baronius in the foresaid year numb 9. giveth this account Erant enim cives Romani Vxorati sive Concubinarii barbati Mitrati peregrinis oratoribus praecipue vero multitudini rusticanae Longobardorum mentientes asserentes se Cardinales Presbyteros esse quique oblationibus receptis Indulgentiam remissionem omnium peccatorum usu nefari◠impudenter praestabant hi occasione custodiendae Ecclesiae consurgentes intempestae noctis silentio intra citra candem Ecclesiam impunè homicidia rapinas varia stupra diversa latrocinia exercebant There were saies he Roman Citizens either married or retaining Concubines shaven and wearing Mitres imposing upon forreign Embassadors but especially upon the rude multitude of Longobards that they were Presbyter Cardinals and who receiving offerings did impudently bestow Indulgences and remission of all sins these under pretext of defending the Church rising in the deep silence of the night did commit within and about the Church without hindrance horrible murders robberies and diverse sorts of whoredoms and luxuries Who were better Popes or better men Guibert and his Cardinals or Hildebrand and his as I do not know so I will not dispute but conclude that such Indulgences as these were given in Rome by relation of their own hired Historian and let the Reader see how unhappy Mr.
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 strange and absurd terms used in the grants of Indulgences and the immoderate profuseness wherewith and slight causes for which they are granted pag. 199. CHAP. XXXI The Dismal unhapiness of the Romish People in having their Liturgy in a tongue unknown to them pag. 212. CHAP. XXXII The cruelty of the Roman Church in prohibiting the Reading of Scripture to the People and their common pretence of Sects and Divisions arising among Protestants refuted pag 216. CHAP. XXXIII Mr. I. S. His engagement touching the Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary and the practise of Confession confuted pag. 219. CHAP. XXXIV A Reflection upon the many Fallacies Impertinencies Absurdities and Hallucinations of Mr. I.S. his Book which may justify a Resolution of not mispending time in reâ—urning any further reply to such writings and a â—onclusion of the whole Treatise exhorting him to a consideration of his miserable condition in deceiving himself and others with vanity pag. 222. TRUE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC FAITH Maintain'd in the CHURCH of ENGLAND PART I. Being A Reply to N. N. his two Books the one entitled The Bleeding Iphigenia the other The doleful fall of c. with a reflexion upon I. E. his Libel entitled A Soverain counterpoison c. and a Vindication of the Church of England from the calumnies of them and of their Party CHAP. I. A summary account of the Contents of N. N. his two Books and a distribution of the points to be handled in relation to them AN useful Proposal being made in the Senate of Athens by a person of ill repute those wise Senators accorded the same should be tender'd by another of a clearer fame that it might carry by his authority more weight and be the better accepted The like seems to have bin practis'd with me by my Brethren of the Romish communion Reasons of discontent with the Church of England and great affronts of it being presented to me by J. E. in his Book or Libel entitled A Soverain counterpoison c. they justly suspecting that I would slight that onset out of a dislike to the person because of his rude and passionate expressions have taken care that the same and other motives of discontent should be propos'd by another of greater repute an aged and grave Prelate renowned for learning and vertue and one much respected by me He is pleas'd to give me marks of former acquaintance for knowing him but without commission of further discovering him to the Reader then under the character of N. N. In the beginning of his Preface which came forth in a separate Tractate he tells me how much he was surpris'd and troubled seeing a Copy he receiv'd in Print from London of my Declaration for the Church of England This paper indeed saies he gave me a great heaviness of heart for I lov'd the Man dearly for his amiable nature and excellent parts and esteemed him both a pious person and a learned and so did all that knew him And after bemoaning my fall as he calls it from a little heaven the state of Religion wherein saies he for a time he shined like a little Star in vertue and learning he declares his anger against me and purpose of serving me not with the Waters of Shiloah that go softly but with those of Rezin more tumultuous to wash me from the stains of Heresie And after this leaving me he falls abruptly on lamenting the miseries of Ireland and complaining of injuries done to the natives of it and justifying their proceedings in their late Insurrection which he will not have to be called Rebellion In this he spends that Tractate and then proceeds to the greater Book design'd against me giving to it this title The doleful fall of Andrew Sall Jesuite of the fourth vow from the Roman Catholic and Apostolic faith lamented by his constant friend with an open rebuking of his embracing the Confession contained in the 39. Articles of the Church of England This Book he begins with a Rhetorical or Satyrical exclamation against my resolution of embracing the said Confession and proceeds to relate at large the vertues and learning of Saint Hierom Saint Augustine Saint Ambrose and other holy Doctors of the Church whose company he saies I have forsaken and then makes a large list of Heretics of all ages beginning with Luciser whom he will have to be the first Heretic before Mans creation and so coming down all along by Cain Lamech the Giants Cham Jannes and Jambre with others mentioned in holy writ to these of the latter times relating their execrable vices and errors of all which he will have me to be guilty and an associate of those Heretics for embracing the Confession contained in the 39 Articles of the Church of England He pretends to discuss and censure some of them as also some parts of my Declaration and makes a scandalous Narrative of the English Reformation and finally concludes with a fervent exhortation to me to return to the Roman Church By this Scheme I deliver of that Book the prudent Reader may judge how tedious a labour it were to take notice of every thing contained in it and how impertinent I being so far from what he supposes me to be and from being concerned in the Heresies and for the Heretics he mentions Yet the quality of the person the sacred tye of friendship which he professes for me and the good intention I am to believe he had in his writing and above all the love of truth oblig'd me to undeceive him and others that may be of his opinion in the great and gross mistake he is in touching my condition and that of the Church of England whose Communion I have embrac'd I will therefore declare First That the Religion we profess in the reformed Church of England is no other then the true Primitive Catholic and Apostolic Religion taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ and his Apostles and practis'd in the first and purer ages by the Primitive Church Secondly That we have nothing to do with the Heresies N. N. attributes to us and his Brethren practising such calumnies do manifest it is not the Spirit of God that moves them Thirdly That the professors of the Evangelical Doctrine in the Reformed Churches are not so few or despicable nor the Romish faction so considerable as they would make the Ignorant believe Fourthly and lastly I will refute some seditious Doctrines delivered in his first Book that is a preface to the second and will conclude with a check to J. E. his calumnies and barbarous abuses fastned on the Protestant Church CHAP. II. That the Church of England is a true Catholic Church and that the Doctrine professed in it is truly Catholic and Apostolic YOu begin the first Chapter of your Book against me N. N. under this character you will be named You begin I say with a Rhetorical exclamation in these terms O Sall tell us what domincering Spirit of darkness what black temtation hath drawn you out
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
that the words of their Pontifical accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium provivis defunctis are contained in those others of our Saviour at the last Supper hoc facite in meam commemorationem Do this in remembrance of me is notoriously weak gratis dicitur gratis negatur as t is said without ground so it may be denied without regard Now as to the form of Ordination * Bellar. de Sacramento Ordinis lib. 1. c. 9. Bellarmine tells us that all agree in taking for form the words that are pronounced by the minister when he exhibits the sensible signs or matter he adds that tho the Scripture doth not mention particular words to be pronounced in each order yet the ancient Fathers of the Church Ambrose Jerome and Augustine do expresly teach that a forme of words suitable to each Order is required and was practiced so in the ancient Roman Ordinals and so is practiced to this day in the Ordinal of the Church of England which in King Edward the sixth his time was disposed according to the more qualified ancient Ordinals used in the Catholic Church In the Ordination of Deacons the Bishop laies his hands severally upon the Head of every one of them kneeling before him saying Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon in the Church of God committed unto thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost c. After delivering to every one of them the New Testament he saith Take thou authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God and to preach the same if thou be thereto licensed by the Bishop himself In ordaining Priests the Bishop with the Priests present do lay their hands severally upon the Head of every one that receiveth the order of Priesthood the Receivers kneeling and the Bishop saying Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands whose Sins thou do'st forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou do'st retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost In the consecration of Bishops the Archbishop and Bishops present do lay their hands upon the Head of the elected Bishop kneeling before them and the Archbishop saying Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands for God has not given us the Spirit of fear but of power and love and soberness The Church of England being thus exact in observing the form and matter essential to holy Orders it appears how rash and false was Kellison in saying that in King Edwards time neither matter nor form of Ordination was used How vain and windy * Fitz Symons Britonomach p. 3â—9 Fitz Symons his flourish cum in Sacramento mutatur materia forma intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia quae ejus essentiam conficiunt desinit esse Sacramentum omnium qui ante te vixerunt tecum vivunt post te victuri sunt orthodoxe sentientium consensu When in the Sacrament the matter form and intention of doing what the Church do's which make up the essence of it are changed it ceases to be a Sacrament by the common consent of all Catholics that lived before you do live with you and after you shall live Truly Fitz Symons seem'd to study more how his phrase should be round and sounding then to furnish it with sense and truth so as without injury I may say here of him dat sine mente sonum Setting aside what belongs to the matter and form who told Fitz Symons that the Ministers of the Church of England in the administration of Sacraments have not an intention to do what the true Church of God do's And tho their intention were to do expresly what their own Church of England do's and not what the Church of Rome Bellarmin declares that not to be an alteration annulling the Sacrament non est opus intendere quod facit Ecclesia Romana sed quod facit vera Ecclesia quaecunque illa sit vel quod Christus instituit vel quod faciunt Christiani imo si quis intendat facere quod aliqua Ecclesia particularis falsa ut Genevensis intendat non facere quod Ecclesia Romana respondeo etiam id sufficere nam qui intendit facere quod Ecclesia Genevensis intendit facere quod Ecclesia universalis It is not necessary saies Bellarmin to have an intention of doing what the Church of Rome do's but what the true Church which soever that be nay if he should intend to do what some particular false Church which he thinks to be true as that of Geneva saith the Cardinal even that will suffice for he that intends to do what the Church of Geneva * Bellar. de Sacra in Gen. lib. 2. c. 27. do's intends to do what the Universal Church do's of which he believes the Church of Geneva to be a member Then Fitz Symons was mistaken when he said that the supposed alteration in the intention of the Ministers did annul the Sacrament by consent of all Catholics if he will not have Bellarmine to be put out of that number not to take notice of his extravagancy in making the intention of the Minister an essential constitute of the Sacrament nor of the dismal confusion and discomfort he brings upon his proselytes by making the effects of Sacraments depending upon the foresaid intention whereof no Man receiving a Sacrament can have a full certainty the words of the Minister I can hear and his action I can see but of his intention I can never be entirely assured Then if the matter and form of Order necessary and essential be retained in our Church as we have seen and no reasonable doubt is left of the intention of our Ministers to do what the Church of England do's which according to Bellarmin's supposition now mentioned is sufficient How comes Fitz Symons to say that in the matter and form and intention of our Ministers such alteration is made as annulls our Sacraments CHAP. VII How far the form of Ordination used in the Church of England agrees with that of the ancient Câ—â—rch declared in tâ—e fourth Council of Carthage and how much the form prescribed by tâ—e Roman Pontifical of this time differs from the ancient fâ—rm AS in many other points so in this of Crdination especially I cannot but admire how bold the Romish Writers are in imposing upon the ignorant that themselves are the observers of antiquity and the Reformed Churches the contemners of it whereas indeed
in the Library of Dublin University where it is ordered that the Bishop consecrating together with the Bishops assisting to help him do place the Book over the neck and the shoulders of the Bishop consecrated without saying any word one of the Chaplains of the Bishop elect kneeling behind him and holding the Book until it be given to his hands and then the Bishop consecrating and the other Bishops assisting him do touch with both their hands the head of the Bishop elect saying Accipe Spiritum Sanctum Receive the Holy Ghost And in supposition that the mode of placeing the Book is not essential to this Ordination certainly the form prescribed by the Church of England in this particular is very decent and apposite to the purpose of this action the Arch-Bishop or other Bishop consecrating delivering the Bible to the Bishop consecrated saying give heed unto reading exhortation and Doctrine with other wholesome admonitions touching his pastoral duty Now touching the essential parts of this ordination which do consist in the imposition of hands as matter and the benediction or words pronounced by the Bishop consecrating as form the Church of England is exact in observing the form prescrib'd by the foresaid Council of Carthage since it orders that all the Bishops present should lay their hands upon the Bishop elect and only the Arch-Bishop or Bishop consecrating should bless or pronounce the words of the form saying Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Châ—st Here the Roman Pontifical deviates from the foresaid form prescribed by the Council of Carthage ordering that both the Bishop consecrating and the Bishops assisting should pronounce the words of the form saying Accipe Spiritum Sanctum By this we see how exact the Church of England is in observing all the essential and necessary parts and ceremonies prescrib'd by that renowned Council of Carthage for the ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons As for other ceremonies not essential the Council of Trent it self declares that even in the administration of Sacraments whereof they will have Orders to be a part they may be altered by the Church as the condition of matters times and places may require Neither is this to be understood of the Church Universal congregated in a general Council only but also of each particular Church whence proceeded the great variety of Rites in things indifferent amongst the ancient and even modern Christians of several places and orders approved by that grave sentence of a Lib. 1. Epist 41. Gregory the Great in una fide nihil ossicit Sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diversa And as the Roman Church upon this account introduces new rites why may not that of England abolish others especially such as are found to be superstitious for which the b Distinct 63. Quia Canon law giveth this warrant Docemur exemplo Ezechiae frangentis serpontem aeneum quae in superstitionem vertuntur illa sine tarditate aliqua cum magna autoritate à posteris destrui posse We are taught by example of Hezechias that such things as turn to superstition may be without delay and with autority extirpated in after ages As a good husband cuts off not only rotten but superfluous branches that may suck away the sap from the main tree so any Church that is free and independent such as this of England is may cut off superstitious and superfluous rites and ceremonies which by their multiplicity may distract both the Ministers and Congregation and take their attention from the main object of their devotion And certainly who ever considers the vast number of ceremonies used now by the Roman Church and prescribed in their Pontifical will find it a task not easie for even a good capacity to comprehend and practice them all and very hard to think of elevating the mind withall to praier or meditation CHAP. VIII How far the Church of England do's agree with the Romish in matter of Ordination wherein they differ and how absur'd the pretention of Romanists is that our difference herein with them should annul our orders AS the Church of England did not think convenient to follow that of Rome in all their superfluous ceremonies especially such of them as are noxious and opposite to the sincerity of Christian discipline so it do's not grudg to go along and conform with them in what they retain of ancient integrity In many things we agree with them First that only Bishops are to give Orders Secondly that none be promoted to Orders without the title of a benefice or sufficient patrimony which is far more exactly observed in the English then in the Romish Church Thirdly that the persons to be Ordained be examined as to behaviour and ability Fourthly that certain times and daies are appointed for Ordination Fifthly that the persons to be ordained ought to appear in the Church Sixthly that they receive their Orders on their knees Seventhly that they receive the Communion All this is commonly observ'd in both Churches but more exactly and indispensibly in the English as to Orders in general Now as to particular Orders we agree in the following points as to Deacons First that the Arch-Deacon presents them to the Bishop Secondly that the Bishop enquires of the Arch-Deacon whether he knows them to be worthy of that Order Thirdly that the Bishop admonishes the Congregation that if any person has any thing to say against them he should declare it Fourthly that the Bishop instructs them in the duty they are to perform Fifthly that litanies are said and the Bishop exhorts the Congregation to pray for the Persons to be ordained that they may be fit Ministers in that sacred Order Sixthy that the Bishop gives them the Book of the Gospels and power to read them in the Church of God Seventhly that one of the Deacons newly ordained should read the Gospel Herein we agree But we differ from the Roman Church First where they add to the litanies the invocation of Saints and Angels Secondly where power is given to the Deacons to read the Gospels for the dead Thirdly that what is not expresly delivered by the Roman formulary is more clearly expressed by the English As for example the Order of Deacons in the former is given by these words Receive the Holy Ghost for power to resist the Devil and his temtations in the Name of the Lord which being too general and common to all Christians is made more proper and apposite to the function of Deacons by these other words used in the English ordinal Receive autority to exercise the work of a Deacon in the Church of God committed to thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Fourthly that we redâ—ce the tedious variety of vestments and ceremonies used in the Roman Church to
the Romish party Now it remains to shew that the succession of our Bishops and Clergy from those of unquestioned legality before the Reformation and the due Ordination of them according to the said rules and rites is more cleer and unquestionable with us then with the Roman Church As for the Bishops of England Mr. Mason giveth an exact account of their Succession and lawful Ordination the time and place of it the persons conscerating them running upon several Dioceses especially that of Canterbury from the time he published his Book which was the year 1638. to the time of K. Henry the Eighth when the validity of Ordination was not questioned grounding his narrative upon the authentic Records kept in London And in the same Records may be found the like account of the ensuing ordinations from Mr. Masons time to this day The like account may be found in the several Registries of the Churches of Ireland from our daies up to the aforesaid time of Henry the Eighth and touching the prime Church that of Armagh I found the ensuing account of the Succession and Ordination of Arch-Bishops in it from the present Arch-Bishop the most Reverend Father in God James Lord Arch-Bishop of Armagh Primate of all Ireland to the great comfort and benefit of it since the blindest passion can't miss to see in his Grace the Idea of a most renowned and perfect Prelate In the hands of his worthy Vicar General and Judge of his Prerogative Court the noble and Learned Dudley Loftus Doctor in Laws I found I say the account following of his Grace his lineal succession from the Bishops of unquestioned authority in Queen Maries time James Margetson Consecrated the 27. of January 1660. by John Bramhal Arch-Bishop of Armagh c. in the Cathedral Church of St. Patric in Dublin John Bramhal Doctor of Divinity was Consecrated Bishop of Derry in the Chappel of the Castle of Dublin the 26. of May 1634. by James Vsher Arch-Bishop of Armagh c. James Vsher Doctor of Divinity was Consecrated Bishop of Meath at Droghedah in the Church of St. Peter Anno 1621. by Christopher Hampton Arch-Bishop of Armagh c. Christopher Hampton Doctor of Divinity was Conseciated Bishop of Derry May the 5. 1613. in the Cathedral Church of St. Patric by Thomas Jones Arch-Bishop of Dublin c. Thomas Jones Doctor of Divinity was Consecrated Bishop of Meath in the Cathedral Church of St. Patric Dublin the 12. of May 1584. by Adam Loftus Lord Arch-Bishop of Dublin c. Adam Loftus Lord Arch-Bishop of Dublin was Consecrated Arch-Bishop of Armagh in the Church of St. Patric Dublin Anno 1562. by Hugh Curwin Lord Arch-Bishop of Dublin c. Hugh Curwin Doctor of Laws was Consecrated Arch-Bishop of Dublin the 8. of September 1555. being the third of Queen Mary together with James Turbirwill Bishop of Exeter and William Glin Bishop of Bargor Each one of the other Bishops of Ireland may give the like account of their lawful ordination and lineal succession from the Bishops of unquestioned autoâ—ity in King Henry the Eighth and Queen Maries time no exception is known to have bin taken against the legality of any of them and the Laws being so severe and the penalties of premunire so heavy against any Bishop that would enter otherwise then by the Rites and requisites above mentioned and justified 't is morally incredible that any would permit any defect to intervene in his Consecration that might bring upon him so great a damage 'T is not so with the Bishops or Popes of Rome We have not only conjectures but cleer evidences by a learned and exact Pen of their own party that none of the Bishops or Popes who usurped that see from Gregory the 13. was a lawful Bishop or Pope The treatise pen'd upon this subject in Latin and dedicated to King James bore this title The new Man or a supplication from an unknown person a Roman Catholic unto James the Monarch of Great Britain and from him to the Emperour Kings and Princes of the Christian World touching the causes and reasons that will argue a necessity of a General Council to be forthwith assembled against him that now usurps the Papal chair under the name of Paul the Fifth This treatise being published by order of so excellent a Prince as the World knew King James to be it were a blind insolence to say it should not be real and unfeigned and a treatise so destructive to the credit and interest of the Roman Court being not disproved for the space of nine years by any of that party as reported by Mr. William Crashaw translator of the said treatise from Latin into English in the year 1622. nor to this day by any that we know 't is a cleer argument they wanted means to gainsay the truth of it I will reduce to a brief sum the heads of his proof as well to matter of fact as of Law that the election of Pope Sixtus the fifth succeeding Gregory the thirteenth was null and invalid and consequently the Cardinals created by him were no true Cardinals nor the Popes elected by such Cardinals true Popes For ground of this discourse it is to be supposed that any simoniacal contract intervening in the election of a Pope such an election is therefore rendred null and invalid as is declared in the Bull of Julius the 2d set out against Simonaical elections of the Pope whose words are as followeth If it shall hereafter fall out through the Devils malice the Enemy of Mankind or the ambition or covetousness of the Elector that when we or any of our Successors shall by Gods appointment be removed from the Government of the Church on Earth the election of the new Pope be made and don either by him that is châ—sen or by any other or more of the Colledge of Cardinals by the Heresie of Simonaical contract giving promising or receiving any goods of any kind or Lands or Castles or offices or benefices or by making any other promise or obligation of what kind soever whether they do it by themselves or another by a few or by many and whether the election be accomplished by the voices of two parts of the Cardinals divided in three or by the uniform consent or voices of them all whether it be done by way of assumtion or adoration yea tho there be no writing made at all We determine define and declare That not only the election or assumtion so made shall be from that very moment void and of none effect and no power or faculty shall accrew to him thereby thrust in of any administration government or jurisdiction in matters spiritual or temporal but also that it shall and may be lawful to any Cardinal present at the said election to except against the said intruder and to call him into question for the crime of Simony as of a true and undoubted Heresie that so being an Heretic he may be of all men accountedas no Pope or
but do not help forward his election and the election is properly held don and perfected before they be performed as any man may see in the aforesaid Bull of Julius the second Neither is the calling together of all the Cardinals necessarily required for it is expresly commanded in no law and as for the text of the Canon law called licet devitanda it shews the validity of the election as is soundly proved by Cardinal Jacobatius who shews that at least a Council is to be called to declare whether the election be good or no and that they may not proceed to the election of another The election therefore of Clement thus made is to be held a nullity as being don by deceit and fraud according to the express text of the law laid down in these words b â—n Câ—in nomine Dominâ— dist 28. But if any shall be elected ordained a Jacobat tr de Concil part â— ar 4. n. 154. or inthronized Pope through sedition presumtion or any ingeny or trick of wit contrary to this our sentence and Synodical decree pronounced in open Council by the autority of God and his Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul we pronounce him subject to the great curse and separated by perpetual Anathema from all Society with Gods Church together with all his authors factors and abettors an Anti-Christ an intruder and destroyer of Christian Religion c. a Abb. in d. licet devitanda n. 11. ver exposuit Ruffiensis And after Cardinal Hostiensis the great Doctor called the Abbot in his commentaries on the text expound's the word ingeny to be craft collusion and deceit and such like as was the election of Joh. the 22. that was afterward condemned in the Council of Basil For when after the Death of Alexander the fifth the Cardinals assembled at Bononia and consulted about the choice of a new Cardinal Cossa who then was Legate there a man potent and warlike obtained of the Electors by his greatness that they would commit the whole power of the election to him which they had no sooner granted him but he forthwith elected himself But for as much as upon examination of the matter in public Council it was found to be compassed by fraud and deceitful tricks he was therefore deprived by the Council From whence it followeth that Clement could not be taken for a true Pope both for that he was chosen by such as had no power to chuse as also that that choice by them made was wrought by fraud and deceit and to the injury of another lawfully chosen before and was therefore void tho it had bin done by such as had bin lawfully enabled to make such an election CHAP. XI Nullities declared in the Popedome of Paul the fifth and others following THe forementioned Roman Catholic author discovereth another egregious fraud and cheat used in the election of Paul the fifth succeeding Clement the Eighth wherewith they turned out the Cardinal of Florence lawfully elected to bring in factiously this Paul before called Cardinal Borgâ—esius The particulars of that intrigue are to be seen in the first chapter of the said treatise n. 15. besides whiâ—h damnable fraud and the nullity of the Cardinals electing both rendring the election void our Author discovereth another foul cause of nullity in the Popedome of Paul the fifth in regard of his notorious Simony For which it is to be presupposed that the Pope as Pope is not free from the crime of Simony nor exemted from incurring censures in that case as Aquinas proves at large concluding and resolving that the Pope as well as any other may incur the vice and come within the compass of the crime of Simony if he takes mony for any spiritual thing Of the same opinion are all the Divines that write upon that place of Aquinas In consequence to which doctrine the * Aquin 2.2 q. 100. art 1. ad 7. Council of Basil even for this crime and sin of Simony called in question examined convicted and condemned Eugenius the fourth then Pope and deprived him of the Papacy The words of the Councils decree are these By this definitive sentence of the great and universal Holy Council which is here recorded in writing for all the World to know and all posterity to take notice of the Council pronounceth decreeth and declareth Gabriel formerly called P. Eugenius the 4. to have bin and so to be a notorious manifest contumacious rebel to the warnings and commandments of the universal Church and that he still persists in the said open rebellion and doth therefore condemn him for a wilful contemner and violater of the holy ancient Canons a perturber of the peace and unity of the Church a notorious scandalizer of the universal Church a perjured incorrigible and Schismatical Simonist and therefore a forsaker of the Faith an Heretic a dilapidator and consumer of the rights and riches of the Church committed to his trust and hath thereby made himself an unprofitable member and not only unworthy and unfit for the Papal power but of all other title degree honour or dignity Ecclesiastical Whom the aforesaid General Council doth by the power of the Holy Ghost declare and pronounce to be by the Law deprived of the Papacy and Bishopric of Rome and by these presents it doth depose remove deprive and throw him out Now that the Pope Paul the fifth was guilty of Simony and deserves to be treated as Eugenius in the Council of Basil our Author declares in the foresaid treatise chapter the 2. from the second number by the words following In the Datary which is an office at Rome wherein all matters of benefices and businesses of that kind are expedited this is the course and custome at this day It is duly observed that the benefices belonging to the Popes collation whether reserved to his gift it falling void in the moneth that belongs to the Papacy which in regard of their far distance from Rome or that they are with cure cannot be given to his Nephew Borghesius are given to some of the Suitors or competitors that are of that Country or next adjoining to it For they take order that none be bestowed presently but ly vacant for a time that so a whole concourse of competitors may flock together for it which is not don for any good end that so they might know the difference of the suitors and give it to the worthiest as by the decree of the Council of Trent they are bound to do but that they may learn which is the richest and so may know how to make the best bargain To this end the time of this competition is appointed at a certain day whereof public notice is given that so all the suitors may come and that the officers of the datary may learn in that time which of all that seek it are best able to buy out and extinguish the pension that is laid upon that living For this is the fashion
Papam de parte mea salutate Apostolica praecepta humiliter audite sed superfluas adinventiones regno meo adinferre nolite salute the Pope from him hear his precepts but bring no superfluous devices or innovations into his kingdom True it is That several of our Godly Kings did permit appeals should be made to Rome in matters wherein our own Bishops could not agree and directions to be sought from thence as from a flourishing and learned Church not as a superior Judicature And when the Roman Bishops did pretend to any such superiority our Kings did protest against it So Henry the fifth having demanded of Martin the fourth some particulars to which his Embassadors not finding him ready to assent they b Arthur Duc. in vita Henrici Chichly p. 56. 57. told him That they had orders to protest before him that the King would use his own right in those particulars as things which he demanded not out of necessity but for the honour respect he was willing to shew to that Sea that they should make a public protestation thereof before the whole Colledg of Cardinals And to this purpose are sundry examples remaining on c Rot. parliam 17 Edward 3. n. 59. 25. Edw. 3. oct purif n. 13. 7. Hen. 4. n. 114. 13. Hen. 6. n. 38. record where the King at the Petition of the Commons for redress of some things amiss belonging to Ecclesiastic cognizance first chuses to write to the Pope but on his delay or failing to give satisfaction doth either himself by statute redress the inconveniency or command the Archbishop to see it don For certain it is by the course of all our Chronicles and histories that our Kings together with the convocation of their Bishops and Clergy had in themselves absolute and entire power of governing and reforming the Church of this kingdom without any dependency uppon any forreign authority It was never doubted neither could it be denied upon any warrantable ground that they had within their own dominions the same power which Constantine had in the Empire and that our Bishops had the same which St. Peter had in the Church For which since the Erection of Canterbury into an Archbishoprick the Bishops of that Sea were held * Malms de Pontif. lib. 1. in Ansel fol. 127.15 Quasi alterius orbis Papae as Vrban the Second styled them and did exercise vices Apostolicas in Anglia that is they used the same power within this Island which the a Eadmer p. 27. Pope did in other parts And in our writers the Archbishop of Canterbury is frequently called Princeps Episcoporum Angliae b ib. p. 107. 33. Pontifex summus c Gervas Boro ber col 1663. 54. Patriacha King Edgar asserted this power to be in himself and in his Clergy in his memorable speech made to them d Apud Ailred col 361.16 Ego Constantini vos Petri gladium habetis in manibus I bear in my hand the sword of Constantin and you that of Peter And therefore as the affairs of most concerns in the Church had their dependance on the Emperor and the holy men of those times did not doubt to continue to him the style of Pontifex maximus as e Tom. 3. an 312. n. 106. Baronius notes sine ulla christianitatis labe So f Regularis Concordia c. Not. Seldeni ad Eadmerum p. 146. 16. King Edgar was solicito is of the Church of his Kingdom veluti domini sedulus Agricola pastorum pastor And wrote himself the Vicar of Christ and by his g Concil Spelm. Ã p. 444. aâ— p. 476. laws and Canons he made known that he did not assume those titles in vain King h Leg. Edw. Confes c. 17. p. 142. Rex quia vicartus summi Regis est ad hocest constitutus ut regnum terrenum populum domâ—ni sâ—per omnia sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus regat ab injurtis defendat Edward the Confessor a canonized Saint did declare the same and practised accordingly The King saies he being vicar of the supream King his duty is to govern and defend the earthly Kingdom and the people of the Lord from injuries and over all to reverence govern and defend his Church The same was declared and practised by i Leg. Inae in pras p. 1. Ina whom Baronius styles a most pious King by k Leg. fol. 11. p. 109. Canutus acknowledged for a most bountiful benefactour of Churches and of the servants of God Erga Ecclesias atque Dei servos benignissimus largitor as l Epist 97. fol. 93. Canut c Furbertus Carnotensis relates of him and several other godly Kings of England whose several laws touching Ecclesiastic affaires you may see related by Jorvalens c. 2. col 761. c. 5. col 830. c. 23. col 921. as also the laws of Emperors to the same purpose in the books of m Codex Theodos de seriis de nuptiis c. de sâ—de Catholica de Episcopis Ecclesiis clericis de monachis de haereticit de Apost de Religione de Episcopali judicio cod Jast l. 1. Tit. 1 2 3 4 5. passim in co Theodosius and Justinian The Emperors did employ their Bishops and Divines in resolving upon wholsome decrees touching Church affaires and these decrees they espoused themselves for Laws so as the transgressors of them should be subject to penalties This same course our Kings have taken as well in former ages as in this latter of the Reformation of our Church Henry the Eighth haveing those occasions of discontent with Pope Clement the Seventh which as too much known I omit to relate and being urged by the States of the Kingdom to execute at last what long time was desired and often attemted in England viz. to throw off the usurped power and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over this Kingdom to proceed with due legality and consideration in so weighty a matter he wrote to the Universities and great Monasteries and Churches of the Kingdom in the year 1534. and the eighteenth of May of the same year to the University of Oxford requiring them like men of vertue and profound Literature diligently to intreat examine and discuss a certain question viz. An Romanus Episcopus habeat majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem sibi collatam in Sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae quam alius quivis Externus Episcopus Whether the Bishop of Rome had any greater jurisdiction given to him in holy Scripture over this Kingdom of England then any other foreign Bishop and to return their opinion in writing under their common Seal according to the meer and sincere truth of the same To which after mature deliberation and examination they returned answer That he hath no such jurisdiction in this land The words of the University of Oxford returning their answer to the King upon this subject the 27. of June of the aforesaid 1534.
which I saw in the Records of that University are as follow Post susceptam itaque per nos quaestionem ante dictam cum omni humilitate devotione ac debita reverentia convocatis undique dictae nostrae Academiae Theologis habitoque complurium dierum spatio ac deliberandi tempore satis amplo quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia Justitiae Zelo Religione conscientia incorrupta perscrutaremur tam Sacrae Scripturae libros quam super cisdem approbatissimos interpretes eos quidem saepe saepius à nobis evolutos exactissime collatos repetitos examinatos deinde disputationibus solennibus palam publice habitis celebratis tandem in hanc sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus ac concordes fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam jurisdictionem non habere sibi a Deo collatam in Sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Anglia quam alium quemvis Externum Episcopum We therefore after having taken in hand this question with all humility devotion and due reverence the Divines of our University being called together from all places and the space of many daies and time enough bein given for deliberating whereby with all diligence possible zeal of Justice Religion and upright conâ—â—ience we should search as well the Books of Holy Scripture as the most approved interpreters of them and they being very often turned over by us and most exactly conferred together review'd examin'd moreover having celebrated held public solemn disputes on this subject at last we have all unanimously agreed upon this sentence viz. That the Bishop of Rome hath not any more Jurisdiction given to him by God in holy Scripture in this Kingdom of England then any other foreign Bishop hath Having met with this religious and learned declaration of the University of Oxford I thought convenient to relate it here as well for the autority the opinion of this great University is apt to give to the matter as also that it may be to us an argument of the zeal and diligence wherewith the other Scholes Monasteries and Churches did proceed to deliver their opinion upon this subject And if it be true what the famous Canonist * Navar. cap. Cum conti gat de rescript remed 1 n. â—o qui unius Doctorâ—s eruditione ac animi pretate celebrâ—s autoritate dâ—ctus secerit al quid exâ—usatur etiamâ—â—d non esset justum alii contrarium tenerent Navar saies and now is more commonly said and confirmed by Casuists and Canonists that who do's any thing following therein the opinion of one Doctor of known learning and piety tho others be of contrary opinion is excused tho happily what he did should not be just in it self and if the authority of one Doctor of learning and piety can justify a mans proceeding shall not the opinion of so great a number of men famous for learning and piety that were then in the Universities Monasteries and Churches of England justify the proceedings of King Henry in freeing his Kingdom from the slavery it was in under the Bishop of Rome This indeed was to lay the axe to the root of the Romish usurpations and corruptions in this Land Their pretended authority in it being found and declared not to be from God nor grounded upon his divine word but illegally and fraudulently intruded upon the Nation it followeth that they were all at their own liberty to reform their Church by a National Synod of their own Prelats and Clergy under the protection and inspection of their Prince as in other times was don in this land in consequence to this the states of the Kingdom being congregated in * Stat. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. begun Nov. 3. end Dec. 18. 1533. Parliament an 1533 have declared that his Majesty his heirs and successors Kings of this Realm shall have full power and autority from time to time to visit repress redress all such errors heresies abuses c. which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction may be lawfully reformed repressed ordered redressed c. And this was not to assume a new power but to renew and publish the ancient right of the Kings of this Land It is true that Popes in former ages not finding means to hinder our Princes from exercising this right of their own would by priviledg continue it unto them So Pope Nichelas finding our Kings to express one part of their office to be Regere populum Domini Ecclesiam ejus wrote to Edward the Confessor Vobis posteris vesâ—ris regibus Angliae committimus convocationem ejusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum vice nostra cum consilio Episcoporum Abbatum constituatis ubique quae justa sunt We commit unto you and your successors Kings of England the government of that place and of all the Churches of England that in our name ye may by the Councils of Bishops and Abbots order in all places what will be just The same Pope did allow the like priviledg to the Emperor * Bar. 11. Annal. 1059. n. 23. Nicolaus Papa hoc domino meo privilegium quod ex paterno jure susceperat praebuit Said the Emperors advocat Pope Nicholas allowed this priviledg to my Master which himself had by his birth-right By the like art finding the People of England unwilling to acknowledg any Ecclesiastic power besides that of the land and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for supreme of it under the King the Popes have contrived that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury should exercise that power as from them under the name of Legatus natus or Legat by his place of the Roman Sea This may seem like what they report of the great Cham of Tartary that after he had dined he orders to give leave by the sound of a Trumpet to all the Kings of the World that they may go to dinner But the Pope drives further in his grants that in time if power should assist him he may force upon them a subjection to him as if really the Princes did owe their power to him But the arts of Rome are too much known in England for the people to be further deluded by them And therefore a National Synod or a Convocation of the Arch-Bishops Bishops Abbots and other Clergy of the Kingdom being celebrated at London by order of King Henry the sixth in the sixth year of his reign being that of our Lord 1552. a summary of Articles was agreed upon to remove dissentions in Religion and reform the Church from corruptions that crept into it so pious and moderate so well grounded upon Divine Scripture and upon the Doctrine and practice of the Primitive Apostolic Church that Romanists may more easily rail and rant at then discover any real error in them My adversary N. N. after highly inveighing against these Articles and boasting to discover Heresies in them singles out the 22. Article which runs thus The Roman
saith he that the Pope is infallible If he misliked that doctrine he might have denyed it and remain a Catholic A Catholic I may remain and do but not of their communion that Prop failing for those structures which I saw clearly to be ruinous without it It is an intolerable cavil to say I should speak of the Pope alone or of the Roman Diocess to delude the Reader with impertinent Digressions as often he doth I having clearly expressed my meaning to be that neither the Pope alone nor in a Council such as that of Trent nor the Congregation under his obedience are infallible To say the said Congregation should be the Church Universal which I allow according to St. Pauls Expression to be the pillar and ground of truth is an arrogant begging of a conclusion which will never be allow'd to them all Christian Churches that differ from them which are far the greater part of Christendom crying against their blind presumtion in appropriateing unto themselves the name of the Catholic Church That the Church truly Universal composed of all believers in Christ whether diffusive or representative in a Council truly Oecumenicall and free such as were the first four General Councils and such as was not the Councill of Trent is to have the assistance of the holy Ghost so that tho it be not properly infallible yet it shall not err in things fundamental to mens Salvation I do piously believe and of my meaning therein I gave him no occasion to doubt Therefore if he will speak to the purpose granting it is not an Article of faith that the Pope is infallible in the sense I denyed infallibility to him that is to say in a Council of those depending upon him or out of it it follow 's they have no certainty for their Tenets relying upon the Popes Infallibility which being no article of faith cannot be certain in it self nor consequently give certainty to things depending upon it He only allow's Infallibility to the Pope jointly with a general Council Herein he gratifies the Jansenists who may by this plead for indemnity notwithstanding the definitions of Innocent the Tenth and Alexander the Seventh against them which being not confirmed or autorized by a general Council in conjunction with the Pope cannot pretend to Infallibility in Mr. I. S. his opinion who hereby must incense against himself all the party adverse to the Jansenists which will prove too hard for him But he saies all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of the Pope and a generall Council Therefore Aquinas Turrecremata and Alphonsus à Castro are in his opinion no Catholics of whom * Can. l. 4. De lo. c. 4. Aquin in 4 d. 6. qu. 1. art 7. in 3. qu. 2. ad 3. Turrecrem l. 2. sum Ecclesiae c. 91. Alphons à Cast de just Haer. pun l. c. 5. gloss interlin in illud Math. 16. portae infer c. Canus relates that the Church even Pope and Council together may err materially in their opinion as I mentioned in the 30. page of my discourse which if he did consider and examine he would not so peremtorily assert that all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of Pope and Councel jointly Neither indeed do's Mr. S. himself sâ—em to be very strong in the belief of this Infallibility for in the comfort he gives his brethren on this account extolling magnificently their happiness herein above Protestants he so orders the matter that their comfort must not be grounded upon the real existence of that Infallibility but upon a strong apprehension or belief of it tho not extant It is a comfort saies he to an unacquainted Traveller to be guided by one whom he firmly believes to be acquainted with the way tho really your guide were not acquainted with the way if you câ—â—tainly believe that he is and cannot stray c. This is such another comfort as the grand Turk gives to his men that dying in his quarrel they go immediately to Paradise tho it be not so it s a comfort to think it is A sad comfort for the unhappy souls lost but commodious for the Turk to get by these means people to sight desperately and dye for him Thus it is with the Church or Court of Rome To believe they are infallible is a satisfaction to the people and very important for the autâ—rity and grandeur of that Court whether it be so indeed is not material The understanding of this mystery we are to owe to Mr. S. his ingenuity Poor man he has not been well acquainted with the intrigues of that Court they do not love to have arcana imperii the mysteries of their government discovered He will certainly fall short of his expected remuneration for his writing and if a Cap be deputed to him for it sure I am it will not be that of a Cardinal CHAP. IV. That Protestants have a greater security for the truth of their doctrine then Papists have Mr. I. S. his ridiculous exposition and impious contradicting of St. Pauls Text in favor of Scripture rebuked OUR Adversary triumphs upon the aforesaid comfort of Papists in apprehending their Guide to be Infallible tho he be not so indeed which comfort he saies the Protestants cannot have being guided by a Church which they believe is not so well assured of the way but they may err God forbid Protestants should not have a better warrant for the truth of their Doctrine then that he gives to Papists They have the infallible word of God delivering all their doctrine and clearly containing all that is necessary to Salvation and a perfect life as appears evidently by what I delivered in the discourse which Mr. I. S. go's about to oppose and will be further evidenced by shewing how vain and weak the opposition is They have besides in the general tradition of the Church a full and sufficient certainty that the books commonly received for Canonical are the true word of God and therefore are certain of Gods infallible autority assisting in favor of the verities contained in those books which kind of certainty tho only morall touching the existence of Gods revelation in favor of those verities joined with an absolute and undoubted Certainty that whatsoever God reveals is infallible verity makes up all the certainty that a pious and prudent believer ought to expect in matters of divine faith Mr. I. S. talks of a kind of certainty requisite for Divine faith which I doubt muâ—h whether he or any of his party ever had for all those articles they pretend to be of faith He tells us and takes it upon credit of his instructors without much examination as often he does in other matters that for all acts of belief touching revealed truths an absolute certainty is requisite clearing the believer from all manner of doubt If you speak of an objective certainty relating to the mystery revealed all true believers have it being fully assured that God cannot reveal an untruth but
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
the untruth of his relations That he must not expect from me I suppose he found this doctrine which he saies to be common in the Protestant Church where he found me saying that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church as he do's most impudently impose upon me in his Dedicatory Epistle to my Lord Lieutenant This is their ordinary way of begetting in their Proselytes an abhorrence to their opposers viz. impostures and calumnies Of their calumny in this particular learned Le Blane complains declares thus in the behalf of Protestants cum Scriptura dicimus docemus fideles Dei mandata per Christi gratiam servare c. Thesi â—6 27. de observant Leg. We say and teach with the Scripture that the faithful do keep the Commandments of God by the grace of Christ Let not our Sophister think to appease my just indignation against him or to escape the censure I pass upon him of a blasphemous contemner of the Gospel of Christ and the sacred Writers of it the blessed Evangelists by saying he do's not assert himself the foresaid affronts he puts on the Gospel and the Evangelists but that he infers them from positions of the Protestant Church The whole doctrine and belief of the Protestant Church is contained in the Canonical Scripture and in the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England We are not in that confusion and uncertainty touching the object of our belief as he and his party are betwixt so many Articles dayly coined one overthrowing the other In what place of Canonical Scripture or of the foresaid thirty nine Articles did he find this proposition which he saies is the common doctrine of the Church of England That it is impossible to keep Gods Commandments which being all the ground he shews for this blasphemous Assertion that we are assured the Evangelists when they wrote the Gospel were not in the love of God and observance of his Commandments and by that assured the Gospel is not infallible the said ground I say not being to be found in any place of the fore-mentioned Rule and Canon of our Belief I conclude the Assertion pretended to flow from it to be of his own invention and his own sentiment Let this therefore be known to be his Tenet and Assertion to his eternal infamy That we are sure the Evangelists when they wrote the Gospel were not in the state of Grace that we are sure the Gospel is not infallible One that is found with a stoln horse is to be taken for the thief till he prove that he has received it lawfully from another We find that execrable Blasphemy in the mouth of I. S. Let him be taken and punished for Author of it if any just inquisition find him since he can find no other Author for it But all his Sophistry will not afford him even the least colour of excuse for the former part of his Assertion for which he will not be beholden to any other but delivers it for a document of his own That no Text of Scripture tells us that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel nor any thing else gives us assurance of it Ask of any boy in Spain or Flanders but meanly catechized whether he was not taught by his Curate and Parents that the Apostles by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them were confirmed in grace wherewith we are assured they never lost it after And in case our Adversary should gain by some pictures or medals the votes of the boys in his favor other Doctors we have which he shall not so easily gain to his side who affirm that the sacred Apostles after receiving the Holy Ghost were so confirmed and strengthned in grace that no humane power or temtation could make them fail in their fidelity to God S. Augustin for one thus delivers his opinion Homil. 9. de Missione Spiritus Sancti Ante adventum vero Spiritus Sancti sub ipso crucis dominicae tempore alii ex discipulis effugantur alii unius Ancillae voce terrentur metu corda trepida penetrante dominum suum negare coguntur Post illustrationem vero Spiritus Sancti Confirmationem custodiis excruciati verberibus afflicti ibant gaudentes quia digni essent pro Christi nomine contumeliam pati That the Apostles so frail before as to run from their Master and deny him at the instance of a girl after being confirmed in grace by receiving the Holy Ghost were so constant in suffering prisons and scourgings that they rejoyced for being worthy of suffering for Christ The same doctrine of the Apostles being confirmed in grace by the coming of the Holy Ghost upon them so as they were by Gods special protection preserved from falling from it all their life tho otherwise peccable is delivered by other * Tertullian contra Praxed c. 34. Leo Magnus Ser. 2. de Pentecost Gregor Papa Homil. 30. in Evang. Chrysostom Homil. 4. in acta Apost Bernard Ser. in Fest Pentecostes Aquinas qu. 24. de Veritate art 9. ad 2. Justinianus disput 1. ex praeviis in Paulum c. 5. nu 7. Corn. Ã Lap. ad versum 3. c. 2. Actor Fathers and Scholemen All this force of testimonies of Scripture Fathers and Divines being in favor of the sacred Apostles to have bin confirmed in grace and preserved in it all their life how comes our Adversary to say we have no assurance of their being in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel Did they not write it after the Holy Ghost descended upon them Which shall we admire most his ignorance or impiety Truly he has given such testimony of both in this his undertaking rebuked in this Chapter that we might very well bid him farewell here and leave him as unworthy of any further reply But whereas he may meet with readers so short sighted as not to take notice of absurdities and guilts even of this size we will continue yet helping â—hem to find out gross errors and crimes in his writing CHAP. IX Our Adversaries pretention to prescription and miracles in favor of the Infallibility of their Church rejected his imposing on me and on the Church of England discovered further OUR Sophister finding but little right by Scripture or reason for the pretended Infallibility of his Church appeals to the title of Prescription that they have bin long time in possession of this prerogative and ought not to be disturbed now in the use of it Here he prepares a defence for thieves and robbers If they have our goods long time in their possession we must leave them to such possessors and not disturb them in the use of them The Turk is hereby justified in his possession of the holy Land and other Dominions of Christian Princes he has robbed The attempt of the said Princes in dispossessing this Robber is unjust according to Mr. I. S. his Logic. In it he could not find this rule of Law
Quae ab initio sunt male constituta tempore non convalescunt That what was unlawful in the beginning grows not by continuance lawful nor this other Non debet quis commodum reportare ex crimine none ought to find an advantage in a guilt for his defence An unjust usurper by a continuance of his usurpation is rendred rather more guilty then excusable We have shown by evident proofs that the pretention of the Roman Church to Infallibility was and is still an unjust usurpation a robbery of a priviledg belonging unto God and his holy Scripture communicated to the Apostles founders of Christian Religion and to the Church truly Catholic and Universal sticking to the Doctrine and Belief which Christ and his Apostles left to us not to that factious party devoted to the Pope of Rome which Mr. I. S. would have us take for the only Church committing in all his discourses a perpetual Solecism against the laws of a Disputant which is to take for granted the subject of the Debate which is constantly deny'd to them But his Logic will not take notice of these niceties Now therefore to accuse us that we disturb them in the possession of their Infallibility is like the complaint of a certain Gentleman against a Merchant calling on him for an old debt He ranted and swore he was a troublesom companion for importuning for the payment of a debt of so many years as if it were but of yesterday his delay in paying was an increase of his guilt The retaining of another mans goods as well as the taking them away against his will is robbery Thus it is in our case the pretention of the Roman Faction to Infallibility was a robbery from the beginning an imposing upon man kind as I have proved and the continuance of it is an increase of their guilt why will Mr. I. S. make this increase of their guilt an excuse of it Besides to say that his Church was in all Ages in peaceable possession of this prerogative of Infallibility as he do's pag. 76. is a wide mistake and as he asserts it without proof he must be contented with a bare denial for an answer while we leave him to look after any pertinent testimony of the Fathers of the first three hundred nay for a thousand years for his purpose which he shall never find In the seventh Chapter of his Book p. 102. he falls abruptly upon the old armory of miracles in favor of his Church Of this I could not but wonder having seen him p. 81. engage his whole Logic against the power of Miracles for breeding in men a saving divine Faith for said he Either they are only probable or evident if probable only they are not proportionable to give us that certainty required for divine Faith if evident absolutely they can be no motive of Faith which is of its own nature obscure In which piece of Logic he gives a clear testimony of his Impiety and Ignorance Impiety in pretending to weaken that strong foundation of Christian Belief taken from the glory of Miracles for which I remit him to what he alledges himself from the foresaid p. 102. Ignorance in pretending that an obscure Conclusion may not be deduced from an evident Premise To prove notum per ignotius a Conclusion clear by a Premise or Medium more obscure is a known fault in arguing but to prove by an evident Medium a Conclusion obscure is a fault of arguing never heard of yet before Mr. I. S. his Logic. By this Canon he makes the belief of Martha to be indiscreet who seeing the resurrection of her brother and other Miracles our Saviour wrought concluded I beleive that thou art Christ the son of God The miracle was evident but the generation of Christ from his heavenly Father obscure And who shall declare his generation Esa III. 8. Having thus helped him against himself for rendring Miracles a congruous way to find out true Religion I gladly accept the challenge to a trial of our Religion by them Our Religion or the object of our necessary Belief is only what is contained in the word of God by Canonical Scripture In favor of this Belief we have all the Miracles written in the Old and New Testament Their Religion as opposite to ours and differing from us are those Articles in debate introduced by the Roman Church Transubstantiation Purgatory Worship of Images c. Will he for shame pretend the stock of Romanies produced by them for these Innovations fit to be compared with the store of glorious Miracles which we have in the behalf of our divine truly infallible Belief contained in holy Scripture While we show his new Belief to be contrary to this divine Faith confirmed with Miracles of infallible truth as we do let him keep to himself his new-coin'd wonders and remember that God is not contrary to himself in putting his Seal to contrary Laws And if he must believe some of the wonders he proposes let Lessius and others help him to understand what to make of those miracles or wonders which Valerius Maximus Titus Livius and other Roman Historians do relate to have bin wrought in favor of their Temples and heathenish Superstitions and let him not expect from me that I should bestow time in examining the truth or false-hood of all his impertinent Allegations In the same seventh Chapter from p. 126. he fastens on me two notorious calumnies first that having left the Roman Church I fixed upon no other to be of the second that I said none may be saved in the Roman Church The falsehood of the first is seen by my public declaration for the Church of England the untruth of the other I declared in the second Chapter of this Treatise whereby all his verbosity upon this subject appears a fret of his Malice without any real ground without shame to tax me often with and repete with his frivolous exclamations without shewing where or when I did say what indeed I never said or wrote That there is no salvation in the Roman Catholic Religion With the same confidence and the like untruth he repetes That it is the constant doctrine of the Church of England that the Romish Religion is a saving Religion or a safe way to salvation which is what we deny them Let the Reader reflect upon what I said in the foresaid second Chapter of this Treatise and see the confusion of this mans brains in not understanding or delivering distinctly our sentiments according to our own expressions or the corruption of his mind in deceiving wilfully his Reader especially that he himself p. 133. alledgeth Doctor Stillingfleet comparing both Churches the Romish to a leaky Ship wherein a man may be saved but with great danger and difficulties and the Protestant to a sound Ship wherein one may be saved without hazard This is the utmost of courtesy or charity that may be and is extended to them Is this to say the Romish Church is a
you speak all being the Word of God tho not in the same degree of necessity to be explicitly believed by all men Therefore to say that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental is fallible is to say that the Word of God is fallible which without Controversy is a formal Blasphemy Poor Logician is this your Argument in Ferio for which you thought a solid Answer could not be found For a Syllogism in Feriâ— to be concluding the Premises must be allowed and will you have us allow your Premises when one of them is found to be a formal Blasphemy But it seems this horrible Blasphemy did not fall from him unawares it was with deliberation He goes to prove it and see how The Church can err and is fallible in Points not Fundamental therefore these Points are fallible This is another goodly piece of Logic which proves that Points Fundamental are likewise fallible Men can err and have erred in Points Fundamental therefore these also are fallible in your Dialect This is not to distinguish Subjective fallibility from the Objective to pass the imperfections of the faculty upon the object Mr. I. S. looks upon the Sun with squint or dim eies therefore the Sun is dim or squint The Pope can err and is fallible in declaring the Word of God therefore the Word of God is fallible Your brethren of Clermont Colledg who defended in their Theses mentioned chap. 6. that the Pope hath the same Infallibility which Christ had may think that consequence legal The Pope is fallible about the Word of God therefore the Word of God is fallible because the Pope hath the very same Infallibility which Christ the very Word of God hath But we that a low no such Equality of truth to men cannot take fallibility in the Word of God for a consequence of mans fallibility about it From the foresaid Position you proceed to the second grand Thesis prefixed to your Chapter That Protestants cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets This is sure a rare shew of your wit a product of your own invention never heard of before I confess to have never heard the like and thus you go to prove it Protestancy or the points wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is but a parcel of fallible doctrine but no fallible doctrine can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture therefore Protestants cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets Make of the Major what you please for the present what desperate Proposition is that of the Minor That no fallible doctrine may without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture By this all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church all Divines that alledg Scripture for their several opinions which they do not pretend to be infallible nor more then probable opinions are guilty of Blasphemy in your esteem But that this so much solemnized Argument may not be altogether useless I will retort it upon your self with more force and less cavil proving by it that your Church is not the Church of Christ And thus I argue for it in your own terms No Church is any further the Church of Christ then as it teacheth the doctrine of Christ but the Roman Church as condistinct from the Reformed Protestant Church or in as much as it differs from it doth not teach the doctrine of Christ therefore the Roman Church as condistinct from the Reformed Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ The Minor Proposition That the Roman Church as condistinct from the Protestant Church doth not teach the doctrine of Christ I prove thus The doctrine which the Roman Church as condistinct from the Protestant and opposite to it doth teach is Popes Infallibility and Supremacy over all the Christian Church Transubstantiation Worship of Images Invocation of Saints Purgatory Indulgences half Communion Liturgy in an unknown tongue prohibiting the people to read holy Scripture c. all which I have declared in my former discourse not to be the doctrine of Christ but all contrary to it and in this present Treatise will more fully declare the same Therefore the Roman Church as condistinct from the Protestant and opposite to it doth not teach the doctrine of Christ and consequently is not the Church of Christ CHAP. XI A Refutation of several other Attemts of Mr. I. S. in that eighth Chapter YOU are prolix in pretending that Protestants have not unity of Faith with Papists God forbid they should agree in all with them spare bragging that they claim kindred with you It is a great piece of courtesy and charity in Protestants to admit kindred with you or allow you to be a part tho infected and corrupted of the Catholic Church a courtesy I say in some thing like that of Bellarmin in admitting even the most scandalously wicked of men Epicures in manners and Atheists in belief to the Communion of his Church provided they do but exteriourly own the Romish Religion and Obedience to the Pope tho but for temporal ends His kindness to his Lord the Pope and zeal for his grandeur makes him extend thus his courtesy Our love to our Lord Christ makes us admit kindred with you and to take you for Members of the Church Universal in as much as you confess with us tho but verbally the chief Articles of his doctrine contained in the Creed You proceed to exhort Protestants to an examen of their Belief whether they be in the right I wish your party did comply so well herein with their duty or were permitted to do it as Protestants do and are allowed Here they inquire dispute and read carefully Books for and against their Tenets They are permitted to do it and encouraged in it by their Instructors You will not allow your people to read dispute or doubt at all of your Tenets You say Protestants are obliged in conscience to doubt of their Religion while you tell your own people they are obliged in conscience not to doubt of theirs How came your Church by this Prerogative because 't is unerring and unerrable as the Title of your Book saies but the Book do's not prove as we are shewing Why are Protestants oblig'd to doubt of their Religion because it is new say you This was the Argument of Pagans to stop the preaching of the Gospel more improperly and with less ground used by you Our Religion is the Ancient and yours the New as we prove Where was our Religion say you before Luther A question which for one too old should be cast away We answer where yours never was in the Word of God and in the true Records of Primitive Christianity You conclude your heterogeneous Chapter and your first part of your Book with mentioning the Treatise or Paper I penned some years ago in favor of the Salvation of Protestants against your vulgar Teachers damning all to hell for Heretics without reserve or distinction You say the doctrine I delivered was true but it was indiscretion to declare it in
to establish as the chiefest of his concern is the Popes supremacy and absolute power over all Christians directly forfooth spirituals but effectively in their temporal concerns as many powerful Princes Kingdoms and provinces have experienced to their woe These two great Prerogatives of absolute power over all Christians and of infallibility in his Decrees such as none may oppose or mutter against being established in the Pope what security can people or Princes have of their Liberties or Possessions if liable to be censured Heretics if they do not receive and submit to any thing the Pope will be pleased to decree and declare for an article of Faith and being thus censured to have their Liberties and Lands seiz'd upon and taken from them by any that will have force to do it Next we are to consider the dangerous consequences of this Doctrine in the daily extent of the Popes power and autority by his Emissaries and flatterers Hitherto they were contented to assert his infallibility in matters of Right now of late they extend it to matters of Fact as appears in the famous Thesis of the Parisian Jesuits declared above in the ninth Chapter And tho another party opposed that assertion of theirs as mentioned in the place aforesaid all men know how litle success any may expect to have in the Roman Judicature against such as will engage in exalting and extending the power and authority of the Pope and so the Jesuits have not only obtained a censure of heresy and blasphemy c. agaist the Doctrine of Cornelius Jansenius where the debate was in matter of right but another arising touching the fact whether Jansenius did indeed deliver such a Doctrine They obtained wise from the succeeding Pope Alexander the 7th a Bull and Decree no less peremtory touching the fact declaring the said Propositions censured by his Predecessor to be really contain'd in Jansenius his Book and which is more wonderful he should know in the sense intended by Jansenius The foresaid sworn defenders and exalters of the Popes autority have defended publicly that we are to believe with divine Faith the said declaration of the Popes against Jansenius as well in matter of right as fact to be infallible by these notable words Fide divinâ credi potest librum cui titulus Augustinus Jansenii esse haereticum quinque Propositiones ex eo decerptas esse Jansenii in sensu Jansenii damnatas that the Book intitled the Augustin of Jansenius is heretical and the five Propositions which are gathered out of it are Jansenius's and in the sense of Jansenius condemned And there is no reason but we may expect a command of believing the Popes infallibility in this latter kind in matter of fact as formerly intimated in matters of right And if this be established that the Pope is infallible also in matters of fact and if he be pleased to declare that any of us in particular is an heretic or hath delivered an heretical Proposition Woe be to him so declared a heretic by the Pope All Christians subject to the Pope must take him for an heretic and proceed against him accordingly with all those severities inflicted by Canons against Heretics Mr. I. S. accuses me to the Lord Licutenant of Ireland that I should have said that there is no salvation in the Catholic hurch a proposition in my own opinion heretical and blasphemous taken in its proper literal and right sense not to take notice of some crooked improper sense which Mr. I. S. may pretend and may render my discourse obscure This testimony so evidently false he imposes upon me my Book being extant in the hands of many hundred men and my self living to declare the false-hood of it yet his confidence is such that having no evidence nor as much as attemted to prove the truth of his accusation he will have my Lord Lieutenant to proceed to the utmost severity against me commanding me to be burned for blasphemous Ill may he expect from his Excellency so unjust and rash a judgment but how far he may speed in Rome with the same accusation tho false I may not know Of their integrity proceeding to judgement without hearing the parties I can have no assurance If they declare me for Author of the Proposition imposed upon me by Mr. I. S. That in the Catholic Church there is no salvation and consequently guilty of heresy and blasphemy and all must take their declaration therein for infallible according to that increase of infallibility in matters of fact ascribed of late to the Pope by his prime Favorites what mischief may not I expect from all those who think it a special service of God to destroy Hereties But my particular concern is not of so great a force to declare the enormity or danger of this consequence He accuses the whole Church of Protestants of heresy and blasphemy in a high degree saying it s their common doctrine that it is impossible to keep Gods Commandments which proposition in its literal full sense is certainly heretical and blasphemous for derogatory of Gods justice and goodness and diametrically opposite to the doctrine of Christ as I have declared in the 8th Chapter where also I have shewed how falsely such a doctrine is imposed upon the whole Church of England But if our Adversary gets a definition of the Pope that we are in effect guilty of that error in what condition shall we stand with our neighbors our innocency in the case will not availe What if Mr. I. S. or other like him would accuse some great Christian Prince of heresy tho with as little truth as we have seen his accusation of me and of the Church of England now mentioned to have proceeded But if the malice of neighbors hunting after the Lands of such a Prince and of his Subjects disposed to rebell against him should join to accuse him of heretical pravity and the Pope thereby should proceed to deliver his infallible judgment touching such a Prince to be an heretic in effect in what miserable condition must that Prince be for credit and interest to be taken by all men for an undoubted heretic his Subjects absolved from their Allegiance to him and his Lands exposed to the prey of any stronger hand autorized by the Pope according to the procedure of that Court whereof many dismal Tragedies are to be seen in the Chronicles of England Germany Navarre and other Kingdoms of Europe To establish this power in the Pope of Rome so destructive to the peace and safety of Christian people and Princes being the aim of Mr. I. S. his tedious and intricate discourses in favor of his pretended unerring unerrable Church and that declared by himself he may expect the time when all Christian people are perfectly blind and mad to have his doctrine received And now having seen how unsuccessful he hath bin in setting up the grand Engine of the Popes infallibility or infallibility of the Church governed by the Pope by
old Law the cases proposed above of Hezekiah and Josiah do assure us that this hath bin the practice of the best Kings of those times And if you consult the acts of Constantine the great of Arcadius and Honorius of Theodosius the elder Justinian Charles the great and others the best of Christian Emperors and greatest supporters of the Churches honor you shall find them intervening frequently and moderating the greatest consultation touching Religion and the good conduct of Church affairs It was a wonder to S. Augustin that any should doubt it should be the duty of an Emperor or Prince to do so a Aug. l. 1. in Epist contra Ep. Parm c. 9. An forte de Religione fas non est dicat Imperator vel quos miserit Imperator What doth it not belong to the Emperor or to him he employs to deliver his opinion touching Religion and elsewhere he says that to be the chief care and charge of the Emperor of which he is to give account to God b Aug. Ep. 50.162 ad Imperatoris curam de quâ rationem Deo redditurus est res illa maximè pertinebat All this being so that it is the duty of our Princes to govern all the states and affairs of this Kingdom and the dut◠of Subjects to obey them in all and that for conscience as S. Paul declareth Rom. 13.5 That you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake how can I omit to condole the misery of my Country-men and others so deluded by the arts of Rome as to take it for a breach of Conscience what S. Paul declares to be a duty of Conscience I mean an acknowledgment of their Princes Supreme Authority over all his Subjects and their obligation of obeying him accordingly Especially when I see what S. Bernard saw and lamented that it is not the welfare of Souls nor the zeal of their Salvation makes the Court of Rome to put this horror into the hearts of Men against their dutyful obedience and subjection to their Princes Non quod valdè Romani curant quo fine res terminetur sed quia valdè diligunt munera sequuntur retributiones not that the Ministers of Rome do regard much the end or purpose of Controversies raised so they obtain their own end of encreasing their own interest and power I wish with all my heart with S. Bernard that these corruptions of Rome were not so public and known to all the World * Bernard Ep. 42. ad Archiep. Senonens Vtinam nobis relinquerent Moderni Noae unde à nobis possint aliquatenus operiri nunc vero cernente Orbe mundi fabulam soli tacebimus I wish these modern Noahs did leave unto us some possibility of covering their shame but all the World beholding it shall we alone conceal it This being so consider Mr. I. S. how blind is your zeal or great your malice in saying it should be a cruelty in our Princes to demand from their subjects an acknowledgment of his supreme power over them and in them a blasphemy to acknowledg it And to make us believe it is so you produce the autority of Calvin When I alledg Vasquez or Suarez his doctrine to you if it be not to your liking you tell me they have bin mistaken as well as I so much I say to you at present of Calvin that if he be of your mind in this particular he is mistaken and in a foul error as well as you Calvin and Luther have no more autority in the Church of England then Suarez and Vasquez among you and I observe you are as singularly impertinent as unreasonable wheresoever you speak to me of Luther and Calvin it is not their writings which I never saw brought me to the Church of England nor conserves me in it The Scripture Fathers and the History of the Church did work both upon me Of them you are to speak to me as I do to you Many a thousand poor simple Souls in these Kingdoms misled by the Pope and his busy Emissaries do cry against the Oath of Supremacy without knowing or examining what it means or what is their Princes meaning in demanding it crying up the Popes Supremacy much like those 200. seduced by Absalon to follow him out of Jerusalem to rebel against the King his Father when they thought they did service to the King And with Absalon went two hundred men out of Jerusalem that were called and they went in their simplicity and they knew not any thing 2. Sam. 15.11 So it is with many seduced by the art and activity of Rome to den◠due submission to their lawful Prince and give it to a Forreign usurper under pretext of following a pretended Vicar of God to rebel against God S. Paul declaring that whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation A conclusion he doth very legally infer from a verity he had immediatly before premised That the powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1.2 We are to believe in Charity that many have the excuse of those 200. seduced by Absalon That they went in their simplicity and they knew not any thing But the corruptions and impostures of Rome being so universally known even in S. Bernards time as declared above and much more now we may fear justly that too many do err with knowledg or for want of due inquiry and so resisting lawful power they may receive to themselves damnation Of which latter sort Mr. I. S. may seriously fear himself to be one if he be so conversant in the doctrine of both Churches Protestant and Popish and in that of primitive Christianity as he pretends to be This I commend to his mature consideration while I pursue him in his engagement about Transubstantiation CHAP. XVIII Our Adversarys Essay in favour of Transubstantiation examined His Challenge for solving two Syllogisms answered MR. I. S. I do generally find you unexact and much unlike a Scholar in your Arguments but more when you boast most and stand in defiances Now you defy all my Divinity to answer two Syllogisms you would have us believe to be of your own invention But a piece of my Logic will make both appear Paralogisms unworthy of any answer no formal Syllogisms The first grounded upon Luke 22.19 Eat this is my Body which is given for you runs thus He gave to them what he gave for them But what he gave for them was not a sigure but his real and true Body therefore what he gave to them was not a figure but his real and true body In this Syllogism nothing is new but the form you give it and that guilty of several vices against the rules of Logic. I say nothing is new in your argument nor any sense or force added to it by passing the case from Christ giving the last Supper to Christ suffering upon the Cross All your Syllogism may be
the words substance of Bread and Wine did mean the Accidents or Species of Bread and Wine which do remain and are to us the means of knowing the substance and may not be called properly Accidents in this Case because there is no substance left for them to rest upon as the nature and common notion of an Accident do's require And having deliver'd this most strange and never heard of complication of contradictory expressions to make of Accidents a substance and with all no substance of Bread to remain he sounds lowdly a triumph over his Adversaries that he has whipt them like boys with their own arms and altho it be allowed gratis that the foresaid testimony should be of Pope Gelasius yet it serves nothing to their purpose I could enlarge more upon the Absurdities of Baronius his discourse upon that subject and the injury he do's to Gelasius in fathering upon him so ridiculous a paradox but I think sufficient for the present to let the Reader see how solid and serious I should say how childish and ridiculous even great Men appear when engaged in a bad cause I am apt to think that some will hardly believe so great a Man as Cardinal Baronius should deliver so eminent nonsense as we have now related Read him in his fifth Tome of his Annals An. Dom. 406. Gelasii Papae an 5. from the first number to the twentieth And conclude Reader from this passage what little hopes we may have of peace and end of Controversy among Christians by allowing the Pope to be infallible when the most clear and plain words of a Pope are subject to an Interpretation of them so cross and diametrically opposite to the meaning of them according to common use As to understand Scripture a Popes Declaration is pretended to be necessary so to understand each Pope his Declaration another infallible Judg is to be look'd after without end CHAP. XX. Ancient School-men declare Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture and that it was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council Mr. I. S. his great boast of finding in my Check to their worship of the Host a prejudice to the Hierarchy of the Church of England declared to be void of sense and ground MR. I. S. with his usual confidence says it is most false what I imputed to Scotus Ocham Cajetan and other School-men that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not contained in the Canon of Scripture nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council He allows Cajetan was of that opinion and was censored for it he erred therein says he and what then but he denies resolutely that Scotus should be of such an opinion Then Bellarmin did him an injur in relating the contrary of him in these words One thing says he Scotus adds which is not to be approved that before the Lateran Council Transustantiation was no Article of Faith And a little before he tells us that Scotus said there is no place in Scripture that proves clearly Transubstantiation to be admitted if the authority of the Church did not intervene where Bellarmin adds Scotus his saying not to be improbable for tho the Scripture himself alledged may seem clear to the purpose yet even that * Vnum taemen addit Scotus quâ—d minimè probandum est ante â—ateranense consilium non fuisse dogina Fides Transidistantiaâ—â—enem may be doubted whereas most learned and acute Men such as Scotus chiefly was did hold the contrary These are the express words of Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Here you have Bellarmin declaring clearly against Mr. I. S. that Scotus said that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council and that both Scotus and other most learned and acute men were of opinion that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not clearly contained in Scripture And truly tho I had not seen Scotus his writing upon the point I am apt to believe that Mr. I. S. should be mistaken rather then Bellarmin but I have read over Scotus his discourse upon this subject not only in the printed Editions but in the ancient MS. kept in Merton Coll. in Oxon. whereof he was a Fellow with no small admiration and compassion to see so noble and excellent a wit forced to opine or seem to opine against his proper sentiment as he doth protest himself to do to comply with Pope Innocent and the Lateran Council Having stated the question of Transubstantiation related the opinion of Aquinas and others for it and confuted most vigorously their arguments out of Scripture and reason for it as not convincing at last yields to the opinion of Innocent in these words Teneo igitur istam opinionem ibi positam ab Innocentio quod substantia panis non maneat sed quod transubstantiatur in Corpus Christi non propter rationes praedictas quia non cogunt For which opinion to say something being forced to follow it he alledges two conveniences The first that if the substance of bread did remain under the Accidents of it a man taking the Body and Blood of our Savior under such Accidents would not be fasting and so may not celebrate twice in one day which is against that Canon de consecrat distinct primâ in nocte The second conveniency is that the Church prays as appears in the Canon of the Mass the bread and wine may be made the Body and Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ but prays not for a thing impossible therefore it is to be said that the substance of bread ceases to be there and is converted into the Body of Christ Whoever knew the subtilty and exactness of Scotus his reasoning may easily perceive that he spoke against his own sentiment when he alledged such weak Arguments as those two now mentioned and so not to forfeit the credit of his subtilty turns to protest with his accustomed ingenuity that he followed this opinion only for the Authority of the Church concluding thus hoc principaliter teneo propter Authoritatem Ecclesiae c. and the same his Scholiasts declares of him upon the foresaid words saying Tenet Doctor tertiam sententiam nempè panem converti in Corpus Christi quia sic Ecclesia tenet * Edit Lugdun an 1639. Vid. Scot. in 4. dist 10. q. 3. Scotus holds the bread to be converted into the Body of Christ because the Church declared it so in the Lateran Council not for any Authority of Scripture or reason which could move him to it The same I may easily prove of other learned Schoolmen By this you may see Mr. I. S. his rashness in saying I did most falsely impose upon Scotus what both Bellarmin and himself declares to be his proper opinion Of the same opinion with Scotus was Durandus in 4. Sent. dist 11. q. 1. sect propter 3. where he declares that the opinion affirming the substance of Bread to remain after Consecration was more convenient to obviate
difficulties rendring the Mystery more hard to be believed but that the contrary is to be held for the declaration of the Church Cajetan said that only the said declaration could make the words of our Saviour alledged for Transubstantiation appear convincing to that purpose And Suarez tells us his saying was commanded by Pope Pius the V. to be expunged An old Copy of Ocham I found in Dublin Library was more fortunate in escaping their blurs In his 5th quodlibet q. 30. he relates three opinions touching the Bread in the Eucharist The first saying that the Bread which was before is the Body of Christ after Consecration of which opinion he delivers this censure Prima est irrationalis that it is an unreasonable opinion The second opinion saies he is that the substance of Bread and Wine ceases to be and only the Accidents do remain and under them begins to be the Body of Christ Of this opinion he saies Est communis opinio quam tenâ—o propter determinationem Ecclcsiae non propâ—â—r aliam rationem That to this opinion he consems for the declaration of the Church in favor of it and not for any reason assisting it The third opinion related by him is that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration and of this he saies Tertia opinio esset multum rationabilis nisi esset determinatio Ecclesiae in contrarium That this opinion were very rational if the determination of the Church were not contrary to it So that it is not any reason nor any ground they saw for it in Scripture made these and many other very Learned men consent to the doctrine of Transubstantiation but only a blind Obedience to Innocents Decree in the Lateran Council Bellarmin wishes we should all have this submission to the Autority of the Church and I wish with all my heart that both we and he and his party and all Christians should have due submission to the Church truly Catholic Primitive and Apostolic declaring to us the Word of God by Canonical Scripture and Universal Tradition in which Fountains of Truth neither Transubstantiation will be found nor any of their Errors which I pointed out for motives of my forsaking their Communion Neither is I. S. more fortunate in his attemt of putting a terror upon me as if I had shock'd the Hierarchy of the Church of England by saying its rashness to give divine Adoration to a Wafer wherein they cannot be sure Christ to be Present this depending according to their own Principles upon the Priests intention to Consecrate his due Ordination and of the Bishop that gave him Orders his intention and due Ordination and so upward of endless requisites impossible to be certainly known And what has all this to do with shocking the Hierarchy of the the Church of England When I saw the man begin with so great a clap and sounding already a triumph I expected the story of the Nags-head or some other of their old Engines against the Legality of the Protestant Clergy should come down but all he brings is that we do also allow some things to be essentially requisite for the validity of a Sacrament the defect of which nullifies the Sacrament As for Baptism water is requisite and the form of words I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost The Minister may vitiate this form and utter somewhat in lieu of it or omit some words of it or add some other that would destroy the form The same may happen in the Ordination of a Minister or Bishop and there is no certainty that no error of these should have happen'd in any one of the whole train of our Ordainers and if it was wanting in any all the Ordinations derived from him are null Therefore we can have no Assurance of our Hierarchy I leave the Judicious Reader to see what singular exploit this man hath done herein against the Church of England his reasons alledged of doubting the Legality of its Ministers doth prove so much for rendring doubtful the Legality of the Roman Clergy by his own confession but much more for what I am to add first that we do not make the effects of Sacraments to depend so much upon the intention and quality of the Ministers as Papists do We entertain a better opinion of Gods goodness that he will not have pious Souls lose the fruit of their sincere Endeavors and will supply to that effect the defect of the Minister secondly that their practice of muttering the words in a Language unknown to the People and in a voice not audible especially in the consecration of the Eucharist is more subject to errors and fraud then the way of our Church where the Minister is to pronounce loudly and intelligibly the words of the form But chiefly touching the subject of our present discourse from which our Adversary seems willing to divert I mean the use and Adoration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist who run more hazard the Papists or we In case a defect should happen touching the consecration we enjoy the fruit of a spiritual Communion and are not at the loss that Papists are in the like case who make the main fruit depend upon the real and corporal presence of Christ in the host We run no danger of Idolatry material or formal giving the worship of Divinity to a thing that is not God as Papists do giving that kind of worship to any host reputed to be duly consecrated which if it happens not to be so indeed their act of worship is at least a material Idolatry in their own confession and to expose themselves to a known danger of committing such kind of Idolatry cannot chuse but be criminal as it is generally reputed to be a sin for one to expose himself to a danger of committing a sin The parity of one honoring his Father not knowing certainly him to be his true Father is impertinent and undecent A bad opinion he must have of his Mother who doubts his reputed Father to be such in truth But what if he were in a material error it is not a sin but a duty to pay respect unto him that adopts or owns him for a Son I will conclude this matter with letting Mr. I. S. see his rashness in pretending I was rash in saying its intolerable boldness in some of his fellows to say there is the same reason for the adoration of the host as for adoring Christs Divinity And he pretends I should seem thereby not to understand their doctrine Sir I am not to enter with you in comparison which of us understands better the Doctrine of both Churches what I see evidently is that either you do ignorantly misunderstand or maliciously misrepresent the state of the Question that wanting an answer to my Arguments in their proper terms you may fashion them so as your impertinent Discourses may seem to strike at something which is properly hostem tibi
him and others immediatly following wherein he attributes the same opinion to the Council of Trent Sessione 25. in decret Fdei de sacris Imaginibus and to the seventh Synod Vasquez lib. 2. de Adoratione disp 6. cap. 2. gives this further Account of the mode of worshipping Images in the Roman Church Catholica veritas est Imaginibus deferendam esse adorationem h. e. signa servitutis submissionis amplexu luminaribus oblatione suffituum capitis nudatione c. That it is a Catholic verity that worship is to be given to Images that is to say expressions of Service and Submission by embraces light burning offering of Incense uncovering the head Azorius quotes for the same opinion Aquinas Bonaventure Alensis Cajetan and several other ancient and modern Schole-men Mr. I. S. will not have us believe all these Doctors in this their Declaration touching the Romish worship of Images But who are you good Mr. I. S. Quidam nescio quis nec puto nomen habet one I know not who and as I see nameless that we must believe you rather then so many famous Doctors now mentioned Give to your worship of Images what name you please to worship them at all is a formal transgression of the divine Precept above mentioned and therefore a grievous fin You would fain prove out of Scripture that God ordered Images to be adored which is to pretend that God should contradict himself and so it appears in the ill success of your attempt upon finding your doctrine in Scripture Your first discovery in Scripture is that God commanded the Brazen Serpent to be put up to be adored say you Gods command touching that matter is set down Numb XXIV 8. in these words Make thee a fiery Serpent and set it upon a Pole and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten when he looketh upon it shall live Here is no mention of adoring that Serpent you say that looking upon it was to be with inward reverence and veneration wherein adoration or worship doth properly consist Then when we look upon a Church with reverence as being the house of God we adore it the same when we look upon the Bible when a dutiful child looks reverently upon his Father all is adored Likely the Israelites in time came to be of your opinion and to adore the Serpent but how well was that taken at their hands you may see in the second of Kings XVIII 4. That the godly King Ezechias brake in pieces the brazen Serpent that Moses had made for unto those daies the Children of Israel did burn Ineense to it While they only looked upon it according to Gods Ordinance it was beneficial to them but when their devotion grew to a worship it provoked Gods Indignation declared in that action of Ezechias which the sacred Writer approves in these words And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. Your second discovery is Josue VII 6. where only we find that Josue together with the Elders of Israel fell upon their faces before the Ark and praied to God and that you take for an adoration of the Ark. So whensoever you pray before an Altar or a Bible you adore the Altar and the Bible The third Instance to which you say Protestants will never answer is that the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs Passion and a figure of his Body and is religiously worshiped by them if they do what St. Paul requires 1 Cor. XI 28. And what do's St. Paul require in that place This Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. That Protestants should never answer this Argument is no wonder what answer can be where no question is and questionless there is no sign or the least insinuation of Adoration to be paid unto the Communion Bread in the place you quote It is a work of your fancy no discovery of common sense to imagine worship given by Gods Ordinance to the Serpent to the Ark or to the Communion Bread in the places you relate You are to give me leave to tell you that your Argument is so frivolous as requires no more serious answer then to put you in mind of a Spanish Proverb Quien Vaccas ha perdido cencerrosse le antexan who has lost his Oxen Bells do ring in his cars His vehement desire of finding his Oxen makes him think every noise of a bough or leaf of a tree stirred be the wind to be the sound of the Bells his Oxen bare so your strong fancy for Image-worship makes you conceive it even where no shape nor sound of it appears You confess Images were little used in the Primitive Church nay were absolutely prohibited in the Council of Eliberis but that was say you to avoid the scandal of Pagans and the relapse of those converted from Paganism And are there not Pagans yet in the world Is not a conversion of them still procured What consequence is it to decry their adoration of stocks and stones and when they come to your Churches to see you perform to Images all those acts of worship which they used to their Idols by genuflexion thurification c. To speak to them of your distinction of terminative and relative worship will be insignificant as in it self its vain for the reasen I proposed pag. 70. of my former discourse to which you give no answer I alledged Nicephorus saying It is an absurd thing to make Images of the Trinity and yet they do it in the Roman Church You say that what Nicephorus and others do hold absurd is to paint Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substance and nature Nor do the Catholics use it as you falsly criminate them say you to me but herein certainly you do most falsly criminate me in saying I should impose such a thing upon them Where have I said that Papists do paint the Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substarce and nature Or how could any man in his senses conceive Images of that kind could be drawn with material colors To attemt the drawing of any shape of them is what Nicephorus called absurd and * Damascen l. 4. c. 15. ante medium Damascen madness and impiety Insiplentiae summae est impictatis sigurare quod est divinum Of this madness Cajetan more ingenuous then you confesses your Church to be guilty who after having said that in the old Law certainly Images of God were prohibited and for the same reason were reprehended as unlawful by several Doctors among Christians since in both occasions they may engender in men a false conception of Gods nature yet he concludes in these words In oppositum autem est usus Ecclesiae admittens Trinitatis Imagines representantes non solum silium incarnatum sed Patrem Spiritum Sanctum That contrary to the said reasons autority of Damascen the Church
1. opusc tract 8. q. 4. says the foresaid testimonies are without doubt to be understood of a remission to be given by way of Sacraments not of the remission of pains in the other life as the Pope doth practice in the giving of Indulgences and finally gives for the only reason the Authority of the Church and of Pope Leo then governing which he tells us must suffice tho no other reason should appear by these remarkable words Absque hasitatione aliquâ etiamsi nulla adesset ratio fatendum est dicti Thesauri dispensationem non solùm per Sacramenta quoad merita Christi sed aliter quam per Sacramenta qnoad merita Christi Sanctorum commissam esse Praelatis Ecclesiae praecipuè Papae hoc tanto magis fatendum est quanto per Leonem decimum determinatum est We are to believe without staggering tho no reason appear for it that the dispensing of the Treasure of the Church not only by way of Sacraments as to the merits of Christ but otherwise then by Sacraments as to the merits of Christs and the Saints is committed to the Prelates of the Church and especially to the Pope And this is so much the more to be confessed because it is so determined by Leo X. A very special reason to convince Luther and the rest of the World that do not believe the Pope to be Infallible Suarez tom 4. in 3. partem disp 49. sect 1. delivers his opinion of the foresaid Testimonies of Scripture to be insufficient to prove the doctrine of Indulgences Of that of Joh. 20. he says the same that Cajetan above mentioned Of the other touching the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18.18 he says the literal sense of those words to be the power of binding by Laws and Censures and of absolving from Censures and dispensing in Laws And finally in the number 17. of the same Section he concludes there is no place in the Gospel whence the giving of this power may be concluded if it be not Joh. 21.16 where our Savior said to S. Peter feed my Sheep in which words Suarez doth pretend the power Universal and Supremacy over all the Church to have bin given to S. Peter and under that Universalïty the power of Indulgences to have bin given to him But as S. Peter did never receive such an Universal power over the Church as the Bishops of Rome do now usurp so did he never pretend it nor ever troubled Thomas in India or Andrew in Achaia or James in Jerusalem or any other of his Fellow-Apostles and Bishops in their respective Provinces about a power over them or a dependance of them upon him all and eaâ—h one of them complying faithfully with their Ministry without incroaching one upon the other nor staining the repute of Christian holiness with the profane spirit of Ambition which in Rome did grow to the confusion and distraction of Christendom But tho such a Supremacy would have bin granted to the Pope and to the succeeding Bishops of Rome farr must Suarez go for a consequence of the doctrine of Indulgences to be inferred from such a grant If the power of dispensing those immense Treasures of the merits of Christ and all Saints was given to S. Peter in those words of our Savior commending to him the feeding of his Sheep how came he and the other succeeding Bishops of Rome for so many Ages to neglect the use of this power to the benefit of Souls and great advantage of the Roman Church as now is practised Suarez did easily perceive the weakness of his argument from this testimony and so betook himself in the second Section following to the common refuge of the use and autority of the Church That there is such a use says he is not denied we see it that it is not an abuse but a lawful use is proved first by the authority of the Council of Trent last Session where is added that this use hath bin approved by the autority of sacred Councils for which purpose are wont to be related the Council of Nice Can. 11. of Carthage 4.75 of Neooaesarea ch 3. of Laodicea Can 1.2 but in these Councils says Suarez we only find that it was lawful for Bishops to remit some of the public Penitences enjoined by Canons for divers crimes but that such a remission should be extended to a pardon of penalties due in the Tribunal of God may not be inferred from those Councils Another main argument for the Antiquity of Indulgences they fetâ—h out of 2. Cor. 2.10 where S. Paul remits a part of the penalty due to an incestuous Person whom he had formerly punished saving To whom you forgave any thing I forgive also for if I forgive anâ— thing to whom I forgave it for your sakes forgave I it in the pâ—rson of Christ From these latter words in the person of Christ they pretend to infer that the practice of Indulgences now used in the Roman Church had its beginning from Christ and that S. Paul did practise it in the occalion now mentioned by autority received from Christ This Argument Suarez proposes in the above mentioned second Section num 3. but from the following fourth Number to the 11. he doth most vigorously prove the inefficaciousness of that argument That the remission given by S. Paul to that incestuous man did only relate to an exterior penalty due by course or Canon of Ecclesiastical Government not to penalties of the other life depending from Divine Justice that the words in the person of Christ only proves it to be an act of Jurisdiction or power received from Christ which may be sufficiently verified by a remission of an exterior temporal penalty due by the common course of Ecclesiastical human power and finally concludes that there is no warrantable history or testimony extant by which it may be convinced that the practise of Indulgences now used in the Roman Church was known before the times of Gregory the great of whom he says is reported that he gave a Plenaâ—y Indulgence tho even of this says Suarez I find no written History but a public report in Rome and other places And finally what Suarez says with resolution is only that this practise is now in use in the Church so as they are reputed heretics who reprehend such a custome and it is impossible that the Universal Church should err herein for it were says he an intolerable moral error in practise If the Universal Church indeed did practise now and always from the beginning and in all places this custom according to the rules of Apostolic lawful Tradition delivered by Lyrinensis and S. Augustin l. 4. de Baptismo cap. 24. we would look upon this argument as of force But Suarez himself doth acknowledg and confess that this practise is neither so ancient nor Universal And therefore it may not be taken for Apostolic tradition but ranked among the modern Institutions of the present Romish Church to stand or fall
others with a contemt of the earth Soon after he saies I should have taught That there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church without telling where or when I did deliver such a doctâ—ine as indeed he could not do I professing every day my belief in the Catholic Church and protesting I do and will live and die in it If by Catholic Church he means only the Popish or Roman it s a foul abuse of terms especially speaking to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or to any other of sense in a polemic discourse and even speaking of the Roman or Popish Church it is another great piece of untruth to say I should have taught that none may be saved in it as may appear by the second Chapter of this Treatise It s another wilful or rude mistake whereinto he falls very often that by Roman Church I should understand the Diocess of Rome of which I never took any notice or regard in my discourse which was of the Roman Church as opposiâ—e to the Reformed and so containing the whole congregation of men subject to the Pope of Rome and it is to me a wonder that this great pretender to skill in Controversies should not know before now that to be the meaning of the Roman Church in Controversies of this kind What shall I say of his pitiful spite and envy in his Preface to the Reader pretending to rob me of those titles my Emploiments gave me so public and known as appears in the Preface of of this Treatise without shame to be convinced of palpable untruths What of his rashness and rudeness in fixing for a Thesis or Title to the eighth Chapter of his Book That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it that they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets Of his prosane policy in accusing me of indiscretion in delivering what I knew to be truth touching the Salvation of Protestants when I was on the Romish side as mentioned in the fourteenth Chapter What of his blasphemous impiety in saying that no Text of Scripture tells us that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel nor nothing else gives us assurance of it Nay further against the Gospel it self he pronounceth this horrible Blasphemy That not only we are unsure of the Infallibility of the Gospel but that we are assured it is not infallible And this hellish conception of his own he must father upon the Protestant Church saying it s the common doctrine of it that it is impossible to keep Gods Commandments the falsehood of which maliâ—ious imposture I have declared above in the 8th Chapter of this Treatise What of his boldness in challenging me and all Protestants to answer his ridiculous and silly Sophisms with undertakings that they shall never be answered as appears in the eighteenth Chapter touching Transubstantiation and in the twenty sixt touching Purgatory in denying that Scotus Ocham and other Schole-men should deâ—lare Transubstantiation not to be proved out of Scripture as above declared chap. 20. As a so in denying that Costerus should say it is the common opinion of Romish Divines that the Image of God and Christ is to be adored by the worship of Latria as above mentioned Ch. 23. What of his terrible Hallucination in matter of History touching Indulgences declared in Chapt. 29. appearing in every word ridiculously mistaken when he pretends to be most magisterial in correcting mistakes of his Adversary And carrying on constantly to the end this spirit of Untruth Hallucination and Impropriety of terms he concludes his Book with telling me I know in my conscience the Church of Rome is not guilty of the errors I attribute to her for cause of my separation from her How came you Sr to know the interior state of my conscience You tell me I know the Popes Supremacy in temporal affairs over Princes was no article of Faith but a Schole question That the Popes infallibility was but an opinion of some Divines As to the Popes Supremacy I have declared above c. 25. what little comfort is left to Princes by that distinction of the Popes Supremacy in spirituals from that of his power in temporals whereas he backs his spiritual power with a temporal to the ruin and deposing of all Princes and Emperors that resist him The only case of furious Hildebrand with the Emperor Henry the 3d as related by his own most friendly Historians even Baronius is apt to strike a horror into any human heart and a terror into Princes and people if the unspeakable arrogance of the Roman Court should not be bridled As for the Popes Infallibility I have declared above in the 3d Chapter how impertinent your distinction of Pope alone from Pope and his Council together is to escape the force of my Arguments in the present Controversy How falsly you say I should speak only of the Infallibility of the Pope alone my Arguments proving he is fallible still whether alone or in a Council depending upon him as that of Trent You tell me I left the Roman Church because I saw the Bible prohibited in it to the People and the Liturgy performed in an unknown Language But tho that is a great crime of the Roman Church as I have declared in the precedent Chapter it was not the only cause others several grievous I produced more immediatly touching my own concern and daily practise wherein I could not continue with quiet or safety of Conscience You tell me I forsook a Church honored with many Saints for the Protestant Church whereof there was never yet any Saint If this be true S. Peter and S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were no Saints for I am certainly perswaded they were of the Church that I am of their Doctrine and their Faith and no other being taught in it But you speak with the vulgar of Protestants as condistinct from Roman Catholics Well and how come you to know that none of them was ever a Saint Were you in the hearts of all or did you sit in the Tribunal of God to know what degree of grace they had in his Soveraign inscrutable judgement What is rashness if this be not But you have titular Saints who have purchased that calling by public authority as Dukes Earls and Knights do purchase theirs of such we have none Then you speak of titular Saints not of real ones and upon this account you may not expect to win me from the Protestant Church to yours I hear of some Sectaries about us I know not where who style all of their Congregation Saints to this degree of Sanctity your Church did not aspire yet then if I am to remove to a Church of more titular Saints to these Sectaries I am to go not to you But you speak of Saints that come to Heaven and thither none may come but under the conduct of the Roman Pope he hath the keys of Heaven and none may go