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
Church of England which was taught by the Primitive Church first called Catholic and Apostolic and consequently is a Church truly Catholic and Apostolic according to the foresaid rule given us by Suarez and laid for a foundation of his argument to prove the Roman Church to be Catholic And truly it cannot but appear strange that any Christian not blinded with partiality or prejudice should imagine that the sacred Apostles intrusted to preach saving Doctrine to all the World should not have given a sufficient notice of it in the system of Articles they left to us That those venerable Fathers of the purer ages of Christianity congregated in the four first general Councils should give us but a diminute account of Catholic and Apostolic belief that the Popes Infallibility Supremacy and other articles of latter impression in the Roman Church should be so essential to Christian Faith as none may be saved without a belief of them This argument may be confirmed by the testimony of Athanasius related by Suarez in the chapter above mentioned num 2. saying that the collection of Articles contained in his Creed is the Catholic Faith haec est Fides Catholica c. this is the Catholic Faith which except a Man believe he cannot be saved but in the Church of England that Faith called Catholic and contained in the Creed of Athanasius is believed and professed therefore if any Church professing the Catholic Faith is Catholic it self the Church of England professing this Catholic Faith is truly Catholic The second foundation laid by Suarez in the same chapter n. 6. to prove that his Church is Catholic is to say that it did in all times profess the Faith of that Creed wherein the Church is called Catholic But the Church of England does and alwaies did profess the Faith of the same Creed therefore it has the same right to the like calling The third foundation laid by Suarez from the 15. num of the said chapter is a sign or distinctive used by ancient Fathers for to know a Church or Congregation truly Catholic and to distinguish it from another not Catholic That whensoever any Sect takes its name from the master or teacher of such a Doctrine and the followers of it do call themselves by such a name neither the Doctrine nor the followers of it are Catholic For which he alledg'd the testimony of Athanasius Chrysostom Lactantius and Others And the reason or cause of this distinctive is that every Heresie brings in some novelty against the ancient Faith and new things must have new names whereby to be known and distinguished from others But it is very remarkable how this subtil disputant otherwise very exact and formal in his discourses pretending to rob the Church of England of the name of Catholic by the principle now mentioned comes to confirm the same name upon it not finding it capable of the foresaid note of a Sect not Catholic For pretending to name it from Calvin he finds an obstacle in it because Calvin do's not approve a chief Doctrine of it Then he passes to call it Henrician from King Henry the Eigth because from him the Church of England did learn to acknowledg the King for Head or supreme Governour of the Church in his own dominions Against this also he meets with several obstacles to which I will add this other very considerable that this practice of the Church of England is by many ages more ancient then the time of Henry the Eight whereas it allows no other Supremacy to our King over the Church then such as the Godly Kings of Israel and the Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church did exercise in their respective Dominions as is declared in the 37. Article and in the second Canon of the Church of England Since Suarez can not find the name of Lutheran Calvinist Henrician or any other taken from any particular Author or teacher to be agreeable to this Church it must follow from the above mentioned note of a Catholic Church delivered by him and taken out of ancient Fathers that it is a Church truly Catholic that being the only name it self own 's And the Preachers of it praying for our King do stile him Defender of the Faith truly Catholic and Apostolic and King James in his Monitory to the Emperor and other Christian Princes stiles himself Defender of the Faith truly Christian Catholic and Apostolic of the ancient and Primitive Church and we do all pray heartily that our Kings may never defend any other Faith then this CHAP. II. Suarez his argument taken from the propriety of the word Catholic applied to prove that the Church of England is truly Catholic THe fourth foundation laid by Suarez in the 14th Chap. of his foresaid Book to prove that the Church of England is not Catholic he takes from the propriety meaning of the word Catholic He supposes that according to the etymology of the word in Greek Catholic is the same as Vniversal or Common which Universality he saies is fourfold in relation to the present purpose First as to the matter or object of our belief that it be entire comprehending all points belonging to Christian and saving Faith Secondly that it have an Universal or common reason of belief which common reason or rule must be Divine truth or the Word of God whereby he gives testimony to truth according to that expression of Saint Paul 1 Thess 2.13 When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us ye received it not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God Thirdly Universality is required in relation to the degrees and orders of persons according to that description of a Church given by Optatus Milevitanus Lib. 2. contra Parmenianum Certa membra sua habet Ecclesia Episcopos Presbyteros Diaconos Ministres turbam fidelium that the Church has its certain members Bishops Priests Deacons Ministers and a Congregation of the faithful The fourth and chief universality required for the propriety of the name Catholic is that a Church to be such be extended over all the parts of the Earth according to the declaration of the said Optatus Lib. 2. Contra Donatistas ubi ergo erit proprietas Catholici nominis quod sit rationabilis ubique diffusat that the propriety of the name Catholic requires it should be a Church rational and diffused over all places Suarez endeavours to prove that all these proprieties of Universality belonging to a Catholic Church are wanting to this of England that it may be called Catholic First as to the material universality or integrity of Articles necessary to a Catholic Faith he pretends that the Church of England is deficient in several Articles as he promises to prove elsewhere but at present singles out as chief that of the Popes Supremacy which the Church of England denies and he promises to prove that it belongs to a Catholic Faith I commend Suarez his ingenuity and
belief the Word of God contained in the Gospel and in the other Canonical Scriptures while the Roman preaches articles coined by her self and never given to the Apostles to be preached as we shall shew abundantly hereafter refuting the errors of it CHAP. IV. The Church of England proved to be Apostolic upon the foundation laid by Suarez to rob it of that Title SVarez after having used his best endeavours to deprive the Church of England of her right to the name of Catholic with so little success as we have seen in the precedent Chapter he passes in the 17. Chapter of his foresaid Book to rob it of the name of Apostolic so to deprive King James of the title he gives himself of Defender of the Faith truly Catholic and Apostolic To prove that the Faith of the Church of England is not Apostolic he laies this foundation that two things are requisite to make a Faith or Doctrine Apostolic The first that it proceed in some manner from the Preaching words or writings of the Apostles Secondly that it be conveyed to us by legal tradition and succession The first is contained in those words of St. Paul Ephes 2.19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and forreigners but fellow Citizens with the Saints of the houshold of God are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The second requisite is declared by Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. in these words Traditionem Apostolorum in omni Ecclesia adest perspicere quae vera velint audire habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos Who are willing to hear truth must look upon the tradition of the Apostles in all Churches and we can number those that were ordained Bishops by the Apostles and their successours to our own times Suarez pretends these two requisites to be wanting in the Church of England to merit the Name of Apostolic First saies he because the Doctrine of it was not preached by the Apostles neither was it taken out of their Doctrine or conveyed to us by lawful tradition Against which position he brings King James protesting himself to believe admit and reverence the Canonical Scripture the three Creeds and the first four General Councils in which sacred fountains he judged the Apostolic Faith to be contained and Suarez acknowledges that King James spoke herein not only his own sense but the sense and belief of the whole Church of England which is no small glory to it But how can Suarez make out that the Apostolic Faith and Doctrine is not sufficiently contained in those sacred Fountains of the Scriptures Creeds and Councils received by the Church of England See Reader and admire his answer Tho the Doctrine of the said Books considered in it self saies he be Catholic Apostolic Faith or rather a part of it for he pretends that all Catholic Faith is not contained in those fountains yet as it is received by sectaries either it is not Apostlic or it may not be certainly taken for such First because they cannot be certain whether those Books they receive be Canonical or the Councils legal Secondly that they cannot be certain of the true meaning of the Scriptures Creeds or Councils So that in conclusion the Divinity of our Saviour preached by a Romish Priest is Catholic Apostolic Faith but not so when preached by one of the Church of England I should indeed think this only consequence to be a sufficient confutation of this unhappy subtilty of Suarez but further to his reason when effectively we are secured that the Scripture received by us is truly Canonical and Divine and our adversaries do allow it what need is there for quarrelling about the grounds and motives of our security therein and touching the sense both of Scripture Creeds Councils the * Se tria symbola in eo seâ—su interpretari quem illis esse voluerunt Patres atque concilia a quibus funt condita atque descripta saying of K. James related by Suarez n. 9. that he does take the Creeds in the same sense which the Fathers and Councels by whom they were made were willing to give to them well considered is both pious and prudent When the words of a Scripture or article are capable of different senses all consistent with Christian verity and none repugnant to sound Doctrine it is bâ—t Catholic prety to suspend a firm assent to one and keep a readiness to adhere to what may be the real intention of the sacred writer For example that article of the Apostles Creed touching our Saviours descent into Hell is capable of different senses in relation to the Hell he descended into It s a groundless conjecture of Suarez that King James and the Church of England with him should deny a real descent and say he did suffer the pains of Hell in the garden as may be seen by the grave discourse of learned Dr. Pearson now Bishop of Chester upon that article We believe he descended really into Hell that is to say into some place under the Earth it may be without any absurdity to the Hell of the damned as declared in the second part of this Treatise c. 27. But whether it was that Hell or an other subterranean place he descended into we may with piety and prudence suspend our judgment having no Divine oracle to ground upon the determination of the place And Suarez gives us a signal example of this resignation of our intellects to the intention of the Writer in a matter less sacred then the Articles of the Creed I mean the expressions of Popes touching Indulgencies Finding insuperable difficulties in giving a congruous sense to terms of that art which appear non-sense as those of plena plenior plenissima full more full most full If full or plenary how can another be more full c. He confesses not to understand the propriety of these and other expressions used upon that Subject but will rest upon the judgment of the Church which knows the meaning of those measures as will be seen in the 39. Chapter And certainly all those of his party have need of this kind of resignation to rest upon if they will have quiet for there is no article of Creed or Council without diversity of Opinions touching the true meaning of it among their Doctors But this Author has more to say to us that the points wherein we differ from the Roman Church were never taught by any of the Apostles For example saith he to make the King Supreme Governour of the Church this nettles him still what place of Scripture what History do's warrant this Doctrine What Christian or Godly King did practise such a Supremacy over the Church to which I say that we have a warrant for this subjection to our Princes in the words of St. Paul Rom. XIII 1. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher powers where no distinction is
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
sake forsooth then would you be obliged to rebel against him because say you with Bellarmin in dubious Cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope Men are apt to doubt of their duties and the Devil is ready to stir such doubts in them Thus he wrought the first Rebellion in Paradise Cur praecepit vobis Deus c. Why hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden And if the Pope comes out declaring that it is lawful and religious to rebel you must practice accordingly tho Scripture and reason makes you know that Rebellion is an heinous vice This is the great power of the Pope you teach to metamorphose vice into virtues and virtues to vices It is a common boast of your stout Bigots to say that if the Pope did prohibit them to say the Lords Praier Our Father c. they would not say it tho Christ did order them to pray so To that of the Council of Constarce you say it is false that they alledged no other reason for prohibiting the Cup to the Laity then the Decrees of precedent Popes You affirm they alledged also for reason the example of Christ and his Apostles who gave it in one kind whereby it appears you did not read the Council Read the thirteenth Session of it where this matter is handled and there you shall find no montion of Christ and his Apostles to have given the Sacrament in one kind but the contrary is supposed as appears by these words of the Decree Quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie postea à conficientibus sub utraque à Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur That tho the Sacrament of Communion in the Primitive Church was received by the faithful under both kinds for the future it is to be received by the Priests consecrating under both kinds and by the Laity only under the Species of Bread It is therefore from your self you say that Christ and the Apostles did administer it to the Laity under one kind and the Council do's not pretend to know so much only alledges the custom formerly introduced saying Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia Sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta diutissime observata sit habenda est pro lege That this custom being reasonably introduced and long time observed by the Church and holy Fathers it is to be taken for a Law Here you see no mention made of Christ or the Apostles to have don so as you say Upon what ground you do not tell us you will have it taken upon your credit By saying that I may flatter the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by telling him he hath more power in this Kingdom then the King his Master in whose place and name he acts because I accused you of giving more power to the Pope then to God by these priviledges of giving to divine Law what sense he pleases and overthrowing the Ordinances of Christ to set up his own by this your expression I say you are twice criminal in a hainous degree First for imagining it should be a way to flatter my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to say he had more power in Ireland then the Kings Majesty which he could not hear without horror and indignation Secondly for the falsehood of your supposition to frame your parity When or where did the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland say that notwithstanding the King of England did ordain this or that for the Government of Ireland himself would order the contrary as your pretended Vicar of Christ said in the Council of Constance now mention'd that notwithstanding Christ did order the Communion to be given in both kinds to the Laity he did order himself the contrary And all this senseless and groundless extravagancy you run upon only to find occasion of talking to us of a halter after your wonted grave and modest sâ—â—le But being convinced of a false accusation you deserve by the law of retaliation the punishment due to the crime you do so falsly impose upon us Certainly that of the ducking-stool will appear in all good judgments both due and necessary to so foul a mouth Another Example I produced of your extolling Papal Laws above the Divine in the case of Costerus saying It s a greater sin in a Priest to marry then to keep a Concubine the former being but a transgression of a Papal Law the second of a Divine You answer p. 173. that tho it be but a Papal Law that Priests should vow chastity yet the vow being made it is a trangression of Divine Law to violate it Consult your Casuists Sir and you shall find them all say that a vow made in any matter opposite to Gods orders is null or invalid There is an order of God intimated by St. Paul to the unmarried that if they cannot contain let them marry 1 Cor 7.9 Possible it is that a Priest should find by experience that he cannot contain This you will not deny Then the vow appears to be null because by it was promised a thing contrary to that order of God intimated by St. Paul and consequently the obligation of it ceaseth only the Popes Law prohibiting Priests to marry urgeth To it is opposite that other intimated to the unmarried if they cannot contain let them marry Which of these Laws or Orders must be observed If you say the Popes Law as Costerus do's then follows the Conclusion that you prefer the Popes Laws to those of God You may exclaim at this but you see the Premises containing in them the Conclusion is inbred undenied doctrine among you CHAP. XIII Our Adversary his foul and greater Circle committed pretending to rid his claim to infallibility from the censure of a Circle His many absurdities and great ignorance in the pursuit of this attempt discovered A better resolution of Faith proposed according to Protestant Principles I accused our Adversaries of a Circle committed in their pretence to Infallibility because they prove it by Scripture and the Infallibility of Scripture they prove by the infallibility of their Church which is to go still round in a Circle Mr. I. S. to wind himself out of this Circle presents to us a resolution of his Faith containing in it a greater Circle or many Circles together Having premised some trivial notions to ching the obscurity of Faith and evidence of credibility required to the assent of it he falls on extolling the power and aptness of Miracles to beget such credibility reducing all to the advantage of the Roman Church authorized with Miracles as he pretends and from page 180. he enters into his resolution of Faith thus You ask why I beleive the Trinity I answer because God hath revealed it You ask why I believe that God revealed it I answer because the Church by which God speaks tells us so You ask why I beleive that God speaks by the Church I must
not answer because the Scripture says it neither must I answer that I beleive God to speak by the Church because she works Miracles Here I am to doubt whether this be the same man that spoke to us a little before p. 177. and more at large p. 102. extolling the force of Miracles to beget an evidence of Credibility in the proposer of divine Verities or another of his Auxiliaries that came in his place to carry on the work without regard to what the former said But whoever he be let us see how he disputes against Miracles If the Miracles be absolutely evident says he they can be no motive of Faith which is of its own nature obscure and if they be but morally evident Miracles they can not be the motive because the motive of Faith must be infallible How blind is the attemt of this Man against Miracles how destructive of his own purpose How absurd and ridiculous his argument against Miracles I have declared above in Chap. 9. whither I remitt the Reader Now let us see this mysterious work of our Adversary go on Having excluded Miracles from ascertaining us of the credibility of the Church proposing doctrines to us he tells us how we must answer that question Why I beleive that God speaks by the Church and it must be thus because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her and I am obliged to beleive be speaks by her because he doth credit her with so many Miracles and supernatural marks which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her If it be the same Man that wrote the whole page it cannot but appear a wonder that having employed his skill a few lines before in weakning the force of Miracles to ground the infallibility of the Church on he should now take up the same Miracles for his ultimate reason of beleiving in the Church As a nice Man who throwing away the paring of his apple and checking his companion for eating his without paring fell immediatly after upon eating the paring he threw away To cast a patch upon this foul breach of coherence in reasoning our Adversary shuffles in a distinction betwixt the motive of our act of Faith and the motive of our obligation of beleiving which indeed is nothing else at the present then Culicem excoriare to flay a flea after much ado to do nothing The present question immediatly proposed is why am I to beleive that God speaks by the Church the only reason he gives for beleiving in the Church is Miracles What needs that distinction of motive to my beleif and motive to my acknowledgment of obligation to beleive the same reason that makes me beleive intimates to me my obligation of beleiving The primitive Christians who heard the Apostles preach and saw their Miracles knew nothing of these distinctions Seing those Servants of God confirm their doctrine with Miracles they beleived God spake by them and for the same reason or motive thought themselves obliged to beleive them If we have the same Faith that the primitive Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch had as Mr. I. S. says p. 183. why shall not we go the same way to beleive as they did But our Adversary is upon a design of imposing upon us a Faith which the Apostles did not teach which he discovers clearly tho happily not so much to his own knowledg p. 184. in those remarkable words The cheif and last motive whereupon our Faith must rest is the Word of God speaking to us by the Church The Church I say by which God actually in this present Age speaks unto us for we do not beleive because God did speak in the first second or third Age by the Church c. Here you see Reader a plain Confession of the great guilt of the Roman Church deserving the most severe resentment of all true Christians that glorious truly Catholic Apostolic and holy Church of the primitive Ages excluded from the office of being Mistress of our beleif and the Church of this corrupt Age governed by the most corrupt Court in the World if we are to beleive them that are best acquainted with it that of Rome substituted in her place And as this is proposed by our Adversary without any proof so it ought to be rejected by all true Christians with indignation Only I will reflect upon the inconsequence of the Man and how farr he is from his purpose of ridding himself from a Circle in resolving his Faith All that great Labyrinth he works from p. 176. to p. 184. in order to declare his procedure to each act of Faith and able to puzzle the best understanding will certainly be requisite in his opinion to proceed to this last act of Faith which he will have to be the guide of all others that the Roman Church of this Age is infallible in teaching what we ought to beleive This being as he says an act of divine Faith I mean that the Pope with a Generall Council such as that of Trent is infallible in proposing matters of Faith how shall he go about to resolve his Faith upon this particular point Certainly thus according to his former discourse I beleive that the present Church governed by the Pope of Rome in the Councill of Trent is infallible and God speaks by her because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her and I am obliged to beleive that God speaks by her because he credits her by so many Miracles and supernaturall marks which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her These are Mr. I. S. his own words and his Confession of Faith set down in the 181. page of his Book And while the Reader reckons how many Circles he committs here endeavouring to rid himself of one I ask of him where be those Miracles wrought by the Fathers of the Councill of Trent and the Popes moderating in it to breed in me an evidence of credibility that God spake by their mouth as the Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch saw the Apostles work for believing that God spake by them being he says I must take the objects of Faith upon credit of the present Church and that credit must be grounded upon Miracles and supernaturall marks appearing for it Will he have us prefer his forg'd Miracles in favour of his newcoin'd-newcoin'd-Faith to those wrought by the Apostles in confirmation of the Faith preached by them Turn Reader to what I said to this purpose in the 9. Chapter of this Treatise The more I consider this resolution of Mr. I. S. his Faith the less I find in it of resolution and the more Circles and obscurities Now I enquire of him further why doth he exclude the Church of the first second and third Age from the office of declaring Gods will and word to us He answers because the declarations of that ancient Church are known to us onely by tradition and tradition says he is not the motive but
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.
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 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
the Canons and rites of the Catholic Church With Thomas Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury they begin their quarrel Against him the Kings and Clergy of England Becan insults thus Legitimè consecrati non estis A quo enim an à Rege at is consecrandi potestatem non habet An ab Episcopo Cantuariensi vel aliquo simili ne id quidem Nam Thomas Cranmerus qui sub Hemico 8º Cantuariensem Episcopatum obtinuit non fuit consecratus ab ullo Episcopo sed à solo Rege intrusus designatus igitur quotquot ab eo postea consceratisunt non legitime sed ex praesumtione consecrati sunt You are not lawfully consecrated for by whom were you Whether by the King but he has not power to consecrate or by the Bishop of Canterbury or some other such neither that truly for Thomas Cranmer who under King Henry the Eighth obtained the Bishopric of Canterbury was not consecrated by any Bishop but intruded and designed by the King alone therefore as many as were afterward consecrated by him were not consecrated lawfully but by presumtion I cannot but note Becan's disingenuity in deluding thus his Reader as if he would have him believe that the Kings of England did take upon them to consecrate Bishops themselveâ— or to thrust into the Government of Churches men not consecrated contrary to what he knew well or might easily know to be true having Popes Cardinals Priests and Jesuits to aâ—â—ertain him of it such as were Clement the seventh Paul the fourth Cardinal Allen Parsons Kellison whose manifold testimonies of Cranmer to have been a true Bishop Mason relates lib. 2. cap. 7. adding for farther evidence this following testimony of the time place and persons ordaining him out of the public Records Thomas Cranmerus consecratus 30. Martij 1533. 24. Hen. à Joh. Lincolniensi Joh. Exoniensi Hen. Asaphensi Against all these evidences Henry Fitz Symonâ— takes up the cudgils in defence of Becan's assertion that Cranmer was not consecrated by any Bishop but a meer Layman intruded upon that see of Canterbury by Henry the Eighth his sole will This he promises to demonstrate à gravissimorum totius gentis authorum monumentis consularibus actis by the testimonies of the most grave Authors of the Nation and public Act of Parliament Seeing these big words and knowing upon what subject I could not but sigh and grieve remembring how these Rhetoricians do delude poor credulous People with such swelling phrases founding high in the eares of Boies and Women and of Womanish weak Men whereas being touched close they are found to be no better than a bubble floating pompously and containing nought but wind Where he promises the testimonies of the gravest Authors of the Nation in favour of his pretension he only brings one testimony and of whom of some impartial writer No but of * Sander de Schism lib. 3. pag. 296. Sanders the most passionate and bitter Enemy of the reformed Clergy that could be named But even his testimony how much to Fitz Simons purpose he relates these words of him Henricus 8. radix peccati cum ab Ecclesia sede Apostolica Regnum suum divisisset decrevit ne quisquam electus in Episcopum bullas Pontificias vel mandatum Apostolicum de consecratione requireret sed regium tantum diploma afferret Henry the Eâ—ghth the source of evil having separated his Kingdom from the Church and from the See Apostolic hath decreed that no Bishop elect should look for Bulls from the Pope for his consecration but only should bring the Kings Patent And here Fitz Symons stops fraudulently pretending his unskilful Reader should understand by those words that the King did give the title of Bishops without any consecration But the words following of Sanders do overthrow his purpose which run thus Sed Regium tantum diploma afferret secundum quod à tribus Episcopis cum consensu metropolitae ordinatus jubebatur lege comitiorum facta ad imitationem antiquorum canonum esse verus Episcopus nec alio modo ordinatum pro Episcopo agnosci oportere That he should bring the Kings mandat according to which the person ordained by three Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitan was by Act of Parliament made in imitation of ancient Canons declared to be a true Bishop and that any person otherwise ordain'd should not be taken for a Bishop And is this to say that Henry the Eighth should give the title of Bishops to and intrude upon Churches Persons without any consecration Truly this defence of Becan by Fitz Symons is like the cause defended both guilty of fraud and disingenuity so as we may call it malae causae pejus patrocinium of a bad cause a worse defence * Keâ—lison in replic contra Doct. Sut. p. 30. Kellison is more ingenious saying thus Cranmerum verè ordinatum non nego quia ab Episcopis Catholicis munus consecrationis accepit ita vixisse eum mortuum esse verum Episcopum fateor I do not deny that Cranmer was truly ordained having received his ordination from Catholic Bishops so as I confess he lived and died a true Bishop Let now the Author of Britonomachy I mean Fitz Symons come and reconcile this piece of Romanomachy In the mean time be it concluded that their testimonies against Cranmer are like those of the false witnesses against Christ which did not agree together Mark XIV 56. And let that blessed Martyr canonized by Christ for such where he declared blessed them that suffer persecution for justice as Cranmer did for doing justice to his King and Country in maintaining their right against the tyrannical usurpations of the Court of Rome let him I say enjoy in glory the indelible character of Bishop which all the malice of his adversaries will never be able to take from him And let their calumny against the Church of England be confounded wherewith they pretend the ordination of our Clergy to have been vitiated in that of Cranmer By this it appears that all Bishops made in King Henry the Eighth his reign were true and lawful Bishops as being consecrated by three Bishops and according to the accustomed rites of the Catholic Church it being a 25. Henr. 8. c. 20. enacted then that the Consecrations should be solemnized with all due circumstance and moreover that the Consecrators should give to the consecrated all benedictions ceremonies and things requisit for the same And if thing essential were abolished or omitted certainly Sanders speaking purposely of this point would not have concealed it But he rather saies plainly b Sanders de Schism lib. 3. p. 29â— it was King Henry's will that the ceremony and solemn unction should as yet be used in Episcopal Consecration after the manner of the Church But the c â— Mariae sess 2. c. 2. Statute of Qu. Mary putteth the matter out of all doubt enacting that all such Divine service and administration of Sacraments
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
Doctrine of Purgatory Indulgences veneration and adoration as well of Images as of reliques as also of the invocation of Saints is absurd and vainly invented nor is grounded upon any authority of Scripture but is rather repugnant to the word of God Upon which Article N. N. delivers this heavy censure that it is false profane and Heretical But in the whole discourse of the second part of this Treatise I will demonstrate God willing that it is rather true Religious and Catholic as also I do intend by the help of God to vindicate the rest of those Articles in a separat Treatise from the cavils of Alexander White and other Romanists whereby N. N. will find how much he is mistaken in taking the said Alexander White 's Book against the thirty nine Articles for unanswerable as certainly he is far mistaken in saying resolutely tho without having any ground for it that the aforesaid White hath bestowed more time and deliberation in quitting those Articles then I have don in deserting the communion of the Roman Church Seven years he saies Mr. White spent in deliberating upon his resolution but certainly I have spent many more years in deliberating upon mine How many they were as it is not easie to demonstrate so it is not material to tell men may deliberate long and err at last in their resolution To my reasons alledged for that resolution which I took I appeal and do willingly expose them to public view and examination that others as well as I may judg of the weight of them Very foul and slanderous also has bin the mistake of our adversary in saying that the Authors of our 39. Articles were only some few obscare men Priests and Friers run out of Germany and that by them the Church and Kingdom of England was governed in the Reformation of their Religion How false their report is may appear by the public Records and Histories of the Land and by several Acts of Parliament passed with great deliberation of all the States of the Kingdom upon the settlement of the Reformation and of those Articles as well in that great Synod or Convocation celebrated under Edward the sixth in the year 1552. above mentioned as also an other no less famous Synod held at London ten years after viz. 1562. wherein the said Articles were reviewed examined and confirmed I have seen among Seldens Books kept in the Bodleian Library of Oxford an Authentic COpy of these Articles printed at London in the year 1563 and a scroul of parchment annexed to it with the subscriptions by their proper hands of the members of the lower house of Convocation being all Deans Arch Deacons and procurators of Clergy which I found to be in number 104 besides the Arch-Bishops and Bishops sitting in the upper house whose names came not in my way to see but I am to suppose they were all the Prelates of the Land as they used to meet in Convocation And is this to shuffle up a Reformation and make Articles in clandest in manner without due examination as our Adversary would make his Reader believe CHAP. XVIII A view of N. N. his discourse upon Transubstantiation and upon the affinity of the Roman Church with the Grecian THo N. N. had declared his purpose in the beginning to deal with me not Scholastically but Historically yet it seems he would not part with me without disputing upon the point of Transubstantiation He alledges testimonies and Fathers and miracles in favour of it and pretends it to have bin a Doctrine of more ancient standing then the Lateran Council To all which I have given a full answer in what I have delivered by my discourse formerly printed and in what will follow in the second part of this Treatise from the 18. Chapter forward Only I will reflect here upon two or three very gross mistakes of N. N. in his present discourse with me upon the point The first is touching my belief of this great mystery He saies resolutely without giving any ground for his saying as indeed he could have none for it that I do not believe Christ to be really present at all in this Sacrament why then saies he should he dispute with us about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeing he flatly denies the body and blood of Christ to be really and substantially present in the Sacrament But good Sir where have you seen this flat denial of mine certainly not in my declaration which seems to be the object of your quarrel not in the 39. Articles not in any public Catechism or system of Doctrine generally received by the Church of England nay the Catechism approved by autority and commended to the use of all being inserted into the Common Praier Book delivers the Doctrine quite opposite For to the question proposed touching the inward or invisible part of this Sacrament this answer is returned The Body and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lords Supper And is this to deny flatly that the Body and blood of Christ is really present in the Sacrament as you impute to us When a Jesuite in Germany broached the like calumny in a conserence had with some of the English nobility waiting upon our King in that Country in presence of his Majesty and of a Prince Elector in that Empire both his Majesty and the Noble-Men took offence at his Speech as being a foul Calumny and therefore desired the Reverend and Learned Doctor Cosin Bishop of Durham to vindicate the Church of England from that a spersion as he did abundantly in a very learned Tract published under the title of Historia Transubstantiationis Papalis Wherein he proves by the Articles public Catechisms and by the testimonies of several * Vide Jacobum Armac in resp ad Malon Mont. Norw in Antidiatribis Laud. Cantua in resp ad Fish Hooker Polit. Eccles l. s Joh. Roffens de potest Pap. in prae fat stat Prime Elis. c. 1. 8. Elis. c. 12 13. Elis. c. 1. grave and learned Prelates that all true Protestants especially those of the Church of England do constantly believe and profess that Christ our Saviour is really and substantially present in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist and his Body and blood really and substantially received in it by the faithful and accordingly he alledges the learned Bilson B. of Wincl ester declaring the belief and Doctrine of the Church of England touching this point in the words following Eucharistiam non solum figuram esse Corporis Domini sed etiam ipsam veritatem naturam atque sul stantiam in se comprehendere ' That the Eucharist is not only a figure or representation of the Body of our Saviour but that it comprehends also the very truth and nature and substance of his body The very same Doctrine is contained in the 28. Article of the 39. above mentioned in these words The Body of Christ is given or taken and eaten in the
of a Bell calling upon all at set hours to prayers in the Chappel to which they assist with singular piety and gravity If I look upon the people flocking to their public Churches on holy daies the very silence and modesty of their carriage in the streets gives me a Testimony of their inward good disposition and when they are come to the Church each one retires to his respective seat all being decently severed to avoid confusion and disorders Divine Office is performed in a most grave and decent manner all fitted to the benefit and spiritual food of souls so as if any Hymm or Psalm be sung with more exquisite music the Chanter or some other of the Quire admonishes the people what Psalm or verse is to be sung that seeing it in their Books they may be furnished with the sense that thereby the music may work better on their minds to devotion so great a care is taken that in all we pay to God rationabile obsequium a rational service with sense and feeling of what we do What if I consider the admirable devotion and reverence wherewith they go to receive the sacred Communion far greater then ever I saw with Papists tho pretending to believe something more they know not themselves what about the presence of our Saviour in that Sacrament then Protestants do A spectacle of this kind certainly grateful to God and to his Angels which I saw in Christs Church of Dublin on Resurrection Sunday last year sticks fast in my memory with joy The most Reverend the Lord Arch-Bishop of Dublin Chancellor of Ireland having performed the Communion office with singular decency and good order he took himself first reverently the sacred Communion and gave it to the Minister of the Altar then to the Lord Leiutenant to the Peers and the Roial Council and to a numerous concourse all receiving it with singular devotion having for associates in giving it the most Reverend the Arch-Bishop of Armagh Primate of all Ireland the Right Reverend the Bishop of Meath the chief of the Bishops of Ireland after the Metropolitans and three dignitaries of the Church Doctors in Divinity to administer the Cup each one making a Godly brief exhortation to the receiver for a due receiving of it the Lord Arch-Bishop having read at the Communion Table a grave and pious Homily exhorting to a right preparation for receiving that venerable Sacrament as is usually don in all Churches upon such an occasion Go now Mr. I. E. and compare these practises of piety and devotion with your number of Ave Marias ran over Beads of stick or glass sitting or walking and mixing with them several talks to the people about you with your Mass mumbled over in hast and the people thronging to have a sight of the Priest and a touch of the holy water without understanding a word of what is saying This is your ordinary course of devotion and spiritual assistance given to your people if some particular persons will not provide otherwise for themselves And you speak to me of your deiform intentions of ravishing devotions c. I saw much of those devotions among your Extatics and in them much of delusion cheat and vanity I wish I may never see more of them What shall I say of the preaching used in the Protestant Church truly Apostolic and godly all delivering doctrinam sanam irreprehensibilem sound and blameless doctrine I may say with truth that I never saw a Protestant preacher yet giving a Sermon that was undecent or unbecoming that place not so with you There would I see frequently shewers of non-sens madness and blasphemies preached one to magnify his order will make his Frier a Cherubin another to out go him will make his a Seraphin and another thinking that but a small purchase will set up his Saint higher then Jesus Christ and the holy Trinity with other desperate essaies like those I produced above chap. 26. This lofty style certainly you missed in me when you tell your reader that tho I was a professor of Divinity yet not of any solid intensive learning a Pag. 56. In Epist de dicaâ— and in all the Doctors of the Protestant Church when you stile them ignorant Sciolists Good Lord who knows them and knows you as any may by your goodly Book what will he judg of your presumtion Finally will you tell me what purchase did you expect to make by your defamatory Libel to get the credit of an eminent Scold I confeses you deserve it and the highest chair appointed for persons of that quality And as for me you have confirmed me in the esteem of the election I made and in the acknowledgment of the great mercy of God in drawing me out of a Congregation where the spirit of fury and untruth animating all your Libel is countenanced If we are to believe you and shall we you had the boldness to present it to a most illustrious person whom I forbear to name for very reverence fearing an offence even in mentioning that so durty a piece of Paper should be put into such hands You tell us moreover that it was published by the approbation of your Superiors If it be so certainly God has turned the counsel of your Ahitophels into foolishness Let any man that hath not lost his wits judg whether it be tolerable that men who profess to be poor and humble should speak so scornfully and contemtuously of so great and illustrious a part of Christianity as we have seen the Protestant Church to be whether it be prudence in persons complaining that they are persecuted for their Religion and under the lash of a Protestant Government to cock and insult upon their masters with barbarous abusive language and most gross and manifest calumnies Mr. I. E. knows that in two visits he was pleased to bestow on me after he had honor'd me with his famous Libel excusing the harsh Language of it I told him my discontent was not for any injury don to me but for the prejudice I conceived such undiscreet writings would bring upon his poor Countrymen and mine of the Romish Communion of whose wellfare I could not omit to be solicitous and grieve for the harm they have received often by the means of blind Zelots Truly I was much pleased with the knowledge he seemed to have of my temper very alien from spite or malice and of the spirit of the Protestant Church in coming so freely to me after such heavy affronts published by him against both I do admire and honor the singular patience and Christian modesty of the English Government in not being to severe as Romanists are where they can command in punishing such proceedings and if Mr. I. E. and his council were wise they should rather honour then abuse this modesty of their Masters When I consider the different procedure of the Protestant Church and of the Romish with their desertors I am strongly confirmed in the choise I made If
any person departs from the Protestant Church to the Romish they neither curse nor rail nor plot against his life or credit they onely commiserate his fall and pray for him that God may convert him Herein appears the spirit of Christ his meekness and charity But when any comes from the Romish Church to the Protestant he may be sure to have curses calumnies affronts conspiracies against his life and repute follow him while he lives A strong point of policy apt indeed to terrify weak minds that they dare not desert their quarrell but a policy dictated not by that wisdom that is from above peaceable gentle full of mercy c. Jam. 3.17 but from that other called by the same Apostle earthly sensual devilish v. 15. Learned grave and civil discourses about Religion such as those of Isaac Casaubon with Cardinal Peron and Fronto-Ducaeus of Peter Wading with Simon Episcopius and the like I shall alwaies honor and willingly entertain but with scoulds I do not love to spend my time And so I leave you to God Mr. I. E. to direct you while I enter into Lists with an other pretending to subtilty in reasoning the case with me Which is to be the second part of this Book FINIS TRUE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH maintain'd in the CHVRCH of ENGLAND THE SECOND PART TRUE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC FAITH Maintain'd in the CHURCH of ENGLAND PART II. Being A Survey of Mr. I. S. his Book Entituled The unerring unerreable Church CHAP. I. An Anatomy of Mr. I. S. his Genius and drifts appearing in his dedicatory Epistle to my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland THE dissections of Anatomy discover imperfections and diseases in the vitals and other exterior parts of the body which a fair skin or cunning dress hides from the eies of a common beholder In like manner a Scholastic examen will lay open the faults and corruptions both in the essential and ornamental parts of a discourse which upon a transient view appear plausible and commendable Unto a mind clouded with passion and prejudice and the favour of an espoused or the dislikes of an adverse party the writing of Mr. I. S. may appear without blemish or fault but an incision being made the flesh and the skin being cut off it will be found void of truth in the proposal of force and form in the argumentation sincerity in the design and lastly modesty and ingenuity in the style and terms which are the several requisites that can make a writing in any degree worth the reading This kind of Anatomy I will now take in hand and by no other art then plain incision shall with truth and perspicuity discover the fallacies and gross errors of the before mentioned Author who delivers boldly his judgment upon what he do's not understand or if he were not really ignorant yet delivers unsincerely and misrepresents those things of which he treats all which I shall demonstrate in the following Chapters After several attacks made by I. E. N. N. and others upon my small Book upon my self and the Church of England comes up confidently to complete the victory Mr. I. S. as Scipio Africanus to the Seige of Numantia to amend the errors of the preceding warriors And to appear a Scipio indeed in his present adventure he promises himself so to beset and straighten us as to make us burn our selves as the Numantines did to prevent their falling into the hands of the Roman Conqueror To compass this magnificent design he proposeth to the Earl of Essex Lord Lieutenant of Ireland my good Lord and Patron in the dedicatory Epistle of his book to his Excellency that I should be burned for a crime he calls a Blasphemy wherein all the learned men of the Church of England are involved with me viz. to say that the Roman Church as now it stands is not a secure way to Salvation And the executioner of this severe sentence passed upon us by Mr. I. S. must not be the Inquisitor of Rome or Spain but our own Kings Prime Minister and Lieutenant in the Kingdom of Ireland He allow's me so much wit as to know that I could not justifie my separation from the Church of Rome if I did hope to be saved in it whereas believing I may to forsake it were a formal schism thus much of wit he doth very injuriously deny to all other learned Protestants saying that all allow the Roman Church to be a secure way to Salvation which is to say they are all confessedly Schismatics The inference is but too clear from his Positions confusedly delivered if thus ordered All men that separate from the Roman Church knowing and allowing it to be a safe way to Salvation are formally and confessedly Schismatics all Learned men of the Church of England do acknowledg and allow the Church of Rome to be a safe way to Salvation Therefore all of them are confessedly and formally Schismatics This Thesis Mr. I. S. presents to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to win his favor To clear the ground of all this discourse and see how bold and blind was the attemt of Mr. I. S. his charging me with Blasphemy see the occasion given to him for it that in the page 226 of my book according to the first Edition of it at Dublin rebuking their ordinary vaunt wherewith they delude the simple saying that Protestants do allow Papists may be saved but Papists do not allow that Protestants may be saved c. I delivered these words following but in neither do they say truth for no Learned Protestant do's allow the Popish Religion in general and absolutely speaking to be a secure way to Salvation for all do agree in affirming that many of their Tenets and practises are inconsistent with Salvation tho ignorance may happâ—ly excuse many of the simple sort but not such as know their error or with due care and inquiry may know it On the other side c. This has netled the poor man to rage Happily he found himself to be of those who know or with due enquiry may know the damnable errors of the Roman Church Now I desire the judicious Reader to consider with what propriety of terms Mr. I. S. calls it a Blasphemy in me to relate this sentiment of Learned Protestants Tho I were mistaken to call such a mistake Blasphemy is extravagant language Three kinds of Blasphemy I find mentioned by Aquinas and other Schole-men 1. To appropriate to God something unbeseeming 2. To deprive him of a perfection due to him 3. To attribute to a creature any of Gods properties To which of these classes will Mr. I. S. reduce my mistake if it be not so what I relate of learned Protestants That one of those who sit in the Market-places selling roots should call it a Blasphemy in another of her trade to say that her Turnips came out of Flanders not being so may be a cause of laughing but that one pretending to learning and a disputant in divinity should
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
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
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
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
Parisian Doctors in their Declaration against the forementioned Thesis of Clermont Colledg presented to all the Bishops of France extant in the hands of many both in French and English And if their reason exhibited for their censure be considered well we shall find it to comprehend Mr. I. S. his opinion no less then that of the Clermont Jesuits since both the one and the other do bottom the pretended Infallibility of their Church upon the Popes Autority whether in a Council or out of it and so the reason of the Parisian Divines doth conclude in either case that it is a Blasphemy injurious to Jesus Christ to ascribe to the Pope that Infallibility which Christ alone possesses and that men should render that Supreme Cultus of Divine Faith to the words of the Pope which is only due to the word of God The allegations of our Adversary for obedience due to the Church as to Christ and of promises made of the assistance of the Holy Ghost to the Apostles and the Church governed by them will appear very impertinent to his purpose in favor of the Pope and his faction when we come to examine the Texts alledged for which I will assign the Chapter following In the mean time we may conclude from what is said in this Chapter That to ascribe Infallibility to the Pope is Blasphemy in the opinion even of Popish Doctors and Mr. I. S. his pecular way of defending that tenet declared for heretical by Doctors of his own party which was my present undertaking To which may be added the opinion of Mr. * Tabul Suff. cap. 19.20.21 Thomas White of the same Communion whose whole Book called his Tabulae suffragiales is purposely designed against this doctrine of the Popes personal Infallibility affirming it to be not heretical but Archiheretical and that the propagating of this doctrine is in its kind a most grievous sin so weary men of Learning and Parts begin to grow of this intolerable Arrogance of the Roman Church or Court and of their Flatterers CHAP. VII Our Adversaries corruption of Scripture detected OUR Adversary certainly never look'd into the Bible for the Texts he alledges for the Infallibility of his Church but snatch'd them out of some of his old Controvertists whose custom is to clip and cut Scripture to their own pretences without regard of their true meaning Or if he has seen them with their contexts he has bin strangely dull in not perceiving the right sense of them very obvious to any ordinary good understanding or malicious in misrepresenting the meaning of them This is especially seen in his Allegation of these words Joh. XV. 26. When the Paraclete will come whom I will send from my Father the spirit of truth he will give testimony of me and ye will give testimony This he will have us take for a certain testimony of the Holy Ghosts assistance promised to his Church If he did see the half verse immediatly following which he left out or his Tutors cut off he would find that these words were spoken to the Apostles with circumstances making them impossible to be applied to his Church The verse restored to its integrity saies thus And ye also shall bear witness because ye have bin with me from the beginning What man in his senses would think those words appliable to the Council of Trent Were the Fathers of that Council with Christ from the the beginning was the Holy Ghost not yet descended He confirms further his opinion out of Acts the XV. 28. where the Council of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem deciding the controversy concerning Circumcision delivers their opinion thus It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us signifying that the Holy Ghost did assist them and that grounded on the words aforesaid of our Saviour Joh. XV. 26. When the Paraclete will come he shall give testimony of me and you shall give testimony of me If that be the ground of the Apostles Phrase we have seen before to whom that promise was given whether to the Apostles alone or the Bishops of Rome to be for ever We have seen that the Text in its integrity cannot be applied to the latter But Mr. I. S. of his own autority declares that promise was made by Christ not only to the Apostles but to the Roman Church for ever And to make this latter Text sound somthing like to his purpose he patches it up with a piece of a verse fetch'd out of Matth. XXVIII Vntil the consummation of the world This usual art of theirs of cutting from the Texts what is against their purpose and patching them with other words far fetch'd that may have a gloss or appearance of their pretention may be practiced with more safety in conversation or in a Sermon to a vulgar Auditory then in a serious debate by print exposed to a strict examen This is a cheat like that used in Italy with rotten Apples to set them out for sound They cut off the rotten pieces and glue together the sound fragments to an appearance of a fair Apple but being handled more close it falls in pieces and discovers the cheat This abominable Legerdemain is too often seen in their Pulpits fathering upon the Gospel forsooth most execrable Blasphemies extolling their several new Saints to whom they would gain devotion and by that devotion mony to their Coffers above the Apostles above the Angels above Christ and all that is in heaven to the perpetual scandal of the discreet part of their own flock and edification of none All is sanctified with them by repeting at the end of every desperate discourse some words of the Gospel as a burden of the song tho with no relation in its sense to their purpose This is the art Mr. I. S. useth with the testimony related of Acts XV. touching the assistance of the Holy Ghost in the Council at Jerusalem grounded as he confesses upon the aforesaid Text of John XV. 26. declared to relate only to the Apostles then present and Mr. I. S. of his own head will have it extended to the Roman Church for ever and his Interpretation must be taken for Canonical Scripture by closing it up with this fragment of the twentieth verse of Matthew the XXVIII Vntil the consummation of the world The Text he corrupts and cuts off Matth. XXVIII contains a promise of Christ to the Apostles and Church founded and Faith preached by them that he will assist them for ever saying I am with you all the daies until the consummation of the world St. Hierom better then Mr. I. S. will tell us the meaning of these words glossing thus upon them qui usque ad consummationem seculi cum discipulis se futurum esse promittit illos ostendit semper esse victuros se nunquam à credentibus recessurum In these words our Saviour promises to his Disciples life everlasting and to the Church founded by them and to all true believers in him his
perpetual assistance This assistance of Christ to his own true Church following the steps and doctrine of the Apostles we believe with joy but cannot approve the Arrogancy of Mr. I. S. and his brethren in appropriating all such promises to their own Faction and perpetually taking for granted in his Debates with us that to be the only Church favoured by such gracious promises being indeed but a very corrupt Member of the Church Universal to whom these promises were made a thing which we do not say barely but prove evidently Another example of their skill in clipping and corrupting Scripture he fetches out of the same Store-house upon the words of John XIV 16. I will pray the Father and he will give you another Comforter the spirit of truth that will abide with you for ever who will lead you unto all truth I discovered their abuse of this Text by restoring it to its integrity which according to their own Bible goes in these words If ye love me keep my commandments and I will ask my Father and he shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive By the first words we see this to be a conditional promise limited to such as love God and keep his Commandments by the latter words worldly and sinful men are expresly excluded from receiving that gracious assistance of the Spirit of truth for which meaning of these words I related the Gloss interlineal and ordinary This discourse our Adversary opposes thus that after the former clause if you love me keep my commandments there is a punctum and then follows a distinct verse and I will ask my Father and he will give you another Paraclete c. which makes an absolute sense independent from the former This is indeed a subtilty well becoming a Sophister as if a punctum may not be interposed betwixt several clauses of one discourse tending to the same end or betwixt premises and a conclusion deduced from them as if the copulative particle and did not signify a conjunction of both clauses and an influence of the one upon the other as if all that were not cleared by the words I quoted in the Margin of the Gloss interlineal Mundus i. e. remanens amator mundi cum quo nunquam est amor Dei and of the Gloss ordinary non habent spirituales oculos quibus Spiritum Sanctum videant mundi amatores Here we see both Glosses denying the effect of that glorious promise to profane worldlings and consequently the promise made only to lovers of God and keepers of his holy Commandments If our Adversary were ingenuous he would spare his silly subtilties seeing them obstructed by this stating of the case CHAP. VIII Mr. I. S. his horrible impiety against the sacred Apostles and malicious imposing on the Church of England reprehended ANother grand Argument he has which he saies resolutely I can never answer is this that if the foresaid promise John XIV 16. was conditional as above-mentioned it follows we cannot be sure the Gospel is infallible whereas no Text of Scripture saies he pag. 89. tells us that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel nor nothing else gives us assurance of it My first answer to this so unanswerable Argument is that if this man had delivered this expression in Spain and were accused to the Inquisition his body would suffer for it if his intellect were not reduced to acknowledg and repent the horrid impiety of it And I am certainly perswaded that there is no Christian that has any sense of piety in him whether Protestant or Papist but will cry out with horror against the insolent impiety of this man in speaking so irreverently of those sacred Organs of the Holy Ghost and blessed Disciples of Christ confirmed by him in grace as is the common apprehension and expression of Christians and replenished with the Holy Ghost Act. 2.4 for whose perseverance in grace our Saviour praied so fervently to his heavenly Father as we see in John the XVII 11. Holy Father keep through thine own name those thou hast given me Upon which words Maldonate delivers this Gloss Non rogat Christus ut nunc à peccatis liberentur sed ut jam liberati in eo statu quo erant conserventur ne quis ab eâ decedat gratiâ quam consecutus suo erat beneficio quemadmodum Judae contigerat That our Saviour praied for their perseverance in grace that none of them should fall from it as Judas did And will this rash man say that the praier of our Saviour was not heard nor his request granted by his heavenly Father in favor of his beloved Disciples If he will not be so profligately impious how dares he say that no Text of Scripture tells us that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel nor nothing else gives us assurance of it If his Book did contain no other crime then this unchristian expression any true disciple of Christ and believer of his Gospel ought to judg the said Book more worth the burning then the reading He is not yet contented with the damnable expression fore-mentioned but must raise his censure against the truth of the Gospel of Christ to a higher degree p. 89. saying that not only we are not sure of the Infallibility of the Gospel but that we are assured it is not infallible and this horrible Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and the Gospel dictated by him he must father upon the Protestant Church but upon a ground so much of his own making that any dispassionate man and not blind may see the whole assertion to be his own and a product of his inclination which appears here and in many other places of destroying the foundations of all Christian Belief The ground he gives for this latter most damnable Blasphemy is That the common doctrine of the Protestant Church is That it is impossible to keep Gods Commandments therefore saies he The Evangelists when they wrote did not keep Gods Commandments and consequently they could not have the Paraclete to lead them into truth I never yet heard any Protestant deliver such a desperate proposition as this he fathers upon them which thus delivered categorically without further declaration or limitation were to say it were impossible for any man to be saved our Saviour often declaring that the only way to life everlasting is to keep Gods Commands It were also to give the lie to our Redeemer saying that his yoke is easy and his burden light Mat. XI 30. and that his Commandments are not grievous 1 Joh. V. 3. If he knows any Protestant Writer to have delivered that position in that latitude why do's not he tell me who he is and where he saith it that I may judg accordingly of the Author and of the Doctrine Must I take it upon his credit having so many experiences of
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
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
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
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