〈◊〉 ut dicitur cane Incomparabiliter enim pulchrior est Veritas Christianorum quam Helena Graecorum c. Such I say is my Petition presented to our Doctor and if the Love of Truth bears sway in his Breast yeeld he needs must to a speedy retractation Nothing can Retard him from so generous a Resolution but either Motives of interest drawn from a naughty World or his own once vented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So forsooth he hath said in his Disswasive and so it must stand though all run to Ruin and Christianity suffers The Doctor I confess hath been most Unluckily in broaching Heresies and wanting Grace to retract them Some years are now past since he was so Unfortunate as to become a Patron of the Pelagian Heresie when ex professo he Writ a Book against Original sin and stoutly defended it and being Friendly told by his own Brethren that what he said was not only opposite to Catholick Faith but also to the very Doctrine of the Church of England expresly deliver'd in her Liturgy in 39. Articles in the Office of Baptism c. He had yet the boldness to deny all and assert that the Church of England held not Original Sin though both Prince and Prelate knew then and believ'd the contrary I know not that he ever yet Recanted this Heresie if not 't is now high Time to do it and with it to Weep for the Errors in his Disswasive if he fails in both Duties the World will say and say truly that Dr. Taylor is Notior peccans quam paenitens more known for his Sin then for his Repentance and may Prudently Judge that he of all others was the unfittest Man to Write against Popery that disowns the Doctrine of his own Church unless this makes him fit that being a Pelagian his Words though he multiplies Volums will want weight against Catholicks For this is my reflection and I think a true one that this man who dar'd to say that the Church of England holds not Original Sin so plainly taught and believ'd by all will not Boggle to miscite the Fathers remote from our knowledge Read by few and Understood by fewer Farewel Gentle Reader with a thousand well-wishes for thy profitting by this Treatise I bestow as many on Dr. Taylor whose Enemy God knows I am not Nor can he think me one for laying out his Errors and telling Truth Upon this very Account he ought and I hope will to return me Thanks If now I Merit none I may hereafter have better Luck and deserve them If plain dealing may do it he shall have Reason to account me as indeed I am his Faithful True SERVANT and Friendly ADVERSARY E. W. QUOTATIONS Faulty in DOCTOR TAYLORS PREFACE To the READER TO destroy Tradition not contain'd in Scripture the Doctor cites Tertullian thus I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenes fear the Wo that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it I answer the Dr. turn's the true genuine sence out of this whole sentence chiefly by these guileful particles of his own making And if it be not written which seem exclusive of all unwritten tradition yet this Authority no more relates to Catholick Doctrine concerning Tradition then a Fable in Esop Briefly therefore Tertullian disputing against Hermogenes that held these visible things were created of I know not what prejacent matter speaks thus Lib. adversus Hermog Antwerp Print cap. 22. page 495. In principio c. In the beginning God made heaven and Earth then adds Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem I adore the fulness of Scripture Wherein in what doth he adore this fulness He answers Qua mihi factorem manifestat facta I adore the fulness of Scripture that doth manifest to me both the Maker and things made As who should say in this particular the Scripture is compleat and I adore its fulness c. Now these last words Qua mihi factorem c. which explain the Fathers sence our Dr. wholly omits and beguiles his Reader with these perverted particles if it be not written Tertullian after those words In Evangelio vero amplius goes on An autem de aliqua subiacenti materia facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi Whether all these things be made of a subjacent matter I never yet read Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Let Hermogenes his Work-house shew us that this particular is written Si non est Scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum If this thing now in controversie concerning the prejacent matter Hermogenes asserts be not written let him justly fear that Wo destin'd to them that detract from Scripture or add to it Here is exactly the whole context of Tertullian and it renders this sence Hermogenes holds the world made of a strange unknown matter The Scripture directly tells us how it was made and Created of nothing I adore the fulness of Scripture in this particular let therefore Hermogenes when the Scripture hath clearly said all that belongs to the first Creation of things prove by Scripture that unknown matter he defends if he cannot he may well fear that Wo threatned to such as detract from Scripture or add to it a prejacent matter never mentioned in it Judge good Reader whether this Quotation have so much as a likelyhood of gain-saying any constant received Tradition in the Church The Dr. may reply as Hermogenes added to Scripture his unknown matter so we add our unknown Traditions I answer first what Hermogenes defended was not only an addition but expresly contrary to Holy Scripture declaring that God made the VVorld of Nothing No Catholick Tradition is expresly or positively opposite to Gods written VVord unknown tradition we own not 2. Hermogenes had no such approved consent for his foolery as we have for our Catholick and ever received Tradition justly therefore did Tertullian oppugn him by the Authority of Scripture only for destitute he was of all warranted Tradition 3. The Doctrine of our Tradition not a pretended one or any superaddition of new Articles as the Dr. imputes to us is expresly allow'd of by Scripture it self the place is known 2 Thessa 2. 14. and enervates what ever hath the colour of an objection against us He cites next St. Basil de vera fide whose words are these Paris Print 1618. Tom. 2. page 251. Haud dubie manifestissimum hoc infidelitatis argumentum fuerit signum superbiae certissimum si quis eorum quae Scripta sunt aliquid velit rejicere aut eorum quae non Scripta introducere VVithout doubt this is a most manifest Argument of infidelity if one will reject any one of those things which are written these words our Dr. omits to make the Quotation sound to his sence or of those things which are not written introduce to wit into Scripture and so the St. explicates himself clearly in these following words Vehementissime
interdicat ne quid corum quae in Divinis literis habeantur dematur aut quod absit addatur VVhich is in plain English to say Add we must not nor diminish any thing in Scripture No Catholick pretends to make that Scripture which is not Scripture Nor to diminish so much as one jot in that sacred Book You see therefore so forceless this Authority is to gain-say received Tradition that it doth not so much as touch upon the very Question As proofless also are those other two Quotations in the Doctors Margent out of St. Basil's Morals for regula 72. C. 1. in the same Edition page 372. He only speak's as the Apostle doth Though an Angel Preach another Gospel then what is Preached let him be Anathematized and reg 80. cap. 22. pag. 386. he saith no more but that we must believe the true force of those things that are in Scripture reject nothing or make any thing new extra divinam Scripturam that is as I interpret without the warranty of Scripture but the Scripture indubitably warrants the declarations of Councils witness the Nicen definitions and constant received Tradition of the Church Therefore this Authority also is wholly impertinent to the Doctors purpose VVho next to oppose Tradition cites Theoph. Alexandrinus in English thus It is the part of a devillish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the Authority of Holy Scripture I Answer here are three faults in this one Quotation First The words are not faithfully cited Secondly They are weighed outof their circumstances and wrested contrary to the Authors meaning Thirdly VVere they as the Doctor would have them they prove nothing against Tradition Briefly all know how sharp an Adversary Theop. Alex. was to Origen and his followers He writ expresly against his errors but that work is not extant and in his 2. Epist paschali cited by the Doctor you have it Tom. 4. Biblioth Patrum Cullen Print 1618. pag. 716. after he had checked Origen for his rashness for broaching Fopperies of his own head and arrogantly making himself his own Master contrary to St. Pauls Humility who conferred the Gospel with other Apostles He speaks thus of Origen solely Sed ignorans quod Daemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humanarum mentium sequi aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum But not knowing that it is an instinct of a Devillish spirit to follow the sophistry or deceit of mans VVit these words which fully express the Authors sence our Doctor totally omit's or to think any thing divine not authorized or without the Authority of Holy Scripture So Theophilus who as you see wholly here relates to Origen's private errors condemns his Pride opposeth his sophistry and boldness in making himself a master of new Fancies but toucheth not the least on Catholick Doctrine concerning unwritten Tradition and though the Doctor draws him to such a sence it is soon answer'd that Catholick Tradition so expresly approved by Scripture cannot be thought a Doctrine extra Scripturae authoritatem without warrant of Gods Word Now if he tells us that he opposeth not any ancient Tradition but our pretended one only that found 's New Articles New Propositions c. I Answer He meerly combates with shadows we neither own such a Tradition nor can the Doctor prove it He should have first named one or two of these New Articles and then assaulted us with the Authority of Fathers directly opposite to our Doctrine and not winck and fight as he doth against no man knows what If he says again that he impugns all Tradition in general all Doctrine not expresly contain'd in Scripture forced he is not only to throw away Scripture it self and the Nicen definitions not only to disclaim a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence Baptizing Children c. but every tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestanism E. G. the belief of two Sacraments only which is not at all contain'd in Scripture nor can it be drawn from Scripture by any probable discourse or gloss of Protestant testants though these are worse and less able to derive unto us a true belief then the poorest tradition were any such that the Doctor can except against in the Catholick Church When the Doctor pleaseth I am ready to discuss this sole point with him of proving Protestant Tenets by Scripture only I believe he will not accept the Challenge Against the worshipping of Images he cites Lactantius lib. 2 cap. de Orig. Error observe I beseech you Lactantius hath seven Books de Divin Instit adversus gentes the Title to his second Book is de Origine erroris which contains ninty Chapters and our Doctor unskilfully throws the Title of the whole Book into a Chapter not found at all in the Author either in my Copy ann 1465. or in that extent Biblioth Patrum saeculo 3. pag. 224. However Chap. 18. these words are found Quare non est dubium quin religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est which the Doctor unworthily translates thus Without all peradventure wherever an Image is meaning for Worship there is no Religion I say unworthily and it pitties me to see so much want of candor for here a sence is rendered as if Lactantius declaim'd against the use and worship of Images among Christians whereas it is more then evident that he only speaks against Simulacra not Images against the Idols and Gods of the Gentils Non sub pedibus quaerat Deum saith he in the beginning of this eighteenth Chapter None is to seek for his God under his feet Nec a vestigijs suis eruat quod adoret Nor pull from under his footsteps what he is to adore Sed quaerat in sublimi quaerat in summo Let him look for God above in Heaven c. The Worship therefore of one Supream God Lactantius chiefly presseth in this whole second book In his first Chapter he tells us that he had above demonstrated the false Religion of many Gods and that in this second Book he declares against the Gentils the cause or Origen of their multiplying many gods In his second Chapter he saith That though the Image of a man absent be necessary yet to circumscribe God diffused every where in any form is both needless and superfluous afterward he shews that no deceased men nor any thing in this world ought to be adored as God In his fourth Chapter he gives this reason Unde apparet istos deos nihil in se habere amplius quam materiam de quâ sunt fabricati These gods have nothing but only the matter they are made of In his eighth Chapter he proposeth the question how these false Gods of the Gentils did work strange wonders and prosecutes the same subject in his ninth Chapter In a word Lactantius through this whole Treatise speaks no more against the Catholick use of Images then I do now while I defend them yet hear we must the Doctor talk and without
Truth Will out OR A Discovery of some Untruths Smoothly told by Dr. IEREMY TAYLOR In his DISSWASIVE From POPERY With an Answer to such Arguments as deserve ANSVVER By his Friendly Adversary Ed Worsley Ergo inimicus vobis factus sum verum dicens vobis Gal. 4. 16. Printed in the Year 1665. THE EPISTLE To the READER WE say all is not Gold that Glisters and that Most worth lyes not ever hid under a fair Outside A Comet seems sometimes as glorious as a Star a Parelion like the Sun and Falshood got under a handsome Visard well trim'd up may take with many and pass Disguised for current Truth But such slight Beauty beguiles not long True Worth undoes it The Suns lasting Glory the Stars constant Brightness enough Dislustres both Parelion and Comet And Truth though perhaps it may not here quite vanquish Falshood for Some will Defend it to the Worlds end is able at least to pull of it's Gaudy Visard and put it out of Countenance A World of this Counterfeit Lustre we have now a days in Books set forth as is pretended to Beautifie the Heaven of Christianity and Englighten a People that sit in Darkness One I have met with 't is the Disswasive from Popery that Parelion like in a Triple Cloud is as I am told Gloriously out in three Editions and lately appeared in the two Kingdoms of England and Ireland More I believe have been Gazing on it then well discovered the faulty Lustre Real Worth I cannot mention for what find we I beseech you considerable in this Book but a useless Repetition of old defeated Objections which have now for a whole Age run through a few Vulgar worn-out Controversies and in Rigor require only a Return of the Old Answers given a hundred times by Catholick Writers new Arguments which one might have expected from so Great a Doctor seldom appear You have moreover more then a few Mistakes relating to Catholick Doctrine Want enough of Divinity A seeming Zeal 't is true but ill season'd with Jeers and harsher Language Calumnies vented Talk and no Proof Here is what I think the Doctor must own the Inside and best substance of his Disswasive The Flash therefore and fair Lustre of his Book lies neither in the choice of Matter nor manner of handling it but in specious Quotations that flourish in the Margents These set down in the ensuing Treatise I have carefully examined Read with my own Eyes in the Original Authors not one have I taken on trust and after a diligent search must profess with all Candor not one worth notice have I found but 't is either wholly impertinent to what he would Prove or strangely wrested to a sinister Sence or not found at all in the Original nor a Word like it Or finally which is most usual and to be pittied in a Doctor unpardonably corrupted To insist on every less valuable Authority or on such as shew themselves Profless even Read in the Disswasive would be Time mispent and weary a Reader These I offer to your View are of the grosser Sort and Numerous enough to Evidence that the Doctors pretended Faultless Book is Proved Faulty and no more powerful to Disswade from Popery then Error is to draw men from Truth Far am I off from the Doctors Humour in Judging this small Treatise Faultless I willingly acknowledge many Faults but know not how to mend Them One is no little want of English but this I hope dear Reader you will easily Pardon I am sure you would did you but know how long I have been a Stranger to my Country An other is too tedious a length sometimes in Latin Sentences The Fault if any is unavoydable For while the Charge is laid on ill Quotations the Right ones must appear and in their proper Terms To give an Authors Meaning only and Wave his Words seems Forceless And in stead of laying Difficulties may Raise up more Where it most Imports I have done my best to English the Latin faithfully Ad pedem literae the Translation therefore cannot but look Rugged yet that is better then to have the Genuine Sence miscarry in smoother Language Lastly a harsher Word may perhaps through hast or unawares have casually fallen from me if so I here unsay it and Humbly crave Pardon And were my Papers now out of my reach in my Hands again I would in this Correct whatever might justly seem offensive If Doctor Taylor shall please to warn me of greater Faults I 'll thank him for his Charity And if he thinks it worth his Pains to take notice of my Exceptions against his Book my earnest Request is that he mispend not Time in Trifles nor weigh only lesser Matters while he hath greater charged on him that justly require Satisfaction For Example I have plainly tax'd him of wrong done to Sixtus Senensis to the Expurgatory Index to Petrus Lombardus Otho Erisingensis and others in the beginning of my Treatise let him as plainly Purge himself in these Particulars and shew me my Error for most certainly I have either wronged him or he these Authors I press him afterward with undeniable Authorities of most Ancient Fathers both for the Use and Worship of Holy Images His express Answer is herein required also chiefly to St. Basil and St. Iohn Damascen I have told him of his Forging strange Doctrines and Fathering them on Tolet Suarez Bellarmin Emanuel Sa and others If he be injured he can Right himself and shew where Sa affirms That if a man lies with his intended Wife before Marriage it is no sin or a light one Whether the true Sence of Bellarmin in his Quotation pag. 167. be not wholly perverted If the Pope should Err by Commanding c. These for an Essay only more you will have and of greater Concernment hereafter May it please the Doctor to clear himself by a solid Answer he 'll hearten me to Reply Or if he can produce against me but one Quotation so fowly amiss as that one Charg'd on Emanuel Sa to say nothing of many worse I do here profess a Readiness and will comply with it to publish my Fault to the Whole World O would he Encourage himself to proceed with like Candor and unsay only what his own Conscience knows Faulty in his Disswasive he might be Eternally Glorious And why should I forbid my self to hope for so Laudable a Retractation Justice requires it Conscience forcibly presses Truth that suffers strongly Pleads for it Christian Humility easily submits And Gods Victorious Grace is now no less Powerful to do this Work on him then once it was to Reclaim a Blessed St. Austin Quare Arripe obsecro te they are the Pious and well meant Words of this Saint Tom. 2. Epist 9. to a Great Doctor and my Submissive Petition to Doctor Taylor Arripe obsecro te ingenuan vere Christianam cum charitate severitatem ad illud tuum opus corrigendum atque emandandum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
regret Next he saith It cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church And I think by his Marginal citation he directs me to Ioannes Driedo de dogm lib. 4. cap. 3. This Chapter hath 13. or 14. Leaves in Folio and three parts in it The Doctor might well have quoted the part had he ever read Driedo But let that pass I answer Driedo hath nothing for the Doctors purpose but expresly the contrary thus part 2. cap. 3. Folio with me 227. Primus Simon qui dicitur Petrus Mat. 10 Hoc autem non potest intelligi quod Petrus fuerit primus tempore aut vocationis ordine quoniam Andreas prius secutus est Christum quam Petrus c. dicitur ergo Petrus esse primus Apostolorum dignitate praelationis potestate St. Mathew reckons of St. Peter as first But this cannot saith Driedo be understood that Peter was first called for Andrew Was before him and first followed Christ Peter therefore is stiled the first of the Apostles because of his Dignity and Power of Superiority And this Principality Driedo earnestly maintains not only in St. Peter but in every lawful elected Bishop of Rome Vide folium 229. Part 2. Omnes saith he ab initio Ecclesiastici Pontifices Patres Martyres Universalis Ecclesiae concilia honoraverunt Romanae Ecclesiae Pontificem tanquam supremum Universalis Ecclesiae Episcopum All Bishops from the beginning The Fathers Martyrs and Councils of the Universal Church have ever honoured the Pope of Rome as the Supreme Bishop of the Universal Church And here is enough of the Doctors 10th Section for what he saith of the African Fathers opposing the Pope is handled so often that 't is time lost to repeat it So also is that which he hints at out of the Council of Calcedon giving equal Rights and Preheminency with Rome to the Patriarck of Constantinople I answer briefly This is most untrue the very Decree were it Authentical gives him only the second place as is manifest by these words Secundam post illam existere that is next after Rome I say if the Decree were Authentical for it was both clancular and surreptitious procured by Anatolius and his Confederates while the Popes Legates were absent This manifestly appears both by Pope Leo his Letters to Anatolius and the attestation of the whole Council which I have read more then once and am ready to maintain what I say against Dr. Taylor or any body else CHAP. XI Of the Doctors harsh Doctrine concerning speedy repentence after sin Of his mistakes and wronging Authors IN his 11th Section pag. 71. he hath little worth notice a croud of Controversies you have superficially run over E. G. Invocation of Saints in sufficiency of Scripture Nine penny Masses and I know not what lightly are they touched on by him without proof and let them on Gods name as lightly pass without answer Page 72. he cites the Cannon Law de consecrat distinct c. peracta where it is said that Consecration finished all are to Communicat c. for so the Apostles appointed and the Church of Rome holds Had the Doctor the Marginal gloss upon this Chapter he might have seen that this Ancient Law is now no more in force and this by the permission of the Church obliging only to Communicate once a year O but the Apostles appointed it So they also appointed Act. 15. v. 20. To abstain a suffocatis sanguine from strangled meat and blood Doth the Doctor comply with this precept Every positive Law even of the Apostles had not always force in after ages I wonder he cites this Law against us while Protestants themselves do not observe it doth every one that is present at service Communicate when the Minister makes his Caena but what will you there is neither Consecration nor Communion The rest that follows in this Section is most empty stuff Page 75. cap. 2. Sect. 1. he much reprehends Catholick Doctors who teach that a sinner is not bound presently to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it He adds pag. 76. Though the Church calls on sinners to repent on Holy days or at Easter yet that by the Law of God they are not tyed to so much but only to repent in the danger or article of Death Mark the word only And for this Doctrine he cites the Famous Navar in his Enchir or Manual cap. 1. num 31. Answ I see he never read Navar for he neither gives you the Right number nor his Doctrine exactly the number with me in his Manual printed at Antwerp 1601. is num 27. The Doctrine thus after Navar had declared that the other two affirmative precepts of Baptism and confession do not oblige under pain of a new sin but in time of necessity Ita saith he per consequutionem praeceptum affirmativum de se convertendo non obligat sub paena novi peccati Lethalis nisi in articulo necessitatis in illo vero sic quamobrem ad praedictam paenitudinem concipiendam tenebimur imminente articulo mortis naturalis vel violentae vel administrandi suscipiendique aliquod sacramentum imo etiam instante populi necessitate aliqua grandi cui absque orationis fervore provideri non posset So by consequence the affirmative praecept of converting one self doth not oblige under pain of a new mortal sin but in time of necessity and in that Article thus wherfore bound we are to repent in the imminent Article of death natural or violent or when we receive any Sacrament or any danger or great necessity presses on us not to be prevented but by ardent Prayer c. Perhaps the Doctor will say that these two last cases of the Sacrament or great necessity Per accident accidently oblige a sinner to contrition Be it so yet Navar saith not so much at least he doth not say that a sinner is obliged only to repent in the hour of his death It is one thing to oblige a sinner to repent when he is ready to dye and another to say he is only then obliged All sinners are certainly bound to repent then yet many great Divines add to this a further obligation and affirm that aliquoties in vita for some time in their life this Obligation lies on them I cannot but smile reading our Doctor pag. 76. whose whole aim is to shew out of our Authors that repentance is never necessary but in the hour of death only to see how unwarily he speaks from his own purpose while he makes Renaldus to say that a sinner is obliged to repent which is undoubtedly true He cites him Prax. Fori Paen. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sect. 4. n. 23. In English thus It is true and the Opinion of all men that the time in which a sinner is bound by the commandment of God to be contrite for his sins is the imminent Article of natural or violent death Let every ingenious Reader ponder these English words
In his 79. he excepts against our Doctrine of contrition and saith we allow it not valuable unless it includes a desire or will to confess our sins to a Priest Answ We do so and give this reason True contrition which reconciles to God votively at least implies a will of doing what God Commands But one Command is that we confess our sins to a Priest therefore true Contrition submits to it This proof is evident if God have laid a precept on us to confess to a Priest which by all Law of disputation we may here suppose until the Doctor shews the contrary Add to this what our Doctor hath page 101. viz. That confession is of excellent use among the Pious Children of the Church of England If so give me leave to ask him who Ordained this Confession God or the Church or whether there is Scripture for it or no if neither God Scripture nor Church warrant it it is an invention of man and may participate according to our Doctor of a devilish spirit consequently cannot be of excellent use among any c. Now if Scripture be for Confession if God or the Church have Ordained it the Doctor must say if he knows what true Contrition is that the Supernatural Act which reconciles to God doth of necessity imply Actually or Votively a serious will of doing what ever God Scripture or Church Commands us for to say I am sorry for my sin out of the Motive of Gods infinite Love I purpose amendment I 'll do his Will hereafter and not to say I 'll do what God Scripture or Church commandeth implies a contradiction in a word it is to say and unsay purpose and not purpose c. To confirme this discourse I have enough from the Doctor pag. 79. who saith that Genuine and true Contrition is a Cordial sorrow for having sinned against God c. Ending in a dereliction of all sin and a walking in all Righteousness I wish no more for this very walking in all Righteousness implies the obedience we give to Contrition and will make our good Doctor walk to Confession also if Scripture or Church have Ordained it for finners perhaps he may say that Confession is only of Counsel not of Command when I have his Scripture for such an assertion he shall have his answer fully In the interim know that it is but vain to talk as our Doctor doth of a repentance towards God as it were in abstracto without descending to the ultimate worth and Efficacy of it which as now I said includes a serious will of doing Gods Command This truth supposed with what conscience can the Doctor say that we prefer repentance towards men before that which the Scripture calls repentance towards God It is a flat Calumny and as ill intended as expressed improperly for in this Sacrament there is Confession to a man but what repentance is there towards men that we prefer before the Noble Act of Contrition which resting in God prefers him and his Commands before all things in the World A few lines after he saith pag. 80. As Contrition without their Ritual and Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us to God so Attrition with their Sacrament will reconcile the sinner Contrition without it will not Attrition with it will reconcile us And this Doctrine saith he is expresly Decreed at Trent I stand here astonished at this ignorance Do I read in a Doctor that Contrition without Ritual and Sacramental Confession doth not reconcile a sinner and that the Council of Trent Decrees this expresly I say first that the Council expresly declares the contrary Sect. 14. cap. 4. de contritione Docet praeterea Sancta Synodus Si contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contingat hominem Deo reconciliare prius quam hoc Sacramentum actu suscipiatur c. The Holy Synod teaches Although it sometimes falls out that this Contrition when perfect with Charity reconciles a man with God before actual taking of the Sacrament c. The words are contrary to the Doctors assertion and need no explication I say 2. It is the certain and constant Doctrine of Divines that Contrition proceeding from the Love of God or true motive of Charity in the very Moment a Soul hath it gain 's pardon reconciles to God disposes immediately to supernatural Grace whereby a sinner is justified and made an adopted Child of God and this I say In the very Moment a Soul hath it though Sacramental Confession follows not for weeks or months or by accident never for would it not be apittiful case to send a poor sinner to Hell who lies at deaths door or is mortally wounded doth his utmost to be contrite for his sins though neither Priest is present nor Sacramental Confession can be had or hoped for This very case is enough to unbeguile the Doctor and to satisfie him that we Catholicks are not so severe in exacting Sacramental Confession when either accident or necessity excludes a poor penitent from it I know not how the Doctor will come off and satisfie for the enormious injustice done both to the Council of Trent and all Catholicks but by one evasion that shall nothing at all avail him Perhaps he may tell us that when he says Contrition without Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us he only speaks of Votive Confession included in the Act of Contrition and not of Actual No I thought Ritual as he terms it and Sacramental Confession had been in plain English Synonimas or of the same signification with Actual Confession However if the Doctor understands it of Votive Confession read his words thus Contrition without Confession in Vote or desire reconciles not a sinner to God and this you must suppose to be his meaning Then know we Catholicks hold constantly that Contrition without the Vote or Efficatious will of Confession is no Contrition consequently all he proves is that that Act which is no Contrition doth not reconcile to God How then doth he advance any new proof against us Where lies the Mischief or Malignity of our Doctrine in saying that an Act which is no Contrition and submits not in Voto to Gods Command doth not reconcile us to God yet more If he speaks not of Actual but Votive Confession included in Contrition his whole discourse is lame hobling and renders you this Non-sence As Contrition without Sacramental Confession in Vote or desire doth not reconcile us to God so attrition with actual Sacramental Confession doth reconcile us which inference without life and vigor shews nothing to the Doctors purpose for what doth it avail him to say in this place as no Contrition doth reconcile us so Attrition with the Sacrament doth Had he said as Contrition with Votive Confession reconciles us to God so Attrition also with Actual Confession doth the sence had been good and Catholick But never shall he make sence out of these words As Contrition without Confession will not reconcile us
women may pray when they understand not things signify'd by words if they do not they pray not yet say Amen to all I dare a vouch it with certainty that there is not a Cobler or Taylor in our Catholick Town here who do not better understand the whole substance of Mass though in Latin then the generality of English men understand Dr. Pierce's Sermon Yet 't is printed for the profit of all Be it so or not I justify by the example now given and good reason against the Doctor that prayer in an unknown Language though the thing signified by the words be not perfectly understood is allowable and looses nothing of the essence of prayer I prove it thus Such a prayer known by the authority of the Church and consent of virtuous men to be good and pious though in an unknown Language may be offered up by an ignorant man both to praise Almighty God and to petition his Divine Majesty for a grace and favour just as one not knowing Latin may prefer a Petition to the Pope in that Language which containes both praise due to so great a Prelat and withall begg's a boon or favour of him Hereis our very Case The unlearned man knows not perfectly the Latin Service no more doth this ignorant Suppliant know his Latin Petition The first is assured by the greatest authority imaginable that the Latin Service ascribes prayse and thanks-giving to God and begg's a favour of him The second is assured 't is true by a lesser authority that his Petition runs on in the like nature if therefore this man who knows not Latin may petition and with hope of grace a Pope or Prince in Latin never shall the Doctor shew why an ignorant man may not also petition Almighty God in the same Language let the Doctor here give me but a shadow of any disparity and he shall be an Apollo Were it not over tedious I might give you with the learned Suarez the true reason of this doctrin briefly in words or writings you may distinguish a twofold signification The first is more general the second may be called specifical or if you please individual The general signification is had when we know that such a prayer is good pious and laudable But to have perfectly the specifical we must know the sense and meaning of the words To pray therefore well this knowledge is required that the prayer is a good and pious petition and as such uniting my self with all faithful Christians I offer it up to Almighty God though I comprehend not the ultimate specifical or individual signification of it May not I beseech you our Doctor say those words of the Royal Prophet Psal 68. and prayse Almighty God by them Si dormiatis inter medios cleros pennae columbae deargentatae c. Though perhaps he knows not perfectly the specifical signification of them Yes and so may an old woman do when she hears her Minister pray for Vrim and Thummim or to have his tongue touch'd with a coal c. Add to this and 't is worth reflection that beside the general knowledge poor Idiots have of the piety in Latin Service innumerable by continual use come to a specifical knowledge of most things said in holy Mass and more your poor Idiots in England know not either of those wordy extemporal prayers made by Ministers or of their affected and fruitless Sermons No Chrysostome no Ambros no Austin ever preach'd or pray'd like them But what will you Novelty in doctrin brings with it these new nothings in morality CHAP. XIX The Doctor yet holds on in quoting Authours amiss His Errors are discovered THe Doctor next cites you Salmeron saying that prayers prevail when they are not understood like the words of a charmer Answ Where saith Salmeron this The Doctor points to no place nor can he I believe if he cannot he both charms and cheats his Reader He cites next S. Antoninus summae part 3. tit 23. Answ That 23. title hath five long Chapters under it and every Chapter is yet further subdivided into several members sections or paragraphs and our Doctor neither gives you Chapter nor paragraph where we may find that prayer is like a pretious stone in the hand of an unskilfull man Nor can he I think for that 23. title treats de conciliis universalibus de differentia Papae concilii a matter remote enough from handling what prayer is Well but admit S. Antoninus say so there is nothing reprehensible The similitude is good if the unskilful man knows as well in general that he hath a pretious stone in his hand as the unlearned man that his prayer is pious The Doctor pag. 118 remits us to Jacobus de Graffiis de orat Answ I have 3. Tomes in a large 4 to of this Author and perusing the Index of the Title he hath in each Tome I find none de oratione Yet part 1. decisio Aurearum lib. 2. cap. 52. he proposeth this question Qualiter dicendae horae canonicae how our Canonical hours are to be said and he resolves the question thus num 3. Vt animus sit in divino officio attentus hoc est ut mentem habeat praefentem ad id quod dicitur nempe ut quod lingua foris personat mens simul intus concipiendo loquatur unde Augustinus Hoc versetur in corde quod proferatur ore That is that the mind be attentive in the Divine Office and it be present to what is said that what the tongue speaks the heart conceives according to S. Austin Let the heart speak what we say in words Thus much I cite out of Graffys to prove that the Doctors illation is far from truth in the beginning of his 118. pag. Therefore attention or devotion in our prayers is not necessary Immediatly after he quotes Cardinal Tolet lib. 2. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 13. whose words are these Circa modum c. concerning the manner how we are to say our Canonical hours it is to be observed that every one say them attentively reverently and devoutly Next he shews particularly what attention is requisit and saith in the second place that advertency to the sence of the words is not necessary and he affirms this most truly for few old women in England can attend to the sence of every word said by their Minister because they know it not Mark now a most strange illation of our Doctor so that saith he by this doctrin no attention is necessary Tolet sayes We are to say our Canonical hours attentively devoutly and reverently and the Doctor infers that no attention is necessary Whether such an unworthy dealing with so learned a man as Tolet was be tollerable let the world judge The Doctor pag. 120. would even tire a patient man with his tattle They in England saith he pray with the heart We the Church of Rome with our lips They pray We say prayers c. And what good Doctor do we say them
people to shew their Courage and Manhood rather in butchering Papists than breaking down their Images was it Rome I beseech ye then so opposit to Popery and Images that armed that Gallant Combatant and gave him his Theam or Text to preach on Was it Rome that deposed that suffering Lady the Queen of Scots our Sovereign King James his vertuous Mother That deposed Sygismond from his Kingdom in Swedland The Temporal Lord of Geneva from his Sovereignty The King of Spain from a considerable part in the Low Countries the Emperour from many rights in Germany Was it Rome that Licensed those Rebels in the Netherlands by publick Writings to renounce all Obedience to Philip their Lord and King To ravage as they did at Gant and Antwerp and other places to break down Altars overthrow Churches murther Monks bannish Bishops make havock of all What can the Doctor say to these unfortunate Tragedies though I have not told half of the doleful story related in the Preface now cited he answers in part well We reprove the men and condemn their Doctrine So do we also good Sir in case either Catholick or any offend and Unanimously profess with S. Barnard Paris print anno 1602. Epist 170. ad Ludovicum Regem pag. 1565. Si totus orbis adversus me Conjuraret ut quippiam molirer c. If the whole World should conspire against me or move me to attempt any thing against my Sovereign I would fear God and not dare to offend the King appointed by him For I know it is written that who resisteth Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and purchaseth to himself damnation Here is our Catholick profession Rome both thinks and speaks with us to take off the Doctors injurious charge laid on us in this Paragraph I have said thus much never intending to cast the least aspertion on any Protestant that is Loyal to his Sovereign Next the Doctor quotes Suarez lib. 6. defens fidei cap. 6. Sect. 24. Sa is also cited and Scribanius but without their places for this assertion An excommunicat King may with impunity be depos'd or killed by any one Answ He either never read Suarez or is unpardonably guilty of falsity For Suarez saith expresly n. 24. that this very proposition now uttered simpliciter prolata falsissima est simply spoken is most false and gives this Reason Excommunication alone and nudely considered impowres no body to kill the excommunicated party nor to deprive him of his Dominions but only debarrs him from communication with others Rex ergo excommunicatus c. A King therefore excommunicated only if the Sentence say no more cannot be deposed and killed by his Subjects or any saith Suarez 'T is true he adds a limitation which because I think the Doctor well understands not I omit to say more of A sufficient vindication it is to tel you that the proposition here set down for Suarez his doctrin is none of his and utterly false in it self Page 167. after Suarez he hath a bout with Bellarmin for a strange proposition and thus it is lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. Secundo Si autem Papa erraret c. If the Pope should err by commanding vice or forbidding vertue the Church were obliged to believe that vices were good and vertues evil unless it would sin against Conscience They are the very words of Bellarmin saith our Doctor Answ they are so but most unworthily weigh'd out of their circumstances and as they stand here alone seem to assert I know not what mischief or error whereas most certainly in the context of Bellarmin they have an excellent Sense and prove that neither Pope nor Church can err Observe I beseech you Bell. in his § above Ac ut rem totam saith it cannot be that the Pope err by commanding any Vice as Vsury or forbidding any vertue as restitution c. This he proves first § quod autem because the Church would not be called holy if he did so 2. Because if the Pope taught sueh a doctrine the Church would err in Faith for Catholick Faith assures us that vertue is good and Vice is evil Now saith Bellarmin and here are the misconstrued words of our Doctor if the Pope should err by commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue the whole Church would be bound to believe amiss which you see does not assert any error in Pope or Church but plainly excludes both and renders this Sense Most impious it is to think that the whole Church is bound to believe that Vice is good and Vertue naught therefore impious it is to judge that the Pope can err in commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue As if one should say wicked it is to hold that the whole body of Christianity believes amiss therefore it is impious to hold that God commands us to believe so In a word the whole discourse of Bellarmin is grounded on this Principle that the Pope as Pope cannot err and by destroying it saith this learned Authour you may see what follows an Universal Error or Misbelief in the Catholick Church This is most exactly Bellarmins Sense and for my Assertion I appeal to the judgment of every Ingenuous Reader And therefore cannot but pitty the Doctor and most of our Protestants too who poor men utterly destitute of all Antiquity will rather play at small Game then sit out piddle they must and glean in our Authours faults if fancied must be found words wrested Sence turn'd out of Sentences The least hint serves them to misconstrue all Thus they proceed though it cost them dear an Eternal loss of their credit CHAP. XXIX Of our Doctors failing in History Of his blaming Popes that are blameless A word of his Conclusion OUr Doctor having now wronged Suarez and Bellarm. sets fiercely against Popes and speaks of their wickedness also but handles the matter so confusedly that no Reader can be the wiser for any Story he tells us He neither names Pope nor quotes Authour for what he sayes but begins thus pag. 167. All the World knows what the Pope did to King Childerick of France He depos'd him and put Pipin in his place Answ I think the Doctor knows not this Story very well therefore all the World 't is like knows it not which he dispatches in a word and runs slightly over However you have it largely in Scipion Dupleix the Kings Counseller Tom. 1. intituled Memoires des Gaules Paris print 1627. pag. chiefly 282. Les Francois ont recours au Pape Zacharie c. where you shall read that the French men themselves tous les Seigneurs all the Nobles saith Dupleix page 283. finding the great inabilities of Childerick and unfitness to govern a Kingdome stood for Pipin petitioned the Pope upon weighty Reasons to dispense in their Oath of Fidelity made to Childerick the Pope condescended but saith this Author page 286. si aucuns c. if any of the ancient Chronicles have attributed this great change to the Pope they have writ both ignorantly
What is this but to say in plain English that the Oration is Spurious and though it were as bad as some Adversaries make it yet it may be without difficulty Explicated Our Doctor page 171. having done with his Dissuasive ends with an Vse of Exhortation to Persuade and Exhort all as they desire to be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus to decline from these horrid Doctrines those he means which he charges on us And so do I good Reader also without half the stirr the Doctor has made about them for they are all Monsters of his own making Horrid it is and Monstrous to Assert as he doth That we are Enemies to Monarchy that we profess not a due Obedience to Princes that the whole Order of Jesuites owns the Pope Lord of the World c. Ignorance begot these Doctrines Fancy mishaped them in some bodies Brain Passion brought them forth out they are as you see in print ugly and ill-favoured We utterly dis-own them and say they are false The naked Truth I have declared and therefore exhort all that love Christ Jesus ro decline from the Doctors horrid mistakes After the rest of his wordy paraenesis not worth taking notice of for a farwel he closes up all with a Behold we set before you Life and Death Blessing and Cursing Safety and Danger c. I answer He hath done so indeed but the danger God knows lies where he least thinks in his own unpardonable Errors mis-leading simple Souls to Perdition God prevent that he does not too late bewail his inconsiderate venting of them I need not preach to the Doctor he believes I hope already that Death and that Eternal will be the miserable portion of all those Seducers who do not timely repent and make themselves Members of the Catholick Church God give the Doctor grace to consider of this seriously and suddenly Into this House of God as I have heard he was once ready to enter but neglecting the Grace that call'd him he is now as you see so unfortunate as to diswade others from entering also With what sting of Conscience he hath done this evil God only knows done it is and I suspect the worst But the great Day of our Lord Jesus when both he and I must be heard to justifie our selves without farther dispute will lay open Whether he hath wrong'd his Conscience in writing this Dissuasive or I without cause have accused him of Errors To this Impartial Judge and most just Tribunal I appeal for Sentence And shall in the Interim earnestly pray as behoves a Christian and friendly Adversary for Doctor Taylor 's Conversion FINIS THE CONTENTS QVotations faulty in D. Taylors Preface to the Reader Chap. I. Of the Doctors ungrounded Discourse to the wrongful charge on Catholicks for making new Articles of Faith page 8 II. The Doctors Quotations not true His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis page 15 III. The Doctors Quotations not right prayer for the dead proves a Purgatory page 22 IV. The Doctors Quotations still amiss S. Austin and Otho Frisingensis are abused by him page 27 V. The Doctors Cavils against Transubstantiation His false quotations His Impertinent questions and weak Arguments page 37 VI. Of the Doctors weak Arguments against Communion under one kind Of his slight impugning prayer in an unknown language Of his ill quotations page 43 VII Of the Doctors Cavils against Images Of Antiquity approving their Veneration Of the Doctors ill quotations page 47 VIII Of the Drs confus'd quotations Of Veneration due to the Holy Cross Of picturing the sacred Trinity p. 54 IX Of the Popes Supremacy Of the Doctors Cavils against it Of his false quotations page 62 X. Of S. Gregory ' s refusing the Title of Vniversal Bishop Of Fathers asserting the Pope to be Supreme Pastor Of the Doctors faulty quotations page 72 XI Of the Doctors harsh Doctrine concerning speedy Repentance after Sin Of his mistakes and wronging Authors page 83 XII Of the Doctors Cavils against Contrition and Confession Of his wronging the Council of Trent and Catholick Authors page 89 XIII The sum of our Doctors discourse concerning Indulgences His two mistakes are discovered His Objections answered page 100 XIV A word more of Indulgences Of the Drs. mistakes in quoting Authors Whether the prayer of a sinner avails him Of the Doctors harsh doctrine page 106 XV. Of the Doctors weak argument against one satisfying for another Of his new Divinity that the habit of sin is sin Of his worse doctrine that all sins are mortal Of his mistakes and charging on Catholicks what they hold not page 114 XVI Divines prudently follow in innumerable cases a probable Opinion Of the Doctors exceptions against it Of his mistakes page 119 XVII How the Doctor wrongs both the Canon Law and Catholick Authours Of his quotations unworthily corrupted page 123 XVIII Of attention necessary in prayer One may pray that perfectly understands not the words of prayer The Doctor quotes amiss and abuseth Suarez page 137 XIX The Doctor yet holds on in quoting Authours amiss His errors are discovered page 142 XX. Of recourse had by the living to the Saints in Heaven for temporal Necessities S. Austin warrants this practice S. Gregory Nissen approves it Of Miracles done in our Age. page 147 XXI Of Saints Canoniz'd excepted against by the Doctor Of his untrue quotations Of his mistake concerning the multitude of Holy dayes page 154 XXII Adjuration of Devils approv'd by the Ancient Church and Authority of Fathers The Doctor cannot except against our Catholick Exorcisms page 158 XXIII Objections against Exorcisms solved Of the Doctors mistaken quotations page 166 XXIV The blessing of Water prov'd by Irrefragable Authority Of miracles done by holy Water No proof against it page 172 XXV Of the Doctors dark Divinity His doctrine concerning the charging of Catholicks with Idolatry weigh'd by Mr. Thorndikes just Weights The Doctor is prov'd a Schismatick by the Measure Mr. Thorndike makes of one Of the Doctors want of Charity towards his Ancestors and all Catholicks page 177 XXVI The Doctors wrongful charge on Catholick Drs His weak exceptions against Ambiguity in Speech His causless Cavils His faults and mistakes page 184 XXVII The Doctors strange way of arguing against the Exemption of Clergy-men His unjust dealing with Emanuel Sa in charging him with this saying the Rebellion of a Clergy man against his Prince is not Treason His unworthy slighting the Seal of Confession page 191 XXVIII Of the Doctors injurious Calumnies against Catholicks charging them with Horrid doctrines against Kings and Monarchy which they disown and abominate The known carriages of Catholicks towards Princes compared with the rebellious practices of Protestants The Catholicks have ever been found most Loyal and Obedient to their Kings Of his unjust quotations page 196 XXIX Of our Doctors failing in History Of his blaming Popes that are blamless A word of his Conclusion page 207 Advertisement THe Edition of the Dissuasive made use of in this Treatise is that Reprinted at London for Thomas Johnson at the Key in Pauls Church-yard 1664. in Quarto There may seem a defect in this Treatise by reason of a mistake of the Printer who using two Presses began with one in the later part of the Copy and not computing right how many sheets the fore part of the Copy would make the numbers affix'd to the Pages follow not in due order but after page 130. immediately follows page 137. However the Reader may please to take notice that the Treatise is in â—e Faults Escaped Thus Amended In the Epistle emandandum Read emendandum unluckily read unlucky PAge 8. Line 1. Tough REad Though p. 9. l. 3. Authority r. antiquity p. 11. l. 33. blot out 5. p. 17. l. 19. their r. this p. 21. l. 33. Cluadius r. Claudius p. 34. l. 10. living l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. sining r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. l. 7. Com. r. Tom. p. 42. l. 25. doubty r. Doughty p. 45. l. 5. p. 46. l. 28. rights bl in r. rites p. 47. l. 8. rights r. rites p. 50. marg Athanius l. 15. adorabant r. Athanasius r. adorabat p. 61. l. 11. delating r. relating p. 65. l. 26. said l. 29. more point said p. more p. 67. l. 10. S. G. p. 68. l. 15. leaves r. S. C. r. leave p. 68. l. 10. was p. 70. l. 9. their l. 24. damnable p. was r. there r. damageable p. 71. l. 27. primative p. 74. l. 5. the. ibid. then r. primat r. thy r. thou p. 88. l. 27. fin p. 95. l. 7. supar r. sin r. supra p. 102. l. 17. thsy p. 107. l. 29. another r. they po Another p. 127. l. 4. feceret p. 138. l. 18. even r. secerit r. ever p. 141. l. ult 68. p. 162. l. 30. increduty r. 67. r. incredulity p. 171. l. 15. saying 〈◊〉 l. 3. unhollow p. saying r. unhallow p. 174. l. 24. raging r. rageing p. 209. l. 19. inandita r. inaudita