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
quae non aliud significat quam mundi vel orbis terrarum patriarcham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim orbis terrarum est Latine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Universalis dicitur ut Pelagius Gregorius interpretabantur And John being a Graecian used the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies no other but Patriarck of the whole World for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Universal World and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine imports Universal as Pelagius and Gregory did interpret the word This Title also as Secular and Prophane St. Gregory rejected 3. The word Universal or Universalis Episcopus without any ill sence at all may signifie that ample Power and spiritual jurisdiction which Christ's Vicar here on Earth hath over the Church and under this notion the Fathers assembled in the Council of Calcedon offered it to Pope Leo in these words Sancto amantissimo Domino Leoni Universali Episcopo Romae c. To the Holy and most belov'd Leo Universal Bishop of Rome c. Certainly those Grave and Learned Fathers cannot be supposed either to have flattered the Pope or given him a prophane Title or the Title of sole and only Bishop assum'd by Iohn of Constantinople Well Leo refused the Title and why either because it seemed new to him or because it had not been given to his predecessors by any solemn and publick Rite in former ages or finally because the blessed man waved it out of Humility Admit that St. Gregory did so likewise upon the like Motives doth it follow that he yeilds up his Supremacy No he asserts this Supremacy over and over writing to Mauritius Petro Apostolorum principi cum totius Ecclesiae principatus committitur tamen Universalis Apostolus non vocatur vir sanctissimus consacerdos meus Ioannes vocari Universalis Episcopus conatur When the Principality of the Church was commited to Peter chief of the Apostles he was not called Universal Apostle and John my fellow Priest endeavours to be called universal Bishop Now the Saint saith That he knows no Bishop that is not subject to the Seat Apostolick Now That the Seat of Constantinople is also subject to him Now That it is lawful for none to transgress the Laws of that Seat Nec nostrae dispositionis ministerium Much more to this purpose you have in every Writer on this subject The Authorities are known and vulgar This truth supposed let us see the force of the Doctors Argument which must be this or nothing St. Gregory refused the Title of Universal Bishop Ergo he denyed his Supremacy over the Church In answer I plainly deny the consequence and say that the Saint by refusing a Title which might seem new to him and which his Predecessors had not by solemn Rite or finally out of the motive of Humility doth not therefore deny his Power and Supremacy over the Church whereunto positively he laies claim so often A Principality stands good entire and unshaken Though an innocent Title harmlesly expresing that Principality be for some reason refus'd by him who justly possesses the Principality His Majesty King Charles the Second is now absolute Monarch and Soveraign over his Kingdoms and is rightly stiled King of England c. Put case that either Parliament or People should go about to invest him with a New Title and call him Emperour of England Scotland France and Ireland might not his Majesty refuse this Title which neither adds to nor deminishes his regal Power without denying his Soveraignity This is our case in St. Gregory who as he never laid claim to be Sole Bishop of the World nor to any prophane Title so he never left off to maintain his due of Spiritual Principality over the Church Thus much is said in case it can be shewed that St. Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the last sence above mentioned For by what I have yet read he rejects it only in opposition to Iohn or in that sence in which this ambitious Prelate laid claim to it The Doctor pag. 70. cites St. Chrisostom in cap. 1. Act. Apost Hom. 3. Answer St. Chrisostom treats in that passage of electing one in the place of Iudas and hath these words Illud considera quà m Petrus agit omnia ex Communi discipulorum sententia nihil Authoritate sua nihil cum imperio Nothing by his own Authority which the Doctor more carefully then sincerely translates nothing by special Authority intimating as I conceive no special Authority given to St. Peter whereas those words Nothing by his own Original Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evidently suppose both Power and Authority in St. Peter for no Prince can properly be said not to do a thing by his own Authority only but with the advise of his Counsel unless he be supposed to have Authority which is here evidenced in St. Peter by the next ensuing words of St. Chrisostom Neque simpliciter dixit hunc in locum Iudae sufficimus sed consolans illos c. As who should say St. Peter used not the Power he had in this Election but rather sought the comfort of his fellow Disciples who were much disanimated at the fall of Judas Here by the way observe a most weak kind of arguing in our Doctor St. Peter did all in this particular by common consent of the Apostles nothing by his own Power or Command Ergo he had not the Power why because he used it not Is this a tollerable discourse A Prince concludes of some weighty Affair See the Supremacy of St. Peter amply confirmed by St. Chrisostom upon the Acts even in Sir Henry Savils Edition Tom. 4. pag. 624. and 625. cheifly at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 22. Again n. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Afterwards pag. 625. at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. by and with the advice of his counsel not by his own Authority Ergo he hath not this Power Doth the not actual using of Power and Authority either imply or argue the not having of it Toyes Had our good Doctor but cast his Eyes upon St. Chrisostom's Doctrine delivered a few lines above the place now quoted he would have found St. Peters Authority made good in these words Quà m est fervidus Quà m agnoscit creditum a Christo gregem Quà m in hoc choro princeps est ubique primus omnium incipit loqui How fervent is St. Peter How doth he acknowledge or own the Flock committed to him by Christ In this assembly he was Prince and chief and everywhere first of all begins to speak Here is enough to silence the Doctor Who cites next Melchior Canus de loc is Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 8. There is saith he no Scripture no Revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in it Answer Here is an Emphasis too much no Scripture no Revelation and that left out of Canus which moderates all Canus his words are these Illud
to God so c. unless he speaks as really he doth of Actual Confession as well requisite for reconciliation when a sinner is contrite as when he is attrite only which is injurious to Catholicks If you ponder well what I have said you 'll find the Doctor in a Labarinth pull him out who will He goes on in his ignorance and saith first that with us there is no necessity of Contrition at all Answ Most Untrue It is necessary in a thousand cases of death and danger when Attrition only will not avail without the Sacrament He saith 2. A little repentance will prevail as well as the greatest and cites Gulielmus de Rubeo he means de Rubeone I answ Two things may be considered in repentance for Example in an Act of Contrition The first is the substance of that Act which implies a sorrow for having sinned against God and offended his infinite goodness with purpose of amendment and this appretiative esteem of God is the same and intrinsecal to every Act of Contrition so much perfection it hath or 't is not Contrition The second is the gradual remiseness or intensness of it which may be various in a sinner if remiss it gains less Grace if intenss more and therefore upon this account benifits the sinner accordingly But know that the Doctor can never shew either by Scripture or any received Authority that Contrition which is a remorse for sin upon the motive now specified ought to have such a gradual intention for the remission of it and this is all that Gulielmus de Rubione Tolet and others say in our present controversie If the Doctor will have more concerning this subject he may read Suarez tract de charitate Sect. 2. n. 2. and well Learn of him that the gradual intention in acts of love towards God is not necessary to comply with the precept of Loving him above all Suarez his words are Illa perfectio dilectionis dei pertinet ad speciem naturam talis actus qui saluatur in quavis intensione The perfection of Charity belongs to the species or nature of the Act which is had whether the Act be more or less intens If Suarez his Authority like not the Doctor I expect his Scripture to the contrary and with all desire he would plainly say how strong an intention in Contrition is necessary to reconcile a sinner and this by Scripture or some approved Authority Page 81. he shews himself little versed in our Divines where he tells you that we say if a man live a wicked life for 60 or 80 years yet if when he dyes sooner then which God hath not commanded him to repent he be a little sorrowful for his sins and though this sorrow have no Love of God in it if the Priest absolve he is safe the Priest with two Fingers and a Thumb doth the work for him c. First I slight this jeer of two Fingers and a Thumb God hath his Judgment for it and may in time stupifie those two Fingers and Thumb that writ it as once he did Valens his whole hand for an intended injury against a Priest Next to clear this doubt our Divines hold that a man is commanded to convert himself sooner to God then in the Article of death some whom Suarez Supar cites Sect. 3. nu 1. as Capreol and Scot too scrupulously say That as often as other precepts oblige us for example to give an Alms so often Charity must accompany the work done others say not much less Suarez teacheth and truely n. 4. That this precept of loving God some time in mans life obligeth per se by its self and adds that it is not to be deferr'd for a long time after the use of reason Finally concludes Qui per multos annos non exercet hunc actum amoris delinquit contra hoc praeceptum He that for many years exerciseth not this Act of Love offends against the precept of Loving God Now if the precept obliges all much more a sinner who is an enemy to God And here by the way you may see the Doctors Argument above pag. 76. further answered and that Reginaldus and Navar there cited have nothing contrary to this known and received Doctrine But what if one sins lustily on for 60. or 80. years and omits these acts of loving God and his duty every way can he if he comes in the Article of death with Attrition only to a Priest pass into a state of Salvation though then he neither loves God nor has true Contrition I answer That many both Learned and Grave Divines say No not only because the precept transgressed so long then if ever obligeth him but upon this account chiefly that such an obdurate sinner is bound in that dangerous hour to seek reconciliation with God by the best and securest means but an Act of Love and perfect Contrition are the securest therefore to the one or other he is obliged See Suarez now cited num 3. Con. disp 24. de charitate dub 5. conclus 3. and others Withal be pleased to reflect that the Doctor spake without book when he so roundly told us as if none gainsaid it that a little sorrow and the fear of Hell only which is false though it has no Love of God with it passeth a sinner in the Article of death to a state of Salvation All this is said at random But what will ye his head was so taken up with his pretty conceit of the Priests two Fingers and a Thumb that he forgot his Divinity In his 2 Sect. pag. 82. He comes full charged against the use of Confession among Catholicks Though with the pious Children of the Church in England it is of excellent use Answ Besides calumnies and slanders in this Section he hath nothing worth notice Princes says he and Prelates do often confess and are never the better How proves he this slander or let him say what is done better with his excellent use of Confession among the Pious Prelates in the Church of England 2. He saith That men look on this Cure like pulling off their Clothes Answ A slander But tell me is it better in the Church of England among those Pious Children he mentioneth 3. That they confess to day pag. 83. and sin to morrow Answ And do none sin to morrow who confess to day in the Church of England Confession makes not men impeccable yet is an excellent remedy to prevent sin and so our Doctor will suppose it is among the Pious Children of the Church of England 4. He saith Confession is made a Minister of State a Pick-lock of Secrets a Spie upon Families c. Answ A Calumny The whole Christian World knows the contrary and I tell you the Doctor is more obliged to make restitution for the wrong done to Catholick Priests in this particular then any Theif is who picks his pocket But tell me is Confession a pick-lock with Catholicks only in case all were true