the Queen acknowledging his Primacy and the Reformation from him It is not the loss of Souls but the loss of Peter-pence and command did trouble him and made him and his Successors bring so much trouble on us all His Successor Pius IV. continued the same proffer to the Queen by Letters written the fifth of May 1560. and sent by Vincentius Parpalia and gave assurance of it to a noble Man of England that he would comply with her request to the utmost of his power provided she would allow his Primacy In ejus gratiam quaecunque possim praeterea facturus dum illa ad nostram Ecclesiam se recipiat debitum mihi primatus titulum mihireddat And surely he that can dispense with the Laws of God and alter them as we saw the Popes do may better dispense with and alter what other Popes did decree against the Reformation Priests may marry the people may drink consecrated Wine at Communion they may pray in English c. if they did but allow his Primacy and with it his pence to the Pope Here lies Petra scandali the stumbling block and lapis offensionis Ambition and Avarice cloaked with Religion did profane the Church and put the World in confusion See the Fact here alledged and proof of it in b Twisd c. 19. p. 177. Sir Roger Twisden his historical Vindication of the Church of England chap. IX Where he adds that himself relating this passage to an Italian Gentleman vers'd in public Affairs had this reply from him 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 Affairs it may be held true Such as understand the mystery of the Roman Court do know that Ambition and Interest is the primum mobile and Soul that animates all their motions So true we find Gregory his prediction to be that the usurpation of this Supremacy would be a calamity to the Church I am to take notice here of another reason St. Gregory gives why the former good Bishops of Rome his Predecessors would not accept of this proud calling * St. Greg. lib. 4. Ep. 60.76 Nullus eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit nec uti consensit ne dum privatum aliquid daretur uni honore debito Sacer dotes privarentur Vniversi No one of the ancient Bishops of Rome for six hundred years took upon him the calling of Supreme or Universal Bishop nor permitted it should be given to them least the singularity given to one should deprive the Clergy of due honor And this indeed was the consequence of the Popes immoderate Ambition in this kind To it we may attribute the too much contemt fallen upon the Clergy in general in this corrupt Age. The extravagant boundless ambition of the Bishops of Rome mak's men fearful to allow even decent and due Autority to the Clergy least they should improve it to the prejudice of Christian people and Princes as now we shall see some Popes did This proud calling which St. Gregory called Blasphemous and Anti-christian his Successor Boniface the Third took upon himself bâ— the assistance of the Emperor Phocas who being offended with Ciriac Patriarch of Constantinople for sheltering from his fury the Empress Corstantina relict of Maurice and the immunit of his Church which they made their Saâ—ctuar transferred upon Boniface the Title of Universal Bishop Baron an 606. which dignity and calâ—ing the following Popes did advance so far that â—nnocent the Third compares the Papal Dignity and Regal to the Sun and Moon so that the Papal Dignity do's exceed the Regal on earth as much as the Sun exceedeth the Moon in the Heavens a Ad firmamentum coeli id est Vniversalis Ecclesia secit Deus duo luminaria magna hoc est duas instituit potestates Pontificalem Regalem c. ut quanta inter Solem Lunam tanta inter Pontifices Peges differentia cognoscatur Innocent Ter. Ep. ad Imp. Constantin decret lib. 1. de Majoritate Obedientia tit 33. cap. solit And least you may not understand how much the Pope is made greater then Kings by this comparison The Gloss furnishes you with this singular Declaration of it saying b Igitur cum serra sit septies major Luna Sol autem octies major Terra restat ergo ut Pentificalis dignitas quadragesies septies sit major Regali dignitate Gloss in decret praed That since the Earth is seven times greater then the Moon and the Sun eight times greater then the Earth it must needs follow that the Popes power is forty seven times greater then that of Kings I leave the ingenious Reader to consider the heap of absurdities contained in this Gloss as suitable to that Text of it the trespasses against Latine Arithmetic and Astronony contained in it and much more against truth for the Regal Dignity being Solo Deo minor as * Tertul. ad Scap. Tertullian saith it cannot be a Moon to any other Sun But all this saies Mr. I. S. is to be understood of a Spiritual power that 's the pretext but that Spiritual power must be assisted by the Temporal and where the word will not do the sword must follow So the same Innocent the Third declared in the third Lateran Council and acted accordingly with King John of England as other Popes did with several Emperors and Kings mentioned in the 45. page of my discourse devesting them of their Kingdoms and Dominions and absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance to them Mr. I. S. saies the Lateran Council did not assume the power of deposing Princes but finding it a probable Opinion among Divines grounded their Fact upon that Opinion and issued their Decree of that Punishment against such Princes In a good condition the World stands if 't is to be governed by such Councils If any Opinion found probable among Divines may be a sufficient ground to a conciliary Definition or Decree what desperate Definitions and Decrees may we not expect from their Councils when we see so many desperate Opinions come forth daily among their Divines and all taken for probable if countenanced by one Author or two reputed to be Learned CHAP. XVI How falsly Mr. I. S. affirms that the Irish did not suffer by the Popes prohibiting to subscribe to the Remonstrance of Fidelity proposed to them I Bemoaned the misery of the Irish prohibited severely by the Pope to subscribe a Remonstrance of Fidelity proposed to them wherein they were to disclaim the Popes power of deposing Kings tho they should suffer never so many penalties and suspicions for it This Mr. I. S. calls a Fiction with his Ordinary confidence not regarding to be openly convicted of untruth Whether the Irish did not undergo suspicions and disfavors for refusing to subscribe to the said Remonstrance let themselves tell Whether such as subscribed were not persecuted by
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
Precepts is capable of a disjunctive sense and may be construed or Moreover this Argument would prove more then the Council or Bellarmin or Suarez himself would have That there is no command of drinking the Blood of our Saviour So the Council and Romish Writers commonly do pretend that Christs living Body being corporally present in the consecrated Bread and a living Body containing Flesh and Blood by taking the Bread we take both Flesh Blood But the supposition of this Argument that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament being pretended even proved clearly in our Opinion to be false it s in vain to perswade us with an Argument upon that Principle Besides tho that Supposition were true it s not easie to understand how by swallowing an Animal consisting of flesh and blood without separating both one may be said properly to drink blood All these Absurdities may be excused by following literally the words and and practice of our Saviour administring the Sacrament as he did in both kinds Here I am to admire again the good heart and confidence of Mr. I. S. in telling us that we have a positive example of Christ himself that once gave the Communion in the Accidents of Bread alone to his Disciples in the way towards Emaus pag. 217. How come you to be so positive in affirming that of Christ with his Disciples in Emaus should have bin a Communion rather then a common Supper Suarez in 3. p. Dis 71. Sec. 1. saies the Opinion of many Learned Authors denying it to have bin a Communion seems to him more probable And Maldonate supposes many good writers to be of the same Opinion But besides tho it were a Communion what is your ground for saying he should not have given the Cup in it That only Bread is mentioned that the Disciples told he was known of them in breaking of Bread But it is very frequent in Scripture to express a Dinner or Supper where both meat and drink is taken by this term of eating Bread and the Disciples might have found sufficient signs of knowing Christ by his way of breaking the Bread without mentioning more of his actions Furthermore Suarez in 3. p. Dis 42. Sec. 1. declares it to be the Opinion of all Divines and his own that the Species of Bread and Wine are the Essential Constitutes of this Sacrament Dico 30 Species consecratas esse Eucharistiae Sacramentum seu ad ejus constitutionem intrinsece essentialiter pertinere That the consecrated Species do belong essentially to the Constitution of this Sacrament How then could he give the Sacrament without the Species of Bread and Wine if they be essential Constitutes of it But Suarez say you in his Disp 71. saies that the whole Essence of the Sacrament consists in either kind and therein say I contradicts his former doctrine as also that of Gelasius * Gelas. Papa in cap. comperimus de Consecratione dist 2. quoted by himself Quidam sumt a corporis Christi portione à Calice sacri cruoris abstinent qui proculdubio aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque Mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Some taking the Body of Christ do abstain from the Cup of his sacred Blood who truly should either take all the Sacrament or leave all since being but one Mystery it may not be divided without great Sacriledg They pretend this should be understood of Priests only that they should take the Communion under both kinds but without shewing any sufficient ground for it We have no notice of Priests taking it under one kind to whom Gelasius his declaration should be directed and our Saviour did provide in this Sacrament a Spiritual food not only for Priests but for all the faithful and his words which are the ground of our Assertion did extend to all Mr. I. S. pretends that my Argument against Transubstantiation That neither for the effects of of the Sacraments neither for verifying the words of the Institution such a conversion of substances should be necessary comes pertinently to his purpose here That the Communion under both kinds is not needful either for the effects of the Sacrament or for verifying the words of Christ in the Institution of it But the Difference is wide first as to the effects Mr. I. S. himself confesses pag. 201. that Christ might were he pleased have given us the effects of the Sacraments with a figurative presence only Secondly as to the tenour of our Saviours words in the Institution of it many of their own more learned and exact Scholemen do affirm that the said words do not convince for Transubstantiation in force of their proper sense as we have seen in the precedent Chapter And * Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Bellarmin consesses saying it was the sentiment of most learned and acute Men. Both these things are wanting for making the like Argument serve our Adversary for we have proved hitherto that neither for the effect of the Sacrament nor for verifying the words of our Saviour in the Institution of it the half Communion may suffice Certainly he hath no such confession from us to his purpose as we have from him and from his brethren to ours CHAP. XXII The Roman Worship of Images declared to be sinfull Mr. I. S. is very tedious and no less impertinent in telling us its not a sin to make Images absolutely because God made man to his own Image and Protestants do make Images of the King and Queen c. but he might spare this labour I having declared that it is not only lawful but commendable to make Images and good use of them to several purposes The sin is to adore and worship them that being directly opposite to Gods Commandment set down in the twentieth Chapter of Exodus in these words Thou shalt not make to thee any graven Image c. thou shalt not bow down thy self to them of which sin the Roman Church is guilty by ordering honor and reverence to be given to Images In what degree Azorius with several others of their Divines do tells us saying the same honor is to be given to them which is due to the Prototype and consequently the honor of Latria to the Image of God and Christ the honor of Dulia to the Images of other Saints So Azorius saies and not I as Mr. I. S. falsifies in these words Constans est Theologorum sententia Imaginem codem honore cultu honorari coli quo colitur id cujus est Imago It is the constant opinion of Divines that the Image is to be honored and worshiped in the same manner as the thing whereof it is an Image Mr. I. S. saies resolutely Azorius has no such words but if he did read attentively the place I quoted of Azorius Tom. 1. Inst Moral lib. 9. c. 6. § Tota haec controversia he would find those formal words in