that the words of their Pontifical accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium provivis defunctis are contained in those others of our Saviour at the last Supper hoc facite in meam commemorationem Do this in remembrance of me is notoriously weak gratis dicitur gratis negatur as t is said without ground so it may be denied without regard Now as to the form of Ordination * Bellar. de Sacramento Ordinis lib. 1. c. 9. Bellarmine tells us that all agree in taking for form the words that are pronounced by the minister when he exhibits the sensible signs or matter he adds that tho the Scripture doth not mention particular words to be pronounced in each order yet the ancient Fathers of the Church Ambrose Jerome and Augustine do expresly teach that a forme of words suitable to each Order is required and was practiced so in the ancient Roman Ordinals and so is practiced to this day in the Ordinal of the Church of England which in King Edward the sixth his time was disposed according to the more qualified ancient Ordinals used in the Catholic Church In the Ordination of Deacons the Bishop laies his hands severally upon the Head of every one of them kneeling before him saying Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon in the Church of God committed unto thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost c. After delivering to every one of them the New Testament he saith Take thou authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God and to preach the same if thou be thereto licensed by the Bishop himself In ordaining Priests the Bishop with the Priests present do lay their hands severally upon the Head of every one that receiveth the order of Priesthood the Receivers kneeling and the Bishop saying Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands whose Sins thou do'st forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou do'st retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost In the consecration of Bishops the Archbishop and Bishops present do lay their hands upon the Head of the elected Bishop kneeling before them and the Archbishop saying Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands for God has not given us the Spirit of fear but of power and love and soberness The Church of England being thus exact in observing the form and matter essential to holy Orders it appears how rash and false was Kellison in saying that in King Edwards time neither matter nor form of Ordination was used How vain and windy * Fitz Symons Britonomach p. 3â—9 Fitz Symons his flourish cum in Sacramento mutatur materia forma intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia quae ejus essentiam conficiunt desinit esse Sacramentum omnium qui ante te vixerunt tecum vivunt post te victuri sunt orthodoxe sentientium consensu When in the Sacrament the matter form and intention of doing what the Church do's which make up the essence of it are changed it ceases to be a Sacrament by the common consent of all Catholics that lived before you do live with you and after you shall live Truly Fitz Symons seem'd to study more how his phrase should be round and sounding then to furnish it with sense and truth so as without injury I may say here of him dat sine mente sonum Setting aside what belongs to the matter and form who told Fitz Symons that the Ministers of the Church of England in the administration of Sacraments have not an intention to do what the true Church of God do's And tho their intention were to do expresly what their own Church of England do's and not what the Church of Rome Bellarmin declares that not to be an alteration annulling the Sacrament non est opus intendere quod facit Ecclesia Romana sed quod facit vera Ecclesia quaecunque illa sit vel quod Christus instituit vel quod faciunt Christiani imo si quis intendat facere quod aliqua Ecclesia particularis falsa ut Genevensis intendat non facere quod Ecclesia Romana respondeo etiam id sufficere nam qui intendit facere quod Ecclesia Genevensis intendit facere quod Ecclesia universalis It is not necessary saies Bellarmin to have an intention of doing what the Church of Rome do's but what the true Church which soever that be nay if he should intend to do what some particular false Church which he thinks to be true as that of Geneva saith the Cardinal even that will suffice for he that intends to do what the Church of Geneva * Bellar. de Sacra in Gen. lib. 2. c. 27. do's intends to do what the Universal Church do's of which he believes the Church of Geneva to be a member Then Fitz Symons was mistaken when he said that the supposed alteration in the intention of the Ministers did annul the Sacrament by consent of all Catholics if he will not have Bellarmine to be put out of that number not to take notice of his extravagancy in making the intention of the Minister an essential constitute of the Sacrament nor of the dismal confusion and discomfort he brings upon his proselytes by making the effects of Sacraments depending upon the foresaid intention whereof no Man receiving a Sacrament can have a full certainty the words of the Minister I can hear and his action I can see but of his intention I can never be entirely assured Then if the matter and form of Order necessary and essential be retained in our Church as we have seen and no reasonable doubt is left of the intention of our Ministers to do what the Church of England do's which according to Bellarmin's supposition now mentioned is sufficient How comes Fitz Symons to say that in the matter and form and intention of our Ministers such alteration is made as annulls our Sacraments CHAP. VII How far the form of Ordination used in the Church of England agrees with that of the ancient Câ—â—rch declared in tâ—e fourth Council of Carthage and how much the form prescribed by tâ—e Roman Pontifical of this time differs from the ancient fâ—rm AS in many other points so in this of Crdination especially I cannot but admire how bold the Romish Writers are in imposing upon the ignorant that themselves are the observers of antiquity and the Reformed Churches the contemners of it whereas indeed
Bishop of Rome c. Neither shall such simonaical election be any time afterwards made valid by any subsequent inthronization coronation no not by any adoration made or obedience or homage don or sworn to him by the Cardinals no not tho it be don by the whole Colledg nor by any action that may or can be done nor by any continuance or course of time But it shall and may be lawful to all and every Cardinal yea even those that were present and consenting to the said Simonaical election or assumtion not only before but even after any such enthronization adoration homage or obedience don and not to them alone but to the whole Clergy and People of Rome and to all the subjects of the Roman Church and to all the Lords Governours Captains and Commanders as well of the City and palace of St. Angelo within the City as of all other Castles Towers and fortresses and to all Ministers and officers whatsoever to refuse to yield him any honor homage or obedience and to revolt from him so chosen and enthroniz'd and from all obedience to him and that safely and lawfully they may hold esteem and eschew him and all fellowship with him as a Magician Ethnic Publican and Arch-heretic And further we determine that by the authority hereof it shall and may be lawful to the Cardinals even those that were present at the Simonaical election and consented not thereunto and to those that shall afterwards dissent and depart from him to appoint forthwith a general Council and to call and summon the same into such a convenient place as to them shall seem expedient c. Thus far the words of Julius his Bull. Now as to the fact the said Author tells us a thing known to millions of Men that when Gregory the thirteenth was deceased and the Cardinals assembled in the Conclave for the election of a new Pope the said â—ixtus Quintus being then the Cardinal of Montalto that himself might be chosen plainly bought of Aloisius the great Cardinal of Aste his voice the voices of all the Cardinals depending of him which were known to be far the greater number and able to carry it with whomsoever they went And in consideration thereof he promised him not in a word alone but by open writing subscribed and ratified under his own hand that whereas there was a principal Prelate one Hieronymus Mathaeus whose possibility was great to be a Cardinal but then was at no little odds with Cardinal Aloisius Sixtus or Montalto solemnly promised him that during his reign he would never make the aforesaid Mathaeus Cardinal if he by his own voice and his complices would make him Pope Cardinal Aloisius accepted of the condition and so the Bargain was concluded and accordingly he gave him his voice and got all his party and faction to do the like and so Sixtus carried it from all Competitors and was chosen Pope which was so openly known that Aloisius never made bones to say in a public presence that Pope Sixtus was his Creature and the work of his own hands This being so every one may see it is the very case declared in the aforesaid Bull of Julius the second against Simonaical elections If it be objected that the aforesaid decree of Julius binds not but where the fact is famous eviïdent and notorious it is answered that the aforesaid fact of Sixtus was made public and notorious in manner following Sixtus after his election violated his Faith and broke the promise made to the Cardinal of Aste and contrary thereto made Hieronymus Mathaeus Cardinal which the Cardinal of Aste took so to heart that for anger and grief he fell deeply sick but before his death to recompence the new and ill made Pope as he deserved he sent the agreement and covenant he had of Sixtus to Philip the second King of Spain even the very Original it self who hereupon in the year 15â—9 sent the Duke of Suez to Rome as his Ambassador extraordinary to give Sixtus notice hereof and to intimate to him the present necessity of a general Council for the declaration of his election to be Simonaical and to require the Lords the Cardinals such as were created by his predecessors and the other Prelates and Clergy to whom it belongs to appear in the said Council to be holden in Spain at the City of Sevil in Andalusia And tho this business could not proceed to full effect for that Sixtus upon this intimation made to him knowing he should be condemned by his own hand of meer fear and desperation fell sick and died having only that way left to prevent deprivation yet by this beginning his Simonaical covenant and election thereupon ensuing was called into question or as the Lawyers say drawn into judgment made notorious Neither did the King of Spain more then right for by divine law all Catholics may rise against an Heretical Pope and a â—n C. si audier is 23. q. 5. Isidorus desummo bono lib. 7. relatus in Cap. that Law of God is related in the Body of the Canon Law And in the case of Simonaical election that secular Princes have power to call a Council is the plain text of Isidore that ancient Father which is related in the Canon Law To proceed therefore Sixtus by the vertue of the said constitution of Julius which is inscribed in the Body of the Canon Law being a Magician an Eth-nic and an Arch-heretic could not therefore nor had power in him to create Cardinals for as much as he was ipso facto despoiled and deprived of all jurisdiction power and faculty spiritual and temporal and all use and exercise of such jurisdiction spiritual and temporal is by the Law so far forbidden him that all acts by him don in that kind are absolute nullities as don by him that has no power at all to do them Now from this ground thus laid it followeth by infallible inference that all the Popes since b Principes scculi 22. q. 3. Sixtus the fifth were intruders and not one of them a true Pope For after his Death Cardinal Montalto his Nephew entring the conclave with forty voices in his faction by the strength thereof was elected Vrbanus the seventh who living but a few daies by the same means Gregory the fourteenth was chosen into his place who continued but ten Months after whom by the same voices entred Innocentius the ninth who held the Papacy but two Months at last was chosen Clement the eighth by the same voices who by the permission of God continued this intrusion and usurpation for thirteen years Now that none of these were nor could be true Popes is thus demonstrated Unto the election of all these concurr'd the voices of those Cardinals created by Sixtus the fifth whereupon it followeth inevitably that all those elections are plain nullities since by the constitution of Pius the fourth touching the Reformation of the conclave in the election of Popes
sake forsooth then would you be obliged to rebel against him because say you with Bellarmin in dubious Cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope Men are apt to doubt of their duties and the Devil is ready to stir such doubts in them Thus he wrought the first Rebellion in Paradise Cur praecepit vobis Deus c. Why hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden And if the Pope comes out declaring that it is lawful and religious to rebel you must practice accordingly tho Scripture and reason makes you know that Rebellion is an heinous vice This is the great power of the Pope you teach to metamorphose vice into virtues and virtues to vices It is a common boast of your stout Bigots to say that if the Pope did prohibit them to say the Lords Praier Our Father c. they would not say it tho Christ did order them to pray so To that of the Council of Constarce you say it is false that they alledged no other reason for prohibiting the Cup to the Laity then the Decrees of precedent Popes You affirm they alledged also for reason the example of Christ and his Apostles who gave it in one kind whereby it appears you did not read the Council Read the thirteenth Session of it where this matter is handled and there you shall find no montion of Christ and his Apostles to have given the Sacrament in one kind but the contrary is supposed as appears by these words of the Decree Quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie postea à conficientibus sub utraque à Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur That tho the Sacrament of Communion in the Primitive Church was received by the faithful under both kinds for the future it is to be received by the Priests consecrating under both kinds and by the Laity only under the Species of Bread It is therefore from your self you say that Christ and the Apostles did administer it to the Laity under one kind and the Council do's not pretend to know so much only alledges the custom formerly introduced saying Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia Sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta diutissime observata sit habenda est pro lege That this custom being reasonably introduced and long time observed by the Church and holy Fathers it is to be taken for a Law Here you see no mention made of Christ or the Apostles to have don so as you say Upon what ground you do not tell us you will have it taken upon your credit By saying that I may flatter the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by telling him he hath more power in this Kingdom then the King his Master in whose place and name he acts because I accused you of giving more power to the Pope then to God by these priviledges of giving to divine Law what sense he pleases and overthrowing the Ordinances of Christ to set up his own by this your expression I say you are twice criminal in a hainous degree First for imagining it should be a way to flatter my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to say he had more power in Ireland then the Kings Majesty which he could not hear without horror and indignation Secondly for the falsehood of your supposition to frame your parity When or where did the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland say that notwithstanding the King of England did ordain this or that for the Government of Ireland himself would order the contrary as your pretended Vicar of Christ said in the Council of Constance now mention'd that notwithstanding Christ did order the Communion to be given in both kinds to the Laity he did order himself the contrary And all this senseless and groundless extravagancy you run upon only to find occasion of talking to us of a halter after your wonted grave and modest sâ—â—le But being convinced of a false accusation you deserve by the law of retaliation the punishment due to the crime you do so falsly impose upon us Certainly that of the ducking-stool will appear in all good judgments both due and necessary to so foul a mouth Another Example I produced of your extolling Papal Laws above the Divine in the case of Costerus saying It s a greater sin in a Priest to marry then to keep a Concubine the former being but a transgression of a Papal Law the second of a Divine You answer p. 173. that tho it be but a Papal Law that Priests should vow chastity yet the vow being made it is a trangression of Divine Law to violate it Consult your Casuists Sir and you shall find them all say that a vow made in any matter opposite to Gods orders is null or invalid There is an order of God intimated by St. Paul to the unmarried that if they cannot contain let them marry 1 Cor 7.9 Possible it is that a Priest should find by experience that he cannot contain This you will not deny Then the vow appears to be null because by it was promised a thing contrary to that order of God intimated by St. Paul and consequently the obligation of it ceaseth only the Popes Law prohibiting Priests to marry urgeth To it is opposite that other intimated to the unmarried if they cannot contain let them marry Which of these Laws or Orders must be observed If you say the Popes Law as Costerus do's then follows the Conclusion that you prefer the Popes Laws to those of God You may exclaim at this but you see the Premises containing in them the Conclusion is inbred undenied doctrine among you CHAP. XIII Our Adversary his foul and greater Circle committed pretending to rid his claim to infallibility from the censure of a Circle His many absurdities and great ignorance in the pursuit of this attempt discovered A better resolution of Faith proposed according to Protestant Principles I accused our Adversaries of a Circle committed in their pretence to Infallibility because they prove it by Scripture and the Infallibility of Scripture they prove by the infallibility of their Church which is to go still round in a Circle Mr. I. S. to wind himself out of this Circle presents to us a resolution of his Faith containing in it a greater Circle or many Circles together Having premised some trivial notions to ching the obscurity of Faith and evidence of credibility required to the assent of it he falls on extolling the power and aptness of Miracles to beget such credibility reducing all to the advantage of the Roman Church authorized with Miracles as he pretends and from page 180. he enters into his resolution of Faith thus You ask why I beleive the Trinity I answer because God hath revealed it You ask why I believe that God revealed it I answer because the Church by which God speaks tells us so You ask why I beleive that God speaks by the Church I must
the Pope and his Emissaries with censures and manifold vexations let two copious Volumes published upon the subject declare the one in Latin by Richard Caron the other in English by Peter Walsh largely relating and learnedly refuting the unjust procedure of the Pope and his Emissaries upon this subject I received my self from Cardinal Rospigliosi then Internuncius in Brussels a Copy of Cardinal Francis Barberini his Letter to him intimating the Popes will and command that the Irish should not subscribe to the said Remonstrance and the censure of the Theological Faculty of Lovain declaring the said Remonstrance to be repugnant to the truth of Catholic Religion and therefore unlawful and abominable such as no man may subscribe to without Sacriledg And being question'd what part of the Remonstrance merited so grave a Censure they answered it was * Vid. Caron in Rem Hibern contra Lovaniens part 1. cap. 5. p. 19. the denial of a power in the Pope of making war by himself or by others against our King for usurping the Primacy due to the Pope and retaining unjustly the Lands of the British Church In which case say they it may not be lawful for Catholics to oppose the Pope making war or favor the King usurping the Popes rights Thus the warlike Theologians of Flanders do beat to arms and denounce war against opposers of their Church which according to the rules of Mahomet must be defended with the sword when words will not do And must not all this administer an occasion of Jealousie to our King All will not make Mr. I.S. beleive that the practices of the Pope and his Emissaries herein did occasion any sufferings to the Irish It s remarkable what the foresaid †Caron supra cap. 4. p. 15. Author relates that Cardinal Francis Barbarini being questioned by one of his acquaintance why the English and Irish Papists may not disclaim that doctrine of King deposing power in the Pope as the French do he answered it is not the fashion with the French to consult them of Rome in such cases But the Irish and English consulting them were to expect they would resolve in Rome what was more agreeable to their pretended right I like of the Cardinals noble dealing in delivering the truth of the matter but whether it be a noble proceeding of them in Rome to aggravate the miseries of the English and Irish suffering for their sake let Ovid tell At Lupus turpes instant morientibus Vrsae Et quaecunque minor nobilitate fer a est That it is for Bears and Wolves and such like ignoble Brutes to insult over those that are down and kill the dying It behooves men to be stiff with the Pope for if they stoop he 'l throw them quite down CHAP. XVII The complaint of Papists against our King for the Oath of Supremacy he demandeth from his Subjects declared to be unjust Mr. I. S. sleighting that of the Remonstrance would have me condole the sufferances of the Irish for not taking the Oath of Supremacy to the King of England as Head of the Church which he saies to be a cruelty against Souls to demand from them I do condole heartily the sufferings of the Irish for that I mean their folly and blindness in suffering themselves to be deluded by the Arts of Rome believing rebellion to be Religion and Catholic Piety to pass the Obedience due to their natural Prince by Gods command to a forreigner that has no other right over them then what by craft and cruelty he hath usurped as is declared in the Chapter preceding All this will be made clear to such as will consider that our Princes pretend not to any other Supremacy or power over their Subjects then such as the godly Kings of Israel had in their time over the Jews and the Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church over their respective Subjects as is declared in the thirty seventh Article and seventh Canon of the Church of England and as indeed our Princes do execute practising even less power in Church Affairs then the Kings of Israel and Christian Emperors did Do but read the second of Kings commonly called the fourth in the 23. Chapter and see how forward the godly King Josiah was in reforming the Church both Clergy and Laity reading himself to them the Book of the Covenant deposing unworthy Priests and substituting lawful ones The same you may see practiced by Hezekias in the second Book of Chronicles chap. XXIX and the Text approving his proceeding in all this particular saying He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord according to all his Father had don If you do but confer the proceeding of these two good Kings related in the fore-mentioned places with the behavior of our Princes in the several Convocations of their Clergy and people for the Reformation of the Church in these Kingdoms you shall find them not to have taken so much of the work upon them in their own persons as those Kings of Israel did but commended to Prelates and Divines the Examination of Points belonging to Religion and Government of the Church holding themselves the sword and stern of Government to keep peace at home and defend them from forreign Enemies Neither did our Savior diminish but rather confirm this supreme power of Princes over their Subjects We have his will herein intimated to us by St. Paul Rom. XIII 1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers where by higher Powers St. Augustin and the other Ancient Fathers do understand the secular power of Princes and the context it self is clear enough for that interpretation as Salmeron confesses a Salmer disp 4. in Rom. 13. Patres Veteres praecipuè Augustinus Ep. 54. Apostolum interpretantur de potestate seculari tantum loqui quod ipse textus subindicat And that to this power not only Seculars but all sorts of Ecclesiastical persons are subject S. Chrysostom b Chrysost Hom. 23. in Rom. Etiamsi Apostolus sis si Evangelista si Propheta sive quis tandem fueris declares Omnibus ista imperantur Sacerdotibus Monachis c. This is a command said upon all Men whether they be Priests or Monks whether Apostles Evangelists or Prophets or whoever they be and S. Bernard c Bernard Ep. 42. ad Henric. Archiep. Senonens Siomnis anima vestra quis vos excepit ab Vniversitate c. considers well that the very words of the text do declare so much If every Soul be subject unto the higher power says he writing to an Arch-Bishop yours also must be likewise subject Who hath exemted you from the general Rule c. Neither is it less certain by the practice of the Church both old and Christian and by the autority of Fathers that it belongeth to Princes to protect and have an eye over their people in matters of Religion to procure the integrity and reformation of it when decayed As for the