alledg that that he did not mean he could carry so much alone but he and a Horse with him Such quibbles as these are more becoming Mr. S. then S. Paul and so he may keep them for himself and not father them upon the great Apostle Further he proceeds to oppose St Paul saying that when he wrot that Epistle to Timothy the whole Canon of Scripture was not completed and only the whole Canon and no part of it can be sufficient means for our instruction therefore the Scripture that S. Paul spoke of cannot be a sufficient means for instructing us to Salvation Herein our Sophister is twice impious first in taxing the great Apostles assertion with untruth next that the Oracle of God delivered to men in each time for their instruction to Salvation should not be complete and sufficient By this it appears well how much a stranger this man is to the common Doctrine of Divines who affirm that in the Apostles Creed are contained all necessary verities to be believed for Salvation and in the Ten Commanâ—ments all duties to be performed of necessity to the same end And may not the Creed and Ten Commandments be known without a knowledg of the whole Canon of Scripture His boldness is prodigious in asserting extravagances without exhibiting any proof but his bare ipse dixit Pythagoras-wise Finding me say I was not fit for Pâ—thagoras his Schole where ipse dixit was the rule and men will not give reason for what they teach he opposes that if I am to expect reason for what I believe I am not fit for Christs Schole nor learning from Scripture which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit But if the Man had any ingenuity in him he would spare this Objection seeing it prevented in the 18. page of my discourse where I acknowledg with thanksgiving to God that I never doubted of the Truth of Holy Scriptures nor of the Creed proposed to us by the Catholic Apostolic Church and dictated by God Almighty worthy to be believed without examen not so Pythagoras nor the Pope CHAP. V. Mr. S. his prolixe excursion about the Popes Authority requisite to know which is the true Scripture declared to be Impertinent and the state of the Question cleared from the confusion he puts upon it OUR Adversary finding the Popes Infallibility to be an expression odious and ridiâ—ulous to all knowing men and whereof even the sober part of * Vid. Cress in exomologesi cap 4. Sect. 3. Romanists grow ashamed endeavours to serve us up the same Dish under another dress calling it the Autority of the Church Universal And if therein he did speak properly or sincerely he would have less opposition from us But if you do enquire what he means by Church Universal he tells you it is the Congregation Subject to the Pope of Rome excluding all other men and particularly the Church of England from being any part of that his Universal Church The said Congregation subject to the Pope whether diffusive or representative in a general Council depending upon the Pope and confirmed by him he pretends to be Infallible And whatever I alledge against the Infallibility of the Roman Church he thinks to elude by pretending I speak of the particular Diocese of Rome a gross misunderstanding or willful misrepresentation of my meaning for which I never gave any ground in my writing or discourses He is to know I speak in proper terms as used among Learned men speaking upon this Subject taking the Roman Church for the party following the Popes faction wheresoever extant whether congregated or dispersed prescinding from his Altercations with the rest or any they have among themselves for both he and the rest agreeing in making that Infallibility depending ultimately upon the Popes Autority we may well represent their assertion as opposite to the sentiment of all other Christians under the notion of the Popes infallibility * That all is bottomed upon the Popes Authority Bellarmin declares saying totam firmitatem conciliorum legitimorum esse á Pontifice non-partim à Pontifice partim à concilio lib. 4. de Rom. Pon. c. 3. sect at contra The terms and state of the Question being thus cleared it follows to declare how impertinent his prolixe excursion and vain ostentation is in telling us the diversity of Opinions that were in different times about Canonical Scripture and the difficulty of ascertaining us which is the true one This is an old device of those of his faction to decline the main controversy in hand wherein they still betray the weakness of their Cause They and he should remember the points controverted are among parties that agree in reverencing the Bible for the infallible Word of God And if he thinks the part of it received for Canonical by common consent will not suffice for ending our Controversies we admit willingly St. Augustins rule for clearing the difficulties touching particular Books the Authority of the Church and the Tradition of it as described by Lirinensis Quod semper quod ubique quod apud omnes What was in all time in all places and by all Christians delivered that we take for a true Apostolic Tradition and to it we resolve to stand or fall as well for discerning Canonical Scripture as for understanding the true meaning of it If Mr. S. did take Church and Tradiâ—ion in the sense that the Holy Fathers did and the Learned Men of the Church of England do he would find in us all due reverence to those sacred Fountains of Christian verities But to call Church Universal the faction adhering to the Pope of Rome in opposition to the rest of Christians is a presumtion like that of the Turk in calling himself King of Kings and Emperor of all the World such as are Vassals to him may revere that calling others do laugh at it But we do not find the Turk to have plaâ—'d the sool so far as to take that his assumed title as granted by other Princes independing upon him or to alledg it for ground of his pretentions with them This is Mr. S. his folly in taking for granted in his debates with us that the Romish faction is the Catholic Universal Church So great an Intruder upon disputes should learn that rule of Disputants Quod gratis dicitur gratis negatur what is barely said without proof is sufficiently refuted with a bare denial This alone well considered will suffice to overthrow man Chapters of Mr. S. his Book What makes him spend time in telling us of the difficulty of finding out which is true Scripture the rule truly infallible of our belief when he sees us thus ascertain'd of it why do's he trouble us with speaking of a Criterion or beam of light pretended by Fanatics confessing at the same time that to be exploded by Protestants is it to make his Book swell But finding he cannot hide Scripture from us he will have us to be beholden to the Pope for the true
safe way to salsation Is it safe to venture in a leaky Ship upon a stormy Sea But what saies he to the streams of learned Authors of the Protestant Church which Dr. Stillingfleet relates and of the very learned Book he wrote himself proving with irresistible Arguments that the Romish Church in several of her present Tenets and Practices is guilty of Idolatry Is Idolatry of those pious opinions which matter not for salvation And let Mr. I.S. know that I considered long and examined throughly the doctrine of the Church of England before I declared for it and he may spare his labour of catechizing me in the Tenets of it CHAP. X. A check to Mr. I. S. his insolent Thesis prefixed for title to the eighth Chapter of his Book That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it That they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets And his own Argument retorted to prove that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ UNder so pregnant and big promising a title as this That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it that they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets c. and that in a Book presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the Earl of Essex under so magnificent a title I say exposed to the view of so great and judicious a person who would not expect a very exquisite discourse to go through so stout an undertaking And behold Reader what Mr. I. S. presents to his Excellency for that purpose For a Foundation of his discourse he will have us premise that Protestants do allow Papists not to err in points Fundamental to Salvation that our differences with them are about points not Fundamental He do's not seem to regard or know which be these points call'd Fundamental or not Fundamental which is a bad beginning to be clear and exact in the present Engagement But he is to suppose with Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Potter and other learned Writers of both Churches * See Chillingworth his Answer to the Book intitled Charity maintained c. c. 4. And Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Fundamentals c. 2. Stillingfleet in his Rational Account Part. 1. cap. 2. B. Laud p. 42. following therein the common opinion of Fathers and Scholemen that the points Fundamental or of necessary belief to Salvation and to the constitution of a true Christian Church are those contained in the Apostles Creed which is a system or summary of Articles which those sacred Founders of Christianity thought fit and sufficient to be proposed to all men where the Gospel was preached and necessary to be explicitly believed So as the Council of Trent calls it Fundamentum firmum unicum Sess 3. not the firm alone but the only Foundation Points not Fundamental or inferior truths are all other divine Verities contained in the Word of God whether written in Canonical Scripture or delivered to us by Apostolical Universal Tradition implicitly contained in the Creed where we profess to believe in God and in the Catholic Church and explicitly to be believed when we should be ascertained that they are contained in those Oracles of God called inferior truths not that they are of less certainty and objective Infallibility in themselves then the other called Fundamental but because the explicit knowledg of them is not so necessary or obvious to all men and consequently are more capable of inculpable ignorance of them and errors about them in many men And because the Roman Church do's agree with us in the explicit confession of this Creed it is said not to err in Fundamental points tho found guilty of pernicious errors touching other points not Fundamental And with this Supposition I am confident my Antagonist will not quarrel if you take him here before he sees my reflexions upon his unwary Argument Upon the foresaid Foundation Mr. I. S. builds this Thesis That the Protestant Church as it is condistinct from the Popish Church is not the Church of Christ because saies he it do's not teach the doctrine of Christ and no Church can be called of Christ further then it teacheth his doctrine That Protestancy or the doctrine of Protestants as opposite to the Popish is not the doctrine of Christ he undertakes to prove with this Syllogism No fallible doctrine is the doctrine of Christ but Protestancy is altogether fallible doctrine Therefore Protestancy as it is properly the doctrine of the Protestant Church is not the doctrine of Christ This Syllogism he chalks out to us in a different Character for remarkable as indeed it is and for unanswerable for it is in Ferio saies he pag. 142. The Major Proposition we allow willingly the Minor to wit that Protestancy is altogether fallible doctrine he saies is manifest by virtue of this other no less remarkable Syllogism Protestancy or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is altogether of points not Fundamental but the doctrine of points not Fundamental or inferior truths is fallible doctrine therefore Protestancy is but fallible doctrine and therefore no doctrine of Christ He concludes with these words I confess ingenuously I think this Argument cannot be solidly answer'd If his confession herein be ingenuous indeed let him take in return this other ingenuous confession from me that I think seriously he is a very weak man If he be sensible himself of the fallacy and falsehood of his Argument he is unworthy in beguiling his Reader and unwise in exposing it to a polemical strict debate and thinking we should want a solid Answer to so silly a Sophism not to give it yet a more severe check haply he has that poor excuse in his favor that he knows not what he saies To see whether my Answer be solid let us examine how solid his Argument is The stress of it lies in his latter Syllogism whose major Proposition is That Protestancy or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is altogether of Points not Fundamental This we allow him to take for granted Let us proceed to the Minor But the doctrine of Points not Fundamental or inferior Truths saies he is fallible doctrine Stop here Sir and if Justice were don to you a perpetual stop should be put to your tongue for blasphemons from speaking any more It is a formal Blasphemy and a horrid one to say that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental or inferior Truths in general is fallible doctrine It is to say that the Word of God is fallible Remember what is premis'd a little before and supposed by your self in many places of your present discourse that the Points called not Fundamental are all those other divine Verities contained in the Word of God whether written in Canonical Scripture or deliver'd to us by Apostolical Tradition besides the Points contained in the Creed of equal objective certainty and truth with the other Points They are of a size as
belief the Word of God contained in the Gospel and in the other Canonical Scriptures while the Roman preaches articles coined by her self and never given to the Apostles to be preached as we shall shew abundantly hereafter refuting the errors of it CHAP. IV. The Church of England proved to be Apostolic upon the foundation laid by Suarez to rob it of that Title SVarez after having used his best endeavours to deprive the Church of England of her right to the name of Catholic with so little success as we have seen in the precedent Chapter he passes in the 17. Chapter of his foresaid Book to rob it of the name of Apostolic so to deprive King James of the title he gives himself of Defender of the Faith truly Catholic and Apostolic To prove that the Faith of the Church of England is not Apostolic he laies this foundation that two things are requisite to make a Faith or Doctrine Apostolic The first that it proceed in some manner from the Preaching words or writings of the Apostles Secondly that it be conveyed to us by legal tradition and succession The first is contained in those words of St. Paul Ephes 2.19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and forreigners but fellow Citizens with the Saints of the houshold of God are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The second requisite is declared by Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. in these words Traditionem Apostolorum in omni Ecclesia adest perspicere quae vera velint audire habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos Who are willing to hear truth must look upon the tradition of the Apostles in all Churches and we can number those that were ordained Bishops by the Apostles and their successours to our own times Suarez pretends these two requisites to be wanting in the Church of England to merit the Name of Apostolic First saies he because the Doctrine of it was not preached by the Apostles neither was it taken out of their Doctrine or conveyed to us by lawful tradition Against which position he brings King James protesting himself to believe admit and reverence the Canonical Scripture the three Creeds and the first four General Councils in which sacred fountains he judged the Apostolic Faith to be contained and Suarez acknowledges that King James spoke herein not only his own sense but the sense and belief of the whole Church of England which is no small glory to it But how can Suarez make out that the Apostolic Faith and Doctrine is not sufficiently contained in those sacred Fountains of the Scriptures Creeds and Councils received by the Church of England See Reader and admire his answer Tho the Doctrine of the said Books considered in it self saies he be Catholic Apostolic Faith or rather a part of it for he pretends that all Catholic Faith is not contained in those fountains yet as it is received by sectaries either it is not Apostlic or it may not be certainly taken for such First because they cannot be certain whether those Books they receive be Canonical or the Councils legal Secondly that they cannot be certain of the true meaning of the Scriptures Creeds or Councils So that in conclusion the Divinity of our Saviour preached by a Romish Priest is Catholic Apostolic Faith but not so when preached by one of the Church of England I should indeed think this only consequence to be a sufficient confutation of this unhappy subtilty of Suarez but further to his reason when effectively we are secured that the Scripture received by us is truly Canonical and Divine and our adversaries do allow it what need is there for quarrelling about the grounds and motives of our security therein and touching the sense both of Scripture Creeds Councils the * Se tria symbola in eo seâ—su interpretari quem illis esse voluerunt Patres atque concilia a quibus funt condita atque descripta saying of K. James related by Suarez n. 9. that he does take the Creeds in the same sense which the Fathers and Councels by whom they were made were willing to give to them well considered is both pious and prudent When the words of a Scripture or article are capable of different senses all consistent with Christian verity and none repugnant to sound Doctrine it is bâ—t Catholic prety to suspend a firm assent to one and keep a readiness to adhere to what may be the real intention of the sacred writer For example that article of the Apostles Creed touching our Saviours descent into Hell is capable of different senses in relation to the Hell he descended into It s a groundless conjecture of Suarez that King James and the Church of England with him should deny a real descent and say he did suffer the pains of Hell in the garden as may be seen by the grave discourse of learned Dr. Pearson now Bishop of Chester upon that article We believe he descended really into Hell that is to say into some place under the Earth it may be without any absurdity to the Hell of the damned as declared in the second part of this Treatise c. 27. But whether it was that Hell or an other subterranean place he descended into we may with piety and prudence suspend our judgment having no Divine oracle to ground upon the determination of the place And Suarez gives us a signal example of this resignation of our intellects to the intention of the Writer in a matter less sacred then the Articles of the Creed I mean the expressions of Popes touching Indulgencies Finding insuperable difficulties in giving a congruous sense to terms of that art which appear non-sense as those of plena plenior plenissima full more full most full If full or plenary how can another be more full c. He confesses not to understand the propriety of these and other expressions used upon that Subject but will rest upon the judgment of the Church which knows the meaning of those measures as will be seen in the 39. Chapter And certainly all those of his party have need of this kind of resignation to rest upon if they will have quiet for there is no article of Creed or Council without diversity of Opinions touching the true meaning of it among their Doctors But this Author has more to say to us that the points wherein we differ from the Roman Church were never taught by any of the Apostles For example saith he to make the King Supreme Governour of the Church this nettles him still what place of Scripture what History do's warrant this Doctrine What Christian or Godly King did practise such a Supremacy over the Church to which I say that we have a warrant for this subjection to our Princes in the words of St. Paul Rom. XIII 1. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher powers where no distinction is
not answer because the Scripture says it neither must I answer that I beleive God to speak by the Church because she works Miracles Here I am to doubt whether this be the same man that spoke to us a little before p. 177. and more at large p. 102. extolling the force of Miracles to beget an evidence of Credibility in the proposer of divine Verities or another of his Auxiliaries that came in his place to carry on the work without regard to what the former said But whoever he be let us see how he disputes against Miracles If the Miracles be absolutely evident says he they can be no motive of Faith which is of its own nature obscure and if they be but morally evident Miracles they can not be the motive because the motive of Faith must be infallible How blind is the attemt of this Man against Miracles how destructive of his own purpose How absurd and ridiculous his argument against Miracles I have declared above in Chap. 9. whither I remitt the Reader Now let us see this mysterious work of our Adversary go on Having excluded Miracles from ascertaining us of the credibility of the Church proposing doctrines to us he tells us how we must answer that question Why I beleive that God speaks by the Church and it must be thus because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her and I am obliged to beleive be speaks by her because he doth credit her with so many Miracles and supernatural marks which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her If it be the same Man that wrote the whole page it cannot but appear a wonder that having employed his skill a few lines before in weakning the force of Miracles to ground the infallibility of the Church on he should now take up the same Miracles for his ultimate reason of beleiving in the Church As a nice Man who throwing away the paring of his apple and checking his companion for eating his without paring fell immediatly after upon eating the paring he threw away To cast a patch upon this foul breach of coherence in reasoning our Adversary shuffles in a distinction betwixt the motive of our act of Faith and the motive of our obligation of beleiving which indeed is nothing else at the present then Culicem excoriare to flay a flea after much ado to do nothing The present question immediatly proposed is why am I to beleive that God speaks by the Church the only reason he gives for beleiving in the Church is Miracles What needs that distinction of motive to my beleif and motive to my acknowledgment of obligation to beleive the same reason that makes me beleive intimates to me my obligation of beleiving The primitive Christians who heard the Apostles preach and saw their Miracles knew nothing of these distinctions Seing those Servants of God confirm their doctrine with Miracles they beleived God spake by them and for the same reason or motive thought themselves obliged to beleive them If we have the same Faith that the primitive Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch had as Mr. I. S. says p. 183. why shall not we go the same way to beleive as they did But our Adversary is upon a design of imposing upon us a Faith which the Apostles did not teach which he discovers clearly tho happily not so much to his own knowledg p. 184. in those remarkable words The cheif and last motive whereupon our Faith must rest is the Word of God speaking to us by the Church The Church I say by which God actually in this present Age speaks unto us for we do not beleive because God did speak in the first second or third Age by the Church c. Here you see Reader a plain Confession of the great guilt of the Roman Church deserving the most severe resentment of all true Christians that glorious truly Catholic Apostolic and holy Church of the primitive Ages excluded from the office of being Mistress of our beleif and the Church of this corrupt Age governed by the most corrupt Court in the World if we are to beleive them that are best acquainted with it that of Rome substituted in her place And as this is proposed by our Adversary without any proof so it ought to be rejected by all true Christians with indignation Only I will reflect upon the inconsequence of the Man and how farr he is from his purpose of ridding himself from a Circle in resolving his Faith All that great Labyrinth he works from p. 176. to p. 184. in order to declare his procedure to each act of Faith and able to puzzle the best understanding will certainly be requisite in his opinion to proceed to this last act of Faith which he will have to be the guide of all others that the Roman Church of this Age is infallible in teaching what we ought to beleive This being as he says an act of divine Faith I mean that the Pope with a Generall Council such as that of Trent is infallible in proposing matters of Faith how shall he go about to resolve his Faith upon this particular point Certainly thus according to his former discourse I beleive that the present Church governed by the Pope of Rome in the Councill of Trent is infallible and God speaks by her because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her and I am obliged to beleive that God speaks by her because he credits her by so many Miracles and supernaturall marks which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her These are Mr. I. S. his own words and his Confession of Faith set down in the 181. page of his Book And while the Reader reckons how many Circles he committs here endeavouring to rid himself of one I ask of him where be those Miracles wrought by the Fathers of the Councill of Trent and the Popes moderating in it to breed in me an evidence of credibility that God spake by their mouth as the Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch saw the Apostles work for believing that God spake by them being he says I must take the objects of Faith upon credit of the present Church and that credit must be grounded upon Miracles and supernaturall marks appearing for it Will he have us prefer his forg'd Miracles in favour of his newcoin'd-Faith to those wrought by the Apostles in confirmation of the Faith preached by them Turn Reader to what I said to this purpose in the 9. Chapter of this Treatise The more I consider this resolution of Mr. I. S. his Faith the less I find in it of resolution and the more Circles and obscurities Now I enquire of him further why doth he exclude the Church of the first second and third Age from the office of declaring Gods will and word to us He answers because the declarations of that ancient Church are known to us onely by tradition and tradition says he is not the motive but
the Rule of our belief All this he must say of the Council of Trent or the Church represented in it of this Age that alone and not the Pope out of it must be in his doctrine our infallible Teacher Now further Is not the doctrin of the Council of Trent proposed to us as a Rule of our Faith of equal value and autority with the written word of God both proceeding from the Holy Ghost they say it is Is not moreover that doctrine known to us only by tradition certainly it is I have no notice of it nor can I have but by relation of others and they of no more credit with me but rather of far less then those Venerable Writers that relate to us the doctrine of the primitive Church Are there not Controversies dayly and endless about the sense and meaning of the Councill of Trent as well as about the more ancient Councils witness the dismall broyls betwixt Jesuists Jansenists and Dominicans Where is now Mr. I. S. his living infallible Judg The Councill of Trent and the Popes governing it are dead and gon The Pope now living or any Councill he can congregate less than a general one is not an infallible Judg. Who then will ascertain him will he have a generall Councill congregated for the resolution of his Faith in every doubt that comes into his head How shall we be sure that Pope Innocent and Alexander did not err in their definition of the great debate with the Jansenists Their definition not being in a general Council cannot be to us a warrant of security in Mr. I. S. his opinion The Jansenists will triumph at this and will that please them at Rome and Paris while Mr. I. S. agrees with them upon this particular I ask further Tho a General Council were congregated now to that effect such as that of Trent to ascertain us of the Articles defined against Jansenius how shall I be sure that God speaks by such a Council or the Church represented in it thus in Mr. I. S. his dialect because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her because he doth credit her by so many Miracles and supernatural marks which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her Well and where be those Miracles and supernatural marks assisting this Council present to ascertain us that God speaks by it are you sure to find them at hand when the Council is joined likely you are upon the experience of coining Miracles when occasion requires it By this Reader you may see how little Mr. I. S. hath don after so much ado to resolve his Faith without a Circle How rash his assurance was that Protestants will never resolve theirs without such a fault I will now shew briefly The Faith of Protestants is that contain'd in Canonical Scripture as he often supposes my Faith touching each point of those contained in Scripture I resolve thus I believe the Son of God was made Man because I find it written in the holy Scripture I believe what is written in the holy Scripture because it is the infallible Word of God And I believe it is the Word of God because the Apostles preaching it did confirm it with such Miracles and Wonders as only God could work And finally that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrine contained in Scripture and did confirm it with Miracles I beleive in force of universal tradition according to that celebrated notion of it delivered by Vincentius Lyrinensis quod ubique quod semper quod apud omnes est creditum what was alwaies in all places and by all Christians received and believed is to be taken for Universal and Apostolical Tradition This common consent of Christians making up universal Tradition we have in what is unanimously delivered by the ancient Fathers and declared in the first general Councils of those more holy and sincere primitive times Thither I go to take up my belief as to streams immediatly proceeding from the Fountain of Grace with more pleasure and satisfaction then to the muddy Waters of doctrine delivered by the Church of Rome of this corrupt Age past through so many hands defiled with ambition avarice and other earthly passions repugnant to sincerity of which we have too much assurance CHAP. XIV A Reflection upon the perverse Doctrine contained in the resolution of Faith proposed to us by Mr. I. S. and the pernicious and most dangerous consequences of it IT is a Providence of God and the great force of truth that our Adversaries should forget themselves sometimes and discover their wicked intentions covered under sacred pretexts All their Novelties they frequently set forth under the venerable cloak of Antiquity It is a glory of humility says S. Bernard that Pride should wear a cloak of it to be in esteem Gloriosa res humilitas qua se vestire solet Superbia ne evilescat and so it is a glory of Antiquity that Novellers should pretend credit to their inventions by casting on them a color of Antiquity It is very frequent with the Romanists to use this stratagem to cloak their new Decrees with the venerable name of ancient Canons to call their Church ancient Church tho composed of Novelties where it opposes the Reformed Mr. I. S. hath bin pleased to unmask his Church herein to us declaring that the ultimate ground and motive of their belief and their Proselytes must not be the Testimony of that sacred primitive Church govern'd by Christ himself and his blessed Apostles but the Testimony of the present Church of Rome infected with the corruptions which the World knows and both friends and foes do see and cry against with universal scanâ—al Besides the perversness of this Doctrine obvious to every one that will not blind himself wilfully taking from our sigâ—t and view the sweet and comfortable face of primitive Christianity and willing us only to attend the foul and abominable practices of the Roman Court calling it self Church and even the Catholic Universal and only Church to the offence and scandal of all sincere and knowing Men Besides the perversity of this Doctrine the dangerous consequences of it are much to be considered for preventing the growth of this destructive Seed First it followeth hence that as there is no end of Disputes and Controversies among Men nor any is like to be so there will be no end of coining new Articles of Faith all tending to the encrease of power and splendor of the Pope and his Court tho at the expences of disturbance and destructions to Men Cities Provinces and Kingdoms as often happen'd This to be their aim under the pretence of exalting and propagating the Faith of Christ appears by the next attemt of Mr. I. S. in favor of the Popes supremacy to be examined in the Chapter next following Having established the Pope and his present Church as he conceives in the possession of infallible Judges in matters of Faith the next point he takes in hand
perspicacity in striking the nail in the head This indeed is that stumbling stone and Rock of offence This is the chief and I may say the only cause of that irreconcileable disunion of the Roman Church with us We know by certain and well authorized * Tortura torti Pag. 152. records that Pope Paul the Fourth offered Queen Elizabeth to approve of the Reformation if the Queen would acknowledg his Primacy and the Reformation from him and he being dead his Successor Plus the 4. prosecuted the same as appears by his letters written the 5 * Cambden Anno 1560. of * Twisden H. Vind. Cap. IX n. 5. May 1560. and sent by Vincentius Parpalia offering to confirm the Liturgy of the English Church if she would acknowledg his Supremacy This being told by Sir Roger Twisden as he relates himself to an Italian Gentleman versed in public affairs together with the grounds on which he spake it well said the Gentleman if this were heard in Rome among religious Men it would never gain credit but with such as have in their hands the maneggi della corte the management of the court affairs it may be held true And indeed suâ—h as know the spirit of that Court may easily believe that if this great point of the Supremacy the foundation of their power and grandeur were agreed upon they would easily wink at other dissentions Whereof we have a pregnant testimony from Bellarmin Lib. 3. de Ecclesia Cap. 20. asserting that even such as have no interiour Faith nor any Christian vertue are to be taken for members of the Catholic Church provided they do but outwardly profess the Faith of the Roman Church and subjection to the Pope tho it be only for some temporal interest So ready they are in Rome to embrace all sorts of men provided they acknowledg the Popes Supremacy This being established all is well being denyed the best of Men and soundest Believers in Christ must be damned Heretics by sentence of that Court. But I shall declare sufficiently in the 15. Chapter of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain the pretence of Suarez and his party is to make the Popes Supremacy an article of saving Faith how unjust and tyrannical an usurpation it is how far the best Popes in the Primitive Church were from pretending to it and more from pressing it upon Christians as an article of saving Faith And indeed it must appear strange to any impartial judgment that the System of articles contained in the three Creeds and four first general Councels which gained the name of Catholic to the Church first called so should not suffice to make a Church Catholic in all times Therefore the Church of England professing all those Articles is to be taken for truly Catholic tho denying the Popes Supremacy not contained in the foresaid System nor ever own'd by the Church first called Catholic as hereafter will be proved As to the second sort of Universality consisting in taking the Word of God for a common reason or rule of belief how can any pretend the Church of England to be deficient herein having ever protested that the Word of God contained in Canonical Scripture is the prime and only rule of its belief while the Roman Church denies to stand to this rule as unable to make out all the belief it would force upon us What Suarez pretends that the Church of England wants a rule infallible for knowing which is true Scripture and the true meaning of it which they conceive to have themselves in the Popes infallibility I shall declare in the eighth Chap. of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain it is we having in universal tradition and in the Writings of the Holy Fathers means sufficiently certain for knowing which is the true Scripture and which the true meaning of it in points necessary to Salvation As for others less necessary if there be obscurity and diversity of opinions among our Writers so is there among theirs nor could their pretended Infallibility ever make them agree Nay among the best and wisest Fathers of the Church there was alwaies a great diversity of opinions in points not fundamental without breach of Catholic and Christian union Now concerning the third kind of union or universality consisting in a hierarchical order of Bishops Priests and Deacons c. Suarez is much mistaken in saying that we have them not true and legal I will declare at large from the fifth Chapter following that we have all the security they have of a legal sucession and true ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons It s their concern we should not be found deficient herein for any defect conceived in our hierachy will reflect upon theirs Finally touching the fourth manner of Universality signified by the name Catholic that a Church or Faith so called should be extended over all the Earth Suarez exceeds much in denying this property to the Church of England or Faith professed in it saying it passes not the bounds of Brittish land To which is contrary that grave and modest testimony of King James related by Suarez in the same place chapter xv n 6. Nos Dei benesicio nec numero nec dignitate ita sumus contemnendi qui â—â—ono vicinis nostris exemplo praeire possimis quandoquidem Christiani orbis omniumque in eo ordinum inde à Regibus liberisque Principibus usque ad insimae conditionis homines pars propè media in nostram Religionem consensit We by the grace of God are not so despicable either for number or dignity that we may not be a good example to our Neighbours whereas neer the one half of the Christian World and all orders of People in it from Kings and Soverain Princes to the meanest sort of persons have already embraced our Religion I shall declare hereafter from the XIX Chapter descending to particulars that this saying of King James was both true and modest and that more then the one half of the Christian World agrees with the Church of England in unity of Faith sufficient to render them Catholic and that the Church of Rome may cease bragging of her extent being now come so short of that latitude which made her swell to the contemt of all other Christian Churches now far exceeding her in number and lustre of Princes and Kingdoms embracing the Faith professed in them Suarez preventing a check to his argument from this discovery in the XVI Chapter num 4. of his said Book premises that this general extension of the Catholic Church over all the World is to be understood of extension either by right or by actual possession and tho the latter be deficient the former of right cannot want Christ having commanded that his Gospel should be preached to all the World But how can Suarez pretend that this right should belong to the Faith of his Church rather then to that of the Church of England whereas this latter preacheth only for object of
if you speak of a subjective certainty excluding all manner of doubts as well touching the truth of Divine revelation if extant as of the existence of it I do vehemently suspect that both you and your instructors do speak against your sense and experience especially touching points controverted and not explicitly contained in Scripture such as is Transubstantiation for example that mystery which Scotus Ockam Cajetan and others of your ablest Schole men could never find in scripture nor agreeable to the rules of common reason I appeal to your breast for judging whether you have touching this point that degree of certainty excluding all manner of doubt which you pretend to be necessary for all acts of belief touching revealed truths Mr. I. S. must not expect from me that I should take notice off and pursue all the impertinencies he runs upon in his book my intention being only to clear the truth in our main concern and therefore to follow him as far as I find him speak pertinently to the points I proposed for discovering their grosser errors which forced me to a separation from their communion In the first Chapter of his book he enlargeth upon points we allow and know upon firmer grounds then his proofs for them That God is to be adored That he has revealed himself what manner of worship he requires That this worship is true religion That the same is but one That God hath afforded sufficient means to know which is the true saving Religion That divine faith must be grounded upon an infallible autority fully assuring us of the truth of its proposals The controversy is what authority this is whether of the Scripture as we believe or of the Pope and Council as he pretends For a visible Judge to ascertain us of Divine verities I once argued that it became Divine wisdom and goodness to provide us such to determine our controversies which otherwise would be endless It was replied that we ought to be wary in censuring Gods wisdom if this or that seeming to us convenient were not don in the government of the world I acknowledged force in the reply and did further it with an instance that we may as well say that it belongeth to the power and goodness of God not to permit his holy Laws to be transgressed by vile creatures and as we do not judg it a failure in his goodness to permit sins so ought we not to waver in the opinion of his goodness if he has not appointed us a visible Judg for our direction having given us the Holy Scriptures which abound with all light and heavenly doctrine to such as are not willfuly obstinate Mr. I. S. not accustomed to approve any thing in his opponents calls this my acknowledgment weakness and to my instance saies it becomes the goodness of God to permit sins and the scandals of Popes for the exercise of their liberty But if this stout disputant were as provident as he is confident in running upon engagements he might hate foresâ—en a ready reply to his objection that liberty is no less necessary to heresie then to other sins being an essential requisite to all moral actions good or bad Neither is the permission of heresie less conveâ—ienâ— whether for the exercise of liberty or for other reasons which made the Apostle say that there must be here sies among men 1 Cor. 11 2â— neither doth his pretended infallibility of his Church hâ—nder heresies and endless controversies among them But where I prove that the word of God is able to furnish us with all necessary instruction out of St Paul 2 Tim. 3. saying that holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished to all good works this is the gloss of our Antagonist But I infer the contrary whereas Scriptures tho replenished they be with heavenly light are not sufficient to â—eclare unto us what we ought to believe we might waver in our opinion of Gods goodâ—ess if he did not appoint an infallible living Judg to instruct us Is this to interpret St. Paul or clearly to oppose and contradict him St. Paul sayes that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation and I. S. saies that they are not sufficient to declare unto us what we ought to believe which is clearly to say that they are not able to make us wise unto Salvation for certainly without due belief we can not be saved This interpretation is like to another attributed by a Fryar to Lyra being convinced that the proposition he denyed was in Scripture he replied it was true the Text said so but Nicolas de Lyra said the contrary So t is in our case St. Paul saies that the Scripture is able to make us wise unto Salvation but Mr. I. S. saies the contrary which of them ought we to beleive I should expect from the subtilty of our Sophister to tax me with giving my conclusion for reason of it self such is the identity in sense of my assertion with S. Pauls Text alledged for proof of it That Holy Scripture is sufficient to instruct us for Salvation and a good life is what S. Paul saies and what I say no more nor less but it is for slow wits to fetch out of a Text only what is contained in it Sublime understandings must find in it more then the Author did mean nay the contrary of his words and meaning It is not for them to submit to that rule of Canonists that it is not a right way of interpreting a Text to mend it Mr. S. mends the Text of S. Paul asserting the contrary of it and from the contrary assertion by him substituted he inferrs a contrary consequence to that I inferred from S. Pauls assertion I inferr thus Whereas Scripture is sufficient to our full instruction we ought not to waver in our opinion of Gods goodness if he did not appoint an infallible living Judg to direct us But Mr. S. thinking that a small dâ—scovery thus resolves But I infer the contrary Whereas Scriptures tho replenisht with heavenly light are not sufficient to declare unto us what we ought to believe we might waver in our Opinion of Gods Goodness if he did not appoint an infallible living Judg for to instruct us I leave the judicious Reader to reflect upon the stock of insolencies heaped up in these lines to give the he flatly to S. Paul and pronounce a sentence against the goodness of God if he did not what Mr. I. S. thinks sit to be don But see how our admirable Doctor teacheth S. Paul to mend his error that where he said Scripture is able to make us wise to Salvation he did not say it of Scripture alone but in conjunction with those Auxiliaries Mr. I. S. is pleased to appoint As if one to magnifie his strength did say he could carry two hundred weight and being on a trial found unable to do it to verifie his saying should
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
difficulties rendring the Mystery more hard to be believed but that the contrary is to be held for the declaration of the Church Cajetan said that only the said declaration could make the words of our Saviour alledged for Transubstantiation appear convincing to that purpose And Suarez tells us his saying was commanded by Pope Pius the V. to be expunged An old Copy of Ocham I found in Dublin Library was more fortunate in escaping their blurs In his 5th quodlibet q. 30. he relates three opinions touching the Bread in the Eucharist The first saying that the Bread which was before is the Body of Christ after Consecration of which opinion he delivers this censure Prima est irrationalis that it is an unreasonable opinion The second opinion saies he is that the substance of Bread and Wine ceases to be and only the Accidents do remain and under them begins to be the Body of Christ Of this opinion he saies Est communis opinio quam tenâ—o propter determinationem Ecclcsiae non propâ—â—r aliam rationem That to this opinion he consems for the declaration of the Church in favor of it and not for any reason assisting it The third opinion related by him is that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration and of this he saies Tertia opinio esset multum rationabilis nisi esset determinatio Ecclesiae in contrarium That this opinion were very rational if the determination of the Church were not contrary to it So that it is not any reason nor any ground they saw for it in Scripture made these and many other very Learned men consent to the doctrine of Transubstantiation but only a blind Obedience to Innocents Decree in the Lateran Council Bellarmin wishes we should all have this submission to the Autority of the Church and I wish with all my heart that both we and he and his party and all Christians should have due submission to the Church truly Catholic Primitive and Apostolic declaring to us the Word of God by Canonical Scripture and Universal Tradition in which Fountains of Truth neither Transubstantiation will be found nor any of their Errors which I pointed out for motives of my forsaking their Communion Neither is I. S. more fortunate in his attemt of putting a terror upon me as if I had shock'd the Hierarchy of the Church of England by saying its rashness to give divine Adoration to a Wafer wherein they cannot be sure Christ to be Present this depending according to their own Principles upon the Priests intention to Consecrate his due Ordination and of the Bishop that gave him Orders his intention and due Ordination and so upward of endless requisites impossible to be certainly known And what has all this to do with shocking the Hierarchy of the the Church of England When I saw the man begin with so great a clap and sounding already a triumph I expected the story of the Nags-head or some other of their old Engines against the Legality of the Protestant Clergy should come down but all he brings is that we do also allow some things to be essentially requisite for the validity of a Sacrament the defect of which nullifies the Sacrament As for Baptism water is requisite and the form of words I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost The Minister may vitiate this form and utter somewhat in lieu of it or omit some words of it or add some other that would destroy the form The same may happen in the Ordination of a Minister or Bishop and there is no certainty that no error of these should have happen'd in any one of the whole train of our Ordainers and if it was wanting in any all the Ordinations derived from him are null Therefore we can have no Assurance of our Hierarchy I leave the Judicious Reader to see what singular exploit this man hath done herein against the Church of England his reasons alledged of doubting the Legality of its Ministers doth prove so much for rendring doubtful the Legality of the Roman Clergy by his own confession but much more for what I am to add first that we do not make the effects of Sacraments to depend so much upon the intention and quality of the Ministers as Papists do We entertain a better opinion of Gods goodness that he will not have pious Souls lose the fruit of their sincere Endeavors and will supply to that effect the defect of the Minister secondly that their practice of muttering the words in a Language unknown to the People and in a voice not audible especially in the consecration of the Eucharist is more subject to errors and fraud then the way of our Church where the Minister is to pronounce loudly and intelligibly the words of the form But chiefly touching the subject of our present discourse from which our Adversary seems willing to divert I mean the use and Adoration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist who run more hazard the Papists or we In case a defect should happen touching the consecration we enjoy the fruit of a spiritual Communion and are not at the loss that Papists are in the like case who make the main fruit depend upon the real and corporal presence of Christ in the host We run no danger of Idolatry material or formal giving the worship of Divinity to a thing that is not God as Papists do giving that kind of worship to any host reputed to be duly consecrated which if it happens not to be so indeed their act of worship is at least a material Idolatry in their own confession and to expose themselves to a known danger of committing such kind of Idolatry cannot chuse but be criminal as it is generally reputed to be a sin for one to expose himself to a danger of committing a sin The parity of one honoring his Father not knowing certainly him to be his true Father is impertinent and undecent A bad opinion he must have of his Mother who doubts his reputed Father to be such in truth But what if he were in a material error it is not a sin but a duty to pay respect unto him that adopts or owns him for a Son I will conclude this matter with letting Mr. I. S. see his rashness in pretending I was rash in saying its intolerable boldness in some of his fellows to say there is the same reason for the adoration of the host as for adoring Christs Divinity And he pretends I should seem thereby not to understand their doctrine Sir I am not to enter with you in comparison which of us understands better the Doctrine of both Churches what I see evidently is that either you do ignorantly misunderstand or maliciously misrepresent the state of the Question that wanting an answer to my Arguments in their proper terms you may fashion them so as your impertinent Discourses may seem to strike at something which is properly hostem tibi
him and others immediatly following wherein he attributes the same opinion to the Council of Trent Sessione 25. in decret Fdei de sacris Imaginibus and to the seventh Synod Vasquez lib. 2. de Adoratione disp 6. cap. 2. gives this further Account of the mode of worshipping Images in the Roman Church Catholica veritas est Imaginibus deferendam esse adorationem h. e. signa servitutis submissionis amplexu luminaribus oblatione suffituum capitis nudatione c. That it is a Catholic verity that worship is to be given to Images that is to say expressions of Service and Submission by embraces light burning offering of Incense uncovering the head Azorius quotes for the same opinion Aquinas Bonaventure Alensis Cajetan and several other ancient and modern Schole-men Mr. I. S. will not have us believe all these Doctors in this their Declaration touching the Romish worship of Images But who are you good Mr. I. S. Quidam nescio quis nec puto nomen habet one I know not who and as I see nameless that we must believe you rather then so many famous Doctors now mentioned Give to your worship of Images what name you please to worship them at all is a formal transgression of the divine Precept above mentioned and therefore a grievous fin You would fain prove out of Scripture that God ordered Images to be adored which is to pretend that God should contradict himself and so it appears in the ill success of your attempt upon finding your doctrine in Scripture Your first discovery in Scripture is that God commanded the Brazen Serpent to be put up to be adored say you Gods command touching that matter is set down Numb XXIV 8. in these words Make thee a fiery Serpent and set it upon a Pole and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten when he looketh upon it shall live Here is no mention of adoring that Serpent you say that looking upon it was to be with inward reverence and veneration wherein adoration or worship doth properly consist Then when we look upon a Church with reverence as being the house of God we adore it the same when we look upon the Bible when a dutiful child looks reverently upon his Father all is adored Likely the Israelites in time came to be of your opinion and to adore the Serpent but how well was that taken at their hands you may see in the second of Kings XVIII 4. That the godly King Ezechias brake in pieces the brazen Serpent that Moses had made for unto those daies the Children of Israel did burn Ineense to it While they only looked upon it according to Gods Ordinance it was beneficial to them but when their devotion grew to a worship it provoked Gods Indignation declared in that action of Ezechias which the sacred Writer approves in these words And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. Your second discovery is Josue VII 6. where only we find that Josue together with the Elders of Israel fell upon their faces before the Ark and praied to God and that you take for an adoration of the Ark. So whensoever you pray before an Altar or a Bible you adore the Altar and the Bible The third Instance to which you say Protestants will never answer is that the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs Passion and a figure of his Body and is religiously worshiped by them if they do what St. Paul requires 1 Cor. XI 28. And what do's St. Paul require in that place This Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. That Protestants should never answer this Argument is no wonder what answer can be where no question is and questionless there is no sign or the least insinuation of Adoration to be paid unto the Communion Bread in the place you quote It is a work of your fancy no discovery of common sense to imagine worship given by Gods Ordinance to the Serpent to the Ark or to the Communion Bread in the places you relate You are to give me leave to tell you that your Argument is so frivolous as requires no more serious answer then to put you in mind of a Spanish Proverb Quien Vaccas ha perdido cencerrosse le antexan who has lost his Oxen Bells do ring in his cars His vehement desire of finding his Oxen makes him think every noise of a bough or leaf of a tree stirred be the wind to be the sound of the Bells his Oxen bare so your strong fancy for Image-worship makes you conceive it even where no shape nor sound of it appears You confess Images were little used in the Primitive Church nay were absolutely prohibited in the Council of Eliberis but that was say you to avoid the scandal of Pagans and the relapse of those converted from Paganism And are there not Pagans yet in the world Is not a conversion of them still procured What consequence is it to decry their adoration of stocks and stones and when they come to your Churches to see you perform to Images all those acts of worship which they used to their Idols by genuflexion thurification c. To speak to them of your distinction of terminative and relative worship will be insignificant as in it self its vain for the reasen I proposed pag. 70. of my former discourse to which you give no answer I alledged Nicephorus saying It is an absurd thing to make Images of the Trinity and yet they do it in the Roman Church You say that what Nicephorus and others do hold absurd is to paint Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substance and nature Nor do the Catholics use it as you falsly criminate them say you to me but herein certainly you do most falsly criminate me in saying I should impose such a thing upon them Where have I said that Papists do paint the Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substarce and nature Or how could any man in his senses conceive Images of that kind could be drawn with material colors To attemt the drawing of any shape of them is what Nicephorus called absurd and * Damascen l. 4. c. 15. ante medium Damascen madness and impiety Insiplentiae summae est impictatis sigurare quod est divinum Of this madness Cajetan more ingenuous then you confesses your Church to be guilty who after having said that in the old Law certainly Images of God were prohibited and for the same reason were reprehended as unlawful by several Doctors among Christians since in both occasions they may engender in men a false conception of Gods nature yet he concludes in these words In oppositum autem est usus Ecclesiae admittens Trinitatis Imagines representantes non solum silium incarnatum sed Patrem Spiritum Sanctum That contrary to the said reasons autority of Damascen the Church
1. opusc tract 8. q. 4. says the foresaid testimonies are without doubt to be understood of a remission to be given by way of Sacraments not of the remission of pains in the other life as the Pope doth practice in the giving of Indulgences and finally gives for the only reason the Authority of the Church and of Pope Leo then governing which he tells us must suffice tho no other reason should appear by these remarkable words Absque hasitatione aliquâ etiamsi nulla adesset ratio fatendum est dicti Thesauri dispensationem non solùm per Sacramenta quoad merita Christi sed aliter quam per Sacramenta qnoad merita Christi Sanctorum commissam esse Praelatis Ecclesiae praecipuè Papae hoc tanto magis fatendum est quanto per Leonem decimum determinatum est We are to believe without staggering tho no reason appear for it that the dispensing of the Treasure of the Church not only by way of Sacraments as to the merits of Christ but otherwise then by Sacraments as to the merits of Christs and the Saints is committed to the Prelates of the Church and especially to the Pope And this is so much the more to be confessed because it is so determined by Leo X. A very special reason to convince Luther and the rest of the World that do not believe the Pope to be Infallible Suarez tom 4. in 3. partem disp 49. sect 1. delivers his opinion of the foresaid Testimonies of Scripture to be insufficient to prove the doctrine of Indulgences Of that of Joh. 20. he says the same that Cajetan above mentioned Of the other touching the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18.18 he says the literal sense of those words to be the power of binding by Laws and Censures and of absolving from Censures and dispensing in Laws And finally in the number 17. of the same Section he concludes there is no place in the Gospel whence the giving of this power may be concluded if it be not Joh. 21.16 where our Savior said to S. Peter feed my Sheep in which words Suarez doth pretend the power Universal and Supremacy over all the Church to have bin given to S. Peter and under that Universalïty the power of Indulgences to have bin given to him But as S. Peter did never receive such an Universal power over the Church as the Bishops of Rome do now usurp so did he never pretend it nor ever troubled Thomas in India or Andrew in Achaia or James in Jerusalem or any other of his Fellow-Apostles and Bishops in their respective Provinces about a power over them or a dependance of them upon him all and eaâ—h one of them complying faithfully with their Ministry without incroaching one upon the other nor staining the repute of Christian holiness with the profane spirit of Ambition which in Rome did grow to the confusion and distraction of Christendom But tho such a Supremacy would have bin granted to the Pope and to the succeeding Bishops of Rome farr must Suarez go for a consequence of the doctrine of Indulgences to be inferred from such a grant If the power of dispensing those immense Treasures of the merits of Christ and all Saints was given to S. Peter in those words of our Savior commending to him the feeding of his Sheep how came he and the other succeeding Bishops of Rome for so many Ages to neglect the use of this power to the benefit of Souls and great advantage of the Roman Church as now is practised Suarez did easily perceive the weakness of his argument from this testimony and so betook himself in the second Section following to the common refuge of the use and autority of the Church That there is such a use says he is not denied we see it that it is not an abuse but a lawful use is proved first by the authority of the Council of Trent last Session where is added that this use hath bin approved by the autority of sacred Councils for which purpose are wont to be related the Council of Nice Can. 11. of Carthage 4.75 of Neooaesarea ch 3. of Laodicea Can 1.2 but in these Councils says Suarez we only find that it was lawful for Bishops to remit some of the public Penitences enjoined by Canons for divers crimes but that such a remission should be extended to a pardon of penalties due in the Tribunal of God may not be inferred from those Councils Another main argument for the Antiquity of Indulgences they fetâ—h out of 2. Cor. 2.10 where S. Paul remits a part of the penalty due to an incestuous Person whom he had formerly punished saving To whom you forgave any thing I forgive also for if I forgive anâ— thing to whom I forgave it for your sakes forgave I it in the pâ—rson of Christ From these latter words in the person of Christ they pretend to infer that the practice of Indulgences now used in the Roman Church had its beginning from Christ and that S. Paul did practise it in the occalion now mentioned by autority received from Christ This Argument Suarez proposes in the above mentioned second Section num 3. but from the following fourth Number to the 11. he doth most vigorously prove the inefficaciousness of that argument That the remission given by S. Paul to that incestuous man did only relate to an exterior penalty due by course or Canon of Ecclesiastical Government not to penalties of the other life depending from Divine Justice that the words in the person of Christ only proves it to be an act of Jurisdiction or power received from Christ which may be sufficiently verified by a remission of an exterior temporal penalty due by the common course of Ecclesiastical human power and finally concludes that there is no warrantable history or testimony extant by which it may be convinced that the practise of Indulgences now used in the Roman Church was known before the times of Gregory the great of whom he says is reported that he gave a Plenaâ—y Indulgence tho even of this says Suarez I find no written History but a public report in Rome and other places And finally what Suarez says with resolution is only that this practise is now in use in the Church so as they are reputed heretics who reprehend such a custome and it is impossible that the Universal Church should err herein for it were says he an intolerable moral error in practise If the Universal Church indeed did practise now and always from the beginning and in all places this custom according to the rules of Apostolic lawful Tradition delivered by Lyrinensis and S. Augustin l. 4. de Baptismo cap. 24. we would look upon this argument as of force But Suarez himself doth acknowledg and confess that this practise is neither so ancient nor Universal And therefore it may not be taken for Apostolic tradition but ranked among the modern Institutions of the present Romish Church to stand or fall