people to shew their Courage and Manhood rather in butchering Papists than breaking down their Images was it Rome I beseech ye then so opposit to Popery and Images that armed that Gallant Combatant and gave him his Theam or Text to preach on Was it Rome that deposed that suffering Lady the Queen of Scots our Sovereign King James his vertuous Mother That deposed Sygismond from his Kingdom in Swedland The Temporal Lord of Geneva from his Sovereignty The King of Spain from a considerable part in the Low Countries the Emperour from many rights in Germany Was it Rome that Licensed those Rebels in the Netherlands by publick Writings to renounce all Obedience to Philip their Lord and King To ravage as they did at Gant and Antwerp and other places to break down Altars overthrow Churches murther Monks bannish Bishops make havock of all What can the Doctor say to these unfortunate Tragedies though I have not told half of the doleful story related in the Preface now cited he answers in part well We reprove the men and condemn their Doctrine So do we also good Sir in case either Catholick or any offend and Unanimously profess with S. Barnard Paris print anno 1602. Epist 170. ad Ludovicum Regem pag. 1565. Si totus orbis adversus me Conjuraret ut quippiam molirer c. If the whole World should conspire against me or move me to attempt any thing against my Sovereign I would fear God and not dare to offend the King appointed by him For I know it is written that who resisteth Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and purchaseth to himself damnation Here is our Catholick profession Rome both thinks and speaks with us to take off the Doctors injurious charge laid on us in this Paragraph I have said thus much never intending to cast the least aspertion on any Protestant that is Loyal to his Sovereign Next the Doctor quotes Suarez lib. 6. defens fidei cap. 6. Sect. 24. Sa is also cited and Scribanius but without their places for this assertion An excommunicat King may with impunity be depos'd or killed by any one Answ He either never read Suarez or is unpardonably guilty of falsity For Suarez saith expresly n. 24. that this very proposition now uttered simpliciter prolata falsissima est simply spoken is most false and gives this Reason Excommunication alone and nudely considered impowres no body to kill the excommunicated party nor to deprive him of his Dominions but only debarrs him from communication with others Rex ergo excommunicatus c. A King therefore excommunicated only if the Sentence say no more cannot be deposed and killed by his Subjects or any saith Suarez 'T is true he adds a limitation which because I think the Doctor well understands not I omit to say more of A sufficient vindication it is to tel you that the proposition here set down for Suarez his doctrin is none of his and utterly false in it self Page 167. after Suarez he hath a bout with Bellarmin for a strange proposition and thus it is lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. Secundo Si autem Papa erraret c. If the Pope should err by commanding vice or forbidding vertue the Church were obliged to believe that vices were good and vertues evil unless it would sin against Conscience They are the very words of Bellarmin saith our Doctor Answ they are so but most unworthily weigh'd out of their circumstances and as they stand here alone seem to assert I know not what mischief or error whereas most certainly in the context of Bellarmin they have an excellent Sense and prove that neither Pope nor Church can err Observe I beseech you Bell. in his § above Ac ut rem totam saith it cannot be that the Pope err by commanding any Vice as Vsury or forbidding any vertue as restitution c. This he proves first § quod autem because the Church would not be called holy if he did so 2. Because if the Pope taught sueh a doctrine the Church would err in Faith for Catholick Faith assures us that vertue is good and Vice is evil Now saith Bellarmin and here are the misconstrued words of our Doctor if the Pope should err by commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue the whole Church would be bound to believe amiss which you see does not assert any error in Pope or Church but plainly excludes both and renders this Sense Most impious it is to think that the whole Church is bound to believe that Vice is good and Vertue naught therefore impious it is to judge that the Pope can err in commanding Vice and forbidding Vertue As if one should say wicked it is to hold that the whole body of Christianity believes amiss therefore it is impious to hold that God commands us to believe so In a word the whole discourse of Bellarmin is grounded on this Principle that the Pope as Pope cannot err and by destroying it saith this learned Authour you may see what follows an Universal Error or Misbelief in the Catholick Church This is most exactly Bellarmins Sense and for my Assertion I appeal to the judgment of every Ingenuous Reader And therefore cannot but pitty the Doctor and most of our Protestants too who poor men utterly destitute of all Antiquity will rather play at small Game then sit out piddle they must and glean in our Authours faults if fancied must be found words wrested Sence turn'd out of Sentences The least hint serves them to misconstrue all Thus they proceed though it cost them dear an Eternal loss of their credit CHAP. XXIX Of our Doctors failing in History Of his blaming Popes that are blameless A word of his Conclusion OUr Doctor having now wronged Suarez and Bellarm. sets fiercely against Popes and speaks of their wickedness also but handles the matter so confusedly that no Reader can be the wiser for any Story he tells us He neither names Pope nor quotes Authour for what he sayes but begins thus pag. 167. All the World knows what the Pope did to King Childerick of France He depos'd him and put Pipin in his place Answ I think the Doctor knows not this Story very well therefore all the World 't is like knows it not which he dispatches in a word and runs slightly over However you have it largely in Scipion Dupleix the Kings Counseller Tom. 1. intituled Memoires des Gaules Paris print 1627. pag. chiefly 282. Les Francois ont recours au Pape Zacharie c. where you shall read that the French men themselves tous les Seigneurs all the Nobles saith Dupleix page 283. finding the great inabilities of Childerick and unfitness to govern a Kingdome stood for Pipin petitioned the Pope upon weighty Reasons to dispense in their Oath of Fidelity made to Childerick the Pope condescended but saith this Author page 286. si aucuns c. if any of the ancient Chronicles have attributed this great change to the Pope they have writ both ignorantly
interdicat ne quid corum quae in Divinis literis habeantur dematur aut quod absit addatur VVhich is in plain English to say Add we must not nor diminish any thing in Scripture No Catholick pretends to make that Scripture which is not Scripture Nor to diminish so much as one jot in that sacred Book You see therefore so forceless this Authority is to gain-say received Tradition that it doth not so much as touch upon the very Question As proofless also are those other two Quotations in the Doctors Margent out of St. Basil's Morals for regula 72. C. 1. in the same Edition page 372. He only speak's as the Apostle doth Though an Angel Preach another Gospel then what is Preached let him be Anathematized and reg 80. cap. 22. pag. 386. he saith no more but that we must believe the true force of those things that are in Scripture reject nothing or make any thing new extra divinam Scripturam that is as I interpret without the warranty of Scripture but the Scripture indubitably warrants the declarations of Councils witness the Nicen definitions and constant received Tradition of the Church Therefore this Authority also is wholly impertinent to the Doctors purpose VVho next to oppose Tradition cites Theoph. Alexandrinus in English thus It is the part of a devillish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the Authority of Holy Scripture I Answer here are three faults in this one Quotation First The words are not faithfully cited Secondly They are weighed outof their circumstances and wrested contrary to the Authors meaning Thirdly VVere they as the Doctor would have them they prove nothing against Tradition Briefly all know how sharp an Adversary Theop. Alex. was to Origen and his followers He writ expresly against his errors but that work is not extant and in his 2. Epist paschali cited by the Doctor you have it Tom. 4. Biblioth Patrum Cullen Print 1618. pag. 716. after he had checked Origen for his rashness for broaching Fopperies of his own head and arrogantly making himself his own Master contrary to St. Pauls Humility who conferred the Gospel with other Apostles He speaks thus of Origen solely Sed ignorans quod Daemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humanarum mentium sequi aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum But not knowing that it is an instinct of a Devillish spirit to follow the sophistry or deceit of mans VVit these words which fully express the Authors sence our Doctor totally omit's or to think any thing divine not authorized or without the Authority of Holy Scripture So Theophilus who as you see wholly here relates to Origen's private errors condemns his Pride opposeth his sophistry and boldness in making himself a master of new Fancies but toucheth not the least on Catholick Doctrine concerning unwritten Tradition and though the Doctor draws him to such a sence it is soon answer'd that Catholick Tradition so expresly approved by Scripture cannot be thought a Doctrine extra Scripturae authoritatem without warrant of Gods Word Now if he tells us that he opposeth not any ancient Tradition but our pretended one only that found 's New Articles New Propositions c. I Answer He meerly combates with shadows we neither own such a Tradition nor can the Doctor prove it He should have first named one or two of these New Articles and then assaulted us with the Authority of Fathers directly opposite to our Doctrine and not winck and fight as he doth against no man knows what If he says again that he impugns all Tradition in general all Doctrine not expresly contain'd in Scripture forced he is not only to throw away Scripture it self and the Nicen definitions not only to disclaim a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence Baptizing Children c. but every tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestanism E. G. the belief of two Sacraments only which is not at all contain'd in Scripture nor can it be drawn from Scripture by any probable discourse or gloss of Protestant testants though these are worse and less able to derive unto us a true belief then the poorest tradition were any such that the Doctor can except against in the Catholick Church When the Doctor pleaseth I am ready to discuss this sole point with him of proving Protestant Tenets by Scripture only I believe he will not accept the Challenge Against the worshipping of Images he cites Lactantius lib. 2 cap. de Orig. Error observe I beseech you Lactantius hath seven Books de Divin Instit adversus gentes the Title to his second Book is de Origine erroris which contains ninty Chapters and our Doctor unskilfully throws the Title of the whole Book into a Chapter not found at all in the Author either in my Copy ann 1465. or in that extent Biblioth Patrum saeculo 3. pag. 224. However Chap. 18. these words are found Quare non est dubium quin religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est which the Doctor unworthily translates thus Without all peradventure wherever an Image is meaning for Worship there is no Religion I say unworthily and it pitties me to see so much want of candor for here a sence is rendered as if Lactantius declaim'd against the use and worship of Images among Christians whereas it is more then evident that he only speaks against Simulacra not Images against the Idols and Gods of the Gentils Non sub pedibus quaerat Deum saith he in the beginning of this eighteenth Chapter None is to seek for his God under his feet Nec a vestigijs suis eruat quod adoret Nor pull from under his footsteps what he is to adore Sed quaerat in sublimi quaerat in summo Let him look for God above in Heaven c. The Worship therefore of one Supream God Lactantius chiefly presseth in this whole second book In his first Chapter he tells us that he had above demonstrated the false Religion of many Gods and that in this second Book he declares against the Gentils the cause or Origen of their multiplying many gods In his second Chapter he saith That though the Image of a man absent be necessary yet to circumscribe God diffused every where in any form is both needless and superfluous afterward he shews that no deceased men nor any thing in this world ought to be adored as God In his fourth Chapter he gives this reason Unde apparet istos deos nihil in se habere amplius quam materiam de quâ sunt fabricati These gods have nothing but only the matter they are made of In his eighth Chapter he proposeth the question how these false Gods of the Gentils did work strange wonders and prosecutes the same subject in his ninth Chapter In a word Lactantius through this whole Treatise speaks no more against the Catholick use of Images then I do now while I defend them yet hear we must the Doctor talk and without
Paul St. Peter could make Laws for the Universal Church and was St. Paul limited in this Power what then signifies this Priority and orderly Precedency in one above the other Apostles Let him declare this ingeniously bring it to a reality and prove it as it behoveth him by Scripture and that very Place he cites shall prove also that Primacy which Catholicks give to St. Peter In the interim be pleased to hear how pag. 64. he quotes St. Cyprian deunit Eccle. for equality of Power among the Apostles and deceives his Reader by concealing part and depraving the whole sence of St. Cyprians words They are long and thus Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus super istam petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae c. tibi dabo claves c. iterum eidem post resurrectionem suam dicit pasce oves meas Super illum unum aedificat Aecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat dicat sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos c. Tamen ut unitatem manifestaret unam Cathedram constituit unitatis ejusdam originem ab uno incipientem sua Authoritate disposuit Our Lord spake unto Peter I say unto thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. And again after his Resurrection he said unto him Feed my Sheep Upon him one alone or only he builds his Church to him he committed his Flock to be fed And although he gave after his Resurrection equal power to all the Apostles and said As my Father sent me I send you yet to manifest Unity he appointed or setled one Chair and the Origen of this Unity he ordered by his own Authority to proceed from one Now follows the Doctors words Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pariconsortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur ut una Christi Ecclesia Cathedra una monstretur What Peter was the other Apostles were endowed with like fellowship of Honour and Power but the beginning comes from Unity The Primacy is given to Peter that one Church of Christ and one Apostolical Chair might be manifest These last words sed exordium c. Primatus Petro datur and super illum unum as also the precedent unam Cathedram constituit which clear all the Doctor conceals Is not here plain jugling This Primacy and true Head-ship of St. Peter all Antiquity so amply confirms that Volumes might be made of their Writings See that Learned and ancient Author Optatus milevitanus lib. 2. adversus Parmenianum page with me in his works printed at Paris 1631 48. Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma Petro primam Cathedram Episcopalem esse collocatam in qua sederit omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus unde Cephas appellatus est in qua una Cathedrâ unit as ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderet ut jam schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra una est quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino successit Clemens Clementi Anacletus c. The sence is Deny you can not that you know that the first Bishops Seat was placed at Rome where Peter the head of all the Apostles did sit and therefore was called Cephas This was done to prevent least any should erect another Chair against it The Seat therefore is one the first of Gifts and Graces first sate Peter Linus succeeded c. And he gives you a List of the other ensuing Popes to Siricius who sate in this Chair when Optatus lived See also that known passage of St. Hierom lib. 1. adversus Iovinianum cap. 14. circa medium in his works printed at Colen anno 1616. where after those words which Protestants usually alledge Ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur He adds Tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio Yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being appointed occasion of schism might be taken away See also Tertullian de pudicitia with me page 743. printed at Paris anno 1641. Qualis es evertens commutans manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem super te aedificabo Ecclesiam mean dabo tibi claves What a man are you overturning and changing the manifest intention of our Lord who gave to Peter personally this priviledge Upon thee will I build my Church to thee will I give the keys c. See lastly St. Cyprian to omit St. Austin de Baptismo lib. 3. cap. 17. Paris Print 1648. it is pag. 139. and 71. Epistle ad Quintum where spkeaking of St. Peters humility reprehended by St. Paul he saith Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam cum secum Paulus de circumcisione post modum disputaret vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere For Peter whom our Saviour first made choice of and upon whom he built his Church did not insolently vindicate himself when Paul disputed with him concerning Circumcision or proudly said that he was superior or held the Primacy c. Endless should I be if I held on with such manifest Authorities for St. Peters Primacy and Superiority even over the Apostles If you would have more Ballarm largely furnisheth you but none me thinks goes beyond a book Printed at Paris anno 1553. the Author is a Lawyer Remundus Rufus a most Eloquent Solid and Learned man that writ against Molinaeus and so pithily defends the Popes Authority and solves all Arguments against it that I verily perswade my self had the Doctor read him he would never have troubled the World with his four forceless leaves against either Pope or Peter My task is now to solve those words of St. Cyprian which the Doctor hath pag. 64. The other Apostles were the same that St. Peter was c. add to them St. Hieroms Ex aequo c. One obvious and known distinction clears all distinguish then inter Apostolatum Primatum between Apostles-ship and Primacy and whatever the Doctor hath or can alledge falls to nothing The Apostles therefore were all equal in the Dignity and Office of their Apostles-ship or to speak with some Divines quoad clavem Doctrinae this is most true and granted But that they were all equal in Goverment in Superiority and Primacy shall never be proved so long as those words stand in the Gospel Tu es Petrus c. You will ask where I have this distinction of Apostles-ship and Primacy I Answ First out of
against the invasion of the Rights of the Church of Arles by Anastasius do fully declare the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority by the Law of Christ over any Bishop c. A most weak discourse For admit Anastasius had less prudently dealt with the Church of Arles in changing the Ancient Custom admit a confusion ensued upon this change doth it therefore follow that the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority over any Bishop in the Catholick Church Both Prince and Prelate may out of less fore-sight make a Law damnable to their people Ergo they have no Superiority over them is but a wretched conclusion made by a Doctor of Divinity who if he had read Symmachus his Letter and long it is not he might have found the Popes Superiority asserted thus Relegentes ergo veterum antistitum c. dilectionem tuam enixissime commonemus ut in ordinandis per singulas urbes cana ac reverenda servetur antiquitas nec novella constitutio vetustae sanctionis robur imminuat Reading what was anciently done c. We warn you that in your Ordination through every City Venerable Antiquity be exactly observed and that no new Constitution impair the force of old Ordinances Here are words of Power and Authority Page 68. he cites St. Ignatius and before him St. Denis two Blessed Saints who in the very words the Doctor gives speaks not a syllable for him Next he cites Origen God knows where for he points to no place Then he furnisheth you with Pope Gelasius his Authority and St. Hierom The first saith he is distinct 97. cap duo sunt He mistakes the place it is distinctione 96. rightly cited thus Decreti prima pars distinct 96. cap. 10. Duo sunt the words are these Honor fratres sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati longe erit inferius Episcopal Honour and high Dignity cannot be match'd though compared with Kings and Princes What makes this I pray you to prove that there are no intermedial Degrees between Christ and the poorest Bishop in Europe True it is that the meanest Bishop in the Church for his Character or Dignity of a Bishop precisely considered is equal to the highest so all Priests are in respect of their Characters in Priest-hood yet this shews not but that one Bishop may have a more ample power and jurisdiction then an other I think my Lord of Down and Connor will not equalize himself with the Primative of England every way though if he were a true Bishop as he is none Gelasius his words would be verified Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The dignity of a Bishop is above comparison c. Now to St. Hierom cited in Ieremiam Homil. I answ Doctor Ieremy surely mistakes St. Hierom I have before me at this moment three Editions of St. Hierom whose Commentaries upon the Prophet Hieremias are divided into 6 books the Chapters handled are the Prophets but there is not one Word or Title of any Homily upon Ieremy I intreat him to direct me to that 7th Homily and because he cites also St. Hierom adversus Luciferianos which hath 8 or 9 Pages in Folio and 8 Chap. I desire he would point me out the page or Chapter I know what he aims at but because the objection is old it shall pass until he please to be more exact in his citations His fling at Bellarm. for speaking Truth deserves no answer nor that of St. Cyprian which he cites in Con. Carth. for who among those he speakes of could with probability make himself a Bishop of Bishops Or by Tyrannical power drive his Collegues to an necessity of Obedience No Pope pretends to this Tyranny CHAP. X. Of St. Gregory's refusing the Title of Universal Bishop Of Fathers asserting the Pope to be Supream Pastor Of the Doctors faulty Quotations NExt page 69. comes that so often answered objection out of St. Gregory who because Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop said it was a proud profane Sacrilegious Antichristian Title And it was so indeed in this Patriarck who had no right to the Title or thing either To clear the difficulty be pleased to know that this word Universalis may have a triple sence First it may signifie Unum Solum singulare one sole singular so we speak usually Universalis Ecclesia id est una tantum extra quam non est salus One Church only Universal out of which is no Salvation Whosoever therefore assumes to himself the Title of Universal Bishop in this sence importing that he is the sole only and singular Patriarck and that other Bishops are no more but suffragans or delegates is both Sacrilegious and Antichristian Sacrilegious because engrossing to himself the sole power he robs his Brethren of their true dignity Antichristian because he opposeth Christ who appointed Bishops with their respective power and jurisdiction to govern as spiritual Princes in the Church Now that the Patriarck of Constantinople arrogated to himself such an ample power may be proved out of St. Gregory in that often cited Epistle to Mauritius Nullus saith the Saint eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit nec uti consensit No one ever assum'd or consented to use that word of Singularity and mark the reason Ne dum privatim uni aliquid daretur honore debito privarentur universi Least whilst something is given to one privately the General or Universal are depriv'd of their due honour And a little before Si igitur illud nomen in ea Ecclesia sibi quisquam arripit Universa Ecclesia quod absit a statu suo corruit quando qui appellabatur Universalis cadit If therefore any one takes to himself that name in the Church the Universal Church which God forbid must fall when he that was call'd Universal falls More to this purpose you may see Apud Gratianum distinctione 991. But no where speaks St. Gregory clearer then in his 4th Book of his Epistles writing to John Qui indignum te fatebaris ut Episcopus dici debuisses ad hoc quandoque perdactus es ut dispectis fraâ—ribus Episcopus appetas solus vocari Thou who didst confess thy self unworthy to be call'd a Bishop art now come to this that dispising the Brethren then covetest to be call'd the only Bishop Evident therefore it is out of St. Gregory that this ambitious Patriarck with contempt of his Brethren would be the sole and only Bishop which is Sacrilegious and Antichristian and neither due to Pope nor Patriarck 2. The Title of Universal may render you a sence that savors of Pride Hautiness and Prophaness and therefore as Remundus Rufus observes it was often used by the Roman Emperours and sounds high in the Greek Language Be pleased to hear Remumdus his own words pag. 26. circa medium Et ille Ioannes cum Graecus esset utebatur graeca voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
In his 79. he excepts against our Doctrine of contrition and saith we allow it not valuable unless it includes a desire or will to confess our sins to a Priest Answ We do so and give this reason True contrition which reconciles to God votively at least implies a will of doing what God Commands But one Command is that we confess our sins to a Priest therefore true Contrition submits to it This proof is evident if God have laid a precept on us to confess to a Priest which by all Law of disputation we may here suppose until the Doctor shews the contrary Add to this what our Doctor hath page 101. viz. That confession is of excellent use among the Pious Children of the Church of England If so give me leave to ask him who Ordained this Confession God or the Church or whether there is Scripture for it or no if neither God Scripture nor Church warrant it it is an invention of man and may participate according to our Doctor of a devilish spirit consequently cannot be of excellent use among any c. Now if Scripture be for Confession if God or the Church have Ordained it the Doctor must say if he knows what true Contrition is that the Supernatural Act which reconciles to God doth of necessity imply Actually or Votively a serious will of doing what ever God Scripture or Church Commands us for to say I am sorry for my sin out of the Motive of Gods infinite Love I purpose amendment I 'll do his Will hereafter and not to say I 'll do what God Scripture or Church commandeth implies a contradiction in a word it is to say and unsay purpose and not purpose c. To confirme this discourse I have enough from the Doctor pag. 79. who saith that Genuine and true Contrition is a Cordial sorrow for having sinned against God c. Ending in a dereliction of all sin and a walking in all Righteousness I wish no more for this very walking in all Righteousness implies the obedience we give to Contrition and will make our good Doctor walk to Confession also if Scripture or Church have Ordained it for finners perhaps he may say that Confession is only of Counsel not of Command when I have his Scripture for such an assertion he shall have his answer fully In the interim know that it is but vain to talk as our Doctor doth of a repentance towards God as it were in abstracto without descending to the ultimate worth and Efficacy of it which as now I said includes a serious will of doing Gods Command This truth supposed with what conscience can the Doctor say that we prefer repentance towards men before that which the Scripture calls repentance towards God It is a flat Calumny and as ill intended as expressed improperly for in this Sacrament there is Confession to a man but what repentance is there towards men that we prefer before the Noble Act of Contrition which resting in God prefers him and his Commands before all things in the World A few lines after he saith pag. 80. As Contrition without their Ritual and Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us to God so Attrition with their Sacrament will reconcile the sinner Contrition without it will not Attrition with it will reconcile us And this Doctrine saith he is expresly Decreed at Trent I stand here astonished at this ignorance Do I read in a Doctor that Contrition without Ritual and Sacramental Confession doth not reconcile a sinner and that the Council of Trent Decrees this expresly I say first that the Council expresly declares the contrary Sect. 14. cap. 4. de contritione Docet praeterea Sancta Synodus Si contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contingat hominem Deo reconciliare prius quam hoc Sacramentum actu suscipiatur c. The Holy Synod teaches Although it sometimes falls out that this Contrition when perfect with Charity reconciles a man with God before actual taking of the Sacrament c. The words are contrary to the Doctors assertion and need no explication I say 2. It is the certain and constant Doctrine of Divines that Contrition proceeding from the Love of God or true motive of Charity in the very Moment a Soul hath it gain 's pardon reconciles to God disposes immediately to supernatural Grace whereby a sinner is justified and made an adopted Child of God and this I say In the very Moment a Soul hath it though Sacramental Confession follows not for weeks or months or by accident never for would it not be apittiful case to send a poor sinner to Hell who lies at deaths door or is mortally wounded doth his utmost to be contrite for his sins though neither Priest is present nor Sacramental Confession can be had or hoped for This very case is enough to unbeguile the Doctor and to satisfie him that we Catholicks are not so severe in exacting Sacramental Confession when either accident or necessity excludes a poor penitent from it I know not how the Doctor will come off and satisfie for the enormious injustice done both to the Council of Trent and all Catholicks but by one evasion that shall nothing at all avail him Perhaps he may tell us that when he says Contrition without Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us he only speaks of Votive Confession included in the Act of Contrition and not of Actual No I thought Ritual as he terms it and Sacramental Confession had been in plain English Synonimas or of the same signification with Actual Confession However if the Doctor understands it of Votive Confession read his words thus Contrition without Confession in Vote or desire reconciles not a sinner to God and this you must suppose to be his meaning Then know we Catholicks hold constantly that Contrition without the Vote or Efficatious will of Confession is no Contrition consequently all he proves is that that Act which is no Contrition doth not reconcile to God How then doth he advance any new proof against us Where lies the Mischief or Malignity of our Doctrine in saying that an Act which is no Contrition and submits not in Voto to Gods Command doth not reconcile us to God yet more If he speaks not of Actual but Votive Confession included in Contrition his whole discourse is lame hobling and renders you this Non-sence As Contrition without Sacramental Confession in Vote or desire doth not reconcile us to God so attrition with actual Sacramental Confession doth reconcile us which inference without life and vigor shews nothing to the Doctors purpose for what doth it avail him to say in this place as no Contrition doth reconcile us so Attrition with the Sacrament doth Had he said as Contrition with Votive Confession reconciles us to God so Attrition also with Actual Confession doth the sence had been good and Catholick But never shall he make sence out of these words As Contrition without Confession will not reconcile us
God in the operation of Sacraments is the prime efficient cause of Grace Christ the Meritorious Sacraments the Instrumental Now whether they work by an intrinsecal Vertue imprinted as it were on them or are otherwise effectual concerns nothing Catholick Religion Supernatural inherent Grace we receive by them when a soul is fitly disposed This is our Doctrine Yet we have more obscure Divinity For he tells us we teach that Sacraments are not so much to increase Grace as to make amends for the want of Grace God only knows what he means by this making amends for the want of Grace I do not Qui potest capere capiat We say without this making amends that Grace is effectually given in every Sacrament to that soul that comes worthily disposed The Doctor in his 12. Section page 144. talks of Idolatry but not understanding what Idolatry is nor our Divines Tenets concerning the Worship he speaks of fights against shadows I 'll only leave him to Mr. Thorndike a great Divine of his own to learn of him what Idolatry is and how far the Church of Rome is to be charg'd with it and what the consequences of such a charge will be Mr. Thorndike in his just Weights and Measures chap. 1. discourseth it at large He says pag. 2. If the Pope be Antichrist and the Papists Idolaters we need not seek farther for the reason of the distance we are to own the separation for our own act and glory in it He says again pag. 7. If it be true viz. That the Papists be guilty of Idolatry we cannot without renouncing our Christianity hold communion with those whom we charge with it So that if this Section of our Doctor which charges us with Idolatry be true Mr. Thorndike tells him there is no need of seeking farther for the reason of the distance This must be it viz. That they could not hold communion with Idolaters without renouncing their Christianity and therefore they parted which separation they own for their own act and glory in it Yet Mr. Thorndike sayes that if this be the best reason they can give for their separation they must acknowledge themselves to be the Schismaticks His own words are Cap. 1. pag. 7. line 14. For in plain Termes we make our selves Schismaticks by grounding our Reformation upon this pretence and again in the same page line 29. So that sayes he should this Church declare that the charge which we call Reformation is grounded upon this Supposition I must then acknowledge that we are the Schismaticks Now that this Pretence and this Supposition are the same which our Doctor in his Section pretends and supposes us to be guilty of viz. Idolatry is evident by the whole Chapter now quoted and by the Contents of it printed before the Chapter which end thus They that separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters are thereby Schismaticks before God How the Doctor will answer this to his own brother I neither know nor care nor can I see how he can possibly avoid the Imputation of Schism in Mr. Thorndik's judgment for he believes or else he cheats his Charge that we are Idolaters if he does he must in Mr. Thorndikes Opinion and in all reason make that the ground of his Separation And if he does do so he is a Schismatick before God sayes Mr. Thorndike This may serve for answer to his charge in general His particular Instances in what we are Idolaters are Worshipping of Images sayes he is a direct breach of the Second Commandment an act of Idolatry as much as the Heathens themselves were guilty of c. Mr. Thorndike shall answer for us again in the Book before cited Cap. 19. in the Contents whereof you may read this Proposition Reverencing of Images in Churches is not Idolatry In this Chapter page 126. towards the bottome he has these words Whether or no having Images in Churches be a breach of the Second Commandment can be no more question then whether or no to have any Images be a breach of it for it must forbid Images in Churches because it forbids all Images c. This and what follows in that chap. clears the having of Images in Churches from being a breach of the Second Commandment Now to clear the Reverencing or Worshipping of them from being Idolatry read the same Chapter on and page 127. line 31. you shall find these words But to the Images of Saints there can be no Idolatry so long as men take them sor Saints That is Gods creatures Much less to the Images of our Lord For it is the honour of our Lord and not of his Image And again line the last of this page and page 128. Nay the Council it self meaning the 2. of Nice though it acknowledge that the Image it self is honoured by the honour given to that which it signifieth before the Image yet it distinguisheth this honour from the honour of our Lord and therefore teacheth not Idolatry by teaching to honour Images though it acknowledge that the Image it self is honoured when it need not This is quite contrary to our Doctors Divinity The pious Children of the Church of England may believe which they please of these two great Divines the one is a Bishop but the other seems the more wary man For he makes a cautious proposal in the 1 Chap. of his Book quoted before page 2. line 14. It were good sayes he that we did understand one another And line 30. Yet it is necessary to provide that we contradict not our selves But our Doctor never caring whom he understands or who understands him thinks it not necessary to provide that they contradict not one another But rashly sayes what comes next right or wrong What he hath more pag. 145 146 147. relate chiefly ad modum colendi or to the way of Worship which toucheth nothing on Catholick Religion or the due reverence given to Images Divines I know dispute this point largely their different Opinions make no Article of Faith Let us agree that Images are to be worshipped in the Sense of those Fathers we cited above and in Mr. Thorndikes Sense And afterward if the Doctor please we 'll discuss the Theological Difficulty how they are to be worshipped To what our Doctor has page 148. concerning the Idolatry of worshipping Consecrated Bread and Wine Mr. Thorndike shall once more answer for us who by good luck has the very Instance of the Pagans worshipping the Sun which our Doctor sayes is all one with our worshipping the Consecrated Bread and Wine But Mr. Thorndike I dare say will not believe him until he answers the beginning of his 19. Chap. quoted before page 125. the Contents of which at the very beginning have this Proposition The worship of the Host in the Papacy is not Idolatry If our Doctor will undertake to satisfie Mr. Thorndike that he is mistaken in what he here professes to teach I presume he will oblige him highly For he asks pag. 5. line 22.