Ancients and Moderns 3. From what he saith Art 2. in resp ad 2. To adde a truth which is contained in holy Scripture to explicate or declare hath alwayes been lawful for the Church 13. To the same purpose he quotes Petrus de Ancorano who spake not of making new Articles of Faith as making opposeth declaring which was the sense for which he quoted him for this was his charge The Church of Rome pretends to a power not onely of declaring but of making new c. but onely of making them such quoad nos by declaring them to be of Faith as appears by his own explication The Pope may make new Articles of Faith that is that a thing ought now to be believed when afore it ought not so c. 14. To the same purpose he quotes Panormitan when he saith no such thing neither but rather the contrary viz. that the Pope cannot make but onely declare as would have appeared had the Dr. set down his words at length which he fraudulently curtail'd for these are his words The Pope can induce a new Article of Faith declaring this Divine right of which he had afore spoken and of this is inferred that this Constitution or Canon cum Christus looks back upon things past 15. To prove our corrupting the writings of the ancient Fathers he saith That when not long since we printed Origen we left out that whole 6. Chap. of S. John and Origens Commentary upon it and so maim'd the Author for the same cause that is because Origen argued there against Transubstantiation A meer slander as is manifest by the very Protestant Editions for in the Edition of Basil by Froben Anno 1545 there was no Commentary at all upon John And in a later Edition of Basil 1620. his Comment upon John is set out in the same manner as it is in our Catholique Editions and no other viz. without any Comment either upon the 5 6 or 7. Chap. of that Gospel To the same purpose he quotes our Index Expurgatorius in which in S. Chrysostoms Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no Merit but what is given us by Christ. And the like he saith we have done to S. Ambrose and to S. Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press of Lyons complained of it to Junius that he was forced to blot out many sayings of S. Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was printed at Lions 1559. so that we think it not sufficient to feign some convenient sense when they are opposed in Disputation but the words which make against us we wholly leave out of our Editions Nay saith he we correct the very Tables or Indexes made by the Printers or Correctors c. A notorious slander as appears 1. Because the Index Expurgatorius was not appointed till the end of the Council of Trent which was in Anno 1563. and therefore that could put no force upon Saurius for maiming S. Ambrose in Anno 1559. 2. Because the Index Expurgatorius extended not to any Writings or Works of the Fathers but onely to the Indices or marginal Notes or other corruptions made by Protestants as is confessed by his own Author Junius that published the Index for in his Preface to that Book he makes this Objection But here the Fathers are not purged and answers it 1. That yet by the purging of later Authors the truth of Doctrine and History is in many places expurged 2. That what they dare not with the Fathers they practise upon us Protestant Printers and Writers and with their little forks they thrust out our Annotations in the Margin and Sayings in the Indices although consonant to the Fathers minde For example saith Junius In the Index of S. Chrysostom printed at Basil this is commanded to be blotted out The Church is not built upon the Man but his Faith And likewise this There is no merit but what is given us by Christ. 17. To the same purpose he quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying to Pope Pius V. Expurgari emaculari curasti omnium Catholicorum Scriptorum ac praecipuè veterum Patrum Scripta Thou hast taken care for the purging of the Writings of all Catholique Writers and especially of the ancient Fathers most shamefully corrupting the sense of the Quotation by leaving out the words that follow Haereticorum aetatis nostrae faeâ—ibus contaminata venenis infecta Contaminated with the dregs and infected with the poisons of the Hereticks of our age 18. Against the power of the Church to adde any Articles to the Creed he quotes the Ephesine Canon That it should not be lawful for any man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed then that which was desined by the Nicene Council c. when that Canon did not mean adding Articles to the Faith defined by that Council for how could the supreme power binde its own hands or make that unlawful for another General Council which the Council of Constantinople had already done in adding divers Articles to the Nicene Creed but publishing any Creed repugnant by adding or detracting to the Nicene 19. To prove that the Council of Constance declared not for the Popes Supremacy he quotes John Gerson as saying That the Council of Constance did abate those heights to which slattery had advanced the Pope and that before that Council they spoke such great things of the Pope which afterwards moderate men durst not speak whereas he saith no such words nor had any meaning against the Popes Supremacy for this is all he saith Fallor si non ante celebrationem hujus S. Constantiensis Synodi c. I am deceived if afore the celebrating of this holy Council of Constance this Tradition which slattery suggested viz. that the Pope was supreme Monarch even in Temporals that he was above the Law could take away mens rights from them c. had not so possessed the mindes of the most that he that should have taught the contrary would have been noted or condemned of Heretical pravity Take a sign of this that after the determination and practice of the same Council there are found who fear not to assert openly such things 20. He puts down these for the words of the Council of Trent Although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants yet they did not believe it necessary c. whereas the words of the Council are not with any such Antithesis but thus onely Nor therefore is antiquity to be condemned if sometime they used that custome in some places For as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause of their so doing according to the condition of that time so truly it is without question to be believed that they did it with no necessity of salvation 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 21. He quotes Bishop Fisher as saying That
A LETTER To a Friend touching Dr. Jeremy Taylor 's Disswasive from Popery Discovering above an Hundred and fifty False or Wrested Quotations in it Psal. 26. 12. Mentita est iniquitas sibi Printed in the Year 1665. The Publisher to the Reader MEeting with this Letter I thought it worth the publishing as a means in the interim till the Book it self be Answered to give the Admirers of Dr. Taylor and of that Book some cause to lessen their great Opinion of him and it and the Cause it maintains For indeed after that Juel Mornay Morton Potter and other of the prime Protestant Controvertists had been found so guilty of this Fault of False Quotations and been so cryed out upon by our Catholick Writers for it and the Protestant Cause had suffered so much shame and prejudice by it who could have expected it in Dr. Jeremy Taylor a man so Eminent among them for Place Learning and Abilities in Controversie and who therefore it might be presumed would not discredit himself or his Cause by Quoting any thing upon Trust or Varying from his Author 's either Words or Sense Or though he might be incurious in this kinde when he wrote onely as a Private Divine or in a book of Devotion as ex gr when in his Book Of the Life of Christ he tells a story out of S. Gregory and cites the very Book and Chapter How S. Herminigilda chose to dye rather then she would receive the B. Sacrament from the hand of an Arrian Bishop when many Punies of our Clergy nay many of our ordinary Women could have told him that the person there mentioned by S. Gregory was not Herminigilda a Woman but Herminigildus a Man and Prince of Spain Yet in such a Work as this to which as himself saith he was appointed by a Synod of the Protestant Irish Bishops and published with design to Convert all the Catholicks of that Nation and entertained with that applause here in England as it hath been already in a short time twice or thrice Re-printed who could think but he would have been most exact in his Quotations which therefore since he hath not but sometimes quoted Books that never were or that in the places quoted have not any least syllable to the purpose they are quoted for and frequently quoted them in a Sense they never dreamt of yea and divers times by adding curtailing or otherwise altering them misquoted the very words themselves of all which the ensuing Letter will give sufficient instances What can be said or thought of it but that had it been possible for him to have upheld his Cause otherwayes he would never have used such sinister practices If it be said that divers of the Exceptions are little material be it so but then the least that is will be a false or wrested Quotation and help to shew the insincerity of the Author If it be said that divers of them are perhaps but Errors of his Pen or of the Press onely it may be so but till they appear to be so they are justly charged In fine if it be said that many of them are not so much as pretended to be False but Wrested onely 't is true but then 1. These also will be of avail to my end as well though not as much as those that are false 2. Of False Quotations and where cannot be supposed any Error of his Pen or the Press there are enow though all the other had been omitted in the Letter to my end namely for instance in some of the chief onely these six and forty viz. 8. 12. 14. 16. 17. 26 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 34. 36. 46. 47. 50. 53. 56. 57. 58. 61. 71. 76 77 78 79 93. 114. 115. 116. 118. 130 136. 137. 139. 140. 143. 144. 147. 149. 150. 152. 153. 155. 156. If any one therefore shall take upon him to justifie Dr. Taylors Quotations to save labour and time let him in the first place justifie these or which six of them he thinks the most justifiable and try it first in them and by their success let judgement be made of all the rest Vale. Errata Page 6. line 21. in the break insert 16. Page 21. line 15 in the break dele 48. A Note of above an Hundred and fifty False or Wrested Quotations in Dr. Jeremy Taylor 's late Disswasive from Popery sent by a Catholique to his Friend SIR WHen I told you Dr. Taylors Disswasive beside other faults in it was full of false or wrested Quotations you wondering at it desired of me a Note of them which I here send you of some which I have observed by examining those Authors which I could come by here And I doubt not but most of his other also would be found ejusdem farinae if the Authors were examined In the Preface 1. AGainst unwritten Traditions taught by the Church he quotes Tertullian as speaking against all Traditions absolutely I adore the fulness of Scripture if it be not written let Hermogenes fear the woe that is destin'd to them that detract from or adde to it when had he set down the words sincerely it would have appear'd he spake onely of one point taught by that Heretick painter not without but against express Scripture viz. that God made the World of some preexisting matter Igitur in principio fecit Deus coelum terram Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem quae mihi factorem manifestat facta In Evangelio verò ministrum atque arbitrum rectoris invenio Sermonem An autem de aliquâ subjacenti materiâ facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina si non est scriptum timeat vae illud c. Therefore saith he in the beginning God made Heaven and Earth I adore the fulness of Scripture meaning of this Text as to this point which manifests to me both the maker and the things made And in the Gospel I finde the Word both the minister and arbiter of God But whether all things were made of some subjacent matter I never have yet read Let Hermogenes's shop shew that it is written viz. his Doctrine that the World was made of some matter If not written let him fear that woe c. 2. Against the same he quotes three places of Basil as saying thus Without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity and a most certain sign of pride to introduce any thing that is not written c. Whereas in two of the places quoted S. Basil hath no such words and in the third he spake onely of certain particular Heresies devised by Hereticks not without but against express Scripture and which S. Basil there confuted not by Scripture alone but by Tradition also Whilst I was to fight against divers factions of Hereticks c. I thought it consequent to repress the blasphemies introduced by opposite sayings or sentences and
c who never were in Purgatory where if he mean likewise as he must or it was impertinently urged that Durantus acknowledges that they prayed for them as for the rest of the dead and namely that God would shew them mercy or pardon them Durantus saith no such thing but the direct contrary Truly in Epiphanius and Cyril and the Canon of the Greeks is read that they offered Sacrifice to God for the Patriarchs Apostles Martyrs c. which signifies the same as in our Canon Communicantes memoriam venerantes gloriosae semper Virginis c. For when the Greeks say We offer for the Martyrs c. it is not understood that we commend them to God but we commemorate them for their glory and to give God thanks for the glory he hath bestowed on them ... The Priest prayes nothing for them but rather prayes them that he may be helped by their prayers c. 32. He quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying That Pope John 22. not onely taught and declared the Doctrine that before the day of Judgement the Souls of men are kept in certain receptacles c. but commanded it to be held by all as saith Adrian P. in 4. Sent. When Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John but onely reports the opinion of others nor doth he quote Pope Adrian as saying so but onely as reporting also what others said for these are Sixtus Senensis his words It is said that Pope John 22. subscribed to their opinion and decreed that it ought so to be believed Witnesses of this Decree are Occham and Adrian VI. whose words are these Finally it is reported of John 22. that he publiquely taught c. And afterward Sixtus Senensis shewes the uncertainty of that report Know that it is not altogether certain with approved Authors that which Occham being offended with him and in this condemned by the Council of Trent wrote of him yea there want not Authors of highest authority and credit that relate the contrary and among them Benedict XI c. 33. To prove that S. Augustin doubted of Purgatory he quotes these words of his Whether it be so or not it may be enquired and possibly it may be found so and possibly it may be never And he quotes two places for it In neither of which S. Augustin speaks of Purgatory directly but of grief for the loss of temporal good things too much loved burning some just men here and perhaps hereafter too In Enchiridion For this wood hay and straw may not absurdly be interpreted such affections to secular things although lawfully had as they cannot be lost without grief of minde But when this grief burns if Christ have in the heart place of the foundation that is that he who is so burnt had rather want those things which he so loves then want Christ he is saved through fire ... For the grief of the lost things which he loved burns him but consumes him not being guarded by the stability of the foundation That some such thing such a burning grief for loss of temporal things is done even after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or not may be enquired and either be found or lie hid that some faithful men are later or sooner saved by a certain Purgatory fire by how much they more or less loved perishing goods And much to the same sense is the other place quoted If in this interval of time betwixt Death and the Resurrection the spirits of the dead may be said to suffer this kinde of fire which they feel not who had no such manners and loves in the life of this body but others feel which carried these kinde of buildings with them of wood hay and stubble upon Christ the foundation either there alone or both here and there or therefore here that not there they finde a fire of transitory tribulation burning saecularia worldly affections delights offences c. although venial from damnation I oppose or censure it not because perhaps it is true c. 34. To prove that in the time of Otho Frisingens in Anno 1146 the Doctrine of Purgatory was uncertain and gotten no further then to a Quidam asserunt he quotes these words of Otho Some do affirm that there is a place of Purgatory after death shamefully corrupting both the sense and words of this Author for neither doth Otho say after death nor mean it but after the day of general judgement as the Doctor himself could not but see if he read the place For the title of that Chap. is An post judicium extra infernum inferiorem ad leviores poenas locus remaneat Et quid de parvulis qui solo originali tenentur Whether after judgement i.e. the day of doom there remain any place without the nether most hell for lighter pains And what will become of Infants that dye in onely original sin And in the Chapter he treats of it thus His dictis indagandum puto si transacto Judicio extra inferum inferiorem ad leviores poenas locus remaneat Esse quippe apud inferos seil after the day of judgement locum Purgatorium in quo salvandi vel tenebris tantùm assiciantur that is for some time vel expiationis igne decoquantur quidam asserunt juxt a illud Apostoli Ipse autem salvus erit sed quasi per ignem At si terminatis in judicio causis singulorum pro qualitate meritorum aeternis poenis deputatis nullus ultra purgabitur quomodo locus ille superior Purgatorius residuus erit si verò non remanebit ut de aliis taceam quid de parvalis qui solo originali renentur delicto fiet nunquid in puteum inferni inferioris ipsi trudentur 35. He saith that in the Speculum Exemplorum it is said that a certain Priest in an extasie saw the Soul of Constantinus Turritanus in the eves of his house c. when in the place quoted is not a word to any such purpose 36. He saith that the Greek Church did alwayes dissent from the Latines in this particular touching Purgatory and in the Council of Basil publisht an Apology directly disapproving the Romane Doctrine of Purgatory And that how afterwards they were press'd in the Council of Florence by Pope Eugenius and by their necessity how unwillingly they consented how ambiguously they answered how they protested against having that half consent put into the Instrument of Union how they were yet constrain'd to it by their Chiefs being obnoxious to the Pope how a while after they dissolved that Union and to this day refuse to own this Doctrine are things so notoriously known that they need no further declaration All which things are so notoriously false as there needs no further declaration of the falsifying spirit of this Doctor But for the other falsities I must wave them my business at present being onely to note his false Quotations and
Epistle of S. Leo but there is not a word in it of those he quotes Sect. 5. 41. He quotes Scotus as declaring that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not 42. To the same purpose he quotes Occham but I can finde no such thing in him 43. To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he saith no such thing 44. To prove that the Decree of the Lateran Council was but a pretended one he quotes Platina Many thing 's indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed leaving out the next words giving the reason of it which shewed that he meant not of Decrees of Faith but of raising Force to send to the Holy Land against the Saracens which was the cause of calling that Council The Pope when he saw the power of the Saracens to encrease in Asia called a Council c. Many things came then in consultation but nothing could be fitly decreed because both the Pisans and Genowayes by Sea and the Cisalpins by Land were at war among themselves c. 45. To prove that our own men have affirmed that Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture he quotes Suarez That Cajetan affirmed that the Article of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture when Suarez saith no such thing but onely this But of Catholiques Cajetan alone taught that secluding the authority of the Church those words This is my body sufficed not to confirm this truth 46. To the same purpose he quotes Canus who saith not that it is not expressed but not so express i.e. not plainly or clearly and ranks it with the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead and in his next Chapter passeth to things which belong to Christian Faith which are neither clearly nor obscurely in Scripture Not all things which pertain to Christian Doctrine are expressed in holy Writ For the conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son the equality of three Persons in one substance and their distinction by relative proprieties you shall not finde so express in the Canonical Books wherefore as the Article of the Resurrection was contained in that I am the God of Abraham c. which afterward Christ expounded to the less intelligent so the Church by the Spirit of truth hath explicated some things which are had obscure in the holy Scriptures 47. He saith Henriquez affirms that Scotus saith Transubstantiation was not ancient when Henriquez saith no such thing 48. To prove that in Peter Lombards time Transubstantiation was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholique Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no and after Peter Lombard had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd he could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no he quotes these words If it be enquired what kinde of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kinde I am not able to define it Onely I know that it is not formall because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is changed into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former authorities seem to consent But to this Sentence others oppose these things If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted c. And saith they are a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was new not the Doctrine of the Church Which is a notable falsifying of that Author and the Doctor if he read him could not chuse but know he quoted him directly against his meaning For there were two Questions one whether the substance of the Elements be converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood and this question alone pertains to what we believe in the point of Transubstantiation And this question Peter Lombard had treated of afore and resolved positively 1. That it is undoubtedly to be held that under the visible species the Flesh of Christ which he took of the Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us is received by the wicked and the contrary he counted a Heresie The next Section he entitles De Haeresi aliorum c. Of the Heresie of others who say that the Body of Christ is not upon the Altar but in sign And thus he speaks of it There are other transcending the madness of the former Hereticks who measuring the power of God by the model of natural things do more audaciously and dangerously contradict the truth affirming that in the Altar is not the Body or Blood of Christ nor the substance of Bread and Wine converted into the substance of Flesh and Blood who take occasion of erring from the words of truth whence began the first Heresie against this truth among Christs Disciples It is the Spirit that quickens c. And they cite those words of S. Augustin Non hoc corpus quod videtis c. And there are other sayings also ministring fomitem to their madness The poor ye have alwayes with you but me not These and other sayings the aforesaid Hereticks use in maintenance of their Error Then he sets down his Proofs to the contrary which were the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article which having set down he concludes thus By these and other more it is manifest that the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of the Body and the substance of the Wine into the substance of the Blood Having thus dispatched that first question in the next Section which is that which the Doctor quotes he comes to a second which is a meer School nicety touching the manner of this substantial change whether it be formal or substantial or of some other kinde And touching that he useth the words quoted by the Doctor I am not able to define it c. Nay and even in that too he quotes him fraudulently to abuse the Reader For these words which he sets down as Peter Lombards argument against the modus substantialis were onely set down as an Objection to which he there gives an answer which the Doctor conceals To which may be answered in this manner that the Body of Christ is not said to be made in that sense as if the Body which was form'd in the Virgins womb were form'd again but because the substance of Bread or Wine which afore was not the Body or Blood of Christ is by the celestial Word made his Body and Blood And a little after Therefore after Consecration there is not the substance of Bread or wine although the species of Bread and Wine remain And to one that should object against this how this can be he answers briefly A mystery of Faith may salubriter be
Apostles who it is manifest are Gods helpers because they are the Vicars of Christ. Therefore they the Apostles received from God the Father by Christ our Lord this power that in our Lords stead they should make the Doctrine of our Lord acceptable 116. He saith The Pope calls himself the Universal Bishop and the Vicarial Head of the Church the Churches Monarch he from whom all Ecclesiastical authority is derived to whose Sentence in things Divine every Christian under pain of damnation is bound to be subject And quotes for this the Canon Unam Sanctam when in that Canon there is not any one of these Sentences but onely that he is the Vicarial Head of the Church Of one onely Church there is one onely Head to wit Christ and his Vicar Peter and his successors we define it to be altogether necessary to every humane creature to salvation to be subject to the Roman Bishop 117. He saith S. Ambrose saith the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ and is his substitute and quotes for it S. Ambrose ubi supra and we have seen afore that S. Ambrose in none of those places saith any such thing 118. To prove that the Bishops of Rome had no superiority by the Laws of Christ over any Bishop and that his Bishoprick gave no more power to him then Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocess he quotes Pope Symmachus As it is in the Holy Trinity whose power is one and undivided or to use the expression in the Athanasian Creed none is before or after other none is greater or less then another so there is one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops and therefore why should the Canons of the ancient Bishops be violated by their successors When 1. there is no such saying of Symmachus in the place quoted 2. The Epistle which he meant and is to be found in the Tomes of the Councils is not a little altered and mangled by him in the very words 1. Symmachus saith not as he quotes him As it is in the Holy Trinity c. So there is one Bishoprick c. And therefore why should c. But thus For whilst there is like unto the Trinity whose power is one and individual one Bishoprick c. how agrees it or is it becoming c. 2. Symmachus saith not there is one Bishoprick inter multos amongst many Bishops as he renders it as if equalling all Bishops then living one to another but there is one per multos through many that is through the line of Bishops succeeding to one another in the same See and so it onely equals the successor to his predecessor 3. Where Symmachus saith priorum of former Bishops or predecessors in that See he translates it of the ancient Bishops 4. Finding that these words would make nothing to his purpose he wrests them to it with a Gloss None is before or after other none is greater or less then another and then inferres that these words do fully declare that the Roman Bishoprick gave no more power to the Pope then Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocess when he could but know that his gloss and inference had not onely no foundation in Symmachus's words but were directly contrary to the whole substance and drift of the Epistle it being an answer to a Letter of Complaint of the Archbishop of Arles to the Pope against the Archbishop of Vienna for invading the rights of the Church of Arles for ordaining some neighbour Bishops upon pretence of some Breve or Rescript of Pope Anastasius Symmachus his predecessor wherein he had contraried the Grants of former Popes to the Church of Arles and desiring from the Pope redress in it and he promises to redress it and gives for his reason the words quoted by the Doctor because it was not well done of Anastasius to contrary the Acts of his predecessors all which proves that the Roman Bishop was superior to those Archbishops of Arles and Vienna and had jurisdiction over them and that Symmachus himself thought so We have received your Letters by which appears there is a controversie betwixt the Churches of Arles and Vienna concerning ordaining of Bishops in neighbouring Cities caused by this that our predecessor of happy memory Anastasius had commanded some things to be observed contrary to the ancient custome transgressing the Ordinance of his predecessors which he ought not to have done for any necessity whatsoever For seeing there is but one Bishoprick through divers Bishops like the Trinity whose power is one and individual how is it becoming the Statutes of former Popes to be violated by them that follow c. 119. To the same purpose he quotes S. Dionysius As the whole Hierarchy ends in Jesus so does every particular one in its own Bishop As if he had meant that every Bishop was supreme Governour next under Christ in his own Diocess when he meant onely that the order of Bishops was the supreme Hierarchical order in compare to Priests Deacons c. The Divine order therefore of Bishops is the first of those Orders which see God and he is also the highest and the last For in him is finished and compleated all the distinction of our Hierarchy For as we see all our Hierarchy to end in Jesus c. 120 121 122 123. To the same purpose he quotes Origen Gelasius S. Jerom and Fulgentius as teaching That the Bishops have the supreme place in the Church But 1. for Origen he quotes no book nor hath Origen any saying to that sense to exclude the Primacy of the Roman See 2 For Fulgentius he quotes him in Concil Paris l. 1. c. 3. but tells not what Council of Paris he means nor what Fulgentius nor in what Collection the book is to be found I can finde no such in Fulgentius his Works nor in the Tomes of Councils nor in the Councils of France set out by Syrmondus 3. For Gelasius he teaches no such thing for all he saith is this There are two things by which this World is principally governed the sacred Authority of Bishops and Regal power Betwixt which the burthen of Bishops is so much the heavier by how much they are in the divine examen to give an account even for Kings themselves c. 4. For S. Jerom he quotes two places one is in Hom. 7. in Jerem. when he hath no such work of Homilies upon Jeremy and if he meant his Commentary upon the seventh Chapter of Jeremy there is not a tittle in it to any such purpose The other is in his Book adversus Lucifer in which likewise I can finde nothing to this purpose 124. He saith that when Bellarmin is in this question about the Pope's Supremacy press'd out of the Book of Nilus by the authority of the Fathers standing against him he answers the Pope acknowledges no Fathers in the Church for they are all his Sons As if Bellarmin had
Death and he saith that for this Navar quotes Pope Adrian and Card. Cajetan and affirms is to be the sense of all men When Navar hath not a word to any such purpose in the number quoted And n. 27. where he purposely speaks of this matter and was perhaps meant by the Doctor Navar neither affirms it to be the sense of all men nor teaches it himself nor quotes P. Adrian or Card. Cajetan for it but onely teaches That though a man ought all the while that he is in mortal sin to take care to repent of it according to S. Thomas and the common opinion and namely Card. Cajetan yet he is not bound to it by a Precept obliging to new mortal sin unless at that time when it occurs to his memory as to use that is to desire or refuse it to commit or omit it according to the common opinion Nay nor at that time neither for those reasons for which Adrian and Cajetan affirm it And at length concludes that according to all we are bound to procure an act of contrition in imminent danger of death and whensoever we are to administer or receive any Sacrament which all are bound to at Easter or once a year nay and whensoever there is any great necessity of the people which requires servor of prayer to provide against it according to Pope Adrian 137. To the same purpose he quotes Reginaldus as denying that men are bound by the commandment of God to an act of contrition but onely in the Article of death when he onely denies that they are bound to it on Holy-dayes and affirms that by the common opinion of all the time in which a man is bound to it by any special commandment given by God touching contrition which word special the Doctor leaves out is the imminent danger of death but then addes that besides the Article of death there are other times in which we may be bound to an act of contrition meaning when we are to administor or receive any Sacrament all which the Doctor leaves out 138. He quotes Gultelmus de Rubeone Tolet Maldonat c. as teaching that if a man he never so little sorrowful for his sins it is sufficient with the Sacrament to obtain pardon for the greatest sins whereas they spake not of any little intention or degree of sorrow absolutely but within the species of contrition which contrition no sorrow can be as they teach unless it be a detestation of sin above all things detestable Sect. 3. 139. He saith the Penitent may get some body else to do his penance for him and quotes for it Sa whereas Sa saith no such thing absolutely as he quotes him but with two conditions which the Doctor conceals viz. 1. That it be with the licence of his Confessarius 2. Or when he cannot do it by himself 140. To the same purpose he quotes Tolet who hath not a word to that purpose in the place quoted and where he doth speak of it n. 13. he saith not The Penitent may get some body else to do his Penance for him as he quotes it but directly denies it unless in some case If the Confessarius do not impose Penance with a liberty to the Penitent to do it by himself or another the Penitent hath no faculty to fulfil it by another unless there be a necessity as by reason of infirmity or some impossibility 141. He saith Cordubensis expresly affirms that he that sins in hope of an Indulgence gains it when he doth not affirm it absolutely but onely saith that standing in the rigor of such a grant it seems to be probable 142. He saith Espenceus gives this account of our Taxa Camerae Apostolicae that it is a Book in which a man may learn more wickedness then in all the Summaries of Vices published in the world and yet to them that will pay for it there is to many given a Licence to all an Absolution for the greatest and most horrid sins setting down these later in such a manner as the Reader may easily think them the words of Espenceus when they are not nor doth Espenceus say in all the Summaries of Vices but simply in all the Summaries nor doth that Book of Taxa Camerae give any Absolution and much less License for any sin to such as will pay for it but onely to abridge the Court from unlimited and arbitrary impositions in that kinde taxes a mulct to be paid for some pious use by way of penance afore Absolution shall be had Sect. 7. 143. He quotes these as Tolet's words If a Noble man be set upon and may escape by going away he is not tyed to it but may kill him that intends to strike him with a stick But falsly for Tolet's words are these If a Noble man being set upon might save his life by flying he is not bound if thence he contract infamy to flye but may kill his enemy if he cannot otherwise defend life with honour Likewise if he cannot avoid a notable injury to be put upon him as if there be preparation to beat him with bills or staves for then he may kill his enemy 144. He quotes these as Tolet's words If a man desires carnal pollution that he may be eas'd of his carnal temptations or for his health it were no sin when his words in the place quoted were these Mollities or voluntary carnal pollution is not lawful either for health or life or any end whatsoever And n. 4. which perhaps the Doctor means Tolet saith onely this If a man should desire involuntary pollution in sleep for a good end as for health or for easing the tentations of the flesh with which in the day time he is afflicted it would be no sin so that the desire be not such as may be cause of the pollution c. 145. He quotes these as Tolet's words It is lawful for a man to expose his Bastards to the Hospital to conceal his own shame when in the number quoted Tolet hath nothing to that purpose and n. 10. where he hath these words that the Doctor quotes he clogs them with a condition which the Doctor omits and much alters the case So that the Father and Mother restore to the Hospital all Charges if they be able 146. He quotes these as Tolet's words out of Soto and he from Tho. Aquinas If the times be hard or the Judge unequal a man that cannot sell his Wine at a due price may lawfully make his measures less then is appointed or mingle water with his wine c. when in the Chapter and number quoted Tolet hath nothing to that purpose and cap. 49. n. 5. where he speaks of this matter he states not the case in that manner as the Doctor quotes him but thus One cannot sell his wine at the just that is the taxed price either by reason of the iniquity of the Judge or the malice of buyers