〈◊〉 ut dicitur cane Incomparabiliter enim pulchrior est Veritas Christianorum quam Helena Graecorum c. Such I say is my Petition presented to our Doctor and if the Love of Truth bears sway in his Breast yeeld he needs must to a speedy retractation Nothing can Retard him from so generous a Resolution but either Motives of interest drawn from a naughty World or his own once vented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So forsooth he hath said in his Disswasive and so it must stand though all run to Ruin and Christianity suffers The Doctor I confess hath been most Unluckily in broaching Heresies and wanting Grace to retract them Some years are now past since he was so Unfortunate as to become a Patron of the Pelagian Heresie when ex professo he Writ a Book against Original sin and stoutly defended it and being Friendly told by his own Brethren that what he said was not only opposite to Catholick Faith but also to the very Doctrine of the Church of England expresly deliver'd in her Liturgy in 39. Articles in the Office of Baptism c. He had yet the boldness to deny all and assert that the Church of England held not Original Sin though both Prince and Prelate knew then and believ'd the contrary I know not that he ever yet Recanted this Heresie if not 't is now high Time to do it and with it to Weep for the Errors in his Disswasive if he fails in both Duties the World will say and say truly that Dr. Taylor is Notior peccans quam paenitens more known for his Sin then for his Repentance and may Prudently Judge that he of all others was the unfittest Man to Write against Popery that disowns the Doctrine of his own Church unless this makes him fit that being a Pelagian his Words though he multiplies Volums will want weight against Catholicks For this is my reflection and I think a true one that this man who dar'd to say that the Church of England holds not Original Sin so plainly taught and believ'd by all will not Boggle to miscite the Fathers remote from our knowledge Read by few and Understood by fewer Farewel Gentle Reader with a thousand well-wishes for thy profitting by this Treatise I bestow as many on Dr. Taylor whose Enemy God knows I am not Nor can he think me one for laying out his Errors and telling Truth Upon this very Account he ought and I hope will to return me Thanks If now I Merit none I may hereafter have better Luck and deserve them If plain dealing may do it he shall have Reason to account me as indeed I am his Faithful True SERVANT and Friendly ADVERSARY E. W. QUOTATIONS Faulty in DOCTOR TAYLORS PREFACE To the READER TO destroy Tradition not contain'd in Scripture the Doctor cites Tertullian thus I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenes fear the Wo that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it I answer the Dr. turn's the true genuine sence out of this whole sentence chiefly by these guileful particles of his own making And if it be not written which seem exclusive of all unwritten tradition yet this Authority no more relates to Catholick Doctrine concerning Tradition then a Fable in Esop Briefly therefore Tertullian disputing against Hermogenes that held these visible things were created of I know not what prejacent matter speaks thus Lib. adversus Hermog Antwerp Print cap. 22. page 495. In principio c. In the beginning God made heaven and Earth then adds Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem I adore the fulness of Scripture Wherein in what doth he adore this fulness He answers Qua mihi factorem manifestat facta I adore the fulness of Scripture that doth manifest to me both the Maker and things made As who should say in this particular the Scripture is compleat and I adore its fulness c. Now these last words Qua mihi factorem c. which explain the Fathers sence our Dr. wholly omits and beguiles his Reader with these perverted particles if it be not written Tertullian after those words In Evangelio vero amplius goes on An autem de aliqua subiacenti materia facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi Whether all these things be made of a subjacent matter I never yet read Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Let Hermogenes his Work-house shew us that this particular is written Si non est Scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum If this thing now in controversie concerning the prejacent matter Hermogenes asserts be not written let him justly fear that Wo destin'd to them that detract from Scripture or add to it Here is exactly the whole context of Tertullian and it renders this sence Hermogenes holds the world made of a strange unknown matter The Scripture directly tells us how it was made and Created of nothing I adore the fulness of Scripture in this particular let therefore Hermogenes when the Scripture hath clearly said all that belongs to the first Creation of things prove by Scripture that unknown matter he defends if he cannot he may well fear that Wo threatned to such as detract from Scripture or add to it a prejacent matter never mentioned in it Judge good Reader whether this Quotation have so much as a likelyhood of gain-saying any constant received Tradition in the Church The Dr. may reply as Hermogenes added to Scripture his unknown matter so we add our unknown Traditions I answer first what Hermogenes defended was not only an addition but expresly contrary to Holy Scripture declaring that God made the VVorld of Nothing No Catholick Tradition is expresly or positively opposite to Gods written VVord unknown tradition we own not 2. Hermogenes had no such approved consent for his foolery as we have for our Catholick and ever received Tradition justly therefore did Tertullian oppugn him by the Authority of Scripture only for destitute he was of all warranted Tradition 3. The Doctrine of our Tradition not a pretended one or any superaddition of new Articles as the Dr. imputes to us is expresly allow'd of by Scripture it self the place is known 2 Thessa 2. 14. and enervates what ever hath the colour of an objection against us He cites next St. Basil de vera fide whose words are these Paris Print 1618. Tom. 2. page 251. Haud dubie manifestissimum hoc infidelitatis argumentum fuerit signum superbiae certissimum si quis eorum quae Scripta sunt aliquid velit rejicere aut eorum quae non Scripta introducere VVithout doubt this is a most manifest Argument of infidelity if one will reject any one of those things which are written these words our Dr. omits to make the Quotation sound to his sence or of those things which are not written introduce to wit into Scripture and so the St. explicates himself clearly in these following words Vehementissime
force of his Argument Sunt certe saith the Saint libri Dominici quorum Authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus c. There are certain books of our Lord He means Scripture to whose Authority we both yeild we both believe Ibi Quaeramus ecclesiam Let us look for the Church there c. That is seeing we both who now dispute admit of Scripture and believe it let us upon such a supposition go forward and prove the Church by Scripture which is an excellent way of Arguing but if any question the Authority of Scripture it self take it we must when we make a right Analysis upon the Church's Authority solely and say with St. Austin I would not believe the Scripture but for the Church I omit the brags he hath pag. 6. of Protestants being more then indubitably Conquerors meer empty words and observe how he puts himself on a new trouble pag. 7th where he saith Whatsoever we cannot prove by Scripture we disclaim it I will not here tell the Doctor he must then disclaim every Tenet of Protestant Religion no more in Scripture then Arianism as it stands opposite to the Roman Faith But briefly I argue thus A Church secured from Error and which Infallibly proposeth Divine Truth can be proved by Scripture or cannot If the first there was is and shall ever be in the World a society of Christians un-crrable and certain in Doctrine that neither injures Faith nor by intromitting Novelties destroy Apostolical Doctrine for the Scripture as we now suppose saith so and what it saith is true One favour therefore I humbly beg of the Doctor that he would by a plain designation point me out this unerrable body of Christians and clearly also design me such known out cast Christians that are not of this Moral body my demand is reasonable and require's no long discourse nor any definition of a Church but to have this unerring company design'd and candidly If the Scripture Warrant 's not such an Infallible company of Christians the Doctor though he pretend to it can never believe with a true and infallible Act of Supernatural faith that the Ancient Church Inherited Catholick Doctrine that it sent Milions of Souls to Heaven That what we now read is the Apostles Creed that the Ancient Councils erred not in their Definitions No nor that there ever was or is now Pure and Incorrupt Scripture among Christians I say he cannot believe these truths with a certain assent of Supernatural Faith but at most with a meer opinative Judgment which may as well be wrong as right false as true staggering assuredly it is and not steddy if a meer Opinion yes and wholly destitute of that strength which God requires to Supernatural Faith In his 10th page he is fierce against the Church of Rome for pretending to a power not only of declaring New Articles of Faith but of making new Symbols and Creeds and imposing them as necessary to Salvation To this purpose he cites the Bull of Leo the tenth against Martin Luther whose twenty seventh Proposition is this and condemned Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae non esse statuere Articulos fidei imo nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certain that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to appoint or determine Articles of Faith nor Laws of manners or good Works First here is not a word of making new Articles or Creeds and the word statuere may as well signifie to determine a Question not yet decided as to make any thing a new but to pass these niceties and shew clearly the Doctors Error I demand whether the Fathers assembled together in the Nicen Council made new Articles of Faith against the Arians whether St. Athanatius in his Creed did the like who was no Pope What the Doctors Answer is here is ours also for all and every Definition made by the Church in after Ages And I would have him to reflect that as he now cavil's at both Pope and Church for constituting new Articles so the Arians might have done against the Nicen Council and Athanasius his Creed yes and cried out Novelties novelties as loud as the Doctor In a word then I answer with St. Gregory in Ezechiel homit XVI post med pag. 1164. 6. edit Antwerp 1615. that per incrementa temporum Crevit scientia spiritalium Patrum With time Faith encreased hut how not that either the Church or Pope have Power to coin Articles at pleasure or to force Christians to the acceptance of Novelties contrary to Scripture or ancient Tradition No but the Power given them is to dispence the Mysteries of the Word of God to lay out more clearly verities contained in Scripture so the Fathers did in the Nicen Council when they defined the Son to be consubstantial with his Father which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never read in Scripture Finally to declare more explicitely what the Ancient Tradition of the Church and sence of the Fathers hath been within such a compass the Church holds it self when after mature deliberation it defines in Council Hence both Divines and Canonists teach that rigorously speaking the Church hath no new Articles of Faith but only a more full and explicite knowledge of that belief which anciently was among Primitive Christians yet none there is that reads our Doctor both in the page now cited and elsewhere after but must have this perswasion wrought in him that the Church and Pope may define as it were at Random make new Articles new Creeds as they list and impose them as necessary to Salvation All is false and fraudulent dealing CHAP. II. The Doctors Quotations not true His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis THe Doctor in his tenth page to prove our making new Articles cites Augustinus Triumphus de Anconâ—a quaest 59 Art 1 2. and pittifully abuseth that Catholick Author who in his resolution Art 1. â— concludes thus Respondeo quod hanc quaestionem determinat Augustinus libro 1. de symbolo ubi vult quod omnis symboli condendi ordinandi in sancta dei ecclesia terminatur authoritas I Answer St Austin resolves this Question lib. 1. de symbolo Where he saith That all Authority of making and setting a Symbol in order is within the bounds of the Church Mark first St. Austins words Omnis authoritas condendi ordinandi c. Then follow these other in Anconitanus his resolution wrongfully interpreted and unhandsomly mangled by the Doctor Ex his patere potest quod novum symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat nam in symbolo ponuntur illa quae universaliter pertinent ad Christianam fidem By this you may see that to make a new Symbol belongs only to the Pope for those things are set down in a Symbol which Universally concern Christian Faith These last words which explicate both St. Austins and Anconitanus his meaning are fraudulently left out
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
all peradventure as if he had read where an Image is there is no Religion without all peradventure the good man is deceived I say no more To what he next cites out of Origen we shall answer hereafter Now to the Doctors Chapters and Sections CHAP. I. Of the Doctors ungrounded discourse to the wrongful charge on Catholicks for making new Articles in Faith TOugh my task be chiefly to follow the Doctor in his Quotations and note as he goes along some few of his many Errors Yet touch I must a little on a discourse he is pleased to begin with Chapter the first It seems to enervate much our Christian Faith and weaken the Authority of the most Ancient Councils Page then the fourth and first Section he holds the two Testaments the words of Christ and of the Apostles the Fountains of Faith which none denies but next he adds Whatsoever caeme in after these foris est is to be cast out it belongs not unto Christ This latter assertion to say no more hath too much of the harshness in it for the difinitions of the Nicen Council and of the other three general Councils with St. Athanasius his Creed came in after the words of Christ and Holy Scripture are these Think ye like old Garments to be laid a side or cast out as not at all belonging to Christ belong they do most certainly as Rivers to their Fountains though not own'd as Original Springs and the first Foundations of our Faith Observe therefore I beseech you how the Doctor deals with us how he leads us on in darkness whilst he sets men a seeking after the Fountains of Faith but with it turns by the Stream cuts of the Torrent of Authority whereby to find them that is in a word he makes null all Authority that can assert with certainty Such were the Words of Christ such the Doctrine of the Apostles c. Judge whether I say not aright and demand of the Doctor upon whose certain proposal can he rely or indubitably admit of Christ's words as sacred If he answers Scripture the Question return's again and he is asked a new who it is that doth ascertain him of Scripture If the Fathers they are with him Fallible yes and full of ambiguous sences If the Church that saith he is changeable hath brought in novelties contrary to Ancient Faith if Councils not one is found but lyable to Error Turn by therefore these intermedial Streams running between us and the Fountains of Faith destroy the certainty of such Witnesses say that no man or society of men since Christ and his Apostles hath without a possibility of erring assured us that Christ spake that the Evangelists writ as they did the whole Scripture God knows will be cast aside also yes and become a comfortless an unwarranted Book Whence follow 's a total ruin of Christian Religion This is not my assertion but the great St. Austins the Quotation is known Tom. 6. contra epistolam Manichei cap. 5. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem c. I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved me to believe it Our Doctor may think he salves this objection in his next ensuing lines pag. 4. where he saith To these that is to Scripture we add not as Authors but as helpers of our Faith and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical the sentiments and Catholick Doctrine of the Church in the Ages next after the Apostles not that we think c. I Answer Here is no man knows what confusedly shut up in two Ambiguous VVords Heirs and Helpers to get out of darkness I might first demand how knows the Doctor now exactly what the Sentiments or Catholick Doctrine of the Church Anciently were in the Ages next after the Apostles The Proposal of our present Church overgrown as he saith with a thousand Errors is an infufficient warranty Both Fathers and Councils were even then Fallible and had they been Infallible their writings since that may perhaps have fallen into ill hands and lost their purity But I wave this discourse and propose to our present purpose this Question only Are we Christians now being obliged under Damnation to believe those Sentiments of the Ancient Church as undoubted Helpers as certain apparent Heirs of Divine Truth or no if not They cast us wholly upon uncertainties and may as well help us on to Err as hit right if we are bound to own them as certain Heirs of Divine Truth Scripture must assure it for saith the Doctor To believe any thing Divine that is not Scripture is a divillish spirit and undoubtedly affirm that at least in the Ages next after Christ there was a society of men not lyable to Error that kept our Christian Faith entire without spot or blemish faithfully transmitted it to Posterity c. Now all I can desire of the Doctor is to produce that Scripture which purifies the Ancient Church only and makes the next ensuing Ages of that Church Spurious in Doctrine fearfully despicable and lyable to Error Thus much I am confident he shall never shew for our dearest Saviour that Established a Christian Church promised he would be with it to the end of the World Gods alseeing providence drives not on his work by halfs nor leaves his Church when the Doctors fancy listeth Souls are now as dear to Christ as they were in the Primitive Ages He shed his Sacred Blood for All if then he secured his Church from Error and directed Souls into Truth he doth the like favour now and will not permit his Immaculate Spouse to beguile them with falshood All therefore the Doctor saith here is a deceitful Paralogism yes and Paradoxes not to be tolerated A Paradox it is to talk of Heirs and Helpers of Apostolical Doctrine and rob them of their Infallibility A Paradox it is to say that these Heirs and Helpers sent Milions of Souls into the Bosom of Christ and cast more Milions in after Ages out of his Bosom for want of true Faith A Paradox it is that Christ only remained with his Church for a time and then left it destitute of Divine Assistance yes and in points most Fundamental But the greatest Paradox of all which amuses every one is That now towards an end of the World a new sort of unknown men the Doctor is one will become our Teachers and tell us exactly how long Christ was with his Church and when he leap'd out of it He was with it say they for some three or four hundred years and then left it fluctuating tossed and at last saw it without Mercy overturned with a deluge of Errors And credit this we must upon their bare word because they say it without Sctipture without Reason yes expresly contrary to both and all Ancient Authority The Doctor to prove the Church by Scripture only quotes St. Austin in his Margent pag. 4. de vnit ecclesiae cap. 3 4. 5. but both mangles his words and conceals the
restrained sense and only deny the publick manner of his hearing it in that forum not known to others A Disparity here good Doctor perhaps He will answer that the Judge or Tyrant positively demands whether the Priest heard that Sin in Confession and his saying No to it is a flat lye By the way had the Apostles asked our Saviour whether he would ascend to the Solemnity and he had answered as he did non ascendo No would he have told a Lye I am sure No. Neither did he say an untruth when Mark 13. some asked him of the day of judgement he returned this answer De die illo c. of that day and hour none knows not the Angels in Heaven nor the Son but the Father only Yet most certain it is that the Son of God knew of that day which Truth the Fathers asserted against the Arians endeavouring to prove out of this very Scripture that Christ was not God He knew therefore of the day of judgement yet said he did not know both are true Let the Doctor unfold this double Sense and we have enough for our present purpose Hence learn that though a Tyrant positively ask of a Priest a thousand times whether he heard such a Sin in Confession the question is not of his demand for 't is most unjust but whether a Priest may answer as truly No I did not hear it as Christ our Lord said No I ascend not I know not of the day Here is the question Most willingly would I have the Doctors answer if he finds a flaw in the Parity Were our Doctor better versed in Speculation I might here set down the Essential difference between a Ly and mental Restriction In a ly men ever speak against their mind for mentiri est contra mentem ire that is they judge so and speak contrary In mental Restriction a part only of our interior Judgment or as we speak in School Inadaequate is only expres'd by Exterior words or signes For example if the Doctor preaching to his people hath this great truth in his mind God is not in Heaven after a Corporeal manner and should by accident Exteriorly say no more but thus much only God is not in Heaven He doth not by that half Expression thwart his Judgment or speak contrary to his thoughts but only saith not fully out what he thinks And thus it is in mental Restriction what is said is true though not fully spoken to the capacity of the Hearer In the Ambiguous use of words usually called Equivocation there is far less difficulty Hence I infer and it is an Objection of our Doctor pag. 153. that if an Adultress asked whether she be one answers No she speaks no untruth unless she will but only sayes she is none publickly proved Or in some such like Sense Next saith our Doctor if a man compelled to swear to take such a one for Wife he may secretly mean if hereafter she please me And the same is of one compelled by a Thief to give him twenty Crowns I answer No forced Oath extorted by compulsion is an Oath for want of Freedom and Liberty and consequently not Obligatory The case is plain if one should take the Doctors hand per force and make him write thus much All I have said in my Dissuasive from Popery is against my Conscience Would he hold himself obliged to stand to his Writing After this he cites Vasquez bragging I know not of what Doctrine and where In 3. Tom. 4. Quest 93. Art 5. Dub. 13. Answ Vasquez with me Antwerp print 1621. hath only 4. Articles in his 93. Question and not a syllable in his 13. Dubium of any bragging In his 12. Dub. Art 4. he treats of our present matter but nothing do I find there to the Doctors purpose If he hath another Edition let him friendly tell me Page 154. saith he Diana holds That to save a mans credit an honest man who is ashamed to beg may steal what is necessary I answer He deals not well with Diana that speaks more moderately thus Vir honestus cui pro ratione sui status gravissimum maximum dedecus esset mendicare nec posset alia via victum sibi acquirere videtur posse clanculum necessaria surripere c. It seemes that a man of credit and to whom it would be most heavy and a mighty disgrace to beg nor can by any other means get sustenance to live these words the Doctor conceals it seemes I say that such a man may secretly take what is necessary for his sustenance Secus si esset infimae sortis c. But this holds not in case he be of a low condition and might without a notable loss of his honour beg or otherwise find necessaries c. Thus Diana far of from that high Sense the Doctor sets down Read him in his Compendium Rhoan print 1644. verbo furtum pag. 335. n. 18. Page 155. the Doctor saith That it is affirmed and was practis'd by a whole Council of Bishops at Constance that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks And John Hus and Hierom of Prague felt the mischief of violation of publick Faith c. Answ An old story and as false as old For first the Council never determined that Faith given by Ecclesiastical power to an Heretick is not to be kept Nay it holds it self obliged to stand to such a promise Faithfully also complied with it in the after Councils of Basil and Trent Yet more This Council holds that a Secular Prince or Magistrate after security promised to an Heretick is bound to keep it although neither the one or other can force the Church 't is a distinct Tribunal to do so True it is that King Sigismund who had given a safe conduct to Hus seemed at first to feel his Condemnation but when he perceived the obstinacy of the man neither relenting after his own Princely Counsel nor yeelding to the advice of others he did not only condescend to punish Hus but exhorted the Fathers Assembled at Constance to proceed severely against him And why John Hus violated the Laws of his safe conduct shamefully and ran away from the Council Yet catch'd he was and committed to Prison and had his condigne punishment His running away made him a guilty person on a new score and by it lost the priviledge of his safe conduct Here you have in brief the true Story Spondanus relates it Tom. 2. Paris print anno 1641. ad annum Christi 1415. n. 45. pag. 216. and for more sends you to Joannes Coclaeus lib. 2. 3. Concerning Faith to be kept with Hereticks Spondanus now cited remits you farther to Molanus a Doctor of Loven to Martinus Becanus and Hesibertus Rosweidus all Learned men and no wayes opposite to publick fidelity given to any What the Doctor hath page 156. of the Pope dispensing in Oaths when they hinder a greater good seems to me a childish Objection For do not secular Princes
so really is this very sentence if you 'll compare it with those following words of St. Chrisostom in Frobens Edition Hoc est super confessionem super sermones pietatis c. That is Christ built his Church not upon the man as man but upon Peter confessing and piously acknowledging his Saviours Divinity which Flesh and Blood taught him not c. You see therefore a sentence weighed out of its circumstances changes often most blamless Doctrine and speaks well with them less well without them One only instance in Doctor Taylors 167. page shall serve for our purpose where he cites Bellarmine thus If the Pope should Err by commanding sin and forbiding Virtue the whole Church were bound to believe that Vices were good and Virtue evil unless she would sin against her Conscience These words are Bellarmin's and as they stand in the Doctor sound harshly and therefore he Quotes them but read in Bellarmine they have an excellent sence and directly prove that neither Church nor Pope can Err whereof see more in the 28. Chapter of this Treatise So true it is that words as they run on in the Context of an Author are often harmless though stript of their adjuncta they may prove hurtful to a less diligent Reader Our Doctor in his Disswasive is almost endless with these maimed and half-quoted Authorities Observe lastly good Reader how unworthily the Doctor pag. 13. deals with Sixtus Senensis by turning the Genuine sence of his words into another highly injurious Mark I beseech you Sixtus Praiseth Pope Pius the 5th for purging the Ancient Fathers vitiated by modern Hereticks c. But our Doctor for sooth will not allow him this sence but makes him speak as if he extolled the Pope for razing out the Fathers own Doctrine To know the truth read Sixtus his Epistle Dedicatory it is before his Bibliotheca where he speaks thus to Pius Quintus Deinde expurgari emaculari curasti omnia Catholicorum Scriptorum ac praecipuè Veterum Patrum Scripta haereticorum aetatis nostrae faecibus contaminata venenis infecta You have caused saith he all the writings of Catholick Authors and chiefly the Ancient Fathers stained with the dreggs of Hereticks in this our Age and poysoned with their Venome to be purged and made clear from blemish What is here more offensive then to take Poyson out of a sound body Yet our Doctor to perswade the world that Popes are ever busie in cancelating the Records of Antiquity gives you only Sixtus his first words You have purged the Ancient Fathers c. and there fraudulently leaves of utterly concealing what follows and clears all Hereticorum faecibus contaminata c. that is You have purged the Ancient Fathers contaminated with Heresie in these our days Briefly then our Doctor by this Quotation would either have his Reader judge that Sixtus praised the Pope for blotting out the Authentick writings of the Fathers or only for purging them from later Heresie If the second its worthy praise if the first viz. that the Pope is here commended for blotting out the writings of the Ancient Fathers which is the only thing aim'd at I do affirm this a flat corruption a wrong as you see to Sixtus A ginne to catch the unwary Reader and therefore deplorable in a Doctor of Divinity What is further opposed in that 13. page of places razed out of St. Austin is an Error read the above mentioned Expurgatory Index pag. 37. and you shall find the correction to be made upon Erasmus and Ludovicus his Notes not on St. Austins words and page the 39 you have Cluadius Chevalonius his Index upon St. Austin amended not any syllable of the Saint's corrected And this is the first which our Doctor storms at Solus Deus est adorandus God only is to be adored Frobens Indices mentioned in the same page of our Doctor deserved correction wholly contrary to the Originals CHAP. III. The Doctors Quotations not right Prayer for the dead proves a Purgatory TO what the Doctor hath in his 2d Section page the 14th concerning the power of making new Articles we have answered already and say that the Church coyns no Novelty yet may explicitly declare what anciently was believed implicitly The Declaration is new the substance of the Article as old as Christianity In the next page after he had a fling at a new Article ready for stamp concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin which is more then he knows He passeth to his third Section of Indulgences page 16. where he cites St. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence parte 1. summae cap. 3. saying We have nothing expresly for Indulgences in Scripture c. The Doctor omits what follows immediately quamvis ad hoc inducatur illud Apostoli 2. cor 2. si quid donavi vobis propter vos in persona Christi Although saith Antoninus that of the Apostle is alledged si quid c. He cites again our Bishop Fisher in Art 18. Lutheri to this sence At the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences Answer he saith it not so absolutely but with this interrogation Quis jam de Indulgentjis mirari potest and expresly in the beginning of that Article hath these words Fuit tamen non nullus earum usus ut aiunt apud Romanos vetustissimus quod vel ex stationibus in urbe frequentissimis intelligi datur There was as they say a most ancient Use and Practise of these Indulgences at Rome which thing the most frequented Stations of that City gives us to understand In the rest of that Section he hath only Vulgar Objections answered over and over and a number of calumnies a rising from the misunderstanding of Catholick Doctrine I therefore leave him for it is not my task to repeat what hath been most largely writ concerning Indulgences by others What I find more material in the Doctors fourth Section is page 27. Where he tells us our Writers vainly suppose that when the H. Fathers speak of Prayer for the dead they conclude for Purgatory For it is true saith he the Fathers did Pray for the dead But how that God would shew them Mercy and hasten their Resurrection c. Mark well that God would shew them Mercy whence I argue if the Souls prayed for be in Heaven they have Mercy the sentence is given for their Eternal happiness if in Hell they are wholly destitute of Mercy vain therefore were the Prayers of the Fathers for Mercy unless there be a third place where mercy can be shewed them I would willingly know of the Doctor if he would deal candidly what St. Austins ingenious meaning was when he prayed thus for his Mother Monica lib. 9. confess cap. 13. Dimitte illi tu debita sua si qua etiam contraxerit post tot annos post aquam salutis Forgive my Mother her debts if she hath after so many years contracted any since Baptism What are these debts Again
St. Cyprian and St. Hierom now cited Hoc erant utique saith the first caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti That is equal in this fellowship and office of being Apostles Sed Primatus Petro datur But the Primacy is given to Peter Where you see that Cyprian clearly grants an equality common to the whole Colledge of Apostles and withal establisheth a Superiority proper to St. Peter only either the words of this Saint are senceless or the distinction of equality in many and Supremacy in one must stand And In this sence St. Hieroms Doctrine is most significant without gloss or wresting one syllable Ex aequo super eos c. The strength of the Church was equally built upon the Apostles viz. as Masters as Doctors and Teachers illuminated by the Holy Ghost yet therefore among twelve One was chosen that a Head or Governer being constituted all occasion of schism might be prevented Here is certainly more then that Dimunitive orderly Precedency our Doctor allows good St. Peter Ut schismatis tollatur occasio are significant words and point at what is most essential to the Church The Unity of it See the absolute necessity of this Head in order to Unity most solidly laid out by S. G. and remember well what I was to shew that St. Hierom acknowledgeth an equality amongst many and a Supremacy in One. Once more I repeat it equality relates to their Apostolical dignity Supremacy to the Head and Governour 2. I draw this distinction of Apostles-ship in All and Head-ship in One from St. Gregory the Great lib. 2. Epist 38. indictione 13. so it is with me in his works printed at Antwerp anno 1572. though others cite lib. 4. Certe saith the Saint Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae Universalis Ecclesiae est Paulus Ioannes Andreas quid aliud quam singularium sant capita tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae St. Peter is the first Member of the Universal Church the other Apostles not so nor in like manner Universal Yet with this Supremacy in Peter our Opponent must acknowledge an equality of their Apostle-ship I will add one word more and tell you though the Doctor should alledge out of some Fathers that St. Paul may be rightly stiled the Head of Nations and be said to have had a Principality over the Church yet the difference between him and St. Peter is most remarkable St. Paul and the other Apostles had this Principality as Legats by extraordinary concession St. Peter had it over the whole Church in solidum yes over the Apostles themselves as Pastor Ordinary I say Over the Apostles themselves so Anacletus Scholler to St. Prter cited by Remumdus Rufus in Molinaeum pag. 86. Inter beatos Apostolos saith he fuit quaedam discretio licet omnes essent Apostoli Petro tamen a Domino est consessum ipsi inter se voluerunt id ipsum ut reliquis praeesset Apostolis Cephas id est caput principium teneret Apostolatus There was a difference a distinction among the Blessed Apostles and although all were Apostles yet our Lord gave to Peter and the other Apostles among themselves will'd the same thing that Peter should be Superiour to the rest and Cephas that is Head and chief of Apostleship See this Authority more largely in the Cannon Law Decreti prima par distinct 22. cap. 2. and never leaveâ— of to wonder at the bold assertion of our Doctor pag. 65. viz. That by the Law of Christ one Bishop is not Superiour to another Christ gave the Power to all alike he made no Head of the Bishops he gave to none a Supremacy of Power c. So the Doctor In the same pag. 65. he fills his Margent with a cluster of Authors but to what purpose God only knows if they be to prove that Apostolical power is and shall be ever in the Church We grant it to the Pope of Rome If to prove that Bishops succeed the Apostles in all priviledges and ample power they had in the Church not one Father in the Doctors Margent asserts it though in a real sence Bishops that have a true mission may be called the Apostles successors by reason of their duty which is to uphold the Doctrine of Christ taught by the Apostles by reason of their spiritual power and Princely and Priestly Dignity and this is all St. Irenaeus saith in the place cited by the Doctor lib. 4. cap. 43. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Praesbiteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis Wherefore we ought to obey those who are Priests in the Church those who have succession from the Apostles Thus St. Irenaeus and the other Fathers say no more I see not to what purpose the Doctor cites those words of St. Paul We are Embassadors or Legats for Christ unless it be to prove what I asserted above that the other Apostles though Princes of the Church were not Pastors Ordinary as St. Peter was Less do I know why the Preface of the Mass Quos operis tui vicarios c. is brought in Pastors they were but all subordinate to St. Peter as I have shewed In his pag. 66. he jerks the Jesuits Monks and Cajetane for defending the Popes Authority over Bishops But frivolous stories are but weak Arguments yet the best the Doctor hath at hand Next he cites Pope Elutherius saying That Christ committed the Universal Church to Bishops How good Doctor That every Bishop hath jurisdiction over the Universal Church T is very strange the Bishop of Down and Connor will not pretend to such a power Christ indeed committed the Universal Church to Bishops by parts or portions whereof the whole Church is made yet ever with subordination to one head which prevents schism and conserves Unity Page 67. he cites the famous words of St. Cyprian The Church of Christ is one through the whole world divided by him into many members and the Bishoprick is but one c. No hurt in this which makes against the Doctor for if the whole Church of Christ be rightly called one Bishoprick there must be certainly one Head over so Vast a Bishoprick no other can be but the Pope who Governs in Ecclesiastical affaires Other Bishops have only a portion in the Flock He next cites you Pope Symmachus his words apud Baronium Tomo 6. anno D. 499. num 36. but falsly for Symmachus writing to Eonius speaks thus Nam dum ad Trinitatis instar cujus una est atque individua potestas unum sit per diversos Antistites sacerdotium As in the Blessed Trinity whose Power is one and individual so their is one Priest-hood our Doctor reads one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops and thus he reads after he had thrust in a Parenthesis of his own head not in Symmachus his Letter But the worst is the inference he draws from Symmachus his words They being spoken saith he
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.