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.
〈◊〉 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
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