to God so c. unless he speaks as really he doth of Actual Confession as well requisite for reconciliation when a sinner is contrite as when he is attrite only which is injurious to Catholicks If you ponder well what I have said you 'll find the Doctor in a Labarinth pull him out who will He goes on in his ignorance and saith first that with us there is no necessity of Contrition at all Answ Most Untrue It is necessary in a thousand cases of death and danger when Attrition only will not avail without the Sacrament He saith 2. A little repentance will prevail as well as the greatest and cites Gulielmus de Rubeo he means de Rubeone I answ Two things may be considered in repentance for Example in an Act of Contrition The first is the substance of that Act which implies a sorrow for having sinned against God and offended his infinite goodness with purpose of amendment and this appretiative esteem of God is the same and intrinsecal to every Act of Contrition so much perfection it hath or 't is not Contrition The second is the gradual remiseness or intensness of it which may be various in a sinner if remiss it gains less Grace if intenss more and therefore upon this account benifits the sinner accordingly But know that the Doctor can never shew either by Scripture or any received Authority that Contrition which is a remorse for sin upon the motive now specified ought to have such a gradual intention for the remission of it and this is all that Gulielmus de Rubione Tolet and others say in our present controversie If the Doctor will have more concerning this subject he may read Suarez tract de charitate Sect. 2. n. 2. and well Learn of him that the gradual intention in acts of love towards God is not necessary to comply with the precept of Loving him above all Suarez his words are Illa perfectio dilectionis dei pertinet ad speciem naturam talis actus qui saluatur in quavis intensione The perfection of Charity belongs to the species or nature of the Act which is had whether the Act be more or less intens If Suarez his Authority like not the Doctor I expect his Scripture to the contrary and with all desire he would plainly say how strong an intention in Contrition is necessary to reconcile a sinner and this by Scripture or some approved Authority Page 81. he shews himself little versed in our Divines where he tells you that we say if a man live a wicked life for 60 or 80 years yet if when he dyes sooner then which God hath not commanded him to repent he be a little sorrowful for his sins and though this sorrow have no Love of God in it if the Priest absolve he is safe the Priest with two Fingers and a Thumb doth the work for him c. First I slight this jeer of two Fingers and a Thumb God hath his Judgment for it and may in time stupifie those two Fingers and Thumb that writ it as once he did Valens his whole hand for an intended injury against a Priest Next to clear this doubt our Divines hold that a man is commanded to convert himself sooner to God then in the Article of death some whom Suarez Supar cites Sect. 3. nu 1. as Capreol and Scot too scrupulously say That as often as other precepts oblige us for example to give an Alms so often Charity must accompany the work done others say not much less Suarez teacheth and truely n. 4. That this precept of loving God some time in mans life obligeth per se by its self and adds that it is not to be deferr'd for a long time after the use of reason Finally concludes Qui per multos annos non exercet hunc actum amoris delinquit contra hoc praeceptum He that for many years exerciseth not this Act of Love offends against the precept of Loving God Now if the precept obliges all much more a sinner who is an enemy to God And here by the way you may see the Doctors Argument above pag. 76. further answered and that Reginaldus and Navar there cited have nothing contrary to this known and received Doctrine But what if one sins lustily on for 60. or 80. years and omits these acts of loving God and his duty every way can he if he comes in the Article of death with Attrition only to a Priest pass into a state of Salvation though then he neither loves God nor has true Contrition I answer That many both Learned and Grave Divines say No not only because the precept transgressed so long then if ever obligeth him but upon this account chiefly that such an obdurate sinner is bound in that dangerous hour to seek reconciliation with God by the best and securest means but an Act of Love and perfect Contrition are the securest therefore to the one or other he is obliged See Suarez now cited num 3. Con. disp 24. de charitate dub 5. conclus 3. and others Withal be pleased to reflect that the Doctor spake without book when he so roundly told us as if none gainsaid it that a little sorrow and the fear of Hell only which is false though it has no Love of God with it passeth a sinner in the Article of death to a state of Salvation All this is said at random But what will ye his head was so taken up with his pretty conceit of the Priests two Fingers and a Thumb that he forgot his Divinity In his 2 Sect. pag. 82. He comes full charged against the use of Confession among Catholicks Though with the pious Children of the Church in England it is of excellent use Answ Besides calumnies and slanders in this Section he hath nothing worth notice Princes says he and Prelates do often confess and are never the better How proves he this slander or let him say what is done better with his excellent use of Confession among the Pious Prelates in the Church of England 2. He saith That men look on this Cure like pulling off their Clothes Answ A slander But tell me is it better in the Church of England among those Pious Children he mentioneth 3. That they confess to day pag. 83. and sin to morrow Answ And do none sin to morrow who confess to day in the Church of England Confession makes not men impeccable yet is an excellent remedy to prevent sin and so our Doctor will suppose it is among the Pious Children of the Church of England 4. He saith Confession is made a Minister of State a Pick-lock of Secrets a Spie upon Families c. Answ A Calumny The whole Christian World knows the contrary and I tell you the Doctor is more obliged to make restitution for the wrong done to Catholick Priests in this particular then any Theif is who picks his pocket But tell me is Confession a pick-lock with Catholicks only in case all were true
that he saith without conscience is there no Pick-lock of secrets or spie upon Families among those Pious Ministers in the Church of England I have heard the contrary that whole Confessions have been revealed by them whether true or no I say not yet I know well that for the space of forty years that I have lived in Catholick Countries I never heard the least complaint against Confessor for being a Pick-lock The Doctor therefore may well expect Gods just Judgment on him for this injustice unpardonably done unless he repents and makes restitution to Catholick Priests But enough of this Section Pag. 86. Sect. 3. he hath a bout with our Penance and satisfaction and makes a long list of their abuses They are saith he reduced from the ancient Canonical Penances to private and arbitrary from years to hours from great severity to gentleness and flattery from publick shame to the saying over their beads from Cordial to Ritual from smart to money from heartiness and earnest to pageantry and theatrical Images of Penance Answ Though 't is true that the Church hath upon weighty reasons much lessened the rigor of ancient Penances and therefore so frequently grant's Indulgences yet what follows in this pretended Catalogue of abuses is nothing but a long List of Calumnies false and injurious False it is that if the sin confessed deserves a years Pennance we reduce it to an hours False that we turn the severity of Penance into flattery unless the Doctor calls the charitable comforting a poor penitent flattery No so far are we from flattery in this Tribunal of Penance that we lay open the enormity of sin threatning Gods Judgement upon it and spare no pains to beget a horror of sinning in a penitents heart False it is that if the sin be enormious or scandalous the saying ones beads is enough False it is that we exact only Ritual and not Cordial satisfaction False likewise that when the penitent ought to smart for his sin the smart is turned into money though I think the Doctor will not deny but that in circumstances of age or infirmity when the penitent cannot bear austerity the charitable giving of Alms is laudable and satisfactory at least holy Daniel liked well of it Cap. 4. 24. Peccata tua elemosynis redime iniquitates tuas misericordiis pauperum Redeem make amends for thy sins with Alms-deeds and thy iniquities with mercies of the Poor False finally it is that we require not heartiness and earnest in the performance of Penance Now what the Doctor means by his Pageantry and Theatrical Images of Penance God I think only knows Perhaps he blames some publick Penances now and then done in the Church If so first all publick Penances are not laid aside 2. You see the Peevishness of our Doctor nothing escapes his censure if Penances be private the Ancient Canons suffer if publick they are pageantry and theatrical Images What will content the man When one stands there among you at a Pillar for Perjury or in a white Sheet for Fornication is this pageantry or any threatrical Images and what further use have you I beseech ye of these ancient Canonical Penances among the Pious Penitents of the Church of England Well to conclude the Doctor I am sure deserves justly a severe Penance for this heap of Calumnies and if ever God as I wish make him a Catholick and choose me for Confessor he shall have it home without flattery an hours Penance or saying his Beads will be too little in a word his Penance shall be proportionate to his sin and if he thinks it not enough let him go on Gods name to Sancta Maria de populo for the gaining of those thousand Indulgences he mentioneth He holds on this 3d. Section and tells you of strange Indulgences granted to several places whether truly or no it imports little Admit he speaks truth all he gets is that the Church is liberally good to such great sinners as he is who as Holy Iob saith Drink iniquity like water and if after their repentance it grants them Mercy what offence is there in doing so In the rest of that weightless Section while he explicates what Divines say of Indulgences sometimes he hits right sometimes misses but is ordinarily very plentiful in jeers all slight stuff I leave him only be pleased to reflect how though without pointing to any place he cites Gerson and Soto against himself for if it be true that Soto saith in 4 Sent. distinct 21 q. 2. a. 1. That the Pope never grants these Indulgences for a 100. or 1000. years The Doctor hath no more to say but that such pardons are not at all the Questuaries only procured them and consequently impugns what never was CHAP. XIII The sum of our Doctors discourse concerning Indulgences His two mistakes are discovered His Objections answered THe Doctor pag. 91. Sect. 4. pretends much chacharity to our Souls and to unbeguile us will needs add one consideration more And what is this think you Marry There is no Foundation of truth in these new Divices and this to boot that when our Doctors are pinched with an objection they let their hold go c. Good man Are these his considerations A young Student in Divinity would make good sport with such considerations But ad rem I constantly affirm that all he has said in this Section hath not so much as a shadow of an objection in it against the received Doctrine of Indulgences much less any that pinches To prove my assertion be pleased to have in mind what this received Doctrine is which the Council of Trent sess 25. decret de Indulg declares thus Sacrosancta Synodus Indulgentiarum usum Christiano populo maxime salutarem sacrorum conciliorum authoritate probatum in Ecclesia retinendum esse docet praecipit The holy Synod teaches that the use of Indulgences is most wholesome and profitable to Christians and commands this use approved by the Authority of holy Councils to be held still in the Church Next it requires a moderation in granting Indulgences according to the Ancient Custome of the Church and that all abuses crept in be amended c. This Catholick truth supposed you 'll find the Doctor strangely beguiled and his whole discourse chiefly founded on two mistakes weaker then a Bul-rush His first mistake is that because Catholicks cannot arrive to a certain knowledge of gaining an Indulgence or the full fruit of it he thinks no trust is to be had in it no endeavour used to purchase this Grace An error For Divines say and truly no one can know with certainty that he hath an act of true supernatural Faith or of true Charity in that Degree Purity and Measure which God exacts is therefore Faith and Charity without trust to be laid aside is our endeavour to have them carelesly to be left off is it wholly useless and unprofitable God forbid His second error is that he builds too much upon those
〈◊〉 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
In his 79. he excepts against our Doctrine of contrition and saith we allow it not valuable unless it includes a desire or will to confess our sins to a Priest Answ We do so and give this reason True contrition which reconciles to God votively at least implies a will of doing what God Commands But one Command is that we confess our sins to a Priest therefore true Contrition submits to it This proof is evident if God have laid a precept on us to confess to a Priest which by all Law of disputation we may here suppose until the Doctor shews the contrary Add to this what our Doctor hath page 101. viz. That confession is of excellent use among the Pious Children of the Church of England If so give me leave to ask him who Ordained this Confession God or the Church or whether there is Scripture for it or no if neither God Scripture nor Church warrant it it is an invention of man and may participate according to our Doctor of a devilish spirit consequently cannot be of excellent use among any c. Now if Scripture be for Confession if God or the Church have Ordained it the Doctor must say if he knows what true Contrition is that the Supernatural Act which reconciles to God doth of necessity imply Actually or Votively a serious will of doing what ever God Scripture or Church Commands us for to say I am sorry for my sin out of the Motive of Gods infinite Love I purpose amendment I 'll do his Will hereafter and not to say I 'll do what God Scripture or Church commandeth implies a contradiction in a word it is to say and unsay purpose and not purpose c. To confirme this discourse I have enough from the Doctor pag. 79. who saith that Genuine and true Contrition is a Cordial sorrow for having sinned against God c. Ending in a dereliction of all sin and a walking in all Righteousness I wish no more for this very walking in all Righteousness implies the obedience we give to Contrition and will make our good Doctor walk to Confession also if Scripture or Church have Ordained it for finners perhaps he may say that Confession is only of Counsel not of Command when I have his Scripture for such an assertion he shall have his answer fully In the interim know that it is but vain to talk as our Doctor doth of a repentance towards God as it were in abstracto without descending to the ultimate worth and Efficacy of it which as now I said includes a serious will of doing Gods Command This truth supposed with what conscience can the Doctor say that we prefer repentance towards men before that which the Scripture calls repentance towards God It is a flat Calumny and as ill intended as expressed improperly for in this Sacrament there is Confession to a man but what repentance is there towards men that we prefer before the Noble Act of Contrition which resting in God prefers him and his Commands before all things in the World A few lines after he saith pag. 80. As Contrition without their Ritual and Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us to God so Attrition with their Sacrament will reconcile the sinner Contrition without it will not Attrition with it will reconcile us And this Doctrine saith he is expresly Decreed at Trent I stand here astonished at this ignorance Do I read in a Doctor that Contrition without Ritual and Sacramental Confession doth not reconcile a sinner and that the Council of Trent Decrees this expresly I say first that the Council expresly declares the contrary Sect. 14. cap. 4. de contritione Docet praeterea Sancta Synodus Si contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contingat hominem Deo reconciliare prius quam hoc Sacramentum actu suscipiatur c. The Holy Synod teaches Although it sometimes falls out that this Contrition when perfect with Charity reconciles a man with God before actual taking of the Sacrament c. The words are contrary to the Doctors assertion and need no explication I say 2. It is the certain and constant Doctrine of Divines that Contrition proceeding from the Love of God or true motive of Charity in the very Moment a Soul hath it gain 's pardon reconciles to God disposes immediately to supernatural Grace whereby a sinner is justified and made an adopted Child of God and this I say In the very Moment a Soul hath it though Sacramental Confession follows not for weeks or months or by accident never for would it not be apittiful case to send a poor sinner to Hell who lies at deaths door or is mortally wounded doth his utmost to be contrite for his sins though neither Priest is present nor Sacramental Confession can be had or hoped for This very case is enough to unbeguile the Doctor and to satisfie him that we Catholicks are not so severe in exacting Sacramental Confession when either accident or necessity excludes a poor penitent from it I know not how the Doctor will come off and satisfie for the enormious injustice done both to the Council of Trent and all Catholicks but by one evasion that shall nothing at all avail him Perhaps he may tell us that when he says Contrition without Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us he only speaks of Votive Confession included in the Act of Contrition and not of Actual No I thought Ritual as he terms it and Sacramental Confession had been in plain English Synonimas or of the same signification with Actual Confession However if the Doctor understands it of Votive Confession read his words thus Contrition without Confession in Vote or desire reconciles not a sinner to God and this you must suppose to be his meaning Then know we Catholicks hold constantly that Contrition without the Vote or Efficatious will of Confession is no Contrition consequently all he proves is that that Act which is no Contrition doth not reconcile to God How then doth he advance any new proof against us Where lies the Mischief or Malignity of our Doctrine in saying that an Act which is no Contrition and submits not in Voto to Gods Command doth not reconcile us to God yet more If he speaks not of Actual but Votive Confession included in Contrition his whole discourse is lame hobling and renders you this Non-sence As Contrition without Sacramental Confession in Vote or desire doth not reconcile us to God so attrition with actual Sacramental Confession doth reconcile us which inference without life and vigor shews nothing to the Doctors purpose for what doth it avail him to say in this place as no Contrition doth reconcile us so Attrition with the Sacrament doth Had he said as Contrition with Votive Confession reconciles us to God so Attrition also with Actual Confession doth the sence had been good and Catholick But never shall he make sence out of these words As Contrition without Confession will not reconcile us
this Section concerning the emptying of Purgatory Certainly the Millions of Indulgences and innumerable other helps in the Church should ere this have a hundred times over evacuated that place of its sad Inhabitants I answer this Objection is like the rest feeble and forceless and would the Doctor ponder well these words of the Royal Prophet Psal 100. Misericordiam judicium cantabo tibi Domine He would see the weakness of it God is Merciful but withal just His Mercy impowers the Church to free many But that prodigal use of the Keys in freeing all would be against Justice and would make sinners little to value or fear those torments which St. Austin says Surpass all the pains in this World CHAP. XIV A word more of Indulgences Of the Doctors Mistakes in quoting Authors Whether the Prayer of a sinner avails him Of the Doctors harsh Doctrine THe Doctor after his High heap of dangers and great number of little doubts pag. 97. tells us that there is one thing necessary viz. To work out our Salvation with fear and trembling Answ First a poor penitent that apprehends most deeply the pain of Purgatory and doth so much Penance as we see daily done among good Christians for the releasment of that pain cannot be supposed in any Christians Charity to be without fear and trembling 2. We might if it were worth the while move as many doubts concerning this fear and trembling as he doth against Indulgences We might ask him to work out our Salvation how often must we fear How often must we tremble From what motive-must this fear proceed How strong and intens must this trembling be when all is done How know we that we have trembled enough and whether we are not to tremble till we all turn Quakers Let the Doctor resolve these doubts upon good certainty and I 'll warrant you his scruples about Indulgences will cease What he adds of Venial sins hindring the fruit of Indulgences is not worth taking notice of But Saith he pag. 99. Pope Adrian taught a worse matter viz. He that will obtain an Indulgence for another c. And where find we this worse matter Mark I beseech you his Marginal Quotation Apud Petrum de Soto lect de institut Sacerd. de necessariis ad effectum Indulg Truly our Doctor all along hath been unfortunate in his citations and here he shews himself so very unskilful that I believe he never saw Soto Know then that Petrus de Soto besides other works hath a book in a large Decimo sexto which he Intitles Tractatus de institutione sacerdotum with me it is printed at Brixia anno 1586. under that Title in general he handles many Questions De scientia sacerdotum de Baptismo and other Sacraments c. Every Treatise he devides into Lectiones And after the middle of the Book hath a Title de Indulgentiis pag. 263. This Treatise he divides into three Lectiones Now the Doctor gives you not the Right Lectio of that Treatise which is the third in number but unskilfully directs you to his Lectio de Institutione sacerdotum There is no general Lectio but Tractatus de institutione sacerdotum the Lections are subdivisions to several Treatises Well though without much help from the Doctor we have found the place in Soto Lectio 3. now cited page with me 275. his words are Notat Hadrianus circahoc movet quaestionem c. Adrian who by the way speaks not as Pope but as a Divine or private Doctor proposeth this Question whether one in mortal sin can avail to obtain an Indulgence for another as if an Indulgence for Example be granted to him who gives an Alms or to him for whom it is given by another Adrian holds the Affirmative So that he who doth the work and wisheth the Indulgence to another doth an action Morally good Nam pro peccato non conceditur Indulgentia For an Indulgence is never granted for a sinful work This I say was Adrians private Opinion not so harshly related by Soto as it is by our Doctor who talks as if it were a definition of a Pope Pope Adrian taught a worse matter I censure not Adrians Opinion he was a great Divine nor approve it yet this I 'll say that the Doctor doth not so much as probably impugn it Mark how weakly he argues As if saith he a man could do more for another then he can do for himself Answ Most certainly he may Cannot one uncapable of a dignity or a favour in a Common-wealth beg of his Prince a Grace for another who is capable A meer secular man unlearned and Married may petition his Majesty and perhaps prevail that Doctor Taylor be the next Bishop of Canterbury who they say lives ever unmarried Here is our very Case This secular man is uncapable of such a Grace So a sinner is of an Indulgence This secular man prevails to get the Grace for another who is capable so a sinner may prevail to obtain an Indulgence for another just man capable of the favour The parity holds exactly Therefore it is evident that one may do more for another then he can for himself in some cases The Doctor goes on and speaks not like a Christian As if saith he God would regard the Prayers of a wicked person when he intercedes for another and at the same time if he Prays for himself his Prayer is an abomination Answ This last is certainly impious Doctrine for the consequence of it must needs be this That no sinner ought in conscience ever to Pray for himself I 'll prove what I say thus No sinner can in conscience commit an abomination in the sight of God or sin mortally But to pray for himself is an abomination and a mortal sin therefore no sinner can in conscience pray for himself Consequently that poor Publican 9 Ioan that prayed for himself Deus propitius mihi esto peccatori God be merciful to me a sinner Was an abominable man upon the account of his Prayer which place of Scripture no less a Doctor then St. Austin made use of to prove that a sinner may pray for himself Were the Doctor a Divine I could tell him that prayer in a wicked man may be a supernatural Act and proceed from Gods Grace not sanctifying Grace as Faith is supernatural which preceeds justification in a sinner What he adds of a work done ungratiously is a wrong to Adrian who requires Opus Moraliter bonum A work morally good though not meritorious Finally the Doctor saith that because Divines require the state of Grace necessary in a man at that time he gains an Indulgence though before a sinner they turn Divinity into Mathematicks and Clock-work A conceit not worthy a Doctor say I beseech you if this good man ascends a Pulpit and a larems his hearers thus Good people you have hitherto profited little by my Sermons Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis To day this very moment this minute
if you 'll hear God speak by me you are happy c. Doth he turn his Sermon into a Clock-work Or did the Apostle Clock it when he told the Corinthians Ecce nunc tempus acceptabile Now is the time acceptable Ecce nunc dies salutis Now is the day of Salvation 2 Cor. 6. Again Hora est jam nos de somno surgere nunc enim proprior est nostra salus 'T is the hour now c. Here is more of the Clock of Minutes and hours then any Divine mentioneth in our present matter Yet more Pray see how artificially he windes about to bring in his Clock-work Though saith he it be not necessary that when the Indulgenceâ— is granted the man be in the state of Grace yet it is necessary that at some time or other within the term prescribed of the Indulgence if he will gain it And to make his conceit of his Clock to run on he adds At any time it seems it wil serve which sounds falsly and is so but here is enough of this Clock Next he blames some Divines who say That if a man sin in hope of Iubilee or Indulgence to be granted afterward he may yet gain the pardon Answ He may so unless the Indulgence positively excludes such a man from the favour Why the guilt of that sin is remissible by Contrition and Penance and so likewise is the temporal pain due to it pardonable by vertue of an Indulgence Page 100. He is upon his old mistakes again concerning Contrition and thinks it may be sufficient without either act or desire of Confession This is answered above Page 101. After the praise he gives to that excellent use of Confession among the Pious Children of the Church of England He finds fault with our satisfaction and Penance much taken away by the new Doctrine of Indulgences Answ Most evident it is notwithstanding so many Indulgences granted that the Ancient use of Penance is in a manner only found among Catholicks These are they who fast these Pray these curb their passions these often practise great Austerity yes and live sometimes in a mean condition to relieve the Poor A Volume would not suffice to express the fruit of their hearty Repentance and eminent Charity manifest to our eyes in every Town and City Now for Gods-sake what have we like this among Protestants The hearing of a Sermon on Sunday is the most they do and yet there is no Declension of primitive Discipline among them Would to God our Doctor were shut up in a Carthusians Cell and lived as they live but for one year only he would both practice and see more Penance done then he hath either practised or seen in England for his whole life and yet forsooth we must hear his Lord-ship talk of a Declension in Primitive Discipline and think all fine when he words it with living Godly in Christ Iesus I never saw that book of Taxa Camerae which the Doctor mentions pag. 102. and therefore cannot say what is in it likely it is a Libel sure I am that Claudius Espencaeus wishes it suppressed and if as he saith Plurimis quidem licentia omnibus autem absolutio empturientibus proposita That licence is given to many and absolution proposed to all that buy it I cannot but judge ill of the book and as ill of the Doctor who Englishes Espencaeus thus And yet to them who will pay for it there is to many given a Licence and to all an absolution for the greatest and most horrid sins Pray you what may these words * Mark how the Doctor equivocates in those words To them that will pay for it yet to them who will pay for it signifie do they relate to the Book or to the License and absolution for sin if the second the whole sence is They who will lay down money have License many at least to sin and all have absolution from the most horrid sius If the Doctor works this sence out of Espencaeus his words he is more then uncharitable to think that ever Pope or Prelate favoured that book it is an infamous Libel that pretends License given to sin The best solution therefore is that Espencaeus is blamable as appears by the Index Expurgatorius of Cardinal Zapata printed Hispali 1631. where this very second digression of Espencaeus is prohibited Vide verbum Claudius Espencaeus page Indicis 219. The Doctor soon after cites you Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona teaching That the Pope ought not to grant Indulgences to them who have a desire of giving money but cannot as to them who actually give and he adds immediately That in such a case it is not inconvenient that the Rich should be in a better condition then the Poor In my whole life did I never meet with such a Doctor who neither cites right nor saies right Mark I beseech you how he cites Augustinus de Ancona in his Margent De potestate Papae quaest 3. ad 3. The Quotation is ridiculous and no more directs you to find any thing concerning Indulgences then if he sent you to the first Chapter of Genesis Know therefore briefly that August de Ancona writ a sum of Divinity De potestate Ecclesiastica printed anno 1320. under which general Title he handles many Difficulties and proceeds Methodically first by Questions next by Articles then gives his resolution and finally solves the objections At the beginning of his Book his first question is De potestate Papae and hath nine Articles under it in the third Article not a word of our present matter nor in any solution ad 3. In his third Question he treats De eligentium jurisdictione and hath ten Articles under it and so many Resolutions and Answers not a word of Indulgences In the mean while you see that our Doctors direction De potestate Papae quaest 3. ad 3. Helps you nothing He should had he lighted on the right question have pointed out the Article and then his ad 3. might have guided the Reader Well I find in the 31. question of Augustinus far off from any 3. question De potestate Papae Articulo 4. where he treats of Indulgences these words ad 3. Si dives ita parum dat ut pauper puto quod non tantum habeat de Indulgentia dives sicut pauper quia tunc oportet recurrere ad justam aestimationem facientis Indulgentiam quae pensanda est valere secundum facultatem dantis Sed si sic dicatur quicunque dabit unum denarium dives illud daret sicut pauper puto quod tantum haberet dives sicut pauper quamvis tamen in hoc essent pares in multis aliis melioris conditionis esset pauper quam dives The sence is If the Rich man gives as little as the Poor man I think the Rich man will not gain so much of the Pardon as the other Recourse here must be had to his will that grants the Pardon But if it be said
whoever gives a penny or such a small pittance and the Rich man gives so much and the Poor man also These two will be equal and the one have as much as the other yet upon other accounts the Poor mans condition will be better Here is all I can find in this Author and it is most blamless Doctrine nothing to the Doctors sence viz That Indulgences are not to be given to them who have a desire of giving money but cannot And that in such a case it is not inconvenient that the Rich should be in a better condition then the Poor If the Doctor will give me better direction to find what he quotes out of this or any other Author he shall have his answer But I perceive his way is not to examine the Originals and therefore abuseth a simple Reader who when he sees such a cluster of Marginal Quotations glitter like the Sun thinks our Doctor more Learned then Rabbi Kimki CHAP. XV. Of the Doctors weak Argument against one satisfying for another Of his new Divinity that the habit of sin is sin Of his worse Doctrine that all sins are mortal Of his mistaks and charging on Catholicks what they hold not THe Doctor pag. 103. and 6 Section I think his 5th Section hath suffered ship-wrack in the fourth no great loss of it assaults us many ways First he likes not our Doctrine That one man may satisfie for another and cites Suarez for it by halfs Part. 4. we say Tomo 4. in 3. partem disp 38. Sect. 9. I say by halfs for Suarez holds expresly one cannot satisfie for another unless the Confessor Licenses that way of satisfying for Example if the Confessor injoyns his penitent to fast Certum est saith Suarez It is certain that another mans fasting will not be satisfactory He saith 2. That a Confessor is not to do this without a just and necessary cause perhaps of weakness and infirmity because it is not usual in the Church These limitations our Doctor leaves out and runs on with a jest The Rich man is whip'd upon another mans back and his purse only is the Penitent I answer If the Rich mans back deserves stripes as well as some body does no Confessor causelesly laies them on another nor makes his purse the penitent No it is a slander to say that injoyned satisfaction is thus bought off with money Next comes the Doctors weighty Argument For by this Doctrine saith he viz. that one man may satisfie for another it is not to be said of Christ alone that he was wounded for our transgressions that he only satisfied for our sins I answer If this Argument have force it proves as much against a mans own satisfaction as against satisfaction done by another for if Christ satisfied for all in the Doctors sence the Penitents own satisfaction who is one amongst all is vain and fruitless which is not here in question Again our good Doctor gainsaies all the severity of those ancient Canonical Penances practised in the Church and praised by him for if Christ only hath satisfied for all what need was there of such rigid Penances among the primitive Christians it was done to their hands by Christ their Penances therefore were superfluous 2. He blames us for saying The habit of sin is no sin distinct from the former Actions by which the habit was contracted So the Doctor page 104. Answ Here is the most strange Doctrine I ever read Know therefore that Divines distinguish between actual sin habitual sin which is sin past not yet pardoned and the habit of sining generated by frequent acts of vice which makes a man unhappy prone ready and facile to sin again just as the often repeating of a Verse gives facility to say it anew with ease Now to affirm that this habit contracted by former multiplyed acts of sin is a sin seems a piece of new coyned Divinity and proves that no sinner habituated in Vice if he dies immediately after his first act of Contrition or ardent Love of God which justifies him can be saved Why This fervent act of Contrition Roots not quite out the contracted habit of sin no saith our Doctor and truely There is required a longer time and a procedure in the Method of a holy life to do this But this contracted habit of sin is a sin which the most fervent act of Contrition takes not away in a Moment therefore if a sinner dies suddenly after his first Contrition he cannot be saved consequently had St. Mary Magdalen departed this life the next instant after her ardent Charity she had been a lost Soul and so the Doctor must say the good Theif on the Cross is who had little time granted to Root out his bad habits What the Doctor adds that in our Doctrine a man is not bound to interrupt the procedure of his impiety is most unjust dealing for such an one is bound by the Law of God and reason not to sin yes and by Repentance too in case Repentance be the only means to help him The Doctor speaks not well while he insinuates that we are obliged to repent of our habits if Repentance be taken properly Repent we must of our sins and Root out ill habits by contrary acts of Vertue this is our duty Finally he is strangely out in saying As for those sins that come after they are excused if they be produced by a strong habit Answ A strong habit of erring brought forth this assertion it is highly injurious to Catholicks and as far from truth as the Doctor is from honest dealing with us Page 106. he teacheth that every venial sin in its own Nature and the rigor of Divine Iustice is damnable and that in the unregenerate these venial sins are so accounted Answ Most merciless and execrable Doctrine against the very light of Nature For who can say if a spark of Reason lives in him that in case one by special favour pass his whole life without all other sin then once speaking an idle word and dies immediately who I say dare affirm that this man in rigor of Gods Divine Justice is a damned Soul and must for that one little transgression suffer the torments of Hell for eternity Where is your Scripture good Doctor for this desperate Doctrine produce it let us read the place with you but never shall you do it till you prove it by Scripture that a Gnat is as big as a Camel and a Mote in the Sun as great as a House-beam He may say the case now set down is somewhat extraordinary be it so it implies no impossibility and therefore laies open even to Turks and Heathens the prodigious impiety of this Doctrine The Doctor goes on and tells us That though venial sins of their own Nature are damnable yet by the Divine Mercy the smaller committed by invincible ignorance inadvertency or unavoydable infirmity shall not be imputed to those who love God Answ First if these sins be damnable in the
but rather the contrary A Clergy man saith he n. 6. carrying Arms forbid by Secular Laws may have his Armour taken from him by the Ministers of secular Justice Again n. 7. A Clergy man taken in a crime may be laid hold of by a secular Judge and given up to the Ecclesiastical c. And surely much more may he be roughly dealt with if catch'd in the highest crime or found guilty of rebellion against his lawful Sovereign I therefore tell the Doctor such a Clergy man deserves hanging and that not so much as one Aphorism in Sa will save his life In the last Paragraph of this Section page 162. and 163. our Doctor is pleased to speak of another Iniquity so he terms it whereof our men are guilty And what is it They hold saith he the seal of Confession so highly of Divine right and Sacred that it cannot bee broken to save the lives of Princes or the whole world I answer they say also that to save the lives of Popes of Bishops of Prelats or the Church from ruin the seal of Confession made secret by God and nature cannot be violated What mischief then have we more by this Doctrine against Princes and worldly Interest than against Popes and the Spiritual welfare of the Church All God knows are a like concerned in the danger if any were though the kindness of our Doctor is for the security of secular Princes only More flattery believe it here then good Divinity To treat in this place of the great secresie whereunto the seal of Confession indispensably binds us is neither my task nor any way requisite Divines have amply done it to our hand It is enough to tell you how unworthily the Doctor fleights both Seal and Secresie in the last lines of his Section where he calls it a trifling Fancy of our own A strange word in the mouth of a Doctor which may both justly work a distrust in the heart of any penitent and make confession ridiculous even among the pious Children of the Church of England CHAP. XXVIII Of the Doctors injurious Calumnies Of his unjust Quotations THe Doctor pag. 164. and last Section tells us That the whole order of Jesuites is a great enemy to Monarchy by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope by making the Pope supreme Monarch of Christians and this they teach saith he as Catholick Doctrine c. I answer The calumny is so enormously great that I wonder the Doctor trembled not to write as he hath done and disgrace himself with it For if ever men immovably stood for Monarchy both in Church and Kingdomes they are Jesuites To prove this Assertion I need no more but only to remit you to one Learned Bellarmin and there is no Jesuite gainsays him lib. 1. de Romano Pontifice cap. 2. where he shews both by the Authority of Ancient Philosophers and Christian Writers that Monarchy simply considered is a better Government then Aristocracy or Democracy Farr is he off from Calvins spirit that thought it intollerable both in Ecclesiastical and Secular Government O but they destroy Monarchy by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope and making him the supreme Monarch of Christians I answer Had the Doctor made some Canonists less considerable in their writings asserters of this Papal power even in Politicks he had been more moderate But to ascribe the Doctrine to the whole Order of Jesuites runs beyond all bounds of Truth Jesuites in this particular hold with the other Catholick Doctors and say that the Pope is the Supreme visible Head of the Church in Spirituality that is in Power and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical Consequently is neither Lord nor Monarch of the whole World nor finally hath directly by Divine right any Temporal jurisdiction over Princes See for this Assertion Bellar. lib. 5. de potest pont cap. 2 3 4. Whence it follows and Jesuites assert it that Princes are the sole supreme Lords and Monarchs in their respective Dominions subject to none if we consider their Secular power but to God only Princely dignity therefore stands unshaken no Pope layes claim to that Soveraignty or meddles with it My God! had our Protestant Ministers as it behoov'd dutiful Children been as careful to preserve inviolably Ecclesiastical Monarchy in the Church as Popes have ever shewed themselves tender Fathers to uphold the Monarchy of Princes the World now had not seen what it sees and deplores I mean those woful Rents and Schisms which these wantonizing Children have made in Christendom while the good old Father looks on with a heavy heart and bemoans their folly Know then for certain 't is no dispute Protestant Ministers are the men that destroy Monarchy of Spiritual jurisdiction erected by Almighty God in the Church this is their crying sin unpardonable without Repentance whereunto Secular Princes never made claim nor can they in Justice Let then the Pope have still the Prerogative of Spiritual Jurisdiction over the Church 't is his due he seeks not for more our quarrels are ended And tell me I beseech you are not Princes better secured in their Dignities by owning this Spiritual Power as due to a Supreme Pastor who is Vigilant for their safety and has no little sway in the world then to have their Princely Prerogatives called into question debated yes and judged also by a knot of fickle Puritans as changeable as the Moon who now stand up defendants of Regal Power now turn stiff Opponents and arm against it Now they Crown their Monarch now pull the Crown off his Head Such doings we have seen and bewailed the Injury done to Princes Thought we say is free Every body may think safely but I 'll at present be a little bolder and speak out plainly Had England in the last unfortunate Civil Wars been as it was anciently Catholick or own'd as once it did a due Subjection to the Pope None perhaps had seen so much as a Sword drawn against our Gratious Sovereign who now Reigns nor his Royal Father so barbarously murthered as he was by his own Subjects No. For if Ecclesiastical censures had not stopp'd the raging fury of those Regicides one spark of Catholick Religion would have mollified such hearts though made of Adamant But what will ye When both Religion is bannished and Church Discipline is held contemptible Passion will sway corrupt Laws make Scaffolds draw Swords kill Kings and what not In the next place our Doctor pag. 165 and 166. enters upon this very odious subject of deposing and killing Kings and sayes we Catholicks are Defenders of both Mariana and Santarel are produced by him for horrid things spoken Answ As I hate at my heart to do so much as mention this impious Doctrine of killing Kings and abhor more to approve it So for no provocation of any will I speak a word 't is forbid me of their deposing Though were I minded to recriminate that one Execrable and Tragical shedding of our late Sovereigns blood without
What is this but to say in plain English that the Oration is Spurious and though it were as bad as some Adversaries make it yet it may be without difficulty Explicated Our Doctor page 171. having done with his Dissuasive ends with an Vse of Exhortation to Persuade and Exhort all as they desire to be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus to decline from these horrid Doctrines those he means which he charges on us And so do I good Reader also without half the stirr the Doctor has made about them for they are all Monsters of his own making Horrid it is and Monstrous to Assert as he doth That we are Enemies to Monarchy that we profess not a due Obedience to Princes that the whole Order of Jesuites owns the Pope Lord of the World c. Ignorance begot these Doctrines Fancy mishaped them in some bodies Brain Passion brought them forth out they are as you see in print ugly and ill-favoured We utterly dis-own them and say they are false The naked Truth I have declared and therefore exhort all that love Christ Jesus ro decline from the Doctors horrid mistakes After the rest of his wordy paraenesis not worth taking notice of for a farwel he closes up all with a Behold we set before you Life and Death Blessing and Cursing Safety and Danger c. I answer He hath done so indeed but the danger God knows lies where he least thinks in his own unpardonable Errors mis-leading simple Souls to Perdition God prevent that he does not too late bewail his inconsiderate venting of them I need not preach to the Doctor he believes I hope already that Death and that Eternal will be the miserable portion of all those Seducers who do not timely repent and make themselves Members of the Catholick Church God give the Doctor grace to consider of this seriously and suddenly Into this House of God as I have heard he was once ready to enter but neglecting the Grace that call'd him he is now as you see so unfortunate as to diswade others from entering also With what sting of Conscience he hath done this evil God only knows done it is and I suspect the worst But the great Day of our Lord Jesus when both he and I must be heard to justifie our selves without farther dispute will lay open Whether he hath wrong'd his Conscience in writing this Dissuasive or I without cause have accused him of Errors To this Impartial Judge and most just Tribunal I appeal for Sentence And shall in the Interim earnestly pray as behoves a Christian and friendly Adversary for Doctor Taylor 's Conversion FINIS THE CONTENTS QVotations faulty in D. Taylors Preface to the Reader Chap. I. Of the Doctors ungrounded Discourse to the wrongful charge on Catholicks for making new Articles of Faith page 8 II. The Doctors Quotations not true His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis page 15 III. The Doctors Quotations not right prayer for the dead proves a Purgatory page 22 IV. The Doctors Quotations still amiss S. Austin and Otho Frisingensis are abused by him page 27 V. The Doctors Cavils against Transubstantiation His false quotations His Impertinent questions and weak Arguments page 37 VI. Of the Doctors weak Arguments against Communion under one kind Of his slight impugning prayer in an unknown language Of his ill quotations page 43 VII Of the Doctors Cavils against Images Of Antiquity approving their Veneration Of the Doctors ill quotations page 47 VIII Of the Drs confus'd quotations Of Veneration due to the Holy Cross Of picturing the sacred Trinity p. 54 IX Of the Popes Supremacy Of the Doctors Cavils against it Of his false quotations page 62 X. Of S. Gregory ' s refusing the Title of Vniversal Bishop Of Fathers asserting the Pope to be Supreme Pastor Of the Doctors faulty quotations page 72 XI Of the Doctors harsh Doctrine concerning speedy Repentance after Sin Of his mistakes and wronging Authors page 83 XII Of the Doctors Cavils against Contrition and Confession Of his wronging the Council of Trent and Catholick Authors page 89 XIII The sum of our Doctors discourse concerning Indulgences His two mistakes are discovered His Objections answered page 100 XIV A word more of Indulgences Of the Drs. mistakes in quoting Authors Whether the prayer of a sinner avails him Of the Doctors harsh doctrine page 106 XV. Of the Doctors weak argument against one satisfying for another Of his new Divinity that the habit of sin is sin Of his worse doctrine that all sins are mortal Of his mistakes and charging on Catholicks what they hold not page 114 XVI Divines prudently follow in innumerable cases a probable Opinion Of the Doctors exceptions against it Of his mistakes page 119 XVII How the Doctor wrongs both the Canon Law and Catholick Authours Of his quotations unworthily corrupted page 123 XVIII Of attention necessary in prayer One may pray that perfectly understands not the words of prayer The Doctor quotes amiss and abuseth Suarez page 137 XIX The Doctor yet holds on in quoting Authours amiss His errors are discovered page 142 XX. Of recourse had by the living to the Saints in Heaven for temporal Necessities S. Austin warrants this practice S. Gregory Nissen approves it Of Miracles done in our Age. page 147 XXI Of Saints Canoniz'd excepted against by the Doctor Of his untrue quotations Of his mistake concerning the multitude of Holy dayes page 154 XXII Adjuration of Devils approv'd by the Ancient Church and Authority of Fathers The Doctor cannot except against our Catholick Exorcisms page 158 XXIII Objections against Exorcisms solved Of the Doctors mistaken quotations page 166 XXIV The blessing of Water prov'd by Irrefragable Authority Of miracles done by holy Water No proof against it page 172 XXV Of the Doctors dark Divinity His doctrine concerning the charging of Catholicks with Idolatry weigh'd by Mr. Thorndikes just Weights The Doctor is prov'd a Schismatick by the Measure Mr. Thorndike makes of one Of the Doctors want of Charity towards his Ancestors and all Catholicks page 177 XXVI The Doctors wrongful charge on Catholick Drs His weak exceptions against Ambiguity in Speech His causless Cavils His faults and mistakes page 184 XXVII The Doctors strange way of arguing against the Exemption of Clergy-men His unjust dealing with Emanuel Sa in charging him with this saying the Rebellion of a Clergy man against his Prince is not Treason His unworthy slighting the Seal of Confession page 191 XXVIII Of the Doctors injurious Calumnies against Catholicks charging them with Horrid doctrines against Kings and Monarchy which they disown and abominate The known carriages of Catholicks towards Princes compared with the rebellious practices of Protestants The Catholicks have ever been found most Loyal and Obedient to their Kings Of his unjust quotations page 196 XXIX Of our Doctors failing in History Of his blaming Popes that are blamless A word of his Conclusion page 207 Advertisement THe Edition of the Dissuasive made use of in this Treatise is that Reprinted at London for Thomas Johnson at the Key in Pauls Church-yard 1664. in Quarto There may seem a defect in this Treatise by reason of a mistake of the Printer who using two Presses began with one in the later part of the Copy and not computing right how many sheets the fore part of the Copy would make the numbers affix'd to the Pages follow not in due order but after page 130. immediately follows page 137. However the Reader may please to take notice that the Treatise is in â—e Faults Escaped Thus Amended In the Epistle emandandum Read emendandum unluckily read unlucky PAge 8. Line 1. Tough REad Though p. 9. l. 3. Authority r. antiquity p. 11. l. 33. blot out 5. p. 17. l. 19. their r. this p. 21. l. 33. Cluadius r. Claudius p. 34. l. 10. living l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. sining r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. l. 7. Com. r. Tom. p. 42. l. 25. doubty r. Doughty p. 45. l. 5. p. 46. l. 28. rights bl in r. rites p. 47. l. 8. rights r. rites p. 50. marg Athanius l. 15. adorabant r. Athanasius r. adorabat p. 61. l. 11. delating r. relating p. 65. l. 26. said l. 29. more point said p. more p. 67. l. 10. S. G. p. 68. l. 15. leaves r. S. C. r. leave p. 68. l. 10. was p. 70. l. 9. their l. 24. damnable p. was r. there r. damageable p. 71. l. 27. primative p. 74. l. 5. the. ibid. then r. primat r. thy r. thou p. 88. l. 27. fin p. 95. l. 7. supar r. sin r. supra p. 102. l. 17. thsy p. 107. l. 29. another r. they po Another p. 127. l. 4. feceret p. 138. l. 18. even r. secerit r. ever p. 141. l. ult 68. p. 162. l. 30. increduty r. 67. r. incredulity p. 171. l. 15. saying 〈◊〉 l. 3. unhollow p. saying r. unhallow p. 174. l. 24. raging r. rageing p. 209. l. 19. inandita r. inaudita