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
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
He professedly acknowledgeth the power of casting out Devils given to Christians yes and after he had taxed Celsus of injustice and open calumny for ascribing their ejection done by Christians to Incantations and Sorcery He answers thus n. 6. Non enim incantationibus pollere videntur sed nomine Jesu cum commemoratione ejus factorum nam his verbis saepenumero profligati sunt daemones ex hominibus That is Christians do nothing in this matter by any Charms or Enchantments but prevail against Devils by naming Christ Jesus and commemorating his glorious works Thus these wicked spirits are driven out of possessed persons And truly the like we do yet in our Catholick adjurations 3. It is madness to think that one so well versed in Scripture as Origen was had such a horror of this word Adjuro that he judged it unseemly in the mouth of a Christian for the Apostle himself useth it writing to the Thess Epist 1. cap. 5. v. 27. Adjuro vos per dominum ut legatur Epistola haec I adjure ye by our Lord c. And mark it is a word of command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yes and the same that the Devil used against our Saviour Mar. 5. v. 7. Adjuro te per Deum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I adjure thee by Almighty God Briefly therefore distinguish a double adjuration the one of no Efficacy because either vain or Judaical and this Origen rejecteth The other is Christian used in our Catholick Exorcisms with the sacred Name of Jesus and this he approves The Doctor may object that Origen speaking of the High Priest adjuring our Saviour makes this Argument Si enim jurare non licet quia nec alterum adjurare licet If it be not lawful to swear neither lawful is it to adjure another I answer This confirms all we have said hitherto in Origens defence For as none can judge that so great a Doctor as Origen condemned all swearing which God allowes in Scripture Vivit Dominus Jurabit Dominus Per nomen ejus jurabis c. but only such as is irreligious and profane So none can infer upon this proof that he thought all adjuration illicit though he professedly opposed irreligious and Judaical Exorcisms Thus much in behalf of Origen if these Treatises on S. Mat. be his for Erasmus in the preface to them saith Neque enim Hieronimus agnoscit hoc opus S. Hierom acknowledgeth them not The Doctor pag. 142. having done with Origen quotes S. Chrisostom for this sober saying we poor wretches cannot drive away flies much less Devils And remits you to the Saint in illa verba qui credit in me major a faciet I answer that S. Chrisostom may perhaps have these words qui credit in me c. 40. times over in his Large and Voluminous writings Must I therefore run over all these Tomes to meet with this sober saying for most certainly it is not where any Reader would expect to have it I mean in S. Chrisostoms 73. hom in cap. 14. Joan. there are the words of Scripture qui credit in me c. And S. Chrisostoms large Explication on them but not so much as one syllable of either Flie or Devil or any poor wretch unable to cast out Devils but much to the contrary Hoc vestrum jam est saith the Saint miracula operari ego abeo It belongs to you my Disciples to work miracles I am now on my departure The Chrisostom I cite is the Paris print anno 1588. his Comments on the words qui credit c. are page 293. and other Editions accord also with it even the Greek by Sir Henry Savil. CHAP. XXIV The blessing of Water prov'd by Irrefragable Authority Of Miracles done by Holy Water No proof against it THe Doctor pag. 143. and 11 Section thinks with a few empty words and a like number of insipid jeers to unhollow such Creatures as the most ancient Fathers of Gods Church have reputed holy because made so with a sacred benediction Such are Holy Water the Paschal Candle Oyl and Holy Bread sleighted by him without proof at all Truely I am astonished at our Doctor having at least read Bellarmin de cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 7. and perused the Arguments of this Learned Authour for the blessing of Water Oyl c. That he neither affords us so much as a word of answer to the Arguments nor yet endeavours to gainsay them by one Syllable of Scripture by any Authority of Councils of Fathers or the Antient practice of the Primitive Church Bellarmin first proves out of Scripture that creatures are capable of benediction Every Creature is good saith the Apostle 1. ad Tim. 4. Sanctificatur autem per verbum Dei orationem And is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer He showes you also out of S. Dennis Alexander the first Optatus S. Cyprian S. Basil and others that Water anciently was blessed in the Church The like of Oyl by the Authority of S. Clement Dennis and Basil The benediction of Bread besides the Eucharist is taught by S. Austin Tom. 7. lib. 2. De peccatorum meritis remissione cap. 26. speaking of the Catechumens Et quod accipiunt saith the Saint quamvis non sit Corpus Christi Sanctum est tamen sanctius quam cibi quibus alimur And what these Catechumens take although it be not Christs Body yet it is holy yes and more holy then the meat wherewith we are nourished Hence I argue if Bread can be hallowed Water may And this I prove by three irrefragable Arguments The first is taken out of the Ancient Synesius Bishop of Ptolemaijs or Cyrene in his book printed at Paris anno 1633. we have it also in Bibliotheca Patrum read these words in that Treatise he intitles Catastasis * De clade pentapolitanâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. with me pag. 304. Ego in loco meo in ecclesia permanebo Lustralis ante me aquae sanctissima vasa collocabo c. Illic ego sedebo vivus mortuus jacebo I le remain in my place that is the Church I le place before me the hallowed Vessels of Water there I le sit alive and ly when I am dead Yet more read his 121. Epistle to Anastasius pag. 258. If saith Sinesius the Administration of the Common-wealth resides in Bishops these are the men that must do justice on wickedness Quandoquidem publicus gladius non minus quam lustralis aqua quae in templorum vestibulis collocatur civitatis est piaculum Seeing that the publick Sword no lesse purgeth a City then Holy Water doth that is placed in the entry of our Churches And thus it is kept in Churches to this day The second Testimony we have is in the more ancient Epiphanius Tom. 2. lib. 1. contra haereses haeresi 30. with me pag. 61. in the Basil print where the Saint tells us that Josephus the Jew seeing fire contrary to its own nature made unactive
Judge with me there is not so much as one Section in it that comes neer a probability Conclude then from hence that if as the Doctor saith page 111. It be not safe to follow Caius and Sempronious in a probable Opinion because they are but private Doctors Much less is it safe to follow Doctor Taylor in his Disswasive from Popery who at most speaks but probably and is no more but a private Doctor What he adds at the end of this page viz. That we suffer casuists to determine cases severely and gently Entertain all spirits Please all dispositions and Govern them by their own inclinations as they lift to be governed c. Is in a word a long list of mistakes and the Doctor is obliged in conscience by more then a probable Opinion to unsay the slander Now to some famous Quotations of our Doctor who though he could shew that those particular Opinions which he cavils at in the ensuing part of his Section were as false as that impious Doctrine is of killing Kings or Durands Opinion of Fornication yet he gains nothing for all at most he proves is that such and such particular Opinions are to be cast aside which God knows makes little to decry the Doctrine of a probable Opinion in general Five or six Ministers in England and perhaps more are worth little is therefore their whole Ministry in general not to be valued CHAP. XVII How the Doctor wrongs both the Canon Law and Catholick Authors Of his Quotations unworthily corrupted OUr Doctor cites page 112. Emanuel Sa in his Aphorisms verbo dubium for this Doctrine viz. If one Doctor say it is safe to swear a thing as of our knowledge which we do not know but believe it is so it is therefore probable that it is lawful to swear it Answ Eman. Sa in this word Dubium with me printed at Antwerp 1599. hath not one word of swearing in which is particular difficulty but numero 3. speaks thus Potest quis facere quod probabili ratione vel authoritate putet licere etiamsi oppositum sit tutius One may do what he thinks probable by Reason or Authority though the contrary be more safe What is here of safety to swear a thing as of our knowledge which we do not know Antonius de Escobar Whom the Doctor should have cited thus Lib. 2. Theol. Moralis cap. 2. De conscientia probabili hath not a syllable of Swearing by any Warrant of a probable Opinion but rather the contrary Moneo sayes he n. 15. haud licere uti probabili Opinione quando ex eâ magnum periculum sequeretur vel proximi damni c. I put you in mind that it is not lawful to use a probable Opinion when either great danger or hurt of our Neighbour may follow on it which may easily fall out if we swear a thing as of our knowledge which we know not He tells you soon after a story of Pope Constantine the 4th Who being accused in the Lateran Council for holding the See Apostolick when he was not in Orders justified himself by the Example of two Bishops And he cites Nauclerus for the story Generatione 21. 26. Answer First Nauclerus Generat 21. hath not one word of Pope Constantine much less this story Generat 26. with me page 9. he speaks thus Perstitit autem per annum in Petri Cathedra Constantinus Episcopos Praesbiterosque more Pontificum ordinavit quousque clero Populoque Romano in tribus foris Constantinus est ejectus in ejus locum omnium fuffragiis Stephanus 3. extitit suffectus c. Constantine continued in the Chair of Peter for a year and ordained Bishops and Priests as Popes were accustomed until the Clergy and People of Rome assembled in there several places c. Constantine was cast out and by the Votes of all Stephen was set in his place Here is nothing of the Lateran Council or the pretended Example of two Bishops You may see therefore how unlucky our Doctor is in his citations 2. I answer Admit that Constantine alledged the Example of two Bishops were either he or they on that account good or laudable no certainly such presidents make no probable Opinion Next he cites you Cardinal Campegius and Alber. Pighius teaching That a Priest lives more holily that keeps a Concubine then he that hath Married a Wife Answ Observe first I beseech you how our Doctor cites you these Authors without their places Observe 2. How he juggles in that word He which must relate either to a Secular man that may Marry or to a Graecian Priest that is Married before his Priest-hood or finally to a Latin Priest that cannot Marry either Liciteacute or Valide without dispensation Hence I infer whoever affirms that a Priest lives more holily that keeps a Concubine then a secular man that may Marry or a Graecian Priest that was Married before Orders delivers most impious Doctrine Pighius never said it Again whoever affirmes that a Priest that keeps a Concubine lives more holily then a Priest that Marrieth talks De subjecto non supponendo for a Latin Priest cannot Marry If he therefore be so damnably wicked as to Marry a hundred times his supposed Wife is no more but a Concubine and then the Doctors Wise allegation must make this sence That Priest lives more holily that keeps a Concubine then he that hath a Concubine Perhaps Pighius may say that if a Priest endeavours to Marry a Wife as Luther did and owns that Sacrilegious contract as a Marriage To his impure living with a Harlot he adds a new sin And this Doctrine is true The Doctor goes on in the next lines Seeing we find in the Popes Laws that a Priest is not to be removed for Fornication who will not or may not practically conclude that since by the Law of God Mariage is Holy and yet to some men Fornication is more Lawful that therefore to keep a Concubine is very Lawful Answ Let the Doctor speak out plainly and tell us to what men Fornication is more Lawful then Marriage It is absolutely unlawful in all and therefore if we speak properly Fornication admits no Degree of being more or less Lawful Had the Doctor said the sacrilegious Fornication of a Preist is a lesser evil then sacrilegiously to use and own a Woman as his Wife he had spoken sence But hence it follows not that to keep a Concubine is very Lawful Nay if per impossible Fornication were in some cases Lawful it doth not yet follow that to keep a Concubine is very lawful In a word the Doctor says he knows not what Now to the Popes Laws which he cites so confusedly that no man understands him He Writes in his Margent thus 3. quaest 7. which Canonists would take for Causa 3. q. 7. but then the Chapter should be added not one word of this Subject in that quaest 7. Then he adds lata which should signifie the beginning of a Chapter
had not wherewithall to buy an other What did he Ad viginti Martyres c. he prayed before the twenty Martyrs and begged with a loud voice that he might be clothed some young men heard him and scorned the good Taylor as our Doctor doth here vulgar people yet his prayer proved successeful heard he was and his want miraculously supplied This you may read in S. Austin lib. 22. de civit Dei cap. 8. circa medium Whence I argue if this poor man by addressing himself to deceased Martyrs for a cloak prayed wel and laudably yes and by such prayers got what he asked most blameless certainly are the common people while they petition any Saint in Heaven for their temporal goods whether sheep or oxen it imports not or if the Doctor jeer'd at these mens devotion he may if he like it also play the boy and laugh at the Taylor S. Austin did not so And Here without much digressing reflect I beseech you on that witty margent note Mr. Whitby hath in his book against S C. pag. 292. where to discredit this known miracle he speaks thus Further let it be considered that here we have no better president then a Taylor and he so simple as to bargain with the Martyrs how many half-pence he would have to buy his cloak Subtilely observed for first there is not a word in S. Austin of the poor mans bargaining with the Martyrs unless his earnest prayer be called a bargain Secondly Mr. Whitby saith in his context that the Taylor prayed not to the Martyrs but to God at the tomb of the Martyrs if therefore he bargained with any it was with God for so many half-pence Thirdly he slâ—ights this miracle upon the account of the Taylors simplicity as if forsooth God could do wonders on none but the Learned or Doctors of Divinity Fourthly and chiefly he is pittifully out every way for no one takes this miracle upon the Taylors credit but upon S. Austins who recounts it as a wonder done in behalf of this poor man and so we credit what he adds of the Cook that opening the fish found a gold ring in it and pittying the distressed Suppliant gave it him with ecce quomodo viginti Martyres te vestiverunt See how the twenty Martyrs have clothed thee And thus much of good peoples devotion to Saints for temporals Now if you further inquire not only after the recourse made by devout Christians to the blessed See Bellar. cap. 20. Supra § Argumentum nonuÌ„ in Heaven for health and cure of Infirmities but also after the happy success they have had by their prayer volumes would not suffice to recount particulars The most I 'le do here is to remit any that doubts if judicious and prudent to S. Austin in the place now cited where he tells us next after those words ad Aquas Fibilitanas not of one but many miraculously cured at the relicks of S. Stephen There a blind woman received her sight There Eucharius a Priest of Spain tormented with the stone we freed of his misery and the self same man cast do 〈…〉 by an other infirmity lay so dead ut ei jam pollices ligarentur but was raised up miraculously and â—his saith S. Austin was done â—pitulatione memorati Martyris by the help and assistance of S. Stephen Learn therefore and 't is the main drift of S. Austin that Saints hear ouâ— prayers pray for us yes and obtain by 〈…〉 ir in 〈…〉 ssion many a large blessing So the Sainâ— in thâ—â—suing ninth Chaprer which relates to the miracles â—entioned in the precedent pro ista fide mortui sunt qui 〈◊〉 à Demino impetrare possunt for this Faith the Martyrs dyed who can get such favours of our Lord. Again a few lines after quare Martyres tanta possunt qui pro ea fide c. wherefore Martyrs can doe these great matters who were slain for that Faith which preaches Christs holy resurrection Finally he ends thus siue enim Deus ipse per se ipsum c. whether God by himself work after a strange manner or do these wonders by his Ministers or some of them by the Spirits of Martyrs eis orantibus tantum impetrantibus non etiam operantibus they onely praying for us and impetrating but not effecting or working these wonders immediatly cannot be comprehended of mortalls Thus S. Austin who undoubtedly here affirms that these blessed Spirits pray and obtain'd by their prayers orantibus impetrantibus mark the words both health of body and greater benefits Mr. Whitby page 292. cited above seems to make little account of S. Austins eighth Chapter now mentioned because of some corruptions so he speaks noted by Ludovieus Vives And what are these I Answer two or three differences in words only variously read in other copies as for Episcopo projecto other copies have Episcopo afferente projecto c. greater exceptions Ludovicus Vives hath not against this eighth Chapter nor questions at all the substance of one miracle there related by S. Austin No these stand as they are told and so doth the ninth Chapter entirely unexcepted against by Ludovicus or any body else do so powerfully prove that the Saints in Heaven pray for us and afford us assistance that none shall ever answer them with probability It were but lost time because they are vulgarly known to add to these ancient miracles others of undoubted credit wrought by the intercession of Saints in later ages and very universally There is not a Kingdome or Country where Catholick Religion florishes which will not evidence these wonders And England also anciently hath had this glory but now a new Faith hath outed all old miracles Blessed be Almighty God not onely our age we live in is renowned for miraculous cures done upon the infirm and diseased by earnest prayer made to the ever immaculate Virgin mother of God but this very year also and the last now over affords us most undoubted ones wrought in Antwerp and Mecklin by the intercession of the ever glorious Saint Xaverius a Saint our Doctor pag 133. would cast out of Heaven For the first see Justus Lipsius an erudite and learned writer in his third Tome towards the end printed at Antwerp anno 1637. page 687. intituled thus Diva Virgo Hallensis and page 721. with this title Diva Sichemiensis sive Aspricollis For the Second to wit for strange cures done on the diseased by the great Apostle of the Indies S. Xaâ—â—rius they are here most manifestly laid open to the eyes of all sick patients own them sworn witnesses testify them expert Doctors of Physick after long trial to cure them acknowledge the cures to be miraculous Bishops after a most â—igid examination have approved them none can doubt of them but such as either incline to a spirit of Atheism or vainly endeavour to make null the best proof of our Faith to extinguish the clearest light of Christianity which Age after Age hath
we say although the Pope cannot know by the certitude of the cause that a Saint whom he canonizeth had Charity yet he knows it by effects to wit by works famous and spoken of him quia probatio charitatis exhibitio est operis the proofs of Charity are good works and this is enough whereby he may judge c. Thus Anconitanus To what the Doctor adds of some reputed Saints for a time and afterwards burnt for Hereticks I Answer The Objection is frivolous for no one canonized or universally honoured as a Saint by the Catholick Church was ever thus dealt with Though no wonder it is that a meer cheat gain for a time an opinion of Sanctity with men over credulous and afterward have his vizard pulled off and Hypocrisy disclosed The Doctor ends his ninth Section pag. 134. with a pittifull complaint against the multitude of Holy-dayes in the Church of Rome and saith out of Gavantus that there are about two hundred Holy dayes in the whole year which is an intolerable burthen to the poor labourer that on the rest he can scarce earn his bread besides much superstition and licentiousness that fellows such disorderly festivities Answ The ignorance of our Doctor is more then intolerable who neither understands Gavantus nor the practice of our Church Strange it is that he also complained not of two hundred fasting dayes answerable to these holydayes much weakning the labouring man and consequently that the year hath more fasts and feasts in it then dayes This later is as true as what the Doctor tells us of two hundred holydayes Let him therefore know that all these holydayes which Gavantus calls feasts or are placed in the Calender in red letters are not dayes of precept obliging poor labourers to desist from servile work but are styled feasts upon this account that the Church keeps a memory of so many blessed Saints in order with Office and Mass More then the most of them hinder no manual work nor lay any obligation on the labouring man Hence his argument of ease and licentiousness accompanying these festivities is made null Only thus much it proves that one may innocently smile at the Doctors skill in what he writes against CHAP. XXII Adjuration of Devils approv'd by the ancient Church and authority of Fathers The Doctor cannot except against our Catholick Exorcisms NOw to the Doctors 10. Section pag. 135. where God bless us he is resolved to be Tragical and passionately to act against all Exorcisms and conjuring of Devils For answer I le give him these few Considerations which perhaps may conjure him to silence hereafter on this Subject And first it is an eternal shame for a Doctor of Divinity to rayl with open mouth against all Exorcism's seeing we are ascertain'd that not only Christ our Lord impowered his own Disciples to cast out Devils but the Ancient Church likewise possitively prescribed a Form of Exorcism This we have in the 4th Council of Carthage celebrated in the year 398. and approved by Leo the third cap. 7. Exorcista saith the Council cum ordinatur accipiat de manu Episcopi libellum in quo Scripti sunt Exorcismi dicente sibi Episcopo Accipe commenda memoriae habeto potestatem imponendi manus super energumenum sive baptizatum sive Catechumenum Let the Exorcist when he is ordained take a book from the hand of the Bishop wherein the Exorcisms are writ the Bishop saying take this Book and commit it to memory and receive power to lay thy hands upon the possessed person whether Baptized or Catechumen Thus said the Ancient Church even when our Protestants say it was without error yet now up starts a new fashioned Doctor in a corner of the world brim full of anger and must needs vent it against these sacred rites Exorcism's forsooth with him are horible impiety a Conjugation of evils Incantations Diabolical charms and what not Well for adjuring of Devils and casting them out of possessed persons we have both the Practice and Authority of the most Ancient Fathers that ever lived in the Church I 'le give you a few and for others remit you to Pamelius his notes upon Tertullian de Baptismo pag. with me 468. printed at Antwerp Anno 1584. daemones saith Tertullian in his Apologet adv Gent. cap. 31. pag. 74. id est genios adjurare consuevimus ut illos ab hominibus exigamus Devils or Genii we haue a custome to adjure that we may drive them from men Again cap. 37. pag. 78. Quis autem vos ab illis c. who is there that will free you from the incursions of Devils which we without reward drive away And in his Book de Praeseip cap. 41. p. 400. He blames certain women for using Exorcisms Add to Tertullian a Father yet more ancient Justinus Martyr in his works printed at Paris an 1615. Apologia prima pro Christianîs pag. 45. Complures saith the Saint daemonum intemperijs correptos per orbem omnem hanc vestram vrbem c. You have many seized on by Devils the whole world over yes and in this your City which your Conjurers and Witches could not help and not a few of our men Per nomen Jesu Christi su◠Pontio Pilato Crucifixi adiurantes sanarunt c. Have by adjuring them in the Name of Christ Jesus Crucified cured them have disarmed these Devils and cast them out of those possessed men The like we read in S. Justins Dialogue cum Tryphone Judaeo with me in the same edition pag. 147. hodie quoque illi per nomen Jesu Christi adjurati nobis parent c. and at this day those infernall Spirits adjured by the name of Jesus Christ with fear and trembling obey us Read also S. Cyprian printed at Paris ann 1648. ad Demetrianum pag. 236. O si audire eos velles saith the St. videre quando à nobis adjurantur torquentur spiritualibus flagris verborum tormentis de obsessis corporibus ejiciuntur quando ejulantes gementes voce humana potestate divina flagella verbera sentientes venturum judicium confitentur O Demetrian if thou wouldst hear and see when those evil Spirits are conjured by us and vexed by our spiritual scourges and the torment of those words we speak being cast out of possessed bodys if thou didst but hear and see when howling and sighing like men they feel our stripes and lashes and confess a day of judgement to come c. Veni cognosce come and know these wonders to be true which we here relate Thus S. Cyprian Here are adjurations here are spiritual scourges here are sacred words here are Devils cast out of possessed bodys howling and crying by the power of God at these adjurations and speaking of words Let the Doctor speak out and tell us plainly if he dares with any conscience say that all this is nothing but Diabolical charming and horrible impiety Would he please to credit me I might tell him a
true story of a certain man who had his house miserably haunted with evil Spirits much affliction they gave both to his Servants and Cattle To be short he called for a Priest and begged him to pray in his house who did so he said Mass offered up the Sacrifice of Christs sacred body and prayed very earnestly that that trouble might cease His prayer prevailed cease it did Yet more This good man had from a friend some of that holy earth which was brought from Hierusalem where our Lotd Jesus was buried and this he hung up in his chamber to secure himself from danger of these evil Spirits This is the story and will the Doctor believe it on my word No he laughs at it it smells saith he of Superstition that offering up of Christs body sacrificed and keeping that earth should free the mans chamber from Devils is plain Popery savouring too much of an unbloody Sacrifice and the doctrin of relicks c. I grant all except the Superstition and tell the Doctor he must either credit the story or discredit S. Austin who relates it in his 22. book de civitate Antwerp print anno 1676. cap 8. page 297. The mans name was Hesperius vir tribunitius a chief commander More particulars you have in the place now cited worth reading if any yet desire more of the force of prayer and Exorcisms against Devils let him read that ancient authour Optatus Milevit lib. 4 adversus Parmenianum pag. 79. Paris print with Albaspins notes 1631 Hoc exorcismus operatur per quem spiritus immundus depellitur in loca deserta fugatur Exorcisms drive away Devils and banishâ— them into desert places Thus Optatus And S. Gregory the great tells you of strange wonders done upon possessed persons by B. Fortunatus Bishop in his first book of Dialog cap. 9. pag. 952. Paris print 1571. These truths supposed which no Protestant can answer I will with license inquire of our Doctor what it is he finds fault with in our Catholick Exorcisins against Devils Is it the power we have from Christ Jesus to cast them out of persons possessed or places haunted by them The very authority of Fathers already alledged and the continued favour of Almighty God to this our age in assisting many within the bounds of the Catholick Church to dispossess innumerable possessed proves the power and evidenceth most undeniably the effects of it Known History for those wonders done in later ages and yet living ey-witnesses in our dayes gain credit with prudent men and justly may conquer a greater increduty then the Doctor harbours in his breast All cannot be fiction nor the Authors proved lyars that writ such stories yet more Doth our Doctor reprehend the words we use in Exorcisms Yes And why Is it because they are adjurative If so the Fathers now cited are our warrant and will silence the Doctor Is it because they are words unusual and not easily understood by all If this offend him I answer first that there are more unusual pedantick words in one Dr Pierces Sermon then in all the approved Exorcisms of the Catholick Church yet that Sermon is for the people these Exorcisms are against the Devil who better understands the hardest terme in them then the generality of men that Sermon I answer 2. that in the Roman ritual which we chiefly defend not one word can be thought unusual it is plain Latin all a long intelligible to the poorest Schollar The like I say of that Manual of Exorcisms printed at Antwerp anno 1626. which our Doctor causelesly cavils at pag. 136. the like of the Exorcisms for the Dioces of Iper printed at S. Omers anno 1606. Besides these I have by me two other Exorcisms the one printed at Venice 1579. the other anno 1585. in an old Character The book is called Sacerdotale Romanum towards the end of these Editions you have the Exorcism and both Hebrew and Greek thus in Latin Letters Adjuro vos per nomina omnipotentis Dei Messias Sother Emanuel Sabaoth Adonias I adjure you by the names c. And this perhaps made our Doctor pag. 138. exclaim against some Exorcisms for their false Hebrew and base Greek Sure the good man thought that Messias and Sother should have been a genitive case because of Omnipotentis Dei whereas they relate to the precedent words per nomina as if one should say per nomen Jeremias adjuro by your name Jeremy I adjure you never to cavil without cause Like cavils about Letters and writing Messias without the Hebrew twang Sother less correctedly c. I omit and tell the Doctor that a poor Parish Priest shall do more against the Devil with this he calls false Hebrew and base Greek then twenty Ministers in England with the most quaint extemporal prayers they can make What else remains reprehensible in these exorcisms The Doctor answers pag. 141. Superstition a monstrous evil doubtless Wel. I 'le deale plainly and license the Doctor to make use of any definition which either ancient Father or new approved writers give us of Superstition we will stand to his choice yet I 'le assure him he shall never so much as touch Catholicks with the least likelihood of Superstition in their exorcisms What Lactantius saith of Superstition lib. 4. de inst cap. 28. initio qui Deos precabantur immolabant ut sui sibi filij superstites essent superstitiosi sunt appellati concerns not exorcisms at all and less doth that known one of Cicero lib. 2. de natura Deorum qui pro superstiti prole nimij erant in Dijs precandis c. touch them if the Doctor therefore please we will say that Superstition is Cultus indebitus seu vana religio A wrong vain and incongruous worship which look's like religion but is not And next let us read any approved exorcism The prayers made there to Almighty God are Acts of Religion and neither wrong nor incongruous worship The calling on God by several names we find in Scripture cannot be judged by a Christian vain or incongruous The reading of Davids Psalms and the Gospels of Jesus Christ is not in vain The adjuring of Devils is warranted by Fathers and the power of casting them out is given by Jesus Christ Where then lyes the danger of vain worship or so much as the least signe of any Superstition If the word exorcism displease our Doctor we have it to say nothing of others in S. Austin lib. 1. de peccatorum meritis remissione cap. 34. initio and lib. 6. contra Julianum cap 5. with an exsufflation added in Baptism Filios fidelium saith the S. nec exorcizaret nec exsufflaret c. The Church would neither exorcise nor breath on little Children were it not to free them from the power of darkness and Prince of death Let the Doctor say what he thinks of this exsufflation if such a Ceremony be not Superstition none in our exorcisms can be if the sign of the
women may pray when they understand not things signify'd by words if they do not they pray not yet say Amen to all I dare a vouch it with certainty that there is not a Cobler or Taylor in our Catholick Town here who do not better understand the whole substance of Mass though in Latin then the generality of English men understand Dr. Pierce's Sermon Yet 't is printed for the profit of all Be it so or not I justify by the example now given and good reason against the Doctor that prayer in an unknown Language though the thing signified by the words be not perfectly understood is allowable and looses nothing of the essence of prayer I prove it thus Such a prayer known by the authority of the Church and consent of virtuous men to be good and pious though in an unknown Language may be offered up by an ignorant man both to praise Almighty God and to petition his Divine Majesty for a grace and favour just as one not knowing Latin may prefer a Petition to the Pope in that Language which containes both praise due to so great a Prelat and withall begg's a boon or favour of him Hereis our very Case The unlearned man knows not perfectly the Latin Service no more doth this ignorant Suppliant know his Latin Petition The first is assured by the greatest authority imaginable that the Latin Service ascribes prayse and thanks-giving to God and begg's a favour of him The second is assured 't is true by a lesser authority that his Petition runs on in the like nature if therefore this man who knows not Latin may petition and with hope of grace a Pope or Prince in Latin never shall the Doctor shew why an ignorant man may not also petition Almighty God in the same Language let the Doctor here give me but a shadow of any disparity and he shall be an Apollo Were it not over tedious I might give you with the learned Suarez the true reason of this doctrin briefly in words or writings you may distinguish a twofold signification The first is more general the second may be called specifical or if you please individual The general signification is had when we know that such a prayer is good pious and laudable But to have perfectly the specifical we must know the sense and meaning of the words To pray therefore well this knowledge is required that the prayer is a good and pious petition and as such uniting my self with all faithful Christians I offer it up to Almighty God though I comprehend not the ultimate specifical or individual signification of it May not I beseech you our Doctor say those words of the Royal Prophet Psal 68. and prayse Almighty God by them Si dormiatis inter medios cleros pennae columbae deargentatae c. Though perhaps he knows not perfectly the specifical signification of them Yes and so may an old woman do when she hears her Minister pray for Vrim and Thummim or to have his tongue touch'd with a coal c. Add to this and 't is worth reflection that beside the general knowledge poor Idiots have of the piety in Latin Service innumerable by continual use come to a specifical knowledge of most things said in holy Mass and more your poor Idiots in England know not either of those wordy extemporal prayers made by Ministers or of their affected and fruitless Sermons No Chrysostome no Ambros no Austin ever preach'd or pray'd like them But what will you Novelty in doctrin brings with it these new nothings in morality CHAP. XIX The Doctor yet holds on in quoting Authours amiss His Errors are discovered THe Doctor next cites you Salmeron saying that prayers prevail when they are not understood like the words of a charmer Answ Where saith Salmeron this The Doctor points to no place nor can he I believe if he cannot he both charms and cheats his Reader He cites next S. Antoninus summae part 3. tit 23. Answ That 23. title hath five long Chapters under it and every Chapter is yet further subdivided into several members sections or paragraphs and our Doctor neither gives you Chapter nor paragraph where we may find that prayer is like a pretious stone in the hand of an unskilfull man Nor can he I think for that 23. title treats de conciliis universalibus de differentia Papae concilii a matter remote enough from handling what prayer is Well but admit S. Antoninus say so there is nothing reprehensible The similitude is good if the unskilful man knows as well in general that he hath a pretious stone in his hand as the unlearned man that his prayer is pious The Doctor pag. 118 remits us to Jacobus de Graffiis de orat Answ I have 3. Tomes in a large 4 to of this Author and perusing the Index of the Title he hath in each Tome I find none de oratione Yet part 1. decisio Aurearum lib. 2. cap. 52. he proposeth this question Qualiter dicendae horae canonicae how our Canonical hours are to be said and he resolves the question thus num 3. Vt animus sit in divino officio attentus hoc est ut mentem habeat praefentem ad id quod dicitur nempe ut quod lingua foris personat mens simul intus concipiendo loquatur unde Augustinus Hoc versetur in corde quod proferatur ore That is that the mind be attentive in the Divine Office and it be present to what is said that what the tongue speaks the heart conceives according to S. Austin Let the heart speak what we say in words Thus much I cite out of Graffys to prove that the Doctors illation is far from truth in the beginning of his 118. pag. Therefore attention or devotion in our prayers is not necessary Immediatly after he quotes Cardinal Tolet lib. 2. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 13. whose words are these Circa modum c. concerning the manner how we are to say our Canonical hours it is to be observed that every one say them attentively reverently and devoutly Next he shews particularly what attention is requisit and saith in the second place that advertency to the sence of the words is not necessary and he affirms this most truly for few old women in England can attend to the sence of every word said by their Minister because they know it not Mark now a most strange illation of our Doctor so that saith he by this doctrin no attention is necessary Tolet sayes We are to say our Canonical hours attentively devoutly and reverently and the Doctor infers that no attention is necessary Whether such an unworthy dealing with so learned a man as Tolet was be tollerable let the world judge The Doctor pag. 120. would even tire a patient man with his tattle They in England saith he pray with the heart We the Church of Rome with our lips They pray We say prayers c. And what good Doctor do we say them
without a heart who made you judge of this forum The secrets of hearts are only known to God not to Angles much less to any poor spirit in England What follows in that 8th Section is onely talk without substance And Truly his 9th Section is like it though worse for blasphemies against the Mother of God and the blessed Saints in Heaven The Doctor about pag. 33. tells us that Scripture expresly forbids us to enquire of the dead but here he is more then inquisitive for he takes upon him to judge to degrade and cast out of Heaven many a happy soul witness his pag. 133. I pass by his jeers and blasphemies they are all numbred by one that errs not and take notice only of two or three quotations Pag. 124. he cites you S. Antoninus Sum. part 4. tit 15. without either chapter number or further direction Whereas that 15th title in an old close abreviated character contains about 60. whole leaves in folio which if printed in such a letter as the Doctors Dissuasive is would well make two or more of it I chiefly doubt whether S. Antoninus be fairly dealt with cited for these words How shall a sinner go to Christ as to an advocate but cannot now run over so large a Treatise to find the truth In the interim the Doctor may blush to paint his margent with such confused quotations A child may see he either read not Antoninus or minded not his Reader should meet with the place Soon after he cites F. Salazar in cap. 8. Proverb in ver 19. Saying that the Virgin Mary by offering up Christ was worthy to have after a certain manner that the whole salvation and redemption of mankind should be ascribed to her and that this was common to Christ and the Virgin Answ The Doctor deales most disingeniously with Salazar who numb 206. num 19. layes this Principle Exploratum est illud apud Catholicos Virginem nostrae salutis principalem causam minime fuisse solus enim Christus rem totam peregit pro peccatorum debito integre satis dando sed tantum sua impetratione eandem salutem quodammodo promovisse juvasse It is known to all Catholicks that the Virgin no way was the principal Cause of our Salvation Christ alone did that work and paid our ransom fully but only by her impetration she promoted in some sort and set forward that salvation S. Hierom cited by Salazar numb 204. says more and calls the Virgin salutis auctricem S. Anselm reparatricem S. Ireneus universo generi humano causa salutis c. Salazar therefore grounding himself upon these and other authorities of Fathers and pondering the great oblation the Virgin made of her only Son concludes num 222. Haec cum ita sint ob tantam tamque insignem tantique valoris ac meriti actionem Virgo Dei-para digna fuit ut illi communis totius generis humani salus redemptio aliquo modo ad scriberetur that is For that worthy and noble action she did in offering up her Son to his eternal Father she may be styled with S. Hierom the Actress of our salvation and accounted so worthy that the common safety and redemption of all mankind might in some manner be ascribed to her Which is not God knows to say as our Doctor strangely interprets that this redemption was common to Christ and the Virgin Christ was the sole and principal cause of our redemption he alone did the work saith Salazar and under this notion the Virgin had nothing common with him You see how constant the Doctor is in wronging Authors I should have told you how our Doctor before he cites Salazar talks of strange blasphemies delivered by Bernardinus de Bustis and Valentia but gives you no particular an answer is ready when he produceth them in the interim let him know that fraudulenti versantur in universalibus cheats like well to seâ—lk in generalities and that all is not blasphemy the Do 〈…〉 at CHAP. 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 MUch patience I confess is necessary to read our Doctor and more to lose time in weighing his unweighty arguments Yet go on we must In his 9th Section therefore page chiefly 123. He tyres you with a few old trivial objections against invocation of Saints made long since by others God knows answer'd by Bellarmine before the Doctor was born though he talks as if they were the new Lights of his own learning never thought on by any body else He argues first We have no command no testimony no promise in Scripture for the invocation of Saints Bellarmin answers Tom. 2. de Sanctorum Beatit lib. 1. cap 20. § argumentum sextum and saith well the argument proves too much viz. That Saints cannot pray in general for the good of the Church which yet Protestants grant He argues 2. prayer to Saints lessens our honour to Christ destroys our confidence in God Answ If so we cannot pray for one another here on earth without lessening Christs honour and weakning our confidence towards God See Bellar. lib. Citato cap. 20. § argumentum secundum cap. 19. § preterea in utroque testamento He objects 3. We cannot know how our prayers come to the knowledge of Saints in Heaven Bellarmine answers codem cap. 20. § argumentum tertium and § de mode aut Shews you by four opinions of Doctors how Saints may hear our prayers I think the Doctor will not deny that the blessed soul of our Saviour in Heaven hears our prayers I speak of his sanctified created soul not of his Divinity every where present if this can be explicated all difficulty ceaseth well may both Saints Angels in heaven hear our prayers He saith 4. We give Saints too high titles Bellarmine answers lib Citato cap. 17. § Est tamen Notandum and saith we call not onâ— them as gods nor honour any above their merits He argues 4. afterward Every Nation hath a particular guardian Saint Answ And is this such a trespass I say no more But S. George for England Yet see if you please Bellarmine cap. 20. Citato § argumentum octavum he lastly argues out of Scripture in the end of this Section Rom. 10. 14. Bellarmine directly answers the place cap. 22. Citato initio § primum argumentum And is it not pitiful to hear such stale arguments as these thought doughty enough by a Doctor to defeat Popery God help him Now to some other Cavils he hath in this 9th Section Page 126 he slâ—ights the practice of common people who have recourse to Saints for their temporal goods make their addresses to them for health seek their Patronage c. Answ It was doubtless some good congruous thought that withheld our Doctor from slâ—ighting also that poor Taylor of Hippo by name Florentius who having lost his Cloak