theirs who think that a Charme which they Judged a Divine Blessing CHAPTER XII Of Ceremonyes G.B. pag. 34. The Sacrament all à ctions are polluted by the superfetation of soe many new whereby they are wholy changed from their originall simplicity ANSWER You can alleadge nothing against our rites or ceremonyes but will serve as well against your owne what you can say in defence of yours against Presbyterians will fully satisfy your arguments against ours It is agreate folly to looke on Ceremonys as an essentiall part of our worship it is as great to deny that when they are decent significant they are greate helpes to it Men are composed of Body soul with both we must serve God each is a helpe to the other when they concurre to worship him The Body can doe nothing without the soul all its worship is meere hypocrisy not worthy of acceptation dead unlesse it be quikned by interiour Faith Charity which flow from the soul And this devotion soone grows cold if it be not entertained with exteriour objects revived by sensible actions Which fix the Imaginative faculty on the acts of Religion in hand move the Will both of him who Officiates of the Assistants to dispositions proportionable to the Rite by a certaine sympathy betwixt our soul body the soul feeling an inward veneration for God to expresse it inclines the body to kneeling prostrations or the like these encrease the interiour veneration when duly devoutly made This is the sense of mankind for there never was any People who met to honour ether God or Prince but had some setled ceremonys with which they exprest exteriourly their submission to them The french Hugonots pared of those they found in the Roman Church as superstitions the most learned Religious of that communion wish their worship were adorned with some rites whose want they lament as being an undecent nakednesse an occasion of much Irreligion disrespectfullnesse in giving receiving the Sacraments themselves I beleive did you pursue the Prophanenesse soe common in Ingland to its heade you will find your want neglect of Religious ceremonys to be the fountaine of it In your vindication of the laws pag. 170. you say the Church hath Power to determine of things that may bedone in a variety of ways into one particular forme such as ptescribing a set forme of worship the ordering the posture in Sacraments the habits in worship c. which will hedge in what you reject as well as what you retaine G. B. pag. 34. In Baptisme insteade of washing with water in the name of the Father Son Holy Ghost they have added many adulterated rites ANS These words signify an Abrogation of washing with water a substitution of other rites in lieu of it which is soe farre from Truth soe blacke a Calumnye that I wonder you could advance it or your Church permit it especially seing the guilt falls on her for not baptising those who fall from us to you as she ought to doe if we omit washing in the name which is the essentiall part of the Sacrament But you speake against Popery that is enough to justify all untruths get alicense for any calumny As appeares by this very passage G. B. pag. 34. The child must be blowne uppon then a charme used for turning the Divil out of him ANS Blowing uppon the child exorcising it were practised in the purest times You will find them in Cyril of Hierus (a) Catech. 1. Ambrose (b) l. 1. de Sac. c.s. Leo (c) Epist 4. c. 6. Caelestin 1. (d) Epist 1. ad Episc Gallia c. 12. Augustin (e) l. 2. dc pec orig cap. 40. l. 6. cont Iulian. c. s. ubi ait Ecclesia filios fidelium nec exorcisaret nec exufflaret si non eos de potestate tenebrarum à Principe mortis crueret Id tu commemor are timuisti tanquam ipse ab orbe toto exufflandus esses si huic exufflationi quâ Princeps mundi à parvulis ejicitur foras contradicere voluisses The Church says S. Austin to Julian would nether exorcise you call this a charme the children of the faithfull nor blow uppon them did she not free them from the power of the Divil This thou Julian durst not gainsay fearing thy selfe to blowne out of the Christian world if thou hadst done soe Soe esteemed was this Ceremony then that even hereticks durst not speake against it which now is reprocht to us as a charme a superstition by our Reformers Not a petty minister but thinks it a fit object to be laught at to shew his wit by playing the Bouffoone uppon it By naturall Generation all are borne in sin children of wrath slaves of the Devil in the Power of darkenesse By supernaturall Regeneration which is Baptisme we are purged from sin freed from the bondage of the Devil adopted children of God delivered from the power of darknesse translated into the kingdoe of the beloved son of God Coloss 1 13. This Faith delivered by the a postles was beleived by the primitive Chrisstians we beleive the same They used this ceremony to signify this change in the person Baptised we use it for the same intent It was then soe venerable that even Hereticks durst not expresse any disesteeme of it now you deride it looke uppon it as prophane a charme Whence comes this change from the Ceremony no it is the same it was then from the intention of those who use it no it is employed to signify the change from sin to Grace now as it was then The change is only in your selfe your Brethen in Reformation your Faith is as different from that of the Primitive as of the present Church that new Faith enclines you to deride those things which the Church animated by Apostolicall faith did doth esteeme By this you see how Impious this Lucian like spirit is How Imprudent it is will appeare if you consider how full your Assemblyes are of Libertins who deride all things of devotion even practised by yourselves as severall tragically complaine of in their sermons You foster in them this spirit by your practise you plant that tree in their harts which produces such sower fruite that sets all your teeth an Edge this serpent is bredde in the bowells of your reformation serpent like it will eate the bowells of her Parent kill her if he not stifled G.B. pag. 35. The Preist at masse often bows sometimes he turnes to the People gives them a short Barbarian Benediction then goes on ANS In all this I see nothing ridiculous but your relating those sacred rites How can he expresse his inward worship of God more cleerely then by kneeling or Bowing His office is to be a mediator betwixt God Man Heb. 5.1 how can that be better represented then by
of Traditions ANS You speake as dogmatically as if it were ex Tripode Here is an Assertion without any proofe soe is a convincing proofe that you have none Tradition is indeede our Sanctuary to which you have no claime By it we received 1. Scriptures 2. the sense of Scriptures which is their soul Now when Scriptures are doubtfull in any point or as you phrase it seeme not to reach home without Stretching can we have better assurance of their tru meaning then by the authority of the Church which is cleerely commended us in Scriptures themselves And in following her sense we are certain we follow Scriptures which is the discourse of S. Aug. l. 1. contra Crescon cap. penult Quamvis hujus rel de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum Scripturarum etiam in hac re à nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae jam placuit Ecclesiae quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat auctoritas ut quoniam Sacra Scriptura fallere nonpotest quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quostionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sin◠allâ ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrat G. B. Ibidem Till it be proved that an errour could not creepe into the world that way we must be excused from beleiving ANS Unlesse you prove that errours have crept in that way you are inexcusable You actually rejected those things as errours which were in possession all over the world unlesse you prove them to be such your fact is criminall G. B. Ibidem It is not possible to know what Traditions came from the Apostles ANS Habemus hic confitentem reum For if it be impossible to know what Traditions were Apostolicall your Reformers act in rejecting soe many was rash inconsiderate They had beene better advised to retaine all as they found them in the Church them to cut them off But your proceedure is as different in this as in the rest from S. Austin For was any thing doubted of this Saint's methode was to consult the Church adhere to what shee beleived or practised as you see in his discourse above you consult the Church too but it is only to reject her practice condemne her sentiments The weyght of the authority of the Church may be sufficient to convince which are Apostolicall Traditions as it convinces which are Apostolicall writings Yet we have other signes I will instance in two one taken from S. Austin l. 4. de Bapt. contra Donat. cap. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec à Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Apostolicâ traditum auctoritate rectissimè creditur We ought to beleive those things to have come from the Apostles which the whole Church holds were not introduced by Councills but were always in use To prove this it is enough that the first persons who mention them speake of them not as of things newly begun but which were of ancient practice The second rule is taken out of Tertullian l. de praescript c. 28. Age nunc omnes erraverint deceptus sit Apostolus de testimonio reddendo quibusdam nullam respexerit Spiritus sanctus uti eam in veritatem induceret ad hoc missus est à Christo ad hoc postulatus de Patre ut esset Doctor veritatis neglexerit officium Dei villicus Christi vicarius sinens Ecclesias aliter in terris intelligere aliter credere quà m ipse per Apostolos praedicabat Ecquid verisimile est ut tot ac tantae Ecclesiae in unā fidem erraverint Nullus inter multos eventus est unus exitus variasse debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum Coeterùm quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratum sed traditum Suppose says he that all churchs have erred that the Apostle was deceived in the testimony he gave to some the holy Ghost looked to none to leade it into truth to which intent he was sent by the son demanded of the father to be the Doctor of truth let the steward of God the Vicar of Christ neglect his duty permit the Churchs to understand beleive otherwise then he had taught by his Apostles Is it probable that all Churchs should by error fall into one the same opinion when there are soe many by ways those who loose the hygh way wonld scarce wander into the same error Soe that certainly what is sound one the same in many Churchs is no ertor newly invented but it is faith of old delivered Thus Tertullian Answer you to his discourse if you can G. B. pag. 108. A late ingenious writer whose sincere zeale had drawne censures on himself his booke tooke away to repayre his reputation by a new method of proving Popish doctrines that they had them from their Ancestors they from theirs But this pretence hath beene baffled by Mr. Claud as all know who have beene soe happy as to reade his workes ANSWER I am perswaded that your Prelates will scarce think it sincere zeale in Monsr Arnaud of him you speake that the stood out solong against his spirituall temporall Superiors But let that passe You discover your ignorance in saying that Method was new or that Arnaud invented it Mr. Tho. White had it before Arnaud Mr. Fisher a Jesuit before T. W. Bellarmin before him S. Austin S. Stephen Pope Tertullian before them all I have reade Mr. Claude's workes was far from finding soe much satisfaction as you promise your Reader I beleive rather uppon heare say then on your owne experience Nay I have from one of the eminentest wits of the french Hugenots that Claud was not much esteemed a mongst his owne for those workes which would have beene neglected had not Arnaud's enemys commended them You say Claud Bussled him others are of a different opinion I confesse Mr. Arnaud though very learned yet seemed not qualifyed to manage a controversy in defence of Church-Authority Tradition having as much as lay in him weakened both by his writings practice during the time he stood out against the Censure the Formula Which gave such advantage to Mr. Claude who industriously gathered together cunningly returned uppon him his owne arguments that some thought he foyled his adversary Yet without any prejudice to the Catholick cause which is not concerned in Mr. Arnaud's personall faylings Let us now heare what you can alleadge against the authority of Tradition to prove a change unobserved in our Faith G. B. p. 121. Weknow the chalice was taken from the people 250. yeares agoe ANS 1 ò You are mistaken in your epocha S. Th. 3. p. q. 8o a. 12. assures it was in his time taken away in many places he lived 400 yaeres ago from the beginning some persons on some occasions received but one species 2. This is an argument that changes cannot happen without some notice taken of them As in this we know when it begun with
Alex. l. 10. contra Julianum p. 342. speakes of Iupiter's tombe says that Pythagoras visited it writ uppon it this Epitapht 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here lyes Iupiter And Porphyrius boggling about the truth of this story which ruins the Divinity of his greate God S. Cyril addes That Pythagoras had written the plaine truth that the greatest of the Pagan Gods was dead that his countrimen the Cretans had built him a tombe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julius Firmicus p. 4. says that Jupiter was King of Candy or Creete that Bacchus or Dyonisus was his unlawfull son whome in her husband's absence Iuno caused to be killed by the gards who devoured his body but Minerva preserved his hart presented it to her Father as his returne c. Commodianus cap. 4. Saturnus Rex erat in terris in monte natus Olympo Non Divinus erat sed Deum sese dicebat Venit inops animi lapidem pro filio sorpsit Sic Deus evasit dicitur modò Iupiter ille Saturne was a King who out of feare of his owne children devoured them But one of them was saved a stone in lieu of him being given to the father which he swallowed Soe this infant grew up to be a God is called Iupiter My fourth proofe is from those fathers who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the Divinity of Iupiter Origen l. 1. cont Celsum p. 19. Assoone as we heare the name of Iupiter we understand the son of Saturne Ops Iuno's husband Neptune's brother l. 5. p. 262. We will rather endure any torments then acknowledge Iupiter to be God Lactantius Firmianus called commonly by the Fathers the Christian Cicero whome Photius judges to be the most learned eloquent of his age who for his capacity was chosen by the Emperour Constantin the greare to be Tutour to his son Crispus He I say l. 1. Instit Divin cap. 11. p. 38. says Iovem illum esse qui ex Ope Saturnoque natus sit negari non potest Vana igitur est persuasio eorum qui nomen Iovis summo Deo tribuunt Solent enim quidant errores suos hac excusatione defendere qui convicti de unto Deo cùm id negare non possunt ipsum se colere affirmant verum hoc sibi placere ut Iupiter nominetur Quo quid absurdius Iupiter enim sine contubernio conjugis siliaeque coli non solet Vnde quid sit apparet nec fas est id nomen eò transferri ubi nec Minerva est ulla nec Iuno It cannot be denyed that Iupiter was borne of Ops Saturne wherefore it is a vaine or foolish perswasion of those who would give the name of Iupiter to the supreme God Observe this Mr. E. S. For some are wont in that manner to excuse their Errors when they had beene convinced of one God so as they could not contradict it by saying that themselves adored him called him Iupiter Then which what can be more absurd Seing Iupiter is not worshipt without the partnership of his wife daughter Whence it plainly appeares when this Iupiter is that the name ought not to be transferred thither where there is no Minerva nor Iuno Thus this learned man Whose words are so cleere that if he were now alive intended to reject E. S. his new error he could not do it more convincingly My fift proofe is taken from the confessions of the Iupiter himself as you may see in Tertul. S. Cyprian Iulius Firmious Minutius Felix above cited Adde to these Prudentius i◠Apotheosi Torquetur Apollo Nomine percussus Christi nec fulmina verbi Ferre potest agitant miserum tot verbera lingu◠Quot laudata Deiresonant miracula Christi Intonat Antistes Domini fuge callide serpens Exue te membris spiras solve latentes Mancipium Christi fur corruptissime vexas Desine Christus adest humani corporis ultor Non licet ut spolium rapias cui Christus inhaesitexi◠Pulsus abi ventose liquor christus jubet Has inter voces medias Cyllenius ardens Ejulat notos suspirat Jupiter ignes Out of which verses E. S may learne first the forme of our Exorcismes which to this day are made after that manner trampling the Proud spirit under our feete with disdainfull language E. S. may learne secondly the force of them which by invisible stripes did scourge those pretended Gods till they forced them out o◠their possession Nec fulmina verbi ferre potest agitant miserum tot verberalinguae quot laudate Dei miracula resonant He may learne thirdly that not only the lesser Gods but even Iupiter himself was subject to the whips torments inflicted byour exorcists My sixth proofe is drawne from the opinion of the Pagans See Natalis Comes l. 2. mithol c. 1. sequent Where you find many cited Lucian in Iove Tragaedo says that Damis an Atheist having objected to one who defended the Divinity of the Gods that Iupiter the cheife of them was dead as also his sepulcher which was extant a Pillerneere it testifying the truth of that death Iupiter he says grew Pale dismayed hearing it being conscious of the truth that truth tended to roote up the opinion of his Divinity My seventh proofe is grounded on what the Fathers write of him viz 1. ò that he was not a God 2º But that he was a man 3. ò That we as a wicked man subject to such vices as would make any civill man blush Justinus M. Paraen pag. 2. shews him to have bewayled like a woman the death of Sarpedon His insatiable lust both after women boys is noted by all so is his Ambition which shewed it selfe by his Rebellion against his owne Father Now how can the Fathers be excused from horrible Blasphemy in accusing the Pagan Iupiter of these crimes if he be the tru God I conclude this proofe with an invincible reason taken from S. Austin l. 1. de consensu Evangelistarum c. 26. None of all the Gods adored by Pagans opposed the adoration of any other Diana Minerva never exprest any dislike of men adoring of Venus Priapus Saturne was willing his rebellious son Iupiter should be adored Vulcan very quietly endured the company of Venus his wanton Wise of Mars whome he had found in flagranti with her And Iupiter never checked his daughter Venus for those filthy faults which would have made her unfit company for civill men or women Whence the saint concludes them all Iupitu too to have beene Divels who aimed only at the courruption of manners This be confirmes from the law of the tru living God who for bad them all to be adored commanded all their statues to be pulled downe all their rites ceremonyes sacrifices to be abolished By which Satis ostendit illos falsos atque fallaces se esse verum ac veracē Deums he convinces sufficiently that false opinion newly broached by E. S. My