TOugh my task be chiefly to follow the Do­ctor in his Quotations, and note, (as he goes along) some few of his many Errors: Yet touch I must a little on a discourse he is pleased to begin with, Chapter the first: It seems to enervate much our Christian Faith, and weaken the Au­thority of the most Ancient Councils.

Page then the fourth and first Section, he holds the two Testaments, the words of Christ and of the Apo­stles, the Fountains of Faith; (which none denies) but next he adds; Whatsoever caeme in after these, foris est, is to be cast out, it belongs not unto Christ. This latter asser­tion (to say no more) hath too much of the harshness in it: for the difinitions of the Nicen Council, and of the other three general Councils, with St. Athanasius his Creed, came in after the words of Christ, and Holy Scripture; are these, Think ye, like old Garments to be laid a side, or cast out, as not at all belonging to Christ? belong they do most certainly, as Rivers to their Foun­tains, though not own'd as Original Springs, and the first Foundations of our Faith. Observe therefore, I beseech you, how the Doctor deals with us, how he leads us on in darkness, whilst he sets men a seeking af­ter [Page 9] the Fountains of Faith, but with it, turns by the Stream, cuts of the Torrent of Authority whereby to find them; that is in a word, he makes null all Au­thority that can assert with certainty, Such were the Words of Christ, such the Doctrine of the Apo­stles, &c.

Judge whether I say not aright, and demand of the Doctor upon whose certain proposal can he rely, or in­dubitably admit of Christ's words as sacred? If he answers Scripture; the Question return's again, and he is asked a new, who it is that doth ascertain him of Scripture? If the Fathers, they are, with him, Falli­ble, yes, and full of ambiguous sences. If the Church, that (saith he) is changeable, hath brought in novelties contrary to Ancient Faith; if Councils, not one is found but lyable to Error. Turn by therefore these intermedial Streams running between us and the Foun­tains of Faith, destroy the certainty of such Witnesses, say that no man, or society of men since Christ and his Apostles hath, (without a possibility of erring) assu­red us that Christ spake, that the Evangelists writ as they did; the whole Scripture, God knows, will be cast aside also; yes, and become a comfortless, an un­warranted Book. Whence follow's a total ruin of Christian Religion. This is not my assertion, but the great St. Austins (the Quotation is known) Tom. 6. contra epistolam Manichei, cap. 5. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, &c. I would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Church moved me to believe it.

Our Doctor may think he salves this objection in his next ensuing lines, pag. 4. where he saith; To these (that is to Scripture) we add, not as Authors, but as helpers of our Faith, and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical the senti­ments [Page 10] and Catholick Doctrine of the Church in the Ages next after the Apostles; not that we think, &c. I Answer: Here is, no man knows what, confusedly shut up in two Ambiguous VVords; Heirs and Helpers: to get out of darkness, I might first demand; how knows the Do­ctor now exactly, what the Sentiments, or Catholick Doctrine of the Church Anciently were in the Ages next after the Apostles? The Proposal of our present Church (overgrown, as he saith, with a thousand Er­rors) is an infufficient warranty: Both Fathers, and Councils were even then Fallible; and had they been Infallible, their writings since that, may perhaps have fallen into ill hands, and lost their purity. But I wave this discourse; and propose to our present purpose this Question only. Are we Christians now being, o­bliged under Damnation to believe those Sentiments of the Ancient Church, as undoubted Helpers, as certain apparent Heirs of Divine Truth, or no? if not: They cast us wholly upon uncertainties, and may as well help us on to Err, as hit right: if we are bound to own them as certain Heirs of Divine Truth; Scripture must assure it, (for saith the Doctor, To believe any thing Di­vine, that is not Scripture, is a divillish spirit) and un­doubtedly affirm that at least in the Ages next after Christ, there was a society of men, not lyable to Error, that kept our Christian Faith entire without spot or blemish, faithfully transmitted it to Posterity, &c. Now all I can desire of the Doctor is, to produce that Scripture, which purifies the Ancient Church only, and makes the next ensuing Ages of that Church Spuri­ous in Doctrine, fearfully despicable, and lyable to Er­ror. Thus much I am confident he shall never shew: for our dearest Saviour that Established a Christian Church, promised he would be with it to the end of the [Page 11] World. Gods alseeing providence drives not on his work by halfs, nor leaves his Church when the Doctors fancy listeth: Souls are now as dear to Christ as they were in the Primitive Ages: He shed his Sacred Blood for All; if then he secured his Church from Error, and directed Souls into Truth; he doth the like favour now, and will not permit his Immaculate Spouse to beguile them with falshood.

All therefore the Doctor saith here, is a deceitful Paralogism, yes, and Paradoxes, not to be tolerated. A Paradox it is, to talk of Heirs, and Helpers of Aposto­lical Doctrine, and rob them of their Infallibility. A Paradox it is to say, that these Heirs, and Helpers sent Milions of Souls into the Bosom of Christ, and cast more Milions in after Ages out of his Bosom, for want of true Faith. A Paradox it is, that Christ only re­mained with his Church for a time, and then left it de­stitute of Divine Assistance; yes, and in points most Fundamental. But the greatest Paradox of all which amuses every one, is; That now towards an end of the World, a new sort of unknown men (the Doctor is one) will become our Teachers, and tell us exactly how long Christ was with his Church, and when he leap'd out of it. He was with it, say they, for some three or four hundred years, and then left it, fluctuating, tossed, and at last saw it without Mercy overturned with a de­luge of Errors. And credit this we must upon their bare word, because they say it; without Sctipture, without Reason, yes, expresly contrary to both, and all Ancient Authority.

The Doctor to prove the Church by Scripture only, quotes St. Austin in his Margent, pag. 4. de vnit. eccle­siae cap. 3, & 4. 5. but both mangles his words, and con­ceals the force of his Argument. Sunt certe (saith the [Page 12] Saint) libri Dominici quorum Authoritati utrique consen­timus, utrique credimus, &c. There are certain books of our Lord (He means Scripture) to whose Authority we both yeild, we both believe: Ibi Quaeramus eccle­siam, Let us look for the Church there &c. That is, seeing we both, who now dispute, admit of Scripture, and believe it, let us upon such a supposition go forward and prove the Church by Scripture: which is an excel­lent way of Arguing; but if any question the Authority of Scripture it self, take it we must (when we make a right Analysis) upon the Church's Authority solely, and say with St. Austin: I would not believe the Scri­pture but for the Church.

I omit the brags he hath pag. 6. of Protestants being more then indubitably Conquerors (meer empty words) and observe how he puts himself on a new trouble, pag. 7th. where he saith; Whatsoever we cannot prove by Scri­pture we disclaim it. I will not here tell the Doctor he must then disclaim every Tenet of Protestant Religion, (no more in Scripture then Arianism) as it stands oppo­site to the Roman Faith: But briefly, I argue thus; A Church secured from Error, and which Infallibly pro­poseth Divine Truth can be proved by Scripture, or can­not: If the first, there was, is, and shall ever be in the World a society of Christians un-crrable, and certain in Doctrine that neither injures Faith, nor (by intro­mitting Novelties) destroy Apostolical Doctrine; for the Scripture, (as we now suppose) saith so, and what it saith is true. One favour therefore I humbly beg of the Doctor that he would by a plain designation point me out this unerrable body of Christians; and clearly also design me such known out cast Christians, that are not of this Moral body; my demand is reasonable, and require's no long discourse, nor any definition of a [Page 13] Church, but to have this unerring company design'd, and candidly.

If the Scripture Warrant's not such an Infallible company of Christians; the Doctor (though he pretend to it) can never believe with a true, and infallible Act of Supernatural faith, that the Ancient Church Inheri­ted Catholick Doctrine; that it sent Milions of Souls to Heaven: That what we now read, is the Apostles Creed; that the Ancient Councils erred not in their De­finitions; No, nor that there ever was, or is now, Pure, and Incorrupt Scripture among Christians: I say, he cannot believe these truths with a certain assent of Su­pernatural Faith, but at most with a meer opinative Judgment, which may as well be wrong, as right; false, as true: staggering assuredly it is, and not steddy (if a meer Opinion) yes, and wholly destitute of that strength, which God requires to Supernatural Faith.

In his 10th. page he is fierce against the Church of Rome, for pretending to a power not only of declaring New Articles of Faith, but of making new Symbols, and Creeds, and imposing them as necessary to Salva­tion. To this purpose he cites the Bull of Leo the tenth against Martin Luther; whose twenty seventh Pro­position is this, and condemned; Certum est, in manu Ecclesiae, aut Papae, non esse statuere Articulos fidei, imo nec leges morum seu bonorum operum. It is certain that it is not in the hand of the Church, or Pope, to appoint, or determine Articles of Faith, nor Laws of manners, or good Works.

First, here is not a word of making new Articles or Creeds; and the word statuere may as well signifie to determine a Question not yet decided, as to make any thing a new; but to pass these niceties, and shew clear­ly [Page 14] the Doctors Error: I demand whether the Fathers assembled together in the Nicen Council made new Articles of Faith against the Arians? whether St. A­thanatius in his Creed did the like? who was no Pope. What the Doctors Answer is here, is ours also for all and every Definition made by the Church in after Ages.

And I would have him to reflect, that as he now ca­vil's at both Pope, and Church, for constituting new Articles; so the Arians might have done against the Nicen Council, and Athanasius his Creed; yes, and cried out, Novelties, novelties, as loud as the Doctor. In a word then, I answer, with St. Gregory in Ezechiel homit. XVI post. med. pag. 1164. 6. edit. Antwerp. 1615. that, per incrementa temporum Crevit scientia spirita­lium Patrum: With time Faith encreased, hut how? not that either the Church or Pope have Power to coin Articles at pleasure, or to force Christians to the ac­ceptance of Novelties contrary to Scripture, or ancient Tradition; No, but the Power given them is to dispence the Mysteries of the Word of God, to lay out more clearly verities contained in Scripture, (so the Fathers did in the Nicen Council, when they defined the Son to be consubstantial with his Father, which word [...] is never read in Scripture) Finally, to declare more expli­citely what the Ancient Tradition of the Church, and sence of the Fathers hath been; within such a compass the Church holds it self, when after mature deliberation it defines in Council.

Hence both Divines, and Canonists teach; that rigo­rously speaking, the Church hath no new Articles of Faith; but only a more full, and explicite knowledge of that belief, which anciently was among Primitive Christians; yet none there is, that reads our Doctor, [Page 15] both in the page now cited, and elsewhere after; but must have this perswasion wrought in him, that the Church and Pope, may define as it were at Random; make new Articles, new Creeds as they list; and im­pose them as necessary to Salvation. All is false, and fraudulent dealing.

THe Doctor in his tenth page, to prove our ma­king new Articles, cites Augustinus Trium­phus de Ancon [...]a quaest. 59 Art. 1 & 2. and pittifully abuseth that Catholick Author, who in his resolution Art. 1. [...] ▪ concludes thus; Respon­deo quod hanc quaestionem determinat Augustinus li­bro 1. de symbolo, ubi vult, quod omnis symboli condendi, & ordinandi in sancta dei ecclesia terminatur authoritas. I Answer, St Austin resolves this Question, lib. 1. de symbolo, Where he saith, That all Authority of making and setting a Symbol in order is within the bounds of the Church. (Mark first St. Austins words; Omnis authori­tas condendi & ordinandi, &c.) Then follow these o­ther in Anconitanus his resolution, (wrongfully interpre­ted, and unhandsomly mangled by the Doctor) Ex his patere potest, quod novum symbolum condere, solum ad Papam [Page 16] spectat; nam in symbolo ponuntur illa, quae universaliter per­tinent ad Christianam fidem: By this you may see that to make a new Symbol belongs only to the Pope; for those things are set down in a Symbol, which Universally concern Christian Faith. These last words which ex­plicate both St. Austins, and Anconitanus his meaning are fraudulently left out by the Doctor: Briefly then, condere Symbolum are St. Austins words; and both in his sence, and this Authors, stand consignificant with Or­dinare; which is not to make a Novelty in Faith, but to reduce to a Method, or short form those Points which Christians both now do believe, and have anciently be­lieved in the general; most evidently this is Anconita­nus his sence: First, by the words now cited ( Nam in symbolo ponuntur illa, quae Universaliter, &c.) 2. By the express Doctrine in his resolution, where he saith; Una fuit fides antiquorum, & modernorum, one Faith there was anciently; And now; 3. by his answer to the 2d. Argument Art. 2d. Ad secundum est dicendum; quod ad illa quae in sacra Scriptura ponuntur, non debet fieri aliqua additio erroris, vel falsitatis, vel diminutio veritatis; sed addere veritatem, quam continet (Scriptura) explicare & semper licuit Ecclesiae, & semper licet. To the second Ar­gument we say, That to those things which are in Holy Scripture, no addition of error, or falshood is to be made, nor diminution of Truth. But to add a verity, which the Scripture contains, was, and is ever lawful in the Church.

As he deals with Anconitanus, so he abuseth Panormi­tanus cap. cum Christus; the Doctor cites him thus; Papa potest inducere novum Articulum fidei, and leav's of there: But Panormitan's words are, Papa potest inducere novum Articulum fidei, declarando istud jus Divinum & ex hoc infertur quod ista Constitutio respicit praeterita. The [Page 17] The Pope can introduce a new Article of Faith by de­claring it to be Divine; whence we have, that this con­stitution relates to things past. Mark; a decla­rative Sentence, and of things anciently belie­ved.

Lastly, he cites Ostiensis, and Ferdinandus de Inciso apud Petrum Ciezam, an Author I never heard of; but assuredly most false it is, that any Catholick Writer saies; The Souls of men are in the hands of the Pope, and that in his Arbritration Religion doth consist.

Page 12. he tells us of a story of the King of Spain giving Commission to purge all Catholick Authors, with such secrecy that the Expurgatory Index might not be imparted to any. Howsoever, saith he, by Divine pro­vidence Joannes Pappus, and Franciscus Junius 13 years after met with it, made it publick; and since it came abroad against the Inquisitors wills; they own it, and have printed it themselves: Yet more: in their Index, some words in St. Chrisostom, others in St. Austin are commanded to be blotted out; yes, and Sixtus Senensis in his Epistle De­dicatory highly commends the Pope, Pius Quintus, for purging all Catholick Authors, and chiefly the writ­ings of the Ancient Fathers. Thus the Doctor: and he layes a foul aspertion on us for corrupting of Wit­nesses, and razing out the Records of Antiqui­ty.

I answer that he is both false, and faulty through this whole Paragraph; faulty, in telling us of a clan­cular commission given by the King of Spain to the In­quisitors, &c. without directing us to either Book, or Index where to find it: Faulty he is, in asserting (with­out nameing his Author) that the Inquisitors were forced to own the Expurgatory Index, because Pappus, and Iu­nius [Page 18] had first printed it against their wills; faulty, fi­nally he is, for citing words razed out of St. Chrisostom by an Index expurgatorius, and leaving his Reader in darkness where to find the Quotations.

Now to his falsities which are evident: In St. Chriso­stoms works (saith he) Printed at Basil these words [ The Church is not Built upon the Man, but upon the Faith] are commanded to be blotted out: yet they are read in his first Homily, upon that of St. Iohn, Ye are my Friends. Here are two falsities: The first is, that these words are commanded to be blotted out of St. Chrisostom's works; whereas, most certainly the Pro­hibition falls only on St Chrisostom's Index made by Fro­ben, Printer at Basil, or some of his Friends: And is it not gross to mistake the Index of a Book (drawn out by God knows whom) for the Authors Doctrine? If the Reader please to see, that I wrong not the Doctor, let him turn to this Index published by Cardinal Sando­nal's order, and Printed at Madrid, anno 1612. pag 556. he shall read Ex D. Iohannis Chrisostomi Indice Basileae ex officina Frobeniana, dele sequentia: and, in the very next page (1. columna) soon after the middle these words of Frobens Index. Ecclesia non super hominem, sed supra fidem aedificata.

The second Error is, that these words are found in the Homily now cited upon St. Iohn; believe it, there is not a syllable like them in that Homily. Again, saith the Doctor, these words of St. Chrisostom [There is no merit, but what is given us by Christ] are command­ed to be blotted out; yet, they are found in his Sermon upon Pentecost. Here are three Errors at once: First, the Index is taken for the Text: Secondly, Frobens words are not as the Doctor gives them, but thus: Sa­lus nostra non ex merito nostro: Our Salvation is not by [Page 19] our merit, see the Index, pag. 558. 1. columna. 3. These words. There is no merit, &c. are not in the Homily of Pentecost, but in the other upon St. Iohn; Ye are my Friends: and as they stand in St. Chrisostom's Text, are thus ( Frobens Edition) Nullum in nobis meritum nisi quod contalit Christus. There is no Merit but what Christ gave us, which is most Catholick Doctrine. Again, those words: The Church is not built upon the man, &c. Are not in that Homily on St. Iohn, Ye are my Friends: but in St. Chrisostom's Homily on Pentecost. In a word, to speak plain English, our Doctor cited Kim Kam, one Homily for an other, which may pass for a fault or fal­sity, make of it what you please. However, he may yet reply, though he miscited the places, at least grant we must, that those words, The Church is not built upon the man, &c. are extant in the Pentecost Homily; and the Index Expurgatory commands them to be razed out. I answer, that it commands them to be razed out of Frobens Index, is granted; out of St. Chriso­stom's works, is denyed; which yet our Doctor affirms: And herein Iohn Pappus is the more honest man of the two, for he ingeniously confesseth in the 3d. page of his Preface, ( anno 1599) that we never yet had the boldness to change or cancelate a word in the writings of Ecclesiastical Authors, read his 11th. line: Eo audaciae nondum proruperunt, &c. The Doctor may yet demand why then purge we Frobens Index, of words found in St. Chrisostom's Works? I answer, because, as they stand nudely in that Index devested of their precedent and subsequent words, they may render a harsher sence to a Captious Reader, and not sound well to any ear, though pondered with a further explication of the Au­thor, they soon lose the harshness and clear themselves. And so really is this very sentence, if you'll compare [Page 20] it with those following words of St. Chrisostom in Fro­bens Edition: Hoc est, super confessionem, super sermones pietatis, &c. That is, Christ built his Church not up­on the man, as man, but upon Peter, confessing and piously acknowledging his Saviours Divinity, which Flesh and Blood taught him not, &c. You see therefore a sentence weighed out of its circumstances changes often most blamless Doctrine, and speaks well with them, less well without them. One only instance in Doctor Tay­lors 167. page shall serve for our purpose, where he cites Bellarmine thus: If the Pope should Err by commanding sin and forbiding Virtue, the whole Church were bound to be­lieve that Vices were good, and Virtue evil; unless she would sin against her Conscience. These words are Bel­larmin's, and as they stand in the Doctor, sound harshly, (and therefore he Quotes them) but read in Bellarmine they have an excellent sence, and directly prove that neither Church nor Pope can Err: whereof see more in the 28. Chapter of this Treatise: So true it is, that words as they run on in the Context of an Author, are often harmless, though stript of their adjuncta, they may prove hurtful to a less diligent Reader. Our Doctor in his Disswasive is almost endless, with these maimed and half-quoted Authorities.

Observe lastly, good Reader, how unworthily the Doctor (pag. 13.) deals with Sixtus Senensis by turning the Genuine sence of his words into another, highly injurious: Mark I beseech you. Sixtus Praiseth Pope Pius the 5th. for purging the Ancient Fathers, vitiated by modern Hereticks, &c. But our Doctor (for sooth) will not allow him this sence, but makes him speak as if he extolled the Pope for razing out the Fathers own Doctrine. To know the truth, read Sixtus his Epistle Dedicatory, (it is before his Bibliotheca) where he [Page 21] speaks thus to Pius Quintus: Deinde expurgari, & emaculari curasti omnia Catholicorum Scriptorum, ac prae­cipuè Veterum Patrum Scripta haereticorum aetatis nostrae fae­cibus contaminata, & venenis infecta. You have caused (saith he) all the writings of Catholick Authors, and chiefly the Ancient Fathers stained with the dreggs of Hereticks in this our Age, and poysoned with their Venome, to be purged, and made clear from blemish. What is here more offensive then to take Poyson out of a sound body? Yet our Doctor to perswade the world, that Popes are ever busie in cancelating the Records of Antiquity, gives you only Sixtus his first words: You have purged the Ancient Fathers, &c. and there fraudu­lently leaves of, utterly concealing what follows, and clears all: Hereticorum, faecibus contaminata, &c. that is, You have purged the Ancient Fathers, contamina­ted with Heresie in these our days.

Briefly then our Doctor by this Quotation would either have his Reader judge that Sixtus praised the Pope for blotting out the Authentick writings of the Fa­thers, or only for purging them from later Heresie: If the second, its worthy praise; if the first, viz. that the Pope is here commended for blotting out the writ­ings of the Ancient Fathers (which is the only thing aim'd at) I do affirm this a flat corruption, a wrong (as you see) to Sixtus. A ginne to catch the unwary Rea­der; and therefore deplorable in a Doctor of Divi­nity. What is further opposed in that 13. page of places razed out of St. Austin is an Error; read the a­bove mentioned Expurgatory Index, pag. 37. and you shall find the correction to be made upon Erasmus and Ludovicus his Notes, not on St. Austins words; and page the 39, you have Cluadius Chevalonius his Index upon St. Austin amended, not any syllable of the Saint's [Page 22] corrected. And this is the first, which our Doctor storms at: Solus Deus est adorandus: God only is to be adored. Frobens Indices mentioned in the same page of our Doctor, deserved correction, wholly contra­ry to the Originals.

TO what the Doctor hath in his 2d. Section, page the 14th. concerning the power of making new Articles, we have answered already, and say that the Church coyns no Novelty; yet may explicitly declare what anciently was believed implicitly. The Declaration is new, the substance of the Article as old as Christianity: In the next page after, he had a fling at a new Article ready for stamp concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, (which is more then he knows) He passeth to his third Section of Indulgences, page 16. where he cites St. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence parte 1. summae cap. 3. saying, We have nothing expresly for Indulgences in Scri­pture &c. The Doctor omits what follows imme­diately; quamvis ad hoc inducatur illud Apostoli 2. cor. 2. si quid donavi vobis propter vos in persona Christi. Al­though saith Antoninus, that of the Apostle is alledged, si quid, &c. He cites again our Bishop Fisher in Art. [Page 23] 18. Lutheri to this sence; At the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences. Answer, he saith it not so absolutely, but with this interrogation; Quis jam de Indulgentjis mirari potest? and expresly in the beginning of that Article hath these words: Fuit tamen non nul­lus earum usus, ut aiunt, apud Romanos vetustissimus, quod vel ex stationibus in urbe frequentissimis intelligi datur. There was, as they say, a most ancient Use and Pra­ctise of these Indulgences at Rome, which thing the most frequented Stations of that City gives us to under­stand.

In the rest of that Section, he hath only Vulgar Ob­jections answered over and over, and a number of ca­lumnies a rising from the misunderstanding of Catholick Doctrine: I therefore leave him, for it is not my task to repeat what hath been most largely writ concerning Indulgences by others.

What I find more material in the Doctors fourth Section is, page 27. Where he tells us our Writers vainly suppose, that when the H. Fathers speak of Prayer for the dead, they conclude for Purgatory; For it is true, saith he, the Fathers did Pray for the dead; But how? that God would shew them Mercy, and hasten their Resurrection, &c. Mark well, that God would shew them Mercy: whence I argue, if the Souls prayed for, be in Heaven, they have Mercy, the sentence is given for their Eternal happiness; if in Hell, they are wholly destitute of Mercy▪ vain therefore were the Prayers of the Fathers for Mercy, unless there be a third place where mercy can be shewed them. I would willingly know of the Doctor (if he would deal candidly) what St. Austins ingenious meaning was when he prayed thus for his Mother Monica lib. 9. con­fess. cap. 13. Dimitte illi & tu, debita sua, si qua etiam con­traxerit post tot annos post aquam salutis: Forgive my Mo­ther [Page 24] her debts, if she hath, after so many years contracted any, since Baptism: What are these debts? Again, Non se interponat, nec vi, nec insidiis Leo, vel Draco; ne­que enim respondebit illa, nihil se debere, ne convincatur, &c. Sed respondebit dimissa debita sua ab eo, &c. Let not that Infernal Enemy, intermeddle by his force, or treachery; she will not answer that she owes nothing, least she be convicted, but will say her debts are remitted by him, &c. Afterwards he beggs of his Brethren to Pray for his deceased Mother, at the Altar; and above in the same Chapter speaking to Almighty God, he gives this reason why he Prayes: Quia vero non requiris de­licta vehementer, fiducialiter speramus aliquem apud te lo­cum inveniri Indulgentiae: Because you deal not severely with offences; confident we are that a place for Mercy may be found, for Pardon and Remission; that is in plain language for Remission of Pains: But in Heaven all is remitted, in Hell there is nothing forgiven. Let the Doctor make here the inference, and conclude for Purgatory: There is no avoyding it.

Yet he goes on: It is to be remembred that they (the Fathers) made prayers, and offered for those, who by the con­fession of all sides, never were in Purgatory; for the Patri­arks, Apostles, &c. and especially for the Blessed Virgin Mary: So we find in Epiphanius, and Saint Cy­ril.

The Doctor here is both out, and unlucky in his ci­tations: first, there is not one word (in either place ci­ted) of the Blessed Virgin. Secondly, Not a syllable of Pardon, or Remission of Debts, when a memory is made of Patriarks, Apostles, &c. (which is only to the purpose) but expresly the contrary. Be pleased to hear St. Epiphanius Heresie 75. where he speaks thus: Pro justis, & peccatoribus memoriam facimus, pro peccatoribus qui­dem, [Page 25] misericordiam Dei implorantes, pro justis vero, & Patribus, & Patriarchis, Prophetis, Apostolis, Evange­listis, &c. ut dominum Iesum ab hominum ordine separemus per honorem quem ipsi exhibemus, & adorationem ipsi praeste­mus; that is, We remember both just men, and sin­ners; for sinners we implore Mercy; for the just, and for the Ancient Fathers, and Patriarks, Prophets, A­postles, &c. that we may seperate our Lord Jesus from the Order of men (living) by the honour we exhibit, and adoration we give him. Here is no praying for Patriarks, and Apostles, to have Pardon, or Remissio (as St. Austin did for his Mother) but a memory of them to honour Christ Jesus. St. Cyril also cited Catech. Mysta­gog. 5. is more plain against the Doctor: ( Cum hoc sacri­ficium offerimus (saith he) postea facimus memoriam etiam eorum omnium qui ante nobis obdormierunt, primùm Patri­archarum, Prophetarum, Apostolorum, Martyrum, ut Deus Ob­serve pray­ing to Saints. orationibus illorum, & deprecationibus suscipiat nostras pre­ces. When we offer up this Sacrifice, we afterward make a memory of all those who are departed this life; and first of the Patriarks, Prophets, Apostles and Mar­tyrs, that God by their Prayers and intercessions, would accept of our prayers: Deinde pro defunctis Patribus, & Episcopis, denique pro omnibus oramus qui inter nos vita functi sunt, maximum esse credentes animarum ju­vamen Observe the Sacrifice of the Altar is offered for the decea­sed. pro quibus offertur obsecratio sancti illius & tremendi, quod in altari positum est, sacrificji. Then we pray for the deceased Fathers, and Bishops who dyed amongst us, believing it a mighty help of Souls, for whom that holy, and dreadful Sa­crifice, layd on the Altar, is offered up. And eight lines after: Ad eundem modum & nos pro defunctis pecca­toribus precationes adhibemus, non quidem coronam plecti­mus, sed Christum pro nostris peccatis mactatum offerimus, ut [Page 26] & nobis, & illis eum qui benignissimus est, propitium redda­mus. In like manner we pray for departed sinners, not making them a Crown, but we offer up Christ slain for our sins, to make him who is most benign, propitious, and favourable both to our selves, and departed sinners: Unluckily, I say; did the Doctor make use of this place in his Disswasive from Popery, which is all over old Popish Doctrine. First, a memory is made of Pa­triarks, Apostles, &c. not to have Pardon, or Remission; but that God by their Prayers accept of ours: Plain Po­pery. 2. We pray for all the deceased, believing those Souls are mightily benefitted, for whom that holy and dreadful Sacrifice of the Altar is offered: Two points of Popery more. 3. We offer Christ Jesus Sa­crificed, mactatum, slain on the Altar; to the end that we may make Almighty God, who is most benign, merci­ful and propitious, both to our selves, and to the dead. Still nothing but Popery.

By what is here said, you may see the fraud of the Doctor, who unlearnedly argues thus: The Fathers prayed as well for Saints, as sinners, Ergo, from prayer for the dead no conclusion for Purgatory. Answer: These Fathers made a memory of B. Saints, as the Church still doth, but never prayed that they might be released from punishment, or have their debts forgiven, as St. Austin did for his Mother. Here then is the true Argument, and a most efficatious one: The Fathers prayed for deceased Souls, that they might have Mercy, Pardon, and Remission of Debts contract­ed in this life: They prayed that God would be pro­pitious, and favourable to them; and for this end of­fered up Christ Jesus Sacrificed on the Altar: there­fore the Fathers supposed a place, where Mercy, Par­don, and Remission might be had, where God can shew [Page 27] himself propitious to them, and the unbloody Sacrifice may be offered on the Altar, for the cancelling their debts, and abating their torments. But this place is neither Heaven nor Hell, in the one, all debts are par­doned; in the other is no Remission: Ergo, a third place or Purgatory is hence rightly concluded.

THe Doctor, page 30. cites St. Austin, and Otho Frisingensis against the Doctrine of Purgatory, but plainly corrupts both. St. Austin is quo­ted in his Enchiridion, cap. 69. and lib. 21. de civitate cap. 26. as one that doubts of Purgatory: By the way our Adversary, and the Church of England go higher, and expresly condemn the Doctrine of Purga­tory. So the Doctor, page 28. which is more then St. Austin dared to venture on: But let that pass: He gives you St. Austins words in English thus: Whether Purga­tory be to be found or not, may be inquired, and possibly it may be found, and possibly it may never. Answ. There are no such words; and possibly it may never: in either place of St. Austin; but here is the least of Errors, for the whole drift of the Saints discourse is mistaken, who first lays this Principle in his precedent Chapter 68. that [Page 28] some are Purged by the Fire of Tribulation, or Grief for the loss of Temporal Goods in this Life, yet keep to the True Foundation which is Christ; and such a man is sa­ved (saith St. Austin) as it were by the Fire of Tribulati­on. Next he gives the reason of this assertion, as fol­lows: Quia urit eum rerum dolor, quas dilexerat, amissa­rum, &c. Because the grief he has for things he loved, torments him, yet shakes not the Foundation he is for­tifyed withal; As who would say, he hath a sence for the loss of Temporals, yet the Foundation is not sub­verted.

Upon this reason: Quia urit eum rerum dolor, &c. these words immediately follow, cap. 69. Tale aliquid etiam fieri post hanc vitam incredibile non est. Et utrum ita sit quaeri potest; & aut inveniri aut latere nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium quanto magis minusuè bona pereuntia dilexerunt, tanto tardiùs citiùsque saluari: That such a like thing be also after this life, is not incredible: What is not incredible? [Mark well the connection between urit eum dolor rerum amissarum, and the ensuing words: Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri non est in­credibile.] This is not incredible, that as some are pu­nished in this life, for their too much affection to world­ly commodities, by grief for the loss of them; so likewise it is not incredible, that they suffer a torment in those pur­ging flames upon that account: Of this particular pain, saith the Saint, we may inquire, whether it be a part of Purgatory, or no? whether faithful Souls find it there, or it be yet latent? Find what I beseech you? Quanto magis, minùsue, &c. that by How much more, or less they loved their perishing goods, so much sooner, or later they are saved, and come to Heaven: Which last words plainly gives us St. Austins meaning, and shew that he doubted not of a Purgatory (which he here supposeth) [Page 29] but calls into question such a particular pain, as is ex­piatory of lesser transgressions. The ground of all is taken out of St. Austins Doctrine, who much inclined to this Opinion, that lesser offences are usually purged by the fire of Tribulation in this Life. So Suarez ob­serves, Tom. 4. in 3. part. disp. 45. nu. 23. Fine. Et ideo dixit Augustinus, haec peccata leviora in hoc saeculo purgari per Tribulationem. And therefore St. Austin said that these lesser sins are purged by Tribulation in this life. See his 41. Sermon de sanctis Tom. 10. where he first distin­guisheth between great sins, and little ones; then shews the penalty due to both: Finally, concludes thus of lesser sins (and he specifies the too much love of world­ly substance) Ita peccata ipsa in hoc saeculo purgantur, ut in futuro ille ignis purgatorius, aut non inveniat, aut certe parum inveniat quod exurat. So these lesser sins are purged in this Life, that in the next the fire of Purgatory will not either find at all, or truly very little to punish. The Saint goes on: Si autem nec in tribulatione Deo gratias egimus, nec bonis operibus peccata redimimus, ipsi tamdiu in illo igne purgatorio moras habebimus quamdiu supradicta peccata minuta tanquam ligna, faenum, stipula, consumantur. But if in our Tribula­tion we neither give thanks to God, nor redeem our sins by good works; we shall stay in Purgatory until those above mentioned little sins, like Wood, Hay, and Stubble be consumed. Thus the Saint, who may ra­tionally inquire, as he doth; yes, and affirm, that those lesser transgressions are usually cancelled by the fire of Tribulation in this Life. The Doctor perhaps will say: These Sermons de sanctis are not St. Austins, for-sooth, because they please not his Lordship: Let him prove this Sermon now cited is not. The same certitude, saith Bellar. de seript. Ecclesias. cannot be had of those Sermons; yet credible it is, that for the most [Page 30] part they are St. Austins. Be it how you will, they are of greater Authority then any the Doctor can give us against Purgatory. I hope the 2. Books de genesi contra Manichaeos, are undoubtedly St. Austins: Let the Doctor read the 20th Chapter of his 2d. Book: Fine; he shall find these words, qui forte agrum suum non colu­erit, & spinis eum opprimi permiserit, habet in hac vita maledictionem terrae suae in omnibus operibus suis, & post hanc vitam habebit vel ignem purgationis, vel paenam aeter­nam. He that cultivates not his Field, but suffers it to be over grown with Thorns, hath a curss on him in all he doth; and after this life, shall either have a Pur­gatory, or suffer pains for ever. St. Austins Books, de civitate were never doubted of: Read the 16. Chapter of his 21. Book, where he saith: If one be regenera­ted by the Sacraments of Christ our Lord (as by Bap­tism) and so pass from the power of darkness, &c. Non solum in paenis non praeparetur aeternis, sed ne ulla quidem post mortem purgatoria tormenta patiatur. Hath not only any Eternal punishment prepared for him, but not so much, as any purging torments after death. Again, in Psal. 37. he distinguisheth a double Fire, the one Eternal, the o­ther he calls a Fire, Qui emundabit eos qui per ignem sal­ui erunt, which is more grievous then any torment in this world: It would be endless to produce other Au­thorities for Purgatory.

Now to Otho Frisingensis whom the Doctor cites lib. 8. Croni. cap. 26. and saith, Purgatory in his time was got no farther then to a quidam asserunt: Some say there is one. Answ. The Doctor saith, He knows not what, and strangely abuseth this Author; Famous both for Vertue, and Nobility. In a word; The Title of that 26. Chapter is this: Si post judicium extra infernum in­feriorem, &c. Whether after the day of Judgement [Page 31] any place for lesser pain remains out of Hell, and what is to be thought of little ones who have Original sin on­ly. Thus the Title, which meddles not with Purgato­ry: The Chapter then begins; His dictis indagandum puto si transacto judicio extra infernum inferiorem ad leviores paenas locus remaneat; esse quippe apud inferos locum purga­torium, in quo salvandi, vel tenebris tantum afficiantur, vel expiationis igne decoquantur &c. We are to inquire, saith Otho, whether, when Judgement is past, there re­mains a place for lighter punishment out of Hell, for there is place of Purgatory [ apud inferos] amongst those that are under ground, wherein saved Souls are in darkness, and tormented with Fire. Then follows the quidam asserunt of the Doctor which relates not to Purgatory, but to that other place after Judgment, whereof Otho makes inquiry, and he answers negative­ly, viz. That such a place, when all causes are heard in the General Judgment, remains not; though some Fathers inclined to think the contrary: See Lactan. lib. 7. cap. 21. and Origen Homil. 14. in Lucam, and these perhaps Otho impugned: Next he discourseth how In­fants, that dye with Original sin only, are to be punish­ed, whether with a milder pain or no? Here is the substance of that Chapter. I could wish the Doctor would read those words of Otho, towards the end of this 26. Chapter [ Quod si locus etiam ille superior, non ut prius ad purgationem] which manifestly declare the Authors meaning, nothing God knows contrary to Pur­gatory.

Pag. the 33. he cites Maldonat, alledging divers Greek Fathers denying that the Souls of the dead ever do appear: what is that to our purpose of Purgatory? Maldonat gives you St. A [...]ins severe censure against them, and a proof is evident. Moses, and Elias ap­peared [Page 32] to our Saviour in Mount Tabor: Ergo, Souls do appear.

The Authorities he brings against Purgatory, pag. 34. are both so weak, and vulgar, that they deserve no answer. There is no place of Penance, saith, he out of St. Ciprian, There is no Effect of Satisfaction. Answ. Most true doubtless; for this life is the place allotted for wholesome penance. In Purgatory there is no me­ritorious satisfaction. I see not where the least shadow of a difficulty lyes in his next Quotation out of St. Denis, Ecclesias. Hierarch. cap. 7. whose words faithfully ren­dered are these. Those that have lived holily, looking on the true promises of God, as if they saw the verity of them in his Resurrection, with firm and true hope, full of Divine joy, go to the extremity of death, as to an end of their holy conflicts [...]. (to wit in this life) and there­fore the Saint adds: Because they certainly know that all their conflicts for their future and entire Resurrection, will be safe in a perfect and Eternal Life. He goes on. For holy Souls while they are in this life, can be changed to worse; but in the second Resurrection by a likeness they have with God, they cannot be changed. Thus St. Denis. Now let the Doctor make his Argument: Holy men relying on Gods promises full of Hope and Joy, consider death as an end of their conflicts in this World, knowing a happy Resurrection will recompence their grievances: Ergo, there is no purgatory or penal suffering hereafter. A most powerful Argument. Had the Doctor only reflected on what Bellarmine cites lib. 1. de Purgatorio cap. 10. initio. out of this very 7th. Chapter of St. Denis, he would never have troubled the Reader with so unweigh­ty an Objection. Bellarmine relates St. Denis his words thus: Accedens deinde Venerandus Antistes, &c. The Venerable Prelate, then coming, makes his Prayer over the [Page 33] dead, and that Prayer is to begg for Gods Clemency, that he remit all sins done by the deceased party, through humane in­firmity, and set him in a place of Light, and the Region of the Living. The substance hereof you have, Biblio­theca Patrum saeculo 1. Colen Print Page 135. 1. Co­lumna.

Next the Doctor cites St. Iustin Martyr questi. & Re­spons ad Orthodoxos questi. 75. saying, That when the Soul is parted from the body, [...] presently there is made a separation of the lust and Unjust: the Unjust are carryed by Angels into places they deserved, but the Souls of the Iust [...] where they have the Conversation of An­gels, &c. Answ. Take notice first, how the Doctor varies from himself; page 29. Where we heard him speak thus: Sixtus Senensis saies, and saies very true, That Justin Martyr did affirm, that before the day of Iudg­ment the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles, reserved to the sentence of the great Day; and that before then, no man receives according to his works done in this Life: Here, presently, the Souls are carryed into Paradise, that is in­to Heaven, If Iustins Authority be for the Doctors pur­pose, otherwise there is a third place. These Souls therefore make a long demur, after their separation from their body in secret Receptacles even to the Day of Judgment, and yet are carryed presently into Hea­ven; Let him that can, accord these two Assertions; and learn moreover, that Iustin only says, the separation of the Just and Unjust is made presently [...], but affirms not, that all Just Souls are forthwith carryed into Heaven; if yet, [...] in Iustins sence signifies Heaven, and not ra­ther another place, whereof see Bellarmine, l. 2. de Pur­gat. cap. 7. § videtur mihi dicendum. Be it how you will, at most this Ancient Father only points out the [Page 34] two Final places of Wo and Happiness, for two sorts of men, which is no way inconsistent with an interme­dial place of Purgatory, or atrium Caeli. Thus much is said to comply with the Doctor, who cannot but know, that these Quest. and Respon. ad Orthodox. are not Iustin Martyrs. See Bellar. de Script. Eccl. The Autho­rity of St. Ambrose next following, asserting That death is a Haven of Rest, and makes not our condition worse, &c. is an excellent saying; for worse he is not, but infinitly better, that quit of the occasions of living here, is a­certained of future Bliss hereafter; which is the whole drift of the Saint in that fourth Chap. de bono mort is cited by the Doctor. Read it, and say afterwards, whether I say not true.

The Doctor quotes again St. Gregory Nazianzen, in his 5th. Oration in Plagam grandinis; by his good leave 'tis the 15th. not the 5th. as I have seen in three Editi­ons, that which I follow is Paris Print, anno 1609. pag. 249. his words, after he had mentioned the calamities of this World, are [...], &c. I omit to speak of those great Tribunals in the next life, to which pardon and impunity in this delivers them; so that it is much better to be chastised and pur­ged now, then to be sent to punishment (to wit, those Tribunals.) Now is a time of penalty, [...] not of Purgation: Therefore says the Doctor, there is no Purgatory: I say contrary, that the Saint speaks not a word of Purgatory, but only denies a purgation of Life and Manners after those Tribunals: The following particles (fraudulently omitted by the Doctor) make my assertion evident; for says St. Gregory: As he that is mindful of God, is superior to death, so to the departed, (as holy David affirms) Non est in Inferno confessio nec mo­rum correctio, So in Hell there is no confession, nor correcti­on [Page 35] of Manners: and he gives this Reason, because God here shuts up both Life and Action with a final sentence of things done, &c. St. Hilary, and St. Macarius speak on­ly of the two Final States of Souls, and make no third place Eternal. Conformable to this, Olimpiodorus cited by the Doctor, speaks in Eccles. cap. 11. his words are Biblioth. patrum Com. 2. Paris Print 1624. pag. 670. [...], &c. In what place soever of Light or Darkness; that is, whether in a fil­thy station of Wickedness, or a good state of Vertue, a man is taken when he dies, in that degree and order he remains for e­ver; which is to say, great sins will abide with the damned for Eternity, and so Vertue shall ever remain with the Blessed; for says Olympiodorus, He shall either rest in the Light of everlasting Felicity with the Iust, and Christ, King of All; or be tormented in Darkness with the Wicked, and Prince of this World, the Divil. Most true Doctrine; for there is no third place Eternal. The Doctor lastly cites St. Leo Epist. 59. for words not found at all in that Epistle: he writes to Martianus, and gives thanks for peace restored to the Church, by the Great Council of Calcedon. See this Epistle Colen Print 1561. Pittyful it is to see such strengthless Authorities produ­ced, not only against the express Testimony of other Fa­thers asserting Purgatory, but more, against the senti­ment of the Universal Church.

But I know not by what chance we have missed a former Argument of our Doctor against Purgatory: He hath it pag. 29. and speaks thus: Sixtus Senensis saies, and saies very true, That many Fathers, as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Bernard, and others did affirm, that the Souls of men before the Day of Iudgment are kept in secret Receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great Day, &c. Then he Argues: if this Opinion be true; [Page 36] the Doctrine of Purgatory is false; or if not true, it is inconsistent with an Opinion of Fathers so generally recei­ved. Answ. The Doctor hath not one true word in this Objection; false it is, that Sixtus so peremptorily ascribs this Opinion to the Fathers, he rather makes it his work to interpret them favourably; and to do it, distinguisheth a double beatitude, the one imperfect of Soul only, the other consummat and perfect of Soul and Body; the first, the Fathers called by several names of sinus Abrahae, Atrium Dei, sub altare, &c. the o­ther, perfect Ioy, the Glory of the Resurrection, and entire re­ward of merits, a time of Coronation, &c. And this later they held was not till the day of Judgment. Read Six­tus lib. 6. Bibliot. Annot. 345. in his two last Paragraphs Hactenus & Demum, where after a friendly check given to Ockam, he also takes off the charge laid on Pope Iohn 22. for any Decree made by him against the present beatitude of Souls. Again:

False it is that the Doctor exactly set's down in his Marginal Quotation Sixtus his words; more then half of them are not the Authors, who ends with St. Ber­nard at the particle Praebuisse; and our Doctor runs on, in one continued uniform Character, with a praeter cita­tos enumerat, &c. yet there is not a syllable like them in Sixtus, and as they stand in the Doctors Margent are strangely incoherent: False, finally, it is, that though the Fathers held Souls as it were immur'd in secret Re­ceptacles, therefore their Tenet destroys Purgatory. Why? they may have a Purgatory before they enter those Receptacles: They may have it in Origens Opi­nion afterwards; yes, and if need were to assert it, punished they may be for a time in those very secret Cabinets. Divels are tortured, whether in the materi­al place of Hell, or out of it; and so may souls be also, [Page 37] though we supposed (against Faith) our Purgatory were not, or no other then those Receptacles. What I say here, is not in the least to favour a condemned O­pinion by the Church, but only to shew the Doctors weak way of Arguing.

THe Doctor in his 5th. Section, pag. 36. falls upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, where he brushes up a few old dusty Arguments answered every where by our Writers. We know, saith he, the very time it began to be publickly owned, the very Council, &c. Answ. Arius might have said thus much against the Consubstantiality of the Son of God with his Father, and made it a Novelty, first owned by the Council of Nice. The vulgar, solid, and true an­swer is; that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was e­ver believed in the Church, though more fully, and ex­plicitly declared in the Lateran Council. I say, Was ever believed, for if the most eminent Fathers that li­ved before the Lateran Council, told us that Bread is changed out of his Nature into the Body of Christ: That by Holy Invocation, it is no more common Bread: That as Water in Cana of Galilee was changed into [Page 38] Wine; so in the Evangelist Wine is changed into Blood: That Bread is only Bread before the Sacramen­tal Words, but after Consecration, is made the Body of Christ. If Ancient Fathers speak thus, (as most certainly they do, every Polemical Writer furnisheth you with these Testimonies) conclude we must that they either cheated the World into a false belief, or held as we do, the real Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But my task is not so much to prove Catholick Doctrine (already done by innumerable Authors) as to shew you our Doctors faylings in his Quotations; page there­fore the 37. he cites Scotus, saying, that before the Late­ran Council, Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith, as Bellarm. confesses. Most willingly would I have the Doctor to point me out the distinction and question where Scotus affirms this; some cite him in 4. distin. 11. q. 3. where he only saith (in all Editions I have seen,) that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was more explicitly defined there, but not first made an Article of Faith.

But the Famous (or rather infamous Quotation) is out of Petrus Lombardus (usually called Magister Sen­tentiarum) the Doctor hath it (to his disgrace) page 38. after he had said, that Transubstantiation was so far then from being an Article of Faith, that they knew not whether it where true, or no; yes, and that Pe­trus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a sub­stantial change or no.

I beseech you mark an unexcusable Error, Petrus Lom­bardus, lib. 4. distinct. 11. lit. A. begins thus: Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio, an formalis, an substantialis, definire non sufficio, &c. If it be asked what kind of con­version this is, whether formal, or substantial, I am not sufficient to define: observe the word ( define.) Then [Page 39] he sets down several Opinions much in those words the Doctor hath. To these Opinions, or Objections, where the Doctor leaves off fraudulently, Lombardus answers lit. B. Quibus hoc modo responderi potest, quia non ea ratione dicitur corpus Christi confici verbo caelesti, quod ipsum cor­pus in conceptu virginis deinceps formetur: sed quia sub­stantia panis, vel vini quae ante non fuerat corpus Christi, vel sanguis, verbo caelesti fit corpus, & sanguis, & ideo sa­cerdotes dicuntur conficere corpus Christi, & sanguinem, quia eorum ministerio substantia panis fit caro, & substan­tia vini fit sanguis Christi, nec tamen aliquid additur cor­pori, vel sanguini, nec augetur corpus Christi, vel sanguis: To which we answer thus: Christ's Sacred Body is not said after that manner, made by a Heavenly word, that 'tis framed a new in the Virgin, but because the sub­stance of Bread and Wine, which before were not the Body and Blood of Christ; by the Heavenly Word of Consecration is made that Body, and Blood; and there­fore Priests are said to make Christ's Body and Blood, because by their work, or Ministry, the Substance of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ and the Substance of Wine is made his Blood, yet nothing is added to that Body and Blood, neither are made more, or en­creased. Thus Lombardus answers the Objection which the Doctor only sets down; and therefore in plain Eng­lish he deals with his Reader, as Sr. Morney Plessy once did with Cardinal Peron; he gives you the Objections for Lombards own doctrine: that this is most evidently Lombards Doctrine, lit. D. clears all; chiefly towards the end: Non sunt tamea multa corpora Christi, sed unum cor­pus, & unus sanguis, ideoque sive plus, sive minus quis in­de percipiat, omnes aequaliter corpus Christi integerrimè sumunt; post consecrationem ergo non est substantia panis, vel vini, licet species remaneant, est enim species panis & [Page 40] vini, sicut & sapor, unde aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Yet there are not many bodies of Christ, but one only Body and Blood; and therefore though any take more or less, all equally, and wholly take the Body of Christ. After the Consecration then, there is no sub­stance of Bread and Wine, although the species of Bread and Wine remain, as also the tast, wherefore one thing is seen, and another is understood. Never did Lateran Council, or any Catholick Author speak more plainly for Transubstantiation: To be sure of what I here affirm, I have read two Editions of Petrus Lom­bard, that which was Printed at Loven, anno 1546. and the other, most usual, with Albertus Magnus his Com­mentaries.

The Doctor next quotes Durandus lib. 4. sent. distinc. 11. qu. 1. Sect. Propter tertium, who, saies he, Publickly maintained that after consecration the very matter of Bread remain'd, although he saies by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held. I Answer, That Durand in all that first question hath not a word like what the Doctor asserts; read him Art. 3. he plainly maintains the Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and ab­solutely concludes that the Substance of Bread and Wine are converted into Christs Body. All he hath, Sectio propter tertium is, that the Words of Christ might be verified, although the Body were present with Bread, which is a Theological disputation, and neither clears the Doctor for his abusing Durand, nor advanceth him one whit in his cavils against Transubstantia­tion.

Page 40. and 41. he gives you a few weak Authorities against our Doctrine, and thinks to confute all by the Testimony of St. Gregory Nazianzen; cited page 42. Orat. 2. in Paseha: The Oration is long, and the Doctor [Page 41] well might either by page or number have helped his Reader to find the place; but thus he deals with you often, and far worse afterwards. Well, St. Gregory in his Works Printed at Antwerp 1612. Orat. 2. in Pascha pag. 261. nu. 5. saith, Iam vero Paschalis partici­pes erimus, nunc quidem adhuc typice, tametsi apertius licet quam in veteri; legale siquidem pascha (nec enim dicere ve­rebor) figurae figura erat obscurior. These words the Doctor gives you in English, and what conclude they against Transubstantiation? nothing; for were the Sa­cred Body of our Dearest Lord present in the Eu­charist, with the substance of Bread, were it (as it now is) really present without the substance of Bread; In St. Gregori's sence, Christ concealed under the species of Bread may be rightly called a Figure of its own self, more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in Heaven: For as the legal Pascha was a Figure, because it more ob­scurely pointed out this true one in the New Law: So this also, where Christ Jesus is concealed from our sences, may be rightly called a Figure, because it ex­hibits not most clearly that Saviour we shall see with greatest clarity in Heaven. This sence is gathered out of St. Gregories next ensuing words (which the Doctor wholly omits) Figurae erat figura obscurior (saith the Saint) aliquam post autem perfectius, & purius, tum vide­licet, cum verbum novum illud nobiscum in regno Patris bibet, pate faciens & docens, quae nunc plane demonstravit. The legal Pascha was a more obscure Figure of this Figure which we shall afterward see perfectly, and with greater clarity; to wit, when the new Word shall drink it with us in his Fathers Kingdom, laying open himself, and teaching us those things which now he hath fully demonstrated. Mark these last words, very useful to explicate other Authorities where mention [Page 42] is made of a Sign, a Type, and Figure in this matter; but they are neither for, or against Transubstantiation, unless the Doctor shews (which he shall never) that Christs Sacred Body is so barely Figured in this Pascha, that it is not also really present. Theodoret and Gelasius cited, pag. 43. are answered in every Book by our Wri­ters. The nature of the Symbols, or Signs are not changed; that is, the Species, or accidents of Bread and Wine remain; these recide not from their nature: Grace is added. What is here against Transubstan­tiation?

I pass by those witty questions which the Doctor moves, pag. 45. What if a Priest says: Hoc est corpus meum, over all the Bread in a Bakers shop? doth he turn it into Christs Body? the like question is, And what if a Minister say the same words over the same Bread, doth he turn it into Holy and Sanctifyed Bread? may the People kneel down, and take this as Christs Bo­dy? Again, Whether a Church-Mouse doth eat her Maker? And what if a Mouse, or a viler Creature had bit the Sacred body of our Saviour laid in Bethlem Stable, had they bit their Maker? Away with these Trifles, they become not a Doctor of Divinity. And be pleased,

To reflect on one doubty Argument he hath, page 46. which is indeed pressing, but how? to shew that he knows not our Catholick Doctrine. Since second­ly (saith he) they say that every consecrated wafer is Christs whole Body, and yet this wafer is not that Wafer, therefore either this or that is not Christs Body, or else Christ hath two Bodies, for there are two Wafers. My God! what is here? out of two Wafers he inferrs two Bodies, as if one from the two parts in man, his Head, and Feet should infer a necessity of two Souls, or conclude there [Page 43] are two Gods, one in Heaven and the other in Earth, because Heaven and Earth are more distinct then two Wafers. That known passage of St. Austin, Ferebatur in manibus suis in Psal. 33. When Christ sitting at the Table with his Disciples, gave them his Sacred Body, ( Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis, saith the Saint) might well have learned the Doctor, that then there were not two Christs at the Table. Had he read what I cited above out of Petrus Lombard: Non sunt tamen mul­ta corpora Christi sed unum corpus, &c. He might well have spared the labour of this Argument.

THe Doctor in his 6 Section, pag. 47. treats (as he calls it) of half Communion, that is of re­ceiving the Holy Sacrament in one kind only; and besides a few vulgar Objections solved by every Catholick Writer he has nothing. That which he alledgeth out of Paschasius Rathbertus supposeth a Law or practice in the Church for Communicating in both kinds: Would to God our Doctor had reflected on what this good Abbot hath in the beginning of his [Page 44] 19. Chapter, where he plainly acknowledgeth that the Blood which is in the Chalice is the very same that flowed out of the Sacred Side of our Saviour; so far at least Rathbertus was a Papist, and never said that Com­munion in both kinds is, or was commanded by Christ our Lord. Pope Gelasius his Authority is so often answer­ed by others, that I need say little. Briefly, to discern Catholicks from the Manich'es occasioned that Law. Christ his institution in both kinds, (figured in Melchi­sedeck's Oblation of Bread, and Wine, and not a perfect Sacrifice unless Priests do it in both) is a most weak Ar­gument to infer: Therefore the Layety is commanded to receive the Sacrament as Priests do in both. S. C. In his late excellent book against Doctor Pierce Chap. 12. demonstrat's by the Testimonies of ancient Fathers, that Communion in one kind hath been in the most pri­mitive ages a practice among Christians. Thus much only I'll say, and end; if Infants once received the Holy Eucharist in one kind only: if men of riper Age did the like in time of persecution: if what the Fathers assure us of Domestical Communion, and the like of Ermits keeping the Blessed Sacrament in their solitude, (where­as the Cup was not given but in the Church) be true: (and most true all is.) Finally, if our Blessed Lord af­ter his Resurrection gave his own Body (going to Emaus) to his Disciples, as divers Fathers testifie without the Cup, and they had their eyes opened: let the Doctor once open his also, and confess ingeniously that the Sa­crament was in these cases reputed effective, lawful, and laudible in one kind only. More I need not say, for its from my intent to handle this Controversie at large: might I go on, I could tell him that seeing the Fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up Faith in the re­ceiver; I can find no reason why their bit of Bread on­ly, [Page 45] may not as well work that effect, as to taste of their Wine with it. But enough of this Secti­on.

The Doctor in his 7th. Section, pag. 50. cites against publick Prayer in in an unknown Language that so often discussed passage of the Apostle 1. ad corint. 14. It would be lost labour to repeat here what our Learned Writers have with all clarity answered; I. S. in his short Treatise against Doctor Pierce his Sermon, pag. 89. and 90. solidly ponders that text, and shewes it makes no­thing for Protestants. Next,

He cites Origen lib. 8. contra Celsum without either page, or number, whereas that 8th. book with me, Prin­ted at Basil 1571. (and in a closs letter) hath ten whole leaves in Folio. However, the proof is nothing: The Graecians were to pray in Greek, the Romans in their Language; (both Sacred Tongues) what is this to the Doctors purpose?

Page the 52. he cites St. Basil lib. qu. ex ver. Scrip. locis q. 278. we have three Editions of St. Basil, and the last both in Greek and Latin Printed at Paris in two Tomes, and in no one Catalogue of his works do I find that Treatise the Doctor points at lib. qu. ex. &c. He would oblige me to direct me better to the Book. Next he cites St. Chrisostom in a long Homily without giving his words, and St. Austin in Ps. 18. com. 2. (with me) it is Expos. 2. All I can find here to any purpose, are these words: Nos autem (saith the Saint) qui in Ecclesia divi­na eloquia cantare didicimus, simul etiam instare debemus quod Scriptum est; Beatus populus qui intelligit jubilationem, proinde charissimi, quod consona voce cantavimus, sereno etiam cor­de nosse, & videre debemus. We who have Learned to sing the Divine Words (or Psalms) in Church, must also be earnest to follow what is written. Blessed are [Page 46] they who understand Iubilation. Therefore, my dearest, what we sing out with one voice, en­deavour we must to know and see with a serene heart.

First, who are these We? Priests, and the Clergy that understood Latin, yet perhaps penetrated not the deep and latent sence of those Sacred Canticles. This saith St. Austin, We are to be instant in, and not only to sing the words, but to know with a serene heart, &c. I believe most of the Ministers, though they say, and sing these Psalms in English, are yet to seek for the very literal sence of them: good Counsel 'tis that all according to their capacity learn by an Interpreter, or otherwise somewhat of it; yes, and of the Mystery also. But to infer from hence: Ergo, these sacred words must be read in a vulgar Tongue in time of Church Service, is no consequence at all: though let me tell you, things well considered, the Greek respectively to the East, and Latin to the West, may be better called a known Tongue, (though not vulgar) then particular Languages of several Nations. Spain, France, England, Germany, Poland, &c. in the generality know Latin. But doth the Spaniard know French, or other People Dutch, or Dutch the Po­land Language? not one among many.

The Doctor, pag. 54. rightly cites (which is a won­der) the words of the great Council of Lateran, sub Innocentio 3. cap. 9. but proves nothing with them. First, because the Several Rights and Languages there mentioned, cannot be shewed to be different from Greek and Latin, and in use among those who have one and the same Faith. 2. Admit they were different, the Church can upon weighty reasons dispense in her Law with Children of one and the same belief; at most then, here was a dispensation, which both supposeth, [Page 47] and confirms the received Law. I say at most; for I read in Binius his Notes upon this Council, pag. 699. prim â columnâ, Fine; that the Patriark of the Maro­nites, who had abjured his Heresie of the Monothelits, came to this great Council, submitted himself, em­braced the Catholick Faith, and believed as those Fa­thers assembled did, &c. to him and his might well be granted the use of their Rights, and Lithurgy while their belief was one, and Catholick. Now let the Doctor tell me what Language the Maronits then used in their Lithurgy; if Syriack? it was Sacred, and spoken by our Saviour. What the Doctor hath out of Quint. pag. 55. is only to talk of Gypsie Lan­guage; we use no such Barbarous Tongue in our Li­thurgies.

PAge 56. Section 8. our good Opponent spits a little Venom against the veneration of Images; The Poyson he vents is cast upon the most Ancient Fathers that have lived in the Church. Let him read Euse­bius Caesariensis (who lived in the third age) lib. 3. de vita Constantini cap. 48. Paris Print, where speaking of the pious Emperour, he saith: Tantus item, & divi­nus [Page 48] amor animum Imperatoris complexus est, ut in ipso palatji introitu in medio tecti laqueari inaurato, in tabulâ maximâ explicatâ salutaris passionis insigne ex lapillis pretiosis po­lite elaboratis figendum curaverit. Istud Imperatori san­ctissimo regni firmum videbatur esse propugnaculum. So Great, and Divine a Love posses'd this Pious Emperour, that he caus'd the Ensign of our Saviours Passion to be fixed in the very entrance of his Pallace, in the middle of his guilded Roof; and this, in a large displayed Ta­ble, curiously wrought with precious Stones. And this very thing seem'd to the most Holy Emperour a strong Fortress and defence for his Kingdom. Read St. Basil in his Sermon of Barlaam: Assurgite nunc mi­hi (saith the Saint) O clarissimi Athleticarum virtutum pictores, & militis abbreviatam imaginem vestris magnifi­cate artibus, &c. (and a few words after) & pingatur in tabula similiter & ipse Agnotheta luctaminum, Christus. Rise up now ye Famous Painters of Champion-like Virtues; shew your skill in abreviating a Souldiers Picture: place also in your Table the Master, or Iudge of such Warlick conflicts, Christ our Lord. If you de­sire to know how Churches were adorned with Noble Pictures, you may read St. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 19. in laudem defuncti Patris. The like you have in St Gre­gory Nyssen oratione de laudibus Sti. Theodori before those words: Solet enim etiam pictura tacens in pariete loqui, maximeque prodesse. A silent Picture speaks to us on the VVall, and profits exceedingly. See St. Austin de con­sensu Evangelji lib. 1. cap. 10. St. Gregory the Great, lib. 9. Epistola 9. adserenum Massilensem, our venerable Bede de templo Salamonis cap. 19. and innumerable others: A Volume would not suffice for all: But you'll say, here is nothing for the Venaration of Holy Images. Answ. I have often wondred why our good Protestants when [Page 49] they hear the name of Jesus, bow in their Churches, and when they see his Picture scruple to do the like re­verence. Well, for the Veneration of Images, be­sides the definition of a General Council: (the Second at Nice) we have endless Authorities. I'll produce a few manifest ones which the Doctor shall never answer. St. Basil the Great in his Epistle 205. ad Iulianum (read it in the second Tome of his works, Printed anno 1618 at Paris, pag. 993.) hath these unanswerable words: Suscipio autem, & sanctos Apostolos, Prophetas, & Mar­tyres, & ad supplicationem, quae est ad Deum, hos invoco, ut per eos, id est, per interventionem eorum propitius mihi sit mi­sericors Deus, &c. I willingly admit of the Holy Prophets, oft he Apostles, and Martyrs, and in my Prayer made to God call upon them, that by their intercession, God may be pro­pitious and merciful to me, &c. He goes on thus: Unde & Figuras imaginum eorum [...] hono­ro, & adoro, praecipue cum hoc traditum a sanctis Apostolis, & non prohibitum sit, quin & in omnibus Ecclesiis nostris ostendatur. VVhereupon I honour, and adore the Portracture or Figure of their Images; chiefly when this adoration is delivered to us by the Apostles, and no where forbidden; but is manifestly shewed us in all our Churches. What can be clearer? Now if you'll know how this Great Saint adored those Images, none can tell you better then St. Iohn Damascen, lib. 4. Orthod. fidei cap. 17. soon after the beginning of that Chapter: Nam ut ille magna re­rum divinarum eruditione praeditus Basilius ait, imaginis honor exemplum transit, &c. For as that Great Master St. Basil, highly endewed with the knowledge of Divine mi­steries, tell's us, The honour given to Images passeth to the Prototype. Bellar. in his Appendix de cultu imaginum, cap. 4. § paulo post, hath this Authority of St. Basil; but, as you may see, of another Edition, which makes it ir­refragable. [Page 50] To avoy'd all exceptions of the Doctor, I here give you St. Basil in his own Language: [...].

My second Authority is taken out of Athanasius in his interrog. & respons. ad Antiochum cap. 38. Nos Christiani non alia ratione imagines colimus nisi I do not say this is the great Athanius, val­eat tamen quan­tum valere po­test. quem admodum cum filios nostros, & patres oscula­mur, animi nostri desiderium indicamus, sicut & Iu­daeus olim legis tabulas, & duo cherubim aurea, & sculptilia quondam adorabant, non lapidis, aurive naturam colens, sed dominum, qui ea ut fierent prae­ceperat. VVe Christians, saith he, worship Pictures no o­therwise then as we do when we shew great kindness, and af­fection to our Children and Parents; or as the Iews once wor­shiped the Tables of the Law, and the two gilt or graven Che­rubs. They Worship'd not the material Stone or Gold, but God; who commanded them to be made.

The third is out of St. Chrisostom in Liturgia, inter­pret: Erasmo. Sacerdos egrediens e parvo ostio portans e­vangelium, praecedente Ministro cum lucerna, & conversus ad Christi Imaginem inter duo ostia inflexo capite dicit hanc orationem, &c. The Priest going out of a little door carry­ing the Gospel, and his Minister before him with a Light, turns himself to our Saviours Picture; and between two Por­tals bows his head (before the Picture) and saith this Pray­er, &c. The fourth is out of St. Gregory, lib. 7. Epist. 54. ad secundinum. Nos quidem, non quasi ante divini­tatem, ante imaginem salvatoris nostri prosternimur, sed il­lum [Page 51] adoramus, quem per imaginem, aut natum, aut passum re­cordamur. We fall not down before the Image of our Savi­our, as before a Divinity, but we adore him, whom we remember by his Image as he was born, or cruci­fied.

The last is St. Iohn Damascen's, lib. 4. Orthodoxae fi­dei cap. 17. Quoniam nonnulli (saith the Saint) eo nomine nos reprehendunt, quod salvatoris, ac Dominae nostrae reli­quorumque sanctorum, ac Christi servorum imagines adoramus, atque honore afficimus; audiant velim quod Deus, &c. Because some upon this account reprehend us that we adore, and honour the Images of Christ, of our Lady, of other Saints, and servants of Christ. I would have them know that God from the beginning made man to his own likeness; from whence is it then that we worship one another, but that we are made to Gods likeness? Next the Saint discourseth about the use of Images amongst Christians; and finally concludes thus: Siquidem persaepe usu venit, ut domini passionem ani­mo minimè versantes, conspectâ Christi crucifixi imagine in salutiferae passionis memoriam redeamus, ac prostrati, non materiam, sed eum, cujus imago effingitur, adoramus. For it often comes to pass, that when we are least thinking of our Lords passion, by seeing the Image of him crucified we re­member his Sacred Passion, and prostrat adore, (not the mat­ter of the Image, but) him whose Picture is there drawn out. Thus St. Damascen, who with the other Ancient Fa­thers now cited delivers most Catholick Doctrine. I could wish the Doctor would teach his people to answer this one only Authority, and that of St. Basil. In the interim let us see what our Doctor hath against I­mages, and their Veneration. We find, saith he, page 57. Images brought into Christian Religion by Simon Magus; where I beseech you? the Doctor cites Theod. lib. 1. Haereticarum fabularum. St. Austin de hae­resibus, [Page 52] resibus, and St. Irenaeus, lib. 1. cap. 23. Answ. Theodoret hath nothing like it, either under the Title de Simone, Or Carpocrate. St. Austin relates at large Simon Magus his Heresie in that book de haeres: ad quod vult Deus, but not a syllable is there that Simon Magus first brought Images into Christian Religion. St. Irenaeus in that book and Chapter now cited under this Title: Quae est saturnini argumentatio: Relating how Basilides held the first be­gotten Nun to be Christ, hath these words: Qua propter neque passum eum sed Simonem quendam Cyrenaeum angariatum portasse crucem ejus pro e [...]. Wherefore, he said, that Christ fuffered not, but Simon Cyrenaeus for him who was forc'd to carry his Cross: But not a word of Simon Magus his being Author of Images in that whole Chapter. Simon Cyrenaeus was a different man from Si­mon Magus. Well, saith the Doctor, pag. 58. these Fa­thers tell us that the Gnosticks, or Carpocratians did make Images, and said that the form of Christ as he was made in the flesh, was made by Pilate; and these Images they worship'd as did the Gentiles. My God! what stuff is here? Carpocrates, saith St. Austin, who held that Christ was man only, worshiped the Images of Iesus, Paul, of Homer, and Pythagoras (these the Doctor omits.) The Gnosticks, saith St. Irenaeus, (not in his 23. but 24. Chapter) had some Pictures Painted, others of other matter, Dicentes for­mam Christi factam a Pilato illo in tempore quo fuit Iesus cum hominibus, & has coronant, & proponunt eas cum imagini­bus mundi Phylosophorum, viz. cum imagine Pythagorae, & Platonis, & Aristotelis, & reliquorum, & reliquam obser­vationem circa eas similiter, ut gentes faciunt. Saying the form of Christ was made by Pilate when Iesus conversed with men; these they crown'd, and set out to shew with the Pi­ctures of worldly Phylosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristo­tle, and the rest, and honoured them just as the Gentiles did, &c.

The Fathers here are exactly cited by me. And what is it that the Doctor concludes? Observe well: These Hereticks Worshiped the Picture of Christ with such an Homage as the Gentiles did their Idols; Ergo, Catholicks may not honor the Image of Christ, and his Saints with Relation to the Prototypes, and not after that manner the Gentils did their Idols, leaving out the Pictures of Pythagoras, and Aristole. Is this a good Conclusion? Had he given you faithfully the Fathers Words expresly mentioning the Images of the Ancient Phylosophers, the Reader would have seen the weakness of his Argument: But what will you? to make Images odious, Juggle he must, and conceal what is against him. Epiphanius cited relates the Heresie of the Carpocratites as Irenaeus doth, only he adds: Habent eas imagines occultè, insuperque Phy­losophorum, Pythagorae, Platonis, &c. cum quibus Phy­losophis, etiam alias imagines Iesu collocant, collocatas­que adorant, & gentium misteria perficiunt. They have these Images privately; and moreover, the Phylosophers Pictures, these with other Images of Iesus they place be­fore them, and adore, and do the Gentils Ceremo­nies.

THe Doctor goes on, and tells us That Christians and Clemens Alexandrinus declare against these things. Answ. And well they might, for I know no one will Patronize the placing our Savious Picture with the Phylosophers, and worshiping all alike as the Gentils did their Idols. Yea, but Clemens Alexandrinus saith, We have no Image in the World, it is apparently forbidden to exercise that deceitful Art, for it is written, Thou shalt not make any similitude of any thing in Heaven above. Strange it is that Clemens speaks so; certainly there are Pictures in the World, and as I have heard, a Crucifix in many Protestant Churches. Certainly the Art of Painting is not forbidden in England as a deceitful Art; for if one should Paint the Sun, or Stars above in Heaven, is this prohibited? where then doth Clemens Alexand. de­liver this Doctrine? lib. 6. Stromatum (saith the Do­ctor) and in his Pareneticon. Answ. A strange manner of citing. That 6. book strom. Leydon Print 1616 hath 58. pages in Folio (and a closs letter it is) the Greek on the one Column, and the Latin on the other, and his paranaete is within apage or two of the same length. Must I read such Treatises over to find a Quotation [Page 55] thus set down at random? What ingenious dealing is here? I have, though not very exactly perused that whole 6th. Book, and cannot find this passage. Cle­ment, page the 470. tells us that God is not to be worship­ed as the Graecian Idolaters did, [...]y any Wood, Stones, &c. More I have not: Let the Doctor direct me to these words. We have no Image in the World, &c. though if found, the Latin I am confident (by what I read in Cle­ment) will be Simulacrum, and the whole sence relate to that of Scripture, Non facies tibi sculptile or [...] an Idol.

He cites next Origen lib. 7. & 8. contra Celsum with­out either page, or number, or his words; yet these two Books Basil Print 1571. contain 40. pages in Folio. In a word, Origen hath nothing against the use of Images, but wholly impugns the gods of the Gentils, their coun­terfeit semblances, their Idols; and declares our Chri­stian Doctrine thus: lib. 7. contra Celsum num. 18. page (with me) 789. Nos vero ideo quoque non honoramus si­mulacra, quia quantum possumus cavemus, ne quo modo inci­damus in eam credulitatem, ut his tribuamus divinitatis ali­quid. We therefore honour no feigned Figures, because we warily hold our selves from a credulity of ascribing to them a­ny Divinity.

A few lines after Origen, he cites St. Cyril denying That in the time of Julian the Emperour, the Christians did give veneration to the Images, even of the Cross it self. The Doctor here runs more at random then ever: which St. Cyril▪ Alexand. or Hieros. where? in what Treatise is this denied? I think he means St. Cyril Hieros. who lived neer the time of Iulian, and hath in the end of his Catechesis, printed at Paris 1609. a letter to Con­stantius Augustus, wherein he declares a strange appari­tion of the Cross seen in the Heavens by innumerable [Page 56] at Ierusalem, but not one word in it that denies Venera­tion to that Holy Ensign, but rather the contrary. Bea­ta, inquam, crux (they are his words) splendoribus lumi­nis coruscans Hierosolimis apparuit, &c. The Blessed Cross all luminous and glorious, appeared at Hierusa­lem, &c. Until the Doctor therefore directs me bet­ter to the place in St. Cyril, I'll tell him that Athanasi­us, de passione Domini Edit. ex officina Comeliniana, anno 1600. pag. 808. highly honoured the Cross. Nun­quid dignius est, & potius crucem adorare, quàm Iudaeorum, & mundi gratiam lucrifacere. Is it not more worthy, and better to adore the Cross, then to gain the favour of Iews, and of the whole World. Again, the other Athanasius quaest. 39. ad Antioch. eâdem edit. pag. 286. Crucem nobis fidelibus adorari, & osculando honorari propter Christum qui in ea pependit, manifestum. 'Tis manifest that the Cross is to be adored and honour'd by us Christians for Christ our Lord, who dyed on it.

St. Ambross agrees also, oratione de obitu Theodosii thus, Colen Print anno 1616. Tom. 5. page 60. Sapiens Helena egit quae crucem in capite Regum levavit, ut Christi crux in Regibus adoretur; non insolentia ista, sed Pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni. Helena did wisely, that placed the Cross on the head of Kings, to the end it might be adored by them. Insolency it was not, but Piety done to our Sacred Redemption. St. Hierom also is consonant, Epist. 17. ad Marcellam Paris Print anno 1609. Tom. 1. pag. 156. Ergone erit illa dies, quando nobis liceat speluncam salvato­ris intrare, & crucis lambere lignum? Will that day once be, when we may enter the Sepulcher of our Saviour, and kiss the Wood of his Cross? Again, Epist. 27. ad Eusto­chium, pag. 221. Prostrata ante crucem, quasi pendentem Do­minum cerneret, adorabat. Postrat before the Cross she adored, as if she had seen our Lord hanging on it.

See St. Chrisostom in a Sermon he hath de veneratione crucis, Tomo 1. Paris Print 1588. pag. 1331. none speaks more significantly: Venit anniversarius Dies omni reli­gione colendus, &c. The anniversary day of the Cross is come, worthy of all Religious Veneration: And a little af­ter: Quia igitur pretiosae crucis venerationi constitutus est, huc adeste omnes, cum metu atque desiderio eam amplecta­mur. Because therefore this day is appointed for the wor­ship of the pretious Cross; come ye all, let us embrace it with fear, with love, with affection. Again, Ejus preti­osam atque vitalem crucem adoramus, & pro thesauro magni pretji tenemus. We adore his pretious, and life-giving Cross, and hold it as a Treasure of mighty value. Read St. Austin also tractatu 36. in Iohannem, ante medium, & in Psal. 36. ante medium; you will see what veneration was given to the Cross in his days. I cite not others in after ages, they are innumerable.

The Doctor, pag. 59. brings that often answered ob­jection out of the Council Elibery, that pictures might not be in Churches. Ne quod colitur, aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur. Least What is worship'd and ador'd be Painted on the Walls. Mark; first the Council sup­poseth worship, and adoration due to Pictures. Ne quod colitur, & adoratur. Next it will not, that what is thus Adored and Worshiped be Painted on the Walls; either because, as Bellar. observes, the Humidity of the place spoiled them, or because they could not be so readily took away when the Gentils persecuted Chri­stians; in Frames or Tables they might most easily. Baronius suspects this Cannon to be supposititious, but there is no need of his answer.

The Doctor in the same page hath three places out of St. Austin to no purpose. The first is de moribus Ec­clesiae lib. 1. cap. 34. where he speaking to the Manichees, [Page 58] saith, Novi multos esse & Sepulchorum, & Pictura­rum adoratores, &c. I know many honouring Sepulchers and Pictures; yet in life reprehensible. The second de­side, & symbolo, cap. 7. where he saith, and truly, that God cannot be circumscribed in any humane form; and then adds Tale enim Simulacrum Dei, nesas Christiano in templo collocare. 'Tis wickedness in a Christian to place such a vain Figure (of God circumscribed) in a Church. The third is contra Adimantum cap. 13. where he forbids cul­tum simulacrorum, which God prohibited in the old Law. What is here for the Doctor? who next hath a fling at the seventh Synod, or second Council of Nice; Whose Acts about the worshiping of Images were reproved by the Council of Francfurt. An old, old story answered a hundred times over. Let it pass: yet I must not o­mit to say a word of what he hath, pag. 58. out of St. Epiphanius his Epistle to Iohn of Hierusalem, because Pro­testants urge it much. The story, which you may read in the very end of that Epistle is briefly thus: Praeterea quod audivi, quosdam murmurare contra me, &c. Be­sides, that I heard some murmur against me; because when we passed to the holy place which is called Bethel [ the Doctor calls it the Village of Bethel, for fear [I think] of naming a holy place] that there I might make a collect, according to the custom of the Church, Et venissem ad villam, quae vocatur, and came to the Village called Anablatha: and passing by, had seen a Lamp burning, asking what the place was, and understanding it was a Church, and entring to Pray. Inve­ni ibi velum pendens in foribus Ecclesiae, tinctum, atque depictum, & habens imaginem quasi Christi, aut sancti cu­jusdam. I found there in the entry of the Church, (no de­cent place, but the Doctor conceals this) a Veil hanging, dyed and painted, having an Image as it were of Christ, or some Saint, for saith St. Epiphanius, I do not remember [Page 59] whose Picture it was: when I had seen this, viz. the Picture of a man hanging in the Church contrary to the Authority of Scripture I cut it in pieces, and gave Counsel to those who kept the place, that some poor man should be buried in that Veil. Here is the story; that which follows adds no new light to it for the Doctor. Now if all this were true, what makes it for the Doctors purpose? St Epi­phanius cut in pieces a cloth Picture, the Image was un­known to him, whether of Christ or no, perhaps it was of some prophane man who was there honoured for Christ, or a Saint; therefore, St. Epiphanius judged that the undoubted Picture of Christ, and his Saints cannot be in Churches: No consequence at all. But in a word, the story is supposititious, and added to the Letter, as Bellar. Learnedly shews, lib. 2. de Imag. 9. §. ad quintum. First, because Epiphanius his Epistles clear­ly ends with these words: Deus autem pacis praestet nobis juxta suam clementiam ut conteratur satanas, &c. Then follows Praeterea audivi so harshly and Either this sto­ry is true, or false: If true, it con­demns the Pra­ctise in England, for they have Cru­cisixes in their Churches; if false it is not to the purpose. dis-joynedly that one with half an eye might see the want of order in it. 2. Because those Haereticks, who withstood so industriously the use of Images in the seventh Synod, or 2d. Nicen Council, and objected all that could be said against Pictures out of any Fathers, never so much as alledged this Testimony of Epipha­nius, which argues, they either thought it not to the purpose, or which is true, judged it supposititious. 3. Because Epiphanius Diaconus demonstrated in that 7th, Synod, that two other Testimonies were falsly shufled into St. Epiphanius his Works by Hereticks: Add 4. that St. Basil, and others who lived with Epi­phanius had Images in their Churches, and reverenced them. Thus Bellarmine; and he hath yet more on this subject. [Page 60] The Doctor in his 9th. Section, page 61. fiercely re­proves the Picturing of God the Father, and the unde­vided Trinity: And liberal he is with the Fathers. He gives you a whole list of them in his Margent, but not their words, and he does wisely; for their words would have taught the Reader how little they make for him: though I must tell you, that it is not so certain that Ima­ges may be made of God and the Sacred Trinity, as of Christ, and his Saints; some Catholick Doctors dis­like the first, saying it is only tolerated by the Church, not approved: None the second.

Well, one Principle of St. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Or­thodox. fidei. cap. 17. (and St. Austin points at the same de fide & symbolo cap. 7.) solves all the Doctor hath, or can alledge in this matter. Quisnam est (saith St. Da­mascen) qui invisibilis, & corpore vacantis, ac circum­scriptionis, & Figurae expertis, Dei Simulacrum effingere queat? extremae itaque dementiae atque impietatis fuerit, di­vinum numen fingere, & figurare. Who is there that can make an Effigies of, or Paint out the likeness of God, invisi­ble, without any body, without Circumscription (that is immens) and Figure at all? Madness it is thus to figure a Detty, or a Divine Power. As who should say: He that goes a­bout to express by any Image the perfect Similitude of Gods intrinsecal Perfections, or his Nature which (is Im­mens) without body or figure, would be both impious, and act the part of a mad man; Yes, and as Bellar. observes lib. 2. de imag. cap. 8. § prosolutione, would make a very I­dol. Such picturing of God, the Fathers now cited reprove; but if God, or an Angel appear in the form of a man, as he did walking in Paradise: why may not those visible, and circumscribed Lineaments, be ex­hibited to our eyes? He was no Idol walking in Para­dise, neither is he one Painted in Paper. [Page 61] The Doctor pag. 62. after the Fathers, cites Macro­bius lib. 1. de somno Scipionis cap. 2. The exact words of Macrobius are these: (after he had declared, what a powerful Being God is: Quod sciri quale sit ab homine non possit: that it cannot be known by man of what Nature he is.) Ideo, & nullum ejus simulacrum quod cum Dis aliis constitueretur finxit antiquitas. And therefore Anti­quity never made any semblance of him that might be placed with other of their Gods: Exactly the same that St. Da­mascen, and other Fathers say. Next he cites Nice­phorus Calixtus lib. 18. cap. 53. where delating the Here­sie of the Iacobits, and Armenians, the Doctor saith, They made Images of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which is absurd. Hold there good Doctor, you name one per­son more then Nicephorus doth: Imagines (saith he) Patris, & spiritus Sancti effigiant, quod perquam est absur­dum. They made Pictures of the Father and the Holy Ghost, which is very absurd. And pray you, is it not absurd to Picture the Father, and the Holy Ghost without the Son? Well, I answer: To Paint their incomprehen­sible Divinity is most blameable; but not to Picture their visible apparitions: neither doth Nicephorus affirm it, nay he saith four lines after: Imagines sacras hono­rant illi quidam, sed non osculantur. These Hereticks wor­shiped holy Images, &c. Ergo, he held some Pictures Holy and Sacred, but this the Doctor mentioneth not; yet shuts up his Sect. pag. 63. with a weighty sentence of Polidor Virgil, lib. 2. de inventione rerum, cap. 23. His words are these in the beginning of the Chapter, Quo fit, ut cum Deus ubique praesens sit, nihil a principio post ho­mines natos stultius visum sit quam ejus simulacrum fia­gere. When God is every where present (that is immens) a foolery it is to make his Picture: For immensity can­not be circumscribed. If Polidor means more [Page 62] I care as little for his Authority as the Do­ctors.

Thus you see how one Principle out of St. Damascen (a most exact truth) silenceth the Doctor every where, though he cites so new an Author, as Polidor Virgil.

THe Doctor pag. 63. Sect. 10. enters upon a large debated controversie, the Popes Authority, and thinks with his four leaves, and a few old defeated objections to undo both Pope and Popery. He tells us first, When Christ founded his Church he left it in the hands of his Apostles without any Praerogative given to one above the rest, save only of Priori­ty, and orderly precedency, which of it self was natural, ne­cessary and incident. I would gladly know of our Do­ctor in plain English, what these minced words of Pri­ority, and orderly Precedency signifie? or what could that one Apostle, (let it be St. Peter, if he please) do more by force of this Priority, and orderly Precedency then St. Paul, or any of the Apostles? St. Peter writ Canonical Scripture, so did St. Paul; St. Peter governed the whole Church, and had jurisdiction over it, so [Page 63] (saith the Doctor) had St. Paul; St. Peter could make Laws for the Universal Church, and was St. Paul li­mited in this Power? what then signifies this Priority, and orderly Precedency in one above the other Apo­stles? Let him declare this ingeniously, bring it to a reality, and prove it (as it behoveth him) by Scripture, and that very Place he cites shall prove also that Prima­cy, which Catholicks give to St. Peter.

In the interim be pleased to hear how pag. 64. he quotes St. Cyprian deunit: Eccle. for equality of Power among the Apostles, and deceives his Reader by con­cealing part, and depraving the whole sence of St. Cypri­ans words: They are long and thus. Loquitur Domi­nus ad Petrum. Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus, & super istam petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, & portae, &c. & tibi dabo claves, &c. & iterum eidem, post resurrectionem su­am dicit, pasce oves meas. Super illum unum aedificat Aec­clesiam suam, & illi, pascendas mandat oves suas. Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, & dicat, sicut misit me Pater, & ego mit­to vos, &c. Tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unam Cathe­dram constituit, & unitatis ejusdam originem ab uno incipi­entem sua Authoritate disposuit. Our Lord spake unto Pe­ter: I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, &c. And again, after his Resur­rection, he said unto him, Feed my Sheep: Upon him one a­lone, or only, he builds his Church, to him he committed his Flock to be fed. And although he gave after his Resur­rection equal power to all the Apostles, and said, As my Fa­ther sent me, I send you; yet to manifest Unity, he appointed or setled one Chair, and the Origen of this Unity he ordered by his own Authority to proceed from one. (Now follows the Doctors words) Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pariconsortio praediti & honoris & potesta­tis, [Page 64] sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur. Primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia, & Cathedra una monstretur. What Peter was the other Apostles were, endowed with like fellowship of Honour and Power, but the beginning comes from Unity. The Primacy is given to Peter, that one Church of Christ and one Apostolical Chair might be manifest. These last words, sed exordium, &c. Primatus Petro datur, and super illum unum, as also the precedent, unam Cathedram constituit, which clear all, the Doctor conceals. Is not here plain jugling?

This Primacy, and true Head-ship of St. Peter all Antiquity so amply confirms, that Volumes might be made of their Writings. See that Learned and ancient Author Optatus milevitanus, lib. 2. adversus Parmenianum, page (with me in his works printed at Paris 1631) 48. Igitur negare non potes, scire te in urbe Roma Petro primam Cathedram Episcopalem esse collocatam, in qua sederit omni­um Apostolorum caput Petrus: unde & Cephas appellatus est, in qua una Cathedrâ unit as ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas, sibi quisque defenderet: ut jam schisma­ticus & peccator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram, al­teram collocaret: Ergo, Cathedra una est, quae est prima de dotibus. sedit prior Petrus, cui successit Linus, Lino suc­cessit Clemens, Clementi, Anacletus, &c. The sence is. Deny you can not, that you know, that the first Bishops Seat was placed at Rome, where Peter the head of all the Apostles did sit, and therefore was called Cephas. This was done to prevent, least any should erect another Chair against it. The Seat therefore is one, the first of Gifts and Graces: first sate Peter, Linus succeeded, &c. And he gives you a List of the other ensuing Popes to Siricius, who sate in this Chair when Optatus lived. See also that known passage of St. Hierom lib. 1. adversus Iovinianum, cap. 14. circa medium, in his works printed at Colen, anno 1616. [Page 65] where after those words which Protestants usually al­ledge: Ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur. He adds, Tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut ca­pite constituto, schismatis tollatur occasio. Yet therefore a­mong twelve one is chosen, that a Head being appointed, oc­casion of schism might be taken away. See also Tertullian de pudicitia, with me, page 743. printed at Paris anno 1641.) Qualis es evertens, & commutans manifestam Do­mini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem: super te aedificabo Ecclesiam mean, & dabo tibi claves. What a man are you overturning and changing the manifest intention of our Lord, who gave to Peter personally this priviledge? Upon thee will I build my Church, to thee will I give the keys, &c.

See lastly St. Cyprian, (to omit St. Austin de Baptismo, lib. 3. cap. 17.) Paris Print 1648. (it is pag. 139.) and 71. Epistle ad Quintum, where spkeaking of St. Pe­ters humility reprehended by St. Paul, he saith, Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit, & super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam, cum secum Paulus de circumcisi­one post modum disputaret, vindicavit aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere. For Pe­ter whom our Saviour first made choice of, and upon whom he built his Church; did not insolently vindicate himself when Paul disputed with him concerning Circumcision, or proudly said? that he was superior or held the Primacy, &c. Endless should I be, if I held on with such manifest Authorities for St. Peters Primacy, and Superiority e­ven over the Apostles. If you would have more? Ballarm. largely furnisheth you; but none me thinks goes beyond a book Printed at Paris, anno 1553. the Author is a Lawyer Remundus Rufus a most Eloquent, Solid, and Learned man that writ against Molinaeus, and so pithily defends the Popes Authority, and solves [Page 66] all Arguments against it; that I verily perswade my self, had the Doctor read him, he would never have troubled the World with his four forceless leaves against either Pope, or Peter.

My task is now to solve those words of St. Cyprian, which the Doctor hath, pag. 64. The other Apostles were the same that St. Peter was, &c. add to them St. Hie­roms: Ex aequo, &c.

One obvious and known distinction clears all; distin­guish then, inter Apostolatum, & Primatum, between Apostles-ship and Primacy, and whatever the Doctor hath, or can alledge falls to nothing. The Apostles therefore were all equal in the Dignity, and Office of their Apostles-ship, or to speak with some Divines, quoad clavem Doctrinae: this is most true, and granted: But that they were all equal in Goverment, in Supe­riority, and Primacy shall never be proved, so long as those words stand in the Gospel. Tu es Petrus, &c.

You will ask, where I have this distinction of Apo­stles-ship and Primacy. I Answ. First out of St. Cyprian and St. Hierom now cited: Hoc erant utique (saith the first) caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus pari consortio prae­diti, That is equal in this fellowship and office of being Apostles: Sed Primatus Petro datur: But the Primacy is given to Peter. Where you see, that Cyprian clearly grants an equality common to the whole Colledge of A­postles, and withal establisheth a Superiority proper to St. Peter only; either the words of this Saint are sence­less, or the distinction of equality in many, and Supre­macy in one must stand. And

In this sence St. Hieroms Doctrine is most significant, without gloss, or wresting one syllable: Ex aequo super eos, &c. The strength of the Church was equally built [Page 67] upon the Apostles, viz. as Masters, as Doctors, and Teachers illuminated by the Holy Ghost; yet there­fore among twelve One was chosen that a Head or Gover­ner being constituted, all occasion of schism might be pre­vented. Here is certainly more then that Dimunitive orderly Precedency, our Doctor allows good St. Peter: Ut schismatis tollatur occasio are significant words, and point at what is most essential to the Church: The U­nity of it. See the absolute necessity of this Head in order to Unity most solidly laid out by S. G. and re­member well what I was to shew, that St. Hierom ac­knowledgeth an equality amongst many, and a Supre­macy in One. Once more I repeat it: equality relates to their Apostolical dignity, Supremacy to the Head and Governour.

2. I draw this distinction of Apostles-ship in All, and Head-ship in One, from St. Gregory the Great, lib. 2. Epist. 38. indictione 13. (so it is with me in his works printed at Antwerp anno 1572.) though others cite lib. 4. Certe (saith the Saint) Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae & Universalis Ecclesiae est. Paulus, Ioannes, Andreas, quid aliud quam singularium sant capita? & ta­men sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. St. Peter is the first Member of the Universal Church, the other Apo­stles not so, nor in like manner Universal. Yet with this Supremacy in Peter our Opponent must acknowledge an equality of their Apostle-ship.

I will add one word more, and tell you though the Doctor should alledge out of some Fathers that St. Paul may be rightly stiled the Head of Nations, and be said to have had a Principality over the Church, yet the dif­ference between him and St. Peter is most remarkable. St. Paul and the other Apostles, had this Principality as Legats by extraordinary concession. St. Peter had it over [Page 68] the whole Church in solidum, yes, over the Apostles themselves, as Pastor Ordinary. I say Over the Apo­stles themselves: so Anacletus Scholler to St. Prter cited by Remumdus Rufus in Molinaeum pag. 86. Inter beatos Apostolos (saith he) fuit quaedam discretio, & licet omnes essent Apostoli Petro tamen a Domino est consessum, & ipsi inter se voluerunt id ipsum, ut reliquis praeesset Apostolis, & Cephas, id est; caput & principium teneret Apostolatus. There was a difference a distinction among the Blessed Apo­stles, and although all were Apostles, yet our Lord gave to Peter, and the other Apostles among themselves will'd the same thing that Peter should be Superiour to the rest, and Cephas, that is Head and chief of Apostleship.

See this Authority more largely in the Cannon Law, Decreti prima par: distinct 22. cap. 2. and never leave [...] of to wonder at the bold assertion of our Doctor: pag. 65. viz. That by the Law of Christ one Bishop is not Superiour to another: Christ gave the Power to all alike, he made no Head of the Bishops, he gave to none a Supremacy of Power, &c. So the Doctor,

In the same pag. 65. he fills his Margent with a cluster of Authors, but to what purpose God only knows; if they be to prove that Apostolical power is, and shall be ever in the Church: We grant it to the Pope of Rome. If to prove that Bishops succeed the A­postles in all priviledges, and ample power they had in the Church; not one Father in the Doctors Margent asserts it; though in a real sence, Bishops that have a true mission may be called the Apostles successors, by reason of their duty which is, to uphold the Doctrine of Christ taught by the Apostles, by rea­son of their spiritual power, and Princely, and Priestly Dignity; and this is all St. Irenaeus saith in the place cited by the Doctor, lib. 4. cap. 43. Quapropter eis qui [Page 69] in Ecclesia sunt Praesbiteris obaudire oportet, his, qui succes­sionem habent ab Apostolis. Wherefore we ought to obey those, who are Priests in the Church, those, who have successi­on from the Apostles.

Thus St. Irenaeus, and the other Fathers say no more.

I see not to what purpose the Doctor cites those words of St. Paul: We are Embassadors or Legats for Christ, unless it be to prove what I asserted above, that the o­ther Apostles, though Princes of the Church, were not Pastors Ordinary, as St. Peter was? Less do I know, why the Preface of the Mass ( Quos operis tui vicari­os, &c. is brought in: Pastors they were, but all subordinate to St. Peter as I have shew­ed.

In his pag. 66. he jerks the Jesuits, Monks and Caje­tane, for defending the Popes Authority over Bi­shops. But frivolous stories are but weak Arguments, yet the best the Doctor hath at hand. Next he cites Pope Elutherius, saying, That Christ committed the Uni­versal Church to Bishops. How good Doctor? That e­very Bishop hath jurisdiction over the Universal Church? Tis very strange! the Bishop of Down and Connor will not pretend to such a power. Christ indeed committed the Universal Church to Bishops by parts, or portions, whereof the whole Church is made, yet e­ver with subordination to one head, which prevents schism, and conserves Unity.

Page 67. he cites the famous words of St. Cyprian. The Church of Christ is one through the whole world, divided by him, into many members, and the Bishoprick is but one, &c. No hurt in this, which makes against the Doctor; for if the whole Church of Christ be rightly called one Bi­shoprick, there must be certainly one Head over so Vast [Page 70] a Bishoprick; no other can be but the Pope, who Go­verns in Ecclesiastical affaires. Other Bishops have on­ly a portion in the Flock.

He next cites you Pope Symmachus his words apud Ba­ronium. Tomo 6. anno D. 499. num. 36. but falsly, for Symmachus writing to Eonius speaks thus: Nam dum ad Trinitatis instar, cujus una est atque individua potestas, unum sit per diversos Antistites sacerdotium. As in the Blessed Trinity, whose Power is one and individual, so their is one Priest-hood, (our Doctor reads one Bishoprick) a­mongst divers Bishops; and thus he reads after he had thrust in a Parenthesis of his own head, not in Symmachus his Letter. But the worst is the inference he draws from Symmachus his words: They being spoken (saith he) against the invasion of the Rights of the Church of Arles, by Anastasius, do fully declare the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority by the Law of Christ over any Bishop, &c. A most weak discourse! For admit Anastasius had less prudently dealt with the Church of Arles, in changing the Ancient Custom, admit a confusion ensued upon this change; doth it therefore follow that the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority over any Bishop in the Ca­tholick Church? Both Prince and Prelate may, out of less fore-sight, make a Law damnable to their people; Ergo, they have no Superiority over them, is but a wretched conclusion, made by a Doctor of Divinity; who, if he had read Symmachus his Letter (and long it is not) he might have found the Popes Superiority asserted thus: Relegentes ergo veterum antistitum, &c. dilectionem tuam enixissime commonemus, ut in ordinandis per singulas urbes, cana, ac reverenda servetur antiquitas, nec novella constitutio vetustae sanctionis robur imminuat. Reading what was anciently done, &c. We warn you, that in your Ordi­nation through every City, Venerable Antiquity be ex­actly [Page 71] observed, and that no new Constitution impair the force of old Ordinances. Here are words of Power and Authority.

Page 68. he cites St. Ignatius, and before him St. Denis, two Blessed Saints, who in the very words the Doctor gives, speaks not a syllable for him.

Next he cites Origen: God knows where, for he points to no place: Then he furnisheth you with Pope Gelasius his Authority, and St. Hierom: The first saith he is, distinct. 97. cap duo sunt. He mistakes the place, it is distinctione 96. rightly cited thus: Decreti prima pars. distinct. 96. cap. 10. Duo sunt: the words are these: Honor, fratres, & sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit com­parationibus adaequari, si Regum fulgori compares, & Princi­pum diademati longe erit inferius. Episcopal Honour and high Dignity, cannot be match'd, though compared with Kings and Princes. What makes this I pray you to prove that there are no intermedial Degrees, between Christ, and the poorest Bishop in Europe? True it is, that the meanest Bishop in the Church, for his Character, or Dignity of a Bishop (precisely considered) is equal to the highest; (so all Priests are, in respect of their Characters in Priest-hood) yet this shews not, but that one Bishop may have a more ample power and jurisdiction then an o­ther. I think my Lord of Down and Connor will not e­qualize himself with the Primative of England every way, though if he were a true Bishop (as he is none) Gelasius his words would be verified: Sublimitas Episco­palis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. The dignity of a Bishop is above comparison, &c.

Now to St. Hierom cited in Ieremiam Homil. I answ. Doctor▪ Ieremy surely mistakes St. Hierom: I have before me at this moment three Editions of St. Hierom, whose [Page 72] Commentaries upon the Prophet Hieremias are divided into 6 books, the Chapters handled, are the Prophets; but there is not one Word or Title, of any Homily upon Ieremy. I intreat him to direct me to that 7th. Homily; and because he cites also St. Hierom adversus Luciferianos, which hath 8 or 9 Pages in Folio, and 8 Chap. I desire he would point me out the page or Chapter. I know what he aims at, but because the objection is old, it shall pass until he please to be more exact in his citati­ons. His fling at Bellarm. for speaking Truth, de­serves no answer; nor that of St. Cyprian, which he cites in Con. Carth. for, who among those he speakes of, could with probability make himself a Bishop of Bi­shops? Or, by Tyrannical power drive his Collegues to an necessity of Obedience? No Pope pretends to this Tyranny.

NExt page 69. comes that so often answered objecti­on, out of St. Gregory, who because Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople, called himself Universal Bishop, said it was a proud, profane, Sacrilegious, Antichristian Title. And [Page 73] it was so indeed in this Patriarck, who had no right to the Title, or thing either.

To clear the difficulty, be pleased to know, that this word Universalis may have a triple sence: First, it may signifie Unum Solum singulare, one sole singular, so we speak usually, Universalis Ecclesia, id est, una tan­tum, extra quam non est salus. One Church only Universal, out of which is no Salvation.

Whosoever therefore assumes to himself the Title of Universal Bishop in this sence, importing that he is the sole, only, and singular Patriarck, and that other Bi­shops are no more but suffragans, or delegates, is both Sacrilegious and Antichristian: Sacrilegious because (en­grossing to himself the sole power) he robs his Brethren of their true dignity. Antichristian, because he oppos­eth Christ, who appointed Bishops with their respective power and jurisdiction, to govern as spiritual Princes in the Church.

Now, that the Patriarck of Constantinople arrogated to himself such an ample power, may be proved out of St. Gregory in that often cited Epistle to Mauritius. Nul­lus (saith the Saint) eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vo­cabulum assumpsit, nec uti consensit. No one ever assum'd, or consented to use that word of Singularity: (and mark the reason) Ne dum privatim uni aliquid daretur, honore de­bito privarentur universi. Least whilst something is given to one privately, the General or Universal are depriv'd of their due honour. And a little before: Si igitur illud no­men in ea Ecclesia sibi quisquam arripit, Universa Eccle­sia, quod absit, a statu suo corruit, quando, qui appellaba­tur Universalis, cadit. If therefore any one takes to him­self that name in the Church, the Universal Church (which God forbid) must fall, when he that was call'd Universal, falls. More to this purpose you may see Apud Gratianum [Page 74] distinctione 991. But no where speaks St. Gregory clearer then in his 4th. Book of his Epistles writing to John. Qui indignum te fatebaris ut Episcopus dici debuisses, ad hoc quandoque perdactus es, ut dispectis fra [...]ribus, Episcopus appetas solus vocari. Thou who didst confess thy self un­worthy to be call'd a Bishop, art now come to this, that dispising the Brethren, then covetest to be call'd the only Bishop. E­vident therefore it is out of St. Gregory that this ambi­tious Patriarck, with contempt of his Brethren, would be the sole and only Bishop, which is Sacrilegious, and Antichristian, and neither due to Pope nor Patri­arck.

2. The Title of Universal may render you a sence that savors of Pride, Hautiness and Prophaness, and therefore as Remundus Rufus observes, it was often used by the Roman Emperours, and sounds high in the Greek Language. Be pleased to hear Remumdus his own words: pag. 26. circa medium: Et ille Ioannes cum Graecus esset, utebatur graeca voce [...] quae non a­liud significat, quam mundi vel orbis terrarum patriarcham, [...] enim orbis terrarum est, & Latine [...] Uni­versalis dicitur ut Pelagius & Gregorius interpretabantur. And John being a Graecian, used the Greek word [...] which signifies no other but Patriarck of the whole World, for [...] is the Universal World, and [...] in Latine imports Universal, as Pelagius and Gregory did inter­pret the word. This Title also, as Secular and Prophane, St. Gregory rejected.

3. The word Universal, or Universalis Episcopus with­out any ill sence at all, may signifie that ample Power, and spiritual jurisdiction which Christ's Vicar here on Earth hath over the Church: and under this notion, the Fathers assembled in the Council of Calcedon of­fered it to Pope Leo in these words: Sancto, & a­mantissimo [Page 75] Domino Leoni Universali Episcopo Romae, &c. To the Holy and most belov'd Leo Universal Bishop of Rome, &c. Certainly, those Grave and Learned Fa­thers cannot be supposed, either to have flattered the Pope, or given him a prophane Title, or the Title of sole and only Bishop, assum'd by Iohn of Constantinople. Well, Leo refused the Title, and why? either because it seemed new to him, or because it had not been given to his predecessors by any solemn and publick Rite in for­mer ages; or finally, because the blessed man waved it out of Humility. Admit that St. Gregory did so like­wise upon the like Motives, doth it follow that he yeilds up his Supremacy? No, he asserts this Supremacy o­ver and over writing to Mauritius: Petro Apostolorum principi, cum totius Ecclesiae principatus committitur, & ta­men Universalis Apostolus non vocatur; & vir sanctissimus, consacerdos meus Ioannes, vocari Universalis Episcopus co­natur. When the Principality of the Church was commited to Peter, chief of the Apostles, he was not called Universal A­postle, and John my fellow Priest, endeavours to be called universal Bishop. Now the Saint saith, That he knows no Bishop that is not subject to the Seat Apostolick. Now, That the Seat of Constantinople is also subject to him. Now, That it is lawful for none to transgress the Laws of that Seat. Nec nostrae dispositionis ministerium. Much more to this purpose you have in every Writer on this subject. The Authorities are known and vul­gar.

This truth supposed: let us see the force of the Doctors Argument, which must be this, or nothing. St. Gregory refused the Title of Universal Bishop: Ergo, he denyed his Supremacy over the Church. In answer, I plainly deny the consequence, and say, that the Saint, by refusing a Title which might seem new to him, and [Page 76] which his Predecessors had not by solemn Rite, or fi­nally, out of the motive of Humility, doth not there­fore deny his Power and Supremacy over the Church, whereunto positively he laies claim so often. A Princi­pality stands good, entire, and unshaken, Though an innocent Title, harmlesly expresing that Principality, be for some reason refus'd by him, who justly possesses the Principality. His Majesty, King Charles the Second, is now absolute Monarch and Soveraign over his King­doms, and is rightly stiled King of England, &c. Put case that either Parliament or People, should go about to invest him, with a New Title, and call him Emperour of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, might not his Ma­jesty refuse this Title, (which neither adds to, nor demi­nishes his regal Power) without denying his Soveraig­nity? This is our case in St. Gregory; who, as he never laid claim to be Sole Bishop of the World, nor to any prophane Title, so he never left off to maintain his due of Spiritual Principality over the Church.

Thus much is said, in case it can be shewed that St. Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the last sence, above mentioned: For by what I have yet read, he rejects it only in opposition to Iohn, or in that sence, in which this ambitious Prelate laid claim to it.

The Doctor pag. 70. cites St. Chrisostom in cap. 1. Act. Apost. Hom. 3. Answer, St. Chrisostom treats in that passage of electing one in the place of Iudas, and hath these words. Illud considera quàm Petrus agit omnia ex Communi discipulorum sententia, nihil Authoritate sua, ni­hil cum imperio. (Nothing by his own Authority) which the Doctor more carefully, then sincerely translates ( nothing by special Authority) intimating, (as I conceive) no special Authority given to St. Peter, whereas those words No­thing [Page 77] by his own Original Authority [...] evi­dently suppose, both Power and Authority in St. Peter: for no Prince can properly be said not to do a thing by his own Authority only, (but with the advise of his Counsel) unless he be supposed to have Authority: which is here evidenced in St. Peter, by the next ensuing words of St. Chrisostom. Neque simpliciter dixit, hunc in lo­cum Iudae sufficimus, sed consolans illos, &c. As who should say, St. Peter used not the Power he had in this Election, but rather sought the comfort of his fellow Disciples, who were much disanimated at the fall of Judas. Here, by the way, observe a most weak kind of arguing in our Doctor. St. Peter did all in this particular by common consent of the Apostles, nothing by his own Power, or Command, Ergo, he had not the Power: why? because he used it not. Is this a tollerable discourse? A Prince concludes of some weighty Affair, See the Supremacy of St. Peter amply confirm­ed by St. Chrisostom up­on the Acts, even in Sir Henry Savils Edition Tom. 4. pag. 624. and 625. cheifly at those words [...] n. 22. Again n. 26. [...] &c. Af­terwards pag. 625. at those words [...], &c. by, and with the advice of his counsel, not by his own Authority: Ergo, he hath not this Power; Doth the not actual u­sing of Power and Authority either im­ply, or argue the not having of it? Toyes. Had our good Doctor but cast his Eyes upon St. Chrisostom's Doctrine, delivered a few lines above the place now quoted, he would have found St. Peters Authori­ty made good in these words: Quàm est fervidus? Quàm agnoscit creditum a Christo gregem? Quàm in hoc choro princeps est? & ubique primus omnium incipit loqui. How fervent is St. Peter? How doth he acknowledge, or own the Flock commit­ted to him by Christ▪ In this assembly he was Prince, and chief, and everywhere, first of all begins to speak. Here is e­nough to silence the Doctor.

Who cites next Melchior Canus de loc is Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 8. There is (saith he) no Scripture, no Revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in it. An­swer, Here is an Emphasis too much: ( no Scripture, no Revelation) and that left out of Canus which moderates all. Canus his words are these. Illud quoque magnopere advertendum est, Romanum Pontificem Petro succedere, non esse (per se quidem) in sacris literis revelatum, sed aliunde constare, exeo scilicet, quod gravissimae historiae prodidere, Petrum Apostolum suam Cathedram Romae demum collocasse, ibique cum esset, Episcopum fuisse defunctum. 'Tis much to be reflected on: That the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter, is not indeed (by its self) reveal'd in Scripture, but is mani­fested by other means; to wit, by most grave History, that hath left on Record, that Blessed St. Peter placed his Chair at Rome, and when he was there, dyed Bishop of that place; For this, Canus cites you eighteen or nineteen of the most Ancient Fathers that lived in the Church, as St. Denis, Clemens, Anacletus, Tertullian, St. Hierom, St. Austin, &c. and finally concludes: Will the Doctor stand to this Bishops Judgment? what thinks he of this de­termination of the Question? Tam vero multis, & incorruptis testibus qui non credit, is aut stultum, aut haereticumse esse demonstrat. He who gives not credit to so many, and sincere witnesses, either shews him­self a Fool, or an Heretick. Now mark the disingenious dealing of our Doctor with Canus who to make his words sound loud for the Protestants pur­pose, fraudulently omits these particulars, ( non esse per se quidem) which abates much, and turns them out of that furious sence the Doctor gives. [ There is no Scri­pture (saith he) no Revelation, that the Bishop of Rome should succeed Peter.] Canus speaks thus, and moderate­ly: That the Bishop of Rome does succeed Peter, is not by it self precisely, or in express terms revealed in Scripture; [Page 79] which hath Truth in it, for the Bishop of Rome per se, or in formal express terms is not named in Scripture: Yet, neither Canus, nor any can doubt but that this succession of the Roman Bishop is evidently dedu­ced out of Scripture, though not per se revela­tum.

Were the Doctor versed in School Divinity, or knew how precisely School-men speak, when they inquire what is per se, by it self immediately, or in formal terms revealed: I could tell him that Canus his words deserved more, then totally to be omitted by him. Put case it were re­vealed per se, that a man is animal rationale, a reaso­nable creature; it follows by evident discourse, he is also risibilis, risib [...]le: Yet, I know many Divines, (and Canus may be one) who say, that the man is risiblle; is not per se revealed; why? because this is not per se, or in express terms affirmed by the Revelation, though drawn from thence by good consequence. But enough of these subtilties, they are not for the Do­ctor.

After Canus he cites Cardinal Cusanus and Soto affirm­ing, as he says, that This succession was not addicted to any particular Church, &c. Answ. First, Nicolaus de Cusa, or Car­dinal Cusanus writ that Treatise de Concordantiâ Catholicâ when he was a young man, about the beginning of the Coun­cil of Basil, and as Bellar. observes, to exalt the Authority of the Council, too much depressed the See Apostolick; but afterwards seeing his error, and how the Schisms grew on, he opposed it, and stood earnestly for the See Apostolick, as you may see in that Epistle writ to Rode­ricus Trevinus; you have it in Cusanus his works prin­ted at Basil page 825. anno 1442. [20. May the Letter was dated.]

2. Cusanus speaks not so absolutely as the Doctor [Page 80] makes him, for although he said, Siper possibile, Tre­virensis Archiepiscopus per Ecclesiam congregatam, &c. If possible the Arch-bishop of Trevers were by the Church assem­bled, chosen for Head and Governor, he would be more the successor of Peter then the Roman Bishop: Yet he adds this mitigation: Licet credendum sit Romanum Pontificem, sicut locum Petri, ita & principatum nunquam perditurum. Although it is to be believed, that the Roman Bishop, as he will never lose the place of Peter, so he will never lose his Principality. This the Doctor thought fit to con­ceal.

Dominicus Soto, in the place cited by the Doctor, §. Sed forsan, stifly defends the Succession of the Roman Bi­shop to St. Peter: Verba ipsa (saith he) tu es Petrus, & super hunc, &c. & pasce oves meas, palam demonstrant illa ratione Ecclesiam, usque ad postremum diem orbis duraturam, fundasse, ut Petri successores, perinde ac Petrus ipse, vice Christi fungerentur: atque adeo unusquisque eorum summum in Ecclesia fastigium teneret. Those words, Thou art Pe­ter; and feed my Sheep; evidently demonstrate the Church founded in such a manner to the end of the World, that the Successors of Peter as well as Peter himself be in the place of Christ, and every one of them hold Supreme Authority in the Church of Christ. It is true §. Duo ergo (he saith) rem esse impendio decentissimam ut Romana sedes Petri sanguine decorata sit sedes successorum Petri. It is most decent that the Roman See honoured with the blood of Peter, be the place of all the Successors of Peter: And then adds: Hac non obstante veritate, nulla profecto ex Evangelio prohibitio plane colligitur, quo minus posset Ecclesiae constitutione fieri ut E­piscopus sedem suam ab urbe demutaret: Imo ut nullam sibi particularem applicaret, cujus diceretur Antistes, sed esset U­niversalis mundi Episcopus cui omnes particulares subjiceren­tur. Notwithstanding this Truth, there is no clear Prohibi­tion [Page 81] in the Gospel, forbidding (if the Church appoint so) that the Bishop of Rome change his Seat, yes, and apply no other particular one to himself, of which he may be called Bishop and yet he would be the Universal Bishop of the World: to whom all particulars ought to be subject.

See now how little the Doctor hath got out of these two Authors: Cusanus saith, that if by any possibility the Bishop of Trevers were by the Votes of the Church, Head of it; he would have Universal jurisdiction over the Church, as the Pope hath now; (for Cusanus ever defended this ample Authority of the Pope.) Soto saith, that it is not plane, fully, clearly, forbid in the Gospel, that the Bishop of Rome change his See, yet if he did so, he would be still the Universal Bishop of the World; to whom all were subject, even the Bishop of Down and Connor. Now here is that which vexeth our Doctor, viz. that one man have such an ample command, and Authority over all: Put case, Per impossibile, (say I) that the Bi­shop of Trevers were elected Pope, (qua Trevirensis) with the same ample Power and jurisdiction that the Pope e­ver had, and that the Roman Bishop were laid aside: our good Doctor would even then, storm as much against Trevers Pope, as he now doth against the Roman. It is not, God knows, the place or person that he so furiously opposeth, but the Power and Dignity annexed, to what See soever. This gives him regret.

Next he saith, It cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome. is Prince of the Church; And I think by his Mar­ginal citation he directs me to Ioannes Driedo de dogm. lib. 4. cap. 3. This Chapter hath 13. or 14. Leaves in Folio, and three parts in it. The Doctor might well have quoted the part, had he ever read Driedo: But let that pass. I answer, Driedo hath nothing for the Doctors purpose, but expresly the contrary: thus: [Page 82] part. 2. cap. 3. Folio with me, 227. Primus Simon qui dici­tur Petrus, Mat. 10— Hoc autem non potest intelligi, quod Pe­trus fuerit primus tempore, aut vocationis ordine, quoniam Andreas prius secutus est Christum, quam Petrus, &c. di­citur ergo Petrus esse primus Apostolorum, dignitate, & prae­lationis potestate. St. Mathew reckons of St. Peter as first, But this cannot (saith Driedo) be understood that Peter was first called, for Andrew Was before him and first follow­ed Christ: Peter therefore is stiled the first of the Apostles, because of his Dignity and Power of Superiority. And this Principality Driedo earnestly maintains, not only in St. Peter, but in every lawful elected Bishop of Rome. Vide folium 229. Part 2. Omnes (saith he) ab initio Ecclesi­astici Pontifices, Patres, Martyres, & Universalis Ecclesiae concilia, honoraverunt Romanae Ecclesiae Pontificem, tan­quam supremum & Universalis Ecclesiae Episcopum. All Bishops from the beginning, The Fathers, Martyrs, and Councils of the Universal Church, have ever honoured the Pope of Rome as the Supreme Bishop of the Universal Church. And here is enough of the Doctors 10th. Section, for what he saith of the African Fathers opposing the Pope is handled so often, that 'tis time lost to repeat it: So also is that which he hints at, out of the Council of Cal­cedon giving equal Rights, and Preheminency with Rome to the Patriarck of Constantinople. I answer briefly, This is most untrue, the very Decree, were it Authentical, gives him only the second place, as is manifest by these words: Secundam post illam existere: that is, next after Rome: I say, if the Decree were Authentical, for it was both clancular, and surreptitious, procured by Anatolius and his Confederates while the Popes Legates were ab­sent. This manifestly appears both by Pope Leo his Letters to Anatolius, and the attestation of the whole Council, which I have read more then once, and am [Page 83] ready to maintain what I say against Dr. Taylor, or any body else.

IN his 11th. Section, pag. 71. he hath little worth notice a croud of Controversies you have, su­perficially run over E. G. Invocation of Saints, in suf­ficiency of Scripture: Nine penny Masses: and I know not what, lightly are they touched on by him without proof, and let them on Gods name as lightly pass with­out answer.

Page 72. he cites the Cannon Law de consecrat. di­stinct. c. peracta. where it is said, that Consecration fini­shed, all are to Communicat, &c. for so the Apostles appoin­ted, and the Church of Rome holds. Had the Doctor the Marginal gloss upon this Chapter, he might have seen, that this Ancient Law is now no more in force, and this by the permission of the Church, obliging only to Communicate once a year. O, but the Apostles ap­pointed it: So they also appointed, Act. 15. v. 20. To abstain a suffocatis, & sanguine, from strangled meat and blood; Doth the Doctor comply with this precept? E­very positive Law, even of the Apostles, had not al­ways force in after ages. I wonder he cites this Law [Page 84] against us, while Protestants themselves do not observe it: doth every one, that is present at service, Commu­nicate when the Minister makes his Caena? but what will you? there is neither Consecration nor Communion. The rest that follows in this Section is most empty stuff.

Page 75. cap. 2. Sect. 1. he much reprehends Catho­lick Doctors, who teach that a sinner is not bound pre­sently to repent of his sin, as soon as he hath committed it. He adds, pag. 76. Though the Church calls on sinners to re­pent on Holy days, or at Easter; yet that by the Law of God, they are not tyed to so much, but only to repent in the danger or article of Death. (Mark the word only.) And for this Do­ctrine he cites the Famous Navar, in his Enchir, or Manu­al, cap. 1. num. 31. Answ. I see he never read Navar, for he neither gives you the Right number, nor his Do­ctrine exactly; the number, with me in his Manual printed at Antwerp 1601. is, num. 27. The Doctrine thus, after Navar had declared that the other two affirmative pre­cepts of Baptism and confession do not oblige under pain of a new sin but in time of necessity: Ita, saith he, per consequutionem, praeceptum affirmativum de se conver­tendo, non obligat sub paena novi peccati Lethalis nisi in arti­culo necessitatis; in illo vero sic: quamobrem ad praedictam paenitudinem concipiendam tenebimur imminente articulo mor­tis naturalis, vel violentae, vel administrandi, suscipiendi­que aliquod sacramentum, imo etiam instante populi necessi­tate aliqua grandi, cui absque orationis fervore provideri non posset. So by consequence, the affirmative praecept of converting one self, doth not oblige under pain of a new mortal sin but in time of necessity, and in that Article thus: wherfore bound we are to repent in the imminent Article of death natural or violent, or when we receive any Sacrament, or any danger, or great necessity presses on us, not to be preven­ted [Page 85] but by ardent Prayer, &c. Perhaps the Doctor will say, that these two last cases of the Sacrament, or great necessity, Per accident, accidently oblige a sinner to con­trition. Be it so, yet Navar saith not so much, at least he doth not say, that a sinner is obliged only to repent in the hour of his death. It is one thing to oblige a sin­ner to repent, when he is ready to dye, and another to say, he is only then obliged. All sinners are certainly bound to repent then, yet many great Divines add to this a further obligation, and affirm that, aliquoties in vi­ta, for some time in their life, this Obligation lies on them.

I cannot but smile reading our Doctor, pag. 76. (whose whole aim is to shew out of our Authors, that repentance is never necessary but in the hour of death only) to see how unwarily he speaks from his own purpose, while he makes Renaldus to say, that a sinner is obliged to repent (which is undoubtedly true.) He cites him, Prax. Fori. Paen. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sect. 4. n. 23. In English thus: It is true, and the Opinion of all men, that the time in which a sinner is bound by the commandment of God to be contrite for his sins, is the imminent Article of natural or violent death. Let every ingenious Reader ponder these Eng­lish words till Dooms-day, and say afterwards whe­ther he can force any other sence out of them, but this ascertained Truth only, that a sinner at death is obliged to repent, but that he is then only obliged (which is to the purpose) shall never be proved.

I'll deal ingeniously, and help the Doctor: Reginald seems to say more then what this Empty English Quo­tation sets down. His words are: Omnium communis, sententia est, tempus in quo peccator conteri tenetur, (intel­lige per se, seu vi specialis Praecepti de contritione a deo dati) esse imminentem articulum mortis naturalis, vel violentae. [Page 86] The common Opinion of all is, that the time wherein a sinner is bound to repent, (understand Per se, or by force of a special command given by Almighty God of contrition) is the imminent Article of a natural or violent death. This Parenthesis ( in­tellige Per se) which I say it seems for I cannot assert that Regi­nald plainly says so much. seems exclusive of other special pre­cepts save only at death, and would most have been for advantage, the Doctor wisely leaves out. However with it he shall never make his assertion good, viz. that Reginald holds, a sinner is not obliged to repent but only in the hour of death, and I speak of an Obligation per se, not of acci­dental cases, as if one makes a vow to have contrition, or to come to the Sacraments, &c. My reason is: that al­though there be no special command, given by Almighty God for contrition, but only in that Article; yet, the ve­ry Law of Nature, and the Charity, that a long invete­rate sinner, owes to his own Soul, both may, and doth o­blige him sometimes in life to convert himself to his Maker by hearty repentance; whereof more hereafter. Reginaldus further observes, out of St. Austin, That he who lives thus impenitent, incurs not only the danger of trans­gressing anew, but deeply hazards his Salvation, which ha­zard, intrincical to the state of such an inveterate Crimi­nal; calls loud upon him; yes, and obliges him some­times in life to repentance, or the Love of God. Had the Doctor considered the counsel given us in Scripture, Eccles. 5. Ne tardes converti ad Dominum, & ne differas de die in diem: Do not delay this conversion, &c. And how Zealously both Divines in Schools, and Preachers in their Pulpits inculcate this wholesome Doctrine, and lay open the danger of delaying sinners, He would never have blamed Reginald, who only rigoriously examins what men are obliged to, under mortal sin; Ex vi spe­cialis praecepti de contritione a deo dati: where every par­ticle is restrictive, and little warrants the Doctors [Page 87] charge on him, in the general: No repentance but in the Article of death only. The Doctor cites other words of Reginald mangled, and weighed out of their circum­stances. Let that pass among lesser faults.

Now one word of his new Learning: He saith then pag. 76. that a sinner ought to repent presently after his sin. I ask him whether he hath any precept for this assertion in Scripture, and mind him of his own Quotation: 'Tis the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine, that is not Scripture. Here we may have plain dealing, if he please; Either he can give Scripture for a sinners present repentence after sin, or no; if he cannot, he hath a devilish spirit, imposing on poor Souls a Divine command, not proved by Scripture; if he warrants this precept by Scripture, without gloss, and interpretation of his own, I will proclaim to the whole World, that Dr. Taylor is one of the most profound Divines we have now in Europe: But this he shall never do: There­fore I am afraid the other Lot will fall on him.

I will be plain. Most harsh and an intolerable Do­ctrine it is to say, that a sinner under new mortal sin, is obliged to repent presently, especially in the Doctors Opinion, who makes no distinction between sins mor­tal, and venial in their own Nature. Observe I be­seech you: Put case that one commits a Murther this day, and continues in the sin for Months and Years, it followeth evidently, that for every Moment of these Months and Years, (if he reflects on his Homicide) be sins a new unless he repents: Why? The command of God is that he repent presently after his Fact: This com­mand he Transgresses, and therefore sins a new; the next Moment, Hour, or day, the same severe Command of God (obliging to repentance) leaves him not, he [Page 88] sins still on, and consequently, for as many Moments as he lives (let it be for Years) he heaps sin upon sin, and multiplies them without number: for the command of God obliging all this while to repentance, is grievi­ously transgressed, and to transgress that Law, makes so often, with our Doctor, so many sins. Is not here a sad and deplorable story, to use the Phrase of our Doctor? Is it not much better to say with Reginald that it is a les­ser evil for a man to continue under one sin for a time, (though such a condition is deplorable) then to have sins multiplyed hourly and daily, almost numberless? Now if the Negative precept, as Reginald holds, forbids not the perseverance in sin, (at least for some time) these whole Troops of transgressions, which (according to the Doctor) intervene between the first sin committed, and final repentance are avoided. Here is mercy to a poor sinner. The Doctor mercilesly without Scripture, with­out Authority at all, saith what God never spake, and drives him to desparation.

Page 77. he shews himself more then strangely igno­rant: And first, I do not touch upon what he saith, That the Church hath been more severe then God, tying a sinner by collateral positive Laws to repent at Easter; nor secondly, of the seeming contradiction, which follows, that the Church Ordains but the means, the exterior solemnity of it (that is confession, &c.) These I wave, and wish the Reader to re­flect on the last words in that Paragraph: So that sin­ners, saith he, are still left to their liberties, &c. even to satisfie our selves with all the remaining pleasures of that sin for a little while, even during our short mortal Life: only we must be sure to repent at last. Mark well, Even to satisfie our selves, with all the remaining pleasures of that sin for our mortal life. What! a Doctor of Divinity and speak thus? why there is none but knows, that the taking of [Page 89] content, or satisfaction in the pleasure of a sin past, is another hidious sin, forbidden by Almighty God, and execrated by all Doctors. A sin once committed re­mains habitually, (misery enough) until it be retracted by penance; but to take pleasure in it afterwards, is a­nother guilt distinct from the former, unto which it seems our Doctors Divinity reaches not.

THe Doctor in his 78. pag. has nothing but talk without substance: 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. [Page 90] 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 [Page 91] 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 [Page 92] 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 [Page 93] 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 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, [Page 94] and this appretiative esteem of God is the same, and intrinsecal to every Act of Contrition, so much perfection it hath, or 'tis 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 [Page 96] 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 [Page 97] 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 'tis 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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.

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, [Page 101] 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 many difficulties which our Divines raise in this matter of Indulgences, while they speculatively discuss several cases relating to them; and because this is done with variety of Opinions, the Doctor thinks all undone, and that both the sustance and fruit of Indulgences fail's in the Catholick Church.

A great mistake: For are there not innumerable dif­ficulties speculatively examined almost in every Article of Christian belief, concerning Baptism and other Sa­craments? yes, concerning the profession of our Faith in certain exigences: yet these speculative considerati­ons terrifie none from professing the necessity and benefit both of faith and Sacraments. The like with a due pro­portion we say of Indulgences (not so necessary to Salvati­on, as Faith or Baptism;) though difficulties in such and such particular cases are moved concerning them, yet all [Page 102] agree in the general with the Council of Trent, that they are useful, profitable and beneficial to Chri­stian penitents.

Having thus discovered the two transcendent mistakes of our Doctor, you shall see how unskilfully he com­bates against Indulgences.

Page 92. he saith, Suppose the Indulgence be for forty years, a hundred, a thousand; yet peradventure according to the old penitential rate, you have deserved the Penance of forty thousand years, &c. Answ. A long time indeed! but peradventure this peradventure of the Doctors is a mistake; at least something is gained besides the merit of the work, though we know not how much; and bet­ter it is to have forty years of Penance taken off, then to suffer torment for forty years, though not yet quitted of all pain. (If the damned in Hell could but have forty years of their pain released, thsy would deem it a favour) Therefore the Doctrine of the Council of Trent is true: Usus indulgentiarum est salutaris.

Again he saith, No man can tell the difference, when what remains shall be so great as to surmount all the evils of this life. Answ. Neither is it necessary: The duty of a good Christian is to take off what pain he can, though he knows not in what measure; and if he diminishes but some little, the use of Indulgences is both good and profitable. I leave that jeer of the Daemoniack with the Doctor; and tell him that if one poor soul were possessed with a legion of Deviles, and had moral assu­rance that he is freed of some (though he knows not of how many) that little releasement would be of com­fort.

Page 93. He goes on doubting. It may be your Qua­dragenes, are not carenes, &c. It may be you have pur­ehased but some lighter thing; and then, if your demerit a­rise [Page 103] to so many Carenes, and you have purchased but meer Quadragenes, you may stay longer in Purgatory then you ex­pected. Answ. It may be the Doctor is deceived in all he saith here: It may be a penitent gets all he expected. But admit he doth not, something is got, (he hath at least the merit of his work) though he knows not how much. The not knowing of his gain doth not lessen it. Though the Doctor knows not precisely how pure his Act of Charity is, the value of it is so much in the sight of God, neither more nor less, upon the account of his own not knowing it.

He saith again: It is not agreed among Doctors, whether a plenary Indulgence is to be extended beyond the taking off those Penances, which were enjoyned by the Confessor. Answ. Though it be most true that a plenary Indulgence pro­ceeding from lawful Authority, granted upon a Just and Pious Cause, extends it self to the taking away of all pain, if the penitent complys with his duty; yet here we will not enter on this Question, nor say, how sincere­ly Turrecremata with the others are cited. Content we are with that which the Doctor does not deny, viz. That Indulgences take off those Penances enjoyned by the Confes­sor: And with this small Pittance of Pardon we con­clude that the Council of Trent saith true: Usus Indulgen­tiarum est salutaris. The use of Indulgences is whole­some.

He further tells us, page 94. That if a person be not capable of an Indulgence, because he is not in the state of Grace, he gains nothing. Answ. No one doubts of this. The only wonder is that our Doctor spends his Ink and Paper to no better purpose. Soon after he saith, that Pope Adrian troubles the whole affair again, and for it he cites Petrus Suavis Polanus in his History of the Council of Trent to prove just nothing: Polanus his words are (though [Page 104] his Authority is little with me) Pontifex, qui ut Theolo­gus, &c. The Pope, who as a Divine had writ of Indul­gences (before Luther ever handled the matter) thought to establish by an Apostolical Decree, what he had formerly taught as a private Doctor. And what is this Doctrine of Adrian a private Doctor? Quando Indulgentia concedi­tur alicui, &c. When an Indulgence is granted to any body, it may be he doth not the work required to be done so perfectly, as to gain the whole Indulgence: Now if any thing be want­ing to the perfection of the work, he gains not the whole Indul­gence, but a part of it, corresponding to the Work, less well performed. What is here for the Doctors advantage? What is here against the Council of Trent? Usus Indul­gentiarum est salutaris. Something is got by Indulgences according to Adrian, who only spake as a private Doctor Were any thing amiss, as in reason there is not. But here I must tyre you with a piece of the Doctors subtil­ty, who saith, That if the Indulgence be only given accord­ing to the worthiness of the work done, then that (viz. the work) will avail of it felf, without any grant from the Church. A strong Objection! I answer, The work will avail of it self to merit, and if penal, to some satisfaction, but not to the releasing of so much temporal pain as the In­dulgence takes off, in case it be worthily comply'd with.

The Doctors greater heap of dangers, which he sets down from his 6. number of pag. 94. to 98. hath so little danger of an Objection, that to read them is to answer them. For what sence is there to tell us, That we must be sure of the Authority of him that gives the Indulgence? We have all Moral assurance for it, and incomparably greater then any one hath in England, that his Minister Preaches with Authority to Preach, or delivers true Do­ctrine. What sence is there to ask. If one has an In­dulgence [Page 105] for the Article of death, and dies not then; whe­ther a new one is to be got for the next sickness? As doughty an objection it is, that he hath concerning the Gregorian Calendar: as likewise, his doubt whether a Pope can recal an Indulgence granted by his Predecessor. This and a great deal more which the Doctor has con­cerning this matter is (he himself knows it) most emp­ty stuff.

But you'll ask what I say to the great objection he toucheth on here: pag. 96. and proposeth more large­ly in the beginning of 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.

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 [Page 108] 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. [Page 109] 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. 'Tis 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 Indulgence [...] is granted, the man [Page 110] 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 [Page 111] 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 [Page 112] 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 [Page 113] 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.

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 [Page 215] 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 [Page 116] 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; [Page 117] 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 Unregenerate, as Infidels and those who want Faith; I see not why they are not Damnable al­so in the Regenerate; for these by reason of the great knowledge they have of Christian Profession, seem more obliged upon that very account to avoid venial sins, then Infidels or the Unregenerate. 2. I Argue thus: Doctor Taylor is (we'll suppose it) a man who loves God; we'll suppose also, what he saith, page 95. is true; That no man lives without the intromission of venial sins daily; from whence it follows that Doctor Taylor hath such a heap of evils in his Soul, which (though [Page 118] he loves God) of their own Nature, and the rigor of Gods Justice may damn him for ever. If so, I ask why Gods Justice (overcome as it were by Mercy) is less severe to these sins, then to others which we call great and Mortal? No Reason can be given, but that those lesser sins are venial, pardonable in their own Na­ture; these greater deserve the severity of his Ju­stice. Pardonable I say they are, and little, ante­cedently to Gods Justice and Mercy, and therefore mer­cy makes them not so, but finds them pardonable, be­cause little.

Hence it follows, that no heap of venial sins consi­dered as venial, can equalize the gravity of one Mortal offence; for though the growth and numerous augmen­tation of them add more misery to a Soul; yet their increase is (as Divines speak) in inferiori ordine in a lower Degree of Malice, and reach no more to the e­normity of a mortal sin, (which make us enemies to God) then a thousand idle words reach the indignity of high Treason against a Prince or Soveraign. I say considered as venial, for if the careless multiplying of venial sins drive us on to the next step or danger of of­fending mortally; the case is altered; Qui amat pericu­lum peribit in eo. He that loves danger shall perish in it.

The Doctor adds pag. 107 ( That this Doctrine of sins venial gives rest to mens consciences: and that concerning such sins we are bidden to be quiet) I answer, His mistake is notorious. We inculcate, God knows, the danger of those lesser evils, we lay open their Malice, and say, That for every idle word an account must be given before a severe Judge. O but saies he, 'Tis impossible to tell in a thousand cases which are, and which are not venial sins: And pag. (108) If a Confessor says that's venial which is [Page 119] mortal, your Soul is betrayed. Why so good Doctor? I answer then: The penitents duty is not perfectly to know what is, and what is not venial; but to have hearty sorrow for his sins committed, whether great or little. For no man saith I grieve for my sins as little or only veni­al; but most securely thus: I am sorry for them all, as God knows them offensive to his Divine Majesty: And answerable to this sorrow the Confessor gives absoluti­on; therefore though his knowledge may in some cases fail, and not rightly distinguish between sins mortal and venial; yet his absolution is good, for he absolves from all, whereof the Penitent humbly contrite, accuseth himself guilty.

THe Doctor pag. 110. Sect. 7. lays about him to undo our Leading men concerning the Do­ctrine they hold of a probable Opinion. Brief­ly, The Judgment of Divines is this: That if an Opinion well examined by learned men, be not contrary to known received Doctrine, or any decision of the Church, it may be safely followed in practice; and this, though one grave Doctor says it; Provided, I say, [Page 120] that his Judgment be not opposite to the general recei­ved Doctrine of others.

The ground of this assertion is: Innumerable difficul­ties dayly occur in a Moral life relating to the practice of Vertue, to the shunning of sin, to the doing of Justice; In fine, to a Christian mans Obligation in a thousand cases; which difficulties can with no evidence be de­cided either by Scripture, or definition of the Church. Divines therefore, who are supposed both rational and best versed in the Principles of Christian Religion un­avoydably must, when evidence cannot be had, opina­tively Judge and give a probable decision to the doubts proposed: and this I think neither our Doctor, nor any Protestant living can deny. For,

If a Judge comes to Doctor Taylor and tells him, Sir, this very day I am to pronounce Sentence against a sup­posed Delinquent, or must free him. To give sentence against him I have Accusers enough, and plenty of Wit­nesses: None can except against them, their proofs will make him guilty; yet I know most certainly by my pri­vate knowledge that the man is innocent; my difficulty now is, whether as a publick person and Judge, I may condemn him as guilty upon the attestation of these pub­lick Witnesses, or quit him (though to my prejudice) on the certain knowledge I have of his innocency. What will the Doctor say to this case? will he plead igno­rance? He cannot; for both in his Books and Sermons he takes upon him to decide the greatest Controversies in Faith; and therefore of necessary must here answer a difficulty in practice: let him say what he pleaseth, he can do no more, but follow a probable Opinion; for if he counsels the Judge to free this supposed delinquent, he hath a whole Army of School-men against him, if to [Page 121] condemn him, he hath as many contrary; none of these Doctors can be supposed to speak against the evi­dence of truth; therefore they only deliver their proba­ble Opinions, and so must our Doctor do likewise if he speaks with either one side or other.

A thousand such cases are almost endlesly proposed, where the Wit of man must rest upon probability, without reaching to evidence in every particular case; only this reflex evidence we have, that none can sin who follows the dictamen of Prudence. But he that adheres to a probable Opinion follows Prudence, (when evidence cannot be had) therefore he is blamless and sins not. yet,

One word more with our Doctor, who (pag. 79.) talks of something, Their Writers have often proved in their Sermons and Books of Conscience. I ask him there­fore, seeing they have such books; whether there Wri­ters resolve every particular case of conscience upon cer­tain undoubted Principles of Faith: if he says no; then they have probable Opinions among them also. If, yes; This very saying is at most no more then probable; and will be (upon solid Reasons) contradicted by a hun­dred as Learned Schollers as the Doctor is; therefore he must decide the case upon a prudent Opinion, and pro­bability only. Yet more.

Can the Doctor perswade himself that all he saith in his Book runs on with such evidence, that a judicious Reader must hold it demonstrative? No. The most he can think, is that he discourseth probably; and yet, by this meer probability he hopes to disswade the World from Popery. I say the most he can think; for I profess (and I have thousands will 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 122] 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.

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 [Page 124] 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 [Page 126] 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: Where to find it no man knows, nor whether it relates to quaest. 7. or the Ex­travag. Next follows, Extravag. de Bigamis. There is nothing de bigamis in the Extravag. in decret. tit. 21. There is de bigamis non ordinandis, cap. 5. yet nothing to this purpose; and I dare boldly affirm that in all the Canon Law, he shall not find either that Do­ctrine he attributes to Albertus Pighius, or That Fornica­tion is more Lawful then Marriage in any. I wonder why the Doctor when he cites Campegius and Pighius for that filthy Doctrine of a Priests living more holily with a Concu­bine, then he that's Married; places directly against it, in his Margent the Canon Law; distinct. 82. can. Praes­biter [Page 127] in glossa, as if the Doctrine were allowed of. In a word, there is no such thing, but expresly the contra­ry. The words are thus: Cap. 5. Presbiter. Si For­nicationem feceret, quanquam secundum canones Apostolorum debeat deponi: tamen, juxta Authoritatem Beati Papae silvestri, si in vitio non perduraverit, sed sua sponte con­fessus adjecit, ut resurgat, decem annis in hunc modum pae­niteat tribus quidem mensibus privato loco a caeteris remo­tus, pane, & aqua, a vespera in vesperam utatur. A Priest, if he commits Fornication, although by the Canon of the Apostles he is to be deposed, yet according to St. Sylve­sters appointment, if he persever not in that state of sinning, but having confessed willingly, amends his life, he is to do Penance for ten years in this manner. For the first three Months he is to live a part from others, and from Evening to Evening have only Bread and Water, &c. And still that Chapter goes on prescribing further and most se­vere Penances to such a Delinquent. Read I beseech you the whole Chapter, and never leave off to admire our mistaken Doctor.

Page 113. he cites Durandus: Sent. lib. 4. distinct. 33. (but gives you not the Question under the Distinction.) Well, he means quaest. 2. towards the end. Durandus his words are: Quod autem quidam dicant, quod est pec­catum mortale de se, (nempe Fornicatio) exclusâ omni lege positivâ, Divinâ & humanâ, non bene intelligo. But for what some say, that Fornication by it self is a mortal sin excluding all positive Law Divine and humane: I well understand not. Thus Durandus: And though his, non bene intelligo, be not assertive; yet he saith too much; and is therefore contradicted by the generality of most Learned Doctors. His Opinion then (ac­cording to the Rule given above) is not proba­ble. [Page 128] One Swallow makes no Summer, nor one Divine against the general received Do­ctrine of others, makes no probable Opini­on.

Next he cites Martinus de Magistris asserting, that it is not Heretical, to believe simple Fornication to be no sin. Answ. I have not now that Author by me; but yet believe, that the Doctor wrongs him. If he held such a Tenet; I say it is Heretical, and conse­quently no probable Opinion. Perhaps he may favour Durands Error too much, and that's all: I little re­gard what Daniel Tilenus saies, he was an Heretick, and Writ a Book that the Pope of Rome is magnus ille & proprie dictus Antichristus. I think the Doctor will not say so.

Next the Doctor cites Cardinal Tolet. Instruct. sacerd. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 15. Saying, That if a Noble man be set upon, and may escape by going away, he is not tyed to it, but may kill him that intends to strike him with a stick. Answ. The Doctor mangles Tolets Doctrine, and wrongs him exceedingly; whose words are: Ex quo fit, ut si nobilis invasus possit vitam salvare fugiendo; non tenetur, (si inde infamian contrahit) fugere, sed occi­dere hostem potest, si aliter vitam cum honore tutari non po­test. Whence it follows that if a Noble man set on, might save his life by running away, he is not obliged to it, if he gets infamy by his running away; but may kill the aggressor, if otherwise, he cannot defend his life with Honour. Now comes the stick: Similiter si non potest fugere injuri­am notabilem inferendam, ut ligni percussionem paratam, po­test etiam tunc occidere inimicum. In like manner if this Noble man cannot avoid a notable injury, ready for him, as is a Bastinado, or a stroke with a Cudgel [Page 129] he may then kill his Enemy. Compare these words of Tolet with those of the Doctor, and you'll see a diffe­rence.

Tolet saith again, lib. 4. cap. 13. (saith the Do­ctor) That if a man without advertency speaks a blasphemy in a strong passion, not considering what he says, sins not. Answ. Yet he adds: Nisi cum homo esset assuetus Blasphemare, nec vult emendationem: talis enim pec­caret mortaliter tunc, quia est in culpâ praecedenti quia non abstulit occasionem peccati. Unless such a man were accustomed to Blaspheme and will not amend; for then he would sin mortally in the precedent fault, and because he took not away the occasion of sin. These words the Doctor omits, to make Tolets Doctrine o­dious, which yet is grounded in this certain Princi­ple; that as sin is a free act; so it must arise from a knowledge or advertency of that evil, the will voluntary embraseth. Hence you may solve that other Quotation out of Tolet, lib. 5. cap. 10. viz. If a man be beastly drunk and then commits For­nication, Fornication is no sin; solve it I say; for the use of Reason is requisite to every sin; here is no use of Reason, Ergo, no sin. And pray you, will the Doctor say that Lot sinned mortally, when so drunk as he was; he committed Incest with his Daughters: Or will he hang a meer natural Sot in England, (who hath not Reason to know good from evil) for stealing thirteen pence half-penny? I would have this case plainly resolved by the Do­ctor, if he holds that Lot sinned mortally, and his resolution brought to a clear and certain Principle; for if he gives not evidence in the decision of the case against Tolet, he can not by his own Rule make use of a probable Opinion.

Once more Tolet is cited, page 114. for saying lib. 5. cap. 13. If a man desires Carnal polution that he may be eased of his Carnal temptations, or for his health, it were no sin. An­sw. He highly abuseth Tolet; who speaks of no Lascivi­ous or Carnal desire; so far is he from this, that he saith; if one takes complacency in it, Ob delectationem, for the delight had, he sinneth mortally; and then adds: Dico ob delectationem, quia complacere ob sanitatem, vel, ut carnales tentationes non sint ita vehementes, non esset peccatum. I say for delight, for to be glad of it for health, or that carnal tentations be not so violent, it is no sin. The end or motive is here far different; but to desire or de­light in that filthy act, is ever a sin and mortal.

Yet one citation more remains of Eman. Sa which will make the Doctor famous; he referrs us to Sa, Tit. debitum conjugale n. 6. who (saith he) affirms, that if a man lyes with his intended wife before Marriage, it is no sin, or a light one only. Answ. Hear, I beseech you, Sa his own words in my Edition printed at Antwerp anno 1599. (and never cease to wonder at what the Doctor saith) n. 6. Copulariante benedictionem aut nullum, aut lene peccatum est, (& si quidam mortale esse putant) quin etiam expedit, si multum illa (Benedictio) differatur. That is, For a man and Wife to lye together now married, before the Solemn Benediction of the Sacrament (not before Mar­riage as our Doctor unworthily tells yee) although some think it a mortal sin, is not so, but at most venial. Yes, its sometimes expedient, if Benediction be put off for a long time, that they live together as Man and Wife; Did you ever hear of a Doctor that doth not distinguish betwixt the Sacrament of Marriage, and the Benediction of the Married couple? Thus much of the seventh Section.

THe Doctor in his 8, and 9 ^th. Section hath much sleight work, and his 10 ^th. Section is a story of Exorcisms. Of these a word. In passing I must not o­mit to make him memorable for his quotations, you know this is my chiefest task.

Pag. 117. Sect. 8. he saith. They teach, (we Catho­licks,) that prayers themselves ex opere operato, or by natural work it self, do prevail, for it is not essential to prayer, for a man to think particularly of what he sayes; or, of the things signified by the words: So, (saith he) Suarez teaches. And where think you? lib. 3. de Ora­ratione cap. 4. sayes the Doctor. Briefly. He should first have cited the Tome, and the general Title of it thus; Tomo 2. de Statu Religionis before he came to the Book and chapter, but we will pardon this Lesser Fault, and complain of a greater, and it is, that he wrongs Suarez unpardonably. Suarez sayes no where in that whole chapter, (nor any Author I e­ver read) that prayers prevail ex opere operato, or by the work it self done, as the Sacraments prevail. He excludes no where attention, but requires it in prayer. Hear this Learned Authour num. 3. (in the chapter now cited.) Imprimis necessariam esse attentionem ut oratio honeste fiat, communis est sententia doctorum. First that attention is necessary, that prayer be [Page 138] well done, is the common opinion of Doctors, and this not onely in prayers we have of obligation, but in others also not obligatory; for, although (saith he) we are not obliged to pray (in such, and such circum­stances,) yet if we do it, we are bound to pray debito modo in a dutiful way and manner. He adds more to this purpose, Num. 4. and Num. 5. concludes, that that vocal prayer, or speaking to Almighty God which is made without mental attention is no prayer at all. Whence it follows that who prayes, must either at­tend to what he sayes, or have his mind so devoutly elevated to Almighty God that his prayers prove ac­ceptable: for if that known Maxim be true, Divi­sum cor non impetrat quod petit: a heart divided in prayer (that is, partly in Heaven, partly in earth) gets little, much more a heart which attends to no good thing when we pray, doth the work without fruit. Attention therefore is even necessary, actual, or virtual, whereof see Suarez Num. 7.

To what the Doctor opposeth next after, thus: Nay, it is not necessary to the essence of prayer that he who prayes should think de ipsa locutione, of the speaking it self. Suarez answers from his Number 15. to the end of the chapter. His discourse is long, I'le therefore give you the substance of his resolution by proposing to our Doctor one or two questions. Suppose, Dr. Taylor hath made to himself a set form of prayer which he knows most perfectly, and sayes it before his Sermon, yet now and then surprised by an unvo­luntary distraction thinks not de ipsa locutione. I ask whither the fruit of such prayer is lost, and the es­sence of it perish? if he says yes, he speaks a paradox, and must either conclude that few Ministers pray to [Page 139] the purpose; or tell us a strange story, that they are never distracted in prayer.

Yet more, suppose Dr. Taylor while he saith his pray­er, hath his mind so deeply fixed on Almighty God that (though his tongue speaks) he thinks not of the speaking, but of God onely, and his immense good­ness: Will he also say that his prayer is worth no­thing? Tis impious to think it. Now hear Suarez at the end of his 17. number, and observe how he is abused. Non est, (saith he) de ratione orationis, ut cogitet orans de ipsa locutione, sed, satis est si cogitet de Deo cum quo loquitur. 'Tis, not of the essence of prayer to think of the speaking, but it is enough that he who prayes think of Almighty God with whom he speaks; for here is ascensio mentis ad Deum the lifting up of our heart to God, therefore true prayer. This of prayer in general, for those who have a set forme of prayer prescribed, (as Priests have) Suarez num. 19. requires a decent attention to the words, accor­ding to that of the Wise man. Ne temerè quid lo­quaris &c.

I must not quite omit that other cavil of our Do­ctor; It is not necessary (saith he) out of Suarez to think of the things signified by the words. Answ. God forbid it should be necessary; for if our Doctor should pray for Ʋrim and Thummim, and to have Such is the dark Language of D. Taylor and D. Pierce. his tongue touch'd with a coal from the Al­tar, and that God would bless him, and his, from that Empuse that met Apollonius Tyanaeus, and all remnants of embrodery from the The­opneust Aholiah, and finally from the pride of Popes stigmatiz'd by a prolepsis: Few I believe, and very few who pray with him, would think (because they [Page 140] understand not) of the things signified by these words, Yet, they pray, or do not pray: Angustiae undique. If the first: poor people may pray though they know not the thing signified by words. If they do not pray, all is vanity when they kneel down at such a prayer, and say Amen to it. The Doctor may say, they use no such language in prayer. Ans. They use worse in preach­ing, witness Dr. Pierce's late Sermon, whereof, part at least might by some industrie be turned into a long prayer, with all its pedantry and vain affectation. If so; I seriously ask whether a hundred old women, who heard such a prayer, said at Paul's Cross, and pray according to the sence of it; pray, or no? if they do, old 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 'tis 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, [Page 141] 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, ('tis 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 [Page 142] 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 Ʋrim and Thummim, or to have his tongue touch'd with a coal, &c.

Add to this, (and 'tis 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.

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. [Page 143] 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. Ʋt 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 8 ^th. Se­ction is onely talk without substance. And,

Truly his. 9 ^th. 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 [Page 145] 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 15 ^th. 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 [Page 146] 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 se [...]lk in generalities, and that all is not blasphemy the Do▪ [...] at.

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 9 ^th 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 [Page 148] 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 on [...] 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 9 ^th Section.

Page 126 he sl [...]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 sl [...]ighting also that poor Taylor of Hippo, by name Florentius, who having lost his Cloak, 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 [Page 149] 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 half­pence. Thirdly he sl [...]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 [Page 150] 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 nonū. 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 [...]his saith S. Austin was done [...]pitulatione memorati Martyris by the help and assi­stance of S. Stephen.

Learn therefore, (and 'tis the main drift of S. Austin,) that Saints hear ou [...] prayers, pray for us, yes, and obtain by [...]ir in [...]ssion many a large blessing. So the Sain [...] in th [...] [...]suing ninth Chaprer which relates to the miracles [...]entioned in the prece­dent; pro ista fide mortui sunt qui [...] à Demino im­petrare [Page 151] 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 [Page 152] 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. Xa [...] 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 [...]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 beautified the Church, and gained millions to it, I mean the glory of miracles: And this [Page 153] is done by a Doctor to maintain his wordy Religion made up of a few abused Scripture phrases and I know not what other canting language without fruits of Re­ligion, without efficacy of doctrine, without mira­cles, or finally any one mark of credibility, that may prudently evidence it to be Christian.

Now concerning our Doctors other exception a­gainst pious good people, who seek the patronage of Saints in time of danger or otherwise, I'le briefly give you one instance taken out of S. Gregory Nyssen a wor­thy Bishop, who was present at the first Council of Constantinople, and writ the Symbolum Fidei there; read him I beseech you in the Oration he hath de S ^t [...] Theodoro Martyre, with me, it is in his second Tome Printed at Paris 1615. pag. 1011. and pag. 1017. Be­cause the impious Scythians threatned a war to the Country, Timemus afflictiones (saith S. Gregory) ex­pectamus pericula, non longe absunt scelestes Scythae bellū adversus nos parturientes: We fear afflictions, we expect danger; the wicked Scythians, are as it were, in labour for a war against us. What doth the Saint? he be­takes himself thus by earnest prayer to S. Theodore a Soldier; Intercede, ac deprecare pro patria apud com­munem Regem, & Dominum: Make intercession, and pray for our country to him who is our common King and Lord. Again; Ʋt miles propugna (pro nobis) ut Martyr pro conservis utere libertate loquendi: As you are a soldier, fight for us and defend us, as a martyr, speak freely for your f [...]llow servants here. Finally, a few lines after, Quod si majori etiam opus fuerit ad­vocatione, &c. And if more prayer be needful, assemble together the whole quire of your brethren martyrs and jointly pray for us. Admone Petrum, excita Paulum [Page 154] Joannem item, &c. Put S. Peter in mind, stir up S. Paul, and that beloved disciple of our Lord, S. John, that these be sollicitous for the Churches; they once wore chains, passed dangers, and finally died. Thus S. Gregory. If therefore this worthy Bishop sought protection and pa­tronage of a Soldier Martyr, in danger of war, well may a frail woman in danger of sinning become a sup­pliant to S. Mary Magdalen, which our Doctor likes not of. And for Gods sake tell me, what mischief is it to Christianity, (if Saints hear our prayers,) that a Painter have a special devotion to S. Luke skilful in that Art, though our Doctor (no man knows why) holds it superstition. I say if Saints hear our Prayers, and that they do so, this very Petition made by S. Gregory to S. Theodore is my warrant, neither Do­ctor Andrews, nor Chamier, nor Whitby, who vainly endeavour to make the Oration spurious, (because they know not what else to say) shall utter so much as a probability against it.

AFter this long digression I return to my task im­posed on me, and needs must say a word of our Doctors quotations. I find in his pag. 132. S. Austin cited [Page 155] for this excellent truth; Tutius, & incundius loquar ad meum Jesum quam ad aliquem Sanctorum Spiri­tuum Dei: I'le speak more safely and more chearfully to my Lord Jesus, then to any of the Saints or Spirits of God. And 'tis worthily spoken, but where find we this? The Doctor points us to S. Austin, Visitatione Minorum Sept. S. Aug. what this Sept. S. Aug. signifies no man knows, and less know I where to find Visitat Mi­norum. Perhaps it is an error of the Printer. However these words are in S. Austin's 9 ^th Tome lib 2. de Visita­tione Infirmorum, (not Minorum) cap. 2. which no way exclude praying to Saints, but manifestly suppose it. Tutius, & Iucundius clear all, and render this Sence, 'Tis good and safe to pray to Saints, but our Lord Je­sus is eminently above them, and therefore more safely and chearfully we pray to Jesus.

Page 133. he cites Cardinal Bessarion apud Bodin, undervaluing certain Saints; and our Doctor gives you a list of them thus, S. Fingar, S. Anthony of Pa­dua, S. Christopher, Charles Borromeus, Ignatius Loy­ola, Xaverius, then deceitfully adds, and many others, of whom, saith the Doctor, Bessarion complained, that many of them were such persons whose life he could not approve, &c. observe here first, the Context of our Doctor, and how he cheats his Reader, whom he would have believe, that beside many others, Bessarion reproved the life of S. Fingar, S. Anthony of Padua, S. Charles Borromeus, S. Ignatius Loyola, and S. Xave­rius, yet these three last blessed men were not in the world when Bessarion lived; for he quitted this mor­tal life Anno Domini 1472. 2. I affirm that our Do­ctor shall never shew out of Bessarion, that he unsaints any approved for Sanctity by the Roman Catholick [Page 156] Church. S. Fingar (though some say) S. Anselm accounted him a blessed man was never yet canoni­zed; and I wonder what our Doctor hath against S. Christopher of whom little is known. Certainly, (for I have run sl [...]ightly over some works of Bessarion) this Grecian Bishop and Cardinal, employed in so many Embassies as we read of, troubled not himself to cavil either with S. Christopher, or S. Anthony of Padua. 3. Our Doctor deals not wel with his Reader, for he should for Bessarions assertion have remitted him to the Cardinals own book, and not to Bodinus. or Iohn Pudding, a man of Atheistical Principles, whose authority with the judicious is altogether as little as the Doctor's. Bodinus his Republick I have, but yet cannot get a sight of his Method. Historica to which the Doctor remits me.

Next he cites Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona affirming, that all, who are canonized by the Pope, cannot be said to be in Heaven. And where find we this assertion of Triumphus? in two places, answers our Doctor, viz. quaest. 14. ad quartum, and quaest. 17. ad quartum. Observe here the Doctors ignorance; For, (to say nothing of his unskilfull omitting the Article) these two quotations ad quartum are the Authours Objections, not his resolution. The resolution follows, no way asserting what the Doctor saith, but contrary thus: That the Pope, in canoni­zing a Saint by the exterior evidence he hath of his Sanctity, cannot err; Although, saith this Authour, neither Pope, nor Church can know certainly, per certi­tudinem causae, by the certainty of the cause, that all canonized possess beatitude. He saith, per certitudi­nem causae, because God, who only endues a Soul [Page 157] with Charity causaliter, is only conscious, that it is enriched with this gift. The Pope and Church know not this causaliter, but by the effects of Charity shew­ed to the world: Therefore saith Anconitanus quaest. 14. cit. art. 4. Ad prim. dicendum, quod licet Papa non possit scire, per certitudinem causae, &c. 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 Holy­dayes 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 [Page 158] 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.

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; Ile 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 4 ^th. 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 [Page 160] 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 [Page 161] 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 [Page 162] 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 banish [...] 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 [Page 164] 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. [Page 165] 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 Cross frights him, he may know, 'tis allowed by all Anti­quity, and Blessed S. Austin thus Tom. 4. lib. uno de catech. rudibus cap. 20. a little after the beginning. Crucis signo infronte hodie tanquam in poste signandus es, omnesque Christiani signatur, Little ones and all Christians are signed with the signe of the Cross. And what, besides the things now mentioned, can be bla­mable in our approved exorcisms? I say approved; for, if any other, either is, or hath been extant, just­ly reprehensible, we defend it not. The anathema­tizing the Devil by the name of Beelzebub, Satan, (or any other we have in Scripture) is no more Supersti­on then to call an open Rebel, Traitor: neither can the casting of his picture into the fire, (if any exorcist does it) be thought an action more superstitious then to hang a Traitor up in effigie, when his person is out of reach; hanging is for the one, burning is for the other. I say, if any exorcism allows this, for the Ro­man [Page 166] Ritual, we chiefly stand to, mentioneth no such burning.

NOw a word to two Objections of our Doctor, if these things (saith he p. 142. (meaning Exor­cisms) come from God, let them shew their warrants. Answ. We have shewed already. The power given by Christ our Lord to his Church for the casting out of Devils is our warrant. The definitions of Councils, prescribing a form of Exorcism, how to cast them out, are our warrant. The Authority of the Gravest Fathers that ever lived, approving the conjuration of Devils, is our warrant. Their distinguishing be­tween the enchantments of Heathens, Incantations, Witchery, and these pious Exorcisms, is our warrant. The practice of the Church, and use of these conju­rations in all Ages, is our warrant. The wonders God hath done by Exorcisms, (both ancient and mo­dern Authours relate them) are our warrant. Most assured, and certain experience in these our dayes, that Devils are cast out of possessed persons, is our warrant. What then remaines but that we retort the Argument, and tell our Doctor, if after so many con­vincing, manifest, and undeniable proofs, (that these [Page 167] Exorcisms come from God) He unworthily decrys them, let him shew his warrant, and answer my argu­ments. But this he shall never do while by opening only one Cyprian, or a Justin Martyr (to say nothing of others) I can conjure him to silence.

In the interim, I would know of our Doctor whe­ther he thinks there are, or have been in this our age, persons possessed of Devils? If he says no, most mani­fest experience (of Devils speaking in an unknown tongue, of their violent torturing a body, and mo­ving it above all force of nature, &c,) prove the con­trary. Again, Anciently there were these Energu­meni, and very numerous. And why not now? are any Devils dead since that time? or less malitious now then anciently? are men in these dayes better secured from them then the primitive Christians? Toyes. Nothing is probable. Therefore the Do­ctor must confess, if, he'l deal ingeniously, that there are sometimes these Energumeni. All cannot be ficti­on that authors write of possessed persons, and if some onely be true, most deplorable is the condition of such as are truly possessed; who, destitute of comfort (if old Papists help not) may sigh, and groan under their misery: relief they can have none from Dr. Tay­lor (who opposes all Exorcisms) and as little from his fellow Ministers in England, for few among them that ever yet I heard of who either dare encounter a Devil in a possessed body, or if they doe it, they shew them­selves unlucky Exorcists, for they never give poor sufferers any ease.

The other Objection that our Doctor hath ( pag. 141.) is taken out of Origen. Tract. 35. in Matth. and 'tis the onely thing in substance I find in this tenth [Page 168] Section, though I will assure the Reader (having perused three Editions of Origen.) that the Doctor both omits in the words he gives you, what Origen hath; and afterward, conceals what may serve for an Explication, if Origen, deserve it, for some say he erred in this place; so Baronius ad annum Christi, 56. n. 4. in the Antwerp print 1612. others with Bellar­min incline to think that these Treatises on S. Matth. (as the 5 ^th. is not) are not Origens, viz. Bellar. de Scriptorib. Ecclesias. However I'le give you Origens own words (in the Basil print, anno 1571.) pag. 187. uttered on this occasion, that the Prince of the Jews adjured our Saviour, whereupon he makes a Digres­sion thus. Quaeret aliquis si convenit vel daemones adjurare? Some (saith he) may ask whether it be meet to adjure Devils? Then adds, Et qui respicit ad mul­tos qui talia facere ausi sint, dicet, non sine ratione fieri. And he who looks on the practice of many that dare to do so, will say, 'tis done not without reason (these words our Doctor omits totally) Origen. goes on (and here is the onely difficulty) qui autem aspicit Jesum imperantem doemonibus, &c. But he that be­holds Jesus commanding Devils, and giving power to his Disciples over them, and to heal diseases, will say; that to adjure Devils, is not according to the power gi­ven by our Saviour. Judaicum est enim. For its Ju­daical. Thus Origen; And here ends our Doctor, concealing what follows immediately thus. Hoc, & si aliquando a nostris tale aliquid fiat, simile fit ei, quod a Solomone Scriptis adjurationibus, solent daemones ad­jurari, &c. This (Judaical adjuration) if some­time any such thing be done by our men, is like that, which Devils are wont to be adjured with, out of cer­tain [Page 169] written adjurations of Solomon. Sed & ipsi qui utuntur adjurationibus illis aliquoties nec idoneis con­stitutis libris utuntur. But even they who use these ad­jurations at some time use not right Books. Quibus­dam autem & de Hebraeo acceptis adjurant daemonia: Taking certain things out of the Hebrew they adjure Devils. Hitherto you have faithfully Origens words, and his whole Context in order; which in rigor (all circumstances well weighed) only condemn Judaical conjurations, or such Books (not allowable) vitiated perhaps with Jewish Exorcisms. For most certain it is that the Jews had their Exorcists; and that their power of casting out Devils ceased at the beginning of Christian Religion, or soon after: read Acts the 19. v. 13. Certain it is also, if we believe Josephus the Jew, lib. 8. de antiquitate, cap. 2. (with me, folio 68. versus finem) that Solomon had his Exor­cisms composed, as some most Learned are of Opi­nion, after his fall into Idolatry. These and such like adjurations Origen reproves, and not any Christian Catholick Exorcism.

My reason is, first, that Origen contradicted not Fathers more ancient then himself; such were Justi­nus Martyr, and Tertullian above cited; these ad­jured Devils, therefore Origen might do so. 2. Lib. 1. contra Celsum with me (in the Edition above named) pag. 637. 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; [Page 170] 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 [Page 171] 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.

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 [Page 173] 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. Ile remain in my place, that is the Church. Ile place be­fore me the hallowed Vessels of Water, there Ile 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 [Page 174] 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 by Enchantment, and hindred from burning by Witch­craft) called for water (a world of Jews being pre­sent) made the signe of the Cross upon it, put his finger into the Vessel of the blessed Water, saying, in the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, whom my Fathers crucified, Fiat virtus in hac aquâ ad reprobationem omnis incantationis & Magiae quam hi fecerunt. Let there be vertue in this water, for the disolving the charms done by these men. Then, saith Epiphanius, he took some of the water in his hand, sprinkled the several enchanted Furnaces with it. Et dissoluta sunt incantamenta, the Witchcraft ceased, the fire burned, the people who saw the wonder, cryed aloud, one God there is, who helps the Christians, and so departed. Add hereunto, if you please, a like Miracle done by Josephus, upon a possessed man, and with Holy Wa­ter also. Epiphanius relates it in the precedent pag. 60. Joseph, saith he, having shut the doors, took water into his hands, blessed it with the signe of the Cross, besprinkled the raging man with it, commanded the Devil in the Name of Jesus to be gone, and the possessed party was cured. This Miracle saith Epiphanius the Jews knew, and great talk there was of it; some said, Josephus had opened the Gazophilacium, and finding there the Name of God writ, did the wonder by force of this Name. It was true he did the Mira­cle, but not as the Jews imagined. Thus Epipha­nius.

In the last place, Ile give you Theodorets Testimo­ny [Page 175] lib. 5. Ecclesiast. histor. cap. 21. in the Colen print anno 1577. pag. 312. where he tells you also, how the Devil hindred fire from burning, though wood, of its own nature combustible, was applied to it. The Charm (to be brief) was told the Pastor, who forth­with ran to the Church, and commanded a little ves­sel of water to be given him; this he put under the holy Altar, falling prostrat on the ground, earnestly begged of Almighty God not longer to suffer this Ty­ranny of the Devil, &c. prayer ended, he made the signe of the Cross upon the water, gave it to Equiti­us a Deacon, commanding him withall speed, to sprinkle the enchanted fire with it, which done, saith Theodoret, daemon aufugit, the Devil ran away, the water burned like Oyl, and the fire consumed the wood in a moment. If any desire more for the bles­sing of water, let him read Tertull. lib. de baptismo cap. 4. S. Ambros. lib. 2. de Sacram. cap. 5. and S. Austin Tract. 118. in Joannem. For the blessing of Oyl, and the Paschal Candle, see Bellarmin above cited.

Let us now return to our Doctor and make my as­sertion good, viz. That he hath not so much as a syllable of either Scripture, Council, or Father, against the blessing of Water. He cites pag. 143. S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 4. Saying, that in the Holy and Divine Mysteries of our Faith, necessary it is to do nothing by chance or of our own heads, nor without Scripture; From whence our Doctor must argue thus (if he proves any thing) but to bless water is one of the Divine Mysteries of Faith, and done by chance or of our own heads, without holy Scripture: Therefore 'tis un­warrantable, and an Invention of man only. To this [Page 176] discourse, I answer. That it is neither one of the My­steries of Faith, which S. Cyril handles in the place now cited; (for he speaks there only of the equality of the Holy Ghost with Father and Son) neither is it done by chance or of our own heads (witness the Fa­thers already cited) nor without Authority of Holy Scripture, (Sanctificatur autem per verbum Dei & ora­tionem, saith the Apostle) nor finally is it against S. Cyril, who possitively to the Doctors confusion, saith that water may be blessed, but two leaves only be­fore his own quotation; Catech. 3. with me pag. 401. (Bibliot Patrum. Colen. print, Tom. 4.) his words are. Nam ut illa quae in Aris offeruntur, cum natura sint pura, invocatione daemonum impura efficiuntur: Sic contra, aqua simplex per Spiritus Sancti, Christi, & Patris invocationem accepta virtute, sanctitatem con­sequitur. As those things which are offered on Altars, (he means to Idols) when pure in their own nature, are made impure by the invocation of Devils: So on the contrary, simple Water is made holy, gets a sanctity by invocating the Holy Ghost, Christ our Lord, and his Eternal Father. Had the Doctor seen this Testimo­ny of S. Cyril, he would never have troubled his Reader with the other Quotation, more remote from the purpose, then York is distant from London.

Again, our Doctor excepts against S. Gregories Dialogues, and unworthily stiles them Romantick sto­ries, pag. 143. I answer; Had a frantick brain brought forth such an expression, none would have wondered; but that a grave Divine sl [...]ights these books, highly reverenced, both by the Greek and Latin Church, cannot be tollerated. In a word, the Do­ctor shall never be able with any shadow of proof, [Page 177] to infringe their authority. What therefore that Lear­ned Saint saith of Blessed Fortunatus curing a lame man, &c. is as certainly true, as that the Doctor err's in discrediting those Dialogues.

Next the good man is upon us with a jeer: They throw (saith he pag. 143.) this Water on sick Cows horns, on Childrens cradles, &c. Answ. And did not the Christian Italicus take water also from bles­sed Hilario, and cast it on his Enchanted stable, on his bewitched Horses, on his Chariot, on the place or Barriers from whence he used to run? Did not the Charm or Witchery cease upon this sprinkling of wa­ter? In so much that all cried out. Marnas victus a Christo est. Christ hath conquered Marnas. Most true it is; no lesse a Doctor then S. Hierom relates the story, in vita Hilarionis (Paris print) pag. 323. Our Doctor may turn to the page, and if he rever­ences S. Hierom, leave of his jeering.

THe Doctor ends this 11. Section, pag. 144. with a piece of scarce intelligible Divinity. Ʋpon the Sacraments (saith he) they are taught to rely with so little of Moral, and vertuous Dispositions, that the [Page 178] Efficacy of the one is made to lessen the necessity of the other. I answer, That every Sacrament (except Infant Baptism) requires a vertuous disposition: Pe­nance is of no Efficacy without Contrition, or at least Attrition: The other Sacraments styled Vivorum, require per se, Supernatural inherent Grace, previ­ous to their worthy receiving. How therefore the Efficacy of one, is made to lessen the necessity of the other, is Divinity, too dark to be understood.

The Doctor goes on. The Sacraments are taught to be so effectual by an inherent Vertue, that they are not so much made the Instruments of Vertue, as the Suppletory. Answ. Still we are in a cloud. To get out on't, our Doctor must unriddle this word Supple­tory. We say thus, and speak plain Language. God, in the operation of Sacraments, is the prime effici­ent cause of Grace; Christ, the Meritorious; Sacra­ments the Instrumental. Now, whether they work by an intrinsecal Vertue imprinted (as it were) on them, or are otherwise effectual, concerns nothing Catholick Religion. Supernatural inherent Grace we receive by them, when a soul is fitly disposed: This is our Doctrine. Yet we have more obscure Di­vinity; For he tells us, we teach, that Sacraments are not so much to increase Grace, as to make amends for the want of Grace. God only knows what he means by this making amends for the want of Grace: I do not. Qui potest capere capiat: We say ( without this making amends) that Grace is effectually given in every Sacrament to that soul, that comes worthily disposed.

The Doctor in his 12. Section, page 144. talks of Idolatry, but not understanding what Idola­try is, nor our Divines Tenets concerning the Wor­ship [Page 179] he speaks of, fights against shadows: I'll only leave him to Mr. Thorndike (a great Divine of his own) to learn of him what Idolatry is, and how far the Church of Rome is to be charg'd with it; and what the consequences of such a charge will be. Mr. Thorndike in his just Weights and Measures, chap. 1. discourseth it at large: He says pag. 2. If the Pope be Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters, we need not seek farther for the reason of the distance, we are to own the se­paration for our own act, and glory in it. He says a­gain, pag. 7. If it be true, viz. That the Papists be guilty of Idolatry; we cannot without renouncing our Christianity, hold communion with those whom we charge with it. So that if this Section of our Doctor which charges us with Idolatry, be true: Mr. Thorn­dike tells him there is no need of seeking farther for the reason of the distance; This must be it, viz. That they could not hold communion with Idolaters without re­nouncing their Christianity, and therefore they part­ed; which separation they own for their own act and glory in it: Yet Mr. Thorndike sayes, that if this be the best reason they can give for their separation, they must acknowledge themselves to be the Schismaticks: His own words are, Cap. 1. pag. 7. line 14. For in plain Termes we make our selves Schismaticks, by grounding our Reformation upon this pretence; and again in the same page line 29. So that, sayes he, should this Church declare, that the charge which we call Re­formation is grounded upon this Supposition, I must then acknowledge that we are the Schismaticks. Now that this Pretence, and this Supposition, are the same which our Doctor in his Section pretends and supposes us to be guilty of, viz. Idolatry, is evident by the [Page 180] whole Chapter now quoted; and by the Contents of it printed before the Chapter, which end thus; They that separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters, are thereby Schismaticks before God: How the Do­ctor will answer this to his own brother, I neither know, nor care; nor can I see how he can possibly avoid the Imputation of Schism in Mr. Thorndik's judgment: for he believes, or else he cheats his Charge, that we are Idolaters; if he does, he must in Mr. Thorndikes Opinion, and in all reason make that the ground of his Separation; And if he does do so, he is a Schismatick before God, sayes Mr. Thorndike. This may serve for answer to his charge in general; His particular Instances in what we are Idolaters, are; Worshipping of Images, sayes he, is a direct breach of the Second Commandment, an act of Idolatry, as much as the Heathens themselves were guilty of, &c. Mr. Thorndike shall answer for us again in the Book before cited, Cap. 19. in the Contents whereof, you may read this Proposition. Reverencing of Images in Churches is not Idolatry; In this Chapter, page 126. towards the bottome he has these words; Whether or no having Images in Churches be a breach of the Se­cond Commandment, can be no more question, then whether or no to have any Images be a breach of it; for it must forbid Images in Churches, because it forbids all Images: &c. This and what follows in that chap. clears the having of Images in Churches, from being a breach of the Second Commandment; Now to clear the Reverencing or Worshipping of them from being Idolatry, read the same Chapter on, and page 127. line 31. you shall find these words; But to the Images of Saints there can be no Idolatry, so long as [Page 181] men take them sor Saints; That is Gods creatures. Much less to the Images of our Lord; For it is the ho­nour of our Lord, and not of his Image. And again, line the last of this page, and page 128. Nay the Coun­cil it self (meaning the 2. of Nice) though it ac­knowledge that the Image it self is honoured, by the honour given to that which it signifieth, before the Image; yet it distinguisheth this honour from the honour of our Lord: and therefore teacheth not Idolatry, by teaching to honour Images; though it acknowledge that the Image it self is honoured, when it need not. This is quite contrary to our Doctors Divinity; The pious Children of the Church of England, may believe which they please of these two great Divines; the one is a Bishop, but the other seems the more wary man; For he makes a cautious proposal in the 1 Chap. of his Book quoted before, page 2. line 14. It were good, sayes he, that we did understand one another. And line 30. Yet it is necessary to provide that we contradict not our selves. But our Doctor never caring whom he understands, or who understands him, thinks it not necessary to provide that they contradict not one an­other, But rashly sayes what comes next, right or wrong. What he hath more, pag. 145, 146, 147. relate chiefly, ad modum colendi, or to the way of Worship; which toucheth nothing on Catholick Re­ligion, or the due reverence given to Images. Di­vines I know, dispute this point largely, their differ­ent Opinions make no Article of Faith. Let us agree that Images are to be worshipped in the Sense of those Fathers we cited above, and in Mr. Thorndikes Sense; And afterward, if the Doctor please, we'll discuss the Theological Difficulty, how they are to be wor­shipped. [Page 182] To what our Doctor has page 148. con­cerning the Idolatry of worshipping Consecrated Bread and Wine, Mr. Thorndike shall once more answer for us, who by good luck has the very Instance of the Pa­gans worshipping the Sun, which our Doctor sayes is all one with our worshipping the Consecrated Bread and Wine. But Mr. Thorndike I dare say will not believe him, until he answers the beginning of his 19. Chap. quoted before, page 125. the Contents of which at the very beginning have this Proposition: The worship of the Host in the Papacy is not Idolatry: If our Do­ctor will undertake to satisfie Mr. Thorndike, that he is mistaken in what he here professes to teach, I pre­sume he will oblige him highly; For he asks, pag. 5. line 22. of his Weights and Measures: Who will take upon him to shew us, that the worship of the Host in the Papacy is Idolatry? When these two great Doctors are agreed which of them teaches the truest Divinity concerning this Point, this Section may, and it may not too, require a farther Answer. Till then we'll leave them to dispute it: 'Tis pitty they should be parted: Cadmus his Brood that came into the world an unna­tural and extraordinary way, are a proper Embleme of all Hereticks; Their births are monstrous, and their ends as odd. Angry men that they are, they cannot agree, but without any other help will alwayes (if let alone) destroy one another.

Pag. 150. Sect. 13. He takes on, to tell those under his Charge, how matters stand in point of Religion, and saith; that we Catholicks dangerously err, yes, and injure Faith, spoil Hope, sin against Charity: In a word we are men, that bring Ruin to all Religion. Faith we injure, by creating new Articles; To this [Page 183] we have answered in the first Chapter, that not one new Article is created by us; though the Church, as occasion is, may more clearly explicate some old ones, and hath ever done so. We spoil, saith he, our Hope, by placing it on Creatures. Answ. Hope, good Doctor, is a Theological Vertue, and hath God, as he is our final good, for its formal Object. The finis qui is no Creature; the possession of this infinit good­ness, by a clear Vision, is; Both these, which will make us happy in Heaven, we hope for, and I think, without offence. Which way, the Doctors Hope tends I know not. We sin, saith he again, against Cha­rity by damning all that are not of our Opinion. Answ. First the Doctor sins most grievously against Charity by damning all his Ancestours, (his great great Grand-Father, and so upward for a thousand years) why? they were all old Papists, and as he tells us, had naughty Faith, spoiled Hope, great want of Chari­ty, the Salutary doctrine of Repentance torn in pieces, &c. But none can be saved with a Faith, Hope, Cha­rity and Repentance spoyled, and worth nothing; Therefore his Ancestours, (with thousand thousands of others) are in a sad condition, and all damned by his doctrin. I Answ. 'tis a Calumny to say we damn any for differences in Opinion. Now, if the Doctor will needs tell us what Faith, and what Opinion is ex­actly in every Tenet, he goes beyond his skill, and takes on him to teach his betters. Here is enough of his 13. Section where little is said, and less proved.

PAg. 152. the Doctor begins his first Section thus. That in the Church of Rome, it is publickly taught by their greatest Doctors, that it is lawful to lye, or de­ceive the question of the Magistrate, to conceal their name, and tell a false one, to elude all examinations, and to make them insignificant, and toothless, cannot be doubted, &c. I Answ. This Charge, as it is laid out, is most injurious. Not one amongst us say's, that a lye ever is, or can be lawful in any circum­stance; it is alwayes naught, and prohibited by the Law of God, and nature. None say, that we may elude all examinations of the Magistrate. The Pro­position is of so vast extent ( all examinations) that it looses credit with sober men. True it is, most grave Divines hold; that in certain cases of danger, and o­ther concernments, the ambiguous use of words, yes, and of mental restriction also, is allowable; but ever without a lye, never without just cause and Reason. Impious therefore were it, to make use of this Re­striction, in Contracts, Leagues, Promises, Vowes, or Oaths, yes, and most blameable in ordinary Conver­sation. But,

If a Confessor be asked by a Judge, or any body [Page 185] else whether a penitent confessed such a Sin, (though confessed) doth not the light of nature tell us, the question is, if possibly, to be eluded; or, if pressed on, utterly denyed with a No, he did not hear it? What will the Doctor answer here? will he say, yes? He betrayes the Penitent, and Sacrilegiously breaks the Seal of Confession. If he stands dumb, and say's no­thing, S. Austin lib▪ uno de mendacio ad Consent. cap. 13, post medium, rightly observes in a like case of danger, Tacendo eum prodimus: per nostram vel taci­turnitatem homo proditur; that by saying nothing we do as good as disclose the Secret, and tell where the con­cealed man lyes hid, and if so; much more doth the speechless Confessor in our case, (though he shakes his head twenty times) speaks out too plainly the Penitents Sin.

The Doctor therefore, with his excellent use of Con­fession in England, and we with ours, must of necessity find a way, not on the one Side to lye, (for this is ne­ver Lawful) and on the other, to keep the Seal of Confession safe and inviolable. How shall we do this? I can argue; if holy Jacob, when he positively affirmed Gen. 27. 19. that he was his Fathers first be­gotten Son Esau, (yet was not) told no lye, as many Fathers hold; wel may a Priest also, now in the case now proposed, though he positively affirms that he heard no such Sin in Confession, when he heard it, say no: He heard it not. Jacob said yes, that he was Isack's first begotten, yet was not, (and as we now suppose) said it without a lye; the Priest sayes, No: he heard not such a Sin (when he heard it) and this in like manner without a lye: The Parity is right e­very way, if Jacob was not a lyar. Be it how you [Page 186] wil, Christ our Lord certainly spake Truth, when he told his Disciples Joan. 7. 8. non ascendo, that he did not ascend to the Feast of the Jews, yet, when they went he, blessed Lord, ascended also. Here is some ambiguity of Speech; In the vulgar translation, which I follow, (though the Greek reads [...] nondum ascendo, and the Arabick nunc non ascendo) and because uttered by our Saviour is wholy irrepre­hensible.

To clear all, I ask of our Doctor what did this non ascendo, spoken by eternal Truth signify? He will answer, that though the particle, Non, usually makes an absolute denyal (and therefore the Apostles might wel think that our Lord would not go at all to the Solemnity) yet, here it was restrained, and only denyed his visible, or manifest ascending, as may be gathered out of the ensuing words. Non manifestè, sed quasi in occulto; He went, but not openly. If this answer may pass: I argue. The words of our Savi­our, non ascendo, I ascend not when he did ascend, were true, though they had a restrained sense, and only denyed the publick manner of his ascending, not known to others: Ergo, these words of a Priest, Non andivi, I heard not such a Sin, when he heard it in Confession, are likewise true, though they have a restrained sense and only deny the publick manner of his hearing it (in that forum) not known to others. A Disparity here good Doctor: perhaps, He will answer, that the Judge or Tyrant positively demands whether the Priest heard that Sin in Confession; and his saying, No to it, is a flat lye. By the way, had the Apostles asked our Saviour whether he would ascend to the Solemnity, and he had answered, as he [Page 187] did, non ascendo. No, would he have told a Lye? I am sure No. Neither did he say an untruth, when, Mark 13. some asked him of the day of judgement, & he returned this answer; De die illo, &c. of that day and hour none knows, not the Angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. Yet, most certain it is that the Son of God knew of that day: which Truth the Fathers asserted against the Arians endeavouring to prove, out of this very Scripture, that Christ was not God. He knew therefore of the day of judge­ment, yet said, he did not know, both are true; Let the Doctor unfold this double Sense, and we have e­nough for our present purpose. Hence learn, that though a Tyrant positively ask of a Priest a thousand times whether he heard such a Sin in Confession, the question is not of his demand, (for 'tis most unjust) but whether a Priest may answer as truly, No, I did not hear it, as Christ our Lord said, No; I ascend not, I know not of the day; Here is the question. Most willingly would I have the Doctors answer, if he finds a flaw in the Parity.

Were our Doctor better versed in Speculation, I might here set down the Essential difference between a Ly, and mental Restriction. In a ly men ever speak against their mind, for, mentiri est contra men­tem ire, that is, they judge so, and speak contrary. In mental Restriction a part only of our interior Judg­ment (or as we speak in School Inadaequate) is only expres'd by Exterior words, or signes. For example, if the Doctor preaching to his people, hath this great truth in his mind: God is not in Heaven after a Cor­poreal manner, and should by accident Exteriorly say no more but thus much only. God is not in Hea­ven: [Page 188] He doth not by that half Expression thwart his Judgment, or speak contrary to his thoughts, but only, saith not fully out what he thinks. And thus it is in mental Restriction, what is said is true, though not fully spoken to the capacity of the Hearer. In the Ambiguous use of words, usually called Equi­vocation, there is far less difficulty. Hence I infer (and it is an Objection of our Doctor, pag. 153.) that if an Adultress asked whether she be one, an­swers, No; she speaks no untruth, unless she will, but only sayes she is none publickly proved; Or in some such like Sense. Next saith our Doctor, if a man compelled to swear to take such a one for Wife, he may secretly mean, if hereafter she please me; And the same is of one compelled by a Thief to give him twenty Crowns; I answer, No forced Oath extorted by compulsion, is an Oath for want of Freedom and Liberty; and consequently not Obligatory. The case is plain, if one should take the Doctors hand per force, and make him write thus much. All I have said in my Dissuasive from Popery is against my Conscience; Would he hold himself obliged to stand to his Writing?

After this he cites Vasquez, bragging I know not of what Doctrine, and where? In 3. Tom. 4. Quest. 93. Art. 5. Dub. 13. Answ. Vasquez with me, Antwerp print, 1621. hath only 4. Articles in his 93. Question, and not a syllable in his 13. Dubium, of any bragging. In his 12. Dub. Art. 4. he treats of our present mat­ter; but nothing do I find there to the Doctors pur­pose. If he hath another Edition, let him friendly tell me. Page 154. (saith he) Diana holds, That to save a mans credit, an honest man who is ashamed to [Page 189] beg, may steal what is necessary. I answer, He deals not well with Diana that speaks more moderately thus. Ʋir honestus, & cui pro ratione sui status gra­vissimum, & maximum dedecus esset mendicare, nec posset alia via victum sibi acquirere, videtur posse clan­culum necessaria surripere, &c. It seemes that a man of credit, and to whom it would be most heavy, and a mighty disgrace to beg, nor can by any other means get sustenance to live (these words the Doctor conceals) it seemes, I say, that such a man may secretly take what is necessary for his sustenance. Secus si esset infimae sor­tis, &c. But this holds not in case he be of a low con­dition, and might without a notable loss of his ho­nour beg, or otherwise find necessaries. &c. Thus Diana, far of from that high Sense the Doctor sets down. Read him in his Compendium, Rhoan print, 1644. verbo furtum. pag. 335. n. 18.

Page 155. the Doctor saith, That it is affirmed, and was practis'd by a whole Council of Bishops at Con­stance, that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks: And John Hus, and Hierom of Prague felt the mischief of violation of publick Faith, &c. Answ. An old story, and as false as old: For, first, the Council never de­termined, that Faith given by Ecclesiastical power to an Heretick, is not to be kept. Nay, it holds it self obliged to stand to such a promise; Faithfully also complied with it in the after Councils of Basil, and Trent. Yet more; This Council holds, that a Secu­lar Prince or Magistrate after security promised to an Heretick, is bound to keep it, although neither the one or other can force the Church ('tis a distinct Tribunal) to do so. True it is that King Sigismund who had given a safe conduct to Hus, seemed at first [Page 190] to feel his Condemnation; but when he perceived the obstinacy of the man, neither relenting after his own Princely Counsel, nor yeelding to the advice of others, he did not only condescend to punish Hus, but exhorted the Fathers Assembled at Constance, to proceed severely against him: And why? John Hus violated the Laws of his safe conduct shamefully, and ran away from the Council; Yet catch'd he was, and committed to Prison, and had his condigne pu­nishment; His running away made him a guilty per­son on a new score, and by it lost the priviledge of his safe conduct. Here you have in brief the true Story. Spondanus relates it, Tom. 2. Paris print, an­no 1641. ad annum Christi, 1415. n. 45. pag. 216. and for more, sends you to Joannes Coclaeus, lib. 2. & 3. Concerning Faith to be kept with Hereticks. Spondanus now cited, remits you farther to Molanus a Doctor of Loven, to Martinus Becanus, and Hesibertus Rosweidus, all Learned men, and no wayes opposite to publick fidelity given to any.

What the Doctor hath, page 156. of the Pope dispensing in Oaths, when they hinder a greater good, seems to me a childish Objection: For, do not secu­lar Princes dayly, though a man by Law deserves death, graciously reprieve him, when they prudent­ly judge it better to free such a Delinquent then to have him die? Oathes dispensable, are not of higher concernment, then life and death.

Page 158. our Doctor quotes Panormitanus, ca­pite proposuit, de concess. praev. n. 20. Saying, that the Pope hath power to dispense in all the Lawes of God except Articles of Faith, &c. I answer. If any thing be amiss here, 'tis rather Vincen: Assertion then [Page 191] Panormitanus, and three Limitations follow it. The first, Intellige, de dispensatione proprie Sumptâ. Ʋn­derstand the Doctrine (saith Panor.) of a Dispensa­tion properly taken; which hath more in it then the Doctor is aware of. 2. Nisi interveniat, &c. Ʋn­less a mortal sin intervene, or arise out of Gods Law. 3. In his quae, &c. In those things that are evil of their own nature, the Pope cannot dispence. These and more the Doctor omits, though he ought to know, we are not obliged to defend every saying of a Canonist.

PAge 160. Sect. 2. He tells us of a notorious im­piety own'd by us in Exempting the Clergy from the Jurisdiction of Secular Princes, both in their Estates and persons, &c. And for this our Tenet, he cites the Canon Law (after his manner unintelligi­bly) Bellarm. Suarez, and others. And what, out of this good Doctor, is the meer relating of a Do­ctrine, a Confutation of it? If so, I have here set down yours, and therefore confuted it; A weak way of Arguing. Bellarmin brings his proofs for his Ex­emption [Page 192] of Clergy-men: Where are yours to the contrary? Suarez, defens. fidei Cathol. lib. 4. cap. 15. per totum, learnedly shews out of Ancient Councils, the Canon and Civil Law this Exemption ratified, even in Causes criminal. And not one Canon, or Council, have you in your Margent (often charged with superfluous Quotations) to gainsay him. page 162. you alledge that Text of the Apostle, Let every Soul be subject to the higher Power; And so say we also good Doctor, and tell you that Clergy-men have their higher Powers, and Seculars theirs; both re­spectively owe and own obedience to their Govern­ours. Here is all you prove. O, but S. Chrysostom saith, upon this Text: Etiamsi Apostolus sis, &c. Al­though you be an Apostle, an Evangelist, a Prophet, or whosoever; you are to be subject to Supereminent Pow­ers. I answer. Every word is exactly true, but the Saint mentioneth nothing of Clergy-men liable to the Judicature of a Secular Magistrate; but rather the contrary: For saith he, Neque enim de hoc aut illo Principe sermo mihi nunc est, sed de ipsa re. I speak not of this or that Prince, but of Subjection it self; and I say, that every Soul is to have it; The Ser­vant to his Master, the Wife to her Husband, Secu­lars to their Prince. Yes, and I add, Clergy-men also in civil Affairs, for there is not one among us who doth not profess with all candor, a dutiful obedience to his Prince, to his Magistrate, to the Laws of the Country he lives in; If he proves criminal in these, the Church doth not patronize him, but, when the guilt goes high, quits him, and turns him over to the secu­lar Power for punishment. Good civil Laws there­fore and Ecclesiastical, run ever, as it were hand in [Page 193] hand together; both, like two eyes of the same body looke one way, haue the same end which is the peace and welfare of a kingdom: obedience to the one yeilds obedience to the other, an offence against the civil Law joyntly implyes an offence against the Ecclesiastical; when either Prince or Magistrate are wrongfuly dealt with, the Pope looks not on and laughes, but condoles with them, yes and holds himself, and his Lawes injured also. Can more be desired, if men would set passion aside, and suffer reason to say down right what is reasonable?

Hence you may solve that weak objection of our Doctor page 161. Princes (saith he) have many times felt the evil, when so many thousand persons are in their Kingdoms, and yet subject to a forreign power. Solve it I say, for the Subjection they owe is in point of Spi­ritual jurisdiction only, whereunto secular Princes hitherto never laid claime; and with this Subjection the Civil Laws in Kingdomes stand still in vigor ob­liging every Soul to a dutiful Obedience. I have said it now, and 'tis most true; that Ecclesiastical, and civil Laws, (rightly, as we here suppose, constituted) never clash with one another. No; Peace, Tranqui­lity, and perfect Union among all, is the final aime of both; if men devoid of passion, would but rational­ly understand it.

The Doctors repining at the Ecclesiastical mens Estates, exempted from the jurisdiction of Secular Princes, looks (as it is) like a vain cavil; for what have these as Clericks, but their Tythes, (Tythes I think the Doctor will hold of Divine Right) and the ancient liberal Benevolence of pious Christians to en­rich them? (The Doctor if a Bishop, eates yet their [Page 194] bread) and these blessed Men gave their goods solely to the Church: Emperours and Princes liked wel of the Charity, and approved it; therefore we need not now dispute here, quo jure, by what right Clergy­men are exempted; it is sufficient to say, that the Donors and Princes freed them; Yet, this Obligati­on follows them, as all Divines hold, that at least they are bound in Charity to give what is superfluous to the poor; which Charity also moves them to sup­ply their Prince when necessity requires it. Thus they have anciently done, and yet comply with the like duty the whole world over. Such men, good Doctor are supposed vertuous; and believe it, vertue doth more then force. Needless therefore it is to wrong their priviledges, and wrest from them with severity what may be had in a sweeter way. Truly I think, if the Clergy in England or Universities either, were forced against their Priviledges, and paid taxes as Secular men do every where, they would feele it a little.

However if the Doctor likes it, let him on Gods name pay his quota, and list himself among Seculars, for, in real Truth he is no better, his Clerkship will not free him.

Page 162. he cites Emanuel Sa, for this abominable assertion, Aphoris. verbo Clericus. The rebellion of a Clergy-man against his Prince is not Treason, because he is not his Princes Subject: And sayes, though these words were left out of the Paris Edition, because the French men endured not the Doctrine, yet they still re­main in the Editions of Antwerp, and Collen. Answ. I have now before me the Antwerp Edition, 1599. and have read exactly every Number or Section under [Page 195] that word Clericus, (53 in all) and therefore will boldly say it, that Sa is unworthily wronged, for he hath not through these 53. Numbers, a syllable like this Quotation of the Doctor, 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 [Page 196] 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.

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, [Page 197] 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; [Page 198] 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 ('tis 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 ('tis 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 [Page 199] 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 ('tis forbid me) of their deposing. Though were I minded to recriminate: that one Execrable and Tragical shedding of our late Sovereigns blood without pitty poured out in his own Pallace, in the sight of the Sun, and open view of the World (it yet draws sighs from many a heart) speaks loud e­nough of a Prince more horridly deposed and mur­thered, then ever yet came to the knowledge of Christians, or any Mariana once thought of. And who were the Actors in this Abominable Tragedy? Men of a reformed Faith (and did it not in a sudden passion, but deliberately, which aggravates the crime) while Catholicks, ever loyal to their Sovereign, look'd on with weeping eyes, and heavy hearts. Who ap­proved, who applauded that dayes sinful work? Those of the same bran, John Milton was one: wit­ness his wicked Book against Salmatius, whose only praise is to speak Treason in good Latine. What [Page 200] Doctors have we found among Catholicks since the death of our Sovereign, that either side with Milton, or speak a syllable in defense of those Regicides? not one. All unanimously cry shame upon them, curse, and anathematize the Fact, and say t'was damnable.

Now after this so crying a Sin, to hear a Doctor harp upon the far lesser faults of Mariana & Santarel, what is it but a weak and too splenish a Recriminati­on? They said ill. Be it so (if yet Mariana said it) their Doctrine is therefore prohibited, and lies under censure) but have they either said or done like these now mentioned? What I say is not to touch in the least any Protestant loyal to his Sovereign. No; but only to tell the Doctor he did not well, to rub on old Soars in others abroad, while he hath more fester­ed Ʋlcers to look on, and Lance in some of his own Brethren at home; I say in some, for innumerable were Loyal, and those I touch not; Charity there­fore might well have told him, that the fault of a few is never to be cast on the greater part, who were in­nocent and harmless.

Now concerning the Loyal fidelity both of English and forreign Catholicks towards their Prince and Ma­gistrate (could I license this short Treatise to grow to a greater bulk) much might be said, though in­deed there is already enough published by that learn­ed Author of the Protestants Apology (the Book is had in England) printed anno 1608. where, Tract. 3. Sect. 3, 4, & 5. pag. 658, 663, 667. You shall find the Loyalty of Catholicks (if Reason, Authority and Confession of Adversaries may have place) strongly asserted. Beside other undenyable proofs; he observs page 662. that when Queen Elizabeth en­entred [Page 201] the Throne Royal, all received her with most dutiful submission. The then Catholick Lord Arch­bishop and chancellor of England, in a publick oration perswaded the people to acknowledg her Maiesty for their lawful Queen and Sovereign: And a like Loyal respect she had from other Catholick Lords and Bishops, &c. But was it so when queen Mary, that reigned before her, came to the Crown? No, saith my Author, open rebellion in open field ( Stow recounts it in his Annals, the pages are there exactly cited) was her publick welcome (and there was more of it in her 5. Years, then in 25. of Queen Elizabeth) and private turbulent Spirits, (witness that Dagger thrown at one Preachers head at Pauls Cross; and a Gun shot off at another) gave her no better enter­tainment. Parallel here the Receptions of these two Sovereigns, and say candidly, who were then for­wardly submissive, who, untowardly rebellious. Nay, shall I say more, parallel the hide­ous, A little Book in English cal'd Ie­rusalem and Ba­bel, or the Image of both Church­es, printed at London, 1653. the 2d. Edition, will help you to make this paral­lel. horrid and out-crying Rebellion of such as have deserted their Ancient Faith, the whole World over, with the faults of Catholicks (for all are not faultless) you shal find as great a disparity, as is betwixt a little Skirmish and a fierce fought battle; the half drawing of a Sword, and sheathing it in the bowels of an Innocent man. See for this Assertion the Prote­stants Apology, Tract 3. Sect. 2. pag. 649. but chief­ly in his Preface to the Reader, from pag. the 10. to the end. From this most Learned and Laborious Wri­ter, I will borrow some few of those many Instances he hath in that Preface to answer a pithless cavil of our Doctor, p. 171. Where,

He dares not deny, but that some Calvinists and warm spirited Puritans, may have been reprehensible ( atleast Catholicks recriminate them in this point) yet he gravely adds; That indeed they borrowed these Do­ctrines from Rome, using their Arguments, making use of their Expressions, and pursuing their Principles. Answ. And is it possible, can a Doctor talk thus? Can sober men give credit to his Obloquy? Pray you tell me, when the Waldenses in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Wicleffians in England (some make these men Protestants) ranted and vapour'd as they did, contemned Magistrates, raised up Rebellion, and acted so Tragically against their lawful Gover­nors, &c. Did Rome learn them their Lesson? did Rome teach them the Dotage, to contemn Ro­man Discipline? When that Hector-rampant Zisca (the Hussites General) after the Ravage and Violences done on his own Native Country, falling sick com­manded his skin to be pull'd of his dead Carkass, and a Drum to be made of it, which the Hussites should use afterward in Battel: Had he think yea Breve from Rome to do this more then Scithian cruelty on himself? When Martin Luther Dogmatically taught, That amongst Christians no man ought to be Magistrate, none Superior, and being told that he troubled the World with his new Gospel, &c. He returned this accursed Answer. Quereris quod per Evangelium nostrum, &c. Thou complainest that by our Gospel the World is become tumultuous. I answer: God be thanked for it, I would have it so, wo to me (He might have added and to my Kate also) if things were not as they are, all in tumults. When I say such Malice against Rome, boyled hot at his heart, and [Page 203] the filthy froth of his rage ran thus out of his mouth, did Rome add fuel to that flame, or make that Ves­sel of iniquity to boyl as it did? Apage Nugas. 'Tis triffling to say so. Again, when sneveling Calvin (to say nothing of Zuinglius) seditiously vented. That Earthly Princes bereaved themselves of Authori­ty, if they were against God: and that they are unwor­thy to be reckon'd amongst the number of men; that we may spit in their faces (so this holy faced man speaks) rather then obey them. Did Rome either instil such Poyson into his Breast, or lay that Venom on his per­nitious Tongue? No God knows: both Rome and the Rhemish Doctors assert; that Christians are obliged in Conscience to obey even Heathen Emperors. And worthy Doctor Kellison, doubts not to say: That Faith is not necessary to Jurisdiction Temporal, neither is Authority lost by the loss of Faith. See these Autho­rities quoted in the Protestants Apology, Tract. 3. Sect. 5. pag. 668. Once more, and I end. When bloody Beza preaching at Grenoble, with his Sword and Pistol, exhorted the people to shew their Courage and Manhood rather in butchering Papists than break­ing down their Images, was it Rome I beseech ye (then so opposit to Popery and Images) that armed that Gallant Combatant and gave him his Theam or Text to preach on? Was it Rome that deposed that suffer­ing Lady the Queen of Scots, our Sovereign King James his vertuous Mother? That deposed Sygismond from his Kingdom in Swedland? The Temporal Lord of Geneva from his Sovereignty? The King of Spain from a considerable part in the Low Countries? the Emperour from many rights in Germany? Was it Rome that Licensed those Rebels in the Netherlands, [Page 204] by publick Writings to renounce all Obedience to Philip their Lord and King? To ravage as they did at Gant and Antwerp, and other places? to break down Altars, overthrow Churches, murther Monks, bannish Bishops, make havock of all? What can the Doctor say to these unfortunate Tragedies? (though I have not told half of the doleful story related in the Preface now cited) he answers in part well. We reprove the men and condemn their Doctrine. So do we also good Sir, in case either Catholick or any offend, and Unanimously profess with S. Barnard, Paris print, anno 1602. Epist. 170. ad Ludovicum Regem. pag. 1565. Si totus orbis adversus me Conjuraret ut quippiam molirer, &c. If the whole World should conspire against me, or move me to attempt any thing against my Sovereign, I would fear God and not dare to offend the King, appointed by him. For I know it is written, that who resisteth Power resisteth the Ordi­nance of God, and purchaseth to himself damnation. Here is our Catholick profession: Rome both thinks and speaks with us; to take off the Doctors injurious charge laid on us in this Paragraph, I have said thus much, never intending to cast the least aspertion on any Protestant that is Loyal to his Sovereign.

Next the Doctor quotes Suarez lib. 6. defens. fidei cap. 6. Sect. 24. (Sa is also cited and Scribanius, but without their places) for this assertion. An ex­communicat King may with impunity be depos'd or killed by any one. Answ. He either never read Suarez, or is unpardonably guilty of falsity. For Suarez saith expresly n. 24. that this very proposition now ut­tered, simpliciter prolata falsissima est, simply spoken is most false, and gives this Reason: Excommunica­tion [Page 205] alone, and nudely considered, impowres no body to kill the excommunicated party, nor to deprive him of his Dominions, but only debarrs him from communica­tion with others. Rex ergo excommunicatus &c. A King therefore excommunicated only, if the Sentence say no more, cannot be deposed, and killed by his Sub­jects or any, saith Suarez. 'Tis true he adds a limi­tation, which, because I think the Doctor well un­derstands not, I omit to say more of. A sufficient vindication it is to tel you, that the proposition here set down for Suarez his doctrin is none of his, and ut­terly false in it self.

Page 167. after Suarez he hath a bout with Bellar­min for a strange proposition, and thus it is lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. Secundo. Si autem Papa erraret &c. If the Pope should err by commanding vice, or for­bidding vertue, the Church were obliged to believe, that vices were good, and vertues evil, unless it would sin against Conscience. They are the very words of Bellarmin, saith our Doctor. Answ. they are so, but most unworthily weigh'd out of their circumstan­ces; and as they stand here alone seem to assert I know not what mischief or error; whereas most cer­tainly in the context of Bellarmin, they have an ex­cellent Sense, and prove that neither Pope nor Church can err. Observe I beseech you, Bell. in his §. above, Ac ut rem totam, saith, it cannot be that the Pope err by commanding any Vice; as Ʋsury: or, for­bidding any vertue, as restitution: &c. This he proves first § quod autem, because the Church would not be called holy, if he did so. 2. Because, if the Pope taught sueh a doctrine, the Church would err in Faith; for Ca­tholick Faith assures us, that vertue is good, and Vice [Page 206] is evil. Now saith Bellarmin, (and here are the misconstrued words of our Doctor) if the Pope should err, by commanding Vice, and forbidding Vertue, the whole Church would be bound to believe amiss; which you see does not assert any error in Pope or Church, but plainly excludes both, and renders this Sense. Most impious it is, to think that the whole Church is bound to believe that Vice is good, and Vertue naught: therefore, impious it is to judge that the Pope can err in commanding Vice, and forbidding Vertue: As if one should say, wicked it is, to hold that the whole body of Christianity believes amiss; there­fore it is impious to hold that God commands us to believe so. In a word; the whole discourse of Bellar­min is grounded on this Principle, that the Pope, as Pope, cannot err; and by destroying it (saith this learned Authour) you may see what follows, an Universal Error or Misbelief in the Catholick Church. This is most exactly Bellarmins Sense: and for my Assertion, I appeal to the judgment of every Inge­nuous Reader: And therefore cannot but pitty the Doctor, and most of our Protestants too, who poor men (utterly destitute of all Antiquity) will rather play at small Game then sit out: piddle they must, and glean in our Authours: faults, if fancied, must be found: words wrested, Sence turn'd out of Sentences: The least hint serves them to misconstrue all. Thus they proceed, though it cost them dear, an Eternal loss of their credit.

OUr Doctor having now wronged Suarez, and Bellarm. sets fiercely against Popes, and speaks of their wickedness also; but handles the matter so confusedly that no Reader can be the wiser for any Story he tells us. He neither names Pope, nor quotes Authour for what he sayes, but begins thus, pag. 167. All the World knows what the Pope did to King Chil­derick of France: He depos'd him and put Pipin in his place. Answ. I think the Doctor knows not this Story very well (therefore all the World 'tis like knows it not) which he dispatches in a word, and runs slightly over. However you have it largely in Scipion Dupleix the Kings Counseller, Tom. 1. intitu­led. Memoires des Gaules, Paris print, 1627. pag. chiefly, 282. Les Francois ont recours au Pape Zacharie, &c. where you shall read that the French men themselves tous les Seigneurs all the Nobles, saith Dupleix, page 283. finding the great inabilities of Childerick, and unfitness to govern a Kingdome, stood for Pipin, petiti­oned the Pope upon weighty Reasons to dispense in their Oath of Fidelity made to Childerick; the Pope condescended, but saith this Author page 286. si au­cuns, &c. if any of the ancient Chronicles have attribu­ted this great change to the Pope, they have writ both ignorantly and barbarously: In a word, the French [Page 208] men did it themselves; nor had they, (as Dupleix affirms in his title page 285.) any necessity at all to have had any recourse to the Pope for deposing Chil­derick. To take away all cavil, I rather cite a French Authour, both Counseller, and Historiogra­pher to the King of France, then any other. Con­cerning the differences between Pope Boniface the 8. and Philip le Bell, you have a whole Book set forth by a French Authour not named, nor too great a friend to the Pope: The Title is. Histoire du diffe­rend d'entre le Pape, &c. Paris print, 1655. Where you shall find no little Animosity in Philip, and a paternal Condescendency in Boniface, euer ready to comply with that Prince. Tedious it would be to tell the whole Story.

The Doctor goes on. They were Popes of Rome that armed the Son against the Father the Emperour Henry the 4 ^th; the Son fought against him, took him prisoner, &c. Answ. An infinite patience is neces­sary to hear a Doctor talk as this does. Most justly may we say here, the whole World knows, what a man Henry the 4 ^th. was, an Heretick, a Sacrilegious wretch, one given to Sodomy, saith Stephanus Alberstatensis in his Letter to Walram Bishop, which Dodechinus relates in his Appendix to Marianus Scotus, anno 1090. page 460. A light headed Fellow, and rash, of no Counsel, mighty bold, and of a dissolute life, who set the Bishopricks of Germany to sale, &c. saith, Even good John Calvin, lib. 4. instit. cap. 11. §. 13. his own pious and worthy Kinsman; Otho Frisingensis, saith lib. 7. cap. 11. That he was promoted, potenter magis, quam juste, more by Power then Justice, or honest Dealing. These truths supposed which no [Page 209] historian questions, (excpt one lying Benno, so Gret­ser cals him tomo 2. in his Apol. for Greg. the 7. p. 218. what is to be done with such a Prince? must he re­vel it out? run on in his lewdness? ruin the Church? destroy Kingdomes, injure Princes without restraint, or Ecclesiastical Censure? Let the Doctor say can­didly, whether such an ungratious Son of the Church may be tolerated, without being curb'd at all, to vi­olate, or rather to tear out the very bowels of that Mother that begot him, and made him Christian? Nothing can be answer'd with probability, but that the Church has power to check such insolences. And,

To silence the Doctors groundless complaint, hear in a word how it was done: Marianus Scotus is my Authour, lib. 3. Cron. Aetat. 6. ad annum, 1075. page: chiefly 454. Franck fort print, 1613. Where he first relates the Kings wickedness, then adds. Haec & his similia nefanda & inandita Henrici Regis fla­gitia, videntes & audientes fieri Catholici viri, &c. Catholick men, constituted at that time in the Church, seeing, and hearing of such enormous Crimes commit­ted by King Henry, were carried on with zeal (like another Helias) for the House of Israel, and therefore sent Messengers to Pope Alexander, and as well by Letter, as word of mouth with sighs and grief, made their grievances known, &c. Alexander dying, Gre­gory the 7 ^th. succeeded him. Iste querimonijs, & clamoribus Catholicorum justis adversum Henricum, & scelerum immanitatem auditis, zelo Dei accensus, &c. This Pope Gregory having heard the just com­plaints, the loud clamours of Catholicks against Henry and his outragious proceedings, moved with zeal of [Page 210] God, declared him Excommunicated, chiefly for his Simony. Thus Marianus. Where you see that the Pope depos'd him not, but only declared him an Ex­communicate person; and this at the importunate In­stances, and just Complaints of the German Princes: He that desires to know more of this unfortunate King, let him read Baronius chiefly, ad annum, 1080. Tom. 11. where, pag. 532. Antwerp print, 1608. lit. D. He shall find how justly that heavy Censure of the Church fell upon him; how he was vilified by his own Children; forced by them out of his King­dom, and died in misery. It was God, saith Baro­nius, that shew'd his Judgment on him; (though late) dum filios in patrem statuit esse carnifices acerbissimos suae sententiae executores, while he made his own Sons to be Torturers of their Father, and revengers of his just Sentence. Our Doctor therefore both cavils, and calumniats while he talks of Popes arming Sons a­gainst the Father, &c. And to take off more cavils, most willingly would I have him to name that Pope (and quote his Authour) that made Charles the 5. and Francis the first of France take Arms against other Princes. I love not, good Doctor, this running on in darkness: Produce your Authours. An answer is ready. Yet,

Omit I cannot to say a word, of Francis Dandulus whom (saith our Doctor) being Duke of Venice, the Pope bound with Chains, and fed him as Dogs arc fed with bones, and scraps under his Table. Answ. It would make one sick to hear this tattle. Where read we, for Gods fake, that the Pope chain'd Dandulus? where, that he fed him like a Dog, or cast him bones and scraps? where, that Dandulus was then Duke of [Page 211] Venice? All is coyn'd by the Doctor, who, as he tels his tale, makes the Pope a Beast: Whereas, God knows, the story is quite contrary, and Briefly thus.

The Venetians had by their wrongs and violences highly offended Pope Clement the 5. and for a long time slighted his censures. At last (more wise) they sought for pardon, as Spondanus recounts ad an­num 1310. num. 5. Tom. 1. pag. 518.

This good man therefore, Francis Dandulus (no Duke then, but of the Doctors making) yet, of note and nobility among the States, press'd them with might and main to a due Submission. And to gain pardon for their insolencies, on his own free accord, (compelled by no Pope) he sacrificed his honor, and did as strange an Act of humility as perhaps is read in Story. Sabellicus, an exact writer of the Venetian affaires relates it ( Tom. 2. Basil print. Ennead. 9. lib. 7 pag. 791. in this manner. Eranciscus Dandulus illu­stri exemplo privatae pietatis in patriam, publicae in re­ligionem, catenâ ferreâ collo injectá, ad ejus mensam tam diu prostratus jacuit &c. Francis Dandulus by a rare example of special piety towards his Country, and publick for Religion, having cast an iron Chain about his neck, went to the Popes table, and lay there prostrat so long. Donec, expugnatâ Clementis irâ, &c. Til, by force of his vertue, he vanquished Clements anger, and cancelled the black ignominious note, which lay on his Country; whence it is, saith Sabellicus, that he was afterward called by the name of Dog; yet, (witness Spondanus) was welcom'd home with the applause of all, and some years after made Prince in John's place that dyed. Here is a difference between the Doctors story and mine; mine hath nothing of scraps [Page 212] or bones, or of the Popes feeding, and chaining Dandu­lus, &c. Pray you tell me, if our Ministers in Eng­land, wearied out with their Schism, and Heresie (higher crimes then the Venetians were guilty of) became, at last, seriously penitent for both, and to satisfie how earnestly they seek for pardon, should send up the Doctor to follow the cause, and obtain pardon at Rome: Yet more, if the Doctor like a good Patriot, to effect what he comes for, should on his own free choice, humble himself as Dandulus did; throw a Chain about his neck, fall prostrate at the Popes Table, &c. Will any man say in justice and conscience that the Pope chained him, or fed him like a Dog with scraps? Here is the right story, if good Authours wrong us not.

What he next hints at, is indeed a known thing of our King Henry the 2. Briefly. This Prince both sinned and repented; his sin in shedding of that bles­sed Martyrs blood, S. Thomas of Canterbury was great; And, his sorrowful repentance for the fact, was ad­mirable and praise worthy. As all deplore the sin, so they make the King renowned for his pious Repen­tance, which God afterward blessed with a happy death. A fault then he did, none can doubt of it; yet like a vertuous Prince submitted to any punish­ment, nay, sought for more then was inflicted. But, I know not how, our Doctor hath a rare gift to ag­gravate a punishment, if the Pope hath a hand in it, and to say nothing of the fault: No. That must be concealed. So it is; The child is corrected by an indulgent Father, and complains of his whipping, but never tells you why he felt the Rod, or what he did amiss. Had the Doctor dealt ingenuously; he [Page 213] should (where he ends with this scornful Ironia) Such was the piety of the Fathers in Christendom, first have said. Such were the sins of Princes, and laid out as well the faults, as the punishment. Besides, suppose (which yet is not proved) that a few, a­mong many Popes, did amiss, or transgressed by too much severity; must therefore Popedom be decryed, and all Popes made odious? An open injustice it is, good Doctor to revile all, whether Popes or Princes, because some only have offended.

Page 168. He tells us of a strange paradox that Pope Clement the 5 ^th. vented in the Council of Vienna, making the right of Kings dependant on him (which is an untruth, their Temporal rights depend not on him) and the Doctor for this Assertion of Clement, cites not one Authour. Page 169. He talks of Pope Boniface the 8 ^th.; owning himself not only Lord of France, but of all the World. And who affirms this? Papirius Massonus, saith the Doctor: And cites in his Margent, Verb. Bonif. 8. Answ. This blind and unskilful way in quoting of Authours (held all along by our Doctor) is more then intollerable. Know, I be­seech you, that Massonus writ 4. Books of Annals, wherein he describes the Exploits of Frenchmen; I have his 2. Edition, Paris print. 1578. Should not the Doctor think you (had he ever seen these Annalls) have pointed to some one of these 4. Books? With­out leaving us in darkness, with only the word Boni­face 8. which is no Title, but only found in the Index. However to unbeguile the Reader, by help of the Index, I have perused what Massonus hath of Pope Boniface, lib 3. pag. 337. he describes his manners, and says, He was Learned, but withal crafty, &c. [Page 214] Not a syllable there of Boniface His owning himself Lord of France, or the World. lib. 3. pag. 351. He tells us, That after Philip le Bell had oppressed the Cler­gy, with heavy Taxes, to maintain a War against Eng­land, the Pope disliked it, and therefore forbad the abuse; Withal, willed Philip not to oppress Church­men with such Exactions. The King obeyed not; Whereupon, saith Masson, Boniface sent him a sharp Letter, and said, that all Kings were subject to the Pope and Church, (understand in Ecclesiastical Affairs, for the whole Context bears no other Sence) and that he had offended against both Equity and Order of Law, by seizing on the Clergies Goods, conferring Ec­clesiastical Dignities, &c. What is here, good Rea­der of Boniface owning himself Lord of France, and the whole World also? When neither France nor the World, are not so much as mentioned; Nor any word found relating to the Temporal Jurisdiction of Princes.

The Doctor saith more: That all the Jesuites Order makes the Pope Lord of the World, and that the main­tenance of it is the Subject matter of their new Vow of Obedience, to advance his Grandeur. Answ. Few Jesuites will read this vast lashing out of all Reason, without smiling a little at the Doctor, and may, most justly Vow, that he is yet to learn, what both their Doctrine, and Institution is. I say therefore, his Assertions are utterly untrue. The Order of Jesuites never made the Pope Lord of the World; never thought it; never taught it; (see Bellarmin cited a­bove:) and their 4 ^th. Vow of Obedience No more advances his temporal Grandeur, then the Doctors talk hurts his Spiritual jurisdiction, that is, just nothing at all. What he next cites out of some Canonists, [Page 215] is neither the Doctrine of the Church, nor good Divinity.

Page 170. he tels a fearful story of Sixtus Quintus, who in an Oration solemnly had before the Cardinals 11. September Anno 1589. commended the Monk, James Clement, that kil'd Henry the 3. of France. I Answer, first. This very accusation, as the Doctor words it, proves nothing. For Sixtus might come mend Clement that kil'd the King, though he prais'd him not for that impious Fact. One may commend Doctor Taylor for some good parts, yet hold him most blamable for his other faults, of deceit and errors. Again, who can avouch with certainty, that Sixtus made such an Oration? Boucher, saith the Doctor and one or two more: And is this a hand­some way of quoting Authors? John Boucher a Do­ctor of Sorbon, Canon, and Archdeacon of Tornay, wrot several treatises and books a part: the Ark of the Testament in folio; The Conversion of Henry the fourth; The mystical crown of Princes; Sermons &c, and must I wander among all these directed by one poor word Boucher, to find Sixtus his Oration asserted au­thentick? 3. Suppose, Boucher, or Ancelin a vouch it authentick, we are never the wiser, unless we have Sixtus his express words, which the Doctor ca­vils at: And were that done, it will be yet doubted whether all be not a forged business, because graver Authors, as Spondanus and Dupleix, who relate at large the story of Sixtus and Henry, mention nothing of this Oration. See Spond. Tom. 3. ad annum 1590. and Dupliex, Tom. 4. Histoire de Henri, 3. Lastly, Cardinal Bellarmin Apologia pro respons. Ad lib. cui titulus Triplici nedo, &c. Saith most positively. [Page 216] Nulla apud nos sixti Quinti extat oratio [...] & quae ab Adversarij [...] &c. There is no such Oration of Sixtus extant here; and, that which is published by Enemies, although it deserves no credit, may yet have a commo­dious Explication, as is farther read in our answer pag. 70, 71, 72. 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 Ʋse 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 [Page 217] 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.