which of all those Senses is that intended by the Holy Ghost and leading to Truth and which are Erroneous and Antichristian He is taught to believe that the Scripture alone can be no Rule of Faith to any private or particular person not that there is any thing wanting on the Scripture-side but because no private person can be certain whether amongst all the several meanings every Text is obnoxious to that which he understands it in is the Right or no. And without this certainty of Truth and security from Error he knows there 's nothing capable of being a Rule XIII Of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith THE only thing insisted on here is That it is not the Words but the Sense of Scripture is the Rule and that this Sense is not to be taken from Mens private Fancies which are various and uncertain and therefore where there is no security from Errors there is nothing capable of being a Rule To clear this we must consider 1. That it is not necessary to the making of a Rule to prevent any possibility of mistake but that it be such that they cannot mistake without their own fault For Certainty in it self and Sufficiency for the use of others are all the necessary Properties of a Rule but after all it 's possible for Men not to apply the Rule aright and then they are to be blamed and not the Rule 2. If no Men can be certain of the right Sense of Scripture then it is not plain in necessary things which is contrary to the design of it and to the clearest Testimonies of Antiquity and to the common Sense of all Christians who never doubted or disputed the Sense of some things revealed therein as the Unity of the Godhead the making of the World by him the Deluge the History of the Patriarchs the Captivity of the Jews the coming of the Messias his sending his Apostles his coming again to Judgment c. No Man who reads such things in Scripture can have any doubt about the Sense and Meaning of the Words 3. Where the Sense is dubious we do not allow any Man to put what Sense he pleases upon them but we say there are certain means whereby he may either attain to the true Sense or not be damned if he do not And the first thing every man is to regard is not his security from being deceived but from being damned For Truth is made known in order to Salvation If therefore I am sure to attain the chief end I am not so much concerned as to the possibility of Errors as that I be not deceived by my own fault We do not therefore leave Men either to follow their own fancy or to interpret Scripture by it but we say They are bound upon pain of Damnation to seek the Truth sincerely and to use the best means in order to it and if they do this they either will not err or their Errors will not be their Crime XIV Of the Interpretation of Scripture HE believes that his Church which he calls Catholick is above the Scripture and profanely allows to her an uncontrollable Authority of being Judge of the Word of God And being fondly abus'd into a distrust of the Scriptures and that he can be certain of nothing even of the Fundamentals of Christianity from what is deliver'd in them though they speak never so plainly he is taught to rely wholly upon this Church and not to believe one word the Scripture says unless his Church says it too HE believes that the Church is not above the Scripture but only allows that Order between them as is between the Iudge and the Law And is no other than what generally every private Member of the Reformation challenges to himself as often as he pretends to decide any doubt of his own or his Neighbours in Religion by interpreting the Scripture Neither is he taught at all to distrust the Scripture or not to rely on it but only to distrust his own private Interpretation of it and not to rely on his own Iudgment in the Resâ—lution of any doubt concerning Faith or Religion though he can produce several Texts in favour of his Opinion But all such cases he is commanded to re-cur to the Church and having learnt from her the sense of all such Texts how they have been understood by the whole Community of Christians in all Ages since the Apostles and what has been their Receiv'd Doctrine in such doubtful and difficult Points he is oblig'd to submit to this and never presume on his own private Sentiments however seemingly grounded on Reason and Scripture to believe or preach any New Doctrine opposite to the Belief of the Church But as he receives from her the Book so also to receive from her the Sense of the Book With a Holy Confidence that she that did not cheat him in delivering a False Book for the True one will not cheat him in delivering a False and Erroneus Sense for the True one her Authority which is sufficient in the one being not less in the other And his own private Iudgment which was insufficient in the one that is in finding out the True Scripture and discerning it from all other Books being as incapable and insucffiient in the other that is in certainly discovering the meaning of the Holy Ghost and avoiding all other Heterodox and mistaken Interpretations XIV Of the Interpretation of Scripture 1. THE Question is not Whether Men are not bound to make use of the best means for the right Interpretation of Scripture by Reading Meditation Prayer Advice a humble and teachable Temper c. i. e. all the proper means fit for such an end but whether after all these there be a necessity of submitting to some infallible Judge in order to the attaining the certain Sense of Scripture 2. The Question is not Whether we ought not to have a mighty regard to the Sense of the whole Christian Church in all Ages since the Apostles which we profess to have but Whether the present Roman Church as it stands divided from other Communions hath such a Right and Authority to interpret Scripture that we are bound to believe that to be the infallible Sense of Scripture which she delivers And here I cannot but take notice how strangely this matter is here misrepresented for the Case is put 1. As if every one who rejects their pretence of Infallibility had nothing to guide him but his own private Fancy in the Interpretation of Scripture 2. As if we rejected the Sense put upon Scripture by the whole Community of Christians in all ages since the Apostles times Whereas we appeal in the matters in difference between us to this universal Sense of the Christian Church and are verily perswaded they cannot make it out in any one Point wherein we differ from them And themselves cannot deny that in several we have plainly the Consent of the first Ages as far as appears by the Books remaining
Honour or the Chastisement of a penitent Sinner But then what have any men to do to pretend that they can take off what God thinks fit to lay on Can any Indulgences prevent Pain or Sickness or sudden Death But if Indulgences be understood only with respect to Canonical Penances they are a most notorious and inexcusable corruption of the Discipline of the Ancient Church 10. For if when we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his Life Romans 5.10 And therefore no Satisfaction to the Justice of God is now required from us for the Expiation of any Remainder of Guilt For if Christ's Satisfaction were in it self sufficient for a total Remission and was so accepted by God what Account then remains for the Sinner to discharge if he perform the Conditions on his part But we do not take away hereby the Duties of Mortification Prayer Fasting and Alms c. but there is a difference to be made between the Acts of Christian Duties and Satisfaction to Divine Iustice for the Guâ—lt of Sin either in whole or in part And to think to joyn any Satisfactions of ours together with Christ's is like joyning our hand with God's in Creating or Governing the World 11. Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all Wisdom teaching and admonishing one anotâ—er c. Col. 3.16 How could that dwell richly in them which was not to be communicated to them but with great Caution How could they teach and admonish one another in a Language not understood by them The Scriptures of the New Testament were very early perverted and if this Reason were sufficient to keep them out of the hands of the People certainly they would never have been published for common use but as prudently dispensed then as some think it necessary they should be now But we esteem it a part of our Duty not to think our selves wiser than Christ or his Apostles nor to deprive them of that unvaluable Treasure which our Saviour hath left to their use 12. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3.16 Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1.21 Therefore where there is no Evidence of Divine Inspiration those Books cannot be made Canonical But the Jewish Church To whom the Oracles of God were committed never deliver'd these Books as any part of them being written when Inspiration was ceased among them And it is impossible for any Church in the World to make that to be divinely inspired which was not so from the beginning 13. But I say Have they not heard Yes verily their sound went into all the Earth and their Words unto the ends of the World Rom. 10.18 Therefore the Intention of God was that the Gospel should be understood by all Mankind which it could never be unless it were translated into their several Languages But still the difference is to be observed between the Originals and Translations and no Church can make a Translation equal to the Original But among Translations those deserve the greatest esteem which are done with the greatest Fidelity and Exactness On which account our last Translation deserves a more particular Regard by us as being far more useful to our People than the Vulgar Latin or any Translation made only from it 14. Thy Word is a Lamp unto my Feet and a Light unto my Path Psalm 119.105 Which it could never be unless it were sufficient for necessary direction in our way to Heaven But we suppose Persons to make use of the best means for understanding it and to be duely qualified for following its Directions without which the best Rule in the World can never attain its End And if the Scripture have all the due Properties of a Rule of Faith it is unconceivable why it should be denied to be so unless men find they cannot justify their Doctrines and Practices by it and therefore are forced to make Tradition equal in Authority with it 15. Wo unto you Lawyers for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledg ye entred not in your selves them that were entring in ye hindred S. Luk. 11.52 From whence it follows that the present Guides of the Church may be so far from giving the true Sense of Scripture that they may be the chief Means to hinder Men from right understanding it Which argument is of greater force because those who plead for the Infallibility of the Guides of the present Church do urge the promises made to the Jewish Church at that time as our Author doth from those who sat in the Chair of Moses and from Calâ—phas his Prophesying 16. We have also a more sure word of Prophesie whereunto ye do well that ye take heed 2 Pet. 1.19 And yet here the Apostle speaks of something delivered by the Testimony of those who were with Christ in the Holy Mount From whence we infer that it was not the Design of Christ to lâ—ave us to any Vocal Testimony buâ— to refer us to the Written Word as the most certain Foundâ—tion of Faith And it is not any Pâ—â—sons assumâ—ng the Title of the Catholâ—ck Church to themselves can give them Authority to impose any Traditions on the Faith of Christians or require them to be believed equally with the Written Word For before any Traditions can be assented to with Divine Faith the Churches Authority must be proved to be Divine and Infallible either by a written or unwritten Word but it can be done by neither without overthrowing the necessity of such an Infallibility in order to Divine Faith because the Testimony on which the Churches Infallibility is proved must be received only in a way of Credibility 17. Also of your own selves shall Men arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them Acts 20.30 Which being spoken of the Guides of the Christian Church without Limitation of Number a possibility of Error is implied in any Assembly of them unless there were some other Promises which did assure us That in all great Assemblies the Spirit of God shall always go with the casting Voice or the greater Number 18. And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Unity of the Faith c. Ephes. 4.13 14 15. Now here being an account given of the Officers Christ appointed in his Church in order to the Unity and Edification of it it had been unfaithfulness in the Apostle to have left out the Hâ—ad of it in case Christ had appointed any Because this were of more consequence than all the rest being declared necessary to Salvation to be in subjection to him But neither this Apostle nor St. Peter himself give the least intimation of it Which it is impossible to conceive should have been left out in the Apostolical Writings upon so many
true Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved i. e. The belief of these things is hereby declared as necessary to Salvation as of any other Articles of the Creed But it may be objected The subscribing this Profession of Faith is not required of all Members of that Church To which I answer That to make a Man a Member of it he must declare that he holds the same Faith which the Church of Rome holds And this is as much the Faith of the Roman Church as the Pope and Council of Trent could make it And it is now printed in the Roman Ritual at Paris set forth by Paul the 5 th as the Confession of Faith owned by the Church of Rome And therefore this ought to have been a part of the true Representation as to the Doctrinal Points but when he comes to the 35 th Head he then owns That unless Men do believe every Article of the Roman Faith they cannot be saved and he that disbelieves one does in a manner disbelieve all Which may as well reach those who disown the Deposing Power and the Pope's personal Infallibility as Us since those are accounted Articles of Faith by the ruling part of their Church to whom it chiefly belongs to declare them and the former hath been defined both by Popes and Councils 3. He never sets down what it is which makes any Doctrine to become a Doctrine of their Church We are often blamed for charging particular Opinions upon their Church but we desire to know what it is which makes a Doctrine of their Church i. e. whether frequent and publick Declaration by the Heads and Guides of their Church be sufficient or not to that End Our Author seems to imply the Necessity of some Conditions to be observed for besides the Popes Authority he requires due Circumstances and proceeding according to Law But who is to be Judge of these Circumstances and legal Proceedings And he never tells what these Circumstances are And yet after all he saith The Orders of the Supream Pastor are to be obey'd whether he be infallible or not And this now brings the Matter home The Popes he confesses have owned the Deposing Doctrine and acted according to it And others are bound to obey their Orders whether infallible or not and consequently they are bound by the Doctrine of their Church to act when the Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Power But he seems to say in this Case that a Doctrine of their Church is to be judged by their Number for saith he There are greater numbers that disown this Doctrine I will not at present dispute it but I desire to be informed Whether the Doctrines of their Church go by majority of Votes or not I had thought the Authority of the Guides of the Church ought to have over-ballanced any Number of Dissenters For what are those who refuse to submit to the Dictates of Popes and Councils but Dissenters from the Church of Rome The distinction of the Court and Church of Rome is wholly impertinent in this Case For we here consider not the meer Temporal Power which makes the Court but the Spiritual Capacity of Teaching the Church and if Popes and Councils may err in Teaching this Doctrine why not in any other I know there are some that say Vniversal Tradition is necessary to make a Doctrine â—f their Church But then no Submission can be required to any Doctrine in that Church till the Universal Tradition of it in all Times and in all Parts of the Christian Church be proved And we need to desire no better Terms than these as to all Points of Pope Pius the 4 th his Creed which are in dispute between us and them 4. He makes use of the Authority of some particular Divines as delivering the Sense of their Church when there are so many of greater Authority against them Whereas if we proceed by his own Rule the greater Number is to carry it Therefore we cannot be thought to mis-represent them if we charge them with such things as are owned either by the general and allowed Practices of their Church or their publick Offices or the generality of their Divines and Casuists or in case of a Contest with that side which is owned by the Guides of their Church when the other is censured or which was approved by their Canonized Saints or declared by their Popes and councils whose Decrees they are bound to follow And by these measures I intend to proceed having no design to mis-represent them as indeed we need not And so much in Answer to the Introduction A Papist Mis-represented and Represented I. Of Praying to Images A Papist Mis-represented Worships Stocks and Stones for Gods He takes no notice of the Second Commandment but setting up Pictures and Images of Christ the Virgin Mary and other his Saints He prays to Them and puts his Trust and Confidence in them much like as the Heathens did in their Wooden Gods Jupiter Mars Venus c. And for this reason He erects stately Monuments to Them in his Churches adorns them sumptuously burns Candles offers Incense and frequently falls down prostrate before them and with his Eyes fix'd on them cries out Help me Mary assist me Anthony remember me Ignatius A Papist Represented believes it damnable to Worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to Pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints as also to put any Trust or Confidence in them He keeps them by him indeed to preserve in his Mind the Memory of the things Represented by them as People are wont to preserve the Memory of their deceased Friends by keeping their Picture He is taught to use them by casting his eye upon the Pictures or Images and thence to raise his heart to the Prototypes and there to imploy it in Meditation Love Thanksgiving Imitation c. as the Object requires As many good Christians placing a Death-head before them from the sight of it take occasion to reflect often upon their last End in order to their better preparing for it or by seeing Old Time painted with his Fore-lock Hour-Glass and Scythe turn their thoughts upon the swiftness of Time and that whosoever neglects the present is in danger of beginning then to lay hold when there 's no more to come These Pictures or Images having this advantage that they inform the mind by one glance of what in reading requires a Chapter and sometimes a Volume There being no other difference between them then that Reading represents leisurely and by degrees and a Picture all at once Hence he finds a convenience in saying his Prayers with some devout Pictures before him he being no sooner distracted but the sight of these recalls his wandring thoughts to the right Object and as certainly brings something good into his mind as an immodest Picture disturbs his heart with naughtiness And because he is sensible that these holy Pictures and Images represent and
Communion as unworthy Neither does it reflect at all on the Churches Authority or make the Truth of her Doctrine questionable to him that many of her eminent Members Doctors Prelates and leading Men have been or are great enormous Sinners infamous for their Pride Covetousness or other Vices whatsoever The Promises of God's continual and un-interrupted Assistance to his Church being not to be frustrated by the Wickedness of such particular Men though in great Dignities These Promises being made surer to her than ever the Iewish Church Which nevertheless stood firm in her Authority and the Delivery of Truth notwithstanding the frequent Idolatry of the People Nadab and Abihu's consecrated Priests offering strange Fire Corah Dathan and Abiram's making a great Schism and the Sins of Moses and Aaron and other High-Priests in all her succeeding Ages Nay though all things touching Religion and Virtue were in a manner run to decay in our Saviour's time both in Priests and People yet did he maintain the Authority of the Iewish Church and commanded all to be Obedient and submit to those who had the Superiority without calling in question their Authority or doubting of the Reasonableness of their Commands The Scribes and Pharisees says he Matth. 23.2 sit in Moses 's Chair All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do But do ye not after their Works If therefore God's special Assistance was never wanting to the Church of the Iews so as to let it fail in the Truth of its Doctrine or its Authority notwithstanding the Pride Covetousness Cruelty Impiety Idolatry of many of her Levites Elders Priests and High-Priests Why should not he believe the same of the Church of Christ which as Saint Paul says is built on better Promises and that it remains entire in the Truth of her Doctrine and her Authority notwithstanding the Viciousness of many of her Governours Especially since he 's in a manner confident that there has been nothing so infamous acted by any Priests Prelates Popes or others since Christ's time but what may be follow'd Nay was out-done by the Priests of the Iews XVII Of Infallibility in the Church 1. HE doth not pretend this belongs to the Pastors and Prelates of his Church who may fall he saith into Heresie and Schism but that the whole Church is secured by Divine Promises from all Error and danger of Prevarication which he proves from the Promises of the New Testament Mat. 16.18 28.20 Iohn 14.16 26. But however the former seems to take away Infallibility from the Guides of the Church yet that this is to be understood of them seperately appears by what follows 2. The like Assistance of the Holy Ghost he believes to be in all General Councils which is the Church Representative by which they are specially protected from all error in all definitions and declarations in matters of Faith Now here are two sorts of Infallibility tacked to one another by vertue of these general Promises which ought more distinctly to be considered 1. To preserve Christs Church so as it shall never cease to be a Church is one thing to preserve it from all Errors is another The former answers the End of Christs Promises as to the Duration of the Church and the latter is not implied in them 2. The promise of teaching them all Truth Joh. 16.13 is not made to the whole Church but to the Apostles And their case was so peculiar and extraordinary that there can be no just inference from the assistance promised to them of what the Church should enjoy in all Ages 3. If the diffusive Church have no infallible Assistance promised then no infallible Assistance can from thence be proved for the Church Representative so that some particular Promises to the Guides of the Church as assembled together are necessary to prove the Infallibility of Councils 4. It by no means proves following Councils to be Infallible because the Apostle said Acts 15.28 It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Our Author doth not doubt but the same may be prefixed to all determinations in point of Faith resolved on by any General Council lawfully assembled since that time or to be held to the Worlds end But what Reason he had for not doubting in this matter I cannot see the Assistance he said being to extend as far as the Promise But shall Assistance imply Infallibility Then there must be good store as long as the Promises of Divine Grace hold good But this Assistance of Councils is very different from the Assistance of Grace for the Church may subsist without Councils but cannot without Grace What General Council was there from the meeting Acts 15. to the Council of Nice Were not Christ's Promises fulfilled to his Church all that time when it encreased in all parts against the most violent Opposition 5. No parity of Reason from the Iewish Church can be sufficient proof for Infallibility in the Christian. But our Author argues thus If Gods special Assistance was never wanting to the Church of the Iews so as to let it fail in the truth of its Doctrine or its Authority Why should not he believe the same of the Church of Christ which is built on better Promises What special Assistance was it which Israel had when it is said that for a long time Israel had been without the true God and without a teaching Priest and without Law And as to Iudah was there no failing in point of Doctrine in our Saviours time It is true they had the Law intire and that was all that was good among them for their Teachers had corrupted themselves and the people and made the Law of no effect among them If there were Infallibility any where it must be in the High Priest and Sanhedrim but is it possible for any Christian to think them Infallible when they were so grosly mistaken about the main Article of their Faith as to the Messias and pronounced him worthy of Death Is not this a fine Argument for the Infallibility of the Guides of the Christian Church But the Church of Christ hath better Promises No doubt of it greater Promises of Grace and Mercy in this World and in that to come but what is all this to Infallibility in Councils 6. Christ's Command of Obedience to those who sat in Moses Chair Matth. 23.2 doth not prove the Infallibility of those who sat there Yet this is alledged to that purpose and that men ought not to doubt of the Reasonableness of the Commands of their Superiors But St. Chrysostom saith our Saviour speaks of the things commanded by the Law of Moses â—er Cathedram Doctrinam Legis ostendit saith St. Ierome Not their own Doctrine but that of Moses saith Isidore and so Hilary and Theophylact. Maldonate confesseth our Saviours Words are to be understood not of their own Doctrine but of that of the Law and therefore he yields the Obedience here required is to be restrained to
Universities And why should the Actions of some few Popes with the Private Opinions of some Speculative Doctors be so often and vehemently urg'd for the just charging this Doctrine upon the Faith of the Church of Rome which to a Serious Impartial Considerer are only meer Fallacies capable of Libelling all Societies in the World of overthrowing all States and Kingdoms and only fit Arguments for Knaves to cheat Fools withal There being no Government in the World which might not be easily proved Tyrannical No Religion Perswasion or Society which might not plausibly be indicted of Atheism If the Actions Pretences Claims and endeavour of some few of their Governours and Leading Men the Opinions Writings Phansies of some Authors be allow'd as sufficient Evidence for the bringing in the Verdict of Guilty upon the whole When Malice therâ—fore and Envy have done their worst in this point to render the Papists bloody and barbarous to the World yet ' ds certain after all that Popish Princes sit as safe in their Thrones enjoy as much Peace and Security as any other Princes whatsoever and that the Papists in England can give as good proofs of their Loyalty as the best of those that clamour so loud against them They can bid defiâ—nce to their Adversaries to shew any one Person of Honour and Estate amongst them or even four of any condition whatsoever that bore Arms against Charles the First during the whole time of his Troubles They can make good that there was scarce any amongst them that did not assist his Majesty either with Person or Purse or both And they can say that Charles the First was murder'd in cold blood by his Protestant Subjects after many hundred Papists had lost their Lives for the preventing that Butchery and that Charles the Second being pursued by the same Subjects for his Life sav'd it amongst the Papists XX. Of the Deposing Power TO bring this matter into as narrow a compass as may be I shall first take notice of his Concessions which will save us a labour of Proofs 1. He yields that the Deposing and King-killing Power hath been maintained by some Canonists and Divines of his Church and that it is in their opinion lawful and annexed to the Papal Chair 2. That some Popes have endeavoured to act according to this Power But then he denies that this Doctrine appertains to the Faith of his Church and is to be believed by all of that Communion And more than that he saith The affirming of it is a malicious Calumny a downright Falsity Let us now calmly debate the matter Whether according to the received principles of the Church of Rome this be only a particulâ—r opinion of some Popes and Divines or be to be received as a matter of Faith The Question is not Whether those who deny it do account it an Article of Faith for we know they do not But whether upon the Principles of the Church of Rome they are not bound to do it I shall only to avoid cavilling proceed upon the Principles owned by our Author himself viz. 1. That the sense of Scripture as understood by the Community of Christians in all Angels since the Apostles is to be taken from the present Church 2. That by the present Church be understands the Pastors and Prelates assembled in Councils who are appointed by Christ and his Apostles for the decision of controversies and that they have Inâ—allible assistance 3. That the Pope as Head of the Church hath a particular assistance promised him with a special regard to his Office and Function If therefore it appear that Popes and Councils have declared this Deposing Doctrine and tâ—ey hâ—ve received other things as Articles of Faith upon the same Declarations why should they then stick at yielding this to be an Article of Faith as well as the other It is not denied that I can find that Popes and Councils for several Ages have asserted and exercised the Deposing Power but it is alledged against these Decrees Acts. 1. That they were not grounded upon Universal Tradition 2. That they had not Universal Reception Now if these be sufficient to overthrow the Definitions of Councils let us consider the consequences of it 1. Then every Man is left to examin the Decrees of Councils whether they are to be embraced or not for he is to judge whether they are founded on Universal Tradition and so he is not to take the sense of the present Church for his Guide but the Universal Church from Christs time which overthrows a Fundamental Principle of the Roman Church 2. Then he must reject the pretended Infallibility in the Guides of the Church if they could so notoriously err in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Christendom as this was and consequently their Authority could not be sufficient to declare any Articles of Faith And so all Persons must be left at Liberty to believe as they see cause notwithstanding the Definitions made by Popes and Councils 3. Then he must believe the Guides of the Roman Church to have been mistaken not once or twice but to have persisted in it for Five hundred years which must take away not only Infallâ—bilâ—ty but any kind of Reverence to the Authority of it For whatever may be said as to those who have depended on Princes or favour their Partâ—es against the Guides of the Church it cannot be denied that for so long time the leading Party in that Church did assert and maintain the Deposing Power And therefore Lessius truly understood this matter when he said That there was scarce any Article of the Christian Faith the denial whereof was more dangerous to the Church or did precipitate Men more into Heresie and Hatred of the Church than this of the Deposing Power for he says they could not maintain their Churches Authority without it And he reckons up these ill Consequences of denying it 1. That the Roman Church hath erred for at least five hundred years in a matter fundamental as to Government and of great Moment Which is worse than an Error about Sacraments as Penance Extream Unction c. and yet those who deny the Church can err in one hold that it hath erred in a greater matter 2. That it hath not only erred but voluntarily and out of Ambiâ—ion perverting out of Design the Doctrine of the Primive Church and Fathers concerning the Power of the Church and bringing in another contrary to it against the Right and Authority of Princes which were a grievous sin 3. That it made knowingly unrighteous Decrees to draw persons from their Allegiance to Princes and so they became the Causes of many Seditions and Rebellions and all the ill Consequences of them under a shew of Piety and Religion 4. That the Churches Decrees Commands Judgments and Censures may be safely contemned as Null and containing intolerable Errors And that it may require such things which good Subjects are bound to disobey 5. That Gregory VII
other which is not fair and ingenuous As to the one he saith He follows the Council of Trent and their allowed Spiritual Books and Catechisms and we find no fault with this But why must the other Part then be drawn by Fancy or common Prejudices or ignorant Mistakes Have we no Rule whereby the Judgment of our Church is to be taken Are not our Articles as easie to be had and understood as the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent I will not ask How the Council of Trent comes to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here where it was never received But I hope I may why our Representations are not to be taken from the Sense of our Church as theirs from the Council of Trent If he saith his Design was to remove common Prejudices and vulgar Mistakes it is easie to answer if they are contrary to the Doctrine of our Church we utterly disown them We know very well there are Persons who have so false a Notion of Popery that they charge the Rites and Customs of our Church with it but we pity their Weakness and Folly and are far from defending such Mis-representations But that which we adhere to is the Doctrine and Sense of our Church as it is by Law established and what Representations are made agreeable thereto I undertake to defend and no other But if a person take the liberty to lay on what Colours he pleases on one side it will be no hard matter to take them off in the other and then to say How much fairer is our Church than she is painted It is an easie but not so allowable a way of disputing for the same person to make the Objections and Answers too for he may so model and frame the Arguments by a little Art that the Answers may appear very full and sufficient whereas if they had been truly represented they would be found very lame and defective 2. He pretends to give an Account why he quotes no Authors for his Mis-representations which is very unsatisfactory viz. That he hath dâ—scribed the Papist therein exactly accoâ—ding to the Apprehension he had of him when he was a Protestant But how can we tell what sort of Protestant he was nor how well he was instructed in his Religion And must the Character now supposed to be common to Protestants be taken from his ignorant or childish or wilful Mistakes Did ever any Protestant that understands himself say That Papists are never permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry Or that a Papist believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels c Yet these are some of his Misrepresentations Did he in earnest think so himself If he did he gives no good account of himself if he did not he gives a worse for then how shall we believe him in other things when he saith He hath drawn his Mis-representations exactly according to his own Apprehensions It is true he saith he added some few points which were violently charged on him by his Friends but we dare be bold to say these were none of them But let us suppose it true that he had such Apprehensions himself Are these fit to be printed as the Character of a Party What would they say to us if a Spanish Convert should give a Character of Protestants according to the common Opinion the people there have of them and set down in one Column their monstrous Mis-representations and in another what he found them to be since his coming hither and that in good Truth he saw they were just like other Men But suppose he had false Apprehensions before he went among them why did he not take care to inform himself better before he changed Had he no Friends no Books no Means to rectifie his Mistakes Must he needs leave one Church and go to another before he understood either If this be a true Account of himself it is but a bad Account of the Reasons of his Change III. The Account he gives of the other part of his Character affords as little Satisfaction For although in the general it be well that he pretends to keep to a Rule 1. He shews no Authority he hath to interpret that Rule in his own sense Now several of his Representations depend upon his own private Sense and Opinions against the Doctrine of many others as zealous for the Church as himself and what reason have we to adhere to his Representations rather than to theirs As for instance he saith The Pope's personal Infallibility is no Matter of Faith But there are others say it is and is grounded on the same Promises which makes him Head of the Church Why now must we take his Representation rather than theirs And so as to the Deposing Power he grants it hath been the Opinion of several Popes and Councils too but that it is no matter of Faith But whose Judgment are we to take in this Matter according to the Principles of their Church A private Man's of no Name no Authority or of those Popes and Councils who have declared it and acted by it And can any man of their Church justifie our relying upon his Word against the Declaration of Popes and Councils But suppose the Question be about the Sense of his own Rule the Council of Trent what Authority hath he to declare it when the Pope hath expresly forbidden all Prelates to do it and reserved it to the Apostolical See 2. He leaves out in the several Particulars an essential part of the Character of a Papist since the Council of Trent which is that he doth not only believe the Doctrines there defined to be true but to be necessary to Salvation And there is not a word of this in his Representation of the Points of Doctrine but the whole is managed as though there were nothing but a difference about some particular Opinions whereas in truth the Necessity of holding those Doctrines in order to Salvation is the main Point in difference If Men have no mind to believe their own Senses we know not how to help it but we think it is very hard to be told we cannot be saved unless we renounce them too And this now appears to be the true State of the Case since Pius the 4 th drew up and published a Confession of Faith according to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent wherein Men are not only required to believe their Traditions as firmly as the Bible the Seven Sacraments Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Indulgences Supremacy c. but they must believe that without believing these things there is no Salvation to be had in the ordinary way for after the enumeration of those Points it follows Hanc veram Catholicam sidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This is the
and another knowing me unable to pay it gives me so much to pay the Debt this is no more than what may be called strict Payment as to the Creditor but if the Creditor himself gives me this 100 l. to pay himself with will any Man call this strict Payment He may call it so himself if he pleases but that only shews his Kindness and Favour but it doth not look very modestly or gratefully for the Debtor to insist upon it as true legal Payment Just so it is in good Works done by the Power of God's Grace which we could never have done without it and therefore such cannot be truly meritorious 2. What is truly meritorious must not be defective because the Proportion is to be equal between the Act and the Reward due to it which being perfect requires that there be do Defect in the Acts which merit it But this can never be said of Good Works of justified Persons that they have no Defects in them We do not say they are not Good Works but they are not exact and perfect for although the Grace of God as it comes from him be a perfect Gift yet as it acts upon Mens Minds it doth not raise them to such a degree but that they have Imperfections in their best Actions And whatever is defective is faulty whatever is faulty must be forgiven whatever needs forgiveness cannot be truly meritorious But not only their Good Works are defective but if they would merit they ought to have none but Good Works whereas the mixture of others renders the good uncapable of being meritorious because there is so much to be pardoned as takes away all claim of Merit in the good they perform And themselves do not pretend that Men can merit the Grace of Remission but it is very strange that those who cannot deserve to be forgiven should deserve to have an infinite Reward bestowed upon them 3. There must be an exact Proportion between the Act and the Recompence for to merit is to pay a Price for a thing and in such Acts of commutative Justice there must be an Equality of one thing with another But what Equality can there be between the imperfect Good Works of the best Men and the most perfect Happiness of another World especially when that consists in the fruition of the Beatifical Vision For what Proportion can there be between our Acts towards God and God's Acts towards the Blessed in Heaven Let the Acts be of what Person soever or of what Nature soever or from what Principle soever as long as they are the Acts of finite imperfect Creatures it is impossible there should be any Equality or exact Proportion between them and the Eternal Favour of God which is the Reward promised 4. Where Acts are truly meritorious there follows an Obligation of strict Justice to pay the Recompence due to them But what strict Justice can there be between the Creator and his Creatures to recompence the Service they are bound to perform when their very Being Power to act Assistance in acting and Recompence for it are all from his Bounty and Goodness But our Author would avoid all this by saying that though Good Works are truly meritorious yet it is through the Merits of Christ and as they proceed from Grace and through his Goodness and Promise that they are so i. e. they are truly meritorious because it appears from all these things they neither are nor can be meritorious For 1. How come the Merits of Christ to make good Works truly meritorious Are the Merits of Christ imputed to those Good Works Then those Good Works must be as meritorious as Christ's own Works which I suppose he will not assert Or is it that Christ hath merited the Grace whereby we may merit But even this will not make our personal Acts truly meritorious and the Nature of Merit relates to the Acts and not to the Power 2. How comes the Power of Grace to make them truly meritorious when the Power of Grace doth so much increase the Obligation on our side If it be said That the state of Grace puts men into a capacity to merit we might more reasonably infer the contrary that it puts them out of a capacity of meriting because the Remission of Sins and the Favour of God are things for which we can never make him any recompence 3. How comes a Divine Promise to make Acts truly meritorious For God's Promise is an Act of meer kindness which is very different from strict Justice and although by the Promise God binds himself to performance yet how come those Acts to be more meritorious of Heaven than the Acts of Repentance are of Remission of Sins Yet none will now say that there can be any Acts meritorious of that Yet certainly there is a clear promise of Pardon upon Repentance as there is of Heaven upon Good Works And if the Promise in the other case doth not make Repentance meritorious of Pardon how can it make Good Works truly meritorious of Eternal Life But notwithstanding we do not deny God's Fidelity to his Promise may be called Iustice and so God as a Righteous Iudge may give a Crown of Righteousness to all that follow St. Paul's Example without making Good Works to be truly meritorious VII Of Confession HE believes it part of his Religion to make Gods of Men foolishly thinking that these have power to forgive sins And therefore as often as he finds his Conscience oppressed with the guilt of his Offences he calls for one of his Priests who are commonly more wicked than himself and falling at his feet he unfolds to him the whole state of his Soul and having run over a Catalogue of his Sins he asks of him Pardon and Forgiveness And what is most absurd of all he is so sillily stupid as to believe That if his Ghostly Father after he has heard all his Villanies in his Ear does but pronounce three or four Latin words making the sign of a Cross with two fingers and a thumb over his head his sins are forthwith forgiven him although he had never any thoughts of amendment or intention to forsake his wickedness HE believes it damnable in any Religion to make Gods of Men. However he firmly holds that when Christ speaking to his Apostles said Ioh. 20.21 Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven and whose sins you shall retain they are retained He gave to them and their Successors the Bishops and Priests of the Catholick Church Authority to absolve any truly penitent sinner from his sins And God having thus given them the Ministry of Reconciliation and made them Christ's Legates 2 Cor. 5.18 19 12. Christ's Ministers and the Dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ and given them power to loose on Earth whatsoever was to be loosed in Heaven Mat. 18.18 he undoubtedly believes that whosoever comes to them making a sincere and humble confession of his sins with a
firm purpose of amendment and an hearty resolution of turning from his evil ways may from them receive Absolution by the Authority given them from Heaven and not doubt but God ratifies above the sentence pronounced in that Tribunal Loosing in Heaven whatsoever is thus loosed by them on Earth And that whosoever comes without the due preparation without a Repentance from the bottom of his heart and real intension of forsaking his sins receives no benefit by the Absolution but adds sin to sin by an high contempt of God's Mercy and abuse of his Sacraments VII Of Confession WE do not charge the Church of Rome that in the power of Absolving they make Gods of Men as our Misrepresenter pretends 2. We do not deny That Christ gave to the Bishops and Priests of the Catholick Church Authority to absolve any truly penitent Sinner from his Sins which he therefore needlesly proves out of Scripture and that such Absolution is ratified in Heaven 3. We are glad to find that our Author declares That no Man receives benefit by Absolution without Repentance from the bottom of his Heart and real intention of forsaking his Sins by which we hope he means more than Attrition But yet there are some things which stick with us as to the Doctrine and Practicee of the Church of Rome in this matter which he takes no notice of 1. That Secret Confession of Sins to a Priest is made so necessary to Salvation that an Anathema is denounced against all that deny it when they cannot deny that God doth forgive Sins upon true Contrition For the Council of Trent doth say That Contrition with Charity doth reconcile a Man to God before the Sacrament of Penance be actually received But then it adds That the desire of Confession is included in Contrition Which is impossible to be proved by Scripture Reason or Antiquity For so lately as in the time of the Master of the Sentences and Gratian in the 12 th Century it was a very disputable Point whether Confession to a Priest were necessary And it is very hard for us to understand how that should become necessary to Salvation since which was not then Some of their own Writers confess that some good Catholicks did not believe the necessity of it I suppose the old Canonists may pass for good Catholicks and yet Maldonat saith That all the Interpreters of the Decrees held that there was no Divine Precept for Confession to a Priest and of the same Opinion he grants Scotus to have been But he thinks it is now declared to be Heresie or he wishes it were And we think it is too much already unless there were better ground for it 2. That an Anathema is denounced against those who do not understand the words of Christ Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. of the Sacrament of Penance so as to imply the necessity of Confession Whereas there is no appearance in the words of any such Sense and themselves grant that in order to the Remission of Sins by Baptism of which St. Matthew and St. Mark speak in the Apostles Commission there is no necessity of Sacramental Confession but a general Confession is sufficient And from hence the Elder Iansenius concludes That the Power of Remission of Sins here granted doth not imply Sacramental Confession Cajetant yields There is no Command for Confession here And Catharinus adds That Cajetan would not allow any one Place of Scripture to prove Auricular Confession And as to this particular he denies that there is any Command for it and he goes not about to prove it but that Cajetan contradicts himself elsewhere viz. when he wrote School-Divinity before he set himself to the study of the Scriptures Vasques saith That if these words may be understood of Baptism none can infer from them the Necessity of Auricular Confession But Gregory de Valentia evidently proves that this place doth relate to Remission of Sins in Baptism not only from the Comparison of places but from the Testimonies of Saint Cyprian Saint Ambrose and others 3. That it is expressed in the same Anathema's that this hath been always the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church from the beginning We do not deny the ancient practice either of Canonical Confession as part of the Discipline of the Church for publick Offenses nor of Voluntary Confession for ease and satisfaction of the perplexed Minds of doubting or dejected Penitents but that which we say was not owned nor practised by the Church from the beginning was this Sacramental Confession as necessary to the Remission of sins before God It is therefore to no purpose to produce out of Bellarmine and others a great number of Citations to prove that which we never deny but if they hold to the Council of Trent they must prove from the Fathers that Sins after Baptism cannot be forgiven without Confession to men which those who consider what they do will never undertake there being so many Testimonies of undoubted Antiquity against it And it is observable that Bonaventuâ—e grants that before the Lateran Decree of Innocentius 3. it was no Heresie to deny the necessity of Confession and so he excuses those who in the time of Lombard and Gratian held that Opinion And all other Christians in the World besides those of the Church of Rome do to this day reject the necessity of particular Confession to a Priest in order to Remission as the Writers of the Church of Rome themselves confess So Godignus doth of the Abyssins Philippus à SS Trinitate of the Iacobites Clemens Galanus of the Nestorians who saith They made a Decree against the use of Confession to any but to God alone And Alexius Meneses of the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies The Greeks believe Confession only to be of Positive and Ecclesiastical Institution as the late Author of the Critical History of the Faith and Customs of the Eastern Nations proves And the very Form of their Absolution declares that they do not think particular Confession of all known Sins necessary to pardon for therein the Priest absolves the Penitent from the sins he hath not confessed through forgetfulness or shame And now let any one prove this to have been a Catholick Tradition by Vincentius his Rules viz. That it hath been always received every where and by All. VIII Of Indulgences HE believes that his Holy Father the Pope can give him leave to commit what sins he pleaseth especially if he can make him a present of a round Sum of Mony he never need doubt of an Indulgence or Pardon for himself and his Heirs for ever for all sorts of Crimes or Wickedness he or any of his Posterity may have convenience of falling into And having this Commission in his Pocket under the Popes Broad Seal he may be confident that Christ will confirm and stand to all that his Vicar upon Earth has granted and not
call him to any account for any thing he has done although he should chance to die without the least remorse of Conscience or Repentance for his sins HE believes it damnable to hold that the Pope or any other Power in Heaven or Earth can give him leave to commit any sins whatsoever Or that for any Sum of Mony he can obtain an Indulgence or Pardon for sins that are to be committed by him or his Heirs hereafter He firmly believes that no sins can be forgiven but by a true and hearty Repentance But that still there is a Power in the Church of granting Indulgences which concern not at all the Remission of sins either Mortal or Venial but only of some Temporal Punishments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted So that they are nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation upon just causes of Canonical Penances which are or may be injoyn'd by the Pastors of the Church on penitent sinners according to their several degrees of demerit And this he is taught to be grounded on the Judiciary Power left by Christ in his Church of binding and loosing whereby Authority was given to erect a Court of Conscience to assign Penalties or release them as circumstances should reguire And this Authority he knows S. Paul plainly own'd 2 Cor. 2.6 where he decreed a Penance Sufficient says he to such a man is this punishment And 2 Cor. 2.10 where he released one For your sake speaking of the Penance injoyn'd the incestuous Corinthian I forgive it in the Person of Christ. And what Mony there is given at any time on this account concerns not at all the Pope's Coffers but is by every one given as they please either to the Poor to the Sick to Prisoners c. wherefore they judge it most Charity And tho' he acknowledges many abuses have been committed in granting and gaining Indulgences through the default of some particular Persons yet he cannot imagine how these can in Justice be charg'd upon the Church to the prejudice of her Faith and Doctrine â—specially since she has been so careful in the retâ—enching them As may be seen by what what was done in the Council of Trent Dec. de Indulg cum potestas VIII Of Indulgences 1. THey must be extreamly ignorant who take the Power of Indulgences to be a Leave from the Pope to commit what Sins they please and that by virtue thereof they shall escape Punishment for their Sins without Repentance in another World Yet this is the sense of the Misrepresentation which he saith is made of it And if he saith true in his Preface That he hath described the Belief of a Papist exactly according to the apprehension he had when he was a Protestant He shews how well he understood the Matters in difference when I think no other Person besides himself ever had such an apprehension of it who pretended to be any thing like a Scholar 2. But now he believes it damnable to hold that the Pope or any other Power in Heaven or Earth can give him leave to commit any Sins whatsoever or that for any Sum of Mony he can obtain any Indulgence or Pardon for Sins that are to be committed by him or his Heirs hereafter Very well But what thinks he of obtaining an Indulgence or Pardon after they are committed Is no such thing to be obtained in the Court of Rome for a Sum of Mony He cannot but have heard of the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber for several Sins and what Sums are there set upon them Why did he not as freely speak against this This is published in the vast Collection of Tracts of Canon Law set forth by the Popes Authority where there are certain Rates for Perjury Murder Apostacy c. Now what do these Sums of Mony mean If they be small it is so much the better Bargain for the Sins are very great And Espencaeus complains that this Book was so far from being called in that he saith the Popes Legats renerred those Faculties and confirmed them It seems then a Sum of Mony may be of some consequence towards the obtaining Pardon for a Sin past tho' not for a Licence to commit it But what mighty difference is there whether a Man procures with Mony a Dispensation or a Pardon For the Sin can hurt him no more than if he had Licence to commit it 3. He doth believe there is a Power in the Church to grant Indulgences which he saith concern not at all the Remission of Sins either mortal or venial but only of some temporal Punishments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted Here now arises a material Question viz. Whether the Popes or the Representer be rather to be believed If the Popes who grant the Indulgences are to be believed then not only the bare Remission of Sins is concerned in them but the plenary and most plenary Remission of Sins is to be had by them So Boniface the 8 th in his Bull of Iubilee granted Non solum plenam largiorem imo plenissimam veniam peccatorum If these words had no relation to Remission of Sins the People were horribly cheated by the sound of them In the Bull of Clement the 6 th not extant in the Bullarium but published out of the Vtrecht Manuscript not only a plenary Absolution from all Sins is declared to all persons who died in the Way to Rome but he commands the Angels of Paradise to carry the Soul immediately to Heaven And I suppose whatever implies such an Absolution as carries a Soul to Heaven doth concern Remission of Sins Boniface IX granted Indulgences à Poenâ à Culpâ and those certainly concerned Remission of Sins being not barely from the temporal Punishment but from the Guilt it self Clement VIII whom Bellarmine magnifies for his care in reforming Indulgences in his Bull of Iubilee grants a most plenary Remission of Sins and Vrban the 8 th since him not only a Relaxation of Penances but Remission of Sins and so lately as A. D. 1671. Clement the 10 th published an Indulgence upon the Canonization of five new Saints wherein he not only grants a plenary Indulgence of Sins but upon invocation of one of these Saints in the point of Death a plenary Indulgence of all his Sins And what doth this signifie in the point of Death if it do not concern the Remission of Sins 4. Indulgences he saith are nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation upon just Causes of Canonical Penances which are or may be enjoyned by the Pastors of the Church on penitent Senners according to their several degrees of Demerits If by Canonical Penances they mean those enjoined by the Penitential Canons Greg. de Valentia saith This Opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things Bellarmin brings several Arguments against this Doctrine 1. There would be no need of the Treasure of the Church which he had proved
mischief to Christianity as this one And under a vain pretence of preventing farther inconveniences endeavours to deprive all of this Spiritual comfort of this Divine Food of this Heavenly Light that so being kept in darkness they may be also preserv'd in ignorance and Damn'd Eternally HE believes it damnable in any one to think speak or do any thing irreverently towards the Scripture or by any means whatsoever to bring it into dis-repute or disgrace He holds it in the highest Veneration of all men living he professes it to be the Dew of Heaven Oracles of God Fountain of Eternal Life that to profane it is to incur the guilt of Damnation And that we are rather bound to lose our lives than concur any way to its profanation 'T is true he does not think it fit to be read generally by all without Licence or in the Vulgar Tongues Not for any disrespect to it But I. Because he understands that private Interpretation is not proper for the Scripture 2 Pet. 1.20 II. Because that in the Epistles of St. Paul are certain things hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable deprave as also the rest of the Scriptures to their own perdition III. Because God hath given only some to be Apostles some Prophets other-some Evaâ—gelists and other-some Pastors and Doctors Eph. 4.11 For these Reasons he is taught That 't is not convenient for the Scripture to be read indifferently to all men but only such as have express Licence and good testimony from their Curates that they are humble discreet and devout persons and such as are willing to observe directions in the perusing this Sacred Volume That is take notice of all Godly Histories and imitable examples of Humility Chastity Obedience Mercy to the Poor c. and all such places as are apt to provoke and stir up the hatred of Sin fear of God's Judgments love of Virtue c. and in all Hard Obscure and Disputable Points to refer all to the Arbitrement of the Church to the judgment of those whom God hath appointed Pastors and Doctors Never presuming to contend controul teach or talk of their own Sense and Phansie in deep Questions of Divinity and high Mysteries of Faith but expecting the sense of these from the Lips of the Priest who shall keep knowledge and from whose mouth they shall require the Law Mal. 2.7 And this caution is used lest that the Scripture coming into the hands of a presuming sort of proud curious and contentious people be abused and perverted who make it their business to enquire into Dogmatical Mystical High and Hidden secrets of God's Counsels into Predestination Reprobation Election Pre-science and other such incomprehensible Mysteries and upon the presumption of I know not what Spirit immediately become Teachers Controllors and Iudges of Doctors Church Scripture and all and acknowledging no Authority left by Christ to which they are to submit under pretence of Scripture and God's Word make way for all sorts of Profaneness Irreligion and Atheism So that 't is not for the preserving Ignorance he allows a restraint upon the reading the Scriptures but for the preventing a blind ignorant Presumption And that it may be done to edification and not to destruction and without casting the holy to dogs or pearls to swine X. Of Reading the Holy Scripture 1. HE believes it damnable in any one to think speak or do any thing irreverently towards the Scripture or by any means whatsoever to bring it into disrepute or disgrace but not being contented with this he adds That he holds it in the highest Veneration of all Men living Now here we must desire a little better Representation of this Matter For certainly those who derive its Authority from the Church who set Traditions in equal esteem with it who complain so much of its Obscurity can never be said to hold in equal Veneration with those who maintain its independent Authority its Sufficiency and Perspicuity And these are known and material Points in Controversy between us and them therefore let them not say they hold it in the highest Veneration of all men living tho those thought themselves thorough Catholicks who have compared it to a Nose of Wax to a Lesbian Rule to a dead Letter unsensed Characters and to other things not fit to be repeated But we are well pleased to find them express such Veneration for it Wherefore then are the people to be kept from reading it 2. He saith It is not out of disrespect to it But why then 1. Because private Interpretation is not proper for the Scripture 2 Pet. 1.20 One would think the Scripture were not kept oâ—ly from the people by such a Sense being put upon it for any one that would but consider that place will find it must relate to the Prophets themselves and doth he think the Prophets were to be debarred from reading the Scriptures But this is playing with Scripture and not reasoning from it 2 Because in the Epistles of S. Paul are certain things hard to be â—nderstood which the unlearned and unstable deprave as also the rest of the Scriptures to their own Perdition 2 Pet. 3.16 Now in my Opinion such men deserve more to be debarred from medling with the Scripture who make such perverse Inferences from it than ordinary Readers And if they use all other places as they do this they cannot be excused from depraving it It is granted there were then unlearned and unstable men who misunderstood or misapplied the Writings of St. Paul and other Scriptures And what then There are men of all Ages who abuse the best things in the World even the Gospel it self and the Grace of God Doth it hence follow that the Gospel must not be preached to them or the grace of God made known to them for fear of mens making ill use of it If this had been the just consequence would not St. Peter himself have thought of this But he was so far from making it that he adviseth those persons he writes to to have a mighty regard to the Scriptures even to the Prophetical Writings as to a Light shiâ—ing in a dark place 1 Pet. 1.19 According to this way of deducing Consequences St. Peter should have argued just contrary The Prophetical Writings are dark and obscure therefâ—râ— meddle not with them but trust your Guides Whereas the Apostle after he had told them what the Apostles saw and heard he adds That they have a more sure Prophetical Word as the Rhemists translate it How could that be more sure to them unless they were allowed to read consider and make use of it 3. Because God hath given only some to be Apostles some Prophets other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors Ephes. 4.11 Doth it hence follow that the People are not to read the Scriptures In the Universities Tutors are appointed to interpret Aristotle to their Pupils doth it hence follow that they are not to read Aristotle themselves It is no
doubt a mighty Advantage to have such infallible Interpreters as the Apostles and Prophets and all Christians are bound to follow their Sense where they have delivered it But suppose the Question be about the Sense of these Interpreters must their Books not be looked into because of the danger of Error This Reason will still hold against those who go about to deliver their Sense and so on till by this Method of Reasoning all sort of Books and Interpretations be rejected unless any such can be found out which is not liable to be abused or misunderstood And if there be any such to be had they are much to blame who do not discover it But as yet we see no Remedy for two things in Mankind a proneness to Sin and to Mistake But of all things we ought not to take away from them one of the best Means to prevent both viz. a diligent and careful and humble reading the Holy Scriptures But 3. He denies that all persons are forbid to read the Scriptures but only such as have License and good Testimony from their Curats and therefore their design is not to preserve Ignorance in the people but to prevent a blind ignorant presumption These are plausible pretences to such as search no farther but the Mystery of this matter lies much deeper It was no doubt the Design of the Church of Rome to keep the Bible wholly out of the hands of the people But upon the Reformation they found it impossible so many Translations being made into vulgar Languages and therefore care was taken to have Translations made by some of their own Body and since the people of better inclinations to Piety were not to be satisfied without the Bible therefore they thought it the better way to permit certain persons whom they could trust to have a License to read it And this was the true Reason of the fourth Rule of the Index Liber prohibit made in pursuance of the Order of the Council of Trent and published by Pius IV. by which any one may see it was not an Original Permission out of any good Will to the Thing but an Aftergame to get the Bible out of the hands of the People again And therefore Absolution was to be denied to those who would not deliver them to their Ordinaries when they were called for And the Regulars themselves were not to be permitted to have Bibles without a License And as far as I can understand the Addition of Clement VIII to that fourth Rule he withdraws any new Power of granting such Licenses and saith they are contrary to the Command and Vsage of that Church which he saith is to be inviolably observed Wherein I think he declares himself fully against such Licenses And that inferior Guides should grant them against the Command of the Head of the Church is a thing not very agreeable to the Unity and Subordination they boast of XI Of Apocryphal Books HE believes it lawful to make what Additions to Scripture his Party thinks good and therefore takes no notice of the ancient Canon approved by the Apostles and primitive Christians but allows equal Authority to the Books of Toby Judith Ecclesiasticus Wisdom and the Macchabees as to the other part of the Scripture altho' these were always rejected by the Jews never exant in the Hebrew Copy and expresly condemn'd by St. Jerome as not Canonical and never admitted by the Church but only of late years in some of their Synods which made these Innovations contrary to the Sense of their Ancestors HE believes it damnable to add any thing to the Scripture And yet allows the Books of Toby Iudith Ecclesiasticus Wisdom Macchabees to be Canonical because the Church of Christ has declar'd them such not only in these later ages but even in the primitive times S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. de S S. Macc. who lived in the year 354. Also S. Ambrose lib. de Iacob vit beat An. 370. Innocent I. Ep. ad Exup They were also received by the third Council of Carthage An. 419. which approv'd all these Books as Canonical Can. 47. and was subscrib'd by S. Augustine and confirm'd in the 6 th General Synod August lib. 2. Doct. Christ. cap. 8. So that to him 't is of little concern whether they were ever in the Hebrew Copy the Canon of the Church of Christ being of much more Authority with him than the Canon of the Iews He having no other assurance that the Books of Moses and the four Gospels are the true Word of God but by the Authority and Canon of the Church And this he has learn'd from that great Doctor S. Augustine who declares his mind plainly in this case saying That he would not believe the Gospel except the Authority of the Catholick Church mov'd him threunto Contra Ep. Fundam c. 4. Now he is well satisfied that many doubted whether these Books were Canonical or no and amongst others S. Ierom because the Church had not declar'd them so But since the Church's Declaration no Catholick ever doubted no more than of other Books viz. of the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of St. James the second of St. Peter the second and third of St. John St. Jude 's Epistle and the Apocalyps All which were for many years after the Apostles time doubted of but afterwards declar'd and receiv'd as Canonical This he finds S. Ierome expresly confessing of himself viz. That for some time the Book of Judith seemed to him Apocryphal to wit till the Council of Nice declar'd it otherwise Praef. in Iudith The like he affirms of S. Iames's Epistle that it was doubted of by many for several years Paulatim tempore procedente meruit authoritatem By little and little in process of time it gain'd Authority De viris illus verb. Iacob For this reason he matters not what Books have been reputed Apocryphal by some and for some years But only what Books are receiv'd and declar'd by the Church Canonical in what year and at what time soever For believing the same spirit of Truth assists her in all Ages he looks upon himself equally oblig'd to receive her Definitions of the Year 419. as of any of the precedent years It not being possible for Christ to fail of his Promise or the Holy Ghost to err or misguide the Church in that year more than in any other XI Of Apocryphal Books 1. WE do not charge the Church of Rome with making what Additions to Scripture they think good as the Misrepresenter saith but we charge them with taking into the Canon of Scripture such Books as were not received for Canonical by the Christian Church as those Books himself mentions viz. Toby Iudith Ecclesiasticus Wisdom and Maccabees 2. We do not only charge them with this but with Anathematizing all those who do not upon this Declaration believe them to be Canonical since they cannot but know that these Books never were in the Iewish Canon and were left
out by many Christian Writers And if the Church cannot add to the Scripture and our Author thinks it damnable to do it how can it make any Books Canonical which were not so received by the Church For the Scripture in this sense is the Canon and therefore if it add to the Canon it adds to the Scripture i. e. it makes it necessary to believe some Books to be of infallible Authority which were not believed to be so either by the Iewish or Christian Church as appears by abundant Testimonies to that purpose produced by a learned Bishop of this Church which ought to have been considered by the Representer that he might not have talked so crudely about this matter But however I must consider what he saith 1. He produces the Testimony of Greg. Nazianzen who is expresly against him and declares but Twenty two Books in the Canon of the Old Testament but how doth he prove that he thought these Books Canonical He quotes his Oration on the Maccabees Where I can find nothing like it and instead of it he expresly follows as he declares the Book of Iosephus of the Authority of Reason concerning them So that if this proves any thing it proves Iosephus his Book Canonical and not the Maccabees 2. He adds the Testimony of S. Ambrose who in the place he refers to enlarges on the Story of the Maccabees but saith nothing of the Authority of the Book And even Coccius himself grants that of old Melito Sardensis Amphilochius Greg. Nazianzen the Council of Laodicea S. Hierom Russinus and Gregory the Great did not own the Book of Maccabees for Canonical 3. Innocentius ad Exuperium speaks more to this purpose And if the Decretal Epistle be allowed against which Bishop Cosins hath made considerable Objections then it must be granted that these Books were then in the Roman Canon but that they were not received by the Universal Church appears evidently by the Canon of the Council of Laodicea c. 60. wherein these Books are left out and this was received in the Code of the Universal Church which was as clear a Proof of the Canon then generally received as can be expected It is true the Council of Carthage took them in and S. Augustine seems to be of the same Opinion But on the other side they are left out by Melâ—to Bishop of Sardis who lived near the Apostles times Origen Athanasius S. Hilary S. Cyril of Ierusalem Epiphanius S. Basil Amphilochius S. Chrysostom and especially S. Ierom who hath laboured in this point so much that no fewer than thirteen places are produced out of him to this purpose by the forementioned learned Bishop of our Church who clearly proves there was no Tradition for the Canon of the Council of Trent in any one Age of the Christian Church But our Author goes on 4. It is of little concern to him whether these Books were ever in the Hebrew Copy I would only ask whether it be of any concern to him whether they were divinely inspired or not He saith It is damnable to add to the Scripture by the Scripture we mean Books written by Divine Inspiration Can the Church make Books to be so written which were not so written If not then all it hath to do is to deliver by Tradition what was so and what not Whence should they have this Tradition but from the Iews and they owned no Divine Inspiration after the time of Malachy How then should there be any Books so written after that time And he that saith in this matter as he doth It is of little concern to him whether they were in the Hebrew Canon doth little concern himself what he ought to believe and what not in this matter 5. Since the Churches Declaration he saith no Catholicks ever doubted What doth he mean by the Churches Declaration that of Innocent and the Council of Carthage Then the same Bishop hath shewed him that since that time there have been very many both in the Greek and Latin Church of another Opinion And a little before the Council of Trent Catharinus saith That a Friend of his and a Brother in Christ derided him as one that wanted Learning for daring to assert these Books were within the Canon of Scripture and it is plain Card. Cajetan could never be perswaded of it But if he means since the Council of Trent then we are returned to our Difficulty how such a Council can make any Books Canonical which were not received for such by the Catholick Church before For then they do not declare the Canon but create it XII Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible HE makes no Conscience of abusing the Scripture and perverting for the maintenance of his Errors and Superstitions And therefore though he dares not altogether lay it by lest he should by so doing lose all claim to Christianity Yet he utterly disapproves it as it is in its genuine Truth and Purity and as allow'd in the Church of England and crying this down he believes it unlawful to be read by any of his Communion And then puts into their hands another Volume which in its Frontis-piece bears the Title indeed of the Word of God with the names of the Books and Chapters but in the context of it is so every where full of Corruptions Falsifications and intolerable Abuses that it almost every where belies its Title and is unfit for any one who professes himself a Christian. HE believes it a damnable sin to abuse the Scripture or any ways to pervert it for the maintenance of Errors or Superstitions and thinks himself oblig'd rather to lay down his life than concur to or approve of any such Falsifications or Corruptions prejudicial to Faith or Good Manners For this reason being conscious that in all Ages there has been several Copies of this Sacred Volume quite different from the Originals in many places either through the mistake of the Transcribers or malice of others endeavouring by this means to gain credit to their new Doctrines He is commanded not to receive all Books indifferently for the Word of God that wear that Title but only such as are approv'd by the Church and recommended by her Legitimate And such is that he daily uses commonly known by the name of the Vulgar Translation which has been the principal of all other Latin Copies in all Ages since the Primitive times much commended by St. Augustine and never altered in any thing but once heretofore by the Holy Studies of St. Hierome And twice or thrice since being review'd by Authority and purg'd of such mistakes as in length of time had crept in by Transcribers or Printers faults And that this Translation is most pure and incorrupt as to any thing concerning matter of Belief or differences in Religion is not only the Doctrine of his Church but also the Sentiment of many Learned Men of the Reformation who approve this Version and prefer it before any
deny that they pretend them to be of Divine Original 2. We do not deny but the Apostles might deliver such things by Word as well as by Epistle which their Disciples were bound to believe and keep but we think there is some difference to be made between what we certainly know they delivered in Writing and what it is now impossible for us to know viz. what they delivered by word without writing 3. We see no ground why any one should believe any Doctrine with a stedfast and divine Faith which is not bottom'd on the Written word for then his Faith must be built on the Testimony of the Church as Divine and Infallible or else his Faith cannot be Divine But it is impossible to prove it to be Divine and Infallible but by the Written word and therefore as it is not reasonable that he should believe the Written word by such a Divine Testimony of the Church so if any particular Doctrine may be received on the Authority of the Church without the Written word then all Articles of Faith may and so there would be no need of the Written word 4. The Faith of Christians doth no otherwise stand upon the Foundation of the Churches Tradition than as it delivers down to us the Books of Scripture but we acknowledg the general Sense of the Christian Church to be a very great help for understanding the true sense of Scripture and we do not reject any thing so delivered but what is all this to the Church of Rome But this is still the way of true Representing XVI Of Councils HE believes that the Faith of his Church may receive new Additions every day And that he is not only oblig'd to believe what Christ taught and his Apostles but also every Definition or Decree of any General Council assembled by the Command of the Pope So that as often as any thing is issued out by the Authority of any of these Church-Parliaments and order'd to be believ'd he thinks himself under pain of Damnation immediately bound to receive it and having added it to his Creed to assent to it with as Firm Stedfast and Divine a Faith as if it had been Commanded by Christ himself and Decreed in the Consistory of Heaven And by this means he never comes to understand his Religion or know what he is to Believe but by the continual Alterations Additions Diminutions Interpretations of these Councils he is preserv'd in a necessary Confusion and tho he changes often yet he fondly thinks himself always the same HE believes that the Faith of his Church can receive no Additions and that he is oblig'd to believe nothing besides that which Christ taught and his Apostles and if any thing contrary to this should be defin'd and commanded to be believ'd even by Ten thousand Councils he believes it damnable in any one to receive it and by such Decrees to make Additions to his Creed However he maintains the Necessity and Right of General Councils lawfully Assembled whose business it is not to coin new Articles of Faith or devise Fresh Tenets but only as often as any Point of Receiv'd Doctrine is impugned or call'd in question to debate the matter and examine what has been the Belief of all Nations who are there present in their Prelates in that Point And this being agreed on to publish and make known to the World which is the Catholick Doctrine left by Christ and his Apostles and which the new-breach'd Error And by this means to prevent the loss of infinite number of Souls which might otherwise be deluded and carried away after new inventions not being capable by their own knowledge and abilities to distinguish betwixt Truth and Falshood and discover the subtilties of every crafty Deceiver And in this case he believes that he is oblig'd to submit and receive the Decrees of such a Council the Pastors and Prelates there present being by Christ and his Apostles appointed for the decision of such Controversies They having the care of that stock committed to them over which the Holy Ghost has made them Overseers to feed the Church of God Acts 20.28 and to watch against those men who should arise from among themselves speaking perverse things tâ— draw Disciples after them Ib. vers 30. And he having receiv'd Command as likewise the whâ—le Flock of Christ to obey their Prelates and to be subject to them who watch and are to render an account for their Souls Heb. 13.17 with an assurance That He that heareth them hearch Christ and he that despiseth them despiseth Christ Luke 10.16 And withal being taught that as this way of the Ancients of the Church and Prelates meeting in case of any danger threatning their Flock or any new Doctrine arising was the means instituted by Christ and practised by the Apostles in the first planting of the Church for the preventing Schisms and preserving Vnity among the Faithful and that they should speak and think the same thing and be perfectly joyn'd together in the same mind and same judgment 1 Cor. 1.10 So it ought to be the means in all succeeding Ages for the preventing Divisions and conserving Vnity among the Faithful And that therefore as that Controversy concerning the necessity of Circumcision Act. c. 15. arising in the Apostles times was not decided by any private Person nor even by Paul and Barnabas who nevertheless had received the Holy Ghost and one would have thought might have pretended to the Spirit and a Heavenly Light but by a General Meeting of the Apostles and Elders of the Church at Ierusalem who were consulted by Paul and Barnabas about this Question So all other Disputes and Difficulties of Religion arising in succeeding Ages ought to be referr'd to the Successors of the Apostles whose Charge Dignity and Office is to continue to the end of the World tho' they are dead in Person who are to consider of the matter Acts 15.6 as the Apostles did while all the Multitude keeps silence ver 12. without any one presuming on any Learning Gift Virtue Prayers or Inspiration to intermeddle in the Dispute or put an end to the Question This being none of their business or obligation but only with all Patience and Humility to expect the Determination of their Prelates and Elders and receive it with the same expressions as those good Christians did heretofore who rejoyced for the Consolation Acts 15.31 And unless this that the Apostles did and their Obsequious Flock be taken as a Pattern in all Ages for the ending such-like difficulties he believes 't is impossible that Believers should stand fast in one Spirit with one Mind Philip. 1.27 and be not carried away with divers and strange Doctrines Hebr. 13.9 XVI Of Councils 1. WE are glad to find so good a Resolution as seems to be expressed in these words viz. That he is obliged to believe nothing besides that which Christ taught and his Apostles and if any thing contrary to this should be defined
that All things saith Cajetan which they teach out of Moses 's Chair Not all their Doctrines but as far as they were conformable to the Law saith Ferus Now can any one hence infer that no men ought to dispute any Commands of Superiors when it is supposed that there is a Rule and Standard for them to speak according to and our Saviour elsewhere doth suppose these very men to teach things contrary to the Law as in the Case of Corban Would our Saviour contradict himself or require a blind Obedience in things repugnant to the Law We do not deny a due submission to our Superiors in the Church yea we allow them a Power to determine things not forbidden and think Obedience due in such things by vertue of their Authority but yet this is far enough from Infallibility or an unlimited implicit Obedience which would overthrow the force of all our Saviour's Reasonings against the Scribes and Pharisees as to their misinterpreting the Law and the Superstitious Practises they imposed upon the people XVIII Of the POPE HE believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all the Angels That Christ is no longer Head of the Church but that this Holy Father hath taken his place and that whatsoever he Orders Decrees or Commands is to be received by his Flock with the same respect submission and awe as if Christ had spoken it by his own mouth For that his Holiness having once receiv'd the Triple-Crown on his Head is now no more to be look'd upon as Man but as Christ's Vicar whose Office it is to Constitute and Ordain such things as Christ forgot when he was upon Earth not throughly considering what would be the Exigencies of his Flock in future Ages And for this intent he is assisted with a certain Mysterious Infallibility such as hides it self when he is upon his own Private Concerns exposes him to all the Designs Cheats Malice and Machinations of his Enemies and lets him be as easily over-seen as imprudent as silly as his Neighbours But when he comes into his Chair to hear any Publick Business then it begins to appear and protects him from all Mistakes and Errors and he becomes immediately full of the Holy Ghost though he had the Devil and all of Wickedness in him just before HE believes the Pope to be none of his God neither Great nor Little That he is not above the Angels but only a Man He believes that Christ as he is supreme Master Governour and Lord of all created things so also of his Church of which he acknowledges him to be the Founder and Head But as notwithstanding this Lordship and Headship of Christ over all things every Father of a Family owns himself to be Master of it under Christ every petty Commander of a Ship stiles himself Master of it under God and every Prince King and Emperour is confess'd supreme Lord and Governour of his Dominions under God So also he believes that there is a Pastor Governour and Head of Christ's Church under Christ to wit the Pope or Bishop of Rome who is the Sucessor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the care of his Flock and who hath been follow'd now by a visible Succession of above 250 Bishops acknowledg'd as such in all Ages by the Christian World And now believing the Pope to enjoy this Dignity he looks upon himself oblig'd to shew him that Respect Submission and Obedience which is due to his place a thing which no body can in reason or conscience deny to any one in Rule or that has any Superiority Neither does he doubt but God assists those who have this charge with a particular helping Grace such as has a special respect to the Office and Function more than to the Person Such was given to all the Prophets when they were sent to preach Such to Moses when he was made God to Pharaoh Exod. 7.1 Such to the seventy Elders when God taking of the Spirit of Moses gave it unto them constituted them Iudges Such to Caiphas who to council prophesied of the death of Christ which St. Iohn ascrib'd not to his Person but to his Office of High-Priest Job 11.51 And this spake he not of himself but being High-Priest that year he Prophesied that Jesus should die for that Nation By priviledge of his Office uttering a Truth which he himself never meant With such like helping Grace he doubts not but God generally assists the Pastors of the New-Law and more especially the High-Priest for the Good of the whole Flock And therefore tho' he were as wicked as Caiphas yet he is ready to tender him all respect due to his Function and obey him in every thing concerning the Exercise of his charge not for any consideration of his Person but meerly for the Office he bears It being the Duty of a good Son to Obey his Father and of a Loyal Subject his King and never to question their Authority or dis-respect them in their Office tho' for some particular Vices they may have little respect for their persons In this manner is he ready to behave himself towards his chief Pastor with all Reverence and Submission never scrupling to receive his Decrees and Definitions such as are issued forth by his Authority with all their due circumstances and according to the Law in the concern of the whole Flock And this whether he has the Assistance of a Divine Infallibility or no Which though some allow him without being in a General Council yet he is satisfied 't is only their Opinion and not their Faith there being no Obligation from the Church of assenting to any such Doctrine And therefore as in any Civil Governments the Sentence of the supreme Iudge or Highest Tribunal is to be obey'd though there be no assurance of Infallibility or Divine Protection from Error or Mistake So is he taught should be done to the Orders of the Supreme Pastors whether he be Infallible or no. XVIII Of the POPE 1. WE do not charge them with Believing the Pope to be God which it seems himself did if we believe the Misrepresenter in his Preface but there is some Reason to doubt whether they do not at some times give him greater Honour than becomes a Man I instance in the Adoration after his Election when the new Pope is placed upon the Altar to receive the Submissions of the Cardinals but the Altar themselves do confess to be sacred to God alone And there they profess to Worship Jesus Christ as present in the Host. This therefore looks too much like assuming the Place of Christ and not becoming the Distance between God and Man 2. The Question is Whether Christ hath appointed the Pope or Bishop of Rome to be Pastor Governour and Head of his Church under him This he saith he believes and this he knows we deny and therefore had reason to expect some proof of it But instead thereof he tells us how they
or for the Interest of Church or Pope or whatsoever else must of necessity answer for it at the last day and expect his portion with the Devil and his Angels if unrepented And that no one can give leave for Lying Perjury or committing any Sin or even pretend to it unless it be the Devil himself or some devilish Ministers of his such as he detests in his heart and utterly abominates And in consequence to this believes that whosoever at the hour of his death denies any Crime of which he is guilty and protests himself to be innocent when he is not so can have no hope of Mercy but departing out of this World an enemy to God and the Truth shall infallibly be receiv'd as such in the next and dying with a Lye in his mouth can expect no reward but from the Father of Lies And this whatsoever his Crime was whether incurr'd by an undertaking for Mother-Church or no and whatsoever his pretences for the denial of the Truth were whether Absolutions Dispensations the Sacrament or Oath of Secresie or whatsoever else nothing of these being capable of excusing him in Lies or Perjury or making them to be Innocent and not displeasing to God Nor indeed did he ever hear of these so much talk'd on Dispensations and Absolutions from any Priests of his Church either in Sermons or Confessions he never read of them in his Books and Catechisms he never saw the Practice of them in any of his Communion it having been their Custom ever since Oaths were first devis'd against them rather to suffer the loss of their goods banishments imprisonments torments and death it self than Forsâ—ear themselves or protest the least Untruth And 't is not out of the memory of man that several might have saved their Estates and Lives too would they have subscrib'd to and own'd but one Lye and yet refus'd it chusing rather to die infamously than prejudice their Conscience with an Vntruth So that it seems a great Mystery to him that those of his Profession should have Leave and Dispensations to Lye and forswear themselves at pleasure and yet that they should need nothing else but Lying and Perjury for the quiet enjoyment of their Estates for the saving their Lives for the obtaining Places of highest Command and greatest Dignity such as would be extraordinarily advantagious for their Cause and the interest of their Church And yet that they should generally chuse rather to forego all these so considerable Conveniences that once Lie or Forswear themselves And is it not another great Mystery that these Dispensations for Lying and Swearing should be according to the Receiv'd Doctrine of his Church and yet that he or any of his Communion were never instructed nor inform'd of any such Diabolical Point nay had never come to the knowledge of it had it not been for the information receiv'd from some Zealous Adversaries such as relate either meerly upon Trust or else such as have receiv'd a Dispensation of Lying from the Devil that they might charge the like Doctrine on the Church of Rome and the Pope XIX Of Dispensations HEre the Misrepresenter saith That a Papist believes that the Pope hath Authority to dispence with the Laws of God and absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments On the other side the Representer affirms That the Pope has no Authority to dispence with the Law of God and that there 's no Power upon Earth can absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments This matter is not to be determined by the one's affirming and the others denying but by finding out if possible the true sense of the Church of Rome about this matter And there are three Opinions about it 1. Of those who assert That the Pope hath a Power of Dispensing in any Divine Law except the Articles of Faith The Gloss upon the Canon Law saith that where the Text seems to imply that the Pope cannot dispence against the Apostle it is to be understood of Articles of Faith And Panormitan saith This Exposition pleases him well for the Pope may dispense in all other things Contra Apostolum dispensat saith the Gloss on the Decree And the Roman Editors in the Margin refer to 34 Dist. c. Lector to prove it And there indeed the Gloss is very plain in the Case sic Ergo Papa dispensat contra Apostolum And the Roman Correcters there justifie it and say it is no absurd Doctrine as to positive Institutions But the former notable Gloss as Panormitan calls it sets down the particulars wherein the Pope may dispense As 1. Against the Apostles and their Canons 2. Against the Old Testament 3. In Vows 4. In Oaths The Summa Angelica saith the Pope may dispense as to all the Precepts of the Old Testament And Clavasius founds this Power upon the Plenitude of the Popes Power according to that Expression in the Decretal mentioned that he can ex plenitudine potestatis de Iure supra Ius dispensare and without such a Power he saith God would not have taken that care of his Church which was to be expected from his Wisdom Iacobatius brings several Instances of this Power in the Pope and refers to the Speculator for more Iac. Almain saith That all the Canonists are of Opinion that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle and many of their Divines but not all For 2. Some of their Divines held that the Pope could not dispence with the Law of God as that implies a proper relaxation of the Law but could only Authoritatively declare that the Law did not oblige in such a particular Case because an Inferiour could not take away the force of a Superiors Law and otherwise there would be no fixed and immutable Rule in the Church and if the Pope might dispense in one Law of God he might dispense in the rest And of this Opinion were some of the most eminent School-Divines as Thomas Aquinas Bonaventure Major Soto and Catharinus who at large debates this Question and denies that the Pope hath any Power to dispense with Gods Law But then he adds that the Pope hath a kind of prophetical Power to declare in what Cases the Law doth oblige and in what not which he parallels with the Power of declaring the Canon of Scripture and this he doth not by his own Authority but by Gods He confesseth the Pope cannot dispense with those Precepts which are of themselves indispensable nor alter the Sacraments but then saith he there are some Divine Laws which have a general force but in particular Cases may be dispensed with and in these cases the Law is to be relaxed so that the Relaxation seems to come from God himself But he confesses this Power is not to be often made use of so that he makes this Power to be no Act of Jurisdiction but of prophetical Interpretation as he calls it and he brings the Instance of Caiaphas to this
purpose And he adds that the difference between the Divines and Canonists was but in Terms for the Canonists were in the right as to the Power and the Divines in the manner of explaining it 3. Others have thought this too loose a way of explaining the Popes Power and therefore they say That the Pope hath not a bare declaratory Power but a real Power of dispensing in a proper sense in particular Cases For say they the other is no act of Jurisdiction but of Discretion and may belong to other men as well as to the Pope but this they look on as more agreeable to the Popes Authority and Commission and a bare declaratory Power would not be sufficient for the Churches Necessity as Sanchez shews at large and quotes many Authors for this Opinion and Sayr more and he saith the Practice of the Church cannot be justified without it Which Suarez much insists upon and without it he saith the Church hath fallen into intolerable Errors and it is evident he saith the Church hath granted real Dispensations and not meer Declarations And he founds it upon Christ's Promise to Peter To thee will I give the Keys and the Charge to him Feed my Sheep But then he explains this Opinion by saying that it is no formal Dispensation with the Law of God but the matter of the Law is changed or taken away Thus I have briefly laid together the different Opinions in the Church of Rome about this power of dispensing with the Law of God from which it appears that they do all consent in the thing but differ only in the manner of explaining it And I am therefore afraid our Representer is a very unstudied Divine and doth not well understand their own Doctrine or he would never have talked so boldly and unskilfully in this matter As to what he pretends that their Church teaches that every Lye is a Sin c. it doth not teach the Case for the Question it not whether their Church teach men to lye but whether there be not such a power in the Church as by altering the nature of things may not make that not to be a Lye which otherwise would be one As their Church teaches that men ought not to break their Vâ—ws yet no one among them questions but the Pope may dissolve the Obligation of a Vow although it be made to God himself Let him shew then how the Pope comes to have a Power to release a Vow made to God and not to have a Power to release the Obligation to veracity among men Again We do not charge them with delivering any such Doctrine That men may have Dispensations to lye and forswear themselves at pleasure for we know this Dispensing Power is to be kept up as a great Mystery and not to be made use of but upon weighty and urgent causes of great consequence and beneâ—it to the Church as their Doctors declare But as to all matters of fact which he alludes to I have nothing to say to them for our Debate is only whether there be such a Power of Dispensation allowed in the Church of Rome or not XX. Of the Deposing Power HE believes that the Pope has Authority to dispence with his Allegiance to his Prince and that he needs no longer be a Loyal Subject and maintain the Rights Priviledges and Authority of his King than the Pope will give him leave And that if this Mighty Father think sit to thunder out an Excommunication against him then he shall be deem'd the best Subject and Most Christian that can first shed his Prince's Blood and make him a Sacrifice to Rome and he 's but ill rewarded for his pains who after so Glorious an Atchievement has not his Name plac'd in the Kalendar and he Canoniz'd for a Saint So that there can be no greater Danger to a King than to have Popish Subjects he holding his Life amongst them only at the Pope 's pleasure 'T IS no part of his Faith to believe that the Pope has Authority to dispence with his Allegiance to his Sovereign or that he can Depose Princes upon any account whatsoever giving leave to their Subjects to take up Arms against them and endeavour their ruin He knows that Deposing King-killing Power has been maintain'd by some Canonists and Divines of his Church and that it is in their Opinion lawful and annex'd to the Papal Chair He knows likewise that some Popes have endeavor'd to act according to this Power But that this Doctrine appertains to the Faith of his Church and is to be believ'd by all of that Communion is a malicious Calumny a down-right Falsity And for the truth of this it seems to him a sufficient Argument that for the fâ—w Authors that are Abettors of this Doctrine there are of his Communion three times the number that publickly disown all such Authority besides several Universities and whole Bodies that have solemnly condemn'd it without being in the least suspected of their Religion or of denying any Article of their Faith Those other Authors therefore Publish their own Opinions in their Books and those Popes acted according to what they judg'd lawful and all this amounts to no more than that this Doctrine has been or is an Opinion amongst some of his Church but to raise it to an Article of Faith upon these grounds is impossible Let his Church therefore answer for no more than what she delivers for Faith let Prelates answer for tâ—eir Actions and Authors for their own Opinions otherwise more Churches must be charg'd with Deposing and King-killing Doctrine besides that of Rome The University of Oxford having found other Authors of Pernicious Books and Damnable Doctrines destructive to the Sacred Persons of Princes their State and Government besides Iesuits as may be seen in their Decree published in the London Gazette Iuly 26. 1683. In which they condemn'd twenty seven false iâ—pious seditious Propositions fitted to stir up Tumults overthrow States and Kingdoms to lead to Rebellion Murder of Princes and Atheism it self Of which number only three or four were ascrib'd to the Iesuits the rest having men of another Communion for their Fathers And this Doctrine was not first condemn'd by Oxford What they did here in the Year 1683. having been solemnly done in Paris in 1626. Where the whole Colledge of Sorbon gave Sentence against this Proposition of Sanctarellus viz That the Pope for Heresie and Schism might depose Princes and exempt the Subjects from their Obedience the like was done by the Universities of Caen Rhemes Poictoirs Valence Bourdeaux Bourges and the Condemnation subscrib'd by the Iesuits And Mariana's Book was committed publickly to the flames by a Provincial Council of his own Order for the discoursing the Point of King-killing Doctrine problematically Why therefore should this disloyal Doctrine be laid to his Church whenas it has been writ against by several hundred single Authors in her Communion and disown'd and solemnly condemn'd by so many famous
in the Canon Nos Sanctorum c. Urban II. Gregory IX the Councils of Lateran under Alex. III. and Innocent III the Councils of Lyons of Vienna of Constance of Lateran under Leo X. and of Trent have all grievously and enormously erred about this matter for that it was the Doctrine of them all he shews at large and so Seven General Councâ—ls lose their Infallibility at one blow 6. That the Gates of Hâ—ll have prevailed against the Church For the true Church could never teach such pernicious Doctrine as this must be if it be not true And if it erred in this it might as well err in any other Doctrine and so Men are not bound to believe or obey it 7. That Princes and all Laymen have just Cause to withdraw from their Church because it shewed it self to be governed by a spirit of Ambition and not by the Spirit of God and not only so but they may justly prosecute all that maintain a Doctrine so pernicious to Government if it be not true Let us now see what our Author saith to clear this from being a Doctrine of the Church of Rome 1. That for the few Authors that are abettors of this Doctrine there are of his Communion three times the number that publickly disown all such Authority If this bâ— true it is not much for the Reputation of their Church That there should be such a number of those who are liable to all these dreadful Consequences which Lessius urges upon the deniers of it But is it possible to believe there should be so few followers of so many Popes and Seven General Councils owned for such by the disowners of this Doctrine except the Lateran under Leo 10 The poor Eastern Christians are condemned for Hereticks by the Church of Rome for refusing to submit to the Decrees of one General Council either that of Ephesus or of Chalcedon And they plead for themselves That there was a misinterpretation of their meaning or not right understanding one another about the diffâ—rence of Nature and Person which occasioned those Decrees I would fain know whether those Churches which do not embrace the Decrees of those Councils are in a state of Heresie or not If they be then what must we think of such who reject the Decrees of Seven General Councils one after another and give far less probable accounts of the Proceedings of those Councils in their Definitions than the other do 2. He saith Those who have condemned it have not been in the least suspected of their Religion or of denying any Article of Faith Let any one judg of this by Lessius his Consequences And the Author of the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance saith in plain Terms That the Opinion that the Pope hath no such Power is erroneous in Faith as well as temerarious and impious And he proves it by this substantial Argument Because they who hold it must suppose that the Church hath been for some time in a damnable Error of Belief and Sin of Practice And he not only proves that it was defined by Popes and Councils but for a long time universally received and that no one Author can be produced before Calvins time that denied this Power absolutely or in any case whatsoever But a few Authors that are Abettors of it saith our Representer Not one total Dissenter for a long time saith the other And which of these is the true Representer The deniers of it not in the least suspected of their Religion saith one Their Opinion is erroneous in Faith temerarious and impious saith the other And a Professor of Lovain now living hath undertaken to shew that the nuâ—ber is far greater of those who assert this Doctrine than of those who deny it 3. If we charge their Church with this Opinion may not they as well charge ours with the like since Propositions as dangerous were condemned at Oxford July 26 1683. as held not by Jesuits but by some among our selves This is the force of his Reasoning But we must desire the Reader to consider the great disparity of the Case We cannot deny that there have been men of ill Minds and dâ—sloyal Principles Factious and Disobedient Enemies to the Government both in Church and State but have these Men ever had that Countenance from the Doctrines of the Guides of our Church which the Deposing Doctrine hath had in the Church of Rome To make the Case parallel he must suppose our Houses of Convocation to have several times declared these Damnable Doctrines and given Encouragement to Rebels to proceed against their Kings and the University of Oxford to have condemned them for this is truly the Case in the Church of Rome the Popes and Councils have owned and approved and acted by the Deposing Principle but the Universities of France of late years have condemned it How come the Principles of the Regicides among us to be parallel'd with this Doctrine when the Principles of our Church are so directly contrary to them and our Houses of Convocation would as readily condemn any such damnable Doctrines as the University of Oxford And all the World knows how repugnant such Principles are to those of the Church of England and none can be Rebels to their Prince but they must be false to our Church As to the Personal Loyalty of many Persons in that Church as I have no Reason to question it so it is not proper for me to debate it if I did since our business is not concerning Persons but Doctrines and it was of old observed concerning the Epicureans That thô their Principles did overthrow any true Friendship yet many of them made excellent Friends XXI Of Communion in one kind HE believes that he is no longer oblig'd to obey Christ's Commands than his Church will give him leave And that therefore tho' Christ instituted the Sacrament under both kinds and commanded it to be receiv'd so by all yet he thinks it is not necessary for any to do so now but Priests because his Church forsooth hath forbidden the Cup to the Laity And put a stop to the Precept of Christ who said Drink ye all of this Mat. 26. In submission to which Church-Prohibition all the poor people of his Communion contentedly rest while they see themselves defrauded of great part of that benefit which Christ left them as his Last Will and Testament for the comfort of their poor Souls and the Remedy of their Infirmities HE believes that he is oblig'd to obey all the commands of Christ and that neither his Church nor any other Power upon Earth can limit alter or annul any precept of Divine Institution contrary to the intention of the Law giver Nâ—ither is the Denial of the Cup to the Laity a practise any ways opposite to this his Belief He being taught that thô Christ instituted the blessed Sacrament under both kinds and so deliver'd it to his Apostles who only were then present and
after it And it is no great advantage to Purgatory for him that commends Self-murder to have introduced it The most probable account I can give of it is That the Alexandrian Iews of whose number Iason of Cyrene seems to have been had taken in several of the Philosophical Opinions especially the Platonists into their Religion as appears by Philo and Bellarmine himself confesses that Plato held a Purgatory and they were ready to apply what related to the Law to their Platonick Notions So here the Law appointed a Sin-offering with respect to the Living but Iason would needs have this refer to the dead and then sets down his own remark upon it That it was a holy Cogitation to pray for the dead as our Author renders it If it were holy with respect to the Law there must be some ground for it in the Law And that we appeal to and do not think any particular Fancies sufficient to introduce such a Novelty as this was which had no Foundation either in the Law or the Prophets And it would be strange for a new Doctrine to be set up when the Spirit of Prophecy was ceased among them But S. August held these Books for Canonical and saith they are so received by the Church l. 18. de Civit. Dei To answer thâ—s it is sufficient to observe not only the diffâ—rent Opinions of others before mentioned as to these Books but that as Canus notes it was then lawful to doubt of their Authority and he goes as low as Gregory I. whom he denies not to have rejected them And I hope we may set the Authority of one â—gainst the other especially when S. Augustine himself being pressed hard with the fact of Razias confâ—sses 1. That the Iews have not the Book of Maccabees in their Canon as they have the Law the Prophets and the Psalms to whom our Lord gave Testimony as to his Witnesses Which is an evident Proof he thought not these Books sufficient to ground a Doctrine upon whâ—câ— was not found in the other 2. That however this Book was not unprofitably received by the Church if it be soberly read and heard Which implies a greater Caution than S. Augustine would ever have given concerning a Book he believed truly Canonical But saith Bellarmine his meaning is only to keep men from imitating the Example of Razias whereas that which they pressed St. Augustine with was not meerly the Fact but the Character that is given of it Sanctaâ—um Scâ—ipâ—urarum Auctoritate laudasus est Razias are their very Words in S. Augustine And therefore the Caution relates to the Books and not meerly to his Example And he lessens the Character given by the Author when he saith He chose to dye nobly It had been better saith he to have died humbly But the other is the Elogium given in the Heathen Histories and better becomes brave Heathens than true Martyrs Can any one now think S. Augustine believed this Writer Divinely inspired or his Doctrine sufficient to ground a Point of Faith upon And I wonder they should not every jot as well commend Self-murder as an Heroical Act. as prove the Doctrine of Purgatory from these words of Iason or his Epitemizer For the Argument from the Authority of the Book will hold as strongly for one as the other And yet this is the Achilles for Purgatory which Natalis Alexander whom our Author follows in this matter saith is a demonstrative place against those that deny it But I must proceed 2. Purgatory is plainly intimated by our Saviour Matt. 12.32 Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World neither in the World to come By which words Christ evidently supposes that some Sins are forgiven in the World to come I am so far from discerning this plain Intimation that I wonder how any came to think of it out of this place Well! But doth it not hence follow that Sins may be forgiven in the World to come Not near so plainly as that Sins will not be forgiven in the World to come Not that particular Sin but others may How doth that appear What intimation is there that any Sins not forgiven here shall be forgiven there Or that any Sins here remitted as to the Eternal Punishment shall be there remitted as to the Temporal And without such a kind of Remission nothing can be inferred from hence But if there be a Remission in another World it can be neither in Heaven nor Hell therefore it must be in Purgatory But those who own a Remission of Sins in another World say it will be on the day of Judgment For the actual Deliverance of the Just from Punishment may be not improperly called the full Remission of their Sins So S. Augustine whom he quotes plainly saith Si nulla remitterentur in judicio illo novissimo c. Iulian l. 6. c. 5. where it is evident S. Augustine takes this place to relate to the Day of Judgment and so in the other De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 24. But as he supposed a Remission so he did a Purgation as by Fire in that day In illo judicio poenas quasdam purgatorias futuras De Civit. Dei l 20. c. 25. And so he is to be understood on Psal. 37. to which he applies 1 Cor. 3.15 But our Author was very much out when he saith S. Augustine applied 1 Pet. 3.15 to some place of temporal Chastisement in another World when Bellarmine sets himself to confute S. Augustine about it as understanding it of this World And therefore he hath little cause to boast of St. Augustine's Authority about Purgatory unless he had brought something more to the Purpose out of him Hâ—s other Testimonies of Antiquity are not worth considering which he borrows from Natalis Alexander that of Dionysius Areopag Eccl. Hierarch c. 7. is a known Counterfeit and impertinent relating to a Region of Rest and Happiness And so do Tertullian's Oblations for the Dead De Cor. Milit c. 3. For they were Eucharistical as appears by the ancient Liturgies being made for the greatest Saints St. Cyprian Ep. 66. speaks of an Oblation for the Dead and he there mentions the Natalitia of the Martyrs but by comparing that with his Epist. 33. it will be found that he speaks of the Anniversary Commemoration of the Dead which signifies nothing to Purgatory for the best men were put into it and St. Cyprian threatens it as a Punishment to be left out of the Diptychs but surely it is none to escape Purgatory Arnobius l. 4. only speaks of praying for the Dead which we deny not to have been then used in the Church not with respect to any temporary pains in purgatory but to the Day of Judgment And therein lies the true state of the Controversie with respect to Antiquity which is not Whether any solemn Prayers were not then made for the dead but whether those Prayers did
because the Church doth not forbid it but this last he saith is not the general but the more probable Opinion 3. A Man may eat something when he drinks to prevent its doing him hurt besides his good Meal he may take what quantity he pleases of Sweet-meats or Fruit he may have a good Reflection at Night and yet not break this strict Precept of Fasting For the eating as often as one drinks it is the common Opinion saith the same Casuist who was no Iesuit That it is not forbidden because it is taken by way of a Medicine and he quotes a great number of their Casuists for it A Collation at evening is allowed saith he And Lessius saith There is no certain Rule for the Quantity of it And Card. Tolet saith very large ones are allowed at Rome by the Pope's Connivence even in the Court of Rome saith Reginaldus And now I leave the Reader to judge of the severity of Fasting required in the Church of Rome XXIX Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church HE is of a Religion in which there are as many Schisms as Families And they are so divided in their Opinions that commonly as many as meet in company so many several Tenets are maintain'd Hence arise their infinite and endless Disputes and disagreement of their Divines who pretend to give a true and solid explication of the Mysteries of the Christian Faith and yet differ in as many Points as they write of Besides what variety of Iudgments are there in their Religious Houses and Cloisters none agreeing with another in their Foundation Institution and Profession This being of the Religion of St. Dominick That of St. Francis a third of St. Bernard Others of St. Benedict and so without number so that as many Orders as many Religions And yet they pretend to Christian Unity amidst this diversity growing upon them every day HE is of a Religion in which there are no Schisms or Separations all the Members of it however spread through the World agreeing like one man in every Article of their Faith by an equal submission to the Determinations of their Church And no one of them tho' most Learned and Wise ever following any other Rule in their Faith besides this of assenting to all that the Church of God planted by Christ assisted and protected by the Holy Ghost proposed to the Faithful to be believ'd as the Doctrine of the Apostles and receiv'd as such in all Ages Which is all unanimously to believe as the Church of God believes No one of his Communion ever doubting of this or scrupling to receive any thing after his Churches Declaration And now tho they all thus conspire in every point of Faith yet there is great diversity among School men in their Divinity-points and Opinions of such matters as are no Articles of Faith and have no relation to it but as some circumstance or manner which being never defin'd by their Church may be maintain'd severally either this or that way without any breach of Faith or injury to their Religion And of these things only they dispute and have their Debates in manner of a School-Exercises without any disagreement at all in their Belief but with a perfect Unity The like Unity is there amongst their Religious Orders all which say the same Creed own the same Authority in the Church of Christ and in every thing profess the same Faith and have no other differences than as it were of so many several steps or degrees in the practice of a Devout and Holy Life some being of a more severe and strict Discipline others of a more gentle and moderate some spending more time in Praying others more in Watching others more in Fasting some being intended for the Catechising and breeding up of Youth others for taking care of Hospitals and looking after the Sick others for going amongst Infidels and Preaching to them the Gospel of Christ and for such-like Pious and Christian Designs to the greater Glory and Honour of God which differences make no other difference in the several Professors than there was between Mary and Martha who express'd their Love and Service to their Lord in a very different Imploy but both commendably and without any danger of prejudicing the Unity of their Faith XXIX Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church TWO things he saith upon this Head 1. That they are all agreed in matters of Faith 2. That they only differ in some School Points from whence he infers That they have no Schisms or Separations among them But that this is no just consequence will appear by the Schisms and Separations among us made by such who profess to agree in all matters of Faith Yet let us see how he proves that they agree in all matters of Faith because they agree to submit equally to the Determinations of the Church Now this very way evidently proves that they do not all agree because they do not equally submit to the Churches Determinations For 1. Some say they are bound to submit to the Churches Determinations as it represents the Universal Church Others say no but as the Churches Power is virtually lodged in the Guides of it Now this is a very material Difference for if it be on the former Account then not the Popes and Councils Declarations are to be regarded but as they express the sense of the Universal Church and so the Majority of Votes the Numbers in the Representative and Diffusive Church is chiefly to be regarded And on this Ground some reject the Deposing Power tho plainly decreed by Popes and Councils but they unhinge their Churches Authority by it Now how is it possible for them to agree about matters of Faith who differ fundamentally about the way how any things come to be matters of Faith If they be decreed by Popes and Councils say some and so the Deposing Power is become an Article of Faith No such matter say others for a greater Number in the diffusive Church oppose it as in the Gallican Church and elsewhere Very well But how then can these Parties be said to agree in matters of Faith and an equal Submission to the Determinations of the Church 2. Some again say That it is not the consent of the present Church can make any Article of Faith but there must be an Universal Tradition from the Apostles times And so they tell us the Deposing Power can never be an Article of Faith because it wants the Consent of all the Ages before Gregory VII So that upon this Ground there can be no Article of Faith which cannot be proved to be thus delivered down to us Others again say this is in effect to give up their Cause knowing the impossibility of proving particular Points in this manner and therefore they say the present Church is wholly to be trusted for the sense of the foregoing Now these differences are still on foot in their Church and from these do arise daily disputes about matters of Faith
And what then Must therefore S. Francis or S. Dominic or S. Rosa do as great as the Apostles had done What Consequence can be drawn from the Apostles times to latter Ages We do not dispute God's Omnipotency or say his hand is shortned but we must not from thence infer that every thing which is called a Miracle is truly so or make use of God's Power to justify the most incredible stories Which is a way will serve as well for a false as a true Religion and Mahomet might run to Gods Omnipotency for cleaving the Moon in two pieces as well as others for removing a House over the Seas or any thing of a like nature But he saith their Miracles are not more ridiculous and absurd than some in the Old Testament Which I utterly deny but I shall not run out into the examination of this Parallel by shewing how very different the Nature Design and Authority of the Miracles he mentions is from those which are believed in the Roman Church And it had been but fitting as he set down the Miracles of the Old Testament so to have mentioned those of the Roman Church which were to vye with them but this he was willing to forbear for certain good Reasons If most of poor Man's impossibles be none to God as he concludes yet every thing is not presently true which is not impossible and by this way of Arguing there can be nothing objected against the most absurd and idle Fictions of the Golden Legend which all Men of Understanding among themselves not only reject for want of Authority but of Credibility XXXIII Of Holy Water HE highly approves the Superstitius use of many inanimate things and attributes wonderful effects to such Creatures which are but in a very inferiour rank and able to do no such things Holy Water is in great esteem with him so are Blessed Candles Holy Oyl and Holy Bread in which he puts so much conâ—idence that by the Power of these he thinks himself secure from all Witchcraft Inchantment and all the power of the Devil nay that by the help of these seâ—seless Medators he may obtain remission of his Venial or lighter sins And in the use of these things he is taught by his Church to so obstinatley positive as if he had the Authority of Fathers and Scripture to back it when-as there is not the least grain of Reason no hint of Antiquity no Text throughout the Word of God for the defence command or even permission of it HE utterly disapproves all sorts of Superstition And yet is taught to have an esteem for Holy-Water Blessed Candles Holy Oyl and Holy Bread not doubting but that as such Men who have Consecrated themselves to the Service of God in the Preaching the Gospel and Admâ—nistration of the Sacraments have a particular respect due to them above the Laity As Churches Dedâ—cated to God are otherwise to be look'd on than other dwelling Houses So likewise these other Creatures which are particularly deputed by the Prayers and Blessing of the Priest to certain uses for God's own Glory and the Spiritual and Corporeal good of Christians ought to be respected in a degree above other things And what superstitions in the use of them Has not God himself prescrib'd such inanimate things and Holy Men made use of them for an intent above their natural Power and this without any Superstition Was there Superstition in the Waters of Iealousy Numb 5.17 In the Shew-Bread in the Tables of Stone in the Salt us'd by Elijah for sweet'ning the infected Waters in the Liver of the Fish taken by the Angel Raphael for expelling the Devil Was it Superstition in Christ to use Clay for the opening the eyes of the Blind or in the Apostles to impose hands for the bringing down the Holy Ghost upon Christians or to make use of Oyl for the curing of the Sick Mark 6.13 And thô there be no express Command in Scripture for Blessing Water Bread c. yet there is this assurance that every Creature is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer 1 Tim. 4.5 and frequent Promises That God would hear the Prayers of the Faithful Why therefore should he doubt but that these Creatures on which the Blessing of God is solemnly implor'd by the Word of God and the Prayers of the Priest and People for their sanctification are really sanctified according to the assurance of the Apostle and the Promises of God St. Cyril of Ierusalem who liv'd in the Third Century made no question but that as these things whâ—ch are offer'd to Idols tho pure in their own nature are made impure by the Invocation of Devils so on the contrary simple Water is made holy and gets a Sanctity by virtue receiv'd from the Invocation of the Holy Ghost Christ our Lord and his eternal Father Cyr. Catech. 3. St. Augustine was of the same Judgment toucâ—ing the Benediction of Bread affirming that the Bread which the Catechumens did take tho it was not Christ's Body yet it was holy yes and more holy than the Meat wherewith we are nourish'd Aug. Tom. 7. l. 2. de Pecc Mer. Remisâ—c 26. The like is to be seen in the Epistle of St. Alexander who govern'd the Church but fifty years after St. Peter where he declares the Custom even at that time of blessing Water and confirms the Practice of it by his Command And that Water thus bless'd was capable by virtue receiv'd from Heaven of working effâ—cts above its own nature was the Sentiment of Christians in the Primitive times Epiphanius makes early mention Tom. 2. l. 1. cont haer 30. where he relates a passage at length how that Water being blessed in the Name of Iesus and sprinkled upon Fire which by Witchcraft was made unactive and hindred from burning immediately the Enchantment ceas'd and the Fire burn'd as also that a possess'd Person being besprinkled with bless'd Water the Party was immediately cured Theodoret has the like Narration of the Devil hindring fire from burning and how that he was chased away and the Charm dissolv'd by blessed Water being thrown on it lib. 5. Eccles. hist. c. 21. And does not St. Hierom in vit Hilarion p. 323. Paris print make this relation how that Italicus took Water from blessed Hilarion and cast it on his bewitched Horses on his Chariot and the Barriers from whence he us'd to run and that the Charm or Witchery did cease upon the sprinkling this Water so that all cryed out Marnas victis est à Christo Christ hath conquered Marnas the Idol And now there 's no jeering and ridiculing these things will ever make them look like idle Superstitions to one that considers seriously how much they are grounded upon Reason the Word of God Antiquity and the Authority and Practice of the Catholick Church which tho it approves the use of them yet it teaches plainly that there is no Confidence to be put in any thing but only in Iesus Christ and
of it should be sensible of the Alteration but also to be manag'd with such Policy and Craft that the whole business should be a Secret for many Age And if this be scarce to be thought possible of this one Kingdom what can be imagin'd when 't is affirm'd of many Nations of the whole Christian World Can any thing look more like a Fable or Romance Or can any rational man barely upon such a Report condemn the Faith and Religion of his Ancestors for Novelty and Humane Inventions and quite laying aside this take him for the Rule of his Reformation who thus without Reason Justice or Truth has thrown such an Infamy upon all the Christians preceeding him for a thousand years But not to insist upon these reasonings for the wiping off the scandal of Novelty from the Doctrine of the Church of Rome 't would not be amiss here to look beyond the Tenth Century as also beyond the time of Pope Gregory And if in those earlier Christians nothing can be found of that Faith and Profession which is charged as Novelty and Error against the Church of Rome all the Papists in the World shall join with their Adversaries and condemning Pope Gregory for a Seducer and all of the Tenth Age for so many Ignoramus's shall in one voice with them cry out against all such Doctrine Novelty Novelty Errour Errour But if on the contrary every Point thus challeng'd of Novelty shall appear to have been the Profession of the Faithful in the time of the Purity of the Gospel if before Pope Gregory we find that Invocation of Saints the real Presence Transubstantiation Purgatory Prayer for the Dead the use of Holy Images Relicks the Sign of the Cross Procession c. were a receiv'd Doctrine and common Practice of Christians in those Primitive times Then shall the Papists remain as they are as being of the same Faith and Religion with those Antient Believers without any Additions and Alterations and all their Adversaries ought in justice to return again to their Communion and making up one Qâ—ite cry out with them Blessed are they who believe as our Forefathers believ'd who receiv'd their Faith from the Apostles and their Successors and Accursed be they who separate from this Faith and upon the Noise of Novelty and Errour make Divisions in the Church and fall from her Communion believing Lies rather than Truth In order to this I intended in this place to have given the Reader a fair prospect of the Doctrine and Belief of the Fathers at the first five hundred years after Christ but finding the matter to increase so much beyond expectation upon my hands I have reserv'd them for another occasion But however upon confidence of what I am able to produce in that point I cannot omit to assure the Reader that the chief and most material Points charg'd upon the Church of Rome for Novelty the Primitive Fathers do so plainly own to have been the Faith and Profession of the Church in their days and to have been deliver'd down and taught as the Doctrine of the Apostles that an impartial Considerer need not take much time to conclude whether are the greater Innovators those that now Believe and Profess these Tenets and Practices or they that disown or rejâ—ct them 'T is evident that every Point of that Doctrine which is now decry'd for Popery and basely stigmatiz'd with the note of Errors introduc'd of late and of a modern invention is by many Ages older than those who are reputed to be the Authors that every particular Article laid to the Ignorance of the Tenth Century and to the contrivance of Pope Gregory are as expresly and clearly own'd and taught some Ages before as it is now at this day That those Great Men were as down-right Papists in these Points as we are now And that any disturber of Christianity might have as well defâ—n'd them for believers of Novelties and Errours as we are now at this present The Faith that they profess'd then we profess now and if any of our Doctrine be Novelty 't is a Novelty of above twelve hundred years standing And who can question it not to be of an older date If it was the publick belief of the Christian World in the fourth Century who can be better Witnesses of what was beliâ—v'd before them even in the third Age than They They tell us that the Doctrine they maintain and deliver is the Faith of the Catholick Church receiv'd from their Fore-fathers and as it was taught by the Apostles and we don't find that in any of these Points they were challeng'd by any Authority or opposed by the Pastors of the Church or any Writers either then living or succeeding them but received always with great veneration And upon what grounds can any challenge them now Is it possible that any living now can give a better account of what was believ'd and practis'd in the third Age than They that immediately follow'd them Which will be more credible Witnesses of what was done in Forty Eight those that shall be alive fifty years hence or they that are not yet to come these thousand years If therefore these Holy Men declare to us the Doctrine they bâ—liev'd with an assurance that it was the Faith of the Catholick Church so believ'd by their Ancestors and as they had receiv'd it from the Apostles and their Successors do not they deserve better credit than others who coming a thousand years after cry out against all these several Points that they are nothing but Novelty and Errour 'T is evident therefore to him that this noise of Novelty was nothing but a stratagem for the introducing of Novelties and that those that brought an Infamy upon these Points by this aspersion might with as great applause every and as easily have laid a scandal upon other Articles of the Christian Faith which they thought sit to retain and have had them all exploded for Novelty And this has been so far done already that even three parts of that Doctrine pick'd out by the first Reformers for Apostolical and conform to the Word of God we have seen in our days clamem'd against for Novelty and thrown by with as general Approbation and as clear Evidence of the charge as ever they laid by Transubstantiation and the Primacy The first Reformers cast off the Authority of the first Bishop as being a Novelty Others soon alter cry'd down the Authority of all Bishops for a Novelty The First disown'd a great part of the Priestly Function as being lately crept in the Others disown'd all the rest and even Ordination it self as having all crept in together The First threw out a great number of Ceremonies as being not Apostolical but of a modern Institution The Others threw out even what they had retain'd for being no more an Ordination of the Apostles than the former The First laid by five of the Sacraments the Others laid by the other two And thus Novelty was the
occasions of mentioning it if ever Christ had instituted a Headship in the Church gâ—ven it to S. Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome 19. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come 1 Cor. 15.26 The Apostle speaking to all Communicants plainly shews that the Institution of Christ was That all should partake of both Kinds and so to continue to do as long as this Sacrament was to shew forth the Death of Christ viz. till his Second coming And there is no colour for asserting the Christian Church ever looked on observing Christs Institution in this matter as an indifferent thing no not for a thousand years after Christ. Altho the Practice and the Obligation are two things yet when the Practise was so agreeable to the Institutâ—on and continued so long in the Church it is hardly possible for us to prove the sense of the Obligation by a better way than by the continuance of the Practise And if some Traditions must be thought binding and far from being indifferent which want all that Evidence which this practise carries along with it How unreasonable is it in this Case to allow the Practise and to deny the Obligation 20. And whom he justified them he also glorified Rom. 8.30 But whom God justifies they have the Remission of their Sins as to Eternal Punishment And if those who are thus justified must be glorified what place is there for Purgatory For there is not the least intimation of any other state of Punishment that any who are justified must pass through before they are admitted to Glory We grant they may notwithstanding pass through many intermedâ—aâ—e trials in this World but we say where there is Justification there is no Condemnation but where any part of guilt remains unremitted there is a Condemnation remaining so far as the punishmâ—nt extends And so this distinction as to Eternal and Temporal Pains as it is made the Foundation of Purgatory is wholly groundless and therefore the Doctrine built upon it can have no Foundation in Scripture or Reason 21. I will pray with the Spirit and I will pray with the Understanding also 1 Cor. 14.15 What need this Praying with the Understanding if there were no necessity of attending to the sense of Prayers For then praying with the Spirit were all that was required for that supposes an attention of the Mind upon God And I can hardly believe any Man that thinks with Understanding can justifie praying without it especially when there are Exhortations and Invitations to the People to joyn in those Prayers as it is plain there are in the Roman Offices 22. Then Peter opened his mouth and said Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of Persons but in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted with him Acts 10.34 35. Whereby we perceive that God doth not limit the possibility of Salvation under the Gospel to Communion with the See of Rome for if S. Peter may be believed the capacity of Salvation depends upon Mens fearing God and working Righteousness and it is horrible Uncharitableness to exclude those from a possibility of Salvation whom God doth not exclude from it 23. That ye should earnestly contend for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Jude v. 3. Therefore all necessary Doctrines of Faith were at first delivered and whatever Articles cannot be proved to have been delivered by the Apostles can never be made necessary to be believed in order to Salvation Which overthrows the additâ—onal Creed of Pius IV. after the Council of Trent and puts them upon the necessity of proving the Universal Tradition of those Doctrines from the Apostolical Times and when they do that we may think better of them than at present we do for as yet we can see neither Scripture nor Reason nor Antiquity for them THus I have Represented that kind of Popery which our Author who complains so much of Misrepresenting allows and I have in short set down how little ground we have to be fond of it nay to speak more plainly it is that we can never yield to without betraying the Truth renouncing our Senses and Reason wounding our Consciences dishonouring God and his Holy Word and Sacraments perverting the Doctrine of the Gospel as to Christ's Satisfaction Intercession and Remission of Sins depriving the People of the Means of Salvation which God himself hath appointed and the Primitive Church observed and damning those for whom Christ died We do now in the sincerity of our Hearts appeal to God and the World That we have no design to Mis-represent them or to make their Doctrines and Practâ—ses appear worse than they are But take them with all the Advantages even this Author hath set them out with we dare appeal to the Judgments and Consciences of any impartial men whether the Scripture being allowed on both sides our Doctrines be not far more agreeable thereto than the New Articles of Trent which are the very Life and Soul of Popery Whether our Worship of God be not more suitable to the Divine Nature and Perfections and the Manifestations of his Will than the Worship of Images and Invocation of Fellow-Creatures Whether the plain Doctrine of the necessity of Repentance and sincere Obedience to the Commands of Christ do not tend more to promote Holiness in the World than the Sacrament of Penance as it is delivered and allowed to be practised in the Church of Rome i. e. with the easiness and efficacy of Absolution and getting off the Remainders by Indulgences Satisfactions of others and Prayers for the Dead Whether it be not more according to the Institution of Christ to have the Communion in both Kinds and to have Prayers and the Scriptures in a Language which the People understand And lastly whether there be not more of Christian Charity in believing and hoping the best of those vast Bodies of Christians who live out of the Communion of the Church of Rome in the Eastern Southern Western and Northern Parts than to pronounce them all uncapable of Salvation on that Account And therefore out of regard to God and the Holy Religion of our Blessed Saviour out of regard to the Salvation of our own and other Souls we cannot but very much prefer the Communion of our own Church before that of the Church of Rome But before I conclude all I must take some notice of his Anathema's And here I am as much unsatisfied as in any other part of his Book and that for these Reasons 1. Because he hath no manner of Authority to make them suppose they were meant never so sincerely And if we should ever object them to any others of that Church they would presently say What had he to do to make Anathema's It belongs only to the Church and the General Councils to pronounce Anathema's and not to any private Person whatsoever So that if he would have
published Anathema's with Authority he ought to have printed those of the Council of Trent viz. such as these Cursed is he that doth not allow the Worship of Images Cursed is he that saith Saints are not to be Invocated Cursed is he that doth not believe Transubstantiation Purgatory c. 2. Because he leaves out an Anathema in a very material point viz. As to the Deposing Doctrine We do freely and from our Hearts Anathematize all such Doctrines as tend to dissolve the Bonds of Allegiance to our Sovereign on any pretence whatsoever Why was this past over by him without any kind of Anathema Since he seems to approve the Oxford Censures Why did he not here shew his zeal against all such dangerous Doctrines If the Deposing Doctrine be falsly charged upon their Church let us but once see it Anathematized by publick Authority of their Church and we have done But instead thereof we find in a Book very lately published with great Approbations by a present Professor at Lovain Fr. D'Enghien all the Censures on the other side censured and despised and the holding the Negative as to the Deposing Doctrine is declared by him to be Heresie or next to Heresie The Censure of the Sorban against Sanctarellus he saith was only done by a Faction and that of Sixty Eight Doctors there were but Eighteen present and the late Censure of the Sorban he saith was condemned by the Inquisition at Toledo Jâ—n 10. 1683. as erroneous and schismatical and so by the Clergy of Hungary Oct. 24. 1682. We do not question but there are Divines that oppose it but we fear there are too many who do not and we find they boast of their own numbers and despise the rest as an inconsiderable Party This we do not Misrepresent them in for their most approved Books do shew it However we do not question but there are several Worthy and Loyal Gentlemen of that Religion of different Principles and Practices and it is pity such be not distinguished from those who will not renounce a Doctrine so dangerous in the Consequences of it 3. Because the Anathema's he hath set down are not Penned so plainly and clearly as to give any real Satisfaction but with so much Art and Sophistry as if they were intended to beguile weak and unwary Readers who see not into the depth of these things and therefore may think he hath done great matters in his Anathema's when if they be strictly examined they come to little or nothing as 1. Cursed is he that commits Idolatry An unwary Reader would think herein he disowned all that he accuses of Idolatry but he doth not curse any thing as Idolatry but what himself thinks to be so So again Cursed is he not that gives Divine Worship to Images but that prays to Images or Relicks as Gods or Worships them for Gods So that if he doth not take the Images themselves for Gods he is safe enough from his own Anathema 2. Cursed is every Goddess worshiper i. e. That believes the Blessed Virgin not to be a Creature And so they escape all the force of this Anathema Cursed is he that Honours her or puts his Trust in her more than in God So that if they Hâ—nour her and trust in her but just as much as in God they are safe enough Or that believes her to be above her Son But no Anathema to such as suppose her to be equal to him 3. Cursed is he that believes the Saints in Heaven to be his Redeemers that prays to them as such What if men pray to them as their Spiritual Guardians and Protectors Is not this giving God's Honour to them Doth this deserve no Anathema 4. Cursed is he that worships any Breaden God or makes Gods of the empty Elements of Bread and Wine viz. That supposes them to be nothing but Bread and Wine and yet supposes them to be Gods too Doth not this look like non-sense And yet I am afraid our Author would think it a severe Anathema in this matter to say Cursed is he who believes Nonsense and Contradictions It will be needless to set down more since I have endeavoured by clear stating the several Controversies to prevent the Readers being imposed upon by deceitful Anathema's And yet after all he saith Cursed are we if in answering and saying Amen to any of these Curses we use any Equivocations or Mental Reservations or do not assent to them in the common and obvious use of the Words But there may be no Equivocation in the very Words and yet there may be a great one in the intention and design of them There may be none in saying Amen to the Curses so worded but if he would have prevented all suspicion of Equivocation he ought to have put it thus Cursed are we if we have not fairly and ingenuously expressed the whole meaning of our Church as to the Points condemned in these Anathema's or if we have by them designed to deceive the People And then I doubt he would not so readily have said Amen The CONTENTS  Papist Protestant  Page Page THE Introduction and Answer 1 10 Of Praying to Images 19 20 Of Worshipping Saints 28 29 Of Addressing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary than to Christ. 36 37 Of Paying Divine Worship to Relicks 42 43 Of the Eucharist 46 47 Of Merits and Good Works 57 57 Of Confession 61 62 Of Indulgences 65 66 Of Satisfaction 68 69 Of Reading the Holy Scriptures 70 71 Of Apochryphal Books 74 75 Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible 77 79 Of the Scripture as a Rule of Faith 80 81 Of the Interpretation of Scripture 82 83 Of Tradition 85 86 Of Councils 87 89 Of Infallibility in the Church 90 93 Of the Pope 95 97 Of Dispensations 100 102 Of the Deposing Power 105 107 Of Communion in one Kind 111 113 Of the Mass. 116 118 Of Purgatory 119 122 Of Praying in an unknown Tongue 127 129 Of the Second Commandment 132 133 Of Mental Reservations 134 136 Of a Death-Bed Repentance 137 138 Of Fasting 139 140 Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church 142 143 Of Fryars and Nuns 145 147 Of Wicked Principles and Practices 148 151 Of Miracles 153 154 Of Holy-Water 156 158 Of Breeding up People in Ignorance 159 161 Of the Vncharitableness of the Papists 162 166 Of Ceremonies and Ordinances 168 173 Of Innovations in Matters of Faith 173 180 The Conclusion and Answer to it 182 188 FINIS Apog c. 2. Sp. Anno 286. Par. 5. (a) Spond An. 362. (b) Id. Anno 66. (c) Apo. c. 40. (d) Apo. c. 3. (e) P. 1. pag. 936. Bulla Pii 4 â—i super Confirmat Concil Tridentini The venoâ— Voyâ—ge 〈◊〉 Inâ—es p. 188. Bernier Memoirs Tom. 3. p. 172. Suarez iâ— 3. perâ— Qu. 2â— Disp. 53. §. 3.2 â—◠〈◊〉 â—5 § 5. Bellarmine de Imag. l. 2. c. 2. â— Conâ—il Trident Sess. 25. Moyâ—nâ— Surs 〈…〉 Coâ—version de toâ—s les Hereâ—iquâ—s To. 2. p.