put into their hands 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 please 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 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 on our side as in the Worship of Images Invocation of Saints Papal Supremacy Communion in both kinds Prayer and Scripture in known Tongues and I may safely add the Sufficiency of Scripture Transubstantiation Auricular Confession Publick Communions Solitary Masses to name no more But here lies the Artifice we must not pretend to be capable of Judging either of Scripture or Tradition but we must trust their Judgment what is the sense of Scripture and what hath been the Practice of the Church in all Ages although their own Writers confess the contrary which is very hard But he seems to argue for such a submission to the Church 1. Because we receive the Book of Scripture from her therefore from her we are to receive the sense of the Book An admirable Argument We receive the Old Testament from the Jews therefore from them we are to receive the sense of the Old Testament and so we are to reject the true Messias But this is not all if by the Church they mean the Church of Rome in distinction from others we deny it if they mean the whole Christian Church we grant it but then the force of it is quite lost But why is it not possible for the Church of Rome to keep these Writings and deliver them to others which make against her self Do not persons in Law-Suits often produce Deeds which make against them But there is yet a farther Reason it was not possible for the Church of Rome to make away these Writings being so universally spread 2. Because the Church puts the difference between true and false Books therefore that must be trusted for the true sense of them Which is just as if one should argue The Clerks of the Rolls are to give an account to the Court of true Records therefore they are to sit on the Bench and to give Judgment in all Causes The Church is only to declare what it finds as to Canonical Books but hath no Power to make any Book Canonical which was not before received for such But I confess Stapleton saith the Church if it please may make Hermes his Pastor and Clemens his Constitutions Canonical but I do not think our Author will therein follow him XV. Of Tradition 1. THE Question is not about Human Traditions supplying the Defects of Scripture as he misrepresents it but whether there be an Unwritten Word which we are equally bound to receive with the Written Word Altho these things which pass under that Name are really but Humane Traditions yet we do not 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.
make Tradition equal in Authority with it 15. Wo unto you Lawyers for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge ye entred not in your selves and them that were entering in ye hindred S. Luke 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 Caiaphas 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 leave us to any Vocal Testimony but to refer us to the Written Word as the most certain Foundation of Faith And it is not any persons assuming the Title of the Catholick Church to themselves can give them Authority to impose any Traditionâ— 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 Act. 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 edisying 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 Head 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 S. 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 Occasions of mentioning it if ever Christ had instituted a Headship in the Church and given 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 Practise and the Obligation are two things yet when the Practise was so agreeable to the Institution 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 intermediate 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 punishment 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 justify 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 uncharritablebleness 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 VVhich overthrows the additional 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 Apostostolical 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
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 Infallibe 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 Chrstian 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 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 and commanded to be believed 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 This seems to be a very good Saying and it is pity any thing else should overthrow it But here lies the Misrepresenting he will believe what Christ and his Apostles taught from the Definitions of Councils and so all this goodly Fabrick falls to nothing for it is but as if one should say If Aristotle should falsly deliver Plato's sense I will never believe him but I am resolved to take Plato's sense only from Aristotle's Words So here he first declares he will take the Faith of Christ from the Church and then he saith if the Church Representative should contradict the Faith of Christ he would never believe it 2. We dispute not with them the Right and Necessity of General Councils upon great occasions if they be truly so rightfully called lawfully assembled and fairly managed which have been and may be of great use to the Christian World for setling the Faith healing the Breaches of Christendom and reforming abuses And we farther say that the Decrees of such Councils ought to be submitted to where they proceed upon certain Grounds of Faith and not upon unwritten Traditions Which was the fatal stumbling at the Threshold in the Council of Trent and was not to be recovered afterwards for their setting up Traditions equally with the Written Word made it easie for them to define and as easie for all others to reject their Definitions in case there had not been so many other Objections against the Proceedings of that Council And so all our Dispute concerning this matter is taken off from the general Notion and runs into the particular Debate concerning the Qualifications and Proceedings of some which were called Free General Councils but were neither General nor Free and therefore could not deliver the sense of the Catholick Church which our Author requires them to do 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. John 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 separately 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 Error 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 Apostles 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 saith 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 Christs 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 Jewish 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 Jews 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 Judah 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
doth not reach the Case For the Question is 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 Vows yet no one among them questions but the Pope may dissolve the Obligation of a Vow altho 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 Benefit to the Church as their Doctâ—â—â— 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 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 down-right Falsity Let us now calmly debate the matter Whether according to the received principles of the Church of Rome this be only a particular 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 Ages since the Apostles is to be taken from the present Church 2. That by the present Church he 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 Infallible assistance 3. That the Pope as the 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 they have 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 and 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 Infallibility 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 Parties 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 truely 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 Heresy 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 Extreme 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 Ambition perverting out of Design the Doctrine of the Primitive 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 Judgements and Censures may be safely contemned as Null and containing intollerable Errors And that it may require such things which good Subjects are bound to disobey 5. That Gregory VII 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 Councils lose their Infallibility at one blow 6. That the Gates of Hell 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
his Method and Representations without Digressons or provoking Reflections II. But I must declare my self very much unsatisfied with the Method he hath taken to clear his Party from these Misrepresentations For 1. He takes upon him to draw a double Character of a Papist and in the one he pretends to follow a certain Rule but not in the 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 easy 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 their's from the Council of Trent If he saith â—his Design was to remove common Prejudices and vulgar Mistakes it is easy to answer if they are contraâ—y 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 pitty their Weakness and Folly and are far from defending such Misrepresentations 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 easy 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 Misrepresentations which is very unsatisfactory viz. That he hath described the Papist therein exactly according 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 arâ— able to understand p. 58. or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry p. 9. Or that a Papist believes thâ— Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels c Yet these are some of his Misrepresentations p. 40. Did he in earnest think so himself Iâ— 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 drawâ— his Misrepresentations 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 this was 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 Misrepresentations 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 rectify 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 3. 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 yet 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 their Church as himself and what Reason have we to adhere to his Representation rather than to theirs As for instance he saith The Pope's personal Infallibility is no Matter of Faith p. 42. But there are others fay 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 p. 47. 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 justify 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 Prelats to do it and reserved it to the Apostolical Sea 2. He leaves out in the seâ—eral 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 4th 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 worshiping 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 Fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This is the true Catholick Faith without which no Man can be saved i. e. The belief of these things is thereby 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 V. 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 35th Head he then owns That unless Men do believe every Article of the Roman Faith they cannot be saved p. 96. and he that disbelieves one does in a manner disbelieve all p. 97. 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 Pope's Authority he requires due Circumstances and proceeding according to Law p. 42. But who is to be Judg 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 the Number for saith he There are greater Numbers that disown this Doctâ—â—ne p. 47. 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 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 Universal Tradition is necessary to make a Doctrine of 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 IV 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 Misrepresent 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 misrepresent them as indeed we need not And so much in Answer to the Introduction I. Of Praying to Images IN this and the other Particulars where it is necessary I shall observe this Method 1. To give a clear and impartial Account of the State of the Controversy in as few Words as I can 2. To make some Reflections on what he saith in order to the clearing them from Misrepresentations As to the State of this Controversy as it stands since the Council of Trent we are to consider 1. We must distinguish between what Persons do in their own Opinion and what they do according to the Sense of the Divine Law It is possible that Men may intend one thing and the Law give another Sense of it as is often seen in the Case of Treason although the Persons plead never so much they had no intention to commit Treason yet if the Law makes their Act to be so their disavowing it doth not Excuse them So it is in the present Case Men may have real and serious Intentions to refer their final ultimate and Soveraign Worship only to God but if the Law of God strictly and severely prohibits this particular Manner of Worship by Images in as full plain and clear Words as may be and gives a Denomination to such Acts taken from the immediate Object of it no particular Intention of the Persons can alter that Denomination or make the Guilt to be less than the Law makes it 2. There can be no Misrepresenting as to the lawfulness of many External Acts of Worship with Respect to Images which are owned by them But it doth not look fairly to put the Title Of Praying to Images for the Question is about the Worship of Images whereas this Title would insinuate as though we did directly charge them with Praying to their Images without any farther Respect Which we are so far from charging them with that I do not know of any People in the World who are not like Stones and Stocks themselves who are liable to that
not only said to be truly meritorious but we are cursed if we do not say the same To make any thing truly meritorious we must suppose these Conditions requisite 1. That what we pretend to merit by be our own free Act. 2. That it be not defective 3. That there be an Equality between it and the Reward due to it 4. That there be an Obligation in point of Justice to give that Reward to him that doth it And from these Considerations we deny that Good Works even of justified Persons can be truly meritorious 1. It is granted by themselves That what is truly meritorious must be a free Act of the Person who doth it Now the Good Works of Justified Persons cannot be said to be their own free Acts if the Power of doing them depend upon Divine Assistance and there was an antecedent Obligation upon them to perform them So that they can do nothing but what they are bound to as God's Creatures and their very Power of doing it is from the Grace of God If Men pretended to merit at anothers hands by what God gives there were some colour for it but to merit from God himself by what he gives us seems very incongruous If I owe a Man an 100 l. 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 no 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 altho 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 meritorous 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 as clear a 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 Justice and so God as a Righteous Judg may give a Crown of Rightcousness to all that follow St. Paul 's Example without making Good Works to be truly meritorious VII Of Confession 1. VVE do not charge the Church of Rome that in the power of absolving they make Gods of Men P. 14. 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.
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 it 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 though those thought themselves through Catholioks 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 Scrâ—ture 2 Pet. 1. 20. One would think the Scripture were not kept only 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 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 2 Pet. 3. 16. Now in my Opinion such Men deserve more to be debarred from the 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 misappled 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 shining in a dark place 1 Pet. 1. 19. According to this way of deducing Consequences S. Peter should have argued just contrary The Prophetical Writings are dark and obscure therefore 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 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 sorts 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 no License and good Testimony from their Curates And therefore their design is not to preserve Ignorance in the People but to prevent a blind â—gnorant presumption These are plausible pretences to such as search no farâ—her but the Mystery of this Matter lies much deeper â—t 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 â—nd therefore care was taken to have Translations made â—y some of their own Body and since the People of â—etter Inclinations to Piety were not to be satisfied withâ—ut the Bible therefore they thought it the better way â—o permit certain Persons whom they could trust to have License to read it And this was the true Reason of the â—ourth Rule of the Index Libr. prohibit made in pursuâ—nce of the Order of the Council of Trent and published â—y Pius IV. by which any one may see it was not an Original Permission out of any good Will to the Thing â—ut an Aftergame to get the Bible out of the Hands of â—â—e People again And therefore Absolution was to be â—enied to those who would not deliver them to their Orâ—naries when they were called for And the Regulars â—â—emselves were not to be permitted to have Bibles withâ—â—t a License And as far as I can understand the Addiâ—on of Clement VIII to that Fourth Rule he withdraws â—y new Power of granting such Licenses and saith â—ey are contrary to the Command and Usage of that â—â—urch which he saith is to be inviolably observed â—herein I think he declares himself fully against such â—censes And how Inferior Guides can grant them aâ—inst the Command of the Head of the Church is a thing â—t very agreeable to the Unity and Subordination they â—ast of XI Of Apochryphal Books 1. WE do not charge the Church of Rome with mâ—king what Additions to Scripture they thiâ— good as the Misrepresenter saith but we charge theâ— with taking into the Canon of Scripture such books â— were not received for Canonical by the Christian Church as those Books himself mentions viz. Toby Judith Eclesiasticus Wisdom and Maccabees 2. We do not only charge them with this but with Anathematizing all those who do not
upon this Declaâ—tion believe them to be Canonical since they cannot 〈◊〉 but know that these Books never were in the Jewish â—â—non and were left out by many Christian Writers Aâ— if the Church cannot add to the Scripture and 〈◊〉 Author thinks it damnable to do it how can it maâ— any Books Canonical which were not so received by tâ—â— Church For the Scripture in this sense is the Canon aâ— therefore if it add to the Canon it adds to the Scripture i. e. it makes it necessary to believe some Books to be â— infallible Authority which were not believed to be â— either by the Jewish or Christian Church as appears 〈◊〉 abundant Testimonies to that purpose produced by Learned Bishop of this Church which ought to haâ— been considered by the Representer that he might 〈◊〉 have talked so crudely about this matter But however I must consider what he saith 1. He produces the Testimony of Greg. Naziaâ—â— who is expresly against him and declares but Tweâ—â— Two Books in the Canon of the Old Testament but how doth he prove that he thought these Booâ— Canonical He quotes his Oration on the Maccabeâ— where I can find nothing like it and instead of it 〈◊〉 expresly follows as he declares the Book of Josephus 〈◊〉 the Authority of Reason concerning them So that if â—his proves any thing it proves Josephus his Book Canonical and not the Maccabees 2. He adds the Testimony of St. Ambrose who in the Place he refers to inlarges on the Story of the Maccabees â—ut 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 Ruffinus and Gregory the Great did not own the Book of Maccabees for Canonical 3. Innocentius ad Exuperium speaks more to his Purpose and if that 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 â—est out and this was received in the Code of the Uniâ—ersal Church which was as clear a Proof of the Canon â—hen generally received as can be expected It is true the Council of Carthage took them in and St. Augustine seems â—o be of the same Opinion But on the other side they â—re left out by Melito Bishop of Sardis who lived near â—he Apostles times Origen Athanasius St. Hilary St. Cyril of Jerusalem Epiphanius St. Basil Amphilochius St. Chrysostom and especially St Jerom who hath laboured â—n this point so much that no fewer than Thirteen Places â—re produced out of him to this purpose by the forementioned Learned Bishop of our Church who clearly â—roves 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 â—nly 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 Jews and they owned no Divine Inspiration after the time of Malach How then should there be any Books so written afteâ— 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 ougâ—â— to believe and what not in this matter 5. Since the Churches Declaration he saith no Cathlicks ever doubted What doth he mean by the Churchâ— Declaration that of Innocentius and the Council of Cathage Then the same Bishop hath shewed him thâ— since that time there have been very many both 〈◊〉 the Greek and Latin Church of another Opinion Anâ— but a little before the Council of Trent Catharinus saith that a Friend of his and a Brother in Christ deride him as one that wanted Learning for daring to assert theâ— Books were within the Canon of Scripture and it 's plain Card. Cajetan could never be perswaded of it Bâ— if he means since the Council of Trent then we are â—â—turned to our first Difficulty how such a Council câ—â— make any Books Canonical which were not received 〈◊〉 such by the Catholick Church before For then they 〈◊〉 not declare the Canon but create it XII Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible 1. WE do not dispute about the Vulgar Editiâ—â— whether it may not be prefer'd before modern Latin Editions because of its great Antiquity in somâ— parts of it and its general Reception since the time of Gregory I. But our dispute is whether it be made so Authentick since the Council of Trent that no Appeals are to be made to the Originals i. e. whether that Council by its Authority could make a Version equal to the Originals out of which it was made Especially since at the time of that Decree the Vulgar Edition was confessed to be full of Errors and Corruptions by Sixtus V. who saith he took infinite pains to Correct them and yet left very many behind as appeared by Clement VIII who corrected his Bibles in very many places and grants some faults were left uncorrected still Now how was it possible for the Council of Trent to declare that Edition Authentick which was afterwards so much corrected And whether was the correct Edition of Sixtus V. Authentick or not being made in pursuance of the Decree of the Council If not how comes Clemens his Edition to be made Authentick when the other was not since there may be corruptions found in that as well as the other and no one can tell but it may be Reviewed and Corrected still as some of their own Writers confess it stands in need of it 2. Our Controversy is not so much about the Authority of the Vulgar Latin above other Latin Versions to those who understand them but whether none else but the Latin Version must be used by those who understand it not And here our Representer saith That he is commanded not to read any of these Translations speaking of Tindal's and that in Q. Elizabeths time but only that which is recommended to him by the Church If this relate to the Vulgar Latin then we are to seek why the common people should have none to Read but what they cannot understand if to Translations of their own then we doubt not to make it appear that our Translation allowed among us is more exact and agreeable than any they can
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 Matt. 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 Per Cathedram Doctrinam Legis ostendit saith S. Jerom 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 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 Superiours 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 implict Obedience which would overthrow the force of all our Saviours 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 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 he tells us how they look on themselves as obliged to shew him the Respect due to his Place which he knows is not the matter in Question Two things however he saith which seem to justify his Title 1. He is the Successor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the care of his Flock But how far is this from proving the Pope to be Head of the Church under Christ For how doth it appear that Christ ever made S. Peter Head of the Church or committed his Flock to him in contradistinction to the rest of the Apostles This is so far from being evident from Scripture that the Learned men of their Church are ashamed of the Places commonly produced for it it being impossible ever to justify the sense of them according to their own Rules of Interpreting Scripture viz. by the unanimous consent of the Fathers For 1. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church is interpreted by many of the Fathers both Greek and Latin of S. Peters Confession and not of his Person so by S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin S. Basil of Selucioe S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret all great and considerable Persons in the Christian Church whose words are plain and full to that purpose and so they can never produce the unanimous consent of the Fathers for S. Peter's Supremacy out of these Words 2. And unto thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are interpreted by the Fathers of S. Peter in common with the other Apostles so Origen S. Cyprian S. Hilary S. Hierom and S. Augustin as they are all owned by a Member of the Roman Communion And 3. For these Words Feed my Sheep a late Learned Doctor of the Sorban shews that if they prove any thing Peculiar to S. Peter they must prove him sole Pastor of the Church which was the thing S. Gregory disputed against so warmly But that there was nothing peculiar to S. Peter above or beyond the rest of the Apostles he shews at large from S. Chrysostom S. Cyril S. Augustin and others to whom I refer the Reader and to the former Authors But suppose it were made to appear that S. Peter was Head of the Church How doth the Bishop of Rome's Succession in that Headship shew it self To that he saith 2. That there hath been a visibile Succession of above Two hundred and fifty Bishops acknowledged as such in all past Ages by the Christian World As such What is that As Bishops of Rome That is not of weight enough to put it upon Trial as Heads of the Catholick-Church That he knows is not only denied by us but by all the Greek Armenian Nestorian Abyssin Churches so that we dare say it was never allowed in any one Age of the Christian Church But we need not insist on the proof of this since the late mentioned Authors of the Roman Communion have taken so great pains not only to prove the Popes Supremacy to be an Incroachment and Usurpation in the Church but that the laying it aside is necessary to the Peace and Unity of it And until the Divine Institution of the Papal Supremacy be proved it is to no purpose to debate what manner of Assistance is promised to the Pope in his Decrees Our Author is willing to decline the debate about his Personal Infallibility as a matter of Opinion and not of Faith and yet he saith he doubts not but God doth grant a special Assistancé to the High Priest for the good of the whole Flock under the New Law as he did under the Old and produces the
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 be 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 difference 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 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 disloyal 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 comes 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 tho their Principles did overthrow any true Friendship yet many of them made excellent Friends XXI Of Communion in One Kind FOR our better proceeding in this Controversie I shall set down the State of it as clearly as I can 1. The Question is not Whether the first Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist by Jesus Christ were in one Kind or two for all confess it was under both Kinds 2. It is not Whether both Kinds are not still necessary for the due Celebration of it for it is granted that both Kinds are necessary to be upon the Altar or else there could be no compleat Sacrifice 3. It is not Whether the People may be wholly excluded from both Kinds and so the Sacrifice only remain for they grant that the People are bound to communicate in one Kind 4. It is not concerning any peculiar and extraordinary Cases where no Wine is to be had or there be a particular Aversion to it or any such thing where positive Institutions may be reasonably presumed to have no force But concerning the publick and solemn Celebration and participation of it in the Christian Church 5. It is not concerning the meer disuse or neglect of it But concerning the lawfulness of Excluding the People from both Kinds by the Churches Prohibition notwithstanding the Institution of it by Christ in both Kinds with a Command to keep up the Celebration of it to his Second Coming Here now consists the point in Controversie Whether the Church being obliged to keep up the Institution in both Kinds be not equally obliged to distribute both as our Saviour did to as many as partake of it Our Author not denying the Institution or the continuance of it saith Our Saviour left it indifferent to receive it in one Kind or both And that is the point to be examined 1. He saith Christ delivered it to his Apostles who only were then present and whom he made Priests just before yet he gave no command that it should be so received by all the Faithful But were not the Apostles all the Faithful then present I pray in what capacity did they then receive it As Priests
of Antiquity be allow'd to be a Commemorative Sacrifice as it takes in the whole Action but whether in the Mass there be such a Representation made to God of Christ's Sacrifice as to be it self a true and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead Now all that our Representer saith to the purpose is 1. That Christ bequeathed his Body and Blood at his last Supper under the Species of Bread and Wine not only a Sacrament but also a Sacrifice I had thought it had been more proper to have offered a Sacrifice than to have bequeathed it And this ought to have been proved as the Foundation of this Sacrifice viz. That Christ did at his last Supper offer up his Body and Blood as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God And then what need his suffering on the Cross 2. He gave this in charge to his Apostles as the first and chief Priests of the New-Testament and to their Successors to offer But Where When and How For we read nothing at all of it in Scripture Christ indeed did bid them do the same thing he had there done in his last Supper But did he then offer up himself or not If not How can the Sacrifice be drawn from his Action If he did it is impossible to prove the necessity of his dying afterwards 3. This Sacrifice was never questioned till of late years We say it was never determined to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice till of late We do not deny the Fathers interpreting Mal. 1. 11. of an Offering under the Gospel but they generally understand it of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Sacrifices and although some of them by way of Accommodation do apply it to the Eucharist yet not one of them doth make it a Propitiatory Sacrifice which was the thing to be proved For we have no mind to dispute about Metaphorical Sacrifices when the Council of Trent so positively decrees it to be a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice XXIII Of PURGATORY HEre our Author begins with proving from Scripture and Antiquity and then undertakes to explain the Doctrine of Purgatory from substantial Reasons 1. As to his Proof from Scripture 1. Is that from 2 Maccab. c. 12. where he saith Money was sent to Jerusalem that Sacrifices might be offered for the slain and 't is recommended as a Holy Cogitation to pray for the dead To this which is the main foundation of Purgatory I answer 1. It can never prove such a Purgatory as our Author asserts For he supposes a Sinner reconciled to God as to eternal Punishment before he be capable of Purgatory but here can be no such supposition for these Men died in the sin of Achan which was not known till their Bodies were found among the slain Here was no Confession or any sign of Repentance and therefore if it proves any thing it is deliverance from Eternal Punishment and for such as dye in their Sins without any shew of Repentance 2. We must distinguish the Fact of Judas from the interpretation of Jason or his Epitomizer The Fact of Judas was according to the strictness of the Law which required in such Cases a Sin-Offering and that is all which the Greek implies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so Leo Allatius confesses all the best Greek Copies agree and he reckons Twelve of them Now what doth this imply but that Judas remembring the severe punishment of this Sin in the Case of Achan upon the People sent a Sin-offering to Jerusalem But saith Leo Allatius It was the sin of those men that were slain I grant it But the Question is Whether the Sin-offering respected the dead or the living For the Law in such a Case required a Sin-offering for the Congregation And why should not we believe so punctual a Man for the Law as Judas did strictly observe it in this point But the Author of the Book of Macchabees understands it of those that were slain I do not deny it but then 3. We have no Reason to rely upon his Authority in this matter which I shall make appear by a parallel Instance He doth undoubtedly commend the fact of Razias in Killing himself 2. Macc. 14. 42. when he saith he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like a brave Man and if he had thought it a fault in him he would never have given such a Character of it but he would have added something of Caution 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 Jews of whose number Jason 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 Bellarmin 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 Jason 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 eithe◠in the Law or the Prophets And it woul be strange for a new Doctrine to be set up when the Spirit of Prophecy was ceased among them But S. August hold these Books for Canonical and saith they are so received by the Church l. 18. de Civit De◠To answer this it is sufficient to observe not only the different 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 against the other especially when S. August in himself being pressed hard with the fact of Razias confesses 1. That the Jews have not the Book of Macchabees 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 which 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. Augustin would ever have given concerning a Book he believed truely Canonical But saith Bellarmin his meaning is only to keep men from imitating the Example of Razias whereas that which they pressed S. August in with was not meerly the Fact but the Character that is given of it Sanctarum Scripturarum Auctoritate laudatus est
in that Sacrament Sess. 14. c. 4. So that altho a Man hath led a very bad Life if he hath but this Attrition for his sins when he doth confess them he is put into a state of Grace by this Sacrament And what can any Man expect more and what can he do less I do not mean a bare natural Attrition the sufficiency whereof is condemned by Innocent XI in the same Proposition Fifty seventh but that which the Council of Trent calls Imperfect Contritiâ—n i. e. a good Motion in a Mans mind to â—orsake his Sins for fear of Punishment if really no more be required for a state of Grace but this it is no wonder if Men put off the doing of that which may be done at any time so easily by the help of a Priest 2. The Treasure of the Church is another thing which is very apt to hinder Mens speedy Repentance for by that they believe there is a stock ready of so many Merits and Satisfactions of others if duely applied to them by Indulgences that they need not be at such pains to Work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling When a Man by the Sacrament of Penance is put into a state of Grace the Eternal Punishment is discharged and nothing remains but some Temporal Pains and to ease him of these he hath many helps but especially the Treasure of the Church which the Pope hath the dispensing of as he is bound to believe and by Indulgences he may easily get off some Thousands of years of Purgatory-Pains and if these should fail him there is another help yet left which is leaving a stock for Prayers for his Soul when he dies which even our Author assures him are very available towards bis speedier release out of Purgatory p. 58. XXVIII Of FASTING THE Question here is Whether a Man doth not observe their Churches Command about Fasting who forbears all forbidden things but takes liberty in those which are not forbidden It is not Whether they may not break the Commands of God against Gluttony and Drunkenness But whether they break the Law of the Church about Fasting And notwithstanding what our Author hath said I see no Reason for the Affirmative I do not deny 1. That it is a very indifferent sort of Fasting to abstain from Flesh unless all other sorts of Excesses at the same time be carefully avoided 2. That Excesses on such days are more scandalous because there is a pretence of Fasting 3. That God's Command doth at all times sorbid Intemperance Which are the chief things he insists upon But yet this doth not reach the point which is about their Churches Command For their Casuists distinguish Fasting into 1. Natural which is total Abstinence and this is required only in order to receiving the Eucharist 2. Moral which is the same with Temperance or Fasting for Health 3. Ecclesiastical which is defined by them to be An Abstinence from Food forbidden by the Church And if this Definition be true it cannot be broken but by eating what the Church hath prohibited And therefore their Casuists as far as I can find are agreed in these things 1. That a Man may eat a full Meal of what is not forbidden and not break the Churches Precept of Fasting provided Vespers be first said And the later Casuists blame Covarrâ—vias for making any scruple about it If a Mans Excess comes to be a Mortal sin yet for all that saith Reginaldus He shall not be judged as a breaker of his Fast. Nay Lessius goes further and saith He doth not lose the Merit of Fasting Quamvis aliquis multum excedet non solvit Jejunium saith Card. Tolet. And Paulus Zacchias saith This is the common Opinion and he thinks the Intention of the Church is sufficiently answered And so doth Pasqualigus in his Praxis of Fasting 2. A Man may drink Wine or other drink as often as he pleaseth without breaking his Fast. He may toties quoties bibere saith Diana Zach. Pasqualigus who hath Written most fully on this Subject shews That it is the general Opinion that no quantity of Wine or other drink though taken without any Necessity is a violation of the Precept of Fasting no not although the Wine be taken for nourishment 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 Refection 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 Jesuit 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 allâ—wed saith he And Lessius saith There is no certain Rule for the Quantity of it And Card. Tolet saith very large ones are allâ—wed at Rome by the Popes Connivence even in the Court of Rome saith Reginaldus And now I leave the Reader to judge of the severity of Fasting requirâ—d in the Church of Rome 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 and Numbers in the Representative and Diffusive Church is chiefly to be regarded And on this Ground some reject the Deposing-Power though 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
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 Christs 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 Misrepresent them or to make their Doctrines and Practises 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 Whother 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 VVorld 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 VVhether 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 others 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 Anethema'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 dotb 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 Soveraign on any pretence whatsoever Why was this past over by him without any kind of Anathema Since he seems to approve the Oxford Censures p. 48. Why did he not here show 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 in stead 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 Sorbon 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 Sorbon he saith was condemned by the Inquisition at Toledo Jan. 10. 1683. as erroneous and Schismatical and so by the Clergy of Hungary Oct. 24. 1682. VVe 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 Practises 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 worshipper 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 Honour 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 Redeemer that prays to them as such VVhat if men pray to them as their Spiritual Guardians and Protectors Is not this giving Gods Honour to them Doth this deserve no Anathema 4. Cursed is he that worships any breaden God or makes God 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 nonsense