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
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
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
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.
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
Kingdom in Heaven which was His suffering on the Cross for us 4. And no man knoweth of the Sepulcher of Moses unto this day Deut. 34. 6. Why should God hide the Body of Moses from the People if he allowed giving Religious Honour and Respect to Relicks Why should Hezekiah break in Pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel did burn Incense to it 2 Kings 18. 4. Especially when it was a Type or Representation of Christ himself and God had wrought many Miracles by it 5. Whom the Heaven must receive until the times of the Restitution of all things Acts 3. 21. And therefore in the Eucharist we adore him as sitting on the Right Hand of God but we dare not direct our Adoration to the Consecrated Host which we believe to be the Substance of Bread and Wine tho consecrated to a Divine Mystery and therefore not a fit Object for our Adoration 6. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. This is spoken of the Bread after Consecration and yet the Apostle supposes it to be Bread still and the Communion of his Body is interpreted by the next Words For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all Partakers of that one Bread v. 17. Which is very different from the Bread being changed into the very Body of Christ which is an Opinion that hath no Foundation in Scripture and is repugnant to the common Principles of Reason which God hath given us and exposes Christian Religion to the Reproach and Contempt of Jews Turks and Infidels 7. When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you say We are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do St. Luk. 17. 10. And therefore in no sense can our best Works be truly Meritorious of Eternal Lise Which consisting in the enjoyment of God it is impossible there should be any just Proportion or due Commensuration between our best Actions and such a Reward 8. And the Son said unto him Father I have sinned against Heaven and in thy sight St. Luke 15. 21. Where Confession to God is required because the Offence is against him but it is impossible for any Man upon earth to forgive those whom God doth not forgive And he alone can appoint the necessary Conditions of Pardon among which true Contrition and Repentance is fully declared but Confession to a Priest tho it may be useful for the ease of the Penitent is no where in Scripture made necessary for the Forgiveness of Sin 9. I said I will consess my Transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin Psal. 32. 5. If God doth fully forgive thâ— Guilt of sin there remains nâ— Obligation to punishment foâ— whereever that is the guilt remains It is true God may no sometimes fully pardon but hâ— may reserve some temporal pâ— nishment here for his own Hoâ—our or the Chastisement of penitent Sinner But then whâ— have any men to do to preteâ— that they can take off what Gâ— thinks fit to lay on Can any Indâ—gences prevent pain or Sickness sudden Death But if Indulgenâ— be understood only with respeâ— to Canonical Penances they aâ— a most notorious and inexcuâ— ble Corruption of the Discipliâ— 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 Rom. 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 Justice for the Guilt of Sin either in whole or in part And to think to joyn any Satisfactions of ours together with Christs is like joyning our hand with Gods in Creating or Governing the World 11. Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all Wisdom teaching and admonishing one another c. Coloss. 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 hath 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 Practises by it and therefore are forced to
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
THE DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES OF THE Church of Rome TRULY REPRESENTED In Answer to a Book Intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet 1686. The Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented c. An Answer to the Introduction THE Introduction consists of two parts I. A general Complaint of the Papists being Misrepresented among us II. An account of the Method he hath taken to clear them from these Misrepresentations I. As to the First Whether it be just or not must be examin'd in the several Particulars But here we must consider whether it serves the End it is designed for in this place which is to gain the Reader 's good Opinion of their Innocency Not meerly because they complain so much of being injured but because the best Men in all Times have been Misrepresented as he proves at large in this Introduction from several Examples of the Old and New Testament but especially of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians But it is observable that when Bp. Jewel began his excellent Apology for the Church of England with a Complaint much of the same Nature and produced the very same Examples his Adversary would by no means allow it to have any Force being as he called it Exordium Commune which might be used on both sides and therefore could be proper to neither And altho it be reasonable only for those to complain of being Misrepresented who having Truth on their side do notwithstanding suffer under the Imputation of Error yet it is possible for those who are very much mistaken to complain of being misrepresented and while they go about to remove the Misrepresentations of others to make new Ones of their own And as the best Men and the best Things have been Misrepresented so other Men have been as apt to complain of it and the worst things are as much Misrepresented when they are made to appear not so bad as they are For Evil is as truly Misrepresented under the appearance of Good as Good under the appearance of Evil and it is hard to determine whether hath done the greater Mischief So that if the Father of Lies be the Author of Misrepresenting as the Introduction begins we must have a care of him both ways For when he tried this Black Art in Paradise as our Author speaks it was both by misrepresenting the Command and the Danger of transgressing it He did not only make the Command appear otherwise than it was but he did very much lessen the Punishment of Disobedience and by that means deluded our first Parents into that Sin and Misery under which their Posterity still suffers Which ought to be a caution to them how dangerous it is to break the Law of God under the fairest Colour and Pretences and that they should not be easily imposed upon by false Glosses and plausible Representations though made by such as therein pretend to be Angels of Light But although the Father of Lies be the Author of Misrepresenting yet we have no reason to think but that if he were to plead his own Cause to Mankind he would very much complain of being Misrepresented by them and even in this respect when they make him the Father of those Lies which are their own Inventions And can that be a certain Argument of Truth which may as well be used by the Father of Lies And the great Instruments he hath made use of in deceiving and corrupting Mankind have been as forward as any to complain of being Misrepresented The true Reason is Because no great Evil can prevail in the World unless it be represented otherwise than it is and all Men are not competent Judges of the Colours of Good and Evil therefore when the Designs of those who go about to deceive begin to be laid open they then betake themselves to the fairest Representations they can make of themselves and hope that many will not see through their Pretences If I had a mind to follow our Author's Method I could make as long a Deduction of Instances of this kind But I shall content my self with some few Examples of those who are allowed on both sides to have been guilty of great Errors and Corruptions The Arrians pleaded they were Misreprented when they were taken for Enemies to Christ's Divinity for all that they contended for was only such a Moment of Time as would make good the Relation between Father and Son The Pelagians with great Success for some time and even at Rome complained that they were very much Misrepresented as Enemies to God's Grace whereas they owned and asserted the manifold Grace of God and were only Enemies to Mens Idelness and Neglect of their Duties The Nestorians gave out that they never intended to make two Persons in Christ as their Adversaries charged them but all their design was to avoid Blasphemy in calling the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God and whatever went beyond this was their Adversaries Misrepresentations and not their own Opinions The Eutychians thought themselves very hardly dealt with for saying there was but one Nature in Christ they did not mean thereby as they said to destroy the Properties of the Humane Nature but only to assert that its Subsistence was swallowed up by the Divine and of all Persons those have no Reason to blame them who suppose the Properties of one Substance may be united to another Even the Gentile Idolaters when they were charged by the Christians that they Worshipped Stocks and Stones complained they were Misrepresented for they were not such Ideots to take things for Gods which had neither Life nor Sense nor Motion in them And when they were charged with worshipping other Gods as they did the Supream they desired their Sense might not be taken from common Prejudices or vulgar Practices but from the Doctrine of their Philosophers and they owned a Soveraign Worship due to him that was Chief and a subordinate and Relative to some Coelestial Beings whom they made Application to as Mediators between him and them Must all these Complaints now be taken for granted what then becomes of the Reputation of General Councils or the Primitive Christians But as if it were enough to be Accused none would be Innocent so none would be Guilty if it were enough to complain of being Misrepresented Therefore in all Complaints of this Nature it is necessary to come to Particulars and to examine with Care and Diligence the Matters complained of and then to give Judgment in the Case I am glad to find our Author professing so much Sincerity and Truth without Passion and I do assure him I shall follow what he Professes For the Cause of our Church is such as needs neither Tricks nor Passion to defend it and therefore I shall endeavour to state the Matters in Difference with all the clearness and calmness that may be and I shall keep close to
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
comes it to be any part of his Faith that they know them However he doth not doubt but God can never want means of letting the Saints know them p. 6. And is this a sufficient ground for solemn Invocation of Saints God doth not want Means to let the Emperor of Japan know a Request any one here hath to make to him but is this a reasonable Ground for him at this distance to make it to him God doth not want Means to let the Pope know what a mighty Service it would be to the Christian World to make a wise and truly Christian-Reformation in the Church but would this be a Ground sufficient for me at this Distance to make a Speech to him about it I knew a Man who understood not a word of Latin but yet would needs go hear a Latin Sermon some asked him afterwards what he meant by it and the chief Reason he gave was much like this God did not want Means to let him know what the Preacher meant But after all Suppose God should make known to the Saints what is desired of them I ask Whether this be sufficient Ground for solemn Invocation When Socinus was not able to defend the Invocation of Christ himself supposing that he could know our Hearts only by Revelation And he had nothing material to say but only that there was a Command for it which can never be so much as pretended in this Case As to what he alleadges of the Elders falling down before the Lamb having Vials full of Odours which are the Prayers of the Saints Apoc. 5. 8. It must be strained hard to be broughâ— to this purpose when both Ancient and Modern Interpreters take it for a Representation of what was done upon Earth and not in Heaven And if it were in Heaven Prophetical Visions were never intended for a Measure of our Duties If the Angels do pray for mankind Zech. 1. 12. Doth it therefore follow we must pray to them But we say as the Angel did to S. John Revel 19. 10. in a like Case See thou do it not worship God III. Of Addressing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary than to Christ. HEre is no need of farther stating the Question this only relating to the extraordinary Service of the Blessed Virgin And therefore we are presently to attend his Motions He believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ or that she can in any thing command him p. 6. But in good earnest Is it not damnable unless a Man thinks the Blessed Virgin more powerful than Christ Suppose one should think her to have an equal share of Power with Christ Is this damnable or not Is it not setting up a Creature equal with God But what thinks he then of those who have attributed an universal Dominion to her over Angels Men and Devils What thinks he not only of Psalters but of a Creed Litany and all the Hymns of Scripture being applied to her All which was done by a Canonized Saint in their Church and the Books printed out of the Vatican Manuscripts and dedicated to the Pope And there we find something more than an Ora pro nobis in the Litany for there is Parce nobis Domina Spare us Good Lady and ab omni malo libera nos Domina From all Evil Good Lady deliver us What thinks he of another Canonized Saint who said these two Propositions are both true All things are subject to God's Command even the Virgin and All things are subject to the Command of the Virgin even God Was this damnable in a Canonized Saint What thinks he of the noted Hymn O felix Puerpera nostra pians scelera Jure Matris impera Redemptori Was not this damnable And I have not only seen it in the old Paris Missal but Balinghem a Jesuit saith it was in the Missals of Tournay Liege Amiens Artois and the Old Roman I could produce many other Passages cited by him out of the old Offices to the same purpose but I forbear But I cannot omit the Approbation given to the blaspemous saying of S. Bernardin by Mendoza who endeavours to prove the blessed Virgin 's Kingdom not to be a Metaphorical but a true and real Kingdom And by Salazar another noted Jesuit who saith Her Kingdom is as large as her Sons And we have lately seen how far this Divinity is spread for not many Years since this Proposition was sent from Mexico Filius non tantum tenetur audire Matrem sed obedire The Son is bound not only to hear but to obey his Mother And is it still damnable for to say she commands him But our Author saith What ever esteem they have for her They own her still as a Creature Is he sure of that What thinks he of another Saying which Mendoza approves of viz. of Christ's saying to his Mother As thou hast communicated Humanity to me I will communicate my Deity to thee But it may be said We are by no means to judg the sense of a Church by some Mens extravagant sayings I grant it but I have something considerable to reply viz. That we may easily judg which way the Guides of that Church incline by this following passage About ten years since a Gentleman of that Communion published a Book called Wholsome Advice to the Worshippers of the blessed Virgin and the whole design of it being printed in Latin and French was to bring the People of that Church to a bare Ora pro nobis to the Blessed Virgin But this was so far from being approved that the Book was condemned at Rome and vehemently opposed by the Jesuits in France and a whole Volumn published against it Here I have reason to enquire Whether the Virgin Mary then according to the sense of the Church of Rome be only a Mediatrix of Intercession or not since so large Power and Dominion is attributed to her And why should not her Suppliants go beyond an Ora pro nobis if this Doctrine be received as it must be if the contrary cannot be endured For that Author allowed her Intercession and Prayer to her on that account but he found fault with those who said she had a Kingdom divided with her Son that she was the Mother of Mercy or was a Co-Saviour or Co-Redemptrix or that she was to be worshipped with Latria or that Men were to be Slaves to her Now if these things must not be touched without Censure and no Censure pass on the other Books is it not eaâ—y to judg which is more agreeable to the Spirit of the Guides of that Church But we have a fresh Instance of this kind at home in a Book very lately published Permissu Superiorum There we are told in the Epistle That not only the Blessed Virgin is the Empress of Seraphims the most exact Original of Practical Perfection which the Omnipotency of God ever drew but that by
innumerable Titles she claims the utmost Duty of every Christian as a proper Homage to her Greatness What can be said more of the Son of God in our Nature In the Book it self she is said to be Queen of Angels Patroness of the Church Advocate of Sinners that the Power of Mary in the Kingdom of Jesus is suitable to her Maternity and other Priviledges of Grace and therefore by it she justly claims a Servitude from all pure Creatures But wherein doth this special Devotion to her consist He names several Particulars 1. In having an inward cordial and passionate value of the Maternity of Mary and all other Excellencies proper to and inseparable from the Mother of God 2. In External Acts of Worship of eminent Servitude towards her by reason of the Amplitude of her Power in the Empire of Jesus And can we imagine these should go no farther than a poor Ora pro Nobis He instances in these External Acts of her Worship 1. Frequent visiting holy Places dedicated to her Honour And are not those her Temples then which Bellarmin confesses to be a peculiar part of the Worship due to God And the Distinction of Basilicae cannot hold here because he believes the Assumption of the B. Virgin and he will not pretend to her Honour is only for Discrimination 2. A special Reverence towards Images representing her Person 3. Performing some daily Devotions containing her Praises congratulating her Excellency or imploring her Mediation and by oft calling upon the Sacred Name of holy Mary c. 3. In having a firm and unshaken Confidence in her Patronage amidst the greatest of our inward Conflicts and outward Tribulations through a strong Judgment of her eminent Power within the Empire of Jesus grounded upon the singular Prerogative of her Divine Maternity I have not Patience to transcribe more but refer the Reader to the Book it self only the eighth Particular of special Devotion is so remarkable that it ought not to be passed over viz. Entring a solemn Covenant with Holy Mary to be for ever her Servant Client and Devote under some special Rule Society or Form of Life and thereby dedicating our Persons Concerns Actions and all the Moments and Events of our Life to Jesus under the Protection of his Divine Mother choosing her to be our Adoptive Mother Patroness and Advocate and entrusting her with what we are have do or hope in Life Death and through all Eternity And is all this no more than an Ora pro Nobis And it follows Put your self wholly under her Protection What a pitiful thing was the old Collyridian Cake in comparison of these special Acts of Devotion to her But there are some extraordinary strains of Devotion afterwards which it is pity to pass over As I will ever observe thee as my Soveraign Lady Adoptive Mother and most powerful Patroness relying on thy Bowels of Mercy in all my Wants Petitions and Tribulations of Body and Mind Could any thing greater be said to the Eternal Son of God And in the Praise Vers. Open my Lips O Mother of Jesus Resp. And my Soul shall speak forth thy Praise Vers. Divine Lady be intent to my Aid Resp. Graciously make haste to help me Vers. Glory be to Iesus and Mary Resp. As it was is and ever shall be Then follows the eighth Psalm applied thus to her Mary Mother of Jesus how wonderful is thy Name even unto the Ends of the Earth All Magnificence be given to Mary and let her be exalted above the Stars and Angels Reign on high as Queen of Seraphims and Saints and be thou crowned with Honour and Glory c. Glory be to Jesus and Mary c. In the next Page follows a Cantique in imitation of the Te Deum Let us praise thee O Mother of Jesus Let us acknowledge thee our Soveraign Lady Let Men and Angels give Honour to thee the first conceived of all pure Creatures c. I think I need mention no more only three things I shall observe 1. That this is now printed Permissis Superiorum and we thank them for the seasonableness of it in helping us in true Representing what their allowed Doctrines and Practices are 2. That this is published English that our People as well as theirs may be convinced how far we have been from unjust charging them as to such things as these 3. That at the same time they plead for keeping the Bible out of the hands of the People wherein their Discretion is so far to be commended since the Scripture and this new Scheme of Devotion can never stand together There being not one word in the Bible towards it but very much against it and the Psalms and Hymns must be burlesqu'd to found that way But what saith our Author to their Rosaries wherein there are ten Ave Maries to one Pater noster which is accounted a special piece Devotion and great things are said of the Effects of it by Alanus de Rupe and many others 1. As to the Ave Maries he saith there is no more Dishonour to God in reciting the Angelical Salutation than in the first pronouncing it by the Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth But it may not be altogether so pertinent But doth he really think they said the whole Ave Maria as it is used among them Did the Angel and Elizabeth say Sancta Maria Mater Dei 〈◊〉 or a pro nobis peccatoribus nunc in hora mortis nostrae If not to what purpose are they mentioned here 2. As to the Repetition that he saith is no more an idle Superstition than David ' s repeating the same words 26 times in the 136 Psalm But what is this to the Question why more Supplications to the Blessed Virgin than to Christ And not one word of Answer is given to it But Alanus de Rupe answers it roundly Because the Blessed Virgin is our Mediatrix to Christ the Mother of Mercy and the special Patroness of Sinners This is indeed true representing IV. Of paying Divine Worship to Reliques FOR the right understanding this Controversy we are to consider 1. That there is a due Veneration to the Bodies of Saints and Martyrs allowed on both sides and there is an undue Worship of them which is disowned on both sides The due Veneration is a Religious Decency to be observed towards them which lies in avoiding any thing like Contempt or Dishonour to them and using all such Testimonies of Respect and Decency which becomes the Remains of Excellent Persons provided we are satisfied of their Sincerity without having recourse to Divine Omnipotency to prove them which Ferrandus the Jesuit runs so much to to prove the Truth of many Reliques worshipped in the Church of Rome in many places at once But that it is possible to exeeed in the Worship of true Reliques even Bellarmin confesseth who says that God took away the Body of Moses lest the People should give
Razias are their very Words in S. Augustin 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. Augustin 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 Jason or his Epitomizer 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. Augustin whom he quotes plainly saith Si nulla remitterentur in judicio illo novissimo c. c. Julian l. 6. c. 5. where it is evident S. Augustin 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. Augustin applied 1 Pet. 3. 15. to some place of temporal Chastisement in another World when Bellarmin sets himself to confute S. Augustin about it as understanding it of this World And therefore he hath little cause to boast of S. Augustins Authority about Purgatory unless he had brought something more to the purpose out of him His 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 Tertullians 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 relate to their deliverance out of a state of Punishment before the Day of Judgment For whatever state Souls were then supposed to be in before the great Day if there could be no deliverance till the Day of Judgment it signisies nothing to the present Question As to the Vision of Perpetua concerning her Brother Dinocrates who died at Seven Years old being baptized it is hardly reconcilable to their own Doctrine to suppose such a Soul in Purgatory I will not deny that Perpetua did think she saw him in a worse condition and thought likewise that by her Prayers she brought him into a better for she saw him playing like little children and then she awaked and concluded that she had given him ease But is it indeed come to this that such a Doctrine as Purgatory must be built on such a Foundation as this I do not call in question the Acts of Perpetua nor her sincerity in relating her Dream but must the Church build her Doctrines upon the Dreams or Visions of Young Ladies tho very devout for Ubia Perpetua was then but Twenty Two as she saith her self But none are to be blamed who make use of the best supports their Cause will afford It is time now to see what strength of Reason he offers for Purgatory 1. He saith When a Sinner is reconciled to God tho the eternal Punishment due to his sins is always remitted yet there sometimes remains a temporal Penalty to be undergone as in the case of the Israelites and David But doth it hence follow that there is a Temporal Penalty that must be undergone either here or hereafter without which there will be no need of Purgatory Who denies that God in this Life for example sake may punish those whose sins he hath promised to remit as to another World This is therefore a very slender Foundation 2. There are some sins of their own nature light and venial I will not dispute that but suppose there be must men go then into Purgatory for mere Venial Sins What a strange Doctrine doth this appear to any Mans Reason That God should forgive the greater sins and require so severe a punishment for sins in their own Nature venial i. e. so inconsiderable in their Opinion that no man is bound to confess them which do not interrupt a State of Grace which require only an implicite detestation of them which do not deserve eternal punishment which may be remitted by Holy Water or a Bishops Blessing as their Divines agree
Ceremonies but it can never appropriate Divine Effects to them and to suppose any Divine Power in things which God never gave them is in my Opinion Superstition and to use them for such ends is a superstitious use St. Cyril whom he quotes speaks of the Consecration of the Water of Baptism Catech. 3. St. Augustine only of a consecrated Bread which the Catechumens had De Peccat Merit Remiss l. 2. c. 26. but he attributes no Divine Effects to it Pope Alexanders Epistle is a Notorious Counterfeit Those Passages of Epiphanius Theodoret and S. Jerom all speak of miraculous effects and those who had the power of Miracles might sometimes do them with an external sign and sometimes without as the Apostles cured with anointing and without But this is no ground for consecrating Oyl by the Church or Holy Water for miraculous effects If these Effects which they attribute to Holy Water be miraculous then every Priest must have not only a power of Miracles himself but of annexing it to the Water he consecrates if they be super-natural but not miraculous then Holy Water must be made a Sacrament to produce these effects ex opere operato if neither one nor the other I know not how to excuse the use of it from Superstition XXXIV Of breeding up People in Ignorance THE Misrepresenter charges them with this on these Acccounts 1. By keeping their Mysteries of Iniquity from them 2. By performing Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 3. By an implicite Faith To which the Representer answers 1. That they give encouragement to Learning and he instances in their Universities and Conventual Libraries But what is all this to the common People But their Indices Expurgatorii and prohibiting Books so severely which are not for their Turn as we have lately seen in the new one of Paris argues no great confidence of their Cause nor any hearty love to Learning And is it could be rooted out of the World their Church would fare the better in it bur if it cannot they must have some to be able to deal with others in it 2. As to the common People he saith They have Books enough to instruct them Is it so in Spain or Italy But where they live among Hereticks as we are called the People must be a little better instructed to defend themselves and to gain upon others 3. If the People did know their Church-Offices and Service c. they would not find such faults since the Learned approve them Let them then try the Experiment and put the Bible and their Church-Offices every where into the vulgar tongues But their severe Prohibitions shew how much they are of another Opinion What made all that rage in France against Voisins Translation of the Missal such Proceedings of the Assembly of the Clergy against it such complaints both to the King and the Pope against it as tho all were lost if that were suffered Such an Edict from the King such a Prohibition from the Pope in such a Tragical Stile about it Such a Collection of Authors to be printed on purpose against it Do these things shew even in a Nation of so free a Temper in Comparison as the French any mighty Inclination towards the encouraging this Knowledg in the People And since that what stirs have there been about the Mons Testament What prohibitions by Bishops What vehement opposition by others So that many Volumes have already been written on the occasion of that Translation And yet our Author would perswade us that if we look abroad we shall find wonderful care taken to keep the People from Ignorance but we can dâ—scern much greater to keep them in it XXXV Of the Uncharitableness of the Papists THE Misrepresenter as he is called charges this Point home Because they deny Salvation to those who believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith in the Apostles Creed and lead vertuous and good Lives if they be not of their Communion To this the Representer answers in plain terms That this is nothing but what they have learnt from the mouth of Christ and his Apostles And to this end he musters up all their sayings against Infidels false Apostles Gnosticks Cerinthians as tho they were point-blank levelled against all that live out of the Communion of the Church of Rome But this is no uncharitableness but pure zeal and the same the Primitive Church shewed against Hereticks such as Marcion Basilides and Bardesanes who were condemned in the first Age for denying the Resurrection of the dead c. What in the first Age Methinks the Second had been early enough for them But this is to let us see what Learning there is among you But do we deny the Resurrection of the dead Or hold any one of the Heresies condemned by the Primitive Church What then is our Fault which can merit so severe a Sentence We oppose the Church What Church The Primitive Apostolical Church The Church in the time of the Four General Councils I do not think that will be said but I am sure it can never be proved What Church then The present Church Is it then damnable to oppose the present Church But I pray let us know what ye mean by it The universal Body of Christians in the World No no abundance of them are Hereticks and Schismaticks as well as we i. e. All the Christians in the Eastern and Southern parts who are not in Communion with the Church of Rome So that two parts in three of Christians are sent to Hell by this Principle and yet it is no uncharitableness But suppose the Church of Rome be the only true Church must men be damned presently for opposing its Doctrines I pray think a little better on it and you will change your Minds Suppose a Man do not submit to the Guides of this Church in a matter of Doctrine declared by them Must he be Damned What if it be the Deposing Power Yet his Principle is If a Man do not hold the Faith entire he is gone But Popes and Councils have declared this to be a point of Faith therefore if he doth not hold it he must 〈◊〉 damned There is no way of answering this but he must abate the severity of his Sentence against us For upon the same Reason he questions that we may question many more And all his Arguments against us will hold against himself For saith he he that disbelieves one Article of Catholick Faith does in a manner disbelieve all Let him therefore look to it as well as we But he endeavours to prove the Roman Catholick Church to be the true Church by the ordinary Notes and Marks of the Church Although he is far enough from doing it yet this will not do his business For he must prove that we are convinced that it is the true Church and then indeed he may charge us with Obstinate Opposition but not before And it is a very strange thing to
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 P. 15. by which we hope he means more than Attrition But yet there are some things which stick with us as to the Doctrine and Practice 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 Forthe 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 12th Centurie 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 Heresy 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 whch 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 Jansenius concludes That the Power of Remission of Sins here granted doth not imply Sacramental Confession Cajetan 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 Vasquez 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 S. Cyprian S. 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 Offences nor of 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 Bonaventure grants that before the Lateran Decree of Innocentius 3. it was no Heresy 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 Jacobites 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 of S. 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 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 vertue 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 certain 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 Pope's 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 Pope's Legats renewed 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 though 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 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 8th in his Bull of Jubilee 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 6th not extant in the Bullarium but published out of the Utrecht 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 immediatly to Heaven And I suppose whatever implies such an Absolution as carries a Soul to Heaven doth concern Remission of Sins Boniface the 9th 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 the 8th whom Bellarmine magnifies for his care in reforming Indulgences in his Bull of Jubilee grants a most Plenary Remission of Sins and Urban the 8th since him not only a Relaxation of Penances but Remission of Sins and so lately as A. D. 1671. Clement the 10th 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 signify 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 Sinners according to their several degrees of Demerits If by Canonical Penances they mean those enjoyned 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 Bellarmine brings several Arguments against this Doctrine 1. There would be no need of the Treasure of the Church which he had proved to be the Foundation of Indulgences 2. They would be rather hurtful than profitable and the Church would deceive her Children by them 3. They could not be granted for the Dead 4. They who receive Indulgences do undergo Canonical Penances 5. The form of them doth express that they do relate to God and not only to the Church And this I think is sufficient to shew how far he is from true Representing the Nature of Indulgences for we do not dispute the Churche's Power in relaxing Canonical Penances to Penitent Sinners upon just Causes IX Of Satisfaction 1. HE believes it damnable to think any thing injuriously of Christ's Passion But then he distinguishes the Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin As to the Guilt and Eternal Pain the Satisfaction he saith â— proper to Christ but as to the Temporal Pain which mâ—â— remain due by God's Justice after the other are remitted he saith that Penitent Sinners may in some measure satisfy for that by Prayer Fasting Alms c. p. 17. 2. These Penitential Works he saith are no otherwise satisfactory than as joined and applied to Christ's Satisfaction in virtue of which alone our good Works find a grateful acceptance in God's sight p. 19. But for right apprehending the State of the Controversy we must consider 1. That they grant both Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin to be remitted in Baptism so that all the Satisfaction to be made is for Sins committed after Baptism 2. We distinguish between Satisfaction to the Church before Absolution and Satisfaction to the Justice of God for some part of the punishment to Sin which is unremitted 3. We do not deny that truly Penitential Works are pleasing to God so as to avert his Displeasure but we deny that there can be any Compensation in way of equivalency between what we suffer and what we deserve The Matter in Controversy therefore on this Head consists in these things 1. That after the total Remission of Sins in Baptism they suppose a Temporal Punishment to remain when the Eternal is forgiven which the Penitent is to satisfy God's Justice for and without this being done in this Life he must go into Purgatory for that End Of which more under that Head 2. That this Satisfaction may be made to the Justice of God after Absolution is given by the Priest So that although the Penitent be admitted into God's Favour by the power of the Keys according to their own Doctrine yet the Application of the Merits of Christ together with the Saints in the Sentence of Absolution according to their Form do not set him so free but he either wants a new Supply from the Treasure of the Church i. e. from the same Merits of Christ and the Saints or else he is to satisfie for the Temporal Punishment by his own Penances 3. That these penitential Works are to be joyned with the Merits of Christ in the way of proper Satisfaction to Divine Justice And however softly this may be expressed the meaning is that Christ hath merited that we may merit and by his Satisfaction we are enabled to satisfie for our selves And if the Satisfaction by way of Justice be taken away the other will be a Controversy about Words 4. That these penitential Works may not only be sufficient for themselves but they may be so over-doing that a great share may be taken from them to make up the Treasure of the Church for the benefit of others who fall short when they are duly applied to them in the way of Indulgences And about these Points we must desire greater Proof than we have yet ever seen X. Of reading the Holy Scripture 1. HE believes it damnable in any one to think speak or do any thing irreverently