made the Law of no effect among them If there were Infallibility any where it must be in the High Priest and Sanhedrim but is it possible for any Christian to think them infallible when they were so grosly mistaken about the main Article of their Faith as to the Messias and pronounced him worthy of death Is not this a fine Argument for the Infallibility of the Guides of the Christian Church But the Church of Christ hath better Promises No doubt of it greater Promises of Grace and Mercy in this World and in that to come but what is all this to Infallibility in Councils 6. Christ's Command of Obedience to those who sat in Moses Chair Matt. 23. 2. doth not prove the Infallibility of those who sat there Yet this is alledged to that purpose and that men ought not to doubt of the Reasonableness of the Commands of their Superiors But St. Chrysostom saith our Saviour speaks of the things commanded by the Law of Moses Per Cathedram Doctrinam Legis ostendit saith S. Jerom Not their own Doctrine but that of Moses saith Isidore and so Hilary and Theophylact Maldonate confesseth our Saviours Words are to be understood not of their own Doctrine but of that of the Law and therefore he yields the Obedience here required is to be restrained to that All things saith Cajetan which they teach out of Moses 's Chair Not all their Doctrines but as far as they were conformable to the Law saith Ferus Now can any one hence infer that no men ought to dispute any Commands of Superiors when it is supposed that there is a Rule and Standard for them to speak according to and our Saviour elsewhere doth suppose these very Men to teach things contrary to the Law as in the Case of Corban Would our Saviour contradict himself or require a blind Obedience in things repugnant to the Law We do not deny a due submission to our Superiours in the Church yea we allow them a Power to determine things not forbidden and think obedience due in such things by vertue of their Authority but yet this is far enough from Infallibility or an unlimited implict Obedience which would overthrow the force of all our Saviours Reasonings against the Scribes and Pharisees as to their misinterpreting the Law and the Superstitious Practises they imposed upon the People XVIII Of the POPE 1. WE do not charge them with believing the Pope to be God which it seems himself did if we believe the Misrepresenter in his Preface but there is some Reason to doubt whether they do not at some times give him greater Honour than becomes a Man I instance in the Adoration after his Election when the new Pope is placed upon the Altar to receive the Submissions of the Cardinals but the Altar themselves do confess to be Sacred to God alone And there they profess to Worship Jesus Christ as present in the Host. This therefore looks too much like assuming the Place of Christ and not becoming the Distance between God and Man 2. The Question is Whether Christ hath appointed the Pope or Bishop of Rome to be Pastor Governour and Head of his Church under him This he saith he believes and this he knows we deny and therefore had Reason to expect some Proof of it But instead he tells us how they look on themselves as obliged to shew him the Respect due to his Place which he knows is not the matter in Question Two things however he saith which seem to justify his Title 1. He is the Successor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the care of his Flock But how far is this from proving the Pope to be Head of the Church under Christ For how doth it appear that Christ ever made S. Peter Head of the Church or committed his Flock to him in contradistinction to the rest of the Apostles This is so far from being evident from Scripture that the Learned men of their Church are ashamed of the Places commonly produced for it it being impossible ever to justify the sense of them according to their own Rules of Interpreting Scripture viz. by the unanimous consent of the Fathers For 1. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church is interpreted by many of the Fathers both Greek and Latin of S. Peters Confession and not of his Person so by S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin S. Basil of Selucioe S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret all great and considerable Persons in the Christian Church whose words are plain and full to that purpose and so they can never produce the unanimous consent of the Fathers for S. Peter's Supremacy out of these Words 2. And unto thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are interpreted by the Fathers of S. Peter in common with the other Apostles so Origen S. Cyprian S. Hilary S. Hierom and S. Augustin as they are all owned by a Member of the Roman Communion And 3. For these Words Feed my Sheep a late Learned Doctor of the Sorban shews that if they prove any thing Peculiar to S. Peter they must prove him sole Pastor of the Church which was the thing S. Gregory disputed against so warmly But that there was nothing peculiar to S. Peter above or beyond the rest of the Apostles he shews at large from S. Chrysostom S. Cyril S. Augustin and others to whom I refer the Reader and to the former Authors But suppose it were made to appear that S. Peter was Head of the Church How doth the Bishop of Rome's Succession in that Headship shew it self To that he saith 2. That there hath been a visibile Succession of above Two hundred and fifty Bishops acknowledged as such in all past Ages by the Christian World As such What is that As Bishops of Rome That is not of weight enough to put it upon Trial as Heads of the Catholick-Church That he knows is not only denied by us but by all the Greek Armenian Nestorian Abyssin Churches so that we dare say it was never allowed in any one Age of the Christian Church But we need not insist on the proof of this since the late mentioned Authors of the Roman Communion have taken so great pains not only to prove the Popes Supremacy to be an Incroachment and Usurpation in the Church but that the laying it aside is necessary to the Peace and Unity of it And until the Divine Institution of the Papal Supremacy be proved it is to no purpose to debate what manner of Assistance is promised to the Pope in his Decrees Our Author is willing to decline the debate about his Personal Infallibility as a matter of Opinion and not of Faith and yet he saith he doubts not but God doth grant a special Assistancé to the High Priest for the good of the whole Flock under the New Law as he did under the Old and produces the
make Tradition equal in Authority with it 15. Wo unto you Lawyers for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge ye entred not in your selves and them that were entering in ye hindred S. Luke 11. 52. From whence it follows that the present Guides of the Church may be so far from giving the true Sense of Scripture that they may be the chief Means to hinder Men from right understanding it Which argument is of greater force because those who plead for the Infallibility of the Guides of the present Church do urge the Promises made to the Jewish Church at that time as our Author doth from those who sat in the Chair of Moses and from Caiaphas his Prophesying 16. We have also a more sure Word of Prophesie whereunto ye do well that ye take heed 2 Pet. 1. 19. And yet here the Apostle speaks of something delivered by the Testimony of those who were with Christ in the holy Mount From whence we infer that it was not the Design of Christ to leave us to any Vocal Testimony but to refer us to the Written Word as the most certain Foundation of Faith And it is not any persons assuming the Title of the Catholick Church to themselves can give them Authority to impose any Traditionâ— on the Faith of Christians or require them to be believed equally with the Written Word For before any Traditions can be assented to with Divine Faith the Churches Authority must be proved to be Divine and Infallible either by a written or unwritten Word but it can be done by neither without overthrowing the Necessity of such an Infallibility in order to Divine Faith because the Testimony on which the Churches Infallibility is proved must be received only in a way of Credibility 17. Also of your own selves shall Men arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them Act. 20. 30. Which being spoken of the Guides of the Christian Church without limitation of Number a possibility of Error is implied in any Assembly of them unless there were some other Promises which did assure us That in all great Assemblies the Spirit of God shall always go with the Casting Voice or the greater Number 18. And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the edisying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Unity of the Faith c. Ephes. 4. 13 14 15. Now here being an account given of the Officers Christ appointed in his Church in order to the Unity and Edification of it it had been unfaithfulness in the Apostle to have left out the Head of it in Case Christ had appointed any Because this were of more consequence than all the rest being declared necessary to Salvation to be in subjection to him But neither this Apostle nor S. Peter himself give the least intimation of it Which it is impossible to conceive should have been left out in the Apostolical Writings upon so many Occasions of mentioning it if ever Christ had instituted a Headship in the Church and given it to S. Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome 19. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come 1 Cor. 15. 26. The Apostle speaking to all Communicants plainly shews that the Institution of Christ was That all should partake of both Kinds and so to continue to do as long as this Sacrament was to shew forth the Death of Christ viz. till his Second coming And there is no colour for asserting the Christian Church ever looked on observing Christs Institution in this matter as an indifferent thing no not for a thousand years after Christ. Altho the Practise and the Obligation are two things yet when the Practise was so agreeable to the Institution and continued so long in the Church it is hardly possible for us to prove the sense of the Obligation by a better way than by the continuance of the Practise And if some Traditions must be thought binding and far from being indifferent which want all that Evidence which this Practise carries along with it How unreasonable is it in this Case to allow the Practise and to deny the Obligation 20. And whom he justified them he also glorified Rom. 8. 30. But whom God justifies they have the Remission of their Sins as to Eternal Punishment And if those who are thus justified must be glorified what place is there for Purgatory For there is not the least intimation of any other state of Punishment that any who are justified must pass through before they are admitted to Glory We grant they may notwithstanding pass through many intermediate trials in this World but we say where there is Justification there is no Condemnation but where any part of Guilt remains unremitted there is a condemnation remaining so far as the punishment extends And so this distinction as to Eternal and Temporal Pains as it is made the Foundation of Purgatory is wholly groundless and therefore the Doctrine built upon it can have no Foundation in Scripture or Reason 21. I will pray with the Spirit and I will pray with the understanding also 1 Cor. 14. 15. What need this Praying with the Understanding if there were no necessity of attending to the Sense of Prayers For then praying with the Spirit were all that was required For that supposes an attention of the Mind upon God And I can hardly believe any Man that thinks with understanding can justify praying without it Especially when there are Exhortations and Invitations to the People to joyn in those Prayers as it is plain there are in the Roman Offices 22. Then Peter opened his mouth and said Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of Persons but in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted with him Acts 10. 34 35. Whereby we perceive that God doth not limit the possibility of Salvation under the Gospel to Communion with the See of Rome for if S. Peter may be believed the capacity of Salvation depends upon Mens fearing God and working Righteousness and it is horrible uncharritablebleness to exclude those from a possibility of Salvation whom God doth not exclude from it 23. That ye should earnestly contend for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Jude v. 3. Therefore all necessary Doctrines of Faith were at first delivered and whatever Articles cannot be proved to have been delivered by the Apostles can never be made necessary to be believed in order to Salvation VVhich overthrows the additional Creed of Pius IV. after the Council of Trent and puts them upon the necessity of proving the Universal Tradition of those Doctrines from the Apostostolical Times And when they do that we may think better of them than at present we do for as yet we can see neither Scripture nor Reason nor Antiquity for them THUS I have Represented that kind of Popery which our
We see no ground why any one should believe any Doctrine with a stedfast and Divine Faith which is not bottom'd on the Written Word for then his Faith must be built on the Testimony of the Church as Divine and Infallibe or else his Faith cannot be Divine But it is impossible to prove it to be Divine and Infallible but by the Written Word and therefore as it is not reasonable that he should believe the Written Word by such a Divine Testimony of the Church so if any particular Doctrine may be received on the Authority of the Church without the Written Word then all Articles of Faith may and so there would be no need of the Written Word 4. The Faith of Christians doth no otherwise stand upon the Foundation of the Churches Tradition than as it delivers down to us the Books of Scripture but we acknowledg the general Sense of the Chrstian Church to be a very great help for understanding the true sense of Scripture and we do not reject any thing so delivered but what is all this to the Church of Rome But this is still the way of true Representing XVI Of Councils 1. WE are glad to find so good a Resolution as seems to be expressed in these words viz. That he is obliged to believe nothing besides that which Christ taught and his Apostles and if any thing contrary to this should be defined and commanded to be believed even by Ten Thousand Councils he believes it damnable in any one to receive it and by such Decrees to make Additions to his Creed This seems to be a very good Saying and it is pity any thing else should overthrow it But here lies the Misrepresenting he will believe what Christ and his Apostles taught from the Definitions of Councils and so all this goodly Fabrick falls to nothing for it is but as if one should say If Aristotle should falsly deliver Plato's sense I will never believe him but I am resolved to take Plato's sense only from Aristotle's Words So here he first declares he will take the Faith of Christ from the Church and then he saith if the Church Representative should contradict the Faith of Christ he would never believe it 2. We dispute not with them the Right and Necessity of General Councils upon great occasions if they be truly so rightfully called lawfully assembled and fairly managed which have been and may be of great use to the Christian World for setling the Faith healing the Breaches of Christendom and reforming abuses And we farther say that the Decrees of such Councils ought to be submitted to where they proceed upon certain Grounds of Faith and not upon unwritten Traditions Which was the fatal stumbling at the Threshold in the Council of Trent and was not to be recovered afterwards for their setting up Traditions equally with the Written Word made it easie for them to define and as easie for all others to reject their Definitions in case there had not been so many other Objections against the Proceedings of that Council And so all our Dispute concerning this matter is taken off from the general Notion and runs into the particular Debate concerning the Qualifications and Proceedings of some which were called Free General Councils but were neither General nor Free and therefore could not deliver the sense of the Catholick Church which our Author requires them to do XVII Of Infallibility in the Church 1. HE doth not pretend this belongs to the Pastors and Prelates of his Church who may fall he saith into Heresie and Schism but that the whole Church is secured by Divine Promises from all Error and Danger of Prevarication which he proves from the Promises of the New Testament Mat. 16. 18 28. 20. John 14. 16 26. But however the former seems to take away Infallibility from the Guides of the Church yet that this is to be understood of them separately appears by what follows 2. The like Assistance of the Holy Ghost he believes to be in all General Councils which is the Church Representative by which they are specially protected from all error in all definitions and declarations in matters of Faith Now here are two sorts of Infallibility tacked to one another by vertue of these general Promises which ought more distinctly to be considered 1. To preserve Christs Church so as it shall never cease to be a Church is one thing to preserve it from all Error is another The former answers the End of Christs Promises as to the Duration of the Church and the latter is not implied in them 2. The promise of teaching them all Truth Joh. 16. 13. is not made to the whole Church but to the Apostles And their case was so peculiar and extraordinary that there can be no just inference from the assistance promised to them of what the Church should enjoy in all Ages 3. If the diffusive Church have no infallible Assistance promised then no infallible Assistance can from thence be proved for the Church Representative so that some particular Promises to the Guides of the Church as assembled together are necessary to prove the Infallibility of Councils 4. It by no means proves following Councils to be Infallible because the Apostles said Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Our Author doth not doubt but the same may be prefixed to all determinations in point of Faith resolved on by any General Council lawfully assembled since that time or to be held to the Worlds end But what Reason he had for not doubting in this matter I cannot see the Assistance he saith being to extend as far as the Promise But shall Assistance imply Infallibility Then there must be good store as long as the Promises of Divine Grace hold good But this Assistance of Councils is very different from the Assistance of Grace for the Church may subsist without Councils but cannot without Grace What General Council was there from the meeting Acts 15. to the Council of Nice Were not Christs Promises fulfilled to his Church all that time when it encreased in all parts against the most violent Opposition 5. No Parity of Reason from the Jewish Church can be sufficient Proof for Infallibility in the Christian. But our Author argues thus If Gods special Assistance was never wanting to the Church of the Jews so as to let it fail in the Truth of its Doctrine or its Authority Why should not he believe the same of the Church of Christ which is built on better Promises What special Assistance was it which Israel had when it is said that for a long time Israel had been without the true God and without a teaching Priest and without Law And as to Judah was there no failing in point of Doctrine in our Saviours time It is true they had the Law intire and that was all that was good among them for their Teachers had corrupted themselves and the People and
doth not reach the Case For the Question is not whether their Church teach men to lye but whether there be not such a Power in the Church as by altering the Nature of things may not make that not to be a Lye which otherwise would be one As their Church teaches that Men ought not to break their Vows yet no one among them questions but the Pope may dissolve the Obligation of a Vow altho it be made to God himself Let him shew then how the Pope comes to have a Power to release a Vow made to God and not to have a Power to release the Obligation to veracity among men Again We do not charge them with delivering any such Doctrine That men may have Dispensations to lye and forswear themselves at pleasure for we know this Dispensing Power is to be kept up as a great Mystery and not to be made use of but upon weighty and urgent Causes of great Consequence and Benefit to the Church as their Doctâ—â—â— declare But as to all matters of fact which he alludes to I have nothing to say to them for our debate is only whether there be such a Power of Dispensation allowed in the Church of Rome or not XX. Of the Deposing Power TO bring this matter into as narrow a compass as may be I shall first take notice of his Concessions which will save us a labour of Proofs 1. He yields that the Deposing and King-killing Power hath been maintained by some Canonists and Divines of his Church and that it is in their opinion lawful and annexed to the Papal Chair 2. That some Popes have endeavoured to act according to this Power But then he denies that this Doctrine appertains to the Faith of his Church and is to be believed by all of that Communion And more than that he saith The affirming of it is a malicious Calumny a down-right Falsity Let us now calmly debate the matter Whether according to the received principles of the Church of Rome this be only a particular opinion of some Popes and Divines or be to be received as a matter of Faith The Question is not Whether those who deny it do account it an Article of Faith for we know they do not But whether upon the Principles of the Church of Rome they are not bound to do it I shall only to avoid cavilling proceed upon the Principles owned by our Author himself viz. 1. That the sense of Scripture as understood by the Community of Christians in all Ages since the Apostles is to be taken from the present Church 2. That by the present Church he understands the Pastors and Prelates assembled in Councils who are appointed by Christ and his Apostles for the decision of Controversies and that they have Infallible assistance 3. That the Pope as the Head of the Church hath a particular Assistance promised him with a special regard to his Office and Function If therefore it appear that Popes and Councils have declared this Deposing Doctrine and they have received other things as Articles of Faith upon the same Declarations Why should they then stick at yielding this to be an Article of Faith as well as the other It is not denied that I can find that Popes and Councils for several Ages have asserted and exercised the Deposing Power but it is alledged against these Decrees and Acts 1. That they were not grounded upon Universal Tradition 2. That they had not Universal Reception Now if these be sufficient to overthrow the Definitions of Councils let us consider the consequences of it 1. Then every Man is left to examin the Decrees of Councils whether they are to be embraced or not for he is to judge whether they are founded on Universal Tradition and so he is not to take the sense of the present Church for his Guide but the Universal Church from Christs time which overthrows a Fundamental Principle of the Roman Church 2. Then he must reject the pretended Infallibility in the Guides of the Church if they could so notoriously err in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Christendom as this was and consequently their Authority could not be sufficient to declare any Articles of Faith And so all Persons must be left at Liberty to believe as they see cause notwithstanding the Definitions made by Popes and Councils 3. Then he must believe the Guides of the Roman Church to have been mistaken not once or twice but to have persisted in it for Five hundred years which must take away not only Infallibility but any kind of Reverence to the Authority of it For whatever may be said as to those who have depended on Princes or favour their Parties against the Guides of the Church it cannot be denied that for so long time the leading Party in that Church did assert and maintain the Deposing Power And therefore Lessius truely understood this matter when he said That there was scarce any Article of the Christian Faith the denial whereof was more dangerous to the Church or did precipitate Men more into Heresy and Hatred of the Church than this of the Deposing Power for he says they could not maintain their Churches Authority without it And he reckons up these ill Consequences of denying it 1. That the Roman Church hath erred for at least Five hundred years in a matter fundamental as to Government and of great Moment Which is worse than an Error about Sacraments as Penance Extreme Unction c. and yet those who deny the Church can err in one hold that it hath erred in a greater matter 2. That it hath not only erred but voluntarily and out of Ambition perverting out of Design the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and Fathers concerning the Power of the Church and bringing in another contrary to it against the Right and Authority of Princes which were a grievous sin 3. That it made knowingly unrighteous Decrees to draw persons from their Allegiance to Princes and so they became the Causes of many Seditions and Rebellions and all the ill Consequences of them under a shew of Piety and Religion 4. That the Churches Decrees Commands Judgements and Censures may be safely contemned as Null and containing intollerable Errors And that it may require such things which good Subjects are bound to disobey 5. That Gregory VII in the Canon Nos Sanctorum c. Urban II. Gregory IX the Councils of Lateran under Alex. III. and Innocent III. the Councils of Lyons of Vienna of Constance of Lateran under Leo X. and of Trent have all grievously and enormously erred about this matter For that it was the Doctrine of them all he shews at large and so Seven General Councils lose their Infallibility at one blow 6. That the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church For the true Church could never teach such pernicious Doctrine as this must be if it be not true And if it erred in this it might as
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
the Sacrament than they and we verily believe there is as great and remarkable Instances of true Charity among those of the Church of England as among any People in the World XXXII Of MIRACLES 1. OUR Author saith He is not obliged to believe any one Miracle besides what is in Scripture 2. He sees no Reason to doubt the truth of many Miracles which are attested by great numbers of Eye-witnesses examined by Authority and found upon Record with all the Formalities due to such a Process Now how can these two things stand together Is not a Man obliged to believe a thing so well proved And if his other Arguments prove any thing it is that he is bound to believe them For he thinks there is as much Reason to believe Miracles still as in the time of the old or new Law If he can make this out I see no reason why he should not be as well obliged to believe them now as well as those recorded in Scripture But I can see nothing like a proof of this And all Persons of Judgment in their own Church do grant there is a great difference between the Necessity of Miracles for the first establishing a Religion and afterwards This is not only asserted by Tostatus Erasmus Stella Andradius and several others formerly but the very late French Author I have several times mentioned saith it in express Terms And he confesses the great Impostures of modern Miracles which he saith ought to be severely punished and that none but Women and weak People think themselves bound to believe them And he cannot understand what they are good for Not to convert Hereticks because not done among them Not to prove there are no corruptions or errors among them which is a thing incredible with much more to that purpose and so concludes with Monsieur Paschal That if they have no other use we ought not to be amused with them But Christ promised that his Apostles should do greater Miracles than himself had done And what then Must therefore S. Francis or S. Dominic or S. Rosa do as great as the Apostles had done What Consequence can be drawn from the Apostles times to latter Ages We do not dispute God's Omnipotency or say his hand is shoâ—tned but we must not from thence infer that every thing which is called a Miracle is truely so or make use of God's Power to justify the most incredible stories Which is a way will serve as well for a false as a true Religion and Mahomet might run to Gods Omnipotency for cleaving the Moon in two pieces as well as others for removing a House over the Seas or any thing of a like nature But he saith their Miracles are not more ridiculous and absurd than some in the Old Testament Which I utterly deny but I shall not run out into the examination of this Parallel by shewing how very different the Nature Design and Authority of the Miracles he mentions is from those which are believed in the Roman Church And it had been but fitting as he set down the Miracles of the Old Testament so to have mentioned those of the Roman Church which were to vye with them but this he was willing to forbear for certain good Reasons If most of poor Man's Impossibles be none to God as he concludes yet every thing is not presently true which is not impossible and by this way of Arguing there can be nothing objected against the most absurd and idle Fictions of the Golden Legend which all Men of Understanding among themselves not only reject for want of Authority but of Credibility XXXIII Of Holy Water THE Misrepresenter charges him with approving superstitious uses of inanimate things and attributing wonderful effects to them as Holy-Water Candles Oyl Bread c. In Answer our Author 1. declares That the Papist truely represented utterly disapproves all sorts of Superstition But if he had designed to have represented truely he ought to have told us what he meant by Superstition and whether any Man who observes the Commands of the Church can be guilty of it 2. He saith That these things are particularly deputed by the Prayers and Blessing of the Priest to certain uses for God's Glory and the Spiritual and Corporal Good of Christians This is somewhat too general But Marsilius Columna Archbishop of Salerno who hath taken most pains in this matter sums them up 1. As to Spiritual they are Seven 1. To fright Devils 2. To remit Venial sins 3. To cure Distractions 4. To elevate the Mind 5. To dispose it for Devotion 6. To obtain Grace 7. To prepare for the Sacrament 2. As to Corporal 1. To cure Barrenness 2. To multiply Goods 3. To procure Health 4. To purge the Air from pestilential Vapours And now as our Author saith What Superstition in the use of it He names several things of God's own appointing to Parallel it as the Waters of Jealousy the Shew-bread the Tables of Stone but the first was miraculous the other had no such effects that we ever heard of Elisha's Salt for sweetning the Water was undoubtedly a Miracle Is the Holy Water so As to the liver of the Fish for expelling the Devil in the Book of Tobit he knows the Book is not owned for Canonical by us and this very place is produced as an Argument against it there being no Ground from Scripture to attribute the Power of expelling Devils to the Liver of a Fish either naturally or symbolically Vallesius offers at the only probable account of it that it must be a Divine Power given to it which the Angel Raphael did not discover and yet it is somewhat hard to conceive how this Liver should have such a power to drive away any kind of Devil as it is there expressed unless by a Devil there no more be meant than some violent Disease which the Jews generally believed to arise from the possession of evil Spirits But however here is an Angel supposed who made this known to Tobit but we find not Raphael to discover the virtue of Holy Water against Devils As to Christs using Clay to open the eyes of the blind it is very improperly applied unless the same miraculous Power be supposed in it which was in Christ himself And so is the Apostles laying on of hands and using Oyl for miraculous cures unless the same Gift of Miracles be in every Priest which consecrates Holy Water which was in the Apostles And Bellarmine himself confesses That no infallible effect doth follow the use of Holy Water because there is no Promise of God in the case but only the Prayers of the Church But these are sufficient to sanctifie the Water saith our Author And to what end For all the spiritual and corporeal benefits before-mentioned Is no Promise of God necessary for such purposes as those How can any Church in the World dispose of Gods Power without his Will It may appoint significant and decent
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