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
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
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
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
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
Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians were I hope the former Discourse hath shewed their Doctrines and Practices are not so very like those of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians that their Cases should be made so parallel but as in his Conclusion he hath summed up the substance of his Representations so I shall therein follow his Method only with this difference that I shall in one Column set down his own Representations of Popery and in the other the Reasons in short why we cannot embrace them Wherein Popery consists as Represented by this Author 1. IN using all external Acts of Adoration before Images as Kneeling Praying lifting up the Eyes burning Candles Incense c. Not merely to worship the Objects before them but to worship the Images themselves on the account of the Objects represented by them or in his own Words Because the Honour that is exhibited to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent 2. In joining the Saints in Heaven together with Christ in Intercession for us and making Prayers on Earth to them on that Account P. 5. 3. In allowing more Supplications to be used to the Blessed Virgin than to Christ For he denies it to be an idle Superstition to repeat Ten Ave Maria's for one Pater Noster 4. In giving Religious Honour and Respect to Relicks Such as placing them upon Altars burning Wax-Candles before them carrying them in Processions to be seen touched or humbly kissed by the People Which are the known and allowed Practices in the Church of Rome P. 8. 5. In adoring Christ as present in the Eucharist on the account of the Substance of Bread and Wine being changed into that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. P. 10. 6. In believing the Substance of Bread and Wine by the Words of Consecration to be changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of Bread and Wine remaining as before P. 10. 7. In making good Works to be truly meritorious of Eternal Life P. 13. 8. In making Confession of our â—â—s to a Priest in order to Absoluâ—on P. 14. 9. In the use of Indulgences for taking away the Temporal Punishments of sin remaining due after the Guilt is remitted 10. In supposing that Penitent Sinners may in some measure satisfy by Prayer Fasting Alms c. for the Temporal Pain which by order of God's Justice sometimes remains due after the Guilt and the Eternal Pain are remitted P. 17. 11. In thinking the Scripture not fit to be read generally by all without Licence or in the Vulgar Tongues P. 19. 12. In allowing the Books of Tobit Judith Ecclesiasticus Wisdom Maccabees to be Canonical P. 21. 13. In preferring the Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible before any other and not allowing any Translations into a Mother Tongue to be ordinarily read P. 24 26. 14. In believing that the Scripture alone can be no Rule of Faith to any Private or Particular Person P. 28. 15. In relying upon the Authority of the present Church for the Sense of Scripture P. 29. 16. In receiving and believing the Churches Traditions as the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and assenting to them with Divine Faith just as he doth to the Bible P. 31 32. 17. In believing that the Present Guides of the Church being assembled in Councils for preserving the Unity of the Church have an Infallible Assistance in their Decrees P. 38. 18. In believing the Pope to be the Supreme Head of the Church under Christ being Successour to S. Peter to whom he committed the care of his Flock P. 40. 41. 19. In believing that Communion in both Kinds is an indifferent thing and was so held for the first Four hundred years after Christ and that the first Precept for Receiving under both Kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo I. and confirmed by Pope Gelasius P. 51. 20. In believing that the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded on Scripture Authority and Reason P. 54 c. 21. In believing that to the saying of Prayers well and devoutly it is not necessary to have attention on the Words or on the Sense of Prayers P. 62. 22. In believing that none out of the Communion of the Church of Rome can be saved and that it is no uncharitableness to think so P. 92. 23. In believing that the Church of Rome in all the New Articles defined at Trent hath made no Innovation in matters of Faith P. 107. Our Reasons against it in the several Particulars 1. THou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image or any likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Which being the plain clear and express Words of the Divine Law we dare not worship any Images or Representations lest we be found Transgressors of this Law Especially since God herein hath declared himself a Jealous God and annexed so severe a Sanction to it And since he that made the Law is only to interpret it all the Distinctions in the World can never satisfie a Mans Conscience unless it appear that God himself did either make or approve them And if God allow the Worship of the thing Represented by the Representation he would never have forbidden that Worship absolutely which is unlawful only in a certain respect 2. We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous 1 John 2. 1. And but one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. For Christ is entred into Heaven it self now to appear in the Presence of God for us Heb. 9. 24. And therefore we dare not make other Intercessors in Heaven besides him and the distance between Heaven and us breaks off all Communication between the Saints there and us upon Earth so that all Addresses to them now for their Prayers are in a way very different from desiring others on earth to pray for us And if such Addresses are made in the solemn Offices of Divine Worship they join the Creatures with the Creator in the Acts and Signs of Worship which are due to God alone 3. Call upon me in the Day of Trouble I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorifie me Psal. 50. 15. When we pray to Our Father in Heaven as our Saviour commanded us we do but what both Natural and Christian Religion require us to do But when men pray to the Blessed Virgin for Help and Protection now and at the Hour of Death they attribute that to her which belongs only to God who is our Helper and Desender And altho Christ knew the Dignity of his Mother above all others he never gives the least encouragement to make such Addresses to her And to suppose her to have a share now in the Kingdom of Christ in Hea. ven as a Copartner with him is to advance a Creature to Divine Honour and to overthrow the true Ground of Christs Exaltation to his
seven Sacraments Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshiping of Images Indulgences Supremacy c. but they must believe that without believing these things there is no Salvation to be had in the ordinary Way for after the enumeration of those Points it follows Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This is the true Catholick Faith without which no Man can be saved i. e. The belief of these things is thereby declared as necessary to Salvation as of any other Articles of the Creed But it may be objected The subscribing this Profession of Faith is not required of all Members of that Church To which I answer That to make a Man a Member of it he must declare that he holds the same Faith which the Church of Rome holds And this is as much the Faith of the Roman Church as the Pope and Council of Trent could make it And it is now printed in the Roman Ritual at Paris set forth by Paul V. as the Confession of Faith owned by the Church of Rome And therefore this ought to have been a Part of the true Representation as to the Doctrinal Points but when he comes to the 35th Head he then owns That unless Men do believe every Article of the Roman Faith they cannot be saved p. 96. and he that disbelieves one does in a manner disbelieve all p. 97. Which may as well reach those who disown the Deposing Power and the Pope's personal Infallibility as Us since those are accounted Articles of Faith by the ruling part of their Church to whom it chiefly belongs to declare them and the former hath been defined both by Popes and Councils 3. He never sets down what it is which makes any Doctrine to become a Doctrine of their Church We are often blamed for charging particular Opinions upon their Church but we desire to know what it is which makes a Doctrine of their Church i. e. whether frequent and publick Declaration by the Heads and Guides of their Church be sufficient or not to that End Our Author seems to imply the Necessity of some Conditions to be observed for besides the Pope's Authority he requires due Circumstances and proceeding according to Law p. 42. But who is to be Judg of these Circumstances and legal Proceedings And he never tells what these Circumstances are And yet after all he saith The Orders of the Supream Pastor are to be obey'd whether he be Infallible or not And this now brings the Matter home The Popes he confesses have owned the Deposing Doctrine and acted according to it And others are bound to obey their Orders whether infallible or not and consequently they are bound by the Doctrine of their Church to Act when the Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Power But he seems to say in this Case that a Doctrine of their Church is to be judged by the Number for saith he There are greater Numbers that disown this Doctâ—â—ne p. 47. I will not at present dispute it but I desire to be informed Whether the Doctrines of their Church go by majority of Votes or not I had thought the Authority of the Guides of the Church ought to have over-ballanced any Number of Dissenters For what are those who refuse to submit to the Dictates of Popes and Councils but Dissenters from the Church of Rome The Distinction of the Court Church of Rome is wholly impertinent in this Case For we here consider not the meer Temporal Power which makes the Court but the Spiritual Capacity of Teaching the Church and if Popes and Councils may err in Teaching this Doctrine why not in any other I know there are some that say Universal Tradition is necessary to make a Doctrine of their Church But then no submission can be required to any Doctrine in that Church till the Universal Tradition of it in all Times and in all Parts of the Christian Church be proved And we need to desire no better Terms than these as to all Points of Pope Pius IV his Creed which are in dispute between us and them 4. He makes use of the Authority of some particular Divines as delivering the Sense of their Church when there are so many of greater Authority against them Whereas if we proceed by his own Rule the greater Number is to carry it Therefore we cannot be thought to Misrepresent them if we charge them with such things as are owned either by the general and allowed Practices of their Church or their Publick Offices or the generality of their Divines and Casuists or in case of a Contest with that side which is owned by the Guides of their Church when the other is censured or which was approved by their Canonized Saints or declared by their Popes and Councils whose Decrees they are bound to follow And by these Measures I intend to proceed having no design to misrepresent them as indeed we need not And so much in Answer to the Introduction I. Of Praying to Images IN this and the other Particulars where it is necessary I shall observe this Method 1. To give a clear and impartial Account of the State of the Controversy in as few Words as I can 2. To make some Reflections on what he saith in order to the clearing them from Misrepresentations As to the State of this Controversy as it stands since the Council of Trent we are to consider 1. We must distinguish between what Persons do in their own Opinion and what they do according to the Sense of the Divine Law It is possible that Men may intend one thing and the Law give another Sense of it as is often seen in the Case of Treason although the Persons plead never so much they had no intention to commit Treason yet if the Law makes their Act to be so their disavowing it doth not Excuse them So it is in the present Case Men may have real and serious Intentions to refer their final ultimate and Soveraign Worship only to God but if the Law of God strictly and severely prohibits this particular Manner of Worship by Images in as full plain and clear Words as may be and gives a Denomination to such Acts taken from the immediate Object of it no particular Intention of the Persons can alter that Denomination or make the Guilt to be less than the Law makes it 2. There can be no Misrepresenting as to the lawfulness of many External Acts of Worship with Respect to Images which are owned by them But it doth not look fairly to put the Title Of Praying to Images for the Question is about the Worship of Images whereas this Title would insinuate as though we did directly charge them with Praying to their Images without any farther Respect Which we are so far from charging them with that I do not know of any People in the World who are not like Stones and Stocks themselves who are liable to that
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
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
Instance of Caiaphas Joh. 11. 51. This is a very surprizing way of Reasoning for if his Arguments be good from Scripture he must hold the Popes personal Infallibity as a matter of Faith and yet one would hardly think he should build an Article of Faith on the instance of Caiaphas For what consequence can be drawn from Gods over-ruling the mind of a very bad man when he was carrying on a most wicked design to utter such words which in the event proved true in another sense than he meant them that therefore God will give a special Assistance to the Pope in determining matters of Faith Was not Caiaphas himself the man who proposed the taking away the Life of Christ at that time Was he assisted in that Council Did not he determine afterwards Christ to he guilty of Blasphemy and therefore worthy of Death And is not this a rare Infallibility which is supposed to be consistent with a Decree to crucifie Christ And doth he in earnest think such Orders are to be obeyed whether the supreme Pastor be Infallible or not For so he concludes That his Sentence is to be obeyed whether he be infallible or no XIX Of Dispensations HERE the Misrepresenter saith That a Papist believes that the Pope hath Authority to dispense with the Laws of God and absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments On the other side the Representer affirms That the Pope has no Authority to dispense with the Law of God and that there 's no Power upon Earth can absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments This matter is not to be determined by the ones affirming and the others denying but by finding out if possible the true sense of the Church of Rome about this matter And there are Three Opinions about it 1. Of those who assert That the Pope hath a Power of Dispensing in any Divine Law except the Articles of Faith The Gloss upon the Canon Law saith That where the Text seems to imply that the Pope cannot dispense against the Apostle it is to be understood of Articles of Faith And Panormitan saith This Exposition pleases him well for the Pope may dispense in all other things Contra Apostolum dispensat saith the Gloss on the Decree And the Roman Editors in the Margin refer to 34 Dist. c. Lector to prove it And there indeed the Gloss is very plain in the Case sic ergo Papa dispensat contra Apostolum And the Roman Correctors there justifie it and say it is no absurd Doctrine as to positive Institutions But the former notable Gloss as Panormitan calls it sets down the particulars wherein the Pope may dispense As 1. Against the Apostles and their Canons 2. Against the Old Testament 3. In Vows 4. In Oaths The Summa Angelica saith the Pope may dispense as to all the Precepts of the Old Testament And Clavasiâ—â— founds this Power upon the Plenitude of the Popes Power according to that Expression in the Decretal mentioned that he can ex plenitudine Potestatis de Jure supra Jus dispensare and without such a Power he saith God would not have taken that care of his Church which was to be expected from his Wisdom Jacobatius brings several Instances of this Power in the Pope and refers to the Speculator for more Jac. Almain saith That all the Canonists are of Opinion that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle and many of their Divines but not all For 2. Some of their Divines held that the Pope could not dispense with the Law of God as that implies a proper Relaxation of the Law but could only Authoritatively declare that the Law did not oblige in such a particular Case because an Inferior could not take away the force of a Superiors Law and otherwise there would be no fixed and immutable Rule in the Church and if the Pope might dispense in one Law of God he might dispense in the rest And of this Opinion were some of the most eminent School-Divines as Thomas Aquinas Bonaventure Major Soto and Catbarinus who at large debates this Question and denies that the Pope hath any Power to dispense with Gods Law But then he adds that the Pope hath a kind of Prophetical Power to declare in what Cases the Law doth oblige and in what not which he parallels with the Power of declaring the Canon of Scripture and this he doth not by his own Authority but by Gods He confesseth the Pope cannot dispense with those Precepts which are of themselves indispensable nor alter the Sacraments but then saith he there are some Divine Laws which have a general force but in particular Cases may be dispensed with and in these cases the Law is to be relaxed so that the Relaxation seems to come from God himself But he confesses this Power is not to be often made use of so that he makes this Power to be no Act of Jurisdiction but of Prophetical Interpretation as he calls it and he brings the Instance of Caiaphas to this purpose And he adds that the difference between the Divines and Canonists was but in Terms for the Canonists were in the right as to the Power and the Divines in the manner of explaining it 3. Others have thought this too loose a way of explaining the Popes Power and therefore they say That the Pope hath not a bare declaratory Power but a real Power of dispensing in a proper sense in particular Cases For say they the other is no act of Jurisdiction but of Discretion and may belong to other men as well as to the Pope but this they look on as more agreeable to the Popes Authority and Commission and a bare declaratory Power would not be sufficient for the Churches Necessity as Sanchez shews at large and quotes many Authors for this Opinion and Sayr more and he saith the Practice of the Church cannot be justified without it Which Suarez much insists upon and without it he saith the Church hath fallen into intolerable Errors and it is evident he saith the Church hath granted real Dispensations and not meer Declarations And he founds it upon Christs Promise to Peter To thee will I give the Keys and the Charge to him Feed my sheep But then he explains this Opinion by saying that it is no formal Dispensation with the Law of God but the matter of the Law is changed or taken away Thus I have briesly laid together the different Opinions in the Church of Rome about this Power of dispensing with the Law of God from which it appears that they do all consent in the thing but differ only in the manner of explaining it And I am therefore afraid our Representer is a very unstudied Divine and doth not well understand their own Doctrine or he would never have talked so boldly and unskilfully in this matter As to what he pretends that their Church teaches that every Lye is a Sin c. it
well err in any other Doctrine and so Men are not bound to believe or obey it 7. That Princes and all Laymen have just Cause to withdraw from their Church because it shewed it self to be governed by a spirit of Ambition and not by the Spirit of God and not only so but they may justly prosecute all that maintain a Doctrine so pernicious to Government if it be not true Let us now see what our Author saith to clear this from being a Doctrine of the Church of Rome 1. That for the few Authors that are abettors of this Doctrine there are of his Communion Three times the number that publickly disown all such Authority If this be true it is not much for the Reputation of their Church That there should be such a number of those who are liable to all these dreadful Consequences which Lessius urges upon the deniers of it But is it possible to believe there should be so few followers of so many Popes and Seven General Councils owned for such by the disowners of this Doctrine except the Lateran under Leo 10. The poor Eastern Christians are condemned for Hereticks by the Church of Rome for refusing to submit to the Decrees of One General Council either that of Ephesus or of Chalcedon And they plead for themselves That there was a misinterpretation of their meaning or not right understanding one another about the difference of Nature and Person which occasioned those Decrees I would fain know whether those Churches which do not embrace the Decrees of those Councils are in a state of Heresie or not If they be then what must we think of such who reject the Decrees of Seven General Councils one after another and give far less probable accounts of the Proceedings of those Councils in their Definitions than the other do 2. He saith Those who have condemned it have not been in the least suspected of their Religion or of denying any Article of Faith Let any one judg of this by Lessius his Consequences And the Author of the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance saith in plain Terms That the Opinion that the Pope hath no such Power is erroneous in Faith as well as temerarious and impious And he proves it by this substantial Argument Because they who hold it must suppose that the Church hath been for some time in a damnable Error of Belief and Sin of Practice And he not only proves that it was defined by Popes and Councils but for a long time universally received and that no one Author can be produced before Calvins time that denied this Power absolutely or in any case whatsoever But a few Authors that are Abettors of it saith our Representer Not one total Dissenter for a long time saith the other And which of these is the true Representer The deniers of it not in the least suspected of their Religion saith one Their Opinion is erroneous in Faith temerarious and impious saith the other 3. If we charge their Church with this Opinion may not they as well charge ours with the like since Propositions as dangerous were condemned at Oxford July 26. 1683. as held not by Jesuits but by some among our selves This is the force of his Reasoning But we must desire the Reader to consider the great disparity of the Case We cannot deny that there have been men of ill Minds and disloyal Principles Factious and Disobedient Enemies to the Government both in Church and State but have these Men ever had that Countenance from the Doctrines of the Guides of our Church which the Deposing Doctrine hath had in the Church of Rome To make the Case parallel he must suppose our Houses of Convocation to have several times declared these damnable Doctrines and given Encouragement to Rebels to proceed against their Kings and the University of Oxford to have condemned them for this is truly the Case in the Church of Rome the Popes and Councils have owned and approved and acted by the Deposing Principle but the Universities of France of late years have condemned it How comes the Principles of the Regicides among us to be parallel'd with this Doctrine when the Principles of our Church are so directly contrary to them and our Houses of Convocation would as readily condemn any such damnable Doctrines as the University of Oxford And all the World knows how repugnant such Principles are to those of the Church of England and none can be Rebels to their Prince but they must be false to our Church As to the Personal Loyalty of many Persons in that Church as I have no Reason to question it so it is not proper for me to debate it if I did since our business is not concerning Persons but Doctrines and it was of old observed concerning the Epicureans That tho their Principles did overthrow any true Friendship yet many of them made excellent Friends XXI Of Communion in One Kind FOR our better proceeding in this Controversie I shall set down the State of it as clearly as I can 1. The Question is not Whether the first Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist by Jesus Christ were in one Kind or two for all confess it was under both Kinds 2. It is not Whether both Kinds are not still necessary for the due Celebration of it for it is granted that both Kinds are necessary to be upon the Altar or else there could be no compleat Sacrifice 3. It is not Whether the People may be wholly excluded from both Kinds and so the Sacrifice only remain for they grant that the People are bound to communicate in one Kind 4. It is not concerning any peculiar and extraordinary Cases where no Wine is to be had or there be a particular Aversion to it or any such thing where positive Institutions may be reasonably presumed to have no force But concerning the publick and solemn Celebration and participation of it in the Christian Church 5. It is not concerning the meer disuse or neglect of it But concerning the lawfulness of Excluding the People from both Kinds by the Churches Prohibition notwithstanding the Institution of it by Christ in both Kinds with a Command to keep up the Celebration of it to his Second Coming Here now consists the point in Controversie Whether the Church being obliged to keep up the Institution in both Kinds be not equally obliged to distribute both as our Saviour did to as many as partake of it Our Author not denying the Institution or the continuance of it saith Our Saviour left it indifferent to receive it in one Kind or both And that is the point to be examined 1. He saith Christ delivered it to his Apostles who only were then present and whom he made Priests just before yet he gave no command that it should be so received by all the Faithful But were not the Apostles all the Faithful then present I pray in what capacity did they then receive it As Priests
How did they receive the Bread before the hoc facite As Priests or as faithful It is ridiculous to suppose the hoc facite changed their capaciy and if it did it only relates to consecrating and not to receiving but if Christ gave it only to the Apostles as Priests then for all that I can see the People are not at all concerned in one kind or other but it was intended only for Priests If the People be concerned how came they to be so Where is there any command but what refers to the first Institution And it had been more plausible according to this Answer to exclude the People wholly than to admit them to one Kind and to debar them the other 2. Christ attributes the obtaining Life Everlasting the end of the Institution sometimes to receiving under both Kinds sometimes under one John 6. 51 57 58. He could not easily have thought of any thing more against himself for our Saviour there makes it as necessary to drink his Blood as to eat his Flesh Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man aâ— drink his Blood ye have no Life in you If this be understood of the Sacrament as he saith how is it possiblâ— for him to make the Cup indifferent Unless it be indâ— ferent whether the People be saved or not 3. Christ himself administred the Sacrament to some of his Disciples under one kind only Luke 24. 30. But is he sure Christ did then administer the Sacrament to them Or that if he did the Cup was not implied since breaking of Bread when taken for an ordinary Meal in Scripture doth not exclude drinking at it But S. Augustin he saith l. 49. de Consensu Evangel understands that place of the Sacrament If he doth it cannot be where he saith for S. Augustin wrote but Four Books of that Subject but l. 3. 25. he doth say something towards it yet S. Augustin in another place supposes that these Disciples did both eat and drink The Disciples did not know him but in the breaking of Bread and truely he that doth not eat and drink Judgment to himself doth in the breaking of Bread own Christ. Where it is plain that he applies both to the breaking of Bread here spoken of 4. He saith it was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to give it under one kind to Children the Sick and to Men in a journey I would he had produced his Authorities to prove these things for I can bring several to prove the direct contrary as to Children and Sick persons and Travellers and not only Ancient Writers but the most Learned of their own Church And therefore I cannot but wonder to find him saying This was attested by all Ancient Writers and Modern Historians But I have ever found those have been most mistaken who produce all Writers and Historians when it may be there is not one that speaks home to the business At least we have here none mentioned and therefore none to examin and it would be too hard a task to search All. 5. He adds to this extravagancy in saying That Receiving in one or both kinds was indifferent for the first Four hundred years when the contrary is so manifest that the most ingenuous of their own Writers consess it If any persons did carry home one kind which is very questionable for Baronius and Albasinoeus say they carried both Kinds to receive it in times of Persecution at what season they thought fit afterwards This ought not to be set up against the general and constant Rule of the Church which is attested not only by Cassander and such like but even by Salmero Ruardus Tapperus and Lindanus who make no scruple of saying The publick Celebration in the Primitive Church was in both Kinds But then how is it possible for us to judge better what they thought themselves bound to do than what they constantly observed in all their publick Celebrations The Church is not accountable for the particular Fancies or Superstitions of Men but what was observed in all publick Offices we have reason to think the Church thought it self obliged so to do out of regard to the Institution of Christ. And to shew how Universal this Observation was in the Church those who give account of the Eastern Church say That the Greeks Nestorians Armenians Maronites Cophtites and Abyssins do all observe it still viz. That the publick Communicants do partake of both Kinds And not one of all these Churches but think themselves bound to observe it out of regard to the Institution of Christ and why then should any think the Primitive Church thought it indifferent 6. The first Precept of receiving under both Kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo A. D. 443. and confirmed by Gelasius A. D. 490. This is a great mistake for Leo gave no Precept about it but only told the people how they might certainly discover the Manichees for they would conform in other things but they would not taste of the Wine which argued that all other Communicants did then partake in both Kinds Gelasius not only confirms the Custom then used but he saith That it is Sacriledge to divide that Holy Mystery And surely he did not account Sacriledge an Indifferent thing 7. Lastly he saith That those who receive in one Kind are truely partakers of the whole Sacrament This is a new way of Concomitancy we used to hear of Whole Christ under either species and that Whole Christ was therefore received But how comes it to be the whole Sacrament which consists of two distinct Parts And if it be a Sacrifice the Blood must be separated from the Body else the Blood of Christ is not considered as shed and so the Notion of the Sacrifice will be lost Which is our next Head XXII Of the MASS UNder this Head which is thought of so great Consequence in the Roman Church I expected a fuller Representation than I here find as about the Opus Operatum i. e. how far the meer Act is effectual About their Solitary Masses when no Person receives but the Priest About the People having so little to do or understand in all the other parts of the Mass About the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass how useful and important they are About reconciling the present Canon of the Mass with the present Practises About offering up Masses for the honour of Saints All which we find in the Council of Trent but are omitted by our Representer Who speaks of the Mass as though there were no Controversy about it but only concerning the Sacrifice there supposed to be offered up and which he is far from true Representing For the Council of Trent not only affirms a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice to be there offered up for the quick and dead but denounces Anathema's against those that deny it So that the Question is not Whether the Eucharist may not in the sense
it as in the Gallican Church and elsewhere Very well But how then can these Parties be said to agree in matters of Faith and an equal Submission to the Determinations of the Church 2. Some again say That it is not the consent of the present Church can make any Article of Faith but there must be an universal Tradition from the Apostles times And so they tell us the Deposing Power can never be an Article of Faith because it wants the Consent of all the Ages before Gregory VII So that upon this Ground there can be no Article of Faith which cannot be proved to be thus delivered down to us Others again say this is in effect to give up their Cause knowing the impossibility of proving particular Points in this manner and therefore they say the present Church is wholly to be trusted for the sense of the foregoing Now these differences are still on Foot in their Church and from these do arise daily disputes about Matters of Faith and the Seat of Infallibility whether in the Guides or the Body of the Church if the former whether in the Church Representative or Virtual whether the Personal Infallibilty of the Pope be a matter of Faith or not Our Author saith Not others say Yes and yet he saith they are agreed in matters of Faith So that by his own Confession they differ about other things than mere School-Points But suppose they were agreed in Articles of Faith can there be no Schisms or Divisions in their Church What thinks he of all the Schisms between Popes and Popes Of all the Schisms between the Popes and the Emperors Parties Which were as notorious and scandalous and mischievous as ever were in the World What thinks he of the Schisms between the Bishops and the Regular Orders which were as cross and peevish towards the Bishops and SecularClergy as our Dissenters themselves And among the Regular Orders what Heats and Contentions have been Not about the practice of a devout Life I assure him but about matters of Doctrine and which both Parties severally plead to be matters of Faith As in the noted Controversies of this last Age about the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin the power of Grace and the Popes Personal Infallibility and they cannot say they are as yet agreed about these things XXX Of Friars and Nuns OUR Dispute is not About the lawfulness of retiring from the World by such Persons who are rendred unfit for doing Service in it and the more they spend their time in Devotion and Contemplation so much the better But it lies in these Things 1. Whether the Perfection of a Christian State of Life lies in being cloystered up from the World or labouring to do good in it For this was the great snare made use of to draw men into it because they represented this as the most perfect state whereas according to the Doctrine and Example of Christ and his Apostles the active Life of doing good is far beyond it 2. Whether altho such a retirement be allowed it be a thing pleasing to God to tye such Persons up by indispensable Vows whatever their Circumstances may be not to alter that State of Life who either in Youth or through Force Passion or Discontent have entred into it And this may be so much rather questioned because those who assert the Pope may dispense go upon this Ground because Circumstances may alter the obligation of a Vow and when a greater good is to be attained it ceaseth to oblige which to my apprehension doth not prove the Popes Power to dispense but the dispensable Nature of the Vows themselves Whether all things of this nature being liable in continuance of time to great Degeneracy and Corruptions and the numbers of such Places being unserviceable either to Church or State it be not in the Power of the King and States of the Kingdom to dissolve and reduce them to ways more suitable to the Conveniencies of both As to what he discourses about Councils of Perfection the Distractions of the World the Corruptions of the best Things c. They reach not the main Points but are only general Topicks which we are not concerned to debate XXXI Of Wicked Principles and Practices THE Misrepresenter charges the Church of Rome with many horrid Practices as the French and Irish Massacres the Murders of Two Kings of France the Holy League the Gun-powder Treason c. And charges these as being done according to the Principles of that Church But in Answer to this he saith 1. In General That the Doctrine of it is holy teaching the Love of God and our neighbour and that none can be saved by Faith alone In which Doctrine we heartily concur with them 2. That altho many uncertain things pass for certain and false for true yet he cannot deny that all ranks and degrees of men have been corrupted among them being scandalous in their Lives wicked in their designs without the Fear of God in their hearts or care of their own Salvation This is a general Acknowledgment but no particular Answer to the things objected 3. That tbe whole Cburch is not to be charged for the sake of such villanies Very true unless some Doctrine owned in that Church gave encouragement to them As suppose any should ever have fallen into Rebellion upon the belief of the Deposing Power is not that Doctrine chargeable with the Consequences of it They are extremely to blame who charge a Church with what her Members do in direct Opposition to her Doctrine but it is quite another Case when the main Ground they alledg for their Actions is some allowed Principle in it 4. They are not accountable for the Actions of every Bishop Cardinal or Pope for they extend not their Faith beyond the Declaration of General Councils But suppose General Councils have declared such Doctrines and Popes act but according to them is not their Church then accountable for their Actions 5. There is more Praying and Fasting and receiving the Sacraments more visiting the Prisoners and the Sick more Alms-giving in any of our neighbouring Popish Towns as Paris Antwerp Gant c. than in any Ten Towns of the Reformation And is there more Charity too It doth not appear if they be as ready to censure others and admire themselves as our Author who so freely gives his Judgment about a matter it is impossible for him to know We see no reason to admire or imitate the manner of their Praying and Fasting and receiving the Sacraments for to pray without understanding to fast without Abstinence to receive a maimed Sacrament are things we do not envy them for But altho our Devotion be not so pompous and full of shew yet We may pray and fast in secret according to our Saviours Directions far more than they do however our People are mightily to blame if they do not understand what they pray for if they do not receive more of
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