even by their own confessions it is not de fide that the Roman particular Church shall alwaies remain or alwaies adhere to the true faith for that Rome shall be the Seat of Antichrist is the opinion of many Romanists and if it be Ribera Viega in Apoc. 17. the Seat of Antichrist it is uncertain how it can remain the Mistress of all Churches again that it shall not fail it is only pia probabilissima opinio * Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. pont c. 4. But not so certain that the contrary can be called Heretical or manifestly erroneous yea there is no promise if we look on that Church precisely that it shall never revolt from the Catholick faith saies Suarez * Desensfid Cathol l. 1. 5. 5. Now if it be not de fide that the Roman particular Church shall never err in matters of faith and that there is no promise to support it from failing then 't is absur'd to prosess alwaies this Article as necessary to Salvation That she is the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches Thirdly If the Romanists shall say that the particular Church taken abstractly from its Bishop may err but considered as united with its head the Vniversal Bishop then it can never err or fall away propter Cathedram Petri praesidentem saies Suarez †Defens fid Cathol c. l. 1. c. 5. n. 6 7. for the Roman Bishop is the Vicar of Christ and Head of the whole Church the Father and Teacher of all Christians to whom in St. Peter was delivered the full power of feeding and governing the universal Church as the Florentine Council determines so that whatsoever Church is in Vnion with him by vertue of the priviledg derived to him by St. Peter cannot fall into any error hoc habet quaelibet alia Ecclesia sub eadem ratione Vnione spectata saies Suarez * Defens fid c. ibi n. 6. But now if the foundation of this Article be doubtful and uncertain it will follow that this Article it self is doubtful and uncertain also First then setting aside the question about St. Peters universal Pastor-ship which contains many perplexities it is uncertain whether there be by Divine right a successor to that universal Pastor-ship for there is no mention in Scripture of a successor no Command to appoint one and no evident consequence that any such was appointed and if there can be no certain command produced to appoint a successor nor evident consequence that by divine Command any such was appointed then it is uncertain whether there be by divine right a successor to that universal Pastor-ship Secondly It is uncertain whether those priviledges which our Saviour obtained by his Prayer for St. Peter are to be extended to his Successor for either all must be allowed to a Successor or only some priviledges if all priviledges then the Successor of St. Peter can neither err in his own judgment nor teach any error to others But this is more then themselves require for the former priviledg fortasse non descendit ad postelos perhaps it hath not descended to his successors saith Bellarmine * l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. and Canus †Loc. Com. lib. 6. c. 8. gives the account of Pighius defending the Popes by vertue of this Prayer being free from personal error Quamvis in multis locis dicit satis probabiliter de summi Pontificis autoritate tamen non id spectandum quid dicit sed quid consentaneum sit ei dicere though he speaks probably enough in many places of the Popes authority yet that is not so much to be regarded what he saies as what is fit for him to say c. for he adds in another place it cannot be denied but the Pope may be an Heretick If only some priviledges were here given to his successor as infallibility in Doctrine that he should never teach error tanquam Pontifex whereas our Saviour obtained for St. Peter the priviledg of persevering in saving faith and also infallibility in Doctrine I demand then where hath our Saviour distinguish't betwixt the priviledges here given to St. Peter and to his Successors Where is it said what he hath obtained for the one and what he hath obtained for the other Where are those words about Teaching or Teaching others or that a Successor should teach no errors any more then St. Peter could to sum up this Argument there can be no pretence that the priviledges procured for St. Peter belonged to his Successors without our Saviours grant but 't is uncertain whether there be such a grant for either all priviledges must be allowed to his Successors which is more then they would have or there must be some distinction betwixt those priviledges which he procured for St. Peter and which he obtained for his successors but if there be none to be found there as I have shewn then it follows that it is uncertain whether the priviledges which our Saviour obtained for St. Peter are to be extended to his Successors Thirdly granting there be a successor yet still this Article that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter I mean in that large sense the Papists take it is uncertain and doubtful for there is no Command extant that S. Peter should fix his Seat at Rome and no Divine Testimony that the Bishop of Rome was appointed his successor and if there be neither Command that he should be appointed his successor nor Divine Testimony that he was so appointed it follows then that this Article The Bishop of Rome is St. Peter's successor is uncertain and doubtful if there were a Command then either it was given before St. Peter would have departed from Rome or after his return thither again if before St. Peters going out of Rome he received the command to fix his Seat there then it is not likely that he would have offered to remove thence which as the stories quoted by Bellarmin * l. 1. de Rom. pon◠c. 23. say was a little before his Death if after his return to Rome he received this Command how does it appear yea that he received such Command either before his offering to depart or after his return what Record what Testimony what assurance of any such thing if there were a Testimony that the Bishop of Rome was appointed to be St. Peters successor then either that Testimony is Divine or Humane if it be a Divine Testimony let it be produced if it be only a Humane Testimony then it makes only a Humane faith and therefore it can be no Article necessary to be believed on pain of Damnation that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peters successor Again that which is not yet
consent of the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal the Approbation of the Universities the determination of the Convocation Thus it was carried on in the reign of his successor Edward 6 th When it was re-established under Queen Elizabeth it was in a regular way by a legal abrogation of those Statutes made in Queen Maryes time and the Revival of the Lawes made by King Edward with Synodical consent All which things are fully and Satisfactorily handled by Sir Roger Twisden and Dr. Heylin after the Re. establishment of the Reformation by Queen Elizabeth there were few or no Recusants known in England for many years as is constantly avouched by our Writers who lived near those times few of the Romish perswasion if at any time they went to Mass refused to be present at our service * Lord Cokes â—barge as Norwich 1606. and when afterwards Pius Quintus by his Bull had forbid those whom he called Catholicks to resort to our Prayers there appeared only few who adhered to the Romish Religion the Popes laboured hard to keep up their party here by founding Seminaries for the instructing of the English youth abroad and by frequent Missions of Priests hither to propagate and Defend the Romish Doctrine yet during the reign of Queen Elizabeth King James and King Charles the first Popery decayed till the troubles of our late warrs gave the Romish emissaries opportunity to pervert many unstable persons who either discontented with their sufferings at home or pinched with necessity or offended with the many Sects which the licentiousnesse of Warr had begot or couzened with pretenses of the Antiquity unity glory and splendor of the Romish Church or perhaps allured with the pleasing Doctrine and Opinions whereby many Romish Casuists gratifie Sinners revolted from us and whether the restauration of Peace and Order may reclaim those whose Sufferings and troubles alienated from us God only knowes There is great talk still of the increase of Popery the Papists striving to credit their cause by these reports of numerous Proselites though I hope it is not so as I see no reasonable ground that it should be so yet the reports of Enemies should at least alarum us to be as Active in maintaining our ground as they are in striving to gain it and unless we are weary of our Religion to shew as much zeal in defending as they do earnestness in assaulting This hath Occasioned the ensuing Discourse in which my desâ—gn is from the doubtfulness and perp'exity of the Romish Doctrine the Superstitious vanity of many allowed prastises in their Church the absurdities in their publique Offices and the contradictions betwixt their Prayers and Doctrins to disswade the fond Admirers of the Romish Religion and to endeavour to reclaim them who are ready to embrace their Errors for Catholick truth â—â—SSIVS MOLNA S. IGNATIVS LOYOLA SOCIETATIS IESV FVNDATOR VASQUEZ ESCOBAR Optabilir est Fur qua'm Mendax assiduus vtrique veró Perditionis hareditatem consequentur Eccles. 20 vers 25. Paâ—â— CHAP. I. The first Consideration I propose shall be from the doubtfulnesse and Vncertainty of many Doctrines in the Church of Rome IT is not Reasonable to Adhere to that Church which Commands us to believe under pain of damnation Doctrines which are uncertiane and dubious But the Church of Rome doth Require such things pro. In the Creed of Pius 4th * Bulla Pij 4th Super form Juram Profess fid There are several things Required as Conditions of Communion with that Church and which their Clergy are bound to swear that they truly Believe and will constantly defend and that they will take Care that they be taught to and Believed by those who are under their Charge and this also they Acknowledge to be the Catholick faith without which there is no Salvation But now many of these things which they are bound to hold according to the Letter of the Decree are Uncertain and Doubtfull and from their own Principles and Confessions will apear so 1. I instance in the Articâ—e that they acknowledge the holy Catholick Apostolick Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches But there is no Certainty of the truth of this Article for it is either meant of the Churches united under the Obedience of the Roman Bishop or else of the Particular Diocess of Rome It cannot be meant of the Universal Church which obeyes the Universal Vicar of Christ as Suarez phraseth it for all Churches are supposed by them members of that Universal Church and the Universal Church to be the Collection of all Churches Now it is improper to call the Universal Church A Mother of all Churches for all Churches are the same with the Vniversal Church and nothing can be called a Mother to it selfe Again it cannot be a Mistrisse of all Churches for it is only a Society of all Churches United together and Suppose all those Churches throughout the world of which this Universal Church is made I aske what is the Mistrisse to all these Churches either t is the Roman particular Church which I shall shew to be otherwise or else they must say that all these Churches United are a Mistrisse to all Churches when yet they suppose no other can be a Church but what is United with these which is absurd If they mean the particular Roman Church then first that cannot be a Mother of all Churches which in order of time was founded after some Churches unlesse wee could say the Mother might be born after the Daughter but the Roman Church was founded after the Church of Jerusalem and therefore St. Hierome * Com. in Iss 2. sayes the Church founded in Jerusalem begat the Churches of the whole world Ecclesia in Hierusalem fundata totius orbis Ecclesias seminavit and the Synodical Letter * Theodoret Eccl Hist. l. 5. 6. 9. from the Council of Constantinople to Damasus and the Western Bishops calls Cyril the Bishop of Jerusalem the Mother of all Churches Again the Roman Church was founded after the Church of Antioch where the Disciples were first called Christians Acts II. 26. Quae prima omnium ausa est proferre Christianum nomen atque Nascentis Evangelij gloriam praedicare saith Polidor Virgil * De Invent rerum l. 4. c. 2. I may ad after the Church of Britaine for Suarez * Defens Fidei Cathol l. 1. c. 1. confesseth it was from the first Rising of the Gospel and Baronius from some manuscripts in the Vatican affixeth it to the 35th year of our Lord which was near nine years before the founding of the Roman Church If then the Roman Church was founded after some other Churches it is then uncertain and doubtful how we can acknowledg it to be the Mother of all Churches and prosesse this as an Article of Faith without which there is no Salvation Secondly If it be not de fide that the Roman particular Church shall never err in matters of Faith then it is absurd to make this profession alwaies that she is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches for that cannot alwaies be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches which may cease to be a member of the Catholick Church But
* Plat. in vita John 18. When we thus see some owned for Popes who have never been duly elected and do know how much tirannical compulsion may force an outward compliance we cannot judge the submission and silence of the Church as Suarez holds Can be any certain ground that the election was lawful The sum of this argument is this if it be uncertain whether the essentialls of a just and true election be performed then it is vncertain whether this be a true Pope and ex consequenti it cannot be de fide that this Pope is the true sucessor of Saint Peter secondly we cannot be certain absolutely that the things essentially required in the consecration of the Pope are duly performed I do not mean of such things in the consecration which are only required by the cannon but I speak of those things which they account essential that there can be no consecration without them first I instance in the qualification of the person to be consecrated without baptisme there is no ordination and pro. who have not been baptized cannot be ordained nor consecrated and are jure divino uncapable of orders but we cannot be absolutly certain that this person hath been baptized pro. we cannot be absolutly certain that some thing essential to his consecration is not wanting Secondly In the intention of the consecrators for that is essentially necessary in conferring of orders by the Councells of Florence * Decret de Sacram. and the council of Trent * Sess de Sacram. Can. 2. requires an intention of doing that which the Church doth but it may fall out that the consecrators have no intention of doing any such things either through negligence or malice either they may intend to do nothing or not to do that which the church doth i. e. to consecrate or they may intend to do this outward act in sport or merriment or if then they cannot be certain that there is either an actuall or virtuall intention in the consecrators then they cannot be certain absolutly that the essentialls of consecration are duly performed Thirdly Without intention in the person to be consecrated there is no true consecration so Innocent the third determines * C. majore Extra de Baptisms and Suarez call's it the common opinion of Divines that to the value of a sacrament is required intentio suscipientis but no man can be absolutly certain that the Pope either in any moment foregoing or during the act of consecration did any way intend to receive it for ti 's not the bare outward performing or doing or receving which are required but the intending in the mind to do or receive and of that inward intention in the mind we cannot be certain Many more things might be added concerning the consecrators whether they were baptized whether they were Priests whether there is no defect in any thing essentially required to their baptisme or ordination whether the intention in the consecration was directed to that present person for that Filliucius * Cas Consc tract 1. c. 5. n. 79. requires now in these things since ti 's Possible some essential may be wanting it follows no man can be certain absolutly that this is the true Pope and if he cannot be so absolutly certain that this is the true Pope because ti 's possible some essential has been wanting then he cannot own it to be so de fide nor swear that the Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches because of its Union with him Secondly I instance in the Article of Trausubstantiation according to the Creed of Pius 4th they swear that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly really and substantially the body and blood with the Soul and Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and there is a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body and of the whole substance of wine into the blood which Conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation and in the Council of Trent there is an Anathema pronounced against those who shall deny that wonderfull and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood the Species of bread and wine onely remaining which Conversion the Catholick Church most fitly calls Transubstantiation now though according to the Letter the Decree seems plain and they will all cry up this wonderfull miracle this August mistery yet in the explication of it and of the grounds whereupon they believe it they are perplexed For First although they pretend to derive this Doctrine from Scripture yet it is not certain that there is any place of Scripture which necessarily infers this doctrine so Scotus * In 4. lib. sent dist 11. q. 3. saies and how the body of Christ is there whether by Conversion of something into it or without Conversion the substance and accidents of bread remaining non invenitur in Canone Bibliae saies Gabriel Biel †In Canone miss lect 40. and notwithstanding that they usually insist on the 6th of St. John and the words of Institution this is my body yet others of great note among them conclude that it is not exprest in Scripture so Canus * Loc. Com. l. 3. c. 3. fund 2. holds and Cajetane maintains †the 6th of St. John no way pertains to a Sacramental * In 3. part q. 80. art vet eating the same is held by Jansenius Tapperus and others cited by Suarez and first some of them confess they should not have believed it unless the Church had declared it to be de fide for the Church by the spirit of truth did explain those things which were obscure in Scripture * Canus Loc. Com. l. 3. c. 3. fundam 2. but then it would be still in vain to endeavour to prove this conversion from Scripture because there is no argument from thence which can sufficiently convince and to argue with us from those Texts which they think are not sufficiently cogent without their Churches explanation is altogether impertinent for we are as uncertain of the infallibility of their Church in explaining those Texts as we are whether those Doctrines be contained there 't is first as to us uncertain whether this Doctrine be delivered in Scripture Secondly though they affirm that by the words of institution the bread is turned into the body and the wine into the blood yet they are perplexed about the meaning of them First As whether there be any figure in the words or no For if they be construed figuratively then they cannot certainly infer any transubstantiation and first sometimes they tell us there is no figure or trope yea there ought to be none in the words of Institution but then how can the Cup be the New Testament there the Cup must be put for Wine in the Cup. Again How can the Cup be the New Testament properly For a Testament is the Testators
habits which are now used were brought in †Gavant â—61 Lastly 'T is uncertain whether the authors of the greatest antiquity assert what they affix to them for some ascribe this to Clement that he according to Tradition from St. Peter did institute these holy Vestments but there is no certainty of this pretended Tradition nor of this pretended Institution some ascribe it to Anaclet antiquity enough if it could be proved whether he be the same with Cletus whom some make a Coad jutor to St. Peter or that there were such an one who was immediate successor to Clement but we must be first sure of the authority before we believe the Testimony Bellarmine * Dâ— Roman Pontif l. 2. c. 14. durst not call these decretal Epistles undoubted though he believed them ancient but there needs no more proof of the spuriousness of this Epistle father'd on Anaclet than to observe the Barberous expressions in it and those names it mentions which were of a later Original ‡ Blondel Ceus Epist Pontif in Anaclet Epist 1. Thus I have handled the first part of my argument from the Rites and Ceremonies of the Romish Church that for many of these things they require us to profess to be of Apostolical Discipline and Tradition it is wholly uncertain whether they be so Secondly It is not certain whether many Rites and Ceremonies of the Romish Church be not vain unprofitable and inexcusable from Superstition I will not instance in the customs of particular Churches and places As in the manner of the observations of Innocents day by the Episcopus puerorum in the Church of Salisbury in the strange custome which Mr. Gregory * Opuse Posth in his Discourse de Episc puerorum produces from the Ritual of Osny Abby of the foot of a Child which was usually kept in a Chest in the Vestry and that day was carried about the Church to be adored by the people In the custom of the Beâ—gick Churches to take up a man on Ascention day thereby to represent Christs ascention and send down a Dove in representation of the descent of the Holy Ghost on Whit-Sunday as the Antiquitates Liturgicae tells us †Yom 〈◊〉 in Sabbate Sancto de Caer. Pasch Duaci 1065. I will not instance in such customes though many may be produced because the Romanists will grant the customes of particular Churches may be vain and superstitious ê‘o the Council of Trent doth only require that we should imbrace the Rites of the Catholick Church and appoints a reformation of those abuses which might have crept in as in the number of Candles on Easter eve some saies Durand have 72 Candles some 24 some 15 some 12 and all these pretend some mistery now the Council provides against the Superstitious number of Candles and also by the Bull of Pius 5. prefixed before the Roman Missal all other Rites and Ceremonies in other Missals unless where there is a prescription of 200 years are abrogated So that my business is to prove that there are many Ceremonies universally practiced in the Romish Church or allowed in some particular Churches which are vain unprofitable and not unexcusable from superstition First I instance in the many Ceremonies of blessing the Font the recital of which is a sufficient evidence of their vanity one Ceremony is the dividing the water after the fashion of a Cross and that is done that the water may be fruitfull through the holy Spirit and the unclean one expel'd * Missal Pii 5. in Beâ—ed Fontis again he must touch the water with his hand that by the Invocation of the blessed Trinity the water may be defended least the divel return †Durand Rationale l. 6. c. 82. again he divides the water with his hand and casts the water towards the foure parts of the World another Ceremony is the changing of the Tone which must be done thrice after the manner of a prayer he must speak low then he must raise his voice after the manner of their Prefaces then he must let fall his voice after the manner of reading the Lessons but why must the voice be changed thrice Vt in Trinitate omnia fiant saies Gavantus * Part. 4. Tit. 10. 〈◊〉 25. another Ceremony is the breathing on the water three times after the fashion of a Cross and least that should not do the work he must blow thrice upon it after the manner of the Greek letter 〈◊〉 to denote the Trinity that he may joyne the Trinity with the Cross †Gavant 161. n. 26. but what will this blowing do they 'l tell you if you believe them the devil is blown away with a breath and they blow in contempt of him as if the devil could not withstand a blast There is another Ceremony the putting the paschal taper into the Font which must be first a little way and the Priest saies Descendat in hanâ— plenitudinem Fontis Spiritus Sancti virtus let the virtue of the holy Ghost descend upon the fullness of the Font but will ye know the reason of this Ceremony it is to signify the spirits descending with his fullness into the Font as he descended at the baptisme of our Saviour in likeness of a Dove * Gavantus 161. 〈◊〉 27. this taper then must be taken out to note the effect of baptisme which raises from sin to glory then the taper must be put lower into the water and the Priest raise his voice the third time the taper must be put to the bottome and the Priest repeat the prayer Descendat in hanc c. lowder I omit the rest of the Ceremonics for I need not render the office more ridiculous by repeating more of the like nature and if there be so little reason for the institution of them and such antickness in the performance of them we have reason to judge that it is at the best uncertain whether they be not vain and unprofitable Secondly I instance in many Ceremonies used in Baptisme I do not condemn every Ceremony in it for some of them were very anciently used some may not be unfit to signifie either some duty or some priviledge and these are not condemned by us where they may serve to a decent order and godly discipline and may have any aptness to stirre up the mind of man by some notable signification to the remembrance of his duty * Book of Common prayer Pref. of Ceremonies and while they are as St. Augustin advices paucâ— salubres I pass by the number of their Ceremonies in Baptism which Bellarmine saies are 22 and only consider that many of these either have no tendency to excite us by a fit signification or else are used not only for signification but extraordinary operation now these things cannot produce by an extraordinary operation unless by the virtue and influx of a superior agent and where there is no assurance of any assistance from such a superior
agreed on by the Romish Doctors whether it be by Divine or Humane right cannot be made by them a Fundamental Article of faith But by what ground the Bishop of Rome succeeds to St. Peter is not yet agreed on by them positively Some say it is only by Humane right so Soto Armacanus and Paludanus as Suarez * de trip Vir◠disp 10. ss 3. n. 9. tells us Some say it is not by Divine right Sed ex facto morte Petri saies Azorius * Inst. moral part 2. l. 4. c. 11. Bellarmine speaks very perplexedly it is not ex prima institutione quae legitur in Evangelio †Bell. l. 2. de Rom. pont c. 12. § at vero § at quoniam Sobs ◠1. 4. c. 4. ss at setundum §. respondeo ss accedit not from the first institution which is in the Gospel but then we would find the second institution It is not saies he improbable that the Lord plainly Commanded Peter c. Again peradventure it is not by Divine right although it pertain to the Catholick faith Again it is not altogether de fide that the Apostolick Seat cannot be separated from the Roman Church Again Christ did not plainly Command it but is said to Command it because Peter did translate his Seat thither by Gods inspiration Again it does not appear how Christ Commanded Peter that he should place his Seat pos it is not de fide that the See of Rome was established by a Divine and immutable Command Thus they are perplext where to found this right of succession and pos this proposition the Bishop of Rome is St Peters successor must be even in their apprehension doubtful and uncertain Lastly those who pretend a Divine right confess that it is not express'd in Scripture but only virtually contained in the principles revealed in it for saies Suarez * Defens fid Cathol c. l. ◠c 13. n. 5. There was a primacy given to Peter and that primacy was to last in the Church and this must be a Succession of Persons in the same dignity now the application of this Institution and dignity to this particular Bishoprick is sufficiently evidented by plain Tradition and evident use But this is wholly uncertain for first where shall we find this Tradition that St. Peter appointed the Roman Bishop his successor Secondly where shall we find that the Bishop of Rome must be his successor because he died Bishop of Rome for there is no certainty that St. Peter disposed his Vniversal Bishoprick to that See where he died nor any certainty from the Nature of the thing that it must fall to that place where he died nor any certainty that the See which he last held hath any more priviledg on this account than the See of Antioch where hefirst sate nor any certainty that the power of naming a successor did not fall to the Apostles who survived him or to the Universal Church till these things be certainly determined it remaines still uncertain that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peters successor Fourthly It is uncertain whether this or that particular Bishop of Rome be the true Bishop of Rome and pro. uncertain whether he be St. Peters successor and pro. higher still it is uncertain whether he hath the priviledges obtained by our Saviour for St. Peter and his successors and highest of all whether the Roman Church or any other is secured from Error by being subject to him It is necessary de fide saies Suarez * Di trip Virtute dis 10. sect 5. n. 2. that this man who is received by the common consent of the Church as head of it to which it is bound to obey is the true Pope and successor of St. Peter The reason he gives is this For it will be impossible otherwise to believe certainly what he defines the same thing Salmero * In Epistalas Pauli in genero part 3. disp 2. p. 133. speaks that with same faith with which we believe Jesus Christ we also believe Paulus fourth to be the Pope Non tantum humana fide cui possit subesse falsum But now if this be uncertain then it cannot be de fide and that it is uncertain appears thus First there may be Schismes in the Papacy as hath been often since the Roman Bishoprick became rather a Dignity than an Office one Schisme lasted 50 years * Onuph in Vita Urban 6. sometimes three Popes together as Bened. 13. Greg. 12. John 23. all of them pretended themselves to be the true Vicars of Christ all of them as true Popes created Cardinals * Platina in Vita Allex 5. and were allowed for Cardinals by the Council of Constance * Onuph in Vita Greg. 12. and electors of the succeeding Popes the Cardinals of Greg. 12. and Benedict 13 created Alexander the fifth in the Councils of Pisa the Cardinals of these Schismatical Popes of which some had been made Cardinals after the deposition of these Popes at Pisa were electors of Martin the fifth either then they were all true Popes or none of them Onuph ibi or onely one of them they were not all true Popes according to the Romanists who tell us there is but one Legitimate successor the rest are Rebells and Tyrants if onely one was true Pope then those Cardinalls which the Antipopes created could not be lawfull Cardinals nor lawfull Electors of the succeeding Popes nay nor according to an Ancient constitution could be Popes themselves and yet Eugenius the 4th was created Cardinal by Greg. 12th whom they confesse was a Schismatical Pope if none of these were true Popes then for fifty years it was not necessary de fide to believe this or that man to be true Bishop of Rome nor was it certain that the Church of Rome was the Mistress of all Churches because of its conjunction with the successor of St. Peter since all that time it was uncertain who was the true successor Secondly it is uncertain whether there be no secret impediments which hinder him from being true Pope as whether the essentials required in the election and consecration of the Pope be rightly performed and pro. it cannot be de fide that this particular person is the true Bishop of Rome First we cannot be certaine absolutely that the things required to the Election be performed I 'le instance in two things First if the person be Elected by those who have no power to Elect then the Election is Null for if they had no power to Elect then they could confer no power nor priviledg on the person whom they do Elect but 't is uncertain whether the Election be performed by those who have power to elect for the right they have is either by divine or humane Law but it is uncertain that they have a wright either by divine or humane Law pro. First it is uncertain that there is any right by divine Law for let any man produce any divine Command or
puâ—ishment because he who can do the greater regularly unless there be some restraint can do the less Secondly It is not certain that the Pope hath any power of granting these Indulgences from those texts for it 's neither exprest in the texts nor gathered thence by ancient Interpreters nor is it evident by fair consequence Secondly It is not certain that the Church hath used them from all antiquity for where will they find the Popes divine right of granting Indulgences That these Indulgences were remissions of temporal punishment due to God that by the remission of these punishments here so much was abated as they must indure in this life or in Purgatory that there were Indulgences for 100 or 1000 of yeares that for repeating a Prayer over hallowed Beads visiting such an Altar praying before such an Image there should be granted an Indulgence toties quoties either of all or halfe or third part of their sins as many Buls of modern Popes speak and ê‘o Cajetane * Opâ—â—â— 15. c. 1. will tel us that neither the Holy Scripture nor the writings of the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers brought this to our knowledge but only à 300 annis Scripturae Commendatum est de veteribus patribus quod Beatus Gregorius Indulgentias Stationum in stituit it was Committed to writing about 300 years ago concerning the ancient Fathers that St. Gregory ordained the Indulgences of the Stations some tell us there are no manifest Testimonies before St. Gregorys time yet we must believe though we have no ground for it I warrant you saies Angelus de Claâ—asio that they were in use before others confess there is nothing the Scripture doth less plainly deliver or the ancient Fathers less mention so Alphonsus de Castro that they began when Charity lessned and sin increased say others yea some will not believe because the use of them seems to be late and lately found out among the Christians sales Roffensis * Ad Arâ— 18. and all he Answers is this that there was some use as they say among the ancient Romans and that many things are now found out more plainly out of the Gospels and other Scriptures than were heretofore if thus they are not agreed who wrote before the Council concerning the Antiquity of them nor are there any evident Testimonies in the Fathers or ancient Writers of such use of Indulgences as they now practice it is then not certain that the Church hath from all Antiquity used them and ê‘o I have no reason to assent to this Doctrine of Indulgences delivered by the Council This is my first Argument to disswade from reunion with the present Romish Church because many of their Doctrines which they require to be believed as Articles of Faith are uncertain and doubtfull CHAP. II. THe second Consideration iâ— drawn from the Ceremonies of the Romish Church It is unreasonable to adhere to that Church which commands us firmly to embrace those for Apostolical rites which are altogether questionable and dubious and those for pious and good which it is doubtfull whether they be not vain rediculous and superstitious but the Romish Church commands this ê‘o In the Creed of Pius 4. it is required That they should most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and other observations of that Church and afterwards that they receive and admit the approved rites of Catholick as they call the Roman Church in the solemn administration of the seven Sacraments and it s declared by the Council that the Church hath used in the Sacrifice of the Mâ—sâ— ceremonies as mistical blessings Lights â—neense Garments and many other things from Apostolical Disciplâ—ne and Tradition But many things which they affirm to be Apostolical are at best uncertain and many things which they require thus firmly to be believed are vain and foolish and cannot be excused from all superstition First It is uncertain that many of those ceremonies which they use in the Mass are of Apostolical Discipline and Tradition as they pretend First There is no certainty that their mistical blessings are delivered down from the Apostles for though we are bound to receive the creatures with thanksgiving and by prayer to God they are blessed for that use which he hath appointed yet it is uncertain whether the Apostles did leave this Tradition that certain things should be blessed by prayer and the signe of the Cross to work supernatural effects as to cure diseases and drive away Devils and remit venial sins which things Bellarmin * L. 2. dâ—â—ffect Saâ—ram c. 31. prop. 3. makes the effect of these benedictions In the blessing of the wax lights on Eâ—ster eve this must be done by a Deacon and he must put five grains of hallowed incense into it after the fashion of a Cross he exhorts all to invoke the mercy of God that he who vouchsafed to admit into the number of Levites powring on him the clearness of his light would inable him to perfect the prayses of that wax light cerei hujus laudem implere perficiat and then prayes that this taper may remain constantly to destroy the mist of this night and being accepted for a sweet smell may be mingled with the Heavenly lights In the blessing of holy water the Priest exorcizes the fact to be for the health of believers and to all that take it soundness of soul and body and that all wickedness and cunning of devils may fly from the place where it is sprinkled and he exorcizes the water to drive away the power of the devil and to root out the enemy with the apostate Angels and again prays that this creature serving these misteries may receive the effect of the divine grace to drive away devils and expell diseases c * Missal Rom. in Bened. aquae In the blessing of holy bread he prays that God would bless it with holy spiritual blessing that it may be to all that receive it health of Soul and Body and a defence against all diseases and all the snares of the enemies †Missal Rom. in Bened. panis So in the blessing of Candles he prays that they may receive such blessing by the signe of the Cross that in what ever places they are lighted the Princes of darkness may depart and tremble and fly away with all his Servants from all those habitations * Missal Rom in Benedict Candâ—l In the blessing of the Cross he prays that God would bless that wood of the Cross ut sit remedium salutare generi humano sit soliditas fidei bonorum operum profectus redemptio animarum c. That it may be a wholesome remedy for mankind it may be firmness of faith increase of good works redemption of Souls and defence against the cruel darts of the devil * Hospin de Orig. Templ l. 4. c. 4. These are mistical blessings which the Romish Church uses and which they pretend are derived from Apostolical Discipline