THE DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES OF THE Church of Rome TRULY REPRESENTED In Answer to a Book Intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet 1686. The Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented c. An Answer to the Introduction THE Introduction consists of two parts I. A general Complaint of the Papists being Misrepresented among us II. An account of the Method he hath taken to clear them from these Misrepresentations I. As to the First Whether it be just or not must be examin'd in the several Particulars But here we must consider whether it serves the End it is designed for in this place which is to gain the Reader 's good Opinion of their Innocency Not meerly because they complain so much of being injured but because the best Men in all Times have been Misrepresented as he proves at large in this Introduction from several Examples of the Old and New Testament but especially of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians But it is observable that when Bp. Jewel began his excellent Apology for the Church of England with a Complaint much of the same Nature and produced the very same Examples his Adversary would by no means allow it to have any Force being as he called it Exordium Commune which might be used on both sides and therefore could be proper to neither And altho it be reasonable only for those to complain of being Misrepresented who having Truth on their side do notwithstanding suffer under the Imputation of Error yet it is possible for those who are very much mistaken to complain of being misrepresented and while they go about to remove the Misrepresentations of others to make new Ones of their own And as the best Men and the best Things have been Misrepresented so other Men have been as apt to complain of it and the worst things are as much Misrepresented when they are made to appear not so bad as they are For Evil is as truly Misrepresented under the appearance of Good as Good under the appearance of Evil and it is hard to determine whether hath done the greater Mischief So that if the Father of Lies be the Author of Misrepresenting as the Introduction begins we must have a care of him both ways For when he tried this Black Art in Paradise as our Author speaks it was both by misrepresenting the Command and the Danger of transgressing it He did not only make the Command appear otherwise than it was but he did very much lessen the Punishment of Disobedience and by that means deluded our first Parents into that Sin and Misery under which their Posterity still suffers Which ought to be a caution to them how dangerous it is to break the Law of God under the fairest Colour and Pretences and that they should not be easily imposed upon by false Glosses and plausible Representations though made by such as therein pretend to be Angels of Light But although the Father of Lies be the Author of Misrepresenting yet we have no reason to think but that if he were to plead his own Cause to Mankind he would very much complain of being Misrepresented by them and even in this respect when they make him the Father of those Lies which are their own Inventions And can that be a certain Argument of Truth which may as well be used by the Father of Lies And the great Instruments he hath made use of in deceiving and corrupting Mankind have been as forward as any to complain of being Misrepresented The true Reason is Because no great Evil can prevail in the World unless it be represented otherwise than it is and all Men are not competent Judges of the Colours of Good and Evil therefore when the Designs of those who go about to deceive begin to be laid open they then betake themselves to the fairest Representations they can make of themselves and hope that many will not see through their Pretences If I had a mind to follow our Author's Method I could make as long a Deduction of Instances of this kind But I shall content my self with some few Examples of those who are allowed on both sides to have been guilty of great Errors and Corruptions The Arrians pleaded they were Misreprented when they were taken for Enemies to Christ's Divinity for all that they contended for was only such a Moment of Time as would make good the Relation between Father and Son The Pelagians with great Success for some time and even at Rome complained that they were very much Misrepresented as Enemies to God's Grace whereas they owned and asserted the manifold Grace of God and were only Enemies to Mens Idelness and Neglect of their Duties The Nestorians gave out that they never intended to make two Persons in Christ as their Adversaries charged them but all their design was to avoid Blasphemy in calling the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God and whatever went beyond this was their Adversaries Misrepresentations and not their own Opinions The Eutychians thought themselves very hardly dealt with for saying there was but one Nature in Christ they did not mean thereby as they said to destroy the Properties of the Humane Nature but only to assert that its Subsistence was swallowed up by the Divine and of all Persons those have no Reason to blame them who suppose the Properties of one Substance may be united to another Even the Gentile Idolaters when they were charged by the Christians that they Worshipped Stocks and Stones complained they were Misrepresented for they were not such Ideots to take things for Gods which had neither Life nor Sense nor Motion in them And when they were charged with worshipping other Gods as they did the Supream they desired their Sense might not be taken from common Prejudices or vulgar Practices but from the Doctrine of their Philosophers and they owned a Soveraign Worship due to him that was Chief and a subordinate and Relative to some Coelestial Beings whom they made Application to as Mediators between him and them Must all these Complaints now be taken for granted what then becomes of the Reputation of General Councils or the Primitive Christians But as if it were enough to be Accused none would be Innocent so none would be Guilty if it were enough to complain of being Misrepresented Therefore in all Complaints of this Nature it is necessary to come to Particulars and to examine with Care and Diligence the Matters complained of and then to give Judgment in the Case I am glad to find our Author professing so much Sincerity and Truth without Passion and I do assure him I shall follow what he Professes For the Cause of our Church is such as needs neither Tricks nor Passion to defend it and therefore I shall endeavour to state the Matters in Difference with all the clearness and calmness that may be and I shall keep close to
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
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
Ceremonies but it can never appropriate Divine Effects to them and to suppose any Divine Power in things which God never gave them is in my Opinion Superstition and to use them for such ends is a superstitious use St. Cyril whom he quotes speaks of the Consecration of the Water of Baptism Catech. 3. St. Augustine only of a consecrated Bread which the Catechumens had De Peccat Merit Remiss l. 2. c. 26. but he attributes no Divine Effects to it Pope Alexanders Epistle is a Notorious Counterfeit Those Passages of Epiphanius Theodoret and S. Jerom all speak of miraculous effects and those who had the power of Miracles might sometimes do them with an external sign and sometimes without as the Apostles cured with anointing and without But this is no ground for consecrating Oyl by the Church or Holy Water for miraculous effects If these Effects which they attribute to Holy Water be miraculous then every Priest must have not only a power of Miracles himself but of annexing it to the Water he consecrates if they be super-natural but not miraculous then Holy Water must be made a Sacrament to produce these effects ex opere operato if neither one nor the other I know not how to excuse the use of it from Superstition XXXIV Of breeding up People in Ignorance THE Misrepresenter charges them with this on these Acccounts 1. By keeping their Mysteries of Iniquity from them 2. By performing Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 3. By an implicite Faith To which the Representer answers 1. That they give encouragement to Learning and he instances in their Universities and Conventual Libraries But what is all this to the common People But their Indices Expurgatorii and prohibiting Books so severely which are not for their Turn as we have lately seen in the new one of Paris argues no great confidence of their Cause nor any hearty love to Learning And is it could be rooted out of the World their Church would fare the better in it bur if it cannot they must have some to be able to deal with others in it 2. As to the common People he saith They have Books enough to instruct them Is it so in Spain or Italy But where they live among Hereticks as we are called the People must be a little better instructed to defend themselves and to gain upon others 3. If the People did know their Church-Offices and Service c. they would not find such faults since the Learned approve them Let them then try the Experiment and put the Bible and their Church-Offices every where into the vulgar tongues But their severe Prohibitions shew how much they are of another Opinion What made all that rage in France against Voisins Translation of the Missal such Proceedings of the Assembly of the Clergy against it such complaints both to the King and the Pope against it as tho all were lost if that were suffered Such an Edict from the King such a Prohibition from the Pope in such a Tragical Stile about it Such a Collection of Authors to be printed on purpose against it Do these things shew even in a Nation of so free a Temper in Comparison as the French any mighty Inclination towards the encouraging this Knowledg in the People And since that what stirs have there been about the Mons Testament What prohibitions by Bishops What vehement opposition by others So that many Volumes have already been written on the occasion of that Translation And yet our Author would perswade us that if we look abroad we shall find wonderful care taken to keep the People from Ignorance but we can dâ—scern much greater to keep them in it XXXV Of the Uncharitableness of the Papists THE Misrepresenter as he is called charges this Point home Because they deny Salvation to those who believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith in the Apostles Creed and lead vertuous and good Lives if they be not of their Communion To this the Representer answers in plain terms That this is nothing but what they have learnt from the mouth of Christ and his Apostles And to this end he musters up all their sayings against Infidels false Apostles Gnosticks Cerinthians as tho they were point-blank levelled against all that live out of the Communion of the Church of Rome But this is no uncharitableness but pure zeal and the same the Primitive Church shewed against Hereticks such as Marcion Basilides and Bardesanes who were condemned in the first Age for denying the Resurrection of the dead c. What in the first Age Methinks the Second had been early enough for them But this is to let us see what Learning there is among you But do we deny the Resurrection of the dead Or hold any one of the Heresies condemned by the Primitive Church What then is our Fault which can merit so severe a Sentence We oppose the Church What Church The Primitive Apostolical Church The Church in the time of the Four General Councils I do not think that will be said but I am sure it can never be proved What Church then The present Church Is it then damnable to oppose the present Church But I pray let us know what ye mean by it The universal Body of Christians in the World No no abundance of them are Hereticks and Schismaticks as well as we i. e. All the Christians in the Eastern and Southern parts who are not in Communion with the Church of Rome So that two parts in three of Christians are sent to Hell by this Principle and yet it is no uncharitableness But suppose the Church of Rome be the only true Church must men be damned presently for opposing its Doctrines I pray think a little better on it and you will change your Minds Suppose a Man do not submit to the Guides of this Church in a matter of Doctrine declared by them Must he be Damned What if it be the Deposing Power Yet his Principle is If a Man do not hold the Faith entire he is gone But Popes and Councils have declared this to be a point of Faith therefore if he doth not hold it he must 〈◊〉 damned There is no way of answering this but he must abate the severity of his Sentence against us For upon the same Reason he questions that we may question many more And all his Arguments against us will hold against himself For saith he he that disbelieves one Article of Catholick Faith does in a manner disbelieve all Let him therefore look to it as well as we But he endeavours to prove the Roman Catholick Church to be the true Church by the ordinary Notes and Marks of the Church Although he is far enough from doing it yet this will not do his business For he must prove that we are convinced that it is the true Church and then indeed he may charge us with Obstinate Opposition but not before And it is a very strange thing to
me that when their Divines say that Infidels shall not bâ— damned for their Infidelity where the Gospel hath not been sufficiently proposed to them and no Christian for not believing any Article of Faith till it be so proposed that we must be damned for not believing the Articles of the Roman Faith which never have been and never can be sufficiently proposed to us Methinks such men should Study a little better their own Doctrine about the sufficient Proposal of matters of Faith before they pass such uncharitable and unlearned Censures XXXVI Of Ceremonies and Ordinances HIS Discourse on this Head is against those who refuse to obey their Superiours in things not expressed in Scripture which is no part of our Controversy with them But yet there are several things about their Ceremonies we are not satisfied in As 1. The mighty Number of them which have so much mussled up the Sacraments that their true face cannot be discerned 2. The Efficacy attributed to them without any promise from God whereas we own no more but decency and significancy 3. The Doctrine that goes along with them not only of Obedience but of Merit and some have asserted the Opus Operatum of Ceremonies as well as Sacraments when the Power of the Keys goes along with them i. e. when there hath been some Act of the Church exercised about the Matter of them as in the Consecration of Oyl Salt Bread Ashes Water c. XXXVII Of Innovation in matters of Faith THE Substance of his Discourse on this Head may be reduced to these things 1. That the Church in every Age hath Power to declare what is necessary to be believed with Anathema to those who Preach the Contrary and so the Council of Trent in declaring Transubstantiation Purgatory c. to be necessary Articles did no more than the Church had done before on like Occasions 2. That if the Doctrines then defined had been Innovations they must have met with great Opposition when they were introduced 3. That those who charged those points to be Innovations might as well have laid the scandal on any other Article of Faith which they retained These are things necessary to be examined in order to the making good the charge of Innovation in matters of Faith which we believe doth stand on very good Grounds 1. We are to consider Whether the Council of Trent had equal Reason to define the necessity of these Points as the Council of Nice and Constantinople had to determin the point of the Trinity or those of Ephesus and Chalcedon the Truth of Christ's Incarnation He doth not assert it to be in the Churches Power to make new Articles of Faith as they do imply new Doctrines revealed but he contends earnestly That the Church hath a Power to declare the necessity of believing some points which were not so declared before And if the Necessity of believing doth depend upon the Churches Declaration then he must assert that it is in the Churches Power to make points necessary to be believed which were not so and consequently to make common Opinions to become Articles of Faith But I hope we may have leave to enquire in this Case since the Church pretends to no new Revelation of matters of Doctrine therefore it can declare no more than it receives and no otherwise than it receives And so nothing can be made necessary to Salvation but what God himself hath made so by his Revelation So that they must go in their Declaration either upon Scripture or Universal Tradition but if they define any Doctrine to be necessary without these Grounds they exceed their Commission and there is no Reason to submit to their Decrees or to believe their Declarations To make this more plain by a known Instance It is most certain that several Popes and Councils have declared the Deposing Doctrine and yet our Author saith It is no Article of Faith with him Why not since the Popes and Councils have as evidently delivered it as the Council of Trent hath done Purgatory or Transubstantiation But he may say There is no Anathema joined to it Suppose there be not But why may it not be as well as in the other Cases And if it were I would know whether in his Conscience he would then believe it to be a necessary Article of Faith though he believed that it wanted Scripture and Tradition If not then he sees what this matter is brought to viz. That altho the Council of Trent declare these new Doctrines to be necessary to be believed yet if their Declaration be not built no Scripture and Universal Tradition we are not bound to receive it 2. As to the impossibility of Innovations coming in without notorious opposition I see no ground at all for it where the alteration is not made at once but proceeds gradually He may as well prove it impossible for a Man to fall into a Dropsy or a Hectick-Fever unless he can tell the punctual time when it began And he may as well argue thus Such a Man fell into a Fever upon a great Debauch and the Physicians were presently sent for to advise about him therefore the other Man hath no Chronical Distemper because he had no Physicians when he was first sick as because Councils were called against some Heresies and great Opposition made to them therefore where there is not the like there can be no Innovation But I see no Reason why we should decline giving an Account by what Degrees and Steps and upon what Occasions and with what Opposition several of the Doctrines defined at Trent were brought in For the matter is not so obscure as you would make it as to most of the Points in difference between us But that is too large a Task to be here undertaken 3. There is no Colour for calling in Question the Articles of Faith received by us on the same Grounds that we reject those defined by the Council of Trent for we have the Universal Consent of the Christian World for the Apostles Creed and of the Four General Councils for the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation who never pretended to determin any Point to be necessary which was not revealed in Scripture whose sense was delivered down by the Testimony of the Christian Church from the Apostles times But the Council of Trent proceeded by a very different Rule for it first set up an Unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith as well as the Written which although it were necessary in order to their Decrees was one of the greatest Innovations in the World and the Foundation of all the rest as they were there established An Answer to the CONCLUSION HAving thus gone through the several Heads which our Author complains have been so much Misrepresented it is now fit to consider what he saith in his Conclusion which he makes to answer his Introduction by renewing therein his doleful Complaints of their being Misrepresented just as
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
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
clear stating this Controversy these things are to be premised 1. We do not charge them that they make Gods of dead Men i. e. that they believe the Saints to be Independent Deities For this our Author confesses were a â—ost damnable Idolatry 2. We do not say that the State of the Church of Rome with respect to the Worship of dead Men is as bad as Heathenism For we acknowledg the true Saints and Martyrs to have been not only Good and Vertuous but extraordinary Persons in great Favour with God and highly deserving our Esteem and Reverence as well as Imitation whereas the Heathen Deified Men were vile and wicked Men and deserved not the common Esteem of Mankind according to the Accounts themselves give of them And we own the common Doctrine and Advantages of Christianity to be preserved in the Church of Rome 3. We do not deny that they do allow some external Acts of Worship to be so proper to God alone that they ought to be given to none else besides him And this they call Latria and we shall never dispute with them about the proper signification of a Word when the Sense is agreed unless they draw Inferences from it which ought not to be allowed To this Latria they refer not only Sacrifice but all that relates to it as Temples Altars and Priests so that by their own Confession to make these immediately and properly to the Honour of any Saint is to make a God of that Saint and to commit Idolatry 4. They confess that to pray to Saints to bestow Spiritual or Temporal Gifts upon us were to give to them the Worship proper to God who is the only Giver of all good things For else I do not understand why they should take so much pains to let us know that whatever the Forms of their Prayers and Hymns are yet the Intention and Spirit of the Church is only to desire them to pray for us and to obtain things for us by their Intercession with God But two things cannot be denied by them 1. That they do use solemn Invocation of Saints in Places of Divine Worship at the same time they make their Addresses to God himself withal the Circumstances of External Adoration with bended Knees and Eyes lifted up to Heaven and that this Practice is according to the Council Trent which not only decrees a humble Invocation of them but declares it to be impiety to condemn mental and vocal Supplication to the Saints in Heaven 2. That they do own making the Saints in Heaven to be their Mediators of Intercession but not of Redemption although Christ be our Mediator in both senses And upon these two Points this Controversy depends Let us now see what our Representer saith to them 1. His Church teaches him indeed and he believes that it is good and profitable to desire the Intercession of the Saints reigning with Christ in Heaven but that they are either Gods or his Redeemers he is no where taught but detests all such Doctrine There are two Ways of desiring the Intercession of others for us 1. By way of Friendly Request as an Act of mutual Charity and so no doubt we may desire others here on Earth to pray for us 2. By way of humble Supplication with all the external Acts of Adoration and we cannot think S. Peter or S. Paul who refused any thing like Adoration from Men would have been pleased to have seen Men fall down upon their Knees before them and in the same posture of Devotion in which they were praying to Almighty God to put their Names into the middle of their Litanies and so pray them then to pray for them But how are we sure that their Church teaches no more than this I have read over and over the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism about it and I can find no such limitation of their sense there where if if any where it ought to be found The Council of Trent mentions both the Prayers and the Help and Assistance of the Saints which they are to fly to If this Help and Assistance be no more than their Prayers why is it mentioned as distinct Why is their reigning together with Christ in Heaven spoken of but to let us understand they have a Power to Help and Assist For what is their Reigning to their Praying for us But I have a further Argument to prove the Council meant more viz. the Council knew the common Practices and Forms of Invocation then used and allowed and the general Opinion that the Saints had power to Help and Assist those who prayed to them If the Council did not approve this why did it insert the very words upon which that Practice was grounded They likewise very well knew the Complaints which had been made of these things and some of their own Communion cried shame upon some of their Hymns Wicclius saith one of them Salve Regina c. is full of downright Impiety and horrible Superstition and that others are wholly inexcusable Lud. Vives had said He found little difference in the Peoples Opinion of their Saints in many things from what the Heathens had of their Gods These things were known and it was in their Power to have redressed them by declaring what the sense of the Council was and that whatever Forms were used no more was to be understood by them but praying to them to pray for them Besides the Council of Trent in the very same Session took care about Reforming the Missal and Breviary why was no care taken to Reform these Prayers and Hymns which they say are not to be construed by the Sense of the Words but by the Sense of the Church There was time enough taken for doing it for the Reformed Missal was not published till six Years after the Council nor the Breviary till four In all that time the Prayers and Hymns might easily have been altered to the Sense of the Church if that were truly so But instead of that a very late French Writer cries out of the necessity of Reforming the Breviaries as to these things wherein he confesses Many Hymns are still remaining wherein those things are asked of Saints which ought to be asked of God alone as being delivered from the Chains of our Sins being preserved from spiritual Maladies and Hell Fire being inflamed with Charity and made fit for Heaven In good Conscience saith he is not this joining the Saints with God himself to ask those things of them which God alone can give And whatever Men talk of the Sense of the Church he confesses the very Forms and natural Sense of the Words do raise another Idea in Mens Minds which ought to be prevented But doth not the Roman Catechism explain this to be the sense of the Church I have examined that too with all the care I could about this Matter And I cannot find any Necessity from thence of putting this Sense upon them I
Divine Worship to it And St. Jerom as hot as he was against Vigâ—antius yet he utterly denied giving any Adoration to the Reliques of Martyrs It seems then it is very possible to exceed that way 2. The Question then is Whether those Acts of Worship which are allowed in the Church of Rome do not go beyond due Veneration For it is unreasonable to suppose those who give it to believe those Reliques to be Gods and therefore it must be such a Worship as is given to them supposing them to be only Reliques of such Persons The Council of Trent decrees Honour and Veneration to be given to them but never determines what is due and what not it forbids all Excesses in drinking and eating in the visiting of Reliques but not a word of Excesses in worshipping of them unless it be comprehended under the name of Superstition But Superstition lies in something forbidden according to their notion of it therefore if there be no Prohibition by the Church there can be no Superstition in the Worship of them And if they had thought there had been any in the known Practices of the Church they would certainly have mentioned them and because they did not we ought in Reason to look on them as allowed And yet not only Cassander complains of the great Superstition about them but even the Walenbergii lately confess that the Abuses therein have not only been offensive to us but to themselves too But what saith our Representer to them He believes it damnable to think there 's any Divinity in the Reliques of Saints or to adore them with Divine Honour P. 7. But what is this adoring them with Divine Honour A true Representer ought to have told us what he meant by it when the whole Controversy depends upon it Is it only saying Mass to Reliques or believing them to be Gods Is there no giving Divine Honour by Prostration burning of Incense c. Nothing in expecting help from them Yes if it be from any hidden Power of their own But here is a very hard Question If a Man doth not believe it to be an intrinsick Power in the Reliques may a Man safely go to them Opis impetrandae causà as the Council of Trent saith in hopes of Relief from them Is it not possible for the Devil to appear with Samuel's true Body and make use of the Relique of a Saint to a very bad end Then say I no Reliques can secure Men against the Imposture of Evil Spirits who by God's Permission may do strange things with the very Reliques of Saints But God hath visibly worked by them saith our Author by making them Instruments of many Miracles and it is as easie for him to do it now P. 8 9. This is the force of all he saith To which I answer 1. It is a very bold thing to call in God's Omnipotency where God himself hath never declared he will use his Power for it is under his own Command and not ours But there is no Reason to deduce the Consequence of using it now because he hath done it formerly And that they may not think this is cavilling in us I desire them to read Pere Annat's Answer to the Jansenists pretended Miracle at Port Royal viz. of the Cure wrought by one of our Saviour's Thorns There he gives another account of such Miracles than would be taken from us But where he saith It is as much for the Honour of God's Name to work such Miracles now their own Authors will tell him the contrary and that there is no such Reason now as in former times when Religion was to be confirmed by them and when Martyrs suffered upon the sole account of the Truth of it and therefore their Reputation had a great Influence upon converting the unbelieving World 2. Suppose it be granted yet it proves not any Religious Worship to be given to them For I shall seriously ask an important Question Whether they do really believe any greater Miracles have ever been done by Reliques than were done by the Brazen Serpent And yet altho that was set up by God's own Appointment when it began to be worshipped after an undue manner it was thought fit by Hezekiah to be broken in pieces What now was the undue Worship they gave to it Did they believe the Serpent which could neither move nor understand was it self a God But they did burn Incense to it And did that make a God of it Suppose Men burn Incense to Reliques What then are they made Gods presently Suppose they do not but place them upon Altars carry them in Procession fall down before them with intention to shew the Honour they do them are not these as much as burning a little Incense which could not signifie so much Honour as the other do and it is hard then to make the one unlawful and not the other V. Of the Eucharist THere are two material Points under this Head which are to be examined because he endeavours to set them off with all the advantage he can viz. Adoration of the Host and Transubstantiation I. Of the Adoration of the Host. 1. The Question is far enough from being Whether it be lawful to commit Idolatry as our Representer puts it For the Misrepresenter saith That a Papist believes it lawful to commit Idolatry and to clear this our Author gravely saith He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry Pag. 9. As tho any Men ever owned it to be lawful Which is as if the Question were Whether such a Man committed Adultery and he should think to clear himself by saying he believed it unlawful to commit Adultery 2. The Question is not Whether Christ may be lawfully adored by us in the Celebration of the Eucharist which we are so far from denying that our Church requires our receiving it in the posture of Adoration 3. The true Question is Whether the Body of Christ being supposed to be present in the Host by Transubstantiation be a sufficient ground to give the same Adoration to the Host which they would do to the Person of Christ And that this is the true state of the Question will appear by these things 1. The Council of Trent first defined Transubstantiation and from thence inferred Adoration of the Host as is most evident to any one that will read the fourth and fifth Decrees of the 13th Session Nullus itaque dubitandi locus c. i. e. If Transubstantiation be true then Adoration follows It 's true the sixth Canon only speaks of Christ being there worshipped but that ought to be compared with the first second and fourth Canons where the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is fully set down as the Foundation of that Adoration 2. The Adoration is not fixed on the Person of Christ as separate from the Host but as making one Object of Worship together with it And so the Council of Trent declares in the sixth Decree when it saith The Sacrament is never the less to be
adored because it was instituted to be received This cannot be otherwise understood than as relating to the Sacrament and so that whatever it be must be granted to be the Object of Adoration By the Sacrament saith Cardinal Pallavicini is understood the Object made up of the Body of Christ and the Accidents The Worship then being confessed to be Adoration which is due to God alone and that Adoration directed to the Sacrament as its proper Object the Question now is Whether such a Supposition in the Sacrament doth justify that Adoration Our Author saith He accounteth it most damnable to worship or adore any Breaden God or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine p. 9. Then I say by his own confession if it be only Bread he commits Idolatry for the Adoration he cannot deny But our Representer loves ambiguous Expressions which to the People sound very well but have no sincere meaning for what is it he understands by his Breaden God If it be that he worships a God which himself supposes to be nothing but Bread we do not charge him with it but if it be what we believe it to be the Substance of Bread but himself believes to be turned into the Body of Christ then he cannot deny his Adoration to be given to it All that can excuse them is the Supposition and whether that will or not is now to be consider'd 1. If it be not true themselves grant it to be Idolatry The Testimonies of Bishop Fisher and Costerus are so well known to the purpose that I shall not repeat them And Catharinus a Divine of Note in the Council of Trent confesses it is Idolatry to worship an unconsecrated Host altho the Person through a Mistake believes it Consecrated And he quotes St. Thomas and Paludanus for his Opinion and gives this Reason for it because Christ is not worshipped simply in the Sacrament but as he is under the Species and therefore if he be not so present a Creature hath Divine Worship given it As those were guilty of Idolatry who worshipped any Creatures of old supposing God to be there as that he was the Soul of the World They were not excused saith he that they thought they worshipped but one God because they worshipped him as present in such a manner as he was not And this Book of his he saith in the Review of it was seen and approved by the Pope's Order by their Divines at Paris 2. If the Bread were taken to be God our Author doth not deny it would be Idolatry for that were to worship a breaden God Yet here would be a Mistake and a gross one yet the Mistake would not excuse the Persons committing it from most damnable Idolatry as he confesses Why then should the other Mistake excuse them when they suppose the Substance of the Bread not to be there but the Body of Christ to be under the Species Yes say they then no Creature is supposed to be the Object of Worship But when the Bread is supposed to be God it must be supposed not to be a Creature There is no Answer to be given in this Case but that the Bread really is a Creature whatsoever they imagined and if this Mistake did not excuse neither can the other 2. Of Transubstantiation Three Things our Author goes upon with respect to this 1. He supposes Christ's words to be clear for it 2. He shews the possibility of it from God's Omnipotency 3. He argues against the Testimony or Evidence of Sense or Reason in this Case from some parallel Instances as he thinks 1. He believes Jesus Christ made his words good pronounced at his last Supper really giving his Body and Blood to his Apostles the Substance of Bread and Wine being by his powerful words changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of the Bread and Wine remaining as before The same he believes of the Eucharist consecrated now by Priests This is a very easy way of taking it for granted that the words are clear for Transubstantiation And from no better Ground to fly to God's Omnipotency to make it good is as if one should suppose Christ really to be turned into a Rock a Vine a Door because the words are every jot as clear and then call in God's Omnipotency which is as effectual to make them good I confess these words are so far from being clear to me for Transubstantiation that if I had never heard of it I should never have thought of it from these or any other words of Scripture i. e. not barely considering the sound of words but the Eastern Idioms of speaking the Circumstances of our Saviour's real Body at that time when he spake them the uncouth way of feeding on Christ's real Body without any Objection made against it by his Disciples The Key our Saviour elsewhere gives for understanding the manner of eating his Flesh and withal if these words be literally and strictly understood they must make the Substance of Bread to be Christ's Body for that is unavoidably the literal sense of the words For can any Men take This to be any thing but this Bread who attend to the common sense and meaning of Words and the strict Rules of Interpretation Yet this sense will by no means be allow'd for then all that can be infer'd from these words is that when Christ spake these words The Bread was his Body But either Christ meant the Bread by This or he did not if he did the former Proposition is unavoidable in the literal Sense if he did not then by virtue of these words the Bread could never be turned into the Body of Christ. For that only could be made the Body of Christ which was meant when Christ said This is my Body This seems to me to be as plain and convincing as any Demonstration in Euclid Which hath often made me wonder at those who talk so confidently of the plain Letter of Scripture being for this Doctrine of Transubstantiation But several Divines of the Church of Rome understood themselves better and have confessed That this Doctrine could not be drawn out of the literal sense of these words as it were easy to shew if it had not been lately done already It is enough here to observe that Vasquez confesseth it of Scotus Durandus Paludanus Ockam Cameracensis and himself yields that they do not and cannot signify expresly the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body of Christ. For how can This is my Body literally signify this is changed into my Body If that Proposition were literally true This is my Body it overthrows the change For how can a thing be changed into that which it is already 2. He believes Christ being equal to his Father in Truth and Omnipotency can make his Words good We do not in the least dispute Christ's Omnipotency but we may their familiar way of making use of it
fixed Principles of Reason in Mankind concerning the Nature and Properties of Bodies For 1. We must still suppose the Body of Christ to be the very same individual Body which suffered upon the Cross but if it have no extension of Parts and be reckoned independent upon Place it ceaseth to be a Body It is granted that after a natural way of Existence a Body cannot be in more Places than one but let the way of Existence be what it will if it be a Body it must be finite if finite it must be limited and circumscribed if it be circumscribed within one place it cannot be in more places for that is to make it circumscribed and not circumscribed undivided from it self and divided from it self at the same time Which is a manifest Contradiction which doth not depend only on Quantity or Extension but upon the essential Unity of a Body 2. If it be possible for a Body to be in several Places by a Supernatural Existence why may not the same Body be in several Places by a Natural Existence Is it not because Extension and Circumscription are so necessary to it that in a natural Way it can be but in one Place Then it follows that these are essential Properties of Bodies so that no true Body can be conceived without them 3. This Supernatural Existence doth not hinder the Body's being individually present in on Place My meaning is this A Priest Consecrates an Host at London and another at York is the Body of Christ at London so present there by virtue of Consecration as to be present at York too by this Supernatural Existence What then doth the Consecration at York produce If it be not then its Presence is limited to the Host where the Consecration is made and if it be so limited then this supernatural Existence cannot take off its Relation to Place 4. The same Body would be liable to the greatest Contradictions imaginable For the same Body after this supernatural way of Existence may not only be above and below within and without near and far off from it self but it may be hot and cold dead and alive yea in Heaven and Hell at once 5. What is it that makes it still a Body after this supernatural way of Existence c. if it lose extension and dependency on Place If it be only an aptitude to extension when that supernatural Existence is taken off then it must either be without Quantity or with it If it be without quantity how can it be a Body If with quantity how is it possible to be without Extension 6. This confounds all the differencs of Greater and Less as well as of Distance and Nearness For upon this Supposition a thing really greater may be contained within a less for the whole Original Body of Christ with all its Parts may be brought within the compass of a Waser and the whole be in every part without any distance between Head and Feet 7. This makes Christ to have but one Body and yet to have as many Bodies as there are consecrated Hosts No saith our Author This supernatural manner of Existence is without danger of multiplying his Body or making as many Christs as Altars P. 11. But how this can be is past all human Understanding For every Consecration hath its Effect which is supposed to be the Conversion of the Substance of the Bread into the Body of Christ. Now when a Priest at London converts the Bread into the Body of Christ there he doth it not into the Body of Christ at York but the Priest there doth it therefore the Body of Christ at London is different from that at York or else the Conversion at London would be into the Body as at York But if not what is the substantial Term of this substantial Change where nothing but an accidental Mode doth follow If there be any such Term whether that must not be a Production of something which was not before and if it be so Christ must have as many new Bodies as there are Consecrations 8. This makes that which hath no particular Subsistence of its own to be the Subject of a substantial Change for this is the condition of Christ's Body whatever its manner of Existence be after the Hypostatical Union to the Divine Nature For when Bellarmin Petavius and others of their greatest Divines undertake against Nestorius to explain the Hypostatical Union they tell us it consists in this that the Human Nature loseth its proper Subsistence and is assumed into the Subsistence of the Divine Nature From whence I infer That the Body of Christ having no proper Subsistence of its own there can be no substantial Change into that which hath no proper Subsistence but into that which hath and consequently the Change must be into the Divine Nature principally from whence it will follow the Elements losing their Subsistence upon Consecration the Divinity must be united hypostatically to them as to the Human Nature and so there will be as many Hypostatical Unions as there are Consecrations And so this Doctrine not only confounds Sense and Reason but the Mysteries of Christ's Incarnation too Which I think is sufficient for this Head VI. Of Merits and Good Works FOR the true stating this Controversy we are to observe 1. That we do not charge those of the Church of Rome That they believe Christ's Death and Passion to be ineffectual and insignificant and that they have no dependence on the Merits of his Sufferings or the Mercy of God for attaining Salvation but that they are to be saved only by their own Merits and Good Works as the Misrepresenter saith Pag. 12. 2. We do not charge them with denying the necessity of Divine Grace in order to Merit or with asserting that they can merit independently thereupon 3. We do by no means dispute about the Necessity of Good Works in order to the Reward of another Life or assert that Christ's Merits will save Men without working out their own Salvation but do firmly believe that God will judg Men according to their Works The Question then is Whether the Good Works of a just Man as our Author expresses it are truly meritorious of Eternal Life Which he affirms but qualifies with saying That they proceed from Grace and that through God's Goodness and Promise they are truly meritorious But the Council of Trent denounces an Anathema against those who deny the Good Works of justified Persons to be truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and of Eternal Life Here then lies the Point in difference 1. Whether such Good Works can be said to be truly meritorious 2. Whether those who deny it deserve an Anathema for so doing As to what relates to God's Acceptance and Allowance and his Goodness and Promise we freely own all that he saith about it and if no more be meant what need an Anathema about this matter There must therefore be something beyond this when Good Works are
We are glad to find that our Author declares That no Man receives benefit by Absolution without Repentance from the bottom of his Heart and real Intention of forsaking his Sins P. 15. by which we hope he means more than Attrition But yet there are some things which stick with us as to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome in this matter which he takes no notice of 1. That secret Confession of Sins to a Priest is made so necessary to Salvation that an Anathema is denounced against all that deny it when they cannot deny that God doth forgive Sins upon true Contrition Forthe Council of Trent doth say That Contrition with Charity doth reconcile a Man to God before the Sacrament of Penance be actually received But then it adds That the desire of Confession is included in Contrition Which is impossible to be proved by Scripture Reason or Antiquity For so lately as in the time of the Master of the Sentences and Gratian in the 12th Centurie it was a very disputable Point whether Confession to a Priest were necessary And it is very hard for us to understand how that should become necessary to Salvation since which was not then Some of their own Writers confess that some good Catholicks did not believe the necessity of it I suppose the old Canonists may pass for good Catholicks and yet Maldonat saith That all the Interpreters of the Decrees held that there was no Divine Precept for Confession to a Priest and of the same Opinion he grants Scotus to have been But he thinks it is now declared to be Heresy or he wishes it were And we think it is too much already unless there were better ground for it 2. That an Anathema is denounced against those who do not understand the words of Christ Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. of the Sacrament of Penance so as to imply the Necessity of Confession Whereas there is no appearance in the words of any such Sense and themselves grant that in order to the Remission of Sins by Baptism of whch St. Matthew and St. Mark speak in the Apostles Commission there is no necessity of Sacramental Confession but a General Confession is sufficient And from hence the Elder Jansenius concludes That the Power of Remission of Sins here granted doth not imply Sacramental Confession Cajetan yields There is no Command for Confession here And Catharinus adds That Cajetan would not allow any one Place of Scripture to prove Auricular Confession And as to this particular he denies that there is any Command for it and he goes not about to prove it but that Cajetan contradicts himself elsewhere viz. when he wrote School-Divinity before he set himself to the study of the Scriptures Vasquez saith That if these words may be understood of Baptism none can infer from them the Necessity of Auricular Confession But Gregory de Valentia evidently proves that this place doth relate to Remission of Sins in Baptism not only from the Comparison of Places but from the Testimonies of S. Cyprian S. Ambrose and others 3. That it is expressed in the same Anathema's that this hath been always the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church from the beginning We do not deny the ancient practice either of Canonical Confession as part of the Discipline of the Church for publick Offences nor of Confession for ease and satisfaction of the perplexed Minds of doubting or dejected Penitents but that which we say was not owned nor practised by the Church from the Beginning was this Sacramental Confession as necessary to the Remission of Sins before God It is therefore to no purpose to produce out of Bellarmine and others a great number of Citations to prove that which we never deny but if they hold to the Council of Trent they must prove from the Fathers that Sins after Baptism cannot be forgiven without Confession to Men Which those who consider what they do will never undertake there being so many Testimonies of undoubted Antiquity against it And it is observable that Bonaventure grants that before the Lateran Decree of Innocentius 3. it was no Heresy to deny the Necessity of Confession and so he excuses those who in the time of Lombard and Gratian held that Opinion And all other Christians in the World besides those of the Church of Rome do to this day reject the Necessity of Particular Confession to a Priest in order to Remission as the Writers of the Church of Rome themselves confess So Godignus doth of the Abyssins Philippus à SS Trinitate of the Jacobites Clemens Galanus of the Nestorians who saith ' They made a Decree against the use of Confession to any but to God alone And Alexius Meneses of the Christians of of S. Thomas in the Indies The Greeks believe Confession only to be of Positive and Ecclesiastical Institution as the late Author of the Critical History of the Faith and Customs of the Eastern Nations proves And the very Form of their Absolution declares that they do not think particular Confession of all known Sins necessary to Pardon for therein the Priest absolves the Penitent from the Sins he hath not confessed through forgetfulness or shame And now let any one prove this to have been a Catholick Tradition by Vincentius his Rules viz. That it hath been always received every where and by All. VIII Of Indulgences 1. THey must be extreamly ignorant who take the Power of Indulgences to be a Leave from the Pope to commit what Sins they please and that by vertue thereof they shall escape Punishment for their Sins without repentance in another World Yet this is the sense of the Misrepresentation which he saith is made of it And if he saith true in his Preface That he hath described the Belief of a Papist exactly according to the apprehension he had when he was a Protestant He shews how well he understood the Matters in Difference when I think no other Person besides himself ever had such an apprehension of it who pretended to be any thing like a Scholar 2. But now he believes it damnable to hold that the Pope or any other Power in Heaven or Earth can give him leave to commit any Sins whatsoever or that for any Sum of Mony he can obtain any Indulgence or Pardon for Sins that are to be committed by him or his Heirs hereafter Very well But what thinks he of obtaining an Indulgence or Pardon after they are committed Is no such thing to be obtained in the Court of Rome for a Sum of Mony He cannot but have heard of the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber for certain Sins and what Sums are there set upon them Why did he not as freely speak against this This is published in the vast Collection of Tracts of Canon Law set forth by the Pope's Authority where there are certain Rates for Perjury Murder Apostacy c. Now
what do these Sums of Mony mean If they be small it is so much the better Bargain for the Sins are very great And Espencaeus complains that this Book was so far from being called in that he saith the Pope's Legats renewed those Faculties and confirmed them It seems then a Sum of Mony may be of some consequence towards the obtaining Pardon for a Sin past though not for a Licence to commit it But what mighty difference is there whether a Man procures with Mony a Dispensation or a Pardon For the Sin can hurt him no more than if he had Licence to commit it 3. He doth believe there is a Power in the Church to grant Indulgences which he saith concern not at all the Remission of Sins either Mortal or Venial but only of some Temporal Punishments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted Here now arises a Material Question viz. Whether the Popes or the Representer be rather to be believed If the Popes who grant the Indulgences to be believed then not only the bare Remission of Sins is concerned in them but the Plenary and most Plenary Remission of Sins is to be had by them So Boniface the 8th in his Bull of Jubilee granted Non solum plenam largiorem imo plenissimam veniam peccatorum If these words had no relation to Remission of Sins the People were horribly cheated by the sound of them In the Bull of Clement the 6th not extant in the Bullarium but published out of the Utrecht Manuscript not only a Plenary Absolution from all Sins is declared to all Persons who died in the way to Rome but he commands the Angels of Paradise to carry the Soul immediatly to Heaven And I suppose whatever implies such an Absolution as carries a Soul to Heaven doth concern Remission of Sins Boniface the 9th granted Indulgences à Poenâ à Culpâ and those certainly concerned Remission of Sins being not barely from the Temporal Punishment but from the Guilt it self Clement the 8th whom Bellarmine magnifies for his care in reforming Indulgences in his Bull of Jubilee grants a most Plenary Remission of Sins and Urban the 8th since him not only a Relaxation of Penances but Remission of Sins and so lately as A. D. 1671. Clement the 10th published an Indulgence upon the Canonization of five new Saints wherein he not only grants a Plenary Indulgence of Sins but upon invocation of one of these Saints in the point of Death a Plenary Indulgence of all his Sins And what doth this signify in the point of Death if it do not concern the Remission of Sins 4. Indulgences he saith are nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation upon just Causes of Canonical Penances which are or may be enjoyned by the Pastors of the Church on penitent Sinners according to their several degrees of Demerits If by Canonical Penances they mean those enjoyned by the Penitential Canons Greg. de Valentia saith This Opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things Bellarmine brings several Arguments against this Doctrine 1. There would be no need of the Treasure of the Church which he had proved to be the Foundation of Indulgences 2. They would be rather hurtful than profitable and the Church would deceive her Children by them 3. They could not be granted for the Dead 4. They who receive Indulgences do undergo Canonical Penances 5. The form of them doth express that they do relate to God and not only to the Church And this I think is sufficient to shew how far he is from true Representing the Nature of Indulgences for we do not dispute the Churche's Power in relaxing Canonical Penances to Penitent Sinners upon just Causes IX Of Satisfaction 1. HE believes it damnable to think any thing injuriously of Christ's Passion But then he distinguishes the Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin As to the Guilt and Eternal Pain the Satisfaction he saith â— proper to Christ but as to the Temporal Pain which mâ—â— remain due by God's Justice after the other are remitted he saith that Penitent Sinners may in some measure satisfy for that by Prayer Fasting Alms c. p. 17. 2. These Penitential Works he saith are no otherwise satisfactory than as joined and applied to Christ's Satisfaction in virtue of which alone our good Works find a grateful acceptance in God's sight p. 19. But for right apprehending the State of the Controversy we must consider 1. That they grant both Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin to be remitted in Baptism so that all the Satisfaction to be made is for Sins committed after Baptism 2. We distinguish between Satisfaction to the Church before Absolution and Satisfaction to the Justice of God for some part of the punishment to Sin which is unremitted 3. We do not deny that truly Penitential Works are pleasing to God so as to avert his Displeasure but we deny that there can be any Compensation in way of equivalency between what we suffer and what we deserve The Matter in Controversy therefore on this Head consists in these things 1. That after the total Remission of Sins in Baptism they suppose a Temporal Punishment to remain when the Eternal is forgiven which the Penitent is to satisfy God's Justice for and without this being done in this Life he must go into Purgatory for that End Of which more under that Head 2. That this Satisfaction may be made to the Justice of God after Absolution is given by the Priest So that although the Penitent be admitted into God's Favour by the power of the Keys according to their own Doctrine yet the Application of the Merits of Christ together with the Saints in the Sentence of Absolution according to their Form do not set him so free but he either wants a new Supply from the Treasure of the Church i. e. from the same Merits of Christ and the Saints or else he is to satisfie for the Temporal Punishment by his own Penances 3. That these penitential Works are to be joyned with the Merits of Christ in the way of proper Satisfaction to Divine Justice And however softly this may be expressed the meaning is that Christ hath merited that we may merit and by his Satisfaction we are enabled to satisfie for our selves And if the Satisfaction by way of Justice be taken away the other will be a Controversy about Words 4. That these penitential Works may not only be sufficient for themselves but they may be so over-doing that a great share may be taken from them to make up the Treasure of the Church for the benefit of others who fall short when they are duly applied to them in the way of Indulgences And about these Points we must desire greater Proof than we have yet ever seen X. Of reading the Holy Scripture 1. HE believes it damnable in any one to think speak or do any thing irreverently
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
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
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
of Antiquity be allow'd to be a Commemorative Sacrifice as it takes in the whole Action but whether in the Mass there be such a Representation made to God of Christ's Sacrifice as to be it self a true and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead Now all that our Representer saith to the purpose is 1. That Christ bequeathed his Body and Blood at his last Supper under the Species of Bread and Wine not only a Sacrament but also a Sacrifice I had thought it had been more proper to have offered a Sacrifice than to have bequeathed it And this ought to have been proved as the Foundation of this Sacrifice viz. That Christ did at his last Supper offer up his Body and Blood as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God And then what need his suffering on the Cross 2. He gave this in charge to his Apostles as the first and chief Priests of the New-Testament and to their Successors to offer But Where When and How For we read nothing at all of it in Scripture Christ indeed did bid them do the same thing he had there done in his last Supper But did he then offer up himself or not If not How can the Sacrifice be drawn from his Action If he did it is impossible to prove the necessity of his dying afterwards 3. This Sacrifice was never questioned till of late years We say it was never determined to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice till of late We do not deny the Fathers interpreting Mal. 1. 11. of an Offering under the Gospel but they generally understand it of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Sacrifices and although some of them by way of Accommodation do apply it to the Eucharist yet not one of them doth make it a Propitiatory Sacrifice which was the thing to be proved For we have no mind to dispute about Metaphorical Sacrifices when the Council of Trent so positively decrees it to be a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice XXIII Of PURGATORY HEre our Author begins with proving from Scripture and Antiquity and then undertakes to explain the Doctrine of Purgatory from substantial Reasons 1. As to his Proof from Scripture 1. Is that from 2 Maccab. c. 12. where he saith Money was sent to Jerusalem that Sacrifices might be offered for the slain and 't is recommended as a Holy Cogitation to pray for the dead To this which is the main foundation of Purgatory I answer 1. It can never prove such a Purgatory as our Author asserts For he supposes a Sinner reconciled to God as to eternal Punishment before he be capable of Purgatory but here can be no such supposition for these Men died in the sin of Achan which was not known till their Bodies were found among the slain Here was no Confession or any sign of Repentance and therefore if it proves any thing it is deliverance from Eternal Punishment and for such as dye in their Sins without any shew of Repentance 2. We must distinguish the Fact of Judas from the interpretation of Jason or his Epitomizer The Fact of Judas was according to the strictness of the Law which required in such Cases a Sin-Offering and that is all which the Greek implies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so Leo Allatius confesses all the best Greek Copies agree and he reckons Twelve of them Now what doth this imply but that Judas remembring the severe punishment of this Sin in the Case of Achan upon the People sent a Sin-offering to Jerusalem But saith Leo Allatius It was the sin of those men that were slain I grant it But the Question is Whether the Sin-offering respected the dead or the living For the Law in such a Case required a Sin-offering for the Congregation And why should not we believe so punctual a Man for the Law as Judas did strictly observe it in this point But the Author of the Book of Macchabees understands it of those that were slain I do not deny it but then 3. We have no Reason to rely upon his Authority in this matter which I shall make appear by a parallel Instance He doth undoubtedly commend the fact of Razias in Killing himself 2. Macc. 14. 42. when he saith he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like a brave Man and if he had thought it a fault in him he would never have given such a Character of it but he would have added something of Caution after it And it is no great advantage to Purgatory for him that commends Self-murder to have introduced it The most probable account I can give of it is That the Alexandrian Jews of whose number Jason of Cyrene seems to have been had taken in several of the Philosophical Opinions especially the Platonists into their Religion as appears by Philo and Bellarmin himself confesses that Plato held a Purgatory and they were ready to apply what related to the Law to their Platonick Notions So here the Law appointed a Sin-offering with respect to the Living but Jason would needs have this refer to the dead and then sets down his own remark upon it That it was a holy cogitation to pray for the dead as our Author renders it If it were holy with respect to the Law there must be some ground for it in the Law And that we appeal to and do not think any particular Fancies sufficient to introduce such a Novelty as this was which had no Foundation eithe◠in the Law or the Prophets And it woul be strange for a new Doctrine to be set up when the Spirit of Prophecy was ceased among them But S. August hold these Books for Canonical and saith they are so received by the Church l. 18. de Civit De◠To answer this it is sufficient to observe not only the different opinions of others before mentioned as to these Books But that as Canus notes it was then lawful to doubt of their Authority And he goes as low as Gregory I. Whom he denies not to have rejected them And I hope we may set the Authority of one against the other especially when S. August in himself being pressed hard with the fact of Razias confesses 1. That the Jews have not the Book of Macchabees in their Canon as they have the Law the Prophets and the Psalms to whom our Lord gave Testimony as to his Witnesses Which is an evident Proof he thought not these Books sufficient to ground a Doctrine upon which was not found in the other 2. That however this Book was not unprofitably received by the Church if it be soberly read and heard Which implies a greater Caution than S. Augustin would ever have given concerning a Book he believed truely Canonical But saith Bellarmin his meaning is only to keep men from imitating the Example of Razias whereas that which they pressed S. August in with was not meerly the Fact but the Character that is given of it Sanctarum Scripturarum Auctoritate laudatus est
Razias are their very Words in S. Augustin And therefore the Caution relates to the Books and not meerly to his Example And he lessens the Character given by the Author when he saith He chose to dye nobly It had been better saith he to have died humbly But the other is the Elogium given in the Heathen Histories and better becomes brave Heathens than true Martyrs Can any one now think S. Augustin believed this Writer Divinely inspired or his Doctrine sufficient to ground a point of Faith upon And I wonder they should not every jot as well commend Self-Murder as an Heroical Act as prove the Doctrine of Purgatory from these words of Jason or his Epitomizer For the Argument from the Authority of the Book will hold as strongly for one as the other And yet this is the Achilles for Purgatory which Natalis Alexander whom our Author follows in this matter saith is a Demonstrative Place against those that deny it But I must proceed 2. Purgatory is plainly intimated by our Saviour Matt. 12. 32. Whosoever speaketh against the Holy-Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world neither in the world to come By which words Christ evidently supposes that some sins are forgiven in the world to come I am so far from discerning this plain intimation that I wonder how any came to think of it out of this place Well! But doth it not hence follow that Sins may be forgiven in the World to come Not near so plainly as that Sins will not be forgiven in the World to come Not That particular Sin but others may How doth that appear What intimation is there that any Sins not forgiven here shall be forgiven there Or that any Sins here remitted as to the Eternal Punishment shall be there remitted as to the Temporal And without such a kind of Remission nothing can be inferred from hence But if there be a Remission in another World it can be neither in Heaven nor Hell therefore it must be in Purgatory But those who own a Remission of Sins in another World say it will be on the Day of Judgment For the actual Deliverance of the Just from Punishment may be not improperly called the full Remission of their Sins So S. Augustin whom he quotes plainly saith Si nulla remitterentur in judicio illo novissimo c. c. Julian l. 6. c. 5. where it is evident S. Augustin takes this place to relate to the Day of Judgment and so in the other De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 24. But as he supposed a Remission so he did a Purgation as by Fire in that day In illo judicio poenas quasdam purgatorias futuras De Civit. Dei l. 20. c. 25. And so he is to be understood on Psal. 37. to which he applies 1 Cor. 3. 15. But our Author was very much out when he saith S. Augustin applied 1 Pet. 3. 15. to some place of temporal Chastisement in another World when Bellarmin sets himself to confute S. Augustin about it as understanding it of this World And therefore he hath little cause to boast of S. Augustins Authority about Purgatory unless he had brought something more to the purpose out of him His other Testimonies of Antiquity are not worth considering which he borrows from Natalis Alexander that of Dionysius Areopag Eccl. Hierarch c. 7. is a known Counterfeit and impertinent relating to a Region of Rest and Happiness And so do Tertullians Oblations for the dead De Cor. Milit. c. 3. For they were Eucharistical as appears by the Ancient Liturgies being made for the greatest Saints St. Cyprian Ep. 66. speaks of an Oblation for the dead and he there mentions the Natalitia of the Martyrs but by comparing that with his Epist. 33. it will be found that he speaks of the Anniversary Commemoration of the dead which signifies nothing to Purgatory for the best men were put into it and St. Cyprian threatens it as a Punishment to be left out of the Diptychs but surely it is none to escape Purgatory Arnobius l. 4. only speaks of praying for the dead which we deny not to have been then used in the Church not with respect to any temporary pains in Purgatory but to the Day of Judgment And therein lies the true state of the Controversie with respect to Antiquity which is not Whether any solemn prayers were not then made for the dead But whether those prayers did relate to their deliverance out of a state of Punishment before the Day of Judgment For whatever state Souls were then supposed to be in before the great Day if there could be no deliverance till the Day of Judgment it signisies nothing to the present Question As to the Vision of Perpetua concerning her Brother Dinocrates who died at Seven Years old being baptized it is hardly reconcilable to their own Doctrine to suppose such a Soul in Purgatory I will not deny that Perpetua did think she saw him in a worse condition and thought likewise that by her Prayers she brought him into a better for she saw him playing like little children and then she awaked and concluded that she had given him ease But is it indeed come to this that such a Doctrine as Purgatory must be built on such a Foundation as this I do not call in question the Acts of Perpetua nor her sincerity in relating her Dream but must the Church build her Doctrines upon the Dreams or Visions of Young Ladies tho very devout for Ubia Perpetua was then but Twenty Two as she saith her self But none are to be blamed who make use of the best supports their Cause will afford It is time now to see what strength of Reason he offers for Purgatory 1. He saith When a Sinner is reconciled to God tho the eternal Punishment due to his sins is always remitted yet there sometimes remains a temporal Penalty to be undergone as in the case of the Israelites and David But doth it hence follow that there is a Temporal Penalty that must be undergone either here or hereafter without which there will be no need of Purgatory Who denies that God in this Life for example sake may punish those whose sins he hath promised to remit as to another World This is therefore a very slender Foundation 2. There are some sins of their own nature light and venial I will not dispute that but suppose there be must men go then into Purgatory for mere Venial Sins What a strange Doctrine doth this appear to any Mans Reason That God should forgive the greater sins and require so severe a punishment for sins in their own Nature venial i. e. so inconsiderable in their Opinion that no man is bound to confess them which do not interrupt a State of Grace which require only an implicite detestation of them which do not deserve eternal punishment which may be remitted by Holy Water or a Bishops Blessing as their Divines agree
that Language which the Person to whom he makes it doth understand but not his own But all Languages are alike to Gods Infinite Wisdom and so there can be no pretence on that account to keep only to some particular Tongues tho unknown to the Party and if it were so to all men no man would have a Petition presented in a Language which he did not know But in Prayer to God the design of it is not to acquaint him with something which he knew not but to excite the hearts and affections of men to an earnest desire of the things which are fit for them to ask Now let any man undertake to prove that mens affections are as easily moved by Words they do not understand as by those they do and I will give up this Cause XXV Of the Second Commandment THE Dispute about this is not Whether the Second Commandment may be found in any of their Books but by what Authority it comes to be left out in any As he confesses it is in their short Catechisms and Manuals But not only in these for I have now before me the Reformed Office of the Blessed Virgin Printed at Salamanca A. D. 1588. published by Order of Pius V. where it is so left out And so in the English Office at Antwerp A. D. 1658. I wish he had told us in what publick Office of their Church it is to be found But himself pleads for the leaving it out when he saith The People are in no danger of Superstition or Idolatry by it since the First Commandment secures them from it and there is nothing in this but what is vertually contained in the First and is rather an Explanation than a new and distinct Precept But is this so plain and clear that a Mans Conscience can never make any just and reasonable Doubt concerning it There is a terrible sanction after it and men had need go upon very good Grounds in a matter of such moment Hath God himself any where declared this to be only an Explication of the First Commandment Have the Prophets or Christ and his Apostles ever done it How then can any mans Conscience be safe in this matter For it is not a trifling Controversie whether it be a distinct Commandment or an Explication of the First but the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of the Worship of Images depends very much upon it For if it be only an Explication of the First then unless one takes Images to be Gods their Worship is lawful and so the Heathens were excused in it who were not such Ideots But if it be a new and distinct Precept then the Worshipping any Image or Similitude becomes a grievous sin and exposes men to the Wrath of God in that severe manner mentioned in the end of it And it is a great confirmation that this is the true meaning of it because all the Primitive Writers of the Christian Church not only thought it a Sin against this Commandment but insisted upon the force of it against those Heathens who denied that they took their Images for Gods And therefore this is a very insufficient Account of leaving out the Second Commandment XXVI Of Mental Reservations UNder this Head he denies Two Things 1. That they are ever taught to break Faith with Hereticks 2. That their Church doth allow any Equivocations or Mental Reservations As to the former I am sincerely glad to find a Principle so destructive to all humane Society so utterly disowned when he saith He is taught to keep Faith with all sorts of People of whatsoever judgment or perswasion they be and to stand to his Word and observe his Promise given or made to any whatsoever And whatever Opinions and Practices there may have been of that kind formerly we hope there will never be occasion given to revive that dispute 2. As to the Second We embrace his Declaration against it and hope there is no Equivocation or mental Reservation in it But there are some things which must here be taken Notice of 1. He cannot deny that there are Authors in Communion with his Church which may be charged with teaching another Doctrine and those not a few nor inconsiderable who not only allow the Practice of Mental Reservations and Equivocations but say with great confidence it hath been received in the Roman Church for no less than Four hundred years and that in some Cases they are all still agreed in it See Parsons Treatise of Mitigation c. 7. Sect. 2. 3. c. 10. Sect. 1. 2. We do not deny that Innocent XI hath condemned Equivocations and Mental Reservations in Swearing as at least Scandalous and Pernicious in Practise and therefore we cannot charge the Pope with abetting this Doctrine But we cannot but reflect on what our Author said about the Deposing Doctrine That although Popes had believed it and acted by it yet the greater number opposed it And what shall we say in this Case if the Generality of their Casuists in some Cases approve it and think it no Lie or Perjury as in that of Confession but if it be really so in any one Case then it may be some other fault but it is not a Lie or Perjury in any other when a Man doth not think himself bound to speak all he knows 3. That as we highly commend the Popes condemning such Doctrines and Practises now so we have Reason to think the contrary did not once want the encouragement and approbation of the Roman See As may be sound in the Resolution of some Cases by Pius V. relating to some Missionaries who were to be sent hither and then it was declared That if they were summon'd before our Judges they might Sophistice Jurare Sophistice Respondere and that they were not bound to answer according to the Intention of the Judges but according to some true sense of their own i. e. which was made true by the help of a Mental Reservation But it is very well that now the very same things are condemned at Rome as Scandalous and Pernicious in Practise XXVII Of a Death-Bed Repentance WE have no difference with them about this matter as far as they hold to these points 1. That Men are strictly obliged to Work out their Salvation with fear and trembling in time of Health 2. That it is very dangerous to defer their Repentance to the last 3. That if any are surprized they ought in Charity to have all possible assistance to put them into the best way for their Salvation But yet there may be some particular Doctrines owned in the Church of Rome which may give men too much encouragement to put off true Repentance as 1. The easiness of being put into a state of Grace by the Sacrament of Penance for which no more is required than removing the impediment as appears by the Council of Trent Sess. 7. Can. 6. and afterwards it defines that bare Attrition doth sufficiently dispose a Man to receive Grace
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