unclean thing should enter into Heaven if the guilt and the stain be remov'd what uncleanness can there be left behinde Indeed Simon Magus as Epiphanius reports Haeres 20. did teach That after the death of the body there remain'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purgation of souls But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an authentick Doctor themselves can best tell 3. It relies upon this also That God requires of us a full exchange of Penances and Satisfactions which must regularly be paid here or hereafter even by them who are pardon'd here which if it were true we were all undone 4. That the Death of Christ his Merits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye nor as it may happen of a long time after All which being Propositions new and uncertain invented by the School Divines and brought ex postfacto to dress this opinion and make it to seem reasonable and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins by Grace of the righteousness of Faith and the infinite value of Christs Death must needs lay a great prejudice of Novelty upon the Doctrine it self which but by these cannot be supported But to put it past suspition and conjectures Roffensis and Polydore Virgil affirm That whoso searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers shall finde that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory and that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it But for the Catholick Church it was but lately known to her But before we say any more in this Question we are to premonish That there are Two great causes of their mistaken pretensions in this Article from Antiquity The first is That the Ancient Churches in their Offices and the Fathers in their Writings did teach and practice respectively prayer for the Dead Now because the Church of Rome does so too and more than so relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory and for the souls there detain'd her Doctors vainly suppose that when ever the H. Fathers speak of prayer for the dead that they conclude for Purgatory which vain conjecture is as false as it is unreasonable For it is true the Fathers did pray for the dead but how That God would shew them mercy and hasten the resurrection and give a blessed sentence in the great day But then it is also to be remembred that they made prayers and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory euen for the Patriarchs and Prophets for the Apostles and Evangelists for Martyrs and Confessors and especially for the blessed Virgin Mary So we finde it in Epiphanius S. Cyril and in the Canon of the Greeks and so it is acknowledged by their own Durantus and in their own Mass-book anciently they prayed for the soul of S. Leo Of which because by their latter doctrines they grew asham'd they have chang'd the prayer for him into a prayer to God by the intercession of S. Leo in behalf of themselves so by their new doctrine making him an Intercessor for us who by their old doctrine was suppos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him of which Pope Innocent being asked a reason makes a most pitiful excuse Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed and indeed generally for all it is not now seasonable to discourse but to say this onely that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckon'd the Church of England did never condemn by any express Article but left it in the middle and by her practice declares her faith of the Resurrection of the dead and her interest in the communion of Saints and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catholick Church parts and members of the Body of Christ but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead infers the belief of Purgatory every man may satisfie himself by seeing the Writings of the Fathers where they cannot meet with one Collect or Clause praying for the delivery of souls out of that imaginary place Which thing is so certain that in the very Roman Offices we mean the Vigils said for the dead in which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scripture speaking of the miseries of this World Repentance and Reconciliation with God the bliss after this life of them that dye in Christ and the resurrection of the Dead and in the Anthemes Versicles and Responses there are prayers made recommending to God the soul of the newly defunct praying he may be freed from Hell and eternal death that in the day of Iudgement he be not judged and condemned according to his sins but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection but not one word of Purgatory or its pains The other cause of their mistake is That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purgation after this life but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of judgement and it is such a fire that destroyes the Doctrine of the intermedial Purgatory We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it and S. Ambrose follows him in the opinion for it was no more so does S. Basil S. Hilary S. Hierome and Lactaâ—tius as their words plainly prove as they are cited by Sixtus Senensis affirming that all men Christ onely excepted shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagration at the day of Iudgement even the B. Virgin her self is to pass thorow this fire There was also another Doctrine very generally receiv'd by the Fathers which greatly destroyes the Roman Purgatory Sixtus Senensis sayes and he sayes very true that Iustin Martyr Tertullian Victorinus Martyr Prudentius S. Chrysostom Arethas Euthymius and S. Bernard did all affirm that before the day of Judgement the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life We do not interpose in this opinion to say that it is true or false probable or improbable for these Fathers intended it not as a matter of faith or necessary belief so far as we finde But we observe from hence that if their opinion be true then the Doctrine of Purgatory is false If it be not true yet the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory which is inconsistent with this so generally receiv'd opinion of the Fathers is at least new no Catholick Doctrine not believ'd in the Primitive Church and therefore the Roman Writers are much troubled to excuse the Fathers in this Article and to reconcile them to some seeming concord with their new Doctrine But besides these things it is certain that the Doctrine of Purgatory before the day of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The end of all our agonies and affirms That the Holy men of God rest in joy and in never failing hopes and are come to the end of their holy combates S. Iustin Martyr affirms That when the soul is departed from the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently there is a separation made of the just and unjust The unjust are by Angels born into places which they have deserved but the souls of the just into Paradice where they have the conversation of Angels and Archangels S. Ambrose saith That Death is a haven of rest and makes not our condition worse but according as it findes every man so it reserves him to the judgement that is to come The same is affirm'd by S. Hilary S. Macarius and divers others they speak but of two states after death of the just and the unjust These are plac'd in horrible Regions reserv'd to the judgement of the great day the other have their souls carried by Quires of Angels into places of rest S. Gregory Nazianzen expresly affirms that after this life there is no purgation For after Christs ascension into heaven the souls of all Saints are with Christ saith Gennadius and going from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their body with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church In what place soever a man is taken at his death of light or darkness of wickedness or vertue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Order and in the same degree either in light with the just and with Christ the great King or in darkness with the unjust and with the Prince of darkness said Olimpiodorus And lastly we recite the words of S. Leo one of the Popes of Rome speaking of the Penitents who had not perform'd all their penances But if any one of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being interrupted by any obstacles falls from the gift of the present Indulgence viz. of Ecclesiastical Absolution and before he arrive at the appointed remedies that is before he hath perform'd his penances or satisfactions ends his temporal life that which remaining in the body he hath not receiv'd when he is devested of his body he cannot obtain He knew not of the new devices of paying in Purgatory what they paid not here and of being cleansed there who were not clean here And how these words or of any the precedent are reconcileable with the Roman Doctrines of Purgatory hath not yet entred into our imagination To conclude this particular We complain greatly that this Doctrine which in all the parts of it is uncertain and in the late additions to it in Rome is certainly false is yet with all the faults of it pass'd into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent But besides what hath been said it will be more than sufficient to oppose against it these clearest words of Scripture Blessed are the dead which dye in the Lord from henceforth even so saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If all the dead that dye in Christ be at rest and are in no more affliction or labours then the Doctrine of the horrible pains of Purgatory is as false as it is uncomfortable To these words we adde the saying of Christ and we relie upon it He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath eternal life and cometh not into judgement but passeth from death unto life If so then not into the judgement of Purgatory If the servant of Christ passeth from death to life then not from death to the terminable pains of a part of Hell They that have eternal life suffer no intermedial punishment judgement or condemnation after death for death and life are the whole progression according to the Doctrine of Christ and Him we chuse to follow Sect. V. THe Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began to be own'd publiquely for an opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be pass'd into a publick Doctrine and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduc'd For all the world knows that by their own parties by Scotus Ocham Biel Fisher Bishop of Rochester and divers others whom Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men it was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of novelty But further we know it was but a disputable question in the ninth and tenth ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Pope Innocent the Third MCC years and more after Christ that since that pretended determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have been no more satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirm'd that the Article is not express'd in Scripture particularly Iohannes de Basselis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckon'd And therefore if it was not express'd in Scripture it will be too clear that they made their Articles of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it was there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith But that we may put it past argument and probability it is certain that as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine or an Article of the Faith by the primitive ages of the Church Now for this we need no proof but the confession and acknowledgement of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus says that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not an Article of faith as Bellarmine confesses and Henriquez affirms that Scotus says it was not ancient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of ignorance saying he talk'd at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory VII nor that consent of Fathers which to so little purpose he had heap'd together Rem transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuits in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation and in Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd He could not tell whether there
blasphemy a book was written by Iohn Huss about the time of the Council of Constance But these things are too bad and therefore we love not to rake in so filthy Chanells but give onely a generall warning to all our Charges to take heed of such persons who from the proper consequences of their Articles grow too bold and extravagant and of such doctrines from whence these and many other evil Propositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently do issue As the Tree is such must be the Fruit. But we hope it may be sufficient * to say That what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible and implies contradictions very many to the belief of which no faith can oblige us and no reason can endure For Christs body being in heaven glorious spiritual and impassible cannot be broken And since by the Roman doctrine nothing is broken but that which cannot be broken that is the colour the taste and other accidents of the elements yet if they could be broken since the accidents of bread and wine are not the substance of Christs body and blood it is certain that on the Altar Christs body naturally and properly cannot be broken * And since they say that every consecrated Wafer is Christs whole body and yet this Wafer is not that Wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two bodies for there are two Wafers * But when Christ instituted the Sacrament and said This is my body which is broken because at that time Christs body was not broken naturally and properly the very words of institution do force us to understand the Sacrament in a sense not natural but spiritual that is truly sacramental * And all this is besides the plain demonstrations of sense which tells us it is bread and it is wine naturally as much after as before consecration * And after all the natural sense is such as our blessed Saviour reprov'd in the men of Capernaum and called them to a spiritual understanding the natural sense being not onely unreasonable and impossible but also to no purpose of the spirit or any ways perfective of the soul as hath been clearly demonstrated by many learned men against the fond hypothesis of the Church of Rome in this Article Sect. VI. OUr next instance of the novelty of the Roman Religion in their Articles of division from us is that of the half Communion For they deprive the people of the chalice and dismember the institution of Christ and praevaricate his express law in this particular and recede from the practise of the Apostles and though they confess it was the practise of the primitive Church yet they lay it aside and curse all them that say they do amiss in it that is they curse them who follow Christ and his Apostles and his Church while themselves deny to follow them Now for this we need no other testimony but their own words in the Council of Constance Whereas in certain parts of the World some temerariously presume to affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine and do every where communicate the Laity not onely in bread but in wine also Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error that although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine yet this notwithstanding And although in the primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds Here is the acknowledgement both of Christs institution in both kinds and Christs ministring it in both kinds and the practise of the Primitive Church to give it in both kinds yet the conclusion from these premises is We command under the pain of Excommunication that no Priest communicate the people under both kinds of bread and wine The opposition is plain Christs Testament ordains it The Church of Rome forbids it It was the primitive custom to obey Christ in this a later custom is by the Church of Rome introduc'd to the contrary To say that the first practise and institution is necessary to be followed is called Heretical to refuse the later subintroduc'd custom incurres the sentence of Excommunication and this they have pass'd not onely into a Law but into an Article of Faith and if this be not teaching for doctrines the commandments of men and worshipping God in vain with mens traditions then there is and there never was and there can be no such thing in the World So that now the question is not whether this doctrine and practise be an INNOVATION but whether it be not better it should it so Whether it be not better to drink new wine than old Whether it be not better to obey man than Christ who is God blessed for ever Whether a late custom be not to be preferr'd before the antient a custom dissonant from the institution of Christ before that which is wholly consonant to what Christ did and taught This is such a bold affirmative of the Church of Rome that nothing can suffice to rescue us from an amazement in the consideration of it especially since although the Institution it self being the onely warranty and authority for what we do is of it self our rule and precept according to that of the Lawyer Institutiones sunt praeceptiones quibus instituuntur docentur homines yet besides this Christ added preceptive words Drink ye all of this he spake it to all that receiv'd who then also represented all them who for ever after were to remember Christs death But concerning the doctrine of Antiquity in this point although the Council of Constance confess the Question yet since that time they have taken on them a new confidence and affirm that the half Communion was always more or less the practice of the most Ancient times We therefore think it fit to produce testimonies concurrent with the saying of the Council of Constance such as are irrefragable and of persons beyond exception Cassander affirms That in the Latine Church for above a thousand years the body of Christ and the blood of Christ were separately given the body apart and the blood apart after the consecration of the mysteries So Aquinas also affirms According to the ancient custom of the Church all men as they communicated in the body so they communicated in the blood which also to this day is kept in some Churches And therefore Paschasius Ratbertus resolves it dogmatically That neither the flesh without the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated because the Apostles all of them did drink of the chalice And Salmeron being forc'd by the evidence of the thing ingenuously and openly confesses That it was a general custom to communicate the Laity under both kindes It was so and it was more There was anciently a Law for it Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant
or other he should be at any time it seems it will serve For thus they turn Divinity and the care of souls into Mathematicks and Clockwork and dispute minutes and periods with God and are careful to tell their people how much liberty they may take and how far they may venture least they should lose any thing of their sins pleasure which they can possibly enjoy and yet have hopes of being sav'd at last 3. But there is worse yet If a man willingly commits a sin in hope and expectation of a Iubilee and of the Indulgences afterwards to be granted he does not lose the Indulgence but shall receive it which is expresly affirm'd by Navar and Antonius Cordubensis and Bellarmine though he asks the question denies it not By which it is evident that the Roman Doctrines and Divinity teach contrary to Gods way who is most of all angry with them that turn his grace into wantonness and sin that grace may abound 4. If any man by reason of povertie cannot give the prescrib'd Almes he cannot receive the Indulgence Now since it is sufficiently known that in all or most of the Indulgences a clause is sure to be included that something be offered to the Church to the Altar to a Religious House c. the consequent of this will be soon seen that Indulgences are made for the rich and the Treasures of the Church are to be dispensed to them that have Treasures of their own for habenti dabitur But then God help the poor for them Purgatory is prepar'd and they must burn For the Rich it is pretended but the smell of fire will not pass upon them From these premises we suppose it but too evident that the Roman Doctors prevaricate in the whole Doctrine of Repentance which indeed in Christ Jesus is the whole Oeconomy of Justification and Salvation it is the hopes and staff of all the world the remedy of all evils past present and to come And if our physick be poyson'd if our staff be broken if our hopes make us asham'd how shall we appear before Christ at his coming But we say that in all the parts of it their Doctrine is infinitely dangerous 1. Contrition is sufficient if it be but one little act and that in the very Article of death and before that time it is not necessary by the Law of God nay it is indeed sufficient but it is also insufficient for without confession in act or desire it suffices not And though it be thus insufficiently sufficient yet it is not necessary For attrition is also sufficient if a Priest can be had and then any little grief proceeding out of the fear of Hell will do it if the Priest do but absolve 2. Confession might be made of excellent use and is so among the pious children of the Church of England but by the Doctrines and Practises in the Church of Rome it is made not the remedy of sins by proper enargy but the excuse the alleviation the confidence the ritual external and sacramental remedy and serves instead of the labours of a holy and a regular life and yet is so intangled with innumerable and inextricable cases of Conscience Orders humane Prescripts and great and little Artifices that scruples are more increased than sins are lessened 3. For Satisfaction and Penances which if they were rightly order'd and made instrumental to kill the desires of sin or to punish the Criminal or were properly the fruits of repentance that is parts of a holy life good works done in charity and the habitual permanent grace of God were so prevailing as they do the work of God yet when they are taken away not only by the declension of primitive Discipline but by new Doctrines and Indulgences regular and offer'd commutations for mony and superstitious practises which are sins themselves and increase the numbers and weights of the account there is a great way made for the destruction of souls and the discountenancing the necessity of holy life but nothing for the advantage of holiness or the becoming like to God And now at last for a cover to this dish we have thought fit to mind the world and to give caution to all that mean to live godly in Christ Iesus to what an infinite scandal and impiety this affair hath risen in the Church of Rome we mean in the instance of their Taxa Camerae seu Cancellariae Apostolicae the tax of the Apostolical Chamber or Chancery A Book publikely printed and expos'd to common sale of which their own Espencaeus gives this account that it is a Book in which a man may learn more wickedness than in all the Summaries of vices published in the world and yet to them that will pay for it there is to many given a License to all an Absolution for the greatest and most horrid sins There is is a price set down for his Absolution that hath kill'd his Father or his Mother Brother Sister or Wife or that hath lyen with his Sister or his Mother We desire all good Christians to excuse us for naming such horrid things Nomina sunt ipso penè timenda sono But the Licences are printed at Paris in the Year 1500. by Tossan Denis Pope Innocent the VIII either was Author or inlarger of these Rules of this Chancery Tax and there are glosses upon them in which the Scholiast himself who made them affirms that he must for that time conceal some things to avoid Scandal But how far this impiety proceeded and how little regard there is in it to piety or the good of souls is visible by that which Augustinus de Anconâ teaches That the Pope ought not to give Indulgences to them who have a desire of giving mony but cannot as to them who actually give And whereas it may be objected that then poor mens souls are in a worse condition than the rich he answers That as to the remission of the punishment acquir'd by the Indulgence in such a case it is not inconvenient that the rich should be in a better condition than the poor For in that manner do they imitate God who is no respecter of persons SECT VI. THese Observations we conceive to be sufficient to deter every well-meaning person from running into or abiding in such temptations Every false Proposition that leads to impiety is a stock and fountain of temptations and these which we have reckon'd in the matter of Repentance having influence upon the whole life are yet much greater by corrupting the whole mass of Wisdom and Spiritual Propositions There are indeed many others We shall name some of them but shall not need much to insist on them Such as are 1. That one man may satisfie for another It is the general Doctrine of their Church The Divines and Lawyers consent in it and publikely own it The effect of which is this that some are made rich by it and some are careless But qui
are not Venial in their own nature and in their appendant circumstances either the people are cozen'd by this Doctrine into an useless confidence and for all this talking in their Schools they must nevertheless do to Venial sins as they do to Mortal that is mortifie them fight against them repent speedily of them and keep them from running into mischief and then all their kinde Doctrines in this Article signifie no comfort or ease but all danger and difficulty and useless dispute 3 or else if really they mean that this easiness of opinion be made use of then the danger is imminent and carelesness is introduc'd and licentiousness in all little things is easily indulg'd and mens souls are daylie lessen'd without repair and kept from growing towards Christian perfection and from destroying the whole body of sin and in short despising little things they perish by little and little This Doctrine also is worse yet in the handling For it hath infinite influence to the disparagement of holy life not onely by the uncertain but as it must frequently happen by the false determination of innumerable cases of Conscience For it is a great matter both in the doing and the thing done both in the caution and the repentance whether such an action be a venial or a mortal sin If it chance to be mortal and pour Confessor says it is venial your soul is betrayed And it is but a chance what they say in most cases for they call what they please venial and they have no certain rule to answer by which appears too sadly in their innumerable differences which is amongst all their Casuists in saying what is and what is not mortal and of this there needs no greater proof than the reading the little Summaries made by their most leading guides of Consciences Navar Cajetane Tolet Emanuel SÃ and others where one sayes such a thing is mortal and two say it is venial And lest any man should say or think this is no great matter we desire that it be considered that in venial sins there may be very much fantastick pleasure and they that retain them do believe so for they suppose the pleasure is great enough to outweigh the intolerable pains of Purgatory and that it is more eligible to be in Hell a while than to cross their appetites in such small things And howeveâ— it happen in this particular yet because the Doctorâ— differ so infinitely and irreconcileably in saying what is and what is not Venial whoever shall trust to their Doctrine saying that such a sin is Venial and to their Doctrine that says it does not exclude from Gods favour may by these two Propositions be damned before he is aware We omit to insist upon their express contradicting the words of our Blessed Saviour who taught his Church expresly That we must work in the day time for the night cometh and no man worketh Let this be as true as it can in the matter of Repentance and Mortification and working out our pardon for mortal sins yet it is not true in Venial sins if we may believe their great S. Thomas whom also Bellarmine follows in it for he affirms That by the acts of Love and Patience in Purgatory Venial sins are remitted and that the acceptation of those punishments proceeding out of Charity is a virtual kinde of penance But in this particular we follow not S. Thomas nor Bellarmine in the Church of England and Ireland for we believe in Jesus Christ and follow him If men give themselves liberty as long as they are alive to commit one whole kinde of sins and hope to work it out after death by acts of Charity and Repentance which they would not do in their life time either they must take a course to sentence the words of Christ as savouring of heresie or else they will find themselves to have been at first deceiv'd in their Proposition and at last in their expectation Their faith hath fail'd them here and hereafter they will be asham'd of their hope Sect. VII THere is a Proposition which indeed is new but is now the general Doctrine of the Leading Men in the Church of Rome and it is the foundation on which their Doctors of Conscience rely in their decision of all cases in which there is a doubt or question made by themselves and that is That if an Opinion or Speculation be probable it may in practise be safely followed And if it be inquir'd What is sufficient to make an Opinion probable the answer is easie Sufficit opinio alicujus gravis Doctoris aut Bonorum exemplum The opinion of any one grave Doctor is sufficient to make a matter probable nay the example and practise of good men that is men who are so reputed if they have done it you may do so too and be safe This is the great Rule of their Cases of Conscience And now we ought not to be press'd with any ones saying that such an opinion is but the private opinion of one or more of their Doctors For although in matters of Faith this be not sufficient to impute a Doctrine to a whole Church which is but the private opinion of one or more yet because we are now speaking of the infinite danger of souls in that communion and the horrid Propositions by which their Disciples are conducted to the disparagement of good life it is sufficient to alledge the publick and allowed sayings of their Doctors because these sayings are their Rule of living and because the particular Rules of Conscience use not to be Decreed in Councils we must derive them from the places where they grow and where they are to be found But besides you will say That this is but the private opinion of some Doctors and what then Therefore it is not to be called the Doctrine of the Roman Church True we do not say It is an Article of their Faith but a rule of manners This is not indeed in any publick Decree but we say that although it be not yet neither is the contrary And if it be but a private opinion yet is it safe to follow it or is it not safe For that 's the question and therein is the danger If it be safe then this is their Rule A private opinion of any one grave Doctor may be safely followed in the questions of Vertue and Vice But if it be not safe to follow it and that this does not make an opinion probable or the practise safe Who sayes so Does the Church No Does Dr. Cajus or Dr. Sempronius say so Yes But these are not safe to follow for they are but private Doctors Or if it be safe to follow them though they be no more and the opinion no more but probable then I may take the other side and choose which I will and do what I list in most cases and yet be safe by the Doctrine of the Roman Casuists which is the great line and general measure
and yet Subjects to a Forreign Power But we need not trouble our selves to reckon the Evills consequent to this Procedure themselves have own'd them even the very worst of things The Rebellion of a Clergy-man against his Prince is not Treason because he is not his Princes Subject It is expresly taught by Emanuel SÃ and because the French-men in zeal to their own King could not endure this Doctrine these words were left out of the Edition of Paris but still remain in the Editions of Antwerp and Colien But the thing is a general Rule That all Ecclesiastical persons are free from Secular Iurisdiction in causes Criminal whether Civil or Ecclesiastical and this Rule is so general that it admits no exception and so certain that it cannot be denied unless you will contradict the Principles of Faith So Father Suarez And this is pretended to be allowed by Councills Sacred Canons and all the Doctors of Laws Humane and Divine for so Bellarmine affirms Against which since it is a matter of Faith and Doctrine which we now charge upon the Church of Rome as an Enemy to publick Government we shall think it sufficient to oppose against their Pretension the plain and easie words of St. Paul Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers Every soul That is saith St. Chrysostome whether he be a Monk or an Evangelist a Prophet or an Apostle Of the like iniquity when it is extended to its uâ—most Commentary which the Commenters of the Church of Rome put upon it is the Divine Right of the Seal of Consession which they make so Sacred to serve such ends as they have chosen that it may not be broken up to save the lives of Princes or of the whole Republick saith Tolet No not to save all the World said Henriquez Not to save an Innocent not to keep the World from burning or Religion from perversion or all the Sacraments from demolition Indeed it is lawful saith Bellarmine if a Treason be known to a Priest in Confession and he may in general words give notice to a pious and Catholick Prince but not to a Heretick and that was acutely and prudently said by him said Father Suarez Father Binet is not so kind even to the Catholick Princes for he sayes that it is better that all the Kings of the World should perish than that the Seal of Confession should be so much as once broken and this is the Catholick Doctrine said Eudaemon Iohannes in his Apology for Garnet and for it he also quotes Suarez But it is enough to have nam'd this How little care these men take of the lives of Princes and the Publick Interest which they so greatly undervalue to every trifling fancy of their own is but too evident by these Doctrines SECT III. THe last thing we shall remark for the instruction and caution of our charges is not the least The Doctrines of the Church of Rome are great Enemies to the dignity and security to the powers and lives of Princes And this we shall briefly prove by setting down the Doctrines themselves and their consequent Practises And here we observe that not onely the whole Order of Jesuites is a great Enemy to Monarchy by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope by making the Pope the Supreme Monarch of Christians but they also teach that it is a Catholick Doctrine the Doctrine of the Church The Pope hath a Supreme Power of disposing the Temporal things of all Christians in order to a Spiritual good saith Bellarmine And Becanus discourses of this very largely in his Book of the English Controversie Printed by Albin at Mentz 1612. But because this Book was order'd to be purg'd una litura potest we shall not insist upon it but there is as bad which was never censur'd Bellarmine sayes that the Ecclesiastical Republick can command and compel the Temporal which is indeed its Subject to change the Administration and to depose Princes and to appoint others when it cannot otherwise defend the Spiritual good And F. Suarez sayes the same The power of the Pope extends it self to the coercion of Kings with Temporal punishments and depriving them of their Kingdoms when necessity requires nay this power is more necessary over Princes than over Subjects The same also is taught by Santarel in his Book of Heresie and Schism printed at Rome 1626. But the mischief of this Doctrine proceeds a little further Cardinal Tolet affirms and our Countryman Father Bridgewater commends the saying That when a Prince is excommunicate before the Denunciation the Subjects are not absolved from their Oath of Allegiance as Cajetan sayes well yet when it is denounc'd they are not only absolved from their obedience but are bound not to obey unless the fear of death or loss of goods excuse them which was the case of the English Catholicks in the time of Henry the VIII And F. Creswel sayes it is the sentence of all Catholicks that Subjects are bound to expel Heretical Princes if they have strength enough and that to this they are tyed by the Commandment of God the most strict tie of Conscience and the extreme danger of their Souls Nay even before the sentence is declar'd though the Subjects are not bound to it yet lawfully they may deny obedience to an Heretical Prince said Gregory de Valentia It were an endless labour to transcribe the horrible Doctrines which are preach'd in the Jesuits School to the shaking of the Regal power of such Princes which are not of the Roman Communion The whole Oeconomy of it is well describ'd by Bellarmine who affirms That it does not belong to Monks or other Ecclesiasticks to commit Murthers neither doe the Popes use to proceed that way But their manner is first Fatherly to correct Princes then by Ecclesiastical Censures to deprive them of the Communion then to absolve their Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance and to deprive them of their Kingly Dignity And what then The execution belongs to others This is the way of the Popes thus wisely and moderately to break Kings in pieces We delight not to aggravate evill things We therefore forbear to set down those horrid things spoken by SÃ Mariana Santarel Carolus Scribanius and some others It is enough that Suarez sayes An Excommunicate King may with impunity be depos'd or kill'd by any one This is the case of Kings and Princes by the Sentence of the chiefest Roman Doctors And if it be objected That we are commanded to obey Kings not to speak evill of them not to curse them no not in our heart there is a way found out to answer these little things For though the Apostle commands that we should be subject to higher Powers and obey Kings and all that are in Authority It is true you must and so you may well enough for all this for the Pope can make that he who is a King