IV. who was deposed by it If therefore a General Council confirmed by the Pope cannot err it is infallibly certain and according to the Principles of the Church of Rome an Article of Faith That the Reformation of the Church was necessary Should we now pass from the Clergy to the Laity from Bishops Cardinals Popes and Councils to Secular States Kings and Emperors we should find That they were also highly sensible of the Corruptions and Abuses Usurpations and Oppressions of the Church of Rome and many of them zealous and active in their endeavours to reform them What great complaints were made by many of our Kings of England against the Encroachments of Rome How often did they petition the Pope for a redress but finding no relief from thence Edward the Third and Richard the Second did in part right themselves and their Subjects by the Statutes of Provisoes and Praemunire * 27 Edw. 3. c. 1. 25 Edw. 3. 16 Rich. 2. c. 5. 13 R. 2. c. 3. See Cook upon these Statutes Institut par 3. c. 56. Charles VII King of France as a Fence to the French Church against the Mischiefs which flowed from the Court of Rome set up the pragmatick Sanction which when Pope Pius II. endeavoured to overthrow he appealed from him to a General Council (b) Richer Hist Concil general l. 4. par 1. c. 1. p. 36 37 c. Lewis XI was indeed decoyed by the Popes fair Promises to revoke that Sanction but soon after seeing his errour he commanded it again to be observed * Richer Hist Concil general l. 4. c. 1. s 13. After the death of Lewis the three Estates of the Kingdom assembled at Tours besought Charles VIII who succeeded him to maintain the Pragmatick in its full strength †Id. s 15. Which he not only consented to but resolved to make a further progress in reforming the Church and to that purpose consulted the College of Divines at Paris (c) Id l. 4. c. 2. Lewis XII who followed next coyned his Money with this Inscription Perdam Babylonis nomen I will destroy the name of Babylon (d) Thâ—ani Hist l. 1 p 11. by which he plainly declared what his Judgment then was of Rome The zeal of Sigismund the Emperour for the Reformation was abundantly manifest by his indefatigable pains in procuring the Council of Constance and assisting in it By protecting the Council of Basil against the attempts of Eugenius and by labouring with other Princes to promote it but especially by that Reformation he made in many things himself Maximilian I. made bitter Complaints of many scandalous Abuses of the Roman Court and commanded the redress of them under pain of his heavy displeasure (g) Fascic rerum expetend aâ— fugiend s 170. The Emperor Ferdinand proposed to the Council of Trent by his Embassadors twenty Points concerning Worship Manners and Discipline which he desired might be reformed (h) History of the Council of Trent l. 6. p. 513. and in a Letter to the Pope and another to his Legates in the Council earnestly pressed for an effectual Reformation (i) l. 7. p. 682. The Princes of Germany at the Diet at Nuremberg in the Year 1523. in their Answer to Cherogat the Popes Nuncio insisted upon the reforming of Abuses and correcting of many Errors and Vices which by long tract of time had taken deep root for the effecting of which they demanded a free and general Council And those intolerable burdens as they called them laid upon them by the Court of Rome they reduced to an hundred Heads (*) Sleid. com l. 4. Fascic rerum expetend ac fugiend History of the Council of Trent l. 1. which they called the Hundred Grievances of the German Nation and presented them to the Pope protesting that they neither would nor could endure them any longer To conclude this Head to so monstrous a deformed state was the Western Church degenerated that the Prince the Priest the Clergy the Laity Men of all Conditions and of all Nations Yea if the infallible Oracle Pope Adrian the Sixth spoke truth the whole World groaned after a Reformation (k) Richer l. 4. par 2. p. 130. Secondly The necessity of which will be further evident by taking a particular view of the Corruptions and Errors themselves which for methods sake and to avoid confusion shall be reduced to four general Heads 1. Corruptions in Doctrine 2. In Worship 3. In Manners 4. In Discipline In treating of which it will plainly appear that their Errors were not small and of light importance but so gross and in matters of such high moment that there was an absolute necessity of reforming them 1. Gross Corruptions in Doctrine Many Doctrines were imposed as Articles of Faith which have not the least Foundation in Scripture Reason or Primitive Antiquity and many others which are not only Strangers to all these but contrary to the common sense and Experience of Mankind I shall instance in some of them 1. The Infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome We have before seen that this Doctrine hath no Foundation in Scripture and by consequence can be no Article of Faith Yea that there is no pretence of Reason why the Bishop and Church of Rome should be infallible rather than the Bishop and Church of Constantinople and all those fine flourishes they are wont to make of the expediency of this Doctrine for the ending of Controversies and the safe conducting of Souls to Heaven may be as well accounted for by making the Church of England or any other Church infallible That no such Doctrine was owned by the antient Church we may be assured both because the Fathers in those many Heresies which in their times arose never betook themselves to this easie and compendious remedy for the suppressing of them but chose the more tedious and laborious way of confuting them by Scripture by Reason and Catholick Tradition and because the Asian and African Bishops did in some Points so resolutely dissent from the Roman Bishop and Church that they chose rather to break Communion than to comply with them therein Had any such thing in those dayes been believed would the African Illyrican and Dalmatian Bishops have renounced Communion with Vigilius Bishop of Rome for consenting to the condemnation of the three Chapters (a) Petrus de Marca dissertat de Epist Vigilii s 8. Would the blessed Polycarpus have dissented from Pope Eleutherius Irenaeus from Pope Victor S. Cyprian from Pope Stephen Can any Man who is not forsaken of his Reason imagine That such Men as these would have behaved themselves so towards the Pope as they did had they not thought themselves as infallible Judges as he But what need I contend for this when such great men of the Church of Rome as Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica Gerson Chancellor of Paris Almain Alphonsus de Castro yea Pope Adrian VI. himself teach us as even
Bellarmine himself acknowledges (b) Bâ—ll de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 2. that the Pope may not only err but be a Heretick yea and teach Heresie too if he define without a General Council And when a General Council says 't is certain the Pope may err (c) Concilii Basil Respons Synodal de Authorit Concil general supra Pap. Richer l. 3. c. 2. S. 6. And what that Council says of the Pope is experimentally verified of a Council confirm'd by the Pope as hath been before prov'd Nor is this Doctrine to be rejected meerly because it is notoriously False but more especially because of its horrid Consequences as it opens the door to and gives protection to any other the most palpable Error both in Doctrine and Practice For if this be once granted there is no remedy but we must believe Darkness to be Light if the Church of Rome says it is so Yea a Thomas Becket a Garnet or any other the most execrable Traitor must be worshipt for a Saint when the Pope is pleas'd to canonize him 2. Their Doctrine of the Popes sovereign Power over the universal Church That every Christian under pain of Damnation is bound to be subject to him that no Appeals may be made from him that he alone is the supream Judge over all Persons in all Causes Ecclesiastical but that he himself can be judged by no man This Doctrine hath not only been defin'd by Popes themselves as well as their Flatterers and many hundreds of years together put in execution by them but hath moreover been establish'd by such Councils as are by the Romanists accounted General (d) Concil Florent p. 85â— tom 8. apud Binium Concil Lateranens V. Sess 11. And yet is not only destitute of all Authority from Scripture but much may be found in Scripture against it And not only in Scripture but 't is plain from Church History that the Bishops of Rome in the early Ages of Christianity had no Jurisdiction beyond their own Province that for the first 300 years there were but two only viz. Victor and Stephen that took upon them to censure Persons that were of another Diocess and that they themselves were severely censured for it by other Bishops That the eight first General Councils were all both call'd and confirm'd not by Popes but by the Emperors (e) Richer Hist Concil general l. 1. c. 13. p. 753. Review of the Council of Trent l. 3. c. 1. 2. That the Pope hath been oppos'd in many Councils and many Synodical Decrees have been pass'd full sore against his will (f) As in the Council of Chalcedon the second at Constantinople the Council of Constance of Basil c. That he himself was subject to the Laws of the Church and upon his transgression of them obnoxious to censure no less than other Bishops That no Appeals were allow'd to him by the African Bishops That by the ancient Canons every Bishop did order the Affairs of his own Diocess without dependence upon or Subordination to the Bishop of Rome and that all Causes were finally to be determin'd by Provincial Councils (g) Concil Constantinopol 1 Can. 2. Concil Nicaen 1 Can. 5. That many Popes have been anathematiz'd by other Bishops and many judg'd condemn'd and depos'd by Synods All which and many more things which might be mention'd are plainly inconsistent with this pretended universal Empire of the Pope But if nothing could be alleg'd from Scripture or the Doctrine or Practice of the antient Church to the contrary yet the intolerable Evils which unavoidably flow from it cannot but render this Doctrine detestable to all those who have any sincere Love either to Truth or Goodness For whereever this Doctrine is receiv'd a man must think himself in duty bound to entertain Error and to reject the Truth to put Virtue for Vice and Vice for Virtue in case the Pope require him so to do And that the Pope not only may but for many Ages hath commanded men so to do the sad experience of the Christian World is a proof too unanswerable 3. The Doctrine of the Popes Dominion over temporal Princes That if Kings and Emperors oppose themselves to him or turn Hereticks he may depose them absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and give away their Kingdoms to whomsoever he pleases This exorbitant Power hath been challenged by the Pope for many successive Ages (h) Dictates of Greg. VII Dictate 9. That all Princes should kiss the Popes Feet Dictate 12. That the Pope may depose the Emperor Dictate 27. That he may absolve the Subjects of wicked Princes from their Allegiance Binius tom 7. part 1. p. 362. Richer l. 1. c. 13. And when opportunity hath serv'd hath been frequently put in practice by them So Gregory VII excommunicated the Emperor Henry IV. and gave away his Kingdoms to Rudolphus Duke of Sweden (i) Baron an 1080. n. 8. 12. Gregory IX excommunicated the Emperor Frederick II. and absolv'd his Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance (k) Bullarium Rom. Tom. 1. p. 89 90. Pope Paul III. excommunicated and deposed Henry VIII King of England and commanded all his Subjects under pain of a Curse to withdraw their Obedience from him (l) Bullar Rom. Tom. 1. p. 514. Pope Pius V. and Gregory XIII damn'd and depos'd Q. Elizabeth and absolv'd her Subjects from their Allegiance (m) Camdens Elizabeth This Doctrine and Practice has been defended by their learned Cardinals Baronius and Perron by their School-men Canonists and by the whole Order of Jesuits Yea 't is no more than what was decreed by divers such Councils as are generally own'd for lawful Representatives of their Church As by the third Lateran Council under Pope Alexander III. (n) Cap. 27. Relaxatos autem se noverint à debito Fidelitatis c. And by the fourth Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III. (o) Si vero Dominus temporalis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit c. Eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui non habent Dominos principales c. 3. And tho some Romanists are now asham'd to own it yet no less a man than Lessius tells us that if Kings may not be deposed by the Pope then of necessity must the General Council of Lateran have err'd But what can be more manifest than that this Doctrine is contradictory to the Holy Scripture Which tells us in express terms that the King is supream (q) 1 Epist Pet. 2. 13. and commands every Soul to be subject to the highest civil Powers (r) Rom. 13. 1. Nothing can be more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers who taught that the Emperor was the supream Power on Earth that he was subject to God only and that all other Persons were put in subjection under him (Å¿) Tertull. Apolog c. 30. ad Scapuâ—â—m c. 2. that neither Prophet
nor Evangelist no nor Apostle and therefore not S. Peter himself was exempt from subjection to him (t) S. Chrysost ad Rom. c. 13. v. 1. And such as their Doctrine was such was their Practice tho their Emperors were Idolaters and implacable Enemies to the name of Christ yet they thought it not in the Popes Power to set them loose from subjection to them Nor did any Pope in those days pretend to such a Power And therefore they chose rather to dye when they had the greatest Provocations to resist and when the number of the Christians was so great that they were able with ease to have vanquish'd their Enemies (u) Cyprian ad Demetrianum 'T is a Doctrine that is contrary to the Confessions and Practice of the antient Bishops of Rome who took the Emperor for their Lord and Master and yielded themselves his most humble and obedient Servants and Subjects So did Pope Gregory the Great (w) Greg. M. Ep. 2. 62. and before Pope Gelasius I. (x) Gelasii Ep. 8. and after him Pope Agatho †Epist ad Constantinum Imp. Actione 4. Syn. 6. Vide etiam Richerium Hist Concil General l. 1. c. 10 S. â— 6. In short 't is a Doctrine that involves the highest Impiety against God the greatest Injustice toward men that subverts the Foundations of Government and is inconsistent with humane Society No man can recount the Usurpations and Rapines the Perjuries and Murders the Treasons and Rebellions the Confusions and Desolations it hath caus'd in the World 4. The next Instance shall be that which was likewise decreed by the Fourth Lateran Council * Cap. 1. viz. the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation For the belief of which there is no better ground in Scripture than that the Church is transubstantiated or that the Rock in the Wilderness was substantially chang'd into Christ because the Church is call'd Christ's Body (y) Ephes 1. 23. and 't is said that the Rock which follow'd the Israelites was Christ (z) 1 Corinth 10. 4. But because 't is confess'd by many of their own learned Writers we may therefore take it for granted that this Doctrine cannot be prov'd by Scripture Yea that it is contrary to it is manifest because we find in Scripture that the Sacramental Elements after the words of Consecration were pass'd are call'd the Bread and the Cup as they were before (a) 1 Corinth 11. 26 27 28. And if we may believe our Saviour the Wine after it was consecrated and made the Blood of the New Testament was no other for substance than the Fruit of the Vine for after he had said This is my Blood of the New Testament he adds But I say unto you that I will not henceforth drink of the Fruit of the Vine c. (b) Matth. 26. 29. That the Fathers for seven hundred years after Christ believ'd the Elements after Consecration to remain the same for substance is beyond all contradiction prov'd by many Protestant Writers particularly in two short Discourses lately written upon this Subject (i) Letter to Lady T. Discourse against Transubstantiation And that the Popes themselves were of the same Belief in the fifth Century is evident For surely says Pope Gelasius the Sacraments we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing for which we are also by them made Partakers of a divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine does not cease to be (k) Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per tadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non definit substantia vel natura panis vini De duab nat in Christo Biblioth Patr. Tom. 4. Yea so far was Transubstantiation from being the Doctrine of the Primitive Church that we can meet with nothing like it till near the end of the eighth Century and tho as soon as it was started it was vigorously oppos'd by the most learned men of that time yet by the help of the deplorable Ignorance and Superstition of that and the two next succeeding Ages it was by slow degrees nurs'd up and brought to its full growth till at length it came to be establish'd for an Article of Faith in the Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III. in the year 1215. Nor is it only destitute of the Authority of Scripture and the ancient Church but plainly destructive of our whole Religion by subverting the main Foundation upon which it stands For if that be indeed the Flesh of a Man which we see and feel and taste to be Bread what assurance can we have that there ever was any such Man in the World as Jesus of Nazareth or that he ever wrought one Miracle in it The cerrainty of which depends upon the certainty of our Senses and therefore S. John appeals to them as the great unquestionable Proofs of the Truth of our Religion (a) 1 Epist John 1. 1 2 3. We have therefore the same Assurance that Transubstantiation is False as that the Gospel of Christ is True Nor is it more opposite to Sense than Reason the belief of it implying ten thousand Contradictions To which we may add the horrible Impieties it involves That the glorified Body of our Saviour should be contracted to the crum of a Wafer that he should be perfectly depriv'd of Sense and Reason that he should not be able to defend himself against the Assaults of the most contemptible Vermin that he should be swallow'd down whole and if the Stomach of the Communicant chance to be foul or over-charg'd with Wine that he should be vomited up again Good God! what man who is not quite forsaken of Religion Reason and Sense who is not himself transubstantiated into something below either Man or Beast can believe these things 5. That the Marriage of Priests is unlawful This Doctrine the Church of Rome borrow'd from the antient Hereticks especially from the Manichees who allow'd Marriage to their Hearers as the Church of Rome doth to Lay-men but forbad it to their Elect (a) Hic non dubito ves esse clamaturos invidiamque facturos castitatem perfectam vos vehementer commendare atqui laudare non tamen nuptias prohibere quandoquidem Auditores vestri quorum apud vos secundus est gradus ducere atque habere non prohibentur uxores Aug. de moribus Manichaeorum l. 2. c. 18. as that Church doth to her Priests The first Pope we read of that condemned the marriage of Priests was Siricius almost four hundred Years after Christ though he seems by his Epistles if they are indeed his rather to disswade Priests from it than peremptorily to forbid it (b) Epist 1 4. apud Binium Pope Calixtus II. absolutely forbad Priests Marriage and in case they were married commanded them to be separated (c) Presbyâ—eris Diaconis Subdiaconis Monachis concubinas
it was one kind of Quality others that it was another some placed it in the Essence of the Soul some in the Understanding some in Will c. (m) P. 239. And in case the intention of the Priest be necessary then as the Bishop of Minori unanswerably argued in that Council If a Priest having charge of four or five thousand Souls be an Infidel but a formal Hypocrite and in absolving the Penitent baptizing of Children and consecrating the Eucharist have no intention to do what the Church doth it must be said that the Children are damned the Penitent not absolved and that all remain without the Fruit of the Communion (n) History of the Council of Trent l. 2. p. 241. And what an horrible abuse is it to make such things as these Articles of Faith and impose them upon all Men to be believed under peril of Damnation 7. The Doctrine of Merits That the good Works of justified persons be truly meritorious deserve not only the increase of Grace but eternal Life yea an increase of Glory (a) Concil Trident. Sess 6. Can 32. Whereas the Scripture tells us That our goodness extends not to God (b) Psal 16. 2. That not only all that we do But all that we can suffer is not worthy to be compared with the Glory that shall be revealed (c) Rom. 8. 18. That when we have done all those things which are commanded us we are still unprofitable Servants and have done no more than what was our duty (d) Luk. 17. 10 That we can give nothing to God but what we have first received from him that we are obliged to him for the good we do as well as for that we receive since all our good Works are entirely owing to his Grace are the free Gifts of his Holy Spirit who worketh in us both to will and to do (e) Phil. 2. 13. Yea even Reason it self teaches us That whatsoever we are and whatsoever we have it is all received from him that we can give nothing to him that it should be recompenced to us again that the best Services we can perform are no matter of favour but a Debt we owe him and in case they were wholly our own yet if put in the Ballance with that exceeding and eternal weight of glory would be infinitely too light Though therefore we readily grant That our good Works are not only Conditions but necessary Qualifications by which we are made meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in light and without which we are not so much as capable of enjoying it though we do not condemn the Word Merit in that large sense in which it was used by the antient Doctors of the Church as it signifies a Work that is praise-worthy and to which God hath promised a Reward as it denotes a Means appointed by God in order to the bringing us to Heaven Yet we can in no wise grant That any Works of ours are truly and in a proper sense meritorious but whatsoever right is thereby acquired to eternal Life it is founded in the gracious Promise of God who hath declared that he will reward our poor and imperfect services with Glory Honour and Immortality 8. Though every sin be in its own nature deadly yet the distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial is in a sense admitted by Protestants viz. If by Mortal be meant such a grievous sin as actually excludes a Man from the favour of God and puts him into a state of Damnation as all those do mentioned 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. and every other wilful sin By Veniul such a lighter sin for which God in the Gospel Covenant makes allowances and which he will not impute to Condemnation to those who sincerely endeavour to do whatsoever he commands as sins of Ignorance and meer Infirmity But this distinction as it is commonly explained and applyed by the Romish Doctors is plainly destructive of a holy Life and one of the greatest encouragements to Vice For a Venial Sin in their Divinity is a Sin that in its own nature is so light and small that it cannot deprive a Man of the favour of God or render him obnoxious to eternal Death (a) Pâ—â—catum aliquod dicitur Veniale ex natura sua propria ratione est illud quod ex se sua natura est tam leve tam minutum ut non valeat aliquem privare â—ratia divina aut facere illum Dei inimicum aut reddeâ—e illum dignum moâ—te â—terna Alphons de Castro advers Haeres l. 12. fol. 210. And if you ask them What Sins in particular these Venial Sins are scarce any Sin can be named but some or other of their most approved Casuists will tell you It is no more than Venial even lying and slandering false witness and Perjury Theft and Covetousness Gluttony and Drunkenness are placed in the Catalogue of these little harmless Sins Now let these Venial Sins be never so numerous the greatest evils which according to their Doctrine they can expose a Man to are no more than the temporary pains of Purgatory and these they tell us may be bought off at so cheap a rate that there is no Man in such unhappy circumstances but he may purchase his release from them And what then remains to give check to a Mans sinful appetites 9. But for their loosness in Venials some may think they have made amends by the severity of their Doctrine concerning Mortal Sins For no Man as their Church teaches can obtain the pardon of these without confession to a Priest and performing the Penances he imposes for them And this Confession must be compleat not only of the kinds but of the particular Sins together with the circumstances which change the kind that a Penance may be enjoined proportionable to them (b) Conâ—il Trident. Sess 14. c. â— de Pâ—nitent Can. 4. 7. But besides that we find no such sort of Confession required by Christ or his Apostles no nor used in the Church for more than four hundred Years But on the contrary that our blessed Saviour proposes pardon of Sin how Mortal soever upon condition of sincere Repentance and new Obedience besides that the thing it self is unpracticable For how shall an ignorant Mechanick know what those circumstances are that change the kind When perhaps his Confessor is not able to tell him How shall he know which Sins are Mortal and which are Venial when their most learned Casuists are at no agreement among themselves about them but that which one says is Mortal another says is no more than Venial and their seraphical Doctor affirms That many Sins are believed to be Venial that are Mortal and it is a most difficult thing to discern the one from the other (c) Multa enim frequenter ereduntur esse Venialia quae Mortalia sunt difficiâ—limum est in talibus discernere Bonavent l. 2. dist 24. par 2. Dub.