disturbances which have been among us upon their account whereas among them the Government of the Church is so ordered as to keep all in peace and Vnity This makes it necessary to examine that admirable Vnity they boast so much of and either they mean by it that there hath been less disturbance in the world before the Reformation or no Schisms among themselves or no differences in the matters of Religion But I shall now prove 1. That there have never been greater disturbances in the World than upon the account of that Authority of the Pope which they look on as the Foundation of their Vnity 2. That there have happened great and scandalous Schisms among themselves on the same account 3. That their differences in Religion both as to matter of Order and Doctrine have been as great and managed with as much animosity as any among us 1. The disturbances in the World upon the account of the Popes Authority I meddle not barely with his usurpations which work is lately and largely done but the effects of them in these Western Churches For which we are to consider what authority that is which the Pope challenges and what disturbances hath been given to the peace of Christendome by it The Authority claimed by the Pope is that of being Vniversal Pastor over the Catholick Church by vertue of which not only spiritual direction in matters of faith but an actual jurisdiction over all the members of it doth belong unto him For otherwise they say the Government of the Church is imperfect and insufficient for its end because Princes may easily overthrow the Unity of the Church by favouring Hereticks if they be not in subjection to the Pope as to their temporal concernments because it may happen that they have a regard to no other but these if it were not therefore in the Popes power to depose Princes and absolve Subjects from their Alleagiance when they oppose the Vnity of the Church his power say they is an insignificant title and cannot reach the end it was designed for Besides they urge that all Princes coming into the Church are to be supposed to submit their Scepters to Christ so as to lose them in case they act contrary to the Catholick Church of which they are made members for whosoever doth not hate Father and Mother c. cannot be my Disciple And what officer is there so fit to take all Escheats and Forfeitures of Power as Christs own Vicar upon Earth But to adde more strength Bellarmin very prettily proves it out of Pasce oves for every Pastor must have a threefold power to defend his flock a power over wolves to keep them from destroying the Sheep a power over the Rams that they do not hurt them and a power over the Sheep to give them convenient food now saith he very subtilly if a Prince of a sheep should turn a Ram or a Wolf must not he have power to drive him away and to keep the people from following him This is then the only current doctrine concerning the Popes Authority in the Court of Rome although some mince the matter more than others do and talk only of an indirect power yet they all mean the same thing and ascribe such power to the Pope whereby he may depose Princes and absolve subjects from the duty they owe to them And how much in request this Doctrine continues at Rome appears by the Counsel given by Michael Lonigo Master of the Palace to Pope Greg. 15. Printed A. D. 1623. about perswading the Duke of Bavaria then newly made Elector to receive a confirmation of his title from the Pope to which end he saith some skilful person ought to be imployed to acquaint him that the power of the Empire was the meer issue of the Church and did spring from it as a Child from the Mother and that it was a great sin for any Christian to call this into Question and consequently the Popes power and authority to determine concerning the State and affairs of the Empire and this he attempts to prove by no fewer than nineteen arguments all of them drawn from the former Usurpations of the Popes and encroachments upon the Empire from whence he concludes that the Electorship could not be lawfully taken away from one and given to another without the Popes consent and authority and that such a disposal of it was in it self null and of no force The same year came forth a Book of Aphorisms concerning the restoring the state of the Church by the decree and approbation of the Colledge of Cardinals collected by the same person and by him presented to the Pope wherein the same power of the Pope is asserted and that it belongs to him to transferr the Electoral dignity from one to another and that it ought to be taken away from the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg for opposing his Authority and that to allow the Emperour authority in these things was to rob the Apostolick See of its due rights By which we may understand what that Authority over the Church is which is challenged by the Pope as supream Pastour in order to the preserving the Unity of it § 2. We now consider what the blessed effects of this pretended power hath been in the Christian World and I doubt not to make it appear that this very thing hath caused more warrs and bloodshed more confusions and disorders more revolts and rebellions in Christendome than all other causes put together have done since the time it was first challenged and this I shall prove from their own Authors and such whose credit is the greatest among them The revolt of Rome and the adjacent parts from the subjection due to the Roman Emperour then resident at Constantinople was wholly caused by the Pope The first Pope saith Onuphrius that ever durst openly resist the Emperour was Constantine 1. who opposed Philippicus in the matter of Images which the Emperour commanded to be pulled down because they were abused to Idolatry and the Pope utterly refused to obey and not only so but set up more in opposition to him in the Pertico of St. Peter and forbad the use of the Emperours name and title in any publick Writings or Coines The same command was not long after renewed by Leo 3. upon which saith Onuphrius Gregory 2. then Pope took away the small remainder of the Roman Empire from him in Italy and Sigonius more expresly that he not only excommunicated the Emperour but absolved all the people of Italy from their Alleagiance and forbad the payment of any Tribute to him whereupon the inhabitants of Rome Campania Ravenna and Pentapolis i.e. the Region about Ancona immediately rebelled and rose up in opposition to their Magistrates whom they destroyed At Ravenna Paulus the Emperours Lieutenant or Exarch was killed at Rome Peter the Governour had his eyes put out in Campania Exhilaratus and his Son Hadrian were both
with one another and although there may be many other sorts of Vnity in the Church yet the essential Vnity of the Church they tell us lyes in conjunction of the members under one Head But what becomes then of the Unity of the Roman Church in the great number of Schisms and some of long continuance among them Were they all members united under one Head when there were sometimes two sometimes three several Heads Bellaâ—mine in his Chronologie confesseth twenty six several Schisms in the Church of Rome but Onuphrius a more diligent searchâ—r into these things reckors up thirty whereof some lasted ten years some twenty one fifty years And it seems very strange to any one that hears so many boasts of Unity in the Church of Rome above others to find more Schisms in that Church than in any Patriarchal Church in the World We should think if the Bishop of Rome had been designed Head of the Church and the fountain of Vnity that it was as necessary that Church should be freed from intestine divisions on that account as to be secured from errours in faith if it had the promise of Infallibility for errours are not more contrary to infallibility than divisions are to Vnity and the same Spirit can as easily prevent Schisms as Heresies But as the errours of that Church are the clearest evidence against the pretence of infalâ—ibility so are the Schisms of it against its being the fountain of Vnity for how can that give it to the whole Church which so notoriously wanted it in it self I shall not need to insist on the more ancient Schisms between Cornelius and Novatianus and their parties between Liberius and Felix between Damasus and Vrsicinus between Bonifacius and Eulalius between Symachus and Laurentius between Bonifacius and Dioscorus between Sylverius and Vigiâ—ius and many others I shall only mention those which were of the longest continuance in that Church and do most apparently discover the divisions of it I begin with that which first brake forth in the time of Formosus who was set up A. D. 821. against Sergius whom the faction of the Marquesse of Tuscany would have made Pope but the popular faction then prevailing Sergius was forced to withdraw and Formosus with continual opposition from the other party enjoyed the Papacy four years and six months not without the blood of many of the chief Citizens of Rome slain by Arnulphus in the quarrel of Formosus After his death Boniface 6. intruded saith Baronius into the Papal See but was after fifteen dayes dispossessed by Stephanus 7. who in a Council called for that purpose nulled all the acts of Formosus deprived all those of their orders who had been ordained by him and made them be Re-ordained and not content with this he caused his body to be taken out of the Grave and placed it in the Popes Chair with the Pontifical habits on where after he had sufficiently reviled him that could not revile again he caused the three Fingers to be cut off with which he used to give Benediction and Orders and the body to be thrown into Tiber. This last part Onuphrius would have to be a fable and Andreas Victorellus from him but Baronius saith they are mistaken who say so for not only Luitprandus who lived in that Age expresly affirms it although he attributes it to Sergius upon whose account the Schism begun but the acts of the Roman Council under Iohn 9. extant in Baronius make it evident and Papirius Massonus cites other ancient Historians for it Upon this nulling the Ordinations of Formosus a great dispute was raised in the Church for many of the Bishops would not submit to re-ordination and particularly Leo Bishop of Nola to whom Auxilius writ his Book in defence of the Ordinations of Formosus a short account whereof is published by Baronius from Papyâ—ius Masso but the whole Book is now set forth from ancient Manuscript by Morinus by which we understand the controversie of that time much better than we could before Two things were chiefly objected against Formosus his Ordinations 1. That against the Canons of the Church he was translated from one See to another being Bishop of Porto before he was made Bishop of Rome 2. That having been degraded by Iohn 8. although restored by his successour Marinus and absolved from his Oath he was not capable of conferring Orders Against the first of these Auxilius shews that translation from one See to another cannot null Ordination from the testimony of Pope Anterus the example of Greg. Nazianzen Perigenes Dositheus Reverentius Palladius Alexander Meletius and many others That the Nicene Canon against translations was interpreted by the Council of Chalcedon so as not to extend to all cases and it was so understood by Pope Leo and Gelasius and however that only nulls the translation and not the ordination Against the second he pleads that supposing it not to be lawful to remove from one Episcopal See to another yet the Ordination may be valid for Formosus was not Consecrated again himself but only reconciled by Marinus that the Popes Gregory and Leo had declared against Re-ordination as much as against Re-baptizing that the Canons of the Apostles had forbidden it that the Ordinations by Acacius were allowed by Anastasius that the Bonosiaci though Hereticks had their Orders allowed them that the Cathari were admitted to the Churches Communion by the Council of Nice only with imposition of hands that though Liberius fell to the Arian Heresie yet his Ordinations afterwards were not nulled neither those of Vigilius although he stood excommunicated by Silverius and added Homicide to it that the nulling these Ordinations was to say in effect that for twenty years together they had been without the Christian Religion in Italy that none but Hereticks could assert these things that if any Popes themselves speak or act against the Catholick faith or Religion they are not to be followed in so doing This is the substance of the first Book of Auxilius which things are more largely insisted upon in the second But by that Book it appears most evidently that the Barbarous usage of the body of Formosus was most true it being expresly mentioned therein and justified by him in the Dialogue that pleads for Re-ordination And now saith Baronius began those most unhoppy times of the Roman Church which exceeded the persecutions of Heathens or Hereticks but he out of his constant good will to civil Authority lays the fault altogether upon the power of the Marquesses of Tuscany who had then too great power in Rome but he strangely admires the providence of God in keeping the Heads of the Church from Heresie all that time Alas for them they did not trouble themselves about any matters of faith at all but were wholly given over to all manner of wickedness as himself confesseth of them when Theodora that Mother of the Church of Rome ruled in chief and her
daughter Marocia's Son by Pope Sergius came to be Pope himself when as Platina saith it grew to be the custome of Popes to null all that their predecessours had done Were not these goodly heads of the Church the mean time and did not they keep the Church in great Vnity under their agreeable conduct Methinks the providence of God is as much concerned to preserve holiness and peace as faith in the world and were not these excellent instruments for doing it Baronius grants the acts of Stephanus to be such as the most barbarous Nations could not endure to hear of and are too bad to be believed and all the following Age he calls Iron for its rust and barrenness and leaden for its badness and dulness and confesseth that Monsters of impurity then raigned in the Apostolical See that infinite evils sprung from thence and horrible Tragoedies and mischiefs not to be spoken of And yet a very Catholick faith and the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of peace must be supposed to be there infallibly all this while but if all their faith and unity be of such a kind as was in the 10 Century in the Roman Church I should think Baronius might have said more in admiration of the providence of God in preserving the Catholick faith and Vnity among the Devils in Hell for the Scripture tells us they believe and tremble and our Saviour saith that the Devils Kingdom cannot stand if it be divided against it self and these are clearer and stronger testimonies than can be brought of the faith and Vnity of the Roman Church when such horrid wickedness is acknowledged to have had Dominion in it and that Church was therein unlike the Devils Kingdom that it was divided against it self In the very beginning of this Century Pope Stephen is cast into Prison and there strangled as Baronius proves from his Epitaph and now the Roman faction prevailing they make one Romanus Pope the first and only thing he did was to condemn all that Stephen had done as Platina Onuphrius and Ciacconius all agree but he continued not much above four months after him Theodorus who held out about twenty dayes and followed the steps of Romanus to him succeeded Iohn 10. as Platina calls him of the same faction who set all Formosus his Acts to rights again condemning all that Stephen had done in a Council at Ravenna whither he was driven by the prevalency of the faction at Rome against him where in the presence of seventy four Bishops the Acts of the Council under Stephen were burnt in which the Ordinations of Formosus were nulled and Sergius Benedictus and Marinus were Anathematized for being instruments in the Acts against Formosus The next Pope Benedict escapes without any thing but a dull Epitaph but Leo his successour had not been above forty days in the place but he is cast into Prison by one of his servants who is made Pope in his place and seven months after he is served the same way by Sergius who now at last recovered the Popedome and the greatest thing he did was to condemn Formosus again and all who had appeared for him so that now as Sigebert saith nothing was talked of so much as ordinations and exordinations and superordinations by the contrary Acts of these Popes to one another Baronius confesseth this Sergius to have been a man of a most infamous and dissolute life after his death Theodora was not at rest till she had gotten her Gallant to be Pope under the name of Iohn 11. and what manner of Cardinals saith Baronius may we imagine such a Pope would make But Marozia her daughter was not so well pleased with him for by her order his Brother was killed in his presence and he put into prison and there smothered After him saith Luitprandus her own Son by Pope Sergius is made Pope who was cast into Prison by his Brother Albericus who being not pleased with Stephen who followed him he was set upon and so wounded and deformed thereby that he durst not let his face be seen and the seditions saith Platina continued so high in his time that he could do no great thing At last Alberic's Son called Octavianus got possession of the See under the name of Iohn 13. or 12. as oâ—hers besides Platina call him who was such a Monster for all wickedness that Otho the Emperour was called into Italy to displace him who called a Council wherein he was accused for ordaining a Deacon in a Stable and making a Bishop of ten years of age but these were small faults to his Adulteries Sacriledge Cruelties drinking healths to the Devil and at Dice calling upon the Devils for help When these accusations were sent to him from the Council he only threatned to excommunicate them all if they chose another Pope against him but they not regarding his threatning depose him and choose Leo 8. in his place Here Baronius storms unreasonably that a Council should take upon it to depose a Pope though so abominably bad as he confesseth this man to have been and makes them guilty of an intolerable Errour and Heresie in so doing because it implyes their believing that the power of the Keys did depend on the worth of the person and therefore he detests Leo as a Schismatical Pope And to make sure of a Schisme after the infamous death of Iohn 13. being killed in the act of Adultery the opposite faction in Rome chose Benedict 5. to succeed him who was carried away prisoner by Otho into Germany but before his death Iohn 13. called a Council wherein he nulled all the Acts of the other Council and pronounced them Schismaticks and decreed that all that were ordained by them must be re-ordained Is not here now a most admirable Vnity in the Roman Church After Leo another Iohn is chosen by the Emperours party but as Platina saith it being now grown customary to depose Popes they drive him away by seditions against him being first imprisoned by Rotfredus and then expelled the City But they suffered sufficiently for it by the severity of Otho against them The next Pope Benedict 6. was cast into Prison by the other faction and there strangled or famished Iohn 14. came to his end after the same manner dying in Prison by the faction of Ferrucius the Father of Boniface 7. who was driven away from Rome after his being made Pope after whom Benedict 7. was set up and Iohn succeeding him Boniface's faction recovering again he was for a few months restored to the Popedome Against Greg. 5. the faction of Crescentius set up one Ioh. 17. who by the power of the Emperour was deprived of his eyes and the Popedome together and a little after of his life But these factions in Rome did not end with this Century for in the next A. D. 1044 we find a new Schism breaking out on the account of them We are contented
Vnity they look after all such who hold opinions contrary to their Interest must be proceeded against and condemned but for others let them quarrel and dispute as long as they will they let them alone if they touch not the Popes Authority nor any of the gainful opinions and practices which are allowed among them And supposing their Interest be kept up which the Inquisition is designed for the Court of Rome is as great a Friend to toleration as may be only what others call different perswasions they call School points and what others call divisions they call disputes the case is the same with their Church and others only they have softer names for the differences among themselves and think none bad enough for those who cast off the Popes Authority and plead for a Reformation Here then lyes the profound mystrey of their Vnity that they are all agreed against us though not among themselves and are not we so against them too May not we plead for the Vnity that they have on the same grounds We are all agreed against Popery as much as they are against Protestants only we have some Scholastick disputes among us about indifferent things and the Episcopal Authority as they have we have some zealous Dominicans and busie and factious men such as the Iesuits among them are but setting aside these disputes we are admirably well agreed just as they are in the Roman Church § 15. 2. They say they doe not differ in matters of faith But this is as true as the other for are they agreed in matters of faith who charge one another with heresie as we have already seen that they doe But if they mean that they doe not differ in matters of faith because those only are matters of faith which they are agreed in they were as good say they are agreed in the things they doe not differ about for the parties which differ doe believe the things in difference to be matters of faith and therefore they think they differ from one another in matter of faith But they are not agreed what it is which makes a thing to be a matter of faith and therefore no one can pronounce that their differences are not about matters of faith for what one may think not to be de fide others may believe that it is we see the Popes personal infallibility is become a Catholick doctrine among the Iesuits and declared to be plain heresie by their Adversaries The deliverance of souls from Purgatory by the prayers of the living is generally accounted a matter of faith in the Roman Church but we know those in it who deny it and say it was a novel opinion introduced by Gregory 1. against the consent of Antiquity It is a matter of faith say the Dominicans and Iansenists to attribute to God alone the praise of converting grace and that grace efficacious by it self was the doctrine of Fathers and Councils and the Catholick Church and is it not then a matter of faith in their opinion wherein the Iesuits and they differ from each other To which purpose it was well said by the author of a Book printed at Paris A. D. 1651. containing essayes and reflections on the state of Religion that because of the Controversies between the Iansenists and the Iesuits it might with more reason be affirmed now than in the time of Arrianism it self that the whole Church seems to become heretical For admitting saith he what is most certain that the Church hath decreed Calvinism Pelagianism and Semipelagianism to be heresies and that the Doctors are those who sit in the Chair to be consulted withall upon points of Religion all Catholicks are reduced to a most strange perplexity For if a man shall address himself to those of the Iansenian party they will tell him that those who are termed Molinists are Pelagians or at least Semi-pelagians and on the other side the Molinists will bear him down that their Adversaries are Calvinists or else Novatians Now all the Doctors of the Catholick Church a very few excepted are either of the one or the other party I leave you then to consider to what prodigious streights mens minds are reduced since this is held as a general Maxime that whosoever fails in one point of faith fails in all It is a matter of faith say the Dominicans that all persons Christ only excepted were born in sin and therefore the contenders for the immaculate conception must in their judgment differ in a point of faith from them But if this distinction should be allowed to preserve the unity of their Church why shall it not as well cure the divisions of ours The most considerable in all respects of the dissenters from the Church of England declare that they agree with us in all the articles of doctrine required by our Church will this be enough in their opinion to make us at unity with each other if not let them not plead the same thing for themselves which they will not allow to us I cannot understand that the controversies about Ceremonies considered in themselves among us are of any greater weight than the disputes among the Fryars concerning their habits have been and yet this controversie only about the size of their hoods lasted in one Order almost an Age together and was managed with as great a heat and animosity as ever these have been among us and was with very much adoe laid asleep for a time by the endeavours of 4. Popes successively But if this signifies nothing to unity to say that the matters are not great about which the Controversies are if the disturbances be great which are caused by them that will reflect more sharply on their Church than on ours which hath so many differences which they account not to be about any matters of faith But if these differences in point of doctrine among them prove to be none in matters of faith it would be no difficult task upon the same grounds to shew that they have no reason to quarrel with us for breaking the unity of their Church because then we may differ from them as little in matters of faith as they doe from one another This I need not take upon me to shew at large because I find it already done to my hand by F. Davenport al. Sancta Clara in his paraphrastical exposition of the 39. articles of our Church about half of them he acknowledges to be Catholick as they are without any further explication The first he meets with difficulty in is that about the number of Canonical books point blank against the Council of Trent but he acknowledges that Cajetan and Franciscus Mirandula fully agree with our Church in it who quote Hierom Ruffinus Antoninus and Lyra of the same opinion as they might have done many others but because our Church doth not cast them wholly out of the Canon he dares not say it is guilty of heresie simply and the rather because Waldensis and Driedo
the Learned among them that who will dispute against it must prepare himself to hear the censure of St. Austin Ep. 118. where he saith That it is a point of most insolent madness to dispute whether that be to be observed which is frequented by the whole Church through the world 4. He sayes The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration whether our minds be prepared for them or not In what Council this Doctrine was defined I never read but as for the Sacrament of Penance which I suppose he chiefly aims at I read in the Council of Trent Sess. 14. Falso quidam calumniantur That some do falsly calumniate Catholick Writers as if they taught the Sacrament of Penance did confer Grace without the good motion of the receiver which the Church of God never taught nor thought But I am rather inclined to look upon this as a mistake than a calumny in the Objector 5. He sayes The sincerity of devotion is much obstructed by discouraging the reading of Scriptures which is our most certain Rule of Faith and Life Here he calls the Churches prudential dispensing the reading of Scripture to persons whom she judges fit and disposed for it and not to such whom she judges in a condition to receive or do harm by it a discouraging the reading of Scriptures which is no other than whereas St. Paul Coloss. 3. 21. enjoyns Fathers not to provoke their children lest they be discouraged one should reprove a Father for discouraging his child because he will not put a Knife or Sword into his hands when he foresees he will do mischief with it to himself or others the Scriptures in the hands of a meek and humble soul who submits its judgement in the interpretation of it to that of the Church is a Sword to defend it but in the hands of an arrogant and presumptuous Spirit that hath no Guide to interpret it but it s own fancy or passion it is a dangerous Weapon with which he will wound both himself and others The first that permitted promiscuous reading of Scripture in our Nation was King Henry the eighth and many years were not passed but he found the ill consequences of it for in a Book set forth by him in the year 1542. he complains in the Preface That he found entred into some of his peoples hearts an inclination to sinister understanding of it presumption arrogancy carnal liberty and contention which he compares to the seven worse Spirits in the Gospel with which the Devil entred into the house that was purged and cleansed Whereupon he declares that for that part of the Church ordained to be taught that is the Lay people it ought not to be denyed certainly that the reading of the Old and New Testament is not so necessary for all those folks that of duty they ought and be bound to read it but as the Prince and Policy of the Realm shall think convenient so to be tolerated or taken from it Consonant whereunto saith he the Politick Law of our Realm hath now restrained it from a great many This was the judgement of him who first took upon him the Title of Head of the Church of England and if that ought not to have been followed in after times let the dire effects of so many new Sects and Fanaticisms as have risen in England from the reading of it bear witness For as St. Austin sayes Neque enim natae sunt Haereses Heresies have no other Origen but hence that the Scriptures which in themselves are good are not well understood and what is understood amiss in them is rashly and boldly asserted viz. to be the sense of them And now whether the Scriptures left to the private interpretation of every fanciful spirit as it is among Protestants be a most certain Rule of Faith and Life I leave to your self to judge 6. He sayes The sincerity of devotion is much obstructed by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church as he is ready to defend he should have said to prove for we deny any such to be used in the Church 7. By the gross abuse of people in Pardons and Indulgences Against this I can assert as an eye-witness the great devotion caused by the wholsome use of Indulgences in Catholick Countreys there being no Indulgence ordinarily granted but enjoyns him that will avail himself of it to confess his sins to receive the Sacraments to pray fast and give alms all which duties are with great devotion performed by Catholick people which without the incitement of an Indulgence had possibly been left undone 8. He sayes The sincerity of devotion is much obstructed by denying the Cup to the Laity contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn celebration of the Eucharist for a thousand years after Christ. This thousand years after Christ makes a great noise as if it were not as much in the power of the Church a thousand years after Christ as well as in the first or second Century to alter and change things of their own nature indifferent such as the communicating under one or both kinds was ever held to be by Catholicks But although the Cup were not then denyed to the Laity yet that the custome of receiving but under one kind was permitted even in the primitive Church in private communions the objector seems to grant becasue he speaks only of the Administration of it in the solemn Celebration and that it was also in use in publick Communions is evident from Examples of that time both in the Greek Church in the time of St. Chrysostome and of the Latin in the time of St. Leo the great As for the pretended obstruction of Devotion you must know Catholicks believe that under either species or kind whole Christ true God and man is contained and received and if it be accounted an hindrance to devotion to receive the total refection of our soul though but under one kind what must it be to believe that I receive him under neither but instead of him have Elements of Bread and Wine Surely nothing can be more efficacious to stir up Reverence and Devotion in us than to believe that God himself will personally enter under our Roof The ninth Hinderance of the sincerity of devotion is that we make it in the power of a person to dispense in Oathes and Marriages contrary to the Law of God To this I answer That some kind of Oaths the condition of the person and other Circumstances considered may be Iudged to be hurtful and not fit to be kept and the dispensation in them is no more than to Iudge or determine them to be so and consequently to do this cannot be a hinderance but a furtherance to devotion nor is it contrary to the Law of God which commands nothing that 's hurtful to be done As for Marriages we acknowledge the Church may dispense in
some degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity but in nothing contrary to the Law of God His tenth pretended Obstruction of Devotion is that we make disobedience to the Church in Disputable matters more hainous than disobedience to Christ in unquestionable things as Marriage he saith in a Priest to be a greater crime than Fornication I Answer That whether a Priest may Marry or no supposing the Law of the Church forbidding it is not a disputable matter but 't is out of Question even by the Law of God that Obedience is to be given to the Commands or Prohibitions of the Church The Antithesis therefore between disobedience to the Church in disputable matters and disobedience to the Laws of Christ in unquestionable things is not only impertinent to the Marriage of Priests which is unquestionably forbidden but supposing the matter to remain disputable after the Churches Prohibition destroys all obedience to the Church But if it suppose them only disputable before then why may not the Church interpose her Iudgement and put them out of dispute But still it seems strange to them who either cannot or will not take the Word of Christ that is his Counsel of Chastitie that Marriage in a Priest should be a greater sin than Fornication But he considers not that though Marriage in it self be honourable yet if it be prohibited to a certain order of persons by the Church to whom Christ himself commands us to give obedience and they oblige themselves by a voluntary vow to live in perpetual Chastity the Law of God commanding us to pay our Vows it loses its honour in such persons and if contracted after such vow made is in the language of the Fathers no better than Adultery In the primitive Church it was the custome of some Younger Widdows to Dedicate themselves to the Service of the Church and in order thereunto to take upon them a peculiar habit and make a vow of continency for the future Now in case they Married after this St. Paul himself 1 Tim. 1. 12. saith That they incurred Damnation because by so doing they made void their first faith that is as the Fathers Expound it the vow they had made And the fourth Council of Carthage in which were 214 Bishops and among them St. Austin gives the Reason in these words If Wives who commit Adultery are guilty to their Husbands how much more shall such Widdows as change their Religious State be noted with the crime of Adultery And if this were so in Widdows much more in Priests if by Marrying they shall make void their first Faith given to God when they were consecrated in a more peculiar manner to his Service Thus much may suffice for Answer to the Argument which with its intricate terms may seem to puzzle an unlearned Reader let us now speak a word to the true state of the Controversie which is whether Marriage or single life in a Priest be more apt to obstruct or further devotion And St. Paul himself hath determined the Question 1 Cor. 7. 32. where he saith He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to our Lord how he may please our Lord But he that is Married careth for the things that are of the World how be may please his Wife This is the difference he putteth between the Married and Single life that this is apt to make us care for the things which belong to God and that to divert our thoughts from him to the things of the World Iudge therefore which of these states is most convenient for Priests whose proper office it is to attend wholly to the things of God Having thus cleared Catholick Doctrines from being any wayes obstructive to good life or devotion I shall proceed to his third Argument by which he will still prove that Catholicks run a great hazard of their souls in adhering to the Communion of the Church of Rome Because it exposeth the Faith of Christians to so great uncertainty This is a strange charge from the pen of a Protestant who hath no other certainty for his faith but every mans interpretation of the Letter of the Scriptures But First he saith it doth this By making the Authority of the Scriptures to depend upon the infallibility of the Church when the Churches infallibility must be proved by the Scriptures To this I Answer that the Authority of the Scripture not in it self for so it hath its Authority from God but in order to us and our belief of it depends upon the infallibility of the Church And therefore St. Austin saith of himself That he would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church did move him And if you ask him what moved him to submit to that Authority he tells you That besides the Wisdom he found in the Tenets of the Church there were many other things which most justly held him in it as the consent of people and Nations an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and established by Antiquity the succession of Priests from the very seat of St. Peter to whom our Lord commended the feeding of his Sheep unto the present Bishoprick Lastly The very name of Catholick which this Church alone among so many Heresies hath not without cause obtained so particularly to her self that whereas all Hereticks would be called Catholicks yet if a stranger demand where the Catholicks go to Church none of these Hereticks dares to shew either his own house or Church These saith St. Austin so many and great most dear bonds of the name of Christian do justly hold a believing man in the Catholick Church These were the grounds which moved that great man to submit to her Authority And when Catholick Authors prove the infallibility of the Church from Scriptures 't is an Argument ad hominem to convince Protestants who will admit nothing but Scripture and yet when they are convinced quarrel at them as illogical disputants because they prove it from Scripture Next he saith we overthrow all foundation of Faith because We will not believe our sences in the plainest objects of them But what if God have interposed his Authority as he hath done in the case of the Eucharist where he tells us that it is his Body must we believe our sences rather than God or must we not believe them in other things because in the particular case of the Eucharist we must believe God rather than our sences Both these consequences you see are absurd Now for the case it self in which he instances Dr. Taylor above cited confesses that they viz. Catholicks have a divine Revelation viz. Christs word This is my Body whose Litteral and Grammatical sence if that sence were intended would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle but I add it would be no precedent to them not to believe their sences in other the plainest objects of them as in the matter of Tradition or Christs body after the
Resurrection 3. He saith that We expose faith to great uncertainty by denying to men the use of their Judgement and Reason as to matters of faith proposed by a Church that is we deny particular mens Iudgement as to matters of faith to be as good if not better than the Churches and to inferre from henâ—e that we make Faith uncertain is just as if on the contrary one should say that Protestants make faith certain by exposing matter of faith determined by the Church to be discussed and reversed by the Iudgement and reason or rather fancy of every private man We have good store of this kind of certainty in England But as for the use of our Iudgement and Reason as to the matters themselves proposed by the Church it is the daily business of Divines and Preachers not only to shew them not to be repugnant to any natural truth but also to illustrate them with Arguments drawn from reason But the use he would have of reason is I suppose to believe nothing but what his reason can comprehend and this is not only irrational in its self but contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paul where he commands us to captivate our understandings to the Obedience of Faith 4. He adds We expose faith to uncertainty by making the Church power extend to making new Articles of Faith And this if it were true were something indeed to his purpose But the Church never yet owned any such power in her General Councils but only to manifest and establish the Doctrine received from her Fore-fathers as is to be seen in the prooems of all the Sessions of the Council of Trent where the Fathers before they declare what is to be believed ever premise that what they declare is the same they have received by Tradition from the Apostles And because it may happen that some particular Doctrine was not so plainly delivered to each part of the Church as it happened in St. Cyprians case concerning the non-rebaptization of Hereticks we acknowledge it is in her power to make that necessary to be believed which was not so before not by inventing new Articles but by declaring more explicitely the Truths contained in Scripture and Tradition Lastly he saith We expose Faith to great uncertainty because the Church pretending to infallibility does not determine Controversies on foot among our selves As if faith could not be certain unless all Controversies among particular men be determined what then becomes of the certainty of Protestants faith who could yet never find out a sufficient means to determine any one Controversie among them for if that means be plain Scripture what one Iudgeth plain another Iudgeth not so and they acknowledge no Iudge between them to decide the Controversie As for the Catholick Church if any Controversies arise concerning the Doctrine delivered as in St. Cyprians case she determines the Controversie by declaring what is of Faith And for other Controversies which belong not to faith she permits as St. Paul saith every one to abound in his own sence And thus much in Answer to his third Argument by which and what hath been said to his former Objections it appears that he hath not at all proved what he asserted in his second Answer to the first Question viz. That all those who are in the Communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it But he hath a third Answer for us in case the former faile and it is § 10. That a Protestant leaving the Communion of the Protestant Church doth incurr a greater guilt than one who was bred up in the Church of Rome and continues therein by invincible ignorance This is the directest answer he gives to the Question and what it imports is this That invincible Ignorance and he doth not know what allowance God will make for that neither is the only Anchor which a Catholick hath to save himself by If by discoursing with Protestants and reading their Books he be not sufficiently convinced whereas he ought in the supposition of the Answerer to be so that the Letter of the Scripture as interpretable by every private mans reason is a most certain Rule of Faith and Life but is still over-ruled by his own Motives the same which held St. Austin in the bosome of the Catholick Church he is guilty of wilful Ignorance and consequently a lost man there is no hope of Salvation for him Much less for a Protestant who shall embrace the Catholick Communion because he is supposed doubtless from the same Rule to have sufficient conviction of the Errors of the Roman Church or is guilty of wilful Ignorance If he have it not which is a damnable sin and unrepented of destroyes salvation So that now the upshot of the Answer to the Question Whether a Protestant embracing Catholick Religion upon the same motives which one bred and well grounded in it hath to remain in it may be equally saved with him comes to this that they shall both be damned though unequally because the converted Catholick more deeply than he that was bred so And now who can but lament the sad condition of that great Doctor and Father of the Church and hitherto reputed St. Austin who rejecting the Manichees pretended rule of Scripture upon the aforesaid grounds left their Communion to embrace the Communion of the Church of Rome And what is become now of their distinction of points fundamental from not fundamental which heretofore they thought sufficient to secure both Catholicks and Protestants Salvation and to charge us with unconscionable uncharitableness in not allowing them to be sharers with us The absurdness of these consequences may serve for a sufficient conviction of the nullity of his third and last answer to the first Question As for what he saith to the second I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest which hath the best grounds and consequently it is of necessity to Salvation to embrace the communion of it What then you are bound to do in reason and conscience is to see which Religion of the two hath the strongest Motives for it and to embrace that as you will answer the contrary to God and your own soul. To help you to do this and that the Answerer may have the less exception against them I will give you a Catalogue of Catholick Motives though not all neither in the words of the forecited Dr. Taylor advertising only for brevity sake I leave out some mentioned by him and that in these I set down you also give allowance for some expressions of his with which he hath mis-represented them Thus then he Liberty of
all of a mind and it is not necessary to the Unity of the Church that they should be but they have the only way of composing differences and they do not differ in matters of faith from each other and their differences lye only in their Schools and do not disturb the peace of the Church This is the utmost I can find their best wits plead for the Vnity of the Roman Church and if these be sufficient I believe they and we will be proved to be as much at Unity as they are among themselves 1. They say the Vnity of the Church doth not lye in actual Agreement of the members of it in matters of Doctrine but in having the best means to compose differences and to preserve consent which is submission to the Popes Authority So Gregory de Valentiâ explains the Vnity of their Church for actual consent he grants may be in other Churches as much as theirs and there is nothing singular or peculiar attributed to their Church supposing they were all of a mind which it is plain they are not but therein saith he lyes the Vnity of their Church that they all acknowledge one Head in whose judgement they acquiesce and therefore they have no more to do but to know what the Pope determines If this be all their Unity we have greater than they for we have a more certain way of ending Controversies than they have which I prove by an argument like to one in great request among them when they go about to perswade weak persons to their Religion viz. that it must needs be safer to be in that Religion wherein both parties agree a man may be saved than in that where one side denies a possibility of salvation so say I here that must be a safer way for Unity which both parties agree in to be infallible than that which one side absolutely denyes to be so but both parties agree the Scriptures to be infallible and all Protestants deny the Pope to be infallible therefore ours is the more certain way for Vnity But this is not all for it is far from being agreed among themselves that the Pope is infallible it being utterly denyed by some among them and the asserting it accounted Heresie as is evident in some late Books written to that purpose in France and England What excellent means of Vnity then is this among them which it is accounted by some no less than Heresie to assert § 13. But supposing they should yield the Pope that submission which they deny to be due to him yet is his definition so much more certain way of ending Controversies than the Scriptures Let them name one Controversie that hath been ended in their Church meerly by the Popes Decrees so as the opposite party hath declared that they believed contrary to what they believed before on the account of the Popes definition We have many instances to the contrary wherein controversies have been heightened and increased by their interposing but none concluded by them Do they say the Scripture can be no means of Vnity because of the various senses which have been put upon it and have they no wayes to evade the Popes definitions Yes so many that his Authority in truth signifies nothing any farther than they agree that the upholding it tends to their common interest But when onces he comes to cross the interest of any party if they do not in plain terms defie him yet they find out more civil wayes of making his Definitions of no force Either they say the Decree was procured by fraud and the Pope made it by mis-information which is the common way or he did not define it as a matter of faith sitting in Cathedrâ or the sense of his definition is quite otherwise than their Adversaries understand it or supposing that be the sense the Pope is never to be supposed to define any thing contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers and ancient Canons Of all which it were no difficult task to give late and particular instances but no one who is acquainted with the history of that Church can be ignorant of them and the late proceedings in the point of the five Propositions are a sufficient evidence of these things to any one who reads them For when was there a Fairer occasion given to the Pope to shew his Authority for preservation of the Churches unity than at that time when the matter of the five Propositions was under debate at Rome The same controversie was now revived which had disturbed their Church so often and so much before In the time of Clement 8. the heats were so great between the Iesuits and Dominicans that the Pope thought it necessary for the peace of the Church to put an end to them to that end he appointed Congregations for several years to discuss those points that he might come to a resolution in them This Pope at first was strangely prepossest by the arts of the Iesuits against the Dominicans but sending for the General of the Dominicans he told him what sad apprehensions he had concerning the peace of the Church by reason of the disputes between the Iesuits and them and therefore charges him that those of his Order should no longer molest the Iesuits about these things to whom he replyed that he assured him with as great Protestation as he was able that it was no meer Scholastical dispute between them but it was the cause of faith that was concerned which he discoursed largely upon to the Pope and made such impressions upon him that the Dominicans verily believe that had that Pope lived to the Vespers of Pentecost that year he dyed in March he had published a Bull against the Iesuits in presence of the Colledge of Cardinals and created F. Lemos Cardinal After his death the congregations were continued in the time of Paul 5. but at last were broken up without any decision at all If the Popes determination be such an absolute Instrument of peace in the Church it is the strangest thing in the world it should be made so little use of in such cases where they all acknowledge it would be of infinite advantage to their Church to have an issue put to such troublesome controversies as these were But they know well enough that the Popes Authority is the more esteemed the less it is used and that it hath alwayes been very hazardous to determine where there have been considerable parties on both sides for fear the condemned party should renounce his Authority or speak plainer truths than they are willing to hear And therefore it was well observed by Mons. S. Amour that they are very jealeus at Rome of maintaining the Authority of the decrees which issue from thence and that this consideration obliges the maker of them to look very well to the compliance and facility that may be expected in their execution before they pass any at all Which is a most certain argument they dare
do hold that it is only in the power of the whole Church successively from the Apostles to declare what books are Canonical and what not For the 11. article about justification he saith the Controversie is only about words because we are agreed that God alone is the efficient cause of Justification and that Christ and his passion are the meritorious cause of it and the only question is about the formal cause which our Church doth not attribute to the act of faith as he proves by the book of Homilies but only makes it a condition of our being justified and they believe that by faith we obtain our righteousness by Christ so that he can find no difference between them and us in that point He saith the Controversie about merit may be soon ended according to the doctrine of our Church for they deny as well as we article 1. 3. that any works done before the Grace of Christ and Inspiration of his Spirit can merit any thing and when we say article 12. that good works which follow justification are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ if by that we mean that they are accepted by Christ in order to a reward by vertue of the promise of God through Christ that is all the sense of merit which he or the school of Scotus contends for For works of supererogation article 14. he saith our Church condemns them upon that ground that men are said to do more by them than of duty they are bounden to do which being generally understood they condemn he saith as well as we because we can doe no good works which upon the account of our natural obligation we are not bound to perform though by particular precept we are not bound to them In the 19 article where our Church saith that the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their living and manner of ceremonies but also in matters of faith he distinguisheth the particular Church of Rome from the Catholick Church which is frequently understood by that name and he saith it is only a matter of faith to believe that the Catholick Church hath not erred and not that the particular Church of Rome hath not In the 20. article our Church declares that the Church ought neither to decree any thing against holy writ so besides the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed of necessity to salvation this he interprets of what is neither actually nor potentially in the Scriptures neither in terms nor by consequence and so he thinks it orthodox and not against traditions Article 21. wherein our Church determins expresly against the infalibility of general Councils he understands it only of things that are not necessary to faith or manners which he saith is the common opinion among them The hardest article one would think to bring us off in was the 22. viz. that the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques and also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture But we need not despaire as long as one bred up in the Schools of Scotus designes our rescue he confesses it to be a difficult adventure but what will not subtilty and kindness doe together He observes very cunningly that these doctrines are not condemned absolutely and in themselves but only the Romish doctrine about them and therein we are not to consider what the Church of Rome doth teach but what we apprehend they teach or what we judge of their doctrine i. e. that they invocate Saints as they doe God himself that Purgatory destroys the cross of Christ and warms the Popes Kitchin that Pardons are the Popes bills of Exchange whereby he discharges the debts of what sinners he pleases that they give proper divine worship to images and reliques all which he saith are impious doctrines and we doe well to condemn them So that it is not want of faith but want of wit this good man condemns us for which if we attain to any competent measure of whereby to understand their doctrine there is nothing but absolute peace and harmony between us This grand difficulty being thus happily removed all the rest is done with a wet finger for what though our Church Art 24. saith that it is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custome of the primitive Church to have publick prayer in the Church or to Minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understood of the people Yet what can hinder a Scotist from understanding by the Scripture not the doctrine or command of it but the delivery of it viz. that the Scripture was written in a known tongue nay he proves that our Church is for praying in Latin by this Article because that either is a known tongue or ought to be so it being publickly lickly taught every where and if it be not understood he saith it is not per se but per accidens that it is so I suppose he means the Latin Tongue is not to blame that the people do not understand it but they that they learned their lessons no better at School But what is to be said for Women who do not think themselves bound to go to School to learn Latin He answers very plainly that S. Paul never meant them for he speaks of those who were to say Amen at the Prayers but both S. Paul and the Canon Law he tells us forbid women to speak in the Church The case is then clear S. Paul never regarded what language the Women used and it was no great matter whether they understood their Prayers or not But what is to be said to the Council of Trent which pronounces an Anathema to those who say that Prayers are to be said only in a known Tongue This doth not touch our Church at all he thinks because in some Colledges the Prayers are said in Latin but although that be a known tongue there it is no matter as long as the Council of Trent hath put in the word only that clears our Church sufficiently Besides the Council of Trent speaks expresly of the Masse which our Article doth not mention but only publick Prayers and the Council of Trent speaks of those who condemns it as contrary to the institution of Christ but our Church only condemns it as contrary to the institution of the Apostle but all the commands of the Apostles are not the commands of Christ therefore our Church declares nothing against faith in this Article Are not we infinitely obliged to a man that uses so much subtlety to defend our Church from errrour in faith But that which is most considerable is what he cites from Canus that it is no Heresie to condemn a custome or Law of the Church if it be not of something necessary to salvation especially if it be a custome introduced since the Apostles times as most certainly this was For the five Sacraments rejected
by our Church Art 25. he saith they are not absolutely rejected as Sacraments but as Sacraments of the same Nature with Baptism and the Lords Supper which they yield to For Transubstantiation which is utterly denyed by our Church Art 28. he very subtilly interprets it of a carnal presence of Christs Body which he grants to be repugnant to Scripture and to destroy the nature of a Sacrament but they do believe Christs Body to be present after the manner of a Spirit and so our Church doth not condemn theirs As to communion in both kinds asserted by our Church Art 30. he saith it is not condemned by the Council of Trent therein which only Anathematizes those who make it necessary to Salvation which our Church mentions not and however we condemn communion in one kind Canus proves him not to be guilty of Heresie who should say that the Church hath erred therein The 31 Article condemns the Sacrifice of the Masse i.e. saith he independently on the Sacrifice of the Crosse which is propitiatory of it self and the other only by vertue of it The 32. of the lawfulness of Priests Marriage he understands of the Law of God in respect of which it is the most common opinion among them he saith that it is lawful The 34. about Traditions he interprets of those which are not Doctrinal The Book of Homilies approved Art 35. he understands as they do Books approved by their Church not of every sentence contained therein but the substance of the Doctrine and he grants there are many good things contained therein For the 36. of consecration of Bishops and Ministers he proves from Vasquez Conink Arcudius and Innocent 4. that our Church hath all the essentials of Ordination required in Scripture and if the difference of form of words did null our Ordinations it would do those of the Greek Church too The last Article he examins is Art 37. Of the Civil Magistrates power in opposition to the Popes Authority and he grants that the King may be allowed a Supermacy i.e. such as may not be taken away by any one as his Superiour and that by custome a sufficient right accrues to him over all Ecclesiastical causes and that by divine and natural right he hath jurisdiction over all Ecclesiastical persons so far as the publick good is concerned And withall he grants that we yield no spiritual jurisdiction to the King and no more than is contended for by the French and the Parliament of Paris That part which denyes the Popes jurisdiction in England he saith may be understood of the Popes challenging England to be a Fee of the Roman See but if it be otherwise understood he makes use of many Scholastick distinctions of actus signatus exercitus c. the sense of which is that it is in some cases lawful for a temporal Prince to withdraw his obedience from the Pope but leaves it to be discussed whether he had sufficient reason for doing it But there can be no Heresie in matter of fact it remains then according to the sense put upon our Articles by him with the help of his Scholastick subtleties we differ no more from them in points of faith than they do from one another For such kind of distinctions and senses are they forced to use and put upon each others opinions to excuse them from disagreeing in articles of faith and there is no reason that we should not enjoy the benefit of them as well as they so that either they must be guilty of differing in matters of faith or we are not § 16. 3. They plead that their differences are only confined to their Schools and do not disturb the peace of the Church But there is as little truth in this as there is Vnity in their Church as plainly appears by what hath been said already Was the Controversie about the Popes temporal power confined to the Schools did not that make for several Ages as great disturbances in the Church as were ever known in it upon any quarrel of Religion Were the Controversies between the Bishops and the Monks confined to their Schools about the extent of the Episcopal jurisdiction in former times or in the renewing of this Hierarchical Warr as one of the Iansenists calls it in France But these things are at large discovered already I shall only adde one thing more which seems more like a dispute of the Schools between the several Orders among them about the immaculate conception and it will easily appear that whereever that dispute began it did not rest in the Schools if we consider the tumults and disturbances which have been made only on the account of it This Controversie began in the Schools about the beginning of the 14 Century when Scotus set up for a new Sect in opposition to Thomas Aquinas and among other points of Controversie he made choice of this to distinguish his followers by but proposed it himself very timerously as appears by his resolution of it in his Book on the Sentences however his followers boast that in this blessed quarrel he was sent for from Oxford to Paris from Paris to Cologne to overthrow all Adversaries and that he did great wonders every where But however this were there were some not long after him who boldly asserted what he doubtfully proposed of whom Franciscus Mayronis is accounted the first after him Petrus Aureolus Occam and the whole order of Franciscans But the great strength of this opinion lay not in the wit and subtilty of the defenders of it nor in any arguments from Scripture or Antiquity but in that which they called the Piety of it i. e. that it tended to advance the honour of the B. Virgin For after the worship of her came to be so publick and solemn in their Church I do not in the least wonder that they were willing to believe her to be without sin I much rather admire they do not believe all their Canonized Saints to have been so too and I am sure the same reasons will hold for them all But this Opinion by degrees obtaining among the people it grew scandalous for any man to oppose it So Walsingham saith towards the latter end of this Century the Dominicans Preaching the contrary opinion against the command first of the Bishops in France and then of the King and Nobles they were out-lawed by the King and absolutely forbid to go out of their own Convents for fear of seducing the people and not only so but to receive any one more into their Order that so the whole Order might in a little time be extinguished The occasion of this persecution arose from a disturbance which happened in Paris upon this Controversie one Ioh. de Montesono publickly read against the immaculate conception at which so great offence was taken that he was convented before the Faculty of Sorbonne but he declared that he had done nothing but by advice of the chief of his Order
whence only they derive their infallibility 18. There can be no hazard to any person in mistaking the meaning of any particular place in those books supposing he use the best means for understanding them comparable to that which every one runs who believes any person or society of men to be infallible who are not for in this latter he runs unavoidably into one great errour and by that may be led into a thousand but in the former God hath promised either he shall not erre or he shall not be damned for it 19. The assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may give them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the bookes of Scripture than it is possible for the greatest infallibility in any other persons to doe supposing they have not such assurance of their infallibility 20. No mans faith can therefore be infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be infallible because the nature of Assent doth not depend upon the objective infallibility of any thing without us but is agreeable to the evidence we have of it in our minds for assent is not built on the nature of things but their evidence to us 21. It is therefore necessary in order to an infallible assent that every particular person be infallibly assisted in Judging of the matters proposed to him to be believed so that the ground on which a necessity of some external infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular person infallible if no divine faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other infallibility useless 22. If no particular person be infallible in the assent he gives to matters proposed by others to him then no man can be infallibly sure that the Church is infallible and so the Churches infallibility can signifie nothing to our infallible assurance without an equal infallibility in our selves in the belief of it 23. The infallibility of every particular person being not asserted by those who plead for the infallibility of a Church and the one rendring the other useless for if every person be infallible what need any representative Church to be so and the infallibility of a Church being of no effect if every person be not infallible in the belief of it we are farther to inquire what certainty men may have in matters of faith supposing no external proponent to be infallible 24. There are different degrees of certainty to be attained according to the different degrees of evidence and measure of divine assistance but every Christian by the use of his reason and common helps of Grace may attain to so great a degree of certainty from the convincing arguments of the Christian Religion and authority of the Scriptures that on the same grounds on which men doubt of the truth of them they may as well doubt of the truth of those things which they Judge to be most evident to sense or reason 25. No man who firmly assents to any thing as true can at the same time entertaine any suspition of the falshood of it for that were to make him certain and uncertain of the same thing it is therefore absurd to say that those who are certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be false which is an apparent contradiction and overthrowes any faculty in us of judging of truth or falshood 26. Whatever necessarily proves a thing to be true doth at the same time prove it impossible to be false because it is impossible the same thing should be true and false at the same time Therefore they who assent firmly to the doctrine of the Gospel as true doe thereby declare their belief of the Impossibility of the falshood of it 27. The nature of certainty doth receive several names either according to the nature of the proof or the degrees of the assent Thus moral certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to Mathematical evidence but implying a firme assent upon the highest evidence that Moral things can receive or as it is opposed to a higher degree of certainty in the same kind so Moral certainty implies only greater probabilities of one side than the other in the former sense we assert the certainty of Christian faith to be moral but not only in the latter 28. A Christian being thus certain to the highest degree of a firme assent that the Scriptures are the word of God his faith is thereby resolved into the Scriptures as into the rule and measure of what he is to believe as it is into the veracity of God as the ground of his believing what is therein contained 29. No Christian can be obliged under any pretence of infallibility to believe any thing as a matter of faith but what was revealed by God himself in that book wherein he believes his will to be contained and consequently is bound to reject whatsoever is offered to be imposed upon his faith which hath no foundation in Scripture or is contrary thereto which rejection is no making Negative Articles of faith but only applying the general grounds of faith to particular instances as because I believe nothing necessary to salvation but what is contained in Scripture therefore no such particular things which neither are there nor can be deduced thence 30. There can be no better way to prevent mens mistakes in the sense of Scripture which men being fallible are subject to than the considering the consequence of mistaking in a matter wherein their salvation is concerned And there can be no sufficient reason given why that may not serve in matters of faith which God himself hath made use of as the means to keep men from sin in their lives unless any imagine that errours in opinion are far more dangerous to mens souls than a vitious life is and therefore God is bound to take more care to prevent the one than the other It followeth that 1. There is no necessity at all or use of an infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth of those things which they may be certain without and cannot have any greater assurance supposing such infallibility to be in them 2. The infallibility of that Society of men who call themselves the Catholick Church must be examined by the same faculties in man the same rules of tryal the same motives by which the infallibility of any divine revelation is 3. The less convincing the miracles the more doubtful the marks the more obscure the sense of either what is called the Catholick Church or declared by it the less reason hath any Christian to believe upon the account of any who call themselves by the name of the Catholick Church 4. The more absurd any opinions are and repugnant to the first principles of sense and reason which any Church obtrudes upon the faith of men the greater reason men still have to reject the pretence of infallibility in that Church as a
grand imposture 5. To disown what is so taught by such a Church is not to question the veracity of God but so firmly to adhere to that in what he hath revealed in Scriptures that men dare not out of love to their souls reject what is so taught 6. Though nothing were to be believed as the will of God but what is by the Catholick Church declared to be so yet this doth not at all concern the Church of Rome which neither is the Catholick Church nor any sound part or member of it This may suffice to shew the validity of the principles on which the faith of Protestants stands and the weakness of those of the Church of Rome From all which it followes that it can be nothing but willful Ignorance weakness of Judgement strength of prejudice or some sinful passion which makes any one forsake the Communion of the Church of England to embrace that of the Church of Rome The End §. 1. The necessity of writing in these Controversies §. 2. The present arts used by our Adversaries to gain Proselyter §. 3. The occasion of this present writing §. 4. Of the manner and design of the writing §. 5. Of the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome Articl 35. Homil. partâ— 2. p. 75. Dr. Iackson Original of Unbelief Sect. 4. Ch. 34. Defence of the Apology ch 7. div 2. p. 552. Answer to Harding 8. articl p. 283. Art 14. p. 368. p. 382. Defence of the Answer to the Admonition tr 8. p. 152. Bish. Bilson Disâ— of Christian subjection part 4. p. 319. p. 321. p. 324. p. 530 c. Dr. Fulks confutation of an Idolatrous Treatise of Nicol. Sanders Dr. Reynolds de Idolat Eccles. Rom. Dr. Whitaker c. Duraeum l. 5. p. 138. K. Iames his Works p. 303. Is Casaub. Ep. ad Cardin Perron ad quartam Instant Ad Tortâ— librum respons p. 312. Answer to Perron 20. chapt p. 58. Bish. Abbor against Bishop Tom. 2. p. 1106. Whites Reply to Fisher. p. 209. Dr. Field of the Church l. 3. ch 20. p. 109. Bish. ushers Sermon before the Commons p. 30. Downam de Antichristo l. 5. c. 1 2 c. Davenant deter quaest 18. D. Iacksons Original of Unbelief sect 4. Archbish. Lauds Conference p. 277. Bell. de sanct beat l. 1. c. 20. Ep. 17. ad Marcellam Li. de Bapt. cont Donat. c. 1. Tract 18. in To. Sozomen li. Hist. c. 5. Niceph. li. 13. c. 11. S. Leo Ser. 4. de Quad. Li. contr Epist. fund The Introduction Of the Idolatry of the Roman Church Of the Worship of Images Of the meaning of the second Commandment Of the reason of the second Commandment Isa. 40. 19. 20. 21. 22. Of the wiser Heathens Notion of Images Theodoret. c. Graec. Serm. 3. p. 519. Clem. Alexand Strom. 5. p. 584. Isa. 44. 16 17. Clem. Alexand Protrept p. 46. Strom. 1. p. 304. Plutarch in Numâ Varro apud Augustin de Civit. Dei l. 4. c 31. Philo de legat ad Caium p. 1035. Eusâ—bius de prepar Evang. l. 6. c. 10. Herodot l 1. Strabo l 15. Diog. Laert. prooem Tacit. de morib German c. 9. Lucian de Dea Syria init The reason of this Law more clear by the Gospel John 4. 23 24. Morinus in Pentatench Samarit Exerc. 1. S. 9. c. 5. Act. 17. 〈◊〉 25. 29. Rom. 1. 19. 21. 23. V. 18. 21. Celsus apud Origen l. 7. p. 373. Euseb. de preparat Evang. l. 3. c 7. Athanas. c. Gent. p. 24. 31. Arnob. c. Gent. l. 6. p. 203. August Tom. 8. in Psal. 113. Maxim Tyrius dissert 38. Iulian. op frag ep ed. Peravii p. 537. Eusâ—b prepar Evang. l. 4. c. 1. Trirant de Christian. Expedit apud Sinas l. 5. c. 16. p. 588. The Christian Church believed this Law immutable Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. p. 559. Origen c. Cels l. 7. p. 375. L. 6 p. 284. Synod Nic. 2. Act. 4. Ep. ad Iohan. Synad Ad Thom. Claudiop Ep. ibid. Damascen Orthod sid l. 4 c. 17. Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. cap. 8. Of the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice Synod Nicaen 2. Act. 6. Aquinas Summ. p. 3. q. 25. art 3. Vasquez in l. 2. q. 25. disp 107. c. 5. Sirmond Concil Gall. To. 2. p. 194. Spelman Conâ— Tom. 1. p. 306. Hovedeni Annal. p. prior ad A. D 792 Simeon Dunel Histor. p. 111. Matth. Westmon ad A. D. 793. Caroli Capitut de non adoraâ—dis imagiâ—ibus Paris A. D. 1549. in Goldasti Coâ—stit Imperial To. 1. Synod Paris in Supplement Concil Gall. ad A. D. 824. Agobardi opera Ed. Massoni Balazii Caroli liber de Imag. l. 2. c. 24. Cap. 25. C. 31. L. 3. c. 15. Concil Tom. 5. p. 553. Tom. 6. p. 143. C. 36. Delaland Supplem Concil Gall. p. 109. Bellarm. Append. ad lib. de cultu Imag. c. 3. C. 4. Agobardi opera p. 221. Ed. 1666. Of the Scripture Instances of Idolatry contrary to the second Commandment Pâ—tav dogmat Theol. To 5. l 15. â— 13. s. 3. c. 14 s. 8. Vasâ— eâ— in 3. Thom. disp 94. q. 25. c. 3. Of the distinctions used to excuse this from being Idolaâ—ry Aug. c. duas Epist Peâ—ag l. 3 c. 4. B. Andrews Answer to Perron p. 57 Beâ—â—arm de imag l. 2. â—â—4 Vasquez 3. Th. disp 108. q. 25. art 3. c. 9. The instances supposed to be parallel Answered Of the Adoration of the Host. Concil Trident Sess. 13. c. 5. The State of the Controversie Joh. 20. 29. Rubrick after Communion Concil Tâ—â— dent 〈◊〉 c. 5. No security in the Roman Church agaâ—nst Idolatry in Adoration of the Host. Greg. de Val. de Idolol l. 2. c. 5. Bell. de Sacr. Euchar l. 4. c. 30. De Incarnat l. 3. c. 8. Vasquez Tom. 1. disp 108. c. 12 n. 111. Disput. 110. c. 2 3. No such motives to believe Transubstantiation as the Divinity of Christ. Bellar. de Sacr. Euch. l. 3. c. 19. De Christo l. 1. c. 4. A mistake doth not excuse from Idolatry Coster Enchir Contr. c. 8. de Euch. Sacram p. 308. Fisher c. Oecolompad l. 1. c. 2. p. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 760. B. Taylors second part of disswasive Introduct in Answ. to I S. 5. way 2. Part of dissâ—as b. 2. s. 6. p. 139. Ductor dubitant b. 2. c. 2. p. 344. p. 339. The grossest Idolatry excusable on the same grounds Aug. prefat in Psal. 93. To. 8. p. 2. p. 184. Aug. c. Faust Manich. l. 20. c. 1. 68. Garcilasso de la vega le Conmentaire Royal. liv 2. c. 1. Of Invocation of Saints The Fathers arguments against Heathen Idolatry condemn Invocation of Saints Iustin. Martyr Apol. 2. p. 65 66. Theophil ad Autolyc l. 1. p. 77. L. a. p. 110. Breviar Rom. 31. Iul. Antw. 1663. S. Basil. ad Amphiloch p. 332. V. Aug. c. Faust. l 20. c. 9. Baron Martycol Apr. 23 Iulii 25. All divine worship given to a creâ—ture condemned by the Fathers Origen c. câ—ls
Proph. Sect. 20. Speaking of Catholicks The beauty and Splendour of their Church their pompous he should have said solemn Service the stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy their name of Catholick which they suppose he should have said their very Adversaries give them as their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians the Antiquity of many of their Doctrines he should have said all the continual succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their Title to succeed St. Peter the flattering he should have said due expression of Minor Bishops he means acknowledging the Pope head of the Church which by being old records have obtained credibility the multitude and variety of People which are of their perswasion apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected and a pretended and sometimes he should have said alwayes apparent consent with some elder Ages in matters Doctrinal The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide of Faith The great differences which are commenced among their Adversaries abusing the liberty of Prophecying into a very great licentiousness Their happiness of being Instruments in converting divers he should rather have said of all Nations The piety and austerity of their Religious Orders of Men and Women The single life of their Priests and Bishops the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances the great reputation of their first Bishops for faith and sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate the oblique Arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them and amongst many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacity he should have said upon the same grounds the Fathers did fasten upon all that disagree from them These things saith he and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore-fathers which had actually possession and seizure of mens understandings before the opposite professions to wit of Protestant Presbyterian Anabaptist c. had a name Thus Dr. Taylor an eminent and leading man amongst the Protestants and if he confess that these Motives were sufficient for a Catholick to retain his Religion they must be of like force to perswade a dis-interessed Protestant to embrace it unless the Protestants can produce Motives for their Religion of greater or at least equal force with these which so great a man among them confesseth that Catholicks have for theirs Here therefore you must call upon the Author of the Paper you sent me to produce a Catalogue of grounds or at least some one ground for the Protestant Religion of greater or equal force with all these And as Dr. Taylor saith divers others which he omitted viz. The Scripture interpreted by the consent of Fathers the determination of General Councils the known Maxime of Catholicks that nothing is to be believed of Faith but what was received from their Fore-fathers as handed down from the Apostles The testimonie of the present Church of no less Authority now than in St. Austins time both for the Letter and the sence of the Scripture c. Do this and the Controversie will quickly be at an end Particular disputes are endless and above the understanding of such as are not learned but in grounds and principles 't is not so hard for Reason and common sence to Iudge That you may the better do it in your case I shall desire you to take these two Cautions along with you First That the Subject of the present Controversie are not those Articles in which the Protestants agree with us and for which they may pretend to produce the same Motives we do But in those in which they dissent from us such as are no Transubstantiation no Purgatory no honour due to Images no Invocation to Saints and the like in which the very Essence of Protestant as distinct from Catholick consists What Motives they can or will produce for these I do not foresee The pretence of Scriptures being sufficiently plain hath no place here because then the foresaid Negatives would be necessary to be believed as divine Truths And for their own Reason and Learning it will be found too light when put into the scale against that of the Catholick Church for so many Ages The second Caution is That you be careful to distinguish between Protestants producing grounds for their own Religion and finding fault with ours An Atheist can cavil and find fault with the grounds which learned men bring to prove a Deity such as are the Order of this visible World the general consent of Nations c. In this an Atheist thinks he doth somewhat But can he produce as good or better grounds for his own opinion No you see then 't is one thing to produce grounds for what we hold and another to find fault with those which are produced by the contrary part The latter hath made Controversie so long and the former will make it as short let the Answerer therefore instead of finding fault with our Motives produce his own for the Articles in Controversie and I am confident you will quickly discern which carry the most weight and consequently which are to be preferred A Defence of the foregoing Answer to the Questions CHAP. I. Of the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images The introduction concerning the occasion of the debate The Church of Rome makes its members guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry First Of the Worship of God by Images Some propositions for clearing the notion of Divine Worship It is in Gods power to determine the way of his Worship which being determined Gods Law and not our intention is to be the rule of Worship The main question is Whether God hath forbidden the worshipping of himself by an Image under the notion of Idolatry Of the meaning of the second Commandment from the terms therein used the large sense and importance of them which cannot be understood only of Heathen Idols Of the reason of that Law from Gods infinite and invisible nature How far that hath been acknowledged by Heathens The Law against Image Worship no ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews the reason against it made more clear by the Gospel The wiser Heathen did not worship their Images as Gods yet their worship condemned as Idolatry The Christian Church believed the reason of this Law to be immutable Of the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice the opposition to it in Greece Germany France and England Of the Scripture Instances of Idolatry contrary to the second Commandment in the Golden Calf and the Calves of Dan and Bethel Of the distinctions used to excuse image-worship from being Idolatry The vanity and folly of them The instances supposed to be parallel answered Madam § 1. THat
before that For Ludovicus de Paramo saith that several Priests were taken by order of the Inquisition in the Town of Lerena who under pretence of extraordinary illumination from God did gain upon the people and spread dangerous opinions among them And afterwards he particularly describes them under the names of the Illuminati by their pride and disobedience to their Superiours by their obstinate adhering to their Illusions and indulging themselves in their sensual lusts all which fully agree to the Character already given of the Fraticelli and Begardi For the first he saith they chose rather to be broken in pieces than give obedience to their Bishops for the second he proves that as long as they gave way to sensual lusts their illumination could not be from God for they who would sleep in the divine light as he speaks must have their eye-lids shut as to all worldly vanities and pleasures therefore we ought to shun such illuminated or rather blind persons who transform themselves into Angels of light spreading divers doctrines and revelations which they have of whom he interprets the Epistle of St. Iude. By all that hath been said this Sect seems to be nothing else but Gnosticism revived under new shapes and names and with a difference of opinions suitable to the age wherein it appeared Spondanus gives this account of the opinions and practices of the modern Alumbrado's that under a pretence of mental Prayer and divine contemplation and union with God they despised the use of Sacraments Preaching the Word of God and all holy exercises and did extol the other so highly that they said those things would not be sins in them which were so in others and by this means committed all impurities Of this Sect Ignatius Loyola was vehemently suspected to be and upon that account was cast into prison by the Inquisition in Spain Which Maffeius himself doth not deny that it was upon the account of the Illuminati and his Enthusiastical Preaching in the Streets that he was Questioned But Melchior Canus that learned Bishop of the Canaries puts the matter out of dispute for in a discourse of his concerning the foundation of the Society of Iesus preserved entire in the hands of Dominicus Canus Bishop of Cadiz his Nephew and published in part by Schioppius he saith that the General of that Order was one Innico who fled out of Spain lest he should be laid hold on by the Inquisition being suspected for the Heresie of the Illuminati and coming to Rome he desired to be judged by the Pope where no accuser appearing he was absolved He gives him the Character of a vain man for being once in his company at Rome he presently without any occasion began to boast of his righteousness and the unjust persecution he had suffered in Spain and spake many and great things of the revelations he had from God without any necessity upon which account he saith he believed not anything at all concerning them Another day he adds when he went to dine with him he commended one of his Brethren for a great Saint who coming into the room where they were he presently suspected the man to be mad and when he talked with him about matters of Religion he answered heretically not out of design but because he was an Ideot a rude ignorant fellow Ignatius being confounded at this said he was no Heretick but a Fool but he believed he had some lucid intervals and at that time by reason of the conjunction of the Moon he was not a very sound Catholick See from what Man the Iesuits derive the infallibility of their faith But although Canus was a person of more learning and judgement than a thousand Ignatius 's yet the Iesuits decry him as very partial against them for Orlandinus in his history of the Society complains of him as one of the bitterest enemies they had in the beginning of their Society for he every where set them forth as the fore-runners of Antichrist and explained the Prophecy of them concerning the men that should be in the last times Wherein it is said Men shall be lovers of themselves covetous boasters blasphemers c. Traytours heady high-minded lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God having a Form of Godliness but denying the power thereof For of this sort are they which creep into houses and lead Captive silly Women laden with sins led away with divers lusts c. The same thing saith Orlandinus and truly was charged upon the Orders of Dominicans and Franciscans as well as them and we shall not quarrel with them which order of them all hath the greatest share in the accomplishment of this Prophecy § 13. That which is our present business is to shew that this Order was instituted as the other were upon the credit of visions and revelations for Ignatius was certainly as Ignorant and Enthusiastical as St. Francis himself and to prove this I shall only make use of those of his own Order who have writ his life Maffeius Orlandinus and Ribadeneira and pursue it no farther than the institution of the Order as I have done with the other The first remarkable thing in him was that he was converted by reading the Legends of the Saints as Don Quixot began his Errantry by reading the old Romances I wonder how Ignatius did to read them for Maffeius describes him as one that had hardly ever learnt his letters but it is possible St. Peter taught him for they all write that St. Peter appeared to him before he was so far recovered as to be able to read But his Country-man was not more moved with the adventures of former Knights than Ignatius was with the stories of St. Dominick and St. Francis for these Maffeius tells us did particularly work upon him in so much that before he took up a firm resolution of Religious Errantry he would put cases to himself of the difficult Adventures of those two illustrious Heroes and found himself to have mettle enough to undertake any of them and therefore in a fit of zeal one night he gets out of his bed and fell down upon his knees before an Image of the B. Virgin and in that posture vowed himself her Knight Which is a circumstance so considerable I admire that Maffeius omits it as he doth likewise the strange noise in the house the trembling of the room and the breaking of the glass windows that time an argument saith Orlandinus that the Devil then took his leave of him although there be some reason to doubt it After this the V. Mary appeared to him with a great deal of glory with her Child in her lap and all this while for the vision continued for some time he thought himself awake by which sight he was hugely animated for all his future adventures The first whereof was to a place of great devotion to the B. Virgin called Montserrat and in the way
the Pope I need not produce the particular testimonies in this matter of Bellarmin Suarez Valentia Vasquez with the herd of the Iesuitical order who follow these having been produced by so many already and particularly by the two worthy Authors of the Answer to Philanax and the Papists Apology from the latter of whom we shortly expect a more accurate examination of these things and by the former may appear what influence the Iesuitical party had upon the most barbarous effects of Fanaticism here in the Murther of a most excellent Prince To whose observations I shall only adde this that A. D. 1648. a Book was Printed with this Title Several Speeches delivered at a Conference concerning the Power of Parliament to proceed against their King for misgovernment licensed by Gilb. Mabbot which is word for word taken out of Parsons the Iesuites Book of succession to the Crown of England purposely designed against our Kings title as will appear to any one who will take the pains to compare them By which we may see to whom our Fanaticks owed their principles and their precedents and how much Father Parsons though at that distance contributed to the cutting off the Kings Head But it may be now they have changed their principles and renounced all these Doctrines we should like them so much the better if they once did this freely and sincerely and not with sly tricks and aequivocations which they use in these matters whenever they are pinched with them Let them without mental reservations declare but these two points that the Pope cannot absolve the Kings Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance they make to him and that though the Pope should excommunicate the King as a Heretick and raise War against him they are bound to defend the King against the Pope and by the owning these two Propositions they will gain more upon our belief of their fidelity than the large volumn in vindication of the Irish Remonstrance hath done For there they falter in the very entrance for being charged from Rome that by their Remonstrance they had fallen under the condemnation of the Bull of Paul 5. against the Oath of Allegiance they give these three Answers which ought to be considered by us 1. That in the Oath of Allegiance they swear and testifie in their Consciences before God and the World that King Charles is their lawful King and that the Pope hath no power to depose c. Whereas they only acknowledge it 2. That in the Oath of Allegiance the contrary opinion is condemned which is not in theirs 3. That in the Oath of Allegiance they declare that they believe that the Pope cannot dispense with that Oath or any part of it but this is omitted by them and surely not without reason on their parts but with little satisfaction on ours And it is easie to observe that this Remonstrance was grounded upon this that the Pope owned our King to be lawful King of England a great kindness and this being supposed all the rest follows naturally as they well prove against the Divines of Lovain but suppose it should come into his Holiness's head to be of another opinion we see no assurance but they will be so too And it may make the Pope more cautious for the future how he declares himself when such ill use is made of it and others how they rely upon such Remonstrances which have still a tacit reservation of the Popes power to declare and dispense But will they declare it unlawful to resist Authority when the cause of their Church is concerned and supposing that thereby they can settle the Pope in the full exercise of his spiritual Authority among us No this is their good old Cause that undermines Parliaments that Sanctifies Rebellion and turns Nuptials into Massacres This is that which changes blood into Holy water and dying for Treason into Martyrdome this is that which gives the glory at Rome to Regicides and makes the Pictures of Gueret Guignard and Garnet so much valued there of which we have a sufficient testimony from Mons. S. Amour who tells us that among the several pourtraicts of Jesuits publickly sold there with permission of the Superiour he saw one of Garnet with this Inscription Pater Henricus Garnetus Anglus Londini pro fide Catholicâ suspensus sectus 3 Maii 1606. Father Henry Garnet hanged and quartered at London for the Catholick Faith by which we see that Treason and the Catholick faith are all one at Rome for nothing can be more notorious than that Garnet suffered only on the account of the Gunpowder-treason of which as M. S. Amour observes he acknowledged himself guilty before he dyed The most dangerous Sect among us is of those who under pretence of setting up the Kingdom of Christ think it lawful to overturn the Kingdoms of the World But herein they have mightily the advantage of those of the Church of Rome that what they do for Christ the other do it only for his Vicar and surely if either were lawful it is much fitter to do it for one than for the other We are of opinion that it is somewhat better being under Christs own Government than the Popes whatever they think but we condemn any opposition to Government under any pretence whatsoever and though Venner and his company acted to the height of Fanaticism among our Sectaries yet Guido Faux with his companions in their Church went beyond them 2. That party which hath been most destructive to Civil Government hath had the most countenance and encouragement from Rome Of which I shall give but two instances but sufficient to prove the thing A. D. 1594. 27 of December Iohn Chastel a Citizens Son of Paris and disciple of the Iesuites having been three years in the School watched his opportunity to stabb Henry 4. but by his stooping just at the time of the blow he struck him only into the mouth upon which the Iesuits were banished France and a Pyramid erected in their place of his Fathers house in the Front whereof towards the Palace gate the Arrest of the Court of Parliament against the Traitor was engraven containing his examination and confession of being a Scholler of the Iesuits a Disciple of Guerets and the sentence passed upon him because he believed it lawful to Kill Kings that Henry 4. was not in the Church till he was approved by the Pope c. This Arrest continued without notice taken of it at Rome till October 9. A. D. 1609. and on that day it was condemned by the Order of the Inquisition and put into the Index Expurgatorius as it is at this day to be seen Which was a time wherein many reports were fled abroad in many parts of the Murther of Henry 4. and Letters came to Paris from several places to know the truth of it and the consequence of this was that it being found how careful the Court of Rome was to