three persons in the God-head are one Woman it would be but a small fault with Angelus to believe this thinking the Church believes the same (e) Siquis non crederet Christum esse verum Deum hominem idem sentiret papa eum non iri damnatum Cardin. St. Angeli ad legaros Bohem. an 1447. Or he may believe that Christ is not true God and Man and yet not be condemned for it if the Pope believed it too (g) Rusticus imperitus qui suo Parocho fidem habens credit aliquid contra articulos fidei excusatur a peccato Probl. 15. p. 98. If trusting a Priest who tells him the Church holds it he believes any thing against the Articles of faith he is excused saith Sancta Clara after Scotus and Gabriel and others (h) Licet alicui articulo fidei discredat explicite credit tamen implicite eidem in generali fide c. ibid. Corduba Though he expresly disbelieve any Article of faith yet he may be said to believe it implicitely So that he may believe that the Creed or the Gospel is not to be believed he may count it a Fable as Pope Leo called it and yet be a Christian as to his belief if this be the Christian faith He may be expresly an Heretick or a monstrous mis-believer and yet implicitely be a faithful Roman-Catholick Thirdly such a faith as this Jewes and Turks and Pagans have even the worst of these who do but acknowledge a God of truth For they believe what this God reveals is true and this general involves all the particulars of the Christian belief so that if the belief of such a general without other faith as to the particulars may be sufficient for Papists such Infidels may pass for as true believers as Roman-Catholicks Yea the faith of such Catholicks will be so much worse than that of these Infidels as it is better to believe Gods veracity and Revelation than to believe the infallibility of the Roman Church or the truth of all therein believed Indeed such a faith was not counted sufficient for Christians till Christians were thought to be something like Asses Aquinas inquires whether all be a like obliged to have an explicite saith He answers negatively and the ground of his conclusion is Job 1. 14. The Oxen were plowing and the Asses were feeding beside them From whence he argues gravely (i) Quia videlicet minores qui significantur per asinos dâ—bent in credendis adhaereâ—… majoribus qui per boves significantur ut Gregorius expouit in 2 moral Aquinas 2. 2. q. 2. art 6. That the people who are signified by Asses are to lye down in the faith of their Superiors who are signified by the Oxen as Gregory expounds it But what if the Oxen go a stray what must become of the Asses then Why they may follow them without hurt believing that they are right when they are in a wrong way for they must not have their names for nothing So he resolves this difficulty (k) Humana cognitio non sit regula fidei sed veritas Divina a qua si aliqui majorum dificiunt non praejudicat fidei simplicium qui eos rectam fidem habere credunt Aquinas ibid. ad tertium Human knowledge is not the rule of faith but Divine truth from which if some of the Superiors the Oxen make defection that hurts not the faith of the simple the Asses who believe them to have the right faith After these two Saints their best Pope and their Angelical Doctor that we may see we owe not this rare notion where their whole Church is so subtilly divided into Oxen and Asses to any lower than the most eminent amongst them Cardinal (l) De justific l. 1. c. 7. p. 706. Bellarmine their great Champion makes use of the same exposition of that Text to maintain the sufficiency of such a faith Stapleton would have us believe that they admit not of this implicite faith save in points of less moment but herein he misrepresents them and would delude us For it is the common Doctrine of the Romanists That an implicite faith in Christ such as Pagans may have and for which none should have the name of Christians is sufficient under the Gospel to pass any into (m) For these are alledged Altisiodorensis Gulielmus Parisiensis Richardusde Media villa Scotus Bradwardin Gabriel Baptista Troâ—amala Vega Medina Corduba Faber Patigianis Herrera c. Victoria Soto Canus Bannes Alvarez in Sta. Clara. Probl. 15. in Bannes in 22. q. 2. art 8. a justifying or saving state This is it which our Divines commonly teach saith (n) Vega pro conc Trident. l. 6. c. 15. p. 92. Vega when they say the faith of one Mediatour either explicite or implicite is enough for justification And (o) Probl. 15. p. 89. haec est communior in Scholis ut declarat sequitur Herrera c. So Bartholom de Ledesma sum de sacram paenit cum ad primam justificationem sides explicita Christi non requiratur ut supponimus tanquam magis probabile commune in Scholis c. Sancta Clara with others tell us this is the more common tenet in their Schools And whereas they make some difference between justification and salvation in this point Bannes helps to remove it (p) in 22. q. 2. art 8. dub ult Dicendum quod gratia est sufficiens causa gloriae unde omne illud sine quo obtineri potest gratia non est de necessitate salutis Aquinas in 4. dist 9. art 1. vid. Soto in 4. dist 5. q. unica art 2. dub ult It is neither Heresie saith he nor Error nor Rashness nor Scandal to assert that a man may also in the same manner he saved because justification being the last disposition to glory it is very probable that he which is justified by an implicite faith may also by the same faith without alteration be saved It is true they say there is a precept for a more express faith though no more than this implicite belief in Christ be needful necessitate medij But they have so many wayes to exempt Infidells even under the profession of Christians from its obligation that few in comparison will be culpable for not observing it By their Doctors they are excused if they (q) Fill. tr 22. n. 40. be dull or gross-witted If they be (r) n. 54. Dico secundo obligationem praedictam esse sub peccato mortali nisi ignorantia aut impotentia excuset Communis doctorum ignorant or impotent or (s) Probabilis est ignorantia quando quis habit fundamentum probabile ut dum rusticus credit aliquid ductus testimonio sui Parochi aut parentum sic doctores Communiter Sancta Clar. ibid. p 87. if their Priest or their Parents mislead them or (t) Quando articuli fidei non modo debito proponuntur ut rationibus frivolis vel ab hominibus
were Writers before their Order was founded or appeared to the World on this Subject To these I have added other Casuists of this last Age not that there is need to produce any worse than the former but to shew that time hath made little or no alteration amongst them for the better The Romanists when they are ashamed of their Doctrine or think the World will cry shame of it are wont to disown it It is like they may do so here and tell us that these points not being determined by Councils are not the Doctrine of their Church but the opinions of particular Doctors This serves them for a shift in other cases with some colour but it will be absurd to offer at it here For though this be not their Doctrine of Faith which with some generals most about the Sacraments reflected on in the sequel as there is occasion is the business of their Councils yet it is the Practical Doctrine of their Church if it have any and f they think their Catholicks concerned to be Christians more than meerly in opinion And this under several Heads I have collected out of such Writings as are the proper place of it Therefore to say that this is not the Doctrine of their Church because the particulars are not found decided by Councils is to tell us that they are not charged with it unless we can find it where they know it cannot be found and where with any reason it cannot be looked for It is no more reasonable than if one who hath taken a purse should plead though it be found in his hand that he is not to be charged with it unless we can spy it in his mouth when yet he never opens it That Councils should give particular Directions for Conscience and Practice in Cases innumerable was never attempted nor ever can be expeâ—…ed Their Church leaves this to her Divines and Casuists and that nothing may pass them but what is agreeable to her sense no Books are to be published but with the approbation and authority of such as are counted competent Judges hereof So that the Doctrine of their authorized Writers that especially wherein they commonly agree is the Practical Doctrine of that Church or else she hath none such and consequently no care of the lives and consciences of her Members And though this be not Infallible or de fide as they count the Decisions of Councils yet is it as certain they say as the nature of the subject requires nor do they pretend to have any infallible Doctrine for particular directions herein Which yet may justly seem very strange to any man that considers that gross faults in Life and Practice are more infallibly damnable than errours in Faith and Speculation Now upon this their Common Doctrine the substance of the Charge ensuing and the principal articles thereof are grounded As for the opinions of particular Doctors wherein there is no such common concurrence though they be not so certain as the other yet they are even the worst of them safe in practice any of their people may follow them without danger and with a good conscience for this as will appear hereafter is the common judgement of their Schools and Doctors and so far the Doctrine of their Church And if that Church did no farther own these opinions common or particular then under this character this is enough for our purpose when the question is of the danger of Popery in reference to mens Salvation that she counts such rules of life safe and publickly allows them as direction for practice which tend to ruin Religion and mens Souls If they were not counted safe that Church which pretends to so much care of Souls since all in her Communion are exposed to the Danger would be concerned to give warning of it and brand these Maximes as pernicious but this was never yet done not ever like to be These opinions all or the greatest part of them were taught and published in that Church before the Council of Trent there was time enough in Eighteen years to take cognizance of them and their pernicious consequence Yet when they bestowed Anathama's so liberally where there was occasion and for the most part where there was none they thought not fit to bestow one Curse upon these Doctrines how execrable so ever yea some part thereof of worse consequence had there an express Confirmation Their Popes since though they could see occasion to condemn such Propositions as the Five ascribed to Jansenius and those of Baius White and many others could not by the help of a judgement counted infallible discern any thing in the worst of these Doctrines worthy of or fit for their Censure The Cardinals of the Inquisition at Rome and their Setters in other Countries whose business it is to spie whatever in Books particularly is against Faith and Good Manners see nothing of this nature in that which destroys both No Expurgatory Index what havock soever has been made by those Tools in their best Authors hath so far as I have observed touched the Common Opinions here exposed It 's true some others have been expunged and I find above Forty Opinions of the late Casuists censured by Alexander the Seventh and the Cardinals of their Sacred Congregation (p) Index Expurg sub Alexand. VII An. 1666. but hereby more authority is added to those I insist on being thought good enough to pass untouched which must therefore be counted sound Doctrine and safe for Practice in the Judgment of their Virtual Church and the chief parts of their Church Representative There is no ground to expect that this Doctrine as to the principal and most pernicious parts of it will ever be condemned by any Popes or Councils of such Complexion and Principles as that of Trent where it was a Maxime observed religiously that no Determination should pass which either in matter or form would disoblige any considerable Party among them much less all the Roman interest is supported by such Politicks and must be secured whatever become of Souls or Saving Doctrine There are indeed some Dissenters amongst them as there are elsewhere who complain of their Moral Divinity but they are such whose power and interest can reach little further than Complaints and these are so far from being the Voice or Sense of their Church that their Writings which exhibite such Complaints are condemned at Rome (q) Ibid. by the Supreme Tribunal as they call it of the Inquisition In short by the known Custom and settled Order of the Roman Church the people for regulating of their Hearts and Lives are to be directed by their Confessors their Confessors have their direction herein from their Casuists and Practical Authors both Priests and People must believe this to be safe because the Church hath made this provision for them approves the course and obligeth them to take no other And thus that Doctrine the deadly Venome whereof I here discover must be conveyed from
of it as vain and frivolous and concludes they may be Worshipped as well when they are vermine as when they are Ashes (e) Recta intentione sincer a side possit quis in vermibus sanctum apprehendere venerari Ibid. cap. ult n. 113. 114. A man saith he may with right intention and sincere faith apprehend a Saint and Worship him in Worms If the question had been of the little Worms in the Ulcer of St. Harry of Denmark (f) Engl. Martyrol Jan. 16. for which he had such Saint-like love as when they crept out of his Knee to put them in again that they might be nourished where they were bred Or of the Lice of St. Francis (g) Canus Loc. Th. lib. 11. c. 6. for which he had such a holy tenderness it is Recorded as an argument of his holiness that when they were shaked off he gathered them up and put them in his Bosome I suppose Henricus himself could scarce have denyed but those Sacred Creepers having so near Relation to and being sanctified by such extraordinary contact of so great Saints might have been adored It cannot be denyed but they are lyable to grosse mistakes about the object of their Worship here and some of them acknowledge that the people herein are deluded with great and detestable (h) Ingentes detestandae imposturae patefierent Cassand Consult c. de reliquijs impostures What if the Tooth which they Worship for St. Christophers as bigg as a mans (*) L. vives in August de civit Dei l. 15. c. 9. Dens molaris pugno Major fist should prove the Tooth of a Beast or the Hair which they Worship as part of St. Petes Beard should be the excrement of some Malefactor or the shift which they Worship as the Virgin Maries should be the covering of some Harlot or the dust or the Vermine which they Worship as the remains of some Saints should have been in their original no more holy than a Bruit or a damned sinner as great mistakes as these about their Reliques the World has discovered and themselves have been convinced of Valla a person of great learning and eminency amongst them sayes plainly (i) Decem millia talium rerum Romae sunt De Constant donat There are ten thousand such things counterfeit Reliques in Rome it self And if the seat of infallibility be so well stored with cheats what shall we think of other places They say indeed they have the attestation of Visions Revelations Miracles to insure them but these they have and produce as well for those that are confessed to be counterfeits as for them which they take to be true So that they are proved beyond all question to be all alike the true ones as very counterfeits as any and the counterfeit as true as the best Now may they with safety venture to Worship them for all this Yes their Devotion is maintained to be not only safe but meritorious however they be deluded about the object of it They may worship at all adventure what they take to be a Relique though it be indeed no such thing and yet be so far from Idolatry or any sin that they deserve highly at Gods hand by so doing If (k) Si quis putans aliquam esse particulam sancti quae non est merito suae devotionis non caret Vasque ibid. cap. ult n 114. any man think sayes one that to be a Relique of a Saint which indeed is not so he is not frustrate of the merit of his Devotion Yea a man may merit by a mistaken belief though he should worship the Devil sayes another (l) Holcot infra So that they have not only a fair excuse but great incouragement to venture though they may happen to Worship the Devil himself and not only some limb of him instead of Christ or his Saints or their remains When the Lord declares Deut. 32. That his Wrath should burn to the bottome of Hell for that the Israelites Worshipped Devils instead of God they might if Baronius had been their Advocate have come off well enough with his Plea fides purgat facinus The Israelites believ'd as firmly as Roman-Catholicks only they were mistaken that they did not Worship Devils but that which was a proper object of Worship therefore they were so far from the bottom of Hell or any danger of it that hereby they might merit Heaven and Glory Let me add that the miscarriages in their Mass furnishes them with many Sacred Reliques and their orders about the disasters there create for them diverse objects of Worship and help them to many right Worshipful things of the vilest Vermine and that which is more loathsome If the body or blood of Christ so they will have it to be fall to the ground it must be lick'd up the ground is to be scraped and the scrapings reduced to ashes are to have place among the Reliques If the blood be spilt upon the Altar-cloathes those cloathes are to be washed and the Sacred wash is to be inshrined If a flye or a Spider fall into the blood it is to be taken out and burnt and the ashes put into the holy shrine But if the blood of Christ be poysoned it is to be kept in a clean vessel among the Reliques and so poyson becomes a very Worshipful thing If a Mouse or a Spider or a Worm eat the body of Christ I must desire pardon for mentioning such horrid things these Vermine in their ashes are to have the same preferment and be put into shrines for Reliques If a Priest or other person do vomit up the Host even that if no mans Stomach will serve him devoutly to lick it up being turned into ashes is to be honoured among the Reliques All these and more particulars are ordained and provided for in the Cautels of the Mass and thereby we see what order is taken by holy Church that dirty water the scrapings of the ground Venemous or loathsome Vermine yea the Vomit of a weak or gluttonous Stomach casting up that which they call Jesus Christ may be inshrined among the Reliques which they adore They tender Worship to all under the Altar promiscuously yea their very prayers are so directed thereto that you cannot discern whether it be more to the Reliques or the persons they relate to for example when they say (l) Pontific Roman Sect. de consecr Eccles O you that are seated under the Altar intercede ye to God for us For they may as well believe that these Reliques can intercede as that Christ or the glorified Saints are seated under their Altar Sect. 3. Some of them would have us believe that they give not Divine honour to Reliques but a sort of Religious Worship which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Scripture and secular Authors too (m) Secundum profanos Authores idem significant Bellarm. de sanct l. 1. c. 14. p. 1463. as is acknowledged make no
which was Idolatry is now no such matter Of (l) Quaeritur quid juris de idololatria Et dico supersedendum esse hic quia jam per gratiam Christi non est in usu v. Superstitio n 3. the Law against Idolatry says Sylvester nothing must be said because now by the grace of Christ it is not in use It is not in use because it is their custome it is not the same thing that it was to all the world besides because they use it And what custome has done in these instances it may as well do in any other when all sin is once the practice of that Church as the worst is already there will be no sin in it Sect. 16. Thirdly another probable ground is a considerable Authority or the opinion of one whom we may trust hence this is their Doctrine that he who does what is sinful following the judgment of an able Doctor is excused from sin This principle is without ground appropriated to the Jesuits with the pernicious consequences of it it was currant in the Church of Rome before the Fathers of that Society where infants Panormitan thus determines (m) Panormitan in C. Capillan de feri dicit quod sequens opinionem alicujus Doctoris non subtiliter investigatam quae postmodum apparet fâ—lsa excusatur a peccato quamdtu non apparuerit falsa Sylv. v. opinio n. 1. Angel Sum. v. opin n. 2. Ubi Glossa cum textu Innocentius Gofredus alij he that follows the opinion of any Doctor not curiously examined which afterward appears false is excused from sin so long as it appears not to be false In Sylvester this is confirmed and he directs to several proofs out of their Law for it (n) Ibid. secundum Antoninum removes what by mistake is alledged out of Aquinas against it and shews that both their great Saint and their great Abbot agree with others that this is safe in points which concern either faith or manners when they are not evident not clearly and manifestly determined To him (o) Opinio probabilis erit si illam affirment boni nominis Doctores imo si unus Docâ—t Angelus Sylvester Navar c. Jo. Sancius disp 44. n. 61. Bonacina Tom. 2. disp 2. q. 4. punct 9. n. 1. alij ibid. For this 24 Doctors are produced by Verricelli Q. moral Tom. 1. tr 2. q. 5. one Doctor may be sufficient In morals we must be satisfied with probabilities and according to the rule amongst them (*) Probabiliter quis sequitur opinionem sui Doctoris sed neque ex multitudine authorum quid melius aequius est judicato cum possit unius forte deterioris sententia muitos in aliqua parte superare a man may probably follow one Doctor And by a multitude of Authors we are not to judge what is better or more equal the opinion of one and he worse than the rest may be preferr'd before many in some particular So (p) Ibid. n. 2. he and Angelus (q) Ibid. n. 1. before him after others They conclude (r) Multo mogis excusatur sequens opinionem Doctoris non reprobatam cum voluntate non adhaerendi si vera non apparet uterque ibid. in reference to Joachim who was not accounted a Heretick though his opinions were against the faith because not condemned by the Church that he is much more to be excused who follows the opinion of a Doctor not rejected by the Church and if he thought it not true would not adhere to it (s) Certe in isto non potest esse contemâ—tus sic nec peccatum inobedientiae Ibid. Certainly sayes Angelus in him there can be no contempt and so no sin of disobedience 'T is true that which is maintained by more and better Authors seems more probable but they will not have us alwayes bound to follow that which is more probable for though this be more secure yet the rule that what (t) Nec obstat quod in dubijs tutior pars est eligenda ut videtur se exponere periculo qui in diversitate opinionum non eligit tutiorem quoniam hoc verum esset quum proprie dubium est sed quum est opinio secus est quia nec tunc sumus in dubio nec consequenter exponit sè quis periculo Angelus ibid. n. 2. Sylvest n. 1. is safest is to be followed holds not they tell us but in points that are properly dubious and where there is opinion we are not properly in doubt Thus Navar also explains it (u) Rectus intellectus illius vulgati tutior pars est eligenda in dubio nempe in eo quod est proprie dubium quale non est cum suffiâ—ienti authoritate aut ratione altera pars creditur neque cum ex multis opinionibus una pro vera eligitur cap. 27. n. â—84 having told us (x) Non semper esse necessarium partem tutiorem eligere quia satis est quoad praecepâ—i implementam tutam eligere ut late probavimus etiam in his quae ad fidem mores pertinent in alijs enim nec de consilio quis tenetur eligere tutiorem n. 281. Vid. Autoninum Angel Sylvest Navar. Gutier in Jo. Sanc. disp 42. n. 12. that it is not always necessary to choose what is safer because it is enough for the fulfilling of the precept to choose that which is safe even in those things which concern faith and manners for in other things it is not so much as under Counsel to follow the safest Accordingly Metina in (y) Dicit opinionem posse teneri sine peccato quae est peritorum virorum licet contrarium siâ— planius securius cap. 52. p. 271. Lopez sayes the opinion of expert Divines may be held without sin although the contrary be more clear and more safe In short that an opinion which is less probable may be followed is asserted we are told both by the greater part and the graver sort of their Divines (z) Licitum esse sectari opinionem minus probabilem relicta probabiliori docent Mercado Medina Sairus naming 20 besides and adding alij plures Jo. Sauc disp 42. n. 12. Possumus ubsque peccato sequi opinionem probabilem relicta probabiliore tutiare Bonacin Tom. 2. disp 2. q. 4. punc 9. n. 4. Clavis Regia alij communiter ibid. n. 5. For this Barnabas Gallego a Dominican produces near Fifty of their Doctors many of them of the same order and says it is sententia communior inter Thomistas tract de conscient dubi de consc probabili So that if we may trust those whom who we see no reason to think partial to the Society this is not a singular conceit of the Jesuits but the opinion of their other Divines generally and the more common Doctine of Aquinas his Disciples otherwise most opposite to the Society above Forty of their grave Doctors