other which is not fair and ingenuous As to the one he saith He follows the Council of Trent and their allowed Spiritual Books and Catechisms and we find no fault with this But why must the other Part then be drawn by Fancy or common Prejudices or ignorant Mistakes Have we no Rule whereby the Judgment of our Church is to be taken Are not our Articles as easie to be had and understood as the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent I will not ask How the Council of Trent comes to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here where it was never received But I hope I may why our Representations are not to be taken from the Sense of our Church as theirs from the Council of Trent If he saith his Design was to remove common Prejudices and vulgar Mistakes it is easie to answer if they are contrary to the Doctrine of our Church we utterly disown them We know very well there are Persons who have so false a Notion of Popery that they charge the Rites and Customs of our Church with it but we pity their Weakness and Folly and are far from defending such Mis-representations But that which we adhere to is the Doctrine and Sense of our Church as it is by Law established and what Representations are made agreeable thereto I undertake to defend and no other But if a person take the liberty to lay on what Colours he pleases on one side it will be no hard matter to take them off in the other and then to say How much fairer is our Church than she is painted It is an easie but not so allowable a way of disputing for the same person to make the Objections and Answers too for he may so model and frame the Arguments by a little Art that the Answers may appear very full and sufficient whereas if they had been truly represented they would be found very lame and defective 2. He pretends to give an Account why he quotes no Authors for his Mis-representations which is very unsatisfactory viz. That he hath dâ—scribed the Papist therein exactly accoâ—ding to the Apprehension he had of him when he was a Protestant But how can we tell what sort of Protestant he was nor how well he was instructed in his Religion And must the Character now supposed to be common to Protestants be taken from his ignorant or childish or wilful Mistakes Did ever any Protestant that understands himself say That Papists are never permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry Or that a Papist believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels c Yet these are some of his Misrepresentations Did he in earnest think so himself If he did he gives no good account of himself if he did not he gives a worse for then how shall we believe him in other things when he saith He hath drawn his Mis-representations exactly according to his own Apprehensions It is true he saith he added some few points which were violently charged on him by his Friends but we dare be bold to say these were none of them But let us suppose it true that he had such Apprehensions himself Are these fit to be printed as the Character of a Party What would they say to us if a Spanish Convert should give a Character of Protestants according to the common Opinion the people there have of them and set down in one Column their monstrous Mis-representations and in another what he found them to be since his coming hither and that in good Truth he saw they were just like other Men But suppose he had false Apprehensions before he went among them why did he not take care to inform himself better before he changed Had he no Friends no Books no Means to rectifie his Mistakes Must he needs leave one Church and go to another before he understood either If this be a true Account of himself it is but a bad Account of the Reasons of his Change III. The Account he gives of the other part of his Character affords as little Satisfaction For although in the general it be well that he pretends to keep to a Rule 1. He shews no Authority he hath to interpret that Rule in his own sense Now several of his Representations depend upon his own private Sense and Opinions against the Doctrine of many others as zealous for the Church as himself and what reason have we to adhere to his Representations rather than to theirs As for instance he saith The Pope's personal Infallibility is no Matter of Faith But there are others say it is and is grounded on the same Promises which makes him Head of the Church Why now must we take his Representation rather than theirs And so as to the Deposing Power he grants it hath been the Opinion of several Popes and Councils too but that it is no matter of Faith But whose Judgment are we to take in this Matter according to the Principles of their Church A private Man's of no Name no Authority or of those Popes and Councils who have declared it and acted by it And can any man of their Church justifie our relying upon his Word against the Declaration of Popes and Councils But suppose the Question be about the Sense of his own Rule the Council of Trent what Authority hath he to declare it when the Pope hath expresly forbidden all Prelates to do it and reserved it to the Apostolical See 2. He leaves out in the several Particulars an essential part of the Character of a Papist since the Council of Trent which is that he doth not only believe the Doctrines there defined to be true but to be necessary to Salvation And there is not a word of this in his Representation of the Points of Doctrine but the whole is managed as though there were nothing but a difference about some particular Opinions whereas in truth the Necessity of holding those Doctrines in order to Salvation is the main Point in difference If Men have no mind to believe their own Senses we know not how to help it but we think it is very hard to be told we cannot be saved unless we renounce them too And this now appears to be the true State of the Case since Pius the 4 th drew up and published a Confession of Faith according to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent wherein Men are not only required to believe their Traditions as firmly as the Bible the Seven Sacraments Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Indulgences Supremacy c. but they must believe that without believing these things there is no Salvation to be had in the ordinary way for after the enumeration of those Points it follows Hanc veram Catholicam sidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This is the
true Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved i. e. The belief of these things is hereby declared as necessary to Salvation as of any other Articles of the Creed But it may be objected The subscribing this Profession of Faith is not required of all Members of that Church To which I answer That to make a Man a Member of it he must declare that he holds the same Faith which the Church of Rome holds And this is as much the Faith of the Roman Church as the Pope and Council of Trent could make it And it is now printed in the Roman Ritual at Paris set forth by Paul the 5 th as the Confession of Faith owned by the Church of Rome And therefore this ought to have been a part of the true Representation as to the Doctrinal Points but when he comes to the 35 th Head he then owns That unless Men do believe every Article of the Roman Faith they cannot be saved and he that disbelieves one does in a manner disbelieve all Which may as well reach those who disown the Deposing Power and the Pope's personal Infallibility as Us since those are accounted Articles of Faith by the ruling part of their Church to whom it chiefly belongs to declare them and the former hath been defined both by Popes and Councils 3. He never sets down what it is which makes any Doctrine to become a Doctrine of their Church We are often blamed for charging particular Opinions upon their Church but we desire to know what it is which makes a Doctrine of their Church i. e. whether frequent and publick Declaration by the Heads and Guides of their Church be sufficient or not to that End Our Author seems to imply the Necessity of some Conditions to be observed for besides the Popes Authority he requires due Circumstances and proceeding according to Law But who is to be Judge of these Circumstances and legal Proceedings And he never tells what these Circumstances are And yet after all he saith The Orders of the Supream Pastor are to be obey'd whether he be infallible or not And this now brings the Matter home The Popes he confesses have owned the Deposing Doctrine and acted according to it And others are bound to obey their Orders whether infallible or not and consequently they are bound by the Doctrine of their Church to act when the Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Power But he seems to say in this Case that a Doctrine of their Church is to be judged by their Number for saith he There are greater numbers that disown this Doctrine I will not at present dispute it but I desire to be informed Whether the Doctrines of their Church go by majority of Votes or not I had thought the Authority of the Guides of the Church ought to have over-ballanced any Number of Dissenters For what are those who refuse to submit to the Dictates of Popes and Councils but Dissenters from the Church of Rome The distinction of the Court and Church of Rome is wholly impertinent in this Case For we here consider not the meer Temporal Power which makes the Court but the Spiritual Capacity of Teaching the Church and if Popes and Councils may err in Teaching this Doctrine why not in any other I know there are some that say Vniversal Tradition is necessary to make a Doctrine â—f their Church But then no Submission can be required to any Doctrine in that Church till the Universal Tradition of it in all Times and in all Parts of the Christian Church be proved And we need to desire no better Terms than these as to all Points of Pope Pius the 4 th his Creed which are in dispute between us and them 4. He makes use of the Authority of some particular Divines as delivering the Sense of their Church when there are so many of greater Authority against them Whereas if we proceed by his own Rule the greater Number is to carry it Therefore we cannot be thought to mis-represent them if we charge them with such things as are owned either by the general and allowed Practices of their Church or their publick Offices or the generality of their Divines and Casuists or in case of a Contest with that side which is owned by the Guides of their Church when the other is censured or which was approved by their Canonized Saints or declared by their Popes and councils whose Decrees they are bound to follow And by these measures I intend to proceed having no design to mis-represent them as indeed we need not And so much in Answer to the Introduction A Papist Mis-represented and Represented I. Of Praying to Images A Papist Mis-represented Worships Stocks and Stones for Gods He takes no notice of the Second Commandment but setting up Pictures and Images of Christ the Virgin Mary and other his Saints He prays to Them and puts his Trust and Confidence in them much like as the Heathens did in their Wooden Gods Jupiter Mars Venus c. And for this reason He erects stately Monuments to Them in his Churches adorns them sumptuously burns Candles offers Incense and frequently falls down prostrate before them and with his Eyes fix'd on them cries out Help me Mary assist me Anthony remember me Ignatius A Papist Represented believes it damnable to Worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to Pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints as also to put any Trust or Confidence in them He keeps them by him indeed to preserve in his Mind the Memory of the things Represented by them as People are wont to preserve the Memory of their deceased Friends by keeping their Picture He is taught to use them by casting his eye upon the Pictures or Images and thence to raise his heart to the Prototypes and there to imploy it in Meditation Love Thanksgiving Imitation c. as the Object requires As many good Christians placing a Death-head before them from the sight of it take occasion to reflect often upon their last End in order to their better preparing for it or by seeing Old Time painted with his Fore-lock Hour-Glass and Scythe turn their thoughts upon the swiftness of Time and that whosoever neglects the present is in danger of beginning then to lay hold when there 's no more to come These Pictures or Images having this advantage that they inform the mind by one glance of what in reading requires a Chapter and sometimes a Volume There being no other difference between them then that Reading represents leisurely and by degrees and a Picture all at once Hence he finds a convenience in saying his Prayers with some devout Pictures before him he being no sooner distracted but the sight of these recalls his wandring thoughts to the right Object and as certainly brings something good into his mind as an immodest Picture disturbs his heart with naughtiness And because he is sensible that these holy Pictures and Images represent and
out by many Christian Writers And if the Church cannot add to the Scripture and our Author thinks it damnable to do it how can it make any Books Canonical which were not so received by the Church For the Scripture in this sense is the Canon and therefore if it add to the Canon it adds to the Scripture i. e. it makes it necessary to believe some Books to be of infallible Authority which were not believed to be so either by the Iewish or Christian Church as appears by abundant Testimonies to that purpose produced by a learned Bishop of this Church which ought to have been considered by the Representer that he might not have talked so crudely about this matter But however I must consider what he saith 1. He produces the Testimony of Greg. Nazianzen who is expresly against him and declares but Twenty two Books in the Canon of the Old Testament but how doth he prove that he thought these Books Canonical He quotes his Oration on the Maccabees Where I can find nothing like it and instead of it he expresly follows as he declares the Book of Iosephus of the Authority of Reason concerning them So that if this proves any thing it proves Iosephus his Book Canonical and not the Maccabees 2. He adds the Testimony of S. Ambrose who in the place he refers to enlarges on the Story of the Maccabees but saith nothing of the Authority of the Book And even Coccius himself grants that of old Melito Sardensis Amphilochius Greg. Nazianzen the Council of Laodicea S. Hierom Russinus and Gregory the Great did not own the Book of Maccabees for Canonical 3. Innocentius ad Exuperium speaks more to this purpose And if the Decretal Epistle be allowed against which Bishop Cosins hath made considerable Objections then it must be granted that these Books were then in the Roman Canon but that they were not received by the Universal Church appears evidently by the Canon of the Council of Laodicea c. 60. wherein these Books are left out and this was received in the Code of the Universal Church which was as clear a Proof of the Canon then generally received as can be expected It is true the Council of Carthage took them in and S. Augustine seems to be of the same Opinion But on the other side they are left out by Melâ—to Bishop of Sardis who lived near the Apostles times Origen Athanasius S. Hilary S. Cyril of Ierusalem Epiphanius S. Basil Amphilochius S. Chrysostom and especially S. Ierom who hath laboured in this point so much that no fewer than thirteen places are produced out of him to this purpose by the forementioned learned Bishop of our Church who clearly proves there was no Tradition for the Canon of the Council of Trent in any one Age of the Christian Church But our Author goes on 4. It is of little concern to him whether these Books were ever in the Hebrew Copy I would only ask whether it be of any concern to him whether they were divinely inspired or not He saith It is damnable to add to the Scripture by the Scripture we mean Books written by Divine Inspiration Can the Church make Books to be so written which were not so written If not then all it hath to do is to deliver by Tradition what was so and what not Whence should they have this Tradition but from the Iews and they owned no Divine Inspiration after the time of Malachy How then should there be any Books so written after that time And he that saith in this matter as he doth It is of little concern to him whether they were in the Hebrew Canon doth little concern himself what he ought to believe and what not in this matter 5. Since the Churches Declaration he saith no Catholicks ever doubted What doth he mean by the Churches Declaration that of Innocent and the Council of Carthage Then the same Bishop hath shewed him that since that time there have been very many both in the Greek and Latin Church of another Opinion And a little before the Council of Trent Catharinus saith That a Friend of his and a Brother in Christ derided him as one that wanted Learning for daring to assert these Books were within the Canon of Scripture and it is plain Card. Cajetan could never be perswaded of it But if he means since the Council of Trent then we are returned to our Difficulty how such a Council can make any Books Canonical which were not received for such by the Catholick Church before For then they do not declare the Canon but create it XII Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible HE makes no Conscience of abusing the Scripture and perverting for the maintenance of his Errors and Superstitions And therefore though he dares not altogether lay it by lest he should by so doing lose all claim to Christianity Yet he utterly disapproves it as it is in its genuine Truth and Purity and as allow'd in the Church of England and crying this down he believes it unlawful to be read by any of his Communion And then puts into their hands another Volume which in its Frontis-piece bears the Title indeed of the Word of God with the names of the Books and Chapters but in the context of it is so every where full of Corruptions Falsifications and intolerable Abuses that it almost every where belies its Title and is unfit for any one who professes himself a Christian. HE believes it a damnable sin to abuse the Scripture or any ways to pervert it for the maintenance of Errors or Superstitions and thinks himself oblig'd rather to lay down his life than concur to or approve of any such Falsifications or Corruptions prejudicial to Faith or Good Manners For this reason being conscious that in all Ages there has been several Copies of this Sacred Volume quite different from the Originals in many places either through the mistake of the Transcribers or malice of others endeavouring by this means to gain credit to their new Doctrines He is commanded not to receive all Books indifferently for the Word of God that wear that Title but only such as are approv'd by the Church and recommended by her Legitimate And such is that he daily uses commonly known by the name of the Vulgar Translation which has been the principal of all other Latin Copies in all Ages since the Primitive times much commended by St. Augustine and never altered in any thing but once heretofore by the Holy Studies of St. Hierome And twice or thrice since being review'd by Authority and purg'd of such mistakes as in length of time had crept in by Transcribers or Printers faults And that this Translation is most pure and incorrupt as to any thing concerning matter of Belief or differences in Religion is not only the Doctrine of his Church but also the Sentiment of many Learned Men of the Reformation who approve this Version and prefer it before any
the Catholick Church now sufficiently clear'd to me that she taught not the Opinion I so vehemently persecuted And this he did deluded and deceiv'd by the Manichees And now since 't is certain that this has not been the case of Saint Augustine alone but of as many almost as have given ear to the Deserters of this Church nay is at this day the case of infinite numbers who following that Great Father when as yet in his Errors do not enquire how this thing is believ'd or understood by her but insultingly oppose all as if so understood as they imagine not making any difference betwixt what the Catholick Church teaches and what they think she teaches and so believing her to be guilty of as many absurdities follies impieties c. as the Heathens did of old 'T is evident there 's as much need now of Apologies as ever there was in Tertellian's or S. Austin's time Not Apologies to vindicate what is really her Faith and Doctrine but rather to clear her from such Superstitions Profaneness and wicked Principles as are maliciously or ignorantly charg'd upon her And tho' the number of Calumnies the in-sincerity of Adversaries the obstinacy of a byass'd Education render a performance in this kind a just Task for a Tertullian's or St. Augustine's hand yet because I find no such eminent Pen engag'd in this design at present and the shewing the true Religion in its own Colours seems a Duty incumbent on every one that 's a lover of Truth I 'le endeavour to pull off the Vizor from suffering Christianity and apologize for the Cotholick Faith that Faith I mean maintained by those Primitive Fathers with so much Vigour and Zeal which being first planted in the Head City of the World by St. â—eter hath been propagated throughout the Universe and derived down to us by many Christian Nations in communion with that See under the Protection of the Holy Ghost and the Charge of A Chief Pastor which beginning in that great Apostle has continued in a visible Succession to these our days This Faith it is for which at present I design to make an Apology which having been in all ages violently oppos'd does at this time most wrongfully suffer under Calumnies and false Imputations I 'le endeavour therefore to separate these Calumnies and Scandals from what is really the Faith and Doctrine of that Church I 'le take off the Black and Dirt which has been thrown upon her and setting her forth in her genuine Complection let the World see how much fairer she is than she 's painted and how much she 's unlike that Monster which is shewn for her And because the Members of this Church are commonly known by the name of Papists I think I cannot take a more sincere open and compendious way in order to the compleating this design than by drawing forth a double Character of a Papist The one expressing a Papist in those very colours as he is painted in the imagination of the Vulgar Foul black and Antichristian with the chief Articles of his imagined Belief and reputed Principles of his Profession The other representing a Papist whose Faith and exercise of his Religion is according to the Direction and Command of his Church That so these two being thus set together their difference and disproportion may be clearly discerned and a discovery made how unlike Calumny is from Truth and how different a Papist really is from what he 's said to be The former Character is of a Papist Mis-represented the other of a Papist Represented The former is a Papist so deform'd and monstrous that it justly deserves the hatred of as many as own Christianity 'T is a Papist that has disturb'd this Nation now above an hundred years with Fears and Jealousies threatning it continually with Fire and Massacres and whose whole Design has been to rob the Sovereign of his Crown and the Subject of his Liberty and Property 'T is a Papist that is so abominable so malicious so unsufferable in any Civil Government that for my part I detest him from my heart I conceiv'd an hatred against him and all his from my Education when as yet a Protestant and now being a Roman Catholick I am not in the least reconcil'd to him nor his Principles but hate him yet worse I am so far from thinking the Laws too severe against such Popish Recusants that I could wish a far greater severity were executed against them their Favourers and all such as make men so sottishly Religious And if to be a Protestant nothing more be requisite than to protest against such Popery to hate and detest it I think my self and all Roman Catholicks as good Protestants as any whatsoever throughout his Majesties Dominions And I dare engage that not only as many Roman Catholicks as under the name of Papists have severely smarted in this Nation for being the Professors of such kind of Popery but also that all Roman Catholick Nations in the World shall subscribe to the Condemnation of all such Popish Principles and Doctrines shall joyn with all good Protestants for the extinguishing it with all that profess or practice it and utter rooting it out from his Majesties three Kingdoms and the whole Universe The other Papist is one that lives and believes according to what is prescrib'd in the Council of Trent in Catechisms set forth by Catholicks and other Spiritual Books for the Direction and Instruction of all in their Communion whose Faith and Doctrine I have here set down with some Grounds and Reasons of it and will so leave it to apologize for it self In drawing out the Character of the former I have quoted no Authors but have describ'd him exactly according to the Apprehension I had of a Papist fram'd by Me when I was a Protestant with the addition only of some few points which have been violently charg'd against Me by some intimate Friends of late to shew the unreasonableness of my choice after the quitting of that Communion The latter is wholly copied out from the Papist that I am now being the Sum of what I was taught when reconcil'd to the Church of Rome and which after sixteen years conversation with Men of that Communion in hearing their Sermons in being present at their Catechising in reading their Books and discoursing with them I have found to be their Doctrine I have done both I hope with Sincerity and Truth and without Passion For as my endeavours have been that my Religion should lose nothing by Lies so neither do I desire it should gain by them And did I but know of any thing in the following Papers that has any relation to that unchristian Artifice I would strike it out immediately And do here oblige my self upon information either from Friend or Adversary to acknowledge the mistake as it shall be made appear and make a publick Recantation But it is time we should see what these Papists are An Answer to the Introduction THE Introduction
call him to any account for any thing he has done although he should chance to die without the least remorse of Conscience or Repentance for his sins HE believes it damnable to hold that the Pope or any other Power in Heaven or Earth can give him leave to commit any sins whatsoever Or that for any Sum of Mony he can obtain an Indulgence or Pardon for sins that are to be committed by him or his Heirs hereafter He firmly believes that no sins can be forgiven but by a true and hearty Repentance But that still there is a Power in the Church of granting Indulgences which concern not at all the Remission of sins either Mortal or Venial but only of some Temporal Punishments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted So that they are nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation upon just causes of Canonical Penances which are or may be injoyn'd by the Pastors of the Church on penitent sinners according to their several degrees of demerit And this he is taught to be grounded on the Judiciary Power left by Christ in his Church of binding and loosing whereby Authority was given to erect a Court of Conscience to assign Penalties or release them as circumstances should reguire And this Authority he knows S. Paul plainly own'd 2 Cor. 2.6 where he decreed a Penance Sufficient says he to such a man is this punishment And 2 Cor. 2.10 where he released one For your sake speaking of the Penance injoyn'd the incestuous Corinthian I forgive it in the Person of Christ. And what Mony there is given at any time on this account concerns not at all the Pope's Coffers but is by every one given as they please either to the Poor to the Sick to Prisoners c. wherefore they judge it most Charity And tho' he acknowledges many abuses have been committed in granting and gaining Indulgences through the default of some particular Persons yet he cannot imagine how these can in Justice be charg'd upon the Church to the prejudice of her Faith and Doctrine â—specially since she has been so careful in the retâ—enching them As may be seen by what what was done in the Council of Trent Dec. de Indulg cum potestas VIII Of Indulgences 1. THey must be extreamly ignorant who take the Power of Indulgences to be a Leave from the Pope to commit what Sins they please and that by virtue thereof they shall escape Punishment for their Sins without Repentance in another World Yet this is the sense of the Misrepresentation which he saith is made of it And if he saith true in his Preface That he hath described the Belief of a Papist exactly according to the apprehension he had when he was a Protestant He shews how well he understood the Matters in difference when I think no other Person besides himself ever had such an apprehension of it who pretended to be any thing like a Scholar 2. But now he believes it damnable to hold that the Pope or any other Power in Heaven or Earth can give him leave to commit any Sins whatsoever or that for any Sum of Mony he can obtain any Indulgence or Pardon for Sins that are to be committed by him or his Heirs hereafter Very well But what thinks he of obtaining an Indulgence or Pardon after they are committed Is no such thing to be obtained in the Court of Rome for a Sum of Mony He cannot but have heard of the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber for several Sins and what Sums are there set upon them Why did he not as freely speak against this This is published in the vast Collection of Tracts of Canon Law set forth by the Popes Authority where there are certain Rates for Perjury Murder Apostacy c. Now what do these Sums of Mony mean If they be small it is so much the better Bargain for the Sins are very great And Espencaeus complains that this Book was so far from being called in that he saith the Popes Legats renerred those Faculties and confirmed them It seems then a Sum of Mony may be of some consequence towards the obtaining Pardon for a Sin past tho' not for a Licence to commit it But what mighty difference is there whether a Man procures with Mony a Dispensation or a Pardon For the Sin can hurt him no more than if he had Licence to commit it 3. He doth believe there is a Power in the Church to grant Indulgences which he saith concern not at all the Remission of Sins either mortal or venial but only of some temporal Punishments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted Here now arises a material Question viz. Whether the Popes or the Representer be rather to be believed If the Popes who grant the Indulgences are to be believed then not only the bare Remission of Sins is concerned in them but the plenary and most plenary Remission of Sins is to be had by them So Boniface the 8 th in his Bull of Iubilee granted Non solum plenam largiorem imo plenissimam veniam peccatorum If these words had no relation to Remission of Sins the People were horribly cheated by the sound of them In the Bull of Clement the 6 th not extant in the Bullarium but published out of the Vtrecht Manuscript not only a plenary Absolution from all Sins is declared to all persons who died in the Way to Rome but he commands the Angels of Paradise to carry the Soul immediately to Heaven And I suppose whatever implies such an Absolution as carries a Soul to Heaven doth concern Remission of Sins Boniface IX granted Indulgences à Poenâ à Culpâ and those certainly concerned Remission of Sins being not barely from the temporal Punishment but from the Guilt it self Clement VIII whom Bellarmine magnifies for his care in reforming Indulgences in his Bull of Iubilee grants a most plenary Remission of Sins and Vrban the 8 th since him not only a Relaxation of Penances but Remission of Sins and so lately as A. D. 1671. Clement the 10 th published an Indulgence upon the Canonization of five new Saints wherein he not only grants a plenary Indulgence of Sins but upon invocation of one of these Saints in the point of Death a plenary Indulgence of all his Sins And what doth this signifie in the point of Death if it do not concern the Remission of Sins 4. Indulgences he saith are nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation upon just Causes of Canonical Penances which are or may be enjoyned by the Pastors of the Church on penitent Senners according to their several degrees of Demerits If by Canonical Penances they mean those enjoined by the Penitential Canons Greg. de Valentia saith This Opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things Bellarmin brings several Arguments against this Doctrine 1. There would be no need of the Treasure of the Church which he had proved
that All things saith Cajetan which they teach out of Moses 's Chair Not all their Doctrines but as far as they were conformable to the Law saith Ferus Now can any one hence infer that no men ought to dispute any Commands of Superiors when it is supposed that there is a Rule and Standard for them to speak according to and our Saviour elsewhere doth suppose these very men to teach things contrary to the Law as in the Case of Corban Would our Saviour contradict himself or require a blind Obedience in things repugnant to the Law We do not deny a due submission to our Superiors in the Church yea we allow them a Power to determine things not forbidden and think Obedience due in such things by vertue of their Authority but yet this is far enough from Infallibility or an unlimited implicit Obedience which would overthrow the force of all our Saviour's Reasonings against the Scribes and Pharisees as to their misinterpreting the Law and the Superstitious Practises they imposed upon the people XVIII Of the POPE HE believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all the Angels That Christ is no longer Head of the Church but that this Holy Father hath taken his place and that whatsoever he Orders Decrees or Commands is to be received by his Flock with the same respect submission and awe as if Christ had spoken it by his own mouth For that his Holiness having once receiv'd the Triple-Crown on his Head is now no more to be look'd upon as Man but as Christ's Vicar whose Office it is to Constitute and Ordain such things as Christ forgot when he was upon Earth not throughly considering what would be the Exigencies of his Flock in future Ages And for this intent he is assisted with a certain Mysterious Infallibility such as hides it self when he is upon his own Private Concerns exposes him to all the Designs Cheats Malice and Machinations of his Enemies and lets him be as easily over-seen as imprudent as silly as his Neighbours But when he comes into his Chair to hear any Publick Business then it begins to appear and protects him from all Mistakes and Errors and he becomes immediately full of the Holy Ghost though he had the Devil and all of Wickedness in him just before HE believes the Pope to be none of his God neither Great nor Little That he is not above the Angels but only a Man He believes that Christ as he is supreme Master Governour and Lord of all created things so also of his Church of which he acknowledges him to be the Founder and Head But as notwithstanding this Lordship and Headship of Christ over all things every Father of a Family owns himself to be Master of it under Christ every petty Commander of a Ship stiles himself Master of it under God and every Prince King and Emperour is confess'd supreme Lord and Governour of his Dominions under God So also he believes that there is a Pastor Governour and Head of Christ's Church under Christ to wit the Pope or Bishop of Rome who is the Sucessor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the care of his Flock and who hath been follow'd now by a visible Succession of above 250 Bishops acknowledg'd as such in all Ages by the Christian World And now believing the Pope to enjoy this Dignity he looks upon himself oblig'd to shew him that Respect Submission and Obedience which is due to his place a thing which no body can in reason or conscience deny to any one in Rule or that has any Superiority Neither does he doubt but God assists those who have this charge with a particular helping Grace such as has a special respect to the Office and Function more than to the Person Such was given to all the Prophets when they were sent to preach Such to Moses when he was made God to Pharaoh Exod. 7.1 Such to the seventy Elders when God taking of the Spirit of Moses gave it unto them constituted them Iudges Such to Caiphas who to council prophesied of the death of Christ which St. Iohn ascrib'd not to his Person but to his Office of High-Priest Job 11.51 And this spake he not of himself but being High-Priest that year he Prophesied that Jesus should die for that Nation By priviledge of his Office uttering a Truth which he himself never meant With such like helping Grace he doubts not but God generally assists the Pastors of the New-Law and more especially the High-Priest for the Good of the whole Flock And therefore tho' he were as wicked as Caiphas yet he is ready to tender him all respect due to his Function and obey him in every thing concerning the Exercise of his charge not for any consideration of his Person but meerly for the Office he bears It being the Duty of a good Son to Obey his Father and of a Loyal Subject his King and never to question their Authority or dis-respect them in their Office tho' for some particular Vices they may have little respect for their persons In this manner is he ready to behave himself towards his chief Pastor with all Reverence and Submission never scrupling to receive his Decrees and Definitions such as are issued forth by his Authority with all their due circumstances and according to the Law in the concern of the whole Flock And this whether he has the Assistance of a Divine Infallibility or no Which though some allow him without being in a General Council yet he is satisfied 't is only their Opinion and not their Faith there being no Obligation from the Church of assenting to any such Doctrine And therefore as in any Civil Governments the Sentence of the supreme Iudge or Highest Tribunal is to be obey'd though there be no assurance of Infallibility or Divine Protection from Error or Mistake So is he taught should be done to the Orders of the Supreme Pastors whether he be Infallible or no. XVIII Of the POPE 1. WE do not charge them with Believing the Pope to be God which it seems himself did if we believe the Misrepresenter in his Preface but there is some Reason to doubt whether they do not at some times give him greater Honour than becomes a Man I instance in the Adoration after his Election when the new Pope is placed upon the Altar to receive the Submissions of the Cardinals but the Altar themselves do confess to be sacred to God alone And there they profess to Worship Jesus Christ as present in the Host. This therefore looks too much like assuming the Place of Christ and not becoming the Distance between God and Man 2. The Question is Whether Christ hath appointed the Pope or Bishop of Rome to be Pastor Governour and Head of his Church under him This he saith he believes and this he knows we deny and therefore had reason to expect some proof of it But instead thereof he tells us how they
or for the Interest of Church or Pope or whatsoever else must of necessity answer for it at the last day and expect his portion with the Devil and his Angels if unrepented And that no one can give leave for Lying Perjury or committing any Sin or even pretend to it unless it be the Devil himself or some devilish Ministers of his such as he detests in his heart and utterly abominates And in consequence to this believes that whosoever at the hour of his death denies any Crime of which he is guilty and protests himself to be innocent when he is not so can have no hope of Mercy but departing out of this World an enemy to God and the Truth shall infallibly be receiv'd as such in the next and dying with a Lye in his mouth can expect no reward but from the Father of Lies And this whatsoever his Crime was whether incurr'd by an undertaking for Mother-Church or no and whatsoever his pretences for the denial of the Truth were whether Absolutions Dispensations the Sacrament or Oath of Secresie or whatsoever else nothing of these being capable of excusing him in Lies or Perjury or making them to be Innocent and not displeasing to God Nor indeed did he ever hear of these so much talk'd on Dispensations and Absolutions from any Priests of his Church either in Sermons or Confessions he never read of them in his Books and Catechisms he never saw the Practice of them in any of his Communion it having been their Custom ever since Oaths were first devis'd against them rather to suffer the loss of their goods banishments imprisonments torments and death it self than Forsâ—ear themselves or protest the least Untruth And 't is not out of the memory of man that several might have saved their Estates and Lives too would they have subscrib'd to and own'd but one Lye and yet refus'd it chusing rather to die infamously than prejudice their Conscience with an Vntruth So that it seems a great Mystery to him that those of his Profession should have Leave and Dispensations to Lye and forswear themselves at pleasure and yet that they should need nothing else but Lying and Perjury for the quiet enjoyment of their Estates for the saving their Lives for the obtaining Places of highest Command and greatest Dignity such as would be extraordinarily advantagious for their Cause and the interest of their Church And yet that they should generally chuse rather to forego all these so considerable Conveniences that once Lie or Forswear themselves And is it not another great Mystery that these Dispensations for Lying and Swearing should be according to the Receiv'd Doctrine of his Church and yet that he or any of his Communion were never instructed nor inform'd of any such Diabolical Point nay had never come to the knowledge of it had it not been for the information receiv'd from some Zealous Adversaries such as relate either meerly upon Trust or else such as have receiv'd a Dispensation of Lying from the Devil that they might charge the like Doctrine on the Church of Rome and the Pope XIX Of Dispensations HEre the Misrepresenter saith That a Papist believes that the Pope hath Authority to dispence with the Laws of God and absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments On the other side the Representer affirms That the Pope has no Authority to dispence with the Law of God and that there 's no Power upon Earth can absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments This matter is not to be determined by the one's affirming and the others denying but by finding out if possible the true sense of the Church of Rome about this matter And there are three Opinions about it 1. Of those who assert That the Pope hath a Power of Dispensing in any Divine Law except the Articles of Faith The Gloss upon the Canon Law saith that where the Text seems to imply that the Pope cannot dispence against the Apostle it is to be understood of Articles of Faith And Panormitan saith This Exposition pleases him well for the Pope may dispense in all other things Contra Apostolum dispensat saith the Gloss on the Decree And the Roman Editors in the Margin refer to 34 Dist. c. Lector to prove it And there indeed the Gloss is very plain in the Case sic Ergo Papa dispensat contra Apostolum And the Roman Correcters there justifie it and say it is no absurd Doctrine as to positive Institutions But the former notable Gloss as Panormitan calls it sets down the particulars wherein the Pope may dispense As 1. Against the Apostles and their Canons 2. Against the Old Testament 3. In Vows 4. In Oaths The Summa Angelica saith the Pope may dispense as to all the Precepts of the Old Testament And Clavasius founds this Power upon the Plenitude of the Popes Power according to that Expression in the Decretal mentioned that he can ex plenitudine potestatis de Iure supra Ius dispensare and without such a Power he saith God would not have taken that care of his Church which was to be expected from his Wisdom Iacobatius brings several Instances of this Power in the Pope and refers to the Speculator for more Iac. Almain saith That all the Canonists are of Opinion that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle and many of their Divines but not all For 2. Some of their Divines held that the Pope could not dispence with the Law of God as that implies a proper relaxation of the Law but could only Authoritatively declare that the Law did not oblige in such a particular Case because an Inferiour could not take away the force of a Superiors Law and otherwise there would be no fixed and immutable Rule in the Church and if the Pope might dispense in one Law of God he might dispense in the rest And of this Opinion were some of the most eminent School-Divines as Thomas Aquinas Bonaventure Major Soto and Catharinus who at large debates this Question and denies that the Pope hath any Power to dispense with Gods Law But then he adds that the Pope hath a kind of prophetical Power to declare in what Cases the Law doth oblige and in what not which he parallels with the Power of declaring the Canon of Scripture and this he doth not by his own Authority but by Gods He confesseth the Pope cannot dispense with those Precepts which are of themselves indispensable nor alter the Sacraments but then saith he there are some Divine Laws which have a general force but in particular Cases may be dispensed with and in these cases the Law is to be relaxed so that the Relaxation seems to come from God himself But he confesses this Power is not to be often made use of so that he makes this Power to be no Act of Jurisdiction but of prophetical Interpretation as he calls it and he brings the Instance of Caiaphas to this
purpose And he adds that the difference between the Divines and Canonists was but in Terms for the Canonists were in the right as to the Power and the Divines in the manner of explaining it 3. Others have thought this too loose a way of explaining the Popes Power and therefore they say That the Pope hath not a bare declaratory Power but a real Power of dispensing in a proper sense in particular Cases For say they the other is no act of Jurisdiction but of Discretion and may belong to other men as well as to the Pope but this they look on as more agreeable to the Popes Authority and Commission and a bare declaratory Power would not be sufficient for the Churches Necessity as Sanchez shews at large and quotes many Authors for this Opinion and Sayr more and he saith the Practice of the Church cannot be justified without it Which Suarez much insists upon and without it he saith the Church hath fallen into intolerable Errors and it is evident he saith the Church hath granted real Dispensations and not meer Declarations And he founds it upon Christ's Promise to Peter To thee will I give the Keys and the Charge to him Feed my Sheep But then he explains this Opinion by saying that it is no formal Dispensation with the Law of God but the matter of the Law is changed or taken away Thus I have briefly laid together the different Opinions in the Church of Rome about this power of dispensing with the Law of God from which it appears that they do all consent in the thing but differ only in the manner of explaining it And I am therefore afraid our Representer is a very unstudied Divine and doth not well understand their own Doctrine or he would never have talked so boldly and unskilfully in this matter As to what he pretends that their Church teaches that every Lye is a Sin c. it doth not teach the Case for the Question it not whether their Church teach men to lye but whether there be not such a power in the Church as by altering the nature of things may not make that not to be a Lye which otherwise would be one As their Church teaches that men ought not to break their Vâ—ws yet no one among them questions but the Pope may dissolve the Obligation of a Vow although it be made to God himself Let him shew then how the Pope comes to have a Power to release a Vow made to God and not to have a Power to release the Obligation to veracity among men Again We do not charge them with delivering any such Doctrine That men may have Dispensations to lye and forswear themselves at pleasure for we know this Dispensing Power is to be kept up as a great Mystery and not to be made use of but upon weighty and urgent causes of great consequence and beneâ—it to the Church as their Doctors declare But as to all matters of fact which he alludes to I have nothing to say to them for our Debate is only whether there be such a Power of Dispensation allowed in the Church of Rome or not XX. Of the Deposing Power HE believes that the Pope has Authority to dispence with his Allegiance to his Prince and that he needs no longer be a Loyal Subject and maintain the Rights Priviledges and Authority of his King than the Pope will give him leave And that if this Mighty Father think sit to thunder out an Excommunication against him then he shall be deem'd the best Subject and Most Christian that can first shed his Prince's Blood and make him a Sacrifice to Rome and he 's but ill rewarded for his pains who after so Glorious an Atchievement has not his Name plac'd in the Kalendar and he Canoniz'd for a Saint So that there can be no greater Danger to a King than to have Popish Subjects he holding his Life amongst them only at the Pope 's pleasure 'T IS no part of his Faith to believe that the Pope has Authority to dispence with his Allegiance to his Sovereign or that he can Depose Princes upon any account whatsoever giving leave to their Subjects to take up Arms against them and endeavour their ruin He knows that Deposing King-killing Power has been maintain'd by some Canonists and Divines of his Church and that it is in their Opinion lawful and annex'd to the Papal Chair He knows likewise that some Popes have endeavor'd to act according to this Power But that this Doctrine appertains to the Faith of his Church and is to be believ'd by all of that Communion is a malicious Calumny a down-right Falsity And for the truth of this it seems to him a sufficient Argument that for the fâ—w Authors that are Abettors of this Doctrine there are of his Communion three times the number that publickly disown all such Authority besides several Universities and whole Bodies that have solemnly condemn'd it without being in the least suspected of their Religion or of denying any Article of their Faith Those other Authors therefore Publish their own Opinions in their Books and those Popes acted according to what they judg'd lawful and all this amounts to no more than that this Doctrine has been or is an Opinion amongst some of his Church but to raise it to an Article of Faith upon these grounds is impossible Let his Church therefore answer for no more than what she delivers for Faith let Prelates answer for tâ—eir Actions and Authors for their own Opinions otherwise more Churches must be charg'd with Deposing and King-killing Doctrine besides that of Rome The University of Oxford having found other Authors of Pernicious Books and Damnable Doctrines destructive to the Sacred Persons of Princes their State and Government besides Iesuits as may be seen in their Decree published in the London Gazette Iuly 26. 1683. In which they condemn'd twenty seven false iâ—pious seditious Propositions fitted to stir up Tumults overthrow States and Kingdoms to lead to Rebellion Murder of Princes and Atheism it self Of which number only three or four were ascrib'd to the Iesuits the rest having men of another Communion for their Fathers And this Doctrine was not first condemn'd by Oxford What they did here in the Year 1683. having been solemnly done in Paris in 1626. Where the whole Colledge of Sorbon gave Sentence against this Proposition of Sanctarellus viz That the Pope for Heresie and Schism might depose Princes and exempt the Subjects from their Obedience the like was done by the Universities of Caen Rhemes Poictoirs Valence Bourdeaux Bourges and the Condemnation subscrib'd by the Iesuits And Mariana's Book was committed publickly to the flames by a Provincial Council of his own Order for the discoursing the Point of King-killing Doctrine problematically Why therefore should this disloyal Doctrine be laid to his Church whenas it has been writ against by several hundred single Authors in her Communion and disown'd and solemnly condemn'd by so many famous
Universities And why should the Actions of some few Popes with the Private Opinions of some Speculative Doctors be so often and vehemently urg'd for the just charging this Doctrine upon the Faith of the Church of Rome which to a Serious Impartial Considerer are only meer Fallacies capable of Libelling all Societies in the World of overthrowing all States and Kingdoms and only fit Arguments for Knaves to cheat Fools withal There being no Government in the World which might not be easily proved Tyrannical No Religion Perswasion or Society which might not plausibly be indicted of Atheism If the Actions Pretences Claims and endeavour of some few of their Governours and Leading Men the Opinions Writings Phansies of some Authors be allow'd as sufficient Evidence for the bringing in the Verdict of Guilty upon the whole When Malice therâ—fore and Envy have done their worst in this point to render the Papists bloody and barbarous to the World yet ' ds certain after all that Popish Princes sit as safe in their Thrones enjoy as much Peace and Security as any other Princes whatsoever and that the Papists in England can give as good proofs of their Loyalty as the best of those that clamour so loud against them They can bid defiâ—nce to their Adversaries to shew any one Person of Honour and Estate amongst them or even four of any condition whatsoever that bore Arms against Charles the First during the whole time of his Troubles They can make good that there was scarce any amongst them that did not assist his Majesty either with Person or Purse or both And they can say that Charles the First was murder'd in cold blood by his Protestant Subjects after many hundred Papists had lost their Lives for the preventing that Butchery and that Charles the Second being pursued by the same Subjects for his Life sav'd it amongst the Papists XX. Of the Deposing Power TO bring this matter into as narrow a compass as may be I shall first take notice of his Concessions which will save us a labour of Proofs 1. He yields that the Deposing and King-killing Power hath been maintained by some Canonists and Divines of his Church and that it is in their opinion lawful and annexed to the Papal Chair 2. That some Popes have endeavoured to act according to this Power But then he denies that this Doctrine appertains to the Faith of his Church and is to be believed by all of that Communion And more than that he saith The affirming of it is a malicious Calumny a downright Falsity Let us now calmly debate the matter Whether according to the received principles of the Church of Rome this be only a particulâ—r opinion of some Popes and Divines or be to be received as a matter of Faith The Question is not Whether those who deny it do account it an Article of Faith for we know they do not But whether upon the Principles of the Church of Rome they are not bound to do it I shall only to avoid cavilling proceed upon the Principles owned by our Author himself viz. 1. That the sense of Scripture as understood by the Community of Christians in all Angels since the Apostles is to be taken from the present Church 2. That by the present Church be understands the Pastors and Prelates assembled in Councils who are appointed by Christ and his Apostles for the decision of controversies and that they have Inâ—allible assistance 3. That the Pope as Head of the Church hath a particular assistance promised him with a special regard to his Office and Function If therefore it appear that Popes and Councils have declared this Deposing Doctrine and tâ—ey hâ—ve received other things as Articles of Faith upon the same Declarations why should they then stick at yielding this to be an Article of Faith as well as the other It is not denied that I can find that Popes and Councils for several Ages have asserted and exercised the Deposing Power but it is alledged against these Decrees Acts. 1. That they were not grounded upon Universal Tradition 2. That they had not Universal Reception Now if these be sufficient to overthrow the Definitions of Councils let us consider the consequences of it 1. Then every Man is left to examin the Decrees of Councils whether they are to be embraced or not for he is to judge whether they are founded on Universal Tradition and so he is not to take the sense of the present Church for his Guide but the Universal Church from Christs time which overthrows a Fundamental Principle of the Roman Church 2. Then he must reject the pretended Infallibility in the Guides of the Church if they could so notoriously err in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Christendom as this was and consequently their Authority could not be sufficient to declare any Articles of Faith And so all Persons must be left at Liberty to believe as they see cause notwithstanding the Definitions made by Popes and Councils 3. Then he must believe the Guides of the Roman Church to have been mistaken not once or twice but to have persisted in it for Five hundred years which must take away not only Infallâ—bilâ—ty but any kind of Reverence to the Authority of it For whatever may be said as to those who have depended on Princes or favour their Partâ—es against the Guides of the Church it cannot be denied that for so long time the leading Party in that Church did assert and maintain the Deposing Power And therefore Lessius truly understood this matter when he said That there was scarce any Article of the Christian Faith the denial whereof was more dangerous to the Church or did precipitate Men more into Heresie and Hatred of the Church than this of the Deposing Power for he says they could not maintain their Churches Authority without it And he reckons up these ill Consequences of denying it 1. That the Roman Church hath erred for at least five hundred years in a matter fundamental as to Government and of great Moment Which is worse than an Error about Sacraments as Penance Extream Unction c. and yet those who deny the Church can err in one hold that it hath erred in a greater matter 2. That it hath not only erred but voluntarily and out of Ambiâ—ion perverting out of Design the Doctrine of the Primive Church and Fathers concerning the Power of the Church and bringing in another contrary to it against the Right and Authority of Princes which were a grievous sin 3. That it made knowingly unrighteous Decrees to draw persons from their Allegiance to Princes and so they became the Causes of many Seditions and Rebellions and all the ill Consequences of them under a shew of Piety and Religion 4. That the Churches Decrees Commands Judgments and Censures may be safely contemned as Null and containing intolerable Errors And that it may require such things which good Subjects are bound to disobey 5. That Gregory VII
in the Canon Nos Sanctorum c. Urban II. Gregory IX the Councils of Lateran under Alex. III. and Innocent III the Councils of Lyons of Vienna of Constance of Lateran under Leo X. and of Trent have all grievously and enormously erred about this matter for that it was the Doctrine of them all he shews at large and so Seven General Councâ—ls lose their Infallibility at one blow 6. That the Gates of Hâ—ll have prevailed against the Church For the true Church could never teach such pernicious Doctrine as this must be if it be not true And if it erred in this it might as well err in any other Doctrine and so Men are not bound to believe or obey it 7. That Princes and all Laymen have just Cause to withdraw from their Church because it shewed it self to be governed by a spirit of Ambition and not by the Spirit of God and not only so but they may justly prosecute all that maintain a Doctrine so pernicious to Government if it be not true Let us now see what our Author saith to clear this from being a Doctrine of the Church of Rome 1. That for the few Authors that are abettors of this Doctrine there are of his Communion three times the number that publickly disown all such Authority If this bâ— true it is not much for the Reputation of their Church That there should be such a number of those who are liable to all these dreadful Consequences which Lessius urges upon the deniers of it But is it possible to believe there should be so few followers of so many Popes and Seven General Councils owned for such by the disowners of this Doctrine except the Lateran under Leo 10 The poor Eastern Christians are condemned for Hereticks by the Church of Rome for refusing to submit to the Decrees of one General Council either that of Ephesus or of Chalcedon And they plead for themselves That there was a misinterpretation of their meaning or not right understanding one another about the diffâ—rence of Nature and Person which occasioned those Decrees I would fain know whether those Churches which do not embrace the Decrees of those Councils are in a state of Heresie or not If they be then what must we think of such who reject the Decrees of Seven General Councils one after another and give far less probable accounts of the Proceedings of those Councils in their Definitions than the other do 2. He saith Those who have condemned it have not been in the least suspected of their Religion or of denying any Article of Faith Let any one judg of this by Lessius his Consequences And the Author of the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance saith in plain Terms That the Opinion that the Pope hath no such Power is erroneous in Faith as well as temerarious and impious And he proves it by this substantial Argument Because they who hold it must suppose that the Church hath been for some time in a damnable Error of Belief and Sin of Practice And he not only proves that it was defined by Popes and Councils but for a long time universally received and that no one Author can be produced before Calvins time that denied this Power absolutely or in any case whatsoever But a few Authors that are Abettors of it saith our Representer Not one total Dissenter for a long time saith the other And which of these is the true Representer The deniers of it not in the least suspected of their Religion saith one Their Opinion is erroneous in Faith temerarious and impious saith the other And a Professor of Lovain now living hath undertaken to shew that the nuâ—ber is far greater of those who assert this Doctrine than of those who deny it 3. If we charge their Church with this Opinion may not they as well charge ours with the like since Propositions as dangerous were condemned at Oxford July 26 1683. as held not by Jesuits but by some among our selves This is the force of his Reasoning But we must desire the Reader to consider the great disparity of the Case We cannot deny that there have been men of ill Minds and dâ—sloyal Principles Factious and Disobedient Enemies to the Government both in Church and State but have these Men ever had that Countenance from the Doctrines of the Guides of our Church which the Deposing Doctrine hath had in the Church of Rome To make the Case parallel he must suppose our Houses of Convocation to have several times declared these Damnable Doctrines and given Encouragement to Rebels to proceed against their Kings and the University of Oxford to have condemned them for this is truly the Case in the Church of Rome the Popes and Councils have owned and approved and acted by the Deposing Principle but the Universities of France of late years have condemned it How come the Principles of the Regicides among us to be parallel'd with this Doctrine when the Principles of our Church are so directly contrary to them and our Houses of Convocation would as readily condemn any such damnable Doctrines as the University of Oxford And all the World knows how repugnant such Principles are to those of the Church of England and none can be Rebels to their Prince but they must be false to our Church As to the Personal Loyalty of many Persons in that Church as I have no Reason to question it so it is not proper for me to debate it if I did since our business is not concerning Persons but Doctrines and it was of old observed concerning the Epicureans That thô their Principles did overthrow any true Friendship yet many of them made excellent Friends XXI Of Communion in one kind HE believes that he is no longer oblig'd to obey Christ's Commands than his Church will give him leave And that therefore tho' Christ instituted the Sacrament under both kinds and commanded it to be receiv'd so by all yet he thinks it is not necessary for any to do so now but Priests because his Church forsooth hath forbidden the Cup to the Laity And put a stop to the Precept of Christ who said Drink ye all of this Mat. 26. In submission to which Church-Prohibition all the poor people of his Communion contentedly rest while they see themselves defrauded of great part of that benefit which Christ left them as his Last Will and Testament for the comfort of their poor Souls and the Remedy of their Infirmities HE believes that he is oblig'd to obey all the commands of Christ and that neither his Church nor any other Power upon Earth can limit alter or annul any precept of Divine Institution contrary to the intention of the Law giver Nâ—ither is the Denial of the Cup to the Laity a practise any ways opposite to this his Belief He being taught that thô Christ instituted the blessed Sacrament under both kinds and so deliver'd it to his Apostles who only were then present and
whom he had made Priests just before yet he gave no command that it should be so receiv'd by all the faithful But left this indifferent as is evident from his own words where he attributes the obtaining life everlasting the end of the Institution sometimes to the receiving under both kinds sometimes under one as when he says If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever He that eats Me even he shall live by me He that eats of this bread shall live for ever John 6. v. 51 57 58. And a curious Reader may find as many Texts for thus Receiving under one kind as for the other And St. Augustine was so fâ—r of this Opinion that he says that Christ himself administred the Sacrament to some of his Disciples under one kind only viz. to those two going to Emaus Luk. c. last 30. And that the Apostles afterwards did often practise the like when they assembled to break bread Acts 2. c. Which places Ile and other Fathers explicate of the Sacrament Aug. l. 49. de Cons. Evang And that this was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to give it under one kind to Children to the Sick and that Men on a Iourney used so to carry it with them is attested by all antient Writers and modern Historians Nay he finds that this was the practice of the Church to Communicate under one kind only or else under both as every one thought good especially in all Private Communions for the first four hundred years after Christ and that the first Precept of Receiving under both kinds was given to the Faitâ—ful by Pope Leo I. in the year 443. and Confirm'd by Pope Gelasius in 490. not for the correcting any Abuse that had crept into the Church but for the discovering the Manichees who being of opinion that Christ had no true Blood and that Wine was the Gall of the Devil us'd to lurk among the Christians and receiving under the form of Bread only as the rest did remain'd undâ—stinguish'd till by this Obligation of all Receiving the Cup which they judg'd unlawful and abominabâ—e they were all detected And now if a thing till that time Indifferent was for these Motives determin'd by an Ecclesiastical Precept and so observ'd for many hundred years without scruple or questioning the Authority why should he doubt to submit to the same Authority when upon different Motives and Circumstances they issue forth another Precept Few doubt of this in the matter of Eating of strangled Meats and Blood which thô forbid by the Apostles Acts 15. and so unlawful is now by another Order and upon other circumstances become a thing Indifferent and like other things And why then should he scruple in this especially since there 's no Injury done nor he defrauded of any thing For believing the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament he consâ—quently believes whole and living Iesus to be entirely contain'd under either Species And that receiving under one kind he is truly partaker of the whole Sacrament and not depriv'd of other the Body or Blood of Christ. XXI Of Communion in one kind FOR our better proceeding in this Controversie I shall set down the State of it as clearly as I can 1. The Question is not Whether the first Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist by Jesus Christ were in one kind or two for all confess it was under both kinds 2. It is not Whether both kinds are not still necessary for the due Celebration of it for it is granted that both kinds are necessary to be upon the Altar or else there could be no compleat Sacrifice 3. It is not Whether the People may be wholly excluded from both kinds and so the Sacrifice only remain for they grant that the People are bound to communicate in one kind 4. It is not concerning any peculiar and extraordinary Cases where no Wine is to be had or there be a particular Aversion to it or any such thing where positive Institutions may be reasonably presumed to have no force But concerning the publick and solemn Celebration and participation of it in the Christian Church 5. It is not concerning the meer disuse or neglect of it But concerning the lawfulness of Excluding the People from both Kinds by the Churches Prohibition notwithstanding the Institution of it by Christ in both kinds with a Command to keep up the Celebration of it to his Second Coming Here now consists the point in Controversie Whether the Church being obliged to keep up the Institution in both kinds be not equally obliged to distribute both as our Saviour did to as many as partake of it Our Author not denying the Institution or the continuance of it saith Our Saviour left it indifferent to receive it in one kind or both And that is the point to be examined 1. He saith Christ delivered it to his Apostles who only were then present and whom he made Priests just before yet he gave no command that it should be so received by all the Faithful But were not the Apostles all the Faithful then present I pray in what capacity did they then receive it As Priests How did they receive the Bread before the hoc facite As Priests or as faithful It is ridiculous to suppose the hoc facite changed their capacity and if â—t did it only relates to consecrating and not to receiving but if Christ gave it only to the Apostles as Priests then for all that I can see the People are not at all concerned in one kind or other but it was intended only for Priests If the people be concerned how came they to be so Where is there any command but what refers to the first Institution And it had been more plausible according to this Answer to exclude the People wholly than to admit them to one kind and to debar them the other 2. Christ attributes the obtaining Life Everlasting the end of the Institution sometimes to receiving under both kinds sometimes under one John 6.51 57 58. He could not easily have thought of any thing more against himself for our Saviour there makes it as necessary to drink his Blood as to eat his Flesh Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you If this be understood of the Sacrament as he saith How is it possible for him to make the Cup indifferent Unless it be indifferent whether the People be saved or not 3. Christ himself administred the Sacrament to some of his Disciples under one kind only Luke 24.30 But is he sure Christ did then administer the Sacrament to them Or that if he did the Cup was not implied since breaking of Bread when taken for an ordinary Meal in Scripture doth not exclude drinking at it But S. Augustin he saith l. 49. de Consensu Evangel understands that place of the Sacrament If he doth it cannot be where he saith for
after it And it is no great advantage to Purgatory for him that commends Self-murder to have introduced it The most probable account I can give of it is That the Alexandrian Iews of whose number Iason of Cyrene seems to have been had taken in several of the Philosophical Opinions especially the Platonists into their Religion as appears by Philo and Bellarmine himself confesses that Plato held a Purgatory and they were ready to apply what related to the Law to their Platonick Notions So here the Law appointed a Sin-offering with respect to the Living but Iason would needs have this refer to the dead and then sets down his own remark upon it That it was a holy Cogitation to pray for the dead as our Author renders it If it were holy with respect to the Law there must be some ground for it in the Law And that we appeal to and do not think any particular Fancies sufficient to introduce such a Novelty as this was which had no Foundation either in the Law or the Prophets And it would be strange for a new Doctrine to be set up when the Spirit of Prophecy was ceased among them But S. August held these Books for Canonical and saith they are so received by the Church l. 18. de Civit. Dei To answer thâ—s it is sufficient to observe not only the diffâ—rent Opinions of others before mentioned as to these Books but that as Canus notes it was then lawful to doubt of their Authority and he goes as low as Gregory I. whom he denies not to have rejected them And I hope we may set the Authority of one â—gainst the other especially when S. Augustine himself being pressed hard with the fact of Razias confâ—sses 1. That the Iews have not the Book of Maccabees in their Canon as they have the Law the Prophets and the Psalms to whom our Lord gave Testimony as to his Witnesses Which is an evident Proof he thought not these Books sufficient to ground a Doctrine upon whâ—câ— was not found in the other 2. That however this Book was not unprofitably received by the Church if it be soberly read and heard Which implies a greater Caution than S. Augustine would ever have given concerning a Book he believed truly Canonical But saith Bellarmine his meaning is only to keep men from imitating the Example of Razias whereas that which they pressed St. Augustine with was not meerly the Fact but the Character that is given of it Sanctaâ—um Scâ—ipâ—urarum Auctoritate laudasus est Razias are their very Words in S. Augustine And therefore the Caution relates to the Books and not meerly to his Example And he lessens the Character given by the Author when he saith He chose to dye nobly It had been better saith he to have died humbly But the other is the Elogium given in the Heathen Histories and better becomes brave Heathens than true Martyrs Can any one now think S. Augustine believed this Writer Divinely inspired or his Doctrine sufficient to ground a Point of Faith upon And I wonder they should not every jot as well commend Self-murder as an Heroical Act. as prove the Doctrine of Purgatory from these words of Iason or his Epitemizer For the Argument from the Authority of the Book will hold as strongly for one as the other And yet this is the Achilles for Purgatory which Natalis Alexander whom our Author follows in this matter saith is a demonstrative place against those that deny it But I must proceed 2. Purgatory is plainly intimated by our Saviour Matt. 12.32 Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World neither in the World to come By which words Christ evidently supposes that some Sins are forgiven in the World to come I am so far from discerning this plain Intimation that I wonder how any came to think of it out of this place Well! But doth it not hence follow that Sins may be forgiven in the World to come Not near so plainly as that Sins will not be forgiven in the World to come Not that particular Sin but others may How doth that appear What intimation is there that any Sins not forgiven here shall be forgiven there Or that any Sins here remitted as to the Eternal Punishment shall be there remitted as to the Temporal And without such a kind of Remission nothing can be inferred from hence But if there be a Remission in another World it can be neither in Heaven nor Hell therefore it must be in Purgatory But those who own a Remission of Sins in another World say it will be on the day of Judgment For the actual Deliverance of the Just from Punishment may be not improperly called the full Remission of their Sins So S. Augustine whom he quotes plainly saith Si nulla remitterentur in judicio illo novissimo c. Iulian l. 6. c. 5. where it is evident S. Augustine takes this place to relate to the Day of Judgment and so in the other De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 24. But as he supposed a Remission so he did a Purgation as by Fire in that day In illo judicio poenas quasdam purgatorias futuras De Civit. Dei l 20. c. 25. And so he is to be understood on Psal. 37. to which he applies 1 Cor. 3.15 But our Author was very much out when he saith S. Augustine applied 1 Pet. 3.15 to some place of temporal Chastisement in another World when Bellarmine sets himself to confute S. Augustine about it as understanding it of this World And therefore he hath little cause to boast of St. Augustine's Authority about Purgatory unless he had brought something more to the Purpose out of him Hâ—s other Testimonies of Antiquity are not worth considering which he borrows from Natalis Alexander that of Dionysius Areopag Eccl. Hierarch c. 7. is a known Counterfeit and impertinent relating to a Region of Rest and Happiness And so do Tertullian's Oblations for the Dead De Cor. Milit c. 3. For they were Eucharistical as appears by the ancient Liturgies being made for the greatest Saints St. Cyprian Ep. 66. speaks of an Oblation for the Dead and he there mentions the Natalitia of the Martyrs but by comparing that with his Epist. 33. it will be found that he speaks of the Anniversary Commemoration of the Dead which signifies nothing to Purgatory for the best men were put into it and St. Cyprian threatens it as a Punishment to be left out of the Diptychs but surely it is none to escape Purgatory Arnobius l. 4. only speaks of praying for the Dead which we deny not to have been then used in the Church not with respect to any temporary pains in purgatory but to the Day of Judgment And therein lies the true state of the Controversie with respect to Antiquity which is not Whether any solemn Prayers were not then made for the dead but whether those Prayers did
being no direction in Scripture concerning the Number of the Commandments to be assign'd to each Table nor to let us know which is the first which the second which the third Commâ—ndment or which the last He is taught that 't is but an unnecessary trouble to concern himself about the Number of them or Division when-as his whole Business ought to be the Observance of them in his Life and Conversation XXV Of the Second Commandment THE Dispute about this is not Whether the Second Commandment may be found in any of their Books but by what Authority it comes to be lâ—ft out in any as he confesses it is in their short Catechisms and Manuals But not only in these for I have now before me the Reformed Office of the Blessed Virgin Printed at Salamanca A. D. 1588. published by Order of Pius V. where it is so left out And so in the English Office at Antwerp A. D. 1658. I wish he had told us in what publick Office of their Church it is to be found But himself pleads for the leaving it out when he saith The People are in no danger of Superstition or Idolatry by it since the First Commandment secures them from it and there is nothing in this but what is vertually contained in the First and is rather an Explanation than a new and distinct Precept But is this so plain and clear that a Mans Conscience can never make any just and reasonable Doubt concerning it There is a terrible sanction after it and men had need go upon very good Grounds in a matter of such moment Hath God himself any where declared this to be only an Explication of the First Commandment Have the Prophets or Christ and his Apostles ever done it How then can any mans Conscience be safe in this matter For it is not a trifling Controversie whether it be a distinct Commandment or an Explication of the First but the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of the Worship of Images depends very much upon it For if it be only an Explication of the First then unless one takes Images to be Gods their Worship is lawful and so the Heathens were excused in it who were not such Ideots But if it be a new and distinct Precept then the Worshipping any Image or Similitude becomes a grievous sin and exposes men to the Wrath of God in that severe manner mentioned in the end of it And it is a great confirmation that this is the true meaning of it because all the Primitive Writers of the Christian Church not only thought it a sin against this Commandment but insisted upon the force of it against those Heathens who denied that they took their Images for Gods And therefore this is a very insufficient Account of leaving out the Second Commandment XXVI Of Mental Reservations HE is taught to keep no Faith with any that are reputed Hereticks by his Church and that whatsoever Promises he has made thô never so positive and firm with this sort of People he may lawfully break and cheat and cozen them without any scruple And tho he must not do this by down-right Lying and telling Untruths for that would be a sin yet he may make use of any indirect ways such are Dissimulation Equivocations and Mental Reservations and by these means draw them into his snares And this without fear of offending God who is well pleas'd with these kind of pious Crafts allows of these Holy Cheats HE is taught to keep Faith with all sorts of People of whatsoever Iudgment or Perswasion they be whether in Communion with his Church or no he is taught to stand to his Word and observe his Promise given or made to any whatsoever and that he cannot cheat or cozen whether by dissembling equivocations or mental reservations without defiâ—nce of his own Conscience and the violation of God's Law This is the Instruction he receives from the pulpit the Confessionary and his Books of Direction The holy Francis Sales in his Introduction to a Devout Life p. 3. c. 30. tells him plainly Let your Talk be courteous frank sincere plain and faithful without double-dealing subtilty or dissembling This he is taught to observe and practise and that without this 't is not possible to please God In the Catechism ad Parochos compil'd by order of the Council of Trent and recommended to all Parish Priests for the Instruction of the Faithful he is taught that by the Eighth Commandment he is forbidden all Dissimulation whether in Word or Deed that cum scelere conjuncta sunt to speak or do otherwise than for the intimation of what is in the mind is abominable and wicked That no man shall bear false witness against his Neighbour whether he be Friend or Enemy And Pope Innocent XI in a Decree issued forth the Second of March Anno 1679. has strictly commanded all the Faithful in virtue of his holy Obedience and under pain of incurring the Divine Vengeance that they never swear equivocally or with any mental reservation upon no account or pretended convenience whatsoever And that if any presume either publickly or privately to teach or maintain the Doctrine of Swearing with equivocations or mental reservation that they de facto incur Excommunication latae Sententiae and cannot be absolv'd by any but the Pope himself excepting at the hour of death He is taught therefore to speak plainly and sincerely without Dissimulations Equivocations mental Reservations or any such like Artifices which cannot be but very injurious to all Society and displeasing to the First Truth And now if any Authors in Communion with his Church be prâ—duced as Patrons of inward Reserves and grand Abettors of thâ—se mental Iuggles let them hold up their hands and answer for themselves Their Church has declar'd for no such Doctrine and is no more to be charg'd with their extravagant Opinions than with the unexemplar lives of other her Members whose Irregularities are not at all deriv'd from their Religion but from the neglect of their own corrupt Inclinations and giving way to the temptations of their Enemy XXVI Of Mental Reservations UNder this Head he denies Two Things 1. That they are ever taught to break Faith with Hereticks 2. That their Church doth allow any Equivocations or Mental Reservations As to the former I am sincerely glad to find a Principle so destructive to all humane Society so utterly disowned when he saith He is taught to keep Faith with all sorts of People of whatsoever Iudgment or Perswasion they be and to stand to his Word and observe his Promise given or made to any whatsoever And whatever Opinions and Practices there may have been of that kind formerly we hope there will never be occasion given to revive that dispute 2. As to the Second We embrace his Declaration against it and hope there is no Equivocation or Mental Reservation in it But there are some things which must here be taken notice of 1. He cannot deny that there are Authors
because the Church doth not forbid it but this last he saith is not the general but the more probable Opinion 3. A Man may eat something when he drinks to prevent its doing him hurt besides his good Meal he may take what quantity he pleases of Sweet-meats or Fruit he may have a good Reflection at Night and yet not break this strict Precept of Fasting For the eating as often as one drinks it is the common Opinion saith the same Casuist who was no Iesuit That it is not forbidden because it is taken by way of a Medicine and he quotes a great number of their Casuists for it A Collation at evening is allowed saith he And Lessius saith There is no certain Rule for the Quantity of it And Card. Tolet saith very large ones are allowed at Rome by the Pope's Connivence even in the Court of Rome saith Reginaldus And now I leave the Reader to judge of the severity of Fasting required in the Church of Rome XXIX Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church HE is of a Religion in which there are as many Schisms as Families And they are so divided in their Opinions that commonly as many as meet in company so many several Tenets are maintain'd Hence arise their infinite and endless Disputes and disagreement of their Divines who pretend to give a true and solid explication of the Mysteries of the Christian Faith and yet differ in as many Points as they write of Besides what variety of Iudgments are there in their Religious Houses and Cloisters none agreeing with another in their Foundation Institution and Profession This being of the Religion of St. Dominick That of St. Francis a third of St. Bernard Others of St. Benedict and so without number so that as many Orders as many Religions And yet they pretend to Christian Unity amidst this diversity growing upon them every day HE is of a Religion in which there are no Schisms or Separations all the Members of it however spread through the World agreeing like one man in every Article of their Faith by an equal submission to the Determinations of their Church And no one of them tho' most Learned and Wise ever following any other Rule in their Faith besides this of assenting to all that the Church of God planted by Christ assisted and protected by the Holy Ghost proposed to the Faithful to be believ'd as the Doctrine of the Apostles and receiv'd as such in all Ages Which is all unanimously to believe as the Church of God believes No one of his Communion ever doubting of this or scrupling to receive any thing after his Churches Declaration And now tho they all thus conspire in every point of Faith yet there is great diversity among School men in their Divinity-points and Opinions of such matters as are no Articles of Faith and have no relation to it but as some circumstance or manner which being never defin'd by their Church may be maintain'd severally either this or that way without any breach of Faith or injury to their Religion And of these things only they dispute and have their Debates in manner of a School-Exercises without any disagreement at all in their Belief but with a perfect Unity The like Unity is there amongst their Religious Orders all which say the same Creed own the same Authority in the Church of Christ and in every thing profess the same Faith and have no other differences than as it were of so many several steps or degrees in the practice of a Devout and Holy Life some being of a more severe and strict Discipline others of a more gentle and moderate some spending more time in Praying others more in Watching others more in Fasting some being intended for the Catechising and breeding up of Youth others for taking care of Hospitals and looking after the Sick others for going amongst Infidels and Preaching to them the Gospel of Christ and for such-like Pious and Christian Designs to the greater Glory and Honour of God which differences make no other difference in the several Professors than there was between Mary and Martha who express'd their Love and Service to their Lord in a very different Imploy but both commendably and without any danger of prejudicing the Unity of their Faith XXIX Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church TWO things he saith upon this Head 1. That they are all agreed in matters of Faith 2. That they only differ in some School Points from whence he infers That they have no Schisms or Separations among them But that this is no just consequence will appear by the Schisms and Separations among us made by such who profess to agree in all matters of Faith Yet let us see how he proves that they agree in all matters of Faith because they agree to submit equally to the Determinations of the Church Now this very way evidently proves that they do not all agree because they do not equally submit to the Churches Determinations For 1. Some say they are bound to submit to the Churches Determinations as it represents the Universal Church Others say no but as the Churches Power is virtually lodged in the Guides of it Now this is a very material Difference for if it be on the former Account then not the Popes and Councils Declarations are to be regarded but as they express the sense of the Universal Church and so the Majority of Votes the Numbers in the Representative and Diffusive Church is chiefly to be regarded And on this Ground some reject the Deposing Power tho plainly decreed by Popes and Councils but they unhinge their Churches Authority by it Now how is it possible for them to agree about matters of Faith who differ fundamentally about the way how any things come to be matters of Faith If they be decreed by Popes and Councils say some and so the Deposing Power is become an Article of Faith No such matter say others for a greater Number in the diffusive Church oppose it as in the Gallican Church and elsewhere Very well But how then can these Parties be said to agree in matters of Faith and an equal Submission to the Determinations of the Church 2. Some again say That it is not the consent of the present Church can make any Article of Faith but there must be an Universal Tradition from the Apostles times And so they tell us the Deposing Power can never be an Article of Faith because it wants the Consent of all the Ages before Gregory VII So that upon this Ground there can be no Article of Faith which cannot be proved to be thus delivered down to us Others again say this is in effect to give up their Cause knowing the impossibility of proving particular Points in this manner and therefore they say the present Church is wholly to be trusted for the sense of the foregoing Now these differences are still on foot in their Church and from these do arise daily disputes about matters of Faith
what power these things have they not of themselves but only from Heaven and by the Invocation of the Name of Iesus who as by his heavenly Blessing he enables us to do things above the power of Nature so also by the Prayers of his Church he blesses these things in order to the working effects above their own natural qualities that by them his Fatherly Benefits may be applâ—ed to us and that so the Faithful may more particularly honour and bless him in all his Creatures XXXIII Of Holy Water THE Misrepresenter charges him with approving superstitious uses of inanimate things and attributing wonderful effects to them as Holy-Water Candles Oyl Bread c. In Answer our Author 1. declares That the Papist truly represented utterly disapproves all sorts of Superstition But it he had designed to have represented truly he ought to have told us what he meant by Superstition and whether any Man who observes the Commands of the Church can be guilty of it 2. He saith That these things are particularly deputed by the Prayers and Blessing of the Priest to certain uses for God's Glory and the Spiritual and Corporal Good of Christians This is somewhat too general but Marsilius Columna Archbishop of Salerno who hath taken most pains in this matter sums them up 1. As to Spiritual they are Seven 1. To fright Devils 2. To remit Venial sins 3. To cure Distractions 4. To elevate the Mind 5. To dispose it for Devotion 6. To obtain Grace 7. To prepare for the Sacrament 2. As to Corporal 1. To cure Barreness 2. To multiply Goods 3. To procure Health 4. To purge the Air from pestilential Vapours And now as our Author saith What Superstition in the use of it He names several things of Gods own appointing to Parallel it as the Waters of Iealousy the Shew-bread the Tables of Stone but the first was miraculous the other had no such effects that we ever heard of Elisha's Salt for sweetning the Water was undoubtedly a Miracle Is the Holy-Water so As to the Liver of the Fish for expelling the Devil in the Book of Tobit he knows the Book is not owned for Canonical by us and this very place is produced as an Argument against it there being no Ground from Scripture to attribute the Power of expelling Devils to the Liver of a Fish either naturally or symbolically Vallesius offers at the only probable account of it that it must be a Divine Power given to it which the Angel Raphael did not discover and yet it is somewhat hard to conceive how this Liver should have such a power to drive away any kind of Devil as it is there expressed unless by a Devil there no more be meant than some violent Disease which the Iews generally believed to arise from the possession of evil Spirits But however here is an Angel supposed who made this known to Tobit but we find not Raphael to discover the virtue of Holy Water against Devils As to Christ using Clay to open the Eyes of the Blind it is very improperly applied unless the same miraculous Power be supposed in it which was in Christ himself And so is the Apostles laying on of Hands and using Oyl for miraculous Cures unless the same Gift of Miracles be in every Priest which consecrates Hâ—ly Water which was in the Apostles And Bellarmine himself confesses That no infallible effect doth follow the use of Holy Water because there is no Promise of God in the case but only the Prayers of the Church But these are sufficient to sanctifie the Water saith our Author And to what end For all the spiritual and corporeal benefits before mentioned Is no promise of God necessary for such purposes as those How can any Church in the World dispose of God's Power without his Will It may appoint significant and decent Ceremonies but it can never appropriate divine Effects to them and to suppose any divine Power in things which God never gave them is in my Opinion Superstition and to use them for such ends is a superstitious use St. Cyril whom he quotes speaks of the Consecration of the Water of Baptism CÃ tech 3. St. Augustine only of a consecrated Bread which the Catechumens had De Peccat Merit Remiss l. 2. c. 26. but he attributes no divine Effects to it Pope Alexanders Epistle is a notorious Counterfeit Those Passages of Epiphanius Theodoret and S. Ierom all speak of miraculous effects and those who had the power of Miracles might sometimes do them with an external sign and sometimes without as the Apostles cured with anointing and without But this is no ground for consecrating Oyl by the Church or Holy Water for miraculous Effects If these Effects which they attribute to Holy Water be miraculous then every Priest must have not only a power of Miracles himself but of annexing it to the Water he consecrates if they be super-natural but not miraculous then Holy Water must be made a Sacrament to produce these Effects ex opere operato if neither one nor the other I know not how to excuse the use of it from Superstition XXXIV Of Breeding up People in Ignorance HE is train'd up in Ignorance and 't is the chief means made use of by his Church for preserving Men in that Communion to hide from them her manifold Mysteries of Iniquity her sottish Supâ—rstitions her un-christian Doctrines by performing all in unknown Tongues and not permitting the poor misled People to look into or understand any thing that they Believe or Profess And by this blindness they are perswaded to embrace such infinite numbers of gross Errors that were but the Vail taken from their eyes but for one half hour and they but permitted to have one fair prospect of their Religion thousands and thousands would daily desert her and come over to the Truth HE has all the liberty encouragement and convenience of becoming learned of any People or Perswasion whatsoever And none that has ever look'd over any Library and found that the greatest numbers and choicest Books of all Sciences have men of his Communion for their Authors None that in his Travels has taken a thorough view of the Universities in Popish Countries of the Sorbon Louvain Salamanca Boloign c. and consider'd their laborious Studies in Philosophy Divinity History the Fathers Councils Scripture c. and besides the Students here has seen how many thousands there are in Religious Houses who free from the disturbances of the World make Virtue and Learning the business of their whole Life will ever lay Ignorance to the charge of the Papists but must in Justice confess that amongst them are to be found as many and as great Scholars as amongst any People or Societies in the World And tho the vulgar and common sort of that Profession understand not Latin yet are not they train'd up in ignorance of their Religion nor led along in blindness but are so provided of Books in their own
Mother-Tongue of Instruction and Devotion wherein is explâ—cated the whole Duty of a Christian every Mystery of their Faith and all the Offices and Ceremonies perform'd in the Church that they must be very negligent or else very meanly parted who do not arrive to a sufficient knowledge of theâ—r Obligation in every respect And whosoever has seen the great pains and care some good men take abroad in Explicating on Sundays and Holy-days in their Churches and on Week-days in the Streets the Christian Doctrine to the crowds of the ignorant and meaner sort of People not omitting to reward such as answer well with some small gifts to encourage Youth and provoke them to a commendable Emulation will never say that the Papists keep the poor people in Ignorance and hide from them their Religion but rather that they use all means for instructing the Ignorant and omit nothing that can any ways conduce to the breeding up of Youth in the knowledge of their Faith and letting them see into the Religion they are to profess Neither does it seem to him even so much as probable that if the Church-Offices and Service c. were perform'd in the vulgar-tongue that upon this the now-ignorant and blinded People would immediately discover so many idle Superstitions sensless Devotions and gross Errors that they would in great numbers upon the sight become deserters of that Communion in which now they are profess'd Members For since there is nothing done but in a Language which the Learned Judicious and Leading Men of all Nations do every where understand and yet these espy no such Ridiculosities which fright them from their Faith but notwithstanding the seeing all thro' and thro' they yet admire all for solid holy and Apostolical and remain stedfast in their Profession how can it be imagin'd that the vulgar weak and unlearned sort did they but understand all as well as they would espy any such Errors and Superstitions which these others with all their Learning and Judgment cannot discover No he thinks there 's no reason to fear that what passes the Test among the Wise and Learned can be groundedly call'd in question by the Multitude XXXIV Of breeding up People in Ignorance THE Misrepresenter charges them with this on these accounts 1. By keeping their Mysteries of Iniquity from them 2. By performing Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 3. By an implicite Faith To which the Representer answers 1. That they give encouragement to Learning and he instances in their Universities and Conventual Libraries But what is all this to the common People But their Indices Expurgatorii and prohibiting Books so severely which are not for their turn as we have lately seen in the new one of Paris argues no great confidence of their Cause nor any hearty love to Learning And if it could be rooted out of the World their Church would fare the better in it but if it cannot they must have some to be able to deal with others in it 2. As to the common People he saith They have Books enough to instruct them Is it so in Spain or Italy But where they live among Heretâ—cks as we are called the People must be a little better instructed to defend themselves and to gain upon others 3. If the People did know their Church Offices and Service c. they would not find such faults since the Learned approve them Let them then try the Experiment and put the Bible and their Church-Offices every where into the Vulgar Tongues But their severe Prohibitions shew how much they are of another Opinion What made all that Rage in France against Voisins Translation of the Missal Such Proceedings of the Assembly of the Clergy against it such Complaints both to the King and the Pope against it as tho all were lost if that were suffered Such an Edict from the King such a Prohibitâ—on from the Pope in such a tragical Stile about it Such a Collection of Authors to be printed on purpose against it Do thâ—se things shew even in a Nation of so free a temper in Comparison as the French any mighty Inclination towards the encouraging this Knowledg in the People And since that what stirs have there been about the Mons Testament What Prohibitions by Bishops besides a Bull from this very Pope against it What vehement Opposition by others So that many Volumes have already been written on the occasion of that Translation And yet our Author would perswade us That if we look abroad we shall find wonderful care taken to keep the People from Ignorance but we can discern much greater to keep them in it XXXV Of the Uncharitableness of the Papists HIs Church teaches him to be very uncharitable it being her constant Doctrine that none out of her Communion can be saved So that let a man be never so honest in his Dealing never so just to his Neighbour never so charitable to the Poor and constant in his Devotion to his Maker yet all this shall avail him nothing if he be not a Member of his Church 'T is not enough for him to believe in Iesus Christ to confess him his Redeemer to believe that he died for our Sins that he rose again and ascended into Heaven unless he believes and assents to every Article and Tenet declar'd by any of his General Councils for that obstinately to deny any one of these does as certainly place him at the Left Hand of the Judge as if he perversly stood out against the truth of Christianity and denied Jesus Christ to be God And by this means as many as by his Church are mark'd out for Schismaticks or Hereticks are to expect nothing but Damnation or rather are condemned already HIs Church teaches him no uncharitableness at all and the Doctrine she delivers concerning the desperate Estate of Hereticks and Schismaticks is nothing but what she has learnt from the mouth of Christ and his Apostles Among the last advices recommended by our Saviour at his Ascension is found the Sentence of Doom pronounced against all such as would not receive the Doctrine preach'd by the Apostles Preach the Gospel says Christ Mark 16.16 to every Creature he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned And this is all his Church delivers in this point repeating the same Sentence of condemnation against all such as will not receive and believe the Doctrine left by Christ and preached by his Apostles And if among those that believe not she comprehends not only Infidels and Heathens but also all Hereticks and Schismaticks 't is nothing but what she has receiv'd from the Apostles who did not only shake the dust off their Feets in witness against those who denied them entrance and refused to believe in Jesus but also denounc'd such of the Brethren to stand guilty of damnation who notwithstanding their belief in Jesus that he died for the Redâ—mption of Man and that rising again he Ascended into
Word whensoever any receiv'd Doctrine of Christianity was to be outed and may to be made for a Novelty And he does not doubt but that if the noise of Novelty continue long so unhappily successful as of late and the liberty be permitted to every presuming Spirit to fix this scandal upon whatsoever Doctrine or Institution they shall think fit that all Christianity is in a faiâ— way of being thrown out of doors And the Bible Preaching Catechising Christ's Incarnation and Passion c. is as likely to bâ— cast off for a Novelty as all the rest have been Those that will but shew to the People that even these things have been all receiv'd from Rome and that the Papists by their Missionaries spread these Doctrines over the World may soon perswade them they are nothing but Popish Inventions meer Novelties that those that began the Reformation did their business by halves and that the World will never be throughly Reform'd till all these Romish Superstitions are laid by with the rest they being of the same date He takes no notice thereof of all the clamours rais'd against several points of the receiv'd Doctrine of his Church his Faith is founded on better Principles than to be shaken with such a Vulgar Engine Novelty Novelty is a cry that may fright unthinking Men from their Religion but every serious Man will require better Motives than a Noise before he forsake any point of his Faith and 't is impossible he should joyn with any in condemning such things for Novelties which he finds the Profession of all Antiquity XXXVII Of Innovation in matters of Faith THE Substance of his Discourse on this Head may be reduced to these things 1. That the Church in every Age hath Power to declare what is necessary to be believed with Anathema to those who Preach the Contrary and so the Council of Trent in declaring Transubstantiation Purgatory c. to be necessary Articles did no more than the Church had done before on like Occasions 2. That if the Doctrines then defined had been Innovations they must have met with great Opposition when they were introduced 3. That those who charged those points to be Innovations might as well have laid the scandal on any other Article of Faith which they retained These are things necessary to be examined in order to the making good the charge of Innovation in matters of Faith which we believe doth stand on very good Grounds 1. We are to consider Whether the Council of Trent had equal Reason to define the necessity of these points as the Council of Nice and Constantinople had to determin the point of the Trinity or those of Ephesus and Chalcedon the Truth of Christ's Incarnation He doth not assert it to be in the Churches Power to make new Articles of Faith as they do imply new Doctrines reveal'd but he contends earnestly That the Church hath a Power to declare the necessity of believing some points which were not so declared before And if the Necessity of believing doth depend upon the Churches Declaration then he must assert that it is in the Churches Power to make points necessary to be believed which were not so and consequently to make common Opinions to become Articles of Faith But I hope we may have leave to enquire in this Case since the Church pretends to no new Revelation of matters of Doctrine therefore it can declare no more than it receives and no otherwise than it receives And so nothing can be made necessary to Salvation but what God himself hath made so by his Revelation So that they must go in their Declaration either upon Scripture or Universal Tradition but if they define any Doctrine to be necessary without these Grounds they exceed their Commission and there is no Reason to submit to their Decrees or to believe their Declarations To make this more plain by a known Instance It is most certain that several Popes and Councils have declared the Desposing Doctrine and yet our Author saith It is no Article of Faith with him Why not since the Popes and Councils have as evidently delivered it as the Council of Trent hath done Purgatory or Transubstantiation But he may say There is no Anathema joined to it Suppose there be not But why may it not be as well as in the other Cases And if it were I wouâ—d know whether in his Conscience he would then believe it to be a necessary Article of Faith thô he believed that it wanted Scripture and Tradition If not then he seees what this matter is brought to viz. That althô the Council of Trent declare these new Doctrines to be necessary to be believed yet if their Declaration be not built on Scripture and Universal Tradition we are not bound to receive it 2. As to the impossibility of Innovations coming in without notorious opposition I see no ground at all for it where the alteration is not made at once but proceeds gradually He may as well prove it impossible for a Man to fall into a Dropsy or a Hectick-Fever unless he can tell the punctual time when it begun And he may as well argue thus Such a Man fell into a Fever upon a great Debauch and the Physicians were presently sent for to advise about him therefore the other Man hath no Chronical Distemper because he had no Physicians when he was first sick as because Councils were called against some Heresies and great Opposition made to them therefore where there is not the like there can be no Innovation But I see no Reason why we should decline giving an Account by what Dâ—grees and Steps and upon what Occasions and with what Opposition several of the Doctrines defined at Trent were brought in For the matter is not so obscure as you would make it as to most of the Points in difference between us But that is too large a Task to be here undertaken 3. There is no colour for calling in Question the Articles of Faith received by us on the same Grounds that we reject those defined by the Council of Trent for we have the Universal Consent of the Christian World for the Apostles Creed of the 4 General Councils for the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation who never pretended to determine any Point to be necessary which was not reveaâ—ed in Scripture whose sense was delivered down by the Testimony of the Christian Church from the Apostles times But the Council of Trent proceeded by a very different Rule for it first set up an Unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith as well as the Written which althô it were necessary in order to their Decrees was one of the greatest Innovations in the World and the Foundation of all the rest as they were there established The CONCLUSION THese are the Characters of the Papist as he is Mis-represented and as Represented And as different as the One is from the Other so different is the Pâ—pist as reputed by his Maligners