firm purpose of amendment and an hearty resolution of turning from his evil ways may from them receive Absolution by the Authority given them from Heaven and not doubt but God ratifies above the sentence pronounced in that Tribunal Loosing in Heaven whatsoever is thus loosed by them on Earth And that whosoever comes without the due preparation without a Repentance from the bottom of his heart and real intension of forsaking his sins receives no benefit by the Absolution but adds sin to sin by an high contempt of God's Mercy and abuse of his Sacraments VII Of Confession WE do not charge the Church of Rome that in the power of Absolving they make Gods of Men as our Misrepresenter pretends 2. We do not deny That Christ gave to the Bishops and Priests of the Catholick Church Authority to absolve any truly penitent Sinner from his Sins which he therefore needlesly proves out of Scripture and that such Absolution is ratified in Heaven 3. We are glad to find that our Author declares That no Man receives benefit by Absolution without Repentance from the bottom of his Heart and real intention of forsaking his Sins by which we hope he means more than Attrition But yet there are some things which stick with us as to the Doctrine and Practicee of the Church of Rome in this matter which he takes no notice of 1. That Secret Confession of Sins to a Priest is made so necessary to Salvation that an Anathema is denounced against all that deny it when they cannot deny that God doth forgive Sins upon true Contrition For the Council of Trent doth say That Contrition with Charity doth reconcile a Man to God before the Sacrament of Penance be actually received But then it adds That the desire of Confession is included in Contrition Which is impossible to be proved by Scripture Reason or Antiquity For so lately as in the time of the Master of the Sentences and Gratian in the 12 th Century it was a very disputable Point whether Confession to a Priest were necessary And it is very hard for us to understand how that should become necessary to Salvation since which was not then Some of their own Writers confess that some good Catholicks did not believe the necessity of it I suppose the old Canonists may pass for good Catholicks and yet Maldonat saith That all the Interpreters of the Decrees held that there was no Divine Precept for Confession to a Priest and of the same Opinion he grants Scotus to have been But he thinks it is now declared to be Heresie or he wishes it were And we think it is too much already unless there were better ground for it 2. That an Anathema is denounced against those who do not understand the words of Christ Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. of the Sacrament of Penance so as to imply the necessity of Confession Whereas there is no appearance in the words of any such Sense and themselves grant that in order to the Remission of Sins by Baptism of which St. Matthew and St. Mark speak in the Apostles Commission there is no necessity of Sacramental Confession but a general Confession is sufficient And from hence the Elder Iansenius concludes That the Power of Remission of Sins here granted doth not imply Sacramental Confession Cajetant yields There is no Command for Confession here And Catharinus adds That Cajetan would not allow any one Place of Scripture to prove Auricular Confession And as to this particular he denies that there is any Command for it and he goes not about to prove it but that Cajetan contradicts himself elsewhere viz. when he wrote School-Divinity before he set himself to the study of the Scriptures Vasques saith That if these words may be understood of Baptism none can infer from them the Necessity of Auricular Confession But Gregory de Valentia evidently proves that this place doth relate to Remission of Sins in Baptism not only from the Comparison of places but from the Testimonies of Saint Cyprian Saint Ambrose and others 3. That it is expressed in the same Anathema's that this hath been always the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church from the beginning We do not deny the ancient practice either of Canonical Confession as part of the Discipline of the Church for publick Offenses nor of Voluntary Confession for ease and satisfaction of the perplexed Minds of doubting or dejected Penitents but that which we say was not owned nor practised by the Church from the beginning was this Sacramental Confession as necessary to the Remission of sins before God It is therefore to no purpose to produce out of Bellarmine and others a great number of Citations to prove that which we never deny but if they hold to the Council of Trent they must prove from the Fathers that Sins after Baptism cannot be forgiven without Confession to men which those who consider what they do will never undertake there being so many Testimonies of undoubted Antiquity against it And it is observable that Bonaventuâ—e grants that before the Lateran Decree of Innocentius 3. it was no Heresie to deny the necessity of Confession and so he excuses those who in the time of Lombard and Gratian held that Opinion And all other Christians in the World besides those of the Church of Rome do to this day reject the necessity of particular Confession to a Priest in order to Remission as the Writers of the Church of Rome themselves confess So Godignus doth of the Abyssins Philippus à SS Trinitate of the Iacobites Clemens Galanus of the Nestorians who saith They made a Decree against the use of Confession to any but to God alone And Alexius Meneses of the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies The Greeks believe Confession only to be of Positive and Ecclesiastical Institution as the late Author of the Critical History of the Faith and Customs of the Eastern Nations proves And the very Form of their Absolution declares that they do not think particular Confession of all known Sins necessary to pardon for therein the Priest absolves the Penitent from the sins he hath not confessed through forgetfulness or shame And now let any one prove this to have been a Catholick Tradition by Vincentius his Rules viz. That it hath been always received every where and by All. VIII Of Indulgences HE believes that his Holy Father the Pope can give him leave to commit what sins he pleaseth especially if he can make him a present of a round Sum of Mony he never need doubt of an Indulgence or Pardon for himself and his Heirs for ever for all sorts of Crimes or Wickedness he or any of his Posterity may have convenience of falling into And having this Commission in his Pocket under the Popes Broad Seal he may be confident that Christ will confirm and stand to all that his Vicar upon Earth has granted and not
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
look on themselves as obliged to shew him the Respect due to his place which he knows is not the matter in question Two things however he saith which seem to justifie his Title 1. He is the Successor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the Care of his Flock But how far is this from proving the Pope to be Head of the Church under Christ For how doth it appear that Christ ever made St. Peter Head of the Church or committed his Flock to him in contradistinction to the rest of the Apostles This is so far from being evident from Scripture that the Learned Men of their Church are ashamed of the Places commonly produced for it it being impossible ever to justify the sense of them according to their own Rules of interpreting Scripture viz. by the unanimous consent of the Fathers For 1. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church is interpreted by many of the Fathers both Greek and Latin of S Peters Confession and not of his Person so by S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Basil of Selucia S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret all great and considerable Persons in the Christian Church whose words are plain and full to that purpose and so they can never produce the unanimous Consent of the Fathers for S. Peter's Supremacy out of these words 2. And unto thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are interpreted by the Fathers of S. Peter in common with the other Apostles so Origen S. Cyprian S. Hilary S Hierom and S. Augustine as they are all owned by some Members of the Roman Communion And 3. For these words Feed my Sheep a late learned Doctor of the Sorbon shews that if they prove any thing peculiar to Saint Peter they must prove him sole Pastor of the Church which was the thing Saint Gregory disputed against so warmly But that there was nothing peculiar to Saint Peter above or beyond the rest of the Apostles he shews at large from S. Chrysostom S. Cyril S. Augustine and others to whom I refer the Reader and to the former Authors But suppose it were made to appear that Saint Peter was Head of the Church How doth the Bishop of Rome's Succession in that Headship shew it self To that he saith 2. That there hath been a visible Succession of above Two hundred and fifty Bishops acknowled as such in all past Ages by the Christian World As such What is that As Bishops of Rome That is not of weight enough to put it upon Tryal as Heads of the Catholick-Church That he knows is not only denied by us but by all the Greek Armenian Nestorian Abyssin Churches so that we dare say it was never allowed in any one Age of the Christian Church But we need not insist on the proof of this since the late mentioned Authors of the Roman Communion have taken so great pains not only to prove the Popes Supremacy to be an Incroachment Usurpation in the Church but that the laying it aside is necessary to the Peace and Unity of it And until the Divine Institution of the Papal Supremacy be proved it is to no purpose to debate what manner of Assistance is promised to the Pope in his Decrees Our Author is willing to decline the Debate about his personal Infallibility as a matter of Opinion and not of Faith and yet he saith he doubts not but God doth grant a special Assistance to the High Priest for the good of the whole Flock under the New Law as he did under the Old and produces the Instance of Caiaphas Joh. 11.51 This is a very surprizing way of Reasoning for if his Arguments be good from Scripture he must hold the Popes personal Infallibility as a matter of Faith and yet one would hardly think he should build an Article of Faith on the instance of Caiaphas For what consequence can be drawn from Gods over-ruling the Mind of a very bad man when he was carrying on a most wicked design to utter such words which in the event proved true in another sense than he meant them that therefore God will give a special Assistance to the Pope in determining matters of Faith Was not Caiaphas himself the man who proposed the taking away the Life of Christ at that time Was he assisted in that Council Did not he determine afterwards Christ to be guilty of Blasphemy and therefore worthy of Death And is not this a rare Infallibility which is supposed to be consistent with a Decree to crucifie Christ And doth he in earnest think such Orders are to be obeyed whether the Supreme Pastor be Infallible or not For so he concludes That his Sentence is to be obeyed whether he be Infallible or no XIX Of Dispensations HE believes that the Pope has Authority to pispense with the Laws of God and absolve any one from the obligation of keeping the Commandments So that if he has but his Holy Fathers leave he may confidently Dissemble Lie and Forswear himself in all whatsoever he pleases and never be in danger of being call'd to an account at the last day especially if his Lying and Forswearing was for the common good of the Church there being then a sure Reward prepar'd for him in Heaven as a recompence of his good Intentions and Heroick Atchievements And if at any time he should chance to be catch'd in the management of any of these publick and Church-concerns and being obnoxious to Penal Laws should have Sentence of Death pass'd on him he has liberty at his last hour on the Scaffold or Ladder to make a publick Detestation of all such Crimes to make protestations of his Innocence to call God to witness that he denies unjustly and that as he is immediately to appear before the Supreme Judge he knows no more of any such designs and is as clear from the Guilt of them as the Child unborn And this though the Evidence against him be as clear as noon-day though the Jury be never so Impartial and the Judge never so Conscientious For that he having taken the Sacrament and Oath of Secresie and receiv'd Absolution or a Dispensation from the Pope may then Lye Swear Forswear and Protest all that he pleases without scruple with a good Conscience Christian-like Holily and Canonically HE believes that the Pope has no Authority to dispense with the Law of God and that there 's no Power upon Earth can absolve any one frome the Obligation of keeping the Commandments or give leave to Lie or Forswear or make that the breaking of any the least Divine Precept shall not be accountable for at the day of Judgment He is taught by his Church in all Books of Direction in all Catechisms in all Sermons that every Lie is a Sin that to call God to witness to an Vntruth damnable that it ought not to be done to save the whole World that whosoever does it either for his own personal account
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
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
the Treasure of the Church which the Pope hath the dispensing of as he is bound to believe and by Indulgences he may easily get off some Thousands of years of Purgatory-Pains and if these should fail him there is another help yet left which is leaving a stock of Prayers for his Soul when he dies which even our Author assures him are very available towards his speedier release out of Purgatory XXVIII Of Fasting HE is contented with the appearance of Devotion and looking not beyond the name of Mortification he sits down well satisfied with the shadow without ever taking care for the substance And this being a great Pretender to Fasting and the Denial of himself he thinks he has sufficiently complied with his Duty in this point and made good his claim if he has but abstain'd from Flesh and tho at the same time he regales himself at Noon with all variety of the choicest Fish and stuffs himself at Night with the best Conserves and delicatest Junkets and drinks all day the pleasantest Wines and other Liquors yet he perswades himself that he is a truly Mortified Man that he has most Christian-like commemorated the bitter Death and Passion of his Redeemer and done a work of great force in order to the suppressing his corrupt Inclinations and satisfying for the Offences of his Life past Nay he has such a preposterous conceit of things that he believes it a greater sin to eat the least bit of Flesh on a Fasting-dâ—y than to be down-right Drunk or commit any other Excess as having less scruple of breaking the Commandments of God than of violating any Ordinance of the Pope or any Law of his Church HIS Church teâ—ches him that the Appearance of Devotion the Name of Mortification and pretence to it are only vain and fruitless things if they are not accompanied with the substance and that 't is but a very lame compliance with the Ecclesiastical Precept of Fasting to abstain from Flesh unless all other Excesses are at the same time carefully avoided 'T is true his Church has not forbidden on these days the drinking of Wine but permits a moderate use of it as at other times but is so far from giving liberty to any of her Flock of committing Excesses that she declares Drunkenness and all Gluttony whatsoever to be more hainous and scandalous sins on such days than on any other they being expresly contrary not only to the Law of God but also to the intention of the Church which appoints these times for the retrenching Debaucheries and conquering our vicious Appetites And now if any of his Profession make less scruple of being Drunk on a Fasting-day than of eating the least bit of Flesh he knows nothing more can be said of them than of many others who will not break the sabbath-Sabbath-day by doing any servile Labour on it for all the World looking on this as a most damning sin and yet at the same time have little scruple of Swearing Cursing Lying or Revelling the greatest part of the day Which is not because they have more liberty for these than the former they being all most wicked Offences but because they that do thus are but Christians by halves who with a kind of Pharisaical and Partial Obedience seem to bear some of the Commandments most zealously in their Hearts while others they trample under their feet scrupling many times at a Moat and on other occasions passing by a Beam undiscern'd for which their Church is not to be accountable but They themselves as being guilty of a wilful blindness and a most unchristian Negligence This is the real case of such of his Communion who on days of Humiliation while they abstain from Flesh yet give scandal by their Intemperateness They have a Command of God by which they are oblig'd on all days to live soberly and to avoid all Gluttony and Drunkenness and on Fasting-days besides this Command of God they have a Church-precept by which they are bound if able to eat but one Meal in a day and that not of Flesh. And now if some are so inconsiderate and careless as to be scrupulously observant of one of these Commands and wholly negligent of the other 't is not because their Religion teaches them to do so which detests and condemns all such scandalous Partiality and complying with their Duty by halves but because they shut their ears to all good Instruction and chuse rather to follow their own corrupt Appetites than the wholsome Doctrine of their Church XXVIII Of Fasting THE Question here is Whether a Man doth not observe their Churches Command about Fasting who forbears all forbidden things but takes liberty in those which are not forbidden It is not Whether they may not break the Commands of God against Gluttony and Drunkenness but whether they break the Law of the Church about Fasting And notwithstanding what our Author hath said I see no Reason for the Affirmative I do not deny 1. That it is a very indifferent sort of Fasting to abstain from Flesh unless all other sorts of Excesses at the same time be carefully avoided 2. That Excesses on such days are more scandalous because there is a pretence of Fasting 3. That God's Command doth at all times forbid Intemperance Which are the chief things he insists upon But yet this doth not reach the point which is about their Churches Command For their Casuists distinguish Fasting into 1. Natural which is total Abstinence and this is required only in order to receiving the Eucharist 2. Moral which is the same with Temperance or Fasting for Health 3. Ecclesiastical which is defined by them to be An Abstinence from Food forbidden by the Church And if this Definition be true it cannot be broken but by eating what the Church hath prohibited And therefore their Casuists as far as I can find are agreed in these things 1. That a Man may eat a full Meal of what is not forbidden and not break the Churches Precept of Fasting provided Vespers be first said And the later Casuists blame Covarruvias for making any scruple about it If a Mans Excess comes to be a mortal Sin yet for all that saith Reginaldus He shall not be judged as a breaker of his Fast. Nay Lessius goes further and saith He doth not lose the Merit of Fasting Quamvis aliquis multum excedat non solvit Iejunium saith Card. Tolet. And Paulus Zacchias saith This is the common Opinion and he thinks the Intention of the Church is sufficiently answered And so doth Pasqualigus in his Praxis of Fasting 2. A Man may drink Wine or other drink as often as he pleaseth without breaking his Fast. He may toties quoties bibere saith Diana Zach. Pasqualigus who hath written most fully on this Subject shews That it is the general Opinion that no quantity of Wine or other drink tho taken without any necessity is a violation of the Precept of Fasting no not although the Wine be taken for nourishment
and another knowing me unable to pay it gives me so much to pay the Debt this is no more than what may be called strict Payment as to the Creditor but if the Creditor himself gives me this 100 l. to pay himself with will any Man call this strict Payment He may call it so himself if he pleases but that only shews his Kindness and Favour but it doth not look very modestly or gratefully for the Debtor to insist upon it as true legal Payment Just so it is in good Works done by the Power of God's Grace which we could never have done without it and therefore such cannot be truly meritorious 2. What is truly meritorious must not be defective because the Proportion is to be equal between the Act and the Reward due to it which being perfect requires that there be do Defect in the Acts which merit it But this can never be said of Good Works of justified Persons that they have no Defects in them We do not say they are not Good Works but they are not exact and perfect for although the Grace of God as it comes from him be a perfect Gift yet as it acts upon Mens Minds it doth not raise them to such a degree but that they have Imperfections in their best Actions And whatever is defective is faulty whatever is faulty must be forgiven whatever needs forgiveness cannot be truly meritorious But not only their Good Works are defective but if they would merit they ought to have none but Good Works whereas the mixture of others renders the good uncapable of being meritorious because there is so much to be pardoned as takes away all claim of Merit in the good they perform And themselves do not pretend that Men can merit the Grace of Remission but it is very strange that those who cannot deserve to be forgiven should deserve to have an infinite Reward bestowed upon them 3. There must be an exact Proportion between the Act and the Recompence for to merit is to pay a Price for a thing and in such Acts of commutative Justice there must be an Equality of one thing with another But what Equality can there be between the imperfect Good Works of the best Men and the most perfect Happiness of another World especially when that consists in the fruition of the Beatifical Vision For what Proportion can there be between our Acts towards God and God's Acts towards the Blessed in Heaven Let the Acts be of what Person soever or of what Nature soever or from what Principle soever as long as they are the Acts of finite imperfect Creatures it is impossible there should be any Equality or exact Proportion between them and the Eternal Favour of God which is the Reward promised 4. Where Acts are truly meritorious there follows an Obligation of strict Justice to pay the Recompence due to them But what strict Justice can there be between the Creator and his Creatures to recompence the Service they are bound to perform when their very Being Power to act Assistance in acting and Recompence for it are all from his Bounty and Goodness But our Author would avoid all this by saying that though Good Works are truly meritorious yet it is through the Merits of Christ and as they proceed from Grace and through his Goodness and Promise that they are so i. e. they are truly meritorious because it appears from all these things they neither are nor can be meritorious For 1. How come the Merits of Christ to make good Works truly meritorious Are the Merits of Christ imputed to those Good Works Then those Good Works must be as meritorious as Christ's own Works which I suppose he will not assert Or is it that Christ hath merited the Grace whereby we may merit But even this will not make our personal Acts truly meritorious and the Nature of Merit relates to the Acts and not to the Power 2. How comes the Power of Grace to make them truly meritorious when the Power of Grace doth so much increase the Obligation on our side If it be said That the state of Grace puts men into a capacity to merit we might more reasonably infer the contrary that it puts them out of a capacity of meriting because the Remission of Sins and the Favour of God are things for which we can never make him any recompence 3. How comes a Divine Promise to make Acts truly meritorious For God's Promise is an Act of meer kindness which is very different from strict Justice and although by the Promise God binds himself to performance yet how come those Acts to be more meritorious of Heaven than the Acts of Repentance are of Remission of Sins Yet none will now say that there can be any Acts meritorious of that Yet certainly there is a clear promise of Pardon upon Repentance as there is of Heaven upon Good Works And if the Promise in the other case doth not make Repentance meritorious of Pardon how can it make Good Works truly meritorious of Eternal Life But notwithstanding we do not deny God's Fidelity to his Promise may be called Iustice and so God as a Righteous Iudge may give a Crown of Righteousness to all that follow St. Paul's Example without making Good Works to be truly meritorious VII Of Confession HE believes it part of his Religion to make Gods of Men foolishly thinking that these have power to forgive sins And therefore as often as he finds his Conscience oppressed with the guilt of his Offences he calls for one of his Priests who are commonly more wicked than himself and falling at his feet he unfolds to him the whole state of his Soul and having run over a Catalogue of his Sins he asks of him Pardon and Forgiveness And what is most absurd of all he is so sillily stupid as to believe That if his Ghostly Father after he has heard all his Villanies in his Ear does but pronounce three or four Latin words making the sign of a Cross with two fingers and a thumb over his head his sins are forthwith forgiven him although he had never any thoughts of amendment or intention to forsake his wickedness HE believes it damnable in any Religion to make Gods of Men. However he firmly holds that when Christ speaking to his Apostles said Ioh. 20.21 Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven and whose sins you shall retain they are retained He gave to them and their Successors the Bishops and Priests of the Catholick Church Authority to absolve any truly penitent sinner from his sins And God having thus given them the Ministry of Reconciliation and made them Christ's Legates 2 Cor. 5.18 19 12. Christ's Ministers and the Dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ and given them power to loose on Earth whatsoever was to be loosed in Heaven Mat. 18.18 he undoubtedly believes that whosoever comes to them making a sincere and humble confession of his sins with a
to be the Foundation of Indulgences 2. They would be rather hurâ—ful than profitable and the Church would deceive her Children by them 3. They could not be granted for the Dead 4. They who receive Indulgences do undergo Canonical Penances 5. The Form of them doth express that they do relate to God not only to the Church And this I think is sufficient to shew how far he is from true Representing the Nature of Indulgences for we do not dispute the Church's Power in relaxing Canonical Penances to penitent sinners upon just Causes IX Of Satisfaction HE believes very injuriously of Christs Passion being perswaded that his Sufferings Death were not sufficiently satisfactory for our sins but that it is necessary for every one to make satisfaction for themselves And for this end after he has been at Confession the Priest injoyns him a Penance by the performance of which he is to satisfie for his offences And thus confidently relying upon his own penitential Works he utterly evacuates Christ's Passion and though he professes himself a Christian and that Christ is his Saviour yet by his little trusting to him he seems to think him to be no better than what his Crucifix informs him that is a meer Woodden one HE believes it damnable to think injuriously of Christs Passion Nevertheless he believes that though condign Satisfaction for the Guilt of Sin and the Pain eternal due to it be proper only to Christ our Saviour yet that penitent Sinners being redeem'd by Christ and made his Members may in some measure satisfie by Prayer Fasting Alms c. for the temporal pain which by order of God's Justice sometimes remains due after the Guilt and the eternal pains are remitted So that trusting in Christ as his Redeemer he yet does not think that by Christ's Sufferings every Christian is discharg'd of his particular Sufferings but that every one is to suffer something for himself as S. Paul did who by tribulations and in suffering in his own flesh did accomplish those things that wanted of the Passions of Christ and this not only for himself but for the whole Church Col. 1.24 and this he finds every where in Scripture viz. People admonish'd of the greatness of their sins doing Penance in Fasting Sack-cloth and Ashes and by voluntary austerities endeavouring to satisfie the Divine Justice And these personal Satisfactions God has sufficiently also minded him of in the punishments of Moses Aaron David and infinite others and even in the Afflictions sent by God upon our own Age in Flagues Wars Fires Persecutions Rebellions and such like Which few are so Atheistical but they confess to be sent from Heaven for the just Chastisement of our sins and which we are to undergo notwithstanding the infinite Satisfaction made by Christ and without any undervaluing it Now being thus convinc'd of some temporal punishments being due to his sins he accepts of all Tribulations whether in Body Name or Estate from whence-soever they come and with others of his own chusing offers them up to God for the discharging this debt still confessing that his Offences deserve yet more But these penitential Works he is taught to be no otherwise satisfactory than as joyn'd and apply'd to that satisfaction which Jesus made upon the Cross in virtue of which alone all our good Works find a grateful acceptance in God's sight IX Of Satisfaction 1. HE believes it damnable to think any thing injuriously of Christ's Passion But then he distinguishes the Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin As to the Guilt and Eterternal Pain the satisfaction he saith is proper to Christ but as to the Temporal Pain which may remain due by God's Iustice after the other are remitted he saith that Penitent Sinners may in some measure satisfy for that by â—rayer Fasting Alms c. 2. These Penitential Works he saith are no otherwise satisfactory than as joâ—ned and applyed to Christ's Satisfaction in virtue of which alone our good Works find a grateful acceptance in God's sight But for right apprehending the State of the Controversy we must consider 1. That they grant both Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin to be remitted in Baptism so that all the satisfaction to be made is for Sins committed after Baptism 2. We distinguish between Satisfaction to the Church before Absolution and Satisfaction to the Justice of God for some part of the punishment to sin which is unremitted 3. We do not deny that truly Penitential Works are pleasing to God so as to avert his displeasure but we deny that there can be any Compensation in way of Equivalency between what we suffer and what we deserve The Matter in Controversy therefore on this Head consists in these things 1. That after the total Remission of Sins in Baptism they suppose a Temporal Punishment to remain when the Eternal is forgiven which the Penitent is to satisfy God's Justice for and without this being done in this Life he must go into Purgatory for that End Of which more under that Head 2. That this Satisfaction may be made to the Justice of God after Absolution is given by the Priest So that although the Penitent be admitted into God's Favour by the Power of the Keys according to their own Doctrine yet the Application of the Merits of Christ together with the Saints in the Sentence of Absolution according to their Form do not set him so free but he either wants a new Supply from the Treasure of the Church i. e. from the same Merits of Christ and the Saints or else he is to satisfy for the Temporal Punishment by his own Penances 3. That these Penitential Works are to be joyned with the Merits of Christ in the way of proper Satisfaction to Divine Justice And however softly this may be expressed the meaning is that Christ hath merited that we may merit and by his Satisfaction we are enabled to satisfy for our selves And if the Satisfaction by way of Justice be taken away the other will be a Controversy about Words 4. That these Penitential Works may not only be sufficient for themselves but they may be so over-done that a great share may be taken from them to make up the Treasure of the Church for the benefit of others who fall short when they are duly applied to them in the way of Indulgences And about these Points we must desire greater Proof than we have ever yet seen X. Of Reading the Holy Scripture HE believes it part of his Duty to think meanly of the Word of God to speak irreverently of the Scripture to do what he is able to lessen the repute of it and bring it into disgrace And for this end he says it is obscure full of ambiguous expressions plain contradictions not fit to be read by the Vulgar nor fit to be translated into Vulgar Languages And without respect to Christ or his Apostles profanely Preaches that no Ten Books in the World have done so much
Communion as unworthy Neither does it reflect at all on the Churches Authority or make the Truth of her Doctrine questionable to him that many of her eminent Members Doctors Prelates and leading Men have been or are great enormous Sinners infamous for their Pride Covetousness or other Vices whatsoever The Promises of God's continual and un-interrupted Assistance to his Church being not to be frustrated by the Wickedness of such particular Men though in great Dignities These Promises being made surer to her than ever the Iewish Church Which nevertheless stood firm in her Authority and the Delivery of Truth notwithstanding the frequent Idolatry of the People Nadab and Abihu's consecrated Priests offering strange Fire Corah Dathan and Abiram's making a great Schism and the Sins of Moses and Aaron and other High-Priests in all her succeeding Ages Nay though all things touching Religion and Virtue were in a manner run to decay in our Saviour's time both in Priests and People yet did he maintain the Authority of the Iewish Church and commanded all to be Obedient and submit to those who had the Superiority without calling in question their Authority or doubting of the Reasonableness of their Commands The Scribes and Pharisees says he Matth. 23.2 sit in Moses 's Chair All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do But do ye not after their Works If therefore God's special Assistance was never wanting to the Church of the Iews so as to let it fail in the Truth of its Doctrine or its Authority notwithstanding the Pride Covetousness Cruelty Impiety Idolatry of many of her Levites Elders Priests and High-Priests Why should not he believe the same of the Church of Christ which as Saint Paul says is built on better Promises and that it remains entire in the Truth of her Doctrine and her Authority notwithstanding the Viciousness of many of her Governours Especially since he 's in a manner confident that there has been nothing so infamous acted by any Priests Prelates Popes or others since Christ's time but what may be follow'd Nay was out-done by the Priests of the Iews XVII Of Infallibility in the Church 1. HE doth not pretend this belongs to the Pastors and Prelates of his Church who may fall he saith into Heresie and Schism but that the whole Church is secured by Divine Promises from all Error and danger of Prevarication which he proves from the Promises of the New Testament Mat. 16.18 28.20 Iohn 14.16 26. But however the former seems to take away Infallibility from the Guides of the Church yet that this is to be understood of them seperately appears by what follows 2. The like Assistance of the Holy Ghost he believes to be in all General Councils which is the Church Representative by which they are specially protected from all error in all definitions and declarations in matters of Faith Now here are two sorts of Infallibility tacked to one another by vertue of these general Promises which ought more distinctly to be considered 1. To preserve Christs Church so as it shall never cease to be a Church is one thing to preserve it from all Errors is another The former answers the End of Christs Promises as to the Duration of the Church and the latter is not implied in them 2. The promise of teaching them all Truth Joh. 16.13 is not made to the whole Church but to the Apostles And their case was so peculiar and extraordinary that there can be no just inference from the assistance promised to them of what the Church should enjoy in all Ages 3. If the diffusive Church have no infallible Assistance promised then no infallible Assistance can from thence be proved for the Church Representative so that some particular Promises to the Guides of the Church as assembled together are necessary to prove the Infallibility of Councils 4. It by no means proves following Councils to be Infallible because the Apostle said Acts 15.28 It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Our Author doth not doubt but the same may be prefixed to all determinations in point of Faith resolved on by any General Council lawfully assembled since that time or to be held to the Worlds end But what Reason he had for not doubting in this matter I cannot see the Assistance he said being to extend as far as the Promise But shall Assistance imply Infallibility Then there must be good store as long as the Promises of Divine Grace hold good But this Assistance of Councils is very different from the Assistance of Grace for the Church may subsist without Councils but cannot without Grace What General Council was there from the meeting Acts 15. to the Council of Nice Were not Christ's Promises fulfilled to his Church all that time when it encreased in all parts against the most violent Opposition 5. No parity of Reason from the Iewish Church can be sufficient proof for Infallibility in the Christian. But our Author argues thus If Gods special Assistance was never wanting to the Church of the Iews so as to let it fail in the truth of its Doctrine or its Authority Why should not he believe the same of the Church of Christ which is built on better Promises What special Assistance was it which Israel had when it is said that for a long time Israel had been without the true God and without a teaching Priest and without Law And as to Iudah was there no failing in point of Doctrine in our Saviours time It is true they had the Law intire and that was all that was good among them for their Teachers had corrupted themselves and the people and made the Law of no effect among them If there were Infallibility any where it must be in the High Priest and Sanhedrim but is it possible for any Christian to think them Infallible when they were so grosly mistaken about the main Article of their Faith as to the Messias and pronounced him worthy of Death Is not this a fine Argument for the Infallibility of the Guides of the Christian Church But the Church of Christ hath better Promises No doubt of it greater Promises of Grace and Mercy in this World and in that to come but what is all this to Infallibility in Councils 6. Christ's Command of Obedience to those who sat in Moses Chair Matth. 23.2 doth not prove the Infallibility of those who sat there Yet this is alledged to that purpose and that men ought not to doubt of the Reasonableness of the Commands of their Superiors But St. Chrysostom saith our Saviour speaks of the things commanded by the Law of Moses â—er Cathedram Doctrinam Legis ostendit saith St. Ierome Not their own Doctrine but that of Moses saith Isidore and so Hilary and Theophylact. Maldonate confesseth our Saviours Words are to be understood not of their own Doctrine but of that of the Law and therefore he yields the Obedience here required is to be restrained to
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
relate to their deliverance out of a state of Punishment before the Day of Judgment For whatever state Souls were then supposed to be in before the great Day if there could be no deliverance till the Day of Judgment it signifies nothing to the present Question As to the Vision of Perpetua concerning her Brother Dinocrates who died at Seven Years old being baptized it is hardly reconcilable to their own Doctrine to suppose such a Soul in Purgatory I will not deny that Perpetua did think she saw him in a worse Condition and thought likewise that by her Prayers she brought him into a better for she saw him playing like little Children and then she awaked and concluded that she had given him ease but is it indeed come to this that such a Doctrine as Purgatory must be buâ—lt on such a Foundation as this I do not call in question the Acts of Perpetua nor her sincerity in relating her Dream but must the Church build her Doctrines upon the Dreams or Visions of young Ladies tho very devout for Ubia Perpetua was then but Twenty Two as she saith her self But none are to be blamed who mâ—ke use of the best supports their Cause will afford It is time now to see what strength of Reason he offers for Purgatory 1. He saith When a Sinner is reconciled to God tho the Eternal Punishment due to his Sins is always remitted yet there sometimes remains a temporal Penalty to be undergone as in the case of the Israelites and David But doth it hence follow that there is a Temporal Penalty that must be undergone either here or hereafter without which there will be no need of Purgatory Who denies that God in this Life for example sake may punish those whose Sins he hath promised to remit as to another World This is therefore a very slender Foundation 2. There are some sins of their own nature light and venial I will not dispute that but sâ—ppose there be must men go then into Purgatory for meer Venial Sins What a strange Doctrine doth this appear to any mâ—n's Reason That God should forgive the greater sins and reqâ—ire so severe a Punishment for sins in their own nature venial i. e. so inconsiderâ—ble in their own Opinion that no man is bound to confess them which do not interrupt a State of Grace which require only an implicite detestation of them which do not deserve eternal Punishment which may be remitted by Holy Water or a Bishop's Blâ—ssing as their Divines agree 3. That to all Sins some penalty is due to the Iustice of God And what follows from hence but the necessity of Christ's Satisfaction But how doth it â—ppear that after the Expiation of Sin by Christ and the remâ—ssion of eternal Punishment there stâ—ll remains a necessity of farther satisfaction for such a temporal penalty in another World 4. That generally speaking few men depart out of this Life but either with the guilt of venial sins or obnoxious to some Temporal punishment No doubt all men are obnoxious by their sins to the punishment of another World but that is not the point but whether God hath declared That altho he remits the eternal Punishment he will not the temporal and altho he will forgive thousands of pounds he will not the pence and farthings we owe to him But if Mortal sins be remitted as to the guilt and Venial do not hinder a stâ—te of Grace what room is there for Vindictive Justice in Purgatory Yet this is the Doctrine which so much weight is laid upon that Bellarmine saith They must go directly to Hell who do not believe purgatory If this be true why was it not put into the Representation that we might understand the danger of not believing so credible so reasonable a Doctrine as this But we believe it to be a much more dangerous thing to condemn others for not believing a Doctrine which hath so very slender a pretence either to Scripture or Reason XXIV Of Praying in an Unknown Tongue HE it counsell'd by his Church to be present at Sermons but never permitted to hear any he is able to understand they being all deliver'd in an unknown Tongue He is taught to Pray but it must be in Latin He is commanded to assist at the Church Service and to hear Mass but it must be without understanding a word it being all perform'd in a Language of which he is altogether Ignorant And thus is miserably depriv'd of all the comfortable Benefits of Christianity Hearing but without Understanding Praying but without reaping Fruit assisting at Publick Assemblies but like a Stock or a Stone without feeling or any the least sense of Devotion HE is counsell'd by his Church to be present at Sermons such as he is able to understand they bâ—ing always deliver'd in the Vulgar Language of every Country In France French in Spain Spanish in Italy Italian in England if permitted English they being purely intended for the good Instruction of the Congregation present He is taught to Pray and alwâ—ys provided of such Books of Devotion as he is capable of understanding every Nation being well furnished with such helps extant in the Language proper to the Country He is commanded to assist at the Church-Service and to hear Mass and in this he is instructed not to understand the Words but to know what is done For the Mass being a Sacrifice wherein is daily commemorated the Death and Passion of Christ by an Oblation made by the Priest of the Body and Blood of the Immâ—culate Lamb under the Symbols of Bread and Wine according to his own Institution 't is not the busines of the Congregation present to imploy their Ears in attending to the Words but their Hearts in contemplation of the Divine Mysteries by raising up fervent affections of Love Thanksgiving Compassion Hope Sorrow for sins Resolutions of amendment c. That thus having their Heart and Intention united with the Priests they may be partakers of his Prayers and of the Sacrifice he is then offering than which he believes nothing is more acceptable to God or beneficial to true Believers And for the raising of these affections in his Soul and filling his Heart with the extasies of Love and Devotion he thinks in this case there 's little need of Words a true Faith without these is all-sufficient Who could but have burst forth into Tears of Love and Thanksgiving if he had been present while our Saviour was tyed to Pillar Scourg'd and Tormented though he open'd not his mouth to the By-standers nor spake a word who would have needed a Sermon to have been fill'd with Grief and Compassion if he had seen his Saviour expos'd to the scorn of the Iews when he was made a bloody spectacle by Pilate with Ecce homo Lo the Man Who could have stood cold and senseless upon Mount Calvary under the Cross when his Redeemer was hanging on it though he had heard or not
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
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