all wise men ever did and will do to the worlds end 4. I proved they made faith uncertain by making the Churches power to extend to the making new articles of faith This he grants to be to the purpose if it were true but he saith the Church never owned any such power in her General Councils which doth not hinder but that the Heads of their Church have pretended to it and in case it be disputable among them whether the Pope be not infallible that unavoidably leaves faith at uncertainties Yet he yields what I contend for which is that it is in the Churches Power to make that necessary to be believed which was not so before for whether it be by inventing new Articles or declaring more explicitely the Truths not contained in Scripture and Tradition it is all one to my purpose as long as men might be saved without believing them before and cannot afterwards which is to make the conditions of salvation mutable according to the pleasure of the Church which is the greatest inconveniency of inventing new doctrines 5. I shewed they made faith uncertain by pretending to infallibility in determining Controversies and yet not using it to determine those which are on foot among themselves The force of the argument did not lye in this as he imagines as though faith could not be certain unless all controversies were determined which was far from my thoughts but that pretending there can be no faith without infallibility in their Church to end Controversies they should give such great occasion to suspect that they did not believe themselves by imploying that Infallibility in ending the great Controversies among themselves of which I have spoken already and to this he gives no answer at all Thus much in Vindication of the third Argument I made use of to prove that all those who are in the Communion of the Roman Church do run so great a hazard of their salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it § 15. I now come to the third answer to the first Question which was that a Protestant leaving the Communion of our Church doth incurre a greater guilt than one who was bred up in the communion of the Church of Rome and continues therein by invincible Ignorance and therefore cannot equally be saved with such a one Three things he objects against this Answer 1. That this makes them both damned though unequally because the Converted Catholick more deeply than he that was bred so 2. That this reflects as much upon St. Austin as them who rejected the Communion of the Manichees and embraced that of the Church of Rome upon their grounds 3. That it is contrary to our distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental To which I Reply 1. That the design of my Answer was not to pass the sentence of damnation on all who dye in the communion of the Roman Church but to shew that they who forsook a better Church for it do incurre greater guils than those who are alwayes bred up in it and live and dye in the belief of its being the true Church and therefore are not in an equal capacity of salvation with them I shall make my meaning more plain by a parallel Instance or two many in the Church of Rome have asserted the possibility of the Salvation of Heathens though some Bigots have denyed it to Protestants suppose this question were put concerning two persons Whether a Christian having the same motives to become a Heathen which one bred and born and well grounded in Heathenism hath to remain in it may not equally be saved in the profession of it and a third person should answer that a Christian leaving the communion of the Christian Church doth incurre a greater guilt than one who was bred up in Heathenism and continues therein by invincible Ignorance doth this answer imply that they must both be damned though equally or rather doth it not yield a greater possibility of salvation to one than to the other Or suppose to come nearer our case the question were put concerning one that revolted from the Church of Iudah to the ten Tribes which were guilty of Idolatry though not of the highest kind whether he were equally capable of salvation with one who was bred up in the communion of the Church of Israel all his dayes I should make no question to pronounce his condition more dangerous than the other yet not therein damn them both but only imply that it was much harder for to escape than the other For he that was bred up in the Church of Israel believing it was the true God he served and in a right manner and looking on the Church of Iudah as a Schismatical Church and seeing the greater number of Tribes on their side and wanting that instruction which was in the Church of Iudah might in the sincerity of his heart serve God in a false way and pray to him to pardon all his errours and corruptions and have a general repentance of all sins though not particularly convinced of the Idolatry of the ten Tribes I dare not say but God will accept of such a one that thus fears God and works Righteousness in the simplicity of his heart but I cannot say the same of one who revolts from Iudah where the true God was worshipped in a true manner where he had sufficient means of instruction and either wilful Ignorance or temporal ends or unreasonable prejudices makes him deliberately choose a worse and more impure Church before a better for that very sin makes his case much more dangerous than the other Our business is not to enquire into the salvation or damnation of any particular persons for that depends upon so many circumstances as to the aggravation or extenuation of their faults the nature and sincerity of their repentance the integrity and simplicity of their minds which none but God himself can know but to find out the truest way to salvation and to reject whatever Church requires that which is in it self sinful for though God may pardon those who live in it in the simplicity of their minds yet their hopes lying in their Ignorance and repentance none who have a care of their souls dare venture themselves in so hazardous a state Setting aside then the consideration of the danger common to both I say the case of a Revolter from us to the Church of Rome is much worse than of one who was alwayes bred up in it because he might far more easily understand the danger he runs into and wilfull Ignorance only keeps him from it and he doth upon deliberation choose a state of infinite hazard before one of the greatest safety 2. This doth not reflect on St. Austin or the Church in his time which was as far different from theirs as the Churches of Iudah and Israel were from each other neither can it destroy the distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals
by our Church Art 25. he saith they are not absolutely rejected as Sacraments but as Sacraments of the same Nature with Baptism and the Lords Supper which they yield to For Transubstantiation which is utterly denyed by our Church Art 28. he very subtilly interprets it of a carnal presence of Christs Body which he grants to be repugnant to Scripture and to destroy the nature of a Sacrament but they do believe Christs Body to be present after the manner of a Spirit and so our Church doth not condemn theirs As to communion in both kinds asserted by our Church Art 30. he saith it is not condemned by the Council of Trent therein which only Anathematizes those who make it necessary to Salvation which our Church mentions not and however we condemn communion in one kind Canus proves him not to be guilty of Heresie who should say that the Church hath erred therein The 31 Article condemns the Sacrifice of the Masse i.e. saith he independently on the Sacrifice of the Crosse which is propitiatory of it self and the other only by vertue of it The 32. of the lawfulness of Priests Marriage he understands of the Law of God in respect of which it is the most common opinion among them he saith that it is lawful The 34. about Traditions he interprets of those which are not Doctrinal The Book of Homilies approved Art 35. he understands as they do Books approved by their Church not of every sentence contained therein but the substance of the Doctrine and he grants there are many good things contained therein For the 36. of consecration of Bishops and Ministers he proves from Vasquez Conink Arcudius and Innocent 4. that our Church hath all the essentials of Ordination required in Scripture and if the difference of form of words did null our Ordinations it would do those of the Greek Church too The last Article he examins is Art 37. Of the Civil Magistrates power in opposition to the Popes Authority and he grants that the King may be allowed a Supermacy i.e. such as may not be taken away by any one as his Superiour and that by custome a sufficient right accrues to him over all Ecclesiastical causes and that by divine and natural right he hath jurisdiction over all Ecclesiastical persons so far as the publick good is concerned And withall he grants that we yield no spiritual jurisdiction to the King and no more than is contended for by the French and the Parliament of Paris That part which denyes the Popes jurisdiction in England he saith may be understood of the Popes challenging England to be a Fee of the Roman See but if it be otherwise understood he makes use of many Scholastick distinctions of actus signatus exercitus c. the sense of which is that it is in some cases lawful for a temporal Prince to withdraw his obedience from the Pope but leaves it to be discussed whether he had sufficient reason for doing it But there can be no Heresie in matter of fact it remains then according to the sense put upon our Articles by him with the help of his Scholastick subtleties we differ no more from them in points of faith than they do from one another For such kind of distinctions and senses are they forced to use and put upon each others opinions to excuse them from disagreeing in articles of faith and there is no reason that we should not enjoy the benefit of them as well as they so that either they must be guilty of differing in matters of faith or we are not § 16. 3. They plead that their differences are only confined to their Schools and do not disturb the peace of the Church But there is as little truth in this as there is Vnity in their Church as plainly appears by what hath been said already Was the Controversie about the Popes temporal power confined to the Schools did not that make for several Ages as great disturbances in the Church as were ever known in it upon any quarrel of Religion Were the Controversies between the Bishops and the Monks confined to their Schools about the extent of the Episcopal jurisdiction in former times or in the renewing of this Hierarchical Warr as one of the Iansenists calls it in France But these things are at large discovered already I shall only adde one thing more which seems more like a dispute of the Schools between the several Orders among them about the immaculate conception and it will easily appear that whereever that dispute began it did not rest in the Schools if we consider the tumults and disturbances which have been made only on the account of it This Controversie began in the Schools about the beginning of the 14 Century when Scotus set up for a new Sect in opposition to Thomas Aquinas and among other points of Controversie he made choice of this to distinguish his followers by but proposed it himself very timerously as appears by his resolution of it in his Book on the Sentences however his followers boast that in this blessed quarrel he was sent for from Oxford to Paris from Paris to Cologne to overthrow all Adversaries and that he did great wonders every where But however this were there were some not long after him who boldly asserted what he doubtfully proposed of whom Franciscus Mayronis is accounted the first after him Petrus Aureolus Occam and the whole order of Franciscans But the great strength of this opinion lay not in the wit and subtilty of the defenders of it nor in any arguments from Scripture or Antiquity but in that which they called the Piety of it i. e. that it tended to advance the honour of the B. Virgin For after the worship of her came to be so publick and solemn in their Church I do not in the least wonder that they were willing to believe her to be without sin I much rather admire they do not believe all their Canonized Saints to have been so too and I am sure the same reasons will hold for them all But this Opinion by degrees obtaining among the people it grew scandalous for any man to oppose it So Walsingham saith towards the latter end of this Century the Dominicans Preaching the contrary opinion against the command first of the Bishops in France and then of the King and Nobles they were out-lawed by the King and absolutely forbid to go out of their own Convents for fear of seducing the people and not only so but to receive any one more into their Order that so the whole Order might in a little time be extinguished The occasion of this persecution arose from a disturbance which happened in Paris upon this Controversie one Ioh. de Montesono publickly read against the immaculate conception at which so great offence was taken that he was convented before the Faculty of Sorbonne but he declared that he had done nothing but by advice of the chief of his Order
whence only they derive their infallibility 18. There can be no hazard to any person in mistaking the meaning of any particular place in those books supposing he use the best means for understanding them comparable to that which every one runs who believes any person or society of men to be infallible who are not for in this latter he runs unavoidably into one great errour and by that may be led into a thousand but in the former God hath promised either he shall not erre or he shall not be damned for it 19. The assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may give them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the bookes of Scripture than it is possible for the greatest infallibility in any other persons to doe supposing they have not such assurance of their infallibility 20. No mans faith can therefore be infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be infallible because the nature of Assent doth not depend upon the objective infallibility of any thing without us but is agreeable to the evidence we have of it in our minds for assent is not built on the nature of things but their evidence to us 21. It is therefore necessary in order to an infallible assent that every particular person be infallibly assisted in Judging of the matters proposed to him to be believed so that the ground on which a necessity of some external infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular person infallible if no divine faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other infallibility useless 22. If no particular person be infallible in the assent he gives to matters proposed by others to him then no man can be infallibly sure that the Church is infallible and so the Churches infallibility can signifie nothing to our infallible assurance without an equal infallibility in our selves in the belief of it 23. The infallibility of every particular person being not asserted by those who plead for the infallibility of a Church and the one rendring the other useless for if every person be infallible what need any representative Church to be so and the infallibility of a Church being of no effect if every person be not infallible in the belief of it we are farther to inquire what certainty men may have in matters of faith supposing no external proponent to be infallible 24. There are different degrees of certainty to be attained according to the different degrees of evidence and measure of divine assistance but every Christian by the use of his reason and common helps of Grace may attain to so great a degree of certainty from the convincing arguments of the Christian Religion and authority of the Scriptures that on the same grounds on which men doubt of the truth of them they may as well doubt of the truth of those things which they Judge to be most evident to sense or reason 25. No man who firmly assents to any thing as true can at the same time entertaine any suspition of the falshood of it for that were to make him certain and uncertain of the same thing it is therefore absurd to say that those who are certain of what they believe may at the same time not know but it may be false which is an apparent contradiction and overthrowes any faculty in us of judging of truth or falshood 26. Whatever necessarily proves a thing to be true doth at the same time prove it impossible to be false because it is impossible the same thing should be true and false at the same time Therefore they who assent firmly to the doctrine of the Gospel as true doe thereby declare their belief of the Impossibility of the falshood of it 27. The nature of certainty doth receive several names either according to the nature of the proof or the degrees of the assent Thus moral certainty may be so called either as it is opposed to Mathematical evidence but implying a firme assent upon the highest evidence that Moral things can receive or as it is opposed to a higher degree of certainty in the same kind so Moral certainty implies only greater probabilities of one side than the other in the former sense we assert the certainty of Christian faith to be moral but not only in the latter 28. A Christian being thus certain to the highest degree of a firme assent that the Scriptures are the word of God his faith is thereby resolved into the Scriptures as into the rule and measure of what he is to believe as it is into the veracity of God as the ground of his believing what is therein contained 29. No Christian can be obliged under any pretence of infallibility to believe any thing as a matter of faith but what was revealed by God himself in that book wherein he believes his will to be contained and consequently is bound to reject whatsoever is offered to be imposed upon his faith which hath no foundation in Scripture or is contrary thereto which rejection is no making Negative Articles of faith but only applying the general grounds of faith to particular instances as because I believe nothing necessary to salvation but what is contained in Scripture therefore no such particular things which neither are there nor can be deduced thence 30. There can be no better way to prevent mens mistakes in the sense of Scripture which men being fallible are subject to than the considering the consequence of mistaking in a matter wherein their salvation is concerned And there can be no sufficient reason given why that may not serve in matters of faith which God himself hath made use of as the means to keep men from sin in their lives unless any imagine that errours in opinion are far more dangerous to mens souls than a vitious life is and therefore God is bound to take more care to prevent the one than the other It followeth that 1. There is no necessity at all or use of an infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth of those things which they may be certain without and cannot have any greater assurance supposing such infallibility to be in them 2. The infallibility of that Society of men who call themselves the Catholick Church must be examined by the same faculties in man the same rules of tryal the same motives by which the infallibility of any divine revelation is 3. The less convincing the miracles the more doubtful the marks the more obscure the sense of either what is called the Catholick Church or declared by it the less reason hath any Christian to believe upon the account of any who call themselves by the name of the Catholick Church 4. The more absurd any opinions are and repugnant to the first principles of sense and reason which any Church obtrudes upon the faith of men the greater reason men still have to reject the pretence of infallibility in that Church as a
Did not expect that two bare Questions could have produced such a super-foetation of Controversies as the Paper you sent me is fraught with But since the Answerer hath been pleased to take this Method for what end himself best knows I shall not refuse to give a fair and plain return to the several points he insists upon and that with as much brevity as the matter and circumstances will bear The Questions proposed were 1. Whether a Protestant having the same Motives to become a Catholick which one bred and born and well grounded in Catholick Religion hath to remain in it may not equally be saved in the profession of it The 2. Whether it be sufficient to be a Christian in the abstract or in the whole latitude or there be a necessity of being a member of some distinct Church or Congregation of Christians The first he saith being supposed to be put concerning a Protestant continuing so implyes a contradiction but where it lyes I cannot see for a Protestant may have the same Motives and yet out of wilfulness or passion not acquiesce to them He saw no doubt this supposition to be impertinent to the Question and therefore in the second part of the 1. § states it thus Whether a Protestant leaving the communion of the Protestant Church upon the motives used by those of the Roman Church may not be equally saved with those who were bred in it The Question thus stated in its true supposition he answers first § 2. That an equal capacity of salvation of those persons being supposed can be no argument to leave the Communion of a Church wherein the salvation of a person may be much more safe than either of them But before I reply I must do both him and my self right in matter of fact and it is Madam that when you first addressed to me you professed your self much troubled that he had told you a person leaving the Protestant communion and embracing the Catholick could not be saved That we should deny salvation to any out of the Catholick Church you lookt upon as uncharitable and this assertion of his had startled you in the opinion you had before of the Protestant Charity Whereupon you desired to know my opinion in the case and I told you I saw no reason why the same Motives which secured one born and bred and well grounded in Catholick Religion to continue in it were not sufficient also to secure a Protestant who convinced by them should embrace it This Madam your self can witness was the true occasion of your proposing the Question and not as the Answerer supposes that I used the meer Question it self as a sufficient Argument to perswade you to embrace the Catholick Communion This premised I reply that the Answer he gives is altogether forrain to the matter in hand the Controversie not being between a Bred and a Converted Catholick on the one side and a person supposed to be in a safer Church than either of them on the other nor yet between two several Churches supposed to have in them an equal Capacity of salvation but between a person bred in the Catholick Religion on the one side and another converted to it from Protestantism on the other whether the latter may not be equally saved with the former Nor is it to the purpose of the present Question to prove that it is of necessity to Salvation to leave the Protestant Church and become a member of the Catholick because the Question is only of the possibility not of the necessity of Salvation I say it is not necessary to the present Question to prove this but rather belongs to the second where I shall speak to it Whether there be a necessity of being a member of some distinct Church Which being resolved affirmatively by both parts it follows then in order to enquire which this true Church is As for the Example of a man leaping from the plain ground into a Ship that is in danger of being Wrackt meaning by that Ship as I suppose he does the Catholick Church Some will be apt to think he had come nearer the Mark if he had compared the Protestant to a Ship which by often knocking against the Rock on which the Catholick Church is built had split it self into innumerable Sects and was now in danger of sinking his comparison was grounded only on his own supposition but this is grounded on the truth it self of too sad an experience But to leave words and come to the matter His second Answer is § 3. that all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it The first answer as I have shewed was nothing pertinent to the present Question nor comes this second any nearer the matter for though it be supposed that none ought to embrace or continue in the Catholick Church by reason of the great hazard he saith they run of their salvation yet if they do embrace or continue in it why may they not be equally saved that is with equal capacity but this assertion however beside the Question he makes it his main business to prove First § 4. Because those who embrace or continue in the Catholick Church are guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry either of which are sins inconsistent with salvation And here he must give me leave to return upon him a more palpable contradiction than that he supposed to have found in the Question viz. to assert only that those of the Catholick Communion run a great hazard of their salvation and yet affirm at the same time that they are guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry sins inconsistent with Salvation which reduced into plain terms is no other but that they may be saved though hardly and yet cannot be saved But to the Argument The Church of Rome by the Worship of God by Images by the adoration of Bread in the Eucharist and the formal invocation of Saints doth require the giving to the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator Therefore it makes the members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry The charge is great but what are the proofs Concerning the first he saith § 5. that in the Worship of God by Images the Worship due to God is terminated wholly on the Creature And surely this implies another contradiction that it should be the Worship of God by Images and yet be terminated wholly on the Creature Nevertheless he proves it thus The Worship which God himself denyes to receive must be terminated upon the Creature but God himself in the second Commandment not only denyes to receive it but threatens severely to punish them that give it that is that Worship him by an Image Therefore it cannot be terminated on God but only on the Image To this Argument which to be just to the Author I confess I have not seen any where
Resurrection 3. He saith that We expose faith to great uncertainty by denying to men the use of their Judgement and Reason as to matters of faith proposed by a Church that is we deny particular mens Iudgement as to matters of faith to be as good if not better than the Churches and to inferre from henâ—e that we make Faith uncertain is just as if on the contrary one should say that Protestants make faith certain by exposing matter of faith determined by the Church to be discussed and reversed by the Iudgement and reason or rather fancy of every private man We have good store of this kind of certainty in England But as for the use of our Iudgement and Reason as to the matters themselves proposed by the Church it is the daily business of Divines and Preachers not only to shew them not to be repugnant to any natural truth but also to illustrate them with Arguments drawn from reason But the use he would have of reason is I suppose to believe nothing but what his reason can comprehend and this is not only irrational in its self but contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paul where he commands us to captivate our understandings to the Obedience of Faith 4. He adds We expose faith to uncertainty by making the Church power extend to making new Articles of Faith And this if it were true were something indeed to his purpose But the Church never yet owned any such power in her General Councils but only to manifest and establish the Doctrine received from her Fore-fathers as is to be seen in the prooems of all the Sessions of the Council of Trent where the Fathers before they declare what is to be believed ever premise that what they declare is the same they have received by Tradition from the Apostles And because it may happen that some particular Doctrine was not so plainly delivered to each part of the Church as it happened in St. Cyprians case concerning the non-rebaptization of Hereticks we acknowledge it is in her power to make that necessary to be believed which was not so before not by inventing new Articles but by declaring more explicitely the Truths contained in Scripture and Tradition Lastly he saith We expose Faith to great uncertainty because the Church pretending to infallibility does not determine Controversies on foot among our selves As if faith could not be certain unless all Controversies among particular men be determined what then becomes of the certainty of Protestants faith who could yet never find out a sufficient means to determine any one Controversie among them for if that means be plain Scripture what one Iudgeth plain another Iudgeth not so and they acknowledge no Iudge between them to decide the Controversie As for the Catholick Church if any Controversies arise concerning the Doctrine delivered as in St. Cyprians case she determines the Controversie by declaring what is of Faith And for other Controversies which belong not to faith she permits as St. Paul saith every one to abound in his own sence And thus much in Answer to his third Argument by which and what hath been said to his former Objections it appears that he hath not at all proved what he asserted in his second Answer to the first Question viz. That all those who are in the Communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their Salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it But he hath a third Answer for us in case the former faile and it is § 10. That a Protestant leaving the Communion of the Protestant Church doth incurr a greater guilt than one who was bred up in the Church of Rome and continues therein by invincible ignorance This is the directest answer he gives to the Question and what it imports is this That invincible Ignorance and he doth not know what allowance God will make for that neither is the only Anchor which a Catholick hath to save himself by If by discoursing with Protestants and reading their Books he be not sufficiently convinced whereas he ought in the supposition of the Answerer to be so that the Letter of the Scripture as interpretable by every private mans reason is a most certain Rule of Faith and Life but is still over-ruled by his own Motives the same which held St. Austin in the bosome of the Catholick Church he is guilty of wilful Ignorance and consequently a lost man there is no hope of Salvation for him Much less for a Protestant who shall embrace the Catholick Communion because he is supposed doubtless from the same Rule to have sufficient conviction of the Errors of the Roman Church or is guilty of wilful Ignorance If he have it not which is a damnable sin and unrepented of destroyes salvation So that now the upshot of the Answer to the Question Whether a Protestant embracing Catholick Religion upon the same motives which one bred and well grounded in it hath to remain in it may be equally saved with him comes to this that they shall both be damned though unequally because the converted Catholick more deeply than he that was bred so And now who can but lament the sad condition of that great Doctor and Father of the Church and hitherto reputed St. Austin who rejecting the Manichees pretended rule of Scripture upon the aforesaid grounds left their Communion to embrace the Communion of the Church of Rome And what is become now of their distinction of points fundamental from not fundamental which heretofore they thought sufficient to secure both Catholicks and Protestants Salvation and to charge us with unconscionable uncharitableness in not allowing them to be sharers with us The absurdness of these consequences may serve for a sufficient conviction of the nullity of his third and last answer to the first Question As for what he saith to the second I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest which hath the best grounds and consequently it is of necessity to Salvation to embrace the communion of it What then you are bound to do in reason and conscience is to see which Religion of the two hath the strongest Motives for it and to embrace that as you will answer the contrary to God and your own soul. To help you to do this and that the Answerer may have the less exception against them I will give you a Catalogue of Catholick Motives though not all neither in the words of the forecited Dr. Taylor advertising only for brevity sake I leave out some mentioned by him and that in these I set down you also give allowance for some expressions of his with which he hath mis-represented them Thus then he Liberty of
increase of Controversies in my answer which the Proposer of the Questions calls a superfoetation was but the natural issue of his own Questions To which I could not give a just answer without mentioning the hazards a person runs of his salvation in the communion of the Roman Church and if he thinks these too many as in truth they are he ought to condemn that Church for it which hath been the cause of them And I know no other end I had herein but to let you see there can be no reason to forsake the communion of our Church wherein the way of salvation is the same with that of the Apostolical and Primitive Church for another which hath degenerated so much from it as I hope will appear in the following Discourse To wave therefore any farther debate concerning the terms or sense of the Questions As to the occasion of them I could not but suppose it to relate to your own condition and I dare appeal to himself Whether the Question of the possibility of the salvation of a Protestant turn'd to the Church of Rome were moved for any other end than thereby the easier to draw persons of our Church into their communion which being so common and yet so weak an Artifice I had reason to premise an answer to that purpose and I do still affirm that such a possibility being granted it is no sufficient Motive to any one to leave the communion of one Church for another And whether this be to his Question or no I am sure it is very much to the purpose for which this Controversie was first started I beseech you therefore Madam do not so much disparage your own Judgement and the Church you have been bred up in to forsake it till some better reason be offered than the Proposer pretends that his Questions imply Which if not for your own sake yet for mine I desire you to insist upon that I may know one reason at least from them which I cannot yet procure although I have often requested it why the believing all the ancient Creeds and leading a good life may not be sufficient to salvation unless one be of the communion of the Church of Rome But lest I should be thought to digress I return to his Papers and am willing to pass over his unhandsome reflection on our Church as in a sinking condition which God hath hitherto preserved and I hope will do to the confusion of its enemies But why he should call my comparison a supposition and his own a truth before he proved their Church to be the Catholick Church I am yet to seek And so I come to the main business § 2. My second answer was That all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace it or continue in it which I am amazed he should say was not pertinent to the Question if the Question were propounded for any ones satisfaction that doubted which Churches communion it were best to embrace This I proved 1. Because They must by the terms of that communion be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry either of which are sins inconsistent with salvation Here he charges me with a contradiction because I overprove what I intended but he may easily excuse me from it if he will allow the possibility of salvation to any one who commits any wilful sins for in the case of any such sins it is true that they are inconsistent with salvation and yet he that doth commit them doth but run the hazzard of salvation because he may repent of them But if it be a contradiction to say that some sins are inconsistent with salvation yet those who commit them may be saved though hardly he must make all who commit any wilful sin to be unavoidably damned and then it is to no purpose what Church we are of The meaning therefore was this That Hypocrisie and Idolatry are sins inconsistent with a state of salvation and there is no way to escape being damned but by the repentance of those who are guilty of them But of this more at large in the vindication of my third Answer and those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome must be guilty either of the one or the other of these I proved by this Argument That Church which requires giving to the creature the Worship due only to the Creator makes the members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry but the Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the adoration of Bread in the Eucharist and the formal invocation of Saints doth require giving to the creature the worship due only to the Creator therefore it makes the members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry Which I did prove by parts 1. § 3. Concerning the Worship of God by Images I proved that it could not be terminated on God because in the second Commandment he not only denys to receive it but threatens to punish those who give it To this he answers 1. That it is a contradiction to say that it is the worship of God by an Image and yet be terminated wholly on the creature 2. That this is built on a mistake of the nature of humane acts which though they ought to be governed by the Law of God yet when they swerve from it cease not to tend to their own proper objects and that Gods prohibition of such or such a kind of Worship may make it to be unlawful but hinders not the act from tending whither it is intended which he proves by the prayers of Thieves and Murderers to God for good success the Iews offering to God in Sacrifice the blind and the lame which he hath forbidden Cains offering a Sacrifice to God which he refused to accept of from whence he concludes That though God should have forbidden men to worship him by Images yet it doth not follow but the worship so given would be terminated on him 3. That the second Commandment only forbids the worship of Idols or the giving the Soveraign honour due to God to an Idol but this doth not forbid the worship of Images because they give to them only an inferiour and relative honour and not that worship which is due to God This is the substance of his answer but to let you see the insufficiency of it I shall prove these two things 1. That where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving worship to himself that worship so given cannot be said to be terminated on him 2. That God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any worship to himself by an Image and not barely the worship of Idols 1. That where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving worship to himself that worship so given cannot be said to be terminated on him And however new this way of
to her Confessors they were strictly examined and after them by the Bishops and Divines of Sweden and approved as divine revelations from them they were sent as such to the Council of Basil from thence they were examined over again at Naples and there allowed and preached in the presence and by command of the Queen and Archbishop before all the people of the City again examined at Rome by Prelats and Cardinals A. D. 1377. by the Popes appointment and there approved and A. D. 1379. they are declared by those Vrban the sixth committed the new examination of them to to be authentick and to come from the Spirit of God and so much is declared by Boniface the ninth in the Bull of her Canonization and at last approved saith Wadding at the General Council of Basil. What could be expected less after this than that they should have been received as Canonical Scriptures they having never taken so much pains in examining and approving any controverted Books of the Bible as they had done about these revelations And no man knows how far their authority might have prevailed if the whole Sect of Dominicans had not been engaged in the opposite opinion For nothing else that I can find hath given any discredit to her revelations but this which makes Cajetan call them old Wives dreams as Wadding confesseth But it falls out very conveniently that S. Catharines revelation was just in the Dominican way in which she had been educated and for all that I can see wants little of the reputation of St. Brigitt For they were both very wonderful persons and had more familiar reyelations than any of the Prophets we read of S. Brigitt in her Childhood if we believe the account given of her in the Bull of Canonization by Bonifacius and her life by Vastavius had Visions as frequently as other Children have Babyes and was as well pleased with them the Virgin Mary was once her Midwife as the Pope very gravely tells us but her revelations after Christ took her for his Spouse have filled a great Volume Wherein a person that hath leisure enough may see strange effects of the power of imagination or a Religious Melancholy and to that Book the Pope in his Bull refers us and if any thing can be more considerable than the Popes authority the whole Roman Church in the prayers upon S. Brigitts day do confess these revelations to have come immediately from God to her and in one of the Lessons for that day do magnifie the multitude of her divine revelations But to say truth the Church of Rome allows fair play in the case for it magnifies S. Catharine as much as S. Brigitt for her holy Extasies are mentioned in the Lessons upon her day in one of which were five rayes coming from the five wounds of our Saviour to five parts of her body and she being wonderfull humble prayed our Lord that the wounds might not appear for fear she should have been thought as holy as S. Francis and immediately the colour of the blood was changed into pure light upon her hands and feet and heart And her Confessor Raimund who is alwayes a principal man in these things as Matthias a Suecia was to S. Brigitt without whom she was advised from Heaven to do nothing saw these splendid wounds upon her body but by what instrument did he see the wound in her heart Well though we Hereticks are not apt to be too credulous in these cases the Church of Rome very gravely tells us in the next Lesson that her learning was not acquired but infused by which she answered the most profound Doctors in the most difficult speculations in Divinity but these were nothing to her revelations and the service she did the Church of Rome by them in a time of Schisme But one gift she had above S. Brigitt which was that while she was on earth she could not only see but smell souls too and could not endure the stench of wicked souls as Raynaldus tells us from her Confessor Raimund a gift very few had besides her and Philip Nerius the Father of the Oratorians for Raynaldus one of his Order tells us from Bacius the Writer of his life that he was sometimes so offended with the smells of filthy souls that he would desire the persons to empty the Iakes of their souls Such divine Noses had these two Saints among them A degree of Enthusiasme above the Spirit of discerning any Quakers among us have ever pretended to Pope Pius the second in the Bull of Canonization of S. Catharine not only acknowledgeth a gift of Prophecy to have been in her but that sometimes her Extasies were so great that she was sensible of no kind of pain in them And S. Brigitt was often seen much above ground in her devotions and one saw Rivers and another Fire came out of her mouth but I think not at the same time These are things we rake not the old Kennells of the Golden Legends for but are at this day allowed and approved of in the Roman Church and their dayes kept and they prayed to upon the account of such things as these are § 3. Yet still we are to seek what is to be done when two Revelations contradict each other for the Dominicans are as peremptory for the revelation of S. Catharine as their adversaries are for that of S. Brigitt Two bold Fellows called Henricus de Hassia and Sybillanus knew no other way but to reject both as illusions and fancies but what becomes then of the Popes and Councils infallibility who have approved both Franciscus Picus Mirandula being a Learned and Ingenuous man confesseth himself at a loss both being concerning a thing passed there must be truth on one side and falshood on the other for the case is not the same saith he as to past and future things in which a condition may be understood By which means St. Bernard escaped when he promised great success to an expedition into the Holy Land and they who went in it found the quite contrary But at last gives us leave to conjecture his meaning when he saith That if any thing be false in a prophecy though some prove true we have cause to suspect all especially if it come from women whose judgements are weak and their passions vehement and imaginations easily possessed with what they are most desirous of and least able to distinguish between the strength of imagination and a divine revelation but as to that particular case of S. Catharine and S. Brigitt where both were women he saith The Divines were generally for the former and the Monks for the latter but which was in the truth he thinks cannot be known upon earth Martin Del Rio discoursing of the Revelations of Canonized Saints who were women in the Church of Rome reckons up S. Angela a Carmelitess whose Book of Revelations came out above four hundred years
properties in the Holy Trinity of the Fatherhead of the Motherhood and of the Lordship and she further saw that the second person which is our Mother substantially the same dear worthy person is now become our Mother sensual for we be double of Gods making substantial and sensual We may justly admire what esteem Mr. Cressy had of that Lady to whose devout retirements he so gravely commends the blasphemous and senseless tittle tattle of this Hysterical Gossip It were endless to repeat the Canting and Enthusiastick expressions which signifie nothing in Mother Iuliana's Revelations and one would wonder to what end such a Book were published among us unless it were to convince us of this great truth that we have not had so great Fanaticks and Enthusiasts among us but they have had greater in the Roman Church And by this means they may think to prevail upon the Fanaticks among us by perswading them that they have been strangely mistaken concerning the Church of Rome in these matters that she is no such enemy to Enthusiams and Revelations as some believe but that in truth she hath not only alwayes had such but given great approbation and encouragement to them So that among all their visions they do but mix some that confirm their particular Doctrines as the Visions of Iuliana concerning the great Worship of the B. Virgin from her son the holy Vernacle at Rome and such like fopperies these make all the rest very acceptable among them § 6. 2. That which they account the most perfect way of life hath been instituted by Enthusiastick persons and upon the credit of visions and revelations and the highest way of devotion in that Church is meer Enthusiasme 1. That the Religious orders were instituted among them by Enthusiastick persons upon the credit of their visions and revelations The most celebrated orders at this day in the Roman Church are the Benedictines Carthusians Dominicans Franciscans and Iesuites and if I can prove this concerning each of these we shall see how much Fanaticism hath contributed to the support of the Roman Church And it is a very fair way towards the proof of it that Bellarmin confesseth concerning the four first and that of Romoaldus that they were at first instituted by St. Benedict St. Romoaldus St. Bruno St. Dominick St. Francis by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and for Ignatius Loyola if he do not appear as great a Fanatick as ever hath been in the world we shall be contented to be upbraided with the charge of Fanaticism among us It is observable in the life of St. Benedict as St. Gregory relates in the second Book of his Dialogues that he was a great hater of humane learning and that was the first occasion of his retiring from the World being very much afraid a little knowledge should have destroyed him He therefore forsook not only his Studies but his Fathers house and business being as St. Gregory saith knowingly ignorant and wisely unlearned he might as well have said ignorantly learned and foolishly wise One might have suspected it had been rather hatred of his Book than devotion at his age which made him run away from School and his Fathers house but one of his Visions in his Cave makes it more probable there was some other occasion of it But however away he goes and only an old Nurse with him and he requited her soon for it for he by his Prayers set together the winnowing Sieve which she had broken in pieces which was after hanged up before the doors of the Church to the Lombards times But this is nothing to his being three years in a Cave without the knowledge of any but St. Roman who let him down victuals by a rope and a Bell and the Devil owing him a great spight threw a huge stone and broke the Bell. Here he lay so close that he was fain to be discovered by a vision and was so devout that he had forgotten Easter day till he was put in mind of it by the person who by a vision was sent to him and was so little like a man that the shepherds took him for a beast lying in a den But at last he is brought to light and found to be a wonderful person for among superstitious people ignorance and devotion are most admired together and now many are sent to him for education having conquered his amorous passions by rowling himself naked among thornes and nettles which thorns a long time after St. Francis grafted Roses upon as Bollandus well observes which bear in the coldest part of Winter and of them Rose water is made which is sent as a present to the greatest Princes He had an admirable Sagacity in spying Devils for he saw a little black Devil which led away a Monk from Prayers and was fain to pray two dayes with Pompeianus and Maurus that God would afford them the Grace to see him too and at last Maurus being young and his sight good saw him but Pompeianus being older and wiser could not However St. Bennet sent the little Devil packing with a stroke of his rod as he did at other times with the sign of the cross and easily caused a stone to be lifted up whereon the Devil sate which could not be stirred before his coming It would take up too much time to tell of his Miracles my business is only with his visions and revelations by which he could not only foretell things to come but could discover absent things so that the Monks could not eat out of his sight but he could tell as well as if he saw the meat in their teeth when they denyed it He discovered Riggo's fraud when he came to him in Totila's habit and told Totilas how long he should raign nay if we believe St. Gregory he knew the secrets of the Divinity being one Spirit with God no wonder then the unhappy Boy could not hide one Flask of Wine nor the Monks receive handkerchiefs of the Women but he found it out but most admirable was his sight of his Sister Scholastica's soul entring into Heaven in the shape of a Dove and another time the soul of Germanus Bishop of Capua in a fiery Circle carryed by Angels to Heaven but above all was his seeing all the world under one ray of the Sun which he could not do Gregory concludes without a Divine internal light upon which a dispute hath been raised in the Schooles whether St. Benedict saw the divine Essence or no Aquinas thinks not but only that he had an extraordinary revelation Vasquez doth not seem much to oppose it but upon two grounds the one very considerable that we never read the Virgin Mary did it who ought to have the highest share in revelations and visions the other only a plain place of Scripture No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son of the Father he hath revealed him As
as he adds to none but God himself and said that they followed the Apostolical rule in a very singular manner This Geraldus saith Paramo and his followers by a shew of extraordinary sanctity drew many to their party but Friar Salimbenus in a Manuscript seen by Pegna in the Library of Cardinal Savelli at Rome being himself a Franciscan gives this account of him whom he calls Gherardinus Segalellus that being desirous to be admitted into their order he was refused by them after which he spent some time in the Franciscans Church where observing the pictures of the Apostles and the habits they were drawn in he put himself as exactly as he could into the very same habit and having sold his house and received the money for it he distributed it all among the people and afterwards got a companion who was a servant to the Franciscans but by degrees their number increased so that in a short time they spread over many Cities in Italy and from thence were dispersed over almost all Europe They went up and down in the Streets saith Eymericus Preaching repentance with a white Mantel a white Coat and long hair barefoot and bareheaded and what they eat was publickly in the Streets and only what was given to them after forty years in which they mightily prevailed Boniface 8. caused Gerald to be taken and burnt upon this Dulcinus with six thousand of his companions retired into the Alps where they increased so much saith Pegna that Clement 5. was forced to send a Croisado against them where they starved a great part of them but Dulcinus and his Wife Margareta as Patreolus calls her were taken and burnt It is not credible saith Bzovius how long they endured upon the Alps all extremities of hunger and cold rather than they would yield to their Adversaries But notwithstanding all the endeavours could be used they could not wholly extinguish that Sect saith Prateolus but the remainders of it were still left in the Mountains about Trent and continued to his time which was about A. D. 1560. These were of the same opinions with the Fratricelli before mentioned as to the Roman Church that by reason of the wickedness of the Clergy and Religious Orders it was a reprobate Church and the Whore of Babylon but being no more content with this than the greatest Fanaticks of our Age they pretended to great things themselves that they were the only spiritual Congregation sent and chosen out by God to bear testimony to his truth in the last ages and that they and only they had the power which St. Peter had that Geraldus Segarelli was a plant of Gods own planting growing up from the root of faith by whom God began the work of Reformation of his Church to the purity perfection life state and poverty of the primitive Church in that state wherein Christ committed his Church to St. Peter That they only are the Church of God and in that perfection wherein the Apostles were and therefore are bound to live in subjection to none because their rule which was immediately from Christ is free and hath the greatest perfection that no one can be saved who is not of their Order that it is a sign any one is in a state of damnation to persecute them that all the Popes from Sylvester downward and all the Prelats were impostours and deceivers excepting only Celestine 5. who renounced his Popedome and gave leave to the spiritual Brotherhood to separate from the rest in the Franciscan Order That the Orders of Clergy and Religion are dangerous to the Church That no lay-men ought to pay any tithes to Priest or Prelat who lives not in the same perfection and poverty which the Apostles did That it was as well to Worship God in Woods or Stables or Barnes as in consecrated Churches That it was unlawful for Christians to swear at all saith Prateolus or never but in case of the Articles of faith or the divine commands say Turrecremata and Eymericus but in all other cases it was lawful to use all aequivocations and mental reservations and to deny their Sect with their mouths as long as they kept true to them in their hearts That nothing was unlawful which was done out of a principle of Love and that all things in the worst sense were to be common among them and therefore they are charged with allowing and practising promiscuous mixtures among themselves if their Adversaries do not charge them as unjustly in this point as the Prmitive Christians were charged by the Heathen This is the summ of their Principles and practices as they are reported by Turrecremata Eymericus Prateolus Spondanus Raynaldus and others But that which is still observable to our purpose is that these were looked on as a sort of Fryers in the Roman Church for when Honorius 4. condemned them by his Bull extant in Eymericus he doth it upon this account that they were a sort of Mendicant Fryers not approved by the Roman See whereas Greg. 10. in the Council of Lyons had absolutely forbid all Orders of Mendicants after the Lateran Council that should not receive express confirmation from the Pope but his Holiness was informed that some who called themselves of the Apostolical Order had since that time assumed to themselves a new habit of Religion without due applications being made to his See and a great number of these went up and down as Mendicants into many parts of the world doing unseemly things to their own peril and the scandal of others especially some among them being guilty of Heresie therefore all Ecclesiastical Officers are required to admonish and compell them to lay down their habits and to enter themselves among some of the approved Religious Orders and in case of refusal they ought to proceed judicially against them and to deliver them over to the secular power By which we understand the true ground of the quarrel against them viz. not yielding subjection enough to the Roman See and how easily all their Blasphemies and Villanies might be forgiven if they entred themselves into any of the approved Religious Orders § 12. As we see all the care used could not root out this Sect wholly but the remainders of them continued in some of the Mountains of Italy so I am very much mistaken if the Alumbrado's in Spain or the Sect of Illuminati were any other than a remainder of the Beguini and Fraticelli whom we observed before to have got footing there Spondanus indeed and some others from him say they were detected in the Diocesses of Sevil and Cadiz A. D. 1623. and were condemned by Andreas Pachecus the general Inquisitour in Spain in twenty six Articles and the seven chief of them were burnt but withall he saith they were not so much a new Sect as a renewal of an old one with some additions Nay we meet with the very same name of the Sect long
the same Author layes it down as a fundamental rule that God only by his holy Inspirations is the guide and directour in an Internal contemplative life and that all the light they have therein is from immediate divine illumination as well as our strength from the divine operation and that this light doth extend further and to more and other more particular objects than the divine light or Grace by which good Christians living common lives in the world are lead extends to yea than it does even in those that seek perfection by the exercises of an active life But which is very extraordinary in this supernatural light he saith that generally when there is proposed the not doing or doing of an external work and both of them are lawfull the divine inspiration moves to the not doing but this is not all but among the impediments to divine Inspirations he reckons not only all external duties of Religion but the doing things meerly for Edification A most excellent and Apostolical doctrine but it is happy for the Christian world the Apostles had other kind of Inspirations from these or else they had never done much good in the World or been such eminent examples of holy life and actions What becomes of all the precepts they have left us of doing good of mutual edification of constant business besides the commands for the outward duties of Worship if these be the hinderances in the way to perfection And although he would not have his spiritual internal liver to pretend to extraordinary apparitions voices conversations with spirits message from Heaven c. Yet in his Discourse of Passive Vnions he saith that God reveals himself to the soul by a supernatural species impressed in her which revelations are either sensible as apparitions words c. or intellectual either immediately or by Angels the effects of which supernatural inactions of God are Rapts or Extasies internal visions c. in which he saith that the less experienced and imperfect are to advise with their directour about them but those who were more eminently perfect have followed their own light in judging of those things and practising accordingly without consulting others and withall addes that such souls which receive these things must carefully observe her internal direction and that they are not so absolutely obliged to resign their judgements and wills to others as to neglect their own proper call received from God And doth this doctrine now differ from that of the Fanatick Sectaries which have swarmed in England Yes Mr. Cressy in his Preface undertakes at large to shew the difference by answering the objection taken from thence against the publishing this doctrine because it would justifie them in all their frenzies and disorders and in order to this 1. He very foolishly goes about to prove the necessity of divine Inspirations from the necessity of divine Grace for the doing good actions which is not denyed by the greatest enemies to Enthusiasme 2. He saith we ought to correspond to those Divine Inspirations which stirr us up to good actions if he means by them nothing but the assistance of Divine Grace no one questions it 3. That there may be false suggestions of the Devil which may appear like the motions of Gods Spirit 4. That it being necessary these should be distinguished from each other the only means imaginable that can be proper natural and efficacious to obtain such a supernatural light to discern Gods will in all things as pure spiritual prayer exercised by a soul living an abstracted internal recollected life spent in a continual attendance on God c. i. e. in short the directions of F. Augustin Baker And is not this think we a very cunning way of vindicating his doctrine from Fanaticism to make Enthusiasm necessary to distinguish the motions of the good and bad Spirit in our minds I have already shewed that he teaches the highest Enthusiasm and it seems those who made the objection were sensible of it But how doth Mr. Cressy answer it by shewing what they condemn to be necessary and in effect that no man can know the difference between the motions of the Holy Ghost and the Devil but by Enthusiasme nay that is the plain meaning of his words for this contemplative prayer he saith is the only means to gain such a supernatural light whereby we can distinguish one from the other An admirable way to tell men they must first be mad before they can know whether they be in their wits or no. But since this contemplative state hath besides the common though immediate illuminations many passive unions or extraordinary revelations attending it suppose the Question were put how one should know whether these came from God or the Devil what answer will Mr. Cressy then give will he return back again to try illuminations by inspirations as he calls them and so inspirations by illuminations which is just like the Scripture by the Church and the Church by Scripture But here saith Mr. Cressy is no pretending to new or strange revelations no walking in mirabilibus super se yes I think he doth so when he utters these things for what are passive unions but new revelations and as great as ever any Fanatick Sectary pretended to Did not they deliver this for their Doctrine that men ought to hearken to the immediate impulses of the Spirit of God within them and that now God doth acquaint his own people with his mind and will in a way peculiar to themselves And what have they done of the mystical way but only changed a few terms and asserted the thing it self higher than our Enthusiasts did who did not boast of so many raptures visions and revelations as those of the Church of Rome have done Lud. Blosius in his works hath one Book called Monile Spirituale which consists of nothing but the new and strange revelations which were made to four Women Saints St. Gertrude St. Mathildis St. Bridgitt and St. Catharine and in his Preface saith it is a sign of a carnal mind to despise such revelations as these are for the Church of God is wonderfully enlightned by them What saith he did not the Prophets and Apostles receive truth from Heaven by Revelations As though the case were the very same in these melancholy Women and in the holy Prophets and Apostles and we had just as much reason to believe the effects of hysterical vapours and the divine Spirit And lest we should imagine these were only the Fancies of some Women which their Church would not be concerned for the credit of he concludes with saying that these Revelations were known to the world and approved For those of St. Bridgitt we have before shewed how much they were approved For St. Gertrudes he saith the same and that one very learned and illuminate man did say after the accurate reading of them that man could not have
Pope to express her love to him that neither tribulation nor distress nor persecution nor famine nor nakednesâ— nor sword nor death nor life nor principalities c. should be able to separate her from the love of St. Peter in Christ Iesus our Lord whom she meant by St. Peter is very easie to understand according to the constant dialect of this Pope whose Bulls and Anathema's against Princes ran in St. Peters name But we leave Baronius admiring the Providence of God that when Princes and Bishops forsook the Church of Rome he raised up Agnes the Emperours Mother against her own Son and Beatrix and Matilda of near kindred to the Emperour to support the Pope against him and not long after we find him acknowledging that Rodolphus was confirmed by the Pâ—pe and Henry again excommunicated by him in the form of which excommunication extant in Baronius he desires all the World to take notice that it is in the Popes power to take away Empires Kingdomes Principalities Dutchies Marquisates Earldomes and the possessions of all men from them and give them to whom he shall think fit But doth Baronius in the least go about to explain or mitigate this no but instead of it he complains of the prosperity of the wicked because Henry obtained after this a signal victory over Rodolphus in his fourth Battel wherein he was wounded in his right hand and say the German Historians acknowledged therein the just judgement of God being near his death that being the hand wherewith he had sworn fidelity to the Emperour and then told his friends whatever the Pope did swear by St. Peter and St. Paul that the Popes command made him break his Oath and take that honour upon him which did not belong to him and he wished they who had put him upon it would consider how they led men to their eternal damnation by such courses which having said with great grief of mind saith Helmoldus he dyed And the Pope himself did not escape much better for the Emperour marches into Italy with a great Army takes in all the Towns which opposed him deposes Hildebrand by the Bishops of his party as the cause of all the Warr and Bloodshed and sets up Gibert of Ravenna under the name of Clement 3. besieges Rome and the Pope not trusting the Citizens who soon left him secures himself in a Castle from whence escaping to Salerno he not long after there dyes The only good thing we read of him is that which Sigebert and Florentius Wigorniensis and Matthew Paris report of him from the testimony of the Bishop of Mentz that he called when he was dying one of his Friends to him and confessed that it was through the instigation of the Devil that he had made so great a disturbance in the Christian world Whether they who applaud and admire him in the Roman Church as particularly Baronius who recommended him as a pattern to Paul 5. and rejoyced to see a man of his spirit to succeed him will believe this or no we matter not since there is so apparent evidence for the truth of the thing But we not only see the whole Empire put into a flame under pretence of this authority of the Pope and Italy laid wast by it to so great a degree saith Sigonius that Mothers devoured their Children for meer hunger but we may find him as busie though not with equal success with other Princes of Christendome He threatens the King of France to deprive him if he did not submit to him and that his Subjects should certainly revolt from him unless they would renounce their Christianity which are the words of his Bull in Baronius but finding no amendment the next year he sends another wherein he tells him that if according to his hard and impenitent heart he did treasure up the wrath of God and St. Peter by the help of God he would excommunicate him and all that should obey him the same year he excommunicates in Italy Robert Duke of Apulia Prince of the Normans and Gilulphus Prince of Saierno and sends an army against them He threatens Alphmsus King of Spain with the Sword of St. Peter he excommunicates Nicephorus Emperour of Constantinople he not only deprived Boleslaus King of Poland of his Kingdom but puts the whole Kingdom under an interdict and forbids the Bishops anointing any for King but whom he should appoint Of all the Princes of Christendome I find none so much in his favour as our William the first of the Norman Race for he coming into a Kingdom where he found no interest but what his Sword made him keeps a fair correspondency with the Pope receives his Decrees refuses to enter into an alliance against him which so pleased him whom all other Princes hated that he sends to him in his distress to come to his assistance to divert the Emperour and calls him the Iewel of Princes and saith that he ought to be the rule of obedience to all other Princes but yet William himself could not escape his threatnings when he forbad the Bishops of his Kingdom to go to Rome and utterly denyed taking any oath of fidelity to the Pope which he pressed upon him by his Legat although Baronius make him to submit to the Pope upon the receipt of his letter whereas the letters of Lanfranc and the King produced by himself expresly contradict it This we are sure of that William all his time practised that right of investiture of Bishop by a staff and a ring which had been the first cause of the quarrel between the Emperour and the Pope and which he had 〈◊〉 severely forbidden in several Councils a Rome thereby to maintain his own authority by taking off the Bishops of several Kingdoms from any aknowledgement of dependence on their own Soveraign Princes which was the truest cause of all the quarrels of Christendome raised and somented by this Hell-brand as the Centuriatours according to their Dialect call him And although Onuphrius in his life confess that this Popes designs if they had taken effect would have quite overthrown the Majesty of the Empire and that he was the first Pope who ever attempted such things yet he having now started so fair a game though he dyed in the pursuit of it his successours retrieved it and followed it with all their might and skill thence we read that Vrban being made Pope by Hildebrands faction in opposition to the Emperour renews the sentence of excommunication against him and in the Council at Piacenza not content barely to excommunicate him in the presence of Agnes or Adelais the Emperours wife he uttered saith Vrspergensis very reproachful speeches against him but he had been no fit successour for Hildebrand who could content himself with bare words especially having declared his resolution to follow the steps of so worthy a predecessour and so he did to
defenders of Indulgences very hard to it Praepositivus one of the eldest of the Schoolmen confesseth that it looks a little oddly for a man to be absolved from all his sins for three pence given in three several places and that the rich by this means have a mighty advantage over the poor but he resolves it all into the power of the Church Petrus Cantor confesseth the difficulties great but only for the Churches Authority and especially in those general Indulgences which are pronounced without any distinctions Therefore he saith Greg. 4. as he calls him Morinus thinks Greg. 8. in the Dedication of the Church of Benevento told the people it was much safer for them to undergoe their penance than to receive an Indulgence from him of any part of it and another Bishop being desired an Indulgence would give it but for two dayes but if any one asks whether the remission of sins were presently obtained after Indulgence or only when they are uncapable of penance viz. after death for his part he saith he desires them to consult the Pope or the Bishop that gives the Indulgence whether of these opinions is true and when the Bishop of Paris shewed him the magnificent Church he had built by vertue of Indulgences Cantor told him he had done much better if he had let them alone and perswaded the people to undergoe their penance But because the form of Indulgences ran in such large and general terms it grew to be a great Question among the Schoolmen Whether the validity of Indulgences was as great as the words of them which in other terms is whether the Church did cheat or not in giving them for if they were not to understand them according to the plain words of them what is this but a gross imposture to abuse the credulous people and laugh in their sleeves at them for their simplicity For while the people have so good an opinion of their Church as to believe the truth of what she declares and to take Indulgences according to the sense of the words if their meaning who give them be otherwise than is expressed it is one of the most abominable cheats that ever was invented by men For picking purses forging deeds or betraying men are tolerable things in comparison but to abuse and ruine their souls under a pretence of pardoning their sins is the utmost degree of fraud and imposture Let us now see how these Hucksters defend their Church in this case for the Question hath been debated among the Schoolmen ever since Indulgences came up Some resolve it thus that Indulgences do signifie as much as the Church declares but with these conditions that there be sufficient authority in the giver necessity in the receiver that he believes the Church hath power to give them that he be in a state of grace and give a sufficient compensation which is to overthrow what they said unless those conditions were expressed in the Indulgences Some say that common Indulgences held only for sins of Ignorance others for venial sins others for penances negligently performed others for Purgatory pains Some again said that these could signifie no more than a relaxation of Canonical Penance whatever the words were and that they were introduced for no other end and they do not reach any farther than the Churches Canonical power or judgement doth and not to the judgement of God But this opinion saith Greg. de Valentiâ doth not differ from the Hereticks and withall he saith upon this principle Indulgences do more hurt than good for if it were not for them the sinner by his penance might take away some part of his punishment but now he relyes upon his Indulgence and does no penance and so undergoes his whole punishment Albertus M. saith they are much mistaken who say that Indulgences are to be understood as large as their words are without any farther condition and that this is to enlarge the Court of Gods mercy too far and sayes many conditions are to be understood which are not expressed in them This gave the first occasion to the Treasure of the Church invented by Aquinas to satisfie this argument of Albertus concerning the mercy of God being extended too far by Indulgences for hereby what punishment is taken away from one is made up by the punishment of another which is reckoned upon his account And therefore he saith the cause of the remission of punishment is not the devotion work or gift of the receiver but the Treasure of merits which was in the Church which the Pope might dispense and therefore the quantity of the remission was not to be proportioned to the acts of the receiver but to the stock of the Church This rich Banck of the Churches Stock being thus happily discovered they do not question now but to set all accounts even with it and therefore Aquinas confidently affirms that Indulgences are to be understood simply as they are expressed for God saith he doth not need our lye or deceit which he grants must have been if Indulgences had not been meant as they were expressed and all men would sin mortally who Preached Indulgences Yet to obtain the Indulgence he saith that every man must give according to his ability for the objection being put concerning an Indulgence being given to three several places that whosoever gives a penny towards the building of a Church in every one of these places shall for each of them have the third part of his sins forgiven him so that for three pence a man gets a plenary remission he answers that a poor man may indeed have it so but it is to be understood that a rich man ought to give more For it is all the reason in the world that a rich man should pay greater Vse for the stock of the Church than a poor man can do and it is reasonably to be presumed that he had more sins to be pardoned than the other and therefore whatever the general terms are there must be some reserve to hook in more from the rich than was expressed in the first bargain But if the rich man should plead Law in the case and cry out it was Covin and Fraud to demand more than the first Contract was I am not skilful enough to determin what action the Church can have against him But there is another shrewd objection mentioned by Bonaventure which is that a man gets by sinning as suppose two men to receive the remission of a third part of their sins by an Indulgence one owes but it may be 90 years penance for his sins and another hath run upon the score so far that he owes 900 years both receive a third part Indulgence in which case we see plainly the greater sinner hath mightily the advantage of the other and where one gets but 30. the other gets 300. And therefore Bonaventure is fain to run back again and to say that Indulgences are not to be understood as