use of the power of the Keys it being truly and properly the intromission of Catachumens into the house of God and an admitting them to all the Promises and Benefits of the Kingdom and which is the greatest the most absolute and most evident remission of all the sins precommitted and yet towards the dispensing this pardon no particular Confession of sins is previous by any necessity or Divine Law Repentance in persons of choice and discretion is and was always necessary but because persons were not tied to confess their sins particularly to a Priest before Baptism it is certain that Repentance can be perfect without this Confession And this argument is yet of greater force and persuasion against the Church of Rome for since Baptizing is for remission of sins and is the first act of the power of the Keys and the evident way of opening the doors of the house of God and yet the power of baptizing is in the Church of Rome in the absence of a Priest given to a lay-man and frequently to a Deacon it follows that the power of the Keys and a power of remitting sins is no Judiciary act unless a Lay-man be declar'd capable of the power of judging and of remitting sins 5. 5 If we consider that without true repentance no sin can be pardon'd and with it all sins may and that no one sin is pardon'd as to the final state of our souls but at the same time all are pardon'd it must needs follow that it is not the number of sins but the condition of the person the change of his life the sorrow of his heart the truth of his Conversion and his hatred of all sin that he is to consider If his repentance be a true change from evil to good from sin to God a thousand sins are pardon'd as soon as one and the infinite mercy of God does equally exceed one sin and one thousand Indeed in order to counsel or comfort it may be very useful to tell all that grieves the penitent all that for which he hath no rest and cannot get satisfaction but as to the exercising any other judgment upon the man either for the present or for the future to reckon up what is past seems not very useful or at all reasonable But as the Priest who baptizes a Convert judges of him as far as he can and ought that is whether he hath laid aside every hindrance and be dispos'd to receive remission of sins by the Spirit of God in Baptism so it is in Repentance the man's conversion and change is to be considered which cannot be by what is past but by what is present or future And now 3 3 Although the judicial power of the Priest cannot inferre the necessity of particular Confession yet if the judicial power be also of another nature than is supposed or rather be not properly judicium fori the judgment of a tribunal coercive poenal and exterminating by proper effect and real change of state and person then the superstructure and the foundation too will be digged down And this therefore shall be consider'd briefly And here the Scene is a little chang'd and the words of Christ to S. Peter are brought in as auxiliaries to prove the Priest's power to be judicial and that with the words of Christ to his Apostles John XX must demonstrate this point 1. Therefore I have the testimony and opinion of the Master of the Sentences affirming that the Priest's power is declarative not judicial the Sentence of an Embassadour Sent. lib. 4. dist 18. lit F. not of a Judge Sacerdotibus tribuit potestatem solvendi ligandi id est ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos The Priest's power of loosing and binding is a power of shewing and declaring who are bound and who are loosed For when Christ had cur'd the Leper he sent him to the Priest by whose judgment he was to be declar'd clean and when Lazarus was first restor'd to life by Christ then he bade his Disciples loose him and let him go And if it be inquir'd To what purpose is the Priest's Solution if the man be pardon'd already It is answer'd that Although he be absolv'd before God yet he is not accounted loosed in the face of the Church but by the judgment of the Priest But we have the Sentence of a greater man in the Church S. Hierom in Matth. lib. 3. ad cap. 16. than Peter Lombard viz. of S. Hierom himself who discourses this affair dogmatically and fully and so as not to be capable of evasion speaking of those words of Christ to S. Peter I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven whatsoever thou shalt bind â—n Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose in Earth shall be loosed in Heaven This place saith S. Hierom some Bishops and Priests not understanding take upon them something of the superstitiousness of the Pharisees so as to condemn the Innocent or think to acquit the Guilty whereas God inquires not what is the Sentence of the Priest but the life of the Guilty In Leviticus the Lepers were commanded to shew themselves to the Priests who neither make them leprous nor clean but they discern who are clean and who are unclean As therefore there the Priest makes the leprous man clean or unclean So here does the Bishop or the Priest bind or loose i. e. according to their Office when he hears the variety of sins he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosed S. Ambrose adds one advantage more as consequent to the Priest's absolving of penitents but expresly declares against the proper judicial power Men give their Ministery in the remission of sins Homines in remissione peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent non jus alicujus potestatis exercent Neque enim in suo sed in Nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti peccata dimittuntur Istâ—rogant Divinitas donat c. S. Ambrose de Spir. S. lib. 3. cap. 19. but they exercise not the right of any power neither are sins remitted by them in their own but in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Men pray but it is God who forgives It is mans obsequiousness but the bountiful gift is from God So likewise there is no doubt sins are forgiven in Baptism but the operation is of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Here S. Ambrose affirms the Priest's power of pardoning sins to be wholly Ministerial and Optative or by way of Prayer Just as it is in Baptism so it is in Repentance after Baptism Sins are pardon'd to the truly penitent but here is no proper Judicial power The Bishop prays and God pardons the Priest does his Ministery and God gives the gift Here are three witnesses against whom there is no exception and what they have said was good Catholick doctrine in their ages that is from the fourth age after Christ to the eleventh How it hath
should place our hope in Man Tom. 9. operum Augâ—st Scola Parad. cap. 3. And S. Austin if at least he be the author of the Scala Paradisi says The office of baptizing the Lord granted unto many but the power and authority of remitting sins in Baptism he retained unto himself alone wherefore S. John antonomasticè discretivè by way of distinction and singularity affirms that He it is who baptizes with the holy Ghost And I shall apply this to the power of the Keys in the ministery of repentance by the words of S. Cyprian De operibus Cardâ—nalibus Christi inter Cypriani opera sed varius Arnâ—lâ—i Bonaevalleâ—sis Remissio peccatorum sive per Baptismum sive per alia Sacramenta donetur propriè Spiritûs Sancti est ipsi soli hujus efficientiae privilegium manet As therefore the Bishop or the Priest can give the holy Ghost to a repenting sinner so he can give him pardon and no otherwise that is by prayer and the ministery of the Sacraments to persons fitly disposed who also can and have received the holy Ghost without any such ministery of man as appears in S. Peter's Question What hinders these men to be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as we And it is done every day and every hour in the Communion of Saints in the Immissions and visitations from heaven which the Saints of God daily receive and often perceive and feel Every man is bound by the cords of his own sins which ropes and bands the Apostles can loose imitating therein their Master who said to them Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Solvunt autem eos Apostoli sermone Dei Lib. 6. Comment in Isai. cap. 14. testimoniis Scripturarum exhortatione virtutum saith S. Hierom. For the word of God which is intrusted to the Ministery of the Church is that rule and measure by which God will judge us all at the last day and therefore by the word of God we stand or fall we are bound or loosed which word when the Ministers of the Gospel dispense rightly they bind or loose and what they so bind or loose on earth God will bind and loose in heaven That is by the same measures he will judge the man by which he hath commanded his Ministers to judge them by that is they preach remission of sins to the penitent and God will make it good and they threaten eternal death to the impenitent and God will inflict it But other powers of binding and loosing than what hath been already instanc'd those words of Christ prove not And these powers and no other do we find us'd by the Apostles 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. To us saith S. Paul is committed the word of reconciliation Now then we are Embassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled to God Christ is the great Minister of Reconciliation we are his Embassadours to the people to that purpose and we are to preach to them and to exhort them to pray them and to pray for them and we also by our Ministery reconcile them and we pardon their sins for God hath set us over the people to that purpose but then it is also in that manner that God set the Priest over the leprous Lev. 13. 44. v. 5. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The priest with pollution shall pollute them and the priest shall cleanse him that is shall declare him so And it is in the same manner that God set the Prophet Jeremy over the nations Jer. 1. 10. to root out and to pull down and to destroy to throw down to build and to plant that is by putting his word into his mouth to do all this to preach all this to promise or to threaten respectively all this The Ministers of the Gospel do pardon sins just as they save men 1 Tim. 4. 16. This doing thou shalt save thy self and them that hear thee that is by attending to and continuing in the doctrine of Christ and he that converts a sinner from the errour of his way saves a soul from death and covers a multitude of sins Jam. 5. 20. Bringing the man to repentance persuading him to turn from vanity to the living God thus he brings pardon to him and salvation And if it be said that a lay-man can do this I answer It is very well for him if he does and he can if it please God to assist him but the ordinary ministery is appointed to Bishops and Priests so that although a lay-man do it extraordinarily that can be no prejudice to the ordinary power of the Keys in the hands of the Clergy which is but a ministery of prayer of the Word and Sacraments according to the saying of their own Ferus upon this place Christ in this word shews how and to what use he at this time gave them the Holy Ghost John 20. to wit for the remission of sins neither for the Apostles themselves alone sed ut eundem Spiritum eandemque remissionem peccatorum Verbo praedicationis Sacramentis verbo annexis distribuerent And again he brings in Christ saying I therefore chuse you and I seal your hearts by the Holy Ghost unto the word of the Gospel and confirm you that going into the world ye may preach the Gospel to every Creature and that ye may distribute that very remission by the word of the Gospel and the Sacraments For the words of Christ are general and indefinite and they are comprehensive of the whole power and ministery Ecclesiastical and in those parts of it which are evident and confessed viz. preaching remission of sins and Baptism a special enumeration of our sins is neither naturally necessary nor esteemed so by custom nor made so by vertue of these words of Christ therefore it is no way necessary neither have they at all proved it so by Scripture And to this I add only what Ambrosius Pelargus a Divine of the Elector of Triers said in the Council of Trent Hist. Concil Tâ—id A. D. 155. sub Julio Teâ—â—io That the words of our Lord Quorum remiseritis were perhaps not expounded by any Father for an institution of the Sacrament of Penance and that by some they were understood of Baptism by others of any other thing by which pardon of sins is received But since there is no necessity declar'd in Scripture of confessing all our sins to a Priest no mention of sacramental penance or confession it must needs seem strange that a doctrine of which there is no Commandment in Scripture no direction for the manner of doing so difficult a work no Office or Officer describ'd to any such purpose that a doctrine I say of which in the fountains of salvation there is no spring should yet become in process of time to be the condition of salvation And yet for preaching
fallen into Heresie since that time is now not worth inquiring but yet how reasonable that old doctrine is is very fit to consider 4. Of necessity it must be true because what ever kind of absolution or binding it is that the Bishops and Priests have power to use it does it's work intended without any real changing of state in the penitent The Priest alters nothing he diminishes no man's right he gives nothing to him but what he had before The Priest baptizes and he absolves and he communicates and he prays and he declares the will of God and by importunity he compells men to come and if he find them unworthy he keeps them out but it is such as he finds to be unworthy Such who are in a state of perdition he cannot he ought not to admit to the Ministeries of life True it is he prays to God for pardon and so he prays that God will give the sinner the grace of Repentance but he can no more give Pardon than he can give Repentance he that gives this gives that And it is so also in the case of Absolution he can absolve none but those that are truly penitent he can give thanks indeed to God on his behalf but as that Thanksgiving supposes pardon so that Pardon supposes repentance and if it be true Repentance the Priest will as certainly find him pardon'd as find him penitent And therefore we find in the old Penitentials and Usages of the Church that the Priest did not absolve the penitent in the Indicative or Judicial form To this purpose it is observed by Goar Pag. 676. in the Euchologion that now many do freely assert and tenaciously defend and clearly teach and prosperously write that the solemn form of reconciling Absolvo te à peccatis tuis is not perhaps above the age of 400 years and that the old form of Absolution in the Latin Church was composed in words of deprecation so far forth as we may conjecture out of the Ecclesiastical history ancient Rituals Tradition and other Testimonies without exception And in the Opuscula of Thomas Aquinas Opusc. 22. he tells that a Doctor said to him that the Optative form or deprecatory was the Usual and that then it was not thirty years since the Indicative form of Ego te Absolvo was us'd which computation comes neer the computation made by Goar And this is the more evidently so in that it appears that in the ancient Discipline of the Church a Deacon might reconcile the penitents if the Priest were absent Aleuin de Divini Offic. cap. Deâ—jejunio Si autem necessitas evenerit Presbyter non fuerit praesens Diaconus suscipiat poenitentem ac det Sanctam Communionem And if a Deacon can minister this affair then the Priest is not indispensably necessary nor his power judicial and pretorial But besides this the power of the Keys is under the Master in the hands of the Steward of the house who is the Minister of Government and the power of remitting and retaining being but the verification of the Promise of the Keys is to be understood by the same analogy and is exercised in many instances and to many great purposes though no man had ever dreamt of a judicial power of absolution of secret sins viz. in discipline and government in removing scandals in restoring persons overtaken in a fault to the peace of the Church in sustaining the weak in cutting off of corrupt members in rejecting hereticks in preaching peace by Jesus Christ and repentance through his name and ministering the word of reconciliation and interceding in the ministery of Christ's mediation that is being God's Embassadour he is God's Messenger in the great work of the Gospel which is Repentance and Forgiveness In short Binding and Loosing remitting and retaining are acts of Government relating to publick discipline And of any other pardoning or retaining no Man hath any power but what he ministers in the Word of God and prayer unto which the Ministery of the Sacraments is understood to belong For what does the Church when she binds a sinner or retains his sin but separate him from the communication of publick Prayers and Sacraments according to that saying of Tertullian Apolog. c. 39. Summum futuri judicii praejudicium est si quis ita deliquerit ut à communicatione orationis conventus omnis sancti commercii relegetur Homil. 50. c. 9. And the like was said by S. Austin Versetur ante oculos imago futuri judicii ut cum alii accedunt ad altare Dei quo ipse non accedit cogitet quà m sit contremiscenda illa poena qua percipientibus aliis vitam aeternam alii in mortem praecipitantur aeternam And when the Church upon the sinner's repentance does restore him to the benefit of publick Assemblies and Sacraments she does truly pardon his sins that is she takes off the evil that was upon him for his sins For so Christ prov'd his power on Earth to forgive sins by taking the poor man's palsie away and so does the Church pardon his sins by taking away that horrible punishment of separating him from all the publick communion of the Church and both these are in their several kinds the most material and proper pardons But then is the Church gives pardon propertionable to the evil she inflicts which God also will verifie if it be done here in truth and righteousness so there is a pardon which God onely gives He is the injured and offended Person and he alone can remit of his own right But yet to this pardon the Church does co-operate by her Ministery Now what this pardon is we understand best by the evils that are by him inflicted upon the sinner For to talk of a power of pardoning sins where there is no power to take away the punishment of sin is but a dream of a shadow sins are only then pardoned when the punishment is removed Now who but God alone can take away a sickness or rescue a soul from the power of his sins or snatch him out of the Devils possession The Spirit of God alone can do this It is the spirit that quickneth and raiseth from spiritual death and giveth us the life of God Man can pray for the spirit but God alone can give it our Blessed Saviour obtain'd for us the Spirit of God by this way by prayer I will pray unto the Father and he shall give you another Comforter even the spirit of truth and therefore much less do any of Christ's Ministers convey the spirit to any one but by prayer and holy Ministeries in the way of prayer But this is best illustrated by the case of Baptism Summ. part 4. q. 21. memb 1. It is a matter of equal power said Alexander of Ales to baptize with internal Baptism and to absolve from deadly sin But it was not fit that God should communicate the power of baptizing internally unto any lest we
which there is probable reason or fair pretence in the world Nothing that can handsomely or ingeniously deceive a man Such as is your half Communion worship of images prayers not understood and some others And therefore you may be ashamed to say you still maintain the field against us for if you do not why do you say you do but if you still maintain the field you may be more asham'd for why will you stand in a falshood and then call your selves equal combatants if not Conquerors But you may if you please look after victory I am only in the pursuit of truth But to return It seems he knows my mind for this and in my liberty of prophecying my own words will beyond all confute evince it that they have probabilities and those strong ones too But now in my Conscience this was unkindly done that when I had spoken for them what I could and more than I knew that they had ever said for themselves and yet to save them harmless from the iron hands of a tyrant and unreasonable power to keep them from being persecuted for their errors and opinions that they should take the arms I had lent them for their defence and throw them at my head But the best of it is though I. S. be unthankful yet the weapons themselves are but wooden daggers intended only to represent how the poor men are cosen'd by themselves and that under fair and fraudulent pretences even pious well meaning men and men wise enough in other things may be abus'd And though what I said was but tinsel and pretence imagery and whipt Cream yet I could not be blam'd to use no better than the best their cause would bear yet if that be the best they have to say for themselves their probabilities will be soon out-ballanc'd by one Scripture testimony urg'd by Protestants and Thou shalt not worship any graven images will out weigh all the best and fairest imaginations of their Church But since from me they borrow their light armour which is not Pistol proof from me if they please they may borrow a remedy to undeceive them and that in the same kind and way of arguing If I. S. please to read a letter or two of mine to a Gentlewoman not long before abus'd in her religion by some Roman Emissaries there he shall see so very much said against the Roman way and that in instances evident and notorious that I. S. may if he please he hath my leave put them in ballance against one another Collection of Polemical and moral discourses Pag. 703 and try which will preponderate They are printed now in one Volume and they are the easier compar'd But then I. S. might if he had pleas'd have considered that I did not intend to make that harangue to represent that the Roman Religion had probabilities of being true but probabilities that the religion might be tollerated or might be endured that is as I there express'd it whether the Doctrines be commenc'd upon design and manag'd with impiety and have effects not to be endur'd and concerning these things I amass'd a heap of considerations by which it might appear probable that they were not so bad as to be intollerable and if I was deceiv'd it was but a well meant error hereafter they shall speak for themselves only for their comfort this they might have also observ'd in that book that there is not half so much excuse for the Papists as there is for the Anabaptists and yet it was but an excuse at the best as appears in those full answers I have given to all their arguments in the last edition of that book amongst the Polemical discourses in folio I shall need to say no more for the spoiling this Mine for I. S. hath not so much as pretended that the probabilities urg'd for them can out-weigh or come to equal what is said against them and I humbly suppose that the difficulties will be increased by the following book The sixth and seventh Ways THE sixth mine is most likely at the worst to prove but a squib I. S. says I should have made a preface and before hand have prov'd that all the arguments I us'd were unanswerable and convictive which indeed were a pretty way of making books to make a preface to make good my book and then my book cannot but in thankfulness make good the preface which indeed is something like the way of proving the Scriptures by the Church and then back again proving the Church by the Scriptures But he adds that I was bound to say That they were never pretended to be answer'd or could not or that the Protestants had the last word But on the contrary I acknowledge that the evidences on both sides have been so often produc'd that it will seem almost impossible to bring in new matter or to prevail with the old This is the great charge the sum of which is truly this I have spoken modestly of my own undertaking and yet I had so great reason to deplore the obstinacy of the Roman Priests their pertinacy and incorrigible resolution of seeming to say something when they can say nothing to the purpose that I had cause to fear the event would not be so successful as the merit of our cause and the energy of the arguments might promise I confess I did not rant as I. S. does and talk high of demonstrations and unmistakable grounds and scientifical principles and Metaphysical nothings but according as my undertaking requir'd I proceeded upon principles agreed on both sides If Scripture and Fathers Councils and reasons the analogy of faith and the Doctrines of the Primitive Church from which I proved and shall yet more clearly prove the Church of Rome hath greatly revolted will not prevail I have done I shall only commit the cause to God and the judgement of wise and good men and so sit down in the peace of my own persuasions and in a good Conscience that I have done my endeavor to secure our own people from the temptation and to snatch others as brands from the fire Only I wish here I had found a little more worthiness in I. S. than to make me speaking that I have brought nothing but common objections or nothing new I suppose they that are learned know this to be a Calumny and by experience they and I find that whether the objections be new or old it is easier to rail at them all than answer any To this as it is not needful to say any more so there cannot any thing else well be said unless I should be vain like the man whom I now reprove and go about to commend my self which is a practice I have neither reason nor custome for But the seventh Way is yet worse For it is no thing but a direct declamation against my book and the quotations of it and having made a ridiculous Engine of Corollaries in his Sure-footing against the quotations in Dr. P. his
it is now If he can prove it was so at first he may be justified but else at no hand And I and all the world will be strangely to seek what the Church of Rome means by making conformity to the Primitive Church a note of the true Church if being now as it is be the rule for what it ought to be For if so then well may we examine the primitive Church by the present but not the present by the primitive 5. 5. If the present Catholick Church were infallible yet we were not much the nearer unless this Catholick Church could be consulted with and heard to speak not then neither unless we know which were indeed the Catholick Church There is no word in Scripture that the testimony of the present Church is the infallible way of proving the unwritten word of God and there is no tradition that it is so that I ever yet heard of and it is impossible it should be so because the present Church of several ages have had contrary traditions And if neither be why shall we believe it if there be let it be shewed In the mean time it is something strange that the infallibility of a Church should be brought to prove every particular tradition and yet it self be one of those particular traditions which proves it self But there is a better way Vincentius Lerinensis his way of judging a traditional doctrine to be Apostolical and Divine is The consent of all Churches and all Ages It is something less that S. Austin requires Lib. 2. de doct Christiana c. 8. Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurimùm sequatur authoritatem inter quas sane illae sunt quae Apostolicas sedes habere Epistolas accipere meruerunt He speaks it of the particular of judging what Books are Canonical In which as tradition is the way to judge so the rule of tradition is the consent of most of the Catholick Churches particularly those places where the Apostles did sit and to which the Apostles did write But this fancy of S. Austin's is to be understood so as not to be measur'd by the practise but by the doctrine of the Apostolical Churches For that any or more of these Churches did or did not do so is no argument that such a Custom came from the Apostles or if it did that it did oblige succeeding ages unless this Custom began by a doctrine and that the tradition came from the Apostles with a declaration of it's perpetual obligation And therefore this is only of use in matters of necessary doctrine But because there is in this question many differing degrees of authority he says that our assent is to be given accordingly Those which are receiv'd of all the Catholick Churches are to be preferr'd before those which are not receiv'd by all and of these those are to be preferr'd which have the more and the graver testimony but if it should happen which yet is not that some are witnessed by the more and others by the graver let the assent be equal This indeed is a good way to know nothing for if one Apostolical Church differ from another in a doctrinal tradition no man can tell whom to follow for they are of equal authority and nothing can be thence proved but that Oral tradition is an uncertain way of conveying a Doctrine But yet this way of S. Austin is of great and approved use in the knowing what Books are Canonical and in these things it can be had in some more in some less in all more than can be said against it and there is nothing in succeeding times to give a check to our assents in their degrees because the longer the Succession runs still the more the Church was established in it But yet concerning those Books of Scripture of which it was long doubted in the Church whether they were part of the Apostolical Canon of Scripture there ought to be no pretence that they were deliver'd for such by the Apostles at least not by those Churches who doubted of them unless they will confess that either their Churches were not founded by an Apostle or that the Apostle who founded them was not faithful in his Office in transmitting all that was necessary or else that those Books particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews c. were no necessary part of the Canon of Scripture or else lastly that that Church was no faithful keeper of the Tradition which came from the Apostle All which things because they will be deny'd by the Church of Rome concerning themselves the consequent will be that Tradition is an Uncertain thing if it cannot be intire and full in assigning the Canon of Scripture it is hardly to be trusted for any thing else which consists of words subject to divers interpretations But in other things it may be the case is not so For we find that in divers particulars to prove a point to be a Tradition Apostolical use is made of the testimony of the three first Ages Indeed these are the likest to know but yet they have told us of some things to be Traditions which we have no reason to believe to be such Onely thus far they are useful If they never reported a doctrine it is the less likely to descend from the Apostles and if the order of succession be broken any where the succeeding ages can never be surer If they speak against a doctrine as for example against the half-Communion we are sure it was no Tradition Apostolical if they speak not at all of it we can never prove the Tradition for it may have come in since that time and yet come to be thought or call'd Tradition Apostolical from other causes of which I have given account And indeed there is no security sufficient but that which can never be had and that is the Universal positive testimony of all the Church of Christ which he that looks for in the disputed Traditions pretended by the Church of Rome may look as long as the Jews do for their wrong Messias So much as this is can never be had and less than this will never do it I will give one considerable instance of this affair The Patrons of the opinion of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin-mother Salmeron disp 51. in Rom. 5. allege that they have the consent of almost the Universal Church and the agreeing sentence of all Universities especially of the chief that is of Paris where no man is admitted to be Master in Theology unless he binds himself by oath to maintain that doctrine They allege that since this question began to be disputed almost all the Masters in Theology all the Preachers of the Word of God all Kings and Princes republiques and peoples all Popes and Pastors and Religions except a part of one consent in this doctrine They say that of those Authors which are by the other side pretended against it some are falsly cited others are wrested and brought in against their
bound to believe truths which are not matters of Faith This obliges upon supposition of a manifest discovery which may or may not happen but in the other case we are bound to inquire and all of us must be instructed and evere man must assent and without this we cannot be Christ's Disciples we are rebels if we oppose the other and no good man can or does For if he be satisfied that it is the word and mind of God he must and will believe it he cannot chuse and if he will not confess it when he thinks God bids him or if he opposes it when he thinks God speaks it he is malicious and a villain but if he does not believe God said it then he must answer for more than he knows or than he ought to believe that is the Articles of Faith but we are not Subjects or Children unless we consent to these The other cannot come into the common accounts of mankind but as a man may become a law unto himself by a confident an unnecessary and even a false perswasion because even an erring conscience can bind so much more can God become a law unto us when we by any accident come into the knowledge of any Revelation from God but these are not the Christian Faith in the strict and proper sense that is these are not the foundation of our Religion many a man is a good Christian without them and goes to Heaven though he know nothing of them but without these no Christian can be sav'd Now then the Apostles the founders of Christianity knowing the nature design efficacy and purpose of the Articles of Faith selected such propositions which in conjunction did integrate our Faith and were therefore necessary to be believ'd unto salvation not because these Articles were for themselves commanded to be believ'd but because without the belief of them we could not obtain the purposes and designs of faith that is we could not be enabled to serve God to destroy the whole body of sin to be partakers of the Divine Nature This Collect or Symbol of propositions is that which we call the Apostles Creed which I shall endeavour to prove to have been always in the Primitive Church esteemed a full and perfect Digest of all the necessary and fundamental Articles of Christian Religion and that beyond this the Christian faith or the foundation was not to be extended but this as it was in the whole Complexion necessary so it was sufficient for all men unto Salvation S. Paul gave us the first formal intimation of this measure 2 Tim. 1. 13. in his advises to S. Timothy Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us This was the depositum that S. Paul left with Timothy the hypotyposis or summary of Christian Belief the Christian Creed which S. Paul opposes to the prophane new talkings 1 Tim. 6. 20. and the disputations of pretended learning meaning that this Symbol of faith is the thing on which all Christians are to relie and this is the measure of their faith other things it is ods but they are bablings and prophane quarrelling and unedifying argumentations S. Ignatius recites the substance of this Creed in four of the Epistles usually attributed to him Epist 3. ad Magnes 5. ad Philipp 7. ad Smyrnens 11. ad Ephâ—sio some of which are witnessed by Eusebius and S. Hierom and adds at the end of it this Epiphonema Haee qui planè cognôrit crediderit beatus est And S. Irenaeus reciting the same Creed or form of words differing onely in order of placing them S. Irenaeus lib. 1. ca â— 2. but justly the same Articles and Foundation of faith affirms that this is the faith which the Catholick Church to the very ends of the Earth hath received from the Apostles and their disciples And this is that Tradition Apostolical of which the Churches of old did so much glory and to which with so much confidence they appealed and by which they provoked the hereticks to trial Et. cap. 3. This Preaching and this Faith when the Church scattered over the face of the world had receiv'd she keeps diligently as dwelling in one house and believes as having one soul and one heart and preaches and teaches and delivers these things as possessing one mouth For although there are divers speeches in the world yet the force of the Tradition is one and the same Neither do the Churches founded in Germany believe otherwise aut aliter tradunt or have any other tradition nor the Iberian Churches or those among the Celtae nor the Churches in the East in Egypt or in Lybia nor those which are in the midst of the world But he adds that this is not onely for the ignorant the idiots or Catechumeni but neither he who is most eloquent among the Bishops can say any other things than these for no man is above his Master neither hath he that is the lowest in speaking lessened the tradition For the faith is one and the same he that can speak much can speak no more and he that speaks little says no less This Creed also he recites again affirming that even those Nations who had not yet received the books of the Apostles and Evangelists yet by this Confession and this Creed Lib 3 cap. 4. Propter fidem per quam sapientissimi sunt did please God and were most wise through faith for this is that which he calls the tradition of the truth that is of that truth which the Apostles taught the Church and by the actual retention of which truth it is that the Church is rightly called the pillar and ground of truth by S. Paul Lib. 4. cap. 62. and in relation to this S. Irenaeus reckon'd it to be all one extra veritatem id est extra Ecclesiam Upon this Collect of truths the Church was founded and upon this it was built up and in this all the Apostolical Churches did hope for life eternal and by this they oppos'd all schisms and heresies as knowing what their and our great Master himself said in his last Sermon John 17. 3. This is life eternal to know thee the onely true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ. This also is most largely taught by Tertullian Tertul de praescript adv haerâ—t c. 13. 14. who when he had recited the Apostolical Creed in the words and form the Church then used it calls it the Rule of faith he affirms this Rule to have been instituted by Christ he affirms that it admits of no questions and hath none but those which the heresies brought in and which indeed makes hereticks But this form remaining in its order you may seek and handle and pour out all the desires of Curiositie if any thing seems
only as a Doctor but as a Prince by Empire and Command as Princeps Ecclesiae The Sorbon can Declare as well as he upon the Catholick Faith if it be only matter of skill and learning but to declare so as to bind every man to believe it to declare so as the Article shall be a point of Faith when before this Declaration it was not so quoad nos this is that which is pretended be declaring And so this very Gloss expounds it adding to the former words The Pope can make an Article of Faith if an Article of Faith be taken not properly but largely that is for a Doctrine which now we must believe whereas before such declaration we are not tied to it These are the words of the Gloss. The sense of which is this There are some Articles of Faith which are such before the declaration of the Church and some which are by the Churches declaration made so some were declar'd by the Scriptures or by the Apostles and some by the Councils or Popes of Rome after which declaration they are both alike equally necessary to be believ'd and this is that which we charge upon them as a dangerous and intolerable point For it says plainly that whereas Christ made some Articles of Faith the Pope can make others for if they were not Articles of Faith before the declaration of the Pope then he makes them to be such and that is truely according to their own words facere Articulum fidei this is making an Article of Faith Neither will it suffice to say that this Proposition so declar'd was before such a declaration really and indeed an Article of Faith in it self but not in respect of us For this is all one in several words For an Article of Faith is a relative term it is a Proposition which we are commanded to believe and to confess and to say This is an Article of Faith and yet that no man is bound to believe it is a contradiction Now then let it be considered No man is bound to believe any Article till it be declar'd as no man is bound to obey a Law till it be promulgated Faith comes by hearing till there be hearing there can be no Faith and therefore no Article of Faith The truth is Eternal but Faith is but temporary and depends upon the declaration Now then suppose any Article I demand did Christ and his Apostles declare it to the Church If not how does the Pope know it who pretends to no new Revelations If the Apostles did not declare it how were they faithful in the house of God Acts 20. 27. and how did S. Paul say truly I have not failed or ceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to declare to annunciate to you all the whole Counsel of God But if they did say true and were faithful and did declare it all then was it an Article of Faith before the Pope's Declaration and then it was a sin of ignorance not to believe it and of malice or pusillanimity not to confess it and a worse sin to have contradicted it And who can suppose that the Apostolical Churches and their descendants should be ignorant in any thing that was then a matter of Faith If it was not then it cannot now be declar'd that it was so then for to declare a thing properly is to publish what it was before if it was then there needs no declaration of it now unless by declaring we mean preaching it and then every Parish Priest is bound to do it and can do it as well as the Pope If therefore they mean more as it is certain they do then Declaring an Article of Faith is but the civiller word for Making it Christ's preaching and the Apostles imposing it made it an Article of Faith in it self and to us other declaration excepting only teaching preaching expounding and exhorting we know none and we need none for they only could do it and it is certain they did it fully But I need not argue and take pains to prove that by Declaring they mean more than meer Preaching Themselves own the utmost intention of the Charge The Pope can statuere Articulos fidei that 's more than declare meerly it must be to appoint to decree to determine that such a thing is of necessity to be believ'd unto salvation Art 27. Certum est in manâ— Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articulos fide c. and because Luther said the Pope could not do this he was condemn'd by a Bull of Pope Leo. But we may yet further know the meaning of this For their Doctors are plain in affirming that the Pope is the Foundation Turrecrem l. 2. cap. 107. rule and principle of faith So Turrecremata For to him it belongs to be the measure and rule and science of things that are to be believ'd and of all things which are necessary to the direction of the faithful unto life Eternal And again It is easie to understand that it belongs to the Authority of the Pope of Rome Idem ibid. as to the general and principal Master and Doctor of the whole World to determine those things which are of faith and by consequence to publish a Symbol of Faith to interpret the senses of Holy Scriptures to approve and reprove the sayings of every Doctor belonging to Faith Hence comes it to pass that the Doctors say that the Apostolical See is call'd the Mistress and Mother of Faith And what can this mean but to do that which the Apostles could not do that is Extravag de vâ—rb signifi cap quia Quorundum gloss to be Lords over the Faith of Christendom For to declare only an Article of Faith is not all they challenge they can do more As he is Pope he can not only declare an Article of Faith but introduce a new one And this is that which I suppose Augustinus Triumphus to mean Qu. 59 art 1. when he says Symbolum novum condere ad Papam solum spectat and if that be not plain enough he adds Art 2. As he can make a new Creed or Symbol of Faith so he can multiply new Articles one upon another Vide Salmeron orolog in comment in Epist. ad Roman part 3 p. 176. Sect. Tertiò dicitur For the conclusion of this particular I shall give a very considerable Instance which relies not upon the Credit and testimony of their Doctors but is matter of fact and notorious to all the World For it will be to no purpose for them to deny it and say that the Pope can only declare an Article but not make a new one For it is plain that they so declare an old one that they bring a new one in they pretend the old Creed to be with Child of a Cushion and they introduce a suppositious Child of their own The Instance I mean is that Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church
the Saints and one of the godly All Solifidians do thus and all that do thus are Solifidians the Church of Rome her self not excepted for though in words she proclaims the possibility of keeping all the Commandments yet she dispenses easier with him that breaks them all than with him that speaks one word against any of her articles though but the least even the eating of fish and forbidding flesh in Lent So that it is faith they regard more than charity a right belief more than a holy life and for this you shall be with them upon terms easie enough provided you go not a hairs breadth from any thing of her belief For if you do they have provided for you two deaths and two fires both inevitable and one Eternal And this certainly is one of the greatest evils of which the Church of Rome is guilty For this in it self is the greatest and unworthiest Uncharitableness But the procedure is of great use to their ends For the greatest part of Christians are those that cannot consider things leisurely and wisely searching their bottoms and discovering the causes or foreseeing events which are to come after but are carried away by fear and hope by affection and prepossession and therefore the Roman Doctors are careful to govern them as they will be governed If you dispute you gain it may be one and lose five but if ye threaten them with damnation you keep them in fetters for they that are in fear of death Heb. 2. 15. are all their life time in bondage saith the Apostle and there is in the world nothing so potent as fear of the two deaths which are the two arms and grapples of iron by which the Church of Rome takes and keeps her timorous or consciencious Proselytes The easie Protestant calls upon you from Scripture to do your duty to build a holy life upon a holy Faith the Faith of the Apostles and first Disciples of our Lord he tells you if you erre and teaches you the truth and if ye will obey it is well if not he tells you of your sin and that all sin deserves the wrath of God but judges no man's person much less any states of men He knows that God's Judgments are righteous and true but he knows also that his Mercy absolves many persons who in his just Judgment were condemn'd and if he had a warrant from God to say that he should destroy all the Papists as Jonas had concerning the Ninevites yet he remembers that every Repentance if it be sincere will do more and prevail greater and last longer than God's anger will Besides these things there is a strange spring and secret principle in every man's Understanding that it is oftentimes turned about by such impulses of which no man can give an account But we all remember a most wonderful Instance of it in the Disputation between the two Reynolds's John and William the former of which being a Papist and the later a Protestant met and disputed with a purpose to confute and to convert each other and so they did for those Arguments which were us'd prevail'd fully against their adversary and yet did not prevail with themselves The Papist turned Protestant and the Protestant became a Papist and so remain'd to their dying day Bella inter geminos plusquam civilia fratres Traxerat ambiguus Religionis apex Ille reformatae fidei pro partibus instat Iste reformandam denegat esse fidem Propositis causae rationibus alter utrinque Concurrêre pares cecidêre pares Quod fuit in votis fratrem capit alter uterque Quod fuit in fatis perdit uterque fidem Captivi gemini sine captivante fuerunt Et victor victi transfuga castra petit Quod genus hoc pugnae est ubi victus gaudet uterque Et tamen alâ—eruterâ—se suâ—erâsse dolet Of which some ingenious person gave a most handsome account in an excellent Epigram which for the verification of the story I have set down in the Margent But further yet he considers the natural and regular infirmities of mankind and God considers them much more he knows that in man there is nothing admirable but his ignorance and weakness his prejudice and the infallible certainty of being deceiv'd in many things he sees that wicked men oftentimes know much more than many very good men and that the Understanding is not of it self considerable in morality and effects nothing in rewards and punishments It is the will only that rules man and can obey God He sees and deplores it that many men study hard and understand little that they dispute earnestly and understand not one another at all that affections creep so certainly and mingle with their arguing that the argument is lost and nothing remains but the conflict of two adversaries affections that a man is so willing so easie so ready to believe what makes for his Opinion so hard to understand an argument against himself that it is plain it is the principle within not the argument without that determines him He observes also that all the world a few individuals excepted are unalterably determin'd to the Religion of their Country of their family of their society that there is never any considerable change made but what is made by War and Empire by Fear and Hope He remembers that it is a rare thing to see Jesuit of the Dominican Opinion or a Dominican untill of late of the Jesuit but every order gives Laws to the Understanding of their Novices and they never change He considers there is such ambiguity in words by which all Law-givers express their meaning that there is such abstruseness in mysteries of Religion that some things are so much too high for us that we cannot understand them rightly and yet they are so sacred and concerning that men will think they are bound to look into them as far as they can that it is no wonder if they quickly go too far where no Understanding if it were fitted for it could go far enough but in these things it will be hard not to be deceiv'd since our words cannot rightly express those things that there is such variety of humane Understandings that mens Faces differ not so much as their Souls and that if there were not so much difficulty in things yet they could not but be variously apprehended by several men and then considering that in twenty Opinions it may be not one of them is true nay whereas Varro reckon'd that among the old Philosophers there were 800 Opinions concerning the summum bonum and yet not one of them hit the right They see also that in all Religions in all Societies in all Families and in all things opinions differ and since Opinions are too often begot by passion by passions and violences they are kept and every man is too apt to over-value his own Opinion and out of a desire that every man should conform his judgment to his that teaches men
to the Pope was anciently a case reserved to God and what was onely submitted formerly to the Bishop is now not worth much taking notice of by any one But now put these together By the Roman doctrine you are not by the duty of repentance tied to confess your venial sins and by the Primitive it is to no purpose to bring the greatest crimes to Ecclesiastical repentance but by their immediate address to God they had hopes of pardon From hence it follows that there is no necessity of doing one or other that is there is no Commandment of God for it nor yet any necessity in the Nature of the thing requiring it Venerable Bede had an opinion that those sins onely which are like to leprosie ought to be submitted to the judgement of the Church In Lucae Evang. cap. 69. tom 5. Colon Agripp 1612. Caetera verò vitia tanquam valetudines quasi membrorum animae atque sensuum per semetipsum interius in conscientiâ intellectu Dominus sanat Lib. 5. ep 16. And Goffridus Vindocinensis tells of one William a learned man whose doctrine it was That there were but four sorts of sins which needed Confession the Errour of Gentilism Schism Heretical pravity and Judaical perfidiousness Concil Tâ—id sess 14. c. 5. Nam venialia quibus à gratia Dei non excludimur in quae frequentiùs labimur quanquam rectè utiliter citráque omnem praesumptionem in confessione dicantur quod piorum hâ—minum usus demonstrat tateri tamen citrà culpam multisque alâ—is remediis expiari possunt Caetera autem peccata à Domino sine confessione sanari But besides this I demand Whether or no hath the Priest a power to remit venial sins and that this power in the words of S. John Chap. XX. was given to him by Christ If Christ did in these words give him power to remit venial sins and yet the penitent is not bound to recount them in particular or at all to submit them to his Judicatory it will follow undeniably that the giving power of remission of sins to the Priest does not inferre a necessity in the penitent to come to confess them And these things I suppose Vasquez understood well enough when he affirms expressly that it may well stand with the ordinary power of a Judge that his power be such as that it be free for the subjects to submit to it or to end their controversies another way And that it was so in this case is the doctrine of * Vide Vasquez in 3. tom 4. q. 90. art 1. dub 2. Sect. 3. Scotus above cited and many others Add to this the Argument of * Vbi supra Scotus The Priest retains no sins but such which some way or other are declar'd to him to have no true signs of repentance yet those which are no way manifested to the Priest God retains unto the vengeance of Hell therefore neither is that word whose sins ye remit precise that is If God retains some which the Priest does not retain then also he does remit some which the Priest does not remit and therefore there is no negative affix'd to the affirmative which shews that the remission or retention does not necessarily depend on the Priest's ministration So that supposing it to be true that the Priest hath a power to remit or retain sins as a Judge and that this power cannot be exercis'd without knowing what he is to judge yet it follows not from hence that the people are bound to come this way and to confess their sins to them or to ask their pardon But 2. The second proposition is also false for supposing the Priest by the words of Christ hath given to him the ordinary power of a Judge and that as such he hath power of remitting and retaining sins yet this power of judging may be such as that it may be performed without enumeration of all the particulars we remember For the Judgement the Priest is to make is not of the sins but of the persons It is not said Quaecunque but Quorumcunque remiseritis peccata Our Blessed Saviour in these words did not distinguish two sorts of sins one to be remitted and an other to be retained so that it should be necessary to know the special nature of the sins he only reckon'd one kind that is under which all sins are contain'd But he distinguish'd two sorts of sinners saying Quorum and Quorum the one of Penitents according to the whole design and purpose of the Gospel and their sins are to be remitted Vid. Padre Paolo hist. Conc. Trid. lib. 4. and an other of Impenitent whose sins are not to be remitted but retained And therefore it becomes the Ministers of Souls to know the state of the penitent rather than the nature and number of the sins Neither gave he any power to punish but to pardon or not to pardon If Christ had intended to have given to the Priests a power to impose a punishment according to the quality of every sin the Priest indeed had been the Executioner of the Divine wrath but then because no punishment in this life can be equal to the demerit of a sin which deserves the eternal wrath of God it is certain the Priest is not to punish them by way of vengeance We do not find any thing in the words of Christ obliging the Priest directly to impose penances on the penitent sinner he may voluntarily submit himself to them if he please and he may do very well if he do so but the power of retaining sins gives no power to punish him whether he will or no for the power of retaining is rather to be exerciz'd upon the impenitent than upon the penitent Besides this the word of remitting sins does not certainly give the Priest a power to impose penances for it were a prodigie of interpretation to expound remittere by punire But if by retaining it be said this power is given him then this must needs belong to the impenitent who are not remitted and not to the penitent whose sins at that time they remit and retain not unless they can do both at the same time But if the punishment design'd be only by way of Remedy or of disposing the sinners to true penitence then if the person be already truly penitent the Priest hath nothing to do but to pardon him in the name of God Now certainly both these things may be done without the special enumeration of all his remembred sins For 1. The penitent may and often does forget many particulars and then in that case all that the Priest can expect or proceed to judgment upon is the saying in general He is truly sorrowful for them and for the time to come will avoid them and if he then absolve the penitent as he must and usually does it follows that if he does well and he can do no better he may make a judgment of his penitent
presently after death to mean the day of judgment of the time of which neither men nor Angels know any thing And whereas Justin Martyr says that presently the souls of the righteous go to Paradise Pag. 33. E. W. answers 2. That Justin does not say that all just souls are carried presently into Heaven no Justin says into Paradise true but let it be remembred that it is so a part of Heaven as limbus infantum is by themselves call'd a part of hell that is a place of bliss the region of the blessed But 3. Justin says that presently there is a separation made but he says not that the souls of the righteous are carried to Paradise That 's the next answer which the very words of Justin do contradict There is presently a separation made of the just and unjust for they are by the Angels carried to the places they have deserved This is the separation which is made one is carried to Paradise the other to a place in hell But these being such pitiful offers at answering the Gentleman tries another way and says 4. That this affirmative of Justin contradicts another saying of Justin which I cited out of Sixtus Senensis that Iustin Martyr and many other of the Fathers affirm'd that the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life To this I answer that one opinion does not contradict another for though the Fathers believ'd that they who die in the Lord rest from their labours and are in blessed places and have antepasts of joy and comforts yet in those places they are reserv'd unto the judgment of the great day The intermedial joy or sorrow respectively of the just and unjust does but antidate the final sentence and as the comforts of Gods spirit in this life are indeed graces of God and rewards of piety as the torments of an evil conscience are the wages of impiety yet as these do not hinder but that the great reward is given at dooms-day and not before so neither do the joys which the righteous have in the interval They can both consist together and are generally affirm'd by very many of the Greek and Latin Fathers E. W. pag. 36. And methinks this Gentleman might have learn'd from Sixtus Senensis how to have reconcil'd these two opinions for he quotes him saying there is a double beatitude the one imperfect of soul only the other consummate and perfect of soul and body The first the Fathers call'd by several names of Sinus Abrahae Atrium Dei sub Altare c. The other perfect joy the glory of the resurrection c. But it matters not what is said or how it be contradicted so it seem but to serve a present turn But at last if nothing of this will do these words are not the words of Iustin for he is not the Author of the Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos To which I answer it matters not whether they be Iustins or no But they are put together in the collection of his works and they are generally called his and cited under his name and made use of by Bellarmine * Lib. de baptis c. 25. 26. lib. de confirmat c. 5 l. 3. de Euchar. c. 6. when he supposes them to be to his purpose However the Author is Ancient and Orthodox and so esteem'd in the Church and in this particular speaks according to the doctrine of the more Ancient Doctors well but how is this against Purgatory says E. W. P. 36. line 29. for they may be in secret receptacles after they have been in Purgatory To this I answer that he dares not teach that for doctrine in the Church of Rome who believes that the souls deliver'd out of Purgatory go immediately to the heaven of the Blessed and therefore if his book had been worth the perusing by the Censors of books he might have been question'd and followed Mr. Whites fortune And he adds it might be afterwards according to Origens opinion that is Purgatory might be after the day of judgment for so Origen held that all the fires are Purgatory and the Devils themselves should be sav'd Thus this poor Gentleman thinking it necessary to answer one argument against Purgatory brought in the dissuasive cares not to answer by a condemned heresie rather than reason shall be taught by any son of the Church of England But however the very words of the Fathers cross his slippery answers so that they thrust him into a corner for in these receptacles the godly have joy and they enter into them as soon as they die and abide there till the day of judgment S. Ambrose is so full De bono mortis cap. 4. pertinent and material to the Question in hand and so destructive of the Roman hypothesis that nothing can be said against it His words are these therefore in all regards death is good because it divides those that were always fighting that they may not impugne each other and because it is a certain port to them who being toss'd in the sea of this world require the station of faithful rest and because it makes not our state worse but such as it finds every one such it reserves him to the future judgment and nourishes him with rest and withdraws him from the envy of present things and composes him with the expectation of future things E. W. Pag. 34. thinking himself bound to say something to these words answers It is an excellent saying for worse he is not but infinitely better that quit off the occasions of living here is ascertain'd of future bliss hereafter which is the whole drift of the Saint in that Chapter Read it and say afterwards if I say not true It is well put off But there are very many that read him who never will or can examine what S. Ambrose says and withal such he hopes to escape But as to the thing That death gives a man advantage and by its own fault no disadvantage is indeed not only the whole drift of that Chapter but of that whole book But not for that reason only is a man the better for death but because it makes him not worse in order to Eternity nay it does not alter him at all as to that for as death finds him so shall the judgment find him and therefore not purified by Purgatory for such he is reserved and not only thus but it cherishes him with rest which would be very ill done if death carried him to Purgatory Now all these last words and many others E. W. is pleas'd to take no notice of as not being for his purpose But he that pleases to see more may read the 12. and 18. Chapters of the same Treatise S. Gregorie's saying S. Greg. Nazianz orat 15. in plagam grandiâ—is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that after this life there is
consulted and there will be yet found a form of ordination of Readers Studete verba Dei viz. Lectiones sacras distinctè apertè ad intelligentiam aedicationem fidelium absque omni mendacio falsitatis proferre c. in which it is said that they must study to read distinctly and plainly that the people may understand But now it seems that labour is sav'd And when a notorious change was made in this affair we can tell by calling to mind the following story The Moravians did say Mass in the Slavonian tongue for which Pope John the eighth severely reprov'd them and commanded them to do so no more but being better inform'd he wrote a letter to their Prince Sfentoputero in which he affirms that it is not contrary to faith and found doctrine to say Mass and other prayers in the Slavonian tongue and adds this reason because he that Hebrew Greek and Latin hath made the others also for his glory and this also he confirms with the authority of S. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians and some other Scriptures only he commanded for the decorum of the business the Gospel should first be said in Latin and then in the Slavonian tongue But just two hundred years after this the Tables were turned and though formerly these things were permitted yet so were many things in the Primitive Church but upon better examination they have been corrected And therefore P. Gregory the seventh wrote to Vratislaus of Bohemia that he could not permit the celebration of the divine offices in the Slavonian tongue and he commanded the Prince to oppose the people herein with all his forces Here the world was strangely altered and yet S. Pauls Epistle was not condemned of heresie and no Council had decreed that all vulgar languages were prophane and no reason can yet be imagined why the change was made unless it were to separate the Priest from the people by a wall of Latin and to nurse stupendious ignorance in them by not permitting to them learning enough to understand their public prayers in which every man was greatly concerned Neither may this be called a slight matter for besides that Gregory the seventh thought it so considerable that it was a just cause of a war or persecution for he commanded the Prince of Bohemia to oppose the people in it with all his forces besides this I say to pray to God with the understanding is much better than praying with the tongue that alone can be a good prayer this alone can never and then the loss of all those advantages which are in prayers truly understood the excellency of devotion the passion of desires the ascent of the minde to God the adherence to and acts of confidence in him the intellectual conversation with God most agreeable to a rational being the melting affections the pulses of the heart to from God to and from our selves the promoting and exercising of our hopes all these and very many more which can never be intire but in the prayers and devotions of the hearts and can never be in any degree but in the same in which the prayers are acts of love and wisdom of the will and the understanding will be lost to the greatest part of the Catholic Church if the mouth be set open and the soul be gag'd so that it shall be the word of the mouth but not the word of the mind All these things being added to what was said in this article by the Dissuasive will more than make it clear that in this article the consequents of which are very great the Church of Rome hath causelesly troubled Christendom and innovated against the Primitive Church and against her own ancient doctrines and practices and even against the Apostle But they care for none of these things Some of their own Bigots profess the thing in the very worst of all these expressions for so Reynolds and Gifford in their Calvino Turcismus complain that such horrid and stupendious evils have followed the translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages that they are of force enough ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi Divina vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur Although they did rely upon the authority Apostolical or Divine yet they ought to be taken away So that it is to no purpose to urge Scripture or any argument in the world against the Roman Church in this article for if God himself command it to be translated yet it is not sufficient and therefore these men must be left to their own way of understanding for beyond the law of God we have no argument I will only remind them that it is a curse which God threatens to his rebellious people I will speak to this people with men of another tongue Isa. 25. 11. and by strange lips and they shall not understand This is the curse which the Church of Rome contends earnestly for in behalf of their people SECTION VI. Of the Worship of Images THat society of Christians will not easily be reformed that think themselves oblig'd to dispute for the worship of Images the prohibition of which was so great a part of the Mosaic Religion and is so infinitely against the nature and spirituality of the Christian a thing which every understanding can see condemned in the Decalogue no man can excuse but witty persons that can be bound by no words which they can interpret to a sense contradictory to the design of the common a thing for the hating of and abstaining from which the Jews were so remark'd by all the world and by which as by a distinctive cognisance they were separated from all other Nations and which with perfect resolution they keep to this very day and for the not observing of which they are intolerably scandaliz'd at those societies of Christians who without any necessity in the thing without any pretence of any Law of God for no good and for no wise end and not without infinite danger at least of idolatry retain a worship and veneration to some stocks and stones Such men as these are too hard for all laws and for all arguments so certain it is that faith is an obedience of the will in a conviction of the understanding that if in the will and interests of men there be a perverseness and a non-compliance and that it is not bent by prudent and wise flexures and obedience to God and the plain words of God in Scripture nothing can ever prevail neither David nor his Sling nor all the worthies of his army In this question I have said enough in the Dissuasive and also in the Ductor dubitantium but to the arguments and fulness of the perswasion they neither have nor can they say any thing that is material but according to their usual method like flies they search up and down and light upon any place which they suppose to be sore or would make their proselytes believe so I shall therefore first