him and this was first boldly maintain'd in the Council of Trent by the Jesuits and it is now the opinion of their Order but it is also that which the Pope challenges in practice when he pretends to a power over all Bishops and that this power is derived to him from Christ when he calls himself the Universal Bishop and the Vicarial head of the Church the Churches Monarch he from whom all Ecclesiastical authority is deriv'd to whose sentence in things Divine every Christian under pain of damnation is bound to be subject Now this is it which as it is productive of infinite mischiefs so it is an Innovation and an absolute deflection from the primitive catholick doctrine and yet is the great ground-work and foundation of their Church This we shall represent in these following Testimonies Pope Eleutherius in an Epistle to the Bishops of France says that Christ committed the universal Church to the Bishops and S. Ambrose saith that the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ and is his substitute But famous are the words of S. Cyprian The Church of Christ is one thorough the whole world divided by him into many members and the Bishoprick is but one diffused in the agreeing plurality of many Bishops And again To every Pastor a portion of the flock is given which let every one of them rule and govern By which words it is evident that the primitive Church understood no praelation of one and subordination of another commanded by Christ or by vertue of their ordination but onely what was for order sake introduc'd by Princes and consent of Prelates And it was to this purpose very full which was said by Pope Symmachus As it is in the Holy Trinity whose power is one and undivided or to use the expression in the Athanasian Creed none is before or after other none is greater or less than another so there is one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops and therefore why should the Canons of the ancient Bishops be violated by their Successors Now these words being spoken against the invasion of the rights of the Church of Arles by Anastasius and the question being in the exercise of Jurisdiction and about the Institution of Bishops does fully declare that the Bishops of Rome had no Superiority by the Laws of Christ over any Bishop in the Catholick Church and that his Bishoprick gave no more power to him than Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocese And therefore all the Church of God when ever they reckon'd the several orders and degrees of Ministery in the Catholick Church reckon the Bishop as the last and supreme beyond whom there is no spiritual power but in Christ. For as the whole Hierachy ends in Iesus so does every particular one in its one Bishop Beyond the Bishop there is no step till you rest in the great Shepherd and Bishop of Souls Under him every Bishop is supreme in Spirituals and in all power which to any Bishop is given by Christ. S. Ignatius therefore exhorts that all should obey their Bishop and the Bishop obey Christ as Christ obeyed his Father There are no other intermedial degrees of Divine Institution But as Origen teaches The Apostles and they who after them are ordain'd by God that is the Bishops have the supreme place in the Church and the Prophets have the second place The same also is taught by P. Gelasius by S. Hierom and Fulgentius and indeed by all the Fathers who spake any thing in this matter Insomuch that when Bellarmine is in this question press'd out of the book of Nilus by the authority of the Fathers standing against him he answers Papam Patres non habere in Ecclesiâ sed filios omnes The Pope acknowledges no Fathers in the Church for they are all his sons Now although we suppose this to be greatly sufficient to declare the Doctrine of the primitive Catholick Church concerning the equality of power in all Bishops by Divine right yet the Fathers have also expresly declar'd themselves that one Bishop is not Superior to another and ought not to judge another or force another to obedience They are the words of S. Cyprian to a Council of Bishops None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by tyranical power drives his collegues to a necessity of obedience since every Bishop according to the licence of his own liberty and power hath his own choice and cannot be judged by another nor yet himself judge another but let us all expect the judgment of our L. Iesus Christ who only and alone hath the power of setting us in the government of his Church and judging of what we do This was spoken and intended against P. Stephen who did then begin dominari in clero to lord it over Gods heritage and to excommunicate his brethren as Demetrius did in the time of the Apostles themselves but they both found their reprovers Demetrius was chastised by S. John for this usurpation and Stephen by S. Cyprian and this also was approv'd by S. Austin We conclude this particular with the words of S. Gregory Bishop of Rome who because the Patriarch of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop said It was a proud title prophane sacrilegious and Antichristian and therefore he little thought that his Successors in the same See should so fiercely challenge that Antichristian title much less did the then Bishop of Rome in those ages challenge it as their own peculiar for they had no mind to be or to be esteemed Antichristian Romano Pontisici oblatum est sed nullus unquam eorum hoc singularitatis nomen assumpsit His Predecessors it seems had been tempted with an offer of that title but none of them ever assum'd that name of singularity as being against the law of the Gospel and the Canons of the Church Now this being a matter of which Christ spake not one word to S. Peter if it be a matter of faith and salvation as it is now pretended it is not imaginable he would have been so perfectly silent But though he was silent of any intention to do this yet S. Paul was not silent that Christ did otherwise for he hath set in his Church primùm Apostolos first of all Apostles not first S. Peter and secondarily Apostles but all the Apostles were first It is also evident that S. Peter did not carry himself so as to give the least overture or umbrage to make any one suspect he had any such preheminence but he was as S. Chrysostom truly sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he did all things with the common consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing by special authority or principality and if he had any such it is more than probable that the Apostles who survived him had succeeded him in it rather than the Bishop of Rome and it being certain as the Bishop of Canaries confesses That there is in Scripture no
revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed Peter in it and we being there told that S. Peter was at Antioch but never that he was at Rome it being confessed by some of their own parties by Cardinal Cusanus Soto Driedo Canus and Segovius that this succession was not addicted to any particular Church nor that Christs institution of this does any other way appear that it cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church it being also certain that there was no such thing known in the primitive Church but that the Holy Fathers both of Africa and the East did oppose Pope Victor and Pope Stephen when they began to interpose with a presumptive authority in the affairs of other Churches and that the Bishops of the Church did treat with the Roman Bishop as with a brother not as their superior and that the General Council held at Chalcedon did give to the Bishops of C. P. equal rights and preheminence with the Bishops of Rome and that the Greek Churches are at this day and have been a long time great opponents of this pretension of the Bishops of Rome and after all this since it is certain that Christ who foreknowes all things did also know that there would be great disputes and challenges of this preheminence did indeed suppress it in his Apostles and said not it should be otherwise in succession and did not give any command to his Church to obey the Bishops of Rome as his Vicars more than what he commanded concerning all Bishops it must be certain that it cannot be necessary to salvation to do so but that it is more than probable that he never intended any such thing and that the Bishops of Rome have to the great prejudice of Christendom made a great Schism and usurp'd a title which is not their due and challeng'd an authority to which they have no right and have set themselves above others who are their equals and impose an Article of Faith of their own contriving and have made great preparation for Antichrist if he ever get into that Seat or be in already and made it necessary for all of the Roman Communion to believe and obey him in all things SECT XI THere are very many more things in which the Church of Rome hath greatly turn'd aside from the Doctrines of Scripture and the practise of the Catholick Apostolick and primitive Church Such are these The Invocation of Saints The Insufficiency of Scriptures without Traditions of Faith unto Salvation their absolving sinners before they have by canonical penences and the fruits of a good life testified their repentance their giving leave to simple Presbyters by Papal dispensation to give confirmation or chrism selling Masses for Ninepences Circumgestation of the Eucharist to be ador'd The dangerous Doctrine of the necessity of the Priests intention in collating Sacraments by which device they have put it into the power of the Priest to damn whom he please of his own parish their affirming that the Mass is a proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead Private Masses or the Lords Supper without Communion which is against the doctrine and practise of the ancient Church of Rome it self and contrary to the tradition of the Apostles if we may believe Pope Calixtus and is also forbiden under pain of Excommunication Peract à consecratione omnes communicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic autem etiam Apostoli statuerunt sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia When the consecration is finish'd let all communicate that will not be thrust from the bounds of the Church for so the Apostles appointed and so the H. Church of Rome does hold The same also was decreed by P. Soter and P. Martin in a Council of Bishops and most severely enjoyn'd by the Canons of the Apostles as they are cited in the Canon Law There are divers others but we suppose that those Innovations which we have already noted may be sufficient to verifie this charge of Novelty But we have done this the rather because the Roman Emissaries endeavour to prevail amongst the ignorant and prejudicate by boasting of Antiquity and calling their Religion the Old Religion and the Catholick so insnaring others by ignorant words in which is no truth their Religion as it distinguishes from the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland being neither the Old nor the Catholick Religion but New and superinduc'd by arts known to all who with sincerity and diligence have look'd into their pretences But they have taught every Priest that can scarce understand his Breviary of which in Ireland there are but too many and very many of the people to ask where our Religion was before Luther Whereas it appears by the premises that it is much more easie for us to shew our Religion before Luther than for them to shew theirs before Trent And although they can shew too much practise of their Religion in the degenerate ages of the Church yet we can and do clearly shew ours in the purest and first ages and can and do draw lines pointing to the times and places where the several rooms and stories of their Babel was builded and where polished and where furnished But when the keepers of the field slept and the Enemy had sown tares and they had choak'd the wheat and almost destroyed it when the world complain'd of the infinite errors in the Church and being oppressed by a violent power durst not complain so much as they had cause and when they who had cause to complain were yet themselves very much abused and did not complain in all they might when divers excellent persons S. Bernard Clemangis Grosthead Marsilius Ocham Alvarus Abbat Ioachim Petrarch Savanarola Valla Erasmus Mantuan Gerson Ferus Cassander Andreas Frisius Modrevius Hermannus Coloniensis Wasseburgius Archdeacon of Verdun Paulus Langius Staphilus Telesphorus de Cusentiâ Doctor Talheymius Francis Zabarel the Cardinal and Pope Adrian himself with many others not to reckon Wicklef Hus Hierome of Prague the Bohemians and the poor men of Lions whom they call'd Hereticks and confuted with fire and sword when almost all Christian Princes did complain heavily of the corrupt state of the Church and of Religion and no remedy could be had but the very intended remedy made things much worse then it was that divers Christian Kingdoms and particularly the Church of England Tum primùm senio docilis tua saecula Roma Erubuit pudet exacti jam temporis odit Praeteritos foedis cum relligionibus annos Being asham'd of the errors superstitions heresies and impieties which had deturpated the face of the Church look'd into the glass of Scripture and pure Antiquity and wash'd away those stains with which time and inadvertency and tyranny had besmear'd her and being thus cleans'd and wash'd is accus'd by the Roman parties of Novelty and condemn'd because she refuses to run into the same excess
it was laid by P. Clement VI. in his extravagant Vnigenitus de poenitentiis remissionibus A. D. 1350. This constitution was published Fifty years after the first Jubilee and was a new device to bring in customers to Rome at the second Jubilee which was kept in Rome in this Popes time What ends of profit and interest it serv'd we are not much concern'd to enquire but this we know that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine for it was disputed against by Franciscus de Mayronis and Durandus not long before this extravagant and that it was not rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany rais'd upon the occasion of Indulgences made Leo the tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it But as to the thing it self it is so wholly new so meerly devis'd and forged by themselves so newly created out of nothing from great mistakes of Scripture and dreams of shadows from antiquity that we are to admonish our Charges that they cannot reasonably expect many sayings of the primitive Doctors against them any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers which were born but yesterday That which is not cannot be numbred and that which was not could not be confuted But the perfect silence of antiquity in this whole matter is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later laboratories of Rome For as Durandus said the Holy Fathers Ambrose Hilary Hierom Austin speak nothing of Indulgences And whereas it is said that S. Gregory DC years after Christ gave Indulgences at Rome in the stations Magister Angularis who lived about 200 years since says He never read of any such any where and it is certain there is no such thing in the writings of S. Gregory nor in any history of that age or any other that is authentick and we could never see any history pretended for it by the Roman Writers but a Legend of Ledgerus brought to us the other day by Surius which is so ridiculous and weak that even their own parties dare not avow it as true story and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences and Altisiodorensis for story and record And it were strange that if this power of giving Indulgences to take off the punishment reserv'd by God after the sin is pardoned were given by Christ to his Church that no one of the antient Doctors should tell any thing of it insomuch that there is no one Writer of authority and credit not the more antient Doctors we have already named nor those who were much later Rupertus Tuitensis Anselm or S. Bernard ever took notice of it but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about MCC years after Christ and Cardinal Cajetane told Pope Adrian VI. that to him that readeth the Decretals it plainly appears that an Indulgence is nothing else but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed and therefore can be nothing of that which is now a dayes pretended True it is that the Canonical penances were about the time of Burchard lessen'd add alter'd by commutations and the antient discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose that the Indulgence was more than the Imposition and began not to be an act of mercy but remisness an absolution without amends It became a trumpet and a leavy for the holy War in Pope Vrban the Seconds time for he gave a plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins to them that should go and fight against the Saracens and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indulgences for concerning the value of Indulgences the complaint is both old and doubtful said Pope Adrian and he cites a famous gloss which tells of four Opinions all Catholick and yet vastly differing in this particular but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penalty is which is taken off by Indulgences No man could then tell and the point was but in the infancy and since that they have made it what they please but it is at last turn'd into a Doctrine and they have devised new propositions as well as they can to make sense of it and yet it is a very strange thing a solution not an absolution it is the distinction of Bellarmine that is the sinner is let to go free without punishment in this World or in the World to come and in the end it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer a heap of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture or Catholick Tradition and not onely so but they have introduc'd a way of remitting sins that Christ and his Apostles taught not a way destructive of the repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus it brought into the Church false and fantastick hopes a hope that will make men asham'd a hope that does not glorifie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ a doctrine expresly dishonourable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ a practise that supposes a new bunch of Keys given to the Church besides that which the Apostles receiv'd to open and shut the Kingdome of Heaven a Doctrine that introduces pride among the Saints and advances the opinion of their works beyond the measures of Christ who taught us That when we have done all that is commanded we are unprofitable servants and therefore certainly cannot supererogate or do more than what is infinitely recompenc'd by the Kingdome of Glory to which all our doings and all our sufferings are not worthy to be compar'd especially since the greatest Saint can not but say with David Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight no flesh living can be justified It is a practise that hath turn'd Penances into a Fayr and the Court of Conscience into a Lombard and the labors of Love into the labors of pilgrimages superstitious and useless wandrings from place to place and Religion into vanity and our hope in God to a confidence in man and our fears of hell to be a mere scarcrow to rich and confident sinners and at last it was frugally employed by a great Pope to raise a portion for a Lady the Wife of Franceschetto Cibo bastard son of Pope Innocent VIII and the merchandize it self became the stakes of Gamesters at dice and cards and men did vile actions that they might win Indulgences by gaming making their way to heaven easier Now although the H. Fathers of the Church could not be suppos'd in direct terms to speak against this new Doctrine of Indulgences because in their days it was not yet they have said many things which do perfectly destroy this new Doctrine and these unchristian practises For besides that they teach a repentance wholly reducing us to a good life a faith that intirely relies upon
a strange spirit of contradiction or superstition or deflection from the Christian Rule greatly prevailing in the Church of Rome it were impossible that this practise should be so countenanc'd by them and defended so to no purpose with so much scandal and against the natural reason of mankind and the very Law of Nature it self For the Heathens were sufficiently by the light of nature taught to abominate all Pictures or Images of God Sed nulla effigies simulachraque nulla Deorum Majestate locum sacro implevere timore They in their earliest ages had no Pictures no Images of their gods Their Temples were filled with Majestie and a sacred fear and the reason is given by Macrobius Antiquity made no Image viz. of God because the Supreme God and the mind that is born of him that is his Son the eternal Word as it is beyond the Soul so it is above nature and therefore it is not lawful that sigments should come thither Nicephorus Callistus relating the Heresie of the Armenians and Iacobites sayes they made Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost quod perquam absurdum est Nothing is more absurd then to make Pictures or Images of the Persons of the Holy and Adorable Trinity And yet they do this in the Church of Rome For in the windows of their Churches even in Country Villages where the danger cannot be denied to be great and the scandal insupportable nay in their books of devotion in their very Mass-books and Breviaries in their Portuises and Manuals they picture the Holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot to the great dishonour of God and scandal of Christianity it self We add no more for the case is too evidently bad but reprove the errour with the words of their own Polydore Virgil Since the world began never was any thing more foolish than to picture God who is present every where SECT X. THe last instance of Innovations introduc'd in Doctrine and practice by the Church of Rome that we shall represent is that of the Popes universal Bishoprick That is not only that he is Bishop of Bishops superior to all and every one but that his Bishoprick is a plenitude of power and as for other Bishops of his fulness they all receive a part of the ministry and sollicitude and not onely so but that he only is a Bishop by immediate Divine dispensation and others receive from him whatsoever they have For to this height many of them are come at last Which Doctrine although as it is in sins where the carnal are most full of reproach but the spiritual are of greatest malignity so it happens in this Article For though it be not so scandalous as their Idolatry so ridiculous as their superstitions so unreasonable as their doctrine of Transubstantiation so easily reprov'd as their half Communion and Service in an unknown tongue yet it is of as dangerous and evil effect and as false and as certainly an Innovation as any thing in their whole conjugation of errors When Christ founded his Church he left it in the hands of his Apostles without any prerogative given to one or eminency above the rest save onely of priority and orderly precedency which of it self was natural necessary and incident The Apostles govern'd all their authority was the sanction and their Decrees and writings were the Laws of the Church They exercis'd a common jurisdiction and divided it according to the needs and emergencies and circumstances of the Church In the Council of Ierusalem S. Peter gave not the decisive Sentence but S. Iames who was the Bishop of that See Christ sent all his Apostles as his Father sent him and therefore he gave to every one of them the whole power which he left behind and to the Bishops Congregated at Miletum S. Paul gave them caution to take care of the whole stock of God and affirms to them all that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops and in the whole New Testament there is no act or sign of superiority or that one Apostle exercised power over another but to them whom Christ sent he in common intrusted the Church of God according to that excellent saying of S. Cyprian The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was endowest with an equal fellowship of honour and power and they are all Shepheards and the flock is one and therefore it ought to be fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent This unity and identity of power without question and interruption did continue and descend to Bishops in the primitive Church in which it was a known doctrine that the Bishops were successors of the Apostles and what was not in the beginning could not be in the descent unless it were innovated and introduc'd by a new authority Christ gave ordinary power to none but the Apostles and the power being to continue for ever in the Church it was to be succeeded to and by the same authority even of Christ it descended to them who were their successors that is to the Bishops as all antiquity does consent and teach Not S. Peter alone but every Apostle and therefore every one who succeeds them in their ordinary power may and must remember the words of S. Paul We are Embassadors or Legates for Christ Christs Vicars not the Popes Delegates and so all the Apostles are called in the Preface of the Mass quos operis tui Vicarios eidem conâ—ulisti praeesse Pastores they are Pastors of the Flock and Vicars of Christ and so also they are in express terms called by S. Ambrose and therefore it is a strange usurpation that the Pope arrogates that to himself by Impropriation which is common to him with all the Bishops of Christendom The consequent of this is that by the law of Christ one Bishop is not superior to another Christ gave the power to all alike he made no Head of the Bishops he gave to none a supremacy of power or universality of jurisdiction But this the Pope hath long challenged and to bring his purposes to pass hath for these six hundered years by-gone invaded the rights of Bishops and delegated matters of order and jurisdiction to Monks and Friers insomuch that the power of Bishops was greatly diminished at the erecting of the Cluniac and Cistercian Monks about the year ML but about the year MCC it was almost swallowed up by privileges granted to the begging Friers and there kept by the power of the Pope which power got one great step more above the Bishops when they got it declared that the Pope is above a Council of Bishops and at last it was turn'd into a new doctrine by Cajetane who for his prosperous invention was made a Cardinal that all the whole Apostolick or Episcopal power is radical and inherent in the Pope in whom is the fulness of the Ecclesiastical authority and that Bishops receive their portion of it from
shall be no King and then you are dis-oblig'd so Bellarmine And if after all this there remains any scruple of Conscience it ought to be remembred that though even after a Prince is Excommunicated it should be of it self a sin to depose or kill the Prince yet if the Pope commands you it is no sin For if the Pope should err by commanding sin or forbidding vertues yet the Church were bound to believe that the vices were good and the vertues evil unless She would sin against Her Conscience They are the very words of Bellarmine But they add more particulars of the same bran The Sons of an Heretical Father are made sui juris that is free from their Fathers power A Catholick Wife is not tyed to pay her duty to an Heretical Husband and the Servants are not bound to do service to such Masters These are the Doctrines of their great Azorius and as for Kings he affirms they may be Depos'd for Heresie But all this is only in the case of Heretical Princes But what for others Even the Roman Catholick Princes are not free from this danger All the World knows what the Pope did to King Chilperick of France He Depos'd him and put Pipin in his place and did what he could to have put Albert King of the Romans in the Throne of Philip sir-named the Fair. They were the Popes of Rome who arm'd the Son against the Father the Emperour Henry IV. and the Son fought against him took him Prisoner shav'd him and thrust him into a Monastery where he dyed with grief and hunger We will not speak of the Emperour Frederick Henry the sixth Emperour the Duke of Savoy against whom he caus'd Charles the V. and Francis the I. of France to take Arms nor of Francis Dandalus Duke of Venice whom he bound with chains and fed him as Dogs are fed with bones and scraps under his Table Our own Henry the II. and King Iohn were great instances of what Priâ—â—â—s in their case may expect from that Religion Those were the piety of the Father of Christendome But these were the product of the Doctrine which Clement the V. vented in the Council of Vienna Qâ—â—â— jus Râ—gum à se pendere The right of all Kings depend upon the Pope and thereâ—ore even their Catholick Princes are at their mercy and they would if they durst use them accordingly If they do but favour Hereticks or Schismaticks receive them or defend them if the Emperour be perjur'd if he rashly break a league made with the See Apostolick if he do not keep the peace promis'd to the Church if he be sacrilegious if he dissipate the goods of the Church the Pope may Depose him said Azorius And Santarel sayes he may do it in case the Prince or Emperour be insufficient if he be wicked if he be unprofitable if he does not defend the Church This is very much but yet there is something more this may be done if he impose new Gabels or Imposts upon his Subjects without the Popes leave for if they do not pretend to this also why does the Pope in Bulla coenae Domini Excommunicate all Princes that do it Now if it be enquir'd By what Authority the Pope does these things It is answered That the Pope hath a Supreme and absolute Authority both the Spiritual and the Temporal Power is in the Pope as Christs Vicar said Azorius and Samarel The Church hath the right of a Superiour Lord over the rights of Princes and their Temporalties and that by Her Jurisdiction She disposes of Temporals ut de suo peculio as of Her own proper goods said our Country-man Weston Rector of the College at Doway Nay the Pope hath power in omnia per omnia super omnia in all things thorough all things and over all things and the sublimity and immensity of the Supreme Bishop is so great that no mortal man can comprehend it said Cassenaeus no man can express it no man can think it So that it is no wonder what Papirius Massonus said of Pope Boniface the VIII that he own'd himself not onely as the Lord-of France but of all the World Now we are sure it will be said That this is but the private Opinion of some Doctors not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome To this we reply 1. It is not the private Opinion of a few but their publick Doctrine own'd and offer'd to be justified to all the World as appears in the preceding Testimonies 2. It is the Opinion of all the Jesuit Order which is now the greatest and most glorious in the Church of Rome and the maintenance of it is the subject matter of their new Vow of Obedience to the Pope that is to advance his Grandeur 3. Not onely the Jesuits but all the Canonists in the Church of Rome contend earnestly for these Doctrines 4. This they doe upon the Authority of the Decretaâ—s and their own Law and the Decrees of Councills 5. Not onely the Jesuists and Canonists but others also of great note amongst them earnestly contend for these Doctrine particularly Cassenaeus Zodericus the Arch-Bishop of Florence Petrus de Monte St. Thomas Aquinas Bozius Baronius and many others 6. Themselves tell us it is a matter of Faith F. Creswel sayes It is the sentence of all Catholicks and they that doe not admit these Doctrines Father Rosweyd calls them half Christians Grinners barking Royalists and a new Sect of Catholicks and Eudaemon Iohannes sayes That without question it is a Heresie in the judgement of all Catholicks Now in such things which are not in their Creeds and publick Confessions from whence should we know the Doctrines of their Church but from their chiefest and most leading Doctors who it is certain would fain have all the World believe it to be the Doctrine of their Church And therefore as it is certain that any Roman Catholick may with allowance be of this opinion so he will be esteemed the better and more zealous Catholick if he be and if it were not for fear of Princes who will not lose their Crowns for their foolish Doctrines there is no peradventure but it would be declared to be defide a matter of faith as divers of them of late do not stick to say And of this the Pope gives but too much evidence since he will not take away the scandal which is so greatly given to all Christian Kings and Republicks by a publick and a just condemnation of it Nay it is worse than thus for Sixtus Quintus upon the XI of September A. D. 1589. in an Oration in a Conclave of Cardinals did solemnly commend the Monk that kill'd Henry the III. of France The Oration was printed at Paris by them that had rebell'd against that Prince and avouched for Authentick by Bouncher Decreil and Ancelein And though some would fain have it thought to be none of his
an act of the Soul There is neither affection nor understanding notice or desire The heart sayes nothing and asks for nothing and therefore receives nothing Solomon calls that the Sacrifice of fools when men consider not and they who understand not what is said cannot take it into consideration But there needs no more to be said in so plain a case We end this with the words of the Civil and Canon Law Iustinian the Emperor made a Law in these words We will and command That all Bishops and Priests celebrate the Sacred Oblation and the Prayers thereunto added in holy Baptism not in a low voice but with a loud and clear voice which may be heard by the faithful people that is be understood for so it follows that thereby the mindes of the hearers may be raised up with greater devotion to set forth the praises of the Lord God for so the Apostle teacheth in the first to the Corinthians It is true that this Law was rased out of the Latine Versions of Iustinian The fraud and design was too palpable but it prevail'd nothing for it is acknowledged by Cassander and Bellarmine and is in the Greek Copies of Holoander The Canon Law is also most express from an Authority of no less than a Pope and a General Council as themselves esteem Innocent III. in the great Council of Lateran above MCC years after Christ in these words Because in most parts within the same City and Diocess the people of divers Tongues are mixt together having under one and the same faith divers Ceremonies and Rites we straitly charge and command That the Bishops of such Cities and Diocesses provide men fit who may celebrate Divine Service according to the diversity of ceremonies and languages and administer the Sacraments of the Church instructing them both by word and example Now if the words of the Apostle and the practise of the primitive Church the sayings of the Fathers and the Confessions of wise men amongst themselves if the consent of Nations and the piety of our fore-fathers if right reason and the necessity of the thing if the needs of the ignorant and the very inseparable conditions of holy prayers if the Laws of Princes and the Laws of the Church which do require all our prayers to be said by them that understand what they say if all these cannot prevail with the Church of Rome to do so much good to the peoples souls as to consent they should understand what in particular they are to ask of God certainly there is a great pertinacy of opinion and but a little charity to those precious souls for whom Christ dyed and for whom they must give account Indeed the old Toscan Rites and the Sooth-sayings of the Salian Priests Vix Sacerdotibus suis intellecta sed quae mutari vetat Religio were scarce understood by their Priests themselves but their Religion forbad to change them Thus anciently did the Osseni Hereticks of whom Epiphanius tells and the Heracleonitae of whom S. Austin gives account they taught to pray with obscure words and some others in Clemens Alexandrinus suppos'd that words spoken in a barbarous or unknown Tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are more powerful The Jewes also in their Synagogues at this day read Hebrew which the people but rarely understand and the Turks in their Mosques read Arabick of which the people know nothing But Christians never did so till they of Rome resolved to refuse to do benefit to the souls of the people in this instance or to bring them from intollerable ignorance SECT VIII THe Church of Rome hath to very bad purposes introduc'd and impos'd upon Christendom the worship and veneration of Images kissing them pulling off their hats kneeling falling down and praying before them which they call giving them due honor and veneration What external honor and veneration that is which they call due is express'd by the instances now reckon'd which the Council of Trent in their Decree enumerate and establish What the inward honor and worship is which they intend to them is intimated in the same Decree By the Images they worship Christ and his Saints and therefore by these Images they pass that honor to Christ and his Saints which is their due that is as their Doctors explain it Latria or Divine worship to God and Christ. Hyperdulia or more than service to the blessed Virgin Mary and service or doulia to other canoniz'd persons So that upon the whole the case is this What ever worship they give to God and Christ and his Saints they give it first to the Image and from the Image they pass it unto Christ and Christs servants And therefore we need not to enquire what actions they suppose to be fit or due For whatsoever is due to God to Christ or his Saints that worship they give to their respective Images all the same in external semblance and ministry as appears in all their great Churches and publick actions and processions and Temples and Festivals and endowments and censings and pilgrimages and prayers and vows made to them Now besides that these things are so like Idolatry that they can no way be reasonably excused of which we shall in the next Chapter give some account besides that they are too like the Religion of the Heathens and so plainly and frequently forbidden in the Old Testament and are so infinitely unlike the simple and wise the natural and holy the pure and the spiritual Religion of the Gospel besides that they are so infinite a scandal to the Jews and Turks and reproach Christianity it self amongst all strangers that live in their communion and observe their rites besides that they cannot pretend to be lawful but with the laborious artifices of many Metaphysical notions and distinctions which the people who most need them do least understand and that therefore the people worship them without these distinctions and directly put confidence in them and that it is impossible that ignorant persons who in all Christian countries make up the biggest number should do otherwise when otherwise they cannot understand it and besides that the thing it self with or without distinctions is a superstititious and forbidden an unlawful and unnatural worship of God who will not be worshipped by an Image we say that besides all this This whole Doctrine and practice is an innovation in the Christian Church not practis'd not indured in the primitive ages but expresly condemned by them and this is our present undertaking to evince The first notice we find of Images brought into Christian Religion was by Simon Magus indeed that was very Antient but very heretical and abominable but that he brought some in to be worshipped we find in Theodoret and S. Austin S. Irenaeus tells That the Gnosticks of Carpocrations did make Images and said that the form of Christ as he was in the flesh was made by Pilate and these Images they
the Authority of the Divine Scriptures But the Church of Rome does otherwise invents things of her own and imputes spiritual effects to and men are taught to go in wayes which Superstition hath invented and Interest does support But there is yet one great instance more of this irreligion Upon the Sacraments themselves they are taught to rely with so little of Moral and Vertuous Dispositions that the efficacy of one is made to lessen the necessity of the other and the Sacraments are taught to be so effectual by an inherent vertue that they are not so much made the instruments of Vertue as the Suppletory not so much to increase as to make amends for the want of Grace On which we shall not now insist because it is sufficiently remar'kd in our reproof of the Roman Doctrines in the matter of repentance SECT XII AFter all this if their Doctrines as they are explicated by their practice and the Commentaries of their greatest Doctors do make their Disciples guilty of Idolatry there is not any thing greater to deter men from them than that danger to their Souls which is imminent over them upon that account Their worshipping of Images we have already reprov'd upon the account of its novelty and innovation in Christian Religionâ— But that it is against good life a direct breach of the second Commandment an Act of Idolatry as much as the Heathens themselves were guilty of in relation to the second Commandmant is but too evident by the Doctrines of their own Leaders For if to give Divine honour to a Creature be Idolatry then the Doctors of the Church of Rome teach their people to commit Idolatry For they affirm That the same worship which is given to the Prototype or Principal the same is to be given to the image of it As we worship the Holy Trinity and Christ so we may worship the Images of the Trinity and of Christ that isâ— with Latriâ— or Divine honour This is the constant sentence of the Divines The Image is to be worshipped with the same honour and worship with which we worship those whose Image it is said Azorius their great Master of Casuistical Theology And this is the Doctrine of their great S. Thomas of Alexander of Ales Bonaventure Albertus Richardus Capreolus Cajetan Coster Valentia Vasquez the Jesuits of Colein Triers and Meniz approving Costers opinion Neither can this be eluded by saying that though the same Worship be given to the Image of Christ as to Christ himself yet it is not done in the same way for it is terminatively to Christ or God but relatively to the Image that is to the Image for God's or Christ's sake For this is that we complain of that they give the same worship to an image which is due to God for what cause soever it be done it matters not save onely that the excuse makes it in some sense the worse for the Apology For to do a thing which God hath forbidden and to say it is done for God's sake is to say that for his sake we displease him for his sake we give that to a Creature which is God's own propriety But besides this we affirm and it is of it self evident that whoever Christian or Heathen worships the image of any thing cannot possibly worship that image terminatively for the very being of an image is relative and therefore if the man understands but common sense he must suppose and intend that worship to be relative and a Heathen could not worship an image with any other worship and the second Commandment forbidding to worship the likeness of any thing in Heaven and earth does onely forbid that thing which is in Heaven to be worshipped by an image that is it forbids onely a relative worship For it is a contradiction to say this is the image of God and yet this is God and therefore it must be also a contradiction to worship an image with Divine worship terminatively for then it must be that the image of a thing is that thing whose image it is And therefore these Doctors teach the same thing which they condemn in the Heathens But they go yet a little further The Image of the Cross they worship with Divine honour and therefore although this Divine worship is but relative yet consequently the Cross it self is worshipped terminatively by Divine adoration For the Image of the Cross hath it relatively and for the Crosses sake therefore the Cross it self is the proper and full object of the Divine adoration Now that they do and teach this we charge upon them by undeniable Records For in the very Pontifical published by the Authority of Pope Clement the VIII these words are found The Legats Cross must be on the right hand because Latria or Divine honour is due to it And if Divine honour relative be due to the Logates Cross which is but the Image of Christs Cross then this Divine worship is terminated on Christs Cross which is certainly but a meer Creature To this purpose are the words of Almaiâ— The Images of the Trinity and of Christ and of the Cross are to be adored with the worship of Latria that is Divine Now if the Image of the Cross be the intermedial then the Cross it self whose Image that is must be the last object of this Divine worship and if this be not Idolatry it can never be told what is the notion of the Word But this passes also into other real effects And well may the Cross it self be worshipped by Divine worship when the Church places her hopes of salvation on the Cross for so she does says Aquinas and makes one the argument of the other and proves that the Church places her hopes of salvation on the Cross that is on the instrument of Christs Passion by a hymn which she uses in her Offices but this thing we have remark'd above upon another occasion Now although things are brought to a very ill state when Christians are so probably and apparently charg'd with Idolatry and that the excuses are too fine to be understood by them that need them yet no excuse can acquit these things when the most that is or can be said is this that although that which is Gods due is given to a Creature yet it is given with some difference of intention and Metaphysical abstraction and separation especially since if there can be Idolatry in the worshipping of an Image it is certain that a relative Divine worship is this Idolatry for no mau that worships an Image in that consideration or formality can make the Image the last object Either therefore the Heathens were not Idolaters in the worshipping of an Image or else these mâ—n are The Heathens did indeed infinitely more violaâ—e the first Commandment but against the second precisely and separately from the first the transgression is alike The same also is the case in their worshipping the consecrated Bread and Wine Of which how far they will
and yet Subjects to a Forreign Power But we need not trouble our selves to reckon the Evills consequent to this Procedure themselves have own'd them even the very worst of things The Rebellion of a Clergy-man against his Prince is not Treason because he is not his Princes Subject It is expresly taught by Emanuel SÃ and because the French-men in zeal to their own King could not endure this Doctrine these words were left out of the Edition of Paris but still remain in the Editions of Antwerp and Colien But the thing is a general Rule That all Ecclesiastical persons are free from Secular Iurisdiction in causes Criminal whether Civil or Ecclesiastical and this Rule is so general that it admits no exception and so certain that it cannot be denied unless you will contradict the Principles of Faith So Father Suarez And this is pretended to be allowed by Councills Sacred Canons and all the Doctors of Laws Humane and Divine for so Bellarmine affirms Against which since it is a matter of Faith and Doctrine which we now charge upon the Church of Rome as an Enemy to publick Government we shall think it sufficient to oppose against their Pretension the plain and easie words of St. Paul Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers Every soul That is saith St. Chrysostome whether he be a Monk or an Evangelist a Prophet or an Apostle Of the like iniquity when it is extended to its uâ—most Commentary which the Commenters of the Church of Rome put upon it is the Divine Right of the Seal of Consession which they make so Sacred to serve such ends as they have chosen that it may not be broken up to save the lives of Princes or of the whole Republick saith Tolet No not to save all the World said Henriquez Not to save an Innocent not to keep the World from burning or Religion from perversion or all the Sacraments from demolition Indeed it is lawful saith Bellarmine if a Treason be known to a Priest in Confession and he may in general words give notice to a pious and Catholick Prince but not to a Heretick and that was acutely and prudently said by him said Father Suarez Father Binet is not so kind even to the Catholick Princes for he sayes that it is better that all the Kings of the World should perish than that the Seal of Confession should be so much as once broken and this is the Catholick Doctrine said Eudaemon Iohannes in his Apology for Garnet and for it he also quotes Suarez But it is enough to have nam'd this How little care these men take of the lives of Princes and the Publick Interest which they so greatly undervalue to every trifling fancy of their own is but too evident by these Doctrines SECT III. THe last thing we shall remark for the instruction and caution of our charges is not the least The Doctrines of the Church of Rome are great Enemies to the dignity and security to the powers and lives of Princes And this we shall briefly prove by setting down the Doctrines themselves and their consequent Practises And here we observe that not onely the whole Order of Jesuites is a great Enemy to Monarchy by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope by making the Pope the Supreme Monarch of Christians but they also teach that it is a Catholick Doctrine the Doctrine of the Church The Pope hath a Supreme Power of disposing the Temporal things of all Christians in order to a Spiritual good saith Bellarmine And Becanus discourses of this very largely in his Book of the English Controversie Printed by Albin at Mentz 1612. But because this Book was order'd to be purg'd una litura potest we shall not insist upon it but there is as bad which was never censur'd Bellarmine sayes that the Ecclesiastical Republick can command and compel the Temporal which is indeed its Subject to change the Administration and to depose Princes and to appoint others when it cannot otherwise defend the Spiritual good And F. Suarez sayes the same The power of the Pope extends it self to the coercion of Kings with Temporal punishments and depriving them of their Kingdoms when necessity requires nay this power is more necessary over Princes than over Subjects The same also is taught by Santarel in his Book of Heresie and Schism printed at Rome 1626. But the mischief of this Doctrine proceeds a little further Cardinal Tolet affirms and our Countryman Father Bridgewater commends the saying That when a Prince is excommunicate before the Denunciation the Subjects are not absolved from their Oath of Allegiance as Cajetan sayes well yet when it is denounc'd they are not only absolved from their obedience but are bound not to obey unless the fear of death or loss of goods excuse them which was the case of the English Catholicks in the time of Henry the VIII And F. Creswel sayes it is the sentence of all Catholicks that Subjects are bound to expel Heretical Princes if they have strength enough and that to this they are tyed by the Commandment of God the most strict tie of Conscience and the extreme danger of their Souls Nay even before the sentence is declar'd though the Subjects are not bound to it yet lawfully they may deny obedience to an Heretical Prince said Gregory de Valentia It were an endless labour to transcribe the horrible Doctrines which are preach'd in the Jesuits School to the shaking of the Regal power of such Princes which are not of the Roman Communion The whole Oeconomy of it is well describ'd by Bellarmine who affirms That it does not belong to Monks or other Ecclesiasticks to commit Murthers neither doe the Popes use to proceed that way But their manner is first Fatherly to correct Princes then by Ecclesiastical Censures to deprive them of the Communion then to absolve their Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance and to deprive them of their Kingly Dignity And what then The execution belongs to others This is the way of the Popes thus wisely and moderately to break Kings in pieces We delight not to aggravate evill things We therefore forbear to set down those horrid things spoken by SÃ Mariana Santarel Carolus Scribanius and some others It is enough that Suarez sayes An Excommunicate King may with impunity be depos'd or kill'd by any one This is the case of Kings and Princes by the Sentence of the chiefest Roman Doctors And if it be objected That we are commanded to obey Kings not to speak evill of them not to curse them no not in our heart there is a way found out to answer these little things For though the Apostle commands that we should be subject to higher Powers and obey Kings and all that are in Authority It is true you must and so you may well enough for all this for the Pope can make that he who is a King
yet Bellarmine dares not deny it but makes for it a crude and a cold Apology Now concerning this Article it will not be necessary to declare the Sentence of the Church of England and Ireland because it is notorious to all the World and is expresly oppos'd against this Roman Doctrine by Laws Articles Confessions Homilies the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy the Book of Christian Institution and the many excellent Writings of King Iames of Blessed Memory of our Bishops and other Learned Persons against Bellarmine Parsons Eudaemon Iohannes Creswel and others And nothing is more notorious than that the Church of England is most dutiful most zealous for the right of Kings and within these four and twenty years She hath had many Martyrs and very very many Confessors in this Cause It is true that the Church of Rome does recriminate in this point and charges some Calvinists and Presbyterians with Doctrines which indeed they borrowed from Rome using their Arguments making use of their Expressions and pursuing their Principles But with them in this Article we have nothing to do but to reprove the Men and condemn their Doctrine as we have done all along by private Writings and publick Instruments We conclude these our Reproofs with an Exhoriation to our respective Charges to all that desire to be sav'd in the day of the Lord Iesus that they decline from these horrid Doctrines which in their birth are new in their growth are scandalous in their proper consequents are infinitely dangerous to their Souls and hunt for their precious life But therefore it is highly fit that they also should perceive their own advantages and give God praise that they are immur'd from such infinite dangers by the Holy Precepts and Holy Faith taught and commanded in the Church of England and Ireland in which the Word of God is set before them as a Lanthorn to their feet and a Light unto their eyes and the Sacraments are fully administred according to Christs Institution and Repentance is preach'd according to the measures of the Gospel and Faith in Christ is propounded according to the Rule of the Apostles and the measures of the Churches Apostolical and Obedience to Kings is greatly and sacredly urg'd and the Authority and Order of Bishops is preserv'd against the Usurpation of the Pope and the Invasion of Schismaticks and Aerians new and old and Truth and Faith to all men is kept and preach'd to be necessary and inviolable and the Commandements are expounded with just severity and without scruples and Holiness of Life is urg'd upon all men as indispensably necessary to Salvation and therefore without any allowances tricks and little artifices of escaping from it by easie and imperfect Doctrines and every thing is practis'd which is useful to the saving of our Souls and Christs Merits and Satisfaction are intirely relyed upon for the pardon of our sins and the necessity of Good Works is universally taught and our Prayers are holy unblameable edifying and understood they are according to the measures of the Word of God and the practice of all Saints In this Church the Children are duly carefully and rightly Baptiz'd and the Baptiz'd in their due time are Confirm'd and the Confirm'd are Communicated and Penitents are Absolv'd and the Impenitents punished and discouraged and Holy Marriage in all men is preferr'd before unclean Concubinate in any and Nothing is wanting that God and his Christ hath made necessary to Salvation Behold we set before you Life and Death Blessing and Cursing Safety and Danger Choose which you will but remember that the Prophets who are among you have declar'd to you the way of Salvation Now the Lord give you understanding in all things and reveal even this also unto you Amen FINIS 1 Cor. 6.4 Phil. â— 14 Cont. Hermogen De vera side in Moral â—â—g 72. c. 1. reg 80. c. 22. Epist. Pasch. 2 De incar Christi Lib. 2. cap. de origen error lib. 7. contr Celsum Can comperimus de consecr dist 2. in 1 Cor. 11. Eccles. 11.6 De uniâ— Eccles cap. 6. * Ecclesia ex facris canoniciâ— Scripturiâ— osteudenda est quaque exillis aftendi non potest Ecclesia non est S. Aug. deâ—â—tit Eccles. c. 4. c. 3. Ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam ibi deat namus causum nostram * Lib. Cano discipl Eccles. Angliâ— injunct Regiâ— Elis. A. D. 1571. Can. de concionatoribus â—at 3. Calend. Mart. Thâ—ssaâ—onicae a Quod sit metrum regula aâ— scientia credendorum Summae de Eccles. l. 2. c. 203. b Novum Symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat quia est capuâ— fidei Christians cujus authoritate omnia quae ad filem spectant firmantur roborantur q. 59. a. 1. art 2. sicut potest novum symbolum condere ita potest novos articulos supra aelios multiplicare c Papa potest sacere novos arâ—iâ—ulos fidei id est quod modo credi oporteat cum sic prius non oportereâ— in cap. cum Christ. de hate n. 2. d Papa potest inducere novum articulum fidei in idem e Super 2. Decret de jurejur c. minis n. 1. f Apud Petrum Ciezam â—o 2. instit peruinae cap. â—9 * Iohannes Clemens aliquos folia Theodereti laceravit abjecit in socum in quibus contrae Transubstanâ—iaetionem praeclare disseruit Et cum non itae pridem Originem excuderent totum illud capuâ— sextum Iohannis quod commentabaetur Origenes omiserunt mutilum ediderunt librum propter candem causam * Sixtus Senensis Epist. Dedicat. ad Pium Quint. laudat Pontificem in haec verba Expurgari emaculari curâ—stâ— omnium Catholicorum Scriptorum at praeciput veterum Patrum scriptae Index Expurgator Madrili 1612. in Indiâ—e libror. expurgatorum pag. 39. Gal. 1. 8. Part 2. act 6. c. â— De potest Eccles consiâ— â— De Consiâ— author l. 2. c. 17. Section 1. Sess. 21. cap. 4. Part. 1. Sum. tit 10. c. 3. In art 18. Luther * Intravit ut vulpes regnavit ut leo moriebatur ut canis de eo saepius dictum Tertull. l. ad Martyr c. 1. S. Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 15. apud Pamelium 11. Concil Nicen. 1. can 12. Conc. Ancyr c. 5. Concil Laodicen c. 2. S. Basil. in Ep. canonicis habentur in Nomocanone Photii can 73. * Communis opittio DD. tam Theologorum quaem Canonicorum quod sunt ex abundantiae meritorum quae ultrae mensuram demeritorum suorum sancti sustinuerunt Christi Sum. Angel v. Indulg 9. * Lib. 1. de indulgent cap. 2. 3. a In 4. l. sent dist 19. q. 2. b Ibid. dist 20. q. 3. Ubi supra In lib. 4. sent Verb. Indulgentia Vt quid non praevides tibâ— in die judicii quando nemo poterit per alium excusari vel defendi sed unusquisque sufficiens onus erit sibi ipsi Th. ae Kempis l. 1. de imit c. 24. a Homil. 1.