injury the Bishop had done the Iesuits in forbidding them to Preach without licenses from him or till such time as they produced those which they had from his predecessours then they declare the Bishops See to be vacant and caused it to be published in the Churches that the Iesuits did not need any license from the Bishop they null all censures against them recall all Orders published by the Bishop for the good Government of his Diocese The Bishop in the mean time privately sends monitory letters to the people to bear the present persecution with patience but by no means to associate with or to hear those excommunicated persons who had offered such affronts to his authority and jurisdiction by which means the people not being prevailed upon they with a great summ of money procure some secular Iudges to forme a judicial process against the Bishop for Sedition to which end they suborn witnesses against him but could make evidence of nothing tending to sedition but forbidding the Iesuits to Preach This not taking they attempt another way to expose him to contempt upon the Sacred day of their holy Father Ignatius they put their Scholars in Mascarade and so personating the Bishop and his Clergy they make a procession through the Town in the middle of the day and sung the Pater noster and Ave Maria as they went with horrible blasphemies perverting both of them to the abuse of the Bishop and his party instead of saying libera nos à malo they said libera nos à Palafox which was the name of the Bishop and others had the Episcopal staffe hanging at a Horses taile and the Miter on their stirrups to let them see how much they had it under their feet others sung Lampoons against the Bishop others did such things which are not fit to be repeated Which were parts of this glorious triumph of the Iesuits over the Bishop and his Authority But in the midst of this excessive jollity the King of Spains Navy arrived wherein the Kings commands were brought for removing the Vice-Roy who was the great Friend of the Iesuits the news of this abated their heat and the Bishop secretly conveys himself into his Palace which the people hearing of ran with incredible numbers to embrace him for several dayes together upon which the Iesuits complain to the old Vice-Roy of a sedition and obtained from him a command to the Chapter not to yield to the Bishops jurisdiction which caused a great division among them one part adhering to the Bishop and another to the Iesuits The Bishop therefore seeing the differences to rise higher and the Schism to be greater and the miserable condition the Church was in among them was fain to submit and promise to innovate nothing but to wait the Popes decision Not long after another Ship arrived from Spain with an Express from the King wherein the Vice-Roy was commanded immediately to surrender his Government and was severely rebuked for assisting the Iesuits against the Bishop and all the acts in that matter were nulled by the Kings authority but the Iesuits according to their usual integrity gave out just the contrary to the Orders received and framed letters on purpose which they dispersed among the people But these arts never holding long when the Vice-Roy's Successour was established the truth brake forth and the Bishop returned to the exercise of his former Authority But notwithstanding the Kings declaration and the Popes Breve was now published among them the Iesuits persisted still in their obstinate disobedience and although excommunicated by the Bishop yet continued to Preach and act as before And hereby we have a plain discovery what a mighty regard the Iesuits have to the Papal See if it once oppose their designes and what an effectual instrument of Peace and Vnity the Popes Authority is for they presently found wayes enough to decline the force of the Popes Bull. For 1. They said it could have no force there because it was not received by the Council of the Indies it seems pasce oves and dabo tibi claves c. signifie nothing in the Indies unless the Kings Council pleases or rather unless the Iesuits please to let it do so 2. They pleaded bravely for themselves that the priviledges granted them by the Popes were in consideration of their merits and so were of the nature of contracts and Covenants and therefore could not be revoked by the Pope 3. That the Popes constitutions in this matter were not received by the Church and Laws which are not received are no Laws But as the Bishop well urges against them if these wayes of interpreting the Popes Bulls be allowed his Authority will signifie nothing and all his Constitutions shall have no more force than those against whom they are directed be pleased to yield to them and it will be impossible to preserve peace in the Church if it shall be in the power of offenders to declare whether the Laws against them are to be received for Laws or no. But this saith he is the inspiration and illumination of the Iesuits and their method of interpreting the Papal constitutions which he heard very often from their own mouths in the frequent conferences he had with them about these matters But they had another way to decline the Kings Authority for the King and his Council being all Lay-men they had nothing to do in Ecclesiastical matters By which means as the Bishop saith they make themselves superiour both to King and Pope and free from all jurisdiction either spiritual or temporal And I dare appeal to the most indifferent person whether any Doctrine broached by the greatest Fanaticks among us ever tended more to the dissolution of Government the countenancing sedition the perpetuating Schisms in the Church than these of the Iesuits do And therefore the Bishop saith that he had rather lay down his life than by yielding up his jurisdiction expose his Authority to Contempt and the Church to the continual danger of Schisms and by many weighty arguments perswades the Pope if he truly designed the peace and flourishing of the Church speedily and effectually to reform the whole Order of the Iesuits without which he saith it is impossible especially in those remoter parts for the Bishops to preserve any Authority And besides other corruptions among them he tells strange stories of their wayes of propagating Christian Religion in China and other neighbour Nations which they boast so much of at this distance but he saith they who are so much nearer and understand those things better have cause to lament the infinite scandals which they give to the Christian Religion in doing it The account which he gives of these things this Bishop protests he sends to the Pope only to clear his own Conscience that he might not be condemned at the day of judgement for concealing that which he so certainly knew to be true by those who were eye-witnesses of it Their first work is to
by our Church Art 25. he saith they are not absolutely rejected as Sacraments but as Sacraments of the same Nature with Baptism and the Lords Supper which they yield to For Transubstantiation which is utterly denyed by our Church Art 28. he very subtilly interprets it of a carnal presence of Christs Body which he grants to be repugnant to Scripture and to destroy the nature of a Sacrament but they do believe Christs Body to be present after the manner of a Spirit and so our Church doth not condemn theirs As to communion in both kinds asserted by our Church Art 30. he saith it is not condemned by the Council of Trent therein which only Anathematizes those who make it necessary to Salvation which our Church mentions not and however we condemn communion in one kind Canus proves him not to be guilty of Heresie who should say that the Church hath erred therein The 31 Article condemns the Sacrifice of the Masse i.e. saith he independently on the Sacrifice of the Crosse which is propitiatory of it self and the other only by vertue of it The 32. of the lawfulness of Priests Marriage he understands of the Law of God in respect of which it is the most common opinion among them he saith that it is lawful The 34. about Traditions he interprets of those which are not Doctrinal The Book of Homilies approved Art 35. he understands as they do Books approved by their Church not of every sentence contained therein but the substance of the Doctrine and he grants there are many good things contained therein For the 36. of consecration of Bishops and Ministers he proves from Vasquez Conink Arcudius and Innocent 4. that our Church hath all the essentials of Ordination required in Scripture and if the difference of form of words did null our Ordinations it would do those of the Greek Church too The last Article he examins is Art 37. Of the Civil Magistrates power in opposition to the Popes Authority and he grants that the King may be allowed a Supermacy i.e. such as may not be taken away by any one as his Superiour and that by custome a sufficient right accrues to him over all Ecclesiastical causes and that by divine and natural right he hath jurisdiction over all Ecclesiastical persons so far as the publick good is concerned And withall he grants that we yield no spiritual jurisdiction to the King and no more than is contended for by the French and the Parliament of Paris That part which denyes the Popes jurisdiction in England he saith may be understood of the Popes challenging England to be a Fee of the Roman See but if it be otherwise understood he makes use of many Scholastick distinctions of actus signatus exercitus c. the sense of which is that it is in some cases lawful for a temporal Prince to withdraw his obedience from the Pope but leaves it to be discussed whether he had sufficient reason for doing it But there can be no Heresie in matter of fact it remains then according to the sense put upon our Articles by him with the help of his Scholastick subtleties we differ no more from them in points of faith than they do from one another For such kind of distinctions and senses are they forced to use and put upon each others opinions to excuse them from disagreeing in articles of faith and there is no reason that we should not enjoy the benefit of them as well as they so that either they must be guilty of differing in matters of faith or we are not § 16. 3. They plead that their differences are only confined to their Schools and do not disturb the peace of the Church But there is as little truth in this as there is Vnity in their Church as plainly appears by what hath been said already Was the Controversie about the Popes temporal power confined to the Schools did not that make for several Ages as great disturbances in the Church as were ever known in it upon any quarrel of Religion Were the Controversies between the Bishops and the Monks confined to their Schools about the extent of the Episcopal jurisdiction in former times or in the renewing of this Hierarchical Warr as one of the Iansenists calls it in France But these things are at large discovered already I shall only adde one thing more which seems more like a dispute of the Schools between the several Orders among them about the immaculate conception and it will easily appear that whereever that dispute began it did not rest in the Schools if we consider the tumults and disturbances which have been made only on the account of it This Controversie began in the Schools about the beginning of the 14 Century when Scotus set up for a new Sect in opposition to Thomas Aquinas and among other points of Controversie he made choice of this to distinguish his followers by but proposed it himself very timerously as appears by his resolution of it in his Book on the Sentences however his followers boast that in this blessed quarrel he was sent for from Oxford to Paris from Paris to Cologne to overthrow all Adversaries and that he did great wonders every where But however this were there were some not long after him who boldly asserted what he doubtfully proposed of whom Franciscus Mayronis is accounted the first after him Petrus Aureolus Occam and the whole order of Franciscans But the great strength of this opinion lay not in the wit and subtilty of the defenders of it nor in any arguments from Scripture or Antiquity but in that which they called the Piety of it i. e. that it tended to advance the honour of the B. Virgin For after the worship of her came to be so publick and solemn in their Church I do not in the least wonder that they were willing to believe her to be without sin I much rather admire they do not believe all their Canonized Saints to have been so too and I am sure the same reasons will hold for them all But this Opinion by degrees obtaining among the people it grew scandalous for any man to oppose it So Walsingham saith towards the latter end of this Century the Dominicans Preaching the contrary opinion against the command first of the Bishops in France and then of the King and Nobles they were out-lawed by the King and absolutely forbid to go out of their own Convents for fear of seducing the people and not only so but to receive any one more into their Order that so the whole Order might in a little time be extinguished The occasion of this persecution arose from a disturbance which happened in Paris upon this Controversie one Ioh. de Montesono publickly read against the immaculate conception at which so great offence was taken that he was convented before the Faculty of Sorbonne but he declared that he had done nothing but by advice of the chief of his Order
preserve the honour of Regicides it was but seven months and twenty four dayes before Ravaillac perfected that work which the other had begun This observation I owe to an ingenuous and learned Doctor of the Sorbon yet living who detests these practices and doctrines and himself lyes under the same censure there And the more to abuse the world on the same day a Book of Mariana's was suspended which those who look no farther than the name might imagine was the dangerous Book so much complained of but upon search it appears to be a Book quite of another nature concerning Coynes The latter instance concerns the Irish Remonstrance the account of which I take from Caron the publisher of it The Popish Clergy of Ireland a very few excepted were accused of Rebellion for opposing themselves to the Kings Authority by the instigation of the Popes Nuncio after which followed a meeting of the Popish Bishops where they banished the Kings Lieutenant and took the Royal Authority upon themselves almost all the Clergy and a great part of the people joyned with them and therefore it was necessary since the Kings return to give him better satisfaction concerning their Allegiance and to decline the Oath of Allegiance which they must otherwise have taken some of them agree upon this Remonstrance to present to the King the news of which was no sooner come to Rome but Cardinal Barberin sends a Letter to the Irish Nobility 8 July A. D. 1662. to bid them take heed of being drawn into the ditch by those blind guides who had subscribed to some propositions testifying their Loyalty to the King which had been before condemned by the Apostolick See After this the Popes Nuncio at Brussels Iuly 21. 1662. sends them word how displeasing their Remonstrance was at Rome and that after diligent examination by the Cardinals and Divines they found it contained Propositions already condemned by Paul 5. and Innocent 10. and therefore the Pope gave him order to publish this among them that he was so far from approving their Remonstrance that he did not so much as permit it or connive at it and was extremely grieved that the Irish Nobility were drawn into it and therefore condemned it in this form That it could not be kept without breach of faith according to the Decree of Paul 5. and that it denyed the Popes Authority in matters of faith according to that of Innocent 10. By this very late instance we see what little countenance they receive from Rome who offer to give any reasonable security to the King of their Loyalty and by the Popes own Declaration the giving of it is an injury to the faith and a denying his Supremacy For which we are to understand that A. D. 1648. when the Papists were willing to make as good terms for themselves as they could and it was objected to them that they held Principles inconsistent with Civil Government viz. that the Pope can absolve them from their obedience that he can depose and destroy Heretical Magistrates that he can dispense with all Oaths and contracts they make with those whom they call Hereticks upon which they met together and to save themselves from banishment resolved them in the Negative but no sooner was this heard at Rome but the sacred Congregation condemned this resolution as heretical and the subscribers as lyable to the penalties against those who deny the Popes Authority in matters of faith upon which they are cited to appear at Rome and Censures and Prisons are there prepared for them The summ of it then is that they can give no security of their Loyalty to the King against the Popes power to depose him and absolve his Subjects from whatever Oaths they make to him or they must be accounted Hereticks at Rome for so doing For this good old Cause is as much still in request at Rome as ever and it is in their power to be accounted Hereticks at Rome or bad Subjects in their own Countrey but one of them they cannot avoid So much may suffice to shew that the most dangerous Principles of Fanaticism either as to Enthusiasm or Civil Government are owned and allowed in the Church of Rome and therefore the number of Fanaticks among us is very unjustly charged upon the Reading the Scriptures in our own Language CHAP. V. Of the Divisions of the Roman Church The great pretence of Vnity in the Church of Rome considered The Popes Authority the fountain of that Vnity what that Authority is which is challenged by the Popes over the Christian World the disturbances which have happened therein on the account of it The first revolt of Rome from the Empire caused by the Popes Baronius his Arguments answered Rebellion the foundation of the greatness of that Church The cause of the strict League between the Popes and the posterity of Charles Martel The disturbances made by Popes in the new Empire Of the quarrels of Greg. 7. with the Emperour and other Christian Princes upon the pretence of the Popes Authority More disturbances on that account in Christendome than any other matter of Religion Of the Schisms which have happened in the Roman Church particularly those after the time of Formosus wherein his Ordinations were nulled by his successours the Popes opposition to each other in that Age the miserable state of that Church then described Of the Schisms of latter times by the Italick and Gallick factions the long continuance of them The mischief of those Schisms on their own principles Of the divisions in that Church about matters of Order and Government The differences between the Bishops and the Monastick Orders about exemptions and priviledges the history of that Controversie and the bad success the Popes had in attempting to compose it Of the quarrel between the Regulars and Seculars in England The continuance of that Controversie here and in France The Jesuits enmity to the Episcopal Order and jurisdiction the hard case of the Bishop of Angelopolis in America The Popes still favour the Regulars as much as they dare The Jesuits way of converting the Chinese discovered by that Bishop Of the differences in matters of Doctrine in that Church They have no better way to compose them than we The Popes Authority never truly ended one Controversie among them Their wayes to evade the decisions of Popes and Councils Their dissensions are about matters of faith The wayes taken to excuse their own differences will make none between them and us manifested by Sancta Clara's exposition of the 39 Articles Their disputes not confined to their Schools proved by a particular instance about the immaculate conception the infinite scandals confessed by their own Authors to have been in their Church about it From all which it appears that the Church of Rome can have no advantage in point of Vnity above ours 2. § 1. THE other thing objected as flowing from the promiscuous reading the Scriptures is the number of our Sects and the
Pope to express her love to him that neither tribulation nor distress nor persecution nor famine nor nakednesâ— nor sword nor death nor life nor principalities c. should be able to separate her from the love of St. Peter in Christ Iesus our Lord whom she meant by St. Peter is very easie to understand according to the constant dialect of this Pope whose Bulls and Anathema's against Princes ran in St. Peters name But we leave Baronius admiring the Providence of God that when Princes and Bishops forsook the Church of Rome he raised up Agnes the Emperours Mother against her own Son and Beatrix and Matilda of near kindred to the Emperour to support the Pope against him and not long after we find him acknowledging that Rodolphus was confirmed by the Pâ—pe and Henry again excommunicated by him in the form of which excommunication extant in Baronius he desires all the World to take notice that it is in the Popes power to take away Empires Kingdomes Principalities Dutchies Marquisates Earldomes and the possessions of all men from them and give them to whom he shall think fit But doth Baronius in the least go about to explain or mitigate this no but instead of it he complains of the prosperity of the wicked because Henry obtained after this a signal victory over Rodolphus in his fourth Battel wherein he was wounded in his right hand and say the German Historians acknowledged therein the just judgement of God being near his death that being the hand wherewith he had sworn fidelity to the Emperour and then told his friends whatever the Pope did swear by St. Peter and St. Paul that the Popes command made him break his Oath and take that honour upon him which did not belong to him and he wished they who had put him upon it would consider how they led men to their eternal damnation by such courses which having said with great grief of mind saith Helmoldus he dyed And the Pope himself did not escape much better for the Emperour marches into Italy with a great Army takes in all the Towns which opposed him deposes Hildebrand by the Bishops of his party as the cause of all the Warr and Bloodshed and sets up Gibert of Ravenna under the name of Clement 3. besieges Rome and the Pope not trusting the Citizens who soon left him secures himself in a Castle from whence escaping to Salerno he not long after there dyes The only good thing we read of him is that which Sigebert and Florentius Wigorniensis and Matthew Paris report of him from the testimony of the Bishop of Mentz that he called when he was dying one of his Friends to him and confessed that it was through the instigation of the Devil that he had made so great a disturbance in the Christian world Whether they who applaud and admire him in the Roman Church as particularly Baronius who recommended him as a pattern to Paul 5. and rejoyced to see a man of his spirit to succeed him will believe this or no we matter not since there is so apparent evidence for the truth of the thing But we not only see the whole Empire put into a flame under pretence of this authority of the Pope and Italy laid wast by it to so great a degree saith Sigonius that Mothers devoured their Children for meer hunger but we may find him as busie though not with equal success with other Princes of Christendome He threatens the King of France to deprive him if he did not submit to him and that his Subjects should certainly revolt from him unless they would renounce their Christianity which are the words of his Bull in Baronius but finding no amendment the next year he sends another wherein he tells him that if according to his hard and impenitent heart he did treasure up the wrath of God and St. Peter by the help of God he would excommunicate him and all that should obey him the same year he excommunicates in Italy Robert Duke of Apulia Prince of the Normans and Gilulphus Prince of Saierno and sends an army against them He threatens Alphmsus King of Spain with the Sword of St. Peter he excommunicates Nicephorus Emperour of Constantinople he not only deprived Boleslaus King of Poland of his Kingdom but puts the whole Kingdom under an interdict and forbids the Bishops anointing any for King but whom he should appoint Of all the Princes of Christendome I find none so much in his favour as our William the first of the Norman Race for he coming into a Kingdom where he found no interest but what his Sword made him keeps a fair correspondency with the Pope receives his Decrees refuses to enter into an alliance against him which so pleased him whom all other Princes hated that he sends to him in his distress to come to his assistance to divert the Emperour and calls him the Iewel of Princes and saith that he ought to be the rule of obedience to all other Princes but yet William himself could not escape his threatnings when he forbad the Bishops of his Kingdom to go to Rome and utterly denyed taking any oath of fidelity to the Pope which he pressed upon him by his Legat although Baronius make him to submit to the Pope upon the receipt of his letter whereas the letters of Lanfranc and the King produced by himself expresly contradict it This we are sure of that William all his time practised that right of investiture of Bishop by a staff and a ring which had been the first cause of the quarrel between the Emperour and the Pope and which he had 〈◊〉 severely forbidden in several Councils a Rome thereby to maintain his own authority by taking off the Bishops of several Kingdoms from any aknowledgement of dependence on their own Soveraign Princes which was the truest cause of all the quarrels of Christendome raised and somented by this Hell-brand as the Centuriatours according to their Dialect call him And although Onuphrius in his life confess that this Popes designs if they had taken effect would have quite overthrown the Majesty of the Empire and that he was the first Pope who ever attempted such things yet he having now started so fair a game though he dyed in the pursuit of it his successours retrieved it and followed it with all their might and skill thence we read that Vrban being made Pope by Hildebrands faction in opposition to the Emperour renews the sentence of excommunication against him and in the Council at Piacenza not content barely to excommunicate him in the presence of Agnes or Adelais the Emperours wife he uttered saith Vrspergensis very reproachful speeches against him but he had been no fit successour for Hildebrand who could content himself with bare words especially having declared his resolution to follow the steps of so worthy a predecessour and so he did to
and to have any authority over them because they look on themselves as a free State There can be but one lawful Head of the Church by their own principles and only they are truly united to the Church who are in conjunction with the lawful Head and therefore it follows upon their own principles that they must be in a State of Schisme who are united with any other than the true Head What then signifie the boasts of Vnity in the Roman Church if they cannot prevent the falling of their members into such dangerous Schisms To what purpose is it to tell us of one Head of the Church to whom all must submit if there have been several pretenders to that Headship and the Church hath been a long time divided which of them was the true Unless all their Vnity comes to this at last that they have an excellent Vnity among them if they could all agree And such an Vnity may be had any where But if all were agreed what need any means of agreement by one universal Head or what can that universal Head signifie to making Vnity when his title to his Headship becomes a cause of greater divisions May not we say upon better grounds that taking away the Popes authority would tend much more to the peace of the Church since that hath been the cause of so great disturbances in the world and is to this day of one of the greatest differences between the several parts of the Catholick Church For as things now stand in the Christian World the Bishop of Rome is so far from being the Fountain of Vnity that he is much rather the Head of Contention and the great cause of the divisions of the Christian Church § 7. 3. The differences have been as great in the Roman Church as out of it both as to matters of order and doctrine 1. For matters of Order and Government Have not the controversies between the Regulars and Seculars among them even here in England been managed with as much heat and warmth as to matter of Episcopal jurisdiction as between those of the Church of England and the dissenters from it Neither is this any lately started controversie among them but hath continued ever since the prevalency of the Mendicant Fryers and their pretences of exemptions from Episcopal jurisdiction and encroaching upon the office of the Parochial Clergy For no sooner did the Fryers begin publickly under pretence of priviledges to take upon them to Preach without licence from the Bishops where they pleased and to take other offices of the Parochial Clergy out of their hands but great opposition was made against them by all the learned men who were friends to the Episcopal power and the peace of the Church Which being a matter of concernment for us to understand I shall give a faithful account of it from the best Writers of their own Church Assoon as the Monastick orders were found to be very serviceable to the Interests of the Court of Rome it was thought convenient to keep them in an immediate dependence upon the Pope in whatever Countrey they were From hence came the great favour of Popes to them and their willingness to grant them almost what priviledges they desired because receiving them only from the plenitude of the Popes power they were obliged to maintain and defend that from whence they derived them At first when they led a more properly Monastick life the priviledges granted them seem to be nothing else but exempting them from some troubles which were inconsistent with it either relating to their persons or the estates they enjoyed After this they began to complain of the numbers of people flocking to their Churches as inconsistent with their private and retired life from hence we first read that publick Masses by the Bishop were forbid in Monasteries to prevent a concourse of people and especially of Women to them But a long time after this they lived in subjection to the Bishops and meddled no more in Ecclesiastical than in Secular matters So Charles M. in his Capitular commands them to keep within their Monasteries to be subject to their Bishops and to meddle in no Ecclesiastical matters without the express command of the Bishop But as the Popes increased their authority the Monks inlarged their priviledges and procured exemptions from Episcopal jurisdiction which yet was not pleasing to those who valued the Churches peace above the priviledges of the Monastick orders These exemptions are therefore highly condemned by St. Bernard though a Monk himself as tending to the dissolution of the Ecclesiastical Government and by Ivo Carnotensis who saith he grew weary of his Episcopal Government by reason of them Petrus Blesensis hath an Epistle written to Pope Alexander 3. in the name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury against the Abbot of Malmsbury who refused subjection to the Bishop of Salisbury and being cited by the Archbishop to appear before him for his contempt he declared he would be subject to none but the Pope and said they were pittiful Abbots who did not wholly exempt themselves from the Bishops power when they might for an annual pension to the Pope obtain an absolute exemption Therefore the Archbishop saith it was time for them to complain because this contagion did spread it self far and the Abbots set themselves against their Bishops and Metropolitans and the Popes by indulging these things did command disobedience and Rebellion and arm the Children against their Fathers but these and many other complaints signified nothing in the Court of Rome as long as their profit and interest were advanced by it And although we read of many affronts which the Monks put upon the Bishops before the time of the Mendicant Fryers yet their insolency grew the highest when they took upon them to Preach in Parochial Churches and hear Confessions without the Bishops leave Thence the Vniversity of Paris published the Book De periculis novissimorum temporum which although written by S. Amour went abroad in the name of all the Divines there as appears by the beginning of it wherein a Character is given of those persons who should make the last times so troublesome they should be lovers of themselves not enduring reproof covetous both of riches and applause high-minded because they would not be in subjection to the Bishops but be set before them and therefore disobedient to their spiritual Fathers And such as these are said to creep into houses which the ordinary Gloss expounds of those who enter into the houses of those who are under anothers charge these enter not by the door as the Rectors of Churches do but steal into them like Thieves and Robbers and leading captive silly women is their setting them against the Bishops and perswading them to a Monastick life These are likewise false teachers who though never so learned and holy teach without being sent and none are duly sent but such as are chosen and
after the time of Formosus wherein his Ordinations were nulled by his successors the Popes opposition to each other in that Age the miserable state of that Church then described Of the Schisms of latter times by the Italick and Gallick factions the long continuance of them The mischief of those Schisms on their own principles Of the divisions in that Church about the matters of Order and Government The differences between the Bishops and the Monastick Orders about exemptions and priviledges the history of that Controversie and the bad success the Popes had in attempting to compose it Of the quarrel between the Regulars and Seculars in England The continuance of that Controversie here and in France The Jesuits enmity to the Episcopal Order and jurisdiction the hard case of the Bishop of Angelopolis in America The Popes still favour the Regulars as much as they dare The Jesuits way of converting the Chinese discovered by that Bishop Of the differences in matters of Doctrine in that Church They have no better way to compose them than we The Popes Authority never truly ended one Controversie among them Their wayes to evade the decisions of Popes and Councils Their dissensions are about matters of faith The wayes taken to excuse their own difference will make none between them and us manifested by Sancta Clara's exposition oâ— the 39. Articles Their disputes not confined to their Schools proved by a particular instance about the immaculate conception the infinite scandals confessed by theiâ— own Authors to have been in their Church about it From all which it appears that the Church of Rome can have no advantage in point of Vnity above ours p. 355 CHAP. VI. An Answer to the Remainder of the Reply The mis-interpreting Scripture doth not hinder its being a rule of faith Of the superstitious observations of the Roman Church Of Indulgences the practice of them in what time begun on what occasion and in what terms granted Of the Indulgences in Iubilees in the Churches at Rome and upon saying some Prayers Instances of them produced What opinion hath been had of Indulgences in the Church of Rome some confess they have no foundation in Scripture or Antiquity others that they are pious frauds the miserable shifts the defenders of indulgences were put to plain evidences of their fraud from the Disputes of the Schools about them The treasure of the Church invented by Aquinas and on what occasion The wickedness of men increased by Indulgences acknowledged by their own Writers and therefore condemned by many of that Church Of Bellarmins prudent Christians opinion of them Indulgences no meer relaxations of Canonical Penance The great absurdity of the doctrine of the Churches Treasure on which Indulgences are founded at large manifested The tendency of them to destroy devotion proved by experience and the nature of the Doctrine Of Communion in one kind no devotion in opposing an Institution of Christ. Of the Popes power of dispensing contrary to the Law of God in Oaths and Marriages The ill consequence of asserting Marriage in a Priest to be worse than Fornication as it is in the Church of Rome Of the uncertainty of faith therein How far revelation to be believed against sense The arguments to prove the uncertainty of their faith defended The case of a revolter and a bred Papist compared as to salvation and the greater danger of one than the other proved The motives of the Roman Church considered those laid down by Bishop Taylor fully answered by himself An account of the faith of Protestants laid down in the way of Principles wherein the grounds and nature of our certainty of faith are cleared And from the whole concluded that there can be no reasonable cause to forsake the communion of the Church of England and to embrace that of the Church of Rome p. 476 ERRATA PAg. 25. l. 19. for adjuverit r. adjuvet p. ibid. Marg. r. l. 7. de baptis p. 31. Marg. r. Tract 18. in Ioh. p. 64. l. 13. dele only p. 75. Marg. r. Trigaut p. 101. l. 24. for I am r. am I p. 119. l. 28. for is r. in p. 135. Marg. for 68. r. 6. 8. p. 162. l. 17. after did put not Ch. 3. for pennance r. penance p. 219. l. 10. for him r. them p. 257. l. 21. for or r. and l. 31. for never r. ever p. 350. l. 21. for their r. the p. 414. l. 18. for these r. their p. 416. Marg. for nibaldi r. Sinibaldi p. 417. l. 2. before another insert one p. 499. l. 16. after not insert at p. 526. Marg. for act r. art p. 546. l. 8. after for insert one Two Questions proposed by one of the Church of Rome WHether a Protestant haveing the same Motives to become a Catholick which one bred and born and well grounded in the Catholick Religion hath to remain in it may not equally be saved in the profession of it 2. Whether it be sufficient to be a Christian in the abstract or in the whole latitude or there be a necessity of being a member of some distinct Church or Congregation of Christians Answer The first Question being supposed to be put concerning a Protestant yet continuing so doth imply a contradiction viz. That a Protestant continuing so should have the same Motives to become a Catholick takeing that term here only as signifying one of the communion of the Church of Rome which those have who have been born or bred in that communion But supposing the meaning of the Question to be this Whether a Protestant leaving the communion of our Church upon the Motives used by those of the Roman Church may not be equally saved with those who are bred in it I answer 1. That an equal capacity of salvation of those persons being supposed can be no argument to leave the communion of a Church wherein salvation of a person may be much more safe than of either of them No more than it is for a man to leap from the plain ground into a Ship that is in danger of being wrackt because he may equally hope to be saved with those who are in it Nay supposing an equal capacity of salvation in two several Churches there can be no reason to forsake the communion of the one for the other So that to perswade any one to leave our Church to embrace that of Rome it is by no means sufficient to ask whether such a one may not as well be saved as they that are in it already but it is necessary that they prove that it is of necessity to salvation to leave our Church and become a member of theirs And when they do this I intend to be one of their number 2. We assert that all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace it or continue in it And that upon these grounds 1. Because they must
and him only shalt thou serve and that we are to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods on which account saith he we worship God alone and give cheerful service in all other things to you Theophilus Bishop of Antioch who lived in the second Century after Christ as well as Iustin giving an account why the Christians refused giving adoration to the Emperours which was then used not that adoration which was proper to the Supream God for none can be so senseless to imagine they required that but such kind of religious worship as they gave to the Images of their Gods saith That as the King or Emperour suffers none under him to be called by his name and that it is not lawful to give it to any but himself so neither is it to worship any but God alone and elsewhere saith that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the worship of Idols but of the Elements the Sun and Moon and Stars or any thing else in Heaven in Earth in Sea or Fountains or Rivers but we ought only to worship the true God and Maker of all things in the holiness of our hearts and integrity of our minds To the same purpose speak Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Cyprian Origen Athenagoras Lactantius Arnobius who all agree that religious worship is proper to the true God and that no created thing is capable of it on that very account because it is created it were easie to produce their testimonies if it were requisite in so evident a matter as this is If it be said That all these testimonies are only against that Idolatry which was then practised by the Heathens I answer 1. Their reasons equally extend to the giving divine worship to any created being whatsoever so that either they argued weakly and unskilfully or else it is as unlawful to give divine worship now to Saints as it was then to any creature 2. I would willingly understand why it should be more unlawful to worship God for his admirable Wisdom and Power and Goodness in the works of Creation than in supposed Saints i. e. why I may not as well honour God by giving worship to the Sun as to Ignatius Loyola or St. Francis or any other late Canonized Saint I am sure the Sun is a certain monument of Gods Goodness Wisdom and Power and I cannot be mistaken therein but I can never be certain of the Holiness of those persons I am to give divine worship to For all that I can know Ignatius Loyola was a great hypocrite but I am sure that the Sun is none but that he shines and communicates perpetual influences to the huge advantage of the world However I know the best of men have their corruptions and to what degree it is impossible for others to understand but I am certain the spots in the Sun are no Moral impurities nor displeasing to God And Philip Nerius could not be mistaken in the shining of the Sun although he might be in the shining of Ignatius his face which yet is thought so considerable a thing that it is read in the Lessons appointed for Ignatius in the Roman Breviary 3. On what account should the Christians refuse giving all external signs of Religious worship to the Heathen Emperours if they thought it lawful to be given to any sort of men Why might not they worship the Statues of Kings and Princes as well as others do those of Rebels and Traytors I mean why might not the Image of King Henry the second have the same reverence shewn to it that the Shrine of Thomas Becket had unless it be more meritorious to disobey a Prince than to give him reverence Might not the Primitive Christians have much easier defended themselves in giving those outward signs of worship to the Images of Emperours than others can do in the worship they give to Saints For they might have pleaded that external signs are to be interpreted by the intention of the person who uses them that they intended no more by it but the highest degree of Civil honour on the account of the authority they possessed or if this would not serve might not they have said that Kings and Princes were Gods Vicegerents and represented him to the world and that in giving divine worship to them they gave it to God and that their absolute ultimate and terminative worship was upon God and only a relative inferior and transient worship was given to them and all this might be better justified by St. Basils rule That the honour of the Image passes to the Prototype for he there pleads for the worship of Christ because he is one with the Father being his Image as the Image of a King is called the King and hath the same honour given to it for the honour of the Image passeth to the thing represented And as Christ hath the advantage above all by being Gods natural Image so Princes above Saints in that they represent God to the world which the other do not But notwithstanding all these Pleas the Primitive Christians were so punctual in observing that Command of worshipping God alone that they rather chose to lose their lives and suffer Martyrdom than be in the least guilty of giving any divine worship to a creature 4. They absolutely deny any religious worship to be given to the most excellent created Beings and therefore did not only condemn the Idolatry then in use but that which hath obtained in the Roman Church supposing all the persons worshipped therein to have been real Saints For that we are to consider that all the Heathens were not such great Fools as some men make them to excuse themselves if the wiser men were contented to let the people worship the Poetical Gods having their minds possessed with those Idea's of them which they had taken up by their education yet they understood them only as Allegories as some make the Image of St. Christopher and St. George in the Church of Rome to be no other and they had Temples erected to the greatest Vertues to Piety Faith Concord Iustice Chastity Clemency c. and others to the greatest Benefactors to mankind which was the only ground they pleaded for giving worship to them but still they acknowledged one Supream God not Iupiter of Creet but the Father of Gods and men only they said this Supream God being of so high a nature and there being other intermediate beings between him and men whose Office they conceived it was to carry the prayers of men to God and to bring down help from him to them they thought it very fitting to address their solemn supplications to them Here now was the very same case in debate altering only the names of things which is between us and the Church of Rome and if ever they speak home to our case they must do upon this point And so they do but very little to their comfort § 10.
Murdered by the people of Rome and not content with this he writ a Letter to the Emperour full of the greatest reproaches imaginable Baronius is here very hard put to it to Vindicate the Pope for he confesses the Rebellion of the people was occasioned by the Popes opposing the Emperour and commends their zeal for Religion in it and acknowledgeth that the Emperour laid all the blame on the Pope and that the Greek Historians Theophanes and Zonaras do so too but all this he saith proceeded only from their spight against the Roman Church and their ignorance of affairs in it but if we believe him the Pope rather endeavoured to keep them in obedience to the Emperour and when they would have chosen another he opposed it which he proves from Paulus Diaconus and Anastasius But what is that to the business the question is not whether the Pope did not hinder the choosing another Emperour but whether he did not draw the people off from their obedience to the Emperour that then was And this is not only affirmed by the Greek historians but by those of the Roman Church Sigebert saith that Gregory 2. finding the Emperour incorrigible he made Rome Italy and all the West to revolt from him and forbad his Tributes the same is affirmed by Otto Frisingensis Conradus Vrspergensis Hieronymus Rubeus and others who cannot be suspected of any enmity to the Roman Church As for the making a new Emperour therein the Pope had another game to play he was not willing the Souldiery should make another Emperour for as Hadrianus Valesius well observes the Pope durst not so affront the Emperour if he had not held a private correspondency with Charles Martel at that time whose honour and armes were the greatest in these Western parts Having thereby strengthened his interest against both the Emperour his known enemy and the Lombards that were at best but unfaithful friends he makes what advantage he can of the places that owed subjection to the Emperour to make up the Patrimony of the Church as Valesius observes particularly of Sutrium but Sigonius saith the people not only cast off the Emperour but did swear to be faithful to the Pope no wonder then he was not willing to have a new Emperour chosen so that at this time Rome and the Roman Dutchy came into the hands of the Pope the Cities of which are enumerated by Sigonius and therefore Papirius Massonus deservedly makes this Pope the founder of the greatness of the Roman Church which we see was laid in down-right rebellion and can be no otherwise justified than by making the Pope absolute Governour of the World Not long after the Pope begins saith Valesius a warr with the Lombards who watched any occasion to take away some part of his newly gotten Patrimony he therefore sends away Anastasius and Sergius into France to Charles Martel with the Keyes of St. Peters Sepulchre in token of their owning him as their Protector Which Embassie being acceptable to Charles he procures a peace to be concluded between the Lombards and the Romans which was contrary to the Popes desire who sent several Letters and Messengers to him to come into Italy to revenge St. Peters quarrel against the Lombards with Fire and Sword and as he loved St. Peter he would come with all Speed into Italy as appears by the letters still extant and published by Sirmondus But he soon after dying his Son Pepin succeeding in all his power and growing weary of having so much as the name of a King above him sends to Pope Zachary to know whether it were not fitter for him to bear the name who did all the business of a King who very well understood his meaning and readily assented to it upon which Chilperick was deposed and put into a Monastery and Pepin was afterwards absolved by the Pope from his Oath of fidelity with all the Nobles and People There being now so close a League between the Popes interest and Pepins the ones title to his Crown depending on the Popes authority the others security upon his protection no wonder to see them endeavour the promoting each others advantage The Popes Territories being not long after molested by Aistulphus King of the Lombards Stephen writes a very pittiful Letter of complaint to Pepin and Charles and Charlemagne his Sons wherein he saith that Aistulphus had almost broke his heart with grief because he would not leave one foot of Land to St. Peter and the Holy Church and therefore he conjures them by St. Peter who had anointed them Kings that they would recover the lands again out of the Lombards hands or otherwise they may think what a sad account they will give to St. Peter in the day of Judgement These are the words of the Popes letter lately published by Delaland Sirmondus his Nephew in his Supplement of the Gallican Councils Upon this Pepin comes to his assistance and every peace addes still more to the Churches Revenew by which it was now grown very considerable by the spoiles of the Empire the Exarchat of Ravenna in Pope Stephens time being destroyed which was the only remainder then left of the Empire in Italy and the revenews of it were given by Pepin to the Church of Rome as appears by an ancient inscription in Ravenna mentioned by Papirius Massonus Which the Pope solicited hard for when he went himself into France on purpose to stirr up Pepin against the Lombards and was much afraid lest the Exarchat should have been restored again to the Emperour but Pepin promising to give the Region of Pentapolis and Ravenna to the Roman See assoon as he had taken them from the Lombards the Pope went away well satisfied and drew after him a mighty Army whereby a great part of Italy was laid waste and the people miserably harrassed for no other end but to secure that to the Pope which did by all right belong to the Emperour Who sent Ambassadours first to the Pope and then to Pepin to desire the restitution of those places to their true owner but the Pope denyed and Pepin urged the promise he had already made to the Pope and that he could not go back from it because he undertook that quarrel meerly for his souls and the Popes sake without expecting any advantage to himself by it Aistulphus being dead Desiderius takes upon him the Kingdom of Lombardy but he fearing Rachis the right heir makes a League presently with the Pope and by surrendring up some more Cities makes him wholly of his party and Rachis is fain to retire again to a Monastery but after a while Desiderius finds an occasion to quarrel with the Pope and takes several cities into his hands which the Pope had gotten possession of and threatens suddenly to besiege Rome Pope Adrian finding himself in these straights dispatches away messengers with all speed to
purpose when he set up Conradus the Emperours Son in Rebellion against his Father This Baronius would fain shift off as not arising from the Popes instigation but some private discontents for which he quotes Dodechindus but Sigonius who follows the same Author saith expresly that he took upon him the Kingdom of Lombardy against his Father by the Authority of Urban himself and Bertholdus whose testimony is afterwards produced by Baronius mentions not only their meeting at Cremona but that Conradus there took an oath of fidelity to the Pope and the Pope in requital solemnly promised him to give him all the advice and assistance he could for the obtaining the Kingdom and Empire of his Father What is somenting and encouraging Rebellion in the highest degree if this be not And the sentence of deposition of Conrade in the Diet at Aken A. D. 1096. expresly mentions as the cause of it his adhering to Pope Vrban against the Emperour his Father and there his Son Henry declared his successour and solemnly swears never to Rebell against his Father But notwithstanding this Oath Conrad being dead this Son is likewise prevailed upon by the Popes instruments to Rebell against his Father for Pascal 2. succeeding Vrban had again excommunicated Henry 4. and at a Council called by him in Rome he made all the Bishops present by particular subscription to Anathematize the Emperours heresie as they were pleased to call it and to promise obedience to Paschal and his Successours and to affirm what the Church affirmed and condemn what she condemns Having by this means secured the Bishops from adhering to the Emperours party there wanted not Agents to solicit his Son to take away his Crown from him And the first thing he did upon his rebellion was to Anathematize his Fathers heresie which was keeping the Empire in spight of the Popes and to promise obedience to the Pope as the Bishops had done at Rome and in the Diet at Northausen A. D. 1105. he calls God to witness that it was no desire of the Empire which made him take his Fathers Government from him but if he would obey the Pope he would presently yield himself to him and become his Slave And when the Son had in a perfidious manner seized on the Person of his Father and he addressed himself to the Popes Legat for his safety he plainly told him he must look for none unless he would publickly declare the justice of Hildebrand and his own unjust persecutions of the Roman See But which is the most evident testimony of all others in this case Henry 4. a little before his death A. D. 1106. at Liege whither he was forced to retire by his Sons rebellion sends an account of the whole quarrel to Philip of France wherein he declares that he had offered all reasonable satisfaction to the Pope only preserving the authority of the Empire but this not being accepted in a most unnatural manner they had armed his most beloved Son his Absolom against him who by their instigation and council had most perfidiously dealt with him but we need not so much proof of this since Baronius confesseth that the Son had no greater cause of rebelling against his Father than that he was excommunicated by the Pope and afterwards very freely delivers his mind that in case the Son did it sincerely as he pretended i. e. out of obedience to the See of Rome it was saith he an act of great piety in him to be thus cruel to his Father and that his only offence was that he did not bind him faster till he was brought to himself i. e. to the Popes beck O the admirable doctrine of obedience at Rome What an excellent commentary is this upon the fifth Commandment and the thirteent to the Romans What mighty care hath the Church of Rome alwayes taken to preserve peace and unity in the Christian Church The Historians who report the passages of this time tell us there was never known so dismal an age as that was for Warres and Bloodshed for Murthers and Parricides for Rapines and Sacriledge for Seditions and Conspiracies for horrible Schisms and Scandals to Religion the Priests opposing the Bishops the People the Priests and in some places not only robbing the Churches burning the Tithes but trampling under foot the holy Eucharist that was consecrated by such whom Pope Hildebrand had excommunicated And must we after all this believe that the Roman See is the fountain of Vnity in the Catholick Church that all Warrs and Rebellions arise from casting off such subjection to the Popes who have been the great fomenters of Rebellion ever since Hildebrands time and the disturbers of the peace of Christendome For we are not to imagine that this quarrel ended with Henry 4. for it was revived again in Henry the fifth's time between Pope Paschal and him and the Pope grants him the priviledges which his Father contended for but afterwards revoked his own grant perjury being no sin at Rome in so holy a cause and raised a Rebellion in the Empire against him and notwithstanding several agreements made between him and the successive Popes could enjoy no lasting peace in his time upon their account and dyed at last without issue going to suppress a new Rebellion After his death Conradus being to succeed as Sisters Son to Henry 5. Lotharius by the arts of the Court of Rome was set up in opposition to him he was fain to part with the rights of the Empire to satisfie the Pope who made him receive the Imperial Crown at his feet In the time of Conradus who succeeded Lotharius the Pope encouraged Guelfo the Duke of Bavaria in a Rebellion against him from whom the two loving factions of Guelphs and Gibellines had their beginning It would be endless to relate the disturbances of the Christian world which arose from the contentions of several Popes about their Authority with Frederick Barbarossa Philippus Suevus Otho 4. Frederick 2. Ludovicus Bavarus and other Emperours till such time as the Majesty of the Empire was lost in Carolus 4. or if we should give an account of all the Warrs and Rebellions and Seditions and Quarrels which happened meerly upon pretence of the Papal Authority in our own Nation or in France or elsewhere But these may at present suffice to give testimony what an excellent instrument of Peace to the Christian world the Authority challenged by the Bishop of Rome hath been and that Authority still vindicated and asserted in the Court of Rome § 6. 2. But although such civil disturbances have happened by the contentions about the Papal authority yet they may say the Church hath had its unity still as long as they were united in the same Head For this they look on as the great foundation of Vnity for say they the unity of the body consists in the conjunction of the members with the head and then
authorised by the Church such as Bishops and Presbyters are the one succeeding the Apostles the other the 72 Disciples and afterwards they deny that the Pope himself can give any power to others to meddle in the charge of a Parish or in Preaching among them but where they are invited to it because Bishops themselves cannot otherwise act out of their own Dioceses and that the Pope in this case doth injury by violating the rights of others and if he should go about to destroy what the Prophets and Apostles have taught he would erre in so doing Besides say they if these Praedicant Fryers have a liberty to Preach where they please they are all universal Bishops and because maintenance is due to all who Preach the people will be bound to pay procurations to them which will be an unreasonable burden upon them Many other Arguments they use against this new sort of Itinerant Preachers and represent the dangers that came to the Church by them at large wherein they describe them as a kind of hypocritical Sectaries that abused the people under a fair shew and pretence of Religion having as they say a form of Godliness but denying the power of it and that the persecution of the Church by them would be equal to what it was by Tyrants and open Hereticks because they are familiar enemies and do mischief under a shew of kindness And that one of the great dangers of the Church by them would be their possessing Princes and people with prejudices against the Government of the Church by the Bishops which having done they can more easily lead them into errours both against faith and a good life That their way of dealing is first with the women and by them seducing the men as the Devil first tempted Eve and by her Adam and when they have once seduced them they tye them by oathes and vows not to hearken to the counsel of their Bishops or those who have the care of their souls That the Bishops ought to suppress these and call in the publick help to do it and to purge their Dioceses of them and that if they do it not the blood of the people will be required of them and destruction will come upon them for it and though Princes and people had taken their part that ought not to discourage them but their folly ought to be made manifest to all men After this they lay down the means to be used for suppressing them and the signes for their discovery saying that they are idle persons busie bodies wandring beggars against the Apostles express command who would have all such excluded the Church as disorderly livers and therefore conclude with an earnest exhortation to all who have a care of the Church to rise up against them as the pernicious enemies of its peace and welfare All these things which are only summarily comprehended in that Book are very largely insisted upon by Gul. de Sancto Amore in another Book entituled Collections of Holy Scripture which is wholly upon this subject The Mendicant Fryers being thus assaulted endeavoured to defend themselves as well as they could and made choice of the best wits among them for their Champions such as Bonaventure and Aquinas then were who undertook their cause and were fain to shelter themselves under the plenitude of the Popes power by which means they were sure to have the Pope on their side but his Authority was here no means of Vnity for the controversie continued long after and was managed with great heat on both sides § 8. Upon the great complaint of the priviledges and exemptions which the Monastick orders had obtained from the Popes Clement 5. promised to have this business discussed in the Council of Vienna and to that end gave order to several learned men to write about it among whom particularly Durandus Mimatensis writ a large discourse not mentioned by Possevin but Printed A. D. 1545. wherein he perswades the Pope to revoke all such exemptions because they were contrary to the ancient Canons of the Church whereby from the Apostles times all places and persons whatsoever were immediately under the jurisdiction of the Bishops and that the Pope neither ought nor could change this order of the Church Because the order of Bishops being appointed to prevent Schisms in the Church it could not attain its end if any persons were exempted from their jurisdiction And if it were in the Popes power to grant such exemptions it were by no means expedient to do it because the order of the Church would be destroyed by it the Bishops contemned and the Church divided and if the Monastick Orders paid no obedience to the Bishops the people would soon learn by their example to disobey them too And supposing it had been expedient before it could not be so then because though the Monastick orders were founded in a state of poverty yet now those who were in them were arrived at such a height of intolerable pride and arrogance that not only their Abbots and Priors but the Fryers thought themselves equal to Bishops and fit to be preferred before other Ecclesiastical persons Thus far Durandus and Aegidius Romanus at the same time writ a Book against the Exemptions of Fryers Against both of them Iacobus the Abbot of the Cistercians writt a defence of Exemptions which was published in Vienna in the time of the Council This matter was hotly debated in that Council but the Pope would not yield to the revocation of them but renews a Bull of Boniface 8. for qualifying and composing the differences that had happened to the great scandal of the Church about them wherein he takes notice of several Bulls before which had taken no effect so excellent an instrument of peace is the Popes Authority and that of a long time a most grievous and dangerous discord had been between the Bishops and Parochial Clergy on one part and the Preaching Fryers on the other Therefore the Pope very wisely considering how full of danger how prejudicial to the Church how displeasing to God so great a discord was and resolving wholly to remove it for the future by his Apostolical authority doth appoint and command that the Fryers should have liberty to Preach in all Churches Places and publick Streets at any other hour but that wherein the Bishops did Preach or did command others to Preach without a particular license to Preach then A greater instance of the discords which have been in the Roman Church nor of the insufficiency of the Popes Authority for the cure of them can hardly be produced than this is The Popes were forced to say and unsay and retract their own grants to mitigate and qualifie them and all to no purpose for the differences continued as great notwithstanding them The first Pope who interposed in this quarrel was Gregory 9. who upon complaint made by the Fryers of the Bishops exercising their jurisdiction
behalf of the Clergy was sent Richard Fitz-Ralph the learned Bishop of Armagh best known by the name of Armachanus who there with great smartness opposed the Fryers to the Popes face in a long and set discourse still extant wherein he gives an account that coming to London about some business of his See he found great disputes about the priviledges of the Fryers and being desired to Preach he made seven or eight Sermons wherein he declared his mind against them both as to their Order and Priviledges in which he followed the doctrine of the Divines at Paris above an hundred years before delivered by them upon the like occasion asserting it not to be in the Popes power to grant such priviledges which destroy the rights of the Parochial Clergy or the jurisdiction of the Bishops The Fryers charge him with Heresie as they are wont to do those who are wiser than themselves saith Boulay Armachanus dyed at Avignon but so did not the Controversie with him although the Fryers seem to have had the better there they being the Popes Ianisaries and ready in all places to serve his turn yet Walsingham saith it was not without corrupting the Popes Court by great bribes given by the Fryers that they obtained the confirmation of their priviledges yet seven years after Harpsfield saith this Controversie was referred to the Parliament to be determined Very strange that a Parliament in England should be thought a more likely means for Vnity in the Church than the Authority of so many Popes who had interposed in it for putting an issue to this difference After Armachanus Wickliffe undertook this quarrel against the Fryers and made use of the same arguments against them which those who defended the Clergy had done before For in his Book against the Orders of Fryers he particularly insists upon this That they for pride and covetise had drawen fro Curats there Office and Sacraments in which lyen winning or worship and so maken dissention betwixt Curats and there Ghostlié Childer Which are his own words But Wickliffe and his Disciples carrying the Controversies much farther to points of doctrine and other practices in the Roman Church made the other parties more quiet out of opposition to these whom they looked on as their common enemies It may be therefore they will say that although the Popes Pastoral power may not alwayes cure their divisions yet the opposition of Hereticks makes them run together like a flock of sheep if this were true it seems they are more beholding to Hereticks for their Vnity than to the Popes Authority but we shall find that neither one nor the other of these nor both together can keep them from divisions and those managed with as great animosity as we have ever found in the most differing Sects § 9. Witness the proceedings between the Iesuits and the Secular Priests begun in Wisbich Castle in the latter end of Q. Elizabeths Reign when it came to a separation from each other about the authority of the Arch-Priest And they mutually charged each other with being guilty of a horrible Schism maintained saith Watson by the Iesuits and Arch Priest with infinite violence much infamy for the time and innumerable particular wrongs thereupon not unknown to the meanest Catholick in England The secular Priests finding themselves unjustly accused as they said to the Pope published a Book in Latin which they Dedicated to his Holiness called declaratio motuum turbarum which saith Parsons in his answer called A manifestation of the great folly and bad spirit of certain in England calling themselves secular Priests is made up only of invectives and passionate words injurious and manifest false slanders they in their Reply charge Parsons with follie and madness and the highest degree of impudencie If any one hath a mind to furnish himself with all the terms and phrases of scolding reproach and infamy he may find them in the Books they then writ against each other or if he thinks that too great a trouble he may meet with a goodly parcel of them put together out of Fa. Parsons his own writings by Watson at the end of the Reply to Parsons's Libell The short account of the breach among them was this all the loud talk they made abroad concerning their cruel persecution could not hinder ambition and envy from having its effects among them from these first arose misunderstandings and then quarrels between the secular Priests and the Iesuits from thence the Priests proceed to the framing a sodality as they called it among themselves the better to strengthen themselves against the Iesuits which they understanding prevail with one of the number of the associated Priests to betray their Councils him they send to Rome who in the name of all the Priests in England desired for the preventing differences for the future and the curing those that were already that there might be a Government and subordination settled among them Fa. Parsons being then at Rome follows the matter close and represents to the Pope the necessity of it because of the great discords which were among them in England Whereupon the Pope according to Fa. Parsons desire referrs the whole business to Cardinal Cajetan their Protector Who being governed by the Iesuits pitched upon a person wholly at their devotion as the seculars thought which was Blackwell a man swayed altogether by Garnet Provincial of the Iesuits well known for his zeal in the Catholick cause by suffering as one of their Martyrs in the Gunpowder Treason and one of the Arch-Priests instructions was in all matters of moment to be advised by the Provincial of the Iesuits The Secular Priests finding themselves thus over-reached by the cunning of the Iesuits and that they designed hereby wholly to govern their affairs make many demurrs to his Authority both concerning the manner and the substance of it and desire a Breve from the Pope and then promise to submit Parsons procures one to their purpose and an appearance of peace was for a little time among them and they mutually promised not to charge the Schism upon each other but within a month or six weeks the flame brake out with greater fury than ever the Arch-Priest sending his directions into all parts that none of the Seculars should be admitted to the Sacraments without acknowledging themselves Schismaticks So that the Popes Breve was so far from ending the difference that it encreased it Fa. Parsons charging them and the Seculars not denying it that after it they were farther from obeying the Arch-Priest than they were before So unhappy have the Popes been when they have gone about to use their Authority for composing differences among those who are in their own Church But we leave this and come to a later controversie among them about the same matters of Order and Government Richard Smith titular Bishop of Chalcedon was invested with the Authority of Ordinary over their English Clergy by Vrban
8. Febr. 4. A. D. 1625. not long after he comes into England and was received with so great kindness by their party here as made the Iesuits who are friends to none but themselves soon to become his enemies especially when he began to exercise his Episcopal jurisdiction here in laying restraints upon the Regulars which the Iesuits with other Regulars grew so impatient of that they soon revived the old quarrel concerning the authority and jurisdiction of Bishops and managed it with so great heat and fierceness that the titular Bishop was fain to leave the field and withdraw into France The bottom of the quarrel was they found the kindness of their party to them abated since the Bishops coming who before had sway'd all and lived in great plenty and bravery when the poor Seculars got scarce bread to eate as Watson very sadly laments in his answer to Parsons but now the necessary support of the dignity of a Bishop made the charity of their party run in another channel which the Provincial of the Iesuits complains of in a Letter to the Bishop of Chalcedon Therefore they endeavour all they can to make a party against him among the people too which they did so effectually as amounted to his withdrawing a more civil word for his exile And now both parties being sufficiently heated the battel begins in which not only England and Ireland but France and Flanders were deeply engaged The first who appeared was Dr. Kellison Professour of Doway in a Book in Vindication of the Bishops Authority to whom Knot then Vice-Provincial of the Iesuits returned his Modest and brief discussion c. under the name of Nicholas Smith a Iesuite then dead Soon after came out another written to the same purpose under the name of Daniel of Iesu whose true name was Iohn Fluide which the other writing Ioanes for Iohn was the Anagram of he was a Iesuit too and Professour at St. Omars which Books were first censured by the Arch-bishop of Paris then by the Sorbonne and at last by the Bishops of France in an Assembly of them at Paris but the Iesuits were so far from giving over by this that they new set forth their Books in Latin with large approbations of them and publish a Remonstrance against the Bishop of Chalcedon in the name of the Catholick party in England which was disowned by the greatest number of them and cast wholly upon the Iesuits the same year 1631. three Books were published by the secular Clergy here in opposition to the Iesuits Who were so far from quitting the Field by the number of their enemies that they begin a fresh charge against both the Sorbonne Doctors and the French Clergy under the fained name of Hermannus Loemelius whose chief Author was the fore-named Iesuite Lloyd with the assistance of his Brethren as the diversity of the style shews and another Book came out against the Faculty of Paris in Vindication of Knot or Nicholas Smith with many approbations of Bishops Vniversities and private Doctors and in Vindication of the Propositions of Ireland likewise censured at Paris another Book came forth under the name of Edmundus Vrsulanus whose true name was Mac-mahone Prior of the Franciscan Convent in Lovain About the same time the Iesuits published their Censure of the Apostolical Creed in imitation of the censures at Paris against their Doctrine as though their Doctrines were as certain as that and themselves as infallible as the Apostles wherein they charge the Bishops their enemies with reviving old Heresies and broaching new ones The Iesuits having now done such great things triumph unreasonably in all places as having utterly overthrown their enemies and beaten them out of the field when in a little time after Hallier and le Maistre two Doctors of the Sorbonne undertake the quarrel against them but none was so highly magnified and infinitely applauded by the French Clergy as a person under the disguised name of Petrus Aurelius whose atchievements in this kind they celebrate next to those of the Pucelle d' Orleans and Printed all his Works together at their own charge and writ a high Elogium of him which is prefixed before them And the secular Clergy of England sent him a letter of Congratulation for his Triumphs subscribed by Iohn Colleton Dean of the Chapter and Edmond Dutton Secretary wherein they sadly lament the discords that have been among them here and the Heresies broached by their Adversaries by occasion of them The main of-this Controversie did concern the dignity necessity and jurisdiction of the Episcopal Order as appears by the Censures of the Bishops of France and by Aurelius who saith that although the Dispute began upon occasion of the Bishop of Chalcedon and the English Clergy yet it was now carried farther whether the Episcopal Order was necessary to the Being of a particular Church Whether it was by divine right or no Whether confirmation might be given without Bishops Whether the Episcopal Order was more perfect than the Monastical Whether the Regulars were under the jurisdiction of Bishops And therefore the Iesuits are charged by their Adversaries with a design to extirpate and ruine the whole Order of Episcopacy Have not these men now great reason to insult over us that some of these questions have caused great differences among us when the Iesuits in England had laid the foundation of them by their quarrels of the same kind but a little before and furnished the enemies to Episcopacy and the Church of England with so many arguments to their hands to manage their bad cause with But what becomes of the Court of Rome all this while do the Pope and Cardinals only stand still to see what the issue of the Battel will be without ever offering to compose the difference between the two parties No. The Iesuits finding how hard they were put to it make their address to Rome as their greatest Sanctuary and A. D. 1633. obtained a Decree of the Sacred Congregation for suppressing the Books on both sides without judging any thing at all of the merits of the cause or giving any censure of the authority on either side And is not now the Popes authority an excellent remedy for all divisions in the Church When in so great a heat as this was the Pope durst not interpose at all in the main business for fear of losing either side which is a plain argument that they themselves look on his Authority as so precarious a thing that they must by no means expose it where it is like to be called in Question Were not here Controversies fit to be determined To what purpose is that authority that dare not be exercised when there is most need of it and when could there be greater need than in such a time when the Church was in a flame by these contentions And yet so timerous a Decree as this was could find no acceptance For at Paris immediately comes out a disquisition upon it shewing
the unreasonableness of it in suppressing Books without enquiring into the merits of the cause in a matter of so great consequence as that was that this would give great occasion of triumph to the Hereticks when such scandalous and seditious Books as those of the Jesuits are meet with the same favour at Rome with the censure of the Bishops of France that their profane and Atheistical Censure of the Apostles Creed must have no mark of disgrace put upon it nor such sayings of theirs wherein they call the Bishops and Divines of France by most contumelious names and say they are the enemies of the truth and piety The Iesuits instead of defending themselves against Aurelius write a pittiful defence of this Decree of suppressing the Books on both sides and so all the means which the Court of Rome durst use to extinguish this flame proved but an occasion of adding to it And whether this Controversie be yet at an end among them let all the heats in France and England of late years concerning the Iesuits give testimony § 10. I shall not now insist any longer upon them but only produce some late passages of things which though they happened at a greater distance are yet sufficiently attested to shew what spight the Iesuitical Order bears to the Authority of Bishops what arts they have used to enervate it what power to affront their persons and expose them to all the contempt that may be when they go about to stop their proceedings or exercise any jurisdiction over them The great occasion of the Controversie between the Bishops and them was that the Iesuits took upon them to Preach and hear Confessions c. without any permission from the Bishop of the Diocese So they did in the Philippine Islands whereupon the Arch-bishop of Manille Don Hernando Guerrero called a Synod wherein it was resolved that the Archbishop ought to bring the Iesuits to account for what they did which he did and all the satisfaction he could get from them was that they had priviledges the Arch-bishop not satisfied with this proceeds against them they name a Conservator an enemy of the Arch-bishops For the Popes to keep the Bishops in awe have allowed them by a Bull for that purpose liberty in case of difference between the Bishops and them to choose a Conservator to defend their priviledges against them this Conservator proceeds against the Arch-bishop and the Iesuits procure the Governour to joyne with him who without giving leave to him to make his Defence resolve to banish him The Arch-bishop understanding their resolution to send him away goes with the Clergy about him into his Chappel and there to secure himself from the insolency of the Souldiers in his Pontifical habit holds the Eucharist in his hand notwithstanding which they came and dragged out all the Fryers who took the Arch-bishops part and afterwards the old Arch-bishop himself who fell down in the crowd with the Pix in his hand and wounded himself in the face Such exorbitances made that impression on one of the Souldiers that he drew his Sword and falling upon it said He had rather dye by his own hands than see such enormities among Christians At last the Arch-bishop was forced to let go his Pix and was presently carryed away out of the City and put into a little pittiful Barque unprovided of all things without permitting any food to be given him or any of his servants to accompany him and was conveyed by five Souldiers into a Desart Island where he had not so much as a Cabin for shelter and there he was kept till he yielded to their terms O the admirable unity peace and submission to Bishops in the Roman Church But we have yet a more remarkable instance of this kind in the notorious case of the difference between the Bishop of Angelopolis in America and the Iesuits which was heard at Rome and several Bulls published by Innocent 10. in it I shall give an account of it from the Popes Bulls and from the letter which the Bishop himself sent to the Pope about it A. D. 1649. which is extant in the Collection of the end of Mr. S. Amours Iournal which he had from Cosimo Ricciardi Sub-librarykeeper of the Vatican who received it immediately from the Bishops Agent The controversie began there upon the very same grounds which it had done in the Philippine Islands for the Iesuits would acknowledge no subjection at all to the Bishop but would Preach and hear Confessions without any license from the Bishop which difference grew so high that the Iesuits chose Conservators against the Bishops authority as the Popes Bull granted May 14. A. D. 1648. doth declare and not only so but these Conservators very fairly excommunicated the Bishop and his Vicar General upon this the Bishop sends an Agent to Rome and the Iesuits appear in behalf of their Society the Pope commits the cause to a particular Congregation of Cardinals and Bishops who upon the hearing of both sides give sentence in favour of the Bishop Apr. 16. A. D. 1648. But the Iesuits as appears by the Bishops letter bearing date Ian. 8. A. D. 1649. were resolved not to wait for the Popes resolution but finding that the people contemned their censures and adhered to the Bishop were so enraged at it that they resolved to imprison him to that end they bribe the King of Spains Vice-roy the Bishops particular enemy with a great summ of money and by that means clapt up most of his Friends and threatned them with worse if they would not obey the Conservators the Bishop himself they had appointed Souldiers to seize upon on Corpus Christi day the better day the better deed who understanding their minds sent commissioners to treat with them to prevent the tumults and disorders were like to follow on these differences but they used them with contempt and would hear of no terms unless the Bishop would submit himself and his jurisdiction to them and their Conservators but instead of peace they proceed to more open acts of hostility by imprisoning his Vicar General and using all manner of insolencies among the People who joyned with the Bishop to defend him against them The good Bishop seeing things in so bad a posture thought it his greatest prudence to withdraw to the mountains thinking himself safer among the Serpents and Scorpions there than in the City among the Iesuits There he continues for twenty dayes almost famished and afterwards for four months lay hid in a pittiful Cottage the Iesuits in the mean time offering great summs of money to those who should bring him alive or dead But not finding him they bring the excommunicated Conservators with great pomp into the City and erect a Tribunal or in the language of the late times a Highâ—Court of Iustice among them where according to their pleasure they fine banish imprison as many as they thought their enemies and there solemnly declare what mighty
hinder all persons of any other Order whatsoever from coming among them and if they do come by one means or other they are sure to procure their banishment and persecution to this end they assist and counsel the Infidels themselves in it and make use of their hands to whip and imprison them and so to make them weary of being there When they are left alone they have the liberty of telling their own stories and no one can disprove them but they were not so watchful but some of the other Orders were sent as Spyes upon them and although they knew they hazarded their lives in it yet they made full discovery of the Iesuits way of converting Infidels And they discovered such horrible things in the Catechisms they gave to their new Converts that they complained to the Pope of them but as appears by the event to very little purposeâ— for although the Iesuits could not dâ—ny the things they were charged with and the Congregation de prâ—pagandâ fide at Rome Sâ—pt 12. A.D. 1645 in seventeen Decrees condemned them yet the Rector of the Iesuits Colledge in the Philippines in a Book of 300 pages opposed those Decrees which was in the hands of the Bishop of Angelopolis and he gave it to a Dominican to answer who had been in those parts himself who fully proved the matter of fact and answered the Iesuits arguments both which the Bishop saith were in his custody The short of their instructions to their Converts was this to speak little of Christ Crucified but to conceal that part of Christian Doctrine as much as may be to use all the same customes that the Idolaters did only directing all their worship to Christ and the Saints not to trouble themselves about Fasting Penance Confession and participation of the Eucharist or the severity of Repentance and Mortification They designed to recommend as easie a Religion to them as may be the better to invite them to embrace it and therefore as the Bishop observes we read of no Martyrs among them the poor Dominicans and Franciscans are whipt and imprisoned and banished but the Iesuits who Preach only a glorious Christ without his passion and crosse have far better and easier entertainment among them But these things the Bishop there gives a larger account of I return to the Controversie between the Bishop and them An Agent was sent to Rome by the Bishop with this letter to negotiate his business there against the Iesuits a man intelligent vigorous and undaunted saith Mr. S. Amour of him who followed his business so close that after long solicitation and address he obtains another Decree against the Iesuits which is extant at large in the Lyons Edition of the Bullarium but which ought to be observed is since prohibited by the Index Expurgatorius of Alexander 7. by whose means that was procured is easie to conjecture when we consider with what difficulty the Decree was obtained and for above a year after the passing it the coming of it forth was hindred by Cardinal Spada under-hand who was a great Friend to the Iesuits And when it did come forth the Iesuits bought up all the Copies of it they could on purpose to abolish the memory of it which made them obtain the prohibition of the Bullarium till that part were purged out of it But if the Popes had any real kindness for the Authority of Bishops they would never suffer such encroachments to be made upon them as they do nor shew so much favour to the contemners of it But this is one of the grand Intrigues of the Roman Court to keep the Bishops down by the priviledges of the Regulars who are immediate dependents on the Popes only at some times when they cannot help it they must seem to curb them but yet so as to keep them in heart enough to bait the Bishops when they begin to exercise their Authority as they ought to do in the reformation of abuses and disorders But by these heats and controversies among them about matters of Government and Order it appears that they have no cause to upbraid us with our dissensions about them And that they have no more effectual means to suppress them than We. § 11. 2. As to matters of doctrine The least thing any one could imagine by all the boasts of Vnity among them and upbraiding others with their dissensions is that they are all of one mind in matters of doctrine but he must believe against common sense and experience that can believe this For we know their divisions well enough and that it is as easie a matter to compose all the differences among us as among them We may assoon perswade the Quakers to Vniformity as reconcile the Dominicans and the Iesuits and all our Sects will agree assoon as the factions of the Thomists and Scotists the Presbyterians and Independents will yield to Episcopal jurisdiction assoon as the Monastick Orders will quit their priviledges the Arminians and Calvinists will be all of a mind when the Iansenists and Molinists are and we are apt to think that our Controversies about Ceremonies are not altogether of so great importance as theirs about infallibility But it is a very pleasant thing to see by what arts they go about to perswade credudulous people that what would be called divisions any where else is an admirable Vnion among them they might assoon perswade them that the seven Hills of Rome are the bottomless pit or that contradictions may be true For either the Pope is infallible or he is not either the supream Government of the Church is committed to him alone as S. Peters Successor or to the representative Church in a Council either he hath a temporal power to command Princes or he hath not either the V. Mary was conceived with Original sin or she was not either there is a Pre-determination or there is not either Souls may be delivered out of Purgatory or they may not Dare any of them say they are all of a mind in the Church of Rome about these points I am sure they dare not But what then do they not differ from one another do they not write and Preach and rail against each other as much as any Sectaries can do are there not factions of long continuance among them upon these differences where then lyes their Vnity they boast off Alas we speak like Ignorant persons and do not consider what artificial men we have to deal with who with some pretty tricks and slights of hand make all that which seems to us shattered and broken in pieces to appear sound and entire without the least crack or flaw in it It will be worth the while to find out these arts for I do not question but by a discreet managing them they may serve us as well as them and our Church will have though not so much splendour yet as much Vnity as theirs They tell us therefore that it is true they are not
not trust the Popes infallibility nor all the promises they pretend Christ hath made to their Church but govern their affaires wholly by the rules of humane Policy And on this account when the heats brake forth in France about Iansenism and both parties made application to the Court of Rome the Pope could never be prevailed with to suffer the main controversies to be touched or any decree to pass about them but at last condemned some ambiguous Propositions as taken out of Iansenius his book which both parties condemned according to their different senses and they were left to dispute it out which sense it was the Pope meant them in And therefore the Iansenists Advocate who was well versed in the practices of the Court of Rome gave them the truest account of the intentions of that Court in their affaire which was to delude both the one side and the other and that Cardinal Ginetti had told him that either nothing would be done or if any thing that which would doe neither good not hurt And therefore in stead of ending the controversies the Popes definition only produced more viz. whether the Propositions condemned were in Iansenius or no whether the Pope might not erre in matter of fact the Iansenists affirming this the Iesuits denying it and charging each other with no less than Heresie about it For upon the Iesuits asserting Octob. 12. A.D. 1661. that the Pope hath the same infallibility that Iesus Christ hath not only in Questions of right but in matters of fact and that thence those of their Church are bound to believe with a divine faith that the 5. condemned Propositions are in Iansenius the Iansenists publish a charge of heresie against the Iesuits and such as was never broached in the Church before being not only a solitary error or simple heresie but a whole source of errors or rather an universal heresie which overthrows all Religion Which they goe about at large to prove by shewing that this builds mens faith on the word of man and not on the word of God because it concerns a thing neither revealed nor attested by God as to know whether Propositions are really an Authors of this last Age and as he goes on to make the Popes word equal with the word of God is not only heresie but horrid impiety and a species of Idolatry for this is giving to man the honour due only to God because such an entire submission of our mind and of all our intellectuals comprehended in the act of our faith is that Adoration which we pay to the prime verity it self And I dare now leave any one to Judge whether upon so late an experiment of the Constitutions of two Popes Innocent 10. and Alexander 7. in order to the ending so great a Controversie as this was it be not apparent that the Popes Authority signifies no more to the ending Controversies than the parties who are concerned are willing that it should i. e. as far as they doe consent to obey them and no farther § 14. But it may be said that it is true there are differences among them about the Popes power and infallibility and therefore he may not be so fit to end Controversies but there is no dispute among them about Pope and Council together therefore in that case they are all agreed that they ought to submit These are fine things to be said and appeare plausibly to those who doe not search into them but those that doe will easily find this as ineffectual a remedy as the other For if we examine but the ways used by the several parties among them to avoid the decisions of some Councils against their particular opinions we may see how little the decrees of Councils can bind those who have no mind to be tyed up by them Either they say the decision depended on a matter of fact which the Council was not sufficiently informed in and they believe a Council may erre in a matter of fact or else it did not proceed after the way of a Council or it was not general or its decrees were not received by the Catholick Church or though some were received yet not all or however the infallibility of a Council is not absolute but supposing that it proceeds according to the constant tradition of the Church which unavoidably leaves the matter as much under debate as if the Council had never meddled with it But if they doe in earnest believe that the Pope and Council can put an end to all Controversies among them when they please I would fain know why they have not done this hitherto Is not unity desirable among them if not why doe they boast of it if it be why have they not obtained it since they can so easily doe it what made them so extremely cautious in the Council of Trent of meddling with any thing that was in Controversie among themselves or was it that they were all so much of a mind that they had nothing to doe but to condemn their enemies which was so far from being true that there were very few things which came into bebate that they were agreed in and therefore they were put sometimes to strange shifts to find out general and ambiguous terms which might not displease the dissenters and yet leave the disputes as great as ever They could not agree so much as about the Title of the Council many of the Bishops were for adding to the Title of the most holy Council Representing the Church Vniversal which was eagerly opposed by the Italians and with much adoe avoided by the Legats being no small controversie about words but of very great consequence about the power and authority of Pope and Council if they had been suffered to goe on in it But the Pope hearing of this dispute at the beginning sent word to the Legats not to broach any new difficulties in matter of faith nor to determine any of the things controversed among Catholicks and to proceed slowly in the Reformation Excellent instructions for the advancement of Peace and Holiness Whoever will for that end peruse that incomparable history of the Council will find how high the Controversies among themselves were between the Bishops and the Regulars about priviledges between the Dominicans and Franciseâ—ins in many weighty points between the Italian Bishops and others about Residence and the extent of Episcopal power between the Divines in most of the matters of doctrine as might easily be shewed at large if I loved the pains of transcribing but I had rather referre the Reader to that excellent history it self But I only renew my demand why must no controversies among Catholicks be ended in the Council could they be better decided any where else if so then the Council is not the best means of Vnity if not then it seems there is no necessity of ending controversies among them but they have Vnity enough without it And in truth it is Interest and not
it becomes a duty to such a one But hold say they of the Church of Rome to S. Paul this is only meant of those whom the Church allowes to marry but if the Church once forbid it to any they are not to marry let their case be what it will Here then lyes the dispute between S. Paul and them S. Paul saith to avoid fornication a man ought to marry they say that to marry after the prohibition of the Church is worse than Fornication S. Paul might it may be ask what authority their Church had to determin contrary to what he had done in this case Or men to make vows against the most proper remedy of some of the Infirmities of humane nature and which God hath not promised to any to keep them from If obedience to the Church be indisputable it is only in such things which God hath not antecedently determin'd by his own Law but in the case between marriage and fornication God himself hath given a Law before hand which no Church in the world can reverse And however indifferent a thing in the general it be to marry or not yet when it comes to that point either marriage or Fornication I wonder at the confidence of any who dare upon any account whatsoever make marriage a greater crime than Fornication But he saith it seems strange to them who either cannot or will not take the word of Christ that is his counsel of chastity that marriage in a Priest should be a greater sin than Fornication It doth I assure you seem strange to us because we are desirous to keep the Commands of Christ and we are sure marriage is against none of them but Fornication is Doth that man take Christs counsel of chastity that rather chooses to commit Fornication than marry What admirable chastity is that and what a beastly institution must marriage be if Fornication be a less crime than that But what a reflection is this the mean while on the author of it and that state of innocency and purity wherein it was first appointed They must needs think themselves very holy men who look on that state as too impure for them which was allotted to man in his greatest Innocency But although the first Ages of the Christian Church were so full of hardship and difficulties that if ever it should have been required of the Governours of the Church to have been above this state it should have been at that time yet we find no such thing in the Apostolical times or afterwards when the necessities of affairs would most have required it But when the Christian Church came to have settlement in the world and by degrees persons were fixed with endowments to particular places and some care of affaires of the world was necessarily joyned with those of the Church there was far less reason to make such a prohibition of marriage to the Clergy than ever was before And the scandals were so abominable where those restraints were most in force that on that very account the wisest men though as fond as any of the Churches authority thought there was more reason to give liberty to Priests to marry than ever there had been to restrain them from it I am not bound to defend all the extravagant and indiscreet passages which fell from some of the Fathers concerning marriage but I am sure the Church preserved her liberty in it notwithstanding them as I might easily prove if it were suitable to my present designe And S. Cyprian speaking of those Virgins who came nearest to vows of virginity as Rigaltius observes saith that it were better for them to marry than to fall into bell by their sins when they either will not or cannot keep their promise the same thing is said by S. Augustin by Epiphanius by the author of the epistle ad Demetriadem as Bishop Iewel hath long since proved and need not here be repeated Two things he objects to prove marriage worse than fornication after a vow of continency one from the authority of S. Paul who saith the younger Widdows that marry after the dedicating themselves to the service of the Church doe incurre damnation because by so doing they made void their first faith i. e. as the Fathers expound it the vow they had made But doth he really think that they did not break their first faith and incurre damnation by Fornication as well as by Marrying If they did how can this prove marriage worse than Fornication I grant that by their first faith hath been understood the promise made to the Church and who denies the breach of promise to be a bad and scandalous thing which is that S. Paul means by damnation and is not Fornication much more so where a thing in it self evil is committed besides the breach of the promise Can any one think that is not more waxing wanton against Christ than meer marrying is Therefore S. Paul would have the younger Women to marry and not make any such promises which they would be in danger of breaking he would have none admitted into the condition of Church-widdowes but those that were 60. years of ages and so in reason to be supposed passed the temptations to Fornication Whereby he shews what rule ought to be observed in all such promises and that none ought to be brought under them but such as are to be supposed past the common temptations of humane nature in those things But his second authority is more to his purpose if it were good for any thing which is the 104. Cannon of the 4. Council of Carthage as it is called but he might have found in Iustellus his preface to the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae that this 4. Council of Carthage is of no Authority at all and we need not be concerned for any Canon contained therein which is not in the Code of the African Church as this is not but seems taken out of some Decretals of the Popes as will appear by comparing the 101. Canon in the Collection of Cresconius with the 104. of this Council And it would be very strange if S. Augustin were present in this Council that he should herein oppose what he had said elsewhere for he determins that the marrying again of the widdows that had vowed continuance in that state was no Adultery but a lawful marriage and that husband and wife ought not to be separated from each other upon such marriages and by that means make the husbands truely Adulterers when they separate from them and marry other wives and therefore saith he that which the Apostle condemns in them is not so much their marrying as their will to marry whether they doe or no whereby they break their first faith So that it is not marriage but lust which the Apostle condemns from whence it appears that S. Austin could never if he spake consonantly to himself condemn marriage after a vow of continency to be worse than
10. Conciâ—or Antiq. Galliae sâ—pplement p. 78. A. D. 756. Papir Masson Annales Franc. l. 2. p. 87. Sigon de reg Ital. l. 3. A. 754. Sermond Concil Tom. 2. p. 12. Blond decad 2. l. 1. Platin. in Steph. 2. Adelmus in Franc. Annal ad A. 755. Bâ—ondus ib. Platina in Stephan 2. Platina in Stephan 3. De translat Imp. Rom. l. 1. c. 4. Platin. in Steph. 2. Blond decad 2. lib. 1. The disturbances made by Popes in the new Empire Annales Eccles. ad A. D. 833. P. Aemilius in hist or Franc. p. 54. Nithard hist. l. 1. à Petr P'thae ed. in Annal. Franc. Vita Ludovici Pii à Pithaeo ib. p. 245. Papir Masson in vit Greg. 4. Sigeberti Chron. A D. 832. Hincmar Rhemens Epistol p. 577. ed. Cord. Of the quarrels of Greg. 7. with the Emperour and other Christian Princes Urspergens Chronic. p. 226. marg Otto Frising l. 6. c. 32. Petr. Damiani Epistol l. 1. câ— 16. L. 1. Epist. ad Card. Ep. 8. Sigonius de regno Italico l. 9. in Hen. 3. A. D. 1074. Lambert Schasnabuâ—g histor German A. D. 1074. p. 201 Sigebert Gembloc Chron. A. 1074. Matt. Paris in Gul. 1. Aventin Annal. Boior l. 5. p. 564. Constitut. Imperial Tom 1. p. 238. Baron Annales Eccles. A. D. 1077. â— 40. Baron ad A. 1074. n. 10. Ad A. D. 1080. n. 8. 14. N. 1â— Helmoldi Chron. Slavorum l. 1. cap. 29. Abbas Ursperae ad A. D. 1080. Sigebert Chron. ad A. D. 1085. Florent Wigorn. ad A. 1084. Matt. Paris Histor. Anglic. A. 1087. Aventin Annal. Boior l. 5. p. 581. Sentent Cardin Baronii super excomun Venet. Sigon de regno Ital. l. 9. ad A. 1084. Baron Annal ad A. D. 1073. n. 65. Id. ad A. 1074 n. 53. Id. ib. n. 32. Id. ad A. 1080. n. 48. Id. A. 1078. n. 15. Mart. Cromer de gestis Polon l. 4. ad sin Baron ad A. D. 1074. n. 5. Id. ad A. D. 1080. n. 45. Id. A. 1079. n. 20. Eadvier prefat ad hist. Novorum Of the quarrels of his Successours Onuphrius in vit Greg 7. Sicebrct Gâ—mblac ad A. D. 1088. Helmold Chron. Slav. l. 1. c 30. Urspergens Cirron p. 235. Baron Annales ad A. D. 1088. n. 3. Aventin Annal. Boior l. 5. p. 590. Baron A. D. 1093. n. 3. Sigon de regno Ital. l. 9. A. 1093. Bar. ad A. D. 1095. n. 8. Constitut. Imper. Tom. 1. p. 247. Abbas Ursperg Chron. p. 241. Ursperg ib. Baron ad A. D. 1105. n. 4. Avent Annalâ—s Boior l. 5. p. 597. Constitut. Impâ—r Tom. 3. p. 318. Baron ad A. 1106. n. 2. c. Id ad A. D. 1105. n. 6. Id ad A. D. 1106 n. 14. Aventin Annal Boior l. 5. p. 562. Siceberti Chronic. ad A. D. 1074. Of the Schisms in the Roman Church Bellarm. de rotis Eccles. l. 4 c. 10 De Eccles. milâ—t l 3 c. 5. Onuphr Annot in Plat. vit Formosi Victorel add ad ciaâ—coâ— de vit Pontif Baron Annal ad A. D. 897 n. 2 3. Papir Masson de Episcop u. b. l. 3. p. 151. Morinus de Sacris Eccles ordinat par 2 p. 348. Baron Annal ad A D. 897. n. 8 9. Platina in vit Steph. 6. Ad. A. D. 900. n. 1. N. 6. Baron A. 908. n. 3. A. D. 912. n. 14. A. D. 928. n. 2. Luitprand hist. l. 3. cap. 12. Baron ad A. 933. n. 1. Baron A. D. 963. n. 15. N. 27 28 c. N. 33. A. 964. n 7. Baron An ad A. D. 1052. n. 6. Aâ—hors Ciaccoa vit Pontif in Clem. 7. Of the differences in the Roman Church about matters of Government Gregor l. 4. Epist. 43. Carolâ— M. Capitular l. 5. n. 25. Bernard Epist. 42 ad Hen. Senon De consider l. 3. c. 4 Ivo Carâ—ot Ep 29. 276. Petri Blesens Ep. 68. De periculis noviss temporum p. 18. Cap. 2. Cap. 3. Cap. 4. Cap. 5. Cap. 9. Cap. 10. Cap. 11. Cap. 12. Cap. 13. Cap. 14. Of the insufficiency of the Popes authority for ending this Controversie Clementin l. 3. c. 2. Gregor decret Epistol l 5. n. 31. c. 16 17. Matth. Paris A. D. 1235. p. 419. Petrus de Vineis epistol lib. 1. ep 37. Seculum quintum Universit Paris p. 271. D'attichy hist. Cardinal Tom 1. vit nibaldi Rainald ad A. D. 1254. n. 73. Boulay histor universit Paris tom 3. p. 176. Id. p. 462. Meyer Annales Flandr l. 10. ad A. D. 1285. Extravagant commun l. 5. tit 7. c. 1. Wadding Annal. Minorum ad A. D. 1357. Rich. Armach Defensio Curat Bulae hist. universit Paris tom 4. p. 337. Walsingham hist. Angl. in Adv. 3. p. 173. Ioh. Wickliffe against the Orders of Fryers c. 10. p. 28. Of the differences between the regulars and seculars in England Watsons Reply to Parsons his Libel p. 2. Petri Aurelii opera tom 1. p. 62. Of the Jesuits particular opposition to Bishops and their Authority Moral practice of the Jesuits p. 328. Bull. Rom. Tom. 2. p. 361. Bull. 1. Greg. 13. Collection of Tract p. 11. S. Amours Iournal p. 5. ch 15. Index Alex A.D. 1658. S. Amours Iournal p. 7. ch 5. Of their differences in matters of doctrine Greg. de Valent. Analys fidâ—i l. 6. c. 4. 9. The insufficiency of the Popes Authority for ending these differences S. Amours Iournal p. 3. ch 10. Iournal p. 6. ch 26. P. 3. ch 8. Iournal p. 1. ch 9. Iournal p. 6. ch 3. 〈◊〉 6. ch◠〈◊〉 The insufficiency of Councils to end Controversies History of the Council of Trent l. 2. p. 138. P. 149. Their differences are in matters of faith Their differences not confined to their Schools Scot. in 3. lib. sent dist 3. q. 1. n. 10. Apolog. pâ—o vitâ morte Ioh. Dâ—ns Scoti Walsinâ—ham hist. circa A. D. 1389. Sext. Seculum Universit Paris p. 618. V. Meyâ—r Aâ—â—al Flaâ—dr l. 14. A. 1388. Cavelli Rosar B. Mariae test 14. sâ—cul Wadding Legatio de Concept Sect. 3. tract 12. S. 1. Moral practice of the Jesuits pag. 383. The misinterpreting Scripture doth not hinder its being a rule of faith S. August tract 18. in Iob. cap. 5. Of their superstitious observations Of Indulgences The practice of Indulgences Baron ad A. D. 1084. n. 15. Grâ—g 7. l 6. Ep. 15. Leo Casin hist. l. 3. c. 71. Gul. Tyrius l. 1. hist. Orient Will. Malms l. 4. c. 2. Ordâ—r Vitalis hist. Ecclâ—s ad A. D. 1095. Bernard Exhort ad milit tâ—mpli c. 5. Morinus de Sacram Poenit. l. 10. c. 23. cap. 23. Baron ad A. D. 1118. n. 31. Id. ad A D. 1127. n. 5. Id. ad A D 1177. n. 8. Id. ad A D. 1177. n. 76. Ad A. D. 1179. n. 7. Bzov. ad A. D. 1219. 3. Id. A. D. 1239. n 8. Ad A. D. 1208. n. 5. Morinus de Poenitent l. 10. c. 20. Baron ad A. D. 847. Extravag Commun l. 5. tit 9. c. 1. Bzov. ad A. D. 1300. n 1. Bell. de Iâ—dâ—l l. 1. c. 9. Gobelin Peâ—soâ—a Cosâ—odrâ—aet 6. c. 86. Of Iâ—dâ—lgences at Rome Hen. Foulis preface to the History of Romish usurpations Bell. de Indulg l. 2. c. 20. On phrius de 7. urbis Ecclesâ—â—s Caesar Raspon de Basilicâ Lateraâ—ensi l. 2. c. 14. p. 204. Raspon de Basil. â—ater l 4. c. 19. Of Indulgences for saying some prayers Horae B. V. Mariae sâ—cundum usum Sarum p. 38. Pag. 42. P. 45. P. 50. P. 54. P. 58. P. 61. P. 66. P. 72. What opinion hath been had of Indulgences in the Roman Church Durand in sentent l. 4. dist 20. q. 3. Ioh. Major in sent l. 4. dist 20. Cajetan opusc de Indulgent init Soto in sent l. 4. dist 20. Greg. de Valent. de Indulg c 4. Estius in sent l. 4. dist 20 â— 2. Morinus de paenitent l. 10 c. 20. â— 9. Râ—ff c. Luther art 18. Polyd. Vâ—rgil de Iavent l. 8. c. 1. Alâ—hons à Castro adveâ—s haeres l. 8. v. Indulg Alphons l. 1. c. 12. Bellar. de amâ—ssâ—gratiae l. 6. c. 3. resp ad â—bj 6. Aquin. sâ—pplement sum q. 25. art 2. Bonavent in sent l. 4. dist 20. q. 6. Greg. de Valent. de Indulg c. 2. Apud Morin l. 10. c. 20. n. 5. Ib. n. 7. Guil. Altissiodor sum l. 4. tract 6. c. 9. Morin l. 10. c. 21. n. 3 Greg. de Valent. de Indulg c. 2. Albert. M. in sent l. 4. dist 20. art 17. Petrarch ep 5. Gobâ—l Personaâ—aet 6. c. 68. Paul Largii Chronic. Citizens ad A. D. 1395. Uâ—spâ—rg Chron. p. 307. Platina in Bonif. 9. Ursperg Chron. p. 322. Gerson de Indulg coâ—sid 8. Bull. Rom. Tom. 1. Sixt. 4. Coâ—st 17. Sâ—rrar Rerum Moâ—untiac l. 1. c. 34. Wesseli Groning oper p. 867 c. Iac. Angular in ep Wesseli Bell. de Indulg l. 1. c. 12. Of Bellarmins prudent Christian The absurdity of the doctrine of Indulgences and the Churches Treasure Cassander in consult art 12. Barns Cathol Rom. Pacific S. 9. White de medio anim statudem 26. Clem. 8. const 58. To. 3. Bull. Uâ—ban 8. const 16. To. 4. The tendency of Indulgences to hinder devotion Dâ—â—and in sentent l. 4. dist 20. q. 4. Polyd virg de invent rer l. 8. c. 1. Onus Eccâ—â— c. 14. 8. 28. Centum gravamina act 3. 4. Of communion in one kind Vindication of Arch-Bishop Land Part. 3. ch 3. 8. 14. 15. 16. 17. Of the Popes power of dispensing The ill consequence of asserting marriage in a Priest to be worse than Fornication 1 Cor. 7. 9. Cyprian ep 62. August de San. Virginit 1. c. 34. Epiph. c. haer 61. Hieronym ep adv demetriad Jewels defense of the Apology part 2. p. 174. â— Tim. 5. 14. v. 9. Bibliotheca furis Canoniâ—i p. 317. August de bono viduitat c. 9. 10. 11. Of the uncertainty of faith in the Roman Church Vindication of Arch-Bishop Laud part 1. ch 5. 6. 7. 8 9. c. 7. sect 9. The case of a revolter and a bred Papist compared The motives of the Roman Church considered Preface to the second part of his dissuasive Polemical discourses p 705. c. The saith of Protestants reduced to Principles