his Method and Representations without Digressons or provoking Reflections II. But I must declare my self very much unsatisfied with the Method he hath taken to clear his Party from these Misrepresentations For 1. He takes upon him to draw a double Character of a Papist and in the one he pretends to follow a certain Rule but not in the other which is not fair and ingenuous As to the one he saith He follows the Council of Trent and their allowed Spiritual Books and Catechisms and we find no fault with this But why must the other Part then be drawn by Fancy or common Prejudices or ignorant Mistakes Have we no Rule whereby the Judgment of our Church is to be taken Are not our Articles as easy to be had and understood as the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent I will not ask How the Council of Trent comes to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here where it was never received But I hope I may why our Representations are not to be taken from the Sense of our Church as their's from the Council of Trent If he saith â—his Design was to remove common Prejudices and vulgar Mistakes it is easy to answer if they are contraâ—y to the Doctrine of our Church we utterly disown them We know very well there are Persons who have so false a Notion of Popery that they charge the Rites and Customs of our Church with it but we pitty their Weakness and Folly and are far from defending such Misrepresentations But that which we adhere to is the Doctrine and Sense of our Church as it is by Law established and what Representations are made agreeable thereto I undertake to defend and no other But if a Person take the liberty to lay on what Colours he pleases on one side it will be no hard matter to take them off in the other and then to say How much fairer is our Church than she is painted It is an easy but not so allowable a way of disputing for the same Person to make the Objections and Answers too for he may so model and frame the Arguments by a little Art that the Answers may appear very full and sufficient whereas if they had been truly represented they would be found very lame and defective 2. He pretends to give an account why he quotes no Authors for his Misrepresentations which is very unsatisfactory viz. That he hath described the Papist therein exactly according to the apprehension he had of him when he was a Protestant But how can we tell what sort of Protestant he was nor how well he was instructed in his Religion And must the Character now supposed to be common to Protestants be taken from his ignorant or childish or wilful Mistakes Did ever any Protestant that understands himself say That Papists are never permitted to hear Sermons which they arâ— able to understand p. 58. or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry p. 9. Or that a Papist believes thâ— Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels c Yet these are some of his Misrepresentations p. 40. Did he in earnest think so himself Iâ— he did he gives no good account of himself if he did not he gives a worse for then how shall we believe him in other things when he saith He hath drawâ— his Misrepresentations exactly according to his own Apprehensions It is true he saith he added some few Points which were violently charged on him by his Friends but we dare be bold to say this was none of them But let us suppose it true that he had such Apprehensions himself Are these fit to be printed as the Character of a Party What would they say to us if a Spanish Convert should give a Character of Protestants according to the common Opinion the People there have of them and set down in one Column their monstrous Misrepresentations and in another what he found them to be since his coming hither and that in good Truth he saw they were just like other Men. But suppose he had false Apprehensions before he went among them why did he not take care to inform himself better before he changed Had he no Friends no Books no Means to rectify his Mistakes Must he needs leave one Church and go to another before he understood either If this be a true Account of himself it is but a bad Account of the Reasons of his Change 3. The Account he gives of the other Part of his Character affords as little satisfaction For although in the general it be well that he pretends to keep to a Rule yet 1. He shews no Authority he hath to interpret that Rule in his own sense Now several of his Representations depend upon his own private Sense and Opinions against the Doctrine of many others as zealous for their Church as himself and what Reason have we to adhere to his Representation rather than to theirs As for instance he saith The Pope's personal Infallibility is no Matter of Faith p. 42. But there are others fay it is and is grounded on the same Promises which makes him Head of the Church Why now must we take his Representation rather than theirs And so as to the Deposing Power he grants it hath been the Opinion of several Popes and Councils too but that it is no Matter of Faith p. 47. But whose Judgment are we to take in this Matter according to the Principles of their Church A private Man's of no Name no Authority or of those Popes and Councils who have declared it and acted by it And can any Man of their Church justify our relying upon his Word against the Declaration of Popes and Councils But suppose the Question be about the Sense of his own Rule the Council of Trent what Authority hath he to declare it when the Pope hath expresly forbidden all Prelats to do it and reserved it to the Apostolical Sea 2. He leaves out in the seâ—eral Particulars an essential part of the Character of a Papist since the Council of Trent which is that he doth not only believe the Doctrines there defined to be true but to be necessary to Salvation And there is not a word of this in his Representation of the Points of Doctrine but the whole is managed as though there were nothing but a difference about some particular Opinions whereas in Truth the Necessity of holding those Doctrines in order to Salvation is the main Point in difference If Men have no mind to believe their own Senses we know not how to help it but we think it is very hard to be told we cannot be saved unless we renounce them too And this now appears to be the true State of the Case since Pius the 4th drew up and published a Confession of Faith according to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent wherein Men are not only required to believe their Traditions as firmly as the Bible the
doth not reach the Case For the Question is not whether their Church teach men to lye but whether there be not such a Power in the Church as by altering the Nature of things may not make that not to be a Lye which otherwise would be one As their Church teaches that Men ought not to break their Vows yet no one among them questions but the Pope may dissolve the Obligation of a Vow altho it be made to God himself Let him shew then how the Pope comes to have a Power to release a Vow made to God and not to have a Power to release the Obligation to veracity among men Again We do not charge them with delivering any such Doctrine That men may have Dispensations to lye and forswear themselves at pleasure for we know this Dispensing Power is to be kept up as a great Mystery and not to be made use of but upon weighty and urgent Causes of great Consequence and Benefit to the Church as their Doctâ—â—â— declare But as to all matters of fact which he alludes to I have nothing to say to them for our debate is only whether there be such a Power of Dispensation allowed in the Church of Rome or not XX. Of the Deposing Power TO bring this matter into as narrow a compass as may be I shall first take notice of his Concessions which will save us a labour of Proofs 1. He yields that the Deposing and King-killing Power hath been maintained by some Canonists and Divines of his Church and that it is in their opinion lawful and annexed to the Papal Chair 2. That some Popes have endeavoured to act according to this Power But then he denies that this Doctrine appertains to the Faith of his Church and is to be believed by all of that Communion And more than that he saith The affirming of it is a malicious Calumny a down-right Falsity Let us now calmly debate the matter Whether according to the received principles of the Church of Rome this be only a particular opinion of some Popes and Divines or be to be received as a matter of Faith The Question is not Whether those who deny it do account it an Article of Faith for we know they do not But whether upon the Principles of the Church of Rome they are not bound to do it I shall only to avoid cavilling proceed upon the Principles owned by our Author himself viz. 1. That the sense of Scripture as understood by the Community of Christians in all Ages since the Apostles is to be taken from the present Church 2. That by the present Church he understands the Pastors and Prelates assembled in Councils who are appointed by Christ and his Apostles for the decision of Controversies and that they have Infallible assistance 3. That the Pope as the Head of the Church hath a particular Assistance promised him with a special regard to his Office and Function If therefore it appear that Popes and Councils have declared this Deposing Doctrine and they have received other things as Articles of Faith upon the same Declarations Why should they then stick at yielding this to be an Article of Faith as well as the other It is not denied that I can find that Popes and Councils for several Ages have asserted and exercised the Deposing Power but it is alledged against these Decrees and Acts 1. That they were not grounded upon Universal Tradition 2. That they had not Universal Reception Now if these be sufficient to overthrow the Definitions of Councils let us consider the consequences of it 1. Then every Man is left to examin the Decrees of Councils whether they are to be embraced or not for he is to judge whether they are founded on Universal Tradition and so he is not to take the sense of the present Church for his Guide but the Universal Church from Christs time which overthrows a Fundamental Principle of the Roman Church 2. Then he must reject the pretended Infallibility in the Guides of the Church if they could so notoriously err in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Christendom as this was and consequently their Authority could not be sufficient to declare any Articles of Faith And so all Persons must be left at Liberty to believe as they see cause notwithstanding the Definitions made by Popes and Councils 3. Then he must believe the Guides of the Roman Church to have been mistaken not once or twice but to have persisted in it for Five hundred years which must take away not only Infallibility but any kind of Reverence to the Authority of it For whatever may be said as to those who have depended on Princes or favour their Parties against the Guides of the Church it cannot be denied that for so long time the leading Party in that Church did assert and maintain the Deposing Power And therefore Lessius truely understood this matter when he said That there was scarce any Article of the Christian Faith the denial whereof was more dangerous to the Church or did precipitate Men more into Heresy and Hatred of the Church than this of the Deposing Power for he says they could not maintain their Churches Authority without it And he reckons up these ill Consequences of denying it 1. That the Roman Church hath erred for at least Five hundred years in a matter fundamental as to Government and of great Moment Which is worse than an Error about Sacraments as Penance Extreme Unction c. and yet those who deny the Church can err in one hold that it hath erred in a greater matter 2. That it hath not only erred but voluntarily and out of Ambition perverting out of Design the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and Fathers concerning the Power of the Church and bringing in another contrary to it against the Right and Authority of Princes which were a grievous sin 3. That it made knowingly unrighteous Decrees to draw persons from their Allegiance to Princes and so they became the Causes of many Seditions and Rebellions and all the ill Consequences of them under a shew of Piety and Religion 4. That the Churches Decrees Commands Judgements and Censures may be safely contemned as Null and containing intollerable Errors And that it may require such things which good Subjects are bound to disobey 5. That Gregory VII in the Canon Nos Sanctorum c. Urban II. Gregory IX the Councils of Lateran under Alex. III. and Innocent III. the Councils of Lyons of Vienna of Constance of Lateran under Leo X. and of Trent have all grievously and enormously erred about this matter For that it was the Doctrine of them all he shews at large and so Seven General Councils lose their Infallibility at one blow 6. That the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church For the true Church could never teach such pernicious Doctrine as this must be if it be not true And if it erred in this it might as
in that Sacrament Sess. 14. c. 4. So that altho a Man hath led a very bad Life if he hath but this Attrition for his sins when he doth confess them he is put into a state of Grace by this Sacrament And what can any Man expect more and what can he do less I do not mean a bare natural Attrition the sufficiency whereof is condemned by Innocent XI in the same Proposition Fifty seventh but that which the Council of Trent calls Imperfect Contritiâ—n i. e. a good Motion in a Mans mind to â—orsake his Sins for fear of Punishment if really no more be required for a state of Grace but this it is no wonder if Men put off the doing of that which may be done at any time so easily by the help of a Priest 2. The Treasure of the Church is another thing which is very apt to hinder Mens speedy Repentance for by that they believe there is a stock ready of so many Merits and Satisfactions of others if duely applied to them by Indulgences that they need not be at such pains to Work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling When a Man by the Sacrament of Penance is put into a state of Grace the Eternal Punishment is discharged and nothing remains but some Temporal Pains and to ease him of these he hath many helps but especially the Treasure of the Church which the Pope hath the dispensing of as he is bound to believe and by Indulgences he may easily get off some Thousands of years of Purgatory-Pains and if these should fail him there is another help yet left which is leaving a stock for Prayers for his Soul when he dies which even our Author assures him are very available towards bis speedier release out of Purgatory p. 58. XXVIII Of FASTING THE Question here is Whether a Man doth not observe their Churches Command about Fasting who forbears all forbidden things but takes liberty in those which are not forbidden It is not Whether they may not break the Commands of God against Gluttony and Drunkenness But whether they break the Law of the Church about Fasting And notwithstanding what our Author hath said I see no Reason for the Affirmative I do not deny 1. That it is a very indifferent sort of Fasting to abstain from Flesh unless all other sorts of Excesses at the same time be carefully avoided 2. That Excesses on such days are more scandalous because there is a pretence of Fasting 3. That God's Command doth at all times sorbid Intemperance Which are the chief things he insists upon But yet this doth not reach the point which is about their Churches Command For their Casuists distinguish Fasting into 1. Natural which is total Abstinence and this is required only in order to receiving the Eucharist 2. Moral which is the same with Temperance or Fasting for Health 3. Ecclesiastical which is defined by them to be An Abstinence from Food forbidden by the Church And if this Definition be true it cannot be broken but by eating what the Church hath prohibited And therefore their Casuists as far as I can find are agreed in these things 1. That a Man may eat a full Meal of what is not forbidden and not break the Churches Precept of Fasting provided Vespers be first said And the later Casuists blame Covarrâ—vias for making any scruple about it If a Mans Excess comes to be a Mortal sin yet for all that saith Reginaldus He shall not be judged as a breaker of his Fast. Nay Lessius goes further and saith He doth not lose the Merit of Fasting Quamvis aliquis multum excedet non solvit Jejunium saith Card. Tolet. And Paulus Zacchias saith This is the common Opinion and he thinks the Intention of the Church is sufficiently answered And so doth Pasqualigus in his Praxis of Fasting 2. A Man may drink Wine or other drink as often as he pleaseth without breaking his Fast. He may toties quoties bibere saith Diana Zach. Pasqualigus who hath Written most fully on this Subject shews That it is the general Opinion that no quantity of Wine or other drink though taken without any Necessity is a violation of the Precept of Fasting no not although the Wine be taken for nourishment because the Church doth not forbid it but this last he saith is not the general but the more probable Opinion 3. A Man may eat something when he drinks to prevent its doing him hurt besides his good Meal he may take what quantity he pleases of Sweet-meats or Fruit he may have a good Refection at Night and yet not break this strict Precept of Fasting For the eating as often as one drinks it is the common Opinion saith the same Casuist who was no Jesuit That it is not forbidden because it is taken by way of a Medicine and he quotes a great number of their Casuists for it A Collation at evening is allâ—wed saith he And Lessius saith There is no certain Rule for the Quantity of it And Card. Tolet saith very large ones are allâ—wed at Rome by the Popes Connivence even in the Court of Rome saith Reginaldus And now I leave the Reader to judge of the severity of Fasting requirâ—d in the Church of Rome XXIX Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church TWO things he saith upon this Head 1. That they are all agreed in matters of Faith 2. That they only differ in some School Points from whence he infers That they have no Schisms or Separations among them But that this is no just consequence will appear by the Schisms and Separations among us made by such who profess to agree in all matters of Faith Yet let us see how he proves that they agree in all matters of Faith because they agree to submit equally to the Determinations of the Church Now this very way evidently proves that they do not all agree because they do not equally submit to the Churches determinations For 1. Some say they are bound to submit to the Churches Determinations as it represents the Universal Church Others say no but as the Churches Power is virtually lodged in the Guides of it Now this is a very material Difference For if it be on the former Account then not the Popes and Councils Declarations are to be regarded but as they express the sense of the Universal Church and so the Majority of Votes and Numbers in the Representative and Diffusive Church is chiefly to be regarded And on this Ground some reject the Deposing-Power though plainly decreed by Popes and Councils but they unhinge their Churches Authority by it Now how is it possible for them to agree about matters of Faith who differ fundamentally about the way how any things come to be matters of Faith If they be decreed by Popes and Councils say some and so the Deposing Power is become an Article of Faith No such matter say others for a greater Number in the diffusive Church oppose
seven Sacraments Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshiping of Images Indulgences Supremacy c. but they must believe that without believing these things there is no Salvation to be had in the ordinary Way for after the enumeration of those Points it follows Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This is the true Catholick Faith without which no Man can be saved i. e. The belief of these things is thereby declared as necessary to Salvation as of any other Articles of the Creed But it may be objected The subscribing this Profession of Faith is not required of all Members of that Church To which I answer That to make a Man a Member of it he must declare that he holds the same Faith which the Church of Rome holds And this is as much the Faith of the Roman Church as the Pope and Council of Trent could make it And it is now printed in the Roman Ritual at Paris set forth by Paul V. as the Confession of Faith owned by the Church of Rome And therefore this ought to have been a Part of the true Representation as to the Doctrinal Points but when he comes to the 35th Head he then owns That unless Men do believe every Article of the Roman Faith they cannot be saved p. 96. and he that disbelieves one does in a manner disbelieve all p. 97. Which may as well reach those who disown the Deposing Power and the Pope's personal Infallibility as Us since those are accounted Articles of Faith by the ruling part of their Church to whom it chiefly belongs to declare them and the former hath been defined both by Popes and Councils 3. He never sets down what it is which makes any Doctrine to become a Doctrine of their Church We are often blamed for charging particular Opinions upon their Church but we desire to know what it is which makes a Doctrine of their Church i. e. whether frequent and publick Declaration by the Heads and Guides of their Church be sufficient or not to that End Our Author seems to imply the Necessity of some Conditions to be observed for besides the Pope's Authority he requires due Circumstances and proceeding according to Law p. 42. But who is to be Judg of these Circumstances and legal Proceedings And he never tells what these Circumstances are And yet after all he saith The Orders of the Supream Pastor are to be obey'd whether he be Infallible or not And this now brings the Matter home The Popes he confesses have owned the Deposing Doctrine and acted according to it And others are bound to obey their Orders whether infallible or not and consequently they are bound by the Doctrine of their Church to Act when the Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Power But he seems to say in this Case that a Doctrine of their Church is to be judged by the Number for saith he There are greater Numbers that disown this Doctâ—â—ne p. 47. I will not at present dispute it but I desire to be informed Whether the Doctrines of their Church go by majority of Votes or not I had thought the Authority of the Guides of the Church ought to have over-ballanced any Number of Dissenters For what are those who refuse to submit to the Dictates of Popes and Councils but Dissenters from the Church of Rome The Distinction of the Court Church of Rome is wholly impertinent in this Case For we here consider not the meer Temporal Power which makes the Court but the Spiritual Capacity of Teaching the Church and if Popes and Councils may err in Teaching this Doctrine why not in any other I know there are some that say Universal Tradition is necessary to make a Doctrine of their Church But then no submission can be required to any Doctrine in that Church till the Universal Tradition of it in all Times and in all Parts of the Christian Church be proved And we need to desire no better Terms than these as to all Points of Pope Pius IV his Creed which are in dispute between us and them 4. He makes use of the Authority of some particular Divines as delivering the Sense of their Church when there are so many of greater Authority against them Whereas if we proceed by his own Rule the greater Number is to carry it Therefore we cannot be thought to Misrepresent them if we charge them with such things as are owned either by the general and allowed Practices of their Church or their Publick Offices or the generality of their Divines and Casuists or in case of a Contest with that side which is owned by the Guides of their Church when the other is censured or which was approved by their Canonized Saints or declared by their Popes and Councils whose Decrees they are bound to follow And by these Measures I intend to proceed having no design to misrepresent them as indeed we need not And so much in Answer to the Introduction I. Of Praying to Images IN this and the other Particulars where it is necessary I shall observe this Method 1. To give a clear and impartial Account of the State of the Controversy in as few Words as I can 2. To make some Reflections on what he saith in order to the clearing them from Misrepresentations As to the State of this Controversy as it stands since the Council of Trent we are to consider 1. We must distinguish between what Persons do in their own Opinion and what they do according to the Sense of the Divine Law It is possible that Men may intend one thing and the Law give another Sense of it as is often seen in the Case of Treason although the Persons plead never so much they had no intention to commit Treason yet if the Law makes their Act to be so their disavowing it doth not Excuse them So it is in the present Case Men may have real and serious Intentions to refer their final ultimate and Soveraign Worship only to God but if the Law of God strictly and severely prohibits this particular Manner of Worship by Images in as full plain and clear Words as may be and gives a Denomination to such Acts taken from the immediate Object of it no particular Intention of the Persons can alter that Denomination or make the Guilt to be less than the Law makes it 2. There can be no Misrepresenting as to the lawfulness of many External Acts of Worship with Respect to Images which are owned by them But it doth not look fairly to put the Title Of Praying to Images for the Question is about the Worship of Images whereas this Title would insinuate as though we did directly charge them with Praying to their Images without any farther Respect Which we are so far from charging them with that I do not know of any People in the World who are not like Stones and Stocks themselves who are liable to that
upon this Declaâ—tion believe them to be Canonical since they cannot 〈◊〉 but know that these Books never were in the Jewish â—â—non and were left out by many Christian Writers Aâ— if the Church cannot add to the Scripture and 〈◊〉 Author thinks it damnable to do it how can it maâ— any Books Canonical which were not so received by tâ—â— Church For the Scripture in this sense is the Canon aâ— therefore if it add to the Canon it adds to the Scripture i. e. it makes it necessary to believe some Books to be â— infallible Authority which were not believed to be â— either by the Jewish or Christian Church as appears 〈◊〉 abundant Testimonies to that purpose produced by Learned Bishop of this Church which ought to haâ— been considered by the Representer that he might 〈◊〉 have talked so crudely about this matter But however I must consider what he saith 1. He produces the Testimony of Greg. Naziaâ—â— who is expresly against him and declares but Tweâ—â— Two Books in the Canon of the Old Testament but how doth he prove that he thought these Booâ— Canonical He quotes his Oration on the Maccabeâ— where I can find nothing like it and instead of it 〈◊〉 expresly follows as he declares the Book of Josephus 〈◊〉 the Authority of Reason concerning them So that if â—his proves any thing it proves Josephus his Book Canonical and not the Maccabees 2. He adds the Testimony of St. Ambrose who in the Place he refers to inlarges on the Story of the Maccabees â—ut saith nothing of the Authority of the Book And even Coccius himself grants that of old Melito Sardensis Amphilochius Greg. Nazianzen the Council of Laodicea S. Hierom Ruffinus and Gregory the Great did not own the Book of Maccabees for Canonical 3. Innocentius ad Exuperium speaks more to his Purpose and if that Decretal Epistle be allowed against which Bishop Cosins hath made considerable Objections then it must be granted that these Books were then in the Roman Canon but that they were not received by the Universal Church appears evidently by the Canon of the Council of Laodicea c. 60. Wherein these Books are â—est out and this was received in the Code of the Uniâ—ersal Church which was as clear a Proof of the Canon â—hen generally received as can be expected It is true the Council of Carthage took them in and St. Augustine seems â—o be of the same Opinion But on the other side they â—re left out by Melito Bishop of Sardis who lived near â—he Apostles times Origen Athanasius St. Hilary St. Cyril of Jerusalem Epiphanius St. Basil Amphilochius St. Chrysostom and especially St Jerom who hath laboured â—n this point so much that no fewer than Thirteen Places â—re produced out of him to this purpose by the forementioned Learned Bishop of our Church who clearly â—roves there was no Tradition for the Canon of the Council of Trent in any one Age of the Christian Church But our Author goes on 4. It is of little concern to him whether these Books were ever in the Hebrew Copy I would â—nly ask whether it be of any concern to him whether they were divinely inspired or not He saith it is damnable to add to the Scripture by the Scripture we mean Books written by Divine Inspiration Can the Church make Books to be so written which were not so written If not then all it hath to do is to deliver by Tradition what was so and what not Whence should they have this Tradition but from the Jews and they owned no Divine Inspiration after the time of Malach How then should there be any Books so written afteâ— that time And he that saith in this Matter as he doth It is of little concern to him whether they were in the Hebrew Canon doth little concern himself what he ougâ—â— to believe and what not in this matter 5. Since the Churches Declaration he saith no Cathlicks ever doubted What doth he mean by the Churchâ— Declaration that of Innocentius and the Council of Cathage Then the same Bishop hath shewed him thâ— since that time there have been very many both 〈◊〉 the Greek and Latin Church of another Opinion Anâ— but a little before the Council of Trent Catharinus saith that a Friend of his and a Brother in Christ deride him as one that wanted Learning for daring to assert theâ— Books were within the Canon of Scripture and it 's plain Card. Cajetan could never be perswaded of it Bâ— if he means since the Council of Trent then we are â—â—turned to our first Difficulty how such a Council câ—â— make any Books Canonical which were not received 〈◊〉 such by the Catholick Church before For then they 〈◊〉 not declare the Canon but create it XII Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible 1. WE do not dispute about the Vulgar Editiâ—â— whether it may not be prefer'd before modern Latin Editions because of its great Antiquity in somâ— parts of it and its general Reception since the time of Gregory I. But our dispute is whether it be made so Authentick since the Council of Trent that no Appeals are to be made to the Originals i. e. whether that Council by its Authority could make a Version equal to the Originals out of which it was made Especially since at the time of that Decree the Vulgar Edition was confessed to be full of Errors and Corruptions by Sixtus V. who saith he took infinite pains to Correct them and yet left very many behind as appeared by Clement VIII who corrected his Bibles in very many places and grants some faults were left uncorrected still Now how was it possible for the Council of Trent to declare that Edition Authentick which was afterwards so much corrected And whether was the correct Edition of Sixtus V. Authentick or not being made in pursuance of the Decree of the Council If not how comes Clemens his Edition to be made Authentick when the other was not since there may be corruptions found in that as well as the other and no one can tell but it may be Reviewed and Corrected still as some of their own Writers confess it stands in need of it 2. Our Controversy is not so much about the Authority of the Vulgar Latin above other Latin Versions to those who understand them but whether none else but the Latin Version must be used by those who understand it not And here our Representer saith That he is commanded not to read any of these Translations speaking of Tindal's and that in Q. Elizabeths time but only that which is recommended to him by the Church If this relate to the Vulgar Latin then we are to seek why the common people should have none to Read but what they cannot understand if to Translations of their own then we doubt not to make it appear that our Translation allowed among us is more exact and agreeable than any they can
made the Law of no effect among them If there were Infallibility any where it must be in the High Priest and Sanhedrim but is it possible for any Christian to think them infallible when they were so grosly mistaken about the main Article of their Faith as to the Messias and pronounced him worthy of death Is not this a fine Argument for the Infallibility of the Guides of the Christian Church But the Church of Christ hath better Promises No doubt of it greater Promises of Grace and Mercy in this World and in that to come but what is all this to Infallibility in Councils 6. Christ's Command of Obedience to those who sat in Moses Chair Matt. 23. 2. doth not prove the Infallibility of those who sat there Yet this is alledged to that purpose and that men ought not to doubt of the Reasonableness of the Commands of their Superiors But St. Chrysostom saith our Saviour speaks of the things commanded by the Law of Moses Per Cathedram Doctrinam Legis ostendit saith S. Jerom Not their own Doctrine but that of Moses saith Isidore and so Hilary and Theophylact Maldonate confesseth our Saviours Words are to be understood not of their own Doctrine but of that of the Law and therefore he yields the Obedience here required is to be restrained to that All things saith Cajetan which they teach out of Moses 's Chair Not all their Doctrines but as far as they were conformable to the Law saith Ferus Now can any one hence infer that no men ought to dispute any Commands of Superiors when it is supposed that there is a Rule and Standard for them to speak according to and our Saviour elsewhere doth suppose these very Men to teach things contrary to the Law as in the Case of Corban Would our Saviour contradict himself or require a blind Obedience in things repugnant to the Law We do not deny a due submission to our Superiours in the Church yea we allow them a Power to determine things not forbidden and think obedience due in such things by vertue of their Authority but yet this is far enough from Infallibility or an unlimited implict Obedience which would overthrow the force of all our Saviours Reasonings against the Scribes and Pharisees as to their misinterpreting the Law and the Superstitious Practises they imposed upon the People XVIII Of the POPE 1. WE do not charge them with believing the Pope to be God which it seems himself did if we believe the Misrepresenter in his Preface but there is some Reason to doubt whether they do not at some times give him greater Honour than becomes a Man I instance in the Adoration after his Election when the new Pope is placed upon the Altar to receive the Submissions of the Cardinals but the Altar themselves do confess to be Sacred to God alone And there they profess to Worship Jesus Christ as present in the Host. This therefore looks too much like assuming the Place of Christ and not becoming the Distance between God and Man 2. The Question is Whether Christ hath appointed the Pope or Bishop of Rome to be Pastor Governour and Head of his Church under him This he saith he believes and this he knows we deny and therefore had Reason to expect some Proof of it But instead he tells us how they look on themselves as obliged to shew him the Respect due to his Place which he knows is not the matter in Question Two things however he saith which seem to justify his Title 1. He is the Successor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the care of his Flock But how far is this from proving the Pope to be Head of the Church under Christ For how doth it appear that Christ ever made S. Peter Head of the Church or committed his Flock to him in contradistinction to the rest of the Apostles This is so far from being evident from Scripture that the Learned men of their Church are ashamed of the Places commonly produced for it it being impossible ever to justify the sense of them according to their own Rules of Interpreting Scripture viz. by the unanimous consent of the Fathers For 1. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church is interpreted by many of the Fathers both Greek and Latin of S. Peters Confession and not of his Person so by S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin S. Basil of Selucioe S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret all great and considerable Persons in the Christian Church whose words are plain and full to that purpose and so they can never produce the unanimous consent of the Fathers for S. Peter's Supremacy out of these Words 2. And unto thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are interpreted by the Fathers of S. Peter in common with the other Apostles so Origen S. Cyprian S. Hilary S. Hierom and S. Augustin as they are all owned by a Member of the Roman Communion And 3. For these Words Feed my Sheep a late Learned Doctor of the Sorban shews that if they prove any thing Peculiar to S. Peter they must prove him sole Pastor of the Church which was the thing S. Gregory disputed against so warmly But that there was nothing peculiar to S. Peter above or beyond the rest of the Apostles he shews at large from S. Chrysostom S. Cyril S. Augustin and others to whom I refer the Reader and to the former Authors But suppose it were made to appear that S. Peter was Head of the Church How doth the Bishop of Rome's Succession in that Headship shew it self To that he saith 2. That there hath been a visibile Succession of above Two hundred and fifty Bishops acknowledged as such in all past Ages by the Christian World As such What is that As Bishops of Rome That is not of weight enough to put it upon Trial as Heads of the Catholick-Church That he knows is not only denied by us but by all the Greek Armenian Nestorian Abyssin Churches so that we dare say it was never allowed in any one Age of the Christian Church But we need not insist on the proof of this since the late mentioned Authors of the Roman Communion have taken so great pains not only to prove the Popes Supremacy to be an Incroachment and Usurpation in the Church but that the laying it aside is necessary to the Peace and Unity of it And until the Divine Institution of the Papal Supremacy be proved it is to no purpose to debate what manner of Assistance is promised to the Pope in his Decrees Our Author is willing to decline the debate about his Personal Infallibility as a matter of Opinion and not of Faith and yet he saith he doubts not but God doth grant a special Assistancé to the High Priest for the good of the whole Flock under the New Law as he did under the Old and produces the
Instance of Caiaphas Joh. 11. 51. This is a very surprizing way of Reasoning for if his Arguments be good from Scripture he must hold the Popes personal Infallibity as a matter of Faith and yet one would hardly think he should build an Article of Faith on the instance of Caiaphas For what consequence can be drawn from Gods over-ruling the mind of a very bad man when he was carrying on a most wicked design to utter such words which in the event proved true in another sense than he meant them that therefore God will give a special Assistance to the Pope in determining matters of Faith Was not Caiaphas himself the man who proposed the taking away the Life of Christ at that time Was he assisted in that Council Did not he determine afterwards Christ to he guilty of Blasphemy and therefore worthy of Death And is not this a rare Infallibility which is supposed to be consistent with a Decree to crucifie Christ And doth he in earnest think such Orders are to be obeyed whether the supreme Pastor be Infallible or not For so he concludes That his Sentence is to be obeyed whether he be infallible or no XIX Of Dispensations HERE the Misrepresenter saith That a Papist believes that the Pope hath Authority to dispense with the Laws of God and absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments On the other side the Representer affirms That the Pope has no Authority to dispense with the Law of God and that there 's no Power upon Earth can absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments This matter is not to be determined by the ones affirming and the others denying but by finding out if possible the true sense of the Church of Rome about this matter And there are Three Opinions about it 1. Of those who assert That the Pope hath a Power of Dispensing in any Divine Law except the Articles of Faith The Gloss upon the Canon Law saith That where the Text seems to imply that the Pope cannot dispense against the Apostle it is to be understood of Articles of Faith And Panormitan saith This Exposition pleases him well for the Pope may dispense in all other things Contra Apostolum dispensat saith the Gloss on the Decree And the Roman Editors in the Margin refer to 34 Dist. c. Lector to prove it And there indeed the Gloss is very plain in the Case sic ergo Papa dispensat contra Apostolum And the Roman Correctors there justifie it and say it is no absurd Doctrine as to positive Institutions But the former notable Gloss as Panormitan calls it sets down the particulars wherein the Pope may dispense As 1. Against the Apostles and their Canons 2. Against the Old Testament 3. In Vows 4. In Oaths The Summa Angelica saith the Pope may dispense as to all the Precepts of the Old Testament And Clavasiâ—â— founds this Power upon the Plenitude of the Popes Power according to that Expression in the Decretal mentioned that he can ex plenitudine Potestatis de Jure supra Jus dispensare and without such a Power he saith God would not have taken that care of his Church which was to be expected from his Wisdom Jacobatius brings several Instances of this Power in the Pope and refers to the Speculator for more Jac. Almain saith That all the Canonists are of Opinion that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle and many of their Divines but not all For 2. Some of their Divines held that the Pope could not dispense with the Law of God as that implies a proper Relaxation of the Law but could only Authoritatively declare that the Law did not oblige in such a particular Case because an Inferior could not take away the force of a Superiors Law and otherwise there would be no fixed and immutable Rule in the Church and if the Pope might dispense in one Law of God he might dispense in the rest And of this Opinion were some of the most eminent School-Divines as Thomas Aquinas Bonaventure Major Soto and Catbarinus who at large debates this Question and denies that the Pope hath any Power to dispense with Gods Law But then he adds that the Pope hath a kind of Prophetical Power to declare in what Cases the Law doth oblige and in what not which he parallels with the Power of declaring the Canon of Scripture and this he doth not by his own Authority but by Gods He confesseth the Pope cannot dispense with those Precepts which are of themselves indispensable nor alter the Sacraments but then saith he there are some Divine Laws which have a general force but in particular Cases may be dispensed with and in these cases the Law is to be relaxed so that the Relaxation seems to come from God himself But he confesses this Power is not to be often made use of so that he makes this Power to be no Act of Jurisdiction but of Prophetical Interpretation as he calls it and he brings the Instance of Caiaphas to this purpose And he adds that the difference between the Divines and Canonists was but in Terms for the Canonists were in the right as to the Power and the Divines in the manner of explaining it 3. Others have thought this too loose a way of explaining the Popes Power and therefore they say That the Pope hath not a bare declaratory Power but a real Power of dispensing in a proper sense in particular Cases For say they the other is no act of Jurisdiction but of Discretion and may belong to other men as well as to the Pope but this they look on as more agreeable to the Popes Authority and Commission and a bare declaratory Power would not be sufficient for the Churches Necessity as Sanchez shews at large and quotes many Authors for this Opinion and Sayr more and he saith the Practice of the Church cannot be justified without it Which Suarez much insists upon and without it he saith the Church hath fallen into intolerable Errors and it is evident he saith the Church hath granted real Dispensations and not meer Declarations And he founds it upon Christs Promise to Peter To thee will I give the Keys and the Charge to him Feed my sheep But then he explains this Opinion by saying that it is no formal Dispensation with the Law of God but the matter of the Law is changed or taken away Thus I have briesly laid together the different Opinions in the Church of Rome about this Power of dispensing with the Law of God from which it appears that they do all consent in the thing but differ only in the manner of explaining it And I am therefore afraid our Representer is a very unstudied Divine and doth not well understand their own Doctrine or he would never have talked so boldly and unskilfully in this matter As to what he pretends that their Church teaches that every Lye is a Sin c. it
Author who complains so much of Misrepresenting allows and I have in short set down how little ground we have to be fond of it nay to speak more plainly it is that we can never yield to without betraying the Truth renouncing our Senses and Reason wounding our Consciences dishonouring God and his Holy Word and Sacraments perverting the Doctrine of the Gospel as to Christs Satisfaction Intercession and Remission of Sins depriving the People of the Means of Salvation which God himself hath appointed and the Primitive Church observed and damning those for whom Christ died We do now in the sincerity of our Hearts appeal to God and the World That we have no design to Misrepresent them or to make their Doctrines and Practises appear worse than they are But take them with all the Advantages even this Author hath set them out with we dare appeal to the Judgments and Consciences of any impartial men whether the Scripture being allowed on both sides our Doctrines be not far more agreeable thereto than the new Articles of Trent which are the very Life and Soul of Popery Whother our Worship of God be not more suitable to the Divine Nature and Perfections and the Manifestations of his Will than the Worship of Images and Invocation of Fellow-Creatures Whether the plain Doctrine of the necessity of Repentance and sincere Obedience to the Commands of Christ do not tend more to promote Holiness in the VVorld than the Sacrament of Penance as it is delivered and allowed to be practised in the Church of Rome i. e. with the easiness and efficacy of Absolution and getting off the remainders by Indulgences Satisfactions of others and Prayers for the dead VVhether it be not more according to the Institution of Christ to have the Communion in both Kinds and to have Prayers and the Scriptures in a Language which the People understand And lastly whether there be not more of Christian charity in believing and hoping the best of those vast bodies of Christians who live out of the Communion of the Church of Rome in the Eastern Southern Western and Northern Parts than to pronounce them all uncapable of Salvation on that Account And therefore out of regard to God and the Holy Religion of our Blessed Saviour out of regard to the Salvation of our own and others Souls we cannot but very much prefer the Communion of our own Church before that of the Church of Rome But before I conclude all I must take some notice of his Anathema's And here I am as much unsatisfied as in any other part of his Book and that for these Reasons 1. Because he hath no manner of Authority to make them suppose they were meant never so sincerely And if we should ever object them to any others of that Church they would presently say What had he to do to make Anathema's It belongs only to the Church and the General Councils to pronounce Anethema's and not to any private Person whatsoever So that if he would have published Anathema's with Authority he ought to have printed those of the Council of Trent viz. such as these Cursed is he that doth not allow the Worship of Images Cursed is he that saith Saints are not to be invocated Cursed is he that dotb not believe Transubstantiation Purgatory c. 2. Because he leaves out an Anathema in a very material point viz. As to the Deposing Doctrine We do freely and from our Hearts Anathematize all such Doctrines as tend to dissolve the Bonds of Allegiance to our Soveraign on any pretence whatsoever Why was this past over by him without any kind of Anathema Since he seems to approve the Oxford Censures p. 48. Why did he not here show his zeal against all such dangerous Doctrines If the Deposing Doctrine be falsly charged upon their Church let us but once see it Anathematized by publick Authority of their Church and we have done But in stead thereof we find in a Book very lately published with great approbations by a present Professor at Lovain Fr. D' Enghien all the Censures on the other side censured and despised and the holding the Negative as to the Deposing Doctrine is declared by him to be Heresie or next to Heresie The Censure of the Sorbon against Sanctarellus he saith was only done by a Faction and that of Sixty Eight Doctors there were but Eighteen Present and the late Censure of the Sorbon he saith was condemned by the Inquisition at Toledo Jan. 10. 1683. as erroneous and Schismatical and so by the Clergy of Hungary Oct. 24. 1682. VVe do not question but there are Divines that oppose it but we fear there are too many who do not and we find they boast of their own numbers and despise the rest as an inconsiderable Party This we do not Misrepresent them in for their most approved Books do shew it However we do not question but there are several Worthy and Loyal Gentlemen of that Religion of different Principles and Practises And it is pity such be not distinguished from those who will not renounce a Doctrine so dangerous in the Consequences of it 3. Because the Anathema's he hath set down are not Penned so plainly and clearly as to give any real Satisfaction but with so much Art and Sophistry as if they were intended to beguile weak and unwary Readers who see not into the depth of these things and therefore may think he hath done great matters in his Anathema's when if they be strictly examined they come to little or nothing as 1. Cursed is he that commits Idolatry An unwary Reader would think herein he disowned all that he accuses of Idolatry but he doth not curse any thing as Idolatry but what himself thinks to be so So again Cursed is he not that gives Divine Worship to Images but that prays to Images or Relicks as Gods or Worships them for Gods So that if he doth not take the Images themselves for Gods he is safe enough from his own Anathema 2. Cursed is every goddess worshipper i. e. That believes the Blessed Virgin not to be a Creature And so they escape all the force of this Anathema Cursed is he that Honours her or puts his trust in her more than in God So that if they Honour her and trust in her but just as much as in God they are safe enough Or that believes her to be above her Son But no Anathema to such as suppose her to be equal to him 3. Cursed is he that believes the Saints in Heaven to be his Redeemer that prays to them as such VVhat if men pray to them as their Spiritual Guardians and Protectors Is not this giving Gods Honour to them Doth this deserve no Anathema 4. Cursed is he that worships any breaden God or makes God of the empty Elements of Bread and Wine viz. That supposes them to be nothing but Bread and Wine and yet supposes them to be Gods too Doth not this look like nonsense