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
disturbances which have been among us upon their account whereas among them the Government of the Church is so ordered as to keep all in peace and Vnity This makes it necessary to examine that admirable Vnity they boast so much of and either they mean by it that there hath been less disturbance in the world before the Reformation or no Schisms among themselves or no differences in the matters of Religion But I shall now prove 1. That there have never been greater disturbances in the World than upon the account of that Authority of the Pope which they look on as the Foundation of their Vnity 2. That there have happened great and scandalous Schisms among themselves on the same account 3. That their differences in Religion both as to matter of Order and Doctrine have been as great and managed with as much animosity as any among us 1. The disturbances in the World upon the account of the Popes Authority I meddle not barely with his usurpations which work is lately and largely done but the effects of them in these Western Churches For which we are to consider what authority that is which the Pope challenges and what disturbances hath been given to the peace of Christendome by it The Authority claimed by the Pope is that of being Vniversal Pastor over the Catholick Church by vertue of which not only spiritual direction in matters of faith but an actual jurisdiction over all the members of it doth belong unto him For otherwise they say the Government of the Church is imperfect and insufficient for its end because Princes may easily overthrow the Unity of the Church by favouring Hereticks if they be not in subjection to the Pope as to their temporal concernments because it may happen that they have a regard to no other but these if it were not therefore in the Popes power to depose Princes and absolve Subjects from their Alleagiance when they oppose the Vnity of the Church his power say they is an insignificant title and cannot reach the end it was designed for Besides they urge that all Princes coming into the Church are to be supposed to submit their Scepters to Christ so as to lose them in case they act contrary to the Catholick Church of which they are made members for whosoever doth not hate Father and Mother c. cannot be my Disciple And what officer is there so fit to take all Escheats and Forfeitures of Power as Christs own Vicar upon Earth But to adde more strength Bellarmin very prettily proves it out of Pasce oves for every Pastor must have a threefold power to defend his flock a power over wolves to keep them from destroying the Sheep a power over the Rams that they do not hurt them and a power over the Sheep to give them convenient food now saith he very subtilly if a Prince of a sheep should turn a Ram or a Wolf must not he have power to drive him away and to keep the people from following him This is then the only current doctrine concerning the Popes Authority in the Court of Rome although some mince the matter more than others do and talk only of an indirect power yet they all mean the same thing and ascribe such power to the Pope whereby he may depose Princes and absolve subjects from the duty they owe to them And how much in request this Doctrine continues at Rome appears by the Counsel given by Michael Lonigo Master of the Palace to Pope Greg. 15. Printed A. D. 1623. about perswading the Duke of Bavaria then newly made Elector to receive a confirmation of his title from the Pope to which end he saith some skilful person ought to be imployed to acquaint him that the power of the Empire was the meer issue of the Church and did spring from it as a Child from the Mother and that it was a great sin for any Christian to call this into Question and consequently the Popes power and authority to determine concerning the State and affairs of the Empire and this he attempts to prove by no fewer than nineteen arguments all of them drawn from the former Usurpations of the Popes and encroachments upon the Empire from whence he concludes that the Electorship could not be lawfully taken away from one and given to another without the Popes consent and authority and that such a disposal of it was in it self null and of no force The same year came forth a Book of Aphorisms concerning the restoring the state of the Church by the decree and approbation of the Colledge of Cardinals collected by the same person and by him presented to the Pope wherein the same power of the Pope is asserted and that it belongs to him to transferr the Electoral dignity from one to another and that it ought to be taken away from the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg for opposing his Authority and that to allow the Emperour authority in these things was to rob the Apostolick See of its due rights By which we may understand what that Authority over the Church is which is challenged by the Pope as supream Pastour in order to the preserving the Unity of it § 2. We now consider what the blessed effects of this pretended power hath been in the Christian World and I doubt not to make it appear that this very thing hath caused more warrs and bloodshed more confusions and disorders more revolts and rebellions in Christendome than all other causes put together have done since the time it was first challenged and this I shall prove from their own Authors and such whose credit is the greatest among them The revolt of Rome and the adjacent parts from the subjection due to the Roman Emperour then resident at Constantinople was wholly caused by the Pope The first Pope saith Onuphrius that ever durst openly resist the Emperour was Constantine 1. who opposed Philippicus in the matter of Images which the Emperour commanded to be pulled down because they were abused to Idolatry and the Pope utterly refused to obey and not only so but set up more in opposition to him in the Pertico of St. Peter and forbad the use of the Emperours name and title in any publick Writings or Coines The same command was not long after renewed by Leo 3. upon which saith Onuphrius Gregory 2. then Pope took away the small remainder of the Roman Empire from him in Italy and Sigonius more expresly that he not only excommunicated the Emperour but absolved all the people of Italy from their Alleagiance and forbad the payment of any Tribute to him whereupon the inhabitants of Rome Campania Ravenna and Pentapolis i.e. the Region about Ancona immediately rebelled and rose up in opposition to their Magistrates whom they destroyed At Ravenna Paulus the Emperours Lieutenant or Exarch was killed at Rome Peter the Governour had his eyes put out in Campania Exhilaratus and his Son Hadrian were both
ought not only perform the offices of Religion out of obedience to his divine commands but with a due Veneration of his Majesty and power with thankfulness for his infinite goodness and with trust in his promises and subjection of our souls to his supream Authority About these things which are the main parts of divine and spiritual Worship we have no quarrel nor do we find fault with any for giving too much to Christ in this manner but rather for placing too much in the bare external acts of adoration which may be performed with all external pomp and shew where there is no inward reverence nor sincere devotion And yet 4. It is not concerning external Reverence to be shewn in the time of receiving the Eucharist For that our Church not only allowes but enjoynes and that not barely for the avoiding such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue but for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefit of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers But it is withall declared that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood as I have already recited it But the Controversie concerning the adoration of the Host lyes in these two things 1. Whether proper divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal presence of Christ under them 2. Whether out of the time of receiving the same adoration ought to be given to it when it is elevated or carried in procession which we would give to the very person of Christ And that this is the true state of the Controversie I appeal to the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this point For it is expresly determined by the Council of Trent That there is no manner of doubt left but that all Christians ought to give the same Worship to this holy Sacrament which they give to God himself For it is not therefore less to be Worshipped because it was instituted by Christ our Lord that it might be taken By which words the true state of the Controversie is made evident which is not about the reverence due only to Christ supposed to be corporally present there but the adoration due to the Sacrament upon that account And by the Sacrament the Council must understand the elements or accidents or whatever name they call them by as the immediate term of that divine Worship or else the latter words signifie nothing at all For what was that which was instituted by our Lord as a Sacrament was it not the external and visible signes or elements why do they urge that the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored because it was to be taken but to take off the common objection that we ought not to give divine Worship to that which we eat And what can this have respect to but the Elements But this is not denyed that I know of by any who understand either the doctrine or practice of that Church although to answer our Arguments they would seem to direct their Worship only to Christ as present under the elements yet yielding that on the account of this corporal presence that which appears ought to have the same Worship given to it with that which is supposed or believed And so they make the accidents of the Sacrament to have the very same honour which the humane nature of Christ hath which they say hath no divine honour for it self but on the account of the conjunction of the divinity with it § 4. The Controversie being thus stated I come to shew that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives Adoration to the Host. For it is a principle indisputable among them that to give proper divine honour called by them Adoration to a creature is Idolatry but no man upon the principles of their Church can be assured every time he Worships the Host that he doth not give proper divine honour to a creature For there are two things absolutely necessary to secure a mans mind in the performance of an act of divine Worship 1. That either the object be such in it self which deserves and requires such Worship from us as in the divine nature of Christ Or 2. That if of it self it doth not deserve it there be a reason sufficient to give it as is the humane nature of Christ upon its union with the Divine but in this matter of the adoration of the Host no man can be secure of either of these upon their own Principles 1. He cannot be secure that the object is such as doth deserve divine worship If a man should chance to believe his senses or hearken to his reason or at least think the matter disputable whether that which he sees to be bread be not really bread what case is this man in He becomes an Idolater by not being a fool or a mad man But because we are not now to proceed upon the principles of sense or reason but those of the Church of Rome I will suppose the case of one that goes firmly upon the received principles of it and try whether such a one can be satisfied in his mind that when he gives divine worship to the Host he doth not give it to a creature And because we are now supposing unreasonable things I will suppose my self to be that person The Mass-bell now rings and I must give the same divine honour to the Host which I do to Christ himself but hold if it should be but a meer creature all the world cannot excuse me from Idolatry and my own Church condemns me all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry how come I then to be assured that what but a little before was a meer creature is upon the pronouncing a few words turned into my Creator A strange and sudden change And I can hardly say that God becoming man was so great a wonder as a little piece of bread becoming God When God became man he shewed himself to be God by Wonders and Miracles which he wrought for the conviction of the world I will see if I can find any such evidence of so wonderful a transformation from a Wafer to a Deity I see it to be the very same it was I handle it as I did if I taste it it hath the very same agreeableness to the Palat it had Where then lyes this mighty change But O carnal reason what have I to do with thee in these mysteries of faith I remember what Church I am of and how much I am bid to beware of thee but how then shall I be satisfied Must I relye on the bare words of Christ This is my body But I have been told the Scripture is very obscure and
the Spirit of God who Questioned whether those revelations came from it or no. And therefore Blosius is so far from denying any new or strange revelations among them that being a devout man he prays God to pardon those who questioned the authority of these revelations But if no new revelations are allowed among them what means that saying in the spiritual exercises of the Iesuits p. 31 32. of the Impression A. D. 1574. It is the great perfection of a Christian to keep himself indifferent to do what God shall reveal to him and not to determine himself to do what he hath already revealed and taught in the Gospel This is speaking to the purpose and lest I should seem to charge any unjustly this passage not appearing in the latter impressions it may be found in the Moral practice of the Iesuits from the Bishop of Malaga But the Iesuits are not so much Mr. Cressy's Friends that he should be concerned in their Vindication I can tell him therefore of a Friend of his whom I am sure he is concerned for that is for new and strange revelations too and that is the worthy publisher of the sixteen Revelations of Mother Iuliana and if those be not new and strange I think none ever ought to be accounted so But supposing they have new and strange revelations among them yet Mr. Cressy saith they are not seditious and troublesome to the World no dissolving unity or crossing lawful authority by them because these are enjoyed in solitude and retirements and supposing they be mistaken no harm would accrew to others by it As though persons were ever the less mad for being chained and having a keeper assigned them such in effect do they make the office of a confessour to these contemplatives The mischief to the world is not so great while they are kept up but that to Religion is unsufferable while they lead devout persons in such an unintelligible way that the highest degree of their perfection is Madness But I have already proved at large that they have not been able in some cases or willing in others to keep up these Enthusiastical persons among them but they have done as much to the disturbance of the peace and been as unreclaimable among them as ever any Fanatick Sectaries have done or been in England And we are not to think that the Principles of their Church are such quiet meek and obedient things that not a man among them would ever lift up his finger to give any disturbance to the peace of a Nation For § 16. I now come to prove that they are as much guilty of the second sort of Fanaticism as any Sectaries among us have been which is the resisting authority under a pretence of Religion This I shall prove by two things 1. That the Principles and practices of the Iesuitical party in the Roman Church are as destructive to Government as of the most Fanatick Sectaries which ever have been among us 2. That this party is the most countenanced and encouraged by the Court of Rome 1. That the Principles and Practices of the Iesuitical party in the Roman Church are as destructive to Government as of the most Fanatick Sectaries which ever have been among us What effects of Fanaticism have we seen in England so dreadful which may not be paralled with examples or justified by the principles of that party Is it that so many mens lives have been destroyed under a pretence of Religion and do they think the Massacre at Paris and the Rebellion in Ireland can ever be forgotten by us Is it that Government was supposed by them to be so originally in the people that they by their representatives may call their Soveraign to an account and alter the form of Government This is the express doctrine of the Iesuits for saith Bellarmin Civil power is immediately in the people as the immediate subject of it and is indifferently transferred by them either to one or many and if they see cause may change it as they see good from a Monarchy to an Aristocratie or a Democratie But because after the writing that Book some persons had published a doctrine contrary to his therefore in the recognition of his works he endeavours to strengthen what he had delivered and produces a saying of Navarre that the people never do transferr their power so far to the King but they retain it habitually in themselves and may in certain cases resume it into their own hands Iohn Mariana whose name will never be forgotten in these matters determines the case plainly That if there be no hope of a Princes amendment the Common-wealth may take away his Kingdom and because that cannot be done without War they may raise armies against him and having proclaimed the King their publick enemy may take away his life Reynolds in his Book of the just abdication of Henry 3. of France saith that all the Majesty of the Kingdom is in the assembly of the states to whom it belongs to bridle the Kingly power and to settle all things that belong to the publick Government This is a doctrine fitted for such a season wherein there is hopes to prevail upon a considerable party as in the League in France to do their business but in case the States of the Kingdom be faithful to their Prince they have easier wayes of dispatch And to this end they declare it lawful for any person to take away the life of a Prince excommunicated by the Pope But here their juggling and shuffling shew their meaning is not good for they who mean honestly are not afraid to speak plainly If any one ask them Whether it be lawful to kill their Soveraign they will tell you by no means and that none of them ever said so but being excommunicated they do not account him their Soveraign and so they may lawfully do it Nay it is avowed by some of them that it is a point of faith to believe it is in the Popes power to depose Heretical Princes and that subjects are upon their being declared heretical thereby absolved from all duty of obedience to them Nay that there needs no sentence of the Pope to be pronounced against him and Mariana makes an intention of publick good or the advice of grave men sufficient such as the Jesuites in France were to Clement Chastel and Ravaillac the first and last the actual Murtherers of Henry 3. and Henry 4. and the second shewed his good intention when he stabbed Henry 4. in the mouth If any Priest or Fryer should attempt it they have an excellent salvo for him that being a spiritual person acording to their doctrine of exemption he is no Subject to the King If the Authority of the Council of Constance be objected by them as the doctrine of their Church against these Principles they have withall given us an answer that it meddles not with the case of Soveraign Heretical Princes excommunicated by
the Pope I need not produce the particular testimonies in this matter of Bellarmin Suarez Valentia Vasquez with the herd of the Iesuitical order who follow these having been produced by so many already and particularly by the two worthy Authors of the Answer to Philanax and the Papists Apology from the latter of whom we shortly expect a more accurate examination of these things and by the former may appear what influence the Iesuitical party had upon the most barbarous effects of Fanaticism here in the Murther of a most excellent Prince To whose observations I shall only adde this that A. D. 1648. a Book was Printed with this Title Several Speeches delivered at a Conference concerning the Power of Parliament to proceed against their King for misgovernment licensed by Gilb. Mabbot which is word for word taken out of Parsons the Iesuites Book of succession to the Crown of England purposely designed against our Kings title as will appear to any one who will take the pains to compare them By which we may see to whom our Fanaticks owed their principles and their precedents and how much Father Parsons though at that distance contributed to the cutting off the Kings Head But it may be now they have changed their principles and renounced all these Doctrines we should like them so much the better if they once did this freely and sincerely and not with sly tricks and aequivocations which they use in these matters whenever they are pinched with them Let them without mental reservations declare but these two points that the Pope cannot absolve the Kings Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance they make to him and that though the Pope should excommunicate the King as a Heretick and raise War against him they are bound to defend the King against the Pope and by the owning these two Propositions they will gain more upon our belief of their fidelity than the large volumn in vindication of the Irish Remonstrance hath done For there they falter in the very entrance for being charged from Rome that by their Remonstrance they had fallen under the condemnation of the Bull of Paul 5. against the Oath of Allegiance they give these three Answers which ought to be considered by us 1. That in the Oath of Allegiance they swear and testifie in their Consciences before God and the World that King Charles is their lawful King and that the Pope hath no power to depose c. Whereas they only acknowledge it 2. That in the Oath of Allegiance the contrary opinion is condemned which is not in theirs 3. That in the Oath of Allegiance they declare that they believe that the Pope cannot dispense with that Oath or any part of it but this is omitted by them and surely not without reason on their parts but with little satisfaction on ours And it is easie to observe that this Remonstrance was grounded upon this that the Pope owned our King to be lawful King of England a great kindness and this being supposed all the rest follows naturally as they well prove against the Divines of Lovain but suppose it should come into his Holiness's head to be of another opinion we see no assurance but they will be so too And it may make the Pope more cautious for the future how he declares himself when such ill use is made of it and others how they rely upon such Remonstrances which have still a tacit reservation of the Popes power to declare and dispense But will they declare it unlawful to resist Authority when the cause of their Church is concerned and supposing that thereby they can settle the Pope in the full exercise of his spiritual Authority among us No this is their good old Cause that undermines Parliaments that Sanctifies Rebellion and turns Nuptials into Massacres This is that which changes blood into Holy water and dying for Treason into Martyrdome this is that which gives the glory at Rome to Regicides and makes the Pictures of Gueret Guignard and Garnet so much valued there of which we have a sufficient testimony from Mons. S. Amour who tells us that among the several pourtraicts of Jesuits publickly sold there with permission of the Superiour he saw one of Garnet with this Inscription Pater Henricus Garnetus Anglus Londini pro fide Catholicâ suspensus sectus 3 Maii 1606. Father Henry Garnet hanged and quartered at London for the Catholick Faith by which we see that Treason and the Catholick faith are all one at Rome for nothing can be more notorious than that Garnet suffered only on the account of the Gunpowder-treason of which as M. S. Amour observes he acknowledged himself guilty before he dyed The most dangerous Sect among us is of those who under pretence of setting up the Kingdom of Christ think it lawful to overturn the Kingdoms of the World But herein they have mightily the advantage of those of the Church of Rome that what they do for Christ the other do it only for his Vicar and surely if either were lawful it is much fitter to do it for one than for the other We are of opinion that it is somewhat better being under Christs own Government than the Popes whatever they think but we condemn any opposition to Government under any pretence whatsoever and though Venner and his company acted to the height of Fanaticism among our Sectaries yet Guido Faux with his companions in their Church went beyond them 2. That party which hath been most destructive to Civil Government hath had the most countenance and encouragement from Rome Of which I shall give but two instances but sufficient to prove the thing A. D. 1594. 27 of December Iohn Chastel a Citizens Son of Paris and disciple of the Iesuites having been three years in the School watched his opportunity to stabb Henry 4. but by his stooping just at the time of the blow he struck him only into the mouth upon which the Iesuits were banished France and a Pyramid erected in their place of his Fathers house in the Front whereof towards the Palace gate the Arrest of the Court of Parliament against the Traitor was engraven containing his examination and confession of being a Scholler of the Iesuits a Disciple of Guerets and the sentence passed upon him because he believed it lawful to Kill Kings that Henry 4. was not in the Church till he was approved by the Pope c. This Arrest continued without notice taken of it at Rome till October 9. A. D. 1609. and on that day it was condemned by the Order of the Inquisition and put into the Index Expurgatorius as it is at this day to be seen Which was a time wherein many reports were fled abroad in many parts of the Murther of Henry 4. and Letters came to Paris from several places to know the truth of it and the consequence of this was that it being found how careful the Court of Rome was 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
they are expressed and that they are not equal to all but it was not fit to express it so because this would hinder peoples esteem of the Indulgence Which in plainer terms is that it is necessary to cheat the people or else there is no good to be done by Indulgences Thence Petrarch called them nets wherein the credulous multitude were caught and in the time of Boniface 9. the people observing what vast summs of money were gathered by them cryed out they were meer cheats and tricks to get money with upon which Paulus Langius a Monk exclaims O God to what are these things come Thou holdest thy peace but thou wilt not alwayes for the day of the Lord will bring the hidden things of darkness to light Conrad Vrspergensis saith that Rome might well rejoyce in the sins of the people because she grew rich by the compensation which was made for them Thou hast saith he to her that which thou hast alwayes thirsted after sing and rejoyce for thou hast conquered the world not by religion but by the wickedness of men Which is that which draws them to thee not their devotion and piety Platina saith the selling Indulgences brought the Ecclesiastical Authority into contempt and gave encouragement to many sins Vrspergensis complains that plenary Indulgences brought more wickedness into the world for he saith men did then say Let me do what wickedness I will by them I shall be free from punishment and deliver the souls of others from Purgatory Gerson saith none can give a pardon for so many years as are contained in the Popes Indulgences but Christ alone therefore what are they but cheats and impostures In Spain Indulgences were condemned by Petrus de Osma a Divine of Salamanca and his followers as appears by the Popes Bull against them A. D. 1478. In Germany by Iâ—hannes de Vesaliâ a famous Preacher of Mentz for Serrarius reckons this among the chief of his opinions that Indulgences were only pious frauds and wayes to deceive the people and that they were fools who went to Rome for them About the same time flourished Wesselus Groningensis incomparably the best Scholar of his Age and therefore called Lux mundi he was not only skilled in School Divinity almost the only learning of that time but in the Greek Hebrew Chaldee and Arabick having travelled into Greece Aegypt and been in most Vniversities of Europe and read the most ancient Authors in all kinds of learning on the account of his learning he was much in favour with Sixtus 4. and was present and admired at the Council of Basil but he was so far from being a friend to Indulgences that in his Epistles he saith that no Popes could grant an Indulgence for an hour and that it is a ridiculous thing to imagine that for the same thing done sometimes an Indulgence should be granted for 7 years sometimes for 700 sometimes for 7000 and sometimes for ever by a plenary remission and that there is not the least foundation in Scripture for the distinction of remitting the fault and the punishment upon which the doctrine of Indulgences is founded That the giving them was a design of covetousness and although the Pope once sware to the King of France's Embassadour that he did not know the corruptions of the sellers of Indulgences yet when he did know them he let them alone and they spread farther That God himself doth not give plenary remission to contrition and confession and therefore the Pope can much less do it But if God doth forgive how comes the Pope to have power to retain and if there be no punishment retained when God forgives what hath the Popeâ— to do to release Against him writes one Iacobus Angularis he confesseth there is nothing in Scripture or Antiquity expresly for Indulgences but that ought to be no argument for there are many other things owned in their Church as necessary points which have as little foundation as this viz. S. Peters being at Rome and Sacramental confession and therefore at last he takes Sanctuary in the Popes and Churches authority To this Wesselus answers that Indulgences were accounted pious frauds before the time of Albertus and Thomas that there was a great number of Divines did still oppose the errours and practices of the Court of Rome in this matter that supposing the Church were for them yet the authority of Scripture is to be preferred before it and no multitude of men whatsoever is to be believed against Scripture that he had not taken up this opinion rashly but had maintained it in Paris thirty three years before and in the Popes poenitentiary Court at Rome and was now ready to change it if he could see better reason for the contrary That the doctrine of Indulgences was delivered very confusedly and uncertainly by which it appeared to be no Catholick doctrine that it is almost impossible to find two men agree in the explication of them that the doctrine of Indulgences was so far from being firmly believed among them that there was not the strictest person of the Carthusian or other orders that should receive a plenary Indulgence at the hour of death that yet would not desire his Brethren to pray for his soul which is a plain argument he did not believe the validity of the Indulgence that many in the Court of Rome did speak more freely against them than he did That the Popes authority is very far from being infallible or being owned as such in the Church as appeared by the Divines at Paris condemning the Bull of Clement 6. about Indulgences wherein he took upon him to command the Angels and gave plenary remissions both from the fault and punishment Which authentick Bulls he saith were then to be seen at Vienne Limoges and Poictou It is notorious to the world what complaints were made in Germany after his time of the fraud of Indulgences before any other point of Religion came into dispute and how necessarily from this the Popes authority came to be questioned that being the only pretence they had to justifie them by and with what success these things were then managed it is no more purpose to write now than to prove that it is day at Noon The Council of Trent could not but confess horrible abuses in the sale of Indulgences yet what amendment hath there been since that time Bellarmin confesseth that it were better if the Church were very sparing in giving Indulgences I wonder why so if my Adversaries experience and observation be true that they prove great helps to devotion and charity Can the Church be too liberal in those things which tend to so good an end § 8. But Bellarmin would not have the people too confident of the effect of Indulgences for though the Church may have power to give them yet they may want their effect in particular persons and therefore saith he all prudent Christians do
Reply but hearing for a great while no further of the person for whose sake this Discourse began and having affairs more than enough to take up my time I laid aside the Papers supposing that business at an end But about Christmass last they were called for by a near Friend of the party concerned and a personal Conference being declined an intimation was given me that the Papers were thought unanswerable I began to fear so too for at first I could not find them but assoon as I did I found the great improvement they had made by lying so long for what at first I looked on as inconsiderable was in that time thought to be too strong to be meddled with and I could not tell what they might come to in time if I let them alone any longer And I was informed by a worthy person that I. S. the man of confidence and principles had expressed great wonder I had not answered them as though we had no cause to wonder that the noble Science of Controversie should be so abandoned by him and that a man of such mettal should all this while leave his poor demonstrations alone to defend themselves Vpon these suggestions I resolved as fast as other imployments would give leave for we are not those happy men to have only one thing to mind to give a full and punctual answer to them Which I have now made publick and printed the Papers themselves at large that my Adversary may not complain of any injury done him by mis-representing his words or meaning And besides other reasons I the rather chose to appear in publick to draw them from their present way of pickeering and lying under hedges to take advantage of some stragling members of our Church not so able to defend themselves and whom they rather steal from us than conquer being blinded with their smoke more than overcome by any strength of argument If they have any thing to say either against our Church or in Defence of their own let them come into the open Field from which they have of late so wisely withdrawn themselves finding so little success in it And since these Disputes must be I am very well pleased that the Adversary I have now to deal with hath the Character of a Learned and Ingenuous man and I do not desire he should lose it in the Debate between us hoping that nothing shall proceed from me but what becomes a fair and ingenuous Adversary If I were not fully satisfied that we have truth and reason on our side I should never have been engaged in these combats I am so great a friend to the peace of the Christian world that I could take more pleasure in ending one Controversie than in being able to handle as many as the most Voluminous Schoolmen have ever done For however Noble some may think the Science of Controversie to be I am not fond of the practice of it especially being managed with so much heat and passion such scorn and contempt of Adversaries so many reproaches and personal reflections as they commonly are as if men forgot to be Christians when they began to be Disputants I do not think it such a mighty matter to throw dirt in a mans face and then to laugh at him or rather to take a Metaphor now from dry weather to raise such a dust as may endanger the eye-sight of weaker persons I think it no great skill to make things appear either ridiculous or dark but to give them their due Colours and set them in the clearest light shewes far more art and ingenuity And even that smartness of expression without which Controversie will hardly go down with many seems but like the throwing Vinegar upon hot Coals which gives a quick scent for the present but vanishes immediately into smoke and air In matters of Truth and Religion reason and evidence ought to sway men and not passion and noise and though men cannot command their judgements they may and ought to do their expressions And although this looks as like an Apologie for a dull Book as may be yet I had much rather it should suffer for want of wit and smartness than of good nature and Christianity My design is to represent the matters in difference between us truly to report faithfully and to argue closely and by these to shew that no person can have any pretence of reason to leave our Church to embrace the communion of the Church of Rome because the danger is so much greater there in the nature of their Worship and tendency of their doctrine and what they object most against us in point of Fanaticism and divisions will equally hold against them so that they have no advantages above us but have many apparent dangers which we have not Among the chiefest dangers in the communion of that Church I have insisted on that of Idolatry not to make the breach wider than some others have done but to let persons first understand the greatness of the danger before they run into it I wish I could acquit them from so heavy a charge but I cannot force my judgement and while I think them guilty it would be unfaithfulness in me not to warn those of it whom it most concerns to understand it And where other things are subtle and nice tedious and obscure this lyes plain to the conscience of every man if the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry our separation can be no Schism either before God or man because our communion would be a sin And although it may be only an excess of charity in some few learned persons to excuse that Church from Idolatry although not all who live in the communion of it yet upon the greatest search I can make I think there is more of charity than judgement in so doing For the proof of it I must refer the Reader to the following Discourse but that I may not be thought in so severe a censure to contradict the sense of our Church which I have so great a regard to I shall here shew that this charge of Idolatry hath been managed against the Church of Rome by the greatest and most learned defenders of it ever since the Reformation What greater discovery can be made of the sense of our Church than by the Book of Homilies not barely allowed but subscribed to as containing godly and wholsom doctrine and necessary for these times and nothing can be more plainly delivered therein than that the Church of Rome is condemned for Idolatry So the third part of the Sermon against the peril of Idolatry concludes Ye have heard it evidently proved in these Homilies against Idolatry by Gods Word the Doctors of the Church Ecclesiastical Histories reason and experience that Images have been and be worshipped and so Idolatry committed to them to the great offence of Gods Majesty and danger of infinite souls c. Who the Author of these Homilies was is not material
to enquire since their authority depends not on the Writer but the Churches approbation of them but Dr. Jackson not only calls him the worthy and learned Author of the Homilies concerning the peril of Idolatry but saith he takes him to be a Reverend Bishop of our Church and no wonder since the most eminent Bishops in that time of Queen Elizabeth wherein these Homilies were added to the former did all assert and maintain the same thing As Bishop Jewell in his excellent Defence of the Apology of the Church of England and Answer to Harding wherein he proves that to give the honour of God to a creature is manifest Idolatry as the Papists do saith he in adoration of the Host and the Worship of Images And his works ought to be looked on with a higher esteem than any other private person being commanded to be placed in Churches to be read by the people Of all persons of that Age none could be less suspected to be Puritanically inclined than Archbishop Whitgift yet in his Learned Defence of the Church of England against T. C. he makes good the same charge in these words I do as much mislike the distinction of the Papists and the intent of it as any man doth neither do I go about to excuse them from wicked and without repentance and Gods singular mercy damnable Idolatry There are saith he three kinds of Idolatry one is when the true God is worshipped by other means and wayes than he hath prescribed or would be worshipped i. e. against his express command which is certainly his meaning the other is when the true God is worshipped with false Gods the third is when we worship false Gods either in heart mind or in external creatures living or dead and altogether forget the worship of the true God All these three kinds are detestable but the first is the least and the last is the worst The Papists worship God otherwise than his will is and otherwise than he hath prescribed almost in all points of their worship they also give to the creature that which is due to the Creator and sin against the first Table yet are they not for all that I can see or learn in the third kind of Idolatry and therefore if they repent unfeignedly they are not to be cast either out of the Church or out of the Ministry The Papists have little cause to thank me or fee me for any thing I have spoken in their behalf as yet you see that I place them among wicked and damnable Idolaters Thus far that Wise and Learned Bishop After him we may justly reckon Bishop Bilson than whom none did more learnedly in that time defend the perpetual Government of Christs Church by Bishops nor it may be since who in a set discourse at large proves the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry 1. In the Worship of Images the having of which he saith was never Catholick and the worshipping of them was ever wicked by the judgement of Christs Church and that the Worship even of the Image of Christs is Heathenism Idolatry to Worship it makes it an Idol and burning Incense to it is Idolatry which he there proves at large and that the Image of God made with hands is a false God and no likeness of his but a leud imagination of theirs set up to feed their eyes with the contempt of his Sacred Will dishonour of his Holy Name and open injury to his Divine Nature 2. In the adoration of the Host of which he treats at large After these it will be less needful to produce the testimonies of Dr. Fulk Dr. Reynolds Dr. Whitaker who all asserted and proved the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry and I cannot find one person who owned himself to be of the Church of England in all Queen Elizabeths reign who did make any doubt of it Let us now come to the reign of King James and here in the first place we ought to set down the judgement of that Learned Prince himself who so throughly understood the matters in controversie between us and the Church of Rome as appears by his Premonition to all Christian Princes wherein after speaking of other points he comes to that of Reliques of Saints But for the worshipping either of them or Images I must saith he account it damnable Idolatry and after adds that the Scriptures are so directly vehemently and punctually against it as I wonder what brain of man or suggestion of Satan durst offer it to Christians and all must be salved with nice and philosophical distinctions Let them therefore that maintain this doctrine answer it to Christ at the latter day when he shall accuse them of Idolatry and then I doubt if he will be paid with such nice Sophistical distinctions And when Isaac Casaubon was employed by him to deliver his opinion to Cardinal Perron mentioning the practices of the Church of Rome in invocation of Saints he saith that the Church of England did affirm that those practices were joyned with great impiety Bishop Andrews whom no man suspects of want of learning or not understanding the doctrine of our Church was also employed to answer Cardinal Bellarmin who had writ against the King and doth he decline charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry No so far from it that he not only in plain terms charges them with it but saith that Bellarmin runs into Heresie nay into madness to defend it and in his answer to Perron he saith it is most evident by their Breviaries Hours and Rosaries that they pray directly absolutely and finally to Saints and not meerly to the Saints to pray to God for them but to give what they pray for themselves In the same time of King James Bishop Abbot writ his Answer to Bishop in which he saith that the Church of Rome by the Worship of Images hath matched all the Idolatries of the Heathens and brought all their jugling devices into the Church abusing the ignorance and simplicity of the people as grosly and damnably as ever they did Towards the latter end of his Reign came forth Bishop Whites Reply to Fisher he calls the worshipping of Images a Superstitious dotage a palliate Idolatry a remainder of Paganism condemned by Sacred Scripture censured by Primitive Fathers and a Seminary of direful contention and mischief in the Church of Christ. Dr. Field chargeth the Invocation of Saints with such Superstition and Idolatry as cannot be excused We charge the adherents of the Church of Rome with gross Idolatry saith Bishop Usher in his Sermon preached before the Commons A. D. 1620. because that contrary to Gods express Commandment they are sound to be worshippers of Images Neither will it avail them here to say that the Idolatry forbidden in the Scripture is that only which was used by the Jews and Pagans For as well might one plead that Jewish