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 Christ's 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 briefly 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 doth not teach the Case for the Question it 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 Vâ—ws yet no one among them questions but the Pope may dissolve the Obligation of a Vow although 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 beneâ—it to the Church as their Doctors 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 HE believes that the Pope has Authority to dispence with his Allegiance to his Prince and that he needs no longer be a Loyal Subject and maintain the Rights Priviledges and Authority of his King than the Pope will give him leave And that if this Mighty Father think sit to thunder out an Excommunication against him then he shall be deem'd the best Subject and Most Christian that can first shed his Prince's Blood and make him a Sacrifice to Rome and he 's but ill rewarded for his pains who after so Glorious an Atchievement has not his Name plac'd in the Kalendar and he Canoniz'd for a Saint So that there can be no greater Danger to a King than to have Popish Subjects he holding his Life amongst them only at the Pope 's pleasure 'T IS no part of his Faith to believe that the Pope has Authority to dispence with his Allegiance to his Sovereign or that he can Depose Princes upon any account whatsoever giving leave to their Subjects to take up Arms against them and endeavour their ruin He knows that Deposing King-killing Power has been maintain'd by some Canonists and Divines of his Church and that it is in their Opinion lawful and annex'd to the Papal Chair He knows likewise that some Popes have endeavor'd to act according to this Power But that this Doctrine appertains to the Faith of his Church and is to be believ'd by all of that Communion is a malicious Calumny a down-right Falsity And for the truth of this it seems to him a sufficient Argument that for the fâ—w Authors that are Abettors of this Doctrine there are of his Communion three times the number that publickly disown all such Authority besides several Universities and whole Bodies that have solemnly condemn'd it without being in the least suspected of their Religion or of denying any Article of their Faith Those other Authors therefore Publish their own Opinions in their Books and those Popes acted according to what they judg'd lawful and all this amounts to no more than that this Doctrine has been or is an Opinion amongst some of his Church but to raise it to an Article of Faith upon these grounds is impossible Let his Church therefore answer for no more than what she delivers for Faith let Prelates answer for tâ—eir Actions and Authors for their own Opinions otherwise more Churches must be charg'd with Deposing and King-killing Doctrine besides that of Rome The University of Oxford having found other Authors of Pernicious Books and Damnable Doctrines destructive to the Sacred Persons of Princes their State and Government besides Iesuits as may be seen in their Decree published in the London Gazette Iuly 26. 1683. In which they condemn'd twenty seven false iâ—pious seditious Propositions fitted to stir up Tumults overthrow States and Kingdoms to lead to Rebellion Murder of Princes and Atheism it self Of which number only three or four were ascrib'd to the Iesuits the rest having men of another Communion for their Fathers And this Doctrine was not first condemn'd by Oxford What they did here in the Year 1683. having been solemnly done in Paris in 1626. Where the whole Colledge of Sorbon gave Sentence against this Proposition of Sanctarellus viz That the Pope for Heresie and Schism might depose Princes and exempt the Subjects from their Obedience the like was done by the Universities of Caen Rhemes Poictoirs Valence Bourdeaux Bourges and the Condemnation subscrib'd by the Iesuits And Mariana's Book was committed publickly to the flames by a Provincial Council of his own Order for the discoursing the Point of King-killing Doctrine problematically Why therefore should this disloyal Doctrine be laid to his Church whenas it has been writ against by several hundred single Authors in her Communion and disown'd and solemnly condemn'd by so many famous
Universities And why should the Actions of some few Popes with the Private Opinions of some Speculative Doctors be so often and vehemently urg'd for the just charging this Doctrine upon the Faith of the Church of Rome which to a Serious Impartial Considerer are only meer Fallacies capable of Libelling all Societies in the World of overthrowing all States and Kingdoms and only fit Arguments for Knaves to cheat Fools withal There being no Government in the World which might not be easily proved Tyrannical No Religion Perswasion or Society which might not plausibly be indicted of Atheism If the Actions Pretences Claims and endeavour of some few of their Governours and Leading Men the Opinions Writings Phansies of some Authors be allow'd as sufficient Evidence for the bringing in the Verdict of Guilty upon the whole When Malice therâ—fore and Envy have done their worst in this point to render the Papists bloody and barbarous to the World yet ' ds certain after all that Popish Princes sit as safe in their Thrones enjoy as much Peace and Security as any other Princes whatsoever and that the Papists in England can give as good proofs of their Loyalty as the best of those that clamour so loud against them They can bid defiâ—nce to their Adversaries to shew any one Person of Honour and Estate amongst them or even four of any condition whatsoever that bore Arms against Charles the First during the whole time of his Troubles They can make good that there was scarce any amongst them that did not assist his Majesty either with Person or Purse or both And they can say that Charles the First was murder'd in cold blood by his Protestant Subjects after many hundred Papists had lost their Lives for the preventing that Butchery and that Charles the Second being pursued by the same Subjects for his Life sav'd it amongst the Papists 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 downright Falsity Let us now calmly debate the matter Whether according to the received principles of the Church of Rome this be only a particulâ—r 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 Angels since the Apostles is to be taken from the present Church 2. That by the present Church be 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 Inâ—allible assistance 3. That the Pope as 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 tâ—ey hâ—ve 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 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 Infallâ—bilâ—ty 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 Partâ—es 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 truly 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 Heresie 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 Extream 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 Ambiâ—ion perverting out of Design the Doctrine of the Primive 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 Judgments and Censures may be safely contemned as Null and containing intolerable Errors And that it may require such things which good Subjects are bound to disobey 5. That Gregory VII
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 easie 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 theirs from the Council of Trent If he saith his Design was to remove common Prejudices and vulgar Mistakes it is easie to answer if they are contrary 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 pity their Weakness and Folly and are far from defending such Mis-representations 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 easie 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 Mis-representations which is very unsatisfactory viz. That he hath dâ—scribed the Papist therein exactly accoâ—ding 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 are able to understand or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry Or that a Papist believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels c Yet these are some of his Misrepresentations Did he in earnest think so himself If 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 drawn his Mis-representations 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 these were 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 Mis-representations 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 rectifie 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 III. 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 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 the Church as himself and what reason have we to adhere to his Representations rather than to theirs As for instance he saith The Pope's personal Infallibility is no Matter of Faith But there are others say 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 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 justifie 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 Prelates to do it and reserved it to the Apostolical See 2. He leaves out in the several 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 4 th 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 Seven Sacraments Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshipping 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 sidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This is the
or for the Interest of Church or Pope or whatsoever else must of necessity answer for it at the last day and expect his portion with the Devil and his Angels if unrepented And that no one can give leave for Lying Perjury or committing any Sin or even pretend to it unless it be the Devil himself or some devilish Ministers of his such as he detests in his heart and utterly abominates And in consequence to this believes that whosoever at the hour of his death denies any Crime of which he is guilty and protests himself to be innocent when he is not so can have no hope of Mercy but departing out of this World an enemy to God and the Truth shall infallibly be receiv'd as such in the next and dying with a Lye in his mouth can expect no reward but from the Father of Lies And this whatsoever his Crime was whether incurr'd by an undertaking for Mother-Church or no and whatsoever his pretences for the denial of the Truth were whether Absolutions Dispensations the Sacrament or Oath of Secresie or whatsoever else nothing of these being capable of excusing him in Lies or Perjury or making them to be Innocent and not displeasing to God Nor indeed did he ever hear of these so much talk'd on Dispensations and Absolutions from any Priests of his Church either in Sermons or Confessions he never read of them in his Books and Catechisms he never saw the Practice of them in any of his Communion it having been their Custom ever since Oaths were first devis'd against them rather to suffer the loss of their goods banishments imprisonments torments and death it self than Forsâ—ear themselves or protest the least Untruth And 't is not out of the memory of man that several might have saved their Estates and Lives too would they have subscrib'd to and own'd but one Lye and yet refus'd it chusing rather to die infamously than prejudice their Conscience with an Vntruth So that it seems a great Mystery to him that those of his Profession should have Leave and Dispensations to Lye and forswear themselves at pleasure and yet that they should need nothing else but Lying and Perjury for the quiet enjoyment of their Estates for the saving their Lives for the obtaining Places of highest Command and greatest Dignity such as would be extraordinarily advantagious for their Cause and the interest of their Church And yet that they should generally chuse rather to forego all these so considerable Conveniences that once Lie or Forswear themselves And is it not another great Mystery that these Dispensations for Lying and Swearing should be according to the Receiv'd Doctrine of his Church and yet that he or any of his Communion were never instructed nor inform'd of any such Diabolical Point nay had never come to the knowledge of it had it not been for the information receiv'd from some Zealous Adversaries such as relate either meerly upon Trust or else such as have receiv'd a Dispensation of Lying from the Devil that they might charge the like Doctrine on the Church of Rome and the Pope XIX Of Dispensations HEre the Misrepresenter saith That a Papist believes that the Pope hath Authority to dispence 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 dispence 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 one's 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 dispence 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 Correcters 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 Clavasius 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 Iure supra Ius 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 Iacobatius brings several Instances of this Power in the Pope and refers to the Speculator for more Iac. 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 dispence 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 Inferiour 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 Catharinus 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
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 Reflection 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 Iesuit 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 allowed saith he And Lessius saith There is no certain Rule for the Quantity of it And Card. Tolet saith very large ones are allowed at Rome by the Pope's Connivence even in the Court of Rome saith Reginaldus And now I leave the Reader to judge of the severity of Fasting required in the Church of Rome XXIX Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church HE is of a Religion in which there are as many Schisms as Families And they are so divided in their Opinions that commonly as many as meet in company so many several Tenets are maintain'd Hence arise their infinite and endless Disputes and disagreement of their Divines who pretend to give a true and solid explication of the Mysteries of the Christian Faith and yet differ in as many Points as they write of Besides what variety of Iudgments are there in their Religious Houses and Cloisters none agreeing with another in their Foundation Institution and Profession This being of the Religion of St. Dominick That of St. Francis a third of St. Bernard Others of St. Benedict and so without number so that as many Orders as many Religions And yet they pretend to Christian Unity amidst this diversity growing upon them every day HE is of a Religion in which there are no Schisms or Separations all the Members of it however spread through the World agreeing like one man in every Article of their Faith by an equal submission to the Determinations of their Church And no one of them tho' most Learned and Wise ever following any other Rule in their Faith besides this of assenting to all that the Church of God planted by Christ assisted and protected by the Holy Ghost proposed to the Faithful to be believ'd as the Doctrine of the Apostles and receiv'd as such in all Ages Which is all unanimously to believe as the Church of God believes No one of his Communion ever doubting of this or scrupling to receive any thing after his Churches Declaration And now tho they all thus conspire in every point of Faith yet there is great diversity among School men in their Divinity-points and Opinions of such matters as are no Articles of Faith and have no relation to it but as some circumstance or manner which being never defin'd by their Church may be maintain'd severally either this or that way without any breach of Faith or injury to their Religion And of these things only they dispute and have their Debates in manner of a School-Exercises without any disagreement at all in their Belief but with a perfect Unity The like Unity is there amongst their Religious Orders all which say the same Creed own the same Authority in the Church of Christ and in every thing profess the same Faith and have no other differences than as it were of so many several steps or degrees in the practice of a Devout and Holy Life some being of a more severe and strict Discipline others of a more gentle and moderate some spending more time in Praying others more in Watching others more in Fasting some being intended for the Catechising and breeding up of Youth others for taking care of Hospitals and looking after the Sick others for going amongst Infidels and Preaching to them the Gospel of Christ and for such-like Pious and Christian Designs to the greater Glory and Honour of God which differences make no other difference in the several Professors than there was between Mary and Martha who express'd their Love and Service to their Lord in a very different Imploy but both commendably and without any danger of prejudicing the Unity of their Faith 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 the Numbers in the Representative and Diffusive Church is chiefly to be regarded And on this Ground some reject the Deposing Power tho 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 it as in the Gallican Church and elsewhere Very well But how then can these Parties be said to agree in matters of Faith and an equal Submission to the Determinations of the Church 2. Some again say That it is not the consent of the present Church can make any Article of Faith but there must be an Universal Tradition from the Apostles times And so they tell us the Deposing Power can never be an Article of Faith because it wants the Consent of all the Ages before Gregory VII So that upon this Ground there can be no Article of Faith which cannot be proved to be thus delivered down to us Others again say this is in effect to give up their Cause knowing the impossibility of proving particular Points in this manner and therefore they say the present Church is wholly to be trusted for the sense of the foregoing Now these differences are still on foot in their Church and from these do arise daily disputes about matters of Faith
true Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved i. e. The belief of these things is hereby 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 the 5 th 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 35 th Head he then owns That unless Men do believe every Article of the Roman Faith they cannot be saved and he that disbelieves one does in a manner disbelieve all 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 Popes Authority he requires due Circumstances and proceeding according to Law But who is to be Judge 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 their Number for saith he There are greater numbers that disown this Doctrine 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 and 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 Vniversal Tradition is necessary to make a Doctrine â—f 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 the 4 th 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 mis-represent 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 mis-represent them as indeed we need not And so much in Answer to the Introduction A Papist Mis-represented and Represented I. Of Praying to Images A Papist Mis-represented Worships Stocks and Stones for Gods He takes no notice of the Second Commandment but setting up Pictures and Images of Christ the Virgin Mary and other his Saints He prays to Them and puts his Trust and Confidence in them much like as the Heathens did in their Wooden Gods Jupiter Mars Venus c. And for this reason He erects stately Monuments to Them in his Churches adorns them sumptuously burns Candles offers Incense and frequently falls down prostrate before them and with his Eyes fix'd on them cries out Help me Mary assist me Anthony remember me Ignatius A Papist Represented believes it damnable to Worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to Pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints as also to put any Trust or Confidence in them He keeps them by him indeed to preserve in his Mind the Memory of the things Represented by them as People are wont to preserve the Memory of their deceased Friends by keeping their Picture He is taught to use them by casting his eye upon the Pictures or Images and thence to raise his heart to the Prototypes and there to imploy it in Meditation Love Thanksgiving Imitation c. as the Object requires As many good Christians placing a Death-head before them from the sight of it take occasion to reflect often upon their last End in order to their better preparing for it or by seeing Old Time painted with his Fore-lock Hour-Glass and Scythe turn their thoughts upon the swiftness of Time and that whosoever neglects the present is in danger of beginning then to lay hold when there 's no more to come These Pictures or Images having this advantage that they inform the mind by one glance of what in reading requires a Chapter and sometimes a Volume There being no other difference between them then that Reading represents leisurely and by degrees and a Picture all at once Hence he finds a convenience in saying his Prayers with some devout Pictures before him he being no sooner distracted but the sight of these recalls his wandring thoughts to the right Object and as certainly brings something good into his mind as an immodest Picture disturbs his heart with naughtiness And because he is sensible that these holy Pictures and Images represent and
Session took care about reforming the Missal and Breviary why was no care taken to reform these Prayers and Hymns which they say are not to be construed by the Sense of the Words but by the Sense of the Church There was time enough taken for doing it for the Reformed Missal was not published till six Years after the Council nor the Breviary till four In all that time the Prayers and Hymns might easily have been altered to the Sense of the Church if that were truly so But instead of that a very late French Writer cries out of the necessity of Reforming the Breviaries as to these things wherein he confesses Many Hymns are still remaining wherein those things are asked of Saints which ought to be asked of God alone as being delivered from the Chains of our Sins being preserved from Spiritual Maladies and Hell-Fire being inflamed with Charity and made fit for Heaven In good Conscience saith he is not this joyning the Saints with God himself to ask those things of them which God alone can give And whatever Men talk of the Sense of the Church he confesses the very Forms and natural Sense of the Words do raise another Idea in Mens minds which ought to be prevented But doth not the Roman Catechism explain this to be the Sense of the Church I have examined that too with all the care I could about this matter And I cannot find any necessity from thence of putting this Sense upon them I grant in one place where it explains the difference of the Invocation of God and Saints it saith We are to pray to God as the Giver and to Saints that they would obtain things of God for us and then it adds the Forms differ that to God is Miserere Nobis and Audi Nos that to Saints is Ora pro Nobis Very well And is there then no other Form owned or allowed in the Church of Rome to Saints besides this Hold a little saith the Catechism for it is lawful to make use of another Form and that is we may pray to Saints too Vt nostri misereantur And how doth this now differ from that to God but only in Number But it adds that the Saints are very pitiful then surely we are encouraged to pray to them for Help and Pity Yes saith the Catechism we may pray to them that being moved with pity toward us they would help us with their Favour and Intercession with God But yet this doth not clear the Matter for elsewhere the Roman Catechism attributes more to Saints than meer Intercession and we may pray to them for what is in their Power For where it undertakes to give an exact Account of the Reason of Invocation of Saints and Angels it there parallels them with Magistrates under a King and saith they are Gods Ministers in governing the Church Invocandi itaque sunt quod perpetuo Deum intuentur Patrocinium Salutis nostrae libentissimè suscipiunt What is this Patrocinium salutis nostrae Is it only Praying and Intercession with God That cannot be for it instances presently in Deliverances by Angels and Jacob 's praying to the Angel to bless him and not meerly to intercede for him But though this is spoken of Angels yet from hence it infers the Invocation of Saints too But what need we insist more on this since they do own the Ministry of Saints as well as Angels with respect to the Church and do Canonize Saints for particular Countries as lately S. Rosa for Peru. And where there is such a particular Protection supposed what incongruity is it to interpret the Form of their Prayers according to a Doctrine so received and allowed But of this more under the next Head 2. He confesses that we are all redeemed by the Blood of Christ alone and that he is our only Mediator of Redemption but as for Mediators of Intercession he doth not doubt but it is acceptable with God we should have many I would ask concerning this Distinction the Question which Christ asked concerning Iohn's Baptism Is it from Heaven or of Man No doubt there may be such a Distinction of Mediators if God please to make them But who hath Authority to appoint Mediators with him besides himself Is it not usurping his Prerogative to appoint the great Officers of his Kingdom for him Would any Prince upon Earth allow this viz. when he hath absolutely declared his Pleasure that his own Son should present Petitions to him that others shall take upon them to set up Masters of Requests themselves Can any thing be plainer in the New Testament than that God hath appointed the Mediator of Redemption to be our Mediator of Intercession And that his Intercession is founded upon his Redemption As the High Priest's going into the Holy of Holies to intercede for the People was upon the Blood of the Sacrifice of Expiation which he carried in with him If there were no Revelation in this Matter there might be some reason for it But since the Revelation is so clear in it this Distinction looks just like the Socinians Distinction of a God by Nature and a God by Office which was framed on purpose to avoid the plain Texts of Scripture which called Christ God So doth this look as if it were intended to avoid that clear Text which saith There is one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Iesus Which is presently answered with this Distinction although there be not the least ground in that or any other Text for it Yes saith our Author Moses was such a Mediator for the Israelites Job for his three Friends Stephen for his Persecutors The Romans were desired by S. Paul to be his Mediator and the Corinthians and Ephesians so almost every sick Person desires the Congregation to be his Mediator that is to be remembred in their Prayers But is there no difference between Men praying for one another and desiring others to pray for them here on Earth and an humble Invocation of the Saints in Heaven to be our Mediators of Intercession with God there There is a threefold disparity in the Case 1. Here upon Earth we converse with one another as Fellow Creatures and there is no danger of our having an Opinion thereby that were able to assist one another any other way than by our Prayers But the case is very different as to the Saints in Heaven who by being addressed to there by such solemn Invocation may too easily be conceived to have the Power of bestowing such Blessings upon those who call upon them 2. Heaven is looked upon by all Mankind who direct their Devotions thither as the particular Throne of God where he dwells and discovers himself after another manner than he doth upon the Earth And we are directed to pray to our Father in Heaven where he is represented as infinitely above all his Creatures and the great Concernment of Religion is to keep up the apprehension
call him to any account for any thing he has done although he should chance to die without the least remorse of Conscience or Repentance for his sins HE believes it damnable to hold that the Pope or any other Power in Heaven or Earth can give him leave to commit any sins whatsoever Or that for any Sum of Mony he can obtain an Indulgence or Pardon for sins that are to be committed by him or his Heirs hereafter He firmly believes that no sins can be forgiven but by a true and hearty Repentance But that still there is a Power in the Church of granting Indulgences which concern not at all the Remission of sins either Mortal or Venial but only of some Temporal Punishments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted So that they are nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation upon just causes of Canonical Penances which are or may be injoyn'd by the Pastors of the Church on penitent sinners according to their several degrees of demerit And this he is taught to be grounded on the Judiciary Power left by Christ in his Church of binding and loosing whereby Authority was given to erect a Court of Conscience to assign Penalties or release them as circumstances should reguire And this Authority he knows S. Paul plainly own'd 2 Cor. 2.6 where he decreed a Penance Sufficient says he to such a man is this punishment And 2 Cor. 2.10 where he released one For your sake speaking of the Penance injoyn'd the incestuous Corinthian I forgive it in the Person of Christ. And what Mony there is given at any time on this account concerns not at all the Pope's Coffers but is by every one given as they please either to the Poor to the Sick to Prisoners c. wherefore they judge it most Charity And tho' he acknowledges many abuses have been committed in granting and gaining Indulgences through the default of some particular Persons yet he cannot imagine how these can in Justice be charg'd upon the Church to the prejudice of her Faith and Doctrine â—specially since she has been so careful in the retâ—enching them As may be seen by what what was done in the Council of Trent Dec. de Indulg cum potestas VIII Of Indulgences 1. THey must be extreamly ignorant who take the Power of Indulgences to be a Leave from the Pope to commit what Sins they please and that by virtue thereof they shall escape Punishment for their Sins without Repentance in another World Yet this is the sense of the Misrepresentation which he saith is made of it And if he saith true in his Preface That he hath described the Belief of a Papist exactly according to the apprehension he had when he was a Protestant He shews how well he understood the Matters in difference when I think no other Person besides himself ever had such an apprehension of it who pretended to be any thing like a Scholar 2. But now he believes it damnable to hold that the Pope or any other Power in Heaven or Earth can give him leave to commit any Sins whatsoever or that for any Sum of Mony he can obtain any Indulgence or Pardon for Sins that are to be committed by him or his Heirs hereafter Very well But what thinks he of obtaining an Indulgence or Pardon after they are committed Is no such thing to be obtained in the Court of Rome for a Sum of Mony He cannot but have heard of the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber for several Sins and what Sums are there set upon them Why did he not as freely speak against this This is published in the vast Collection of Tracts of Canon Law set forth by the Popes Authority where there are certain Rates for Perjury Murder Apostacy c. Now what do these Sums of Mony mean If they be small it is so much the better Bargain for the Sins are very great And Espencaeus complains that this Book was so far from being called in that he saith the Popes Legats renerred those Faculties and confirmed them It seems then a Sum of Mony may be of some consequence towards the obtaining Pardon for a Sin past tho' not for a Licence to commit it But what mighty difference is there whether a Man procures with Mony a Dispensation or a Pardon For the Sin can hurt him no more than if he had Licence to commit it 3. He doth believe there is a Power in the Church to grant Indulgences which he saith concern not at all the Remission of Sins either mortal or venial but only of some temporal Punishments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted Here now arises a material Question viz. Whether the Popes or the Representer be rather to be believed If the Popes who grant the Indulgences are to be believed then not only the bare Remission of Sins is concerned in them but the plenary and most plenary Remission of Sins is to be had by them So Boniface the 8 th in his Bull of Iubilee granted Non solum plenam largiorem imo plenissimam veniam peccatorum If these words had no relation to Remission of Sins the People were horribly cheated by the sound of them In the Bull of Clement the 6 th not extant in the Bullarium but published out of the Vtrecht Manuscript not only a plenary Absolution from all Sins is declared to all persons who died in the Way to Rome but he commands the Angels of Paradise to carry the Soul immediately to Heaven And I suppose whatever implies such an Absolution as carries a Soul to Heaven doth concern Remission of Sins Boniface IX granted Indulgences à Poenâ à Culpâ and those certainly concerned Remission of Sins being not barely from the temporal Punishment but from the Guilt it self Clement VIII whom Bellarmine magnifies for his care in reforming Indulgences in his Bull of Iubilee grants a most plenary Remission of Sins and Vrban the 8 th since him not only a Relaxation of Penances but Remission of Sins and so lately as A. D. 1671. Clement the 10 th published an Indulgence upon the Canonization of five new Saints wherein he not only grants a plenary Indulgence of Sins but upon invocation of one of these Saints in the point of Death a plenary Indulgence of all his Sins And what doth this signifie in the point of Death if it do not concern the Remission of Sins 4. Indulgences he saith are nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation upon just Causes of Canonical Penances which are or may be enjoyned by the Pastors of the Church on penitent Senners according to their several degrees of Demerits If by Canonical Penances they mean those enjoined by the Penitential Canons Greg. de Valentia saith This Opinion differs not from that of the Hereticks and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things Bellarmin brings several Arguments against this Doctrine 1. There would be no need of the Treasure of the Church which he had proved
deny that they pretend them to be of Divine Original 2. We do not deny but the Apostles might deliver such things by Word as well as by Epistle which their Disciples were bound to believe and keep but we think there is some difference to be made between what we certainly know they delivered in Writing and what it is now impossible for us to know viz. what they delivered by word without writing 3. We see no ground why any one should believe any Doctrine with a stedfast and divine Faith which is not bottom'd on the Written word for then his Faith must be built on the Testimony of the Church as Divine and Infallible or else his Faith cannot be Divine But it is impossible to prove it to be Divine and Infallible but by the Written word and therefore as it is not reasonable that he should believe the Written word by such a Divine Testimony of the Church so if any particular Doctrine may be received on the Authority of the Church without the Written word then all Articles of Faith may and so there would be no need of the Written word 4. The Faith of Christians doth no otherwise stand upon the Foundation of the Churches Tradition than as it delivers down to us the Books of Scripture but we acknowledg the general Sense of the Christian Church to be a very great help for understanding the true sense of Scripture and we do not reject any thing so delivered but what is all this to the Church of Rome But this is still the way of true Representing XVI Of Councils HE believes that the Faith of his Church may receive new Additions every day And that he is not only oblig'd to believe what Christ taught and his Apostles but also every Definition or Decree of any General Council assembled by the Command of the Pope So that as often as any thing is issued out by the Authority of any of these Church-Parliaments and order'd to be believ'd he thinks himself under pain of Damnation immediately bound to receive it and having added it to his Creed to assent to it with as Firm Stedfast and Divine a Faith as if it had been Commanded by Christ himself and Decreed in the Consistory of Heaven And by this means he never comes to understand his Religion or know what he is to Believe but by the continual Alterations Additions Diminutions Interpretations of these Councils he is preserv'd in a necessary Confusion and tho he changes often yet he fondly thinks himself always the same HE believes that the Faith of his Church can receive no Additions and that he is oblig'd to believe nothing besides that which Christ taught and his Apostles and if any thing contrary to this should be defin'd and commanded to be believ'd even by Ten thousand Councils he believes it damnable in any one to receive it and by such Decrees to make Additions to his Creed However he maintains the Necessity and Right of General Councils lawfully Assembled whose business it is not to coin new Articles of Faith or devise Fresh Tenets but only as often as any Point of Receiv'd Doctrine is impugned or call'd in question to debate the matter and examine what has been the Belief of all Nations who are there present in their Prelates in that Point And this being agreed on to publish and make known to the World which is the Catholick Doctrine left by Christ and his Apostles and which the new-breach'd Error And by this means to prevent the loss of infinite number of Souls which might otherwise be deluded and carried away after new inventions not being capable by their own knowledge and abilities to distinguish betwixt Truth and Falshood and discover the subtilties of every crafty Deceiver And in this case he believes that he is oblig'd to submit and receive the Decrees of such a Council the Pastors and Prelates there present being by Christ and his Apostles appointed for the decision of such Controversies They having the care of that stock committed to them over which the Holy Ghost has made them Overseers to feed the Church of God Acts 20.28 and to watch against those men who should arise from among themselves speaking perverse things tâ— draw Disciples after them Ib. vers 30. And he having receiv'd Command as likewise the whâ—le Flock of Christ to obey their Prelates and to be subject to them who watch and are to render an account for their Souls Heb. 13.17 with an assurance That He that heareth them hearch Christ and he that despiseth them despiseth Christ Luke 10.16 And withal being taught that as this way of the Ancients of the Church and Prelates meeting in case of any danger threatning their Flock or any new Doctrine arising was the means instituted by Christ and practised by the Apostles in the first planting of the Church for the preventing Schisms and preserving Vnity among the Faithful and that they should speak and think the same thing and be perfectly joyn'd together in the same mind and same judgment 1 Cor. 1.10 So it ought to be the means in all succeeding Ages for the preventing Divisions and conserving Vnity among the Faithful And that therefore as that Controversy concerning the necessity of Circumcision Act. c. 15. arising in the Apostles times was not decided by any private Person nor even by Paul and Barnabas who nevertheless had received the Holy Ghost and one would have thought might have pretended to the Spirit and a Heavenly Light but by a General Meeting of the Apostles and Elders of the Church at Ierusalem who were consulted by Paul and Barnabas about this Question So all other Disputes and Difficulties of Religion arising in succeeding Ages ought to be referr'd to the Successors of the Apostles whose Charge Dignity and Office is to continue to the end of the World tho' they are dead in Person who are to consider of the matter Acts 15.6 as the Apostles did while all the Multitude keeps silence ver 12. without any one presuming on any Learning Gift Virtue Prayers or Inspiration to intermeddle in the Dispute or put an end to the Question This being none of their business or obligation but only with all Patience and Humility to expect the Determination of their Prelates and Elders and receive it with the same expressions as those good Christians did heretofore who rejoyced for the Consolation Acts 15.31 And unless this that the Apostles did and their Obsequious Flock be taken as a Pattern in all Ages for the ending such-like difficulties he believes 't is impossible that Believers should stand fast in one Spirit with one Mind Philip. 1.27 and be not carried away with divers and strange Doctrines Hebr. 13.9 XVI Of Councils 1. WE are glad to find so good a Resolution as seems to be expressed in these words viz. That he is obliged to believe nothing besides that which Christ taught and his Apostles and if any thing contrary to this should be defined
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 justifie 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 St. 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. Augustine S. Basil of Selucia 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. Augustine as they are all owned by some Members of the Roman Communion And 3. For these words Feed my Sheep a late learned Doctor of the Sorbon shews that if they prove any thing peculiar to Saint Peter they must prove him sole Pastor of the Church which was the thing Saint Gregory disputed against so warmly But that there was nothing peculiar to Saint Peter above or beyond the rest of the Apostles he shews at large from S. Chrysostom S. Cyril S. Augustine and others to whom I refer the Reader and to the former Authors But suppose it were made to appear that Saint 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 visible Succession of above Two hundred and fifty Bishops acknowled 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 Tryal 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 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 Assistance 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 Infallibility 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 be 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 HE believes that the Pope has Authority to pispense with the Laws of God and absolve any one from the obligation of keeping the Commandments So that if he has but his Holy Fathers leave he may confidently Dissemble Lie and Forswear himself in all whatsoever he pleases and never be in danger of being call'd to an account at the last day especially if his Lying and Forswearing was for the common good of the Church there being then a sure Reward prepar'd for him in Heaven as a recompence of his good Intentions and Heroick Atchievements And if at any time he should chance to be catch'd in the management of any of these publick and Church-concerns and being obnoxious to Penal Laws should have Sentence of Death pass'd on him he has liberty at his last hour on the Scaffold or Ladder to make a publick Detestation of all such Crimes to make protestations of his Innocence to call God to witness that he denies unjustly and that as he is immediately to appear before the Supreme Judge he knows no more of any such designs and is as clear from the Guilt of them as the Child unborn And this though the Evidence against him be as clear as noon-day though the Jury be never so Impartial and the Judge never so Conscientious For that he having taken the Sacrament and Oath of Secresie and receiv'd Absolution or a Dispensation from the Pope may then Lye Swear Forswear and Protest all that he pleases without scruple with a good Conscience Christian-like Holily and Canonically HE believes 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 frome the Obligation of keeping the Commandments or give leave to Lie or Forswear or make that the breaking of any the least Divine Precept shall not be accountable for at the day of Judgment He is taught by his Church in all Books of Direction in all Catechisms in all Sermons that every Lie is a Sin that to call God to witness to an Vntruth damnable that it ought not to be done to save the whole World that whosoever does it either for his own personal account
of the Bible before any other and not allowing any Translations into a Mother-Tongue to be ordinarily read 14. In believing that the Scripture alone can be no Rule of Faith to any private or particular Person 15. In relying upon the Authority of the present Church for the sense of Scripture 16. In receiving and believing the Churches Traditions as the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and assenting to them with Divine Faith just as he doth to the Bâ—ble 17. In believing that the present Guides of the Church being assembled in Councils for preserving the Unity of the Church have an Infallible Assistance in their Decrees 18. In believing the Pope to be the Supreme Head of the Church under Christ being Successor to S. Peter to whom he committed the care of his Flock 19. In believing that Communion in both Kinds is an indifferent thing and was so held for the first four hundred years after Christ and that the first Precept for Receiving under both Kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo I. and confirmed by Pope Gelasius 20. In believing that the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded on Scripture Authority and Reason 21. In believing that to the saying of Prayers well and devoutly it is not necessary to have attention on the Words or on the Sense of Prayers 22. In believing that none out of the Communion of the Church of Rome can be saved and that it is no Uncharitableness to think so 23. In believing that the Church of Rome in all the new Articles defined at Trent hath made no Innovation in mat ters of Faith Our Reasons against it in the several Particulars 1. THou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image or any likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Which being the plain clear and express Words of the Divine Law we dare not worship any Images or Representations lest we be found Transgressors of this Law Especially since God herein hath declared himself a Iealous God and annexed so severe a Sanction to it And since he that made the Law is only to interpret it all the Dictinctions in the World can never satisfy a Mans Conscience unless it appear that God himself did either make or approve them And if God allow the Worship of the thing Represented by the Representation he would never have forbidden that Worship absolutely which is unlawful only in a certain respect 2. We have an Advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous 1 John 2.1 And one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Iesus 1 Tim. 2.5 For Christ is entered into Heaven it self now to appear in the Presence of God for us Heb. 9 24. And therefore we dare not make other Intercessors in Heaven besides him and the distance between Heaven and us breaks off all Communication between the Saints there and us upon Earth so that all Addresses to them now for their Prayers are in a way very different from desiring others on Earth to pray for us and if such Addresses are made in the solemn Offices of Divine Worship they joyn the Creatures with the Creator in the Acts and Signs of Worship which are due to God alone 3. Call upon me in the day of Trouble I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorifie me Psâ—l 50.15 When we pray to Our Father in Heaven as our Saviour commanded us we do bâ—t what both Natural and Christian Religion require us to do But when men pray to the Blessed Virgin for Help and Protection now and at the hour of Death they attribute that to her which belongs only to God who is our Helper and Defender And altho Christ knew the Dignity of his Mother above all others he never gives the least Encouragement to make such Addressâ—s to her And to suppose her to have a share now in the Kingdom of Christ in Heaven as a Copartner with him is to advance a Creature to Divine Honour and to overthrow the true Ground of Christs Exaltation to his Kingdom in Heaven which was His suffering on the Cross for us 4. And no man knoweth of the Sepulchre of Moses unto this day Deut. 34.6 Why should God hide the Body of Moses from the People if hâ— allowed giving religious Honour and Respect to Relicks Why should Hezekiah break in pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel did burn Incense to it 2 Kings 18.4 especially when it was a Type or Representation of Christ himself and God had wrought many Miracles by it 5. Whom the Heaven must receive until the times of the Restitution of all things Acts 3.21 And therefore in the Eucharist we adore him as sitting on the right hand of God but we dare not direct our Adoration to the Consecrated Host which we believe to be the Substance of Bread and Wine tho consecrated to a Divine Mystery and therefore not a fit Object for our Adoration 6. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 This is spoken of the Bread after Consecration and yet the Apostle supposes it to be Bread still and the Communion of his Body is interpreted by the next Words For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all Partakers of that one Bread v. 17. Which is very different from the Bread being changed into the very Body of Christ which is an Opinion that hath no Foundation in Scripture and is repugnant to the common Principles of Reason which God hath given us and exposes Christian Religion to the Reproach and Contempt of Iews Turks and Infidels 7. When you shall have done all those things which are commanded you say We are unprofitable Servants we have done that which was our Duty to do St. Luke 17.10 And therefore in no sense can our best Works be truly meritorious of Eternal Life Which consisting in the enjoyment of God it is impossible there should be any just Proportion or due Commensuration between our best Actions and such a Reward 8. And the Son said to him Father I have sinned against Heaven and in thy sight S. Luke 15.21 Where Confession to God is required because the Offence is against him but it is impossible for any Man upon Earth to forgive those whom God doth not forgive And he alone can appoint the necessâ—ry conditions of Pardon among which true Contrition and Repentance is fully declared but Confession to a Priest thô it may be useful for the ease of the Penitent is no where in Scripture made necessary for the Forgiveness of Sin 9. I said I will confess my Transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin Psal. 32.5 If God doth fully forgive the Guilt of sin there remains no Obligation to Punishment for where-ever that is the guilt remains It is true God may not sometimes fully pardon but he may reserve some temporal Punishment here for his own