Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	church_n	doctrine_n	rome_n	2,369	5	7.0297	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41614	A papist mis-represented and represented, or, A twofold character of popery the one containing a sum of the superstitions, idolatries, cruelties, treacheries, and wicked principles of the popery which hath disturb'd this nation above an hundred and fifty years, fill'd it with fears and jealousies, and deserves the hatred of all good Christians : the other laying open that popery which the papists own and profess, with the chief articles of their faith, and some of the principle grounds and reasons, which hold them in that religion / by J.L. one of the Church of Rome ; to which is added, a book entituled, The doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, truly represented, in answer to the aforesaid book by a Prote	Gother, John, d. 1704.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1686 (1686)	Wing G1336; ESTC R21204	180,124	215

being thus reputed profane in their Worship Enemies to the Government and the undoubted occasions of every misfortune throughout the Empire 't is easie to conceive in what contempt they were and how detestable amongst the Heathens But because none can relate it so to the life as Tertullian has done I 'le set it down in his own words as translated by Dr. Howel in his History of the World Is it not strange says he that the hatred wherewith this Name is pursued in such manner blinds the minds of most Men that when they witness the Probity of a Christian they mix in their Discourse as a reproach that he hath embraced this Religion One saith Truly he of whom you speak is an Honest Man if he were not a Christian and his Life would be free from blame Another Do you know such a one who had the reputation of a Wise and Discreet Man He is lately turn'd Christian. Again These people by an extreme blindness of hatred speak to the advantage of the Name Christian when they strive to render it odious For say they How pleasant and of what a good humour was that Woman How sociable and jovial was that Man 'T is pity they should be Christians So they impute the amendment of their Lives to the Profession of Christianity Some of them also purchase the aversion they carry against the Name Christian which we bear with the price of what is most precious to them rather desiring to lose the sweetness of life tranquility of mind and all sorts of Commodities than to see in their Houses That which they hate A man who heretofore had his mind full of Jealousie can no longer endure the company of his Wife what assurance soever he has of her Chastity after once he perceives her to be turn'd Christian and parts from her now when her actions full of Modesty have extinguish'd all suspicions wherewith he was heretofore mov'd A Father who of a long time endur'd the Disobedience of his Heathenish Son resolves to take from him the hope of succeeding him in his Inheritance for turning Christian when at the same time executing his Commands without murmuring A Master that used his Slave gently when his Carriage gave him some cause of distrust now puts him far from him for being a Christian when he hath most assurance of his Fidelity 'T is committing a Crime to correct the disorders of a Mans Life by the motions of a Holy Conversion to the Christian Faith and the good which is produc'd by so happy a Change works not so powerfully in the minds of men as the hatred they have conceiv'd against us Indeed this hatred is strange and when I consider that the Name of Christian only makes it be so I would willingly know how a name can be criminal and how a simple word can be accused Thus was Christianity wholly infamous amongst the Heathens contemn'd and detested by all and where Lies were in credit Calumnies and Slanders confirm'd and back'd by Authority there was no other Crime but Truth And 't was these Calumnies these false Accusations invented to cry down the Christian Religion oblig'd Tertullian to write his Apology wherein he declar'd to the World that Christianity was nothing like that which the Heathens imagin'd it to be That Idolatry Superstition Impiety Cruelty Treachery Conspiracies c. was none of their Doctrine but condemn'd and detested by them that these Crimes were only the malicious inventions of the Heathenish Priests who finding themselves unable to withstand the force of Christianity had no other way to preserve themselves in Repute and the People in their Errour than by forming an ugly odious and most horrid Vizor a damnable Scheme of Religion than holding this forth to the World and crying out This is the Religion of the Christians these are their Principles Behold their Ignorance their Stupidity their Profaneness Behold their Insolence their Villanies a People unsufferable in a Commonwealth Enemies to their Country and their Prince And thus representing it as monstrous as they pleas'd they brought an odium upon as many as own'd that Name and condemn'd them for Follies and Crimes that were no where but in their own Imagination And 't was not only in Tertullians time that Christianity lay under this scandal but also in after ages And therefore as for the Vindication of the Christian Profession he was forc'd to apologize for his time so did after him St. Cyprian Arnobius and many other Ecclesiastical Writers nay and under Christian Emperors the Calumnies of the Heathens yet being urg'd with much vigour and confidence Orosius was oblig'd to write his History and St. Augustine his City of God in defence of the Faith and Doctrine of Christ. And now when by the propagation of Christianity and the laborious endeavours of her Professors Heathenism was pretty well extinct yet was not the Mouth of Malice stopp'd the same Calumnies which had been invented by the Infidels being taken up by evil Christians No one going out from the Communion of the Church of Christ but what did by reviving old Scandals and the addition of fresh ones endeavour to make her infamous and blacken her with such Crimes as could be thought most convenient for rendring her odious to all It being look'd upon by as many as ever went out of her the best means to justifie their Separation and to gain to themselves the credit of Orthodox Christians to paint her out in all the Antichristian Colours and represent her as Hellish as Wickedness could make her 'T is strange how much she suffer'd in this Point from the Manichees and from the Donatists and how much pains it cost Saint Augustine to prove their Accusations to be meer Calumnies principally intended to raise prejudices in the minds of the People against her that so being convinc'd by these Hellish Artifices of her teaching unsound and profane Doctrine wicked Principles and humane Inventions instead of Faith might never think of going to her to learn the Truth nor even so much as suspect her to be the Church of Christ. This Saint Augustine complains was the chief cause of his continuing in the Error of the Manichees so long and that he impugn'd with so much violence this Church And therefore after he was come to the knowledge of the Truth he discover'd this to the World for the undeceiving others who were caught in the same snare making it part of his Confessions Confess l. 6. c. 3. p. 1. When I came to discover says he that I mingled Ioy and Blushes and was asham'd that I had now for so many years been barking and railing not against the Catholick Faith but only against the fictions of my carnal conceits For so temerarious and impious was I that those things which I ought first to have learned from them by enquiry I first charg'd upon them by Accusation readier to impose Falshoods than to be inform'd of the Truth And thus I so blindly accused

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 ther●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 defi●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 particul●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 In●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 t●ey h●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 Infall●bil●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 Part●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 Ambi●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

in the Canon Nos Sanctorum c. Urban II. Gregory IX the Councils of Lateran under Alex. III. and Innocent III the Councils of Lyons of Vienna of Constance of Lateran under Leo X. and of Trent have all grievously and enormously erred about this matter for that it was the Doctrine of them all he shews at large and so Seven General Counc●ls lose their Infallibility at one blow 6. That the Gates of H●ll have prevailed against the Church For the true Church could never teach such pernicious Doctrine as this must be if it be not true And if it erred in this it might as well err in any other Doctrine and so Men are not bound to believe or obey it 7. That Princes and all Laymen have just Cause to withdraw from their Church because it shewed it self to be governed by a spirit of Ambition and not by the Spirit of God and not only so but they may justly prosecute all that maintain a Doctrine so pernicious to Government if it be not true Let us now see what our Author saith to clear this from being a Doctrine of the Church of Rome 1. That for the few Authors that are abettors of this Doctrine there are of his Communion three times the number that publickly disown all such Authority If this b● true it is not much for the Reputation of their Church That there should be such a number of those who are liable to all these dreadful Consequences which Lessius urges upon the deniers of it But is it possible to believe there should be so few followers of so many Popes and Seven General Councils owned for such by the disowners of this Doctrine except the Lateran under Leo 10 The poor Eastern Christians are condemned for Hereticks by the Church of Rome for refusing to submit to the Decrees of one General Council either that of Ephesus or of Chalcedon And they plead for themselves That there was a misinterpretation of their meaning or not right understanding one another about the diff●rence of Nature and Person which occasioned those Decrees I would fain know whether those Churches which do not embrace the Decrees of those Councils are in a state of Heresie or not If they be then what must we think of such who reject the Decrees of Seven General Councils one after another and give far less probable accounts of the Proceedings of those Councils in their Definitions than the other do 2. He saith Those who have condemned it have not been in the least suspected of their Religion or of denying any Article of Faith Let any one judg of this by Lessius his Consequences And the Author of the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance saith in plain Terms That the Opinion that the Pope hath no such Power is erroneous in Faith as well as temerarious and impious And he proves it by this substantial Argument Because they who hold it must suppose that the Church hath been for some time in a damnable Error of Belief and Sin of Practice And he not only proves that it was defined by Popes and Councils but for a long time universally received and that no one Author can be produced before Calvins time that denied this Power absolutely or in any case whatsoever But a few Authors that are Abettors of it saith our Representer Not one total Dissenter for a long time saith the other And which of these is the true Representer The deniers of it not in the least suspected of their Religion saith one Their Opinion is erroneous in Faith temerarious and impious saith the other And a Professor of Lovain now living hath undertaken to shew that the nu●ber is far greater of those who assert this Doctrine than of those who deny it 3. If we charge their Church with this Opinion may not they as well charge ours with the like since Propositions as dangerous were condemned at Oxford July 26 1683. as held not by Jesuits but by some among our selves This is the force of his Reasoning But we must desire the Reader to consider the great disparity of the Case We cannot deny that there have been men of ill Minds and d●sloyal Principles Factious and Disobedient Enemies to the Government both in Church and State but have these Men ever had that Countenance from the Doctrines of the Guides of our Church which the Deposing Doctrine hath had in the Church of Rome To make the Case parallel he must suppose our Houses of Convocation to have several times declared these Damnable Doctrines and given Encouragement to Rebels to proceed against their Kings and the University of Oxford to have condemned them for this is truly the Case in the Church of Rome the Popes and Councils have owned and approved and acted by the Deposing Principle but the Universities of France of late years have condemned it How come the Principles of the Regicides among us to be parallel'd with this Doctrine when the Principles of our Church are so directly contrary to them and our Houses of Convocation would as readily condemn any such damnable Doctrines as the University of Oxford And all the World knows how repugnant such Principles are to those of the Church of England and none can be Rebels to their Prince but they must be false to our Church As to the Personal Loyalty of many Persons in that Church as I have no Reason to question it so it is not proper for me to debate it if I did since our business is not concerning Persons but Doctrines and it was of old observed concerning the Epicureans That thô their Principles did overthrow any true Friendship yet many of them made excellent Friends XXI Of Communion in one kind HE believes that he is no longer oblig'd to obey Christ's Commands than his Church will give him leave And that therefore tho' Christ instituted the Sacrament under both kinds and commanded it to be receiv'd so by all yet he thinks it is not necessary for any to do so now but Priests because his Church forsooth hath forbidden the Cup to the Laity And put a stop to the Precept of Christ who said Drink ye all of this Mat. 26. In submission to which Church-Prohibition all the poor people of his Communion contentedly rest while they see themselves defrauded of great part of that benefit which Christ left them as his Last Will and Testament for the comfort of their poor Souls and the Remedy of their Infirmities HE believes that he is oblig'd to obey all the commands of Christ and that neither his Church nor any other Power upon Earth can limit alter or annul any precept of Divine Institution contrary to the intention of the Law giver N●ither is the Denial of the Cup to the Laity a practise any ways opposite to this his Belief He being taught that thô Christ instituted the blessed Sacrament under both kinds and so deliver'd it to his Apostles who only were then present and

relate to their deliverance out of a state of Punishment before the Day of Judgment For whatever state Souls were then supposed to be in before the great Day if there could be no deliverance till the Day of Judgment it signifies nothing to the present Question As to the Vision of Perpetua concerning her Brother Dinocrates who died at Seven Years old being baptized it is hardly reconcilable to their own Doctrine to suppose such a Soul in Purgatory I will not deny that Perpetua did think she saw him in a worse Condition and thought likewise that by her Prayers she brought him into a better for she saw him playing like little Children and then she awaked and concluded that she had given him ease but is it indeed come to this that such a Doctrine as Purgatory must be bu●lt on such a Foundation as this I do not call in question the Acts of Perpetua nor her sincerity in relating her Dream but must the Church build her Doctrines upon the Dreams or Visions of young Ladies tho very devout for Ubia Perpetua was then but Twenty Two as she saith her self But none are to be blamed who m●ke use of the best supports their Cause will afford It is time now to see what strength of Reason he offers for Purgatory 1. He saith When a Sinner is reconciled to God tho the Eternal Punishment due to his Sins is always remitted yet there sometimes remains a temporal Penalty to be undergone as in the case of the Israelites and David But doth it hence follow that there is a Temporal Penalty that must be undergone either here or hereafter without which there will be no need of Purgatory Who denies that God in this Life for example sake may punish those whose Sins he hath promised to remit as to another World This is therefore a very slender Foundation 2. There are some sins of their own nature light and venial I will not dispute that but s●ppose there be must men go then into Purgatory for meer Venial Sins What a strange Doctrine doth this appear to any m●n's Reason That God should forgive the greater sins and req●ire so severe a Punishment for sins in their own nature venial i. e. so inconsider●ble in their own Opinion that no man is bound to confess them which do not interrupt a State of Grace which require only an implicite detestation of them which do not deserve eternal Punishment which may be remitted by Holy Water or a Bishop's Bl●ssing as their Divines agree 3. That to all Sins some penalty is due to the Iustice of God And what follows from hence but the necessity of Christ's Satisfaction But how doth it ●ppear that after the Expiation of Sin by Christ and the rem●ssion of eternal Punishment there st●ll remains a necessity of farther satisfaction for such a temporal penalty in another World 4. That generally speaking few men depart out of this Life but either with the guilt of venial sins or obnoxious to some Temporal punishment No doubt all men are obnoxious by their sins to the punishment of another World but that is not the point but whether God hath declared That altho he remits the eternal Punishment he will not the temporal and altho he will forgive thousands of pounds he will not the pence and farthings we owe to him But if Mortal sins be remitted as to the guilt and Venial do not hinder a st●te of Grace what room is there for Vindictive Justice in Purgatory Yet this is the Doctrine which so much weight is laid upon that Bellarmine saith They must go directly to Hell who do not believe purgatory If this be true why was it not put into the Representation that we might understand the danger of not believing so credible so reasonable a Doctrine as this But we believe it to be a much more dangerous thing to condemn others for not believing a Doctrine which hath so very slender a pretence either to Scripture or Reason XXIV Of Praying in an Unknown Tongue HE it counsell'd by his Church to be present at Sermons but never permitted to hear any he is able to understand they being all deliver'd in an unknown Tongue He is taught to Pray but it must be in Latin He is commanded to assist at the Church Service and to hear Mass but it must be without understanding a word it being all perform'd in a Language of which he is altogether Ignorant And thus is miserably depriv'd of all the comfortable Benefits of Christianity Hearing but without Understanding Praying but without reaping Fruit assisting at Publick Assemblies but like a Stock or a Stone without feeling or any the least sense of Devotion HE is counsell'd by his Church to be present at Sermons such as he is able to understand they b●ing always deliver'd in the Vulgar Language of every Country In France French in Spain Spanish in Italy Italian in England if permitted English they being purely intended for the good Instruction of the Congregation present He is taught to Pray and alw●ys provided of such Books of Devotion as he is capable of understanding every Nation being well furnished with such helps extant in the Language proper to the Country He is commanded to assist at the Church-Service and to hear Mass and in this he is instructed not to understand the Words but to know what is done For the Mass being a Sacrifice wherein is daily commemorated the Death and Passion of Christ by an Oblation made by the Priest of the Body and Blood of the Imm●culate Lamb under the Symbols of Bread and Wine according to his own Institution 't is not the busines of the Congregation present to imploy their Ears in attending to the Words but their Hearts in contemplation of the Divine Mysteries by raising up fervent affections of Love Thanksgiving Compassion Hope Sorrow for sins Resolutions of amendment c. That thus having their Heart and Intention united with the Priests they may be partakers of his Prayers and of the Sacrifice he is then offering than which he believes nothing is more acceptable to God or beneficial to true Believers And for the raising of these affections in his Soul and filling his Heart with the extasies of Love and Devotion he thinks in this case there 's little need of Words a true Faith without these is all-sufficient Who could but have burst forth into Tears of Love and Thanksgiving if he had been present while our Saviour was tyed to Pillar Scourg'd and Tormented though he open'd not his mouth to the By-standers nor spake a word who would have needed a Sermon to have been fill'd with Grief and Compassion if he had seen his Saviour expos'd to the scorn of the Iews when he was made a bloody spectacle by Pilate with Ecce homo Lo the Man Who could have stood cold and senseless upon Mount Calvary under the Cross when his Redeemer was hanging on it though he had heard or not

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 ●specially since she has been so careful in the ret●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

to be the Foundation of Indulgences 2. They would be rather hur●ful than profitable and the Church would deceive her Children by them 3. They could not be granted for the Dead 4. They who receive Indulgences do undergo Canonical Penances 5. The Form of them doth express that they do relate to God not only to the Church And this I think is sufficient to shew how far he is from true Representing the Nature of Indulgences for we do not dispute the Church's Power in relaxing Canonical Penances to penitent sinners upon just Causes IX Of Satisfaction HE believes very injuriously of Christs Passion being perswaded that his Sufferings Death were not sufficiently satisfactory for our sins but that it is necessary for every one to make satisfaction for themselves And for this end after he has been at Confession the Priest injoyns him a Penance by the performance of which he is to satisfie for his offences And thus confidently relying upon his own penitential Works he utterly evacuates Christ's Passion and though he professes himself a Christian and that Christ is his Saviour yet by his little trusting to him he seems to think him to be no better than what his Crucifix informs him that is a meer Woodden one HE believes it damnable to think injuriously of Christs Passion Nevertheless he believes that though condign Satisfaction for the Guilt of Sin and the Pain eternal due to it be proper only to Christ our Saviour yet that penitent Sinners being redeem'd by Christ and made his Members may in some measure satisfie by Prayer Fasting Alms c. for the temporal pain which by order of God's Justice sometimes remains due after the Guilt and the eternal pains are remitted So that trusting in Christ as his Redeemer he yet does not think that by Christ's Sufferings every Christian is discharg'd of his particular Sufferings but that every one is to suffer something for himself as S. Paul did who by tribulations and in suffering in his own flesh did accomplish those things that wanted of the Passions of Christ and this not only for himself but for the whole Church Col. 1.24 and this he finds every where in Scripture viz. People admonish'd of the greatness of their sins doing Penance in Fasting Sack-cloth and Ashes and by voluntary austerities endeavouring to satisfie the Divine Justice And these personal Satisfactions God has sufficiently also minded him of in the punishments of Moses Aaron David and infinite others and even in the Afflictions sent by God upon our own Age in Flagues Wars Fires Persecutions Rebellions and such like Which few are so Atheistical but they confess to be sent from Heaven for the just Chastisement of our sins and which we are to undergo notwithstanding the infinite Satisfaction made by Christ and without any undervaluing it Now being thus convinc'd of some temporal punishments being due to his sins he accepts of all Tribulations whether in Body Name or Estate from whence-soever they come and with others of his own chusing offers them up to God for the discharging this debt still confessing that his Offences deserve yet more But these penitential Works he is taught to be no otherwise satisfactory than as joyn'd and apply'd to that satisfaction which Jesus made upon the Cross in virtue of which alone all our good Works find a grateful acceptance in God's sight IX Of Satisfaction 1. HE believes it damnable to think any thing injuriously of Christ's Passion But then he distinguishes the Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin As to the Guilt and Eterternal Pain the satisfaction he saith is proper to Christ but as to the Temporal Pain which may remain due by God's Iustice after the other are remitted he saith that Penitent Sinners may in some measure satisfy for that by ●rayer Fasting Alms c. 2. These Penitential Works he saith are no otherwise satisfactory than as jo●ned and applyed to Christ's Satisfaction in virtue of which alone our good Works find a grateful acceptance in God's sight But for right apprehending the State of the Controversy we must consider 1. That they grant both Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin to be remitted in Baptism so that all the satisfaction to be made is for Sins committed after Baptism 2. We distinguish between Satisfaction to the Church before Absolution and Satisfaction to the Justice of God for some part of the punishment to sin which is unremitted 3. We do not deny that truly Penitential Works are pleasing to God so as to avert his displeasure but we deny that there can be any Compensation in way of Equivalency between what we suffer and what we deserve The Matter in Controversy therefore on this Head consists in these things 1. That after the total Remission of Sins in Baptism they suppose a Temporal Punishment to remain when the Eternal is forgiven which the Penitent is to satisfy God's Justice for and without this being done in this Life he must go into Purgatory for that End Of which more under that Head 2. That this Satisfaction may be made to the Justice of God after Absolution is given by the Priest So that although the Penitent be admitted into God's Favour by the Power of the Keys according to their own Doctrine yet the Application of the Merits of Christ together with the Saints in the Sentence of Absolution according to their Form do not set him so free but he either wants a new Supply from the Treasure of the Church i. e. from the same Merits of Christ and the Saints or else he is to satisfy for the Temporal Punishment by his own Penances 3. That these Penitential Works are to be joyned with the Merits of Christ in the way of proper Satisfaction to Divine Justice And however softly this may be expressed the meaning is that Christ hath merited that we may merit and by his Satisfaction we are enabled to satisfy for our selves And if the Satisfaction by way of Justice be taken away the other will be a Controversy about Words 4. That these Penitential Works may not only be sufficient for themselves but they may be so over-done that a great share may be taken from them to make up the Treasure of the Church for the benefit of others who fall short when they are duly applied to them in the way of Indulgences And about these Points we must desire greater Proof than we have ever yet seen X. Of Reading the Holy Scripture HE believes it part of his Duty to think meanly of the Word of God to speak irreverently of the Scripture to do what he is able to lessen the repute of it and bring it into disgrace And for this end he says it is obscure full of ambiguous expressions plain contradictions not fit to be read by the Vulgar nor fit to be translated into Vulgar Languages And without respect to Christ or his Apostles profanely Preaches that no Ten Books in the World have done so much

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 V●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 bene●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 f●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 t●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 i●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