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 that 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 Principal Grounds and Reasons which hold them in That Religion Narraverunt mihi Iniqui Fabulationes sed non ut Lex tua Psal. 119. v. 85 By I. 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 Protestant of the Church of England And for the Readers better convenience in the Re-printing it is so ordered that every Chapter of the latter immediately follows that of the former to which it is an Answer Licensed according to Order Dublin Re-printed by A. C. S. H. for the Society of Stationers 1686. A PAPIST Mis-represented and Represented OR A twofold Character of Popery To which is added The Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented c THE INTRODUCTION THE Father of Lies is the Author of Mis-representing He first made the Experiment of this Black Art in Paradise having no surer way of bringing God's Precept into Contempt and making our First Parents transgress than by mis-representing the Command which their Maker had laid upon them And so unhappily successful he was in this his first attempt that this has been his chief stratagem ever since in all business of difficulty and concern esteeming That his best Means for preserving and propagating Wickedness amongst Men by which he first won them to lose their Innocence And therefore there has nothing of Good yet come into the World nothing been sent from Heaven but what has met with this Opposition the Common Enemy having imploy'd all his Endeavours of bringing it into discredit and rendring it infamous by mis-representing Of this there are frequent instances in the Old Law and more in the New The truth of it was experienc'd on the Person of Christ himself who tho' he was the Son of God the immaculate Lamb yet was he not out of the reach of Calumny and exempt from being mis-represented See how he was painted by malicious Men the Sons of Belial Ministers of Satan a prophane and wicked Man a breaker of the Sabbath a Glutton a Friend and Companion of Publicans and Sinners a Fool a Conjurer a Traytor a Seducer a tumultuous Person a Samaritan full of the Devil he hath Belzebub and by the Prince of the Devils casteth he out Devils Mark 3.22 There being no other way of frighting the People from embracing the Truth following the Son of God but by thus disfiguring him to the Multitude reporting Light to be Darkness and God to be the Devil The Disciples of Christ every where met with the like encounters Stephen had the people stirred up against him because they heard he had spoke blasphemous words against Moses and against God Acts 6.11 Paul also and Silas for exceedingly troubling the City Acts 16.20 Iason also with them because he had turned the World upside down and did contrary to the Decrees of Caesar Acts 17.6 7. Paul again because he did teach all men every where against the people and polluted the holy place Acts 21.28 And because he was a pestilent fellow and a mover of Sedition among all the Iews throughout the World to which the Iews also assented saying that these things were so Acts 24.5 9 Neither did these Calumnies these wicked Mis-representations stop here he that said The Disciple is not above his Master if they have called the Master of the House Belzebub how much more shall they call them of his Houshold did not only foretell what was to happen to his Followers then present but also to the Faithful that were to succeed them and to his Church in future ages they being all to expect the like Fate that tho' they should be never so just to God and their Neighbour upright in their ways and live in the Fear of God and the Observance of his Laws yet must they certainly be reviled and hated by the World made a by-word to the people and have the repute of Ideots Seducers and be a scandal to all Nations And has not this been verified in all ages See what was the State of Christians in the primitive times when as yet Vice had not corrupted the purity of the Gospel 'T is almost impossible to believe in what contempt they were and how utterly abominated Tertullian who was a sharer of a great part gives us so lamentable a account of the Christians in his time that 't is able to move compassion in stones He tells us so many malicious Slanders were dispers'd abroad concerning the manner of their Worship and their whole Doctrine describ'd not only to be folly and meer toys but also to be grounded on most hellish Principles and so to be full of Impieties that the Heathens believ'd a man could not make profession of Christianity without being tainted with all sorts of Crimes without being an enemy to the Gods to Princes to the Laws to good Manners and to Nature Hence they conceiv'd such prejudice against them and they were render'd so impious in the opinion of the Vulgar that whatsoever Accusations were brought in tho' never so false and malicious whatsoever Villanies were laid to their charge all was welcom to the enraged multitude to which nothing seem'd incredibie concerning those that were thus already odious Upon this it was that they were brought in guilty of Atheism of Superstition of Idolatry of Cruelty of Sedition of Conspiracies of Treasons and bloody Persecutions were rais'd against them to which the people were exasperated by Fears and Iealousies Quod Pontifices as Spondanus says Gentilitiae superstitionis Christianos more solito calumniis circumvenissent quasi aliquid contra Imperium molirentur Because the Priests did use to divulge it abroad that the Christians were plotting against the Government Nor were these Crimes the whole Sum of their Charge For besides every publick calamity and misfortune that befell the Commonwealth was thrown upon them If Daphnes Temple was consum'd by Lightning from Heaven yet must the Christians be condemn'd as the Incendiaries If the City was laid in Ashes it must be reveng'd on the Christians Nay Tertullian has it if Tiber overflowed if Nile watered not the Plains if Heaven stop'd its Course and did not pour its Rains here below if there were Earth-quakes Famine or Plague they would immediately cry out Christianos ad Leones Cast the Christians to the Lions as the cause of all the Calamities that arrived in the World and all the Evils that People suffer'd And now the Christians
allow of such Proceedings No sober Man would ever go to Tyburn and Whetstones-Park to know what is the Religion professed in England according to Law Nor would look into all the Sinks Jakes Dung-hills Common-shores about Town from such a Prospâ—ct to give a true Description of the City Why therefore should the Character of the Church of Rome and her Doctrine be taken only from the loose Behaviour and wicked Crimes of such who thô in Communion with her yet live nâ—t according to her Direction She teaches Holiness of Life Mercy to the Poor Loyalty and Obedience to Princes and the necessity of keeping the Commandments witness the many Books of Devotion and Direction made English for Publick benefit written originally by Papists and great numbers there are God be prais'd who practice this in their Lives And now if there be many also who stop their Ears to good Instruction and following the Suggestion of their own ungovern'd appetites of Pride Ambition Covetousness Luxury c. so lay aside all concern of Salvation and become unchristian both to God and their Neighbour that they are a shame to their Profession Why should the Church be repâ—esented according to the Wickedness of those that neglect her Doctrine and not ratâ—er by the Piety and Exemplar Lives of such as follow it Is not this to deal by her if we may use such a Comparison as 't is generally done by the Sign of St. Dunstan near Temple-Bar on which thô the Saint be drawn almost in the full proportion and there 's no more of the Devil on it besides the reaching towards him with a pair of Tongs yet 't is describ'd only by the name of the Devil-Tavern without the least mention of the Saint And is not this partiallity unjust and these piece-meal Descriptions unreasonable Lâ—t the Character of the Church be given according to what she teaches and not according to the Writings of every positive Opiniator and the Practices of every wicked Liver and then there 's no fear of its coming out so ugly and deform'd Neither leâ— any one pretend to demonstrate the Faith and Principles of the Papists by the Works of every Divine in that Communion or by the Actions of every Bishop Cardinal or Pope For they extend not their Faith beyond the Declarations of General-Councils And standing fast to these they yet own that many of their Writers are too loose in their Opinions that all Bishops and Cardinals are not so edifying as becomes their State and that Popes may have their 〈◊〉 too A Pope is a Temporal Prince keeps a Court has variety of Officers â—bouâ— him And it he has Flatterers and Mis informers too 't is nothing but what all Princes are sensible of but cannot remedy And hence he doubts not but 't is possible he may be engag'd in unlawful undertakings and invite others to the like And are not all other Princes subject to this too But what then These Actions of Popes concern not the Faith of those who are in Communion with them they may throw a scandal indeed upon the Religion but they can never alter its Creed But what need any other return to the numerous Clamours made daily against the wickedness of the Papists 'T is a sufficient vindication of their Chief Pastors and Popes to use the words of a Person of Quality that among two hundred and fifty that have now Successively bore that Charge there are not above ten or twelve against whom their most malicious Adversaries can find occasion of spitting their Venom and that a Challenge may be made to the whole World to shew but the fifth part of so many Successive Governors since the Creation of which there have not been far more that have abus'd their Power And as for their Flock and People owning this Authority 't is true many wicked things have been done by some of them and too many like Libertines neglect the care of their Souls But however the Generallity of them live like Christans few come to them but with their Religion they change also their Manners for the better Few desert them but such who seem to be fall'n out with all Christianity And whosoever will look into any of our Neighbouring Popish Towns as Paris Antwerp Gaunt c. will find in any one of them more Praying more Fasting more receiving the Sacraments more visiting of Prisoners and the Sick more Alms-giving than in any ten Towns of the Reformation XXXI Of Wicked Principles and Practices THE Misrepresenter charges the Church of Rome with many horrid Practices as the French and Irish Massacres the Murders of Two Kings of France the Holy League the Gun-powder-Treason c. And charges these as being done according to the Principles of that Church But in Answer to this he saith 1. In General That the Doctrine of it is holy teaching the Love of God and our Neighbour and that none can be saved by Faith alone In which Doctrine we heartily concur with them 2. That altho many uncertain things pass for certain and false for true yet he cannot deny that all ranks and degrees of men have been corrupted among them being scandalous in their Lives wicked in their Designs without the Fear of God in their Hearts or care of their own Salvation This is a general Acknowledgment but no particular Answer to the things objected 3. That the whole Church is not to be charged for the sake of such villanies Very true unless some Doctrine owned in that Church gave encouragement to them As suppose any should ever have fallen into Rebellion upon the belief of the Deposing Power is not that Doctrine chargeable with the Consequences of it They are extremely to blame who charge a Church with what her Members do in direct Opposition to her Doctrine but it is quite another Case when the main Ground they alledge for their Actions is some allowed Principle in it 4. They are not accountable for the Actions of every Bishop Cardinal or Pope for they extend not their Faith beyond the Declaration of General Councils But suppose General Councils have declared such Doctrines and Popes act but according to them is not their Church then accountable for their Actions 5. There is more Praying and Fasting and receiving the Sacraments more visiting the Prisoners and the Sick more Alms-giving in any of our neighbouring Popish Towns as Paris Antwerp Gant c. than in any Ten Towns of the Reformation And is there more Charity too It doth not appear if they be as ready to censure others and admire themselves as our Author who so freely gives his Judgment about a matter it is impossible for him to know We see no reason to admire or imitate the manner of their Praying and Fasting and receiving the Sacraments for to pray without understanding to fast without Abstinence to receive a maimed Sacrament are things we do not envy them for but althô our Devotion be not so pompous and full of shew yet We
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
his concern it should be determin'd For his part he does not doubt but that God who acquainted the Prophets with the knowledge of things that were yet to come many hundred years after That inform'd Elijah of the King of Syria's Counsel tho' private resolv'd on in his Bed-chamber and at a distance 2 Kings 6.12 can never want means of letting the Saints know the desires of those who beg their Intercession here on Earth Especially since our Saviour tells That Abraham heard the Petitions of Dives who was yet at a greater distance even in Hell and told him likewise the manner of his living while as yet on Earth Nay since 't is generally allow'd that even the very Devils hear those desperate wretches who call on them Why should he doubt that Saints want this Priviledge in some manner granted to sinful men and to wicked Spirits who tho departed this life are not so properly dead as translated from a mortal life to an immortal one where enjoying God Almighty they lose no Perfections which they enjoy'd while on Earth but possess all in a more eminent manner having more Charity more Love and being more acceptable to God than ever becoming like Angels And as these offered up their Prayers for Ierusalem and the Cities of Iudah Zach. 1.12 so undoubtedly they likewise fall down before the Lamb having every one of them Harps and golden Vials full of Odours which are the Prayers of the Saints Apoc. 5.8 II. Of Worshipping Saints FOr the clear stating this Controversy these things are to be premised 1. We do not charge them that they make Gods of dead men i. e. that they believe the Saints to be Independent Deities For this our Author confesses were a most damnable Idolatry 2. We do not say that the State of the Church of Rome with respect to the Worship of dead men is as bad as Heathenism For we acknowledge the true Saints and Martyrs to have been not only good and Vertuous but extraordinary Persons in great Favour with God and highly deserving our Esteem and Reverence as well as Imitation whereas the Heathen Deified Men were vile and wicked Men and deserved not the common Esteem of Mankind according to the Accounts themselves give of them And we own the common Doctrine and Advantages of Christianity to be preserved in the Church of Rome 3. We do not deny that they do allow some external Acts of Worship to be so proper to God alone that they ought to be given to none else besides him And this they call Latria and we shall never dispute with them about the proper signification of a Word when the Sense is agreed unless they draw Inferences from it which ought not to be allowed To this Latria they refer not only Sacrifice but all that relates to it as Temples Altars and Priests so that by their own Confession to make these immediately and properly to the Honour of any Saint is to make a God of that Saint and to commit Idolatry 4. They confess that to pray to Saints to bestow Spiritual or Temporal Gifts upon us were to give to them the Worship proper to God who is the only giver of all good things For else I do not understand why they should take so much pains to let us know that whatever the Forms of their Prayers and Hymns are yet the Intention and Spirit of the Church is only to desire them to pray for us and to obtain thngs for us by their Intercession with God But two things cannot be denied by them 1. That they do use solemn Invocation of Saints in places of Divine Worship at the same time they make their Addresses to God himself with all the Circumstances of External Adoration with bended Knees and Eyes lifted up to Heaven and that this Practice is according to the Council of Trent which not only decrees an humble Invocation of them but declares it to be impiety to condemn mental and vocal Supplication to the Saints in Heaven 2. That they do own making the Saints in Heaven to be their Mediators of Intercession but not of Redemption although Christ be our Mediator in both senses And upon these two Points this Controversy depends Let us now see what our Representer saith to them 1. His Church teaches him indeed and he believes that it is good and profitable to desire the Intercession of the Saints reigning with Christ in Heaven but that they are either Gods or his Redeemers he is no where taught but detests all such Doctrine There are two Ways of desiring Intercession of others for us 1. By way of Friendly Request as an Act of mutual Charity and so no doubt we may desire others here on Earth to pray for us 2. By way of Humble Supplication with all the external Acts of Adoration and we cannot think St. Peter or St. Paul who refused any thing like Adoration from men would have been pleased to have seen men fall down upon their Knees before them and in the same posture of Devotion in which they were praying to Almighty God to put their Names into the middle of their Litanies and so pray them then to pray for them But how are we sure that their Church teaches no more than this I have read over and over the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism about it and I can find no such limitation of their sense there where if any where it ought to be found The Council of Trent mentions both the Prayers and the Help and Assistance of the Saints which they are to fly to If this Help and Assistance be no more than their Prayers why is it mentioned as distinct Why is their reigning together with Christ in Heaven spoken of but to let us understand they have a Power to Help and Assist For what is their Reigning to their Praying for us But I have a further Argument to prove the Council meant more viz. the Council knew the common Practices and Forms of Invocation then used and allowed and the general Opinion that the Saints had power to Help and Assist those who prayed to them If the Council did not approve this why did it insert the very words upon which that Practice was grounded They likewise very well knew the Complaints which had been made of these things and some of their own Communion cried shame upon some of their Hymns Wicelius saith one of them Salve Regina c. is full of downright Impiety and horrible Superstition and that others are wholly inexcusable Lud. Vives had said He found little difference in the Peoples opinion of their Saints in many things from what the Heathens had of their Gods These things were known and it was in their power to have redressed them by declaring what the Sense of the Council was and that whatever Forms were used no more was to be understood by them but praying to them to pray for them Besides the Council of Trent in the very same
to be the Foundation of Indulgences 2. They would be rather hurâ—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 â—rayer Fasting Alms c. 2. These Penitential Works he saith are no otherwise satisfactory than as joâ—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
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
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
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 Councâ—ls lose their Infallibility at one blow 6. That the Gates of Hâ—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 bâ— 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 diffâ—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 nuâ—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 dâ—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 Nâ—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
be so much rather questioned because those who assert the Pope may dispense go upon this ground Because Circumstances may alter the Obligation of a Vow and when a greater good is to be attained it ceaseth to oblige which to my Apprehension doth not prove the Pope's Power to dispense but the dispensable Nature of the Vows themselves 3. Whether all things of this nature being liable in continuance of time to great Degeneracy and Corruptions and the numbers of such Places being unserviceable either to Church or State it be not in the Power of the King and States of the Kingdom to dissolve and reduce them to ways more suitable to the Conveniences of both As to what he discourses about Councils of Perfection the Distractions of the World the Corruptions of the best Things c. they reach not the main Points but are only general Topicks which we are not concerned to debate XXXI Of Wicked Principles and Practices HE is Member of a Church which is called Holy but in her Doctrine and Practices so Foul and Abominable that whosoever admires her for Sanctity may upon the same grounds do homage to Vice it self Has ever any Society since Christ's time appear'd in the World so black and deform'd with hellish Crimes as she Has not she out-done even the most Barbarous Nations and Infidels with her Impieties and drawn a scandal upon the name of Christian by her unparallel'd Vices Take but a view of the horrid Practices she has been engag'd in of late years consider the French and Irish Massacres the Murders of Henry III. and IV. Kings of France the Hoâ—y League the Gun-powder Treason the Cruelty of Queen Mary the Firing of London the late Plot in the Year 1678. to subvert the Government and destroy His Majesty the Death of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey and an infinite number of other such-like Devilish Contrivances And then tell me whether that Church which has been the Author and Promoter of such barbarous designs ought to be esteem'd Holy and respected for Piety and Religion or rather be condemn'd for the Mysteries of Iniquity the Whore of Babylon which hath polluted the Earth with her Wickedness and taught nothing but the Doctrine of Devils And let never so many Pretences be made yet 't is evident that all these Execrable Practices have been done according to the known Principles of this Holy Church and that her greatest Patrons the most Learned of her Divines her most Eminent Bâ—shops her Prelates Cardinals and even the Popes themselves have been the chief Managers of these Hellish Contrivances And what more convincing Argument that they are all well approved conform to the Religion taught by their Church HE is Member of a Church which according to the ninth Article of the Apostles Creed he believes to be Holy and this not only in Name but also in Doctrine and for witness of her Sanctity he appeals to her Councils Catechisms Pulpits and Spiritual Books of Direction in whâ—ch the main design is to imprint in the Hearts of the Faithful this comprehensive Maxim of Christianity That they ought to love God above all things with their whole Heart and Soul and their Neighbour as themselves And that none flatter themselves with a confidence to be sav'd by Faith alone without living Soberly Iustly and Piously as 't is in the Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 11. So that he doubts not at all but that as many as live according to the Direction of his Church and in observance of her Doctrine live Holily in the Service of and Fear of God and with an humble confidence in the Merits and Passion of their Redeemer may hope to be receiv'd after this Life into Eternal Bliss But that all in Communion with his Church do not live thus Holily and in the fear of God he knows 't is too too evident there being many in all places wholly forgetful of their Duty giving tâ—emselves up to all sorts of Vice and guilty of most horrid Crimes And though he is not bound to believe all to be Truth that is charg'd upon them by Adversaries there being no Narrative of any such Devilish Contrivances and Practices laid to them wherein Passion and Fury have not made great Additions wherein things Dubious are not improv'd into Certainties Suspicions into Realities Fears and Iealousies into Substantial Plots and downright Lies and Recorded Perjuries into Pulpit nay Gospel-Truths Yet really thinks that there has been Men of his Profession of every rank and degree Learned and Unlearned High and Low Secular and Ecclesiastick that have been scandalous in their Lives wicked in their Designs without the fear of God in their Hearts or care of their own Salvation But what then Is the whole Church to be condemn'd for the vicious Lives of some of her Professors and her Doctrine to stand guilty of as many Villanies as those commit who neglect to follow it If so let the Men of that Society Iudgment or Perswasion who are not in the like circumstance fling the first stone Certainly if this way of passing Sentence be once allow'd as just and reasonable there never was nor ever will be any Religion or Church of God upon the Earth 'T is but reck'ning up the Idolatries Superstitions Cruelties Rebellions Murders of Princes Impieties and other such like Enormities committed by the Iews as they stand recorded in Scripture and 't is immediately prov'd that the Iews were never the chosen People of God nor their Law the Dictates of Heaven 'T is but making a Lift of the Misdemeanours Irregularities Abuses Excesses Treacheries Simony Separation Discords Erroneous Doctrines to be found even in the time of the Apostâ—es and their Followers and they are all effectually prov'd to be the Disciples of Antichrist and that the World's Redeemer had no sooner ascended into Heaven but his Apostles left him and began to set up for Schism and Vice By this way Constantine may be evidently condemn'd for an Heathen because he murdered his Wife and his Son And the Religion of Theodosius be mark'd out for Atheism because by his Order seven Thousand Thessalonians were treacherously Massacred in three hours space without distinction of Sex or Age or the Innocent from the Guilty A confident Undertaker would find no difficulty in proving all this especially if he had but the Gift of exaggerating some things misrepresenting others of finding Authorities and Texts for every idle Story oâ— charging the exâ—ravagant Opinions of every single Author upon the Religion they profess of raking together all the Wickedness Cruelties Treacheries Plots Conspiracies at any time committed by any ambitious Desperado's or wicked Villains And then positively asserting that what these did was according to the Doctrine of that Church of which they were Members and that the true measures of the Sanctity and Goodness of the Church in whose Communion these Men were may be justly taken from the Behaviour of such Offenders But certainly no Man of Reason and Conscience can
the Catholick Church now sufficiently clear'd to me that she taught not the Opinion I so vehemently persecuted And this he did deluded and deceiv'd by the Manichees And now since 't is certain that this has not been the case of Saint Augustine alone but of as many almost as have given ear to the Deserters of this Church nay is at this day the case of infinite numbers who following that Great Father when as yet in his Errors do not enquire how this thing is believ'd or understood by her but insultingly oppose all as if so understood as they imagine not making any difference betwixt what the Catholick Church teaches and what they think she teaches and so believing her to be guilty of as many absurdities follies impieties c. as the Heathens did of old 'T is evident there 's as much need now of Apologies as ever there was in Tertellian's or S. Austin's time Not Apologies to vindicate what is really her Faith and Doctrine but rather to clear her from such Superstitions Profaneness and wicked Principles as are maliciously or ignorantly charg'd upon her And tho' the number of Calumnies the in-sincerity of Adversaries the obstinacy of a byass'd Education render a performance in this kind a just Task for a Tertullian's or St. Augustine's hand yet because I find no such eminent Pen engag'd in this design at present and the shewing the true Religion in its own Colours seems a Duty incumbent on every one that 's a lover of Truth I 'le endeavour to pull off the Vizor from suffering Christianity and apologize for the Cotholick Faith that Faith I mean maintained by those Primitive Fathers with so much Vigour and Zeal which being first planted in the Head City of the World by St. â—eter hath been propagated throughout the Universe and derived down to us by many Christian Nations in communion with that See under the Protection of the Holy Ghost and the Charge of A Chief Pastor which beginning in that great Apostle has continued in a visible Succession to these our days This Faith it is for which at present I design to make an Apology which having been in all ages violently oppos'd does at this time most wrongfully suffer under Calumnies and false Imputations I 'le endeavour therefore to separate these Calumnies and Scandals from what is really the Faith and Doctrine of that Church I 'le take off the Black and Dirt which has been thrown upon her and setting her forth in her genuine Complection let the World see how much fairer she is than she 's painted and how much she 's unlike that Monster which is shewn for her And because the Members of this Church are commonly known by the name of Papists I think I cannot take a more sincere open and compendious way in order to the compleating this design than by drawing forth a double Character of a Papist The one expressing a Papist in those very colours as he is painted in the imagination of the Vulgar Foul black and Antichristian with the chief Articles of his imagined Belief and reputed Principles of his Profession The other representing a Papist whose Faith and exercise of his Religion is according to the Direction and Command of his Church That so these two being thus set together their difference and disproportion may be clearly discerned and a discovery made how unlike Calumny is from Truth and how different a Papist really is from what he 's said to be The former Character is of a Papist Mis-represented the other of a Papist Represented The former is a Papist so deform'd and monstrous that it justly deserves the hatred of as many as own Christianity 'T is a Papist that has disturb'd this Nation now above an hundred years with Fears and Jealousies threatning it continually with Fire and Massacres and whose whole Design has been to rob the Sovereign of his Crown and the Subject of his Liberty and Property 'T is a Papist that is so abominable so malicious so unsufferable in any Civil Government that for my part I detest him from my heart I conceiv'd an hatred against him and all his from my Education when as yet a Protestant and now being a Roman Catholick I am not in the least reconcil'd to him nor his Principles but hate him yet worse I am so far from thinking the Laws too severe against such Popish Recusants that I could wish a far greater severity were executed against them their Favourers and all such as make men so sottishly Religious And if to be a Protestant nothing more be requisite than to protest against such Popery to hate and detest it I think my self and all Roman Catholicks as good Protestants as any whatsoever throughout his Majesties Dominions And I dare engage that not only as many Roman Catholicks as under the name of Papists have severely smarted in this Nation for being the Professors of such kind of Popery but also that all Roman Catholick Nations in the World shall subscribe to the Condemnation of all such Popish Principles and Doctrines shall joyn with all good Protestants for the extinguishing it with all that profess or practice it and utter rooting it out from his Majesties three Kingdoms and the whole Universe The other Papist is one that lives and believes according to what is prescrib'd in the Council of Trent in Catechisms set forth by Catholicks and other Spiritual Books for the Direction and Instruction of all in their Communion whose Faith and Doctrine I have here set down with some Grounds and Reasons of it and will so leave it to apologize for it self In drawing out the Character of the former I have quoted no Authors but have describ'd him exactly according to the Apprehension I had of a Papist fram'd by Me when I was a Protestant with the addition only of some few points which have been violently charg'd against Me by some intimate Friends of late to shew the unreasonableness of my choice after the quitting of that Communion The latter is wholly copied out from the Papist that I am now being the Sum of what I was taught when reconcil'd to the Church of Rome and which after sixteen years conversation with Men of that Communion in hearing their Sermons in being present at their Catechising in reading their Books and discoursing with them I have found to be their Doctrine I have done both I hope with Sincerity and Truth and without Passion For as my endeavours have been that my Religion should lose nothing by Lies so neither do I desire it should gain by them And did I but know of any thing in the following Papers that has any relation to that unchristian Artifice I would strike it out immediately And do here oblige my self upon information either from Friend or Adversary to acknowledge the mistake as it shall be made appear and make a publick Recantation But it is time we should see what these Papists are An Answer to the Introduction THE Introduction
consists of two parts I. A general Complaint of the Papists being Misrepresented among us II. An Account of the Method he hath taken to clear them from these Misrepresentions I. As to the First Whether it be just or not must be examin'd in the several particulars But here we must consider whether it serves the End it is designed for in this place which is to gain the Reader 's good Opinion of their Innocency Not meerly because they complain so much of being injured but because the best Men in all Times have been mis-represented as he proves at large in this Introduction from several Examples of the Old and New Testament but especially of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians But it is observable that when Bp. Iewel began his excellent Apology for the Church of England with a Complaint much of the same Nature and produced the very same Examples his Adversary would by no means allow it to have any Force being as he called it Exordium Commune which might be used on both sides and therefore could be proper to neither And although it be reasonable only for those to complain of being mis-represented who having Truth on their side do notwithstanding suffer under the Imputation of Error yet it is possible for those who are very much mistaken to complain of being mis-represented and while they go about to remove the Misrepresentations of others to make new Ones of their own And as the best Men. and the best Things have been mis-represented so other Men have been as apt to complain of it and the worst Things are as much mis-represented when they are made to appear not so bad as they are For Evil is as truly mis represented under the appearance of Good as Good under the appearance of Evil and it is hard to determine whether hath done the greater Mischief So that if the Father of Lies be the Author of Mis-representing as the Introduction begins we must have a care of him both ways For when he tried this black Art in Paradise as our Author speaks it was both by mis-representing the Command and the Danger of trangressing it He did not only make the Command appear otherwise than it was but he did very much lessen the Punishment of Disobedience and by that means deluded our first Parents into that Sin and Misery under which their Posterity still suffers Which ought to be a Caution to them how dangerous it is to break the Law of God under the fairest Colour and Pretences and that they should not be easily imposed upon by false Glosses and plausible Representations though made by such as therein pretend to be Angels of Light But although the Father of Lies be the Author of Mis-representing yet we have no reason to think but that if he were to plead his own Cause to Mankind he would very much complain of being mis-represented by them and even in this respect when they make him the Father of those Lies which are their own Inventions And can that be a certain Argument of Truth which may as well be used by the Father of Lies And the great Instruments he hath made use of in deceiving and corrupting Mankind have been as forward as any to complain of being mis-represented The true Reason is Because no great Evil can prevail in the World unless it be represented otherwise than it is and all Men are not competent Judges of the Colours of Good and Evil therefore when the Designs of those who go about to deceive begin to be laid open they then betake themselves to the fairest Representations they can make of themselves and hope that many will not see through their pretences If I had a mind to follow our Author's Method I could make as long a Deduction of Instances of this kind But I shall content my self with some few Examples of those who are allowed on both sides to have been guilty of great Errors and Corruptions The Arrians pleaded they were mis-represented when they were taken for Enemies to Christ's Divinity for all that they contended for was only such a moment of time as would make good the Relation between Father and Son The Pelagians with great success for some time and even at Rome complained that they were very much mis-represented as Enemies to God's Grace whereas they owned and asserted the manifold Grace of God and were only Enemies to Mens Idleness and neglect of their Duties The Nestorians gave out that they never intended to make two Persons in Christ as their Adversaries charged them but all their design was to avoid Blasphemy in calling the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God and whatever went beyond this was their Adversaries Mis-representations and not their own Opinions The Euâ—ychians thought themselves very hardly dealt with for saying there was but one Nature in Christ they did not mean thereby as they said to destroy the Properties of the Humane Nature but only to assert that its Subsistence was swallowed up by the Divine and of all Persons those have no reason to blame them who suppose the Properties of one Substance may be united to another Even the Gentile Idolaters when they were charged by the Christians that they worshipped Stocks and Stones complained they were mis-represented for they were not such Ideots to take things for Gods which had neither Life nor Sense nor Motion in them And when they were charged with worshipping other Gods as they did the Supream they desired their Sense might not be taken from common prejudices or vulgar practices but from the Doctrine of their Philosophers and they owned a Sovereign Worship due to him that was Chief and a subordinate and relative to some Celestial Beings whom they made application to as Mediators between him and them Must all these Complaints now be taken for granted What then becomes of the Reputation of General Councils or the Primitive Christians But as if it were enough to be Accused none would be Innocent so none would be Guilty if it were enough to complain of being mis-represented Therefore in all Complaints of this Nature it is necessary to come to particulars and to examine with care and Diligence the Matters complained of and then to give Judgment in the Case I am glad to find our Author professing so much Sincerity and Truth without Passion and I do assure him I shall follow what he professes For the Cause of our Church is such as needs neither Tricks nor Passion to defend it and therefore I shall endeavour to state the Matters in Difference with all the clearness and calmness that may be and I shall keep close to his Method and Representations without Digressions or provoking Reflections II. But I must declare my self very much unsatisfied with the Method he hath taken to clear his Party from these Mis-representations For 1. He takes upon him to draw a double Character of a Papist and in the one he pretends to follow a certain Rule but not in the
other which is not fair and ingenuous As to the one he saith He follows the Council of Trent and their allowed Spiritual Books and Catechisms and we find no fault with this But why must the other Part then be drawn by Fancy or common Prejudices or ignorant Mistakes Have we no Rule whereby the Judgment of our Church is to be taken Are not our Articles as 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
to the blasphemous saying of St. Bernardin by Mendoza who endeavours to prove the blessed Virgin 's Kingdom not to be a Metaphorical but a true and real Kingdom And by Salazar another noted Jesuit who saith Her Kingdom is as large as her Son 's And we have lately seen how far this Divinity is spread for not many years since this Proposition was sent from Mexico Filius non tantum tenetur audire Matrem sed obedire The Son is bound not only to hear but to obey his Mother And is it still damnable for to say she commands him But our Author saith Whatever esteem they have for her They own her still as a Creature Is he sure of that What thinks he of another saying which Mendoza approves of viz. of Christ's saying to his Mother As thou hast communicated Humanity to me I will communicate my Deity to thee But it may be said We are by no means to judge the sense of a Church by some mens extravagant sayings I grant it But I have something considerable to reply viz. That we may easily judge which way the Guides of that Church incline by this following passage About ten years since a Gentleman of that Communion published a Book called Wholsome Advice to the Worshippers of the Blessed Virgin and the whole design of it being Printed in Latin and French was to bring the people of that Church to a bare Ora pro nobis to the Blessed Virgin But this was so far from being approved that the Book was condemned at Rome and vehemently opposed by the Jesuits in France and a whole Volume published against it Here I have reason to enquire Whether the Virgin Mary then according to the sense of the Church of Rome be only a Mediatrix of Intercession or not since so large Power and Dominion is attributed to her And why should not her Suppliants go beyond an Ora pro nobis if this Doctrine be received as it must be if the contrary cannot be endured For that Author allowed her Intercession and Prayer to her on that account but he found fault with those who said she had a Kingdom divided with her Son that she was the Mother of Mercy or was a Co-Saviour or Co-Redemptrix or that she was to be worshipped with Latria or that men were to be slaves to her Now if these things must not be touched without Censure and no Censure pass on the other Books it is not easy to judge which is more agreeable to the Spirit of the Guides of that Church But we have a fresh Instance of this kind at home in a Book very lately published Permissu Superiorum There we are told in the Epistle That not only the Blessed Virgin is the Empress of Seraphims the most exact Original of Practical Perfection which the Omnipotency of God ever drew but that by innumerable Titles she claims the utmost Duty of every Christian as a proper Homage to her Greatness What can be said more of the Son of God in our Nature In the Book it self she is said to be Queen of Angels Patroness of the Church Advocate of Sinners that the Power of Mary in the Kingdom of Iesus is suitable to her Maternity and other Priviledges of Grace and therefore by it she justly claims à servitude from all pure Creatures But wherein doth this special Devotion to her consist He names several Particulars 1. In having an inward cordial and passionate value of the Maternity of Mary and all other Excellencies proper to and inseparable from the Mother of God 2. In External Acts of Worship of eminent Servitude towards her by reason of the Amplitude of her Power in the Empire of Iesus And can we imagine these should go no farther than a poor Ora pro nobis He instances in these External Acts of her Worship 1. Frequent visiting holy Places dedicated to her Honour And are not those her Temples then which Bellarmine confesses to be a peculiar part of the worship due to God And the distinction of Basilicae cannot hold here because he believes the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and he will not pretend to her Honour is only for Discrimination 2. A special Reverence towards Images representing her Person 3. Performing some daily Devotions containing her Praises congratulating her Excellency or imploring her Mediation and by oft calling upon the Sacred Name of Holy Mary c. 3. In having a firm and unshaken Confidence in her Patronage amidst the greatest of our outward Conflicts and outward Tribulations through a strong Iudgement of her eminent Power within the Empire of Iesus grounded upon the singular Prerogative of her Divine Maternity I have not Patience to transcribe more but refer the Reader to the Book it self only the eighth Particular of special Devotion is so remarkable that it ought not to be passed over viz. Entring a solemn Covenant with Holy Mary to be for ever her Servant Client and Devote under some special Rule Society or Form of Life and thereby dedicating our Persons Concerns Actions and all the Moments and Events of our Life to Iesus under the Protection of his Divine Mother choosing her to be our Adoptive Mother Patroness and Advocate and intrusting her with what we are have or do hope in Life Death and through all Eternity And is all this no more than an Ora pro nobis And it follows Put your self wholly under her Protection What a pitiful thing was the old Collyridian Cake in comparison of these special Acts of Devotion to her But there are some extraordinary strains of Devotion afterwards which it is pity to pass over As I will ever observe thee as my Sovereign Lady Adoptive Mother and most Powerful Patroness relying on thy Bowels of Mercy in all my Wants Petitions and Tribulations of Body and Mind Could any thing greater be said to the Eternal Son of God And in the Praise Vers. Open my Lips O Mother of Jesus Resp. And my Soul shall speak forth thy Praise Vers. Divine Lady be intent to my Aid Resp. Graciously make haste to help me Vers. Glory be to Jesus and Mary Resp. As it was is and ever shall be Then follows the Eighth Psalm applied thus to her Mary Mother of Iesus how wonderful is thy Name even unto the Ends of the Earth All Magnificence be given to Mary and let her be exalted above the Stars and Angels Reign on high as Queen of Seraphims and Saints and be thou crowned with Honour and Glory c. Glory be to Iesus and Mary c. In the next Page follows a Cantique in imitation of the Te Deum Let us praise thee O Mother of Iesus Let us acknowledge thee our Sovereign Lady Let Men and Angels give Honour to thee the first conceived of all pure Creatures c. I think I need mention no more only three things I shall observe 1. That this is now printed
Permissu Superiorum and we thank them for the seasonableness of it in helping us in true Representing what their allowed Doctrines and Practices are 2. That this is published in English that our People as well as theirs may be convinced how far we have been from unjust charging them as to such things as these 3. That at the same time they plead for keeping the Bible out of the hands of the People wherein their Discretion is so far to be commended since the Scripture and this new Scheme of Devotion can never stand together There being not one word in the Bible towards it but very much against it and the Psalms and Hymns must be burlesq'd to found that way But what saith our Author to their Rosaries wherein there are ten Ave Maries to one Pater noster which is accounted a special piece of Devotion and great things are said of the Effects of it by Alanus de Rupe and many others 1. As to the Ave Maries he saith there is no more Dishonour to God in reciting the Angelical Salutation than in the first pronouncing it by the Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth But it may not be altogether so pertinent But doth he really think they said the whole Ave Maria as it is used among them Did the Angel and Elizabeth say Sancta Maria Mater Dei ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc in hora mortis nostrae If not to what purpose are they mentioned here 2. As to the Repetition that he saith is no more an idle Superstition than David 's repeating the same words 26 times in the 136. Psalm But what is this to the Question why more Supplications to the blessed Virgin than to Christ And not one word of Answer is given to it But Alanus de Rupe answers it roundly Because the blessed Virgin is our Mediatrix to Christ the Mother of Mercy and the special Patroness of Sinners This is indeed true representing IV. Of paying Divine Worship to Relicks HE believes a kind of Divinity to remain in the Relicks of his reputed Saints and therefore adores their roâ—ten Bones their corrupted flesh their old Rags with Divine Honour kneeling down to them kissing them and going in Pilgrimage to their Shrines and Sepulchres And he is so far possess'd with a conceited Deity lying hid in those senseless Remains that he foolishly believes they work greater Miracles and raise more to life than ever Christ Himself did HE believes it damnable to think there 's any Divinity in the Relicks of Saints or to adore them with Divine Honour or to pray to their rotten Bones old Rags or Shrines or that they can work any strange Cures or Miracles by any hidden Power of their own But he believes it good and lawful to keep them with a Veneration and give them a Religious honour and respect And this he thinks due to them in as much as knowing himself oblig'd to respect and honour God Almighty from his heart he looks upon himself also oblig'd to respect and honour every thing that has any particular Relation to him But this with an inferiour Honour as the Iews did to the Ark to the Tables of the Law to Moses's Rod to the Temple to the Priests So we generally allow to the Bible because it contains Gods Word to the Church because it is Gods House to Holy Men and Priests because they are Gods Servants And so he does to Relicks because they appertain to Gods Favourites and being insensible things are yet very sensible Pledges and lively Memorials of Christ's Servants dead indeed to us but alive with him in Glory And more especially because God himself has been pleas'd to hnour them by making them Instruments of many evident Miracles he has visibly work'd by them as is manifest upon undeniable Record And this he believes as easie for God Almighty now and as much redounding to the honour of his holy Name as it was in the Old Law to work such miraculous effects by Moses's Rod by Gideon's Trumpets by Elia's Mantle after he was taken up into Heaven 2 Kings 2.14 Eliseus's Bones 2 Kings 13.21 and infinite other such like insensible Things And also in the New Law by the Hem of his own Garment Mat. 9.21 by the Shadow of St. Peter Acts 5.15 by the Napkins and Handkerchiefs that had but touch'd the Body of S. Paul casting out Devils and curing Diseases Acts 19.12 and such like And thus by having a Veneration and Respect for these he honours God And does not doubt but that they that contemn and profane these do the like to God as much as they did who profan'd the Bread of Proposition the Temple and Vessels that belong'd to it IV. Of paying Divine Worship to Reliques FOR the right understanding this Controversie we are to consider 1. That there is a due Veneration to the Bodies of Saints and Martyrs allowed on both sides and there is an undue Worship of them which is disowned on both sides The due Veneration is a Religious Decency to be observed towards them which lies in avoiding any thing like Contempt or Dishonour to them and using all such Testimonies of Respect and Decency which becomes the Remains of Excellent Persons provided we are satisfied of their Sincerity without having recourse to Divine Omnipotency to prove them which Ferrandus the Jesuit runs so much to to prove the Truth of many Reliques worshipped in the Church of Rome in many places at once But that it is possible to exceed in the Worship of true Reliques even Bellarmine confesseth who says that God took away the Body of Moses lest the People should give Divine Worship to it And S. Ierom as hot as he was against Vigilantius yet he utterly denied giving any Adoration to the Reliques of Martyrs It seems then it is very possible to exceed that way 2. The Question then is Whether those Acts of Worship which are allowed in the Church of Rome do not go beyond due Veneration For it is unreasonable to suppose those who give it to believe those Reliques to be Gods and therefore it must be such a Worship as is given to them supposing them to be only Reliques of such Persons The Council of Trent decrees Honour and Veneration to be given to them but never determines what is due and what not it forbids all Excesses in drinking and eating in the visiting of Reliques but not a word of Excesses in worshipping of them unless it be comprehended under the name of Superstition But Superstition lies in something forbidden according to their notion of it therefore if there be no Prohibition by the Church there can be no Superstition in the Worship of them And if they had thought there had been any in the known Practices of the Church they would certainly have mentioned them and because they did not we ought in reason to look on them as allowed And yet not only Cassander complains of the great Superstition about them
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
out by many Christian Writers And if the Church cannot add to the Scripture and our Author thinks it damnable to do it how can it make any Books Canonical which were not so received by the Church For the Scripture in this sense is the Canon and therefore if it add to the Canon it adds to the Scripture i. e. it makes it necessary to believe some Books to be of infallible Authority which were not believed to be so either by the Iewish or Christian Church as appears by abundant Testimonies to that purpose produced by a learned Bishop of this Church which ought to have been considered by the Representer that he might not have talked so crudely about this matter But however I must consider what he saith 1. He produces the Testimony of Greg. Nazianzen who is expresly against him and declares but Twenty two Books in the Canon of the Old Testament but how doth he prove that he thought these Books Canonical He quotes his Oration on the Maccabees Where I can find nothing like it and instead of it he expresly follows as he declares the Book of Iosephus of the Authority of Reason concerning them So that if this proves any thing it proves Iosephus his Book Canonical and not the Maccabees 2. He adds the Testimony of S. Ambrose who in the place he refers to enlarges on the Story of the Maccabees but saith nothing of the Authority of the Book And even Coccius himself grants that of old Melito Sardensis Amphilochius Greg. Nazianzen the Council of Laodicea S. Hierom Russinus and Gregory the Great did not own the Book of Maccabees for Canonical 3. Innocentius ad Exuperium speaks more to this purpose And if the Decretal Epistle be allowed against which Bishop Cosins hath made considerable Objections then it must be granted that these Books were then in the Roman Canon but that they were not received by the Universal Church appears evidently by the Canon of the Council of Laodicea c. 60. wherein these Books are left out and this was received in the Code of the Universal Church which was as clear a Proof of the Canon then generally received as can be expected It is true the Council of Carthage took them in and S. Augustine seems to be of the same Opinion But on the other side they are left out by Melâ—to Bishop of Sardis who lived near the Apostles times Origen Athanasius S. Hilary S. Cyril of Ierusalem Epiphanius S. Basil Amphilochius S. Chrysostom and especially S. Ierom who hath laboured in this point so much that no fewer than thirteen places are produced out of him to this purpose by the forementioned learned Bishop of our Church who clearly proves there was no Tradition for the Canon of the Council of Trent in any one Age of the Christian Church But our Author goes on 4. It is of little concern to him whether these Books were ever in the Hebrew Copy I would only ask whether it be of any concern to him whether they were divinely inspired or not He saith It is damnable to add to the Scripture by the Scripture we mean Books written by Divine Inspiration Can the Church make Books to be so written which were not so written If not then all it hath to do is to deliver by Tradition what was so and what not Whence should they have this Tradition but from the Iews and they owned no Divine Inspiration after the time of Malachy How then should there be any Books so written after that time And he that saith in this matter as he doth It is of little concern to him whether they were in the Hebrew Canon doth little concern himself what he ought to believe and what not in this matter 5. Since the Churches Declaration he saith no Catholicks ever doubted What doth he mean by the Churches Declaration that of Innocent and the Council of Carthage Then the same Bishop hath shewed him that since that time there have been very many both in the Greek and Latin Church of another Opinion And a little before the Council of Trent Catharinus saith That a Friend of his and a Brother in Christ derided him as one that wanted Learning for daring to assert these Books were within the Canon of Scripture and it is plain Card. Cajetan could never be perswaded of it But if he means since the Council of Trent then we are returned to our Difficulty how such a Council can make any Books Canonical which were not received for such by the Catholick Church before For then they do not declare the Canon but create it XII Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible HE makes no Conscience of abusing the Scripture and perverting for the maintenance of his Errors and Superstitions And therefore though he dares not altogether lay it by lest he should by so doing lose all claim to Christianity Yet he utterly disapproves it as it is in its genuine Truth and Purity and as allow'd in the Church of England and crying this down he believes it unlawful to be read by any of his Communion And then puts into their hands another Volume which in its Frontis-piece bears the Title indeed of the Word of God with the names of the Books and Chapters but in the context of it is so every where full of Corruptions Falsifications and intolerable Abuses that it almost every where belies its Title and is unfit for any one who professes himself a Christian. HE believes it a damnable sin to abuse the Scripture or any ways to pervert it for the maintenance of Errors or Superstitions and thinks himself oblig'd rather to lay down his life than concur to or approve of any such Falsifications or Corruptions prejudicial to Faith or Good Manners For this reason being conscious that in all Ages there has been several Copies of this Sacred Volume quite different from the Originals in many places either through the mistake of the Transcribers or malice of others endeavouring by this means to gain credit to their new Doctrines He is commanded not to receive all Books indifferently for the Word of God that wear that Title but only such as are approv'd by the Church and recommended by her Legitimate And such is that he daily uses commonly known by the name of the Vulgar Translation which has been the principal of all other Latin Copies in all Ages since the Primitive times much commended by St. Augustine and never altered in any thing but once heretofore by the Holy Studies of St. Hierome And twice or thrice since being review'd by Authority and purg'd of such mistakes as in length of time had crept in by Transcribers or Printers faults And that this Translation is most pure and incorrupt as to any thing concerning matter of Belief or differences in Religion is not only the Doctrine of his Church but also the Sentiment of many Learned Men of the Reformation who approve this Version and prefer it before any
that All things saith Cajetan which they teach out of Moses 's Chair Not all their Doctrines but as far as they were conformable to the Law saith Ferus Now can any one hence infer that no men ought to dispute any Commands of Superiors when it is supposed that there is a Rule and Standard for them to speak according to and our Saviour elsewhere doth suppose these very men to teach things contrary to the Law as in the Case of Corban Would our Saviour contradict himself or require a blind Obedience in things repugnant to the Law We do not deny a due submission to our Superiors in the Church yea we allow them a Power to determine things not forbidden and think Obedience due in such things by vertue of their Authority but yet this is far enough from Infallibility or an unlimited implicit Obedience which would overthrow the force of all our Saviour's Reasonings against the Scribes and Pharisees as to their misinterpreting the Law and the Superstitious Practises they imposed upon the people XVIII Of the POPE HE believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all the Angels That Christ is no longer Head of the Church but that this Holy Father hath taken his place and that whatsoever he Orders Decrees or Commands is to be received by his Flock with the same respect submission and awe as if Christ had spoken it by his own mouth For that his Holiness having once receiv'd the Triple-Crown on his Head is now no more to be look'd upon as Man but as Christ's Vicar whose Office it is to Constitute and Ordain such things as Christ forgot when he was upon Earth not throughly considering what would be the Exigencies of his Flock in future Ages And for this intent he is assisted with a certain Mysterious Infallibility such as hides it self when he is upon his own Private Concerns exposes him to all the Designs Cheats Malice and Machinations of his Enemies and lets him be as easily over-seen as imprudent as silly as his Neighbours But when he comes into his Chair to hear any Publick Business then it begins to appear and protects him from all Mistakes and Errors and he becomes immediately full of the Holy Ghost though he had the Devil and all of Wickedness in him just before HE believes the Pope to be none of his God neither Great nor Little That he is not above the Angels but only a Man He believes that Christ as he is supreme Master Governour and Lord of all created things so also of his Church of which he acknowledges him to be the Founder and Head But as notwithstanding this Lordship and Headship of Christ over all things every Father of a Family owns himself to be Master of it under Christ every petty Commander of a Ship stiles himself Master of it under God and every Prince King and Emperour is confess'd supreme Lord and Governour of his Dominions under God So also he believes that there is a Pastor Governour and Head of Christ's Church under Christ to wit the Pope or Bishop of Rome who is the Sucessor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the care of his Flock and who hath been follow'd now by a visible Succession of above 250 Bishops acknowledg'd as such in all Ages by the Christian World And now believing the Pope to enjoy this Dignity he looks upon himself oblig'd to shew him that Respect Submission and Obedience which is due to his place a thing which no body can in reason or conscience deny to any one in Rule or that has any Superiority Neither does he doubt but God assists those who have this charge with a particular helping Grace such as has a special respect to the Office and Function more than to the Person Such was given to all the Prophets when they were sent to preach Such to Moses when he was made God to Pharaoh Exod. 7.1 Such to the seventy Elders when God taking of the Spirit of Moses gave it unto them constituted them Iudges Such to Caiphas who to council prophesied of the death of Christ which St. Iohn ascrib'd not to his Person but to his Office of High-Priest Job 11.51 And this spake he not of himself but being High-Priest that year he Prophesied that Jesus should die for that Nation By priviledge of his Office uttering a Truth which he himself never meant With such like helping Grace he doubts not but God generally assists the Pastors of the New-Law and more especially the High-Priest for the Good of the whole Flock And therefore tho' he were as wicked as Caiphas yet he is ready to tender him all respect due to his Function and obey him in every thing concerning the Exercise of his charge not for any consideration of his Person but meerly for the Office he bears It being the Duty of a good Son to Obey his Father and of a Loyal Subject his King and never to question their Authority or dis-respect them in their Office tho' for some particular Vices they may have little respect for their persons In this manner is he ready to behave himself towards his chief Pastor with all Reverence and Submission never scrupling to receive his Decrees and Definitions such as are issued forth by his Authority with all their due circumstances and according to the Law in the concern of the whole Flock And this whether he has the Assistance of a Divine Infallibility or no Which though some allow him without being in a General Council yet he is satisfied 't is only their Opinion and not their Faith there being no Obligation from the Church of assenting to any such Doctrine And therefore as in any Civil Governments the Sentence of the supreme Iudge or Highest Tribunal is to be obey'd though there be no assurance of Infallibility or Divine Protection from Error or Mistake So is he taught should be done to the Orders of the Supreme Pastors whether he be Infallible or no. XVIII Of the POPE 1. WE do not charge them with Believing the Pope to be God which it seems himself did if we believe the Misrepresenter in his Preface but there is some Reason to doubt whether they do not at some times give him greater Honour than becomes a Man I instance in the Adoration after his Election when the new Pope is placed upon the Altar to receive the Submissions of the Cardinals but the Altar themselves do confess to be sacred to God alone And there they profess to Worship Jesus Christ as present in the Host. This therefore looks too much like assuming the Place of Christ and not becoming the Distance between God and Man 2. The Question is Whether Christ hath appointed the Pope or Bishop of Rome to be Pastor Governour and Head of his Church under him This he saith he believes and this he knows we deny and therefore had reason to expect some proof of it But instead thereof he tells us how they
look on themselves as obliged to shew him the Respect due to his place which he knows is not the matter in question Two things however he saith which seem to 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
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 buâ—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 mâ—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 sâ—ppose there be must men go then into Purgatory for meer Venial Sins What a strange Doctrine doth this appear to any mâ—n's Reason That God should forgive the greater sins and reqâ—ire so severe a Punishment for sins in their own nature venial i. e. so inconsiderâ—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 Blâ—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 â—ppear that after the Expiation of Sin by Christ and the remâ—ssion of eternal Punishment there stâ—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 stâ—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 bâ—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 alwâ—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 Immâ—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
may pray and fast in secret according to our Saviours Directions far more than they do however our People are mightily to blame if they do not understand what they pray for if they do not receive more of the Sacrament than they and we verily believe there are as great and remarkable Instances of true Charity among those of the Church of England as among any People in the World XXXII Of Miracles HE is so given up to the belief of idle Stories and ridiculous Intentions in favour of his Saints which he calls Miracles that nothing can be related so every way absurd foolish and almost impossible but it gains credit with him and he is so credulously confident of the truth of them that there 's no difference to him betwixt these Tales and what he reads in Scrâ—pture 'T is a pretty Romance to see what is recounted of St. Francis 's Cord the Scapular St. Anthony St. Bridget and other such Favourites of Heaven He that has but read the Atchievements of these may excuse the perusal of Bevis of Souâ—hampton the Seven Champions or Quevedo 's Dreams For these are nothing to compare to the former either for the rare invention wonderful surprises or performance of impossibilâ—ties HE is not oblig'd to believe any onâ— Miracle besides what is in the Scripture and for all others he may give the credit which in prudence he thinks they deserve considering the Honesty of the Relator the Authoriâ—y of the Witnesses and such other circumstances which on the like occasions use to gain his assent And if upon the account of meer History and the consent of Authors few make any doubt but that there was such a one as Caesar Alexander Mahomet Luther c. Why should he doubt of the truth of many Miracles which have not only the like consent of Authors and History but also are attested by great numbers of Eye-witnesses examin'd by Authority and found upon Recoâ—d with all the formalâ—ties due to such a Process St. Augustine relates many Miracles done in his time so does St. Ierom and other Fathers and if they doubted nothing of them then Why should he question the truth of them now He finds that in the time of the Old Law God favour'd many of his Servants working Miracles by their hands and he thinks now that God's hand is not shortned that the Disciples of Christ are no less Favourites of Heaven than those of Moses and that the new Law may be very well allow'd to be as Glorious and as particularly priviledg'd as the Old especially since Christ promised that his Apostles should do greater Miracles than ever He himself had done And what if some Miracles recounted by Authors are so wonderfully strange to some they seem Ridiculous and Absurd are they the less true upon this account Is not every thing Ridiculous to Unbelievers The whole Doctrine of Christ is a Scandal to the Iews and Folly to the Gentiles And what more Absurd to one that wants Faith than the Miracles recounted in the Old Testament Might not such a one turn them all into Ridicule and Buffoonry Take but Faith away and see what becomes of Balaam and his Ass. Sampson and his Iaw-bone Elias and his Fiery Chariot Elijah's Mâ—ntle Ax-head and Dead Bones Gideon's Pitchers Lamps and Trumpets in demolishing the Walls of Iericho Moses and his Burning Bush his holding up his hands for the Victory over his Enemies his parting of the Red-Sea and Ioshua's commanding the Sun to stand still c. Might not these and all the rest be painted out as Ridiculous as any supposed to be done since Christ's time and be put in the same List with the History of Bevis or Guy of Warwick A little incredulity accompanied with a presumption of measuring God's Works by Humane Wâ—sdom will really make the greatest part of them pass for Follies and Absurd Impossibilities And thô he is so far from giving equal assent to the Miracles related in Scripture and the others wrought since that the former he believes with a Divine Faith and the rest with an inferiour kind of assent according to the Grounds and Authority there is in favour of them like as he does in Prophane History Yet the strangeness of these never makes him in the least doubt of the Truth of them since ' â—is evident to him that all the Works of Heaven far surpass all his reasoning and that while he endeavours but to look even into the very ordinary things daily wrought by God Almighty the Motion of the Sun Moon and Stars the Flowing of the Sea the Growing of an Ear of Corn the Light of a Candle the Artifice of the Bees c. he quite loses himself and is bound to confess his own Ignorance and Folly and that God is Wonderful in all his Works a God surpassing all our knowledge Whatsoever therefore is related upon good grounds as done by the extraordinary Power of God he is ready to assent to it although he sees neither the how the why nor the wherefore being ready to attribute all to the Honour and Praise of his Maker to whose Omnipotent Hand most of poor Man's impossibles are none XXXII Of Miracles 1. OUr Author saith He is not obliged to believe any one Miracle besides what is in Scripture 2. He sees no Reason to doubt the truth of many Miracles which are attested by great numbers of Eye-witnesses examined by Authority and found upon Record with all the Formalities due to such a Process Now how can these two things stand together Is not a Man obliged to believe a thing so well proved And if his other Arguments prove any things it is that he is bound to believe them For he thinks there is as much Reason to believe Miracles still as in the time of the old or new Law If he can make this out I see no reason why he should not be as well obliged to believe them now as those recorded in Scripture But I can see nothing like a proof of this And all Persons of Judgment in their own Church do grant there is a great difference between the Necessity of Miracles for the first establishing a Religion and afterwards This is not only asserted by Tostatus Erasmus Stella Andradius and several others formerly but the very late French Author I have several times mentioned saith it in exprâ—ss Terms And he confesses the great Impostures of modern Miracles which he saith ought to be severely punished and that none but Women and weak People think themselves bound to believe them And he cannot understand what they are good for Not to convert Hereticks because not done among them Not to prove there are no corruptions or errors among them which is a thing incredible with much more to that purpose and so concludes with Monsieur Paschal That if they have no better use we ought not to be amused with them But Christ promised that his Apostles should do greater Miracles than himself had done
recommended to us by the practice of Christ and his Apostles and of all Primitive Christianity Neither has the use of Holy Ceremonies been wholly disapproved by those of the Reformation The English Profession of Faith publish'd in the year 1562. allows them in the 34 th Article The Bohemick Confession in the 15 th Article Anno 1537. The Augustine Tit. de Miss Anno 1530. as it was penn'd by Melancthon So that since Ceremonies are generally look'd on as commendable and lawful amongst Christians the Papists judge it proper to those who have the Rule to Order and Dispose of them and declare to the Flock how when and where they are to be observed And if they who govern judge fit to oblige the Faithful to the observance of any in particular they teach that it is the Duty of the Flock to Obey Things indifferent after such Commands being no longer of choice but necessary and no less obliging than the Commands of a Father to his Child where in case the thing be not apparently sinful 't is no Perswâ—sion of the thing being superfluous can excuse an obstinate denial from Disobedience It being more safe and Christian like for all that are under any Government whether Natural Ecclesiastical or Civil to perform and comply with such things as they judge in their own private Sentiments Unnecessary mâ—rely upon the account of being Commanded than upon such considerations to disturb the Order of Government and fly in the Face of Lawful Authority than which nothing is more opposite to the Principles of Christianity and destructive of all Humane Society And upon these grounds it is that the Papists founding themselves upon the sure Foundation of Huminity and Obedience have in all Ages acknowledged Overseers and Rulers over them to watch and feed the Flock to whom God hath given Power there being no Power but of God and that whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation Romans 13.1 2. XXXVI Of Ceremonies and Ordinances HIS Discourse on this Head is against those who refuse to obey their Superiours in things not expressed in Scripture which is no part of our Controversie with them But yet there are several things about their Ceremonies we are not satisfied in As 1. The mighty number of them which have so much muffled up the Sacraments that their true face cannot be discerned 2. The Efficacy attributed to them without any promise from God whereas we own no more but decency and significancy 3. The Doctrine that goes along with them not only of Obedience but of Merit and some have asserted the Opus Operatum of Ceremonies as well as Sacraments when the Power of the Keys goes along with them i. e. when there hath been some Act of the Church exercised about the matter of them as in the Consecration of Oyl Salt Bread Ashes Water c. XXXVII Of Innovations in Matters of Faith HIS Church has made several Innovations in matters of Faith and howsoever she lays claim to Antiquity with a pretence of having preserv'd the Doctrine of the Apostles inviolable and entire yet 't is evident to any serious Observer that the greatest part of her Belief is mere Novelties that bearing date from Christ or his Apostles but only from some of her own more modern Synods There scarce having pass'd any Age yet wherein there has not in these Ecclesiastical Mints been coyn'd New Articles which with the counterfeit stamp of Christ and his Apostles are made to pass for Good and Currant amongst his credulous and undiscerning Retainers And besides these what a great number of Errors have been introduc'd at other times how many did Pope Gregory bring in and how many the Ignorance of the Tenth Age So that if we compare the Church of Rome now with the Primitive times of the first three or four hundred years there are no two things so unlike she is a Garden now but quite overgrown with Weeds she is a Field but where the Tares have perfectly choaked up the Wheat and has little in her of Apostolical besides the Name HIS Church has never made any Innovation in Matters of Faith what she believes and teaches now being the same that the Catholick Church believ'd and taught in the first three or four Centuries after the Apostles And though in most of her General Councils there has been several Decisions touching Points of Faith yet can no one without an injury to truth say that in any of these has been coin'd new Articles or Christians forced to the acceptance of Novelties contrary to the Scripture or ancient Tradition These have only trodden in the Apostles steps as often as they have been in the like circumstances with them doing exactly according to the Form and Example left to the Church by those perfect Masters of Christianity And therefore as the Apostles in their Assembly Acts 15. determin'd the Controversie concerning the Circumcision and proposed to the Faithful what was the Doctrine of Christ in that point of necessity to be believ'd of which till that Decision there had been rais'd several Questions and Doubts but now no longer to be questioned without the Shipwrack of Faith So in all succeeding Ages the Elders of the Church to whom the Apostles left their Commission of watching over the Flock in their Councils have never scrupled to determine all such Points which had been controverted amongst the Brethren and to propose to them what of necessity they were to believe for the future with Anathema pronounced against all such as should presume to preach the contrary Thus in the year 325. the first Nicene Council declar'd the Son of God to be Consubstantial to his Father against the Arians with an Obligation on all to assent to this Doctrine though never till then propos'd or declar'd in that Form Thus in the year 381. the Holy Ghost was declar'd to be God against Macedonius and his Followers in the first Constantinopolitan Council And in the first Ephesin Anno 431. Nestorius was condemned who maintain'd two Persons in Christ and that the blessed Virgin was the Mother of God with a Declaration That both these Tenets were contrary to the Catholick Faith In the second Nicene Council Anno 787. Image-breakers were Anathematiz'd And so others at other times and at last in the Council of Trent was declar'd the Real Presence Transubstantiation Purgatory the lawfulness of the Invocation of Saints of keeping Holy Images c. against Luther Calvin Beza c. And now tho in all these and the other General Councils the Persons condemned took occasion from these New Declarations to cry out Novelties Novelties to fright the People with the noise of new coin'd Articles and that the inventions of Men were impos'd on them for Faith Yet 't is evident that these New Declarations contain'd nothing but the Antient Faith and that there had never been any such Declarations made had not the Doctrine propos'd in them
from the Papist as to what he is in himself The One is so absurd and monstrous that 't is impossible for any one to be of that Profession without first laying by all thoughts of Christianity and his Reason The Other is just contradictory to this and without any farther Apology may be expos'd to the perusal of all prudent and unpassionate Considerers to examine if there be any thing in it that deserves the hatred of any Christian and if it be not in every Point wholly conform to the Doctrine of Christ and not in the least contrary to Reason The Former is a Papist as he is generally apprehended by those who have a Protestant Education such as whensoever reflected on is conceiv'd to be a perverse malicious sort of Creature Superstitious Idolatrous Atheistical Cruel Bloody-minded Barbarous Treacherous and so Prophane and every way Inhumane that 't is in some manner doubted whether he be Man or no. The Other is a Papist whose Faith is according to the Proposal of the Catholick Church which by Christ's Command he is oblig'd to believe and hear and whose whole design in this World is for obtaining Salvation in the next And is it not strange that these two Characters so directly opposite so wholly unlike one the other that Heaven and Hell is not more should agree to the same person 'T is certainly a strange piece of Injustice and yet not at all strange to those who know that they that follow Christ shall be hated by the World that those who study the Wisdom of Heaven shall have the repute of Fools and that as many as attend the Lamb shall be painted in the Livery of Satan Our Fore-fathers were so before us all the Primitive Christians the Apostles and even the Lamb himself our Redeemer Calumny ever follow'd them Mis representation waited upon them and what wonder that Infamy was their constant Attendance And now if the Orthodox Christians have thus in all Ages had their double Character one of Justice exactly drawn from what they really believ'd and practis'd the other of Malice copied from them as Mis-represented 't is not at all strange to find it so now in our days when Calumny Malice Ignorance c. are as powerful as ever who though from the beginning of the World that is above five thousand Years they have made it their chief business to Paint Copy and Represent Things and Persons yet they never did it with so much injury so altogether unlikely as they do now to the Papists there being scarce any one Point of their Faith and Profession which they do not blindly mistake or basely disguise The Papists believe 't is convenient to pray before Holy Images and give them an inferiour or relative Respect These describe the Papists Praying to Images and Worshipping them as Idols The Papists believe 't is good to desire the Prayers of the Saints and Honour them as the Friends of God These paint out the Papists as believing Saints to be their Redeemers and Adoring them as Gods The Papists believe that Christ left a Power in the Priests of his Church to absolve all truly Penitent Sinners from their Offences These Representing the Papists as believing That the Priests can infallibly forgive all such as come to Confession whether they Repent or no. The Papists believe there 's Power in the Supreme Pastor upon due Motives of granting Indulgences that is of releasing to the Faithful such Temporal Penalties as remain due to their past Sins already remitted as to their guilt on condition they perform such Christian Duties as shall be assign'd them i. e. humble themselves by Fasting confess their Sins with a hearty Repentance receive worthily and give Alms to the Poor c. These make the Papists believe That the Pope for a sum of Money can give them leave to commit what Sins they shall think â—it with a certain Pardon for all Crimes already incurr'd and that there can be no danger of Damnation to any that can but make a large Present to Rome at his death The Papists believe That by the Merits of Christ the good Works of a just Man are acceptable to God and through his Goodness and Promise meritorious of eternal Happiness These report That the Papists believe they can merit Heaven by their own Works without any dependance on the work of our Redemption The Pâ—pâ—sts worshâ—p Christ really present in the Sacrament true God and Man These say they fall down to and worship a piece of Bread Some Papists maintain the Deposing Power These will have it to be an Article of their Faith and that they are oblig'd to 't by their Religion Some Papists have been Traytors Rebels Conspirators c. These make these Villanies to be Meritorious among the Papists and that 't is the Doctrine of their Church And thus there is scarce any one thing belonging to their Faith and Exercise of their Religion which is not wrong'd in the describing it and injuriously Mis-represented And if any be so curious as to desire to be satisfied how this comes about let him but stand by any of the Undertakers while they are taking the Copy of Popery and observe their Method and he may soon come to the bottom of the Mystery He may see them seriously viewing some of her Tenets and upon a short Consideration immediately to fall to the making Inferences and deducing Consequences then down go these for so many Articles of Popery They go on and see other of her Tenets and these containing Mysteries such as Reason cannot reach to when Faith is not an Assistant they are presently follow'd with variety of Absurdities and seeming Contradictions And down go these to the former for so many Articles of Popery They pâ—ssâ—on to others and these being not conform to the Principles of their Education several Misconstructions are presently rais'd upon them and down go these for so many Articles of Popery They look forward and seeing others in the practice of which many Abuses have been committed then down go the Abuses for so many Articles of Popâ—ry Heâ—ce they turn to the Court of Rome and as many Dâ—sorders and Extravagances as they find there so many Articles of Popery They enquire into the Actions and Lives of her Pastors and Prelates and as many Vices as many wicked Designs they discover there so many Articles of Popery They examine the Behaviour of her Professors and whatsoever Villanies whatsoever Treasons and Inhumanities they find committed by any that own themselves Members of that Communion down they all go for so many Articles of Popery They hear the Reports of such as have deserted her Authority and tho through thâ—â—r Extravagancies and rashness they deserve not credit even in a trifle yet their whole Narrative shall be accepted and all their idle Storâ—es be summ'd up for so many Arâ—icles of Popery They peruse every scurrilous Pamphlet and abusive Libel and such ridiculous Fâ—bles as are only sit for a Chimney-corner