the ancient Fathers had of the usefulness of Scriptures to the people than they have in the Roman Church but we need not more to prove it since it is acknowledged by those who are against the reading the Scriptures by the people that it was otherwise in the Primitive Church so Alphonsus à Castro and Sixtus Senensis confess Espencaeus quotes many plain places from St. Austin and St. Chrysostom to prove that the people ought to be very diligent in reading the Scriptures in their own houses and that nothing should excuse them from it and confesseth that St. Pauls precept Colos. 3. let the word of God dwell richly in you was intended for the people and that they ought to have it among them not only sufficiently but abundantly The sum of this argument is that the reasons now urged against the peoples Reading the Scriptures would have held against the publishing of them in a language to be understood by the people that they saw the same inconveniencies which are objected now and yet commended the reading the Scriptures to all that in all the primitive Church the practice was not only retained but vehemently urged after all the Heresies which had risen in the Church in their time and therefore for the Church of Rome to account it wisdome to keep the people from it is to charge not only the Fathers of the Church with folly but the Apostles and our Saviour and God himself CHAP. IV. Of the Fanaticism of the Roman Church The unreasonableness of objecting Sects and Fanaticisms to us as the effects of reading the Scriptures Fanaticism countenanced in the Roman Church but condemned by ours Private revelations made among them the grounds of believing some points of doctrine proved from their own Authors Of the Revelations pleaded for the immaculate Conception The Revelations of S. Brigitt and S. Catharin directly contrary in this point yet both owned in the Church of Rome The large approbations of S. Brigitts by Popes and Councils and both their revelations acknowledged to be divine in the lessons read upon their dayes S. Catharines wonderful faculty of smelling souls a gift peculiar to her and Philip Nerius The vain attempts of reconciling those Revelations The great number of female Revelations approved in the Roman Church Purgatory Transubstantiation Auricular Confession proved by Visions and Revelations Festivals appointed upon the credit of Revelations the Feast of Corpus Christi on the Revelation made to Juliana the Story of it related from their own Writers No such things can be objected to our Church Revelations still owned by them proved from the Fanatick Revelations of Mother Juliana very lately published by Mr. Cressy Some instances of the blasphemous Nonsense contained in them The Monastick Orders founded in Enthusiasm An account of the great Fanaticism of S. Benedict and S. Romoaldus their hatred of Humane Learning and strange Visions and Revelations The Carthusian Order founded upon a Vision The Carmelites Vision of their habit The Franciscan and Dominican Orders founded on Fanaticism and seen in a Vision of Innocent the third to be the great supporters of the Roman Church The Quakerism of S. Francis described from their best Authors His Ignorance Extasies and Fanatick Preaching The Vision of Dominicus The blasphemous Enthusiasm of the Mendicant Fryers The History of it related at large Of the Evangelium aeternum and the blasphemies contained in it The Author of it supposed to be the General of the Franciscan Order however owned by the Fryers and read and preached at Paris The opposition to it by the Vniversity but favoured by the Popes Gul. S. Amour writing against it his Book publickly burnt by order of the Court of Rome The Popes horrible partiality to the Fryers The Fanaticism of the Franciscans afterwards Of the followers of Petrus Johannis de Oliva The Spiritual State began say they from S. Francis The story of his wounds and Maria Visitationis paralleld The canting language used by the spiritual Brethren called Beguini Fraticelli and Begardi Of their doctrines about Poverty Swearing Perfection the Carnal Church and Inspiration by all which they appear to be a Sect of Quakers after the Order of S. Francis Of the Schism made by them The large spreading and long continuance of them Of the Apostolici and Dulcinistae Of their numerous Conventicles Their high opinion of themselves Their Zeal against the Clergy and Tythes their doctrine of Christian Liberty Of the Alumbrado's in Spain their disobedience to Bishops obstinate adhering to their own fancies calling them Inspirations their being above Ordinances Ignatius Loyola suspected to be one of the Illuminati proved from Melchior Canus The Iesuites Order founded in Fanaticism a particular account of the Romantick Enthusiasm of Ignatius from the Writers of his own Order Whereby it is proved that he was the greatest pretender to Enthusiasm since the dayes of Mahomet and S. Francis Ignatius gave no respect to men by words or putting off his Hat his great Ignorance and Preaching in the Streets his glorying in his sufferings for it his pretence to mortification the wayes he used to get disciples Their way of resolution of difficulties by seeking God their itinerant preaching in the Cities of Italy The Sect of Quakers a new Order of Disciples of Ignatius only wanting confirmation from the Pope which Ignatius obtained Of the Fanatick way of devotion in the Roman Church Of Superstitious and Enthusiastical Fanaticism among them Of their mystical Divinity Mr. Cressy's canting in his Preface to Sancta Sophia Of the Deiform fund of the soul a superessential life and the way to it Of contemplating with the will Of passive Vnions The method of self-Annihilation Of the Vnion of nothing with nothing Of the feeling of not-being The mischief of an unintelligible way of devotion The utmost effect of this way is gross Enthusiasm Mr. Cressy's Vindication of it examined The last sort of Fanatioism among them resisting authority under pretence of Religion Their principles and practices compared with the Fanaticks How far they are disowned ai present by them Of the Vindication of the Irish Remonstrance The Court of Rome hath alwayes favoured that party which is most destructive to Civil Government proved by particular and late Instances § 1. 2. WE come to consider whether the reading the Scriptures be the cause of all the Sects and Fanaticisms which have been in England He might much better have charged the Philosophers especially Aristotle with all the disputes in the world for they not only by their writings have occasioned many but have taught men the pernicious use of reasoning without which the world might be as quiet as a Flock of Sheep If they could but perswade men to lay aside that mischievous faculty I dare undertake for them that let the people have the Bible never so much among them they shall never hurt the Church of Rome Do they not tell us that the words of Scripture are plain for Transubstantiation
all of a mind and it is not necessary to the Unity of the Church that they should be but they have the only way of composing differences and they do not differ in matters of faith from each other and their differences lye only in their Schools and do not disturb the peace of the Church This is the utmost I can find their best wits plead for the Vnity of the Roman Church and if these be sufficient I believe they and we will be proved to be as much at Unity as they are among themselves 1. They say the Vnity of the Church doth not lye in actual Agreement of the members of it in matters of Doctrine but in having the best means to compose differences and to preserve consent which is submission to the Popes Authority So Gregory de Valentiâ explains the Vnity of their Church for actual consent he grants may be in other Churches as much as theirs and there is nothing singular or peculiar attributed to their Church supposing they were all of a mind which it is plain they are not but therein saith he lyes the Vnity of their Church that they all acknowledge one Head in whose judgement they acquiesce and therefore they have no more to do but to know what the Pope determines If this be all their Unity we have greater than they for we have a more certain way of ending Controversies than they have which I prove by an argument like to one in great request among them when they go about to perswade weak persons to their Religion viz. that it must needs be safer to be in that Religion wherein both parties agree a man may be saved than in that where one side denies a possibility of salvation so say I here that must be a safer way for Unity which both parties agree in to be infallible than that which one side absolutely denyes to be so but both parties agree the Scriptures to be infallible and all Protestants deny the Pope to be infallible therefore ours is the more certain way for Vnity But this is not all for it is far from being agreed among themselves that the Pope is infallible it being utterly denyed by some among them and the asserting it accounted Heresie as is evident in some late Books written to that purpose in France and England What excellent means of Vnity then is this among them which it is accounted by some no less than Heresie to assert § 13. But supposing they should yield the Pope that submission which they deny to be due to him yet is his definition so much more certain way of ending Controversies than the Scriptures Let them name one Controversie that hath been ended in their Church meerly by the Popes Decrees so as the opposite party hath declared that they believed contrary to what they believed before on the account of the Popes definition We have many instances to the contrary wherein controversies have been heightened and increased by their interposing but none concluded by them Do they say the Scripture can be no means of Vnity because of the various senses which have been put upon it and have they no wayes to evade the Popes definitions Yes so many that his Authority in truth signifies nothing any farther than they agree that the upholding it tends to their common interest But when onces he comes to cross the interest of any party if they do not in plain terms defie him yet they find out more civil wayes of making his Definitions of no force Either they say the Decree was procured by fraud and the Pope made it by mis-information which is the common way or he did not define it as a matter of faith sitting in Cathedrâ or the sense of his definition is quite otherwise than their Adversaries understand it or supposing that be the sense the Pope is never to be supposed to define any thing contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers and ancient Canons Of all which it were no difficult task to give late and particular instances but no one who is acquainted with the history of that Church can be ignorant of them and the late proceedings in the point of the five Propositions are a sufficient evidence of these things to any one who reads them For when was there a Fairer occasion given to the Pope to shew his Authority for preservation of the Churches unity than at that time when the matter of the five Propositions was under debate at Rome The same controversie was now revived which had disturbed their Church so often and so much before In the time of Clement 8. the heats were so great between the Iesuits and Dominicans that the Pope thought it necessary for the peace of the Church to put an end to them to that end he appointed Congregations for several years to discuss those points that he might come to a resolution in them This Pope at first was strangely prepossest by the arts of the Iesuits against the Dominicans but sending for the General of the Dominicans he told him what sad apprehensions he had concerning the peace of the Church by reason of the disputes between the Iesuits and them and therefore charges him that those of his Order should no longer molest the Iesuits about these things to whom he replyed that he assured him with as great Protestation as he was able that it was no meer Scholastical dispute between them but it was the cause of faith that was concerned which he discoursed largely upon to the Pope and made such impressions upon him that the Dominicans verily believe that had that Pope lived to the Vespers of Pentecost that year he dyed in March he had published a Bull against the Iesuits in presence of the Colledge of Cardinals and created F. Lemos Cardinal After his death the congregations were continued in the time of Paul 5. but at last were broken up without any decision at all If the Popes determination be such an absolute Instrument of peace in the Church it is the strangest thing in the world it should be made so little use of in such cases where they all acknowledge it would be of infinite advantage to their Church to have an issue put to such troublesome controversies as these were But they know well enough that the Popes Authority is the more esteemed the less it is used and that it hath alwayes been very hazardous to determine where there have been considerable parties on both sides for fear the condemned party should renounce his Authority or speak plainer truths than they are willing to hear And therefore it was well observed by Mons. S. Amour that they are very jealeus at Rome of maintaining the Authority of the decrees which issue from thence and that this consideration obliges the maker of them to look very well to the compliance and facility that may be expected in their execution before they pass any at all Which is a most certain argument they dare
or Heathenish fornication was here only reprehended as Jewish or Heathenish Idolatry But as the one is a foul sin whether it be committed by Jew Pagan or Christian so if such as profess the Name of Christ shall practise that which the Word of God condemneth in Jews or Pagans for Idolatry their profession is so far from diminishing that it augmenteth rather the hainousness of the crime About the same time came forth Bishop Downams Book of Antichrist wherein he doth at large prove That to give divine honour to a creature is Idolatry and that the Papists do give it in the Worship of Saints the Host and Images which is likewise done nearer our own times by Bishop Davenant and Dr. Jackson I shall conclude all although I might produce more with the testimony of Archbishop Laud who in his Conference saith the ancient Church knew not the adoration of Images and the modern Church of Rome is too like to Paganism in the practice of it and driven to scarce intelligible subtleties in her Servants writings that defend it this without any care had of millions of souls unable to understand her subtleties or shun her practice and in his Marginal Notes upon Bellarmin written with his own hand now in my possession where Bellarmin answers the testimony of the Council of Laodicea against the Worship of Angels by saying That it doth not condemn all Worship of Images but only that which is proper to God he replyes That Theodoret who produced that testimony of the Council expresly mentions the praying to Angels therefore saith he the praying to them was that Idolatry which the Council condemns By this we see that the most Eminent and Learned Defenders of our Church of greatest authority in it and zeal for the Cause of it against enemies of all sorts have agreed in the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome And I cannot see why the authority of some very few persons though of great Learning should bear sway against the constant opinion of our Church ever since the Reformation Since our Church is not now to be formed according to the singular Fancies of some few though Learned men much less to be modelled by the Caprichio's of Superstitious Fanaticks who prefer some odd Opinions and wayes of their own before the received doctrine and practice of the Church they live in Such as these we rather pity their weakness than regard their censures and are only sorry when our Adversaries make such properties of them as by their means to beget in some a disaffection to our Church Which I am so far from whatever malice and peevishness may suggest to the contrary that upon the greatest enquiry I can make I esteem it the best Church of the Christian world and think my time very well imployed what ever thanks I meet with for it in defending its Cause and preserving persons in the communion of it THE Contents CHAP. I. Of the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images THE introduction concerning the occasion of the debate The Church of Rome makes its members guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry First Of the Worship of God by Images Some propositions for clearing the notion of Divine Worship It is in Gods power to determine the way of his Worship which being determined Gods Law and not our intention is to be the rule of Worship The main question is Whether God hath forbidden the worshipping of himself by an Image under the notion of Idolatry Of the meaning of the second Commandment from the terms therein used the large sense and importance of them which cannot be understood only of Heathen Idols Of the reason of that Law from Gods infinite and invisible nature How far that hath been acknowledged by Heathens The Law against Image Worship no ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews the reason against it made more clear by the Gospel The wiser Heathen did not worship their Images as Gods yet their worship condemned as Idolatry The Christian Church believed the reason of this Law to be immutable Of the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice the opposition to it in Greece Germany France and England Of the Scripture Instances of Idolatry contrary to the second Commandment in the Golden Calf and the Calves of Dan and Bethel Of the distinctions used to excuse image-worship from being Idolatry The vanity and folly of them The instances supposed to be parallell answered P. 49 CHAP. II. Of their Idolatry in Adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints The Argument proposed concerning the Adoration of the Host the insufficiency of the Answer to it manifested supposing equal revelation for Transubstantiation as for Christs Divinity yet not the same reason for Worshipping the Host as the person of Christ the great disparity between these two at large discovered the Controversie truly stated concerning Adoration of the Host and it is proved that no man on the principles of the Roman Church can be secure he doth not commit Idolatry in it The confession of our Adversaries that the same Principles will justifie the Worship of any Creature No such motives to believe Transubstantiation as the Divinity of Christ. Bishop Taylor 's Testimony answered by himself To Worship Christ in the Sun as lawful as to Worship him in the Host. The grossest Idolatry excusable on the same grounds The argument proposed and vindicated concerning the Invocation of Saints practised in the Church of Rome The Fathers Arguments against the Heathens hold against Invocation of Saints the state of the Controversie about Idolatry as managed by them They make it wholly unlawful to give divine Worship to any Creature how excellent soever The Worship not only of Heathen Gods but of Angels condemned The common evasions answered Prayer more proper to God than Sacrifice No such disparity as is pretended between the manner of Invocating Saints and the Heathens Invocating their Deities In the Church of Rome they do more than pray to Saints to pray for them proved from the present most Authentick Breviaries Supposing that were all it would not excuse them St. Austin no friend to Invocation of Saints Practices condemned by the Church pleaded for it Of Negative points being Articles of faith p. 108. CHAP. III. Of the hindrance of a good Life and Devotion in the Roman Church The doctrines of the Roman Church prejudicial to Piety The Sacrament of Pennance as taught among them destroyes the necessity of a good life The doctrine of Purgatory takes away the care of it as appears by the true stating it and comparing that doctrine with Protestants How easie it is according to them for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Purgatory dreadful to none but poor and friendless Sincerity of devotion hindred by prayers in an unknown Tongue The great absurdity of it manifested The effects of our Ancestors devotion had been as great if they had said their prayers in English
Proph. Sect. 20. Speaking of Catholicks The beauty and Splendour of their Church their pompous he should have said solemn Service the stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy their name of Catholick which they suppose he should have said their very Adversaries give them as their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians the Antiquity of many of their Doctrines he should have said all the continual succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their Title to succeed St. Peter the flattering he should have said due expression of Minor Bishops he means acknowledging the Pope head of the Church which by being old records have obtained credibility the multitude and variety of People which are of their perswasion apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected and a pretended and sometimes he should have said alwayes apparent consent with some elder Ages in matters Doctrinal The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide of Faith The great differences which are commenced among their Adversaries abusing the liberty of Prophecying into a very great licentiousness Their happiness of being Instruments in converting divers he should rather have said of all Nations The piety and austerity of their Religious Orders of Men and Women The single life of their Priests and Bishops the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances the great reputation of their first Bishops for faith and sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate the oblique Arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them and amongst many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacity he should have said upon the same grounds the Fathers did fasten upon all that disagree from them These things saith he and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore-fathers which had actually possession and seizure of mens understandings before the opposite professions to wit of Protestant Presbyterian Anabaptist c. had a name Thus Dr. Taylor an eminent and leading man amongst the Protestants and if he confess that these Motives were sufficient for a Catholick to retain his Religion they must be of like force to perswade a dis-interessed Protestant to embrace it unless the Protestants can produce Motives for their Religion of greater or at least equal force with these which so great a man among them confesseth that Catholicks have for theirs Here therefore you must call upon the Author of the Paper you sent me to produce a Catalogue of grounds or at least some one ground for the Protestant Religion of greater or equal force with all these And as Dr. Taylor saith divers others which he omitted viz. The Scripture interpreted by the consent of Fathers the determination of General Councils the known Maxime of Catholicks that nothing is to be believed of Faith but what was received from their Fore-fathers as handed down from the Apostles The testimonie of the present Church of no less Authority now than in St. Austins time both for the Letter and the sence of the Scripture c. Do this and the Controversie will quickly be at an end Particular disputes are endless and above the understanding of such as are not learned but in grounds and principles 't is not so hard for Reason and common sence to Iudge That you may the better do it in your case I shall desire you to take these two Cautions along with you First That the Subject of the present Controversie are not those Articles in which the Protestants agree with us and for which they may pretend to produce the same Motives we do But in those in which they dissent from us such as are no Transubstantiation no Purgatory no honour due to Images no Invocation to Saints and the like in which the very Essence of Protestant as distinct from Catholick consists What Motives they can or will produce for these I do not foresee The pretence of Scriptures being sufficiently plain hath no place here because then the foresaid Negatives would be necessary to be believed as divine Truths And for their own Reason and Learning it will be found too light when put into the scale against that of the Catholick Church for so many Ages The second Caution is That you be careful to distinguish between Protestants producing grounds for their own Religion and finding fault with ours An Atheist can cavil and find fault with the grounds which learned men bring to prove a Deity such as are the Order of this visible World the general consent of Nations c. In this an Atheist thinks he doth somewhat But can he produce as good or better grounds for his own opinion No you see then 't is one thing to produce grounds for what we hold and another to find fault with those which are produced by the contrary part The latter hath made Controversie so long and the former will make it as short let the Answerer therefore instead of finding fault with our Motives produce his own for the Articles in Controversie and I am confident you will quickly discern which carry the most weight and consequently which are to be preferred A Defence of the foregoing Answer to the Questions CHAP. I. Of the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images The introduction concerning the occasion of the debate The Church of Rome makes its members guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry First Of the Worship of God by Images Some propositions for clearing the notion of Divine Worship It is in Gods power to determine the way of his Worship which being determined Gods Law and not our intention is to be the rule of Worship The main question is Whether God hath forbidden the worshipping of himself by an Image under the notion of Idolatry Of the meaning of the second Commandment from the terms therein used the large sense and importance of them which cannot be understood only of Heathen Idols Of the reason of that Law from Gods infinite and invisible nature How far that hath been acknowledged by Heathens The Law against Image Worship no ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews the reason against it made more clear by the Gospel The wiser Heathen did not worship their Images as Gods yet their worship condemned as Idolatry The Christian Church believed the reason of this Law to be immutable Of the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice the opposition to it in Greece Germany France and England Of the Scripture Instances of Idolatry contrary to the second Commandment in the Golden Calf and the Calves of Dan and Bethel Of the distinctions used to excuse image-worship from being Idolatry The vanity and folly of them The instances supposed to be parallel answered Madam § 1. THat
no material difference that the Heathen called those they worshipped Gods but they do not so in the Roman Church For St. Austin saith there was scarce any difference between the Heathen and them about the name whether Angels might be called Gods or no for he thinks that they are called so in Scripture as well as Origen but the Question was about the thing whether they were to be Worshipped as Gods or no i. e. by giving any part of religious worship to them which they utterly deny And were I in the communion of the Roman Church I should much less scruple calling Canonized Saints or Angels by the names of Gods than giving them the worship of Invocation or the honour of Sacrifices but in so doing they are not only condemned by plain Scripture and reason but by those of the primitive Church who writ against the Heathen Idolatry which was the thing to be shewed § 13. 2. Another disparity is insisted on by him which is as to the manner of Worship And as to this he saith all that they understand by formal invocation is desiring or praying those Iust persons who are in glory in heaven to pray for us and if the Catholicks be guilty of Idolatry in this we must not desire the prayers of a just man even in this life because this formal Invocation will be to make him an inferiour Deitie To shew the palpable weakness of this answer I shall prove these two things 1. That those in the Church of Rome do allow and practise another kind of formal Invocation from what he asserts 2. That supposing this were all it would not excuse them and that it is of a very different nature from desiring the prayers of just men for us in this life 1. That they do allow and practise another kind of formal Invocation from what he asserts He might very well say he did understand well what I meant by formal Invocation when he makes this to be the meaning of it for never any person before him imagined that sense of it And that term of formal Invocation was purposely chosen by me to distinguish it from the rhetorical Apostrophe's of some of the Greek Fathers the Poetical Flourishes of Damasus Prudentius and Paulinus from general wishes that the Saints would pray for us Of which are some instances in good Authors from assemblies at the monuments of Martyrs which were usual in ancient times and that which I thought any man would understand by it was that which is constantly practised in the Roman Church viz. in places and times purposely appointed for divine and religious worship with all the same external signes of devotion which we use to God himself to offer up our Prayers to Saints or Angels to help us in our necessities as well as to pray to God for us The former part none can be ignorant of that have but so much as heard of the devotion of the Church of Rome all the difficulty lies in that whether they pray to them to help their necessities as well as pray for them And so many forms of Prayer allowed and practised in their Church have been so often objected to them wherein these things are manifest that I cannot but wonder this should be denyed Do they believe we never look into their Breviaries Rosaries Houres and other Books of Devotion wherein to this day such Prayers are to be found Do they think we never heard of the Offices of the B. Virgin or our Ladies Psalter a Blasphemous Book never yet censured wherein the Psalmes in their highest strains of Prayer to God are applyed to the V. Mary I have known my self intelligent persons of their Church who commit their souls to the V. Maries protection every day as we do to Almighty Gods and such who thought they understood the doctrine and practice of their Church as well as others But Madam these are mysteries not to be known till they have their Proselytes safe and fast enough then by degrees they let them know what is to be done when they have given away all liberty of judging for themselves Then it is no matter what they are commanded or expected to do they must do as others do or else their sincerity is questioned and they are thought Hereticks in their hearts whatever they profess I shall not insist upon any ancient Breviaries or obsolete Forms or private Devotions which yet they are accountable for till they do condemn them I need no more than the present Roman Breviary restored according to the Council of Trent and authorized by three several Popes In the Feast of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin as though it were not enough in the Antiphonae to say Hail Blessed Virgin thou alone hast destroyed all Heresies in the world but lest this should be interpreted of doing it by her Son a formal Invocation of her follows Vouchsafe to let me praise thee O Holy Virgin and give me strength against thy enemies And in the Hymn frequently used in her Office and particularly that day she is not only called the Gate of Heaven but she is intreated to loose the bonds of the guilty to give light to the blind and to drive away our evils and to shew her self to be a Mother or as it is in the Mass-book at Paris 1634. Iure Matris impera redemptori as thou art a Mother command the Redeemer In a word They pray to her therein for purity of life and a safe conduct to Heaven But lest the Hymns should be thought only Poetical in the Feast of S. Maria ad Nives Aug. 5. a formal prayer is made to her to help the miserable to strengthen the weak to comfort those that mourn and that all who celebrate her holy Festivity may feel her assistance By which we may understand the meaning of that solemn Hymn used in her Office wherein she is called the Mother of Mercy and Clemency and is prayed to protect us from our enemies and to receive us in the hour of death Is all this only praying to her to pray for us What could be more said to Almighty God or his Son Iesus Christ Nor is this devotion only to the Blessed Virgin but we shall see it alike in that to Angels and Saints in the Antiphona upon the apparition of Michael the Archangel May 8. he is prayed to come to the help of the people of God And in the Feast of the Guardian Angels recommended to all Catholicks by Paul the fifth in the last words of the Breviary they are prayed to defend them in War that they may not perish in Gods terrible judgement In the Hymn to the Holy Apostles they are prayed to command the guilty to be loosed from their guilt to heal unsound minds and to increase their vertues that when Christ shall come they may be partakers of eternal glory These may suffice for a present taste of the sincerity of such persons who say that in
were far better hold their peace It is very impertinent to say that the Apostle speaks only of extraordinary gifts and not of the settled and ordinary devotions of the Church For the case is the same where the language is not understood whether it be spoken by a Miracle or not And the Apostle layes down a general rule from this particular case that all things must be done to edifying which it appears he judges the use of an unknown language not to be And if after all this it be in the Churches power to reverse the Apostles decree as to praying in an unknown language they may use the very same power as to all other Offices of Religion and may command preaching to be in a tongue as unknown as praying that so the people may meet together and pray and hear Sermons and understand never a word for their great edification Unless among us God should put it into their hearts to speak English whether they would or no as was once said by an ignorant person on the like occasion If all that is intended in the prayers of the people be only an intention to pray whatever the words be Abracadabra might serve to pray with as well as Ave Maria and the old Womans saying of it Avi Mari gratia plinam dams ticum beneditta tu in mulabs yeth Benedictus frictus frentris tui sweet Iesus Amen was as effectual a prayer if she meant it so as could be uttered by the most skilful Priest § 5. 3. But the universal consent of the Christian Church is pleaded for this practice only Protestants excepted and therefore it is insolent madness in them to oppose it as St. Austin saith but we had however rather follow St. Paul who saith it were madness to practise it But I assure you Madam we are not to take all things for granted which are told us by them concerning the opinions and practices of the Eastern Churches as I may in time discover but in this he saith our own Protestant Authors of the Bible of many languages Lond. A. D. 1655. do confess that in most of the Sects of the Christians they have not only the Scriptures but also the Liturgies and Rituals in a tongue unknown but to the learned from which he concludes this to be an universal practice both in the Primitive Greek and Latin Churches and in these latter Sects of Eastern Christians It were a very pleasant enquiry how in the Primitive Greek and Latin Churches the service could be in an unknown language when Greek and Latin were the Mother Tongues of those Churches Doth he think they did not understand their own Mother Tongues How many of their own Writers have confessed that in the Primitive Churches all publick Offices of Religion were performed in the proper language of every Countrey which in express words is affirmed by Origen against Celsus and some of the Church of Rome have been so ingenuous to confess it were much better that custome were restored again So Cassander affirms of Cajetan and that being reproved for it he said he learned this doctrine from St. Paul 1 Cor. 14. and the Title of the twenty eighth Chapter of Cassander his Liturgicks is That the Antients read the Canonical Prayer and the consecration of the Eucharist so as the people did understand it and say Amen Lyra saith That all publick Offices of Religion were in the Primitive Church performed in the Vulgar Tongue So that it was not upon the account of any sanctity in the Greek or Latin that they were more used but because they were more generally understood On which account Pope Innocent the third gave strict command that where people of different languages did inhabit care should be taken to provide men able to administer Sacraments and instruct them in their several tongues which decree of his is inserted in the Canon Law and was not intended out of honour to the Greek and Latin Tongues only but the advantage of the people So likewise Iohn the eighth yielded to the Prince of Moravia to have their Liturgy in the Sclavonian Tongue because St. Paul saith Let every Tongue praise the Lord which is the reason given by the Pope in his Letter extant in Baronius and not meerly on the account of a present necessity for want of Priests who could read Latin as Bellarmin conjectures for he appoints it should be first read in the Sclavonian tongue If this were then a Catholick practice these Popes were hugely to blame to give way to the breach of it And Walafridus Strabo saith in his time among the Scythians the divine Offices were performed in the German Tongue which was common to them and the Germans But our own Protestant Writers he saith own this to be in use in the most Sects of Christians I have endeavoured to find this confession in the Preface cited by him but I cannot meet with it and the learned Bishop who writ it understood these things better than to write so It is true he saith not in the Preface but Proleg 13. n. 19. that the Syriack Tongue is the Tongue of the learned among the Christians throughout the East as appears by the Liturgies and divine Offices which are almost every where performed in this language although it be the Mother-tongue now only to a few about Mount Libanus but any one who enquires into a Catholick practice must not meerly give an account of the most Eastern Christians of whom he here speaks For there are many considerable Churches besides these which do to this day use their own language in their Liturgies as their own Writers attest but I need not go about to prove this since Bellarmin confesseth That the Armenians Aethiopians Aegyptians Russians and others do it but he saith he is no more moved by these than by the practice of Protestants but we cannot but be moved so far by it as thereby to see that the practice of the Church of Rome is no more a Catholick practice than it is founded either on Scripture or Reason § 6. 2. I said the sincerity of devotion was obstructed by making the efficacy of Sacraments to depend on the bare administration whether our minds be prepared for them or not This he saith he had rather look upon as a mistake than a calumny having never read any Council wherein this doctrine is defined and as to the Sacrament of Pennance which he supposeth I chiefly mean the Council of Trent hath determined it to be a calumny for any to say that according to their doctrine it doth confer grace without the good motion of the receiver Madam I either expected he should have understood the doctrine of his own party better or been more ingenuous in confessing it For my quarrel had no particular respect to the Sacrament of Pennance more than to any other Sacrament of theirs and if I can make it appear that it is their doctrine that the efficacy
obedience without this Some that frequent crossing themselves going in Pilgrimage to the Images of Saints baptizing Bells being sprinckled with holy water and buried in a Monks habit are great acts of devotion and others that they are superstitious fooleries Some think that unless they make confession of their sins to a Priest they cannot be pardoned others that sincere confession to God is sufficient and the other never necessary to the pardon of sin though it may be sometimes useful to the ease of the sinner Some that they honour God by setting up Images of him and worshipping them for his sake by addressing themselves to Saints and Angels to be Intercessors with him and others that they cannot dishonour God more than by these things Some that they may pray for what they do not understand as well as what they do others that since men expect to be answered in their prayers they ought to understand what they say in them Since these and other disputes are in the world not barely between Christians and those of other Religions but among Christians themselves what course should a person take who desires to be satisfied For he finds the several parties divided about them Can any man imagine a better way if it could be hoped for than that God himself should interpose and declare his own mind according to what way they ought to serve him And this is acknowledged to be done already by all Christians in the Scriptures and after all this must not all persons concerned be allowed to enquire into that which is owned to be the will of God Or do they think that ordinary people that understand not Latin or Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their souls If they be and do in good earnest desire to know how to please God and to serve him what directions will they give him If they tell him they must do as they are bidden true say they if we were to worship you for Gods we would do as you bid us for we think it fitting to serve God in his own way But we would know whether that God whom we serve hath given us any rules for his worship or no Yes say the Priests of the Roman Church he hath done so but it is not fit for you to see them To what end say the people then were they given if they may not be seen How shall we know whether we keep them or no or will you take upon you the guilt of our sins in disobeying his Will since you will not let us know what it is This seems to be a very just and reasonable request and I fear it will one day fall heavy upon those who conceal that which they confess to be the Will of God from the knowledge of the people And it hath been ingenuously acknowledged by some in the Roman Church that the people would never be kept to that way of devotion they are in there if they were suffered to read the Scriptures but the more shame the mean time for those who impose such things upon them under a pretence of devotion which are so repugnant to the Will of God But the same reason which hath made them leave out the second Commandment in their offices of devotion hath brought them to so severe a prohibition of reading the Scriptures in a known language but where themselves are already so secure of the persons that they dare to give way to it and that is lest their consciences should start and boggle at the breaking a command of God when they pretended to serve him § 9. 2. That no objection can be now made against the peoples reading the Scriptures but would have held against the publishing them in a language to be understood by the people For were the people less ignorant and heady less presumptuous and opinionative then than they are now Was not there the same danger of mistaking their sense at that time Was not the people of Israel as refractory and disobedient as any have been since Were they not as apt to quarrel with divine Laws and the authority God had set up among them Did not they fall into Sects and divers opinions by misunderstanding the Law yet were these reasons then thought sufficient for God not to make known his Law to all the people but to commit it only to Aaron and the Priests for them prudentially to dispense it to them No so far from it that strict care was taken to make the people understand it particular commands given for this very end and the Law on purpose declared to be easie and intelligible that they might not make its obscurity a pretence for their Ignorance Was not this Law given them as a rule to direct themselves by Were not all sent to this to learn to govern their actions Wherewithall shall a young man cleanse his wayes by taking heed thereto according to thy word Is not this Law said to convert the soul and to make wise the simple and was that done by not understanding it Was it not the delight exercise and continual Meditation of those who were truly devout among them But how comes our case to be so much worse under Christianity Is the Law of Christ so much more difficult and obscure than the Law of Moses Is not his Sermon on the Mount wherein he delivers the rules of a Christian Life as plain as any Chapter in Leviticus What doth the Gospel teach men but to be and to do good to love all men and to love God above all to believe in Christ and to obey his commands to repent of sins past and to live no longer in them and in short so to live in this world as they hope to live with God in happiness hereafter And are these things so hard to be understood that the people ought not to be made acquainted with them in their own language Or is there any danger they should know them too well Was ever the Law of Moses more perverted by false interpretations than in our Saviours time by the Scribes and Pharisees Why doth not he then take some other care for his own Law to prevent this for the future if that had been judged by him the proper way of cure But thereby we see the mistakes of the people are owing to their Teachers and there can be no means to prevent errours in the people but by stopping them at the fountain heads from whence they run down among them For the common people might have had a better notion of Religion if their minds had not been corrupted by the traditions and Glosses of the Pharisees Therefore methinks they have not gone the wisest way to work in the Church of Rome instead of this prudential dispensing the Scriptures their only way had been to have destroyed them as Dioclesian their predecessour in this kind of prudence once designed For let them assure themselves they who understand Greek and Latin are the
persons they have ten times more cause to fear than the common people And considering the advantage they once had by the horrible Ignorance of Priests and people it must be imputed only to the watchful eye of Divine Providence that the Scriptures being of so little use in the Roman Church have been preserved entire to our dayes There had been no such means in the world to have prevented a Reformation as this for they are not out when they take the Scripture so much for their enemy as appears by the force and restraint they put upon it and the fear and jealousie they are in about it continually If it had not been for this would any one have compared the Scriptures in the hands of the common people as my Adversary doth to a Sword in a mad mans hand Is it of so destructive a Nature and framed for no other use than a sword is which nothing but discretion keeps a man from doing mischief by and all the way a man hath though never so meek and humble to defend himself by it is by destroying his enemy with it if he continues his assault These expressions do not argue any kindness to the Scripture nor an apprehension of any great good comes to the world by it but that really men might have been more at ease and fewer differences in Religion had happened if all the Copies of the Bible had been lost assoon as the Pope had placed himself in his infallible Chair This design was once attempted as I shall shew afterwards but failed of success and I know not how far the principles of this prudence may carry them if ever such a season should fall into their hands again having found so much trouble to them from the Scriptures and so little benefit by them their Church being once owned as infallible For I would fain know whether the Scripture hath not done more mischief according to them in the hands of the Reformers than it can be supposed to do in the hands of the common people If it must be a sword in a mad mans hand whether the more strength and cunning such a one hath he be not capable of doing so much the more mischief by it And if it were possible to get it out of such a mans hands whether it were not the highest prudence and care of the publick safety to do it It can be then nothing but the impossibility of the thing which makes them suffer the Scripture to be in the hands of any who are capable of doing mischief by it and the more mischief they may do the more desirable and prudential it is to take it from them But all men see none are so capable of doing mischief thereby as men of the greatest wit and learning and that have the fairest appearance of piety to the world the consequence then of this doctrine is if pursued to the true design of it that the Scripture should be kept if possible out of the hands of the most subtle learned and pious men above all others if they be not true to the interests of the Roman Church It is but a meer shew to pretend only to keep the people in order for when are they otherwise but when cunning men have the managing of them the true meaning of this principle is that it will never be well with the World till the Books of Scripture are all burnt which are abroad and that only one Original be preserved in the Vatican to justifie the Popes title to Infallibility and that as the Sybilline Oracles of old never to be consulted but in cases of great extremity and that under the inspection of some very trusty officers nor to be interpreted but by the Pope himself If I were of the Church of Rome and owned the principles of it I must needs have condemned the great men of it in former times for want of Prudence in this matter That would have served their turn much better than forging so many decretal Epistles falsifying so many testimonies perverting so many Texts of Scripture to maintain the dignity of the Papal Chair There was only one small circumstance wanting their good will we have no cause to question and that was the possibility of it for although the Roman Church called it self Catholick they were wise enough to know there were many considerable Churches in the world besides theirs where the Scriptures were preserved and from whence copies might be procured by persons who would be so much the more inquisitive the more they were forbidden to get it Therefore they pitched upon an easier way and finding the people under a very competent degree of Ignorance they indulged them and soothed them up in it and told them they could never miss the way to Heaven though never so narrow in the dark Their only danger was too much light for then probably they might be in a great dispute whether the broad way was not the true for there they saw most of their Friends and Leaders And while they kept the people in this profound Ignorance and superstition they jogged on in their opinion as securely to Heaven as Ignatius Loyola's Mule did to Mount-serrat when he laid his Bridle on his neck to see whether he would take the way to pursue the Moor which was the more beaten track or the more craggy and untrodden way to that place of devotion and by a mighty providence and I suppose a little help of the Rider the Beast took the more narrow way But when persons began to be awakened by learning and thereby grew inquisitive in all matters and so by degrees in those of Religion they then espied their errour in letting such a Book lye abroad in so many hands from whence so many irresistible arguments were drawn against the Doctrine and practices of the Roman Church This I assure my self is the true ground of the quarrels against the Reading the Scriptures but that being now irremediable they betake themselves to smaller arts and endeavour to hinder any one particular person whom they have the least suspicion of from meddling with a Book so dangerous to their Church and Religion § 10. For if this were not it what makes them to be more jealous of the use of the Scriptures than ever the Christians were in former Ages Was there not much more danger of misunderstanding the Doctrine of the Gospel at first than ever after Nay were there not very many who were false Apostles and great and dangerous Hereticks presumptuous and arrogant if ever any were But did Christ or his Apostles for all this think it unfit to communicate the doctrine of the Gospel to the people or were the Books containing it written in Languages not to be understood by them no they chose the most popular languages of that time most largely spread and generally understood The Apostles never told their Disciples of the danger of reading the Divine Writings that were among them when they were
first spread abroad and never so proper a season to give them caution as then But instead of that they advise them to take heed to the sure word of Prophecy and that they did well therein that the Scriptures were written for their instruction and comfort that being divinely inspired they were able to make them wise unto salvation What did the Apostles never imagine all this while the ill use that might be made of them by men of perverse minds yes they knew it as well as any and did foretell Schismes and Heresies that should be in the Church and saw them in their own dayes and yet poor men wanted that exquisite prudence of the Roman Church to prevent them by so happy an expedient as when they had written Epistles to several Churches to forbid the promiscuous reading of them But it may be it was the awe of the Apostles and their infallible Spirit in interpreting Scripture made this prohibition not so necessary in their own time did the Church then find it necessary to restrain the people after their Decease We have an occasion soon after given wherein to see the opinion of the Church at that time the Church of Corinth fell into a grievous Schisme and opposition to their spiritual Governours upon this Clemens writes his Epistle to them wherein he is so far from forbidding the use of Scripture to them to preserve unity that he bidds them look diligently into the Scriptures which are the true Oracles of the Holy Ghost and afterwards take St. Pauls Epistle into your hands and consider what he saith and commends them very much for being skilled in the Scriptures Beloved saith he ye have known and very well known the holy Scriptures and ye have throughly looked into the Oracles of God therefore call them to mind Which language is as far different from that of the Roman Church as the Church of that Age is from theirs Nay the counterfeit Clemens whom they can make use of upon other occasions is as express in this matter as the true For he perswades private Christians to continual meditation in the Scriptures which he calls the Oracles of Christ and that this is the best imployment of their retirements But we need not use his testimony in this matter nor the old Edition of Ignatius wherein Parents are bid to instruct their Children in the Holy Scriptures nor that saying of Polycarp to the Philippians out of the old Latin Edition I am confident you are well studied in the Scriptures for in the Greek yet preserved he exhorts them to the reading of St. Pauls Epistles that they might be built up in the faith So little did these holy men dream of such a prudent dispensing the Scriptures among them for fear of mischief they might do themselves or others by them Clemens Alexandrinus mentions the reading the Scriptures among Christians before their Meales and Psalmes and Hymns at them and Tertullian mentions the same custome Origen in the Greek Commentaries lately published perswades Christians by all means by attending to Reading Prayer Teaching Meditation therein day and night to lay up in their hearts not only the new Oracles of the Gospell Apostles and Apocalypse but the old ones too of the Law and the Prophets And elsewhere tells his hearers they ought not to be discouraged if they met with difficulties in reading the Scriptures for there was great benefit to be had by them But lest it should be thought he speaks here only of publick reading the Scriptures in his Homilies on Leviticus he speaks plainly that he would not only have them hear the Word of God in publick but to be exercised and meditate therein in their houses night and day For Christ is every where present and therefore they are commanded in the Law to meditate therein upon their journeys and when they sit in their houses and when they lye down and rise up But had not the Church yet experience enough of the mischief of permitting the Scriptures to the people Were there ever greater and more notorious heresies than in those first ages of the Church and those arising from perverting the words and designes of the Scriptures But did the Church yet afterwards grow wiser in the sense of the Roman Church In the time of the four General Councils they had tryal enough of the mischief of Heresies but did the Fathers of the Church forbid the reading the Scriptures on that account No but instead of that they commend the Scriptures to all as the best remedy for all passions of the mind so St. Basil and St. Hierome call it and this latter commends nothing more to the Women he instructed in devotion than constant reading the Scriptures and withall they say that infinite evils do arise from ignorance of the Scriptures from hence most part of Heresies have come from hence a negligent and careless life and unfruitful labours Nay so frequent so earnest and vehement is St. Chrysostome in this matter of recommending the reading of Scriptures that those of the Roman Church have no other way to answer him but by saying he speaks hyperbolically which in plain English is he speaks too much of it But how far different were the opinions of the wise men of the Church in those times from what those have thought who understood the interest of the Roman Church best We may see what the opinion of the latter is by the counsel given to Iulius 3. by the Bishops met at Bononia for that end to give the best advice they could for restoring the dignity of the Roman See that which was the greatest and weightiest of all they said they reserved to the last which was that by all means as little of the Gospel as might be especially in the vulgar tongue be read in the Cities under his jurisdiction and that little which was in the Mass ought to be sufficient neither should it be permitted to any mortal to read more For as long as men were contented with that little all things went well with them but quite otherwise since more was commonly read For this in short is that Book say they which above all others hath raised those Tempests and Whirlewinds which we are almost carryed away with And in truth if any one diligently considers it and compares it with what is done in our Churches will find them very contrary to each other and our very doctrine not only to be different from it but repugnant to it A very fair and ingenuos confession and if self-condemned persons be Hereticks there can be none greater than those of the Roman Church especially the prudential men in it such as these certainly were whom the Pope singled out to give advice in these matters But how different is the wisdom of the Children of this world from that of the Children of Light We have already seen what another kind of judgement
with one another and although there may be many other sorts of Vnity in the Church yet the essential Vnity of the Church they tell us lyes in conjunction of the members under one Head But what becomes then of the Unity of the Roman Church in the great number of Schisms and some of long continuance among them Were they all members united under one Head when there were sometimes two sometimes three several Heads Bellaâ—mine in his Chronologie confesseth twenty six several Schisms in the Church of Rome but Onuphrius a more diligent searchâ—r into these things reckors up thirty whereof some lasted ten years some twenty one fifty years And it seems very strange to any one that hears so many boasts of Unity in the Church of Rome above others to find more Schisms in that Church than in any Patriarchal Church in the World We should think if the Bishop of Rome had been designed Head of the Church and the fountain of Vnity that it was as necessary that Church should be freed from intestine divisions on that account as to be secured from errours in faith if it had the promise of Infallibility for errours are not more contrary to infallibility than divisions are to Vnity and the same Spirit can as easily prevent Schisms as Heresies But as the errours of that Church are the clearest evidence against the pretence of infalâ—ibility so are the Schisms of it against its being the fountain of Vnity for how can that give it to the whole Church which so notoriously wanted it in it self I shall not need to insist on the more ancient Schisms between Cornelius and Novatianus and their parties between Liberius and Felix between Damasus and Vrsicinus between Bonifacius and Eulalius between Symachus and Laurentius between Bonifacius and Dioscorus between Sylverius and Vigiâ—ius and many others I shall only mention those which were of the longest continuance in that Church and do most apparently discover the divisions of it I begin with that which first brake forth in the time of Formosus who was set up A. D. 821. against Sergius whom the faction of the Marquesse of Tuscany would have made Pope but the popular faction then prevailing Sergius was forced to withdraw and Formosus with continual opposition from the other party enjoyed the Papacy four years and six months not without the blood of many of the chief Citizens of Rome slain by Arnulphus in the quarrel of Formosus After his death Boniface 6. intruded saith Baronius into the Papal See but was after fifteen dayes dispossessed by Stephanus 7. who in a Council called for that purpose nulled all the acts of Formosus deprived all those of their orders who had been ordained by him and made them be Re-ordained and not content with this he caused his body to be taken out of the Grave and placed it in the Popes Chair with the Pontifical habits on where after he had sufficiently reviled him that could not revile again he caused the three Fingers to be cut off with which he used to give Benediction and Orders and the body to be thrown into Tiber. This last part Onuphrius would have to be a fable and Andreas Victorellus from him but Baronius saith they are mistaken who say so for not only Luitprandus who lived in that Age expresly affirms it although he attributes it to Sergius upon whose account the Schism begun but the acts of the Roman Council under Iohn 9. extant in Baronius make it evident and Papirius Massonus cites other ancient Historians for it Upon this nulling the Ordinations of Formosus a great dispute was raised in the Church for many of the Bishops would not submit to re-ordination and particularly Leo Bishop of Nola to whom Auxilius writ his Book in defence of the Ordinations of Formosus a short account whereof is published by Baronius from Papyâ—ius Masso but the whole Book is now set forth from ancient Manuscript by Morinus by which we understand the controversie of that time much better than we could before Two things were chiefly objected against Formosus his Ordinations 1. That against the Canons of the Church he was translated from one See to another being Bishop of Porto before he was made Bishop of Rome 2. That having been degraded by Iohn 8. although restored by his successour Marinus and absolved from his Oath he was not capable of conferring Orders Against the first of these Auxilius shews that translation from one See to another cannot null Ordination from the testimony of Pope Anterus the example of Greg. Nazianzen Perigenes Dositheus Reverentius Palladius Alexander Meletius and many others That the Nicene Canon against translations was interpreted by the Council of Chalcedon so as not to extend to all cases and it was so understood by Pope Leo and Gelasius and however that only nulls the translation and not the ordination Against the second he pleads that supposing it not to be lawful to remove from one Episcopal See to another yet the Ordination may be valid for Formosus was not Consecrated again himself but only reconciled by Marinus that the Popes Gregory and Leo had declared against Re-ordination as much as against Re-baptizing that the Canons of the Apostles had forbidden it that the Ordinations by Acacius were allowed by Anastasius that the Bonosiaci though Hereticks had their Orders allowed them that the Cathari were admitted to the Churches Communion by the Council of Nice only with imposition of hands that though Liberius fell to the Arian Heresie yet his Ordinations afterwards were not nulled neither those of Vigilius although he stood excommunicated by Silverius and added Homicide to it that the nulling these Ordinations was to say in effect that for twenty years together they had been without the Christian Religion in Italy that none but Hereticks could assert these things that if any Popes themselves speak or act against the Catholick faith or Religion they are not to be followed in so doing This is the substance of the first Book of Auxilius which things are more largely insisted upon in the second But by that Book it appears most evidently that the Barbarous usage of the body of Formosus was most true it being expresly mentioned therein and justified by him in the Dialogue that pleads for Re-ordination And now saith Baronius began those most unhoppy times of the Roman Church which exceeded the persecutions of Heathens or Hereticks but he out of his constant good will to civil Authority lays the fault altogether upon the power of the Marquesses of Tuscany who had then too great power in Rome but he strangely admires the providence of God in keeping the Heads of the Church from Heresie all that time Alas for them they did not trouble themselves about any matters of faith at all but were wholly given over to all manner of wickedness as himself confesseth of them when Theodora that Mother of the Church of Rome ruled in chief and her
authorised by the Church such as Bishops and Presbyters are the one succeeding the Apostles the other the 72 Disciples and afterwards they deny that the Pope himself can give any power to others to meddle in the charge of a Parish or in Preaching among them but where they are invited to it because Bishops themselves cannot otherwise act out of their own Dioceses and that the Pope in this case doth injury by violating the rights of others and if he should go about to destroy what the Prophets and Apostles have taught he would erre in so doing Besides say they if these Praedicant Fryers have a liberty to Preach where they please they are all universal Bishops and because maintenance is due to all who Preach the people will be bound to pay procurations to them which will be an unreasonable burden upon them Many other Arguments they use against this new sort of Itinerant Preachers and represent the dangers that came to the Church by them at large wherein they describe them as a kind of hypocritical Sectaries that abused the people under a fair shew and pretence of Religion having as they say a form of Godliness but denying the power of it and that the persecution of the Church by them would be equal to what it was by Tyrants and open Hereticks because they are familiar enemies and do mischief under a shew of kindness And that one of the great dangers of the Church by them would be their possessing Princes and people with prejudices against the Government of the Church by the Bishops which having done they can more easily lead them into errours both against faith and a good life That their way of dealing is first with the women and by them seducing the men as the Devil first tempted Eve and by her Adam and when they have once seduced them they tye them by oathes and vows not to hearken to the counsel of their Bishops or those who have the care of their souls That the Bishops ought to suppress these and call in the publick help to do it and to purge their Dioceses of them and that if they do it not the blood of the people will be required of them and destruction will come upon them for it and though Princes and people had taken their part that ought not to discourage them but their folly ought to be made manifest to all men After this they lay down the means to be used for suppressing them and the signes for their discovery saying that they are idle persons busie bodies wandring beggars against the Apostles express command who would have all such excluded the Church as disorderly livers and therefore conclude with an earnest exhortation to all who have a care of the Church to rise up against them as the pernicious enemies of its peace and welfare All these things which are only summarily comprehended in that Book are very largely insisted upon by Gul. de Sancto Amore in another Book entituled Collections of Holy Scripture which is wholly upon this subject The Mendicant Fryers being thus assaulted endeavoured to defend themselves as well as they could and made choice of the best wits among them for their Champions such as Bonaventure and Aquinas then were who undertook their cause and were fain to shelter themselves under the plenitude of the Popes power by which means they were sure to have the Pope on their side but his Authority was here no means of Vnity for the controversie continued long after and was managed with great heat on both sides § 8. Upon the great complaint of the priviledges and exemptions which the Monastick orders had obtained from the Popes Clement 5. promised to have this business discussed in the Council of Vienna and to that end gave order to several learned men to write about it among whom particularly Durandus Mimatensis writ a large discourse not mentioned by Possevin but Printed A. D. 1545. wherein he perswades the Pope to revoke all such exemptions because they were contrary to the ancient Canons of the Church whereby from the Apostles times all places and persons whatsoever were immediately under the jurisdiction of the Bishops and that the Pope neither ought nor could change this order of the Church Because the order of Bishops being appointed to prevent Schisms in the Church it could not attain its end if any persons were exempted from their jurisdiction And if it were in the Popes power to grant such exemptions it were by no means expedient to do it because the order of the Church would be destroyed by it the Bishops contemned and the Church divided and if the Monastick Orders paid no obedience to the Bishops the people would soon learn by their example to disobey them too And supposing it had been expedient before it could not be so then because though the Monastick orders were founded in a state of poverty yet now those who were in them were arrived at such a height of intolerable pride and arrogance that not only their Abbots and Priors but the Fryers thought themselves equal to Bishops and fit to be preferred before other Ecclesiastical persons Thus far Durandus and Aegidius Romanus at the same time writ a Book against the Exemptions of Fryers Against both of them Iacobus the Abbot of the Cistercians writt a defence of Exemptions which was published in Vienna in the time of the Council This matter was hotly debated in that Council but the Pope would not yield to the revocation of them but renews a Bull of Boniface 8. for qualifying and composing the differences that had happened to the great scandal of the Church about them wherein he takes notice of several Bulls before which had taken no effect so excellent an instrument of peace is the Popes Authority and that of a long time a most grievous and dangerous discord had been between the Bishops and Parochial Clergy on one part and the Preaching Fryers on the other Therefore the Pope very wisely considering how full of danger how prejudicial to the Church how displeasing to God so great a discord was and resolving wholly to remove it for the future by his Apostolical authority doth appoint and command that the Fryers should have liberty to Preach in all Churches Places and publick Streets at any other hour but that wherein the Bishops did Preach or did command others to Preach without a particular license to Preach then A greater instance of the discords which have been in the Roman Church nor of the insufficiency of the Popes Authority for the cure of them can hardly be produced than this is The Popes were forced to say and unsay and retract their own grants to mitigate and qualifie them and all to no purpose for the differences continued as great notwithstanding them The first Pope who interposed in this quarrel was Gregory 9. who upon complaint made by the Fryers of the Bishops exercising their jurisdiction
they are expressed and that they are not equal to all but it was not fit to express it so because this would hinder peoples esteem of the Indulgence Which in plainer terms is that it is necessary to cheat the people or else there is no good to be done by Indulgences Thence Petrarch called them nets wherein the credulous multitude were caught and in the time of Boniface 9. the people observing what vast summs of money were gathered by them cryed out they were meer cheats and tricks to get money with upon which Paulus Langius a Monk exclaims O God to what are these things come Thou holdest thy peace but thou wilt not alwayes for the day of the Lord will bring the hidden things of darkness to light Conrad Vrspergensis saith that Rome might well rejoyce in the sins of the people because she grew rich by the compensation which was made for them Thou hast saith he to her that which thou hast alwayes thirsted after sing and rejoyce for thou hast conquered the world not by religion but by the wickedness of men Which is that which draws them to thee not their devotion and piety Platina saith the selling Indulgences brought the Ecclesiastical Authority into contempt and gave encouragement to many sins Vrspergensis complains that plenary Indulgences brought more wickedness into the world for he saith men did then say Let me do what wickedness I will by them I shall be free from punishment and deliver the souls of others from Purgatory Gerson saith none can give a pardon for so many years as are contained in the Popes Indulgences but Christ alone therefore what are they but cheats and impostures In Spain Indulgences were condemned by Petrus de Osma a Divine of Salamanca and his followers as appears by the Popes Bull against them A. D. 1478. In Germany by Iâ—hannes de Vesaliâ a famous Preacher of Mentz for Serrarius reckons this among the chief of his opinions that Indulgences were only pious frauds and wayes to deceive the people and that they were fools who went to Rome for them About the same time flourished Wesselus Groningensis incomparably the best Scholar of his Age and therefore called Lux mundi he was not only skilled in School Divinity almost the only learning of that time but in the Greek Hebrew Chaldee and Arabick having travelled into Greece Aegypt and been in most Vniversities of Europe and read the most ancient Authors in all kinds of learning on the account of his learning he was much in favour with Sixtus 4. and was present and admired at the Council of Basil but he was so far from being a friend to Indulgences that in his Epistles he saith that no Popes could grant an Indulgence for an hour and that it is a ridiculous thing to imagine that for the same thing done sometimes an Indulgence should be granted for 7 years sometimes for 700 sometimes for 7000 and sometimes for ever by a plenary remission and that there is not the least foundation in Scripture for the distinction of remitting the fault and the punishment upon which the doctrine of Indulgences is founded That the giving them was a design of covetousness and although the Pope once sware to the King of France's Embassadour that he did not know the corruptions of the sellers of Indulgences yet when he did know them he let them alone and they spread farther That God himself doth not give plenary remission to contrition and confession and therefore the Pope can much less do it But if God doth forgive how comes the Pope to have power to retain and if there be no punishment retained when God forgives what hath the Popeâ— to do to release Against him writes one Iacobus Angularis he confesseth there is nothing in Scripture or Antiquity expresly for Indulgences but that ought to be no argument for there are many other things owned in their Church as necessary points which have as little foundation as this viz. S. Peters being at Rome and Sacramental confession and therefore at last he takes Sanctuary in the Popes and Churches authority To this Wesselus answers that Indulgences were accounted pious frauds before the time of Albertus and Thomas that there was a great number of Divines did still oppose the errours and practices of the Court of Rome in this matter that supposing the Church were for them yet the authority of Scripture is to be preferred before it and no multitude of men whatsoever is to be believed against Scripture that he had not taken up this opinion rashly but had maintained it in Paris thirty three years before and in the Popes poenitentiary Court at Rome and was now ready to change it if he could see better reason for the contrary That the doctrine of Indulgences was delivered very confusedly and uncertainly by which it appeared to be no Catholick doctrine that it is almost impossible to find two men agree in the explication of them that the doctrine of Indulgences was so far from being firmly believed among them that there was not the strictest person of the Carthusian or other orders that should receive a plenary Indulgence at the hour of death that yet would not desire his Brethren to pray for his soul which is a plain argument he did not believe the validity of the Indulgence that many in the Court of Rome did speak more freely against them than he did That the Popes authority is very far from being infallible or being owned as such in the Church as appeared by the Divines at Paris condemning the Bull of Clement 6. about Indulgences wherein he took upon him to command the Angels and gave plenary remissions both from the fault and punishment Which authentick Bulls he saith were then to be seen at Vienne Limoges and Poictou It is notorious to the world what complaints were made in Germany after his time of the fraud of Indulgences before any other point of Religion came into dispute and how necessarily from this the Popes authority came to be questioned that being the only pretence they had to justifie them by and with what success these things were then managed it is no more purpose to write now than to prove that it is day at Noon The Council of Trent could not but confess horrible abuses in the sale of Indulgences yet what amendment hath there been since that time Bellarmin confesseth that it were better if the Church were very sparing in giving Indulgences I wonder why so if my Adversaries experience and observation be true that they prove great helps to devotion and charity Can the Church be too liberal in those things which tend to so good an end § 8. But Bellarmin would not have the people too confident of the effect of Indulgences for though the Church may have power to give them yet they may want their effect in particular persons and therefore saith he all prudent Christians do
so receive Indulgences as withall to satisfie God themselves for their sins i. e. in plain terms that all prudent Christians are too wise to believe them and none but Fools do rely on them For if there were any thing but fraud and imposture in them why may not a prudent Christian trust a Church which he believes infallible If the Head of the Church publishes an Indulgence wherein he remits to all that are confessed and contrite upon doing such actions of charity and piety the remaining temporal punishment of their sins I desire to know why a prudent Christian of that Church may not yea ought not to rely upon his word Doth he suspect the Head of his Church may cheat and abuse him if he doth what becomes of infallibility if he verily believes that the Pope cannot erre and will not deceive why must not his word be taken and how can his word be taken for the remitting of a debt when they take as much care of payment as if he had said nothing I know not how those things pass among the prudent Christians of that Church but to me they look like the greatest suspicion of a cheat that may be As suppose a great person out of kindness to one that is in danger of lying in Prison for debt gives him a note under his hand that upon the acknowledgment of his debt to his Attourney and paying him his Fees he will see his debt wholly discharged and a Friend of the Prisoner tells him openly he ought to receive that Favour in an extraordinary manner with all thankfulness for that person is one who can never fail of his word and he need not question his ability for he hath a vast treasure in his hands to be disposed of for such uses can we otherwise think but that the poor man would be strangely surprised with joy at it and if he hath any money left he will be sure to give it to the person imployed in so good a work But withall if he should secretly whisper him that he advises him as a Friend that he would look out all other wayes imaginable to satisfie his Creditours and that all prudent persons in his case had taken the same Course what must the thoughts of such a man be of such a large and noble offer Truly that the Gentleman was a great Courtier but a man must have a care of believing him too far and his Friend understood the world and that one thing was to be said and done in shew not to disoblige so great a person but for all that a man must mind his own business or he may be choused at last if he trust too far to such large promises This is just the case of Indulgences in the Roman Church a man is affrighted with the dreadful Prison of Purgatory as the temporal punishment of his sins which God will certainly exact from him either here by satisfactions and penances or there in the pains of that state while the man considers with himself the hardness of his condition he hears of Indulgences to be had and after he hath enquired the meaning of them is very well satisfied that if he can get one of them he shall do well enough For he is told that his Holiness is infallible and that he cannot cheat or lye or deceive like other men and therefore of all persons in the world he would soonest trust him but because many others are in the same condition with him he may a little question whether his stock will hold out or no here his Friends assure him the Treasure of the Church of which the Pope hath the Keys is so large that if it were a thousand times more he need not fear it only he must confess his sins and have contrition for them and do some charitable acts and pay some customary fees and duties and he shall have a total discharge Well sayes the man in a transport of joy this is the bravest Church in the world for a man to sin in if he may escape thus and what need I question since the Pope is infallible and the treasury of the Church is inexhaustible how am I freed now not only from the fears of Hell and Purgatory but from crabbed and hateful penances that honest and kind-hearted Gentleman the Pope hath struck a tally for me in his Exchequer and I shall have my share in my course and order without lashings and whippings and fastings and mumblings and I know not how many odd tricks besides but soft and fair saith Bellarmins prudent Christian to him be not too confident of your ease and discharge you must use as great severities with your self and undergoe as many penances and say as many Prayers as if you had no Indulgence at all Say you so I pray what benefit then have I saith he by this which you call an Indulgence what is it an Indulgence of Is there not a full remission of sins contained in it and I have been always told by that is meant the discharge of the temporary punishment due to sin either here or in Purgatory Shall I be discharged or shall I not upon it if I shall what do you tell me of that which I am discharged from if not the Indulgence is a spiritual Trapan and the Pope and Infallible Cheat. I cannot see how a man can think otherwise that made such account of the great benefit of Indulgences and at last finds they come to nothing but deceiving the people and getting money § 9. By this we see already what miserable shifts they are put to who defend Indulgences but as an honest contract but they who will justifie them as containing something divine and satisfactory for the punishment of mens sins are fain to build the doctrine of them upon such absurd and unintelligible notions that it is almost as hard to understand as to believe it It cannot be denyed that there are some in the Church of Rome whose doctrine of Indulgences is easie enough but then it marrs the whole Markett and this doctrine is therefore condemned by others as heretical in sense Which is that Indulgences are nothing else but a relaxation of the ancient severity of Church discipline according to the old Penitential Canons which doth not respect the justice of God but the Discipline of the Church over offenders This is a doctrine we have nothing to complain of the difficulty of understanding but we know not to what purpose if this be all any particular Indulgences are ever given since there is so general an Indulgence by the practice of the whole Church among them wherein they cannot pretend to observe any of the old Penitential Canons And to give a man an Indulgence to omit that which no body requires and is wholly out of use would be like the Kings giving a man a Patent not to wear Trunk-hose and Ruffs when it would be ridiculous to use them And if this were all intended
Fornication Indeed he saith that this falling from that holy chastity which was vowed to God may in some sense be said to be worse than Adultery but he never imagined such a construction could be made of his words as though the act of Fornication were not a greater falling from it than meer marriage could be So much shall suffice for the Instances produced in the Roman Church of such things which tend to obstruct a good life and devotion § 14. The 3. argument I used to prove the danger a person runs of his salvation in the communion of the Roman Church was because it exposeth the faith of Christians to so great uncertainties which he looks on as a strange charge from the Pen of a Protestant As strange as it is I have at large proved it true in a full examination of the whole Controversie of the Resolution of faith between us and them to which I expect a particular Answer before this charge be renewed again To which I must refer him for the main proof of it and shall here subjoyn only short replyes to his Answers or references to what is fully answered already 1. His distinction of the authority of the Scripture in it self and to us signifies nothing for when we enquire into the proofs of the Authority of Scripture it can be understood no otherwise than in respect to us and if the Scriptures Authority as to us is to be proved by the Church and the Churches Authority as to us to be provved by the Scripture the difficulty is not in the least avoided by that distinction And as little to the purpose is the other that it is only an argument ad hominem to prove the Infallibility of the Church from Scriptures for I would fain know upon what other grounds they build their own belief of the Churches Infallibility than on the Promises of Christ in the Scripture These are miserable evasions and nothing else For the trite saying of S. Austin that he would not believe the Gospel c. I have at large proved that the meaning of it is no more than that the Testimony of the Vniversal Church from the Apostles times is the best way to prove the particular books of Scripture to be authentical and cannot be understood of the Infallibility of the present Church and that the testimony of some few persons as the Manichees were was not to be taken in opposition to the whole Christian Church Which is a thing we as much contend for as they but is far enough from making the Infallibility of our faith to depend on the Authority of the present Church which we say is the way to overthrow all certainty of faith to any considering man 2. To that of overthrowing the certainty of sense in the doctrine of transubstantiation he saith that divine revelation ought to be believed against the evidence of sense To which I answer 1. that divine revelation in matters not capable of being judged by our senses is to be believed notwithstanding any argument can be drawn from sensible experiments against it as in the belief of God the doctrine of the Trinity the future state of the soul c. 2. that in the proper objects of sense to suppose a Revelation contrary to the evidence of sense is to overthrow all certainty of faith where the matters to be believed depend upon matters of fact As for Instance the truth of the whole Christian doctrine depends upon the truth of Christs resurrection from the dead if sense be not here to be believed in a proper object of it what assurance can we have that the Apostles were not deceived when they said they saw Christ after he was risen If it be said there was no revelation against sense in that case that doth not take off the difficulty for the reason why I am to believe revelation at any time against sense must be because sense may be deceived but revelation cannot but if I yield to that principle that sense may be deceived in its most proper object we can have no infallible certainty by sense at all and consequently not in that point that Christ is risen from the dead If it be said that sense cannot be deceived where there is no revelation against it I desire to know how it comes to be deceived supposing a revelation contrary to it Doth God impose upon our senses at that time then he plainly deceives us is it by telling us we ought to believe more than we see that we deny not but we desire only to believe according to our senses in what we doe see as what we see to be bread that is bread that what the Apostles saw to be the body of Christ was the body of Christ really and substantially and not meerly the accidents of a body Besides if revelation is to be believed against sense then either that revelation is conveyed immediately to our minds which is to make every one a Prophet that believes transubstantiation or mediately by our senses as in those words this is my body if so than I am to believe this revelation by my senses and believing this revelation I am not to believe my senses which is an excellent way of making faith certain All this on supposition there were a revelation in this case which is not only false but if it were true would overthrow the certainty of faith 3. To that I objected as to their denying to men the use of their judgement and reason as to the matters of faith proposed by a Church when they must use it in the choice of a Church he answers that this cannot expose faith to any uncertainty because it is only preferring the Churches judgement before our own but he doth not seem to understand the force of my objection which lay in this Every one must use his own judgement and reason in the choice of the Church he is to rely upon is he certain in this or not if he be uncertain all that he receives on the Authority of that Church must be uncertain too if the use of reason be certain then how comes the Authority of a Church to be a necessary means of certainty in matters of faith And they who condemn the use of a mans reason and judgement in Religion must overthrow all certainty on their own grounds since the choice of his Infallible Guide must depend upon it Now he understands my argument better he may know better how to answer it but I assure him I meant no such thing by the use of reason as he supposes I would have which is to believe nothing but what my reason can comprehend for I believe an Infinite Being and all the Doctrines revealed by it in Holy Scriptures although I cannot reconcile all particulars concerning them to those conceptions we call reason But therefore to argue against the use of mens judgements in matters of faith and the grounds of believing is to dispute against that which
A DISCOURSE Concerning the IDOLATRY Practised in the CHURCH OF ROME AND The danger of Salvation in the Communion of it in answer to some Papers of a Revolted Protestant WHEREIN A particular Account is given of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. LONDON Printed by Robert White for Henry Mortlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall 1671. THE PREFACE ALthough I see no great effect of the Courtship commonly used towards the Candid and Ingenuous Reader unless it be in diverting the censure from the Book to the Preface yet in some cases it looks like a breach of the Readers priviledge not to give him an account of the occasion and design of a Book Especially when the matter handled therein hath been thought so often discussed and is of so general concernment that every pretender thinks he knows as much already as is to be known in it But we really find no greater advantage hath been given to our Adversaries than this that the things in dispute between us are generally no better understood by the persons they have their designs upon For assoon as they have baffled their ignorance and mistakes these have been ready to yield up themselves and the Cause imagining nothing more could be said for it than they could say for themselves Whereby our Church hath not only suffered in its reputation as far as that is concerned in the weakness of some of its members but strange boasts and triumphs have been made by those of the Church of Rome when such who understood not their own Religion have embraced theirs While these disputes were fresh in the world every one thought himself concerned to enquire into them but since our Church hath been so long established on the principles of the Reformation and other unhappy controversies have risen up the most have taken this Cause for granted and thought it needless to enquire any farther into the Grounds of it Which our Adversaries perceiving they have found far greater success in their attempts upon particular persons than in publick Writings for these have only provoked others to lay open the palpable weakness of their Cause whereas in the other by their wayes of Address and all the arts of Insinuation they have instilled their principles into the minds of some less judicious persons before they were aware of it Thence it is easie to observe that the greatest mischief they have done hath been like the Pestilence by walking in darkness and spreading their infection by whispers in corners All their hopes and strength lye in the weakness and credulity of the persons they deal with but if they meet with any who truly understand the differences between us they soon give them over as untractable But to such whose employments have not given them leave to enquire or whose capacity hath not been great enough to discern their Sophistry their first work is to make a false representation both of the Doctrines and practices of their Church and if they be of such easie faith to believe them they from thence perswade them into an ill opinion of their Teachers who possessed them with so bad thoughts of such a Church as theirs A Church of so great Holiness as may be seen by the Saint-like lives of their Popes and Converts a Church of so great Antiquity bating only the Primitive times a Church of so admirable Unity saving the divisions in it a Church so free from any Fanatick heats as any one may believe that will If this first assault doth not make them yield but they desire at least time to consider and advise in a matter of so great importance then they tell them there is not a man of our Church dares give any of them a meeting if they offer to puâ— it to a tryal they will appoint a day which they foresee will be most inconvenient for the persons they are to meet with If upon that account it be declined or deferred this is spred abroad for a Victory if it be accepted then one thing or other happens that they cannot come either the person goes out of Town unexpectedly or his Superiours have forbidden him or such conferences are not safe for them they are so sorely persecuted or at last what good can an hours talk do to satisfie any one in matters of Religion But if there be no remedy which they are seldome without and a conference happen which they scarce ever yield to but when they are sure of the person for whose sake it is then whosoever was baffled they are sure to go away with the triumph and as an evidence of it such a person went off from our Church upon it which was made sure of their side before If this way takes not then a sett of Questions is ready to be sent if another be returned to them to be answered at the same time this is declined and complained of as hard dealing as though they had only the priviledge of putting Questions and we the duty of answering them If answers be given to them after a Pass or two they put an end to the tryal of their skill in that place and seek for another to shew it in But if the Papers chance to be slighted or business hinders a present answer or there be a reasonable presumption that the person concerned hath already forsaken our Church this becomes the occasion of a new triumph the Papers are accounted unanswerable as the Spanish Armado was called invincible which we thank God we found to be otherwise and it may be are demanded again as Trophies to be preserved for the glory of the Catholick Cause All these several wayes I have had experience of in the compass of a few years since by command I was publickly engaged in the Defence of so excellent a Cause as that of our Church against the Church of Rome I confess it seemed somewhat hard to me to be put to answer so many several Papers which I have received upon their tampering with particular persons of our Church while my Book it self remained unanswered by them after so many years of trying their strength about it For those two who in some small measure have attempted it have performed it in the way that Ratts answer Books by gnawing some of the leaves of them for the body and design of it remains wholly untouched by them But for the satisfaction of any person who desired it I was not willing to decline any service which tended to so good an end as the preserving any member of our Church in the communion of it Which was the occasion of this present writing For some time since the person concerned after some discourses with her brought me the two Questions mentioned in the beginning of the Book to which I returned a speedy answer in the midst of many other employments not long after I received the
Reply but hearing for a great while no further of the person for whose sake this Discourse began and having affairs more than enough to take up my time I laid aside the Papers supposing that business at an end But about Christmass last they were called for by a near Friend of the party concerned and a personal Conference being declined an intimation was given me that the Papers were thought unanswerable I began to fear so too for at first I could not find them but assoon as I did I found the great improvement they had made by lying so long for what at first I looked on as inconsiderable was in that time thought to be too strong to be meddled with and I could not tell what they might come to in time if I let them alone any longer And I was informed by a worthy person that I. S. the man of confidence and principles had expressed great wonder I had not answered them as though we had no cause to wonder that the noble Science of Controversie should be so abandoned by him and that a man of such mettal should all this while leave his poor demonstrations alone to defend themselves Vpon these suggestions I resolved as fast as other imployments would give leave for we are not those happy men to have only one thing to mind to give a full and punctual answer to them Which I have now made publick and printed the Papers themselves at large that my Adversary may not complain of any injury done him by mis-representing his words or meaning And besides other reasons I the rather chose to appear in publick to draw them from their present way of pickeering and lying under hedges to take advantage of some stragling members of our Church not so able to defend themselves and whom they rather steal from us than conquer being blinded with their smoke more than overcome by any strength of argument If they have any thing to say either against our Church or in Defence of their own let them come into the open Field from which they have of late so wisely withdrawn themselves finding so little success in it And since these Disputes must be I am very well pleased that the Adversary I have now to deal with hath the Character of a Learned and Ingenuous man and I do not desire he should lose it in the Debate between us hoping that nothing shall proceed from me but what becomes a fair and ingenuous Adversary If I were not fully satisfied that we have truth and reason on our side I should never have been engaged in these combats I am so great a friend to the peace of the Christian world that I could take more pleasure in ending one Controversie than in being able to handle as many as the most Voluminous Schoolmen have ever done For however Noble some may think the Science of Controversie to be I am not fond of the practice of it especially being managed with so much heat and passion such scorn and contempt of Adversaries so many reproaches and personal reflections as they commonly are as if men forgot to be Christians when they began to be Disputants I do not think it such a mighty matter to throw dirt in a mans face and then to laugh at him or rather to take a Metaphor now from dry weather to raise such a dust as may endanger the eye-sight of weaker persons I think it no great skill to make things appear either ridiculous or dark but to give them their due Colours and set them in the clearest light shewes far more art and ingenuity And even that smartness of expression without which Controversie will hardly go down with many seems but like the throwing Vinegar upon hot Coals which gives a quick scent for the present but vanishes immediately into smoke and air In matters of Truth and Religion reason and evidence ought to sway men and not passion and noise and though men cannot command their judgements they may and ought to do their expressions And although this looks as like an Apologie for a dull Book as may be yet I had much rather it should suffer for want of wit and smartness than of good nature and Christianity My design is to represent the matters in difference between us truly to report faithfully and to argue closely and by these to shew that no person can have any pretence of reason to leave our Church to embrace the communion of the Church of Rome because the danger is so much greater there in the nature of their Worship and tendency of their doctrine and what they object most against us in point of Fanaticism and divisions will equally hold against them so that they have no advantages above us but have many apparent dangers which we have not Among the chiefest dangers in the communion of that Church I have insisted on that of Idolatry not to make the breach wider than some others have done but to let persons first understand the greatness of the danger before they run into it I wish I could acquit them from so heavy a charge but I cannot force my judgement and while I think them guilty it would be unfaithfulness in me not to warn those of it whom it most concerns to understand it And where other things are subtle and nice tedious and obscure this lyes plain to the conscience of every man if the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry our separation can be no Schism either before God or man because our communion would be a sin And although it may be only an excess of charity in some few learned persons to excuse that Church from Idolatry although not all who live in the communion of it yet upon the greatest search I can make I think there is more of charity than judgement in so doing For the proof of it I must refer the Reader to the following Discourse but that I may not be thought in so severe a censure to contradict the sense of our Church which I have so great a regard to I shall here shew that this charge of Idolatry hath been managed against the Church of Rome by the greatest and most learned defenders of it ever since the Reformation What greater discovery can be made of the sense of our Church than by the Book of Homilies not barely allowed but subscribed to as containing godly and wholsom doctrine and necessary for these times and nothing can be more plainly delivered therein than that the Church of Rome is condemned for Idolatry So the third part of the Sermon against the peril of Idolatry concludes Ye have heard it evidently proved in these Homilies against Idolatry by Gods Word the Doctors of the Church Ecclesiastical Histories reason and experience that Images have been and be worshipped and so Idolatry committed to them to the great offence of Gods Majesty and danger of infinite souls c. Who the Author of these Homilies was is not material
to enquire since their authority depends not on the Writer but the Churches approbation of them but Dr. Jackson not only calls him the worthy and learned Author of the Homilies concerning the peril of Idolatry but saith he takes him to be a Reverend Bishop of our Church and no wonder since the most eminent Bishops in that time of Queen Elizabeth wherein these Homilies were added to the former did all assert and maintain the same thing As Bishop Jewell in his excellent Defence of the Apology of the Church of England and Answer to Harding wherein he proves that to give the honour of God to a creature is manifest Idolatry as the Papists do saith he in adoration of the Host and the Worship of Images And his works ought to be looked on with a higher esteem than any other private person being commanded to be placed in Churches to be read by the people Of all persons of that Age none could be less suspected to be Puritanically inclined than Archbishop Whitgift yet in his Learned Defence of the Church of England against T. C. he makes good the same charge in these words I do as much mislike the distinction of the Papists and the intent of it as any man doth neither do I go about to excuse them from wicked and without repentance and Gods singular mercy damnable Idolatry There are saith he three kinds of Idolatry one is when the true God is worshipped by other means and wayes than he hath prescribed or would be worshipped i. e. against his express command which is certainly his meaning the other is when the true God is worshipped with false Gods the third is when we worship false Gods either in heart mind or in external creatures living or dead and altogether forget the worship of the true God All these three kinds are detestable but the first is the least and the last is the worst The Papists worship God otherwise than his will is and otherwise than he hath prescribed almost in all points of their worship they also give to the creature that which is due to the Creator and sin against the first Table yet are they not for all that I can see or learn in the third kind of Idolatry and therefore if they repent unfeignedly they are not to be cast either out of the Church or out of the Ministry The Papists have little cause to thank me or fee me for any thing I have spoken in their behalf as yet you see that I place them among wicked and damnable Idolaters Thus far that Wise and Learned Bishop After him we may justly reckon Bishop Bilson than whom none did more learnedly in that time defend the perpetual Government of Christs Church by Bishops nor it may be since who in a set discourse at large proves the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry 1. In the Worship of Images the having of which he saith was never Catholick and the worshipping of them was ever wicked by the judgement of Christs Church and that the Worship even of the Image of Christs is Heathenism Idolatry to Worship it makes it an Idol and burning Incense to it is Idolatry which he there proves at large and that the Image of God made with hands is a false God and no likeness of his but a leud imagination of theirs set up to feed their eyes with the contempt of his Sacred Will dishonour of his Holy Name and open injury to his Divine Nature 2. In the adoration of the Host of which he treats at large After these it will be less needful to produce the testimonies of Dr. Fulk Dr. Reynolds Dr. Whitaker who all asserted and proved the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry and I cannot find one person who owned himself to be of the Church of England in all Queen Elizabeths reign who did make any doubt of it Let us now come to the reign of King James and here in the first place we ought to set down the judgement of that Learned Prince himself who so throughly understood the matters in controversie between us and the Church of Rome as appears by his Premonition to all Christian Princes wherein after speaking of other points he comes to that of Reliques of Saints But for the worshipping either of them or Images I must saith he account it damnable Idolatry and after adds that the Scriptures are so directly vehemently and punctually against it as I wonder what brain of man or suggestion of Satan durst offer it to Christians and all must be salved with nice and philosophical distinctions Let them therefore that maintain this doctrine answer it to Christ at the latter day when he shall accuse them of Idolatry and then I doubt if he will be paid with such nice Sophistical distinctions And when Isaac Casaubon was employed by him to deliver his opinion to Cardinal Perron mentioning the practices of the Church of Rome in invocation of Saints he saith that the Church of England did affirm that those practices were joyned with great impiety Bishop Andrews whom no man suspects of want of learning or not understanding the doctrine of our Church was also employed to answer Cardinal Bellarmin who had writ against the King and doth he decline charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry No so far from it that he not only in plain terms charges them with it but saith that Bellarmin runs into Heresie nay into madness to defend it and in his answer to Perron he saith it is most evident by their Breviaries Hours and Rosaries that they pray directly absolutely and finally to Saints and not meerly to the Saints to pray to God for them but to give what they pray for themselves In the same time of King James Bishop Abbot writ his Answer to Bishop in which he saith that the Church of Rome by the Worship of Images hath matched all the Idolatries of the Heathens and brought all their jugling devices into the Church abusing the ignorance and simplicity of the people as grosly and damnably as ever they did Towards the latter end of his Reign came forth Bishop Whites Reply to Fisher he calls the worshipping of Images a Superstitious dotage a palliate Idolatry a remainder of Paganism condemned by Sacred Scripture censured by Primitive Fathers and a Seminary of direful contention and mischief in the Church of Christ. Dr. Field chargeth the Invocation of Saints with such Superstition and Idolatry as cannot be excused We charge the adherents of the Church of Rome with gross Idolatry saith Bishop Usher in his Sermon preached before the Commons A. D. 1620. because that contrary to Gods express Commandment they are sound to be worshippers of Images Neither will it avail them here to say that the Idolatry forbidden in the Scripture is that only which was used by the Jews and Pagans For as well might one plead that Jewish
after the time of Formosus wherein his Ordinations were nulled by his successors the Popes opposition to each other in that Age the miserable state of that Church then described Of the Schisms of latter times by the Italick and Gallick factions the long continuance of them The mischief of those Schisms on their own principles Of the divisions in that Church about the matters of Order and Government The differences between the Bishops and the Monastick Orders about exemptions and priviledges the history of that Controversie and the bad success the Popes had in attempting to compose it Of the quarrel between the Regulars and Seculars in England The continuance of that Controversie here and in France The Jesuits enmity to the Episcopal Order and jurisdiction the hard case of the Bishop of Angelopolis in America The Popes still favour the Regulars as much as they dare The Jesuits way of converting the Chinese discovered by that Bishop Of the differences in matters of Doctrine in that Church They have no better way to compose them than we The Popes Authority never truly ended one Controversie among them Their wayes to evade the decisions of Popes and Councils Their dissensions are about matters of faith The wayes taken to excuse their own difference will make none between them and us manifested by Sancta Clara's exposition oâ— the 39. Articles Their disputes not confined to their Schools proved by a particular instance about the immaculate conception the infinite scandals confessed by theiâ— own Authors to have been in their Church about it From all which it appears that the Church of Rome can have no advantage in point of Vnity above ours p. 355 CHAP. VI. An Answer to the Remainder of the Reply The mis-interpreting Scripture doth not hinder its being a rule of faith Of the superstitious observations of the Roman Church Of Indulgences the practice of them in what time begun on what occasion and in what terms granted Of the Indulgences in Iubilees in the Churches at Rome and upon saying some Prayers Instances of them produced What opinion hath been had of Indulgences in the Church of Rome some confess they have no foundation in Scripture or Antiquity others that they are pious frauds the miserable shifts the defenders of indulgences were put to plain evidences of their fraud from the Disputes of the Schools about them The treasure of the Church invented by Aquinas and on what occasion The wickedness of men increased by Indulgences acknowledged by their own Writers and therefore condemned by many of that Church Of Bellarmins prudent Christians opinion of them Indulgences no meer relaxations of Canonical Penance The great absurdity of the doctrine of the Churches Treasure on which Indulgences are founded at large manifested The tendency of them to destroy devotion proved by experience and the nature of the Doctrine Of Communion in one kind no devotion in opposing an Institution of Christ. Of the Popes power of dispensing contrary to the Law of God in Oaths and Marriages The ill consequence of asserting Marriage in a Priest to be worse than Fornication as it is in the Church of Rome Of the uncertainty of faith therein How far revelation to be believed against sense The arguments to prove the uncertainty of their faith defended The case of a revolter and a bred Papist compared as to salvation and the greater danger of one than the other proved The motives of the Roman Church considered those laid down by Bishop Taylor fully answered by himself An account of the faith of Protestants laid down in the way of Principles wherein the grounds and nature of our certainty of faith are cleared And from the whole concluded that there can be no reasonable cause to forsake the communion of the Church of England and to embrace that of the Church of Rome p. 476 ERRATA PAg. 25. l. 19. for adjuverit r. adjuvet p. ibid. Marg. r. l. 7. de baptis p. 31. Marg. r. Tract 18. in Ioh. p. 64. l. 13. dele only p. 75. Marg. r. Trigaut p. 101. l. 24. for I am r. am I p. 119. l. 28. for is r. in p. 135. Marg. for 68. r. 6. 8. p. 162. l. 17. after did put not Ch. 3. for pennance r. penance p. 219. l. 10. for him r. them p. 257. l. 21. for or r. and l. 31. for never r. ever p. 350. l. 21. for their r. the p. 414. l. 18. for these r. their p. 416. Marg. for nibaldi r. Sinibaldi p. 417. l. 2. before another insert one p. 499. l. 16. after not insert at p. 526. Marg. for act r. art p. 546. l. 8. after for insert one Two Questions proposed by one of the Church of Rome WHether a Protestant haveing the same Motives to become a Catholick which one bred and born and well grounded in the Catholick Religion hath to remain in it may not equally be saved in the profession of it 2. Whether it be sufficient to be a Christian in the abstract or in the whole latitude or there be a necessity of being a member of some distinct Church or Congregation of Christians Answer The first Question being supposed to be put concerning a Protestant yet continuing so doth imply a contradiction viz. That a Protestant continuing so should have the same Motives to become a Catholick takeing that term here only as signifying one of the communion of the Church of Rome which those have who have been born or bred in that communion But supposing the meaning of the Question to be this Whether a Protestant leaving the communion of our Church upon the Motives used by those of the Roman Church may not be equally saved with those who are bred in it I answer 1. That an equal capacity of salvation of those persons being supposed can be no argument to leave the communion of a Church wherein salvation of a person may be much more safe than of either of them No more than it is for a man to leap from the plain ground into a Ship that is in danger of being wrackt because he may equally hope to be saved with those who are in it Nay supposing an equal capacity of salvation in two several Churches there can be no reason to forsake the communion of the one for the other So that to perswade any one to leave our Church to embrace that of Rome it is by no means sufficient to ask whether such a one may not as well be saved as they that are in it already but it is necessary that they prove that it is of necessity to salvation to leave our Church and become a member of theirs And when they do this I intend to be one of their number 2. We assert that all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace it or continue in it And that upon these grounds 1. Because they must
Martyrs with that Worship of love and society with which even in this life also holy men of God are worshipped whose heart we judge prepared to suffer the like Martyrdom for the truth of the Gospel But we worship them so much the more devoutly because more securely after they have overcome all the Incertainties of this world as also we praise them more confidently now reigning Conquerors in a more happy life than whilst they were sighting in this but with that Worship which in Greek is called Latria and cannot be expressed by one word in Latin for as much as it is a certain service properly due to the Divinity we neither worship them nor teach them to be worshipped but God alone Now whereas the offering of Sacrifice belongs to this Worship of Latria from whence they are called Idolaters who gave it also to Idols by no means do we suffer any such thing or command it to be offered to any Martyr or any holy soul or any Angel And whosoever declines into this Error we reprove him by sound Doctrine either that he may be corrected or avoided And a little after It is a much less sin for a man to be derided by the Martyrs for drunkenness then ever fasting to offer Sacrifice to them I say to sacrifice to Martyrs I say not to sacrifice to God in the memories or Churches of the Martyrs which we do most frequently by that rite alone by which in the manifestation of the New Testament he hath commanded Sacrifice to be offered to him which belongs to that Worship which is called Latria and is due only to God This was the Doctrine and practice of Christian people in St. Augustines time and that he himself held formal Invocations a part of the Worship due to Saints is evident from the prayer he made to St. Cyprian after his Martyrdom Adjuveritque nos Beatus Cyprianus orationibus suis c. Let Blessed Cyprian therefore help us who are still encompassed with this mortal flesh and labour as in a dark cloud with his prayer that by Gods grace we may as far as we are able imitate his good works Thus St. Austin where you see he directs his prayer to St. Cyprian which I take to be formal invocation and for a further confirmation of it we have the ingenuous Confession of Calvin himself Instit. li. 3. ch 20. n. 22. where speaking of the third Council of Carthage in which St. Austin was present he acknowledged it was the custom at that time to say Sancta Maria aut Sancte Petre Ora pro nobis Holy Mary or Holy Peter pray for us But now Madam what if after all this he himself shall deny that any of the opposite Tenets are Articles of his faith viz. That honour is not to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints that what appears to be bread in the Eucharist is not the body of Christ That it is not lawful to invocate the Saints to pray for us Press him close and I believe you shall find him deny that he believes any one of these Negative points to be Divine truths and if so you will easily see his charge of Idolatry against us to be vain and groundless Having thus given a direct and punctual answer to his argument I must now expect as much charity from him as is consistent with Scripture and Reason How much that is you will see in his third Answer to the first Question But to proceed § 8. He brings a Miscellany of such opinions and practices as he calls them which are very apt to hinder a good life and therefore none who have a care of their salvation can venture their souls in the communion of such a Church which either enjoyns or publickly allows them He reckons up no less than ten 1. That we destroy the necessity of good life by makeing the Sacrament of Penance that is confession and absolution joyned with contrition sufficient for salvation And do not Protestants make contrition alone which is less sufficient for salvation But perhaps the joyning of confession and absolution with contrition makes it of a malignant nature If so certainly when the Book of Common Prayer in the visitation of the sick enjoyns the sick man if he find his conscience troubled with any weighty matter to make a special confession and receive absolution from the Priest in the same words the Catholick Church uses it prescribes him that as a means to prepare himself for a holy death which in the judgement of the Objector destroyes the necessity of good life 2. Catholicks he sayes take off the care of good life by supposing an expiation of sin by the prayer of the living after death But certainly the belief of temporal pains to be sustained after death if there be not a perfect expiation of sin in this life by works of penance is rather apt to make a man careful not to commit the least sin than to take off the care of a good life And though he be ascertained by faith that he may be holpen by the charitable suffrages of the faithful living yet this is no more encouragement to him to sin than it would be to a Spendthrift to run into debt and be cast into Prison because he knows he may be relieved by the charity of his Friends If he were sure there were no Prison for him that would be an encouragement indeed to play the Spend-thrift And this is the case of the Protestants in their denyal of Purgatory 3. The sincerity of Devotion he sayes is much obstructed by prayers in a language which many understand not If he speak of private prayers all Catholicks are taught to say them in their Mother Tongue If of the publick prayers of the Church I understand not why it may not be done with as much sincerity of devotion the people joyning their intention and particular prayers with the Priest as their Embassador to God as if they understood him I am sure the effects of a sincere devotion for nine hundred years together which this manner of Worship produced in this Nation were much different from those we have seen since the readucing of the publick Lyturgie into English as is manifest from those Monuments which yet remain of Churches Colledges Religious Houses c. with their endowments and in the conversion of many Nations from Heathenism to Christianity effected by the labours and zeal of English Missionaries in those times c. But this is a matter of Discipline and so not to be regulated by the fancies of private men but the judgement of the Church and so universal hath this practice been both in the Primitive Greek and Latine Churches and is still by the confession of the Protestant Authors themselves of the Bible of many Languages Printed at London Anno 1655. in most of the Sects of Christians to have not only the Scriptures but also the Liturgies and Rituals in a Tongue unknown but to
the Learned among them that who will dispute against it must prepare himself to hear the censure of St. Austin Ep. 118. where he saith That it is a point of most insolent madness to dispute whether that be to be observed which is frequented by the whole Church through the world 4. He sayes The sincerity of Devotion is much obstructed by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration whether our minds be prepared for them or not In what Council this Doctrine was defined I never read but as for the Sacrament of Penance which I suppose he chiefly aims at I read in the Council of Trent Sess. 14. Falso quidam calumniantur That some do falsly calumniate Catholick Writers as if they taught the Sacrament of Penance did confer Grace without the good motion of the receiver which the Church of God never taught nor thought But I am rather inclined to look upon this as a mistake than a calumny in the Objector 5. He sayes The sincerity of devotion is much obstructed by discouraging the reading of Scriptures which is our most certain Rule of Faith and Life Here he calls the Churches prudential dispensing the reading of Scripture to persons whom she judges fit and disposed for it and not to such whom she judges in a condition to receive or do harm by it a discouraging the reading of Scriptures which is no other than whereas St. Paul Coloss. 3. 21. enjoyns Fathers not to provoke their children lest they be discouraged one should reprove a Father for discouraging his child because he will not put a Knife or Sword into his hands when he foresees he will do mischief with it to himself or others the Scriptures in the hands of a meek and humble soul who submits its judgement in the interpretation of it to that of the Church is a Sword to defend it but in the hands of an arrogant and presumptuous Spirit that hath no Guide to interpret it but it s own fancy or passion it is a dangerous Weapon with which he will wound both himself and others The first that permitted promiscuous reading of Scripture in our Nation was King Henry the eighth and many years were not passed but he found the ill consequences of it for in a Book set forth by him in the year 1542. he complains in the Preface That he found entred into some of his peoples hearts an inclination to sinister understanding of it presumption arrogancy carnal liberty and contention which he compares to the seven worse Spirits in the Gospel with which the Devil entred into the house that was purged and cleansed Whereupon he declares that for that part of the Church ordained to be taught that is the Lay people it ought not to be denyed certainly that the reading of the Old and New Testament is not so necessary for all those folks that of duty they ought and be bound to read it but as the Prince and Policy of the Realm shall think convenient so to be tolerated or taken from it Consonant whereunto saith he the Politick Law of our Realm hath now restrained it from a great many This was the judgement of him who first took upon him the Title of Head of the Church of England and if that ought not to have been followed in after times let the dire effects of so many new Sects and Fanaticisms as have risen in England from the reading of it bear witness For as St. Austin sayes Neque enim natae sunt Haereses Heresies have no other Origen but hence that the Scriptures which in themselves are good are not well understood and what is understood amiss in them is rashly and boldly asserted viz. to be the sense of them And now whether the Scriptures left to the private interpretation of every fanciful spirit as it is among Protestants be a most certain Rule of Faith and Life I leave to your self to judge 6. He sayes The sincerity of devotion is much obstructed by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church as he is ready to defend he should have said to prove for we deny any such to be used in the Church 7. By the gross abuse of people in Pardons and Indulgences Against this I can assert as an eye-witness the great devotion caused by the wholsome use of Indulgences in Catholick Countreys there being no Indulgence ordinarily granted but enjoyns him that will avail himself of it to confess his sins to receive the Sacraments to pray fast and give alms all which duties are with great devotion performed by Catholick people which without the incitement of an Indulgence had possibly been left undone 8. He sayes The sincerity of devotion is much obstructed by denying the Cup to the Laity contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn celebration of the Eucharist for a thousand years after Christ. This thousand years after Christ makes a great noise as if it were not as much in the power of the Church a thousand years after Christ as well as in the first or second Century to alter and change things of their own nature indifferent such as the communicating under one or both kinds was ever held to be by Catholicks But although the Cup were not then denyed to the Laity yet that the custome of receiving but under one kind was permitted even in the primitive Church in private communions the objector seems to grant becasue he speaks only of the Administration of it in the solemn Celebration and that it was also in use in publick Communions is evident from Examples of that time both in the Greek Church in the time of St. Chrysostome and of the Latin in the time of St. Leo the great As for the pretended obstruction of Devotion you must know Catholicks believe that under either species or kind whole Christ true God and man is contained and received and if it be accounted an hindrance to devotion to receive the total refection of our soul though but under one kind what must it be to believe that I receive him under neither but instead of him have Elements of Bread and Wine Surely nothing can be more efficacious to stir up Reverence and Devotion in us than to believe that God himself will personally enter under our Roof The ninth Hinderance of the sincerity of devotion is that we make it in the power of a person to dispense in Oathes and Marriages contrary to the Law of God To this I answer That some kind of Oaths the condition of the person and other Circumstances considered may be Iudged to be hurtful and not fit to be kept and the dispensation in them is no more than to Iudge or determine them to be so and consequently to do this cannot be a hinderance but a furtherance to devotion nor is it contrary to the Law of God which commands nothing that 's hurtful to be done As for Marriages we acknowledge the Church may dispense in
increase of Controversies in my answer which the Proposer of the Questions calls a superfoetation was but the natural issue of his own Questions To which I could not give a just answer without mentioning the hazards a person runs of his salvation in the communion of the Roman Church and if he thinks these too many as in truth they are he ought to condemn that Church for it which hath been the cause of them And I know no other end I had herein but to let you see there can be no reason to forsake the communion of our Church wherein the way of salvation is the same with that of the Apostolical and Primitive Church for another which hath degenerated so much from it as I hope will appear in the following Discourse To wave therefore any farther debate concerning the terms or sense of the Questions As to the occasion of them I could not but suppose it to relate to your own condition and I dare appeal to himself Whether the Question of the possibility of the salvation of a Protestant turn'd to the Church of Rome were moved for any other end than thereby the easier to draw persons of our Church into their communion which being so common and yet so weak an Artifice I had reason to premise an answer to that purpose and I do still affirm that such a possibility being granted it is no sufficient Motive to any one to leave the communion of one Church for another And whether this be to his Question or no I am sure it is very much to the purpose for which this Controversie was first started I beseech you therefore Madam do not so much disparage your own Judgement and the Church you have been bred up in to forsake it till some better reason be offered than the Proposer pretends that his Questions imply Which if not for your own sake yet for mine I desire you to insist upon that I may know one reason at least from them which I cannot yet procure although I have often requested it why the believing all the ancient Creeds and leading a good life may not be sufficient to salvation unless one be of the communion of the Church of Rome But lest I should be thought to digress I return to his Papers and am willing to pass over his unhandsome reflection on our Church as in a sinking condition which God hath hitherto preserved and I hope will do to the confusion of its enemies But why he should call my comparison a supposition and his own a truth before he proved their Church to be the Catholick Church I am yet to seek And so I come to the main business § 2. My second answer was That all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace it or continue in it which I am amazed he should say was not pertinent to the Question if the Question were propounded for any ones satisfaction that doubted which Churches communion it were best to embrace This I proved 1. Because They must by the terms of that communion be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry either of which are sins inconsistent with salvation Here he charges me with a contradiction because I overprove what I intended but he may easily excuse me from it if he will allow the possibility of salvation to any one who commits any wilful sins for in the case of any such sins it is true that they are inconsistent with salvation and yet he that doth commit them doth but run the hazzard of salvation because he may repent of them But if it be a contradiction to say that some sins are inconsistent with salvation yet those who commit them may be saved though hardly he must make all who commit any wilful sin to be unavoidably damned and then it is to no purpose what Church we are of The meaning therefore was this That Hypocrisie and Idolatry are sins inconsistent with a state of salvation and there is no way to escape being damned but by the repentance of those who are guilty of them But of this more at large in the vindication of my third Answer and those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome must be guilty either of the one or the other of these I proved by this Argument That Church which requires giving to the creature the Worship due only to the Creator makes the members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry but the Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the adoration of Bread in the Eucharist and the formal invocation of Saints doth require giving to the creature the worship due only to the Creator therefore it makes the members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry Which I did prove by parts 1. § 3. Concerning the Worship of God by Images I proved that it could not be terminated on God because in the second Commandment he not only denys to receive it but threatens to punish those who give it To this he answers 1. That it is a contradiction to say that it is the worship of God by an Image and yet be terminated wholly on the creature 2. That this is built on a mistake of the nature of humane acts which though they ought to be governed by the Law of God yet when they swerve from it cease not to tend to their own proper objects and that Gods prohibition of such or such a kind of Worship may make it to be unlawful but hinders not the act from tending whither it is intended which he proves by the prayers of Thieves and Murderers to God for good success the Iews offering to God in Sacrifice the blind and the lame which he hath forbidden Cains offering a Sacrifice to God which he refused to accept of from whence he concludes That though God should have forbidden men to worship him by Images yet it doth not follow but the worship so given would be terminated on him 3. That the second Commandment only forbids the worship of Idols or the giving the Soveraign honour due to God to an Idol but this doth not forbid the worship of Images because they give to them only an inferiour and relative honour and not that worship which is due to God This is the substance of his answer but to let you see the insufficiency of it I shall prove these two things 1. That where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving worship to himself that worship so given cannot be said to be terminated on him 2. That God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any worship to himself by an Image and not barely the worship of Idols 1. That where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving worship to himself that worship so given cannot be said to be terminated on him And however new this way of
or asked their opinion and Pope Adrian himself he saith in his defence of it against the Caroline Books never gives it the name or authority of an Oecumenical Council The same Council was rejected here in England as our Historians tell us because it asserted the adoration of Images which the Church of God abhors which are the words of Hoveden and others And we find afterwards in France by the Synod of Paris called by Ludovicus Pius upon the Letters of Michael Balbus Emperour of Constantinople in order to the Vnion of Christendome in this point that these Western Churches persisted still in the condemnation of the Nicene Council which they would not have done after so long a time to inform themselves if a meer mistake of their Doctrine at first had been the cause of their opposition But whosoever will read the Caroline Books or the Synod of Paris or Agobardus and others about that time will find that they condemn all religious worship of Images as adoration and contrary to that honour which is due to God alone and to the commands which he hath given in Scripture And I extreamly wonder how any men of common sense and much more any of learning and judgement that had read the Book of Charles the Great against the Nicene Synod could imagine it altogether proceeded upon a mistake of the meaning of it when it so distinctly relates and punctually answers the several places of Scriptures and Fathers produced by it for the worship of Images In the first Book an answer is given to many impertinent places of the Old Testament alledged in that Council which the second proceeds with and examines several testimonies of the Fathers and in the two remaining Books pursues all their pretences with that diligence that no one can imagine all this while that the Author did not know their meaning And that by adoration he means no more than giving Religious Worship to Images appears from hence because he calls the Civil worship which men give to one another by the name of adoration when he shewes that it is another thing to give adoration to a man upon a civil respect and to give adoration to Images upon a religious account when God challenges all religious worship or adoration to himself and whatever reason will hold for such a worship of Images will much more hold for the worship of men who have greater excellency in them and more honour put upon them by God than any Images can ever pretend to That God allows no other kind of adoration to be given to any but himself but that which we give to one another Can any be so senseless to think that by this civil adoration he meant we honoured every man we met as our Soveraign Prince And as little reason is there to say that by adoration given to Images he meant only the incommunicable worship due only to God in the sense of those Fathers Can we imagine saith he that S. Peter would allow the worship of Images who forbad Cornelius to worship him Or St. John whom the Angel checked for offering to worship him and bid him give that honour to God Or Paul and Barnabas who with such horror ran among the men of Lycaonia when they were about to worship them and yet surely Angels and such persons as these deserved more to be worshipped than any Images can do But we see by these examples that even these are not to be adored with any other kind of adoration than what the offices of civility require from us Besides in his language those who followed the Council of Constantinople are said not to adore Images by which nothing else can be meant than their giving no Religious worship to them and when he shews the great inconsequence of the argument from the adoration of the Statues of the Emperours to the adoration of Images because in matters of Religious Worship we are not to follow the customes of men against the will of God he thereby shews what kind of adoration he intended not the worship of Latria but supposed to be of an inferiour sort In so much that Binius confesseth that the design of these books was against all worship of Images It is true Pope Hadrian in the answer he sent to these Books which is still extant in the Tomes of the Councils doth deny that the Synod intended to give proper divine worship to Images but that is no more than the Synod it self had in words said before but that was not the Question what they said but what the nature of the thing did imply Whether that religious worship they gave to Images was not part of that adoration which was only due to God And he that expects an answer to this from him will find himself deceived who is so pitifully put to it for an answer to the demand of any example of words of the Apostles to justifie Image-worship that he is forced to make use of some Mystical passages of Dionysius the supposed Areopagite wherein the word Image hapning to be is very sufficient to his purpose And this answer of Hadrians gave so little satisfaction to the Western Bishops that A.D. 824. the Synod at Paris being called by Ludovicus Pius to advise about this point did condemn expressely Pope Hadrian for asserting a superstitious adoration of Images which they look on as a great impiety and say that he produces very impertinent places of the Fathers and remote from his purpose and that setting aside his Pontifical authority in his answer to the Caroline Books there were some things apparently false and they have nothing to excuse him by but his Ignorance And therefore they at large shew that the Religious worship of Images came first from Hereticks and that it was alwayes condemned by the Fathers of the Christian Church and answer the arguments produced on the other side out of the Writings of the Fathers And supposing that superstitious custome of worshipping Images had for some time obtained yet they shew by several testimonies that it ought to be abrogated No wonder then that Bellarmine is so much displeased with this Synod for offering so boldly to censure the Popes Writings and a Synod approved by him wherein the saith they exceed the fault of the Author of the Caroline Books because as he confesseth they offered to teach the Pope and resisted him to the face And yet no doubt they had read and considered Hadrians words wherein he disowns the giveing true divine honour to Images Not long after this Synod came forth the Book of Agobardus Archbishop of Lyons against Images occasioned saith Papirius Massonus by the stupendous superstition in that Age in the worship of them And this saith he is the substance of his Doctrine out of St. Augustine and other Fathers that there is no other Image of God but what is himself and therefore cannot be
different nature from the Worship of Images 3. To the Iewes adoraâ—ion towards the Ark and the Holy of Holies where the Cherubims and Propitiatory were 1. That they only directed their Worship towards the place where God had promised to be signally present among them and signifies no more to the Worship of Images than our lifting our eyes to Heaven doth when we pray because God is more especially present there 2. That though the Cherubims were there yet they were alwayes hid from the sight of the people the High-Priest himself going into the Holy of Holies but once a year that the Cherubims were no representations of God and his Throne was between them upon the mercy seat and were Hieroglyphical figures of Gods own appointing which the Iews know no more than we do which are plain arguments they were never intended for objects of Worship for then they must not have been meerly appendices to another thing they must have been publickly exposed as the Images are in the Roman Churches and their form as well known as any of the B. Virgin 4. To bowing at the name of Iesus that he might as well have instanced in going to Church at the toll of a bell for as the one only tells us the time when we ought to go to Worship God so the mentioning the name of Iesus doth only put us in mind of him we owe all manner of reverence to without dishonouring him as the object of our Worship by any image of him which can only represent that which is neither the object nor reason of our Worship 5. To kneeling at the Eucharist that of all things should not be objected to us who have declared in our Rubrick after Communion That thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood for the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians To bowing towards the Altar or at entring in and going out of the Church that it is of the same nature with the putting off our Hats while we are there and is only determining a natural act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians did use to direct their Worship CHAP. II. Of their Idolatry in Adoration of the Host and Invocation of Saints The Argument proposed concerning the Adoration of the Host the insufficiency of the Answer to it manifested supposing equal revelation for Transubstantiation as for Christs Divinity yet not the same reason for Worshipping the Host as the person of Christ the great disparity between these two at large discovered the Controversie truly stated concerning Adoration of the Host and it is proved that no man on the principles of the Roman Church can be secure he doth not commit Idolatry in it The confession of our Adversaries that the same Principles will justifie the Worship of any Creature No such motives to believe Transubstantiation as the Divinity of Christ. Bishop Taylor 's Testimony answered by himself To Worship Christ in the Sun as lawful as to Worship him in the Host. The grossest Idolatry excusable on the same grounds The argument proposed and vindicated concerning the Invocation of Saints practised in the Church of Rome The Fathers Arguments against the Heathens hold against Invocation of Saints the state of the Controversie about Idolatry as managed by them They make it wholly unlawful to give divine Worship to any Creature how excellent soever The Worship not only of Heathen Gods but of Angels condemned The common evasions answered Prayer more proper to God than Sacrifice No such disparity as is pretended between the manner of Invocating Saints and the Heathens Invocating their Deities In the Church of Rome they do more than pray to Saints to pray for them proved from the present most Authentick Breviaries Supposing that were all it would not excuse them St. Austin no friend to Invocation of Saints Practices condemned by the Church pleaded for it Of Negative points being Articles of faith § 1. I Proceeded to the Adoration of the Host and here the Argument I proposed was to take off the common answer That this could not be Idolatry because they believed the Bread to be God upon the same ground I said they who believe the Sun to be God and Worship him on that account would be excused from Idolatry too nay the grosser their Idolatry was the more excusable it would be as that of those who supposed their Images to be Gods and upon this ground their Worship was more Lawful than of those who supposed them not to be so To this he answers two wayes 1. That they do not barely suppose that the substance of bread is changed into Christs body and that he is really present under the form of Bread but that they know and believe this upon the same grounds and motives upon which they believe that Christ is God and consequently to be adored and further addes that the same argument will hold against the adoration of Christ as God as against the adoration of him in the Eucharist since they have a like Divine Revelation for his real presence under the Sacramental signes as for his being true God and man 2. Supposing they were mistaken yet it would not follow they were Idolaters which he proves from Dr. Taylors words But notwithstanding these appearances of answering that my argument still stands good will be evident by proving these things 1. That supposing there were the same revelation of Christs Divinity and of his presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation yet there could not be the same reason for the Adoration of the Host as for worshipping Christ himself 2. That there are not the same motives and grounds to believe that Doctrine of Transubstantiatim that there are to believe that Christ is God 3. That supposing they are mistaken in the doctrine of Transubstantiation this doth not excuse them from Idolatry 4. That the same reason which would excuse them would excuse the most gross Idolaters in the World § â— That supposing there were the same divine revelation of Transubstantiation and of Christs Divinity yet there could not be the same reason for adoration of the Host as of Christ himself 1. Because there is a plain command in Scripture for one and there is nothing like it for the other All the Angels are commanded to Worship the Son of God Heb. 1. 6. and much more all men who have greater obligation to do it All men are to honour the Son as they honour the Father Joh. 5. 23. and to his name every knee is to bow Phil. 2. 10. But where is there the least intimation given that we are to Worship Christ in the Elements supposing him present there If it be said the general command doth extend to him where-ever he is present It is
easily answered that this argument doth prove no more his Worship in the Elements than in a turfe or any other piece of bread for Christ being God is every where present and if his presence only may be ground of giving adoration to that wherein he is present we may as lawfully Worship the Sun or the Earth or any other thing as they do the Sacrament For he is present in all of them But our Worship is not to be guided by our own Fancies but the will of God and we have a command for Worshipping of the person of Christ and till we see one as to his presence in the Sacrament we ought not to think the one parallel with the other And by this the weakness of his retorting the argument in the Arrians behalf so he calls those who believe Christ to be a pure man against those who Worship the Son of God will appear for our Worship doth not meerly depend upon our belief but upon the divine command and therefore those who have denyed the one have yet contended for the other 2. The one gives us a sufficient reason for our Worship but the other doth not There can be no greater reason for giving his person adoration than that he is the eternal Son of God but what equivalent reason to this is there supposing the bread to be really converted into the body of Christ All that I can believe then present is the body of Christ and what then is that the object of our adoration do we terminate our Worship upon his humane nature and was it ever more properly so than in dying is it not the death of Christ that is set forth in the Eucharist And is his body present any other way than as it is agreeable to the end of the institution But it may be they will say the body of Christ being hypostatically united with the divine nature one cannot be present without the other That indeed is a good argument to prove the body of Christ cannot be there by transubstantiation for if the bread be converted into that body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature then the conversion is not meerly into the body but into the Person of Christ and then Christ hath as many bodies hypostatically united to him as there are Elements Consecrated and so all the accidents of the bread belong to that body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature Nay to make the Elements the object of divine worship as they do they must suppose an hypostatical union between them and the divine nature of Christ for if the only reason of joyning the humane nature with the divine in the person of Christ as the object of our Worship be the hypostatical union of those Natures then we can upon no other account make those Elements the object of Worship but by supposing such an union between Christ and them But I suppose they will not venture to say that Christ is hypostatically united with the shape figure and colour of the bread for they will have nothing else to remain after Consecration in spight of all the reason and sense of the world but meerly those accidents and the Council of Trent determines That the same Divine Worship which we give to God himself is in express terms to be given to the most holy Sacrament and pronounces an Anathema against all who deny it And what is the holy Sacrament but the body of Christ according to them under the accidents of the bread and although the body of Christ being believed to be there is the reason of their Worship yet the Worship is given to the Elements upon that account § 3. But this being a matter of so great importance to make it as clear as the nature of the thing will allow I shall yet further prove that upon the principles of the Roman Church no man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host and I hope this will abundantly add to the discovering the disparity between the Worship given to the person of Christ and that which is given to the Eucharist upon supposition of Transubstantiation But before I come to this I shall endeavour to give a true account of the State of the Controversie between us which I shall do in these particulars 1. The Question between us is not whether the person of Christ is to be Worshipped with divine worship for that we freely acknowledge And although the humane nature of Christ of it self can yield us no sufficient reason for adoration yet being considered as united to the divine nature that cannot hinder the same divine Worship being given to his person which belongs to his divine nature any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him 2. It is not whether the person of Christ visibly appearing to us in any place ought to have divine honour given to him For supposing sufficient evidence of such an appearance we make no more question of this than we do of the former Neither do we say that we need a particular command in such a case to make it lawful any more than the Patriarchs did at every appearance of God among them or those who conversed with our Lord on earth every time they fell down and Worshipped him Where our sense and reason is satisfied as well as St. Thomas his was in a visible appearance of Christ we can give divine Worship as he did when he said My Lord and my God for in this Worship given to the Person of Christ I am sure I give it to nothing but what is either God or hypostatically united to the divine nature But is there not the same reason of believing Christ to be present as seeing him I answer in matters of pure revelation there is where the matter proposed to our faith can be no object of sense as Christs infinite presence in all places as God I firmly believe upon the credit of divine revelation and I give divine Worship to him as God suitable to that infinite presence but our question is concerning the visible presence of Christ where honour is given on the account of the divine nature but he can be known to be present only by his humanity in this case I say the evidence of sense is necessary in order to the true Worshipping the person of Christ. If any should be so impertinent to urge that saying to this purpose blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed I shall only say that doth not at all relate to this matter but to the truth of Christs resurrection 3. It is not concerning the spiritual Worship of Christ in the Celebration of the Eucharist For we declare that in all solemn acts of Religious Worship and particularly in the Eucharist we give divine honour to the Son of God as well as to the Father We affirm that we
ought not only perform the offices of Religion out of obedience to his divine commands but with a due Veneration of his Majesty and power with thankfulness for his infinite goodness and with trust in his promises and subjection of our souls to his supream Authority About these things which are the main parts of divine and spiritual Worship we have no quarrel nor do we find fault with any for giving too much to Christ in this manner but rather for placing too much in the bare external acts of adoration which may be performed with all external pomp and shew where there is no inward reverence nor sincere devotion And yet 4. It is not concerning external Reverence to be shewn in the time of receiving the Eucharist For that our Church not only allowes but enjoynes and that not barely for the avoiding such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue but for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefit of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers But it is withall declared that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood as I have already recited it But the Controversie concerning the adoration of the Host lyes in these two things 1. Whether proper divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal presence of Christ under them 2. Whether out of the time of receiving the same adoration ought to be given to it when it is elevated or carried in procession which we would give to the very person of Christ And that this is the true state of the Controversie I appeal to the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this point For it is expresly determined by the Council of Trent That there is no manner of doubt left but that all Christians ought to give the same Worship to this holy Sacrament which they give to God himself For it is not therefore less to be Worshipped because it was instituted by Christ our Lord that it might be taken By which words the true state of the Controversie is made evident which is not about the reverence due only to Christ supposed to be corporally present there but the adoration due to the Sacrament upon that account And by the Sacrament the Council must understand the elements or accidents or whatever name they call them by as the immediate term of that divine Worship or else the latter words signifie nothing at all For what was that which was instituted by our Lord as a Sacrament was it not the external and visible signes or elements why do they urge that the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored because it was to be taken but to take off the common objection that we ought not to give divine Worship to that which we eat And what can this have respect to but the Elements But this is not denyed that I know of by any who understand either the doctrine or practice of that Church although to answer our Arguments they would seem to direct their Worship only to Christ as present under the elements yet yielding that on the account of this corporal presence that which appears ought to have the same Worship given to it with that which is supposed or believed And so they make the accidents of the Sacrament to have the very same honour which the humane nature of Christ hath which they say hath no divine honour for it self but on the account of the conjunction of the divinity with it § 4. The Controversie being thus stated I come to shew that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives Adoration to the Host. For it is a principle indisputable among them that to give proper divine honour called by them Adoration to a creature is Idolatry but no man upon the principles of their Church can be assured every time he Worships the Host that he doth not give proper divine honour to a creature For there are two things absolutely necessary to secure a mans mind in the performance of an act of divine Worship 1. That either the object be such in it self which deserves and requires such Worship from us as in the divine nature of Christ Or 2. That if of it self it doth not deserve it there be a reason sufficient to give it as is the humane nature of Christ upon its union with the Divine but in this matter of the adoration of the Host no man can be secure of either of these upon their own Principles 1. He cannot be secure that the object is such as doth deserve divine worship If a man should chance to believe his senses or hearken to his reason or at least think the matter disputable whether that which he sees to be bread be not really bread what case is this man in He becomes an Idolater by not being a fool or a mad man But because we are not now to proceed upon the principles of sense or reason but those of the Church of Rome I will suppose the case of one that goes firmly upon the received principles of it and try whether such a one can be satisfied in his mind that when he gives divine worship to the Host he doth not give it to a creature And because we are now supposing unreasonable things I will suppose my self to be that person The Mass-bell now rings and I must give the same divine honour to the Host which I do to Christ himself but hold if it should be but a meer creature all the world cannot excuse me from Idolatry and my own Church condemns me all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry how come I then to be assured that what but a little before was a meer creature is upon the pronouncing a few words turned into my Creator A strange and sudden change And I can hardly say that God becoming man was so great a wonder as a little piece of bread becoming God When God became man he shewed himself to be God by Wonders and Miracles which he wrought for the conviction of the world I will see if I can find any such evidence of so wonderful a transformation from a Wafer to a Deity I see it to be the very same it was I handle it as I did if I taste it it hath the very same agreeableness to the Palat it had Where then lyes this mighty change But O carnal reason what have I to do with thee in these mysteries of faith I remember what Church I am of and how much I am bid to beware of thee but how then shall I be satisfied Must I relye on the bare words of Christ This is my body But I have been told the Scripture is very obscure and
is not God and therefore that honour ought not to be given it and I am further told by them that the Church hath never determined this controversie Let me now apply this to our present case It is certain if the body of Christ be present in the Eucharist as distinct from the divine nature I am not not to adore it It is very uncertain if it be present whether I am to give divine worship to the body of Christ but it is most certain that if I worship Christ in the Sacrament it is upon the account of his corporal presence For although when I worship the person of Christ as out of the Sacrament my worship is terminated upon him as God and man and the reason of my worship is wholly drawn from his divine nature yet when I worship Christ as in the Sacrament I must worship him there upon the account of his bodily presence for I have no other reason to Worship him in the Sacrament but because his body is present in it And this is not barely determining the place of Worship but assigning the cause of it for the primary reason of all adoration in the Sacrament is because Christ hath said this is my body which words if they should be allowed to imply Transubstantiation cannot be understood of any other change than of the bread into the body of Christ. And if such a sense were to be put upon it why may not I imagine much more agreeably to the nature of the institution that the meer humane nature of Christ is there than that his Divinity should be there in a particular manner present to no end and where it makes not the least manifestation of it self But if I should yield all that can be begged in this kind viz. that the body of Christ being present his divinity is there present too yet my mind must unavoidably rest unsatisfied still as to the adoration of the Host. For supposing the divine nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same Worship to the thing wherein he is present as I do to Christ himself This the more considerative men of the Roman Church are aware of but the different wayes they have taken to answer it rather increase mens doubts than satisfie them Greg. de Valentiâ denies not that divine honour is given by them to the Eucharist and that the accidents remaining after Consecration are the term of adoration not for themselves but by reason of the admirable conjunction which they have with Christ. Which is the very same which they say of the humane nature of Christ and yet this same person denies that they are hypostatically united to him which if any one can understand I shall not envy him Bellarmin in answer to this argument is forced to grant as great an hypostatical union between Christ and the Sacrament as between the divine and humane nature for when he speaks of that he saith it lyes in this that the humane nature loseth its own proper subsistence and it assumed into the subsistence of the divine nature and in the case of the Sacrament he yields such a losing the proper subsistence of the bread and that what ever remains makes no distinct suppositum from the body of Christ but all belong to him and make one with him and therefore may be Worshipped as he is Is not this an admirable way of easing the minds of dissatisfied persons about giving adoration to the Host to fill them with such unintelligible terms and notions which it is impossible for them to understand themselves or explain to others Vasquez therefore finding well that the force of the argument lay in the presence of Christ and that from thence they must at last derive only the ground of adoration very ingenuously yields the Consequence and grants that God may very lawfully be adored by us in any created being wherein he is intimately present and this he not only grants but contends for in a set disputation wherein he proves very well from the principles of Worship allowed in the Roman Church that God may be adored in inanimate and irrational beings as well as in Images and answers all the arguments the very same way that they defend the other and that we way Worship the Sun as lawfully and with the same kind of Worship that they do an Image and that men may be worshipped with the same worship with which we Worship God himself if our mind do not rest in the Creature but be terminated upon God as in the adoration of the Host. See here the admirable effects of the doctrine of divine worship allowed and required in the Roman Church For upon the very same principles that a Papist Worships Images Saints and the Host he may as lawfully worship the Earth the Stars or Men and be no more guilty of Idolatry in one than in the other of them So that if we have no more reason to Worship the person of Christ than they have to adore the host upon their principles we have no more ground to worship Christ than we have to worship any creature in the World § 5. 2. There are not the same motives and grounds to believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation that there are to believe that Christ is God which he affirms but without any appearance of reason And I would gladly know what excellent motives and reasons those are which so advantageously recommend so absurd a doctrine as Transubstantiation is as to make any man think he hath reason to believe it I am sure it gives the greatest advantage to the enemies of Christs Divinity to see these two put together upon equal terms as though no man could have reason to believe Christ to be the Eternal Son of God that did not at the same time swallow the greatest contradictions to sense and reason imaginable But what doth he mean by these motives and grounds to believe The authority of the Roman Church I utterly deny that to be any ground of believing at all and desire with all my heart to see it proved but this is a proper means to believe Transubstantiation by for the ground of believing is as absurd as the doctrine to be believed by it If he means Catholick Tradition let him prove if he can that Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the universal Church from our Saviours time and when he pleases I shall joyne issue with him upon that Subject And if he thinks fit to put the negative upon me I will undertake to instance in an Age since the three first Centuries wherein if the most learned Fathers and Bishops yea of Rome it self be to be credited Transubstantiation was not believed But if at last he means Scripture which we acknowledge for our only rule of faith and shall do in spight of all pretences to infallibility either in Church or Tradition I shall appeal even to Bellarmin himself in this
to be to please one God over all and to make him propitious to us by piety and all vertue but if we would have others under God to be pleased with us too we ought to consider that as the shadow follows the body so God being pleased all his friends whether Angels Souls or Spirits will be so too and not only so but are ready to help them and pray to God for them But not the least foundation in his discourse for our invocation of them The Author of the Commentaries under the name of St. Ambrose of the same age with him as appears by several passages in him saith That the Idolaters made use of this miserable excuse for themselves that by those inferiour Deities they worshipped they went to God himself as we go to the King by his Courtiers But saith he is any man so mad or regardless of himself to give the honour due to the King to any of his Courtiers which if a man does he is condemned for treason And yet they think themselves not guilty who give the honour due to Gods name to a creature and forsaking God adore his fellow servants as though any thing greater than that were reserved for God himself But therefore we go to a King by his Officers and Servants because the King is but a man who knows not of himself whom to imploy in his publick affairs without being recommended by others But with God it is otherwise for nothing is hid from him he knows the deserts of every one and therefore we need no one to recommend us to his Favour a devout mind is enough Was this now all the quarrel the Christians had with the Heathens that they worshipped Iupiter and Venus and Vulcan Do they not expresly deny the giving Gods Worship to any Creature and do they not as plainly affirm that men do it when they invocate their fellow servants to be intercessors with God for them and that it is no less a guilt of Idolatry in this case than it is in giving the Honour due to a Prince to any of his Servants St. Austin gives this account of the principles of the Heathen Worship that there were three sorts of beings to be considered purely divine and mortal and a middle sort between them which participated of both and that the entercourse between Gods and men was by the means of those intermediate Beings who carried the prayers of men up to God and brought down the blessings they prayed for to men Against these indeed St. Austin disputes first by shewing that those spirits which they worshipped were evil spirits and that there was no reason to imagine that God had a greater entercourse with them than with penitent sinners but withall he addes that this kind of worship doth proceed upon the supposition that the Gods cannot know the necessities and prayers of men but by the intervention of those Spirits but if our minds can be known without their help there is no need of their mediation And afterwards saith that those who are Christians do believe that we need not many but one Mediatour and that such a one by whose participation we are made happy i. e. the word of God not made but by whom all things were made and he hath shewed that to the attaining blessedness we ought not to seek many Mediators by whom we are to make our degrees of approach to God because God himself by partaking our Nature hath shewn us the shortest way of our partaking his divinity Neither doth he delivering us from mortality and misery carry us so to immortal and blessed Angels that by participating with them we should become blessed and immortal but to that Trinity by whose participation the Angels themselves are blessed And concludes that Book with this saying that immortal and blessed Spirits however they are called which are made and created are no Mediatours to bring miserable mortals to blessedness and immortality And it would be ridiculous here to distinguish mediators of redemption and intercession for all that they attributed to their goods spirits was only Intercession and Christ being made a Mediatour effectual for the end he designed there could be no necessity of any Intercessours besides him And St. Austin there addes that the design of his following book is to prove that those good Spirits which are immortal and blessed which they thought ought to be Worshipped with Sacred Rites and Sacrifices whatsoever they are and howsoever called would not have any one worshipped by such religious worship i.e. by sacred rites as well as Sacrifices but only one God by whom they were created and by whose participation they are made happy § 11. By which the second thing I proposed will appear to be true viz. that they did not only condemn giving this Worship to the Spirits which the Heathen Worshipped but to good Angels too For St. Paul in the general doth condemn the Worship of Angels if he had meant only evil Angels he would have expressed it so especially if St. Austins observation be true that the evil Spirits are by their names in Scripture distinguished from the good if he had meant any particular superstition used in the Worship of Angels he would not have used such terms which condemn all worship of them as superstitious if he had meant only the Worship of Angels so as to exclude Christ he would have intimated that the fault lay in excluding Christ and not in the bare worship of Angels but by the series of his discourse it appears that those who set up other Mediators besides Christ do not hold the head i. e. do not adhere to Christ alone as him whom God hath appointed as our Mediatour only Whether this were practised by Iewes Philosophers or Hereticks is all one to us since the practice is condemned wherever it is found Theodoret saith they were the Iewes who perswaded men to worship Angels because the Law was delivered by Angels which practice he saith continued a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia and therefore the Synod of Laodicea doth forbid praying to Angels and to this day the Oratories of St. Michael are among them they therefore thought it a piece of humility since God could not be seen nor touched nor comprehended by us to obtain the favour of God by the intercession of Angels No wonder Baronius is so much displeased with Theodoret for this interpretation for he very fairly tells us what he condemns and St. Paul too was the practice of their Church and those Oratories were set up by Catholicks and not by hereticks But whether as to the lawfulness of this Worship Baronius or St. Paul whether as to the ancient practice of the Church Baronius or Theodoret deserves more to be believed I leave any one to judge And yet Theodoret is not alone in this for Irenaeus denies any invocations of Angels to be in use among Christians if he had meant only evil
Angels it seems very strange he should use the name generally given to good and alwayes indifferent to both Origen expresly denies any offering up of Prayers to them to be practised by Christians or reasonable to be done and produces this very place of the Apostle against it The Council of Laodicea we see by Theodoret is very severe against all who Worship Angels and charges them with Idolatry in so doing if they had only meant the Heathen Idolaters as Baronius contends yet by that it appears that the Heathens were condemned for Worshipping those whom they believed to be good spirits but these are only shifts to escape by and such which would not have come into the mind of any man if he did not first fear the force of that Canon against the practice of the Roman Church For why the Heathen Idolatry should at that time be called secret or hidden as it is in that Canon is not easie to be thought upon but very easily intelligible according to Theodorets interpretation because of the clandestine meetings of those who worshipped Angels and therein separated themselves from the Christian Churches St. Austin discourses purposely on this subject as is intimated before whether God or the Blessed Spirits are willing we should perform any sacred offices or Sacrifices to them or consecrate our selves or any thing of ours to them by any religious rites which he denies For this saith he is the worship proper to the Deity called by him in one word Latria which he thinks more proper to express divine worship as distinct from the honour and service we give to men which is plainly his meaning there than any one word Greek or Latine besides And this word he saith is proper to the Deity as such because he elsewhere tells us the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Service of God properly as God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the service of God as Lord. § 12. I know very well by what arts all these testimonies are endeavoured to be evaded viz. by saying That these are intended against the Gentiles Idolatry who Worshipped those Spirits as Gods and offered Sacrifices to them but this cannot hold as to the Doctrine or practice of the Roman Church who deny them to be Gods and assert that the Worship by Sacrifice is proper only to God but such devices as these are can never satisfie an impartial mind For 1. They do expresly deny that invocation or prayer is to be made to them for so Origen and Theodoret speak expresly that men are not to pray to Angels and any one that reads St. Austin will find that he makes solemn invocation to be as proper to God as Sacrifice is 2. On what account should it be unlawful to Sacrifice to Saints or Angels if it be lawful to invocate them may not one be relative and transient as well as the other nay the Heathen in St. Austin argued very well that Sacrifices being meer external things might more properly belong to the Inferiour Deities but the more invisible the Deity was the more invisible the Sacrifices were to be and the greater and better the Deity the Sacrifice was to be still proportionable and can any man in his senses think that a meer outward Sacrifice is more acceptable to God than the devotion of our heart is and wherein can we better express that to God than in offering up our prayers to him so that in all reason the duty of prayer ought to be reserved as more proper to God than any external sacrifice and those who did appropriate Sacrifice to God did comprehend prayer as the most spiritual and acceptable part of it So St. Austin speaking of the Sacrifice due to God makes our heart the Altar and Christ our Priest and our Prayers and Praises to be offered up to God by a fervent charity and any work which is therefore done that thereby we may be united to God in a holy Communion with him in order to our happiness to be a true Sacrifice and let any man judge whether this description do not so naturally agree to prayer as if it had been only intended for it Besides it is observable that sacrifices of old were solemn rites of supplication and calling upon the name of the Lord where Altars were erected is the main thing spoken of thence the Temple though the place of sacrifice is called the house of Prayer and where God slights sacrifices he requires prayer as much more acceptable to him It seems then very strange that sacrifice alone as distinguished from prayer should be that Latria that is proper to God 3. Upon the same account that the Heathen did give divine honour to their inferiour Deities those in the Roman Church do so to Angels and Saints For the Heathens made a difference in their sacrifices to the supreme God and their inferiour Deities and their Heroes so that if the putting any difference in the way of religious Worship doth excuse the one it must do the other also Did the Heathen use solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of divine worship so does the Roman Church Did they set up their Images in publick places of worship and there kneel before them and invocate those represented by them so does the Roman Church Did they consecrate Temples and erect Altars to them and keep Festivals and burn Incense before them so does the Roman Church Lastly did they offer up Sacrifices in those Temples to the Honour of their lesser Deities and Heroes so does the Roman Church For Bellarmin reckoning up the honours belonging to Canonized Saints besides those before mentioned reckons up this as one that the Sacrifices of the Eucharist and of lauds and prayers are publickly offered to God for their honour I would fain understand what the sacrificing to one for the honour of another means To offer Sacrifice to one for another is an intelligible thing but to Sacrifice to one for the honour of another is a thing beyond my reach if that sacrifice does not belong to him for whose honour it is offered and if the sacrifice do belong to him I wonder at the scrupulosity of those who dare not say they Sacrifice to him as well For what is sacrificing to God but sacrificing to his honour or doing such an act of Religion with a design to honour God by it but when men offer a Sacrifice but not to honour God by it but the B. Virgin or any Saints or Angels how can that Sacrifice belong to any other but those whose honour is designed by it It being then the opinion and practice of the Roman Church that Sacrifices are to be offered for the honour of Saints or Angels it is evident they have reserved no part of divine worship peculiar to God himself any more than the Heathen did 4. There can be
the Church of Rome they do nothing but pray to the Saints to pray for them And it is a very pitiful shift that Bellarmin is put to whereby to excuse such prayers as these That indeed as to the words themselves they do imply more than praying to them to pray for us but the sense of the words he saith is no more But whence I pray must the people take the sense of such prayers as these are if not from the signification of the words If this were all why in all this time that these prayers have been complained of hath not their sense been better expressed Have not their Breviaries been often reviewed if this had not been their meaning why have they not been expunged all this while Suppose then that any persons in the Roman Church as no doubt most do take their sense from the words and do not force it upon them and they pray according to the form prescribed do they well or ill in it If they do ill in it their Church is guilty of intolerable negligence in not preventing it if they do well then their Church allows of more than praying to Angels and Saints to pray for them Bellarmins instances of the Apostles in Scripture being said to save men do shew what shifts a bad cause will put a man to For will any man in his wits say the case is the same in ordinary speech and in prayer Is it all one for a man to say that his Staff helped him in his going and to fall down upon his knees to pray to his Staff to help him God did use the Apostles as instruments on earth to promote the salvation of mankind but may we therefore pray to them now in Heaven to save us May we not truly say that the Sun enlightens the world but may we therefore pray to the Sun to enlighten us No the Sun is but Gods instrument and our addresses must be in prayer to the Supream Lord over all But to take his own explication of praying to them for these things i. e. praying to them that they would pray to God for them as we desire one another to pray would not that man be condemned of gross Idolatry or prodigious folly who instead of desiring his Friends to pray to God for the pardon of his sins and the assistance of Divine Grace should say to them I pray you pardon my sins and assist me with the Grace of God What would St. Paul have said to such men that should have asked such things of him who yet saith that he was an instrument of saving some § 14. 2. Supposing this were all that were done and allowed in the Roman Church yet this would not excuse them for their practice is very different in their Invocation of Saints from desiring our Brethren on Earth to pray for us And I cannot but wonder how any men of common sense can suffer themselves to be imposed upon so easily in this matter For is there really no difference in St. Pauls desiring his Brethren to pray for him as he often did and a mans falling down upon his knees with all the solemnity of devotion he uses to God himself to St. Paul to desire him to pray for him when he was present upon earth and did certainly know what he desired of him Suppose in the midst of the solemn devotions of the Church where St. Peter or St. Paul had been present the Letanies of the Church had been then as they are now and after they had prayed to the persons of the Holy Trinity the people should with the same postures and expression of devotion have immediately turned themselves to the Apostles and cryed only Peter and Paul pray for us do you think this would have been acceptable to them No doubt St. Peter would have been less pleased with this than with Cornelius only falling down before him and yet then he bid him stand up I my self also am a man They who impute this only to his modesty will not allow him to carry it to Heaven with him For they suppose him to be very well pleased with that honour in Heaven which he refused on earth And St. Paul would have rent his garments and cryed out as he did to the men of Lystra Why do ye these things we also are men of like passions with you They would not receive any honour that might in the least seem to incroach upon the divine honour and yet they might upon better grounds have done it to them on earth than now in Heaven because they were then sure they heard them which now they can never be And would it not be a senseless thing to desire some excellent person in the Indies when we are at our solemn devotion to pray for us because it is possible God may at the same time reveal our minds to him I would willingly be informed if we had assurance of the Sanctity of a person in this life as great as they have in the Church of Rome of those they invocate whether there would be any evil at all in publick places of worship and at the time used for the service of God to set such a person up in some higher place of the Church to burn incense before him to prostrate themselves with hands and eyes lifted up to him if at last they pretended that all that time they only prayed to him to pray for them And certainly a good man is much more the Image of God and deserves more reverence than all the artificial Images of Saints or of God himself If they will condemn this they may conceive that supposing they only prayed to Saints in their devotions to pray for them this would not excuse them For they do it in those places at such times and in such a manner as highly incroaches upon the worship and service due to God alone § 15. 2. I now come to consider whether the answer given by St. Austin will vindicate them and whether invocation of Saints as it is now practised in the Church of Rome were allowed or in use then Here he tells us That Faustus the Manichean calumniates the Catholicks the word is St. Austins he saith and we do not quarrel with the word but that they are not such Catholicks as St. Austin speaks of because they honoured the Memories or Shrines of Martyrs charged them to have turned the Idols into Martyrs whom they worshipped said he with like vows To shew how very far what St. Austin saith is from justifying the present practices of the Roman Church we need no more than barely to represent what St. Austin affirms and what he denyes He affirms that it was the custom of the Christians in his time to have their religious Assemblies at the Sepulchres or Memories of the Martyrs where the place it self would raise their affections and quicken their love towards the Martyrs and towards God but he utterly denyes that any religious worship
was performed to the Martyrs for neither was any Sacrifice offered up to any of them nor any other part of religious worship for thereupon he shews which is very conveniently left out in the citation that not only Sacrifice was refused by Saints and Angels but any other religious honour which is due to God himself as the Angel forbad St. Iohn to fall down and worship him All the worship therefore he saith that they give to Saints is That of love and society and of the same kind which we give to holy men in this life who are ready to suffer for the truth of the Gospel But that the worship of Invocation is expresly excluded by St. Austin appears by what himself saith on a like occasion where he shews the difference between the Gentiles worship and theirs They saith he build Temples erect Altars appoint Priests and offer Sacrifices but we erect no Temples to Martyrs as to Gods but Memories as to dead men whose Spirits live with God we raise no Altars on which to sacrifice to Martyrs but to one God the God of Martyrs as well as ours at which as men of God who have overcome the world by confessing him they are named in their place and order but are not invocated by the Priest who sacrifices And elsewhere saith Whatever the Christians do at the memories of the Martyrs is for ornaments to those memories not as any sacred Rites or Sacrifices belonging to the dead as Gods we therefore do not worship our Martyrs with divine honours nor with the faults of men as the Gentiles did their Gods Which gave occasion to Lud. Vives in his Notes on that Chapter to say that many Christians in his time what sort of Catholicks those were it is easie to guess but to be sure none of St. Austins did no otherwise worship Saints than they did God himself neither could he see in many things any difference between the opinion they had of Saints and what the Gentiles had of their Gods I cannot understand then how St. Austins answer should justifie that which he condemns He denyes that there was an Invocation of Saints but only a commemoration of them the Church of Rome pleads for any Invocation of them and condemns all those who deny it So that his answer is very far from clearing the Roman Church in the practice of Invocation and the objection we make against it that it doth parallel the Heathen Idolatry for it grants it would do so if they gave to the Saints the worship due to God of which he makes Invocation to be a part But after all this can we imagine that he should practise himself contrary to his own doctrine Yes saith he he made a prayer to St. Cyprian let Blessed Cyprian therefore help us in our prayers But is there no difference to be made between such an Apostrophe to a person in ones writing and solemn supplication to him with all the soâ—emnity of devotion in the duties of Religious worship If I should now say Let St. Austin now help me in his prayers while I am defending his constant opinion that Invocation is proper to God alone would they take this for renouncing the Protestant doctrine and embracing that of the Church of Rome I doubt they would not think that I escaped the Anathema of the Council of Trent for all this The Question between us is not how far such wishes rather than prayers were thought allowable being uttered occasionally as St. Austin doth this to St. Cyprian but whether solemn Invocation of Saints in the duties of Religious worship as it is now practised in the Roman Church were ever practised in St. Austins time and this we utterly deny We do not say that they did not then believe that the Saints in Heaven did pray for them and that some of them did express their wishes that they would pray particularly for them we do not say that some superstitions did not creep in after the Anniversary meetings at the Sepulchres of the Martyrs grew in request for St. Austin himself saith that what they taught was one thing and what they did bear with was another speaking of the customes used at those solemnities But here we stand and fix our foot against all opposition whatsoever that there was no such doctrine or practice allowed in the Church at that time as is owned and approved at this day in the Church of Rome But from St. Austin we are sent to Calvin whose authority though never owned as infallible by us we need not fear in this point and I cannot but wonder if he saw the words in Calvin or Bellarmin that he would produce them For Calvin doth there say That the Council of Carthage did forbid praying to Saints lest the publick prayers should be corrupted by such kind of addresses Holy Peter pray for us If St. Austin were present in this Council as my Adversary saith he was I wonder what advantage it will be to him from Calvins saying that the Council did condemn and forbid those prayers which were in use by some of the people But it seems he takes the peoples part against the Council and St. Austin too and thinks it enough for them to follow the practices condemned by Councils and Fathers which we are sure they do and are glad to find so ingenuous a confession of it He may as well the next time bring St. Austins testimony for worshipping Martyrs and Images because he saith he knew many who adored Sepulchres and Pictures and for the worship of Angels because he saith he had heard of many who had tryed to go to God by praying to Angels and were thought worthy to fall into delusions § 16. But the strangest effort of all the rest is what he hath reserved to the last place viz. That the charge of Idolatry against them must be vain and groundless because if I be pressed close I shall deny any one of these Negative points to be divine truths viz. that honour is not to be given to the Images of Christ and his Saints that what appears to be bread in the Eucharist is not the body of Christ that it is not lawful to Invocate the Saints to pray for us But the answer to this is so easie that it will not require much time to dispatch it For I do assert it to be an Article of my faith That God alone is to be worshipped with divine and religious worship and he that cannot hence infer that no created Being is to be so worshipped hath the name of reasonable creature given him to no purpose What need we make Negative Articles of faith where the Affirmative do necessarily imply them If I believe that the Scripture is my only rule of faith as I most firmly do will any man that considers what he saith require me to make Negative Articles of faith that the Pope is not Tradition is not Councils are not a
and the more fervent will their supplications be If it be enough for some to understand them it may as well be enough for some to pray them if their prayers who understand them prevail for those who do not then it is no matter at all whether they be present or no unless the efficacy of the others prayers be confined within the walls where they meet And if their prayers be most prevalent who understand most then it were ten times better if all the people understood what they prayed for and it must necessarily follow that praying in an unknown tongue is a great obstructer of the devotion of the people and that which hinders the efficacy of their prayers If it be enough for the people to be present and to pray their own private prayers there in publick to what End is there any publick Liturgy at all Why should not all of them be at their private prayers together Why should the Priest with his Iargon of hard words interrupt them for it can be no more to them who know not what he saith and why may they not as well say their private prayers at the chiming of Bells as at the words of a Priest for they understand both alike and both seem to sound as such wise people will have them But he tells us The effects of this devotion were admirable in the charitable and pious works of our Ancestors who used this way so many Ages together I pray Madam ask him whether he really thinks they would have done none of those things if they had said their prayers in English If they would not I do much admire the force of the Latin Tongue If they would then that was not the cause and so these things do not prove what they were intended for And so Tenterden Steeple was not the cause of Goodwin Sands We do not go about to disparage our Ancestors we bless God for the good they did but do not think that doth oblige us to think them infallible in their opinions or without fault in all their practices But our true Ancestors in Religion are Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Church and all these are yielded to be of our side by the most zealous Adversaries we have and give us leave to think their examples ought to have more force with us than any other whatsoever We pretend not to be wiser than they were nor to know what is more expedient for devotion than they we are content to be condemned for error with those who are allowed to be infallible and to want devotion where we follow the examples of the most holy persons the world ever had If the practice of the Primitive Church in this point were not given us for the first six hundred years and more it were an easie matter to evince it by express testimonies but that is not the thing insisted on but that this is a matter of Discipline and the Church hath the power to determine it in one Age as well as another § 4. Which is the next thing to be considered Here I shall desire but two principles to resolve this by 1. That the Churches power is only to edification and not to destruction for this was as much as the Apostles challenged to themselves and I hope none dare challenge more but this is a principle of natural reason that no power in a society ought to be extended beyond the benefit of it or to contradict the end or design of it 2. That the Apostles were the most competent Judges of what made for the Edification of the Church and what they declared did tend to that end no succeeding persons ought to condemn as contrary to it This depends upon that infallible Spirit which the Apostles had and the mighty care in them of the Churches good which we cannot think any since them can exceed them in These things being supposed we are only to consider whether the Apostle hath not delivered his sense in our present subject viz. that prayers in an unknown tongue are contrary to the Edification of the Church It seems somewhat hard to us to be put to prove a matter so evident from St. Pauls discourse 1 Cor. 14. and we could not imagine any would go about to reconcile prayers in an unknown tongue to 1 Cor. 14. but those who think they can reconcile the worship of Images to the second Commandment The abuse St. Paul corrects with so much sharpness in the Church of Corinth was an impertinent use of the gift of Tongues such I mean as did not tend to the Edification of the Church as for Instance one man made a long Harangue in Hebrew and pleased himself mightily in the sound of the words when not a person there it may be understood a word that he said another of a sudden begins a Hymn in Syriack or Chaldee another falls a praying in Ethiopick but all this while no man interprets what these several men said to what purpose is all this saith the Apostle only for by-standers to think they were Children or mad men could they imagine God gave them these gifts of tongues to make uncouth and insignificant sounds with where the people were met together for the worship of God If they were so much tickled with the noise they might make that at home and not in the Church of God where all things ought to be done to Edification For they met together as a company of reasonable men to receive some benefit that might be common to them all and therefore the gift of tongues in a society of Christians could be of no use without an Interpreter But lest all this should seem to be spoken only of instruction of the people and not of prayer to God and that the case were not alike in both these he adds If I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful i. e. I may exercise my gift but it is to no use at all in the Church How so One of the Roman Church might have told St. Paul when I see him pray and know what he is doing may I not joyn my intention of praying with his as our Embassadour and pray my own private prayers at the same time that he doth I know the substance of what he designs to pray for and although I do not know his meaning God knows mine and therefore I can see no hinderance of devotion at all in this that when one begins a prayer in an unknown tongue all the people fall upon their knees and pray too This is the plain answer they must give St. Paul who justifies prayers in an unknown tongue But we are content with St. Pauls judgement in this case and the reason of it that the acts belonging to the worship of God in the Church ought to be of so common concernment that all may have a share in them and receive the benefit by them Or else they
This is my body Why do not then the people as readily believe that as any other proposition By which we see it is not meerly reading but a more dangerous thing called considering or reasoning which make them embrace some things as they lye in words and interpret others according to the clearest evidence which the nature of the thing the comparing with other places and the common sense of mankind will give But why are we not all of a mind I would fain know the time when men were so This variety of Sects was objected against the Philosophers and thought no argument then it was objected against the primitive Christians and thought of no force then why must it signifie more in England than ever it did in any other age or place But say they It was otherwise in England before the Scriptures came to be read by all it was and is otherwise in all Churches where they are not read therefore these Sects and Fanaticisms are the dire effects of the promiscuous reading the Scriptures This is the common and popular argument All things were well with us when we offered up Cakes to the Queen of Heaven when all joyned in the communion of the Roman Church then there were no Fanaticisms nor New Lights no Sects as there are now in England therefore why should any one make any doubt but he ought to return to the Church of Rome This necessarily leads me into the examination of these two things 1. Whether there be no danger of Fanaticism in the Roman Church 2. Whether the Vnity of that Church be so admirable to tempt all persons who prize the Churches Vnity to return to it § 2. Concerning the danger of Fanaticism in the Roman Church By Fanaticism we understand either an Enthusiastick way of Religion or resisting authority under a pretence of Religion In either sense it shall appear that the Church of Rome is so far from being cleared from it that it hath given great encouragement to it 1. As to an Enthusiastick way of Religion I shall now prove that there have not been greater Enthusiasts among us in England than have been in the Roman Church all the difference is they have been some alwayes others for a time allowed and countenanced and encouraged by those of the Church of Rome but among us they have been decryed and opposed by all the members of the Church of England I shall not insist upon the resolution of faith and the infallibility of the Church which must be carried to Enthusiasm at last but I shall prove it by plain revelations which have been made the grounds among them of believing some doctrines in dispute and the reasons of setting up a more perfect way of life which in the highest strain of their devotion is meer Enthusiasm 1. Revelations have been pleaded by them in matters of doctrine such I mean which depend upon immediate impulses and inspirations since the Canon of Scripture and Apostolical Traditions Of this we have a remarkable instance in a late controversie managed with great heat and interest on both sides viz. of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary about the ending of which a solemn Embassy was sent from the Kings of Spain Philip the third and Philip the fourth to the Popes Paul the fifth and Gregory the thirteenth and an account is given of it by one concerned himself in the management of the Theological part of it which he saith is therefore published that the world may understand upon what grounds the doctrines of faith are established among them One of the chief whereof insisted upon was some private revelations made to some Saints about the immaculate conception which being once received in the Church adds no small strength he saith to any doctrine and gives a solid foundation for a definition i. e. that the matter may be defined to be of faith and necessary to be believed by all Christians Upon this he reckons up several revelations publickly received in the Church one mentioned by Anselm being a divine apparition to an Abbot in a storm a fit time for apparitions whereby he was admonished to keep the Feast of the Conception of the blessed Virgin upon which as Baronius observes that Feast was first kept in England Which revelation Wadding tells us is publickly recited in the office for the day and was not only extant in several Breviaries of England France Spain and Italy but he had divers himself authorized by the Pope wherein it was recommended as true and piously to be believed and accordingly have been publickly sung and used in the Church about an hundred years And what saith he is the consequence of disbelieving this but to say in effect that the Pope and the Roman Church are easily cheated and abused by impostures and forgers of false revelations to institute new Festival Solemnities upon the credit of them Another revelation was made to Norbertus the founder of the Order of the Praemonstratenses in which the Virgin Mary appeared and commended her veneration to him and gave him a white garment in token of her Original Innocency which revelation is believed by all of that Order and taken as the reason of their habit Besides these there are several other revelations to S. Gertrude and others to the same purpose reckoned up by several Catholick Authors which no man ought to reject unless he intends to be as great a Heretick or therein as wise a man as Erasmus was Nay these revelations were so frequent he saith that there hath been no age since the tenth Century wherein there hath not been some made to devout men or women about this matter But above all these most remarkable were those to S. Brigitt who had not one or two but many to this purpose and the latest were of Joanna a Cruce which it seems were at first eagerly opposed but at last came out with the approbation of two Cardinals and several Bishops of the Inquisition in Spain But now who could imagine a thing so often revealed so publickly allowed so many times attested from Heaven should not be generally received but the mischief of it was the contrary doctrine had revelations for it too For Antoninus and Cajetan say S. Catharine of Siena had it revealed to her that she was conceived with Original sin What is to be done now Here we have Saint against Saint Revelation against Revelation S. Catharine against S. Brigitt and all the rest of them Here to speak truth they are somewhat hard put to it for they grant God cannot contradict himself and therefore of one these must be false but which of them is all the question Here they examine which of these doctrines is most consonant to Scripture and Tradition which is most for the benefit of the Church which were persons of the greater sanctity and whose revelations were the most approved For. S. Brigitts they plead stoutly that when they were delivered by her
to her Confessors they were strictly examined and after them by the Bishops and Divines of Sweden and approved as divine revelations from them they were sent as such to the Council of Basil from thence they were examined over again at Naples and there allowed and preached in the presence and by command of the Queen and Archbishop before all the people of the City again examined at Rome by Prelats and Cardinals A. D. 1377. by the Popes appointment and there approved and A. D. 1379. they are declared by those Vrban the sixth committed the new examination of them to to be authentick and to come from the Spirit of God and so much is declared by Boniface the ninth in the Bull of her Canonization and at last approved saith Wadding at the General Council of Basil. What could be expected less after this than that they should have been received as Canonical Scriptures they having never taken so much pains in examining and approving any controverted Books of the Bible as they had done about these revelations And no man knows how far their authority might have prevailed if the whole Sect of Dominicans had not been engaged in the opposite opinion For nothing else that I can find hath given any discredit to her revelations but this which makes Cajetan call them old Wives dreams as Wadding confesseth But it falls out very conveniently that S. Catharines revelation was just in the Dominican way in which she had been educated and for all that I can see wants little of the reputation of St. Brigitt For they were both very wonderful persons and had more familiar reyelations than any of the Prophets we read of S. Brigitt in her Childhood if we believe the account given of her in the Bull of Canonization by Bonifacius and her life by Vastavius had Visions as frequently as other Children have Babyes and was as well pleased with them the Virgin Mary was once her Midwife as the Pope very gravely tells us but her revelations after Christ took her for his Spouse have filled a great Volume Wherein a person that hath leisure enough may see strange effects of the power of imagination or a Religious Melancholy and to that Book the Pope in his Bull refers us and if any thing can be more considerable than the Popes authority the whole Roman Church in the prayers upon S. Brigitts day do confess these revelations to have come immediately from God to her and in one of the Lessons for that day do magnifie the multitude of her divine revelations But to say truth the Church of Rome allows fair play in the case for it magnifies S. Catharine as much as S. Brigitt for her holy Extasies are mentioned in the Lessons upon her day in one of which were five rayes coming from the five wounds of our Saviour to five parts of her body and she being wonderfull humble prayed our Lord that the wounds might not appear for fear she should have been thought as holy as S. Francis and immediately the colour of the blood was changed into pure light upon her hands and feet and heart And her Confessor Raimund who is alwayes a principal man in these things as Matthias a Suecia was to S. Brigitt without whom she was advised from Heaven to do nothing saw these splendid wounds upon her body but by what instrument did he see the wound in her heart Well though we Hereticks are not apt to be too credulous in these cases the Church of Rome very gravely tells us in the next Lesson that her learning was not acquired but infused by which she answered the most profound Doctors in the most difficult speculations in Divinity but these were nothing to her revelations and the service she did the Church of Rome by them in a time of Schisme But one gift she had above S. Brigitt which was that while she was on earth she could not only see but smell souls too and could not endure the stench of wicked souls as Raynaldus tells us from her Confessor Raimund a gift very few had besides her and Philip Nerius the Father of the Oratorians for Raynaldus one of his Order tells us from Bacius the Writer of his life that he was sometimes so offended with the smells of filthy souls that he would desire the persons to empty the Iakes of their souls Such divine Noses had these two Saints among them A degree of Enthusiasme above the Spirit of discerning any Quakers among us have ever pretended to Pope Pius the second in the Bull of Canonization of S. Catharine not only acknowledgeth a gift of Prophecy to have been in her but that sometimes her Extasies were so great that she was sensible of no kind of pain in them And S. Brigitt was often seen much above ground in her devotions and one saw Rivers and another Fire came out of her mouth but I think not at the same time These are things we rake not the old Kennells of the Golden Legends for but are at this day allowed and approved of in the Roman Church and their dayes kept and they prayed to upon the account of such things as these are § 3. Yet still we are to seek what is to be done when two Revelations contradict each other for the Dominicans are as peremptory for the revelation of S. Catharine as their adversaries are for that of S. Brigitt Two bold Fellows called Henricus de Hassia and Sybillanus knew no other way but to reject both as illusions and fancies but what becomes then of the Popes and Councils infallibility who have approved both Franciscus Picus Mirandula being a Learned and Ingenuous man confesseth himself at a loss both being concerning a thing passed there must be truth on one side and falshood on the other for the case is not the same saith he as to past and future things in which a condition may be understood By which means St. Bernard escaped when he promised great success to an expedition into the Holy Land and they who went in it found the quite contrary But at last gives us leave to conjecture his meaning when he saith That if any thing be false in a prophecy though some prove true we have cause to suspect all especially if it come from women whose judgements are weak and their passions vehement and imaginations easily possessed with what they are most desirous of and least able to distinguish between the strength of imagination and a divine revelation but as to that particular case of S. Catharine and S. Brigitt where both were women he saith The Divines were generally for the former and the Monks for the latter but which was in the truth he thinks cannot be known upon earth Martin Del Rio discoursing of the Revelations of Canonized Saints who were women in the Church of Rome reckons up S. Angela a Carmelitess whose Book of Revelations came out above four hundred years
properties in the Holy Trinity of the Fatherhead of the Motherhood and of the Lordship and she further saw that the second person which is our Mother substantially the same dear worthy person is now become our Mother sensual for we be double of Gods making substantial and sensual We may justly admire what esteem Mr. Cressy had of that Lady to whose devout retirements he so gravely commends the blasphemous and senseless tittle tattle of this Hysterical Gossip It were endless to repeat the Canting and Enthusiastick expressions which signifie nothing in Mother Iuliana's Revelations and one would wonder to what end such a Book were published among us unless it were to convince us of this great truth that we have not had so great Fanaticks and Enthusiasts among us but they have had greater in the Roman Church And by this means they may think to prevail upon the Fanaticks among us by perswading them that they have been strangely mistaken concerning the Church of Rome in these matters that she is no such enemy to Enthusiams and Revelations as some believe but that in truth she hath not only alwayes had such but given great approbation and encouragement to them So that among all their visions they do but mix some that confirm their particular Doctrines as the Visions of Iuliana concerning the great Worship of the B. Virgin from her son the holy Vernacle at Rome and such like fopperies these make all the rest very acceptable among them § 6. 2. That which they account the most perfect way of life hath been instituted by Enthusiastick persons and upon the credit of visions and revelations and the highest way of devotion in that Church is meer Enthusiasme 1. That the Religious orders were instituted among them by Enthusiastick persons upon the credit of their visions and revelations The most celebrated orders at this day in the Roman Church are the Benedictines Carthusians Dominicans Franciscans and Iesuites and if I can prove this concerning each of these we shall see how much Fanaticism hath contributed to the support of the Roman Church And it is a very fair way towards the proof of it that Bellarmin confesseth concerning the four first and that of Romoaldus that they were at first instituted by St. Benedict St. Romoaldus St. Bruno St. Dominick St. Francis by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and for Ignatius Loyola if he do not appear as great a Fanatick as ever hath been in the world we shall be contented to be upbraided with the charge of Fanaticism among us It is observable in the life of St. Benedict as St. Gregory relates in the second Book of his Dialogues that he was a great hater of humane learning and that was the first occasion of his retiring from the World being very much afraid a little knowledge should have destroyed him He therefore forsook not only his Studies but his Fathers house and business being as St. Gregory saith knowingly ignorant and wisely unlearned he might as well have said ignorantly learned and foolishly wise One might have suspected it had been rather hatred of his Book than devotion at his age which made him run away from School and his Fathers house but one of his Visions in his Cave makes it more probable there was some other occasion of it But however away he goes and only an old Nurse with him and he requited her soon for it for he by his Prayers set together the winnowing Sieve which she had broken in pieces which was after hanged up before the doors of the Church to the Lombards times But this is nothing to his being three years in a Cave without the knowledge of any but St. Roman who let him down victuals by a rope and a Bell and the Devil owing him a great spight threw a huge stone and broke the Bell. Here he lay so close that he was fain to be discovered by a vision and was so devout that he had forgotten Easter day till he was put in mind of it by the person who by a vision was sent to him and was so little like a man that the shepherds took him for a beast lying in a den But at last he is brought to light and found to be a wonderful person for among superstitious people ignorance and devotion are most admired together and now many are sent to him for education having conquered his amorous passions by rowling himself naked among thornes and nettles which thorns a long time after St. Francis grafted Roses upon as Bollandus well observes which bear in the coldest part of Winter and of them Rose water is made which is sent as a present to the greatest Princes He had an admirable Sagacity in spying Devils for he saw a little black Devil which led away a Monk from Prayers and was fain to pray two dayes with Pompeianus and Maurus that God would afford them the Grace to see him too and at last Maurus being young and his sight good saw him but Pompeianus being older and wiser could not However St. Bennet sent the little Devil packing with a stroke of his rod as he did at other times with the sign of the cross and easily caused a stone to be lifted up whereon the Devil sate which could not be stirred before his coming It would take up too much time to tell of his Miracles my business is only with his visions and revelations by which he could not only foretell things to come but could discover absent things so that the Monks could not eat out of his sight but he could tell as well as if he saw the meat in their teeth when they denyed it He discovered Riggo's fraud when he came to him in Totila's habit and told Totilas how long he should raign nay if we believe St. Gregory he knew the secrets of the Divinity being one Spirit with God no wonder then the unhappy Boy could not hide one Flask of Wine nor the Monks receive handkerchiefs of the Women but he found it out but most admirable was his sight of his Sister Scholastica's soul entring into Heaven in the shape of a Dove and another time the soul of Germanus Bishop of Capua in a fiery Circle carryed by Angels to Heaven but above all was his seeing all the world under one ray of the Sun which he could not do Gregory concludes without a Divine internal light upon which a dispute hath been raised in the Schooles whether St. Benedict saw the divine Essence or no Aquinas thinks not but only that he had an extraordinary revelation Vasquez doth not seem much to oppose it but upon two grounds the one very considerable that we never read the Virgin Mary did it who ought to have the highest share in revelations and visions the other only a plain place of Scripture No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son of the Father he hath revealed him As
about A. D. 1254. who was General of the Franciscan Order but the Book was received and defended by both Orders as will presently appear But it will be first necessary to consider what the doctrines are which are contained in this Book and if ever there were higher Fanaticism than is therein or rather greater blasphemies let them have leave to triumph The most perfect account we have of it is from Nicol Eymericus who was himself an Inquisitor and tells us these Heresies or Errors are contained in it 1. That the doctrine of Abbot Ioachim a great Fanatick excelled the doctrine of Christ and consequently the New and Old Testament 2. That the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the Kingdom and therefore is not edifying 3. That the New Testament is to be evacuated or lose its force as the Old hath already 4. That the New Testament shall not remain in force above six years longer viz. to A. D. 1260. 5. That they which shall live beyond that time shall be in the state of perfection 6. That the Gospel of Christ shall give way to another Gospel and so instead of the Priesthood of Christ another Gospel shall succeed 7. That no simple man is fit to instruct men in spiritual and eternal things but they that walk barefoot 8. That although God afflict the Iews in this world yet he will save them though they remain in Iudaism and will in the end deliver them from all the opposition of men remaining such as they are 9. That the Church hath not yet brought forth Children nor will do before the end of the temporal reign which shall be after six years and by this we are to understand that the Christian Religion which hath brought forth many called to the faith of Christ is not the Church 10. That the Gospel of Christ brings no man to perfection 11. That the Gospel of the Holy Ghost coming or Ioachims work obtaining called the Everlasting Gospel or of the Holy Ghost the Gospel of Christ shall be done away 12. That no man in Religious Orders is bound to expose his life for defence of the faith or preserving the worship of Christ but other men are 13. That as when Iohn Baptist came the things that were before must needs be confuted because of new things coming in their place so when the time of the Holy Ghost shall come or the third state of the world the things that were before must be confuted for the sake of the New which are to come from whence it must be understood that the New Testament must be refuted and the old cast away 14. That Christ and his Apostles were not perfect in the contemplative life 15. That the Order of the Clergy shall perish but one of a Religious Order shall be perferred above all in dignity and honour and that as the authority under the Father was committed to one of the married order so under the Holy Ghost to one or some of the order of Monks 16. That those who are over the Colledges of Monks ought in those dayes to think of departing from the Seculars and prepare themselves to return to the ancient people of the Iews 17. That the Preachers which shall be in the last state of the world shall be of greater dignity and authority than the Preachers of the Primitive Church 18. That the Preachers and Doctors of Religious Orders when they shall be infested by the Clergy shall go over to the Infidels and it is to be feared lest they go thither for that end to bring them in battel against the Roman Church according to the doctrine of S. Iohn Apocalyps 15. These may suffice out of twenty seven to let the world know where the height of Blasphemy and Fanaticism was first hatched and no one could imagine that any who had the face or name of Christians should own these things yet they came from those excellent and inspired persons of the newly founded Religious Orders And if it had not been for the mortal hatred that then was between the University of Paris and the Mendicant Fryers who usurped the Professors places in the Vniversity against their will God knows how far this doctrine might have prevailed without the least censure For the Popes were extreamly partial to the Fryers and would hear no ill of them they now finding them their most useful instruments in all their quarrels with Princes the Secular Clergy and the People So Matth. Paris relating the Story of the quarrels between the University and the Fryers tells That though the King and the City were for preserving the priviledges of the Vniversity yet the Fryers being at the Popes devotion and doing them a great deal of service were more acceptable in the Court of Rome and therefore got the better of the Vniversity Nay so zealous was Alexander the fourth in the cause of the Fryers against the Vniversity that in the six years of his Popedom he sent out near forty Bulls against the Vniversity of which not one now appears in the Bullarium but most of them are preserved in that accurate Preface before the Works of Gul. de Sancto Amore the zealous Defender of the Vniversity against the encroachments of the Fryers and in the late History of the Vniversity of Paris In the midst of these heats some intimation was given the Divines of the Vniversity of such a Book which was in great esteem among the Fryers called Evangelium aeternum wherein were very dangerous doctrines which were saith Matthew Paris preached read and taught by the Fryers and were put together by them in a Book called Evangelium aeternum and taken saith he chiefly out of the Books of Abbot Joachim and Richerius acknowledgeth that the Book was composed by the Fryers and that the Divines of Paris by some art got a Copy of it and extracted some Heads out of it which were contrary to faith and upon that as Du Bouley saith they caused it to be burnt publickly at Paris But not being satisfied herewith they preached against it as appears by a Sermon of Gul. de Sancto Amore at the end of his Works wherein he saith That he had seen no small part of that Book and he had heard that it doth in all contain more than the Bible and therein he saith it is taught that the Sacraments of the Church are nothing that the Gospel of Christ is not the true Gospel and that the Book it self is the Gospel of the Holy Ghost and the everlasting Gospel and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached but for five years to come that then men shall have another Rule of life and the Church shall be otherwise managed Which saith he is execrable and abominable to be spoken But not content with bare preaching against them he writ a very smart Book in the name of the Vniversity of Paris de periculo novissimorum temporum of the dangers of the
with her Picture and a Book of her life and eminent sanctity by a person of great authority which were preserved as precious things by the Vice-roy's Lady But this is nothing to Gregory the thirteenth then Pope who writ a Letter of encouragement to her to go on in the same way of sanctity she had begun She had been examined by the Inquisition and her wounds were allowed by them after diligent search But at last they found what she aimed at which was the Revolt of Portugall from Spain which being once suspected she is brought before the Inquisition and her Sanctity is condemned her wounds declared to be a meer Imposture being artificially made by red Lead and her self sentenced by the Inquisitors to a very severe pennance all her dayes Decemb. 8. A. D. 1588. I suppose my Adversary having been upon the place hath often heard the truth of this but if he doubts it he may find it as I have related it in Ludovicus a Paramo By which it is very easie to ghess what it is which gives and preserves the reputation of these things in the Roman Church for if this Saint had dyed before her design brake forth we might have heard of her wounds in the Roman Breviary as well as those of St. Francis and a Festival might have been kept in commemoration of her sanctity and her self as religiously invocated as the rest of the Popes making But supposing Pope Alexander the fourths authority prevailed so much upon the people to believe that S. Francis had the same wounds which Christ had c. No wonder then it should be written in the Book called The Flowers of S Francis that those only were saved by the blood of Christ who lived before S. Francis but all that followed were redeemed by the blood of S. Francis No wonder this Petrus Iohannis made the Rule of S. Francis to be the very same with the Gospel and that which Christ and his Apostles lived by of which S. Francis was the greatest observer next to Christ and his Mother and that as Christ when he was to reform the world chose twelve Apostles so S. Francis had twelve Brethren by whom the Evangelical Order was founded that those who opposed this Order were the carnal persecuting Clergy in whom the Seat of the Beast is much more than in the people that in the time of this Mystical Antichrist the Carnal Church shall oppose the doctrine life and zeal of the Saints and burn as it were with fire against them but it shall be dryed up from all spiritual Wisdom and Grace and the riches of Christ and be exposed to errors and delusion as it was with the Iews and Greeks Those who will not take the pains to see how faithfully I have translated these words out of Eymericus would imagine I have borrowed some of the canting language of the modern Quakers But he goes on saying That as Vasthi the Queen being cast off from the Kingdom and Marriage of Ahassuerus the humble Esther was chosen to succeed in her place and the King made a great Feast to his Princes and Servants so in this last state of the Church the adulterous Babylon the carnal Church being rejected the spiritual Church must be exalted and a great and spiritual Feast be kept to celebrate these Nuptials with that under the Mystical Antichrist there shall be overturnings and commotions by which the Carnal Church shall be terribly stirred up and moved against the Evangelical Spirit of Christ but that the Whore of Babylon the Carnal Church shall fall in which time the Saints shall preach saying from this time it is no longer the Church of Christ but the Synagogue of Satan and the Habitation of Devils which before said in the pride of her heart I sit as a Queen in great honour and glory I rule over my Kingdom I sit at ease I am no Widow i. e. I have Bishops and Kings on my side that the Roman Church is that great Whore spoken of in the Revelations which hath committed fornication with this world having departed from the worship and sincere love and the delights of Christ her Spouse and embraced the world the riches and pleasures of it and the Devil and Kings and Princes and Prelates and all the lovers of this world That the Teachers of this spiritual State are more properly the Gates to lead men into the wisdom of Christ than the Apostles themselves These things are expresly delivered concerning the doctrine of this Franciscan Fryer by the Inquisitor Eymericus I know Wadding in his Franciscan Annals to preserve the reputation of his Order would clear him from all suspicion of Heresie but I suppose the credit of an Inquisitor having such opportunities to know the truth so near his own time and having the examination of many of his followers is to be relyed on rather than the testimony of one at such a distance and partial for the honour of his order Especially that being considered which Possevin saith of Eymericus that most of his accounts of the times a little before his own were the very same with what was contained in a Manuscript in the Vatican Library both as to order and words which is though to have been brought from Avignon to Rome where he was made Inquisitour General by Gregory 11. A. D. 1358. But it is not denyed by Wadding or others that the Beguini and Fratricelli the Beguardi and others were his followers and we shall find so great an agreement in their opinions that it would be strange they should be accounted the Disciples of any other Eymericus gives this account of them that in the time of Clement 5. there arose in the Province of Narbonne one Petrus Iohannis a Franciscan Fryer who published by Writing and Preaching a great many Errours and Heresies in the same Province and drew many after him who had spread themselves over France Italy Germany and other places and continued in his time being daily searched for condemned by the Inquisitours They all agreed that their doctrine was from God by immediate inspiration and that all the writings of Petrus Johannis were revealed to him from the Lord and that he had declared this to some of his Friends that he was so great a Doctor that from the time of the Apostles and Evangelists there have been none greater than he in Learning and Holiness and that his writings theirs only excepted wherein they fell short of the former Sect were the most useful to the Church § 10. Their doctrines may be reduced to these four heads 1. Evangelical poverty 2. Unlawfulness of Swearing 3. The Doctrine of perfection 4. Opposition to the carnal Church Which being joyned with that greater degree of light which they supposed themselves to have above all the rest of the world makes up a Sect of Quakers after the Order of St. Francis 1. Their Doctrine of Evangelical poverty about which they said That our
how easily men were imposed upon by visions and raptures among them he saith that he knew a woman who was afterwards known to be naught that had raptures at her pleasure whom he had honoured as a Saint himself and the very ground she stood on and not only he but many others even Prelats and Cardinals too by which he saw evidently how easily the Devil could transform himself into an Angel of Light and after saith of the Beguinae that under the shew of sanctity they committed many vile things A strange instance of the impostures of one of the Beguinae who gained a great reputation for sanctity by her constancy and devotion at prayers her pretending to raptures and extasies wherein her soul was carried to Heaven her long fastings whereby she imposed upon the Bishop the Fryers and all the people to so great a degree that the Bishop was about building a Church on purpose to lay her in that all comers might behold her who led such an Angelical life and how accidentally the imposture was discovered to the great dissatisfaction of them all but especially the Bishop is at large related by Richerius 4. But notwithstanding all this they had a mighty zeal against the carnal Church and called all those blind who were not of their way as Eymericus saith of them in these maâ—ters they followed Petrus Iohannis of whose opinions about the Church we have already spoken any that suffered among them were cryed up as Martyrs and four of the Brethren suffering at Marseilles A. D. 1316. they said they were so far from suffering as Hereticks that they were as good Martyrs as St. Laurence or Vincentius that Christ was spiritually Crucified in them that all who approved or consented to their death Pope Prelats or others were all Hereticks for it and lost all right of governing the Church or administring Sacraments and are out of the Church and therefore not in a state of Salvation and they only are the true Church These are the chief of their doctrines although Eymericus reckons up no fewer than fifty five Errours and Heresies among them And notwithstanding all the care used by Popes and Inquisitours against them in the time of Clement 5. Iohn 22. Benedict 12. Clement 6. Innocent 6. and afterwards they not only continued but spread themselves still further Iohn Gerson who lived in the beginning of the next Century mentions not only the doctrines of the everlasting Gospel but those of the Begardi the substance of which he saith is that a perfect soul being reduced to God loseth its own will so that it hath no other will but the divine will which it had from eternity in that Ideal being which it had in God which being supposed they say they may do any thing which their affection puts them upon without sin because they have no will of their own The way of renouncing their own wills was somewhat different he tells us for the more cunning pretended to do it only to God but these prevailed upon the other to renounce their own wills before them which when they had done they told them they could now sin no longer and so did what they pleased together Under which pretext of renouncing their own wills all manner of wickedness was committed among them Neither were they only in France Italy Sicily and Germany but they prevailed much in Spain too for in the time of Benedict 12 in Catalonia there were many Beguardi saith Eymericus the chief of whom was Fryer Bonanatus who was burnt for his Heresie in the time of Clement 6. there arose many of them in the Province of Valencia whose leader was Iacobus Iusti and was therefore immured and so dyed In the time of Innocent 6. Vrban 5. Gregory 11. appeared in Catalonia one Arnoldus Montanerius who publickly Preached for nineteen years together the opinions of the Begardi about poverty and added these of his own that no one can be damned who wears the habit of St. Francis that St. Francis once a year goes down into Purgatory and thence draws the souls of all that have been of his order and carries them to Paradise These we have from Eymericus who saith that by order of Vrban 5. and Greg. 11. he sate as Inquisitour upon him And lest we should think this Sect inconsiderable among them Ludovicus de Paramo the Inquisitour of Sicily declares that the Fratricelli carrying an appearance of Sanctity with great poverty drew the hearts of all men to them and drove John 22. into great straights and by the Schisme they raised gave a great disturbance to the whole Church Neither was it of any short continuance if we consider the fundamental principles of this Sect which were immediate revelations renouncing property and liberty of actions for so it began with Almerick at Paris and we have seen how much afterwards promoted by the Mendicant Fryers and especially by those who called themselves of the third Order of St. Francis and pretended to far greater strictness as to their rule than others on which account Celestine 5. A. D. 1294. gave them first liberty to separate themselves from the Community which was afterwards pleaded by the Fratricelli against Clement 5. and Iohn 22. § 11. But besides these who before were of this order others took up the same way and opinions which were never originally of it as the followers of Geraldus Segarelli and Dulcinus in Italy who are called Fratricelli by Platina by others Pseudo-Apostolici and Dulcinistae Spondanus confesseth those in Italy who were the followers of one Hermannus of Ferrara to be the same with the Fraticelli and Beguini whose body saith Prateolus after he had been twenty years worshipped for a Saint was by the command of Boniface 8. taken up and burnt for an Heretick Ludovicus de Paramo saith that it was thirty years after he had been publickly worshipped by the people of Ferrara and he reckons up this as one of the great blessings which comes by the Inquisition that they are thereby undeceived in many whom they worship for Saints of which he gives several other instances But the burning of Hermannus bones did not extinguish the Sect of Fraticelli there the only effect of this severity was that they grew more numerous and bold as Patreolus and Spondanus confess They kept their Conventicles more frequently and spread the further insomuch that great multitudes of people fell in with them Among whom as their chief leaders were several of the order of St. Francis as Spondanus proves from the Extravagant Sancta Romana of Iohn 22. And of the same Sect were the Pseud-Apostolici whose chief leaders were Geraldus Segarelli and Dulcinus one of his Disciples the one of Parma the other of Novara these filled all the Countrey thereabout with their errours saith Eymericus and made an Independent Congregation among themselves which acknowledged obedience and subjection
Salamanca where he finds no kinder entertainment being put into chains in the Dungeon and strictly examined For here he follows his former course he and his companions in an Enthusiastical manner being meer lay-men as Maffeius acknowledgeth going up and down the Streets Preaching in all places and to all sorts of persons and being examined by the Sub-prior of the Dominicans what Studies they followed Ignatius very fairly confessed the truth that they were unlearned He then asked him why they took upon them to Preach Ignatius very subtilly told him they did not Preach they did only hold forth to the people in a familiar manner concerning vertue and vice and thereby endeavoured to bring them to the hatred of one and love of the other The Sub-prior told him this was Preaching which no one could pretend to do but either by learning or immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost and since you do not pretend to learning you must pretend to be inspired Here Ignatius finding himself caught resolutely denyed to give him any answer unless he were legally impowred to examine him Say you so said the Dominican I will take care of that suddenly So they were three dayes kept in the Convent and after that by order of the Bishop of Salamanca were committed to close Prison where he Preached to the people with great zeal who now flocked in great numbers to him and gloried as much in his sufferings and talked at the same rate that the Ring-leaders of the Quakers are wont to do among us And just with the same resolution when the rest of the Prisoners made their escape by the negligence of the keepers Ignatius and his companions would not stirr When they were called to answer Ignatius Preached at large upon several points of Divinity to them under pretence of answering questions After twenty two dayes promising to submit themselves to the judgement of the Church they are dismissed but with a charge in four years time not to meddle with nice Cases of Conscience which Ignatius took with so much indignation that he had a present impulse upon his mind to be gone and no consideration whatever could hinder him but away he must go to Paris to see if he could meet with any better success there And accordingly he begins his journey driving all his learning before him which was an Asse laden with Books as Maffeius relates and so reaches Barcelona and afterwards arrived safe at Paris Where being sensible of his own ignorance and dulness he resolves to ply his Book better and to that end enters himself among the Boyes in the School and begins his Grammar again A sad case that after two years Schooling at Barcelona being at two Vniversities in Spain and having so many revelations he should be yet so great a Dunce that he could not tell the rules of Grammar Now he finds it necessary to pray and whip less and to study more Here he finds so cold a reception that Hospitals Begging help from Countrey men were all little enough to keep him at first from starving but however after eighteen months spent in learning a little Latin he applyes himself to Philosophy but the Enthusiastick heat of his brain was so great that he had much adoe to keep his mind to it but at last he obtained his Degree in Philosophy after three years and a half study or at least so much time spent there Then he goes to the Dominican School to learn Divinity where he got just enough to keep him from being a Heretick for so much Maffeius his words imply All this while his Enthusiastick head was full of projects in order to the drawing Disciples to himself that he might in imitation of former Heroes Found a new order for this it is apparent he aimed at and for the sake of this he went through so many difficulties and pretended so much to Enthusiasm without which he knew his design could not be compassed Orlandinus therefore tells us that being at Antwerp as he used to make excursions sometimes from Panis to beg a subsistence being in a company of Merchants he looked stedfastly upon a young Merchant and not knowing what effect such words might have upon him afterwards he called him aside and told him he ought to thank God who had chosen him to build a Colledge for the Society of Iesus in his own Countrey By which it is plain what he designed at that time before he had yet formed any thing like a Society and the same Author would have men believe that God had then revealed it to him that he should found that Society otherwise he saith well no man would have taken so much pains as he did unless he had such a thing in his head During his abode at Paris he had prevailed upon three Students and the first thing he perswaded them to was to give away all that they had and their Books too and to beg their bread which caused a great heat in the Vniversity he being suspected to have made them mad and by force they took them away from the Hospital whither he had drawn them I omit his flying or rather being carryed as it were in a rapture from Paris to Rouen and the joy and extatick expressions he had in it his standing up in dirt and mire to the neck to represent to his companion the filthiness of the sin he lived in his so narrowly escaping being publickly whipt in the University for seducing the Students that Orlandinus makes it almost a Miracle But we are now to take notice that his design being to form a Society he had for that purpose used himself to all the arts of insinuation imaginable accommodating himself to the humours of the persons he had to do with endeavouring to oblige all men with expressions of the greatest kindness bearing all affronts with a wonderful dissimulation as Maffeius describes him By these arts he labours to get some of the most hopeful Students in the University to him and at last prevailes upon nine to joyne with him he studies their humours and applies himself accordingly not acquainting them at first with his design but by degrees prepares them for it among them Xaverius at first laughed at him and despised him but was at last won by his obsequiousness flattery and insinuation And finding his former Disciples soon grew weary of him and forsook him he resolves to tye these faster and to that end appoints a meeting in a Church dedicated to the B. Virgin in the Suburbs of Paris where they all solemnly vow before receiving the Eucharist none but themselves being present either to go to Ierusalem or to offer themselves to the Popes service which was done A. D. 1534. upon the day of Assumption of the B. Virgin to whose Patronage they particularly devoted themselves After this Ignatius fearing their relapse kept them together as much as might be and used all means to prevent any differences happening
preserve the honour of Regicides it was but seven months and twenty four dayes before Ravaillac perfected that work which the other had begun This observation I owe to an ingenuous and learned Doctor of the Sorbon yet living who detests these practices and doctrines and himself lyes under the same censure there And the more to abuse the world on the same day a Book of Mariana's was suspended which those who look no farther than the name might imagine was the dangerous Book so much complained of but upon search it appears to be a Book quite of another nature concerning Coynes The latter instance concerns the Irish Remonstrance the account of which I take from Caron the publisher of it The Popish Clergy of Ireland a very few excepted were accused of Rebellion for opposing themselves to the Kings Authority by the instigation of the Popes Nuncio after which followed a meeting of the Popish Bishops where they banished the Kings Lieutenant and took the Royal Authority upon themselves almost all the Clergy and a great part of the people joyned with them and therefore it was necessary since the Kings return to give him better satisfaction concerning their Allegiance and to decline the Oath of Allegiance which they must otherwise have taken some of them agree upon this Remonstrance to present to the King the news of which was no sooner come to Rome but Cardinal Barberin sends a Letter to the Irish Nobility 8 July A. D. 1662. to bid them take heed of being drawn into the ditch by those blind guides who had subscribed to some propositions testifying their Loyalty to the King which had been before condemned by the Apostolick See After this the Popes Nuncio at Brussels Iuly 21. 1662. sends them word how displeasing their Remonstrance was at Rome and that after diligent examination by the Cardinals and Divines they found it contained Propositions already condemned by Paul 5. and Innocent 10. and therefore the Pope gave him order to publish this among them that he was so far from approving their Remonstrance that he did not so much as permit it or connive at it and was extremely grieved that the Irish Nobility were drawn into it and therefore condemned it in this form That it could not be kept without breach of faith according to the Decree of Paul 5. and that it denyed the Popes Authority in matters of faith according to that of Innocent 10. By this very late instance we see what little countenance they receive from Rome who offer to give any reasonable security to the King of their Loyalty and by the Popes own Declaration the giving of it is an injury to the faith and a denying his Supremacy For which we are to understand that A. D. 1648. when the Papists were willing to make as good terms for themselves as they could and it was objected to them that they held Principles inconsistent with Civil Government viz. that the Pope can absolve them from their obedience that he can depose and destroy Heretical Magistrates that he can dispense with all Oaths and contracts they make with those whom they call Hereticks upon which they met together and to save themselves from banishment resolved them in the Negative but no sooner was this heard at Rome but the sacred Congregation condemned this resolution as heretical and the subscribers as lyable to the penalties against those who deny the Popes Authority in matters of faith upon which they are cited to appear at Rome and Censures and Prisons are there prepared for them The summ of it then is that they can give no security of their Loyalty to the King against the Popes power to depose him and absolve his Subjects from whatever Oaths they make to him or they must be accounted Hereticks at Rome for so doing For this good old Cause is as much still in request at Rome as ever and it is in their power to be accounted Hereticks at Rome or bad Subjects in their own Countrey but one of them they cannot avoid So much may suffice to shew that the most dangerous Principles of Fanaticism either as to Enthusiasm or Civil Government are owned and allowed in the Church of Rome and therefore the number of Fanaticks among us is very unjustly charged upon the Reading the Scriptures in our own Language CHAP. V. Of the Divisions of the Roman Church The great pretence of Vnity in the Church of Rome considered The Popes Authority the fountain of that Vnity what that Authority is which is challenged by the Popes over the Christian World the disturbances which have happened therein on the account of it The first revolt of Rome from the Empire caused by the Popes Baronius his Arguments answered Rebellion the foundation of the greatness of that Church The cause of the strict League between the Popes and the posterity of Charles Martel The disturbances made by Popes in the new Empire Of the quarrels of Greg. 7. with the Emperour and other Christian Princes upon the pretence of the Popes Authority More disturbances on that account in Christendome than any other matter of Religion Of the Schisms which have happened in the Roman Church particularly those after the time of Formosus wherein his Ordinations were nulled by his successours the Popes opposition to each other in that Age the miserable state of that Church then described Of the Schisms of latter times by the Italick and Gallick factions the long continuance of them The mischief of those Schisms on their own principles Of the divisions in that Church about matters of Order and Government The differences between the Bishops and the Monastick Orders about exemptions and priviledges the history of that Controversie and the bad success the Popes had in attempting to compose it Of the quarrel between the Regulars and Seculars in England The continuance of that Controversie here and in France The Jesuits enmity to the Episcopal Order and jurisdiction the hard case of the Bishop of Angelopolis in America The Popes still favour the Regulars as much as they dare The Jesuits way of converting the Chinese discovered by that Bishop Of the differences in matters of Doctrine in that Church They have no better way to compose them than we The Popes Authority never truly ended one Controversie among them Their wayes to evade the decisions of Popes and Councils Their dissensions are about matters of faith The wayes taken to excuse their own differences will make none between them and us manifested by Sancta Clara's exposition of the 39 Articles Their disputes not confined to their Schools proved by a particular instance about the immaculate conception the infinite scandals confessed by their own Authors to have been in their Church about it From all which it appears that the Church of Rome can have no advantage in point of Vnity above ours 2. § 1. THE other thing objected as flowing from the promiscuous reading the Scriptures is the number of our Sects and the
Murdered by the people of Rome and not content with this he writ a Letter to the Emperour full of the greatest reproaches imaginable Baronius is here very hard put to it to Vindicate the Pope for he confesses the Rebellion of the people was occasioned by the Popes opposing the Emperour and commends their zeal for Religion in it and acknowledgeth that the Emperour laid all the blame on the Pope and that the Greek Historians Theophanes and Zonaras do so too but all this he saith proceeded only from their spight against the Roman Church and their ignorance of affairs in it but if we believe him the Pope rather endeavoured to keep them in obedience to the Emperour and when they would have chosen another he opposed it which he proves from Paulus Diaconus and Anastasius But what is that to the business the question is not whether the Pope did not hinder the choosing another Emperour but whether he did not draw the people off from their obedience to the Emperour that then was And this is not only affirmed by the Greek historians but by those of the Roman Church Sigebert saith that Gregory 2. finding the Emperour incorrigible he made Rome Italy and all the West to revolt from him and forbad his Tributes the same is affirmed by Otto Frisingensis Conradus Vrspergensis Hieronymus Rubeus and others who cannot be suspected of any enmity to the Roman Church As for the making a new Emperour therein the Pope had another game to play he was not willing the Souldiery should make another Emperour for as Hadrianus Valesius well observes the Pope durst not so affront the Emperour if he had not held a private correspondency with Charles Martel at that time whose honour and armes were the greatest in these Western parts Having thereby strengthened his interest against both the Emperour his known enemy and the Lombards that were at best but unfaithful friends he makes what advantage he can of the places that owed subjection to the Emperour to make up the Patrimony of the Church as Valesius observes particularly of Sutrium but Sigonius saith the people not only cast off the Emperour but did swear to be faithful to the Pope no wonder then he was not willing to have a new Emperour chosen so that at this time Rome and the Roman Dutchy came into the hands of the Pope the Cities of which are enumerated by Sigonius and therefore Papirius Massonus deservedly makes this Pope the founder of the greatness of the Roman Church which we see was laid in down-right rebellion and can be no otherwise justified than by making the Pope absolute Governour of the World Not long after the Pope begins saith Valesius a warr with the Lombards who watched any occasion to take away some part of his newly gotten Patrimony he therefore sends away Anastasius and Sergius into France to Charles Martel with the Keyes of St. Peters Sepulchre in token of their owning him as their Protector Which Embassie being acceptable to Charles he procures a peace to be concluded between the Lombards and the Romans which was contrary to the Popes desire who sent several Letters and Messengers to him to come into Italy to revenge St. Peters quarrel against the Lombards with Fire and Sword and as he loved St. Peter he would come with all Speed into Italy as appears by the letters still extant and published by Sirmondus But he soon after dying his Son Pepin succeeding in all his power and growing weary of having so much as the name of a King above him sends to Pope Zachary to know whether it were not fitter for him to bear the name who did all the business of a King who very well understood his meaning and readily assented to it upon which Chilperick was deposed and put into a Monastery and Pepin was afterwards absolved by the Pope from his Oath of fidelity with all the Nobles and People There being now so close a League between the Popes interest and Pepins the ones title to his Crown depending on the Popes authority the others security upon his protection no wonder to see them endeavour the promoting each others advantage The Popes Territories being not long after molested by Aistulphus King of the Lombards Stephen writes a very pittiful Letter of complaint to Pepin and Charles and Charlemagne his Sons wherein he saith that Aistulphus had almost broke his heart with grief because he would not leave one foot of Land to St. Peter and the Holy Church and therefore he conjures them by St. Peter who had anointed them Kings that they would recover the lands again out of the Lombards hands or otherwise they may think what a sad account they will give to St. Peter in the day of Judgement These are the words of the Popes letter lately published by Delaland Sirmondus his Nephew in his Supplement of the Gallican Councils Upon this Pepin comes to his assistance and every peace addes still more to the Churches Revenew by which it was now grown very considerable by the spoiles of the Empire the Exarchat of Ravenna in Pope Stephens time being destroyed which was the only remainder then left of the Empire in Italy and the revenews of it were given by Pepin to the Church of Rome as appears by an ancient inscription in Ravenna mentioned by Papirius Massonus Which the Pope solicited hard for when he went himself into France on purpose to stirr up Pepin against the Lombards and was much afraid lest the Exarchat should have been restored again to the Emperour but Pepin promising to give the Region of Pentapolis and Ravenna to the Roman See assoon as he had taken them from the Lombards the Pope went away well satisfied and drew after him a mighty Army whereby a great part of Italy was laid waste and the people miserably harrassed for no other end but to secure that to the Pope which did by all right belong to the Emperour Who sent Ambassadours first to the Pope and then to Pepin to desire the restitution of those places to their true owner but the Pope denyed and Pepin urged the promise he had already made to the Pope and that he could not go back from it because he undertook that quarrel meerly for his souls and the Popes sake without expecting any advantage to himself by it Aistulphus being dead Desiderius takes upon him the Kingdom of Lombardy but he fearing Rachis the right heir makes a League presently with the Pope and by surrendring up some more Cities makes him wholly of his party and Rachis is fain to retire again to a Monastery but after a while Desiderius finds an occasion to quarrel with the Pope and takes several cities into his hands which the Pope had gotten possession of and threatens suddenly to besiege Rome Pope Adrian finding himself in these straights dispatches away messengers with all speed to
Charles the Son of Pepin that he would imitate his Father and Grandfather in relieving the Church of Rome in this distress Charles not willing to omit such an opportunity of inlarging his Dominions enters Italy with a great Army and in a little time puts a period to the Kingdom of Lombardy which had then lasted in Italy 206 years and was magnificently received at Rome by Hadrian and the people by whom he was chosen Protector of the Roman Church and state under the name of Patritius and he being desired by Hadrian to confirm his Fathers Promises to the Church not only doth that but addes a considerable accession the more firmly to oblige the Romans and especially the Pope to him Italy being thus reduced nothing was now wanting to Charles but the Title of Emperour having already so great a dominion in Italy besides what he had in Germany and France This had been often treated on between the Pope and him but the seditions of Rome by the Emperours party frequently happening by the presence of some of his Officers there as Platina confesseth and his party being not inconsiderable in other parts though not daring publickly to appear and Charles by his Warrs being elsewhere employed this was put off till Pope Leo 3. by the conspiracy of some of the chief Citizens of Rome was seized on and imprisoned from whence making a difficult escape he goes in haste to Charles who coming into Italy and punishing the conspiratours the Pope then some say by his own Authority of which number Bellarmin reckons thirty three Authors others by the consent of the Senate and people declares Charles to be Emperour of Rome who solemnly performs the office of his Inauguration Thus we have seen the Foundation laid of the Greatness of the Roman Church which being begun in Rebellion was carryed on by continual warrs and so great devastations of the Countrey that Platina and Blondus both say that the countrey about Rome suffered more in that time than in all the invasions of the barbarous Nations for 344 years before And was not the Church like to enjoy much happiness and peace under a Government founded in Rebellion and maintained by blood for we see the Popes were the great instruments of casting off their lawful Prince and taking his Territories to themselves and to maintain what they had unjustly gotten never scrupled beginning quarrels making warrs calling in any forrain assistance that might the most serve to promote their designes § 3. It might now be imagined that the Popes having been so highly obliged by Charlemagne they should in meer gratitude have done their utmost to preserve the Empire in peace under his posterity but they are great strangers to the Court of Rome who look for any thing there but what tends to their own advantage For in the time of Ludovicus Pius son of Charles the great his sons combining together against him in France the Pope Gregory 4. going thither under a pretence of reconciling them joynes with the Sons in their Rebellion against their Father This Baronius would have to be a meer calumny and endeavours to vindicate the Pope because Paulus Aemilius saith that the Pope abrogated the Decree whereby Ludovicus was deprived of the Empire But Baronius understood his business too well to make use of the Testimony of so late an Author if he could have had any assistance from those who lived near the time Nithardus who lived in the same age and was nearly related to the Imperial Family wrote a Book on purpose of the differences among the Sons of Ludov. Pius and he expresly saith that they drew the Pope into their Party which is likewise affirmed by the Author of the life of the said Emperour who lived at the same time the Pope he saith indeed pretended to reconcile them but the event shewed it to be otherwise and the Emperour sent to him to know if he came to him what made him stay so long before he came at him and Vnderstanding that he came with a design to excommunicate all that would not joyne with the Sons against the Father he said that if he came to excommunicate others he should go away excommunicated himself because he acted against the Canons Papirius Massonus upon the Testimony of Nithardus whom he calls Vitaldus makes Gregory guilty of the conspiracy of the Sons against their Father and the reason he gives of it is that Lotharius having the command of Italy might dispossess him of his seat if he opposed him and more he saith are ready to worship the rising than the setting Sun A very worthy excuse for the head of the Church to encourage the Rebellion of Sons against their Father and him too who had all his life shewed as much kindness to the Roman See as his Ancestors had done Sigebertus Gemblacensis saith that Pope Gregory went into France being of the party of the Emperours Sons against himself And Hincmarus the famous Bishop of Rhemes who lived in the time of Ludovicus his sons in his Letter to Pope Hadrian 2. saith that Gregory came into France with Lotharius against the Emperours will and there was no peace in France after as had been before and that he returned with infamy to Rome It would be too large a task to reckon up particularly all the quarrels which the Popes after this did either begin with or foment among Christian Princes I shall only at present single out some of the most remarkable of them not managed by Beasts and Monsters as their own Writers call some of their Popes but persons applauded for their Wisdome and Courage in maintaining the dignity of their See § 4. Among these Gregory 7. deserves the first place I meddle not with other things in this life which Cardinal Benno hath writ and is very weakly suspected by Bellarmin to have been made by some Lutheran it being first published by a zealous Papist but that which I design is to shew that under a pretence of advancing his Authority he was the great Boutefeu of Christendome It is observed by some Historians that Henry 4. then Emperour sought sixty two pitched Battails ten more than ever Iulius Caesar fought and he may thank the Pope for so many opportunities to shew his courage For he was no sooner well settled in his chaire but he finds a pretence of quarrelling with the Emperour and he had such a spirit of contradiction in him that it was enough for any thing to displease him to hear it was liked by the Emperour and the Bishops as Otto Frisingensis reports of him While he was yet but Arch-deacon of Rome Petrus Damiani who was a Brother Cardinal with him describes him as a person of the greatest pride and insolency imaginable in a letter to Pope Alexander 2. and Hildebrand his Arch-deacon wherein he calls him Sanctum Satanam a holy Devil and saith that his venerable pride
purpose when he set up Conradus the Emperours Son in Rebellion against his Father This Baronius would fain shift off as not arising from the Popes instigation but some private discontents for which he quotes Dodechindus but Sigonius who follows the same Author saith expresly that he took upon him the Kingdom of Lombardy against his Father by the Authority of Urban himself and Bertholdus whose testimony is afterwards produced by Baronius mentions not only their meeting at Cremona but that Conradus there took an oath of fidelity to the Pope and the Pope in requital solemnly promised him to give him all the advice and assistance he could for the obtaining the Kingdom and Empire of his Father What is somenting and encouraging Rebellion in the highest degree if this be not And the sentence of deposition of Conrade in the Diet at Aken A. D. 1096. expresly mentions as the cause of it his adhering to Pope Vrban against the Emperour his Father and there his Son Henry declared his successour and solemnly swears never to Rebell against his Father But notwithstanding this Oath Conrad being dead this Son is likewise prevailed upon by the Popes instruments to Rebell against his Father for Pascal 2. succeeding Vrban had again excommunicated Henry 4. and at a Council called by him in Rome he made all the Bishops present by particular subscription to Anathematize the Emperours heresie as they were pleased to call it and to promise obedience to Paschal and his Successours and to affirm what the Church affirmed and condemn what she condemns Having by this means secured the Bishops from adhering to the Emperours party there wanted not Agents to solicit his Son to take away his Crown from him And the first thing he did upon his rebellion was to Anathematize his Fathers heresie which was keeping the Empire in spight of the Popes and to promise obedience to the Pope as the Bishops had done at Rome and in the Diet at Northausen A. D. 1105. he calls God to witness that it was no desire of the Empire which made him take his Fathers Government from him but if he would obey the Pope he would presently yield himself to him and become his Slave And when the Son had in a perfidious manner seized on the Person of his Father and he addressed himself to the Popes Legat for his safety he plainly told him he must look for none unless he would publickly declare the justice of Hildebrand and his own unjust persecutions of the Roman See But which is the most evident testimony of all others in this case Henry 4. a little before his death A. D. 1106. at Liege whither he was forced to retire by his Sons rebellion sends an account of the whole quarrel to Philip of France wherein he declares that he had offered all reasonable satisfaction to the Pope only preserving the authority of the Empire but this not being accepted in a most unnatural manner they had armed his most beloved Son his Absolom against him who by their instigation and council had most perfidiously dealt with him but we need not so much proof of this since Baronius confesseth that the Son had no greater cause of rebelling against his Father than that he was excommunicated by the Pope and afterwards very freely delivers his mind that in case the Son did it sincerely as he pretended i. e. out of obedience to the See of Rome it was saith he an act of great piety in him to be thus cruel to his Father and that his only offence was that he did not bind him faster till he was brought to himself i. e. to the Popes beck O the admirable doctrine of obedience at Rome What an excellent commentary is this upon the fifth Commandment and the thirteent to the Romans What mighty care hath the Church of Rome alwayes taken to preserve peace and unity in the Christian Church The Historians who report the passages of this time tell us there was never known so dismal an age as that was for Warres and Bloodshed for Murthers and Parricides for Rapines and Sacriledge for Seditions and Conspiracies for horrible Schisms and Scandals to Religion the Priests opposing the Bishops the People the Priests and in some places not only robbing the Churches burning the Tithes but trampling under foot the holy Eucharist that was consecrated by such whom Pope Hildebrand had excommunicated And must we after all this believe that the Roman See is the fountain of Vnity in the Catholick Church that all Warrs and Rebellions arise from casting off such subjection to the Popes who have been the great fomenters of Rebellion ever since Hildebrands time and the disturbers of the peace of Christendome For we are not to imagine that this quarrel ended with Henry 4. for it was revived again in Henry the fifth's time between Pope Paschal and him and the Pope grants him the priviledges which his Father contended for but afterwards revoked his own grant perjury being no sin at Rome in so holy a cause and raised a Rebellion in the Empire against him and notwithstanding several agreements made between him and the successive Popes could enjoy no lasting peace in his time upon their account and dyed at last without issue going to suppress a new Rebellion After his death Conradus being to succeed as Sisters Son to Henry 5. Lotharius by the arts of the Court of Rome was set up in opposition to him he was fain to part with the rights of the Empire to satisfie the Pope who made him receive the Imperial Crown at his feet In the time of Conradus who succeeded Lotharius the Pope encouraged Guelfo the Duke of Bavaria in a Rebellion against him from whom the two loving factions of Guelphs and Gibellines had their beginning It would be endless to relate the disturbances of the Christian world which arose from the contentions of several Popes about their Authority with Frederick Barbarossa Philippus Suevus Otho 4. Frederick 2. Ludovicus Bavarus and other Emperours till such time as the Majesty of the Empire was lost in Carolus 4. or if we should give an account of all the Warrs and Rebellions and Seditions and Quarrels which happened meerly upon pretence of the Papal Authority in our own Nation or in France or elsewhere But these may at present suffice to give testimony what an excellent instrument of Peace to the Christian world the Authority challenged by the Bishop of Rome hath been and that Authority still vindicated and asserted in the Court of Rome § 6. 2. But although such civil disturbances have happened by the contentions about the Papal authority yet they may say the Church hath had its unity still as long as they were united in the same Head For this they look on as the great foundation of Vnity for say they the unity of the body consists in the conjunction of the members with the head and then
daughter Marocia's Son by Pope Sergius came to be Pope himself when as Platina saith it grew to be the custome of Popes to null all that their predecessours had done Were not these goodly heads of the Church the mean time and did not they keep the Church in great Vnity under their agreeable conduct Methinks the providence of God is as much concerned to preserve holiness and peace as faith in the world and were not these excellent instruments for doing it Baronius grants the acts of Stephanus to be such as the most barbarous Nations could not endure to hear of and are too bad to be believed and all the following Age he calls Iron for its rust and barrenness and leaden for its badness and dulness and confesseth that Monsters of impurity then raigned in the Apostolical See that infinite evils sprung from thence and horrible Tragoedies and mischiefs not to be spoken of And yet a very Catholick faith and the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of peace must be supposed to be there infallibly all this while but if all their faith and unity be of such a kind as was in the 10 Century in the Roman Church I should think Baronius might have said more in admiration of the providence of God in preserving the Catholick faith and Vnity among the Devils in Hell for the Scripture tells us they believe and tremble and our Saviour saith that the Devils Kingdom cannot stand if it be divided against it self and these are clearer and stronger testimonies than can be brought of the faith and Vnity of the Roman Church when such horrid wickedness is acknowledged to have had Dominion in it and that Church was therein unlike the Devils Kingdom that it was divided against it self In the very beginning of this Century Pope Stephen is cast into Prison and there strangled as Baronius proves from his Epitaph and now the Roman faction prevailing they make one Romanus Pope the first and only thing he did was to condemn all that Stephen had done as Platina Onuphrius and Ciacconius all agree but he continued not much above four months after him Theodorus who held out about twenty dayes and followed the steps of Romanus to him succeeded Iohn 10. as Platina calls him of the same faction who set all Formosus his Acts to rights again condemning all that Stephen had done in a Council at Ravenna whither he was driven by the prevalency of the faction at Rome against him where in the presence of seventy four Bishops the Acts of the Council under Stephen were burnt in which the Ordinations of Formosus were nulled and Sergius Benedictus and Marinus were Anathematized for being instruments in the Acts against Formosus The next Pope Benedict escapes without any thing but a dull Epitaph but Leo his successour had not been above forty days in the place but he is cast into Prison by one of his servants who is made Pope in his place and seven months after he is served the same way by Sergius who now at last recovered the Popedome and the greatest thing he did was to condemn Formosus again and all who had appeared for him so that now as Sigebert saith nothing was talked of so much as ordinations and exordinations and superordinations by the contrary Acts of these Popes to one another Baronius confesseth this Sergius to have been a man of a most infamous and dissolute life after his death Theodora was not at rest till she had gotten her Gallant to be Pope under the name of Iohn 11. and what manner of Cardinals saith Baronius may we imagine such a Pope would make But Marozia her daughter was not so well pleased with him for by her order his Brother was killed in his presence and he put into prison and there smothered After him saith Luitprandus her own Son by Pope Sergius is made Pope who was cast into Prison by his Brother Albericus who being not pleased with Stephen who followed him he was set upon and so wounded and deformed thereby that he durst not let his face be seen and the seditions saith Platina continued so high in his time that he could do no great thing At last Alberic's Son called Octavianus got possession of the See under the name of Iohn 13. or 12. as oâ—hers besides Platina call him who was such a Monster for all wickedness that Otho the Emperour was called into Italy to displace him who called a Council wherein he was accused for ordaining a Deacon in a Stable and making a Bishop of ten years of age but these were small faults to his Adulteries Sacriledge Cruelties drinking healths to the Devil and at Dice calling upon the Devils for help When these accusations were sent to him from the Council he only threatned to excommunicate them all if they chose another Pope against him but they not regarding his threatning depose him and choose Leo 8. in his place Here Baronius storms unreasonably that a Council should take upon it to depose a Pope though so abominably bad as he confesseth this man to have been and makes them guilty of an intolerable Errour and Heresie in so doing because it implyes their believing that the power of the Keys did depend on the worth of the person and therefore he detests Leo as a Schismatical Pope And to make sure of a Schisme after the infamous death of Iohn 13. being killed in the act of Adultery the opposite faction in Rome chose Benedict 5. to succeed him who was carried away prisoner by Otho into Germany but before his death Iohn 13. called a Council wherein he nulled all the Acts of the other Council and pronounced them Schismaticks and decreed that all that were ordained by them must be re-ordained Is not here now a most admirable Vnity in the Roman Church After Leo another Iohn is chosen by the Emperours party but as Platina saith it being now grown customary to depose Popes they drive him away by seditions against him being first imprisoned by Rotfredus and then expelled the City But they suffered sufficiently for it by the severity of Otho against them The next Pope Benedict 6. was cast into Prison by the other faction and there strangled or famished Iohn 14. came to his end after the same manner dying in Prison by the faction of Ferrucius the Father of Boniface 7. who was driven away from Rome after his being made Pope after whom Benedict 7. was set up and Iohn succeeding him Boniface's faction recovering again he was for a few months restored to the Popedome Against Greg. 5. the faction of Crescentius set up one Ioh. 17. who by the power of the Emperour was deprived of his eyes and the Popedome together and a little after of his life But these factions in Rome did not end with this Century for in the next A. D. 1044 we find a new Schism breaking out on the account of them We are contented
to take the story as Baronius relates it in that year Benedict 9. was made Pope by the faction of the Counts of Tusculum Frascati out of opposition to which and dislike of Benedict the people of Rome deposed him and set up Sylvester 3. who got the Popedome by Simony and enjoyed it but three months when the Tusculan faction again prevailing Sylvester was deposed and Benedict restored but finding himself hateful to the people he resigns to Iohn called Greg. 6. or as Platina saith some affirm sold it to him Otto Frisingensis saith these three sat together in the City of Rome and all of them led very bad lives as he heard himself at Rome But Baronius will not have Greg. 6. to be the same with Iohn one of the Schismatical Popes but Gratian who by fair offers not to be called Symony perswading the other three to part with their places got the possession of the Popedome alone Alphons Ciacconus follows Onuphrius in saying that his name was Ioh. Gratianus but not one of the three Anti-Popes sitting together wherein neither Baronius nor he can sufficiently clear themselves If he were distinct there must be five Popes at the same time for this Greg. 6. was deprived with the rest by a Council called by the Emperour Henry 3. at Sutrium For Baronius is very much mistaken in saying that the other three Popes were all deprived two years before for his own Author Hermannus asserts that the cause of the false Popes was there diligently discussed and Greg. 6. deprived for Simony as Ciacconus expresly saith after other Authors however Baronius strives to vindicate him out of kindness to his name sake and Disciple Greg. 7. and Clement 2. is there made Pope who enjoyed it but a little time being poisoned saith Platina by Damasus 2. who succeeded him but after the death of both these Benedict 9. got into possession of the Papacy again and the fifth time after the death of Leo 9. in whose time a great controversie arose again about Re-ordination viz. of such who had been ordained by Simoniacal persons and although Leo had determined in Council that upon forty dayes pennance they might perform the duties of their function yet it appears by an Epistle of Petrus Damiani extant in Baronius that this Controversie remained still and they thought all actions done by such persons no other than if they had been done by Lay-men but we find nothing done in it to suppress this heresie as he calls it although he earnestly desires the Pope to condemn it We are now falleâ— into the times of Hildebrand who caused Benedict 10. to be deprived of the Papacy before he came to it himself for he called together the discontented Cardinals at Siena where they discarded Benedict and chose Nicolaus 2. The Schisme that happened in his own time I have already spoken to which I shall therefore pass by as likewise the others that followed upon the opposition between the Popes and Emperours although it is not to be imagined that there could be greater divisions among men than were upon the account of those two factions especially after they came to be distinguished by the names of Guelphs and Gibellines it being ordinary for them to murder each other whereever they met for a mighty demonstration of the peace and unity of the Roman Church I shall only now enquire whether all these Schisms and Factions happened among them only on the account of the differences between the Popes and Emperours and we shall find that the agreement among themselves was only from that external opposition and when that ceased new factions and Schisms brake forth among them Of which Italy was so full that the elections of Popes became the work of years by reason of the heats which were among them but I meddle not with these factions in elections although they are no great indications of the presence of the Holy Ghost among them But I shall only touch at the greatest Schism for continuance ever they had among them as their Historians reckon it which lasted with great animosities for fifty years together in which all the Princes of Christendome were concerned and one party condemning the other with the greatest bitterness and condemning all the acts done by the other and pronouncing them null and void This was begun upon the election of Vrban 6. at which the Cardinals declaring a force by the Souldiers and people of Rome when they were withdrawn from thence to a place of safety chose another Pope viz. Clem. 7. who sate in France as Vrban and his Successours did in Rome he made twenty seven Cardinals and Petrus de Luna or Benedict 13. succeeded him and notwithstanding all the endeavours could be used to suppress this Schism it still continued and the means for that end did rather increase it as the Council of Pisa which instead of two Popes made three setting up Alexander 5. besides Greg. 12. and Benedict 13. and after him Iohn 23. was chosen at Bononia and although afterwards the Council of Constance deprived Iohn 23. and Benedict 13. and chose Martin 5. yet Benedict never yielded and after his death the Cardinals that were with him chose Clem. 8. against Martin 5. who were so far from yielding him to be true Pope that they rather chose to rot in Prison as they did and so saith Ciacconius This Schism was ended after fifty two years which had given so great disturbance to the whole Christian World One might have imagined now when Councils were called for that purpose that an end should thereby be put to these Schisms among them but it was so far otherwise that we find another Schisme begun in that Church not long after by the Authority of the Council of Basil which chose Felix 5. in opposition to Eugenius 4. where there was not only Pope against Pope but Council against Council too Eugenius sitting at that time with the Council of Florence In the time of Iulius 2. we find Council against Council again that at Pisa and the Lateran at Râ—me both called General Councils and condemning each other By which we see how far the Church of Rome is from being free from dangerous Schisms in it self and therefore hath no cause to object them to others The only thing pleaded in answer to this charge of their numerous Schisms is that these were most of them Controversies concerning elections of Popes which is all the salvo Molanus hath for it at the end of Onuphrius his Chronologie but what is that to the purpose since the Question was which of them was the Head of the Church with whom the members were to be united and all those who were not united with him whom they account the true Head must be as much in Schism as they who renounce all subjection to the Pope For are not those as much in Rebellion who set up an Vsurper against their lawful Prince as they who deny him to be their Prince
and to have any authority over them because they look on themselves as a free State There can be but one lawful Head of the Church by their own principles and only they are truly united to the Church who are in conjunction with the lawful Head and therefore it follows upon their own principles that they must be in a State of Schisme who are united with any other than the true Head What then signifie the boasts of Vnity in the Roman Church if they cannot prevent the falling of their members into such dangerous Schisms To what purpose is it to tell us of one Head of the Church to whom all must submit if there have been several pretenders to that Headship and the Church hath been a long time divided which of them was the true Unless all their Vnity comes to this at last that they have an excellent Vnity among them if they could all agree And such an Vnity may be had any where But if all were agreed what need any means of agreement by one universal Head or what can that universal Head signifie to making Vnity when his title to his Headship becomes a cause of greater divisions May not we say upon better grounds that taking away the Popes authority would tend much more to the peace of the Church since that hath been the cause of so great disturbances in the world and is to this day of one of the greatest differences between the several parts of the Catholick Church For as things now stand in the Christian World the Bishop of Rome is so far from being the Fountain of Vnity that he is much rather the Head of Contention and the great cause of the divisions of the Christian Church § 7. 3. The differences have been as great in the Roman Church as out of it both as to matters of order and doctrine 1. For matters of Order and Government Have not the controversies between the Regulars and Seculars among them even here in England been managed with as much heat and warmth as to matter of Episcopal jurisdiction as between those of the Church of England and the dissenters from it Neither is this any lately started controversie among them but hath continued ever since the prevalency of the Mendicant Fryers and their pretences of exemptions from Episcopal jurisdiction and encroaching upon the office of the Parochial Clergy For no sooner did the Fryers begin publickly under pretence of priviledges to take upon them to Preach without licence from the Bishops where they pleased and to take other offices of the Parochial Clergy out of their hands but great opposition was made against them by all the learned men who were friends to the Episcopal power and the peace of the Church Which being a matter of concernment for us to understand I shall give a faithful account of it from the best Writers of their own Church Assoon as the Monastick orders were found to be very serviceable to the Interests of the Court of Rome it was thought convenient to keep them in an immediate dependence upon the Pope in whatever Countrey they were From hence came the great favour of Popes to them and their willingness to grant them almost what priviledges they desired because receiving them only from the plenitude of the Popes power they were obliged to maintain and defend that from whence they derived them At first when they led a more properly Monastick life the priviledges granted them seem to be nothing else but exempting them from some troubles which were inconsistent with it either relating to their persons or the estates they enjoyed After this they began to complain of the numbers of people flocking to their Churches as inconsistent with their private and retired life from hence we first read that publick Masses by the Bishop were forbid in Monasteries to prevent a concourse of people and especially of Women to them But a long time after this they lived in subjection to the Bishops and meddled no more in Ecclesiastical than in Secular matters So Charles M. in his Capitular commands them to keep within their Monasteries to be subject to their Bishops and to meddle in no Ecclesiastical matters without the express command of the Bishop But as the Popes increased their authority the Monks inlarged their priviledges and procured exemptions from Episcopal jurisdiction which yet was not pleasing to those who valued the Churches peace above the priviledges of the Monastick orders These exemptions are therefore highly condemned by St. Bernard though a Monk himself as tending to the dissolution of the Ecclesiastical Government and by Ivo Carnotensis who saith he grew weary of his Episcopal Government by reason of them Petrus Blesensis hath an Epistle written to Pope Alexander 3. in the name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury against the Abbot of Malmsbury who refused subjection to the Bishop of Salisbury and being cited by the Archbishop to appear before him for his contempt he declared he would be subject to none but the Pope and said they were pittiful Abbots who did not wholly exempt themselves from the Bishops power when they might for an annual pension to the Pope obtain an absolute exemption Therefore the Archbishop saith it was time for them to complain because this contagion did spread it self far and the Abbots set themselves against their Bishops and Metropolitans and the Popes by indulging these things did command disobedience and Rebellion and arm the Children against their Fathers but these and many other complaints signified nothing in the Court of Rome as long as their profit and interest were advanced by it And although we read of many affronts which the Monks put upon the Bishops before the time of the Mendicant Fryers yet their insolency grew the highest when they took upon them to Preach in Parochial Churches and hear Confessions without the Bishops leave Thence the Vniversity of Paris published the Book De periculis novissimorum temporum which although written by S. Amour went abroad in the name of all the Divines there as appears by the beginning of it wherein a Character is given of those persons who should make the last times so troublesome they should be lovers of themselves not enduring reproof covetous both of riches and applause high-minded because they would not be in subjection to the Bishops but be set before them and therefore disobedient to their spiritual Fathers And such as these are said to creep into houses which the ordinary Gloss expounds of those who enter into the houses of those who are under anothers charge these enter not by the door as the Rectors of Churches do but steal into them like Thieves and Robbers and leading captive silly women is their setting them against the Bishops and perswading them to a Monastick life These are likewise false teachers who though never so learned and holy teach without being sent and none are duly sent but such as are chosen and
injury the Bishop had done the Iesuits in forbidding them to Preach without licenses from him or till such time as they produced those which they had from his predecessours then they declare the Bishops See to be vacant and caused it to be published in the Churches that the Iesuits did not need any license from the Bishop they null all censures against them recall all Orders published by the Bishop for the good Government of his Diocese The Bishop in the mean time privately sends monitory letters to the people to bear the present persecution with patience but by no means to associate with or to hear those excommunicated persons who had offered such affronts to his authority and jurisdiction by which means the people not being prevailed upon they with a great summ of money procure some secular Iudges to forme a judicial process against the Bishop for Sedition to which end they suborn witnesses against him but could make evidence of nothing tending to sedition but forbidding the Iesuits to Preach This not taking they attempt another way to expose him to contempt upon the Sacred day of their holy Father Ignatius they put their Scholars in Mascarade and so personating the Bishop and his Clergy they make a procession through the Town in the middle of the day and sung the Pater noster and Ave Maria as they went with horrible blasphemies perverting both of them to the abuse of the Bishop and his party instead of saying libera nos à malo they said libera nos à Palafox which was the name of the Bishop and others had the Episcopal staffe hanging at a Horses taile and the Miter on their stirrups to let them see how much they had it under their feet others sung Lampoons against the Bishop others did such things which are not fit to be repeated Which were parts of this glorious triumph of the Iesuits over the Bishop and his Authority But in the midst of this excessive jollity the King of Spains Navy arrived wherein the Kings commands were brought for removing the Vice-Roy who was the great Friend of the Iesuits the news of this abated their heat and the Bishop secretly conveys himself into his Palace which the people hearing of ran with incredible numbers to embrace him for several dayes together upon which the Iesuits complain to the old Vice-Roy of a sedition and obtained from him a command to the Chapter not to yield to the Bishops jurisdiction which caused a great division among them one part adhering to the Bishop and another to the Iesuits The Bishop therefore seeing the differences to rise higher and the Schism to be greater and the miserable condition the Church was in among them was fain to submit and promise to innovate nothing but to wait the Popes decision Not long after another Ship arrived from Spain with an Express from the King wherein the Vice-Roy was commanded immediately to surrender his Government and was severely rebuked for assisting the Iesuits against the Bishop and all the acts in that matter were nulled by the Kings authority but the Iesuits according to their usual integrity gave out just the contrary to the Orders received and framed letters on purpose which they dispersed among the people But these arts never holding long when the Vice-Roy's Successour was established the truth brake forth and the Bishop returned to the exercise of his former Authority But notwithstanding the Kings declaration and the Popes Breve was now published among them the Iesuits persisted still in their obstinate disobedience and although excommunicated by the Bishop yet continued to Preach and act as before And hereby we have a plain discovery what a mighty regard the Iesuits have to the Papal See if it once oppose their designes and what an effectual instrument of Peace and Vnity the Popes Authority is for they presently found wayes enough to decline the force of the Popes Bull. For 1. They said it could have no force there because it was not received by the Council of the Indies it seems pasce oves and dabo tibi claves c. signifie nothing in the Indies unless the Kings Council pleases or rather unless the Iesuits please to let it do so 2. They pleaded bravely for themselves that the priviledges granted them by the Popes were in consideration of their merits and so were of the nature of contracts and Covenants and therefore could not be revoked by the Pope 3. That the Popes constitutions in this matter were not received by the Church and Laws which are not received are no Laws But as the Bishop well urges against them if these wayes of interpreting the Popes Bulls be allowed his Authority will signifie nothing and all his Constitutions shall have no more force than those against whom they are directed be pleased to yield to them and it will be impossible to preserve peace in the Church if it shall be in the power of offenders to declare whether the Laws against them are to be received for Laws or no. But this saith he is the inspiration and illumination of the Iesuits and their method of interpreting the Papal constitutions which he heard very often from their own mouths in the frequent conferences he had with them about these matters But they had another way to decline the Kings Authority for the King and his Council being all Lay-men they had nothing to do in Ecclesiastical matters By which means as the Bishop saith they make themselves superiour both to King and Pope and free from all jurisdiction either spiritual or temporal And I dare appeal to the most indifferent person whether any Doctrine broached by the greatest Fanaticks among us ever tended more to the dissolution of Government the countenancing sedition the perpetuating Schisms in the Church than these of the Iesuits do And therefore the Bishop saith that he had rather lay down his life than by yielding up his jurisdiction expose his Authority to Contempt and the Church to the continual danger of Schisms and by many weighty arguments perswades the Pope if he truly designed the peace and flourishing of the Church speedily and effectually to reform the whole Order of the Iesuits without which he saith it is impossible especially in those remoter parts for the Bishops to preserve any Authority And besides other corruptions among them he tells strange stories of their wayes of propagating Christian Religion in China and other neighbour Nations which they boast so much of at this distance but he saith they who are so much nearer and understand those things better have cause to lament the infinite scandals which they give to the Christian Religion in doing it The account which he gives of these things this Bishop protests he sends to the Pope only to clear his own Conscience that he might not be condemned at the day of judgement for concealing that which he so certainly knew to be true by those who were eye-witnesses of it Their first work is to
do hold that it is only in the power of the whole Church successively from the Apostles to declare what books are Canonical and what not For the 11. article about justification he saith the Controversie is only about words because we are agreed that God alone is the efficient cause of Justification and that Christ and his passion are the meritorious cause of it and the only question is about the formal cause which our Church doth not attribute to the act of faith as he proves by the book of Homilies but only makes it a condition of our being justified and they believe that by faith we obtain our righteousness by Christ so that he can find no difference between them and us in that point He saith the Controversie about merit may be soon ended according to the doctrine of our Church for they deny as well as we article 1. 3. that any works done before the Grace of Christ and Inspiration of his Spirit can merit any thing and when we say article 12. that good works which follow justification are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ if by that we mean that they are accepted by Christ in order to a reward by vertue of the promise of God through Christ that is all the sense of merit which he or the school of Scotus contends for For works of supererogation article 14. he saith our Church condemns them upon that ground that men are said to do more by them than of duty they are bounden to do which being generally understood they condemn he saith as well as we because we can doe no good works which upon the account of our natural obligation we are not bound to perform though by particular precept we are not bound to them In the 19 article where our Church saith that the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their living and manner of ceremonies but also in matters of faith he distinguisheth the particular Church of Rome from the Catholick Church which is frequently understood by that name and he saith it is only a matter of faith to believe that the Catholick Church hath not erred and not that the particular Church of Rome hath not In the 20. article our Church declares that the Church ought neither to decree any thing against holy writ so besides the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed of necessity to salvation this he interprets of what is neither actually nor potentially in the Scriptures neither in terms nor by consequence and so he thinks it orthodox and not against traditions Article 21. wherein our Church determins expresly against the infalibility of general Councils he understands it only of things that are not necessary to faith or manners which he saith is the common opinion among them The hardest article one would think to bring us off in was the 22. viz. that the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques and also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture But we need not despaire as long as one bred up in the Schools of Scotus designes our rescue he confesses it to be a difficult adventure but what will not subtilty and kindness doe together He observes very cunningly that these doctrines are not condemned absolutely and in themselves but only the Romish doctrine about them and therein we are not to consider what the Church of Rome doth teach but what we apprehend they teach or what we judge of their doctrine i. e. that they invocate Saints as they doe God himself that Purgatory destroys the cross of Christ and warms the Popes Kitchin that Pardons are the Popes bills of Exchange whereby he discharges the debts of what sinners he pleases that they give proper divine worship to images and reliques all which he saith are impious doctrines and we doe well to condemn them So that it is not want of faith but want of wit this good man condemns us for which if we attain to any competent measure of whereby to understand their doctrine there is nothing but absolute peace and harmony between us This grand difficulty being thus happily removed all the rest is done with a wet finger for what though our Church Art 24. saith that it is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custome of the primitive Church to have publick prayer in the Church or to Minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understood of the people Yet what can hinder a Scotist from understanding by the Scripture not the doctrine or command of it but the delivery of it viz. that the Scripture was written in a known tongue nay he proves that our Church is for praying in Latin by this Article because that either is a known tongue or ought to be so it being publickly lickly taught every where and if it be not understood he saith it is not per se but per accidens that it is so I suppose he means the Latin Tongue is not to blame that the people do not understand it but they that they learned their lessons no better at School But what is to be said for Women who do not think themselves bound to go to School to learn Latin He answers very plainly that S. Paul never meant them for he speaks of those who were to say Amen at the Prayers but both S. Paul and the Canon Law he tells us forbid women to speak in the Church The case is then clear S. Paul never regarded what language the Women used and it was no great matter whether they understood their Prayers or not But what is to be said to the Council of Trent which pronounces an Anathema to those who say that Prayers are to be said only in a known Tongue This doth not touch our Church at all he thinks because in some Colledges the Prayers are said in Latin but although that be a known tongue there it is no matter as long as the Council of Trent hath put in the word only that clears our Church sufficiently Besides the Council of Trent speaks expresly of the Masse which our Article doth not mention but only publick Prayers and the Council of Trent speaks of those who condemns it as contrary to the institution of Christ but our Church only condemns it as contrary to the institution of the Apostle but all the commands of the Apostles are not the commands of Christ therefore our Church declares nothing against faith in this Article Are not we infinitely obliged to a man that uses so much subtlety to defend our Church from errrour in faith But that which is most considerable is what he cites from Canus that it is no Heresie to condemn a custome or Law of the Church if it be not of something necessary to salvation especially if it be a custome introduced since the Apostles times as most certainly this was For the five Sacraments rejected
by our Church Art 25. he saith they are not absolutely rejected as Sacraments but as Sacraments of the same Nature with Baptism and the Lords Supper which they yield to For Transubstantiation which is utterly denyed by our Church Art 28. he very subtilly interprets it of a carnal presence of Christs Body which he grants to be repugnant to Scripture and to destroy the nature of a Sacrament but they do believe Christs Body to be present after the manner of a Spirit and so our Church doth not condemn theirs As to communion in both kinds asserted by our Church Art 30. he saith it is not condemned by the Council of Trent therein which only Anathematizes those who make it necessary to Salvation which our Church mentions not and however we condemn communion in one kind Canus proves him not to be guilty of Heresie who should say that the Church hath erred therein The 31 Article condemns the Sacrifice of the Masse i.e. saith he independently on the Sacrifice of the Crosse which is propitiatory of it self and the other only by vertue of it The 32. of the lawfulness of Priests Marriage he understands of the Law of God in respect of which it is the most common opinion among them he saith that it is lawful The 34. about Traditions he interprets of those which are not Doctrinal The Book of Homilies approved Art 35. he understands as they do Books approved by their Church not of every sentence contained therein but the substance of the Doctrine and he grants there are many good things contained therein For the 36. of consecration of Bishops and Ministers he proves from Vasquez Conink Arcudius and Innocent 4. that our Church hath all the essentials of Ordination required in Scripture and if the difference of form of words did null our Ordinations it would do those of the Greek Church too The last Article he examins is Art 37. Of the Civil Magistrates power in opposition to the Popes Authority and he grants that the King may be allowed a Supermacy i.e. such as may not be taken away by any one as his Superiour and that by custome a sufficient right accrues to him over all Ecclesiastical causes and that by divine and natural right he hath jurisdiction over all Ecclesiastical persons so far as the publick good is concerned And withall he grants that we yield no spiritual jurisdiction to the King and no more than is contended for by the French and the Parliament of Paris That part which denyes the Popes jurisdiction in England he saith may be understood of the Popes challenging England to be a Fee of the Roman See but if it be otherwise understood he makes use of many Scholastick distinctions of actus signatus exercitus c. the sense of which is that it is in some cases lawful for a temporal Prince to withdraw his obedience from the Pope but leaves it to be discussed whether he had sufficient reason for doing it But there can be no Heresie in matter of fact it remains then according to the sense put upon our Articles by him with the help of his Scholastick subtleties we differ no more from them in points of faith than they do from one another For such kind of distinctions and senses are they forced to use and put upon each others opinions to excuse them from disagreeing in articles of faith and there is no reason that we should not enjoy the benefit of them as well as they so that either they must be guilty of differing in matters of faith or we are not § 16. 3. They plead that their differences are only confined to their Schools and do not disturb the peace of the Church But there is as little truth in this as there is Vnity in their Church as plainly appears by what hath been said already Was the Controversie about the Popes temporal power confined to the Schools did not that make for several Ages as great disturbances in the Church as were ever known in it upon any quarrel of Religion Were the Controversies between the Bishops and the Monks confined to their Schools about the extent of the Episcopal jurisdiction in former times or in the renewing of this Hierarchical Warr as one of the Iansenists calls it in France But these things are at large discovered already I shall only adde one thing more which seems more like a dispute of the Schools between the several Orders among them about the immaculate conception and it will easily appear that whereever that dispute began it did not rest in the Schools if we consider the tumults and disturbances which have been made only on the account of it This Controversie began in the Schools about the beginning of the 14 Century when Scotus set up for a new Sect in opposition to Thomas Aquinas and among other points of Controversie he made choice of this to distinguish his followers by but proposed it himself very timerously as appears by his resolution of it in his Book on the Sentences however his followers boast that in this blessed quarrel he was sent for from Oxford to Paris from Paris to Cologne to overthrow all Adversaries and that he did great wonders every where But however this were there were some not long after him who boldly asserted what he doubtfully proposed of whom Franciscus Mayronis is accounted the first after him Petrus Aureolus Occam and the whole order of Franciscans But the great strength of this opinion lay not in the wit and subtilty of the defenders of it nor in any arguments from Scripture or Antiquity but in that which they called the Piety of it i. e. that it tended to advance the honour of the B. Virgin For after the worship of her came to be so publick and solemn in their Church I do not in the least wonder that they were willing to believe her to be without sin I much rather admire they do not believe all their Canonized Saints to have been so too and I am sure the same reasons will hold for them all But this Opinion by degrees obtaining among the people it grew scandalous for any man to oppose it So Walsingham saith towards the latter end of this Century the Dominicans Preaching the contrary opinion against the command first of the Bishops in France and then of the King and Nobles they were out-lawed by the King and absolutely forbid to go out of their own Convents for fear of seducing the people and not only so but to receive any one more into their Order that so the whole Order might in a little time be extinguished The occasion of this persecution arose from a disturbance which happened in Paris upon this Controversie one Ioh. de Montesono publickly read against the immaculate conception at which so great offence was taken that he was convented before the Faculty of Sorbonne but he declared that he had done nothing but by advice of the chief of his Order
and that he would defend what he had said to death His propositions were condemned by the Faculty and the Bishop of Paris upon which he appeals to the Pope and goes to Avignon to Clem. 7. where the whole Order of Dominicans appears for him and the Vniversity against him by their Deputies of whom Pet. de Alliaco was the chief The assertions which he was condemned for relating to this matter were these following as they are written in a Manuscript of Petr. de Alliaco from which they are published by the late author of the History of the Vniversity of Paris 1. To assert any thing to be true which is against Scripture is most expresly contrary to faith This is condemned as false and injurious to the Saints and Doctors 2. That all persons Christ only excepted have not derived Original sin from Adam is expresly against faith This is condemned as false scandalous presumptuous and offensive to pious ears Which he affirms particularly of the B. Virgin and is in the same terms condemned 3. It is as much against Scripture to exempt any one person from Original sin besides Christ as to exempt ten 4. It is more against Scripture that the B.V. was not conceived in Original sin than to say that she was both in Heaven and on Earth from the first Instant of her Conception or Sanctification 5. That no exception ought to be allowed in explication of Scripture but what the Scripture it self makes All which are condemned as the former Against these Censures he appeals to the Pope because therein the doctrine of St. Thomas which is approved by the Church is condemned and that it was only in the Popes power to determine any thing in these points Upon this the Vniversity publishes an Apologetical Epistle wherein they declare that they will rather suffer any thing than endure Heresie to spring up among them and vindicate their own authority in their Censures and earnestly beg the assistance of all the Bishops and Clergy in their cause and their care to suppress such dangerous doctrines this was dated Febr. 14. A. D. 1387. But being cited to Avignon thither they send the Deputies of the Vniversity where this cause was debated with great zeal and earnestness about a years time and at last the Vniversities Censure was confirmed and Ioh. de Montesono fled privately into Spain But the Dominicans did not for all this give over Preaching the same doctrine upon which a grievous perfecution was raised against them as appears not only by the testimony of Walsingham but of the continuer of Martinus Polonus who saith that insurrection were every where made against them and many of them were imprisoned and the people denyed them Alms and Oblations and they were forbidden to Preach or read Lectures or bear Confessions in so much that they were made he saith the scorn and contempt of the people and this storm lasted many years and there was none to help them because their enemies believed in persecuting them they did honour to the B. Virgin Nay the Kings Confessour the Bishop of Eureux was forced to recant for holding with the Dominicans and to declare that their opinions were false and against faith and they made him upon his knees beg the King that he would write to the King of Arragon and the Pope that they would cause Ioh. de Montesono to be sent prisoner to Paris there to receive condigne punishment The next year A. D. 1389. they made Adam de Soissons Prior of a Dominican Convent publickly recant the same Doctrine before the Vniversity and Stephen Gontier was sent Prisoner to Paris by the Bishop of Auxerre as suspected of Heresie because he joyned with his Brethren in the appeal to the Pope and another called Iohannes Ade was forced to recant four times for saying that he favoured the opinions of Ioh. de Montesono But these troubles were not confined only to France for not long after A. D. 1394. Iohn King of Arragon published a Proclamation that no one under pain of Banishment should Preach or Dispute against the immaculate Conception and in Valenciâ— one Moses Monerus was banished by Ferdinand on that account because the tumults could not be appeased without it Lucas Waddingus in his History of the Embassy about the immaculate Conception gives a short account of the Scandals that have happened by the tumults which have risen in Spain and elsewhere on this Controversie which he dares not relate at large he saith because of the greatness of them such as happened in the Kingdom of Valencia A. D. 1344. in the Kingdom of Aragon A. D. 1398. in Barcelona A. D. 1408. and 1435. and 1437. In Catalonia A. D. 1451. and 1461. In all which drawn from the publick Records he saith the Princes were forced to use their utmost power to repress them for the present and prevent them for the future So in the Kingdom of Murcia A. D. 1507. in Boetica or Andaluzia A. D. 1503. in Castile A. D. 1480. The like scandals he mentions in Germany and Italy on the same account and withall he saith that these continued notwithstanding all the endeavours of Popes Princes Bishops and Vniversities but the tumults he saith that happened of later years in Spain were incredibly turbulent and scandalous and drawn from the authentick Registers which were sent by the several Cities to the King and by the King to the Pope which were so great that those alone were enough to move the Pope to make a Definition in this Controversie Especially considering that the same scandals had continued for 300 years among them and did continue still notwithstanding Paul 5. Constitution Which is no wonder at all considering what the Bishop of Malaga reports that the Iesuits perswade the people to defend the immaculate conception with sword and fire and with their blood And I now only desire to know whether these be meer disputes of the Schools among them oâ— no and whether they have not produced as great disorders and tumults among the people as controversies about points of faith are wont to do So that upon the whole matter whether we respect the peace of the world or factious disputes in Religion I see no advantage at all the Church of Rome hath above others and therefore reading the Scriptures can be no cause of divisions among us since they have been so many and great among those who have most prudentially dispensed or rather forbidden it Which was the thing I intended to prove CHAP. VI. An Answer to the Remainder of the Reply The mis-interpreting Scripture doth not hinder its being a rule of faith Of the superstitious observations of the Roman Church Of Indulgences the practice of them in what time begun on what occasion and in what terms granted Of the Indulgences in Iubilees in the Churches at Rome and upon saying some Prayers Instances of them produced What opinion hath been had of Indulgences in the
who should visit the 12. Churches and their own Cathedral all Lent Fasting as full an Indulgence as if they went to Hierusalem and besides this every first Sunday in the month as great an Indulgence i. e. I suppose for as many days as a man could take up sands in both hands This Baronius thinks a little too much and therefore rejects it as fabulous because the same Pope in an Indulgence given to the Church of Ferrara grants but a year of criminals and a seventh part of venials but he doth not consider that the case of Ancona was peculiar because of the great friendship that city had shewn to the Pope in his distress and this Indulgence was transcribed from a very ancient Manuscript and better attested than many other things which he never disputes But if it be a cheat let it pass for one and it is no great matter to me whether it were a cheat of the Popes or the Church of Ancona But he doth not at all question the Indulgence granted by the same Pope to those who would take up arms against the Albigenses which to those who dye in that cause is not only pardon of all their sins but an eternal reward but such that refused to goe no less than excommunication is denounced against them And Honorius 3. in the same cause granted an Indulgence in the same terms as to those who went to the Holy Land and Gregorius 9. to all who should take his part against the Emperour Frederic 2. which Bzovius confesseth to be usual with the Popes to give to those who would fight against Saracens hereticks or any other enemies of theirs This practice of Indulgences being once taken up was found too beneficial to be ever let fall again and private Bishops began to make great use of it not in such a manner as the Popes but they were unwilling not to have as great a share as they could get in it thence they began to publish Indulgences to those who would give money towards the building or repairing Churches or other publick works for this they promised them a pardon of the 7. or 4. or 3. part of their sins according as their bounty deserved This was first begun by Gelasius 2. for the building of the Church of Saragoza A. D. 1118. and was followed by other Bishops in so much that Morinus is of opinion that Mauricius Bishop of Paris built the great Church of Nostredame there in that manner and he saith he can find no ground for this practice of Indulgences before the 12. century and answers Bellarmins arguments for a greater antiquity of them and proves all his testimonies from Gregories Stations Ludgerus his epistle and Sergius his indulgence in the Church of S. Martin at Rome produced by Baronius to be meer impostures But the Bishops of Rome finding how beneficial these Indulgences were soon resolved to keep the keys of this Treasury of the Church in their own hands and therefore quickly abridged other Bishops of this power and made great complaint that by the indiscreet use of Indulgences by the Bishops the keys of the Church were contemned and discipline lost so Innocent 3. in the Council of Lateran can 62. and therefore decrees that in the dedication of a Church though where there were several Bishops together they should not grant any Indulgence above a year nor any single Bishop above 40. days But we are not to imagine that the Popes ever intended to tye their own hands by these Canons but they were too wise to let others have the managing of so rich a stock as that of the Church was which would bring in so great a harvest from the sins of the people Thence Boniface 8. first instituted the year of Iubilee A. D. 1300 and in his Bull published for that end grants not only a plenary and larger but most plenary remission of sins to them that if Romans for 30 if strangers for 15. days in that year should visit the Churches of the Apostles This was brought afterwards by Clem. 6. to every 50. years and since to 25. or as often as his Holines please but in all of them a most plenary remission of sins is granted It were worth the while to understand the difference between a plenary larger and most plenary indulgence since Bellarmin tells us that a plenary Indulgence takes away all the punishment due to sin But these were the fittest terms to let the people know they should have as much for their money as was to be had and what could they desire more And although Bellarmin abhorres the name of selling Indulgences yet it comes all to one the Popes gives Indulgences and they give money or they doe it not by way of purchase but by way of Alms But commend me to the plain honesty of Boniface 9. who being not satisfied with the oblations at Rome sent abroad his Iubilees to Colen Magdeburg and other Cities but always sent his Collectors to take his share of the money that was gathered and inserted in them that Clause porrigentibus manus Adjutrices which in plain English is to those who would give money for them without which no Indulgence was to be had as Gobelinus Persona saith Who likewise addes this remarkable passage that the preachers of the Indulgences told the people to encourage them to deale for them that they were not only à poená but à culpâ too i.e. not meerely from the temporal punishment of sin but from the fault it self which deserved eternal this made the people look into them and not finding those terms but only a most plenary remission they were unsatisfied because they were told that the fault could be forgiven by God alone but if they could but once find that the Pope would undertake to clear all scores with God for them they did not doubt but they would be worth their money Whereupon he saith those very terms were put into them then the wiser men thought these were counterfeit and made only by the Pardon-mongers but upon further enquiry they found it otherwise How far this trade of Indulgences was improved afterwards in the time of Alexander 6. and Leo 10. the Reformation which began upon occasion of them will be a lasting monument which was the greatest good the world ever received by them § 5. But we are not to think since Indulgences are such great kindnesses to the souls of men that they should be only reserved for years of Iubilee for what a hard case may they be in who should chance to dy but the year before Therefore the Popes those tender Fathers of the Church have granted very comfortable ones to many particular places and for the doing some good actions that no one need be in any great perplexity for want of them Other places it is probable a man may goe to Heaven assoon from as Rome but there is none like that for escaping Purgatory
if a man confess his sins and but stumble into one of the 7. Churches it is a hard case if he doth not escape at least for one thousand years I need not reckon up what vast Pardons are to be had there at easie rates since they have been so kind at Rome to publish a Catalogue of them in several books an extract out of which is very lately set forth in our own language Those who have gone about to compute them have found that Indulgences for a million of years are to be had at Rome on no hard terms Bellarmin would seem to deny these pardons for so many years as far as he durst as though they were not delivered by Authentick writers but I desire no more than what Cnuphrius hath transcribed from the Archives of the Churches themselves and we may judge of the rest by what Caesar Rasponi a Canon of the Lateran Church and a present Cardinal hath written lately of that one Church in a book dedicated to Alexander 7. He tells us therefore there is so vast a bank of the Treasure of the Church laid up there that no one need goe any further to get full pardon of all his sins and that it is impossible for any one to reckon up the number of the benefits to be had there by it In the Feast of the Dedication of that Church at the first throw if a man be well confessed before he gets if he be a Roman a pardon of a 1000. years if a Tuscan 2000 but if he comes from beyond sea 3000. years this is well for the first time The like Lottery is again at that Church on Câ—ena Domini But Boniface 9. would never stand indenting with men for number of years but declares if men will come either for devotion or pilgrimage no matter which he shall be clear from all sin and what would a man have more But besides this there are other particular seasons of opening this Treasury and then one may take out as much as they can wish for As when the Image of our Saviour is shewn all that come thither have their sins pardoned infallibly and many other days in the year which the Author very punctually reckons up and are so many that a Canon of that Church may dispose of some thousands of years nay plenary remissions and yet escape Purgatory at last himself But besides what belongs to the Church it self there is a little Oratory or Chapple belonging to it called the Holy of Holies where it is impossible for any man to reckon up the number of Indulgences granted to it These vast numbers of years then are no fiction of Pardon-mongers as Bellarmin is sometimes ready to say unless he will have the Popes called by that name or charge the Holy Churches at Rome with so gross impostures § 6. But suppose it should be a mans fortune never to see Rome as it hath many a good mans must he be content to lye and rot in Purgatory or trust only to the kindness of his Friends no we that live at this distance have some comfort left there are sonne good prayers appointed for us to use which will help us at a need or else the book of the houres of the B. Virgin secundunm usum Sarum is strangely mistaken but herein I am likewise prevented by the authoâ—â— of the preface lately mention'd but my edition being elder than either of those mention'd by him seems to have something peculiar to it or at last omitted by him As when it saith of the Prayer Obsecro te Domina Sancta Maria c. Tho all them that be in the state of Grace that daily say devowteli this prayer before owre blessed Lady of pity she wolle showâ— them her blessed vysage and warn them the day and owre of deth and in there last end the Angells of God shall yield there sowles to heaven and he shall obtayn 5 hundreth yeres and soo many Lenttis of pardon graunted by 5 holy Fathers Popes of Rome That is pretty well for one prayer But this is nothing to what follows to a much shorter prayer than that Our Holy Father Sixtus 4. Pope hath graunted to all them that devoutly say this prayer before the Image of our Lady in the sone eleven thousand years of pardon A prayer said to good purpose I confess I can hardly stoop now to those that have only dayes of pardon promised them yet for the sake of the procurer I will mention one Our Holy Father Pope Sixtus hath graunted at the Instance of the highmost and excellent Princesse Elizabeth late Quéen of Englond and wyfe to our Soveraign liege Lord King Henry the 7th God have mercy on her sweet soull and all Cristen soulls that every day in the morning after 3 tollinges of the Ave â—ell say 3 times the hole salutation of our Lady Ave Maria gratiâ that is to say at 6 the klock in the morning 3 Ave Maria att 12 of the klock at none 4 Ave Maria and att 6 a klock at even for every time so doing is graunted of the spiritual treasour of holy Church 3 hundreth dayes of parden totiens quotiens To which is annexed the pardon of the two Arch-bishops and nine Bishops forty dayes a piece three times a day which begun A. D. 1492. the seventh year of Henry 7. And the summ of the Indulgence and pardon for every Ave Maria is 800 days totiens quotiens But if a man thinks himself well provided already and hath a mind to help his Friends there is nothing like the 15 O. s of St. Brigitt Thys be the 15 O. Os. the which the holy Uirgin S. Brygytta was woente to say dayle before the holy rode in S. Pauls Church at Rome who soe says this a yere he schall deliver 15 soulles out of Purgatory of his next kyndred and convert other 15 sinners to gode lyf and other 15 righteous men of his kynd shall persevere in gode lyf And wat ye desyre of God ye schall have it if yt be to the salvation of your sowle Not long after we find a better endowment with number of years than any we have yet met with To all them that before this Image of pytie devoutly say 5 Pater Noster and 5 Aves a Credo pityously beholding these Armes of Crystys passion are graunted thirty two thousand seven hundred and fifty years of pardon and Sixtus the 4. Pope of Rome hath made the 4 and the 5 prayer and hath doubled his foresaid pardon The Prayer with Boniface 6. his Indulgence of ten thousand years pardon will hardly down with me now much less that niggardly grant of Iohn 22. of a hundred dayes pardon What customers doth he hope to find at such sordid rates Sixtus 4. for my money witness this Indulgence Our holy Father Sixtus 4. graunted to all them that beyn in state of Grace sayeing this prayer following ymmediately
after the elevation of the body of our Lord clene remission of all their sins perpetually enduring And also Iohn the 3 Pope of Rome at the request of the Quéen of England hath graunted unto all them that devoutly say this prayer before the Image of our Lord Crucified as many days of pardon as there were wounds in the body of our Lord in the tyme of his bitter passion the which were 5365. It is well Sixtus came after him or else his market had been spoyled the other so much out-bid him Next to clean pardon Iohn 22. offers fair only the task is somewhat harder it being for three Prayers Thys 3 prayers be wrytton in the Chappelle of the holy crosse in Rome otherwise called Sâ—cellum sanctae Crucis 7 Romanorum whoo that devoutly say them shall obtayn 90000 years of pardon for dedly sins graunted by our holie Father Iohn 22. Pope of Rome Methinks he should have come to a full hundred thousand when his hand was in But there is one odd condition implyed in some of these prayers called being in a state of Grace the want of which may hinder the effect of them but although due confession with absolution will at any time put a man into it yet is there no remedy without it we will try once more for that and end these Indulgences And I think the prayer of S. Bernardine of Siena will relieve us Thys most devoutly prayer sayd the holy Father S. Bernardine daylie kneeling in the worship of the most holy name Iesus And yt is well to believe that through the invocation of that most excellent name of Iesu S. Bernard obtayned a singular reward of perpetual consolation of our Lord Iesu Christ. And thys prayer is written in a Table that hangeth at Rome in S. Peters Church nere to the high awter there as our holy Father the Pope duely is wonte to say the office of the Masse And hoo that devoutly with a contrite heart dayly say this Oryson yf he be that day in the state of eternal damnation than this eternal payne shall be chaunged him in temporal payne of Purgatory than yf he hath deserved the payne of Purgatory yt shall be forgotten and forgiven thorow the infinite mercy of God This is enough of all reason And so much shall serve to set forth what the practice of Indulgences hath been in the Church of Rome and what is expressed in them § 7. 2. I now come to give account what opinion hath been had of these Indulgences in their own Church wherein some have freely confessed they have no Foundation in Scripture or Antiquity others that they are only pious frauds and those who have gone about to defend them have been driven to miserable shifts in the defence of them 1. Some have confessed that they have no foundation in Scripture or Antiquity Durandus saith that very little can be affirmed with any certainty concerning Indulgences because neither the Scripture speaks expresly of them and the Fathers Ambrose Hilary August Hierome speak not all of them and therefore he hath no more to say but that the common opinion is to be followed herein The same is said by another School-man who addes this that though it be a Negative argument yet it is of force because in the time of those Fathers they were very much skilled in the Scriptures and it were very strange if Indulgences were to be found there that they did not find them This is likewise affirmed by Cajetan Dominicus Soto and all those who assert that the use of Indulgences came into the Church upon the relaxing the severity of the primitive discipline which they say continued in use for a 1000 years after Christ. But the most express testimonies in this case are of Bishop Fisher who saith that the use of Indulgences came very late into the Church and of Polydore Virgil following his words and of Alphonsus à Castro who ingenuously confesseth that among all the controversies he writes of there is none which the Scripture or Fathers speak less of than this but however he saith though the use of them seem to have come very late into the Church they ought not to be contemned because many things are known to latter ages which the ancient writers were wholly ignorant of for which he instanceth in Transubstantiation procession from the Son and Purgatory But he ought to have remembred what himself had said before in a chapter of finding out heresies that the novelty of any doctrine makes it of it self to be suspected because Christ and his Apostles did give sufficient instructions for attaining eternal life and after the Law given by Christ no other Law is to be expected because his Testament is eternal Let this be applyed to his own confession of these doctrines and the consequence is easily discerned And it is an excellent saying of Bellarmin that in things which depend on the will of God nothing ought to be affirmed unless God hath revealed it in the H. Scriptures Therefore according to the opinion of these persons who assert the doctrine of Indulgences to have no Foundation in Scripture or Antiquity it can be no other than a notorious Cheat. 2. Some in the Church of Rome have called them pious frauds This appears by the Controversies which arose upon Indulgences at the same time when they began to grow common For Aquinas and Bonaventure tell us that there were some in the Church who said that the intention of the Church in Indulgences was only by a pious fraud to draw men to charitable acts which otherwise they would not have done as a mother which promiseth her Child an apple to run abroad which she never gives him when she hath brought him to it Which is the very instance they used as Gregory de Valentiâ confesseth But this Aquinas rejects as a very dangerous opinion because this is in plain terms to make the Church guilty of a notorious Cheat and as he saith from St. Augustine if any falshood be found in Scripture it takes away the authority of the whole so if the Church be guilty of a cheat in one thing she will be suspected in all the rest This saith Bonaventure is to make the Church to lye and deceive and Indulgences to be vain and childish toyes But for all these hard words they had a great deal of reason on their side for the Indulgences were express for the remission of the sins of those who did such and such things as the giving a small summ of money towards the building of a Church or an Hospital they therefore asked whether the Indulgences were to be taken as they were given or no if they were then all those had full remission of sins on very easie terms if not then what is this else but fraud and cheating and can be only called pious because the work was good which they did This put the
testimonies produced by him and shewed that they are so far from proving the use of one kind in the Catholick Church that Leo in that very place shewes that it was the token of an heretick not to receive in both kinds and the other Instance in the Greek Church is only of a woman in whose mouth the bread turned into a stone that she had not patience to stay to receive the Cup. So very pittyful are the proofs brought against the use of both kinds for a 1000. years after Christ which being supposed and acknowledged by some of the most learned and ingenuous of their own Church I wonder what authority the Church afterwards can have to alter what was always looked on before as an obliging Institution of Christ Might it not as well alter any other Institution on the same grounds and wholly forbid the bread to the Laity as well as the cup and I doe not at all question but as substantial reasons might be brought for one as the other I had thought the Gentlemen of the Roman Church had pretended a mighty reverence to Apostolical Traditions and the Practice of the Catholick Church for a thousand years after Christ. But it seems this signifies nothing to them when it is contrary to their present doctrine and practice Then it makes a great noise as he saith but nothing else Thus we Protestants have at last gained Antiquity of our side it is now yielded that though the Church were for us for a thousand years yet if it now decree or act otherwise this is enough for them And we are contented to have Christ and his Apostles and all the Primitive practice for so long a time on our side and to leave them to enjoy the satisfaction that follows taking the part of the Church of Rome against them all But however their opinion tends more to devotion Alas for us we doe not account it any piece of devotion to believe non-sense and contradictions such as the doctrine of transubstantiation implies we know not what devotion there can be in opposing a plain Institution of Christ and not meerly in leaving the people at liberty to receive in one or both kinds but in prohibiting the far greatest part of Christians to receive as Christ appointed we know not what devotion there can lye in worshipping a piece of bread for the Son of God and believing that when a wafer is taken into our mouths that God himself is personally entered under our Roof O horrible devotion and detestable superstition to give the same adoration to a wafer which we doe to the Eternal God and to believe Christ to goe down as personally into our bellies as ever he went up and down when he was upon earth § 12. That which followes is the Power of a Persons dispensing in oaths and marriages contrary to the Law of God which I therefore made a hindrance of the sincerity of devotion because it is apt to possess mens minds with an apprehension that Religion is only a Politick Cheat if any person shall be thought able to dispense with those things which are universally received among Christians as the Laws of God That which I meant was the Popes taking upon him to dispense with oaths of allegiance to Princes and the incestuous marriages of some great Princes And now let any one consider what his Answer signifies he saith that some kinds of oaths may be judged in some circumstances to be hurtful and not fit to be kept and the dispensation in them is no more than to judge or determine them to be so and for Marriages he addes that the Church may dispense in some degrees of Affinity and consanguinity but in nothing contrary to the Law of God But this doth not at all reach to the busines for dispensing in this way may as well be done by a Casuist as the Bishop of Rome but the Question lyes here whether those things which otherwise would be sins by the Law of God doe therefore cease to be so because of the Popes Power to discharge that obligation of conscience which lay upon the Person either in oaths or marriages Let him answer directly to this for the other is shuffling and not answering As it is granted that a subject hath an obligation of conscience upon him to obey his Soveraigne by vertue of the Law of God and the universal sense of the Church hath been that there are some degrees of consanguinity and Affinity which it is Incest to marry within I desire to know whether the Popes power can make disobedience lawful in one case and marriage in another which without that Power were utterly unlawful This he could not but know was the thing meant but not fit to be answered § 13. The last Instance is making disobedience to the Church in disputable matters more hainous than disobedience to the Laws of Christ in unquestionable things as marriage in a Priest to be a greater crime than Fornication To this he answers 1. That the Law of the Church being supposed forbidding the marriage of a Priest that is no disputable matter but it is out of Question by the Law of God that obedience is to be given to the commands or prohibitions of the Church 2. That marriage in a Priest the prohibition of the Church being supposed and a voluntary vow against it is no better than Adultery in the language of the Fathers and therefore worse than Fornication 3. That the state of single life is much more convenient for Priests than the married state is This last answer is nothing at all to the purpose for in matters of conveniency not determin'd by any Law every one is left to be his own chooser but the case I put was not between a married life and single life for we know no harm either in one or the other of these but every one is to judge as most tends to the comfort of his life and the ends of his calling which hath now far different circumstances from the Apostolical times which is a sufficient answer to the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7. 32. having a particular respect to the state of the Christian Church in that time of unfixedness and persecution but the opposition was between marriage in a Priest and Fornication whether the former were not by them made a greater crime than the latter and whether this were not dishonour to the Laws of Christ to make the breach of a constitution of the Church in a matter left at liberty by the Law of Christ a greater crime than the violation of an indisputable Law of his And S. Paul hath given a general rule which equally holds in all ages of the Church If they cannot contain let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn So that if S. Paul may resolve the case he makes no question that where there is but danger of Fornication marriage is so far from being a greater crime than that that
it becomes a duty to such a one But hold say they of the Church of Rome to S. Paul this is only meant of those whom the Church allowes to marry but if the Church once forbid it to any they are not to marry let their case be what it will Here then lyes the dispute between S. Paul and them S. Paul saith to avoid fornication a man ought to marry they say that to marry after the prohibition of the Church is worse than Fornication S. Paul might it may be ask what authority their Church had to determin contrary to what he had done in this case Or men to make vows against the most proper remedy of some of the Infirmities of humane nature and which God hath not promised to any to keep them from If obedience to the Church be indisputable it is only in such things which God hath not antecedently determin'd by his own Law but in the case between marriage and fornication God himself hath given a Law before hand which no Church in the world can reverse And however indifferent a thing in the general it be to marry or not yet when it comes to that point either marriage or Fornication I wonder at the confidence of any who dare upon any account whatsoever make marriage a greater crime than Fornication But he saith it seems strange to them who either cannot or will not take the word of Christ that is his counsel of chastity that marriage in a Priest should be a greater sin than Fornication It doth I assure you seem strange to us because we are desirous to keep the Commands of Christ and we are sure marriage is against none of them but Fornication is Doth that man take Christs counsel of chastity that rather chooses to commit Fornication than marry What admirable chastity is that and what a beastly institution must marriage be if Fornication be a less crime than that But what a reflection is this the mean while on the author of it and that state of innocency and purity wherein it was first appointed They must needs think themselves very holy men who look on that state as too impure for them which was allotted to man in his greatest Innocency But although the first Ages of the Christian Church were so full of hardship and difficulties that if ever it should have been required of the Governours of the Church to have been above this state it should have been at that time yet we find no such thing in the Apostolical times or afterwards when the necessities of affairs would most have required it But when the Christian Church came to have settlement in the world and by degrees persons were fixed with endowments to particular places and some care of affaires of the world was necessarily joyned with those of the Church there was far less reason to make such a prohibition of marriage to the Clergy than ever was before And the scandals were so abominable where those restraints were most in force that on that very account the wisest men though as fond as any of the Churches authority thought there was more reason to give liberty to Priests to marry than ever there had been to restrain them from it I am not bound to defend all the extravagant and indiscreet passages which fell from some of the Fathers concerning marriage but I am sure the Church preserved her liberty in it notwithstanding them as I might easily prove if it were suitable to my present designe And S. Cyprian speaking of those Virgins who came nearest to vows of virginity as Rigaltius observes saith that it were better for them to marry than to fall into bell by their sins when they either will not or cannot keep their promise the same thing is said by S. Augustin by Epiphanius by the author of the epistle ad Demetriadem as Bishop Iewel hath long since proved and need not here be repeated Two things he objects to prove marriage worse than fornication after a vow of continency one from the authority of S. Paul who saith the younger Widdows that marry after the dedicating themselves to the service of the Church doe incurre damnation because by so doing they made void their first faith i. e. as the Fathers expound it the vow they had made But doth he really think that they did not break their first faith and incurre damnation by Fornication as well as by Marrying If they did how can this prove marriage worse than Fornication I grant that by their first faith hath been understood the promise made to the Church and who denies the breach of promise to be a bad and scandalous thing which is that S. Paul means by damnation and is not Fornication much more so where a thing in it self evil is committed besides the breach of the promise Can any one think that is not more waxing wanton against Christ than meer marrying is Therefore S. Paul would have the younger Women to marry and not make any such promises which they would be in danger of breaking he would have none admitted into the condition of Church-widdowes but those that were 60. years of ages and so in reason to be supposed passed the temptations to Fornication Whereby he shews what rule ought to be observed in all such promises and that none ought to be brought under them but such as are to be supposed past the common temptations of humane nature in those things But his second authority is more to his purpose if it were good for any thing which is the 104. Cannon of the 4. Council of Carthage as it is called but he might have found in Iustellus his preface to the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae that this 4. Council of Carthage is of no Authority at all and we need not be concerned for any Canon contained therein which is not in the Code of the African Church as this is not but seems taken out of some Decretals of the Popes as will appear by comparing the 101. Canon in the Collection of Cresconius with the 104. of this Council And it would be very strange if S. Augustin were present in this Council that he should herein oppose what he had said elsewhere for he determins that the marrying again of the widdows that had vowed continuance in that state was no Adultery but a lawful marriage and that husband and wife ought not to be separated from each other upon such marriages and by that means make the husbands truely Adulterers when they separate from them and marry other wives and therefore saith he that which the Apostle condemns in them is not so much their marrying as their will to marry whether they doe or no whereby they break their first faith So that it is not marriage but lust which the Apostle condemns from whence it appears that S. Austin could never if he spake consonantly to himself condemn marriage after a vow of continency to be worse than
all wise men ever did and will do to the worlds end 4. I proved they made faith uncertain by making the Churches power to extend to the making new articles of faith This he grants to be to the purpose if it were true but he saith the Church never owned any such power in her General Councils which doth not hinder but that the Heads of their Church have pretended to it and in case it be disputable among them whether the Pope be not infallible that unavoidably leaves faith at uncertainties Yet he yields what I contend for which is that it is in the Churches Power to make that necessary to be believed which was not so before for whether it be by inventing new Articles or declaring more explicitely the Truths not contained in Scripture and Tradition it is all one to my purpose as long as men might be saved without believing them before and cannot afterwards which is to make the conditions of salvation mutable according to the pleasure of the Church which is the greatest inconveniency of inventing new doctrines 5. I shewed they made faith uncertain by pretending to infallibility in determining Controversies and yet not using it to determine those which are on foot among themselves The force of the argument did not lye in this as he imagines as though faith could not be certain unless all controversies were determined which was far from my thoughts but that pretending there can be no faith without infallibility in their Church to end Controversies they should give such great occasion to suspect that they did not believe themselves by imploying that Infallibility in ending the great Controversies among themselves of which I have spoken already and to this he gives no answer at all Thus much in Vindication of the third Argument I made use of to prove that all those who are in the Communion of the Roman Church do run so great a hazard of their salvation that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it § 15. I now come to the third answer to the first Question which was that a Protestant leaving the Communion of our Church doth incurre a greater guilt than one who was bred up in the communion of the Church of Rome and continues therein by invincible Ignorance and therefore cannot equally be saved with such a one Three things he objects against this Answer 1. That this makes them both damned though unequally because the Converted Catholick more deeply than he that was bred so 2. That this reflects as much upon St. Austin as them who rejected the Communion of the Manichees and embraced that of the Church of Rome upon their grounds 3. That it is contrary to our distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental To which I Reply 1. That the design of my Answer was not to pass the sentence of damnation on all who dye in the communion of the Roman Church but to shew that they who forsook a better Church for it do incurre greater guils than those who are alwayes bred up in it and live and dye in the belief of its being the true Church and therefore are not in an equal capacity of salvation with them I shall make my meaning more plain by a parallel Instance or two many in the Church of Rome have asserted the possibility of the Salvation of Heathens though some Bigots have denyed it to Protestants suppose this question were put concerning two persons Whether a Christian having the same motives to become a Heathen which one bred and born and well grounded in Heathenism hath to remain in it may not equally be saved in the profession of it and a third person should answer that a Christian leaving the communion of the Christian Church doth incurre a greater guilt than one who was bred up in Heathenism and continues therein by invincible Ignorance doth this answer imply that they must both be damned though equally or rather doth it not yield a greater possibility of salvation to one than to the other Or suppose to come nearer our case the question were put concerning one that revolted from the Church of Iudah to the ten Tribes which were guilty of Idolatry though not of the highest kind whether he were equally capable of salvation with one who was bred up in the communion of the Church of Israel all his dayes I should make no question to pronounce his condition more dangerous than the other yet not therein damn them both but only imply that it was much harder for to escape than the other For he that was bred up in the Church of Israel believing it was the true God he served and in a right manner and looking on the Church of Iudah as a Schismatical Church and seeing the greater number of Tribes on their side and wanting that instruction which was in the Church of Iudah might in the sincerity of his heart serve God in a false way and pray to him to pardon all his errours and corruptions and have a general repentance of all sins though not particularly convinced of the Idolatry of the ten Tribes I dare not say but God will accept of such a one that thus fears God and works Righteousness in the simplicity of his heart but I cannot say the same of one who revolts from Iudah where the true God was worshipped in a true manner where he had sufficient means of instruction and either wilful Ignorance or temporal ends or unreasonable prejudices makes him deliberately choose a worse and more impure Church before a better for that very sin makes his case much more dangerous than the other Our business is not to enquire into the salvation or damnation of any particular persons for that depends upon so many circumstances as to the aggravation or extenuation of their faults the nature and sincerity of their repentance the integrity and simplicity of their minds which none but God himself can know but to find out the truest way to salvation and to reject whatever Church requires that which is in it self sinful for though God may pardon those who live in it in the simplicity of their minds yet their hopes lying in their Ignorance and repentance none who have a care of their souls dare venture themselves in so hazardous a state Setting aside then the consideration of the danger common to both I say the case of a Revolter from us to the Church of Rome is much worse than of one who was alwayes bred up in it because he might far more easily understand the danger he runs into and wilfull Ignorance only keeps him from it and he doth upon deliberation choose a state of infinite hazard before one of the greatest safety 2. This doth not reflect on St. Austin or the Church in his time which was as far different from theirs as the Churches of Iudah and Israel were from each other neither can it destroy the distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals
The language of prayer proved to be no indifferent thing from St. Pauls arguments No universal consent for prayers in an unknown tongue by the confession of their own Writers Of their doctrine of the efficacy of Sacraments that it takes away all necessity of devotion in the minds of the receivers This complained of by Cassander and Arnaud but proved against them to be the doctrine of the Roman Church by the Canons of the Council of Trent The great easiness of getting Grace by their Sacraments Of their discouraging the reading the Scriptures A standing Rule of devotion necessary None so fit to give it as God himself This done by him in the Scriptures All persons therefore concerned to read them The arguments against reading the Scriptures would have held against the publishing them in a language known to the peâ—ple The dangers as great then as ever have been since The greatest prudence of the Roman Church is wholly to forbid the Scriptures being acknowledged by their wisest men to be so contrary to their Interest The confession of the Cardinals at Bononia to that purpose The avowed practice of the Roman Church herein directly contrary to that of the Primitive although the reasons were as great then from the danger of Heresies This confessed by their own Writers p. 178 CHAP. IV. Of the Fanaticism of the Roman Church The unreasonableness of objecting Sects and Fanaticisms to us as the effects of reading the Scriptures Fanaticism countenanced in the Roman Church but condemned by ours Private revelations made among them the grounds of believing some points of doctrine proved from their own Authors Of the Revelations pleaded for the immaculate Conception The Revelations of S. Brigitt and S. Catharin directly contrary in this point yet both owned in the Church of Rome The large approbations of S. Brigitts by Popes and Councils and both their revelations acknowledged to be divine in the lessons read upon their dayes S. Catharines wonderful faculty of smelling souls a gift peculiar to her and Philip Nerius The vain attempts of reconciling those Revelations The great number of female Revelations approved in the Roman Church Purgatory Transubstantiation Auricular Confession proved by Visions and Revelations Festivals appointed upon the credit of Revelations the Feast of Corpus Christi on the Revelation made to Juliana the Story of it related from their own Writers No such things can be objected to our Church Revelations still owned by them proved from the Fanatick Revelations of Mother Juliana very lately published by Mr. Cressy Some instances of the blasphemous Nonsense contained in them The Monastick Orders founded in Enthusiasm An account of the great Fanaticism of S. Benedict and S. Romoaldus their hatred of Humane Learning and strange Visions and Revelations The Carthusian Order founded upon a Vision The Carmalites Vision of their habit The Franciscan and Dominican Orders founded on Fanaticism and seen in a Vision of Innocent the third to be the great supporters of the Roman Church The Quakerism of S. Francis described from their best Authors His Ignorance Extasies and Fanatick Preaching The Vision of Dominicus The blasphemous Enthusiasm of the Mendicant Fryers The History of it related at large Of the Evangelium aeternum and the blasphemies contained in it The Author of it supposed to be the General of the Franciscan Order however owned by the Fryers and read and preached at Paris The opposition to it by the Vniversity but favoured by the Popes Gul. S. Amour writing against it his Book publickly burnt by order of the Court of Rome The Popes horrible partiality to the Fryers The Fanaticism of the Franciscans afterwards of the followers of Petrus Johannis de Oliva The Spiritual State began say they from S. Francis The story of his wounds and Maria Visitationis paralleld The canting language used by the spiritual Brethren called Beguini Fraticelli and Bigardi Of their doctrines about Poverty Swearing Perfection the Carnal Church and Inspiration by all which they appear to be a Sect of Quakers after the Order of S. Francis Of the Schism made by them The large spreading and long continuance of them Of the Apostolici and Dulcinistae Of their numerous Conventicles Their high opinion of themselves Their Zeal against the Clergy and Tythes their doctrine of Christian Liberty Of the Alumbrado's in Spain their disobedience to Bishops obstinate adhering to their own fancies calling them Inspirations their being above Ordinances Ignatius Loyola suspected to be one of the Illuminati proved from Melchior Canus The Iesuites Order founded in Fanaticism a particular account of the Romantick Enthusiasm of Ignatius from the Writers of his own Order Whereby it is proved that he was the greatest pretender to Enthusiasm since the dayes of Mahomet and S. Francis Ignatius gave no respect to men by words or putting off his Hat his great Ignorance and Preaching in the Streets his glorying in his sufferings for it his pretence to mortification the wayes he used to get disciples Their way of resolution of difficulties by seeking God their itinerant preaching in the Cities of Italy The Sect of Quakers a new Order of Disciples of Ignatius only wanting confirmation from the Pope which Ignatius obtained Of the Fanatick way of devotion in the Roman Church Of Superstitious and Enthusiastical Fanaticism among them Of their mystical Divinity Mr. Cressy's canting in his Preface to Sancta Sophia Of the Deiform fund of the soul a superessential life and the way to it Of contemplating with the will Of passive Vnions The method of self-Annihilation Of the Vnion of nothing with nothing Of the feeling of not-being The mischief of an unintelligible way of devotion The utmost effect of this way is gross Enthusiasm Mr. Cressy's Vindication of it examined The last sort of Fanaticism among them resisting authority under pretence of Religion Their principles and practices compared with the Fanaticks How far they are disowned at present by them Of the Vindication of the Irish Remonstrance The Court of Rome hath alwayes favoured that party which is most destructive to Civil Government proved by particular and late Instances p. 235 CHAP. V. Of the Divisions of the Roman Church The great pretence of Vnity in the Church of Rome considered The Popes Authority the fountain of that Vnity what that Authority is which is challenged by the Popes over the Christian World the disturbances which have happened therein on the account of it The first Revolt of Rome from the Empire caused by the Popes Baronius his Arguments answered Rebellion the foundation of the greatness of that Church The cause of the strict League between the Popes and the posterity of Charles Martel The disturbances made by Popes in the new Empire Of the quarrels of Greg. 7. with the Empeperour and other Christian Princes upon the pretence of the Popes Authority More disturbances on that account in Christendome than any other matter of Religion Of the Schisms which have happened in the Roman Church particularly those
private Spirit is not for all these things are necessarily implyed therein And so for all particular doctrines rejected by us upon this principle we do not make them Negative points of faith but we therefore refuse the belief of them because not contained in our only rule of faith On this account we reject the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation Infalibility of the present Church in delivering points of faith Purgatory and other fopperies imposed upon the belief of Christians So that the short resolution of our faith is this that we ought to believe nothing as an Article of faith but what God hath revealed and that the compleat revelation of Gods will to us is contained in the Bible and the resolution of our worship is into this principle that God alone is to be worshipped with divine and religious worship and therefore whether they be Saints or Angels Sun Moon and Stars whether the Elements of a Sacrament or of the World whether Crosses and Reliques or Woods and Fountains or any sort of Images in a word no creature whatsoever is to be worshipped with religious worship because that is proper to God alone And if this principle will excuse them from Idolatry I desire him to make the best of it And if he gives no more satisfactory answer hereafter than he hath already done the greatest charity I can use to those of that Church is to wish them repentance which I most heartily do CHAP. III. Of the hindrance of a good Life and Devotion in the Roman Church The doctrines of the Roman Church prejudicial to Piety The Sacrament of Pennance as taught among them destroys the necessity of a good life The doctrine of Purgatory takes away the care of it as appears by the true stating it and comparing that doctrine with Protestants How easie it is according to them for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Purgatory dreadful to none but poor and friendless Sincerity of devotion hindred by prayers in an unknown Tongue The great absurdity of it manifested The effects of our Ancestors devotion had been as great if they had said their prayers in English The language of prayer proved to be no indifferent thing from St. Pauls arguments No universal consent for prayers in an unknown tongue by the confession of their own Writers Of their doctrine of the efficacy of Sacraments that it takes away all necessity of devotion in the minds of the receivers This complained of by Cassander and Arnaud but proved against them to be the doctrine of the Roman Church by the Canons of the Council of Trent The great easiness of getting Grace by their Sacraments Of their discouraging the reading the Scriptures A standing Rule of devotion necessary None so fit to give it as God himself This done by him in the Scriptures All persons therefore concerned to read them The arguments against reading the Scriptures would have held against the publishing them in a language known to the people The dangers as great then as ever have been since The greatest prudence of the Roman Church is wholly to forbid the Scriptures being acknowledged by their wisest men to be so contrary to their Interest The confession of the Cardinals at Bononia to that purpose The avowed practice of the Roman Church herein directly contrary to that of the Primitive although the reasons were as great then from the danger of Heresies This confessed by their own Writers § 1. 2. THe second Reason I gave why persons run so great a hazard of their salvation in the communion of the Roman Church was because that Church is guilty of so great corruption of the Christian Religion by opinions and practices which are very apt to hinder a good life which is necessary to salvation But 1. This necessity I said was taken off by their making the Sacrament of Pennance joyned with contrition sufficient for salvation Here he saith That Protestants do make contrition alone which is less sufficient for salvation and our Church allowing confession and absolution which make the Sacrament of Pennance in case of trouble of conscience they being added to contrition cannot make it of a malignant nature To this I answer That contrition alone is not by us made sufficient for salvation For we believe that as no man can be saved without true repentance so that true repentance doth not lye meerly in contrition for sins For godly sorrow in Scripture is said to work repentance to salvation not to be repented of and it cannot be the cause and effect both together Repentance in Scripture implyes a forsaking of sin as it were very easie to prove if it be thought necessary and without this we know not what ground any man hath to hope for the pardon of it although he confess it and be absolved a thousand times over and have remorse in his mind for it when he doth confess it And therefore I had cause to say that they of the Church of Rome destroy the necessity of a good life when they declare a man to be in a state of salvation if he hath a bare contrition for his sins and confess them to the Priest and be absolved by him For to what end should a man put himself to the trouble of mortifying his passions and forsaking his sins if he commits them again he knows a present remedy toties quoties it is but confessing with sorrow and upon absolution he is as whole as if he had not sinned And is it possible to imagine a doctrine that more effectually overthrows the necessity of a good life than this doth I cannot but think if this doctrine were true all the Precepts of Holiness in the Christian Religion were insignificant things But this is a doctrine fitted to make all that are bad and willing to continue so to be their Proselytes when so cheap and easie a way of salvation is believed by them especially if we enquire into the explication of this doctrine among the Doctors of that Church I cannot better express this than in the words of Bishop Taylor whom he deservedly calls an eminent leading man among the Protestants where after he hath mentioned their doctrines about contrition The sequel of all he saith is this that if a man live a wicked life for sixty or eighty years together yet if in the article of his death sooner than which God say they hath not commanded him to repent by being a little sorrowful for his sins then resolving for the present that he will do so no more and though this sorrow hath in it no love of God but only a fear of Hell and a hope that God will pardon him this if the Priest absolves him doth instantly pass him into a state of salvation The Priest with two Fingers and a Thumb can do his work for him only he must be greatly prepared and disposed to receive it greatly we say according to the sense of the Roman Church for he must be
attrite or it were better he were contrite one act of grief a little one and that not for one sin more than for another and this at the end of a wicked long life at the time of our death will make all sure Upon these terms it is a wonder that all wicked men in the world are not Papists where they may live so merrily and dye so securely and are out of all danger unless peradventure they dye very suddenly which because so very few do the venture is esteemed nothing and it is a thousand to one on the sinners side But we dare not flatter men so into eternal misery we cannot but declare to them the necessity of a sincere repentance and holy life in order to salvation and that we cannot absolve those whom God hath declared he will not absolve Indeed for the satisfaction of truly penitent sinners our Church approves of applying the Promises of Pardon in Scripture to the particular case of those persons which is that we mean by absolution But if they pretend they can absolve whether God will or no we must leave God and them to dispute the point § 2. 2. I said the care of a good life was taken off among them by supposing an expiation of sin by the prayers of the living after death No saith he it is rather apt to increase it because of the temporal pains the sinner is to sustain after death if there be not a perfect expiation of sin in this life by works of pennance and although he be ascertained by faith that he may be holpen by the charitable suffrages of the faithful living yet this is no more encouragement to him to sin than it would be to a Spend-thrift to run into debt and to be cast into prison because he knows he may be relieved by the charity of his friends If he were sure there were no prison for him that would be an encouragement indeed to play the Spend-thrift and this he saith is the case of the Protestants in denyal of Purgatory One would think by this answer we Protestants had a very pleasant Religion and that we held nothing could affright a sinner from continuing in his sins because we destroy Purgatory but we had thought there had been something more dreadful in the torments of Hell than in the flames of Purgatory But if our plain doctrine that every impenitent sinner must expect no less than eternal vengeance in another world will not prevail upon men to leave their sins and lead a good life can we â—magine a groundless fiction of Purgatory should ever do it Especially considering the true stating of the doctrine of Purgatory among them by which we shall easily discern what obligation it layes upon men to Holiness of life There are say they two sorts of sins which men are guilty of some of which are in their own nature venial and so do not deserve eternal punishment and for these a general and vertual repentance is sufficient but there are other which they call mortal sins which have a debt and obligation to eternal punishment belonging to them but this eternal punishment is changed into temporal by the Sacrament of Pennance but still this temporal punishment must be undergone either in this life or that to come if a man do not satisfie in this life and cannot get help enough out of the stock of the Church to do it for him there is no remedy to Purgatory he must go and if he be not helped by his Friends on earth God knows how long he may stay there but then he is to blame that he took no more care for his soul when he lived if not by a holy life yet by leaving no more to those whose Office it should be to procure him a deliverance thence Judge now Madam if this be not a very frightful doctrine especially to those who are poor and friendless But in case a man be rich enough to provide Masses to be said for his soul and that he hath a good stock of Indulgences before hand for some thousands of years he may make a pretty tolerable shift in Purgatory especially in these last Ages of the world wherein it is probable it may not be near so long to the day of judgement when the final sentence is to be pronounced as he hath got years of Indulgences already I pray what need a person be afraid of that lives a very bad life according to these principles Must he suffer for his Original sin No that guilt and punishment and all is clear done away in Baptism Must he suffer for his Venial sins That were strange if he had never any general repentance for them Need he be afraid of the dreadful sentence of the day of judgement Go ye cursed into everlasting flames He is a Fool indeed that by a little present contrition and confession will not obtain absolution from a Priest and in a trice the eternal flames are extinguished and only some temporal punishment succeeds in the room of them But it would seem somewhat hard to a voluptuous man however to be put to severe pennances is there no remedy in this case Yes there is a stock in the Church and if he will not procure help for himself thence by some plenary Indulgences if he will not bear it here he must in another world What then Is he past all hope of remedy there That is according to his Purse and Friends How easie is it for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God But we have no such easie way of escaping the miseries of another life we dare not tell men they may be relieved there by Masses and Sacrifices and I know not what our doctrine is plain and agreeable to the most obvious and easie sense of the Gospel if men be good here they shall be happy afterwards if they be bad and continue so they shall be certainly miserable and unavoidably so But for those who are neither good nor bad if any such can be neither sincere nor hypocrites neither penitent nor impenitent we leave them to take care of them our Saviour hath only declared that those who are good sincere and penitent shall be happy those who are otherwise must be miserable if they have found out some wayes for them to escape notwithstanding at their peril be it who relye upon them But for others we understand no more how punishment in another life should remain after the guilt of sin is pardoned than how a shadow should continue when the body is gone for punishment follows guilt as the shadow the body And if pardon of sin signifies any thing it is taking away the punishment we were obnoxious to by reason of sin But how that man should be said to have his debt forgiven who is cast into Prison for it only whereas he might have lain and rotted there his Creditor tells him he shall endure the same misery but he shall escape at last
ago S. Gertrude A. D. 664. S. Hildegardis in Germany A. D. 1180. and about the same time S. Elizabeth of Sconaugh all whose revelations were published and the last collected by Roger an English Cistertian and in latter times he mentions S. Brigitt and S. Catharine whose revelations he saith were opposed by some but he declares for his part that he is not at all moved with their arguments for that would diminish too much the honour due to those holy Spouses of Christ as he calls them but in truth he confesses the honour of their Church is concerned in it for saith he several Popes upon diligent examination have allowed and approved these revelations as Eugenius the third did those of Hildegardis as well as Boniface the ninth those of S. Brigitt For the argument from the contradiction of these revelations he knows not how to come off but by a charge of Forgery on the Dominican side and why might not they as well return it on the other unless Matthias a Suetia Confessor to S. Brigitt were more infallible than Raimundus or those who believed S. Catharine But this is not the only case wherein these female revelations so much approved by the Church of Rome are contradictory to each other in those things whereon the proof of a point of doctrine depends For who knows not to what end the revelation of S. Gregoryes delivering the soul of Trajan by his prayers is so frequently urged and this is confirmed by a revelation of S. Brigitt to that purpose from whence Salmeron calls it an unanswerable argument and Alphonsus Ciacconius published by the Popes authority an Apology for that revelation Yet Baronius tells us that S. Mathildis had a revelation to the contrary and if it were not contradictory to S. Brigitts it must be contradictory to it self And therefore he very fairly rejects them all but with what honour to his Church which had before approved them I can by no means understand And Bellarmin to the revelation of Mathildis wherein she desired to know what became of the souls of Sampson Solomon Origen and Trajan and God answered her that none should know what he had done with them opposes another revelation wherein the soul of Origen was seen together with that of Arius and Nestorius in Hell So infallible are these revelations even when they contradict each other How often have visions and apparitions of souls been made use of to prove the doctrine of Purgatory Witness the famous testimonies to this purpose out of S. Gregories Dialogues and Bedes History which latter is at large recited being very proper for it in the late great Legend published by Mr. Cressy under the name of a Church History who justifies the substance of the story as far as it concerns the Doctrine of Purgatory although he doth not think the person really dead but only in a Trance which is all one to our purpose as long as such arguments as these are made use of to prove matters of faith by We need not go so far back as Gabriel Biel to shew that the doctrine of Transubstantiation hath been proved by the appearance of a Child in a Host such an argument hath been lately published to the World and Bellarmin reckons up several to this purpose one wherein instead of Bread was seen real Flesh and another wherein Christ was seen in the form of a Child Which are well attended with St. Anthony of Padua 's Horse which would never have left his Provender to Worship the Host unless he had seen some notable sight there And he very doughtily proves Auricular Confession by a certain Vision of a tall and terrible man with his Book in his hand which blotted out presently all the sins which the humble Thief confessed upon his knees to the Priest but he hath not proved that terrible man did not represent the Devil who by that Ceremony might shew that he turned over the keeping of his Books of Accompts to the Priest who upon Confession might tell mens sins as well as he could do without But they have not only attempted to prove matters of Doctrine by these things but things have been defined in the Church meerly upon the credit of private revelations So the Spanish Ambassadour urges the Pope smartly upon the Revelations of St. Bridgitt That there were many of his predecessors that had determined more things in the Church partly relying upon private Revelations therein whose authority was not greater than hers were Pius 1. he saith determined the Controversie of Easter-day upon the credit of a Revelation made to Hermes Urban 4. Instituted the Festival of Corpus Christi in opposition to the denyers of Transubstantiation upon the instinct and revelation of a certain Woman Paul the Hermite was Canonized for a Saint upon the Authority of a Vision and Revelation to Anthony the one of his soul flying to Heaven the other of his being there The Feast of the apparition of the Arch-angel Michael which is constantly observed in the Church of Rome depended upon a revelation to the Bishop of Siponto and a few Drovers upon the Mountain Garganus These are things briefly touched by the Ambassadour but it will not be amiss to give a more particular account of those instances which concern the Institution of Festival Solemnities by which it will appear that they are Fanatical even in their Superstitions Pope Vrban 4. in the Bull still extant for the Celebration of Corpus Christi day mentions that as one of the great reasons of appointing it that while he was in a lower capacity he understood that a revelation had been made to certain Catholicks that this Feast should be observed in the Church This which is only intimated here is at large explained by Ioh. Diestemius Blaerus Prior of St. Iames in Liege where these things happened In an Hospital hard by the Town he tells us there was a famous Virgin called Iuliana which had many Extasies and Raptures and so Prophetical a Spirit as to discern the thoughts and intentions of her Neighbours Hearts she wrestled with Devils discoursed with the Apostles and wrought many Miracles But one thing peculiar to her was that in her Prayers she almost alwayes saw the Moon in her brightness but with a snip taken off from her roundness at which she was much troubled but by no means could get it out of her Phancy At last God was pleased to reveal it to her that the Moon signified the present Church and that fraction the want of one solemnity more to be observed in it upon which she received a command from Heaven to proclaim the observation of this solemnity For twenty years she prayed that God would excuse her and make choice of a more worthy person but none being found she communicates it to Iohannes de Lausenna and he to Iacobus de Trecis then Arch-deacon of Liege and afterwards Vrban 4. But although
last times wherein he doth at large set forth the hypocrisie idleness flattery and baseness of the Fryers but coming to shew the near approach of the dangers he mentions he saith It is now fifty five years for about that time Almaric broached his doctrine that some have endeavoured to change the Gospel of Christ into another Gospel which they said would be better more perfect and worthy which they call the Gospel of the Holy Ghost or the everlasting Gospel which will by its coming turn the Gospel of Christ out of doors as saith he we are ready to prove out of that cursed Gospel and a little after he adds That this Everlasting Gospel was publickly explained at Paris A. D. 1254. from whence it is certain that it would be preached unless there were some other thing which hindered And afterwards he saith That in that Book this Everlasting Gospel is said to exceed the Gospel of Christ as much as the light of the Sun doth that of the Moon or the Kernel doth the Shell This Book of his extreamly incensed the Fryers and they presently sent informations against him to the Pope and by their interest got his Book to be condemned and burnt publickly before the Pope and the Court at Anagnia and afterwards at Paris to which purpose the Pope published a Bull and denounced the sentence of excommunication against any who should presume to defend it and the Write of it was deprived of his Ecclesiastical Promotions and banished France as far as the Popes power could do it All this was done in great haste before the Legats from the Vniversity could appear and when they came three of them recanted and returned only Gul. de S. Amore resolved to stand it out and answered all their objections and persisted still in the accusation of that horrible Book and at last prevailed so much that the Pope was fain to condemn the Evangelium aeternum together with S. Amours Book but it appears how unwillingly he did it by his carriage in it which is related by Matth. Paris for he condemned the other Book solemnly and caused the sentence to be publickly executed but he gave order that this Book should be secretly burnt and as much as might be without any offence to the Fryers Lo here the true zeal of the Head of the Church A Book only writ against the Mendicant Fryers is condemned as impious wicked execrable and what not in the Bull against it and a Book against Christian Religion in the highest manner hardly procured to be condemned and when it is with great fear of displeasing the Authors and approvers of it And since that time they have been very careful to suppress the least mention of the latter but very forward to set forth the other For in the Roman Bullarium the Bull against S. Amours Book is set forth at large but not the least intimation of any such Book condemned as the Evangelium aeternum So much dearer to the Pope is the honour of Fryers than of Christ and the Christian Religion And therefore S. Amour said well in the University of Paris before they went That it was to no purpose to go about to procure the condemning that Book at Rome where it had so many Favourers the design of it being to advance the honour of Religious Orders though to the overthrow of the Gospel of Christ. It is well these things were written and preserved by Writers of their own Church and persons of the same Age out of whom only I have given account of them for otherwise according to their usual Method of confuting things which do not please them they would be denyed with a mighty confidence and the world should be told that these are only the Lyes and Forgeries of Hereticks But these are to their shame preserved in their own Books and we can shew them the very words if occasion requires it § 9. Yet we are not to think that only the preaching Fryers sell into these extravagancies for the Franciscans had a great hand in them too and were as forward to promote that which they accounted their common interest And notwithstanding the Popes condemning the Book said to be taken out of Abbot Ioachims Writings yet his doctrine did in no long time after break forth again in the Franciscan Order For toward the latter end of the same Century or as most think in the beginning of the next in the time of Clement the fifth appeared one Petrus Iohannis de Oliva a great Disciple of Ioachims as Guido Carmelita Alphonsus a Castro and Franciscus Pegna affirm All the difference saith Alphonsus between them was that Ioachim made the spiritual State to commence from the founding the Benedictine Order but Petrus Iohannis would have it begin only from S. Francis Which State as Eymericus relates where he recounts his errors began with the Franciscan Order when the Angel of Christ that is S. Francis did set his mark upon all his Souldiers and that S. Francis appeared as Christ did with his wounds upon him For we are to understand that S. Francis in one of his Visions upon the very day of the exaltation of the Cross had the same bleeding wounds on his hands feet and side which Christ had upon the Cross and carried them for two years together before his death and lest this should be suspected Pope Alexander the fourth preached it in S. Bonaventures hearing that himself saw them as the sixth Lesson on S. Francis day in the Roman Breviary and Bonaventure assure us And who dares question the infallibility of the Popes eye-sight Unless the Story in latter times of Maria Visitationis as she was called Abbesse of the Annuntiation in Lisbon may give some suspicion of it For this Virgin had gained so great a reputation for sanctity not only in Portugal but in Spain Italy and the East Indies that she seemed to be a fit match for S. Francis And she out-did him in the number of her wounds for she had thirty two upon her head caused by Christs putting his Crown of Thorns upon her and in her hands and â—eet and side they were as exact as in St. Francis she made no difficulty of shewing them if her Confessor bid her but never otherwise lest she should seem too much to glory in the honour which Christ had done her This Confessor was no less a man than Ludovicus Granatensis a man highly commended for learning and piety who as verily believed them as Pope Alexander did those of S. Francis One day in the Week she laid raggs to her wounds upon which the print of the wounds was made These rags with incredible devotion saith the Writer of the Story were sent to the Pope himself and to the greatest and most religious persons in all parts by whom they were received with great Veneration And when he was Inquisitor in Sicily he saith he saw many of them