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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
by the terms of communion with that Church be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry either of which are sins inconsistent with salvation Which I thus prove That Church which requires the giving the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator makes the members of it guilty of hypocrisie or Idolatry for it they do it they are guilty of the latter if they do it not of the former but the Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist and the formal Invocation of Saints doth require the giving to the creature the Worship due only to the Creator therefore it makes the members of it guilty of hypocrisie or Idolatry That the Church of Rome in these particulars doth require the giving the creature the honour due only to God I prove thus concerning each of them 1. Where the Worship of God is terminated upon a creature there by their own confession the Worship due only to God is given to the creature but in the Worship of God by Images the Worship due to God is terminated wholly on the creature which is thus proved the Worship which God himself denyes to receive must be terminated on the creature but God himself in the second Commandment not only denyes to receive it but threatens severely to punish them that give it Therefore it cannot be terminated on God but only on the Image 2. The same argument which would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry lawful cannot excuse any act from Idolatry but the same argument whereby the Papists make the Worship of the Bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry not to be so For if it be not therefore Idolatry because they suppose the bread to be God then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry by them who supposed the Sun to be God and upon this ground the grosser the Idolatry was the less it was Idolatry for the grossest Idolaters were those who supposed their Statues to be Gods And upon this ground their Worship was more lawful than of those who supposed them not to be so 3. If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us be a sufficient ground for formal Invocation then the Heathen Worship of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry for the Heathens still pretended that they did not give to them the Worship proper to the Supream God which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papist in justification of the Invocation of Saints To these I expect a direct and punctual answer professing as much Charity towards them as is consistent with Scripture and Reason 2. Because the Church of Rome is guilty of so great corruption of the Christian Religion by such opinions and practices which are very apt to hinder a good life Such are the destroying the necessity of a good life by making the Sacrament of Penance joyned with contrition sufficient for salvation the taking off the care of it by supposing an expiation of sin by the prayers of the living after death and the sincerity of devotion is much obstructed in it by prayers in a language which many understand not by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration whether our minds be prepared for them or not by discouraging the reading the Scripture which is our most certain rule of faith and life by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church as we are ready to defend by the gross abuse of people in Pardons and Indulgences 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 by making it in the power of any person to dispense contrary to the Law of God in Oathes and Marriages by 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 By all which practices and opinions we assert that there are so many hinderances to a good life that 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 3. Because it exposeth the faith of Christians to so great uncertainty By making the authority of the Scriptures to depend on the infallibility of the Church when the Churches Infallibility must be proved by the Scripture by making those things necessary to be believed which if they be believed overthrow all foundations of faith viz. That we are not to believe our senses in the plainest objects of them as that bread which we see is not bread upon which it follows that tradition being a continued kind of sensation can be no more certain than sense it self and that the Apostles might have been deceived in the body of Christ after the resurrection and the Church of any Age in what they saw or heard By 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 by making the Churches power extend to make new Articles of faith viz. by making those things necessary to be believed which were not so before By pretending to infallibility in determining Controversies and yet not determining Controversies which are on foot among themselves All which and several other things which my designed brevity will not permit me to mention tend very much to shake the faith of such who have nothing else to rely on but the authority of the Church of Rome 3. I answer That a Protestant leaving the Communion of our Church doth incurr 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 For a Protestant is supposed to have sufficient convictions of the Errors of the Roman Church or is guilty of wilful ignorance if he hath not but although we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance we are sure that wilful ignorance or choosing a worse Church before a better is a damnable sin and unrepented of destroyes salvation To the second Question I answer 1. I do not understand what is meant by a Christian in the Abstract or in the whole latitude it being a thing I never heard or read of before and therefore may have some meaning in it which I cannot understand 2. But if the Question be as the last words imply it Whether a Christian by vertue of his being so be bound to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians I answer affirmatively and that he is bound to choose the communion of the purest Church and not to leave that for a corrupt one though called never so Catholick The Proposer of the Questions Reply to the Answer Madam I
Resurrection 3. He saith that We expose faith to great uncertainty by denying to men the use of their Judgement and Reason as to matters of faith proposed by a Church that is we deny particular mens Iudgement as to matters of faith to be as good if not better than the Churches and to inferre from henâ—e that we make Faith uncertain is just as if on the contrary one should say that Protestants make faith certain by exposing matter of faith determined by the Church to be discussed and reversed by the Iudgement and reason or rather fancy of every private man We have good store of this kind of certainty in England But as for the use of our Iudgement and Reason as to the matters themselves proposed by the Church it is the daily business of Divines and Preachers not only to shew them not to be repugnant to any natural truth but also to illustrate them with Arguments drawn from reason But the use he would have of reason is I suppose to believe nothing but what his reason can comprehend and this is not only irrational in its self but contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paul where he commands us to captivate our understandings to the Obedience of Faith 4. He adds We expose faith to uncertainty by making the Church power extend to making new Articles of Faith And this if it were true were something indeed to his purpose But the Church never yet owned any such power in her General Councils but only to manifest and establish the Doctrine received from her Fore-fathers as is to be seen in the prooems of all the Sessions of the Council of Trent where the Fathers before they declare what is to be believed ever premise that what they declare is the same they have received by Tradition from the Apostles And because it may happen that some particular Doctrine was not so plainly delivered to each part of the Church as it happened in St. Cyprians case concerning the non-rebaptization of Hereticks we acknowledge it is in her power to make that necessary to be believed which was not so before not by inventing new Articles but by declaring more explicitely the Truths contained in Scripture and Tradition Lastly he saith We expose Faith to great uncertainty because the Church pretending to infallibility does not determine Controversies on foot among our selves As if faith could not be certain unless all Controversies among particular men be determined what then becomes of the certainty of Protestants faith who could yet never find out a sufficient means to determine any one Controversie among them for if that means be plain Scripture what one Iudgeth plain another Iudgeth not so and they acknowledge no Iudge between them to decide the Controversie As for the Catholick Church if any Controversies arise concerning the Doctrine delivered as in St. Cyprians case she determines the Controversie by declaring what is of Faith And for other Controversies which belong not to faith she permits as St. Paul saith every one to abound in his own sence And thus much in Answer to his third Argument by which and what hath been said to his former Objections it appears that he hath not at all proved what he asserted in his second Answer to the first Question viz. 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 or continue in it But he hath a third Answer for us in case the former faile and it is § 10. That a Protestant leaving the Communion of the Protestant Church doth incurr a greater guilt than one who was bred up in the Church of Rome and continues therein by invincible ignorance This is the directest answer he gives to the Question and what it imports is this That invincible Ignorance and he doth not know what allowance God will make for that neither is the only Anchor which a Catholick hath to save himself by If by discoursing with Protestants and reading their Books he be not sufficiently convinced whereas he ought in the supposition of the Answerer to be so that the Letter of the Scripture as interpretable by every private mans reason is a most certain Rule of Faith and Life but is still over-ruled by his own Motives the same which held St. Austin in the bosome of the Catholick Church he is guilty of wilful Ignorance and consequently a lost man there is no hope of Salvation for him Much less for a Protestant who shall embrace the Catholick Communion because he is supposed doubtless from the same Rule to have sufficient conviction of the Errors of the Roman Church or is guilty of wilful Ignorance If he have it not which is a damnable sin and unrepented of destroyes salvation So that now the upshot of the Answer to the Question Whether a Protestant embracing Catholick Religion upon the same motives which one bred and well grounded in it hath to remain in it may be equally saved with him comes to this that they shall both be damned though unequally because the converted Catholick more deeply than he that was bred so And now who can but lament the sad condition of that great Doctor and Father of the Church and hitherto reputed St. Austin who rejecting the Manichees pretended rule of Scripture upon the aforesaid grounds left their Communion to embrace the Communion of the Church of Rome And what is become now of their distinction of points fundamental from not fundamental which heretofore they thought sufficient to secure both Catholicks and Protestants Salvation and to charge us with unconscionable uncharitableness in not allowing them to be sharers with us The absurdness of these consequences may serve for a sufficient conviction of the nullity of his third and last answer to the first Question As for what he saith to the second I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest which hath the best grounds and consequently it is of necessity to Salvation to embrace the communion of it What then you are bound to do in reason and conscience is to see which Religion of the two hath the strongest Motives for it and to embrace that as you will answer the contrary to God and your own soul. To help you to do this and that the Answerer may have the less exception against them I will give you a Catalogue of Catholick Motives though not all neither in the words of the forecited Dr. Taylor advertising only for brevity sake I leave out some mentioned by him and that in these I set down you also give allowance for some expressions of his with which he hath mis-represented them Thus then he Liberty of
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
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
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
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
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
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
it or gave any signs of contrition it ought not to be omitted alwayes provided that those who are mad do nothing against the reverence of the Sacrament That being secured their work is done and if any sins have remained upon them they are taken off by vertue of this sacred Vnction and being thus anointed like the Athletae of old they are prepared to wrestle with all the powers of the Air who can then fasten no hold upon them Yet to be just to them the Roman Ritual saith that impenitent persons and those who dye in mortal sin and excommunicate and unbaptized are to be denyed extream Vnction A hard case for those who dye in mortal sin for if they could but express any sign of contrition by the motion of an Eye or a Finger all were well enough And for the impenitent we are not to imagine them so cruel to account any so but such who refuse the Sacrament of Pennance the summ of it then is if a man when he is like to live and therefore to sin no longer doth but probably express some signs of contrition and doth not refuse the Sacrament of Pennance if time and the condition of the Patient permit the using it then he is to have grace conferred on him by this last Sacrament which he is sure to receive although he be no more sensible what they are doing about him than if he were dead already So that upon the whole matter I begin to wonder how any sort of men in the Church of Rome can be afraid of falling so low as Purgatory I had thought so much Grace as is given them by every Sacrament where there are so many and some of them so often used might have served to carry one to Heaven they receive a stock of Grace in Baptism before they could think of it if they lose any in Childhood that is supplyed again by the Sacrament of Chrisme or Confirmation if they fall into actual sins and so lose it it is but confessing to the Priest and receiving absolution and they are set up again with a new stock and it is a hard case if that be not increased by frequent Masses at every one of which he receives more and although Priests want the comfortable Grace that is to be received by the Sacrament of Matrimony yet they may easily make it up by the number of Masses and to make all sure at last the extream Vnction very sweetly conveyes Grace into them whether they be sensible or not But all this while what becomes of Purgatory That is like to be left very desolate if the interest of that opinion were not greater than the evidence for the Sacraments conferring grace ex opere operato Let them seek to reconcile them if they can it is sufficient for our purpose that both of them tend to destroy the sincerity of devotion and the necessity of a good life § 8. 3. I said the sincerity of devotion is much obstructed by discouraging tdiscourahe reading of the Scriptures which is our most certain Rule of faith and life To this he answers two wayes 1. That their Churches prudential dispensing the reading the Scriptures 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 is no discouraging the reading of them any more than a Father may be said to discourage his Child because he will not put a Knife or a Sword into his hands when he foresees he will do mischief with it to himself or others and the Scriptures he saith are no other in the hands of one who doth not submit his judgement in the interpretation of it to that of the Church the doing of which he makes the character of a meek and humble soul and the contrary of an arrogant and presumptuous spirit 2. That the ill consequences of permitting the promiscuous reading of Scripture were complained of by Henry the eighth who was the first that gave way to it and if his judgement ought not to be followed in after times let the dire effects of so many Sects and Fanaticisms as have risen in England from the reading of it bear witness For all Heresies arise saith St. Austin from misunderstanding the Scriptures and therefore the Scripture being left as among Protestants to the private interpretation of every fanciful Spirit cannot be a most certain rule of faith and life In which answer are three things to be discussed 1. Whether that prudential dispensing the Scriptures as he calls it be any hinderance to devotion or no 2. Whether the reading of the Scriptures be the cause of the numbers of Sects and Fanaticisms which have been in England 3. Whether our opinion concerning the reading and interpreting Scripture doth hinder it from being a most certain rule of faith and life 1. Whether that prudential dispensing the Scriptures used in the Church of Rome doth hinder devotion or no This prudential dispensing I suppose he means the allowing no persons to read the Scriptures in their own tongue without licence under the hand of the Bishop or Inquisitor by the advice of the Priest or Confessor concerning the persons fitness for it and whosoever presumes to do otherwise is to be denyed absolution For this is the express Command in the fourth Rule of the Index published by order of the Council of Trent and set forth by the authority of Pius the fourth and since by Clement the eighth and now lately inlarged by Alexander the seventh And whether this tends to the promoting or discouraging the sincerity of devotion will appear by considering these things 1. That it is agreed on both sides that the Scriptures do contain in them the unquestionable Will of that God whom we are bound to serve And it being the end of devotion as it ought to be of our lives to serve him what is there the mind of any one who sincerely desires to do it can be more inquisitive after or satisfied in than the rules God himself hath given for his own service Because it is so easie a matter for men to mistake in the wayes they choose to serve him in I see the world divided more scarce about any thing than this Some think God ought to be worshipped by offering up Sacrifices to him of those things we receive from his bounty Others that we ought to offer up none to him now but our selves in a holy life and actions Some that God is pleased by abstaining from flesh or any living creature and others that he is much better pleased with eating Fish than Flesh and that a full meal of one is at some times mortification and fasting and eating temperately of the other is luxury and irreligion Some think no sight more pleasing to God than to see men lash and whip themselves for their sins till the blood comes others that he is as well pleased at least with hearty repentance and sincere
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
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
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
as he adds to none but God himself and said that they followed the Apostolical rule in a very singular manner This Geraldus saith Paramo and his followers by a shew of extraordinary sanctity drew many to their party but Friar Salimbenus in a Manuscript seen by Pegna in the Library of Cardinal Savelli at Rome being himself a Franciscan gives this account of him whom he calls Gherardinus Segalellus that being desirous to be admitted into their order he was refused by them after which he spent some time in the Franciscans Church where observing the pictures of the Apostles and the habits they were drawn in he put himself as exactly as he could into the very same habit and having sold his house and received the money for it he distributed it all among the people and afterwards got a companion who was a servant to the Franciscans but by degrees their number increased so that in a short time they spread over many Cities in Italy and from thence were dispersed over almost all Europe They went up and down in the Streets saith Eymericus Preaching repentance with a white Mantel a white Coat and long hair barefoot and bareheaded and what they eat was publickly in the Streets and only what was given to them after forty years in which they mightily prevailed Boniface 8. caused Gerald to be taken and burnt upon this Dulcinus with six thousand of his companions retired into the Alps where they increased so much saith Pegna that Clement 5. was forced to send a Croisado against them where they starved a great part of them but Dulcinus and his Wife Margareta as Patreolus calls her were taken and burnt It is not credible saith Bzovius how long they endured upon the Alps all extremities of hunger and cold rather than they would yield to their Adversaries But notwithstanding all the endeavours could be used they could not wholly extinguish that Sect saith Prateolus but the remainders of it were still left in the Mountains about Trent and continued to his time which was about A. D. 1560. These were of the same opinions with the Fratricelli before mentioned as to the Roman Church that by reason of the wickedness of the Clergy and Religious Orders it was a reprobate Church and the Whore of Babylon but being no more content with this than the greatest Fanaticks of our Age they pretended to great things themselves that they were the only spiritual Congregation sent and chosen out by God to bear testimony to his truth in the last ages and that they and only they had the power which St. Peter had that Geraldus Segarelli was a plant of Gods own planting growing up from the root of faith by whom God began the work of Reformation of his Church to the purity perfection life state and poverty of the primitive Church in that state wherein Christ committed his Church to St. Peter That they only are the Church of God and in that perfection wherein the Apostles were and therefore are bound to live in subjection to none because their rule which was immediately from Christ is free and hath the greatest perfection that no one can be saved who is not of their Order that it is a sign any one is in a state of damnation to persecute them that all the Popes from Sylvester downward and all the Prelats were impostours and deceivers excepting only Celestine 5. who renounced his Popedome and gave leave to the spiritual Brotherhood to separate from the rest in the Franciscan Order That the Orders of Clergy and Religion are dangerous to the Church That no lay-men ought to pay any tithes to Priest or Prelat who lives not in the same perfection and poverty which the Apostles did That it was as well to Worship God in Woods or Stables or Barnes as in consecrated Churches That it was unlawful for Christians to swear at all saith Prateolus or never but in case of the Articles of faith or the divine commands say Turrecremata and Eymericus but in all other cases it was lawful to use all aequivocations and mental reservations and to deny their Sect with their mouths as long as they kept true to them in their hearts That nothing was unlawful which was done out of a principle of Love and that all things in the worst sense were to be common among them and therefore they are charged with allowing and practising promiscuous mixtures among themselves if their Adversaries do not charge them as unjustly in this point as the Prmitive Christians were charged by the Heathen This is the summ of their Principles and practices as they are reported by Turrecremata Eymericus Prateolus Spondanus Raynaldus and others But that which is still observable to our purpose is that these were looked on as a sort of Fryers in the Roman Church for when Honorius 4. condemned them by his Bull extant in Eymericus he doth it upon this account that they were a sort of Mendicant Fryers not approved by the Roman See whereas Greg. 10. in the Council of Lyons had absolutely forbid all Orders of Mendicants after the Lateran Council that should not receive express confirmation from the Pope but his Holiness was informed that some who called themselves of the Apostolical Order had since that time assumed to themselves a new habit of Religion without due applications being made to his See and a great number of these went up and down as Mendicants into many parts of the world doing unseemly things to their own peril and the scandal of others especially some among them being guilty of Heresie therefore all Ecclesiastical Officers are required to admonish and compell them to lay down their habits and to enter themselves among some of the approved Religious Orders and in case of refusal they ought to proceed judicially against them and to deliver them over to the secular power By which we understand the true ground of the quarrel against them viz. not yielding subjection enough to the Roman See and how easily all their Blasphemies and Villanies might be forgiven if they entred themselves into any of the approved Religious Orders § 12. As we see all the care used could not root out this Sect wholly but the remainders of them continued in some of the Mountains of Italy so I am very much mistaken if the Alumbrado's in Spain or the Sect of Illuminati were any other than a remainder of the Beguini and Fraticelli whom we observed before to have got footing there Spondanus indeed and some others from him say they were detected in the Diocesses of Sevil and Cadiz A. D. 1623. and were condemned by Andreas Pachecus the general Inquisitour in Spain in twenty six Articles and the seven chief of them were burnt but withall he saith they were not so much a new Sect as a renewal of an old one with some additions Nay we meet with the very same name of the Sect long
the same Author layes it down as a fundamental rule that God only by his holy Inspirations is the guide and directour in an Internal contemplative life and that all the light they have therein is from immediate divine illumination as well as our strength from the divine operation and that this light doth extend further and to more and other more particular objects than the divine light or Grace by which good Christians living common lives in the world are lead extends to yea than it does even in those that seek perfection by the exercises of an active life But which is very extraordinary in this supernatural light he saith that generally when there is proposed the not doing or doing of an external work and both of them are lawfull the divine inspiration moves to the not doing but this is not all but among the impediments to divine Inspirations he reckons not only all external duties of Religion but the doing things meerly for Edification A most excellent and Apostolical doctrine but it is happy for the Christian world the Apostles had other kind of Inspirations from these or else they had never done much good in the World or been such eminent examples of holy life and actions What becomes of all the precepts they have left us of doing good of mutual edification of constant business besides the commands for the outward duties of Worship if these be the hinderances in the way to perfection And although he would not have his spiritual internal liver to pretend to extraordinary apparitions voices conversations with spirits message from Heaven c. Yet in his Discourse of Passive Vnions he saith that God reveals himself to the soul by a supernatural species impressed in her which revelations are either sensible as apparitions words c. or intellectual either immediately or by Angels the effects of which supernatural inactions of God are Rapts or Extasies internal visions c. in which he saith that the less experienced and imperfect are to advise with their directour about them but those who were more eminently perfect have followed their own light in judging of those things and practising accordingly without consulting others and withall addes that such souls which receive these things must carefully observe her internal direction and that they are not so absolutely obliged to resign their judgements and wills to others as to neglect their own proper call received from God And doth this doctrine now differ from that of the Fanatick Sectaries which have swarmed in England Yes Mr. Cressy in his Preface undertakes at large to shew the difference by answering the objection taken from thence against the publishing this doctrine because it would justifie them in all their frenzies and disorders and in order to this 1. He very foolishly goes about to prove the necessity of divine Inspirations from the necessity of divine Grace for the doing good actions which is not denyed by the greatest enemies to Enthusiasme 2. He saith we ought to correspond to those Divine Inspirations which stirr us up to good actions if he means by them nothing but the assistance of Divine Grace no one questions it 3. That there may be false suggestions of the Devil which may appear like the motions of Gods Spirit 4. That it being necessary these should be distinguished from each other the only means imaginable that can be proper natural and efficacious to obtain such a supernatural light to discern Gods will in all things as pure spiritual prayer exercised by a soul living an abstracted internal recollected life spent in a continual attendance on God c. i. e. in short the directions of F. Augustin Baker And is not this think we a very cunning way of vindicating his doctrine from Fanaticism to make Enthusiasm necessary to distinguish the motions of the good and bad Spirit in our minds I have already shewed that he teaches the highest Enthusiasm and it seems those who made the objection were sensible of it But how doth Mr. Cressy answer it by shewing what they condemn to be necessary and in effect that no man can know the difference between the motions of the Holy Ghost and the Devil but by Enthusiasme nay that is the plain meaning of his words for this contemplative prayer he saith is the only means to gain such a supernatural light whereby we can distinguish one from the other An admirable way to tell men they must first be mad before they can know whether they be in their wits or no. But since this contemplative state hath besides the common though immediate illuminations many passive unions or extraordinary revelations attending it suppose the Question were put how one should know whether these came from God or the Devil what answer will Mr. Cressy then give will he return back again to try illuminations by inspirations as he calls them and so inspirations by illuminations which is just like the Scripture by the Church and the Church by Scripture But here saith Mr. Cressy is no pretending to new or strange revelations no walking in mirabilibus super se yes I think he doth so when he utters these things for what are passive unions but new revelations and as great as ever any Fanatick Sectary pretended to Did not they deliver this for their Doctrine that men ought to hearken to the immediate impulses of the Spirit of God within them and that now God doth acquaint his own people with his mind and will in a way peculiar to themselves And what have they done of the mystical way but only changed a few terms and asserted the thing it self higher than our Enthusiasts did who did not boast of so many raptures visions and revelations as those of the Church of Rome have done Lud. Blosius in his works hath one Book called Monile Spirituale which consists of nothing but the new and strange revelations which were made to four Women Saints St. Gertrude St. Mathildis St. Bridgitt and St. Catharine and in his Preface saith it is a sign of a carnal mind to despise such revelations as these are for the Church of God is wonderfully enlightned by them What saith he did not the Prophets and Apostles receive truth from Heaven by Revelations As though the case were the very same in these melancholy Women and in the holy Prophets and Apostles and we had just as much reason to believe the effects of hysterical vapours and the divine Spirit And lest we should imagine these were only the Fancies of some Women which their Church would not be concerned for the credit of he concludes with saying that these Revelations were known to the world and approved For those of St. Bridgitt we have before shewed how much they were approved For St. Gertrudes he saith the same and that one very learned and illuminate man did say after the accurate reading of them that man could not have
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
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
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
over them in several things mentioned as grievances by them he publishes two Bulls or decretal Epistles to forbid the Bishops doing it for the future upon this the Fryers openly contemn the Bishops and Preach where they please and hear confessions and bury the dead in spight of them and the Parochial Clergy Innocent 4. finding how necessary their help was to him in the Controversies between him and the Emperour confirms the same priviledges to them by which they grew so insolent that they called the Parish Priests as Matthew Paris relates Ideots Dunces Drunkards Blind guids and would make the people believe that all knowledge and sanctity was only among them insomuch that in Petrus de Vineis who lived in that Age and was Chancellour to the Emperour we read a miserable complaint of the Parochial Clergy against the Fryers viz. that by these means they were brought under the greatest contempt to the general scandal of Religion they expressing the most bitter hatred against them imaginable reproaching their lives and lessening their dues so as they were brought to nothing by it and they were made a laughing stock to all people that they took away the main of their imployment from them and drew away the People from the Churches to the Convents teling them the word of God was to be heard only among them That they had nothing now left to do but to pull down their Churches in which they had scarce any thing left besides a Bell and an old resty Image but these holy Fryers while they had nothing possessed all things and professing poverty were extreamly rich But Innocent 4. a little before his death being wearied by the complaints of the Bishops and Clergy revoked the priviledges which he had so largely granted to the Fryers and confined them within certain limits forbidding them to draw away the people from their Parish Churches upon Sundayes and Holy-dayes or admitting any to pennance who had not first confessed to their Parish-priest but the Fryers were as far from being pacified by this as the Clergy were by the former for therein the Pope upbraids them with violating the rights of others with blaspheaming Religion by such actions displeasing God and drawing the souls of the faithful to perdition but he dying assoon as they had notice of this Bull they said it was a just judgement of God upon him for revoking their priviledges And Alexander 4. was no sooner settled in his Chair but they procured another Bull from him to call in that of Innocent 4. and immediately to suspend all execution of it but this did not satisfie them for they boasted they had killed Pope Innocent by their Prayers and that the V. Mary every time they invocated her name turned to her Son and said Son hear them upon which Innocent was presently struck with a Palsie and dyed from whence arose a saying in the Court of Rome from the Fryers Letanies good Lord deliver us This is related as true by Bzovius ad A. D. 1254. but is looked on as a fable of the Fryers by D'attichy Raynaldus du Boulay and others of any judgement among them But this Bull of Alexander nor all the rest he made for their sakes could make the Bishops and the Clergy give up their rights for in the time of Martin 4. the Fryers procured another Bull for hearing Confessions without license from the Bishops upon which the contention increased between the Bishops and the Fryers insomuch that not waiting the Popes revocation of his grant which he was inclined to by the perswasions of the Bishop of Amiens they called a Synod of the Gallican Church at Paris A. D. 1284. wherein the Archbishop of Bourges being president declared to them that being Pastors of the flock they ought to lay down their lives for their sheep and not to suffer the encroachments were made upon them by the Fryers by whom all things were brought to confusion in the Church that they had used all fair wayes of prevailing with them by the intreaties of the King and Nobles to forbear such intrusions into their offices as they were continually guilty of but all to no purpose they still defending themselves by Papal priviledges whereas there had been contrary Bulls to another granted at Rome And it was then agreed among them that they should maintain their own office against the Fryers incroachments by which the contention increased to so great a height that many invectives Apologies and libels were published one against another to the great disgrace saith Meyerus of the whole Ecclesiastical Order Upon which Pope Martin endeavoured an accommodation by another Bull wherein he required that all Parishioners should Confess to their own Parish Priest at least once a year But this was as far from making peace as any before therefore from Boniface 8. the Fryers procured a new Bull of priviledges which absolutely nulls all the former Bulls of restriction and limitation and by the fulness of his Apostolical power doth exempt them from all manner of power or jurisdiction of the Bishops or any other Ecclesiastical persons and decrees that they were immediately subject to the Pope and to none else And yet this Pope himself not many years after retracted this Bull and set forth that which Clement 5. renewed in order to the composing this difference which had now to the great demonstration of their Vnity and the Popes Authority continued with great violence above fifty years and was far from being ended by this Bull for Benedict 11. in another published on the same occasion saith that instead of peace troubles arose by it instead of unity and concord greater divisions and disturbances and by cutting off one head of the Hydra seven more came into its room Are not the Popes great Peace-makers the mean while Therefore he resolves to try what the other way would do and again inlarges the priviledges of the Fryers which being sound as unsuccessful as ever Clement 5. resumes the Constitution of Boniface which this Pope condemned and to as little purpose as the other had done before And now let us soberly consider whether there hath not alwayes been an admirable Vnity in the Roman Church or if divisions have arose a ready means to suppress them Here we have the Popes interposing by Bull after Bull and so far from ending the differences that occasioned them that they begot more which made the Popes contradict one another nay the same Pope to contradict himself and so the differences became greater than they were at first And after all these Bulls we find the very same Controversie at as great a height in England and Ireland as ever it had been in France or Germany Wadding saith it went so high that the Bishops and Clergy here would not suffer the Fryers to enjoy any of the priviledges granted them by the Popes which caused an appeal to the Pope made by the Fryers to whom in
behalf of the Clergy was sent Richard Fitz-Ralph the learned Bishop of Armagh best known by the name of Armachanus who there with great smartness opposed the Fryers to the Popes face in a long and set discourse still extant wherein he gives an account that coming to London about some business of his See he found great disputes about the priviledges of the Fryers and being desired to Preach he made seven or eight Sermons wherein he declared his mind against them both as to their Order and Priviledges in which he followed the doctrine of the Divines at Paris above an hundred years before delivered by them upon the like occasion asserting it not to be in the Popes power to grant such priviledges which destroy the rights of the Parochial Clergy or the jurisdiction of the Bishops The Fryers charge him with Heresie as they are wont to do those who are wiser than themselves saith Boulay Armachanus dyed at Avignon but so did not the Controversie with him although the Fryers seem to have had the better there they being the Popes Ianisaries and ready in all places to serve his turn yet Walsingham saith it was not without corrupting the Popes Court by great bribes given by the Fryers that they obtained the confirmation of their priviledges yet seven years after Harpsfield saith this Controversie was referred to the Parliament to be determined Very strange that a Parliament in England should be thought a more likely means for Vnity in the Church than the Authority of so many Popes who had interposed in it for putting an issue to this difference After Armachanus Wickliffe undertook this quarrel against the Fryers and made use of the same arguments against them which those who defended the Clergy had done before For in his Book against the Orders of Fryers he particularly insists upon this That they for pride and covetise had drawen fro Curats there Office and Sacraments in which lyen winning or worship and so maken dissention betwixt Curats and there Ghostlié Childer Which are his own words But Wickliffe and his Disciples carrying the Controversies much farther to points of doctrine and other practices in the Roman Church made the other parties more quiet out of opposition to these whom they looked on as their common enemies It may be therefore they will say that although the Popes Pastoral power may not alwayes cure their divisions yet the opposition of Hereticks makes them run together like a flock of sheep if this were true it seems they are more beholding to Hereticks for their Vnity than to the Popes Authority but we shall find that neither one nor the other of these nor both together can keep them from divisions and those managed with as great animosity as we have ever found in the most differing Sects § 9. Witness the proceedings between the Iesuits and the Secular Priests begun in Wisbich Castle in the latter end of Q. Elizabeths Reign when it came to a separation from each other about the authority of the Arch-Priest And they mutually charged each other with being guilty of a horrible Schism maintained saith Watson by the Iesuits and Arch Priest with infinite violence much infamy for the time and innumerable particular wrongs thereupon not unknown to the meanest Catholick in England The secular Priests finding themselves unjustly accused as they said to the Pope published a Book in Latin which they Dedicated to his Holiness called declaratio motuum turbarum which saith Parsons in his answer called A manifestation of the great folly and bad spirit of certain in England calling themselves secular Priests is made up only of invectives and passionate words injurious and manifest false slanders they in their Reply charge Parsons with follie and madness and the highest degree of impudencie If any one hath a mind to furnish himself with all the terms and phrases of scolding reproach and infamy he may find them in the Books they then writ against each other or if he thinks that too great a trouble he may meet with a goodly parcel of them put together out of Fa. Parsons his own writings by Watson at the end of the Reply to Parsons's Libell The short account of the breach among them was this all the loud talk they made abroad concerning their cruel persecution could not hinder ambition and envy from having its effects among them from these first arose misunderstandings and then quarrels between the secular Priests and the Iesuits from thence the Priests proceed to the framing a sodality as they called it among themselves the better to strengthen themselves against the Iesuits which they understanding prevail with one of the number of the associated Priests to betray their Councils him they send to Rome who in the name of all the Priests in England desired for the preventing differences for the future and the curing those that were already that there might be a Government and subordination settled among them Fa. Parsons being then at Rome follows the matter close and represents to the Pope the necessity of it because of the great discords which were among them in England Whereupon the Pope according to Fa. Parsons desire referrs the whole business to Cardinal Cajetan their Protector Who being governed by the Iesuits pitched upon a person wholly at their devotion as the seculars thought which was Blackwell a man swayed altogether by Garnet Provincial of the Iesuits well known for his zeal in the Catholick cause by suffering as one of their Martyrs in the Gunpowder Treason and one of the Arch-Priests instructions was in all matters of moment to be advised by the Provincial of the Iesuits The Secular Priests finding themselves thus over-reached by the cunning of the Iesuits and that they designed hereby wholly to govern their affairs make many demurrs to his Authority both concerning the manner and the substance of it and desire a Breve from the Pope and then promise to submit Parsons procures one to their purpose and an appearance of peace was for a little time among them and they mutually promised not to charge the Schism upon each other but within a month or six weeks the flame brake out with greater fury than ever the Arch-Priest sending his directions into all parts that none of the Seculars should be admitted to the Sacraments without acknowledging themselves Schismaticks So that the Popes Breve was so far from ending the difference that it encreased it Fa. Parsons charging them and the Seculars not denying it that after it they were farther from obeying the Arch-Priest than they were before So unhappy have the Popes been when they have gone about to use their Authority for composing differences among those who are in their own Church But we leave this and come to a later controversie among them about the same matters of Order and Government Richard Smith titular Bishop of Chalcedon was invested with the Authority of Ordinary over their English Clergy by Vrban
8. Febr. 4. A. D. 1625. not long after he comes into England and was received with so great kindness by their party here as made the Iesuits who are friends to none but themselves soon to become his enemies especially when he began to exercise his Episcopal jurisdiction here in laying restraints upon the Regulars which the Iesuits with other Regulars grew so impatient of that they soon revived the old quarrel concerning the authority and jurisdiction of Bishops and managed it with so great heat and fierceness that the titular Bishop was fain to leave the field and withdraw into France The bottom of the quarrel was they found the kindness of their party to them abated since the Bishops coming who before had sway'd all and lived in great plenty and bravery when the poor Seculars got scarce bread to eate as Watson very sadly laments in his answer to Parsons but now the necessary support of the dignity of a Bishop made the charity of their party run in another channel which the Provincial of the Iesuits complains of in a Letter to the Bishop of Chalcedon Therefore they endeavour all they can to make a party against him among the people too which they did so effectually as amounted to his withdrawing a more civil word for his exile And now both parties being sufficiently heated the battel begins in which not only England and Ireland but France and Flanders were deeply engaged The first who appeared was Dr. Kellison Professour of Doway in a Book in Vindication of the Bishops Authority to whom Knot then Vice-Provincial of the Iesuits returned his Modest and brief discussion c. under the name of Nicholas Smith a Iesuite then dead Soon after came out another written to the same purpose under the name of Daniel of Iesu whose true name was Iohn Fluide which the other writing Ioanes for Iohn was the Anagram of he was a Iesuit too and Professour at St. Omars which Books were first censured by the Arch-bishop of Paris then by the Sorbonne and at last by the Bishops of France in an Assembly of them at Paris but the Iesuits were so far from giving over by this that they new set forth their Books in Latin with large approbations of them and publish a Remonstrance against the Bishop of Chalcedon in the name of the Catholick party in England which was disowned by the greatest number of them and cast wholly upon the Iesuits the same year 1631. three Books were published by the secular Clergy here in opposition to the Iesuits Who were so far from quitting the Field by the number of their enemies that they begin a fresh charge against both the Sorbonne Doctors and the French Clergy under the fained name of Hermannus Loemelius whose chief Author was the fore-named Iesuite Lloyd with the assistance of his Brethren as the diversity of the style shews and another Book came out against the Faculty of Paris in Vindication of Knot or Nicholas Smith with many approbations of Bishops Vniversities and private Doctors and in Vindication of the Propositions of Ireland likewise censured at Paris another Book came forth under the name of Edmundus Vrsulanus whose true name was Mac-mahone Prior of the Franciscan Convent in Lovain About the same time the Iesuits published their Censure of the Apostolical Creed in imitation of the censures at Paris against their Doctrine as though their Doctrines were as certain as that and themselves as infallible as the Apostles wherein they charge the Bishops their enemies with reviving old Heresies and broaching new ones The Iesuits having now done such great things triumph unreasonably in all places as having utterly overthrown their enemies and beaten them out of the field when in a little time after Hallier and le Maistre two Doctors of the Sorbonne undertake the quarrel against them but none was so highly magnified and infinitely applauded by the French Clergy as a person under the disguised name of Petrus Aurelius whose atchievements in this kind they celebrate next to those of the Pucelle d' Orleans and Printed all his Works together at their own charge and writ a high Elogium of him which is prefixed before them And the secular Clergy of England sent him a letter of Congratulation for his Triumphs subscribed by Iohn Colleton Dean of the Chapter and Edmond Dutton Secretary wherein they sadly lament the discords that have been among them here and the Heresies broached by their Adversaries by occasion of them The main of-this Controversie did concern the dignity necessity and jurisdiction of the Episcopal Order as appears by the Censures of the Bishops of France and by Aurelius who saith that although the Dispute began upon occasion of the Bishop of Chalcedon and the English Clergy yet it was now carried farther whether the Episcopal Order was necessary to the Being of a particular Church Whether it was by divine right or no Whether confirmation might be given without Bishops Whether the Episcopal Order was more perfect than the Monastical Whether the Regulars were under the jurisdiction of Bishops And therefore the Iesuits are charged by their Adversaries with a design to extirpate and ruine the whole Order of Episcopacy Have not these men now great reason to insult over us that some of these questions have caused great differences among us when the Iesuits in England had laid the foundation of them by their quarrels of the same kind but a little before and furnished the enemies to Episcopacy and the Church of England with so many arguments to their hands to manage their bad cause with But what becomes of the Court of Rome all this while do the Pope and Cardinals only stand still to see what the issue of the Battel will be without ever offering to compose the difference between the two parties No. The Iesuits finding how hard they were put to it make their address to Rome as their greatest Sanctuary and A. D. 1633. obtained a Decree of the Sacred Congregation for suppressing the Books on both sides without judging any thing at all of the merits of the cause or giving any censure of the authority on either side And is not now the Popes authority an excellent remedy for all divisions in the Church When in so great a heat as this was the Pope durst not interpose at all in the main business for fear of losing either side which is a plain argument that they themselves look on his Authority as so precarious a thing that they must by no means expose it where it is like to be called in Question Were not here Controversies fit to be determined To what purpose is that authority that dare not be exercised when there is most need of it and when could there be greater need than in such a time when the Church was in a flame by these contentions And yet so timerous a Decree as this was could find no acceptance For at Paris immediately comes out a disquisition upon it shewing
the unreasonableness of it in suppressing Books without enquiring into the merits of the cause in a matter of so great consequence as that was that this would give great occasion of triumph to the Hereticks when such scandalous and seditious Books as those of the Jesuits are meet with the same favour at Rome with the censure of the Bishops of France that their profane and Atheistical Censure of the Apostles Creed must have no mark of disgrace put upon it nor such sayings of theirs wherein they call the Bishops and Divines of France by most contumelious names and say they are the enemies of the truth and piety The Iesuits instead of defending themselves against Aurelius write a pittiful defence of this Decree of suppressing the Books on both sides and so all the means which the Court of Rome durst use to extinguish this flame proved but an occasion of adding to it And whether this Controversie be yet at an end among them let all the heats in France and England of late years concerning the Iesuits give testimony § 10. I shall not now insist any longer upon them but only produce some late passages of things which though they happened at a greater distance are yet sufficiently attested to shew what spight the Iesuitical Order bears to the Authority of Bishops what arts they have used to enervate it what power to affront their persons and expose them to all the contempt that may be when they go about to stop their proceedings or exercise any jurisdiction over them The great occasion of the Controversie between the Bishops and them was that the Iesuits took upon them to Preach and hear Confessions c. without any permission from the Bishop of the Diocese So they did in the Philippine Islands whereupon the Arch-bishop of Manille Don Hernando Guerrero called a Synod wherein it was resolved that the Archbishop ought to bring the Iesuits to account for what they did which he did and all the satisfaction he could get from them was that they had priviledges the Arch-bishop not satisfied with this proceeds against them they name a Conservator an enemy of the Arch-bishops For the Popes to keep the Bishops in awe have allowed them by a Bull for that purpose liberty in case of difference between the Bishops and them to choose a Conservator to defend their priviledges against them this Conservator proceeds against the Arch-bishop and the Iesuits procure the Governour to joyne with him who without giving leave to him to make his Defence resolve to banish him The Arch-bishop understanding their resolution to send him away goes with the Clergy about him into his Chappel and there to secure himself from the insolency of the Souldiers in his Pontifical habit holds the Eucharist in his hand notwithstanding which they came and dragged out all the Fryers who took the Arch-bishops part and afterwards the old Arch-bishop himself who fell down in the crowd with the Pix in his hand and wounded himself in the face Such exorbitances made that impression on one of the Souldiers that he drew his Sword and falling upon it said He had rather dye by his own hands than see such enormities among Christians At last the Arch-bishop was forced to let go his Pix and was presently carryed away out of the City and put into a little pittiful Barque unprovided of all things without permitting any food to be given him or any of his servants to accompany him and was conveyed by five Souldiers into a Desart Island where he had not so much as a Cabin for shelter and there he was kept till he yielded to their terms O the admirable unity peace and submission to Bishops in the Roman Church But we have yet a more remarkable instance of this kind in the notorious case of the difference between the Bishop of Angelopolis in America and the Iesuits which was heard at Rome and several Bulls published by Innocent 10. in it I shall give an account of it from the Popes Bulls and from the letter which the Bishop himself sent to the Pope about it A. D. 1649. which is extant in the Collection of the end of Mr. S. Amours Iournal which he had from Cosimo Ricciardi Sub-librarykeeper of the Vatican who received it immediately from the Bishops Agent The controversie began there upon the very same grounds which it had done in the Philippine Islands for the Iesuits would acknowledge no subjection at all to the Bishop but would Preach and hear Confessions without any license from the Bishop which difference grew so high that the Iesuits chose Conservators against the Bishops authority as the Popes Bull granted May 14. A. D. 1648. doth declare and not only so but these Conservators very fairly excommunicated the Bishop and his Vicar General upon this the Bishop sends an Agent to Rome and the Iesuits appear in behalf of their Society the Pope commits the cause to a particular Congregation of Cardinals and Bishops who upon the hearing of both sides give sentence in favour of the Bishop Apr. 16. A. D. 1648. But the Iesuits as appears by the Bishops letter bearing date Ian. 8. A. D. 1649. were resolved not to wait for the Popes resolution but finding that the people contemned their censures and adhered to the Bishop were so enraged at it that they resolved to imprison him to that end they bribe the King of Spains Vice-roy the Bishops particular enemy with a great summ of money and by that means clapt up most of his Friends and threatned them with worse if they would not obey the Conservators the Bishop himself they had appointed Souldiers to seize upon on Corpus Christi day the better day the better deed who understanding their minds sent commissioners to treat with them to prevent the tumults and disorders were like to follow on these differences but they used them with contempt and would hear of no terms unless the Bishop would submit himself and his jurisdiction to them and their Conservators but instead of peace they proceed to more open acts of hostility by imprisoning his Vicar General and using all manner of insolencies among the People who joyned with the Bishop to defend him against them The good Bishop seeing things in so bad a posture thought it his greatest prudence to withdraw to the mountains thinking himself safer among the Serpents and Scorpions there than in the City among the Iesuits There he continues for twenty dayes almost famished and afterwards for four months lay hid in a pittiful Cottage the Iesuits in the mean time offering great summs of money to those who should bring him alive or dead But not finding him they bring the excommunicated Conservators with great pomp into the City and erect a Tribunal or in the language of the late times a Highâ—Court of Iustice among them where according to their pleasure they fine banish imprison as many as they thought their enemies and there solemnly declare what mighty
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
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 § 1. HAving thus far Vindicated the Scriptures from being the cause by being read among us of all the Sects and Fanaticisms which have been in England I now return to the consideration of the Remainder of his Reply And one thing still remains to be cleared concerning the Scripture which is whether it can be a most certain rule of faith and life since among Protestants it is left to the private interpretation of every fanciful spirit which is as much as to ask whether any thing can be a rule which may be mis-understood by those who are to be guided by it or whether it be fit the people should know the Laws they are to be governed by because it is a dangerous thing to mis-interpret Laws and none are so apt to do it as the common people I dare say St. Augustin never thought that Heresies arising from mis-understanding Scriptures were a sufficient argument against their being a Rule of faith or being read by the people as appears by his discoursing to them in the place quoted by him For then he must have said to them to this purpose Good people ye perceive from whence Heresies spring therefore as you would preserve your soundness in the faith abstain from reading the Scriptures or looking on them as your rule mind the Traditions of the Church but trust not your selves with the reading what God himself caused to be writ it cannot be denyed that the Scriptures have far greater excellency in them than any other writings in the world but you ought to consider the best and most useful things are the most dangerous when abused What is more necessary to the life of man than eating and drinking yet where lyes intemperance and the danger of surfetting but in the use of these What keeps men more in their wits than sleeping yet when are men so lyable to have their throats cut as in the use of that What more pleasant to the eyes than to see the Sun yet what is there so like to put them out as to stare too long upon him Therefore since the most necessary and useful things are most dangerous when they are abused my advice must be that ye forbear eating sleeping and seeing for fear of being surfetted murdred or losing your sight which you know to be very bad things I cannot deny but that the Scriptures are called the bread of life the food of our souls the light of our eyes the guide of our wayes yet since there may be so much danger in the use of food of light and of a Guide it is best for you to abstain from them Would any man have argued like St. Augustin that should talk at this rate yet this must have been his way of arguing if his meaning had been to have kept the people from reading the Scriptures because Heresies arise from mis-understanding them But all that he inferrs from thence is what became a wise man to say viz. that they should be cautious in affirming what they did not understand and that hanc tenentes regulam sanitatis holding this still as our rule of soundness in the faith with great humility what we are able to understand according to the faith we have received we ought to rejoyce in it as our food what we cannot we ought not presently to doubt of but take time to understand it and though we know it not at present we ought not to question it to be good and true and afterwards saith that was his own case as well as theirs What S. Augustine a Guide and Father of the Church put himself equal with the people in reading and understanding Scriptures In which we not only see his humility but how far he was from thinking that this argument would any more exclude the people from reading the Scriptures than the great Doctors of the Church For I pray were they the common people who first broached Heresies in the Christian Church Were Arius Nestorius Macedonius Eutyches or the great abettors of their Doctrines any of the Vulgar If this argument then holds at all it must hold especially against men of parts and learning that have any place in the Church for they are much more in danger of spreading Heresies by mis-interpreting Scriptures than any others are But among Protestants he saith Scripture is left to the Fanciful interpretation of every private Spirit If he speaks of our Church he knows the contrary and that we profess to follow the unanimous consent of the primitive Fathers as much as they and embrace the doctrine of the four General Councils But if there have been some among us who have followed their own Fancies in interpreting Scripture we can no more help that than they can do in theirs and I dare undertake to make good that there have never been more absurd ridiculous and Fanciful Interpretations of Scripture than not the common people but the Heads of their Church have made and other persons in greatest reputation among them Which though too large a task for this present design may ere long be the subject of another For the authority of Henry 8. in the testimony produced from him when they yield to it in the point of Supremacy we may do it in the six articles or other
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
defenders of Indulgences very hard to it Praepositivus one of the eldest of the Schoolmen confesseth that it looks a little oddly for a man to be absolved from all his sins for three pence given in three several places and that the rich by this means have a mighty advantage over the poor but he resolves it all into the power of the Church Petrus Cantor confesseth the difficulties great but only for the Churches Authority and especially in those general Indulgences which are pronounced without any distinctions Therefore he saith Greg. 4. as he calls him Morinus thinks Greg. 8. in the Dedication of the Church of Benevento told the people it was much safer for them to undergoe their penance than to receive an Indulgence from him of any part of it and another Bishop being desired an Indulgence would give it but for two dayes but if any one asks whether the remission of sins were presently obtained after Indulgence or only when they are uncapable of penance viz. after death for his part he saith he desires them to consult the Pope or the Bishop that gives the Indulgence whether of these opinions is true and when the Bishop of Paris shewed him the magnificent Church he had built by vertue of Indulgences Cantor told him he had done much better if he had let them alone and perswaded the people to undergoe their penance But because the form of Indulgences ran in such large and general terms it grew to be a great Question among the Schoolmen Whether the validity of Indulgences was as great as the words of them which in other terms is whether the Church did cheat or not in giving them for if they were not to understand them according to the plain words of them what is this but a gross imposture to abuse the credulous people and laugh in their sleeves at them for their simplicity For while the people have so good an opinion of their Church as to believe the truth of what she declares and to take Indulgences according to the sense of the words if their meaning who give them be otherwise than is expressed it is one of the most abominable cheats that ever was invented by men For picking purses forging deeds or betraying men are tolerable things in comparison but to abuse and ruine their souls under a pretence of pardoning their sins is the utmost degree of fraud and imposture Let us now see how these Hucksters defend their Church in this case for the Question hath been debated among the Schoolmen ever since Indulgences came up Some resolve it thus that Indulgences do signifie as much as the Church declares but with these conditions that there be sufficient authority in the giver necessity in the receiver that he believes the Church hath power to give them that he be in a state of grace and give a sufficient compensation which is to overthrow what they said unless those conditions were expressed in the Indulgences Some say that common Indulgences held only for sins of Ignorance others for venial sins others for penances negligently performed others for Purgatory pains Some again said that these could signifie no more than a relaxation of Canonical Penance whatever the words were and that they were introduced for no other end and they do not reach any farther than the Churches Canonical power or judgement doth and not to the judgement of God But this opinion saith Greg. de Valentiâ doth not differ from the Hereticks and withall he saith upon this principle Indulgences do more hurt than good for if it were not for them the sinner by his penance might take away some part of his punishment but now he relyes upon his Indulgence and does no penance and so undergoes his whole punishment Albertus M. saith they are much mistaken who say that Indulgences are to be understood as large as their words are without any farther condition and that this is to enlarge the Court of Gods mercy too far and sayes many conditions are to be understood which are not expressed in them This gave the first occasion to the Treasure of the Church invented by Aquinas to satisfie this argument of Albertus concerning the mercy of God being extended too far by Indulgences for hereby what punishment is taken away from one is made up by the punishment of another which is reckoned upon his account And therefore he saith the cause of the remission of punishment is not the devotion work or gift of the receiver but the Treasure of merits which was in the Church which the Pope might dispense and therefore the quantity of the remission was not to be proportioned to the acts of the receiver but to the stock of the Church This rich Banck of the Churches Stock being thus happily discovered they do not question now but to set all accounts even with it and therefore Aquinas confidently affirms that Indulgences are to be understood simply as they are expressed for God saith he doth not need our lye or deceit which he grants must have been if Indulgences had not been meant as they were expressed and all men would sin mortally who Preached Indulgences Yet to obtain the Indulgence he saith that every man must give according to his ability for the objection being put concerning an Indulgence being given to three several places that whosoever gives a penny towards the building of a Church in every one of these places shall for each of them have the third part of his sins forgiven him so that for three pence a man gets a plenary remission he answers that a poor man may indeed have it so but it is to be understood that a rich man ought to give more For it is all the reason in the world that a rich man should pay greater Vse for the stock of the Church than a poor man can do and it is reasonably to be presumed that he had more sins to be pardoned than the other and therefore whatever the general terms are there must be some reserve to hook in more from the rich than was expressed in the first bargain But if the rich man should plead Law in the case and cry out it was Covin and Fraud to demand more than the first Contract was I am not skilful enough to determin what action the Church can have against him But there is another shrewd objection mentioned by Bonaventure which is that a man gets by sinning as suppose two men to receive the remission of a third part of their sins by an Indulgence one owes but it may be 90 years penance for his sins and another hath run upon the score so far that he owes 900 years both receive a third part Indulgence in which case we see plainly the greater sinner hath mightily the advantage of the other and where one gets but 30. the other gets 300. And therefore Bonaventure is fain to run back again and to say that Indulgences are not to be understood as
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
for the possibility of salvation allowed to any in their Church is built upon the supposition that they have all that is fundamentally necessary in order to it though there are many dangerous errours and corruptions in that Church whose communion they live in § 16. The Answers to the first Question being thus vindicated there remains little to be added concerning the second For he tells me that he agrees so far with me that every Christian is bound to choose the communion of the purest Church But which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles And to be even with him I thus far agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and that that Church is to be judged purest which shews the greatest evidence of that consent and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the strongest Motives for it and to embrace the communion of it Being thus far agreed I must now enquire into what motives he offers on behalf of their Church and what method he prescribes for delivering ours For the former he produces a large Catalogue of Catholick Motives as he calls them in the words of Dr. Taylour Liberty of Prophecy Sect. 20. And I do not know a better way of answering them than in the words of the same eminent and learned Person which he uses upon a like occasion to his demonstrating Friend I. S. But now in my Conscience saith the Bishop this was unkindly done that when I had spoken for them what I could and more than I knew they had ever said for themselves and yet to save them harmless from the iron hands of a tyrant and unreasonable power to keep them from being persecuted for their errours and opinions that they should take the arms I had lent them for their defence and throw them at my head But the best of it is though I. S. be unthankful yet the Weapons themselves are but wooden Daggers intended only to represent how the poor men are couzened by themselves and that under fair and fraudulent pretences even pious well meaning men men wise enough in other things may be abused And though what I said was but tinsel and pretence imagery and whipt Cream yet I could not be blamed to use no better than the best their cause could bear yet if that be the best they have to say for themselves their probabilities will be soon out-ballanced by one Scripture-testimony urged by Protestants and thou shalt not Worship any graven Images will out-weigh all the best and fairest imaginations of their Church But then I. S. might if he had pleased have considered that I did not intend to make that harangue to represent that the Roman Religion had probabilities of being true but probabilities that the Religion might be tolerated or might be endured and if I was deceived it was but a well meant errour hereafter they shall speak for themselves only for their comfort this they might have also observed in that Book that there is not half so much excuse for the Papists as there is for the Anabaptists and yet it was but an excuse at the best But since from me saith he they borrow their light Armour which is not Pistol-proof from me if they please they may borrow a remedy to undeceive them and that in the same kind and way of arguing for which he referrs to a letter written by him to a Gentlewoman seduced to the Church of Rome out of which I shall transcribe so much as may over-ballance the probabilities produced elsewhere by him After directions given rather to enquire what her Religion is than what her Church is for that which is a true Religion to day will be so to morrow and for ever but that which is a holy Church to day may be Heretical at the next change or may betray her trust or obtrude new Articles in contradiction to the old c. and shewing the unreasonablness of believing the Roman to be the Catholick Church he descends thus to particulars You are now gone to a Church that protects it self by arts of subtlety and arms by violence and persecuting all that are not of their minds to a Church in which you are to be a subject of the King so long as it pleases the Pope In which you may be absolved from your Vows made to God your Oaths to the King your Promises to Men your Duty to your Parents in some cases a Church in which men Pray to God and to Saints in the same Form of words in which they Pray to God as you may see in the Offices of Saints and particularly of our Lady a Church in which men are taught by most of the principal Leaders to Worship Images with the same Worship with which they Worship God or Christ or him or her whose Image it is and in which they usually picture God the Father and the Holy Trinity to the great dishonour of that Sacred mystery against the doctrine and practice of the primitive Church against the express doctrine of Scripture against the honour of a divine Attribute I mean the immensity and spirituality of the divine nature You are gone to a Church that pretends to be infallible and yet is infinitely deceived in many particulars and yet endures no contradiction and is impatient her Children should enquire into any thing her Priests obtrude You are gone from receiving the whole Sacrament to receive it but half from Christs Institution to a human Invention from Scripture to uncertain Traditions and from ancient Tradition to new pretences from Prayers which ye understood to Prayers which ye understand not from confidence in God to rely upon Creatures from intire dependance upon inward-acts to a dangerous temptation of resting too much in outward ministeries in the external work of Sacraments and Sacramentals You are gone from a Church whose Worshipping is simple Christian and Apostolical to a Church where mens Consciences are loaden with a burden of Ceremonies greater than that in the dayes of the Jewish Religion for the Ceremonial of the Church of Rome is a great Book in Folio You are gone from a Church where you were exhorted to read the Word of God the Holy Scriptures from whence you sound instruction institution comfort reproof a treasure of all excellencies to a Church that seals up that Fountain from you and gives you drink by drops out of such Cisterns as they first make and then stain and then reach out and if it be told you that some men abuse Scripture it is true for if your Priests had not abused Scripture they could not thus have abused you but there is no necessity they should and you need not unless you list any more than you need to abuse the Sacrament or Decrees of the Church or the messages of your
obedience to the will of God being agreed to be the condition of mans happiness no other way of Revelation is in it self necessary to that end than such whereby man may know what the will of God is 2. Man being framed a rational Creature capable of reflecting upon himself may antecedently to any external Revelation certainly know the Being of God and his dependence upon him and those things which are naturally pleasing unto him else there could be no such thing as a Law of Nature or any principles of Natural Religion 3. All supernatural and external Revelation must suppose the truth of natural Religion for unless we be antecedently certain that there is a God and that we are capable of knowing him it is impossible to be certain that God hath revealed his will to us by any supernatural means 4. Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation which overthrows the certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to all Divine Revelation For that were to overthrow the means whereby we are to Judge concerning the truth of any Divine Revelation 5. There can be no other means imagined whereby we are to judge of the truth of Divine Revelation but a Faculty in us of discerning truth and falshood in matters proposed to our belief which if we do not exercise in Judging the truth of Divine Revelation we must be imposed upon by every thing which pretends to be so 6. The pretence of Infallibility in any person or Society of men must be Judged in the same way that the truth of a Divine Revelation is for that Infallibility being challenged by vertue of a supernatural assistance and for that end to assure men what the will of God is the same means must be used for the trial of that as for any other supernatural way of Gods making known his Will to men 7. It being in the power of God to make choice of several wayes of revealing his will to us we ought not to dispute from the Attributes of God the necessity of one particular way to the Exclusion of all others but we ought to enquire what way God himself hath chosen and whatever he hath done we are sure cannot be repugnant to Infinite Justice Wisdome Goodness and Truth 8. Whatever way is capable of certainly conveying the will of God to us may be made choice of by him for the means of making known his will in order to the happiness of mankind so that no Argument can be sufficient a priori to prove that God cannot choose any particular way to reveal his mind by but such which evidently proves the insufficiency of that means for conveying the Will of God to us 9. There are several wayes conceivable by us how God may make known his Will to us either by immediate voice from Heaven or inward inspiration to every particular person or inspiring some to speak personally to others or assisting them with an infallible spirit in Writing such Books which shall contain the Will of God for the Benefit of distant Persons and future Ages 10. If the Will of God cannot be sufficiently declared to men by Writing it must either be because no Writing can be intelligible enough for that end or that it can never be known to be Written by men infallibly assisted the former is repugnant to common sense for words are equally capable of being understood spoken or written the latter overthrows the possibility of the Scriptures being known to be the Word of God 11. It is agreed among all Christians that although God in the first Ages of the World did reveal his mind to men immediately by a voice or secret inspirations yet afterwards he did communicate his mind to some immediately inspired to Write his Will in Books to be preserved for the benefit of future Ages and particularly that these Books of the New Testament which we now Receive were so Written by the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ. 12. Such Writings having been received by the Christian Church of the first Ages as Divine and Infallible and being delivered down as such to us by an universal consent of all Ages since they ought to be owned by us as the certain rule of faith whereby we are to Judge what the Will of God is in order to our Salvation unless it appear with an evidence equal to that whereby we believe those Books to be the Word of God that they were never intended for that end because of their obscurity or imperfection 13. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such a way as writing being made choice of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the design and the Wisdom and Goodness of God to give infallible assurance to persons in Writing his Will for the benefit of Mankind if those Writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their salvation 14. To suppose the Books so Written to be imperfect i. e. that any things necessary to be believed or practised are not contained in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the Writers with insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first Ages with folly in believing the Fulness and Prefection of the Scriptures in order to Salvation 15. These Writings being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible society of men either to attest or explain these Writings among Christians any more than there was for some Ages before Christ of such a Body of men among the Iews to attest or explain to them the Writings of Moses or the Prophets 16. There can be no more intolerable usurpation upon the faith of Christians than for any Person or Society of men to pretend to an assistance as infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles without giving an equal degree of evidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did viz. by miracles as great publick and convincing as theirs were by which I mean such as are wrought by those very persons who challeng this infallibility and with a design for the conviction of those who doe not believe it 17. Nothing can be more absurd than to pretend the necessity of such an infallible commission and assistance to assure us of the truth of these writings and to interpret them and at the same time to prove that commission from those writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduced such an assistance not being supposed or to pretend that infallibility in a body of men is not as lyable to doubts and disputes as in those books from
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