made the Law of no effect among them If there were Infallibility any where it must be in the High Priest and Sanhedrim but is it possible for any Christian to think them infallible when they were so grosly mistaken about the main Article of their Faith as to the Messias and pronounced him worthy of death Is not this a fine Argument for the Infallibility of the Guides of the Christian Church But the Church of Christ hath better Promises No doubt of it greater Promises of Grace and Mercy in this World and in that to come but what is all this to Infallibility in Councils 6. Christ's Command of Obedience to those who sat in Moses Chair Matt. 23. 2. doth not prove the Infallibility of those who sat there Yet this is alledged to that purpose and that men ought not to doubt of the Reasonableness of the Commands of their Superiors But St. Chrysostom saith our Saviour speaks of the things commanded by the Law of Moses Per Cathedram Doctrinam Legis ostendit saith S. Jerom Not their own Doctrine but that of Moses saith Isidore and so Hilary and Theophylact Maldonate confesseth our Saviours Words are to be understood not of their own Doctrine but of that of the Law and therefore he yields the Obedience here required is to be restrained to that All things saith Cajetan which they teach out of Moses 's Chair Not all their Doctrines but as far as they were conformable to the Law saith Ferus Now can any one hence infer that no men ought to dispute any Commands of Superiors when it is supposed that there is a Rule and Standard for them to speak according to and our Saviour elsewhere doth suppose these very Men to teach things contrary to the Law as in the Case of Corban Would our Saviour contradict himself or require a blind Obedience in things repugnant to the Law We do not deny a due submission to our Superiours in the Church yea we allow them a Power to determine things not forbidden and think obedience due in such things by vertue of their Authority but yet this is far enough from Infallibility or an unlimited implict Obedience which would overthrow the force of all our Saviours Reasonings against the Scribes and Pharisees as to their misinterpreting the Law and the Superstitious Practises they imposed upon the People XVIII Of the POPE 1. WE do not charge them with believing the Pope to be God which it seems himself did if we believe the Misrepresenter in his Preface but there is some Reason to doubt whether they do not at some times give him greater Honour than becomes a Man I instance in the Adoration after his Election when the new Pope is placed upon the Altar to receive the Submissions of the Cardinals but the Altar themselves do confess to be Sacred to God alone And there they profess to Worship Jesus Christ as present in the Host. This therefore looks too much like assuming the Place of Christ and not becoming the Distance between God and Man 2. The Question is Whether Christ hath appointed the Pope or Bishop of Rome to be Pastor Governour and Head of his Church under him This he saith he believes and this he knows we deny and therefore had Reason to expect some Proof of it But instead he tells us how they look on themselves as obliged to shew him the Respect due to his Place which he knows is not the matter in Question Two things however he saith which seem to justify his Title 1. He is the Successor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the care of his Flock But how far is this from proving the Pope to be Head of the Church under Christ For how doth it appear that Christ ever made S. Peter Head of the Church or committed his Flock to him in contradistinction to the rest of the Apostles This is so far from being evident from Scripture that the Learned men of their Church are ashamed of the Places commonly produced for it it being impossible ever to justify the sense of them according to their own Rules of Interpreting Scripture viz. by the unanimous consent of the Fathers For 1. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church is interpreted by many of the Fathers both Greek and Latin of S. Peters Confession and not of his Person so by S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin S. Basil of Selucioe S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret all great and considerable Persons in the Christian Church whose words are plain and full to that purpose and so they can never produce the unanimous consent of the Fathers for S. Peter's Supremacy out of these Words 2. And unto thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are interpreted by the Fathers of S. Peter in common with the other Apostles so Origen S. Cyprian S. Hilary S. Hierom and S. Augustin as they are all owned by a Member of the Roman Communion And 3. For these Words Feed my Sheep a late Learned Doctor of the Sorban shews that if they prove any thing Peculiar to S. Peter they must prove him sole Pastor of the Church which was the thing S. Gregory disputed against so warmly But that there was nothing peculiar to S. Peter above or beyond the rest of the Apostles he shews at large from S. Chrysostom S. Cyril S. Augustin and others to whom I refer the Reader and to the former Authors But suppose it were made to appear that S. Peter was Head of the Church How doth the Bishop of Rome's Succession in that Headship shew it self To that he saith 2. That there hath been a visibile Succession of above Two hundred and fifty Bishops acknowledged as such in all past Ages by the Christian World As such What is that As Bishops of Rome That is not of weight enough to put it upon Trial as Heads of the Catholick-Church That he knows is not only denied by us but by all the Greek Armenian Nestorian Abyssin Churches so that we dare say it was never allowed in any one Age of the Christian Church But we need not insist on the proof of this since the late mentioned Authors of the Roman Communion have taken so great pains not only to prove the Popes Supremacy to be an Incroachment and Usurpation in the Church but that the laying it aside is necessary to the Peace and Unity of it And until the Divine Institution of the Papal Supremacy be proved it is to no purpose to debate what manner of Assistance is promised to the Pope in his Decrees Our Author is willing to decline the debate about his Personal Infallibility as a matter of Opinion and not of Faith and yet he saith he doubts not but God doth grant a special Assistancé to the High Priest for the good of the whole Flock under the New Law as he did under the Old and produces the
clear stating this Controversy these things are to be premised 1. We do not charge them that they make Gods of dead Men i. e. that they believe the Saints to be Independent Deities For this our Author confesses were a â—ost damnable Idolatry 2. We do not say that the State of the Church of Rome with respect to the Worship of dead Men is as bad as Heathenism For we acknowledg the true Saints and Martyrs to have been not only Good and Vertuous but extraordinary Persons in great Favour with God and highly deserving our Esteem and Reverence as well as Imitation whereas the Heathen Deified Men were vile and wicked Men and deserved not the common Esteem of Mankind according to the Accounts themselves give of them And we own the common Doctrine and Advantages of Christianity to be preserved in the Church of Rome 3. We do not deny that they do allow some external Acts of Worship to be so proper to God alone that they ought to be given to none else besides him And this they call Latria and we shall never dispute with them about the proper signification of a Word when the Sense is agreed unless they draw Inferences from it which ought not to be allowed To this Latria they refer not only Sacrifice but all that relates to it as Temples Altars and Priests so that by their own Confession to make these immediately and properly to the Honour of any Saint is to make a God of that Saint and to commit Idolatry 4. They confess that to pray to Saints to bestow Spiritual or Temporal Gifts upon us were to give to them the Worship proper to God who is the only Giver of all good things For else I do not understand why they should take so much pains to let us know that whatever the Forms of their Prayers and Hymns are yet the Intention and Spirit of the Church is only to desire them to pray for us and to obtain things for us by their Intercession with God But two things cannot be denied by them 1. That they do use solemn Invocation of Saints in Places of Divine Worship at the same time they make their Addresses to God himself withal the Circumstances of External Adoration with bended Knees and Eyes lifted up to Heaven and that this Practice is according to the Council Trent which not only decrees a humble Invocation of them but declares it to be impiety to condemn mental and vocal Supplication to the Saints in Heaven 2. That they do own making the Saints in Heaven to be their Mediators of Intercession but not of Redemption although Christ be our Mediator in both senses And upon these two Points this Controversy depends Let us now see what our Representer saith to them 1. His Church teaches him indeed and he believes that it is good and profitable to desire the Intercession of the Saints reigning with Christ in Heaven but that they are either Gods or his Redeemers he is no where taught but detests all such Doctrine There are two Ways of desiring the Intercession of others for us 1. By way of Friendly Request as an Act of mutual Charity and so no doubt we may desire others here on Earth to pray for us 2. By way of humble Supplication with all the external Acts of Adoration and we cannot think S. Peter or S. Paul who refused any thing like Adoration from Men would have been pleased to have seen Men fall down upon their Knees before them and in the same posture of Devotion in which they were praying to Almighty God to put their Names into the middle of their Litanies and so pray them then to pray for them But how are we sure that their Church teaches no more than this I have read over and over the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism about it and I can find no such limitation of their sense there where if if any where it ought to be found The Council of Trent mentions both the Prayers and the Help and Assistance of the Saints which they are to fly to If this Help and Assistance be no more than their Prayers why is it mentioned as distinct Why is their reigning together with Christ in Heaven spoken of but to let us understand they have a Power to Help and Assist For what is their Reigning to their Praying for us But I have a further Argument to prove the Council meant more viz. the Council knew the common Practices and Forms of Invocation then used and allowed and the general Opinion that the Saints had power to Help and Assist those who prayed to them If the Council did not approve this why did it insert the very words upon which that Practice was grounded They likewise very well knew the Complaints which had been made of these things and some of their own Communion cried shame upon some of their Hymns Wicclius saith one of them Salve Regina c. is full of downright Impiety and horrible Superstition and that others are wholly inexcusable Lud. Vives had said He found little difference in the Peoples Opinion of their Saints in many things from what the Heathens had of their Gods These things were known and it was in their Power to have redressed them by declaring what the sense of the Council was and that whatever Forms were used no more was to be understood by them but praying to them to pray for them Besides the Council of Trent in the very same Session took care about Reforming the Missal and Breviary why was no care taken to Reform these Prayers and Hymns which they say are not to be construed by the Sense of the Words but by the Sense of the Church There was time enough taken for doing it for the Reformed Missal was not published till six Years after the Council nor the Breviary till four In all that time the Prayers and Hymns might easily have been altered to the Sense of the Church if that were truly so But instead of that a very late French Writer cries out of the necessity of Reforming the Breviaries as to these things wherein he confesses Many Hymns are still remaining wherein those things are asked of Saints which ought to be asked of God alone as being delivered from the Chains of our Sins being preserved from spiritual Maladies and Hell Fire being inflamed with Charity and made fit for Heaven In good Conscience saith he is not this joining the Saints with God himself to ask those things of them which God alone can give And whatever Men talk of the Sense of the Church he confesses the very Forms and natural Sense of the Words do raise another Idea in Mens Minds which ought to be prevented But doth not the Roman Catechism explain this to be the sense of the Church I have examined that too with all the care I could about this Matter And I cannot find any Necessity from thence of putting this Sense upon them I
not only said to be truly meritorious but we are cursed if we do not say the same To make any thing truly meritorious we must suppose these Conditions requisite 1. That what we pretend to merit by be our own free Act. 2. That it be not defective 3. That there be an Equality between it and the Reward due to it 4. That there be an Obligation in point of Justice to give that Reward to him that doth it And from these Considerations we deny that Good Works even of justified Persons can be truly meritorious 1. It is granted by themselves That what is truly meritorious must be a free Act of the Person who doth it Now the Good Works of Justified Persons cannot be said to be their own free Acts if the Power of doing them depend upon Divine Assistance and there was an antecedent Obligation upon them to perform them So that they can do nothing but what they are bound to as God's Creatures and their very Power of doing it is from the Grace of God If Men pretended to merit at anothers hands by what God gives there were some colour for it but to merit from God himself by what he gives us seems very incongruous If I owe a Man an 100 l. and another knowing me unable to pay it gives me so much to pay the Debt this is no more than what may be called strict Payment as to the Creditor but if the Creditor himself gives me this 100 l. to pay himself with will any Man call this strict Payment He may call it so himself if he pleases but that only shews his Kindness and Favour but it doth not look very modestly or gratefully for the Debtor to insist upon it as true legal Payment Just so it is in good Works done by the power of God's Grace which we could never have done without it and therefore such cannot be truly Meritorious 2. What is truly meritorious must not be defective because the Proportion is to be equal between the Act and the Reward due to it which being perfect requires that there be no Defect in the Acts which merit it But this can never be said of Good Works of Justified Persons that they have no Defects in them We do not say they are not Good Works but they are not exact and perfect for altho the Grace of God as it comes from him be a perfect Gift yet as it acts upon Mens Minds it doth not raise them to such a degree but that they have Imperfections in their best Actions And whatever is defective is faulty whatever is faulty must be forgiven whatever needs forgiveness cannot be truly meritorious But not only their Good Works are defective but if they would merit they ought to have none but Good Works whereas the mixture of others renders the good uncapable of being meritorious because there is so much to be pardoned as takes away all claim of Merit in the good they perform And themselves do not pretend that Men can merit the Grace of Remission but it is very strange that those who cannot deserve to be forgiven should deserve to have an infinite Reward bestowed upon them 3. There must be an exact Proportion between the Act and the Recompence for to merit is to pay a Price for a thing and in such Acts of commutative Justice there must be an Equality of one thing with another But what Equality can there be between the imperfect Good Works of the best Men and the most perfect Happiness of another World especially when that consists in the fruition of the Beatifical Vision For what Proportion can there be between our Acts towards God and God's Acts towards the Blessed in Heaven Let the Acts be of what Person soever or of what Nature soever or from what Principle soever as long as they are the Acts of finite imperfect Creatures it is impossible there should be any Equality or exact Proportion between them and the Eternal Favour of God which is the Reward promised 4. Where Acts are truly meritorious there follows an Obligation of strict Justice to pay the Recompence due to them But what strict Justice can there be between the Creator and his Creatures to recompence the Service they are bound to perform when their very Being Power to act Assistance in acting and Recompence for it are all from his Bounty and Goodness But our Author would avoid all this by saying that though Good Works are truly meritorious yet it is through the Merits of Christ and as they proceed from Grace and through his Goodness and Promise that they are so i. e. they are truly meritorious because it appears from all these things they neither are nor can be meritorious For 1. How come the Merits of Christ to make Good Works truly meritorious Are the Merits of Christ imputed to those Good Works Then those Good Works must be as meritorous as Christ's own Works which I suppose he will not assert Or is it that Christ hath merited the Grace whereby we may merit But even this will not make our personal Acts truly meritorious and the nature of Merit relates to the Acts and not to the Power 2. How comes the Power of Grace to make them truly meritorious when the Power of Grace doth so much increase the Obligation on our side If it be said That the state of Grace puts Men into a Capacity to merit we might more reasonably infer the contrary that it puts them out of a Capacity of meriting because the Remission of Sins and the Favour of God are things for which we can never make him any Recompence 3. How comes a Divine Promise to make Acts truly meritorious For God's Promise is an Act of meer Kindness which is very different from strict Justice and although by the Promise God binds himself to performance yet how come those Acts to be more meritorious of Heaven than the Acts of Repentance are of Remission of Sins Yet none will now say that there can be any Acts meritorious of that Yet certainly there is as clear a Promise of Pardon upon Repentance as there is of Heaven upon Good Works and if the Promise in the other case doth not make Repentance meritorious of Pardon how can it make Good Works truly meritorious of Eternal Life But notwithstanding we do not deny God's Fidelity to his Promise may be called Justice and so God as a Righteous Judg may give a Crown of Rightcousness to all that follow St. Paul 's Example without making Good Works to be truly meritorious VII Of Confession 1. VVE do not charge the Church of Rome that in the power of absolving they make Gods of Men P. 14. as our Misrepresenter pretends 2. We do not deny That Christ gave to the Bishops and Priests of the Catholick Church Authority to absolve any truly penitent Sinner from his Sins which he therefore needlesly proves out of Scripture and that such Absolution is ratified in Heaven 3.
Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians were I hope the former Discourse hath shewed their Doctrines and Practices are not so very like those of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians that their Cases should be made so parallel but as in his Conclusion he hath summed up the substance of his Representations so I shall therein follow his Method only with this difference that I shall in one Column set down his own Representations of Popery and in the other the Reasons in short why we cannot embrace them Wherein Popery consists as Represented by this Author 1. IN using all external Acts of Adoration before Images as Kneeling Praying lifting up the Eyes burning Candles Incense c. Not merely to worship the Objects before them but to worship the Images themselves on the account of the Objects represented by them or in his own Words Because the Honour that is exhibited to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent 2. In joining the Saints in Heaven together with Christ in Intercession for us and making Prayers on Earth to them on that Account P. 5. 3. In allowing more Supplications to be used to the Blessed Virgin than to Christ For he denies it to be an idle Superstition to repeat Ten Ave Maria's for one Pater Noster 4. In giving Religious Honour and Respect to Relicks Such as placing them upon Altars burning Wax-Candles before them carrying them in Processions to be seen touched or humbly kissed by the People Which are the known and allowed Practices in the Church of Rome P. 8. 5. In adoring Christ as present in the Eucharist on the account of the Substance of Bread and Wine being changed into that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. P. 10. 6. In believing the Substance of Bread and Wine by the Words of Consecration to be changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of Bread and Wine remaining as before P. 10. 7. In making good Works to be truly meritorious of Eternal Life P. 13. 8. In making Confession of our â—â—s to a Priest in order to Absoluâ—on P. 14. 9. In the use of Indulgences for taking away the Temporal Punishments of sin remaining due after the Guilt is remitted 10. In supposing that Penitent Sinners may in some measure satisfy by Prayer Fasting Alms c. for the Temporal Pain which by order of God's Justice sometimes remains due after the Guilt and the Eternal Pain are remitted P. 17. 11. In thinking the Scripture not fit to be read generally by all without Licence or in the Vulgar Tongues P. 19. 12. In allowing the Books of Tobit Judith Ecclesiasticus Wisdom Maccabees to be Canonical P. 21. 13. In preferring the Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible before any other and not allowing any Translations into a Mother Tongue to be ordinarily read P. 24 26. 14. In believing that the Scripture alone can be no Rule of Faith to any Private or Particular Person P. 28. 15. In relying upon the Authority of the present Church for the Sense of Scripture P. 29. 16. In receiving and believing the Churches Traditions as the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and assenting to them with Divine Faith just as he doth to the Bible P. 31 32. 17. In believing that the Present Guides of the Church being assembled in Councils for preserving the Unity of the Church have an Infallible Assistance in their Decrees P. 38. 18. In believing the Pope to be the Supreme Head of the Church under Christ being Successour to S. Peter to whom he committed the care of his Flock P. 40. 41. 19. In believing that Communion in both Kinds is an indifferent thing and was so held for the first Four hundred years after Christ and that the first Precept for Receiving under both Kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo I. and confirmed by Pope Gelasius P. 51. 20. In believing that the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded on Scripture Authority and Reason P. 54 c. 21. In believing that to the saying of Prayers well and devoutly it is not necessary to have attention on the Words or on the Sense of Prayers P. 62. 22. In believing that none out of the Communion of the Church of Rome can be saved and that it is no uncharitableness to think so P. 92. 23. In believing that the Church of Rome in all the New Articles defined at Trent hath made no Innovation in matters of Faith P. 107. Our Reasons against it in the several Particulars 1. THou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image or any likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Which being the plain clear and express Words of the Divine Law we dare not worship any Images or Representations lest we be found Transgressors of this Law Especially since God herein hath declared himself a Jealous God and annexed so severe a Sanction to it And since he that made the Law is only to interpret it all the Distinctions in the World can never satisfie a Mans Conscience unless it appear that God himself did either make or approve them And if God allow the Worship of the thing Represented by the Representation he would never have forbidden that Worship absolutely which is unlawful only in a certain respect 2. We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous 1 John 2. 1. And but one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. For Christ is entred into Heaven it self now to appear in the Presence of God for us Heb. 9. 24. And therefore we dare not make other Intercessors in Heaven besides him and the distance between Heaven and us breaks off all Communication between the Saints there and us upon Earth so that all Addresses to them now for their Prayers are in a way very different from desiring others on earth to pray for us And if such Addresses are made in the solemn Offices of Divine Worship they join the Creatures with the Creator in the Acts and Signs of Worship which are due to God alone 3. Call upon me in the Day of Trouble I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorifie me Psal. 50. 15. When we pray to Our Father in Heaven as our Saviour commanded us we do but what both Natural and Christian Religion require us to do But when men pray to the Blessed Virgin for Help and Protection now and at the Hour of Death they attribute that to her which belongs only to God who is our Helper and Desender And altho Christ knew the Dignity of his Mother above all others he never gives the least encouragement to make such Addresses to her And to suppose her to have a share now in the Kingdom of Christ in Hea. ven as a Copartner with him is to advance a Creature to Divine Honour and to overthrow the true Ground of Christs Exaltation to his