me that when their Divines say that Infidels shall not bâ— damned for their Infidelity where the Gospel hath not been sufficiently proposed to them and no Christian for not believing any Article of Faith till it be so proposed that we must be damned for not believing the Articles of the Roman Faith which never have been and never can be sufficiently proposed to us Methinks such men should Study a little better their own Doctrine about the sufficient Proposal of matters of Faith before they pass such uncharitable and unlearned Censures XXXVI Of Ceremonies and Ordinances HIS Discourse on this Head is against those who refuse to obey their Superiours in things not expressed in Scripture which is no part of our Controversy with them But yet there are several things about their Ceremonies we are not satisfied in As 1. The mighty Number of them which have so much mussled up the Sacraments that their true face cannot be discerned 2. The Efficacy attributed to them without any promise from God whereas we own no more but decency and significancy 3. The Doctrine that goes along with them not only of Obedience but of Merit and some have asserted the Opus Operatum of Ceremonies as well as Sacraments when the Power of the Keys goes along with them i. e. when there hath been some Act of the Church exercised about the Matter of them as in the Consecration of Oyl Salt Bread Ashes Water c. XXXVII Of Innovation in matters of Faith THE Substance of his Discourse on this Head may be reduced to these things 1. That the Church in every Age hath Power to declare what is necessary to be believed with Anathema to those who Preach the Contrary and so the Council of Trent in declaring Transubstantiation Purgatory c. to be necessary Articles did no more than the Church had done before on like Occasions 2. That if the Doctrines then defined had been Innovations they must have met with great Opposition when they were introduced 3. That those who charged those points to be Innovations might as well have laid the scandal on any other Article of Faith which they retained These are things necessary to be examined in order to the making good the charge of Innovation in matters of Faith which we believe doth stand on very good Grounds 1. We are to consider Whether the Council of Trent had equal Reason to define the necessity of these Points as the Council of Nice and Constantinople had to determin the point of the Trinity or those of Ephesus and Chalcedon the Truth of Christ's Incarnation He doth not assert it to be in the Churches Power to make new Articles of Faith as they do imply new Doctrines revealed but he contends earnestly That the Church hath a Power to declare the necessity of believing some points which were not so declared before And if the Necessity of believing doth depend upon the Churches Declaration then he must assert that it is in the Churches Power to make points necessary to be believed which were not so and consequently to make common Opinions to become Articles of Faith But I hope we may have leave to enquire in this Case since the Church pretends to no new Revelation of matters of Doctrine therefore it can declare no more than it receives and no otherwise than it receives And so nothing can be made necessary to Salvation but what God himself hath made so by his Revelation So that they must go in their Declaration either upon Scripture or Universal Tradition but if they define any Doctrine to be necessary without these Grounds they exceed their Commission and there is no Reason to submit to their Decrees or to believe their Declarations To make this more plain by a known Instance It is most certain that several Popes and Councils have declared the Deposing Doctrine and yet our Author saith It is no Article of Faith with him Why not since the Popes and Councils have as evidently delivered it as the Council of Trent hath done Purgatory or Transubstantiation But he may say There is no Anathema joined to it Suppose there be not But why may it not be as well as in the other Cases And if it were I would know whether in his Conscience he would then believe it to be a necessary Article of Faith though he believed that it wanted Scripture and Tradition If not then he sees what this matter is brought to viz. That altho the Council of Trent declare these new Doctrines to be necessary to be believed yet if their Declaration be not built no Scripture and Universal Tradition we are not bound to receive it 2. As to the impossibility of Innovations coming in without notorious opposition I see no ground at all for it where the alteration is not made at once but proceeds gradually He may as well prove it impossible for a Man to fall into a Dropsy or a Hectick-Fever unless he can tell the punctual time when it began And he may as well argue thus Such a Man fell into a Fever upon a great Debauch and the Physicians were presently sent for to advise about him therefore the other Man hath no Chronical Distemper because he had no Physicians when he was first sick as because Councils were called against some Heresies and great Opposition made to them therefore where there is not the like there can be no Innovation But I see no Reason why we should decline giving an Account by what Degrees and Steps and upon what Occasions and with what Opposition several of the Doctrines defined at Trent were brought in For the matter is not so obscure as you would make it as to most of the Points in difference between us But that is too large a Task to be here undertaken 3. There is no Colour for calling in Question the Articles of Faith received by us on the same Grounds that we reject those defined by the Council of Trent for we have the Universal Consent of the Christian World for the Apostles Creed and of the Four General Councils for the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation who never pretended to determin any Point to be necessary which was not revealed in Scripture whose sense was delivered down by the Testimony of the Christian Church from the Apostles times But the Council of Trent proceeded by a very different Rule for it first set up an Unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith as well as the Written which although it were necessary in order to their Decrees was one of the greatest Innovations in the World and the Foundation of all the rest as they were there established An Answer to the CONCLUSION HAving thus gone through the several Heads which our Author complains have been so much Misrepresented it is now fit to consider what he saith in his Conclusion which he makes to answer his Introduction by renewing therein his doleful Complaints of their being Misrepresented just as
put into their hands XIII Of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith THE only thing insisted on here is That it is not the Words but the Sense of Scripture is the Rule and that this Sense is not to be taken from mens private Fancies which are various and uncertain and therefore where there is no security from Errors there is nothing capable of being a Rule To clear this we must consider 1. That it is not necessary to the making of a Rule to prevent any possibility of mistake but that it be such that they cannot mistake without their own fault For Certainty in it self and Sufficiency for the use of others are all the necessary Properties of a Rule but after all it 's possible for men not to apply the Rule aright and then they are to be blamed and not the Rule 2. If no men can be certain of the right sense of Scripture then it is not plain in necessary things which is contrary to the Design of it and to the clearest Testimonies of Antiquity and to the common sense of all Christians who never doubted or disputed the sense of some things revealed therein as the Unity of the Godhead the making of the World by him the Deluge the History of the Patriarchs the Captivity of the Jews the coming of the Messias his sending his Apostles his coming again to Judgment c. No man who reads such things in Scripture can have any doubt about the sense and meaning of the Words 3. Where the sense is dubious we do not allow any Man to put what sense he please upon them but we say there are certain means whereby he may either attain to the true Sense or not be damned if he do not And the first thing every man is to regard is not his security from being deceived but from being damned For Truth is made known in order to Salvation if therefore I am sure to attain the chief end I am not so much concerned as to the possibility of Errors as that I be not deceived by my own fault We do not therefore leave men either to follow their own fancy or to Interpret Scripture by it but we say They are bound upon pain of Damnation to seek the Truth sincerely and to use the best means in order to it and if they do this they either will not err or their Errors will not be their Crime XIV Of the Interpretation of Scripture 1. THE Question is not Whether Men are not bound to make use of the best means for the Right Interpretation of Scripture by Reading Meditation Prayer Advice a humble and teachable temper c. i. e. all the proper means fit for such an end but whether after all these there be a necessity of submitting to some Infallible Judge in order to the attaining the certain sense of Scripture 2. The Question is not Whether we ought not to have a mighty regard to the sense of the whole Christian Church in all Ages since the Apostles which we profess to have but whether the present Roman Church as it stands divided from other Communions hath such a Right and Authority to interpret Scripture that we are bound to believe that to be the Infallible sense of Scripture which she delivers And here I cannot but take notice how strangely this matter is here Misrepresented for the Case is put 1. As if every one who rejects their pretence of Infallibility had nothing to guide him but his own private Fancy in the Interpretation of Scripture 2. As if we rejected the sense put upon Scripture by the whole Community of Christians in all Ages since the Apostles times Whereas we appeal in the matters in difference between us to this universal sense of the Christian Church and are verily perswaded they cannot make it out in any one point wherein we differ from them And themselves cannot deny that in several we have plainly the consent of the first Ages as far as appears by the Books remaining on our side as in the Worship of Images Invocation of Saints Papal Supremacy Communion in both kinds Prayer and Scripture in known Tongues and I may safely add the Sufficiency of Scripture Transubstantiation Auricular Confession Publick Communions Solitary Masses to name no more But here lies the Artifice we must not pretend to be capable of Judging either of Scripture or Tradition but we must trust their Judgment what is the sense of Scripture and what hath been the Practice of the Church in all Ages although their own Writers confess the contrary which is very hard But he seems to argue for such a submission to the Church 1. Because we receive the Book of Scripture from her therefore from her we are to receive the sense of the Book An admirable Argument We receive the Old Testament from the Jews therefore from them we are to receive the sense of the Old Testament and so we are to reject the true Messias But this is not all if by the Church they mean the Church of Rome in distinction from others we deny it if they mean the whole Christian Church we grant it but then the force of it is quite lost But why is it not possible for the Church of Rome to keep these Writings and deliver them to others which make against her self Do not persons in Law-Suits often produce Deeds which make against them But there is yet a farther Reason it was not possible for the Church of Rome to make away these Writings being so universally spread 2. Because the Church puts the difference between true and false Books therefore that must be trusted for the true sense of them Which is just as if one should argue The Clerks of the Rolls are to give an account to the Court of true Records therefore they are to sit on the Bench and to give Judgment in all Causes The Church is only to declare what it finds as to Canonical Books but hath no Power to make any Book Canonical which was not before received for such But I confess Stapleton saith the Church if it please may make Hermes his Pastor and Clemens his Constitutions Canonical but I do not think our Author will therein follow him XV. Of Tradition 1. THE Question is not about Human Traditions supplying the Defects of Scripture as he misrepresents it but whether there be an Unwritten Word which we are equally bound to receive with the Written Word Altho these things which pass under that Name are really but Humane Traditions yet we do not deny that they pretend them to be of Divine Original 2. We do not deny but the Apostles might deliver such things by Word as well as by Epistle which their Disciples were bound to believe and keep but we think there is some difference to be made between what we certainly know they delivered in Writing and what it is now impossible for us to know viz. what they delivered by Word without Writing 3.
adored because it was instituted to be received This cannot be otherwise understood than as relating to the Sacrament and so that whatever it be must be granted to be the Object of Adoration By the Sacrament saith Cardinal Pallavicini is understood the Object made up of the Body of Christ and the Accidents The Worship then being confessed to be Adoration which is due to God alone and that Adoration directed to the Sacrament as its proper Object the Question now is Whether such a Supposition in the Sacrament doth justify that Adoration Our Author saith He accounteth it most damnable to worship or adore any Breaden God or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine p. 9. Then I say by his own confession if it be only Bread he commits Idolatry for the Adoration he cannot deny But our Representer loves ambiguous Expressions which to the People sound very well but have no sincere meaning for what is it he understands by his Breaden God If it be that he worships a God which himself supposes to be nothing but Bread we do not charge him with it but if it be what we believe it to be the Substance of Bread but himself believes to be turned into the Body of Christ then he cannot deny his Adoration to be given to it All that can excuse them is the Supposition and whether that will or not is now to be consider'd 1. If it be not true themselves grant it to be Idolatry The Testimonies of Bishop Fisher and Costerus are so well known to the purpose that I shall not repeat them And Catharinus a Divine of Note in the Council of Trent confesses it is Idolatry to worship an unconsecrated Host altho the Person through a Mistake believes it Consecrated And he quotes St. Thomas and Paludanus for his Opinion and gives this Reason for it because Christ is not worshipped simply in the Sacrament but as he is under the Species and therefore if he be not so present a Creature hath Divine Worship given it As those were guilty of Idolatry who worshipped any Creatures of old supposing God to be there as that he was the Soul of the World They were not excused saith he that they thought they worshipped but one God because they worshipped him as present in such a manner as he was not And this Book of his he saith in the Review of it was seen and approved by the Pope's Order by their Divines at Paris 2. If the Bread were taken to be God our Author doth not deny it would be Idolatry for that were to worship a breaden God Yet here would be a Mistake and a gross one yet the Mistake would not excuse the Persons committing it from most damnable Idolatry as he confesses Why then should the other Mistake excuse them when they suppose the Substance of the Bread not to be there but the Body of Christ to be under the Species Yes say they then no Creature is supposed to be the Object of Worship But when the Bread is supposed to be God it must be supposed not to be a Creature There is no Answer to be given in this Case but that the Bread really is a Creature whatsoever they imagined and if this Mistake did not excuse neither can the other 2. Of Transubstantiation Three Things our Author goes upon with respect to this 1. He supposes Christ's words to be clear for it 2. He shews the possibility of it from God's Omnipotency 3. He argues against the Testimony or Evidence of Sense or Reason in this Case from some parallel Instances as he thinks 1. He believes Jesus Christ made his words good pronounced at his last Supper really giving his Body and Blood to his Apostles the Substance of Bread and Wine being by his powerful words changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of the Bread and Wine remaining as before The same he believes of the Eucharist consecrated now by Priests This is a very easy way of taking it for granted that the words are clear for Transubstantiation And from no better Ground to fly to God's Omnipotency to make it good is as if one should suppose Christ really to be turned into a Rock a Vine a Door because the words are every jot as clear and then call in God's Omnipotency which is as effectual to make them good I confess these words are so far from being clear to me for Transubstantiation that if I had never heard of it I should never have thought of it from these or any other words of Scripture i. e. not barely considering the sound of words but the Eastern Idioms of speaking the Circumstances of our Saviour's real Body at that time when he spake them the uncouth way of feeding on Christ's real Body without any Objection made against it by his Disciples The Key our Saviour elsewhere gives for understanding the manner of eating his Flesh and withal if these words be literally and strictly understood they must make the Substance of Bread to be Christ's Body for that is unavoidably the literal sense of the words For can any Men take This to be any thing but this Bread who attend to the common sense and meaning of Words and the strict Rules of Interpretation Yet this sense will by no means be allow'd for then all that can be infer'd from these words is that when Christ spake these words The Bread was his Body But either Christ meant the Bread by This or he did not if he did the former Proposition is unavoidable in the literal Sense if he did not then by virtue of these words the Bread could never be turned into the Body of Christ. For that only could be made the Body of Christ which was meant when Christ said This is my Body This seems to me to be as plain and convincing as any Demonstration in Euclid Which hath often made me wonder at those who talk so confidently of the plain Letter of Scripture being for this Doctrine of Transubstantiation But several Divines of the Church of Rome understood themselves better and have confessed That this Doctrine could not be drawn out of the literal sense of these words as it were easy to shew if it had not been lately done already It is enough here to observe that Vasquez confesseth it of Scotus Durandus Paludanus Ockam Cameracensis and himself yields that they do not and cannot signify expresly the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body of Christ. For how can This is my Body literally signify this is changed into my Body If that Proposition were literally true This is my Body it overthrows the change For how can a thing be changed into that which it is already 2. He believes Christ being equal to his Father in Truth and Omnipotency can make his Words good We do not in the least dispute Christ's Omnipotency but we may their familiar way of making use of it
We are glad to find that our Author declares That no Man receives benefit by Absolution without Repentance from the bottom of his Heart and real Intention of forsaking his Sins P. 15. by which we hope he means more than Attrition But yet there are some things which stick with us as to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome in this matter which he takes no notice of 1. That secret Confession of Sins to a Priest is made so necessary to Salvation that an Anathema is denounced against all that deny it when they cannot deny that God doth forgive Sins upon true Contrition Forthe Council of Trent doth say That Contrition with Charity doth reconcile a Man to God before the Sacrament of Penance be actually received But then it adds That the desire of Confession is included in Contrition Which is impossible to be proved by Scripture Reason or Antiquity For so lately as in the time of the Master of the Sentences and Gratian in the 12th Centurie it was a very disputable Point whether Confession to a Priest were necessary And it is very hard for us to understand how that should become necessary to Salvation since which was not then Some of their own Writers confess that some good Catholicks did not believe the necessity of it I suppose the old Canonists may pass for good Catholicks and yet Maldonat saith That all the Interpreters of the Decrees held that there was no Divine Precept for Confession to a Priest and of the same Opinion he grants Scotus to have been But he thinks it is now declared to be Heresy or he wishes it were And we think it is too much already unless there were better ground for it 2. That an Anathema is denounced against those who do not understand the words of Christ Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. of the Sacrament of Penance so as to imply the Necessity of Confession Whereas there is no appearance in the words of any such Sense and themselves grant that in order to the Remission of Sins by Baptism of whch St. Matthew and St. Mark speak in the Apostles Commission there is no necessity of Sacramental Confession but a General Confession is sufficient And from hence the Elder Jansenius concludes That the Power of Remission of Sins here granted doth not imply Sacramental Confession Cajetan yields There is no Command for Confession here And Catharinus adds That Cajetan would not allow any one Place of Scripture to prove Auricular Confession And as to this particular he denies that there is any Command for it and he goes not about to prove it but that Cajetan contradicts himself elsewhere viz. when he wrote School-Divinity before he set himself to the study of the Scriptures Vasquez saith That if these words may be understood of Baptism none can infer from them the Necessity of Auricular Confession But Gregory de Valentia evidently proves that this place doth relate to Remission of Sins in Baptism not only from the Comparison of Places but from the Testimonies of S. Cyprian S. Ambrose and others 3. That it is expressed in the same Anathema's that this hath been always the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church from the beginning We do not deny the ancient practice either of Canonical Confession as part of the Discipline of the Church for publick Offences nor of Confession for ease and satisfaction of the perplexed Minds of doubting or dejected Penitents but that which we say was not owned nor practised by the Church from the Beginning was this Sacramental Confession as necessary to the Remission of Sins before God It is therefore to no purpose to produce out of Bellarmine and others a great number of Citations to prove that which we never deny but if they hold to the Council of Trent they must prove from the Fathers that Sins after Baptism cannot be forgiven without Confession to Men Which those who consider what they do will never undertake there being so many Testimonies of undoubted Antiquity against it And it is observable that Bonaventure grants that before the Lateran Decree of Innocentius 3. it was no Heresy to deny the Necessity of Confession and so he excuses those who in the time of Lombard and Gratian held that Opinion And all other Christians in the World besides those of the Church of Rome do to this day reject the Necessity of Particular Confession to a Priest in order to Remission as the Writers of the Church of Rome themselves confess So Godignus doth of the Abyssins Philippus à SS Trinitate of the Jacobites Clemens Galanus of the Nestorians who saith ' They made a Decree against the use of Confession to any but to God alone And Alexius Meneses of the Christians of of S. Thomas in the Indies The Greeks believe Confession only to be of Positive and Ecclesiastical Institution as the late Author of the Critical History of the Faith and Customs of the Eastern Nations proves And the very Form of their Absolution declares that they do not think particular Confession of all known Sins necessary to Pardon for therein the Priest absolves the Penitent from the Sins he hath not confessed through forgetfulness or shame And now let any one prove this to have been a Catholick Tradition by Vincentius his Rules viz. That it hath been always received every where and by All. VIII Of Indulgences 1. THey must be extreamly ignorant who take the Power of Indulgences to be a Leave from the Pope to commit what Sins they please and that by vertue thereof they shall escape Punishment for their Sins without repentance in another World Yet this is the sense of the Misrepresentation which he saith is made of it And if he saith true in his Preface That he hath described the Belief of a Papist exactly according to the apprehension he had when he was a Protestant He shews how well he understood the Matters in Difference when I think no other Person besides himself ever had such an apprehension of it who pretended to be any thing like a Scholar 2. But now he believes it damnable to hold that the Pope or any other Power in Heaven or Earth can give him leave to commit any Sins whatsoever or that for any Sum of Mony he can obtain any Indulgence or Pardon for Sins that are to be committed by him or his Heirs hereafter Very well But what thinks he of obtaining an Indulgence or Pardon after they are committed Is no such thing to be obtained in the Court of Rome for a Sum of Mony He cannot but have heard of the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber for certain Sins and what Sums are there set upon them Why did he not as freely speak against this This is published in the vast Collection of Tracts of Canon Law set forth by the Pope's Authority where there are certain Rates for Perjury Murder Apostacy c. Now
towards the Scripture or by any means whatsoever to bring it into disrepute or disgrace but not being contented with this he adds That he holds it in the highest Veneration of all Men living Now here we must desire a little better Representation of this matter For certainly those who derive its Authority from the Church who set Traditions in equal esteem with it who complain so much of its Obscurity can never be said to hold it in equal Veneration with those who maintain its independent Authority its Sufficiency and Perspicuity And these are known and material Points in Controversy between us and them therefore let them not say they hold it in the highest Veneration of all Men living though those thought themselves through Catholioks who have compared it to a Nose of Wax to a Lesbian Rule to a dead Letter unsensed Characters and to other things not fit to be repeated But we are well pleased to find them express such Veneration for it Wherefore then are the People to be kept from reading it 2. He saith It is not out of disrespect to it But why then 1. Because private Interpretation is not proper for the Scrâ—ture 2 Pet. 1. 20. One would think the Scripture were not kept only from the People by such a Sense being put upon it for any one that would but consider that place will find it must relate to the Prophets themselves and doth he think the Prophets were to be debarred from reading the Scriptures But this is playing with Scripture and not reasoning from it 2. Because in the Epistles of St. Paul are certain things hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable deprave as also the rest of the Scriptures to their own Perdition 2 Pet. 3. 16. Now in my Opinion such Men deserve more to be debarred from the medling with the Scripture who make such perverse Inferences from it than ordinary Readers And if they use all other places as they do this they cannot be excused from depraving it It is granted there were then unlearned and unstable Men who misunderstood or misappled the Writings of St. Paul and other Scriptures And what then There are Men of all Ages who abuse the best things in the World even the Gospel it self and the Grace of God Doth it hence follow that the Gospel must not be preached to them or the Grace of God made known to them for fear of Mens making ill use of it If this had been the just Consequence would not St. Peter himself have thought of this But he was so far from making it that he adviseth those Persons he writes to to have a mighty regard to the Scriptures even to the Prophetical Writings as to a Light shining in a dark place 1 Pet. 1. 19. According to this way of deducing Consequences S. Peter should have argued just contrary The Prophetical Writings are dark and obscure therefore meddle not with them but trust your Guides Whereas the Apostle after he had told them what the Apostles saw and heard he adds That they have a more sure Prophetical Word as the Rhemists translate it How could that be more sure to them unless they were allowed to read consider and make use of it 3. Because God hath given only some to be Apostles some Prophets other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors Ephes. 4. 11. Doth it hence follow that the People are not to read the Scriptures In the Universities Tutors are appointed to interpret Aristotle to their Pupils doth it hence follow that they are not to read Aristotle themselves It is no doubt a mighty Advantage to have such Infallible Interpreters as the Apostles Prophets and all Christians are bound to follow their Sense where they have delivered it But suppose the Question be about the Sense of these Interpreters must their Books not be looked into because of the danger of Error This Reason will still hold against those who go about to deliver their Sense and so on till by this Method of Reasoning all sorts of Books and Interpretations be rejected unless any such can be found out which is not liable to be abused or misunderstood And if there be any such to be had they are much to blame who do not discover it But as yet we see no Remedy for two things in Mankind a proneness to Sin and to Mistake But of all things we ought not to take away from them one of the best Means to prevent both viz. a diligent and careful and humble reading the Holy Scriptures But 3. he denies that all persons are forbid to read the Scriptures but only such as have no License and good Testimony from their Curates And therefore their design is not to preserve Ignorance in the People but to prevent a blind â—gnorant presumption These are plausible pretences to such as search no farâ—her but the Mystery of this Matter lies much deeper â—t was no doubt the design of the Church of Rome to keep the Bible wholly out of the hands of the People But upon the Reformation they found it impossible so many Translations being made into vulgar Languages â—nd therefore care was taken to have Translations made â—y some of their own Body and since the People of â—etter Inclinations to Piety were not to be satisfied withâ—ut the Bible therefore they thought it the better way â—o permit certain Persons whom they could trust to have License to read it And this was the true Reason of the â—ourth Rule of the Index Libr. prohibit made in pursuâ—nce of the Order of the Council of Trent and published â—y Pius IV. by which any one may see it was not an Original Permission out of any good Will to the Thing â—ut an Aftergame to get the Bible out of the Hands of â—â—e People again And therefore Absolution was to be â—enied to those who would not deliver them to their Orâ—naries when they were called for And the Regulars â—â—emselves were not to be permitted to have Bibles withâ—â—t a License And as far as I can understand the Addiâ—on of Clement VIII to that Fourth Rule he withdraws â—y new Power of granting such Licenses and saith â—ey are contrary to the Command and Usage of that â—â—urch which he saith is to be inviolably observed â—herein I think he declares himself fully against such â—censes And how Inferior Guides can grant them aâ—inst the Command of the Head of the Church is a thing â—t very agreeable to the Unity and Subordination they â—ast of XI Of Apochryphal Books 1. WE do not charge the Church of Rome with mâ—king what Additions to Scripture they thiâ— good as the Misrepresenter saith but we charge theâ— with taking into the Canon of Scripture such books â— were not received for Canonical by the Christian Church as those Books himself mentions viz. Toby Judith Eclesiasticus Wisdom and Maccabees 2. We do not only charge them with this but with Anathematizing all those who do not
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
of Antiquity be allow'd to be a Commemorative Sacrifice as it takes in the whole Action but whether in the Mass there be such a Representation made to God of Christ's Sacrifice as to be it self a true and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead Now all that our Representer saith to the purpose is 1. That Christ bequeathed his Body and Blood at his last Supper under the Species of Bread and Wine not only a Sacrament but also a Sacrifice I had thought it had been more proper to have offered a Sacrifice than to have bequeathed it And this ought to have been proved as the Foundation of this Sacrifice viz. That Christ did at his last Supper offer up his Body and Blood as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God And then what need his suffering on the Cross 2. He gave this in charge to his Apostles as the first and chief Priests of the New-Testament and to their Successors to offer But Where When and How For we read nothing at all of it in Scripture Christ indeed did bid them do the same thing he had there done in his last Supper But did he then offer up himself or not If not How can the Sacrifice be drawn from his Action If he did it is impossible to prove the necessity of his dying afterwards 3. This Sacrifice was never questioned till of late years We say it was never determined to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice till of late We do not deny the Fathers interpreting Mal. 1. 11. of an Offering under the Gospel but they generally understand it of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Sacrifices and although some of them by way of Accommodation do apply it to the Eucharist yet not one of them doth make it a Propitiatory Sacrifice which was the thing to be proved For we have no mind to dispute about Metaphorical Sacrifices when the Council of Trent so positively decrees it to be a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice XXIII Of PURGATORY HEre our Author begins with proving from Scripture and Antiquity and then undertakes to explain the Doctrine of Purgatory from substantial Reasons 1. As to his Proof from Scripture 1. Is that from 2 Maccab. c. 12. where he saith Money was sent to Jerusalem that Sacrifices might be offered for the slain and 't is recommended as a Holy Cogitation to pray for the dead To this which is the main foundation of Purgatory I answer 1. It can never prove such a Purgatory as our Author asserts For he supposes a Sinner reconciled to God as to eternal Punishment before he be capable of Purgatory but here can be no such supposition for these Men died in the sin of Achan which was not known till their Bodies were found among the slain Here was no Confession or any sign of Repentance and therefore if it proves any thing it is deliverance from Eternal Punishment and for such as dye in their Sins without any shew of Repentance 2. We must distinguish the Fact of Judas from the interpretation of Jason or his Epitomizer The Fact of Judas was according to the strictness of the Law which required in such Cases a Sin-Offering and that is all which the Greek implies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so Leo Allatius confesses all the best Greek Copies agree and he reckons Twelve of them Now what doth this imply but that Judas remembring the severe punishment of this Sin in the Case of Achan upon the People sent a Sin-offering to Jerusalem But saith Leo Allatius It was the sin of those men that were slain I grant it But the Question is Whether the Sin-offering respected the dead or the living For the Law in such a Case required a Sin-offering for the Congregation And why should not we believe so punctual a Man for the Law as Judas did strictly observe it in this point But the Author of the Book of Macchabees understands it of those that were slain I do not deny it but then 3. We have no Reason to rely upon his Authority in this matter which I shall make appear by a parallel Instance He doth undoubtedly commend the fact of Razias in Killing himself 2. Macc. 14. 42. when he saith he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like a brave Man and if he had thought it a fault in him he would never have given such a Character of it but he would have added something of Caution after it And it is no great advantage to Purgatory for him that commends Self-murder to have introduced it The most probable account I can give of it is That the Alexandrian Jews of whose number Jason of Cyrene seems to have been had taken in several of the Philosophical Opinions especially the Platonists into their Religion as appears by Philo and Bellarmin himself confesses that Plato held a Purgatory and they were ready to apply what related to the Law to their Platonick Notions So here the Law appointed a Sin-offering with respect to the Living but Jason would needs have this refer to the dead and then sets down his own remark upon it That it was a holy cogitation to pray for the dead as our Author renders it If it were holy with respect to the Law there must be some ground for it in the Law And that we appeal to and do not think any particular Fancies sufficient to introduce such a Novelty as this was which had no Foundation eithe◠in the Law or the Prophets And it woul be strange for a new Doctrine to be set up when the Spirit of Prophecy was ceased among them But S. August hold these Books for Canonical and saith they are so received by the Church l. 18. de Civit De◠To answer this it is sufficient to observe not only the different opinions of others before mentioned as to these Books But that as Canus notes it was then lawful to doubt of their Authority And he goes as low as Gregory I. Whom he denies not to have rejected them And I hope we may set the Authority of one against the other especially when S. August in himself being pressed hard with the fact of Razias confesses 1. That the Jews have not the Book of Macchabees in their Canon as they have the Law the Prophets and the Psalms to whom our Lord gave Testimony as to his Witnesses Which is an evident Proof he thought not these Books sufficient to ground a Doctrine upon which was not found in the other 2. That however this Book was not unprofitably received by the Church if it be soberly read and heard Which implies a greater Caution than S. Augustin would ever have given concerning a Book he believed truely Canonical But saith Bellarmin his meaning is only to keep men from imitating the Example of Razias whereas that which they pressed S. August in with was not meerly the Fact but the Character that is given of it Sanctarum Scripturarum Auctoritate laudatus est
Kingdom in Heaven which was His suffering on the Cross for us 4. And no man knoweth of the Sepulcher of Moses unto this day Deut. 34. 6. Why should God hide the Body of Moses from the People if he allowed giving Religious Honour and Respect to Relicks Why should Hezekiah break in Pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel did burn Incense to it 2 Kings 18. 4. Especially when it was a Type or Representation of Christ himself and God had wrought many Miracles by it 5. Whom the Heaven must receive until the times of the Restitution of all things Acts 3. 21. And therefore in the Eucharist we adore him as sitting on the Right Hand of God but we dare not direct our Adoration to the Consecrated Host which we believe to be the Substance of Bread and Wine tho consecrated to a Divine Mystery and therefore not a fit Object for our Adoration 6. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. This is spoken of the Bread after Consecration and yet the Apostle supposes it to be Bread still and the Communion of his Body is interpreted by the next Words For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all Partakers of that one Bread v. 17. Which is very different from the Bread being changed into the very Body of Christ which is an Opinion that hath no Foundation in Scripture and is repugnant to the common Principles of Reason which God hath given us and exposes Christian Religion to the Reproach and Contempt of Jews Turks and Infidels 7. When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you say We are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do St. Luk. 17. 10. And therefore in no sense can our best Works be truly Meritorious of Eternal Lise Which consisting in the enjoyment of God it is impossible there should be any just Proportion or due Commensuration between our best Actions and such a Reward 8. And the Son said unto him Father I have sinned against Heaven and in thy sight St. Luke 15. 21. Where Confession to God is required because the Offence is against him but it is impossible for any Man upon earth to forgive those whom God doth not forgive And he alone can appoint the necessary Conditions of Pardon among which true Contrition and Repentance is fully declared but Confession to a Priest tho it may be useful for the ease of the Penitent is no where in Scripture made necessary for the Forgiveness of Sin 9. I said I will consess my Transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin Psal. 32. 5. If God doth fully forgive thâ— Guilt of sin there remains nâ— Obligation to punishment foâ— whereever that is the guilt remains It is true God may no sometimes fully pardon but hâ— may reserve some temporal pâ— nishment here for his own Hoâ—our or the Chastisement of penitent Sinner But then whâ— have any men to do to preteâ— that they can take off what Gâ— thinks fit to lay on Can any Indâ—gences prevent pain or Sickness sudden Death But if Indulgenâ— be understood only with respeâ— to Canonical Penances they aâ— a most notorious and inexcuâ— ble Corruption of the Discipliâ— of the Ancient Church 10. For if when we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his Life Rom. 5. 10. And therefore no Satisfaction to the Justice of God is now required from us for the Expiation of any remainder of Guilt For if Christ's Satisfaction were in it self sufficient for a total Remission and was so accepted by God what Account then remains for the Sinner to discharge if he perform the Conditions on his part But we do not take away hereby the Duties of Mortification Prayer Fasting and Alms c. but there is a difference to be made between the Acts of Christian Duties and Satisfaction to Divine Justice for the Guilt of Sin either in whole or in part And to think to joyn any Satisfactions of ours together with Christs is like joyning our hand with Gods in Creating or Governing the World 11. Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all Wisdom teaching and admonishing one another c. Coloss. 3. 16. How could that dwell richly in them which was not to be communicated to them but with great Caution How could they teach and admonish one another in a Language not understood by them The Scriptures of the New Testament were very early perverted and if this Reason were sufficient to keep them out of the Hands of the People certainly they would never have been published for common use but as prudently dispensed then as some think it necessary they should be now But we esteem it a part of our Duty not to think our selves wiser than Christ or his Apostles nor to deprive them of that unvaluable Treasure which our Saviour hath left to their use 12. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3. 16. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy-Ghost 2 Pet. 1. 21. Therefore where there is no Evidence of Divine Inspiration those Books cannot be made Canonical But the Jewish Church To whom the Oracles of God were committed never deliver'd these Books as any part of them being Written when Inspiration was ceased among them And it is impossible for any Church in the World to make that to be divinely inspired which was not so from the Beginning 13. But I say Have they not heard Yes verily their sound went into all the Earth and their Words unto the ends of the World Rom. 10. 18. Therefore the Intention of God was that the Gospel should be understood by all Mankind which it could never be unless it were translated into their several Languages But still the difference is to be observed between the Originals and Translations and no Church can make a Translation equal to the Original But among Translations those deserve the greatest esteem which are done with the greatest Fidelity and Exactness On which account our last Translation deserves a more particular Regard by us as being far more useful to our People than the Vulgar Latin or any Translation made only from it 14. Thy Word is a Lamp unto my Feet and a Light unto my Path Psalm 119. 105. Which it could never be unless it were sufficient for necessary direction in our way to Heaven But we suppose Persons to make use of the best means for understanding it and to be duely qualified for following its Directions without which the best Rule in the World can never attain its End And if the Scripture hath all the due Properties of a Rule of Faith it is unconceivable why it should be denied to be so unless men find they cannot justify their Doctrines and Practises by it and therefore are forced to
make Tradition equal in Authority with it 15. Wo unto you Lawyers for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge ye entred not in your selves and them that were entering in ye hindred S. Luke 11. 52. From whence it follows that the present Guides of the Church may be so far from giving the true Sense of Scripture that they may be the chief Means to hinder Men from right understanding it Which argument is of greater force because those who plead for the Infallibility of the Guides of the present Church do urge the Promises made to the Jewish Church at that time as our Author doth from those who sat in the Chair of Moses and from Caiaphas his Prophesying 16. We have also a more sure Word of Prophesie whereunto ye do well that ye take heed 2 Pet. 1. 19. And yet here the Apostle speaks of something delivered by the Testimony of those who were with Christ in the holy Mount From whence we infer that it was not the Design of Christ to leave us to any Vocal Testimony but to refer us to the Written Word as the most certain Foundation of Faith And it is not any persons assuming the Title of the Catholick Church to themselves can give them Authority to impose any Traditionâ— on the Faith of Christians or require them to be believed equally with the Written Word For before any Traditions can be assented to with Divine Faith the Churches Authority must be proved to be Divine and Infallible either by a written or unwritten Word but it can be done by neither without overthrowing the Necessity of such an Infallibility in order to Divine Faith because the Testimony on which the Churches Infallibility is proved must be received only in a way of Credibility 17. Also of your own selves shall Men arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them Act. 20. 30. Which being spoken of the Guides of the Christian Church without limitation of Number a possibility of Error is implied in any Assembly of them unless there were some other Promises which did assure us That in all great Assemblies the Spirit of God shall always go with the Casting Voice or the greater Number 18. And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the edisying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Unity of the Faith c. Ephes. 4. 13 14 15. Now here being an account given of the Officers Christ appointed in his Church in order to the Unity and Edification of it it had been unfaithfulness in the Apostle to have left out the Head of it in Case Christ had appointed any Because this were of more consequence than all the rest being declared necessary to Salvation to be in subjection to him But neither this Apostle nor S. Peter himself give the least intimation of it Which it is impossible to conceive should have been left out in the Apostolical Writings upon so many Occasions of mentioning it if ever Christ had instituted a Headship in the Church and given it to S. Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome 19. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come 1 Cor. 15. 26. The Apostle speaking to all Communicants plainly shews that the Institution of Christ was That all should partake of both Kinds and so to continue to do as long as this Sacrament was to shew forth the Death of Christ viz. till his Second coming And there is no colour for asserting the Christian Church ever looked on observing Christs Institution in this matter as an indifferent thing no not for a thousand years after Christ. Altho the Practise and the Obligation are two things yet when the Practise was so agreeable to the Institution and continued so long in the Church it is hardly possible for us to prove the sense of the Obligation by a better way than by the continuance of the Practise And if some Traditions must be thought binding and far from being indifferent which want all that Evidence which this Practise carries along with it How unreasonable is it in this Case to allow the Practise and to deny the Obligation 20. And whom he justified them he also glorified Rom. 8. 30. But whom God justifies they have the Remission of their Sins as to Eternal Punishment And if those who are thus justified must be glorified what place is there for Purgatory For there is not the least intimation of any other state of Punishment that any who are justified must pass through before they are admitted to Glory We grant they may notwithstanding pass through many intermediate trials in this World but we say where there is Justification there is no Condemnation but where any part of Guilt remains unremitted there is a condemnation remaining so far as the punishment extends And so this distinction as to Eternal and Temporal Pains as it is made the Foundation of Purgatory is wholly groundless and therefore the Doctrine built upon it can have no Foundation in Scripture or Reason 21. I will pray with the Spirit and I will pray with the understanding also 1 Cor. 14. 15. What need this Praying with the Understanding if there were no necessity of attending to the Sense of Prayers For then praying with the Spirit were all that was required For that supposes an attention of the Mind upon God And I can hardly believe any Man that thinks with understanding can justify praying without it Especially when there are Exhortations and Invitations to the People to joyn in those Prayers as it is plain there are in the Roman Offices 22. Then Peter opened his mouth and said Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of Persons but in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted with him Acts 10. 34 35. Whereby we perceive that God doth not limit the possibility of Salvation under the Gospel to Communion with the See of Rome for if S. Peter may be believed the capacity of Salvation depends upon Mens fearing God and working Righteousness and it is horrible uncharritablebleness to exclude those from a possibility of Salvation whom God doth not exclude from it 23. That ye should earnestly contend for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Jude v. 3. Therefore all necessary Doctrines of Faith were at first delivered and whatever Articles cannot be proved to have been delivered by the Apostles can never be made necessary to be believed in order to Salvation VVhich overthrows the additional Creed of Pius IV. after the Council of Trent and puts them upon the necessity of proving the Universal Tradition of those Doctrines from the Apostostolical Times And when they do that we may think better of them than at present we do for as yet we can see neither Scripture nor Reason nor Antiquity for them THUS I have Represented that kind of Popery which our