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 see no ground why any one should believe any Doctrine with a stedfast and Divine Faith which is not bottom'd on the Written Word for then his Faith must be built on the Testimony of the Church as Divine and Infallibe or else his Faith cannot be Divine But it is impossible to prove it to be Divine and Infallible but by the Written Word and therefore as it is not reasonable that he should believe the Written Word by such a Divine Testimony of the Church so if any particular Doctrine may be received on the Authority of the Church without the Written Word then all Articles of Faith may and so there would be no need of the Written Word 4. The Faith of Christians doth no otherwise stand upon the Foundation of the Churches Tradition than as it delivers down to us the Books of Scripture but we acknowledg the general Sense of the Chrstian Church to be a very great help for understanding the true sense of Scripture and we do not reject any thing so delivered but what is all this to the Church of Rome But this is still the way of true Representing XVI Of Councils 1. WE are glad to find so good a Resolution as seems to be expressed in these words viz. That he is obliged to believe nothing besides that which Christ taught and his Apostles and if any thing contrary to this should be defined and commanded to be believed even by Ten Thousand Councils he believes it damnable in any one to receive it and by such Decrees to make Additions to his Creed This seems to be a very good Saying and it is pity any thing else should overthrow it But here lies the Misrepresenting he will believe what Christ and his Apostles taught from the Definitions of Councils and so all this goodly Fabrick falls to nothing for it is but as if one should say If Aristotle should falsly deliver Plato's sense I will never believe him but I am resolved to take Plato's sense only from Aristotle's Words So here he first declares he will take the Faith of Christ from the Church and then he saith if the Church Representative should contradict the Faith of Christ he would never believe it 2. We dispute not with them the Right and Necessity of General Councils upon great occasions if they be truly so rightfully called lawfully assembled and fairly managed which have been and may be of great use to the Christian World for setling the Faith healing the Breaches of Christendom and reforming abuses And we farther say that the Decrees of such Councils ought to be submitted to where they proceed upon certain Grounds of Faith and not upon unwritten Traditions Which was the fatal stumbling at the Threshold in the Council of Trent and was not to be recovered afterwards for their setting up Traditions equally with the Written Word made it easie for them to define and as easie for all others to reject their Definitions in case there had not been so many other Objections against the Proceedings of that Council And so all our Dispute concerning this matter is taken off from the general Notion and runs into the particular Debate concerning the Qualifications and Proceedings of some which were called Free General Councils but were neither General nor Free and therefore could not deliver the sense of the Catholick Church which our Author requires them to do XVII Of Infallibility in the Church 1. HE doth not pretend this belongs to the Pastors and Prelates of his Church who may fall he saith into Heresie and Schism but that the whole Church is secured by Divine Promises from all Error and Danger of Prevarication which he proves from the Promises of the New Testament Mat. 16. 18 28. 20. John 14. 16 26. But however the former seems to take away Infallibility from the Guides of the Church yet that this is to be understood of them separately appears by what follows 2. The like Assistance of the Holy Ghost he believes to be in all General Councils which is the Church Representative by which they are specially protected from all error in all definitions and declarations in matters of Faith Now here are two sorts of Infallibility tacked to one another by vertue of these general Promises which ought more distinctly to be considered 1. To preserve Christs Church so as it shall never cease to be a Church is one thing to preserve it from all Error is another The former answers the End of Christs Promises as to the Duration of the Church and the latter is not implied in them 2. The promise of teaching them all Truth Joh. 16. 13. is not made to the whole Church but to the Apostles And their case was so peculiar and extraordinary that there can be no just inference from the assistance promised to them of what the Church should enjoy in all Ages 3. If the diffusive Church have no infallible Assistance promised then no infallible Assistance can from thence be proved for the Church Representative so that some particular Promises to the Guides of the Church as assembled together are necessary to prove the Infallibility of Councils 4. It by no means proves following Councils to be Infallible because the Apostles said Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Our Author doth not doubt but the same may be prefixed to all determinations in point of Faith resolved on by any General Council lawfully assembled since that time or to be held to the Worlds end But what Reason he had for not doubting in this matter I cannot see the Assistance he saith being to extend as far as the Promise But shall Assistance imply Infallibility Then there must be good store as long as the Promises of Divine Grace hold good But this Assistance of Councils is very different from the Assistance of Grace for the Church may subsist without Councils but cannot without Grace What General Council was there from the meeting Acts 15. to the Council of Nice Were not Christs Promises fulfilled to his Church all that time when it encreased in all parts against the most violent Opposition 5. No Parity of Reason from the Jewish Church can be sufficient Proof for Infallibility in the Christian. But our Author argues thus If Gods special Assistance was never wanting to the Church of the Jews so as to let it fail in the Truth of its Doctrine or its Authority Why should not he believe the same of the Church of Christ which is built on better Promises What special Assistance was it which Israel had when it is said that for a long time Israel had been without the true God and without a teaching Priest and without Law And as to Judah was there no failing in point of Doctrine in our Saviours time It is true they had the Law intire and that was all that was good among them for their Teachers had corrupted themselves and the People and
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
his Method and Representations without Digressons or provoking Reflections II. But I must declare my self very much unsatisfied with the Method he hath taken to clear his Party from these Misrepresentations For 1. He takes upon him to draw a double Character of a Papist and in the one he pretends to follow a certain Rule but not in the other which is not fair and ingenuous As to the one he saith He follows the Council of Trent and their allowed Spiritual Books and Catechisms and we find no fault with this But why must the other Part then be drawn by Fancy or common Prejudices or ignorant Mistakes Have we no Rule whereby the Judgment of our Church is to be taken Are not our Articles as easy to be had and understood as the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent I will not ask How the Council of Trent comes to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here where it was never received But I hope I may why our Representations are not to be taken from the Sense of our Church as their's from the Council of Trent If he saith â—his Design was to remove common Prejudices and vulgar Mistakes it is easy to answer if they are contraâ—y to the Doctrine of our Church we utterly disown them We know very well there are Persons who have so false a Notion of Popery that they charge the Rites and Customs of our Church with it but we pitty their Weakness and Folly and are far from defending such Misrepresentations But that which we adhere to is the Doctrine and Sense of our Church as it is by Law established and what Representations are made agreeable thereto I undertake to defend and no other But if a Person take the liberty to lay on what Colours he pleases on one side it will be no hard matter to take them off in the other and then to say How much fairer is our Church than she is painted It is an easy but not so allowable a way of disputing for the same Person to make the Objections and Answers too for he may so model and frame the Arguments by a little Art that the Answers may appear very full and sufficient whereas if they had been truly represented they would be found very lame and defective 2. He pretends to give an account why he quotes no Authors for his Misrepresentations which is very unsatisfactory viz. That he hath described the Papist therein exactly according to the apprehension he had of him when he was a Protestant But how can we tell what sort of Protestant he was nor how well he was instructed in his Religion And must the Character now supposed to be common to Protestants be taken from his ignorant or childish or wilful Mistakes Did ever any Protestant that understands himself say That Papists are never permitted to hear Sermons which they arâ— able to understand p. 58. or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry p. 9. Or that a Papist believes thâ— Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels c Yet these are some of his Misrepresentations p. 40. Did he in earnest think so himself Iâ— he did he gives no good account of himself if he did not he gives a worse for then how shall we believe him in other things when he saith He hath drawâ— his Misrepresentations exactly according to his own Apprehensions It is true he saith he added some few Points which were violently charged on him by his Friends but we dare be bold to say this was none of them But let us suppose it true that he had such Apprehensions himself Are these fit to be printed as the Character of a Party What would they say to us if a Spanish Convert should give a Character of Protestants according to the common Opinion the People there have of them and set down in one Column their monstrous Misrepresentations and in another what he found them to be since his coming hither and that in good Truth he saw they were just like other Men. But suppose he had false Apprehensions before he went among them why did he not take care to inform himself better before he changed Had he no Friends no Books no Means to rectify his Mistakes Must he needs leave one Church and go to another before he understood either If this be a true Account of himself it is but a bad Account of the Reasons of his Change 3. The Account he gives of the other Part of his Character affords as little satisfaction For although in the general it be well that he pretends to keep to a Rule yet 1. He shews no Authority he hath to interpret that Rule in his own sense Now several of his Representations depend upon his own private Sense and Opinions against the Doctrine of many others as zealous for their Church as himself and what Reason have we to adhere to his Representation rather than to theirs As for instance he saith The Pope's personal Infallibility is no Matter of Faith p. 42. But there are others fay it is and is grounded on the same Promises which makes him Head of the Church Why now must we take his Representation rather than theirs And so as to the Deposing Power he grants it hath been the Opinion of several Popes and Councils too but that it is no Matter of Faith p. 47. But whose Judgment are we to take in this Matter according to the Principles of their Church A private Man's of no Name no Authority or of those Popes and Councils who have declared it and acted by it And can any Man of their Church justify our relying upon his Word against the Declaration of Popes and Councils But suppose the Question be about the Sense of his own Rule the Council of Trent what Authority hath he to declare it when the Pope hath expresly forbidden all Prelats to do it and reserved it to the Apostolical Sea 2. He leaves out in the seâ—eral Particulars an essential part of the Character of a Papist since the Council of Trent which is that he doth not only believe the Doctrines there defined to be true but to be necessary to Salvation And there is not a word of this in his Representation of the Points of Doctrine but the whole is managed as though there were nothing but a difference about some particular Opinions whereas in Truth the Necessity of holding those Doctrines in order to Salvation is the main Point in difference If Men have no mind to believe their own Senses we know not how to help it but we think it is very hard to be told we cannot be saved unless we renounce them too And this now appears to be the true State of the Case since Pius the 4th drew up and published a Confession of Faith according to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent wherein Men are not only required to believe their Traditions as firmly as the Bible the
upon this Declaâ—tion believe them to be Canonical since they cannot 〈◊〉 but know that these Books never were in the Jewish â—â—non and were left out by many Christian Writers Aâ— if the Church cannot add to the Scripture and 〈◊〉 Author thinks it damnable to do it how can it maâ— any Books Canonical which were not so received by tâ—â— Church For the Scripture in this sense is the Canon aâ— therefore if it add to the Canon it adds to the Scripture i. e. it makes it necessary to believe some Books to be â— infallible Authority which were not believed to be â— either by the Jewish or Christian Church as appears 〈◊〉 abundant Testimonies to that purpose produced by Learned Bishop of this Church which ought to haâ— been considered by the Representer that he might 〈◊〉 have talked so crudely about this matter But however I must consider what he saith 1. He produces the Testimony of Greg. Naziaâ—â— who is expresly against him and declares but Tweâ—â— Two Books in the Canon of the Old Testament but how doth he prove that he thought these Booâ— Canonical He quotes his Oration on the Maccabeâ— where I can find nothing like it and instead of it 〈◊〉 expresly follows as he declares the Book of Josephus 〈◊〉 the Authority of Reason concerning them So that if â—his proves any thing it proves Josephus his Book Canonical and not the Maccabees 2. He adds the Testimony of St. Ambrose who in the Place he refers to inlarges on the Story of the Maccabees â—ut saith nothing of the Authority of the Book And even Coccius himself grants that of old Melito Sardensis Amphilochius Greg. Nazianzen the Council of Laodicea S. Hierom Ruffinus and Gregory the Great did not own the Book of Maccabees for Canonical 3. Innocentius ad Exuperium speaks more to his Purpose and if that Decretal Epistle be allowed against which Bishop Cosins hath made considerable Objections then it must be granted that these Books were then in the Roman Canon but that they were not received by the Universal Church appears evidently by the Canon of the Council of Laodicea c. 60. Wherein these Books are â—est out and this was received in the Code of the Uniâ—ersal Church which was as clear a Proof of the Canon â—hen generally received as can be expected It is true the Council of Carthage took them in and St. Augustine seems â—o be of the same Opinion But on the other side they â—re left out by Melito Bishop of Sardis who lived near â—he Apostles times Origen Athanasius St. Hilary St. Cyril of Jerusalem Epiphanius St. Basil Amphilochius St. Chrysostom and especially St Jerom who hath laboured â—n this point so much that no fewer than Thirteen Places â—re produced out of him to this purpose by the forementioned Learned Bishop of our Church who clearly â—roves there was no Tradition for the Canon of the Council of Trent in any one Age of the Christian Church But our Author goes on 4. It is of little concern to him whether these Books were ever in the Hebrew Copy I would â—nly ask whether it be of any concern to him whether they were divinely inspired or not He saith it is damnable to add to the Scripture by the Scripture we mean Books written by Divine Inspiration Can the Church make Books to be so written which were not so written If not then all it hath to do is to deliver by Tradition what was so and what not Whence should they have this Tradition but from the Jews and they owned no Divine Inspiration after the time of Malach How then should there be any Books so written afteâ— that time And he that saith in this Matter as he doth It is of little concern to him whether they were in the Hebrew Canon doth little concern himself what he ougâ—â— to believe and what not in this matter 5. Since the Churches Declaration he saith no Cathlicks ever doubted What doth he mean by the Churchâ— Declaration that of Innocentius and the Council of Cathage Then the same Bishop hath shewed him thâ— since that time there have been very many both 〈◊〉 the Greek and Latin Church of another Opinion Anâ— but a little before the Council of Trent Catharinus saith that a Friend of his and a Brother in Christ deride him as one that wanted Learning for daring to assert theâ— Books were within the Canon of Scripture and it 's plain Card. Cajetan could never be perswaded of it Bâ— if he means since the Council of Trent then we are â—â—turned to our first Difficulty how such a Council câ—â— make any Books Canonical which were not received 〈◊〉 such by the Catholick Church before For then they 〈◊〉 not declare the Canon but create it XII Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible 1. WE do not dispute about the Vulgar Editiâ—â— whether it may not be prefer'd before modern Latin Editions because of its great Antiquity in somâ— parts of it and its general Reception since the time of Gregory I. But our dispute is whether it be made so Authentick since the Council of Trent that no Appeals are to be made to the Originals i. e. whether that Council by its Authority could make a Version equal to the Originals out of which it was made Especially since at the time of that Decree the Vulgar Edition was confessed to be full of Errors and Corruptions by Sixtus V. who saith he took infinite pains to Correct them and yet left very many behind as appeared by Clement VIII who corrected his Bibles in very many places and grants some faults were left uncorrected still Now how was it possible for the Council of Trent to declare that Edition Authentick which was afterwards so much corrected And whether was the correct Edition of Sixtus V. Authentick or not being made in pursuance of the Decree of the Council If not how comes Clemens his Edition to be made Authentick when the other was not since there may be corruptions found in that as well as the other and no one can tell but it may be Reviewed and Corrected still as some of their own Writers confess it stands in need of it 2. Our Controversy is not so much about the Authority of the Vulgar Latin above other Latin Versions to those who understand them but whether none else but the Latin Version must be used by those who understand it not And here our Representer saith That he is commanded not to read any of these Translations speaking of Tindal's and that in Q. Elizabeths time but only that which is recommended to him by the Church If this relate to the Vulgar Latin then we are to seek why the common people should have none to Read but what they cannot understand if to Translations of their own then we doubt not to make it appear that our Translation allowed among us is more exact and agreeable than any they can
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.
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
doth not reach the Case For the Question is not whether their Church teach men to lye but whether there be not such a Power in the Church as by altering the Nature of things may not make that not to be a Lye which otherwise would be one As their Church teaches that Men ought not to break their Vows yet no one among them questions but the Pope may dissolve the Obligation of a Vow altho it be made to God himself Let him shew then how the Pope comes to have a Power to release a Vow made to God and not to have a Power to release the Obligation to veracity among men Again We do not charge them with delivering any such Doctrine That men may have Dispensations to lye and forswear themselves at pleasure for we know this Dispensing Power is to be kept up as a great Mystery and not to be made use of but upon weighty and urgent Causes of great Consequence and Benefit to the Church as their Doctâ—â—â— declare But as to all matters of fact which he alludes to I have nothing to say to them for our debate is only whether there be such a Power of Dispensation allowed in the Church of Rome or not XX. Of the Deposing Power TO bring this matter into as narrow a compass as may be I shall first take notice of his Concessions which will save us a labour of Proofs 1. He yields that the Deposing and King-killing Power hath been maintained by some Canonists and Divines of his Church and that it is in their opinion lawful and annexed to the Papal Chair 2. That some Popes have endeavoured to act according to this Power But then he denies that this Doctrine appertains to the Faith of his Church and is to be believed by all of that Communion And more than that he saith The affirming of it is a malicious Calumny a down-right Falsity Let us now calmly debate the matter Whether according to the received principles of the Church of Rome this be only a particular opinion of some Popes and Divines or be to be received as a matter of Faith The Question is not Whether those who deny it do account it an Article of Faith for we know they do not But whether upon the Principles of the Church of Rome they are not bound to do it I shall only to avoid cavilling proceed upon the Principles owned by our Author himself viz. 1. That the sense of Scripture as understood by the Community of Christians in all Ages since the Apostles is to be taken from the present Church 2. That by the present Church he understands the Pastors and Prelates assembled in Councils who are appointed by Christ and his Apostles for the decision of Controversies and that they have Infallible assistance 3. That the Pope as the Head of the Church hath a particular Assistance promised him with a special regard to his Office and Function If therefore it appear that Popes and Councils have declared this Deposing Doctrine and they have received other things as Articles of Faith upon the same Declarations Why should they then stick at yielding this to be an Article of Faith as well as the other It is not denied that I can find that Popes and Councils for several Ages have asserted and exercised the Deposing Power but it is alledged against these Decrees and Acts 1. That they were not grounded upon Universal Tradition 2. That they had not Universal Reception Now if these be sufficient to overthrow the Definitions of Councils let us consider the consequences of it 1. Then every Man is left to examin the Decrees of Councils whether they are to be embraced or not for he is to judge whether they are founded on Universal Tradition and so he is not to take the sense of the present Church for his Guide but the Universal Church from Christs time which overthrows a Fundamental Principle of the Roman Church 2. Then he must reject the pretended Infallibility in the Guides of the Church if they could so notoriously err in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Christendom as this was and consequently their Authority could not be sufficient to declare any Articles of Faith And so all Persons must be left at Liberty to believe as they see cause notwithstanding the Definitions made by Popes and Councils 3. Then he must believe the Guides of the Roman Church to have been mistaken not once or twice but to have persisted in it for Five hundred years which must take away not only Infallibility but any kind of Reverence to the Authority of it For whatever may be said as to those who have depended on Princes or favour their Parties against the Guides of the Church it cannot be denied that for so long time the leading Party in that Church did assert and maintain the Deposing Power And therefore Lessius truely understood this matter when he said That there was scarce any Article of the Christian Faith the denial whereof was more dangerous to the Church or did precipitate Men more into Heresy and Hatred of the Church than this of the Deposing Power for he says they could not maintain their Churches Authority without it And he reckons up these ill Consequences of denying it 1. That the Roman Church hath erred for at least Five hundred years in a matter fundamental as to Government and of great Moment Which is worse than an Error about Sacraments as Penance Extreme Unction c. and yet those who deny the Church can err in one hold that it hath erred in a greater matter 2. That it hath not only erred but voluntarily and out of Ambition perverting out of Design the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and Fathers concerning the Power of the Church and bringing in another contrary to it against the Right and Authority of Princes which were a grievous sin 3. That it made knowingly unrighteous Decrees to draw persons from their Allegiance to Princes and so they became the Causes of many Seditions and Rebellions and all the ill Consequences of them under a shew of Piety and Religion 4. That the Churches Decrees Commands Judgements and Censures may be safely contemned as Null and containing intollerable Errors And that it may require such things which good Subjects are bound to disobey 5. That Gregory VII in the Canon Nos Sanctorum c. Urban II. Gregory IX the Councils of Lateran under Alex. III. and Innocent III. the Councils of Lyons of Vienna of Constance of Lateran under Leo X. and of Trent have all grievously and enormously erred about this matter For that it was the Doctrine of them all he shews at large and so Seven General Councils lose their Infallibility at one blow 6. That the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church For the true Church could never teach such pernicious Doctrine as this must be if it be not true And if it erred in this it might as
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
seven Sacraments Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshiping of Images Indulgences Supremacy c. but they must believe that without believing these things there is no Salvation to be had in the ordinary Way for after the enumeration of those Points it follows Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This is the true Catholick Faith without which no Man can be saved i. e. The belief of these things is thereby declared as necessary to Salvation as of any other Articles of the Creed But it may be objected The subscribing this Profession of Faith is not required of all Members of that Church To which I answer That to make a Man a Member of it he must declare that he holds the same Faith which the Church of Rome holds And this is as much the Faith of the Roman Church as the Pope and Council of Trent could make it And it is now printed in the Roman Ritual at Paris set forth by Paul V. as the Confession of Faith owned by the Church of Rome And therefore this ought to have been a Part of the true Representation as to the Doctrinal Points but when he comes to the 35th Head he then owns That unless Men do believe every Article of the Roman Faith they cannot be saved p. 96. and he that disbelieves one does in a manner disbelieve all p. 97. Which may as well reach those who disown the Deposing Power and the Pope's personal Infallibility as Us since those are accounted Articles of Faith by the ruling part of their Church to whom it chiefly belongs to declare them and the former hath been defined both by Popes and Councils 3. He never sets down what it is which makes any Doctrine to become a Doctrine of their Church We are often blamed for charging particular Opinions upon their Church but we desire to know what it is which makes a Doctrine of their Church i. e. whether frequent and publick Declaration by the Heads and Guides of their Church be sufficient or not to that End Our Author seems to imply the Necessity of some Conditions to be observed for besides the Pope's Authority he requires due Circumstances and proceeding according to Law p. 42. But who is to be Judg of these Circumstances and legal Proceedings And he never tells what these Circumstances are And yet after all he saith The Orders of the Supream Pastor are to be obey'd whether he be Infallible or not And this now brings the Matter home The Popes he confesses have owned the Deposing Doctrine and acted according to it And others are bound to obey their Orders whether infallible or not and consequently they are bound by the Doctrine of their Church to Act when the Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Power But he seems to say in this Case that a Doctrine of their Church is to be judged by the Number for saith he There are greater Numbers that disown this Doctâ—â—ne p. 47. I will not at present dispute it but I desire to be informed Whether the Doctrines of their Church go by majority of Votes or not I had thought the Authority of the Guides of the Church ought to have over-ballanced any Number of Dissenters For what are those who refuse to submit to the Dictates of Popes and Councils but Dissenters from the Church of Rome The Distinction of the Court Church of Rome is wholly impertinent in this Case For we here consider not the meer Temporal Power which makes the Court but the Spiritual Capacity of Teaching the Church and if Popes and Councils may err in Teaching this Doctrine why not in any other I know there are some that say Universal Tradition is necessary to make a Doctrine of their Church But then no submission can be required to any Doctrine in that Church till the Universal Tradition of it in all Times and in all Parts of the Christian Church be proved And we need to desire no better Terms than these as to all Points of Pope Pius IV his Creed which are in dispute between us and them 4. He makes use of the Authority of some particular Divines as delivering the Sense of their Church when there are so many of greater Authority against them Whereas if we proceed by his own Rule the greater Number is to carry it Therefore we cannot be thought to Misrepresent them if we charge them with such things as are owned either by the general and allowed Practices of their Church or their Publick Offices or the generality of their Divines and Casuists or in case of a Contest with that side which is owned by the Guides of their Church when the other is censured or which was approved by their Canonized Saints or declared by their Popes and Councils whose Decrees they are bound to follow And by these Measures I intend to proceed having no design to misrepresent them as indeed we need not And so much in Answer to the Introduction I. Of Praying to Images IN this and the other Particulars where it is necessary I shall observe this Method 1. To give a clear and impartial Account of the State of the Controversy in as few Words as I can 2. To make some Reflections on what he saith in order to the clearing them from Misrepresentations As to the State of this Controversy as it stands since the Council of Trent we are to consider 1. We must distinguish between what Persons do in their own Opinion and what they do according to the Sense of the Divine Law It is possible that Men may intend one thing and the Law give another Sense of it as is often seen in the Case of Treason although the Persons plead never so much they had no intention to commit Treason yet if the Law makes their Act to be so their disavowing it doth not Excuse them So it is in the present Case Men may have real and serious Intentions to refer their final ultimate and Soveraign Worship only to God but if the Law of God strictly and severely prohibits this particular Manner of Worship by Images in as full plain and clear Words as may be and gives a Denomination to such Acts taken from the immediate Object of it no particular Intention of the Persons can alter that Denomination or make the Guilt to be less than the Law makes it 2. There can be no Misrepresenting as to the lawfulness of many External Acts of Worship with Respect to Images which are owned by them But it doth not look fairly to put the Title Of Praying to Images for the Question is about the Worship of Images whereas this Title would insinuate as though we did directly charge them with Praying to their Images without any farther Respect Which we are so far from charging them with that I do not know of any People in the World who are not like Stones and Stocks themselves who are liable to that
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
to help them out when Sense and Reason fail them And therefore Cajetan well said We ought not to dispute about God's Absolute Power in the Doctrine of the Sacraments being things of such constant use and that it is a foolish thing to attribute to the Sacrament all that God can do But we must consider what he saith against Sense and Reason For the believing this Mystery he does not at all think it meet for any Christian to appeal from Christ's Words to his own Senses or Reason for the examining the Truth of what he hath said but rather to submit his Senses and Reason to Christ's Words in the obsequiousness of Faith What! whether we know this to be the meaning of Christ's Words or not And thus we shall be bound to submit to every absurd Interpretation of Scripture because we must not use our Senses or Reason for examining the Truth of what is said there Can any thing be plainer said in Scripture than that God hath Eyes and Ears and Hands Must now every Man yield to this in the obsequiousness of Faith without examining it by Principles of Common Reason And we think we are therefore bound to put another Sense upon those Expressions because they imply a Repugnancy to the Divine Perfections Why not then where something is implied which is repugnant to the Nature of Christ's Body as well as to our Senses But the Question about judging in this Matter by our Senses is not as our Author is willing to suppose viz. Whether our Senses are to be believed against a clear and express Divine Revelation but whether the Judgment of our Senses and Reason is not to be made use of for finding out the true sense of this Revelation And we think there is great reason for it 1. Because we have no more certain way of judging the Substance of a Body than by our Senses We do not say our Senses go beyond the Accidents but we say our Senses by those Accidents do assure us of the bodily Substance or else it were impossible for us to know there is any such thing in the World 2. Because Christ did himself appeal to the judgment of his Disciples Senses concerning the Truth of his own Body after the Resurrection Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self handle and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Now we think we have Reason to allow the same Criterion which Christ himself did about the very same Body Unless he had then told his Disciples that there was to be another supernatural manner of Existence of the same Body concerning which their Senses were not to be Judges 3. Some of the most important Articles of the Christian Faith do suppose the Judgment of our Senses to be true As about the Truth of Christ's Body whether he had really a Body or only the outward Accidents and Appearance of a Body if he had not he did not really suffer upon the Cross and so the Sacrifice of Propitiation there offered up to the Father for the Sins of Mankind is lost There was a great Controversy in St. John's Time and afterwards Whether Christ had any real Body Those who denied it brought Revelation for it those who asserted it proved it by their Senses as S. John himself That which we have seen and heard and our hands have handled c. He doth not tell Men they must submit their Sense and Reason to the pretence of Revelation but they ought to adhere to the Judgment of their Senses concerning the Reality of Christ's Body Since therefore Christ himself appealed to it the Apostles made use of it without any Caution or Limitation we have great reason to rely still on the Judgment of our Senses concerning the same Object viz. the Body of Christ. 3. But we must now consider his Instances to overthrow the Judgment of our Senses and Reason in this Point 1. He believes Christ to be God though to Senses he seemed nothing but Man Do we ever pretend to judg of Christ's Divinity by our Senses How then can this be pertinent when our only Dispute is about judging his Body and the Substance of Bread and Wine by them And yet the Senses were of great use as to the proof of his Divinity by the Miracles which he wrought which if they had been like the pretended Miracles in Transubstantiation could have convinced no Man because they could never see them 2. He believes the Holy Ghost descended on our Saviour though Senses or Reason could discover it to be nothing but a Dove If there were no reason to judg otherwise the Judgment of Sense were to be followed but since the Scripture declares it was the Holy Ghost descending as a Dove we have no reason to question that Revelation For we do not pretend that our Senses are so far Judges of Divine Appearances as to exclude the possibility of God's assuming the shape and figure of his Creature when he pleases by moulding the substance of a real Body into such a Representation Thus we do not deny the possibility of an appearance of the Holy Ghost under Bread and Wine if God thought fit any more than under a Dove and in this Case we do not pretend that our Senses can exclude the presence of a Spirit under the Elements but that is very different from the present Case for here the Substance is supposed to be gone and nothing but Accidents remaining and no spiritual Presence of Christ is denied but that of his Body the very same Body which suffered on the Cross. 3. He believes the Man who appeared to Joshua ch 5. 13. and the three Men to Abraham Gen. 18. were really and substantially no Men notwithstanding all the Information and Evidence of Sense to the contrary from their Colour Features Proportion Talking Eating and many others And what follows from hence but that Spiritual Invisible Substances may be under the appearance of Bodies and that our Senses cannot be Judges of them Which is not our Question but Whether Bodies can be so present after the manner of Spirits as to lose all the natural Properties of Bodies and whether a Material Substance can be lost under all the Accidents proper to it so as our Senses cannot be proper Judges of one by the other But our Author seems to grant this in a natural way of the Existence of a Body but he saith Christ gives to his Body a supernatural manner of Existence by which being left without extension of Parts and rendred independent of Place it may be one and the same in many Places at once and whole in every part of the Symbols and not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies This is to me a Mystery beyond all comprehension by Sense or Reason and there is certainly a great difference between governing our Understandings and giving them up as we must do if this Doctrine hold good for it overthrows any
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
3. That to all sins some Penalty is due to the Justice of God And what follows from hence but the Necessity of Christs Satisfaction But how doth it appear that after the Expiation of Sin by Christ and the remission of eternal Punishment there still remains a necessity of farther satisfaction for such a temporal penalty in another World 4. That generally speaking few men depart out of this Life but either with the guilt of venial sins or obnoxions to some Temporal punishment No doubt all men are obnoxious by their sins to the punishment of another World but that is not the point but whether God hath declared That altho he remits the eternal punishment he will not the temporal and altho he will forgive thousands of pounds he will not the pence and farthings we owe to him But if Mortal sins be remitted as to the guilt and Venial do not hinder a State of Grace what room is there for Vindictive Justice in Purgatory Yet this is the Doctrine which so much weight is laid upon that Bellarmine saith They must go directly to Hell who do not believe Purgatory If this be true why was it not put into the Representation that we might understand the danger of not believing so credible so reasonable a Doctrine as this But we believe it to be a much more dangerous thing to condemn others for not believing a Doctrine which hath so very slender a pretence either to Scripture or Reason XXIV Of Praying in an unknown Tongue THE Question in short is Whether the Church-Service at which Persons are bound to assist ought not to be in a Language understood by those who are bound to assist For our Author grants That a Papist is bound to assist at the Church-Service and to hear Mass but he is not bound to understand the Words there spoken This is a plain state of the case and one would have thought St. Pauls Discourse about Edification in the Church-Service and a known Tongue and the Primitive practice had deserved a little consideration but not a Word is said to either of them and the whole is so managed as tho there had been no Rule or any appearance of practice to the contrary But I must consider what he doth say 1. The Mass is a Sacrifice And what then Have they no other Church-Service but the Mass What then becomes of their Breviaries Litanies and all other Offices But suppose the Priests Office in the Mass be to offer the Sacrifice are there no Prayers in the Canon of the Mass wherein the people are concerned Why must not they understand what they are required to assist in Prayer for If they have English Books as he saith to teach them every part and Ceremony of the Mass why not as well the Prayers in the Mass wherein they are to join They tell us It is unseasonable then for the People to say their Beads and other Devotions And I suppose as unseasonable to talk or think of other matters Why then should not they know what it is they are to do and what Petitions they are then to make to God Are there no Responses to be made No Lessons to be read No Creed to be professed Doth not the Priest speak to the people to pray and they answer him Is there no Thanksgiving after the Communion which the people is concerned in We are as much for their Devout Affections as they can be but we think they are not hindred by understanding what they are about We cannot but wonder that any man should say That it nothing concerns his Devotion that the Mass is in Latin if he understand it not Is it no part of Devotion to join in the publick prayers not merely by rote but from a due apprehension of the matter contained in them He requires That they accompany the Priest in Prayer and Spirit And why not in understanding also But the Church hath so ordered it And that is the thing we complain of as done against St. Paul against the Primitive Church against the natural sense of Mankind who think it is fit for them to know what they do especially in the Worship of God But it is to preserve Unity Methinks however Unity in Spirit and Understanding is better than without it There are other good Reasons I know not one good one and if there were more he would have produced them The greatest part is said in a low voice that it is not possible he should hear it And to what purpose should it be spoken louder if they are not to understand it But why so low in publick Yet the people might have Books and join if they understood what was said But why should not the rest be understood which is spoken as if it were 2. As to other Offices he saith He is taught that he may perform them in a Language which he understands not with great benefit to his Soul and the acceptance of God if at those occasions he endeavours to raise his thoughts to Heaven and fix his heart upon his Maker But the Question is not Whether a Man may not have devout Thoughts at that time but whether he can perform his part in the publick Offices with true Devotion without Understanding For the publick Offices of Devotion were designed for the uniting the Hearts and Desires of the people in the same things It is not Whether one Man may not pray for Heaven and another for fair Weather and another for pardon of his Sins and a Fourth for Patience and so on in the same place and at the same time for all this may be done as well in a silent Meeting where not a Word is spoken But there being one Form of Prayer for all to join together in that with the united force of the whole Congregation their Petitions may go up to Heaven The Matter now in dispute is Whether it be not necessary in order to this united Devotion that the people all know what they pray for And one would think nothing need to be said to prove this But what our Author adds in justification of this overthrows all publick Devotion For he saith It is not necessary to have attention on the Words or on the Sense of Prayers but rather purely on God Which is to make all publick Forms unnecessary and to turn all Devotion into Prayer of Contemplation For if this be true all Forms whatsoever are not only useless but burdensom and by the stinting the Spirit do hinder the nimbler flights of the Soul in pure silence towards God And this Principle must lead men to Enthusiasms and unintelligible Unions and make them despise Forms as a mean and dull Dispensation But at last he saith A Petitioner may accompany his Petition with an earnest desire of obtaining it tho the Language in which it is written be unknown to him Very true if he indited the matter of the Petition and trusted another to put it into
in that Sacrament Sess. 14. c. 4. So that altho a Man hath led a very bad Life if he hath but this Attrition for his sins when he doth confess them he is put into a state of Grace by this Sacrament And what can any Man expect more and what can he do less I do not mean a bare natural Attrition the sufficiency whereof is condemned by Innocent XI in the same Proposition Fifty seventh but that which the Council of Trent calls Imperfect Contritiâ—n i. e. a good Motion in a Mans mind to â—orsake his Sins for fear of Punishment if really no more be required for a state of Grace but this it is no wonder if Men put off the doing of that which may be done at any time so easily by the help of a Priest 2. The Treasure of the Church is another thing which is very apt to hinder Mens speedy Repentance for by that they believe there is a stock ready of so many Merits and Satisfactions of others if duely applied to them by Indulgences that they need not be at such pains to Work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling When a Man by the Sacrament of Penance is put into a state of Grace the Eternal Punishment is discharged and nothing remains but some Temporal Pains and to ease him of these he hath many helps but especially the Treasure of the Church which the Pope hath the dispensing of as he is bound to believe and by Indulgences he may easily get off some Thousands of years of Purgatory-Pains and if these should fail him there is another help yet left which is leaving a stock for Prayers for his Soul when he dies which even our Author assures him are very available towards bis speedier release out of Purgatory p. 58. XXVIII Of FASTING THE Question here is Whether a Man doth not observe their Churches Command about Fasting who forbears all forbidden things but takes liberty in those which are not forbidden It is not Whether they may not break the Commands of God against Gluttony and Drunkenness But whether they break the Law of the Church about Fasting And notwithstanding what our Author hath said I see no Reason for the Affirmative I do not deny 1. That it is a very indifferent sort of Fasting to abstain from Flesh unless all other sorts of Excesses at the same time be carefully avoided 2. That Excesses on such days are more scandalous because there is a pretence of Fasting 3. That God's Command doth at all times sorbid Intemperance Which are the chief things he insists upon But yet this doth not reach the point which is about their Churches Command For their Casuists distinguish Fasting into 1. Natural which is total Abstinence and this is required only in order to receiving the Eucharist 2. Moral which is the same with Temperance or Fasting for Health 3. Ecclesiastical which is defined by them to be An Abstinence from Food forbidden by the Church And if this Definition be true it cannot be broken but by eating what the Church hath prohibited And therefore their Casuists as far as I can find are agreed in these things 1. That a Man may eat a full Meal of what is not forbidden and not break the Churches Precept of Fasting provided Vespers be first said And the later Casuists blame Covarrâ—vias for making any scruple about it If a Mans Excess comes to be a Mortal sin yet for all that saith Reginaldus He shall not be judged as a breaker of his Fast. Nay Lessius goes further and saith He doth not lose the Merit of Fasting Quamvis aliquis multum excedet non solvit Jejunium saith Card. Tolet. And Paulus Zacchias saith This is the common Opinion and he thinks the Intention of the Church is sufficiently answered And so doth Pasqualigus in his Praxis of Fasting 2. A Man may drink Wine or other drink as often as he pleaseth without breaking his Fast. He may toties quoties bibere saith Diana Zach. Pasqualigus who hath Written most fully on this Subject shews That it is the general Opinion that no quantity of Wine or other drink though taken without any Necessity is a violation of the Precept of Fasting no not although the Wine be taken for nourishment because the Church doth not forbid it but this last he saith is not the general but the more probable Opinion 3. A Man may eat something when he drinks to prevent its doing him hurt besides his good Meal he may take what quantity he pleases of Sweet-meats or Fruit he may have a good Refection at Night and yet not break this strict Precept of Fasting For the eating as often as one drinks it is the common Opinion saith the same Casuist who was no Jesuit That it is not forbidden because it is taken by way of a Medicine and he quotes a great number of their Casuists for it A Collation at evening is allâ—wed saith he And Lessius saith There is no certain Rule for the Quantity of it And Card. Tolet saith very large ones are allâ—wed at Rome by the Popes Connivence even in the Court of Rome saith Reginaldus And now I leave the Reader to judge of the severity of Fasting requirâ—d in the Church of Rome XXIX Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church TWO things he saith upon this Head 1. That they are all agreed in matters of Faith 2. That they only differ in some School Points from whence he infers That they have no Schisms or Separations among them But that this is no just consequence will appear by the Schisms and Separations among us made by such who profess to agree in all matters of Faith Yet let us see how he proves that they agree in all matters of Faith because they agree to submit equally to the Determinations of the Church Now this very way evidently proves that they do not all agree because they do not equally submit to the Churches determinations For 1. Some say they are bound to submit to the Churches Determinations as it represents the Universal Church Others say no but as the Churches Power is virtually lodged in the Guides of it Now this is a very material Difference For if it be on the former Account then not the Popes and Councils Declarations are to be regarded but as they express the sense of the Universal Church and so the Majority of Votes and Numbers in the Representative and Diffusive Church is chiefly to be regarded And on this Ground some reject the Deposing-Power though plainly decreed by Popes and Councils but they unhinge their Churches Authority by it Now how is it possible for them to agree about matters of Faith who differ fundamentally about the way how any things come to be matters of Faith If they be decreed by Popes and Councils say some and so the Deposing Power is become an Article of Faith No such matter say others for a greater Number in the diffusive Church oppose
it as in the Gallican Church and elsewhere Very well But how then can these Parties be said to agree in matters of Faith and an equal Submission to the Determinations of the Church 2. Some again say That it is not the consent of the present Church can make any Article of Faith but there must be an universal Tradition from the Apostles times And so they tell us the Deposing Power can never be an Article of Faith because it wants the Consent of all the Ages before Gregory VII So that upon this Ground there can be no Article of Faith which cannot be proved to be thus delivered down to us Others again say this is in effect to give up their Cause knowing the impossibility of proving particular Points in this manner and therefore they say the present Church is wholly to be trusted for the sense of the foregoing Now these differences are still on Foot in their Church and from these do arise daily disputes about Matters of Faith and the Seat of Infallibility whether in the Guides or the Body of the Church if the former whether in the Church Representative or Virtual whether the Personal Infallibilty of the Pope be a matter of Faith or not Our Author saith Not others say Yes and yet he saith they are agreed in matters of Faith So that by his own Confession they differ about other things than mere School-Points But suppose they were agreed in Articles of Faith can there be no Schisms or Divisions in their Church What thinks he of all the Schisms between Popes and Popes Of all the Schisms between the Popes and the Emperors Parties Which were as notorious and scandalous and mischievous as ever were in the World What thinks he of the Schisms between the Bishops and the Regular Orders which were as cross and peevish towards the Bishops and SecularClergy as our Dissenters themselves And among the Regular Orders what Heats and Contentions have been Not about the practice of a devout Life I assure him but about matters of Doctrine and which both Parties severally plead to be matters of Faith As in the noted Controversies of this last Age about the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin the power of Grace and the Popes Personal Infallibility and they cannot say they are as yet agreed about these things XXX Of Friars and Nuns OUR Dispute is not About the lawfulness of retiring from the World by such Persons who are rendred unfit for doing Service in it and the more they spend their time in Devotion and Contemplation so much the better But it lies in these Things 1. Whether the Perfection of a Christian State of Life lies in being cloystered up from the World or labouring to do good in it For this was the great snare made use of to draw men into it because they represented this as the most perfect state whereas according to the Doctrine and Example of Christ and his Apostles the active Life of doing good is far beyond it 2. Whether altho such a retirement be allowed it be a thing pleasing to God to tye such Persons up by indispensable Vows whatever their Circumstances may be not to alter that State of Life who either in Youth or through Force Passion or Discontent have entred into it And this may be so much rather questioned because those who assert the Pope may dispense go upon this Ground because Circumstances may alter the obligation of a Vow and when a greater good is to be attained it ceaseth to oblige which to my apprehension doth not prove the Popes Power to dispense but the dispensable Nature of the Vows themselves Whether all things of this nature being liable in continuance of time to great Degeneracy and Corruptions and the numbers of such Places being unserviceable either to Church or State it be not in the Power of the King and States of the Kingdom to dissolve and reduce them to ways more suitable to the Conveniencies of both As to what he discourses about Councils of Perfection the Distractions of the World the Corruptions of the best Things c. They reach not the main Points but are only general Topicks which we are not concerned to debate XXXI Of Wicked Principles and Practices THE Misrepresenter charges the Church of Rome with many horrid Practices as the French and Irish Massacres the Murders of Two Kings of France the Holy League the Gun-powder Treason c. And charges these as being done according to the Principles of that Church But in Answer to this he saith 1. In General That the Doctrine of it is holy teaching the Love of God and our neighbour and that none can be saved by Faith alone In which Doctrine we heartily concur with them 2. That altho many uncertain things pass for certain and false for true yet he cannot deny that all ranks and degrees of men have been corrupted among them being scandalous in their Lives wicked in their designs without the Fear of God in their hearts or care of their own Salvation This is a general Acknowledgment but no particular Answer to the things objected 3. That tbe whole Cburch is not to be charged for the sake of such villanies Very true unless some Doctrine owned in that Church gave encouragement to them As suppose any should ever have fallen into Rebellion upon the belief of the Deposing Power is not that Doctrine chargeable with the Consequences of it They are extremely to blame who charge a Church with what her Members do in direct Opposition to her Doctrine but it is quite another Case when the main Ground they alledg for their Actions is some allowed Principle in it 4. They are not accountable for the Actions of every Bishop Cardinal or Pope for they extend not their Faith beyond the Declaration of General Councils But suppose General Councils have declared such Doctrines and Popes act but according to them is not their Church then accountable for their Actions 5. There is more Praying and Fasting and receiving the Sacraments more visiting the Prisoners and the Sick more Alms-giving in any of our neighbouring Popish Towns as Paris Antwerp Gant c. than in any Ten Towns of the Reformation And is there more Charity too It doth not appear if they be as ready to censure others and admire themselves as our Author who so freely gives his Judgment about a matter it is impossible for him to know We see no reason to admire or imitate the manner of their Praying and Fasting and receiving the Sacraments for to pray without understanding to fast without Abstinence to receive a maimed Sacrament are things we do not envy them for But altho our Devotion be not so pompous and full of shew yet We may pray and fast in secret according to our Saviours Directions far more than they do however our People are mightily to blame if they do not understand what they pray for if they do not receive more of
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