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 [Page 17] 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 Charge. The PENDETS in the East-Indies are fully cleared from it, by Thevenot, as Thevenot Voy­age des Indes. p. 188. Bernier Me­moirs. Tom. 3. p. 172. well as Bernier. And it would be hard we should not allow the same to our Fellow-Christians. I do there­fore grant what our Author saith, viz. That all the ve­neration they express before Images, whether by kneeling, praying, lifting up the Eys, burning Candles, Incense, &c. is not at all done for the Image, but is wholly referr'd to the things represented, which he intends to honour by Pag. 3. these Actions. But I hope now, it is no Misrepresenting for us to say, that they do kneel, pray, lift up their Eyes, burn Candles, Incense, &c. before their Images; which is all I charge them with at present.

3. To perform these Acts before Images, without a Design to worship the Images by them, is declared, by great Divines of the Church of Rome, to be next to Heresy. The Case was this; there were before the Council of Trent, several Persons who lived in Com­munion of that Church, but by no means approved the Worship of Images, such as Durandus, Holcot, Picus Mirandula, and others. Now these Persons thought fit to comply in these External Acts, but declared they intended not to worship the Images, but the Objects be­fore them. Since the Council of Trent decreed Images were to be worshiped, this Case hath been debated by the Divines and Casuists of greatest Reputation among them; And Suarez saith, this Way of Duran­dus, Suarez in 3. part. Qu. 25. Disp. 53. is dangerous, rash, and savours of Heresy; and he [Page 18] saith further from Medina, that it was Victoria 's, Opini­on, Sect. 3. 2do. principaliter. & Sect. 5. that it was Heretical; but he adds, that his own Opinion, that Images were truly and properly to be Wor­shipped, was generally received by their Divines; and there­fore I need name no more.

4. It is granted by their Divines and Casuists, that the People in the Worship of Images may easily fall in­to Idolatry.

1. If the Worship do not pass from the Image to the thing represented. And so Aquinas himself determins, that no irrational Creature is capable of Worship, but as it hath Respect to a Rational Being. But here lies the Difficulty, how an extrinsical Relation to an Ob­ject of Worship, where the thing is confessed to de­serve none, can give any Reason, for its being proper­ly worshipped. But they all grant, if the Worship stop at the Inanimate Part, it can be no other than the Worship of Stocks and Stones.

2. If the Worship be given to the Image, which is proper to God alone. This Bellarmin is forced to grant, because the Evidence is so clear in Antiquity, that the Bellarmin. de Imag. l. 2. c. 24. Gnosticks were condemned for some Worship which they performed to the Image of Christ. Now, we cannot think that these Gnosticks were such Sots, as to take the Image of Christ to be Christ himself; and therefore whatever Worship it was, it must be Rela­tive, i. e. given to the Image for the sake of Christ re­presented by it.

3. If the People believe any Divinity to be in the Ima­ges, or put any Trust or Confidence in them, then the Concil. Triden [...]. Sess. 25. Council of Trent it self owns such to be like the Hea­then Idolaters. Now, how shall it be known when the People believe Divinity to be in Images, but by some more than ordinary Presence or Operation in or by them? by their having a greater Opinion of one Image [Page 19] than of another of the same Person? by their going long Pilgrimages to certain Images in hopes of Relief, when they might easily cause Images to represent at home?

And that such are no extravagant Imaginations, is known to all who have heard of Loretto, or Compostel­la, or other Places nearer home. I need not mention the Complaints of Polydore Virgil, Cassander, or Wi­celius to this purpose, who died all in the Communion of the Church of Rome; for the same is very lately complained of by a considerable Person in that Com­munion, who saith, The greatest part of the Devotion Moyens Surs & honestes pour la Conversion de tous les Here­tiques. To. 2. p. 115. of the People of Italy, Spain, and Portugal, consists in prostrating themselves before Images, and going in Pil­grimage to them, and hoping for Remission of their Sins by so doing. And another very lately yields, That to avoid the Peril of Idolatry, to which, he saith, the Peo­ple is evidently exposed by the use of Images, it would be necessary to take them away from the Altars, and by no means to have them allowed for the Objects of Religious Worship.

The Question now is, Whether the Council of Trent hath taken any effectual Course to prevent these Abuses? If not, what Misrepresenting is it to charge the Abuses upon the Doctrines and Practices allowed by it?

The Remedies prescribed by the Council, are these;

1. Declaring that there is no Divinity or Vertue in them for which they should be worshipped; and that no­thing is to be desired of them, nor any Trust or Confidence to be put in them.

2. Expressing their earnest desire, that if any Abuses have crept in, they may be removed.

[Page 20] But in the mean time the Council decrees, the Ima­ges not only to be useful to be set up in Churches, but to have due Honour and Worship given them there, for the sake of those they represent; as not only putting off the Hat, but falling down before them. And the Roman Catechism declares, That this Worship is very beneficial to Catechis. Rom. Part. 3. c. 2. S. 14. the People, and so much is to be told them; and that I­mages are to be in Churches, not meerly for Instruction, sed ut colantur, that they may be worshipped.

But what could the Council do more, than to desire all Abuses may be taken away; and is it not them the fault of others, and not of the Council if they be not?

I grant, the Council doth desire Abuses may be taken away, if any such be; but then it enumerates those A­buses, in Heterodox Images, in making Gain of Images, in painting them too wantonly; but besides, it doth say, that all Superstition be removed in the Sacred Use of Ima­ges; but it doth not say in the Worship of them; and so it may relate to Magick and Divination. But that the Council could not prevent, or design to prevent the Abuses mention'd in the Worship of Images, will ap­pear by these things.

1. The Council of Trent allows the highest Relative Worship to be given to them; it setting no bounds to it, so it be for the sake of the Prototypes.

2. It allows a Worship to be given to the Images themselves too; for it confirms the second Council of Nice, which decreed an inferiour Adoration to be gi­ven to them.

3. It disapproves no Customs then practised among them in the Worship of Images; which were all known, and by many complained of, both as Pilgrima­ges to them, and the carrying of them about in Proces­sion, and the solemn Consecration of them; the Form whereof is not only inserted, but inlarged in the new [Page 21] Pontifical since the Council of Trent. And it is to be observed, that in the old Pontifical, A. D. 1511. there is no Form for consecrating an Image; in that of Paul the 3d, it is inserted, but out of Durandus; but in that of Clement the 8th, it is put in more largely, and as authentically as if it had been always there. And is not this the way to reform the Worship of Images?

To come now to our Author's Reflections on the Misrepresentation he saith hath been made as to this Point.

1. A Papist represented, believes it damnable to wor­ship Stocks and Stones for Gods; to pray to Pictures or Images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, or any other Saints.

These Expressions are capable of a double sense, and therefore this is not fair Representing.

(1.) To worship Stocks or Stones for Gods, may signi­fy two things. (1.) To believe the very Stocks and Stones to be Gods. And this we do not charge them with. (2.) To give to Images made of Wood and Stone, the Worship due only to God; and so by con­struction of the Fact, to make them Gods, by giving them Divine Worship. And if they will clear them­selves of this, they must either prove that external Ado­ration is no part of Divine Worship, (notwithstanding the Scripture makes it so, and all the rest of Mankind look upon it as such, even Jews, Turks, and Infidels) or that their external Adoration hath no respect to the Images (which is contrary to the Council of Trent) or that Divine Worship being due to the Being Repre­sented, it may be likewise given to the Image. And how then could the Gnosticks be condemned for giving Divine Worship to the Image of Christ, which Bellar­mine confesses; and is affirmed by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, S. Augustin, and Damascen?

[Page 22] (2.) To pray to Images of Christ, or the blessed Vir­gin, may likewise be taken in two senses. (1.) To pray to them, so as to expect to be heard by the meer Images, and so we do not charge them with it. (2.) To pray to them, so as to expect to be rather heard by themselves for praying to them by their Images. And if this be not so, to what end are the Prayers made in the Consecration of Images, for those that shall pray be­fore them? To what purpose do so many go in long Pilgrimages to certain Images, if they do not hope to be better heard for praying there?

But he goes on, 2. He keeps them by him indeed, to keep in his mind the memory of the things represented by them. And is this all in good Truth? We will never quarrel with them, if this be true Representing. No, that he dares not say.

But, 3. He is taught to use them, p. 2. But how? by casting his Eye upon the Pictures or Images, and thence to raise his heart to the Prototypes. And is this all yet? No.

But, 4. He finds a double conveniency in the use of them. (1.) They represent at one glance; and Men may easily make good Reflections, as upon the sight of a Death's Head, or old Time painted with his Forelock, Hour-glass, and Syth. And will he undertake, that Ima­ges shall be used in Churches for no other End? Was the Picture of old Time ever Consecrated, or placed up­on the Altar, or elsewhere, that it might be worshipped? as the Roman Catechism speaks of their Images. (2.) They cure Distractions; for they call back his wan­dring Thoughts to the right Object. What is this Right Object? the Image, or the Person represented? And that must be either a Creature, or God himself. If it be a Creature, doth not this imply that it is made a Right Object of Worship? If God himself, how doth an Image cure our Distraction, in the Worship of an [Page 23] Infinite Invisible Being; when the very Image is most apt to distract our thoughts, by drawing them down from his Divine and Adorable Perfections, to the gross and mean Representations of an Image. But are we yet come to the utmost use of them? No.

But, 5. He cannot but love, honour, and respect the Images themselves, for the sake of those they represent. Will this content them? And will he promise to go no further? It is hard to part upon Terms of meer Respect and Decent Regard, where there is no encroachment upon Divine Worship. And here we are at a stand.

But he goes further. 6. And so he is come at last, to veneration before Images. And is this all? Dares he de­ny veneration to Images? When the Council of Trent hath determined it. Eis (que) venerationem impartiendam. What is this veneration before Images only? Bellarmine hath a Chapter on purpose to prove, that true and proper Worship is to be given to Images. And was he a Misre­presenter? Suarez saith, It is an Article of Faith, that Worship is to be given to them. But if the Veneration be only before them, why are they Consecrated, and set up in Places proper for Adoration?

But, 7. To satisfy any one that he is far from making Gods of his Images, he is ready to break them into a thou­sand pieces. What, a Consecrated Image? Dares he take a Crucifix from the Altar and tear it in pieces? This doth not look like the Love, Honour, and Respect he mentioned before, not to name Veneration. And I am afraid this is a strain beyond true Representing: Yet at length he hath found some pretty Parallels for the vene­ration of Images themselves; and so we are come at last to the main Point. But this is not directly owned; yet in the way of his Representing, it is fairly insinuated by his Parallels.

[Page 24] 1. A Christian loves and honours his Neighbour, be­cause he bears the Image of God in his Soul. But doth he therefore take him and set him before him when he kneels at his Devotion, to raise his Mind, and cure his Distractions? Would he set him upon the Altar, and burn Incense before him, because of the Image of God in him? Is there no difference between the Object of Christian Love, and of Divine Worship? Nor between a Spiritual Invisible Divine Image in the Souls of Men, and a Material and Corporeal Representation?

2. We may kiss and esteem the Bible, because it contains and represents to Us God's Word. But when we kiss and esteem the Bible, we remember the Second Com­mandment is in it; and we dare not break his Law, when we pretend to honour his Word. But we think there is some difference between Reverence and Respect to the Bible, and falling down before an Image. The Circumstances of the one declare it to be meer Respect, and a Religious Decency; and if the other be not ex­ternal Adoration, we know not what it is.

3. A good Preacher is loved, because he minds Men of their Duty. But what should we say to him that should therefore kneel down and say his Prayers, and burn Can­dles and Incense before him, out of a respect to his good Doctrine? Did S. Peter, or S. Paul like this, when Men would have worshipped them? A good Preacher would tell them of their Duty, as they did; and take Men off from the Worship of any Creature, animate or inanimate, and direct them to worship God alone, who made Heaven and Earth.

FOr the clear stating this Controversy, these things are to be premised.

1. We do not charge them, that they make Gods of dead Men, i. e. that they believe the Saints to be Inde­pendent Deities. For this our Author confesses were a [...]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.

[Page 26] 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 Sect. 25. 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 Pag. 4. 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.

[Page 27] 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 Wicel. in E­lencho Abusuum. saith, one of them, Salve Regina, &c. is full of [Page 28] downright Impiety, and horrible Superstition, and that others are wholly inexcusable. Lud. Vives had said, Vives in Aug. de Civit. Dti, l. 8. c. 27. 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 Entritiens de P [...]ilalethe & Philerene. Part 2. p. 160, 163, 165. 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 [Page 29] cannot find any Necessity from thence of putting this Sense upon them. I grant in one place, where it ex­plains the difference of the Invocation of God and Saints, it saith, We are to pray to God as the Giver, and to Catech. Rom. Part 4. c. 6. n. 2, 3. Saints that they would obtain things of God for us; and then it adds, the Forms differ, that to God is Miserere Nobis and Audi Nos; that to Saints is, Ora pro Nobis. Very well! And is there then no other Form owned or allowed in the Church of Rome to Saints besides this? Hold a little, saith the Catechism, for it is lawful to make use of another Form; and that is, we may pray to Saints too, Ut nostri misereantur. And how doth this now differ from that to God, but only in Number? But it adds, that the Saints are very pittiful; then surely we are encouraged to pray to them for help and pitty. Yes, saith the Catechism, we may pray to them, that being mo­ved with pity towards us, they would help us with their Favour and Intercession with God. But yet this doth not clear the Matter; for elsewhere the Roman Catechism attributes more to Saints than meer Intercession; and we may pray to them for what is in their Power: For where it undertakes to give an exact Account of the Catech. Rom. Part 3. c. 2. n. 4, 6. Cum praesint no­bis Sancti & rer [...]m nostrarum curam gerant. Bellarm. de Sanct. Beatit. l. 1. c. 20. §. deinde. Non solum ab Angells sed etiam [...] spi­ritibus beato­rum hominum Regi & Guber­narl fideles [...]i­ventes. Id. ib. c. 18. §. nos autem. Reason of Invocation [...] of Saints and Angels; it there parallels them with Magistrates under a King; and saith, they are God's Ministers in governing the Church; Invo­candi itaque sunt quod & perpetuo Deum intuentur, & Patrocinium Salutis nostrae libentissime suscipiunt. What is this Patrocinium falutis nostrae? Is it only Praying and Intercession with God? That cannot be, for it in­stances presently in deliverances by Angels, and Jacob 's praying to the Angel to bless him, and not meerly to in­tercede for him. But though this is spoken of Angels, yet from hence it infers the Invocation of Saints too. But what need we insist more on this, since they do own the Ministry of Saints as well as Angels, with re­spect [Page 30] to the Church; and do Canonize Saints for parti­cular Countries, as lately S. Rosa for Peru. And where there is such a particular Protection supposed, what incongruity is it to interpret the Form of their Prayers, according to a Doctrine so received and al­lowed? But of this more under the next Head.

2. He confesses that we are all redeemed by the Blood of Christ alone, and that he is our only Mediator of Redemp­tion; but as for Mediators of Intercession, he doth not doubt but it is acceptable with God we should have many.

I would ask concerning this Distinction, the Que­stion which Christ asked concerning John's Baptism, Is it from Heaven, or of Man? No doubt there may be such a Distinction of Mediators, if God please to make them. But who hath Authority to appoint Me­diators with him besides himself? Is it not usurping his Prerogative, to appoint the great Officers of his King­dom for him? Would any Prince upon Earth allow this, viz. when he hath absolutely declared his Plea­sure, that his own Son should present Petitions to him, that others shall take upon them to set up Masters of Requests themselves? Can any thing be plainer in the New Testament, than that God hath appointed the Mediator of Redemption, to be our Mediator of Interces­sion? John 14. 13, 14, 16, 23, 24. Heb. 7. 25. & 9. 7, 24. 1 Jo. 2. 1. And that his Intercession is founded upon his Re­demption. As the High Priest's going into the Holy of Holies to intercede for the People, was upon the Blood of the Sacrifice of Expiation, which he carried in with him. If there were no Revelation in this Matter, there might be some reason for it. But since the Re­velation is so clear in it, this Distinction looks just like the Socinians Distinction of a God by Nature, and a God by Office; which was framed on purpose to avoid the plain Texts of Scripture which called Christ God. [Page 31] So doth this look as if it were intended to avoid that clear Text, which saith, There is but one Mediator between 1 Tim. 2. 5. God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus. Which is pre­ [...]ently answered with this Distinction; although there [...]e not the least ground in that or any other Text for it.

Yes, saith our Author, Moses was such a Mediator for the Israelites; Job for his three Friends; Stephen for his Persecutors: The Romans were desired by S. Paul to be his Mediator, and the Corinthians and Ephesians; so almost every sick Person desires the Congregation to be his Mediator, that is, to be remembred in their Prayers, p. 4, 5.

But is there no difference between Men praying for one another, and desiring others to pray for them here on Earth, and an humble Invocation of the Saints in Hea­ven to be our Mediators of Intercession with God there? There is a threefold disparity in the Case.

1. Here upon Earth we converse with one another as Fellow-Creatures, and there is no danger of our having an Opinion thereby, that we are able to assist one another any other way than by our Prayers. But the Case is very different as to the Saints in Heaven, who by being addressed to there by such solemn Invo­cation, may too easily be conceived to have the Power of bestowing such Blessings upon those who call upon them.

2. Heaven is looked on by all Mankind who direct their Devotions thither, as the particular Throne of God, where he dwells, and discovers himself after ano­ther manner than he doth upon the Earth. And we are directed to pray to our Father in Heaven; where he is represented as infinitely above all his Creatures; and the great Concernment of Religion is, to keep up the apprehension of this distance between him and them. [Page 32] Now it is hardly possible to keep it up, if in the Pub­lick Offices of Religion, in the solemnest postures of Devotion, with Eyes lifted up to Heaven, they do make Addresses, both to God and to his Creatures.

3. Men are sure, when they pray to others on Earth, to pray for them, that they do no more than they can justify in point of Discretion, when they speak or write to those that can understand what their desire is; but no Man on Earth can be certain that the Saints in Heaven can do it: For it is agreed they cannot do it without Revelation, and no Man can be assured there is a Revelation; and it is not reasonable to expect it; for they pray to Saints to pray to God for them; and they cannot tell what they pray for, unless God to whom they are to prav, reveal to them what it is they must pray to him for. Is it not then the better, the safer, the wiser way, to make our Prayers to him, who we are sure is able to hear and help us; and hath promised to grant what we ask in his Son's Name? But there is no other Name, either under Heaven, or in Heaven, whereby we can be saved, or our Prayers accepted, but His alone.

But our Author saith, It is no part of his Faith, how the Saints in Heaven know the Prayers and Necessities of such who address themselves to them, p. 5.

But how comes it to be any part of his Faith, that they know them? However he doth not doubt but God can never want means of letting the Saints know them, p. 6. And is this a sufficient ground for solemn Invocation of Saints? God doth not want Means to let the Emperor of Japan know a Request any one here hath to make to him; but is this a reasonable Ground, for him at this distance to make it to him? God doth not want Means to let the Pope know what a mighty Service it would be to the Christian World, to make a wise and [Page 33] truly Christian-Reformation in the Church; but would this be a Ground sufficient for me at this Di­stance, to make a Speech to him about it? I knew a Man who understood not a word of Latin, but yet would needs go hear a Latin Sermon: some asked him afterwards, what he meant by it? and the chief Rea­son he gave was much like this, God did not want Means to let him know what the Preacher meant.

But after all, Suppose God should make known to the Saints what is desired of them; I ask, Whether this be sufficient Ground for solemn Invocation? When Socinus was not able to defend the Invocation of Christ him­self, supposing that he could know our Hearts only by Revelation. And he had nothing material to say, but only that there was a Command for it; which can ne­ver be so much as pretended in this Case.

As to what he alleadges of the Elders falling down be­fore the Lamb, having Vials full of Odours, which are the Prayers of the Saints, Apoc. 5. 8. It must be strained hard to be brough [...] to this purpose, when both Ancient and Modern Interpreters take it for a Representation of what was done upon Earth, and not in Heaven. And if it were in Heaven, Prophetical Visions were ne­ver intended for a Measure of our Duties. If the An­gels do pray for mankind, Zech. 1. 12. Doth it there­fore follow we must pray to them? But we say as the Angel did to S. John, Revel. 19. 10. in a like Case; See thou do it not: worship God.

HEre is no need of farther stating the Question; this only relating to the extraordinary Service of the Blessed Virgin. And therefore we are presently to attend his Motions.

He believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ, or that she can in any thing command him, p. 6.

But in good earnest, Is it not damnable, unless a Man thinks the Blessed Virgin more powerful than Christ? Suppose one should think her to have an equal share of Power with Christ; Is this damnable, or not? Is it not setting up a Creature equal with God?

But what thinks he then of those who have attribu­ted an universal Dominion to her, over Angels, Men, and Devils? What thinks he not only of Psalters, but of a Creed, Litany, and all the Hymns of Scripture being applied to her? All which was done by a Cano­nized S. Bonavent. Opust. Tom. 1. ad sin. Saint in their Church; and the Books printed out of the Vatican Manuscripts, and dedicated to the Pope. And there we find something more than an Ora pro nobis in the Litany; for there is Parce nobis Domi­na, Spare us, Good Lady: and ab omni malo, libera nos Domina: From all Evil, Good Lady, deliver us.

What thinks he of another Canonized Saint, who said, S. Bernardin. Sen. apud Ber­nardin. à Bustis Marial. Part. 12. Serm. 2. these two Propositions are both true, All things are subject to God's Command, even the Virgin; and All things are subject to the Command of the Virgin, even God. Was this damnable in a Canonized Saint?

[Page 35] What thinks he of the noted Hymn?

Was not this damnable? And I have not only seen it in the old Paris Missal, but Balinghem a Jesuit saith, it was Balinghem. Parnass. M [...]i [...] p. 268. in the Missals of Tournay, Liege, Amiens, Artois, and the Old Roman. I could produce many other Passages cited by him out of the old Offices to the same purpose; but I forbear.

But I cannot omit the Approbation given to the blaspemous saying of S. Bernardin by Mendoza, Mendoza. Vi­rid. Sacr. l. 2. Probl. 1, & 4. (who endeavours to prove the blessed Virgin's King­dom, not to be a Metaphorical, but a true and real King­dom). And by Salazar, another noted Jesuit, who Salazar pro Im­mac. Concept. c. 32. saith, Her Kingdom is as large as her Sons. And we have lately seen how far this Divinity is spread, for not many Years since, this Proposition was sent from Mexico;

The Son is bound, not only to hear, but to obey his Mother. And is it still damnable for to say, she com­mands him?

But our Author saith, What ever esteem they have for her, They own her still as a Creature. Is he sure of Pag. 7. that? What thinks he of another Saying, which Men­doza approves of, viz. of Christ's saying to his Mo­ther, As thou hast communicated Humanity to me, I will Viridar. Sacr. l. 2. Probl. 2. N. 11. communicate my Deity to thee. But it may be said, We are by no means to judg the sense of a Church by some Mens extravagant sayings. I grant it; but I have something considerable to reply; viz. That we may easily judg [Page 36] which way the Guides of that Church incline by this following passage. About ten years since a Gentleman of that Communion published a Book, called, Wholsome Advice to the Worshippers of the blessed Virgin; and the whole design of it, being printed in Latin and French, was to bring the People of that Church to a bare Ora La veritable Devotion envers la S. vierge E­table & Defen­du par le Pere Crasset à Paris A. D. 1679. pro nobis to the Blessed Virgin. But this was so far from being approved, that the Book was condemned at Rome, and vehemently opposed by the Jesuits in France; and a whole Volumn published against it.

Here I have reason to enquire, Whether the Virgin Mary then, according to the sense of the Church of Rome, be only a Mediatrix of Intercession or not, since so large Power and Dominion is attributed to her? And why should not her Suppliants go beyond an Ora pro nobis, if this Doctrine be received; as it must be, if the contrary cannot be endured? For that Author allowed her Intercession, and Prayer to her on that account; but he found fault with those who said she had a Kingdom Monita Salu­taria B. V. Mariae ad Cul­tores suos indis­cretos §. 3. n. 56. §. 4. divided with her Son; that she was the Mother of Mercy, or was a Co-Saviour, or Co-Redemptrix; or that she was to be worshipped with Latria; or that Men were to be Slaves to her. Now, if these things must not be touched with­out Censure and no Censure pass on the other Books; is it not ea [...]y to judg, which is more agreeable to the Spirit of the Guides of that Church?

But we have a fresh Instance of this kind at home, in a Book very lately published; Permissu Superiorum. There we are told in the Epistle, That not only the Contempla­tions of the Life and Glo­ry of Holy Ma­ry, the Mother of Jesus, A. D. 1685. Blessed Virgin is the Empress of Seraphims—the most exact Original of Practical Perfection which the Omnipotency of God ever drew; but that by innumerable Titles she claims the utmost Duty of every Christian, as a proper Ho­mage to her Greatness. What can be said more of the Son of God in our Nature? In the Book it self she is said Pag. 4. [Page 37] to be Queen of Angels, Patroness of the Church, Ad­vocate of Sinners; that the Power of Mary in the Kingdom of Jesus, is suitable to her Maternity, and Pag. 8. other Priviledges of Grace; and therefore by it she just­ly claims a Servitude from all pure Creatures. But wherein doth this special Devotion to her consist? He names several Particulars.

1. In having an inward, cordial and passionate value of the Maternity of Mary, and all other Excellencies proper to, and inseparable from the Mother of God.

2. In External Acts of Worship, of eminent Servi­tude towards her, by reason of the Amplitude of her Power in the Empire of Jesus. And can we imagine these should go no farther, than a poor Ora pro Nobis? He instances in these External Acts of her Worship. (1.) Frequent visiting holy Places dedicated to her Ho­nour. And are not those her Temples then? which Bellarmin confesses to be a peculiar part of the Worship Billarmin. de Cultu. Sanct. l. 3. c. 4. inis. due to God. And the Distinction of Basilicae cannot hold here: because he believes the Assumption of the B. Virgin; and he will not pretend to her Honour is on­ly for Discrimination. (2.) A special Reverence to­wards Images representing her Person. (3.) Perfor­ming some daily Devotions containing her Praises, con­gratulating her Excellency, or imploring her Media­tion; and by oft calling upon the Sacred Name of holy Mary, &c.

3. In having a firm and unshaken Confidence in her Patronage amidst the greatest of our inward Conflicts, and outward Tribulations; through a strong Judgment of her eminent Power within the Empire of Jesus, grounded upon the singular Prerogative of her Divine Maternity. I have not Patience to transcribe more, but refer the Reader to the Book it self; only the eighth Particular of special Devotion is so remarkable, that it [Page 38] ought not to be passed over, viz. Entring a solemn Co­venant with Holy Mary, to be for ever her Servant, Cli­ent and Devote under some special Rule, Society or Pag. 12. Form of Life, and thereby dedicating our Persons, Concerns, Actions, and all the Moments and Events of our Life to Jesus, under the Protection of his Di­vine Mother, choosing her to be our Adoptive Mother, Patroness and Advocate; and entrusting her with what we are, have, do or hope, in Life, Death, and through all Eternity. And is all this no more than an Ora pro Nobis? And it follows, Put your self wholly under her Pag. 14. Protection. What a pitiful thing was the old Collyridi­an Cake, in comparison of these special Acts of Devoti­on to her! But there are some extraordinary strains of Devotion afterwards, which it is pity to pass over. As, I will ever observe thee as my Soveraign Lady, Adop­tive Mother, and most powerful Patroness; relying on Pag. 22. thy Bowels of Mercy, in all my Wants, Petitions, and Tribulations of Body and Mind. Could any thing greater be said to the Eternal Son of God? And in the Praise:

Then follows the eighth Psalm, applied thus to her.

In the next Page, follows a Cantique in imitation of the Te Deum.

I think I need mention no more; only three things I shall observe, (1.) That this is now printed Permissis Superiorum; and we thank them for the seasonableness of it, in helping us in true Representing, what their allowed Doctrines and Practices are. (2.) That this is published English, that our People as well as theirs; may be con­vinced how far we have been from unjust charging them as to such things as these. (3.) That at the same time they plead for keeping the Bible out of the hands of the People, wherein their Discretion is so far to be com­mended, since the Scripture, and this new Scheme of Devotion, can never stand together. There being not one word in the Bible towards it, but very much against it; and the Psalms and Hymns must be burlesqu'd to found that way.

But what saith our Author to their Rosaries, where­in there are ten Ave Maries to one Pater noster; which is accounted a special piece Devotion; and great things are said of the Effects of it by Alanus de Rupe, and ma­ny others.

1. As to the Ave Maries, he saith, there is no more Dishonour to God in reciting the Angelical Salutation, than Pag. 7. in the first pronouncing it by the Angel Gabriel and Eliza­beth. [Page 40] But it may not be altogether so pertinent. But doth he really think they said the whole Ave Maria, as it is used among them? Did the Angel and Elizabeth say, Sancta Maria, Mater Dei? [...], or a pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc & in hora mortis nostrae? If not, to what purpose are they mentioned here?

2. As to the Repetition, that, he saith, is no more an idle Superstition, than David' s repeating the same words 26 times in the 136 Psalm. But what is this to the Question, why more Supplications to the Blessed Virgin, than to Alanus de Ru­pe de usu Psal­t [...]ii, l. 1. c. 6. Christ? And not one word of Answer is given to it. But Alanus de Rupe answers it roundly, Because the Bles­sed Virgin is our Mediatrix to Christ, the Mother of Mer­cy, and the special Patroness of Sinners. This is indeed true representing.

FOR the right understanding this Controversy, we are to consider,

1. That there is a due Veneration to the Bodies of Saints and Martyrs, allowed on both sides; and there is an undue Worship of them, which is disowned on both sides. The due Veneration is, a Religious De­cency to be observed towards them; which lies in avoiding any thing like Contempt or Dishonour to them, and using all such Testimonies of Respect and Decency, which becomes the Remains of Excellent Persons; provided we are satisfied of their Sincerity, without having recourse to Divine Omnipotency to prove them; which Ferrandus the Jesuit runs so much to, to prove the Truth of many Reliques, worshipped in the Church of Rome in many places at once. But that it is possible to exeeed in the Worship of true Reliques, [Page 41] even Bellarmin confesseth, who says, that God took a­way the Body of Moses, lest the People should give Di­vine Worship to it. And St. Jerom as hot as he was against Vig [...]antius, yet he utterly denied giving any De Imag. Sanct. l. 2. c. 4. Adoration to the Reliques of Martyrs. It seems then it is very possible to exceed that way.

2. The Question then is, Whether those Acts of Wor­ship which are allowed in the Church of Rome, do not go beyond due Veneration? For it is unreasonable to suppose those who give it, to believe those Reliques to be Gods; and therefore it must be such a Worship as is given to them, supposing them to be only Reliques of such Persons. The Council of Trent decrees Honour and Veneration to be given to them, but never de­termines what is due, and what not: it forbids all Ex­cesses in drinking and eating, in the visiting of Re­liques; but not a word of Excesses in worshipping of them, unless it be comprehended under the name of Superstition. But Superstition lies in something forbid­den, according to their notion of it: therefore, if there be no Prohibition by the Church, there can be no Super­stition in the Worship of them. And if they had thought there had been any in the known Practices of the Church, they would certainly have mentioned them; and because they did not, we ought in Rea­son to look on them as allowed. And yet not only Cassander complains of the great Superstition about them; but even the Walenbergii lately confess, that the Cassand. Con­sult. Art. 21. Tract. special. 4. Controv. 4. Abuses therein, have not only been offensive to us, but to themselves too.

But what saith our Representer to them?

He believes it damnable to think there's any Divinity in the Reliques of Saints, or to adore them with Divine Honour. P. 7. But what is this adoring them with Divine Honour? A true Representer ought to have told [Page 42] us what he meant by it, when the whole Controversy depends upon it. Is it only saying Mass to Reliques, or believing them to be Gods? Is there no giving Divine Honour by Prostration, burning of Incense, &c.? No­thing in expecting help from them? Yes, if it be from any hidden Power of their own. But here is a very hard Question: If a Man doth not believe it to be an in­trinsick Power in the Reliques, may a Man safely go to them, Opis impetrandae causà, as the Council of Trent saith, in hopes of Relief from them? Is it not possible for the Devil to appear with Samuel's true Body, and make use of the Relique of a Saint to a very bad end? Then, say I, no Reliques can secure Men against the Imposture of Evil Spirits, who, by God's Permission, may do strange things with the very Reliques of Saints.

But God hath visibly worked by them, saith our Au­thor, by making them Instruments of many Miracles; and it is as easie for him to do it now. P. 8, 9. This is the force of all he saith. To which I answer, (1.) It is a very bold thing to call in God's Omnipotency, where God himself hath never declared he will use his Power; for it is under his own Command, and not ours. But there is no Reason to deduce the Consequence of using it now, because he hath done it formerly. And that they may not think this is cavilling in us, I desire them Rabat. Joy de Jasenists, A. D. 1656. to read Pere Annat's Answer to the Jansenists pretended Miracle at Port Royal, viz. of the Cure wrought by one of our Saviour's Thorns. There he gives another account of such Miracles than would be taken from us. But where he saith, It is as much for the Honour of God's Name to work such Miracles now; their own Authors will tell him the contrary; and that there is no such Reason now, as in former times, when Religion was to be confirmed by them; and when Martyrs suffered upon the sole account of the Truth of it; and therefore [Page 43] their Reputation had a great Influence upon con­verting the unbelieving World. (2.) Suppose it be granted, yet it proves not any Religious Worship to be given to them. For I shall seriously ask an important Question: Whether they do really believe, any greater Miracles have ever been done by Reliques, than were done by the Brazen Serpent? And yet, altho that was set up by God's own Appointment, when it began to be worshipped after an undue manner, it was thought fit by Hezekiah to be broken in pieces. What now was the undue Worship they gave to it? Did they be­lieve the Serpent, which could neither move nor under­stand, was it self a God? But they did burn Incense to it. And did that make a God of it? Suppose Men burn Incense to Reliques; What then, are they made Gods presently? Suppose they do not, but place them upon Altars, carry them in Procession, fall down before them, with intention to shew the Honour they do them; are not these as much as burning a little Incense, which could not signifie so much Honour as the other do? and it is hard then to make the one unlawful, and not the other.

THere are two material Points under this Head which are to be examined, because he endeavours to set them off with all the advantage he can, viz. Adoration of the Host, and Transubstantiation.

FOR the true stating this Controversy, we are to observe;

1. That we do not charge those of the Church of Rome, That they believe Christ's Death and Passion to be ineffectual and insignificant, and that they have no depen­dence on the Merits of his Sufferings, or the Mercy of God for attaining Salvation; but that they are to be saved only by their own Merits and Good Works; as the Misrepre­senter saith, Pag. 12.

2. We do not charge them with denying the necessi­ty of Divine Grace in order to Merit; or with asserting that they can merit independently thereupon.

3. We do by no means dispute about the Necessity of [Page 56] Good Works, in order to the Reward of another Life; or assert that Christ's Merits will save Men without working out their own Salvation; but do firmly believe, that God will judg Men according to their Works.

The Question then is, Whether the Good Works of a just Man, as our Author expresses it, are truly merito­rious of Eternal Life? Which he affirms, but qualifies with saying, That they proceed from Grace, and that Pag. 13. through God's Goodness and Promise, they are truly meri­torious. But the Council of Trent denounces an Ana­thema against those who deny the Good Works of justified Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. Can. 32. Persons, to be truly meritorious of the increase of Grace, and of Eternal Life.

Here then lies the Point in difference, (1.) Whether such Good Works can be said to be truly meritorious? (2.) Whether those who deny it, deserve an Anathema for so doing? As to what relates to God's Acceptance and Allowance, and his Goodness and Promise, we freely own all that he saith about it; and if no more be meant, what need an Anathema about this matter? There must therefore be something beyond this, when Good Works are not only said to be truly meritorious, but we are cursed if we do not say the same.

To make any thing truly meritorious, we must sup­pose these Conditions requisite.

1. That what we pretend to merit by, be our own free Act.

2. That it be not defective.

3. That there be an Equality between it, and the Reward due to it.

4. That there be an Obligation in point of Justice, to give that Reward to him that doth it.

[Page 57] And from these Considerations, we deny that, Good Works, even of justified Persons, can be truly meritorious.

1. It is granted by themselves, That what is truly me­ritorious, must be a free Act of the Person who doth it. Now the Good Works of Justified Persons cannot Meritum est Actio libera cui Merces debetur ex justitiâ. Co­ster. Enchirid. de Merit is bo [...]. Oper. c. 7. be said to be their own free Acts, if the Power of doing them depend upon Divine Assistance, and there was an antecedent Obligation upon them to perform them: So that they can do nothing but what they are bound to, as God's Creatures; and their very Power of doing it is from the Grace of God. If Men pretended to me­rit at anothers hands by what God gives, there were some colour for it; but to merit from God himself by what he gives us, seems very incongruous. If I owe a Man an 100 l. and another knowing me unable to pay it, gives me so much to pay the Debt, this is no more In quantum homo propriâ vo­luntate facit id quod debet, me­retur apud De­um, alioquin red­dere debitum non esset mer [...]to­rum. Aquin. 1, 2. qu. 114, ar­tic. 1. resp. ad 1. than what may be called strict Payment, as to the Cre­ditor; but if the Creditor himself gives me this 100 l. to pay himself with, will any Man call this strict Pay­ment? He may call it so himself, if he pleases, but that only shews his Kindness and Favour; but it doth not look very modestly or gratefully, for the Debtor to insist upon it as true legal Payment. Just so it is in good Works done by the power of God's Grace, which we could never have done without it; and therefore such cannot be truly Meritorious.

2. What is truly meritorious must not be defective; because the Proportion is to be equal between the Act, and the Reward due to it; which being perfect, re­quires that there be no Defect in the Acts which merit it. But this can never be said of Good Works of Justi­fied Persons, that they have no Defects in them. We do not say, they are not Good Works, but they are not exact and perfect: for altho the Grace of God, as it [Page 58] comes from him, be a perfect Gift; yet as it acts upon Mens Minds, it doth not raise them to such a degree, but that they have Imperfections in their best Actions. And whatever is defective, is faulty; whatever is faulty, must be forgiven; whatever needs forgiveness, cannot be truly meritorious. But not only their Good Works are defective; but if they would merit, they ought to have none but Good Works, whereas the mixture of others renders the good uncapable of being meritorious, because there is so much to be pardoned, as takes away all claim of Merit in the good they perform. And themselves do not pretend, that Men can merit the Grace of Remission; but it is very strange that those who cannot deserve to be forgiven, should deserve to have an infinite Reward bestowed upon them.

3. There must be an exact Proportion between the Meritum se ha­bět ad praemi­um sicut preti­um ad illud quod emitur. Altisiodor. l. 3. tr. 12. Absoluta aequa­litas inter mer­cedem & me­ritum ponitur per modum Justitiae commutativae. Bell. Justif. l. 5. [...]. 14. Act and the Recompence: for to merit, is to pay a Price for a thing; and in such Acts of commutative Justice, there must be an Equality of one thing with another. But what Equality can there be between the imperfect Good Works of the best Men, and the most perfect Happiness of another World? especially when that consists in the fruition of the Beatifical Visi­on? For what Proportion can there be between our Acts towards God, and God's Acts towards the Blessed in Heaven? Let the Acts be of what Person soever, or of what Nature soever, or from what Principle soever; as long as they are the Acts of finite imperfect Crea­tures, it is impossible there should be any Equality, or exact Proportion between them and the Eternal Favour of God, which is the Reward promised.

4. Where Acts are truly meritorious, there follows an Obligation of strict Justice, to pay the Recompence due to them. But what strict Justice can there be be­tween the Creator and his Creatures, to recompence [Page 59] the Service they are bound to perform; when their very Being, Power to act, Assistance in acting, and Recompence for it, are all from his Bounty and Good­ness? But our Author would avoid all this, by saying, that though Good Works are truly meritorious; yet it is through the Merits of Christ, and as they proceed from Grace, and through his Goodness and Promise that they are so; i. e. they are truly meritorious, because it ap­pears from all these things they neither are, nor can be meritorious. For,

(1.) How come the Merits of Christ to make Good Works truly meritorious? Are the Merits of Christ imputed to those Good Works? Then those Good Works must be as meritorous as Christ's own Works; which I suppose he will not assert. Or, is it that Christ hath merited the Grace whereby we may merit? But even this will not make our personal Acts truly meritorious; and the nature of Merit relates to the Acts, and not to the Power.

(2.) How comes the Power of Grace to make them truly meritorious; when the Power of Grace doth so much increase the Obligation on our side? If it be said, That the state of Grace puts Men into a Capacity to merit: we might more reasonably infer the contrary, that it puts them out of a Capacity of meriting; because the Remission of Sins, and the Favour of God, are things for which we can never make him any Recompence.

(3.) How comes a Divine Promise to make Acts truly meritorious? For God's Promise is an Act of meer Kindness, which is very different from strict Justice: and although by the Promise God binds him­self to performance; yet how come those Acts to be more meritorious of Heaven, than the Acts of Repen­tance are of Remission of Sins? Yet none will now say, that there can be any Acts meritorious of that. [Page 60] Yet certainly there is as clear a Promise of Pardon up­on Repentance, as there is of Heaven upon Good Works: and if the Promise in the other case, doth not make Repentance meritorious of Pardon; how can it make Good Works truly meritorious of Eternal Life? But notwithstanding, we do not deny God's Fide­lity to his Promise may be called Justice; and so God, as a Righteous Judg, may give a Crown of Rightcousness 2 Tim. 4. 8. to all that follow St. Paul 's Example, without making Good Works to be truly meritorious.

1. VVE do not charge the Church of Rome, that in the power of absolving, they make Gods of Men; P. 14. as our Misrepresenter pretends.

2. We do not deny, That Christ gave to the Bishops and Priests of the Catholick Church, Authority to absolve any truly penitent Sinner from his Sins, (which he therefore needlesly proves out of Scripture) and that such Absolution is ratified in Heaven.

3. We are glad to find that our Author declares, That no Man receives benefit by Absolution, without Re­pentance from the bottom of his Heart, and real Intention of forsaking his Sins; P. 15. by which we hope he means more than Attrition.

But yet there are some things which stick with us, as to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome in this matter, which he takes no notice of.

1. That secret Confession of Sins to a Priest is made so necessary to Salvation, that an Anathema is S [...]ss. 14. Can. 6. denounced against all that deny it, when they cannot de­ny that God doth forgive Sins upon true Contrition. Forthe Council of Trent doth say, That Contrition, with S [...]ss. 14. c. 4. [Page 61] Charity, doth reconcile a Man to God before the Sacrament Lomb. l. 4. Dist. 17. Grat. de Poenit. Dist. 1. c. 90. Quidam. of Penance be actually received. But then it adds, That the desire of Confession is included in Contrition: Which is im­possible to be proved by Scripture, Reason, or Antiqui­ty. For so lately, as in the time of the Master of the Sen­tences, and Gratian (in the 12th Centurie) it was a very disputable Point, whether Confession to a Priest were ne­cessary. And it is very hard for us to understand how that should become necessary to Salvation since, which was not then. Some of their own Writers confess, that some good Catholicks did not believe the necessi­ty Greg. de Valen­tiâ de Necessit. Confess. c. 2. Maldonat. Oper. To. 2. de Poenit. c. 2, & 3. of it. I suppose the old Canonists may pass for good Catholicks; and yet Maldonat saith, That all the Interpreters of the Decrees held, that there was no Divine Precept for Confession to a Priest; and of the same Opinion he grants Scotus to have been. But he thinks it is now declared to be Heresy, or he wishes it were. And we think it is too much already, unless there were better ground for it.

2. That an Anathema is denounced against those who do not understand the words of Christ, Whose Sins ye remit, they are remitted, &c. of the Sacra­ment John 20. 23. of Penance, so as to imply the Necessity of Confession: Whereas there is no appearance in the words of any such Sense; and themselves grant, that in order to the Remission of Sins, by Baptism, (of whch St. Matthew and St. Mark speak in the Apostles S. Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Jansen. Concord Evang. c. 147 Commission) there is no necessity of Sacramental Con­fession, but a General Confession is sufficient. And from hence the Elder Jansenius concludes, ‘That the Power of Remission of Sins here granted, doth not imply Sacramental Confession.’ Cajetan yields, There Cajetan. in loc. Ed. Paris, 1540. Catharin. in Ca­jeta [...]. l. 5. p. 444. is no Command for Confession here. And Catharinus adds, That Cajetan would not allow any one Place of Scripture to prove Auricular Confession. And as to this [Page 62] particular, he denies that there is any Command for it; and he goes not about to prove it, but that Caje­tan contradicts himself elsewhere, viz. when he wrote School-Divinity, before he set himself to the study of the Scriptures. Vasquez saith, ‘That if Vasquez in 3 Part. Th. Tom. 4. Qu. 90. Art. 1. Dub. 2. Nam. 2. Greg. de Va­lent. in Thom. Tom. 4. Disp. 7. Qu. 9. Punct. 2. p 284. these words may be understood of Baptism, none can infer from them the Necessity of Auricular Confession.’ But Gregory de Valentia evidently proves, that this place doth relate to Remission of Sins in Baptism; not only from the Comparison of Places, but from the Testimonies of S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, and others.

3. That it is expressed in the same Anathema's that this hath been always the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church from the beginning. We do not deny the ancient practice, either of Canonical Con­fession, as part of the Discipline of the Church for publick Offences; nor of Confession, for ease and sa­tisfaction of the perplexed Minds of doubting or de­jected Penitents; but that which we say was not owned nor practised by the Church from the Begin­ning, was this Sacramental Confession as necessary to the Remission of Sins before God. It is therefore to no purpose to produce out of Bellarmine, and others, a great number of Citations, to prove that which we never deny; but if they hold to the Council of Trent, they must prove from the Fathers, that Sins after Baptism cannot be forgiven without Confession to Men: Which those who consider what they do, will never undertake, there being so many Testimonies of undoubted Antiquity against it. And it is obser­vable, that Bonaventure grants, that before the Late­ran Bonavent. in l. 4. Sent. Dist. 17. part. 2. Decree of Innocentius 3. it was no Heresy to deny the Necessity of Confession; and so he excuses those who in the time of Lombard and Gratian, held that [Page 63] Opinion. And all other Christians in the World be­sides those of the Church of Rome, do to this day re­ject the Necessity of Particular Confession to a Priest, in order to Remission, as the Writers of the Church of Rome themselves confess. So Godignus doth of the Abyssins; Godign. de re­bus Abassin. l. 1. c. 28. Itinerarium Ori­ [...]ntale. l. 5. c. 8. Philippus à SS. Trinitate, of the Jacobites; Clemens Ga­lanus of the Nestorians, who saith, 'They made a Decree against the use of Confession to any but to God alone. And Alexius Meneses of the Christians, of Galan. Concil. Eccles. Armenae To. 2. p. 605. of S. Thomas in the Indies. The Greeks believe Con­fession only to be of Positive and Ecclesiastical Institu­tion, as the late Author of the Critical History of the Historie Criti­que de la Cre­ance & de Cou­tums des Nati­ons du Levant. ch. 8. p. 105. Ch. 1. p. 14. Resp. 1. Jer m. Patriarch. ad Theolog. Wir­te [...]tberg. p. 87. Arcud. de Con­cord. Ecclesiae Occident. & O­rient. in 7 Sa­cram. l. 4. c. 3. Goar in Eucho­log. p. 681. Faith and Customs of the Eastern Nations, proves. And the very Form of their Absolution declares, that they do not think particular Confession of all known Sins, necessary to Pardon: for therein the Priest absolves the Penitent from the Sins he hath not confessed through forgetfulness, or shame. And now let any one prove this to have been a Catholick Tradition by Vincentius his Rules, viz. That it hath been always received, every where, and by All.

1. THey must be extreamly ignorant, who take the Power of Indulgences, to be a Leave from the Pope to commit what Sins they please; and that by ver­tue thereof, they shall escape Punishment for their Sins, without repentance in another World. Yet this is the sense of the Misrepresentation which, he saith, is made of it. And if he saith true in his Preface, That Pag. 15, 16. he hath described the Belief of a Papist, exactly accord­ing to the apprehension he had when he was a Protestant: He shews how well he understood the Matters in Dif­ference, [Page 64] when I think no other Person besides himself ever had such an apprehension of it, who pretended to be any thing like a Scholar.

2. But now he believes it damnable to hold that the Pope, or any other Power in Heaven or Earth, can give him leave to commit any Sins whatsoever; or that for any Sum of Mony, he can obtain any Indulgence or Par­don for Sins that are to be committed by him, or his Heirs hereafter. Very well! But what thinks he of obtaining an Indulgence, or Pardon, after they are committed? Is no such thing to be obtained in the Court of Rome for a Sum of Mony? He cannot but have heard of the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber for certain Sins, and what Sums are there set upon them. Why did he not as freely speak against this? This is published in the vast Collection of Tracts of Canon Law, set forth by the Pope's Authority, where there are cer­tain Rates for Perjury, Murder, Apostacy, &c. Now Tractat. Tracta­tuum. To: 15. Part. 1. f. 368. what do these Sums of Mony mean? If they be small, it is so much the better Bargain, for the Sins are very great. And Espencaeus complains, that this Book was so far from being called in, that he saith, the Pope's Espencae. in Ep. ad Tit. c. 1. degress. 2. Legats renewed those Faculties, and confirmed them. It seems then a Sum of Mony may be of some conse­quence towards the obtaining Pardon for a Sin past, though not for a Licence to commit it. But what mighty difference is there, whether a Man procures with Mony a Dispensation, or a Pardon? For the Sin can hurt him no more, than if he had Licence to com­mit it.

3. He doth believe there is a Power in the Church to grant Indulgences; which, he saith, concern not at all the Remission of Sins, either Mortal or Venial, but only of some Temporal Punishments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted. Here now arises a Material Question, [Page 65] viz. Whether the Popes, or the Representer, be ra­ther to be believed. If the Popes, who grant the In­dulgences to be believed; then not only the bare Re­mission of Sins is concerned in them, but the Plenary, and most Plenary Remission of Sins is to be had by them. So Boniface the 8th, in his Bull of Jubilee gran­ted, Non solum plenam & largiorem, imo plenissimam Bullar. Cherubin. in To. 1. p. 204. veniam peccatorum. If these words had no relation to Remission of Sins, the People were horribly cheated by the sound of them. In the Bull of Clement the 6th, not extant in the Bullarium, but published out of the Utrecht Manuscript, not only a Plenary Absolution from all Sins is declared to all Persons who died in the way to Rome; but he commands the Angels of Paradise to carry the Prorsus manda­mus Angelis Paradisi, quan­tum animam il­lius à Purgato­rio penitus ab­solutam in Pa­radisi gloriam introducant. Bulla Clem. 6. ultrajecti A. D. 1653. Gobel. Person. Cosmodr. aet. 6. c. 86. p. 278. Bellar. To. 3. p. 74. To. 4. p. 85. Soul immediatly to Heaven. And I suppose, whatever implies such an Absolution as carries a Soul to Heaven, doth concern Remission of Sins. Boniface the 9th gran­ted Indulgences, à Poenâ & à Culpâ; and those certain­ly concerned Remission of Sins; being not barely from the Temporal Punishment, but from the Guilt it self. Clement the 8th, whom Bellarmine magnifies for his care in reforming Indulgences, in his Bull of Jubilee, grants a most Plenary Remission of Sins; and Urban the 8th, since him, not only a Relaxation of Penances, but Re­mission of Sins; and so lately as A. D. 1671. Clement the 10th published an Indulgence upon the Canoniza­tion of five new Saints, wherein he not only grants a Plenary Indulgence of Sins, but upon invocation of one of these Saints in the point of Death, a Plenary Indulgence of all his Sins. And what doth this signify in the point of Death, if it do not concern the Remis­sion of Sins?

4. Indulgences, he saith, are nothing else but a Miti­gation or Relaxation, upon just Causes, of Canonical Pe­nances, which are or may be enjoyned by the Pastors of the [Page 66] Church on penitent Sinners, according to their several de­grees of Demerits. If by Canonical Penances, they mean those enjoyned by the Penitential Canons, Greg. de Valentia saith, This Opinion differs not from that of Greg. de Va­lent. de Indulg. c. 2. the Hereticks, and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things. Bellarmine brings several Arguments Bell. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 7. against this Doctrine. ‘(1.) There would be no need of the Treasure of the Church; which he had proved to be the Foundation of Indulgences. (2.) They would be rather hurtful than profitable, and the Church C. 2. would deceive her Children by them. (3.) They could not be granted for the Dead. (4.) They who receive Indulgences, do undergo Canonical Penances. (5.) The form of them doth express, that they do relate to God, and not only to the Church.’ And this, I think, is sufficient to shew how far he is from true Representing the Nature of Indulgences; for we do not dispute the Churche's Power in relaxing Canonical Penances to Pe­nitent Sinners upon just Causes.

1. HE believes it damnable to think any thing injuri­ously of Christ's Passion: But then he distin­guishes the Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin. As to the Guilt and Eternal Pain, the Satisfaction, he saith, [...] proper to Christ; but as to the Temporal Pain, which m [...] remain due by God's Justice, after the other are remitted, he saith, that Penitent Sinners may in some measure sa­tisfy for that by Prayer, Fasting, Alms, &c. p. 17.

2. These Penitential Works, he saith, are no otherwise satisfactory, than as joined and applied to Christ's Satis­faction, in virtue of which alone our good Works find a grateful acceptance in God's sight. p. 19.

[Page 67] But for right apprehending the State of the Contro­versy, we must consider;

1. That they grant both Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin, to be remitted in Baptism; so that all the Satisfaction to be made, is for Sins committed after Baptism.

2. We distinguish between Satisfaction to the Church before Absolution, and Satisfaction to the Ju­stice of God for some part of the punishment to Sin which is unremitted.

3. We do not deny that truly Penitential Works are pleasing to God, so as to avert his Displeasure; but Catech. Roman. Part. 2. c. 5. n. 52, 56. we deny that there can be any Compensation in way of equivalency, between what we suffer, and what we deserve.

The Matter in Controversy therefore on this Head, consists in these things.

1. That after the total Remission of Sins in Baptism, they suppose a Temporal Punishment to remain, when the Eternal is forgiven; which the Penitent is to satisfy God's Justice for; and without this being done in this Life, he must go into Purgatory for that End. Of which more under that Head.

2. That this Satisfaction may be made to the Justice of God, after Absolution is given by the Priest. So that although the Penitent be admitted into God's Fa­vour, by the power of the Keys, according to their own Doctrine; yet the Application of the Merits of Christ, together with the Saints in the Sentence of Ab­solution (according to their Form) do not set him so free, but he either wants a new Supply from the Trea­sure of the Church, i. e. from the same Merits of Christ and the Saints; or else he is to satisfie for the Temporal Punishment by his own Penances.

[Page 68] 3. That these penitential Works are to be joyned with the Merits of Christ, in the way of proper Sa­tisfaction to Divine Justice. And however softly this may be expressed; the meaning is, that Christ hath merited, that we may merit, and by his Satisfaction, we are enabled to satisfie for our selves. And if the Sa­tisfaction by way of Justice be taken away, the other will be a Controversy about Words.

4. That these penitential Works may not only be Catech. Rom. de Paenit. Sacr. n. 61. sufficient for themselves, but they may be so over-do­ing, that a great share may be taken from them to make up the Treasure of the Church, for the benefit of others who fall short, when they are duly applied to them in the way of Indulgences. And about these Points, we must desire greater Proof than we have yet ever seen.

1. HE believes it damnable in any one, to think, speak, or do any thing irreverently 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 Pag. 19. 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 [Page 69] 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 Scr [...]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 [Page 70] 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.

[Page 81] But 3. he denies that all persons are forbid to read the P. 21. 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, [...]gnorant presumption.

These are plausible pretences to such as search no far­ [...]her; but the Mystery of this Matter lies much deeper. [...]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; [...]nd therefore care was taken to have Translations made [...]y some of their own Body; and since the People of [...]etter Inclinations to Piety were not to be satisfied with­ [...]ut the Bible; therefore they thought it the better way [...]o permit certain Persons whom they could trust, to have License to read it: And this was the true Reason of the [...]ourth Rule of the Index Libr. prohibit. made in pursu­ [...]nce of the Order of the Council of Trent, and published [...]y Pius IV. by which any one may see it was not an Original Permission out of any good Will to the Thing; [...]ut an Aftergame to get the Bible out of the Hands of [...]e People again: And therefore Absolution was to be [...]enied to those who would not deliver them to their Or­ [...]naries when they were called for: And the Regulars [...]emselves were not to be permitted to have Bibles with­ [...]t a License: And as far as I can understand the Addi­ [...]on of Clement VIII. to that Fourth Rule, he withdraws [...]y new Power of granting such Licenses; and saith [...]ey are contrary to the Command and Usage of that [...]urch, which he saith is to be inviolably observed: Quod quidem inviolate ser­vandum est. Clem. VIII. ad Reg. 4. Indicis Roman. [...]herein I think he declares himself fully against such [...]censes: And how Inferior Guides can grant them a­ [...]inst the Command of the Head of the Church, is a thing [...]t very agreeable to the Unity and Subordination they [...]ast of.

1. WE do not charge the Church of Rome with m [...] ­king P. 21. what Additions to Scripture they thi [...] good, as the Misrepresenter saith; but we charge the [...] with taking into the Canon of Scripture such books [...] 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 Concil Tri­dent. Sess. 4. 8. Apr. de Canon Script. Anathematizing all those who do not upon this Decla [...] ­tion believe them to be Canonical; since they cannot [...] but know, that these Books never were in the Jewish [...] ­non, and were left out by many Christian Writers. A [...] if the Church cannot add to the Scripture, and [...] Author thinks it damnable to do it; how can it ma [...] any Books Canonical, which were not so received by t [...] Church? For the Scripture in this sense is the Canon; a [...] therefore if it add to the Canon, it adds to the Scripture i. e. it makes it necessary to believe some Books to be [...] infallible Authority, which were not believed to be [...] either by the Jewish or Christian Church, as appears [...] abundant Testimonies to that purpose produced by Learned Bishop of this Church; which ought to ha [...] been considered by the Representer, that he might [...] Bp. Cosins Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture. have talked so crudely about this matter.

But however, I must consider what he saith,

1. He produces the Testimony of Greg. Nazia [...] who is expresly against him, and declares but Twe [...] Greg. Nazian­zen. in Car­min, 2. Vol. p. 98. Two Books in the Canon of the Old Testament but how doth he prove that he thought these Boo [...] Canonical? He quotes his Oration on the Maccabe [...] where I can find nothing like it; and instead of it [...] Orat. de Mac. cab. vol. 1. p. 308. expresly follows, as he declares, the Book of Josephus, [...] [Page 83] the Authority of Reason concerning them. So that if [...]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 Ambros de Jacob & Vi [...]ae Erat l. 2. c. 10, 11, 12. Cocci. Thes. Catho. l. 6. Act 18. Place he refers to, inlarges on the Story of the Maccabees, [...]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 Scholastical History, n. 83. 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 [...]est out; and this was received in the Code of the Uni­ [...]ersal Church; which was as clear a Proof of the Canon Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. Orig. pref. in Psal. Athan. in Sy­nopsi. Hilar. pref. in Psal. St. Cyril. Ca­tech. 4. Epiph. haer. 8. 76. Basil. Philocal. c. 3. Amphil. Epist. Canon. ad Seleuc. Chrys. hom. 4. in Gen. Scholastical History. n. 71. [...]hen generally received, as can be expected. It is true, the Council of Carthage took them in; and St. Augustine seems [...]o be of the same Opinion: But on the other side they [...]re left out by Melito Bishop of Sardis, who lived near [...]he Apostles times; Origen, Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, St. Basil, Amphilochius, St. Chrysostom, and especially St Jerom, who hath laboured [...]n this point so much, that no fewer than Thirteen Places [...]re produced out of him to this purpose, by the fore­mentioned Learned Bishop of our Church, who clearly [...]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 P. 22. [...]nly ask whether it be of any concern to him, [Page 84] 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 afte [...] 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 oug [...] 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 Church [...] P. 23. Declaration, that of Innocentius, and the Council of Ca­thage? Then the same Bishop hath shewed him, th [...] since that time, there have been very many, both [...] the Greek and Latin Church of another Opinion. An [...] but a little before the Council of Trent, Catharinus saith that a Friend of his, and a Brother in Christ, deride Cathar. Adv. Cajet. p, 48. ed. Paris 1535. him as one that wanted Learning for daring to assert the [...] Books were within the Canon of Scripture; and it's plain, Card. Cajetan could never be perswaded of it: B [...] if he means since the Council of Trent, then we are [...] ­turned to our first Difficulty, how such a Council c [...] make any Books Canonical, which were not received [...] such by the Catholick Church before? For then they [...] not declare the Canon, but create it.

1. WE do not dispute about the Vulgar Editi [...] whether it may not be prefer'd before mo­dern P. 24, 25. Latin Editions because of its great Antiquity in som [...] [Page 85] 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, In hac Vul­gata Editione visa sunt non­nulla mutan­da, quae con­sulto mutata non sunt. Clem. VIII. in Bullâ. 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 Luc. Brugens. in variis Lect. of it?

2. Our Controversy is not so much about the Autho­rity Nat. Alexand: dissert. de vulg. vers. Quaest. 6. 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 P 26. 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.

THE only thing insisted on here is, That it is not P. 27. 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. [Page 87] 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.

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 P. 29. 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 [Page 88] 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 P. 29. 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.

[Page 89] 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 Controv. 5. Qu. 4. art. 2. I do not think our Author will therein follow him.

1. THE Question is not about Human Traditions sup­plying P. 30, 31. 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 2 Thes. 2. 13. they delivered in Writing, and what it is now impossible for us to know; viz. what they delivered by Word with­out Writing.

3. We see no ground why any one should believe any P. 37. 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 [Page 90] 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 P. 32. 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.

1. WE are glad to find so good a Resolution as seems P. 33. 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.

[Page 91] 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 P. 33. do.

1. HE doth not pretend this belongs to the Pastors and P. 36. 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.

[Page 92] 2. The like Assistance of the Holy Ghost he believes P. 38. 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 P. 38. 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 [Page 93] 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 P. 39. 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 2 Chron. 15. 3. 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 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. P. 39. [Page 94] But St. Chrysostom saith, our Saviour speaks of the things Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. 72. commanded by the Law of Moses. Per Cathedram Doctri­nam Legis ostendit, saith S. Jerom; Not their own Doctrine, Hieron. in loc. Caten. Gr. in loc. Hilaer. Canon. 24. Theophilact. in loc. 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 Matt. 15. 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.

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 [Page 95] in the Adoration after his Election, when the new Cerem. Sect. 1. c. 2. 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 P. 40. 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 P. 41. 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 Matt. 16. 18. 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, Chrysost. hom. 1. in Pentec. Tom. 5. ed Savil. p 979. Ambros de Incarnat. Dom. Sacramento c. 5. Aug. de verbis Dom. ad Evang. secund. Matth. Serm. 13. Tract. in Joh. 124. Basil. Seleuc. Orat. 25. ad fin. Hilar. de Trinit. l. 6. Greg. Nyssen de Advent. Domini cap. ult. Theodoret Epist. 77. 146. S. Basil of Selucioe, S. Hilary, S. Gregory Nyssen, and Theodoret; all great and considerable Persons in the [Page 96] 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 Matt. 16. 19. Kingdom of Heaven, are interpreted by the Fathers of S. Peter in common with the other Apostles; so Origen, S. Orig. Com­ment. in Matt. Gr. Lat. p. 275. Cyprian. de Unit. Ecclesiae. Hilar. de Tri­nit. 1. 6. Hier. c. Jovin. l. 1. c. 14. in Matt. 16. Aug. in Joh. Tr. 118. 124. in Epist. Joh. To. 10. Moyens su [...] & honestes, &c. p. 34, &c. Entretiens de Philaleth. in Phile [...] p. 121. Joh. Launoi. Epist. part. 5. Reim. For­mentino, & Part. 2. Ep. 5. p. 47, &c. 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 [Page 97] of Assistance is promised to the Pope in his Decrees. P. 42. 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 Instance of Caiaphas, Joh. 11. 51. This is a very surprizing way of Reasoning; for if his Arguments be good from Scripture, he must hold the Popes personal Infallibity as a matter of Faith; and yet one would hardly think he should build an Ar­ticle of Faith on the instance of Caiaphas: For what consequence can be drawn from Gods over-ruling the mind of a very bad man, when he was carrying on a most wicked design, to utter such words, which in the event proved true in another sense than he meant them; that therefore God will give a special As­sistance to the Pope in determining matters of Faith? Was not Caiaphas himself the man who proposed the taking away the Life of Christ at that time? Was he assisted in that Council? Did not he determine after­wards Christ to he guilty of Blasphemy, and therefore worthy of Death? And is not this a rare Infallibility which is supposed to be consistent with a Decree to cruci­fie Christ? And doth he in earnest think such Orders are to be obeyed, whether the supreme Pastor be Infallible or not? For so he concludes, That his Sentence is to be obey­ed, whether he be infallible or no?

HERE the Misrepresenter saith, That a Papist be­lieves that the Pope hath Authority to dispense P. 43. with the Laws of God, and absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments. On the other side, the Representer affirms, That the Pope has no [Page 98] Authority to dispense with the Law of God, and that there's no Power upon Earth can absolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Commandments: This matter is not to be determined by the ones affirming, and the others denying; but by finding out, if possible, the true sense of the Church of Rome about this matter. And there are Three Opinions about it.

1. Of those who assert, That the Pope hath a Power of Dispensing in any Divine Law, except the Articles of Faith: The Gloss upon the Canon Law saith, That where De Concess. Praebend. è proposuit. Abb. c. propo­suit de Conc. Praebend. c. 15. Q. 6. c. Auctoritate the Text seems to imply, that the Pope cannot dispense against the Apostle, it is to be understood of Articles of Faith: And Panormitan saith, This Exposition pleases him well; for the Pope may dispense in all other things: Contra Apostolum dispensat, saith the Gloss on the Decree: And the Roman Editors in the Margin, refer to 34 Dist. c. Lector to prove it: And there indeed the Gloss is very plain in the Case, sic ergo Papa dispensat contra Apostolum: And the Roman Correctors there justifie it, and say it is no absurd Doctrine as to positive Institutions: But the former notable Gloss, as Panormitan calls it, sets down the particulars wherein the Pope may dispense. As 1. Against Sum. Angelic. v. dispensatio. the Apostles and their Canons. 2. Against the Old Te­stament. 3. In Vows. 4. In Oaths. The Summa An­gelica saith, the Pope may dispense as to all the Precepts of the Old Testament. And Clavasi [...] founds this Power upon the Plenitude of the Popes Power, according to that Expression in the Decretal mentioned, that he can, ex plenitudine Potestatis de Jure supra Jus dispensare; and Jacobat. de Conciliis l. 5. p. 215. without such a Power, he saith, God would not have ta­ken that care of his Church, which was to be expected from his Wisdom. Jacobatius brings several Instances of this Power in the Pope, and refers to the Speculator for more. Jac. Almain saith, That all the Canonists are of Almain. de Potest. Eccle­siae c. 13. Opinion, that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle, and many of their Divines, but not all: For,

[Page 99] 2. Some of their Divines held that the Pope could not dispense with the Law of God, as that implies a proper Relaxation of the Law, but could only Authoritatively declare that the Law did not oblige in such a particular Case; because an Inferior could not take away the force of a Superiors Law; and otherwise there would be no fixed and immutable Rule in the Church; and if the Pope might dispense in one Law of God, he might dis­pense in the rest: And of this Opinion were some of the most eminent School-Divines, as Thomas Aquinas, Catharin. c. Cajetan. 6. p. 524. Bonaventure, Major, Soto, and Catbarinus, who at large debates this Question, and denies that the Pope hath any Power to dispense with Gods Law: But then he adds, that the Pope hath a kind of Prophetical Power to declare in what Cases the Law doth oblige, and in what not; which he parallels with the Power of declaring the Canon of Scripture; and this he doth not by his own Authority, but by Gods; He confesseth the Pope cannot dispense with those Precepts which are of themselves in­dispensable; nor alter the Sacraments; but then, saith he, there are some Divine Laws, which have a general force, but in particular Cases may be dispensed with; and in these cases the Law is to be relaxed, so that the Relaxa­tion seems to come from God himself: But he confesses this Power is not to be often made use of; so that he makes this Power to be no Act of Jurisdiction, but of Prophetical Interpretation, as he calls it; and he brings the Instance of Caiaphas to this purpose: And he adds, that the difference between the Divines and Canonists was but in Terms; for the Canonists were in the right as to the Power, and the Divines in the manner of ex­plaining it.

3. Others have thought this too loose a way of ex­plaining the Popes Power, and therefore they say, That the Pope hath not a bare declaratory Power, but a real [Page 100] Power of dispensing in a proper sense in particular Cases: For say they, the other is no act of Jurisdiction, but of Discretion, and may belong to other men as well as to the Pope; but this they look on as more agreeable to the Popes Authority and Commission; and a bare decla­ratory Power would not be sufficient for the Churches Necessity; as Sanchez shews at large, and quotes many Authors for this Opinion, and Sayr. more; and he saith the Practice of the Church cannot be justified without it: Which Suarez much insists upon; and without it, he Sanchez. de Matrim l. 8. Disp. 6. n. 5. Sayr. Clavis Reg. l. 6. c. 11. Suarez. de vot. l. 6. c. 9. n. 7. 8, 9, 17. saith, the Church hath fallen into intolerable Errors; and it is evident he saith, the Church hath granted real Dis­pensations, and not meer Declarations. And he founds it upon Christs Promise to Peter, To thee will I give the Keys, and the Charge to him, Feed my sheep. But then he explains this Opinion, by saying that it is no formal Dispensation with the Law of God, but the matter of the Law is changed or taken away.

Thus I have briesly laid together the different Opini­ons in the Church of Rome about this Power of dispen­sing with the Law of God; from which it appears, that they do all consent in the thing, but differ only in the manner of explaining it.

And I am therefore afraid our Representer is a very unstudied Divine, and doth not well understand their own Doctrine, or he would never have talked so boldly and unskilfully in this matter.

As to what he pretends, that their Church teaches that every Lye is a Sin, &c. it 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 [Page 101] 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 P. 45. 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 Doct [...] 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?

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 P. 46. 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,

[Page 102] 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, P. 29. 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 P. 34. 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 P. 40, 41. 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.

[Page 103] 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, Discussio De­creti Magni Concil. Late­ran. p. 89. 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. P. 90, &c.

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 [Page 104] 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 well err in any other Do­ctrine, and so Men are not bound to believe or obey it.

7. That Princes and all Laymen have just Cause to withdraw from their Church; because it shewed it self to be governed by a spirit of Ambition, and not by the Spirit of God; and not only so, but they may justly pro­secute all that maintain a Doctrine so pernicious to Go­vernment, if it be not true.

Let us now see what our Author saith to clear this from being a Doctrine of the Church of Rome.

1. That for the few Authors that are abettors of this Do­ctrine, there are of his Communion Three times the number that publickly disown all such Authority.

[Page 105] If this be true, it is not much for the Reputation of their Church, That there should be such a number of those who are liable to all these dreadful Consequences, which Lessius urges upon the deniers of it: But is it possible to believe there should be so few followers of so many Popes, and Seven General Councils, owned for such by the dis­owners of this Doctrine, except the Lateran under Leo Discuss. Discuss. Part 3. Sect. 3. p. 1. 10.? The poor Eastern Christians are condemned for He­reticks by the Church of Rome, for refusing to submit to the Decrees of One General Council, either that of Ephe­sus, or of Chalcedon: And they plead for themselves, That there was a misinterpretation of their meaning, or not right understanding one another about the dif­ference of Nature and Person, which occasioned those Decrees. I would fain know, whether those Churches Philip. a SS. Trinir. Itiner. Orient. l. 5 c. 5. Clem. Galau. Concil. Eccl. Arm. Qu. 2. SS. [...]. p. 92. which do not embrace the Decrees of those Councils, are in a state of Heresie or not? If they be, then what must we think of such who reject the Decrees of Seven General Councils, one after another, and give far less probable accounts of the Proceedings of those Councils in their Definitions, than the other do?

2. He saith, Those who have condemned it, have not been in the least suspected of their Religion, or of denying any Article of Faith. Let any one judg of this by Lessius his Consequences: And the Author of the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance saith in plain Terms, That the Opinion that the Pope hath no such Power, is Jesuits Loyal­ty, first Trea­tise, p. 1, &c erroneous in Faith, as well as temerarious and impious; And he proves it by this substantial Argument; Because they who hold it, must suppose that the Church hath been for some time in a damnable Error of Belief, and Sin of Practice: And he not only proves that it was defined by Popes and Councils, but for a long time universally received; and that no one Author can be produced before Calvins time, that denied this Power [Page 106] absolutely, or in any case whatsoever. But a few Authors A Professor of Lovain, now living, hath undertaken to see [...], that the number is far greater of those who assert this Doctrine, than of those who deny it. Auctoritas se­dis. P. 47, 48. Apostolicae vindicata ad­versus Natal. Alexand. per Francisc. D. Erast. Colon. A. D. 1684. that are Abettors of it, saith our Representer: Not one total Dissenter for a long time, saith the other: And which of these is the true Representer? The deniers of it not in the least suspected of their Religion; saith one: Their Opinion is erroneous in Faith, temerarious and impious, saith the other.

3. If we charge their Church with this Opinion, may not they as well charge ours with the like; since Propo­sitions as dangerous were condemned at Oxford, July 26. 1683. as held not by Jesuits, but by some among our selves? This is the force of his Reasoning: But we must desire the Reader to consider the great disparity of the Case. We cannot deny, that there have been men of ill Minds, and disloyal Principles, Factious and Disobedient, Enemies to the Government, both in Church and State; but have these Men ever had that Countenance from the Doctrines of the Guides of our Church, which the De­posing Doctrine hath had in the Church of Rome? To make the Case parallel, he must suppose our Houses of Convocation to have several times declared these damna­ble Doctrines, and given Encouragement to Rebels to proceed against their Kings, and the University of Oxford to have condemned them; for this is truly the Case in the Church of Rome; the Popes and Councils have own­ed, and approved, and acted by the Deposing Principle; but the Universities of France, of late years, have con­demned it. How comes the Principles of the Regicides among us to be parallel'd with this Doctrine, when the Principles of our Church are so directly contrary to them; and our Houses of Convocation would as readily con­demn any such damnable Doctrines, as the University of Oxford? And all the World knows how repugnant such Principles are to those of the Church of England; and none can be Rebels to their Prince, but they must be false to our Church.

[Page 107] As to the Personal Loyalty of many Persons in that Church, as I have no Reason to question it, so it is not proper for me to debate it, if I did; since our business is not concerning Persons, but Doctrines; and it was of old observed concerning the Epicureans, That tho their Principles did overthrow any true Friendship, yet many of them made excellent Friends.

FOR our better proceeding in this Controversie, I shall set down the State of it as clearly as I can.

1. The Question is not, Whether the first Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist by Jesus Christ, were in one Kind, or two; for all confess it was under both Kinds.

2. It is not, Whether both Kinds are not still necessary for the due Celebration of it; for it is granted that both Kinds are necessary to be upon the Altar, or else there could be no compleat Sacrifice.

3. It is not, Whether the People may be wholly exclu­ded from both Kinds, and so the Sacrifice only remain; for they grant that the People are bound to communi­cate in one Kind.

4. It is not concerning any peculiar and extraordina­ry Cases, where no Wine is to be had, or there be a par­ticular Aversion to it, or any such thing, where positive Institutions may be reasonably presumed to have no force; But concerning the publick and solemn Celebration, and participation of it in the Christian Church.

5. It is not concerning the meer disuse or neglect of it, But concerning the lawfulness of Excluding the People from both Kinds, by the Churches Prohibition, notwith­standing the Institution of it by Christ in both Kinds, with a Command to keep up the Celebration of it to his Second Coming.

[Page 108] Here now consists the point in Controversie, Whether the Church being obliged to keep up the Institution in both Kinds, be not equally obliged to distribute both as our Saviour did, to as many as partake of it? Our Au­thor not denying the Institution, or the continuance of it, saith, Our Saviour left it indifferent to receive it in one Kind, or both. And that is the point to be examined.

1. He saith, Christ delivered it to his Apostles, who only were then present, and whom he made Priests just before; yet he gave no command that it should be so received by all the Faithful.

But were not the Apostles all the Faithful then present? I pray in what capacity did they then receive it? As Priests? How did they receive the Bread before the hoc facite? As Priests or as faithful? It is ridiculous to sup­pose the hoc facite changed their capaciy; and if it did, it only relates to consecrating, and not to receiving: but if Christ gave it only to the Apostles as Priests, then for all that I can see, the People are not at all concerned in one kind or other; but it was intended only for Priests: If the People be concerned, how came they to be so? Where is there any command but what refers to the first Institution? And it had been more plausible, according to this Answer, to exclude the People wholly, than to admit them to one Kind, and to debar them the other.

2. Christ attributes the obtaining Life Everlasting, the end of the Institution, sometimes to receiving under both Kinds, sometimes under one, John 6. 51, 57, 58. He could not easily have thought of any thing more against him­self; for our Saviour there makes it as necessary to drink his Blood, as to eat his Flesh, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, a [...] drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you: If this be under­stood S. John 6. 51. of the Sacrament, as he saith, how is it possibl [...] for him to make the Cup indifferent? Unless it be ind [...] ferent whether the People be saved or not.

[Page 109] 3. Christ himself administred the Sacrament to some of his Disciples under one kind only, Luke 24. 30. But is he sure Christ did then administer the Sacrament to them? Or that if he did, the Cup was not implied, since breaking of Bread, when taken for an ordinary Meal in Scripture, doth not exclude drinking at it? But S. Au­gustin, he saith, (l. 49. de Consensu Evangel.) understands that place of the Sacrament. If he doth, it cannot be where he saith; for S. Augustin wrote but Four Books of that Subject; but l. 3. 25. he doth say something towards it; yet S. Augustin in another place supposes that these Disciples did both eat and drink. The Disciples did not know him, but in the breaking of Bread; and truely he that Tract. 2. in Epist. S. Joh. doth not eat and drink Judgment to himself, doth in the breaking of Bread own Christ. Where it is plain, that he applies both, to the breaking of Bread here spoken of.

4. He saith, it was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to give it under one kind to Children, the Sick, and to Men in a journey. I would he had produced his Authorities to prove these things; for I can bring several to prove the direct contrary as to Children, and Sick per­sons, and Travellers, and not only Ancient Writers, but the most Learned of their own Church. And therefore I cannot but wonder to find him saying, This was attested by all Ancient Writers, and Modern Historians. But I have ever found those have been most mistaken, who pro­duce all Writers and Historians; when it may be, there is not one that speaks home to the business. At least, we have here none mentioned, and therefore none to ex­amin; and it would be too hard a task to search All.

5. He adds to this extravagancy, in saying, That Re­ceiving in one or both kinds, was indifferent for the first Four hundred years; when the contrary is so manifest, that the most ingenuous of their own Writers consess it. If any persons did carry home one kind (which is very [Page 110] questionable; for Baronius and Albasinoeus say, they car­ried both Kinds) to receive it in times of Persecution, at what season they thought fit afterwards; This ought not to be set up against the general and constant Rule of the Church; which is attested, not only by Cassander and such like, but even by Salmero, Ruardus, Tapperus, and Lindanus, who make no scruple of saying, The pub­lick Celebration in the Primitive Church was in both Kinds. But then, how is it possible for us to judge bet­ter, what they thought themselves bound to do, than what they constantly observed in all their publick Cele­brations? The Church is not accountable for the parti­cular Fancies or Superstitions of Men; but what was ob­served in all publick Offices, we have reason to think the Church thought it self obliged so to do, out of regard to the Institution of Christ. And to shew how Universal this Observation was in the Church, those who give ac­count of the Eastern Church say, That the Greeks, Nesto­rians, Cotovic. Itiner. Hierosolymit. l. 2. c. 6. Histoir. Cri­tique, p. 14. Armenians, Maronites, Cophtites and Abyssins, do all observe it still, viz. That the publick Communicants do partake of both Kinds. And not one of all these Churches but think themselves bound to observe it, out of regard to the Institution of Christ; and why then should any think the Primitive Church thought it indifferent?

6. The first Precept of receiving under both Kinds, was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo, A. D. 443. and con­firmed by Gelasius, A. D. 490. This is a great mistake, for Leo gave no Precept about it; but only told the peo­ple how they might certainly discover the Manichees, for they would conform in other things, but they would not taste of the Wine: which argued, that all other Commu­nicants did then partake in both Kinds. Gelasius not only confirms the Custom then used, but he saith, That it is Sacriledge to divide that Holy Mystery. And surely he did not account Sacriledge an Indifferent thing.

[Page 111] 7. Lastly he saith, That those who receive in one Kind, P. 52. are truely partakers of the whole Sacrament. This is a new way of Concomitancy; we used to hear of Whole Christ under either species, and that Whole Christ was therefore received; But how comes it to be the whole Sacrament, which consists of two distinct Parts? And if it be a Sa­crifice, the Blood must be separated from the Body, else the Blood of Christ is not considered as shed, and so the Notion of the Sacrifice will be lost; Which is our next Head.

UNder this Head, which is thought of so great Conse­quence in the Roman Church, I expected a fuller Representation than I here find; as about the Opus Opera­tum, i. e. how far the meer Act is effectual; About their Solitary Masses, when no Person receives but the Priest; About the People having so little to do, or under­stand, in all the other parts of the Mass; About the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass, how useful and important they are; About reconciling the present Canon of the Mass, with the present Practises; About offering up Masses for the honour of Saints. All which we find in the Council of Trent, but are omitted by our Representer; Who speaks of the Mass, as though there were no Controversy about it, but only concerning the Sacrifice there supposed to be offered up, and which he is far from true Representing: For the Council of Trent not only affirms a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice to be Sess. 22. cap. [...]. can. 1, 2, 3, &c. there offered up for the quick and dead, but denounces Anathema's against those that deny it. So that the Que­stion is not, Whether the Eucharist may not in the sense of Antiquity be allow'd to be a Commemorative Sacrifice, as it takes in the whole Action; but whether in the Mass [Page 112] there be such a Representation made to God of Christ's Sacrifice, as to be it self a true and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead?

Now, all that our Representer saith to the purpose, is,

1. That Christ bequeathed his Body and Blood at his last P. 53. Supper, under the Species of Bread and Wine, not only a Sacrament, but also a Sacrifice. I had thought it had been more proper to have offered a Sacrifice, than to have be­queathed it. And this ought to have been proved, as the Foundation of this Sacrifice, viz. That Christ did at his last Supper offer up his Body and Blood, as a Propitiato­ry Sacrifice to God. And then what need his suffering on the Cross?

2. He gave this in charge to his Apostles, as the first and chief Priests of the New-Testament, and to their Successors, to offer. But Where? When? and How? For we read no­thing at all of it in Scripture. Christ indeed did bid them do the same thing he had there done in his last Supper. But did he then offer up himself, or not? If not, How can the Sacrifice be drawn from his Action? If he did, it is im­possible to prove the necessity of his dying afterwards.

3. This Sacrifice was never questioned till of late years. We say, it was never determined to be a Propitiatory Sa­crifice, till of late. We do not deny the Fathers interpret­ing Mal. 1. 11. of an Offering under the Gospel; but they generally understand it of Spiritual and Ecclesiasti­cal Eucharistical Sacrifices; and although some of them, by way of Accommodation, do apply it to the Eucharist, yet not one of them doth make it a Propitiatory Sacrifice, which was the thing to be proved: For, we have no mind to dispute about Metaphorical Sacrifices, when the Council of Trent so positively decrees it to be a True, Proper, and Propitiatory Sacrifice.

HEre our Author begins with proving from Scripture and Antiquity, and then undertakes to explain the Doctrine of Purgatory from substantial Reasons.

1. As to his Proof from Scripture.

1. Is that from 2 Maccab. c. 12. where he saith, Money was sent to Jerusalem, that Sacrifices might be offered for the slain; and 'tis recommended as a Holy Cogitation, to pray for the dead.

To this, which is the main foundation of Purgatory, I answer, 1. It can never prove such a Purgatory as our Author asserts; For he supposes a Sinner reconciled to God, P. 57. as to eternal Punishment, before he be capable of Purgatory; but here can be no such supposition; for these Men died in the sin of Achan, which was not known till their Bo­dies were found among the slain. Here was no Confes­sion, or any sign of Repentance, and therefore if it proves any thing, it is deliverance from Eternal Punishment, and for such as dye in their Sins without any shew of Repen­tance. 2. We must distinguish the Fact of Judas from the interpretation of Jason, or his Epitomizer. The Fact of Judas was according to the strictness of the Law, which required in such Cases a Sin-Offering; and that is all which the Greek implies, [...]. And so Leo Allatius confesses Leo Allat. de Purgat. p. 889. all the best Greek Copies agree; and he reckons Twelve of them. Now what doth this imply, but that Judas remembring the severe punishment of this Sin in the Case of Achan, upon the People, sent a Sin-offering to Jerusa­lem? But saith Leo Allatius, It was the sin of those men that were slain. I grant it. But the Question is, Whe­ther the Sin-offering respected the dead or the living? For the Law in such a Case required a Sin-offering for the Levit. 4. 13. [Page 114] Congregation. And why should not we believe so pun­ctual a Man for the Law, as Judas, did strictly observe it in this point? But the Author of the Book of Maccha­bees understands it of those that were slain. I do not deny it; but then 3. We have no Reason to rely upon his Au­thority in this matter; which I shall make appear by a parallel Instance. He doth undoubtedly commend the fact of Razias in Killing himself (2. Macc. 14. 42.) when he saith he did it [...], like a brave Man; and if he had thought it a fault in him, he would never have given such a Character of it, but he would have added something of Caution after it. And it is no great advan­tage to Purgatory, for him that commends Self-murder to have introduced it. The most probable account I can give of it is, That the Alexandrian Jews, of whose num­ber Jason of Cyrene seems to have been, had taken in several of the Philosophical Opinions, especially the Pla­tonists, into their Religion, as appears by Philo; and Bel­larmin Bellar. de Pur­gat. l. 1. c. 8. himself confesses, that Plato held a Purgatory; and they were ready to apply what related to the Law, to their Platonick Notions. So here the Law appointed a Sin-offering with respect to the Living; but Jason would needs have this refer to the dead; and then sets down his own remark upon it, That it was a holy cogitation to pray for the dead; as our Author renders it. If it were holy with respect to the Law, there must be some ground for it in the Law. And that we appeal to: and do not think any particular Fancies sufficient to introduce such a Novelty as this was; which had no Foundation eithe [...] in the Law or the Prophets. And it woul be strange for a new Doctrine to be set up, when the Spirit of Pro­phecy was ceased among them. P. 55.

But S. August. hold these Books for Canonical, and saith, they are so received by the Church, l. 18. de Civit De [...]. To answer this, it is sufficient to observe, not only the different opinions [Page 115] of others before mentioned as to these Books: But that as Canus notes, it was then lawful to doubt of their Authori­ty: Can. l. 2. c. 10. ad 4. And he goes as low as Gregory I. Whom he denies not to have rejected them. And I hope we may set the Au­thority of one against the other; especially when S. Au­gust in himself, being pressed hard with the fact of Razias, confesses, 1. That the Jews have not the Book of Maccha­bees Aug. c [...]nt 2d. Epist. Gaudent l. 2. c. 23. in their Canon, as they have the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to whom our Lord gave Testimony as to his Witnesses. Which is an evident Proof, he thought not these Books sufficient to ground a Doctrine upon, which was not found in the other. 2. That however this Book was not unprofitably received by the Church, if it be soberly read and heard. Which implies a greater Caution than S. Augustin would ever have given, concerning a Book he believed truely Canonical. But saith Bellarmin, his mean­ing De Purgat. l. 1. c. 3. is only to keep men from imitating the Example of Razi­as; whereas that which they pressed S. August in with, was not meerly the Fact, but the Character that is given of it. Sanctarum Scripturarum Auctoritate laudatus est Razias, are their very Words in S. Augustin. And therefore the Cau­tion relates to the Books, and not meerly to his Example. And he lessens the Character given by the Author, when he saith, He chose to dye nobly; It had been better, saith he, to have died humbly. But the other is the Elogium given in the Heathen Histories, and better becomes brave Heathens, than true Martyrs. Can any one now think S. Augustin believed this Writer Divinely inspired, or his Doctrine sufficient to ground a point of Faith upon? And I won­der they should not every jot as well commend Self-Mur­der as an Heroical Act, as prove the Doctrine of Purga­tory from these words of Jason, or his Epitomizer. For the Argument from the Authority of the Book, will hold as strongly for one as the other. And yet this is the Achilles for Purgatory; which Natalis Alexander (whom [Page 116] our Author follows in this matter) saith, is a Demonstra­tive Natal. Alex. Sec. 4. Diss. 4. Place against those that deny it. But I must pro­ceed.

2. Purgatory is plainly intimated by our Saviour, Matt. 12. 32. Whosoever speaketh against the Holy-Ghost, it shall P. 56. not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. By which words, Christ evidently supposes, that some sins are forgiven in the world to come. I am so far from discerning this plain intimation, that I wonder how any came to think of it out of this place. Well! But doth it not hence follow, that Sins may be forgiven in the World to come? Not near so plainly, as that Sins will not be forgiven in the World to come. Not That particular Sin, but others may; How doth that appear? What intima­tion is there, that any Sins not forgiven here, shall be forgiven there? Or that any Sins here remitted as to the Eternal Punishment, shall be there remitted as to the Temporal? And without such a kind of Remission, no­thing can be inferred from hence. But if there be a Re­mission in another World, it can be neither in Heaven nor Hell, therefore it must be in Purgatory. But those who own a Remission of Sins in another World, say it will be on the Day of Judgment: For the actual Deli­verance of the Just from Punishment, may be not im­properly called the full Remission of their Sins. So S. Augustin, whom he quotes, plainly saith, Si nulla remit­terentur in judicio illo novissimo, &c. c. Julian, l. 6. c. 5. where it is evident S. Augustin takes this place to relate to the Day of Judgment; and so in the other, (De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 24.) But as he supposed a Remission, so he did a Purgation as by Fire in that day. In illo judicio poenas quasdam purgatorias futuras. De Civit. Dei l. 20. c. 25. And so he is to be understood on Psal. 37. to which he applies 1 Cor. 3. 15. But our Author was very much out, when he saith S. Augustin applied 1 Pet. 3. 15. to some [Page 117] place of temporal Chastisement in another World, when Bellarmin sets himself to confute S. Augustin about it, as understanding it of this World. And therefore he hath little cause to boast of S. Augustins Authority about Bell. de An. Christi l. 4. c. 13. Purgatory, unless he had brought something more to the purpose out of him. His other Testimonies of Antiquity are not worth considering; which he borrows from Natalis Alexander; that of Dionysius Areopag. Eccl. Hierarch. c. 7. is a known Counterfeit, and impertinent, relating to a Region of Rest and Hap­piness. And so do Tertullians Oblations for the dead, De Cor. Milit. c. 3. For they were Eucharistical, as appears by the Ancient Liturgies, being made for the greatest Saints. St. Cyprian Ep. 66. speaks of an Oblation for the dead; and he there mentions the Natalitia of the Martyrs; but by comparing that with his Epist. 33. it will be found that he speaks of the Anniversary Commemoration of the dead, which signifies nothing to Purgatory; for the best men were put into it; and St. Cyprian threatens it as a Punishment to be left out of the Diptychs; but surely it is none to escape Purgatory; Arnobius, l. 4. only speaks of praying for the dead, which we deny not to have been then used in the Church, not with respect to any tempo­rary pains in Purgatory, but to the Day of Judgment: And therein lies the true state of the Controversie, with respect to Antiquity; which is not, Whether any solemn prayers were not then made for the dead; But whether those prayers did relate to their deliverance out of a state of Punishment before the Day of Judgment: For what­ever state Souls were then supposed to be in, before the great Day, if there could be no deliverance till the Day of Judgment, it signisies nothing to the present Que­stion.

As to the Vision of Perpetua concerning her Brother Dinocrates, who died at Seven Years old, being baptized, [Page 118] it is hardly reconcilable to their own Doctrine, to suppose such a Soul in Purgatory; I will not deny that Perpetua did think she saw him in a worse condition; and thought likewise that by her Prayers she brought him into a bet­ter; for she saw him playing like little children; and then she awaked, and concluded that she had given him ease: But is it indeed come to this, that such a Doctrine as Pur­gatory must be built on such a Foundation as this? I do not call in question the Acts of Perpetua, nor her since­rity in relating her Dream; but must the Church build her Doctrines upon the Dreams or Visions of Young Ladies, tho very devout? for Ubia Perpetua was then but Twenty Two, as she saith her self. But none are to be blamed, who make use of the best supports their Cause will afford.

It is time now to see what strength of Reason he offers for Purgatory. 1. He saith, When a Sinner is reconciled to God, tho the eternal Punishment due to his sins is always P. 57. remitted, yet there sometimes remains a temporal Penalty to be undergone; as in the case of the Israelites, and David. But doth it hence follow, that there is a Temporal Penal­ty that must be undergone either here or hereafter, with­out which there will be no need of Purgatory? Who denies, that God in this Life, for example sake, may pu­nish those whose sins he hath promised to remit as to ano­ther World? This is therefore a very slender Foundati­on. 2. There are some sins of their own nature light and venial. I will not dispute that; but suppose there be, must men go then into Purgatory for mere Venial Sins? What a strange Doctrine doth this appear to any Mans Reason? That God should forgive the greater sins, and require so severe a punishment for sins in their own Na­ture venial; i. e. so inconsiderable in their Opinion, that no man is bound to confess them; which do not interrupt a State of Grace; which require only an implicite de­testation [Page 119] of them; which do not deserve eternal punish­ment; S. Th. part. 3. q. 87. art 3. in cor. v. Marsil. Co­lumn. Hydra­giolog. Sect. 7. c. 3. n. 32. Sect. 3. c. 2. n. 15. 29. c. 3. n. 1. Bell. de Cultu. Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. Sect. secundo. which may be remitted by Holy Water, or a Bi­shops Blessing, as their Divines agree. 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, De Purgatorio l. 1. c. 11. SS. Haec sunt. 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.

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?

[Page 120] For our Author grants, That a Papist is bound to as­sist at the Church-Service, and to hear Mass; but he is P. 59. 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 P. 61. 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 P. 60. any man should say, That it nothing concerns his Devotion, that the Mass is in Latin, if he understand it not. Is it P. 61. [Page 121] 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 P. 62. 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 [Page 122] 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 that Language, which the Person to whom he makes it, doth understand, but not his own: But all Languages are alike to Gods Infinite Wisdom, and so there can be no pretence on that account, to keep only to some particular Tongues, tho unknown to the Party; and if it were so to all men, no man would have a Petition presented in a Language which he did not know: But in Prayer to God, the design of it is not to acquaint him with something which he knew not, but to excite the hearts and affections of men to an earnest de­sire of the things which are fit for them to ask; Now let any man undertake to prove, that mens affections are as easily moved by Words they do not understand, as by those they do; and I will give up this Cause.

THE Dispute about this is not, Whether the Second Commandment may be found in any of their Books, but by what Authority it comes to be left out in any: As he confesses it is in their short Catechisms and Manuals: But not only in these; for P. 63. I have now before me the Reformed Office of the Bles­sed Virgin, Printed at Salamanca, A. D. 1588. published by Order of Pius V. where it is so left out: And so in the English Office at Antwerp, A. D. 1658. I wish he had told us in what publick Office of their Church it is to be found: But himself pleads for the leaving it out, when he saith, The People are in no danger of Superstition or Idolatry by it; since the First Commandment secures them from it; and there is nothing in this, but what is vertually con­tained in the First, and is rather an Explanation, than a new P. 64. and distinct Precept. But is this so plain and clear, that a Mans Conscience can never make any just and reasonable Doubt concerning it? There is a terrible sanction after it; and men had need go upon very good Grounds in a matter of such moment. Hath God himself any where declared this to be only an Explication of the First Com­mandment? Have the Prophets, or Christ and his Apo­stles ever done it? How then can any mans Conscience be safe in this matter? For it is not a trifling Controver­sie, whether it be a distinct Commandment, or an Expli­cation of the First; but the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of the Worship of Images depends very much upon it: For if it be only an Explication of the First, then unless one takes Images to be Gods, their Worship is lawful, and so the Heathens were excused in it, who were not such Ideots; But if it be a new and distinct Precept, then the Worshipping any Image or Similitude, becomes a grievous [Page 124] sin, and exposes men to the Wrath of God in that se­vere manner mentioned in the end of it: And it is a great confirmation that this is the true meaning of it, be­cause all the Primitive Writers of the Christian Church, not only thought it a Sin against this Commandment, but insisted upon the force of it against those Heathens who denied that they took their Images for Gods: And therefore this is a very insufficient Account of leaving out the Second Commandment.

UNder this Head he denies Two Things.

1. That they are ever taught to break Faith with Hereticks.

2. That their Church doth allow any Equivocations, or Mental Reservations.

As to the former I am sincerely glad to find a Princi­ple so destructive to all humane Society, so utterly dis­owned, when he saith, He is taught to keep Faith with all sorts of People, of whatsoever judgment or perswasion P. 64. they be; and to stand to his Word, and observe his Promise given, or made to any whatsoever. And whatever Opi­nions and Practices there may have been of that kind formerly, we hope there will never be occasion given to revive that dispute.

2. As to the Second, We embrace his Declaration against it, and hope there is no Equivocation, or mental Reservation in it. But there are some things which must here be taken Notice of.

1. He cannot deny that there are Authors in Commu­nion with his Church, which may be charged with teach­ing another Doctrine; and those not a few, nor inconsi­derable; who not only allow the Practice of Mental [Page 135] Reservations and Equivocations, but say with great con­fidence, it hath been received in the Roman Church for no less than Four hundred years; and that in some Cases they are all still agreed in it. See Parsons Treatise of Mitigation, c. 7. Sect. 2. 3. c. 10. Sect. 1.

2. We do not deny, that Innocent XI. hath condemned Equivocations, and Mental Reservations in Swearing, as at least Scandalous and Pernicious in Practise; and there­fore we cannot charge the Pope with abetting this Do­ctrine. But we cannot but reflect on what our Author said about the Deposing Doctrine, That although Popes had believed it, and acted by it, yet the greater number opposed it. And what shall we say in this Case, if the Generali­ty of their Casuists in some Cases approve it, and think it no Lie or Perjury, as in that of Confession; but if it be really so in any one Case, then it may be some other fault, but it is not a Lie or Perjury in any other, when a Man doth not think himself bound to speak all he knows.

3. That as we highly commend the Popes condem­ning such Doctrines and Practises now; so we have Rea­son to think the contrary did not once want the encou­ragement and approbation of the Roman See. As may be sound in the Resolution of some Cases by Pius V. re­lating to some Missionaries, who were to be sent hither; and then it was declared, That if they were summon'd before our Judges, they might Sophistice Jurare & So­phistice Respondere; and that they were not bound to Apud G. Ab [...] ­bot de Men­dacio, &c. in Praef. p. 6, &c. answer according to the Intention of the Judges, but ac­cording to some true sense of their own, i. e. which was made true by the help of a Mental Reservation. But it is very well, that now the very same things are con­demned at Rome, as Scandalous and Pernicious in Practise.

WE have no difference with them about this mat­ter, as far as they hold to these points: 1. That Men are strictly obliged to Work out their Salvation with fear and trembling in time of Health. 2. That it is very P. 67, 68. dangerous to defer their Repentance to the last. 3. That if any are surprized, they ought in Charity to have all possible assistance, to put them into the best way for their Salvation.

But yet there may be some particular Doctrines owned in the Church of Rome, which may give men too much encouragement to put off true Repentance; as 1. The easiness of being put into a state of Grace by the Sacra­ment of Penance; for which no more is required than removing the impediment; as appears by the Council of Trent. Sess. 7. Can. 6. and afterwards it defines that bare Attrition doth sufficiently dispose a Man to receive Grace 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 Contriti [...]n, i. e. a good Motion in a Mans mind to [...]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 [Page 127] 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.

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 P. 69. 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 P. 71. yet this doth not reach the point, which is about their Churches Command. For their Casuists distinguish Fasting [Page 128] 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 Covarr [...]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. Reginald. Praxis l. 4. c. 14. n. 163. Less. de Justit. l. 4. c. 2. Dub. 2. n. 10. Instruct. Sa­cerd. l. 6. c. 2. n. 4. P. Zacch. Qu. Medico. lega­les l. 5. tit. 1. Qu. 1. p. 29, 30, 31. Pasqual. Decis. 120. n. 5. Dian. Sam. v. Jejun. n. 7. Zach. Pasqua­ligi. Praxis Je­junii Eccles Decis. 116. n. 3. Dec. 117. 1. 2, 3. 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 [Page 129] 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 Decis. 119. n. 2. it is taken by way of a Medicine; and he quotes a great number of their Casuists for it. A Collation at even­ing Decis. 86. n. 3, 4. Less. ubi supr. n. 11. Tolet. ubi sup. is all [...]wed, saith he. And Lessius saith, There is no cer­tain Rule for the Quantity of it. And Card. Tolet saith, very large ones are all [...]wed at Rome by the Popes Conni­vence; even in the Court of Rome, saith Reginaldus. Regin ubi sup. n. 185. And now I leave the Reader to judge of the severity of Fasting requir [...]d in the Church of Rome.

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 P. 72. 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 [Page 130] 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.

[Page 131] 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.

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 [Page 132] 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.

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 P. 77. 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 P. 79. he cannot deny that all ranks and degrees of men have been corrupted among them, being scandalous in their Lives, wicked. [Page 133] 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 P. 81. 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 P. 82. 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, P. 83. 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 [Page 134] blame if they do not understand what they pray for, if they do not receive more of the Sacrament than they; and we verily believe there is as great and remarkable Instances of true Charity among those of the Church of England, as among any People in the World.

1. OUR Author saith, He is not obliged to believe any one Miracle besides what is in Scripture. P. 83.

2. He sees no Reason to doubt the truth of many Mira­cles, which are attested by great numbers of Eye-witnesses, examined by Authority, and found upon Record, with all the Formalities due to such a Process.

Now, how can these two things stand together? Is not a Man obliged to believe a thing so well proved? And if his other Arguments prove any thing, it is, that he is bound to believe them. For he thinks there is as much Reason to believe Miracles still, as in the time of the old or new Law. If he can make this out, I see no reason why he should not be as well obliged to believe them now, as well as those recorded in Scripture. But I can see nothing like a proof of this. And all Persons of Judgment in their own Church, do grant there is a great difference between the Necessity of Miracles for the first establishing a Religion, and afterwards. This is not only asserted by Tostatus, Erasmus, Stella, Andradius, and several others formerly; but the very late French Author I have several times mentioned, saith it in express Terms. Moyens Surs & Honestes, &c. To. 2. p. 149. And he confesses the great Impostures of modern Mira­cles, which, he saith, ought to be severely punished; and that none but Women and weak People think themselves bound to believe them. And he cannot understand what they are good for: Not to convert Hereticks; because not done among them: Not to prove there are no cor­ruptions [Page 135] or errors among them, which is a thing incre­dible; with much more to that purpose, and so con­cludes with Monsieur Paschal, That if they have no other use, we ought not to be amused with them.

But Christ promised, that his Apostles should do greater Mi­racles than himself had done. And what then? Must there­fore S. Francis, or S. Dominic, or S. Rosa, do as great as the Apostles had done? What Consequence can be drawn from the Apostles times to latter Ages? We do not dispute God's Omnipotency, or say his hand is sho [...]tned; but we must not from thence infer, that every thing which is called a Mi­racle is truely so; or make use of God's Power, to justi­fy the most incredible stories. Which is a way will serve as well for a false as a true Religion; and Mahomet might run to Gods Omnipotency for cleaving the Moon in two pieces, as well as others for removing a House over the Seas, or any thing of a like nature.

But, he saith, their Miracles are not more ridiculous and absurd than some in the Old Testament. Which I utterly deny; but I shall not run out into the examination of this Parallel, by shewing how very different the Nature, Design, and Authority of the Miracles he mentions, is from those which are believed in the Roman Church. And it had been but fitting, as he set down the Miracles of the Old Testament, so to have mentioned those of the Roman Church which were to vye with them; but this he was willing to forbear, for certain good Reasons. If most of poor Man's Impossibles be none to God, as he concludes, yet every thing is not presently true which is not impossible; and by this way of Arguing, there can be nothing ob­jected against the most absurd and idle Fictions of the Golden Legend, which all Men of Understanding among themselves, not only reject for want of Authority, but of Credibility.

THE Misrepresenter charges him with approving superstitious uses of inanimate things, and attri­buting wonderful effects to them; as Holy-Water, Can­dles, Oyl, Bread, &c.

In Answer, our Author 1. declares, That the Papist truely represented, utterly disapproves all sorts of Super­stition. P. 86. But if he had designed to have represented true­ly, he ought to have told us what he meant by Supersti­tion, and whether any Man who observes the Commands of the Church can be guilty of it.

2. He saith, That these things are particularly deputed by the Prayers and Blessing of the Priest to certain uses for God's Glory, and the Spiritual and Corporal Good of Chri­stians.

This is somewhat too general; But Marsilius Columna, Hydragiolog. Sect. 3. c. 2. 12. p. 45. Archbishop of Salerno, who hath taken most pains in this matter, sums them up; 1. As to Spiritual, they are Seven. 1. To fright Devils. 2. To remit Venial sins. 3. To cure Distractions. 4. To elevate the Mind. 5. To dispose it for Devotion. 6. To obtain Grace. 7. To prepare for the Sacrament.

2. As to Corporal. 1. To cure Barrenness. 2. To mul­tiply Goods. 3. To procure Health. 4. To purge the Air from pestilential Vapours.

And now, as our Author saith, What Superstition in the use of it? He names several things of God's own ap­pointing to Parallel it; as the Waters of Jealousy, the Shew-bread, the Tables of Stone; but the first was mira­culous, the other had no such effects that we ever heard of. Elisha's Salt for sweetning the Water, was undoubted­ly a Miracle. Is the Holy Water so? As to the liver of the Fish for expelling the Devil, in the Book of Tobit, he [Page 137] knows the Book is not owned for Canonical by us; and this very place is produced as an Argument against it; there being no Ground from Scripture, to attribute the Power of expelling Devils, to the Liver of a Fish, either naturally or symbolically: Vallesius offers at the only probable account of it, that it must be a Divine Power given to it, which the Angel Raphael did not discover; Valles. Sacr. Philosoph. c. 28. p. 229. and yet it is somewhat hard to conceive, how this Liver should have such a power to drive away any kind of De­vil, as it is there expressed, unless by a Devil there, no more be meant than some violent Disease, which the Jews ge­nerally believed to arise from the possession of evil Spi­rits: But however here is an Angel supposed, who made this known to Tobit; but we find not Raphael to discover the virtue of Holy Water against Devils. As to Christs using Clay to open the eyes of the blind, it is very impro­perly applied, unless the same miraculous Power be suppo­sed in it, which was in Christ himself: And so is the Apo­stles laying on of hands, and using Oyl for miraculous cures; unless the same Gift of Miracles be in every Priest which consecrates Holy Water, which was in the Apostles: And Bellarmine himself confesses, That no infallible effect doth follow the use of Holy Water, because there is no Promise of God in the case, but only the Prayers of the Church: But De Cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. these are sufficient to sanctifie the Water, saith our Author: And to what end? For all the spiritual and corporeal be­nefits before-mentioned? Is no Promise of God necessa­ry for such purposes as those? How can any Church in the World dispose of Gods Power without his Will? It may appoint significant and decent Ceremonies, but it can never appropriate Divine Effects to them; and to suppose any Divine Power in things which God never gave them, is in my Opinion, Superstition; and to use them for such ends, is a superstitious use: St. Cyril, whom he quotes, speaks of the Consecration of the Water of [Page 138] Baptism, Catech. 3. St. Augustine only of a consecrated Bread, which the Catechumens had (De Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. l. 2. c. 26.) but he attributes no Divine Effects to it. Pope Alexanders Epistle is a Notorious Counter­feit. Those Passages of Epiphanius, Theodoret, and S. Je­rom, all speak of miraculous effects; and those who had the power of Miracles, might sometimes do them with an external sign, and sometimes without, as the Apostles cured with anointing, and without: But this is no ground for consecrating Oyl by the Church, or Holy Water, for miraculous effects. If these Effects which they attri­bute to Holy Water, be miraculous, then every Priest must have not only a power of Miracles himself, but of annexing it to the Water he consecrates; if they be super-natural but not miraculous, then Holy Water must be made a Sacrament to produce these effects ex opere ope­rato; if neither one nor the other, I know not how to excuse the use of it from Superstition.

THE Misrepresenter charges them with this, on these Acccounts. 1. By keeping their Mysteries of Iniquity from them. 2. By performing Divine Ser­vice in an unknown Tongue. 3. By an implicite Faith. To which the Representer answers. 1. That they give en­couragement to Learning; and he instances in their Uni­versities P. 89. and Conventual Libraries; But what is all this to the common People? But their Indices Expurgatorii, and prohibiting Books so severely, which are not for their Turn, (as we have lately seen in the new one of Paris) argues no great confidence of their Cause, nor any hearty love to Learning: And is it could be rooted out of the World, their Church would fare the better in it; bur if it cannot, they must have some to be able to deal with others in [Page 139] it. 2. As to the common People he saith, They have P. 90. Books enough to instruct them. Is it so in Spain or Italy? But where they live among Hereticks, as we are called, the People must be a little better instructed to defend themselves, and to gain upon others. 3. If the People did know their Church-Offices and Service, &c. they would not find such faults, since the Learned approve them. Let them then try the Experiment, and put the Bible and their Church-Offices every where into the vulgar tongues: But their severe Prohibitions shew how much they are of another Opinion: What made all that rage in France against Voisins Translation of the Missal? such Proceed­ings of the Assembly of the Clergy against it; such com­plaints both to the King and the Pope against it, as tho all were lost, if that were suffered? Such an Edict from the King, such a Prohibition from the Pope in such a Tra­gical Stile about it? Such a Collection of Authors to be printed on purpose against it? Do these things shew, even Collectio Au­thorum Vulg. Versionis damnantium Jussu ac Man­dato Cleri Gallicani edi­ta. Lutet. Pa­ris. 1661. in a Nation of so free a Temper, in Comparison, as the French, any mighty Inclination towards the encouraging this Knowledg in the People? And since that, what stirs have there been about the Mons Testament? What pro­hibitions by Bishops? What vehement opposition by others? So that many Volumes have already been writ­ten on the occasion of that Translation. And yet our Author would perswade us, that if we look abroad, we shall find wonderful care taken to keep the People from Ignorance; but we can d [...]scern much greater to keep them in it.

THE Misrepresenter, (as he is called) charges this Point home, Because they deny Salvation to those who believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith in the Apostles Creed, and lead vertuous and good Lives, if they be not of their Communion.

[Page 140] To this the Representer answers in plain terms, That this is nothing but what they have learnt from the mouth P. 92. of Christ and his Apostles. And to this end he musters up all their sayings against Infidels, false Apostles Gnosticks, Cerinthians, as tho they were point-blank levelled against all that live out of the Communion of the Church of Rome.

But this is no uncharitableness, but pure zeal, and the same the Primitive Church shewed against Hereticks, such P. 95. as Marcion, Basilides, and Bardesanes, who were condemned in the first Age for denying the Resurrection of the dead, &c. What in the first Age! Methinks the Second had been early enough for them: But this is to let us see what Learning there is among you. But do we deny the Re­surrection of the dead? Or hold any one of the Heresies condemned by the Primitive Church? What then is our Fault, which can merit so severe a Sentence? We oppose the Church: What Church? The Primitive Apostolical Church? The Church in the time of the Four General Councils? I do not think that will be said, but I am sure it can never be proved: What Church then? The pre­sent Church? Is it then damnable to oppose the present Church? But I pray let us know what ye mean by it; The universal Body of Christians in the World? No, no, abundance of them are Hereticks and Schismaticks as well as we: i. e. All the Christians in the Eastern and Southern parts, who are not in Communion with the Church of Rome: So that two parts in three of Christians, are sent to Hell by this Principle; and yet it is no uncharitableness. But suppose the Church of Rome be the only true Church, must men be damned presently for opposing its Doctrines? I pray think a little better on it, and you will change your Minds. Sup­pose a Man do not submit to the Guides of this Church in a matter of Doctrine declared by them; Must he be Damned? What if it be the Deposing Power? Yet his [Page 141] Principle is, If a Man do not hold the Faith entire, he is P. 96. gone. But Popes and Councils have declared this to be a point of Faith: therefore if he doth not hold it, he must [...] damned. There is no way of answering this, but he must abate the severity of his Sentence against us. For upon the same Reason he questions that, we may question many more. And all his Arguments against us, will hold against himself; For, saith he, he that disbe­lieves P. 97. one Article of Catholick Faith, does in a manner disbelieve all. Let him therefore look to it, as well as we. But he endeavours to prove the Roman Catholick Church to be the true Church, by the ordinary Notes and P. 98. Marks of the Church. Although he is far enough from doing it; yet this will not do his business. For he must prove, that we are convinced that it is the true Church; and then indeed he may charge us with Obstinate Opposi­tion, but not before. And it is a very strange thing to me, that when their Divines say, that Infidels shall not b [...] damned for their Infidelity, where the Gospel hath not been sufficiently proposed to them; and no Christian for not believing any Article of Faith till it be so proposed; that we must be damned for not believing the Articles of the Roman Faith, which never have been, and never can be sufficiently proposed to us. Methinks such men should Study a little better their own Doctrine, about the suffi­cient Proposal of matters of Faith, before they pass such uncharitable and unlearned Censures.

HIS Discourse on this Head is against those who re­fuse to obey their Superiours in things not expressed in Scripture, which is no part of our Controversy with them. But yet there are several things about their Ce­remonies we are not satisfied in: As 1. The mighty [Page 142] Number of them; which have so much mussled up the Sacraments, that their true face cannot be discerned. 2. The Efficacy attributed to them, without any pro­mise from God; whereas we own no more but decency and significancy. 3. The Doctrine that goes along with them, not only of Obedience, but of Merit; and some have asserted the Opus Operatum of Ceremonies as well as Sacraments, when the Power of the Keys goes along with them; i. e. when there hath been some Act of the Church exercised about the Matter of them; as in the Consecration of Oyl, Salt, Bread, Ashes, Water, &c.

THE Substance of his Discourse on this Head may be reduced to these things. 1. That the Church in every Age hath Power to declare what is necessary to be be­lieved, P. 108, 109 with Anathema to those who Preach the Contrary; and so the Council of Trent, in declaring Transubstantiation, Purgatory, &c. to be necessary Articles, did no more than the Church had done before on like Occasions. 2. That if P. 112, &c. the Doctrines then defined had been Innovations, they must have met with great Opposition when they were introduced. 3. That those who charged those points to be Innovations, P. 116. might as well have laid the scandal on any other Article of Faith which they retained.

These are things necessary to be examined, in order to the making good the charge of Innovation in matters of Faith, which we believe doth stand on very good Grounds.

1. We are to consider, Whether the Council of Trent had equal Reason to define the necessity of these Points, as the Council of Nice and Constantinople had to determin the point of the Trinity; or those of Ephesus and Chalce­don, P. 109. the Truth of Christ's Incarnation. He doth not as­sert [Page 143] it to be in the Churches Power to make new Articles of Faith, as they do imply new Doctrines revealed; but he contends earnestly, That the Church hath a Power to declare the necessity of believing some points which were not so declared before. And if the Necessity of belie­ving doth depend upon the Churches Declaration, then he must assert, that it is in the Churches Power to make points necessary to be believed which were not so; and consequently to make common Opinions to become Arti­cles of Faith. But I hope we may have leave to enquire in this Case, since the Church pretends to no new Revelation of matters of Doctrine, therefore it can declare no more than it receives, and no otherwise than it receives. And so nothing can be made necessary to Salvation but what God himself hath made so by his Revelation. So that they must go in their Declaration either upon Scripture, or Universal Tradition; but if they define any Doctrine to be necessary without these Grounds, they exceed their Com­mission, and there is no Reason to submit to their Decrees, or to believe their Declarations. To make this more plain by a known Instance: It is most certain that several Popes and Councils have declared the Deposing Doctrine, and yet our Author saith, It is no Article of Faith with him. Why not, since the Popes and Councils have as evidently delivered it, as the Council of Trent hath done Purgatory, or Transubstantiation? But he may say, There is no Ana­thema joined to it. Suppose there be not; But why may it not be, as well as in the other Cases? And if it were, I would know, whether in his Conscience he would then believe it to be a necessary Article of Faith, though he believed that it wanted Scripture and Tradition? If not, then he sees what this matter is brought to, viz. That altho the Council of Trent declare these new Doctrines to be necessary to be believed; yet if their Declaration be not built no Scripture and Universal Tradition, we are not bound to receive it.

[Page 144] 2. As to the impossibility of Innovations coming in with­out notorious opposition, I see no ground at all for it, where the alteration is not made at once, but proceeds gradually. He may as well prove it impossible for a Man to fall into a Dropsy or a Hectick-Fever, unless he can tell the punctual time when it began. And he may as well argue thus, Such a Man fell into a Fever upon a great Debauch, and the Physicians were presently sent for to advise about him; therefore the other Man hath no Chronical Distemper, because he had no Physicians when he was first sick; as because Councils were called against some Heresies, and great Opposition made to them, therefore where there is not the like, there can be no Innovation. But I see no Reason why we should de­cline giving an Account, by what Degrees, and Steps, and upon what Occasions, and with what Opposition se­veral of the Doctrines defined at Trent were brought in. For the matter is not so obscure as you would make it, as to most of the Points in difference between us. But that is too large a Task to be here undertaken.

3. There is no Colour for calling in Question the Arti­cles of Faith received by us on the same Grounds that we reject those defined by the Council of Trent; for we have the Universal Consent of the Christian World for the Apostles Creed; and of the Four General Councils for the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation; who never pretended to determin any Point to be necessary which was not revealed in Scripture; whose sense was delivered down by the Testimony of the Christian Church from the Apostles times. But the Council of Trent proceeded by a very different Rule; for it first set up an Unwritten Word to be a Rule of Faith, as well as the Written; which although it were necessary in order to their De­crees, Sess. Quarta. was one of the greatest Innovations in the World; and the Foundation of all the rest, as they were there established.