THere is nothing wherein the Honour of God, and the Happiness of men is more concerned, than Divine Worship. Religion provides for these great ends, by obliging us to worship God: this it doth indispensably, and can do no less, without abandoning it self; for this is essential to it, ^(a) and gives it being. And the truth, and goodness of it depends as much thereon; for no Religion is true and saving, but that which obli­geth to worship God really. Now worship is not real, unless mind and heart concur in it: whatever it hath without this, it wants ^(b) its life and soul; and is no more worship really, than a picture is a man. Hence Christ brands those, who draw near to God with their lips, without their hearts, for hypocrites Matth. 15. 7, 8. Mark 7. 6. Such as pretend to be what they are not; and to do, what really they do not: who are but worshippers in shew, and fiction; no more so in­deed than the Stage-Player is the Prince, whose part he acts. The Romanists seem to acknowledg all this, and therefore ought not to de­ny, but that it is as necessary, that God should be really worshipped; as it is needful, that he should have any honour in the world, or that there should be any true Religion amongst men, or Salvation for them. Yet notwithstanding, their practical Doctrine makes it needless to wor­ship God really. That this may be fully and distinctly manifested, let us observe First, what they count requisite in Divine Service, and in their Mass: the former is their worship for every day, (which goes under [Page 4] the name of Canonical hours and the divine office) and is the proper Ser­vice of their Clergy and Monasticks: the latter is for holy-daies, and is common to the People with the Religious; and the only publick Ser­vice they are ordinarily obliged to. Afterwards we may reflect upon, what else passeth under the notion of worship in publick; and also take some notice of their devotions, or religious employments, in private.

For the first of these their Divine Service, if there were any thing of religion or religious worship counted needful amongst them, it would be required of their Clergy, and those whom by way of eminency they call Religious, in their Divine office especially (if any where): but by their doctrine it is not needful for them to worship God really there; unless he can be said to be worshipped where both himself and all that concerns worshippers indeed, may (as it may by their leave) be quite neglected, and no way actually minded. They seem, at least some of them, in their discourses of worship, and prayer particularly, to re­quire as necessary thereto, both an act of the mind and of the will (at­tention and intention they call them): but proceed with them a little, and you will find the former of these, quite lost in the latter; and the latter, as they order it, dwindling into nothing. It is the com­mon determination of their Schools and Doctors, that actual attention of mind is not necessary when they recite their Canonical hours, that is, they need not mind God in their service, nor the matter of it more than the object, nor the sense of what they say, nor the words they use; not any of these need be actually minded. A purpose or intention to do it is sufficient, though that purpose be not at all performed. This is the Doctrine of their great Aquinas ^(c) concerning Prayer in general, whom the ^(d) rest commonly follow. Attention is not necessary all the while, but the vertue of the first intention, with which a man comes to prayer, renders the whole prayer meritorious, as it falls out in other meritorious acts. And this first intention also is enough to make the prayer prevalent. [Page 5] So he explains his main conclusion, viz. ^(e) Prayer ought to be at least attentive in respect of a previous intention. So that they may be at­tentive enough, by vertue of this first intention, though they do not at all mind afterwards what they are doing▪ when they should be wor­shipping: Which is just as if they should say, a man that goes to Church, with an intent to join in their service, but falls fast asleep when he comes there, serves God effectually, and is attentive enough, by vertue of that former intention, though he sleep all the while. It seems it is sufficient in the Church of Rome, and effectual even to a degree meritorious, to worship God as one that is asleep may worship him, if he falls asleep after a good intention. However hereby it is manifest that with them it is not needful to worship God at all, even in their most solemn service, but only to intend some such thing. If there be a purpose of worship, though God be never worshipped in­deed, by their doctrine, it is enough for him. I suppose his Holiness would not think himself well served at this rate. The common women at Rome are to pay him a julio a head, weekly for the liberty he gives them to drive their there trade; now if instead of payment, they should alledge an intention of it, and declare this is all they are obliged to, and that they ought to be acquitted upon that account, though they never laid it down, he would think himself not paid hereby, but scorned; he looseth his sacred Reverence, and is affronted into the bargain: yet at this rate will he have God served by Roman Catho­licks. Well, but if God need not be worshipped but in purpose only, and the intention may serve without the act: yet sure it must be an actual intention, or at least a purpose to worship God. If it be not the worship of God, that they need intend; divine worship is clearly abandoned, both in deed, and in purpose: if it must not be actual, there need be actually no thought of worshipping God. But I cannot discern that they count either of these necessary. They declare plainly that an actual intention is needless; in this they generally agree, though they differ in the termes, by which they use to express it. They call it an habitual, or a vertual, or an implicit intention; in opposition to that which is express or actual: So that actually either to worship God, or to have an intention of worshipping him, is more than needs. [Page 6] But since they will not have it actual, let it be what sort of intention they please otherwise; yet sure the thing intended should be the wor­shipping of God: So that they may be said to worship in purpose, though they think it needless to do it in deed. Whether they count this necessary, may be best discerned by their own expressions, which they use in some variety. Commonly they say ^(f) a vertual intention may serve. Now this is not an intention indeed, to worship God, but sup­poseth a former act, by vertue of which, one is said to have an in­tention, when really he hath none. As they call that a vertual atten­tion to worship, when a man had a purpose to attend; though he do it not at all: Answerably, a vertual intention to worship, will be a purpose or thought to have such a purpose; though he never have it. Let those, who can, apprehend, how they may be said to worship God so much as in purpose, by vertue of a purpose to worship him, which they have not, but only intend to have, without effect. But it may be, there is no such intention needful with them, for custome may serve, to this purpose, Soto: ^(g) The precept for attending the perfor­mance of divine service canonically, includes two things: First, that at the beginning of Prayer every one mind what he is going to do.—But for this former it is enough, that it be done by vertue of some former in­tention and custome: as if one when the sign is given for Prayers, go as is the custome, to the Quire-by this he satisfies the precept. Now this he may be accustomed to do, without any thought of God, or of worshipping him: yet by vertue of that custome, wherein God is quite neglected, he will have their vertual intention to worship him: all the intention that they require, that is, plainly none at all; unless by vertue of neglecting God, he may be said to mind him.

Or an habitual intention may serve, they sometimes tell us. Sylvester ^(h) [Page 7] expresseth it thus, after Paludanus, He is bound in the beginning of the service, to have an intent to perform it, so that the service may be from his reason, and not from his imagination only. i. e. he must go about it like a man, and not like a beast. But least it should seem too hard for a man to go about their service, with an intention so much distin­guishing him from a Bruit; he adds a favourable gloss. ⁽ⁱ⁾ This is to be understood, saith he, either in act, or habit, or vertue. So that if it be but an habitual intention, it may suffice. ^(k) Navarre explains it by this conditional (and others with him) if one be asked, why he takes his Breviary, he would answer, that he doth it to say Service. ^(l) Now hereby we are told, that, rather an habitual than a vertual in­tention, is expressed, and they acknowledge that such an intention is not sufficient ^(m) for a humane act; much less therefore for an act of worship; Since then they think, that such an intention will suffice; a purpose to worship God is not needful with them: unless they can make divine worship of that which is less than humane; or will have the Bruits to be Catholick worshippers. They tell us also that this ha­bitual intention, is in those that are asleep. ⁽ⁿ⁾ So Scotus the first founder of this distinction (and herein that which they call vertual agrees with it; indeed Aquinas ^(o) saw no cause to distinguish them, and ^(p) others who affect Scotus his subtilty, use the terms as if they were distinct, yet confound them in their instances). And thus when all the worship which they think needfull, is shrunk up into an intention; yet that intention is no other, than they may have in a dead sleep, when they dream of no such thing. So that their souls need be no more concerned in worshipping God, either when they are at service, or [Page 8] when they are addressing themselves to it, than if their Church were in mount Celius with the seven sleepers: When they are coming to it (as we see here) they need have no more purpose to worship God, than if they were asleep: and when they are at it (as we said before) they need no more attend to what they are a doing, than if they were not yet awake. They say also an ^(q) implicite intention will suffice; which is, as they explain it, when a man hath not expresly any thought of praying or worshipping God, when he is to read service; but only intends ^(r) to accomplish the precept of the Church, or to perform his task, or to do as he is wont to do. As when a man first takes Orders or enters into a Monastery, understanding that the Church injoines all in that capacity dayly to recite their canonical hours; if he then have an intention to perform this task, to do as the Church requires, or as others of that quality are wont to do, and accordingly say his hours as the fashion is, though he have not once a thought of God or wor­shipping him all his life after, either when he is going to service, or when he is reading it; yet that first intention may suffice; yea it is of such sufficiency, that any other act of mind or heart, either in worship, or in order to it becomes needless: it is of such admirable efficacy, that by vertue of it, they can worship God, when they mind no such thing as God, or worshipping him, no nor ever intend it otherwise, Let us sup­pose that they thought it requisite to renew this implicite intention fre­quently, yet would it not necessarily amount to a purpose of worship­ping God; for not only their task, and what they are wont to do, but the precept of the Church, may be (as we shall hear them by and ^(s) by declare) accomplished by acts of wickedness: which sure cannot be acts of worship, nor a design to do them, an intention to serve God. Yea, they may satisfie the Churches injunction for Divine ser­vice, though they have an express intention not to fulfill it, all the [Page 9] while as ^(t) (Arragon & their Divines of greatest Reputation determine.) So that if the Church did enjoyn them to worship God, yet no inten­tion to worship him would be needful, because they can satisfie the Church with a contrary intention: Finally a sinful intention will serve their turn: This passeth for their common Doctrine. ^(u) If a man intend principally his own praise or worldly advantage, and so design to serve himself, and not God; this cannot with any reason be counted an in­tention to worship God: yet such a design will suffice for the worship they require, and it will be substantially good in their account, only a little tainted with a venial speck, which though it may hinder it from being meritorious of Eternal glory: yet he that never otherwise intends to Pray or Worship cannot be Damned, and so will be Saved notwith­standing. In short, the Lord requires the heart in Worship, without this, nothing else can please him, nothing in his account will be a real honour or worship of him, but only in appearance and fiction. The Romanists teach, that God need not have any thing of their hearts in their Service, not any one act or motion thereof, while they are at it, only some sort of intention before, while they are going about it; but this no act of will or heart neither, but only a vertual, or habitual, or implicite something; they have minced it so small, that an ordinary eye cannot discern in it so little, as a purpose to serve God; yea in fine, they have reduced it to that which is worse than nothing: and if the heart must be cumbred with any such thing, as an intention about serving God, yet a sinful intention may serve: this satisfies their holy Church and her Precept fully; she doth not, she cannot require any more for God, what burthens soever in other cases she lays upon the Consciences of men. But though the heart, and every act of it be thus discharged from any concern in their service, yet it may be, they will have the mind more engaged. One act thereof, and but one (mental attention) they seem to require; and its true, some of them make shew of calling for it, but as soon as ever it appears, it is dismissed immedi­ately, [Page 10] as needless; for they conclude generally, that a purpose to attend will serve, though they attend not, and this purpose too by their hand­ling (as we have seen) comes to nothing, or worse. But suppose they did (though they do not) account an intention to worship God need­ful, and that actual, express, and well qualified, yet they confess ^(x) an intent to worship, or wait on God, is not to worship him really: no more than a man is Sober when he is Drunk, because he intended to be So­ber. But they leave us no ground for this supposition, yet ascribe as much to their intention, and more, than the best imaginable will bear; after they have reduced it to as bad, as nothing. However since all the worship they count necessary is included in this purpose, and all their pretensions depend on it; they are concerned to have it though to be something, and they will seem cautious about it, as a thing material, so this proviso they lay down. ^(y) It must not be changed into a contrary purpose, if that should fall out, it will lose its wonderful vertue, and not make those worshippers, who mind not what they are doing, when they should be praying. But there is no great danger of this, nor need they be solicitous about it: for (as they tell them) they change not their purpose, though they do nothing that they intended; or do what is quite contrary to it, viz. Though if they purposed to attend, yet they attend not at all, but turn their minds to other things, if they act cross to the supposed intention; yet so long as they assume not a contrary purpose, they must be thought to mind what they are about, though they mind it not one moment: And there need be as little care, as there is danger of changing their purpose, for ^(z) care­lessness cannot do it. It cannot be changed, unless a man designedly, and on set purpose, will turn his mind from what he is about to other things. Since then a Person who doth not mind God, or any thing that concerns his worship, when he seems engaged in it, doth not worship God at all, as is evident in it self, and they confess it, in case [Page 11] he mind not this on set purpose: therefore though he doth not wor­ship God at all, yet he worships him as much as the Romanists require; unless he wills not to worship him on set purpose: yea though he voluntarily mind nothing that concerns a worshipper; though he deliberately, and willingly let his mind run upon other things: yet so long as he is so regardless of God, and what he is about, as not to take notice of this extravagancy, he fulfills the precept of the Church, and minds Divine service, as much as is required. ^(a) Thus Cajetan, Soto, and others; so that by their Doctrine, if they do not worship God, and voluntarily neglect it, yet they do as much as the Church enjoyns, so long as they take no notice, that they do not worship him. And as they may voluntarily employ their minds about other things, when they should be worshipping, so may they on set purpose, busie the outward man about other Employments, when they are saying their service. They can perform their best Devotions, while (to give their own Instances) they are ^(b) washing themselves, or putting on their Clothes, or mending Pens, or laying the Cloth, or making Beds, or any thing else, which requires no more Attention. Nor dare they count this a venial fault, because the ^(c) Dominicans are enjoyned by the Rules of their Order, to say their service, while they are doing something else. That which would spoyl the Devotion of others, gives no impediment to theirs, and good reason, for how can that be disturbed, that is not; or lessened, when it is already nothing? This [Page 12] is to worship God after the Roman mode, when neither body nor mind is taken up with the service, but both deliberately employed about something else.

But that by their principles they need be no better worshippers, will yet be more manifest, if we view their Doctrine concerning Attention more distinctly. Aquinas, and Bonaventure (whom the rest follow) give an account of three sorts hereof, according to the Severals which may be minded in prayer.

^(d) The first is Attention to the Words, so as not to err in pro­nouncing them.

The second, To the sense of the Words.

The third, To the Person prayed to, and the things prayed for.

Bonaventure calls Attention to the first Superficial; and that to the second literal (we may as well call it humane, or rational); That to the third Spiritual (Divine or Christian Attention others call it.) ²⁸

Now (which is to be observed, as that which unvails the whole mystery) they hold, that any one of these is sufficient; not only the third, or the second, but even the first, though it be the worst, and of least importance. So ^(f) Angelus, ^(g) Silvester, ^(h) Cajetane, ⁽ⁱ⁾ Bellarmine, ^(k) Tolet. So ^(l) Aquinas, Soto, Navar, so all of them, it is (they tell us) ^(m) the common Doctrine Ʋniversally recei­ved [Page 13] And this clears all, and leads us directly through their reserves and concealments, and the ambiguity of their expressions (apt to mislead an unwary eye, and abuse a charitable mind, loth to think them so bad, as they speak themselves) into the open view of their irreligious (not to say Atheistical) Doctrine. This makes it very evi­dent, that, with them it is not needful, either to worship God, or in­tend it. For since they agree, that any one of the several sorts of At­tention is sufficient; the first, which concerns the bare words, is enough in their account; and the other are needless. It is not requisite that they should mind, either the things to be prayed for, or the God they should pray to, or the sense of the words they pronounce; it will suf­fice that they mind the words to them senseless, and therein the empty and insignificant figure and sound. Now words without sense are in themselves neither good nor bad; no worship, sure, can be imagined in them, they are no better, (but less tolerable) in the mouths of men, than the sound of Bruits. And the mere figure and sound of Letters, can make men no more worshippers, than Conjurers; yet such is all the worshipping or praying that they count necessary. But if they had a mind to Supererogate, and their Catholicks were to do more than their Duty, i. e. Act as becomes Men in their service, taking the sense along with the words: yet the third sort of Attention, which concerns God, is still unnecessary, there need be no application of the mind unto God in their prayers; Surely in any Religion, but that which will have men abandon both Sense and Reason in matters plain and obvious to either; God would not be thought to be worshipped, when he is not at all minded. By their common Doctrine now menti­oned (wherein all sorts of their Authours conspire) first their minds, may in their Divine service, not only depart from God by natural, or inadvertent vagaries, but they may dismiss them from God on set pur­pose. For they may voluntarily, and upon deliberation decline in their service, what is more than enough; and the attendance of the mind upon God in prayer, is plainly with them, more than enough: seeing they declare, that their attending to the bare words alone is sufficient. If they mind but to pronounce the words intire, no more is needful, God may be left out of their minds, during their whole service: and they may be as much without God in their worship, as others are said to be without him in the World, deliberately and out [Page 14] of choice. They leave us not to rely for this upon consequences, how evident and undeniable so ever, they stick not to declare ^(*) that they may without sin voluntarily abandon the better sorts of Attention, viz. both that which is Rational, and that which is Spiritual: this will be no fault at all, if done upon a reasonable account, for example, if any one decline these ⁽ⁿ⁾ that he may not tire his head therewith, or any thing of like nature. It seems reasonable with them not to trouble their heads with minding God, or what becomes men in their worship of him. The reason is, because ^(o) they are not obliged to serve God as well as they can: it is a received maxime amongst them, that they ^(p) are not bound to do their best ^(q) The third sort of Attention is better than the second, and the second is better than the first (that is worst of all): but when there are better and worse wayes of serving God be­fore them, they may choose the worse. The worst attendance of all it seems is good enough for God, even that wherein he is not at all re­garded. This Doctrine is so common, that I find but two who de­murr on it, and one of them (Cajetan) but drawn in by consequence. Only Navar though he, as the rest, counts the first and worst sort of Attention sufficient: yet thinks it may be a venial fault to retain it, so as voluntarily to exclude, or hinder the better. Yet both ^(r) these hold, that they may voluntarily want the better, and may without fault turn their minds from God to other things, so long as they ob­serve it not, or if they do observe it, yet so long also, as they do not [Page 15] reflect upon it as a Vagary. And both maintain ^(s) that any one may pray whilest he is dressing himself, or is taken up with any other like employment. And such action though it be consistent with the worse Attention, yet undoubtedly (they say) it hinders the better, especially that which is spiritual and elevated. So that herein, these Authours are either reconciled to the common opinion, or fall out with them­selves. And that such employments (though inconsistent with spiri­tual Attention, i. e. with minding God) are lawful while they are at their service, is not only the sense of these two Casuists; but to deny it is against the usage of all the Pious (it seems the Roman Piety is with­out regarding God, even in his worship) All the Domicans are parti­cularly obliged to it (as we saw before) and have a visible demonstra­tion for it from the ^(t) ancient form of their Dormitories. Thus one way or other all agree, that God may voluntarily be neglected in their worship without sin.

Secondly, as it is not necessary by their Doctrine to worship God, so neither is there any necessity to intend it. When they have encou­raged all, even their Religious, not to pray at all; by assuring them they need not mind God at all, whilest they should be praying to him: yet they would perswade them notwithstanding that they may pray, by vertue of a former intention. The vanity of this is shewed already (where we prove both, that this is not enough, and that indeed they require not so much) but because it is the only pretence, that such can be worshippers of God, who think it needless to mind him, even in the most solemn addresses amongst them; it will not be amiss to see it again p [...]f [...] quite away, by their own Doctrine. What must be design­ed in that previous intention (upon which not only the efficacy, but the reality of their prayers, and solemn worship depends)? must they in­tend, [Page 16] when they are going about it, to mind the things they are to pray for, or the God they should worship or the sense of the words they utter? No, as it is not necessary to mind any of these, when they are at their worship; so neither is it needful to intend it before-hand: it will be sufficient if they do but intend to mind, the senseless pronoun­ciation of the words; and neither God nor any thing else which be­comes Christians, or Men in acts of worship; nothing but what Bruits or Birds are capable of, the mere uttering of the words. This is very manifest by their common Doctrine, now before us, concerning attention in Prayer. Attendance to the words without the sense is suffi­cient, but they need not purpose before-hand, to have any sort of Attention more than that which is sufficient: for they will not imagine there is any need of a purpose to do that, which is not needful to be done; and they declare expresly this is all which is requisite, that they come to their service with a purpose to have any sort of Attention, that is ^(u) sufficient (telling us withall, that attendance to the bare words will suffice.) So that in the issue the worship of God (his and our greatest concern in this world) is reduced to this. There is no need to mind God, and so not to worship him at all, either actually, or virtually; since it is neither needful to to do this, nor intend it. He is not worshipped in that remote and minute way, which they call vertual (which is not indeed the doing of it, but a purpose only to do it), but by vertue of a former intention; where this intention is not, it can have no vertue: but with them there need be no intention to mind God, and so by their Doctrine it is not necessary to worship him one way or other.

Thirdly, since with them it is not needful to mind any thing in their service, for which they can be counted worshippers, nothing but the words; it will not be very material, to take notice what attention they must give to these: yet seeing the senseless recital of the words, is all that they would have them mind in Divine service; one would think, [Page 17] that this should be attended to purpose, at least actually. No, it is enough, if their Attention be but vertual, i. e. ^(x) if they have a pur­pose to mind them, when they are going about their worship, and change it not while they are at it, though then they mind them not (for as they ge­nerally hold, that Attention to the words is sufficient; so none que­stion ^(y) but a vertual Attention thereto will serve.) It may seem strange that one should be said to attend, when he attends not, but they will satisfie this with something that is as odd: they would have them think their heedlesness is excused, by being more heedless: and so the more careless they are in their worship, the better. For if they mind not what they are doing, when saying Divine service; ^(z) yet if they do this without reflection, and take no notice that they mind it not at all; they therefore mind it well enough. Such is the Attention which the strictest of their Authours require and judge sufficient; even such as is as good as none, and about that which is nothing worth. Now this Doctrine hath such an Atheistical aspect, that they (who profess themselves to be, and would have the World think that they are worshippers of God) seem concerned not to expose it common­ly bare-faced. And indeed they give it some disguize, when they declare so much for Attention of mind in worship, as that which is of the substance of worship, so essential thereto, that without this it is no worship of God, no praying at all; but a mere clamorous noyse, yea a mocking of God, and taking his Name in vain. ^(a) The Jesuits for­bear not frequently to acknowledge this. Who would not think hereupon, that they count it most necessary for the mind to attend God in worship? Oh! but the Vizour falls off, when we understand, that attention of mind to nothing else, but the bare words, stript of their sense, and all respect to God, is enough with them, and that vertual [Page 18] only, and in purpose, though they never actually mind so little. They themselves assure us that the attending to the words only (if that were to be done indeed) is no attending God: for they make these distinct things, and will have one of them suffice without the other: and it is against the resentments of all Religion, and common sense too, that God should be said to be worshipped, when he is not at all minded. And therefore in fine, when they teach (as the best of them do, so that it passeth for their common Doctrine) that superfi­cial attention in their service is sufficient: they declare plainly enough, th [...] in the Church of Rome, there is no need to worship God, no not for their Religious, in that which they call Divine service.

But if we would have a plainer acknowledgment hereof than is needfull, we may have it from those who declare, that no Attention of mind is needful in worship, and these are the greatest part of their A [...]bours, which I find alledged in this question (taking none into the account neither, but those that are ancienter than the foundation of the Society). They determine without distinguishing that all at­tention is needless actual, or vertual. If the words are pronounced intire, and no external action admitted, to hinder that; it is no crime with them, if as nothing else; so neither the bare words be further minded, but the thoughts be quite dismissed from them. Sylvester the Master of the Sacred Apostolical Palace, and their prime Cham­pion against Luther, in his Book Dedicated to Pope Leo the Tenth, de­termines expresly, ^(b) That to pray with attention in their Canonical hours, is not required by Gods Law. If he had said, the Church had not required it, he had spoke within compass; and said no more than many others before and after him: but he sayes that too, for having told us that Hostiensis, Antoninus, Summa rosellae, do all hold, that the Church injoyns not attentiveness, but only saying the service, he adds, ^(c) that they say true, as to this, that attention is not under the precept of the Church. Of the like perswasion are Durandus, Paludanus, Ange­lus [Page 19] de Clavasio, and others. ^(d) For attention, as they say, is not a com­mand of their Church, but a counsel only, which may be neglected without sin. Others, who make the best of it, deliver it thus. ^(e) The Church doth not command internal acts, no more than judge of them, therefore requires not attention in worship: the precept is fully accomplished without it, by the external act alone; the want of attention is no fault, unless upon the account of the natural precept; and in reference to that, it is no worse than venial. They are herein opposed by some later Casuists and Jesuits (however these come to be counted more licentious.) But the differing parties fully agree, in making it needless to worship God. For both hold, that they need not mind either God, or the matter, or the sense of the words in their service, either actually or vertually: and both conclude, that the words without the sence (and all else for which they can be conside­rable) need not be minded actually. All the difference is about a vertual attention to the bare words, whether the want of that (which is no attention indeed) be a mortal crime. It is just, as if when they had concluded it lawful to murther a Man, they should fall into a hot debate, whether it were a deadly crime, to disorder his hair. But so it becomes those who make no scruple, to destroy Religion Body and [Page 20] Soul; to make a zealous stir about the sleightest appurtenances of it. Something must be done with some shew of Conscience too about its appendices, that the world may not think, they retain nothing of it amongst them. And yet how palpable is the irreligion of these So­phisters, who will have it a damnable crime, to neglect their empty words; but no fault at all, wholly to neglect the Great God, even when if ever, the whole Soul should attend him. Here is evidence too much, that the Church of Rome, so far as we can know her sense by her Doctors the most, and best of them; if she think it fit, that God should be worshipped; yet thinks it not needful, that he be mind­ed i. e. though it be convenient to pretend worship; yet it is not ne­cessary to worship him indeed. Medina is so ingenuous as to tell us, that since the Church requires not attention in their service, ^(f) she doth not oblige them to pray, when she enjoyns them to say their Canonical hours. So that all in the Church of Rome are discharged, from any obligation to worship God at all, even in their most solemn service; they need not pray, when they are at their Church-prayers. Not only he, but all of them must acknowledge this, who will yield to that Reason or Authority which they count best. Their Law saith, ^(g) God is not prayed to with the mouth without the heart. And ^(h) it is a natural and evident principle (as themselves tells us) that vocal pronouncing of the words, is not prayer, unless it be done with some at­tention, whereas most of them say no attention is requisite in their ser­vice; and that vertual attention which the rest are for, themselves say, is no attention indeed; no more than the purpose is the act, when not performed. But what then becomes of their pretences to Worship or Devotion, may they be wholly without this? Medina easily resolves this difficulty; ⁽ⁱ⁾ though he who useth their service, hath no Devotion, yet the Church in whose words he prayes, and whose Minister he is, brings her Devotion. So that the Church brings Devo­tion [Page 21] still, though none in the Church, no not the Clergy, not the Reli­gious have any. The Church prayes effectually, in the words of those who say service, though these should Blaspheme God in their hearts, while they utter the words of a prayer; and they pray in the person of the Church by their common Doctrine. So ^(k) that though they be in mortal sin (suppose Atheists or Debauchces) their prayers prevail in regard of the Churches Holiness. Happy persons they are, as ever any were in a dream; who can pray effectually when they pray not at all; and be Devout with anothers Devotion, and why not saved too by the Churches Holiness? But then since this is applicable to all particular persons, what is that Church, by which they may have such advantages? it must be something not made up of particular persons, something abstracted from subsistence, and refined above the grosness of any reality: and the structure, their Devotion and worship must be answerable, and as much beholding to imagination for a being. Not to disturb their fancies further, it is enough that they acknowledge (what cannot be denyed) that they are not obliged to worship God in their Divine service; being there is no worship without attention, and no attention with them necessary; or only that which is in effect none.

But it is no wonder they make attention at their Divine service not necessary; since being in Latine, it is to far the greatest part concerned in it, impossible. The first sort of it, which they call superficial Atten­tion, none are capable of effectually, but those, that are well acquain­ted with that language: so as not only to understand, but duly pro­nounce it: which few of their Monasticks are, indeed it is not the talent of many of their Priests. The lowest degree of attention, ^(l) [Page 23] saith Soto, none can have, but he that knoweth the tongue. The second, which they call literal attention, fewer can arrive at, it is only for ex­pert Divines. ^(m) To attend to the sense is not for all Latinists, but only for those that are expert in Divinity (saith the same Authour) which is so far from being the attainment of Monasticks, and common Priests; that many of the chief of their Clergy cannot pretend to it. It was necessary for them to conclude (since they will have their own way, what ever the Scripture saith against it), that it is no sin for the Clergy not to understand what they say when they say Service, ⁽ⁿ⁾ though they confess they can have no relish of what they under­stand not. As to the third, which they call spiritual attention, they cannot mind the things prayed for, who know not what they are; and apprehend nothing of the contents of their prayers: Mor can they mind the God, that is to be prayed to, when they know not whe­ther they pray to God or no: for they understand not to whom the prayer is directed, to God or to a Creature; to an Angel or a Saint; to a Man or a Woman.

Now seeing attention to what they do at their service, is impossible to most, and unnecessary to all: it may seem superfluous, to shew, that with them Reverence and Devotion is also unnecessary. (And what Religious worship there can be without these; let those who have any tolerable notion of Religion judge.)

For Reverence and Devotion are included in attention, or necessa­rily depend on it, and unavoidably fall with it. No man will imagine, that there can be any Devotion or Reverence toward God, when he is not so much as minded, when he is not before their eyes, when the mind is voluntarily turned from him, and wholly taken up with thoughts, which are inconsistent with observance of him. And this is the plain import of that non-attention, which they allow in their service. When the mind departs, the heart followes it (since ^(o) it moves by its conduct, and acts not otherwise) and when these are [Page 22] gone, ^(p) the man is morally absent: and worships God no more, nor hath any more Devotion or Reverence for him, (if these be so much as moral acts) than if he were not in the place where he is worshiped. And seeing (as ^(q) themselves tell us) outward acts in worship are not considerable, but as signs of inward motions: all external shews of Devotion, or Reverence, when there is none of these in the Soul, will be but hypocritical significations, denoting that to be there, which the Lord discerns is not there: and so tend to affront him, in­stead of approaching him with Reverence, Worship or Devotion. But there's no need of a proof, where the thing is confessed: they tell us plainly, that neither Reverence, nor Devotion is necessary.

Reverence (saith de Graff [...]is in his time the grand Penitentiary at Naples) consists in this, that the body be in a composed temper, otherwise it signifies an incomposed mind, they ought therefore reverently, and humb­ly to pray, for such prayers penetrate the Heavens. But this is only coun­sel and advice, it is not commanded, as he tells us immediatly, ^(r) such Reverence saith he is not required by any precept, though the service be said irreverently, yet the command is satisfied. Here is encouragement enough for irreverence inward, or outward. All the danger follows; ^(s) but possibly it may be a venial fault, if the irreverence be great ac­cording to Pope Innocent. And if great irreverence will in the Popes judgment, prove but a small fault, they may venture on great as well as little freely: for neither Pope nor Penitentiary, thinks any much concerned to avoid a venial sin. Sylvester tells us ^(t) that irreverence is not alwayes mortal. But it will ever be so, or when? It is not so [Page 24] when instead of worshipping God, ^(u) they take his name in vain, how severe so ever the terms be, in which the Lord hath forbidden this, and thereby signified the hainousness of it. Yea that irreverence to God which is injurious to his Divine Majesty and Excellency may not be big enough to be counted mortal: ^(x) unless it be so outragi­ous as to destroy the Majesty of God, or some of his perfections, it may be venial. The little account they make of Reverence is the more considerable, because as themselves describe it, ^(y) it compriseth all love and observance of God.

For Devotion, Aquinas tells us, ^(z) as to the fruit of spiritual De­votion, he is deprived of it, who doth not attend to the things he prayes for, or doth not understand. So that Devotion is lost (by the Oracle of their Schools,) on a double account: both when prayer is not at­tended, as it needs not be with them; and when it is not understood, as it cannot be. He that is negligent both as to Attention, and Devoti­on offends venially. ^(a) Thus Cardinal Cajetane, after he had told us that Devotion consists in every holy affection. So that he who through negligence wants all holy affection (what ever is included in Atten­tion or Devotion) incurs but a slight fault. And it may be, not so much. ^(b) There ought to be Devotion (saith Cardinal Tolet) and he sets it out by love to God, and desires of seeing him; but adds, if this be wanting without contempt, it is no great sin. Whether he thought it a little one, he saith not, but if he had so hard thoughts of it, the Jesuite is more severe then those of other Orders. Graffius [Page 25] after he had described Devotion, concludes, ^(c) he that wants Devotion, sins not, not so much as venially it seems. Lopez and Metina in him, censures ^(d) that opinion as false and cruel, which will have actual De­votion requisite for receiving of the Eucharist; though that Devotion be no more, than an actual consideration, that they are there to receive Christ. Indeed they generally count Devotion needless there, where, if ever, it would be counted requisite. To ^(e) be destitute of it & attention too, at the Eucharist, is either but a small fault, or none at all. Sylvester saith inward Devotion is not injoyned by the Church, ^(f) but as to outward Devotion, he will not exempt it from the command; and what that is he, lets us understand by the undevoutness which is for­bidden. ^(g) When they make sport with one another for a great part of their worship, so as to scandalize others, and disturb the Priest. It seems they may be as Devout as their Church would have them, when they play the waggs one with another at Divine service, so that their sport be but thus qualified. If it be not so uncivil as to offend the people; or so boisterous, as to disorder the Priest; or so long, as to take up a considerable part of their worship: Their Church who requires no inward Devotion at all, will not burthen them much, we see, with that which is outward. So little Devotion serves their Masse, their Divine service requires no more. ^(h) Devotion there, saith he, is not [Page 26] commanded. Others amongst which the same Authour names Hostien­sis, Antoninus, and Summa Rosellae, hold, that in the Orders for Divine service ⁽ⁱ⁾ the bare saying of it, is commanded: but all that consists in Devotion, is no more than Counsel. (Which by their principles may be neglected without sin.) The ground of their perswasion is consi­derable: to injoyn Devotion (say they) ^(k) had been to lay a snare for men, and impose intolerable burthens on them. So that it seems the Church had been wicked, and unmerciful; if she had but obliged their Clergy and Religious, to be Devout in their worship. And by this reason, neither God nor Man can make Devotion a Duty, to any sort of Roman-Catholicks. Hereafter we must not wonder if they neither injoyn, nor observe it. And though their reason may be sin­gular, yet the opinion is the common Doctrine, since all are discharg­ed from Devotion, or Reverence, who are not obliged to Attention. Such therefore, and no other is the worship which the Church of Rome makes needful for the Clergy and Religious. Such as it can be, without Attention, without holy fear or affection: it is not the thing they call it, it deserves not the Name of worship, or the Title of Holy or Religious: it must be a prophane and irreligious exercise, it can be no better without Reverence, and without Devotion; it cannot but be without these, whilest it is without Attention, which they oblige all to neglect, by declaring it needless. Durandus maintained that Images are ^(l) not to be worshipped properly, but only Abusively, that is, as they explain it, though worship be exhibited before, or about the Image, yet the mind of the worshipper is far from it. This his opinion is now damned, as little less than Heretical; being in their account, no less than a denyal, that, any worship is to be given to an Image. Yet this Abusive worship is all that they make necessary for the God of [Page 27] Heaven: for requiring no Attention of Mind, no Devotion of Soul in their service, they allow both mind and heart to be far from him, while they do something before or about him, which they call worship. So that what worship they count intolera­bly too little for a senseless Image (not to say a detestable Idol); they think enough in conscience for the true and living God. I have not observed that any Idolaters in the world, were ever so gross and stupid, as by their avowed Doctrine, thus to advance, what they look upon as a mere Image; and so to debase what they took to be the true God. However hereby it appears, that they count no worship at all needful for God; since worship without the heart, will by their Do­ctrine serve the turn: which ^(m) in reference to an Image is, with them, no worship at all. It is not true honour or worship, but fiction and mockery. This is their own Character of such worship when Images are concerned, and under it I leave their Divine service.

Sect. 2. Let us in the next place view their Masse, this is for the people ⁽ⁿ⁾ and is the only publick worship injoyned them, in any of their dayes for worship. They call it ^(o) the chief part of their Re­ligion, and this summons us to expect, that herein, if at all, they will shew themselves Religious, and worship God indeed; however they think not themselves obliged to it in their Divine Office. But all ex­pectation hereof is quite blasted when they tell us, ^(p) that less atten­tion is required at the Masse, than at their canonical hours; yet so they commonly determine, and their reason is, ^(q) because prayer is a more [Page 28] rational act, than that moral presence required at Masse. So that their hearing Masse, is a less rational act, than that which is performed with­out understanding: and requires less Attention of mind, than that, to which none at all, is actually needful. And we can not yet apprehend how that can be Divine worship; which is so far from being reasona­ble service: or how God can be thought to be worshipped; when the Soul which is to worship him, doth not take any notice of him. The servant of servants at Rome would not think himself honoured, if the holding out of his Toe, were not regarded by such as have access to him. But Roman-Catholicks may, it seems, mind God less at their Masse, than one that minds him not at all; and yet worship him well enough, after their mode.

Besides all inward worship is clearly discharged, for when they teach, that the Masse is for the people the only worship on the Lords dayes, or any other day set a part for worship: they tell us expresly, no inward worship is the duty of those dayes, external worship alone is commanded: ^(r) So Aquinas Cajetan, ^(s) so Navarr, so de Graffijs, so Lopez, Dominicus a Soto also, who asserts it with many reasons, amongst which this is one, because the Church requires no other than this external worship, and if God had required more, the Church had not been fida Divini juris interpres, a faithful expounder of the Di­vine Law, which rather than they will yield they will admit any thing, though it be, that God should never have any true worship amongst them.

Particularly and expresly they deny all acts of Contrition for sin to be the duties of Masse-dayes. So ^(t) Sylvester, ^(u) Summa Rosellae, ^(x) Melchior Canus, and all the other Authours ^(y) last mentioned. [Page 29] Likewise all acts of Love to God ^(z) Bellarmine, and in him Aquinas, so ^(a▪ Navar and Pope ^(b) Adrian, de ^(c) Graffis and Soto ^(d) who would maintain this with many arguments, one of the chief of them (he calls it ingentissimum argumentum) is, ^(e) that this would be to en­snare Souls, and cast them into grievous straits, if so harsh a duty as an act of love to God were injoyned so frequently. Another is ^(f) that all the commands of God as to the substance of them, may be fully ac­complished without love to God, and therefore this.

It is good Divinity with them, That we are not bound to worship God out of love. The Masse saith Navar ^(g) which we are commanded to hear on those dayes (and nothing else) may be heard well enough without any such act of love: So Bellarmine, ^(h) we are not bound on these dayes by any particular precept not to sin, or to have any act of con­trition, or any act of love to God: what, not one act of love to God? no, he will prove it, one of his arguments is, ⁽ⁱ⁾ because the Church hath determined the time and manner how Divine Law is to be observed in keeping this command: but the Church no where requires inward acts; she thinks, it seems, that God may be served sufficiently with the Masse without any sense o [...] sin, or love to God. And thus all those other graces and affections that flow from Repentance, or love, or necessari­ly depend thereon; as filial fear, spiritual desires, delight in God, &c. will be no duty on their Masse-dayes, their Masse hath nothing to do with them. Confessions of sin there may be well enough without Godly sorrow; and Petitions without desires; and Praises without [Page 30] complacence or ingenuous gratitude: because all is well enough with­out love to God, or grief for offending him; and that, on all these dayes wherein they are obliged to hear Masse.

If you would see any thing of the worship of God in the Masse, it is as if you look for the life and nature of a man in a Picture: and such an one, as will not so much as shew you his colour or figure, but very rudely.

The precept for observing Masse-dayes, as Sylvester ^(a) tells us, re­quires not the end, that is, waiting upon God, nor what is necessarily re­quisite thereto, but the hearing of Masse: Not waiting on God, but hea­ring Masse! These are distinct things, and disjoyned in the sense of the Roman Doctors, the one is commanded, the other is not; so that they may duly hear Masse all their lives: and yet not wait on God one moment, the former they must do, the latter they are not obliged to regard, nor any thing that necessarily belongs to it. ^(b) Navar asserts this, and would prove it by reason and the Authority of Aquinas herein generally followed. In short, if there be any worship required in the Masse it is merely external, and that disjoyned from the inward service of the Soul, is, but a mere shew or vizour of worship, as they themselves confess in their lightsomer intervals. well, but is it worship in any sense? is there any thing Religious required of the people herein? for this they tell us it is enough, if it be an humane act, no more is enjoyned, ^(c) the precept obligeth not, but to hear so, that it may be an humane act, saith ^(*) Soto, and ^(d) others, and if it suffice that it be a humane act, it needs not be Religious. Let it be deliberate, that is e­nough to make it a humane act; and then though there be no Religi­ous [Page 31] motion or intention in it, the precept is fulfilled. Sylvester con­firms us herein, the precept (saith he) is given unto men, and there­fore the work must not be the issue only of the imagination, which is com­mon to us with Beasts, it must proceed from deliberation, which requires some attention. ^(a) So that there is something more required of one that goes to Masse than of a Beast; but that is before he comes there, if he advance but to it as a man, he may be excused even from humane acts, when he is at it, he needs neither exercise his understanding nor his senses. He needs not ^(b) understand it, that is far from being a duty, they have made it impossible, it's no sin either for Priests ^(c) or people not to know what they do; so reasonable is their service. The Latin makes it unintelligible enough, but if it were in a Language less known, if in ^(d) Mosarabike or Greek, those who are present without any but their Mother-Tongue, fulfil the precept. As ^(e) Victorel tells us after Soto and others. He needs not see ^(f) what is done, he may do all that is requisite in the Masse blindfold. He needs not hear it, as ^(g) Cajetane and others tells us, and this is much, he is injoyn'd only to hear Masse, and yet doth all that he is injoyn'd if he hear it not, if not one syllable of it reach his ears: it seems with them, to hear, is not to hear. Just by the same figure that they say they worship God, when in truth they do not worship him at all.

He needs not be sensible of any thing about it, to hear Masse saith Tolet is not to use any of his senses about what is done in the Masse. ¹¹⁵ And if this be their worshipping God, a man may worship him as much as the Church of Rome requires, not only without Reverence and Devotion, without heart and affection: but without the use of sense or Reason. A Bruit may do more at Masse, than they require their Catholicks to do, no wonder that Church enjoyns no Attention, Devotion or Reverence, nor counts them needful (as we have already manifested) for can there be any pretence to require these, when both sense and understanding are superseded? or can there be any thing that deserves the name of worship without these?

They themselves cancell and overthrow all their own Pleas and pretences for their offering God any thing of worship in the Masse. For, they say, he doth not worship there, who is not present, and they cannot deny that in God's account he is absent whose mind is not pre­sent; and yet they justifie ^(a) voluntary departures of mind and heart, when they should be worshipping, and those who would not seem to do this, do it really; when they conclude it no fault to employ them­selves about other things when they are at Masse. They allow them ^(b) to say their hours (and so neglect the Masse, out of a neglect of their Divine office) or to recite what is injoyn'd them by way of Pen­nance (and so prefer a punishment before the chief part of their Re­ligion) [Page 33] or other voluntary performances (so they may do what they will, rather than mind what they are about.) They know they can­not do two things at once, especially in Divine worship, which should take up the Soul. Though in their worshipping, where the Soul is not concern'd they may attend a hundred acts at once; as much as they are obliged to mind the Masse, that is, actually not at all. They admit them also not only to ^(c) read, or write what they please; but also to sleep part of the time: so that they take not too long a Nap. It should not last above a third part, or half the Masse (for that is ^(d) pars no­tabilis) if it be but less than that, it passeth for nothing. ^(e) Or if they be too brisk to sleep, they may entertain themselves with familiar ^(f) chatt. Medina ^(g) concludes, that he who is at Masse may spend the whole time in discourse about other things, Merchant affairs, or making Bargains, and yet fulfil the precept. They must it seems demean them­selves at Masse altogether as Religiously, as at the Exchange; and no more is required. Suarez would have the Discourse neither so long, nor so serious, there should be some intermissions to attend. But what attention can be mean? He (with the rest) tells us, that to the Masse, less attention is requisite than to their Divine office; and to that office, he and they say, a vertual intention is sufficient, and this is the least of all that can be: So that to the Masse, less attention than the least of all, will suffice, and this to common apprehension is none at all. Others of them (as we saw before) will have no attention of mind needful for their office; and so with them, none will serve the Masse. Their Catholicks may have their choice here, and satisfie their Devoti­on at Masse, either with the attention of this Doctor and some other late Authours, which is none at all: or (if this seem too much) with [Page 34] that of their ancienter Doctors, which is less than none. And what must they attend to, who need neither hear, nor see, nor understand what is said, or done? It would puzle one as subtile as himself, to tell one how he can attend to that, which is neither offered to his senses, nor his intellect. And therefore the Jesuite though he seems more strict, yet herein is less rational, than Medina, and not so consistent with himself or their common Doctrine. Also he would not have the Discourse at Masse so grave and serious, as that of Merchants, ^(h) it should be more light, more idle than that about Trade and Busi­ness. It seems the levity of the Stage suits with the Masse better than the seriousness of the Exchange. Answerably if their ⁽ⁱ⁾ Discourse be not decent, nor the Subject of it very modest, the Masse will com­port with it, and the Churches precept will bear it without a breach. And no wonder, since it hath been the custome of that Church (as many of their ^(k) Writers inform us) to sing, not only prophane, but f [...]l [...]hy Songs at high Masse; and that to the Organ, that the people might not only be refreshed by their own private immodest Discourse, but edified more effectually this way, by the lowder voice of the Church. And how, we learn by a grave Cardinal (though little herein more rigid than others) who tells us, that the ^(m) hearers were thereby excited, to what was prophane and filthy, as experience witnessed. And still notwithstanding any pretence of Reformation, tunes to the Organ at Divine service or Masse, though lascivious and very prophane, will pass for a small fault ⁽ⁿ⁾ (in the judgment of those who seem most [Page 35] severe in the case) if either the matter be slight, or the intention good, or the Actors inconsiderate. Heres provision enough, that the Scenes in their Masse may not be dull and heavy. Yet further they may laugh, and be pleasant, and when the Musick (which sounds not alwayes) doth it not, they may make themselves merry in the height of their worship. But this with some caution, ^(o) their talk, and laughter may break out into such noyse, that possibly it may prove a sin of irreverence. Here is some shew of danger, but it will vanish presently; For if it should be a very loud extravagance, and the irreverence great; ^(p) yet great irreverence may, with them, be but a small fault, and they have the authority of a Pope to warrant this. Nor must this seem strange to us, since they will not have all contempt ^(q) of God criminal; that which is material may be venial; and it is not formal, unless besides the contempt of God, there be also an intention to contemn him. Such is the most solemn worship in the Roman-Church, and so is God wor­shipped amongst them; and that not by the unwarranted presumption of the prophane multitude: but by the Rules and Conclusions of those, who direct their worship and guide their Consciences. Here we may see in the Masse the Religion of Roman-Catholicks, they call it ^(r) the chiefest, the best part of their Religion, that we may not look for any thing better amongst them, nor any thing Religious, if it be not found here, yea it is all (better and worse) that the people are obliged to in publick (and in private their Church doth not trouble them with any.) He that views it well, and believes he hath a Soul, and that there is a God; must have little, or no regard of either, if he do not bless himself from it, as a thing which hath nothing of Re­ligion, but the name, and that merely usurped. A Religion which [Page 36] needs nothing, by the Doctrine of its chief Professors, that is either Godly, or so good as humane: no regard of God at all, so much as in one thought of him; nor any act of Reason, yea or of sense either about any thing Religious or Divine; yet allowes a free exercise of both, about that which is prophane and irreligious. He that counts this Religion indeed, must stifle the common notions of Religion and Christianity: and he, that understanding it, makes choice thereof; had need first be very indifferent, whether he have any Religion, or none. Had the ancient Fathers talk'd after this senseless, lewd, extra­vagant rate, concerning the worship of God, how would Celsus, Porphyrie, and Julian have Triumph'd over them? nay, they might justly have challeng'd them to have instanced in any one that bore the name of a Philosopher, that ever treated of the worship of God with so little Reverence and Discretion. Had such loose and wild Doctrines been broach'd by the first Teachers of Christianity, the Heathens need­ed not have rais'd so fierce a persecution against it, they might with ease have hiss'd it out of the World.

But this is not the worst, they encourage that in the Mass which they cannot but condemn as wicked; and maintain that the precept for hearing Mass may be satisfied by such wickedness. Melchior Canos to this Objection (that the Command of God, or the Church, cannot be fulfilled by sin) answers according to the opinion commonly main­tained amongst them. ^(a) That he is no Transgressor of the precept, who to the Act enjoyn'd, and good, in its kind, adds something sinful. He supposeth that the Act commanded by the Church, is some way good; but withal, that the precept may be satisfied, though it be done wick­edly, and that by their common Doctrine. Whether the circumstan­ces may be venially or mortally wicked, he saith not, but leaves us to understand it of either. Dominicus a Sato, tells us expresly, that though what is added to the Act ^(b) enjoyned, be a mortal wickedness, yet the Precept may thereby be satisfied substantially. With these Divines of [Page 37] greatest reputation amongst them, concurs Navarre ^(c) no less renowned (and none of them Jesuites) the opinion of Antoninus (which he is dis­proving) presupposeth, saith he, that by a sinful Act, especially if it be a mortal sin, the Command of the Church cannot be fulfilled; but that this is false we have largely proved. He would have us know that he hath fully demonstrated, that the Precept for hearing Mass, may be intirely accomplished by deadly crimes. This is the judgment of the most emi­nent Doctors amongst them, such as are not of the Society; and (if they will believe their famous Bishop of the Canaries) the common Doctrine in the Roman Church: and by this, the world may judge what a Church it is, what her Religion, what her Worship, what her Precepts for it are: When all that she requires for that worship, which is the principal part of her Religion, may be satisfied by acts of wicked­ness, such as are mortal and damnable to the Worshippers, and most (of all others) dishonourable to God, whom they pretend to worship: And let those that are seduced, or may be tempted by Seducers, seri­ously consider, whether they can wisely trust their souls to such a con­duct, or be safe in such a communion, where there is no more tender­ness for the salvation of souls, than to be satisfied with such a worship­ing of God as will confessedly damn them.

Sect. 3. Thus much for the manner of their publick worship, all of it, who ever amongst them it concerns; whereby it appears that they count it not necessary that God should have any real worship from them. This will be further manifest by what they teach concerning the end of it.

They maintain, that it is lawful for their Clergy and Monasticks too (who profess perfection) to serve God for their own ends, viz. to get preferment, or compass a dignity, or gain some wordly advantage, and so to prostitute the Honour and Worship of God to such low, earthly, sordid designes, as Religious persons would never appear to own; but that Irreligion is grown too monstrously big for its vizard. He that riseth to their morning Service for this end, that he may have his dai­ly devidend, if it be not principally for this, he sins not. So their glossa celeberrima, the two Popes Ʋrbane & Caelestine determine that it is law­ful [Page 38] for their Clergy to serve God in their Churches for this design, and hope to get Ecclesiastical dignity in ^(d) Navarre. But then this great Casuist, (of so high esteem amongst them, that he was sent for from Spain to Rome, to give advice and direction to the old Gentleman there, that cannot erre) understands (after ^(a) Aquinas & Jo. Major. as he pretends) the principal end to be something else than others do. It is not that which so much moves the Agent, as that without it he would not be drawn to act by any other end and accordingly he will have the premised testimony to be understood. ^(b) So that one of their Perfectionists, who riseth to morning prayer for this end, that he may have his dividend; & would not stir ^(c) out of his Bed to attend the Worship of God for God's sake, or any other end beseeming a Re­ligious person, if the consideration of his daily allowance did not rouse him: yet he serves God so well herein, as that he is sinless, and not so much as venially tainted. Likewise the Clergy who address them­selves to the Worship of God, moved thereto, more by hopes to gain preferment and dignity than any respect to God, yet they sin not. That is, they worship God well enough, though they respect themselves and their own ends more than him: or which is all one, though they serve themselves rather than God whom they are to worship. They are all concerned to maintain this: for he tells them, if ^(d) such acts of Vertue, or Worship, were Vicious, all their acts in a manner would be stark naught, [Page 39] since there are extremely few amongst them that are purely done for God. They are a Church in the mean time that worthily profess godliness, since nothing is done, or needs be done by them, even in the worship of God, for him, so much as for themselves; and indeed Sylvester deals ingenuously when he tells us plainly, without the cover of any pittiful shift ^(e) that it is no sin to serve God principally for their own profit.

Moreover, and yet worse, They teach it is no sin to worship God for an end that is in it self a sin, if it be not principally intended, it is lawful by their doctrine to Preach, to Pray, say Mass, &c. for praise of men (though Christ will have those that design'd it as ^(f) Cajetane notes, even when he is excusing this to have no better reward:) or for vain glory (though they reckon this amongst ^(a) capital crimes) only he must not make so wicked a thing his chief end, and then he is inno­cent enough, though sin against God be his design in worshipping him. ¹⁴³ It is no sin, yea, it is meritorious to do these things, viz. to Preach, and say Mass, and to do other things of like nature principally for God, and secon­darily for vain glory and praise of men, aptly directed as our end. Thus Navarre determins after their great Saint and Doctor, Aquinas. Now he had taught us before, that these acts of worship are but done secon­darily (and so unlawfully) for these criminal ends when they so much sway a man, as that he would not worship God unless he were excited by them; and that vain glory is not his principal end, even when he is so much influenced thereby, as that he would not Pray or Preach, &c. [Page 40] if this were not his motive, this in the judgment of others, as he ac­knowledgeth is to make sin his principal end, and to advance wicked­ness above God, even when he pretends to worship him. But let us not interrupt this great Doctor in his way, it is soul enough as himself makes it; for hereby a man may serve God, and that meritoriously (af­ter the Roman mode) though he never would let him have an act of worship, if pride and vain glory did not set him a-work. He would ne­ver Pray or Preach, &c. if he were not more moved to it by sin, and out of regard to some wickedness, than out of respect to God.

Further yet: They hold it is but a venial fault to worship God principally for vain glory, and other designes of like quality. ¹⁴⁴ Aquinas, as he is represented by Sylvester determining that it is no mortal sin to serve God principally for vain glory; if that be ones chief end actually only, and not both habitually and actually. ¹⁴⁵ Sylvester declares it as his own perswasion, that it is both against Aquinas and the Truth, to hold it is a mortal sin, when those things which are ordained for the glory of God, are used principally for a mans own glory. He instances in the Sacra­ments, saying Mass, the Scriptures and Preaching.

^(a) Cardinal Cajetan declares himself thus in one instant, which involves the rest: It is but venial to Preach for vain glory, or hopes of a gainful almes, signifying, that he means such vain glory as Christ con­demned in the Pharisees, when he told them this was like to be their reward.

^(b) Navarre affirmes, that to Preach, or say Mass, or Pray, and such things as are instituted for the Honour and Worship of God, and the Salvation of Souls, for vain glory principally, or more than principally, is but a venial fault; and that such as gain-say this (who are but two) have been confuted by others, and by himself after them. These are the chief of their Doctors, whom the rest commonly follow, (and none of them Jesuits) who unanimously assert this. Now it is not necessary with them, for any man to avoyd a venial sin, since by their doctrine a world of them can never damn a man: and therefore it is not necessary for any Papist, to worship God otherwise, than principally for vain glory, or ends equally criminal, i. e. it is not needful for them to worship him at all; for no man can imagine, that he is worshipped, when he is in the highest degree dishonoured and affronted: and what greater affront can be put upon him, than under a pretence of worship to debase the great God, and thrust him lower in our designs, not only than our selves and earthly trifles, but lower than sin, the vilest thing on Earth, yea, or in Hell? and this is evidently done when vain glory (a capital sin) hath the preheminence of God in addresses to him, and is regar­ded as principal: when the Lord of Heaven and earth hath no re­gard at all, or only in a lower place. It is not worshipping of God, but a horrid impiety, for men to serve themselves instead of God; but more intolerably impious to worship sin: and that hath the worship and is honoured in the place of God, which hath the highest advancement, and is principal in Religious addresses; yet no better than this is all the worship, which by the Roman Doctrine is necessary from their Catholicks.

In short, whereas by their Doctrine of non-attention formerly exa­amined, it is so evident that they discharge themselves from all real worship, as they have no colour to hide it, no shift to evade it; but a supposal of some praevious intention to serve God, when they are ad­dressing themselves to their service: this their last reserve they them­selves ruine, by their Doctrine concerning the end of worship. For they teach (besides what is premised) that a man who comes to Masse, or Divine service; with a purpose not to worship God, but to serve his Lusts, doth satisfie the Precept. ^(a) We are not obliged (saith Soto) to hear Masse but only so, that it may be a humane act, which it may be, though there be a sinister intention in it. Yea though the thing inten­ded be a sin, and that highly criminal, for he adds ^(b) if one attend prayer, though he do it for vain glory (that is a small matter to stick at) yea though it be with a purpose mortally wicked, yet he fulfills the pre­cept substantially. Such are the commands of the Church of Rome for her most Sacred worship, they may be fully satisfied by deadly wick­edness, there needs no purity of heart or hand for her Devotions; a design damnably evil will serve the turn. ¹⁵⁰ That of Antoninus (saith Navarre) is not to be maintained, that he doth not satisfie the precept, who comes to Church principally to look on a handsome Woman, or to talk with her, or for any other sinful thing. If a man in going to Masse, designs to satisfie his curiosity, or his lust, or any thing else which is wicked: that Church is so good natur'd, she will be satisfied with it, and think [Page 43] her precept for worship well observed, and you must believe (if you can) that the is a good Christian-Church, that will have Christ wor­shipped at this rate. He adds reason for it, a ^(d) man may come to Church for a wicked end, and yet hear Masse well enough there.

^(*) Bonacina, instances in several sorts of wickedness, whereby the command for worship may be fulfilled. This is one amongst the rest, if a man go to Church on purpose to gaze on, or to lust after Women lecherously, he satisfies the precept, and for the general Rule vouches not only Sotus, Navar, Medina, and others of greatest Reputation in their Church; but also their Angelical Saint Thomas.

I need not censure these things, let those that are impartial consi­der the premises, and see if this be not their sense, that the people in the Papacy, by its order, do not, or are not obliged to give God any real worship in publick: and by their leaders, are taught and encou­raged instead of worship, to present him with grosse wickedness. If the measures of Religion may be best taken by its worship, what can any indifferent person judge of Popery; where a service so palpably irreligious, is the best and the most excellent worship they have? if this were duely considered, I think it alone, might be sufficient to re­duce those, that are deluded; and to secure those against Temptati­ons, who are not yet ensnared.

Sect. 4. There is another publick exercise which Christ makes as necessary, as any Evangelical service what-ever, and that is Preaching and hearing the word of God. But the Romanists are not of his mind, in this. ^(e) The Masse is commanded, but not Preaching saith Sylvester, and he one of the order of Predicants. Accordingly hear­ing Masse is commanded, but hearing Sermons is only matter of Ad­vice (saith ^(f) another) which may be neglected without imputation of sin, and if observed, is an act of Supererogation.

They conclude it no duty in such circumstances where it would be counted necessary, if ever; it is no duty on the Lords day, ^(g) or any other time set apart for the publick worship. Masse must be heard then, but no need to hear a Sermon. If it were any mans duty in their account, it would be so in that case, when one wants the know­ledge which is necessary to Salvation, and hath opportunity to get it by hearing: but even then they declare him not obliged. Sylvester propounds the case in these terms. ^(h) Doth he sin mortally, who is ig­norant of those common tbings, which are necessary to Salvation; and may hear Sermons, but doth not? he answers. He so sins, who omits it out of contempt, or with notorious scandal, but not alwayes, when it is out of negligence; because according to Aquinas▪ negligence is not mortal, un­less something be omitted which is under precept, or with contempt. Ad­ding, such negligence may possibly be a mortal sin, hut when it is so, it cannot be determined. It seems no man can tell when it will be a crime, for a person damnably ignorant, to neglect the means of instruction; but more briefly, and positively he resolves it elsewhere, that he is not commanded to hear a Sermon upon the Lords-day; ¹⁵⁷ although he be ignorant of those things which are necessary to Salvation, because he may otherwise satisfie the precept for learning.

Sect. 5. As to the Sacraments, and the worship in them, the dis­patch may be quick, there are none considerable here, but Baptism and the Eucharist, for their other five are not of Divine appointment, nor the worship of God, but their own inventions, and therefore how needful so ever they count them, thereby they make no true worship necessary. But indeed none of them are in their own account neces­sary to Salvation; save only Pennance, and that we shall meet with hereafter. What worship they will have in the Eucharist is sufficiently discovered, by what they are satisfied with in the Masse, where we have found them contented with none at all, or that which is worse than none. Neither do they account this Sacrament simply necessary, for although it be required that they Communicate once a year; yet that is but by humane Law or Custome as they teach. ^(k) The Sacra­ment of the Eucharist saith Canus, is not a Sacrament of necessity.

For Baptism, if they account any worship necessary, it must be ei­ther in respect of the Administrator, or the Baptized, as to the former none with them is needful. ^(a) For by their Doctrine it may be validly Administred by any Man, or Woman, or one that is both; yea or by a Child, by those also that are strangers, or enemies to all Christian worship, by Jews, Pagans or Infidels of any sort, by such as worship not the true God (as Sylvester tells us out of Aquinas, Paludanus and their Churches Law.) By such as believe that Baptism is good for naught, and minister it in scorn. By such as believe that it is not a Sacrament, that it hath no spiritual vertue, and intend not, while they Baptize, to Administer a Sacrament, but only think to do, as the Church does; al­though [Page 46] they account that to be nothing at all, so ^(b) Aquinas, and Pope Innocent saith it will be effectual, though the Baptizer neither know nor believe what Baptism is, but counts it a trifle, though he neither know what the Church is, nor minds to do what the Church doth, but means to do the contrary. No other worship is necessary upon the account of the Ministers, but what might be expected from such as these. Nor any more upon the account of the persons Baptized. For as to the Adult (there being no pretence in reference to infants) they think it suffici­ently administred by force, to those who would not endure it, but for fear of death ^(c) if they did not yield: to such as make all the re­sistance they can ^(d) and offer foul injury to the Sacrament, and defile the water: to those who receive it, not for the purpose for which it is intended, but for quite ¹⁶⁴ other ends than ever it was designed for: yea to those that are Frantick and never had the use of Reason, or are ^(f) stark madd, and that in the height of their madness: to those also ^(g) that are fast a sleep, if they had a mind to it when they were waking. Since they think it duely administred, to such as these, they can­not count any worship necessary herein, upon the account of the par­takers, but what such as these now mentioned may offer.

Sect. 6. For fuller and more particular satisfaction, it is observable, that they divide their Sacraments into some for the Dead, and some for the Living: those for the Dead are Baptism and Pennance. As to these two, some count no disposition requisite, ^(h) but only a willing­ness to receive them. Others (who would seem to be more severe) [Page 47] count Attrition sufficient; (which is a slender dislike of sin, not as it is an offence to God, but out of some other consideration Humane, Natural, or Servile.) And the lowest degree of this possible; and that dispatch't in a moment; and this moment need not be, while they are at these Sacraments, but either ⁽ⁱ⁾ before or after. Their Penitents ^(*) may make their Confession with laughter instead of grief; yet have as much grief at their Sacrament of Pennance as they require, this is past doubt with them. So that it is their common Doctrine that no good act, or motion at all, no not so little, and low as that of Attrition (much less any ingenuous Reverence or Devotion; any act of grace or holy affection) is needful, while they are at the Sacrament, either of Baptism, or their Pennance.

The Sacraments of the living are their other five, Confirmation, Orders, Matrimony, extreme Ʋnction, and the Eucharist: these they say were instituted for the increase of Grace, this is their proper ef­fect; and that they may have their effect, there is not requisite in the partakers any actual disposition at all, not the least inward act or mo­tion that is good; no, not so little as that of attrition, which in their account is of all others ^(k) the least and lowest disposition. And well may they count it so, since the best sort of it, with them, is but the issue of servile fear; which, as such, is below the least degree of moral goodness; and so far from being supernaturally good, that it is morally evil, as we shall see hereafter. All that is needful, is only that the partakers be in a state of Grace, (such as a Priest may put a sinner into who is impenitent, and never truly contrite) though he shew it not by any act in the Sacraments where, if ever, it should appear. [Page 48] ^(l) That the Sacraments may confer an increase of Grace, they only require an habitual disposition, i. e. that they be received in the state of Grace: this is the judgment of Aquinas and Scotus, whom the rest generally fol­low. So that to partake worthily of these Sacraments, no actual dispo­sition, no act of reverence or devotion, not any inward motion (such as should be in true worshippers) is more required or expected than in the sensless Statues which they idolize. Their souls need act or move no more as worshippers of God herein, than if they were neither Christians nor men; than if they were so far from having grace, as to have no souls. Yea, these Sacraments may be valid, and duly celebra­ted, as their Church requires they should be; while the partakers are, not only void of all good motion towards God; but while their souls are in motion against him, and all that is divine and sacred. Their minds and hearts may, during the celebration, be taken up with acts, not only of folly and vanity, but of pride, or lusts, or revenge, or in­fidelity, or atheism, or what is most contrary to the most holy God and his worship, and yet partake as well as the Church requires. ^(m) For the precepts of their Church, concerning the administring of the Sacra­ments, and all other things by her enjoyned, may be intirely satisfied by acts of wickedness. So notoriously holy is that Church, by the report of their chief Writers.

Sect. 7. If they count any of their Sacraments more worthy of ho­lier treatment than that now mentioned, it will be the Eucharist; for this they count more worthy than the rest, and have it in such venera­tion, as not only to worship Christ in it; but to worship it even as Christ himself; and therefore here, if ever, they will judge it requi­site to shew themselves worshippers indeed. Yet for all this, what-ever [Page 49] worship of this Sacrament they count needful, they conclude no true worship of Christ necessary; no, not so much as the least inward act of reverence, devotion, or honour: for this is their common Doctrine, ⁽ⁿ⁾ that besides the disposition of habitual Grace, there is no precept so rigorous as to require any actual disposition for the worthy receiving of this Sacrament, so as that the omission of it can be a mortal sin. In this all their Divines agree: so that any one may partake worthily of this Sacrament, and be free of mortal guilt, without any actual reverence or devotion, any act of grace or holy affection, while he is communi­cating. This one Maxim (wherein they all concur) quite stifles the spirit of Christianity, and bereaves it of its life and soul; it leaves nothing that can honour or please Christ, or be of any advantage to souls, needful in any Christian duty. For no good motion of mind or heart, being needful in the celebrating of this Sacrament, which re­quires it more, they cannot imagine it necessary in any other duty, of less consequence. And the want hereof being but a venial fault, there is no more necessity to have it, than there is to avoid a venial sin, which they make nothing of. In this very case, they hold that ^(o) a venial sin, even in the act of communicating, will not hinder the effect of the Sa­crament. Yea, it may not be so much as a venial fault, if the vagaries of the mind, which exclude attention and reverence due to such a re­ligious [Page 50] act ^(p) be natural. But will it not be more than so slight a fault, voluntarily to abandon every good motion in the celebrating of this Sacrament? No, to decline every good act of mind or heart, and that voluntarily, it can be no worse, ^(q) if it be without contempt, it will be no mortal fault; & that also in the judgment of all their Divines. But though there be not any good disposition in the soul towards Christ, in partaking of his Supper, yet is it not necessary that vile and wicked dispositions should be excluded? No, there is no more need of this than the other. The mind and the heart may actually enter­tain such as are sinful; without any more danger than it rejects those that are good. It is but a slight fault ^(r) to communicate out of ostenta­tion and vain glory; and so to nourish pride while he should be feeding upon Christ; and to design his own honour without any act of re­verence for Christ: he may let his thoughts run out upon vanity, or entertain his soul with vain delights, without the least motion of love, or delight, or desire for Christ, without the least act of Faith in him: and may be pleasing himself with sin, in stead of grieving for it; when he hath the greatest advantage to look upon him whom he hath pierced. And all this he may do without any guilt, that need be repen­ted of, or regarded. This is all the worship and honour that it is need­ful their souls should give to Christ, even in the Sacrament of his body [Page 51] and blood; who will have others cursed to hell, and burnt before­hand, for not giving divine worship to a Wafer. But this is not all, their Church will be satisfied with greater indignity offered to Christ than this: for they teach, that those who communicate unworthily, to such a degree as they count sacriledge, (and that so hainous, as they que­stion whether it be not as tolerable, to cast that which they count their God, to be devoured by dogs; or throw it into the dirt to be trampled on; and ^(t) many of them are positive, that it is greater wickedness than murther or adultery, or that uncleanness against nature, which is most abominable) ^(u) do fully satisfy the precept of the Church for this Communion. Thus Soto, Corduba, Covarruvius, and others al­ledged by them. And this is all derived from their St. Thomas, that Maxim of his so generally received. ^(x) The Law commanding an act, injoyns the substance of it, but not the manner. By which we must un­derstand, that the Church would have the thing done, but regards not how they do it, whether as Christians or as Atheists. She is indifferent as to devotion or sacriledge in her Catholicks, having something else in design, than to be concerned in the honouring of God, and the hap­piness of men, which so much depends upon the manner of worship­ping. It is too plain to be denied, that such a treatment of holy things (to use their own words) is not at all for the worship of God, or the sal­vation of souls, but opposite to both; yet their Churches precept is intirely thereby fulfilled. So that if God have no worship, and men no salvation, yet the Church is satisfied. This and other outward acts must be visibly done, that the World may not think but they have something like Religion amongst them: but though in stead of the [Page 52] worship due to the Divine Majesty, they perform the acts of it in such a manner, as no less dishonours and provokes him, than the crying sins of Murther or Sodomy; their Church hath full contentment, it's all she requires.

Thus we have surveyed the Church-service amongst the Romanists in the several parts of it, and cannot discern any real worship therein, to which they are obliged: but rather that all such worship of God in in publick is by their rules and orders rendred either impossible, or un­necessary.

Sect. 8. Let us inquire in the next place, whether they count it needful that God should have any worship from them in private: and this we may discover by what they determine concerning Meditation, reading the Scripture, and private Prayer. For Meditation, the Casuists speak little of it, nothing at all (that I have met with) of its necessity; it is like they reserve it for their contemplative persons, as a degree of perfection, to which others need not aspire. ^{(*) (*)} The Perfectionists themselves may wave it, but when they will be so over-good as to su­pererogate, and do better than God commands them; if they judge it necessary at any time, sure it would be on those days, when such acts are most proper and requisite. But they conclude it no duty upon the Lords-day, or any other devoted by them, as they pretend, to the ob­servance of God. For they generally agree that no inward worship is then required, and ^(a) meditation is discharged by name: now if they need not think of God on his own day, or any other, wherein a par­ticular observance of him is requisite, it is ground enough to conclude, they do not count it needful to think of him at all. Who can imagine that they judge it necessary to think of God at any time, who count it needless to have God in their thoughts, when they are at his wor­ship?

Sect. 9. As for the reading the Word of God in private, they are so far from esteeming this a duty, that they will scarce excuse it from a crime: all that can be obtained for it, is only a toleration, (as a thing that passeth under an ill character,) and that but in some places, and there but for some persons; with more restriction and caution than the publick Stews are tolerated by their holy Bishop in Rome. So much friends are they to the Word of God, or so little do they judge it a friend to them; they are the best Catholicks in their account, who do not desire to look into it, or to understand from God what he would have them to be: they think it advisable ^(b) that no mortal should be ac­quainted with more of the Scriptures than is in the Mass; where they can understand nothing, and need hear nothing of it at all.

Sect. 10. For private Prayer, it is either vocal or mental: ^(a) that which they call vocal, they generally count not necessary by any Law, either of God, or Nature, or the Church; and so all praying with Families is quite cashiered from the rank of Christian duties; there, to call up­on God's name together they are not concerned, though some think the Heathen are: they count it not a duty to say so much as the ^(b) Lords Prayer, (if they understand but otherwise what is to be prayed for:) this is the common opinion in Suarez; nor do they think an ^(c) Ave Mary (though these are the Prayers most in request with them) more need­ful: they are not obliged to say it, when the publick sign is given at night for that purpose; nor need they use any vocal prayer at all, no, not so much as on the solemn days for worship. ^(d)

But is mental prayer a duty when the other is not used? So it seems: but the question (as in all affirmative precepts) is when? ^(e) Lessius thinks it should not be put off above a month or two, that would signifie too much neglect of our Salvation. It seems those that pray but once in two months do not much neglect it; but this Jesuit is too strait lac'd: that opinion is probable enough, saith one of the greatest Casuist's of this age, which ^(f) assignes 3 times for prayer, once when we come to the perfect use of Reason (suppose ^(g) when they think him capable of fasting, about 21 years of age); and again at the point of death, and in the interval, when we are obliged to love God (that is once in five, or once in seven years). But is not this Jesuit too severe also? It may be those of other Orders will not oppress us so much, or wish us so un­like to Atheists, as to have us pray once in seven years. The Jesuits, though accounted most licentious, yet seldom exceed, and sometimes fall short herein of their other Divines. Sylvester, a Dominican of greatest reputation amongst the Casuists, thus determins the question after Aquinas, ^(h) When one first comes to the use of Reason, he should pray for Gods assistance, (videtur) he is not peremptory that he must, and speaks but conditionally too; for he adds, If he be thus inspired, other­wise he is not determined to that time. When then? ^(a) Why the provi­dence of God moves him to it, when it is necessary. Thus he leaves it, and finds no other time, when a man is obliged to pray once for him­self, but when he sees his soul in greatest danger, ^(b) which it may be [Page 55] he will never see. Their common doctrine is yet worse, thereby we are not bound to pray, but in the Article of Necessity; and that is, when we are in such extremity, as there is ^(c) no other remedy for us: if we judge that we can any way else obtain what we would have, we need not pray: The Law of God, or Nature makes it not then our duty. They help us to understand this by two instances, the one to shew when it is requisite to pray for our selves; the second, when for others. ^(d) When a man falls into most grievous temptations, to Impatience or to Lust, if there can be no other remedy against it, but the grace of God, to be ohtained by prayer, then it may be his duty. But it seems, if he can rid himself of it any other way, or but think he can, then though the temptation be never so violent or dangerous, he needs not pray. ^{(e) (e)} The other is, when a man at a distance sees two ready to sight a Duel, and makes account there is no remedy, but the help of God for parting them, then he is to seek it (which is not the case of one in a thousand). ¹⁹⁹ Yet if perhaps he can any otherwise more help them than by praying, he may let it alone. So that private prayer needs not be their daily practice, nor used as a Christian exercise in ordinary; but in extre­mity only, and cases otherwise desperate, and as the last remedy, and when there is no other indeed, or in their apprehension; it will not be [Page 56] a duty, but in such circumstances as do very rarely, if ever, concurr. They are not to use it as their common repast, but as physick; not for prevention neither, but when they are already surprised with extream danger. And if such extremity occurr not once in seven years, they need not pray for so many years; nay, perhaps it may not befal them, or they may not be apprehensive of it, while they live, and then they need not pray at all. This is not my inference only, it is their own, and acknowledged to be the consequence of their common doctrine. ^(g) Thereby there is no divine precept for prayer, which can oblige any directly; only by: accident it may happen somtimes to be a duty, but such an accident as few may meet with. Its said expresly, that from thence it follows, ^(h) that many may pass their whole lives, with­out ever praying to God, and this without any great fault. It should be said, without the least fault, for where there is no obligation, there is no duty at all; and then no sin great, or little in the want of perfor­mance.

This is some of their Churches sense, but they speak it more fully who tell us, that mental prayer is to be reckoned amongst Counsels ⁽ⁱ⁾ (which none are obliged to observe) and this by the common consen [...] of Aquinas and their other Doctors. And accordingly, that there i [...] ^(k) no Divine Precept, or of natural Law, of it self, obliging to ment [...] prayer, meditation, (some peculiar engagements or occasions set apart wherein mental prayer is not concerned) and this is counted so cer­tain, that to teach the contrary is temerarious, because against the comm [...] use and sense of the whole Church. So that they are not far from the sense of the Church, who (without excepting publick or private, men­tal [Page 57] or vocal) deny ^(l) that there is any Divine Precept in special for Prayer. And these are not only their modern Divines, but some of the Ancienter also, particularly Alexander Alensis ^(m) (the Prime of all their School Doctors) in strictness seems to deny, that there is any proper command by Divine Law for Prayer, taking it properly, but only in a most large sense, as any pious act, or good desire may be called Prayer. And those who would not seem to like this in general, yet allow it when they come to particulars, since they teach, that the Precept obligeth not at any such particular time, or occasion, when it would oblige, if ever. There is no command they tell us, which binds them to pray in pri­vate at any set time ⁽ⁿ⁾ what ever. They are not obliged to Pray when they first come to the use of Reason ^(o): Nor on common days af­terwards, not the least Prayer, not a Pater Noster, not once a day, no, not at their Meals, ^(p) even their Clergy need not do it. Nor on Holy-days neither, ^(q) no, not when they have quite neglected their service in publick. ^(r) Nor on their Fasts, though Scripture still joyns these, as all Christians, who minded Religion, were wont to do of old. Their Fasts are no more Religious for Prayer or any holy exercise, than the abstinence of their Cattle. Nor to prepare themselves for sacred or solemn imployments, for their Sacraments of Pennance, or else for the Eucharist (though this would but trouble them once a year), ^(s) not at the beginning of any service or undertaking what-ever. To pray at such times and occasions is meer matter of Counsel, ^(t) which none can be blamed for neglecting: Nor when a man hath Vowed, and solemn­ly promised to God, and sworn too, that he will pray, even then If it [Page 58] be but a little prayer, ^(u) it will be but a small fault to omit it, for all this. In short, which compriseth all, there ^(x) can be no certain time assigned (unless the hour of death) in which, by any precept of Religion, we are bound to worship God, or seek his help by an act of prayer, as in like case is said of an act of contrition and love to God. So Bonacina. No time for Prayer certain, none determined; but as they conjecture, perhaps, it may be a duty, when they apprehend themselves under grievous and dangerous temptations, and judge there is no remedy but prayer. This, or none at all, is the time for it by their common doctrine; and this is in effect to say, it is a duty at no time, for no person. For those under temptation may not apprehend it dangerous, or a remedy needful; as all will be ready to do, who either regard not temptations, or are pleas­ed with them, or what they lead to. And neither these, nor any else can judge there is no other remedy but prayer; if they believe their doctrine, which offers them divers other remedies, and those more re­lyed on than this. To mention none else, almost any of their Sacra­mentals (of which they have multitudes) will serve their turn, even a little Salt, ^(y) conjured after the mode of holy Church, may do it. Thus we see these Catholicks secured from all divine obligations to pray while they live. But they have another way to do it; for, if any apprehend themselves in dangerous temptations, and also that there is no other remedy against it but prayer, they determine; ^(z) that if such be ignorant that it is then a duty; or if they know it, but do not con­sider it, they are excused from sin, though then they neglect to pray. Now the people may well be ignorant, that they are in such case ob­liged, [Page 59] when their learned men scarce know it. And for those that do know it, the violence of the temptation (and the case supposeth it vio­lent) may leave no place for consideration. However, no man consi­ders this or other things, unless he will: and so it will be no sin to neg­lect prayer at that time, when only they count it a duty, unless he list. Yea, ^(a) though the ignorance, or inconsiderateness be culpable, and through his own default; yet the neglect of the duty, which is thereby occasioned, they can excuse from sin. Besides, if ^(b) they should both know and consider that prayer is then their duty, yet they teach that the omission of it is then no special sin: i. no other sin then that which they should seek to avoyd by praying. Whereby they plainly declare that there is in their account no special precept for prayer, no, not in that case wherein alone they would have it thought a duty, otherwise they would judge it a special sin then to neglect it.

Sect. 11. But though their Catholicks be thus sufficiently eased of all Obligations to private prayer, all their lives, by vertue of any Divine command, it may be there is some precept of the Church for it. Can she be content that they should live so much without God, or any ac­knowledgment of their dependance on him, more like Atheists than Christians? yes there's not any thing for private addresses to God a­mongst all her precepts; she is too indulgent to trouble them with any such thing; she requires not of them the least prayer, or such as are accounted best, not so much as a Pater-noster, there is no Ecclesiastical pre­cept for this, to make it so much as a venial fault, not to use it, sayes ^(c) Me­dina, not a Salve-Regina, no nor an Ave-Mary. They have indeed a special respect to this last, and prefer it Ten to one before any other [Page 60] (though they might use this every minute, without ever praying once to God all their life.) And Pope John the 22. ordained, that thrice every Evening the Bell should sound, that every one might say an Ave-Mary thrice; and since it is grown a custome (and a Church custome usually stands for a Law with them) that not only at Evening, but at Noon and Morning too, a Bell should sound for the same purpose. So that this, if any, is under injunction: There is a fair shew for it, but it is no more than a shew, for they assure us, this is only a ^(d) vo­luntary Devotion, and hath nothing of Obligation in it: Those that never use this and such prayers, it is, they say, a shrewd sign, they do not live well, but the omission thereof, is no special sin with respect unto any precept either of God or the Church.

And is not this a very pious concession, that they are pleased to grant, that for a man never to say his prayers is a general bad sign, that he does not live as he ought, though they will by no means allow it to be any special sin? Oh! the Piety and tenderness of this Mother and head of all Churches!

If for all this, any of them should conceive themselves obliged to pray sometimes; or if without such opinion, they should find some season for private prayer, though God (as they dream) and the Church (as they know) hath prescribed none: as when a Confessor enjoyns it for Pennance; or out of voluntary Devotion, when they have a mind to Supererogate, and do better than God requires, upon which ac­counts, some of them may be found now and then very busie with their Beads: yet in these cases, there is by their principles no more need to worship God in their private, than in their publick prayers, where (as we have shewed) they account no actual observance of God at all necessary: As for the prayer enjoyned them by way of Pennance, these are not necessary for them, but as their punishment; and then they pray not, for that is an act of the Soul, but this a suf­fering of the outward man. The Church as (they say) it cannot judge of inward acts, so it cannot order them to be penal. And the Male-factors here being their own executioners; as there is no need, [Page 61] so there is no fear, that they will punish their Souls; but leave them untouched, unconcerned, what ever their lips, or fingers, or Beads may suffer, by that grievous penalty of praying. But it were well, if God did not suffer more by such abuse of his name and worship, than those malefactors, who count i [...] a suffering to do any thing like his service. And it sounds not well, that prayer must pass for a punishment. It is as Damascen defines it, and they after him, the ascent of the mind unto God. ^(e) Now is the approach of the Soul to God a punishment? One would think the Devils should think better of it; for the misery of Hell is distance from God, without hopes of having access to him. But they can solve the difficulty well enough; for they mean not do any such thing as praying in the case, but only to suffer some thing, which they call so. Their care and pains is about their Beads, not their Souls: if they keep but count, and bring in the full tale which the Confessor enjoyns: though in as many Crowns and Rosaries, as there are Ave-Maries, in each Ten thousand times over, they have not one thought of God, nor the least motion of mind or heart towards him: yet they give full satisfaction, and undergoe all they were adjudged to.

In their voluntary prayers, there is less of worship required than the other, if there can be less than none. For ^(f) when they need not use such prayers, unless they please, they may do it as they list: it being no duty enjoyned, the manner of performance is arbitrary, and wholly at discretion. Hence those who think something (of some sort) of attention requisite in commanded prayers count none at all necessary in these; no not that which is Superficial, not so little of that as they call vertual. So that if herein, they mind nothing at all, wherein worshippers at prayer are concerned, not so little as the bare words; yet they acquit themselves well enough, yea if this neglect of all be wil­ful, [Page 62] ^(g) and the mind not only run of its own accord, but be sent away and employed about something else on set purpose; it will but be at worst a slight fault.

Sect. 12. In this fashion they would have us suppose that God may be worshipped, when there is neither inward nor outward Observance of him. Inward he hath none, when the mind is departed from him, and the heart with it. Outward he hath none, unless merely in shew, when the mind directs it not to, and designs it not for him: which is never done, when he is not minded. In fine by the Doctrine of the Ro­manists (to say nothing of the Idolatry or Superstition of their service) it is unnecessary that God should have any real worship either publick or private: unless God can be said to be truly worshipped, without the love or fear of God, without acts of wisdom or affection, without Reverence or Devotion, without sincere or honest intentions; or with designs of wickedness; without knowing what they do, or heeding what they are about; without mind, or heart, yea or body either, un­less in mere shew, this is apparent by the premisses. The people (as they think) worship God well enough at this rate; their leaders teach them, no more is needful; their Church by confining their service to an unknown Tongue, makes it necessary for their Divines thus to teach, and unavoydable for the people to worship no otherwise. Now what a Church is this, or of what Religion that makes the real worship of God, and of Jesus Christ to be needless, and takes an effectual course, that he should have none? Let those who are of their Com­munion, or tempted to it, consider it seriously, and in the fear of God. Is it the way to Salvation to be without Religion? is there any Religion indeed, where it is made needless to worship God really, when worship is as essential to Religion, as a Soul is to a man? They may by joyning with them, greaten a party and promote the interest of a faction, which carries on other designs under Religious pretences, [Page 63] without regard of God, as to his worship and honour, or to the Souls of men, as to their happiness, and the true way to it: but if they follow the conduct of the Roman Doctrine, and worship of God no otherwise than these would have them; they may be of the Roman Profession, and yet of no Religion. If a man have a mind to trou­ble himself with none of the realities of Christianity, and yet to pass for Religious enough, in the opinion of so much of the world as is Papal, and will hang his Soul upon so common Reputation, Popery is contrived to allure and gratifie him; and he may safely venture on it, if Damnation be not dangerous, or if he can escape it by an opinion or shew of worshipping God, and being Religious without reality.

Sect. 1. KNowledge is the foundation of almost all that is saving: of Faith, Holiness, Obedience, Worship: it is the ground­work, without which scarce a stone can be laid in the whole structure of Salvation. No saving faith without it, Rom. 10. 14. There can be no love to, or hope in an unknown object. There can be no fear, no desire of what we know not. There can be no true worship of God, unless that of the Samaritans was such, who worshipped they knew not what. There can be no obedience without knowing whom, what, why, and for what end we obey: in brief without knowledge there is no eternal life, Joh. 17. 3. nothing but ruine and eternal destruction, Hosea 4. 6. 2 Thess. 1.

Yet for all this, Popery decries knowledge, as that which is unne­cessary for the people, and extolls the want of it, as that which is es­sential to their faith ^(a) (Bellarmine saith faith is better defined by igno­rance) [Page 64] as that which is the Mother of their Devotion (so others declare it:) as that which is the excellency of their obedience; none comparable to that which they call blind obedience, as Cardinal Cusanus tells us. ^(b)

It sufficeth the people to know that their Church hath knowledge; and their sight is good enough, in that their Teachers have eyes, so one of their Authours. ²²⁶ In matters of faith, the people ought not to see with their own eyes, but the eyes of their Superiors. They need not know what they pray for, nor what they are to believe, nor what they are to do.

1. They need not know what they are to pray for, or to whom, or whether they pray or not; all is muffled up in an unknown Language, and they are to venture at they know not what, nor how, nor whither. ^* No wonder if they direct the Lords prayer to Saints, Male or Fe­male; and say our Father, to the Virgin Mother: and in like manner direct Ave-Marie's to Christ, as if they took him to be a Woman, or to be with Child (and with himself too) to be the fruit of his own Womh; or to be his own Mother, which the words so applyed signifie. This ignorance is the dam of such Devotion, such as is both horrid and blasphemous to the highest degree of horror. And yet their great Clerks will countenance it. The wisdom of their Church hath thought it fit, that they should not be so wise, as to understand what they do, when they are serving God. The Counsel of Trent [...]ulminates a Curse against those, who hold that the Masse ought to be celebrated in a known Tongue: that is, they curse those, who approve not that mode of service, which the Apostle condemns as ^(b) Barbarous, 1 Cor. 14. such as is not fit for God or man, they curse those who will not offer a blind Sacrifice, or blindfold. As if [Page 65] one under the Law ought not to have seen, whether that which he offered, were a Hogg, or a Sheep; whether he Sacrificed a Lamb, or cut of a Doggs neck; whether he presented an Oblation, or offered Swines blood. They think not only the people, but even the Clergy unconcerned, to know what they say, when they speak unto God. ^(c) The Clergy (saith Jacobus de Graffiis) or the Laity when they are at Divine service, if they understand not what they say, they sin not. It is so far from being their duty to serve God as Christians, that they need not act as Men in his service. If the words be but said, though with no ^(d) more understanding, than Mag-pyes are taught to sound them: it's as reasonable service as their Church requires; what God requires, with them is no matter. They expect not, that any should under­stand their service, but expert Divines, as ^(a) Soto tells us. Now it is a very small part of their Clergy that pretends to be Divines, and a small part of those few that are expert therein; it is an attainment which most of their Bishops fall short of: their common Priests are suffici­ently qualified with the art of reading, nor need they be masters of that neither, the Masse-book is almost taught to read it self. For in the Missals established by Pius the 5th. and recognized by Clement the Eighth, every syllable is diversely marked, whether it is to be sounded long or short. What do we speak of Clergy or Priests? it is not ne­cessary for their Popes to be able to understand, or to read their com­mon prayers, themselves spare not to divulge this. It is manifest, saith Alphonsus a Castro; ^(*) That many Popes are so illiterate, that they are utterly ignorant of the Grammar. It seems, he may be universal Pastour, and the Teacher of the whole World, who hath not learned his Grammar: and the infallible Guide of all mortals, who understands not his own language, wherein the Articles of faith, their Lawes, [Page 66] Ceremonies, and Church-service is delivered. And is it not very much that two things so different as ignorance and infallibility, should have the good hap to meet together in the same person.

Sect. 2. Secondly, They need not know what they are to believe, they tell us they are obliged under pain of Damnation, to believe what­ [...]oever the visible Church of Christ proposeth, as revealed by Almigh­ty God. Now their Church proposeth for points of faith so revealed, not only what they have in Scripture; but what they have by Tradi­tion, or by the custome of the Church in former ages; or by the con­sent of the Fathers; or by the decrees of Councils, or by the deter­mination of Popes è Cathedra, whereby points of faith become infi­nitely numerous, beyond all account, which the learned amongst them can give, either to satisfie themselves or others. Yet all must be belie­ved, and that under pain of damnation, when as it is but a very small part of them, that can be commonly known. The Articles of the Creed called the Apostles, are not the hundred part of those points, that must be believed by all, that will not be damned: and yet they generally conclude, that it is not necessary for the people to know all of those few Articles. How to believe the rest (and it may be five hun­dred times more) which they know nothing of, nor ever once came into their thoughts, they must make what shift they can.

However, they need not know all the Articles of the small Creed, as the chief of them teach. Not all saith Aquinas ^(a) but what is suffi­cient to direct to the last end. Not all saith ^(b) Scotus, but the grosse things, as, that Christ was born and suffered, and others belonging to Redemption. Not all saith Sylvester (and many with him) ^(c) but those particularly, for which the Church hath publick Solemnities. Not all saith Bonaventure ^(d) but those which we have notice of by the Church-Solemnities, or acts of the Priests, and these in him are [Page 67] four, that of the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, and Remission of sins, to which he adds another, which the sign of the cross teacheth, and wherein ^(e) Angelus followes him; so that the half and more, needs not to be known; for they reckon fourteen in all.

Others there are who require not this little, nor think it needful to know these Articles more than implicitely, that is without understand­ing them; so Gulielmus Parisiensis, and Altissiodorensis in ^(f) Bannez, Summa Rosellae, after others holds ^(g) it enough for the simple, and per­haps all discerning people to believe, that God is the Rewarder of the good, and Punisher of the evil. A compendious Creed truly, and that which will never trouble the Conscience of a Turk, or a Heathen, the know­ledg and faith of a Barbarous insidel is enough, it seems, to make a Papal Christian. Accordingly others teach, that such as are educated amongst Catholicks, and are ignorant of the Trinity; are excused from the explicite knowledge thereof, especially if they want a Teacher; so Bartholomew, Medina, and Immanuel say, who gives this reason for it. ²⁴⁰ We cannot say, that an infinite number of Christians, otherwise good people do perish, that scarce know any thing aright of the mystery of the Trinity, and incarnation; yea judge perversly of these points, if you ask them. And yet without the knowledge of the in­carnation of Christ, there is no knowledge of the Creed, or of the [Page 68] Gospel. Sancta ⁽ⁱ⁾ Clara is of the same mind too, and quotes others for it.

So that by this Doctrine a man needs not know the persons in the God-head, nor the incarnation of Christ, upon which his Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection and Intercession depends, which are the sum of the Gospel. Yea, he may not only be ignorant of these Truths, the knowledge of which (if of any) is necessary to Salvation: but he may have false and perverse apprehensions of them, and yet be secure from perishing. According ^(k) to Soto and Metina, he that is igno­rant of the Incarnation, and Trinity, because he was educated in the Mountains, without a Preacher to instruct him, will be saved, if he dye in grace (which they suppose he may have without knowledge) for an implicite faith (that is, without knowledge) will then serve his turn Secundum Doctores nobiles, as noble Doctors conclude, saith Lopez. So that, they may have eternal life, without knowing the true God or Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. Ignorance hereof will be invincible, that is, both inculpable in it self, and sufficient to justifie the crimi­nal issues of it, if they want a Teacher: that is, not only, if it be not possible, but if it be ^(l) difficult, or inconvenient to have one.

^(m) The Cardinals of the Inquisition at Rome, will have such Con­fessors allowed, who hold, that persons are capable of absolution (and so supposed to be in a state of Salvation) how palpable soever their ignorance might be of the mysteries of faith; nay, though out of pure negligence, they know nothing of the mystery of the most blessed Trinity or of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Medina teacheth, that if one when he is dying, acknowledge that he hath been very negli­gent [Page 69] to learn Christian Doctrine, and would not hear it, and thereby, wants the knowledge of the mystery of the incarnation, and Trinity, and the Articles of faith: yet to deny him Absolution would be impious So ⁽ⁿ⁾ Lopez reports him, and himself ^(o) sayes, such an one is to be Absolved. Here is encouragement more than enough, to live and dye in gross ignorance, and those who have a mind to continue, without the knowledge of God under the name of Men; or of Christ, under the profession of Christians, have a general warranty by their Doctrine to do it.

For, the former sort of their Divines, who seem to require a know­ledge of some Articles, do indeed make no more knowledge necessary, than those who require it not. For when they explain themselves, commonly such a knowing is sufficient, as is without understanding, a dark conceit, that such things there be, though they apprehend not at all what they are. Such mysterious subtilties their Doctors are pleased with: as, they have a sort of faith without knowledge, or any thought of what they believe; so a knowledge without understanding.

^(p) Scotus thinks they have sufficient knowledge of the Trinity (Three persons and one nature) who can neither apprehend what a person, or a nature is. Accordingly Bonaventure saith, ^(q) the people may know the Trinity, by crossing themselves, since they do it in the name of the Father, &c. And by the festivals they may know the rest which is necessary to be understood. And when it is argued, that there are few but such as are expert in Divinity, who know how to distin­guish, and number the Articles of the Creed, and therefore if all were bound to know them distinctly, and explicitely (id est, to know what they mean) few or none would be saved, which is an extream cruel saying; he in his answer grants ^(r) it all.

^(s) Bellarmine seems to make some knowledge of the Articles of the Creed necessary, but what it is, he signifies elsewhere, when he tells us that experience witnesseth that the greatest part of the faithful, and in a manner all the Countrey people, are so far from understanding the mystery of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, and other such points necessary to Salvation, that they scarce apprehend any thing besides the mere sound of the words, and yet are deservedly counted believers.

So Cardinal Tolet requires in those that are to be absolved, a kind of acquaintance with some prime Articles of faith; but signifies, it will be sufficient if hearing them rehearsed, ^(t) they can tell us, which is an Article, and which not, and this they may do by the sound, though they understand nothing of the sense. ^(*) De Graffijs is confident, that a Confessor may make an ignorant person understand all that is necessa­ry to Salvation, by making the sign of the Cross. And Angelus, who would have 3 or 4 Articles of the Creed to be known; yet concludes, if one ^(u) can answer of this or that Article decently, quod sic, it is so; it will be sufficient for him; though he know not the Creed.

Sylvester pretends to make more knowledge requisite than Rosella, but yet he determins, ^(x) That mere want of knowledge is no sin; that it [Page 71] is not a sin to be ignorant of what he ought to know, but upon the ac­count of negligence; that negligence to know things necessary to Sal­vation may be a mortal sin sometimes, but when, it is hard to tell, yea im­possible. So that here is incouragement enough to continue carelesly in ignorance of things necessary to Salvation, and to neglect saving knowledge; for when this is a mortal sin, no man can tell; and a ve­nial fault, no man needs avoid. In short, they not only justifie simple ignorance, how gross so-ever, but that which has a worse character (ignorantia pravae dispositionis): and count it no crime not only to want the knowledge of the Articles of Faith, but out of Ignorance to enter­tain opinions contrary thereto. He that believes an Heresie, saith Navar, ^(a) out of simplicity or ignorance, because he thinks the Church holds it, and is ready to relinquish it when the Truth shall be discovered, regularly he sins not mortally. And with Alphonsus a Castro, no kind of Heresie is a sin, if it be out of ignorance, & without pertinacy, ^(b) If their Teach­ers instill such Errours into the People, and they through Ignorance, receive impressions contrary to points of Faith, and follow such Guides blindfold; therein they sin not. ^(c) Yea, I say more, saith Angelus, Sometimes such an errour may be meritorious; for example, One hears a famous Preacher or a Bishop preach some Errour, and he simply believes it, with a mind to be obedient to the Faith, but ready to be reduced; for things are to be judged of by the intention. But ^(d) sometimes it may be a venial fault, as when an old Woman believes the Trinity to be one Woman; and because she thinks the Church so holds, therefore believes it.

To recite the names of those who assert that the people, through ig­norance, may safely follow their Teachers in Errours, would be tedi­ous, [Page 72] they are so many: for shortness, let us take Sancta Clara's word, who tells us ^(e) It is now the common Opinion of their Schools and Doctors, that people erring with their Teachers or Pastors, are wholly ex­cused from all fault, yea, many times by so erring materially, for this Chri­stian obedience which they owe their Pastours, they merit. So that Igno­rance of points, whose belief is with them necessary to Salvation, is so far from being a sin, that it can render Heresie sinless; yea, make the entertaining of damnable Errours, to be a meritorious belief.

We cannot expect that knowledge should be accounted necessary, where the worst sort of ignorance hath such excess of honour and pri­viledge. It is no more necessary, nor more of it (according to their principles) necessitate praecepti, by vertue of any command, than we have shewed out of their best Writers. But then the necessitas medij, need­fulness as a means or way to life, that is none at all. For as the same Authour tells us, and brings us abundant evidence of it, it is the ^(f) common doctrine of their more grave Divines, that men may now be saved; and the more ^(g) common Tenet of their Schools, that they may be justified without the explicit belief, and so without the know­ledge of Christ himself. So that those who hold the knowledge of Christ unnecessary to Salvation, are many, & their most grave Divines; those that count it unnecessary to Justification, are the greatest number of their Doctors: put these both together, and there will be few left amongst them, and these little considerable in comparison, for number or gra­vity; but such as judge the knowledge of Christ needless to bring men into a saving state, for this, it will not be needful to be Christians, unless any can be Christians without the actual belief or knowledge of Christ.

Sect. 3. Thirdly, they need not know what they ought to do; they may be without sin, ignorant of what the Lord hath made their duty. Adrian, Corduba, Herrera determine, and it is the more common and re­ceived opinion, that men may be inculpably ignorant of the Law of Na­ture, [Page 73] and the ten Commandements, ^(h) as Sancta Clara informs us. But then, since they need not know the Rule, what have they to follow? why, the direction of their Teachers; and these they must follow blindfold, right or wrong: It is one of the qualifications required in the obedience of others, but especially of the Religious (which they would have us think to be best of all) that it be ⁽ⁱ⁾ blind: Nor should Fear of going wrong, move them to open, or use their own eyes; for if they do wander out of the way of God, after such Guides, yet they are right, and do their duty. Those who managed ^(k) the conference for the Romanists at Ratisbon, Anno 1601. maintained that the people are so subjected to the government of their Teachers; that if they erre, the people may and ought to erre with them. And they are not only excused from all faults, when they thus wander with their Teachers, but their obedience to their Pastors herein, is many times meritorious. This is the judgment not only of Valentia, Angles, Vasquez, but the common determination of their Schools in ^(l) Sancta Clara. It seems a man may deserve eternal life by leaving the way to it; and may come to Heaven meritoriously by wandring from it. What a strange thing is it, that they will not let their Catholicks be certain of Salvation, since they cannot miss it, no not by going out of the way that leads to it? When they follow their Guide into the ditch, yet they are safe; but that's a small matter: by being willing to be led by such as see not, or mind not the way, they merit, and spring up to Heaven marvellously, even when they are fall­ing from a precipice, and tumbling headlong after their Leaders.

The same Author tells us ^(m) that some Doctors ascribe so much to the instruction of Pastors, who have care of the Flock, that if they should teach that now and then God would have them to hate him, a simple Parishioner [Page 74] is bound to believe them. All think not fit to give so broad instances, but whether all have not warrant to do it by their common Tenet, let others judge.

However, if the people (content to trust, and not to see, what so much concerns them) suffer themselves to be deceived, they sin not, their ignorance will save them harmless. And what could any Impo­stor desire more than to have those whom he hath a mind to abuse to the uttermost, possessed with such a confidence, that how-ever they be deluded, it will not hurt them? Now what an admirable expedient is ignorance for the Children of this Kingdom, when by vertue of it, the Leaders may carry the people whither they list, without suspition, the people may follow in the dark without danger? No wonder if ig­norance be nourished in them by all means, when they are not con­cerned to know whether that which they are led to, be good, or evil, just, or unjust, against God, or for him; what-ever it be, they ought to obey at a venture. ⁽ⁿ⁾ They need not so much as know whether their Leaders have power to require what they enjoyn.

If they be in doubt whether that they are led to, be against the Law, yet on they must go, for they all agree here, to drive them; ^(o) secun­dum omnes, saith Sylvester, if he doubt of this, whether it be against the command of God, yet he is bound to obey, he may venture safely. It seems, that is no danger which the Apostle speaks of, He that doubteth is damned▪ Rom. 14. 23. They alledge ^(p) an express Text for this▪ in their Law, which will carry it against the Apostle.

And as that evil which God forbids, may be done by him that doubts least God hath condemned it, so ^(q) that good which he hath injoyned (if Salvation can be had without it) may be neglected when Superiours will have it so; ²⁷¹ their Canonical Text saith it, which must be regarded what-ever becomes of that other, Whether it he better to obey God or men, judge you, Act. 4. 19.

^(s) Yea, if they be past doubt, that what is required is against God, if they think, if they believe it to be against his Command, yet if they believe it but upon weak grounds; yea, or if upon probable grounds (if they be not more certain thereof than they ought to be of their Salvation), they are to suppress their own judgment, and will be excused for the goodness of such Obedience, i. e. for obeying men ra­ther than God, and that against their own judgment.

Such art is used to perswade the people, that they need see nothing they are to do, further than their Leaders would have them; if they doubt, or if they believe; if their eyes be opening, or if they be open­ed; they must shut them close, and obey men blindly, without dis­cerning what God forbids or requires. And it is not for nothing that they deprive them of their eyes, for thus they can make them grinde. Such Ignorance is the way to have them in more subjection, and that they account the most perfect obedience, which is next to bruitish, without knowledge, and without judgment; that they need not have, and this they must not use: a judgment of discretion must by no means be left the people, that is a point they would maintain against us: but as to their own followers, they put it out of question before-hand; for by keeping them without knowledge, they leave them no judgement, [Page 76] but such as one may pass on colours in the dark. Ribera expresseth their sense significantly. ^(t) All who are to obey, especially Religious per­sons, ought to have no head of their own, (i. e.) they are to obey as if they were without eyes or brains. So he explains this worthy expression, non suo sed rectoris sui consilio duci. Let me but add the pregnant words of Cardinal Cusanus, which comprise all that I charge them with in this particular, ^(u) No man (saith he) can be deceived by an ill Pastor; if thou say, Lord, I have obeyed thee in him, whom thou hast set o­ver me, this will be sufficient for thy Salvation; for thou by obedience paid to a Teacher whom the Church tolerates, cannot be deceived, although he command what is unlawful: wherefore the opinion of the Pastor binds thee upon thy Salvation for the good of obedience, although it be unjust; for it belongs not to thee to take notice whether it be unlawful or not, neither hast thou leave not to obey, if it seem unlawful to thee; for that obedience which is irrational is the most compleat, and most perfect obedience, to wit, when one obeys, without the use of Reason, as a beast obeys his owner. A speech fit only for the mouth of the Beast and the false Prophet.

The sum of their doctrine concerning ignorance, is little less than this; they need not be Men; as to their obedience; they need not be Christians, as to the knowledge of Christ; they need scarce be either, as to their worship.

Sect. 4. The ground of all this, is, that they judge the knowledge of the Scriptures unnecessary, in a manner to all sorts; yea count it neces­sary to keep as many as they can possibly from acquaintance therewith. They are highly concerned for this, even as much as those who have villanous designes, and would accomplish them without observance and controul, are concerned to shun the light. They know full well [Page 77] the Scripture condemnes Popery, we may well say they know it, when themselves confess ^(x) that both their worship and their doctrine is con­trary and repugnant to Scripture, and alledge this as the Reason, why they would have as little of the Scripture, as can be, known to any. From their own mouths we have the reason, why they would never have suf­fered the Bible to be exposed in a vulgar Tongue, if it could have been avoided. The Protestants Translations made that impossible, and the Papists among them, who had a mind to look into the word of God, might have made use of these, if no other had been provided: to pre­vent which, they were forced to translate it, and yet their own Trans­lations (which are so strange a disguize of Scripture) they dare not trust to the common view; they are in the Index of forbidden Books, put out by Pius the fourth, and an unpardondable sin they make it for any to read them, but such as can procure a Licence for it from a Bishop or Inquisitor; that is, none but those who, they are confident, will not be moved by what they meet with there against Popery: and yet (as if so great restraint were too much liberty for so dangerous a thing as the Word of God) in the after Edition ^(*) of the Index, by Clement the Eight, he declares, That no new faculty is granted to Bishops or Inquisi­tors to grant any Licence for reading the Bible; since by the Mandate and usage of the Church of Rome, and the Ʋniversal Inquisition, all power of granting such Licences is taken away. So far are they from thinking the knowledge of the Scriptures needful for the people; that they count it Heresie to affirm, the Scripture ought to be in a Language which they know (how can it be less than Heresie to think that need­ful to be known, though it be the Revelation of God which discovers Popery to be an Imposture?) It is a sin from which they shall never be absolved, if they read any thing of the Word of God in a Language which they understand, without a Licence from a Bishop or Inquisi­tor, [Page 78] by Pius his Rule; and no Bishop or Inquisitor hath any power to grant any Licence, by that of Pope Clement.

Knowledge of the Scripture is no more needful for Monks than o­ther people; it is equally necessary, that they should be ignorant of the Word of God, they are under the same restraint, and ^(a) are no o­therwise permitted to read or buy it. Ignorance is proper for this kind of Creature, ^(b) they are for contemplation, not for knowledge. It seems they may employ their heads in contemplation of they know not what: To be sure they need neither Sacred, nor any kind of litera­ture. ^(c) A Monk may be illiterate (say they) they have that privi­ledge by their Cannon Law there quoted by Sylvester and others, and they generally make use of this Indulgence: For their Clergy, six parts of seven, need no more be acquainted with the Scripture than the black Art. The four first Orders are sufficiently accomplished, if they ^(d) are able to read, (according to the Council of Trent) the two next should understand Latine, i. e. the words, but not the matter, yet no necessity of either; it is not of necessity to their ^(e) Sacrament of Or­der, that any below a Bishop should have the use of Reason, when he enters into Orders.

Yea, their Priests need not have any knowledge of the Scriptures. It is no part of their ^(f) qualification; nor doth their Office, by the Roman constitution, require it; ^(g) all that belongs commonly to a Priest, is only to say Service and to say Mass; there ^(h) are infinite numbers made Priests, merely to read Mass (as Polydore Virgil tells us): and ⁽ⁱ⁾ this they may do compleatly, though they cannot so much as read without a Fescue, such as the Missal hath ready for every syllable.

But if the Priest have a special cure, & so be a Preacher or Confessor, yet may he be both good enough without any acquaintance with the Scripture; he may Preach the Gospel after the Roman mode, without knowing the Word of God; for with them it belongs both to Deacons and Monks to Preach; yet ^* those need not understand any thing of Scripture, and these must not read it in a Language they un­derstand, without a Licence.

The Priests in Scotland ^(*) were accounted sufficiently qualified, who, it is said, did think the New Testament to have been composed by Mar­tin Luther.

The Priests even in Italy, ^(k) if they had more notice of the Au­thor, yet scarce more acquaintance with the Contents of the New Te­stament, they never read it, and were much more ignorant thereof, than the silly Women amongst the Thaborites, as Aeneas Sylvius, after­ward Pope Pius 2. writes.

Knowledge of the Scriptures ^(m) was not counted necessary for their Preachers either Regular, or Secular. The chief of their Regu­lars were the Franciscans and Dominicans. In the rule of Fryar Francis, approved by several Popes, the Minorites (one sort of Preach­ing Fryars) are, amongst other other vices, to avoid learning, if they were illiterate

And those of the Dominicans ⁽ⁿ⁾ (the other of Fryars Praedicant) who were rude and illiterate, did Preach notwithstanding.

As for their other Doctors ^(o) or Teachers, that which they are bound to know, is, the rudiments of faith (such as our Children (who can scarce read) will give an account of.

The Papacy had no Doctors or Divines more eminent than those of the Sorbon; ^(p) yet they seem little beholding to the Scripture for their Divinity. Robert Stevens in the last age conversing with those Doctors, would be asking in what part of the New Testament such or such a thing is written, but had such answers returned. They had read it in Jerom, or the Decrees, but what the New Testament was they knew not.

For a Confessor he is sufficiently qualified according to Aquinas, Bonaventure and Albertus, as Sylvester collects ^(q) if he have but read and understand (not the Bible) but Antoninus his Book entituled, Defecerunt; unless he be a mere natural or presumptuous fool: And nei­ther will doubt of any thing (when he knows nothing,) nor enquire of [Page 81] others. So that he may be a compleat Confessor and guide of consci­ences, who knowes nothing of Scripture, and little else; if he have but the wit to discern his own ignorance, and a will to learn of those that are wiser, when he can meet with them. Thus we see a Roman Priest is furnished for all points of the Office common or special, with­out any acquaintance with the word of God.

As to Bishops, they seem to agree, that some knowledge of the Scripture is requisite in them, and some venture to say a full and per­fect knowledge of the old new Testament signified by their Mi­tres; the two Horns whereof mystically demonstrate, that they un­derstand the two Testaments both alike. And indeed since their Prae­lates Secular and Regular, have honour, power and plenty by the Papal contrivement, and hopes of more and greater than other professions can offer: their interest tyes them so fast to it, that they may trust them (if any) with the sight of the word of God securely; and not fear that any discovery of Popish corruptions, through such a Me­dium, will make any impressions on them to their prejudice; or move them to believe, or act any thing against that which is so much them­selves; there is no such danger in admitting these to some acquaintance with Scripture as others, who have no expectations from Religion, but for their Souls and Eternity. Nevertheless their Rules which seem to make this knowledge necessary for Bishops; are rather Coun­sels, than precepts, they are cautious, and will not press this too much: (for conscience enlightned sometimes proves too hard for secular in­terest.) And their Praelates may be easily dispensed with, if they be ignorant of Scripture, or have little notice of it. It's one of Syl­vesters and Angelus questions ^(r) whether an ignorant Bishop sin mortally, if in his Ordination being asked whether he understand the whole Bible, he should affirm he does? this he so resolves after Richar­dus a Sancto victore. If the Bishop be so ignorant, that he knowes not in general the Commands of God, the Articles of faith, what are vertues & [Page 82] vices, and which the Sacraments; then he so sins, he lyes pernitiously. Leaving us to judge that he doth not thus lye; when he solemnly af­firms, that he hath as much knowledge of the old and new Testament, as the Church of Rome requires in a Bishop: if he do but know the Creed, the Ten Commandements; which are vertues and vices, and which are Sacraments, and have but some general perception of these. They will not have the Bishops burthened with too much Scripture-learning, since every Child they confirm, should have no less than this. This may pass for perfect knowledge of the Scripture, and of an Episcopal pitch, with those, who count it no imperfection, to be ig­norant of that which they say, ^(a) doth more hurt than good, for so they are wont to blaspheme the Scriptures, or the Holy Ghost, whose inspiration they are. The Bishop of Dunkeld ^(*) thought he had enough of it, when he said, I thank God I have lived well these many years, and never knew either the old or new Testament. I content me with my Portuis, and Pontifical. Hist. of Ch. of Scotl. l. 2. p. 66. The Bi­shops in other Countreys thought themselves bound in conscience, to be as ignorant of the Scriptures, when they counted it a sin to read them.

Yea he that wants a sufficiency of this knowledge, though so very little or nothing be sufficient, may be dispensed with upon the account of some other quality. As for example, ^(b) Charity they say, will make up want of knowledge in those, who have not sufficient to make them capable of any place or dignity amongst them. Yea they may be dis­pensed with, though they have no better qualities than in Gerson's time, when he tells us ^(c) there were none any where, that were good, or approveable for Doctrine or Practice: but all chosen were both carnal per­sons, and ignorant of spiritual things.

So he in the Fifteen age, and about the same time Clemangis sayes, there were scarce any advanced to the Pontifical dignity, who had so much as superficially either read or heard or learnt the Scriptures; or who had ever touched any thing of the Bible, except the cover. Quotusquis (que) hodie est ad Pontificale culmen evectus qui sacras vel per­functorie literas legerit, audierit, dedicerit; imo qui sacrum codicem nisi tegumento tenus unquam attigerit? De corrupt. Eccl. Statu.

In the age after whe [...]ein the Councel of Trent was held, we have (in Papyrius Masson de Episc. Ʋrbis) The Character of the Roman Praelates, by Pasquil begging the next Cardinals Cap, as being more capable thereof than the Bishops then created.

And the same age, in the Council of Trent where (as they boast) was the flower of all the Roman Praelates in Europe, ^(d) very few of [Page 84] the Bishops had knowledge in Theology, as Father Paul tells us; yet these only had decisive voices in that Council, and all was concluded by plurality of their Votes: when far the major part understood not the matters concluded; so that the Articles of the Roman faith were Voted blindfold. And yet all must be damned who believe not these points of faith: when those who made them so, were ignorant of them, and knew not what they did, when they decreed them. Such is the Romane charity, and knowledge; so burning and shining are their best lights, they will have all burned here, and in Hell too for not believing that, which the Council (for the greater part of it) under­stood not.

But sure, the knowledge of the Pope must be transcendent, especi­ally, as to the Scripture, his place and office requires it, being account­ed head of the whole Church (which ought to have good eyes;) and teacher of Christians (as much or more, than Peter was); and Judge in all controversies which concern Religion; and Interpreter of all difficulties in Scripture, and a more lively Oracle of God, than the Scripture it self in the things of God. Yes say they ^(e) the Pope ought to have farr more knowledge than any other, being the President of the whole Christian Common wealth, so de Graffijs. But then he adds as to him the presumption of the Law is enough for all this, and that pre­sumes, that all is in the Cabinet of the Popes breast (as it may well be pre­sumed, that a skill beyond that of all Physitians is in a bold Mounte­bank) ^(f) although indeed what is quite contrary, may prove true. Ac­cordingly the Pope may be all that they style him, without the know­ledge of a Novice in the Scripture, without any such acquaintance with it, as to pretend to the name of a Divine (though acquaintance with it be expected from none but Divines) and many that have the name, have little or nothing of the thing. The Popes think not [Page 85] themselves concerned at all to trouble their heads with Divinity. ^(*) If he be but a Canonist (as Peter no doubt was) he is the Apo­stles undoubted Successor: though he be no more a Divine than his Chair is, or can make him; and why may not the Chair inspire him with knowledge, as much as holiness? Pope Innocent the Tenth in our dayes (since they have been more concerned for the Reputation of the Vatican Throne, than as before to let Monsters of debauchery and ignorance ascend it) declared ^(g) that he had never studied Divi­nity, nor was it his profession. Pope Clement the Eighth, began to study it when he was very old; and then not to much purpose it seems: for he could not at last decide the question that he had studied, how much soever their Church was concerned in it.

None can understand their Church prayers but expert Divines, as Soto tells us, he means the matter of them indeed, but Popes need not understand the words neither; for many of them do not, who pass for lawful Popes, and such can neither understand the subject nor the words of the Bible, for it is in Latine. ³⁰⁴ And if Alphonsus deceives us not, many of them have not gone so far as their Grammar; ⁽ⁱ⁾ yea very many of them have been so ignorant, as they could not speak their own name in Latine. Yet such knowledge of Scripture is enough in the Roman account for the infallible Interpreter of Scriptures, the su­pream Judge in all matters of faith, and the teacher of the Universe. When we are ready to wonder at this, they stop us presently, by tel­ling us, ^(k) that God did make Balaams Ass speak.

They seem to grant as much stupidity in a Pope, as can be imagined, but then the miracle of making an Ass speak, does patly answer that objection. Had the Bishops of Rome anciently been such ignorant dull Creatures, as many of their later Popes, and yet adored at that rate; the Heathens might have had some colour for charging the Christians with worshipping an Asses head.

As for the people, they are so farr from obliging them to get knowledge, that they either make it impossible for them to attain it, or encourage them never to looke after it. They cannot attain it, but either by reading or hearing: They must not read the Scriptures (as before;) and they cannot, or need not hear. If the Priests be igno­rant (as they are allowed to be) ^(l) they are not able to instruct them: if they be able they need not preach that's sub consilio; or the people need not hear, no nor inquire of them, in private, no, not those that are most ignorant. The further they are from all knowledge, the more excusable, if they take no care, nor pains about it. Sancta Clar [...] [Page 87] makes this Query. ^(m) Are they not bound at least to some diligence, to free themselves from this ignorance? he answers if it be one, who hath no knowledge of these things, which may move him to seek instruction; it is certain that no diligence, or care is required of him, especially if he do not at all doubt (i. e.) if he be confident, that he knowes well enough, and his ignorance makes him so senseless, that he discerns it not. His Reason is, because he is not obliged to that which is impossible, and it is not possible that one should seek that, which never came into his mind (as Angles also determins with him.) So that if knowledge never came into his mind, there is no need, that it ever should come there; and he is not bound to take the least care, or pains to make way for it.

LOve of God, or (as they had rather call it) Charity is in their ac­count, as they seem sometimes to express themselves of greatest moment. Regeneration and spiritual life (they say) consists in it; without it no man is in the state of grace, or favour with God. This is the righteousness whereby they are justified, and their sins pardoned, i. e. abolished (for that is pardon with them:) and their Souls san­ctified (for justification and sanctification is all one in their reckoning.) This is it, which is the life and spirit of all other graces and vertues (say they) without which, the best of them, are dead and unactive [Page 88] things, and deserve not the name of vertues. ^(a) And though they look not for Heaven, unless they deserve it, by their own works: yet their works they say are of no worth, without this. ^(b) Yea their in­dulgencies will not avail any thing without it. ^(c) So far therefore as love to God is unnecessary; so far Regeneration, and spiritual life, a saving state and reconciliation with God; justification, pardon; all graces and vertues; all their own good works, or their Churches in­dulgencies are unnecessary. No further need of what, either God or themselves have made necessary to salvation.

One would think, if they had any desire of Heaven, or fear of Hell, or dread of their own Purgatory: if they had any design for the sal­vation of Souls or any regard of what is saving: they should be ten­der in this point above all, and not abate any moment of its neces­sity. But what they do herein, let us see. Indeed they make both the habitual and the actual love of God unnecessary. First for habitual love, they teach, the Lord hath not at all commanded us to have the habit or principle of this love: he no where requires that we should love him habitually. ^(d) certainly, saith Bellarmine, the Lord hath not commanded that we should love him from an infused habit, for Laws do not require habits. Add to him one of the most eminent amongst the Dominicans, ^(e) there is no affirmative precept for habitual love to God; saith Melchior Canus. I need alledge no more, I find none of them questions it.

Now in that they do not make this love necessary as a duty they can­not [Page 89] account it necessary as a means. For they ^(f) hold that all means necessary to salvation are commanded. So that the habitual love of God by their Doctrine is no way necessary.

And this they teach not only of the habit of love, but of all other graces the ^(g) precepts of the Law are not for habits saith Soto, we are not (as he adds) to pay what we owe from a habit of justice or liberality. ^(h) When we are injoyned to live soberly and righteously, we are not requi­red to do so out of habit, but only to do it, saith Bellarmine; and these instances they bring to shew, that we are not obliged to do any thing out of a habit or principle of love to God.

Sect. 2. Secondly, for actual love, how can they account the acts of it needful, when they make the habits or principle from whence the acts must flow, to be unnecessary? But let us view their Doctrine a­bout this more distinctly. The acts of love are either more forrain and remote, which they call Imperate: or native and proper which they call Elicite acts.

For the former, all acts of Religion and Righteousness, that they may be truly Christians such as the Gospel requires in order to Salva­tion; that they may have a real tincture of Divine and supernatural goodness, and be advanced above the pitch, at which Heathen, or graceless persons may arrive: they must proceed from love to God, and be ordered and directed by it. This they sometimes not only confess, but assert. And yet notwithstanding they teach, ^(*) that it is [Page 90] not needful to perform any such acts, or to observe any commands of God out of love to him. ⁽ⁱ⁾ The commands of God, saith de Graffijs, doe not oblige us to perform them in love, he clears his meaning by an instance. For he sins not, nor is punished of God, who gives due honour to his Parents; although he have not the habit of piety (and so though he do it not out of such a principal) much less (adds he) doth the Church oblige any one to observe the command in love ^(k) for if the end of the precept be love saith Canus, we are not forthwith bound to observe all the commands out of love. The reason is premised, for in the opinion of Aquinas and the most grave Authours, we are not bound to observe the end or intention of the Law-giver (i. e. of Christ) but the means which the Law prescribes in order to it. Soto discourseth this at large, and concludes. ^(l) Love being considered as the universal condition and mode of acting all vertues, and performing all obedience; such a mode of acting out of love is not commanded as when we are enjoyned to honour Parents, the precept binds us not to honour them out of love to God. This he de­livers as the Doctrine of Aquinas, and finds but ^(m) one Doctor a­mongst them of opinion, that we are bound to do all out of love to God; but ⁽ⁿ⁾ condemns this as false and very near the Lutheran error condemned by the Council of Trent, because then all acts done without grace would be sins. So we must believe (if we will not venture to fall under the condemnation of their Council) that it is no sin not [Page 91] to obey God, out of love to him; that all acts of vertue and obedience whatsoever, may be performed without sin, though they be done with­out love to God; that any man Baptized may be saved, though he ne­ver act out of love to God (no, not so much as once while he lives); though he perform not one act of a true Christian while he is on earth. He can never perish for want of love to God, in any, or all the acts of his life; for he will never be damned but for sin; and to act without love to God is no sin. Thus their chief Doctors determine, and this they must all do, in conformity to the decrees of their infallible Coun­cil, and be deluded infallibly in a matter of no less consequence than the way to Heaven; believing that they may arrive there without acts of love, filial obedience or ingenuous observance of God in any thing that he hath commanded, without ever acting as (and so without being at all) true Christians.

Sect. 3. But though they do not transgress other commands, when they observe them without Love; yet they may violate that special command, which requires inward acts of Love, if at that time when this obligeth, they do not act out of Love. Some of them seem to say this, and we shall see what they make of it in the next place,

The nature and proper issue of Love, is its internal act, when the heart being possessed with a principle of divine Love, to God in Christ, actually loves him above all. If this actual Love (the inward act of it,) be not necessary; as there will be no need of the habit, (that being but in order to acts;) so there will be no place for the Im­perate Acts; for those who would have us sometimes observe other commands out of Love, yet never think this requisite, but when the precept obligeth us to actual Love. ^(o)

Now whether there be any command for this act of Love, or whe­ther it oblige, or when, they are not agreed; only in the issue, they conspire to make the Commandement of no effect.

Some of them determine, that the command to Love God with all our mind, is not obliging; which is all one, as if they should say, there is no command for it at all; thus Stapleton, one of the greatest Divines amongst them in his time, ^(p) The precept of loving God with all our mind is dectrinal, and not binding.

To the same effect others conclude there is no special precept of Love to God. So Joh. Samcius ^(q) There is no special command in the Law of God for this, but general, says he. By which he would have us un­derstand, that there is no Precept in particular for loving God, none besides those Commands that require other things; which if they be done, we are discharged from any act of Love, or inward Affection to him. Aquinas is vouched for this, and much alledged out of him, ^(r) to shew he was of this perswasion. If there be any special Pre­cept for this affection to God, it is that which requires us to Love him with all the heart and soul, and strength: But this (as Cardinal Caje­tan ^(s) declares) does not oblige to the love of Charity. And Bannez ^(t) teaches, that for natural Love, there is no special command; and so amongst them they leave no such command for any sort of Love to God at all. The command to God with all our hearts, Maldonat ^(u) will have to be a general, no special Precept.

Others of them confess there is a special command obliging us to Love God actually; but they put such a construction upon it, that it signifies little or nothing more, than if there were no such thing. They say it is requisite, that we should Love God one time or other; but what time this is needful, you will never learn of them; what period one fixeth, another unfixeth: and while they find no certain time for it, in the end they leave no place for it.

They all agree in this, that we are not bound to Love God always actually; for say they, the Precept for it, is affirmative, and such Pre­cepts bind not at all times.

But since we are not obliged to Love God at all times, at what de­termined time is this required of us? Are we to Love him after we are fallen into sin, is that the Article of Necessity? No, Canus ^(x) supposeth that this will be generally denyed; that a man is obliged to Love God soon after he hath sinned.

Are we to Love Him when he vouchsafes some special favour; when he discovers his infinite goodness and amiableness, and makes the most lovely representations of himself to us? one would think, then, if any time at all, we should be obliged to Love him actually. No, saith the same Bishop ^(y) and he no Jesuite or late Casuist) he sins not mortally, (i. e. he transgresseth no Command of God) who loves him not, how much so ever he discovers his divine goodness, and most inamoring loveliness, unless it be when it is necessary to love him. And when shall we ever meet with the time when it is necessary, if not in such circumstances as these? if it be not needful to Love him, either when we disoblige him, or when he most obligeth us to acts of Love; if neither when he is angry with us, nor when he is well pleased, when will, when can it ever be needful?

^(y) Let us see if any others amongst them can nick this Article of time, when this Love will be necessary. Are we bound to put forth an act of Love on Holy-dayes; so Scotus thought: The time, saith he, for observing this Command, is on Holy-days, then we are to recollect our selves, and ascend in mind unto God. He would have had this Love to be a Holy-day habit at least, if not fit for every days wearing. But this is too much (say others) nor do they find any reason why this [Page 94] imagination should come in the subtle Doctors head, Canus saith, ^(s) without all doubt it is to be rejected, and so they do. Scotus herein is borne down by the full torrent of their Doctors. I find none now that will have us obliged to Love God so often.

But since they think it too much to Love God every Holy-day, are we bound to Love him upon his own day? No, not once a week neither. ^(t) For though the Church oblige them to be present at his Worship, to mind things above, to praise his infinite Divinity, and to give thanks for his bounty towards them; yet in all this they are not bound to any act of Love; and Soto gives this reason for it, The end of the Commandement (which is Love) is not commanded. The assertion is hardly so absurd as the reason given for it; that the end, which is the principal in moral actions, should not be commanded. This is to say, that the Law do's not require to be fulfilled; for Love, which is the end of the Com­mandement, is by the Apostle expresly said to be the fulfilling of the Law. But notwithstanding all this, in this Maxim, (which is one of their chief Engines, whereby they demolish Christianity in the practice of those who profess it; make voyd the Commandements of God de­priving them of their life and spirit, and leave nothing of the whole body of Religion, but the meer superficies:) ^(u) Their Divines (he tells us) unanimously agree with Aquinas. So that it seems the wor­ship of God may be sufficiently discharged without any love to him. We may serve him well enough (as far as the Command for his Service [Page 95] will have us) without any affection. In all acts of worship, there needs not any act of Love (by their doctrine) in any part, or any of the times of worship, either their own Holy-days, or the Lords. They have no more respect to his than theirs, nor for him in either, but serve them and him all alike; and think they hallow them, and ho­nour him enough, without any motion of love in their hearts, when, (if ever it were needful in their account,) it should be most in motion. Certainly those that think not this Love due to God in his worship, think it not due to him at all.

But if it be more than needs to love God ^(*) once a week, are they ob­liged at least to love him once a year, if not at ordinary times, yet up­on extraordinary or special occasions, such as more particularly seem to call for some act of Love? When they are to partake of some Sa­crament, when they come to the Eucharist, or to the Sacrament of Pennance (as they are to do once yearly by their Church orders)? No, it is not then necessary neither; ^(a) it is false saith Navarre, that we are bound to fulfil this Command, when we receive any Sacrament; for it is enough, that we be not in mortal sin, or that we probably believe so, al­though no such actual Love be conceived in the heart. We are not bound to that Love (saith he) when we minister, or receive the Sacraments; be­cause we are not then bound to have contrition. Those that make such hard shifts to discharge themselves from the obligation of loving God, when ever occasion is offered, will scarce think it needful to love him upon no occasion: and what occasion can we think of, upon which it will be counted requisite, if not on these already specified? if not after sin, if not upon the receipt of mercy, if not on any day of worship, if not in any part of worship; if these be not occasions for it, who can hope they will ever meet with any? if an act of Love be not requisite once a week, or once a year, on such an account as would make it so, [Page 96] if any imaginable could do it; it will not be a duty in any week, or a­ny year, in a whole life; those that discharge themselves of it, in such circumstances, do plainly enough discharge it for ever.

But since they would make a shew of finding some time for it, (though their determinations all along are pregnant with a denyal of any); let us proceed with them a little further. If an act of Love be not due to God once a year, yet may it be a duty once in four or five years? Soto and Ledesma in Filliutius ventur'd to think it may be requi­site once in five years, and he gives this reason for it; ^(b) Because the time is not determined, but left to the judgment of the wise; but (saith he) thus wise Divines have thought.

Thus Love to God, the greatest duty that we owe the Divine Ma­jesty, and that which is the sum of all the rest, is left to mens arbitre­ment; and if two or three reputed wise, shall judge that God is to have no love at all, or but one act of Love in a whole life; that must be the rule, God and man must be determined by it: Man will owe no more, and the Lord must have no more. Those of their Divines have had the repute of wise, who thought it enough to love God once in a life time, as well as such who conceive it probable, that he should have an act of love once in five years, or once in seven, for thither it may be adjourned by our Authors leave.

The Jansenists charge this opinion upon the late Jesuits, and would have all the odium cast upon them: but they go about to lead us into a mistake, if they would have us believe that these, and other horrid con­ceits concerning an actual love to God, are confined to that Society; they are too common amongst those Doctors who are of greatest re­pute, and judged free from extravagancies in their morality, and more tenacious of what they would have accounted the genuine doctrine of their Church.

³³⁹ There were many in the time of the Council of Trent, when Jesu­itisme [Page 97] was but in its Infancy, who held it enough to love God actually but once in a life time. One act of love ^(d) once in a life, which some count enough, saith Soto, and these some, he tells us afterwards, were very many.

In the time of Francis de Victoria, who lived till the Council of Trent had sate a year, this was the common doctrine, that a man is but obliged to love God once in his life. For upon the question, when the Precept for love obligeth? he says, Nec videtur sufficiens solutio communis, quod tenetur semel in vita Relect. part. 3. n. 11. The common answer, that one is bound to it once in a life, seems not sufficient; he speaks modestly, as one loth to dissent from the common doctrine. (that Council (who if it had been concerned for God and mens souls, as it was for other things, would have appear'd in all its thunder a­gainst such an error) mends this, as it did other matters, by establish­ing a doctrine which makes it needless to love God so much as once in a life: of which hereafter.)

But when is that once? They leave us at liberty for the time, so it be but before we dye. Suarez was not alone in this, as he wants not followers, so he had many that went before him in this conclusion, and those not Jesuits only; for it is grounded upon the notion which the Romish Doctors have of affirmative precepts, when the time for their accomplishment is not expressed. They teach, that such divine com­mands, divers of them are fulfilled, and have sufficient observance, if they be but obeyed semel in vita, once in a life-time. Those that are very cautious, express it with a saltem, once at least in a whole life, in­timating that though more may be better, yet once is as much as is precisely needful; and this they extend to such things, as by the Lords constitution, are means necessary to salvation. ^(e) There are Precepts, saith Canus, without determination of time, which oblige us to observe them some times, at least once in our life, such as are the means necessary to salvation. But in what part of our life must it be, that the Lord must have this act of Love from us, which is enough once in the whole? Why since neither the Scripture nor the Church, say they, hath deter­mined the time, there is no reason for one time more than another; [Page 98] it is left to a mans own discretion ^(*) to love God when he thinks fit; let him but doe it before he dye, and he may take his own time, so some leave it.

But Vasquez would not leave it at such uncertainty, so he fixeth the period; and that is the period of a mans life: he determins, ^(*) the time for loving God is when a man is at the point of death: Nor is this the doctrine of a Jesuite only; for before his time, and before the Society was founded, it was the common opinion of the Romish Doctors; so Dominicus Soto informs us, ^(f) very many hold that the time for the observing of this Command, is at the point of death; that is (as he explains it) when there is not any time left for deserving ought of God. Now every act of Love being meritorious with them, either they contradict themselves, or by this opinion they are not bound to love God actually, till there be no time left for any acts of [Page 99] Love. We are not by this doctrine obliged to love God, till we can live no longer, and are past acting at all.

But are we then bound to love him, is it then necessary? may not a man be saved, who hath continued without Love to God all his life, if he love him not actually, neither, when he is a dying? For this ob­serve what Aquinas tells us, ^(g) That we do not break this Command, but fulfil it, so, as to be free from all mortal guilt, if we do nothing a­gainst the Love of God; that is, if we run not into mortal sin, and so hate him; as a Souldier satisfies his Captains command, who, though he get not the Victory, yet doth nothing against Military discipline; or as Bonaventure explains it, ^(h) Per exclusionem affectus contrarij, by the exclusion of the contrary affection, as if it were sufficient that he do not hate him.

^(*) Marsilius (of great renown for learning amongst their Divines,) will have that which the command for love enjoyns, to be the keeping of Grace and Friendship with God, and the recovering of it, when lost. So that it doth not oblige to actual love, but only to the avoiding of habitual enmity and hatred of God.

But what if he hate God, and persist therein? is it not absolutely necessary, that he should beware of that? it seems not, for saith one of their Doctors, There is no Precept that a Sinner should not persevere in enmity against God; there is no negative Command which forbids him to persist in such hatred. It may be you do not read this (no more than I could) without some horrour and trembling; and I confess, when I found Reginaldus quoted for this, I was ready to think, it was but the extravagancy of some singularly bold Jesuite: but upon fur­ther enquiry, I find it asserted by such whose writings have the greatest approbation of the Romish Church. Melchior Canus, a Do­minican, a Bishop, cryed up as a most elegant, Judicious, and cautious Writer too, and inferior to none of that Order, their Angelical Doctor [Page 100] only excepted, clearly delivers this doctrine, ⁽ⁱ⁾ We are not bound by any negative Precept that we should not be Enemies of God, in respect of guilt. He adds, for as there is no affirmative Precept, requiring habitu­al friendship with God, so for habitual enmity against God in respect of guilt, there is no negative Precept that forbids it. So that to persist in Enmity and Hatred against God, by their approved doctrine, is no sin, it is against no Command.

We need not alledge the words of any other, since this is the plain and necessary consequent of their common doctrine: and we must take it to be the judgment of all, who hold that it is no sin to delay con­trition (i. e. Repentance and turning to God) in which both their An­tienter School Doctors, and modern Divines agree. For while it is no duty to turn to God, habitual enmity and hatred of him will be no sin. Now contrition (and so conversion to God) they say may be deferred till death. Indeed by their doctrine it will never be a duty; for even at death the last Attrition with their Sacrament of confession, is all that is needful.

Sect. 4. However, they make it unnecessary to love God, either living or dying. For though they pretend that there is a time, some or other, when the Precept for it is obliging; and make a shew, as if then unavoidably, he that will be saved, must have an act of love for God in his heart: yet when ever that time comes in life or death, to which their several fancies have determined it; they discover to them many ways, whereby the Precept may be satisfied, without any act of love that it requires: and those which have a mind to be deceived with hopes of Heaven, without ever loving God while they live, may have their choice, which way they will be deluded, for they present them with variety. First, a natural love will serve the turn, such as a grace­less man may have. ³⁴⁹ For Aquinas determines after others, that he that [Page 101] hath no love to God, may observe the Precept of loving him actually, by disposing himself to receive this grace; and whereas some think, that this great Precept of loving God, since Adams sin cannot be fulfilled, but in the state of grace, ³⁵⁰ Navar asserts the contrary, both upon Rea­son and authority; because a man, by his natural power, remaining also in mortal sin, may and doth conceive God to be amiable above all, and the last end of all, and consequently can love him as such; as also, because there may be a love for God, above all, without grace, as Cajetane proves; moreover, because St. Thomas affirmes that one may, without grace, fulfil the command of Loving God, as to the substance of the act, though not as to the meriting of blessedness.

Elsewhere he affirms ^(m) that all the Ten Commandements, and all other Precepts, may be fulfilled by him who is in mortal sin, as to the sub­stance of the act, so as to avoid all sin that would be incurred, if they were not fulfilled; and this, according to the judgment of Aquinas, commonly ^(*) followed, and the sense of the Council of Trent. They assign (we see) two ways whereby the divine Precept may be fulfilled. One as to the substance of the act, so as sin is avoided, and the other as to the end of the Law-giver, so as to deserve Heaven. And they teach that any Precept may be accomplished the former way, by such as are de­stitute of grace. Now to observe the Command of loving God, so far as not to sin against it, is all that is required, if Bellarmins arguing [Page 102] be good. ⁽ⁿ⁾ If I sin not, fiath he, when I love God, without degree of Love (in the judgment of St. Thomas,) certainly I am not bound in strictness to love him more: therefore, if I add another degree, I love him more than I am bound to do. So that an unsanctified man loving God in such a degree, as not to sin against the Precept of love, hath all the affection for God that it requires: and none will be obliged to any love, but such as is natural, and may be found in a graceless heart.

Secondly, an inferiour degree of love will satisfie the Command, such as is far short of what it enjoyns. ^(o) He is no transgressour (saith the Oracle of their Schools) who attains not the intermediate degrees toward perfection, if he reach but the very lowest of all. To ^(p) keep the divine Precepts (saith Bellarmine) any degree of love whatsoever, is sufficient. ^(q) Any act of Love (saith Bannes) how remiss soever, is sufficient to fulfil all the Commands of God; neither is there any certain intenseness requisite, that one in this life may accomplish the Precept of Love to God. The Lord requires that we love him with all our hearts, i. e. with all the affection our hearts can contain: they say that any the smallest degree will suffice. He injoyns us to love him with all our might, i. e. as much as we can: They say it is enough to love him [...] little as we can; we need not love him as much as we might if we would; no more is commanded, but as little as is possible. The low­est degree of all will serve; and if we advance but another step, we supererogate, and God is beholding to us for more than is due.

Their gross mistake about the perfection of obedience in this life, in­tangles them in a necessity to maintain this and other impious absurdi­ties. [Page 103] For if every just person perfectly observes the Law, the least de­gree must be sufficient for such an observance; and when this com­mand declared, with such circumstance of loving God with all our hearts, mind, and strength, doth especially puzzle them; they are con­cerned, either to deny its obligation, as some of them do, or to inter­pret it so as to make it signifie that which is next to nothing, as others. All of them are obliged to deface it one way or other, that it may not appear to confound them.

But to go on. If we are not bound to love God, save in the lowest degree, yet that degree sure should exceed our affection to all other things. No, not so neither, for they tell us commonly, We are not obliged to love God more intensely than other things: So Cardinal Tolet, ^(r) Yea, saith he, sometimes we more fervently love things sensible, and the Creatures. ^(s) Navarre, after Aquinas, and their Divines ancient and modern concur herein.

Its true, they say, God should be loved appreciatively (as to valua­ation, and in esteem) above all: but then by, All, they understand, not simply all things but the worst things of all. In those, (the worst of evils) he is to have the preheminence: but the Creatures are not such evils, and they may be preferred before God in most cases. By their doctrine, we may preser the judgement of others, or our own before the advice of God in all matters of meere Counsel, and to this they have reduced the greatest part of Christian duties; and we may follow our own wills, or the will of others, rather than Gods continually, and make this the constant practice of our lives, in all those innumera­ble evils which they count venial. And so in the most instances by far, we may love and esteem our selves and others more than God, and yet love him enough, and not transgress the Precept. We need not love him more than all Creatures, we may love any Creature more than him, even in way of valuation; only he is to have this honour, and this will be enough, to love him more than deadly crimes; such [Page 104] as declare open hostility against God: this is all the import of that great precept, which concerns us in this life, as it is expressed after A­quinas by ^(t) Soto and others.

Yea, to admit mortal sin, and so to love the Creature more than God, in that respect, in which alone, they say he is more to be loved, is not against this Precept. So Navar informs us, ^(u) Indirectly, saith he, to love the Creature more than God, is not against this Command (of Love): because whoever sins mortally, indirectly loves something more than God—yet such a Delinquent doth not therefore sin against the Precept; because directly he doth nothing against it, nor acts what in it self, and in its own nature separates from God; but by accident, according to Aquinas and Scotus. So that to love the Creature more than God, and to shew it in a way, which themselves say is most repugnant to the love of God, is no transgression of this Command. To say he doth nothing against it directly, is no salvo, when that he doth, is all, which they count (if they count any thing) inconsistent with the Love commanded. He tells us further, ^(*) and Lopez after him, That absolutely to love God, but so much, or not so much as other things, without making any compa­rison, is not evil. So that if God have some affection from us, though we love him less than other things, it is no sin, no transgression of the [Page 105] Precept; and if this be not transgressed in the instant, when it calls for performance, it is fulfilled.

Thirdly, it will suffice, if nothing be done against Love, as we heard before out of Aquinas. So that when the Precept of love ob­ligeth, if we then do nothing contrary to that love, we may be ex­cused from the act it self, or from acting any thing out of Love. For that which they count contrary to it, may be avoided out of fear, or other considerations forrain to Love; and so the Command may be satisfied at the instant, when (if ever) it requires actual Love, without any act either of love, or from it.

Fourthly: External acts may satisfie. The precept of Love, saith Soto, ^(a) doth not oblige precisely to inward affection, but certainly to some outward act; so elsewhere he explains this loving God above all, by doing his ^(b) Commandements; to the same purpose, ^(c) Maldonate and others. Now if the precept of Love may be fulfilled by external acts, or by endeavours to observe the other commands of God, then it requires not the exercise of the inward act of love to him, and so there will be no command, for that, at all, nor will it be a duty; and all these other commands may be satisfied without any act of love to God in the heart, and we shall love him enough, though we never con­ceive any actual love for him in our souls.

Fifthly: It will satisfie the precept, if a man believe that he loves God above all, though indeed he do not. So Lopez. ^(d) It is enough [Page 106] to avoyd the sin of neglecting this Precept, for one to believe probably that be fulfils it at the time when its Obligation occurrs. Navar had con­cluded this before him. ^(e) He that believes God, probably believing that he is in the state of Grace, and that his Love is a love of God above all, although in Truth it is no such thing, nor he in such a state; nevertheless, the Precept is fulfilled by him so far, that he is not then guilty of no sin for omitting the observance of it; he adds this reason for it, Because without special revelation, no man can know when he is in the state of Grace, as the Councel of Trent determines; and so unless we maintain this, we can­not know when we fulfil the Precept. Thus, though his determination seem strange and desperate, yet the ground he proceeds on, is a prin­ciple of their Faith, and obligeth all to be of his perswasion, who sub­mit to that Council. He declares himself further to this purpose. ^(f) He sins mortally, who loves not God at that time when he is bound to do it, under the pain of mortal sin, that is, when there is danger of death, or necessity of receiving, or administring a Sacrament, unless he probably believe that he hath Grace or Charity; For then, he would have us believe it is not sin, as his limitation shews. Here we have the times specified, wherein the Precept of loving God obligeth, and these are but two, and the latter of them himself expungeth, concluding it false, that we are bound to love God at a Sacrament. ^(g) So that a man is never bound to love God, but when he apprehends death approaching: no, nor at the point of death neither, if then he probably believe that he hath Grace and Charity, though he have it not; for such a pre­semption will excuse him from sin, if he love not God, (as all his life before, so) even when he is dying. Thus is the case resolved accor­ding [Page 107] to their common principles, by the most learned, and the most pious of their Casuists, as ^(h) Bellarmine honours him, though he was none of the Society.

Sixthly, attrition, with the Sacrament of Pennance will excuse any from loving God actually, living or dying: and will secure him from perishing eternally, though he never entertain an Act of love for God in life or death. The Doctrine of their Church obligeth them all to believe this, and if any of their Doctors seem to say otherwise, they contradict either that, or themselves. For their Church requires no­thing precisely, to put a man into the state of Grace and Salvation living, or dying (how long so ever he hath persisted in enmity against God; how highly so ever he hath expressed his hatred of him); but only a due partaking of the Sacrament of Pennance: and he is suffici­ently qualified for such a participation, if he be but attrite, that is, as they explain it, if he have but some remorse for sin out of servile fear, not out of love to God. (For ⁽ⁱ⁾ that fear as servile, is contrary to the love of God:) so that for this (which they count sufficient to se­cure his eternal state) even at last gasp, he needs not any act of love to God, and this is not only the opinion of particular Doctors, but (as I shall shew hereafter) the Doctrine of the ^(*) Council of Trent, and so not only probable with them, but certain.

If a man at the point of death, who never had an act of love for God in all his life, do thou ask his Confessor, whether such an act be needful for him before he dye; if the Priest tell him it is not necessa­ry, he may safely give up the Ghost, and dye as he lived without any actual affection for God: (for though he be deluded by his Confessor, yet consulting him he has done his endeavour, and so his ^(*) ignorance (they say) is invincible, and will excuse him.) And the Priest must tell him, that it is more than needs, if he believe the Council of Trent, since there it is declared, that the Sacrament. with attrition [Page 108] (though this include something repugnant to such love) is enough to justifie, and pass any into a state of grace, and consequently is sufficient for Salvation. And thus they argue, ^(*) Grace is a sufficient cause of glory, hence whatever it is, without which grace may be obtained, that is not necessary to Salvation. By which account no act of love (nor of any other grace) will be needful for them, that they may be saved.

Thus in fine, here's a Religion which pretends to be Christian, but excuseth, and disingageth all that profess it, from the love of Christ; a Doctrine which bereaves Religion of that which themselves count its life, and quite stifles all the spirits of Christianity; chops off all Christian vertues, all gracious acts and qualities, in this one neck, and leaves nothing but a gastly Carkase. For obliging them to neglect love as needless, it makes the rest impossible; without it, there can be no saving faith, no godly sorrow, no filial fear, no delight in God, no desire to enjoy him, no genuine gratitude. When the life of a true Christian should be made up of these; they leave it not possible for him to have one act of true Christian vertue: for without love, they say themselves there cannot be any one true vertue. Here is a way to Heaven for those that never loved God in life or death, a path that pretends to Heaven, but lies quite Cross to the way of Christ, and leads directly to outer darkness. A Doctrine that incourageth them to live in hatred of God all their dayes, and in the end sends them out of the World under the dreadful sentence of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 16 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be Anathema, Ma­ranatha. To conclude this head; It is a Doctrine which is damning, not only meritoriously, but effectually; and will certainly ruine eter­nally all that believe and practise it, and hath in it the mortal poyson and malignity of a hundred such speculative Opinions, as pass for He­resies.

And beside the danger, and horrible impiety of this Doctrine, it is ridiculous to the very highest degree. For can any thing be more senseless, than to ask how often a man ought to love his best friend and Benefactor? whether once in his life be not enough in all Conscience? [Page 109] nay, whether it be not very fair not to hate him? And indeed they state the business all along in such a manner, and manage it with such nicety and caution, not as if they were afraid lest men should love God too little, but as if all the danger lay on the other hand; and their great care were that no body should love him too much, or love him at all. I do not believe that things so palpably impious and ridiculous, were ever so solemnly debated by men of any Religion whatsoever.

Sect. 1. THat no man can be justified or saved without faith, is so evident in Scripture, that none but an Infidel can question it. The Romanists do not express any doubt of it; and yet they make no other faith necessary, than that which is neither justifying, nor sa­ving. They have two sorts of faith, one for the unlearned and ig­norant, which they call Implicite: The other for the learned and more knowing, which they say should be Explicite.

The former as they describe it, is an assent to some general including many particulars, with a mind to believe nothing contrary thereunto, the general is this. That what ever the Roman Church (which cannot err) believes, is true, the particulars included, are they know not what, for they are supposed ignorant. Now, this we say, is no Christian faith; and make it apparent, that it is no such thing. For first, it is no belief of any one particular, or article of the Christian faith. It is only a belief of a general, which is no truth at all, much less Christian (that the Church of Rome cannot err, or believe any thing but what is true) when the ignorant person neither knows what this Church is, nor what she believes, nor why he should give her such credit. So that the act is a blind conceit unworthy of a Man, or a Christian; and the object, a general error.

And then as to the particulars which are necessary for Christians to believe, this implicite faith doth not actually believe any of them at [Page 110] all; if it did, it would not be what it is, implicite. It apprehends them not, & therefore cannot believe them, for as themselves acknow­ledge ^(a) That cannot be believed which is not known. To render this clear to us, they thus explain it. When ^(b) a man is asked, whether Christ were born of the Virgin Mary, and whether there be one God, and three persons; and he answers that he knows not, but believes touching these things, as the Church holds, this is to believe implicitely. So that a man may have this faith compleatly, and yet not believe an article of the Creed, and if this be Christian faith, a man may have it, who be­lieves nothing of Christ. They are believers at this rate, who have a mind to hold, what the Church doth, concerning Christ, or the Creed; though they never know, what that is. They know not what the Church holds; unless the Churches knowing, be their know­ledge; and so believe nothing, unless the Churche's believing be their faith; and so have no faith to save them, unless it be saving faith, to believe by an Attorney.

Secondly, as this faith may be without the knowledge and belief of any of the particular Articles, which are necessary to be believed by Christians; so (which is yet more strange) it may be with the belief of what is opposite, and repugnant to the Christian faith. This they acknowledge and clear it to us by instances. A man may be disposed to believe what the Church holds, and yet may believe that God the Father, and God the Son are not equal, but one greater, and elder than the other, or that the persons in the Trinity are locally distant. Such is the vertue of implicite faith faith ^(c) Altenstaig, that, if he who hath it believes these errors, or any like them, he would be no Heretick he would not sin; provided he doth not maintain his error pertinaciously, and that he believes, because he thinks the Church believes it. Or such [Page 111] a Catholick may believe ^(d) that the three persons in the God-head are one Woman, it would be but a small fault with Angelus to believe this, thinking the Church believes the same. ^(e) Or he may believe, that Christ is not true God and Man; and yet not be condemned for it, if the Pope believed it too. ^(g) If trusting a Priest (who tells him the Church holds it) he believes any thing against the Articles of faith, he is excused saith Sancta Clara after Scotus and Gabriel and others ^(h) Though he expresly dis­believe any Article of faith, yet he may be said to believe it implicitely. So that he may believe that the Creed or the Gospel is not to be believed, he may count it a Fable (as Pope Leo called it) and yet be a Christian, as to his belief, if this be the Christian faith. He may be expresly an Heretick or a monstrous mis-believer, and yet implicitely be a faithful Roman-Catholick.

Thirdly, such a faith as this, Jewes, and Turks, and Pagans have, even the worst of these, who do but acknowledge a God of truth. For they believe what this God reveals is true, and this general involves all the particulars of the Christian belief; so that if the belief of such a general without other faith as to the particulars, may be sufficient for Papists; such Infidels may pass for as true believers, as Roman-Catholicks. Yea the faith of such Catholicks will be so much worse, than that of these Infidels; as it is better to believe Gods veracity and Revelation, than to believe the infallibility of the Roman Church, or the truth of all therein believed.

Indeed such a faith was not counted sufficient for Christians, till Christians were thought to be something like Asses. Aquinas inquires, whether all be a like obliged to have an explicite saith? He answers negatively, and the ground of his conclusion is, Job. 1. 14. The Oxen were plowing, and the Asses were feeding beside them: From whence he [Page 112] argues gravely. ⁽ⁱ⁾ That the people who are signified by Asses, are to lye down in the faith of their Superiors, who are signified by the Oxen, as Gregory expounds it. But what if the Oxen go a stray, what must become of the Asses then? Why, they may follow them without hurt, believing that they are right, when they are in a wrong way (for they must not have their names for nothing?) So he resolves this difficulty. ^(k) Human knowledge is not the rule of faith, but Di­vine truth: from which if some of the Superiors (the Oxen) make de­fection, that hurts not the faith of the simple (the Asses) who believe them to have the right faith. After these two Saints, their best Pope, and their Angelical Doctor, (that we may see we owe not this rare notion (where their whole Church is so subtilly divided into Oxen and Asses) to any lower, than the most eminent amongst them.) Cardinal ^(l) Bellarmine their great Champion makes use of the same exposition of that Text, to maintain the sufficiency of such a faith.

Stapleton, would have us believe, that they admit not of this impli­cite faith, save in points of less moment, but herein he misrepresents them, and would delude us. For it is the common Doctrine of the Romanists, That an implicite faith in Christ, (such as Pagans may have, and for which none should have the name of Christians) is suf­ficient under the Gospel, to pass any into ^(m) a justifying or saving state.

This is it which our Divines commonly teach saith ⁽ⁿ⁾ Vega, when they say, the faith of one Mediatour either explicite or implicite, is enough for [Page 113] justification. And ^(o) Sancta Clara, with others, tell us, this is the more common tenet in their Schools. And whereas they make some difference between justification, and salvation in this point: Bannes helps to remove it ^(p) It is neither Heresie, saith he, nor Error, nor Rash­ness. nor Scandal, to assert, that a man may also in the same manner he saved; because justification being the last disposition to glory: it is very probable, that he which is justified by an implicite faith; may also by the same faith, without alteration be saved.

It is true, they say there is a precept for a more express faith, though no more than this implicite belief in Christ be needful, necessitate medij. But they have so many wayes to exempt Infidells (even under the profession of Christians) from its obligation; that few in comparison will be culpable for not observing it: By their Doctors they are excu­sed, if they ^(q) be dull or gross-witted If they be ^(r) ignorant or impo­tent, or ^(s) if their Priest or their Parents mislead them; or ^(t) if the object of faith be not duely proposed, if by slight reasons, or by impious persons (then it would he imprudence to believe;) or ^(u) if they do not doubt of their faith; or if their Teachers be fallacious or erroneous; or if the proposal ^(x) be not enforced with reasons, with holiness of life, with the confutation of the contrary, and with some wonders. In short, if they have not had sufficient instruction (in this all agree.) And [Page 114] this alone will excuse a great part of their Church, who for want of such instruction, are acknowledged by themselves, to be Infidells. Thus Navarre delivers it. ^(y) In the whole Christian Commonwealth (he means the Roman Church) there is so great neglect as to this, that ye may find many every where, who believe no more of these things (i. e.) of Christ and the most necessary Articles of the Christian faith) in particular and explicitely, than some Heathen Philosophers, who have only the natural knowledge of the one true God.

But if the precept could reach any through all these securities, (which we cannot easily imagine) yet there is one way to clear them all of it: so that they may live and dye Infidells, without danger from any command requiring faith in Christ. For he that hath not that ex­press faith which is commanded in the Gospel, but only what is re­quisite necessitate medij, is living or dying, if he be sorry for his negli­gence, and purpose to amend (which may be in their sense without true Repentance) capable of absolution, without any instruction from his Confessor ^(a). And by vertue of that he may live in a justified state, or if he dye, he passeth out of the World, as a very good Chri­stian, though he believe in Christ, no more than a Heathen.

Sect. 2. Pass we to their other sort of faith, which they call expli­cite, it is, as they define it. An actual assent to the particulars, which the Church propounds, as revealed by God. This with them is justifying faith requisite in the learned, and more intelligent amongst them. As to the object of it, if we view it well, it looks untowardly for a thing by which a sinner is to be justified. For it is prodigiously extended, and takes in things uncertain, false, impossible, impertinent, and ridi­culous; as points that must certainly be believed unto justification. For their Church propounds as things revealed by God (and so ob­jects [Page 115] of justifying faith) not only what is delivered in Scripture; but [...]nwritten Traditions concerning matters of faith and manners, and [...]hese, if they will be justified, they must believe; though they know [...]ot what they are, nor where to find them, but in the Churches uner­ [...]ing fancy. She propounds also, the unanimous consent of the Fathers, [...]n several points; and though this never was, or is impossible to be [...]nown: yet it must be believed, by those that mean to be justified. She propounds the decrees of Councils to be believed as Divine truths; ³⁹⁶ when it is acknowledged, that the design in Councils, for many hundred years; was not to discover truth, but to promote the Roman greatness. She propounds also the determinations of Popes, these must be believed as infallible, when ordinarily they were neither persons of common truth, or honesty, and we must be justified by believing the dictates of Atheists or ^(c) Hereticks; of ^(d) Conjurers, ^(e) or incarnate Devils; of vicious Beasts, ^(f) and wicked Monsters. For those who cry up [...]is Holiness, have adorned him also now and then with these other Sacred Titles.

I know not whether these things are more ridiculous, or more hor­rid; how ever letting them pass as they are: let us take their faith at best, and make it better than they will have it. Suppose it rested in the Scriptures, and had no thing for its object but Revelation, such as is truly Divine: yet even so they give such Report of it, as will scarce suffer us to think, that they can expect to be justified by it. Conside­red in it self they ^(c) count it not worthy the name of a vertue. They ^(d) call it a dead, idle thing, and though they would have it to be an infused habit, and the gift of God (because the Scripture so calls that [Page 116] which is justifying faith indeed) yet they say a ^(e) mere humane qua­lity acquired without any supernatural assistance; may perform its proper act and office, by actual assent to the whole Christian Doctrine. They confess it is commonly found in the worst of men (in perditissi­mis hominibus) such as are neither acted nor possessed by the spirit of God; such as live and dye in mortal wickedness, ^(f) and are damned for it. Yea some of them confess that it is in the Devils. This faith, saith Cardinal ^(g) Contarenus is not it, by which we believe, that there is a God, or by which we believe that the things are true which God speaks: For this also is in the Devils, and the most wicked men. Yet at other times this is with them, THE CHRISTIAN THE CATHOLICK FAITH, as if it were enough, to make them true ^(*) Christians and Catholicks: but sure they will not seek for their Christianity, and Catholickness in a Room lower than Purgatory. However instead of a faith which the Scripture calls for, as saving and justifying; they commend to Christians a faith, which hath no connexion at all, ne­cessary or probable, with Salvation or Justification. All they have to say, is, That it must necessarily be joyned with love: but when they have said this, they undo it, and all, by making love it self unnecessary, as we saw before.

Sect. 3. In fine, they seem little concerned for faith who hath it, or hath it not, or how little it be, or how seldome acted. It is not ^(h) necessary that the Pope himself should have this faith (though the De­vils want it not) yea or any other vertue for all his Holiness: the Body may do well enough, though the Head of it be an Infidel. [Page 117] They are obliged to maintain this, because their Popes often have been no better. And the body may shift pretty well without it too. This may be the true Catholick Church made up of the whole company of believers, when not one amongst them all hath faith, for time was, say they, ⁽ⁱ⁾ when none at all had faith, but only one Woman, and it may be so again.

As for the exercise of it Hurtado thinks an act of faith may be re­quisite once in a year; ^(*) but the Jesuite may seem to deal unmerci­fully with them, putting them to believe some of their Creed once in Twelve moneths: those of other Orders would not have them so much oppressed, once in 12 years will be enough, Bonacina ^(k) saith 4 or 5 moments in a whole life may suffice for this and specifies them; but because this may seem too hard, he signifieth withall, how they may he eased in a manner of them all. For once (though that be at the point of death) an ^(l) implicite act may serve. At an other time or two the precept for faith doth not of it self oblige to the act, only ^(m) it is requisite by accident; and so the neglect of it then, will be no special sin, nor need be confessed. At another time (or more if there were occasion) ignorance, or want of consideration may ⁽ⁿ⁾ ex­cuse them (for these two, though they ruine the greatest part of the World eternally, yet are the greatest security of Roman-Catholicks: and not only exempt them from that which is most the duty of Chri­stians, but will not suffer them to sin, at least mortally, do what they can.) So that after all, one act of their faith once in a life time will be enough. ^(o) I think it sufficient (saith he after many others) for those that are rude, to give an explicite assent once, to the Articles necessary to [Page 118] Salvation, while they are propounded by their Confessor, or some other. But how must the Confessor propound these Articles to them, so as they may pass this one act of faith upon them once for all? Why the best way ^(p) he tells us, is by a mode of forming the sign of the Cross, as it is described for this purpose, by Graffius, Bellarmine, and other great Divines. I had the curiosity to see how a Confessor can make the most ignorant persons true believers by the sign of the Cross; and so effectually, as they never need more believe than once, while they live, and found it lying thus; ^(q) let the Confessor teach him to form the sign of the Cross with three singers, to signifie the mystery of the most Sacred Trinity. But first it must be drawn from the top of the head, or front to the Navel, to shew that the Son of God descended from the high­est Heavens into the bowels of his Mother: then draw the cross line from the left Arm to the right, so the cause of the Incarnation is expressed, He came from Heaven to Earth, that we who were to be placed amongst the Goats at his left, might be removed to his right hand amongst the Sheep. This is the admirable expedient: the grave Benedictine reflecting on it, was put into a transport; for he adds ^(r) behold what great mysteries of faith Mother-Church hath taught us by one mode of forming a Cross, so that a rude person needs know nothing besides this, even this alone may be sufficient for his Salvation. Here is a compendious way indeed to Salvation, and all the knowledge and faith needful for it: he that can be satisfied with it (and give himself up to absurd and ridiculous delusi­ons (against all the evidence of Gods word) may in few minutes with once making the sign of the Cross, get all the faith requisite for a Roman-Catholick: and when by such admirable conduct of the Cross he hath but once believed; he need never more trouble himself with faith, while he lives. ^(s) The precept for faith (saith another) obligeth [Page 119] not, but perhaps once in a life, and it is delivered as the judgment of Aragon Torres, and other their chief Divines, that of it self it binds not, but when one comes to the use of reason, or if it be not then perform­ed, afterwards: but after one act of faith once put forth, the obligation to exercise more acts do rarely or may be never occurr. Such is their faith, and thus you must conceive if you can, how they live by it. They can make a life of faith of one act alone in a whole life. No wonder they presume, that they can so perfectly fulfill the whole Law, yea and pay God much more than his due: when they make the greatest com­mands (the sum of the Law and Gospel) to amount to little or no­thing; and instead of a Hundred set down not Fifty, but a fraction, or a cypher: when in the case before us, they take no more notice of the faith which the Gospel calls for, yea make bold in a manner whol­ly to neglect that of their own making.

Sect. 1. IF any thing be absolutely and indispensably necessary to Sal­vation, it is Repentance. Christ himself declares it, Luk. 13. 13. The doctrine of Repentance from dead works, is a fundamental, and so made expresly by the Apostle, Heb. 6. 1. So that without the belief and practice of it, no Sinner can possibly be saved, nor have any hopes of it, but such as are delusions. Thus necessary hath the Lord made it, and yet by the Roman Doctrine, it is more than needs for any sort of sins.

As to Original sin, (the corruption of our natures) those of them who hold there is any such thing within us; yet declare that, if it be any sin at all, it is the least of all sins. Andradius employed by the Council of Trent to write, tells us, that their Divines so determine. [Page 120] Bellarmine saith, ^(a) that amongst all sins it is the least voluntary, and on that account is less than any venial sin; and it must be little indeed, that is, less than any venial; for that, as another Cardinal ^(b) tells us, passeth for nothing. And that which hath so little, or nothing of sin in it, needs no repentance. So ^(c) Soto concludes, A man that hath no guilt but that of Original sin, hath no need of any Repentance. Thus they represent Original sin, as it is in them before Baptisme: but after they are Baptized, they all agree that it is no sin at all. The Council of Trent hath determined it (and so it is now with them an Article of Faith) ^(d) That in Baptisme, not only the guilt of Original sin is remit­ted, but what ever of it hath any thing of the true and proper nature of sin, is totally taken away; and they curse ^(e) those who hold that it is only pardoned or impaired, and not all the sin of it quite abolished by Bap­tisme. ⁴²⁴ They say they are become Innocent, Pure, Harmless, Spotless; without the least speck of Original sin; and so without any need of Repentance, upon that account, ^(g) They are so far from being actually obliged to repent of any natural corruption, that they cannot be obliged to it, God himself cannot bind any one to Repent of it. So that if there be in our natures any defectiveness, as to the Image of God, any avers­ness to God, and that which is good, any propenseness to evil; we are not to take notice of it, or grieve for it as a sin: for how ever the Apo­stle frequently calls it so, it is none; no more to be repented of, than [Page 121] an innocent harmeless thing. Thus Original sin is quite discharged from any concern in our Repentance.

Sect. 2. There are other evils which make up the far greatest part of actual sins, which by their doctrine are but Venial. Of this quality are not only those which they count small in their own nature; and those which are small in respect of the matter of them: but likewise all (how hainous so ever, as to the nature of them, how great soever as to the matter of them) that are acted without perfect delibera­tion, and are not compleatly voluntary. And by favour of their describing this third sort of minute evils, the most enormous wickednesses that can be acted against God or Man, may come under the notion of Venial faults, (of which hereafter.) Blasphemy, Per­jury, Adultery, Murder, &c. when without perfect deliberation will be no worse.

How-ever these with them are light faults, and lightly cancelled (as they tell us) by the Bishops blessing, by Holy water, by knocking the breast, by saying a Pater-Noster; by extream Ʋnction, (so ^(h) our Rhemists. Aquinas adds) by the Eucharist, by any of the seven Sacraments ⁽ⁱ⁾, by any Sacramental Ʋnction [...], by Prayer in a Holy place; yea, or by but entring into a Consecrated Church.

So that by these, and other such means & si aliqua alia sunt hujusmo­di (saith Aquinas) Pardon of Venial sins may be obtained, yea any one of them will quite ^(k) abolish the fault, if not the whole penalty, particu­larly Holy water, which (as Canus ^(l) teacheth) takes away the punish­ment of sin, and also the faults that are Venial. No wonder if they de­termine that the Sacrament of Pennance is not needful for these, not so much as their ritual Repentance, and that there is no necessity they [Page 122] should be so much as confessed, ^(m) nor any remorse or grief required for them; nor that any should be ⁽ⁿ⁾ relinquished so much as in reso­lution only. Contrition is so far from being requisite for Venial sins, that with them attrition is not needful; for that is a displicence arising from shame or fear; but these sins are (in their account) ^(*) neither shameful (its no crime (they say) to glory in them) nor dangerous; no man can be condemned for them. ^(*)

Thus their Doctrine giveth them all abundant encouragement to live and dye impenitently in these sins; in all of them, ^(o) for all of them in the World, if found in one man together, amount not to so much as one mortal sin. All the penitence for these that is required by the pre­cisest of them, is no more than one act of Charity contains, i. e. such a ^(p) Vertual dislike, as a man may have of that, which he was never actually displeased at, no, nor so much as thought of.

It may seem strange (the operation of spirit of delusion not consi­dered) how such a conceit could ever possess the fancies of rational persons, and of some acquaintance with the Scriptures; that their Sa­cramental, (Holy water, and the like trifles) should have the vertue to procure pardon of sins, even without Repentance: Aquinas would [Page 123] have us satisfied with this, ⁴³⁶ that they do not remit sins of themselves, but are said to do it, because they may excite that fervour by which they are re­mitted; but this fervour is not Repentance, and what-ever it be, it ought to be excited, that it may remit sin, since this admirable vertue is ascribed to it on that account. No, say his followers, ^(r) We must understand him so, that it is not always requisite, it should he excited, but that these Sacramentals are instituted for this end. Wherefore to receive them as accommodated by the Church to this effect, is an act of Repen­tance, and procures remission of Venial sins; although there be no way, any excitement of devotion, nor any repenting of these sins, nor any dislike of them; for if this were required, truly, they would not be Sacramentals, since this dislike alone would be sufficient; so de Graffiis after Soto. Here is pardon of sin by an excitement of fervour, though it be not excited; that must be the implicite Repentance, sufficient for the pardon of Veni­al sins; and the Explicite very like it, an act of Repentance (such as is receiving of Holy-water) without any remembring the sins to be re­pented of, or any dislike of them. They had need believe, that these sins are no transgressions of the Law, since they expect to be secured from it's penalty by that which is no repentance.

Sect. 3. Hereby it is too manifest that they make Repentance need­less, both in reference to Original sin, and likewise to all those which they count Venial. If they will have it needful for any sin at all, it must be for those they call Mortal; but then these are b [...]t few in com­parison. [Page 124] They have reduced them to seaven, ^(*) and none pass for deadly, but s [...]ch as quite extinguish spiritual life, and kill the soul im­mediately.

Well, but is Repentance necessary for these? As to this, divers of great eminency amongst them ^(s) conclude, that there is no divine precept for Repentance. God hath not commanded any to Repent: Now if he command it not, it is not necessary; and if it be not a neces­sary duty, it is no mean necessary to Salvation: for, as ^(t) themselves tell us, Though all that is commanded be not necessary to Salvation, yet all that is necessary to Salvation is commanded. That there is no special precept which requires Repentance, was the opinion of their famous Franciscus de Victoria, (in his time the great Master of Divinity in Spain) and of other Divines both before and after him, as Melchior Canus (sometimes his Scholler) tells us. And when that of Christ, Luk. 13. Except ye Repent, ye shall all likewise perish, is objected, they Answer, the meaning is, They shall perish for preceding sins, not for im­penitence. By their doctrine there is no danger that any should perish for that, though persisted in unto death: and they had some reason to alledge Aquinas (the Angel of their Schools) as of their judgment herein; for he saith plainly, ^(u) That impenitency continued in till death is no special sin, but a circumstance of sin. By this doctrine, it is no sin, no transgression of any divine precept to be impenitent, or to persevere therein to the end.

Those who will be concluded by the Council of Trent, must believe that there is no divine precept which requires Contrition or true Re­pentance precisely, but only disjunctively, either that, or what is there declared to be sufficient without it. And they must take it for certain, that it is not a medium necessary to Salvation, since that Coun­cil has determined, that something else will suffice for pardon without it; and so they declare it expresly. ^(*)

Sect. 4. But let us take notice of those who seem more severe. Ma­ny there be, who think that Repentance is under a Divine command; yet these in the issue make it no more necessary then the other, who find no precept for it. For they determine that we are not obliged to Repent presently; that it may be deferred till the approach or danger of death; and in fine, that it is needless, even when a man is dying.

For the first, They teach that a Sinner is not bound to Repent pre­sently, it is lawful to defer it. So their Doctors of all sorts, so all the faithful (say they) so the whole Church, ^(a) That a man is not bound to Repent presently is a conclusion, saith Soto, established by the practice and the usage of the Church. Canus ^(b) tells us, it is his own, and the [Page 126] common opinion, That a man is not obliged to Repent forth-with; and this he saith is confirmed by best Reason, viz. The consent of all the faith­ful, both Priests and People; and adds, That to make the precept so rigid as to require present Repentance, hath no probable reason, no nor any Authority.

Now this Doctrine concerning Repentance, in this first step of it, where it appears more modest and innocent than in its further ad­vance, is yet very horrid and desperate. For it is all one as if they had said, That they may, notwithstanding any command of God, continue (for some time at least) in their hatred of God, and state of enmity a­gainst him, since that is confessed, the temper and state of the impeni­tent. Besides, it emboldens Sinners, and giveth them confidence to leave their souls at a desperate venture; presuming they may Repent time enough hereafter, when they can have no assurance of any time at all for the future. And it is the more dangerous, because their do­ctrine takes away all apprehension of danger, leaving them no fear, ei­ther of penalty, or sin in putting off Repentance. No danger of suffer­ing by present neglects or delays, for they are told that they may Re­pent when they please. The Lord, saith one ^(c) part of their Divines, is every moment ready to help them to Repentance; or say ^(d) the rest, He will help them to it (if they please) in the Article of necessity; when ever the precept makes it their duty. And what should hinder them upon such encouragement to defer it, even to the point of death? they need not fear that they shall perish, nor need they fear they shall sin by thus putting it off. Some of their Doctors make it no sin at all, others as good as none. ^(e) Bellarmine determines, That it is not a [Page 127] sin, but only a circumstance of sin, when the command doth not oblige; and that, it doth not presently, but only at a certain season. ^(f) Me­dina affirms, That without all doubt it is lawful. ^(g) Soto saith, it is but a Venial sin. Canus takes a course to reconcile them, he concludes it is no sin at all not to Repent presently; and that it is but ^(h) a Ve­nial sin to Will (or resolve) not to Repent. Now if it be no sin at all, there is no danger at all; if it be but a Venial sin, there is very little or none to be regarded, no necessity upon any account to Repent of it; and he saith the people never confess this in order to Repentance, the Priests never require it, nor regard it; by the consent of all we are not ob­liged to it.

Now that which a man is not bound to Repent of, he may still con­tinue in, and so he may still continue resolved to put off Repentance, yes, so he may safely, say they, till the Article of necessity.

Sect. 5. But when is that? Let us next enquire after it, and in the pursuit thereof, we shall discover the second point I charge them with. That a man, by their doctrine, needs not Repent all his days, till he be in danger of death.

This is their common doctrine, since the command to Repent is Affirmative, ⁽ⁱ⁾ it doth not oblige but in time of necessity, even as other affirmative precepts do. All the question will be, When is this time of necessity, when it will be necessary to Repent without longer delay? Now their Doctors are agreed in no other Article of time, ex­cept it be the point of death, or when a mans life is apparently in dan­ger. There is no other time in a mans whole life, wherein it is likely that Repentance should be requisite, but they deny it to be then neces­sary; and offer arguments to prove, that it is not needful in any other, however probable seasons. Let me shew this in some instances.

Is it necessary to Repent at solemn times of worship, when we ad­dress our selves in a more particular manner to a Holy God? No, say [Page 128] they ^(k) generally: and Canus ^(l) giveth this reason for it. Though acts of Religion be then required, yet Repentance is not an act of Reli­gion, but of Revenge.

Is it needful on days of Fasting? It may seem so, because the main and proper end of Fasts, is the exercises of Repentance and Humilia­tion. No, say they, It is not needful then; for if this were the in­tention of God, or the Church, in injoyning Fasts, yet the intention of the Law-giver doth not bind us. ^(m) No exercise of Repentance is with them, requisite on their Fasts, but what they may perform in a Dream: for if they sleep the whole Fasting day, yet they fulfil the Precept for Fasting ^(*). To their Fasts they require nothing but ab­stinence from some sort of meat, not any Religious act at all: and if with them the Precept for the Mass, or Prayer, could not be fully ac­complished without some penitent sense of sin, as it may; yet neither the Mass, nor Prayer publick, or private, is requisite to their Fasts. Yea, in extraordinary times for Prayer, upon occasion of some great ca­lamity befalne them for their sins; they think not contrition for sin needful: the peopls ⁽ⁿ⁾ know not there is then any necessity thereof; their Confessors and Preachers are never wont to mind them of this as a [Page 129] thing necessary; and therefore Lopez saith, He would not condemne any private person, that neglects it in these circumstances, and so con­cludes he after others. As for their common Fasts, these (no more than their Festivals) require not abstinence from acts of wickedness, much less Repentance for them.

Is it necessary when sins are brought to our remembrance, and when our minds dictate to us, that they are to be hated and Repented of? It seems then needful, if ever, seeing a practical judgment obligeth even in things lawful, though they be not otherwise necessary. ^(o) No, not then, ^(p) a man is not bound to Repent when his sins are offered to his mind, either speculatively or practically. One would think if a sinner needs not repent, when he is mindful of his sins, it could never be needful, since he can never repent but when he is mindful of them.

Is it necessary when a sinner comes to their ^(q) Sacraments; parti­cularly to that of Pennance? This must be the time for it (as we may well conceive) if there be any time for it at all, in the Romish Church. Then a sinner is to survey his life, to find out his sins, and as a Penitent to make particular confession of them, and is to have pardon of his sin, as one that truly Repents; being absolved by a judicial sentence, as [Page 130] ^(r) valid, as if Christ himself did pass it immediately. If Repen­tance be not needful, when a sinner is to have pardon, then the Lord never required it, nor can it ever be made necessary by man.

This notwithstanding, Repentance, they say, is not necessary, no, not for the Sacrament of Pennance. Attrition will serve for that, which is but a ^(*) slender ^(s) dislike of sin, because it is hurtful to a mans self, without respect to God, as it is offensive to him. This, ^(t) though short of true Repentane, is sufficient to qualifie a man for the Sacra­ment of Pennance, by the Doctrine of their Church. For they hold the Sacrament is not only duely administred; but ^(u) effectual for all its ends and purposes, when there is no obstacle in the receiver; ^(x) the obstacle in this case is complacency in mortal sins, ^(y) the complacence is gone, when sin is disliked or displeasing out of any respect, and so the ob­stacle is removed by the dislike of sin, which is in attrition.

Thus comes Attrition to be sufficient, and ^(z) true Repentance not needful, no, not for the Sacrament of Repentance.

This is not only concluded by the generality of their Doctors, but by the Council of Trent. And by these particulars we may discern, That [Page 131] Repentance with them, is not necessary, at any season of a mans life, when it would be counted so, if they did judge it needful at all, before the approach of death.

Sect. 6. But indeed there needs no induction of particulars to prove this, for they declare plainly that by the command of God, it is not necessary to repent till one be at the point of death. This is said to be the judgment of Aquinas, Soto, Navarre, Durandus, Medina, Cajetan and others in Suarez. The ground of it is, ^(b) because the reasons brought to prove that it doth not oblige presently; prove it as much of any other certain time in our life, except tbat only when a man is dying.

It is to the same effect that others say, the precept does but oblige in danger of death, or perpetual madness. So Bonacina and in him (besides Jesuites) Medina, Sotus, Angles, Zerola Pitigianus, Sayrus, Molfesius, and others. De Sacram. ibid. n. 5. So that while a man is like to live, and be sober, he need not repent: but if he be in danger to dye, or run mad, he should be so wise as to repent first, but how he shall know when he is like to run mad, or that his madness will be perpetu­al, is a hard question; and till he can resolve it, they will go near to excuse him. And if he can have a Confessor, though he be at the point of death and distraction too, he need not trouble himself with repenting, that proviso they still add (saltem quando non adest copia confessarij, cui fiat confessio cum attritione) this indeed is it, that their Confessors serve, for to save sinners the labour of going to Heaven, by turning them out of the only way to it.

However by this it appears, that any Papist hath warranty by their Doctrine to live impenitently, till he be in danger to live no longer. He need not grieve for offending God, till he be dying, nor resolve upon that account to forsake any sin, till there be reason to think, that he can live no longer to commit it.

What a Temptation is here for all wicked persons to turn Papists, if they could but prevail with themselves to believe in this particu­lar, as the Church believes, against all that God hath declared concern­ing repentance? And since men easily believe, what they desire should be true though against the word of truth: how strange would it be, if the World did not wonder after the Beast?

Sect. 7. But though they excuse a sinner from repenting all his l [...]e before, yet when he comes to dye, do they not then make it needful? they make some shew of it indeed, but it is a mere delusive shew; & they are therein as false to their own pretensions, as they are to the Souls of sinners. For at the approach of death (as at any period before, where­in some of them seem to make Repentance necessary, yet) even then they abuse them with conceits, that something else will serve without it. The expedients which they have provided, thus to delude perish­ing Souls all their lives, and even when they are passing into eternity, are many and various; that those who do not like to be ruined one way, may be taken with another; and so, that repenting, which alone can secure them, may be declined by all.

First, Repentance without any sensible sorrow for sin, will serve the turn. This is the way of Scotus, and Vega and others. A will not to have sinned, though it be without any ^(c) grief for sin, or without any actual consideration, that he hath sinned, is sufficient for pardon. Such an act of the Will is the essence of that contrition which procures for­giveness, ^(d) as not only Scotus, but Paludanus, Cajetane, Soto, Victo­ria and Navarre in Lopez.

^(e) Sorrow is not essential to Repentance, but an effect; and such a one as is contingent and separable, and doth not necessarily follow it. Correspondent to this is their Doctrine who teach, that a vertual Re­pentance [Page 133] is sufficient, ^(f) any act whatever, which may be counted penitence vertually; though it be no such thing actually, or formally; is enough by their common Doctrine, any ^(g) love to God above all is such a vertual Repentance, though without ^(h) any remembrance of sin, this is not only the opinion of Medina, but that which is commonly received. Any kind of love will serve for this, though it be but na­tural, and such as may be had without the grace of God, as ⁽ⁱ⁾ Navarr expresseth it. And the limitation which he would seem to add, that such a vertual Repentance is but sufficient when there is no time for a formal Repenting, is excluded by their common Doctrine. For he and others with him generally teach, that there is no space of time requisite for this, but it may be sufficiently dispatched in a ^(k) moment.

And some of their chief Divines hold, that a sinner being pardon­ed upon this vertual paenitence, if he remember his sins afterwards, is not bound to repent of them. So Corduha, Sotus, Vega, Bonacin. ibid d. 5. q. 5. p. 2. n. 1.

Thus we have Repentance sufficient to Salvation in the Roman Church without any sorrow, without any sense or remembrance of sin. And how can they count any more sorrow for sin necessary? who hold ^(l) That no prudent person doth confess his sins to a Priest, but he detests them formally or vertually, and so some way sufficiently: when it is known to be their common practice to confess sins, without any sorrow or detestation thereof? Yea even in the hour of death, asking God forgiveness without any remembrance of sin or actual Repen­tance, is enough for pardon. So Joseph the Minorite teacheth, favour­ing their conceit (as Lopez observes) who think it repentance ^(m) [Page 134] enough, to beat their breasts, and say Lord have mercy. Nor doth such pernicious presumption find encouragement only in the Minorites Di­vinity; Pope Clement the 8th contributes more to it, when in his in­dulgences sent to Poland he promiseth pardon, to any one whoever that is dying, if he have but the name Jesus once in his thoughts, though he cannot express it.

As there can be no true Repentance without sorrow fot sin; so nei­ther without Resolution to forsake it: and yet they teach, Repentance may be as well without this as the other. ⁽ⁿ⁾ a vertual resolution may serve i. e. such a purpose to abandon sin, as he may have, who ne­ver thought of leaving it. ^(o) Navarre tells us that the sufficiency of such a purpose is learnedly and magnificently asserted by Vega. He ^(p) himself explains it and defends it, without any limitation, but, that the vanity whereof appears before; and ^(q) tells us the Council of Trent requires not a formal purpose, but thinks that sufficient which is only virtual. And their Divines whom they call Nominals, deny that any purpose to forsake sin is necessary to Repentance, as Soto ^(r) [Page 135] informs us. So that by the Doctrine of all sorts of Divines amongst them, a repenting, which wants the essentials of true Repentance, will suffice in life or death.

Secondly, A Repentance or sorrow for sin, which is merely natural is counted sufficient. The Apostle to true Repentance requires God­ly sorrow. 2 Cor. 7. 9, 10. but they, many of them, think it not re­quisite that it should be Godly, no not in respect of its original. That will serve, which is not from God, but from nature. Scotus a leader of one mighty Squadron of their School-Doctors determines, ^(s) That such a sorrow may be had by the power of nature, as will in congrui­ty merit pardon of sin. And Adrian, Durandus with all the Nomi­nals in a manner, take that to be his judgment, and are of the same per­swasion themselves. The Franciscans maintained it ^(t) in the Council of Trent. Aquinas ^(u) whom the rest of their School Divines generally follow, was of that opinion too. And the chief of the Dominicans his modern followers (even those of them, who are loth their Angeli­cal Doctor should appear to be so much a Pelagian) do hold; that such a sorrow as is merely from nature (without either habitual grace, or special assistance) is enough, to justifie him, who through ignorance thinks it enough. So Canus and Soto in ^(x) Lopez, from whence Lo­pez inferrs ^(y), That in their account such remorse for sin, as requires special assistance, is not necessary to the justification of a sinner: but [Page 136] that may suffice, which is had from the power of nature, though the ground of it be but outward disgrace. Thus if we will believe the Romane Doctors, Thomists or Scotists (the Jesuites who serve themselves of both as they see occasion, I need not mention; since of their concurrence herein there is no question): a sinner may be saved by such a sort of Repentance, as is not the gift of God; but the pure issue of corrupt nature.

Thirdly, a slight and inconsiderable sorrow (such as falls short of what the Scripture calls for) will suffice instead of true Repentance. One act of grief, they tell us, is enough for the sins of a whole life, one only, there needs not two. So ^(a) Soto, ^(b) Bellarmine, &c. One act will serve for all sins in general and together, remembred or not remembred, in which sense they say a ^(c) general Repentance will suffice. Their sense de Graffiis thus Reports. ^(d) A particular Repen­tance is not required, but one general will serve, extending it self, at least vertually, to all mortal sins, both which he remembers, and remembers not; with a will to abstain from all; this is enough for Remission of sins.

Further, this one act of grief needs be but very little and slender, the very least remorse in the lowest degree that can be, will serve.

When they require no sensible sorrow at all to Repentance, but only a dislike of the will, or a will not to have sinned; the best and weak­est motion of the will that way (against past sins) will suffice.

To ^(e) the perfection of Repentance, a certain slender inward [Page 137] grief is requisite saith Maldonat, one act of Contrition, though it be remiss, is enough, saith Tolet. These two are Jesuites, but speak more modestly than others of their Doctors. Let us hear Canus ^(f) we need not grieve for sin as much as we can, such an endeavour is not required in any other precept for Love, Faith, Hope, or Righteousness. Yea they would be foolish precepts, if they enjoyned a certain degree. But if we need not grieve so much as we can, how then? Why, as little as can be: or if that will not satisfie, As little as we will. Quantum­cun (que) sit remissa ^(g) saith Navarr, Penitence be it never so little, it is sufficient for the washing away of all crimes, according to the com­mon sense of the Doctors, ^(h) quantumvis remissa, Be it as little as you will, sayes Lopez after Aquinas. ^(k) No certain degree, none that can be assigned, above the least of all, is requisite in Bellarmine, Victoria, &c. But should there not be a degree, more than the least, for the more grievous sins? No, no more for them than the less. In ⁽ⁱ⁾ honesty we may grieve more for the greater, to comply with the advice of God, but there is no necessity for it; it's only matter of Counsel, and so left to our pleasure. But must we not grieve for sin, as those who conceive it to be hateful above all, and most to be avoyded? No, ^(m) not that neither: Lopez ⁽ⁿ⁾ tells us, that neither Council, nor Scripture have [Page 138] declared it necessary to grieve for sin, as that which is most hateful: and (which is more than all,) that the Council of Trent requires it not. Navarr ^(o) had said as much before him, only the former thinks, it may be requisite that the penitent do not expresly or positively form in his mind a Resolution not to grieve for sin above all that is hateful. Thus is Repentance reduced in a manner to nothing: in respect of Appretiation, it is too much to grieve for sin, as that which is most odi­ous: in respect of intenseness, it is enough to grieve less for it, than other grievances, the least degree of all is sufficient, and that which is next to nothing may serve.

Moreover, this one act so extreamly little, may be dispatched ^(*) in a moment. The least degree of it is enough, but the least continuance is too much; all the Repentance that is a Sinners duty, may be per­fectly finished in the twinkling of an eye; an indivisible instant can serve all the exigencies of it, and it may be as soon over as a man can say peccavi. It's such an act as vanishes so soon as ever it appears, and is come and gone before there is time to observe it; they allow not the least space, the least particle of time to be necessary for it: And it is so in Faith, Hope, Love, and other vertues; no man ever required a­ny space of time for this; so Bellarmin, ^(p) Canus ^(q) de Graffiis; ^(r) so Navar, ^(s) so all in a manner; for he tells us, it is the common sense of their Divines. The least penitence that may be, in the shortest time that can be, yea, in that which is less than any particle of time, even in an instant, is enough to blot out all crimes. And Scotus, for saying that penitence dispatched in a moment, is not sufficient for pardon, had like to have suffered shrewdly, every one almost being ready to fall [Page 139] foul upon him; ^(t) but his followers have compounded for him, and brought him off with a distinction, which makes him say as the rest do, whether he thought so or no. And now it passeth currantly, that all the sorrow which any need have for all his sins, may be over in less than a minute, and may be begun, perfected, and ended in less time than you can pronounce the least syllable of miserere; and this they re­strain not to extraordinary cases, but conclude it as common to all. Finally,

This one little act so suddainly dispatched, need never return: Do it but once, and no need to do it again. The act, though next to no­thing in degree; though nothing at all, as to continuance, is not ne­cessarily to be repeated, or the defect of it to be supplyed by another act, though there be time and occasion for it; all exercise of Repen­tance for sin, supposed to be thus pardoned, upon any occasion, is alto­gether unnecessary. Having passed one act of grief so extreamly slender, & so suddainly over, he needs never trouble himself with it further; ^(u) There is no command that can oblige us to have it twice for the same sin. Such is the Repentance which in the Church of Rome is counted sufficient for salvation, even in ordinary cases; how agreeable it is to that which the Scripture makes necessary, let others judge? to me it seems calculated for the humours of those who would be saved with a conceit of Repenting, without troubling themselves with the thing; yet this is not the worst. For,

Fourthly: When they have commended to Sinners a sort of Repen­tance, which is not sufficient to save them, they take it for granted that it is insufficient; and yet maintain that it is enough, if the Sinner do but think so, yea, or do not think the contrary. He that thinks he is contrite, saith Soto, when he is not; ^(x) though his inward remorse [Page 140] be not sufficient, yet because he means honestly, he shall receive justifying grace by the Sacrament. Navar tells us that Soto herein followed Aqui­nas commonly received; and he ^(y) after Franciscus Victoria judgeth it to be the plain sense of the Council of Trent, ^(a) Carduba, Canus, and ^(b) de Graffiis, with others, concur herein. As for the followers of Scotus, amongst them it is taught, That whosoever thinks he is contrite, hath re­ally obtained pardon; and therefore none, who make account they bring contrition to the Sacrament, do by it receive the first Grace, because they are possest of it already, by thinking so well of themselves, ^(c) as Soto re­ports them. Add but Cardinal Tolet (that we may see how all Or­ders conspire herein) ^(d) Those who come with remorse (which they think to be contrition) receive the first Grace. He thus explains it: Sometimes a man hath some grief for sin which is not sufficient for pardon; but the Sacrament being added, he is pardoned.

Thus all sorts agree in this conceit, which I know not, whether it be more ridiculous or pernicious, that a man's, thinking he hath true Repentance, when he hath it not, is enough (at least with the Sacra­ment of Absolution) to save him. Let any man but delude himself, or be deluded by others, with a false conceit that he truly Repents, when he doth not; and any Priest can let him, in his impenitence, in­to Heaven; if the best of the Roman Guides may be believed, or those Impostors regarded, who hereby make it plain, (if they did it no other way,) that they are given up to strong delusions.

Fifthly: If a man want that penitent sorrow which is sufficient, yet if he signifie, that he would have it, or that he is sorry that he hath [Page 141] it not, it is as effectual, as if he had it. ^(e) The Penitent is to be asked (saith Paludanus) whether he Repent; and if he do not grieve sufficiently, whether this do not displease him, and whether he would not grieve suffici­ently; and this (saith he) is sufficient, which Sylvester would have well observed, because one so disposed may be absolved; (i. e. though he want that Repentance which is sufficient, yet he hath enough to put him in­to a saving state) and this he tells us, is not only the sense of Peter Pa­ludanus, but of Aqninus and Bonaventure, and all their Divines. ^(f) Navar saith as much approving it as the opinion of all their Doctors. And yet this willingness which they will have to supply the want of sufficient Repentance, is but a conditional Velleity, such as Lopez ob­serves, ^(g) may stand with an absolute unwillingness to Repent suffi­ciently; such a Will as a Whore may have to leave the Stews, when she hath an absolute purpose to stay there; and yet he himself ^(h) will have such a Velleity with attrition (which is far from true Repentance) to be sufficient, in the want of it; and this leads us further.

Sixthly: Attrition, though known by the Sinner to be short of true Repentance, is sufficient without it, to pass him into a saving state, if the Sacrament be added. Betwixt Contrition (which with them is true or compleat Repentance) and this Attrition, the distance is great; they give an account of it in ⁽ⁱ⁾ many particulars. THAT is a grief for offending God, THIS for temporal or eternal punishment, as the great­est evil. THAT proceeds from filial, THIS from slavish fear. THAT [Page 142] cannot be had without supernatural assistance, THIS may be had by the power of nature, say many of them. THAT is an act formed by Grace and Love, THIS an act unformed, destitute of Grace and Love. THAT can pass one into the state of Grace, with a desire only of the Sacrament, THIS cannot, without an actual partaking of it. So in fine, THAT is compleat Repentance, THIS but a defective remorse, ^(k) such as was in, Antiochus and Judas. Attrition, we see by their own account, is very far from true Repentance, yet being held sufficient for a saving state without it, if the Sacrament be added, by vertue hereof, Repentance is most evidently rendred needless. And such At­trition they think sufficient for this purpose, as either ariseth from the turpitude of sin, as it is disagreeable to reason, or from fear of Hell, or apprehensions of temporal punishments and damage, as loss of Health, Credit, Estate, &c. The Council of Trent admitts of any of these. ^(l) For Attrition by their declaration, is either ^(m) that which pro­ceeds from consideration of the turpitude of sin, or fear of Hell, or other pu­nishment. And such Attrition is, with the Sacrament, sufficient for pardon, as is determined by that Councel in these words, ⁽ⁿ⁾ Hereby he makes his way to Righteousness, and although without the Sacrament, it [Attrition] cannot by it self bring a Sinner to justification; yet it dis­poseth him to obtain the grace of God in the Sacrament of pennance: So that by their doctrine, Attrition so disposeth a Sinner for Justification, that their Sacrament being added, it actually justifies, i. e. puts a Sinner [Page 143] into a state of Grace and Salvation. From this sentence of the Coun­cil, as Bellarmine tells us, ^(o) the Truth of what their Divines hold, is conspicuous, viz. That Attrition arising out of fear, is a disposition to Justification; and the Sacrament being added, doth truly justifie. How generally they hold (with some difference of notion) the sufficiency of Attrition with their Sacrament, we may see in such as give an ac­count of their Opinions distinctly (not taking any of the Society into the reckoning): it will be enough but to name some of them, since their suffrages after the determination of a Council are less needful. ^(p) Some are for Attrition improved, as Henricus, Cajetan, Ferrariensis, Petrus, Soto. Some for Attrition, mistaken for Contrition, ^(q) as Victoria, Soto, Ledesma, Vega, Corduba. Some for Attrition known to be so, ^(r) as Aquinas, Scotus, Paludanus, Capreolus, Durandus, Adrian, Antoninus, Sylvester, Cano, & some ^(s) for the opinion of Attrition, with­out the reality. But this is enough to shew, that by the doctrine of their Church, Attrition with the Sacrament, is sufficient to put a Sin­ner into a saving state at any time living or dying. Thus is true Re­pentance reduced to Attrition, and this made enough to qualifie an impenitent Sinner for pardon, so as he cannot fail of it; and yet Attri­tion, of what kind so ever, can scarce pass for a good quality. That sort of it which is rational (a dislike of sin, because it disagreeable to reason) is not so good in their account as that which is (servile); be­cause as such, ^(t) it is but a meer natural act, and hath no respect to God, and so hath nothing in it which looks like Godly sorrow. As for that which is servile, (a dislike of sin only, or principally for fear of punishment temporal or eternal) this is so far from being spiritually [Page 144] good, that it is morally evil. So bad it is, by the Authority and rea­son of their own Divines. Thus Gregory, Almain, and Adrian con­clude ^(u), that it is evil to act out of fear of punishment, as the next end or motive. It is no better by the reasoning of others, who would have us think better of it. A Sinner thereby prefers himself before God (and that sure is a sin (in any, unless they will except his Holiness) not any repenting of sin); for he that dislikes sin for punishment princi­pally, or as the greatest evil, ^(x) regards more (as themselves argue) that which is evil to himself, than that which is evil to God, and so placeth the ultimate end in himself, not in God.

Sect. 8. Having thus reduced Repentance to a thing no better than we see Attrition is, as though it were yet too good and too much; they bring Attrition down to nothing. It is but as they describe it, a dis­like of sin, not as that is offensive to God, but out of other respects, wherein ^(*) self-love is most concerned, and slavish fear is most opera­tive. The least dislike of this nature will serve, and in the lowest de­gree that can be: ^(y) Nor need this continue any longer than the least moment.

And it will be sufficient, say some, though it be but ^(z) merely na­tural, excited by some natural or human motive, without the grace of God, or his Divine assistance: So Canus and Soto. Or it will serve if [Page 145] there be but a dislike, that this dislike of sin is wanting ^(a). So Palu­danus, Navar, and others. Or it will be enough if there be a willing­ness to have it in those who have it not, ^(b) according to the Doctrine of their holy men Aquinas and Richardus especially. Or a mans think­ing probably, that he hath it when he hath it not, ^(c) will serve the turn; so Canus and Vega. ^(d) Or if he neither have it in reality nor in conceit, it will suffice, if he be but willing to partake of the Sa­crament; for so they tell us, he is vertually willing to be attrite, and this qualifies him for pardon, though he neither actually hath Attrition, nor desires it; so Scotus and Sylvester after him. Thus after Attrition hath swallowed up true Repentance, yet it still becomes more lank by their handling, and in fine, shrinks quite away. But whether it be lit­tle or nothing, it will serve to justifie them, yea, and that too, with­out their ritual pennance; other Sacraments, or rites, with this, will do it. They advance the sufficiency of Attrition, for all the purposes of true Repentance, even without their pennance. This, with the Eu­charist, will serve, not (say they) that there is need of true contrition, a conceit that he hath it, with this and the Eucharist, ^(r) will procure [Page 146] him pardon. This with extream Unction will serve, as ^(s) Sylvester tells us; yea, this may be enough without any Sacrament at all; as if a man in mortal sin, and so (with them) not in the state of grace, be killed, because he is a Christian, while he is a-sleep; if he was Attrite, and willing to suffer before, by vertue hereof his sins are pardoned; so Cajetan, Sotus, and Lopez ^(t) after them.

In short, the Mass may serve their turn; for divers of them hold, that this being offered for such as are Attrite, by vertue thereof (ex o­pere operato) immediately, and without more adoe, they have pardon of mortal sins, and habitual grace; so Catharinus (in Canus; loc. Theol. l. 12. c. 13. p. 693.) and others.

Here is competent provision made, that Sinners may perish securely, and never look after true Repentance, living or dying. There is but one thing which may seem to give some check to this great encou­ragement. These administrations, whereby they will have the Impe­nitent saved, depend upon a Priest; and the Sinner may be in such cir­cumstances (though this be very rare) wherein a Priest cannot be had, and then if he should chance to dye without Contrition, he will perish. But this need not disturb any in their course of impenitence; for in case of necessity, where a Priest cannot be had, another may serve in his stead, though he be a Laick, Confession may be made to him, and God will supply the want of a Priest; so Aquinas (in 4. dist. 17. q. 3. art. 3.) or he may have the Eucharist administred to him without a Priest: and it is their common doctrine, that the Eucharist justifies one that is in mortal sin, if he be attrite, and thinks but himself contrite. yea, he may administer it to himself with the same effect, in case of necessity: divers of all sorts amongst them are of this opinion. The Authority of Aquinas is alledged for it, (3. q. 82. art. 3.) and Cajetan in Matth. 26. The example of the Queen of Scots, (commonly produced) who having the Sacrament by her, administred it to her self, is highly approved by all.

Thus far Satan has prevailed with them, to promote the Damnation of Sinners, by hardning them in impenitence, even when the interest of their Priests seems a little concerned. But what if a Catholick Sin­ner, relying upon such Impostors, still neglect true Repentance, and death surprize him so suddenly, as to render these other devices un­practicable, is not his case then desperate? No, he may have as good hopes of Salvation as other Catholicks have, a probable ground for his hope (and none must have any certainty.) Such a ground is the judge­ment of their Angelical Doctor, who declares, that if one sick desires pennance, and before the Priest comes, he dyes, or is speechless; the Priest may look on him, as if he had confessed, and may absolve him, being dead, (Opusc. 63. de offic. Sacerd.) Accordingly Clemens 8. Absolved one whom he saw falling from St. Peters Church in Rome, (Molfes. t. 1. tr. 7. c. 5. n. 48.) So that any may be Absolved, i. e. Pardoned and Sanctified (for the sense of the Priests Absolvo, is, I give thee grace which pardons thy sins, Impendo tibi gratiam remissivam peccatorum ut communiter Docto­res, in Jo. Sanc. disp. 27. n. 18.) even after they are dead, if they did but desire confession before. Now those amongst themselves, who do not desire confession while they live, are such only as will not have Salvation if they might, upon the most trivial terms, and so none need fear Damnation, how impenitent soever; otherwise they live and dye but such as are worse than any Devil now in Hell. And who can accuse them as too rigid, if they make true Repentance unavoidably necessary for such as these, since this doctrine makes it needful for none besides?

All these ways any man may be saved without true Repentance, if he will believe the Roman Doctors (though if we believe Christ, he shall certainly perish that repents not, what-ever course he takes be­sides.) Any of these are probable, and may be by their principles (having grave Doctors, more than enough, to authorize them) safely followed; but that of the Councils prescribing is infallible, and will not fail to secure those who practise it, if any thing in their Church may have credit; nor can fail to ruine those who follow it, if the word of God may be trusted. Thus while they would increase their party, by having it thought, that in their way, scarce any Roman Catholick will be Damned; they take the course (in this, as in other particulars) [Page 148] that none, who w [...]ll follow them, can be saved, unless salvation be for the impenitent.

Sect. 9. By this it is also manifest, that the charge brought against them in the three last Articles, for making Saving Faith, Love to God, and true Repentance needless in life or death, is not founded only upon the opinion of their private Doctors, or the greatest part of them, but hath that which they count the surest ground of all, the determination of a general Council confirmed by the Pope. For if Attrition be suf­ficient, as that Council declares, then true Repentance is not necessary. If grief for sin, out of slavish fear, or shame only, without any love to God, be enough, then Love to God is needless; and if Love be not needful, then Faith, which works by Love, and is the only saving Faith, is needless, till there be no time for it to work.

But is it credible, that they who sometimes seem to lay so great stress upon these graces, as necessary to salvation, should contradict, not only the Scriptures, but themselves, and make them needless, not only all a mans life before, but even when he is dying? sure, they must have some device, to supply, in pretence at least, the want of these; if not before, yet at the point of death, and will substitute something in their stead, of supposed equivalence to them. Indeed they are fruitful in inventi­ons tending to ruine souls, and subvert the doctrine of salvation: and one particularly they have in this case; and that is, what we before mentioned, their Sacrament of Pennance. When a man is near death, if he be Attrite, and confess his mortal sins to a Priest, and be absol­ved; by vertue thereof, he hath remission of sins, and together there­with infusion of grace, particularly of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Thus they come to have grace in a moment, who lived graceless all their days before; and had dyed so if such a Rite had not been provided for their relief. By vertue of this Sacrament Love is planted in their heart, and their Faith in God, and sorrow for sin, is formed by Love, and becomes saving; so that if they dye presently in that state, their salvation is secured. But what if they live, must not these habits be afterwards exercised? must not there be some act of contrition in those who never had any before? No, by their doctrine there is no necessity for it, though there be no true actual Repentance without it. The question is in one of their greatest Divines, [Page 149] Whether ^(u) in the Law of Grace, after justification obtained by the Sa­crament of Pennance with Attrition alone; there remain any obligation to have Contrition? and it is resolved, that there is no such obligation, and that this is the judgment of all those who hold that the Sacrament of pennance doth justifie with Attrition alone, known to be so; and ^(x) these are the most for number, and the most considerable for autho­rity in their Church and Schools, Aquinas and Scotus, both, whom the rest most commonly follow, concurring in it, besides their great Council.

Sect. 10. This then is the doctrine of their Church introduced there, instead of that of the Gospel: the Habits must serve to save them with­out their Acts, and the Sacrament of Pennance, will help those that are attrite, to those Habits. Here's all the hopes they have for sinners, whom they have encouraged to continue all their days, without Re­pentance, saving Faith, or Love to God, even to the very Article of death. If this Sacrament do not perform all this for them, they will not deny, but they are certainly damned? But what ground have they for this, upon which their everlasting estate depends? None at all, but their own opinion, and the opinion of such men as themselves, without any support from the word of God. If their own word will secure them for Eternity, they are safe enough; other­wise trusting to this, they are lost for ever, the whole weight of their salvation hangs upon a Spiders Web, spun out of their own conceits. For this Sacrament of Pennance, upon which all depends, is a mere in­vention of their own; there is no divine institution for it, it was ne­ver authorized by God, he never promised any thing to it, or any part of it upon their terms, much less any such thing as they expect.

And who but they who are under the power of strong delusions, would trust to any thing for Salvation, without a word from him; who is the absolute Disposer of grace, and the Soveraign Lord of life, and death? Some of themselves acknowledge that their Sacrament of pennance ^(x) was never instituted by Christ. And many ^(y) of them hold that the material parts of it have no such institution: Now to trust to any device of man for spiritual effects, of so high a nature, is impious folly; but to lay their Salvation on it is prodigious madness. They may with as much reason, expect the infusion of grace from the sprinkling of holy-water; or the cleansing of a Soul at death from the [Page 151] guilt and stain of sin, by a Priests spittle; the Lord hath given them no more ground to expect any more from the one, than from the o­ther.

But I need not insist upon any thing which they may have the con­fidence to deny. It will be plain enough by what they cannot but acknowledge, that neither pardon, nor grace can be expected from their Sacrament of Pennance as ordered by them. For, they assert ^(z) that pardon and grace are alwayes inseparably conferred together; So that he hath no infused grace, that hath not pardon. And it cannot be denyed, but that pardon can never be had, without true Repen­tance, in Scripture nothing is more evident. He therefore that comes to the Sacrament of Pennance with Attrition only, and so without true Repentance; he gets thereby nothing at all: neither pardon, which cannot be had without Repentance; nor infused grace, which is never had, without pardon; neither Love, nor Faith working by love, nor Godly sorrow, nothing that is saving; unless he can have it without God, or against what he hath expresly declared. So that if he comes to this their Sacrament in a damnable condition, he certainly dyes so, for any relief that Rite will afford him. And therefore their Doctrine which incourageth sinners, to live all their life, without sa­ving Faith, or Love, or Repentance; in confidence that this rite will help them to these graces, when they are dying, is a damning imposture; and their Sacrament of Pennance, a most pernicious trap to draw sin­ners (as they set and bait it) out of the way of Salvation, whilest they live; and to plunge them into Hell, when they dye, without any apprehension of their danger, till there be no way to escape it.

Sect. 11. Hereby they manifestly declare themselves to be enemies to Christianity, and the Souls of men. For what more effectual course could they take to destroy these, and root out that: than by concluding [Page 152] it certain (as certain as they would have a decree of the Council of Trent accounted) that though sinners neglect the great Duties, and Acts of Christians, and live in any wickedness opposite to the rule of Christ: yet the Church hath a device to save them; and by it they may be sure to escape Hell without true Repentance? What is this, but to declare, that the most damnable neglects and practices shall ne­ver damn them, though they never repent thereof, the Church hath a trick to secure them notwithstanding? What is this, but to proclaim that the Lawes of God, and the rules of the Gospel are unnecessary impositions, without the observance whereof Salvation may be had? The knowledge of Christ, explicite faith in him, actual love of him (which comprize all the rest) as they teach, are not necessary as means, Salvation may be had without them: and as for a necessity hereof by vertue of any Precept, that is not considerable, but in reference to the danger of not observing the precept; and there's no danger in this, though the neglect hereof were in their account a mortal sin, no more than in Venials (or no sins at all); if it will not damn those, who never truly repent of it. So that plainly by excusing sinners from Re­pentance, they make all sins safe, and all duties needless: and give men assurance, that they may live and dye impenitently, in the neglect of all, even the most important duties; and in the practice of any, the worst wickedness, and yet be saved. There never was any Heresie broached in the World, more monstrous and pernicious than this which the Council of Trent hath brought forth, it hath all the dam­nable wickedness, both as to judgment and practice, that ever was or can be on Earth, in the bowels of it. It promotes the Birth, the Growth, the continuance thereof: for it promiseth safety to impeni­tency therein, yea Salvation too, by a knack of a very easie use, and new invention. It hath in it the venome of all damning opinions, practices and neglects; for that which makes them all deadly is im­penitency; not would they without this be finally and unavoydably destructive. But this would have impenitency it self swallowed.

Sect. 1. HOliness of life, is needless by the Popish Doctrine, though the Lord hath made this every way necessary both as a duty, which he indispensably requires: and as a means, without which he ordinarily will save no man, it is declared necessary both wayes at once, Heb. 12. 14. The Papists indeed boast much of it, and seem sometimes to lay great stress on it, as if they would have it to be a character of the true Church; concluding theirs is the only true Church; because there is no Holiness to be found in the World, but amongst them only. Thus they pretend it to be of greatest conse­quence, but this is but to serve another turn, the design is not for Ho­liness of life, for their Doctors count that more than needs. And really they are extream good Husbands here, and make a little Holi­ness go a great way: for it is enough to denominate the Universal Church holy; if there be but one holy person in it, so Costerus. ^(a) How many soever of its Members be dead, and impious; so long, as there is any one man, that retains Holiness, the Church must be called holy. And then to make this one man holy, one act of vertue is enough; and that a very slender one too, for saith Bannes. ^(b) Any one act of Charity how weak soever it be, is enough to fulfil all the commandements of God. Now he is doubtless a holy man, who fulfils all those Com­mandements. Further, this one act he need but do once, and that not all his life, he may defer it, till he dye, if he have no mind to trouble [Page 154] himself with it in any part of his life before, as we have already shew­ed. Yea, and he may be excused from it, when he is a dying too, as well as whilest he lives, if he can but get a Priest to absolve him: and ^(c) the Priest must absolve him, if the dying man give but any sign, which may be interpreted a desire of it. And their Sacrament he must have and be absolved absolutely when speechless and senseless, if any can but witness that he desired Confession. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 10. c. 2. Sylvest. v confess. 3. n. 16. Paludan. dist. 21. q. 2. a. 2. Concl. 2. Yea if he did not desire it, nor ever give any sign of Repentance; he may be conditionally absolved, Rituale Pauli. 5. And though he have lived wickedly without restraint all his days, if at last gasp he be attrite, and have but (though it never appear) the vertue of Judas ( [...]only hoping better i. e. presuming more than he did) by vertue of such absolution, he will be as certainly saved, as other good Catho­licks: though the other unfortunate wretch for want of a Priest (as vertuous as himself) to absolve and give him hope, was unhappily damned.

See here a most compendious way to be holy! who can imagine any other, but that such principles as these, make holiness of life extream­ly needful? But more particularly, we may discover how necessary they judge it, by what they determine concerning the necessity of ex­ercising Christian vertues; and the forsaking of sin. There is no need of either of these by their Doctrine.

Sect. 2. It is not necessary to live in the exercise of such vertues (though one would think, that Religion could not be Christian, which obligeth not the professors of it, to Christian vertues; and excuseth [Page 155] them from the most proper Character of true Christianity) yet those who have the confidence, to account themselves the only true Christians, do this. For they teach, that the acts of these vertues are required by affirmative precepts; and such commandements oblige not at all times; no nor alwayes when there is occasion, and opportunity for the exercise of them: but only in the Article of necessity, and when this is, it is not certain, there's no determination of it, it must be left to discreet men to judge: and being left to men, either they find no time for it at all; or none that will signifie it needful, to live in the exercise of such vertues. To exert an Act of vertue once a year, or once in many years, or once in a whole life, or at the hour of death, is far enough from the dayly exercise of Christian vertues; or an intimation, that it is needful in their account, who so determine. But indeed their Church is more indulgent, and assures them all (that have no more regard for their Souls, than to believe it): That at the hour of death, one act of slavish fear (though themselves count not that so much as a ^(d) moral vertue) with confession, will excuse the neglect of every Christian vertue, all their lives; and make their way at last into Heaven, though they never had one act of vertue, any one character of a Christian all their dayes. A pleasant doctrine indeed, and greedily to be swallowed by those, that have an Antipathy to a holy life; if the Gospel, and the Doctrine of Christ, concerning Hell and Heaven and the way to it, could be counted but Fables.

Sect. 3. They reckon but Three Theological or Divine vertues; all the other they call moral, of which the Divine are the ^(e) foundati­on; and so all the rest must stand or fall with them. Now two of these three they make needless (as is before declared) and without these two, Hope, which is the third, is so far from being needful, that it is not possible to have it, as themselves ^(f) acknowledge. A lively hope, with them, is needless, till they ^(g) be dying; and then it can [Page 156] but be like the giving up of the Ghost. For to all that follow their Doctrine, and look after no more than that makes necessary: their hopes at last can be no better, no other, than the expectation of such a pardon of sin; as a Priest can give to an impenitent person, one to whom the Lord, did never give hopes of pardon. And this is a hope, than which despair it self is more hopeful: for this leaves no sense of danger, (which despair retains;) and so leaves no desire, nor endea­vour to avoid it, even when they are sinking into bottomless misery. Hope is no more needful with them, than a House is to him, who thinks himself concerned, to dig up the foundation of it; and counts it enough that he hath a Castle in the Air. And when they have left nothing that can be a real ground of hope; they found it upon that, which is worse than nothing, their own ^(h) merits: that which is inconsistent with the free grace of God, and the merits of Christ, with­out which Sinners are hopeless. It is a conjecture, founded upon a delusion, upon merit, which no man can have, and themselves say, none of them know they have, and so upon they know not what. Oh! wretched hopes, that have not so much for their foundation as the Sand, that have nothing to bear them up, but a proud and groundless fancy; that we might count ridiculous, if it were not too horrid to be the matter of sport. Can they blame those, who doubt, whether they will be saved; when they themselves have no better hopes of their own salvation?

How much they are concerned for hope, they declare, when they tell us, that the precept for hope does but, of it self, oblige, when the soul is tortured with the more grievous assaults of despair. ^(†) It seems, unless they be violently tempted to despair, they need not hope. This rarely falls out as to any, and is scarce the case of one in a thousand, so that there is not one of a thousand in Popery, who would have any hope in God, or of mercy from him. No not any at all, as others [Page 157] teach; for the command for hope is satisfied both by grief for sin, and also by a purpose against it (Dian. after others, v. Spes.) So that either of these, or both at lest, will supersede all acts of hope for ever, and make them needless. And indeed he that considers what sorrow and purposes they count sufficient, may believe them, when they teach, that these leave them without hope.

Sect. 4. The next in excellency to the divine graces, by ⁽ⁱ⁾ their ac­count, is humility, and for this their doctrine makes excellent provi­sion, as a vertue most necessary, by quite sweeping away the true ground of it. It leaves them without sense of any sinfulness, weaknesses, or unworthiness, to make, or keep them humble. Being baptized, by vertue thereof, all the sinfulness of their natures is not only pardoned or weakned, but quite washed away, and utterly abolished. ^(k) So that they are Pure, Immaculate, Innocent, even as our first Parents were in the state of Innocency; not any thing left in the least, that can be truly counted sin. So that it would be very absurd and irrational, for them to be humble under the sense of any remaining sinfulness, since they believe really there is none. But if they sin mortally afterwards (for Venial sins they make no account of, and think that the Lord herein, is such an one as themselves) they may be presently restor'd a­gain by their Sacrament of Absolution, to a perfect Righteousness, without the least mixture or allay of what is faulty. A perfection short of Heaven, because not so firm and fixed, but not wanting a hair of what is due; having not only all the parts, but every degree of what is required for their present state. ⁵⁵⁸ And by the power hereof they can fully and perfectly fulfil the whole Law in every Precept, without any culpable defect; they can fulfil it very easily ^(m) facili & parvo negotio. Yea ⁽ⁿ⁾ they can do much more, than the Law requires, or the Lord. [Page 158] hath made their duty: so far are they bereaved of all sense of any weakness, that might humble them. And their righteousness is not only spotless, but meritorious; there is such a transcendent worth and sufficiency in it (as they improve it) that they need not (at least after they are justified) ask any thing of God, but what they fully deserve at his hands. All that God doth for them, is but the paying of his debts, his bounty is prevented, his grace is quite excluded; it is not in his power to bestow any free gift: all is due to the meritorious excel­lency of their performances, before-hand. They can merit the first grace ^(o) in congruity, ^(p) the second grace by way of condignity: and Heaven and Glory is as due to them, as a penny for a penny­worth; or Hell is due to proud presumptuous sinners. God would be unjust, and not pay what he oweth them, on their own just account, if he should not let them have all the glory of Heaven and Eternity. They can merit the pardon of Mortal sins before ^(q) they have grace; pardon of venial sins before, or after; they can merit ^(r) the continu­ance of grace while they have it: and the restoring of it, when they have lost it. They can merit not only for themselves, but for others; and deserve for them, not only pardon, but ^(s) grace: such grace as will inable them, to set up, and merit Heaven for themselves. They can merit not only habitual grace for them: ^(t) but the Divine assistance, whereby the Lord works it. They can merit for them not only while alive; but when they are dead: and by their merits, bring them out of those torments which are aequivalent to the pains of Hell, but only for the continuance, which their deserts hinder from being everlast­ing.

Here's a Doctrine as proper to nourish humility, as poyson is to make a man fat and healthful; however this, as that, is apt to swell them big; and mount them upon the heights of boasting and glory­ing. ^(u) It is far below persons of such Dignity, to receive eternal life at Gods hands, as a poor man receiveth an Alms: absit, far be it from them, it moves their indignation to think of it; that they should expect eter­nal glory for Gods sake. They will not so disparage themselves as to have it in such a beggarly way: They will have it for their own sake, as that which they fully deserve, or else be without it. They will have it in a way more glorious, becoming persons of such transcen­dent worth, as Conquerours and Triumphers ^(x) as a Laurel which they have sweat for, and is due to their merit. The Lord must treat them as persons of such high quality, and in a way that suits their honour: ^(y) Now it is much more honourable saith Bellarmine, to have a thing by his own merit, than anothers gift (though God be the giver) And the Lord (adds he) to honour them, would have them get Heaven by their own deserts. Oh! humble Doctrine, and that which is as like the Gospel, as the Apostle St. Paul was to the King of Pride. Can they think Humility needful, who plucking away the true grounds of it in­stead thereof, instill those principles, than which Hell can scarce hatch any prouder?

Sect. 5. As for those vertues which concern men, they are all com­prized in love, that love which assects others as capable of eternal happiness, and so desires it for them. Thus they describe Christian love (as for humane or natural, we are not here, concerned in it) and tell us, it is this the Scripture speaks of Joh. 15. Colos. 3. and cannot deny, but it is called for in the New Testament most frequently, and with greatest importunity, and yet their Doctrine makes it needless. We are not bound saith Sylvester ^(a) to be moved with love towards any men whatsoever, but only in preparation of mind, if necessity occurr. [Page 160] This seems to dissolve the obligation of this great command, and turn it into a mere Counsel; For in these very terms they describe a Counsel to us, ^(*) and thereby distinguish it from an obliging precept: But are we bound to love our Brother, when there is necessity? No, not when he is in such necessity as is extream (and consequently never) for though it be requisite, that we help him in that condition; yet we sin not, if we do not help him, out of Christian love; it is enough to avoid sin, if we relieve him out of natural affection. Thus Navarre. ^(b) And this holds, not only in the external necessities of others, but also in those that are spiritual, only he saith, that it very rarely falls out, that one can relieve spiritual necessities, without this Christian love, but he tells us also, ^(c) That a Christian is rarely in such necessity. So that though it cannot be done without Christian love, but very seldome; that will not make such love a duty at any time; because the external act needs not be done, but seldome. Yea if the external act also, whereby we should relieve the Soul of our Brother, be neglected, it's with them, no great matter. For as Cajetane determines ^(d) That weakness of mind, which witholds us from those things which are profitable to our Neighbour, especially for the Salvation of Souls, though it be grie­vous, it is but a venial fault. In short, what ever be the circumstances of our Brother; yet we may be excused from loving him indeed, if we do but think, we do it. For Navarre ^(*) and others tell us, that he who honestly thinks himself to be in the state of grace, when he is not; may satisfie this command for Christian love, by some other kind of affection, so that it is enough to think that we have this love, [Page 161] when we have it not; and this is confirmed by a Reason ^(e) a fortiori, because it is so, in our obligation to love God. Thus one dangerous errour is grounded upon another, and by such arts we are discharged from all Christian affection to God or Men. But we need not stay longer here. All necessity of this love they quite take away, by making it needless to love God; the connexion between these, being indissoluble, by their own account ^(f).

If any will not rely upon consequences, Cajetan tells them ⁽¹⁾ that the command to love our Neighbour as our self, obliges not to a love of charity, i. e. to that special love which was alwayes thought, (till the Roman Doctors taught otherwise) to be the great duty required of all Christians by the Gospel. By the Doctrine of Aquinas ⁽²⁾ The precept requires, no special act of love to our Brethren, no formal or ⁽³⁾ internal act at all, nor any exterior, that will signifie more than the want of hatred. This is the common Doctrine amongst his devoutest followers, the Dominicans ⁽⁴⁾ Others express it thus. ⁽⁵⁾ There is no affirmative precept for love to our Neighbour, no time for it: it is enough that we do nothing against him. Thus, so great a part of the whole sum of the Law and the Prophets, and all the rules of the Gos­pel, [Page 162] leading us to Brotherly love and the special expressions of it, are snapt off short; and we reach all that they oblige us to do, by doing nothing: we love them well enough, though we neither will, nor do them good, if only we do them no mischief; or do no more for them than may be done, without inward affection, or any Christian Cha­rity.

Sect. 6. It would be tedious to pursue this in all particular vertues. The generals, which they acknowledge, will serve for the rest. They confess ^(g) that knowledge must go before faith, and that faith is ^(h) the foundation of Charity, and that charity (or love to God which hath its rise and being from faith) ⁽ⁱ⁾ is the form and root of all vertues. They all agree in it, nor is it only evident by their own con­fession, but also by the nature of the things themselves; that other vertues depend upon Knowledge, Faith, and Love, for their being or exercise. For example, without love to God proceeding from faith, there can be no delight in God, nor desires to enjoy him. Delight and desire are but love in several postures; Desire is love in its motion, and delight is love in its rest. There can be no ^(k) delight in enjoying that which we love not; nor can the enjoyment of it, be desirable. So also there can be no filial fear without love, for love is essential to it, and thereby it is distinguished from that which is slavish. Ingenuous ^(l) fear springs from love, and is nourished by it, and increaseth or declines with it. It cannot be, nor act; but when, and where love is, and is acted. So that together with love the fear of God, and the acts of it are cashiered; even all due Reverence of him, and care not to offend him.

^(*) It is their common Doctrine, that there is no special command, either for servile or filial fear of God; so that the want of it need neither be confessed, nor repented of.

So likewise, There can be no hatred of sin, or sorrow for it, as it is an offence or dishonour to God, ^(*) nor any true vertue at all without love; nor love without faith, nor faith without knowledg. Now these radical graces being rendred needless by their Doctrine (as I have declared before): They hereby stubb up all the rest by the Roots; so that neither sprigg, nor bud thereof can be expected. To tell us after this, that they count any exercise of Christian vertue needful; is as if a man should take the spring out of his watch, and then per­swade us seriously that he counts it very necessary, it should still go, and the Wheels be always in regular motion.

Sect. 7. But let us stay here a little longer, and observe how their principles (concerning love particularly) disingage all from any exer­cise of vertue, and every act that is truly Christian. They take notice in vertue, of a goodness that is merely Moral, such as may be found in Heathens; and of a goodness that is Divine and supernatural, such as ought to be in Christians. This latter (they tell us) is derived from their end, when in the exercise of them, they are referred to God, as our supernatural end, and acted for his sake, ^(m) with an intent to please him. They ⁽ⁿ⁾ declare further, That they cannot be thus re­ferred to God without affection for him; nor done with a design to please him, unless they be done out of love to him: and so must be at least IMPERATE acts of love that they may be Choistian acts; and any thing better than nature in the Heathen might reach. And yet they conclude (as appears before by variety of Testimonies) that we are not obliged to observe any command, or act any other vertue out [Page 164] of love to God. They find no ^(o) time at all, when we are obliged to this, unless it be when we are bound to have an inward act of love for God; but when this is, they never agree, except in this, that it may be never. For those who seem to say that it should be sometime, though but seldome, or but once for all; in other words signifie it need not be at all: since they assign something else, which may serve instead of it, when ever it may be thought requisite. Thus (according to their Rule in indefinite precepts) their wise men have determined; if their School-Doctors or Casuists, or their Council of Trent, will pass for wise. Now being thus discharged from doing any thing out of love; They are thereby exempted from all Christian acts, and any other Christianity, as to the exercise of vertue, their honest Heathe­nisme. It's true, They hold, they cannot be saved without meritori­ous acts, and cannot well think them meritorious, if they be no bet­ter than merely Heathenish: they should, (one would think) have some Christian character upon them and this of love ^(p) particularly, that they may merit Salvation, and if they disingage their Catholicks from this, they make it not needful for them to be saved. But I can­not help that, seeing they will have it so.

If they think there is no necessity their Catholicks should be Christians (as they do, when they make no Act truly Christian needful for them); they conclude it not necessary for them to be saved, unless they believe, that such as are no Christians can be heirs of salvation. Their Church (Pope, or Council, or who-ever it is) must provide them some other Heaven, since that which is prepared for Christians they need not; no one step of the way to it being needful for them. All the necessity laid upon them by the Popish profession, is not for salvation, but for something else: they must be Roman Catholicks, but they need not be true Christians; they must be the Popes subjects, but they need not be Christs Disciples; and this (and the rest) because they need not learn of him one Christian act while they live.

Sect. 8. Moreover, all exercise of Virtues so opposite to Acts in their account, but venially evil, is with them unnecessary. And this goeth [Page 165] neer, not only to discharge all acts of Virtue, which are required of Christians, but such also as were found even in Pagans. This is grounded upon their doctrine concerning venial sins; these with them are not necessarily to be avoyded, being either not prohibited by any command (as most of them hold), or by no command necessary to be observed (as some of them had rather express it), and therefore no need, that the virtuous acts opposite to them should be practised. Up­on this account, no exercise of Virtue will be necessary, but what is consistent with the vicious acts contrary thereunto, in any degrees of wickedness which they think Venial; no acts of Temperance, Since­rity, Righteousness, Truth, or Faithfulness, Chastity, Liberality, &c. will be needful, but what is consistent with all the Intemperance, Hy­pocrisie, Unrighteousness, Perfidiousness, &c. which by their doctrine is Venial. So he may be temperate who still loads his stomach till he Vomits, and is daily half drunk. He may be sincere enough, though he always design to seem better than he is, or good when he is not. He may be a man of Truth and Roman faithfulness, though his constant practice be telling Lyes, or breaking promises, or swearing falsly, so all be but in venial measures. He may be just enough, though in all his dealings, he be continually wronging others in lesser matters. He may be Chast enough, though he be unclean in thought, word, and deed venially. And he may be liberal enough, though he constantly practise all the covetousness which is opposite to every degree of liberality, so it be no worse. He may be Religious enough, though his soul never actually worship God; and Devout enough without any inward de­votion, and Reverent enough, though greatly irreverent, even in the worship of God; and though at other times he be still prophaning the Name of God with vain Oaths, and divers sorts of Blasphemies: Holy enough also, though he never have one act of inward holiness, no not on those days which either God or themselves have made holy. And in short, he may be Godly enough, though he never love, nor fear God till he dye. (Some of these particulars are plain by the premisses, the rest will appear so when we present their account of Venial sins): So that, though a man were so far from expressing any Christian Vertue, that he should be instead thereof, continually acting the contrary sins in all degrees not mortal, yet he would not be condemned: For by [Page 166] their doctrine, ^(q) all the venial sins in the world that a person can be guilty of (though every hour, every minute of a whole life, how long soever, should bring forth one or other of them), cannot possibly damn him. And since whosoever shall not be condemned, will be saved, (which themselves also maintain), consequently, he that after Baptisme, acts not one vertue Divine, or Moral, whose whole life hath nothing of a Christian in it, but less and worse than a Pagan, will yet be saved. Thus may they be deluded, who will trust their souls in this infallible Church. They may be true Catholicks, though they be not Christians, so much as to one religious Act; and may pass cur­rantly to Heaven, though they never move one foot in the way. Such a thing we must take Christianity to be, and with so gastly and frightful a face will it look upon the world; if Popery have not thus far aban­doned it, and obtruded upon us a Changling, instead of what Christ left us; there will be no lineament of virtue in the visage of it, not one of necessity; nor needs there be more in the lives of those, who would be counted the only true Professors, and faithful embracers of it.

Sect. 9. They have other ways to make the exercises of Christian Vertues unnecessary. They do it especially by turning the commands of God into Counsels. Of those things that are required in Scripture, some, they say, the Lord only adviseth and commends; others he com­mands and injoyns. Those which he adviseth, they call Evangelical Counsels; the other are divine Precepts. Now the precepts, they say, are necessary to be observed, sometimes at least; the Counsels are not needful to be observed at all, any man may be saved without complying with them, they are matters of supererogation, more than we need to do. So that all those Vertues, which they make but matter of Counsel, are unnecessary, the acts & exercise of them more than needs. And those which they make so expresly, are not small nor inconsiderable in themselves; and in consequence little less than all. Many of those admirable rules which Christ giveth us in his Sermon on the Mount, [Page 167] wherein the singular and divine excellency of that Religion, to which he calls the world, is so very conspicuous, they will not have to be Laws, obliging all Christians, but dissolve the obligation of them by declaring them mere Counsels; though they were ratified by our great Law-giver with those universal Sanctions, Matth. 7. 21. Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Hea­ven, but he which doth the Will of my Father, which is in Heaven; and v. 26. Every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his House upon the Sand; Maldonate giveth that as the account, why he is said, chap. 5. v. 2. THEN TO OPEN HIS MOƲTH, because he ^(r) never before propounded that sublime doctrine of Evangelical perfection. Of this nature in ^(s) their account, is trusting in God such as frees us from solicitousness, about the things of this life, chap. 6. v. 31. 34. Sincerity of intention in doing good, such as is injoyned, v. 1. Patient digesting of injury, such as is commanded, v. 39. Relieving others freely, such as is re­quired, v. 42. Innocent Communication, such as is specified, v. 37. Avoyding occasions of sin, such as are meant, v. 29, 30. Exemplary walking ^(t) intended, v. 14. Poverty of spirit, v. 3. Spiritual mourn­ing, v. 4. Christian meekness, v. 5. The three last, saith Soto, ^(u) are Trinum Consiliorum votum. We must take them to be the peculiar concerns of votaries. Righteousness ^(x) likewise, as to earnest desires after it, v. 6. ^(y) Mercifulness, v. 7. ^(z) Purity of heart, v. 8. as it is the [Page 168] height of Charity, ^(a) Peacefulness also, v. 9. Love to Enemies, v. 44. more pressed by Christ than the rest, v. 45, 46, 47, 48. And before Popery, taken to be the proper character of Christians; but with them ^(b) it is no duty, nor any thing of like nature, as that Prov. 25. If thy Enemy hunger, feed him, &c. Yea, ^(c) Acts of Mercy are no more our duty, for these are another instance of the same Authour, immediately adding, Et reliqua praecepta misericordiae; not only that, Prov. 3. 4. Honour the Lord with thy substance; but all the rest in Scripture of like nature. So likewise, not only ^(d) Magnificence, and magnanimity, but ^(e) humility also, with sincerity of Conversation, and Christian simplicity, or plain dealing. If these be not enough, all good works are in danger to become no duties. Dominicus a Soto, tells us, ^(f) there are three kinds of good works, to which all Christian Offices are reduced: One respects a mans self, the quelling of his own pleasures, signified by fasting; the other respects the Love of our Neighbours, of which kind is Almes­deeds; the third respects God and divine Worship, denoted by Prayer: and all these three with him are works of supererogation. When they come to an account in particulars, they vary not: As to what con­cerns our selves, ^(g) to abstain from our lawful pleasures, even when [Page 169] they may be an impediment to holiness, is but advice, we need not fol­low it. Also to avoid worldly cares, to be content with Food and Raiment, not to be eager after superfluities, not to be too solicitous for the body; not to affect dignities, are but matter of Counsel by their common doctrine, in Jo. Sanc. disp. 7. n. 10.

As for the concerns of God, ^(h) no inward worship in publick is under command, nor any outward, but the Mass; and for the hearing of that, no divine precept. No more are we obliged to worship in private, ⁽ⁱ⁾ Meditation is reckoned among Counsels of perfection. ^(k) Vocal prayer is not enjoyned by God, and so all publick prayer in Chri­stian Families and Assemblies, are under no divine injunction. Mental prayer may be a duty, ^(l) when it is our duty to Love God; but when that will be, is not ^(m) well known: So mental prayer will be a duty, no body well knows when. But this is a Jesuite who minces the matter too precisely. In the judgment of Aquinas, ⁽ⁿ⁾ and the gene­rality of their Doctors, mental prayer is under Counsel only. And it is the more considerable, because they tell us, that in mental prayer all the internal acts of Religion are comprehended; so that hereby the very soul of Religion is dismissed as a thing of no necessity among Roman Catholicks. And since in all worship, publick or private, they will have spiritual attention and devotion to be but matter of Counsel, [Page 170] (without which all that they call Worship is but a Cipher, or a blot rather); they leave no worship of God at all necessary. Cardinal Tolet gravely distinguisheth ^(o) of a SANCTIFYING the Lords day, and all other holy days (for which presence at Mass, and abstaining from servile work is sufficient); and of a sanctifying them WELL, (to which it is necessary, that he who is in mortal sin, should be contrite, and turn to God; and he that is in Grace, should give himself to divine Contemplati­on and good works, and both of them should abstain from new sin). Yet observe (saith he) that a man is bound under mortal sin to SANCTIFY the day, but not to Sanctifie it WELL. And after concludes, So I am only obliged to these two things, viz. (presence at Mass, and avoyding ser­vile works) but not to the end (to wit, sanctifying it well); although it be very good Counsel to perform all the other upon this day. Thus with him it is no necessary duty, to which any are obliged on Lords days, or any other days for worship; to repent of sin, and turn to God, to meditate on divine things, and do good works, and abstain from any wickedness; all these it seems are only matter of Counsel; and herein he saith, Soto, Navarre, and Cajetan concur with him. And if they be only Counsels on all these days, the world will scarce find a day, when they will be duties. However with them, to do a thing, is commanded; to do it well, is not necessary. On all the days which either God or themselves would have kept holy, it is mere Counsel, either to do that which is good, or to think of it, either to be sorry for past wickedness, or not to commit more. And since it is no more on the holiest, it may seem not so much as a Counsel on prophane and common days. The means of honouring God, being thus by them made unnecessary, no wonder if they discharge us from the due use of them; ^(p) pious sedu­lity [Page 171] (diligence for Heaven and our souls) is but matter of Counsel, we need not trouble our selves with it. No more scarce with any thing else, for ^(q) the shunning of Idleness is but Counsel, yea, and such as doth not oblige the Monks themselves, though they will have none else obliged by Counsels; in reference to them, Soto says, the avoyding of Idleness is not commanded.

Acts which concern others, are either those of Righteousness or Charity; for the former, how favourable they are, we saw before, they ^(*) discharge us from such desires thereof as Christ encourageth to the uttermost, Matth. 5. 6. The latter they make corporal or spiritual. That Mercy or Charity which affords outward relief, even their ^(r) Religious are not obliged to. Nor need others exercise it, by ^(s) GIVING any thing, no, not to those that are in greatest necessity, how much soever them­selves have, how extreamly soever others want. Spiritual relief, in af­fording of which, the exercise of mercy consists, they give an account of in many particulars, viz. advising those that want Counsel, teaching the Ignorant, comforting the Dejected, correcting Offenders, re­mitting Offences, bearing those that are burthensome, and praying for others. Now all these (and as many more belonging to the other branch) ^(t) are no necessary duties, or (which is all one in effect) un­der no precept obliging to mortal guilt, except in two cases only, saith Na­varre, and those two concern only corporal relief; so that all the o­ther [Page 172] dutys which we owe to the souls of men, are left arbitrary, as mere roatters of advice without exception. ^(*) That of the Apostle, 1 Pet. 2. 13. For subjection to Governours is with them a Counsel. No more is that rule of Christ for Church Discipline & government, Math. 18. 15, 16, 17. if thy Brother shall Trespass against thee, &c.

Mortification can scarce with them be so much as a Counsel, for their doctrine will have nothing in us to be mortified; that which is to be so treated, is sin in us; but they maintain, that in a just man there is no sin after Baptisme. Carnal concupisence it self is sinless; it is natural to us, and so innocent. ^(u) That which is in us by Nature, they say, is neither worthy of praise or dispraise: Hence they conclude, he is blind, who will say, concupisence is a sin. They grant it induceth us to sin, but it is no more sin upon that account, than hearing, seeing, or other of our senses; than Gold, or Honour, or Beauty, or any thing else that may draw us to evil; and so plainly, we are no more bound to mortifie it (if sin only is to be mortified) than we are obliged to ruine our senses, to destroy gold, or to spoyle the beauty of a hansome Wo­man. And the same must be said of other vicious habits, contracted by a continued practice of sin; for though they call these Vices, yet Vices with them are no sins, no more than Vertues are dutys; ^(*) the Law of God is not concerned in any habits, as it commands not those that are good, so it forbids not those that are vicious; and no reason to mortifie that which is not condemned by the Law. However, they retain the word, but little else we meet with in them, about this great concern of a Christian; and a very odd object they find for it, instead [Page 173] of that which the Scripture assignes; it is the natural body that is to be afflicted and macerated, not the body of sin; and so they are not con­cerned to get the work of the Devil destroyed; it is the work of God that must be mortified. They may be excused, if they make not this so much as a Counsel. But they say the meceration of the body is in order to the bridling of concupisence: It seems, as Innocent as it is, it may need a curb, yet they take care to leave it loose enough, for those severities which should hamper it, they say are not commanded. ^(x) Afflicting of the body is under no precept, saith Soto and Sylvester, having told us out of Aquinas, that a Vow is properly of a work of Supererogation, acceptable to God; he adds, the ^(y) maceration of the body, as such, for the bridling of Concupiscence, falls under Vowes. And so how unruly soever the flesh is, they may choose, whether they will use the bridle or no. Yea, if the Priest should be so rigid as to enjoyn severities of this tendency, the Sinner needs not submit to them.

Nor will they have us more engaged against the world than against the flesh; all the evils of the world are by the Apostle reduced to three heads, 1 Ioh. 2. 16. but the Oracle of their Schools tells us, that to re­linquish these three wholly, ^(z) as far as we can, belongs to Evangeli­cal Counsels. Soto herein follows him, and tells us ^(a) that Christ left this unto every one under Counsel. So to be crucified to the world, and to get the world crucified to us, Gal. 6. is matter of advice with him, nor are we obliged thereto, in reference to those things, ^(b) or Lusts, which very much endanger our souls.

Self-denyal also hath the same measures from them. Bellarmine, by those words of Christ to the young man, Matth. 19. 21. Follow me, understands self-denyal, explaining it by Matth. 16. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, it is nothing else, saith he, ^(*) but to renounce ones own judgment and affections, and to accommodate himself to the judgment and will of other; this the young man should have done, but it was not his duty, it was only a Counsel of perfection, (as he and all of them conclude) to subject himself thus to the will and judgment of Christ. He distinguisheth indeed, and will have submission to the will and judgment of Christ in things necessary to salvation, to be a common duty enjoyned, Matth. 16. and Luk. 9. But such a subjection of our wills and judgments to Christ in things not of themselves neces­sary to salvation, to be only a Counsel; ^(c) it is advice for those alone that would be perfect. This is bad enough, for thus it will not be a duty to subject our selves to Christ in most things; or to deny our selves in any thing, which is not in their sense a deadly evil. But Soto, than whom there was no Divine more considerable in the Council of Trent, advanceth farther, and concludes that self-denyal, not only which is required, Matth. 19. Luk. 18. But that also commanded, Luk. 9. Matth. 16. (which the Cardinal understood to be a subjecting of our wills and judgments to Christ in things necessary to salvation) is but a Counsel; and tells us ^(d) for a man to deny himself, is by Vow to give up his liberty to anothers will; and so Christ no where enjoynes o­ther self-denyal, than what their Perfectionists voluntarily oblige them­selves unto by Vow, and the main duty of Christians is confined to Cloysters; that self-resignation, wherewith Christ should be honoured, being transferred to an Abbot.

There is one thing more remains, which Christ requires of those, who will be his Disciples, that is, Christians (and but one where he [Page 175] gives us the sum of all) and that is suffering for him. It would be strange, if when they have eased themselves of the rest, they should leave their Catholicks obliged to this. The device of Evangelical Counsels had not been so useful a tool, though it freed them from the rest of Christs Yoke, if it would not have served to cast off the heaviest part of it; but hereby they can cast off Sufferings, greater, or less. Martyr­dom they reserve for those who receive the truth in Love; for them­selves it is only a Counsel ^(e) when it serves for nothing more than the glory of God, and the advancing of the Faith; and this according to the judgment of Aquinas. If it be no more than an opportunity of mani­festing the divine glory and edifying the Church, it is a work of supere­rogation, and of no necessity, saith another. ⁶³⁴ Parting with other things for Christ is no more a duty; to forsake Brethren, or Sisters, or Father, or Mother, or Wife, or Children, or Lands, for Christ's sake, Matth. 19. 29. is not a duty of any Christian, but only such as profess perfection, such forsaking all for Christ, to follow him, is more than needs, it was so in ^(g) the Apostles. In short, taking up the Cross is more than is com­manded, when it is joyn'd by Christ with self-denyal, and following him, as the best character of his Disciples, Luk. 9. ^(h) They take it to be but matter of Counsel, and so quit themselves of the full character of Christians at once.

If there be any vertue left, requisite for the practice of a Christian, which this Engine hath not yet demolished and brought to discretion, [Page 176] by working it otherwise, it will make clear work. The least degree of vertue, they say, is all that is necessary; ⁽ⁱ⁾ none can be assigned above the lowest (in Faith, Hope, Love, Repentance, or other Vertues) which is enjoyned. Now that which is lowest of all, is next to nothing; and that which is no more, can act no further; so that all exercise of Ver­tue which their doctrine makes needful, is either nothing, or next to it. All growth in grace, with them, is ^(k) needless, for the first degree they attain is not only a sufficiency, but all the perfection that is ne­cessary; ^(h) what is more, may be profitable, but not simply needful. The first and least degree of Vertue in every kind satisfies the precept, and that being satisfied requires no more. So all other degrees will be but under Counsel; it will be no duty to look after more than the least, nor will the grossest negligence, as to endeavours for more, be any sin.

And since encrease of Vertue is by the exercise of it, where the in­crease is not necessary, the exercise is needless. Further, no Act of Vertue in any degree is requisite, but only in the article of necessity; for then only affirmative precepts oblige, at all other times, they bind no more than mere Counsels, nor than neither, unless it can be known when this Article occurs; and how shall it be known? the Scriptures have not declared it, they say, nor Councels neither, why they have a rule in the case. ^(m) Things not determined, are left to the Arbitrement of an honest man; & so it is left to every mans will, who can suppose him­self honest; if he never find time for any act of vertue, he will not be obliged to any: or if he will be so cautious to consult their Divines in the case, some of them declare, that such a vertuous Act is rarely need­ful, nor can they certainly tell when: others conclude there is no ne­cessity of it all. Now he may follow which please him best, even those (if he list) which discharge him from all obligations to the acts in question; and this he may do safely, not only by their doctrine of pro­bability, but by the determination of their Oracle. The Council of [Page 177] Trent will secure him, though he never perform one act of Vertue all his life, nor repent thereof at his death, by a fine device, which is nei­ther Repentance nor a Vertue, of which before.

Besides, all acts which have more than moral goodness, seem by their doctrine to be under Counsel, and all acts supernatural and truly Christian more than needs. They are not truly Christian, unless they be done out of respect to God, with an intent to please and honour him, as the Apostle requires, 1 Cor. 10. 30. But this rule, as Soto tells us, ⁽ⁿ⁾ taken in that sense which is neerest to the letter, that all be actually referred to God, is but a Counsel. But may not a vertual intent to glorifie God be necessary, though an actual respect thereto be but advice? No, not that neither, for without such a vertual reference, the acts we speak of, may be morally good, (as they say they were in those that knew not God) and so no sin. Now in any degree above this (viz. wherein they are more than not sins, or any thing better than meerly inculpable) ^(o) they are works of supererogation, if their great Cardinal be not mistaken.

There is yet another Maxime pregnant for this purpose; ^(p) The mode of Vertue falls not under the Precept; that is, we are not enjoyn'd to act in a vertuous manner, or as becomes vertuous persons, viz. out of a vertuous habit or principle. Aquinas, who delivers and maintains this maxime, explains it by this instance: ^(q) He is neither punished by God, nor men, as a transgressor of the Precept, who paies his Parents due Honour, though not out of a habit of piety. Such Honour, though it be no act of that Vertue (Piety they call it) from whence proceeds what we owe to Parents, doth satisfie the Precept, so that the person is free both from sin and the punishment. Accordingly Soto, ^(r) We are not [Page 178] commanded to pay what we owe, out of the habit of Righteousness, or libe­rality, but only to pay it to the full. By this one instance he would have us judge of all other Precepts concerning Vertues: The habits, i. e. the vertues need not be exercised; let the thing be done, and it is all, the command of God requires, though it be not done out of a vertuous principle, nor be any act or exercise of it. So Bellarmine ^(s), When God commands that we live righteously and soberly, he commands not that we do this from a habit, but only that we do it. The external acts which Pious, Sober, and Righteous persons do, are requisite; but the exer­cise of any vertues therein, whether they concern God, others, or our selves, is not commanded: ^(*) The habit is that, which they count the vertue; since therefore they say, that nothing need be done out of ha­bit, they thereby declare that no exercise of vertue is enjoyned; no­thing that we do, need be the act or issue of a vertuous principle; this will be but matter of Counsel, and not under any obliging command. Indeed they make the exercise of vertue universally needless, since they declare it not requisite in all those cases, where if in any at all, it would be needful, they find no necessity for it, either in worship, or common conversation; all may be done very well, without any act of grace or vertue. They may pray effectually; they may celebrate or hear Mass meritoriously (and these are the sum of all their ordinary worship); they may partake worthily of all their Sacraments; they may obtain all the effects of Sacraments or Sacramentals (these are evident by the premisses); they may satisfie all the commands of God, and peecepts of their Church, so as to free both from sin and punishment in the judg­ment of Aquinas and his Followers; yea, they may merit too, not only other things, but grace and glory: this is the point more stuck at than the rest, but the ^(t) gravest of their Authors maintain, that it is suffi­cient [Page 179] for merit, that a man be in the state of grace, though he do not act it; and this state consists but in that imaginary grace, to which a Priest can help an impenitent Sinner. It will be hard to divine, for what ends the exercise of vertue can be by them counted needful, since without it, all the ends specified may be accomplished, the chief not ex­cepted. However here's enough to enter the exercise of vertue a­mongst mere Counsels.

If we should take into this account all these rules in Scripture, the transgression of which is by their doctrine but Venial, as Scotus, Gabriel, and others, would have us, (Scotus & Gabriel, asserunt peccata mortalia esse contra praecepta; venialia vero contra consilia, Vasq. in 1. 2. tom. 1 disp. 143. c. 4. n. 7.) the number of Counsels would swell infinitely, and all Conscience of the exercise of Vertue would be in a manner stifled under that notion: but of Venials hereafter. They have, without this, yet another expedient ready to do them universal and effectual service this way, for by their principles any one may turn what di­vine precept soever pinches him, into a Counsel, and make no more Conscience of it, if he have but some Doctors opinion for it (ad praecep­tum non teneris, si te non teneri probabilis Doct. est sententia, Medina, So­to, in Victorell. ad Sa. v. dubium, n. 2.) Yea, though he have but the opinion of some one Doctor, that's enough to secure him, as Angelus, Sylvest. Navar, Sairus, Victorel, (ibid. & in Jo. Sanc. d. 44. n. 61.) and above 20. of their Authors conclude (vid. infra). So far is it from be­ing the singular conceit of some Jesuites, yea, though that Doctor therein be opposed by all others, idem. ibid. after Lorca, Villalobos, and many more.

Not to be tedious; where Christ intimates, Math. 5. 19. that some of the commands are greater, and some less; the great commands some of their Writers will have to be Evangelical Counsels, because they are better, more meritorious, and tend to greater perfection: ^(u) others will have the less commands to be but such Counsels, because they are not necessary to be observed. Now betwixt these two, both the great commands, and the less, will be dissolved into Counsels, and what then becomes of the exercise of Christian vertues? If this be but [Page 180] matter of Counsel, there is no necessity that any should trouble them­selves about it. For this is the difference, saith Aquinas, betwixt a Pre­cept and a Counsel ^(x). A Precept imports necessity, Counsels are left to the free choyce of him, to whom they are given: So that he may mind or not mind them, as he lists: if he observe them not, there is no fear of penalty, either eternal or temporal: ^(y) There is no punishment saith Bellarmine, if a Counsel be not observed. ^(*) They all maintain this. Not one of their Divines will yield, that God may punish any one for acting against his Counsel, though of the highest importance. And no won­der, for by their doctrine he no way sins mortally or venially, that doth not observe it. Though it may seem strange, that it should be no sin to neglect Counsels given us from Heaven, and not to follow the advice of the All-wise God; yet it is past all doubt by their principles. ^(z) A neglect of Counsel is no sin at all. It is not only no sin to neg­lect these Counsels at other times, but also when God calls us to com­ply therewith by divine inspirations and motions of his Spirit; to dis­obey these calls, and resist these inspirations is no fault at all. Cardi­nal Tolet is rejected as too rigid, for counting it so bad as a venial fault, not to yield to these divine inspirations, (Jo. Sanc. disp. 7. n. 4). So that if the great God calls to us, either by his Spirit, or by his Word, or both together, as our Counsellor; we need not regard it, we may resist both, and yet be innocent. Herein others concur; Aquinas him­self counts it no sin to neglect Counsels, even against Conscience dicta­ting, that it is good to follow them, (2. sentent. dist. 39. q. 3. art. 3. ad. 6.) They may refuse the observance of them with some contempt, a presumptive contempt (i. e. a continued neglect thereof) passeth [Page 181] without controll, as innocent. ^(a) A negative contempt hereof is justi­fied, as either a small fault, or none at all. And some of them exclude not a positive contempt of these Counsels of perfection, but allow a con­temptuous neglect of them as sinless. ^(b) So Angelus, after their Law, and Gloss, and their Saint Antoninus. They may glory in their neglect of these divine Counsels, and make their boast thereof; this will be but a slight fault at most; for they may glory in any thing but mortal crimes, and this is not so much as venial. It will be no worse if they not only neglect, ^(c) but abandon them with some abhorrence too. They may bind themselves by Oath, not to observe them; it will be but a small fault at worst, to Swear, and call God to witness that they will not follow his Counsels. ^(d) So they commonly deter­mine; and ^(e) if they be true to their Oath, it will be no fault at all: So that if we be loth to believe, that they abandon holiness in the exer­cise of Christian vertues, as a thing superfluous, and more than needs, under this notion of Counsels; to put us out of doubt, they are ready to Swear it, and their Doctors assure them they may do it safely.

Sect. 10. But if all this were otherwise, and any exercise of vertue were needful by their doctrine; yet would there be no necessity of it, but only during the Popes pleasure. For by their principles, if the Pope should determine, that any Vertue were a Vice, all Romanists are bound in Conscience to conform to his judgment, and Vertue must be avoyded as if it were a Vice indeed. Bellarmin, their chief Champion (who is wont with so much confidence to deny, or with so great Arti­fice [Page 182] to hide or disguise any thing in Popery which may render his party either odious or ridiculous) delivers himself plainly to this purpose. ^(f) If the Pope, saith he, should mistake in commending Vices, and forbidding Vertues, the Church would be bound to believe those Vices to be good, and those vertues to be evil, unless she would sin against Conscience. The Car­dinal would have us think, that he proceeds herein upon an impossible supposition, and that the Pope cannot thus mistake, as to commend Vices, or forbid Vertues; but the world knows, that this is so far from being impossible, that he hath already actually done it, and this in such instances as may well perswade us, that it is not only possible, but likely; that there is not any Virtue, but (if occasion serve, and his interest re­quires it) he may forbid it, and declare it a sin, yea, and bind the Church in Conscience to avoyd it, as if it were a Vice.

^(*) He may do it with as much demonstration of Reason, Holi­ness, and Infallibility, in any case, as he hath already done it in too ma­ny. Since then, that Church hath so far subjected all the Conscience and Reason they have unto him, as they cannot without sin but believe him, if he should determine, that light is darkness, and good is evil; he may take away all Conscience of Vertue, and the exercise of it, when ever he pleaseth; there will be no need of any act of Vertue for any Papist, if he list but out of his Chair to say so; they cannot without sinning against Conscience, practice any, if he do but the same thing in the rest, as he hath done in a great many already.

This is enough to shew how needless they count the exercise of Christian Vertues, and so how unnecessary they make all holiness of life; but it will be yet more evident, if their doctrine allow them to live in a course of sin, and make it not necessary to forsake wickedness [Page 183] and abandon such evil ways, as are condemned by the Holy God. For continuance in sin is as inconsistent with holiness of life, as it is with hopes of Salvation; and this is as clear in Scripture, as if it were de­scribed with a Sun beam, 1 Joh. 3. 8. Act. 3. 26. 2 Timoth. 2. 19. Gal. 5. 16. & 19, 20, 21. 1 Cor. 6. 11. 9. &c. Notwithstanding, by their doctrine it is not necessary to forsake sin; this will be manifest, if we take notice, that there are many sins that they count Vertues, and so not to be avoyded; and many which they call sins, but think it not neces­sary for the Salvation of any man to abandon them; and many sins al­so, which they have made to be no sins at all.

THere are many horrid sins, which they have transformed into ver­tues, or count high strains of Piety and Devotion: and thereby, are so far from being concerned to forsake them, as they are obliged to live in the practice of them, I might instance in Blasphemy, Idolatry, Perjury, Robbery, Murder, &c.

Their Blasphemies, in ascribing the peculiar excellencies of the Divine Majesty, and the prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ to the blessed Virgin, and other Creatures, and to their Popes (though diverse of them, as themselves acknowledge, were Monsters and in­carnate Devils) have been sufficiently discovered by others, and there­fore, designing brevity, I here wave them.

For the same reason, I will not insist upon their Idolatry in invoca­ting Saints, adoring the Host, and worshipping Images, only as to this last, let me observe what is less taken notice of, that their own Doctrine before opened, quite shuts out the best, and only considerable plea, they make use of, to excuse themselves from this Crime. It is their com­mon Doctrine, that the same Worship is to be given to the Image, and the exemplar, id est, the Worship of God to the Images of the Trinity, the Worship of Christ to a Crucifix, or a Cross, or the Image of the [Page 184] Cross. They also define Idolatry, to be, a giving the Worship of God, to any thing else besides God. Who would imagine, but they had here­by fastened the charge of Idolatry upon themselves unavoydably? yet they make account to escape by pleading that the Worship they give to Images is Transient, not Terminative, id est, it stayes not in the Image, but passes from it to the exemplar, the mind of the Worship­per directing it to God. There's no need to ask what ground they have to imagine, that their giving the Worship of God to an Image Transitively, is not Idolatry; it is enough that they acknowledge it to be Idolatry, if it be not Transient: since whatever they pretend when they are pinched, yet they count it not requisite, that their worship should pass from the Image unto God; but think it safe to let it stop, where it first fell, and terminate in the Image. For they confess it passeth not to God, without an act of the mind directing it to him; this is not, nor can be, when in the Worship God is not minded: and they generally agree (as was shewed before) that they need not mind God in their Worship. So the result of their own Doctrine is, that they need be no better than Idolaters. I know not what they will say here, unless as Cajetan, that a vertual termination will suffice, id est, when they have an intention, to terminate their Worship on God, without doing it actually, and indeed. But if no more be necessary, the Worship need not pass to God really, but may rest in the Image, and actually terminate there: and so they will be real, and actual Ido­laters, whatever their intention be. Yea as to that, by their Doctrine it is not needful, to intend to Worship God, as we saw before. Answ­erably in their prayers to Saints, before their Reliques, or before an Image; (which is their usual practice) since by their common Do­ctrine, the person prayed to, whether God, or a Creature, need not be minded, the address may be actual to the Image, and to that only; the mind not transferring the prayer, so much as by one thought, to­wards the Saint, it will terminate in the Image, if any where, and be as senseless Idolatry, as the most stupid amongst the Heathen were guilty of. Thus what they say, many of them do; ^(a) by their com­mon [Page 185] Doctrine, all may do, viz. apply themselves to a senseless Image, as though it heard their prayers, and search'd their hearts, and were no less than God.

Sect. 2. There is another branch of this crime, which I shall stay a little on, viz. Their worshipping of Reliques. Herein they are so li­beral, as to give Religious Worship to such things, which they do but fancy to be Reliques; yea such as it is absurd, and ridiculous to ima­gine, they are Reliques. For who can imagine (at least when he is waking) how they could catch, or keep St. Peters shadow; or bottle up Josephs hough, his toylsome breathing, when he was at his Carpen­ters work? yet both these, with others of like quality, are among the Reliques, which they count worthy of such Worship. ^(b) The sha­dow of St. Peter, sayes one, is not the greatest among Reliques, and therefore if that be adored, why are not the rest to be honoured and Wor­shipped? Bellarmine ^(c) asks, what Relique can be imagined to be mea­ner, than the shadow of Peter? possibly he might be resolved, near Blois in France, where Josephs hough is Honoured, and Worshipped as a Re­lique. ^(d) Baronius ascribes much to the shadow of Peter, for he makes it the ground, not only of their Worship of Images, but also of the honour and power of the Popes. Who can doubt hereafter, but that the weightiest things in Popery have a substantial foundation? They Worship their Reliques, not only when they are whole and sound, but when they are corrupted, and reduced to dust; or nothing else of them left, but the vermine bred in them; not only the ashes, but the Vermine too may be Worshipped, though some stick at the latter. Henricus one of their School-Doctors con­cludes, that the Reliques in the form of Dust and Ashes, may and ought to be adored, but not under the form of vermine, and gives some rea­son for it; but their great Vasquez rejects this scruple, and the ground of it, as vain and frivolous; and concludes they may be Worshipped, as well when they are vermine, as when they are Ashes. ^(e) A man, [Page 186] saith he, may with right intention, and sincere faith, apprehend a Saint, and Worship him in Worms. If the question had been, of the little Worms in the Ulcer of St. Harry of Denmark, ^(f) for which he had such Saint-like love, as when they crept out of his Knee, to put them in again, that they might be nourished, where they were bred; Or of the Lice of St. Francis, ^(g) for which he had such a holy tenderness (it is Recorded as an argument of his holiness) that when they were shaked off, he gathered them up, and put them in his Bosome: I sup­pose Henricus himself could scarce have denyed, but those Sacred Creepers (having so near Relation to, and being sanctified by such ex­traordinary contact, of so great Saints) might have been adored.

It cannot be denyed, but they are lyable to grosse mistakes, about the object of their Worship here; and some of them acknowledge, that the people herein are deluded with great and detestable ^(h) im­postures. What if the Tooth which they Worship for St. Christophers (as bigg as a mans ^(*) fist) should prove the Tooth of a Beast? or the Hair, which they Worship as part of St. Petes Beard, should be the excrement of some Malefactor? or the shift which they Worship as the Virgin Maries, should be the covering of some Harlot? or the dust, or the Vermine which they Worship, as the remains of some Saints, should have been in their original, no more holy than a Bruit or a damned sinner? as great mistakes as these about their Reliques, the World has discovered, and themselves have been convinced of. Valla, a person of great learning, and eminency amongst them, sayes plainly, ⁽ⁱ⁾ There are ten thousand such things (counterfeit Reliques) in Rome it self. And if the seat of infallibility be so well stored with cheats, what shall we think of other places? They say indeed they have the attestation of Visions, Revelations, Miracles to insure them: but these they have, and produce as well for those that are confessed to be coun­terfeits, as for them which they take to be true. So that they are proved beyond all question, to be all alike: the true ones, as very [Page 187] counterfeits as any; and the counterfeit, as true as the best. Now, may they with safety venture to Worship them for all this? Yes, their Devotion is maintained to be not only safe, but meritorious, however they be deluded about the object of it. They may worship at all ad­venture, what they take to be a Relique, though it be indeed no such thing: and yet be so far from Idolatry or any sin, that they deserve highly at Gods hand by so doing. If ^(k) any man think, sayes one, that to be a Relique of a Saint, which indeed is not so, he is not frustrate of the merit of his Devotion. Yea a man may merit by a mistaken be­lief, though he should worship the Devil, sayes another. ^(l) So that they have not only a fair excuse, but great incouragement to venture; though they may happen to Worship the Devil himself, and not only some limb of him, instead of Christ, or his Saints, or their remains. When the Lord declares Deut. 32. That his Wrath should burn to the bottome of Hell, for that the Israelites Worshipped Devils instead of God: they might, if Baronius had been their Advocate, have come off well enough with his Plea, fides purgat facinus. The Israelites believ'd as firmly as Roman-Catholicks (only they were mistaken) that they did not Worship Devils, but that which was a proper object of Worship: therefore they were so far from the bottom of Hell, or any danger of it; that hereby they might merit Heaven and Glory.

Let me add, that the miscarriages in their Mass furnishes them with many Sacred Reliques, and their orders about the disasters there, create for them diverse objects of Worship; and help them to many right Worshipful things, of the vilest Vermine, and that which is more loathsome. If the body or blood of Christ (so they will have it to be) fall to the ground; it must be lick'd up, the ground is to be scra­ped, and the scrapings reduced to ashes, are to have place among the Reliques. If the blood be spilt upon the Altar-cloathes, those cloathes are to be washed, and the Sacred wash, is to be inshrined. If a flye, or a Spider fall into the blood, it is to be taken out, and burnt; and the ashes put into the holy shrine: But if the blood of Christ be poysoned, [Page 188] it is to be kept in a clean vessel among the Reliques; and so poyson becomes a very Worshipful thing. If a Mouse, or a Spider, or a Worm eat the body of Christ; (I must desire pardon for mentioning such horrid things) these Vermine in their ashes, are to have the same preferment, and be put into shrines for Reliques. If a Priest or other person do vomit up the Host, even that (if no mans Stomach will serve him devoutly to lick it up) being turned into ashes, is to be honoured among the Reliques. All these and more particulars are or­dained and provided for in the Cautels of the Mass: and thereby we see what order is taken by holy Church, that dirty water, the scrapings of the ground, Venemous or loathsome Vermine, yea the Vomit of a weak or gluttonous Stomach, casting up that which they call Jesus Christ; may be inshrined among the Reliques, which they adore. They ten­der Worship to all, under the Altar promiscuously: yea their very prayers are so directed thereto, that you cannot discern, whether it be more to the Reliques, or the persons they relate to, for example, when they say, ^(l) O you that are seated under the Altar, intercede ye to God for us. For they may as well believe, that these Reliques can intercede as that Christ, or the glorified Saints, are seated under their Altar.

Sect. 3. Some of them would have us believe, that they give not Divine honour to Reliques, but a sort of Religious Worship, which they call [...]: but the Scripture (and secular Authors too, ^(m) as is acknowledged) make no difference between the terms of their distin­ction, but appropriate both to God. And the people make no diffe­rence in their practice, as is confessed, but Worship Saints, (and so their Reliques,) even as they Worship God. And their Teachers, and learned writers incourage them to give that to Reliques, which is Divine Worship indeed, viz. To put their trust in them, to swear by them, to bring them oblations, to burn incense, and pray to them. So they are taught to give them the thing, which is confessed to be Divine Wor­ship, only they will not give it the name (for though they be real Ido­laters, yet it is not convenient to be called so). Nor is this all, there [Page 189] are a world of Reliques, to which they will have thing and name given, even [...] expresly. For it is their common Doctrine ^(*) That the Reliques of Christ, are to have the same Worship with Christ himself. And under the notion of these Reliques, they take in (as of the Saints also) not only the parts of his body, but all that belonged to him, yea all that touched him, or was touched by him. Accordingly Aquinas (whose Doctrine is highly approved, not only by all the Jesuits, but in a manner by all their Ʋniversities ⁿ) teaches ^(o) that, not only the Cross is to have Divine Worship, because it touched Christ, but all things else, that belong to Christ, by vertue of this contact, and Damascen (whom he quotes) will have all things near ^(p) to Christ [...] Worshipped on that account. 'Tis true they distinguish here, some things touched him innocently, others injuriously. Waldensis seemed loath to grant, these latter should be Worshipped; lest he should be brought to adore, the lips that betray­ed him, or the hands that buffeted him: but he is run down by the stream, both of their Doctrine, and practice. For the things which they worship especially, and will have worshipped as Christ himself, are the instruments of his sufferings. The knife, where­with he was circumcised; the Pillar, at which he was scourged; the cord, wherewith he was bound; the 28. steps of white marble, up which he was led, in his passion, to Pilate's house; the purple Robe, and the white one too, which he wore in derision; the Keys, and stones of the Sepulcher, the Spunge, the Reed, the Vinegar, the Crown of Thorns, the Launce, the Nails, and (which may serve for all) the Cross, which is never the less, for the loss of so many pieces, as are Ten thousand times more than the whole: all these, (and who can tell how many more?) though they ministred to his pain, or reproach in his passion, have Divine worship. But the things which they will [Page 290] have worshipped, for the innocent contact might suffice, being nume­rous beyond account. To wave the rest, Damascen (whom Aquinas followes) of this sort reckons, not only his Clothes, and Tabernacles, the Cave, the Manger, and Sepulcher: but also Golgotha, and Sion ^(q) and the like. VVherein may be included Galilee, Samaria, Judea and Egypt, the Earth where he trod in every place, being (if not deified yet) sanctified by such contact. There is a divine vertue therein, sayes ^(r) Baronius, and they were wont to bring Earth from those parts, for the working of Miracles. And amongst the Reliques at Venice, they had a stone translated from Chio thither, whereon 'tis said, he ^(s) sat at Tyre. The water also of the River Jordan, at least, after it comes to the place where he was Baptized; and there that was taken up, they say, ^(t) which is inshrined at Cessino. And why not the air too, when it comes to any place, where ever it touch'd him? that so every Element might furnish them with objects of Divine worship; and they might have no need to content themselves with such petty Idols as the Heathen had: but have them in such extent, and large­ness, as is proportionable to the vast improvement of this kind of Devotion in the Church of Rome.

Moreover by vertue of this Contact, not only things, but persons, are capable of Divine worship, and such as touched Christ may be thus worshipped. The blessed Virgin in the first place. Cajetan declares ^(u) that in secret, where it can be done without scandal, and danger; she may have Divine worship on this account, and tells us this is the sense of Aquinas. Later writers determine, that she may be so worshipped, as Christ himself, either upon the account of Contact, or Consanguinity. Upon the same ground Simeon may have Divine honour, for he once imbraced Christ: and Joseph his foster Father, for he had him oftner in his arms, which their Church has taken notice of in a prayer on [Page 291] his holy-day ^(x). The Apostles, and Seventy Disciples did probably sometimes touch him, and so, by the same reason, may have the same worship, with their Lord. And no wonder, seeing they tell us, the lips of Judas, ^(y) for but touching him with a treacherous kiss, may be thus worshipped. The woman also with the bloody issue, and those many of the multitude that pressed him, Luk. 8. 45. Mary Magdalen especially, she has double honour, seeing they worship more bodies than one for hers. But this is common, and they had need of a pro­digious faith to believe (if any of them believe) that the things they worship are not counterfeit: since the most of them may be convicted of imposture, even by their own practice, and approved writings. They must either believe themselves deluded, or believe that one per­son had more bodies, and one body more heads than one, yea more than two or three. Many of their most eminent Saints are thus turned into Monsters, but I instance only in those, who may challenge Divine worship upon the common ground of Contact. John who touch'd Christ when he Baptized him, had three or four heads, if he had as many as they worship: for they worship his head in so many ^(z) several places, and when they have it whole in some shrines, yet they will have several pieces of it in others. So that Herod had not beheaded him when one head was quite cut off: and when the Damsel had it in a charger, it might be still on his shoulders. Longinus also, who they say pierced Christ's side, and had his eyes cured with a touch of his blood, must have four bodies: ^(a) for in so many, very distant places, they worship it; and yet this their Saint had never one body, nor being in the world. As for St. Christopher (who must needs touch Christ too, if as they say, he carryed him over an arm of the Sea on his Shoulders) there was no need to make him so many bodies, since they have made him one as big as many, and worship for him an Effi­gies, [Page 192] more like ^(b) a Mountain than a Man. I need not mention those many thousands besides, who had an occasion to touch Christ for the space of Three and thirty years, while he was on Earth; the meanest of these might have Divine worship, by that Doctrine which makes Contact a sufficient ground for it. Nor must this seem strange, since ^(c) the very Ass he rode on, when it could be done without scandal, might upon this account be Religiously adored. Yet all these, are not all, that may have the honour of Christ, if we follow their Doctrine whither it leads us. Hereby not only these persons, but their Reli­ques too, are capable of Divine worship. For they commonly teach, ^(d) that the Reliques may have the same worship, with the persons whose remains they are. Those are in the right, sayes (one of their most ab­solute Divines) Doctor Stapleton, ^(e) who confer the like honour on the Reliques, as on the Saints; since from both they hope to receive the like advantage. Thus they have huge Shoals of objects, fit for divine worship. Those multitudes of Reliques which pass for the blessed Virgins, and all accounted to be the Apostles, and the other persons forementioned. They say they have the blessed Virgins hair in seve­ral places, which is no such wonder, since a Monk could shew some of the hairs, ^(f) which fell from a Seraphim, when he came to imprint the five wounds in Fryar Francis his body. Her Milk ^(*) too, kept from sowring by a continued miracle Sixteen hundred years, and so much of it, as if with their St. Catherine, she had had nothing, but milk in her veins. Nor is this so wonderful, seeing an Image ^(f) of hers, could let forth of its breast such a Liquor in great plenty. Her [Page 193] Nails too, or rather the parings of them (worthy enough of divine worship) for the nailes themselves she could not spare at her assump­tion. (That one story, has prevented a hundred other Fables, if they had not believed the assumption of her body, 'tis like we had heard of as many bodies of hers in several places, as Geryon had, twice or thrice over: and more heads than they were wont to shew of St. Barbara). Her wedding Ring ^(h) too (though they used none in her Countrey), and her attire Cap-a-pee, from her vail, even to her Petticoat and ⁽²⁾ Shift too. Whether she wore any or no is not material, the Arch­bishop of Chartres ⁽ⁱ⁾ wore it, and was thereby inspired with such courage, in a Battle against Rollo, that the dagger wherewith St. Mi­chael combated the Dragon (if he had borrowed it of his Neighbours in Normandy) could not have performed braver exploits, nor made greater slaughter, than his Grace did: though some will ascribe less to his prowess, because being harnassed with such a shift of mail, he might think himself unvulnerable. Her Slipper also, and Shoe; yea the ^(k) figure also of the sole of her Shoe, is to be adored. Yet this is at a pretty distance from Christ (though it's prime vertue be from Con­tact) and derives from him, like the Feathers of the Hen, which were of the brood of the Cock, that crowed when Peter denyed him. They have Simeon's arm (mentioned in the Gospel) at Aken, ^(l) which hinders not, but they may have it at Hartsburg, and other pla­ces too. They have not only Josephs Hem, but his Breeches. ^(*) And I hope kept less nastily, than Thomas Becket kept his; which yet were worshipful, Vermine and all, and that not per accidens (it may be) since it is one commendation of his Saint-ship, ^(m) that his Breeches ran quick. They have some remains of all the Apostles, though no body could tell them where diverse of their bodies were interred, but things of this nature, they still have by Revelation; and how can such [Page 194] as these want Revelations, who in pilgrimage to holy Reliques, decla­red ⁽ⁿ⁾ that a Goose carryed before them, was the Holy Ghost. They have Peter's Keys, his Sword, his Staff, his Coat, his Garment besides, and his Girdle, part of his body is at Constantinople, half of it at Rome in one place, and yet the whole in another. ^(o) They have martyr'd him over again (or some other bodies for his) and torn him into more pieces than their St. Hippolitus, was torn with Horses. They have his head (or some of it) in Seven several places in Rome, only they want his brains, which were reserved in another place, and wor­shipped (or a Pumice-stone instead thereof). And there may be some mystery in that; for they speak of some time, under Peter's Successors, when their Church should have Caput sine cerebro. ^(p) Setting that aside, we may be sure they have miss'd nothing that belonged to St. Peter, since they could catch his shadow, and hold it as fast, as they do his Keys. And why might not this be done, as well, as the Monk could bring with him from Palestine, ^(q) the sound of the Bells that hung in Solomon's Temple. I have not yet in their Sacred lists discerned the lips of Judas, but they have his Lanthorn, which shew'd him the way to apprehend his Master; and thereby perhaps in time they may disco­ver the other. They want nothing for this, but some of the Oyl of the Candle of the Sepulcher, which can light it self, and this the Monks at Cassino ^(r) can help them too. If they have not the Ass upon which Christ rode to Jerusalem, they miss'd it narrowly, when they caught the Palm ^(s) he then had in his hand (whether he had any or no) and a worshipful Relique of the Ass some shew, 'tis said, ^(t) his tail is inshrined in Liguria. And who can think but that may be as proper an object of adoration, as the Hay, wherewith Fryar Francis his Ass was sadled. And every hair in that tail, may make a compleat Relique, as worshipful as the whole: for by their Divini­ty, [Page 195] ^(*) the vertue of the whole, is in every part. If it were but well distri­buted, this one, might serve to furnish a hundred shrines: and enter­tain the Devotion of as many votaries, and Pilgrims, as come to wor­ship at Loretto.

But I need not insist on such Reliques, as are to have Divine wor­ship by consequence: those which they say expresly should be so worshipped, are enow, and as many as they please to imagine. For though they have no good ground to believe, that they have any one true Relique of Christ, or the least part of one: yet imagination is enough with them, both to give them being, and to multiply them in infinitum, and to warrant their worship of each of them, as of Christ himself: even such imaginations as interfere, and confute one another, and are each of them confuted by such miracles, as are the ground of the whole imposture. The fore-skin of Christ is more Religiously wor­shipped among them, than Christ himself, as ^(u) Erasmus observed. It is kept and exposed, in at least ^(x) four several Countreys, and mira­cles brought to confirm the truth of its being there: and yet while it is seen, and adored in so many places on Earth, some of their chief Writers say it is no where on Earth, but in Heaven; and must be so, otherwise the glorified body of Christ would be imperfect, and not intire. His Shirt, and besides that (though he had no other Shirt) his Coat, which the Souldiers disposed of at his death, was not found till the year 593: ^(y) yet they had it elsewhere, and greatly worship­ped it long before in a City of Galatia, sayes ^(z) Gregory of Tours. 'Tis much that they should have it, before it was found, and something strange too (that as it was without seam so) it should be without Rent, though afterwards they they found it, in several places at once, many hundred miles distant. They have it in Germany, and they have it in France, and they may have it in all parts of the World at once, as cer­tainly [Page 196] as they have it there: but whether they have it or no, that which they take to be it, must have the same worship and honour with Christ. And we must not think it strange, that it should be in so ma­ny places, since, they say, ^(a) it grew on his back, and so not unlikely might multiply it self since. About the blood of Christ there is no less imposture, and as great Idolatry. They pretend to have much of it in parcels, that which Nicodemus saved in his Glove, that which Longinus brought in a Vessel to Mantua, that which Joseph of Ari­mathea brought into England in two Silver Vessels, that which is kept at Venice with the Earth it fell on, that which is shew'd at the Holy Chappel in Paris; that which is adored at Rome on Easter-day; that which may be seen in every Countrey, where Popery hath left people no eyes: yet the Angel of their Schools (whose Doctrine they say was approved by a miracle, and which they must not question, if they believe their portess) is ^(b) positive, that all the blood of Christ that was shed before, was in his body at his Resurrection, and so ascended with him into Heaven: and that the blood which is shewed in Churches for Reliques, did not flow from Christs side, but miraculously from a cer­tain wounded image of Christ. So that the blood which they worship as God, is no better, than that which an Image can bleed, and this will scarce prove so good in England, as the blood of Hales, which (how much soever worshipped) was discovered to be but the blood of a Drake.

They have the Reed, the Spunge, the Crown of Thorns in so many places as gives them reason enough to believe, they have it in none, and yet they worship these in all. We must imagine (to have such things go down smoothly) that they grow more than any Thorn hedge does, not only in length, but in number. And something towards this, Gregory of Tours ^(c) writes of those Thorns, they are green still, and though the leaves wither sometimes, yet they revive again, and flourish. [Page 197] But the old Bishop had not the good hap to see this, he had it only by rumour, and such rumours their Annalist is wont to make much of; for it is not amiss to abuse others into a belief of that, which they can­not believe themselves. The Lance which pierced Christ's side, was got into the West, before it had left the East (its proper place). Otto the great, presented Athelstane King of England with it, and other ra­rities in the tenth age ^(d). Yet the Dominical Spear (the same we may suppose, though some question it) was the same age in the possessi­on of Rodulphus, Duke of Burgundie, ^(e) of which, Harry, Emperour of Germany, was so covetous, that he threatned the Duke to destroy his Country with Fire and Sword, if he would not give it him; and in fine, gave him a good part of his Country for it. Much worship it had, and brave feats it play'd then, and I know not how long before; for Charles the Great, they say, had it too ^(f); yet for all this, it was still in Asia (if any where) and not found there, till two hundred years after; for the Latines having taken ^(g) Antioch, were blest with the Revelation of it in St. Peters Church (for holy reliques was the ad­venture which those Knights errant sought, and they were concerned in point of honour, either to find or make some); but this was con­firmed by miracle (else it had not been worth a rush); Peter, the finder of it, to prove the truth thereof, ^(h) walked through a mighty fire with the Launce in his hand. 'Tis like, this Champion had some­thing of the mettal of that ⁽ⁱ⁾ Hermites marvellous pot; in which, though it was of wood, he boiled his Meat constantly, how hot soever the fire was, without burning; but that of the pot it seems, was better tempered, for that endured many years, do the fire what it could; but the man could not long survive that hot brunt, dying shortly after. The Nailes wherewith Christ was fastened to the Cross, were three or [Page 198] four at most ^(*) Barronius dare not say they were four, though he does not always speak with the least in this matter of Miracles. These, as the rumour was, being sent by Helena to Constantine, lost quite the form of Nailes, being used for the making of a Bridle and a Helmet for the Emperour. In this ^(k) Theodoret ^(l) Sozomen, and ^(m) Socra­tes agree, (but they tell us not how the Nailes which pierced Christ, were known, from those which fastened the two Thieves to the other Crosses. If they had foreseen that such things should have been wor­shiped equally with Christ himself, they would have thought this ne­cessary (or rather to have said nothing at all without better ground) lest the Nailes of the Thieves might have divine worship for those of Christs). Gregory of Tours, who will have a fourth Naile, ⁽ⁿ⁾ says, one was thrown into the Adriatick Sea, where it seems it Spawned, and from thence came the multitude of Nailes which were shew'd and adored for the true one: (This is as satisfactory, as the shufling ac­count which their great Annalist gives thereof.) If Constantine had liv'd in times of Popery, his Horse had been in danger of divine wor­ship, for his Bridles sake, and his Helmet could scarce have defended it self from being made an Idol: but seeing his Religion was of ano­ther strain, than that now in request with Romanists, 'tis well if he e­scape reproach for converting that, the Counterfeit of which they think worthy of the worship of God, to a prophane use. However, they would not long indure such abuse, for upon a time, one of them (whether re-assuming its old form or no, I know not) skip'd out of the Bridle (or Helmet, as you please) into Constantines Sword hilt, and that from thence, sword and all, into these Western parts; and that we may not question this, it was given by Otho the great to our Athelstan ^(o). But this was nothing to the Spear which Count Samp­son gave to Rodolph of Burgundy; and which Harry the Emperour (or King, as Baronius calls him) forced from Rodulphus; for there were I know not how many of these Nailes artificially fastened to the Spear, [Page 199] ^(p) say some; ^(q) others will have it wholly made of them, and then these Nailes had need be twenty times more than ever touch'd the Cross, or else they must be such as were fit only for the use of their Gyant Christopher, whose Saintship they make full twelve Ells ^(*) high. For all this they had still many of these Nails at their Shrines and Al­tars. To wave the rest, the Bishop of Mets officiating at Tryers ^(z) for Poppo, who was turned Pilgrim, slily filches away from the Altar one of those sacred Nailes▪ conveying another very like it into the place; and he had carryed it clearly, but that as ill luck was, the holy Nail fell a bleeding (and it is like the Nail had more tenderness than the Con­sciences of those who coyned such stories). However, this holy Bishop, who had so dear a love for Reliques, must not suffer under the bad Character of a Thief, much less as Sacrilegious, for stealing of Reliques was then the practice of the best (and no wonder if Theft got reputa­tion, when Cheats were in so much request): besides, there was some­thing more than ordinary in the case, for such Thieves with the Re­ceivers, cheated themselves most of all; and those that were Robbed, made account (as they had reason) that they lost nothing, but wor­shipped what was gone, as still in their possession. So they at St. Dennis believe they have still the body, as well as the name of St. Dennis the Areopagite, though ^(*) Pope Leo the Ninth declared by an authentick Bull, that it was stoln from thence, and carryed to Ratishone in Ger­many. And no wonder if the French will not be bassled out of their Faith by the Pope: for is it likely that he who carryed his head in his arms ^(s) (after it was smitten off) for two or three miles together, and would not dye till he came to the place where his body should rest, would not keep it from being carryed from that place, signalized with such a miracle? And the remains of St. Bennets body were stolne from Cassino in Naples, and carryed, as they say, to Fleury in France, [Page 200] and the Monks there offer proof of it by ^(t) Miracles; and yet those at Cassino believe they have it, and accordingly worship it still, confirm­ing themselves and others in that confidence by Miracles ^(u) too. Whereby the world may judge of their Miracles, for since God works none upon such occasions, to be sure, not for the confirming of contra­dictions: these must be the fictions of cheating Knaves, or the feats and illusions of Sathan. And some of themselves ^(x) confess, that mul­titudes of them are no better as to their original. Indeed they make such use of their Miracles, that it is enough to blast the credit of a thing, to have a Miracle alledged by them for it, since it is their common practice to confirm one lye with another; and the confirmation is more intolerable than the first fiction, because they will have the Di­vine power interposed thereby to delude the world.

Not to digress further, they tell us of the Oyl, ^(y) or Liquor which drops from the knotts of the true Cross: No wonder if this be thought worthy of no less worship than the rest, since they ascribe to it a divine power. Besides many marvellous feats, it can cast out Devils; for it must be of no less Vertue than the Oyl of the Sepulchre of St. Martin; which duely administred to a man possessed, gave him such a purge, ^(z) that he squirted out a foul Fiend behind, and void­ed the Devil for a Stool. In short, that the Cross it self should have divine worship is their ^(a) common doctrine; this at first was no more than one man might well bear, but by the good Houswifery of that Church (who scruples no Cheats in this sacred traffick) it is retailed out for worship in so many pieces, that together would sink a Ship of a good burden ^(b); so that there are many, many Cart loads of Roman [Page 201] gods, which are really no better than common chips. In all this, there is not any one bit, which they can upon good ground believe to be part of the true Cross. They cannot be more confident of any, than that piece which with Pilates inscription on it, they say is reserved and worshipped at Rome; but that is detected to be a counterfeit by Baronius ^(c) his own words; for he says, that on the true Cross the Latin inscription was first (and so the Greek next, and the Hebrew last), and confirms it by no less Authority than that of a Pope, Nicholas 1. whereas in that piece at Rome, the Hebrew is first, and the Latin last. By this we may judge of the slorys concerning the inven­tion of the Cross by Helena. This now mentioned, was a considerable piece of the discovery, nor would the Cardinal himself have us believe, that what is said to be sent to Constantinople, or reserved at Jerusalem, were more real parts of the true Cross than that at Rome. However, true or false, here's enough, one would think, to glut the most rave­nous devotion of any Aegyptian. But when they will have this wor­ship given to the Images of the Cross, ^(d) in any matter whatsoever, or immaterial either, they give warranty to turn all things in the world into Idols, any sticks, or straws, yea, a mans own fingers laid a-cross, may be worshipped by him; or let him but move one finger a-cross in Water, or Oyl, or the Air, any where, and instantly he has of his own creating, what he may worship as God.

For those reliques, to which they give divine worship under another name, they are yet more numerous. So that upon the whole, if the Philistines had worshipped not only ^(e) the god of flies, but the flies themselves too, they would scarce have out-vied these in numbers. The Idolatrous Israelites, who worshipped the Host of Heaven, had a fair company of Idols; but the Aegyptians might have more, who could sow gods in their Gardens, and make them spring up on their back-sides; but both put together, would come short of the Romanists [Page 202] herein, both for number and quality, though they of Aegypt became the scorn of the world, for the vileness of what they religiously wor­shipped. How they came by so many, when for three hundred years after Christ, we hear of none; we have an account from their own Authors: ^(f) out of Covetousness, says their Learned and Ingenuous Cassander, False reliques were daily forged, feigned Miracles were pub­lished, Superstition thereby nourished; and sometimes by the illusion of the Devil, new reliques were revived. So that in brief (to use the language of their own Author) the Devil help'd their Church to some of them, and covetous Knaves to others. This stuff might be had cheap, and sold very dear; this incouraged many to take up the trade, and Monks are noted as prime Merchants for this traffick. They were such, who in Austin's time, ^(g) being imployed, as he says, by Sathan (whose Factors they were, and for whom the trade was driven,) sold the members of Martyrs, or what they pretended to be so. He was of the same profession ^(h), who declared he came out of Spain into France with reliques; which being looked into, proved to be roots of Trees, the teeth of Moles, the bones of Mice, and the claws and fat of Bears. And they were Monks, who, as the same Author tells us, were found at Rome, near Paul's Church, digging up bodies, and confessed their de­sign was to make reliques of them. As for him, whom Glaber speaks of, ⁽ⁱ⁾ who furnished France with innumerable reliques, it may seem strange that he should be counted a Cheat, when he was thus trading in another Country, since his stuff had the very same mark, which makes their other reliques currant as good ware, unquestionably good, and than which their best have no better; for he wrought [Page 203] wonders, (or the Devil for him) and by one Carcass which he feigned to be a Martyrs, ^(k) he freed many that were sick, from va­riety of Diseases. But I suppose he was not free of the Company, and they like not Interlopers. The Court of Rome can furnish Al­tars with holy Reliques out of common Graves, and none must count them Cheats for it. And if this Huckster had but procured a Commission from thence, he might have transsubstantiated the bones in any Church yard; yea, those of a Sheep, or a Hog, either into the bones of Martyrs, or Apostles, as well as others. By this we may judge what their reliques are, the best of them meer cheats; and con­sequently, how criminal it will be to give them worship, the highest of all; ^(*) & yet they are so far from abandoning this, that it is in a manner, the sum of their Religion. And so it is expressed by some of their own Communion ^(l) The whole of Religion is allmost brought to this (to wit, their Religious treatment of reliques) through the Cove­tousness of Priests, and the Hypocrisie of Monks, fed by the foolishness of the people: Thus their great Erasmus, in his Annotations, approved by Pope Leo 10. his Breve. ^(m)

Sect. 4. Let us see in the next place, if Perjury may not prove as blameless, and as necessary. Breach of Oaths is no less with them than a vertue, or a necessary duty in many cases, (of which a further account hereafter) let me now instance but in one. Suppose a Prince that has Protestant Subjects, should for their satisfaction, give them the security of his most solemn Oath, that they should not suffer for their Conscience, either in Life, Estate, or Liberty; that Religion does oblige the Prince to break all such Oaths, or to count himself no wayes obliged by them, because they are against the Lawes of the Church; against that particularly of the general Council of Lateran [Page 204] under Pope Innocent. 3. which forbids all favour to be shewed to He­reticks under [...]h [...] severest penalties, and decrees that favourers of He­reticks are under Excommunication. So that in this case it must be the Princes duty to be perjur'd, and to break his Oath made in favour of his heretical Subjects, & that by the sacred decree of the Church. He must forswear himself, if he will not be Excommunicated and con­sequently deposed, and thereby exposed to the violence of every hand. Yea he puts himself into the state of Damnation, and sins mortally, if he be true to his Oath. So Pope Martin, 5. Declared in writing to Alexander Duke of Lithuania, ⁽ⁿ⁾ know, sayes he, that thou sinnest mor­tally, if thou keep thy Oath with Hereticks. Hereby it appears that no Papists, Princes or Subjects, can possibly give any security which may be trusted, that Protestants shall injoy any thing, which is in their power to deprive them of, for the greatest securities that can be given in this case, are ingagements of faith and truth, God being invocated for confirmation in solemn Oaths: but by the principles of their Religion, they are so far loosed from all such Bonds, that they are not at all to be trusted by any, but credulous fools; unless it can be supposed, that they will act as other men than Papists, and contemn all the Authori­ty of that Church, which leaves no hopes of salvation but in obedi­ence to it. For another general Council, that of Constance has deter­mined, that no faith is to be kept with Hereticks. In the nineteenth. Session of that Assembly it was decreed, that no safe conduct given by Emperour, King, or secular Prince to Hereticks, or any defamed ^(o) for Hereticks, though with a design to reduce them, by what ingage­ments soever they have obliged themselves: shall hinder those Hereticks from being prosecuted, unless they recant; ^(p) though they come to the place of Judgment relying upon such security, and would not have [Page 205] come otherwise. And it is declared further, that one thus bound by pro­mise, was not hereby in the least obliged. And what they decreed and declared they immediatly practised, for the Emperour Sigismund, ha­ving given safe conduct to John Huss, and so ingaged the publick faith, and his own honour, that he should come and go safe to and from the Council; and Pope John 22. then present in the Council, having given his promise and ingaged his faith (if he had any) for his safety: yet the honour and faith of the Emperour, was born down by the principles of their Church; and the Pope (as soon as the poor man was drawn into danger past escaping) made nothing of his pro­mise, pretending, when he was urged with it, that he was over-ruled; and so notwithstanding all the security an Emperour and a Pope had given him, he was first miserably imprisoned, and after cruelly burnt to ashes. Hereby the world, Protestants especially, have this plain and useful admonition, that they must trust to nothing among Papists (those that will be true to that Church), but what will keep them out of their power. The principles of their Religion (for such are determinations of General Councils) bind them to observe no faith, or truth or common honesty with those, whom they count Hereticks, no not when life is concerned. Their Religion obliges them, to vio­late the most sacred Oaths, and the most solemn ingagements of faith and truth; rather than an Heretick shall be safe, in any of his con­cerns, where they can reach him. It is a vertue, a duty in that Religi­on, to snap asunder all securities (by which the world and humane society hath hitherto been preserved) to ruine a Heretick: no fear of perjury, or any other perfidiousness, must be a hindrance in the case. Nor is perjury so necessary or innocent only, when it is mischievous to us, but when it does mischief to themselves, and the world also. The practice of their Popes for many ages, may satisfie us herein, and to those who are acquainted with Htstory, which gives an account there­of, it is no improbable observation, that the bloody Wars and Massa­cres, that have been for many Hundred years in those places, which the Papal influence could reach; cannot be imputed to any thing more, for the most part, than the Perjuries of the Popes themselves; and of those whom they involved in that guilt, by discharging them from the obligation of their Oaths.

Sect. 5. And this brings me to some other Crimes forementioned Robberies, and Murders, which the wonderful power of Papal holi­ness, hath transformed into Christian, and vertuous acts. By the Doctrine of their Church to deprive those whom they count Hereticks, of their Estate and Lives, is a vertue, and a meritorious act. There is too good evidence for this. A decree of Pope Innocent, 3. Recor­ded in the Tomes of their Councils by their own Writers, as an au­thentick act of the general Council of Lateran under that Pope, and, inserted by Gregory, 9. into the Decretals, which is the Law of their Church, and part of that which passes with them for Divine Law. There is, there can be no act of their Church more Authoritative, and obliging, than such a decree as this. There first of all ^(q) Hereticks are Excommunicated and condemned, and then it is decreed, that the Estates of those condemned are confiscated. But that's not all, the secu­lar Princes or Lords, are to be compelled (if they will not do it other­wise,) and bound with a solemn Oath to endeavour to the utmost of their power utterly to destroy them all. ^(r) They are to labour in good earnest with all their might, to root them all out. And further, if any temporal Lord proceed not to such ruining execution within a year, ^(s) The Pope is to absolve those that are under him, from their allegiance, the Land is to be seized on by Catholicks, who having exterminated the Hereticks, are to possess it without control. Here it is plain, that by the highest Authority the Roman Church pretends to, (that which is no less with them than Divine) the Papists are bound to destroy all whom they count Hereticks, and to take possession of their Estates. [Page 207] And this Barbarous decree, (which has so much force with them, ^(t) as the word of God with any,) was put in excution in the dayes of that very Pope; For he imployed Armies against the Albigenses (the Predecessors of the Protestants in France) who destroyed a­bove ^(*), Two hundred thousand in the space of some moneths. It was executed in the age before this, in France; ^(u) where so many Thou­sands were treacherously and cruelly Murdered, that the channels run down with blood into the River: and this magnified as a glorious action, honoured with a Triumph at Rome, and the unparallel'd But­chers rewarded with his Holiness blessing. We have known it exe­cuted in our dayes upon some Hundred thousands of the Protestants in Ireland, where that bloody Tragedy was acted by the Popes excite­ment and concurrence, just according to the tenor of that decree: the Irish Papists indeavouring with all their might, utterly to destroy all the Protestants, that their Estates, and the whole Land, might be in the pos­session of Roman-Catholicks. And in all Countreys about us, where ever they have been powerful enough, or but thought themselves so: they have effected, or attempted it. Such outrages were, and are to be committed by warrant of the Romish Doctrine; They are bound to act thus by all the Authority of that Church; which not only injoyns this by her decrees, but gives all incouragement thereto; such Robbe­ries and Butcheries are vertuous, yea meritorious acts. Those that will ingage therein to the utmost, (as their Church requires) are assured by the Pope, ^(x) of those indulgences and priviledges, which were granted to the Adventurers for the recovery of the holy Land, and these are expressed, in an Appendix to that Council, to be full pardon of all their sins here, and a greater measure of glory hereafter. At no [Page 208] less rate do they value the blood, and utter destruction of such as we (whom they count Hereticks): with such, and no less hopes, do they ingage all Papists; to indeavour, as far as is possible, our utter exter­mination. 'Tis true, there are good natur'd persons amongst them, as there are amongst other sorts of men, and such as have a great aver­sation to such Barbarous cruelty: but their Religion tempts them to it, not only with hopes of Hereticks Estates, but of the greatest re­wards that can be propounded; yea and forces them to it, even be­yond their inclination, with threatnings of the most dreadful import, expressed in that Decree; which signifies also, that they must act at this rate of inhumanity ^(y) if they will be counted Christians; and must not expect to pass for faithful Romanists, unless they will act as mon­sters. But if it be their duty, as they are Roman-Catholicks; and they bound in Conscience, as far as their Religion, and all the power of it can bind them, to destroy the Protestants amongst whom they live, and seize upon what they have: why do they not fall to work, and make an end of us, that all may be their own? how is it that they live quietly and peaceably in this, and some other places? to satisfie us here they use plain dealing (though we must not alwayes expect it) and tell us in express terms, they do it not, merely because they have not power to do it. Though the Church have made it their duty to destroy Protestants, yet when they are not strong enough to do it, and where the attempting of it, because they are a weaker party, would indanger them: there they are excused, they may wait the happy hour, till they have sufficient power, to shew their obedience to the Church, in executing her exterminating decrees, without apparent hazard of their own interest. So Bannes a Dominican determines ^(z) that Catholicks in England, and Saxony, are excused from rising up [Page 209] against their Protestant Princes with their Subjects, because they common­ly are not powerful enough; and the attempt in such circumstances, would expose them to great danger ^(a) Bellarmine speaks it as plainly, if it were possible to root out the Hereticks, without doubt they are to be destroyed Root and Branch: but if it cannot be done, because they are stronger than we, and there be danger if they should oppose us, that we should be wor­sted, then we are to be quiet. So that the reason why Protestants in such places are not presently ruined, is because the Papists are not there strong enough, we and others have the priviledge to Live: because they are not yet able to Kill us, and to seize on what we have. When they have once power enough (or but think they have it) let us look to our selves; for if Papists have any Conscience, that any thing in their Religion can touch: they must then destroy us utterly, and leave us neither Liberty, Estate, nor Being; unless they will resist Consci­ence, and rebell against the Authority of that Church, which they count most Sacred and Soveraign, or which is all one in their Catho­lick sense, they must either exterminate us, or be damned themselves. And to deal thus with us, would be so far from being a sin, that by their most infallible Doctrine (the decrees of Popes and Councils) it would be an act highly meritorious; though in the common sense of mankind, it be Robbery and Murder. They may become the best Ca­tholicks, by abandoning Justice, Mercy, and Humanity it self; and procure pardon of all other sins, by the most detestable injustice and cruelty; and obtain higher degrees of glory by such crimes, as (to use their own expression) deserves all the fires of Heaven and Earth and Hell. If Sathan could inspire all other Sects with this Catholick Doctrine, it would be an expedient to satiate his enmity to mankind: this would turn the world into a shambles, and no sort of men should escape unbutchered, but such who could find no party able to force [Page 210] them to the Slaughter-house; yet this is the way to Heaven, and transcendant glory, for those who will follow the Roman conduct, and believe what passes for most infallible amongst them.

Sect. 6. There is another crime which passes for an eminent ver­tue with them, and is so esteemed and practised, that is, Sorcery and Conjuring. In the Books of Devotion published, for the use of their Exorcists, there are such horrid practices in and upon the Devil, as fully answers the Titles of the Books, one of which is called Horrible Conjuration, and another Divelish Exorcisms. He that has not seen them can scarce believe, that such things should be practised by any that bear the name of Christians; nor can they be heard without conceiving a horrour at them. But they have been mentioned by others, I will only insist on that which may seem more innocent, but has indeed too much of Sorcery and Inchantment, and that is their Sacramentals with things of like nature and supposed vertue. Of this quality is their Consecrated water, Salt, Oyl, Bread, Waxen-Tapers, Branches of Trees, Roses, Bells, Meddals and Agnus Dei's. To such things as these, they ascribe marvellous and supernatural effects, a vertue to save and sanctifie Souls, to blot out sins, to expell Devils, to cure Diseases, to secure Women in Travel, to preserve from Burning and Drowning. Pope Alexander in the decrees which they ascribe to him, asserts, that water mixed with salt, and Consecrated; does ^(b) Sanctifie the people, Purifie the unclean, break the Snares of the Devil, and bring health to Body and Soul. The form of exorcising salt, which we have in their authorized Books, tells us, it is exorcised, that it may be to all that take it ^(c) both health to Body and Soul. The exorcised water is to ^(d) chase away all the power of the Devil, and root him out. The vertues of an Agnus Dei are discribed by Ʋrban 5. in verse, wherewith he sent some of them to the Greek Emperour. [Page 211] If you will believe a Pope, who may be infallible in Rhime, as well as in Prose, ^(e) it drives away lightning, and all malignancy, delivers preg­nant Women, destroyes the force of fire, secures from Drowning, and which is more, destroyes sin, even as the blood of Christ does. Bellarmine sayes, ^(f) they are of power for the blotting out of Venial sins, for the cha­sing away Devils, for the curing of Diseases. Others ascribe to ^(g) them, a power to excite gracious motions, even ex opere operato. Now it is acknowledged, that the natural power of these things, cannot reach such effects; and that there is no vertue in, or of themselves, to produce them; no more than there is in such things, by which Magi­cians and Conjurers work their strange feats. Nor has the Lord in­stituted them, or any where promised to impower them, for such pur­poses; no more than he has promised, to make the charm of any Sor­cerer effectual for marvellous operations. Bellarmine confesseth, ¹. that such things have their force not by any promise of God expressed. And Suarez ². sayes the effect thereof is not founded in any special pro­mise of God, because (as he had said) it does not appear there is any such promise. And they confess there's a tacit invocation of the De­vil, in using things for effects, to which they have no power natural, or divine. There is such an invocation of the Devil, sayes Cajetan, ^(h) when one uses any thing, or word as having power for such an effect, for which it appears not to have any vertue, either natural or divine: for then he tacitly consents to the aid of the Devil. And so ⁽ⁱ⁾ Sylvester after Aquinas If the things made use of for such effects, appear to have no power to produce them, it follows, that they are not used for this purpose, as [Page 212] causes, but as signs (or Sacramentals): and consequently they belong to some compact with the Devil. And this, even the Jesuites will ac­knowledge. Thus Cardinal Tolet, ^(k) it is to be generally observed, that there is a tacit invocation of the Devil, when a man attempts to do any thing, by that, which neither of it self, nor by Divine power produces such effects. And Filliucius, declaring the several wayes whereby a Magical operation may be discerned, (most of which are applicable to their Sacramentals) gives this as the reason of them all, ^(l) because when the effect cannot be expected from the power of such causes, since they have it not; neither from God, who has not instituted them; it fol­lows, that it must be expected from the Devil, who is therein tacitly invo­cated. They take it for evident, that the efficacy of such things is not from God, if he did not institute them, ^(m) not from God (sayes Filliucius) since he was not the institutor. So ⁽ⁿ⁾ Sylvester will have the Magical signs, referred to Diabolical compact: because (having no such power of themselves) they are not of Divine institution, plainly signifying, that if their Sacramentals were not instituted of God, they could be no better, than what he refers to the Devil. Now what evidence is there that their Sacramentals are of Divine institu­tion; and appointed by God for such purposes? they say so, and that's all, and so may the Magicians say, if they please, and prove it as well too; for from the word of God (the only proof in this case) neither of them have a syllable. The Authour and Original of this strange power, may hereby be discerned; and the means they use to derive it, helps the discovery. They have it they say by vertue of their exorcisms; but if they can consecrate or exorcize, a thing into a power which is above it self, and yet comes not from God, their Consecrations hereby will prove no better, than Conjuring. And in­deed [Page 213] he that reads but their Consecrations, may have cause to think they are no other, for instance, their form of Consecrating salt, in these words. ^(o) I conjure thee Creature of salt by the living God, the true God, the Holy God, that thou mayest be made a conjured salt, for the Sal­vation of believers. And the like conjuring they use, for the making of holy water, and other things. There is a charm in Alexander Trallianus a Magical Doctor, which is exactly like these, (in what the form of an inchauntment requires) to convey a vertue into an Herb, for the cure of a Disease. ^(p) I exorcise, or conjure thee, by the great Jah, and Sabaoth, the God that founded the Earth, &c. Take the Spirit of thy Mother-earth and its vertue; and dry up the Flux of feet and hands. He that will count this a charm, will have no reason to deny but the Papists form of Consecration is an inchauntment, and indeed the common notion of inchauntment is applicable hereto. They de­fine it to be the conveying of a marvellous power into a thing, by vertue of the words of the Inchaunter. Now it is a marvellous power which they will have conveyed by their Consecration, since it is a power a­bove the natural capacity of the things, and such as inables them for spiritual and supernatural effects: and they think it conveyed by ver­tue of the words of the Consecrator, as in the other case by the words of the Magician; for as soon as the words are pronounced, they be­lieve the things so Consecrated, are indowed with the power. They will say indeed, that they expect the power from God, and use his name accordingly in their Consecrations. And so might Inchaunters and Magicians say, with the like reason: for they were wont to use the name of God in their charms and incantations as Origen assures us. Many sayes he, ^(q) of the Egyptians when they are conjuring Devils, insert in their incantations, the God of Abraham, and he sayes, not only [Page 214] the Jewish exorcists did invocate the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: ^(r) but almost all others who medled with Conjuration and Ma­gick. O! but this vertue comes from the Churches prayers, sayes Bellar­mine, by these prayers I suppose he means, their forms of Consecrati­on; yet in them there's no praying, but rather plain conjuring, for the words are all of them directed to the things Consecrated, and not at all to God, as is evident to any that reads them. And if they should use some prayers besides the forms of Consecration; a Magician may do so too besides his charm, and yet be no less an Inchaunter. Origen tells us, ^(s) that some invocation of God, and use of his name, is often found in conjuring Books. And what would it mend the matter, for either of them, to pray to God to bless an inchauntment, or make his conjuring effectual? if the Ephesian Magicians should have invocated God at the recital of their [...]. ^(t) Or the Conjurers among Jewes or Gentiles, in the use of their Suffumigations, ^(u) and other Magical tricks. Or the Simonians ^(x) for their Agogima. Or Eleazar in the application of his Ring and Root: ^(y) the practice had been no better on this account, it would be still, at least, a tacit invocation of the Devil; from whom alone such vertue must be expected, as is nei­ther in the nature of the thing, nor from Gods appointment; yea it would have been worse, to make so bold with God, as to invocate him for the service of the Devil. But indeed Popish prayers them­selves, as they use them, are as like charms at they can look. In their prayers there are barbarous, i. e. unintelligible words (like those of [Page 215] the Magician in 2. Pausarias) which the people, or Priests many times, understand no more, than the hard words in the charms of Conjurers, were understood: ⁷⁸⁹ such as Jab, Zebaoth, Elohim, Sadai; or those which Cato sayes ^(a) were used in a charm, for curing members out of joynt; or the name Abraham, which though the Conjurers in other Countreys used, yet they knew not what it meant ^(b) sayes Origen. They are tyed to the same syllables as Conjurers are in their charms; and that they may not vary, must, as the Persian Magician, ^(c) read all out of a Book, yea though they have it by heart. It is not requisite by their Doctrine (as we saw before) to mind the God of Heaven in their prayers, more than the Prince of darkness. The meer mut­tering of the words they count effectual, as in charms and inchaunt­ments, yet have they no promise from God, that the bare recital of their forms, without any inward Devotion or Attention, shall prevail more than a Magician has, that such a pronouncing of the words he uses in Conjuring, will be prevalent: or more, than that the words of a prayer, which one carries in his pocket ^(e) (another charm in use amongst the Papists) will be effectual. So that Salmeron had more reason than he expressed, to say, that their prayers, were like the words of a charmer. They had need first excuse their prayers from this crime: before this will serve, to excuse their Sacramentals.

Sect. 7. There is another crime, no less hainous than the former; and yet in their account, it is a necessary duty, and a most excellent service, and that is the destroying of Christ, which by their doctrine and Laws of their Church, they are to do daily in the Mass. To clear this, take notice of these severals: They teach that Christ is really in [Page 216] the Mass, not only as he is God, (and so every where) but as he is Man, Soul, and Body, Flesh and Blood, and there not only mystically in signes and representations, or spiritually in vertue and efficacy; but as to the very substance of his body, some say Corporally, others after t [...]e manner of a Spirit; but all say the true substance of his Flesh and Blood, is as really on the Altar, as his Body was on the Cross, when nailed to it; yea, that it is there visibly, and may be (though it be not ordinarily) seen. 2. They hold that Christ is truly and properly Sa­crificed in the Mass, and his Body and Blood there offered, as much as any Bullock or Lamb was Sacrificed under the Law. The Council of Treat ^(f) declares that the Sacrifice in the Mass, and that offered on the Cross, is the very same for substance, and differs only in the manner of Offering, and denounces a Curse against any that shall say, ^(g) that it is not a true and proper Sacrifice, or that Christ in these words, do this, did not command the Disciples and Priests after them, to Sacri­fice the Body and Blood of Christ. 3. They maintain, that in every true and proper Sacrifice, that which is Sacrificed, is really destroyed. So Bellarmine, to a true Sacrifice, it is required ^(h) that what is offered to God in Sacrifice, should be plainly destroyed. And if it be a live thing that is offered, that it may be a true and real Sacrifice, it must of ne­cessity be slain and deprived of Life. A true and real Sacrifice, says he, requires the true and real killing of it, since in the killing of it, the essence of the Sacrifice consists. Hence it clearly follows, and it is their own inference, that Christ being truly and properly Sacrificed in the M [...]se he is there really consumed, killed, or destroyed; he is as really consumed in the Mass, as Incense, when it was burnt for an Oblation: ^(k) The [Page 217] Body of Christ, says the Cardinal, for the honour of God, is laid upon the Table, that it may he consumed. He is as really destroyed, as the whole burnt offering was destroyed when it was totally burnt. The consump­tion of the Sacrament, says the same Author, as it is done by a Sacri­ficing Priest, is an essential part of the Sacrifice, for it is a real destruction of the Sacrifice, ^(l) and is counted correspondent to the burning of the Holocaust. He is as really killed in the Mass by their doctrine, as a Bullock that was slain for a Sacrifice. If in the Mass, says he, ^(m) there be not a true and real killing and slaying of Christ, it is not a true and real Sacrifice; adding this reason, because the essence of a Sacrifice consists in the killing of it. So also Doctor Allen ⁽ⁿ⁾ says, Christ is killed there indeed, and sacrificed to God: And Vegad ^(o) Christis as truly slain, and offered in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as he is truly in the Sacrament; and they think him to be as truly there, as they believe him to be in Heaven. ^(p) Aquinas favours this Opinion, and Gabriel insinuates it; Soto, Ledesma, Canus, and the modern Tho­mists, do plainly deliver it, besides Bellarmine and other Jesuits. Canus says, ^(q) they believe that to the perfect sacrificing of an Ani­mal, it ought to be destroyed and slain, if it be truly Sacrificed. He says also, that the Body of Christ, in the Mass, is a living and breathing Body, even the very same that is in Heaven, and that it is truly Sacri­ficed. What then can follow from hence, but that the living and breathing Body of Christ in the Mass, is truly killed. This is not [Page 218] denyed, only they say it is an unbloody death. And this indeed is their doctrine, Christ is put to death in the Mass, as he was upon the Cross; it is the same death for the substance, that he dyes by the Priest, as he dyed by the Jews and Romans, only with some difference in the manner of it: It was a bloody death on the Cross; it is an un­bloody death in the Mass, but he is put to death in both: and why should they say it is an unbloody death that he suffers by the Priest, since they profess that his blood is there shed and poured forth ^(r), the very same blood that was shed on the Cross? This may seem strange, and they cross themselves here sometimes; but nothing must seem strange in the Mass, for it is such a heap of absurdities and con­tradictions, as never entred into the fancy of any men waking, and in their wits; nor could have entred into theirs, if the spirit of delusion, and the dream of infallibility had not distracted them. However, this they do, and must hold whatever come of it, that Christ is killed or destroyed in the Mass; they are as much concerned to do it, as all their Religion comes to; for if Christ be not really destroyed in their Mass, they have no true and proper Sacrifice; and they tell us (to prove us altogether irreligious) ^(s) Where there is no proper Sacri­fice, there can be no Religion Hereby it is very manifest that the Office of their Sacrificing Priest, is, daily to offer deadly violence to Christ: That Christ in their Mass is every day slain or consumed, and that the highest devotion of the Romish Church is the destruction of Christ. 'Tis true, Christ is above their reach, whatever they fancy, they cannot offer him this violence, or destroy him as they do his Members; but they really design to destroy him, when they would make a Sacrifice of him; and they verily believe they do it, and they do all which they count requisite in order to it; and therefore they are destroyers of Christ by their own Rule, ^(t) to will to do it, is t [...]e [Page 219] same wickedness with the doing of it. The horridness of this will be more apparent if we take notice, wherefore they will thus use Christ. Their Church does it for the honour of the Saints, and of his Mother. In that part of the Mass, which is called the Offertory, they say, we offer thee this Oblation in honour of the blessed Mary, for ever a Ʋirgin, and of all the Apostles, and of all the Saints, that it may be for their ho­nour ^(u). So that they Sacrifice the Son to honour the Mother, and destroy the Lord in honour of his Servants. If one under the Law, had but offered a Pigeon, or the meanest Sacrifice, in honour of Abra­ham or Moses, it would have been counted a Crime worthy of the worst of deaths; for this had been an advancing them into the place of God; and yet to Sacrifice the Son of God, that is, to destroy him in honour of a Saint of the Popes making, is a meritorious act. Fur­ther, the Priest will not venture on such a fact for nothing; he has no reason to destroy Christ, more than Judas had to betray him, with­out some valuable consideration. He is to Sacrifice Christ for the living and the dead: For those that are dead, if they have bequeathed any thing to the Church for this purpose, or if their Friends hire him to do it. For the living, those that are frugal, may be secretly men­tioned in the momento of a common Mass for a piece of money; but if any will go to the price of a particular Mass, the Priest is ready to Sacrifice and destroy Christ on purpose for them in particular. ⁸⁰⁸ In fine, they do not offer this to Christ for spiritual respects only; but for temporal and worldly advantages, and such often as are of no great moment ^(*). Christ is to be destroyed for the health and safety of a­ny body that is Catholick; yea, for the curing of a diseased Horse, or the recovery of a sick Pigg, or the preserving of their Fruit from frost, or a blast. They think it not amiss for such matters as these, to make a Sacrifice of Christ, and to destroy him, it is done amongst them ma­ny [Page 220] thousand times daily. And though the Apostle seems to make it a horrid crime for one to Crucifie again the Son of God, yet for them to do that daily, which for the substance of the thing is as destructive to Christ as the first Crucifying was, is the principal part and office, and the most eminent and meritorious act of their Religion.

These and such like are the prime Vertues of the Romanists, most needful to be observed and practised: And if things of such a quality be so far from being relinquished, where shall we find any thing which God hath made a sin, that can be thought worthy to be forsaken? But I have stayed long enough here, let me proceed to the next head propounded, to satisfie us that they count it needless to forsake sin.

SECT. I.

THere are innumerable Evils which they call Sins, yet they count it not necessary in point of Salvation, for any to for­sake them; but give all incouragement to live and die there­in, as sins for which they can never be condemned. Such are those which they count Venial. Let me shew you what sins they are, which they reckon to be of such a quality: and thereby it will be dis­cerned how far their Doctrine gives warranty to sins of all sorts, and to continue in the violation of all the Commands of God. And this I shall do out of their own Authors, such as are unexceptionable, de­clining the Jesuits: and thereby it will be more manifest how little reason there is to excuse the practical Doctrine received in their Church, by charging their impious and licentious Principles upon the Society.

To hate God, ^(y) if it be out of inadvertency, and not with deli­beration, is no mortal sin, and this they say of actual hatred; for ha­bitual enmity against God is, with them, no sin at all. Acts of inside­lity, when they are led thereto by fear; ^(z) or worshipping an Idol, (such as not only we, but themselves count Idols), are no worse than Venial. ^(*) Unbelief and perplexing distrustfulness of God, about the things of this life, is as innocent. To present the body only be­fore God, in all religious Exercises, in Prayer, the Sacraments, yea the [Page 212] Eucharist it self; without any actual disposition suitable to the nature of the duties, without any good motion in mind or heart; without any inward Attention, Reverence, or Devotion; without any act of Faith, Fear, Love, Desire, or any other Grace or holy Affection, though the want of these be voluntary, is but a Venial fault. It is no worse, not only to make base and earthly things, the end why we worship God; but to make that which is a sin, our design in any part of his Ser­vice: yea, to propose it as the chief and principal end, why we worship him. Though this be no less than to prefer sin, and the pleasure of the Devil before God, and his honour. ^(a) To make use of a Witch to dissolve some witchcraft, is scarce so much as a Venial sin. And so to use the Devils assistance instead of Gods; and employ others disposed there­to, to act as Witches, and to practice with the Prince of darkness by a deputy in Diabolical Arts, is not unlawful. To deal with the Devil for to get some knowledg by him, or obtain other things of him, by such converse; is but a Venial fault: for Example. ^(b) If an Exorcist require the Devil to satisfie him in some curious questions (such as tend nothing to the expessing of him:) if he believe him not, but does it out of lightness and curiosity; he offends but venially. To use ^(c) adjura­tions to God, or Man, or Angels, or Devils, or irrational Creatures lightly, without reverence of the Name of God, or any necessity; is but a slight fault.

SECT II.

BY vertue of their Doctrine concerning Venial sins, they have formed Rules, to encourage men in the practice and constant use of all sorts of prophane and wicked Oaths. They ^(d) acknowledg that the Oath is sinful, unless it be made in truth, and judgment and righteousness; when that which is sworn is not true, or not just and righteous, or not with Reverence and Discretion; yet they teach, it is but a Venial fault, to swear without ^(e) reverence or discretion, or without righteousness also, if that be not much. So that though Swearing be an Act (as they tell us) of Gods Worship wherein Divine Honour is given to him, whom we swear by: yet this may be done without reverence, and discretion, (as the rest of their Worship is,) and God may be solemnly called to witness, that the man intends to sin against him, if it be not much; and this without any great fault. ^(f) A habit of Swearing thus, or worse, is no sin, (for habits of what wic­kedness soever, are not forbidden); to use this habit ^(g) frequently so as to swear Customarily, almost at every word, (tertio quoque ver­bo); unless he regard not at all, whether he swear true or false, yea though he regard not that, as much as he ought; is no more a fault. So to swear ^(h) out of lightness and vanity, upon any the slightest [Page 214] occasion, without any advantage, or the least necessity; is as innocent a practice according to all their Doctors. ⁸²¹ And the common practice of their Catholicks, is correspondent to these conscientious Rules: You can scarce find any one (says ⁽ⁱ⁾ Soto) who will either begin; or end the least discourse without an Oath: for they use Oaths for Orna­ments of speech, at every word. But should they not at least endeavour to leave this Custom of Swearing? No, never to endeavour it, is but a small fault. Although (says one of their most approved Casuists,) he sins venially who swears true without any necessity, and so the custom of swearing be evil and peruicious: yet be sins not mortally who labours not to break off that Custom, because it is but an occasion of falling into venial faults. Hereby they have encouragement, not only to accustom themselves to this impious practice, (wherein so much prosaneness, irreverence, and contempt of God, is expressed,) but also never to give it over, yea never to endeavour it. And the reason whereby they warrant this, reaches all the wickedness which by those con­scientious, Divines is counted Venial: they may commit it customari­ly, continually, and need never go about to do better; all will be but a fault so smallas is next to nothing. They need not regard in what terms their Oaths are drest. They may swear body; on bloud of God, by Catetans ^(k) leave: yea, Though they swear, by such parts of Christs body, or such members of the Saints, or the Virgin-mother, as are not to be named (per ^(l) inhonesta membra); it is but Venial, if without contempt and scandal, which will make an act in it self lawful, to be criminal. And though they seem to give caution, that [Page 215] what is sworn be not false; since this cannot be excused by any Arti­fice, from being damnable: yet they try, what may be done, to make this go down as easily as the rest. If the thing sworn be false and he knows it, yet swears it by his faith, or [...]roth, or this Fire: such per jury is Venial, non peccant mortaliter cum perjurant Angel. after Aure­olus v. perjurium: ^(m) To swear that which is false injest, is a harm­less Venial, by the Gloss upon their Law. ⁽ⁿ⁾ Commonly to swear that which is false, without considering whether it be false, or no; or whether be swear or not; is as harmless. This is the judgment of Aquinas and their common Doctrine; so that if a man heed not what he does, he may do what he will; and as it were wink a damnable crime into a slight fault. By this expedient he may swear false, as commonly as true, without any considerable hurt; this is enough one would think to render their worse sort of swearing, perjury itself, practicable, in ordinary, with ease and safety: Yet as an over-plus, they add, he that swears what is false through gross or careless ignorance, thinking it to be true, though if he use due diligence, he sins not at all; yet if he used some diligence, but not enough; he offends no more than venially, if Aquinas or the common Doctrine may be credited; for this is it, saith ^(o) Na­var. And that, which way soever a man turns himself, he may have liber­ty to be perjur'd; they teach, that, ^(p) He that swears the truth believ­ing it to be false, and takes notice that he swears, but minds not what he [Page 216] swears, sins not Mortally: Or if he neither regard the one, nor the other, but does both without consideration; it is only a little little fault, unless this inconsiderateness was wilful, and out of contempt, for then per­haps it may be worse, upon the account of contempt; probable error will excuse perjury from mortal guilt, as if one appeals, thinking there is reasonable cause for it, though he has sworn before not to appeal. So, Panormitan. and Angel. Sum. v. Perjur.

He that hears a thing from a person of credit, may swear it is true, only not in Court, unless he express his reason. Bonacin. Tom. 2. disp. 4. q. 1. punct. 3. n. 7. But as if it were not sufficient, for a man to swear false himself; they conclude he may without harm draw others to do it also; for, 1. They say he may induce others to swear; when he is not satisfied, whether they will swear true or false; that's the opinion of Aquinas, and ^(q) their common Doctrine. Further, he that knows another will swear false, may yet put him upon it, if he be a publick person, that's also the opinion of Aquinas, and ^(r) com­monly imbraced by their Doctors; yea moreover any ^(s) one whosoever, may put him to swear whom he fears, or knows will forswear himself, if he be disposed to swear. Let us see in the next place, whether they may not be as perfidious in promissory Oaths, as they may be false in o­thers; and upon as easy terms: In all cases good or bad, or in differ­ent. He that swears he will not go to or pass by such or such a place, though he do it for no end, that is honest or profitable; ^(t) sins not mortally, if he go contrary to his Oath. ^(v) He that swears he will do [Page 217] a thing lawful, and does it not, sins but venially, if it was a small matter; this is the common opinion, which Navar attempts to prove with se­veral reasons. ⁸³⁴ As, if a woman swears she will give her Children Apples to quiet them, and gives them none; or swears to chastise them, and does it not (which are Cajetans instances, though he vary from the rest in the general conclusion,) or if a man swear he will say ^(y) an Ave-Mary, and says it not; or swears to say a ^(z) Pater-Noster, or to give a small matter, and gives it not; or not to take place of his friend, and yet does it; or to game no more, and plays a little: In such cases any breach of promises, confirmed by Oaths, is but a small fault. And consequently it will be no worse, in all matters not only small but great; for the obligation of an Oath, rises not from the quantity of the matter sworn, but from the concern and in­terest of God in an Oath, he being invocated therein as witness. Now this is always the same, whether the matter be less or more; and so if they be not obliged, to keep Oaths in less matters, neither are they bound in greater. But by their rules of Conscience, they are set at li­berty to break all: He that swears to give a Whore 100 Crowns for the act of fornication, is only bound to give her that part of it, which persons of his condition are wont to give such Women; Because a Pro­digal ingagement confirmed by Oath obliges only to that propor­tion in which there is no profuseness. Bannes et alii in Diana, v. pro­miss. If a man swear to be true to a whore, and she to be faithful to him, so as to entertain no other, the Oath doth not oblige either of them to such honesty. Idem, v. juram. n. 10. Whether the matter be small or great, when one is drawn by fear, or brought by law to swear, if he break his Oath that is promissory: he sins but venially. Pet. Aure­olus Job. Andreas, et multi alii et places Angel. sum. v. Perjur. n. 7. He that swears he will not observe some ^(a) evangelical counsel (that [Page 218] which is not only lawful, but excellently good, and better in their ac­count than what the Law of God requires,) offends but venially: so their Authors ^(b) generally. And yet to these Counsels they have redu­ced a great part, almost all, which God has made our duty, as we shew'd before; so that a man may call God to witness, that he is resolved not to do, what he has made his duty. ^(c) As for one to bind himself by Oath, that he will not lend to his Neighbour, nor be surety for any, nor give alms to any in great necessity, nor do any of those im­portant things, which they count works of supererogation; is but a small Venial. Such Oaths, they say, do give obstruction to the Spirit of God, yet they may be kept without sin. ^(d) He that swears he wil return to prison, and does not; is no more guilty, if he was not duly im­prisoned. ^(e) He that swears he will commit any sin, if it be but a venial; offends but venially, this is the common Doctrine well declared by C [...]jetan and Navar, as he tells us. As if a man should swear, that he would never use to speak without an Oath; or never avoid any of those horrid acts, which they mince into Venials; to call-God to witness, that he pur­poses thus to dishonour him; is it seems, no great contempt of him, or else a great contempt of God with them is but a trifle. This is to threaten God to his face, and call upon him to take notice of it, that they will do these evils against him. Soto and others say, it is such a threatning of God, when they swear to commit mortal sin: and no difference can possibly be here discerned, but that the one is a threatning God with a greater evil, the other with a less. However this is their common Do­ctrine, [Page 219] Assertio posita communis est. They give as much liberty for fraudulent Oaths, whereby God and man are abused; to swear with e­quivocation or mental restriction, so as those to whom Oath is made, are deluded, is with them, in many cases, not so bad as a venial Evil; of which in due place. To take an Oath outwardly, ^(f) without an intent to swear, is but a small fault, though it seem a mocking of the Di­vine Majesty, and is cross to the end of an Oath; if it be unduly requi­red. So they determine also in case one swear without an intention to oblige himself. Angelus enquires, whether he sins, who takes an Oath, with a mind not to be obliged; he tells us, ^(g) Panormitan af­firms, that if he be a perfectionist (id est, a Votary) who so swears, he sins venially, otherwise not: but himself says, Whether he be perfect or imperfect, he sins not so much as venially, and proves it by their Law. He takes an Oath, which in its own nature obligeth, without an in­tention to be obliged; he calls God to witness when he is deluding men; he abuses the Name and Authority of God, for a cheat; and yet offends but venially whoever he be, says one; and sins not at all, says another: but then he explains it, ^(h) Ʋnderstand this when in swearing, he had a mind to use an Oath, for reverence to God, but not for obliging himself. So that must be for reverence to God, which mocks him; and he must be invocated, in a way that is most obliging, with­out any intent to be obliged. And further to prevent falseness (where there is nothing but fraud) he must swear, with a mental reservati­on. For example, I ⁽ⁱ⁾ promise thee an hundred (pound), with this in­ward [Page 220] reserve, not expressed: If I be bound to pay it for such conceal­ments, says he, are lawful, and quotes their Church-Law for it, as al­lowing that, which all other Laws of God, or honest men condemn. 'Tis plain by the Premisses that their Doctrine encourages the Roman Catholicks to venture upon all sorts of Oaths, in many cases, whether they be rash or injurious, or fraudulent, or false; as slight and trivial faults. No more do they make of perjury, though it be frequent and customary. If more evidence be desired, take notice only of the deter­mination of Dominicus Soto (a grave and learned Doctor, and one who was a principal Divine in the Council of Trent:) he having pre­mised something concerning the hainousness of Perjury, that the ^(k) Lord forbids it, with a particular EMPHASIS more than other sins; that it is a greater crime than murther, and is most grievously punished both by God and man; his tamen non obstannibus, all this not­withstanding he lays down two Conclusions, in which he maintains Perjuries of all sorts, id est, both in promissory, and assertory Oaths, to to be no worse than Venial. ^(l) 1. Every assertory Oath though it be vain and unlawful, and in a sort perjury; is not a mortal sin, but often­times venial. 2. There are many promissory perjuries, (promissoria per­juria) which are no greater faults than Venial; and reduces these Per­juries to four general Heads, (under which many thousands of par­ticular cases may be contained): and all must pass for Venial. Then, for customariness of such Perjuries, how commonly, how often soever a man is guilty thereof, that makes them not mortal, he speaks of some mentioned by Scotus, who thought that a light Perjury was no worse than venial; but if it were customary, it would be mortal: But he confutes this opinion, by a Principle generally received, ^(m) that a mul­tiplication of the same acts, do not change the nature thereof; that is, ten [Page 221] thousand Venials acts, do not make one mortal sin: and concludes ⁽ⁿ⁾ if the purjury be but Venial, (as it may be by his determinations now mentioned, in many thousand instances) how habitual and customary so­ever it be, it is not thereby mortal. So that if a man, how calkative soe­ver, should neverspeak while he lives, but with an Oath, or such Perjury as he here excuses: yet all the Perjuries of a whole life, would not be a mortal sin.

SECT. III.

THey determine in their Schools, ^(o) that of all sins those are the greatest and most hainous, that are against the Theological Ver­tues and Religion; of those against Religion (which are counted sacri­ledg) there are three degrees, and in the highest of all, (containing crimes against the Deity and being of God:) as the most grievous they place Perjury, Blasphemy, and the sins against the Holy Ghost, (and those in the same rank with these;) yet for practice how little they make of Perjury we have seen. Blasphemy meets with the same mea­sures: they teach it may be but a Venial fault, in any of those cases, wherein they describe it: whether by denying Gods infinite perfecti­ons, his Wisdom, Goodness, Justice, Providence, &c. or by charging what is reproachful to him, as Injustice, Partiality, Impotency, Cruelty, Ignorance, &c. or by ascribing his incommunicable Excellencles to o­thers, as calling a friend our God; or attributing the divine Perfections to the Devil; or else by way of detestation, decrying, renouncing, cursing God, with imprecations against his Blessedness, or Being; or else by way of derision, &c. Now it will be but a Venial fault to Blas­pheme [Page 222] the divine Majesty in such a manner, ^(p) when it is out of lightness of mind; or (2) when it is suddain from passion: so Sylvester, ^(q) after Aquinas. And ^(r) Navar after, Angelus adds, that it is not material though the passion be without just cause, or in gaming, or from drunkenness, or any unlawful employment; such passion and excess, will be so far from being great sin, that they will lessen the greatest, or (3) ^(s) when it is from wicked custome, with contempt of ones own Sal­vation. When one is so habituated in the practice of reproaching God, that Blasphemies break from him, without observance or conside­ration. So Cajetan and So us, and Navar after Sylvester. Thus by their rules, the more a man [...] in the most horrid instances, the less will his sin be. To blaspheme God customarily may be a slight fault, when to do it rarely, will be a most deadly crime. Here's a course described, to make such blaspheming of God, as a Soul that has any sense of his Majesty, can neither think nor speak of without horrour, to be familiar, and practicable, without danger; let him, then blas­pheme God at first out of levity or passion; he may do it thus customa­rily, with safety: and the oftner he does it, the more he secures himself, for when he hath so perfected this habit of wickedness by custome, that Blasphemies [...] [...]ssue from him, without his notice or observance; he may, even when he is not heated by passion, repreath God at every [Page 223] word, while he lives; and breath out his Soul with Blasphemies, when he dies; and yet be saved, for all this will amount to no more than such faults, as never indanger the Soul of a Roman Catholick. There needs no more to make mortal sins Venial, but to get the perfect habit of them, that is, if a man be but wicked enough, there is no great danger.

SECT. IV.

FOR the sanctifying the Lords day, or any other which they count holy, all that is necessary, is the worship of the Mass only, with ab­staining from servile works: ^(t) this is enough on any festival for the avoiding of mortal sin. It is their common Doctrine, and there is not any thing wherein they more generally agree. So it is to be observed, that the total sum of all the holiness, which is necessary for these Catholicks; even at those times, when it should appear if ever, and all which they themselves are obliged to exercise, consists in their being at Mass, and evoiding servile work. What holy attendance at the Mass they count necessary, we saw before, they may spend the time in sleeping, or talking, or laughing, or scoffing; only with some little intermissions; that they may stand at the Gospel, and kneel at the Consecration, and how at the Elevation; but therein no inward ^(u) act being necessa­ry, all the holiness requisite, lies in their legs, which should be order­ed, as the Priest gives the signal; yet even this, they are not obliged to, who neither hear, nor see what is done; and it is not needful at the Mass, for any of the people, so much as to use their senses. When the Mass (which ^(x) may begin at break of day or before) is dispatch­ed in such a holy manner, (with such attendance as would scarce be counted civil, at least sufficient, at a stage-Play) they [Page 224] may spend the rest of the day, according to this beginning. Th [...] (says Cajetan) ^(y) who after Mass vainly consume the rest of these d [...] in sports, in jesting, in idle vagaries, in hunting, in seeing Shows [...] Plays, and any thing of this nature: by such acts, because they are [...] servile works, (upon which account they say, that no other acts of, wic­kedness are a prophaning of these days, or a breach of that Precep [...] they incur no mortal sin. But then he (who is more precise herein, that the generality of their Divines), brings an after-reckoning: Yet, say [...] he, ^(z) hereby because they neglect that divine Worship, for which these days were instituted, they sin greatly; How can that be, since he said immediately before, that they sin not mortally? why there is a lati­tude in their venial Faults, some are great, and some less; and so wi [...] him, to neglect all Worship but the Mass, is a great sin of the little size: he gives the reason, because hereby they give not to God the things that are Gods, and as much as in them lies, make the Festivals [...] Christians ridiculous, according to that Lam. 1. 7. So that by him, those who after Morning-Service, spend this day in such Pastime [...], they rob God of his due, and they render Christians, in their pre­tences to the sanctifying of the Lords day or others, ridiculous to the World: and yet, this is but a Venial Sin: or at worst, but a gre [...] little-Fault, not so great, as any man need fear; no not he, who is most afraid of damnation. Navar adds another reason, why it should be a sin though but a Venial, to consume these days in Recreations; ⁸⁶⁰ because in such Employments many mortal sins occur, according to An­toninus, [Page 225] who says, The blindness of Christians is to be lamented with the tears of all men, who more grievously offend God, on the days appoin­ted for his Worship, than the whole week besides. Notwithstanding this is their way of sanctifying the Lords Day, and all other times, for Devotion, of their own; with prophane and irreligious Divertise­ments, such as render their pretences to Religion ridiculous (as the Cardinal notes): accompanied with such debaucheries, as make their holy-days the prophanest, of all other. It is but a Venial fault at most (for many count it not so much) to consume the whole day herein without any other religious Act, or Exercise of any sort whatever: ^(b) they need hear no Sermous, nor attend their Vespers, nor use any Prayers publick or private, nor read the Scriptures, nor sing the praises of God, nor meditate on him; nor have any one act of Love, or Con­ [...]rition, nor any other act of inward Worship at all; nor of outward Worship either, but only part of the Mass: this will serve for all, so highly divine and religious a Service it is; though they declare them­selves not obliged therein, either to mind God, or divine things: yea though they hear Mass (when nothing else is needful for the sanctify­ing of the Day) out of contempt of the day; yet the Precept is satis­fied. But if they be not at Mass on those days, (though pre­sence at Mass may make all other holy Duties unnecessary in o­ther cases, yet) should they not make up that defect with some other prayers, or religious Exercise; lest God should have no service at all, nor shew of it, in publick or private, on those dayes which alone are set apart for that purpose? no, ^(c)) if they neg­lect Mass, either upon reasonable or damnable occasions (to wit, if they spend the time when they should be at it, in any other wickedness); yet are they not obliged to Prayer, or any other act of Worship, on those days afterwards. This is the Doctrine not only of their famous Navar, [Page 226] but of Pope Adrian, and their Saint Antoninus, with others: Yea after all other holy Exercises are cashiered as needless on any of their holy times; the Mass it self may be dismissed too for company. And be­cause all their Religion necessary for the people, consists in this, at all times, when any thing religious is by their Doctrine needful for them; it will not be amiss, to observe, how easily they may be excused from this: thereby we may discern, of what moment it is in their account, to have nothing at all of Religion amongst them. Cardinal Cajetan will satisfie us herein; he determines, that ^(d) it is no mortal sin, to neglect the Mass on a reasonable occasion, though it be but such an occasion as is not urgent. Yea, he says, ^(e) It is but a Venial fault to omit it, upon no sufficient reason, and universally it is no great fault to neglect it, if a man thinks really he may be excused from hearing i [...], or if besides his intention, out of some negligence it be omitted. Yea, they may be excused by custome; for so he says ^(f) Maids are excused from hearing Mass, till they be married, (and their Mothers too who are ob­liged to stay at home with them) because so is the custome. If so were the custome, it seems, all the rest might be excused. So many ways at least, may these Catholicks be excused from all their Religion: by custome, or necessity, or opinion, or (which alone may suffice) by an insufficient reason; it will but be a Venial fault at most, together with all religious Exercises, to omit the Mass too; and that at those [Page 227] times, when alone (if ever) they are obliged to them. Such being their Doctrine, we need not wonder, if Religion be starv'd to death among them, the life of it cannot be sustained (no more than God can be honoured by man-kind) without some acts of Worship and re­ligious Exercises in ordinary practice: their Teachers assure them, that they are not ordinarily obliged to any of these, on common days; and to none of them all, but the Mass, on their days for Worship; nor to any religious attendance on God or their Souls, in that; nor to any attendance on it at all, but what they may decline, without mortal sin. If the life of Religion be preserved amongst any, without its neces­sary supports, and proper nourishment, it must be by a Miracle: but they seem so far from regarding the life, or the power of it (on which the honour of God, and the salvation of Souls depends); that they are not concerned for the carcass of it, in exterior acts, no, not that of the Mass (when they have reduced all to that) further than the fear of a Venial sin will oblige; ten millions of which cannot as they teach, damn a man. As for servile works, abstaining from which they make the negative part of this Precept; the avoiding of these is but, that we may with more leasure attend on divine Worship: it cannot be expected they will much insist on the means when they have o­verturned the end. In short, they determine that ^(g) they who do any servile or forbidden works, on the Lords day; if they do it not, with a design to prophane it, offend but Venially. Thus if they never all their life, perform one religious act which God has commanded, on his own day or others, they scarce sin Venially; or if they neglect that, which themselves have made the religious Duty of these days, they may do it without greater fault or danger. And for the negative part, if they consume these days in servile works (without an inten­tion needlesly perverse); or which is worse, in prophane divertise­ments; yea, or in acting the most enormous wickedness (as we shall see in its place): yet by their Doctrine they do nothing, against this Precept, or nothing which any of them need regard. Thus their Do­ctrine of Venial sins, is improved to possess them with a conceit, that [Page 228] they may make what breaches they will upon the Commandments of God, without doing any thing at all (or any thing dangerously) a­gainst them; and so to render all sorts of ungodliness practicable with safety. We have seen it in instances against precepts of the first Table; let us see if those, who make so bold with God, in the Duties which more immediately concern himself, will be more tender, as to those which respect man.

SECT. V.

THE Duties which Children owe their Parents, (to instance for briefness onely in those which the Lord hath made the exemplar of the other; and by which we may pass a judgment on the rest): they reduce to those three, Reverence, Love, and Obedience. In reference to the first, They conclude that those who have no more re­spect for their Parents, ^(h) thou to count it a disgrace and a shame to be counted their Children; if it be for the inconveniences of a sinister opi­nion, or such-like cause, sin not mortally: and the fault may be less still, if the Parents consent to it expresly, or tacitely, to avoid some inconvenience. It seems, the Command calls for no such Reverence from Children; but they may be ashamed of their Parents, if they be poor, and low in the World. ⁽ⁱ⁾ Children may curse their Parents if they do it but with their lips, and this whether they be alive or dead, the offence is but Venial. And indeed, they al [...]ow Parents, to give their Children oc­casion enough to curse them: when they will not have them obliged under mortal sin, to teach them any more ^(k) than the sign of the [Page 229] Cross, the small Creed, and Pater-noster; nor teach them these in a lan­guage ^(l) they understand. However Parents may come even with their Children, and if they love and reverence their Father and Mo­ther so much as to curse them; their Parents may ^(m) curse them a­gain, upon as easie terms, only they should not desire mischief to them in their heart, though their words express that desire. When Parents curse their children, having no inward desire of their mischief, it is never a mortal sin, says Soto. ⁽ⁿ⁾ (and it may seem strange considering the account of it immediately added,) Although it be indeed a wicked custome, and not at all for correction, besides that the heat of cursing, often raises anger into hatred, and so alters the mind, that they often desire, that all the mischief imprecated may befall them: besides the appellation of the Devil, can scarce be excused from a mortal Evil, for it is a kind of blas­phemy and scandal, to wish eternal death to any. Yet all this it seems may be excused from deadly sin, though not very easily.

For Love, they may rejoyce at the death of their Father ^(o) be­cause of some outward advantage they gain thereby: They ^(p) may accuse their Parents of Heresie, though the effect of that will be a cruel death to those, who gave them life. As to Obedience in things that pertain not to ^(q) paternal government, it is no mortal sin to disobey them. In any things whatsoever, ^(r) it is but a Venial fault to disobey them, out of negligence, or sensualness. And so there's room enough for a continued disobedience, while they live. In matters of great importance, where, if ever, disobedience would be mortal; they [Page 230] exempt it from such guilt. ^(s) They may enter into a Manastery, before they are at age, though their Parents charge them, not to do it: They may dispose ^(t) of themselves in marriage, without their Parents consent: because according to Aquinas, in the choice of their con­dition, they are not subject to their Parents, and their Parents con­currence herein is for decency not out of necessity. Not only in things of great consequence as to this life; But in matters necessary to their Salvation, it is but a venial fault if they disobey them; so it be not out of contempt, that is, out of obstinacy and pertinaciousness. ^(v) Thus Syl­vester and others, de Graffiis is more particular herein, ^(x) a Son should not be disobedient to his Father in things which belong to the Family, and his salvation, as in avoiding pernicious company, and unlawful games, and Whores, he should not disobey him herein out of contempt, by which (says he) I understand obstinacy and pertinaciousness, so that, not to be obedient (herein) out of inconsiderateness, or negligence, or sensuality would be Venial. They encourage a Maid not only to dispose of her self in marriage without consent of Parents, but also to give up her self to uncleanness. If she willingly be defloured, ⁸⁸¹ they conclude it is no injury to her nor to her future Husband, nor to her Parents. Their reason is because she has the disposing of her own body, and so may use it [Page 231] freely for the satisfying of lust, though not lawfully; yet lawfully too so fat that they will have this lewdness to be no wrong at all to the par­ty, most concern'd, her self or others. If she be unchast herein, yet not unrighteous; She ows not so much obedience to her Parents as to keep her self honest; nor have they authority to oblige her not to be a Whore, no more than not to be a Nunn. By this we may take an estimate, of the honour which other Superiours must expect, by their rules of Morality. I must not descend to other par­ticulars, fearing tediousness.

SECT. VI.

THey hold that ^(y) he breaks not the sixth (in their account the fifth) Commandment, who desires, or procures, or does any mis­chief, to anothers Soul. It seems it is no murder, to kill the Soul. It is a rule with them that ^(z) sins in heart, word and deed, are of the same kind. So they yield to Christ in this, that anger and hatred, may be a kind of murder: yet they think fit to exempt these, for the most part, from mortal guilt. When there has been such hatred and en­mity betwixt two, as neither of them will be induced to speak to the other; yet both are to be absolved (says ^(a) de Graffiis). When there is such indignation, that will admit of no affability, or converse. It is a fault, says ^(b) Cajetan, for the inordinacy of the passion, yet com­monly Venial. They would reconcile us to anger when both the mea­sure, and the effects of it, seem intolerable; when ^(c) it is so extra­vagant, [Page 232] as that it both burns excessively within, and flames out no less in external significations of its excess; yet such an excess, is a small fault. It will be as harmless though it be revengeful too, if it seek not a great revenge; yea a man as innocently seeks and takes the greatest revenge, if he do it inconsiderately. ⁸⁸⁷ This they deny not, when they tell us withall, that the passion may be but Venial, when it makes a person inconsiderate: So that a man may destroy all that he is angry at, if his passion be but quick, and great enough. ^(e) To desire that he whom we count our enemy, were killed; or to rejoyce that he is murdered, if it be for some good that ensues upon it, is no Crime. No more it seems than it is for the Cannibals, to delight [...]o▪ have others killed; it is for the good they reap thereby, they have the advantage to feed on them. They will scarce be able to perswade one, that it is unlawful to act, what he may lawfully desire; yet they count it no sin to desire the death, not only of those that are mischie­vous, and do or may do them hurt, but of such as are innocent: not only of strangers, or such as they count enemies, but even of their nearest Relations. A Woman may desire the death of her daughters, be­cause they are unhandsome, or poor; so that she cannot marry them accor­ding to her mind. And the reason (which must clear this from guilt) is because, this is not a hatred of enmity to their persons, but only a hatred of abomination, as to their unhandsomness and poverty. Thus she may hate her own Children to any degree of abhorrence, so far as to will them the grandest evil in this world, death it self, because they are not rich; or be­cause they are not comely, she may kill them so far as her mind and heart can do it, upon this account; and sacrifice them inwardly to her co­vetousness or ambition, or curiosity; and this very innocently. ^(f) A [...] affecting to kill ones enemy without consent, is but a Venial fault with Cajetan. If he actually kill him, so it be done indeliberately, he does [Page 233] no great harm. The rule received by them without exception, will warrant it, ^(g) surpise and inconsiderateness excuses from mortal sin. Thus if a man kills any he meets with, without any deliberation at all, through natural hastiness, drink, or passion, 'tis no mortal sin; yea it may be done as easily, with some deliberation, if that be not full, and perfect: and there are so many things, which they tell us of, to hinder it from being full; that killing of others may be a common practice, with little or no fault. But when it is more voluntary, there are more cases wherein they make murder no sin at all, than so much as a Veni­al fault, of which in its proper place.

SECT. VII.

PRoceed we to the next command. Some of their Doctours have de­termined, that fornication is not intrinsically evil, nor forbidden, because it is evil, but only evil because it is forbidden. ^(h) So Mar­tinus a Magistris, and after him Durandus, held, that fornication is not condemned by the law of nature, as a sin deserving eternal death; but is only prohibited by a positive law, Deut. 23. Eph. 5. And so it will be no worse, nor deserve any more than a Venial fault; since a positive law neither adds to the penalty, nor makes it a greater evil, but only declares the native evil of it, more expressly. Not only fornication, but also adultery, even in the Clergy, has passed amongst them as a lesser sin, and is so expressed in the Pontifical Law. For some crimes Clergy-men were to be deposed, for others the Bishop might dispense with them, to wit, when they were lesser faults. ⁸⁹² Amongst these lesser Pope Alexander 3 reckons adulteries; but for Adulteries, saies he, and [Page 234] other lesser crimes, the Bishop after they have done penance, may dispense with the Clergy. They teach, that for a whore, though she be a mar­ried woman, or a Nun, to seek or receive a reward for prostituting herself, is but a Venial fault, if any. Only they differ how she should have it. ^(k) Some say as a gift or gratuity; but ^(l) others as a hire, legally due in justice. By which it is evident, that either they must think such uncleanness not to be intrinsically evil; or else, that it is as warrantable to seek and receive rewards for other such acts of wickedness (as for slandering, robbing, assasinating men, or firing houses, &c. The ^(m) use of matrimony, before the marriage be solem­nized, if it be without contempt, is no mortal sin, saies Cajetan; because neither the violation of rules, nor of custome, through the weakness of passi­on, can be mortal: others concur with him her in. Nor do Antonin [...] and John Tabienna much mend the matter; who will have the first act to be a sin, but none of the rest after. ⁽ⁿ⁾ He or she who first con­tracts marriage with one privately, and after with another publickly, sins not mortally, if they lye with the former, without scandal; but is bound to live with the latter, the Church commanding it, if there be no danger of coming together. As though they could cohabit together, as man & wife, without such danger. This is in effect to determine, they may lie with both, and they that have a mind to it, may have warranty from the ^(o) Master of Sentences for the latter; and from the Master of the sacred Pa­lace ^(p) and others, for the former. A woman whose Chastity is [Page 235] attempted with some force, ^(q) though she cry not out, though she call not for help when it may be had, though she make no resistance at all with any part of her, though she do not so much as any way move to hinder it; yea though she take natural pleasure in the act: yet if her will, do not deliberately consent (though they say) in any court, she could not in such circumstances, but be presumed to consent;) she sins not mortally: thus Soto with others. They confess that ^(r) a woman can scarce ever do this and be honest, and yet give this incouragement, to all, to doit. Here's a way to have all women corrupted, that are but attempted with eagerness, if the rules of those, who have the guidance of their practice and Consciences be but complied with: impetuous lust may make the essay upon any, without fear of so much as a check, or any resistance: and those who are ingaged by the Laws of nature, God, and man, to make oppo­sition; may innocently give place to it, without strugling; yea they may be chaste enough though they yield to such lust with pleasure; so it be no more than sensual, and these delights be not jumbled together in practice, which in the Doctrine of their Teachers is sufficiently di­stinguished and parted for them. They bid fair also to make that un­cleanness to which persons are drawn by the power of Courtship and insinuation, pass as innocent; for they say, that is no sin which is in­voluntary, and that is not voluntary to which we are necessitated; and Cajetan ^(s) tells us (in a case much akin to this) that our passions excited by exterior perswasion, do as it were, offer us violence; after he had informed us, that what Whores extort by flatteries more than their hire, [Page 236] is an involuntary gift, the mind being this way necessitated: and sure, flatteries in reference to the act, as well as the reward, may as much necessitate, and make the one as involuntary, as the other; further, if man or woman need neither force nor importunity, but be ready to com­mit uncleanness without more ado, one may without sin invite them to it. ^(t) Self polution is no mortal sin, in any that desire, it may befall them in their sleep for the ease of nature: nor is it a sin to be pleased with it when it is ^(u) past for a good end, and so Aquinas, Paludanus, and the common Doctrine: Nor to be pleased with it as future, if the plea­sure do not cause it: Nor to be pleased with it when it befalls them awake, ^(x) if the pleasure be but sensual, and not rational. Under the favour of this distinction they may act uncleanness, either natural, or against nature, and that with delight too: for though the lower fa­culties take pleasure therein, yet if the superiour either check it, or run not into a full compliance there with, they are safe. They incourage them to venture upon, and continue in such occasions of uncleanness; as those who think it needful to avoid the acts, cannot but judg necessary, to be abandoned. They ^(y) that eat hot meats, such as provoke and cause uncleanness; or otherwise eat excessively: if they do it not with such an intention, but to satisfy their gluttony, or for other cause: yea though they doubt uncleanness will be the issue of it, offend but Venially. Carnal ^(z) touches used, for sensual pleasure, without designing the act of un­cleanness, [Page 237] or the delight of it (though it be consessed, that of all other occasions, this leads most directly, and most dangerously to the consum­mation of the act): yet are they but Venial faults, with many of their Writers. ^(a) To go to the place, or company, where is danger of sinning mortally, by reason of the sights, perswasions, opportunities, or any thing of this nature, though it be done without any cogent necessity, is not a mortal sin with them; and the reason is, because it rests in the mans free will, not to sin mortally, thoughsuch occasions of sinning be offered. Filthy ^(b) discourse when it is out of lightness and curiosity, without any other ill design; or when it is meerly for the pleasure taken in the obscene talk, without any further intention; is no worse than a Venial fault. The filthiness which the Apostle forbids, Eph. 5. 4. Bellarmine ^(c) understanding thereby filthy words, will have it be but a Venial, and the same he determines, not only of filthy talking, but scurrility; and Cardinal Cajetan ^(d) be­fore him, says, in its own nature it is not a mortal sin, though he de­scribes it to be shameless mirth; and Alensis ^(e) refers it to lascivi­ous affection; and in Angelus ^(f) it is a provoking others to laughter, either by idle or obscene words. A woman sins not mortally, who being moved with the affection of a little vain glory, without any other deadly in­tention; does paint or adorn herself, although she believe, that some who see her in such a dress, will be inflamed with mortal lust: when it is certain [Page 238] also, that without any disparagement or inconvenience, she might abstain from such a garb; ^(g) yea though she so tr [...]ck up her self, that some may be induced to love her honestly but earnally; or with a dishonest affection either, only not beyond the bounds of Venial uncleanness. This being their Do­ctrine, no wonder if Christian purity be abandoned in their practice. Navar tells us, ^(h) theres such a deluge of unbridled luxury amongst them, who are so neer a kin, that he dares not express it; and amongst the married, and unmarried; amongst Virgins consecrated, and not consecrated: that divine and immense goodness, may send upon them a horrible deluge, of all calamities, not only corporal but spiritual. And be­cause it is not lawful for one to take the profession of a Nun, if she have committed uncleanness before; he sayes, ⁽ⁱ⁾ that there are few grown up that without caution can be lawfully consecrated for Virgins.

SECT. VIII.

FOR theft, they teach, that to steal any thing of small value is but a Venial fault; for this is the Rule they universally proceed by, ^(k) the smalness of a thing in all causes, excuses from mortal sin; and thus far all are incouraged to stcal, not only strangers, but Children from ^(l) their Fathers, and Wives from their Husbands, and Servants from their Masters.

¹ A Servant may be excused from mortal guilt, if he steal from his Ma­ster [Page 239] by little and little; though in time it come to a considerable sum; provi­ded he convert it to his own use; he should not, it seems steal for others too, unless he do it out of Charity.

² A Son may steal more from his Father, than strangers or servants may do; he must be regulated herein by his fathers Estate; this love and in­dulgence to him, the greater that it is, the more he may steal from him. They excuse him if he steal from his Father the sum of three Crowns; they say not, that it may not be a greater, but only it should not be a far greater sum.

³ Accordingly he may spend what he gets from his Father, in gaming, or in recreations, not only such as are honest, but also luxurious, without any more guilt.

⁴ If his Father allow him not, what others of his condition do, he may filch from him privily, what a prudent Confessor thinks fit. Thus mens Estates will be at the Confessors discretion, and as much may be stoln from them, as their Priests please.

⁵ Or if he do business for his Father, his expences deducted, he may keep to himself as much as a stranger would have for such Ser­vice.

Now that we may know, when theft will be a mortal crime, it must be known of what value the thing stoln must be, to make it so: and this not being determined by any law natural, divine or humane; they agree, that ^(m) this must be determined by the judgment of a good man; and who better than the Casuists since they ought, and are pre­sumed, to be, both knowing and Consciencious? let but them con­clude (and they have done worse, in many cases) that things of greate worth are not of value sufficient, to make the stealing thereof, to be a mortal sin, and then theft neither little nor great will be criminal. [Page 240] Thus this command of God (as the rest are) will be made of none effect by this distinction. An engine which (as they work it) serves to destroy both Law and Gospel; and to sink Christianity, in morals, many degrees below Heathenism. Let us see what progress they have made herein, and whether they have not done it in effect already. They teach, ⁽ⁿ⁾ that to steal any thing, though in it self small, yet of great value in the account of the owner, and of much consequence to him; so that the damage he suffers by it, and the trouble it gives him, is really great: yet if the thief did not, or could not know it, it is but Venial. Yet the reason, why they count the stealing of a small thing, to be but a little fault; is ^(o) because, the owner is presumed, not unwilling, the stealer should have it, it being no considerable loss, or trouble to him: but this cannot be presumed in the now mentioned cases. And if theft whether of small or great consequence, whether with or without that, which makes little theft to be Venial, be still no worse than Venial, than will no theft be mortal. They also teach, that ^(p) those who are in need, though it be not extream, but such only, as would be counted great, may steal from others for their relief: ^(q) nor are they bound to make re­stitution, when they have got a good estate. Thus theft will be made as common as moderate indigence: and the practice being continued, as long as there is need, it may amount in a while, to a considerable sum; yea when the necessitous are grown rich, those whose estates are im­paired by such thefts, shall have no reparation. Thus a wide door is [Page 241] opened, for common thievery in considerable quantities; without any restraint, either from respect to sin, or to satisfaction. Further, ^(r) when so many persons in no necessity, take each of them a little fruit from a Vineyard or an Orchard, or a little corn from a field, that there is no­thing at all left for the owner: yet if they did not conspire together to do this, it is a small fault. And thus any men of estates, (since it holds in other cases, no less than those specified) may be utterly im­poverished; and yet those that ruine them, be guilty of nothing that they need regard. Moreover, when any one without any need, con­tinues so long in the stealing matters of less worth, from one person or many, that in time they rise to a great value; and the thief thrives into a good estate thereby, without designing it: this altogether, is no more then a Venial fault; nor will it be worse, though he never make restitution, if there was any considerable interval betwixt the acts of theft ^(s) (say some); no, nor if there were no such inter­vals (say ^(t) others.) The consequences of which is, as Lopez ob­serves, ^(u) that any Inn-keeper or Tradesman may grow rich, and raise a fair estate, without mortal sin, by defrauding all that buy of them, a little, in false measures, and so fleecing a whole Town. And why might not they as well conclude, that he who beats another, so it be but with little blows, though he beat him to death, offends but Venially? these of old were thought ^(x) alike. They conclude also, that such a quanti­ty may be stoln, as is sufficient to make it a mortal sin, without sinning mortally, if it be for a good end. These are some of the instances they give. 1. A ^(y) man may steal to give Alms; We need not wonder at this, since they think not much to rob Christ of his honour in all their [Page 242] good works: and so commit the worst kind of robbery (the highest Sacriledg) in their best acts; arrogating that to them, which is Christs peculiar; satisfaction and merit. And then, that the Charitable thief, if he become rich, is not bound to restore what is stoln, is the ^(z) common opinion. Also one may steal ^(a) money from another, rather then he shall venture it in gaming; for it it is good divinity with them (whatsoever it was with the Apostle) that one evil may be done to hinder another, ^(b) and that not only in other sins (as Fry­er Joseph would limit it) but such as are intrinsecally evil: for example; If one be about to commit adultery, it will be a lawful (a holy act) to beseech, and perswade him to commit fornication. Or nearer the matter in hand; if one be ready to steal an hundred pounds, I may ad­vise him to steal fifty; and so perswade to a mortal sin with some mo­deration. They think it not only lawful to perswade a thief to a smaller robbery, but also to accompany and assist him therein. Fur­ther, a ^(c) woman if her Husband be profuse, may against his com­mand take away his goods, and conceal them, to provide for the fu­ture. If a man be distracted, or if he be absent, his Wife may spend more of his estate than he would do, if he were sober or present. Bonacin ibio. Finally, they all agree, that to steal any thing of what value soever in­considerately, that is, without full and perfect deliberation, is but a Ve­nial Trespass. And how he can be obliged to restore, it by their Princi­ples, I understand not: since they hold that ^(d) no man is bound to [Page 243] make restitution, but for a mortal offence. If in a matter that is weighty, the [...]ult be Venial, for want of full consideration, it will not be so much as ^(*) a small fault, not tomake restitution, how much soever be stoln inconsiderately. By these and such like rules, they have open­ed a way, to make thievery small or great, practicable; without any sin or danger, but what is small and inconsiderable in their account. Scholars and those who count good Books their treasure, are by their Doctrine exposed more particularly, for they teach, that to take away haeretical Books, from such as have not Licence to read them, is no theft; Bonacin. de restit disp. 2. q. 8. punct. 1. n. 1. So that it will be no fault at all, to rob one of the best part of his Library, how valuable soever.

They open as wide a gap, and give as much encouragement to [...]eating, and like unconscionable practices. They teach there is no necessity to be regulated in bargaining, by the just value of things: but they may sell for as much as they can extort, and buy answerably; and this they take for a general Rule; ^(e) a thing is worth so much as it can be sold for. Hence Sylvester concludes it lawful, ^(f) for any one to sell as dear, and buy as cheap as he can, which unlimited, gives liberty to all to prey upon one another, without equity or con­science. So one may buy a thing of great value ^(g) though he knows it and the owner understands it not, for a small matter, nor ^(h) needs be declare it, when he apprehends that it is much more worth; since that may be enquired of others. They conclude, that false measures and weights may be used, though the buyer be hereby deceived and damnified, and the custom it self to be a corruption: yet they are excused who use them, ⁽ⁱ⁾ if they do it for their own security, or for mo­derate [Page 244] gain; as if in case, they should give full measure, the price would be greater, and consequently they would have few or no Customers. So, by their Rules, they may further deceive those that deal with them, by selling one thing for another, or adulterating what they sell; and so cheat them not only in the measure, but in the quality, yea or the sub­stance of the Commodity. Instances hereof we have in Soto: Corn or Wine, when it is more worth than the set rate, the Merchant may fell it ^(k) by false measure, thereby to get his price. If a ^(l) man have very good Wine, but people, if they did not take it for Rhenish, would not give so good a price for it; he may sell it at the rate they would g [...]ve for Rhenish, though it be not. So he may ^(m) mix his Wine with water, and sell it for pure, taking but a just price; as for example; ⁽ⁿ⁾ In case Wine were so dear, that scarce any would buy it at the price it is worth; he may mix it with water, and sell it at the rate they will give. So ^(o) Cloth or Silks may be sold for that of such a Countrey which is most esteemed, though it be of a­nother. These conclusions, he says, are collected out of Aquinas, and to compleat these Cheats, he tells us ^(p) that if perhaps the Seller should lie too, in these cases (for example, if he should affirm, that to be Rhenish Wine which is not, or that to be pure which is adulterated, or that to be full measure which is short of it, &c.) it would not be a mortal sin. And Sylvester determines, that a man with perjuries and lies, denying the badness of his Commodities, or making them better than they are; ^(q) the lies, if they do not much damnifie the Buyer, are but Venial. They allow persons also to deceive those who intrust them to dispose of their Estates, or Goods. As, if one be employed to sell what is anothers ^(r) at a certain price, if he sell it for more, [Page 245] he may keep the over-plus to himself; yea, say ^(s) some, though he had a reward for his pains in selling, yet he may retain to himself the overplus of what is sold.

Further, Panormitan ^(t) takes notice, that their Canon-law allows of deceit, if it be not extended beyond half the worth of the thing bargained or, (that is, if a man be not cozened of above fifty per Cent. in a bar­gain) But then to salve the reputation of the Law (which he like a true Canonist, says, was formed by the instinct of the holy Ghost), he will have it understood of deceit in the thing, not of fraud in the per­sons, and others after him; but Sylvester who sees no ground for that, uses another shift; ^(u) he says it may be understood, either of deceit in the thing, or fraud in the persons, which their Law tolerates, but approves not. Cajetan grants so great deceit ^(x) is lawful, by hu­mane constitution: but says, it is condemned by the law of God; and so we leave this shameful Deceit, lawful by the Popes Decrees, but dam­nable by Gods Word.

SECT. IX.

LET us see, in the next place, what truth may be expected in Popery, or those that profess it: and whether their Rules, tend not to leave, neither truth in the world, nor amongst themselves, by giving liberty to all falseness, and lying in words and deeds: A lye, as they define it, ^(y) is an asserting of what is false, with an intent to speak falsely, and to deceive others. Now they teach that to de­liver [Page 246] ^(a) what is false, if not on purpose, though it he without any care whether it be true or false; if it be a fault, is such, as needs not be regarded; unless, where it is in testimony, or upon Oath (and there they will excuse it too, by and by): because this is but a mate­rial lie, and not in its formal perfection. But then, a perfect lye with a design to speak what is false, and to deceive the hearers, is as in­nocent if it be for pleasure or in sport, ridentem dicere falsum quis [...]e­tat? to make a sport of violating truth, or in offering it such injury, to please himself, or others; any one may do it out of habit, and make a practice of it, and tell ^(b) lies when he list, out of meer plea­sure to be telling lies: yea ^(c) or out of malice (though that be the highest aggravation of sin). An officious lie is with them as harm­less, they have warrant enough for the most compleat and perfect lies, ^(d) when they are of any advantage to some, and no hurt to others; how much soever truth be injur'd, or others deceived thereby. So that their true Catholicks, need leave no place for truth, either in their heart or words; when the excluding of it from both, will, without hurt, serve either their pleasure or profit. However, herein they use true and plain dealing, in letting the world know, that in these cases, they are never to be trusted, either in matters of Conversation, or Religion. This being their Principle, ^(e) received by all Catholicks, and universally acknowledged; we need not wonder, that it hath been their common practice in several ages, and that they make no con­science of it still, to counterfeit false miracles, to forge false stories, to [Page 247] shew false Reliques, to divulge false Visions, and Revelations, to ob­trude on the world supposititious Writings; to corrupt the Monu­ments of former times, and expunge out of them all the truth that makes against them; to make even the dead speak lies, or disguise the truth. For, all this falsness is officious, it serves the interest of the Church, it is to commend her Doctrine, and to maintain her autho­rity over mens Consciences; and it does the world no hurt; For it is (they say) the duty of all men, and would be their advantage, to en­tertain her Doctrine, and subject themselves to her Authority. Now if the rest of mankind, Jews, Turks, Heathens, had retained no more conscience nor reverence for truth, than these Catholicks: if upon their supposition (that their way was the best), they had proceeded by their rules and methods to broach any lies for them, or falsifie any Records against them: who sees not, that this had been a direct course to have left no truth at all in the world, nor means to come to the knowledg of it? yet this practice with the Romanists (so great friends are they to Truth), is but a Venial fault. Did I say they count it so bad? I do them wrong; it is a great piece of piety, to make lies for their Religion, as some ^(f) of themselves do acknowledg it has been accoun­ted. To proceed, ^(g) there are five or six several sorts of lyes, (that they may have room enough still to avoid truth), which they may make their practice without danger. It is the pernicions Lye only that need be avoided, that which wrongs others, and is against justice; and thus no violation of truth, no injury to it, how great soever (so tender they are of it) will be a crime, unless withall, it be against Justice: and a Lie, (be it as gross as can be) will not of itself, ^(h) and in its own nature, be more than Venial, but only by accident; when it so falls out that it does mischief: And it may be as innocent to tell lies as truth, and as criminal to speak truth as lies; there will be no difference as to mortal guilt in their own nature: and by accident they [Page 248] may do hurt alike. However, considering that Truth and their Religion are so much at odds, the world is obliged to them for being so indif­ferent as to truth and lies, and that these have no more the prefe­rence. But then, though none but pernicious Lyes need be shun'd, yet not all of this sort neither: they give liberty to tell mischievous lyes, as many and as oft as you please, so the mischief they do be not great, though it prejudice others in spirituals or temporals: or though ye do the ⁽ⁱ⁾ greatest mischief that can be done, yet if you did not intend it to be great; or if you should not, or did not observe and consider that it would be so; in such cases even pernicious lies will be harmless Venials. They may by their Rules, lye to the prejudice of o­thers in Soul, Body, or Estate, and that deliberately, and with design to do it, provided the damage be not great; but when it will be great, their Casuists cannot well determine; this is not confined to a point, there's a fair latitude, and liberty enough given for less or more, it is much left to discretion: and if he do much mischief in­stead of little, the Lyar caunot be charged with mortal guilt; for who can condemn any for transgressing bounds that are not set? and how can they think, that any injury done by lying, can be great, who count it better than innocent (as we saw before) to abuse the world with lyes in point of Religion? Sure if the injury be not great there, any will be small. And in other matters, they have fair leave to do great hurt by lying, so they do it but by degrees, and be not so hasty as to do it all at once. Take but an instance of it in commerce. ^(k) To [Page 249] use lies, says de Graffiis, in bargaining, to get a good price, or the using of them to deceive others in a little, is but a Venial fault, though it were a daily practice. Hostiensis thought that this lying to cheat others, if it were their continual practice, might prove mortal: but he is confu­ted by the common judgment of their Doctors, who hold, that a Ve­ni [...]l▪ how much soever multiplied or continued, can never become mortal. We see they may lie, and deceive those that deal with them, if they wrong them but a little at once, this they may do daily and continually; and so in time, that little will be much, yet the sin will be no more; the pernitious Lye which does great injury, will be as innocent as any.

Others teach, that lying is Venial in Trading; for Example, if one affirm falsly, that his Wine is so many years old, or of such a Coun­trey, which if the Buyer know to be a lie, he would not buy it at all, or would not give so much for it, this seems no mortal sin, provided all circumstances considered it be as good, and as much worth, or not much less. Bonacin. de contract. disp, 3. q. 1, punct. 2. sect. 2. n. 7. Or if the Sellers affirm with a lie, that the thing cost so much, or was sold to others at such a rate, that they may draw the Buyer to a rigorous price: by thus lying for the most part they sin but Venially, and re­gularly they are not bound to restitution: because such lyes are custo­mary, and men commonly know that these are the tricks of Sellers, to which those who deal with them give no credit; and for the same reason the same must be said of Buyers, who affirm (falsly) that they bought the thing cheaper, or had it offer'd them for less; that they may get it at the lowest rate. Idem ibid. disp. 3. q. 2. punct. 4. n. 3 1▪ after others; yea, if they not only lye but swear false too with some equivocation, they may be probably excused from mortal sin, if no great dammage be done thereby to another. But though they have no more regard of truth in common conversation, or in commerce; yet it may be expected that they will be more tender of it in Judgment, and Courts of Judicature; since they cannot but acknowledge that the perverting of truth in Judgment is destructive of humane Society, and tends to throw the World into confusion. Notwithstanding they maintain lying there also, and that in many cases, I shall but mention some of them. 1. To lye in Court, if the end of it be but delight, ^(l) is harmless. Also, Witnesses may lye there seriously, if they do it [Page 250] not as Witnesses, and in ^(m) matters judicial: and ⁽ⁿ⁾ the Judg too, if he lye not as a Judg. Further, ^(o) they may bear false witness in favour of another; a false testimony for my Neighbour, is not mortal with them; and the reason is, because the Precept forbids false Wit­ness against another, not for him. And upon the same account, Soto says, a false testimony may be excused, when it is to hinder one from doing injury. Likewise, when the matter in Judicial process, is not of great consequence, a lye is Venial, whether it be for, or against another. So Navar ^(p) and in him Ledesma, (whom he calls the Glory of the Do­minican Order) with Soto, (of the same Order and no less renown) maintain, that no lye is mortal in any Court exterior (that of the Judge) or interior (that of the Confessor); which is but Venial, out of Court. So that if the lye be not signally injurious, it is not mortal, however or wherever it be delivered, though by a Witness in a Trial before a Judge▪ in the face of the Countrey. Moreover, it is as innocent in all those cases, wherein the Lyar is not obliged to speak truth, which are not few. A Lye, saies Sylvester ^(q) in judicial matters, is pernicious and mortal; because it subverts the truth of Judgment, which tends to the ruine of the Ʋniverse. But then he adds, this is to be limited to things, in which the Lyar is bound to speak the truth, and not extended to [Page 251] any other. Now they hold, there are very many cases in which they are not obliged to speak the truth, no not in Courts: and in all these by their common Doctrine (not that of the Jesuits only) either they may lye plainly; or (which is all one as to the justice of the practice, and as to the subverting of Judgment), secretly, by equivocation or mental reservation. Antonius Corduba determines, that a person o­ther wise virtuous, being unduly interrogated, whether such a thing was done, which, confessed, might endanger him; he and the Witnes­ses too, if they cannot otherwise evade, (by saying ^(r) I know not, or I re­member not); may say, though it be false, that it was not done, with this reserve, To discover it unto thee; and says, such Interrogatories may be answered or evaded, by any, with equivocal words, in usual ^(*) form. So that he is not bound to tell the truth, though he be sworn to de­clare it. Navar holds that not only virtuous, but any person what­ever, may so answer in like case; denying that to be done, which was done, secretly meaning, In such a Month; and this he asserts after Ga­briel, Paludanus, Adrian, Vincentius Justinianus, and ^(s) Lopez af­ter him. Sylvester ^(t) concludes, when the process is not judicial, or the aceused not subject to the Judge; in this case mentioned, or any other cause whatsoever, though a lye he not lawful, yet it is not mortal, yea it will not be so much as Venial, if answering cautiously, and, as they say, so­phistically, he speak that which is false in the Judges sense, ^(u) and true [Page 252] in his own; ^(w) since not being under him, he is not obliged to speak truth in his sense, and alledges Henricus de Gandavo, with his reason for it. Soto allows him to use Equivication. Cajetan permits him to de­ny his Complices, though he had them. If the Judge demand of a Priest upon Oath, whether he knew such a thing by confession? ^(y) AQƲINAS, and all the Doctors conclude, that he may swear he knows it not, though it hath been confessed to him, Because he knows it not as a man. And according to V [...]r [...]cellus, if he cannot otherwise decline the Judge, he may answer be knows nothing, with this inward reserve, AS A MAN; and in this Richard. de Sancto Victore, Bonaventure, Scotus and Panormi­tan agree; yet Angelus thinks when he swears, he knows it not, it had better be with this reserve, TO DISCOVER IT, because it cannot be deny'd, but that he knows it AS A MAN: ^(z) but this, saies Syl­vester, is said against the judgment of all his Doctors, and against the Ca­non Law, understood according to their common Doctrine, because the Priest is there said, to know it AS GOD. This needs no aggravation; a Priest rather than speak the truth (though ^(a) the discovery of it may be nenessary to secure a Prince or a Nation from ruine), may with men­tal reservation delude Authority, and blaspheme God, and lye, and swear falsly in open Court; and be justified in all, by the authority [Page 253] of the chief Saints and Doctors that Church has had, and such as she gloried in, before Ignatius had any disciples.

But though truth suffer so much by them in civil things; it may be she may find sanctuary in their divine Offices, and be secured there from such shameful violations: no, even there she is prostituted before their Astars, in their Pulpits, and their penitential Tribunals. Their Lytur­gies have been stuffed with Fables, and Lyes made both the ground and part of their publick devotion. Their own ⁽¹⁾ Writers take no­tice of ⁽²⁾ plain lyes recited in their daily Prayers. And what store of them there were in the whole, we may guess by a part. ⁽³⁾ Peter Ab­bat of Cluny declares, that in a Church hymn in praise of Saint Benet, though reading it cursorily, and not marking all; yet he found 24 lyes at least. Some reformation hereof was thought repuisite, for shame of the World. But though the old sore smelt noisomly even to the sense of those amongst themselves who had any; yet it must be touched tenderly, and not all the corruption let out, least nothing at all of the old Service should be lest. Melchior Canus, (a Bishop from whom better things might be expected than most in the Council of Trent where he sate), acknowledged some years after, that there are things read in their Church-Service that are uncertain, counterfeit, frivolous and false too; but yet he thought it not adviseable, to have this throughly purged. Those that attempt it, in his account want prudence. They cure a sore nail, but mischief the head; They bring in grave stories [Page 254] instead of what were false, but they change the Church-Service so far from what it was, that scarce any shew of the old Religion seems less in the daily Prayers: whereby he lets us understand what their old Religion or religious Service is, since so little or nothing of it would be left, if no lyes or forgeries were left therein. Another learned Bishop of their Church, who survived the Trent-Council, and all the Orders there made for Reformation, not only complains still of false and foolish things there; but of something worse too, in these words: ^(b) if the Bishop of Lyons, says he, who declared that he had corrected superfluous, and ridiculous, and blasphemous things, in their Missalls and Antiphonaries; were now alive, and did behold them: Oh with what terms would be set them out? for our prayert are defiled with most filthy corruptions; but the rest will admit of no reformation, through the fault of the Bishops. He signifies, that there was something worse in their Service-Books, than that idle, false, ridiculous, and blasphemous stuff, which that antient Bishop Agohardus corrected, in the old Mis­sals and Antiphonaries: declaring expresly, that their prayers now were poluted with most filthy Corruptions, and that without hope of amendment. Nor is truth more secure amongst them, in the Pulpit, though that (where is bears any sway at all) is its Throne. A Preacher may lye, by Cajetans ^(c) leave, if he does it not as a Preacher, or in things which belong to him as such. In other matters, it seems, he may take his liberty; and lying when he is Preaching, will be but Venial, unless it be scandalous. He may lye in the Pulpit, if he can do it wittily; ^(d) he may min his Sermons with false stories, (if they [Page 255] be facetious) to please his auditory, ^(e) that's commonly a Venial- He may ^(f) tell a tale in his Sermon, or any thing ridiculous, if he do it with some wit this is commonly no worse than Venial; no nor so bad, if it be done succinctly, to make the people merry, so the mirth be honest. He may lye too, as a serious Divine; and instill false Doctrine into the people without any fault but what is Venial, if it be done without contempt or scandal, so Summa Angelica, and Rosella, with others, con­clude. ^(g) They limit it indeed, to matters under Counsel; but this does not much straiten them; for practical Divinity being the most proper Subject for Sermons, and vertues, with Christian duties, (and the opposite sins,) being, by their common Doctrine, in a manner all reduced to Counsels, some way or other (as we have shew'd before): they have liberty enough left them, to do nothing else but lye instead of Preaching. But in any matters of Divinity whatsoever, speculative, or practical; injoyned, or but advised; they may lye at as easie a rate, if ^(h) it be but done out of a fluent faculty, or without danger, and design of doing signal mischief. Their practice publickly allowed, has outdone their rules; for these, though licentious enough, must have now and then some shew of modesty, and caution. Sylvester takes notice of those, who held it was no mortal sin to lye in the Pulpit, and acted accordingly; ⁹⁹³ and thought themselves concerned, only to avoid such monstrous lyes as [Page 256] the people would smell out. But this cautiousness, was not always thought needful; he that reads the Legends, which served the people heretofore for Sermons: will find there multitudes of such stories, so absurdly, ridiculously, horridly false; as may fully convince him, that the Spirit which acted them, was seven times worse, than that which inspired Ahabs Prophets. And where they are now disused: its not with any acknowledgment, that such notorious lyes, were not fit to be Preached; but for shame of that part of the world, which they could no longer delude, and abuse. And even after their reformation, they could not quite leave their old habit; their Priests since, have this testimony from one of their own Doctors: ^(k) The law saies he, is perished from Priests; for History, they recite fa­bles; for serious things, jests; for truth, lyes; for the power of God, feign­ed miracles, not to say the prodigies of Devils. That such Doctrine, should have some confirmation, is no more than needs: they provided such as was answerable to it, such are their false miracles, which their (now mentioned) Espenceous calls, Divilish prodigies. And ^(l) false re­liques, or miracles, they allow to be shew'd, or published; it is not a mortal sin with them, unless it be done for filthy lucre; and it is not filthy lucre, ^(m) if it be done principally for a good end, and less principally for gain.